Update August 1, 2010 – There will be a federal election in Australian on August 21, 2010. Neither of the major parties has a serious climate change policy. ‘Least-worst climate policy?’ by Jennifer Marohasy at Quadrant Online.
Update June 21, 2010 – I am back publishing in the peer-reviewed literature. First article for a while: ‘Accessing environmental information relating to climate change: a case study under UK freedom of information legislation’, by John Abbot and Jennifer Marohasy, Environmental Law and Management, Issue 1, Volume 22 [2010].
Update December 12th, 2009 – Jennifer Marohasy is no longer regularly posting at this weblog. But occasionally posts information from friends at the community thread [ http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/category/community/ ]. Dr Marohasy is still writing for The Land and some of her columns for this and other newspapers can be read at her website [ http://jennifermarohasy.com/articles.php ].
Dr Marohasy was publically documenting discrepancies – including incomplete data sets being used by top UK climate scientists that spuriously support the case for global warming – before the now infamous emails from the Climate Research Centre in the UK were leaked. She gives informative and entertaining talks on global warming and other environmental issues [ http://jennifermarohasy.com/display/speaker.html ].
Update December 1st, 2009 – What a momentous week in Australian federal politics! And this morning, against considerable odds, a so-called climate change sceptics, Tony Abbot, took over as leader of the Opposition. It is now likely that the National and Liberal parties will unite behind Mr Abbot, and those passionate on this issue will fight very hard on the issue of emissions trading and the science of climate change. The mainstream media have always been dismissive of Tony Abbot. They are now going to have to at least report him on these issues and it may be in the context of an early federal election.
It is a great day for democracy in Australia.
The mainstream media has been offensively biased on the issue of man-made global warming. A journalist and friend recently described them as acting as “attack dogs”. Most journalists and editors never thought there was any real opposition in the Liberal party to the ETS, they should reflect on how wrong they were and now try and honestly understand Tony Abbot’s position and give other so-called sceptics a fair hearing.
Update November 24th, 2009 – Today the Australian Parliament is likely to vote for an emissions trading scheme in effect introducing very costly and unnecessary new legislation and regulation on the basis carbon dioxide is a pollutant and the Earth’s climate in crisis.
I recently received a postcard by snail mail with comment that this blog is a “little island of sanity in a mad world”.
I have certainly found it reassuring at times to read some of the comments in support of my blog posts explaining why there is no climate crisis.
But alas it seems the Australian government is going to ignore rational debate and discuss in favour of politics.
And recently I received a copy of a new book by Christopher Booker entitled ‘The Real Global Warming Disaster: Is the obsession with climate change turning out to be the mostly costly scientific blunder in history?’ (Continuum 2009) and it begins:
“This book tells the story of what has been, scientifically and politically, one of the strangest episodes of our time. Indeed, as a case study in collective human psychology, it is turning out to have been one of the most extraordinary chapters in the history of our species.”
Feel free to continue to post at this increasingly long thread, though I feel I have probably contributed as much as I can by way of new blog posts to rational discussion on environmental issues including global warming/the climate crisis.
Much thanks and cheers.
October 20th, 2009 – Thanks for the many emails and submissions assuming I will be back soon. But alas I am still wandering. Those wanting to be useful could, instead of sending me something to post, make a financial donation to this blog. There is a little orange button at the right-hand side of this page. It asks for A$50.
PS I am making progress with my book – the dystopian fiction. And the picture of the truck was taken a few days ago in northwestern New South Wales.
October 7th, 2009 – “Walkabout” is a word we use here in Australia to let others in our community know we are going away for a period of time – perhaps to take more time to reflect on life.
I’m off for a bit – going walkabout.
PS I attended a lecture by Professor Bob Carter last night and was reminded that not so long ago the English speaking world believed all Swans to be white. The photograph of the black swans was taken by Jennifer Marohasy in western Victoria, Australia, in October 2007.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Jen,
We’re learning all the time, some more than others and you’re certainly doing your bit to help us.
Did you do any good with photographic gear for birds? Not that you appear to need it but I notice that there are some good value scopes with camera adapters on the web.
With the dry spring we are having, my promised Thornbill photos did not eventuate as they postponed having babies and left the nest until better times arrive. The bigger birds such as kookaburras, currawongs etc. are not nesting either but watching for any small birds young to supplement their limited diets.
It’s a bird eat bird world out there.
Jennifer,
I miss you already. Psychic Larry predicts that you’ll emerge from your Walkabout stronger than ever. BTW, the nearest equivalent for troglodyte males like me is “Cave Time”. And yes, I enjoyed the movie many years ago, but am a little fuzzy on the details. Apparently Wallkabout involves considerably less beer-drinking than Cave Time.
Regards,
Larry
Have a good rest Jennifer,
Perhaps read a little philosophy, as I suspect your central role is that of philosopher. I noted a piece the other day, which seems relevant to your blogsite. If a person says ‘I think X is true’, this can easily become ‘Most people think X is true’, which can quickly become ‘X is true’, which then leads to ‘Anybody who says X is not true is an idiot’. Humans are interesting and exasperating, but I have not given up. Don’t you, either.
Have a nice time and smell the roses Jen. See ya when ya get back.
Have a well deserved break Jennifer – who knows I might stumble across you during my jaunts between Port Hedland, Perth Darwin and Tennant Creek this month.
Have pleasant and happy journey.
Have a great time Jen, but don’t forget to take a couple of pockets full of white pebbles to drop along the way.
We’d be really lost, if you couldn’t find your way back, & poor Luke [Inc], would probably be made redundant.
How long will you be away for, Jen?
Why not form a small committee to run the site in your absence?
A few years back during a visit to Oz, I asked a young lady what she had done on the weekend.
“I did Whup-Whup” she said with a big smile.
She could tell from my odd look that I was “puzzled” so she clarified it by explaining that she had been camping with some mates on the weekend.
Good luck and enjoy your beautiful environment!!!
Hmmm, are those Black Swans indicative of your beverage of choice on walkabout?? ;>)
Fred, I think “woop woop” is the correct spelling, for the term used to indicate “miles from nowhere”. The place next door is pretty good too.
Have a good break Jennifer; see you when you return.
By the power invested in me by my overweaned sense of entitlement (hey it works for Real Climate) – I now declare this thread open.
Ladies and gentlemen, START YOUR KEYBOARDS!
And their off…
My name Janama was given to me by an old aboriginal Sharman called Scotty Birrill from Wyndham. We would sit around may campfire and he would tell me stories about the aboriginal history and mythology.
One story involved the Sharman sending everyone out to find plants which would be combined to create small balls of herb that one would place tucked up inside your mouth between your teeth and lip. Eventually the herbal combination would create a sensation called ‘walkabout’ It would last for days.
LIBERAL backbencher Julian McGauran has become the latest coalition MP to defy Opposition Leader Malcolm Turnbull, saying he will not support an emissions trading scheme under any circumstance.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26183653-12377,00.html
Three cheers for MP McGauran!
I just got an email from a guy named yanammm.
okay… set aside the question is there a real climate change or not… The thing is that obviously the world leaders think there is and are meeting to solve it. I’m sure they know the truth as if they want to find out – they can. So my question is – if the climate change is really a lie… where did it came from? And why are the politicians supporting it? What is their gain in doing so? I honestly don’t see how they could profit from shutting down their industry, so I wonder…
10x!
This is a good question. Besides fame and fortune for Gore – what’s in it for your average green or labor politician?
Being the village idiot, I don’t have ready answers.
James,
The art of modern politics is to identify a problem that does not exist.
Incorrectly diagonise the problem.
Then apply the wrong and most expensive remedy.
All to the combined applause of our dumb Media.
By doing this voters are distracted from other more important issues that the Government are making a mess of anyway.
The Media always have a sensationalist headline. And Governments can do the only thing they are efficient at.
That is continue to create bigger and bigger Bureauracies to manage the problems they and the Media claim we have.
Then jack-up taxes.
Time for voters to wake up.
Pikey.
Walkabout brand chewing tobacco? I bet that would sell.
This kind of runs of a pace with Pikey’s observation.
Via Instapundit – Greens more likely thieves and liars, says shock study.
Psychologists in Canada have revealed new research suggesting that people who become eco-conscious “green consumers” are “more likely to steal and lie” than others.
The new study comes from professor Nina Mazar of the University of Toronto’s Rotman School of Management and her colleague Chen-Bo Zhong.
In line with the halo associated with green consumerism, people act more altruistically after mere exposure to green than conventional products. However, people act less altruistically and are more likely to cheat and steal after purchasing green products as opposed to conventional products… purchasing green products may produce the counterintuitive effect of licensing asocial and unethical behaviors by establishing moral credentials. Thus, green products do not necessarily make us better people.
Keep an eye on them Prius owners.
Very interesting James however re myself that is not true;)!
Another study published yesterday in a peer reviewed psychology journal seems to contradict this?
http://www.rochester.edu/news/show.php?id=3450
But fot info , I do know a few green con artists.
Thanks for the timely warning James.
Perhaps the most important point is the one about Prius buyers.
I note our commonwealth government has bought a heap of them, & plan to buy even more.
Ann, I never imagined you as a conspicuous holy rollin “green products are my salvation” type.
I always figured you as the girl who fixes the odd pelican that turns up with a tooth ache.
What sort of products do you buy specificly due to their eco friendliness?
Hi James,
I must say that I’m extremely disappointed with most NGOs and most part of the green movement, anyway in Sweden.
NGOs have the same policy as multinationals and are selling cheap crap on their homesites etc.
The windpower industry is as well only a commerce….
When I go to the shop and want to buy a magazine , I see all magazines as labeled as ” green issues” ( cough, cough)!
Re animals and nature the animal right movement is so distant from the real environment that they write something like this” to enjoy the real nature come and look at the orca in the tank” etc, etc
I wonder if young people ever take a walk in the forest , etc???
I see as well that Cameron Diaz , has won the award Times Heroes of the Environment! ( Yesterday I saw in the tabloid only that Cameron had slept with most hunks in Hollywood!!!) LOL!
Well, actually I have given up most tries as an activist nowadays, I take care of the neighbourhoods wildlife etc.
What everyone can do is to buy eggs from hens that have been free range , that’s my wish!
The only Cameron Diaz movie I remember seeing was There’s Something About Mary. In its own way, TSAM was as funny as The Brother From Another Planet. But I’m not really interested in her environmental politics or her free-range sex life.
Ann I did the math. These two studies don’t cancel out.
Yours shows that nature lovers are more generous (gullible).
Mine shows that after these nature lovers have been screwed over by climate hucksters, crooked politicians, Gore, GE, free range chicken stores, and cameron diaz magazines, they become resentful and look for a little payback.
These add up to a death spiral, inevitably leading to Obama winning the Nobals peace price.
Andrew Bolt
Friday, October 09, 2009 at 04:41pm
Green activism always struck me as a no-sweat morality, in which you got the moral kudos for demanding that others make the sacrifices. So no surprise here:
I beat Andrew by 5 hours.
Heh!
Well, I did get it from Instapundit .
So where’s my cheer for MP Julian McGauran?
That’s a liberal whose got a pair.
“Fred, I think “woop woop” is the correct spelling, ”
Anyway you spell it, up here in the Great Whit North, when a young lady tells you she Woop-Woop, it makes any red blooded male think of getting naked and pounding back tequila shooters 🙂
Well, I guess the nonsense you published about Briffa was terminally embarrassing. Enjoy.
A Rabbit says:-
Well, I guess the nonsense you published about Briffa was terminally embarrassing. Enjoy.
Charming just charming.
You must be a bundle of laughs at a party.
Luke, SJT, Sod et al. have been conspicuous by their absence since Jennifer went walkabout. Hey … wait a minute … could it be? … are they all actually JENNIFER? I am reminded of Javanese shadow puppet shows, or even Punch and Judy. That’s the way to do it…
back in August the Aussie Senate in it’s infinite wisdom turned down the ETS.
There was a bit of celebration here on the blog.
In the back and forth the Lukester posted a link to midnight oil as the alarmist responce.
Allow me to draw your attention to my reaction.
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/?p=6127&cp=1#comment-129396
Note Luke’s responce.
About two months later I find this new climate alarmist campaign theme song presented by an amalgam of Australian singers posted to the Youtube.
Join the campaign for climate justice and become a Climate Ally by downloading Beds are Burning for free: http://www.timeforclimateju…
Just coincidence?
Or circumstantial evidence of the deep abiding ties between the Luke Desk at BOM and the media/governmental/industrial complex pushing AGW?
Either way it pisses me off. They stole my shtick !
Green Davey,
I’ve noticed that as well – though Sod and SJT seem to be lingering here – but the Luke’s absence is telling.
It ties in with Jame’s suspicion that we might be dealing with a Statist green industrial complex.
Actually it’s pretty much a repeat of feudalism – the state was then dominated by the Robber Barons and we the serfs had to support them via taxes, AKA involuntary donations. Then we had a parasite class feeding off the workers. Today nothing has changed. Luke and his parasites in government need to tax us to maintain their lifestyles – and they produce nothing as well, apart from the occasional homilies to implore us to be serious about climate change and that if we pay more taxes, this will be mitigated.
The State does have an enormous unfunded superannuation debt remember, and they are financing it with a giant Ponzi scheme.
And we also need to take on board the fact that the UN produces nothing as well, apart from mountains of dense verbiage,
so they need to be financed, probably via a 10% cut in the emissions trading scheme they are trying to engineer.
Louis re. your last post,
it’s bloody scary if you think about it, so many bludgers to support, imagine how well off we would be without all the burden!
Marcus
I spent a fruitful hour or so studying the Australian Fabian Society’s webpage – goodness me – all the politicians we know about in the ALP. Their stated goals are also explicit – http://www.fabian.org.au/1.asp and if you then also study John Maynard Keynes activities, http://www.keynesatharvard.org, then things start to fall in place and become explicable. AGW is the trojan horse by which they hope to socialise us. Devout ALP types tell me the science is not important, but forcing us into a more sustainable lifestyle is the game in play. This lot run the UN, the US, Europe Australia, etc.
Now they are all sincere in their belief in trying to make things more equitable, but their inability to recognise repeated failures of the socialist experiment during the course of history remains the sticking point.
I recall one looney lefty young person lament that the reason socialism hasn’t worked is because of people themselves. It never occurred to her that maybe the socialist philosophy is the problem.
I had not realised that the American Puritan Fathers when they left England for America were died in the wool socialists seeking a utopia – they almost perished from that policy until the penny dropped and private property was reinstated. Economic recovery was rapid until the mercantilists via Hamilton gained control again.
And the ever increasing size of our CO2 bureacracies – another ATO in the making, and how the heck are they going to fund that with the increased obligations for pensions for the bureaucrats – we are not out of the woods by any stretch of the imagination. Worse is to come.
Or maybe that I might secretly be in love with Jen and only perform/misbehave here for her pleasure/displeasure. Getting all those warning emails and ban warnings is a great chance to talk to her. Maybe I don’t really don’t give a stuff about politics or AGW – this is about romance. So if Jen’s not here why bother posting?
Luke,
“So if Jen’s not here why bother posting?”
Bit of an ego problem have you? We posting here in Jennifer’s absence implies her presence isn’t crucial to our opinions? This is a problem for you?
Must be otherwise you wouldn’t have commented.
Errr nope.
Anyway James on the theme of bad girls another for your Aussie Rock education
How about no.
I can smell the sulfer from here, Luke. All the way in Sacramento.
You cook up your witches brew without me, pal.
Too much too soon ?
Perhaps you could go native James?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jMB3b4admzs&feature=related
Davey will point out the salient aspects of fire ecology
Philem McAleer’s advisarial bit of journalism aimed at Al Gore was such a rare treat it’s well on the way to viral.
Been interesting watching the hit count grow since this morning. Some heavy must have linked it because it’s just ballooned over the last three hours.
Oh dear – oratory is not what it used to be
http://users.tpg.com.au/johnsay1/Stuff/Jason_Wood
janama,
What the world needs now.
More of those GM Orgasms!
I thought the Luke Desk might have got the boot when his DG patron had to walk the plank? I wonder what the departmental storm troopers will do now that the goon at the top is no longer so eager to persecute farmers that he can’t help acting in contempt of court? Or is the new one just as bad?
Maybe this is just a re-assignment for the government’s “Goombeen Man” of choice? Now lets see, are there any elements of farmer capital involved in the new post that could be confiscated by an ethically challenged asset stripper? Well, yes, of course there are. Wake in fright, farmer folks, “he’s baa-aack”.
Pssst – I have just heard, on the Public Service grapevine, that Luke has a new job as climate modeler for Malcolm Turnbull. They may travel together to Copenhagen at Christmas. Watch out for TV coverage. Note the suited person just behind Turnbull, peering at a lap top screen, and nodding his head sagely when the great man makes a telling point. They are trying to link the republican debate to global warming, and freedom of speech for spies. Rudd is furious.
P.S. Last time I was in Copenhagen at Christmas, the harbour was frozen. I walked out to the Little Mermaid, and gave her a kiss. Pack your long johns, Luke.
I have just spotted the link between republics, global warming, and spies – they all involve large volumes of hot air from the news media.
Don’t be too hard on Luke, Davey, he never forgets a navel.
As I have spent most month now outdoors and in the forest( as a caveman) I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT’S GOING ON.
I see that Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize. Most people think it was too ealy to be awarded.
Ann – Most people believe the Nobel prizes have become a sham as has Science in general.
Just look at the backlash against the Swineflu vaccine as an example.
“Or is the new one just as bad?” hahahahahahahahahahaha
I keep telling you we’re on your side. You still haven’t worked it out.
I should have retorted “no – just back from knee surgery” after all that time under certain desks.
Sorry Louis, but, I have to disagree with this:
“And we also need to take on board the fact that the UN produces nothing as well, apart from mountains of dense verbiage,”
Actually they are one of the most prolific producers of scandal, waste, and general mismanagement in the world!!!! It is absolutely astounding that the media can even keep a few Leftists believing in it!!
Has anyone a list of things that the UN has done at least acceptably??
I hate to disagree with Louis, Keynes was no bolshevik whatever he may have said to his mother, anymore than his wife Lydia was. Moreover as an economist I know we owe a lot to the Fabians, not just because my earliest publications were for them, but because without the framework of their welfare state both here and in UK we would have had either communism or Nazism (or both), the latter were active here in the 1930s, the former in the 1940s. As for Keynes, here is the reference from the Book of Revelations that graces your anti-Keynes site “And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name” as was the lot of the Jews in Nazi Germany and no doubt in due course for all non CC-believers here.
Thus Keynes himself had this to say about the kind of “science” that the IPCC and its fellow travellers purvey in his 1940 EJ review of a book by Jan Tinbergen: “It becomes like those puzzles for children where you write down your age, multiply [by a number], add this and that, subtract something else, and eventually end up with the number of the Beast in Revelation”, a perfect description of the IPCC.
More on Louis’ bolshevik, Keynes, at p562 of his Tinbergen review, showed himself well aware of the pitfalls of spurious correlation, unlike ALL the authors of Chap. 9 “Understanding and Attributing Climate Change”, whose conclusion (p.671) that “it is extremely likely”, i.e. there is 95% probability, “that humans have exerted substantial warming influence on climate [via GHG emissions] over that period [the 20th century]” derives 100% from their spurious correlations:
I have now done regressions of temperature on [CO2] at some 40 locations here and in USA, and in all where there appears to be correlation with a reasonable R2 and apparently statistically significant coefficients for [CO2], there is incontrovertible evidence of spurious correlation (Durbin-Watson < 2).
Keynes ended his review noting “the deep confusion of mind [of monetarists] between the demand and supply of money and the demand and supply of savings, and until we rid ourselves of it we cannot think correctly”. That applies in spades to the IPCC and the junk science in Nature etc – they cannot distinguish between emissions of CO2 and additions thereof to the atmosphere, leaving out as they do the ongoing nearly 60% average (over 50 years) uptake of each year’s new emissions by the biosphere, which has thereby already achieved on an on-going basis the stoopid target to be adopted at Copenhagen of reduction by 60% of the 1990 level or whatever.
It is remarkable how the Beast of the Revelations more than ever dominates the corridors of power everywhere, such that our Beasts are to require what is already being achieved. Yet if they succeed in reducing emissions to 40% of the 1990 or 2000 level they will prevent the natural annual absorption of 60% of CO2 emissions, to the tune of over 6 GtC at present (emissions reduced to 40% of 2000 level will be less than 3 GtC). Goodbye to the 70% increase in food production called for by the UN’s WFP today (ever notice the carbon content of your daily wheaties?)
Tim,
Based on memories of stats units (100,200,300) I did long ago, I am a bit worried at people tossing probabilities around like confetti. For example, I believe James Hansen testified before a 1988 US Senate Committee that he was ‘99% certain’ that global warming was underway.
Was this mere rhetorical use of a pseudo-statistic, to impress politicians? Or was it based on a confidence interval, and if so, how was that interval calculated? Or was it based on an hypothesis test, in which the null hypothesis (no global warming due to human emissions) was dismissed at the .01 level (Type I error)? If so, then it shows statistical naivety, since rejection at the .01 level does NOT mean that we can be 99% certain that the alternative hypothesis (global warming due to human emissions) is correct. It ignores the probability of a Type II error, and the probability of a correct decision to accept the null hypothesis. Any comments?
Davey, you were well taught, and are absolutely right. My reply is in three parts because of length limitations on posts here.
#1. Outrageously NONE of the IPCC authors and editors of AR4 has ever considered the nul hypothesis that:
There is NO correlation between rising annual levels of the atmospheric concentration of CO2 (aka [CO2]) and Annual Global Mean Temperature
(other GHGs can be safely ignored as [CH4] for example is not even increasing).
I now have more than 40 met stations which do not show any statistically significant correlation between either absolute T there and [CO2] or between annual changes in both T and [CO2] at those locations.
As you know this means only that so far the Nul Hypothesis (that there is NO correlation between [CO2] and Temperature) should not be rejected, but that it is possible that somewhere there is one location where it is rejected. But so far Tasmania, Queensland, Hawaii, and California have not yielded such a location.
Re Davey again, #2
As Davey knows, Type I errors involve wrongly rejecting a true hypothesis, and Type II, failing to reject a false hypothesis.
These can be illustrated with the current debate in USA and OZ on the ETS proposals.
Here the Nul Hypothesis (Ho) is that the ETS (and underlying emission reduction targets) should NOT be introduced because there may be severe net adverse effects), while the Research Hypothesis (H1) is that there will be NO adverse effects and the ETS + targets should be introduced.
There are four possibilities:
1. If our policy makers follow Barnaby Joyce and do not reject Ho because it is true (the ETS will have severe net bad effects), they will make the correct decision and reject ETS, and none of us will suffer the adverse effects.
2. But if like Rudd and Wong (and Obama) they reject Ho when it is true (and thereby fail to reject H1), they will make a Type I error: ETS will be introduced and many will suffer its adverse effects (as happened in real life with thalidomide).
3. However if they do not reject Ho if it is false (i.e. ETS does not have adverse effects), ETS will not be introduced, and its benefits will be lost. This is a Type II error.
4. But if they reject Ho when it’s actually false (and thereby fail to reject H1) they will fortuitously make the right decision, ETS can be adopted and there will be no net adverse effects.
#3 So, Davey, all depends on whether Ho is true or false, and that in turn depends in the ETS case on whether the Nul Hypothesis, that there is NO correlation between rising annual levels of the atmospheric concentration of CO2 (aka [CO2]) and Annual Global Mean Temperature, is rejected. So far it has not been, which means that there will be NO benefits from avoided dangerous climate change if an ETS is introduced.
This is where Davey’s confidence limits come in: as Feinstein & Thomas put it, “as good social scientists (unlike those of the IPCC) the aim should be “to make it difficult to reject the nul hypothesis Ho”, in this case that there is no correlation between rising [CO2] and climate change, by requiring 95% confidence that the nul Ho is NOT rejected. With their characteristic unanimous perversity, the IPCC’s authors and editors assert 95% confidence that it is rejected, without specifying any regression results whatsoever in support of this claim. The perversity arises from failure to recognize the adverse consequences from wrongly rejecting Ho when it is correct (i.e. Type I error).
To give just 1 example from my data set, Hilo at the foot of Mauna Loa itself. There we have over 99% certainty that there is NO relationship between increases in [CO2] and changes in temperature there since 1959, as the R2 is minus 0.0037, and the coefficient on d[CO2] is actually NEGATIVE (i.e. more CO2, less warming). The test t-statistic on the coefficient is minus 0.9, so (luckily for IPCC & Copenhagen) below the critical –2 level for 95% confidence that rising [CO2] actually produces cooling! But clearly the nul hypothesis cannot be rejected at the one place where it should be triumphantly rejected, thereby vindicating the IPCC.
Can anybody name just 1 of the IPCC Team who is even half aware of the above?
Ref. Making History Count, Feinstein & Thomas, CUP, 2002.
Thanks Tim,
I will write to my stats prof and thank him for teaching me well – oh, hold on, if still alive he will be about 110 years old. I am just reading some ‘model projections’ of climate from CSIRO. There are no confidence limits mentioned, nor hypothesis testing. But then, David Hume did warn that inductive reasoning is dangerous.
With regard to the IPCC, I believe Dr Pachauri (sp?), who presumably monitors the validity of their output, has a background in diesel mechanics. Interesting question – how does one get a job at the UN?
Davey wrote:
“With regard to the IPCC, I believe Dr Pachauri (sp?), who presumably monitors the validity of their output, has a background in diesel mechanics. Interesting question – how does one get a job at the UN?”
Pachauri has had a varied career. And his academic background is in economics and in industrial engineering. That’s good enough for an administrator. Climate Alarmists are fond of the you-can’t-play-because-you-don’t-have-the-right-piece-of-paper game. I don’t think that we should emulate them.
Problem: Pachauri is supposed to set some sort of moral tone for the IPCC, and there is no moral tone. It’s possible that Pachauri surrounds himself with yes-men who are afraid to tell him anything he doesn’t want to hear. If so, that’s par for the course. To quote the late systems scientist Glenn Burress:
“The purpose of a hierarchy is to prevent information from reaching the top!”
Thanks for the stats refresher course, Tim. You should package that material and send it to Barnaby, in a form that he could place a question on notice to Wong in respect of her proper discharge of he statutrory obligations. It goes to questions of best practice and her duty of care, and will go a long way to get the metre running on the future class action.
Larry, one would have to conclude that the complete lack of a moral tone would be a prerequisite for any gig at the UN, let alone the IPCC.
In fact, Tim, it could also become the main element in a High Court Injunction, demanding that no further implementation of ETS or other climate policy take place until such core analytical tools are applied. Lets see if they can get that completed before Copenhagen.
Pachauri has had a varied career. And his academic background is in economics and in industrial engineering. That’s good enough for an administrator. Climate Alarmists are fond of the you-can’t-play-because-you-don’t-have-the-right-piece-of-paper game. I don’t think that we should emulate them.
Pachauri is an administrator, not a researcher.
SJT: you are wrong, Pachauri does NOT see his role as that of a mere administrator, but rather as both the spearhead of the IPCC’s mission to save the planet from itself, and as the chief spokesman of the 2,500 “scientists” not one whom can do or interpret regressions or any other form of statistical analysis. One of the most strirking features of AR4 is the complete absence of statistics, with its almost total reliance on graphs (and even more fictitious maps), many showing only the means of multiple models none of which individually are consistent with observations. The packages producing the graphs produce relationships that do not exist by their pre-programmed choice of axes and scales. The alleged correlation between [CO2] and GMT is an artifact only of the graphing package and has no support in regression analysis of those variables. If that existed it would have been reported by the IPCC; it does not and is not.
Ian Mott is right, there is a prima facie case for committing Pachauri for trial for propagating false and misleading information over a long period. Polanski found the law can have a very long arm; Pachauri may well discover the same sooner than he imagines – and find himself sharing a cell with that equally lovely (albeit non-vegan) crook, Bernie Madoff. I say this advisedly, and it applies a fortiori to Susan Solomon, chief editor of AR4 who both there and in her own work (PNAS 2009) has used outright fraud to lift the observed annual rate of growth of [CO2] over 50 years from 1959 of 0.41% to at least 1.0% p.a. for this century, just like Bernie.
Further to my last, I have just downloaded the latest (Sept 09) monthly data on [CO2] at Mauna Loa, confirming that the average year on year percentage growth rate Sept 1958 has been 0.406% p.a.
Plotting the year on year annual growth rates, the linear trend is a gratifying upward straight line – but the logarithmic trend curve keeps flattening.
This falsifies Arrhenius who famously claimed that while [CO2] (carbonic acid as he called it) grows “geometrically” (i.e. linearly), global mean temperature will grow only “arithmetically” (i.e. logarithmically).
The truth is that both GMT and [CO2] are growing logarithmically, contrary to AR4, all of whose scary projections for C21 are therefore false, and on a Madoffian scale.
SJT, what have you got to say? – and protect your anonymity otherwise you could join your hero Pachauri in the penitentiary.
I think the climate issue is boring and ranting, but the first snow was falling today in my neighbourhood, mid Sweden. See pic:
http://annimal.bloggsida.se/diverse/the-first-snow
Beautiful photo Ann,
I can almost smell that wonderful clean, brisk, Scandinavian air. And the greenery – must be all that evil, polluting CO2. Is forest area increasing or decreasing in Sweden?
Tim,
I think arithmetic growth is linear, and geometric curved.
@Ann Novek…
It’s a dream here, in Monterrey. 🙁
First snow of the season. We just got 3 and a half inches of rain, first storm of the season.
The end of hurricane season in the Atlantic. Which means a grand total of 2 hurricanes for 2009.
Weird innovation for the National Hurricane Center. They’ve taken to giving tropical depressions proper names. http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/index.shtml
What next? Naming fog banks ?
James Mayeau wrote:
“What next? Naming fog banks ?”
You’re right. NOAA should be more parsimonious with names. The real issue that nobody wants to talk about is this: What will NOAA do when they run out of proper names? Recycling old names would be ambiguous. Assigning both a first name and a surname to each hurricane will eventually lead to the same problem. I know, let’s give hurricanes Social Security Numbers!
Thanks Davey, dunno about the forest, gonna do a research, might pop up at the blog.
Dunno as well what Nasef exactly means.
Hi Guys
Have any of you noticed lots of temperature records being broken in the NH?
Look at these
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/14/early-start-to-winter-20-of-usa-is-covered-in-snow-already/#more-11666
http://cbs2chicago.com/local/october.cold.record.2.1247099.html
http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSTRE59D2UK20091014
http://www.drudgereport.com/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/13/daily-mail-joins-bbc-in-writng-about-climate-skepticism/#more-11654
Hey dhmo,
Too much there for me to chew on.
Anyhow I’m sure that once Hansen gets done with adjustments 2009 will be the hottest year ever, or something.
Thought some may be interested in this article on a recent radio poll in Brisbane that showed 69% support for a new state in North Queensland. As centralist policies increase population and decrease quality of life in Brisbane, support is growing for measures that produce a more even spread of ecological impacts. http://ianmott.blogspot.com/2009/09/hopeless-blog-hosting.html
If the link doesn’t work just type it into the window.
Ann,
Beaut photo. I’ve got some of those NH cedar types growing at my place in Qld., Australia in a completely different climate but they do well [if I can keep the borers out]. Planted ’em 20 years ago and they’re ready to build a boat out of.
Had 2 noisy friarbird chicks fledge this morning and as soon as the family moved out a couple of fig birds grabbed the nest. Within minutes!
DHMO,
Certainly looks like a chilly winter coming up in the northern hemisphere. That’s due, of course, to the IPCC, Al Gore, Kevin Rudd, and Luke saving us from CO2 pollution.
Spanglo,
I think that is a spruce tree (Ann?). A few decades ago they were doomed by acid rain, until some careful Norwegian scientists found it actually made them grow faster. About the same time an Austrian (German?) professor compared the present Tyrolean forest with old postcard photos of that forest in the 1800s, and found no difference in the number of dead trees on the skyline. I think the media and politicians lost interest in the ‘acid rain doom story’ at about that point. Am I making this up, Ann? I am a terrible romantic optimist. We must be doomed by acid rain. Should we have a conference about it in Stockholm or Oslo? Will we win the Nobel Prize?
For spangled and other birdwatchers, see
http://www.juliusbergh.com/cocky/
Re Green Davey, who said “Tim, I think arithmetic growth is linear, and geometric curved”.
You are right, I was probably being a bit loose.
Arithmetic/linear means equal absolute increments in a dependent variable with respect to changes in the independent variable(s), as in this standard regression equation:
Y = a + bX
whereas a geometric curve is given by
Y = aX^b
I was referring to the 2nd derivative, ie changes in the rate of growth of the rate of growth of monthly data on [CO2] at Mauna Loa, which appears to be linear but is actually logarithmic, ie growing at a slowing rate.
Tim,
Good stuff. That what life’s all about isn’t it.
Ya just get on with it.
Mind you, another degree of AGW and they’ll cark it.
Hello again Davey and Spangled,
Sorry Davey but S.D is right. Think we call the trees some kind of cypress( NH type). The birds love them and they have red berries.
re the acid rain issue , is it fading away????
Now I’m going out to the cold , just subzero temperatures( brrrr!) and gonna watch the die hards (birds) that are left!…..spangled might post some links so we can see what birds he is talking about?
An Estonian old farmers saying :” When the cranes migrate , cruel weather is here, when the geese go away the frost is coming and when the swans leave , snow is here”!
BTW, there are lots of rowan berries this year, this means a cold winter according to an old farmers tale….
Ian – this is what I reckon should happen
http://users.tpg.com.au/johnsay1//new_state.jpg
janama and motty,
If the feds take over health, do we need the states?
I realise that unemployment would rise by 100% but think of all those green jobs coming up.
Arrr Davey,
I was waiting for Ann’s response on the spruce but all those NH evergreens look alike to me [is it blue enough?] and are generally usefull for boat building if they are straight.
That wouldn’t surprise me about the AR but you will only win the Nobel if you can predict certain doom to us all and then manage at great expense to the ROW to do nothing about it while at the same time alarming all the pregnant mothers and little children.
Tim,
As we used to say in Fort Jameson, palibe kantu Bwana. I was just pointing out your minor slip before the usual suspects did. They seem to be asleep, so best not disturb them.
Spanglo,
I think my version of acid rain history is true. Well, dammit, most people believe my version is true, so it must be true. And further, anybody who denies it is a fool. QED.
Green Davey – I should have known we were blood brothers! did you know the Prentices of Fort Jimmie? I was at school with one (Michaelhouse) and taught another (Peterhouse in Zim) whom I saw in Sydney only 5 years ago or so. One of my Zambian classmates at UCRN in 1957-9 always called me Bwana with heavy irony! – and I still have cousins there, one farming at Mazabuka, and 2 of his sisters are in Lusaka, they comprise much of Zambia’s polo teams like their parents before them. And I agree with you re acid rain – more proof of kinship!
I hope most of you-all had better things to do than watch tonight’s Catalyst on the ABC with its riveting contribution by the ANU’s Will Steffen, a notorious carpet bagger. I have tried to post it at the Catalyst site but doubt it will get past the resident Goebbles.
There are many dubious statements in the contribution by Will Steffen to Catalyst tonight (15 October ’09).
In the time and space available I deal here with only a few.
Steffen said with my comments in CAPs:
“Worst-case scenarios. Three things are happening. One is the increasing efficiency of energy use in the OECD countries started to stall around 2000 and 2002. NOT TRUE FOR all. The second thing that’s happened is China and India indeed have come on the scene. They’re using a lot more energy so they contribute to emissions. TRUE The third thing is the land and the oceans which together actually pull slightly more than half of our emissions back out of the atmosphere. It appears (sic) that the ocean sink is weakening. NO EVIDENCE FOR THAT. So when you add those three things up you get a surge in the growth rate of CO2 in the atmosphere. NO, YOU DON’T.
FACT: the growth rate of CO2 in the atmosphere has averaged just 0.41 per cent a year since records began in 1958, as shown by the very latest data from Mauna Loa for September 2009 via a vis September 1958. And for the numerically challenged Steffen, a growth rate of less half of one per cent p.a. over 51 years is not very fast – and it has NOT increased over the last decade.
Not only that, there is no trend whatsoever in the growth rate of the growth of atmospheric CO2, simply because on average the oceans and land continue “to pull slightly more [actually nearly 60%] than half of our emissions back out of the atmosphere”.
Ironically, if Copenhagen gets to agree on anything, it might be to set a target reduction of 60 per cent of emissions from the 2000 level, not the present 2009 level, from which already at present “the oceans and land” already “pull” 60% of current emissions “back out of the atmosphere”.
That’s the good news. The bad news is that if the Copenhagen target is adopted, AND implemented, it will reduce emissions to around 2 billions of carbon, way below the present “pull” of around 6 billion tonnes by the oceans and land, i.e. by the phyto-plankton which is the base feedstock for all marine life including coral reefs, whales and dolphins, and by the photosynthesis which is the basis of ALL land-based plant and animal life. That is a blueprint for the longest suicide note in the history of humanity.
For indeed, what a brave new world awaits us if Will has his way, aided and abetted by Catalyst.
Inde bwana, ndili mzungu, koma dzina langa ndi Mpezeni. I played lugby for Mazabuka. Nuff said.
Yes, I watched Catalyst, and thought some statements by Will Steffen sounded a bit surprising. I may have misheard, but I think he said at one stage that melting icebergs raise the sea level. I sensed public rhetoric rather than science, with Jonica Newby hanging on every word. ANU needs a spring clean. Can we arrange an indefinite sabbatical to the University of Zambia for young Will? He might make the polo team.
Just lines on the map, Janama. No-one in Bundaberg, Roma or Grafton wants any part of being governed by Brisbane. And cross border adjustments of existing states would be a referendum nightmare. Better to break them up into smaller units so that most of a region’s population is within 3 hours of the new capital. That is the only way to ensure that tax money that is drawn into the capital will recirculate back to the whole region.
I don’t have a problem with states unloading health care to the feds, Spangles, but actually abolishing all states is another referendum impossibility. Better to bust the existing ones up (essentially abolishing the existing units) and create more smaller regional entities with the same powers of a state.
Many communities do not want to amalgamate their local government but, curiously, the ACT has merged state and local functions and some new states might do so as well. But that should be each regions decision, it is not for metropolitan voters to be deciding how NQ or the Pilbara should organise themselves.
The people who want to abolish all states in favour of enlarged local government do not seem to understand that the existing state powers would have to go somewhere, either to the feds or larger local government. Yet no-one believes that a canberra bureaucrat would do a better job than a Sydney, Melbourne, or Brisbane one so if the powers of a state are to be transferred to a regional government then why not just call it a smaller state?
The other interesting point is the total lack of interest in urban Australia for any plan to bust up Sydney into 8 seperate self governing entities with half million populations, or Melbourne into 6. The city states can only function as a single unit so they should be left as the rump of the existing states while regions go their own way. They essentially operate as defacto city states already.
Tim Curtin..If you have the time can you put together some more notes correcting Stiff Willis nonsense on Catalyst last night. For instance he also said that OHC and temperature is accelerating..when there is no evidence for that at all…etc
I wonder what it takes to be a Professor of anything these days there so much hype and b/s being peddled by these ego driven and political active academics.
Malcolm, thanks will do. I was right, the Goebbels of the ABC spiked my comment in favour of gushing support.
Apologies to ABC, my original comments on Steffen did finally make it, if slightly garbled.
Green Davey: the Mazabuka mafia are everywhere, even in Canberra, where Mrs Burton (mother of Gill who was at UCR when I was teaching there in 1964-66) is alive and well at 90+; her husband was Resident Magistrate there in 1939, and she became Deputy Price Controller in Lusaka during the war.
Alas, Will Steffen would be lucky to get into the donkey derby, about 5 years ago I watched Mazabuka playing a Lusaka team, a tough game, with my cousin Sally in the Lusaka men’s 1st team, and her husband to be in the 2nds. Splendid afternoon at Mazabuka’s beautiful ground with curry dinner to die for .
I can’t match your Bemba (?) – I’s a japie with Taalbond Afrikaans and a shamefully small smattering of Zulu, later padded out with Swahili.
And Zambia way’s too good for Steffie, not least because Pres. Rupiah Banda is an old friend of mine, Will belongs at the wreck that U Zimbabwe has become.
Hi Janama,
Missed your comment to me , thanks! Indeed the Nobel Prizes are watering out. As it is now the whole spectacular is about the Princesses dresses .
BTW, in the pic in my paper, Obama did not look especially happy. Can’t understand why they don’t give the Prize to some real peace worker in the field?
Agh, Tim man,
It was Chinyanja, but not to worry heh? Glad your comment to Cadalyst finally got through. Are any figures on Zambian (or Zimbabwean) rainfall available? I suspect they might show a negative relationship with West Australian rain. I have the Indian Ocean Dipole in mind.
I expect most readers will have some knowledge of the IOD, but here is an up-to-date report from UNSW.
http://www.science.unsw.edu.au/news/indian-ocean-drought/
This seems very important to me, but I have not seen it mentioned on Cadalyst, or elsewhere on ABC or SBS. Nor have I seen or heard Dr Caroline Ummenhofer interviewed.
“This seems very important to me, but I have not seen it mentioned on Cadalyst, or elsewhere on ABC or SBS. Nor have I seen or heard Dr Caroline Ummenhofer interviewed.”
Davey,
Mainly because it’s a logical explanation of the real world, not like the alarmist honey that drips from Will Steffan’s lips:
OHC is UUHHPP!
MSL is UUHHPP!
Sea ice is melllllting!
Copenhagen, here we come!
He’s really on top of it.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/15/global-sst-trend-down-near-zero-trend-since-2002-also-down/#more-11731
Spanglo,
By courtesy of Bob Beale of UNSW I have now got hold of the full paper if you are interested. It is:
Ummenhofer, C.C. et al. (2009) What causes southeast Australia’s worst droughts? Geophysical Research Letters, Vol.36, L04706.
I note she only briefly mentions AGW, once in paragraph 1, and again in paragraph 13. Maybe she had to put this sprig of political parsley on top to get it past the referees, or joint authors. I would think, if skies were clear, then day temperatures would obviously be higher, but night ones lower. Anyone looked at the data for this?
It seems Reuters were advised, and articles appeared in New Scientist, The Australian, The Age, and some French and German news outlets. Not, as far as I can see, on ABC or SBS. Odd that, given it’s major implications for Australia. Where were you Kerry? Cadalyst?
Green Davey – of course, your Mazabuka stint misled me, Fort Jimmie is echt Chinyanja, basically Zulu. They did their best to sort that loveable but idiotic Nyerere back in the 60s, eg my friend John Malecela, lucky to escape with his head.
Re Steffen, The Times and the Oz on Arctic sea ice, Anthony Watts has done a wonderful debunking today:
Watts Up With That, 15 October 2009
That Ummenhofer paper has Michael England of UNSW as co-author. Can he be trusted? (See Deltoid).
Link to watts on Arctice again:
Green Davey,
Thanks for that. It is interesting that since it was written the IOD has moved into its negative phase [no doubt, much to your relief in the West] but since that occurred, as predicted we have had a very dry period in that eastern area.
It would do Luke good to read it.
Listen to the the rope-a-dopes having a little “intellectual” tete-a-tete. You’re lauding an AGW outfit dudes. In fact IOD’s just a little tickle on. STR is the main game and the first AGW drought was WWII era. But you’re denialist scum so why bother informing you.
I barfed at Mottsa’s little philosophical rant. Pure bunk from a Briso urban dweller. Any apparent hypocrisy? If he loves it so much move to Ingham.
Luke, we know that is not a candy bar you left in the kiddie pool. Now we have to drain the pool and put in fresh water.
“It would do Luke good to read it.”
You have to read between the lines with Luke.
He doesn’t always say what’s on his mind.
No it’s just you’re slow Spanglers – as usual you lot have found something yourself which you think suits your case while leaving out the main story (which is quite interesting actually)
Tim,
In my previous outburst of Chinyanja, I said that my name is Mpezeni. That is what the locals called me. Mpezeni was a chief of the Angoni, one of Chaka’s impis which failed in its mission north of the Zambesi, so wisely decided not to return to Zululand. They married (ahem) Chewa women, and the children grew up speaking ChiChewa (Chinyanja). However, the elder men continued to speak ChiNgoni (SeZulu).
A new theory, from the Zimbabwe Climate Bureau, is that the Angoni did not return to Zululand because the IOD was in a negative phase, and the maize crop failed. There was a missionary at the time, called Luke, who said it was due to human sin. The Zulus were not impressed. He disappeared, and there were loud burps from the Zulus, which could be heard at Fort Jameson.
History provides a rich matrix within which science can function, don’t you think?
Davey,
I think I heard something of that missionary.
Was he the one who got them to kill all their cattle as a sacrificial solution?
Tim maybe this is the WUWT link you were looking for?
Catlin Arctic ice survey can’t be trusted
Here’s something a bit strange. I made a comment in support of Tim as the Catalyst Copenhagen story.
http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/2715030.htm#comments
It went through ok yesterday.
Today I can’t access the comment section.
Perhaps they have tossed me into the heretic bin?
Can any of you get the page to load?
James,
No luck either.
They sure need some comments to point out the crap in Steffen’s little homily.
And his interviewer, “Dr” Jonica Newby! Talk about Dorothy Dix!
James
Looks like you broke the page with your comment!.
Nahh, I think it’s just a glitch or they closed the comments.
Spanglo,
No, that’s a furphy. Further modeling by the Zimbabwe Climate Bureau (formerly Zimbabwe Statistics Bureau) shows that nearly all the cattle died of tsetse bites – due to Global Warming. Those that didn’t were eaten by starving villagers – due to Global Warming. Those Zimbabweans who did not die of famine, died of cholera – due to Global Warming. I have heard that this scientific evidence from the world renowned ZCB, is about to be endorsed by the IPCC. If that happens, President Mugabe will be seeking 11.34 billion dollars in compensation from the rich nations, to be paid into a bank account in the Maldives. Go for it, Robert, say I.
Hi guys, I just watched said catalyst clip and noted a couple of things in particular.
1.”125000 years ago average global temperature was one and a half degrees warmer that today.”
2.” sea levels were 4 to 6 meters higher.”
Isn’t point 1. an admission that the current temp is not unprecedented?
Isn’t the correlation between 1. and 2. at odds with modeling projections for future sea level rise?
Did they just shoot themselves in the foot?
Did any one else get the impression of something strange with the staging of that catalyst?
I got the impression that the interviewer, & the interviewee were in different places, & were tapped at different times.
That is, I believe the interview never happened. I think the answers were tapped, perhaps as a speech, & then the questions were fabricated, & tapped to give the impression of an interview.
Is “OUR” ABC a little less than honest?
Hasbeen,
That could explain those mindless questions.
The ABC’s idea of spicing up a tedious and inaccurate discourse while remaining true to the code of AGW evangelism.
Luke Oct 17th 10am
“suits your case”
You and SJT have this AGW case. SJT says we don’t understand the case for AGW,but admits he’s a little unsure of his case.
Me a total sceptic am sure I don’t need a case, but in case you are wondering, the AGW case looks more to me like a crankcase.
The simpler explanation Mack Truck is that you are thick. Like most denialist scum.
I agree – the quality of the interviewer was different from Dr Steffen – that could be because they only had one camera and shot the questions later, very typical procedure.
I used their contact page to express my dissatisfaction with the interview and how Steffen made a whole series of unchallenged statements that were clearly false. I then told them I have lost all confidence in the ABC Science department on TV and on Radio.
But even “denialiist scum” like Cohenite would say we don’t have a case to answer and that your case should be dismissed.
Why didn’t you say so Mack – in that case I give in – such compelling evidence. You can trust lawyers as you know. They’d never make construct a sophistic argument.
Com’on Luckey Luke – let’s see you spin this.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/17/iq-test-which-of-these-is-not-upside-down/#more-11784
I assume we all accept Geophysical Research Letters as a reasonable, even if not infallible, source of information. In a recent paper (Lean & Rind 2009), the authors predict a mean temperature rise of .18C over the next decade (2009 to 2019). They take into account both human influence and a cooling sun. They then add that ‘on time scales of 10 to 50 years (and longer) decadal climate forecasts are difficult to make with general circulation models due to their many uncertainties [IPCC 2007].’ They go on to suggest that analysis of Sea Surface Temperatures may be a better approach. The interesting Indian Ocean Dipole work (Ummenhofer et al. 2009) supports that suggestion. Lean and Rind also mention the cooling influence of land volcanic eruptions, and the influence of ENSO events (causes unknown?).
Does this mean that the science is uncertain, that is to say, not settled?
Refs:
Lean, J.L. and Rind, D.H. (2009) How will Earth’s surface temperature change in future decades? Geophysical Research Letters Vol. 36, L15708.
Ummenhofer et al. (2009) What causes Southeast Australia’s worst droughts? Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 36, L04706.
The titles of both papers end in a question mark. It’s nice to see that the authors obviously have open minds. Now that’s science.
Well Sellout Brown Davey – trust a denialist to only read 30% of the story.
Missed the Lean & Rind flipside. Missed most of the contemporary Australian climate research. Ho hum. Of course the science isn’t settled. Why don’t you wait till it is. haahahahahahaha
What’s that Jabbawock – yet another half-arsed semi-story from a denialist scumbo – pullease. At least Davey is quoting something reasonable.
“Ho hum. Of course the science isn’t settled. Why don’t you wait till it is.”
Luke,
With the unknown unknowns becoming known unknowns at the rate of about one per day, you’re good at stating the bleedin’ obvious.
We don’t need to wait till it is, just a little more certainty would do before we all rush over the cliff.
It’s a relief to hear you say so though, now is SJT listening?
“The titles of both papers end in a question mark. It’s nice to see that the authors obviously have open minds. Now that’s science.”
Green Davey,
Ya mean they might be head scratchingly sceptical?
Interesting stuff, Mpezeni (aka GD), especially as papers like these and all those Luke has linked to of late never mention CO2. The pollies gathering soon at Copengagen have not noticed yet, nor will they ever, at least not until our scientists come up with some new bogey, eg that hydrogen dioxygenase is a dangerous pollutant. Intriguing also that the focus (eg Nature 30 April 2009) is now (eg Ken Caldeira et al) more on pumping SO2 (well known non-pollutant relative to CO2) into the atmosphere than on reducing CO2 emissions, the latter being in the too-hard basket.
Meantime I have begun to find that while rises in [CO2]’s “radiative forcing” have no demonstrable correlation with changes in temperature anywhere, a regression of dT on dCO2 AND changes in solar radiation SR does produce a statistically significant coefficient on SR, while CO2 remains nowhere. (flat line).
I will gladly send my papers now out in Energy & Environment to any who are interested, mail me at tcurtin@bigblue.net.au. They should also be up on my website soon if not already.
The Catalyst Copenhagen comments are back up, without mine. Ah well.
I put the machine on tilt for a day. That’s something!
Have you been following Glen Morton’s The Migrant Mind?
His latest post is on Greenland sinking into the sea.
http://themigrantmind.blogspot.com/2009/10/prevarications-about-greenland.html
Greenland, the whole island, is suffering from subsidence of 9.2 ± 2.7 mm/yr.
Glen points out that while Scandinavia and Scotland are rising up due to isostatic rebound
Greenland is going the otherway. And there’s only one reason for it. Greenland is putting on weight.
Back to the lying sack of dung, Prof. Will Steffen:
“I think the thing that alarms me the most is the combination of what’s happening in the ocean and what’s happening in the ice sheets. Ice sheets are probably moving more rapidly than we thought was conceivable five or ten years ago. You see large blocks of ice are splitting off the outlet glaciers, they slide into the sea and the water level raises instantly..
From page 252 of Heaven and Earth I find out that glaciers at the margins of ice sheets creep out from under the icecaps as the snow piles up in the middle of the sheet. They are literally squeezed out by the increased weight of the new snows, like toothpaste squeezed out of a tube.
It has nothing NOTHING WHAT SO EVER to do with warming, everything to do with more snow, precip, ice forming: hence cooling.
James,
I think slight warming would, in fact, lead to more snow, both in Greenland and Antactica. I don’t know if this is the case – I thought most of Antarctica was getting colder, so less snow. Any ideas?
In the lying stakes Luke,how would you stack up a lawyer (Cohenite) with a politician (Al Gore)?
Uppermost in your consideration would be the motivation (such as recognition and fame to be achieved by lying) and the financial gain to be made by both individuals.
I’m inclined to believe the lawyer.. aren’t you? Especially a lawyer with an excellent knowledge of the science.
Luke,
I did read the whole paper (Lean and Rind 2009). They seem like reasonable people to me, even if some of their speculations are, to my mind, debatable. Despite childish abuse from you (Brown Davey etc.) the truth will, eventually, appear. I am sure I have not read as much climate literature as you, because my main interests are elsewhere. I am presently working through Montesquieu’s ‘Spirit of the Laws’, which took him twenty years to write.
However, in the climate field, I suspect that the hydrosphere has, up to now, been much neglected in comparison with the atmosphere. The magnetosphere and ascenosphere have hardly rated a mention. Potential elephants both. Duhem-Quine Thesis?
Have you any useful comments, or shall I, regretfully, write you off as an empty vessel making a lot of noise? That would be a pity, because I have enjoyed most of our banter in the past.
Mack – how about neither !
Come on Davey – kitchy koo. Don’t get all ornery now.
Davey against my best instincts but if you want some reasonable discussion – try reading:
http://www.cawcr.gov.au/publications/researchletters/CAWCR_Research_Letters2.pdf
http://www.bom.gov.au/events/9icshmo/manuscripts/TH1515_Nicholls.pdf
http://www.ccrc.unsw.edu.au/PDF/LATEST%20program_SEA_workshop.pdf
The on-going drought is explained by the strengthening of the STR
(80% of the rainfall signal reproduced by the STR-I anomalies)
The STR is responding to global temperature of the planet
(two periods of warming during the 20th century as well as one of stabilisation)
(not by chance since it is reproduced by a fully coupled GCM –ensemble-)
Anthropogenic emissions are needed for a model to reproduce the STR intensification
(as well as a long list of regional changes which resemble the observations:
regional temperature rise, MSLP build up, the rainfall decline: autumn in SWEA)
The WWII drought is the first protracted drought in SEA partly due to G.W.
(albeit only 30% can be explained by the STR-I linked to G.W.)
http://www.ccrc.unsw.edu.au/PDF/Timbal_UNSW2009.pdf
Cause of the widening of the tropical belt since 1958
Jian Lu,1,2,3 Clara Deser,1 and Thomas Reichler4
Received 22 September 2008; revised 9 December 2008; accepted 30 December 2008; published 5 February 2009.
[1] Previous studies have shown that the width of the
tropical belt has been increasing since at least the late 1970s
based on a variety of metrics. One such metric, the
frequency of occurrence of a high-altitude tropopause
characteristic of the tropics, is used here to show that the
observed widening of the tropics can be accurately
replicated by an atmospheric general circulation model
forced by the observed evolution of global SST and sea ice
distributions as well as the direct radiative effects from both
natural and anthropogenic sources. Contrasting this
simulation with one forced by the observed SST and sea
ice distributions alone reveals that the widening trend can be
attributed entirely to direct radiative forcing, in particular
those related to greenhouse gases and stratospheric ozone
depletion. SST forcing causes no significant change in the
width of the tropics, and even a contraction in some
seasons. Citation: Lu, J., C. Deser, and T. Reichler (2009),
Cause of the widening of the tropical belt since 1958, Geophys.
Res. Lett., 36, L03803, doi:10.1029/2008GL036076.
Any curiosity Davey?
Yes James
Extensive dynamic thinning on the margins of the
Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets
Hamish D. Pritchard1, Robert J. Arthern1, David G. Vaughan1 & Laura A. Edwards2
doi:10.1038/nature08471
Many glaciers along the margins of the Greenland and Antarctic
ice sheets are accelerating and, for this reason, contribute increasingly
to global sea-level rise1–7. Globally, ice losses contribute
1.8mmyr21 (ref. 8), but this could increase if the retreat of ice
shelves and tidewater glaciers further enhances the loss of
grounded ice9 or initiates the large-scale collapse of vulnerable
parts of the ice sheets10. Ice loss as a result of accelerated flow,
known as dynamic thinning, is so poorly understood that its
potential contribution to sea level over the twenty-first century
remains unpredictable11. Thinning on the ice-sheet scale has been
monitored by using repeat satellite altimetry observations to track
small changes in surface elevation, but previous sensors could not
resolve most fast-flowing coastal glaciers12. Here we report the use
of high-resolution ICESat (Ice, Cloud and land Elevation Satellite)
laser altimetry to map change along the entire grounded margins
of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets. To isolate the dynamic
signal, we compare rates of elevation change from both fastflowing
and slow-flowing ice with those expected from surface
mass-balance fluctuations. We find that dynamic thinning of glaciers
now reaches all latitudes in Greenland, has intensified on key
Antarctic grounding lines, has endured for decades after ice-shelf
collapse, penetrates far into the interior of each ice sheet and is
spreading as ice shelves thin by ocean-driven melt. In Greenland,
glaciers flowing faster than 100myr21 thinned at an average rate
of 0.84myr21, and in the Amundsen Sea embayment of
Antarctica, thinning exceeded 9.0myr21 for some glaciers. Our
results show that the most profound changes in the ice sheets
currently result from glacier dynamics at ocean margins.
Spatial and temporal evolution of Pine Island Glacier thinning,
1995–2006
D. J. Wingham,1 D. W. Wallis,1 and A. Shepherd2,3
Received 12 May 2009; revised 24 July 2009; accepted 5 August 2009; published 9 September 2009.
[1] We use ERS-2 and ENVISAT satellite radar altimetry
to examine spatial and temporal changes in the rate of
thinning of the Pine Island Glacier, West Antarctica, during
the period 1995 to 2006. We show that the pattern of
thinning has both accelerated and spread inland to
encompass tributaries flowing into the central trunk of the
glacier. Within the 5,400 km2 central trunk, the average rate
of volume loss quadrupled from 2.6 ± 0.3 km3 yr1 in 1995
to 10.1 ± 0.3 km3 yr1 in 2006. The region of lightly
grounded ice at the glacier terminus is extending upstream,
and the changes inland are consistent with the effects of a
prolonged disturbance to the ice flow, such as the effects of
ocean-driven melting. If the acceleration continues at its
present rate, the main trunk of PIG will be afloat within
some 100 years, six times sooner than anticipated.
Citation: Wingham, D. J., D. W. Wallis, and A. Shepherd
(2009), Spatial and temporal evolution of Pine Island Glacier
thinning, 1995 – 2006, Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L17501,
doi:10.1029/2009GL039126.
Mack-” how about neither!” Aha Luke ,so they both are lying (talking bs) and we should believe neither.
It’s good to hear you at last confess that Al Gore is lying about a scientific theory that in essence belongs to him. A theory that hardly anybody had even heard of until 1980 when Big AL came along and started his preaching.
Cohenite won’t mind about us calling him a liar will he.. in fact under the circumstances he might even be delighted. You give him enough flack anyhow. He understands that his credibility is just a small sacrifice to make in our quest to get the big liar… Big AL.
Well waddaya know ..a little scepticism from Luke!
I’m inclined to believe the lawyer.. aren’t you? Especially a lawyer with an excellent knowledge of the science.
That rules out cohenite, then. He thinks his equations mean something.
What is it with Luke? His last cites a preposterous paper Wingham et al which claims “If (sic) the acceleration continues at its present rate, the main trunk of PIG will be afloat within
some 100 years, six times sooner than anticipated” [by whom? only jerks like Wingham et al].
Yet again Luke’s assiduity only produces papers with no mention of [CO2] while he himself like Wong & Rudd demands we return to Neanderthal living standards to avoid emitting CO2 (as if we could – Luke when are you going to get Nitschke to help you stop emitting CO2?). Please refrain from further comments until from that other place you have ceased emitting.
Just looking at Tim’s exposition of Type 1 and 2 errors; anything to do with proposals to deal with or solve AGW must automatically involve both error Types; apart from Steffen’s rather bizarre attempts to justify AGW the usual attempt by AGW supporters to overcome the vindication of the 2 Null Hypotheses [ie that is no correlation between CO2 and temp and that AGW is wrong] is by explaining any contrary temp response to CO2 by noting that natural forcings tempararily overcome the underlying AGW trend; hence the latest manifestation by Lean and Rind with notable previous efforts by Keenlyside et al and Easterling; the Lean and Rind effort is particularly brave predicting over the next 5 years rates of warming of 0.3C PD; this is odd because since 1998 the only years with warming trends have been 1999 and 2000.
The whole issue of AGW masking doesn’t take into account accentuation of the putative AGW trend in natural warming phases such as between 1976-1998 especially as there is compelling evidence that the warming of this period was due to a step;
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0907/0907.1650v3.pdf
As Figure 1(a) shows the post WW2 temp trend is in fact a PDO phase shift based step with no measurable AGW imput; the usual CO2/temp linear relationship is shown by the green line; the step is statistically preferred; in short there is no masking because the AGW ‘effect’ is non-existent; predictions of future AGW trends are therefore bound to be type 1 & 2 errors.
Didn’t say lying Mack – simply partisan ! Mack I never heard of Al Gore and AGW till the 00’s. You really must have a simple view of things eh?
Really tediously stupid comments Tim – sounds like you’ve become alarmist and hysterical in your scepticism. Frankly your entire philosophical position is utter ranting drivel. Publish or ping orf (and that’s not E&E). We note your difficulties in this process.
Try not to pretend that you and Stockwell have a “real” publication. So tedious. And so wrong. You fringe dwellers have no effect on the research effort. Just some loose change.
And like dogs returning to their vomit – Cohers actually believes in Jack’s beanstalk – just like Tim believes CO2 is magic pixie dust (forget agronomy and genetics – forget other limiting factors). So Cohers finds PDO keeps building temperature over 150 years – hahahahahahahaha
Yes Cohers – back to the campaign eh? Did anyone remember to ring up Malcolm?
I see even Beattie’s going nuclear. http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26221356-11949,00.html
Luke – the ongoing drought is the exact opposite to the forecasts.
The drought is in Queensland and the rain is in the SE – the puters predicted the opposite.
“Dogs vomit”; how visceral of you luke! Let’s really stir up your bile;
http://landshape.org/enm/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/articletxt.pdf
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0908/0908.1828v1.pdf
And who cares about Malcolm, the man is in the wrong party, he is part of the urban green elite who enjoy all the benefits of this great society without any insight into how those those benefits are produced or maintained; they think a few windmills on Sydney Heads will keep the lap-tops churning over and the latte flowing; in short they are wankers. Obviously Beattie is a bit shrewder than Malcolm.
Sorry Cohers – don’t bother reading the sophistry of landscape these days. So pretentious – and anything to avoid serious peer review. Tsk tsk.
Janama – what are you talking about – a seasonal forecast system? And what has computer prediction go to do with the price of eggs? Try thinking about what I’m saying for once – I know it’s hard.
Golly galoshes!
Just got up and found the wires have been buzzing. Going back a few yards, yes Luke, I will read the papers you offer, when Baron Montesquieu gives me time. By the way, can you remember the name of the public servant in the British Raj who delved into reasons for the failure of the Indian monsoon. Didn’t he use SSTs? Given his name I can look him up on Wiki.
Sir Gilbert Walker (no relation) – documented the almost global Walker circulation of the atmosphere – it’s strength as measured by the SOI.
Some perspective about the tropics moving to the poles due to AGW as shown by the historical records of tree-line shifts;
http://www.nosams.whoi.edu/PDFs/papers/Holocene_v12a.pdf
A slightly better use of trees than Briffa has made of them; and an alternative view to the hysteria about Greenland and Antarctica;
http://www.nzclimatescience.org/images/PDFs/ollier_etc.pdf
But that won’t stop luke regugitating the Pritchard piece declaiming a 1.8mm per year increase due to melting glaciers, a bizarre conclusion given this;
http://www.ocean-sci-discuss.net/6/31/2009/osd-6-31-2009.html
Which shows the satellite corrected measure of sea-level increase is just 1mm per year since 2005. I’m not surprised you don’t read anything at Niche luke, the mental dischordancy would sent you shrieking to…well, where ever you go.
Thanks to Luke for the reference to Sir Gilbert Walker, a pioneer of climate studies in the Indian Ocean, and elsewhere. However, it was Tim Curtin who gave me the key name of H.F. Blanford, who suggested, in the 1880s, a relationship between the amount of snow on the Himalaya and the strength of the Indian monsoon. That seems still to be a matter of debate, some saying Blanford was right, others saying not (e.g. Zhao and Moore 2004). It seems the science is not settled. The following website is a start for anyone interested in the history of climate studies.
http://www.tropmet.res.in/~kolli/mol/Forecasting/frameindex.html
Cohers – denialists will deny anything. The now avalanche of evidence is rankly overwhelming. I look forward to the judgement of history of the reaction of vested interests when presented with the facts.
All you guys are now doing is reacting. Not creating. Your agenda has been usurped by reality.
” the tropics moving to the poles due to AGW” – how can you fabricate stuff like this ? Every piece is a try-on.
cohenite,
Good links!
One thing it shows is how much climate changes without any help from anthros. How long does it take the warmers to get it.
I’ll bet ol’ “one tree Keith” knew the story behind those Yamal tree lines but had a more important agenda.
And those T/P/Jason-tide gauge comparisons are a window to the real world that experts in high places like Will Steffen never seem to see.
You wonder why they choose to devalue their own currency.
“The now avalanche of evidence is rankly overwhelming.”
I will agree that the only thing overwhelming about this evidence is its rankness.
And that’s mainly because of where it is found.
As if you’d know Spanglers – you don’t read anything except denialist porn. Against a huge array of evidence denialist scum can only deny. Of course I forgot – denialists can’t read past grade 4.
Ah luke, what a Freudian slip; “rankly overwhelming”; perhaps there’s hope for you yet.
Yes we can read past Grade 4. I am reading Montesquieu. I must admit he is a bit boring, although he did have some novel eighteenth century views on climate. What say, Sigmund Lukesquieu?
What does anyone really know Davey? It’s all pointless.
SJT,
Try Kierkegaard and Sartre. When the philosophy of ‘global warmism’ collapses for all to see, you could start up ‘climate existentialism’, or ‘post modern climatism’. I am sure Michel Foucault would be a great help in your project. Don’t forget to bring in Alan Sokal. You may be aware that since the rather obvious failure of Marxism, we still have ‘existential Marxism’ (Honderich 1995). You might get funding from the Zimbabwe Climate Bureau. Ask Tim Curtin for contacts.
Davey – God is dead. There is no philosophy or politics. Only good or bad Fortran.
Sigmund,
Wear a hard hat when outdoors, in case of thunderbolts.
SJT,
Try Kierkegaard and Sartre. When the philosophy of ‘global warmism’ collapses for all to see, you could start up ‘climate existentialism’, or ‘post modern climatism’. I am sure Michel Foucault would be a great help in your project. Don’t forget to bring in Alan Sokal. You may be aware that since the rather obvious failure of Marxism, we still have ‘existential Marxism’ (Honderich 1995). You might get funding from the Zimbabwe Climate Bureau. Ask Tim Curtin for contacts.
You just meander around the science, Davey, asking pointless questions. Does it intimidate you?
Green Davey they need to read Freud and discover why they disgorge crazy crap all the time. Probably because they are paid to. Anyhow you should leave here and look at WUWT, the Copenhagen conference is far more important. “Not Evil Just Wrong” is worth a look. Climate audit has further discredited the hockey stick. So leave religious zealots behind they are insignificant gnats.
Agreed DHMO,
At least Sigmund Lukesquieu understands what I am talking about, even if he doesn’t agree. SJT? Well, as Confucius allegedly said, it is useless to play classical music in a cow shed.
I suspect it is going to be very cold in Copenhagen in December. The TV cameras should have a field day with blue noses, fur hats etc. If they go to the zoo, they might see snow on the elephants’ backs, and the polar bear will be so happy.
Anyway Davey – how’s the STR going?
Luke says to me Oct 18 th 10.31 pm…
” You really must have a simple view of things eh ?
Not half as simple as the simpletons proposing the AGW theory. The CO2 molecule absorbs heat. There are more of them in the atmosphere Therefore the world is warming up.
errr – yep? so you think the world has no greenhouse effect at all then
Yep, Luke, there is no measurable greenhouse effect, least of all by you, and I am one of the few, perhaps the only one, to attempt to spot it with regression analysis, and I have yet to find a single location on the globe where it has a statistically significant relationship with dT/t. None of your favourite scribblers has ever found such a location, and certainly not the IPCC, if they had it would be on their front over.
MORE TROUBLE FOR Luke and SJT who can’t do regressions
BBC News, 19 October 2009
The growth of British trees appears to follow a cosmic pattern, with trees growing faster when high levels of cosmic radiation arrive from space.
Researchers made the discovery studying how growth rings of spruce trees have varied over the past half a century.
As yet, they cannot explain the pattern, but variation in cosmic rays impacted tree growth more than changes in temperature or precipitation.
The study is published in the scientific journal New Phytologist.
“We were originally interested in a different topic, the climatological factors influencing forest growth,” says Ms Sigrid Dengel a postgraduate researcher at the Institute of Atmospheric and Environmental Science at the University of Edinburgh.
To do this, Ms Dengel and University of Edinburgh colleagues Mr Dominik Aeby and Professor John Grace obtained slices of spruce tree trunks.
These had been freshly-felled from the Forest of Ae in Dumfriesshire, Scotland, by Forest Research, the research branch of the UK’s Forestry Commission. The trees had been planted in 1953 and felled in 2006. The researchers froze the trunk slices, to prevent the wood shrinking, then scanned them on to a computer and used software to count the number and width of the growth rings. As the trees aged, they showed a usual decline in growth.
However, during a number of years, the trees’ growth also particularly slowed. These years correlated with periods when a relatively low level of cosmic rays reached the Earth’s surface.
When the intensity of cosmic rays reaching the Earth’s surface was higher, the rate of tree growth was faster.
The effect is not large, but it is statistically significant.
The intensity of cosmic rays also correlates better with the changes in tree growth than any other climatological factor, such as varying levels of temperature or precipitation over the years.
“The correlation between growth and cosmic rays was moderately high, but the correlation with the climatological variables was barely visible,” Ms Dengel told the BBC.
Here comes the Sun – and George Harrison
Cosmic rays are actually energetic particles, mainly protons, as well as electrons and the nuclei of helium atoms, that stream through space before hitting the Earth’s atmosphere.
The levels of cosmic rays reaching the Earth go up and down according to the activity of the Sun, which follows an 11-year cycle. Every 11 years or so, the Sun becomes more active, producing a peak of sunspots. These sunspots carry a magnetic field that blocks and slows the path of energetic particles. When the researchers looked at their data, they found that tree growth was highest during periods of low sunspot activity, when most cosmic rays reached Earth. But growth slowed during the four periods of cosmic ray-blocking high sunspot activity, which have occurred between 1965 and 2005.
“We tried to correlate the width of the rings, i.e. the growth rate, to climatological factors like temperature. We also thought it would be interesting to look for patterns related to solar activity, as a few people previously have suggested such a link,” explains Ms Dengel.
“We found them. And the relation of the rings to the solar cycle was much stronger than it was to any of the climatological factors we had looked at. We were quite hesitant at first, as solar cycles have been a controversial topic in climatology.”
…Ms Dengel’s team proposes two main hypotheses as to how cosmic ray particles could influence the growth of trees. The first idea is that cosmic rays ionise gases in the atmosphere, creating molecules around which clouds condense, therefore increasing cloud over. This mechanism is hotly debated among scientists, and evidence for it is weak. But if it does occur, then an increase in cloud cover and haze would diffuse the amount of solar radiation reaching the trees.
As diffuse radiation penetrates forest canopies better than direct light, it would increase the amount of radiation that plants capture, and increase photosynthesis by trees, boosting growth.
…”We want to repeat this work for larger data sets, and understand the mechanism better, before we speculate,” says Ms Dengel.
ht: Peiser, Benny at CC Net
That should read…..
Therefore the world must be warming up.
No Luke I don’t believe there is any greenhouse effect and that cloud cover at night has been fooling everyone.
Tim Curtin,
just a quick post – the Canadian Association of Petroleum Geologists have made a comprehensive rebuttal of the AGW in their Reservoir monthly magazine. The articles seem to confirm the notion that there isn’t a greenhouse effect on Earth. The whole idea is bizarre – that a gas like CO2 at a lower temperature than the Earth underneath it, can, by radiation of IR, warm not only the Earth beneath it, but also the air under it. Backradiation surely exists, but it can’t warm anything except the the over excited neurons of the AGW crowd with nonsense.
Luke and his mates are not liars but simply stupid, and hence their well trained reactions here are indicative of the ease by which entities of limited intelligence can be trained to produce predictable outcomes.
Have not had a chance to check the Keynes thing as well 🙂
AIG News will be republishing some of Reservoir’s climate articles, by the way but I have copies of all of them and could forward PDF extracts if you would like them. Get to me by the usual method.
Louis
Tim Curtin,
just a quick post – the Canadian Association of Petroleum Geologists have made a comprehensive rebuttal of the AGW in their Reservoir monthly magazine. The articles seem to confirm the notion that there isn’t a greenhouse effect on Earth. The whole idea is bizarre – that a gas like CO2 at a lower temperature than the Earth underneath it, can, by radiation of IR, warm not only the Earth beneath it, but also the air under it. Backradiation surely exists, but it can’t warm anything except the the over excited neurons of the AGW crowd with nonsense.
Luke and his mates are not liars but simply stupid, and hence their well trained reactions here are indicative of the ease by which entities of limited intelligence can be trained to produce predictable outcomes.
Have not had a chance to check the Keynes thing as well 🙂
AIG News will be republishing some of Reservoir’s climate articles, by the way but I have copies of all of them and could forward PDF extracts if you would like them. Get to me by the usual method.
Louis
Woo-hoo – so this blog pronounces there is no greenhouse effect. hahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahsahahahahahashashashahahahahaha ….. ooo it hurts ….
quick Timmy RUSH to Nature – a Nobel prize awaits
Louis denies net radiation and that furnace shields work – hahahahahahahaha
Un-bloody real dudes !
Not even Spencer would back you on this.
Timmy – your problem is that your love of linear regression has turned you into a correlation moron. Not good at regressing forcings, not good at multiple regression, not good at cause and effect, not good at PCA, and certainly not good at systems analysis. Piss weak Tim. Stick to economics. Still confusing CO2 fert with agronomy are we? hahahahahahahahaha
Poor Timmy – summarily ignored by the science community TOTALLY.
Boo hoo.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?p=2&t=79&&n=61 – hahahahahahahahaha
Luke – F**K off – Go Away!!……. you are Sh**…….. You are a pain in my arse!! ……….. you mean NOTHING!
Whistle away……..
Hi Luke, I assume I have your permission to quote you verbatim in my upcoming paper using the regression analysis that is beyond you to show zilch correlation between dT/t and d[CO2]/t, but plenty with dSR/t, dSOI/t and dCR/t (i.e. Cosmic Rays). You could become famous!
I fear I cannot extend that courtesy to the grossly deceptive offering by John Cook that you linked to, as in each case his right hand axis refers to the price of nylon stockings or whatever, eg CPI, in New York since 1900. In any case his Figs 1 and 2 reveal no correlation at all, and his Fig.3 (wrongly labeld by him as Fig.2) equally reveals no statistically significant relationship between any of his mish mash of variables.
All the same, you Luke and John Cook are worthy representatives of the Australian Public Service both here in Canberra and across all the states and territories, not one of whom from Martin Parkinson to Ken Henry has ever shown ANY aptitude for doing or understanding regression analysis. If you or they would like to learn about it I am prepared to offer an introductory course pro bono.
More for my Dummy’s Guide to AGW for Luke, I omitted to add that his John Cook’s Figs 2 and 3 have on their left hand vertical axis “forcings” in W/sq. metre ranging from no less than 3 to minus 3 (in Fig.3) , blissfuly unaware of the NOAA data that in a place like Fresno (Ca) solar radiation ranged from 2106 WattHours/sq.m. in Jan 1960 to 8090 Wh/sq.m. in June 1960, and in 1990 the Jan. figure was 2328 Wh/sq.m, and in June 1990 was 8657 Wh/sq.m.
No doubt Luke like the equally if not more credulous IPCC believes that anthropogenic GHG explains those rises in solar radiation! Hallelulujah! The second coming is nigh.
Apologies for a further afterthought, but knowing that Luke and his colleagues like aforesaid Parkinson and a fortiori their ministers like Wong & Rudd) are arithmetically challenged, I think I should explain that Fresno’s receipt of solar radiation of 8657 Wh/sq.metre in June 1990 equates to 12.02 Watts, i.e FOUR times more than the maximum displayed in Luke’s John Cook’s Figs. 2 & 3, yet he asks us to believe that the change in the RF of CO2 at say Fresno (which is the same everywhere else on earth) outweighs that in SR at each and every location. But if it does, why do the regressions show SR as being the stat.sig. causative factor, and not RF?
SJT wrote:
“What does anyone really know Davey? It’s all pointless.”
That was the entire posting. Whaddayaknow? SJT has outed himself as a Postmodernist pseudo-intellectual. Let’s remember that as His SJTness continues to hold forth on scientific matters that are beyond his ken.
Nah – ya can’t have it both ways Timmy.
And you mean your paper that you will not get published anywhere other than E&E – hohohohohohoho – come on !!!
Poor Janama – when confronted with some facts has a breakdown. You poor widdle fella. Off you go now – off to your bedroom for a little cry.
Just think denialists – this is the “illuminati” that history will associate you with. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/10/climate-cover-up-a-brief-review/
Shame shame shame. The climate creeps who desertified the sub-tropics.
a great read about the REAL climate crooks.
Hey Timmy “which is the same everywhere else on earth” – hahahahahahahahaha – you silly billy – what a goof.
Luke the reason for my dummy spit is that I’m sick to death of your arrogance, your denial of the facts and your your crass rudeness.
The Realclimate washover you just posted is all BS, and what’s more, no one can call them on it as they’ll just be censored out.
It’s not right wing funding that is bringing their gravy train to a halt, it’s publicly funded people like Dr Roy Spencer, Prof Richard Lindzen of MIT, retired professors like Syun-Ichi Akasofu, and people with a beef about accuracy like Steve McIntyre and Anthony Watts.
And who funds RealClimate eh mate? RealClimate who attempt to scare the f**k out of our children – who deceive my friends into believing the polar bears are heading for extinction and the planet is doomed.
They are the “Illuminati” that history will archive under global hoaxes.
I reckon….. if sanity prevails….. the illuminati will be hunting for those who have deliberately lied or exagerated.
Who Luke, has more to fear from that do you think?
RC would like to shut down people who do not agree with them would they? Something we seem to be hearing increasingly more of from an increasingly desperate crowd of warmers. There is no doubt that the funding is massively in favour of AGW and there is very obvious self interest involved. And yet RC feels it neccersary to attack any institute , media outlet or blog that is prepared to debate the issue or just argue the other side.
It is abundantly clear that on both sides of the argument there are well meaning and capable individuals. …so why the difference of opinion? BECAUSE THE SCIENCE IS NOT SETTLED.
This issue is not black and white and yet so many would have us believe this was the case.
The article you link to with RC is something I think they should be embarassed about and speaks very poorly of them.
Putrid comments Janama – frankly I’m sick of your arrogance. And your 100% content free stupid contributions. Who funds realclimate – it’s simply their opinions – their research is already funded. You have made NO comment on the many serious papers I have tabled above. As usual you have retreated to the comfort zone of denialist scoundrels – polar bears. Haven’t seen any scared children running the streets? What utter tripe. Do you have any kids?
Who has most to fear Toby – the denialist scum who conduct willful disinformation campaigns. Professors who write books full of fibs. AGW is risk management issue of some considerable seriousness. Indeed mankind is already predisposed to poor climatic conditions. Want some more? That’s what any fair analysis of the science looks like. If you think the astroturf mobs RC have linked to are lily white nice guys – well you must have come down in the last shower.
Toby do you fail to see the evidence stacking up every day? Or does you brain run a disbelief filter. And come on about RC being on the offensive – that’s just sooooo precious. RC have been abused and slandered from hill to dale. Glass jaw tactics Toby.
And as for “desperate warmers” Toby – ROTFL – the research is accelerating. Wake up and stop reading blog bilge.
Luke – Fenton communications via Environmental Media Services fund and host Real Climate.
You don’t seriously believe that the contributors fund the data costs out of their own pockets?
but you already knew that.
The RC illuminata link uses eli as a source; talk about the Worm Ouroboros.
Positive Indian Ocean Dipole events precondition southeast Australia bushfires
W. Cai
Wealth from Oceans Flagship, CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research, Aspendale, Victoria, Australia
T. Cowan
Wealth from Oceans Flagship, CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research, Aspendale, Victoria, Australia
M. Raupach
CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research, Canberra, ACT, Australia
The devastating “Black Saturday” bushfire inferno in the southeast Australian state of Victoria in early February 2009 and the “Ash Wednesday” bushfires in February 1983 were both preceded by a positive Indian Ocean Dipole (pIOD) event. Is there a systematic pIOD linkage beyond these two natural disasters? We show that out of 21 significant bushfires seasons since 1950, 11 were preceded by a pIOD. During Victoria’s wet season, particularly spring, a pIOD contributes to lower rainfall and higher temperatures exacerbating the dry conditions and increasing the fuel load leading into summer. Consequently, pIODs are effective in preconditioning Victoria for bushfires, more so than El Niño events, as seen in the impact on soil moisture on interannual time scales and in multi-decadal changes since the 1950s. Given that the recent increase in pIOD occurrences is consistent with what is expected from global warming, an increased bushfire risk in the future is likely across southeast Australia.
Received 6 July 2009; accepted 11 August 2009; published 9 October 2009.
Citation: Cai, W., T. Cowan, and M. Raupach (2009), Positive Indian Ocean Dipole events precondition southeast Australia bushfires, Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L19710, doi:10.1029/2009GL039902.
IOD; http://web.maths.unsw.edu.au/~matthew/Ummenhofer.etal_2009_SEA.pdf QED
Sigh and yawn – not even close to QED Cohers
GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 36, L11705, doi:10.1029/2009GL037604, 2009
Recent unprecedented skewness towards positive Indian Ocean Dipole occurrences and its impact on Australian rainfall
W. Cai, T. Cowan, and A. Sullivan
CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research,
Aspendale, Victoria, Australia
Abstract
[1] Is the recent high frequency of positive Indian Ocean Dipole (pIOD) events a consequence of global warming? Using available observations and reanalyses, we show that the pIOD occurrences increase from about four per 30 years early in the 20th century to about 10 over the last 30 years; by contrast, the number of negative Indian Ocean Dipole (nIOD) events decreases from about 10 to two over the same periods, respectively. A skewness measure, defined as the difference in occurrences of pIODs and nIODs, illustrates a systematic trend in this parameter commencing early in the 20th century. After 1950, there are more pIODs than nIODs, with consistent mean circulation changes in the pIOD-prevalent seasons. Over southeastern Australia (SEA), these changes potentially account for much of the observed austral winter and spring rainfall reduction since 1950. These features are consistent with projected future climate change and hence with what is expected from global warming.
But
Nicholls http://www.ccrc.unsw.edu.au/PDF/LATEST%20program_SEA_workshop.pdf
“Causes” of decline in rainfall
Immediate cause:
– Fewer and/or drier rain events
Proximate cause:
– Increased pressure; STR intensity/latitude
– Shift in storm tracks
Intermediate cause (circulation “modes”):
– Tropical SSTs
– ENSO, SAM, IOD
Ultimate cause
– Natural (PDO/IOD)
– Greenhouse/ozone depletion
– Aerosols
Local
Northern Hemisphere
March-August southern
Australian rainfall decline:
Reflects increased local pressures
Cannot be explained by trend in SSTs
around northern Australia (trend is wrong
sign)
Cannot be explained by trend in NINO3
(trend is too weak)
Cannot be explained by trend in IOD
(western pole of IOD is unrelated to
rainfall; eastern pole trend is wrong sign)
May be explained by trend in SAM (but
doubts about data and strength of trend
and physical link)
AND so onto Timbal ! Op cit.
The on-going drought is explained by the strengthening of the STR
(80% of the rainfall signal reproduced by the STR-I anomalies)
The STR is responding to global temperature of the planet
(two periods of warming during the 20th century as well as one of stabilisation)
(not by chance since it is reproduced by a fully coupled GCM –ensemble-)
Anthropogenic emissions are needed for a model to reproduce the STR intensification
(as well as a long list of regional changes which resemble the observations:
regional temperature rise, MSLP build up, the rainfall decline: autumn in SWEA)
The WWII drought is the first protracted drought in SEA partly due to G.W.
(albeit only 30% can be explained by the STR-I linked to G.W.)
The big differences between WWII and now:WWII was an Australia-wide drought, now: Australia-wide wet period … are we still the driest inhabited continent on earth? (Ian Smith was right!!!!!!!!)
Tropical SSTs (natural variability) was the largest contributor -even in SWEA-
Currently, tropical SSTs have help reduced the magnitude of our drought (small)
It’s AGW – QED !
Interesting, i have for the first time this morning made a post at real climate…it sat for 4 hours waiting to be moderated ( fair enough), but has now been scrapped.
I suggested maybe they could look at rosenthals rats and also that the science is not black and white and shutting down debate or suggesting the debate be shut down is anti science and speaks poorly of RC.
No abuse, no names. Maybe I should not have asked these questions.
“Does anybody really think without new technology that we will reduce emissions on a global basis?” and
history is riddled with examples of negative feedbacks but where are the examples of positive feedback that the models rely on for the projections?
Luke’s clots including the ineffable Mike Raupach of CSIRO “show that out of 21 significant bushfires seasons since 1950, 11 were preceded by a pIOD”. Wow! Ever played 2-up? That statement perfectly exemplifies CSIRO’s shoddiness on AGW – but they are giving a better gloss to harlotry, which does at least provide a social service.
Come to think of it but AGW is much like proposing that an ice-cube could emit IR to raise the temperature of a nearby glass of water. Ie a IR radiation from a cooler volume matter is supposed to be capable of elevating the temperature of a hotter volume of matter.
Louis,
Science, schmience what do the warmenistas care about science, it’s all about raking in the dosh.
Look at this little earner
http://eco-anxiety.blogspot.com/
Luke, I agree, the sceptics are dumb, they see no way to profit from this scam while the other side is
laughing all the way to the bank.
Either as fully employed “scientist” spivs or scare merchants.
Marcus
True but given the earnestness of these people, I think they actually believe their science to be correct – Glikson had an “interesting” thing published by CCnet yesterday – and if they actually believe all this stuff – then we have a very serious problem in science. I never thought I would live to see a scientific Dark Age but looks like I am wrong.
The loonies are in charge again.
Louis
“I never thought I would live to see a scientific Dark Age but looks like I am wrong.”
I said it many times, most people think technological advances equate advanced human intelligence.
Nothing can be further from the truth, a stone age man was just as, if not more intelligent as we are today.
If he had not been, we would not be here today, or would not have the standard of living we enjoy.
So, be not surprised by seeing an other “scientific Dark Age ” coming.
We are capable achieving greatness and also great stupidity.
Yes Luke this is a sceptics site and there are people here who don’t subscribe to the greenhouse effect .
I think cloud cover at night, keeping things warm, gives a compelling illusion that the atmosphere acts as a blanket over the entire earth, even if you were to have absolutely no water in it at all.
But if you were to eliminate water from the equation (out of the atmosphere),what have you got left to keep the heat in? Think other planets.
On the sceptics side of the fence – the sceptic scientists say that water vapour “accounts for about 94,95,96% of the greenhouse effect” It seems quite an imprecise figure bandied about-; in such a way that it gives me the impression that they are either giving the warming scientists a 4,5,6% leeway or that there is a 4,5,6% doubt in their minds.
If they were to come out and say that water is 99.99% the cause of all heat retention then that would be tantamount to admitting they shouldn’t have used the words “greenhouse effect” in their statements in the first place.
But we all know where the words “greenhouse” came from back in the ’80s –out of the mouths of Gore and his sidekicks..a cursed lie which is going to be around with us for a little while yet.
Mack – do you seriously believe the load of utter nonsense and stupid rot you just penned? OMIGOD ! What a case. Yea – whatever mate ….
Meanwhile melt rates are up
Increasing rates of ice mass loss from the Greenland
and Antarctic ice sheets revealed by GRACE
I. Velicogna1,2
Received 28 July 2009; revised 26 August 2009; accepted 3 September 2009; published 13 October 2009.
[1] We use monthly measurements of time-variable gravity
from the GRACE (Gravity Recovery and Climate
Experiment) satellite gravity mission to determine the ice
mass-loss for the Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets during
the period between April 2002 and February 2009. We find
that during this time period the mass loss of the ice sheets
is not a constant, but accelerating with time, i.e., that the
GRACE observations are better represented by a quadratic
trend than by a linear one, implying that the ice sheets
contribution to sea level becomes larger with time. In
Greenland, the mass loss increased from 137 Gt/yr in
2002–2003 to 286 Gt/yr in 2007–2009, i.e., an acceleration
of _30 ± 11 Gt/yr2 in 2002–2009. In Antarctica the mass
loss increased from 104 Gt/yr in 2002–2006 to 246 Gt/yr
in 2006–2009, i.e., an acceleration of _26 ± 14 Gt/yr2 in
2002–2009. The observed acceleration in ice sheet mass
loss helps reconcile GRACE ice mass estimates obtained
for different time periods. Citation: Velicogna, I. (2009),
Increasing rates of ice mass loss from the Greenland and Antarctic
ice sheets revealed by GRACE, Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L19503,
doi:10.1029/2009GL040222.
And oh look El Nino has changed … Japanese Al Gores – golly they’re everywhere
El Niño Modoki and its possible teleconnection
Karumuri Ashok
Frontier Research Center for Global Change/JAMSTEC, Yokohama, Kanagawa, Japan
Swadhin K. Behera
Frontier Research Center for Global Change/JAMSTEC, Yokohama, Kanagawa, Japan
Suryachandra A. Rao
Frontier Research Center for Global Change/JAMSTEC, Yokohama, Kanagawa, Japan
Hengyi Weng
Frontier Research Center for Global Change/JAMSTEC, Yokohama, Kanagawa, Japan
Toshio Yamagata
Frontier Research Center for Global Change/JAMSTEC, Yokohama, Kanagawa, Japan
Department of Earth and Planetary Science, Graduate School of Science, University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan
Using observed data sets mainly for the period 1979–2005, we find that anomalous warming events different from conventional El Niño events occur in the central equatorial Pacific. This unique warming in the central equatorial Pacific associated with a horseshoe pattern is flanked by a colder sea surface temperature anomaly (SSTA) on both sides along the equator. empirical orthogonal function (EOF) analysis of monthly tropical Pacific SSTA shows that these events are represented by the second mode that explains 12% of the variance. Since a majority of such events are not part of El Niño evolution, the phenomenon is named as El Niño Modoki (pseudo-El Niño) (“Modoki” is a classical Japanese word, which means “a similar but different thing”). The El Niño Modoki involves ocean-atmosphere coupled processes which include a unique tripolar sea level pressure pattern during the evolution, analogous to the Southern Oscillation in the case of El Niño. Hence the total entity is named as El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO) Modoki. The ENSO Modoki events significantly influence the temperature and precipitation over many parts of the globe. Depending on the season, the impacts over regions such as the Far East including Japan, New Zealand, western coast of United States, etc., are opposite to those of the conventional ENSO. The difference maps between the two periods of 1979–2004 and 1958–1978 for various oceanic/atmospheric variables suggest that the recent weakening of equatorial easterlies related to weakened zonal sea surface temperature gradient led to more flattening of the thermocline. This appears to be a cause of more frequent and persistent occurrence of the ENSO Modoki event during recent decades.
Received 4 July 2006; accepted 13 June 2007; published 8 November 2007.
Citation: Ashok, K., S. K. Behera, S. A. Rao, H. Weng, and T. Yamagata (2007), El Niño Modoki and its possible teleconnection, J. Geophys. Res., 112, C11007, doi:10.1029/2006JC003798.
And so much for OHC groupies – just a matter of time
A new perspective on warming of the global oceans
M. D. Palmer, S. A. Good, K. Haines, N. A. Rayner and P. A. Stott-
Submitted to Geophysical Research Letters – Revised August 2009
Abstract
Changes in ocean circulation associated with internal climate variability have a
major influence on upper ocean temperatures, particularly in regions such as the
North Atlantic, which are relatively well-observed and therefore over-represented in
the observational record. As a result, global estimates of upper ocean heat content
can give misleading estimates of the roles of natural and anthropogenic factors in
causing oceanic warming. We present a method to quantify ocean warming that
filters out the natural internal variability from both observations and climate
simulations and better isolates externally forced air-sea heat flux changes. We
obtain a much clearer picture of the drivers of oceanic temperature changes, being
able to detect the effects of both anthropogenic and volcanic influences
simultaneously in the observed record. Our results show that climate models are
capable of capturing in remarkable detail the externally forced component of ocean
temperature evolution over the last five decades.
And poor Cohers – PDO doesn’t really exist. Red noise. hahahahahaha
Tropical origins of North and South Pacific decadal variability
Jeremy D. Shakun
Department of Geosciences, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon, USA
Jeffrey Shaman
College of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon, USA
The origin of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), the leading mode of sea surface temperature variability for the North Pacific, is a matter of considerable debate. One paradigm views the PDO as an independent mode centered in the North Pacific, while another regards it as a largely reddened response to El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) forcing from the tropics. We calculate the Southern Hemisphere equivalent of the PDO index based on the leading mode of sea surface temperature variability for the South Pacific and find that it adequately explains the spatial structure of the PDO in the North Pacific. A first-order autoregressive model forced by ENSO is used to reproduce the observed PDO indices in the North and South Pacific. These results highlight the strong similarity in Pacific decadal variability on either side of the equator and suggest it may best be viewed as a reddened response to ENSO.
So if ENSO changes … well you know where I’m going don’t you Cohers. The others can pick their noses and talk about Al Gore.
Lukebaby !
ie nothing.
BTW we’re still having our asses frozen down here.
AAhahahhahahahhahaha.
PDO and red noise;
http://www.beringclimate.noaa.gov/regimes/Red_noise_paper_v3_with_figures.pdf
luke, what is a reddened response?
SST is declining;
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/AMSR-E-SST-thru-10-14-09.jpg
Luke is much like a librarian, knows all the references etc and nothing about the contents of those references but, unlike a librarian, is rude, crude and vulgar.
Pretty well on par for a Queenslander working for the Long Paddock department.
OHC is declining;
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/ocean_heat_spike.png
And when the 2002-2003 transition artifact is removed the idea that OHC is the hidey-hole of AGW becomes untenable; David Stockwell will be doing an analysis of the removal of the artifact which is responsible for almost 1/2 of OHC increase over the AGW relevant period.
The OHC and PDO are inextricably linked;
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/08/17/evidence-that-ocean-net-heat-flow-is-connected-with-climate-shifts-co2-not-correlated/#more-10022
And that is verified by the increase in TOA OLR;
http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009GL039628-pip.pdf
In this Lindzen analysis of ERBE data TOA OLR is shown to be increasing in contradiction of every computer model [p 17]; the increase in TOA OLR is consistent with the PDO OHC coupling and requires no AGW imput, in fact contradicts AGW imput.
Which brings us to sea level and melting Greenland and Antartica; the quadratic trend is used to indicate an acceleration; this is clearly not happening because the rate of sea level increase is declining; where is the water going? Have I missed anything; Modoki; there is nothing new about the El Nino Modoki;
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/07/there-is-nothing-new-about-el-nino.html
Luke, you are being delirious,
Some of us might not post a plethora of links, but we DO read about the subject matter, and may I add, from both sides.
How can you state, with a straight face, that ice losses are “increasing” according to some, yet fail to mention the actual, indisputable empirical evidence, that they are not!
There are two sides to every issue and you Sir are only looking at one side.
And to top if off you have the nerve to call us “deniers”, you would make me laugh if you meant it as a joke, but you are serious, which makes it worse.
Stupid comment Sinkers. And belies the fact that you are unable to address anything but your eccentric ideas. This is an evidence based blog matey – not where you get to sprout personal kookery as hard science. Engage – don’t be shy when confronted with reality !
I know the cognitive dissonance is crushing.
OHC is wrong ! hahahahahaha
mate the big science machine is just steamrolling over you. Give it away !
Don’t be so utterly stupid Marcus – GRACE is empirical data. Like the two remote sensing papers on ice further up. Why don’t you stop being so utterly stupid and start reading. Stop being part of the predictable denialist scum and start thinking.
We’re now seeing paper after paper on these impacts. We’re seeing massive changes in atmospheric processes and you’re picking your nose. You clown.
Here’s some more – sudden change in the monsoons (too hard for Sinkers of course – he’ll only hand wave)
Summer monsoon moisture variability over China and
Mongolia during the past four centuries
Jinbao Li,1,2 Edward R. Cook,1 Fahu Chen,2 Nicole Davi,1 Rosanne D’Arrigo,1
Xiaohua Gou,2 Wiliam E. Wright,1 Keyan Fang,2 Liya Jin,2 Jiangfeng Shi,3 and Tao
Yang,2
1Tree-Ring Laboratory, Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University,
Palisades, New York, USA.
2Center for Arid Environment and Paleoclimate Research, MOE Key Laboratory of West
China’s Environmental System, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China.
3School of Geographic and Oceanographic Sciences, Nanjing University, Nanjing, China.
1
Abstract
A great impediment of Asian monsoon (AM) climate studies is the general lack of longterm
observations of large-scale monsoon variability. Here we present a well-verified
reconstruction of temporal changes in the dominant summer moisture pattern over China
and Mongolia (CM), based on a network of tree-ring chronologies (1600-1991). The
reconstruction reveals significant changes in the large-scale AM over the past four centuries,
which coincide with dramatic episodes in Chinese history over the period of record. These
episodes include the fall of the Ming Dynasty (AD 1644) and the catastrophic famine during
China’s Great Leap Forward (1958-1961). Overall, the reconstructed AM strength
corresponds well with Northern Hemisphere temperature proxies over the past four centuries.
Yet, this relationship has broken down in recent decades, raising the possibility that the
major driving force of monsoon dynamics has shifted from natural to anthropogenic in
nature.
Just think guys – all these effects are “just happening” ….hahahahahahahahaha
Luke: those articles you cite are invaluable, as they all refute the notion that GHG have anything at all to do with any of the phenomena they discuss, whether it be ENSO or a game of 2-up (Raupach et al).Many thanks, you have earned your citation in my next, which will not be in E&E.
“as they all refute the notion that GHG have anything at all to do with any of the phenomena they discuss” Gee Timmy how’s that? Everyone else sees the opposite.
Gee – are you going to publish somewhere serious? Might have to start calling your Sir.
And more bad news for solar devotees
GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 36, L19704, doi:10.1029/2009GL040142, 2009
Total solar irradiance during the Holocene
F. Steinhilber and J. Beer
Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology,
Dübendorf, Switzerland
C. Fröhlich
Physikalisch-Meteorologisches Observatorium Davos, World Radiation Center,
Davos Dorf, Switzerland
Abstract
[1] For the first time a record of total solar irradiance covering 9300 years is presented, which covers almost the entire Holocene. This reconstruction is based on a recently observationally derived relationship between total solar irradiance and the open solar magnetic field. Here we show that the open solar magnetic field can be obtained from the cosmogenic radionuclide 10Be measured in ice cores. Thus, 10Be allows to reconstruct total solar irradiance much further back than the existing record of the sunspot number which is usually used to reconstruct total solar irradiance. The resulting increase in solar-cycle averaged TSI from the Maunder Minimum to the present amounts to (0.9 ± 0.4) Wm−2. In combination with climate models, our reconstruction offers the possibility to test the claimed links between climate and TSI forcing.
Received 20 July 2009; accepted 11 August 2009; published 2 October 2009.
Keeping up here Sinkers?
Luke
Have it your way, you are a rude and uncouth human being, can’t be bothered with you.
As to your last post re. “GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 36, L19704”
Keep your eyes and ear open, although I’m sure you won’t advertise the responses.
Loopey Luke: just cut and paste here each and every reference to [CO2] in the papers you have cited here today. And while you are at it let’s see your own stellar list of publications (lapidary and ignored Briefs to your even thicker masters do not count).
Your Steinhilber & Beer have as their names suggest spent too much time boozing in Munich, as they have not noticed there is more variation in the NOAA stats on SR since 1960 than in their fatuous data.
The solar paper looks interesting luke but there is an apparent rebuttal here;
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=1396
This article is supported by the Monahan and Dai and Sun and Yu papers on ENSO accumulation;
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/adai/papers/MonahanDai_JC04.pdf
http://www.atmos.ucla.edu/~sun/doc/Sun_Yu_JCL_2009.pdf
Which is to say there is a ready mechanism explained to describe the recent warming in the 2nd 1/2 of the 20thC despite a flat sun.
Looks like Marcus has tossed in the towel. Bad luck old chap but don’t the nana when you’re beat. Off to your bedroom for a little cry now.
Poor old Timmy reduced to hand waving desperately.
Cohers – there’s always a rebuttal, but at what point does the penny drop with you lot. Simplest explanation is that its complex but underneath AGW is ON ! Where will the bouncing ball lead next.
All this talk about AGW being dead is just denialists humping each other. The research is proliferating and much falling into place.
I notice all here have avoided the STR like the plague. hohohohoho
luke says: “Don’t be so utterly stupid Marcus – GRACE is empirical data”; bad empirical data;
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/10/20/antarctic_ice_loss_overestimated/
And what exotic meaning do you have for STR luke?
With our hostess away, the Luke seems to be getting rather hysterical.
I hope the ensemble does not start feeding on itself, or possibly beating itself up.
Luke- all of you- the only thing falling into place is how much nothing AGW is, was, and will be.
If I was in your position – that of an exposed ass- I would be hand waving hysterically as well.
Keep up the gesticulating. It keeps things lively while Jennifer is out.
Nonsense Cohers – those measurements themselves are far from conclusive. Wake up.
In any case the rebound does only take some off the top – doesn’t explain the acceleration.
In any case I rather preferred
Wingham, D. J., D. W. Wallis, and A. Shepherd
(2009), Spatial and temporal evolution of Pine Island Glacier
thinning, 1995 – 2006, Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L17501,
doi:10.1029/2009GL039126.
Extensive dynamic thinning on the margins of the
Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets
Hamish D. Pritchard1, Robert J. Arthern1, David G. Vaughan1 & Laura A. Edwards2
doi:10.1038/nature08471
Hunter – gee what science laden comments (not)
“exotic meaning” – you mean defining moment.
http://www.ccrc.unsw.edu.au/PDF/Timbal_UNSW2009.pdf
It’s over Cohers – you can all go home now for a sook.
Just as Luke & co exemplify a debased public “service”, so also Harry Clarke for economics as being taught at Australian universities if he is representative. Here is part of his “critique” of the new movie “Not Evil Just Wrong” at his Blog:
“Another insidious use of the media to twist public opinion is the film ‘Not Evil Just Wrong’ which I was unfortunate enough to see today – a promo is here. Endorsed by the libertarian loonies – it is a hideous instance of the big lie. Distortion built on distortion with illogic everywhere. It is a particularly nasty piece of propaganda. The junk science in the movie is demolished here.”
That link leads to the following “science” as endorsed by Harry:
“1. ‘They want to raise our taxes’ [allegedly quoting the movie] No, that’s pure, uncomposted bovine excrement.
2. They want to close our factories.’ That’s more effluent from the anus of male bovines.”
So head for Melbourne and Monash for more sophisticated economic analysis of the ETS. The truth that is beyond Harry is that the ETS is in the nature of an excise tax on the source of about 90% of Australia’s energy, as that is its purpose, to tax that source out of business in favour of “clean” energy sources. As Richard Dennis of the AI has cogently shown, “clean” energy on the scale required at a price to the consumer that is the same as current sources is a pipe dream, and simply assumed by the Treasury to be available by 2030. Absent “clean” energy available at today’s prices of electricity and petrol, the fact is that many industries in this country will close or relocate offshore, e.g. many of those at Gladstone such as alumina and aluminium. That is why, as has evidently escaped the notice of the Clarkes and Quiggins, the Rudd government has (1) drastically cut its actual target for emissions reduction to just 5% by 2020 and (2) is enormously increasing its exemptions for EITE industries and power generators, especially those in Labor seats of course.
Sure, the movie used the very same techniques – so beloved by Clarke when displayed by Michael Moore and Al Gore – to make its points, including the letter delivery to the Gore cottage complete with its black butler, but why not? sauce for the Gore goose… US steelworkers will indeed feel the pinch of an ETS, except of course that Obama will allow even larger exemptions than contemplated here.
Richard Tol (who will be present by video link at the IPA fest in Melbourne on 10th November) famously said at JQ’s blog in 2007 that he like Stern is not fit to teach economics, the same applies a fortiori to Clarke with his acceptance that to say ETS is like a tax is “pure, uncomposted bovine excrement”.
If you can’t do the science, and live for linear regression and polo (!?) – try hand waving as Timmy shows. More denialist alarmism.
“However, any sudden increase in the rate of ice
loss will be resolved unambiguously by GRACE
since the mass rates associated with PGR (postglacial rebound) do not
change significantly over several years.”
sigh – as you see Cohers.
Lukey boy is claiming that the:
1) air temp increase is accelerating
2) arctic, antarctica, greenland, and glacier melt is accelerating
3) OHC is accelerating
4) sea level rise is accelerating
Let this dumb not even farmboy take a guess. Lukey baby, turn the charts so they are right side up. That’s a good boy!!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
As I reminded Nicky boy at another thread, trends are not data. All the data is DOWN for alarmists!!!
Where did I say that exactly? As usual – never trust a wiggle watching denialist to represent anything.
STR; saw Stewie Franks today; he has just had a paper on the STR and IOD accepted for publication in GPR; proves the dominance of the natural cycle; should be interesting.
Luke,
No not keeping up at all – I’ve always ignored your Lynsekoism and treat the AGW for what it is. My anecdote concerning the ice-cube summarises it.
I have a real job to do, not your taxpayer funded climate creche supervisory role.
Hi Folks – still at it I see. I recalled reading about satelite experiments to measure the rebound of the earth’s surface since the last ice age a few years ago – it was an experment to see if the techniqe worked, so I was intriuged by of Luke’s post about the GRACE and it’s ability to measre the rate of change of glaciers – seemed a bit far fetched so I had a look at the GRACE Mission Statement:-
“The gravity field of the Earth is variable in both space and time, and is an integral constraint on the mean and time variable mass distribution in the Earth. The science data from GRACE mission will be used to estimate global models for the mean and time variable Earth gravity field approximately every 30 days for the 5 year lifetime of the mission. The science data from GRACE mission consists of the inter-satellite range change measurements, and the accelerometer, GPS and attitude measurements from each satellite.”
No much there about climate change ….
Although “A secondary experiment that GRACE will perform is to examine how the atmosphere affects signals from the Global Positioning System (GPS).
“The GRACE mission combined with other existing sources of data will greatly improve our understanding of:
* Geodesy
* Glaciology
* Hydrology
* Oceanography
* Solid Earth Sciences ”
With Russian, Australian and UK antarctic researchers (the last two seemingly grudgingly) admitting that the Antarctic continent has not warmed but rather has has cooled slightly and ice increased this century; and average southern hemisphere sea ice extent gradually, steadilly increasing for 30 yrs – see eg. Uni of Illinois Cryosphere web, maybe the experimantal GRACE needs to get her gravitometer recalibrated
SJT is right,
I am intimidated by science. If it’s green, it’s biology; if it stinks, it’s chemistry; if it’s frightening, it’s physics; if it breaks down, it’s technology; if it involves prejudice, it’s Lukology. Where does Voltaire come into this? Something about ‘prejudice is the reason of fools?’. That will puzzle SJT. It won’t puzzle Luke – he knows it is true. He probably knows his Candice. Then again, maybe not. I am so glad I attended Brussels University.
Oh mon Dieu, zat should be Candide.
WOW, Cohenite had a confirmed sighting of Stewie Franks ” he has just had a paper on the STR and IOD accepted for publication in GPR; proves the dominance of the natural cycle;”. Sorry , no , it proves the dominance of beliefs and simple regressions, but mechanism and evidence -based science is unmoved.
Here’s an article in tonights paper about people who think along the same lines as you Lukebaby…
PET DOGS ” BAD FOR GLOBAL WARMING ”
The eco-footprint of a pet dog is twice that of a 4.6 Land Cruiser driven 10,000 kilometres a year, researchers have found.
Professors Brenda and Robert Vale, who specialise in sustainable living at Victoria University,say pet owners should swap cats and dogs for creatures they can eat,such as chickens or rabbits,in their provocative new book Time to Eat the Dog : The Real Guide to Sustainable Living.
The couple have compared the carbon emissions created by popular pets, based on pet food ingredients and land use,with those of other lifestyle choices.
“A lot of people worry about having SUVs but they don’t worry about having alsatians….(but) the environmental impact of those two things is comparable.” Brenda Vale said.
The couple found that cats have an eco-footprint slightly less than that of a Volkswagon Golf,and that a pair of hamsters is equivalent to owning a plasma television.
Mrs Vale said the book’s title was meant to shock,but the couple,who do not own a cat or dog, believe that the reintroduction of non-carnivorous pets into urban areas would help to slow global warming.
“Though we are not advocating eating anyones pet cat or dog,there is certainly some truth in the fact that if we have edible pets like chickens for their eggs and meat, and rabbits and pigs,we will be compensating for the impact of other things on our environment” Mrs Vale said.
She took her message to the Wellington City Council last year, but councillors said banning traditional pets or letting people keep food animals in their homes were not palatable options. (even the paper loves it!)
Kelly Jeffery , a german sheperd breeder from Paraparaumu, said eliminating traditional pets would be “over the top”.
Ahahaha Where do these people come from?!!!!!
Lukebaby! you better rush out and buy their book for more ideas on saving the planet!
I hope these people are not doing this on taxpayer’s time !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Ahahahahahahahahahahaha..AAAhahahahahahaha
Boring Cohers – no mechanisms as Bazza said. Stats not worth a bumper. Get modelling or perish without insight. Fringe dwelling statisticians who think they know something about climate. Stewie is gonna have to run to keep up now. The CAWCR boys have gone to another level.
Mack – yawn – didn’t even read it.
Spare us the bulldust Davey – where’s your reading up to?
Roger – does sea ice extent imply more or less more icepack ? Have a ponder.
Louis – excuses, excuses.
Jesus Davey, it’s “Candide”. I have even seen the musical.
Well done SJT, now read the book, with particular attention to Dr Pangloss.
Luke, Having tolerated your bulldust for years, I don’t see why I should spare you from mine. At least my bulldust has a rich classical patina. Yours is just grey cat vomit. I tried clicking on one of the SRT websites you recommended, and my computer froze. Is this symbolic of the state of AGW ‘science’?
I am off to Amazon.com to see if they have any more books by Voltaire, or Garth Paltridge. Good luck with your Fortran.
Greenland and WAP glacier decline is really at the forefront of the AGW alarmism; the Grace data is wrong; here is the summation:
“The WAGN boffins say they are sure that recent figures for ice loss calculated from GRACE readings have been overestimated, but they are not yet sure by how much. However, they say that there is no dispute about the fact that ice is disappearing from the antarctic sheet – this process has been underway for 20,000 years, since the thickness peaked during the last “glacial maximum”.
For “20,000 years” sort of pre-dates AGW; in any event the ice record at WAP is not as simple as AGW states;
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/2007GL032529.shtml
AND sea level increase is declining:
http://www.ocean-sci-discuss.net/6/31/2009/osd-6-31-2009.html
I’ve defended drunks who were more credible than AGW science.
Sigh – from the ACTUAL paper
“However, any sudden increase in the rate of ice
loss will be resolved unambiguously by GRACE
since the mass rates associated with PGR (postglacial rebound) do not
change significantly over several years.”
Which it has done regardless of long term PGR !!! QED !
Wouldn’t employ you as a lawyer then. No research on the brief.
And what a bit of classic stupid wiggle watching denialism – sea level has decreased since 2005. WOW !
ROTFL. See the history of sea level rise – does the trend wiggle around against a background of continuous rise – YES
So desperate Cohers. So desperate.
NEXT !
So Luke,
Thinking of the Arctic, (whose see ice extent is roaring (well perhaps not roaring) back with multi-year ice building), “does sea ice extent imply more or less more icepack ? Have a ponder.”
Lukers,
“ROTFL. See the history of sea level rise – does the trend wiggle around against a background of continuous rise – YES”
Yup, a rise of about 1.4mm/yr!!
Too bad Gubmint types are too slow to catch up. We’ll leave you a message in the next century Lukers!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Yes KookyKat but alas anthropogenic forcing is the dominant reason
Jevrejeva, S., A. Grinsted, and J. C. Moore
Anthropogenic forcing dominates sea level rise since 1850
Geophys. Res. Lett., doi:10.1029/2009GL040216, in press.
HHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Well done SJT, now read the book, with particular attention to Dr Pangloss.
If it’s all the same with you, I’d rather pay particular attention to Candice.
Once again, it’s dodging the science, isn’t it Davey?
Is the Luke’s tax payer funded job to troll and make an ass of themselves at public expense, or are they simply yet more over employed bureaucrats pretending to work?
Citing self-referential crap is not winning arguments, you guys.
But it is a typical tactic of AGW extremists to simply try and bury discussions by filling up the threads with spam.
Well done, the Luke.
14 short days since Jen deserted, and less than a response an hour since, and she has to get to 40 days in the desert to test her faith that the free market can solve all. But alas, already she has succumbed to temptation and asked that same market for funds. “There is a little orange button at the right-hand side of this page. It asks for A$50. ” Whither pride?Maybe the desert is growing.? Maybe Jen is disenchanted with the desert of ideas and the crap from the sceptic camp after she has seen afresh the dystopia of the AGW sceptics.? Only Cohenite attempts some mock-prissy pretence of an evidence based approach, but as lawyers do it is not about truth and justice , it is about his client and his fee, and it is no match for the might of the one or two who still and stoically defend what was an overwhelming weight of evidence even two decades ago.
Bazza – one hopes it is not a James Morrison in the desert experience. Windows of perception.
Or perhaps it’s an AGW induced desert http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2yPqYl6DJJs&feature=related
Or perhaps Jen’s in search of the real Australia but can’t forget it anywhere? (because of AGW) Remember Jen you can’t take a holiday from yourself.
bazza,
Pointing out the lack of evidence for AGW requires only showing that there is no evidence for AGW.
We do not have to come up with evidence. The only thing to show is that nothing of signifcane or unusual nature has occurred – it has not- and that in every case, bad data, bad techniques, and trimming the process to fit the deisred outcome, has taken place – and it has.
Your side’s evidence, as Luke demonstrates, is the evidentiary equivalent of a corpulent naked emperor strutting around.
I will bet you a donation to Jen’s site that her novel, and her pov, will only confirm what more and more people know: that AGW is bunk.
I suspect Jen has had a gutfull of the trolls on this site. – I know I have.
I also bet none of the trolls have hit the orange button even though this site appears to be their only purpose in life.
Hey Luke – why don’t you go over to the Greens site and have a lovefest with Clive Hamilton – I’m sure you two would get along nicely.
Monckton for 1 hr on Canadian TV for a week ago – well worth watching – 5 parts.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2zaPCYgovg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nH_tD2E1qXU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_cCxdT6Trko
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=glMu6A3Uync
“It asks for A$50. ” Whither pride?Maybe the desert is growing.?”
Well Bazza, you should be grateful for blogs like this where you are allowed to state opinions like yours that disagree with the bias of the blog.
Real Climate a poster boy of you believers, would not allow you to make a bitchy post like your nasty one about Jen asking for money. It won t even allow you to make a post that doubts the subject matter. They sensor posts heavily and expect respect. They are yet another example of why we should be sceptical.
Janama – well it’s simple – you should stop being a troll and contribute meaningfully to the debate.
But I guess you’d like a nice redneck backslapping content free old boy site wouldn’t you – where your lack of insight and moronic drivel isn’t confronted !
I’ve contributed to the orange button long ago – but have you? So don’t verbal me denialist scum.
I’m not here to contribute to the debate Luke – I’m not a scientist. I come from the performing arts.
I’m just your regular punter who is interested in the subject and has been for some time and so far you and your uncouth diatribe hasn’t convinced me of anything meaningful as far as your case is concerned. You are basically a joke.
I object to being called denialist scum – if you slung the abuse you sling here on any other website, blog or forum, including my own, you’d have been banned ages ago.
I’m not a redneck and in any other field apart from climate change I’d be considered a full on lefty, possibly even left of you!
I don’t hear you complaining about robust comments from others so as far as I’m concerned you’re a total hypocrite. BTW I object to being termed an alarmist and many other comments levelled by a good number of commentators.
So have you contributed to Jen’s tip jar lately while you’re speaking out of your hat ?
You see unlike other commentators who seem to care who you are, where you live, what you do, how you vote etc – I don’t care. It’s simply the AGW debate. What is good fun of course is indulging all The Luke inc stuff. Shows how unobjective and suggestible they are. hahahahaha. A mile out. So much for any logical analysis.
Lukers sings;
“Yes KookyKat but alas anthropogenic forcing is the dominant reason”
And he prove it by,
wait for it
STATING IT IS SO!!!!!!
Come on Lukeless say it. I want you to make a formal statement that you believe that is an excellent paper in terms of scientific procedure, data, honesty, and intent. That it expresses the best in modern Scientific endeavour!! And you CAN’T LAUGH!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Lukeless, I thought I came up with some sketchy papers. You beat me hands down every post!!!
The robust comments of others I find to be just that – robust – yours are arrogant abuse – totally different animal.
Yes – I contributed to the tip jar when I first arrived at this site as I’m fully aware of the cost of data these days.
And yes I did contribute to Jen’s walkabout, twice. She’s worth it, as those modern women say.
Lukeless harumphs,
“Janama – well it’s simple – you should stop being a troll and contribute meaningfully to the debate.”
You mean like you and SJT and OLD Sod and sweet Nicky do???
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Hi janama,
Thankyou for the Lord Monckton clips.,
Part 2 was the most reassuring thing I’ve seen. A little bit of hand waving (over the head) from the sceptics you might want to take notice of Luke.
It’s called simple science. The simple answer for the simpletons of AGW.
I can empathise with Jennifer’s walkabout after suffering years of these fear mongering trolls. Listening long enough to their bs can get to you eventually.
Steve Mc has a good solution those old alarmist blues;
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7502
yeah – Listening long enough to their bs can get to you eventually.
I understand she’s out in the NW of NSW
as John Williamson put it:
No a bushman can’t survive on city lights
Opera rock and roll and height of heights
His moon shines on the silver brigalow
Shimmers down the inland river flow
Out there where the yellow belly bites
janama,
Thanks for the video links. Honest and true stuff.
Pity the alarmist creeps wouldn’t watch but I suppose it would upset them more than Superfreakonomics.
Sounds like Jen has gone adriving ‘Back a Bourke’ – once a useful euphemism for beyond the semi-arid and into the arid, well in most years anyway, and more so when El Nino visited. Pity that with climate change ‘Back a Bourke’ has now moved a 100km or more to ‘Front a Bourke.’
Luke,
Excuses? No your moron – when are you going to wake up to the fact that scientific truths are not determined by by debate but from the compulsion of experimental fact!
Science is not about consensus nor debate – but it is clear that this is what you and your fellow morons believe it to be.
Except is isn’t science but politics dressed up in scientific jargon, and debate is surely applicable to issues concerning politics.
Mack – you’re such a mug – try James Annan or Chris Colose for some inside into Monckton’s try-ons. Gullible and suggestible our Mack is.
“True and honest stuff” – what a bunch of rope-a-dopes – hahahahahaha – I’m amazed how much you mugs swallow this rot without the slightest bit of counter research. Drongo for sure.
As Colose said – it’s what Lindzen doesn’t tell you that’s the issue.
True Bazza – but I reckon Jen’s photo was 7.8km south of Bellata. And that would be now the El Nino Modoki frontier.
P.S. Janama – Take the partisan blinkers off matey !
More excuses Sinkers. You’re like the energiser bunny aren’t you.
Come on mate – give it away. Let’s hear some science instead of your tiresome pseudo-cold war claptrap. Boooorrring.
Which way has climate changed for Back of Bourke to become Front of Bourke bazza?
Is that front to back or back to front?
So Luke why would Monckton be just trying us all on? What is his motivation for doing so?
In fact what is the motivation of most sceptics to dispute this science which you declare is settled?
An opinionated aristocrat lamenting the lack of limelight after the good old Maggie days.
He has the time and the money. He’s playing to win but winning isn’t necessarily the truth.
Who knows what motivates sceptics. Reasons vary.
Mack why are there moon land sceptics, creation science advocates and so on …
Luke,
Your quoting crap studies is not science. My pointing out they are crap is completely sufficient, along with the complete lack of cooperation of the climate with your bogus predictions.
“My pointing out they are crap is completely sufficient” Hunter – how utterly quaint.
What a comment from (a) someone who doesn’t read any literature (b) doesn’t understand it anyway (c) never makes a science comment. That’s rich.
Hunter we don’t burn ladies at the stake anymore. Nor believe in rabbits’ feet as charms. Well you might in your county.
As I said previous – a old boys club of backslappers carrying on in echo chamber might have some reassuring values – but isn’t evidence.
Carrying on like a redneck lynch mob or 5th columnists I’m afraid is not science. And you mate are a scientific ignoramus.
Notice how the verballing subtly drifts in – from Mack – “this science which you declare is settled”
Did I say that?
From Huntsbo – “with your bogus predictions” err – which were ?
You guys are now serial liars without even knowing you’re doing it. You’ve lost all perspective.
Anyway of more importance – this is what the risks are:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/10/24/2723137.htm
Do the Chinese know something we don’t
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/23/AR2009102304075.html
And how is that monsoon going?
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/sci;322/5903/940
Just in case nobody else has noticed, this thread has descended into the undead category. At the moment, it’s dominated by trolling, by troll-bashing, and by trolls recovering from their mortal wounds and returning to nosh on the brains of their would-be slayers. I hope that Jennifer returns soon. In the interim, I’ll be spending a little more time at Anthony’s blog.
yes they do Luke.
On October 22, an accord was signed by Xie Zhenhua, China’s vice minister at the National Development and Reform Commission, and Jairam Ramesh, India’s environment minister, in New Delhi. The memorandum provides an alternative framework to counter pressure from America and Europe to adopt mandatory limits on greenhouse gas emissions in a new UN treaty. The two Asian powers will collaborate on the development of renewable power projects and improved energy efficiency programs, while rejecting any outside mandates that would slow economic growth.
Xiao Ziniu, director general of the Beijing Climate Centre, told the British Guardian newspaper recently that “There is no agreed conclusion about how much change is dangerous….Whether the climate turns warmer or cooler, there are both positive and negative effects….In Chinese history, there have been many periods warmer than today.” He disputed the disaster warnings of the UNIPCC, saying, “The accuracy of the prediction is very low because the climate is affected by many mechanisms we do not fully understand.”
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/10/chinaindia_accord_to_scuttle_u.html#
Luke – Colose is a joke – read the comments
http://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2009/10/08/re-visiting-cff/
Janama – what’s issue with Colose??
As for China – try to separate the rhetoric from
“Nonetheless, the government has set ambitious targets for renewable energy, which is supposed to account for 15 percent of the country’s fuel mix by 2020, and for tree planting, to boost forest cover to 20 percent of China’s land mass by the end of next year. China plans to quadruple its nuclear power; by the end of next year, it may have 18 nuclear energy plants under construction, half of the world’s total under construction.”
Luke the issue with Colose is that he doesn’t address Lindzen’s paper which is the paper Monckton addresses. Lindzen’s paper is a published peer reviewed paper, Colose is a blogger – now what have you always said about this factor in the past Luke? Please be consistent.
As for China – your quote is the rhetoric Luke – this is the fact
An article published in China’s Science Times on September 7 cited a study done by Ding Zhongli, vice president of the Science Academy of China. It argued that there is no solid scientific evidence to strictly correlate global temperature rise and CO2 concentrations. Professor Ding noted that some geologists believe that global temperature is related to solar activities and glacial periods, meaning human activity is only one factor that can cause climate change. “Up to now not a single scientist has figured out the weight ratio of each factor on global temperature change,” he wrote.
The author of the Science Times article, Wang Jin, used Ding’s study as part of his larger argument that, “the massive propaganda ‘human activity induced the global temperature increase’ has been accepted by the majority of the society in some countries, and it has become a political and diplomatic issue. Why do the developed countries put an arguable scientific problem on the international negotiation table? The real intention is not for the global temperature increase, but for the restriction of the economic development of the developing countries.” The problem for Beijing is, according to Wang, “How can China fight for its right to emit while continuing to develop its economy?
The answer is to confront the issue head on. At a UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) meeting in Thailand Oct. 5, China and the Group of 77 developing nations reiterated their opposition to any binding commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from “poor” countries and countries with “economies in transition.” They were prepared to walk out of the climate talks if there was any language in the drafts leading to Copenhagen that would limit their actions. As a result, the two weeks of talks in Bangkok ended “without a consensus” on how to proceed.
and India, Russia and Brazil (BRIC) agree. Sortta leaves the US and Europe out in the cold so to speak.
Oh pullease Janama – Colose is a climate scientist.
The blog content is highly technical. At least get on a relevant thread too eh?
http://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2009/03/31/lindzen-on-climate-feedback/
As for China – well what they say – with such vested interests and a on party state.
So this makes good sense doesn’t it.
“Nonetheless, the government has set ambitious targets for renewable energy, which is supposed to account for 15 percent of the country’s fuel mix by 2020, and for tree planting, to boost forest cover to 20 percent of China’s land mass by the end of next year. China plans to quadruple its nuclear power; by the end of next year, it may have 18 nuclear energy plants under construction, half of the world’s total under construction.”
It’s called watch what I do – not watch what I say !
So Janama – as for China this is the fact !
Ray Ladbury says:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/10/climate-cover-up-a-brief-review/comment-page-4/
First, it is rare that you wind up with an outright refutation of a published paper in the scientific literature. Rather, what usually happens is that questions are raised about the data or methodology of the paper. Such is the case with Lindzen’s use of ERBE data. The published work is an improvement [edit] It is still not clear if he is using the most correct version of the ERBE data, particularly since things look very different from Wong et al.
Gavin and James Annan have raised questions about why Lindzen is comparing to AMIP rather than CMIP simulations, which would be the more appropriate comparison. No response from Lindzen. See:
http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2009/08/quick-comment-on-lindzen-and-choi.html
And Chris Colose has done an excellent post that bears on why Lindzen is certainly wrong:
http://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2009/10/08/re-visiting-cff/
Finally, you asked for confidence levels. I commend to you:
http://www.iac.ethz.ch/people/knuttir/papers/knutti08natgeo.pdf
This details most of the independent lines of evidence–all of which favor a climate sensitivity of 3 degrees per doubling–and none of which support a sensitivity as low as 2 degrees per doubling with any confidence.
“Colose is a climate scientist.”
Not according to Wiki. I can’t even find his bio on the net or on his wordpress blog. Does he hold any academic position or is he just as I said – a blogger?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_scientist
Lindzen is an atmospheric physicist and Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.- now that’s serious.
as for China you can’t spin what I posted mate!
Lindzen is a contrarian who can’t be trusted like Spencer. The dispute speaks for itself.
As for his position – ho hum. Can easily produce a larger alternative list – who cares. It’s the facts of the matter.
Ding is yet another unhappy geologist – so who cares. What would you expect.
as for China you can’t spin what I posted – mate !
“Nonetheless, the government has set ambitious targets for renewable energy, which is supposed to account for 15 percent of the country’s fuel mix by 2020, and for tree planting, to boost forest cover to 20 percent of China’s land mass by the end of next year. China plans to quadruple its nuclear power; by the end of next year, it may have 18 nuclear energy plants under construction, half of the world’s total under construction.”
You’re shameless luke; the Colose thread on Lindzen and Wong was a ‘colosal’ beat up; before his comments on Watts Lindzen had written a paper aknowledging the Wong adjustments; I refer that paper here at number 3;
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/04/more-worst-agw-papers/
You can request the paper from Lindzen direct, it is no longer linked. The point about the Wong adjustments is that they still showed a TOA negative feedback; that is indisputable; Lindzen’s subsequent peer-reviewed paper;
http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009GL039628-pip.pdf
clearly shows that negative feedback in an unambiguous fashion; this is contrary to all the model predictions which in conformity with AGW theory predicted a reduction in TOA OLR to reflect a high sensitivity. The article by Colose you link to doesn’t address this at all; it is a rehash of AGW theory; once again we have theory and virtual reality preferred to empirical fact by the AGW acolytes; show me one part of Colose’s thread which rebuts the ERBE data.
“and for tree planting, to boost forest cover to 20 percent of China’s land mass by the end of next year”
It’s spin Luke
20% forest cover promised
Zhao Huanxin
2006-02-28 05:41
A fifth of China’s land area will have forest cover by 2010, the State Forestry Administration vowed yesterday.
Over the past five years, the percentage of China’s land area covered by forests has risen from 16.6 per cent to 18.2 per cent, Jia Zhibang, chief of the forestry agency, told a press conference held by the State Council Information Office yesterday in Beijing.
“By 2010, the country will strive to raise the rate to 20 per cent.”
“China plans to quadruple its nuclear power”
from 1.1% of total energy to 4.4% of total energy output.
spin again.
When the United States’ top energy and commerce officials arrive in China on Tuesday, they will land in the middle of a building storm over China’s protectionist tactics to become the world’s leader in renewable energy.
Calling renewable energy a strategic industry, China is trying hard to make sure that its companies dominate globally. Just as Japan and South Korea made it hard for Detroit automakers to compete in those countries — giving their own automakers time to amass economies of scale in sheltered domestic markets — China is shielding its clean energy sector while it grows to a point where it can take on the world….
China has built the world’s largest solar panel manufacturing industry by exporting over 95 percent of its output to the United States and Europe. But when China authorized its first solar power plant this spring, it required that at least 80 percent of the equipment be made in China.
When the Chinese government took bids this spring for 25 large contracts to supply wind turbines, every contract was won by one of seven domestic companies. All six multinationals that submitted bids were disqualified on various technical grounds, like not providing sufficiently detailed data.
This spring, the Chinese government banned virtually any installation of wind turbines with a capacity of less than 1,000 kilowatts — excluding 850-kilowatt designs, a popular size for European manufacturers….
This year, China passed the United States as the world’s largest market for wind energy. It is now building six wind farms with a capacity of 10,000 to 20,000 megawatts apiece, using extensive low-interest loans from state-owned banks….
European wind turbine makers have stopped even bidding for some Chinese contracts after concluding that their bids would not be seriously considered, said Jörg Wuttke, the president of the European Union Chamber of Commerce in China.
European turbine manufacturers are especially disappointed because they built factories in China in order to comply with the country’s requirement that turbines contain 70 percent local content, Mr. Wuttke said. Yet all the multinational manufacturers were disqualified on technical grounds within three days of bidding for wind farm contracts this spring, even as Chinese companies that had never built a turbine were approved, he said.
http://climateprogress.org/2009/07/14/energy-and-global-warming-news-serious-nuclear-reactor-failure-in-germany-carelessness-and-mismanagement-china-protectionist-tactics-renewable-energy-solar-wind/#
Shameless?!
What says a lawyer/political activist and a bunch of known denialists. hahahahahahaha
Your most indiscriminate turdesque moments illustrating the point “worst AGW papers” – brought to you from denialist political action central – hahahahahahahahaha – pullease
Just more cherry picking of data sets Cohers.
Go back to El Nino building heat over centuries by statistical voodoo – at least it was funny.
That’s spin is it Janama? mate you’re laughable
Sounds like aggressively strategic at all levels
Funny how the high priests of AGW theory in Australian academe simply cannot cope with data analysis. Here’s part of an attempted post of mine at Harry Clarke’s, responding to his statement that he is “too busy” to debate the science with me or anybody else, where in fact I do not debate the science, but merely seek to test the data on which that “science” depends. After 24 hours no sign of it, and indeed he’s closed down that thread, which rarely for his Blog has had as many as 17 or so posts, while his current top thread has attracted not a single comment, which is of course the way the priesthood likes things to be.
I said “….A pity Andrew Worthington in your latest issue of Economic Papers has not applied his evident excellent stats skills to rebutting the paper on the same UHI phenomenon [I had raised] (which is much more prevalent than previously admitted) by McKitrick and Michaels, in yes, the peer reviewed Journal of Geophysical Research 2007 (how does its impact rate with Ec Papers’?), “Quantifying the influence of anthropogenic surface processes and inhomogeneities on gridded climate data” . Andrew’s paper instead pursued the preposterous hypothesis that windspeed et al could have something to do with stock prices in Sydney. Good god, they don’t! – and I had thought it was worldwide strong winds in 2007 that had caused the GFC.
But then I forgot, only climate scientists are allowed – here and elsewhere – to use data to test their hypotheses, they never do of course, there is not a single table reporting regressions ANYWHERE in AR4, and especially not where they should be in Karoly’s Chap 9 (Attribution) in WG1, but that is why nobody else should be allowed to. So you and Worthington should take care, even contemplating doing so could expose you, if not to dismissal, certainly to removal from ARC’s approved list for its next handouts”.
Tame enough surely, apart from a mild sting in the tail! But too much for our La Trobe economics prof. to tolerate!
Luke – the Chinese have stated they don’t believe in AGW!! – my Post – the creation of a renewable energy program – your post – is spin for people like you who want to drive this country to buy up Chinese made windmills and solar panels.
Yes it’s aggressively strategic but not for the reasons you believe.
check out the German experience:
http://www.rwi-essen.de/pls/portal30/docs/FOLDER/PUBLIKATIONEN/GUTACHTEN/P_RENEWABLE+ENERGY+REPORT+RWI+FORMAT.PDF
“is spin for people like you who want to drive this country to buy up Chinese made windmills and solar panels.” more verballing Janama – I’m for new nuclear (ever think to ask)
Tim – perhaps it’s from previous experience that debate become disingenuous. They can’t be bothered checking you. Best you get published in GRL or J Climate and use that as evidence 🙂
“I’m for new nuclear”
so who’s going to sell us that?
Comments from Luke 24th 11.10 pm.
“who knows what motivates sceptics. Reasons vary.”
Ever thought for a moment Luke, why there’s all these people (scientists, bloggers etc.) who are banging the table saying the science is crap? They’re doing so just because they know the science IS crap. They don’t like crap science and they don’t like science covered in political crap.
Ever thought Mack that a great body of scientists are banging the table saying stop watering down the implications of AGW and the time to act is now.
There are very few scientists – Spencer and Lindzen of any substance on this issue as worthy contrarians. The rest are inevitably flim-flams or simply political activists.
You’re very gullible Mack. And not widely read. So in this HUGE field – all the science is crap.
Really ! A vast global conspiracy eh? Doesn’t sound a bit nutty Mack?
Janama – no major party yet – but simply a matter of time.
Luke: I have repeatedly challenged you to cite (and site) a single met. station anywhere in the world where there is any correlation between changes in Mean Min. Temp and changes in [CO2]. Notice that I specify Mean Min temps, as that is when changes in [CO2] should have their greatest effect, in the absence of the sun at night when Min temps occur and [CO2] has its best chance of overturning the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Can you name a single climate scientist who is even aware of this factor? You never will because that is mission impossible, the FACTs are against you, as all the authors you have recently cited secretly admit.
Funny how the high priests of AGW theory in Australian academe simply cannot cope with data analysis.
If you ever come up with some data analysis, they’ll cope with it.
Luke, thanks for the link to the ABC article on population, I’m quite concerned about that issue. By the way, my house runs totally on solar with a backup generator in winter and I plan on supplementing it with a wind turbine in the near future. I love being independent of Big Power. I’m also a fan of new nuclear so there you go Luke, some common ground.
You mean the great body of scientists on the govt payroll who seem to be fairly quiet lately Luke.
No global conspiracy Luke just a big lie started by AL back in 1980,perpetuated by a gullible media, popular to environmentalists, and kept going by politicians much in the same way as for example half the German race was deluded by Hitler.
You know that everything that comes out of the States is big Luke.
Well this is a whopper. and it comes with fries (we fry)
Thanks Derek.
Mack – ” just a big lie started by Al back in 1980″ – mate – do you really believe that? Wow ! STop hanging around on street corners eh? Did you know the moon landing were fabricated too Mack? And Elvis is still alive. It’s all a BIG conspiracy Mack.
As for Hitler etc – hmmmm now wasn’t that a police state. Come on Mack don’t use stupid comparisons.
Tim – yes Mauna Loa was a good example. You got the case study and you just hand waved. Haven’t been bothered with your dross since.
Timmy – don’t tell me – go publish !
“You mean the great body of scientists on the govt payroll who seem to be fairly quiet lately Luke.’
hahahahaha – are you actually mental Mack. Go see the volume of literature from research being produced !! You really are a moron.
The interesting thing in coming here only occasionally the last week or so is that the true believers seem to know they have lost.
The Lukes make no pretense at reason, and only offers self-referential offal dressed up as studies, and shrieking liking a baboon (which no one else seems to be able to accomplish) .
The fact that the climate is doing nothing particularly interesting is driving our true believers crazy. Although for the Lukes, it is an admittedly short drive.
Derek Smith,
“By the way, my house runs totally on solar with a backup generator in winter and I plan on supplementing it with a wind turbine in the near future. ”
Just wondering what that backup generator runs on, wood chips or some other renewable like Denmark??
How will you replace parts after the Alarmists like Luke, SJT, SOD… destroy the filthy factories and the economy and no longer allow shipping due to its large Carbon Footprint??
Are you praying to Gore you will be dead before then??
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Hunter – One day you might attempt to make a relevant climate science comment. Until then – yawn. So boring.
KookyKat – tries it both ways – so you get the denialist line – BUT the earth has survived all manner of upheavals so let it rip – but on the other hand on mitigation – any changes will be devastating causing immediate world-wide collapse. It will be the end of the world. You hypocrite. It’s the olde alarmist denialism.
KookyKat – why are the factories so filthy – is this one of your sleazy investments in Eastern Europe with sub-standard conditions. Knowing denialist scum ethics it probably is.
Well luke, that last rejoinder to kuhnkat is a bit contradictory even by your standards; why is scepticism [denialism in your lexicon] now associated with sub-standard conditions in former communist industrial sites; I believe I have answered this misrepresentation here;
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2008/12/ten-worst-man-made-disasters/
And speaking of ‘conditions’, some fellow travellers of your’s luke;
http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/timblair/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/kill_and_chill/
Just another brick in the wall…
Ice core evidence for significant 100-year regional warming on the Antarctic Peninsula
E. R. Thomas
British Antarctic Survey, Cambridge, UK
P. F. Dennis
School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK
T. J. Bracegirdle
British Antarctic Survey, Cambridge, UK
C. Franzke
British Antarctic Survey, Cambridge, UK
We present a new 150-year, high-resolution, stable isotope record (δ 18O) from the Gomez ice core, drilled on the data sparse south western Antarctic Peninsula, revealing a ∼2.7°C rise in surface temperatures since the 1950s. The record is highly correlated with satellite-derived temperature reconstructions and instrumental records from Faraday station on the north west coast, thus making it a robust proxy for local and regional temperatures since the 1850s. We conclude that the exceptional 50-year warming, previously only observed in the northern Peninsula, is not just a local phenomena but part of a statistically significant 100-year regional warming trend that began around 1900. A suite of coupled climate models are employed to demonstrate that the 50 and 100 year temperature trends are outside of the expected range of variability from pre-industrial control runs, indicating that the warming is likely the result of external climate forcing.
Received 16 July 2009; accepted 23 September 2009; published 24 October 2009.
Citation: Thomas, E. R., P. F. Dennis, T. J. Bracegirdle, and C. Franzke (2009), Ice core evidence for significant 100-year regional warming on the Antarctic Peninsula, Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L20704, doi:10.1029/2009GL040104.
Luke – of course you’d expect an outcome as the British Arctic Survey report – how else do you think they can finance them swanning around the antarctic in the summer whilst the UK freezes! Good jaunt if you can get it.
So what do they suggest is the external climate forcing? – no – don’t tell me.
Every day scientists sink lower and lower in the rankings – they are now below used car salesmen, soon they ‘ll be lower than musicians.
WAP;
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/295/5554/476
Anatarctic temperature;
http://users.tpg.com.au/johnsay1/Stuff/temp19.jpg
BoM;
http://data.aad.gov.au/aadc/soe/display_indicator.cfm?soe_id=1
WAP compared east Antarctic;
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25348657-401,00.html
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/320/5880/1152
Speaking of temperature trends in the Antarctic, what ever happened to Steig?
Loopy Luke, this from your latest biblical commentary: “A suite of coupled climate models are employed to demonstrate that the 50 and 100 year temperature trends are outside of the expected range of variability from pre-industrial control runs, indicating that the warming is likely the result of external climate forcing” shows an inability (1) to get agreement between nouns and verbs that casts doubt on these “scholars” statistical competence, and (2) offer any suggestions for the cause of the “external climate forcing”.
It is certainly not d[CO2]/dt as there is no correlation between the latter and temperature anywhere on earth, and least of all at the Antarctic Peninsula, if there was they would have shown it. There is not and they do not, but they suppress the truth that despite their best efforts they can find no such correlation. Remember [CO2] is measured in Antarctica, and they must have access to that record, as you do. So why no mention?
Now having demolished your and their implied theory, it is for you to show first there is no correlation between (1) the temperature content of the sea currents around the peninsula and the warming they claim to have found, and (2) between the former and the energy usage in all the world’s coastal cities that feeds into said currents.
Secondly, and probably more significant, you and they must show there is no correlation between their warming and solar radiation at the peninsula. But their paper shows they are not up to regression analysis, just like you.
Pace them and you and the IPCC, solar radiation is NOT a constant, and even small changes in it have a much larger impact on radiative forcing than the essentially trivial increases in [CO2]. Recall that the RF of increases in [CO2] from 1750 to 2005 is 1.66 w/sq.metre p.a., (AR4, WG1, 141). The solar radiation at Pt Barrow in Alaska for 15 daylight hours was no less than 258 W/sq.metre in June 2005. Only the clueless Solomons, Karolys and Harry Clarkes et ad infinitum could imagine that the annual increase in the IPCC’s RF of about 0.01 W/sq.metre has a bigger impact on temperature than the fall in Barrow’s SR of 258 in June 2005 from its 291 W/sq.m in June 2004 or the rise from its 260 in June 1990.
Loopy, run away and play in the yard, you are out of your depth when you try to converse with grown-ups.
Oh dear Timmy hands waves attempting a diversion. Your comments are such tripe. So poor discussion on here. My kingdom for an intelligent comment.
As an indication of Curtin’s utter amateurish silliness. It would take someone with a basic knowledge of climate processes in the region to understand why differential warming would occur. And we have this clown trying to do LINEAR REGRESSION on a non-forcing – utterly utterly incredible. Beyond all belief. I am seriously gobstopped. Again all you have to do is write the rebuttal comment to GRL – then tell us WHY it was inevitably be rejected as stupid.
You have a good answer on Mauna Loa and all you did was handwave. Disgraceful.
Loopy Luke: you did not have a single factual comment in your responses. So the sun is non-forcing, tell that to George Harrison.
Talking of GRL, what’s wrong with JGR, which published McKitrick & Michaels’ truly brilliant paper “Quantifying the influence of anthropogenic surface processes and inhomogeneities on gridded global climate data” (pub. 14 Dec. 2007). My own regressions are entirely consistent with their much more sophisticated stuff. Why have you not submitted your own amazing rebuttal to JGR, or GRL? I am sure they would love to have it.
Back to the slides and swings, you are out of your depth.
As for Mauna Loa, I showed in detail what b/s your papers were, full of typos and faked data.
Nice pics of Cape Grim’s Angus cattle in Saturday’s and today’s Oz, frolicking in the [CO2] just a few yards from the measuring station. Just like Mauna Loa, Cape Grim’s temp record shows no correlation with RF from its [CO2] or changes therein. The reverse, the log linear temp growth there is NEGATIVE (minus 0.052% p,a) , and there is of course ZERO correlation with its very own CO2 record which is much the same as ML’s.
Can I mail you some tiddlywinks, they seem to be the summit of your analytic capability.
Tim I’m not wasting my time trawling through your eccentric rat dirt.
On Mauna Loa rebuttal – sorry you did nothing of the sort – just more nonsense hand waving and libelous accusations.
But gets better
Science 4 September 2009:
Vol. 325. no. 5945, pp. 1236 – 1239
DOI: 10.1126/science.1173983
Recent Warming Reverses Long-Term Arctic Cooling
Darrell S. Kaufman,1,* David P. Schneider,2 Nicholas P. McKay,3 Caspar M. Ammann,2 Raymond S. Bradley,4 Keith R. Briffa,5 Gifford H. Miller,6 Bette L. Otto-Bliesner,2 Jonathan T. Overpeck,3 Bo M. Vinther,7 Arctic Lakes 2k Project Members{dagger}
The temperature history of the first millennium C.E. is sparsely documented, especially in the Arctic. We present a synthesis of decadally resolved proxy temperature records from poleward of 60°N covering the past 2000 years, which indicates that a pervasive cooling in progress 2000 years ago continued through the Middle Ages and into the Little Ice Age. A 2000-year transient climate simulation with the Community Climate System Model shows the same temperature sensitivity to changes in insolation as does our proxy reconstruction, supporting the inference that this long-term trend was caused by the steady orbitally driven reduction in summer insolation. The cooling trend was reversed during the 20th century, with four of the five warmest decades of our 2000-year-long reconstruction occurring between 1950 and 2000.
And keeps going – evidence just piles up
Recent changes in a remote Arctic lake are unique within the past 200,000 years
1. Yarrow Axforda,1,
2. Jason P. Brinerb,
3. Colin A. Cookec,
4. Donna R. Francisd,
5. Neal Micheluttie,
6. Gifford H. Millera,f,
7. John P. Smole,
8. Elizabeth K. Thomasb,
9. Cheryl R. Wilsone and
10. Alexander P. Wolfec
+ Author Affiliations
1.
aInstitute of Arctic and Alpine Research and
2.
fDepartment of Geological Sciences, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO 80309;
3.
bGeology Department, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY 14260;
4.
cDepartment of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada T6G 2E3;
5.
dDepartment of Geosciences, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA 01003; and
6.
ePaleoecological Environmental Assessment and Research Laboratory, Department of Biology, Queen’s University, Kingston, ON, Canada K7L 3N6
1.
Edited by Mark Brenner, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, and accepted by the Editorial Board September 1, 2009 (received for review June 25, 2009)
Abstract
The Arctic is currently undergoing dramatic environmental transformations, but it remains largely unknown how these changes compare with long-term natural variability. Here we present a lake sediment sequence from the Canadian Arctic that records warm periods of the past 200,000 years, including the 20th century. This record provides a perspective on recent changes in the Arctic and predates by approximately 80,000 years the oldest stratigraphically intact ice core recovered from the Greenland Ice Sheet. The early Holocene and the warmest part of the Last Interglacial (Marine Isotope Stage or MIS 5e) were the only periods of the past 200,000 years with summer temperatures comparable to or exceeding today’s at this site. Paleoecological and geochemical data indicate that the past three interglacial periods were characterized by similar trajectories in temperature, lake biology, and lakewater pH, all of which tracked orbitally-driven solar insolation. In recent decades, however, the study site has deviated from this recurring natural pattern and has entered an environmental regime that is unique within the past 200 millennia.
Published online before print October 19, 2009, doi: 10.1073/pnas.0907094106
Luketard whines;
“KookyKat – why are the factories so filthy – is this one of your sleazy investments in Eastern Europe with sub-standard conditions. Knowing denialist scum ethics it probably is.”
As usual, you are simply too ignorant to enter into discussions.
Filthy factories does NOT refer to south east Asia or Africa or ex-iron curtain countries… It refers to the attitude of yourself and other AGW freaks who think they are destroying the world and we need to go back to the stone age so poor Gaia can recover!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Thanks for letting me win the bet!! You already are posting that ridiculous “Unique within the last 200,000 Years” fantasy.
Keep us laughing Luketard!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
You DO realise that phrase is MEANINGLESS don’t you??
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
“The question today is – why is Yamal the belle of the ball and Polar Urals a wallflower? Is it because of Yamal’s “inner beauty” (temperature correlation, replication, rolling variance, that sort of thing) or because of its more obvious physical attributes exemplified in the diagram below? Today, we’ll compare the “inner beauty” of both debutantes, starting first with the graphic below, showing their “superficial” attributes.”
Luke,
We’d like to believe you but your problem is that your team’s got too much form.
someone else has been checking aussie temps
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/10/23/gistemp-aussy-fair-go-and-far-gone/
luke, you’re relying on Kaufman; this Kaufman;
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=6932#comments
Seriously?
KookyKat – so how long have you had your mental condition? Unable to cope with some humour you poor dour bastard.
Poor denialist scum – evidence just keeps washing up. Week after week. And every week the denialist scum have to spin their way out of it !
How do you keep lying to yourselves ?
of course you always “publish” – hahahahahahahahaa
janama,
I’ve got some beaut “walking irises” that can move about over a period of time but I’ve never come across “walking thermometers” before.
What with them and UHI, which is downplayed to absurdity by IPCC [witness 5c difference in 10k between city and suburbs occurring], AGW is on autopilot.
However, even with all that assistance, the best they can come with is about +0.2c in 130 years.
Also, despite spending 100 billion of taxpayer’s money, Luke and his mates have yet to measure the human signal.
This signal is so small that it is lost in the natural variation.
Yes Luke….
” just a big lie started by Al back in 1980.”
Where were you back in 1980 Luke? You need to catch up. Do a little research yourself about that time on the genesis of your AGW scam.
What you Luke et al are trying to convince us is that a group of concerned scientists (Hansen being one of them) GOT TOGETHER (ponder that for a moment) and acting purely out of concern for the future of mankind, decided to alert a politician friend (Al Gore) to enable their concern to be conveyed to the public.
This you lot would have us believe is the normal behaviour and course of action of -let me repeat- a GROUP of scientists.
Swallowing this scenerio would make you the gullible moronic AGW believer and me perhaps a monkey’s uncle.
Yes Mack if it makes you happy I’m sure that’s right. Did you know the moon landing were a hoax Mack. And have you noticed that van outside your house lately? Yes indeed you probably are a monkey’s uncle. Makes sense.
No spanglers – it’s PC1 – do you not remember ANYTHING !
Parker et al. You tell me what you think of his work given you know so much? Threshold test.
Kuhnkat, “Just wondering what that backup generator runs on, wood chips or some other renewable like Denmark??
How will you replace parts after the Alarmists like Luke, SJT, SOD… destroy the filthy factories and the economy and no longer allow shipping due to its large Carbon Footprint??
Are you praying to Gore you will be dead before then??”
What’s with the hysterical over the top response? My genny runs on petrol of course but when I get my wind turbine, I won’t need it anymore. Do you have a problem with people using alternative technologies for power?
If you really want to have a go at me, I actually have a negative carbon footprint!
Luke,
Pielke Snr can do it better than I can.
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2009/01/23/reply-by-pielke-et-al-to-the-comment-by-parker-et-al-on-our-2007-jgr-paper-unresolved-issues-with-the-assessment-of-multi-decadal-global-land-surface-temperature-trends/
Derek,
That’s very good. Are you free of the grid? What sort of capacity are you managing with?
I have found with wind chargers that you will still need your back-up for heavy use even if you live in a windy area with a big bank of batteries.
No you don’t Derek – what do you cook with – what runs your refrigeration, where does your hot water come from, do you run a normal TV or a Plasma?
What drives AGW sceptics.? Check out most of the above offerings. The desperate diatribes from the pretend AGW pseudo sceptics have a common driver. When you start confusing your thoughts with the facts and you keep wanting to find suspicious explanations for all sorts of stuff, you are on the road to paranoia, or you have arrived, but you cant be sure can you?. Dont despair, CBT can help, but then you would be suspicious of that too.
Spangled Drongo, yes I’m about a km from the nearest stobie pole so I didn’t have much of a choice ($70K-100K to get connected) but I wouldn’t have it any other way. We have 24 panels producing 1660 watts max. We are currently running 2 fridges, 2 TV’s (not plasma), 3 computers and a front loader w/m. It’s not full summer yet but I didn’t have to run the genny tonight, mid summer the batteries go to sleep mode by about 11.00 a.m. so we have power to burn.
We plan on getting a 1KW wind turbine which should suppliment our winter power use most of the time.
Janama, when we bought our 64 acre property 12 years ago there were 25 old trees on it. We have been re-vegetating since then and now have several hundred trees and understory, so I think that we are actually carbon negative.
Bazza,
I find most sceptics would be prepared to accept your AGW hypothesis if you could show that it’s true, as is required for any hypothesis, but you really aren’t able to.
People believe in many religions and they always desire to convert everyone else.
And why doesn’t that happen?
So we remain sceptical.
As reason [and Huxley] says we must.
QE effing D
Derek,
They say that good teaching demands “walking the walk”.
That’s great! Good on yer!
I once lived for a while on a very windy, remote, coastline where we were able to exist on a single small turbine but there aren’t many places as windy as that.
Why is everyone so desperately critical of Derek’s energy lifestyle? Is he ramming it down your necks. No – so give it a rest eh?
Spanglers – did you actually read what you provided. Hardly matters. What’s new.
BTW Spanglers – wrong paper anyway ! LOL !
Parker, D., C. Folland, A. Scaife, J. Knight, A. Colman, P. Baines, and B. Dong (2007), Decadal to multidecadal variability and the climate change background, J. Geophys. Res., 112, D18115, doi:10.1029/2007JD008411.
And Spanglers – “I find most sceptics would be prepared to accept your AGW hypothesis if you could show that it’s true, as is required for any hypothesis, but you really aren’t able to.”
why doesn’t it happen. Coz you don’t read the literature. That simple.
One problem Spanglers – you can live without religion but you can’t live with climate adversity. So it’s a risk analysis.
Oh, I forgot to mention that we live totally on rainwater as well. This means employing water saving strategies that the average person would laugh at. Makes you appreciate resources more when they are finite.
Let’s make it a simple threshold test for you spanglers – let’s say you are in charge of coming up with a water allocation formula for the Murray-Darling system. Just suppose. So you have this serious body of work from CSIRO saying there’s some AGW influence at play. And you have 120 years of rainfall records. So how are you going to make your recommendation spanglers. Irrigators want as much water as they can get. Public wants a viable river system.
Watcha gonna do?
There is no “don’t care” answer here. It is a matter of serious policy debate.
Luke,
You confuse your posts, that are the equivalent of arguments about angels dancing on heads of pins, with science.
You all should never, ever, leave civil service.
“Why is everyone so desperately critical of Derek’s energy lifestyle?”
who is critical? We are just ignoring you.
I’m just getting it in perspective – I’ve also lived on solar power.
Derek on a full sunny day will produce a max of 9,960watts. (based on 38 lat and 6hrs/day) which stored in a 24V battery will give him 415 amps provided everything works at 100% efficiency.. he would need at least x5 storage – 12 x 2V – 2000 amp hour batteries.
That’s a good power supply.
If we all had it how many tons of lead and sulphuric acid would we need?
The new demand for electric cars will no doubt change the battery design, maybe we will share the house batteries with the car batteries etc.
We need a major breakthrough in battery design – if only we could redirect the useless AGW research funds…..
Ok luke, lets talk about Parker and PCA, the statistical weapon of choice of the IPCC/AGW throng; why is PCA inadequate for modeling obstensibly stationary or natural and periodic temperature factors?
Dear Loopy Lukey. Can you read? here’s the key statement in your heros Parket Folland et al 2007: ‘ As models have difficulty [you dont say!] in simulating the recent
increase in the NAO they also have difficulty in simulating
the recent surface climate change around the Atlantic basin.
Scaife et al. [2005] noted that the area mean temperature
trend from an atmospheric model in which all well-known
greenhouse gas and natural forcings, including observed
SST, were included was still only around 30% of the
observed warming over northern Europe between 1965
and 1995.’
Not only that, as the Pielkes and McKitrick&Michaels have shown, there is in fact NO observed warming other than where non-CO2 human influences are at work. Parker et al are anyway known to be incapable of regression analysis.
Meantime EM Smith has documenetd how ALL AGW is an artifact of relocating approved met records from North to South in NH and South to North in SH. Poor old Tassie’s approved stations have been cut first to just 10 and now a mere 4 by BoM and GISS, while the top end has increased its share.
As he says: ‘My “eyeball scan” of the LAT field looks like more than half with a latitude above the midline of Australia, but as usual, a graph and real coordinates on a map would be
more accurate than me staring at my 12 inch globe 😉 In any case, it looks to me like Australia is being “cooked” by having many of its thermometers moved toward the Equator’.
Jim Hansen and Phil Jones are similarly busy replacing cold stations in the north to the south of the NH. Have you noticed how Gistemp like Hadley has dumped all UK stations bar 2 (Bournemouth & Waddington) for their insufficient warming? Central England’s unbroken record from c 1660 has likewise been dumped. Loopy, you consort with liars and thieves, in my Somerset village we knew what to do with people like you, off to the stocks, so we could practice our throws to the wicked keeper.
Sorry, Loopy, by endorsing such perversions of raw data you are guilty of high crimes and misdemeanours. Wotchit!
Cohers
“the statistical weapon of choice of the IPCC/AGW throng;” – errr nope – you ropa-dope – just you biting too heavy where you shouldn’t
“why is PCA inadequate for modeling obstensibly stationary or natural and periodic temperature factors” – who says it’s modelling – again silly Cohers – simply stupid – it’s only telling you the data show. Regressions – the refuge of scoundrels.
Curtin – don’t you threaten me mate – the typical response by the denialists trying to censor debate. You’re in Australia matey not some distant polo playing Raj for ponces. And don’t verbal me either. You don’t fabricate who I may or may not consort with. Typical verballing denialist scum. I notice your import of Parker et al missed all the relevant message. Predictable.
EM Smith obviously another member of the denialist club which Parker’s paper summarily dispenses by ignoring the entire data set – so NEXT. You wouldn’t trust any of these try-ons without publication. Who knows what they’ve done in terms of areal weighting.
But just sit back Timmy and Cohers – just think how you having ZERO influence on anything. Unpublished Aussie whingers. As the world and the science changes around you. How fitting. Just sit there and squirm.
“there is in fact NO observed warming other than where non-CO2 human influences are at work”
– aha – hahahahahahahahaha – classic ! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
where non-approved influences are at work – hahahahahahahahahaha ROTFL
Comment from: Luke October 27th, 2009 at 3:04 am
EM Smith obviously another member of the denialist club which Parker’s paper summarily dispenses by ignoring the entire data set – so NEXT. You wouldn’t trust any of these try-ons without publication. Who knows what they’ve done in terms of areal weighting.
Well, not a member of any club. And M. Parker does not in any way dismiss anything I’m doing. Why? Because all I am doing is looking at the GHCN data, the USHCN data, and GIStemp directly and describing what I find. Completely public, completely visible. Anyone and everyone can reproduce it. No hiding methods nor losing the data like Hadley and a bunch of the rest of the AGW true believers. Oh, and nobody between me, the public, and the truth.
As per “publication”: I’ve considered it. I’ve got a half dozen folks with Ph.D.s telling me I ought to publish what I’ve found. But frankly, given all the tripe that had made it past “peer review” and all the errors caught by “public review” I’m not seeing a lot of benefit from “peer review” other than boosting one’s ego (and I have no need of ego massage). So I do a different thing: I publish all the methods and how to download the data directly from the sources. I provide source code to anyone who wants it (much of it already on the web pages) so that any person anywhere in the world who would like to replicate anything I’ve done is able to do so. But you do have to get off your butt, stop whining, and actually do some work.
And as for “weighting”: I do NONE.
In fact, the purpose is to find the “accidental weighting” that comes from the instrument bias of moving the thermometers around.
What I’ve done is simply count how many thermometer records are located in each band of latitude in the GHCN data set as downloaded directly from NOAA. Anyone can do it, it isn’t hard. When you do that, you find that the thermometer records start out with 1 in Tasmania, then over time are added to the north, and later the southern ones start to be deleted from the data set.
No weighting.
No modeling.
No slight of hand.
Simple, direct, and clear characterization of what happens inside the “raw” input data to GIStemp and any climate model that uses the GHCN dataset or GIStemp products.
In fact, it is so simple, direct, open, and public an investigation that even you could do it.
BTW, the total of thermometers used in GHCN for the year 2008 in California is FOUR. One in San Francisco, and three down in southern California near the beach. For those unfamiliar with the state, the “cold bits” are the mountains that fill with snow each winter for skiing. They include the top chunk of the state and a long stripe down the interface to Nevada. It is simply not possible to have a representative sample of California from a beach in Los Angeles… So that “115 year hot record anomaly” for California is entirely an artifact of dropping ALL the cold thermometers from the record in 2007. Basically, GHCN tells lies.
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/10/24/ghcn-california-on-the-beach-who-needs-snow/
Now the Australian effect is not quite as strong (yet…) but the pattern of deletions of thermometers from GHCN data base is similar in that the Aussie thermometers do get dropped in cold places and added in hot places. This does contaminate the temperature history and does introduce a strong “instrument bias” into the record that grids, boxes, and zones just can not remove in GIStemp. (In fact, it some cases such as islands, GIStemp enhances the instrument bias rather than attenuating it).
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/10/23/gistemp-aussy-fair-go-and-far-gone/
A similar thing happens in Brazil (link on the chiefio site), but it does NOT happen in Argentina. There thermometers stay more consistently placed. And they show little significant temperature trend in their data.
So you may now resume your ranting and attacking the messenger, but just remember that it isn’t about me, and it isn’t about you. It is only about the data and what they say, if you ask them nicely then quietly listen. Just don’t torture them like GIStemp does; they will tell you anything you want to hear if you torture the data enough…
I’m headed back to my work now. I’m thinking of looking at the Asian and African thermometer migrations next. Ought to be interesting… But while I’m working, you can contemplate that “ZERO influence” that such public scrutiny has had. In the USA the support for the notion that AGW is real is eroding at a pretty good clip. IIRC the last survey showed it at 30 something percent, down from near 45% and dropping fast. So just remember that those non-peer reviewed do it yourself voters control the purse strings and who gets elected in the next round.
Sidebar: My personal desire is to have 25 or so acres “off the grid” with an Earthship home on it. Wind turbine, solar cells, self collected water, home grown vegetables, the works. I’ve built small scale methane digesters and I’ve dug a well for water. My bias it toward minimal impact on the planet and self sufficiency.
Of course you’re a member of the denialists – your tone says it all – don’t be shy now. As a practicing denialist you have missed the separate high quality Australian analysis and furthermore Parker et al get the same story of global warming without any land series data from two data sets – err the entire point. And isn’t it strange that the “dreadful error” prone land series data has the same pattern as the satellite data. And isn’t it strange that the biology that doesn’t know anything about GISS or CRU and is responding. That Nature paper. And isn’t it interesting that you haven’t published what the overall impact is of your “findings”. As usual for denialists it’s what they leave out and don’t tell you. Failure to publish simply means you can indulge your eccentric nonsense without fear of any serious formal analysis. Remember – your impact on the science effort ZERO POINT ZERO.
Just all the usual denialist scum tactics.
P.S. As for your 25 acres off the grid – how lovely – look forward to sharing it with a few million Asian climate refugees.
luke, the black knight, says;
“why is PCA inadequate for modeling obstensibly stationary or natural and periodic temperature factors” – who says it’s modelling – again silly Cohers – simply stupid – it’s only telling you the data show”
It might be helpful to look at what PCA is;
“Principal component analysis (PCA) involves a mathematical procedure that transforms a number of possibly correlated variables into a smaller number of uncorrelated variables called principal components”
That is modeling.
The problem for the AGW proponents is as EM Smith and many others show the PCA analysis is based on inappropriate weighting of the data which is modeled into the principal components; we saw this with Mann’s hockeysticks, Steig’s Antarctica ‘warming’, Kaufman’s Arctic’s findings and the Parker paper etc. This is one reason why PCA distorts the variable priority or even creates variables, ie AGW, where they don’t necessarily exist. Which brings me back to PCA’s inability to model stationary data; any real thoughts luke or are you going to blather as usual?
Hey Y’all,
Did you get any of that rain last night? I only got 16 mm [about 30 for the month] but there were some good falls in SEQ and NENSW.
I had to switch off as the power went off twice in the storms.
Derek would have been OK.
More to come, hopefully.
Luke,
I [like most country people] been living with with climate adversity all my life.
To the point where, if I cross a gully that’s wet, I take a photo.
I would hate the job of having to draft up a water budget for the M-D system but if I had to I could only go by past records and adjust accordingly.
No doubt the MDBA will use GCMs.
Yup 53mm spangled drongo. Just what we needed.
“If we all had it how many tons of lead and sulphuric acid would we need?”
janama,
That’s the killer! How many laptop batteries [and how long will they last] to run a car even if we had IFRs and unlimited and unmetered power?
You got a good drop!
Derek Smith,
“If you really want to have a go at me, I actually have a negative carbon footprint!”
Stealing the breath from the Biosphere are you?? YOU ANIMAL!!! YOU ARE KILLING GAIA!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
No Derek, I have no problem with people acting in ways that DO NOT hurt others. But my previous post is serious. Where are you going to get the parts to repair all your high tech energy production equipment after the CALL TO ACTION destroys economies and the production is in India and China???
What is Australia and the US going to be able to export to pay for these MANUFACTURED items after farming and manufacturing is radically limited to meet Carbon caps, water rationing, and land use limits?? (the water has been cut in half to California’s San Joaquin Valley to save a small fish. GOOGLE IT!! This is the most productive farming area of the US!!! Boy, I wonder why California’s debt is going up???)
Oh yeah, does your NEGATIVE CARBON FOOTPRINT include the rather large amounts of CO2 produced in the mining, transport, refining, production, more shipping, assembly, and maintenance of those energy producing items you are using?? Even if you use the wind turbine until it falls apart 30 years from now I strongly doubt you will make it to NEGATIVE!!!! I am not as familiar with the production of solar cells, but, you should check into them before claiming NEGATIVE. Are you riding a bicycle?? Growing all your own food?? Using home grown cotton or wool for clothing?? Have you included all the Carbon produced in every manufactured article you deal with all year??
If it is important to you, you should make absolutely sure you are really doing it right!!
Personally I wish we were producing more CO2. I would like to see us hit 1000ppm in 20 years.
Oh, by the way Derek, did you stop breathing, cause carbon credits are pure BS!!!! Either you DON’T produce the CO2 in the first place or you are cheating. In other words, Carbon Negative is a false claim for a LIVING organism that produces CO2.
Luketard,
“Poor denialist scum – evidence just keeps washing up. Week after week. And every week the denialist scum have to spin their way out of it !”
Washing UP?? Is that how Alarmists do science, beach combing for discarded papers??
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
OK Spanglers “I would hate the job of having to draft up a water budget for the M-D system but if I had to I could only go by past records and adjust accordingly.” yes nasty problem what? The sort of real climate job that sceptics dread. (No plan B you see). No point in asking Cohers – he’ll just give you slick lawyer spin.
Presumably you’ve totally disregarded BoM’s and CSIRO’s science advice if you’re true to form.
– so you would “adjust accordingly” – what does that mean Spangly ?
What we have here – is a failure to communicate !
It’s not modelling (2 ls in Australia you hillbilly lawyer). Simply describing principal data patterns. As Folland would say – “it’s the simplest analysis”. Only a morally bankrupt lawyer would think was modelling. (lls)
No spin luke, but if you think what Parker et al are doing is simply describing principal data you need a bex and a good lie down; then try boning up on “initialising”; this may help;
http://www.wcc3.org/wcc3docs/pdf/WS9_WP_capability.doc
Luke ,
Back at my comments Oct 26 th 5.43pm ….. I said..to you,.
” Swallowing this scenerio would make you the gullible moronic AGW believer and me perhaps a monkeys uncle”
Should read just “naive gullible AGW believer”
And yes, I would be a monkeys uncle if the collective intelligence of your ensemble were to swallow that scenerio.
You realise that’s a compliment to you Luke but damn!! it was only accidental.
Aha ha. ha
“The sort of real climate job that sceptics dread. (No plan B you see).”
Luke,
I thought that planning by using known data from past results WAS “Plan B”.
And “adjust accordingly” by being as conservative as you could live with knowing the country’s natural historical inclination to warm and aridify.
But using that CSIRO GCM “noise” for “Plan A” type decisions is GIGO.
It’s like this sort of crap on the news tonight.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/10/27/2725726.htm
There is not one coastal city that has adjusted its MSL due to rising sea levels and severe storms are at an all time low.
Coastal erosion in Australia 40 years ago was much worse than it is today and our much more limited resources of that era coped very well and put in place protection that has stood the test of time.
When will our pathetic MSM ever ask the pertinent questions instead of just rolling over for this AGW garbage.
Kuhnkat, OK, you caught me out. I don’t actually know my carbon footprint, I just threw that in to get a response although I did think it was probably negative. The truth is I don’t really care about carbon footprints, I just happen to have a better one than a lot of people because of my situation. I do however concede your points as probably true.
I am semi passionate about the environment though, and would like to see some less polluting technologies gain prominence. None of this related to “climate change”
From my limited understanding of climate history and paleoclimate I’m stuck on the idea that the rush to reduce CO2 concentrations is a bad move and if you read some of the intended “fixes”, potentially disastrous, although that assumes that CO2 is indeed a driver of climate change.
“It’s like this sort of crap on the news tonight.”. I rest my case , spangled drongo. Paranoia is about excess suspicion and therefore being flooded by evidence where none exists by any rational view.
“And “adjust accordingly” by being as conservative as you could live with knowing the country’s natural historical inclination to warm and aridify.”
But why does it keep getting warmer and warmer then?
but irrigators don’t want you to hold back Spangly – they want more and more.
Your rules are so convserative to what they want.
“But using that CSIRO GCM “noise” for “Plan A” type decisions is GIGO.”
But we’re not talking GCM noise at all. we’re talking observation. Observation of an intensified STR, a changed SAM, perhaps a changed IOD, a Modoki’ed El Nino, more El Ninos, and a warming trend that strangely has no relationship to solar measurements.
All the GCMs are doing is explaining why !
What are you gonna do Spanglers – the irrigators want to know why you’re holding back on allocations. They’re angry at you Spangly – they’re talking like a lynch mob now.
“What’s this natural tendency to warm and aridify” – sounds like bullshit they say.
The problem with coastal erosion story as Peter Helman reminds us – the PDO/IPO seems to inject a major decadal signal into these patterns. With an underlying slow continual rise. So erosion periods are likely to be episodic.
http://www.coastalconference.com/2007/papers2007/Peter%20Helman.doc
Derek,
I’ve got a bit of dirt and I, too have planted hundreds of trees over the years and farm only wild animals [too many ferals though] and these days I tell myself I’m essentially a minimalist.
I find it is much more satisfying to fix something than throw it away.
Having a naturally tight-arsed nature helps no end.
Bazza,
Your “being flooded by evidence” may be your idea of a pun but it is really very sad because it is exactly this evidence that is missing.
Over 40 years ago during the 60s and 70s I put in many volunteer hours trying to save beachfront houses from being washed away, often in vain and we have not experienced anything like that since.
I also built seafront structures nearly 50 years ago where the highest tides of the year still come to the same bolt holes.
I don’t think you know what you’re talking about.
Just been watching the Goebbels show, aka SBS News, with its engulfing sea level rise along the Gold Coast etc, with their 60 floor high rises, but local governments incapable of building sea walls of the 57 cm. height the IPCC predicts for sealevel rise by 2100. Make that 5 metres, it is still do-able, if not by Australians, so bring in some Ming from China, they knew how to build walls. Also check out the north-west coast of Somerset, where seawalls of about 4 metres keep out the biggest and fastest incoming tides in the world at Burnham and Weston super Mare.
Loopy Luke, can I have right of first offer for your own seafront property?
“What’s this natural tendency to warm and aridify”
Luke,
With that natural charm of yours you simply tell ’em that though the world “average” is not changing, unfortunately Australia is moving northwards [like the thermometers] and the old Gondwanaland RFs are disappearing and there’s not much you can do about it.
luke, that Helman paper is one of my favourites especially figure 2; Helman of course is one of the main doom and gloom agitators at Byron Bay, which is fairly hypocritical of him. Carter has done a good paper on Australian sea level;
http://members.iinet.net.au/~glrmc/RMC%20-%20aspects%20of%20sea-level%20rise%20in%20southern%20Australia%20Z.pdf
And of course the logest measured sea level at Port Arthur shows either an increase of 13cms or 2-3cms since 1841, depending on which source you can believe; and from this the knuckleheads are projecting a 90cm increase by 2100. Combet, of course, the assistant minister to the Wong, has recently bought in East Newcastle; on the sea. There is no justice.
Spangled,
I know just where you’re coming from, nothing beats living on a slice of land away from the big smoke. I need some of those wild animals though to keep the grasses down, mostly it’s just me and my walk-behind slasher.
I have a dream of one day building a feral proof fence and making a native animal sanctuary. Probably never happen though.
“What’s this natural tendency to warm and aridify”
Paleoclimate stuff I’ve read suggests that more often than not, warmer means wetter with a corresponding increase in plant biomass. I think that the drought we are currently in is skewing the impression that “global warming”has caused this perceived aridity.
So Spanglers you’re saying you really have no idea. Thanks for playing. Very helpful. (not)
All the same and despite the major sentiment in comments here on AGW, I bet it’s a nasty situation developing in the aftermath of that report on our coastal problems. Seems Mal Washer the Lib MP saw fit to jump the gun on this with his comments on ABC national radio yesterday.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/10/27/2725726.htm
http://www.aph.gov.au/house/members/member.asp?id=84F
Beware; I only wandered in again on the blog to gloat over the pathetic reactions of this tiny rear guard after giving up some time ago with my recommendations about making simple beach observations that don’t require a degree in anything including law. The big question up front however is the actual value of our coastal in the short term as authorities squabble over their responsibility.
I reckon Jen went further bush just in time to get away from it all.
In that ABC article you posted Gavin there is a bloke from Kingscliff rabbiting on about the beach erosion. He then states he’s only been there for 6 years!
I lived on the beach front north of Byron Bay throughout the 90s and the sea came in a took away the sand leaving 3m high walls along the dunes – within 6 – 9 months the sand was back again and the sea breezes had blown the sand back to form the typical dune face we are used to.
this proceedure has been going on for centuries, what’s happening today is no different. All the sand is constantly moving up the coast to eventually end up at Fraser island.
Janama; perhaps it’s a pity we can’t move all new costal development to Fraser Is as the old canal estates ooze away hey.
IMO they were over rated from day one, about the time some realised they had no mandatory retaining walls and decided to employ a few sun seekers like me on holidays up north to dig their new footings between tides, a mugs game with hand tools!
As I said in old posts, it’s bound to ooze value sooner than later.
gavin,
When I first got involved with canal estates the developers were going broke and they were flogging them door to door in capital cities for less than $1,000 for a canal-front, sandy beach block.
I don’t think you could buy those same blocks today for under 3/4 million and I believe Gerry Harvey has just bought three adjoining for around 10 million.
Those beachfronts that I tried to save along Hedges Av. these days sell for obscene multi-millions.
They are much more secure now than they were then.
check out these blocks spangled – http://www.sovereignisland.com.au/
the houses start at around 3 mil. I know one house has an indoor tennis court. If you’ve got google earth check out the mansion being built at the northern end.
A friend who works on the houses says at around 6pm if you stand in the streets all you can hear is everyone screaming at each other 🙂
Derek,
I’ve thought many times about feral proof fences and I think they would work with very sedentary wildlife like scrub mullet and small native mice etc. but not with our bigger nomads.
Let the scrub and the undergrowth thicken up, that terrible lantana is a great resource, bracken, native grasses like wild sorghum, native rubis prickle berry bushes, plenty of wattle etc. and this tanglewood becomes great habitat.
A sheet here and there of old rusty iron on the ground covered in leaf litter makes a great protected home for lots of small animals too.
I have many sheets of iron covering recycled lumber which is in turn covered by thick lantana. I can access this lumber anytime and it is a thriving wildlife habitat all the time. [look out for snakes]
The beauty of it is, as long as you can keep fires limited to cool burns, the less you interfere, the better it gets for the wildlife.
Luke,
It was your idea to play this game. One that I know nothing about. But I do know that it has to be based on reality, not virtual reality.
Janama, re Kingscliffe, a good example of a community that is really worried. Sure the big events were the La NIna years in the 1970s, but superimpose even less frequent perhaps more severe La Nina episodes on risng seal level is not good news for a community that has already interfered with the sand flow with a sea wall and the Bowling Clubs wall that protects the club at the expense of the caravan park. But they have some magic cabins right on the foredune, enjoy them while we can.
janama,
I sailed my little wooden dinghy past that structure on the north end of Sovereign Is. the other day and I thought it must have been a hospital.
I think they are trying for the biggest house in Australia.
I’d just been camping up the bay for a few days and I was trying to work out who was crazier, him or me.
It’s huge isn’t it. It’s reputed to cost $33 million – you can get the block next door for 5 mil.
Spangled,
Thanks for the advice, how good is your system at keeping out foxes and feral cats? what species do you have in those havens of yours?
Derek,
I can’t keep the dogs, foxes and cats out but the scrub ticks mostly kill wild feral cats. [domestic feral cats go home each morning to get “frontlined” and stay healthy so you can only try to catch them in a cage].
You can trap for dogs and foxes which I have done quite successfully but it is labour intensive and a bit indiscriminate [I can break bandicoot’s and turkey’s legs etc.] so these days I just try to have as much natural protection as possible.
I have some fire trails which I keep mowed and I have a few bare monitoring pads of plain dirt on these which I check most mornings and then rake over with a light grass rake. This tells me what’s going on by the tracks thereon.
Sometimes, if you’re lucky your local authority will carry out 1080 baiting which is very target specific but in more populous areas they are becoming reluctant.
Here we have pademelons [2 types] wallabies [3 types] occasional echidnas, a few koalas, mountain brushtails, gliders, skinks, goannas, snakes, rails, quail and various other grass birds, native rats and antechinus, maybe a quoll plus about 50 species of the usual birds.
I try to keep records but of course they aren’t perfect.
Spangled,
Sounds great, we don’t have wild dogs over here(yet) and I haven’t seen any feral cats around but we do have foxes.
My property is bang in the middle of sheep and cattle grazing country and was a River Red gum/grassland system with very few trees and no understory. By sheer coincidence, the people who bought the 2 properties next to mine just after I got mine are also into re-vegetation but that still leaves only about 150 acres of potential habitat surrounded by tens of thousands of acres of grazing land. Fortunately we have a substantial common creek that can act as a wildlife corridor but at this stage I don’t know where the little fury guys would come from.
We have snakes of course, various lizards and lots of birds and we get the occasional small group of Eastern Greys passing through but none of the wee critters at this point in time.
Rainfall is 450 ml/annum ave so it’s probably drier here than where you are.
Derek,
If you’re surrounded by grazing country you may be able to get “Foxoff” baits which contain 1080 or get involved in a local baiting program.
Make yourself popular with the local graziers.
Foxes are beautiful animals but absolute killing machines when it comes to native wildlife [as well as sheep] and they’ll use your oasis as a great base for their foraging.
Sounds like a lovely spot and with that corridor and your improving habitat you’ll be surprised how the wildlife will build up.
Yes, we’re in [what should be] a moister area of around 1,000 mm p/a in SEQ.
Spangled,
We don’t see many foxes around but I’m a bit reluctant to bait only because we do have a lot of rabbits and at this time, the foxes are the only thing that may be controlling them.
The creek is beautiful, with a 70 foot cliff about half way along it and lots of shrubs, new gums and sheokes as well as a proliferation of grass trees(Xantheria). Heaps of veg has come back since we took sheep off but there is also a loy of woody weeds now and a prickly pear the size of a house.
Looks like everyone’s chucked it in for the night (or moved over to Realclimate)…..oh well, I might just ramble for a bit.
One of the things that impresses me about some of the people on this blog is the rapid response time incorporating detailed information, not just opinion. Lukey boy is particularly good at it, I sometimes read his responses and think WTF has he got a giant pinup board on the wall behind his computer with every bit of relevant info on it or has he got like 5 monitors there primed and ready to find what he needs? Tim and Cohenite are a bit the same and I wonder if all you guys keep this stuf floating around in your heads waiting for the right time to call it up.
Some of the opinions on this blog seem very polarised, a bit like Ford vs Holden or the democrats who think Obama’s sphincter is an emerging protostar as apposed to those republicans who believed that G.W. could do no wrong.
I don’t believe for a second that Luke SJT etc. think that a 2 degree rise in temp will result in a handful of humans living at the poles while the rest of the planet burns, likewise I doubt that anyone on the other side denies that a continued increase in global temp will result in sea level rise and that will engulf real estate.
There have been a lot of really good arguments here over the weeks that I’ve been browsing but there have also been a few silly accusations and counter accusations and ad hom attacks from both sides that don’t make a positive contribution to what I regard as an excellent site.
In the end I guess there has to be a bit of cut and thrust to maintain rigor in arguments.
May the Schwartz be with you all, goodnight.
Derek – it’s pretty easy – you just need to get up to speed. Cohers and Tim spend the most time as they are the idle rich. Probably old money – gold money. I’ve just moved up from a laptop to a desktop.
Derek – it’s not the actual temperature rise. It’s what happens to the extremes of the distribution. How fast the changes are for humanity and ecosystems to cope with. Coping with 6 billion humans going to 9 billion. Food security pressures. And a major worry of a drying sub-tropics and more drought. It’s also a risk management exercise with imperfect data.
“– it’s not the actual temperature rise.”
No it’s ocean heat – ……wait – we’ve done this before.
Luke – “extremes of distribution” and “ecosystems coping”
you’re in Brisbane – sub tropics – normal rainfall – drongo and I are south of you – sub tropics above average rainfall.
the imperfect data are the ramblings in your head.
Luke,
I’m on the same page with the whole population thing. If nothing else actually changed, I still think that getting up to 9 billion people will have devastating effects. I’ve seen a graph showing that the amount of water taken out of the murray/darling system by human activity is something like 80% of ave inflows. Even in “normal” conditions, that’s bad for the river. I don’t think it will get any better so how can the pollies be talking up population growth?
Mike Hulme, head of the Tyndall Center, has a book out.
“Why We Disagree About Climate Change”
One important point he makes is in regards to the matter of how important he believes honesty and truth are in the climate wars.
Here is what he says about the role of truth in the AGW community:
Because the idea of climate change is so plastic, it can be deployed across many of our human projects and can serve many of our psychological, ethical, and spiritual needs.
…….
We will continue to create and tell new stories about climate change and mobilize them in support of our projects.
…….
These myths transcend the scientific categories of ‘true’ and ‘false’
And of course our own AGW true believing trolls exemplify this perfectly.
Derek, you are being too much spellbound by Loopy Luke. Correct me if I am wrong, but I have read that even 9 billion people could fit comfortably into NSW at Sydney’s present density, leaving the RoW empty, which is clearly the aim of the Tamil Tigers.
Tim,
you could probably fit 9 billion people in the Simpson desert but that’s not the point. A lot of sane people think that 25 million is our upper limit as far as water is concerned but of course you can’t have ecconomic growth without population growth can you.
Janama,
With all due respect, in the last 10K years warmer often means wetter but there were times when warmer meant drier.
regardless of whether AGW is true or not, there is nothing certain about the effects of global increases in temp. I like to THINK positively about it but I don’t think the time for flippancy is here just yet.
Derek Smith,
” A lot of sane people think that 25 million is our upper limit as far as water is concerned but of course you can’t have ecconomic growth without population growth can you.”
Yup, and how does limiting energy production help the situation???
We have technologies that can desalinate and recycle water. They are currently energy intensive and expensive to build. Why break economies so that we can not pursue these solutions and improve them?
Keep the economies running and build the plants to provide water without sucking the natural watersheds and water tables dry!!!
What I see is that people who become well off become less likely to have large families. Keeping populations in poverty BREEDS in all respects.
More dumb bum stuff from Janama – what’s the rainfall of Brisbane got to do with the price of eggs. Dumber and dumber.
Just add in Argentina, Murray, China, Kenya, California – you know the drill be now !
But if you want to go there – yes how many years on water restrictions in our glittering first world Bris-Vegas where you were banned from watering your garden or washing your car. 3 min showers, No filling up pools. Water usage police. Cause worst on record drought in the catchment. How many billions now spent on a water grid. Millions spent on de-sal for low yield, high cost and still not bloody working.
hahahahahahahahahahaha
worst on record drought eh? You don’t think it’s the 1000 people moving into the area every week.
Brisbane has recorded the highest percentage rate of population growth of all state capital cities every year since 1990.
http://www.warwickhughes.com/briswater/
Brisbane’s catchment has had average rainfall over the past 36 months
http://www.weatherzone.com.au/httpdata_r/images/climate/clim_rain_decile_qld_36mth.gif
IMO the blog is still worth a read despite the anti AGW junk. For example Derek and Spangles make reasonable contributions along the way in our search for wisdom on the issues. For their sake I will add some thoughts on the measurement side.
For starters I’m going to be a flat earth guru and say we need to focus on the horizontal, not the vertical when watching coastlines, SL etc and it also applies to communications, ie phone cell diameters and so on. What becomes most apparent then are any abrupt changes in our 2D plans like sudden erosion at the base of the frontal dune system. Frequency analysis becomes a most useful tool; it also renders observations of short term oscillations at that famous mark on the rocks at Port Arthur somewhat redundant in our erosion arguments. Let’s add too, there are issues related to deep water versus shallow seas when it comes to measuring the swell.
Frequent flights over Bass Strait and our coastlines round the Southern Ocean can prove several things, we live on a very flat disc for all intents and purposes here, breaking waves can bee seen from a great height also our big beaches completely disappear at high tide. Add to this horizontal picture, all the disappearing glaciers and we don’t need any other data to see our climate changing in real life.
This obsession with measurement precision that we see in amateur posts on a few like blogs is just another trick in denial operations. Cosy as the seem on the surface, they don’t rate with veteran practitioners like me skilled as I am in the art of faking a good finish on anything worth restoring for any purpose. In the end all measurements are a fudge governed only by the artist and their art form. However we are quite dependent on their structure as we are with freshly sharpened tools and antiques. What’s the bet? Granddad’s hand saw still works with several teeth missing and others weathered away.
For Luke; when I left this lot yesterday I played an album for the first time, piano music by Fiona Joy Hawkins “Angel Above My Piano” quote- “come with me on a journey, to visit places and experience landscapes and to feel emotions”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiona_Joy_Hawkins
It was the Southern Ocean and more at a familiar frequency
More trivia we’ve been 100 times before.
Janama – mate don’t pick a fight on favourite topics. Calculated inflows into the catchment were worst on record – even worse than Federation drought. It was off the meter even though Brisbane itself was not as bad. Wivenhoe Dam catchment being behind the D’Aguilar Range and up the Brisbane Valley. Of course the much smaller Moogerah dam near the border ranges was also as bad in level – not sure about inflows though.
The population growth is the ADDITIONAL sting in the tail and gives less buffer. But lowest on recorded inflows are simply lowest on record inflows. What more do you want !
As for recent rains – thank heavens. It was after a VERY long time.
None of any AGW theory says “oh it will never rain again”. What it does say is that “drought will be more frequent or prolonged”.
Was the Brisbane Valley drought AGW – who knows. It’s not clear. May be natural. But there various theories on blocking mechanisms etc. (SAM, STR revisited).
So now we’ve covered 0.00000% of the sub-tropics. Wow !
Is the Murray Valley drought AGW – science says 80% yes.
P.S. Can’t find the exact graphic – but see Fig 4 here – http://www.climatechange.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0014/22262/ClimateScienceReport_WEB.pdf – there is a better one on inflows
Tim Curtin
You are absolutely correct the population of the world living at the density of Singapore or London would fit into NSW and Victoria.
Mind you hyocrites like Greg Combet would have to give up his newly bought beach house in Newcastle, because it would be under water, before much longer,according to his rants in Parliament of late.
In general, as the population goes up, CO2 goes up, Tasmanian rock lobster catches go down and so on.
http://abc.gov.au/news/tag/fishing-aquaculture/
Facts for the pedantic from easy to find reliable sources – everywhere
What we know and are concerned about
http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/mediareleasesbytitle/53DA36DD9E7B3FD2CA2575D80081F4FE?OpenDocument
http://www.daff.gov.au/brs/climate-impact
Released today-
http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Lookup/1307.6Main+Features14Sep+2009
Last but not least, environment –
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Latestproducts/1307.6Main%20Features14Sep%202009?opendocument&tabname=Summary&prodno=1307.6&issue=Sep%202009&num=&view=
“Calculated inflows into the catchment were worst on record – even worse than Federation drought. ”
you just spout BS all day don’t you.
Wivenhoe Inflows
Average 1901 – 1916 (Federation Drought 400 GL/yr)
Average 1943 – 1956 (418 GL/yr)
Average 1990 – 2006 (507 GL/yr)
http://www.irrigation.org.au/assets/pages/75D4C8BD-1708-51EB-A6816CD6992AC045/38%20-%20Thortensen%20-%20Paper.pdf
all the dams were above 80% in June this year Luke.
http://www.seqwater.com.au/public/dam-levels
Derek Smith,
My garden has a wall/ fence against cats so they don’t eat my birds!
Janama – you’re such a reactive lil’ hillbilly. Are you really serious – what a rope-a-dope.
NINETEEN NINETY – hahahahahahahahahahaha
I am so amazed at this try-on – I may take 30 mins to pick my jaw up off the deck.
So you’e been scouring like a little ferret all day and this is what you’ve found. OMIGAWD mate.
Did it piss down in the late 90s – yes. Are the time periods different – yes.
When did the drought start – 2001
AND AND AND – did it (you dope) did it go longer than 2006 – YES ! And this really made it exceptional.
Pullease J-boy. Put the duelling banjos CD back on eh?
BTW 1895-1902 is the Federation drought
Luke you can ridicule me as much as you like but surely the data I posted is the question.
Surely it’s the personnel at Seqwater you should be questioning, it’s their paper.
Gavin,
which causes the most coastal erosion, rising water level or falling water level??
Luketard,
do you have ANY useful information??
You are virtually incoherent. I don’t know why Janama even bothers trying to communicate with a TRUE BELIEVER like you!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
In legal terms the word scintilla is a useful equitable tool for judges who otherwise have nothing substantial to hang a remedy on for a litigant they feel is deserving; it provides some latitude for the injection of emotion into the otherwise logical and precedent constrained proceedings.
The danger with this is that emotion can grow until it dominates the logic and scientific basis of the process; the precautionary principle is the classic example whereby the dearth of evidence is defeated by the dominace of emotion and ideology.
The pp has thoroughly contaminated the pro-AGW side of things; we see luke justifying the difference between the current drought and the Federation drought; we saw the concoction of distinctions between the Black Friday fires of 1939 and the Black Saturday fires of 2009; non-existent scintillas of ‘evidence’ are squeezed out of motes of quantum mentality and thrust triumphantly in the faces of the disbelievers. in courts of law the contamination of one level of the system is usually purged through he appeal process; in the AGW debate there is not only no objective deliberation and judgement in the first instance but the appeal process is also non-existent as in “the science is settled”. Devoid of this fundamental correcting process the AGW ‘evidence’ is grotesque in its utter lack of self-correction [which is the defining characteristic of proper science] and what is left are bloviations saturated with irony and disingenuous hypocrisy; the old coger gavin provides a classic example:
“This obsession with measurement precision that we see in amateur posts on a few like blogs is just another trick in denial operations. Cosy as the seem on the surface, they don’t rate with veteran practitioners like me skilled as I am in the art of faking a good finish on anything worth restoring for any purpose. In the end all measurements are a fudge governed only by the artist and their art form.”
kuhnkat re your rather odd Q; read this blog article for students
http://geobytesgcse.blogspot.com/2007/08/coastal-processes-erosion-transport-and.html
and
Professor Andrew Short, Senior Coastal Scientist at Coastalwatch
http://www.coastalwatch.com/news/article.aspx?articleId=4524&cateId=3&title=Impact%20of%20coastal%20erosion%20in%20Australia
Gavin,
your first link did not address my question.
the second link was long winded and had too much AGW propaganda for me to finish. What I read did not address the question.
Which causes more coastal erosion, rising water level or falling water level.
Come in Spinner “in courts of law the contamination of one level of the system is usually purged through the appeal process”
Purist git!
YEAH watching various sized ant groups on the same trail between sunrise and sunset gives us a much better understanding of more complex natural systems
Louis Hissink where are you!!!
Just saw a very interesting post over at WUWT.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/28/asteroid-explosion-over-indonesia/#more-12225
A 10 meter meteor apparently exploded over Indonesia with a force of about 50 kilotons!!! Sounds like prediction confirmation!!
kuhnkat; it’s not about water levels, its all about flows and non linear solutions
gavin,
“kuhnkat; it’s not about water levels, its all about flows and non linear solutions”
tell that to the alarmists who keep throwing down linear trends as the absolute.
decreasing water level will cause worse erosion than rising water levels.
if you see an undercut beach it will more likely be due to a period of decreasing water levels.
obviously not all the time as currents do play a part in some areas, not to mention geologic activity…
You might want to read an experts papers. Dr. Nils Moerner.
Spoken like a silver tongued lawyer trying to his client off. Keep talking Cohers – the ropa-dopes will swallow it.
KookyKat – I can’t help it if you can’t compute.
“Which causes more coastal erosion, rising water level or falling water level.” episodic storms particularly combined with high tides.
KookyKat – what a load of crap – mate you might want to study beach erosion in Australia instead boring us to death with your tedious NH anecdotes.
Moerner – was that the bloke with the spare mangrove as a “prop” – hahahahahahahaha
kuhnkat; In that student blog link – Factors affecting coastal errosion see rocks; type and structure then think about what is happening below that minister’s house in Newcastle (google Beach Road) after viewing the satelite images that show rock botton rather than piles of sand
Luke …relax about the water thing. If the worst comes to the worst in the future(and judging by the face on your logo I would say that’s likely) we can always ship a few tanker loads of the stuff over to you. Cool green and heaps of water over here in NZ at the moment.
We don’t really need it here as half of us are over in Brisbane with you guys. Over in the lucky country.
Kuhnkat,
How does concern for water shortages due to population growth segue into limiting energy production? And desalination plants, seriously? That’s akin to the old idea of building taller chimney stacks to dilute pollution which just moved the acid rain problem on to neighboring countries. Try talking to any marine biologist about desalination plants and you might get a saline solution in your eye.
Now recycling water is an eminently excellent idea which would have the added bonus of helping our coastal ecology and probably be cheaper and less energy hungry. I also think that every new house should be built on an inground 20K gallon min rainwater tank, but that would probably never happen.
Malcolm,
Sure, and if you built high density apartment buildings right across the state you could maybe fit 100 billion people in but that’s not the point. It’s not funderin’ sustainable!
Janama,
Wivenhoe Inflows
Average 1901 – 1916 (Federation Drought 400 GL/yr)
Average 1943 – 1956 (418 GL/yr)
Average 1990 – 2006 (507 GL/yr)
So 100 years ago inflows were 20% worse than recently, that’s comforting until you remember that recent ave outflows are something like 10 times what they were back then. The truth is, even if we hadn’t been in drought for the last whatever years the situation would still be unsustainable, the lower lakes problem would just have taken a few more years to get this bad.
PS, I feel I have to make an observation. This idea that everything that the other side says has to be wrong(and both sides are guilty of this) is BS and doesn’t make for productive debate.
Others may notice some sand tracks in those google images. They reminded me of surface “hardening” after dewatering. For sand to “ooze” there has to be that transport medium H20 present for at least a time .
From experience, temporary rock hard surfaces can occur when various suspended solids in solution are allowed to dewater. Pipeline transport sludge & recovery is a familular biz in mining, paint pigments also pulp and paper making.
kuhnkat; this introduces the concept of “volume reduction” with all dewatering.
Mr Derek Smith
Of course if the population of the earth was crammed into an area the size of NSW and ViC that would be one thing. It is entirely another thing whether or not that was manageable and sustainable.
The logistics of feeding and watering that density would be near impossible.
I thought that was F^$#%^$ obvious.
The purpose of doing the cals was to demonstrate something else.
You work that what it was.
To Derick Smith,
Could you enlighten this old Bushie and others just what you believe “the lower lakes problem ” is?
Have you read the numerous discussions on this subject at this site?
Luke, when are you going to get a job that adds to human endevour and join the real world seeking to make this environment better for future generations?
You cannot be gainfully empolyed and spend the time you do attacking most people on this site.
Janama,
No one has the foggiest idea what the inflow to the non-existent Wivenhoe may have been in 1916.
The Federation drought was well and truly over by 1916.
Careful, you are falling into the Luke nonsence of quoting figures that have no basis in fact and prove nothing.
Pikey.
Pikey – there is this thing called science (which you don’t believe in) which demonstrates quite easily that one can calibrate rainfall to runoff with a simple soil water model. Gee whiz ! And golly gee – this might even be the part of the basis for calculating reservoir system performance. But being an old Bushie – you wouldn’t worry about that would you ! You probably ask your pet galah.
Ann Novek,
Hi, pleased to meet you, we don’t have a cat problem yet but if and when we do,a wall might well be the solution. Does anyone else have birds fly in front of their cars like dolphins do with ships? It’s quite an experience.
Malcolm,
My apologies, I’m probably the least intelligent person on this blog, I’m pretty sure I’m the least educated. So could you please explain to me, what is the point you are trying to get across with the whole population density thing?
I’ve spent the whole day checking the health of the ocean foreshore north of the NSW border following last nights report of doom and gloom sea erosion and it appears to me to be healthier than I can ever remember it to be in my lifetime.
The sand by-pass at the Tweed R. has put so much sand on the southern Qld beaches that it is an embarrassment and surfies are bitterly complaining about their point breaks disappearing.
The same is happening on South Stradbroke Is. a bit further north and the northern tip which I landed on this morning is like the Sahara Desert. Miles and miles of sand with a recent backdrop regrowth of Casuarina equisetifolia with a good and evident population of golden wallabies [Wallabia bicolour].
There are signs of recent surveying along this advancing shoreline with large red-banded aluminium posts driven in to the beach.
Maybe they are having to redraw the map of Australia.
Derek: I was the one who actually started the “world’s population could fit into NSW + Vic” topic, the point being that would leave the rest of the globe for aliens from space to grow the food etc needed to feed them all.
As it happens our Kev has exactly this in mind. Let Australia take in all Tamils, as well as all persecuted Talibans etc from Afghanistan & Pakistan, not to mention the disaffected in Iraq and Iran (Sunni and Shia, being both equally disaffected and addicted to blowing themselves up), Somalia and the rest of Africa, and we can soon fill up those newly vacant spots along the MD, though I favour Queensland as being first in line for the Tamils’ new homeland, but not along the Gold Coast, as that would be cruel.
Too much sand, not enough sand, what it all boils down to is that people want the world be frozen in stasis, never changing. I’m sorry but that’s not how it works, nature will have it’s way and we have to just roll with the punches.
If you build a house at the base of an active volcano you’re bound to see a river of lava flowing past your front door from time to time. Likewise, if you build your house on the edge of a beach sooner or later it’s going to be threatened.
Tim,
I’ll just concede that I misunderstood what you were saying somewhere along the line and leave it at that.
What are your thoughts on desalination plants?
Derek: desal is fantastic where as in Dubai, Saudi, Kuwait etc you have free power (from otherwise flared gas) to power the plants. Here with our incredibly cheap coal in La Trobe, why not, if you can sell the water for more than the cost of the power used? But top end of WA is probably the best place using flares from LNG. (I actually did some work on desal for Lonrho back in 1975-76). Desal has made the desert bloom in Dubai, with much lusher golf courses – and much more birdlife – than you can find in Vic or NSW. Trouble with golf in Dubai as I found is too many water holes, and birds who specialise in creating a racket as you line up your putts – and then cackle in derision when you miss, as you always do.
Tim – the farmers around my area grow grass seed that’s exported to Dubai where it’s grown to feed dairy cows!
Today’s Spooner 🙂
http://images.smh.com.au/2009/10/28/820311/svSPOONER_OCT29-600×400.jpg
Has there been any comparisons done between desalination and stormwater capture and storage? We have some issues with desal in SA being put in the gulf and their effects on marine environments.
Talking of Galahs Luke.
You are colourful.
You are continually squawking incohearently.
When shot at you fly in ever diminishing circles squawking even louder.
Just a comparison.
Now as to that science.
Even an old Bushie knows that models produced with multiple variables and inexact historical data can all be made into elephants that will whistle “You are my Sunshine.”
Also Luke, have you had a look at the inflow and dam levels in the Murray system lately?
Pikey.
Spangles, Everytime I visit the NSW coast ( I spend at least 6 weeks each year) I ask locals what they think of climate change and have they noticed any change in sea level, tides, storm surge etc. They invariably laugh and scoff.
I have been visiting the same part of the coast for the last 35 years and I can also see nothing except changes to beaches due to movement of the sand. The rock platforms i dive from look identical to me.
Maybe its rosenthal’s rats at work…i expect to see no change so i don t see it. But it is interesting to me that nobody that is likely to be impacted by rising sea levels is actually remotely concerned.
If you build on a cliff or on a beach front, you have to expect erosion and the chance of your home being washed away. This latest report has been issued to add to the spin associated with the copenhagen convention
Derek,
Desal works if you’ve got a cheap or by-product source of energy as Tim describes. Here in SEQ our beaut new desal is costing us about half a mil A DAY and just sitting there [I can hear it rusting from here]and may never produce a litre of water in need.
This is what’s known as dumb desal.
If we had gone ahead with the Wolfdene dam at a fraction of the cost we would now have 1/ A great storage of cheap water. 2/ A guaranteed farming area in the catchment for all time. 3/ A huge environmental zone. 4/ A great recreation and tourism area.
What we are getting in its place is [apart from the expensive, rusty non-waterworks] an ever increasing sea of roofs.
A dam, particularly in an urbanising area is a win/win/win/win.
A desal is win[maybe]/lose/lose/lose.
In desert regions particularly where there is cheap energy as Tim describes, it makes sense and it would combine well with various forms of nuclear power generation.
I submitted a plan for wave operated big pump cylinders stationed offshore NSW and SEQ where the Tasman continually churns out big waves, to supply continuous, electricity-free, RO fresh water before they started our desal but didn’t even get a reply.
Luketard,
Dr. Moerner has studied more south Pacific islands than you have probably rolled up on!!! Otr is that BEACHED ON?????
Tell HIM about how Aussi Land differs in ocean physics from the rest of the world!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Derek Smith,
The real problem in tech and non-tech countries is water availability.
Reducing the population is called genocide in some areas.
Reducing the population to fit energy and water availability starts sounding like Communist and Fascist solutions.
Solutions to problems in FREE societies generally are around finding a solution, NOT getting rid of the humans or limiting their birth rate to reduce the magnitude of the problem.
Telling me to reduce CO2 is telling me to reduce the food supply indirectly getting rid of humans.
Let us be very clear, AGW is a One World Order type issue with a One World Order Elite Solution.
I find it endlessly fascinatinbg how Agnostics, Atheists, and others without a God appear to be attracted to taking Godhood upon themselves and running everyone elses lives!!
Gavin,
http://www.bom.gov.au/ntc/IDO60202/IDO60202.2009.pdf
“It shows that since 1992 sea levels have risen more substantially across the western Pacific than across the eastern Pacific. This geographical non-uniformity is related to inter-decadal sea level variability as described in section 3.2.2.”
Guess what, the Pacific Ocean, and other oceans, lakes… SLOSH!!!
Do you think that humans are responsible for the rocks with no sand??
Do you think that rising sea level is making the erosion worse??
What DO you think is happening??
Coastlines have been eroding for as long as they have existed. Blaming humans for sea rise causing this natural erosion is pointless.
Lukefart,
“Pikey – there is this thing called science (which you don’t believe in)”
I’ve got about 5 minutes. Tell me everything you know and we can fit in time for a beeah!!
Sorry, I don’t have time to listen to everything you THINK you know!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Why Lukefarttard thanks for the support!!!
““Which causes more coastal erosion, rising water level or falling water level.” episodic storms particularly combined with high tides.”
Humans have nothing to do with it!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Luke,
What amazes me over there in Oz is that with all your water problems you have shower-heads which produce a torrent of water compared with ours in NZ.(The only advantage of our miserable flow is that you can get a soap lather)
However the Greens in govt. towards the end of last year wanted to introduce legislation to reduce our shower flow even further!!!
So in addition to having our incandescent lights banned,this final straw,this funny little issue, contributed massively to the resounding biff out of the Clark govt.
BTW if Rudd bans incandescents I probably wouldn’t give him any more than one term.
There are a swag of people out there who havn’t bought into your save the planet nonsense Luke.
Also BTW the very first thing Key did after the election was repeal the ban on incandescents . Sensible fellows.
“What amazes me over there in Oz is that with all your water problems you have shower-heads which produce a torrent of water compared with ours in NZ” – well Macker during the recent Brisbane drought there has been a massive campaign to install new shower heads. And we were getting by on 140 per person per day. cf about 300 before.
KaakyKat – “Humans have nothing to do with it!!!” at this stage probably not.
Kuhnkat,
Forgive me, I would never advocate reducing population by artificial means and the Chinese solution has had very unfortunate unintended consequences but I’m afraid that I am in favor of intelligent means to limit population to a yet to be decided sustainable level. I heard on the radio recently that when you give women in third world countries an education and lifestyle choices such as getting a job, birthrates fall naturally. I believe giving them the option of birth control is also a major factor. I may be wrong but I seem to recall that most western countries actually have stagnant or dropping birth rates and that there is also a link between increasing prosperity and reducing birth rates as well.
Spangled,
Interesting stuff, there was a very promising looking wave turbine I saw on Beyond 2000(?) that never seemed to get passed the development stage. In the right locations it seems such an obvious solution. I’m not sure about those gigantic undersea tidal generators, it’s not clear whether they would have any impact on marine ecosystems.
Luke,
I’m totally on rain water so my family of 5 are trying to get by on 65l/person/day with a fair bit of success. I think being mindful of your resources is good for the soul, I remember years ago living in suburbia and whining about the cost of water back then(17c/KL?). Now I think that water should be charged at at least double so that people appreciate what they have access to.
Mack,
I’m in a bit of a bind, when my house was built it had 3000 watts of incandescent globes and because we are totally solar, changed to the compact flouros. Being conservative with lights means we only run 60-80 watts at any time. I’ve since read damming stuff about these globes on this very site but don’t see any alternative at this time. I’m hoping for a LED solution in the near future.
Luke and Derek,
As a point of interest when spending extended time at sea under sail you work on 1 litre per person per day and bathe in salt water.
The only other energy consumption is gas for cooking and refrigeration is optional.
It’s not how you would live normally but it’s what you can comfortably manage without too much deprivation. Even with young families.
Spangled,
We used to live in a shoe box and my father used to make us lick the road clean with tongue,……heh, just joking but seriously, how do you wash in salt water for more than a couple of days? When I come home from the beach I can’t go to bed without having a shower cause I end up with sweat rashes in uncomfortable places.
Derek,
That shoe box were a looxury! In extended off-shore races I made my crew cut the handles off their toothbrushes to save weight!
Most cruising is done in good climate zones where you get regular rainfall so that eases the pressure but even without it you get by.
Our family was so hard up that we used to drink our own urine. And lived in a hole in the road. Did we complain? Well yes we did actually.
Derek and spangled ,
My wife refuses to live like a mole in a hole! I cop it when my scottish nature compells me to go round switching off lights so I don’t.
Big Al left all his garden lights going during earth hour so what the hell.
Anybody ready to heat up the spa?
Luke,
OK, I can accept that your family lived in a hole in the road, that’s pretty common, but drinking your own urine? Wouldn’t you like, get yellow fever or something? Besides which its just gross, ew!
And every day the paper boy brings more….
Extraordinary September Arctic sea ice reductions and their relationships with storm behavior over 1979–2008
Ian Simmonds
School of Earth Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Kevin Keay
School of Earth Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Dramatic changes have been observed in Arctic sea ice, cyclone behavior and atmospheric circulation in recent decades. Decreases in September ice extent have been remarkable over the last 30 years, and particularly so in very recent times. The analysis reveals that the trends and variability in September ice coverage and mean cyclone characteristics are related, and that the strength (rather than the number) of cyclones in the Arctic basin is playing a central role in the changes observed in that region, especially in the last few years. The findings reinforce suggestions that the decline in the extent and thickness of Arctic ice has started to render it particularly vulnerable to future anomalous cyclonic activity and atmospheric forcing.
Received 29 June 2009; accepted 1 September 2009; published 14 October 2009.
Citation: Simmonds, I., and K. Keay (2009), Extraordinary September Arctic sea ice reductions and their relationships with storm behavior over 1979–2008, Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L19715, doi:10.1029/2009GL039810.
AND
Satellite observations indicate rapid warming trend for lakes in California and Nevada
Schneider P.1, S. J. Hook1, R. Radocinski1, G. K. Corlett2, G. C. Hulley1, S. G. Schladow3, T. E.
Steissberg3
1NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91109,
USA
2Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Leicester, University Road, Leicester LE1
7RH, UK
3Tahoe Environmental Research Center, University of California at Davis, Davis, CA 95616,
USA
Large lake temperatures are excellent indicators of climate change; however, their usefulness is
limited by the paucity of in situ measurements and lack of long-term data records. Thermal
infrared satellite imagery has the potential to provide frequent and accurate retrievals of lake
surface temperatures spanning several decades on a global scale. Analysis of seventeen years of
data from the Along-Track Scanning Radiometer series of sensors and data from the Moderate
Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer shows that six lakes situated in California and Nevada
have exhibited average summer nighttime warming trends of 0.11 ± 0.02 °C yr-1 (p < 0.002)
since 1992. A comparison with air temperature observations suggests that the lake surface
temperature is warming approximately twice as fast as the average minimum surface air
temperature.
luke’s paper says; “Dramatic changes have been observed in Arctic sea ice, cyclone behavior and atmospheric circulation in recent decades”
1 Arctic sea ice;
http://users.tpg.com.au/johnsay1/Stuff/Arctic_1.jpg
http://www.lanl.gov/source/orgs/ees/ees14/pdfs/09Chlylek.pdf
2 Cyclone behaviour;
http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/atlantic_ace.jpg
3 Atmospheric circulation;
http://landshape.org/enm/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/articletxt.pdf
As for the 6 lakes showing temperature increases of up to 1.1C per decade; they would be the ones with the thermal springs underneath?
Cohers – cyclones – aka low pressure system – Arctic – try to get in the region eh?
Mindless knee jerk denialism.
“As for the 6 lakes showing temperature increases of up to 1.1C per decade; they would be the ones with the thermal springs underneath?” – so desperate – so utterly desperate Cohers
you have to deny it – trending in all six lakes – ROTFL
At some point the coincidence level has be OVERWHELMING – we’ll find out what the level is soon.
After you lot have finished denying it’s happening – you’ll be talking up your new positions – “well anyway it won’t be a problem” – you’ll “adapt” – hahahahahahaha
I also note Janama has packed it in after being done like a dinner.
Luke,
Science is not debated, politics and pseudoscience is.
luke, my link about cyclones was to the North Atlantic data;
http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/atlantic_ace.jpg
Luke, 9-43 P.M. Oct.30.
That explains it.
I always though you must have been on the piss.
In relation to the supposed water shortage in Australia.
It is a fabrication!
If we compare annual precipitation per head for various countries we get the following.
Australia : 130 megalitres per person /year.
Brazil: 121 megs./year.
United States; 29 megs./year.
China; 11 megs. / year.
Japan: 5.9 megs. / year.
United Kindgom: 2.6 megs. / year.
Mack,
Can’t find the figures for N.Z.
There is an average of 290 M megs of water runs to the sea from mainland Aus. each year. With another 50M megs. from Tasmania.
It is estimated we have another 40M megs of urban run-off that is totally wasted.
If we only harvestaed 5% of the above, we have sufficient water for 150M people.
Australia is not short of water only the wisdom and desire to harvest and store it.
Pikey.
Lukey, that last paper you cite concluded in its Abstract: “The findings reinforce suggestions that the decline in the extent and thickness of Arctic ice has started to render it particularly vulnerable to future anomalous cyclonic activity and atmospheric forcing”. Could you kindly forward or post the authors’ bivariate regression results proving that “anomalous cyclonic activity” is the result of “atmospheric forcing”, with the latter broken down into its principal components, solar radiation, and radiative forcing by GHG.
“Science is not debated, politics and pseudoscience is.” – wow – what an amazingly stupid comment
Cohers – sigh – no try Arctic Basin – desperate Cohers – just desperate.
Pikey – wow – what snake oil. Pity vast amounts of water runoff into the north of Australia. I’m sure millions will love to live in the Kimberley, the Gulf, Cape York with heat and plague insects – eating mangoes not apples. Enjoying rip roaring cyclones. What meaningless stats. But thanks for playing. NEXT ! I know – let’s pump it from the Kimberley to Albury – hahahahahaha
Timmy – you should be learning by now that you’re ratshit at this stuff. Who says “atmospheric forcing” has anything to do with radiation here. You’re a real little content free unpublished verballer aren’t you. You could have been good in the Qld or NSW police in the 1970s.
Dusts hands – well that’s about it for the denialists today. Done like dinners yet again. Time for a day out with a foxy lady. See yas. (I really can’t believe they pay me to debate you guys – it’s just too easy).
“And every day the paper boy brings more….”
Arse-up-again-Luke,
No, it goes…
And February made me shiver
With every paper I’d deliver….
There’s a drawing competition bring held at the local school of arts and you should enter.
Nobody draws conclusions like you can from all that “digital astrology” you just served up.
Lack of warming, lack of SLR rate increase, lack OHC increase, ever increasing ACO2……
Correlation or coincidence doesnt prove causation but lack of C or C sure disproves it.
Luke – I wasn’t done like a dinner – I just refused to accept your theory that the recent drought in the Brisbane area was worse than the federation drought, and YOU – well you failed to prove it so.
Derek – there were two wave generators on Beyond 2000 – one was built into a cliff face and the waves crashing against the coastline forced air up a shaft that had a wind turbine that produced electricity.
The other was unit that was chained to the ocean floor and as the waves passed under it they forced air up into a similar turbine setup. It was trialed at Port Kembla.
http://www.zulenet.com/electriceco/energetech.html
cohenite…”STR; saw Stewie Franks today; he has just had a paper on the STR and IOD accepted for publication in GPR; proves the dominance of the natural cycle; should be interesting”.
coho…haven’t been around for a bit. Working out of town with little time or internet access.
re natural cycles. On long drives, I have given a great deal of thought to what Lindzen said about surface temps rising as high as 72 C with no convection to cool the air. In the Canadian prairies, September saw uncommonly hot weather with temps well into the 30’s C. It was unbearable working out in the sun and I became aware of how still the air was. The prairies normally have decent winds blowing but with the really hot weather there was nary a breeze.
On days when a decent wind was blowing, the temps dropped over 5 C. That’s your convection at work, carrying off heat and regulating the surface. Of course, there are situations when the only air available to move into a hot spot is as hot as the air leaving. That happened to us here on the west coast of Canada in late July. Normally, cooling breezes blow in from the cooler ocean. Those air flow patterns were reversed, possibly because of the recent reversal of the PDO, and we were hit by hotter air from the interior. That set a record in Vancouver that has stood since 1960,
The point is that CO2 warming, especially as related to radiative warming, is a red herring. CO2 was introduced by modelers as a fudge factor to modify the outputs of their models. They have completely missed the effect of natural forces such as convection, which has a much greater effect on temperatures than radiation.
All you have to do is look at the effect of radiation on our prairies in autumn. Normally, the effect of the tilting in the Earth’s axis reduces the temps several degrees, but nothing severe. Meantime, the Arctic gets cut off from the Sun as winter approaches and the temps there drop well below zero. It’s not till that cold Arctic air is forced down into the prairies that they become so cold. Again, that’s convection.
With that freezing air, the surface freezes, and solar radiation has little effect on it. A freezing surface does not radiate significant energy. In winter, radiative energy in large portions of the northern and southern hemispheres is neglible, but energy from convection is not. In other words, convective-based energy controls radiative energy and sets the temperatures.
Why people think that CO2 can effect temperatures more than a fraction of a degree, at best, is beyond me. And I’m talking about natural CO2, not the pathetic contribution of humans. Science must reassess the hooliganism introduced to science by modelers and get real about the way the modelers have corrupted physics and meteorology.
Gordon,
Science is only a bit player in this current drama.
This is all about the reintroduction of world socialism. Karl farted and fell back in 1990 but Maurice was right behind and picked up the baton.
The west’s enormous increase in “educated idiots” could well be the tipping point.
Gordon, I couldn’t agree more; a good paper, and I only have a link to the abstract, is;
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all?content=10.1080/15567030701568727
Their point is that heating from radiative transfer is dwarfed [actually nullified] by convection; LTEs form at the ground/atmosphere boundary; convectional uplift is quicker than any radiative transfer from within the rising LTE to the surrounding atmosphere which, when the internal temperature of the LTE reaches equilibrium with the atmosphere, either has the downward isotropic emission defeated by the opagueness of the atmosphere below the CEL or by the process described in this paper by Nasif Nahle;
http://biocab.org/Induced_Emission.html
the problem with luke is that he thinks this is a game and doesn’t realise he is travelling with nutters.
Luke,
Fact is, most of it runs into the sea between Adelaide and Cairns on our east coast.
Just where most Australians live.
Luke, I understand you are highly educated, but you seem to lack any practical knowledge on subjects you race into with self-assumed authority.
Ever heard of Australias Great Dividing Range?
Well it runs all the way down our east coast and is Australias main water catchment.
It is not coincedental that this is where most of our population live.
Do not have time for individual river detail.
Go educate yourself.
You really are a Galah.
ALL SQUAWK and NO SENSE.
Pikey.
Derek Smith,
” I heard on the radio recently that when you give women in third world countries an education and lifestyle choices such as getting a job, birthrates fall naturally. ”
We AGREE!!!!
Education has always been the answer to so many problems. Unfortunately the nut cases always seem to take control of the educational systems to push their own agendas!!! The recent AGW classes in many countries and UK ads targeting children are excellent examples.
Hey Lukefartard,
you read about an Irish town and EU suing the Irish Gubmint??
Apparently they built a couple of windmills in the middle of a bog uphill from a town. The construction destabilised the bog which slid downhill doing minor damage to some buildings and blocking their road.
The EU is suing cause of the amount of CO2 that is being released due to the bog loss!!!
Yeah, let’s trust the GUBMINTS to get things right!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Lukefartard,
“Our family was so hard up that we used to drink our own urine”
Yes, that would probably explain it.
Your personality is apparently a direct response to the humiliating circumstance of being FORCED to do what Mahatma Ghandi did on his own belief that drinking some of your own urine restores some of the biological control chemicals that are lost making you healthier.
Did it work Lukefartard?? Were you healthier?? Or, and I hate to mention this in public, but, did you get your urine mixed up with your MOTHER’S???
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Luke: please post the regression results I asked for, or admit they do not exist and that therefore that paper is as worthless all the others you put up.
Cohenite,
Also the problem with Luke besides the fact that he doesn’t realise he’s travelling with nutters as you pointed out is that he has had nearly 30 yrs of brainwashing of this greenhouse thing, commencing with schooling (anywhere during the 80s and 90s) and reinforced which ever way he turns by newspapers,magazines,books,TV,etc in his later years. He can’t be blamed for the way he thinks. He’s a product of that time.
I saw a revealing comment by one blogger saying he was told in school back in’ 92 to expect thermal armageddon by 2010 and was wondering where it was.
Well what a hot date. Wowie !
Curtin – are you some sort of mindless zombie that had a formative experience with a goat in an introductory stats class, thereby developing a fixation on regression. But in this case your question is like ….. “stupid”. I’ll leave it to you to work out why as an exercise. Come on Timmy – get a bit closer – keep biting like a ropa-dope.
Mack – err nope – ALL WRONG – I was a sceptic. Unlike you – I’ve done some research. (and also unlike yourself I can read above grade 7 level)
Janama,
Thanks, it was the one chained to the ocean floor that I was thinking about. I’ve always thought it was a simple yet highly functional design but haven’t heard anything about it since.
Ron,
I’m sorry but when I read your stats on Aus’s per capita rainfall I thought exactly the same thing that Luke wrote 2 responses later. I think if you could produce the same stats for the area where 90% of the population live it would give us a better picture of the situation.
BTW just because I’ve found myself agreeing with some of the things Luke says doesn’t mean we share a thick shake at the local diner.
Gordon,
Sounds good to me, at least the bits I understood.
Kuhnkat,
We probably agree on a lot of things, like your crack about lefties playing God. Case in point K. Rudd, although he isn’t an atheist.
Pikey Pikey Pikey – as an old bushie from Barellan – by now you think you would have worked out I always know what I’m talking about.
And oh dearie me – exhibit A
See the first map
http://www.anra.gov.au/topics/water/availability/index.html
Something about mean annual surface runoff. And look where the big numbers are. And it was you who said “Australia” matey.
Which strangely is why CSIRO have just done
http://www.csiro.au/partnerships/NASY.html
Sorry Derek – I’m dating a hot babe. If it doesn’t work out I’ll give you my number. (I think she might be a Catholic and a sceptic)
Luke,
You might have been a sceptic up to about the age of 13.
So you’ve done some research !!!
Ahahahahahahahahahahahaha. Yeah right.
Tell Cohers about it because you know I’m too dumb to understand.
Luke,
Thanks for the anra link, I’ve just bookmarked it as a useful resource for school. The”How committed are Australia’s surface water resources?” map is very telling. If I read it correctly, over 70% of NSW & VIC are at 100% or over committed. And these are the states where the bulk of Australia’s population growth will be located. It doesn’t bode well.
Lucky Luke, a catholic AND a skeptic, you’ve got it made pal!
luke’s map references are all value filtered through such concepts as sustainable; and there is doubt about their veracity; for instance, this one obstensibly shows which regions have maximised their water resources;
http://www.anra.gov.au/topics/water/availability/index.html#committedsurface
On what basis is this concluded; is it on the basis that the 2 left-footed smelly luke-frog has an untouched habitat? Does it take into account a certain % of mandatory national parks and wild-life preserves and hippy colonies and secluded areas so that Clive Hamilton and such can wander lonely as a cloud? Does it include urban run-off which is uncollected? And so on.
derek – I’ve found the Beyond Tomorrow program you saw.
The company is now called Oceanlinx
http://www.oceanlinx.com/
Thanks Janama, you’re a gem.
janama and Derek,
There was one of these “blowholes” stationed off the Kiama jetty for a while and this company entered into pilot agreements with a couple of US islands [Rhode Is. and Maui] but I haven’t heard how it’s going. [I couldn’t access that u-tube link]
Mixing electricity generation and seawater in a harsh marine environment causes never ending problems.
Whereas existing grid power only encounters problems in extreme weather, many renewables face these stresses almost 100% of the time which further reduce their seemingly obvious potential.
This is why I wanted to produce RO fresh water directly from wave driven pumps with no electricity involved.
spangled drongo – have you ever witnessed the power in the incoming and outgoing tides at Derby or Wyndham on the Kimberly coast? The tide varies 9 meters. Funnily enough the commitment to build a tidal power station on one of them was one of the deals Meg Lees spun with the Howard Gov for the GST – yet it still never happened.
Standing on the wharf at Wyndham I observed a boat that was anchored in the river – it appeared to be doing about 25 knots from the bow wave created as the tide rushed past. Surely an aluminium smelter could be powered with such forces.
BTW derek – here’s the other aussie company involved in tidal power
http://www.atlantisresourcescorporation.com/
They started out on the Clarence River at MacLean NSW but have now expanded overseas and established Atlantis.
Spangled,
Your points are well taken and clearly, “fossil” fuels are by far the most economic and efficient means of producing electricity that we currently have. Louis might be right about abiotic oil but I’m not ready to sell the house and invest in that one just yet. So assuming that carbon “fossil” fuels are a finite resource, we need to start working on alternatives sometime.
Now I’m a fan of nuclear energy and if they can get the Thorium option up and running even the greenies might come around. But, every little bit helps and you never know when a particular piece of novel technology might have just the right application.
Your idea of producing RO fresh water without electricity is a case in point. We all know that each step in a cascade of energy transformations loses energy so reducing the number of steps makes sense.
Every year I get my year10 class to write a story under the premise “Greenpeace took over the world and banned all mining, what would your world be like in 30 years time”. Now one reason for this essay is to get them to understand how mining affects our lifestyle but it is also to make them think outside the square and consider all of the flow on effects of such an action.
What we have discovered is that many potential ways of doing things are not realized because cheap energy makes them uneconomical or unnecessary.
I’ve used the phrase “necessity is the mother of invention a lot these last few weeks and used examples from the great depression to make the point.
By the way, in light of the Monkton speech I’m starting to think that my premise isn’t quite as fictional as it used to be.
janama,
You’d reckon that they would produce terrific energy, especially with those turbines mounted at the critical curve of the nozzle like that, immersed in one of those tide flows.
The problem is like wind and solar, power transmission for huge distances, harsh environment situation maintenance and unintended environmental consequences can possibly take enough of the shine off them to make ’em more trouble than they’re worth.
janama
“the power in the incoming and outgoing tides”
Unfortunately the nasty bit of physics and engineering comes into it.
While the tide may be 9 metres, it’s the volume that goes through the turbines combined with the height that matters, and it is really difficult, as SD pointed, out to build anything of a useful size.
That is not to say it is impossible but at the moment, not cost effective.
Well, what an interesting day!
We have gone from Galahs to oxymoronic foxy ladies (glad to see we have not destroyed your sence of humour, Luke), then on to population control, via population water requirements to total water use.
At my age:
Still interested in foxy ladies.
Can’t believe that Scepticism and Catholothism can be synonymous.
No need for birth control.
But have some practical views on water.
I believe this water discussion began as questioning Australias capacity to support an increased population of up to 35 or more million.
This discussion has become mired in other issues, but I would like to explain the water availability as I see it.
For all Australians to have adequate water for the assumed Aus. lifestyle, we need 110,000 litres of water per person per year.
This includes all water for human consumption, all municiple needs and industry.
It does not include agriculture and mining, which I will discuss later.
Therefore a population of 22M requires only 2.5M megalitres of water per year.
Given our resources, this is a “piddling amount” harking back to Luke’s previous admission.
A population of say 40M would require only 4.5 M megalitres per year, still a meagre amout compared to what is available.
The graphs and data as supplied by Luke are useless in understanding the pracrical issues.
For example:
The 4 major rivers running into the Gulf deliver on average the following;
Gregory River: 2.1 M megs / year.
Norman River: 2.3 M megs / Year.
Leighhardt River: 1.9 M megs / year.
Nicholosn River : 3.6 M megs / year.
TOTAL 9.9 M megs per year.
If we just select 4 rivers on the east coast we have the following:
Richmond River: 2.2 M megs / year.
Clarence River : 4.2 M megs. / year.
Hastings River: 2.1 M megs / year.
Manning River : 1.8 M megs / year.
TOTAL: 10.2.M megs per year, after all present uses have been met.
It is strange but sad that this so called water shortage debate is continuing without anyone raising the truth that with the exception of the Sydney basin, most of the wonderful rivers between the south Australian border and Cape York are without dams and therefore without the capacity to produce the cleanest and most efficient power known to man.
All of these rivers have the capacity to store huge volumes of water and to produce hydro power.
To understand the CSIRO maps produced by Luke requires a little history and some knowledge of how water is allocated in eastern Australia.
It needs to be understood that quite properly, human water requirements will always take precedence over mining and agriculture, in that order and this has always been the case.
Witness the pipeline being built from the Goulbour to Melbourne.
When the CSIRO states that a particular river valley is over-allocated, it may sound alarming, but is only so if the time proven system is not understood.
Water allocation has always been the provence of the States and since the establishment of the “Water Conservation and Irrigation Commission” in 1912, has changed little.
All State Authorities give precedence to river flow to maintain what is called stock and domestic requirements.
That is water for towns, cities and industry and has to be sufficient to provide flow to the last town or settlement on the stream.
Available water above this is made available under an agreed formular to permanent plantings (ie Orchards and vineyards.)
Only after this is any excess water made available Pro rata to other irrigators.
Irrigation farming in Australia has only ever and will continue to use excess water in the system.
When the CSIRO claims that a river valley is over-committed, they add all stock and domestic requirements to all maximum irrigator licences to arrive at this conclusion.
This totally ignores reality and can lead to bad decission making. e.g. buying back water licences.
Have to rush, but we are NOT short of water only the desire to harvest, store and wisely use.
Will be back later.
Pikey.
Pikey, revise your math before the enemy strikes!
Pikey,
I can’t believe that any responsible govt would allow places like northern rivers of NSW to become so populated and not put in any major reservoirs.
The areas you mention from SA to NQ are where the urbanizing will happen yet most are beyond the point where a serious reservoir could be built.
It’s the big political cop-out.
Dumb desal will take over and cost us all a fortune.
I see that water rates in SEQ will now be billed by a separate entity from local govt.
Hold on to your wallets!
Even though I am not on the water grid I bet they’ll find some way to send me a bill.
Oh well, maybe when they get smart and build a chain of NRs along the coast, that will solve our water problems too.
Ron – Hydro requires head so rivers that run through deep gorges (like the Snowy) are perfect.
I’ve driven across the gulf and unfortunately those gulf rivers run across coastal plains so building a dam is a mammoth project and you’d be pushing it to get the head required for hydro power.
Similarly with the Richmond and the lower Clarence. Lismore where the Richmond starts to get serious is only around 11m above sea level. The Richmond is fed from 6- 8 tributaries none of which actually amount to much and the main river after Lismore meanders across flood plains. The upper Clarence has a couple of places where you could dam but you’d flood a lot a land that is full of gold and precious minerals. The Timbara and Mann rivers are the obvious ones to dam.
The Manning and Hastings rivers are similar to the Richmond – lottsa tributaries feeding it but the main river is on coastal plains.
Marcus; seems your Pikey missed those recent Ganges TV episodes on our ABC too
http://www.abc.net.au/tv/guide/netw/200910/programs/ZY9719A001D2009-10-11T193000.htm
http://www.abc.net.au/compass/s695734.htm.
We saw a huge population that I suspect is still merely a bucket brigade on the whole. But what really pisses me of in all these comments from the right about our abundant resources is their sheer ignorance on the process of harnessing and disposing of any amount of liquid for our thirsty lot.
Bending and soldering copper pipes is not the first stage or the last. Even with gravity fed plastic tubes, we still need a dam or two. Over allocation may start right at this point and with climate change CSIRO and other authorities need to go back to fresh examinations of our original expectations. Cloud seeding programs over Tasmania’s abundant hydro lakes is a good case to start with
“But what really pisses me of in all these comments from the right about our abundant resources is their sheer ignorance on the process of harnessing and disposing of any amount of liquid for our thirsty lot.”
gavin,
What do you consider is the best way to supply clean water to a few billion people?
Pikey – you’ve left out many of the major systems across the Top End.
Anyway obviously not lack of water – Not ! – see Cubbie station calling in the Administrators
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/10/30/2728223.htm?site=news
As for damming the north and hydro power -dream on mate ….
The Ord dam still sits as a white elephant with some great cropping soils.
The Northern Myth revisited
http://ppn2009.anu.edu.au/paperssafe/Cockfield_PPNpaper_09.pdf
P.S. and good luck with the Wild Rivers legislation too !
luke, do your read your links? From the Cockfield paper on the Ord etc;
“commitments to northern development will be tempered by the lingering influence of neo-liberalism” [Abstract]
“First, it is not yet certain that there is a ‘global food crisis,
Second, there is a degree of uncertainty in regard to climate change in general and regional rainfall effects in particular” [p7]
More generally with gavin’s comments about population and doubt about supplying water; it seems that AGW supporters intrinsically doubt human ingenuity and ability to solve and overcome natural limitations; there is this continual denigration, glass 1/2 empty approach; Malthus and eugenics are starting to appear and the issue of resource deplenishment and catastrophe produced by population increase and destructive encroachment of nature is becoming the fall-back position as AGW ‘science’ is relegated to the status of the frisbee. So, for all those AGW doom and gloomers: do you think population increase is bad because it will have negative effects on humanity or because it will compromise nature?
Hi All,
Late lunch, several bottles of Riverina Red later and a little tennis in between.
Marcus,
I may have made a mistake, but although slightly sozzled, I have had a look and believe I am correct.
But happy to have your input.
Spangles,
Glad to hear from you as well.
Just consider this;
Mother Nature (God if you like), gives us this wonderful source of life called water.
Which she then evaporates from sea, swamp, salt flat depression, puddle and pristine stream and returns it to us as rain, hail and snow all near pure. To be used by all flora, fauna and mankind on earth.
All man has to do is capture and store this natural product for our needs to cover periods when precipitation is scarce.
We can pay for this capital expenditure by producing electricity whenever we release this water for use.
What have we done in recent years in Australia?
We have approved the construction of hideously expensive desalination plants that require vast amounts of power to operate, only to compete with what Mother Nature is giving us for free.
We are MAD!
We have been conned by Government and Greens into believing that “water is scarse,” only to justify charging an amount that makes the building of desalination plants economic.
janama,
You are correct that Hydro relies on head.
But all of the rivers of the east coast of Australia have more head than is required to build hydro schemes to rival the Snowy.
In the vast media frenzy that was created in the “let the Snowy run free again.” It was never reported that the Snowy Scheme only ever and for ever diverts 17% of the natural flow of that river.
All of the major tributries of the Snowy are below Jindabyne Dam, which is only 41 river kilometres from its source.
With the exception of a small weir on the Mowamba river all the tributries of the Snowy are undamed and feed the river as they always have.
Interestingly, there is more water extracted from the Snowy for irrigation near its mouth (21%) than there is for diversion to the Murray and Murrumbidgee.
The Clarence river in NSW has more than double the water and capacity to generate Hydro power than the Snowy.
janama, the tributries you mention are the ideal sites for dams with hydro power plants attached.
Dams do require the displacement of some people who live in these valleys. As a just democracy they must be compensated adequately for this in the interests of the greater good.
As a Nation that has for too long being distracted by environmental fundamentalism we need to shout from the rooftops that correctly sited, properly engineered and sensibly managed dams are nothing other than a plus for the environment.
There is NO downside.
janama,
We rarely build dams near coastal flood plains.
We tap the source and harness the power up the hill if you like.
Dams further down are for population use, but still produce some power.
Gavin,
From your comments, you have little understanding of the issues here.
Having an avid interest in water I watched every episode on the Ganges.
All of those programmes supported what I am arguing.
Appreciate that once say a megalitre of water is released into a stream, unless man interfears, it runs back into the sea.
It is only the gradient and length of watercourse that determines the time this takes.
During this journey:
Man can use it.
Man can store part of it for later use.
Man can reuse it several times. (As is done in the Snowy)
Man can let it run to the sea unused.
What is sensible?
Tasmania has just come through one of the wettest periods in white man’s history.
The dams are bursting.
Pikey.
Luke,
Just read your comment.
Really you are as colourful and a stupid as a Galah.
Of course I did not include all the syatems in the North.
Just as I did not include all the systems on the east coast.
I was responding to your stupid aassertion that the only available water for furure development and population increase was in the north.
It is not!
Ther are huge unharvested resources across large areas of Australia.
I have not mentioned or suggested any hydro schemes in the North.
That is your fabrication.
As for the Ord, it has certainly not been used to capacity since its completion.
However that is now changing dramatically, as markets for the type of produce that can be produced there are now developing.
Interestingly, I did some crop assessment work there with the Commonwaelth Development Bank, way back in the 60s.
Pikey.
I’ve just been watching the ABC’s rainforest programme [great photography] and put up with Jack Thomson telling us all to stop emitting CO2 if we want to save the rainforest. [Groan]
It seems Ron; we are about as old and cranky as each other and as such should retire properly by leaving thoughts on an advisory role in water to the next gen.
That said I remain a most practical guy when it comes to reading up on the latest schemes. Many of my minders early on were big on water. BTW from the mid 60’s I was roaming industrial Melbourne’s major water users looking at their monitoring and treatment systems amongst other process control issues in general.
Actual dates escape me now but I was contracted to the MMBW instrumentation division some where between the Murray – Dartmouth and Thompson River projects. This was the time Melbourne had literally run out of water supply and sewage treatment options to match the huge public demand after a series of nasty incidents round the city outskirts back then. Mid 70’s I did preliminary commissioning all over the paddock for both suppliers and users but what matters most now is, I know there are no short cuts to public security.
The same can be said about our communications, particularly during emergencies.
Did anyone watch the rainforest doc on ABC tonight? Intact rainforests develop their own clouds. Down in Tassie Ron, some experienced light plane pilots call the aftermath of that process clag.
Pikey – stop squirming and laying smoke trying to escape. The biggest water resources available for development are in the North. Their development is problematic for a number of reasons. Selective stats won’t cut it I’m afraid. If you don’t think the MDB is over the limit for sustainable flows I’m amazed !
The end of drought aid – but hey if there’s no climate problems why is it needed.
Try that one denialists.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26291545-601,00.html
Derek Smith,
As one of the few sane voices hereabouts, you may care to offer your students a modeling exercise.
Lord Stern and Dr Pauchari want us all to become vegetarian to reduce methane emissions, and so save the planet. If we turn to vegetables, then to be politically correct they must be organically grown. But organic vege growing needs animal poo. But, wait a minute, we have abolished animal farming to cut down on methane, so there is not enough animal poo.
High marks to be given for innovative models involving harvesting of kangaroo, elephant, whale and polar bear poo, using solar powered ships and vehicles. Could biochar from prescribed burning save the day? Where do termite and rice field methane fit into the model? Try to introduce regressions and principal components. Get those young minds working, to save us all, if possible before Copenhagen.
P.S. The vegetables would have to be certified dead of natural causes, but that’s another issue.
Davey – relax the probability of nothing at all being done is very high. Probably inevitable that nothing will be done. Too hard. Which is why best minds have moved to adaptation.
“The biggest water resources available for development are in the North.”
Oh really – here are the average rainfall figures to the end of November in the regions under discussion
Burketown – 660.2mm
wollogorang – 781.9mm
Borroloola – 739.6
McArthur River – 645.7
Wyndham – 667
Halls Creek – 478
Tabulam – 1089.00
Dorrigo – 1766.2mm
Grafton – 933.3
Coffs Harbour 1529.7
Port Macquarie – 1244.6
Taree – 1017.9
I think there’s more water in the east coast rivers Luke.
I heard some fool from teh “climate group” today on AM saying that the Europeans were moving to a position of cutting emissions by 95 by 2050!! How can anybody take these people seriously? How can they actually sleep at night knowing they are blatantly lying to the public? Do they actually have any critical thinking skills at all?
The world most of all needs to be protected from stupid people that want to push their political dogma onto the rest of humanity.
Luke,
We had a brief discussion, some years ago, about Peter Checkland’s ‘Soft Systems’ analysis. You were not impressed, but I still think that his ‘rich picture’ (CATWOE) approach has merit. Simple, cartoon-style models can very quickly show up twisted thinking, including mine.
For instance, some ‘environmentalists’ are ideologically opposed to regular prescribed burning, but greatly in favour of increased Aboriginal management in National Parks. A simple picture model shows that, if National Parks were returned to traditional management, then regular burning would be very much a feature of Aboriginal management, as it is already in NT and Tiwi Islands. Such burning would sequester very large amounts of carbon, and the smoke would reduce radiant heat from the sun.
I haven’t tried it, but I suspect that a ‘rich picture’ model of adaptation to climate change, natural or anthropogenic, would be useful in provoking more thought, and stimulating productive discussion. Perhaps you could, in negotiation with Mr Uderzo, produce ‘Asterix Meets the Climate Challenge’. Having fallen into the magic broth as a child, Obelisk is obviously immune to any change in climate.
I think that should be Obelix.
Janama, your average rainfall figures to the end of November as an indicator of potential water resource development are less than meaningless. Safe yield from a storage is determined by the size of the storage and the variability of inflows . Think roof and rainwater tank if you like. But the harsh reality is that variability is so high in Australian rainfall and runoff that storages have to be several times larger than world averages for a give mean inflow.
Gee Janama – ever consider a thing called catchment area too? NEXT !
Of course being fair dinkum we’d also need to look at arable land available, evaporation, dam shape (deep very shallow). And as anyone following the Northern Myth would realise – distance to markets, cost of freight, massive numbers of insects, isolation, lack of schools & other facilities etc. hence fly in, fly out culture.
Thinking about it Davey …
Luke,
Talk about Pots and Kettles.
It was you who made the false claim that the only available water resources left in Australia were in the far north.
As I have demonstrated many times on this site; this is false.
Just take a look at my paper “Water in Australia.”
Luke,
“MDB is over the limit for sustainable flows.”
This is meaningless.
Please, please read again what I wrote about how the system has been managed for nearly 100 years.
Tell me how buying of irrigator licences or reducing “allocations” would change anything?
The CSIRO maps you posted here, while academically correct, are totally without any practical application.
Sadly we are seeing more and more of this nonsence circulating from previously esteemed institutions.
While it may be of academic interest it has little place in pracrice or in the decission making process.
Thanks for the support Janama.
For any readers who are interested, the average run-off and historical flows for most of the rivers in Australia are on a number of web sites and they clearly show that Lukes claims are without fact.
What they do show are that most of our rivers have highly variable flows.
That the incidence of floods and periods of little or no run-off, is unpredictable, but recurs at varying intervals.
It is this historical fact that makes it essential for Australia to build dams.
If we take the Clarence as an example we will see that it has an average discharge of 4.2 M megalitres.
However, there are years when the discharge exceeds 10M megs. and some below 2M megs.
If we construct one, two or three dams with a total capacity of say 4 to 5 M megs. These dams would be regularly filled in times of excess flow.
Guess what?
We have sufficient water for 10 M people.
Plenty to augment flow in dry times to enhance the river environment.
Guarantee for irrigation purposes. But remember that urban and domestic needs will always take precedent over agriculture. (Just as it is now doing in the MDB.)
Wonderful areas for tourism.
The capacity to produce nil-emmission power at the touch of a switch, potentially up to 65% of the Snowy capacity.
We can repeat this process on many of our rivers.
The construction of major dams and associated Hydro generators, requires considerable initial capital, but not as much as some of the desal plants presently being built.
The advantage of Hydro is that once they are commissioned they require little upkeep and virtually nothing to run, in stark contrast to desal.
The entire Snowy Scheme was paid for from the sale of Hydro power.
Hydro= High capex, more water, cheap water, no emissions, cheap power, low maintenance.
Desal= High capex, less water, expensive water, high emissions, high maintenance and huge ongoing power costs.
Gavin,
If citizen Luke is an example of the younger generation, then I will keep up the work to ensure that our decission making process is based on truth, reason and in the best interests of future generations.
But enjoy your input.
Bazza,
it is probably my Cocky background, but I canot make any sense of your comments.
Would you like to explain that again.
Pikey.
You lot need to slow down before you disappear up your own fundamental orifi.
Ever think about posting something like:-
Hi Jen – just in case you bother to check in now and again, hope you’re enjoying your walkabout. Lots of birds and serenity and stuff…..
Pikey, a storage is a thing like a bank balance or a lolly jar that helps match supply and demand. The more variable and random the deposits the bigger balance you need to keep, to keep up regular withdrawals. Which is of course exactly the problem farmers have in maintaining adequate reserves of hay, water, cash whatever. So with a changing climate and greater variability you would need an even bigger storage. If any of that was counterintuitive you would not have needed to play your Cocky card.
Lukefartard,
“(and also unlike yourself I can read above grade 7 level)”
Is that in a balloon or an aeroplane??? Maybe a hang glider?? By the way, any particular school??
But, can you reason and communicate above that level?? Your contributions here would lead us to say NO!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
What an old codger your are Pikey. “The CSIRO maps you posted here, while academically correct, are totally without any practical application.” Indeed ! they are correct.
Let’s see – major cotton infrastructure sitting idle. Farms for sale. Orchards being ploughed in.
There is not enough water in the MDB to satisfy the desires of the users. Pretty basic – but Pikey that’s why you’re a denialist.
“Let’s see – major cotton infrastructure sitting idle. Farms for sale. Orchards being ploughed in.”
That’s because trendy city baby boomers decided to throw their excess at agriculture investment schemes and suddenly all the “family farms” were challenged by the “corporate farms” and their isn’t enough water to go around.
Anybody read this?
CSIRO. Australia’s great adviser.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26291548-601,00.html
Green Davey,
Collecting animal poo shouldn’t be a problem due to the incredible amount of bull shit that’s flying around. Anyway, I recon that a lot of our friends in the AGW community would get a bit peeved from time to time by the blatant hijacking of their cause by personal agenda groups like PETA.
I can see Luke in my mind now, tucking into a nice steak and thinking to himself “it’s the fossil fuels you morons!”.
Speaking of biochar, looking at things from an AGW perspective I don’t get the whole sequestration, capture and storage thing. It seems a bit risky and just delaying the inevitable as well as hanging on to the old tech for as long as possible.
Same with biofuels, they’re a half baked solution that uses up cropping land and sends food prices through the roof.
If I was a Luke, I wouldn’t be looking for different things to BURN, that’s what got us in this mess in the first place. I’d be pushing for a complete change in tech and get rid of this addiction to combustible energy sources. (I’d also be out on a hot date with my catholic, skeptic girlfriend)
As far as the Aboriginal burning thing goes, a friend of mine with several rooms full of fossils told me recently that fossils of tree kangaroos have been found on the Nullarbor plain. (WARNING, politically correct persons avert your eyes now!) This suggests that the plains were once covered in forest and the aboriginal burning practices didn’t work with the type of forest believed to have been there, destroying a whole ecosystem.
Ron,
I see what you’re saying and I’m almost convinced of the theoretical potential you propose but I have a doubt. All the data on total rainfall and river volume etc. is great but the general gist seems to be that it’s all available for human consumption. Forgive me, but what about the environment? I don’t have the capacity to do the math so could someone tell me what percentage of this total amount is the population entitled to?
I’m afraid that Luke’s arguments still find in me some fertile soil because at present water rationing IS the reality and what you say may be entirely correct but who here can see any of it being realized in the near future.
If you could put my mind at ease, it would be much appreciated.
Best TV show of all time……FIREFLY!
Just thought I’d throw that one in.
What seems to be a major factor absent from almost all the above posts is that over time new big or small dams are built upstream, and they obviously (except to CSIRO) of necessity interrupt the flows downstream of said dams. For example, I am very reliably informed that there are at least 2,000 small dams upstream of Canberra’s Googong Dam, which therefore never reaches its design capacity.
Tim, small dams have a small influence except on small flows. The various risk factors to water resources in the Murray Darling have been extensively studied and you should not bother commenting if you have not bothered to do your homework. Get real. ENSO events dominate eastern Australian water resources behaviour.
bazza says: “ENSO events dominate eastern Australian water resources behaviour.” luke would disagree, he’s an IOD man.
Derek, as Tim wonders about private dams upstream from his Googong Dam side of this town, I say we are stuck with a very fickle mother nature and the question of who is entitled to what drop of water is a big part of the ongoing storage development debate everywhere.
My garden in Canberra has just been deluged again by an intense thunderstorm. A few days ago it was an even bigger afternoon hailstorm that only a few of us experienced it seems. For a short time it can be difficult to cross the street even in gumboots because this older suburb has virtually no tanks. Also our normally bone dry drives, front gardens and back yards quickly overflow into the street gutters where all is lost to the Murrumbidgee via the creek which rises to another gusher while we watch. My thin top soil is gone in a jiffy too.
These days our newer suburbs are built with a chain of artificial ponds, however nobody can keep the dust down during most of the construction phase. It has to be, all that underground infrastructure that goes in first through the rock and a hard place. IMO the mandatory rain water tanks over there are a minium size given the above extremes.
On my abandoned hobby farm project in Tasmania (with good rainfall), a standard reinforced concrete tank built on site was 8000 gal. Back then, we were going to build solar passive with a massive electric slab heating capacity as backup but it only got to the transformer upgrade before domestic Hydro power went up to pay for a backlog of guaranteed industrial capacity on their books. Subsidised anything big is a curse in the end.
BTW my two cotton touring tents, plastic dish or bucket for our washing needs and old cast iron stove with its makeshift flue jammed down the back at the campsite by the bush were all very cheap to run over a season. However such back to earth strategies become frightening in a storm. We eventually hired a big dozer and a long armed digger for a day to make a proper building site at both high points on the property.
Fencing the boundaries including some steep forest would take much longer as it does with all our other infrastructure, but what do we realy need?
Cohers – shows how much you listen – I thought as much
You said -“bazza says: “ENSO events dominate eastern Australian water resources behaviour.” luke would disagree, he’s an IOD man.”
You should have said STR man – but only in the context of why south-eastern Australia is trending the way it is. Of course ENSO is a bloody big influence on eastern Australia. But most years aren’t El Nino years eh? IOD is an interesting frilly add on (IMO)
Luke,
To ” stir the possum” here is fine, even “pickle the onion” and play devil’s advocate, but for goodness sake;
travel with an open mind.
To only see problems is a misuse of the imagination.
An “Old Codger” I may be, but avidely determined to pursue parctical sollutions to the cause of a better tomorrow.
I note that just as you do in every debate, when confronted with some practical questions you fly off to that hollow tree limb and wait for the subject to change.
How about answering the questions I posed earlier.
Tell us in your own words what the problems of the MDB are and how your would rectify these problems and why that course of action would work.
Don’t just avoid the issue as you did when we got serious about sustainable agriculture in the wheat sheep belt.
We would all appreciate something direct from Luke.
Derek Smith,
I appreciate your input and would like to spend considerable time on a detailed response, but haven’t the time. (painting the house)
In summary, to effect sensible change and make for a better and sustainable future for our Grand-kids, we have to change public perceptions that have been indoctrinated into the majority by often well meaning but misguided Greens, assisted by a sensationalist Media.
Some of the oft repeated False Claims:
1. Australia is short of water.
2. Our rivers are dying
3.Major cities will run out of water.
4. We should not be using water for crops like rice and cotton.
5. Dams destroy rivers and riverine habitat. (Don’t Murray the Mary.)
Responses to above
1: I believe my response to this has been documented here and cannot be argued against. We have huge water resources in comparison to our population, even if we grow to 50M.
2: Our rivers are simply not dying. Most of the rivers in Australia and certainly the rivers of the MDB have run dry several times since 1788.
The only reason they have continued to flow in recent years is because of the dams built by earlier generations.
This is well documented and is detailed in my document, “Bunyips in our Rivers.” which is on this site.
Sadly while vast amounts of time and money have been wasted over recent years, several real environmental disasters have gone unresaerched and and continue to cause real problems.European carp for one.
3. The silliest decission we have recently made as a society is to be building Desal Plants.
Melbourne needs some new dams on streams to the east.
Sydney needs a dam on the Shoalhaven and storm water recovery.
Adelaide will never be short of water unless the Murrat ceases to flow. Not even likely, and I note that Luke has not responded to my note about the present state of the storages.
Brisbane, Gold Coast and Sunshine coasts have huge potential for run-off storage.
4: This is a very big subject which I cannot cover here, except to say that surely the business (farmer) who is paying to purchase the water is best equipped to decide the best return on that investment.
Just as an aside the rice grown in Aus. is not a tropical rice. It is bred from a japonica variety and all of the rice grown has been bred in Aus. for Aus. conditions.
5. Under Aus. conditions, correctly sited, properly constructed and practically managed dams only have environmental upside.
They are designed to store excess water in times of high run-off.
This stord water is then available to maintain stream flow, for population and industry use, for recreation and for agriculture and mining.
Derek, I am not advocating that all stored water is for human consumption.
Human consumption and industry actually use very little of our water.
That is why programs to limit personal use are largely futile.
Most people have little understanding of the vasy volumes of water that flow to waste in any stream valley when there is heavy rain.
We need to plan for this in all developments and create damed water habitat that is multi use.
There is an example in my piece “Water in Australia” relating to the Belinger river.
The Belinger is a largely pristine but tny river (average run-off 240,00 megs.per year)
The Belinger river has been in flood 6 times in the last 3 years.
In one of those floods I measured the flow over the bridge at Belingen. It was flowing over the bridge at 72,00 megalitres a day.
Sufficient water in one day to keep Coffs Harbour and Nambucca Heads in water for 9 years.
Both towns are regularly short of water.
Someone above spoke of the small stream run-off near Canberra.
These streams should all have impedement structures that do not totally store the excess but hold the initial flood and slowly release into the stream over time.
These are easy to construct and are very effective.
For the Hanahrans like Luke who may argue that we do not have the money for what I am advotacing.
If we had the money being wasted on Desal and the money being wasted by Wong on Buyback in the MDB we would have sufficient to do much of what I am advocating.
Thought for the day.
Once we allow Governments to legislate commerce (ETS and water buyback), the first things bought and sold are Legislators.
Gotta run up a ladder.
Pikey.
Cohers, science is not a courtroom with ENSO v IOD guilty not guilty. Lawyers always lose the middle ground in their relentless pursuit of the truth. ‘The unspeakable after the uneatable’?
Actually IOD is more like a son of ENSO and I am not sure if the Indian Ocean is fit for trial in its own right. You see the Pacific has a memory ( well sometimes) so it has predictability wheras the Indian Ocean appears to have no memory – its a no-brainer!
What luke said;
“To assess the relative importance of the IOD and ENSO for Southeast Australian drought, all years for the period 1889 to 2006 are classified as to the state of the Indian and Pacific Ocean, respectively (Figure 1a and Table S1 in the auxiliary material).1 The classification is based on work by Meyers et al. [2007], extended to recent years using HadISST data, but retaining the climate shifts defined in the original paper. Of the original 122 years classified, 14 have changed classification. This is not surprising in a method that is not local in time, and that relies on threshold criteria. Results were robust to variations in the thresholds used. The years of importance to this study are the negative IOD years during dry periods, and none of these changed classification.
This is the real IOD issue below in another paper which is the IOD changes I’m referring to. I assume you’ll get the drift…. Or do I have to explain it to you (OK you explain it to Louis – it will be beyond him).
Nature Geoscience 1, 849 – 853 (2008)
Recent intensification of tropical climate variability in the Indian Ocean
Nerilie J. Abram1,2, Michael K. Gagan1, Julia E. Cole3, Wahyoe S. Hantoro4 & Manfred Mudelsee5
The interplay of the El Niño Southern Oscillation, Asian monsoon and Indian Ocean Dipole (IOD)1, 2, 3 drives climatic extremes in and around the Indian Ocean. Historical4, 5 and proxy6, 7, 8, 9 records reveal changes in the behaviour of the El Niño Southern Oscillation and the Asian monsoon over recent decades10, 11, 12. However, reliable instrumental records of the IOD cover only the past 50 years1, 3, and there is no consensus on long-term variability of the IOD or its possible response to greenhouse gas forcing13. Here we use a suite of coral oxygen-isotope records to reconstruct a basin-wide index of IOD behaviour since AD 1846. Our record reveals an increase in the frequency and strength of IOD events during the twentieth century, which is associated with enhanced seasonal upwelling in the eastern Indian Ocean. Although the El Niño Southern Oscillation has historically influenced the variability of both the IOD and the Asian monsoon3, 8, 10, we find that the recent intensification of the IOD coincides with the development of direct, positive IOD–monsoon feedbacks. We suggest that projected greenhouse warming may lead to a redistribution of rainfall across the Indian Ocean and a growing interdependence between the IOD and Asian monsoon precipitation variability”
Ron Pike,
I was wondering if you could give your evaluation of a particularly nasty enviro claim used here in the US.
The claim is something like this. Rivers need the high flow water regularly to “clean” the river. Without it the river bed becomes silted and even polluted from build ups of material. Especially in Salmon rivers it becomes dangerous for the fish.
Thank you for any response.
Alan Jones has been busy – last Monday he interviewed Monckton and followed it up with an interview with Prof Lindzen. He then nailed Turnbull about the liberal parties view on Climate change and the Copenhagen treaty. 🙂
http://www.2gb.com/index.php?option=com_homepage&id=1&Itemid=44
Hi All,
First my apologies for all the typos and spelling mistakes in my hasty posting this morning.
Kuhnkat,
Where are you from in the USA?
I cannot claim to have any practical knowledge of rivers in USA, although I go there every year.
I have spent quite some time on the Colorado river, which has some similarities with rivers I know well in Australia.
I have a poem about the Colorado which I am happy to share with you, called “Perpetual I Am.”
It may surprise you to know that all of the storages on the Murray Darling Basin and including the storages of our Snowy Scheme only total 29M megaliters.
The Hoover dam on the Colorado alone has a capacity of 35M megalitres and Lake Powell a little less.
The Colorado river has always flooded the Imperial valley. All that has changed is this flooding is now controlled by man and has resulted in one of the most produvtive areas on earth.
Very similar to the irrigated ares of the Murray and Murrumbidgee, where I worked most of my life.
In relation to your question, Australian rivers still flood regardless of dams.
But if we have a situation where a river following several years of low run-off, that has a dam holding say 650,000 megs. and there has been little downstream flow for 2 years and this is causing problems with say oyster farmers. Then authorities can elect to flush the river from the storage.
If the dam wasn’t there this would not be possible, the run-off would have long since flowed to the sea.
It is the Political Greens here also that have created the ongoing but unsupportable arguments about water and rivers.
Several years ago Bob Brown the leader of the Political Greens, made the statement that the rivers of the MDB were dying
Also that all of the river red gums were now dead or dying because of lack of environmental flow.
THIS WAS ALL TOTALLY FALSE!
However it made wonderful copy for our media.
It was beat up for months and still ocassionly gets a run in the MSM.
Brown refused to debate me on the subject but he and others kept repeating the claim.
After about 3 years of dogged rebuttal we have managed to largely show this to be false.
So what we now have is an also false claim that lack of flow is destroying the lower lakes of the Murray.
Lakes I would like to advise that were once tidal, but are now fresh, because of the foolish construction of barrrages.
The fight goes on.
In the mean time I am looking forward to being in USA in February and reciting some poetry in several centres in Colorado.
May even catch-up.
Pikey.
janama,
Yeah, pity Turnbull wouldn’t listen to Jones.
Did you watch ABC’s foreign correspondent tonight re Copenhagen?
Talk about LeggoLand!
Great photos of wind turbines in the sea but pretty fact and content free.
For a while there I deluded myself that they just might ask some pertinent questions.
Ron,
OK, I’ve just gone back and read your previous 3 articles and am happily convinced of your arguments. I also read all of the comments and would like to address one made by Slim regarding the impossibility of watering a family of 4 from rainwater tanks.
My family of 5 exists not uncomfortably on around 130,000 L TOTAL, that is about 74 liters per person per day. We have a total of about 320 square meters of roof area and an ave rainfall of 450 mm. So far this year we’ve had 500 mm and have lost at least 50,000 L from overflow when all the tanks were full and we had big rains.
Of course we don’t have a swimming pool and we don’t wash our cars at home (I wash my car once or twice a year when it rains ) and during the colder months I don’t bathe every day but my point is it’s not that hard to live on just rain water.
From what you and others have written, it seems that the real impediment towater and food security is popularist governments with an eye on the short term.
Cheers.
Luke also said:
from http://www.ccrc.unsw.edu.au/PDF/NichollsUNSWfinal.pdf
March-August southern Australian rainfall decline:
Reflects increased local pressures
Cannot be explained by trend in SSTs
around northern Australia (trend is wrong
sign)
Cannot be explained by trend in NINO3
(trend is too weak)
Cannot be explained by trend in IOD
(western pole of IOD is unrelated to
rainfall; eastern pole trend is wrong sign)
May be explained by trend in SAM (but
doubts about data and strength of trend
and physical link)
from http://www.ccrc.unsw.edu.au/PDF/Timbal_UNSW2009.pdf
The on-going drought is explained by the strengthening of the STR
(80% of the rainfall signal reproduced by the STR-I anomalies)
•
The STR is responding to global temperature of the planet
(two periods of warming during the 20th century as well as one of stabilisation)
(not by chance since it is reproduced by a fully coupled GCM –ensemble-)
•
Anthropogenic emissions are needed for a model to reproduce the STR intensification
(as well as a long list of regional changes which resemble the observations:
regional temperature rise, MSLP build up, the rainfall decline: autumn in SWEA)
•
The WWII drought is the first protracted drought in SEA partly due to G.W.
(albeit only 30% can be explained by the STR-I linked to G.W.)
•
The big differences between WWII and now:
1.
WWII was an Australia-wide drought, now: Australia-wide wet period … are we still the driest inhabited continent on earth? (Ian Smith was right!!!!!!!!)
2.
Tropical SSTs (natural variability) was the largest contributor -even in SWEA-
3.
Currently, tropical SSTs have help reduced the magnitude of our drought (small)
From http://www.ccrc.unsw.edu.au/PDF/LATEST%20program_SEA_workshop.pdf
In analyzing Pikey’s comments above, we need to keep an eye on the facts and statements like the following –
“Murray-Darling Basin uses the majority of Australia’s water” ABS 2008
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/4610.0.55.007
more on background issues, policies and caps
http://www.reec.nsw.edu.au/geo/water/page/abs%20mdb.pdf
some fast facts
http://www.csiro.au/science/National-Water-Commission–ci_pubHist-1.html
connected water resources
http://www.daff.gov.au/brs/water-sciences/ground-surface/connected-water
Ground water association with widely variable small stream flows could be my pet subject.
However Ron; I still prefer the views of old timers, artists and greenies when it comes to assessing impacts of major works done in the name of progress and a good example was the flooding of Tasmania’s old Lake Pedder for extra hydro power in 1972. IMO Kevin Kiernan’s photo here is a fine shot of the unique beach and dune formation that gives us a clue to all sand movement at the margins.
http://www.lakepedder.org/images/index.html
cheers
STR;
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/110573975/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0
It’s not moving;
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL037786.shtml
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=17007531
and which data used determines the results;
http://eprints.usq.edu.au/4710/
I hope Jen and you-all don’t mind but here is my attempted post at Real Climate (sic) trying to rebut the character assassination of Steve Levitt by the ineffable Raymond Pierrehumbert (yes, that is his real name, poor sod). Naturally it never got up, so here goes:
Dear Prof. Pierrehumbert
I refer to your open letter to Steve Levitt, and provide here some interpolations of mine on just the core of your letter, knowing from experience that they would never be allowed to appear at RC [www.realclimate.org].
“Wherever it comes from, waste heat is not usually taken into account in global climate calculations for the simple reason that it is utterly trivial in comparison to the heat trapped by the carbon dioxide that is released when you burn fossil fuels to supply energy. For example, that 6 trillion Watts of waste heat from coal burning would amount to only 0.012 Watts per square meter of the Earth’s surface [TC: BUT REACHES 1.2 W at this rate for 100 years]. Without even thinking very hard, you can realize that this is a tiny number compared to the heat-trapping effect of CO2. As a general point of reference, the extra heat trapped by CO2 AT THE POINT where you’ve burned enough coal to double the atmospheric CO2 concentration is about 4 Watts per square meter of the Earth’s surface — over 300 times the effect of the waste heat. [TC: this conveniently compares ANNUAL production of waste heat with TWO HUNDRED AND FIFTY YEARS PLUS so far of increasing [CO2] for just 40% since 1750 plus another 90+ needed for the doubling to be achieved at the present rate of 0.41% p.a.]
The “4 Watts per square meter” statistic gives us an easy point of reference because it is available from any number of easily accessible sources, such as the IPCC Technical Summary or David Archer’s basic textbook that came out of our “Global Warming for Poets” core course. Another simple way to grasp the insignificance of the waste heat effect is to turn it into a temperature change using the standard climate sensitivity of 1 degree C of warming for each 2 Watts per square meter of heat added to the energy budget of the planet (this sensitivity factor also being readily available from sources like the ones I just pointed out). That gives us a warming of 0.006 degrees C [TC: but that is per annum, i.e 0.6 oC for 100 years, exactly what we have had since 1900)] for the waste heat from coal burning, and much less for the incremental heat from switching to solar cells [TC: once again RP confuses flows with stocks]. It doesn’t take a lot of thinking to realize that this is a trivial number compared to the magnitude of warming expected from a doubling of CO2 [TC: likely to take nearly 100 years from now, as we have only managed c40% since 1750]. (My emphasis added to your text).
You are not the first climate “scientist” I have found to be incapable of distinguishing between stocks and flows – nor will you be the last! More to the point, none of that breed including yourself has ever demonstrated a single statistically significant relationship between changes in annual mean (or mean minimum) temperature and changes in [CO2] at any single location on this earth. I have tried and failed (including at Mauna Loa, Cape Grim, and Pt Barrow, the pristine locations free from UHI etc where [CO2] is actually measured) – but what I do find is remarkably statistically significant correlations between changes in solar radiation at those places and others (eg Sacramento) and the changes in temperature there since 1959. Similarly I find for Los Angeles no relationship between changes in [CO2] and temperature anywhere in that city, but a significant effect for changes in energy consumption (which does actually confirm some of what you say).
Kind regards
Tim Curtin
Yes Cohers – not saying STR is moving and all your listed authors know each other. It’s intensifying old son. Try to keep focussed Cohers.
Timmy – get Wattsup to give you a run or Climateaudit. Surely that will get your ratings up.
If they won’t give you a run – probably means you’re a crank.
Of course it has been demonstrated at Mauna Loa – but you being a denialist will deny it.
Loopylukey: pray tell us what for “that demonstration at Mauna Loa” the R2 was for changes in T on changes in [CO2], and what was the coefficient on d[CO2]? And what was the coefficient for SR which at c 150 W/sq.m. at ML must have a larger impact than the trifling 1.7 W/sq.m. of [CO2] in 2005? These are important details, please do not keep them secret.
As you’ve been told before this excellent piece of work puts the sword to your nefarious work.
http://ormserver.arts.yorku.ca/publictalks/Direct%20Observation%20of%20Global%20Warming%20and%20Correlation%20with%20Atmospheric%20Carbon%20Dioxide%20Data.ppt
You’re a mug to keep coming back for it.
But as I said – Wattsup should give you a run surely – what’s holding you back from international fame?
Of course it’s another bad day for sceptics as the evidence piles up relentlessly
“We present additional evidence that the combination of processes driving the current shrinking and thinning of Kilimanjaro’s ice fields is unique within an 11,700-year perspective”
Glacier loss on Kilimanjaro continues unabated
L. G. Thompsona,b,1, H. H. Brechera, E. Mosley-Thompsona,c, D. R. Hardyd and B. G. Marka,c
+ Author Affiliations
aByrd Polar Research Center, Ohio State University, 108 Scott Hall, 1090 Carmack Road, Columbus, OH 43210;
bSchool of Earth Sciences, Ohio State University, 125 South Oval Mall, Columbus, OH 43210;
cDepartment of Geography, Ohio State University, 154 North Oval Mall, Columbus, OH 43210; and
dDepartment of Geosciences, University of Massachusetts, 236 Hasbrouck, Amherst, MA 01003
Edited by James E. Hansen, Goddard Institute for Space Studies, New York, NY, and approved September 22, 2009 (received for review June 1, 2009)
Abstract
The dramatic loss of Kilimanjaro’s ice cover has attracted global attention. The three remaining ice fields on the plateau and the slopes are both shrinking laterally and rapidly thinning. Summit ice cover (areal extent) decreased ≈1% per year from 1912 to 1953 and ≈2.5% per year from 1989 to 2007. Of the ice cover present in 1912, 85% has disappeared and 26% of that present in 2000 is now gone. From 2000 to 2007 thinning (surface lowering) at the summits of the Northern and Southern Ice Fields was ≈1.9 and ≈5.1 m, respectively, which based on ice thicknesses at the summit drill sites in 2000 represents a thinning of ≈3.6% and ≈24%, respectively. Furtwängler Glacier thinned ≈50% at the drill site between 2000 and 2009. Ice volume changes (2000–2007) calculated for two ice fields reveal that nearly equivalent ice volumes are now being lost to thinning and lateral shrinking. The relative importance of different climatological drivers remains an area of active inquiry, yet several points bear consideration. Kilimanjaro’s ice loss is contemporaneous with widespread glacier retreat in mid to low latitudes. The Northern Ice Field has persisted at least 11,700 years and survived a widespread drought ≈4,200 years ago that lasted ≈300 years. We present additional evidence that the combination of processes driving the current shrinking and thinning of Kilimanjaro’s ice fields is unique within an 11,700-year perspective. If current climatological conditions are sustained, the ice fields atop Kilimanjaro and on its flanks will likely disappear within several decades.
Better get a coffee sit back and wait with glee for the shrill rants of the denialist scum. Like a hive of angry bees I can hear the hum coming.
As Janet Albrechtsen suggested in her piece in the Australian this morning:
Kilimanjaro’s ice cover is just another.
Loopeylukey: evasive as ever, you use the Mt Kili furfy to distract attention from your inability to report data rather than mythology. What do you think the mean max and min temps are atop Kili, @ 19,331 feet? Does ice melt at T below 0 oC? What has happened is a change in rainfall* and wind patterns up there, climate change all right, but uncorrelated with [CO2]; instead where there used to be fewer than 10 million in the general area below, there are now more than double, using wood for fuel, not Parafin, too costly since OPEC’s price hikes ever since 1970.
*A study by Philip Mote formerly of the University of Washington in the United States and Georg Kaser of the University of Innsbruck in Austria concludes that the shrinking of Kilimanjaro’s ice cap is not directly due to rising temperature but rather to decreased precipitation.[12] [Wiki]
All explained in the paper Timmy. It’s all over now for Kilimanjaro deniers. How’s your publications in Nature and GRL going?
Ron,
thank you for speaking about this issue. It is controversial in the US.
If I am correctly interpreting what you wrote, nature will have wide variances where drought and deluge will cause extreme damage to river ecosystems. If man does a reasonable job of managing dams, we can smooth the extremes between deluge and drought with an overall improvement on nature.
This sounds similar to my thoughts on forests and wild lands in general.
I currently live in the San Gabriel Valley west of Los Angeles. I lived in the Outer Sunset in San Francisco for the past 19 years.
Tim Curtin,
the 1.2w/m2 in your post for 100 years is basically meaningless. Over 1 year .012w/m2 will easily dissipate with the much higher natural fluxes, unless there is some kind of “tipping point” past which the energy can not radiate away.
I do not believe in tipping points with the current knowledge of physics and the actual conditions.
Lukefartard,
“Of course it’s another bad day for sceptics as the evidence piles up relentlessly”
You remind me of that guy in Iraq assuring the newsdopes that the US Military wasn’t anywhere near Baghdad when they could be seen from the rooftop!!!
I KNEW you lived in an alternate universe in your own mind!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Lukefartard,
that’s right little Lukey, all EXPLAINED in the paper.
Do you never require JUSTIFICATION and FACTS with EXPLANATIONS??
I can explain how I am the most intelligent creature in the universe. I believe you would rightfully be sceptical!! You should try some of that scepticism on those whoppers we call Peer Reviewed Litchurchur!!
Tim Curtin…I’m on your side of the argument but I think you are giving far too much credit to the heat trapping ability of CO2. Peirrehumbert is a geophysicist, and IMHO, based on what I have read of his work, his understanding of physics is limited. He is heavily biased toward the computer model view of AGW and it would seem his grasp pf physics has come from courses he took along the way. In fact, if you read his book, he seems to infer that’s the way things are done in science these days, to get a degree in whatever you like and bone up on physics in your leisure time..
On the other hand, Craig Bohren is a meteorologists as well as a degreed physicist. There is little comparison between Pierrehumbert and Bohren when it comes to physics theory, and a quick scan of the former’s book reveals that he is not in the same league as Bohren in that capacity. Bohren claims that the notion of CO2 trapping heat is at best a metaphor and at worst, plain silly. He makes such a statement in his book, The Fundamentals of Atmospheric Radiation.
Unfortunately we are cursed by people like Pierrehumbert and his partner in crime at RC, Gavin Schmidt, a mathematician. Both are spewing adulterated physics in support of their extreme views of the atmosphere. The engineer, Jeffrey Glassman has taken Schmidt to task on his understanding of physics, especially positive feedback theory.
Bohren supports his claims against CO2 trapping through 3 chapters of his book on photon theory. He points out the extremely complex interaction between photons of surface radiation and atmospheric gases. Although EM is claimed to have a dual wave/particle nature, Planck developed photon theory, on which quantum theory is based. It’s apparently easier to analyze sound using wave theory and IR using photon, or particle theory, but no one has yet proved that IR is not a wave.
Suppose it is. ACO2 makes up about 0.0016 % of atmospheric gases and IR radiated from the surface could be visualized as a continuum of energy. How is such an extremely rare gas supposed to trap anything, since most of it would escape between the gaping spaces.? Such an observation would be unsatisfactory for a physicist like Bohren, however, but he claims essentially the same thing. He states that photons of IR cannot be regarded as truant school children being corraled by CO2 as the truant officer. Both he and the German physicists, Gerlich and Tscheuschner, have gone to great pains to point out that the AGW view of radiated heat is far too simplified to be taken seriously.
Gerlich, in particular, an expert on vectors and tensors, takes exception to the Mickey Mouse one-line drawings used to describe the flow of photons in the atmosphere. He claims that even the more complex Feynman drawings could not describe the flow of energy in the atmosphere. One thing is clear, photons of heat do not flow directly from the surface to CO2 molecules in the kindergarten drawings provided by the likes of Pierrehumbert and the IPCC.
If a photon of surface IR can be considered a particle without mass, as it is defined, how does it get from the surface to a molecule of CO2? There are bazzillions of other atoms and molecules in its path. Nitrogen and oxygen make up 97% of atmospheric gases, and although they apparently don’t absorb IR, they can certainly scatter it. There goes your direct, one-line pathways used in AGW drawings to represent radiation.
Bohren does concede that the layer model with a cooler atmosphere radiating against a warmer surface is plausible, but as G&T point out, that model violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics when it is claimed that IR back-radiated from the cooler atmosphere can be added to solar radiation to warm the surface more than it is heated by solar energy alone. The atmospheric IR being back-radiated, if it is at all, represents a loss at the surface and came from solar radiation in the first place via the surface. This suggests a perpetual motion/heat storage system in which only a mathematician could miss the adulterated physics in that scenario. If such a heat storage system is possible, why are we not using it to heat our homes? As G&T claimed, CO2 simply does not have those abilities on that scale.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/consensus.jpg
LoopyLukey still believes glaciers melt when temperatures are below freezing point. Have you like me ever been atop Kibo? try it some days clad just in your swimmers.
“The fact that you have melting may mean air temperatures have increased, but it doesn’t necessarily,” says Philip Mote, who heads the Oregon Climate Change Research Institute at Oregon State University. “And in fact, the temperature on the summit of Kilimanjaro is essentially always below freezing, which makes it hard to accept warming as the reason [for glacier loss].”
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1934203,00.html#ixzz0VrE7muQn
Gordon: many thanks for that excellent explanation. I had not believed “raypierre” is not a physicist – I guess it shows! While Schmidt is possibly a mathematician, he has admitted on the same Raypierre-Levitt thread at his very own RC site that he cannot do regressions, still less read the output! Incredible that he is not aware of the total absence of any such analysis showing the claimed correlation between d[CO2] and dTemps. Here is his response just 2 days ago to Julia Isaac:
Julia Isaak says:
2 November 2009 at 5:05 PM
…My reservations relate to the following comments to Gavin.
#240 Gavin
I set up no strawmen; the simple fact is there is an extremely poor correlation between AGW and widely accepted measurement data. This I suggest is reason enough to be skeptical, certainly of the claim that the science is ’settled’.
[Response: Sorry, but you are not being clear. What measure of ‘AGW’ do you think should correlate with what? Do you mean CO2 concentrations with global temperature? the radiative forcing of CO2? the radiative forcing of all the factors changing atmospheric composition? And where is there a prediction that these things should be perfectly correlated? [in AR4, passim, especially WG1 SPM, and p.671] How can mainstream theory be faulted for not matching a prediction it never made? [he must be joking!]And not credited for the predictions it did make? [which have all been disproven to date] And when did I ever say that ‘the science is settled’? [again and again!]….stop reading whatever it is you are reading, and start off with the IPCC FAQ. Then come back and discuss. – gavin]”
Those comments are mindboggling, coming as they do from Hansen’s Bulldog and chief spokesman plus co-author. Schmidt cannot be a mathematician at all as he is even unaware that for regressions it matters little whether you express d[CO2] as changes in that year on year or as [CO2]t=0/[CO2]t=now (as in the Radiative Forcing formula RF=k+lnCO2t/lnCO2t), in fact you get a very slightly better R2 using just d[CO2]/dt.
“raypierre” is no better, I doubt he knows what a photon is, hence his unavailing struggle to finish his book.
I can’t believe the kilimanjaro rubbish has resurfaced; clause 29 from this;
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2007/2288.html
And straight from the alarmist’s mouth;
http://uwnews.org/article.asp?articleID=34106
kuhmkat; your comment about Tim’s accumulative temperature effect from small annual waste increments raises a number of points; the first is this is exactly what AGW claims for CO2 incremental increase; that is, an accumulating heat effect; the issue of accumulative natural heat increase is looked at here;
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0908/0908.1828v1.pdf
The mechanisms for this are analysed in these 2 papers;
http://www.atmos.ucla.edu/~sun/doc/Sun_Yu_JCL_2009.pdf
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/adai/papers/MonahanDai_JC04.pdf
As well as the cloud mechanism the reemergence affect is discussed by Bob Tisdale;
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/27/why-regression-analysis-fails-to-capture-the-aftereffects-of-el-nino-events/#more-9594
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/06/reemergence-mechanism.html
And they say it’s not a religion?
Al Gore: “to appeal to those who believe, there is a moral or religious duty to protect the planet.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/02/al-gore-our-choice-environment-climate
Ps. and he, AG now thinks, CO2 is only 40% responsible for warming!
Fancy that! What next?
Luke,
As expected and correctly predicted, whenever you are confronted with facts and truth that refute your persimistic claims, you retreat to your hollow tree limb. (likley in a supposed dead river red gum), from whence you throw obfuscational crap and try to change the subject.
Either front up and respond to reasonable questions; communicate with truth or shut-up.
How about for the first time ever on this site completing the argument?
A least show you have the depth of knowledge to support your claims.
Your credibility is looking very weak.
Kuhnkat,
Basically agree.
Most of mankind (wether we recognise it or not) have a close relationship with Nature.
Our spirituality is embedded in our environment and our partnership with Nature.
No one wishes to see destruction or even disturbance of habitat and the capacity of our environment to evolve and prosper.
My Grandfather instilled in me and anyone else that would listen, “we have a responsibility to pass land on to the next generation in better shape than when we acquired it.”
There is and never has been a balanced environment.
It has always been a battle for survival. A “dog eat dog” if you like.
We must never accept that the theory of evolution is about survival of the fittest or strongest.
It has to do more with the survival and prosperity of those that adapt to changing circumstances.
Man is not only part of that ongoing adaption, but is at the top of the heap and therefore has responsibilities to not only be aware of the consequences of his actions, but to ensure that they are responsible for future generations.
Those who under the guise of “mankind has destroyed the environment,” would take us back to the days of “Hunter Gathers,” have no appreciation of the advances western man has made in making our environment better for most species.
This is not the case in the developing world.
Responsibly using the vast resources of water on earth are part of that.
Have we made mistakes?
Just like the developing world now, of course we have.
Gavin,
You have given me a bit of homework, which I am happy to respond to if that is your wish.
But not tonight.
Derek Smith,
The real problem is misinformation, for which we have to blame the media.
Politicans react to the most sensationalist claims made in the MSM.
Sadly we have in Australia both a P.M. and an Opposition leader who only listen to the latest headline.
Neither have any philosophical or leadership backbone.
Bloody sad.
Pikey.
Denialist turds
“Kilimanjaro’s ice loss is contemporaneous with widespread glacier retreat in mid to low latitudes. The Northern Ice Field has persisted at least 11,700 years and survived a widespread drought ≈4,200 years ago that lasted ≈300 years. We present additional evidence that the combination of processes driving the current shrinking and thinning of Kilimanjaro’s ice fields is unique within an 11,700-year perspective.”
yes yes yes – all deniable – that’s why you’re denialist scum
Yes Luke, but if you were a bit sceptical you would have looked at what has been happening in the area. You would also have followed Cohenite’s link to see that as has already been suggested, the temperature at the glacier is below zero so there are other causes to explain the shrinking…such as less snow which means there is less white snow to reflect the sun, also the shape of the sheer face, makes it hard for the glacier to expand.
Do you think human activity in the area might be at a high from the last 11,700 years? Are there fewer trees/ forests in the area? has land use changed?
Did most of the retreat occur prior to mans significant increase in co2?
I think in the lead up to copenhagen we can expect to hear a lot more exagerations and lies.
I suggest to all posters to ignore Luke and never replie to him. If we are lucky he will dissapear. Calling people names does show him to be an ignoramus and this site would be better without him….Unless he is a denier and wants normal people to see how sad AGW’s are by acting like one of them
Marcus,
‘And they say it’s not a religion?’ – Unfortunately, that’s what they are saying…
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/11/04/2732928.htm?section=justin
Tim Curtin…re your quote from Gavin Schmidt in response to Julia Isaac…”What measure of ‘AGW’ do you think should correlate with what? Do you mean CO2 concentrations with global temperature? the radiative forcing of CO2? the radiative forcing of ….”
The very language used by Schmidt is evasive. I think he knows very well that Julia is referring to a mismatch between directly measured temperatures and the AGW theory, but he is sidestepping that. Even so, he uses terms like global temperature and forcing.
In The Fundamentals of Atmospheric Radiation, meteorologist/physicist Craig Bohren claims there is no such thing as a global temperature, as an average or otherwise. The proper term is globally-averaged temperature, and Bohren queries in detail what is meant by an average. He describes at least a dozen different forms of averaging.
This is the crux of the matter and the method by which that average is derived is crucial. If there are localized anomalies in any data, weighting factors are required to smooth them out since a simple averaging will tend to skew the overall readings. In some data, the extremes are thrown out. I wonder what we would have on the Earth if we did throw out the extremes. Probably no average warming at all.
John Christy of UAH has been averaging direct satellite measurements of the atmosphere for 30 years and his data comes from the NOAA satellites which scan 95% of the atmosphere. Hansen, with Schmidt et al, has been using surface station data which they have taken the liberty of modifying for a better fit (i.e. to fit Al Gore’s physics). Recently, Schmidt admitted GISSTEMP does not bother to verify the data they receive from third party sources because they don’t have the budget to do so. Fred Singer has stated that he’d much rather accept satellite data that covers the atmosphere accurately and almost completely. Who wouldn’t, except for Schmidt, Hansen et al?
Christy claims that so-called global warming is far from global. He points out that most of the warming is in two highly localized hot spots in the Canadian and Siberian Arctic. Pat Michaels points out further that most of that warming is in the winter, at night. The hot spots are enough to skew the global average to make it slightly positive, although the Antarctic cools the planet almost as much as the Arctic hot spots warm it. The Tropics are hardly affected at all. Christy released the zinger that the localization of warming is not the signature of CO2 warming. Long ago, he pointed out the obvious: the satellite data is showing hardly any warming, and is at least a third of the model-theorized warming.
It would appear that Schmidt is indulging in semantics with his reference to global warming, as are the IPCC and all the pro-AGW theorists. Not only that, Schmidt is introducing the concept of forcing to a context in which it does not belong. Forcing is a term used in mathematics and peculiar to that field. A differential equation can be forced to respond to a particular input but that applies only to equations as used in computer models. In fact, CO2 was introduced as such a forcing because there was no explanation for why the model outputs did not correspond with directly observed data. Aerosols were introduced for a similar reason.
This is ironic because the modelers introduced the CO2 as a fudge factor (theorized forcing) and are now passing it off as a real forcing in the atmosphere. Problem is, there’s no such thing in physics. Also, if I get their drift, they are claiming CO2 is not really a forcing because of it’s theoretical longevity in the atmosphere. Others argue that it is because it’s longevity is not that long (a few years). It’s comical in a way, that humans introduced CO2 as a fudge factor to computer models then claimed it’s action in the atmosphere follows suit, without so much as an smidgen of proof or directly measured temperatures to back the theory. We are supposed to take their opinion for it in the form of consensus.
Poor old Luke, He’s whittled down his” global climate change” to Kilimanjaro,
Like a drowning man grasping at the last straw.
This is exactly right Gordon; time and time again we hear from the alarmists that CO2 is an evenly distributed gas and that Tave is a legitimate measure of the effect of CO2 forcing; why then are there so many regional exceptions to the grand theory as Koutsoyiannis has found.
Come on Toby – this is a brand NEW paper. The fact that the ice didn’t disappear in a 300 year drought is utterly extraordinary – so much for land use change. Below zero – try sublimation mate. The rate of change is a jaw-drop. Try reading the paper instead of pontificating.
and who’s Jack M – some Jack-ass or Jack-off – Jack the fact you wrote that means that you’re unable to ignore me. Coz you know I’m right.
Mack – last straw !! – are you actually mental – this whole thread has been a never ending list of new paper after new paper on AGW – and all you can do is mock – at some point you’d have to start being the slightest bit sceptical of your scepticism – oh I forgot – but you’re mental – carry on then.
Gordon Robertson: Your comment is so good I hope you will try to post it at Real Climate itself. I would, but I am banned there as also at John Quiggin, Tim Lambert’s Deltoid, and Barry Brook. Funny how the true believers cannot “brook” dissent! I suspect it is because they have a lot to be scared of, like data.
Roberston – what an amazing pile of evil nonsense you have penned.
How utterly laughable from another unpublished denialist clown.
I assume that observed global changes in the phenology and life cycles of many species are because “nature” is conspiring with Gavin Schmidt.
Lukefartard,
“I assume that observed global changes in the phenology and life cycles of many species are because “nature” is conspiring with Gavin Schmidt.”
That’s right, you ASSume global changes!!
Now, how about some real data???
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
luke, Koutsoyiannis was published and Tim Curtin will soon be published; the issue of regional contradictions to AGW theory can’t be ignored in a torrent of abuse and hysterical utterences no matter how entertaining your abusive utterances are.
IMO a lot of this stuff comes from the same crowd who say we haven’t had a global financial crisis. What’s up with that? They can’t see an issue because they won’t use their eyes and other inherited but undeveloped primary senses so let’s go damping the signals everywhere to keep the status quo. Bigger dams and more fudge hey? Latent socialism at it’s destructive worst. Bet the same lot can’t stand our finer music either.
Some ground rules for enlightenment here – starting with don’t let your old political inclinations go to your head and make some fundamental observations like we are converting a lot of C into gasses. Also most natural resources are both over allocated and over used.
Overheard John Quiggan on AM today while discussing our traffic congestion with Geraldine Doogue; using the term “greenhouse gasses” in relation to our car travels.
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/breakfast/
Now this could be what it’s all about –
http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2009/11/04/john-quiggin-plays-pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey-with-quot-libertarians-and-delusionism-quot.aspx
Back to flat earth measurement fundamentals for denialst bloggers –
If we can accept the above gasses are going on then we don’t look for a change of radius at SL on this lumpy old Earth as observed from some distant galaxy when the climate is changing because of AGW. Any change due to climate influences will be observed first round the circumference and in particular, any smart traveller will notice a few easy things to observe like retreating glaciers and disappearing beaches at the margins.
A focus on mathematicians behind the physics of it all is hardly a necessary response to the major problem of the whole human race doing what they shouldn’t do given their historical ignorance of Gaia in maintaining our recent climate.
Gavin,
“A focus on mathematicians behind the physics of it all is hardly a necessary response to the major problem of the whole human race doing what they shouldn’t do given their historical ignorance of Gaia in maintaining our recent climate.”
Could you please explain what is so MAGICAL about our recent climate???
Please try to stick with facts and can the alarmist rhetoric!!
By the way, accepting that there is a tiny increase in the amount of a trace gas has little to do with anything!!
Meanwhile back at the ranch, it is raining “cats & dogs” along the east coast and southern Queensland.
Rivers around here are flooding again, some for the fifth time this year.
Tens of millions of megalitres are once again rushing out to sea.
But of course we are short of water and may have to force people to live in the Gulf!
Pikey.
Typical!! – kuhnkat “Please try to stick with facts and can the alarmist rhetoric”
“accepting that there is a tiny increase in the amount of a trace gas has little to do with anything” except perhaps the price of fresh fish
From one of gavin’s links:
“People who would oppose dams, logging, the redevelopment of their neighbourhoods or the pollution of their rivers are often left few means of expressing or arguing their case unless they are prepared to engage in a debate framed by the languages of cost-benefit analysis, reductionist science, utilitarianism, male domination — and, increasingly, English. Not only are these languages in which many local objection — such as that which holds ancestral community rights to a particular place to have precedence over the imperatives of “national development” — appear disreputable. They are also languages whose use allows enclosers to eavesdrop on, “correct” and dominate the conversations of the enclosed. …
Because they hold themselves to be speaking a universal language, the modern enclosers who work for development agencies and governments feel no qualms in presuming to speak for the enclosed. They assume reflexively that they understand their predicament as well as or better than the enclosed do themselves. It is this tacit assumption that legitimizes enclosure in the encloser’s mind – and it is an assumption that cannot be countered simply by transferring what are conventionbally assumed to be the trappings of power from one group to another….”
The great irony of course here, which is not understood by the old lefties like gavin or the young green polemicists, is that they are now the enclosers; the AGW value is a dominating one which has the imprimatur of the social, political and economic structure. To this extent this is the consequence of the false idea of the consensus. An example of how this new paradigm of AGW dominates “ancestral community rights” is the greens support for prevention of indigenous development of parts of northern Queensland. But AGW dominance establishes a worse hegomony; this is the primacy of nature. We see continual references in the AGW agitprop to defilment of nature by human-kind, that humanity are despoilers of nature and that nature would be better off without humanity.
This is not just misanthropy or Malthusian justified eugenics; it is a religiously framed denial of human nature and human apotheosis. Humans are rapidly evolving from natural limitations; in my youth the technological, medical and energy context of today could not be imagined. At its core AGW is a denial of that evolution; it is a denial which frames its dictates in a veneration of the superiority of nature and a pretense that reversion to natural ways is better for humanity. This is of course a lie so the question remains why does AGW ideology argue that it is true?
Excellent Cohenite.
I agree and would add that only when untruth, sensationalism and stupidity are allowed to go unchallenged, can it prevail.
The problem that has occured in most of the western democracies in recent years is that the MSM have been complicit in most of the radical environmental sensationalism.
The widespred use of sites like Jennifers is because it has been very difficult to get any balance in the MSM.
Which brings me to Rudd and his CPRS.
I have just read a sketchy report that Rudd gave a lengthy speech to the Lowey Institute last evening.
Someone here with better skills than me could possibly give us a link.
Having not mentioned this subject for months, he is reported to have been quite scathing and used the phrase “Climate Change sceptics are ruthless gamblers who put at risk our jobs, our economy, our rivers and our reefs.”
Time for this clown and his outlandish claims to be challenged where everyone can take note.
Obviously we cannot rely on the Oppositions “Man of La Mancha,” who is determined to fight on until his approval rating hits zero.
Pikey.
Tim Curtin…”Gordon Robertson: Your comment is so good I hope you will try to post it at Real Climate itself. I would, but I am banned there ….”
Tim…I wont even try posting on RC because I’d be immediately banned as you have and so many other good posters. Even Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit was banned, prompting him to ask if Gavin Schmidt is honest.
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=419
You have to wonder about RC when they are afraid to publish cutting dissent of their theories. Schmidt appeared on a debate once with Richard Lindzen and the late Michael Crichton. Before the debate began, each debater was allowed a brief spiel to put their positions forward. Schmidt announced that he would not participate in a one on one debate (presumably to avoid Lindzen) and that if anyone wanted to know about global warming, they were urged to contact RC directly. How convenient!! BTW, Schmidt’s side ultimately lost the debate.
RC have criticized the work of Roy Spencer, a bona fide meteorologists who has worked for NASA. As far as I know, no one associated with RC is qualified in meteorology, or atmospheric physics in general. Yet both Schmidt and Mann, of the Hockey Stick fame, sit on the Journal of Climate, presumably reviewing papers Spencer might submit. Schmidt is a mathematician specializing in computer modeling and Mann is a geologist who got his degree circa 1998.
Spencer recently claimed one of his papers was rejected and that the reviewer did not seem to understand what he was getting at. Lindzen, who has over 200 papers reviewed, complained that he is receiving far more scrutiny than other people submitting for review. At least they are in good company. Einstein was rejected once by the publisher of a journal because the latter ‘felt’ the content of his paper was not likely to pass review. Imagine any reviewer trying to pass judgment on Einstein. Seems we’re back to that situation, where mathematicians and geologists sit in judgment of distinguished meteorologists who are experts in their fields.
Someone asked Linus Pauling once why he had not submitted one of his experiments to a double blind study. Pauling asked why such a study was necessary when an outcome was obvious. We seem to have lost touch with the purpose of double blind studies and peer review, or of debate itself. Review was initially intended to keep out nut cases who put forward theories on perpetual motion and the likes. Today, the reviews are stacked to prevent skeptical attacks on certain popular paradigms. We all know that RC is not setup to debate science, it’s sole purpose is to spread rhetoric and prop up the AGW theory. The people who run it are heavily into emotion, which is the basis of rhetoric.
“IMO a lot of this stuff comes from the same crowd who say we haven’t had a global financial crisis. What’s up with that? They can’t see an issue because they won’t use their eyes and other inherited but undeveloped primary senses so let’s go damping the signals everywhere to keep the status quo.”
gavin,
I haven’t really come across anyone who denies the GFC but maybe they do in Outer Mongolia, but AGW is another kettle of fish.
Since 1878 we have “average” cooling of 1.19c and “average” warming of 1.20c so how much of that difference is due to natural variation coming out of the little ice age and how much due to ACO2 would you calculate?
Our long term knowledge of measureable events such as temperatures, MSLs, glaciers, sea ice etc. is so sketchy that for anyone to be anything but sceptical, they would have to be denialist or delusional.
Particularly when even modern measurements are debateable and known unknowns are still plentiful.
Here you go Ron
http://www.lowyinstitute.org/Publication.asp?pid=1167
I couldn’t get it to download so I was directed to this
http://www.pm.gov.au/node/6305
How about this from the speech?
We should all put on Harpo Marx faces [lots of talc and red hair] and sandwich boards written with this doom and go out into the streets.
Luke,
We say…..
The melting snows of Kilimanjaro are due to deforestation surrounding the mountain,
A local CLIMATIC EFFECT CAUSED BY MAN !!!
You say….
The melting is due to AGW.
Which one is it Luke? Com’on be honest . (and don’t come over my side of the fence by saying it’s a little bit of both)
I can hear you moaning with gripe as you turn down that CLIMATIC EFFECT CAUSED BY MAN bit.
Isn’t it curious, CSIRO are only aloud to publish stuff OK’d by the government but that same government then uses CSIRO to justify their arguments with “the experts tell us…”. The funny thing is, I get the impression Rudd doesn’t believe his own rhetoric.
Luke’
“I assume that observed global changes in the phenology and life cycles of many species are because “nature” is conspiring with Gavin Schmidt.”
Or perhaps these changes are an indication of the adaptability of those species to the natural variability of the local environment.
aloud should be allowed . That’s quite a bad one Derek. Good job you don’t teach English.:-)
Makc’
I tired so hard to get hte speling rite butt, yoo no, sumtimze mi keebord juss wohnt wurk.
Derek: bravo for when you said – ‘Isn’t it curious, CSIRO are only allowed to publish stuff OK’d by the government but that same government then uses CSIRO to justify their arguments with “the experts tell us…”. ‘
Yet only 2 years ago at the height of the 2007 election campaign the Howard government raised no objection when CSIRO itself trumpeted (23 October 2007) in various Media Releases a wholly scurrilous paper published in the disgraceful Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences by CSIRO’s own Pep Canadell and Mike Raupach that was clearly aimed at discrediting that Government’s stand on AGW.
Here it is:
23 October 2007
Ref 07/211
Decline in uptake of carbon emissions confirmed
A decline in the proportion of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions absorbed
by land and oceans is speeding up the growth of atmospheric CO2,
according to a paper published today in the US Journal: Proceedings of
the National Academy of Science.
Lead author and Executive Director of the Global Carbon Project, CSIRO’s
Dr Pep Canadell, says the acceleration is due to three factors: global
economic growth; the world’s economy becoming more carbon intense (that
is, since 2000 more carbon is being emitted to produce each dollar of
global wealth); and a deterioration in the land and oceans’ ability to
absorb carbon from the atmosphere at the required rate.
“What we are seeing is a decrease in the planet’s ability to absorb
carbon emissions due to human activity,” Dr Canadell says.
“Fifty years ago, for every tonne of CO2 emitted, 600kg were removed by
land and ocean sinks. However, in 2006, only 550kg were removed per
tonne and that amount is falling.”…
…CSIRO’s Dr Mike Raupach … says
“The carbon cycle is generating stronger-than-expected and
sooner-than-expected climate ‘forcing’ – that is, mechanisms that
‘force’ the climate to change. In turn, climate change itself is feeding
back to affect the carbon cycle, decreasing land and ocean sinks.”
Most of the co-authors of the study – including Dr Canadell and Dr
Raupach – are members of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change which was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for 2007 earlier this
month.
Dr Raupach says the research shows that the Earth is losing its
restorative capacity to absorb CO2 emissions following massive increases
in emissions over the past half century. “The longer we delay reducing
emissions, the more restorative capacity will be lost,” Dr Raupach says.
Paper available at: http://www.globalcarbonproject.org
Image available at:
http://www.scienceimage.csiro.au/mediarelease/mr07-carbon_uptake.html
Further Information:
Dr Mike Raupach, CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research
02 6246 5573; 1408 260 825; Mike.Raupach at csiro.au
Dr Pep Canadell, CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research
+61 40706 8930; Pep.Canadell at csiro.au
Media Assistance:
Bill Stephens, CSIRO Media Liaison
02 6176 6153; 0408 817 066
The paper itself is drivel, confusing first and second derivatives, and making claims for which all observations of the actual take up of CO2 emissions show to be increasing not decreasing as was deceitfully claimed by CSIRO in its own Press Release on what has to be the most dishonest paper ever published even by PNAS.
Funny how SMH & co picked this up not to mention the gorgeous Maxine who successfully ousted Howard a few weeks later. No wrist slaps from CSIRO – not even when Canadell & Raupach earlier this year “defied” CSIRO by attacking Rudd for not going far enough with his ETS.
CSIRO, of course being the lap-dog it is, endorses the Copenhagen monstrosity; to sign the Bernardi petition against Australia’s signing the treaty see here;
http://www.corybernardi.com/
What a deep little black hole we have here. Spangled, Gordon and others who may be lurking; my comment is simple – When you apply enough damping, no one hears the music. So boring!
Please come out of blogsphere for your sources on this real AGW issue.
Cohenite: I can depend on lifetime worked as a servant in technology for my current views and I don’t need to roam the web seeking support. However when you bother investigate my links I expect you to see similar arguments written in a style beyond my capacity, including all that which emanates from department professionals in support of governments.
Let’s say again, some familiarity with that process helps a lot especially in understanding the role of various umpires including the media with all stages of policy development.
Dealing with numskulls on the outside is the hardest task a PS officer has
If Kevin was genuine he ought to embrace this plan. Culling camels is a step in the right direction but this is a lot better.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/nov/04/forests-desert-answer-climate-change
cohers,
very good.
Tim,
How do those papers pass peer review when anything anti-AGW gets refused.
“Please come out of blogsphere for your sources on this real AGW issue.”
http://www.climate4you.com/
check the data!
Mack are you a little mental – survives a 300 year drought – consider the land surface feedback in that !! Wake up dope. Gee I wonder what many other tropical glaciers are doing? hmmmmm
Derek – not all – many poikilotherm growth rates are simply dependent on temperature. Golly mate – it’s basic stuff and global. try thinking !
http://www.philosophicalturn.net/CMI/Environment/Nature_Attributing_Anthropogenic_Climate_Change.pdf
Climate change deniers ‘gambling’ the future
Australian Broadcasting Corporation
Broadcast: 06/11/2009
Reporter: Dana Robertson
The Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has slammed climate change deniers, saying they are holding the world to ransom.
Transcript
LEIGH SALES, PRESENTER: The Prime Minister has finished the week with a verbal assault on so-called climate change sceptics. Mr Rudd’s accused the global warming non-believers of holding the world to ransom and gambling recklessly with humanity’s future. While he named politicians in the US and Britain, it was clear his barbs were aimed squarely at the Liberal and National parties here at home. Dana Robertson reports from Canberra.
DANA ROBERTSON, REPORTER: There’s a month to go and the gloves are off.
KEVIN RUDD, PRIME MINISTER: It is time to remove any polite veneer from this debate.
DANA ROBERTSON: And for the next 40 minutes, the Prime Minister took aim at the people he says are derailing the prospects of a global climate agreement in Copenhagen.
KEVIN RUDD: The legion of climate change sceptics are active across the world, and they happily play with our children’s future. The clock is ticking for the planet, but the climate change sceptics simply do not care.
DANA ROBERTSON: Mr Rudd says the sceptics are small in number, but too dangerous to be ignored. He says they lurk largely in the embrace of conservative parties around the world, but their agenda is nothing of the sort.
KEVIN RUDD: Climate change sceptics in all their guises and disguises are not conservatives, they are in fact the radicals. They are reckless gamblers who are betting all of our futures on their arrogant assumption that their intuitions should triumph over all evidence.
DANA ROBERTSON: Whether they’re outright deniers, opponents of action or just waiting for other countries to move first, Mr Rudd says the end result of doing nothing is the same.
KEVIN RUDD: Their aim is not to convince every person on Earth of the follies of acting on climate change; their aim is to erode just enough of the political will that action becomes impossible. By slowing the actions of each individual country, they aim to slowly drag global negotiations on climate change to a standstill.
DANA ROBERTSON: Many of Mr Rudd’s shots were fired far from home, but there was no disguising the real target of his invective.
KEVIN RUDD: The tentacles of the climate change sceptics reach deep into the ranks of the Liberal Party, and once you add to them the National Party, it’s plain the sceptics and the deniers are a major force.
DANA ROBERTSON: Kevin Rudd’s accused Malcolm Turnbull of cowardice and a failure of leadership for refusing to guarantee passage of the Emissions Trading Scheme through the Senate before Copenhagen. But at the same time, his own Climate Change Minister has raised doubts about the Government’s ability to give any ground in its negotiations with the Coalition. “we expect any amendments to the CPRS must be economically and fiscally responsible and environmentally credible. In light of budget impact released on Monday, it is clear that carte-blanche acceptance of the entirety of the Opposition’s current proposals does not pass these tests.”
Malcolm Turnbull says he won’t be baited into a fight over climate change, which he says is simply a distraction from the Government’s border protection failures.
MALCOLM TURNBULL, OPPOSITION LEADER: The negotiations are being conducted in good faith and confidentially and I won’t be running a commentary on them. I – the negotiations are proceeding. They’ll have an outcome and then we will then decide as the Opposition how we respond to the legislation.
DANA ROBERTSON: No-one’s sceptical about the real priorities of politics. Dana Robertson, Lateline.
You know Gavin the bane of my life has been “numbskulls” in the PS.
You need to get out more.
There are a lot of great and rational people out there in all walks of life.
Pikey.
Thanks Janama,
Now that I have read this self-serving load of tripe, I am totally convinced we have for a P.M. a pompous illogical clown.
Where oh where is the leader to refute this nonsense?
Where is our enquiring Fourth Estate?
Can’t wait until Hans Christian Rudd returns from Copenhagen with some new Fairy Tales.
By the way, in relation to water availability.
I have just returned from a walk along Sapphire beach, most of which has been washed away overnight by very heavy rain.
The remaining beach is covered with trees and debris from the surrounding land.
The sea is brown to the horizon.
The Pacific highway is cut and all local rivers and streams are in flood.
There is a small unnamed creek that flows into the sea adjacent to where we live and only flows after rain, usually for about a week.
My estimate this morning is that it is flowing at about 900 megs per day.
Coffs daily water use is 15 megs.
The flow in Coffs Creek, that runs through the town, is presently sufficient if harvested for just 24 hours, to supply Coffs Harbour for over 2 years.
Luke, Do you still claim we need to go to the Gulf for water?
I note you have as usual, made no attempt to answer my questions regarding water availability.
Don’t you think it is time to maybe admit that on this at least, you got it wrong?
Pikey.
Luke,
I’ve tried thinking but it’s never gotten me anywhere.
Anyway, I had a bit of a look at some articles concerning both poikilotherms, and poikilotherms plus climate change and I’m afraid your case seems very weak to me. In fact, if I may risk looking like a complete idiot (not for the first time) there is a suggestion that warming would be advantageous particularly for reptiles. Most of the “problems” concerning poikilotherms (can we just say cold blooded animals?) that I’ve read are constructs based on IPCC models and not empirical evidence and are full of assumptions and qualifications.
I tried reading your linked article but by the time I’d waded through what seemed like an eternity of IPCC worship, I didn’t have the stomach to take any of it seriously. If you can find some non-partisan articles that plead your case in more concrete terms, please feel free to send them my way.
Cheers.
“I’ve tried thinking but it’s never gotten me anywhere.” well obviously – not very intelligent Derek – if plants start flowering earlier consistently why do you think that might be Derek. Insects going through life cycles more quickly.Time to maturity etc.
Might it a fundamental concept of day degrees. Wow Derek – rocket science.
” didn’t have the stomach to take any of it seriously. If you can find some non-partisan articles that plead your case in more concrete terms’
Derek – give up – need to have basic level of IQ to be in the debate. And so Derek you sort of what to debate the issue – but you really don’t – do you? And you won’t find any non-partisan scientists Derek – coz there’s this enormous global conspiracy of evil scientists that just makes this stuff up. And it’s all about the UN taking over the world. And as we’ve seen the UN is just so effective in controlling global wars – like Rwanda – that you’d have to believe this is the agenda !
Pikey _ I didn’t say we had to go the Gulf for water. I did say there was a lot there. And also in the Kimberley.
And yes Pikey – the irrigators in the MDB just have so much water – that they’re beside themselves. They just don’t know how they’ve going to harvest all that cotton. Wall to wall cotton out there Pikey.
King Kevin’s high aspirations at the UN require that he blow the warminghorn with might and main.
But even Bob Brown reckons that he’s got no clothes.
And in view of what’s gonna happen, Barnaby is probably his best friend.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6905356.ece
Luke,
Did Kev mention this bit?
“The Global Humanitarian Forum, based in Geneva, has estimated that more than 300,000 people are killed each year by climate change, nearly all of them in poor countries.”
His spiel was pretty hard to wade through and I may have overlooked something.
If he did I’m sure he could find room for it on his sandwich board.
gavin,
What do you make of one of the known knowns?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/11/october-2009-uah-global-temperature-update-0-28-deg-c/
Luke,
Come on, the only constant in nature is change. Do you believe in evolution? Well evolution is about adaptation and it is clear that adaptability has been working quite well for a long time otherwise life wouldn’t have survived past the first big freeze.
You seem to be working on the assumption that the world was in a state of perfection between 1960 and 1990 climate-wise and that any deviation from that would be disastrous. Where is this perfect climate that you pine for, give me a year, you tell me what is the optimum state of the planet.
Did you know that shortly after the last glacial period those majestic Californian redwoods would have been considered WEEDS?
Change happens Luke, the only thing that is up for debate is how much power humans have to affect change.
BTW you’re correct, I don’t really want to debate the issue, There are plenty of much more qualified people on this blog who do a sterling job at that.
Cheers.
Derek – give up – need to have basic level of IQ to be in the debate.
Yeah Luke,
Anyone knows that the left are smarter than every one else.
http://american.com/archive/2009/october/are-liberals-smarter-than-conservatives
“Luke,
Come on, the only constant in nature is change. Do you believe in evolution? Well evolution is about adaptation and it is clear that adaptability has been working quite well for a long time otherwise life wouldn’t have survived past the first big freeze.”
Derek,
Hush yo’ mouf.
With ACC we now have “PLAN A”!!!
No more of this bloody plan B adaptation crap.
We can blame and tax the innocents off the face of the earth!
Many thanks Luke for link to full text of that amazing stream of drivel by Rosenzweig, Karoly, et 11 al. (including tea lady and photocopiers) in Nature May 2008. Too bad that the leading tea lady (Cynthia R) has never heard of the phrase “post hoc ergo propter hoc”, but then she would’nt have would she, as the whole paper is based on that fallacy. Amazing that not one of the 13, and especially not the 3 including David K claiming to have done “the statistical (sic) analyses”, is capable of performing the regression analysis which alone can provide a real basis for the paper’s conclusions rather than the “post hoc” assertions which are all we get.
For example, we are told that there has been an “observed increase in global average temperatures” since 1950, and that various data series (none of more than 50 years so far as one can tell from the paper) on changes in e.g. terrestrial biology, are consistent with that warming. But that begs the question of what changes if any were occurring before the “observed” warming after 1950. The paper offers no evidence on the pre-1950 period, so cannot determine how much of observed biological changes since 1950 are “new” and ergo propter hoc.
Naturally, Cynthia & David have not been able to find any data on Agriculture and Forestry, never having heard of FAO (teaboys and girls like them would not would they?), with its time series of commercial production of food crops, livestock, fisheries and timber, all of which show stunning increases since 1960. I have correlated those with changes in [CO2] and GMT with statistically significant results that pass the auto-correlation tests that once again Cynthia David & co have never heard of (if they have, why are these tests not applied to their own data?). To ignore world food production as these authors did is pure charlatanry.
Thanks Tim, you took the veritable words right out of my mouth. I was in the process of typing virtually the same thing when I realized I HAVE THE I.Q. OF A SLUG!
Just as well I’ve got you guts to do the heavy thinking for me!
Well Luke, in response to my data backed comment that present populations and up to 35M in the future, could easily be accomodated from our water resources you replied:
Oct. 31 – 9-50AM.
“I’m sure they would love to live in Kimberley, the Gulf, Cape York, with heat and plague.”
It seems to me that you are one of the following:
A: Have a very poor memory. Not likely in my opinion.
B: Will without much thought say anything to be argumentative. Quite likely.
C: You really are a Galah and will squwark lowder and lowder to get attention. Highly likely.
As you have made NO attempt to answer the issues raised I suggest you go to your room and copy these lines 100 times until you know them off by heart.
1: Agriculture only ever has and ever will use water that is excess to other requirements from our river systems.
2: Water used for irrigation last season can never be responsible for lack of flow next season. It is physically impossible.
3: Once water is released from storage what is not used flows to the sea.
3: Dams are built to store water in times of excess flow to guarantee and enhance flows in times of low run-off.
Pikey.
Willis Eschenbach on why the proposed Copenhagen agreement won’t work:
“While in 1970 the US and Western Europe combined to contribute about half of all CO2 emissions, at present this is far from true. In the past 35 years, the combined emissions of the US and Western Europe have risen only slightly. Globally, however, CO2 emissions have risen steeply, with no end in sight.
So it doesn’t matter if Europe signs on to a new Kyoto. It doesn’t matter if the US adopts Cap and Trade. Both of them together will make no significant difference. Even if both areas could roll their CO2 emissions back to 1970 levels, it would not affect the situation in the slightest.
These are meaningless attempts to hold back a rising tide of emissions. Me, I don’t think rising CO2 levels are a problem. But if you think it will be a problem, then you should definitely concentrate on adaptation strategies .. because mitigation simply isn’t going to work.”
What more needs to be said?
While searching for info on Luke’s poikilotherms, I came across this article in nature. “http://www.nature.com/climate/2009/0903/full/457669a.html”. I don’t know how to create links yet so you will just have to paste the url.
Anyway it has some interesting things to say regarding temp gradients from poles to tropics and hints at the adaptability of species.
Cheers.
Derek Smith “I don’t know how to create links yet so you will just have to paste the url.”
I usually put it on a line by itself with no quotes, like this:
http://www.nature.com/climate/2009/0903/full/457669a.html
Gavin,
““accepting that there is a tiny increase in the amount of a trace gas has little to do with anything” except perhaps the price of fresh fish”
Brilliant response to my question about what is so MAGICAL about the current climate. Just breathtaking. You certainly put me in my place!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
http://www.nature.com/climate/2009/0903/full/457669a.html
Gordon,
Thanks, I had no idea it was that easy. Now if I can just find something useful enough to link to……..
” Agriculture only ever has and ever will use water that is excess to other requirements from our river systems.” – hahahahahahahaha
So that’s why we have all this farm irrigation infrastructure sitting idle then. Clever agriculture. Your mates Pikey?
OK, if higher temperatures are bad, that means by extension that there must be an optimum temperature for the planet. Conversely, too cold is also bad so there must be a temperature somewhere between too hot and too cold that is just right. A baby bear temp if you will.
What say the AGW collective who contribute to this blog mumble amongst yourselves for a bit and get back to me when you have an answer. For some reason this is important information.
My considered opinion based on months of education and an extremely high IQ (it’s gotta be close to 100, IQ is measured in % isn’t it?), there is no optimum temp, although if it’s hot enough to melt lead you aren’t going to be able to shoot anything for dinner.
Pikey – over some time I’ve observed that fundamentally you’re sneaky. And like a good denialist you’re now wanting to work from the middle of an argument out of the page in a new direction that suits you.
You quoted an Australian statistic of x litres /person. Australia is a big place and some parts a long way from Barellan (thank heavens). I pointed out much of our spare water resources are in the north, coinciding with land suitable for irrigation. An environment many would find unpleasant and difficult (not all).
You didn’t present until later any statistics about eastern Australia or Coffs Harbour or wherever.
You then try to pretend there is currently no lack of water across major irrigation systems in the MDB.
http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSSYD429097 says it all.
Try to lay straight in bed matey.
“OK, if higher temperatures are bad, that means by extension that there must be an optimum temperature for the planet.” —– Gong. goooooonnnggggg !
Jeez Derek – outstanding. The issue is about rapid change in climate (~100 years) with 6 billion going to 9 billion humans. Limits on arable land and freshwater. Who wins and who loses as atmospheric system rearrange themselves. An example from variability – see how much chaos and El Nino event can bring already. Small shifts in sea temperatures and pressure systems can have major impacts. See the effect and intensifying subtropical ridge (STR) is already having on Murray rainfall patterns.
It’s not about the temperature per se. Try to get on the page in this debate eh?
hahahahahaha – I missed it – now the nutty squirrels are invoking evolution ! hahahahah
and chump Timmy – OMIGOD – pray tell why are they going to add ag stats when there all manner of confounding effects.
The very very very simple point Tim is in the period where you denialist scum deny any temperature increase, deny you can measure it – that all these temperature rate dependent species in natural systems have just coincidentally decided to respond in a manner which just so happens to be exactly what you’d expect from a rise in temperature. Didn’t say anything about good or bad – simply that they had.
Gee isn’t Nature naughty for this big conspiracy -who put Nature up to it?
But hey – that’s why you’re denialist scum – you job is to deny the obvious.
Temperature did increase over the 20thC luke; but it wasn’t due to AGW;
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2008/10/temperature-trends-and-carbon-dioxide-a-note-from-cohenite/
There are a couple of adjustments needed to my calculations but the point is temperature movement over the 20thC does not correlate with an anthropogenic forcing signal.
Luke,”The issue is about rapid change in climate (~100 years) ”
You actually think that a 0.75 degree rise in temp over 100 years is rapid and unprecedented? Buddy, the last 10K years have been labeled as abnormally stable by paleoclimatologists, try the Younger Dryas on for size if you want rapid climate change.
I find it hard to believe that an intelligent person like yourself accepts without question such things as the infallibility of the GISS temp record, the certainty of IPCC climate models RC’s claims that UHI effects are negligible etc. Surely you don’t accept every “fact” presented by Al Gore in his ridiculous film “An Inconvenient truth”?
It is simply not possible for everything that Tim, Ron, Louis, Janama etc. says be wrong, so it has become clear that you also have no interest in honest debate.
Pikey; “You need to get out more. There are a lot of great and rational people out there in all walks of life”
Mate; a long time ago I established little routines to keep me out and about. I discovered that by doing a particular line of work either full time or part time I could constantly meet people in a relaxed atmosphere. For instance, a good door to door salesman in creationg oportunity must learn to listen to all potential customers.
Today day in my official retirement I have prepared several wagon loads of used goods for the local trash and treasure. It’s guarenteed to make conversation with a wide range of folk willing to spend their time keeping me up to date on their current needs one way or another. Tomorrow I will meet weather permitting, international students, visiting military personnell, refugees, businessmen and women, teachers, accademics, retired policemen and so on.
It’s so easy for me to keep tabs on our global situation there given the competion for seller space and operator relevance to the crouds. Short term versus long term anticipation is just part of the fun. I can say philossophy beats science any day.
Derek:”You actually think that a 0.75 degree rise in temp over 100 years is rapid and unprecedented”
Take a tip from a guy who did a lot of temp measurement and instrument calibration over the decades – in the scale 0-15C. .75C change IS a lot!
For those who haven’t cottoned on yet; its all about the water/ice balance and sea level with and without significant permant ice caps above SL
Lukebaby ,
Asses still being frozen down here!
http://business.scoop.co.nz/2009/11/03/coldest-october-in-over-half-a-century/
Speaking of frozen, Gavin, do you know what defines an ice age? PERMANENT ICE! We are in the middle of an ice age and you guys are worried about a little bit of warming. If you look at the temperature record for the past 5 million years it’s getting gradually colder! We are due for another glacial period at any time now so I for one am thankful that it’s still warm.
If you want to bleat about extreme weather events, try the last glacial maximum with it’s extreme deserts and 300km/hr winds. The little ice age was a picnic compared to the LGM.
BTW Luke, when the next glacial period hits you wont have to worry about 9 billion people, most of ’em will be dead.
Well said, Derek. Go to http://www.climate4you.com for stunning pic of the sun on 5th November, not a spot to be seen. Then do some stats on sunspot numbers against temperature! Even Al Gore has just backed off the IPCC claim parroted by the ineffable Karoly that the “predominant” (i.e. more than 50%) influence on GW is anthropogenic, it’s now down to only 40%.
‘
As for Loopy, as a PS you must be aware there are costs and benefits in most situations (regrettably in your case costs always benefits). Can you explain why when [CO2] was only c280 ppm in say 1750, and there were fewer than 1 billion people, it would be a Good Thing to reduce emissions enough to get [CO2] down to 350 ppm from present 390 ppm. Check out your next packet of wheaties, and work out from the amount of calories per 100 grams how much [CO2] p.a. is needed to feed nearly 7 billion people at your own no doubt excessive consumption rate. Will 350 ppm be enough, arrived at by reducing emissions from 10GtC pa to nil or close to? Do tell. I bet you cannot or will not.
Derek – you sure is dumb matey boy – now stop being a total dope and put your brain in gear for once – don’t like GISS – well try CRU, don’t land series try 2 ocean data sets – Parker et al. Don’t like thermometers – try boreholes. Don’t like that – try species phenology – now isn’t just so funny that the answer is the fucking same !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! BLOODY HELL
Next glacial period Derek – try 50,000 to 150,000 years – hmmmm – gee I didn’t think of that says Derek
As for “oh well shit has happened before” – yea well not with 6-9 billion humans it ain’t.
Wanna do a “dry run” for last time the place warmed up – see what desertified.
And seemingly when big shifts happen – species die ! And shit happens. The fact that you are even here is more good luck than good management.
Tim – you’re such a total wanker. It’s agronomy and genetics boofhead. CO2 effects at the limit of experimental field detection.
“It is simply not possible for everything that Tim, Ron, Louis, Janama etc. says be wrong,”
you friggin dope – they’re political denialist scum – what do you reckon eh? They’re shills.
“Rivers around here are flooding again, some for the fifth time this year.
Tens of millions of megalitres are once again rushing out to sea.”
and how many years didn’t this happen? You just can’t stop yourself bullshitting Pikey.
Anyway irrigators have got enough MDB related infrastructure on the public tit – so you raise the money and pay for the dam and inland diversion system Pikey. You can enjoy it when it sits idle too.
Derek Smith….”….there is no optimum temp…”
There’s not only not an optimum temperature, according to meteorologist/physicist, Craig Bohren, there is not even a global temperature.
Think about it. We measure temperatures using a centigrade scale calibrated in degrees. What is a degree? It’s an arbitrary measure of the expansion of mercury or some other material that responds to the change in kinetic energy of surrounding atoms.
Even if we use 1/10th degrees, it is still arbitrary. In reality, temperatures could be measured in millionths of a degree, resulting in millions of world temperatures. That range could be extended theoretically to an infinite number of temperatures.
So, what is a global temperature? There’s no such thing, obviously, to anyone who understands the integration of calculus, which is the summing of tiny discrete quantities to represent a whole. It’s simply not possible to sum the infinite number of local temperatures to arrive at a global temperature. For one, we would need an infinite number of thermometers inputting their readings at one time and a means of averaging them to arrive at a single reading.
The way it’s done in reality is rather primitive. The surface method is to locate thermometers throughout the world, which is rather difficult when most of it is ocean. Not only that, we have to rely on people in different countries to get that data to a central accumulation point like NASA’s GISSTEMP. NASA has already admitted they cannot verify that data due to budget constraints.
It would be bad enough if they merely averaged that data, but they insist on adjusting it to account for unnatural heating of thermometers surrounded by cities. When you have extremists like James Hansen doing that, a man who raves about tipping points and putting skeptics in jail, an intelligent person has to wonder at the results. It is apparent, that the global temperature presented is a very rough average of data accumulated from the world at large.
The more accurate method of temperature data acquisition is done by satellites, which scan 95% of the atmosphere measuring microwave radiation from oxygen molecules. Even at that, the data has to be averaged. However, the broad and accurate coverage of the atmosphere reveals that global temperatures have highly localized hot spots in the Canadian and Siberian Arctic. They also show equally and highly localized spots of cooling in the Antarctic. It is the Arctic hot spots that are mathematically skewing the global warming average in a slightly positive direction.
The satellite data has also revealed that the atmosphere has barely warmed in the 30 years satellites have been in use. They show at least 1/3rd of the warming predicted by models. That’s why there has been ridiculous assaults on the data by IPCC supporters.
Gavin,
Sounds like a rewarding life.
Just enjoy it Mate.
Pikey.
luke, you say all the measures of AGW confirm the theory; here are 2 fundamental measures based on CO2 showing different correlations; which is right; SST and PDO;
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1850/to:2010/normalise/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1850/to:1880/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1880/to:1910/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1910/to:1940/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1940/to:1976/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1976/to:1998/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1998/to:2010/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1850/to:2010/trend
SST and CO2;
http://i37.tinypic.com/30mo4ev.jpg
Luke,
“Derek – you sure is dumb matey boy – now stop being a total dope and put your brain in gear for once – don’t like GISS – well try CRU, don’t land series try 2 ocean data sets – Parker et al. Don’t like thermometers – try boreholes. Don’t like that – try species phenology – now isn’t just so funny that the answer is the fucking same !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! BLOODY HELL”
I’m sorry but you just made my point. All of these data collection methods have been shown to be flawed and yet you still have complete faith in them.
“Next glacial period Derek – try 50,000 to 150,000 years”……..um….which comic book are you getting your info from? When was the last time an interglacial lasted 50K years?
“Wanna do a “dry run” for last time the place warmed up – see what desertified.”
That would be the Holocene maximum when it was warmer than today and if you go to the following link and look around, you’ll find that there were a lot less deserts than now.
http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/nerc.html
Gavin,
“For those who haven’t cottoned on yet; its all about the water/ice balance and sea level with and without significant permant ice caps above SL”
How about in your neighborhood:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/science-is-in-on-climate-change-sea-level-rise-17mm/story-e6frg6nf-1225795202916
Just as with ice ages, the seas go up and they go down.
BTW Luke, if you dig out your personally signed copy of “An Inconvenient Truth” and watch the bit where Big Al talks about the temp/co2 graph covering the last 450K years, you might notice how short and unstable some of those interglacials were. Ours is in fact longer than average so from a statistical point, we can expect the temp to start a long downward slope at any time from now on.
Ron Pike – check out this weeks Landline program on the northern territory water issues.
I appears the farmers want to expand but the Governments, environmentalists and the CSIRO stand in their way.
http://www.abc.net.au/landline/
Gordon,
I completely agree with what you said, I just wanted to put out a simple, alternate opinion and see what bites I got. Studying past climate by regions shows that there can be a +4c increase at 65N with a corresponding -2C decrease at the equator. It is also clear that the same effect can be seen longitudinally which overall suggests that ice core readings are not a definitive record of past temperatures anyway.
Conversely, alarmists are so fixated on global average temp increases that they have no wriggle room as far as defining an optimum global ave temp. There has been no response from Luke et al on that question, so I can only assume that they have been caught short.
Thanks Janama,
I did see it as I usually watch Landline.
I will comment later and also respond to Lukes continuing changing of the goal posts and other rubbish.
Presently have to finish some poetry.
Interestingly I have just finished talking to my son who is an agricultural scientist, conducting trials in Vic., W.A. and S.A.
He has just returned from the west and said that WA, SA and Vic will all harvest record crops.
A good news story that Luke and the AGW church would not wish to hear.
They feed on disaster like a vampires on blood.
Pikey.
janama,
As a regular Landline watcher, these sorts of programmes gimme the whoops.
Saying that all that potential is only being used to 1 or 2 percent of capacity but emphasising unspecified dangers so as to pay homage to AGW is plain alarmist crap.
And just look at those “forests” they are protecting from clearing! The whole lot wouldn’t absorb as much CO2 as a small melon patch.
There are so many positives in that northern development and that show just concentrated on the negatives [like the evaporation from lake Argyle] with no one as usual asking the right questions.
It’s not as if they were clearing the Amazon RF.
I wonder if this assesment will include any defined carbon accounting?
If the govt were serious about sustainable development instead of subsidised pauperism up there they would allow that approval for Fleming to proceed, sell the blocks for $1 each provided houses were built and allow controlled landclearing and irrigation.
Pikey will be pleased to know that today a Chinese student in a big covered truck carting seedlings from interstate tried back over my corolla in the que as we were leaving the market. We now wear the distinct imprint of a rusty RSJ by the forward number plate.
Win some loose some hey!
Derek; you have become too smug for words in your last post. I also notice no one else picked up on my “flat” SL gauge etc.
In one conversation today with a retired HS science teacher as we discussed truing his new lathe for gun barrels I related my old trick with thermometers. I frequently showed off my tool box selection in the common crib room. I usually had at least three linear types, say -20/150C, 0/300 and 0/1000. In a mug of ice water usually made from freezer cubes and tap water I could guarantee a difference in all three at melt point but by giving only the big one to the lads as it stood, every day on site was a good one when it came to discussing any lack of air con there.
Re SL input and perspective: In a typical routine, I would hunt errors on float gauges too, in fact any device from a boiler drum sight level to a weigh bridge depending on the industry. In my experience float gauges attached to damping, amping etc are one of the less sensitive instruments given dodgy floats wandering around in a slimy well hardly ever get serviced. Some I saw had already sunk. Interpreting chart data after these events is a load of fun.
What we have today in all climate science is a legacy from that earlier commercial-industrial period in terms of our current in house standards development. Science in the lab is hardly ever transportable in the way we may expect by just reading blogsphere. However some of this stuff can be highly amusing especially the back slapping rounds here.
Folks; newbies in measurement science on the internet are the real danger
The line about 25% of Lake Argyle evaporating was just unbelievable – the lake holds 5,797,000 megalitres!!!!
I’ve driven through that country and it’s as flat as a tack – the river is huge, as are the crocs 🙂
That’s the “forest” that gets burnt every year Spangled, it never gets a chance to get back up.
Gavin,
Yes and I will remain smug, supercilious and altogether up myself until someone answers my question.
I’ve just been reading the responses to “Rudd’s rant” by Andrew Bolt and came across this response from Cohenite;
”
cohenite replied to watty
Sat 07 Nov 09 (11:07am)
Yep, Rudd is a scary person. By way of reply to dio’s stupid comment which, as best one can tell, refers to the conensus argument to justify the dumb conclusion of an “overwhelming body of evidence” to support AGW. Not only is there not a body of evidence, there is not a skin scrap or a finger-nail of evidence to support AGW. Alternatively, there are many disproofs of AGW; here a few;
1 Professor Koutsoyiannis in 2008 proved the IPCC computer model predictions about temperature were wrong.
2 Professor Lindzen using ERBE data proved the IPCC model predictions of less radiation leaving the atmosphere were wrong.
3 Professor Paltridge proved the IPCC model predictions of increased specific humidity was wrong
4 Dr Miskolzi proved the IPCC predictions of an increase in the greenhouse effect based on an increase in atmospheric optical depth was wrong
5 Dr David Stockwell proves that CSIRO predictions are flawed and unreliable.
Round 1 can’t be to rudd; he isn’t even in the ring.”
If I may focus on points 1 to 5, in light of the complete failure of the IPCC to be credible and the blind obeisance of Luke and his ilk to the proclamations of said institution, is it surprising that I am a skeptic?
No Derek, it is not!
Cohenite,
I was just thinking, I’m not up to speed on protocols for this blog site so if I shouldn’t have quoted you without permission, I apologies. I was so caught up in my own smugness that I didn’t think.
Janama,
The net evaporation at Argyle is about 80 centremeters/ year.
Without evaporation we would not have precipitation.
Without precipitation all life would die.
The thought processes of most environmentalists are already dead.
Still busy on other things.
Pikey
Ron,
I’m going to go out on a limb here but I would think that 50% evaporation from a dam would still be better than not having the dam in the first place. As evaporation losses relate to surface area verses volume, what are your thoughts on building deeper dams?
Derek,
You are of course right.
But please do not think for one minute that engineers and conservationalists have not been aware of this for over 100 years.
Whenever we seek to harvest and store water, consideration is always given to maximising volume and mimimising surface area.
This is not something that political environmentalists though up.
It is amazing that with so many of these vital issues we have a vocal (Luke Type Galahs) who can only see problems, that are mostly not relevant, while others can see reasonable solutions.
I can’t comment further as I have other work on that must be completed.
Pikey.
The main thing you bloggers have in common like those back in the crib room is a sheer lack of practical experience in dealing with both science and engineering concepts that confirm imaginative thinking at the grass roots of progress. Given we have only a couple of thousand years of history in modern languages, maths, astronomy, navigation, taxation etc it should come as no surprise our climate science based on global data is still rather thin.
Obtaining stability in all measurement fields is a relatively new goal for researchers on the whole. Forensic science is no exception. An item on ABC radio today reminds us of just how short we have been on reliable proof when this story revealed some euro secret service agents hunted BO around the 1950’s and kept bits of worn undies in a sealed jar as potential evidence.
Our home grown NATA was into electrical testing labs by then and had deals re mutual recognition of trade measurements beyond the national scene however natural sciences globally struggled even in the wake of Darwin.
http://www.abc.net.au/tv/guide/netw/200911/programs/DO0752V001D2009-11-08T193000.htm
A good question for newbies: How old is say the Admiralty set of standards that may have influenced global temperature and climate records post Darwin?
Another issue to ponder is most of our instruments and recorders made between the wars and after shared a common heritage and generally came to us from only a hand full of competent manufacturers’ world wide.
At various times I worked directly for some of the importers including the UK based Kent group in Australia. We got smart thermometers when?
You lot have nothing to stand on when it comes to old records and their interpretation
1 Professor Koutsoyiannis in 2008 proved the IPCC computer model predictions about temperature were wrong.
2 Professor Lindzen using ERBE data proved the IPCC model predictions of less radiation leaving the atmosphere were wrong.
3 Professor Paltridge proved the IPCC model predictions of increased specific humidity was wrong
4 Dr Miskolzi proved the IPCC predictions of an increase in the greenhouse effect based on an increase in atmospheric optical depth was wrong
5 Dr David Stockwell proves that CSIRO predictions are flawed and unreliable.
Pity they’re all wrong eh? Just more filth from paid denialists.
Cohers is back to magical heat building properties of internal oscillations. Cohers discovers Jacks Beans Stalk – Matey get published and stop being a giggle.
Hey Luke, has anyone told you that your little picture in the RH corner makes you look like Wallace from Wallace and Grommet?
“Pity they’re all wrong eh? Just more filth from paid denialists.”
Luke,
The models ARE all wrong and always will be. That’s not denialism, that’s reality.
The stockmarket is better understood than weather and climate yet computers will never predict that or any other part of our future correctly.
Better swat up on Superfreakonomics and settle for adaptation first [y’know, plan B] until we can all afford mitigation [plan A].
There’s a fair chance we may not need either plan.
Derek,
You’ll hurt Wallace’s feelings.
OK Luke, I’ve done some calculations and concluded that 15.7 is the optimum global ave temp. Prove to me that I’m wrong.I don’t think you can.
Derek, you can quote me, I’m just a figment of luke’s imagination anyway.
gavin says; “A good question for newbies: How old is say the Admiralty set of standards that may have influenced global temperature and climate records post Darwin?” How about the pre-Darwin standards?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article4449527.ece
The thing about this treasure trove of ‘real evidence’ which contradicts AGW is that there is no ‘real evidence’ to support AGW despite luke’s many prostestations about convergent evidence, because all of it is filtered through the computers.
How do you Australians like having a PM who is on the verge of using climate hysteria as an scuse to shutdown civil rights?
http://www.lowyinstitute.org/PublicationPop.asp?pid=1167
No need for the Luke to answer – you creeps likely wrote the speech.
The connection between bad science and killing dissent, from the days of Galileo, to eugenics to Lysenko to today’s AGW scam, is an unbroken line, connected by true believers. And they always claim to be so sincere, and so wise, and so enlightened.
Watch out, lovers of freedom. Australia’s leaders, as they did in the age of eugenics, are ready to grasp the nettle again.
http://www.galtoninstitute.org.uk/Newsletters/GINL0403/Eugenics_in_Australia.htm
Yes of course Galileo was good science. The point was that the trend of state power being on the wrong side of science is clear and historic.And you PM is clearly making sure that tradition goes unbroken.
Go ahead and bray away, Luke. Yes, I committed a typo.
Hmmm, cohenite was quite selective in offering opinion based on the Times article
I prefer these quotes
“Most of these earlier documents contain verbal descriptions of weather rather than numerical data, because ships lacked the instruments to take numerical readings”
Wheeler makes clear he has no doubts about modern human-induced climate change. He said: “Global warming is a reality-
Derek being called on his bulldust descends further into silliness. It’s was actually 15.8 anyway. Glad you like my pic – they reckon I’m an rampant alarmist so it’s the best I could do.
But having Hunter rant on about civil rights and eugenics tells me who the true alarmist fruitloops are. Hey Hunter – it’s a big UN conspiracy – ooooooo — reds under the bed – ooooooo – how much for your women Hunter …. I want to buy them ,….
“The thing about this treasure trove of ‘real evidence’ which contradicts AGW is that there is no ‘real evidence’ to support AGW despite luke’s many prostestations about convergent evidence, because all of it is filtered through the computers.”
cohers,
It really is a treasure trove. But there’s more. Merchant shipping that were much more numerous and from many countries also listed these and other observations in great detail [ gridded pilot charts of wind direction and speed for every month of the year are still used today. I bet Jessica, being in the doldrums, is checking them right now].
Initially the IPCC stuck with this factual data but when it failed to support hockey sticks they tossed it out in favour of assumed data.
Menstrual Kevin and all the other gory bleeders do likewise.
gavin,
Don’t cherry pick. This is what he said:
“Global warming is a reality, but what our data shows is that climate science is complex and that it is wrong to take particular events and link them to CO2 emissions.”
And GW is not AGW.
Gavin,
“You lot have nothing to stand on when it comes to old records and their interpretation”
Take it up with Nils-Axel Moerner.
So what did you think of the recent paper showin Aussie sea level rising at a rate of 1.7mm.
Have you figured out the Hong Kong tidal gauge records yet??
HMMMM??
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Gavin,
“Most of these earlier documents contain verbal descriptions of weather rather than numerical data, because ships lacked the instruments to take numerical readings”
I know, you would rather ignore this quote:
“Ships’ officers recorded air pressure, wind strength, air and sea temperature and other weather conditions.”
You DO know they had thermometers and barometers and anemometers back then don’t you???
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_temperature_and_pressure_measurement_technology
By the 17th century they were all developed.
Now you can be as picky as you want about not having the measurements on earlier ships (how early was that again??), BUT, a hundred more years data is enough to kill off AGW, or keep it on life support!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
gavin, the full quote is:
“Most of these earlier documents contain verbal descriptions of weather rather than numerical data, because ships lacked the instruments to take numerical readings. However, Wheeler and his colleagues found early Royal Navy officers recorded weather in consistent language.
“It means we can deduce numerical values for wind strength and direction, temperature and rainfall,” he said. The information will ultimately contribute to the International Comprehensive Ocean-Atmos-phere Data Set, a global database maintained by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, a US government agency.”
While there is the standard declaimer about AGW being real by the researcher included in the article [it is published in the Times for heavens sake] the tenor and gist of the article is contradictory to that disclaimer. I must say I find your post quite irritating.
Cohenite; speculation about the Dennis Wheeler article is rife
“18th Century Ships’ Logs Predict Future Weather Forecast”
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091006104627.htm
other headlines
“Captain Cook and Climate Change”
“Captain Bligh’s logbooks to yield climate bounty”
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2009/10/one-hundred-and-fifty-years-ago-charles-darwins-origin-of-the-species-revolutionized-how-we-view-evolution-and-our-place-in.html
I say you still haven’t got a leg to stand on so back off or be irritated by someone who actually knows a bit about the history of modern instruments and the creation of reliable records first hand.
kuhnkat,
Yeah but “numerical data” these days means DIGITAL and they were too backward for that.
Seriously though, what I always admired about those early mariners was their ability to calculate and measure the necessary data to incredibly small increments with great accuracy.
Because they usually had overcrowded, overloaded, underpowered vessels with a very low margin of safety compared with today, to survive they had to apply themselves to the task with ten times the diligence.
Discipline had to be like iron.
One stuff-up and you wuz dead.
Consider Cook’s dilemma as he sailed northward into an ever thickening maze of coral. OK in daylight but after dark he had to reef down to maintain just steerage speed and keep the man in the chains feverishly swinging the lead.
He must have known that it was almost inevitable that he would hit coral but he got through anyway and cleaned off the barnacles as well.
Plan B, not plan A.
Luke,
I haven’t been called on anything, youhave just dodged the question as usual which means that youeither can’t give an answer or you’re afraid to ’cause you think you might look foolish
While Luke is sweating over my question about optimum temperature, let me throw another chunk of bait out to the circling sharks.
According to the alarmist view, even a CO2 concentration of 350 ppm is too high and we know from research that if it got below 150 ppm it would probably be the end of life as we know it. So, just like temperature, the AGW crowd must have an idea of what the optimum CO2 level is as well.
So, challenge no.2/ tell us what you think it is, I’ll even let you have a 50 ppm range as we can’t be too pedantic about these things. Over to you Luke.
PS, apologies for such poor editing of my previous post.
gavin; I read your 2 links; they were both supportive of the data and information to be gained from the historical research; I don’t know what you mean by “speculation is rife”; I meant to say I find your comment quite amusing not irritating, but continue huffing and puffing; I find that amusing as well .
I also find Derek’s challenge of luke amusing; luke afraid of looking “foolish”? Derek, surely you joke!
Speaking of Parker and Folland and EOF’s; for luke’s delectation I present the EMD and IMFs;
http://landshape.org/enm/emd-and-natural-variation/#more-3201
Cohenite, as always I aim to please. Anyway, Just in case Luke forgot my original question, here it is again;
OK, if higher temperatures are bad, that means by extension that there must be an optimum temperature for the planet. Conversely, too cold is also bad so there must be a temperature somewhere between too hot and too cold that is just right. A baby bear temp if you will.
What say the AGW collective who contribute to this blog mumble amongst yourselves for a bit and get back to me when you have an answer.
I have a sneaking suspicion that this is potentially a checkmate move.
Baited breath and all that.
Derek – why am I going to answer a “non-question”? It’s a silly question from a silly person who wouldn’t know how to make a climate risk decision on anything. Don’t think you have me on toast with your non-question.
Why do you think your question is worth answering? Tell me.
(Oh BTW – my answer is that I don’t know.) Come on Derek come closer.
(BTW Cohers – I have given up long ago reading Stockwell’s unpublished rat dirt)
Luke,
You’re the one who thinks a GAT of 15 C is too hot, you’re the one who believes in tipping points, You’re the one who believes in some idealised perfect climate. The question is worth answering precisely because you can’t answer it!
Time to admit defeat Luke.
How tedious luke; “unpublished ratdirt.” The difference between PCA and EMD is that PCA does not distinguish adequately between stationary and non-stationary data; the hot point of AGW is what % of natural and anthropogenic [if any] factors contribute to trend; PCA can’t do it, EMD can.
Karoly ranting away again on the 4 Corners Program.
Did I hear it correctly when he said in the last few years there has been 1000 papers on Climate Change Science that have been published, and not one has been against the warmists theory theory.That shouldnt be too hard to blow apart.
Even if one disallows those that are blatantly crook, this a bold statement to make, as it will only take one……
Now if one also disallows those that have been peer reviewed by the same self referencing cliques like the one Karoly belongs to, and also take out all those that havnt archived their data in accordance with the established protocol..then we are probably down to about 100 ..and there still would be several that would blow holes in some part or other of the mantra.
Poor old Karoly, at least he is not as bad as some of his colleagues that rated Gore’s AIT as a 9/10
Kuhnkat, I say we neednt bother with your chalenges regarding my point of view on the integrity of old instruments as used by Cook etc on their voyages, but reading your wiki ref was a rather nostalgic return to my roots.
Sure we got the Fahrenheit scale and a decent linear thermometer in the early 1700’s and I had forgotten why Fahrenheit prevailed beyond Centigrade.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highly_composite_number
Perhaps its worth noting that in Melbourne we were still making vapour pressure thermometers based on a Bourdon tube and bulb fed capilulary for diehards in industry around the 1960’s Back then I also used a range of Budenberg Gauges as portable standards after calibration on their dead weight tester. In fact I worked with most of those items in the wiki list including the hi vac tester here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McLeod_gauge
However lets return to thermometers for a mo with this consideration for liquid/vapour types that use the bourdon tube and note we used various liquids to achieve a large temperature range. Also in practice we assume normal atmospheric pressure for most applications.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_point#Relation_between_the_normal_boiling_point_and_the_vapor_pressure_of_liquids
Mercury types are avoided in the food industry for obvious reasons however I prefer them over the above for overall accuracy and reliability. Access to a portable temp reference as with pressure is highly desireable. Finding gross error quickly was my main target in all instrument calibration exercises. See the common problem below
Notes on actual instruments as used in voyages
http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1657/1523-0430(2006)38%5B454:OTMIAO%5D2.0.CO%3B2
TABLE 1 A comparison between alcohol thermometers nos. 1–5 (uncolored) and alcohol thermometers 6–10 (colored with a dye to enable easier reading) conducted by Captain Parry on board HMS Fury at Winter Island in 1822 (Source: HMSO, 1882, p. 296)
Malcolm; are you one of those backward looking people behind the far right as shown on 4 corners tonight?
Derek; re that optimum temp, I’m about as conservative as can be on the status quo
Gavin.
So you would probably know about the make, model etc and accuracy of the thermometers used in weather stations since perhaps they were first introduced. Are these things in museums somewhere?
Gavin,
Perhaps you could help me,when I took over as science teacher at my small school I inherited a collection of the standard, cheap thermometers. I’ve since purchased more of the same from the regular school supply store but find them unsatisfactory. When conducting MP and BP experiments with my year 8’s they invariably end up with a BP of between 105 and 110 C. WE get the same results every year so I tend to favor systematic error over random error.
Can you recommend an accurate brand and supplier for less than $10 per unit?
Reading Malcolm Hills deluded diatribe agin Prof Karoly and the weight of evidence he quoted on Four Corners, reminded me of the quote in The Australian today on the funny phoney world that lies beyond reason and even rhyme. The quote was a neat analogy for why AGW sceptics are a bit like Christians embracing the repetition of the litanies. As Alain wrote in his preface to the famous Litanies, “When, in its distress, the christian soul can find no more words to implore the mercy of God, it repeats, times without end, the same fierce-faithed prayer. Reason reaches its limits and only belief can chase its flight”. Todays quote in The Australian was about how the Wallabies had discovered enough belief to waltz over England. Sporting teams do need belief in their ability to transcend the evidence of their recent form, but in science evidence must not fly beyond its limits. The fierce-faithed litanies of the AGW sceptics are proof they are beyond reason and beggaring belief.
So why is your question important Derek?
“you’re the one who believes in tipping points, You’re the one who believes in some idealised perfect climate”
you could get a job in the NSW police Derek – our cops are just as good at verballing. Where did I say that?
You are a moron bazza. It was Karoly who was trotting out the repetitive litanies.
That was the whole effing point.. but obviously it went straight over head.
To make the point clearer to you, if you wanted an example of just one paper, try Koutsoyiannis (2008), who proved the IPCC models and predictions about temperature were wrong.
Listening to Turnbull and Macfarlane trying to defend the indefensible on ABC last evening, made me even more appreciative of the “whatever it takes” approach and the organisational abilities of the Labour Party.
They have not only very successfully infiltrated the ABC and from a political comment point of view control these segments.
It is now obvious they have infiltrated the Liberal Party and go their man to the Leadership.
That’s really doing “whatever it takes.”
Luke,
your responses to my arguments on water are at best childish and of course abusive.
When are you going to tell us all what you believe the problems of the MDB are and how you think we should respond?
Pikey
Koutsoyiannis is the last test you’d apply to GCMs. Wouldn’t expect results other than what he got. Understanding that is a threshold test of dopiness. Bazza you’re dealing with people who simply don’t have the intellectual capacity.
Pikey – you’re simply a bulldust artist and an old coot. With irrigation infrastructure sitting idle around the MDB – it seems to indicate some difference between aspirations and supply. Call me intuitive.
Yes, we know you don’t understand Koutsoyiannis luke; find fault with these critiques of the GCMs;
http://www.atmosp.physics.utoronto.ca/people/vyushin/Papers/Govindan_Vyushin_PRL_2002.pdf
http://www.scribd.com/doc/904914/A-comparison-of-tropical-temperature-trends-with-model-predictions?page=6
http://kestencgreen.com/forecasting-climate-hk.pdf
The reason why GCMs are duds;
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/243/4887/57
Well Walker you hypocrite, impugning some elses intellectual capacity on the track record you have consistently demonstrated over the years of infecting this blog, is cognitive dissonance at its best.
You know as well as I do that there are heaps of papers that cast doubt over the validity of the AGW hypothesis ..you may discount K 2008, but there ooddles of others…all proving the point that Karolys spray was total b/s.
I carefully observed Professor Karoly on TV last night. Were I his platoon commander, I would not promote him to lance-corporal. On the other hand, Nick Minchin and Tony Abbott struck me as leadership material. I am sure many others made a similar judgement. We need mature political leadership and judgement, not musical chairs with climate, illegal migrants, and crackpot carbon schemes.
As a conservative greenie (it’s about conservation isn’t it?) I am glad that the dodgy, self-promoting nature of climate evangelism was laid bare for all to see. Well done the ABC, even if it was an unintentional own goal. Climate capers indeed.
Ernst-Georg Beck is at it again
http://www.klima2009.net/de/papers/4/6
Janame,
yup, I think he may actually be making headway against the rock solid intellects of AGW!!
Too bad the AGW PeerReviewedLitchurchur isn’t put to the same rigourous dissection as his and other work not supportive of AGW!!
So Gavin,
I think what you are trying to say is that you are old enough to have installed and used the new fangled water thermographs when they were developed??
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
O K Luke,
This old coot has a few minutes to spare, so lets have a look at what you are squawking.
“Irrigation infrastructure is lying idle around the MDB.”
Well if you are refering to infrastructure owned and operated by farmers (pumps, channels, storages, centre pivots and the like), yes some of this will centainly be idle.
But farmers are just as capable of making adaptive business decisions as any other business and certainly do not require directives from a totalatarian public service.
If you are refering to State owned structures such as dams, hydro generators, channels and the like; well Luke the fact of the matter is they are all in use.
The Goulbourn valley, Murray valley and Murrumbidgee valey will all produce an average to above average of horticultural crops this year.
Just as they did last year and increasingly for the last 60 years.
There is some real problems in the Lachlan valley, where the catchment of the Lachlan has been well below average for several years.
While the production of annual crops will be limited throughout the system, storages at this point of the irrigation season are the best since 2005.
So Luke what is your considered resolution to your perceived problems in the MDB?
Pikey.
Derek, re your classroom thermometers, I probably can’t help much as it’s been a quite while since I had the little state’s Education dept science equipment maintenance contract.
Now if I can change your dilemma to the general (a run of the mill case); how do I re-calibrate a pile of old instruments in a hurry? I would say take the whole bunch of thermometers to a bucket of ice water then to a boiling pot and make a shallow nick in the glass of each one with a handy metal ‘nail’ file at the appropriate point on their scales. Job finished!
Make do with the old graduations in between and start all your other temperature readings from which ever new mark is closest. Going back to the minor issues like immersion depth, atmospheric pressure etc I say ignore the lot but make sure the immersion times are realistic for all things to settle.
You can find better thermometer types for climate work as used in some of those old air con testing instruments known is sling cyclometers. We must have matched thermometer pairs to measure RH (hg in glass +/- .5C).
Industry uses a pair of RTD’s these days (+/- point 1C).
See Psychrometer calibration-
“Accurate calibration of the thermometers used is of course fundamental to precise humidity determination by the wet-dry method; it is also important for the most accurate results to protect the thermometers from radiant heat and ensure a sufficiently high speed of airflow over the wet bulb”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hygrometer
Seems we go on in my retirement
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2008/09/more-problems-with-computer-models-our-world-is-one-of-novelty-and-change/?cp=4
For examples of how Rudd cannot read thermometers see my piece today at
http://www.quadrantonline.org.au
Regards
Tim
Cohenite and the rest o y’all,
Erl Hap and Carl Wok have a very interesting post over at Climate Change.
http://climatechange1.wordpress.com/2009/11/08/the-climate-engine/
I won’t try to describe it here as I am still working my way through it. I can only say it seems to have some interesting new views of existing data, and data that we don’t typically seen analysed, that you may find interesting.
Enjoy if you haven’t already been there!!
Yes kuhnkat, when you think the Weart piece and the Arthur Smith rubbish on the greenhouse effect have currency among the alarmists it is unreasonable that Erl and Carl’s article will not have the same traction; the Weart link is first below, followed by Arhtur’s;
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument/
http://arxiv.org/abs/0802.4324
IMO Erl is just another back slapping blogger who avoids the burning question – what happens to all that fossil C
New data show that the balance between the airborne and the absorbed fraction of carbon dioxide has stayed approximately constant since 1850, despite emissions of carbon dioxide having risen from about 2 billion tons a year in 1850 to 35 billion tons a year now.
This suggests that terrestrial ecosystems and the oceans have a much greater capacity to absorb CO2 than had been previously expected.
http://www.bris.ac.uk/news/2009/6649.html
RC,
“As it moves up layer by layer through the atmosphere, some is stopped in each layer. To be specific: a molecule of carbon dioxide, water vapor or some other greenhouse gas absorbs a bit of energy from the radiation. The molecule may radiate the energy back out again in a random direction. Or it may transfer the energy into velocity in collisions with other air molecules, so that the layer of air where it sits gets warmer.”
First, MORE than 50% radiates away from the ground. The higher you go the more radiates away. Just grab any ball and look at the angle to the horizon as the point moves away from it!! Unless of course the molecule is in a valley or hole!!
Second, he uses poor terminology in saying radiation is STOPPED. This implies a significant delay. I would love to see his quantum calculations proving this!! (not that I would understand them myself!!) This is another deal breaker as the reradiation happens extremely fast. The likelihood that there is a collision to transfer energy to a non-ghg is extremely small. additionally, IF the collision is with a “hotter” molecule the GHG will gain energy and radiate more!! Sadly the understanding of radiative physics and our atmosphere exhibited in this paragraph is poor.
Third, EVERYTHING radiates IR!!! It may be at a substantially lower rate than GHG’s, but, there is still IR. The hotter things get, the more IR is emitted. Nice thermostat huh?? I still wonder why this is ignored!!!
Basically they reiterate the physics that REQUIRE there to be a Hot Spot with cooling strat and Tropopause heightening which is not happening!!
Smith should debate the Germans. Of course, he would run away very fast if he saw them coming!!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Gavin,
explain the question to me. If you are talking about the buildup of CO2, I would like to wait for at least 1000ppm before restarting the discussion of limiting it!! That is, if we can burn enough fossil fuel or feed enough cows or… to reach 1000ppm!!!
Good point kuhnkat; the isotropic emission concept is the backbone of AGW back radiation a la Philipona; but with convection carrying LTEs containing the CO2 molecules, which have been excited at ground level, to the CEL which is where emission from the by then dissipated LTE occurs at a height of ~ 7-8 klm the horizon effect would see most of the emitted LW radiation miss the surface.
I see Midnight Darkness has today stopped the building of the Traveston Dam on the Mary river in SE Qld.
He has done so on the dubious pretence that it would be harmful to the native fish and a turtle.
And, does this sound familiar. “We are going with the science on this.”
I know of no dam in Australia that hasn’t proved to be a benefit for native acquatic species.
I inspected the Mary dam site and surrounding areas last year and believe that the Mary river would hugely benefit from this dam and I believe a smaller dam further up stream.
The reason being that while the Mary river has a significant catchment, it does regularly cease to flow.
I ask Midnight Cowboy this; what is best for the fish in the river?
A river that regularly runs dry, or one where habitat is maintained within the dam and stream flows are guaranteed by that dam.
We really are living in a dark age.
There is a dark cloud of radical environmentalism blocking out the light of reason and logic.
Pikey.
“There is a dark cloud of radical environmentalism blocking out the light of reason and logic.”
Pikey,
Sad but true. Kevin blocked the Wolfdene and now this.
Traveston has a weir immediately downstream and two large dams upstream so the environment was not an argument.
The state govt has spent a fortune getting this far and what do we have left?
Dumb desal!
Hi Spangles,
You say there are two large dams upstream.
Seems like you have details of which I am not aware.
Could you give me some info of this?
Thanks in anticipation.
On a more general issue.
How can we change the concept that to stop a dam is to “save a river?”
These are the headlines everywhere this evening and they are so wrong.
The very effective “Don’t Murray the Mary,” campaign while totally false in fact, builds on the Media assisted belief that the Murray is “dying,” while in fact, if it was not for man-made dams the Murray and all of its tributries would have been dry for much of the last 8 years.
Man made dams enhance rivers.
They are an improvement on the “Natural Environment.”
Pikey.
Can’t agree with you on this one Drongo. Wolfdene was going to be so shallow, that almost 50% of its contents would have been lost in evaporation each year. I was on the water management plan committee, & some of the department blokes were really pi55ed off that they would spend months on plans, fully evaluated, only to have Beattie go off half cocked, with stupid ideas from some of his pollys.
Traveston had similar problems, & would have been very hard to seal. It may have leaked almost as much as it evaporated. Not a good dam.
A dam should benifit the local people, first, & foremost. Down stream of Traviston there is quite a bit of irrigation, & they were about to see their water go to Brisbane. Maryborough people were wondering if they would get any.
The Boonah people saw their “irrigation” dam water pumped off to Swanbank power station, even while the irrigators paid their $24,000 PA levey for the third year, with no water to show for it. To add insult to injury, the local council was made to pay for the infrastructure to get it there. I think the people of the Mary could see the same rorts comming their way. First they take your water, then you have to pay for them to do so.
I think it’s about time that Brisbane started to pay it’s own way. It should harvest, & store its own bl@@dy water. Lets face it, if they can just get her foot out of it, Anna’s mouth is big enough for a few years worth storage.
I have raised my family with less rainfall than Brisbane, with 12,000 gallons tankage, & never had to buy water. The 2 B [Beattie, & Bleigh] were never interested in making sure I had water. Why do the Brisbane lot deserve any special treatment?
As Cohenite makes unclear “the isotropic emission concept is the backbone of AGW back radiation a la Philipona; but with convection carrying LTEs containing the CO2 molecules, which have been excited at ground level, to the CEL which is where emission from the by then dissipated LTE occurs at a height of ~ 7-8 klm the horizon effect would see most of the emitted LW radiation miss the surface.” So much for the near flat earth hypothesis. Next we will have neocons gone green over Traveston. If you are belief driven, you can be flexible as to the evidence.
Pikey,
There is the Borumba Dam, the Baroon Dam and the 6 Mile Ck Dam [Lake MacDonald] which are all upstream of the [lately] proposed Traveston.
Hasbeen,
Australia doesn’t have the luxury of many deep gorges in suitable areas being a flat landscape but with future raising of dam walls as has happened with the Hinze and others, evaporation ceases to be a problem and volume multiplies for relatively little extra pain.
The 15 metre increase that is currently being added to the Hinze, trebles the volume for only double the surface area and the evap rate pa would be what, one metre? I’m not sure of coastal evaporation rates but from my own experience with high RH compared with out west they are not a lot.
In rapidly urbanizing areas like SEQ, dams are the only realistic way to go unless we are gonna use desal via gen 4 nuclear on somewhere like Stradbroke Is. and the chances of that……
Hasbeen,
I reckon Brisbane could solve their water problem for a fair while by raising the wall at Wivenhoe.
You don’t have to be snide bazza; CO2 molecules are, for purposes of AGW, assumed to be uniform point source emitters of LW radiation; downward back-radiation is assumed to constitute 50% of the emissions with only 2 vectors; down and up; in actuality the vectors are unlimited; at CEL altitude Earth’s curvature will mean that the majority of the emissions miss the Earth thus greatly reducing back-radiation; of course this paper makes it plain that the AGW reliance on back-radiation due to up/down isotropy is defeated for other reasons;
http://biocab.org/Induced_Emission.html
If you don’t understand that I don’t know what other remediation can be done for you.
Cohenite; man, IMO you have just become another Morano stooge if you insist on this one.
Folks: Nasif Nahle is oft quoted in blogsphere but I see only a deliberate line deployed to discredit basic physics around analysing a thin column of gas perpendicular to a large plane. Cohenite forgets I’m the original flat earther here, see my response to this quote
“One simply cannot convert a sphere to a flat plate -”
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/04/on-the-first-principles-of-heat-transfer-a-note-from-alan-siddons/?cp=3
The problem is we have to suffer a few campaigners who don’t come from physics, ask that math lady again hey.
Sideways IR losses missing the Earth indeed!!!
“I reckon Brisbane could solve their water problem for a fair while by raising the wall at Wivenhoe.”
BRILLIANT – it’s this sort of devastating logic that makes this blog a world champion. One small problem – the water level has been a loooong way from the top of the wall for a looooong time.
Now maybe that’s why you’re called a “drongo” !
Indeed Toowoomba has now gone critical with hydrological drought and …
THE town that rejected recycled water has been forced to tap into an emergency allocation of bore water while it waits for a lifesaving pipeline connecting Wivenhoe Dam to the region’s water supply.
While Toowoomba was in full bloom as it celebrated the 60th anniversary of the Carnival of Flowers yesterday, away from the festivities the region continued to bake in a decade-long drought, with dam levels falling to a critically low 9.8 per cent.
In a sign of the desperate times, the Toowoomba Regional Council Deputy Mayor, Paul Antonio, said the town was now pumping water from an emergency allocation from the Great Artesian Basin.
It comes three years after residents rejected a recycled water referendum when dam levels were over 23 per cent.
Now Australia’s second largest inland city, with a regional population of more than 150,000, will come within a few months of its dams running completely dry as the State Government works to complete a 38km pipeline from Wivenhoe to Cressbrook Dam.
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,26096406-5012321,00.html
I know let’s do a “Pikey” and build more dams in the Toowoomba region that won’t fill.
On Traveston – well politics may be sus who knows. No big end of town money in this one for Garrett. Just a state government. A cynic might suggest that the current government might be secretly glad that the Feds have got them off the hook with a hugely unpopular dam proposal.
As for Pikey’s infinite wisdom that dams always improve things, well there obviously are benefits, but being the ecological ignoramus that he is, wouldn’t give a rats about the scores of turtles with smashed shells dying every day as a result of other weirs and dams on related systems in the Burnett/Mary region. Mary River turtles are also listed in the world’s top 25 most endangered turtle species. That’s the bum breathing turtles – Elusor macrurus — Mary River Turtle – neat critters – being cloacal breathers, who knows, Pikey be related.
gavin, your link to Alan Siddon’s wonderful piece has this;
“In addition, a planet’s liquids or solids lose heat over a 2-dimensional area, whereas a gas radiates in 3 dimensions. This geometrical factor alone handicaps the ability of a gas to conserve thermal energy, irrespective of how relatively massless it is”
Which is my point; as usual, I’m not sure what yours is.
Derek Smith
Some time ago I asked the following of Luke (possibly he is Luke Wynne) et al.
1. Is there any state of the climate that is not caused by AGW or “climate change”?
2. At what global temperature does this stop?
3. If building an alternative power system is easy why doesn’t the environmental movement get to and build a power station as an example? We need about 30 stations capable of delivering 1GW 24/7 each. One would be a good start!
The point being that so many things are attributed for instance http://www.terradaily.com/2006/061211182846.nwcc15td.html that it is quite difficult to know what won’t be. There is no actual idea what is the ideal temperature and that there is no viable solution to increasing emissions .
Luke came back with the answer that is stupid with no elaboration. This I see was the same response to your questions. The trolls this blog are a waste of space they just are not worth the energy and their aim is to waste yours. Paid agitators or devout demented followers I don’t know which but does it matter? Luke’s picture shows that he considers himself to be someone demented straight out of the funny farm.
There are many blogs more worthwhile than this one now and those on the other side have views that are less demented. People like Luke, SJT do not have a presence there, so move on it is not worth arguing with the religious.
Hang on – is this the DHMO guy with the depressive childhood giving me a lecture. Even the gravatar looks depressed. Pullease.
As for paid agitators, trolls, devout, demented, and religious – gee I thought you meant the denialist scum?
DHMO it’s a silly question as it’s about trend and rate of trend. I assume morons like yourself and Derek are snug as bugs in a rug with the current climate variation and would like it to increase?
But you haven’t thought about that as you’ve got your head up your bum.
And I know logic isn’t one of your strong points but just because the solution might be extremely difficult doesn’t logically mean the science is wrong. That’s like telling your oncologist that he’s ugly.
BTW Direct Factory Outlet – I gave him my answer which was “I don’t know”.
BTW Direct Factory Outlet – the gravatar is of “an alarmist” being alarmed. How come you guys don’t have one being denialist scum?
Luke – here is the current state of Brisbane’s dams
Dam level update – Monday 9 November 2009
Wivenhoe, Somerset & North Pine dams (Greater Brisbane)
The combined dam levels are now at 73.4% capacity (down 0.07% since Friday the 6th of November.) Wivenhoe Dam is currently 66.4% (up from 66.2% on Friday the 30th of October,) Somerset Dam is at 82.2% (down from 84.1% on the 30th of October) and North Pine is currently at 95.5% (down from 96.1% on the 30th of October.)
If the Wivenhoe dam can be at 66.4% of capacity after your supposed 10 year drought imagine how much water it could hold in normal times with a higher wall.
you really spew out a load of BS.
Dhmo; I reckon you are on a bum steer with your Luke Wynne thing.
Tried Google ?
As to trolls here; beware of the numerous one eyed variety
cohenite “a planet’s liquids or solids lose heat over a 2-dimensional area, whereas a gas radiates in 3 dimensions” is wrong.
Think about it!
Alright gavin, excluding latent heat transfer, we’re left with conduction, convection and radiation; are you saying the heat transfer from a solid is the same as from a gas?
Luke,
your logic on dams is just plain denialist.
Australia’s big rainfall systems are always spasmodic and that is precicely why we need really big reservoirs.
They become more efficient as they increase in size as the surrounding population builds.
An exercise like the recent Traveston travesty is incredibly destructive, divisive and expensive for a community but over time it should become a prized asset of ever increasing value and reducing cost/benefit unlike a desal plant which is a millstone forever.
You’re not sodum as to be saying that our big rain depressions which are MIA at present are never going to return?
I thought the warm religion preached more of that catastrophism.
shouldn’t that be “just plain denialist SCUM!” Drongo? 🙂
Cohenite; “are you saying the heat transfer from a solid is the same as from a gas?”
NO, what I was onto is the big fiddle with dimensions during analysis. A simple approach for comparing solids. liquids and gasae is here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_transfer#One_dimensional_application.2C_using_thermal_circuits
The thermo laws have to work in a variety of situations. When I hear gas I may think of a furnace or the whistle of a superheated steam pipe. Given the pipeline insulation, am I bothered by the heat transfer mechanism along the axis of flow or the barrier between that axis and me?
When standing beside a big mirror in the sun it has little to do with either conduction or convection While looking back a earth from a jet plane at cruising altitude, I see colour in the visable spectrun and know there is much transfered through the medium bothways. We needent bother with what is lost sideways hey
Read this section
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_transfer#Insulation_and_radiant_barriers
spangled drongo “Global warming is a reality…”
I know you used this from a quote, Spangled, but it’s a phrase that is beginning to bother me deeply. Global warming is a reality only in the world of mathematics. That is to say, the correct term id globally-averaged warming.
I’m not going to split hairs and claim there has been no warming globally, even though such a warming would be meaningless locally. In fact, I don’t care if the globe has warmed a bit. I am bugged by the mathematical averaging, however, and the inference that it means anything. Tsonis has already done invaluable work correlating warming and cooling over a century to the natural variability of the oceans. The fact that his work, and the work of Christy and Spencer with satellite temperature data averaging, is being ignored by the IPCC and the AGW theorists, is the real issue.
Even skeptics like Pat Michaels are jumping aboard with this nonsense that CO2 is causing a global warming. His reasoning is that it doesn’t matter, that there isn’t enough of it to worry about. I think Pat is feeling beat up after a couple of decades of skepticism and is looking for some relief by paying lip service to the status quo. We can still count on John Christy to call a spade a spade, however. He still claims the highly localized warming revealed by the satellites in the Arctic is not a signature of CO2 warming.
gavin, the circuit metaphor for heat transfer in the atmosphere has been done here;
http://landshape.org/enm/electrical-analogue-of-shaviv-and-miskolczi/
But I think you are missing the point; AGW theory relies on back-radiation heating the surface to a temperature beyond what it would be without this alleged greenhouse effect; back-radiation relies on the isotropic concept; which says an emitting photon will act like an isotropic radiator;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotropic_radiator
The AGW assumption is that 50% of the emissions will go up and 50% down as back-radiation, ignoring the equal probability of sideways emission directivity; but since almost all of LW emission occurs at the CEL [about 7-8 klms above the surface] the sideways emissions will miss the surface.
I’m not sure what your objection to the Nasif Nahle paper was; but the paper is to this point.
“The AGW assumption is that 50% of the emissions will go up and 50% down as back-radiation, ignoring the equal probability of sideways emission directivity; but since almost all of LW emission occurs at the CEL [about 7-8 klms above the surface] the sideways emissions will miss the surface.”
You nong, that’s just a simplification for exlaining how it works. It’s not the exact percentages.
Gordon,
I agree, it is troubling [it wouldn’t be so bad if it wasn’t gonna send us broke] and you have to read thing like this to see how silly is:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/11/georgia-tech-50-percent-of-the-usa-warming-that-has-occurred-since-1950-is-due-to-land-use-changes/#comments
Ah, little will is back and in fine non sequitur mode; he says;
“You nong, that’s just a simplification for exlaining how it works. It’s not the exact percentages”
Well, at this stage, with our dear leader in uber hyperbolic mode and set to sign away our futures to the UN Copenhagen UNFCCC retirement fund, I’ll settle for simplification; but by way of explanantion little will what are the %s?
Well, c’mon SJT, spit it out.
Everyone knows its half up, half down and half sideways.
Have a good carbon free holiday?
Now we need to rush another one of these through on the Sunny Coast.
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,26326397-3102,00.html
But, wait a minute. During the day, the IR from the sun works its way down through the atmosphere to the ground through reradiation just like the OLR works its way UP and out!!!!
I mean, why wouldn’t it?? It is the same physics!!
Now, how do we figure out what source is pumping how much energy into the GHG’s?!?!
Where is that in the SIMPLIFICATIONS??? Where is it in the models?!?!?!?!
Anyone see this effect included in any papers???
Dhmo,
Good to hear from you, we haven’t met before as I’m fairly new to this (or any)blog. I get your point with Luke entirely but I’m trying to be patient with him and we have had the odd cordial exchange so I’m not willing to start calling him names yet even though I am apparently a moron.
One of the things I like about this blog, (apart from learning a hell of a lot from a number of people who know a great deal more than me) is that contrary views are allowed and that argument and debate are common.
There is no problem with Gavin playing hard ball, he gives as good as he gets without descending into hysterical diatribes and I have personally found Bernard J. to be eloquent and a gentleman. Can’t say the same for Luke and SJT but I live in hope.
Cheers.
Derek,
hope springs eternal!!
Another small and simple question you can answer for us Luke is …
When did AGW start ?
Give us a date.. + or – 10yrs will do , Just so we can establish the time frame we are dealing with here.
We are aware that some of you cranks think AGW started when man arrived on earth,but even you would agree that they are probably nutters… wouldn’t you Luke? or would you?
“When did AGW start?” Well, Mack, luke is a fan of Ruddiman;
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006/2006EO350008.shtml
Mack: “When did AGW start ?”
Lets but in with a time related to the “industrial revolution”. That’s about us moving from wind, water or bullock power for all travel and production via steam engines. Add to that electricity for light and you have the big picture.
But Gavin, what about the enormous amount of Biologicals that were being burnt for heat and food before the industrial revolution?? Not to mention the land management by burning, forest fires, whale fat…
Spangles,
Thanks for that, will have a look when I get more time.
Does beg the question though, as to why the Mary is oft reported as having little or no stream flow.
Are these stories part of the environmentalist hoo-haa?
In the interim, it would appear that Luke has obviously gone to the same school of Public Relations as Kevin Rudd.
They appear to have both majored in how to influence people by being humble and and nice.
Pikey.
Mack,
A scientist neighbour of mine insists that land use changes as early as 15ky ago had some effect on GW and he may be right [those Sumerians messing about in the Garden of Eden] but if all the land use changes that have increasingly occurred since have been an increasing contributor then that doesn’t leave much room for the other things including ACO2e that are supposed to increase temperature.
Less than 50% of SFA?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/11/georgia-tech-50-percent-of-the-usa-warming-that-has-occurred-since-1950-is-due-to-land-use-changes/#more-12724
We have Luke Late Holocene (thanks Cohenite) and Gavin about the start of the Industrial Revolution.
What a fine mess you’ve gotten yourselves into.
Pikey,
I used to be a navvy [labourer] on bridge building sites on the Mary during the ’50s and there isn’t much flow except when it floods which can be often. I used to drive a jackhammer underwater in the old deep-sea divers kit of copper helmet and lead boots etc and I came across lungfish and those penny turtles that Luke talks about [they only breathe through their arse unlike Luke who occasionally talks through his].
If you seriously checked it out I think you might find that there are many substantial dams in the upper Mary catchment.
Nevertheless it can deliver huge flows like most east coast rivers.
Kuhnkat and other recent posters; we don’t need some academic to give us a NEW perspective in whats up or down. Sure we had stoves, lamps and kilns before the industrial revolution but it was our steel rolling out that made a big difference in our energy use. Cast iron kettles on cast iron wheels had a limided impact on the environment.
I first went to work in a factory town where most industry was built close to the expanding port. More steam steel and concrete was the order of the day yet we still had a lineshaft or two driving some of the process. Unfortunatly there was no coal at hand so the company imported it before switching to oil. Furnace mods and boiler upgrades became my cup of tea.
Resource exploitation likewise ran on steel. The town eventually exported rubber tyred underground mining equipment made initially to suit the deeper local mineral lodes. The same region also had it’s open cut mines and vast forests. Inland it was all about dams and roads. The greater part of that population became resource bent for decades and that made me very practical in the pursuit of industrial progress. This form of creativity requires both practice and patience. IMO that could be the gulf between us.
BTW instruments also got a boost after the industrial revolution, with boilers and line pumps came pressure gauges however process automation took quite a while. Environment engineering didn’t happen untill the 1970’s and that means you have no reliable records across the spectrum of measurements before then.
” Environment engineering didn’t happen untill the 1970’s and that means you have no reliable records across the spectrum of measurements before then.”
Gavin,
You mean the only reliable warming is what the satellites have measured?
0.28c?
Gee Janama – you must have a MENSA IQ – how often does Wivenhoe overflow? I know engineers are pretty dumb but gee wilkers – maybe they’ve done some sums eh?
Goofball !
Mack – Cohers have you the answer – Ruddiman !
And Janama – is there such a thing as “normal”?
I just noticed a very good sign. The wikipedia suddenly has a lot of informative information in it that doesn’t amount to CO2-Propaganda. I’m claiming that it really is that sudden. I’m supposing there must have been an editorial change from the top. With some of the bigshots getting the shits with people like William Connelly sabotaging the Wiki for propaganda purposes.
For example they’ve now got highly detailed information on the Holocene optimum which they’ve split in two. The one most carefully following the traditional understanding is called “The Atlantic Period” and they admit openly that it was warmer than today with a higher sea level.
They’ve got a very good explanation and critique of the Malinkovitch cycles now. And they mention the CO2 feedback as just one possibility. Not as known doctrine.
This could not have been done with the bully-boys who were running things earlier.
Not sure where the Academics are Gavin. May be under all those layers of SOOT?!?!?! Nuthin like a change in albedo to change your life!
Luke – according to J. V. Hodgkinson the Wivenhoe has overflowed 6 times since 1986.
Normal is when you have average rainfall as this article states.
http://wivenhoesomersetrainfall.com/
Spangled; I confess to being completely unaware of your .28C warming as confirmed by satellites but I’m not surprised. Is it a consensus now? On the other hand I believe the modern climate scientists still have a devil of a job sorting older weather records.
However in 1986 I met a young man from Canberra who as a graduate of some new science was fully deployed by his department in finding gold without leaving his chair for various companies from our old mineral records. This process was a big surprise as I had just left the mining industry which had by then automated most assaying procedures in the field. I thought that required a particular sensitivity in his so called “data mining”.
The management of device sensitivity over the long haul is what I did for a crust. It often meant I clashed with the odd academic out in the field. They frequently failed to appreciate the history of our instruments in monitoring trends. Drifting along was a constant theme in all process monitoring, something precise was an illusion.
Else where; I worked with evaporative engineering, flue gases and chemicals in production. The monitoring of air streams and their extremes is about as difficult as it gets in measuring techniques. Spot checks on a daily basis inside A/C ducts with a hand held Pitot tube and manometer also a sling cyclometer was the only way to measure our efficiency beyond the heat exchangers and drying hoods. Exposure time had to be minium.
Obtaining RH and managing dew point manually in these conditions gives me an insight to historic ships and their captains working in the tropics or round the poles with their crude equipment. Imagine sweat pouring down your hands, dripping off your nose onto your wet bulb as you read the temperature or perhaps the manometer is stuck in the frost on the Pitot tube. Recall that AirBus incident!
Gavin,
Your comment ” Environment engineering didn’t happen untill the 1970’s and that means you have no reliable records across the spectrum of measurements before then.” is very relevant with respect to measurements, particularly with respect the accuracy and comparability thereof.
I can only go back to the 1950’s, but even then many rural weather stations consisted of a max/min thermometer hung on a nail on the back verandah and an aneroid barometer in the kitchen of the local post office. With a bit of luck the post master’s wife or kids would read them each morning, or when they remembered. If two days running had the same max and min, then it was “oh, hell, forgot to reset the bugger again. Hey darl, was yesterday hotter or colder than the day before?” Is there any reason to believe remote stations in other countries were any better?
And we are supposed to believe this sort of data can give us a credible base to compare with today’s electronically derived 5 decimal place readings? Yeah, go pull the other one!
What nonsense gavin. Were that the case and you had this special sensitivity then how did you manage to fall for this feeble racket.
You know when I first looked into it I thought that it was real but benign. We are after all in an ice age. Why look a gifthorse in the mouth. Later I thought it was good inductive thinking that unfortunately turned out to be wrong, the verdict being on empirical grounds. Now it strikes me as a stupid theory from the start. Because there is so much it doesn’t take into account.
Yet you fell hook line and sinker for this idiocy right from the start and have never changed your view of it at all. You are a fool man. You don’t have any insight into anything. If you worked with evaporative engineering you’d know the inherent negative feedback that evaporation represents. Either you did do this work ,and are uncommonly stupid or you never did this and are still pretty stupid.
Yet another book from a climate scientist debunking AGW is about to be released.
The book is called “The unruly climate” authored by
Ole Humlum who is a professor in geophysics from the University of Oslo.
You may know of Prof Humlum as he is the creator of http://www.climate4you.com which is the best online resource on climate data.
http://www.bibliotek.trykkefrihed.dk/det-ustyrlige-klima.htm (use the google translator)
I do hope the book is released in english.
janama,
Good link, I hope Luke reads it.
From memory the proposed raising of the Wivenhoe would have trebled capacity and combined with the increased Borumba dam would provide water for most of this century.
These “uncommon events” of large scale rainfall need to fill these storages are often very common but big dams are needed to catch this huge runoff when it happens. They fill very quickly and also reduce the flood damage.
I don’t know where Luke has been all his life [maybe he’s very young] but these random, huge rain depressions are a way of life in this part of the world.
Compared with the political agony of building new dams, expanding existing dams is a tearless exercise with often better outcomes.
Janama – and then not for years and years ! What’s normal. How much evap for years ?
Have you actually seen the structure?
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,26340789-27197,00.html Post Traveston policy paralysis in banana-land
Cows not so bad for water & GHG ?
http://fw.farmonline.com.au/news/nationalrural/agribusiness-and-general/general/livestocks-dainty-water-usage-footprint/1674734.aspx
And hey we could have increased the height of all the Toowoomba dams – wouldn’t that make you popular with the locals – they’d lynch ya ! They’d still be empty.
Dudes you have no idea of normal. You have 3-4 mega-droughts per century. Decadal variability max. 50s and 70s stand out as wet. The rest of the 20th century different. There is no year like the mean in many places. It’s just a statistic.
Wivenhoe already has a big flood compartment – but you can’t hold that water forever or a followup event might jeopardise the structure.
And unlike farms – shutting the gate on a city during drought tends to be unacceptable with the voters. Has to be 100%. Need number of dams geographically dispersed, conservation measures, recycling & de-sal. (or no people)
So will it eventually be $4M Qlders literally “on the piss”.
And have you considered taking the Wivenhoe Lake right back to the wall of Somerset Dam and the consequences of that ?
Drongo – It appears Luke may have read it but as usual failed to understand it.
I think you’ll find the suggestion is to pump the excess over the hill to the increased capacity Borumba Dam.
I’m off to Coolangatta for the weekend. 🙂
Janama says “Normal is when you have average rainfall as this article states”. It is a waste of time pondering rainfall patterns if you are looking at reliability of supply. The facts are simple enough. The view a decade ago was that Brisbanes water supply was reliable enouh given the historical record. It took a drought with inflows at he edge of, or outside the historic record to challenge that. At least JV Hodgkinson had a go at analysing history in terms of common and uncommon events. But as an accountant he would know you cant balance your cheque book unless you look at all the entries and do a running balance. It used to be said before the recent spate of creative accounting that double entry bookkeeping was the last breakthrough in accounting and that was was many centuries ago. But you cant arbitarily divide the hydrologic record up into two classes to prove your point.
I’ll be in Coolongatta around the 30/11/09; looking forward to some of those -vePDO storm swells.
gavin,
It’s amazing how you can gauge things with crude instruments [indicators]. Colours for steel temps, knots in a line and dead reckoning for longitude, stars, sun and swells for position, lattitude, time and direction, catgut for RH, seat of the pants for many forces etc.
Fluid dynamics can’t be worked out if you don’t know the forces involved but SOTP often gets you through. I’ve argued with scientists for years who said I couldn’t build something a certain way and needed to increase the engineering properties by a factor of ten. Because it was a racing machine this was plainly ridiculous so went ahead anyway but because I needed approval finally advised that the article had been built to my spec and had operated successfully for a hundred hours whereupon they issued an approval. No-one could work out the stresses so that other great gauge, trial and error, SOTP, [plan B] did the job.
I used to tune a V12 Ferrari engine with a string of manometers but found that a single decibel meter worked better. [a good ear]
Thought everyone might be interested in these contrasts of human land management in the same areas:
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2009/11/12/photographs-of-what-land-management-of-landscape-can-result-in/
Spangled,
“I used to tune a V12 Ferrari engine with a string of manometers but found that a single decibel meter worked better.”
Color me green, with ENVY!!!!
Almost forgot, Pielke Sr. also reported on a Pan Evap paper:
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2009/11/11/pan-evaporation-trends-and-its-relation-to-the-diagnosis-of-global-warming-comments-on-a-new-article-by-roderick-et-al-2009/
Kuhnkat, don’t be too envious of Drongo, with that V12 Ferrari engine.
I drove a Ferrari GT B, V12 in the 1968 Surfers Paradise 12 hour sports car race.
The noise of the valve gear was deafening, even with a helmet, & it was the worst handling car I ever drove on a race track.
We tested a stock standard 327 Holden Monaro on the track the next day. The Holden was 25 miles/hour [yes still miles then] slower down the straight, but was 6 seconds per lap quicker, & that was on road tyres.
Just because it has a flash name on it, does not make it good, & that goes for many things, not just cars.
Have a good carbon free holiday?
I have been walkabout writing a novel about a future dystopia. In it, science has been relegated to the dustbin of history, and all scientific discourse is carried out in the blogosphere. Anthony Watts has his website voted as the Best Science Website every year for the 50 years. Quite a nice place to live in, if a little warm at times.
Well, that new Roderick paper on pan evaporation just about does it for me; the slight increase in temperature has coincided with a decline in PE; this dovetails with Paltridge’s paper on the decline in SH and Lindzen’s paper showing an increase in TOA OLR; whatever is causing the slight increase in temp it sure isn’t AGW; but we already knew that from this paper;
http://www.bris.ac.uk/news/2009/6649.html
What a great planet.
Hasbeen,
Yeah, but that was becauce you were running Borranis and those outdated Dunlop disc brakes.
That was old tech and not comparable to those state-of-the-art 327 Monaros.
Also that 275 GTB you drove was only 3.3 litres compared to the 327ci [about 5.5l] torquey Chevvy and it sure looked prettier[ I know, I was driving one of those yeller Midway Motors Monaro 327s at that meeting].
And Bill Brown didn’t have his suspension sorted…..
Anyhow, you know who won, that Ferrari 250 LM!
Very similar motor to yours.
Come off it Cohenite – we’ve known about Roderick’s great research for years. So what?
“I have been walkabout writing a novel about a future dystopia.”
SJT,
That’s a pretty sad thing to be doing on walkabout. You should be writing a U topian novel or at least something happy about our present wonderful climate.
You could use that great jewish quote; “I find the climate very effervescent, and I can’t remember ven it effer vasn’t”.
It would get your mind off those wacky GCMs.
So, Drongo, I’m not the only hasbeen around here. Poor Jen.
Mate, that was the day that all my illusions were shatted. I just couldn’t believe a Ferrari could be so bad. Don’t forget, we had enough pull to have Green Spot racing tyres on that thing, & the inboard discs were a little better than the Holdens drums.
It had enough poke, & the stopping was great, the problem was it wanted to swap ends, when ever the steering wheel was turned.
The most embarrassing thing was Doug Whitford, in the Datsun 2000 Fairlady. It took 9 laps for me to get far enough in front of him, to stop him passing me into Lukey, each lap.
I really liked the Monaros, but I don’t think I’d ever call them as state of the art. I had never expected to see any Ferrari blown away by what was really a yank tank, in drag.
Yes the old LM did good. Of course she was stroked along by a couple of blokes who well knew, that to finish first, first you had to finish, unlike Bill, with the P4.
Hasbeen,
My motorsport efforts were only amateurish, unlike you.
I remember your battles that day.
Undoubtedly one of the greatest races ever held in Qld. Everyone thought Sutcliffe in the GT40 had won until they did a countback.
Mad Flannery and Penny have been at it again.
Not “might be inundated”, “will be inundated”!
But then, of course, when it doesn’t happen we will be able to sue them and recoup our billions.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/11/14/2742769.htm?section=justin
Thanks spangled, Hasbeen and kuhnkat, now I know. “Anyhow, you know who won, that Ferrari 250 LM”. Not only that, but also the most excitement generated lately on this site has been about car racing. It is starting to make sense – of course rev heads would be in denial about AGW along with a few other things.
Bazza,
People who win races [whatever that race may be] or seriously give it their best shot, are compelled to know only too well the lessons of truth, honesty, conservation, efficiency etc to the nth degree.
They don’t dabble in bullshit.
When the flag drops, the bullshit stops.
I’ve just written to Penny about that crazy alarmist report she is releasing in Sydney today claiming “250,000 homes will be inundated” and asked her what her evidence was.
BTW, her and Combet’s websites seem to be down, must be SLR.
Can you believe these wackos? Evidence is showing a reduction in rates of SLR and they produce a report with almost twice IPCC projected SLR maximums.
If it wasn’t so obvious and serious what the “great orchestrations” were all about it would be a joke.
I suppose we gotta be thankful with the “Alarmist of the year” on board, Penny didn’t claim 8 storeys of inundation.
janama, while you’re in Coolangatta, see if you can spot a dalek getting about muttering, “inundate, inundate”.
sorry – haven’t spotted any so far but I’ll keep and eye out – anyhow the seafood is good 🙂 white wine and fresh prawns go together so well.
Hasbeen,
not to argue with you or anything, BUT, even I could get laid if I owned the Ferrari!!!!
Other than that, my 2001 GSXR1000K1 does OK in the canyons. My 1983 Suzuki Katana GS1100SD does a fairly good cruise, but, won’t touch the Ferrari unless the lady loves motorcycles.
Some pics of my babies!!
http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=5377&id=100000229631425&l=64e04e3047
kuhnkat,
I have fond memories of crossing the Hay Plain in my old Faz with a big Suzuki in my mirrors. He stayed with me to 140 [mph] but 150 was too much windage for him. I later got pulled over by a m/c copper and I remember telling him that if I drove any slower on that long trip that I would go to sleep and kill myself. He only booked me for the minimum.I was going to the first AGP in Adelaide where I met and had lunch with ex Ferrari World Champ Phil Hill from the USA and he drove my old Faz around Adelaide Int Raceway. While there I met Stirling Moss and Fangio.
My life was complete.
Kuhnkat, I didn’t own the things, just drove them racing. I had a 15 year old Humber, followed by a 10 year old Chrysler. I had to have somethinh big enough to tow the trailers with.
If there were any sexy girls around, I’d walk past my cars, pretending they weren’t mine. It didn’t matter too much, really, once you’ve driven an F1 Brabham around Bathurst, the rest is a bit anticlimactic. Perhaps that’s the answer, get Penny a drive ifnone around Bathurst, even a V8 would probably do, & she may become anticlimate. [sorry]
You blokes are mad. Those things are dangerous. A mate of mine, Ron Toombs [Spelling] was pretty good on a bike. He used to tell me I was mad driving cars, because they may roll on you. This while he was nursing the latest broken arm/collar bone etc.
Didn’t get all the way down conrod one year, [69 i think], but I’ll bet he’d rather that, than a nursing home at 85.
Thanks for the trip down memory lane.
Drive of one. Sorry.
Well – looks the thread is about to kark it. Nothing but geriatrics reminiscing about “back in the day”.
I had hoped to get to 1000 comments for Jen but unless someone starts a major fight looks terminal.
Anyway have to go and adjust my roller rockers and balance my Dellortos.
Another hot date awaits.
More heart burn for denialist scum
Science 13 November 2009:
Vol. 326. no. 5955, pp. 984 – 986
Partitioning Recent Greenland Mass Loss
Michiel van den Broeke,1,* Jonathan Bamber,2 Janneke Ettema,1 Eric Rignot,3,4 Ernst Schrama,5 Willem Jan van de Berg,1 Erik van Meijgaard,6 Isabella Velicogna,3,4 Bert Wouters5,6
Mass budget calculations, validated with satellite gravity observations [from the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) satellites], enable us to quantify the individual components of recent Greenland mass loss. The total 2000–2008 mass loss of ~1500 gigatons, equivalent to 0.46 millimeters per year of global sea level rise, is equally split between surface processes (runoff and precipitation) and ice dynamics. Without the moderating effects of increased snowfall and refreezing, post-1996 Greenland ice sheet mass losses would have been 100% higher. Since 2006, high summer melt rates have increased Greenland ice sheet mass loss to 273 gigatons per year (0.75 millimeters per year of equivalent sea level rise). The seasonal cycle in surface mass balance fully accounts for detrended GRACE mass variations, confirming insignificant subannual variation in ice sheet discharge.
1 Institute for Marine and Atmospheric Research, Utrecht University, Netherlands.
2 Bristol Glaciology Centre, School of Geographical Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
3 Department of Earth System Science, University of California, Irvine, CA, USA.
4 Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA, USA.
5 Delft Institute of Earth Observation and Space Systems, Delft University of Technology, Delft, Netherlands.
6 Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute, De Bilt, Netherlands.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091112141311.htm
And good news for farmers seeking carbon credits
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/11/15/2743093.htm
Worse than you thought eh, Luke?
And do you really feel that this CPR scheme will achieve anything other than wealth redistribution?
Better go and have fun fun fun while your hot date is still attached to the T Bird.
Any of you smart fellers want to be involved in this?
http://www.co2isgreen.org/default.aspx?AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1
Some light reading for those of the warming persuasion. Particularly SJT.
http://www.canada.com/story_print.html?id=433b593b-6637-4a42-970b-bdef8947fa4e&sponsor=
Lukefartard,
the only reason they have to partition it is that it is the only way they can show a section that is WTWT!!!!
If they use the same survey techniques as they recently started on Western Antarctica they would get similar results. NUTHIN’ HAPPENIN’!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Sory if that doesn’t fit your POV!!
Come off it drongo; your TV is just another Heartland stooge
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Tom_Segalstad
With respect to alternatives to Traveston it amazes me that the Paradise Dam on the Burnett River, about 100km to the north of the Traveston site is never mentioned as a supply for SE Queensland. Its a moderate sized reservoir (300,000 ML), fairly full of water at present and the water is mostly used for low value agriculture. Its reliability as a storage is yet to be tested given it was only completed in 2005 but the Burnett is a substantial river and the Paradise being on the lower part of the river could be expected to be fairly reliable. It certainly seems a better option than the other wacky ideas around for SEQ water of pumping from the Burdekin Falls Dam (1000s km to north), new dams on the Fitzroy system (500 km to north) or dams on the Richmond and Clarence in NSW.
Luke is right in some regards. This thread despite it’s unholy length, is spoilt like most others on the climate in blogsphere as it meanders through decreasing wit (kuhnkat) is mostly devoid of original home grown science or thought
Perhaps Gavin you could give me an explanation as to why Penny Wong said this morning that sea level rise is expected to be 1.1m by 2100 when the most recent report by the Bureau of Meteorology’s National Tidal Centre, issued in June, stated there has been an average yearly increase of 1.9mm in the combined net rate of relative sea level at Port Kembla, south of Sydney and University of Colorado says the current rate globally is 3.1mm/year – and the rate is slowing. Even the IPCC 2007 has stated somewhere around 450mm max.
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/current/sl_ib_global.jpg
Maybe you could also tell me why no “climate science” journalists are challenging her false assertions.
To Jon on “wacky ideas” I had a flash while reading back on the thread and thinking the buck stops here eventually. It follows years of input on the local water issue and lots of casual discussion with former refugees, emigrants or dropins from overseas living in Canberra. Yesterday it was a group of Tongans at my garage sale, today at the Sunday markets, two well settled ladies from the Greek Isles and Maritus.
What do we have in common as escapees from our island birth place? An expectation of good things on the mainland!
In Tasmania we coped a large part of the hydro philosophy left over from winding down the snowy scheme and that flavour in both local and federal politics hung around for years. At some point I twigged the progress gurus on the conveyer belt had over sold the resource well in advance of project completion and decided along with a few others the only way to get off the merry go round (community debt v big biz) was to leave the scene and fight it from outside the system.
It’s easy to convert the peasants Jon. Going way back, a number of my father’s bros were into big government earth moving contracts and many other local families were in the contractor transport biz. We finished up with a fully tied up catchment too big for our braces and very little ongoing work security to boot.
My other ancestor lines, light house keepers, warders, farmers employed by the overseas gentry, Irish famine refugees and so on. Celtic numskulls still living in hope, many of us hey.
Even with a broader catchment, our fickle climate makes it certain we can’t deliver constant fresh supply in most places where demand is artificially high. The alternative is however to set a target of near as possible to 100% recycling. Perhaps too soon for many SEQ residents to bring it on yet but all big biz should have the new regs imposed now.
Fair dinkum, I’m just trying to enjoy grandpa gavin’s efforts at taking the whippersnappers down a peg or 2 and there’s luke, up to his old tricks, dragging out GRACE from under the rock again; GRACE produced some mischief with the Antarctic, especially AGW’s favourite vision of doom, the WAP;
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/10/20/antarctic_ice_loss_overestimated/
As for GRACE and Greenland;
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2007JD008742.shtml
Now be quiet luke, we’re listening to gavin.
Cohenite has determined the AGW “science” has been relegated to the status of the frisbee.
hehehehe
You bloody beauddy mate.
Janama, & Cohenite; its time you guys realised there is always going to be difficulties in assessing the significance of change in vertical measurements SL, ice loss etc made from platforms orbiting a rather lumpy earth.
It should be enough to say there are no perfect circles in nature and the bird’s eye view we need to focus on are the area changes from a flat earth approach. I maintain Delta A is roughly equal to Delta V
Also it’s too much to expect our ice cover and SL changes to remain proportional to fossil fuel consumption. The impact depends on rate of change associated with possible tipping points. Nature is seldom linear from a distance.
Having discovered yesterday that many of the AGW denialist contributors are simply revheads, tonight on the Darwin story I learnt his major critics were geologists locked into the fossil record. Those guys have form . Jen should turn in her cave. Her 40 days in the desert are up tomorrow, and she now knows this site and her case are unsustainable.
gavin, you say: “I maintain Delta A is roughly equal to Delta V”; then why the necessity for this?
http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1175%2F2008JCLI2637.1&ct=1
WUWT has just published a pdf linked list of the top 450 skeptical peer reviewed papers
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/15/reference-450-skeptical-peer-reviewed-papers
Enjoy…
We ought to move onto some other doomsday cult. None of these idiots are coming up with evidence for this one. This 2012 cult has more legs then the global warming racket. Not because anything is likely to happen on any given year. But on the basis that there seems to be periodic catastrophic and extinction events.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaternary_extinction_event
And that supernovae seems to lead to massive volcanic activity on earth.
You can join the protest here: at last check it was 4609 counted in so far 7306 counted out so far
http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/proveit.aspx
@ janama November 16th, 2009 at 4:44 am
“You can join the protest here: at last check it was 4609 counted in so far 7306 counted out so far
http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/proveit.aspx”
Lol…not quite the “Does God Exist?” backfire here http://uk.alpha.org, but still looking good.
Birdy,
I support the “Hunting Hypothesis” for these exterminations because mankind, even if he didn’t need to kill these huge animals, had plenty of idle time as the result of easy pickings and being inclined more towards circuses than bread it would have been great entertainment.
Also many great myths, propaganda and bedtime boogeyman stories would have been generated by these frightening animals and rising generations would have felt the compulsion and sought the acclamation in that activity.
Does this bring anything similar to mind with modern youth wanting to save humankind based on myth, propaganda and bedtime boogeymen?
In spite of these sad extinctions I am happy to announce that I have just photographed an albino Superb Blue Fairy Wren.
Not your everyday encounter.
It’s shameless self-promotion time. I just guest-posted an updated version of the Whitebark Pines article that Jennifer kindly allowed me to run here a few months ago. If you’re looking for a relatively nontechnical conversation-stopper to counter the wild claims of ‘unprecedented’ global warming in the late 20th Century, this may fill the bill. Here’s a link to that expanded article at Anthony Watts’ blog. http://tinyurl.com/y9jl8c6
Larry,
No shame in that! Good Stuff.
“For some years, we have witnessed a noticeable cooling of the atmosphere, sudden variations in the seasons and exceptional hurricanes or inundations to which France seems to be increasingly subjected”.
Circular No. 18 from the Minister of the Interieur under King Louis XVIII, 25th April 1821.
(The Minister blamed deforestation).
Green Davey,
the more things change the more they stay the same.
http://www.john-daly.com/
Even if Tas has risen 100 mm in the last 168 years, that’s all the sea has risen too.
Birdy,
Would this doomsday cult do?
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,26355958-952,00.html
“Come off it drongo; your TV is just another Heartland stooge”
gavin,
Why, because he talks plainly?
“IPCC’s “Greenhouse Effect Global Warming” dogma rests on invalid presumptions and a rejectable non-realistic carbon cycle modelling which simply refutes reality, like the existence of carbonated beer or soda “pop” as we know it.”
http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/ESEF3VO2.htm
Jen,
If this has been posted earlier ignore.
E.M.Smith is in the process of dissection of GISSTemp at
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/
Among his findings of what goes on in the GISTemp calculations was
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/10/24/ghcn-california-on-the-beach-who-needs-snow/
which shows an order of magnitude fall in thermometer numbers for USA from 1177 in 2006 to 134 in 2007
His summary – .
“GIStemp has a fatal flaw in the initial data load that makes it completely useless for any date after 2006. Since the GLOBAL average temperature and the GLOBAL anomaly maps depend on the high percentage of US thermometers in the data set in the past, changing that number by a factor of 10 in the present, and with clear geographical misrepresentation, makes any present usage of GIStemp products invalid.”
Spangled; your John Daly has been out of the loop since an inquiry found it more likely that mark was the high water mark as opposed to the mean. It’s another case of dodgy records re its calibration at the time. Interested folks should read the following-
“Ross’ journal of the event is confusing. It is not clear whether the mark was made of the mean sea-level, or high water. Ross did make two more marks on the Falkland Island on the same voyage, and these were both above mean sea-level.
A paper published in 1889 by Captain Shortt recorded the wording of the plaque, including the time the mark was struck and the height of the sea given by Lempriere’s tide gauge. By taking a measurement of the height of the sea, and estimating what the tides were when the mark was made, Shortt determined that the mark was made near high water”.
http://soer.justice.tas.gov.au/2003/casestudy/4/index.php
Where are we going in 2009?
“The Risks from Sea Level Rise – assessments from Australia & Cape Town”
October 27, 2009 by Dirk Visser
http://www.cpsl.co.za/2009/10/risks-from-rise-sea-level-rise-assessments/
“The National Tidal Centre (formerly the National Tidal Facility) is reponsible for sea level monitoring and analysis for the purpose of deriving trends in absolute sea level and producing national tide predictions, tide streams and related information”
http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_proj_obs_vs_proj.html
http://www.csiro.au/multimedia/Climate-Adaptation-Video.html
Spangled; your John Daly has been out of the loop since an inquiry found it more likely that mark was the high water mark as opposed to the mean. It’s another case of dodgy records re its calibration at the time. Interested folks should read the following-
“Ross’ journal of the event is confusing. It is not clear whether the mark was made of the mean sea-level, or high water. Ross did make two more marks on the Falkland Island on the same voyage, and these were both above mean sea-level.
A paper published in 1889 by Captain Shortt recorded the wording of the plaque, including the time the mark was struck and the height of the sea given by Lempriere’s tide gauge. By taking a measurement of the height of the sea, and estimating what the tides were when the mark was made, Shortt determined that the mark was made near high water”.
http://soer.justice.tas.gov.au/2003/casestudy/4/index.php
Where are we going in 2009?
“The Risks from Sea Level Rise – assessments from Australia & Cape Town”
October 27, 2009 by Dirk Visser
http://www.cpsl.co.za/2009/10/risks-from-rise-sea-level-rise-assessments/
“The National Tidal Centre (formerly the National Tidal Facility) is reponsible for sea level monitoring and analysis for the purpose of deriving trends in absolute sea level and producing national tide predictions, tide streams and related information”
http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_proj_obs_vs_proj.html
http://www.csiro.au/multimedia/Climate-Adaptation-Video.html
All blog readers should note that its essential to get a good handle on your instrument before quoting it.
Let’s repeat for the umpteenth time, in modern measurement practice we carried at least three gauges to the job and in some cases made something up from first principles like putting an appropriate liquid in a U tube or measuring a weighted string with a ruler. In case some have forgotten; I frequently use the horizon as my primary level.
IMO Captain Shortt’s review carries far more weight than any biased blogger’s view made from outside the old measurement culture
gavin, they’re such dud links; the CSIRO ones especially are just rubbish; The NTC’s latest report is here;
http://www-cluster.bom.gov.au/ntc/IDO60102/IDO60102.2009_1.pdf
Have a gander at Fig 15, as time goes on the trends are absolutely flat to miniscule after the intial increase which must be an artifact. Some genuine info about sea level ‘rise’;
http://www.ocean-sci.net/5/193/2009/os-5-193-2009.pdf
http://sciences.blogs.liberation.fr/home/files/Cazenave_et_al_GPC_2008.pdf
Note the second link uses luke’s favourite measuring stick, GRACE.
Whenever a govt. agency claims that we have to make huge changes today due to a projected change from climate in the future, it is just tax payer funded science fiction.
The pesky real world data keeps interfering with the pretty models, and it drives them bonkers.
Or, as we see from the true believers here, drove them bonkers.
“Spangled; your John Daly has been out of the loop since an inquiry found it more likely that mark was the high water mark as opposed to the mean.”
gavin,
I’m sure you know this but maybe you are having a senior moment.
In 1841 and for centuries before, tides played a greater role in our lifestyles than they do today. All naval and merchant marine activity was much more tide-dependant because it was only wind, tide and oar propelled.
With no refrigeration, getting fish and farm produce to market in edible condition, lived by tide knowledge.
Admirals and monarchs came and went only if the tide allowed.
Larger proportions of the population made it their business to know more about tides and they had to be calculated very accurately.
High and low tide levels varied from day to day but mean sea level was a constant and by looking at a cliff such as this at low tide you could see at a glance where MSL was any day of the week.
OTOH to get a high tide level you would have to wait for that one highest tide of the year.
MSL is the datum that has been used since well before this period and to suggest that this is a high tide mark is foolish.
Here is a bit more evidence on lack of SLR.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1066712/Uncovered-lost-beach-Romans-got-toehold-Britain.html
Yesterday I rang a neighbour of the 1960s who alongside us built a concrete seawall at identical level at the same time.
This wall was built from concrete blocks, reinforced and poured with concrete and it is still in good working order, straight and true.
The tide and flood levels over the years have been recorded on the unpainted concrete courses of blocks and I asked him if in the 46 years he has been there if he has noticed the quoted SLR of around 3 mm per year [around 6 inches] and he claims there has been nothing.
Not very scientific, I know, but if this rise was happening, it would show.
Drongo – here’s a GE pic taken this year of the steps down to the beach that we would use in the 50s.
http://users.tpg.com.au/johnsay1/Stuff/steps.jpg
They are exactly the same number of steps relative to the sand, nothing’s changed.
janama,
It’s a similar story from people who have been using concrete tide pools built into coastal rocks and tide levels on old bridges like the Hornibrook Highway etc.
There is still a lot of this infrastructure around that is 70+ years old.
If we were even getting a non-increasing trend, it would be apparent you would think.
exactly.
I’m reaching boiling point now on the BS that is published on climate.
I’m at screaming point!
Janama go ahead and scream. But you need another outlet. Are you an active denailist in your community.? Do you air your views and engage other than on here.? Pray tell. Give us a diary of what you have done this week. Have you come out?
bazza; read this;
http://batr.net/cohoctonwindwatch/LAMAR%20ALEXANDER%20on%20NUCLELAR%20vs%20WIND.pdf
Bazza – there’s no point being an active sceptic in my area – I don’t know one local who believes in AGW, it’s a farming community.
Great article Cohenite – thanks for sharing.
Bazza – I notice you haven’t answered my request to explain how Penny Wong got her 1.1m sea level rise – well Lazlo has answered it on Andrew Bolt’s blog
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/
and guess who concocted the deceptive data – Will Steffen!
There appears to be no level to which he’ll stoop to deceive the public.
Spangled; yes I do have senior moments as indicated by my recent double post, sorry guys, but I’m not convinced you know better than anyone else on the blog, what that historic Port Arthur water mark actually indicates. Can we get a consensus here based on the science?
Cohenite’s link to the latest NTC report should give us a valid answer, but where –
http://www-cluster.bom.gov.au/ntc/IDO60102/IDO60102.2009_1.pdf
As you all know by now I don’t go for vertical SL measurements and IMO the pdf above indirectly supports not only my case for the horizontal approach but also the case for simpler indicators including seaweed lines on the beach. Note too, we have only a very sketchy outline at this point based on a hand full of modern tide gauges.
Numerous documented failures so soon in these new routines must also cause concern and I say that as a veteran in monitoring peripheral devices. Ideally; we should give everything in a big system a thump at least once a day to make sure there is a response.
Calibration used to be my last resort and that could annoy some outside the loop. In any case it may be only a faulty routine that is the problem.
Typical faults with liquid level/density transmitters are the wet leg or dry leg tapings becoming blocked with sludge as in the case with bubbler tubes, No amount of forced balance precision engineering in the D/P cell or fancy electronics will overcome such a primary element failure nor will fancy telemetry help in a transmitter power failure. However prodding the float in a well of rich liquid with a long stick will often break the bonding scum. Daily checks please if you can afford it. Background for those interested in liquid level
http://www.omega.com/literature/transactions/volume4/t9904-12-press.html
BTW although the Port Arthur site offers very calm waters most of the time, I can’t see Spangled doing a fine chisel line from a dinghy right at the meniscus twice a day.
janama; Will Steffen has a wee bit more to stand on than your D H a Bolt
http://www.anu.edu.au/climatechange/content/author/will
If he’s an warmer he’s got nothing to stand on. You are just a liar gavin. Get interested in another doomsday cult since this one has been exposed.
It’s not a wee bit to stand on – it’s a wee bit to hold onto to retain his position and funding.
he’s fiddling the books!! disgraceful!
The cavalry have arrived at last
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/11/18/2746110.htm
” Newcastle University professor says his research shows it is a myth carbon emissions are causing higher temperatures, blamed for the Murray-Darling catchment drying up.
Newcastle University Associate Professor Stewart Franks is the author of a paper due to be published in the American journal Geophysical Research Letters.
He says his research has found elevated temperatures in the Murray-Darling catchment are caused by a combination of natural factors associated with drought and not carbon emissions.
He also questions theories on evaporation.
“The claims that have been made are that higher temperatures have led to higher evaporation,” he said.
“Our studies have shown that clearly isn’t the case and in fact the claim that higher temperatures cause higher evaporation is actually against the known physics of evaporation.”
Professor Franks says claims about increased evaporation rates and climate change impacts on the Murray-Darling Basin are entirely false.”
Naturally the ABC News ONline hides the article as best it can – don’t want this to get out.
Will Wong and Steffen ever be exposed? I can’t see how anyone could ever call it accidental, or due to ignorance.
gavin,
Here is what Capt. Sir James Clark Ross said in his 1847 book:
“The fixing of solid and well secured marks for the purpose of showing the mean level of the ocean at a given epoch, was suggested by Baron von Humboldt, in a letter to Lord Minto, subsequent to the sailing of the expedition (Ross’ own expedition of the `Terror’ and `Erebus’), and of which I did not receive any account until our return (to Tasmania) from the Antarctic seas, which is the reason of my not having established a similar mark on the rocks of Kerguelen Island, or some part of the shores of Victoria Land (in Antarctica).”
High water marks have never been used as a datum point.
gavin,
Getting back to crude instruments, I can often get more info from a bare patch of dirt on a bush track than I could with a surveilance camera.
With GRACE and other satellite systems dealing out distances in three fifths of five eighths of a human hair it is hard not to laugh when evidence that is sticking out like dogs thingos, is conveniently ignored.
I reckon Jennifer has gone to Copenhagen to acclimatize for the cold weather which will accompany the Big Conference. By the way, why are K. Rudd, P. Wong, and I am sure a barmy army of acolytes, going there at our expense, creating clouds of CO2? What will be achieved? It’s like holding a conference on Y2K.
By the way, it is cold and wet here in Perth. I lit the potbelly last night, and this afternoon, for the first time in November since records began. 25 mm of rain in the gauge today. Should I notify the ABC? Must be that Indian Ocean Dipole. You know, the one that is causing hot dry weather in South Australia. Luke, how are the SSTs in the Timor Sea?
Gods, I wish it was cold and wet here in Canberra….
Franks “Our studies have shown that clearly isn’t the case and in fact the claim that higher temperatures cause higher evaporation is actually against the known physics of evaporation.” hmmm
PeterB, a big patch in my back lawn that was all clover several weeks ago turned pale yellow in this current mid 30’s warm spell. It also happens to all the other green stuff in the MDB every year about now as soils rapidly dry out despite recent rains. Mowing rubbish on the nature strip created a mini dust storm west of Belconnen yesterday.
Similar wilt in veggies was not caused by the breeze as noted by prominent gentlemen opening the wind farm
http://www.abc.net.au/local/photos/2009/11/18/2746561.htm
Spangles; I nod to your superior knowledge in all things marine
BTW Franks is another part of the Bolt Carter click where most comments are based on their notion of “fraud”.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/the_fraud_of_wind_power/
janama; the big question is, who is funding them?
gavin,
Been watching the Bungendore WF for a while. I only caught the tail end of the ABC news last night where someone was complaining about preferential funding going to rooftop PV, thus starving large scale projects (of any kind). I have to agree. Factoring in our local feed-in tariff would mean that PV power equivalent to the output of Bungendore would cost 13 times as much.
An ActewAGL door-knocker told me the other day that we, in Canberra, will get power from this farm. While that may be true in an electron sense his employer will not get much in the way of renewable energy certificates.
gavin
‘Similar wilt in veggies was not caused by the breeze as noted by prominent gentlemen opening the wind farm’
You can’t use the wilting vegetable example to explain evaporation, two different things altogether, they will wilt for lack of water even if there is little evaporation.
On the other hand you either are not very observant or never did hang out the washing.
If you did, you’d noticed that they dry a lot faster on a cool day with a strong breeze, than on a warm calm day.
Re that becalmed Bungendore wind farm:
“140 megawatts is being produced …….”
But just not today.
Another observation that you don’t need sophisticated instruments for: since the big climate shift of 1976, wind speeds have reduced on average.
Under the handicapping system for yachts you could always trade off waterline length [speed] for sail area [horsepower].
Prior to ’76 you could clean up by having a long boat with a small sail area but since then you need ever increasing rig size to see you through a long ocean race if you’re going to maintain constant high speed.
Doesn’t bode well for wind energy.
Marcus; unlike janama’s guru I worked in industrial evaporation processes for a least a dozen years doing daily spot checks on continuous wet web drying, heat exchangers, wet & dry steam production etc and imo, I’m an expert at the close line as a direct consequence.
She, also retired as a matter of fact after growing up in Germany is bound to disagree. However I’m the one who lived in a very cold, extremely wet climate long enough to negotiate the installation of electric clothes dryers in all modern prefab homes. Unfortunately I witnessed several old mining houses burn down overnight before that job was completed. Needless to say it was nappies and baby clothes drying on horses in front of wood fires that were the cause.
A few days ago I was reminded of my introduction to evaporation techniques in the food industry by a vintage vegemite jar on offer at the markets. Thin film evaporation of spent brewer’s liquids as a continuous mid 1960’s process was patented then. Consider if you please how the addition of loads of salt helped both taste and evaporation.
Marcus; Vacuum kettles, kilns, smoke houses, incubators in bio research. effluents and so on, there isn’t much I haven’t touched in environment control
gavin, it’s simple; with moisture on the ground insolation will preferentially evaporate rather than warm the air; this is consistent with AGW theory which wants us all to believe that water is an immense positive feedback to CO2; with the evaporation of a wet surface happening latent heat is trnasferred with the evaporated water tot he atmosphere; there, unfortunately for AGW, the moisture uses the latent heat to turn into clouds which provide a negative feedback;
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/243/4887/57
This paper is long before Spencer and Braswell and Lindzen etc and should have shut the enhanced greenhouse effect right up.
With no moisture on the surface insolation heats both the surface and the immediate air with occasional dire results;
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/320/5873/195
Franks’ paper is spot on and about the only thing AGW can throw against it is the mythical monster, the Modoki.
gavin
“there isn’t much I haven’t touched’
I don’t particularly care what you touched or not, I have been reading your posts for a long time, you come across to me as the “crusty old tradesman” who always got the young inexperienced engineer out of bother in the movies.
As I said you are not observant, what is the common thread in clothes dryers and industrial drying processes and what I said about hanging out washing?
The movement of air to carry away the moisture laden air that prevents further evaporation.
I wasn’t talking about drying and evaporation in the Scottish highlands or wherever, in perpetual fog and dampness.
Marcus; a wiki quote “Three key parts to evaporation are heat, humidity and air movement”
“When clothes are hung on a laundry line, even though the ambient temperature is below the boiling point of water, water evaporates. This is accelerated by factors such as low humidity, heat (from the sun), and wind. In a clothes dryer hot air is blown through the clothes, allowing water to evaporate very rapidly” note the bit on kinetic energy too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evaporation#Factors_influencing_the_rate_of_evaporation
Cohenite; another wiki quote “Evaporation is an essential part of the water cycle. Solar energy drives evaporation of water from oceans, lakes, moisture in the soil, and other sources of water”
Other readers should note; one has to get all these molecules up to speed before they go airbone and leave the pan a bit cooler
Spangled; I got sidetracked finding web images of the “mosquito fleet” that once served Tasmania’s trading ports including tiny Camp Creek on the Inglis River estuary at Wynyard. I often visited some “couta boats” also “permanently” moored there after ww2.
http://eheritage.statelibrary.tas.gov.au/resources/fullimage.aspx?OBJECT=photographs&page=11&ID=WYHS_000114&ImageNum=1
http://eheritage.statelibrary.tas.gov.au/resources/fullimage.aspx?OBJECT=photographs&page=11&ID=WYHS_000109&ImageNum=1
http://eheritage.statelibrary.tas.gov.au/resources/fullimage.aspx?OBJECT=photographs&page=11&ID=WYHS_000113&ImageNum=1
What’s the bet, a gaff rigged ketch or schooner can still sail across Bass Strait in double quick time, if not; in some future Sydney to Hobart?
gavin,
Great spot.
I looked at a farm on the mouth of the Inglis River. River and ocean frontage, 240 acres for $240,000. My missus said it was too far to come and feed the chooks. Cows grazing on the kelp. Gawd! Beautiful!
A good modern yacht will average twice the speed of those old-timers, lovely though they be. I designed and built a 60 foot cold moulded ply yacht with 100% ballast ratio that would do 30 knots.
Spangles; on my reckoning you had to be looking at either the 9 hole Wynyard Golf Course or the original Fossil Bluff farm before it was sold off for real estate some decades back.
http://www.wynyardgolfclub.com.au/info.htm
we once had a golf club “ferry” crossing, via a clinker built row boat between the customs shed shown and a little sheltered jetty on the far side
http://eheritage.statelibrary.tas.gov.au/resources/fullimage.aspx?PLACE=Wynyard%2c+Tasmania&page=10&ID=WYHS_000122&ImageNum=1
I find these amazing old pics on the State library site under “Wynyard” BTW there is a good shot of the Bluff from Table Cape by Frank Hurley on the NLA page
gavin,
It was either on the site of the present golf club or immediately next door [west].
During the big crunch of the early 90s [Paul’s recession we had to have] that magnificent farm was for sale for $240,000.
More snow on the AGW parade…
http;//www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33910709/ns/weather/
Com’on snow for Big Al in Copenhagen.
The credibility of the blabfest will plummet to zero if he repeats his grand entrance ( Bali).
But we can be sure Big Al’s ego will get the better of him.
That’s if the airports are not closed with snow!
Ahahahahahahahahaha.
“I’m an expert at the close line as a direct consequence.”
No – you are experienced in it’s operation.
The expert is the guys who designed it.
Ooops correction due for my ‘clothes” line above
Janama; wanna bet I can’t make the vapour fly like steam from a load of spin dried on a deadline in direct morning sunlight after frost?
After listening to an item on RN about “tinkering” I feel obliged to offer this link
http://www.ibys.org/shed/?page_id=7
Essential creativity starts in the backyard and the recent ABC David Williams TV series “Addicted to Money” paid due respect to this culture in the last episode “Peak Everything” tonight
http://www.abc.net.au/tv/guide/netw/200911/programs/DO0838W003D2009-11-19T203500.htm
sorry if you missed it
Conscience makes cowards of us all.
That is a dangerous concept in the age of e-mail archives.
Someone at Hadley has had an attack of conscience, and has dumped their e-mail files for the world to see.
http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2009/11/bummer-i-didnt-make-the-list.html#comments
Go to post 20, the ‘FOIA’ post.
The download has been mulitply-checked and is virus free, apparently. My corporate detectors, which are updated extremely regularly, think it is OK.
If anyone thinks that the cynical boorish behavior of AGW true believers here is atypical of AGW true believers, download and read the files. Just about any accusation of cynical and deceptive behavior on the part of our AGW friends turns out to be true.
hunter,
This confirms what we always knew.
As blatantly corrupt as it is, I bet it doesn’t change most warmer’s opinions one bit.
They don’t want their religion spoilt by inconvenient truths.
Hunter, I don’t know if t was someone at Hadley, but whoever did it has got a tiger by its soft spot. Luke (group), SJT, and all you other believers with feet of clay, the day is ended. Your science has been shown to be an open conspiracy to deceive, and obfuscate. Everything the cynics/skeptics have been saying appears to be proven true!
It will be all over the web by tomorrow, but what is more important journalists love the controversy. There’s a Pulitzer in this for someone who follows up.
At this writing it can be found on Jeff Id’s, Lucia’s, and Watts’, blogs, and who knows how many other references. Here’s the Watts link: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/19/breaking-news-story-hadley-cru-has-apparently-been-hacked-hundreds-of-files-released/
yes – both WUWT and CA are flooded – very hard to get to see them
here’s an example:
Kevin Trenberth wrote:
Hi Tom
How come you do not agree with a statement that says we are no where
close to knowing where energy is going or whether clouds are changing to
make the planet brighter. We are not close to balancing the energy
budget. The fact that we can not account for what is happening in the
climate system makes any consideration of geoengineering quite hopeless
as we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not! It is a
travesty!
Kevin
Tom Wigley wrote:
Dear all,
At the risk of overload, here are some notes of mine on the recent
lack of warming. I look at this in two ways. The first is to look at
the difference between the observed and expected anthropogenic trend
relative to the pdf for unforced variability. The second is to remove
ENSO, volcanoes and TSI variations from the observed data.
Both methods show that what we are seeing is not unusual. The second
method leaves a significant warming over the past decade.
These sums complement Kevin’s energy work.
Kevin says … “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of
warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t”. I do not
agree with this.
Tom.
+++++++++++++++++++++++
Kevin Trenberth wrote:
Hi all
Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming? We
are asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past
two days for the coldest days on record. We had 4 inches of snow.
The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it
smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. The low was
about 18F and also a record low, well below the previous record low.
This is January weather (see the Rockies baseball playoff game was
canceled on saturday and then played last night in below freezing
weather).
Trenberth, K. E., 2009: An imperative for climate change planning:
tracking Earth’s global energy. /Current Opinion in Environmental
Sustainability/, *1*, 19-27, doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2009.06.001. [PDF]
(A PDF of the published version can be obtained from the author.)
The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the
moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published
in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even
more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is
inadequate.
That said there is a LOT of nonsense about the PDO. People like CPC
are tracking PDO on a monthly basis but it is highly correlated with
ENSO. Most of what they are seeing is the change in ENSO not real
PDO. It surely isn’t decadal. The PDO is already reversing with the
switch to El Nino. The PDO index became positive in September for
first time since Sept 2007. see
so where’s the lukebot?
“so where’s the lukebot?”
He’s still looking for his feet.
The last he saw of them was they were attached to his legs when this story cut them off.
Comment from: janama
so where’s the lukebot?
Emergency briefing at RC?
You can download FOI2009.zip from here and not add further load to WUWT or CA.
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=75J4XO4T
Good grief – look at em tossing off. Do you think that serious scientists hating time wasting denialist filth’s guts is surprising. Boring – ya got nuttin’ – most of it’s fabricated bullshit anyway – must have taken the denialist shills years to type it all up ! zzzzzzzzzzzz
http://briefingroom.typepad.com/the_briefing_room/2009/11/hadleycru-says-leaked-data-is-real.html
IT IS TRUE, see the latest at Bolt, McIntyre, Lucia, WUWT, Jonova etc.
No wriggle room left you poor silly fools.
Luke, SJT, et. al. from the believer community. Losing one’s life long view of the world is difficult. Luke, the data/email commentary in the hacked file is, was and will be real. The ineptitude, collusion and hubris of those contained in that file release are breath taking.
DENIALIST(S)!!!
Sucked in by internet wizards with oil money hey? Beauty of the internet it’s a big free-for-all when it comes to sources and facts.
First place I look for is the source then who is paying the bill but I actually checked the temp before reading this latest lot of droppings.
For those bothered about truth this part of Australia is currently in the grip of an unseasonable heat wave.
BTW It seems none of the majors are running the Had cru story yet so I guess they did some homework too.
Gavin, deny the facts till the cows come home, but the press will have their pint of blood on this one. Gradually, they have been turning, this one might be the tipping point. Without the press, who should be embarrassed by naively following these ?scientists?, there would have been no AGW story. They will turn on themselves like sharks in a feeding frenzy. Soon!
The silence is deafening from the believers. C’mon SJT. Your gods are dead.
Gavin, Your name’s sake, after reading the file, is an obvious sock puppet for AGW promoters.
Luke, Please, at the end of the day have enough self-respect to just shut up.
The major media are always behind, in the age of internet.
Dream on, if you think this has no legs.
By the way, the file was not hacked. It was leaked by an insider. Someone with a conscience. Someone apparently rare in the AGW community.
Anyone who says this archive is simply noble scientists dealing with pesky denialist scum is simply dishonest. These AGW rats are to climate science what Madoff was to investment advising.
This quote about how AGW promoters simply rewrite history to make it fits is especially informative:
“Author: Geoff
Comment:
How to do science:
At 06:25 28/09/2009, Tom Wigley wrote: Phil, Here are some speculations on correcting SSTs to partly explain the 1940s warming blip. If you look at the attached plot you will see that the land also shows the 1940s blip (as I’m sure you know). So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC, then this would be significant for the global mean — but we’d still have to explain the land blip. I’ve chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of ocean blip to explain the land blip (via either some common forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of these). When you look at other blips, the land blips are 1.5 to 2 times (roughly) the ocean blips — higher sensitivity plus thermal inertia effects. My 0.15 adjustment leaves things consistent with this, so you can see where I am coming from. Removing ENSO does not affect this. It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still left with “why the blip”. …..”
Nothing like ‘smoothing away’ inconvenient data to make your conclusion a bit clearer, no?
You smug schills, posting here day after day about how skeptics are corrupt: stuff it.
Real or not these private email musings are just that. interesting background chat!
meanwhile “A hot air mass continues to reside over the southeast of the continent and this combined with northerly winds directed by a high pressure system in the Tasman Sea has brought record maximum temperatures and Severe Fire dangers for the ACT during Friday”
http://www.bom.gov.au/products/IDN10035.shtml
CoRev – you really are having yourself on mate if you think this means anything at all. Seriously you people are a major worry to civilised society. There is no evidence of widespread anything – all we have are evil little elves spreading mischief. And nobody needs to hack denialist servers to get “the dirt” – it’s abundantly clear from the way you conduct yourselves what you stand for and your methods. No further insight needed.
And it’s just too bad that the global atmosphere doesn’t read emails eh?
In fact RC sums it up well what it doesn’t represent. Ya got nuttin !
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/
Gavin changes the subject from the uncomfortable email-gate, and Luke goes into defensive mode by attacking.
Luke, are you one of the emailers? Are you potentially implicated in the fraud, data tampering, collusion and unethical scientific behavior? I did notice CSIRO referenced, any of your mates included?
Look, the argument for AGW action has been made because of the claims of unprecedented temp increases. Those behind those claims are called out in these emails as ethically challenged scientifically.
Crawling into a cave of denial isn’t the solution. Nor is attacking the messenger. That’s what got P Jones, M Mann, Briffa, et al in trouble. Your path to enlightenment and redemption is clear. Make a clean break. Admit how wrong you have been, and hand in hand we can forge that better world. Oh, almost forgot as we skip down that primrose lined lane. :>)
Comment from: gavin November 21st, 2009 at 4:35 am
meanwhile “A hot air mass continues to reside over the southeast of the continent and this combined with northerly winds directed by a high pressure system in the Tasman Sea has brought record maximum temperatures and Severe Fire dangers for the ACT during Friday”
So, weather suddenly becomes climate when it suits heh?
Luke,
Please do continue. Please show us all how great and pure you and yours have been.
You know, you sockpuppets have finally picked the right logo: An hysterical twit watching his world cave in.
That you do not even self reflect for a moment while major leaders of the AGW promotion community are shown to be lying, misleading, destroying data, feigning results, corrupting peer review, etc, etc. etc., only shows that while you may be legion, you all are at the ned the losers.
Marcus,
AGW promoters and schills have always depended on being able to switch easily back and forth between ‘climate’ and ‘weather’ and they get confused.
gavin continues along his addled reminiscing path; no fool like an old fool.
How to explain luke who occasionally pretends to be fair-minded about this guff; I went over to deltoid and attempted to explain the legal ramifications of misrepresentation which has led to reliance by others on the misrepresentation with consequent loss and unnecessary expense; anyway was accused of smearing by a potty mouth called Janet Ackerman [not your lady-friend by any chance luke?]; gave up and came back here to see the utter, pathetic DENIAL by the ususal acolytes. Consider this, the hockey-stick is the centre-piece of AGW because it purports to show that current temperature and climate is exceptional; the HS is shattered but it was based on data from CRU as were the 3rd and 4th IPCC ARs; in AR4 after reading through chapter after chapter of dodgy science and, plucked from someone’s backside, confidence levels that prove nothing, we come to CHP 9, the attribution chp where the scientists sign off on mankind as the cause of the proven[sic] effects described in the other chapters. And what names do we find there Jones, Santer, Stott, many of the e-mailers now caught up in this manifest FRAUD.
So we have the finished product, the HS, revealed to be a dog’s breakfast; now the data which was associated with the HS and every other aspect of this bs, is revealed to have been deliberately doctored and obfuscated. People are going to sue and prosecute and I’m going to help them.
Hee Hee Hee Hee Hee Hee
This stuff is pure gold. Bring on the Royal Commission. It should have everything: whistle-blowers, perjury, jail time, amnesia, and bottles of whiskey and service revolvers.
Seems the University of East Anglia is also a hotbed of Marxists – so the politics of AGW are pretty obvious. http://www.keynesatharvard.org is useful background material for this mob. AGW was always a Fabian ploy.
Alleged CRU Emails – Searchable
http://www.anelegantchaos.org/index.php
Hadley CRU hacked with release of hundreds of docs and emails
http://www.examiner.com/x-28973-Essex-County-Conservative-Examiner~y2009m11d19-Hadley-CRU-hacked-with-release-of-hundreds-of-docs-and-emails
I wonder if Penny and Will Stiffen have discussed this yet?
Fly on the wall, anyone?
I can see David patting her hand as we speak.
You guys make me smile.
Sure, it seems somebody odd has been creeping round behind the scene in academic circles and that person is probably still out of the loop So what? Gutless and faceless I hope they remain.
What have you got? Nothing that refutes all the horizontal measurements like SL that sure isn’t going backwards and well documented glacial retreats everywhere.
CoRev; have I ever deviated from my pet theme above based on personal observations or supported the AGW camp while depending on academic endeavours in general?
hey Gavin – here’ s an exchange between Mann, Curt Covey, and Monckton.
http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=776
Bishop Hill has a pretty fine summary
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/11/20/climate-cuttings-33.html
Minor correction, many are ASSuming HACKED.
May have been an inside job.
Hacking = criminal activity
Inside Job = Whistle Blower = (in US) PROTECTED ACTIVITY!!!!!
Anyone know particulars of law in Aussie, Canadian and English territory??
Just a reminder from a computer geek since 1973 NEVER WRITE ANYTHING IN AN E-MAIL, OR OTHER COMPUTER FILE, THAT YOU DO NOT WANT MADE PUBLIC!!!!!!!!!!
Lukefartard,
Does the term USEFUL IDIOT strike a familiar chord??
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Gavin,
your horizontal measurements are WRONG!! We knew THAT BEFORE this data dump!! Sorry if you are not able to figure it out. Do you also find the term USEFUL IDIOT familiar??
kuhncat “your horizontal measurements are WRONG”
So; where are your horizontal measurements?
data dump?
What an ignorant sod!
Wouldn’t it be good if the mainstream media would pick this (Hadley tricks) up? Fat chance… too much money to be made by towing the PC line
Here’s another gem featuring Trenberth, about the only AGW scientist I half respect”
http://algorelied.com/?p=3177
“Kevin says … “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t”.”
Seems Schmidt, Mann and Schneider are scurrying into damage control.
I wonder if any of them have considered telling the truth. It was Schneider who alleged that scientists should be prepared to lie to the media in order to get the message across.
There is a hockey stick see http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/20/release-of-cru-files-forge-a-new-hockey-stick-reconstruction/#more-12968. There have been some murmurs in MSM. I think it will increase, Phil Jones has confirmed they are authentic and SM has already connected particular emails with his communications. On another matter it looks like if the ETS gets up in OZ then it may do severe damage to the libs and 4 major power stations will go into administration within weeks. Following that they will be asset stripped. This will mean blackouts hugely increased prices and business closures. Its about debt and asset value.
Roger,
I’m sure Tony Jones and/or Robyn Williams are making arrangements for a big round table on this right now in great detail.
Just to keep us all “in the loop” in case we miss anything.
D’you think I should send them an email in case they missed it?
Janama; as I glanced at both your links I got round to thinking each had merit in the general issue of us relying on too few references and in particular the face value of old temperature records such as they were.
The backchat as indicated by those emails is no surprise. I have often said here; readings collected prior to say the 1960’s or the Geo Phys year could have instrument errors in the order of 2C at zero and +/- 2% or more of range. Even with the best gear available through the 1960’s to industry and research we struggled to keep temperature errors in most systems to better than 1C on average over our operating ranges. BTW the same 1 or 2 % applied to other common measurements, level, density, flow, humidity, pressure, ph, voltage and so on.
Change the climate society for a mo and I could verify a similar daily battle between other researchers and practitioners, right through the various branches of engineering and science involved with developing leading edge technology.
Fellows: It’s no big deal
“Fellows: It’s no big deal”
I’m sorry gavin, but if you think that all the billions that have been wasted and all of the trillions yet to be wasted is “no big deal” then you are living in cloud cuckoo land.
Jones has personally gathered up a tidy portion of this and stands to get a lot more as a result of team generated IPCC SPMs.
Most Australian states have nominal Whistleblower protection legislation; in SA it is called the Whistleblower act; in NSW the Protected Disclosures Act 1994 (NSW)(‘the PDA’); but whistleblowers are still not treated well, just google Gillian Sneddon.
As for CRU, there is considerable overflow to Australia:
From: Adam Markham
To: m.hulme@uea.ac.uk, n.sheard@uea.ac.uk
Subject: WWF Australia
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 09:43:09 -0400
Cc: mrae@wwf.org.au
Hi Mike,
I’m sure you will get some comments direct from Mike Rae in WWF
Australia, but I wanted to pass on the gist of what they’ve said to me so
far.
They are worried that this may present a slightly more conservative
approach to the risks than they are hearing from CSIRO. In particular,
they would like to see the section on variability and extreme events
beefed up if possible. They regard an increased likelihood of even 50%
of drought or extreme weather as a significant risk. Drought is also a
particularly importnat issue for Australia, as are tropical storms.
I guess the bottom line is that if they are going to go with a big public
splash on this they need something that will get good support from
CSIRO scientists (who will certainly be asked to comment by the press).
One paper they referred me to, which you probably know well is:
“The Question of Significance” by Barrie in Nature Vol 397, 25 Feb 1999,
p 657
Let me know what you think. Adam
Even RC consider it a “big deal”.
gavin,
‘similar daily battle between other researchers and practitioners, right through the various branches of engineering and science involved with developing leading edge technology.”
Fellows: It’s no big deal
Gavin, you don’t seem to understand the difference between professionals arguing and bickering about details of research and the “climate scientists” discussing different ways to hide deficiencies in their method.
You are also missing the fact that the AGW crowd is involved in a massive social engineering effort going on at the moment, costing billions, unlike some researchers you were referring to.
I’m afraid it is a big deal if we take costly measures on wrong advice!
In addition to all this there are 12,000+ !!!delegates from 192 countries + numerous NGOs descending on Copenhagen.
What a blabfest!!!!
Don’t worry they won’t have a hope in hades (warmists) of getting anything sorted out among that lot.
Just checked in – how’s the circle jerk going. Found anything yet denialist scummies?
Guys – mainstream media impact =0.0 – a great big yawn …
Impact on research = 0.0
Cohenite
Why are WWF so pally with Mike Hulme of UEA? The Prince Philip is nominal head of WWF, so a political connection is quite possible. It helps to realise that while we sheeples are banned from “designated national parks” unless we pay a fee, government and its agents are free to enter.
Luke, please hose off before entering here – emerging from Tim Lambert’s cesspit requires it. OSH regulations demand it, but then those are only for us sheeples, I suppose.
Luke,
You’re even more biased than the ABC let alone the MSM so you can get back in your box.
I sent this to the Audience and consumer affairs to test the toothless tiger:
“This story has been in several overseas media announcements including the BBC and it has potentially damning consequences.
This is very relevant to the climate change argument that is currently raging in Australian politics yet it does not rate a mention with you.
Is that because it is relevant to the wrong side of the biased ABC’s argument. [Tony Jones, Robyn Williams etc.]
There are many avenues on this link that you can explore to get the whole story.”
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/how_to_search_inside_the_warmist_conspiracy/
That’s ok Luke….the shit has hit the fan on the blogosphere 100.0%.
It’s pretty unremovable stuff too.
We don’t really expect mainstream media to pick this up because they’ve been pushing your tripe for so long the quantity of egg on their faces would be horrendous.
We wouldn’t want your AGW b/s to suddenly go away too Luke.
I would miss having a laugh at you naive gullible believers.
Louis; I don’t know why Mike Hulme is pally with WWF and Prince ‘grey goo’ Charles; but since heads of state are no longer sui juris they can be sued like the rest of us mere mortals.
And BTW, I just sent Nick Minchin an email telling him he’s on the right tram and one to Malcolm telling him to get his arse into gear and block the bill.
Everyone with any commonsense should do likewise. Also one to MacFarlane.
Cohenite,
Cutting to the chase, what’s the probability of a class action?
Well Louis, you could ground a class action in either public policy contravention through lack of due diligence or through actual damages such as increased rates, power bills and the like but the real issue is who are you going to sue; the government, which government, local, state, federal, or selected ministers; green groups, collaborating businesses or corporations, the scientists or selcted private individuals. There are many possibilities with local councils imposing on private rights such as at Byron bay and some Victorian coastal councils. then there is this;
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/selling_your_house_it_could_be_a_green_crime/#commentsmore
The WUWT Hockeystick – that’s pretty funny.
It even has a halloween warm period. I wonder what the big story on Halloween was?
Here’s Nov 1st CSIRO tries to gag emissions trading scheme critic, Dr. Clive Splash.
That’s not a surprise is it. Monckton on Glen Beck? That might be it.
So why don’t you get Doc Splash to pull a “hack” on CSIRO.
He can’t be that fond of them right now.
He has the access….
This is an interesting email to Monckton and Singer
From: Curt Covey
Subject: IPCC and sea level rise, hi-res paleodata, etc.
To: Christopher Monckton , Fred Singer
Cc: Jim Hansen , mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Clifford Lee
In-Reply-To:
“Christopher and Fred,
Now that the latest IPCC WG1 SPM is published, I can venture more opinions on the
above-referenced subjects.
It is indeed striking that IPCC’s estimate of maximum plausible 21st century sea-level rise
has decreased over time. The latest estimate is 0.5 meters for the A2 emissions scenario
(not much higher from the 0.4 meter estimate for the A1B emissions scenario, which the Wall
Street Journal editorial page has made much of). On the other hand, the IPCC seems to have
taken a pass on Hansen’s argument. The IPCC says their estimates are “excluding future
rapid dynamical changes in ice flow . . . because a basis in published literature is
lacking.”
In this one respect (sea level rise) I agree with today’s Journal editorial that the
science is not yet settled. Unfortunately, the editorial runs completely off the tracks
thereafter by (1) comparing 2006 vs. 2001 surface temperatures, among all the 150 or so
years on record, and (2) asserting a “significant cooling the oceans have undergone since
2003” based apparently on one published data-set that contradicts all the others. It is
not appropriate to cherry-pick data points this way. It’s like trying to figure out
long-term trends in the stock market by comparing today’s value of the Dow with last
Tuesday’s value.
Re high-resolution paleodata, I never liked it that the 2001 IPCC report pictured Mann’s
without showing alternates. Phil’s Jones’ data was also available at the time. Focusing
so exclusively on Mann was unfair in particular to Mann himself, who thereby became the
sole target of criticism in the Wall Street Journal etc.
It now seems clear from looking at all the different analyses (e.g. as summarized in last
year’s NRC review by North et al.) that Mann is an outlier though not egregiously so. Of
course, like any good scientist Mann argues that his methods get you closer to the truth
than anyone else. But the bottom line for me is simply that all the different studies find
that the rate of warming over the last 50-100 years is unusually high compared with
previous centuries.
Summarizing all this, the latest IPCC does back off a bit from the previous one. It says
on Page 8, “Some recent studies indicate greater variability [than Mann] in
[pre-industrial] Northern Hemisphere temperatures than suggested in the TAR . . .” The
wording is perhaps insufficiently apologetic, but I find it hard to object strenuously to
it in light of the main point noted in the last paragraph.
If you want to discuss any of this further, let me know. I attach my latest presentation
— and would appreciate seeing both Christopher’s report mentioned in the Journal editorial
and Fred’s comment on Rahmstorf’s article published in Science last week.
Best regards,
Curt
to which he get this reply
From: “Michael E. Mann”
To: Stefan Rahmstorf , Gavin Schmidt , Caspar Ammann , Ben Santer , “Raymond S. Bradley” , Malcolm Hughes , Phil Jones , James Hansen
Subject: [Fwd: IPCC and sea level rise, hi-res paleodata, etc.]
Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2007 20:13:54 -0500
Reply-to: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Curt, I can’t believe the nonsense you are spouting, and I furthermore cannot imagine why
you would be so presumptuous as to entrain me into an exchange with these charlatans. What
ib earth are you thinking? You’re not even remotely correct in your reading of the report,
first of all. The AR4 came to stronger conclusions that IPCC(2001) on the paleoclimate
conclusions, finding that the recent warmth is likely anomalous in the last 1300 years, not
just the last 1000 years. The AR4 SPM very much backed up the key findings of the TAR The
Jones et al reconstruction which you refer to actually looks very much like ours, and the
statement about more variability referred to the 3 reconstructions (Jones et al, Mann et
al, Briffa et a) shown in the TAR, not just Mann et al. The statement also does not commit
to whether or not those that show more variability are correct or not. Some of those that
do (for example, Moberg et al and Esper et al) show no similarity to each other. I find it
terribly irresponsible for you to be sending messages like this to Singer and Monckton. You
are speaking from ignorance here, and you must further know how your statements are going
to be used. You could have sought some feedback from others who would have told you that
you are speaking out of your depth on this. By instead simply blurting all of this nonsense
out in an email to these sorts charlatans you’ve done some irreversible damage. shame on
you for such irresponsible behavior!
Mike Mann
Michael E. Mann Associate Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC) Department of Meteorology
Just checking in re the CRU hack.
It wouold seem to me that:
Impact on credibilty of the alarmist science/greeny cause.. immense.
Calls to now clean this whole thing up…high.
Calls to make more transparent the University R&D funding mechanisms …high.
Calls to review and clean up the 17 th century Peer Review secret boys club…immense.
Credibility attaching to the next IPPC report if they dont change the way it operates …zero
Pressure to enure that only those papers that have passed a stringent pre review process are considered by the IPCCv2, including the release of all data …immense.
Internal calls on both Jones, Briffa, Mann and Pachuri to resign…. immense.
Likelihood that not all heads of state will attend Copenhagen …high
Lets hope that there is good that come out of this ..because just sweeping it under the carpert wont work.
Marcus “you don’t seem to understand the difference between professionals arguing and bickering about details of research and the “climate scientists” discussing different ways to hide deficiencies in their method”
Sorry mate; I did, and still do understand “the difference between professionals arguing and bickering about details of research and the “climate scientists” discussing different ways to hide deficiencies in their method” because your key word “hide” is only an opinion on the process of “dealing” with accademic complications in general analysis.
However some of this alledged email exchange could be judged as childish in the extreem. I can only guess those accademic complications were overwhelming at times but beware as a matter of fact, on any subject we censor most of the swearing in mainstreme media.
As a matter of fact we could say these unfortunate folk were muttering in a huddle behind the stage. Again I say in the practice of implementing new policy for advances in technology I used the phone a lot in achieving the desired outcome. Such emotional exchanges don’t need a file note!
For example; lack of suitable equipment was common place world wide as radio networks changed from analogue to digital. Social engineering costing billions is also common place across the spectrum of our modern expectations. Transport, health and education rival communications for both the user and the public purse.
IMO the environment is still in our Cinderella department.
gavin
Move over Kevin Rudd!
Janama
Mike sure is a sweet talker aint he? Almost as nice as his fan club.
here’s a good representative example.
Take away quote; “… it might be unpolitical to say that you’ll be happy when someone died, or that Steve McIntyre and Anthony Watts are pricks and assholes, but that doesn’t make the statements a scandal. I personally was happy when former Senator Jesse Helms died, and I will probably enjoy a drink of expensive scotch when Marc Morano, James Inhofe, and Steve Milloy kick the bucket. And I’ve got no problem calling someone like Joe D’Aleo a liar or Steve Milloy an oxygen thief. If that makes me a bad person, well, I’m OK with that….”
Gavin,
haven’t heard your discussion with Dr. Moerner yet. We are waiting…….
Marcus,
“You are also missing the fact that the AGW crowd is involved in a massive social engineering effort going on at the moment, costing billions, unlike some researchers you were referring to.”
Even I don’t think Gavin is so stupid that he misses the import of the e-mails. He is just performing his USEFUL IDIOT role to the best of its IDIOCY!! As a USEFUL IDIOT he will never allow even one minor point to be scored as the edifice implodes on him and other USEFUL IDIOTS!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
here’a cool article – is this the start of the end of AGW?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ibd/20091120/bs_ibd_ibd/20091120issues01
Cohenite,
Good grief – these building regulations are draconian – I wonder what WA has in this area. I shudder to think. I am already concerned with the regulation we have to comply with in the OSH area, and the NT, the idiotic mine management plans. We seem to have arrived at a socialist state by increment.
Blogsphere remains extremely silly in this dogmatic approach to mere fallen crumbs from some boffinville table. I guess the dog pack won’t ever stand up and lick the plates, sad.
kuhnkat; Me and your Dr Moerner on tree rings perhaps?
The google oz gave me this blog and this comment in a long winded debate following the guest post ‘Working to Develop More Reliable Methodology: Keith Briffa’ on a subject I’m rather keen on, tree rings!
Luke: “Now what evidence is left? Moerner after 4 years finally admitting faking a documentary by setting up a tree near the shore by hand. Tree with still green leaves: gone. Its roots remains: probably gone. Australians: gone. Moerner: gone. Witnesses: probably unavailable or increasingly untrustworthy. Documentation: faked by Moerner – else: nothing”.
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/10/working-to-develop-more-reliable-methodology-keith-briffa/?cp=3
A better question is why I bother discussing AGW questions on this blog? I simply don’t need too after considering one or two key issues, how do I know what’s going on and do I need support from academia??
Today at the market I overheard a comment about some place that was suffering from 45C heat last week. My first question was if other thermometers were checked on the day and this lady answered “yes a few and one was reading 46” on an adjacent property. I later recognised her as a regular fresh peach seller around this time of the year so I asked her husband “was it a record” then how their trees coped “more water from an even deeper gouge” He had grown up there and recalled some monster rains and floods that flushed the old diggings frequently enough to stop permanent dwellings being built where they are going up today.
There could be more than one alert observer here who does their own homework, so I usually stay a while in hope.
Gavin – perhaps this latest episode isn’t going to bring the AWG wall tumbling down but as the world continues to defy the predictions of the unsceptical scientists the more their case deteriorates.
It’s not going to change the already sceptical nationals, and the sceptical liberals or even the sceptical laborites, but it is slowly seeping through to the unsceptical.
A possible fiasco at Copenhagen could be the final straw.
Here’ the latest Washington Post report.
In the trenches on climate change, hostility among foes
Stolen e-mails reveal venomous feelings toward skeptics
By Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, November 22, 2009
Electronic files that were stolen from a prominent climate research center and made public last week provide a rare glimpse into the behind-the-scenes battle to shape the public perception of global warming.
While few U.S. politicians bother to question whether humans are changing the world’s climate — nearly three years ago the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded the evidence was unequivocal — public debate over the debate persists. And the newly disclosed private exchanges among climate scientists at Britain’s Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia reveal an intellectual circle that appears to feel very much under attack, and eager to punish its enemies.
In one e-mail, the center’s director, Phil Jones, writes Pennsylvania State University’s Michael E. Mann and questions whether the work of academics that question the link between human activities and global warming deserve to make it into the prestigious IPCC report, which represents the global consensus view on climate science.
“I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report,” Jones writes. “Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”
In another, Jones and Mann discuss how they can pressure an academic journal not to accept the work of climate skeptics with whom they disagree. “Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal,” Mann writes.
“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor,” Jones replies.
Patrick Michaels, a senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute who comes under fire in the e-mails, said these same academics repeatedly criticized him for not having published more peer-reviewed papers.
“There’s an egregious problem here, their intimidation of journal editors,” he said. “They’re saying, ‘If you print anything by this group, we won’t send you any papers.’ ”
Mann, who directs Penn State’s Earth System Science Center, said the e-mails reflected the sort of “vigorous debate” researchers engage in before reaching scientific conclusions. “We shouldn’t expect the sort of refined statements that scientists make when they’re speaking in public,” he said.
Christopher Horner, a senior fellow at the libertarian Competitive Enterprise Institute who has questioned whether climate change is human-caused, blogged that the e-mails have “the makings of a very big” scandal. “Imagine this sort of news coming in the field of AIDS research,” he added.
The story of the hacking has ranked among the most popular on Web sites ranging from The Washington Post’s to that of London’s Daily Telegraph. And it has spurred a flood of e-mails from climate skeptics to U.S. news organizations, some likening the disclosure to the release of the Pentagon Papers during Vietnam.
Kevin Trenberth, who heads the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., and wrote some of the pirated e-mails, said it is the implications rather than the content of climate research that make some people uncomfortable.
“It is incontrovertible” that the world is warming as a result of human actions, Trenberth said. “The question to me is what to do.”
“It’s certainly a legitimate question,” he added. “Unfortunately one of the side effects of this is the messengers get attacked.”
In his new book, “Science as a Contact Sport: Inside the Battle to Save the Earth’s Climate,” Stanford University climate scientist Stephen H. Schneider details the intense debate over warming, arguing that it has helped slow the nation’s public policy response.
“I’ve been here on the ground, in the trenches, for my entire career,” writes Schneider, who was copied on one of the controversial e-mails. “I’m still at it, and the battle, while looking more winnable these days, is still not a done deal.”
Just before CRU-gate the Guardian published a report on the latest effusion from CSIRO and CRU, yes that one, aka Global Carbon Project (GCP), proving again that the globe has an ever decreasing capacity to take up CO2. The same report also referred to a new paper by Wolfgang Knorr of Bristol in GRL, no less, vol 36., doi:10.1029/2009GL040613.
Knorr’s paper strongly supports my own in EE (at http://www.timcurtin.com) where I make very similar points against GCP/CSIRO’s Canadell & co – inadvertently of course, as mine only came out a couple of weeks before his. Knorr’s work is highly sophisticated, much more so than mine – but there is a lacuna, to coin a phrase, namely determinants of the biotic uptakes of CO2 emissions, and their role in expanding world food production.
I also think Knorr misses the point about Canadell et al: they are trying to find evidence to support their long standing belief that there in an inherent absolute limit to absorption of CO2 by land and sea biota. This goes back to the grossly mistaken Wigley (a star of the leaked emails from CRU at UEA) & Enting claim back in 1993 (CSIRO), that because there clearly is a cycle in the absorption of CO2 by all living matter, from tomatoes to us, this has to apply globally as we all grow old together – and are never replaced. While I am painfully conscious of loss of appetite and hence of my uptake of CO2 embodied in bread & cheese or fish & chips etc, since my op if not before, I note that my son is probably at his max. level of CO2 uptakes, steaks and loads of chips, (he’s a ranked squash player), but that his son has some way to go match his Dad’s uptake!
Incredibly, the Wigley assumption (known as Michaelis-Menten when applied to individual life forms) that we are all in terminal decline simultaneously is the basis of his MAGICC model which is used to churn out ALL the IPCC’s projections of the atmospheric concentration of CO2 by 2050 and 2100. For by assuming away ALL increases in CO2 uptakes by the biota after 2000, as MAGICC does by its inbuilt use of the hyperbolic [i.e. leveled off curve whereby uptakes of new CO2 emissions are by definition ZERO] Michaelis-Menten function (see my paper, pp.1100-1), it more than DOUBLES its projected rate of growth of atmospheric CO2 from the actual 0.41% p.a. since 1958 to over 1% p.a from 2000-2100 (but for which as Knorr shows there is no evidence).
For Luke, you may not think much of E&E, but where it leads GRL follows!
When all this “experimenters bias” has only produced 0.7c for the last century and at least half of that can be written off as being due to other causes, it really shows that their alarmism has absolutely no legs but it has generated so much pointless expense, division and waste that they need to be brought to account and publicly investigated.
James “Mike sure is a sweet talker aint he?” his language sure sounds like Luke or are all these people the same? I wonder if Jennifer will search for his email address in all these emails? Jennifer rates a mention by the way. Must away now to lay in wood and coal for when the ETS is passed.
Since it is now established beyond doubt that the AGW bs is predicated on lies and obfuscation it is no surprise that gavin asserts tha Moerner faked the tree evidence in the Maldives; in fact the tree was evidence which was destroyed by the alarmists;
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/19/despite-popular-opinion-and-calls-to-action-the-maldives-is-not-being-overrun-by-sea-level-rise/#more-6338
Again no surprise when the Age, a repository of green propaganda, can publish junk like this;
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/how_the_age_drowned_its_readers_in_spin/#commentsmore
Our man this side of the tasman is getting a handle on it……
http://briefingroom.typepad.com/the_briefing_room/
I was re-reading Ross McKitrick’s (of M&M fame) explanation of how they demolished the hockey stick. He claimed Mann used an algorithm that ‘mined for hockey sticks’. Guess he couldn’t forget he is a geologist (bit of humour for Louis).
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/APEC-hockey.pdf
Anyway, McKitrick also revealed that information in the files Mann sent them indicated he knew of one significant error, yet published anyway. The IPCC completely missed it, prompting Mac to suggest watchdogs for any future reviews, and they should not be climate scientists.
Some of the errors in the hockey stick analysis would be humourous if they weren’t so blatantly dumb. Mann used bristle cone, a type of tree that for some reason has proliferated in the 20th century. In other words, it probably grows because there’s more CO2 in the atmosphere and not because it has warmed. When the bristle cone data is removed there is no hockey stick. Another proxy used data from only two trees, but that did not bother Mike, he extrapolated. I mean, how do you date back 1000 years using two trees? Craig Loehle doesn’t even think tree ring data is reliable since warming can cause dryness and create smaller rings.
Why were they using proxy data in the modern era anyway? Had they not heard of satellites, or radiosondes?
I don’t know why anyone has taken this guy seriously. In the study he did with Stieg, they did not even bother to check the legitimacy of their data. One station they used was covered with four feet of snow. No wonder Antarctica was found to have warmed.
The gauling thing, if I have it right, was that Mann referred to Singer as a charlatan. Mann is also with the Journal of Climate, as an editor.
Gordon
Michael Mann is a geologist? I hope not, but I need evidence on this.
“Are you potentially implicated in the fraud, data tampering, collusion and unethical scientific behavior? I did notice CSIRO referenced, any of your mates included?”
gee I don’t know CoRev – I thought exposing denialist scum for the charlatans that they are would be worth a knighthood – how long have been a lying denialist turd anyway? And so it’s true that you aren’t a wife beater?
I reckon Rudd should pass legislation making all sceptic parties illegal. The sooner we deport all denialists to Christmas Island the better. The IOD solution !!! hahahahaha
I’m sorry Luke, I’ve been content with just reading this blog for the past few days but your last 2 responses take the cake. At least Gavin is valiantly using reasoned argument to try and deny the apparent evidence before him but you come across as someone who has finally cracked.
“how long have been a lying denialist turd anyway? And so it’s true that you aren’t a wife beater?”
and
“I reckon Rudd should pass legislation making all sceptic parties illegal. The sooner we deport all denialists to Christmas Island the better.”
are the shrill and incoherent ravings of a demented child throwing a tantrum, now take yor medication and go to bed before you say something really stupid.
Luke,
Please keep talking. You clearly fit this role quite well. You even look the part:
http://www.tcm.com/mediaroom/index.jsp?cid=9898
Yes, everyone who questions you is clearly a corrupt liar, and of course AGW is too important to be bothered with little things like truth, honesty or integrity.
And those great guys who get caught lying and shading the data, why they are just doing what needs to be done.
It is those pesky denialists who need to be jailed or worse who are the problem. You transparent putz.
Derek “At least Gavin is valiantly using reasoned argument to try and deny the apparent evidence before him”
hey I don’t deny those emails nor their importance to those outside the IPCC program suspicious as they are in the run up to Copenhagen. However I deviate from the backchat here by offering posts on the general subjects of measurement, dubious temp records pre 1960’s, data analysis and so on, also observations that support the main theme of climate change.
Typical –
“Adelaide has experienced the first spring heatwave ever recorded across the entire Adelaide temperature record back to 1887 with 8 consecutive days in excess of 35°C from Sunday 8 November to Sunday 15 November”
http://reg.bom.gov.au/announcements/media_releases/sa/20091117recordsaheatfirsthalfNov.shtml
“Maximum temperatures across South Australia for the first half of November have generally been 6 to 8 degrees above the monthly average, with overnight minimum temperatures generally 3 to 5 degrees above the November monthly average”.
More; details and sources for Canberra, Hobart, Melbourne, Wagga Wagga
“The November 2009 southeastern Australia heat wave is a heat wave currently occurring in the southeastern Australian states of South Australia, Victoria and southern New South Wales. Daily maximum temperatures during the heat wave have been roughly 10 °C (18 °F) above average in many locations. Capital cities Adelaide and Melbourne, have recorded temperatures over 35 °C (95 °F), and some regional towns recording temperatures above 40 °C (104 °F).[2] Above average temperatures in the region began in late October and are still persisting as of 16 November 2009.
Many locations through the region have broken temperature records for November. This November heat wave is the second heat wave experienced in the region within a 10 month period, the earlier being the 2009 southeastern Australia heat wave in January and February 2009, to which 374 deaths have been attributed. Whilst this first heat wave was far more intense, the more recent November heat wave has been more extensive and long lasting”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_2009_southeastern_Australia_heat_wave#Consequences
Derek, that couple I mentioned today growing and selling peaches are quite convinced we have experienced climate change in our region. I go one step further and relate AGW to CO2 based solely on the fact we measured a lot of flue gas around Melbourne at a time when local industry had to get smarter overnight.
Dumping carbon as soot had to stop world wide as it was THE indicator of rapidly growing waste sources around all cities. CO, CO2, methane etc are much harder to see and measure at the source let alone the atmosphere on the whole. The impact of this matter is what the fuss is about but no one has a good handle on it yet, least of all; the skeptics who are always found on blogs.
gavin,
If the AGW alarmocracy has simply wanted to do something effective, like lower soot emissions worldwide, it could well have been done by now.
But then, they would not be alarmists, but reasonable people.
The fear mongering AGW promoters, at least until now at least, have been obsessed with CO2.
Trying to imply otherwise is not every credible om your part.
Focusing on a region of Australia to make AGW hysteria more credible does not seem like a winning strategy, by the way.
Hunter; I suggest you are unaware of what process occurs when we lower soot world wide and just what areas are affected by climate change but I would be most interested to know how you arrive at your conclusions above.
BTW my soot thing was a trap for those with no experience in combustion control. For your info; any measurement of gases in turbulence is quite difficult even the precice difference between inside and outside a home on a very hot day
Gavin,
Thanks for the reasoned response. I live in the Adelaide hills, so I experienced the heat wave first hand (without air-conditioning at the moment) but this week has been relatively cool and wet. I had to run our (wet back) combustion heater last night to heat up our solar hot water system and I’ve never had to do that in Nov. Mind you, we’ve only been in the house for 3 years so that can’t really be used as a precedent.
Anyway, we hear a lot about record high temps and the nightly weather men/women always tell us when today’s temp is above ave but almost never mention when it’s below ave, no news in that.
At the start of the heat wave they were telling us that it could be the hottest since 1800 and something, its only the fact that it lasted so long that it was the hottest/longest on record.
If all of these records that keep being broken go back so many years ago, what caused the high temps back then?
Cheers.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ydo2Mwnwpac
So much for the ethical principles of the climate science fraternity.
The sooner the Commonwealth Auditer General gets off his arse and investigates this the better.
Peer Review is a shonk desighed to keep the game under their control, and so is the way a select few get the most out of R & D funding, and the way that funding isnt then audited wouldnt be allowed in any other sphere.
Time to come clean.
Derek; thanks in return.
I was going to add more on the measurement approach but it’s worth a note now on lows v highs. As a former professional instrument tech I’m as much concerned with the lows as the highs since they are a quick guide to system sensitivity v amplitude in any event.
This week we should be concerned with what the boffins make of those “natural” events in the UK. They may not give us extremes in temperature however.
All this second hand opinion won’t do as a substitute for knowledge. To be even partly qualified to comment in judgment on the academic processes leading up to Copenhagen one must have done some studies in the physics of turbulent gases as well as understanding the art of practical measurements in the field.
Loose data is all we had before satellites and snap shots from above today still require links to the former to be part of the overall dynamic model. There is no certainty at any point so establishing trends is a nightmare.
My position is all about feeling change as it happens with the best intention based on experience and not waiting for stats in support of our primary reaction. We should be working in a time frame of only several generations where most direct experience is grounded.
The idea of the devil takes the hindmost in some common legal stoush is pure nonsense.
We get quality info only when all the relevant technologies and their associated standards are mutually recognised across the board. However in practice I focused more on functionality than traceable absolutes on paper in any client’s search for probable trends that needed immediate actions. It’s often the speed of change that’s most important.
saturday night live and al gore 🙂
Hunter – how can someone like you – a little ranter – seriously preach on truth and integrity? Pullease.
And how about this to demonstrate the sheer level of stupidity of comment here “Focusing on a region of Australia to make AGW hysteria more credible does not seem like a winning strategy, by the way.” unreal mate – unreal !
And Hill puts up Tim Ball as “source” – hohohohohohohohoho – you’re not getting any better are you? Might as well seek Goebbels view on PR. And more bunk from Hill – like a dog returning to his vomit again pretending that R&D funding isn’t audited. We’ve been over this before boyo. Usual denialist scum modus operandi. Just sprout b/s and then repeat it over and over.
Derek – how old are you – try asking an intelligent question for once e.g. if there is a trend in temp records? or warm days?
Come on Luke, weve been saying for ages AGW had no clothes and you have been frantically holding on with fingertips and nails. But that you still can t see it has no clothes and is riddled with fraud , agenda and hyperbole, is really quite sad.
So we know they deliberatlely manipulate data and the peer review process. We know teh IPCC and yet you want to stand up for them?
sorry that was not supposed to be sent yet!
We know the IPCC is political and set out with an agenda and the reoprts were manipulated to push this agenda. We now know many of the scientists have deliberatly set out to fake science. hOW AN EARTH CAN YOU SUPPORT THESE PEOPLE. THEY HAVE DESTROYED THE CREDIBILITY OF SCIENCTISTS…….something I and many here have been saying for years.
Come on surely you are sceptical now? Science is supposed to be about
“truth”, clearly climate science is only worthy of “pseduoscience”.
Well said Toby,
For those of the warming persuasion to be defending this long-standing proceedure of these “scientists” is simply desperation and denial.
What do you reckon Luke; Toby and spangled showing all the signs of record heat stress -poor devils.
Well Walker you thorougly obnoxious little cretin, how about this list from Bishop Hill’s site
“In the circumstances, here are some summaries of the CRUgate files. I’ll update these as and when I can. The refs are the email number.
• Phil Jones writes to University of Hull to try to stop sceptic Sonia Boehmer Christiansen using her Hull affiliation. Graham F Haughton of Hull University says its easier to push greenery there now SB-C has retired.(1256765544)
• Michael Mann discusses how to destroy a journal that has published sceptic papers.(1047388489)
• Tim Osborn discusses how data are truncated to stop an apparent cooling trend showing up in the results (0939154709). Analysis of impact here. Wow!
• Phil Jones describes the death of sceptic, John Daly, as “cheering news”.(1075403821)
• Phil Jones encourages colleagues to delete information subject to FoI request.(1212063122)
• Phil Jones says he has use Mann’s “Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series”…to hide the decline”. Real Climate says “hiding” was an unfortunate turn of phrase.(0942777075)
• Letter to The Times from climate scientists was drafted with the help of Greenpeace.(0872202064)
• Mann thinks he will contact BBC’s Richard Black to find out why another BBC journalist was allowed to publish a vaguely sceptical article.(1255352257)
• Kevin Trenberth says they can’t account for the lack of recent warming and that it is a travesty that they can’t.(1255352257)
• Tom Wigley says that Lindzen and Choi’s paper is crap.(1257532857)
• Tom Wigley says that von Storch is partly to blame for sceptic papers getting published at Climate Research. Says he encourages the publication of crap science. Says they should tell publisher that the journal is being used for misinformation. Says that whether this is true or not doesn’t matter. Says they need to get editorial board to resign. Says they need to get rid of von Storch too. (1051190249)
• Ben Santer says (presumably jokingly!) he’s “tempted, very tempted, to beat the crap” out of sceptic Pat Michaels. (1255100876)
• Mann tells Jones that it would be nice to ‘”contain” the putative Medieval Warm Period’. (1054736277)
• Tom Wigley tells Jones that the land warming since 1980 has been twice the ocean warming and that this might be used by sceptics as evidence for urban heat islands.(1257546975)
• Tom Wigley say that Keith Briffa has got himself into a mess over the Yamal chronology (although also says it’s insignificant. Wonders how Briffa explains McIntyre’s sensitivity test on Yamal and how he explains the use of a less-well replicated chronology over a better one. Wonders if he can. Says data withholding issue is hot potato, since many “good” scientists condemn it.(1254756944)
• Briffa is funding Russian dendro Shiyatov, who asks him to send money to personal bank account so as to avoid tax, thereby retaining money for research.(0826209667)
• Kevin Trenberth says climatologists are nowhere near knowing where the energy goes or what the effect of clouds is. Says nowhere balancing the energy budget. Geoengineering is not possible.(1255523796)
• Mann discusses tactics for screening and delaying postings at Real Climate.(1139521913)
• Tom Wigley discusses how to deal with the advent of FoI law in UK. Jones says use IPR argument to hold onto code. Says data is covered by agreements with outsiders and that CRU will be “hiding behind them”.(1106338806)
• Overpeck has no recollection of saying that he wanted to “get rid of the Medieval Warm Period”. Thinks he may have been quoted out of context.(1206628118)
• Mann launches RealClimate to the scientific community.(1102687002)
• Santer complaining about FoI requests from McIntyre. Says he expects support of Lawrence Livermore Lab management. Jones says that once support staff at CRU realised the kind of …..”
If these emails are true, then it is surely prima facie evidence of just how shonky climate science is.
Witholding of data, tax evasion, manipulation of the peer review process, destruction of data already under FOIA etc etc
No amount of bluster from Walker and his cohorts of igorance is ever going to change this.
remember when the BBC posted an article saying there had been no warming for 10 years?
well this is what happened in the rat’s nest.
At least Tom has some principles whereas Mann want’s to manipulate the BBC.
Bazza, time to take off those blinkers and see what we have been seeing for years. Isn’t science supposed to be objective and bias free? Nobody could read those emails and not see the bias and lack of objectivity, to say nothing of the blatant manipulation of people, data and the peer reviewed process. If you seriously can see no wrong in those emails, then you need to work on your critical thinking skills big time.
“I suggest you are unaware of what process occurs when we lower soot world wide”
gav,
What shade of “soot” would that be?
Derek,
I used to live in the northern parts of SA and it was probably one of the hottest places on earth at times.
I’ve watched a bird fly out of a tree and drop dead from the heat. That was 50 years ago with temps at 50c [122f].
And that was in the bottom of the waterbag.
I’ve been doing some experiments with thermometers lately, comparing under-verandah temps with stevenson screen temps and if you keep the thermometer away from the shaded wall of the verandah it is comparable to a SS but if you let it rest against the wall it is often cooler than the SS. [More air temp and less wall temp]
On that basis the old 19th century records could have read even hotter in SSs.
So much for the BoM tossing out a lot of early data because they reckoned it was too hot by not being in a SS.
What was that 1878 temp again?
Isn’t it sad to see the warmers at Doltoid et al bleating about the criminality of the leaking but thoroughly excusing the corrupt activity the leaking exposes.
Poor old SOD will never be the same again.
Those seeds may eventually take root.
Viv Forbes puts it well.
GW is man made after all! LOL.
http://carbon-sense.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/man-made.pdf
I love seeing The Believers in denial.
Lukefartard,
When did you stop your self abuse??
Oh, that’s right, you can’t with so many mirrors around!!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
This should cheer them up – not!
The senate is discussing it now
listen here
http://webcast.aph.gov.au/livebroadcasting/asx2/hms943a.asx
Couldn’t resist dropping by to have a little ROTFL over the CRU Climategate scandal.
Luke, will the real Denialists please stand up? BA HA HA HA HA HA ha AH…cough, cough… Whew! Don’t worry, I’m OK, just let me catch my breath….
;-))) pure Karma.
Both “President of Earth” Gore and his five-star Generalismo Hansen have advocated climate change civil disobedience. I wonder if this is what they had in mind?
And bloody thank God, Al invented the Internet! Rock on, Virtual Earth Night, A new digital breed of monkey wrench gang rises from the code to strike at the high cathedral of the evil climate-myth empire. Let the rebellion began, this one will be televised on Youtube. Free the data, free the code!
Without the Internet by now we would all be green serfs working collective farms in a zero-growth economy guarded by brown, er, greenshirts hoods, bully-boys sort of like Luke, (if he wasn’t so obese and wracked with chronic sclerosing cholangitis that he can barely navigate the greasy carpet ruts worn between his frig, toilet and the CRT, much less wield a cattle prod properly…Actually, you know, in the kind of Marxist Green Utopia that Useful Idiots like Luke advocate, his kind are usually the first to have their carbon pollution sequestered in the pit mass graves…)
So, Jen et al, keep speaking truth to power. Demand transparency and reproducibility in science and the peer review process.
The end game for the AGW apocalypse fraud has well and truly begun and not a moment too soon.
Later, dudes, I got a monster truck rally to attend.
Over on Steve Mc’s mirror site, and several other blogs, they are looking at the computer code that was released in the file.
AGW??? How about junk code!!!
We may never know if it was EVER real!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
I’m shocked, I tell you, shocked!
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/global-warminggate-what-does-it-mean/
“The emails suggest the authors co-operated covertly to ensure that only papers favorable to CO2-forced AGW were published, and that editors and journals publishing contrary papers were punished. They also attempted to “discipline” scientists and journalists who published skeptical information.”
No way, Lies, I tell you, Lies, financed by Big Tobacco and the Single Flush Toilet Cartel!!!
“The emails suggest that the authors manipulated and “massaged” the data to strengthen the case in favor of unprecedented CO2-forced AGW, and to suppress their own data if it called AGW into question.”
But Gavin wants to change the subject “…to the dubious temp records pre 1960’s, data analysis and so on, also observations that support the main theme of climate change.” Uh-huh…ROTFL, pathetic weasel.
“The emails suggest that the authors co-operated (perhaps the word is “conspired”) to prevent data from being made available to other researchers through either data archiving requests or through the Freedom of Information Acts of both the U.S. and the UK.”
Climategate has only just begun.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__VQX2Xn7tI
Free the data! Free the code!
Stage II is starting – the code people are getting into the code that was hacked
http://www.tickerforum.org/cgi-ticker/akcs-www?post=118625&page=13
woops – didn’t see your post kuhnkat
Hi All,
Well isn’t it great to see the unfolding of this modern Operatic tragedy, involving vast sums of money, decption, pathos, world power, huge egos and humour.
None more humorous than to see the Galah Luke flushed from his hollow branch, by the Bushfire of reverlation and truth.
Tail feathers burnt off.
Left wing badly damaged and bandaged.
Can now only fly in ever decreasing circles but still squawking obscenities to all who disagree with his lost cause.
Just beautiful!
SJT and Sod are also strangly quiet.
We still have to get some sense into Turnbull, if this nonsense is to be stopped here in Aus.
Pikey.
Stage III: An Independent Inquiry?
“Last week an apparent hacker obtained access to their computers and published in the blogosphere part of their internal e-mail traffic. And the CRU has conceded that the at least some of the published e-mails are genuine.
Astonishingly, what appears, at least at first blush, to have emerged is that (a) the scientists have been manipulating the raw temperature figures to show a relentlessly rising global warming trend; (b) they have consistently refused outsiders access to the raw data; (c) the scientists have been trying to avoid freedom of information requests; and (d) they have been discussing ways to prevent papers by dissenting scientists being published in learned journals.
There may be a perfectly innocent explanation. (oh, sure, as if…) But what is clear is that the integrity of the scientific evidence on which not merely the British Government, but other countries, too, through the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, claim to base far-reaching and hugely expensive policy decisions, has been called into question. And the reputation of British science has been seriously tarnished. A high-level independent inquiry must be set up without delay.”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article6927598.ece
Stage IV: Luke tops himself by ODing on Chips with chicken salt.
Now its Clowns Inc. but what a silly circus. The tragedy is it’s only a side show. Nothing on the ABC, sad hey
It’s really pleasing to see the circle jerk continue – keep going guys you might start up an harmonic and cause an earthquake – you guys have nothing – if you had some serious allegations of organised conspiracy put it !
But alas all you have is a series of disconnected colourful comments – – mild compared to the sort comments you get daily from the denialist goon squad that is camped out here.
Media pickup – virtually zero. Impact on Copenhagen zero. Science impact zero.
ABC news tonight “Just one more piece for Copenhagen to consider”
“A new study has found the east Antarctic icesheet, which sits behind Australia’s Casey Station, has lost billions of tonnes of ice in the past three years”
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/11/23/2750931.htm
Let’s repeat: It’s often the speed of change that’s most important
Gavin – wolf – wolf – please produce the evidence that sea level rise in increasing.
G’day Spangled,
Yeah I’ve noticed that we seem to get more than our fair share of 40+ days in SA considering how far south we are. I have seen Bagdad hit the 50 mark on a number of occasions on SBS weather but they may be climatised to the heat over there. Temps in OZ go up and down like a yoyo.
I put a thermometer under the veranda at my school last summer against the fibro wall and it got up to 48C one day but this was one of the same batch that I told Gavin about so it was probably more like 46. But from what you said, the wall may have had a cooling effect.
Hey, if you keep talking about stuff from 50 years ago, Louis remembers burying that diamond during the Archean era and Gavin helped set up the thermometers for the first fleet, does that mean that we are mostly a bunch of old farts with nothing better to do than blog?
Hang on, a minute. Do you two (Gavin and Luke) actually hallucinate that because the state-owned and directed dinosaur media
doesn’t scoop the biggest scandal of the new century — a trillion plus dollar fraud on the people of planet Earth –that tomorrow we’ll all wake up and it will be climate apocalypse fear mongering as usual? Put.. The.. Bong.. down…
Dudes, ya don’t read Pravda to hear the latest in Kremlin scandals. ROTFL.
Copenhagen is already over. The ETS bill in the US Congress is now dead and buried. China and India, well, let’s just say they’ve given you the proverbial middle finger. Bob Brown is now past his use by date. The Gig is up, kids. The Science is settled and it’s a fraud. So now is the time for direct action. Legal action.
In fact, this whole act of civil disobedience was probably arranged by the Chinese .gov in order to expose the shonky Anglo fraud before Copenhagen could establish a one-world eco-government that would interfere with China’s ascendancy and guarantee third world poverty for billions for the next half century. Gotta love it when totalitarian former Maoists come to the rescue of a formerly proud and free west. A bit disconcertingly ironic though…
And it doesn’t matter if Turnbull sells out to avoid a double dissolution. Carbon trading ponzi accounting is now as doomed as Enron. The scam is up, mates. The bubble of suspended disbelief has popped. Yeah, it won’t all collapse tomorrow. It will be deliciously slow and painful…
This is one of those gifts that will just keep on giving for years.
As someone with a passing interest in Oz media coverage (or lack of it!!!) re the leaked/hacked emails, I can only wonder when some industrious reporter will realise that one of the principals in so many of those notes can be reached via a local phone call at Monash University.
That would be Neville Nicholls.
Australian science makes another grab for infamy in the person of Tom Wigley, who figures prominently in the string of emails reproduced by Janama above.
And for Kiwis, there is Jim Sallinger, who figures in many equally unsettling rounds of correspondence.
If any reporters read this blog — as opposed to doing no more than taking sensationalist dictation from whichever man of science condescends to patronise you — a call to Nicholls would definitely be in order.
Gavin,
Interesting news about Antarctica. I want to talk about that but lets get some perspective first.
a) “”That’s contributing to half a millimetre of sea level rise per year.””
b) The generally accepted volume of ice in Antarctica is approx 30million cubic km, 57 billion tons equates to say 63 cubic kms(the boffins can correct me here if you feel it’s necessary) so we have about 1/10000% mass difference/annum.
So at that rate it will all be gone in what, 10,000years? Assuming that rate won’t change of course.
Now I’m just a high school teacher doing these calculations in my head (not my strongest talent) but you get the overall idea.
Now to be a bit divisive here, I have to say something about our standard responses to some of these sort of news items.
Someone will probably quote other studies that show a positive mass balance or discredit the Grace satellite or something or say that Antarctica can’t melt ’cause the daytime max never gets above -15C etc.. We get the same thing about the Arctic ice sheet as in it’s bigger than last year so GW isn’t happening after all. There has been a lot of stuff here thrown up as proof that the planet is in fact cooling, glaciers are growing and sea levels aren’t rising and I wonder why some of us try so hard to make these points.
If AGW is incorrect and there was a MWP and RWP and warmer is better as many here have suggested(myself included) shouldn’t our response to melting ice caps be “hey great, it’s about time we got out of this infernal ice age”?
And I know some feel it’s all about the accuracy of the science but I think sometimes we can’t see the wood for the “everything they say must be wrong” trees.
It’s also funny how we can say “GMT is a false concept” and then use a drop in GMT to prove that GW has stalled. I have to admit that I’m in that camp and I find the use of a GMT oddly comforting even though I don’t believe in it.
I guess the reality is that if the political and ecconomic stakes weren’t so high, we could all take it a bit less seriously.
Gavin,
You clown.
As an “Old Codger, (according to Luke), like yourself, please do not keep destroying the perception of some wisdom associated with age.
The Antartic Ice Shelf has been growing in recent time.
Look up the records yourself as you seem to have infinite time for this.
I have not the time to assist you.
If all you can do at this site is “parrot” the nonsence from “our ABC,” more correctly the ALPBC, you are bringing nothing new to this discussion and you are without reason.
Frankly, I appreciate intellegent argument but detest your pathetic BS.
If you are going to add anything of interlectual importance to this debate then lets not sprout untruth.
No one at this site gives a “Gumnuts Arse” what you or I have done in the past, but we are interested in rational discourse, backed up by facts.
You Sir are not giving us this.
Luke:
Science impact.
Devastating!
Pikey.
El Creepo. We Own All Your Base:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APgg9LYbLu0&feature=related
Free the data. Free the code.
Spangles; going back, good luck with your home veranda v Stevenson screen thermometer experiments. I offer the same advice re your thermometers as I offered Derek. You need at least three of known performance between ice water and boiling points before you start. Instrument errors are more likely seen this way
However if any of these are old fashioned liquid in glass with air only bulbs or max min U tubes, they should be calibrated against another standard in a volume of controlled air. to avoid liquid immersions. It may be worth using a decent kitchen digital as your go between. With my collection in mind, I listen to the weather segments often enough to gain confidence in my own readings as the day goes by Btw I don’t bother with screens outside, as there is a convenient shady corner by our kitchen window.
Pure soot is as black as the Ace of Clubs or Spades. Other likely solids could be fly ash and very dry creosote after its condensation.
Gavin,
You know what I love about soot? The first gram of Fullerenes (C60 spheres) to be synthesized was worth about $12,000 from memory, and you know where you can find them by the bucket load? You guessed it, soot.
I was once a tent (humpy for those of you who know the term) leader on a kids camp and we used kero lanterns for light. One night ours was set wrong and when we got up in the morning the whole of the inside of the glass was filled with a solid(sort of) plug of soot which felt like medium density foam rubber. It actually bounced. There was probably a thousand bucks worth of buckyballs in that sooty sucker.
BTW I also know that soot on ice accelerates melting so I get your previous point.
Ding dong the witch is dead, witch is dead, witch is dead
luke and all is shit is dead, luke is dead, luke is dead.
the evil has gone Jennifer – time to come home.
just click your red shoes. 🙂
janama
I’m afraid it won’t change a thing.
AGW never was about science, it was about an ideology, control of people.
Scientists and “science” was a good excuse, and they were-are willing participants in the fraud. For plenty of money of course.
I just watched Tim Flimflan on lateline with Tony Jones. I don’t think he sounded convincing at all . Tony’s Questions were somewhat probing and I would have expected more from Tim . If anything he made the point there is so much we don’t know !
Then why are we rushing to throw our economy over a cliff.
Jennifer,
Please do not despair.
The greatest thing about the eomail archive that was leaked is no the damning e-mails.
The greatest thing about the archive is the code.
That is getting processed now. The early results show the deliberate fraud that we have all suspected.
Your country, led by earnest people, who have been manipulated into AGW fraud, will soon have a change of heart, if not a change of government.
The madness that is enviro-extremism is peaking right now.
Marcus,
You are right of course. AGW is all about power. Political power.
Luke,
The only honest thing you have said in quite some time is this, in reference to the e-mails:
“impact on climate science, zero”
Climate Science, as being led by the likes of you and those exposed in the e-mails, has no interest in the scientific process, the truth, integrity or ethics.
So of course, finding out from a tiny release of data, that fraud is pervasive in your field would have no impact.
Please keep clacking your ball bearings together, Capt.
Bunyip 7.28pm – “I can only wonder when some industrious reporter will realise that one of the principals in so many of those notes can be reached via a local phone call at Monash University.
That would be Neville Nicholls.”
Not only Neville at Monash –
Apparently the Australian Bureau of Meteorology Research Centre now has a policy not to deal with anyone associated with Climate Audit –
Phil Jones said the following on 6/19/2007 4:22 AM:
“….
2. Had an email from David Jones of BMRC, Melbourne. He said they are ignoring anybody who has dealings with CA, as there are threads on it about Australian sites.”
Fair enough. Seems to be in the scientific spirit. But perhaps the same industrious reporter might not understand the subtle nuances of science and might even turn up on young David’s doorstep and ask him WTF he meant.
Jen, believe me when I say I will miss your well written and logical articles. If there is any way for you to find the time I sincerely request that you continue. If that is not possible then, my best on your future!
Derek Smith “….I’ve noticed that we seem to get more than our fair share of 40+ days in SA…”
I noticed the same thing on a camping trip last summer, and during a trip across the Canadian prairies in the fall. CO2 warming could not possibly cause that kind of temperature rise, especially in the short term. Lindzen has claimed that surface temperature could reach 72 C without the convective wind currents that cool the surface.
We have a place in Canada called Lytton, in the province of BC. It is the hottest part of Canada, in summer months, yet it is only 150 miles NNE of Vancouver, which is the most moderate climate in Canada. Last summer, while I was passing through Lytton, the temperature was 40 C in the shade, yet a thermometer there, placed in direct sunlight, can rise to a whopping 56 C, according to a local. In Vancouver, just 150 miles away, the temperature was 20 C.
Why is an area 150 miles north of another area, at the same longitude, twice the temperature? It’s the same Sun, and the farther north you go, the cooler it should be. The answer obviously lies in what Lindzen is trying to tell us. Lytton is in an area of desert where the Fraser River meets the Thompson River. As you go further north and south along the Fraser, the vegetation is not desert-like, but a few kilometeres east along the Thompson, it is pure desert, with sage brush. In Spences Bridge, where it measured 56 C in the sun, about 40 km east of Lytton, there are small cactii growing.
This has nothing to do with CO2. Pat Michaels explains it in one of his books, either Meltdown or The Satanic Gases. When hot, moist air rises, it condenses and releases the heat as rain or snow. The dry air then falls into regions, forming deserts. That’s why it can be lush and moist on one side of a mountain range and desert-like on the other side. It is quite conceivable that weather patterns change over time since the systems that cause them, high in the atmosphere, like the jet stream, shift themselves. That changes the pattern of convection currents, causing warming/cooling, and creating climate shifts like droughts.
What we are facing in climate science, is a load of non-climate scientists calling themselves climate scientists. Many of them are mathematicians (Schmidt), geologists (Mann) and even biologists (Schneider). About the only legitimate climate scientist in the CRU scandal is Kevin Trenberth, and he is annoyingly smug with his pronouncement that AGW is a fact, even though he admits the warming stopped. Then again, he is a Kiwi, and having lived in NZ for a year, I know how damned stubborn ‘SOME’ of them can be.
I think the thing to be noted about the heat in SA is that the PDO changed sign recently. It has brought some strange weather systems to our end of it and who knows what it is doing on your end, especially to ENSO.
G’day Gordon,
In SA we get those pesky high pressure systems hovering at the east of the continent that blow over thousands of km’s of interior OZ which is mostly dry to desert-like. That gives the air plenty of time to heat up by the time it gets to Adelaide.
That heat wave we had recently had the same conditions but the high was stalled in the Tasman plus there seemed to be little or no moisture coming down from NT which is heading into its wet season. My thinking is that it was an anomaly and unless the same thing happens again next year, I wouldn’t be looking for a trend.
BTW, that day that it was 48C in the shade at my school I put a thermometer on some dirt in a large pot in direct sun and it got to 72C. Gavin might be able to tell us whether taking readings in direct sunlight can be accurate considering thermal properties of the glass etc.
Cheers.
It’s often said one can fry an egg in direct sunlight. I say it can damage your mercury thread thermometer as it “boils”.
We can also say the Stevenson Screen as a contraption tends to regulate air flow as it regulates light when placed out in the open, thus we have a basis for the first stage of an aggreement in climate monitoring science.
Just filing this here:
“Just so you know, your name comes up quite a bit in these hacked emails. you should download them and read them if you haven’t already. Look at the one labeled “1256765544.txt” when you download them from http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_emails%2C_data%2C_models%2C_1996-2009
Regards,
Mark”
Jennifer,
I hope that you’re not saying what I think you’re saying. Although Anthony’s and Steve’s blogs are the best on the topic of climate change, yours is the best on the more general subject of science-based environmental policy.
I know that your plate is full at the moment, because of the writing project, among other things. Your hiatus is very understandable.
After the book is published, I hope that you return to blogging. You have a lot to contribute. If your time is limited, scaling back a bit could be an option.
Yes, in Australia, the forces of darkness–as in shivering in the dark–appear to have the upper hand. But history will show that these legislators done a tremendous disservice to their constituents. And good chroniclers can hasten the awakening of the sleeping elephants within the Australian electorate.
There’s also the rest of the world to consider. Please don’t throw in the towel.
Regards,
Larry
gavin “It’s often said one can fry an egg in direct sunlight. I say it can damage your mercury thread thermometer as it “boils”.”
There was a film on the net (or was it TV??), where someone directed sunlight through a lens and burned through a slab of steel. It was a pretty skookum lens, mind you, but the solar energy burned through the steel like a hot knife through butter. We’ve all used a lens in the sun to start wood burning, but I’d never thought it could get hot enough to melt steel.
Been listening to a climate science discussion on ABC 666 radio with guests Will Steffan and Will Grant from ANU. In passing they covered the email issue but I picked up on an interesting challenge from a caller named Ian. He raised the question of cooling via convection v radiation with the situation of two cars out in the midday sun, one closed up, the other with windows open – I hope it’s recorded here later
http://blogs.abc.net.au/canberra/canberra_mornings/index.html
Signing off the host mentioned the ANU climate change debate tomorrow
“Too hot to talk about: Why is Australia still debating climate change?”
“The event will be a Q & A style event zeroing in on how climate change is communicated to Australians – the spin, the noise, the clutter as well as the facts”.
http://news.anu.edu.au/?p=1806
For a preview of the event watch Dr Will Grant discuss the issue of climate change on ANU Channel on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnQLy0LJgyc
Derek Smith “That heat wave we had recently had the same conditions but the high was stalled in the Tasman….”
Since Oz is at the eastern end of the ENSO system, I’m not surprised. According to non-fiction I have read about sailors sailing single-handedly through the Tasman, it is pretty wild and unpredictable.
We set a record of our own in Vancouver during late July. It was 32 C, beating the previous record circa 1960. When you consider that 25 C is a very hot day in Vancouver, that 32 C had us all moaning. The official explanation was that winds normally bringing cooling breezes from the ocean were reversed, and that we were getting hotter air from the Interior.
The Pacific Decadal Oscillation just changed direction and I suspect it has a lot to do with that. The heat wave went right over to the prairies in Saskatchewan, some 1200 miles inland. They were getting 32 C temperatures at the end of September, an unusual condition. Another 1000 miles east, in Ontario, they complained of a cold summer, while we were melting in the west. If it is the PDO behind the warming, it has far-reaching effects. Then again, the extremely cold weather in Saskatchewan during the winter is caused by cold air sweeping down from the Arctic, over 1000 miles north.
Jennifer, it is sad to see you call time on this blogging caper. This site has been the first I looked at in the morning, for many years.
Thanks for being a rational voice in the environment debate, especially when you first started, as there were few alternatives to the greenies propaganda a few years ago.
Best wishes with your future endeavours. Hope you return to blogging one day.
Larry “yours is the best on the more general subject of science-based environmental policy”
In Jennifer’s defence she puts up with the likes of me and one or two others who can take on the far side just for the hell of it.
In reality this blog has exposed me to the fact that climate “science” is still evolving and the “practice” is far from agreed even at this stage of the climate “change” debate
Its this long winded war that forces the likes of our ANU chiefs above, Dr Will & Prof Will to look again at their communication
We should carry on!
Paul, Larry et al
Thanks for your comments.
I don’t feel I am throwing in the towel … but I do feel I have done my bit.
And yes, especially at a time when to quote Paul: when I first started there were few alternative to the greenie propaganda.
Since I began this blog, and especially over the last couple of years, there have been a lot of people who have got organised and angry. There are alternatives now including Jo Nova’s site and WUWT. Yes, they don’t necessarily cover the non-AGW stuff, but hopefully they will in the future.
I might keep updating old posts as I did today here http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/09/leading-uk-climate-scientists-must-explain-or-resign/
And let us celebrate what we have achieved… a network of information exchange at a critical point in history.
And who knows what the future holds…
Jen,
You have to follow your bliss wherever it takes you. Someone once said if you come to a fork in the road, take it. I’m sure what ever you do you will make a success.
This website has given me hope—a rational light at the end of the tunnel when the whole academic establishment and our polity was descending into madness. I know this blog played a similar role in the lives of many others, many close to the levers of power, learning and policy creation and implementation. The effects of this blog upon the various environmental debates cannot be measure, yet shouldn’t be underestimated. Your blog has worked as a clearing house and support network for POVs utterly disenfranchised and marginalized, yet vital to the intellectual health of our democracy. Through the exposition of ideas little available elsewhere in the media Jen’s blog has nurtured the furtive intellectual lives of a salient creative minority. The full effects of this blog even if it ends today will be still be blossoming in the cultural life of our nation for years to come.
The greatest error of our age is the idea that a healthy democracy can prosper without the citizens being fully informed of all sides of whatever the current urgent debate is about. Our media intelligentsia have cast aside their journalistic ethics and assumed the role of censors believing that in their infinite wisdom and virtue they know best what should be allowed to reach hoi polloi ears and eyes. Thus, we have a wildly misinformed Australian lay public polling in favour of surrendering personal liberties and submitting to onerous taxation as penance for their imagined crimes against the weather! Our parliament believes fine weather can be legislated from Canberra!
This is simply the most important and influential environmental blog in the Southern hemisphere, a lone voice of reason in a wilderness of collectivist group think. As such, it’s hard to imagine continuing the battle to insert rigorous scientific method, transparency, fidelity to field observations and intellectual honesty into the major environment debates of our day without this blog leading the way. Yet, it’s perhaps harder still to imagine this blog continuing without the guidance of Jen’s wisdom and tolerance for the chaos of the free exchange of ideas.
All the best for the future Jennifer, you’ve worked hard over a reasonable period of time.
Now perhaps this fraud is disintegrating with the leaked email scandal known as CLIMATEGATE getting more coverage every day.
Even moonbat concedes that he should have been more careful about his research and he also calls for the sacking of phil jones.
Surely even dummies like rudd and Turnbull must follow suit before they make complete fools of themselves?
Wes – “we own all you bases” – well done. I laughed.
Love this comment from Janama “luke and all is shit is dead, luke is dead, luke is dead.” – need one say more ? Said at a time when there is literally a flood of new information. But intelligence has never been a mainstay here.
I say again – your are all very much deluded if you think “climategate” is even a climategate. You all clasp your little hands so tightly and hope it’s a climategate but alas it’ll all be fish and chip paper soon. Nothing has changed. Climate science is incredibly angry with the sophistry and deceit of the climate movement. The comments are far from surprising.
All this pontification though by Wes about honesty and ethics is utterly nauseating given the standard by which sceptics conduct their affairs. It’s an affront.
Remember I have only endorsed the science and the science process. In your mindless hurried attempts to “win” you have forgotten that a world of 6 billion going to 9 billion is already severely impacted by climate variability. In the end the global atmosphere will integrate the physics of greenhouse and your sceptic views won’t matter in all of this.
So remember what you said as it all changes around you. As the droughts in sub-tropics get worse/more frequent and the Arctic becomes open ocean. Remember what you all said and how you conducted yourselves.
And to my good friend Jen – disagree totally but fully respect your right to say it.
Janama,
Comment from: janama November 23rd, 2009 at 9:10 pm
For us confused Munchkins who only drop in occasionally, I think you should clarify the timing of your post.
Jennifer,
wherever you end up, thank you for your enormous contribution to sanity.
George believes he got it wrong!
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2009/11/23/the-knights-carbonic/
After years of following the climate debate it all boils down to one simple test. And this is well reflected in the CRU Climategate emails.
If the medieval warming period (MWP) was warmer than today even though CO2 level were much, much lower than today, then the AGW hypothesis explains nothing.
Turns out that Vikings had dairy farms and were exporting cheese to Europe along well-documented trade routes FROM GREENLAND. Get it, Greenland? Today the very valleys where the Vikings raised DAIRY CATTLE are solid permafrost backed by glaciers. Greenland has no export dairy industry and hasn’t since the Earth’s climate began to cool about 900 years ago and forced the Vikings to abandon their farm settlements.
At the same time elephants seal were forced to abandon their southern breeding sites on the main body of Antarctica as the fossil record shows. So the MWP and subsequent cooling was global. Most importantly, the MWP was warmer than today with our much higher level of atmospheric CO2 concentration.
According to standard scientific method, a hypothesis is only as good as its implications and predictions. The AGW hypothesis states that CO2 is the dominant forcing factor in climate evolution. The more CO2, the warmer the climate regime. Therefore, the climate 1,000 years ago before high modern levels of atmospheric CO2 must be cooler than today for the AGW hypothesis to usefully predict observed data. Yet it was demonstrably warmer in the past.
Logically the AGW hypothesis has been slamdunk falsified, because it can be shown that the past 2,000 years of the Earth’s temperature record in no way correlates to the rise (or fall) in CO2 concentration. Note that this is not to say that a “greenhouse gas effect” doesn’t exist, it obviously does, just that it is in no way among the dominant phenomena forcing climate evolution.
An objective searcher for an empirically-based hypothesis of what really drives climate must now return to direct observation to construct a new hypothesis which makes predictions that anticipate known observations, such as features like the MWP, the LIA and why modern warming stalled mid-20th century and early 21 st century. (In retrospect, it now seems obvious that this task is probably far too great for any one “just-so” hypothesis and will require a syncretic, holistically unified theory that is probably well beyond both the state of our info and observational technologies and our grasp of complex system analysis.)
What is so damning about Climategate is that it shows Mann, Jones, Briffa, et al deeply understood the MWP was utterly devastating to the credibility of the AGW hypothesis and so conspired to create and cherry pick a data/code based “narrative” where the MWP was nothing more than a “minor blip” as Al Gore called it. They also attempted to smooth the latter Little Ice Age, so that modern warming would appear to be coming off a thousand plus years of climate stasis. Once placed in that fantasy context the AGW hypothesis appeared to function as a useful explanation.
One can well be forgiven for being fooled by the CRU conspiracy and the media’s one-sided reporting. I certain was. Yet now that the facts are exposed, to continue to believe the Earth is going to suffer an apocalypse due to carbon induced warming is more than just irrational, it’s the denialism of our post-AGW world.
Janama, sadly monbiot does not think he got it wrong, it is his attempt at sarcasm and scorn for and of “deniers”.
Personally I think Wes has summed it up nicely.
I think you only have to listen to the response of people like Luke to realise that we truly are dealing with a religion. Even when it can be shown that data has been manipulted, the peer review process corrupted, blatant bias, the conscious removal of the MWP, RMP,MWP, etc etc, Luke continues to scream denier.
Luke you are in denial if you are not concerned for the future of science and the fact that you can t see the huge dent this puts in the credibility of climate scientists and the IPCC.
To me its ironic that so much about what we “deniers”have been saying about politics having corrupted the scientific process has recently been confirmed.
Hundreds of millions of dollars spent trying to prove the lie about co2 being a pollutant, and yet they still can t convince so many people. Anybody who is in “denial’ has self interest at heart, and yet I doubt any sceptic on this site is being paid in anyway for their opinions, and yet the pseudoscientists ( yes insult meant Luke…about the climate scientists), with their huge flow of funds can not see their own self interest. The same goes for all those carbon credits being traded and the businesses that support an ETS seeing a new “gravy train”. Their is where the problems lie.
The truth doesn t need lies and exagerations, it should speak for itself. Science should be about “truth”, clearly climate science is not.
Jen, good luck with whatever you decide to do. This site has been very enjoyable and informative to follow. Thankyou.
Jennifer,
I know that you enjoy writing. After recovering from the burnout, I hope that you do some guest posts on other blogs. If you have some specific ones in the mind, please let us know. I’ll make a point to spend more time there.
If you ever take a vacation in Northern California, I volunteer to give a guided tour of my informal climate change research ‘laboratory’ at Roundtop Lake. In my guest post, I neglected to mention that it’s near some of the best wildflower areas in the Northern Sierras. And they’re usually at their peak in late July or early August, shortly after the snow melts. You have my email address.
I wish you the best of luck with your novel.
Regards,
Larry
Toby – simple utter waffle. .
As usual you’ve confounded climate science (and a very broad area of science as Wes lunges desperately at a few points) with the policy responses. Very illogical. As useful as telling your oncologist that they’re ugly.
And more uninformed Euro-centric drivel from Wes – not addressing the mega-droughts that plagued the USA, China and Africa.
Toby to simply focus your entire argument on the Hockey-Stick is simply myopic.
This isn’t a science based blog. It’s simply a political arena. And you’ve all heard the arguments now 100 times.
Pretty well all of you aren’t interested in learning anything. All you’re interested in is feeding your confirmation biases and denying utterly everything.
You all actually believe that there is a massive international conspiracy in one area of science that links multiple organisations, across continents and 100s of scientists. Just say that to yourself rationally…
So if that’s the perceived sum up – well believe whatever you like. But in the end – you’re not sceptics – you’re simply denialists ! And is about religion – the religion of denial.
Luke – you’ve been ranting on this site for years now and everything you’ve posted shows you are the ultimate acolyte for the religion of AGW!
Now go away – you’ve got nothing to new to say.
I really liked your post Wes.
I jsut saw Dr Will Grant discuss the issue of climate change on ANU Channel on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnQLy0LJgyc.
What a cop out!…”I am not a climate scientist myself so I defer to them…”. Climate “science” is not rocket science, it is remarkably banal, rests on a very slender experimental basis usually requiring 100% CO2 in the experiments instead of the actual 0.04%, and has absolutely zero statistical evidence for its core hypothesis that the radiative forcing of increases in said CO2 is more than 50% responsible for observed global temperature change. If Dr Grant lacks the interest or capacity to undertake that level of elementary due diligence he has no right to be employed by ANU. But he is not alone, as most if not all the other luminaries at tomorrow’s love-in are no better.
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/climate_science_corrupted.html
Well Luke Walker you fraud, thats just what the evidence and practice shows. viz the CRU data and emails, plus the above historical write up. It was all pre ordained by the original science carpet baggers, like Tolba, and that religious nutter and manipulator Houghton, et al.
What a farce.
Jen,
A great experience posting here and all the best for the future, whatever it might hold for you.
Well, the thread is winding down, Nick has made a quizzical appearance and luke has maintained his incoherence and rather unfair perspective to the end; I and I know many others have waded through many of his scientific links and often been pleasently surprised at how many have been contradictory towards the tenents of AGW. I’ve always kept an open mind about the ‘evidence’; but after CRU the verdict is in.
There is no proof of AGW; that human emissions of CO2 are putting novel strain on the climate system has no merit whatsoever; the only scrap of evidential substance to AGW has been Engelbeen’s assiduous presentations of ^CO2 = ACO2, and even that is irrelevant given CO2’s imperceptible effect on energy flux in the atmosphere.
The real issue, which has been masked by a misanthropic green ideology, is how humanity should interact with nature; the prevailing green ideology demands drastic reductions in human encroachment, for any reason, into pristine nature. Despite enjoying Spangle’s many anecdotes I am not a fan of nature for its own sake; that is a lesson well learnt from my formative years on a farm which had no power and little diversity; nature can be as barren as any cement As far as I am concerned what benefits humanity is the number one priority; no doubt part of that priority is having a healthy living space and standard of living; prosperity is the key and it benefits both humans and nature; and energy is the key for prosperity along with an equitable distribution of wealth and opportunity; both these essential elements are only present in the West; unfortunately so to is ennui and a decadent self-loathing; both these qualities infect the green movement which now has a formidable hold on the key infrastructure of the West; politics, education and unfortunately, science.
It’s a shame Jen has to move on; she has a valuable asset here; perhaps if someone were prepared to take legal and scientific responsibility for the site some arrangement could be made in which the brand name could be preserved without sacrificing the goodwill, as it were.
Luke said…
” So remember what you all said as it all changes around you. As the droughts in sub-tropics get worse/more frequent and the Arctic becomes open ocean. Remember what you all said and how you conducted yourselves.”
Ahahahahahahahaha .That last comment was a bit rich eh Luke. People here seem to show admirable withstraint when subjected to the torrent of abuse dished out by you.
So I want you to remember as the years go by and nothing out of the ordinary climatically happens, remember us older guys telling you that man has about as much effect on the earths climate as a moth thrashing around inside a glass jar.
On finding this thread I was tempted to comment on what I thought may be happening in the wilderness. Perhaps there was a different light after 40 days and a personal restructure is a good thing. We should carry on but elsewhere and in a different vien.
“The real issue, which has been masked by a misanthropic green ideology, is how humanity should interact with nature….”
Anti ennui hey cohenite; this is your big chance to run the next blogsphere vacancy
Jennifer,
Just a note to say I am saddened by your decision to no longer contribute to this site which you founded and did so much to establish and maintain.
Personally and I believe most who have used this blog to communicate their views will be the poorer for its demise.
I really appreciated the opportunity to use this as a base to seek some truth in the Murray Darling Basin debate.
I will be forever grateful for your help in assisting me with this.
While I had approached many MSM organisations and spoken with several well known journalists. The response was always ” we know what the problems are” and that is what we are going to report.
Truth was never important.
While we may not have always agreed totally on issues, I respect your sincerety and professionalism in matters that are dear to my heart.
You have shown courage to be at odds with big Government, when the supposed “concensus” has been established in the Media; of which you are of course a part.
To be at odds with Government policy is a dangerous place to reside.
I dedicate my poem ” The Getting of Wisdon” to your future endevours.
There is a copy on this site.
Good luck and may the truth be always with you.
Luke Mate,
I doubt very much I will be around to see your “Doomsday” predictions eventuate.
Not because I intend to drop off the perch any time soon.
Simply because you lack the appreciation that this world and the flora and forna that proliferate it, have remarkable adaptive powers, that can compensate for change.
While I recognise your interlect and skills, never lose sight of the fact that the real test of intellegence is:
The capacity to adapt to changing circumstances.
Remember Plan B, that you so ruthlessly attacked.
You see Luke this is NOT about winning. it is about the pursuit of truth.
It is only when man has truthful and verifiable data that he can make decissions in the interest of future generations.
You have every right to demand that claims are scientifically supportable.
However you have NO right to abuse those who would reasonably question hypothetical claims yet to be supported by verifiable data.
I will watch with interest how this thread develops and may pose some other thoughts if their is interest.
Pikey.
Jennifer, we haven’t met but I want to thank you dearly for this site. As a recent reader and then blogger here, I have found this to be a treasure trove, especially for a layman like myself and I will be eternally grateful that I visited if just for the briefest of time. I visit many of the other similar sites but none have the openness, tolerance, warmth or flexibility of yours. All the best and I look forward to reading your book.
If this site truly is winding down, I want to say to everyone whom I have encountered here that I have appreciated and mostly enjoyed reading your comments here, there has been so much wisdom and knowledge written that I often feel insignificant. It is doubtful that I would have had such an opportunity in my ordinary world.
Special mention must go to Spangled, Cohenite, Gordon, Ron and Gavin for your friendly correspondence and especially to Louis who has led me down a path of new discoveries that has just begun, thank you.
P.S. if this blog keeps dragging on , I’m going to feel like a complete twit.
I’ve been thinking along the lines of Cohenite and Pikey too.
Have you ever noticed that Bob Brown and the Greens, who represent about 3% of Australian votes get about 30% of the time on most political topics on ABC news? An outrageous show of bias on the part of the ABC? In part, yes, but rhetorically it also makes sense since the Greens represent what Arnold Toynbee called a “creative minority.” That is they are driving debate ways the majority can’t and therefore politically punching well above their actual weight.
The same is true of Jennifermarohasy.com. This site must get less than 1% of the ABC’s traffic, yet as a national asset, as a voice and focal point of a creative minority it punches an order or so of magnitude above its weight. Jennifermarohasy.com is the seed of an ecological counterculture driving debates in directions utterly unimaginable by the mainstream media and often years ahead of the curve.
If the ABC has their funding slashed there would be little loss of unique information to the Australian public, Foxtel or some one would simply fill the vacuum created with pablum of at least equal value. But if the guiding light of a creative minority stumbles there is no guarantee that a national destiny is not forever forsaken. A hope and direction lost never to be recovered.
Cohenite is right, jennifermarohasy.com is too big of a national asset for Jennifer to just waltz off stage right. If Jen must leave, then she has to walk the site to a new name and then sit back stage as a mentor for a while to keep the brand and the network going under new tutelage.
Derek Smith,
Why thank you very much for your kind words – I hope you and your students will man the next scientific paradigm shift – my generation will try to sink this false one to make room for the reappearance of proper science.
I originally came here because Tim Blair’s moderator wouldn’t let my posts through.
What was her name?
Anita? Victoria? Andrea?
Meh, can’t remember.
Was I too extreme? Too middle of the road? Too combative?
Probably too boring.
Since then Jennifer’s blog, with its wide range of topics, has helped me sink one eco-squishy radio talker named Bruce, and two environmentalist newspaper editors, Stuart and Tom.
Not a bad haul.
One notable exchange with the defunct radio guy
BRUCE
“Have you ever read JenniferMarohasy.com?”
JAMES
“Hey that’s good stuff, Bruce. Thanks.”
I’d been beating him over the head with your stuff for months.
Well I couldn’t just come out and tell him.
Dipsticks like me, we got to hold on to whatever slinder advantage we can find.
Now what am I gonna do?
See you all think Jennifer has moved on to more productive pursuits, and from her point of view, no doubt she has.
But you all are forgetting the most important question;
HOW IS THIS GOING TO EFFECT JIM?
I’m losing my edge.
Like today’s dilemma, we have a river chock full of sea lions, so that the native fish are being eaten to the edge of extinction.
If your lucky enough to hook a trout, it’s an iffy thing that you get it on the boat before one of the seals take it. Over a hundred miles inland from the ocean and you have to fight off sea lions.
The authorities answer was to cut off water deliveries to the farmers. See they’re convinced that the fish are scarce because of farm irrigation.
After putting thousands of farmers out of work, and thousands of acres to lay fallow, the DF&G boys tested and found that the extra water the farmers didn’t get had no effect on fish populations.
How do you begin to answer such stupidity?
Jennifer would know.
But I’ve lost my edge.
Dear Ms. Marohasy –
Much to be done. Darkest before the dawn, etc.
Best wishes.
TA
Thanks Jennifer for the many insightful things you have said over the time I have been looking at this blog. This is a time when things are really changing. I have said many times here that the questions are simple and the amazing thing is that such crap is believed. I have never thought it was about science but about politics and manipulation. This has proved so true with the latest revelations. Note whoever did this hinted there may be more.
I doubt this was a hacker I think an inside job. Their tracks looked to have been covered well. I expect someone had read the emails and decided to expose a group of people thought they could control the world. They thought they were a secret society yet what they did was in fact public and visible to many managing the IT infrastructure. They would have deleted these emails most likely but in systems I have worked for they are kept anyway for many years. Seven by law and probably hanging around on backup tapes for much longer than that. So Luke stuff you have written in emails is still out there waiting to be discovered and publicized on the net I hope that makes you feel comfortable. If it was me that outed you would never discover who did it.
“It’s no use pretending that this isn’t a major blow. The emails extracted by a hacker from the climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia could scarcely be more damaging. I am now convinced that they are genuine, and I’m dismayed and deeply shaken by them.” …..
“There appears to be evidence here of attempts to prevent scientific data from being released(2,3), and even to destroy material that was subject to a freedom of information request(4).” George Monbiot
Suddenly there is doubt from the extreme of the extreme. Flannery is suddenly saying oh of course there is uncertainly.
And still Luke sticks to his guns like the pathetic excuse for a human that he is. He peddles this crap because he is paid to or he has the intelligence of a boulder.
There has much scientific discussion here but it does not matter a jot if the other side is only about winning the argument for some other audience. It is warmer now than a hundred years ago yup about and anomaly of 0.2 degrees. So much argument about so little. Jones, Briffa, Trenbarth, Schmidt etc know that winning means political manipulation not science.
Looks like the Libs will fall apart and there will be a double dissolution instead of an ETS here in OZ. By that time Copenhagen will have failed and we will be close to a further financial meltdown. The GFC is not over it very well might get much worse. Both the AGW and the GFC relate very closely to a religious faith in computer models.
The opposite of skeptical? Gullible! beautiful wish I had thought of it.
PS It is not my website but beware it can kill you! Lets make it the next great scare AGW is now the walking dead. How long before it falls over.
PPS Bye
“You see Luke this is NOT about winning. it is about the pursuit of truth.”
Yes Ron – could not agree more and that is the last thing so called sceptics aka denialists are really interested in is the truth. The abuse and dishonest manner in which they have conducted themselves is apparent.
A fair assessment of the risks has been sabotaged at every turn.
DHMO – you are a threatening little grub – and typical of a denialist scumbag to resort to threats. Utterly vile and typical. Does it strike you that if I were paid to represent a position I might do a more calculated less emotional job of it? Do you hear me advocating the daily government line – no. What you are about mate is suppressing free speech.
If you think a few colourful emails is going to have much effect on a major global science effort you’re kidding yourself.
Luke, the reason so many on this blog are now telling you to go away is not to suppress free speech. Nobody tells Gavin, Bernard SJT and others, even Sod to go away, just you. In the past you have contributed to debate and discussion with passion but mate, lately you have become just an irritating noise like fingernails on a blackboard with your shrill, maniacal attacks and accusations.
You were actually quite reasonable for a while there but it appears that you couldn’t maintain such strict self discipline and fell back into your perhaps true self.
If the warming never returns, I hope that you can simply acknowledge that you were wrong and move on.
Hollow words Derek. Utterly hollow. Take off the sunnies matey and read what your colleagues have written over the years.
But the social context of all this is really quite fascinating.
“The theft and use of the emails does reveal something interesting about the social context. It’s a symptom of something entirely new in the history of science:
Aside from crackpots who complain that a conspiracy is suppressing their personal discoveries, we’ve never before seen a set of people accuse an entire community of scientists of deliberate deception and other professional malfeasance.
Even the tobacco companies never tried to slander legitimate cancer researchers.
In blogs, talk radio and other new media, we are told that the warnings about future global warming issued by the national science academies, scientific societies, and governments of all the leading nations are not only mistaken, but based on a hoax, indeed a conspiracy that must involve thousands of respected researchers.
Extraordinary and, frankly, weird.
Climate scientists are naturally upset, exasperated, and sometimes goaded into intemperate responses… but that was already easy to see in their blogs and other writings.
They don’t call it a war on science for nothing, folks. ”
Spencer Weart … on the CRU hack
My suspicion Luke, is that in the not too distant future most of those thousands of respected scientists are going to be somewhat miffed about being manipulated by the “chosen few” who held so much sway over the climate change community. I’ve read numerous accounts of researchers adding a pro AGW sentence to the end of their papers just to make sure it gets published. It’s like the political correctness movement which had so many people intimidated that they were all afraid to say anything in case they offended someone. Sooner or later people start to stand up for themselves.
Don’t forget, thousands of respected scientists, actors, politicians and academics supported the eugenics program.
It looks like Australians with integrity are starting to stand up and be heard about the crooked climate scientists:
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/even_monbiot_says_the_science_now_needs_reanalyising/
Jennifer,
Despair is never called for. Remember that even in the worst of dictatorships, truth finds a way out.
AGW promoters are boorish, misleading and rude, but they are penny weights in the history of suppression. One FOIA file being covered up was released. How much other garbage will we find out about these charlatans?
Luke,
These leaked e-mails are the banal writings of people who have convinced themselves they can do anything they want with the data, the code, the peer review process you worship, the press, the politicians and the tax payer’s money, with no regard to truth or integrity or the scientific process.
I know you wish it were about tobacco, or big oil, or evil denialist scum. It is not. It is about a bunch of extremely well tax payer funded scientists who have been misleading a lot of people over many years.
Including, most especially, you.
Jennifer,
Do I win a prize as the 1000th poster on this thread?
;^)
Hunter, I’ll send you a slightly used (up to Nov) Ronald Reagan calender.
Hows that? Better then getting poked with a stick, right?
James Mayeau,
How about a donation to Jennifer, to help her see her way through this extended walk about?
;^)
Thanks Jennifer. Good luck with the writing…. Well you lot, enjoyed reading you.
IMO It’s really been about writers and books from the beginning. Let’s be honest now
Interesting snips from the drifting battle for resources
“Statkraft drives coffee machine on power of salt”
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,,26386893-5009760,00.html
“Coalminers say they’ve been shafted by Rudd’s carbon scheme”
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/coalminers-say-theyve-been-shafted-by-rudds-carbon-scheme/story-e6frg8zx-1225803452041
“While mining giants BHP Billiton and Rio Tinto, which produce a big proportion of the nation’s coal, decided not to step into the debate yesterday, the lobby groups they help fund were quick to go on the offensive”.
“Clean coal unviable, says Macfarlane”
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/11/10/2738075.htm
“Mr Macfarlane is no longer sceptical about humans causing global warming but he is now sceptical about carbon capture and storage, something he championed as resources minister in the Howard government”
“In the short-to-medium term, obviously we will use gas,” Mr Macfarlane said.
“We could burn gas at the same emissions as clean coal but half the price, because gas is so clean. But in the longer term Australia will, like all our other economic partners, need to consider nuclear.”
In the light of the ETS compromise we could see a growing difference between libs and labs on policy re nuclear v carbon capture. Who can best represent nuclear at the big end of town round next election time?
The Nationals?
It’s worth tabulating this – Hunter and Derek actually believe (and one really has to pinch yourself to make sure one is hearing this right) – that there is a cohesive, organised, subversive, global movement run by one particular branch of science that is international, multi-institutional and global.
How absolutely weird and creepy. You actually believe that – but maybe there’s just a few – a secret splinter cell – but that’s a few 100 authors that seem to keep publishing. Oh yea – and all the world’s journals and all the science peak bodies are also secretly in on the act. And and and – they’re doing it for “the money”. Woo hoo….
So pinch yourself guys – and say is this what I really truly truly believe !
Now guys – when history reads these pages – they will ask – what drugs were these denialists on?
Newtongate:
If you own any shares in companies that produce reflecting telescopes, use differential and integral calculus, or rely on the laws of motion, I should start dumping them NOW. The conspiracy behind the calculus myth has been suddenly, brutally and quite deliciously exposed after volumes of Newton’s private correspondence were compiled and published.
And and and – after this Janama ran through the streets ranting that “Newton” is dead. Yup he sure is.
And hey what does Trenberth really think –
“It is incontrovertible” that the world is warming as a result of human actions, Trenberth said. “The question to me is what to do.”
“It’s certainly a legitimate question,” he added. “Unfortunately one of the side effects of this is the messengers get attacked.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/21/AR2009112102186.html
WHAT ARE YOU the March of Dimes? If I had it I would have given it. In case you missed it Californians are getting rolled by the climate changers. You all passed an ETS today by hook and crook. Should have gotten rid of Turnbull when he first uttered the word carbon.
I mean when the first sylible crossed his lip.
It should have gone “My name is Turnbull and car—–”
And the rest of you should have yelled him out of the country.
I can’t help myself much less anybody else. You’ve only just started on this path. We have been livin the nightmare since 2006. 25% unemployment. Ello.
The paper says only 12 %, but they aren’t counting everybody, and in their own profession the figure is 50%!
Five to six years before the recession is over – the radio lady just said. Oh Joy.
On Radio National today Professor Matthew England from the University of New South Wales says in support of a new report on Arctic ice loss; SL > 2M i.e. IPCC was slightly conservative-
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/breakfast/
wait for the update – sorry
http://www.abc.net.au/news/video/2009/11/24/2752509.htm
Luke, now what are you gong on about? Misdirection?
Unless you can contradict Wes George’s conclusions, you’ve got nuttin!
Also on ‘our’ abc Will Steffen, rabbiting on about the revised IPCC findings – Arctic ice free by 2030 [I’ll have some money on that in the summer of 2030] and sea rises of 2 meters due to the GRACE [!!] findings of more ice melt in Antarctica; and then Steffen saying, if the sceptics want to criticise these findings they should publish in a peer-reviewed magazine, the same ones that Mann and Jones control or intimidate. The only thing accelerating is irony.
This isn’t a conspiracy in the sense of old ratbags out the back huddled together conspiracy; it is an unfortunate convergence of otherwise divergent views [money, greens, Malthusians, inner-city elites etc] which don’t mind travelling together for the time being; sort of like the disparate islamist groups who if there isn’t anyone else will revert to blowing each other up; so to with the Alarmists.
Jen: how much to stay? What else, someone assuming legal responsibility for content perhaps? Thread topics subject to your approval but otherwise you’re at arms length?
“he same ones that Mann and Jones control or intimidate.” why be a lawyer Cohers when you could by verballing in the police force. That’s why you can’t be trusted.
And so now you’ve actually disagreed with all your fellow travellers here – “it’s not a conspiracy – it’s a convergence” !! hmmmmm – you know who your old ratbags in a huddle are don’t you. Check your meetings !
And sceptics do indeed publish in “magazines” – it’s called E&E. Find under “fiction”.
Meanwhile while denialists deny and waste time – the case is firmly put
http://www.ccrc.unsw.edu.au/Copenhagen/Copenhagen_Diagnosis_HIGH.pdf
congratulations Hunter on being 1,000th
tripe, junk and rubbish to the end, eh luke; this farrago of a lie, Copenhagen Diagnosis, which surely deserves to be litigated states that the current sea level rise from only land ice melt is more than than the sea level rise as found in Ablain and Cazenave corrections to Jason.
Luke,
Not saying that, Luke. As usual, you choose a simple and incorrect answer.
But what if I was? You certainly say skeptics are in a conspiracy, and you are the first to point out that we are not nearly as clever as you. So if your guyss wanted to make a cohesive conspiracy to do something, certainly people as smart as you obviously could pull it off, no?
But I am not making any such accusation, as you know.
I am suggesting, and the e-mail evidence shows, that a group of people in climate science have gotten so absorbed in being right and well paid that they have done what people throughout history have done who are convinced they are right and everyone else is wrong: behave as the record show they have done; lie, disparage, cheat and mislead.
You know this of course, and that is why you are so urgently trying to distract from the issue and to your ever more hysterical behavior.
The issue is not E&E. The issue is not denialists. The issue is liars like you who have never ethically engaged on the issue ahving kidded yourself into thinking that those who question you are so unworthy that normal rules do not apply.
You have had a good run, but all good runs come to an end.
Sorry mate. it is not working.
We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to suspend the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia from preparation of any Government Climate Statistics until the various allegations have been fully investigated by an independent body.
Deadline to sign up by: 24 February 2010
The details of the petition:
The Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia is a “leading centre” for the investigation of “manmade global warming” and government policy relies on the integrity of these statistics. Several claims have been made: that data was “cherry picked” to make the 20th century temperature rise look exceptional in historical terms; emails suggest the unit has colluded in “tricks” to “hide the decline” in a high profile scientific journal, and this unit has colluded in active, secret and highly political campaigning through the website “realclimate”.
The preparation of climate statistics require many judgements: stations move & sites become surrounded by urban sprawl (urban heating) & a judgement must be made of the size of the offset to apply to the global temperature record. The University accepts most emails are genuine so it appears the Unit has been acting in a highly partisan way incompatible with that of a neutral body preparing and interpreting government data. We call on the PM to suspend all further use of the climate research unit until all pertinent allegations have been investigated and any action (if any) has been taken.
If you are a UK citizen, expat, or resident, here is where you can add your name to the petition.
http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/UEACRU/
Jennifer,
Thank you.
It is a high honor and fine privelege.
Watching Luke melting down only makes this even more special.
Jen, please reconsider, and put up the occasional new thread, not least because you earned all those honourable mentions in the CRU cache. Without your blog that cache might well never have been released, so never say “The struggle naught availeth”.
For example, here we have Pierrehumbert in the NYT: “…this illegal act of cyber-terrorism against a climate scientist [sic, i.e. Jones] (and I don’t think that’s too strong a word) is ominous and frightening. What next? Deliberate monkeying with data on servers? Insertion of bugs into climate models?…”
Yet “deliberate monkeying with data” while hiding behind IPR is exactly what Jones and the rest of his team both at CRU and GISS have been doing for the last 20 years, and Jen’s Blog is one of the very few (the only one down under that I’m aware of) that has allowed any challenging of that monkeying. Just check out Lambert’s Deltoid and Quiggin’s blogs for closing of the ranks to protect the CRU’s monkeying right now – and go to the ANU’s CCI’s love-in today for more of the same.
“Today, the Competitive Enterprise Institute filed three Notices of Intent to File Suit against NASA and its Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), for those bodies’ refusal — for nearly three years — to provide documents requested under the Freedom of Information Act.
The information sought is directly relevant to the exploding “Climategate” scandal revealing document destruction, coordinated efforts in the U.S. and UK to avoid complying with both countries’ freedom of information laws, and apparent and widespread intent to defraud at the highest levels of international climate science bodies. Numerous informed commenters had alleged such behavior for years, all of which appears to be affirmed by leaked emails, computer code, and other data from the Climatic Research Unit of the UK’s East Anglia University.
All of that material, and that sought for years by CEI, goes to the heart of the scientific claims and campaign underpinning the Kyoto Protocol, its planned successor treaty, “cap-and-trade” legislation, and the EPA’s threatened regulatory campaign to impose similar measures through the back door.”
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/competitive-enterprise-institute-sues-nasa-in-wake-of-climategate-scandal/
Free the Data! Free the Code!
Andrew Bolt in his article today writes
“WHAT DOES THIS ALL MEAN?
It doesn’t mean all global warming science is bogus. But it does mean the “consensus” of scientists you keep hearing of may not exist.
It means the IPCC reports cannot be trusted to be balanced. It means “peer review” is too often “mates’ review”.
It means sceptical scientists have not had the hearing they deserve, and leading warmist scientists have not been honest or frank.
It means that claims we’ve never been hotter are false or unproven.
And at heart it means global warming theory is too weak to accept, being contradicted by a decade of climate.
Even Tim Flannery, the alarmist who claimed global warming could cause Sydney, Brisbane and Adelaide to run out of water by last summer, now admits – after reading some of these emails – that “the computer modelling and the real world data disagree”, since “for the last 10 years we’ve gone through a slight cooling trend”.
He confessed at last: ” We don’t understand all of the factors that create earth’s climate.”
When even Flannery says that, tell me why Kevin Rudd says the science is still good enough to hit us with a colossal tax on gases to “stop” a warming that’s actually stopped?
Heed this fraud. End this farce.”
I am sure most of use here would agree with his sentiments.
What is abundantly clear to anyone who can think is that there is doubt, there is no consensus and a government that introduces an ETS without acknowledging this doubt must be held for account….both at the ballot box and in the courts ( wishful thinking I expect, but big business should challenge the case for an ETS in court….no way AGW would hold up).
“I am not a Crook.”
-Richard M. Nixon
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sh163n1lJ4M
“…For instance, in May of 2008, the school received a legal information request for correspondence of an East Anglia researcher, Keith Briffa, involved in the preparation of the most recent scientific report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, known as AR4. Two days later, according to the alleged correspondence, Phil Jones, Director of the Climatic Research Unit, sent out an email to colleagues asking them to delete any such emails.
From: Phil Jones
To: “Michael E. Mann”
Subject: IPCC & FOI:04:11 2008
Date: Thu May 29 11
Mike,
Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?
Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.
Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t
have his new email address.
We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.
I see that CA claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature paper!!
Cheers
Phil
According to Hazel Moffatt, a partner in the litigation and regulatory department at the law firm DLA Piper in London, deleting emails subject to a FOI request is a criminal offense in the United Kingdom, punishable with a fine. “It’s quite naughty to do that,” said Ms. Moffatt….”
http://blogs.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2009/11/in-climate-hack.html
“…over at RealClimate.org, Gavin Schmidt, a modeler for the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, has been downplaying the leak. Schmidt wrote: “There is no evidence of any worldwide conspiracy, no mention of George Soros nefariously funding climate research … no admission that global warming is a hoax, no evidence of the falsifying of data, and no ‘marching orders’ from our socialist/communist/vegetarian overlords.”
ROTFL…Yeah, Gavin, that’s what it’s all about, a handful of conspiracy nutjobs. Riiiiiiight…
Just keep on digging, Gavin. Luke why don’t you grab a shovel and give the mate a hand!
On ABC Brisbane they’ve just announced a poll showing 52% believe the government should wait until Copenhagen is over before legislating an ETS – only 34% were against.
meanwhile over at the ABC Karoly is taking a wolloping!! 🙂
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2751952.htm
janama,
In my fondest hopes I did not beleive that AGw would collapse in a great showdown like this.
I thought it would jsut sort of slink away,with the profiteers counting their loot, and the world economy limping on.
Instead we are getting this great show of self destruction, as the promoters only dig themselves deeper and deeper, relying as we see in our own little wannabe, Luke, on misdirection, hystrionics and temper tantrums to keep people from actually conisdering the e-mails.
I think the politics of AGW are dying by the second. I can only hope the careers of each and every one of the scammers who have been selling it for decades get wrecked as well. they have been parasites of the worst sort. I wonder if Copenhagen will be little more than a shopping trip for the spouses of hig level political hacks and climate parasites.
Truth is, I think even the hardcore know that the idea of a climate catastrophe was bogus from the start. People have glommed on to apocalyptic clap trap from the most ancient of times.
Copenhagen Diagnosis.What a line up of the usual soivs that is .
Anything with Michael Manns name on it has to be suss for starters.
Even if all the prophets of doom are absolutely correct in all respects we are still left with the obvious comment. If Australia is less than 1.4% of the problem, then there is nothing we can do to save anything.We will have zero effect on the temperature.
To bankrupt the economy for a null outcome ie no return, are the actions of complete fools and incompetents, as well as an egotistical fool of a PM,whose real agenda is a need to strut stages of the word like Charlie Chaplins spoof on Hitler.
We are run by idiots
Malcolm Turnbull (Leader of the Opposition in Australia) thinks he’s on an episode of the Apprentice. He came from a business background and treats his party as its employees to push around. He bullied them last night into agreeing into a watered-down ETS.
However, if Turnbull opposed our Prime Minister properly, like his party wanted, then he could have been our next PM. The House of Cards that is AGW is soon to fall and he could have been the champion in the aftermath.
Kevin Rudd or nothing – doh.
blah blah blah
wow 252 signatures ! woo hoo
Poor Luke reduced to blathering. Must be back on the meds again.
I’d like to dedicate this next tune to all the ‘Chefs’ at CRU!
Here’s an interesting article regarding the code used by the chefs at CRU.
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/11…y5761180.shtml
luke you are an imbecile!!
What a bunch of old codgers – 252 signatures – and what the Aussie anti-ETS petition 2,500 signatures. Holey doley. That’s raw political power at full revs.
Gee guys you might be on a mass movement here . HOHOHOHOHOHO !!
Looks like the Yanks are getting a bit pissed off over CRU climategate. And who knew that RealClimate.org was in the bag all the time??? The CRU crew are gatekeeping realclimate comments??? Christ, this is hilarious.
Luke’s right: “It’s weird and creepy!”
—-
“…So it’s no surprise when another e-mail refers to an attempt to keep inconvenient scientific findings out of a UN report: “I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. K and I will keep them out somehow-even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!” Think of all of this the next time you hear someone invoke the authority of peer review-or of the UN’s IPCC reports-as backing for claims about global warming.
This scandal goes beyond scientific journals and into other media used to promote the global warming dogma. For example, RealClimate.org has been billed as an objective website at which global warming activists and skeptics can engage in an impartial debate. But in the CRU e-mails, the global warming establishment boasts that RealClimate is in their pocket.
I wanted you guys to know that you’re free to use RC in any way you think would be helpful. Gavin and I are going to be careful about what comments we screen through…. We can hold comments up in the queue and contact you about whether or not you think they should be screened through or not, and if so, any comments you’d like us to include.
[T]hink of RC as a resource that is at your disposal…. We’ll use our best discretion to make sure the skeptics don’t get to use the RC comments as a megaphone.
And anyone doubting that the mainstream media is in on it, too, should check out New York Times reporter Andrew Revkin’s toadying apologia for the CRU e-mails, masquerading as a news report.
The picture that emerges is simple. In any discussion of global warming, either in the scientific literature or in the mainstream media, the outcome is always predetermined. Just as the temperature graphs produced by the CRU are always tricked out to show an upward-sloping “hockey stick,” every discussion of global warming has to show that it is occurring and that humans are responsible. And any data or any scientific paper that tends to disprove that conclusion is smeared as “unscientific” precisely because it threatens the established dogma.
For more than a decade, we’ve been told that there is a scientific “consensus” that humans are causing global warming, that “the debate is over” and all “legitimate” scientists acknowledge the truth of global warming. Now we know what this “consensus” really means. What it means is: the fix is in.
This is an enormous case of organized scientific fraud, but it is not just scientific fraud. It is also a criminal act. Suborned by billions of taxpayer dollars devoted to climate research, dozens of prominent scientists have established a criminal racket in which they seek government money-Phil Jones has raked in a total of £13.7 million in grants from the British government-which they then use to falsify data and defraud the taxpayers. It’s the most insidious kind of fraud: a fraud in which the culprits are lauded as public heroes. Judging from this cache of e-mails, they even manage to tell themselves that their manipulation of the data is intended to protect a bigger truth and prevent it from being “confused” by inconvenient facts and uncontrolled criticism.
The damage here goes far beyond the loss of a few billions of taxpayer dollars on bogus scientific research. The real cost of this fraud is the trillions of dollars of wealth that will be destroyed if a fraudulent theory is used to justify legislation that starves the global economy of its cheapest and most abundant sources of energy.
This is the scandal of the century. It needs to be thoroughly investigated-and the culprits need to be brought to justice.”
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/11/24/the_fix_is_in_99280.html
Read the whole thing. Realclearpolitics is a political venue which rarely covers climate issue Unlike in Australia, almost every American has heard of climategate by now. So you can forget a US cap-n-trade anytime before Obama’s third term in office….heh.
Yeah, well turnbull is back in so the ETS will pass and that will constitute ratification BEFORE Copenhagen of ANY agreement reached at Copenhagen [there are constitutional reasons for this but I can’t be bothered explaining them]; the economic and social paradigm shift will begin in Australia and it will be painful, all for tainted science, misanthropic ideology and political opportunism. I hope you are content luke.
Spot on Cohenite… and lets not forget that for a country that represent a mere 1.4 % of the porblem, we will have no effect upon the most dire of apocalytic outcomes that the crazy scientists say might happen.
There may not be a conspiracy between them, but they are both certainly manipulative and incompetent as their own code shows in the CRU files
…and all this so this pretentious little creep can strut his stuff like some modern day Hitler, in Copenhagen.
The country will slowly go down the gurgler.
“criminal racket”, “organized scientific fraud”, “which they then use to falsify data and defraud the taxpayers” Wes – have some spine – go say that in England.
See if you get sued into oblivion !
You see Wes you’re confusing rhetoric with science. Just having a big rant isn’t science. Perhaps you could be signature #253 ?
Ahh, Luke, chill mate. Sit back and enjoy the show. It will be all over in, like, a few grant cycles….heh.
—-
Iowahawk Geographic: The Secret Life of Climate Researchers
Narrator:
Our very planet depends on them. Yet they remain nature’s most elusive scientific species, inhabiting some of the world’s most delicate and daunting academic environments. But thanks to new breakthroughs in high speed cameras and email files, metascientists are finally beginning to understand their mysterious behaviors and complex social interactions. Tonight on Iowahawk Geographic: step inside the Secret Life of the Climate Researchers.
French Horn Fanfare Theme
Fast-cut montage of walrus mating with polar bear, astronomer peering through telescope into neighbor’s window, cheetahs chasing penguins on the Serengeti, scientists filling out NSF grant proposals
Dah dat dat DAAAH dat, dah daht duh dah dee-dah dee dah-dah!
http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2009/11/iowahawk-geographic-the-secret-life-of-climate-researchers.html
Tim Curtin November 25th, 2009 at 9:09 am wrote:
Jen, please reconsider, and put up the occasional new thread, not least because you earned all those honourable mentions in the CRU cache. Without your blog that cache might well never have been released, so never say “The struggle naught availeth”.
I second the motion. One option is to let someone of proven ability take the helm for awhile. I nominate Neil. He has a very sharp mind, and has contributed a lot to your blog.
Another good choice would be cohenite, who is probably more current than any of us on AGW issues.
Thanks again, Jennifer. In case you haven’t noticed, you have a big fan club.
Lukefartard spewed,
“…that there is a cohesive, organised, subversive, global movement run by one particular branch of science that is international, multi-institutional and global.”
Nothing new here. Lukefartard makes up everything he says and he makes up what others say that he then makes up more trash to respond to. Yup, watching Lukefartard melt down rivals Chernobyl!!!! No huge explosion, just poor design, poor controls, poor construction, and STUPID actions by the operator(s).
“….There is a multitude of small but frightening stories in the massive files,” Ball writes. “For example I’ve known solar physicists Sallie Baliunas and Willie Soon for a long time. I’ve published articles with Willie and enjoyed extensive communication. I was on advisory committees with them when Sallie suddenly and politely withdrew from the fray. I don’t know if the following events were contributing factors but it is likely.
“Baliunas and Soon were authors of excellent work confirming the existence of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) from a multitude of sources. Their work challenged attempts to get rid of the MWP because it contradicted the claim by the proponents of anthropogenic global warming (AGW). Several scientists challenged the claim that the latter part of the 20th century was the warmest ever. They knew the claim was false, many warmer periods occurred in the past. Michael Mann ‘got rid’ of the MWP with his production of the hockey stick, but Soon and Baliunas were problematic. What better than have a powerful academic destroy their credibility for you? Sadly, there are always people who will do the dirty work.”
Indeed, Holdren’s emails show how sincere scientists would be made into raw “entertainment”….
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/17183
Wes – I saw a doco on Sallie Baliunas and Willie Soon and their work on the MWP – they had hundreds of scientists writing to them with their individual research papers proving the existence of the MWP.
It was one of the main reasons I’ve never trusted Mann.
Wes, I hope you don t mind I just posted your link and quote on the australian letters blog.
I, like, totally agree, Janama!
Why? Because paleoclimatology, that is the reconstruction of past temperature records through various proxies, including historical accounts, is the only real test of the AGW beyond the historical record… short of waiting for another 20 or 40 years to see how the models pan out.
A hypothesis has to make predictions that can be tested to be considered a useful statement of science!
The AGW hypothesis predicts higher temperatures in 2050, but that’s a prophecy that cannot be tested and therefore isn’t hard science no matter how hi-tech the computer models are.
Yet AGW hypothesis does make rock solid predictions or implications for the PAST climate record that CAN be tested. Real Science! Hallelujah!
This is why the crucial paleoclimatological work of Mann, Briffa, Jones at CRU are the ultimate lynchpin of the whole AGW hypothesis. The whole edifice of Climate Change Alarmism dances upon the pinhead of the paleoclimatological temperature reconstructions of the CRU team.
It’s not rocket science: The Anthropogenic Global Warming Hypothesis (AGW) posits the more CO2 in the atmosphere the warmer the climate becomes.
Therefore since atmospheric CO2 concentrations are at record highs not seen in thousands and thousands of years, the climate MUST be warmer than in the last couple of thousand years. Right? That’s called an “implication of a hypothesis.” And in real, old fashion empirical science based on observation and experiment, it is important that a hypothesis make predictions or have implications that can be tested or compared directly to observation.
If today’s temperatures aren’t the warmest in a thousand years, then the AGW hypothesis is simply falsified. Back to the proverbial drawing board. That’s how science works and progresses.
The CRU climategate scandal reveals that Phil Jones, Michael Mann, Keith Briffa, et al understood that for the AGW hypothesis to have any value at all its implications must conform to the proxy temp record of the past.
Unfortunately, paleoclimatology is a very young and inexact science and the data gathered appears to at every step in the process to have been compared with the AGW hypothesis. Tree rings, ice and lake cores and historical accounts which didn’t fit the hypothesis were ditched and every “trick” to bend, hide, flatten, stretch and tilt the T-record was made until, TA-DA we were presented with Mann’s notorious Hockey Stick graft. Then every effort was made to conceal or muck up the code, delete evidence, deny “unfriendly” researchers access and even subvert the peer review process.
Instead of modifying the AGW hypothesis to fit the data, they modified the data to fit the hypothesis. While this sort of fraud isn’t entirely new in the history of science, I believe it is symptomatic of how deeply post-modern relativism has corroded even the hard sciences to the point where CRU could feel moral OK with treating past T-records as a “narrative” to be massaged to conform with what they regarded as sociopolitical justice rather than as sacrosanct empirical data in the service of purely unbiased high science.
CRU eliminated the MWP, (naughty Willie and Sallie, tsch, tsch) flattened the LIA to create an fake “climate stasis” of the last 1,200 years out of which modern warming could soar off like, well, a hockey stick.
In fact, there is plenty of evidence that it was warmer in the middle ages than today, then it dramatically cooled and most of modern warming was simply a recovery out of the Little Ice Age. Modern warming clearly begins before the Industrial revolution had gained serious steam.
If the supporters of the AGW hypothesis wish to remain credible then CRU must immediately release all the data, meta-data and all the code they have in their possession and allow third, and fourth parties (more the merrier) to reconstruct and repeat their processes in total transparency online for the whole bloody planet to watch.
CRU must now relinquish control of the paleoclimate “discourse.” They’re busted.
BTW, If the AGW hypothesis can withstand proper scientific reproducibility and scrutiny, I’d be pleased to fly to the far westie burbs and buy Luke heaps of beer (assuming he’s of age and his local pub serves only in plastic cups) and admit that I was soooooo wrong.
Sure, Toby, get the meme out.
😉
w
Wes – if Mann was a genuine person pursuing his craft it would be observed in the hacked emails. Unfortunately we don’t see that do we…..he’s vicious.
Larry; your no 3 would first have to come out, then deal with our local situation from the helm with out coping his own law suit in the process. On the other hand Jennifer could wise him up a bit since imo he above all on the far side seems to have the time to get right down into it. BTW our climate minister claimed yesterday that on the whole she refers to local science. So; what’s wrong with this from the top?
http://reg.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/global/timeseries.cgi
“Australia’s climate is changing”
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/
“The chance that the average December-February maximum temperature will exceed the long-term median maximum temperature, is between 60 and 70% in the west of WA and in a broad band extending from the north of the NT across most of Queensland to the northern border districts of NSW”
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/ahead/temps_ahead.shtml
“Climate changing faster than expected: scientists-
Now, 26 international scientists have collated the most recent data and observations, and they have found that climate change is accelerating beyond expectations”.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/11/25/2752579.htm?site=news
“Will Steffen from the Australian National University has welcomed the update and he has called on scientific critics to put forward their work”.
Gavin – do we really have to put up with all these scare campaigns?…… really?
I’m so sick of it!
Steffen is a disgrace; the update that he refers to says that sea levels are increasing due to the alleged increase in Antarctic melt at a greater rate than they are actually rising; the actual rate of sea level increase over the last 5 years havs been established by peer reviewed analysis of Jason data in 2 studies by Ablain and Cazenave. As well every other study over the last few years has shown that the Antarctic ice mass is increasing despite regional heating in the WAP. This is just rubbish.
Gavin
You are a charlatan
Fuck off
Gavin, this from the above article;
“There will be those who say, ‘Well this is just more doom and gloom’ and so on, but you have to ask, do those people come from the main credible scientific community?” he said.
“There are a lot of people who are scientists but are they part of the credible, reputable climate change science community?”
Yeah, like Mann Jones and Briffa?
“And second of all, if they dispute this, have they taken their evidence and published it in the peer-reviewed literature, in the prominent journals? And the answer is no, you can’t find it there.”
Hmmm, where have we heard that before?
Sorry Gavin but you’ll have to find some more believable articles to convince this jaded crew that the jig isn’t up.
Luke, I just realized that the reason you keep defending these crooks is that you know what they did and you agree with it. You don’t care about the lies, fabrication and manipulation because you approve of them. For you and your righteous quest, the end justifies any means. You would have fitted right in with the Spanish inquisition, cheering on as the “heretics” were burnt at the stake.
You are a zealot Luke and it’s time you admitted it.
Derek – you are a brainless twit aren’t you “You don’t care about the lies, fabrication and manipulation because you approve of them.” – yes I do that’s why anti-science dark age sceptics need to be defeated – where shall we start Derek – faux sceptics = denialist scum = lies, fabrication and manipulation. Wake up !
Just keep walking around with your head up your bum with the lynch mob in that great denialist conga line. And keep the brain switch in the “off” position – don’t want any critical thought processes intruding do we?
And goodie Wes is back with his interminably long essays. So boring.
Wes – you really a twit.
“This is why the crucial paleoclimatological work of Mann, Briffa, Jones at CRU are the ultimate lynchpin of the whole AGW hypothesis. The whole edifice of Climate Change Alarmism dances upon the pinhead of the paleoclimatological temperature reconstructions of the CRU team.”
No it’s doesn’t you stupid dope. Try the PETM. “Ultimate lynchpin” – what a moron you are. The only pinhead is you matey.
“It’s not rocket science:” well yes it is boofhead – the feedbacks and interactions are most complex.
Wes you just a soapbox for right wing drivel. In this whole area of science you’re pig ignorant. Try not pretend otherwise eh? It’s nauseating.
Louis,
Good to finally have you back, how was the trip? Anything interesting to share?
I’ve started reading the “electric sky” but haven’t had time to get passed the first few chapters (spent too much time on this blog) but I’ve mentioned a few things to my physics students about electric currents in space and have used a more questioning approach with my year 10’s when talking about origins of the universe.
I tried using the story you told about aborigines in the Kimberly’s but I’m afraid most of them didn’t get it.
Cheers.
Luke,
You know you are losing, and you know you are a loser.
You don’t really understand what you are saying. If you did, you would not act as you do. You just bray like a little jack ass, kicking out at anyone who gets in your way.
Derek; besides being a retired professional from the world of measurements that actually count for something, I’m also offering some of my experience in political campaigning around environment issues and their like. It’s not something I do for change sake either.
Janama; in the practical sense I go looking for extremes in order to get a handle on them early. It’s simply good engineering to know what you are up against before sorting both sides weaknesses and strengths
Wes “Instead of modifying the AGW hypothesis to fit the data, they modified the data to fit the hypothesis” Did you notice Bom offers raw data and modified data from it’s sources? It’s just a couple of hundred years here that needs an explanation though.
Fielding becomes flippant with the last dozen Heartland style imo at the core of the false grass roots anti AGW campaign. The last minuit email dump was indeed intended to look like a slime trail to Copenhagen from the AGW side but it bogged in blogs like this where most writer types wouldn’t know a good data clean up if they saw one! Tree rings, LIA, MWP all speculation from here. What about our own paleo stuff?
This is about brinkmanship. At this stage of the game I sense a few other hardened campaigners going white round the gills with fear as the good climate science rolls on and the more astute public gets right behind it. The federal Liberals meantime are falling over each other in their scrambled retreat from the issue. BTW NZ passed their ETS but nobody else here noticed. Even Gunns have updated their forest policy in 2009 to include climate change
FYI…
“The inspirational Fred Singer has been our guest for the last two days. Here are a couple of items you may be interested in for your excellent blog:
Fred has kindly written a short piece for us on Climategate: http://blog.iea.org.uk/?p=954
Also, here is the link to Fred’s appearance on the BBC’s Daily Politics show: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/the_daily_politics/8374523.stm
Richard Wellings
Institute of Economic Affairs”
some light relief 🙂
Luke – you have become the new Denier scum!
even warming crusader George Monbiot complains about the new deniers:
Janama they’ve always been the true deniers because to them AGW is a matter of fundamentalist faith, so facts don’t matter.
These people are just fanatically stupid and the facts of CLIMATEGATE and the ridiculous, useless, nonsense of the ets means nothing to their blind mania.
We are about to spend countless billions of dollars that will have a zero effect on climate while china, india, brazil etc continue to build at least one major CF power station every week for years to come, making our cut from 1.2% to 1.14% embecillic.
This grand gesture will be overtaken in a matter of weeks by the new bigger emitters above.
If they want to throw one thosandth of just 1 of those billions in my direction I’m sure I can make much better use of it than flushing it down the toilet.
You’re such a sleaze Janama – a real little ranter.
Here is what Monbiot fully said – you denialist scumbag. Amounts to a small road bump. Ya got nuttin’
“But do these revelations justify the sceptics’ claims that this is “the final nail in the coffin” of global warming theory?(8,9) Not at all. They damage the credibility of three or four scientists. They raise questions about the integrity of one or perhaps two out of several hundred lines of evidence. To bury manmade climate change, a far wider conspiracy would have to be revealed. Luckily for the sceptics, and to my intense disappointment, I have now been passed the damning email which confirms that the entire science of global warming is indeed a scam. Had I known that it was this easy to rig the evidence, I wouldn’t have wasted years of my life promoting a bogus discipline. In the interests of open discourse, I feel obliged to reproduce it here.
“From: ernst.kattweizel@redcar.ac.uk
Sent: 29th October 2009
To: The Knights Carbonic
Gentlemen, the culmination of our great plan approaches fast. What the Master called “the ordering of men’s affairs by a transcendent world state, ordained by God and answerable to no man”, which we now know as Communist World Government, advances towards its climax at Copenhagen. For 185 years since the Master, known to the laity as Joseph Fourier, launched his scheme for world domination, the entire physical science community has been working towards this moment.
The early phases of the plan worked magnificently. First the Master’s initial thesis – that the release of infrared radiation is delayed by the atmosphere – had to be accepted by the scientific establishment. I will not bother you with details of the gold paid, the threats made and the blood spilt to achieve this end. But the result was the elimination of the naysayers and the disgrace or incarceration of the Master’s rivals. Within 35 years the 3rd Warden of the Grand Temple of the Knights Carbonic (our revered prophet John Tyndall) was able to “demonstrate” the Master’s thesis. Our control of physical science was by then so tight that no major objections were sustained.
More resistence was encountered (and swiftly despatched) when we sought to install the 6th Warden (Svante Arrhenius) first as professor of physics at Stockholm University, then as rector. From this position he was able to project the Master’s second grand law – that the infrared radiation trapped in a planet’s atmosphere increases in line with the quantity of carbon dioxide the atmosphere contains. He and his followers (led by the Junior Warden Max Planck) were then able to adapt the entire canon of physical and chemical science to sustain the second law.
Then began the most hazardous task of all: our attempt to control the instrumental record. Securing the consent of the scientific establishment was a simple matter. But thermometers had by then become widely available, and amateur meteorologists were making their own readings. We needed to show a steady rise as industrialisation proceeded, but some of these unfortunates had other ideas. The global co-option of police and coroners required unprecedented resources, but so far we have been able to cover our tracks.
The over-enthusiasm of certain of the Knights Carbonic in 1998 was most regrettable. The high reading in that year has proved impossibly costly to sustain. Those of our enemies who have yet to be silenced maintain that the lower temperatures after that date provide evidence of global cooling, even though we have ensured that eight of the ten warmest years since 1850 have occurred since 2001(10). From now on we will engineer a smoother progression.
Our co-option of the physical world has been just as successful. The thinning of the Arctic ice cap was a masterstroke. The ring of secret nuclear power stations around the Arctic Circle, attached to giant immersion heaters, remains undetected, as do the space-based lasers dissolving the world’s glaciers.
Altering the migratory and reproductive patterns of the world’s wildlife has proved more challenging. Though we have now asserted control over the world’s biologists, there is no accounting for the unauthorised observations of farmers, gardeners, bird-watchers and other troublemakers. We have therefore been forced to drive migrating birds, fish and insects into higher latitudes, and to release several million tonnes of plant pheromones every year to accelerate flowering and fruiting. None of this is cheap, and ever more public money, secretly diverted from national accounts by compliant governments, is required to sustain it.
The co-operation of these governments requires unflagging effort. The capture of George W. Bush, a late convert to the cause of Communist World Government, was made possible only by the threatened release of footage filmed by a knight at Yale, showing the future president engaged in coitus with a Ford Mustang. Most ostensibly-capitalist governments remain apprised of where their real interests lie, though I note with disappointment that we have so far failed to eliminate Vaclav Klaus. Through the offices of compliant states, the Master’s third grand law has been accepted: world government will be established under the guise of controlling manmade emissions of greenhouse gases.
Keeping the scientific community in line remains a challenge. The national academies are becoming ever more querulous and greedy, and require higher pay-offs each year. The inexplicable events of the past month, in which the windows of all the leading scientific institutions were broken and a horse’s head turned up in James Hansen’s bed, appear to have staved off the immediate crisis, but for how much longer can we maintain the consensus?
Knights Carbonic, now that the hour of our triumph is at hand, I urge you all to redouble your efforts. In the name of the Master, go forth and terrify.
Professor Ernst Kattweizel, University of Redcar. 21st Grand Warden of the Temple of the Knights Carbonic.”
This is the kind of conspiracy the deniers need to reveal to show that manmade climate change is a con. The hacked emails are a hard knock, but the science of global warming withstands much more than that.
http://www.monbiot.com“
‘I have seldom felt so alone. Confronted with crises, most of the environmentalists I know have gone into denial.’ George Monbiot.
Luke – the emails showed the Hubris of the CRU crew – but it’s the code that shows the end of AGW
FOIA\documents\HARRY_READ_ME.txt
“getting seriously fed up with the state of the Australian data. so many new stations have been
introduced, so many false references.. so many changes that aren’t documented. Every time a
cloud forms I’m presented with a bewildering selection of similar-sounding sites, some with
references, some with WMO codes, and some with both. And if I look up the station metadata with
one of the local references, chances are the WMO code will be wrong (another station will have
it) and the lat/lon will be wrong too.
I am very sorry to report that the rest of the databases seem to be in nearly as poor a state as
Australia was. There are hundreds if not thousands of pairs of dummy stations, one with no WMO
and one with, usually overlapping and with the same station name and very similar coordinates. I
know it could be old and new stations, but why such large overlaps if that’s the case? Aarrggghhh!
There truly is no end in sight.”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/25/climategate-hide-the-decline-codified/#more-13197
Outstanding fuckwittery Janama – you’re one this blog’s greater morons. There is this thing called “multiple lines of evidence”. A century of frost decline in the Australian summer cropping zone that needed to be addressed by plant breeders.
And golly gee isn’t it funny that when you look at SSTs or the pattern of the satellite data you get the bloody same story.
Mate are you actually mental?
“Altering the migratory and reproductive patterns of the world’s wildlife has proved more challenging. Though we have now asserted control over the world’s biologists, there is no accounting for the unauthorised observations of farmers, gardeners, bird-watchers and other troublemakers. We have therefore been forced to drive migrating birds, fish and insects into higher latitudes, and to release several million tonnes of plant pheromones every year to accelerate flowering and fruiting. None of this is cheap, and ever more public money, secretly diverted from national accounts by compliant governments, is required to sustain it.”
Come on banana pj’s – stop being so utterly pathetic.
Reality –
(1) bugger all signatures on petitions – just a bunch of geriatric codgers having a sook – missing the Cold War
(2) Turnbull survives
(3) Obama going to Copenhagen
(4) All AGW agencies still in business
(5) More papers on AGW issues coming out every week
(6) Denialists in such a lather that an earthquake is imminent from the group wank harmonic resonance
deflect deflect deflect cries the Darluks – avoid the code!!!
it appears New Zealand has it’s own CRU style problems and surprisingly there is a direct link back to CRU.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/global_warming_nz_pdf.pdf
Hey Darluk – check this out
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/crus_source_code_climategate_r.html
C’mon janama; give us something original
Note; the world moves on regardles of hicups in building towers of beliefs
here’s something original gavin from our own Professor Plimer
“Posted By Ian Plimer On November 25, 2009 @ 12:49 am In . Column1 01, Europe, Science, Science & Technology, US News, World News | 164 Comments
In the geological past, there have been six major ice ages. During five of these six ice ages, the atmospheric carbon dioxide content was higher than at present. It is clear that the colorless, odorless, non-poisonous gas called carbon dioxide did not drive past climates. Carbon dioxide is plant food, not a pollutant.
Humans have adapted to live on ice sheets, deserts, mountains, tropics, and sea level. History shows that humans and other organisms have thrived in warm times and suffered in cold times.
In the 600-year long Roman Warming [1], it was 4ºC warmer than now. Sea level did not rise and ice sheets did not disappear. The Dark Ages followed, and starvation, disease, and depopulation occurred. The Medieval Warming followed the Dark Ages, and for 400 years it was 5ºC warmer. Sea level did not rise and the ice sheets remained. The Medieval Warming was followed by the Little Ice Age [2], which finished in 1850. It is absolutely no surprise that temperature increased after a cold period.
Unless I have missed something, I am not aware of heavy industry, coal-fired power stations, or SUVs in the 1,000 years of Roman and Medieval Warmings. These natural warmings are a dreadful nuisance for climate alarmists because they suggest that the warming since 1850 may be natural and may not be related to carbon dioxide emissions.
There was warming from 1860 to 1880, 1910 to 1940, and 1976 to 1998, with intervening periods of cooling. The only time when temperature rise paralleled carbon dioxide emissions was 1976-1998. The other warmings and coolings in the last 150 years were unrelated to carbon dioxide emissions.
Something is seriously wrong. To argue that humans change climate requires abandoning all we know about history, archaeology, geology, astronomy, and solar physics. This is exactly what has been done.
The answer to this enigma was revealed last week. It is fraud.
Files from the UK Climatic Research Unit were hacked [3]. They show that data was massaged, numbers were fudged, diagrams were biased, there was destruction of data after freedom of information requests, and there was refusal to submit taxpayer-funded data for independent examination.
Data were manipulated to show that the Medieval Warming didn’t occur, and that we are not in a period of cooling. Furthermore, the warming of the 20th century was artificially inflated.
This behavior is that of criminals and all the data from the UK Hadley Centre and the US GISS must now be rejected. These crooks perpetrated these crimes at the expense of the British and U.S. taxpayers.
The same crooks control the IPCC [4] and the fraudulent data in IPCC reports. The same crooks meet in Copenhagen next week and want 0.7% of the Western world’s GDP to pass through an unelected UN government, and then on to sticky fingers in the developing world.
You should be angry. Very angry.”
are you angry gavin??
Friends and non-Friends,
It looks like the ‘smoking gun’ of the CRU hack has been discovered, not amongst the emails, but within the code used to generate global warming ‘evidence’.
This turned up at L’Ombre de l’Olivier, http://www.di2.nu/200911/23a.htm where they’re talking about the code released as part of the alleged hack:
“The real disaster is in the *.pro files. Try a search on ‘decline’. It is unabashed data manipulation . Here is a sample(flattens a warm 40’s period and warms the recent parts):
;
; Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!
;
yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]
valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,- 0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,$
2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor
if n_elements(yrloc) ne n_elements(valadj) then message,’Oooops!’
;
yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,timey)
;
Just crazy.
debreuil | Homepage | 25.Nov.09 – 0:08 | #
Now we know the kiwis have been doing it as well!!
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/25/uh-oh-raw-data-in-new-zealand-tells-a-different-story-than-the-official-one/
what a joke, and what a disaster for science.
Luke your inability to even acknowledge the problems contained in these leaks, and your sprouting of RC dogma, really does you no credit at all. If this is not sufficient to turn you a little sceptical and at least agree it raises doubts over “facts” like the MWP were cooler than today, says much about your critical thinking skills.
Janama’s Plimer quote is worth repeating:
(Janama do you have a link for Plimer’s article?)
“Unless I have missed something, I am not aware of heavy industry, coal-fired power stations, or SUVs in the 1,000 years of Roman and Medieval Warmings. These natural warmings are a dreadful nuisance for climate alarmists because they suggest that the warming since 1850 may be natural and may not be related to carbon dioxide emissions.
There was warming from 1860 to 1880, 1910 to 1940, and 1976 to 1998, with intervening periods of cooling. The only time when temperature rise paralleled carbon dioxide emissions was 1976-1998. The other warmings and coolings in the last 150 years were unrelated to carbon dioxide emissions.
Something is seriously wrong. To argue that humans change climate requires abandoning all we know about history, archaeology, geology, astronomy, and solar physics. This is exactly what has been done.”
sorry wes – should have posted it
here it is 🙂
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-alarmism-is-underpinned-by-fraud-pjm-exclusive/?print=1
toby – if as suggested NZ hasn’t warmed why has Australia?
Most of these comments miss the whole point of the debate. It is irrelevent what the temp does or is ice melting or not. The only debate which needs to be had is “what real evidence, not computer models, can be produced which clearly shows that Carbon Dioxide is the major driver of global warming. If there is insufficent evidence of this, and this appears to be the case because I have never seen it produced anywhere, then we do not need to spend billions of dollars controlling CO2 emissions.
Below is post #22 at RC
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack-context/
—————————–
Gavin, I’m amazed at your endurance — get some sleep, dude! Well done with the responses, and hang in there. I suspect this whole thing is going to backfire… of course, that could just be wishful thinking on my part. 😉
The important thing to remember in the response to this is to try to keep everyone’s eye on the ball. The laws of physics are not going to change because somebody hacked somebody’s email. That this is even being discussed just goes to show that “reality is what you can get away with.” — RAW
Gavin, I’m going to pass on some words of encouragement that a very wise person once gave me in trying times. They may seem a bit odd, but perhaps you will find some use in them. It is worth remembering that, given the circumstances, scientists studying climate at this juncture are likely among the most important humans extant. You will be held to a higher standard, and maybe that’s OK, because when the stakes are this high, you can’t make a lot of mistakes. Keep in mind that you are genuinely, without hyperbole, here to save the world.
Anyway, some words of wisdom from an old friend:
“You are a Jah Warrior, a Light Messenger. You are here to spread love and light in the world. You need to remember who you are and why you are here!”
Comment by Eli Snyder — 23 November 2009 @ 2:31 AM
—————–
Wow, that says it all. These people are fanatical nutters who think they are “among the most important humans extant” because they are “Jah Warriors, Light Messengers” chosen “here to save the Earth.” (Remember Gavin only posts the comments he agrees with!)
When you finish ROFL, recall the history of messianic cults, especially apocalyptic messianic cults, it usually get pretty sticky towards the end. These people have the potential to be dangerous if they were ever to achieve serious political power.
For instance, I don’t know how many times impotent little Luke has commented that we all should be rounded up, imprisoned and have all our rights to free expression stripped. Sure an idle threat from a pathetic and isolated lonely kid, but then you could have said the same thing walking past a National Socialist whimp in the streets of Berlin in 1933 — It’s the same delusional personality type manifest across the ages.
Also notice Eli’s revealing definition of reality: “Reality is what you can get away with.” That must be CRU’s motto, in Latin of course.
Fortunately Eli got it backwards, it was the bloody hacker who likely saved the friggin’ planet from this goon-squad.
Lukefartard,
now that you have stomped your little feet, held your breath, beat your little fists on your little chest and squealed with indignation that ANYONE could possibly doubt your divine wisdom on disastrous anthropogenic climate change, it boils down to just normal old climate change.
You rant about treelines, frost, habitable zones… Unfortunately for you and your buds, these do not change in synch as would be required by GLOBAL issues. It warms in Australia, cools somewhere else. Gets more rain here, less rain there. CO2 goes up, plants grow better, animals, including humans, eat better and expand. Yet, the climate still shifts around with little regard for pissants like you and yours and me and mine.
You are a pathetic little rude idiotic loudmouth who has had his pacifier taken away. Learn to live with it or kill yourself. The climate will take no notice.
Janama, well I guess it raises question about how much Australia has warmed as well!? I am actually inclined to think temperatures have increased over the last 100 years…..but they have come off a low base due to the LIA, and there have also been roughly as many periods of cooling as warming and they are of similar magnitudes. I also think that Australia had an usually wet period last century which was not normal and we are now reverting back to the norm. That said we have had some freaky warm weather which is clearly related to air mass movement/ lack of movement and I would suggest can not be used as examples of climate change.
The NZ link is just another example of scientists feeling the need to ensure the data fits the story.
Wwhat I do know is I have been sceptical of all global temperaure “averages” and have had gut feeling that I can t trust the numbers being provided by individual stations for a long time.
I lost my faith in climate scientists about 6 years ago…having started out believing in AGW.
From the National Review (in the US)….
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YzI2OWQzODMzYzNmY2Y3YTdkZDE4NTQ4MTgwZDljY2Y=
Eine Decliner Nachtmusik [Mark Steyn]
More from the tree-ring circus of Climate Research Unit “peer-reviewed” computer code:
Specify period over which to compute the regressions (stop in 1960 to avoid the decline that affects tree-ring density records)
Hmm. All sounds very scientific. By the way, the CRU may be in East Anglia but it gets money from the U.S. Department of Energy and the EPA — which means you, Mr. and Mrs. America. Which makes it a domestic news story. Sadly, many U.S. newspapers evidently lack the resources to cover the story, but a reader copies me a letter he sent to the New York Times offering to help out:
Dear Mr. Broder,
Very nice article today on the upcoming Copenhagen meeting. I’ve heard about the cutbacks at the NYT and I guess it’s gotten so bad that they no longer allow internet access to reporters. So my news tip is that apparently, there’s some kind of development regarding the scientists behind the global warming data, involving emails or something like that. Some of the papers in the UK are reporting on it and even a few here. If you are not permitted to go online to find them, I could email you a few examples in pdf format. Even better, I could download the file containing the emails and other documents themselves, burn them onto a CD, mail the CD to you, and then once you had access to the primary source material you and your colleagues would be able to do your own reporting and investigating. None of this is to imply in any way that this stuff I’ve heard about could have any possible relevance to a meeting aimed at a global warming agreement based on conclusions based on data that may have been — let’s call them ambiguous. Just thought you might be curious is all, and I’m always happy to help out when I can.
Gee, maybe we should burn a CD for the ABC too.
Toby – a poster at WUWT remarked:
The official Australian temperature record is also based on significant “adjustments’ of raw historical data.
The main adjustments were made by Torok and Nicholls in 1996 and then a few more adjustments were done by paul Della-Marta in 2000.
to my knowledge this process has never been properly audited, but from a few stations that I have checked I see that there is a similar lowering of temps in the early part of the records and a raising later on.
All the data can be found in this folder.
ftp://ftp2.bom.gov.au/anon/home/bmrc/perm/climate/temperature/annual/
here’s Torok’s paper.
http://134.178.63.141/amm/docs/1996/torok.pdf
and here’s Della Marta’s
http://www.giub.unibe.ch/~dmarta/publications.dir/Della-Marta2004.pdf
this is also interesting.
http://www.giub.unibe.ch/~dmarta/publications.dir/Nicholls2004.pdf
Toby, you are on the right track. There is no valid statistical baseline mean temperature for Australia in 1900 when most stations were at >Lat 30S, and it is only quite recently there has been a reasonably even latitudinal spread (see http://chiefio.wordpress.com) north and south of 30S. Worse than that is the constant lapse/elimination of very many of the older stations, and introduction of new ones with very short histories.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703499404574556883319744094.html
The Copenhagen climate-change deal is crumbling, but no matter: Australia’s Labor government wants to pass its very own cap-and-trade bill this week, even though it won’t curb global warming but will raise energy prices and cost thousands of jobs.
That’s the crux of the Carbon Reduction Pollution Scheme that the Senate could vote on as early as today. Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has framed the vote in moral terms, calling it Tuesday “a fundamental existential question for the future,” and asking policy makers to put the “national interest first” and political party interests “last.”
Mr. Rudd’s appeal to emotion is the only way to justify the passage of the bill he’s staked his government’s credibility on, because the economics sure don’t support it. Australia emits only 1.5% of total global emissions. By asking companies to pay for carbon permits starting in 2011, Mr. Rudd will make Australian industry unilaterally less competitive, without any appreciable global benefit. Meanwhile, Australian consumers will pay more for everything as energy prices rise across the board.
To its credit, the Senate, where the Labor Party doesn’t hold an outright majority, rejected Mr. Rudd’s first version of the bill in August. Mr. Rudd responded this week by buying the silence of the most affected industries through cash payouts, extended transition periods and an agricultural exemption. Camberra may also throw in loan guarantees and other protections in case—whoops—the bill puts certain firms like electricity generators out of business.
It’s unclear how much this green utopia will cost the Australian public, given Canberra hasn’t released any comprehensive economic modeling of the revised scheme’s total cost. It’s also unclear how the plan can still be “revenue neutral,” as Mr. Rudd originally promised, given the government nearly doubled the amount of compensation payments between the first and second iterations of the bill.
All of which makes it even more incredible that Liberal Party leader Malcolm Turnbull, who until now has stonewalled on supporting the deal citing the economic cost, has jumped onboard this train wreck. Declaring that the opposition “saved tens of thousands of jobs” Mr. Turnbull threw his weight behind Mr. Rudd’s plan Tuesday, adding that the move demonstrates the Liberals’ “genuine and sincere commitment to action on climate change.”
To its credit, the Liberal Party’s conservative wing revolted yesterday and called for a leadership vote, which Mr. Turnbull survived. But that had more to do with a lack of credible challengers than anything else. At least the Liberals are finally rediscovering their principles.
Meanwhile, Australians find themselves guided by politicians committed to cap-and-trade even as the rest of the world backs away. That may be leadership, but it doesn’t mean it’s good for Australia.
Toby:
All Australian stations are available from NASA GISS here:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/
Here are some examples:
Tenterfield
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=501945560000&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1
Melbourne
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=501948680000&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1
Bathurst
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=501947300000&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1
Alice springs
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=501943260004&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1
Roma
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=501945150010&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1
Broken Hill
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=501946890000&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1
Adelaide Airport
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=501946720004&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1
Broome Airport
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=501942030004&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1
Darwin Airport
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=501941200004&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1
Charleville
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=501945100004&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1
Parks
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=501947170000&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1
Dubbo
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=501947190000&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1
Tamworth
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=501957620000&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1
BoM has an elite data site pool called the Reference Climate Station Network;
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/reference.shtml
When you examine the temperature history from many of these sites you find a history completely at odds with the mean national temperature history;
http://reg.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/silo/reg/cli_chg/timeseries.cgi?variable=tmean®ion=aus&season=0112
Q: How many climate scientists does it take to change a light bulb?
A: None. There’s a consensus that it’s going to change, so they’ve decided to keep us in the dark.
–James Taranto
Cohenite et al: Thanks to EM Smith here’s an interesting list.
“So who is Far Gone?
These are the station records that are dropped. The format is the 9 digit StationID (5 of Station, 3 of substation, 1 of modificaton flag), the Station Name, then 3 letters (the first one will always be a blank for Australia, it is the USA Brightness Index for USA stations only), the Rural Urban Suburban flag, the single letter GHCN brightness flag (ABC) the 3 digit country code, then the invarient text “ dropped”.
[chiefio@tubularbells STEP2]$ cat AUSSIE.DROPPED
941020000 TROUGHTON ISL RA501 dropped
941170000 MANGO FARM RA501 dropped
941190000 GARDEN POINT RA501 dropped
941370000 JABIRU AIRPOR RB501 dropped
941400000 MILINGIMBI AW RA501 dropped
941440000 ROPER BAR STO RA501 dropped
942010010 DERBY (KOOLAN ISLAND) RA501 dropped
942200000 TIMBER CREEK RA501 dropped
942290000 WAVE HILL RA501 dropped
942360000 ELLIOTT RA501 dropped
942480000 CENTRE ISLAND RA501 dropped
942560000 MORNINGTON IS RA501 dropped
943190000 TELFER RC501 dropped
943200000 BALGO HILLS RA501 dropped
943740003 ROCKHAMPTON A UC501 dropped
943870000 BUNDABERG AER SB501 dropped
944010000 KALBARRI RA501 dropped
944040000 PAYNES FIND RA501 dropped
944140000 ENEABBA RA501 dropped
944400000 YEELIRRIE RA501 dropped
944440010 MENZIES (DIEMALS) RA501 dropped
944610010 WARBURTON RANGE AUSTRALIA RA501 dropped
944660000 KULGERA RA501 dropped
945420010 DALBY POST OFFICE RA501 dropped
945690010 CALOUNDRA SIGNAL STATION RC501 dropped
945750000 ARCHERFIELD UC501 dropped
945810010 BEAUDESERT COMPOSITE RA501 dropped
945820000 MURWILLUMBAH RA501 dropped
945950000 CAPE BYRON RB501 dropped
946110000 MOORA RB501 dropped
946250010 PINGELLY (PINGELLY POST OFFICE RA501 dropped
946740000 LEIGH CREEK A RA501 dropped
946750000 ADELAIDE UC501 dropped
946750010 ADELAIDE REGIONAL OFFICE UC501 dropped
946760000 ARKAROOLA RA501 dropped
946790010 BUNDALEER FOREST RESERVE RA501 dropped
946890010 STEPHENS CREEK RESERVOIR RA501 dropped
947120010 BOOROWA POST OFFICE WAS 07 RB501 dropped
947160000 GOULBURN SC501 dropped
947260010 BLAYNEY POST OFFICE RB501 dropped
947270010 GULGONG POST OFFICE RA501 dropped
947470020 MITTAGONG POOL RB501 dropped
947710000 CESSNOCK SB501 dropped
947760010 NELSON BAY MONTEVIDEO PARADE RC501 dropped
948280000 PORTLAND AIRP RA501 dropped
948290000 HAMILTON AIRP SA501 dropped
948320000 WARRNAMBOOL A SA501 dropped
948420010 APOLLO BAY POST OFFICE RA501 dropped
948450010 FORREST STATE FOREST RA501 dropped
948450020 COLAC (ELLIMINYT) RA501 dropped
948490010 AVOCA POST OFFICE RA501 dropped
948620010 YARRAWONGA POST OFFICE RC501 dropped
948690010 WANGANELLA (ZARA) RA501 dropped
948800010 WARRAGUL POST OFFICE RC501 dropped
948800020 NOOJEE RA501 dropped
948800030 WOODS POINT RA501 dropped
948950010 RUTHERGLEN POST OFFICE RA501 dropped
948960000 ALBURY AIRPOR SC501 dropped
948990000 CORRYONG RA501 dropped
949120000 BAIRNSDALE AI RA501 dropped
949150000 PERISHER VALL RA501 dropped
949220010 GUDGENBY RA501 dropped
949230000 COOMA RA501 dropped
949260020 CANBERRA CITY UC501 dropped
949680005 LAUNCESTON AI SB501 dropped
949690010 DELORAINE (ASHLEY HOME) RA501 dropped
949780010 PALMERS LOOKOUT RA501 dropped
953100000 PARABURDOO RB501 dropped
954000000 THREE RIVERS RA501 dropped
955120020 GOODOOGA POST OFFICE RA501 dropped
955330000 TEXAS (POST O RA501 dropped
956140000 KARNET RA501 dropped
956180000 WAGIN RA501 dropped
956270000 HYDEN RA501 dropped
956450000 MELALEUCA RA501 dropped
956600000 ANDAMOOKA RA501 dropped
956640000 WHYALLA AIRPO SB501 dropped
957580010 SCONE SOIL CONSERVATION RA501 dropped
957730010 WALCHA POST OFFICE RB501 dropped
957740010 NARARA AGRIC RESEARCH STATION RC501 dropped
958170010 PENOLA STATE FOREST RESERVE RA501 dropped
958710010 DOOKIE AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE RA501 dropped
959080000 THREDBO RA501 dropped
959600010 DEVONPORT EAST SC501 dropped
959790030 MOUNT WELLINGTON AWS RB501 dropped
959890010 BICHENO COMPOSITE RA501 dropped”
For Who had a Fair Go see http://chiefio.wordpress.com
Well, Tim, you gotta admit that really is man made warming.
I try to avoid politics but this is too good. The Liberals have come to realize not a moment too soon that the party’s best interests don’t necessary coincide with Malcolm’s.
Malcolm doesn’t want a double dissolution because he can’t win (so soon) but if the Libs collaborate with Labor to pass this utter fraud ETS then when it comes next election and the electorate wants to punish the bloody morons who pushed the ETS down their throats, Labor and their propaganda arm, the ABC, will remind voters that only with the help of the Libs was it ever passed.
The Liberals must established an identity as the party of principle, rather than one that can be bought with bribes to Big Coal. That’s political suicide and the ABC will surely remind voters of the corrupt deal the Libs accepted for their support.
The Libs must wash their hands of the ETS and define themselves as a true opposition and coalition too. Or wake up tomorrow and smell the coffee and the toast that has become of their future. (Note: It’s OK for Labor to be corrupt, that’s the norm and they control the media spin, but if the Libs take dirty money even if from Penny Wong and Rudd, they’re dead meat.) The ETS is a huge trap for the Liberals.
Turnbull must be sacrificed. The double dissolution election must be fought, and probably ultimately lost by the Coalition, but then they will have taken the scientific, economic and ethical high ground away from Labor come the next election.
Kevin ’07 tide is a turning.
Q: How many denialist scumbags does it take to change a light bulb? A: None. The light bulb isn’t broken and it will recover by itself and sitting in the dark is better than in the light.
Tim Curtin
Would you know the new station names replacing the ones in the list?
Or where can I look them up?
Marcus, try this;
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/hqsites/site_networks.cgi?variable=meanT&period=annual&state=nsw
Luke,
You don’t get to tell everyone what it takes to prove you are wrong.
IRT your humor, do kep your day job.
BTW, you lose.
To all rational people here,
Australians can breathe a sigh of relief. The AGW promoters seem to have failed, at this important point, in their ability to impose their bad policy ideas on you.
Cheers,
Well the original post above needs another update – I shall wait now and see whether the ETS is indeed defeated. Indeed the ETS has still not passed the Australian parliament and it looks like it may indeed cost Malcolm Turnbull, the leader of the opposition here in Australia, his job.
To quote Wes above: “The Liberals (representing classic liberals and conservatives here in Australia) have come to realize not a moment too soon that the party’s best interests don’t necessary coincide with Malcolm’s.”
I am hoping that indeed it will all be scuttled – at the very last minute by some principled men.
In the years I have been visiting this blog I have only once found the urge to comment, in no small part because regulars are so much better-versed than I.
Now, however, I have to ask a question.
Why do intelligent people ever bother replying to Luke?
Ignore him and he just might go away. It would make these threads more pleasant, and the loss of his salty language would be a plus as well.
Hunter – the global atmosphere doesn’t give a fig for what you or the Liberals think. Nor does the concept of win or lose mean anything either. It’s a war on science, without end.
Tony Abbot on changing times:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/nation-held-hostage-to-ets/story-e6frg6zo-1225804353196
Jen, with any delay the ETS should fail. Our Cap & Trade Bill is extremely unlikely to pass now. Regrettably we might need to trade the equally foolish (and fast growing unrecognizable) health care bill to save us from C&T.
Regardless, if passed, it will be an issue in your next elections. Passing something that has such lack of public support is politically foolish.
RogerF, I agree. Ignore Luke, although I have to admit occasionally he gets under my skin, and I weaken.
Luke,
Is your problem at root, that you think the atmosphere does in fact think? And that you believe you know what the atmosphere thinks?
Perhaps you believe that noise in your head is more than the sound of the wind whistling through it?
The only documentation we have of a war on science are by the promoters of AGW, lying to to pretend that they have conclusions they know are not supported by the facts, corrupting the peer review process, creating code to mislead people, stonewalling, etc.
That you have glommed onto their side implies that you, too, are waging war on science.
And, ETS lost in Australia. You lose. Rationality and truth looks to win. No wonder you are so upset.
Cheers,
Roger,
I absolutely agree and am now using that tactic myself. I also agree with CoRev that Luke is like jockrash or chickenpox, really REALLY annoying and the short term solution is to scratch that dammed itch but you know that if you can stop scratching, the disease will go away.
Turn of phrase sour puss Huntsbum.
As usual your dim intellect prevents you from separating anthropogenic climate change and an ETS. Goes like this – “I don’t like an ETS and the politics around AGW annoy me”
“Ergo – AGW must be wrong then by definition.”
Errr – nope ! Really dumb in fact. Just right wing hillbilly thinking.
Your oncologist tell you that you have cancer.
Your response is to tell them that they are ugly. Emotionally satisfying but doesn’t change things.
Jennifer on the ETS “I am hoping that indeed it will all be scuttled – at the very last minute by some principled men”
There are comments around in the media that the ETS should be scrapped in favor of a strait carbon tax and imo the Greens would end up supporting such a scheme. Also as I expected Barnaby Joyce has talked about the nuclear alternative in some other carbon reduction scheme. This leaves the Liberals behaving as they are, exposed to a dynamic split in their public support at the next election.
Malcolm Turnbull is right, they can’t go forward without a policy for tackling climate change be it the amended ETS or something similar and his chief negotiator Ian Macfarlane likewise holds that view after extracting considerable concessions late in the day.
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/breakfast/stories/2009/2752601.htm
The wreckers moved in after this interview
Jennifer; It’s my considered opinion your “principled men” will wind up in a party on their own housed in a rusty old shed overlooking an abandoned pit if they can’t acknowledge the need to act unilaterally on climate change before the next election when ever that is.
Jennifer,
I’m still a bit confused. On the one hand, I’m very glad that you’re still participating. On the other hand, the thread title is unsettling. Do you plan to close down the blog in the near future? Or do you plan to keep it going, but in a more open-ended format?
Assuming the latter. Please change the thread name back to Walkabout or to anything less ominous than An End. We may also want to emphasize the community aspect a bit more than we have in the past. One thing in the back of my mind was Nature tourism tips for Aussies interested in visiting the US, with a special emphasis on Northern California, where I live.
I’ve done some surfing on trekearth.com and treknature.com, and have seen some fascinating photos from Australia. Nature tourism tips from Aussies would also be interesting to read.
GAVIN
“party on their own housed in a rusty old shed ”
I’d rather vote for a party of principle “housed in a rusty old shed”
than for a bunch of hypocrites. There are many in the Labor party who don’t subscribe yet follow the party line.
Just because you believe in man caused CC , means nothing to us who don’t.
The climate always changed will change in the future, and so far I have not seen a shred of evidence that we had anything to do with it. And may I add, I do not get all my info from blogs!
——————-
as to “separating anthropogenic climate change and an ETS. ”
if one does not believe in the anthropogenic bit in CC why on earth would one want to have an ETS?
Defies logic, but then what’s new!
Larry,
It takes much time to research and some thought to construct and then post new threads at this blog. And to the many who have contributed posts – the amount of time is much reduced on my part – but often there is still checking and editing.
I feel that during a critical time for me, and also for more discussion on environemntal issues more generally including climate change, this blog has played a role, including in having a small influence on public opinion, at least here in Australia.
More recently my situation has changed. And it looked like both sides of parliament here in Australia were going to go along with AGW and the emissions trading scheme (ETS) without further critical debate.
But in just the last few days the political situation has changed radically here in Australia with some key politicians taking a stand on the issue of AGW and ETS. This has forced the mainstream media to at least stop with their normal reporting that AGW and the ETS are fact and a done deal, respectively.
This gives me hope – for both democracy and science.
As regards this blog, I have no intensions of closing down this or other threads so discussion can continue on key issues. I remain unlikely, however, to post new threads at the main page at least for the foreseeable future so it is ‘an end’ of sorts.
Marcus – you amaze me – why would you not believe in an ETS yet believe in AGW – simple Australia going it alone for no global climate impact? effect on the economy. Versus costs of adaptation.
Golly gee – do you think serious AGW believers think solutions are simple. Why Barry Brooks as a greenie has devoted vast parts of his bravenewclimate blog to nuclear power over the last year.
I am surprised that the inmates here think both issues are logically compulsory.
Luke? ….“serious AGW believers”……ROTFL
Well that says it all doesn’t it? Luke insightfully cuts right to the crux of the CRU Climategate scandal.
Luke “believes” in AGW, just like a serious Catholic believes in the infallibility of the Pope.
TO ALL “SERIOUS AGW BELIEVERS” :
WE SKEPTICS DO NOT “BELIEVE” IN HYPOTHESIS, ONLY ITS USEFULNESS IN MAKING PREDICTIONS THAT CAN BE VERIFIED BY REPRODUCIBLE OBSERVATION AND EXPERIMENTATION BY INDEPENDENT THIRD PARTIES.
Got that? It’s called the “scientific method” and is radically opposed to systems of faith, at least in the sphere of the empirically measurable world.
Obvious if you are a “serious believer” in a particular dogma, you might not be willing to turn over your secret codex to “non-believers.”
Or as Phil Jones famously emailed Warwick Hughs, “Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it. …”
Phil Jones is a “serious AGW believer.”
Don’t any of you commenters bad mouth my pal, Luke, the “serious AGW believer” for he provides this blog with a seriously comprehensive window into pre-Enlightenment ignorance.
Priceless, Luke is.
Wes not at all. You are the archetypal religious doubter. Your comprehensive science deficit, political proclivities, and penchant for conspiracies has blinded you to a considerable pro-case literature with many interlocking pieces of evidence. Incomplete but enough to take a risk minimising posture. My “belief” is based on a rational assessment of the science with all it warts and difficulties – yours is not. A complex science that is actually “rocket science” unlike your trite comments implying it’s all just so simple. In terms of Phil Jones comments – yep why would cooperate with the mischievous?
Wes you’re simply antediluvian.
Luke, You spend a lot of time calling people names, but really, “nah, nah, you’re so dumb” really isn’t very convincing unless you back it up with a list of logical reasonings for why that person is so dumb.
For instance, you say that Phil Jones refusing to reveal the methodology and data behind his research is proper given the fact that those who want to try to reproduce his work are up to “mischievous.”
My reply might well start with “Luke, you are totally clueless,” and that’s not very convincing until I point out that the most basic ground rule of science is that all research be reproducible by any third party. And if a scientist will not allow “mischievous” third parties to a transparent review and reproduction of his original work than it isn’t science at all and has no place in the literature. Obviously, one scientist’s mischief is another’s rational counterpoint.
This is just the fact of how science has progressed for the last 350 years. The system is fundamentally adversarial rather than collective tribal groupthink arriving a consensus to be “believed” without question. If you don’t serious believe in the scientific method, then please Luke tell us how it should work? How would you change science?
Personally I find it mind-boggling that you don’t seem to understand that the most fundamental requirement of scientific research is that it be reproducible by those that are NOT “serious believers” in the research they are reproducing.
Or do you think that Phil Jones should only pick his mates to have a look at his black box data then give the rest of us a thumbs up if it’s OK?
Phil Jones has to keep his research top secret, away from the public, because there are baddies out there? We should just trust that he got it right? Is that how Charles Darwin and Albert Einstein proceed with their own theories? Or maybe Charlie and Albert didn’t have any sceptics to deal with????
Luke, these are serious questions for serious AGW believers to consider. And with Climategate your time is up, kiddo.
Jennifer. This lot is debunked. Why not turn your critical skills to the more serious matters, currently summed up under the Rubrick “2012.
You see we have a CO2 shortage. In that we could double the level. Double it again. And double it once more and still be fine. We halve it even once and we will all quickly die. That sounds like a shortage to me.
But not all aspects of this so-called “2012” business are entirely phoney like this 20 year CO2-bedwetting curse has been. And we would need your objective moderation to pull this thing apart, and find a few things NOT to worry about. Phony crises undermine real concerns.
I managed to make a pretty good connection between supernovae, and disproportionate volcanic activity, just on a single afternoon with google. I would be happier if you could debunk me and me not get carried away down the wrong path. For the record I don’t place a great deal of credence on the date 2012 itself. A little bit but not a great deal.
“I feel that during a critical time for me, and also for more discussion on environemntal issues more generally including climate change, this blog has played a role, including in having a small influence on public opinion, at least here in Australia.”
Don’t be modest about it. For a good chunk of 2008 it was the best libertarian blog in Australia and the best climate science blog in the world. Thats why you got the boot Jennifer. It wasn’t because you weren’t effective. It was because you were ONLY TOO effective and the mob could not let it go.
They got Patton and McCarthy because they could not afford not too. Same sort of deal here.
“My “belief” is based on a rational assessment of the science with all it warts and difficulties ”
So run it by me department-of- Luke. I’m smarter than you’ll ever be so if you are full of shit I’LL TELL YOU!!!
And then you won’t have to worry about trace gasses no more. I will find you you jerk. All you little Luke sluts.
“And with Climategate your time is up, kiddo.” ROTFL ! Do go on….
But yea – Phil should make the data available. Go read about new data licencing issues such http://www.gilf.gov.au/ – you will realise that given the terms Jones has been supplied data by various nation states makes his current situation difficult. It’s nowhere near as simple as you think.
But the western world is rapidly moving to much freer exchange of public information. So in theory – yep make all the data available. Long as you’re willing to pay Wes in your taxes coz it will cost ya a penny or two for the systems.
But yea – make the data available – why not ! I have no problem with it. It’s simply a logistical exercise once the appropriate licencing is in place.
However at the end of the day – nothing will change in terms of climate understanding – there are simply too many interlocking bits of evidence. Wes you’re chasing a 10th order issue mate ! (seriously).
CRU, GISS, satellite, two SST datasets, the biological responses, boreholes, glaciers – all tell the same broad story. So ho hum ….
As for “This is just the fact of how science has progressed for the last 350 years.” – NOPE ! not in commerce – heaps of science secrets. You mean public science !
Luke, You just said Jones should have NOT to make his data available now you say your cool with? OK, fine I guess you conceded the argument. Good on you. Progress.
“Phil should make the data available”…..wow. That’s a big concession for “serious believer in AGW”!
Still, Data licencing issues have nothing to do with the transparent review and reproducibility of basic research….unless, of course, your trying to weasel out of making your method and data available for third party verification.
Luke, why don’t you explain to us how one conducts primary scientific research but then refuses to allow your work to be transparently reviewed and reproduced by third parties because of “Licensing Agreements?”
Is science that cannot be tested independently (for whatever reason) still science?
Whenever bird shows up I think of this movie for some reason:
I have refuted all aspects of luke’s “interlocking bits of evidence” so many times I’m not going to bother doing it again. But what is currently happening with the msm and the pollies is fascinating; there is a joke that goes, what has 10 teeth, looks terrible and has an IQ of 100; and the answer of course is the audience at a wrestling match; now the joke is, what has perfect teeth, looks great and has an IQ of 100, the msm; I have been listening to talkback lately and they are just starting to catch up to the ‘crucial issue’ of where the majority scientific support lies; with or against AGW; they have just cottoned on to the Oregon Petition; it really is disturbing to realise the msm is about 2 years off the pace, and of course the pollies follow the msm.
An appropriate exercise in respect of the consensus would be, not to compile numbers for and against, but to find a pro-AGW scientist who is not affiliated with IPCC or works for a government organisation such as CSIRO/BoM or who hasn’t received grants for AGW research. Name one luke.
Luke is simply going through the motions. He has lost, and he knows it. He is just too lazy to go look for the next big apocalypse.
This essay from Walter Starck may be of interest to the saner readers:
https://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2009/11/six-degrees-and-rising
Yeah, I like this:
“One is the shrinking portion of the population engaged in production as a result of technological advance and a growing population of predominantly urban non-producers. Although their own choice of habitat in the tiny fraction of the nation where nature has been virtually annihilated, many subscribe to a romanticised quasi-religious notion of a pure, perfect, delicately balanced natural world. They express strong opinions and great concern over remote things of which they have little or no actual knowledge or experience. They view nature as a sacred trust which is being defiled by greedy rapacious people who must be stopped. Their appreciation of the system of production which supports them begins at the shop and ends at the rubbish bin. Although totally surrounded by technology and utterly dependant on it, their technical capability is challenged by a dull knife or leaking tap. Nevertheless, their vote can determine government and politicians pander for it.”
However, I think the peak oil apsect of Walter’s worthy essay is debatable.
Thanks Jen, you’ve done a great job, but I can see why you are stepping back (I think) too much of this blog is now taken up with irrelevant, infantile squabbling – Luke is winning.
You deserve a life
Cohenite,
I am bush monday till the 15th and have not had time to deal with the Peak Oil issue.
I noticed Walter’s comment about it as well, and it is wrong. Theer is no debate in science – either oil does, or does not originate from buried biomass and the chemical reaction demonstrating it has not been done by the bio-oilers. The Rock oilers have on many occasions. That experimental data is not accepted but rhetoric is, points to a serious problem in science that we can be sheeted to Charles Lyell 180 years ago.
It’s the old debate between the Platonists and Aristollelians.
I also see Luke is denial mode.
Late this arvo, ABC RN ran an interview with Andrew Bolt who was still crying about “global cooling” mixed with a lot of other old Heartland rhetoric and in hunting for the transcript I came across this- it’s old news too but could still be relevant
‘A leading pollster says hardline climate change sceptics within the Coalition are “out of step” with the majority of Australian voters’
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/11/27/2755925.htm
Martin O’Shannessy – Newspoll “We’ve done a series of polls that have shown us that about three-quarters of the population, seven in 10, over the period of the last few years since 2007, see that climate change is happening, [and] that on the whole they believe that we need to act in the form of a carbon pollution reduction scheme,
Thanks for the Link, Davey. Damn, Walter doesn’t pull the punches does he?
I agree with Cohenite and Louis (although the abiotic oil theory is a whole other topic and not necessarily the only way to argue against peak oil.) No peak oil on the horizon.
BUT, Walter is right that oil shortages are going to drive the price per barrel much higher in the next few years as the world economy hots up. This will act to acceleration exploration and production, but the lag time is years, giving the Peak Oil gang fodder to support their argument. Higher hydrocarbon prices are already being written into many future options secured by the big trans-nationals and won’t derail the next economic boom which has already well and truly started, at least in the equity markets.
The fossil fuels are there in the ground, but the refining, mining, drilling capacity of the West has been chilled due to 30 years of enviros knocking back new plants, restrictions, etc. Don’t mistake refinery and various production bottlenecks resulting higher prices for so-called peak oil production.
Also, new breakthroughs in hydrocarbon exploration, production and refining are ongoing and accelerating. Witness new innovations in coal gasification processes.
“Today, there is a name for the political doctrine that rejoices in scarcity of everything except government. The name is environmentalism.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/20/AR2009112002619.html
Gavin – the reason the Coalition sceptics are “out of step” is because the MSM are out of step.
You can count on one letter every day in the SMH or the Age to be from some joe public lamenting on how no one is doing anything to stop the inevitable catastrophic climate change.
It’s worse than that; the editorial policy of ALL msm is that catastrophic AGW is just around the corner, yet if you asked any leading hack how extra CO2 can cause catastrophic AGW they would have as much chance as luke or gavin of mounting a sensible reply.
“The current dispute over what the Liberal Party should do on climate change is only the beginning of a debate that has the potential to overwhelm the party if it is forced to a by-election in Wentworth” Antony Green
http://blogs.abc.net.au/antonygreen/2009/11/a-wentworth-byelection.html
gavin
The sooner the loser is out, the better. He already caused enough damage by ousting a capable former member.
The way it is, Wentworth is lost to the liberals, no matter which party gets in.
A new liberal is bound to be a copy of MT.
Cohenite/Wes
MSM might, albeit it slowly, realise what’s going on once some more analysis of the Climategate files is done. Right now I get the impression that data manipulation was done from the start, whether by omission, “adjustments” or other tricks.
Notice also that each and every climate scientist supportive of AGW is of the politically left hue, ie progressive, or cutting to the chase, socialist.
I am particularly interested in Andrew Bolt’s quotes of who delivered this speech – today in his blog – and Turnbull”s isn’t all that different to Rudd’s in terms of rhetoric and style.
1560 years ago the English had a traditional Liberal party which, over time, was hijacked by the Fabians and morphed into the UK Labour Party. The Fabian method is not direct confrontation but behind the scenes, backdoor methods to have their targets choose the Fabian agenda masked as something quite different. The Fabian method is essentially rhetorical, rather than evidence based.
The Australian Liberal Party is comprised of lefties and righties, (I know I used to be a member and a former party branch secretary), and I maintain a close liaison with some members. For good or worse, the Liberals seem to have some quasi socialist members, those who believe that government intervention is useful. I am also aware of the portability of politicians between the Liberals and the ALP. (Wes, the same seems true to the US when a GOP politician can, at the drop of a hat, switch to the Democrats).
Therefore what is the real issue behind the AGW movement? In terms of Climategate it is altering data to fit a belief. In terms of politics it (AGW belief) is the rationale for imposing an unelected world government by implementing the Copenhagen Treaty, that has, by the way, imploded.
Who are behind this?
Notice that no capitalists are recognised as supporting any political movement to transform society – but those who do want to change society are invariably the socialists, and of this group two can be identified – Communists who implement it by the force of armed revolution, and the Fabians by slowly changing the laws of a country for the same goal. Fabian socialism is simply Communism by hire- purchase.
What unifies the Liberal Party wets (lefties) and the ALP is the belief in statism, which is really nothing more than a modern version of feudalism – Robber Barons in charge, then the rule of force, now the rule of law, (both achieving the same end), and a gulled mob from whom taxes are forcibly extracted.
So instead of arguing the “science”., how about starting on the politics behind this abuse of science. Arguing over the science is simply a distraction peoples, to divert attention from the actual game in play.
Gavin, the Bolter just had a tense discussion with Mark Colvin and the impression I get is that the ABC newsroom has a blind spot.
http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2009/s2755822.htm
Marcus; when I lived round the cross late 80’s I met a lot of small biz people who could go either way and still be hard core something depending on the issue. I recall some parts being cluttered with kiwis too. IMO that requires a strong candidate in any appeal.
el gordo It was this segment on air that grabbed my attention, then I realized it was not Andrew Robb in the interview
ANDREW BOLT: “I shall answer that in a second but I just want to note that you’ve skipped over the most insane thing – the whole edifice of global warming theory is undermined by the fact the world has been cooling as even Tim Flannery, as even IPCC lead author Kevin Trenberth privately admitted in emails that have surfaced now, the whole world has been cooling”.
MARK COLVIN: “Sure, we know that you’re a climate change sceptic…”
ANDREW BOLT: “No, no, no, no, no this is the facts”
Pathetic!
Gavin,
Yes, Andrew Bolt’s grammar is Pathetic!
Dragging the abyss, no ?
Gavin
The point about the Australian Brainwashing Corporation – the whole newsroom is disseminating propaganda. It is basically through the sin of omission.
Gavin, what is pathetic is you cant see the point bolt is making and seem to just blindly seek out quotes and commentaries that support your view.
The point he was making is even flannery…who as he (bolt) put it is our leading alarmist, states that temp have declined for the last 7 years and it cant be explained.
What was also pathetic is bolt so clearly won the debate that the interviewer decided to end the interview.
You are wasting your time giving us quotes from the ABC, and if you can not recognise their bias then how an earth can you expect us to respect what you say?
sorry to be harsh, but your dribble is worse than Luke’s in IMO.
Bolt was making the point that it is the poor science which is driving the politics. My wife heard the interview and she has no opinion on AGW, and she worked it out immediately.
How anybody can support signing an agreement that will change the basis of how we run our economy, when there is no agreement from the major emitters, is completely beyond me.
If you believe in the science you should still be against commiting economic suicide. If the major emitters do instigate binding poilicies then i agree it become s hard for us not to….even though I doubt the science. But before hand is just ridiculous.
GAVIN, the warmers have clearly been caught with their hand in the till …wake up and acknowledge it. It does not mean all the science is crap…but it has to raise doubt doesnt it??!!
Wes – you really are thick mate.
“Luke, why don’t you explain to us how one conducts primary scientific research but then refuses to allow your work to be transparently reviewed and reproduced by third parties because of “Licensing Agreements?””
Coz the nation states, i.e. parties that supplied their data did so on the basis that it was for his use only. Did you not get that? Why – I dunno ? BoM make all the data in Australia available.
But Wessy Woo – you’re just a big bullshitting shonk – as soon as that happens you’ll drift onto something else. You’re just a time waster.
Cohenite dreams on “I have refuted all aspects of luke’s “interlocking bits of evidence” so many times ” like fun you have you . ROTFL !!! Cohers just sprays some utter unpublished nonsense, drinks his own urine and pronounces it to be wine. Still on Jack’s beanstalk are we?
Louis true to form still fighting the cold war looking for reds under the bed. OMIGAWD !
Luke,
Except your excuse is not really what happened.
But you knew that.
AGW hacks really do lie naturally, but as we see more and more clearly, not as well as you wish.
Great con-artists are ones who can convince themselves they are justified in what they are doing.
As we see, the AGW promoters are really great.
The fact that they were using the alleged data restrictions as an excuse is clear when we read in their own, in context words, how they conspired to hide the data because they did not like who was requesting it, or because they knew it would not withstand scrutiny.
And the ‘unpublished’ dodge is proven to be pap since we now know the self-described ‘team’ was busy making sure that papers they did not like were not going to get peer review or published.
If AGW-predicted temps were behaving as predicted, the leaked e-mails would not spend so much time on how they are not, nor on how to mislead people from that pesky problem.
This morning we read that 76 marine scientists are calling for cuts in emissions because of climate change. When is this kind of shit going to cease and more importantly – who put them up to it? CSIRO of course.
So what are they saying?
http://www.oceanclimatechange.org.au/content/images/uploads/Report_card_web.pdf
1 – Ocean temperatures around Australia have warmed 0.7°C since 1910-1929, with south-west and south-eastern waters warming fastest (HIGH confidence)> Australian ocean temperatures will be 1°C warmer by 2030 and 2.5°C warmer by 2100
2 – Global sea levels have risen by 20 cm over 1870-2004 (HIGH confidence)> Global sea levels will continue to rise 5-15 cm by 2030 and 18-82 cm by 2100
3 – Leeuwin Current> Southward flow has slightly weakened since the 1970s (MEDIUM confidence)> Weakening will continue over the coming century
4 – Little evidence of change in ENSO variability due to global warming (LOW-MEDIUM confidence)> A background “El Niño-like” pattern is projected this century (MEDIUM confidence), with no change in ENSO event amplitude or frequency
5 – Carbon dioxide dissolving in the oceans has lowered pH by 0.1 units since 1750, representing a 30% increase in hydrogen ion (acid) concentration (HIGH confidence)> Ocean pH will decrease by a further 0.2-0.3 units by 2100
So what’s new and where is the paper proving that it is caused by AGW??
disgraceful! yet it’s all over the news and press.
Banana Pyjamas- mate – you and your anti-science fraudsters are simply “out of step”.
The embarrassing piddly and pathetic 3,086 odd signatures on the anti-ETS submission may be a clue to a total lack of support !
Do we see “mass demonstrations in all capital cities” proclaiming AGW a fraud. Nope we have (giggle) 3,000 signatures. Woo hoo !
And this is after your years of relentless shelling of the AGW position. A giga-ton of Australian newsprint of op-eds.
So after all this we find:
Climate sceptics ‘out of step’ with voters
By Simon Santow for The World Today
Posted Fri Nov 27, 2009 5:32pm AEDT
Updated Fri Nov 27, 2009 6:09pm AEDT
In a September Newspoll two-thirds of those asked were still in favour of the emissions trading scheme. (User submitted via ABC Contribute: JodieV, file photo)
A leading pollster says hardline climate change sceptics within the Coalition are “out of step” with the majority of Australian voters.
As the political temperature and debate over the proposed emissions trading scheme (ETS) rose dramatically this week, Coalition MPs spoke of phones melting down and email inboxes being swamped by an angry public.
Within the Coalition, both ETS opponents and those in favour of the scheme claimed to have the support of the public.
But can both sides be right when both claim to represent a constituency and have public opinion behind them?
Newspoll’s Martin O’Shannessy says the most recent poll on the topic, in September this year, showed that two-thirds of those asked were still in favour of the Government’s proposed carbon reduction scheme.
That was before the amendments, which excluded agriculture, were agreed on earlier this week.
Coalition supporters did not back the scheme to the extent Labor supporters did, but there was still a clear majority in favour.
Mr O’Shannessy says the polling is very clear on whether people believe climate change is happening.
“The vast majority of the electorate, which must include some Liberal voters as well, does believe it is happening and some action’s required,” he said.
“So the hardline of complete refusal within the Liberal Party is probably a little bit out of step with the mainstream of Australian voters at the moment.”
Mr O’Shannessy says his polls show a clear majority of people backed a national emissions trading scheme, but views are mixed on whether to implement it before the world climate summit in Copenhagen.
“We’ve done a series of polls that have shown us that about three-quarters of the population, seven in 10, over the period of the last few years since 2007, see that climate change is happening, [and] that on the whole they believe that we need to act in the form of a carbon pollution reduction scheme,” he said.
“The idea of going it alone had sort of softened up. We find that at the moment about 45 per cent of voters in total feel we should wait till after Copenhagen, 41 per cent saying we should go it alone, the rest are undecided.
“So there’s a bit of a split in the population there and I think if you look at Coalition supporters, about six in 10, 58 per cent, say we should wait whereas almost the opposite – 51 per cent of Labor supporters – say we should go for it now.
“So [it’s a] very interesting situation for the body politic and our political leaders where waiting seems to be favoured by Coalition supporters, but again they are in the electoral minority as well.”
Luke – your post infers that the attitudes are changing – i.e now 45% say we chould wait till Copenhagen and 41% saying going it alone – now isn’t that what the Liberal party are saying – wait till Copenhagen?
BTW – I notivce you avoided the predicition of the latest CSIRO paper that states – sea level rise of 1.7mm/year and 18-82 cm by 2100…….but Penny Henny said 1.1m
“1 – Ocean temperatures around Australia have warmed 0.7°C since 1910-1929, with south-west and south-eastern waters warming fastest (HIGH confidence)> Australian ocean temperatures will be 1°C warmer by 2030 and 2.5°C warmer by 2100”
I should bloody well hope so. But had they chosen to take it from the 30’s they would most likely see that we have cooled. No evidence again.
“2 – Global sea levels have risen by 20 cm over 1870-2004 (HIGH confidence)> Global sea levels will continue to rise 5-15 cm by 2030 and 18-82 cm by 2100”
134 years???? This puts that rate below the 2mm per year background sea level rise since the end of the last ice age. Well its in line with it, since 2mm is a rough figure. Hence the statement tells us that things are normal.
“3 – Leeuwin Current> Southward flow has slightly weakened since the 1970s (MEDIUM confidence)> Weakening will continue over the coming century…”
They don’t even have a point to that one. A fearful burst of mass-sackings will help them find the point of the issue.
“4 – Little evidence of change in ENSO variability due to global warming (LOW-MEDIUM confidence)> A background “El Niño-like” pattern is projected this century (MEDIUM confidence), with no change in ENSO event amplitude or frequency”
Come back to us when you have something you can tell us without hedging.
“5 – Carbon dioxide dissolving in the oceans has lowered pH by 0.1 units since 1750, representing a 30% increase in hydrogen ion (acid) concentration (HIGH confidence)> Ocean pH will decrease by a further 0.2-0.3 units by 2100”
Bullshit. They have no right to make this lying claim. What about fresh water melting? That TOO would bring things closer to a less corrosive neutrality.
“So what’s new and where is the paper proving that it is caused by AGW??”
Do you not see the patterns? Its all around you if you have the eyes to look. Why. Only the other day I overheard two people talking:
“You know Beverly. She was round visiting her Auntie during school hours and she noticed a couple of kids in school uniform and they were smoking these strange tailor-made cigarettes that smelt funny she said. They were up a tree smoking these strange cigarettes and playing reggae music. And she shouted them down and when they came down they seemed to be wearing what appeared to be tea-cosies on their heads.”
“Bloody Global Warming.”
“You guessed it.”
The majority of Australians believe? The MAJORITY of Australians believe what the funderin’ media TELLS them to believe, with their focus on alarmism and worst case scenarios fed to THEM by the very people who have been shown to be corrupt! “He who shall remain nameless” can’t decide whether it’s the “science” or public opinion that is the final arbiter of truth. BTW, the majority of people also thought the Y2K bug was going to shut down the world’s computer systems. I guess that the majority of people can’t be right ALL of the time eh?
The Australian Senators seem to be listening to somethign besides the press on this issue.
That is a good first step.
It is clear the press is listening to sociopaths like the Luke ensemble a bit too much.
Luke, btw, just how many are there in your little gang?
How do you all clock your time while you are out pretending to be one person?
to ratinoal blog members:
Is there an equivalent of FOIA for Australia?
If so, is it not time to go after the blatant censorship of your CSIRO, and other govt. organs that are in on hyping and lying the figures and facts?
And if you can ‘out’ the Luke gang along the way, that would be what we call langiappe, in the states:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagniappe
People,
It doesn’t matter what you believe, much less, what the ‘climate facts’ are.
The EU has voluntarily hobbled its economy with CO2 regs, and wants the world to join it on the road to penury.
China doesn’t want to go down that road.
The US can say what it will, and with Al Gore and Obama (plus the IPCC) all being Nobelists lately, you can guess what the US will say at Copenhagen — and it won’t make any difference.
What hangs in the balance is the EU. Its agricultural regulations are gradually shutting down its increasingly unimportant agricultural sector — farmers there have been nothing but hired gardeners, for decades. Putting a noose on its own energy production, which means, increasing dependence on Russia, makes the EU even more pitifully vulnerable to its historical foe.
If Copenhagen doesn’t result in the rest of the world screwing itself like Europe is already mostly screwed, Europe will be screwed alone.
The upcoming Copenhagen summit promises clashes of epic proportions, and Europe — the international ‘darling’ of politically correct politics — is poised to be a wretched, but righteous, loser.
Europe will fight like a cornered rat, and nothing fights harder than a cornered rat.
It’s redundant to add this, but it’s necessary: Copenhagen is scrambling to find extra room to house the rioters who are likely to be arrested during the meet. Things are forecast to be as bad as Seattle, Prague, Rome, etc., and Europe *does* have its foot-soldiers. ‘Blut und Boden’ didn’t pick up and move to Argentina, and Stalinists didn’t stay behind where the Wall used to be.
This will be fun if you aren’t there in person.
janama,
Any reports coming out of any AGW promotion organs right now are to be treated as credibly as one of the Luke’s braying diatribes.
They are all transparently aiming to force wavering politicians back into the AGW line, and to keep the fear level hig among those the they are victiminzing- the people who actually care about the environment- by fraud.
Climate gate shows the edifice of big government cliamte ‘science’ is crap.
None of it should be held as reliable until actually verified. These people have been talking to themselves about how right they are, and above reproach, for far too long.
For those of you who want a bit of a light hearted read, here’s a story by Prof. Plimer
“THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF CREATION
Ian Plimer
Professor of Geology
Head of the School of Earth Sciences
The University of Melbourne
Parkville, Victoria, 3052.
Written during, and delivered at the closing stages of the Dinner held following the SMEDG-AIG Symposium on “Recent Advances in the Mount Isa Block” – Sydney – May 21, 1993.
In the beginning God floated the idea of creating Heaven and Earth. He was immediately served with an injunction by Greenpeace to prevent any creative activity whatsoever as He had not undertaken an environmental impact study and had no permit to work.
At the hearing, God was cross-examined and asked why He wanted to undertake this massive project, especially as it appeared that it was extremely unlikely that any social benefit would derive from His venture. The Wilderness Society reminded God that His Bible stated that “the earth was void and empty and darkness was upon the face of the deep” hence the area where He wanted to creatively meddle could be classified as a pristine wilderness. God successfully argued that unless Earth could be seen, then it could not be classified a wilderness area. Upon further questioning, God revealed that by Him saying “Let there be light” the wilderness area could be seen for assessment of its environmental value.
This created pandemonium in the court house. How could God create light without burning something that would pollute the Universe? Had He considered the smoke, thermal and optical pollution that His creation of light would produce? What would be mined to produce all this energy? Would the mining be underground or open pit? What was God to do with the tailings and the waste? Was God aware of the dangers of greenhouse gases and nuclear energy?
In order to seek compromise, God argued that He would create a pollution-free, thermonuclear powerhouse. However, at the mention of the word nuclear, the masses at the court hearing broke into histrionics. God faced aggressive questioning from the assembled environmental movements. Would His giant thermonuclear power generator really work? Could the safety of thermonuclear fusion be guaranteed? What about Chernobyl? In order to allow His creative proposal to proceed, God suggested that instead of thermonulear energy, He would use solar energy. A warm inner glow entered the hearts of those in the courthouse, the assembled detractors agreed that solar power would be far better environmentally than thermonuclear power and some of the more sensitive souls were so touched by God’s environmental concern that they actually wanted to shake His hand.
The remaining hard core continued to question God on his alternative energy proposal. Wouldn’t precious energy be wasted if light was emitted from the Sun all the time? God had a brilliant idea and, in order to conserve energy, God suggested that He divide light and darkness and He would call the light Day and the darkness Night. The assembled environmental masses seemed to think that this was an inspired energy-saving proposal and grudgingly acquiesced to this creative step.
However, the next creative step aired had God in a spot of bother. When God was asked how the Earth would be covered, He answered “Let there be a firmament made amidst the waters; and let it divide the waters from the waters”. Greenpeace, the Australian Conservation Foundation, Friends of the Earth and miscellaneous other environmental movements voiced strong objections. If God created a firmament, would not the mining industry pillage the firmament for minerals? God tried logic and argued that a firmament was necessary in order to produce the 210 tonnes per capita per annum of water, food and minerals which would be consumed by people at the end of the second millennium AD. The gag was applied, the court adjourned and God was refused permission to continue argument on the firmament.
After the adjournment, God was given permission to make a short statement. He stated that homelands and sacred sites could not be annexed unless there was a firmament. After much discussion in court about the necessary provision of homelands for the tangible expression of inherited guilt, God was given permission to create a firmament and questioning shifted to His creation of waters.
Neither Greenpeace nor Save the Aquatic Fauna wanted God to create the oceans because this would tempt the petroleum industry into offshore drilling. Furthermore, if there were oceans, then there could be marine pollution. It suddenly dawned on God that logic was His worst defence and He started to invent arguments which would seem plausible. Rather than discuss the necessity of oceans for climate, resources and survival, God insisted that His creative venture must have oceans. Without oceans, God argued, there would be no habitat for dolphins and whales. The court room erupted into cheers, people struggled to pat God on the back, environmental leaders announced that the god of nature would be called Gaia, God signed numerous autographs and a warm ambience settled over the tear-stained masses. However, because so few at the hearing had trust in God, He was instructed to apply for the necessary permits from the appropriate local government, shipping, agricultural and water commissions before undertaking this creative step.
When God tried to explain that the barren firmament should be environmentally enhanced with vegetation, there was vigorous objection on the basis that the flora might be exploited commercially for profit. God was now aware that it was pointless to argue that flora would be the key to survival and so He stated that He would only create species native to planet Earth. He strengthened his argument by suggesting that if the firmament was covered by abundant vegetation, all could be vegetarian. God’s popularity was increasing and the environmental leaders now privately felt that God was good, however they were committed to objecting in public to every creative step God wanted to make. It was eventually agreed, subject to Noxious Weed Board and Forestry Commission permission, that if God vegetated the planet with only native species then He would be issued with a permit to say “Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed and the fruit tree yielding fruit”
In order to win over various New Age movements, astrologers, UFO watchers, tarot card readers and the Lunar Cycle Birth Movement, God announced to the court that He wanted to state “And let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth”. The various New Age movements were asked to voice their objections however, because their answers required the construction of sentences and the use of words of more than two syllables, they could only look bleary-eyed at God, monotonously chanted “God is Cool” and fondled His long flowing robes.
Some disquiet was expressed about God’s plan to have only native flora without soft, cuddly environmentally sensitive fauna. A passionate discussion ensued with some suggesting that if there were animals on the firmament then they would be hunted, killed and eaten whereas others wanted soft cuddly objects to allow them to have publicity about the plight of these animals. The question of methane emissions from animals was raised. It was unanimously agreed, that in the absence of evidence, that methane emissions were bad, however a compromise was struck. If God could create sheep and cattle which emitted no methane, then wild animals could democratically decide whether they chose to, or chose not to emit methane. The gathered masses felt good. On the condition that God adhered to the various statutes of the Native Flora and Fauna Protection Act, various National Parks Acts, the Fisheries Acts and observed the RSPCA regulations, God was given permission to say “Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and the fowl that may fly above the earth”.
The proposal to creat man met insurmountable ethical and political difficulties. The vivisectionists were concerned about the morals of rib transplant on a sleeping patient without the required documentation, the Womens’ Electoral Lobby would not agree that man was to be created before woman, animal liberationists were incensed that man was to have dominance over animals, the gay lobby did not want woman created from man, the right-to-lifers argued that rib tissue had inalienable rights and ASIO insisted that those created must first have security clearances. God now had the measure of his opponents and announced to the court that He would only create indigenous people. Opposition evaporated, there were excited suggestions about having a special year dedicated to indigenous people and, after no thought, it was decided that if these matters were aired at a subsequent public hearing, then God may be given permission afterwards to say “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth”.
Despite the onerous conditions laid down by the court, God was willing to adhere to all these conditions and, at the end of the hearing, He was asked when He hoped to commence His creative project. Great consternation arose when God stated that He wanted to complete the project in six days. The unions would not agree, too many people would have to work too fast to an exacting deadline. This was unprecedented compared with all previous attempts at productive creativity which had been prevented by prolonged industrial action. God was advised that the EIS and necessary permits have an application period of 90 days followed by a public viewing period of 60 days in each capital city. Upon receipt of all of the information, the granting bodies required a minimum of 180 days to review the applications prior to the public hearing. If there were no appeals arising from the public hearing, the process would take at least 36 months from the time of application before God was permitted to commence His creative venture.
God became positively catatonic. To His horror, God suddenly realised that He had only focussed on creation of the heavens and Earth and had forgotten to create the rarest commodity on Earth – common sense. The economic benefits of the regulatory processes were such that it was just not possible for God to create Earth in the proposed six-day period. God fulminated in disgust “To Hell with My Project!” and Earth, as we know it, was then created.
“
To understand how well the Lukes of Australia have been in selling lies, I offer this quote from an Australian paper:
““whatever the science ultimately shows, Australians of all political persuasions believe humanity is responsible for global warming and the government has to act to reduce its impact.”
So no matter if the premise is wrong, the government should do what AGW con-artists and jack asses demand.
This is an example of what one might call a post-intellectual op-ed piece: an opinion position that is not only ignorant of the facts, but immune to them as well.
Luke,
As the Wall Street Journal pointed out, it seems from the emails etc that the global warming issue was rigged from the start. If so, at whose behest? Are you telling us that the Greens and the lefties have given up their battle to rid us of capitalism? Goodness Rudd blamed us extreme versions for the GFC.
As for the Fabians, maate, their mode of operation is to dissemble and hence lie – and the Australian website has suddenly experienced a revitalised publication effort – goodness they are now even publicly saying who is a member on the government team. A year ago and it was anyone’s guess.
As Schiller points out, the EU is slowly imploding – but the Europeans are too stupid to understand what the cause of the implosion is.
And Lukey, maate, I am in close contact with devout ALP types, and some years ago they admitted that while the science was shonky, it wasn’t about the science, but forcing us to live a more sustainable lifestyle. So when I hear it from the red’s mouths, maate, it has to be taken at face value. That’s called socialism – though these days they call it social democracy. Same horse different racing colours.
This is what the sceptics are on about – stopping Australia becoming another EU. The EU is a socialist state and it is an economic baskeet case.
And the opposite of scepticism is gullibility – you, maate, along with SJT and your happy little lefties, are Gullible with a capital G.
Sorry Derek, Plimer’s “story” won’t rate anywhere else, not even as a stunt for kids
BTW although I offerd that newspoll report up the page in support of my views, I do my own semi private polls at the markets on an irregular basis to confirm the public opinion of climate change as the evidence is advanced. In so doing I find a fair number of individuals who are involved in some way with the science over the decades.
hunter; some yanks have got a cheek coming in here offering their opinions on our science and public ALSO MEDIA support for these endevours
Gavin,
Climate change, what the political climate? Oh the physical one – well it’s unfalsifiable, to its pseudoscience. But you knew that didn’t you.
Here are a couple of recent polls on the amended ETS and whether humans cause AGW;
http://www.2ue.com.au/
There was also a recent ninemsm poll which ran 55/45 that humans were causing AGW; this is a msm driven psychosis and the msm’s influence is greatest in the city where cognitive dissonance prevails.
“Sorry Derek….” Apologise for being a moron or stay silent you filthy lying treasonous jerk. How many Gavins in this world aren’t dishonest unscience idiots? So far its a 100% track record.
I don’t suppose this twit has come up with any evidence these last few months has he? I didn’t think so. The problem with fake and fraudulent scare stories is that they undermine our attention to authentic problems that may be out there.
Here’s another poll you can vote on now;
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/climate-right-for-an-ambush-early-liberal-election/story-e6freuy9-1225804749819
The wording is partly obscured but no is the only reasonable choice.
“Whenever bird shows up I think of this movie for some reason:” I’m not gay Wes. So your attempts to compare me with Brad Pitt are in vain. I don’t find this stuff the least bit flattering. The point is that no matter how crazed some of these catastrophic theories sound, so far they appear to have more going for them, then this hoax we have had to live with these past 20 years. So we have to reorient our minds, in that twenty years of a hoax threat, cannot make us immune to real threats. While I use “2012” for shorthand, and place very little credence on specific dates, the idea of catastrophic events elsewhere in the galaxy, leading to disastrous results here on earth, does seem to have a lot going for it. And certainly more than this CO2-bedwetting. Which has nothing in its favour whatsoever, after 80+ billions of dollars spent and untold investment damage done already.
Fat Albert flees Denialiti at book signing.
http://www.larouchepac.com/node/12520
He needs the exercise.
Hullo to all at Jen’s blog. Just back from a masochistic solo sea jaunt and it seems I have been missing all the fun.
Lots to catch up on.
But as Norman Gunston used to say, “innit excoiting”!
Cohers,
Why can’t these polls be specific when they ask, “do you think that CC is really happening”? or, “do you believe that CC is caused by humans”?
This bloody silly generic “climate change” means nothing.
The biggest scandal in science has occured and Robyn “100m” Williams is playing opera – “Where Corals Lie” by Elgar – on The Science Show!
Spangles, as I said earlier the msm is just about where this debate was 2 or 3 years ago and right now they are very much inclined towards AGW so they will frame polls to obviate a clear result; as well the public are just starting to focus; I thought the 2UE polls were good.
gavin,
And your point is?
That if Australia goes down some AGW bs rat hole it will not hurt us all?
Or that my friends who live in Australia and NZ don’t deserve any help?
Or that Australians getting tricked into Euro loser ETS junk does not impact the ROW?
Or merely that you are losing, you know you are losing, and you don’t want any support coming from outside to help your side lose?
Or do you think the laws of physics work different at the bottom of the world?
It is still an open blog. I will compare my level of support to this blog to yours any day.
take care now, ya hear?
The leaked e-mails show that the team went for ‘cliamte cahnge’ to help hide the fact that AGW was not actually happening. Climate changes all the time, and Hulme believed that he could sensitize people to to think that any powerful weather event was evidence of ‘climate change’.
Cool trick, huh?
Use a literally meaningless term, that can be veneered wwith any meaning you want, and then whine about it continuously.
This is the decision making flow chart our Parliament should refer to when discussing the ETS:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_R6dL-3ZN9rI/Sw-SxGAbZRI/AAAAAAAAAAM/1EyrzVtC1uw/s1600/Slide1.GIF
***
This is the ABC’s editorial position as so elegantly expressed by Luke and Gavin:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_R6dL-3ZN9rI/Sw-tFK8Z3oI/AAAAAAAAAAc/16VDdoGBZPU/s1600/Slide3.GIF
***
And this is the full post:
http://www.devilskitchen.me.uk/2009/11/crudgate-why-this-cant-be-swept-under.html
Derek,
I enjoyed Ian Plimer’s version of events. Here is a similar one which may be interesting to those seeking a career path in the Public Service, especially in ‘climate change’.
A Public Service Appraisal of Dr. J. E. Hovah, PhD
1. This officer has only written one paper in the last 2,000 years, and that was in Hebrew.
2. This paper has never appeared in a refereed journal.
3. The paper is largely anecdotal and narrative.
4. There is no abstract, introduction, discussion, or list of references.
5. The method is obscure.
6. The scientific community has been unable to reproduce the results.
7. When subjects did not behave as expected they were deleted by drowning, turning into pillars of salt etc.
8. Clearance from the Ethics Committee was never sought.
9. This officer has presented no seminars himself, but once sent his son.
10. Dr. Hovah may have created the world, but what has he done since then?
11. He has no record of cooperating well with colleagues.
12. He has only attended one meeting, and that was on a mountain top in the middle of a desert.
13. At that meeting he presented a set of 10 hypotheses, but these have never been subjected to rigorous statistical testing, and are largely disregarded by established scientists.
We recommend redundancy or redeployment.
“One can always trust experimenters who get the right answer when they do not know what the right answer is. One can never trust experimenters who know what the right answer is (human-caused global warming), and who have total control of the only data that can confirm or reject the theory, and whose jobs depend on confirming it.”
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-the-skeptical-scientist’s-view/
Louis will like the geo-magnetic angle in this story:
“A French scientist’s temperature data show results different from the official climate science. Why was he stonewalled? Climate Research Unit emails detail efforts to deny access to global temperature data…”
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/11/26/skewed-science.aspx
Here is a bit of light relief for the Denialati amongst us. The rest of you can just look away.
http://buythetruth.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/heretic.jpg?w=500&h=349
Only 3,000 signatures. Giggle.
3,000 !!
It’s a lonely hearts club.
A song for Wessy Woo. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JOO8-Jp-xsg
I assume the denialist bluffers on here have personally audited all these data sets. How many sets have you looked at Wes – would it be 0.0 ? Yeessss ! “there’s just no data ” – bunkum !
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/
Data Sources
Filed under: Climate Science — group @ 27 November 2009
This page is a catalogue that will be kept up to date pointing to selected sources of code and data related to climate science. Please keep us informed of any things we might have missed, or any updates to the links that are needed.
Climate data (raw)
Climate data (processed)
Paleo-data
Paleo Reconstructions (including code)
Large-scale model (Reanalysis) output
Large-scale model (GCM) output
Model codes (GCMs)
Model codes (other)
Data Visualisation and Analysis
Master Repositories of climate and other Earth Science data
Climate data (raw)
GHCN v.2 (Global Historical Climate Network: weather station records from around the world, temperature and precipitation)
USHCN US. Historical Climate Network (v.1 and v.2)
Antarctic weather stations
Satellite feeds (AMSU, SORCE (Solar irradiance), NASA A-train)
Tide Gauges (Proudman Oceanographic Lab)
World Glacier Monitoring Service
Climate data (processed)
Surface temperature anomalies (GISTEMP, HadCRU, NOAA NCDC)
Satellite temperatures (MSU) (UAH, RSS)
Sea surface temperatures (Reynolds et al, OI)
Stratospheric temperature
Sea ice (Cryosphere Today, NSIDC, JAXA, Bremen, Arctic-Roos, DMI)
Radiosondes (RAOBCORE, HadAT, U. Wyoming, RATPAC, IUK )
Cloud and radiation products (ISCCP, CERES-ERBE)
Sea level (U. Colorado)
Aerosols (AEROCOM, GACP)
Greenhouse Gases (AGGI at NOAA, CO2 Mauna Loa, World Data Center for Greenhouse Gases)
AHVRR data as used in Steig et al (2009)
Paleo-data
NOAA Paleoclimate
Pangaea
GRIP/NGRIP Ice cores (Denmark)
GISP2 (note that the age model has been updated)
Paleo Reconstructions (including code)
Reconstructions index and data (NOAA)
Mann et al (2008) (also here)
Kaufmann et al (2009)
Wahl and Ammann (2006)
Mann et al (1998/1999)
Large-scale model (Reanalysis) output
These are weather models which have the real world observations assimilated into the solution to provide a ‘best guess’ of the evolution of weather over time (although pre-satellite era estimates (before 1979) are less accurate).
ERA40 (1957-2001, from ECMWF)
ERA-Interim (1989 – present, ECMWF’s latest project)
NCEP (1948-present, NOAA)
MERRA NASA GSFC
JRA-25 (1979-2004, Japanese Met. Agency)
Large-scale model (GCM) output
These is output from the large scale global models used to assess climate change in the past, and make projections for the future. Some of this output is also available via the Data Visualisation tools linked below.
CMIP3 output (~20 models, as used by IPCC AR4) at PCMDI
GISS ModelE output (includes AR4 output as well as more specific experiments)
Model codes (GCMs)
Downloadable codes for some of the GCMs.
GISS ModelE (AR4 version, current snapshot)
NCAR CCSM(Version 3.0, CCM3 (older vintage))
EdGCM Windows based version of an older GISS model.
Model codes (other)
This category include links to analysis tools, simpler models or models focussed on more specific issues.
Rahmstorf (2007) Sea Level Rise Code
ModTran (atmospheric radiation calculations and visualisations)
Various climate-related online models (David Archer)
CliMT a Python-based software component toolkit
Pyclimate Python tools for climate analysis
CDAT Tools for analysing climate data in netcdf format (PCMDI)
RegEM (Tapio Schneider)
Time series analysis (MTM-SVD, SSA-MTM toolkit, Mann and Lees (1996))
Data Visualisation and Analysis
These sites include some of the above data (as well as other sources) in an easier to handle form.
ClimateExplorer (KNMI)
Dapper (PMEL, NOAA)
Ingrid (IRI/LDEO Climate data library)
Giovanni (GSFC)
Wood for Trees: Interactive graphics (temperatures)
Master Repositories of Climate Data
Much bigger indexes of data sources:
Global Change Master Directory (GSFC)
PAGES data portal
NCDC (National Climate Data Center)
Cohenite,
I just voted on the Telegraph site and noted that the NO vote was by far the dominant one for both questions. I voted no for ” do you believe that climate change is happening” even though I do ’cause it was a stupid question but it was interesting to note that the votes were 69% no to 30% yes. To put it into proper context though you would have to know what the Telegraph readership demographic was.
Anyone who thinks Realclimate is a creditable source has an oversupply of personal lubricant.
Yes Derek I see luke still refers to Rahmstorf and his sea level code which is a dud;
http://landshape.org/enm/a-semi-empirical-approach-to-sea-level-rise/#more-2618
http://climatesanity.wordpress.com/critique-of-a-semi-empirical-approach-to-projecting-future-sea-level-rise-by-rahmstorf/
HI Jennifer……I’m still reading the blog, and will continue. Just thought Luke and the boys would like this video. It’s nice an’ simple for ’em.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LcsvaCPYgcI
Enjoy.
On a slightly different tack, can anyone point to data for time series on the DEPTHS of the oceans and changes therein? Cook and Bligh were for ever doing that sort of thing. I suspect Louis would come up with more reliable readings than Luke’s mob.
Talking of whom, Luke’s listing of RC’s alleged data sources on global temperatures is thoroughly misleading, as not one of those sources AS CITED either provides time series data for anywhere on earth or for how the GCHN CRU and Gistemp derive their Global sets from such individual site data. Schmidt’s list is nothing more than propaganada, implying transparency when there is none. What we need to see is the contents of each of the so-called GRIDS in CRU etc.
Hint: they are all fictitious like all the data sources cited by Real Climate and their lap dog aka Lukey. Last time I looked, CRU’s “grid” for UK is down to Bournemouth and Waddington, dear old Phil having lost all the CET data since 1659. Scotland has long ago been expunged, not without reason! CRU cannot even maintain temperature readings at its home town Norwich (nor Hadley at Exeter), any more than NOAA at Mauna Loa Slope Obs.
What is required is an independent audit of the provenance of the “global” temps we are regaled with every month.
Friends and others,
Here’s some interesting information, along with a question I’d like a clear answer to.
First off, the ‘leaked’ emails are now in a searchable database at
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/index.php
and for fun, search on the term ‘Marohasy’. Turns out, this blog was often a matter of discussion amongst the scientists!
Okay, now for the question. A team of IPCC scientists have separately issued “The Copenhagen Diagnosis” which claims, among other things, that “CO2 levels are higher now than they have ever been during the last 800,000 years.” See
http://www.copenhagendiagnosis.org/press.html
But it appears that CO2 ppm has in the past been more than ten times higher than now, or more, without destroying the environment. See
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html
although it appears you have to go back more than 800 kyr for numbers like that.
So is the “Copenhagen Diagnosis” “cooking the books” again by cherry-picking their favorite ‘year zero’, or what?
Bunk Curtin – you’re just a card carrying denialist. You lot aren’t serious – all you’re doing is looting and ransacking and moving from issue to issue like Vandal hordes. You simply just move on. You don’t have any serious interests in the science. Otherwise you’d be aspiring to publish your rhetorical dross in something other than E&E.
There are still a number of issues which offer ambivalent ‘evidence’ in the AGW debate; historical and modern levels of CO2 is one; whether ACO2 is entirely responsible for the modern increase in CO2 and whether the sink capacity is expanding; Tim has shown that the sink capacity is expanding which makes the recent dire predictions contained in the IPCC update based on increasing CO2 levels defective even by the AGW supporter’s own meagre criteria; Ferdinand has done interesting work on whether ACO2 has produced all of the modern increase in CO2 and there is plenty of interesting work about whether past levels of CO2 were less or more than today;
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/6855
Schiller the Copenhagen Diagnosis is interesting in other ways. If you look at the authorship you will see that despite Gavin of RC’s claims that it was written by scientists from all around the world there are in fact only 26 westerners. A few from Europe the bulk from UK (East Anglia of course)and USA with largest group 7 Australians 5 of whom are Uni NSW. One Aussie BOM which of course has its own mention in the emails, David Jones advising he too gives the finger to suspected CA associates. The document I think published by Uni NSW and sent to all Copenhagen attendees (all 20,000?). It is a compilation of previous not new, released to generate fear in the lead to Copenhagen. Our media just cut and pasted I suspect.
If nothing else it displays the Eurocentric nature of this debate, and our heavy involvement, possibly fraudulent as well if I get the Harry bit about our data being so bad also. Reading that science in the west has become about risk and regulation and certain that the rest of the world don’t see science as a tool of R and R (China’s current efficiency drive called doing our bit for global warming is a subset of its energy and economic security policies, not its conservation policies) it is hard to see the Copenhagen Diagnosis as much more than a PR document to ensure there is no backsliding by the politicians who seem to have become captives of an alarmingly small group of scientists who have a very different Weltanschauung to me.
The Chinese moves also appear to be about WTO arguments and carbon penalties.
I appreciate the continuing discussion at this thread and especially all the links. I do go and vote when given a link to a poll.
Cohenite, especially, I appreciate your knowledge and links.
Thanks, cohenite.
I don’t know how this will all fall out, but in the mean time, I can rest content in the (not widely known) knowledge that the USA absorbs all the CO2 it emits. Being a beneficial gas, you may rest assured that we’re putting it to good use.
Also in the interim, look for another Obama ‘Czar’ to fall: John Holdren. Originally famed for being afraid of global cooling, he’s now famed for being afraid of global warming. And he’s wrapped up in the CRU scandal. And he advocates compulsory abortion for climate etc. control. His notion of abortible individuals may actually extend so far as to include any pre-pubescent (non)person.
One thing that computer modelers should attempt is the variables, coefficients, feedback loops, etc. which seem to favor the ascent of the advocates of odd notions to the top of the policy pyramid.
I could be wrong, but a strong ‘signal’ would be a preference by AGW proponents to lapse almost instantly into ad hominem argumentation, or simple foul language, a la Luke, upon the merest suggestion of a question of the AGW position.
Having visited literally hundreds of blogs and ‘bulk media’ outlets on this topic over the last few days, seeking credible sources (and finding only a few — those who actually deal in computer code), it’s increasingly apparent that ‘deniers/skeptics’ are polite and curious, while AGW proponents are mean, mean-spirited, foul-mouthed, or otherwise deal in the sort of invective found in the ‘stolen emails’ which some wish to kindly characterize as ‘scientific dialogue’.
Luke’s comments here are merely emblematic of the low-brow criticism of those who are curious.
Curiosity is, among the human virtues, the most important. When that virtue is abandoned, which some appear to advocate, we’ll need to return to the trees and fight carnivores bare-handed for our supper.
Andrew Bolt had an interesting point on Insiders that having had a conversation will Joe Hockey he concluded that Joe didn’t even understand what it was all about – he hasn’t read anything about it and has no idea of the science.
I think that is typical of most Australians.
Further to my “innocent” question about existence or not of time series data on the depth of the oceans, let me explain that real scientists (unlike Allison & Bindoff – both claim to be oceanographers – and the other usual suspects who co-authored the latest product of the Goebbels Institutes of Climate Change at Potsdam and UNSW, The Copenhagen Diagnosis), if there is evidence that the sea-level is rising, one needs to consider alternative hypotheses to explain such data. They adopt the Pavlovian assumption that it must be down to warming due to rising [CO2], and ignore the much more plausible hypothesis that it is due to increasing sedimentation, some but not all of which is no doubt anthropogenic. While Allison et al touch on cores reflecting sedimentation 55 million years ago, there is no other mention. It is sad but true that Allison et al have no cognitive capacity to understand that after adding matter to a volume of a liquid its level will rise. Try adding a cube of ice to your gin or whiskey, lo! – the surface level rises. Truly, it really does.
Now if there was such a science as oceanography, one might expect to see a regression analysis of lab data comparing the impact on surface level of indices of (1) rising CO2 (2) rising temperature and (3) added sediment. Perish the thought. Allison et all are in fact politicians with an agenda pre-determined by their paymasters.
I plan to ask WWF and Greenpeace to fund my kitchen analysis for the next month of adding heat, CO2 and slices of lemon to my G&T on the the surface of the latter prior to bibulation. That is because they will love any new reason to terminate all human activity (including sewerage outlets into the rivers and oceans) that raises the average altitude of the ocean bottom and thereby its surface height.
“Andrew Bolt had an interesting point on Insiders that having had a conversation will Joe Hockey he concluded that Joe didn’t even understand what it was all about – he hasn’t read anything about it and has no idea of the science.”
I thought that was Andrew’s problem. Except that having read about it he still has no idea.
Tim Curtin,
You missed a variable.
Tuvalu and The Maldives (islands) are sinking into the ocean due to subduction and erosion.
Someone needs a computer model of how sinking these into the ocean makes everyone else’s shore-lines rise.
We’ll also need to model how the hulls of the boats of ‘climate refugees’ displaces certain quantities, which would also drive up ocean levels by a certain amount.
But then, once on dry land, the ocean levels driven by ‘climate refugees’ would go back down. But on dry land, the refugees — seeking prosperous economies — would seek ways to increase their carbon footprints. Such as, by eating food.
Goodness, this is so fraught. If these third-worlders would just give up and die, like the greenpeacers have long wished for, we could move on to other ‘burning’ issues, like… okay, the end of the world in 2012, the invasion of the Nibiru, the subversion of the Nephilim, and so forth.
“Luke’s comments here are merely emblematic of the low-brow criticism…”
“Serious believers in AGW” such as Luke, Gavin and STJ have much to offer to the Climategate debate and I, for one, welcome their input however obfuscatory it might be. Jen’s readers aren’t fools and can make their own judgments. So far the true believers have presented no reasonable mitigation for the CRU fraud. I imagine they are as mortified as the rest of us.
Personally, I’d like to see Luke, Gavin and STJ explain to us how they think science progresses? Can research results where the data, code and methods are hidden and no independent review is allowed by skeptical third parties still be real science?
If the CRU has destroyed the raw T data that formed the basis of much of their research, is their research still valid as hard science?
Here is how the CRU advances science:
They simply lose the data:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece
And now Mann is under investigation by his University, Penn State:
http://www.ems.psu.edu/sites/default/files/u5/Mann_Public_Statement.pdf
How is your shredder holding up, all of you Lukes out there?
As we say in the states, “Luke, it is time to lawyer up.”
Wes I think you would have to get a good professional forensic computer crime analyst in to check Phil Jone’s computers before you would believe any story from these proven liars.
The claim that they have lost all that data is probably rubbish and anyhow all the HDD’s would have to be thoroughly checked because you certainly couldn’t trust jones and his team as far as you could boot them.
Certainly there will be an inquiry and hopefully charges will be laid.
Remember deleted data can be recovered from HDDs by a top analyst so hopefully this would be another way to track down these corrupt scientists and bring them to court.
Remember it is the poor bloody taxpayer who has to foot the bill to fund this so called science (?) and we will have to foot the bill into the future just to flush billions down the plug hole for a zero return.
It is disgusting that we have to fund this corrupt rubbish because a useless team of bedwetters have lied and conned stupid politicians into believing this fantasy.
Like I mean it’s not as if it’s hard to understand NATURAL CC.
Time Curtin,
” It is sad but true that Allison et al have no cognitive capacity to understand that after adding matter to a volume of a liquid its level will rise. Try adding a cube of ice to your gin or whiskey, lo! – the surface level rises. Truly, it really does.”
Being a sceptic, I recommend we all get together, you buy a round, and we test your hypothesis empirically!!!
Cheers
Neville,
the claim is that the data was on old punch cards and magnetic tape and was discarded. If true, it is GONE!!
I tend to think that it was converted and stored on later media also. Hopefully the investigation can find it. Would be a true crime if it was destroyed.
Lukefartard, SJT…
your opinions of the great Phil Jones and CRU DESTROYING ORIGINAL DATA?!?!?!?!
“I assume the denialist bluffers on here have personally audited all these data sets. ”
Did you audit them? Which one particularly did you find to constitute authentic evidence? See you are just filth. You are a traitor. And calling you a dog is an insult to mans best friend. You are a spineless insect. The whole lot of your tag-team. This is the revenge of the nerds. But the stupid nerds. To stupid to even be a convincing brainy nerd.
We know that you and this movement are a fraud. So what was your point? You didn’t have a point. You are insects puke mate. Jacking off on human misery. The worst sort of King Lear Edmunds irresponsible scum.
“the claim is that the data was on old punch cards and magnetic tape and was discarded. If true, it is GONE!!”
but surely to adjust the data you must have the original in your formula, and if you have the formula you can recalc backwards to the original.
We will have financial crises of one sort or another down the track while these traitors are sitting pretty with their government pensions. There will be no end to their schemes to sell us out if there are not moves afoot to punish these people. Both those who pushed this gargantuan scandal, and those that triangulated with them. As well as the economists who decided that the science didn’t matter and you could tax carbon irrespective of the scientific evidence for doing so. We can have people like this fired from the public service of course. But that doesn’t go far enough. In any financial squeeze we want to be ready to suspend their pensions. All this time they have been willing to squeeze their benefactors by exerting as much pain on the taxpayer as they possibly could. Even so much as wanting to increase spending during a recession and hiring the incompetent economists who told them this was the latest thing.
There must be revenge for this sort of behaviour, or one scam will simply roll into another. I know none of you people think like this now, but then the squeeze is not on here like it will be, or like it is now in the United States. To fail to be lending weight to moves to punish these people, is to guarantee that they will be dogging our every step in putting over reasonable policy and in maintaining our sovereignty. We have to be almost as ruthless as the traitors to neutralise them. And think of how ruthless these people are? Jennifer would have had her contract renewed were in not for white maggot scum traitors and triangulaters surely.
worth it just for the cartoon 🙂
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2009/11/redefining-peer-review.html
It’s 39.1C here today – the computers predicted 33C
The IPCC 2007 report said ‘the Himalayan glaciers are receding faster than any other part of the world.’
They were just joking, of course. http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/news/sci-tech/16-the-glacier-controversy-hs-09
I see that there are a few mentions about CO2 levels. Ernst-Georg Beck has had published in Energy & Environment a peer reviewed paper “180 years of Atmospheric Gas Analysis by Chemical Methods”. This has has been referred to on many web sites such as NZ Climate Science. He has a website (can’t find the link at present) which will allow downloading of the paper otherwise you have to pay.
The paper indicates that several researchers in Germany, Sweden and Russia have made 1000’s of CO2 measurements in the period around 1939-1941 which were higher than present. I have been able to down load a very interesting paper by W Kreutz published in Angewandte Botanik in 1941 which was one of Beck’s references (this is about 120 daily CO2 measurements over a period of 18 months showing daily and seasonal variations along with a large array of climate data including solar irradience) Secondly, Beck throws some doubts in another peer reviewed paper “50 Jahre Continuierliche CO2- Messung auf Mauna Loa” on the measurements of Keeling saying that initial calibration maybe wrong and that past data put in models has been fudged by leaving out meausements from eminent scientists (some of whom have won noble prizes for chemistry and physics) and selecting data that suits them.
Many of Beck’s reference’s are written in languages other than English. That may be a reason that Keeling and other AGW alarmists have ignored them but that is not an excuse for ethical scientists or the reviewer of journal articles. (Kreutz’s paper is in High German which makes it very difficult but there is a translation on Beck’s web site).
Kreutz found daily variations of around 50 ppm due to plant uptake and averages of daily peaks during the measurement period in excess of 460ppm. Kreutz was not the only researcher to find CO2 in the period 1939-1941 to be higher than 400ppm. Beck indicates that the high CO2 levels were due to high temperatures in the northern hemisphere in the 1930’s and that there is a delay of some 5yrs between temperature peaks and CO2 peaks.
“Sorry Derek, Plimer’s “story” won’t rate anywhere else, not even as a stunt for kids…”
No no. You are a liar. And idiot. A fraud. And a traitor. Its your story that is not going anywhere.
janama November 29th, 2009 at 1:46 pm
“the claim is that the data was on old punch cards and magnetic tape and was discarded. If true, it is GONE!!”
but surely to adjust the data you must have the original in your formula, and if you have the formula you can recalc BACKWARDS to the original.”
Unfortunately no! Once you have an output, you can only get the average back, not the individual data elements. (unless you have them saved in a file, during processing, but why would you do that? you have the database.)
I very much doubt that they were destroyed, database managers are like magpies, collect and keep everything for ever.
This I do know, having worked as a system analyst for a while after Uni., that’s why I just laugh at claims of MODELS predicting this and that.
Engineering models (or any others) with known inputs are very dependable by the way!
Gave up the job soon enough, it’s bloody boring, needs a dull mind to last in the programming game!
Hunter; in case you were wondering I’ve been outdoors for a bit and we had five ‘climates’ in three hours only this morning. Apart from my garden black birds that seem to love the lull after a stir, imo it’s still very tricky stuff to measure and some of us got a wet backside into the bargain while carefully watching for the forecast weather changes.
After a small boat alert the 3.30 pm Sunday issue reads as follows
“Current Weather Situation and Future Developments
A low over the west Tasman Sea will move east as a high over the Bight approaches and passes south of Tasmania late Tuesday. Isolated showers and thunderstorms are expected in the cooler stream between these two systems. A second low will bring unsettled conditions as it passes south of Tasmania later in the new week –“
http://www.bom.gov.au/products/IDN10035.shtml
What is very different these days?
Any one shower can ruin your vehicle in about a minute with either a coating of fine sticky dust from dry lands afar or a shower of big icy rocks from very high above.
Where I live it seems each week becomes more exciting than the last. Science and the msm go fishing a lot for new terms.
The big wake up call came in 2003 and there were a number of inquiries afterwards that aimed to change our attitude to the bushfire threat nationally. This one deals with a particular risk at that time. In this country many people are now very busy with the stats associated with living in what seems an increasingly wild place.
http://www.fido.gov.au/fido/fido.nsf/byheadline/05-269+Australian+homes+underinsured%3A+ASIC+report?openDocument
In private submissions I raised the question of fire front land speed (about 15 km/h) in the worst conditions and this has become a major target in recent agency cooperative research. I began to consider bushfire speed after looking at a very deadly situation that occurred much further south in 1967. What emerges with investigation are a number of human failures in appreciation, so the work goes on as more impacts are studied.
http://www.latrobe.edu.au/news/articles/2009/article/2009-bushfire-research-task-force
May I say from my own experience; the overall outlook is not good.
THIS IS A CALL TO ACTION
We have been given a powerful tool in the form of GlimateGate.
It now has a name and has the potential to get a life of its own.
So if the mains stream media is not going to report on this then let us use the social Facebook and emails to spread the news.
Send the following two YouTube videos to two people that you know and ask them to send it onto at least 2 others.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cu_ok37HDuE
And
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEiLgbBGKVk
If you have a Facebook page post the two links.
Will
Schiller – don’t make me ill. I remember you going on about darkies. Mate you couldn’t give a stuff.
And Birdy when you can muster more than an embarrassing number of votes in an election – keep your warped philosophies to yourself and get back in line.
who the f**k are you to tell some one to get in line!
The birdie election attack has been used so many times it makes you the joke!
I don’t need all the votes to get to you assholes, department of Luke. All it takes is a lot of time, and one crisis following another. If pensioners, who are former taxpayers, are suffering, and we need to sacrifice your stolen money incomes, and your houses, to keep the old guys who didn’t betray their nation ……. to keep THEM in dignity, and to repel a foreign attack (((( brought on by you Quislings weakening our nation)))) then a time like that would be a time for payback. And that time will be here, and probably sooner than you think.
I will be calling years in advance for the retroactive punishment, consisting of your impoverishment, and that call will be heard.
You white maggot scum. You came here. The whole lot of you. With the 24 hour purpose of undermining an honest scientist FOR BEING an honest scientist. And I will not forgive or forget. Not ever. And it makes it ten times worse, and me ten times more angry about it, contemplating, that her leniency towards me personally, was probably enough to tip the balance against her, and to get her fired.
I’d take it straight out of your flesh if I could. If you were smart you would either kill me now or get her rehired, at higher pay, and bonuses, quickly. Because I aint about to let go of this.
Jennifer, the language and abuse here is getting out of hand. Personally, I’m not offended, but Luke is obviously under stress.
Even though the Queensland dentist said he’s not going to a double D election, we don’t believe him. This man is delusional over CC, so anything he says is unbelievable.
The point I’m making, consider your future, if we are to fight an early election then we will need you on deck here.
“your opinions of the great Phil Jones and CRU DESTROYING ORIGINAL DATA?!?!?!?!”
He didn’t.
I looked up this Christopher Booker, did you know that he asserts that asbestos has the same chemical structure as talc and is as harmless to humans?
SJT
Prove itl
Rog,
Correct except for Blue Asbestos.
Louis,
the latest research (and there is now an enormous amount of data) concludes that there is little difference between the risk estimates of chrysotile and amphiboles for cancer(s) – they are now finding elevated incidence of laryngeal and ovarian cancers as well as lung – the reason being that invariably there is a mix of fibres in both “white” and “blue” rendering segregation based on “colour” superfluous.
Very high rate of cancer in all asbestos groups when combined with smoking (another “harmless” occupation)
Oh hello, rog’s been here 5 seconds and already he’s jumped the shark and introduced cigarette smoking, next port of call, climate denialists also believe fags aren’t bad for you and support the nicotine pushers as well.
Louis if you’re there, I’ve often wondered why asbestos, being a silicate, is more dangerous than other minerals with similar chemical composition. I know that crystal fibers can cause an immune response but do you know how a mineral can cause cancer?
Cheers.
Turnbull said this. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/malcolm-turnbull-says-consensus-candidate-wont-work/story-e6frg6n6-1225805026686
[i]”…”The Minchinites do not want to delay consideration of the legislation, they do not believe that climate change is real, they do not believe that humans are causing it and they do want to do anything about it…”[/i]
Yorr damn tootin’ …By Golly, I think Malcolm’s got it. 🙂
The leaked Climate Research Unit emails get the Hitler/ Downfall treatment
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-VRBWLpYCPY
Enjoy…
“if we are to fight an early election then we will need you on deck here”
I think el gordo is appealing to the gods. Mate; sit back and enjoy the fun. We have a wonderfull working democracy to depend on!
Sure; the stouch between Jen’s “principled” men and the rest of us is exciting to watch but this enthrawling battle can’t last once the clamour from the sidelines on the right dies down.
Be sure though there is no room for wishy washy back benches in this ETS saga and concilitary comments in the media today won’t heal all the splits after tomorrow.
Who is going to be the next media fodda? One or two switching to the Nats? I suspect some tallent for trouble can remain on the far right even after a DD.
I was a proud member of the Denialati until the Bolter said Penny Wong is in ‘denial’.
Just love the way the msm is getting this political fight wrong – the conservatives will not implode. More than 80% of Australians don’t understand the science to make a rational decision on the CPRS, yet there will soon be a groundswell of grassroots activism in the run up to the election which will sway the electorate.
Had dinner with a bunch of school teachers the other night, primarily of the left, who knew nothing about the CC debate. By the end of the evening they were at least discussing it among themselves, without any help from me.
I spent yesterday afternoon talking to a group of Gaia faithful about CRU and the leaked e-mails. Gullible lot, ignorant beyond belief, so I’m blaming the msm for keeping all my old friends in the dark.
El Gordo I must admit I don’t see many Nat cc deniers, but when I do meet them they certainly seem completely pig ignorant and clueless.
If you talk about historical climate they don’t understand , if you pull apart gore’s sci fi flick they give a mad stare, I could go on but I won’t.
janama,
“but surely to adjust the data you must have the original in your formula, and if you have the formula you can recalc backwards to the original.”
Actually, NO!!!!
How do you reverse rounding decisions?? Remember we are only talking about a .6C rise in 100 years from a large amount of data much of which would have a .5C precision. (remind me how we are so sure of that .6C??)
How do you determine how many stations and days from each station went into that monthly grid cell anomaly to reverse the calculations?? How do you determine the value to use in the UHI and similar adjustments that are based on one station’s value adjusting others??
Better to toss HADCrut out the window and start with the original sources if you are only interested in a good temp series. We already know they are a bunch of manipulators. No reason to waste that much manpower.
Also notice that RC actually writes “This page is a catalogue that will be kept up to date pointing to selected sources of code and data related to climate science.” Doesn’t even CLAIM to be all the code and all the data. More propaganda.
I see no roadmap to what CRU actually did with their original data which isn’t there. Just a bunch of links to other sites and Papers, some behind Paywalls, with no way of verifying whether anything listed was actually done to the data and an unpleasant number of 404 errors!!!! I do not think it would be possible to reconstruct the original raw data, expecially from what Schmidt linked. Here is the HadCru Data link:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/
Looks like monthly gridded ANOMALY data. Not a good starting point to work back to daily data with only a few papers as references for procedures!! what stations were used for the grid. How were they processed to get the grid cell average?? (think averaging with other stations for UHI and other arcane metaphysical permutations).
Here is an interesting UHI decision in the most recent paper linked:
Brohan, P., J.J. Kennedy, I. Harris, S.F.B. Tett and P.D. Jones, 2006: Uncertainty estimates in regional and global observed temperature changes: a new dataset from 1850. J. Geophysical Research 111, D12106, doi:10.1029/2005JD006548
“No such
complete meta-data are available, so in this
analysis the same value for urbanisation
uncertainty is used as in the previous analysis
[Folland et al., 2001]; that is, a 1 value of
0.0055C/decade, starting in 1900. Recent
research suggests that this value is reasonable,
or possibly a little conservative [Parker, 2004,
Peterson, 2004, Peterson & Owen, 2005]. The
same value is used over the whole land surface,
and it is one-sided: recent temperatures may
be too high due to urbanisation, but they will
not be too low.”
Yeah, that is a really good number for UHI, IF YOU ARE TRYING TO SUPPORT AGW!! Love that last sentence. No possibility of a too low temp, only high!! Just like all the other adjustments we hear about, HIGHER!!
Nope, not worth reconstructing unless you are a BELIEVER in AGW!!!
Hey Lukefartard, here is your chance to prove you are worth something other than as a Carnival Sideshow Act. Reconstruct HadCrut raw data from Schmidts linkies!!! I certainly couldn’t even start!!
SJT,
““your opinions of the great Phil Jones and CRU DESTROYING ORIGINAL DATA?!?!?!?!”
He didn’t.”
Let’s see what conclusions we can come up with from you belief:
1) the data was destroyed (thrown away) before Jones was responsible for anything. He used the VALUE ADDED data created by others basically blindly and can not vouch for the correctness of the results due to this blind spot!! The current data set then has no reasonable basis and must be discarded!!!
2) Jones was involved in the production of the VALUE ADDED data. Unfortunately, as he is now a proven liar and a Religious Believer in AGW we can not depend on any statements of his as to the validity and provenance of the VALUE ADDED data and it must be discarded.
3) you are wrong, Jones and CRU are liars and he was involved in the loss. Again HadCrut must be discarded.
4) you are right, yet Jones and CRU are liars. The data was NOT destroyed but they are hiding it to prevent disclosure of their criminal fraud and/or incompetence. Again the HadCrut temp series should be discarded.
Want to try again SJT??
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
SJT,
Have a butchers at this and then tell me it’s not data fiddling:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/29/when-results-go-bad/
But, but, but…we’re right this time…
Compiled by Tim Blair
From the New York Times, 128 years of looming polar doom:
• 1881: “This past Winter, both inside and outside the Arctic circle, appears to have been unusually mild. The ice is very light and rapidly melting …”
• 1932: “NEXT GREAT DELUGE FORECAST BY SCIENCE; Melting Polar Ice Caps to Raise the Level of Seas and Flood the Continents”
• 1934: “New Evidence Supports Geology’s View That the Arctic Is Growing Warmer”
• 1937: “Continued warm weather at the Pole, melting snow and ice.”
• 1954: “The particular point of inquiry concerns whether the ice is melting at such a rate as to imperil low-lying coastal areas through raising the level of the sea in the near future.”
• 1957: “U.S. Arctic Station Melting”
• 1958: “At present, the Arctic ice pack is melting away fast. Some estimates say that it is 40 per cent thinner and 12 per cent smaller than it was fifteen years [ago].”
• 1959: “Will the Arctic Ocean soon be free of ice?”
• 1971: “STUDY SAYS MAN ALTERS CLIMATE; U.N. Report Links Melting of Polar Ice to His Activities”
• 1979: “A puzzling haze over the Arctic ice packs has been identified as a byproduct of air pollution, a finding that may support predictions of a disastrous melting of the earth’s ice caps.”
• 1982: “Because of global heating attributed to an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide from fuel burning, about 20,000 cubic miles of polar ice has melted in the past 40 years, apparently contributing to a rise in sea levels …”
• 1999: “Evidence continues to accumulate that the frozen world of the Arctic and sub-Arctic is thawing.”
• 2000: “The North Pole is melting. The thick ice that has for ages covered the Arctic Ocean at the pole has turned to water, recent visitors there reported yesterday.”
• 2002: “The melting of Greenland glaciers and Arctic Ocean sea ice this past summer reached levels not seen in decades, scientists reported today.”
• 2004: “There is an awful lot of Arctic and glacial ice melting.”
• 2005: “Another melancholy gathering of climate scientists presented evidence this month that the Antarctic ice shelf is melting – a prospect difficult to imagine a decade ago.”
http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/timblair/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/eternal_melting/
Kuhnkat; every time I see some fat head blogger reach for the UHI theme I should smile cause I know instantly they havn’t got a clue about air temperatures or measurements however I will say, the more you visit blogsphere on that subject, the less likely you will ever understand and accept modern data refining techniques aimed at improving dubious records.
BTW I prefer to see the old city stations left in the mix as they were to aviod valid station thinning in general. Dealing with any dodgy instruments as they show up is another thing though and it’s this area of old records that needs the most intuition.
There was a book discussion today on RN where some bird writes about the experience of wating for the right man after the age 40. Warts n all is too much of a challenge for some hey
el “the conservatives will not implode. More than 80% of Australians don’t understand the science to make a rational decision on the CPRS, yet there will soon be a groundswell of grassroots activism in the run up to the election which will sway the electorate”
Some wishfull thinking here mate. Hey get yourself a CD of Yehudi Menuhin doing Mendelsonnohn on his violin with a decent orchestra and just watch the polls.
Personally, I’d like to see Luke, Gavin and STJ explain to us how they think science progresses? Can research results where the data, code and methods are hidden and no independent review is allowed by skeptical third parties still be real science?
If the CRU has destroyed the raw T data that formed the basis of much of their research, is their research still valid as hard science?
Kuhnkat asked: ““your opinions of the great Phil Jones and CRU DESTROYING ORIGINAL DATA?!?!?!?!”
Gavin’s reply: “He didn’t.” Poor Gavin lives in a cave in total denial.
“…This weekend it emerged that the unit has thrown away much of the data. Tucked away on its website is this statement: “Data storage availability in the 1980s meant that we were not able to keep the multiple sources for some sites … We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (ie, quality controlled and homogenised) data.”…
“If true, it is extraordinary. It means that the data on which a large part of the world’s understanding of climate change is based can never be revisited or checked. Pielke said: “Can this be serious? It is now impossible to create a new temperature index from scratch. [The unit] is basically saying, ‘Trust us’.”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936289.ece
Game over.
SJT,
So your faith is strong that you cannot acknowledge even what they say they have done if it is awkward for your belief system.
They did do what they said they did, and they did destroy the information, so only the massaged, dubious junk data remains.
You have been had.
We certainly have the most extreme AGW religious fanatics on this blog.
Even flannery and monbiot have admitted the info from the emails have shaken their faith somewhat.
Monbiot can’t believe the reaction of his fellow leftwing idiots denying the obvious ramifications of deceit, lies & corruption etc.
Flannery admitted last week on lateline that the planet had indeed cooled contrary to the modeling fantasy, what a joke.
Perhaps our warmist fanatics should read this.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/global_warming_fraud_and_the_f.html
No you are just scum gavin. You are just a liar. You don’t have the data mate. You are traitor. We know what you are trying to do to the people who feed you and bring up your children.
Wes;It’s not every cook that needs to sell their recipie to the wailing mobs who failed to find a processing method for their own home grown.
“every time I see some fat head blogger reach for the UHI theme I should smile cause I know instantly they havn’t got a clue about air temperatures”
gavin,
How do you think you can otherwise get the temps to rise?
1878 – 1910 cooled for 33 years 0.73c
1910 – 1943 warmed for 33 years 0.56c
1943 – 1976 cooled for 33 years 0.49c
1976 – 2009 warmed for 33years 0.67c
Net warming 0.01c
What other form of “adjustment” would you select?
Does anyway know what this bit of obscurantism from gavin means?
“It’s not every cook that needs to sell their recipie to the wailing mobs who failed to find a processing method for their own home grown”
As you well know spangled; I’m always interested in the instruments up front. Let’s see now with those fascinating 33 year periods, exactly what thermometers you had in mind hey.
For those who can’t stand the msm including our ABC, you all missed a rather smooth interview on RN Counterpoint with our well known guru on science and public policy, Prof Aynsley Kellow from Utas. Not bad at all on the email saga, given this tru blu sceptic author! In fact Auntie diehards like me get a feast on a day like today.
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/
last and least; “You don’t have the data mate” Aaaah but I got loads of experience and friends into the bargain!
cohenite; I could say to you, we all see only what we want to see and that our personal framework for reasoning is only a collection of bias. Also; any purist will have trouble with others here and their representations in general.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_representation
More on ridigity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Idealism
mutual recognition
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_Gottlieb_Fichte#Central_Theory
cheers
gavin,
Do you drink at all?
I hope you do, it would give you a plausible excuse for the gibberish you have dished up lately.
I sense that the rog who is posting here now is not the same rog who used to post a couple of years ago.
I wonder what happened to Ender, travis, pinxie, Boxer, fosbob and a few of the other early ones? Even sod seems to have decided to sod off.
Phil Done is still here though, eh Luke?
“Perhaps our warmist fanatics should read this.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/global_warming_fraud_and_the_f.html”
Perhaps they should read the IPCC reports.
Derek,
The problem with blue asbestos is that it has an unusual crystal structure that produces “barbs” and hence hooks into the cell walls causing an irritation that, presumably, results in cancer.
Best information source on this might be James P Hogans “Kicking the Sacred Cow” or was it some other text detailing the science on it. White asbestos basically gets dissolved and is removed from the organism – blue asbestos doesn’t. I’ll have to chase this up over xmas since I can’t do it where I am in Central Australia.
How a mineral causes cancer has me beat, by the way. My decedent father was a physician and surgeon and he always maintained that people who get cancer tend to be also nervous types and often smoke cigarettes. He had many patients who died of lung cancer who never smoked or were near a smokey environment. He never accepted empirically that smoking caused lung cancer.
Why would we want to read the UN reports again? You are just scum SJT. You are just a traitor. Dogs vomit.
Notice that our neoclassical eonomists are point blank against the scientific evidence. To me the biggest traitors of all. People like Jason Soon. John Humphreys. Economic illiterates like Joseph Cambria. These are the worst traitor dogs of the lot. Because they are totally against taking the science (natural or economic) into account. The CIS is a particularly shabby faux-conservative outfit in this regard. Totally uninterested in the science.
SJT,
The IPCC reports now look like being the result of fabrication of data. The media have seized on it in the US and the UK – but do enjoy your delusion while it’s still possible, but how you will cope when the truth finally outs is anyone’s guess.
Perhaps they should read the IPCC reports.
go away you idiot! hasn’t anything from the past month sunk into your dried out, frizzled brain?
The media have seized on it in the US and the UK
Just like to say the press in the UK have mostly ignored it. The BBC is just like ABC. They did report the ‘hack’ but no in depth questioning of Climategate at all. Roger Black has a blog at the BBC that is being hammered for not fully reporting the scandal.
—-
Cohenite,
Gavin used to be in Canberra and the ACT? According to Piers Akerman, (and I can vouch for this as I used to have family living in the ACT) ACT people are basically aliens disconnected from the rest of Australia.
The only problem is SJT and Phil Done who live in the QLD long paddock – perhaps they too are a paddock too far away to understand what the rest of us have to live with.
They really are the deniers of reality.
KuhnKat
I would not go so far as calling SJT and Gavin liars – rather they are tailights, not bright enough to be headlights. So they are easily gulled by rhetoric and what they post here are items of serious cognitive dissonance. It seems a common feature of the intellectually inbred.
ol’ SJT back again with his IPCC reports!
Gimme a break Gimme a break!
Aahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Louis,
Up till recently I used to make my own competition brake pads out of old blocks of asbestos brake lining. Cut ’em and sand ’em to size.
They were the best for historic racing.
And in the boat building game we always used asbestos fibre to thicken epoxy resin into epoxy glue and bog.
Fill and sand, fill and sand. Dust everywhere. Some used talc, many used asbestos.
Building commercial premises, the govt mandated that with load bearing steel beams, we had to spray with asbestos for a suitable fire rating.
It was compulsory. And I used to smoke in those days.
I might be lucky. Might have the right DNA.
Gavin, you say this;
“I could say to you, we all see only what we want to see and that our personal framework for reasoning is only a collection of bias. Also; any purist will have trouble with others here and their representations in general.”
And then link to the intersubjectivity principle of Fichte who describes a system of communality based on the recognition of the similarity between the self and others; such a principle is the basis of legal systems and, in a further psychological sophistication, the interobjectivity that science reveals. What you are alluding to is solipsism and the destructive claptrap of Foucault; what Foucaultian relativism produces is a breakdown of the law through an emphasis on unrelated individuality and false, non-communal rights and a denial of the primacy of the reality which science reveals; its a recipe for tyranny and suppression; AGW is a template of this process.
Gentlemen it’s time now.
It’s all been said.
Time to put the blog to bed.
Janama; try these comments from a respected occasional contributor to Jen’s blog, as interviewed today on Counterpoint (Audio from ABC Radio National)
“-Aynsley Kellow considers the ramifications of the scandal”
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/counterpoint/stories/2009/2757619.htm
Marcus; I’m too busy trying to out guess the media on tomorrow’s news to detail reasons for those few thoughts up the thread. Tip, I listened to Chris Ulhmann reporting on the 7.30 tonight after making a phone call to an insider and it seems my sort of reason re the science, ETS etc prevails, like it or lump it.
I hope to remain vigilant to the end in any issue that threatens this democracy and maintaining a healthy opposition across both houses is a core interest.
spangled; extra good luck with your DNA hey
Louis, thanks for getting back to me.
Spangled, Wes and Janama, great links, especially the Karlen/Trenberth story.
Gavin, don’t tell me you’ve never driven from the countryside into the city and noticed a significant increase in temp? You of all people with your background must surely admit that the UHI is a significant phenomenon and is proportional to size of the city. Lots of geography textbooks and websites include a section on UHI with detailed discussion on thr temp differential as you go towards the center of town. It’s just the IPCC that hasn’t figured it out yet.
Cohenite, ……say what?
Well hopefully there’ll be an enquiry.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8383713.stm
But it gets murkier.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1231763/BBC-weatherman-ignored-leaked-climate-row-emails.html
To my knowledge, the only admission of Climategate by our own darling ABC was something Kerry said to Penny Wong about a week ago and naturally she did not want to know about it.
“what Foucaultian relativism produces is a breakdown of the law through an emphasis on unrelated individuality and false, non-communal rights and a denial of the primacy of the reality which science reveals”
cohenite; from my position (middle) the above can easily apply to the far side in either direction. Think about fo a mo given I often refer to MOU’s, NATA principles etc where good practice gets enshrined even on the leading edge as we learn to deal with DNA and so on. But beware there are no black and whites in nature or DNA as it is in Victoria
Spangles,
You write: “Building commercial premises, the govt mandated that with load bearing steel beams, we had to spray with asbestos for a suitable fire rating.”
That specification was also for the WTC Twin Towers but around floor 60 the Greens stopped the use of asbestos and demanded a replacement. The engineer responsible for the construction remarked that if the WTC experienced a fire, then the floors above the 60 one would collapse. 911 proved that in a devastingly clear manner.
As for “chemicals”, hell – I was treating beach sand samples at Tweed Heads (on Foyster’s wharf) using bromoform to separate out the heavies from the lights – that was 1969. And I was first bunney into the Yeelirrie Uranium deposit, swam in the green water inside the main slot through the centre of the mineralisation, and also had to perform taste tests on borewater to work out which were alkaline (simple geochem techniques).
I used to smoke 3 packets of regular B&H per day until 1982, but I am not a reformed smoker, and have robust health at +62 years of age.
I’ve had hepatitus B when a young tacker, eyesight remains good and not deteriorating, hearing is shot from too many drilling rigs and helicopters, I’ve a gammy knee from bogging a Unimog, (twisted it in wet sand while retrieving the wire winch rope), and I am still active in field exploration to this day.
Oh and I like my Jameson’s and the odd bottle of plonk as well, and I used to have asthma when I was young, but no longer.
I don’t use medicare and pay cash for all my medical expenses.
Only problem is that I can’t retire because everytime I get a nestegg, work stops, the egg gets used up, and one starts again.
But I have no debts, (last year was a bit of a fright with GFC – a couple of imprudent investments which I have solved) and retain robust health.
Like you, it seems our good health might be more to what we think, than what we believe.
🙂
God,
Now listen ‘ere!
As the fat lady ain’t even dressed, she’s nowhere near ready to sing.
Gavin opines he is ” I’m too busy trying to out guess the media on tomorrow’s news “. One thing they wont say is that Australia accounts for one third of world coal exports.
Keith Briffa may escape some of the odium heaped upon his colleagues (Mann et al) because he rediscovered the Medieval Warm Period and lots more.
‘I believe that the recent warmth was probably matched 1000 years ago…and I contend that there is strong evidence for major changes in climate over the Holocene.’
http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/UnprecedentedWarming.htm
Hooray!
“Time to put the blog to bed.”
I think the subject is over. And the conclusion is that the proponents are low treasonous lying dogs. Mostly with an interest in global governance. But the blog ought to continue. We ought to suss out what is likely to happen next time we have a supernova, and how we ought to prepare for this. I say that we integrate nuclear war survivability with the consequences of the supernova. The wash-up appears much the same. And we have to prepare for extended nuclear war anyway. This extends into all of our policy. Like the city country balance. Whether energy production ought all be clustered in the Hunter Valley, or much more distributed. These are real problems whereas CO2-emissions are a positive externality and a gift to the biosphere and obviously so.
I think the best way to dislodge fake problems is to focus on the real problems that aren’t being focused on.
Louis,
Some of the most useful people on earth sail pretty close to the wind all their lives.
If you can do that and quickly fall off your perch at around 75 while you’re still fit it’s better than ending up ga-ga in a zombie house.
I built myself a special combustible coffin [in which I could give myself a vikings funeral] that doubled as a window seat in our last house but when I sold, the buyers wanted it to stay.
Maybe they had plans for it themselves.
Birdy,
We ought to build a big gen 4 nuclear reactor on North Stradbroke Is and incorporate a desal plant.
Plenty of thorium on site.
S. drongo says “If you can do that and quickly fall off your perch at around 75 while you’re still fit it’s better than ending up ga-ga in a zombie house.” Fast forward S. d , you would not stand out at the coalition meeting tomorrow.
Derek, just having fun with the old codger.
Louis; are you drilling for my friends; one day they’ll be the bride and not the bridesmaid!
El Gordo,
Interesting link, it certainly does paint Briffa in a more moderate light. Mann now appears to be the mafia heavy type stand-over man and the real nasty in this whole business while Jones is just a liar and a crook.
Gavin, if you’ve read these links and don’t think Mann and Jones are crooks then I’m sorry but you really are paddling down a river in Egypt.
I speak too soon!
Michael Duffy on ABC’s Counterpoint had a great report on our fearless National Broadcaster today at 4.00 pm.
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/counterpoint/stories/2009/2757619.htm
I have been sending numerous emails to the Audience and Consumer Affairs over their non reporting and they reply saying that the rules state that I must cite a specific programme in which I can claim bias was displayed.
I then say, how can I do that when there is just no effing reporting taking place!
Ah well, now it is!
O Frabjous day!
gavin,
Thanks for that and sorry for missing that link of yours re Counterpoint.
Don’t have to f/f bazza, I’m already there.
Gavin, just listened to the counterpoint interview, please accept my apology.
Jennifer,
May I suggest that it is a good time to consider a new thread called ‘New Beginnings’ to discuss the implications of what we now know about how certain climate scientists have hidden the problems with their theory, and how the public may consider responding?
On a day all about how not to win friends or influence people I listened to the considered answer by our BoM spokesman on ABC 666 am to “what’s wrong with our weather?” Apparently it’s all over the place for November, temperatures, rainfall, dust and so on but IMO they were right on the ball with their daily forecasts regardless.
If I have any regrets about the science here, it’s mostly about the loss of records from procedures with older instruments that could have been included in a wider data base with a little hindsight based on forecasts and other records at the time.
For interest I did a google last week on ‘microfiche + temperature’ and guess what? There is a lot of guff on long term film storage that I don’t need after being a guest for 3 months at Kodak’s new Australian laboratories in the 1960’s.
But it’s worth considering exactly what happened to all records in the hands of government agencies before digital storage. Experience tells us there is grave danger at the point of records integration with any new media.
Then we had FORTRAN in the 1970’s. By then the idea of continuous processing had come of age in both industry and commerce. That’s the most likely time our records left the safe hands of technical practice.
I just read the comments section on ABC fora which had a couple of blistering responses to the above link, one by our friend Bernard J. Wrote back a comment of my own and suggest that you guys all co the same so that Mr. Duffy knows that we are out there and that we appreciate what he did.
Cheers.
“Birdy,
We ought to build a big gen 4 nuclear reactor on North Stradbroke Is and incorporate a desal plant.
Plenty of thorium on site.”
Yes of course. And a big liquified (and gasified) coal plant right next to it. Using off-peak electricity, hydrogen, steam, and heat all coming from the nuclear reactor to make our solid hydro-carbons go that much further.
Now listen up. This global warming constellation of lies is really going to be the death of us. And its not just the devastation of the cap and kill I’m talking about here. Its the masking of real looming threats to the planet and the species.
Everywhere we see crude and unscientific theories being held too rigidly in the mainstream. Crude and unscientific theories of gravity, how the stars produce their energy, matter creation, and pretty much everything else that is going to relate to the problem of a galactic centre blowup or a supernova or the first causing the second. They hold to these theories like a miser clutching a 100 dollar note between his butt-cheeks. But I feel if we can assemble the sort of brains we had here in 2008 we can get to the bottom of this matter.
And sometimes it is the same villains who played up the fraudulent CO2-emissions business, who are also playing down the potential for problems sheeted to us from elsewhere in the galaxy. I speak of the loathsome and beloved Goddard institute. The keeper of secrets and purveyor of lies.
“A stellar explosion on a scale previously unimaginable for anything other than a supernova recently erupted on a modest star (slightly less massive than the sun) in a two-star system called II Pegasi in the constellation Pegasus. According to a NASA-Goddard news release, “It was about a hundred million times more energetic than the sun’s typical solar flare, releasing energy equivalent to about 50 million trillion atomic bombs.” Were a comparable event to occur on the sun, it would result in a mass extinction due to the outpouring of lethal X-rays. The NASA report, however, adds a comforting observation: “Fortunately, our sun is now a stable star that doesn’t produce such powerful flares.”
Consider the stupidity of that statement when the flare from this star has taken them entirely by surprise. And since they are too stupid to recognise that the galaxy is an interconnected whole, they see everything as being internal to the star itself. So they didn’t bother to figure out what potential alignment caused this disaster. And we may be talking about the extermination of billions of intelligent beings here. Nothing to be flippant about. Where was the star in relation to the rest of the galaxy when this happened? No answer. What about in relation to its partner star and the planets that orbit them? Not interested. So we have to get onto this. Because leading up to supernova’s there seems to be typically all kinds of problems for us here on earth. And we are overdue for another one of these. We need to know what to do about it.
Just remember Cohenite, Hunter, Neville, Derek, Kooky_kat, Essy Woo and Timmy – Birdy is on your side
hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
oh yes – isn’t it such a big help to the cause. Hey everyone – we’re sensible – listen to us.
hahahahahahahahahhaaaa
I agree with Terry McCrann in todays Herald Sun when he says we should apoligise for CC.
It would have the same effect as an ets but cost us zero dollars, instead of the billions pa this stupid new tax will impose on all Aussies.
Spangled Drongo,
“God,
Now listen ‘ere!
As the fat lady ain’t even dressed, she’s nowhere near ready to sing.”
Depends on the establishment donit??? 8>)
Luke,
you run out of fake science so now you stoop to pure character assasination??
Figures. Small mind, small heart, small…
The bad news is that Luke isn’t getting a new brain in a hurry. The good news is that Tony Abbott won.
“What a momentous week in Australian federal politics! And this morning, against considerable odds, a so-called climate change sceptics, Tony Abbot, took over as leader of the Opposition. It is now likely that the National and Liberal parties will unite behind Mr Abbot, and those passionate on this issue will fight very hard on the issue of emissions trading and the science of climate change. The mainstream media have always been dismissive of Tony Abbot. They are now going to have to at least report him on these issues and it may be in the context of an early federal election.”
We couldn’t have gotten better news. Its just magnificent. The whole future of this country turning on a single vote.
I don’t believe that Tony Abbott has ever even heard of Climategate. And it’s the same with all the rest of the Mambers of Parliament.
So Birdie is an Abbot fan. Abbot said this morning he accepts the climate has changed and it has an AGW component, and he will keep the emissions targets but do it painlessly, but taxes werent ruled out. Well , he was Jesuit trained, but so was Hockey. Wish him well for an election after an El Nino summer.
Derek,
“I just read the comments section on ABC fora which had a couple of blistering responses to the above link, one by our friend Bernard J. Wrote back a comment of my own and suggest that you guys all co the same so that Mr. Duffy knows that we are out there and that we appreciate what he did.”
Great idea and done!
“Depends on the establishment donit???”
kuhnkat,
You’re probably right. CRU have had her up and singing for years.
“So Birdie is an Abbot fan. Abbot said this morning he accepts the climate has changed and it has an AGW component, and he will keep the emissions targets but do it painlessly……”
Hopefully he was just groggy with the unexpected win.
Louis Hissink,
I get carried away sometimes. If I called Gavin or SJT liars I apologise.
If I called Luke(s) a liar, I was right.
YEEEEEHHHAAAAA!!!
Go Tony – you good thing you. Fair chance now that my hard-earned will not be redistributed to keep Luke in the style to which he has become accustomed.
Gavin,
UHI as a Denier tactic??
OK, what about peer reviewed papers. Which ones should we quote. The low numbers, like CRU used, or the high numbers, that they ignore??
You did see the recent study that got a scientist investigated by his university overturning the claim of no UHI in Chinese temp series?? Wonder how many other areas would have similar results??
Have you been to:
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/
and investigated so you can tell us what is wrong with the way he has taken apart GISS??
Great news, Jennifer! Some political pundits in my country have been saying all along that Mr O doesn’t have the votes in the Senate to pass Cap & Trade. The recent Climategate revelations plus the shit-storm in Australia may be the death knell for the Merkin version of an ETS. I’m keeping my fingers crossed for both of our countries.
It would be good if Abbot could focus on the problems with Wong’s Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill – it’s excessively complex, totally unweildy and will do nothing but create a bureaucratic monster and probably carbon pollution police.
Nonetheless, Abbot needs to recognise that cutting emissions is a risk mitigation exercise, whether he or other Coalition member believe humans are causing climate change or not. No sensible person can assert with absolute certainty that humans are or are not causing climate to change. When faced with uncertaintly that poses significant risk, the best thing is to do something to mitigate the risk: that is global action to cut emissions. If in a few hundred years the climate doesn’t change and the AGW scientific theory is proven wrong, we have the benefit that we locked up fossil fuels for future generations to use. The debate therefore should be about how to cut emissions effectively, not about whether to pass the CPRS for Rudd to strut around on the world stage.
Robert and other Scribes,
Robert,
I agree with your comments above and believe that any Government in the world that is convinced of AGW and determined to do something about it, must embrace nuclear power as a first step.
Other so-called renewable power sources are presently wateful sideshows.
Regardless of the false and outlandish claims made by the Church of the Latter Day Envoronmentalists, that are presently doing so much to discredit their cause.
The hypothesis of mans emissions of CO2 being potentially harmful to the earths atmosphere, will remain and should continue to be researched.
Given the complexity of the issues involved and the variables therein, any resolution could be a century away.
Todays events in Australia, I find immensly hearting, as they are a victory for “Grassroots’ opinion and represent vindication of reasoned argument in the face of Media bias and distortion.
Rudd’s falsly named “Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme” was nothing other than an ineffective, bureaucratic Money Go-round.
Lets hope that Abbott has the balls to take on not only this strident P.M. and Government, but also the MSM for letting down the Australian people by not challenging the Government and giving unquestioned airing of sensationalist claims regarding Climate Change.
This could be the beginning of change and a more rational and practical approach to a number of issues.
Pikey.
Abbott wins and Julie Bishop is deputy….. Woohoo…. This just gets better and better:-)
“Nonetheless, Abbot needs to recognise that cutting emissions is a risk mitigation exercise, whether he or other Coalition member believe humans are causing climate change or not. ”
No thats just stupid. You don’t have the data mate. The relevant risk is the risk of cooling. Trashing your economy is not risk reduction. People just say that when they have no clue about the science. There is no known risk that CO2-level reduction reduces. Except the risk of cheaper food and more survivors.
The point Robert is making is very pertinent and whether you are convinced of AGW or not it makes a lot of sense to have an energy plan that ticks all the right boxes.
This is what Abbot now needs to do.
Most of the smart people from both sides [not the greens of course, but a few of them, too] realise that nuclear is virtually renewable and CO2 free and by promoting NP he can cut Rudd’s legs off.
Robert
‘The debate therefore should be about how to cut emissions effectively.’ Wrong! CO2 is not a pollutant, but if we were to cut back I would stop the flow of petrol to everyone except essential services.
I would then begin culling all the beef cattle and then the sheep. Being a vegan who loves to walk, it would have little effect on me.
It’s hubris to think humans have any tangible effect on climate and it’s obvious the overwhelming force of nature drives our air con.
“The point Robert is making is very pertinent and whether you are convinced of AGW or not it makes a lot of sense to have an energy plan that ticks all the right boxes.”
Robert has no pertinent point. And this isn’t a matter of people having different beliefs. Its not a question of “Hey man. If that’s your belief man. If thats your ‘”bag” brother, thats cool with me”. Its not about anyones subjective beliefs. Its a scientific question. And it happens to be a fact that no-one has the data to show a warming risk coming out of CO2-Emissions. Pull yourself together man. Its not about you, I or Robert having an intuitive liver-quiver here. We are not, each of us, affecting to have the gift of second sight. Its purely a scientific matter.
“It’s hubris to think humans have any tangible effect on climate and it’s obvious the overwhelming force of nature drives our air con.”
We do have to recognize that we have the capacity to cool the planet. And to do so cheaply. We have no such ability to warm the planet. But what we can do is have these ETFE domes all over the place.
well said Jennifer in your latest update.
I mentioned to my local butcher that Abbott had got in and his face dropped, then he smiled and exclaimed that Abbott should take us to the next election because he’ll damn well win. He’s a small business operator and he’s sick of paying high rates (like electricity) for all these greenies stupid ideas.
The ABC still hasn’t realised what’s happened, even Richard Glover on Drive was interviewing Bronwyn Bishop and was still using the “but we are saving the planet” line!
perhaps now that Prof Lindzen has finally been published by the Wall Street Journal they might wake up to themselves.
Birdy,
I wouldn’t argue with that logic except to point out that too many people now believe in 1/ peak oil, 2/ peak coal, 3/ carbon pollution, 4/ the precautionary principle, 5/ AGW etc., etc. and it is probably beyond the capacity of any political leader to win with a Business as Usual ticket.
I’m more than happy with things as they are but our now-indoctrinated youth need something more.
Politics is always the art of the achievable.
It’s a window of oportunity to bring in that other string to our bow that Australia should always have had.
With some caveats peak oil is a reasonable model. And we may hit a daily peak in coal extraction some time this century. Never in this story are we wise to base policy on make-believe. People have sort of “referred pain” where they are bugged by other real matters that they cannot articulate properly. And it spills over into other things. We deal with the real problems then and we will have less blowback in the make-believe world. Nowhere do we find an excuse to base anything on fairy stories.
I notice that no-one is the least bit interested in picking up this supernova/nuclear war story. But the real problems that aren’t addressed fuel the fake problems. And the fake problems mask the real ones. In either case we will get traction going after the real problems. People may dimly suspect that our resource allocation policies wind up with China buying all our gear on the cheap and us using up our hydro-carbon paternity too quickly. Personally I think this is pretty right and the referred pain may fuel the global warming racket. But there may be a lot of things spilling into the unreal concerns. People concerned about particulates. About overfishing. Not enough buffered land between private properties for the critters to move around.
If there are real problems and we don’t address them we almost deserve to be plagued by all this make-believe. If people are poor and unable to get better jobs, or easily go into business, and we don’t improve the situation through more liberty and better policy then we almost deserve for the socialists to gain traction. Its the same story all the way down the line.
Bird,
“People concerned about particulates. About overfishing. Not enough buffered land between private properties for the critters to move around.”
I’m totally on the same page with these points, it is doubtful that the labor party shares the same concerns. They give lip service to environmental issues, ban a new dam and call themselves “green”. Meanwhile it is mostly the farmers who are re-vegetating and creating wildlife corridors and shelter belts (as seen on Landline) but of course most of them vote Nats or LIbs, so the Govt isn’t interested.
Notice how people that chose to live among the forests of Vic received huge payouts from generous Auzzies after the bush-fires but the QLD cattle farmers who were hit by devastating floods and now drought get nothing. It would be interesting to see the voting demographics for these 2 areas.
Jennifer should have called her latest update “The new beginning” Congratulations anyone who got it right in advance. I had it with about the same numbers the other way round.
Tony Abbott is obversely held in high regard now by many of his peers and the rank and file for his efforts in opposing the recent ETS compromise deal. That said, he looks and sounds like a kid with a big stick and a basket of eggs.
Ooops obversely > Obviously
The biggest problem Abbott’s got is how to get the the MSM out of kevin’s bed, stop them picking on his character traits and ask a few bleedin’ obvious questions about climategate, climate science and all the other black snakes that are crawling about.
If he can do that he’ll be a genius!
Spangled, I watch Insiders on ABC every Sunday and one thing that I have noticed about the whole Liberal “meltdown” thing is that none of the commentators except Bolt show any interest in WHY Minchin et al feel the way that they do. It;s all about the politics, they have been political journalists and analyst for so long that they can’t see whats staring them in the face. Andrew does his best to inform the rest of what’s going on but they just think he’s a “flat earther”. They even admit that none of them have actually investigated the science, they just rely on IPCC dogma. Bolt mentioned “climategate” last week and was told “he’d have to do better than that.”
The only way to get these people to sit up and take notice is to somehow give it a political spin but I think that the blinkers are well and truly superglued on.
MEME THEORY IN ACTION –
MAN-MAD GLOBAL WARMING –
THE URANIUM STORY
We live on a majestically dynamic planet with intertwining complexes.
Scenarios for future climate involve natural equations of infinite variables.
The science of future climate is in its infancy and is multi-disciplinary,
no one branch knows the whole story.
The truth is – climate prediction is hard,
half the variability of the system is not predictable
and modellers don’t expect to do well.
To assume human induced carbon emissions alone
will significantly alter predictions is pretentious pseudo-science.
The whole story is about energy –
how it is generated, transferred and transformed.
All we really want to do is boil water.
With all this global warming business,
the elephant in the room is uranium.
Uranium provides 16 per cent of the world’s electricity.
The technology has evolved over 50 years and this percentage is set to rise.
The masters of minerals have always been the masters of their age.
Today’s master mineral is Uranium.
It’s production has been stifled for 30 years.
These masters will not sit on their hands much longer –
forcing them to come-up with ways of making alternatives
more costly and less attractive.
Uranium remains the only viable base-load alternative to coal
for the short term.
Hundreds of new pebble bed reactors are a reality.
The irony is the greens and the left
have been corralled into agreeing
with this inevitable outcome.
The funnelling of science to deliver prescribed outcomes
happens everywhere everyday.
In the past, science has arguably aided well for prescribed beneficial outcomes.
But the science has been hijacked in the case of man-made global warming.
The result will be a new bubble of green greed.
Does the end justify the means?
The real question is, what will they pick on next using “science”
to substantiate their stance.
The “chook fed” media will continue to follow the man and not the ball –
to the detriment of the plebs.
By closing debate,
the main stream media is opening space for subversion –
whatever that might mean.
Abbott will galvanize the party and all those Labor lites on the opposition side will have to recant or be marginalized. If the ABC newsroom continues to ignore the science and climategate, then obviously we will have to bring in the black helicopters.
I’m hanging out for that robust debate on the science and when the electorate realise they have been conned they will LOL.
Yeah Derek,
And the buggers have the gall to reckon we’re deniers!
They all think Abbott’s pretty gormless because he’s so honest. He should suck ’em in and hoax ’em.
The media is not the issue.
IMHO the media lost their audience a long time back. They sell stuff mostly advertising.
The world is bigger than half arsed hacks and bitching about bludgers and liars is not gonna change it.
They play pissing games real people do what real people do.
Tony Abbott won leadership on an issue that is heart beat to this nation, so stop bitching about the media Quislings. It’s all they are.
Jen,
they come out of Grad school full of shit and self importance and mostly politically tribal and patheiic, were we ever gonna get a fair crack?
IN the school of Infantry no soldier attacks a rock, we move around them.
Maybe one day they will be real people, but Jen it has not been this day for a long time.
We go around them and we fight where it matters.
We been winning where it matters. That’s all we can do.
Michael,
I’m a bit of a fan of the nuclear solution (so by the way is Luke I think) and the Thorium potential alternative would be a win-win if it can iron out the bugs. Oz has something like 40% of global reserves of Thorium which would last several hundred years by current estimates.
The way I see it, the only problem with nuclear is “what to do with the waste?”……..I don’t get it, why do they have to seal the stuff in 44 gal drums and dig huge deep holes km’s under the ground to get rid of a few kilos of the stuff?
Why not put it back where it came from in the first place? Why can’t the spent fuel rods be ground up and added back to the original gangue, thus diluting it back to it’s original state, and put it back in the mine it came out of? nobody could complain about the radioactivity because the original mine was already radioactive to begin with.
This may be a bit simplistic, if so please let me know why.
I was sadly amazed by the furore over a low level nuclear waste dump near Woomera when radical greenies claimed that a misfiring missile might hit the secreted “gloves and aprons” and cause a nuclear explosion! Clearly it was in the peoples best interest to instead store radioactive waste in the basements of our public hospitals.
John,
So you’re quite happy with a one eyed, one sided, biased media?
I don’t care how stupid they are as long as they’re evenhandedly stupid.
Spang,
I can’t change it and I don’t have to.
Things like that are going to die in the age of mass communication, Spang you telling me we lost.
I just know the demographic I inhabit.
Ordinary folk, dont listen to their bullshit anymore. They have networks around these arse klowns.
They are dieing. They just can’t see it.
It’s a Paradigm shift.
They call us dinosaurs.
What for not agreeing with their opinion based on knowing someone who knew someone, who lied to them.
Lets all grow up.
Real people do. Lets not get down to whinging about dinosaurs. Dont whinge we are better than that.
Jennifer,
I am very pleased that Australians are moving to the right side of this.
I am pleased on a personal level that you held in there.
In my opinion, the thing to push very hard for right now is for all organs that have been highjacked by AGW extremists to be forced to open the books – all work related e-mails, all work product, all code and all data- for a critical review.
We need to know how far this self-selection process went in cooking the books in every country where the meme took root.
Congratulations to all who believe in non-post normal science.
Luke,
RE: Graeme Bird and my side
But you are not on my side, and that is worth it.
The attitude you represent is exactly why your side never closed the deal.
Now get your books in order and get ready for a nice friendly audit.
Phil Jones steps down over climate gate:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/01/phil-jones-steps-down/#comment-242437
Wind this clap trap up.
Excellent article today by Richard Lindzen in the WSJ
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703939404574567423917025400.html
Jabba; whatever you guys dish up, I either ignore it outright when you url is familiar or have a peek while thinking, what’s up with this? In this case I thought Lindzen may have a new angle despite his old Heartland etc links.
But what we see in the WSJ article is that hopeless thermometer illustration and this was my first clue to the rest of it. IMO any self respecting climate scientist would not fly his stuff under such a banner.
That red thread won’t do, sorry. Some here may recall horizontal flat earth approach to average temp, retreating glaciers, rising SL as measured on the flats at peak tide, drought areas and so on.
BTW has anybody here created a SL map of the LIA or the MWP?
“Now get your books in order and get ready for a nice friendly audit.” don’t try to threaten me you little grub. How about you get ready for a bunch of fives.
Reality mate is you are a science moron. An illiterate.
And you are wanking yourselves if you think all this is “over”.
Did Abbot win by a landslide? How many votes on your petitions. Don’t confuse the echo chamber here with reality. But good to see you all supporting Birdy.
Good to know what you all stand for ! hahahahahaha
Reality is that society is divided on this issue. As are the Libs. Noone is going anywhere that quickly.
And again the atmosphere doesn’t care what Abbot wants.
PSU examines ClimateGate and Mann defends Jones.
http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2009/11/30/psu_investigates_climategate.aspx
Luke,
How many fives, anyway? We know that between the lot of you there is not one good mind, but there are obviously more than a pair o fives.
It makes me wonder: How many Lukes does it take to change a lightbulb?
The AGW social movement has always been brittle. After appeals to authority and ad homs, there are always the threats of criminalization, and as we see with the weaker minds of AGW, simply trying to pound the opposition. AGW beleivers ahve always known, down deep inside, that once people see their climate emperor has no clothes, it will run downhill pretty fast.
Just last week, Luke, you were telling us this would all blow over in a day or so.
Phil Jones wishes you were right.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/cru-ringleader-phil-jones-to-step-down.html
So does Michael Mann:
http://www.examiner.com/x-28973-Essex-County-Conservative-Examiner~y2009m11d30-Details-emerge-on-PSU-investigation-of-Mann
And this little baby is just getting its legs under it.
So who are the climate change sceptics in the labour party?
Luke,
Does the atmosphere care what you think?
“So who are the climate change sceptics in the labour party?”
Good point. Time to start outing them, so the public can get a good look at those who were prepared to impoverish the Australian electorate for political advantage.
the Senate has just voted out the ETS – 2 Liberals crossed the floor.
Tom Segalstad
on the construction of the
“Greenhouse Effect Global Warming” dogma
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-g-c_WbJWAQ
http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/ESEF3VO2.htm
Lord Christopher Monckton releases the definitive report on ClimateGate
http://newsrealblog.com/2009/12/01/lord-christopher-monckton-releases-the-definitive-report-on-climategate/
Daily Express
http://www.express.co.uk/ourpaper/view/2009-12-02
Do have a good wank Hunter – nothing has changed. The inquiries won’t find anything but bad manners. Denialists deserve it. Anyway we’ve already bought the jury.
Who knows – Abbott might even win an election on the issue. But the atmosphere don’t care !
And of course there would be sceptics in the Labor party. Goes without saying. The issue is divisive – much of society believes – and maybe as much does not. How many would vote to make drastic cuts – probably not many if it comes to it. But the AGW climate issue won’t go away.
Sceptics need to be very careful how they conduct the debate – any upward move in temperature upwards and the lynch mob will be after you lot for being deniers and spoilers.
This sort of denialist behaviour as a case in point
“New Zealand Climate Science Coalition caught lying about temperature trends”
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/new_zealand_climate_science_co.php
So if ya gonna be purists – make sure you’re all whiter than the driven snow !
Luke
Temperatures will continue to fall and we will all be too busy trying to adapt to worry about warmist behavior. Of course there will be re-education camps for those in denial about global cooling.
I can see them now, wandering around in their drab green with broad smiles on their faces. LOL the world isn’t coming to an end.
My prediction for the week: Greg Hunt will be sacked and replaced by Barnaby Joyce. This will please his mum and dad who didn’t want him to take the lower house seat of Dawson from the incumbent, who they rather like.
Luke,
The NZ Climate Science Coalition does have scientists.
Your mate over in Deltoid tries to dismiss them with the explanation from Gareth Renowden.
And who is Gareth Renowden?………Why he’s a South Canterbury farmer…a person who hunts truffles and has written a book.
He would know all things scientific now wouldn’t he Luke.
Pathetic.
Luke “The issue is divisive-”
I can’t see a whole lot of bunnies going to Copenhagen just to find more about that bunch of emails or the comments following them round in cyberspace. VIP’s have done their own homework on the science and it’s implications. As one of the liberals said, we’ve all had a good ten years too
The little spat in NZ about false trends is about conflating data from different locations with the usual esoteric ‘adjustments’; it’s nothing more than a desperate deflection by Timmah from the gross fraud of CRU. Even dhogsha seems a bit deflated.
There’s the spirit. Audit the department of Luke and send his ass to jail.
By the way. We can be very sure that our CO2 measuring station has practiced fraud and collusion also. And we want to get on top of these liars before they start shredding things.
As I offered a link Aynsle Kellow up the thread, let’s hear Ross Ganaut on the 450pp target and the economics of mitigation tonight
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/foraradio/stories/2009/2752422.htm
What for gavin? It will just be more nonsense and lies.
Read allll about it…. Read alllll about it….. THE BIG CLIMATE CHANGE FRAUD!!! Read allll about it.
Buy yer Daily Express…..http://www.express.co.uk/ourpaper/view/2009-12-02
ClimateGate goes mainstream:-)
Abbott is gonna saughter Rudd and his Great Green Tax on Everything in this up and coming election… Looks like Rudd and Labor are to gutless to call an early election now that they have the Double Dissolution trigger…. To Delay is to Deny shrieked Penny Wong a week ago….. Suddenly it is good to delay?…… Labor must be all Deniers then….. Mwuhahahaha.
“I’m a bit of a fan of the nuclear solution (so by the way is Luke I think) and the Thorium potential alternative would be a win-win if it can iron out the bugs.”
A solution? To what problem. Nuclear is its own reward. But what is the problem you imagine you are addressing?
“South Australia has recorded its hottest November on record, with some regions setting rainfall records as well”
http://www.weatherzone.com.au/news/heat-rainfall-records-for-november-in-sa/13203
“Storms lash central Queensland”
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/12/02/2760111.htm
“The state has had an early start to summer, with many towns sweltering in 40 degree Celsius heat. It is drying out crops, local gardens and now water supplies”
http://www.weatherzone.com.au/news/heat-takes-toll-on-water-supplies/13215
and it’s worth watching Liberal Senator Judith Troeth’s own home grown climate views on tonight’s 7.30 Report (yet to be posted)
http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/
J.Hansford – I wish I had your confidence – all my greenie friends are aghast at Abbott’s ascent. They know nothing about climategate because it’s not in the mainstrean news.
Turning them around is going to take years!
Right gavin. So what is your stupid point this time?
Gavin what are you trying to prove? Tasmania has just had the wettest winter in 100 years and Adelaide has experienced a drop in temp over the last 50 years and ditto Brisbane, so what.
I live in the nw of Vic and Mildura’s rainfall from the old PO records ( 1889 to 1946 ) was an average of 268mm, mean high temp was 24.5c and mean low was 10.4c.
Then from 1946 to 2004 the new airfield records show average rainfall has increased to 283mm and mean high was 23.7c and mean low 10.3c.
So in Mildura temp has dropped and rainfall has increased and you’ll see that trend in a lot of country towns right across Australia.
The western division of Nsw had much dryer conditions from 1898 to 1948 in fact in that period of 50 years rainfall only reached average or above for 7 of those 50 years.
Of course De Deckker has shown that southern Australia has been drying out for at least the last 5,000 years and remember in the last 100 years only Tasmania, Victoria and the bottom tip of WA have had less rainfall ( Vic line ball ) all the other states have had increased rainfall as well as the MDB. ( yes that includes SA)
“Abbott is gonna saughter Rudd and his Great Green Tax on Everything in this up and coming election” – problem is the atmosphere don’t care ! But yea – he’ll probably get in …. coz we’re all suckers – which is how Ruddstar got there ….
So we’ll just sit here – watch the droughts eat away, the high temperature extreme days go up, the Arctic go ice free. And the additional boat people as food supplies dwindle. Oh yea !
After a couple of years denialists will need to be licenced and their movements monitored.
“Temperatures will CONTINUE to fall ” – HEY a denialist forecast – just wrote it on my wall.
el gordo December 2nd, 2009 at 3:12 pm
NOW let’s see …. http://woodfortrees.org/plot/rss
YES – it’s clear it’s a downward trend – you utter moron !
Dream on Luke – dream on
if your dream comes true we will all be overrun by increasing sea levels, extreme temps failing our crops and anarchy running rampant.
Yeah, that sounds better than continuing coal combustion to further our ever expanding society.
Luke, you have such a lovely turn of phrase. I’ve shown you my prediction, big boy, now you show me yours.
ANOTHER GREAT DAY: Making two in a row!
At last the Liberal Party has its heart and pride back and the Coalition is alive and fired up. As Barnaby taunted in regard to an early DD election… “Bring it on!!”
And while the MSM in Aust. is trying to ignore Climategate, the whole shoddy affair is out and will soon overtake them. It now appears that Jones has stood down and a public enquiry whill be held in Britain, and Mann is being investigated in the US.
Hopefully there will be a roll on effect. There is no way that the fudging of temp. data and other criminal acts are confined to these three crooks. Here in Australia, the BoM should be investigated on it’s “corrected temp. data and the ‘losing’ or hiding away of so much long term raw temp. records. It is a national scandal.
Janama – more verballing – didn’t say that.
El Gordo – I did – funny that the graph is up not down. So how does “continued” work?
Denialist scum logic.
Come on Sid – who’s a criminal?
“So in Mildura temp has dropped and rainfall has increased and you’ll see that trend in a lot of country towns right across Australia.”
And this is why the Murray is overflowing you see. Denialist scum logic.
So pigs bum is my prediction. Both inquiries will find nothing but mad manners caused by shit stirring denialists. And we’ll all still be where we were.
Yes Mann is terrified – yea sure !
http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2009/11/30/psu_investigates_climategate.aspx
What would be fascinating is to see some denialist emails. Watch this space for the real conspiracy !
Luke …….The climate change is Natural…. There is no evidence to support the AGW Hypothesis…
The real debate can now begin now that ClimateGate has shown that the HadCRUT Temperature History is corrupt. There are also serious problems with the GISS Temp History also. Hanson has also shown himself to be a militant and Biased proponent in AGW “theory”.
It is also apparent that both of those Temp histories are diverging from the UAH and RSS satellite Temp records….
The only explanation is that the Temp increase from 1850 to present is NATURAL… This is the right way to view climate at the moment, as a natural phenomenon…..
After all the Temp increase is only 0.7 degrees C anyway, so it is quite obvious that the Temperature stations recording outlandish high temps are measuring the Heat Island Effect of land use and cities…. Which can add up to 5 degrees C to measurements in badly sited stations…. Surfacestations. org show that quite well.
The AGW proponents are way too overwrought, as well as financial beneficiaries of the AGW hypothesis. Makes it Politics and not Science.
For gawd’s sake Luke, your medication should always be kept close at hand.
Mann’s hockey stick looks like a housing or mining bubble and just the mere thought of it makes me feel uneasy. But looking at your little graph of temperatures doesn’t show what’s coming.
The post modern climate optimum reached its peak in 1998 and with a cool PDO in force the temperature will flatten. Similar to the 1946 -76 cool PDO.
Low solar activity should reduce temperatures over the next decade by 2 degrees.
Before the carnage in parliament over the past week, Senator Fielding was calling for a Royal Commission into climate change ‘to help people understand what’s going on’.
He wanted Plimer and Garnaut to co-chair. Hooray! Fielding is always out to amuse.
Luke said……. “After a couple of years denialists will need to be licenced and their movements monitored.”
Well Luke, you Envirofascists have already done that to me…. As a commercial fisherman I was forced to have satellite tracking imposed upon me… I was forced to comply with laws and regulation that was promulgated using no science or psudo science.
I am already a wake up to what the rest of Australia is about to endure under the tyranny of Ecofascism.
I for one do not doubt for a single second, that you and those like you, will persecute and liquidate all who will stand in their way… Your manner defines you Luke.
Oh what bullshit Hansford – the ocean story is the same trend, as is the satellite, as are the biological responses to distribution flowering dates, and breeding patterns.
The HADCRUT scheme has NOT been shown to corrupt. You’re wanking yourself !
And you well know there are very good reasons for some differences in the temp series but the broad story if still the same !
And gee a system the size of the Earth just “warms up” for no reason on a global scale.
It’s “natural” man. It’s “God”.
There is no solar driver, it isn’t the PDO – it’s what it is – greenhouse response
So pigs bum to your whole thought process. What utter drivel and sheer fucking stupidity.
And pullease don’t do the usual denialist scum smokescreen of conflating policy with the science.
Well given the tuna fishery – perhaps you need to be monitored. Anyway what are you afraid of?
Ecofascism – what fucking crap. Grow up.
Well El Gordo – just tell me why the trend is UP !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! How come?
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/rss
It’s true Luke… You are an ecofascist….. As I said. Your manner defines you. So do your words….
Namely these words. “After a couple of years denialists will need to be licenced and their movements monitored.”
Do you now disown this disturbed and tyrannical sentence? This glaring insight into your ever darkening soul, Luke…. You uttered them. You are responsible for all they imply.
You are a fascist…. an Ecofascist Luke.
Luke,
You are behind the times, my dear friend.
What you don’t recall, apparently, is that once these things start unwinding for the fooler, the foolee sort of wakes up all at once. Like what is happening now.
Pretending that it was all just angels with dirty faces talking rough is last week’s rationalization.
This week’s, according to that IPCC puppet, is that the system is so rigorous that even if there are bad apples, they would not get past the *stringent* review of the IPCC.
He apparently practiced this a lot, because he did manage to say it with a straight face.
Can you please give it a go? I am sure you can say it more forcefully.
As to your demonstrating ignorance on ocean and sun, well, you are clearly doing what we in the states call ‘doubling down’.
Please continue. This is more fun than watching old clips of Capt. Queeg’s meltdown.
Luke said…. “And gee a system the size of the Earth just “warms up” for no reason on a global scale.”
But Luke. The Global temperature dropped several degree celsius between 1400 and 1600. So if it can cool, it would stand to reason that it can warm…. and in both instances. Naturally.
Another point…. according to the flawed AGW hypothesis, CO2 is A primary driver for global temps…. Then it would have to have been a reduction of CO2, to have caused the cooling between 1400 and 1600…. But no such CO2 reduction is found in the ice cores, etc.
Seems there are lotsa problems with AGW….
Moronic drivel Hunter – why do you even bother? zzzzzzzzzzzzz
Well Hansford you’re a resource pillaging fashit so who cares? Come back when you’ve fixed your tuna fishery.
” The Global temperature dropped several degree celsius between 1400 and 1600. So if it can cool, it would stand to reason that it can warm…. and in both instances. Naturally”
oooooo – it’s natural like mountain spring water …. oooooo
Bunk – so you think it will just do this for NO REASON !! Pullease. Keep wanking.
Ice cores and CO2 – try not be be such a disingenuous debater – try the PETM. How much crap do you denialists recycle – its’ endless.
And try not be so fucking stupid – CO2 isn’t the primary driver for global temps at all. It’s a thing called the …. Sun. Moron !
Luke said……….”The HADCRUT scheme has NOT been shown to corrupt. You’re wanking yourself !”
Hmmm… Luke, I don’t find Temperature Histories to be all that sexually stimulating:-)Perhaps you are projecting?
Prawn fishery Luke…. Didn’t need fixing.
Ok Luke, I’ll leave you in peace now… Try not to harm yourself and enjoy a break over Christmas. Go to church… Discover something more important then the sound of your own voice;-)
J. Hansford,
Calling Luke and eco-fascist is like calling bozo the clown a great actor.
How much of the data is damaged by this? Warwick Hughes is taking apart Jones et al , showing the big thumb on the scale. That’s got to effect GISS and NOAA according to Peilke Sr.
In turn we have the satellite data. The CCMS conference forced UAH to bend in the direction of the surface station record. RSS never made any pretense of independence.
Then you have the plethora of research that on a straight reading showed no natural reaction to the supposed warming but got past the CC filtering of peer review by adding the “this isn’t to be construed as a falsification of climate change”.
I’m thinking there’s a lot, maybe most of the science falling apart with the Phil Jones.
We are at the brink of the introduction of World Government, see concept Copenhagen Climate Treaty.
When they push this through there won’t be a democracy to protect us.
They intend to eliminate the Free World and Rudd like Obama and the EU will sign it.
In the USA, we don’t let Presidents go off an dsign binding treaties on their own.
They have to submit them for ratification, to the Senate.
If I recall my civics class, that requires a 2/3 majority in the Senate to make it a go.
Forget about it.
As climate gate matures, and really grows legs, the whole AGW movement will finally achieve the level of scrutiny it has so far avoided. AGW promters will be the laughin stocks of the planet.
Obama can sign anything he wants. There is no way that the US Senate is going to ratify this waste of good trees.
If Obama is smart, he will find a pressing, sudden reason to avoid Copenhagen, like the political death wish it is becoming.
Great day for the Aussies. Glad you’re back!
Bird; what’s the point, for some; it’s about SLOW science
Another Mark Colvin report “Farmers concerned by soil moisture predictions”
This contains comments from a land owner in my region
http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2009/s2760264.htm
An interview from Late Night Live with Liberal Senator Bill Heffernan who also lives and works in the region
“A Climate Change in the Coalition”
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/latenightlive/stories/2009/2755738.htm
Spangles; after reading your comments on bias in the MSM, I’ve keeping a close ear to the radio on our ABC and there is much on the climate change and ETS from all sectors –
“Carbon cloud hangs over business” By Shane McLeod for The World Today
“There has been a mixed reaction from the business community after the Government’s emissions trading scheme was again rejected in the Senate”
Greg Evans, says the Opposition’s change of tack provides an opportunity to reconsider the ETS.
“Our membership always had some fairly significant concerns regarding the pricing pack, especially in relation to small business,” he said.
Andrew Petersen, a climate and sustainability specialist at PriceWaterhouseCoopers, says business now feels that policy on climate change is under a carbon cloud.
“Investment is at risk. Policy certainty or framework to begin the necessary strategic framework that business needs to undertake is now a question mark,” he said.
Nathan Fabian, the chief executive of the Investors Group on Climate Change, says his members need figures.
“Our members represent half a trillion dollars of investment money and so they need a price on carbon,” he said.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/12/02/2760132.htm?site=news
Typical Auntie hey
‘There is no way that the US senate is going to ratify the waste of good trees.’ Sorry, did I miss something? Are you referring to the Yamal cherry trees?
Everyone keep an eye out for the 5 stages of grief in our AGW friends here;
1.Denial
2.Anger
3.Bargaining
4.Depression
5.Acceptance
It’ll be hard to tell when Luke gets to the denial and anger stages as that seems to be his perpetual condition. Note that in Monbiot’s blog he went from acceptance to anger to denial, all in the one article.
Gavin,
The fact that the money market was so keen to get the ETS through was what got me thinking it was dodgey. The few people who do understand the whole policy must surely be scratching their heads as to what Rudd/Wong though it was going to do about AGW.
Jennifer,
I read about the Aussie Senate vote on Yahoo News. I think that you, Ian Plimer, Jo Nova, and Andrew Bolt should all get together for a glass of virtual champagne. Collectively, you made it possible.
Unfortunately, ETS is in the Undead category, and it’ll be ba-ack, even if if Copenhagen unravels. Also unfortunately, it’s been a long time since I’ve seen Night of the Living Dead, and I forget how to kill a zombie.
Again Derek – keeping wanking on. Do you seriously think that you lot have achieved anything. This is just an obvious grubby attempt to derail Copenhagen. It’s pretty obvious for what it is.
Probably bump public opinion around a bit. Polarise the camps a bit more. Maybe even have some political wins. However I would be petrified if you see any upward movement in temperatures now.
Why? Sceptics will be seen to have simply been the real conspirators.
Hughes taking Jones apart – pullease – pull the other leg – he’s showed animosity at him for years. Do you think it’s an “independent” view. In any case 95% of the data are available. Do your own independent analysis and publish it !!
Denialists really are simply spoilers – the tactic is to obfuscate not illuminate. And move from target to target trying to pick away and create doubt. Like with tobacco – not to win – but to create enough doubt to cause paralysis. And just keep moving on. And keep re-cycling the same old hackneyed lies.
So think about it – you’re going to dispatch half the population and form a new society if you think there will be any peace on this.
It’s simply verbal war without end ! To the last man standing – to the last breath.
Why ? religion? green ideology? world government? neo-marxists ideals? eco-fascism?
No – simply that on any sensible analysis any reasonable person would assess moderate risk. So it’s an issue. It’s simply a risk issue based on known science – and yes that science is not perfect.
However as Trenberth has said – the science does point to AGW happening – however what to do about AGW is THE issue. And for that reason I have not supported the Aussie ETS without an international agreement first. And we should have “new” nuclear on the table for discussion.
Nothing would be more pleasing to know AGW was wrong. None of this stuff is fun politically and one wouldn’t be arguing the point with you lot if one didn’t think it was an issue.
What I find disgraceful though is to misrepresent the science to achieve a political position. Not cricket !
I’m not advocating a position for any party or NGO. It’s simply thoughts as a private citizen, which despite the grubby threats one receives here – surely one has a right to free speech.
And Larry how you could reference Plimer after his “book” is beyond belief – even for a denialist. At least have some standards.
I see Hunter is into clowns.
Mate; that used to be my line re all our pollies.
Seems the view from the gallery in the Senate at Parliament House got even better yesterday. But it was that image on ABC TV last night of our new Opposition Leader in his office designing a fresh liberal Climate Change policy that lingers most. No ETS, no Carbon Tax and no help from the sidelines.
What a performance!
Are you all in step with your new leader?
Do you appreciate his “considered” position?
We will have climate policy, Abbott says
MICHELLE GRATTAN
02 Dec, 2009 06:56 AM
TONY Abbott believes climate change is real, with a human contribution, and has dismissed his recent description of it as “absolute crap” as “a bit of hyperbole” rather than his “considered position”.
After his election as Liberal leader yesterday, Mr Abbott promised to have a strong and effective climate change policy – but not one that would damage Australian export industries, putting the country at a competitive disadvantage with its competitors.
In October, a regional newspaper said Mr Abbott told a meeting in the central Victorian town of Beaufort the argument on climate change was “crap”. Yesterday, he told a media conference he had been trying at the time to “argue people around to what I thought was our position”.
The new leader said it would be “grossly irresponsible” to wave the Government’s emissions legislation through and he wasn’t afraid of an election on the climate issue. “As far as many, many millions of Australians are concerned, what the Rudd Government ETS looks like is a great big tax, to create a great big slush fund to provide politicised handouts run by a giant bureaucracy,” he said.
“Oppositions are not there to get legislation through. Oppositions are there to hold the Government to account.”
He reaffirmed the Opposition’s bipartisan support for the 5-25 per cent emissions reduction target the Government is taking to Copenhagen. “We do want to reduce our emissions and those targets stand,” he said. ********************************
“We will have a strong and effective climate change policy. It just won’t be this ETS at this time.”
But he would not commit to having an emissions trading scheme as part of the policy. There were arguments in favour and against such a scheme, he said. “There is no point in bringing in an ETS before it has become an established part of the world economy, and the time when that is likely to happen – if ever – is when the United States adopts one.”
http://qcl.farmonline.com.au/news/nationalrural/agribusiness-and-general/political/we-will-have-climate-policy-abbott-says/1693302.aspx?storypage=1
The university of NSW climate department is at it again
http://www.ccrc.unsw.edu.au/Copenhagen/Copenhagen_Diagnosis_LOW.pdf
It’s all true Luke and makes perfectly good sense. Abbott will allow his party to formulate a policy stance on climate change and the outcome will reverberate around the world.
They will talk about cycles within cycles, with few linear trends, going back millions of years. The MWP will also be back in fashion after Mann’s failed attempt to eliminate it.
When Tony Abbott returns from the Christmas break he will tell the assembled media that AGW is a crock. He will explain it quietly and choose his words carefully, so there will be no doubt about which way the party is heading.
I’ve also written that prediction on the wall next to the cooling one.
Behind that harsh exterior, we can tell you’re a dear sweet boy who went to a good Anglican school. In your later years you have swapped your faith for Gaia and it shows.
ABC is resolutely in the denial phase.
Number of results returned when searching “Climategate” on Google:
21,400,000
Number of results returned when searching “Climategate” on ABC Online:
One.
Then again. They seem to be sending out feelers on the bargaining phase too.
Europe could save the planet for just €2 per person, per day!
Maybe it varies across departments.
Roy Spencer has the latest UAH figures and it appears that November was the warmist on record (since satellite data commenced in 1979), but as a contrarian I will have to delay giving an explanation until I can work out what the hell is going on.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/12/november-2009-uah-global-temperature-update-0-50-deg-c/
November was the warmest on record? Thats a bit of a loaded phrase isn’t it? Even with the caveats intact. If you want to figure out whats going on you’ll forget about CO2 in its entirety. And start thinking about the way the sun works. Which isn’t what we have been told. Or at least what we’ve been told isn’t the whole story. We have to stop thinking in terms of just the Sun and Earth. And have to start thinking about the interaction of the galaxy in its entirety.
We had enough information to tell us we would be definitely cooling. That the 2030’s at least would be particularly cold. And that we weren’t about to see any serious recovery until well past mid-century if at all.
But the problem now is that we have the unprecedented (for almost 26 000 years) advent of us about to come very close to the galactic equator. So its back to the drawing board. And with that X-factor screwing things up, our former norms and generalisations about the behaviour of the solar cycles have to be regarded as somewhat provisional.
One can only expect the weather to get progressively more volatile. As far out as some of the 2012 speculations are they have more going for them than this C02 idiocy. In a single afternoon I was able to find more evidence linking supernovae to outsized volcanic activity on earth, than 100 billion dollars of stolen money has turned up showing that CO2 is bad for the biosphere. Since I at least found some evidence, whereas all that money didn’t ever turn up any evidence that CO2 isn’t terrific for the biosphere.
“TONY Abbott believes climate change is real, with a human contribution, and has dismissed his recent description of it as “absolute crap” as “a bit of hyperbole” rather than his “considered position”.”
Tony doesn’t have the evidence either. You are just a moron Luke. If Tony had the evidence for this horseshit they’d have given him the Nobels and the honorary heavyweight title at Caesars Palace.
Tony isn’t going to win if he cannot get all his people to drop this Orwellian language. Everyone ought to be on point here. If you say idiotic things like “Climate Change Is Real” you are just asking to be whipped by these idiots. First things first. And the first thing is to learn how to speak English again.
“Bird; what’s the point, for some; it’s about SLOW science”
Well there you are gavin. You didn’t have a point. You are an idiot pal. If 100 billion dollars of spending cannot elicit any evidence whatsoever that CO2 emissions are bad for the environment, a dummy such as yourself wasn’t about to make any traction.
Thanks for that Birdy, I am actually a member of the Denialati and love your big picture item coming ‘very close to the galactic equator.’
Time to investigate what the paleo record says happened 26,000 years ago and I’ll get back to you.
El Gordo, from spencer’s site i particularly like this article
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/11/climategate-and-the-elitist-roots-of-global-warming-alarmism/
“At a minimum, some of these e-mails reveal an undercurrent of elitism that many of us have always claimed existed in the IPCC. These scientists look upon us skeptics with scorn. It is well known that the IPCC machine is made up of bureaucrats and scientists who think they know how the world should be run. The language contained in a draft of the latest climate treaty (meant to replace the Kyoto treaty) involves global governance and the most authoritarian means by which people’s energy use will be restricted and monitored by the government. ”
“Even if this language does not survive in the treaty’s final form, it illustrates the kind of people we are dealing with. The IPCC folks jet around the world to all kinds of exotic locations for their UN-organized meetings where they eat the finest food. Their gigantic carbon footprints stomp around the planet as they deride poor Brazilian farmers who convert jungle into farmland simply to survive.”
How about this for a truth!
“The elitist attitudes exist elsewhere, too. While the skeptics’ blogs allow those who disagree to post opinions as long as they remain civil about it, RealClimate.org routinely ignores or deletes posts that might cast doubt on their tidy worldview. The same thing happens at Wikipedia, where a gatekeeper deletes newly posted content that departs from the IPCC party line.”
and more…
“Skepticism really is at the core of scientific progress. I’m willing to admit that I could be wrong about all my views on manmade global warming. Can the IPCC scientists admit the same thing?”
“Year after year, the evidence keeps mounting that most climate research now being funded is for the purpose of supporting the IPCC’s politics, not to find out how nature works. The ‘data spin’ is increasingly difficult to ignore or to explain away as just sloppy science. If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck…”
I for one do think it is potentially worrying that whilst the sun is at a “minumum” nov has set a record.
So i am prepared to say that AGW could be happening and i will go one step further and say that if the major emitters do agree to binding cuts then it does become a risk management issue as Luke suggests and therefore we need to also try to reduce emissions.
Next question is how to do it and how to avoid the united nations push for global governance ( and pollies like rudd and brown). The ETS would achieve ntg at great cost, so lets hope our idiotic politicians can do better.
Lukefartard,
“I’ve also written that prediction on the wall next to the cooling one.”
AWwwWWWWWWwwww, we didn’t think you cared!!!!
We just thought you were an ignorant foul mouthed sadistic alarmist with masochistic tendencies due to suppressed sexuality caused by your mother dressing you in pink undies all your life!!
Now we see there really is more to you and could care less!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
PS: Does you mommy spank you when you write on the wall??
“Does you mommy spank you when you write on the wall??” no but the wife does. I like it too. And for the record – the undies were red.
Lukefartard,
“no but the wife does. I like it too. And for the record – the undies were red.”
That’s what YOU remember. Your mom tells a different story down to the Pub!!!!
Graeme Bird,
If I was settled near Burraga swamp (Barrington Tops, NSW) around 26,000 years bp the aquatic vegetation has disappeared and the dryland vegetation is a sparsely treed grassland. Over the next few thousand years it would get worse as the earth slipped into the last glacial maximum.
The trees then disappeared altogether and it was just grassland. We also know that dust storms became more common.
What interest me is what caused the temperatures to jump 7 degrees around 43,000 years bp, stayed for a few thousand years and fell back to where it started? They call them interstadials and they appear to be outside the Milankovitch cycles.
How much did you pay her to pretend to be your mommy, Luke?
By the hour, or in your case, just a few minutes?
Here’s some of the latest temperature graphs, which I picked up from the Bolter.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/november_warmer/
“What interest me is what caused the temperatures to jump 7 degrees around 43,000 years bp, stayed for a few thousand years and fell back to where it started? They call them interstadials and they appear to be outside the Milankovitch cycles.”
el gordo,
Obviously there was a great industrial revolution happening at that time.
How do you think all those stones occurred other than from great stone age industry? They don’t just happen because you think it’s a good idea.
If we could just get hold of that police box we could show Luke that it’s all happened before and he could relax.
Spangled, Don’t tell me you’re a Dr. Who fan as well, we must be soul mates!
Derek Smith
Dr. Who fan as well?
Small world, Dr Who is the thinking men’s sci-fi show.
Marcus, I wasn’t such a big fan until the last 4 seasons with Rose etc. David Tennant was the best doctor as far as I’m concerned. I’d love to see that girl doctor that was cloned from him get at least a special of her own.
I suppose the record low temperatures recorded throughout most of the tropical north can be attributed, according to Kevin Rudd’s reasoning, to global cooling.
Strange that he isn’t up crowing about this, as he was about the recent recort hot temperatures; which he attributed to global warming.
Yes Derek,
I’ve always been a sucker for daleks, crinoids etc. but I haven’t watched it recently.
Comment from: Sid Reynolds December 3rd, 2009 at 9:14 pm
I suppose the record low temperatures recorded throughout most of the tropical north can be attributed, according to Kevin Rudd’s reasoning, to global cooling.
———————————
Yes, funny you should say that Sid, there was a caller on the ABC talk back the other day, who said “years ago I had to wear warm clothing to the dawn service in Lismore (NSW) and this year it was warm enough to turn up in short sleeves! so there is a definite warming”
When asked, what will you think about the climate if next year you have to rug up again?
He hung up.
Mr Rudd has no such choice he has to answer, whether we understand his answer, is of course, an other matter.
Thought I might drop this link in for Luke, he’s the only troll we have and we don’t want to frighten him off.
http://denialdepot.blogspot.com/2009/11/nasas-fakes-email-leak.html
Warning: If you link on Denial Depot it’s hard to escape. Like for real. Sorry for any inconvenience.
Hey el, what you need to decide ASAP; is that Bolt stuff coming to you via an echo chamber, a resonant cavity or perhaps some solid state detector. Also who authorized the straight line approach. BTW if I want to be fully informed, it’s important to go see the source.
From experience, there are lots of angles in interpreting graphs or continuous records from some remote device. See this for starters “Monitoring Climate Change in the Tropics”
http://www.remss.com/rss_research/climate_change_in_the_tropics.html
Since I’m more interested in SL reports, it’s reasonable to have a SST snapshot like these illustrations for starters. After all, what melts the ice caps? As Luke says, the jolly old sun warming us as seen from afar. At this point I stress again, SL becomes the big thermometer through the ages
http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a002400/a002470/
Now here’s a job but I reckon it needs skills beyond your average column writer to participate
http://www.remss.com/rss_research/employment_opportunities.html
Spangled; even if you could fly that police box back 43,000 years BP. chances are you’d step out onto another controversy
gavin,
The problem for the warmists is the groundswell against their beliefs. Bolt and Watts have two of the most popular blogs in the world, so perceptions of what is happening with CC will ultimately win the day.
http://technorati.com/blogs/top100/page-3/
One of my favorite blog names: The Unbearable Nakedness of CLIMATE CHANGE, has an article describing how little has changed since 1974. He also puts a stake into the heart that the 70s cooling crisis was only supported by a handful of climatologists and not a wide spread consensus. It is here: http://omniclimate.wordpress.com/2009/12/03/world-exclusive-cia-1974-document-reveals-emptiness-of-agw-scares-closes-debate-on-global-cooling-consensus-and-more
gavin
“As Luke says, the jolly old sun warming us as seen from afar.”
Go back just six month on this blog and you find that lukie would not have a bar of this argument then.
How things change eh!
Congratulations to Jen for her website and the role it and all her other good works played in helping tip the scales against the ETS and ultimately the Copenhagen fraud!
The climate war is now essentially won, although not quite in the bag yet, the cascade effect has begun, the paradigm shift is in gear… Whistle blowers and oppressed researchers everywhere are now emboldened to stand up to fight the fraud, fight the corrupt system. Expect more inconvenient data liberation in the coming months.
China, Brazil, India and other cultures not in the grip of the climate apocalypse fetish now clearly understand the nature of the morbidity and soon the very same public once so frightened by fraudulent claims of a looming climate apocalypse will understand they were lied to.
Anyone want to a punt on whether the ETS will pass in February once the narrative of Climategate has been digested?
Perhaps someday, once real scientific method and transparency is restored to a corrupt discipline our understanding of the Earth’s climate can actually be advanced without the burden of false and politicised fear campaigns.
Free the data! Free the code!
The Courier-Mail has just published a piece by me with the subheading (in the hardcopy),
“Penny Wong and others owe it to the Australian public to better understand what the sceptics really believe, and why. Jennifer Marohasy on why all sides should address the confusion over climate change.”
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,26436806-27197,00.html
And you can leave a comment there.
‘Climate change is a natural hazard’. Just love that sentence and have appropriated the words for future use.
Nicely balanced article, Jen.
Marcus – no far from it – read PRECISELY what I said not what you think I said. The Sun is the primary climate driver. Nothing has changed. You guys never listen. Your major problem.
As for Wes “the climate war has been won” – anyone told the atmosphere?
And what looming apocalypses should have been here by now? Any silly thinking – this is a long term issue.
Very very poor kindergarten level thinking guys.
But moving on:
“The scientist who convinced the world that global warming was a looming danger says the planet will be better off if next week’s Copenhagen climate change summit ends in collapse.
James Hansen, considered the most distinguished climate scientist, says any agreement to emerge from the meeting will be so flawed that it would be better to start again from scratch”
So how can this be? Independent thought. Horror?
I like Jen’s comment in the paper:
“In the meantime, if we are to have credible discussion on the science underpinning the CPRS, Wong and others owe it to the Australian public to better understand the alternative position – what the sceptics really believe and why.’
Indeed – have a Royal Commission – put the sceptics in the dock. Unshackle the institutional scientists to speak freely. i.e. get the gloves off. We’ll then see. Bet you won’t like the answer though.
There would be a major difference between a carefully orchestrated disinformation campaign and an inquiry.
The result will be “the balance of evidence is correct an the sceptics will be shown for what they are.”
So politically all of us will then believe what we want and nothing will have changed.
Jen,
Good stuff!
Luke,
What Jen is trying to promote that you don’t get is not any royal commission, simply some honest questions and answers, general discussions without your sort of dumb ad hom so that some better moves can be made.
Even your mate Jim can see that.
Luke, you need to read what I actually said…..
I said according to the AGW hypothesis CO2 is A primary driver of Temperature…. Not THE primary driver….. As it relates per that flawed hypothesis… You have obviously missed my point in its entirety. We all know that the Sun is the Energy source.
Excellent article Jennifer. Very well written. Very clear.
According to grand poohbah Hansen, Manhattan Island (that’s New York, Luke) should be going under water by now, and vegetation changes there should be apparent.
The idea most AGW hacks and true believers have of an inquiry is a kangaroo court where none of their bs gets reviewed, and none of the skeptics have a chance to say anything.
Good luck with that, guys. Ain’t gonna happen.
Here is a prediction: More revelations about how crooked AGW promoters have been will be forthcoming.
Get those books together, you Lukes.
Lukefartard is RIGHT!!!
“Marcus – no far from it – read PRECISELY what I said not what you think I said. The Sun is the primary climate driver. Nothing has changed. You guys never listen. Your major problem.”
yup, the sun outputs about 40% SW and 45% IR. Wonder how much of that IR actually makes it to the surface through that famous AGW mechanism of absorption and emission. Wonder how badly that upsets those AGW models!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Come on Lukefartard, explain this to us!!!!
Lukefartard,
“James Hansen, considered the most distinguished climate scientist, says any agreement to emerge from the meeting will be so flawed that it would be better to start again from scratch”
So how can this be? Independent thought. Horror?”
Could be PO’d because his employer Gore is not sharing the yachts, women, and MONEY!! Not to mention he hasn’t gotten that promotion to running NASA!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Has anyone else tried to leave a comment at Jen’s Courier Mail article? I have and it doesn’t seem to have been printed; maybe luke is the editor!
I loved that description of Jones, Mann, Schmidt, Hansen et al by Aynsley Kellow as the “gatekeepers of science”.
cohers,
I couldn’t see any comments there at all.
The gatekeepers have struck again!
Jennifer. You are blocked from Club Troppo. And no doubt elsewhere. And any persistent climate rationalist, not brought totally to heal is blocked everywhere. So why on earth do you let an idiot like Luke, on your site. He doesn’t contribute in anyway and he just causes overhead. Its very rare when people can break out of gainsaying his persistent idiocy to actually talk about the subject at hand. I can go on Professor Quiggins site. But I cannot do so and ask for evidence from the true believers. And its doubtful that anyone who persistently did so would not be blocked from pretty much all Australian blogs. I cannot understand why you let this malicious little bitch on here. Particularly as he and the others refuse point blank to make good with the evidence.
@ Luke
“James Hansen, considered the most distinguished climate scientist, says any agreement to emerge from the meeting will be so flawed that it would be better to start again from scratch”
So how can this be? Independent thought. Horror?”
Obviously he is unhappy with his current research grant level and needs to notch up a peg in the fallacious belief that this will buy him some distance and respectability v-a-v the current AGM Climategate debacle.
There’s a poll going on over here in NZ
Do you believe humans are causing climate change.
43% yes 4745
49% no 5400
9% unsure 984
http://nz.yahoo.com/
I left a comment on Jen’s article late this morning…. It hasn’t shown up yet either… Hmm Pretend comment section obviously.
I agree with Graeme that Luke adds nothing of any merit to this site. But, one point he makes it worth a comment. He is wrong about those who have doubts about AGW. They do want a proper senate enquiry where witnesses are under oath or a Royal Commission. It is the alarmists who are frightened of the truth being revealed. They want to suppress evidence contrary to their views. It would be very interesting if Hansen could be brought in front of the US senate.
Well, let’s all keep our fingers crossed for Stephen Murphy in Higgins and Bill Koutalianos in Bradfield; the 2 independent Climate Sceptic candidates; I dearly hope Steve beats old sanctimonious public intellectual, Clive, in Higgins.
No Hunter – at a Royal Commission real scientists will get to roast sceptics for the shonks that they are. Will be quite a spectacle. I look forward to it.
Bird – you’re too thick to review any evidence. Don’t kid yourself.
I got thru to Jennifer’s comments
Notice politeness with lashings of butter .
hehehehehehe.
If you’re in melbourne and have nothing pressing to do on Saturday, why not stop by a polling station in Higgins and hand out the how-to cards for candidate Steve Murphy and the Climate Sceptics.
I’ll be at the Solway Primary School, Winton Road, Ashburton from 1 pm if anyone wants to stop by and say g’day.
News coverage has been absolutely unhinged. Malcolm McKerras predicting Hamilton could take the seat. Robert Manne in the Oz saying pretty much the same thing. You get the impression these folks only ever associate with the like-minded, kinda like the Pauline Kael quip that Reagan’s victory in 1980 floored her because nobody she knows voted for him.
What we need tomorrow is a really solid showing for the Sceptics, as it will reassure anxious Libs that going with Abbott was the right, and the smart, thing to do.
Turn out if you can. The more bodies at the polling stations, the stronger the impression that it is safe for average citizens to voice their disdain for this money-grubbing prostitution of science and democracy.
Luke,
So in your fantasy, only scientists get to ask questions, and the denialist scum are going to sit, with what, socks stuffed in their mouths?
Will your ensemble, in your fantasy, be dressed in some snappy uniform, and allowed to carry little switches, to make sure those denialist scum stay seated, backs straight?
By the way, that part in the Briffa code about using arbitrary ‘fixes’ will be a great opportunity for your wisdom to shine forth.
You are such a bunch of cowardly neverwuzzer loons, Luke. The lot of you don’t have the intellectual capacity of a cockroach to deal with anything beyond what you have been told to believe.
The only commissions that are coming are going to be ones that show how bureaucratic con-artists posing as scientists ever got so far in selling such pile of used bull fodder.
Keep those books and e-mails ready for review, you schmucks.
Bring on the Royal Commission:
“I am a climate scientist, and it is clear that the evidence that “human activity is prominent [sic] agent in global warming” is NOT overwhelming. The repeated statement that it is does not make it so. Further, even if we accepted the hypothesis, cap-and-trade legislation does not do anything about it.
Here are the facts. We have known for years that the Mann hockey stick model was wrong, and we know why it was wrong (Mann used only selected data to normalize the principal component analysis, not all of it). He retracted the model. We have known for years that the Medieval Warm period occurred, where the temperatures were higher than they are now (Chaucer spoke of vineyards in northern England).
Long before ClimateGate it was known that the IPCC people were trying to fudge the data to get rid of the MWP. And for good reason. If the MWP is “allowed” to exist, this means that temperatures higher than today did not then create a “runaway greenhouse” in the Middle Ages with methane released from the Arctic tundra, ice cap albedo lost, sea levels rising to flood London, etc. etc.), and means that Jim Hansen’s runaway greenhouse that posits only amplifying feedbacks (and no damping feedbacks) will not happen now. We now know that the models on which the IPCC alarms are based to not do clouds, they do not do the biosphere, they do not explain the Pliocene warming, and they have never predicted anything, ever, correctly.
As the believers know but, like religious faithful, every wrong prediction (IPCC underestimated some trends) is claimed to justify even greater alarm (not that the models are poor approximations for reality); the underpredictions (where are the storms? Why “hide the decline”?) are ignored or hidden.
As for CO2, we have known for years that CO2 increases have never in the past 300,000 years caused temperature rise (CO2 rise trails temperature increase). IPCC scientists know this too (see their “Copenhagen Diagnosis”); we know that their mathematical fudges that dismiss the fact that CO2 has not been historically causative of temperature rise are incorrect as well. We have also known for years that the alleged one degree temperature rise from 1880 vanishes if sites exposed to urban heat islands are not considered.
We have long known that Jones’s paper dismissing this explanation (Jones, et al. 1990. Assessment of urbanization effects in time series of surface air temperature over land, Nature 347 169- 172) is wrong and potentially fraudulent (see the same data used to confirm urban heat islands in Wang, W-C, Z. Zeng, T. R Karl, 1990. Urban Heat Islands in China. Geophys. Res. Lett. 17, 2377-2380). Everyone except Briffa knows that the Briffa conclusions are wrong, and why they are wrong; groups in Finland, Canada (lots of places actually) show cooling by this proxy, not warming; the IPCC even printed the Finn’s plot upside down to convert the fact (cooling) into the dogma (warming).
Prof. McCarthy is, of course, part of the IPCC that has suppressed dissenting viewpoints based on solid climate science. His claim to support by “peer review” is nonsense; he has helped corrupt the peer review process. We now have documentary evidence that Jones, Mann, and the other IPCC scientists have been gaming peer review and blackballing opponents. On this point, the entire IPCC staff, including Prof. McCarthy, neither have nor deserve our trust.
We have tolerated years of the refusal of Mann and Jones to release data. Now, we learn that much of these data were discarded (one of about 4 data sets that exist), something that would in any other field of science lead to disbarment. We have been annoyed by Al Gore, who declared this science “settled”, refused to debate, and demonized skeptics (this is anti-science: debate and skepticism are the core of real science, which is never settled). The very fact that Prof. McCarthy attempts to bluff Congress by asserting the existence of fictional “overwhelming evidence” continues this anti-science activity.
All of this was known before Climategate. What was not known until now was the extent to which Jones and Mann were simply deceiving themselves (which happens often in science) or fraudently attempting to deceive others. I am not willing to crucify Jones on the word “trick”. Nor, for that matter, on the loss of primary data, keeping only “value added” data (which is hopelessly bad science, but still conceivably not fraud).
But the computer code is transparently fraudulent. Here, one finds matrices that add unexplained numbers to recent temperatures and subtract them from older temperatures (these numbers are hard-programmed in), splining observational data to model data, and other smoking guns, all showing that they were doing what was necessary to get the answers that the IPCC wanted, not the answers that the data held. They knew what they were doing, and why they were doing it.
If, as Prof. McCarthy insists, “peer review” was functioning, and the IPCC reports are rigorously peer reviewed, why was this not caught? When placing it in context made it highly likely that this type of fraud was occurring?
The second question is: Will this revelation be enough to cause the “global warming believers” to abandon their crusade, and for people to return to sensible environmental science (water use, habitat destruction, land use, this kind of thing)? Perhaps it will.
Contrary to Prof. McCarthy’s assertion, we have not lost just one research project amid dozens of others that survive. A huge set of primary data are apparently gone. Satellite data are scarcely 40 years old. Everything is interconnected, and anchored on these few studies. Even without the corruption of the peer review process, this is as big a change as quantum mechanics was in physics a century ago.
But now we know that peer review was corrupted, and that no “consensus” exists. The “2500 scientists agree” number is fiction (God knows who they are counting, but to get to this number, they must be including referees, spouses, and pets).
The best argument now for AGW is to argue that CO2 is, after all, a greenhouse gas, its concentration is, after all, increasing, and feedbacks that regulated climate for millions of years might (we can hypothesize) be overwhelmed by human CO2 emissions. It is a hypothesis worthy of investigation, but it has little evidentiary support.
Thus, there is hope that Climategate will bring to an end the field of political climatology, and allow climatology to again become a science. That said, people intrinsically become committed to ideas. The Pope will not become a Protestant even if angel Gabriel taps him on the shoulder and asks him to. Likewise, Prof. McCarthy may claim until the day he retires that there remains “overwhelming support” for his position, even if every last piece of data supporting it is controverted. As a graduate student at Harvard, I was told that fields do not advance because people change their minds; rather, fields advance because people die.”
Posted by Sean December 2, 09 11:26 PM
This will settle it once and for all.
Who needs a royal commission when we’ve got the UN?
http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2009/12/04/tech-climate-un-data.html
Graeme Bird,
“So why on earth do you let an idiot like Luke, on your site. ”
It is called FREE SPEECH. It can even be considered exchange of opinions.
But mostly, Lukefartard is one of the best advertisements for the extreme CULT types of AGW or Global Climate Change!!!
For those commenting on Jen’s article, they clearly stated that they were SELECTING comments to post based. Something about clear and interesting discussion topics.
We will have to read the comments to see whether they have a bias or are just trying to keep an interesting post.
Graeme, Luke, and I probably won’t make it either way!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Looks like Kevin Trenbarth was WORNG when he said they didn’t know where the energy was going!!!!
http://energytribune.com/articles.cfm?aid=2665
or NASA hadn’t told him yet!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
The Tribune article mentions the Lindzen and Choi paper which is a profound disproof of AGW; but Roy Spencer has a different take on it;
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/11/some-comments-on-the-lindzen-and-choi-2009-feedback-study/
However the Lindzen paper is supported by this paper;
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/08/11/ocean-heat-content-and-earth%e2%80%99s-radiation-imbalance/#more-9865
and this one;
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/243/4887/57
Graeme,
is this what you have been talking about??
http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/shiva-dinosaur-killer
cohenite,
yes, I read Dr. Spencer’s comments on the Lindzen-Choi paper. It sounded like he was talking to them and they might adjust their paper. We can hope there will be a profitable collaboration!!
I have seen the ERBE data mentioned several places as being net cooling so do not doubt that little tid bit that totally sinks the classical AGW models and theory!! Probably why it isn’t seen too many places. No one wants to derail the GRAVY TRAIN!!!
I must say some of the feedback/forcing convolutions give me a headache; Roy is a specialist in this where something, clouds, is not a feedback but a chaotic forcing;
“One thing I liked about the authors’ analysis is that they examined only those time periods with the largest temperature changes – whether warming or cooling. There is a good reason why one can expect a more accurate estimate of feedback by just focusing on those large temperature changes, rather than blindly treating all time periods equally. The reason is that feedback is the radiation change RESULTING FROM a temperature change. If there is a radiation change, but no temperature change, then the radiation change obviously cannot be due to feedback. Instead, it would be from some internal variation in cloudiness not caused by feedback.
But it also turns out that a non-feedback radiation change causes a time-lagged temperature change which completely obscures the resulting feedback. In other words, it is not possible to measure the feedback in response to a radiatively induced temperature change that can not be accurately quantified (e.g., from chaotic cloud variations in the system). This is the subject of several of my previous blog postings, and is addressed in detail in our new JGR paper — now in review — entitled, “On the Diagnosis of Radiative Feedbacks in the Presence of Unknown Radiative Forcing”, by Spencer and Braswell).”
And when Roy says this:
“the real climate system cannot have a net negative feedback parameter and still be stable”
I think he is wrong; for instance if there is a [natural] increase in forcing such as is postulated from a cumulative PDO effect;
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/adai/papers/MonahanDai_JC04.pdf
http://www.atmos.ucla.edu/~sun/doc/Sun_Yu_JCL_2009.pdf
Why can’t the feedback be negative as Lindzen and Choi have found? The mechanism by which ENSO asymmetry produces a cumulative PDO effect is cloud cover which has a radiative effect;
http://climatechange1.wordpress.com/2009/08/18/sea-level-data-exposes-el-ninos-secret/
Roy speaks about lags; it would be interesting to see if the +ve radiative forcing periods of ENSO correlate with TOA increased LW leaving the Earth, the -ve feedback periods.
Watts has the article, but the UK Met has capitulated. They have announced a full recalculate of all 160 years of Temp data. Full and open process to take 3 years.
Luke, its over. BTW, anyone heard from SJT lately? Guess it just got too much for him.
Gavin, a comment?
Cohenite,
” it would be interesting to see if the +ve radiative forcing periods of ENSO correlate with TOA increased LW leaving the Earth, the -ve feedback periods.”
Have you taken a look at the data from the Lindzen/Choi paper?? Hopefully they would have included this, or, does it not include periods appropriate to your interest?
“Why can’t the feedback be negative as Lindzen and Choi have found?”
Isn’t this a similar problem as Positive feedback?? If the input energy drops below a threshold the negative feedback would send us on a one way trip to snowball earth??
My opinion is that feebacks change due to the numerous interactions within the earth system. Same for sensitivity. They depend on the actual interactions at the time. The actual properties of the materials in the system are the natural limiters for the feedabcks so we have a multiple input and output thermostat that keeps us within a large living range. That is, a strong positive feedback acts for a period, but, its action will cause changes in the interactions so that either it weakens itself or strengthens countering feedback(s). I think the idea of self limiting feedbacks and/or countering feedbacks is the only stable situation.
(think of an amp with an additional feedback that turns down the gain as the output power increases or turns it up as it decreases)
Sounds a little ad hoc, but, there are so many interactions that the system appears almost chaotic to us, yet, it appears to be exceptionally stable within a large range. We are talking a range of LIVEABLE conditions for how many millions of years?? And that is without air conditioning or life support!!!
Remember the interesting observation from Miskolczi?? That as CO2 increases water vapor decreases keeping a loose relationship?? This appears to be possible through the simple ability of the gas to hold the water vapor. All other conditions being equal, pressure, temperature, density… adding CO2 reduces the capacity of the atmosphere to support as much water vapor!! There are probably many other similar interactions that are simple physics to which we don’t pay attention, or just haven’t thought to check!!
I am just looking at energy in energy out right now. Whether the excess energy going out is from Solar irradiation, geothermal, cloud cover… doesn’t really matter. The AGW so called “energy balance” is trashed and they need to start over with their “PHYSICS” because they don’t WORK!! I’ll leave it to you smart guys to figure out the migraine causing details!!
Very rational, calm, well written article Jen .
This post at WUWT should be printed on the front page of every newspaper throughout the world.
Hi Folks
Just read the “West Australian” Newspaper for today. Page 20 has an article, basically pure propaganda, on global warming from Copenhagen. We still need to be diligent on hoax promoters.
here’s a leaked email I found whilst searching for something else:
848679780.txt
From: gjjenkins@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
To: p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, deparker@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: 1996 global temperatures
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 11:23 +0000 (GMT)
Cc: llivingston@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, djcarson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, ckfolland@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Phil
Remember all the fun we had last year over 1995 global temperatures,
with early release of information (via Oz), “inventing” the December
monthly value, letters to Nature etc etc?
I think we should have a cunning plan about what to do this year,
simply to avoid a lot of wasted time.
I have been discussing with David P and suggest the following:
1. By 20 Dec we will have land and sea data up to Nov
2. David (?) computes the December land anomaly based on 500hPa
heights up to 20 Dec.
3. We assume that Dec SST anomaly is the same as Nov
4. We can therefore give a good estimate of 1996 global temps by 20
Dec
5. We feed this selectively to Nick Nuttall (who has had this in the
past and seems now to expect special treatment) so that he can write
an article for the silly season. We could also give this to Neville
Nicholls??
6. We explain that data is provisional and how the data has been
created so early (ie the estimate for Dec) and also
7. We explain why the globe is 0.23k (or whatever the final figure is)
cooler than 95 (NAO reversal, slight La Nina). Also that global annual
avg is only accuirate to a few hundredths of a degree (we said this
last year – can we be more exact, eg PS/MS 0.05K or is this to big??)
8. FROM NOW ON WE ANSWER NO MORE ENQUIRIES ABOUT 1996 GLOBAL TEMPS BUT
EXPLAIN THAT IT WILL BE RELEASED IN JANUARY.
9. We relesae the final estimate on 20 Jan, with a joint UEA/MetO
press release. It may not evoke any interest by then.
10. For questions after the release to Nuttall, (I late Dec, early
Jan) we give the same answer as we gave him.
Are you happy with this, or can you suggest something better (ie
simpler)? I know it sound a bit cloak-and-dagger but its just meant to
save time in the long run.
Im copying this to DEP and CKF also for comments.
Cheers
At the time of the email Nick Nuttall worked for the UN environmental program. He’s now the Head honcho.
Libs have won in both by elections, if you add the deleted labor vote to the greens vote it is pretty hopeless, so after a horror week the libs will be home comfortably.
Sorry the two sceptic party candidates didn’t do better but it’s hard to raise a profile with any new group.
sweet………… up you luke!
Graeme Bird,
“So why on earth do you let an idiot like Luke, on your site. ”
Letting Luke make a continual public fool of himself is very good and constitutes the best approach as it shows people that free speech is fully supported here, as opposed to the censorship that is common to anyone questioning the AGW alarmist point of view on the ecomentalist blogs and their fellow travellers, and useful idiots, in the MSM.
Staying cool and not rising to the bait of people like Luke is well shown by Fraser Nelson here
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qw1DVj3r1Hg&feature=player_embedded
they can’t help themselves in spite of the reality.
http://users.tpg.com.au/johnsay1/Stuff/1.jpg
CoRev; since you asked, I’ve been rather flat-out in a vain attempt to recycle before the festive season descends on all and sundry. A huge amount of furniture etc has accumulated under our house. That’s target No 1
Its about this time too, we get serious about yard and street clean up after all trees around have shed half their foliage early in the hot dry winds. Also when the sun gets up now most of the ground gets covered in ants of various sizes. so it’s 4am starts and don’t stand anywhere too long. On the other hand, its small flies that bite most below the knees. It’s guaranteed frequent hot spells and sleepless nights from here on
I managed to get a load of litter to the “green” waste depot before breakfast yesterday thus avoiding the pre x mass rush and trailer dust as the country side deteriorates.
Neville. “Sorry the two sceptic party candidates didn’t do better-“ hey, do you really want some splinter group sitting up the back of parliament till the cows come home? With so many clowns up front, the public should be seeking leadership potential in the mainstream.
I noticed some one harping on about “world government” again. We could be excused for thinking the ancient “League of Rights” just climbed out of some ant hole above. Step on them quickly please. And we don’t need their like running round the back blocks before the next election either.
If you must, join the mainstream even Barnaby’s mob
“Government advisor Nicholas Stern estimated that 10 billion tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions must be removed from the atmosphere by 2020 to cut global warming. Action pledged so far would only achieve half that.” (from yahoo news).
Ok so, Nicholas Stern is what an economist? And haven’t these loons already claimed that if we stop putting ANY more CO2 into the atmo, the 100 year residence time means that temp rise is irreversible? It’s no wonder that more and more people are finding it hard to keep believing this garbage.
Kuhnkat, you say, “Isn’t this a similar problem as Positive feedback?? If the input energy drops below a threshold the negative feedback would send us on a one way trip to snowball earth??” Not necessarily; as I said if there is a radiative positive forcing via the cloud mechanism I linked to in the context of asymmetrical ENSO where a temperature trend is generated in addition to oscillation, then negative feedback such as extra TOA outgoing LW radiation stops any tipping points from happening; this is straight out of the Miskolczi textbook, as is a static optical depth for the last 60 years;
http://landshape.org/enm/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/optical-depth-trend-1.png
“Letting Luke make a continual public fool of himself is very good and constitutes the best approach as it shows people that free speech is fully supported here, as opposed to the censorship that is common to anyone questioning the AGW alarmist point of view on the ecomentalist blogs and their fellow travellers, and useful idiots, in the MSM.”
No you cannot soft-pedal it. They are always playing offense and we end up getting distracted from what the actual story is. Plus all these people were here to maliciously undermine Jennifer personally. This is what they live for. I don’t like to see someone getting hurt by being naive as to what low-down vermin these people really are. Each one a natural born traitor to this country. All of them lifelong parasites.
We ought to move things along and start getting serious about what is likely to happen the next time a supernova goes off close to us. I lack the capacity to figure all aspects of this matter out myself. What I’m good at is comparing ideas of the experts to see what it the more plausible story. Getting bogged down in this brazen science fraud is distracting us from authentic waves of nastiness heading our way from the centre of the galaxy.
“We ought to move things along and start getting serious about what is likely to happen the next time a supernova goes off close to us” – remember Hunter, KookyKat, Cohers – this is your boy – the face of “informed” sceptic reason. Let’s hear your support his position as the new climate policy ! Surely you agree – come on don’t be shy now.
Hey hey hey – we could get Birdy to testify at any inquiry to “help” you guys out. Let’s hear your support !
Keep going Bird. You’re onto something. On something.
hahahahahahahahahahaha
“What I’m good at is comparing ideas of the experts to see what it the more plausible story.”
yea – giggle….
If we claim Bird, will you claim Lovelock?
And of course, these nice folks fit right in with your extremism:
http://www.vhemt.org/
So much so, that I am wondering if you might like to support them directly.
BTW, the UK met office needs to hear form you about how unimportant climate gate is.
They are going to completely audit their records and open the books. How very unlike climate science that would be.
And do clarify for us, all of you Lukes: does the atmosphere still speak to you? Is it a whisper or direct telepathy? Maybe words emblazoned across the sky?
Graeme,
we understand your concern for a wonderful person, but, aren’t you underestimating her ability to deal with these types when necessary??
Lukefartard,
“yea – giggle….”
Your “wife” must love that cute giggle of yours!!
Cohenite,
“as is a static optical depth for the last 60 years;”
The graphs you linked show a steadily increasing optical depth similar to the steadily increasing fake temps. Is this real? Are we seeing it over a long enough period to get an idea of the actual state?? Should a curve be a better fit than linear??
Janama,
excellent find. If they will “make up” data just to save a little time…
I also notice that the real aim appears to be to give out a provisional higher mean early enough so that no one is watching when the real, lower, mean is posted to forestall questions of lack of warming!!
WoodForTrees show HadCrut was LOWER than both Satellites in that period!!
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1996/to:1997/plot/rss/from:1996/to:1997/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1996/to:1997/plot/gistemp/from:1996/to:1997
Not releasing the raw data or the adjustment procedures allows them to game it with no worry of being caught!! Too bad the code for CRU Temps were not in the leak. Wonder where it is??
Birdy
It’s the same everywhere on the blogosphere, if you wander into alien territory you will get beaten up. I spend quite a bit of time over at Deltoid (now that the Bolter is cutting back on expenses) and I get a lot of abuse. They are not big fans of the Hun refugees.
But its all good clean fun, a game of wits in a larrikin gang, respectful of the oracle host and mindful of the anti-trolls. The irony in all this is that I am a global cooling alarmist, but do you think anyone will listen?
Around here Luke is an officially sanctioned resident troll, so may I suggest we feed the troll and attract others to join the fray.
kuhnkat; the red line in the graph is the actual increase [ie about 0.03%] in OD; the blue line is what should have happened if AGW was correct about the effect of increased CO2; this gives an exposition;
http://landshape.org/enm/significance-of-global-warming/#more-1049
Thanks for support el gordo. Love is important.
The New Climate Change Deniers, ie those climate creationists who don’t “believe” the climate evolves naturally – therefore any climate change is the results of human sin and wickedness that shall be punished by the great Earth Goddess, Gaia, with an apocalypse of fire, drought, flood, rising oceans, pestilence, starvation and ultimately the collapse of civilization – still just don’t get what Climategate is all about…
Of course, why should they? Our own climate creationists, Luke, Gavin and STJ have repeated shown no fundamental grasp of the scientific method or even basic human curiosity into how nature works. They’re techno-dogmatists, dim of wit and with zero love for discovery.
Mann-made climate change was never about science. Science is simply the medium they appropriated to advance their socio-political agendas, rather like choral hymnals and Gothic cathedrals were the preferred medium to expresses the Christian faith and its particular socio-political agendas 800 years ago.
But the gig is up.
We want the data, the metadata, the codes, all of it freed for global public inspection on the Internet, not in three years after the Met Office re-fries the books one more time.. but NOW!
From The Times…
Met Office to re-examine 160 years of climate data
“The Met Office plans to re-examine 160 years of temperature data after admitting that public confidence in the science on man-made global warming has been shattered by leaked e-mails.
The new analysis of the data will take three years, meaning that the Met Office will not be able to state with absolute confidence the extent of the warming trend until the end of 2012.
The Met Office database is one of three main sources of temperature data analysis on which the UN’s main climate change science body relies for its assessment that global warming is a serious danger to the world. This assessment is the basis for next week’s climate change talks in Copenhagen aimed at cutting CO2 emissions.
The Government is attempting to stop the Met Office from carrying out the re-examination, arguing that it would be seized upon by climate change sceptics….”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6945445.ece
Riiiiiight, the corrupt weather cops are going to investigate themselves and get back to us in, say, 1095 days.
Free the data, Free the code.
“The behavior of the CRU circle has cast a long shadow over the entire climate science community, and many honest scientists will now undeservedly bear the stigma of Climategate unless a full airing of the issues is conducted. Other important climate research centers with close ties to the CRU–including NASA’s Goddard Institute and the Climate Change Science Program at NOAA–should not be exempt from a full-dress investigation. Such a reevaluation must begin with an understanding of the crucial role the CRU circle has played in the global warming drama.”
“…There have been rumors for years about political pressure being brought to bear on the process to deliver scarier numbers, because the effects of a 2-3 degree increase in temperatures just weren’t going to be enough to justify the kind of emission reductions the greens want. And one of the largest uncertainties in the whole climate story is whether we can determine if the warming of the last 150 years (about 0.8 degrees Celsius) is outside of the long-term historical range, which would lend powerful confirmation to the computer climate models that spit out projections of unprecedented and potentially dangerous temperature increases in the decades to come, caused by the greenhouse gases produced by industrial societies.”
“….Under the pressure of Climategate, the CRU has finally agreed to release its raw data and computer codes. But now we learn that some of the raw data have been lost, and while Jones should be asked blunt questions about whether he made good on his threats to delete data, it is possible that the data were lost through sheer sloppiness. The most devastating document in the CRUtape letters may be not the egregious emails that have drawn most of the public attention but the detailed notes of a CRU programmer, Ian “Harry” Harris, assigned the task of sorting out the handling of the raw data and computer files.”
http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/017/300ubchn.asp?pg=2
“…Climate change is a genuine phenomenon, and there is a nontrivial risk of major consequences in the future. Yet the hysteria of the global warming campaigners and their monomaniacal advocacy of absurdly expensive curbs on fossil fuel use have led to a political dead end that will become more apparent with the imminent collapse of the Kyoto-Copenhagen process. I have long expected that 20 or so years from now we will look back on the turn-of-the-millennium climate hysteria in the same way we look back now on the population bomb hysteria of the late 1960s and early 1970s–as a phenomenon whose magnitude and effects were vastly overestimated, and whose proposed solutions were wrongheaded and often genuinely evil (such as the forced sterilizations of thousands of Indian men in the 1970s, much of it funded by the Ford Foundation). Today the climate campaigners want to forcibly sterilize the world’s energy supply, and until recently they looked to be within an ace of doing so. But even before Climategate, the campaign was beginning to resemble a Broadway musical that had run too long, with sagging box office and declining enthusiasm from a dwindling audience. Someone needs to break the bad news to the players that it’s closing time for the climate horror show.”
http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/017/300ubchn.asp?pg=1
Like I said, Luke-baby, the Climate Wars are all over but for the mopping up skirmishes. You gonna surrender nice? Or are you going to go out like some half-crazed, malarial Japanese foot soldier fighting to the bitter end on a long forgotten Pacific atoll? (We all remember how fond luko is of the Japanese…)
ROTFL
😉
“Like I said, Luke-baby, the Climate Wars are all over but for the mopping up skirmishes. You gonna surrender nice? ‘
wank wank – do go on Wes – WWII is over mate
no gig is up – I am 100% confident the answer will be about the same. Why – many lines of independent evidence. You really are having yourself on.
Your ability to pick the least profitable topics is nothing short of amazing.
And Hayward as source – ROTFL – just somehow looking bad over the years – this dude may be partisan in his view. Just call me intuitive.
hahahahahahahhahaha – pullease !
Luke, like many idiots, seems to exist under the working theory that his idiocy can change the universe around him. But the fact of the matter is that Supernova’s are associated with outsized volcanic behaviour here on earth. Lukes idiocy cannot change fundamental laws of nature. To give you all a bit of a hint how this works, consider the boxing day Tsunmai. The earthquake that created this Tsunami was 9.5 on the richter scale. The strongest earthquake measured since the late sixties. This earthquake was associated with a gamma ray blast maybe 100 times stronger than anything yet recorded. We have to change our way of thinking about how our planet works. Because the fact is we are intimately tied in with what happens in the galaxy.
Another example that shows this is what happened to the dinosaurs. In the space of three hundred thousand years they were subject to two giant asteroid attacks. And before that the most horrendous volcanic behaviour in India. The improbability of all these being independent events points to the same initial cause. Probably a close by supernova.
http://www.etheric.com/GalacticCenter/GRB.html
Its established that Luke is an idiot. But I think that we merely must assume that his idiocy cannot change the way the Galaxy interacts with our planet.
“Birdy
It’s the same everywhere on the blogosphere, if you wander into alien territory you will get beaten up.”
Its the other way around. When did I ever get beaten up? They wind up having to lock me out. Its not all good clean fun. Its not funny anymore when someone loses her job. I think she should ban mindless idiots. They never come up with anything new. They refuse point blank to come up with evidence. Ban them.
See you get beat up. I don’t get beat up. Thats why I’m banned at Deltoid and you aren’t.
Cohenite,
“kuhnkat; the red line in the graph is the actual increase [ie about 0.03%] in OD; the blue line is what should have happened if AGW was correct about the effect of increased CO2; this gives an exposition;”
Thanks. I am close to being colorblind and often miss things on graphs without detailed explanations that I can correlate!! Yeah, it SUCKS!!
Lukefartard,
“no gig is up – I am 100% confident the answer will be about the same. Why – many lines of independent evidence. You really are having yourself on.”
100% confidence shows you are a Believer if not an actual Cultist Lukefartard!! Want to change that to 99.99999%?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Is this you Birdy? http://bigbirdbrain.wordpress.com/who-is-graeme-bird/
It’s not very flattering and is probably the reason you were banned from Deltoid, along with Girmer.
NASA has released news which shows that the balance between airborne and absorbed CO2 has not changed since 1850.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?id=41400&src=eorss-manews
In doing the study they didn’t ‘rely on computations with complex climate models’. That must be a breakthrough in itself, but knowing the carbon sinks are working okay is a blessed relief.
El Gordo. Bigbirdbrain a site that the failed faux-economist John Humphreys set up for me. Its got nothing to do with me being banned from Deltoid. I got banned from deltoid because I kept asking for evidence and Lambert couldn’t find any. He came up with these pdf’s that claimed a doubling of CO2 lead to a 3 degrees increase. I examined them. And there was no evidence in either of them. So he banned me. Because that was all he had. And after I showed them to be bogus he was tapped out. One of the pdf’s was from that tandem-riding Scotsman. Utterly useless and evidence-free.
I found more evidence linking Supernovas to outsized volcanism, in a single afternoon on google, and for free, then these morons found for their fraudulent CO2-cause after spending 100 billion dollars of other peoples money.
Kunkhat. She could deal with them but chooses not to. Its pretty clear that she underestimates their malice. Its easy to treat this as some sort of collegial disagreement rather than bile and treason. But after the months roll on and become years and this vermin still refuses to come up with evidence, then at some point one has to realise that one is encouraging fascism by letting these people speak in their destructive way.
The last time this crowd set up a centralised system with arm-twisting, connected to aid, they murdered tens of millions of black kids. This is what these people are gunning for again. Or else what is motivating them? They certainly aren’t the least bit interested in talking about science. Or learning about science. It is hard to imagine the malice of others because we tend to judge others in terms of ourselves. But white maggot scum and their appeasers got her fired. That to me would show that their malice is there and very real.
Am I hearing this right that Jennifer was fired (from work) over her stance on AGW?
If so, you go for your life on the supa nova stuff Bird.
Take heart from knowing you’re on the winning side of history here Jen.
I think even Luke probably realises what sceptics are up against.
Of course she was. If people tell the truth about where the evidence stands, and become effective, they get fired. Thats been the case pretty much all the way down the line and exceptions have been pretty rare. Exceptions are usually to do with tenure. Its one of those cases where someone who disagreed would have to prove otherwise.
Now Birdy – let’s fire up the single neuron to a state where it might start firing. Do you think the IPA would be supportive of AGW or not. Take a wild guess.
Remember boys – he’s your ally !! Cohers – get Birdy to help you in public forums. Should ensure you massive support with his unique insights. LOL….
“…… go for your life on the supa nova stuff ………”
This is the real threat that the fake threat is hiding. And here is the problem. The scientists of all kind defer to the Physics high masters. And their deference is buttressed by maths-obscurantism and by the cult of personality. But despite all that the fact is that no-one knows what gravity is. You read that right. No mainstreamer at least. There are two mainstream models of gravity. The Newton model and the model that Einstein put about. But Newton admitted he didn’t know what was causing gravity. He didn’t have a cause. He only had the maths for Stella bodies. His maths doesn’t work even out of the solar system, though they try to twist it so it does. Einsteins theory can be dealt with quickly. It is merely ridiculous and explains nothing. So we need a major rewrite as a matter of urgency. But that rewrite cannot come without privatising science. The non-commercial side of which is in a shocking state.
Now whilst all of physics needs reworking from the bottom up one thing that Newton said seems to be entirely true. And that is that forces always come in pairs. Equal and opposite. And forces are never any other way then that. Which means that if you have the force of gravity working on 7000 kilometres of material down to the centre of the earth, then you have an equal and opposite force pointing straight up. This force must be the force of compression. A spring-loaded force as it were. So if gravity fails, even a little bit for just a nano-second, then there can be consequences and ramifications. Now it seems that large rotating bodies, when they line up, can in fact affect each-others magnetic fields and each-others gravity. Since the force of gravity is so finely balanced with the force of compression, this idea ought to be a fearful conclusion to come to. If gravity is real and not an occult occurrence then it can be affected. ‘If it bleeds we can kill it” as it were.
Because of the above a shockwave coming from the centre of of the galaxy and leading to a star closer to us going supernova, ought to set off a chain reaction of nasty occurrences. Not just one thing, but a devastating series of disasters the likes of which the dinosaurs suffered. At the very least massive volcanic behaviour and gamma ray bursts. At the worst a planet blowing up in our solar system. Or a moon of Jupiter losing its orbit. Coronal mass ejections. All this sort of stuff. The sort of chain of bad breaks that would explain extinction events.
Now we are overdue for a supernova. The last one was more than 400 years ago. We have to gear up to deal with nuclear intimidation anyhow. So we ought to be thinking about other things that will happen that we need to adapt to. We cannot do this while this science fraud of CO2-emissions is dogging our every step.
Well if they fired Jennifer, they certainly boobooed there, that’s fer sure.
Keep writing your fine articles Jen and the right people will beat a path to your door.
The winds of change are a’blowin’…..;-)
Could we get some confirmation on Jen being sacked from the IPA because of her heretical views? And how come Birdy knows so much?
“Now Birdy – let’s fire up the single neuron to a state where it might start firing. Do you think the IPA would be supportive of AGW or not. Take a wild guess.”
Quisling neoclassicals. People whose grasp of economics is so very unsound that they think comparative advantage implies that we lose all our manufacturing. An embarrassing bunch who don’t seem to understand anything about monetary economics or capital theory. Rabid proponents of the carbon tax. Blood-sucker-centrals loyal opposition. Worst of all they are such bad economists they cannot get their head around science. All analysis is holistic. One or two individuals within this group might be OK. You know who you are. But they didn’t renew Dr Marohasy’s contract. What do you think I’m going to say about them? Weak. Feeble. Barely men. Cronytown partisans with a free enterprise mask.
“Could we get some confirmation on Jen being sacked from the IPA because of her heretical views? And how come Birdy knows so much?”
No of course they cannot. Its the default position until somebody proves otherwise. What are you? Born yesterday? Do you know that they didn’t renew the contract for some other reason? You sound like you just showed up from Mars on the back of a delapidated space-ship with only a hayseed between your teeth. You think they fired her because they didn’t like having a woman around?
You are being nasty and threatening. No doubt about that at all. You know full well that unfair dismissals are such that every employer now puts a file of semi-plausible bullshitartistry up against any employee they want to get rid of. Rubbish going years back. Humiliating muck-raking. Stuff that becomes real only if its put to the test. Don’t be stupid. We know how this works. You don’t toe the line on the CO2 fraud you are out. Stupid white people in government talk cryptically to the boss. Grave hints of loss of contracts come up. Its not a case of me knowing anything. Its the default position until proved otherwise.
Let’s pretend I just showed up from Mars and its news to me that Jen’s been sacked. I know the devil’s in the detail, but I’m very patient. Tell us all you know Birdy, otherwise I will have to assume you are making it all up.
Carbonite,
Isn’t Ferenc’s graph:
http://landshape.org/enm/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/optical-depth-trend-1.png
definitive observational evidence that there has been no discernable increase in the optical depth of the atmosphere since 1948? I would assume that the graph you cite would be sensitive to changes in the optical depth in the infra-red where water vapor and CO2 are absorbed, since the blue line shows the expected change from the increase in CO2.
Isn’t this the ultimate smoking gun which shows (from DIRECT OBSERVATION) that the increase in optical depth of the atmosphere caused by CO2 is being negated by a corresponding decrease in the water column density.
If this is true – isn’t AGW finished. Maybe I don’t understand but surely this should be enough to completely bury the idea that CO2 is warming the planet!
This is a movement without evidence. The proponents try to bring their fraud into existence by attacks on the other side without recourse to evidence in favour of their theory. So we don’t need Ferenc’s graph. We await one of these idiots to come up with some evidence. That they will not do so means this matter is science fraud before Ferenc even gets up in the morning. El Gordo will you quit your malicious idiocy. Getting fired is a matter fraught with all sorts of defamatory allegations, most held in reserve. Stop acting like a two year old. No-one was ever going to spell it out for anyone else.
Ninderthana; ” bury the idea that CO2 is warming the planet”; you mean like sequestration?
Carbonite,
Please try to be serious! Can you give me an opinion as to whether or not you think the experimental radisonde data is sufficiently accurate to support the contention that the infra-red opacity of the Earth’s atmospher has been essentially constant over the last 61 years. If it has then this is world shattering news. It means that the arguement is over.
If I do not get a sensible reply them I will assume that you just want this whole bloody nightmare to continue because you like arguing for arguings sake.
Carbonite,
Here is a reasonable sensible quopte from you at the Nich Modelling site from about a year ago. Have your views progressed from here?
“Good; then its a model for all seasons; I have, however, assumed that the optical depth would alter for temperature variation to happen but that would not occur with variations just in the IR absorbers, which, as shown by the RH decline, compensate; the optical depth would only alter with changes in external energy ie; solar. Time for a rethink.”
Well, if you say so Nindy; personally I did give an opinion some time ago about the radiative effect of cloud variations to explain ENSO asymmetry or accumulation if you like; that extra incoming has to go somewhere and Lindzen and Choi appear to have found an increase in TOA outgoing LW; how can that be with extra CO2, which according to Eli doesn’t have a logarithmic decline [see his most recent post]; reduced SH appears to be one possible answer and Paltridge, Arking and Pook appear to have confirmed that, although Dessler and Sherwood would disagree, although how Sherwood found time to write a paper with all that e-mailing he was doing is anybody’s guess.
Thanks carbonite – I will track down Eli’s comments and the work by Dressler and Sherwood.
Keep Trucking….
Within Climategate resides a strange political conundrum which, thus far, none seem to have noticed.
That is, where are the anti-globalists? Surely, the Battle of Seattle and other events demonstrated the fervor of anti-globalist sentiment. Yet now, we’re looking at a globalization event in Copenhagen, with world leaders considering a clearly globalist agenda — global control of energy. The anti-globalists are silent.
Thousands of emails and other documents from the UK’s CRU reveal — well, they basically reveal all sorts of things that anti-globalists would gleefully sieze upon, you would think. Even riot about, actually. But no, the anti-globalists are silent on that, too.
It might make a bit of sense to label the ‘climate skeptics’ as anti-globalist, since a lot of them express a great deal of distaste for global control of energy, and the concomitant loss of national sovereignty. The trouble is, these people don’t appear to be riot-prone. In fact, I don’t see any of them advocating riots, either. So these people might be *neo*-anti-globalists.
So, what the devil is going on? Where are the anti-globalists?
Seattle and that crowd weren’t anti-globalists per se. They were anti-free-trade. Nowadays I’d be against so-called free trade deals on the grounds that they were really thinly disguised globalist deals. Not on the grounds that they meant freer trade. Thats your answer there. They were never anti-globalist. They hated the trade. Those same guys who were protesting Seattle would not be protesting it today. They would be wanting to bring it on. Because they would now know that free trade deals didn’t mean free trade. They would now know it meant global governance. You say where are they? I say they are on board with this treason.
Thanks, Graeme.
Meanwhile, someone in this thread made a rather distressing remark about Jennifer being ‘sacked’. I haven’t been able to locate news to that effect on the web, but I did find her bio at the IPA has been amended to read that she “was a Senior Fellow at the Institute of Public Affairs between 2004 and 2009.”
Also, the page listing current IPA personnel makes no mention of her.
I sincerely hope someone here will be able to get to the bottom of this, and that, if the circumstances warrant it, that everyone here will raise a stink over the event. In my estimation, this is the world’s premiere environmental blog, and we all owe Jen a debt of gratitude which justly would be repaid by our support of her career.
Bird – don’t you think you’re an utter impertinence speculating on any circumstances of Jen’s employment. I suggest you know nothing about the issue and it’s her business.
But this is the sort of loose flim flam type of evidence that you indulge in. (1) create a wanky thought (2) 24 hours later decide it’s fact. In fact you’re good at it.
Obama’s Poodle?
KEVIN Rudd has shelved plans for an early dash to Copenhagen after US President Barack Obama said he was not going until the late stages of the climate change conference, in the hope of closing a deal.
The White House announced over the weekend that Mr Obama would push back his visit to the conference until its final day, putting him in a better position to help broker an agreement.
Mr Rudd, who had the RAAF on standby for a snap trip to Denmark, will now attend the late stages of the conference.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/kevin-rudd-calls-off-early-dash-to-copenhagen/story-e6frg6xf-1225807517896
Rudd Runs Away from ETS Debate!
“KEVIN Rudd is ignoring a challenge from Tony Abbott for a series of public debates on climate change.
Instead, the prime minister believes the opposition leader needs to sort out his policy on climate change, which was junked when he took on the Liberal leadership.
One of Mr Abbott’s first moves as opposition leader was to ditch support for an emissions trading scheme and rule out a carbon tax.
He believes the public has concerns about Labor’s support for an ETS, which was rejected by the parliament for a second time last Wednesday.
The Liberals comfortably retained the seats in Bradfield and Higgins in two by-elections on Saturday, defying expectations of a voter backlash because of the change in policy.
He wants the debates to be held before parliament resumes on February 2, next year, when the Rudd government plans to reintroduce the ETS legislation.
Even Australian Greens leader Bob Brown wants in.
But Mr Rudd knocked that idea on the head.”
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/kevin-rudd-snubs-tony-abbott-challenge-to-climate-change-debate/story-e6frf7jo-1225807472423
That’s right, Rudd wants to pass the ETS with no public debate. And I thought we live in a democracy? Silly me.
Fact is, ETS can’t withstand the light of day, much less and open and free debate broadcast live into people’s living room.
Luke, our resident climate creationist is 100% sure that nothing has changed since Climategate. Maybe he’s got one of those nintendo climate models reprogrammed to predicted the future?
So maybe Lukio would like to punt on whether the ETS will ever become the law of the land?
Free the code, free the data. Open the Debate!
Climate Scientist to Revkin: “we can no longer trust you” to carry water for us.
Posted in Environment by Steven Hayward
“Okay folks, here comes a new e-mail from the climate community yesterday that I did not hack (I was copied on it), and it is a case study in not getting it. Back story: Ever since Chris Horner and I were at a conference together with warmenist Michael Schlesinger of the University of Illinois a couple years ago, Chris and I have been included on Prof. Schesingler’s e-mail distribution list, which usually consist of flagging climate news stories. Yesterday we got copied on this message Schlesinger sent to New York Times science reporter Andy Revkin:
Andy:
Copenhagen prostitutes?
Climate prostitutes?
Shame on you for this gutter reportage. [Emphasis added.]
This is the second time this week I have written you thereon, the first about giving space in your blog to the Pielkes.
The vibe that I am getting from here, there and everywhere is that your reportage is very worrisome to most climate scientists.
Of course, your blog is your blog.
But, I sense that you are about to experience the ‘Big Cutoff’ from those of us who believe we can no longer trust you, me included.
Copenhagen prostitutes?
Unbelievable and unacceptable.
What are you doing and why?
Michael
http://nlt.ashbrook.org/2009/12/climate-scientist-to-revkin-we-can-lo-longer-trust-you-to-carry-water-for-us.php
The “Big Cutoff”, eh? Maybe Professor Luke can explain to us what that bit of climatological jargon means in lay-man’s terms.
I have often raised this point on Jen’s blog about Luke, Gavin, STJ and other climate creationists. Why do these people have no sense of humor or perhaps more precisely a sense of wonder and giddy excitement at the sheer magnificence of the natural world? Luke’s 100% sure of everything. Gavin only see tales of death and depression in his doom-ladened back garden. The science is settle. Debate over. Don’t ask questions. Recite the dogma or STFU.
Yet every researcher that I ever studied or worked with was at times awe-struck by the vastness of what they did not yet know and often bemused by puzzles and conundrums that nature presented rather than frustrated or doctrinaire.
Again, Steven Hayward:
“This raises another small but perhaps significant point that I didn’t have room to comment on in my Weekly Standard article: How is it possible for a group of smart people to write over 1,000 e-mails over the course of a decade without a single shred of wit or humor in any of them? There isn’t the tiniest hint anywhere that any of these guys ever grin. It jives with my experience of environmentalists for 20 years now that they are the single most humorless slice of humanity on the planet. (My favorite: I had a top greenie lawyer for the Audubon Society once say at a conference that “I regard the National Association of Home Builders to be every bit as evil as the National Rifle Association.” My comeback was: “I can understand why you’d think that about the home builders, but what’s your problem with the NRA?” The guy didn’t even crack a smile.) And here we see Andy Revkin threatened with a “cutoff” because he writes–on a blog–something mildly amusing about Copenhagen.”
http://nlt.ashbrook.org/2009/12/climate-scientist-to-revkin-we-can-lo-longer-trust-you-to-carry-water-for-us.php
Birdy
We can all spread rumor an innuendo. My slant is that Jen’s is on her Xmas break, out and about writing a book, plus an occasional article in the msm. Nothing untoward and so I assume you are just a poor confused troll with nowhere to hang out.
Hypocrisy in Action:
“Copenhagen is preparing for the climate change summit that will produce as much carbon dioxide as a town the size of Middlesbrough.
Ms Jorgensen reckons that between her and her rivals the total number of limos in Copenhagen next week has already broken the 1,200 barrier. The French alone rang up on Thursday and ordered another 42. “We haven’t got enough limos in the country to fulfil the demand,” she says. “We’re having to drive them in hundreds of miles from Germany and Sweden.”
And the total number of electric cars or hybrids among that number? “Five,” says Ms Jorgensen. “The government has some alternative fuel cars but the rest will be petrol or diesel. We don’t have any hybrids in Denmark, unfortunately, due to the extreme taxes on those cars. It makes no sense at all, but it’s very Danish.”
The airport says it is expecting up to 140 extra private jets during the peak period alone, so far over its capacity that the planes will have to fly off to regional airports – or to Sweden – to park, returning to Copenhagen to pick up their VIP passengers….”
“The temptation, then, is to dismiss the whole thing as a ridiculous circus. Many of the participants do not really need to be here. And far from “saving the world,” the world’s leaders have already agreed that this conference will not produce any kind of binding deal, merely an interim statement of intent.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/6736517/Copenhagen-climate-summit-1200-limos-140-private-planes-and-caviar-wedges.html
Copenhagen will sort out a great many things.
Rioters ‘for hire’ can be found many places. Thing is, it takes money to hire rioters.
We will see if the money shows up for the rioters.
My guess — a dead bust. No money means no rioters. There’s always going to be some fringe freaks, but it’s all over.
Graeme, friends and others,
It looks like Graeme is spot-on with his analysis. What’s more, the theme of ‘carbon globalization’ and ‘anti-globalism’ and ‘environmentalism’ has been taken up in a quite insightful article in Der Spiegel.
“Is global warming the new globalization? Environmental activists are hoping that demonstrations at next month’s climate summit in Denmark can forge a protest movement like the anti-globalization movement seen after the WTO riots in 1999. But the Danish authorities have other ideas.”
Read the rest at:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,663142,00.html
It’s all good.
Having perviously been ambivalent about a Royal Commission, the way Copenhagen madness is unfolding in spite of Climategate, I am now of the opinion that a RC would bring back some sanity.
Here’s one that’s on offer:
Whoops! The link disappeared.
http://www.stevefielding.com.au/ets_petition/
Copenhagen is in the same spirit of anti-democracy, anti-localism, anti-sovereignty that we see from the EU conspiracy. When there is a vote in favour of the EU they say “We move forward” and the result of that vote is never locked in. When a vote goes against them they say “We go on” but this sort of vote by contrast is a temporary setback. A no vote for these people doesn’t mean they are a problem. It means the people who voted against them have a problem. And so the vote will be continued until they get the vote they want and then the verdict is locked in. So Paulson gets a no vote against a bank bailout, the victory for the US people is no victory at all. The vote must be repeated. When Paulson gets the vote he wants it is locked in.
So it goes for Copenhagen. We have a chorus of voices saying that they won’t get a vote in Copenhagen? Does this soothsaying make it alright? This time around they are voting for global government itself. The reaction to this malevolence has lead Tony Abbot to the leadership of the opposition. The ETS gets voted out. What is the reaction to this? “Delay is the new denial.” Rudd confessing to wanting to give away our sovereignty (ie commit treason) in Copenhagen. He’s totally in contempt of us.
Notice that for almost the first time we have “leaders” that have never held down a proper job. Barry Soetoro and Kevin Rudd. Neither of them have worked a free enterprise job of any duration. These are real dummies and alien to the normal man. But yet somehow they managed to get the top job. Both of these guys will in fact want to sign something in Copenhagen. They will in fact want to betray their respective countries. A lot of leaders of poor countries will sign under the control of international schemers, since they think they will get funding. So this excuse that Malcolm Turnbull had that nobody was going to sign anything was a disgusting bait and switch. Because if they do sign something, Malcolm and all the other traitors will suggest that the matter is locked in. Hey El Gordo you dirty freak. How about take your intimidation elsewhere? I know what you are up to you poisonous little git. You want the former employer to react in a frenzy of self-justification. What lowdown slime you are.
As a mere novice in this debate, does IPCC stand for ‘Intellectually Preposterous Climate Caper’? Possibly the words ‘Copenhagen’ and ‘circus’ should also be added, making it IPCCCC. I still bet it’s going to be bloody cold in Denmark, if early snow in the US is any indicator of northern hemisphere trends. But will Archbishop Tutu and Prince Charles notice?
Birdy
I come here for a rest, what’s with the ad homs? It’s true then, you are a bright clown.
If you keep on with this I’ll have to get help from Luke, to put you in your place.
Don’t come here to rest if resting is just trying to make people feel bad. What sort of things do you think an employers going to say if they are pushed into justifying cowardly behaviour? Lukes an anonymous bunch of idiots playing tag-team. They are too stupid to put anyone in their place. They are just parasites biting the hand that feeds them.
Nature is not fooled. And when we allow people to live off us, they caper about like arrogant baboons. Them being on the top of the food chain, and on this forum anonymous. This psychological fact is why we can only solve our problems with mass-sackings. Get your feeble act back to Deltoid. Thats where you belong.
I have just had a glance at the Copenhagen forecast for the coming week. Some rain, and near zero temperatures. Any rent-a-crowd should have a jolly time, especially if the Danish police use their new water cannon.
About twenty years ago, I was reading in the Brussels University library. It was winter, and there was a student ‘manifestation’ on the football field outside. The gendarmes arrived in small armored cars, with water cannon. They soaked the assembly, and quietly returned to barracks. The ‘manifestation’ quickly dissolved. Blue and shivering students took refuge in the warm library, including, I was pleased to note, one particularly obnoxious and mouthy kid with an opinion on everything environmental.
Hmmm…let’s get serious Birdman, take your medication.
Don’t talk idiocy gordo. There is nothing incorrect about what I’ve been saying above. Get back to work in your public sector job. At least pretend to be doing something worthwhile. Go through the motions at the very least.
TROLL ALERT
Birdman is trying to close this blog down.
He is a conspiratorial nutter, changes his stories and lies like a pig in mud. An unregulated troll of his professional calibre really knows how to bore people to death.
Don’t take my word for it, see what others say…http://graemebirdforum.wordpress.com/
Go to deltoid Gordo you lying troll. Whatever “troll” means. Dumb lefty talk for someone that doesn’t fall in line with mindless whining lefties. .
Agree Birdy,
You are monopolising this blog with unreadable drivel.
Have a rest for a while.
Pikey.
HAHAHAHAHA “don’t take my word for it SEE WHAT OTHERS SAY!!!”
That would seem to be the motto of the global warming left. Go away gordo. We look down on people who cannot think for themselves here.
No you are lying Pike. Gordo is forcing me to retaliate against him. He is the problem. You should tell him to get lost. If you are having trouble understanding something I’ve written, ask questions. The fault is all your own. Perhaps you are just not that bright.
What you are finding hard to read Pike. I’m calling you out as a liar. What is your definition of “drivel” fool?
I agree with Ron Pike. There is possibly a legal category of ‘vexatious blogger’. Isn’t Cohenite a lawyer? Perhaps he can advise. Jen, didn’t you close down Pinxi at one time?
Birdy, you need professional help.
Just for the record everyone, I’m voting for the conservatives because Cory and Barnaby will be moving to the front bench.
Global warming is a crock!
If you agree with Pike keep it to yourself you jerk. Here you have had years to complain about Luke, who is utterly useless and here all the time month in and month out. But now you are all piling on out of pure gutlessness. I think you ought to focus on science a little bit more rather than appeasing leftists. Some deltoid-lover calls out the code-work “troll” which none of you can supply a definition for, and you all pile on. The problem came with gordo being malicious, and forcing me to retaliate against him.
“Birdy, you need professional help.”
You see that? The root cause of the alleged problem is gordo here. He doesn’t want to talk about science and he isn’t about to go away.
Glenn Milne has a column today comparing the labor booths in the Higgins and Bradfield electorates with the 2007 election results.
It seems the swings in these booths favoured the liberal candidates and were substantial compared to 2007.
It seems labor voters didn’t want the new $120 Billion tax slug by labor that would have zero effect on climate and may as well be flushed down the dunny.
Meanwhile Kelly O’ Dwyer has just passed 60% of the 2 party preffered vote outpolling her old boss Peter by at least 3%, a remarkable effort.
It is a remarkable effort and will be roundly applauded by rational people everywhere. Before the election all the commentators thought there would be a swing away from the Libs, but they were wrong.
Hooray! The tide has just turned.
I suspect the legal term for a ‘vexatious blogger’ is a ‘silly blugger’. What say, m’learned friend? Luke, do the honorable thing, and join the AEF.
Birdy,
“Drivel:” To speak and write childishly and idotically.
Birdy,
To demand authority by abuse (as you do) is to demean reason.
Truth is never accepted from a loud and harping voice.
Given your response, I rest my case.
Pikey.
What particular scientific debate were you relating too? I don’t think you had an argument. You weren’t being specific. Therefore you were taking an anti-intellectual approach. Actually your wording was ambiguous. And what with Green Davey going after Luke I was almost beginning to think you guys weren’t piling on afterall. And maybe you were doing the right thing and going after Gordo and Luke and not me.
Now you are alleged to be a scientist Ron. Don’t rest your case prior to you making one. What set this silliness off? I’ve got to guess that it was what I said about gravity. About us not having a proper mainstream theory of gravity. Thats just a fact. I would tell you that you had to learn to live with it. But far from resting your case you haven’t made one yet. You have not told me what the topic is.
You aren’t up to it I sez.
But what to do with Turnbull? With friends like that…….
He seems determined to destroy Abbott and the Libs.
What is it about ousted leaders and their wounded egos?
If it wasn’t so serious it’d be sad.
Teflon kevvie!
Yes Drongo, I could not understand why they had him as a member, & particularly as a leader.
He showed all the same behaviour after the republic failure.
He is not someone I would want in any organisation I was part of.
I would put it down to Turnbull being a CO2-bedwetter. We’ve got these people in the LDP. You cannot reason with these guys. If you debate them they go silent and come back with their rubbish at another date. They are dishonest. They never argue honestly. If they are economists they claim that the economic argument and cost imposition can go forward without agreement as to the science. Next minute you turn around and they are accepting the bad science.
What you notice with every CO2-bedwetter is that their constituency is not the general public. Both Kevin and Malcolm are playing to the public sector sentiment and may be both going for international jobs.
(Ron if you can get nine-tenths of my posts wiped I’m fine with that. But it would be good if they were wiped in pairs with the ones I’m retaliating against. Sooner or later we have to realise that there are people here in bad faith. If you want to gainsay a specific scientific thing I’ve said then lets have it out in the open. Don’t be saying everything I write is drivel. Thats going way above your level of competence).
Graeme Bird,
You are doing for skeptics what Luke did for true believers.
Please, take a break.
If AGW promoters cut-off Andy Revkin over his daring to ask a few questions, and pointing out some similarities between certain AGW promoters and an ancient profession, then things are going to unwind even more quickly than I had hoped.
By the way, here is a nifty poster that should be hung in every enviro-wacko office and home:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/stop_breathing_epa.jpg
The Lords of Carbon, do as we command, not as we do.
“For the delegates to the Copenhagen Climate Change Summit, inconvenient truths abound. Not the least of which is the prediction that attendees will generate a carbon footprint equal to all of Morocco’s for 2006. And that’s not even counting ClimateGate…”
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/283333
As the global summit on climate change gets under way in Copenhagen, Tunku Varadarajan offers an eyebrow-raising A-Z guide to the proceedings.
Very nearly a hundred years ago, Ambrose Bierce compiled A Devil’s Dictionary, in which he sought to puncture the cultural cant of his time. Here is an attempt—at much shorter length—to prick a very contemporary kind of cant, that which has swollen the debate on climate change to ungovernable proportions.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-12-06/exposing-copenhagenrsquos-hot-air/
Jeez, Climategate is the gift that just keeps on giving! Click for some fun links:
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=1503
“The scientists have been tied up and gagged in the back room”
“The unravelling of the AGW fraud continues to provide an entertaining mix of high drama and low comedy. My favorite recent entry on the CRU mob is a screed from a professor of mathematics in Canada: “All of my colleagues have had to endure these bullies and criminals for a very long time.”
Then there’s David Bellamy’s tale of being canned from a very successful science-popularizer gig on the BBC because he dared to speak anti-AGW heresy.
That’s a theme in a lot of recent revelations. As long as the lid was on the CRU’s fraud, nobody dared speak up about for fear of being dismissed as a crank. Now that the AGW crowd’s power to suppress dissent has been broken, expect to hear a lot more actual scientists — not politicians, but scientists — coming forward to confirm that the emperor has no clothes.
For the “low comedy” part, return with us now to those thrilling days of yesteryear when Time Magazine was predicting catastrophic global cooling. And Newsweek, too. It’s hilarious how easy it is to substitute “warning” for “cooling” and have an article that could have been written last week.
For more low comedy, at least one news story alleges that the IPCC intends to investigate the allegations of CRU misconduct. Yup, I’m sure; the kleptocrats in our permanent political class don’t like it when their plans for a power grab go awry, and the U.N.’s contingent doubtless wants to know who’s to blame for this debacle. For some reason, the phrase “the prisoner was shot while attempting to escape” keeps running through my head…”
This film is disgusting!
COP15 in Copenhagen opened with a short film titled, ‘Please help the world’. You can see it on YouTube at
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVGGgncVq-4
As you watch it, bear in mind that this film is meant to set the tone for the COP15 conference.
The floods and falling icebergs are great, but my favorite is the Tornado That Eats The City. The polar bear is a nice touch, though. The scariest part is in the end, though, when it turns out that those offering most of the advice to the audience are, literally, scared children.
Ghastly.
“Graeme Bird,
You are doing for skeptics what Luke did for true believers.
Please, take a break.”
Shows how much you know. Luke was powerfully effective for his side or he would not have did what he did. Leftists have it all over conservatives with tactics. Thats why conservatives almost always lose even though they usually have the balance of truth on their side in the core issue. You are too impressed with yourself to notice the effectiveness of Luke and his ilk.
If I asked any of you to explain the situation with climate from the ground up, we would find that your explanation was full of holes. Luke and his type have successfully obstructed understanding on the highest levels. Since the fact is that even conservative climate scientists are not fully abreast of their subject. Being thrust into the limelight in a situation of utter fear, they are too scared to ask about the simple stuff.
Its a multi-disciplinary field. It was no-ones specialty. What needed to happen is that people who were smart generally, and fine within their own specialty, needed to talk and ask questions, stupid and otherwise, without fear of being recorded, played back and discredited. The sort of environment that the Lukes created meant that governments could spend 100 billion dollars and few people really understand what was going on.
Hunter you got to be a complete idiot to think Luke hasn’t been effective.
No-one, even on this forum, probably the best climate science forum in 2008, has ever written a comprehensive explanation of how the climate works and why this CO2 business is so overpoweringly silly. No-one has gone through systematically to explain why “the greenhouse effect” is a total misnomer. And why the theory of backradiation isn’t why these greenhouse gases do part of what they are alleged to do.
Worse then that, even on this forum where there was massed a lot of expertise, it remained the case that few would be able to write such a thread if they were put up to the task. Supposing you were asked to write an essay “So you think you believe in global warming” or “So you think you believe in the greenhouse effect?”could you do it? And explain exactly what is right and what is wrong about the theory of the greenhouse effect?
If you are just too pig-ignorant to understand how effective Luke and the others have been you explain to me how the public servants of the world could have let us down this badly? A racket that never had anything going for it. Look how long its gone on already and how much momentum it still has? Look how it captured both sides of politics everywhere?
If you other taxeaters, in all your politeness, who are so keen to extend collegial courtesy’s to your alarmist other selves …….. if you alleged skeptic taxeaters reckon being indulgent with these lunatics is so powerfully effective as a tactic, well why haven’t you won already?
You haven’t won, because you don’t care, because you don’t pay the bills.
Where did you get the idea that Luke wasn’t effective hunter? You know nothing about the subject of the effectiveness of leftist tactics. Don’t pretend you are some adept at this sort of thing. You won’t be effective until you are willing to start getting these people banned from blogs and fired from the public sector. Simple as that. And until you start doing this you will be selling out your taxpaying benefactors.
Well wes; the cat’s among the pigeons now with this fresh top down approach US style hitting deep into our MSM and Copenhagen.
Bullies on the far right should shiver a lot as we get on with co2 etc REGULATION!
In the absence of timely agreed ETS or carbon taxing schemes. EPS is going to be the way forward for forward thinking governments and in my estimation this won’t be a rag tag movement down the track.
With more refined instrumentation than we had during the post war overhaul of major manufacturing and public infrastructure EP negotiations further clamps on effluent gas pollution it will be easy enough to get breach of PERMIT policing underway at an affordable cost.
Recall; permits to pollute are the first stage of harmful effluent reduction and most major economies got used to them some time ago particularly in regard to air and water quality around cities.
I see an increasingly difficult Environment Protection landscape ahead of all new coal and oil burning projects that don’t reduce a country’s overall CO2 production after Copenhagen
Graeme – I think Hunter was referring to your appalling attitude and language!
Mr. Bird, Then call me a complete idiot.
But I would point out that the tactics the Luke ensemble represents are a large reason as to why people are rightfully suspicious of AGW hype.
To attribute to the Luke some sort of great capability is to assign succcess to a neverwuzzer. Luke is a teeny tiny pipsqueek in the AGW promotion machine. He is a fun distraction- a natural clown, as it were.
Now that the veneer of authority irt AGW is showing itself to be paper thin, and others suppressed or damaged by Luke-esque tactics of real AGW hypesters are coming forth, perhaps it would be wise to re-think how effective Luke has in reality been?
In Australia, where AGW was nearly state religion, it seems to losing political steam rapidly.
In the US, ‘climate change’ is becoming the punch line, and AGW promoters who used Luke-esque tactics are the joke.
Brown in the UK is a political dead man.
People know when they are getting brow beaten, something is not right.
The Luke does nothing but.
To the extent that you do the same, and I would suggest that going straight to name calling with me is a pretty good extent, you make a strong case for being a sort of anti-Luke.
AGW falls apart because it is apocalyptic clap trap.
Good people through out history have fallen for apocalyptic clap trap.
Giving them a graceful, face saving way out of an embarassing mistake is always a good idea.
Some, like Luke, deserve the heat they get, plus it is fun to watch the contortions.
But using a battle hammer, when a simple stilletto will do, to pop the AGW balloon is counter productive. Hitting baloons with hammers is not effective.
Leftist tactics implode on their own. We only need to encourage the process.
Using such broad, misapplied brush strokes that paint me, and people like me, as part of a leftist trend is indicative of a severe vision problem on your part.
Conversing only in a shout is not productive. You may want to consider working on your range of voice.
As usual gavin you find delight in new regulatory measures [EPA designates CO2 to be a poison; a singularly stupid act] which will undermine the efficient supply of energy to society; people will suffer because of this just to satisfy your’s and the prevailing madness of this time; I find your folksy cruelty more repellant than Birdy’s tirades.
gavin,
Congress, with climate gate and the courts get through with it, will be de-funding the sort of junk you are mentioning.
The victims of infantile ideas like CO2 regulation will be voting soon. and we are all victims of stupid policies that think taxing CO2 is going to manage the climate.
Congress will likely be very different in about one year. Obama will have no money to pay for enforcment when this is finished.
Unfortunately Graeme Bird appears again as a wrecker, but we know he can write a decent contribution on occasions, therefore it’s most annoying when he chooses not to
Luke’s ‘effectiveness’ is actually a quite engaging topic. I personally never found him very effective, except on one point, which I will explain later.
I would imagine people on his side of the fence found him quite effective. They may have found his rhetoric to be a point around which they could rally. But other than that, not really — because Luke is first and foremost, about rhetoric. Sure, once in a while he does a blue-smoke-and-mirrors trick with a dodgy paper once in a while, which is much admired by his cohort. But even then, if he’s convincing anyone of anything, it’s still only the people on ‘his side’.
To be effective, you need to convince people on the other side of the fence, or at least some of the fence-sitters. I didn’t see Luke doing much of that at all, and so, Graeme, I’ll have to disagree with you somewhat.
After all, there *is* something Luke was quite effective at — and I only noticed it recently while giving a presentation at a scientific conference (not climate science). One of the presenters at the conference made the observation that work in our field would contribute greatly to solving the problem of global warming.
I pointed out that the primary benefits in our field were not found in climatology, that we were not climatologists, nor claiming to be, and that there were plenty of indications that climatology was dodgy enough that we’d be wise to leave the topic to others.
This man (a scientist of substantial repute) called me ‘an idiot’.
He apologized later, and I said I was not offended. Which was true. I wasn’t offended, precisely because Luke had completely habituated me to the crude language typically employed by the AGW brigade!
Therefore, Luke has actually been *quite* effective in that one regard.
Gavin and his fellow totalitarians really are totally barking mad.
Their fundumentalist religious approach to co2 is very instructive, just remember the next time you have a fizzy drink ( beer, soft drink whatever ) you are releasing pollution ( idiots) and next time you eat bread remember that the wheat plants that produced that bread enjoy a 15% natural growth improvement because of that increase in co2.
CO2 is and has been the saviour of mankind and our higher standard of living plus our much improved life expectancy can all be laid at the door of cheap energy and the much improved R&D programs over the last century, generated by that cheap energy.
I’m sure that the residual carryover will soon allow us to create a better battery technology that will allow vehicles to travel 500 Klms between charges.
In the meantime we could at least have a standard battery pack configuration available at all service stations to enable a change over in just a few minutes.
Adaptation is the way of the future not this stupid anti science approach favoured by these mad scientists at Copenhagen.
I dont usually read Birdie, let alone admit to it, but when he gets two birds with one stone we should acknowledge. Quinellas are hard to come by.
Birdie opined “Hunter you got to be a complete idiot to think Luke hasn’t been effective.
No-one, even on this forum, probably the best climate science forum in 2008, has ever written a comprehensive explanation of how the climate works and why this CO2 business is so overpoweringly silly. ” Says it all.
cryptic to the end bazza; says all of what?
Thanks to all who have recently offered interesting websites. The best quip I saw was the term ‘Carbonhagen’. The global warming alphabet was funny too. The best way to deal with zealots is to laugh at them. Speaking of which, Luke, if you’ll join the AEF, I will too. Should we exchange emails?
Cohers asks: “cryptic to the end bazza; says all of what?”. Cohers takes the bait confirmng low tolerance for ambiguity. But go on, give Birdie what he wants.
Virus Alert!!
http://www.thespoof.com/news/spoof.cfm?headline=s5i64103
Jim Hansen, the head of NASA’s Goddard Institute and a leader in the global warming debate for the past 20 years, last night effectively described the Rudd Government’s proposed ETS as a disaster. i.e. the head of the global warming movement has vindicated Tony Abbott’s elevation to Liberal leadership and his Senate rejection of the cap and trade ETS.
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/
Hansen’s alternatives would require us all to have horse-drawn buggies, but that sidesteps the point that he condemns the ETS proposed in Australia. Why aren’t the Libs hollering this from the rooftops and why doesn’t the media see this as newsworthy?
This is interesting about the Australian BOM:
http://www.theage.com.au/world/climategate-forces-weather-data-review-20091206-kcrk.html
“THE British Meteorological Office is to launch a review of its temperature data and has asked 188 nations – including Australia – for permission to release raw weather data in the wake of the so-called ”Climate-gate” email scandal.
“The investigation of temperature and global weather information by the Meteorological Office is significant because its database is one of three main sources of the temperature analyses that the United Nations climate change science body relied on for its assessment that global warming posed a major threat to world safety and wellbeing.
“The decision comes in the wake of the theft – and publication on the internet – of thousands of emails and text files from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (CRU).
“The emails, many of them written by its director, Professor Phil Jones, appeared to suggest that there were attempts to manipulate temperature data and to stymie the public release of information on raw data. The university has announced an investigation and Professor Jones, who denies the claims as ”rubbish”, has stood down while the inquiry takes place.
“The Age reported on Saturday that a 247-page text file by one of the university’s most senior computer programmers has also revealed frustration and anxiety about the integrity of the raw data provided from weather stations around the world and that Australian data came in for particular criticism.
“The programmer found the Australian weather data to be riddled with entry errors, duplication and inaccuracies and described as a ”bloody mess” attempts to homogenise information and entries.”
Also I have seen that Jen has been posting some stuff in the ‘Community Home’ thread.
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/category/community/
Thanx for the spoof link, janama. I’m always on the lookout for a laugh.
The COP 15 opening film ‘please help the world’ is already bordering on parody.
Hunter – I have not done anything other than present you with the evidence of your own stupidity.
Dudes you can have a major electoral revolution on climate change. Probably good thing. Coz when it turns to shit there will be nowhere to hide whatsoever. Give Abbott a knighthood. Pile the crap back on the climate scientists. Might be 500 hundred yards of shit involved too. But what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger.
Let the case build. Pressure and time.
Favourite movie – Shawshank Redemption – all about pressure and time..
” In 1966, Andy Dufresne escaped from Shawshank prison. All they found of him was a muddy set of prison clothes, a bar of soap, and an old rock hammer, damn near worn down to the nub. I used to think it would take six-hundred years to tunnel under the wall with it. Old Andy did it in less than twenty. Oh, Andy loved geology. I guess it appealed to his meticulous nature. An ice age here, million years of mountain building there. Geology is the study of pressure and time. That’s all it takes really, pressure, and time. That, and a big god-damned poster. Like I said, in prison a man will do anything to keep his mind occupied. It turns out Andy’s favorite hobby was totin’ his wall through the exercise yard, a handful at a time. I guess after Tommy was killed, he decided he had been here just about long enough. Andy did like he was told, buffed those shoes to a high mirror shine. The guard simply didn’t notice. Neither did I… I mean, seriously, how often do you really look at a mans shoes? Andy crawled to freedom through five hundred yards of shit smelling foulness I can’t even imagine, or maybe I just don’t want to. Five hundred yards… that’s the length of five football fields, just shy of half a mile. “
bazza, I have a high tolerance for crap which is why I put up with you; now go on, spell it out since I have taken the bait O’ fisherman of men.
And from a Few Good Men …
Col. Jessep:You see Danny, I can deal with the bullets, and the bombs, and the blood. I don’t want money, and I don’t want medals. What I do want is for you to stand there in that faggoty white uniform and with your Harvard mouth extend me some fucking courtesy. You gotta ask me nicely.
And so Birdy you never asked nicely.
So luke how long have you been out and do we still have to stand up wind, seems so.
Luke, your sides in strife, guess who’s going to be on the government front bench after the next election?
http://www.liberal.org.au/news.php?Id=4282
The Opposition has altered the climate change portfolio to ‘climate action’ and will leave Greg Hunt as the man in charge.
I thought they would have sacked him, but on reflection he does know all the stakeholders, so if he is programed correctly he should perform perfectly.
El Gordo – it matters not – pressure and time Gordo – pressure and time.
Governments come and go … I care little for the electoral outcomes.
Schiller, Interesting pseudo name.
I prefer to stick to facts that the AGW alarmist can not distort.
look at this site http://www.biomind.de/realCO2/
On a previous site there was a translation of a 1941 paper by W Kreutz which is worth reading for anyone interested in changes of atmospheric conditions. Kreutz recorded hourly conditions such as wind speed, temperature, rainfall, cloud cover, solar radiation and most importantly CO2 for a period of 18 months 1939 to 1941. He found CO2 levels higher than presently being measured. Other scientists in published papers independently recorded high CO2 levels. The omission of past CO2 measurement records has a much greater effect on the AGW hypothesis of a link between temperature and CO2 ie the hypothesis is false.
On television last night I saw a most interesting example of current journalism. I hurriedly switched it off, and now can’t remember if it was ABC or SBS, and what the program was. Can anyone remind me, so I can pass it to Media Watch?
The reporter showed cool rainy conditions in the mountains of Lesotho. He said that it is normally hot, dry and sunny, but ‘climate change’ was to blame. In fact, Lesotho has 85% of its rain between October and April, and the high altitude means it can turn quite cool even in summer.
The reporter also showed a solar panel the size of a postage stamp, reportedly lighting a whole thatched hut, and spoke to an official who said that the wealthy nations should send money to help Lesotho survive ‘climate change’.
Blimey!
“Hansen’s alternatives would require us all to have horse-drawn buggies, but that sidesteps the point that he condemns the ETS proposed in Australia. Why aren’t the Libs hollering this from the rooftops and why doesn’t the media see this as newsworthy?”
Chris Gillham,
From what I’ve read Hansen fundamentally supports nuclear power but you are absolutely right, the Libs should be quoting Hansen’s anti ETS statements. It would embarrass Rudd and the rest of the Copenhagen delusionists and would get them some mainstream traction and quench the Turnbull rubbish.
It would set them apart from their current “denier” image plus it would open the door for future NP discussions.
Here in NZ msm has shown this on TV one,our main TV channel…
http://tvnz.co.nz/close-up/video
Results of txt poll……23% Morgan ; 77% Wishart.!
Whoooooooohoooooooo
Ahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Shawshand Redemption Lukefartard??
So THAT’S where we saw you!! In JAIL!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Does your wife know??
Mack,
won’t let me watch it dues to broadcast rights!!!
It’s obviously all Lukefartards fault!!
Blog style clown show on again with borrowed humor hey
I should have guessed what this ‘cement a friend’ had down his/her? boots, fast setting concrete all courtesy BECK!.
This lot is a well known trap for players without some engineering background. No credibility there in terms of methods, instruments or standards, as used in the evolution of direct CO2 in air measurements.
Read up on breath and other contamination in samples prior to say 1960 before arguing any historic CO2 trend. Note; I once used local air as a CO2 ref. Simply it was more stable than other hand held samples
Kuhnkat ,
Strange that eh, Normally the msm of this little country craves world wide attention.
But of course the govt. owns TV one ; so when it comes to this dynamite. well nuff said.
Everybody having the same problem?
Try this.
http://briefingroom.typepad.com/the_briefing_room/
and click
Watch the debate here
Mack; I reckon Wiki on Wishart says it how it is in Kiwi land and “More recently Ian Wishart has been critical of the teaching of evolution in schools and the theory of human induced climate change”.
Hey I noticed feb 09 the very dry South Island is practicly devoid of trees in most agricultral regions so a book seller like Wishart is no substitue for home grown climate science or anything else relative to this debate.
Thanks Mack,
After the alarmist crap our ABC et al have been putting out with the start of Carbenhagen, [everything is 100 times worse than we thought but the dog ate the science] it’s nice to get some honest realism.
Here is a bit more:
http://members.casema.nl/errenwijlens/co2/denhelder.html
SLR for Holland: 9cm per century.
gavin,
You might notice on that link that on paleo SLs the MWP SL is higher than currently.
“Blimey!”
I agree Green Davey – I also saw it and checked out the average temps etc and it was normal.
I just reckon our modern reporters are shit , but hey! so are the telephone company guys, the electricity guys, your bank contacts etc
you don’t have to know your job anymore – It seems you just have to have the right attitude.
Luke,
Projecting your problems with a nice bit of dialog from ‘A Few Good Men’ only reminds us that you and Birdie are symmetrical- two rude bellicose peas in a pod.
‘Shawshank’, very high on my favorite movie list as well, is really about how truth and grace emerge victorious over time, no matter how respectable the veneer of the oppressor.
About how false evidence can be used to destroy lives by a system that cares more for consensus than truth. About how keepers of the consensus will fabricate evidence, suppress truth and violently enforce their consensus even as their corruption grows and grows.
Sort of the situation we have here with you self-anointed lords of climate lying, corrupting, misleading and profiting from selling your false consensus.
very nice hunter; luke always leads with his chin.
Speaking of films…
The opening film for COP 15, “Please Help the World” (4 min, 14 sec) is being greeted around the world with boos and catcalls.
Luke may lead with his chin, but the UN is leading with… scared children. See the movie at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVGGgncVq-4
If the UN led with science, they’d take it on the chin, of course. But COP15 isn’t about science, nor was the IPCC ever really about science. It’s about how to establish global governance, and about how to sell collective national surrender to the people at home.
“Hey, folks, we just signed an armistice on WWIII. But peace comes at a price… open your wallets!”
IRT scam detection:
When they use hysterical fantasies about hurting children, you can pretty much bet that a con is happening.
Con or not there are more than a hundred wildfires in NSW and it’s rumoured via Copenhagen this decade will be the warmest on record. No cooling this century hey
Sure there are patches of this or that not complying with the general upward AGW temp trend however as a born naturalist I can’t recall anyone ever discovering hard evidence of a WMP down under. Just a flash in the pan Spangles with those digging for dirt on AGW.
But I don’t blame anyone being confused about the science as everybody has some pet theory about the weather that seems to fit the facts. After all we had our own long range forecasters going way back who had considerable followings even on the msm
The usual drivel gavin; MWP in SH;
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/11/making-holocene-spaghetti-sauce-by-proxy/#more-6961
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php
As for post 21st temperatures being the highest on record; not in the US, Canada, Russia, Greenland, the Arctic and many individual locations in Australia which seem to be negated when adjusted national trends are presented; but we all know how reliable the official temperature records are [not] especially if you are a born naturalist[?].
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/climate-claims-fail-science-test/story-e6frg6zo-1225808398627
That is a great article for the msm; I haven’t seen the Pearson paper but that on the face of it knocks the socks off the PETM alleged correlation between CO2 and temperature.
Thx for the link spanglers, interesting that sea lvl was so much higher during the MWP and the rise has been so minimal.
I heard lomborg on RN this morning….i thought he was fantastic even if he does believe in AGW.
his points that i found intersting’
1. for every dollar spent preventing AGW you get a 2c return.
2. for every dollar spent on research and development and coping with future events you get an 11 dollar return.
3. stern and garnaut’s opinion on ETS are purely political . they were directed to produce a document that supported the governments stance
4. we should be spending our money on R and D so that we can find cheap alternative energies that people will voluntarily use…and hence cut co2 naturally.
three cheers for lomborg i say, the first sensible suggestions i have heard from a believer in a long long time.
A guy at work here has just been telling me that he heard a guy talk recently who used his PHD students to research ways to cut co2.
the top two were.
a. provide the pill for free to all women
b. promote reforestation and stop slash and burn
somebody else here just suggested…ban Mcdonalds, its the hamburger which is leading to so much of brazil’s forests being cut down!.. i saw a show recently where they were growing “meat” in laborotories that lookied like a hamburger pattie……sounds horrid i know, but if it tastes ok…….well maybe not!
Good analysis Hunter – except for one small point – denialist scum project themselves as the leaders of virtue when in reality they would be the warden in the movie running a corrupt system. You’re on the wrong side of morality doofus. We are the good guys. Try to remember that.
Thx also to Janama, that article in the australian is also interesting…wouldn t it be nice if that was read out at carbonhagen!?
I loved this final quote- as physicist Richard Feynman observed: “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.”
Jo Nova is hot on the trail of raw unadjusted data and coming up trumps.
http://joannenova.com.au/
Luke my friend, you are the one, and the only one, who has ever talked about the need to round people up for climate dissent. Well, maybe your twin son of a different mother, Birdie, wants to round up a few, but who is counting?
You are losing because you cannot round us up.
Oppopsing apocalytic clap trap is to never be on the wrong side of morality, my friend.
But congrats on good movie taste, at least.
Cheers,
One thing appears certain.
There will not be sufficient eggs in the farmyard to cover all of “the science is settled,” scaremonger faces.
Pikey.
Folks,
So long as Luke’s arguments rely on claims of “denialist scum” and “doofus”, we may all rest assured that there is, indeed, a consensus.
Meanwhile, check out “Climategate riots erupt in Copenhagen”,
http://www.thespoof.com/news/spoof.cfm?headline=s3i64779
Luke is an exemplar of what ‘public debate’ is all about.
HI all,
I have been reading Jennifer’s blog for quite a while now and I have often wanted to make a comment however I must admit to not wanting to be called names by the warmaholics ,carbonistas ect .
Nevertheless, now that the EPA in the US has declared that greenhouse gases are harmful to humans ( what a joke !) does that mean that water vapour is next on the list of pollutants as it is by far the largest one !
cheers
“you don’t have to know your job anymore – It seems you just have to have the right attitude.”
janama,
Just get a job in the Rudd Rocketeaucracy, kiss arse and collect.
Have tongue, will travel.
janama,
That’s a good article but it’s a pity they didn’t write it up 3 months ago when it came out.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/14/research-claim-dropping-co2-caused-formation-of-antarctic-ice-cap/
Another hot decade but Tony thinks it is cooling. The master of the backflip and resurrecter of the undead has tried lots of quirky positions on global warming, soon Abbot will have only the missionary one left.
very droll bazza; and if chairman Rudd has his way with us I know what position we all will be assuming then.
“Then there’s David Bellamy’s tale of being canned from a very successful science-popularizer gig on the BBC because he dared to speak anti-AGW heresy.”
If they are effective they will be targeted. One time I was on the wikipedia attempting to deal with these communists and there was this big discussion going where they were claiming David Bellamy wasn’t a scientist. This was maths-boy 101 computer programming types talking (I’m thinking of the Wiki-wrecker William Connelly) and computer “scientists” you know the usual crowd of bludgers. Anyway they reckon that Bellamy isn’t a scientist. I remember when I was a kid he already had seven degrees. Naturally enough Bellamy was appalled by this racket. And because he was effective they went after him.
Dr Marohasy became powerfully effective when she had those four threads wherein she dissected each study proposed to be evidence for more than negligible CO2-warming. No-one could find a single study that fit the bill. Not as proof. But just as evidence.
Its a data and attribution problem. They have to build the CO2 record and then relate it in a causal way to warming. We could probably do it if we wanted to prove that CO2 cools. I mean we could build a case at least, just looking at the graphs.
First you need a good CO2 record. But the proponents are so useless that after 100 billion dollars they haven’t got around to producing an accurate record. The last time someone (Beck) pitched them one for free they spent all their time mocking it.
If you don’t have an accurate record you need to build one with at least a three-way proxy study. And it cannot be a proxy, like tree-ring-growth, that is going to mess with your temperature study. You cannot relate tree-ring growth to warming, if you know that CO2 is going to directly enhance tree-ring growth. Just a note for the incompetent science worker, Michael Mann, to get it right next time.
The wamers haven’t begun to find real evidence. They have not even constructed the CO2 record in the satisfactory way described, and are not the least bit interested in doing so.
So it was really about that time that the Doctor became effective and a threat to this movement. Obviously I don’t know how this racket manages to do what it does, but if they can declare David Bellamy a non-scientist and start cutting him off at the knee-caps, then they can probably get to anyone.
A study in progress by K C Green and J Scott Armstrong, suggests that mass delusion is what the game is all about.
http://kestencgreen.com/green%26armstrong-agw-analogies.pdf
What you would need for a powerful warming-gas (note I don’t say “greenhouse gas” since this is a bollocks concept) is a gas that
1. absorbs a broad stretch of the VERY LOWER BAND of infra-red coming up from the ground.
2. Does not, unlike CO2, absorb those higher, infra-red regions that will disproportionately be coming in from the sun.
3. That is like CO2 heavier than air. The heavier the more effective.
Think about a short-stop in baseball. But the short-stop we want is a heavy fellow. He catches the ball and maybe he’s lifted right out past the diamond because he’s rolling with the catch. We want him then to head straight back to home base banging into all the other fielders on the way and giving them energy.
CO2 doesn’t fit the bill at our air pressure level. We know that because CO2 mixes well up to 100 kilometres. Which means its two upper absorption regions are keeping the CO2 this well mixed.
We want a warming gas to be heavy so that it captures the radiation, and perhaps is driven up, but is still warmer than the molecules around it (and still catching more radiation) as it is coming down. So that a typical molecule will be adding warmth to the other molecules while its sinking. But at our air pressure CO2 appears to be unsuited to the task. Or it would not mix in such an effective way right up to 100 kilometres above the earth.
Now take Ozone. Even heavier than CO2. Supposing we could keep its powerfully effective low-frequency long-wave-length absorption spectrum. But suppose we could strip Ozone of its ability to absorb UV.
Now we would have a powerfully effective warming agent I would suggest. It would catch the radiation on the way up in the night-time, but its heavy so it would still be catching the radiation while sinking, and sinking next to molecules cooler than it.
But Ozone is no good warmer-gas unless perhaps you live on the snow-caps of the highest mountains. Since Ozone, or at least the average Ozone molecule, never gets to fall where we are. If it sunk into the troposphere in the night-time it would catch that heat from the ground and wind up back to its natural home, and as soon as the dawn breaks its got this two-way absorption sending it typically to the upper stratosphere as heavy as what it is.
Its the differential absorption ability that keeps the homosphere (not Oxford street) so well mixed.
Lets stop talking about “greenhouse gasses” because thats all nonsense. We’ve got to go with the better paradigm.
But just a note as to how things might change if we had the same composition of air but a much higher temperature. Then extra CO2 might really warm things in a serious way. Because the short-stop keeps catching the balls but he’s not pushed back very far. The homosphere is perhaps more compressed. Compression is the key here and for any number of reasons.
I hope this will help the scales fall from some of your eyes.
A note on water vapour. It can hardly be considered in the same way as what I’m talking about above. Because it goes through a phase-change. This bring a whole new list of complications. But it is a warming gas at night-time in just the way I’ve described. Because it will sink, be manifesting its latent energy as the dew comes, and that latent energy will be warming those molecules. It will be a warmer at night for the fact that it falls while it is yet warmer than those molecules around it.
cohenite; there isn’t hard evidence for your WMP downunder. That CO2 link is was only broomstick estimations and no calibrations by lay folk doing their darndest to take us backwards into the dark ages
you need to do better hey
You are talking idiocy gavin. Focus on getting yourself some evidence “hey”. Don’t focus on the other side dopey. You’ve got to get cracking with some evidence of your own. Your behaviour is like pervert-Popperian.
CO2 is not a warming gas at our air pressure. Rather its a smoothing gas. It almost certainly is cooling us during the daytime. And almost certainly is warming us a little at night when its two upper absorption regions are less relevant. If you think its a net-warmer lets have that evidence. Evidence for your cost-imposition and treason side is not brought about by being a big wanker about what the climate rationalists have to offer.
Lukefartard,
“El Gordo – it matters not – pressure and time Gordo – pressure and time.
Governments come and go … I care little for the electoral outcomes.”
I do believe I recognise a sour grapes rationalisation!!
Gavin,
thanks for your uninformed opinion on the CO2 paper.
How about you hop over there and read the other papers they have on the Southern Hemisphere and let us know how good they are and what they say??
Gavin,
by the way, mind giving me a link to the one you read so we can compare notes??
Michael Mann going into show business.
Cohers finds Abbotts many stances on global warming droll. I will show you droll. The Saudi delegate to Copenhagen thought the email story was relevant. Tony should swap yarns with him. Talk about flogging a dead horse. A Saudi being a AGW sceptic is a bit like taking Cohers to Newcastle.
Janama and others who may be interested,
I followed up on the Lesotho climate doomsday story. The reporter was Andrew Geoghegan, and Mark Colvin was also involved. It can be found at
http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2009/s2764276.htm
Note the thunder sound effects, cool, misty conditions (rainy season up in the mountains), and the comment from Prince Seeiso Seeiso that ‘temperatures have risen I think on average three, four, five degrees.’ Note the purple passage ‘From the deserts of the Sahara to the jungles of the Congo, locals and scientists argue that the weather is becoming more extreme from floods and droughts.’ If Mr Geoghegan could have spotted a couple of polar bears in the Lesotho mountains, then he would have had a real ripping yarn. The lady from the UN Development Program put in a thinly veiled cargo cult bid.
I have sent the matter to Media Watch.
The reason Africa suffers more from climate change is because they won’t finance coal powered stations and flog them silly solar panels instead.
Geez, Green Davey, there’s some solid scientific evidence in that ABC Lesotho report farrago; and how about the fact that its 3, 4 or 5 degrees warmer and still freezing! Man that’s climate change; maybe the dumb ABC reporter [oxymoron I know] should have looked to see if there were any ju ju berries growing nearby; but this is what we can expect from the ‘impoverished victims of climate change’; fanciful sob stories designed to galvanise the bloated egoes and guilt complexes of the cognitive dissonant sheeples. And good luck with media Watch; TCS has had 4 formal complaints into the ABC with the usual snide blandishments and dismissal based on the credible authority of the IPCC. We will be seeing the ABC in court soon.
And bazza, which is you;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_Popular_Delusions_and_the_Madness_of_Crowds
“Luke my friend, you are the one, and the only one, who has ever talked about the need to round people up for climate dissent” – yea I just throw half the stuff in to rev you up. Would have thought it was standard modus operandi for rednecks.
As for Schiller making complaints about language – here’s a bloke who likes to refers to Africans as “darkies.” Pullease Shillsbo – go and put your Confederate flag up !
But WTF – Birdy is starting to get sciencey – if he keeps this up maybe one should stop sledging and engage ? He’s almost coherent? OMIGOD !
Anyway – for your collective delectation:
Barry Jones roasts Bob Carter
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2766216.htm
And just remember dudes – the harder the pendulum swings to Abbot – the faster and furtherer it will come back.
Climate scientist receives death threats
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/12/09/2766508.htm
cohers
The solar panels seemed like a good idea at the time, but who would ever have thought the weather might change.
It appears Tom Wigley took a shot at Andrew Bolt for calling him a whistleblower. This spat is unlikely to end in litigation, although I hazard a guess that it won’t be too long before someone is made an example of.
Jone’s piece is junk; but at least he hasn’t sunk this low;
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2765351.htm
Cohers & Coolers Inc can suck on this one
http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/1148737/Giant-iceberg-headed-for-Australia
Barry Jones is using bad data and has been taken in. Simple as that.
Those interested in cooling v warming should go back a week to find the whole story of more ice in our latitudes when the first alert was posted in NZ
See updated news item here. more ice! Must be cooling hey
http://news.theage.com.au/breaking-news-world/giant-iceberg-spotted-south-of-australia-20091209-kjyu.html
Howzat?
Speaking of Bob Carter, he finally got to have a bit of a say in today’s Adelaide Advertiser newspaper. They are actually starting to mention climategate and skeptical views, giving a slightly more balanced coverage of Copenwhatsis.
The backradiation explanation of a warming gas is actually incoherent. Since whereas other gasses will absorb and re-radiate the entire spectrum, a gas with “greenhouse” characteristics will re-radiate the spectrum, minus the absorption region. In the first instance thats a cooling effect to the gasses around it. Since its hogging that part of the spectrum to itself.
So a warming gas doesn’t warm by re-radiation. This is a confused notion. Rather a warming gas has to be heavier than air. Its effect is a little ambiguous. It must warm by direct contact. It will do so to the extent that the warming gas molecules are are warmer than the molecules around it and the warming gas molecules are still falling. Falling though they are warmer than the molecules around them. The warming ISN’T be re-radiation. Its by induction.
Its pretty clearly the case that CO2 isn’t a warming gas during the heat of the day. Otherwise it wouldn’t mix so well to such a high altitude. The three absorption regions must be taking your average CO2 molecule that starts off at the ground, well they must be taking way up high quite quickly on the average.
You would really want to cut off the top two absorption regions and just leave the bottom one. You can semi-check what I’m saying be seeing if there is a good reason why Ozone and Argon, being heavier than air, don’t settle low-down and suffocate us. If what I’m saying is true Argon will have to absorb UV or high-infra or something. Because Argon is heavier. So it would have to absorb the higher end stuff from the sun to keep it so well-mixed.
Also a problem with CO2 as a warming gas on a planet that rotates pretty quickly. It lacks the specific heat capacity to hold a lot of energy. This is where liquid water comes in. And also where the latent heat effect of water comes in overnight.
CO2 is really not the warming gas its cracked out to be. And we have to get rid of this notion of the “greenhouse gas”. Its a very foolish notion.
An iceberg south of Australia proves diddly squat Gavin. The operative word in your story is “spotted” They are notoriously difficult to locate so what’s there to prove burgs haven’t been there in the past. It’s a big southern ocean.
As for NZ we had a bunch of bergs off our south eastern coast a couple of years ago and the alarmists went berserk with proof of warming until they were told this had happened in the past (1930s I think)
I think a couple of Aussies wanted to go out and have a picnic or something on the ones that are supposed to be here at the moment..hired a plane..searched the ocean..but couldn’t find them. (white caps of the waves are good camoflage)
Gavin
More icebergs are floating in the southern ocean because there is a lot more ice on Antarctica – hence the increased calving.
It has nothing to do with ‘global warming’ and everything to do with the currents. This berg has been floating around for a decade.
Just came across an interesting paper at of all places, http://gacp.giss.nasa.gov/publications/liepert.pdf
which concludes “The observed 19 W/m2 or 10% decline in surface solar radiation in the United States from the 1960s to the 1980s is strong compared to sites in other regions of the globe with a 7 W/m2 or 4% decline in three decades.”
This fits with my own findings that at Pt Barrow in Alaska the NOAA shows solar radiation (SR) averaged 66 W/sq. meter between 1990 and 2005, and actually was lower by 11 W/sq.metre in 2005 than in 1991 (at 63 W/sq. meter). The R2 for correlating changes in mean Min. temps at Barrow between 1960 and 2005 with respect to changes in atmospheric CO2 between those years and variations in SR there over the same period was over 0.41, with the coefficient on RF being Negative but highly stat. sig. while the coefficient on SR was Positive and even more stat. sig. Yet the IPCC and people like Trenberth (who at least admits his failure to see this is a “travesty”, @ CRU) consider that solar variation is trivial and of no consequence (eg IPCC’s 90% certainty that “most” temperature change is due to anthropogenic changes in the atmospheric concentration of CO2). (I have posted this to Real Climate, 9 Dec 09, but have no expectation it will appear there).
Recall that the IPCC states (AR4, WG1, p.141) that Radiative Forcing (RF) of all GHGs accumulated since 1750 had reached 2.6 watts/sq.meter by 2005.
Consider the difference in scale with decadal CHANGES in SR far larger than the total accumulated RF of 2.6 W/sq.m since 1750 of the pathetic IPCC.
Conclusion: thank God for atmospheric CO2, without it the little Ice Age would be back with a vengeance. Tell that to the Nuremburg oops Copenhagen Rally.
I’m sorry Gavin, your point about the iceberg is? Did you not read the bit about it being “uncommon but not unusual”?
I’m a little confused at the moment. I just read one of the responses to that horrible article by Clive “your dad is scum” Hamilton, which stated that “vibrating” CO2 molecules reflect IR back to the surface thus warming the lower atmosphere. Now from memory of 2nd year inorganic chem, Co2 vibrates/rotates at certain frequencies After it has absorbed said incoming IR, just like H2O does with microwaves. Therefore, EM energy is converted to kinetic energy which is lost by transferring to surrounding air molecules thus warming the immediate vicinity (I think) so how can CO2 re-radiate IR? Conservation of energy and all that.
There is probably something big that I’m missing here and would gladly accept correction/enlightenment on this issue.
In fact Gavin the “scientist” who said that this is the biggest iceburg since sailing ship days is talking pure unadulterated speculative bullshit.
You’ve touched on the empty heart of AGW Derek; supposedly the mechanism by which CO2 ‘absorbed’ IR heat was explained by Arrhenius but Arrhenius did not measure the effect of CO2 because he passed IR of a 9.7 micron wavelength through his test tube; CO2 interacts with IR at a wavelength of 14.7 microns, forget the wings because Earth does not produce sufficient pressure for absorption to occur at the wing wavelengths. The CO2 will collide with a photon of 14.7 wavelength and energy will be transferred from the photon to the CO2 molecule; the CO2 will vibrate and transfer by conduction that kinetic energy to any surrounding bit of air; the CO2 will also reemit a photon as required by Beers law at a frequency determined by SB’s law; so the CO2 gains one source of energy and loses 2 sources of energy; conservation of energy means the CO2 drops to a lower energy state, is cooler, while the residual energy from the collsion is transfered by the 2 mechanisms of conduction and reemission. The net energy/heating gain to the atmosphere is zilch; the reemitted photon will be isotropic in direction, in theory; but because the lower surface boundary saturates parcels of uniformly thermalised air called LTE’s are formed which rise; the CO2 within those parcels cannot emit outside the LTE because there is no gradient; at the CEL where the LTE through energy expenditure through convective rising becomes the same temperature as the external air reemission can occur; however the photons cannot go down because the air underneath is opaque so how can back-radiation heat the surface?
I seriously doubt that AGW promoters are receiving many death threats at all.
I doubt even more if any of them are of a significant nature.
What is notable is that not one quote of a threatening e-mail is offered, But I do note that Wigley spends a good amount of time pretending the e-mail leak is not a leak, and that they should be ignored.
I think a constructive response would be ‘When you AGW promoters deal with the e-mails , the code, and the data in a meaningful way, I will pay attention to your claims about people writing mean e-mails to you.”
And, btw, stop hiding the data if you expect people to go along with your apocalyptic clap trap, and stop hiding behind arguments from authority and evasion. People are tuckered out from them.
But Dr. Wigley is interesting. He is very…..wiggly, as it were:
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/wigley_denies_i_did_not_choke_on_the_deceit/
The more these guys rely on arrogant dismissal, hide-the-penny, and evasion, the more they can expect problems. Distracting with the claims of personal threats is not an effective strategy.
What is fascinating to me is the expectation that if AGW is like any other group think, the e-mails etc. leaked so far are only going to be the tip of hte iceberg.
Everything done by AGW apologists and promoters since the leak has acted to increase that likelihood.
Dr. Wigley’s wiggles are a good example of this.
To Mack and others who can’t read the signs; ice in the roaring 40’s is a hazard to not only sailors but warming sceptics too. Think about it. Only the big ice blocks last long enough to reach our latitudes. It’s the numbers that indicate major disturbance down south.
Sometimes I wonder what interest others have in ignoring these natural indicators. Perhaps its only their long standing lack of interest or imagination when it comes to understanding the magnitudes associated with climate change
The Times of INDIA ran this AFP item under “Global Warming”
“Giant iceberg spotted south of Australia”
“The finding comes after two large icebergs were spotted further east, off Australia’s Macquarie Island, followed by more than 100 smaller ice chunks heading towards New Zealand”
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/environment/global-warming/Giant-iceberg-spotted-south-of-Australia/articleshow/5318527.cms
“however the photons cannot go down because the air underneath is opaque”
I wonder a lot about the generators of all stuff home grown on blogs like this.
give it a rest gavin, your homespun wisdom is getting, tiresome!
Are you trying to tell us that the ice in the Antarctic was, is, or will be static forever?
“I just read one of the responses to that horrible article by Clive “your dad is scum” Hamilton, which stated that “vibrating” CO2 molecules reflect IR back to the surface thus warming the lower atmosphere.”
CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. Water vapour is not the most important greenhouse gas. Its not even a greenhouse gas. Because there is no such thing as a greenhouse gas. Since there is no greenhouse effect. I wish I could take the sensible middle ground on this matter. But its not possible to do so. I wish I could say that the greenhouse effect is not as strong as earlier imagined. Such a compromise could fit the data one supposes. But the fact is there are no greenhouse gases. And there is no greenhouse effect.
Take the situation you are thinking about. The CO2 molecule absorbs the full spectrum of the radiation that hits it. And re-radiates out the full spectrum minus the small low-end band it captures. But the normal molecules that are around this CO2 molecule are absorbing the full spectrum and re-radiating the full spectrum. So how can the warming be through back-radiation? Through the alleged greenhouse effect?
Rather the CO2 molecule is robbing us of re-radiation in that sense. From a radiation point of view we have a minus right there. And the average CO2 molecule in that position is now high-tailing it out of there on its way above our heads, above our houses and above our thermometers.
Despite some carping from our year nine science teachers it is perfectly sound English to say that “heat rises”. It is where this general rule is overturned that we can generate a heat budget in any particular strata. Right there the CO2 doesn’t appear to be helping a great deal. For the CO2 to warm me it has to be catching that radiation above my head then sinking down as it does so, and warming the molecules at my level. The CO2 molecules that are warming me need not all necessarily come all the way down to waist-level to do so. But they have to catch that radiation at a higher level and subsequently move down. To overmatch the initial effect they have of robbing us of some of the re-radiation.
Supposing a cloud comes by? The cloud is like a mobile strata top. Instead of the strata ending at the troppopause, on account of this cloud, the strata now effectively ends where the cloud starts. The warmer CO2 molecule that might have wanted to keep moving on up, taking their warmth with them, may be forced into reverse. Its where the CO2 molecule is physically reversed and can take energy it has captured at a higher level, down to the lower level, well this is where the CO2 can have a warming effect.
It ought to be clear that if CO2 is capable of net warming in the way described above, this is going to be mostly in the night, where its two higher absorption regions aren’t being excited by the sun and sending the average CO2 molecule much higher than where it could be of help to us.
There is a lot of overturning in the troposphere for one reason or another. And it is only in conjunction with this overturning, for the most part, that these gases can have that warming effect.
The story with water and water vapour is a little different. Since water vapour ought to be constantly turning back and forth between being water vapour and microscopic airborne liquid water. Its the effects to do with this constant transformation between water vapour and microscopic airborne liquid-water, that have the effect on our air temperature that makes our planet habitable. Nothing to do with any bogus greenhouse effect since there is no such thing.
Marcus; the key word is “surge” when considering ice changes, rate of discharge, melt magnitudes etc. Could go either way
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v272/n5656/abs/272809a0.html
It took me a while to find the item last year by Ted Scambos & David Vaughn
http://climatechangepsychology.blogspot.com/search/label/David%20Vaughn
Monash takes on sceptics
http://www-personal.buseco.monash.edu.au/~BParris/BPClimateChangeQ&As.html
Who paid is the real scandal?
Hackers probably paid to help undermine Copenhagen climate summit: UN
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/hackers-probably-paid-to-help-undermine-copenhagen-climate-summit-un/story-e6frg6xf-1225807575795
As an hypothesis this surge deal would seem to make no sense at all. Gavin. Can you stick up for it? Why would a surge in ice cause an ice age? Senseless. Except to the extent that it stopped the clean flow of the great ocean conveyor. Not much of an hypothesis so far.
Ice surges in one decade would appear to simply be about ice buildup in earlier decades. We know the ice has been building up. Why ought it not surge? As a matter of fact if it didn’t surge then Charles Hapgood would be right. If the ice buildup in Antarctica in earlier decades, failed to lead to ice surging in a subsequent decade, then we would have an earth crustal displacement. The ice would keep building up and building up until it lead to a new equatorial shift.
In which case it would not be the ice surge that lead to the ice age. It would be the FAILURE OF THE ICE TO SURGE that would do so.
Its all bloody CO2 with you morons isn’t it. The ice surges. Thats CO2. The ice fails to surge. CO2. Maybe we just have to sterilise you warmers. Just to make sure the stupid gene doesn’t get passed on.
You know that the ice has been building up and building up in Antarctica?
What if it didn’t surge?
What would you say then?
Dummies.
Perhaps the ice is surging but it is not surging fast enough? Perhaps its the failure of the ice to surge which will make Hapgood correct and we will all be in deep trouble and the ice man cometh. What on earth could be sinister about the ice surging? Ice moves like a slow-motion river. So if it builds up it must surge. I should bloody well hope so.
Monash are liars then aren’t they Luke. And there needs to be sackings. What was the point of linking it Luke? You ought to have a point to your posts.
Just because the H2O molecules are microscopic and airborne does not make them a gas. If you want to really understand what is going on track back to what I was saying about the characteristics of a designer warming gas. I said it would be heavy for one thing. Its not water vapour which fits this bill. Its microscopic liquid water.
We have been suckered in a lot of ways. Blinded since we don’t think water is liquid if it is airborne and it is in a form smaller than a droplet. We cast it all under the rubrick of “water vapour.”
But the whole key to this story is microscopic liquid water. Because if this story were only about water vapour and rain, then water vapour would be the planetary refrigerant par excellence. The water vapour, absorbing so much from above and below would just travel on up, it would raid, the latent heat of condensation be let out, but since there is more air below then above more than half of that heat would be as good as lost right there. Water Vapour is the oceans sweating. Water Vapour would be the cooling gas. But because it is always going backwards and forwards between itself as vapour and also as microscopic liquid water then THIS is what serves as the proxy for our designer warming gas.
We saw that CO2 was no good as a warming gas except perhaps at night, or to some extent in association with overturning. We saw that Ozone was a fine warming gas if you lived on the highest mountain peaks. We said that a really good warming gas would be powerfully heavy. And it would only absorb the low end. So then it would act like the fat short-stop, catching all the balls, being driven outside of the diamond, then coming back to home base, still catching balls and banging into the other fielders on the way in.
But while we might find heavier and heavier gases as candidates to do this job, there is no gas that is going to be as heavy as the microcopic airborne liquid water we are talking about here. This is the whole key to the entire story.
Just how deep is the denial of the AGW true believers?
So deep that they will blame anything- conspiracies, UFOs, big oil anything that moves, to avoid dealing with the leaks.
So now the e-mails (and data and code) that were leaked were stolen in a grand conspiracy to undermine Hypenhagen, according to the daily dissembling.
But here in the States the daily dissmebling is that nothing in the e-mails has any impact on Hypenhagen at all, and to suggest otherwise is a sign of great idiocy.
Sarah Palin, in an op-ed, had the temerity to suggest that not only did the e-mails cast doubt on Hypenahgen. And then she actually asserted that policy should be based on good science.
Warmis blogs cannot spend enough time laughing at her for suggesting such ignorant ideas.
Yet here we are in Australia with a huge denialist super secret plot using the ‘stolen’ e-mails to undermine what the warmists say can’t be undermined at all.
Get your stories, straight, mates!
And be careful! There may be a denialist under your bed!
Dr. Parris, if he had a sense of shame, would certianly be so over his rehashed list of AGW propaganda.
Actually gavin it’s not so much opaqueness but that the photons bounce off the tops of the pointy little heads of AGW supporters, like you.
gavin,
If there is more ice in Antarctica than the historical average (there is) why would you not see big bergs make the occasional trip north? If I read this correclty, this berg calved off a few years back….like twelve.
Have big bergs journeyed this far north before?
Yes.
One of the odd things about AGW is that normal things become scary.
If Hunter, Birdie and his mates were half serious they would have been at the sceptics so-called challenge in Copenhagen. Apparently ( Lenore Taylor, The Australian today) Plimer only needed another five to show and he would have got his half century attending what was said to be the star attraction. Spare me. The audience may have sold out but not the venue. But had Hunter and his matters turned up they would not have had much impact on the average age of the 45 die-hard sceptics of “well over 60”. ( Scientists peak around 40). So much for the con consensus.
Luke’s gettin’ pretty desperate when he quotes this sort of self asked question and answer system.
Reminds me of KRudd and Real Climate.
If this guy had any cred he would at least get someone else to answer.
But then I suppose he wouldn’t get those incestuous answers that he so desperately needs.
Thanks Luke for that link to the Monash site by Bret Parris . Not your usual humble economist judged by his output. It is a classic summary. I liked the DK bias. You don’t have to worry. If you were not aware of the Dunning-Kruger cognitive bias you could easily overrate your opponents. As DK bias says: The unskilled suffer from illusory superiority and the skilled suffer from the opposite. Says it all.
Luke is a complete troll for replastering the Paris nonsense; Paris says this;
“CO2 on the other hand, absorbs around 4.3 μm, only weakly between 8-12 μm and most strongly in the 13-17 μm zone, centred on 15 μm (but also with significant absorption at 13.9 μm and 16.2 μm), which is right near the peak of the longwave radiation spectrum and causes more than 90% of the warming due to CO2.”
This is absolute garbage; the Earth has an average temperature of 288K; the wavelength peak at that temperature is 10.0625 microns; bazza, you and luke are both dopes and AGW groupies.
Cohenite,
I have had a courteous reply from Media Watch, saying that they will investigate.
I thought the purple passage about the Sahara and the Congo sounded musical. Now I remember the song (US Marine hymn?) ‘From the halls of Montezuma, to the shores of Tripoli …’.
The transcript was heavily edited, missing out the solar energy sideline. I must confess I exaggerated in my original post. The solar panel was the size of a brief-case, not a postage stamp. But then, we are allowed to tell lies in pursuit of a noble cause, aren’t we?
bazza; you got me thinking. There is no need for birdie & co to actually own the science before participating in the action. Yes; I appreciate Graeme’s serious attempts recently to think and write properly on the AGW issue.
Behind every great research scientist there is at least one good technician who slaves away at the coal face. It’s probably this person or team of such people that builds the gear and runs the routines. I met quite a few during my time as jack of all trades who remained in faithful service to just one discipline and they usually succeeded in something after intensive studies of what ever but there are other ways. Adaptability from field to field helps too. This is where “trust” comes in and one assumes certain prior knowledge along the way.
Find your instant expert in every field and leave some work for them to continue.
“we are allowed to tell lies in pursuit of a noble cause, aren’t we?”
depends on the cause hey
BTW cohenite; I’m still wondering about opaque air
from Jeffers of North Sydney
“King Canute was Danish. Funny how history repeats itself. “
Hey Luke, better ease back – Cohers is losing it – must be the heat in the Abott kitchen. And Gavin says I got him thinking. Time I retired to the aircon.
Janama,
The whole thing is a rich quarry of ideas for cartoonists with an historical streak. Remember Horatio Nelson won the Battle of Copenhagen. He put his telescope to his blind eye, and saw no sceptics, nor dodgy science, nor emails. Also, Hans Christian Andersen, with his Emperor’s new clothes, came from those parts. One of my Danish ancestors, Ragnor Hairy Breeks, obviously dressed for cooler weather.
So Lukefartard,
“Climate scientist receives death threats”
Because your buds are playing pranks that means something??
Gavin,
“Cohers & Coolers Inc can suck on this one”
And I guess it was goreball warming that sunk the Titanic too??
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
If the berg was 20% of the sea ice in the SH it wouldn’t mean anything except you might not want to get between it and a fixed object!!
Wonder what think tank or fossil fuel company paid the Russian hackers to infiltrate people’s private emails. What a shoddy ineffective attempt to derail Copenhagen.
Shame denailists ! Shame ! Shame ! Shame !
And now death threats.
Will they stop at nothing Bazza? The world is unsafe with these guys in it.
“If Hunter, Birdie and his mates were half serious they would have been at the sceptics so-called challenge in Copenhagen.”
Right. What am I going to do? Get myself another credit card? You see if you are on the religious side of this argument you can get your trip paid. Everyone and his momma is going on the dumb side of the argument. Clover Moore and a bunch of others are going. It seems every elitist taxeating bludger in the world gets to go to Copenhagen just so long as they are on the stupid side. Climate Rationalists might need to hitch-hike on a fishing boat. There will be so much stupid assembled in Copenhagen that you might almost expect the ground to open and just to swallow everyone. I’m not sure I’d want to be anywhere near these people. What we want to do is forge a plan to keep them in Copenhagen. And for them never to come back. How would that be? The economy would probably experience a step change upward. The level of discourse would be improved. People may start being kinder to eachother.
Cohenite, you obviously have some professional qualifications because you know something about heat transfer which none of the (pseudo) climate? scientists?? appear to have studied (look at university courses).
I think comments from the likes of Luke, Gavan, & Bazza are best ignored.
Willis Eschenbach’s (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/) and the late Dr John Daly’s (http://www.john-daly.com/darwin.htm) look at Darwin’s temperature raises suspicions about temperature manipulation by BOM and GISS.
I recently looked at BOM figures for Gayndah (Qld) which goes back to 1870 for rainfall. You can notice the heat island affect with warmer night temperatures since around 1973 due to sealed roads and more buildings but even not adjusting for that temperatures around federation, when there was a severe drought, were higher. BOM themselves admit that rainfall is associated with cyclical ENSO and PDO. 1902 was the year for record low rainfall. Low rainfall means less cloud cover and more radiation from the sun at ground level. For Gayndah there is a new station since 2003 at the airport. At least there is some over lap from the post office station.
Lukefartard,
You are a fellow CONSPIRACY THEORIST!! Welcom BROTHER!!!
“Hackers probably paid to help undermine Copenhagen climate summit: UN”
The idea that it was a hacker who released the e-mails and files is a stretch. From a good stretch you go immediately to fantasy, who paid them to undermine Copenhagen!!!
GOOD JOB!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Green Davey, our abc is incorrigible; as good prince Seeiso Seeiso demonstrates;
http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2009/s2764276.htm
Perhaps cement legs can come up with the UHI impact chart for Gayndah but any other QLD station in the bush will do because I reckon nobody including all those at BoM today has ever done the measurements to coincide with road sealing etc.
What’s more important is the origin of the case for wholesale UHI recalibrations any where on the planet. Trust me cause I did a lot of air temps and humidities near extreem heat sources.
Luke,
Those exposed as liars claim they were stolen.
There is no evidence beyond their claims.
There is every evidence that they were leaked.
Those exposed as liars now claim they are receiving death threats.
Show us the e-mails of that, please.
Odd how AGW promoters rely on secret e-mails and hidden data at every step.
Where is the outrage when AGW promoters cal for criminal eco-terrorists to get off for their acts of violence against property in public?
Where is the outrage when AGW promoters call for the criminalization of dissent? You are just going through the motions on this one, I think.
There is a reasonable analysis of the email leak trail here
http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/FOIA_Leaked/
I don’t think we can get too upset about the leaking when its to do with public servants betraying the public. These people live off the benevolence of the ripped off taxpayer. They are supposed to be conducting scientific research. It would be bad enough if they were indeed doing scientific research. But they decided to betray the taxpayer and instead of conducting scientific research they thought that they would conduct a Gramscian campaign of lies.
Even if it was, in some cases, their private emails made from their private computers, from their private houses still the fact is that they live off other people. Hence while we would normally respect their property rights we ought not be overly absolutist about it. These are after all socialists, who themselves do not believe in, and are actively antagonistic towards, personal, local and national sovereignty. We would normally respect their rights for the most part. But we don’t want to be silly about it. Because they are in fact traitors and quislings by any sane definition. Whoever leaked the emails surely made a judgement call. I think ethics is on his side on balance.
Jabba “There is a reasonable analysis of the email leak trail here”
It seemed a reasonable flow chart but “in mid November 2009, ten million teletypes all started their deet-ditta-dot chatter reeling off the following headline: “Hackers broke into the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit….” tells another story.
I doubt that a single historic “TELETYPE” remains in use today at any active msm outfit, so we have another oldtimer trying to stay on top with his “OBSOLETE” analysis.
“The simplest explanation in this case is that someone at UEA found it and released it to the wild and the release of FOIA2009.zip wasn’t because of some hacker, but because of a leak from UEA by a person with scruples”
IMO a person with scruples would shove it upwards or downwards, not sideways.
But they were betraying all of us gavin. And they had you taken in. We just saw how they had Barry Jones taken in. Simply because he was fooled by bad data.
Surely here you are giving away your bad faith. If you are not angry at these people for making a fool out of you then what are your (socialist quisling) motives in this affair. We know that leaking upwards brings punishments. Of course you have to leak sideways. You know that gavin. You must know that I don’t assume you are that stupid not to understand that so I have to now suspect your motives.
What do you find so compelling about centralising all power? Thats what you are working for right? What is this daydream about?
Upwards, downwards or sideways, who cares. The only relevant item is that the information is in the public domain and verifies the long held suspicion that the whole AGW business is a scam floating on a sea of ecomentalist bullshit.
Death threats although probably annomous require another form of analysis. Physical harm even as a threat, is offside in any level of play.
I put these into the same catorgry as sabotarge in our realm of a “fair go mate”. By sabotarge I mean deliberate fire lighting in extreme weather, sand in working engines and so on. All protests should be up front and public. When is sabotarge a crime? Allways!
Geurella warefare can be sanctioned by a few in times of declared conflict though but a traitor can be ever present in the few. These may be hard times for independent thinkers and playing the role of double agent is scary stuff. Inevertably after a revolution we must all fall back into line to enjoy the fruits of change.
Workers uniting over a principle is dangerous stuff too as every pinacle is followed by a trickle down at least. Strongarm tactics always leave a bad taste afterwards.
Intuition has its place too. Suspitions must be put on the negotiating table along with the all facts before a successful resolution framework can evolve. This way we can get rid of the burr that has worked into a shoe.
But the death threats are a fake-up from your side gavin. You know that? You would have to be an imbecile to imagine otherwise.
And this pretense that a bit of argy-bargy is off-limits. The left only pulls that story to restrain righteous anger. Someone betrays my country they could get a bruise on the shins at any time. At any time. We don’t want to be silly about this. Its not OK to try and destroy the people who feed you and pay for your kids to grow up huge and obnoxious.
Come off it Hunter – you lot are little better than racketeers and gangsters. I wouldn’t trust you to cross the street.
Now we’ve got heat island effects at Gayndah – hahahahahahahaa ! (Denialist brains at full revs – pullease !)
“There is the issue of the science, which I had previously taken as given; but many people’s faith is being tested. We are often told that the science is settled. I suppose that is what the Inquisition said to Galileo. If so, why are we spending millions of pounds on research? The science is far from settled. – Lord Turnbull Dec 8th 2009”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/10/climategate-reaches-the-british-house-of-lords/#more-13969
It is quite stupid to think anything put on the internet is private particularly emails from a public institution. They are kept for many years whether the user deletes their copy or not. So if any of you have sent emails you would not like others to read they are out there in cyberspace somewhere. They are waiting to be read Dr Jones even though you thought they were deleted. Is there a law for crimes against humanity?
St Luke The Hypocritical…
Luke has, in the past, advocated murdering Japanese whalers on this blog using racial slurs so vile that they had to be deleted by our host. Luke regularly advocates limiting the free speech of climate skeptics and often advocate violence against those he disagree with. Luke constantly employs slander and misinformation in ways that he believes advance his fanatical faith in “The Climate Apocalypse.” And Luke’s best (only) argument against the skeptical camp is that the IPCC and CRU, et al are infallible like the Pope, therefore third party reproduction of the warmists’ so-called research is unnecessary.
Ironically, Luke claims the big story about Climategate is that hacking emails is a vicious criminal conspiracy! Pure hypocrisy. Al Gore advocated “civil disobedience”, so did James Hanson. Over and Over. St. Luke’s Church only got what it asked for!
ROTFL.
No,Luke, the Dogmatic. You’re in denial about Climategate. In a nutshell, all Climategate is about: The Temperature Data and the Adjustment Codes that the IPCC have used to make AGW a credible “threat to humanity” have NOT been made available for critical review and testing by scientists outside “The Church.” Moreover, much of the raw data CRU now claims is lost. Whoops!
Until the T-data, meta-data and all the code is made freely available and transparently posted on the Internet for the whole world to study, the AGW hypothesis is simply pseudo-science, because no assertion can be called science unless the data and proof behind the hypothesis is open to inspection by skeptically third parties. Luke and the Warmists have mistaken their “faith” for “scientific method.”
The hackers or leakers who liberated the CRU emails are heros who deserves a Noble Peace Prize.
Free the Data! Free the Code!
St Gavin the Dogmatic, who once claimed he knew the world was warming because one summer his garden tomatoes wilted, should perhaps quit “reading the signs” for a clue and try reading a few books instead. Nonfiction books, that is.
Gavin declares: “To Mack and others who can’t read the signs; ice in the roaring 40’s is a hazard to not only sailors but warming sceptics too. Think about it. Only the big ice blocks last long enough to reach our latitudes. It’s the numbers that indicate major disturbance down south.”
Gavin is innocent of history.
Geoffrey Blainey has a section in his nonfiction book (Black Kettle and Full Moon: Daily Life in a Vanished Australia) about Australian life in the 19th century called “The Hazards of Icebergs” in which he describes the historical accounts of clipper ships in the 1850’s sailing the roaring 40’s under constant watch and threat from icebergs.
“Early in the morning of 28 Feb 1855 at 48 degrees south, the sailing ship ‘Ocean Chief’, on a voyage from Liverpool to Melbourne, encountered heavy snow squalls. At 4 am, close to dawn, the crew saw a large ice island only 4 miles away. The huge block of ice chilled the morning air… On the following day…more icebergs were visible on both sides.”
The same year on the same route, a Captain Hewett on the “Cambridge” recorded in his ship’s log that at one point his ship was “surrounded by icebergs.”
The same year, “the ‘Ralph Waller’, within a fortnight of reaching Melbourne, hit an iceberg. The bow was damaged and water gushed in, filling the hold to a depth of 5 metres…”
In the same waters, the ‘Guiding Star’, a brand new clipper with a highly rated crew disappeared with all hands in an area of the roaring 40’s known to be the thick with icebergs.
So, Gavin, mate, even if an iceberg infested Great Southern Ocean is “a sign” of “disturbance” and I seriously doubt it based on historical accounts, it does not follow rationally that such a disturbance was created by man-made climate change, assuming, of course, that such a thing even exists in the first place.
Think about it.
Comment from: Luke December 10th, 2009 at 9:22 am
“Who paid is the real (Climategate) scandal? Hackers probably paid to help undermine Copenhagen climate summit: UN.”
Al Gore paid that’s who!
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=safari&rls=en&ei=SJUhS4P5MJWXkQWMoP2nAw&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&ved=0CAYQBSgA&q=Al+Gore,+civil+disobedience&spell=1
ROTFL
Perhaps, one should be careful what one wishes for.
ROTFLSHTIH!
It is fun to watch the AGW true believers pick up in drronish lock step the rationalization of the day.
Now denialist scum are all gangsters and racketeers, railing away with death threats by way of e-mails.
Of course when eco-terrorists were actually eco-terrorizing, and the grand poobahs of AGW were filling court briefs saying its OK to terrorize because it si for the climate, well that actual action does not count.
And, again, where are those threatening e-mails?
Like the theft allegations, all we have is the story from those who stand to either lose (leaks) or look symapthetic (alleged death threats).
Now, I am just a denialist scum, so I like claims of most any sort to be connected to…actual events.
But I guess that is why I am not a believer in AGW.
Cheers,
Hunter claims “Now, I am just a denialist scum, so I like claims of most any sort to be connected to…actual events. But I guess that is why I am not a believer in AGW.” The leaked emails were over a decade ago, a decade likely to be the hottest recorded. So there is an actual event for Hunter to consider and connect to what? AGW is not about beliefs in any case. So tell me Hunter , what is causing the temperature trend and how do you rule out CO2 as a major contributor?. Give us the claims you like in a couple of lines or just go away, and dont be rude unless it is funny, you give this place a bad name.
Not long ago I saw a graph, reportedly from the Hadley Centre, showing world average temperature declining since 1998. This seemed to be accepted by the AGW believers, who said that it was only a temporary hiccup.
Now I see Penny Wong in Copenhagen saying there is no decline, and the last decade has been the hottest ever. I am confused. Who is telling whoppers?
Have the figures been ‘adjusted’ since that graph appeared? Have those seven spin doctors been busy? Where are the raw data from which the graph was compiled? Can anybody help me?
GISS and CRU ‘adjustments’, technical;
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/08/29/gistemp-invnt-f-a-sympathy-plea/
Easy;
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/11/14/the-evolution-of-the-giss-temperature-product/#more-4143
I am an Australian Vietnam Veteran. I was a member of 7th Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment which toured SVN in 1970.
My wife and I lost our firstborn child (a daughter), in 1982. The post-mortem indicated that she died of an aneurism that was a result of a congenital defect. The reason for the defect was never established, but studies of the children of Vietnam Veterans contain some very convincing statistics.
See – http://www.aihw.gov.au/publications/phe/mvv/mvv-c00sum.html
This experience, by itself, is a powerful personal motivator to support planned and dogged action by individuals and government to maintain our planet as a viable life source for future generations.
I’ve returned to Vietnam on a number of occasions in the last few years and seen vast swathes of the countryside that still haven’t recovered from chemical defoliation after forty years. I’ve visited Vietnamese institutions for people with disabilities and have been staggered and horrified by the extent and number of these congenital malformations.
Vietnam has one of the highest incidence rates of these malformations on the planet.
The use of defoliants like Agent Orange and other poorly-understood chemicals remains an example of utter contempt of the natural environment. Largely, its effects have been forgotten and ignored by the same people who were responsible for sending Australians to SVN in the first place. These same conservatives are quite unable to see the irony in attempting to sabotage global action on AGW whilst suffering selective amnesia on the Agent Orange issue.
This chemical was sprayed indiscriminately by the US military. This “up the guts” mindset continues today in the attitude many of the sceptics in the US and in this country. It is arrogant, totalitarian and basically suicidal.
I find your opinion on AGW deeply offensive. It offends the memory of my child, and many Australian Veterans who had their lives ruined by indifference and arrogance through disregard of the natural environment.
You can commit to future infanticide if you wish, but I have no intention of joining you. I would have thought that somewhere in the word “conservative” is contained a meaning which has a strong comment on the sanctity of human life.
The issue should be above politics. It’s simply too important. At least there is a possibility that a global consensus will be reached at Copenhagen, despite coordinated and energetic efforts to derail it. If it is, it will probably be the first time in human history that people of all creeds races and value systems have united on something. Call me naive, but I feel encouraged by this possibility.
Prudential risk management is called for. The stakes are as high as they can get. And this time, the USA and the military-industrial complex doesn’t run the agenda. What a positive change!
bazza says “The leaked emails were over a decade ago, a decade likely to be the hottest recorded. ”
No Bazza, those are yet more lies propagated by the disciple al gore.
the most recent Climategate email is from November 12, 2009 – just a month ago.
The email in which IPCC leader author Kevin Trenberth privately admits “we cannot account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t” is dated October 12, 2009. Only two months ago.
The infamous email sent by CRU chief Phil Jones, ordering four other Climategate scientists to “delete any emails” that sceptics had asked to check, dates from just last year.
Anybody that tries to paint over these emails as irrelevant simply does not understand why sceptics are sceptical. get your blinkers off.
one more point, its most unlikely that the emails were hacked, rather they were likely from a whistleblower…..and ive no doubt that if a whistleblower had released emails/ facts supporting your bias , you and your fellow believers would have been cheering loudly….once again remove those blinkers.
Better yet go and read / listen to some bjorn lomborg ( a warmer, but one who I find myself appreciating as a voice of common sense in a sea of bullshit)
wes; as I understood it, our clipper ships sailed far south on many occasions to pick up the constant winds and in so doing they deliberatly risked the ice.
http://books.google.com.au/books?id=P8-97pQhDg8C&pg=PA44&lpg=PA44&dq=guiding+star++clipper+ship&source=bl&ots=_7AO6Fah2F&sig=Z8aFnZEBBk-UDWKq6YlYW73pZ-c&hl=en&ei=BqghS6HvKoSCNsjJjeMJ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CCEQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=&f=false
Note :We don’t have a pin point record of where they got lost.
Love the 62 strong Government delegation to Climatefest . That’s 24 tonnes of carbon each way in total.
Just as well they are doing it to save us all .
“what is causing the temperature trend and how do you rule out CO2 as a major contributor?”
Well that’s it then, innit?
If you can’t rule out CO2 in a couple of lines, Hunter, it’s PROOF!
Bazza, betcha can’t stand in front of a mirror and do that again.
gavin,
Who’s gonna keep little Jessica awake as she heads for Lat. 50s to round the Horn, so she doesn’t bump the bergy bits?
Maybe her dad will call her on the sat phone every hour or so.
Good luck to her anyway.
Spangles, did bazza ask; “what is causing the temperature trend and how do you rule out CO2 as a major contributor?”?
If he did he’s a bigger nuisance than luke; the coefficient of determination, r2, measures the explained variation in one variable, the dependent variable , temperature, caused by movements in another variable, the determining variable, CO2. Over the 20thC the r2 for CO2 being able to explain the variation in temperature is 0.44. Another way of looking at this is that during the 20thC a movement in CO2 gave you a 44% chance of predicting the movement in temperature; a coin toss gives you a 50% chance and during the 20thC PDO shifts gave you an 85% chance of predicting temperature trend.
The interesting thing is that since 2000 the r2 is negative; that is for any movement in CO2 the resulting movement in temperature is -ve; -0.44 for HadCrut and -0.3 for UAH. The argument about temperatures since 2000 being the hottest yet is therefore missing the point; since 2000 there has been no meaningful causal relationship between CO2 and temperature and during the 20thC the relationship was less than chance.
Bazza,
I hope you’re paying attention to cohers.
Tony are you that much of a drongo ?
“The email in which IPCC leader author Kevin Trenberth privately admits “we cannot account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t” is dated October 12, 2009. Only two months ago.”
Try thinking about it? I know it’s hard.
And Cohenite is back to Jack’s beanstalk – that’s why you’re denialists guys.
And what a verballing little turd you are Wes – if you want to have beaten the Japs in WWII to now taking it up the arse having them violate your backyard and wildlife sanctuary then be a non-patriotic pussy then. Traitor !
Bob “This “up the guts” mindset continues today in the attitude many of the sceptics in the US and in this country. It is arrogant, totalitarian and basically suicidal”
Since the band here has failed to respond I could go on about a story from my little mate who claimed he was behind the lines for the whole of several tours helping an elite group target the Ho Chi Min trail for an air suppression campaign, or I could go on about my work in our local petro chem industries about the same time.
However I listened to a lady on RN this afternoon discussing projects in education that included offshore partnerships. That rusty old institution RMIT that supported much of our post WW2 industrial R&D has expanded into Vietnam.
Behind me on a library shelf is a black lacquered trinket box that a youthful chap from Ho Chi Min city gave us after completing his tour in our communications admin. Hostilities do settle when foreigners step back from total interference in some country’s local affairs.
Dare I say this still affects our democracy as indicated by numerous inputs across a range of blogs downunder.
Hey Bazz – do your reckon Cohers would defend a case with his stats ability? Could be a problem if His Honour had done some maths….
Rob Whittaker,
There is no way any of us here can console you in your grief , but I myself can only urge you to rationalise this is not Agent Orange but just one of nature’s trace gases.
just for wes; the key word being “rare ”
Great Macquarie Is pics from 2008
http://www.seabreeze.com.au/News/Power%20Boats/Southern-Ocean-Icebergs-continue-their-march-north_3201779.aspx
something about frequency?
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,,26315566-5012321,00.html
some cool history 2000 and comments by Neal Young
http://www.aad.gov.au/default.asp?casid=2030
Luke, I have studied and passed statistics at uni; now be quiet, I think Bob Whittaker’s piece needs a response; Bob, you make valid points; noone here would deny there are real pollution issues in the world and the use of Orange in Vietnam must rank up there with the worst examples of deliberate pollution and degradation of the environment; there have been worse however;
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2008/12/ten-worst-man-made-disasters/
Not that I’m belittling your experiences. The thing about AGW though is that it is false; because it is a lie it offers no justification for the overturning of economies, subverting the social process and diverting enormous wealth to middle men and opportunists; it will also give great and inevitably corrupting powers to governments. It is not an issue of “prudential risk-management”; that is just the precautionary principle rebadged; the pp is a denial of both scientific and legal standards; it is also immoral; for instance if a prosecutor said about an accused that there was no evidence to convict him but that he had a gut feeling the accused was guilty and should be convicted in any event that would be wrong; in the case of AGW there is no evidence and in fact evidence of false evidence. Nature and a clean environment is essential for humanity but humanity’s prosperity should not be sacrificed for a false concept of nature.
“The issue should be above politics. It’s simply too important.”
Bob,
It should be but it isn’t and never will be.
It should also be about science but it isn’t and never will be.
Even the prime supporter and promoter of AGW, James Hansen, says that Copenhagen is a disaster and these emission trading schemes that are being negotiated there, are a waste of time.
Gavin,
Icebergs were seen off the coast of NZ! in 1931 .They were seen from the shoreline,that is how everybody knew they were there.
In 2006 we had a visit of more icebergs travelling up the south-eastern coast. I can’t recall there being any pictures of these from the shore but only aireal shots.
Therefore to speculate on ANYTHING pertaining to the frequency,number or size of icebergs prior to the advent of sattelite imagery is sheer nonsense to put it politely.
Just to make sure I’ve explained this as clearly as I possibly can; Water vapour can in no way, on its own, act like a warming gas. Since it will catch-and-block energy from both above and below and will high-tail-it upwards. If it turns to ice in the clouds it will let out an enourmous amount of latent heat. More than half of which ought to be considered lost in space.
It is only the prospect of a lot of the water vapour turning into microscopic liquid water way prior to it reaching cloud level …….. it is only THIS propensity that makes this H2O mimic this idealised warming-gas that I’ve been talking about. And it is this phase-change of water that gives us the “warming” effect that is being mistaken for the non-existent “greenhouse” effect.
There is no “greenhouse effect”. There is no greenhouse gases.
I better add on top of this that even CO2 can act like a warming gas, but only to the extent that there is “overturning” in the troposphere. Mostly in daylight hours CO2, in the first instance, will act like a cooling gas. Only overturning turns this thing on its head.
Its curtains for cohers using a naive little regression model without any attempt to understand the physical processes. He advances an irrelevant test. A GCM can only simulate the teperature trend of the last century if you include CO2.
Now there is a long blog post downunder by Dr Geoff Davies from ANU that I reckon no one mentioned because it runs right over the discussion here
“Sorry, global warming has not been cancelled”
http://onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=9806
Interesting charts to say the least
You’re hopeless gavin; Davies is another hack; read this if you can;
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/revenge_of_the_computer_nerds_1.html
There were leaked e-mails from much sooner.
But keep telling yourself this.
But, except for the the statute of limitations, why should old evidence of crim be less interesting than fresher evidence?
Luke,
Slamming someone for pointing out that the dodge du jour, that the e-mails are old and don’t count, is pure bunk, is rather weak, even for you.
You remind of how others in losing situations carry on long after reason urges them to reconsider:
bazza,
The trend is a non-event.
We are not heating up dramatically dangerously or unusually.
CO2 contributes like it always has.
We are not facing runaway anything, nor are we facing apocalypti in the future from CO2.
bazza,
That the GCM’s don’t work without AGW theories of CO2 is pretty suggestive that the models are simply squeezing out numbers and graphs a la the hockey stick junk.
Bazza said: “A GCM can only simulate the teperature (sic) trend of the last century if you include CO2.” I’m not sure what he is trying to prove, but one thing is certain. The GCMs, based upon CO2 theory, would have to simulate temps. They prove nothing about the theory! Circular science/logic is still circular and self abusing.
Those of you who consider yourselves patriots, or at least, who are proud to be Australian, should take a look at what NASA [GHCN] has done to “adjust” the temperature for your Darwin airport:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/fig_7-ghcn-averages.jpg
Your temperatures are not really your own any more! How’s that for sovereignty, folks? How does it make you feel, to know how badly your national policy is distorted by numbers we Up North have ‘cooked up’ for you?
Sorry. That’s a poke in the eye with a sharp stick. Actually, as a US citizen, I’m embarrassed by once-proud NASA, and I apologize. But if Australia did stuff like this to *our* temperatures, I would be highly irate at you guys.
Statman; we are still waiting for that extra something on ‘opaque’ air
” A GCM can only simulate the teperature trend of the last century if you include CO2.”
No thats completely and utterly wrong. If you hypothesise that CO2 is a warming gas you cannot fit the twentieth century data at all. Since the 30’s was warmer than the nineties, and the 40’s saw CO2 surge upwards to its highest level in the century, therefore its proven that CO2 is a bit player, and probably a net cooler. At current air pressure ranges its almost definitely a net cooler. Absolutely and in the marginal sense as well. Remembering that there is no such thing as a greenhouse gas nor any greenhouse effect, nor even any anomaly for greenhouse to fill.
And why only try and fit the century? Thats leaving 99.9% the other data out of it. There has never once been a CO2-biased model that fit the data. Never. Not one, not ever. Nor will there ever be any such beast. Working backwards in this way for a limited time period (on both rigged-up CO2 levels and rigged-up temperature readings) is not anything beyond a callibration. You need to show predictive power both farwards and backwards after the callibration is made.
I am confident if I had firing powers and running a team of computer modelers (and on the basis that no Gramscian-wankers need apply) that I could put together a model pretty quickly that fitted for long stretches, but only if I could feed in solar wind in real-time, and ocean currents in retrospect.
The two most important factors are solar wind and oceanic currents. The most important human factor is not CO2 but rather actual pollution. That is to say SO2 and particulates. The human race has almost certainly been a cooling influence since the industrial revolution, except on the local level where human activity with roads, concrete and tall buildings causes some local warming.
Solar wind is very hard to predict. Some success with predicting forbush events comes with tracking planetary alignments. Also Dr Marohasy had an excellent article about the effect of the orbit of the moon which ought to have legs. The author may not have had this particular transmission effect in mind. But if the moons orbit impedes the circulation of the ocean conveyor it will act as a delayed COOLER. If the moons orbit then stops impeding in this way, or even actually assists the ocean currents it will act as a delayed warming agent. The transmission of this effect will work through Stefan Boltzmanns law.
If the moon assists upwelling and downwelling likewise it will be expected to have a short-run cooling effect but will add to the heat budget of the oceans to produce a priori warming in the long-run. The moon also warms via more well-known “tidal warming”, which is a feature we see through-out the solar system. For example one of the moons of Jupiter (IO) has virtually constant volcanic activity due to tidal warming from Jupiter itself, as well as from the other moons.
According to David Karoly:
“Carbon dioxide is such a minor atmospheric constituent that it can’t affect global climate. This is untrue. While carbon dioxide makes up only 0.038% of the atmosphere, it is vital in the energy balance of the Earth’s surface and atmosphere. If the atmosphere contained no greenhouse gases, the surface temperature would be about 30C colder. ”
This is nonsense. In fact it cannot be true even if one were to accept the wrong view that there are greenhouse gases and a greenhouse effect.
But some of you might disagree. Clearly Karoly is working under the assumption that he’s found an average temperature anomaly that needs to be explained by some mechanism or other. But there is no basis for such a claim. Where is the gap that he is talking about? And why is it not assumed that such a gap is not explained by a multitude of factors?
The most obvious factor amongst many is the electrical energy coursing through the galaxy. This electrical energy comes in at least two forms. The charged particles that relentlessly bomb the earths atmosphere. That is to say the charged particles themselves. And on top of that further electrical energy arriving via Birkeland currents. This electrical energy arrives THROUGH the charged particles but can be considered somewhat distinct from the charged particle movement proper.
When the solar winds are blowing hard we are bombarded by charged particles not factored into the average wattage represented by the alleged “solar constant” The solar constant, so-called, is a wattage based only purely on electromagentic radiation moving at the speed of light. So we see that straight electrical energy is being excluded by stupid people.
Louis Hissink has pointed this out a number of times. It is not the whole of the story but it is probably the most important part of the temperature difference. If there is a rival it will be to do with the behaviour of liquid water.
When the solar winds are not blowing as hard we are STILL bombarded by charged particles from the rest of the galaxy. Now folks point out that these wrongly named “cosmic rays” have a marginal cooling effect because of their influence on cloud cover. Yes this is true and pretty much proven. But nonetheless, forgetting the marginal effect, the background effect is in the first instance to add to the thermal energy of the atmosphere by adding electrical energy. When the electrical energy given to us via the solar winds … when this source of electrical energy wanes, part of the slack is taken up by electrical energy from the rest of the galaxy in the form of these “cosmic rays …….. marginal cloud-cover effect notwithstanding.
Moving ions, whether positively or negatively charged, constitute an electric current. It does not matter if we are talking positively or negatively charged particles, or positively or negatively charged molecules. In all cases with this movement we have an electric current. This is what an electric current IS.
This is all going over old wine that Louis has told you about before but I want to add my weight to what he has told you because I have checked it all out and found out that he was right as usual. In total, the Earth appears to absorb a great deal more negatively charged particles than positively charged particles but the fact is it absorbs both. And for thermal purposes they do not cancel.
Whereas most non-planetary matter (and perhaps to make this generalisation we would have to exclude much of the core of stars also) constitutes plasmas once we get below the ionosphere, most of the planet that we have full knowledge of and access to, is made of standard, uncharged molecules. And the thing is that plasmas tend to conduct electricity well. Whereas standard, non-metallic molecules, without charge, conduct electricity poorly.
So the atmosphere is like this resister. The moving particles bombard the atmosphere, they represent electrical energy, they excite the molecules in the Earths atmosphere producing heat. Its analogous to an electric current moving through a resistor. Or you might wish to think of it merely as a kinetic thing. The charged particles bombarding and exciting the molecules.
It is a fact that this happens, totally regardless of whether or not you have come around to the realisation that the “electric universe” contingent have the better paradigm for how the stars operate than the “fusion alone” people.
So what with the way that liquid water behaves. And with overturning. With the way phase-change happens with water vapour and airborne-liquid-water. With tidal warming from the moon and sun. With warming from the centre of the earth itself. With the electrical energy coming in from the bombardment of charged particles from the sun, and from the rest of the galaxy also……… and on top of all that with FURTHER electrical energy conveyed via Birkeland currents from the rest of the galaxy ………..
……
With all of the above and more …. Just where is this anomaly? What known anomaly is there? What anomaly in temperature exists that this nonsensical non-existent “greenhouse effect” is supposed to explain?
If you are a believer find me the anomaly first. I don’t think that this is too much to ask. Find the anomaly or give up on your cost-imposition, and sovereignty selling-out for all time. Find me an anomaly I can work with. If you cannot even so much as find me an anomaly then where are you with this jive? You are nowhere with this jive. Without an anomaly the alarmists are just a bad joke.
“Your temperatures are not really your own any more! How’s that for sovereignty, folks? How does it make you feel, to know how badly your national policy is distorted by numbers we Up North have ‘cooked up’ for you?”
Absolutely fantastic man. This lends weight to my supposition that there has been collusion between our Australian CO2 measuring-stations and that global one ludicrously placed above a volcano. When does the stupidity end? It ends when we reverse this attack on sovereignty and this trend towards global governance. We cannot have this situation where humanity is all part of one entity such that a noose can be thrown around its neck. Better to have endless border dust-ups than to sit still for that. War can be avoided, most of the time, by the studious application of statecraft. The medieval German principalities that Machiavelli talked about in such glowing terms are the only model that make sense. Proud, strong and well-armed people. And we can be well-armed without too much of a body-count if for domestic purposes we combine massive firepower with less-lethal ordnance.
Thanks a bunch Schiller. If you have any other tidbits that can help the local Australian rumble for personal, local and domestic sovereignty don’t hold back. And right here I want to apologise on behalf of the English-Speaking world for most of the carpet bombing that came after the American entry into the war. And for both starvation blockades, at least insofar as they occurred when the outcome of the war was assured, if not before.
Note to the faithful troops, you know who you are.
Great news the EPA here in the US of A has classed GHGs as a pollutant. So that means extra money can be made from taxes on breathing and dying, also flatulence will be taxable, marvellous. We all flew to Las Vegas and had a party, sorry you weren’t there.
One of these dreadful pollutants is Dihydrogen Monoxide. We need to work on its elimination as well. In all its forms it is dangerous, without it the planet would not being doing this warming thing. Certainly there would be no concerns about sea level, ice caps or glaciers. So next to AGW we need a campaign about BDM.
But to business please read my instructions from on high.
http://www.cred.columbia.edu/guide/guide/principles.html
For more detail please see
http://www.cred.columbia.edu/guide/guide/conclusion.html
Also please keep the money coming bless you all.
PS Sorry for the delay in posting of the prayer mats. The manufacturer got confused and made them pink instead green. Something about pink on the inside, strange communication error!!!
Bob Whittaker,
You sound like a very sincere person who wishes nothing but peace and hope for humankind and the future of planet Earth. And it sounds like you have experienced horrors and sadness beyond the pale of what most people can imagine. I worked with the UN High Commission for Refugees in Central America in the 1980’s at a time of war, environmental degradation and genocide against the indigenous Mayan Indian population, so while not experiencing battle I have seen killing fields, mass graves and the wretchedness of displaced people. I know the hollowness that these kinds of things leave in one’s heart and gut.
Nevertheless the question of the validity of AGW hypothesis is one of pure science, although it is now so deeply mired in politics that the science is being abused. You say that the issue of Climate Change should be above politics yet your whole argument is an emotional appeal based on the false premise that the same type of politics who agent oranged Vietnam now want to do the same thing to the whole planet. You’re angry Bob and justifiably so, but this doesn’t excuse you from your moral responsibility to think rationally through the implications of the climate change policy you seem to advocate.
Bob, if we don’t get the science right having a “global consensus” on a mistaken theory is a bit like the Children’s Crusade. It will end badly as a major catastrophe for humanity.
“Prudent Risk Management” calls for first getting the science right. That is all that the skeptical camp is asking for and as Climategate has exposed is everything that the Church of Climate Change is denying. The data and code has NOT been made available for skeptical climatologists to transparently access and test! Data has even been destroyed! Why?
Climategate is the most fundamental violation of the scientific method possible and as such, given the high stakes involved is a crime against humanity that might just result in the death of millions of people. As one well versed in the philosophy of science I am deeply offended and angry at the massive criminal misconduct at CRU. I also believe that failure to adhere strictly to the rules of scientific conduct in research is the surest path to “future infanticide” that we ALL – on both sides of the argument – wish to avoid!
If that sort of skeptical demand to adhere to the normal professional standards of scientific methodology offends you then I’m sorry, mate. Progressive technological civilization based on rational scientific method didn’t get to where we are today by faking and hiding the research.
“The stakes are as high as they can get” because if we spend trillions and trillions of dollars on a false premise that means that millions and millions of people particularly in poor countries will die from lack of development projects that could have been otherwise funded. The Earth’s resources are a zero-sum game (at least in the short term.)
If you’re really a person with a strong heart who wants to help people and the environment then you will do your homework on the science and have an open mind to either possibility. Either human activity is heating the planet to dangerous levels or it isn’t. If it isn’t and we waste massive resources on bad science that will be as great a catastrophe as global warming.
Bob, a few questions (out of many) you might want ask yourself:
If the Australian government can’t even build a divided highway between Brissy and Sydney or provide proper medical staffing west of Byron Bay then what evidence is there for the assertion that they’ll be able to legislate the Earth’s climate more effectively?
Likewise, ask yourself how likely is it that the UN IPCC or some meta-government technocracy will be able to control the Earth’s climate at an optimum stasis? How about something simple first like eradicating malaria in Africa? UN can’t do it. Control cetacean hunting? Too hard. Stop child malnutrition? Nope. What about ending genocide in Sudan? Still waiting. Yet, some how the UN can control the weather????
And should a world government obtain the power to set an optimum global climate stasis, what should the target temperature be?
Social Justice demands that if the world is warming naturally after the Little Ice Age, then countries in cold regions would be unfairly treated if the politics of weather determined they should experience glaciation to expand beach front properties in the Pacific. Therefore we are back to the hard science. Social Justice demands that the science of climate be open and transparently performed with all the data shared on the Internet with everyone before we invite the politicians in to divide up the world’s resources and decide who will live and who will starve.
What temperature is the optimum temperature for the planet? This is the fundamental pseudo-science assumption behind government controlled climate, because the answer to that question is that there isn’t one. There is no such thing as a climate stasis, the climate is always changing in one direction or the other. Therefore the term “climate change” is tautological and to chant “Stop Climate Change Now” as Greenpeace protesters are wont to chant, is a tautology wrapped in an oxymoron. It’s not science but an apocalyptic green pseudo-religion with a very precise dogma.
In fact I would argue that the moral dilemma of a World Government controlling climate is so fraught with zero-sum trade-offs that by definition such a technocracy would have to be unjust, oppressive and totalitarian in nature. But I digress…
All the skeptics are saying is make the science, data and codes, transparently available to all creeds and races on the Internet so that a TRUE consensus can be arrived at.
Cohenite,
Your reference to American Thinker Dec 11th 11.13am again throws up the temp. data adjustment/corruption going on in NZ.
I took the liberty of sussing out part of an e-mail sent by our Jim Salinger (formerly of East Anglia)to his cabal of AGW scientist mates overseas.
24th April 2003….
“Since the IPPC makes it quite clear that there are substantial grounds for concern about climate change, is it not partially the responsibility of climate science to make sure only satisfactory peer-reviewed science appears in scientific publications?-and to refute any inadequately reviewed and wrong articles that do not make their way through the peer-review process?”
Firstly Salinger says since THE IPPC has made it clear AGW is a concern; scientists must agree with this concern?? Hang on, I thought scientists ADVISED the IPPC (non scientists) of THEIR concern . Not visa-versa.
Secondly Salinger says it is the responsibility of…
“climate science”…..to determine what is satisfactory.
“climate science”…..to refute anything inadequately reviewed.
“climate science”…..to decree whether articles are right or wrong.
“climate science”…..to make sure the wrong articles do not pass peer review.
So according to Salinger we have 1) the IPPC making it clear to the scientists that “climate change” is a concern, 2)”climate science” directing the scientists to use any means possible to protect itself.!
Aahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Haven’t these scientists got a mind of their own????
What a load of duck-shoving rhetoric!
No, it’s not “climate science” performing those 4 tasks outlined above.
It’s Salinger and his mob.
And it’s abundantly clear their AGW ” climate science” faith totally obscures any impartial scientific objectivity.
These people are unworthy of the title “scientist”.
Graeme; stop it!! you can’t get a life in physics from bolgs.
Wes “If that sort of skeptical demand to adhere to the normal professional standards of scientific methodology offends you then I’m sorry, mate. Progressive technological civilization based on rational scientific method didn’t get to where we are today by faking and hiding the research”
As a former professional in measurements, R&D etc I say there is an art you call “faking and hiding” that is often used here by skeptics when they relay temperature results that are heavily smoothed, filtered etc to the extent all the meaning in origional data is lost.
Now you all know I don’t believe a word in LIA, MWP posts or warmer 1930’s because I know from direct experience most of that old data is built with instrument error and faulty techniques. and lets not forget that we did not get accurate gas analysis until about the 1950’s or 60’s depending on wether you worked in industry or accademic science research.
I am going to remind other folks that may be lurking; in my opinion the great majority of internet skeptics and others who write on these topics have never done a series of practical measurements first hand.
Folks,
Let’s pretend for a moment that the temperature of the Earth can accurately be monitored, say, at least on an annual basis.
Let’s take as uncontroversial the notion that the Medieval Optimum is, indeed, optimum.
And, let’s further pretend that the Earth’s thermostat can be ‘set’ by regulating the use of fuels that oxidize carbon.
Under these assumptions, would it not make the most sense to have energy use regulations ‘kick in’ when we achieve a climate equal to the Medieval Optimum?
I realize, of course, that regulating CO2 emissions wouldn’t make a difference anyone could realistically measure, but still — to be realistic, we’d have to surpass the Medieval Optimum by a long way to achieve a ‘planetary emergency’ worthy of any note.
But I digress.
This was never about global warming. This has always been about a political power grab.
The proponents of AGW were always about global governance.
Naively, the ‘skeptics’ thought it was about the science involved. Poor [sic] ridiculous dupes, who thought that the light of scientific facts would cast out the darkness. The skeptics have consistently been misled by the warmers into the cul-de-sac of scientific criticism. The game was never there, and in that dark alley, honest scientists simply get beat up and mugged.
The real game was always elsewhere.
It’s a bad game where the honest players are the dupes.
What are you talking about gavin? Make a case for or against, for the love of stupid people everywhere. Look at you. You are pathetic. There is no specific thing you can rightly gainsay me on. Because the fact is I’m right and you are wrong. If you’ve got nothing specific, you’ve got nothing at all.
You are just shitted off that you are being hit with so much truth all at once. You’ve been mobbed. Blinded by the light.
“I am going to remind other folks that may be lurking; in my opinion the great majority of internet skeptics and others who write on these topics have never done a series of practical measurements first hand.”
You complete moron. Well as a matter of fact as a kid I used to read the the rain gauge and record it in a daily diary. And I can remember this casual job I had where one of the tasks was to read the power meter at a prescribed time, for a heated swimming pool.
You dope. You blockhead. You complete dummy. This is what things have fallen to. Instead of science being natural philosophy, this pinhead gavin, has confessed its been reduced to a lot of clubby morons, who are really just dummies, who get paid from stolen money, to read the meter. There is no science involved in reading the meters. I know. I’ve done it. At least I was able to do it honestly. That may be nine-tenths of the science right there. The ability to be able to read the instruments, and record their verdict, in an honest way.
“As a former professional in measurements…..”
These people are really just laughable aren’t they? My goodness. A professional no less. A meter-reader. Always these field-workers stooge themselves into thinking they are field marshalls.
“The GCMs, based upon CO2 theory, would have to simulate temps. They prove nothing about the theory! Circular science/logic is still circular and self abusing.”
MORONIC ! Corev – you ought be ashamed of your stupidity. “would have to simulate temps.” not really – sigh …
Mack – ultra moronic indulgent pure crap.
excellent letter at Lucia’s Blackboard.
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2009/petr-chylek/
McIntyre – just another denialist sycophant
http://deepclimate.org/2009/12/11/mcintyre-provides-fodder-for-skeptics/
“PS I just read today that my friend Roger Pielke Sr. is now agreeing that human-caused global warming is supported by too much evidence to be ignored.”
Thanks Janama
Schiller,
I agree that a particular brand of socio-economic philosophy has appropriated the “genre” of science to create a kind of mythological narrative to justify their ends. You’re right it was never about the science to them. In fact, they’re raping the meaning, context and conduct of science in the pursuit of their end. It’s a scorched Earth policy.
Nevertheless, those who choose to appropriate the language of science to promote false premise will in the end die upon the sword of scientific logic, skepticism and empirical verification. The mortal revelations of Climategate have accelerated this process markedly.
It’s my opinion that if CRU wasn’t involved in fraud all the data, metadata and code would have long ago been made available for third party verification and reproduction. Nor would Phil Jones have destroyed raw T-data. They were so obsessed with the opinions of skeptics that if they really had sound evidence for the AGW hypothesis they would have released the data rather than suppressing them.
As skeptics we must endeavor to educate the media and lay people in the utter seriousness of the scientific method and its primacy in creating everything from our food to our medicines. To fudge data, to cheat the process of science, to skip processes of quality control and reproducibility, if it were in avionics or civil engineering would be a serious criminal offense, so should it be in climatology.
And then there are the perennial True Believers who do their cause far more damage then they are intellectually capable of understanding:
Gavin, for instance, might well know how to calibrate a meter, but he has demonstrated repeatedly he doesn’t understand the most fundamental ethics of scientific conduct. In his latest post he implies the burden of proof lies with the skeptics to prove the AGW hypothesis is false. Not so. It’s not our hypothesis. The burden of proof lies with the proposer of said hypothesis. This is basic sci-phil 101 stuff. Obviously, a TAFE Cert 3 in meter reading is no substitute for a real education.
Then Gavin says “I don’t believe a word in LIA, MWP posts or warmer 1930’s because I know from direct experience most of that old data is built with instrument error and faulty techniques.” I suppose Gavin imagines he has cleverly shown that it is impossible to disprove the AGW hypothesis…. Uh…Therefore it is true? LOL. Nice Logic, mate.
Gavin, what do you call a hypothesis that cannot be tested?
Gavin,
If I read you correctly, you don’t believe in the LIA due to instrumentation issues? But I perceive that you are a student of history so perhaps you would care to get hold of a copy of; “The Little Ice Age: How Climate Made History, 1300-1850 (Paperback)
~ Brian M. Fagan”
This excellent book is based on historical documentation from northern Europe and is quite fascinating. It also demonstrates that the so-called “extreme” weather events that have been experienced over the last century are piffle compared to what has been recorded over the last millennium.
My library has the book so perhaps yours would have it also.
Cheers.
wes george,
In lieu of hearing a coherent response from gavin, I’d just point out what Karl Popper would say about an hypothesis that can’t be tested.
It’s not science.
Feynmann would graciously call it ‘mythology’.
McLuhan would note that it’s an artifact of the medium involved.
But for sure, it’s not science.
Ah, yes paleoclimatology, one of AGW’s many Achilles’ heels.
Perhaps the most fundamental argument against the hypothesis of human-induced global warming is the fact that the Medieval Warming Period (MWP) was as warm or warmer than today.
Logically, if the climate about 1,000 years ago – long before human activity elevated levels CO2 — naturally warmed to and even beyond today’s temperatures then the need for the special one-off anthropogenic warming hypothesis is eliminated.
This is due to the Principle of Parsimony (Occam’s Razor.) If you know about zebras and then go to the zoo and see a white mule-like beast with black stripes it would be ludicrous to propose that an artist must have painted stripes on a horse. Likewise, if you know the climate of today isn’t any warmer than a thousand years ago it’s ludicrous to propose a special hypothesis that can explain ONLY the latest cycle of warming.
Moreover, The Anthropogenic Global Warming hypothesis (AGW) does make a testable prediction: It must be warmer today than at any time in the past when atmosphere CO2 levels were much lower. Yet, once again the MWP does not confirm this prediction, nor do many other warm periods before the MWP… Therefore, the AGW hypothesis is falsified, because a hypothesis that fails a single test must be restated to conform to empirical observations or discarded altogether.
Luke, Gavin, et al can rail on all they want about anecdotal evidence that it’s hotting up, but the simple fact that the MWP was as warm or warmer than today renders the AGW hypothesis null and void. That’s simply the way science works.
Skeptics don’t doubt that the Earth is (or was) heating up after the Little Ice Age (LIA) and that some fraction of the heating is likely attributable to greenhouse gases. What they do doubt is the fundamental logic of the declaring anthropogenic CO2 a major climate-forcing agent even in the face of strong evidence of past warming at much lower CO2 levels than today. Likewise, skeptics disapprove of fear tactics and appeals to emotion in order to rush particular socio-economic agendas forward without firmly establishing the climatological science first.
And now Climategate has revealed that the researchers at CRU deeply understood that the MWP proved the AGW hypothesis false. Their highly unethical solution to the problem of the MWP was not to modify their hypothesis of human induced warming, but to “adjust” the data to smooth out the MWP to temperatures below today! Thus the data was tweaked to fit the hypothesis.
Luke and Gavin’s only response will be, of course, to DENY that paleoclimates ever were as warm as today. (Or maybe Gavin will complain that the paleo-thermometers were calibrated incorrectly by the Celts and the Goths so we’ll never know, therefore just have faith in Al Gore.)
I call this “Climate Creationism”, because like Creationists the Warmists DENY that climate evolution occurs naturally and believe the past was a Garden of Eden climate optimum from which sinful humankind has been banished. The quixotic project to “stop climate change” is tantamount to the Creationist concept of a static God-created universe (exchange Man for God) in that both seek to deny the complex dynamics of natural systemic evolution in favour of a rigidly dogmatic authoritarian gestalt.
The Climate Creationists say man shall command the weather!
“We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period”
Dr. David Deming (University of Oklahoma, College of Earth and Energy) said in his testimony to congress…
http://epw.senate.gov/hearing_statements.cfm?id=266543
“I had another interesting experience around the time my paper in Science was published. I received an astonishing email from a major researcher in the area of climate change. He said, “We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.” The existence of the MWP had been recognized in the scientific literature for decades. But now it was a major embarrassment to those maintaining that the 20th century warming was truly anomalous.”
http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/UnprecedentedWarming.htm
“Roger Pielke Sr. is now agreeing that human-caused global warming is supported by too much evidence to be ignored.”
Ah Luke – you should have read further
He’s been saying that for years.
Luke – Here’s what he actually said:
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2009/12/08/roger-a-pielkes-position-on-climate-change/
He also pointed to this article which stated:
http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/r-354.pdf
where He supports 2a and why he believes Copenhagen is wrong because it is based in 2b.
Gavin,
“Now you all know I don’t believe a word in LIA, MWP posts or warmer 1930’s because I know from direct experience most of that old data is built with instrument error and faulty techniques. and lets not forget that we did not get accurate gas analysis until about the 1950’s or 60’s depending on wether you worked in industry or accademic science research.”
Your bull is tiresome. Tell me, what is the error of the satellites, electric sensors poorly sited, gas measurements in stupid locations with the data manipulated to strange and arcane standards??
Old man, you are full of it and need to retire from retirement and go out and relearn what you have forgotten! That is, unless you have been spewing all this time and know NOTHING!!!
You claim,
“As a former professional in measurements, R&D etc I say there is an art you call “faking and hiding” that is often used here by skeptics when they relay temperature results that are heavily smoothed, filtered etc to the extent all the meaning in origional data is lost.”
and have nothing to say about what has been done to the so called OFFICIAL temp record. You are an apologist of the Luke stripe even if you do have a more reasonable way of saying it. Now stop boring us.
well luke, ive struggled to understand your point…as usual. you call me a drongo for pointing out the emails were not all from a decade ago as bazza and gore have both suggested, ……so bazza’s words “The leaked emails were over a decade ago, a decade likely to be the hottest recorded,” does not mean bazza thinks the emails are 10 years old or more?? Even “pravda” has the quote and the date as i suggested…so exactly how am i a moron for pointing out bazza is wrong in saying the mails are a decade old??
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_e-mail_hacking_incident
they state; Trenberth e-mail of 12 Oct 2009
An email written by Kevin Trenberth, a climatologist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, discussed gaps in understanding of recent temperature variations:
“The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t,” Trenberth wrote.[7]
of course being pravda they then try to gloss over its significance. There are also many other quotes from emails less than a decade old…so who is the drongo?
Your lack of appreciation of the significance of these emails is astounding and very telling.
so what exactly was your point oh wise and superior luke ??!!
Prof Will Alexander has an interesting guest post at Pielke Sr.’s blog.
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2009/12/11/a-guest-weblog-by-will-alexander-climategate-chaos/
““PS I just read today that my friend Roger Pielke Sr. is now agreeing that human-caused global warming is supported by too much evidence to be ignored.””
Thats science sentiment. Not scientific evidence. Get it right dummy.
Luke ,
I think we’ve established that when it comes to icebergs Gavin is talking through a hole in his head .
However on Dec 12th 11.18am, you dismiss my comments about Salinger as “ultramoronic indulgent pure crap”
To biff insult at me without any foundation or accompanying reasoning is just piss weak Luke.
“Well as a matter of fact as a kid I used to read the the rain gauge and record it in a daily diary.”
And you probably got that wrong too.
Mack forgets comments from the crew on Macquarie Is claimed mass berg sightings were “rare”. We don’t know how old you are mate but I have a long memory re media comments about the ocean south of Aus and I say these big ice survivors up in the forties are very uncommon.
Also having lived in the southern states for some six decades I’ve met a lot of sailors, crewmen etc who plied these waters for a living. Man, some of my cronies actually spent years in Antarctica. In fact one was a base leader while it was being built. Let’s say now there are many more sightings in our latitudes of that other ocean menace, the Great White Pointer.
Graeme; you need to do a proper course in physics such as we had at the greater tech colleges like RMIT then try building some interesting experiments like capturing and recording some of that cosmic stuff you and your mate write about while insisting you both have it all down pat.
Wes, although I appreciate your “calibration” comment and stab at a 3 yr meter reading cert, that is not what I was generally paid to do. As much of my time was in support of various operations, projects etc the exciting bits were mostly disputes over system performance v local expectations. To put that in some perspective for you, I wound up working in radio spectrum issues for Federal agencies after switching out of other fields a few times.
My electro mag testing “instruments” over the decades could be anywhere in the range from DC to light and so were many of my daily reports but believe it or not, what often counts most is grass roots stuff like battery routines. Accuracy is only one goal in a complex system. Lack of interference is another in a crowded environment. Clear signals are a notion, not a gift.
What probably makes odd ones here think I’m thick when it comes to appreciating these skeptic views on AGW is the fact that I’ve had to deal with many arguments in physics from educators, engineers, managements and scientists from various fields of enterprise all IMO were much better informed than this lot.
I stay not to confront but to teach what I can in the space available.
cheers
Look at the utter implausibility of Methane being a warming gas. Here is the density of various gases. Density of Gases in terms of grams per litre.
O3 ……. 2.144
O2 ……. 1.429
Nitrogen .. 1.251
CO2 ……… 1.977
Argon ……. 1.784
Methane 0.6557 g/L
So look at your average methane molecule produced by some termites. Starting from the ground, it hogs some warmth to itself in terms of radiation, so its lighter and warmer than the molecules around it. On average such molecules will quickly take their warmth above where you, your house and your thermometer is. And thats really the end of that story. How can it lead to global warming? It cannot lodge extra warmth in the ocean. And yet you see pictures of cows with tubes stuck up their behind. Environmentalists robbing our cows of their dignity and for no reason.
““The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t,” Trenberth wrote.[7]”
Simply Tony – it’s silly for you to quote him like this. Does Trenberth still believe in AGW – answer yes. He’s simply reflecting the lack of realistic decadal variability in the previous model generation.
Yawn ….
A few emails is not an IPCC report nor a “considered” view.
When you get Trenberth saying “gee I think AGW is a total crock” – pls call !
Bird – your last “effort” is extraordinary ! He’s your boy fellas. Enjoy.
Hello fellow free thinkers,
I am really starting to think that given the weight of non evidence for AGW, the failed projections , the rigged graphs ect,and now the CRU emails, that surely even a mildly intellegent person can see that the whole AGW has been constructed by persons with the same old agenda. You all know them they are:
‘the malthusian foods going to run out brigade ”
” The club of Rome steady state non economists”
” the population bomb crew”
” the failed western socialist state movement ”
and of course the Greens.
All of these groups having been trying to curb western success and wealth and to keep the third world in a third world state of misery.
The point is that modern day AGW true believers are simply a continuatiion of the sad groups mentioned above. lets all hope that enough people wise up to their scam before its to late.
Folks,
There’s a problem with the “travesty that we can’t” Trenberth quote. It’s taken out of context.
Things are actually quite a bit worse, when you put it back into context. Here’s the full paragraph:
“The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.”
What he’s saying is, “we’re not getting what we want, therefore the data are wrong.”
Well, once you decide your data are wrong, and “know” that your model is right, what do you do?
Well, we know the solution they opted for: fix the data. Make the data fit the model.
It’s perfectly clear.
Not the first time data have been wrong Schillsbo – remember when Christy and Spencer botched the satellite data corrections. Yeeeesss..
Cristy and Spencer’s paper was out there for all to see and they admitted their error as soon as it came to light.
The CRU team cooked the books and were only found out because their emails were hacked, possibly by Vlad Putin and some of his old mates.
Mike Hulme is the ring leader extraordinaire at CRU and the remanufacture of cc data was really his bag.
“All of these groups having been trying to curb western success and wealth and to keep the third world in a third world state of misery.”
Well thats right of course Jack. But I think they’ve succeeded. Them and the banking racketeers. The delayed death blow is in for the Americans. And so likely for the rest of us also. We really needed to have got to work on nuclear, liquified-coal and other energy sources, not excluding the greenie ones, in some niche areas.
Technology moves fast in some areas but energy is not one of them. And these people have been trying to inhibit our access to various energy sources for some decades now. I really fear they may have done us in. You stab an anatomist in the heart, he puts his palms upwards and says “you didn’t need to kill me. ” We have to to move or we are going to die.
well luke its no wonder you believe so strongly since you are unable to recognise that my comment re trenberth was purely to show bazza that he is blinded by his oracle gore. bazza said the emails were over a decade old. i showed they were not, many are far more recent….including oct 2009. so i win the point, because your point has ntg to do with mine. and is a classic example of the logic used by warmers. i dispute a statement and you abuse me for something i did not say by creating a straw man. loser……
were you bullied at school? so that you think you can bring your verbals to the blogosphere.
luke, would you trust the opinion of a man who can say things like this…..http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/column_gore_is_grossly_careless_or_a_barefaced_liar/
clearly facts are irrelevant, its the “ethics and doing the right thing” that matter.
The IPCC has promised to investigate the Climategate affair and give us an unbiased report.
I wonder if it will be similar to this UN interview?
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/12/11/ipcc-shut-up-or-go-to-prison/
Gavin, Luke, and the other true believers,
here are some more good news for you,
GHCN Adjustments: http://statpad.wordpress.com/2009/12/12/ghcn-and-adjustment-trends/
GISS and Underlying Data: http://chiefio.wordpress.com/
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2009/12/12/confirmation-of-the-dependence-of-the-era-40-reanalysis-data-on-the-warm-bias-in-the-cru-data/
Gavin, you especially should enjoy what is being done with your oh so excellent modern measurements!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Here is an especially interesting comment with reply from E.M. Smith on the previously mentioned post:
”
on November 26, 2009 at 2:07 pm Chris Polis
Just wondering if the ‘deleted’ station data is still available but not in GISSTEMP? We use station data (Australia) for air conditioning calcs and I haven’t seen anything to indicate that the culled stations have actually stopped recording… might be possible to get the ‘missing’ data?
REPLY: [ As near as I can tell, most of the stations are still recording. The “deletion” looks to occur at the entry (t)o GHCN. For GIStemp, they have recently put back in the USA data (that was still in USHCN.v2) after (some) prodding… I expect to find a similar pattern for the rest of the world. The data set manager is the person who coordinates this activity and ought to have managed the meetings where these decisions were taken. A quote from an earlier posting:
The “magic sauce” is GHCN. As is admitted in the emails, the CRUt series depends heavily on GHCN. GIStemp depends heavily on GHCN. NOAA (with a NASA data set “manager”) produces GHCN.
All the thermometer location “cooking” that was done to GHCN (moving from the mountains to the sea, moving from the poles to the equator) is reflected in both Hadley CRUt and GIStemp. Same Garbage In, Same Garbage Out.
From:
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/11/21/hadley-hack-and-cru-crud/
Comment by Prof. Phil Jones
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/pjones/ , Director, Climatic
Research Unit (CRU), and Professor, School of Environmental Sciences,
University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK:
[…]
Almost all the data we have in the CRU archive is exactly the same
as in the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN) archive used
by the NOAA National Climatic Data Center
And just who owns that NOAA dataset? Who is “The Data Set Manager”? What I could find looks like a guy at NASA. From:
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/10/24/ghcn-california-on-the-beach-who-needs-snow/
down in the comments:
e.m.smith
It took a while to find, but I think I found “who owns GHCN” and “who manages it”.
From: http://gcmd.nasa.gov/records/GCMD_GA_CLIM_GHCN.html
We find that:
GHCN data is produced jointly by the National Climatic
Data Center, Arizona State University, and the Carbon Dioxide
Information Analysis Center at Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
The NCDC is a part of NOAA. So I’m not seeing NASA on this list. But…
It goes on to say:
Personnel
SCOTT A. RITZ
Role: DIF AUTHOR
Phone: 301-614-5126
Fax: 301-614-5268
Email: Scott.A.Ritz at nasa.gov
Contact Address:
NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
Global Change Master Directory
City: Greenbelt
Province or State: Maryland
Postal Code: 20771
Country: USA
So it looks to me like it has NASA staff assigned, part of Goddard (though it isn’t clear to me if G. Space Flight Center and G.I.S.S. are siblings or if one is a parent of the other. I suspect GSFC is an underling to GISS. That would have Scott Ritz reporting to Hansen IFF I have this figure out… (And all that personal data is at the other end of the link anyway so I’m not publishing any private data NASA has not already published.)
…
It’s looking to me like GISS has their fingerprints all over the GHCN deletions, with NOAA ether as patsy or passive cooperator.
-ems ]”
I made a couple minor edits for clarity. Here is the original:
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/11/03/ghcn-the-global-analysis/#comment-1734
Oh yeah, they are all independent and can be used to support the validity of each other!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Good bit of detective work kuhnkat
Ahh; see, the clowns are out again and bent on destroying any colaboration so excuse me being paternal as usual.
Thinking about temp trends and recent updates I googled this and that to avoid Copenhagen and those pesky emails then found this wiki on the instrumental temperature record as updated only recently
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_temperature_record
After reading in full I challenge any blogger to find fault with what I say about uncertainties etc based on this updated wiki apart from my refusal to dump all stations accused of UHI interference.
It’s my view any time series can be made decent again by understanding just a few of the basic issues surrounding the older instruments and their records provided they remain first hand,
The key question for all you youngsters is when we first got effective standardization through out the global station landscape.
I like the little flashing graph over on Monketon’s site.about Brisbane temp anomaly….
http://sppiblog.org/
…..going from raw to adjusted and back. We need little flashing graphs like this all around the climate blogosphere. A bunch of them flashing away displaying “adjustments” here in NZ would be beneficial. Give the gullible believers a bit of reverse subliminal indoctrination.
Ahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
gavin,
Did you read kuhnkat’s post?
Quoting Wiki [who as we all know are part of the “gatekeeper” mentality anyway] in defence of that is a joke.
When official recordings are removed from cold zones and remain only in warmer zones this is plain cooking the books in more ways than one.
These “gatekeepers” of climate science need a full investigation for increasing reasons every day.
Gavin – you disappoint me, as I had thought you were moderately intelligent and well-informed, until I read your endorsement of your link to Wiki (so obviously doctored by Wm Connelley).
Did you ever go to school? did you ever learn any history? how many met stations were there between Cape Town and Cairo during the period 1850-1910? Did David Livingstone spot any in today’s Zambia in 1860? Did Churchill’s CO consult the Met Office in Khartoum for a weather forecast before the battle of Omdurman in 1896?
Is central Africa generally quite hot? does not excluding it from the record prior to 1910 make the global “mean” seem cooler then than it actually was, and the mean now relatively hotter than it really is? As you will answer NO to these questions you ought to be in Copenhagen with all the other True Believers who make Creationists seem like pillars of the scientific method.
If you need a job I suggest you apply to Penn State or CRU or IPCC as they will soon have vacancies for gullibles like you to replace the credulous Manns and Jones whose statistical capability is zero, like yours, and who will be looking for new jobs quite soon, especially the latter.
new site worth visiting: http://climatereason.com/LittleIceAgeThermometers/
a compilation of temperature data excluding GISS and CRU and with an emphasis on recordings during the little ice age.
Spangles “Did you read kuhnkat’s post? –
Mate; that parrot never gets it but in seeking something original I looked at the GHCN discussion and got annoyed thinking the original time series info gets muddied with every review that uses only selected data as the yardstick for analysis. However the picture gets clearer when we think only in terms of the max/min weather regime.
Nobody it seems knows exactly how to standardize the entire string of remaining temp data without treading on someone’s toes, least of all kuhnkat!
My suspicion remains that the majority of weather data comes from a variety of max/min u tube devices that were notorious compared to strait mercury in glass types. Given that, the last place we look for errors is UHI effects and believe me there is very little data on calibration of devices in situ or station observer training to diminish my initial fears.
If it were possible to do standardization runs today on all those cranky sites, one only needs a handful of lab grade partial immersion types to skim through a country and do a few spot checks on each station say noon, midnight, 6am and 6pm to see how each were preforming against their reports in the media.
Please note though I prefer to up set the applecart by changing something in the routine up front such as the reading time to ensure there is no bias towards the official record. The next step is also simple and its drawing the graph temp v time for each station in turn before estimating that station output at other times.
A global temperature trend must be accompanied by a similar sea level trend but tis too will be muddied by instrument and recording errors Do we look first for busy port anomalies? I really don’t think so
Tim; I accept the latest wiki thing is a bit compromised in an attempt to accomadate the Pielke Sen view of climate science and we should note
“The examples and perspective in this section may not represent a worldwide view of the subject. Please improve this article and discuss the issue on the talk page. (November 2009)”
also
“An editor has expressed a concern that this section lends undue weight to certain ideas relative to the section as a whole. Please help to discuss and resolve the dispute before removing this message. (November 2009)”
Its still open Tim
Jennifer; as we watched the annual “School Spectacular” on ABC TV tonight, I thought everybody there experienced the UHI thing first hand but I doubt very much BoM will adjust their Sydney temp down a notch tomorrow.
http://www.abc.net.au/tv/guide/netw/200912/programs/LE0912H001D2009-12-13T193000.htm
Folks,
Phelim McAleer (of ‘Mine Your Own Business’ and ‘Not Evil Just Wrong’) got busted by UN security guards when he asked Dr. Stephen Schneider some ‘inconvenient questions’ during a Q&A session!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUtzMBfDrpI&feature=player_embedded
Bear in mind, this is the same Stephen Schneider who gained notoriety by saying that climatologists must ‘tell scary stories’ and ‘exaggerate’ in order to get the public’s attention.
When you watch this video, consider that this is what the global climate ‘police state’ could easily become. This is appalling.
Ring any bells anyone?
This is the data that Torok used back in 1999 and it states his methodology.
you can find it all here:
ftp://ftp2.bom.gov.au/anon/home/bmrc/perm/climate/temperature/annual/
The “read me.txt” file states the following:
“The files in this subdirectory are associated with the Australian
High Quality Temperature Data Set
The directory should contain these files
UNIX FORMAT
readme ‘This file’
method.utx ‘Outline of the method used to prepare the data sets.’
alladj.utx.Z ‘List of adjustments made to the data
and reasons for adjustment.’
finaln.utx.Z ‘Data file of minimum temperatures’
fianlx.utx.Z ‘Data file of maximum temperatures’
Files ending in .Z have been compressed using the unix compress
command. To uncompress them type uncompress FILENAME at the
unix promt once you have transferred the file to your system.
All the data goes back to the late1800s and up to 1993 and they open up in word or notepad as text files.
here’s the Darwin chart taken from the files.
http://users.tpg.com.au/johnsay1/Stuff/Darwin_T.png
Jabba,
Excellent reference, especially since the video comes with a bunch of hyperlinks — very well documented!
It’s interesting that ‘global cooling’ is supposed to lead to the same woes as ‘global warming’, but obviously, both can’t lead to the same effects.
If the historical record of the Medieval Optimum is any guide, or the impact of glaciation on biodiversity is any guide, global warming is certainly preferable — and we have a way to go before we once again achieve the Optimum.
One interesting thing about what should be a global warming/cooling asymmetry: AGW proponents are not advocating global cooling.
Think about that, for a moment. If this were all about science, AGW proponents would be advocating global cooling. Touting its benefits.
Why not? Why not tout the benefits of global cooling, when ‘the Earth has a temperature’?
That’s because it’s about global governance, not about science.
By the way, since we’re speaking of Climategate and all that, and about ‘hackers’, and so forth, nobody’s noticed who the real hackers are: the ‘climate scientists’.
How else would you describe someone who went into a government database, ran the data through an algorithm (Al Gore rhythm) and replaced the government data with stuff that showed a trend that wasn’t there before?
You would call that person a hacker. Hadley was hacked, NASA was hacked, and, as everyone in the hacking community knows, the best hack is from inside. From outside is hard, if not impossible. From inside, it’s all your playpen.
Don’t you just love archangels of the denailist filth like Schillsbo and Banana PJs spreading the old global cooling ruse. Put together a couple of popular press articles and a few science quotes out of context and pretend it’s the equivalent of an IPCC report. That’s why we just spit on your words. Denialist tactics 101 – no matter how times the issue has been refuted just keep recycling it over and over. Pure scum. Brought to you by “darkies” Schiller !
Luke,
I hardly ever respond to you, because you have so little to say — mainly epithets, which prove vacuous on any measure.
This isn’t the ‘global cooling ruse’. My claim is, flat-out, that people who talk about ‘global warming’ are not advocating ‘global cooling’. The asymmetry of the claims is noteworthy.
Also noteworthy is the fact that you’re dodging that bullet.
Luke, explain to me, please, why those who warn about AGW are not touting the benefits of a cooler planet. Surely, if they have in hand proof that a warm Earth is a bad place, why they wouldn’t offer arguments in favor of living on a colder planet.
Also, I didn’t cite anything from the IPCC or elsewhere in noting this odd asymmetry, so that critical angle of yours is pure invention.
“Pure scum” is of course your usual rhetoric, and I will regard it as a reflection of the level of your acumen.
As far as the ‘darkies’ comment goes, consider the ‘Danish Text’ that’s percolating through the Copenhagen talks. Anyone who doesn’t know that there’s a preference for their real estate, and a disdain for their personal welfare, has not been following the news — nor even, history.
I could call you names, or apply labels to your style of rhetoric, but that’s a poor proxy for what some would call ‘discussion on the merits’.
Although, I will point out, once again, that your style is quite emblematic and uninformative.
Janama the GISS graph on Darwin is the average temp ( not mean max as in BOM ) over that period and shows a definite cooling trend.
After the “big” climate rally in Melbourne on saturday I found myself at a social function attended by three marchers. As I was outnumberted I bit my tongue and listened as one of the zealots displayed her sense of self-righteousness by running through a litany of the alleged ill effects from GHGs. All the popular memes were present in her various lectures, the like of which I haven’t heard since my youthful attendance at a lefty meeting dominated by Trots.
But the killer “fact” was her statement that she was putting her mouth where her beliefs are by eschewing champagne, beer and other “carbonated” drinks this Christmas. Apparently popping the cork on a bottle of christmas cheer dooms yet more polar bear. There was much agreement on that point from the like-minded, and several further rounds of self congratulation followed.
These people are absolutely mad.
PS: They were so mad, in fact, I suspected Luke and Gavin might have been present. But there was no foul language, so Luke must have missed it. And as no one was drooling, Gavin must not have been present either.
Luke – what I posted was access to data that hasn’t been included in the debate so far. It is the data used by Torok et al in 1996 when they altered the raw data of the Australian data set for temperature. The files contain the data and instruction as to how it was altered and why. I have made no conclusions from the data – just a few charts.
BTW – here is the same data for the Dawin adjusted as per the method outlayed in the method notes.
http://users.tpg.com.au/johnsay1/Stuff/Darwin_T_Adj.png
Neville – yes I’m aware of that difference – I wasn’t trying to compare the two.
It’s starting to make sense now. The metho doesn’t state whether the supplied data is before or after adjustement.
So I did it both ways – this way where you subtract the adjustments as stated in the method
http://users.tpg.com.au/johnsay1/Stuff/Darwin_T_Adj.png
and this way where you add them
http://users.tpg.com.au/johnsay1/Stuff/Darwin_T_Adj_1.png
the green Data clearly looks like the raw GISS data albeit Max temp v Mean temp.
Take a moment to nominate a best blog post for 2009 here:
http://polling.nationalforum.com.au/index.php?sid=54429&lang=en
I’ve already nominated a few, my list is here:
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/12/nominate-a-best-blog-post/
Gavin,
“BTW cohenite; I’m still wondering about opaque air”
According to the IPCC and cronies the air IS opaque to INCOMING LW.
Now, how it can let outgoing LW out if it is opaque to incoming I am still wondering about. Can you explain that to Cohenite and I Gavin??
Obviously we don’t understand AGW!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
bazza,
” A GCM can only simulate the teperature trend of the last century if you include CO2.”
Have you heard the term circular logic??
The GCM’s were designed with CO2 in place as a particular level of influence. OF COURSE if you take out that particular piece they wouldn’t work!!!
Now, if you take the same GCM and call that particular subroutine CLOUD FEEDBACK instead, it would THEN NOT WORK WITHOUT CLOUD FEEDBACK!!!!!
The GCM’s are PARAMETERISED!! That is because there isn’t enough computing power to solve all the equations at each cycle. If they get that parameterisation slightly wrong it is FUBAR!!!!!! If they assign the wrong influence level to the parameters, like they did, then they have to BALANCE it with something like AEROSOLS, like they have done!!! Try to find deatailed Papers supporting their values and signs for their AEROSOL parameters!!!!
Sorry bud, you need to buy a CLUE!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
gavinette,
“Nobody it seems knows exactly how to standardize the entire string of remaining temp data without treading on someone’s toes, least of all kuhnkat!”
Funny, I don’t remember claiming to know how to standardise a pile of crap???
But then Gavinette needs to detract from some excellent work by people smarter than both of us!!
Gavinette, your referral to the “string of remaining temp data” is quite apropos as EM Smith appears to have shown that there are DAMN FEW remaining stations being used by GISS and with HadCrud tracking them so closely it is likely they are similar!!!
How about getting off your FAT DUFF and creating your own temp series with all the stations that are available in GHCN and directly???
Lukefartard,
“Simply Tony – it’s silly for you to quote him like this. Does Trenberth still believe in AGW – answer yes. He’s simply reflecting the lack of realistic decadal variability in the previous model generation.”
Ahh, it seems so siple when you say it like that!!!
BUT, you don’t mention that they don’t have the vaguest idea how to change their models so that they retain the sensitivity to GHG’s and STILL get that little 10 year with no cooling!!!
How do I know that?? BECAUSE THEY HAVEN’T DONE IT!!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Gavinette,
I see you had your usual response to technical information with your own detailed technical information.
”
Mate; that parrot never gets it but in seeking something original I looked at the GHCN discussion and got annoyed thinking the original time series info gets muddied with every review that uses only selected data as the yardstick for analysis.”
Uhh, Gavinette, he used ALL the data that GHCN passes!! Would you like him to make up stuff instead??
“Nobody it seems knows exactly how to standardize the entire string of remaining temp data without treading on someone’s toes, least of all kuhnkat!”
Guilty as charged. I would not know how to standardise with or without treading on anyone’s toes!! That’s why I look for people who MIGHT!!
“My suspicion remains that the majority of weather data comes from a variety of max/min u tube devices that were notorious compared to strait mercury in glass types.”
Mate, it doesn’t matter WHAT kind of instruments are being used due to the perverted ways the data from them is being abused. Try to pull out long enough to notice what IS being done why doncha?? Following the links in RomanM’s post you can find some information on this!!
You might even go to RC and ask Gavin Schmidt or the other chimps how HADCruD is homogenised!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Kuhnkat; gavin is a bit of a dead loss; the opaque air has 2 meanings; AGW puts a meaning on it that CO2 infested air will not let LW through as it is emitted from the Earth; the other point which AGW ignores is that air becomes saturated; you raise a third point that opaqueness works both ways; AGW is both silly and arrogant; Bolta has a good example of the arrogance and stupidity of young AGW supporters in a thread on how they ambush Monckton; but recalling gavin’s concerns about ice-bergs recently I thought I’d do some on the back of the envelope calculations which relate to a recent program on the abc about ice loss and rising seas;
In the abc report the featured scientists have found that since 2006, the east Antarctic icesheet is losing more ice than it is gaining.
The majority of the loss is in coastal regions and is estimated at 57 billion tonnes a year.
The Australian Antarctic Division’s Dr Roland Warner says the study confirms Antarctica is contributing to a rise in global sea levels.
“This is confirming the sorts of things that one would expect in a warming world and the fact that this Antarctic system is not in some exact equilibrium at the moment, is in fact losing ice into the ocean, is an indication that things are changing,” he said.
“That’s contributing to half a millimetre of sea level rise per year.”
“It is estimated that sea levels are rising a total of three millimetres a year”, continues the good doctor. Now forget that 2 recent papers put the lie to this claim of the quantity of sea level rise;
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/n/#commentsmore
Let’s assume the sea level rise due to melting ice claim is true: that is, 1/2 a mm;
57 billion tonnes is ~ 57 km3 of water
The radius of the Earth is 6400 km
Surface area = 4 x pi x 6400^ km2 = 514457600 km2
The Earth is 70% ocean
Area covered by oceans =0.7 x 514457600 = 360120320 km2
So the increase in depth which could be attributed to the 57 billion tonnes of ice melt presuming it all originates above sea-level and not making any allowance for it spreading over land as it rises (both of which maximise the anticipated rise) would be given by;
57 / 360120320 = 1.5828 x 10-7km = 0.0001528m = 0.1528mm which is NOT 1/2 mm
To Jennifer and Everyone on this site,
An very Happy Christmas!
May 2010 bring each of you happiness and achievement.
My hope is that 2010 will see a gaping hole torn in the mini dark-age we seem to be in at the moment.
Hopefully a return to some truth, reason, wisdom and plain old common sense and a rerejection of radical environmentalism.
We are off down to the high country of N.E. Victoria for some time walking and fishing the streams of the Murray catchment.
Will be able to give you a 1st hand report Luke.
All the best to everyone and thanks again Jennifer for the opportunity you have given us all with this blog.
Pikey.
Ron if you’re still there, I recently went to a conference where the keynote speaker talked about recycling storm-water by injecting it into the aquifer (Salisbury nth of Adelaide) which he said had a 120 year storage capacity. He was critical of desal and claimed that recycling by his method was about 1/4 of the cost of desal.
Conversely, over the weekend I was talking to a guy at a party who recently attended a talk by Kym Beasly who said among other things that effluent from desal is at sea water conc. within 50 m of the outlet and that desal has worked fine in WA for 15 years.
Personally, I like the idea of recycling but am still unsure about desal, do you have aby thoughts on these matters?
Cheers.
Thanks for your good wishes Pikey. Likewise to you and yours. Hope you catch a big fish or two.
As far as a return to commonsense etc. goes, I just hope so too.
Have fun Ron. Merry Christmas to all!
Likewise I’m signing off for the next many weeks to fight the fires on the northwest slopes of the tablelands. Although I do hope to get in some fishing down Sawtell way to clear the lungs. Me caravan has no dish. Whoo Hoo! Cheers.
And Jen, good luck on your research and writing. Now that I think about it, I never did understand how you found the time for blogging. I know that when I seriously write/think – the two compliment each other in ways sublime – I would never be able to blog at the same time…the energy drain and distraction factor would derail a total immersion into the subject of study. May your mind/soul fall like a pebble into the deepest, clearest pool of your imagination. You never know what you will find there. When you surprise yourself, you’ll know you are very much alive.
As for the Little Dark Age (LDA) we are experiencing, I fear that until mainstream media, whose job it is to accurately and fairly inform our voting citizens on all aspects of current events, reforms itself or goes extinct our democracy will be burdened by a caste of drones, semi-illiterate and most comfortable when basking in mass-media induced group-think. Nevertheless, we can hope the pendulum will turn in 2010. Thank God that Al invented the Internet!
…
Lord Monckton interviews a paradigmatic drone, (possibly Luke’s mum?) at Copenhagen…
http://www.tomllewis.com/?p=2875
Wes,
Mind that passive smoking and have a happy Christmas too!
Good link BTW.
Science history in the making.
I think ( note not believe) that what we are witnessing is the final death throws of the ‘old’AGW paradigm’.
Thomas Kuhn described this exact situation of scientists doing” science in support of the dominnant paradigm. When faced with anomalies they invent even more intricate excuses and mechanisms to support their consensus position until finally the anomalies and dodgy graphs and all the other crap becomes to much! The old paradigm collapses and a new one is born.
This is where all of the normal people on this blog and others like it need to make sure that the void is filled with real un altered data and verifiable and testable theories.
The MSM should hang their collective head in shame!
From now on we want bylines and references to all science stories!
let the revolution (scientific) begin
Thanks for the thoughts Spangles and Wes.
Derek,
You have opened up a topic that really requires a detailed and lengthy reply which I presently have not the time for.
However briefly, it is certainly possible in some areas to run water into acquifers, but we need to keep in mind that it then has to be extracted by bores which are relatively expensive to establish and maintain.
Also most of the large acquifers in eastern Australia are on the flood plains of the Murray Darling Basin a long way from city populations.
I have no problem with desalination where there is no alternative.
But that is not Australia.
We seem hell-bent on pursuing the most inefficient and costly responses to our supposed water problem, when the answer is simple.
There is huge capacity for cheap, easily constructed dams and run-off catchments all along the southern and east coasts of Aust.
We are still developing housing estates all over the country with NO provision for catching the increased run-off.
What has happened is, we have allowed Environmentalists with the unquestioning support of our incompetent MSM to convince the public of the following:
A: Australia is short of water.
B: This can only be addressed by making it more expensive.
This was cycnically done to allow Municipalities to use water as a new tax and allow State Labour Governments to appease the Greens in return for preference votes.
All of the towns and cities from Adelaide to Cooktown on the southern and eastern coasts of Aus. should never be short of water.
In fact there should have never even been any need for metering to households in these cities.
When I have more time I will give you some detail of what has happened here in Coffs Harbour.
Cheers for now,
Pikey.
Since I can’t work out what people are trying on with the old Darwin temp records or the reasons why I had another look at BoM online for clues but there are none to see. What we get is a pretty good service nowadays despite the skeptics and there are notes on quality etc. for the astute.
Climate data online
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/data/index.shtml
“Notes to accompany Daily Weather Observations
Data availability
These observations have been taken from the Bureau of Meteorology’s “real time” system. Most of the data are generated and handled automatically. Some quality checking has been performed, but it is still possible for erroneous values to appear.
From time to time, observations will not be available, for a variety of reasons. Sometimes when the daily maximum and minimum temperatures, rainfall or evaporation are missing, the next value given has been accumulated over several days rather than the normal one day. It is very difficult for an automatic system to detect this reliably, so caution is advised. For more detail about this or any other data quality issue, contact us.
Summary statistics
The summary statistics (mean, lowest, highest and total) have been calculated using the data available at the time of preparation. Statistics are only calculated where it makes sense to do so (for example, “total maximum temperature” and “mean maximum wind gust” are not calculated, but “total rainfall” and “mean minimum temperature” are).
The extremes for each field are also indicated in the body of the table: the lowest value is shown in blue, and the highest value appears in red.-“
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/dwo/IDCJDW0000.shtml
cheers to those off on a break
Thinking about the electro mag spectrum and air as a medium I usually put IR and UV in the same basket as visible light for all practical purposes. For instance we feel warm in the bathroom standing near the electric radiator or by the window on a sunny afternoon.
Also the digital camera is not bothered either way with reflected light and the focusing beam traveling through air with a little extra moisture.
As H2O is topical may I join the fun? Water treatment was mainstream over a number of decades and I suggest there was no bigger debate than fluoride.
In industry we routinely recycled large amounts of so called cloudy water back into the process, pulp & paper making, mining etc via screens, sand filters and so on. In the food and beverage processes even town water had to be de ionized before use. With sewage we simply churned the brew with lots of air and chlorine then tried to discharge a neutral clarified stream.
In all these processes, quality depended a great deal on constant flow and dose rates being maintained. Fluoride was the tricky one as the very low ppm chemical target could be masked by the heavier doses of chlorine required to kill off residual microbes after filtering.
This brings us back to sources. During my time with MMBW operations I became aware that the expanding metro storage and distribution system suddenly required extensive monitoring and treatment because some water had to bypass the age old Silvan Dam up in the Dandenong Ranges that previously provided pristine water to the city. Volcanic soils there once did the job of many treatment plants that had to follow supply from other sources.
Sun on the surface of a reservoir is not enough these days either considering what may collect in a catchment, besides rain and forest run off. Good ground water likewise needs a pristine environment up front. Trout may be the one exception.
Richard North has done some excellent research on our current IPCC chairman and former railway engineer Rajendra Kumar Pachauri.
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2009/12/busy-man.html
The phrase “heads of the hydra” comes to mind.
Cheers Ron, have a good Christmas and a great holiday break.
As some of the corruption from the ipcc is highlighted and a breakdown ( hopefully ) in the Copenhagen talks we may yet have something to celebrate at the end of this week.
The ipcc head is certainly making money hand over fist from his personal involvement in this mad cult, but the pity is when it all comes unstuck it will be the poor taxpayer who foots the bill.
All those billions ( just Australia, trillions worldwide) will take many decades to repay and won’t have the slightest effect on droughts, cyclones, the MDB, great barrier reef, temp etc.
I certainly agree with the hansen idiot on one point , I hope the Copenhagen talks fail and fail miserably.
Copenhagen: Fatalities in protest over solar power
http://www.thespoof.com/news/spoof.cfm?headline=s3i65161
Some jests are uncomfortably close to the mark…
Gavin,
I think you missed something in your last 2 posts.
A COHERENT POINT!!
Jabba the Cat,
Thanks for the information on the esteemed head of the IPCC. As always in climate matters, the legal question ‘cui bono?’ comes to mind.
http://www.cfact.tv/2009/12/07/lord-monckton-on-climategate-at-the-2nd-international-climate-conference/
Well this will put the cat amongst the pigeons and give Walker and his mum something to blather on about.
Goodness me, such a noisome rabble!
If you would all line up along this line here…., the bus will be along soon.
When we arrive at our summer destination I want you all to be on your very best behaviour. Anybody mucking up will miss out on special activities, like our water sports or basket weaving.
Matron will greet you all with some special sweets.
Be good now.
Rog ,
ie. nothing.
That which people call the greenhouse effect is really about H2O dithering around its phase change region. No other gas will have any individually important contribution because H2O is the only substance that is in its phase-change region at earths typical temperatures. This seems obvious once one drops the greenhouse paradigm. Where are temperatures the most even? Precisely where the H2O is doing the most dithering. That is to say where relative humidity is typically near 100%. H2O has both warming and cooling properties in its various forms. It is thought that water vapour is a warming agent. This is wrong. Taken totally on its own, water vapour would be the refrigerant to beat all. Its simply because its dithering between its phase change on a microscopic level, when its airborne, that creates this effect, which evens out temperatures..
The sun climate link has always been controversial, but now a new paper by G A Meehl et al. suggests they have discovered an atmospheric solar heat amplifier.
They coupled two models together and wallah!
http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/atmospheric-solar-heat-amplifier-discovered
For heavens sake el Gordo – are you that inept.
Paper ends “This response also
cannot be used to explain recent global warming
because the 11-year solar cycle has not shown a
measurable trend over the past 30 years (10).”
Sigh …. and you mean voila – you wallah
Jennifer,
It is sad to see your winding this blog down.
I wish you well on your other projects.
Merry Christmas, and may the coming new year be your best year yet.
Finally some words of wisdom from Rog! A breath of fresh air – heated, cooled whatever! Call it like it is, and wave as the bus leaves the curb RAOTFL!!!
And so as a lasting tribute to this Climategate thread – the entire is issue is BUNK !
Sums up the entire sceptic contribution to the climate debate – BUNK !
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/12/are-the-cru-data-suspect-an-objective-assessment/
And stuff Xmas ! Druids don’t care for it.
There is a worldwide consensus among scientists about skeptics.
Nearly 100 percent of them describe themselves as skeptical, and describe those not skeptical as ‘gullible’.
Among the small subset of scientists known as climatologists, of course, this demographic is badly skewed.
El Gordo; the Meehl paper is another piece in the emerging jigsaw of how natural ‘variation’, the so-called stationary factors, can produce a trend; luke and his fellow prancing ninnies know this is a fatal problem for AGW; the Meehl paper looks at the sleeping giant of cloud contribution to temperature and general ocean/atmosphere coupling; this idea has been looked at elsewhere; these 2 papers look at ‘ENSO asymmetry’ or the fact that the natural ‘oscillation doesn’t produce a temperature neutrality;
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/adai/papers/MonahanDai_JC04.pdf
http://www.atmos.ucla.edu/~sun/doc/Sun_Yu_JCL_2009.pdf
The cloud mechanism is spelt out in detail here;
http://climatechange1.wordpress.com/2009/08/18/sea-level-data-exposes-el-ninos-secret/
The thing is, a slight variation in cloud cover and location can have a major radiative and therefore heating effect; if that effect causes, as appears likely, an asymmetry between the PDO phases than there is a natural contribution to trend; the Meehl paper adds a new dimension to that, one that logically should be attracting the resource funds that AGW is now wasting; that is the solar effect.
Well, that’s about the last technical comment I’ll make; this has been a great blog; but who knows, perhaps a white knight will appear and take away the obstacles to Jennifer continuing the blog.
So Luke, climategate is a dead and insignificant issue? I think this letter to Penn State Uni blows your theories out of the water.
“http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/mann_piccola_letter1.jpg”
More interesting research from Dr Richard North on our current IPCC chairman and former railway engineer Rajendra Kumar Pachauri.
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2009/12/vast-nexus-of-influence.html
yes climategate is irrelevant if you are blinded by your faith. It shows us just how this myth has developed the legs that it has, that believers (deniers in reality!!) can scoff over these emails.
how do you believers feel about the fact carbonhagen will achieve ntg, except huge quantities of co2 being produced? How do you feel about our krudd who wanted us to sign to binding cuts prior to anyone else that matters in the world?
did you hear rudd 2 days ago saying “we will do ntg more and ntg less than the rest of the world”! ….so what would he be saying if had got his ridiculous ets through? ( my 15 year old daughter heard his comment and promptly laughed at his stupidity and pointed it out to me).
sad, very sad, and you believers just go on being unsceptical about anything.
as luke appears to like calling me….drongo’s and idiots and sheep you are….perhaps dags would be more appropriate!!
merry xmas to all and a happy new year.
another open letter to the UN
http://www.copenhagenclimatechallenge.org/
Wow – a letter on Wattsup documenting a letter to Penn State from Republican sceptics – be still my beating heart. What a try-on.
Pullease ! Politically motivated hack jobs are rather transparent don’t you think.
Toby be soundly sceptical – not stupid !
janama,
re your link, letter ends:
“It is not the responsibility of ‘climate realist’ scientists to prove that dangerous human-caused climate change is not happening. Rather, it is those who propose that it is, and promote the allocation of massive investments to solve the supposed ‘problem’, who have the obligation to convincingly demonstrate that recent climate change is not of mostly natural origin and, if we do nothing, catastrophic change will ensue. To date, this they have utterly failed to do.”
and is signed by 140 scientists.
Until Climategate the UNIPCC thought they had!
And a happy Christmas to the fluid Druid! [as in whisky priest]
The poor old Druids died out because they couldn’t cope with the Roman Warm Period. Very sad.
But did you know that Druidry still allows you to celebrate Christmas?
Luke, watch out for new tactics as revealed by Plimer v Monbiot last night on ABC Lateline. In addition to sidesteps to questions on his claim that the earth had cooled since 1998, Plimer said this decade wasnt over yet, followed by appeals to Monboit to “mind your manners young man” when asked to pls answer the question and then in desperation a mumbled comment suggesting Monboits manners reflected poor breeding. What next.
As a POI, the highest tide [or thereabouts, SLs are never a precise science] of the year is about to arrive and I always find it an opportune time to check my old benchmarks.
As a result I was again bashing a Gold Coast CC engineer’s ear about factual obs of SLR wrt the effect on their mean sea level datum point.
This bloke reckons that they are checking it regularly and in the last 4 decades it has changed in some areas as much as +5cm while in other areas it has actually receeded slightly.
I asked if the SLR had occurred more rapidly of late but he thought it had been a fairly steady change.
This puts it at between less than zero and 12.5 cm SLR per century.
This compares with the obs rate of the east coast of Aust which is around 9cm per century.
Obs SLR in Holland is also at the rate of 9 cm per century.
Probably not very scientifically precise but it tees in with official as well as my own obs of bugger-all SLR.
I thought Plimer performed badly but attack dog Jones was no better.
From 1998 – 2010 there has been cooling so 10 years of cooling is correct.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1998/to:2010/plot/rss/from:1998/to:2010/trend
putting 1998 aside from 2001 – 2010 there’s even more cooling.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:2001/to:2010/plot/rss/from:2001/to:2010/trend
Saying that the past decade has been the warmest decade doesn’t mean that there has been continued warming!! it just means that the last decade was the warmest BUT we are showing a cooling curve despite the CO2 increasing – so AGW is shot!
that’s all Plimer had to say.
spangled drongo – this is a good article on sea level rise
http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2007/2007_20-29/2007-25/pdf/33-37_725.pdf
“a cooling curve’
Oh pullease ! The smell of cooked books.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:2000/to:2010/plot/rss/from:2000/to:2010/trend
bazza,
Would it have pleased you more for him to say, as a professor of the warming persuasion recently did in a similar situation, “What an Arsehole”?
Luke,
Just try that graph with the starting year of ’96, ’97 or ’98 and it doesn’t change.
WFT are just ignoring the ’98 peak.
If you climb the hill to ’98 you have to be going down from there. You can’t have it both ways.
Since we are on P37, my max.min is also hovering around 37C. Pity those down in Victoria not much above SL with their predicted > 40. No global cooling downunder yet.
so what Luke – either way there’s no warming!!
why not try Tasmania Gavin – where Hobart’s dec temps are -.2 from average and Launceston is -1.2 from average, or you could try Bega -.2c
well if you want to cheery pick!
Going back a little further……….
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/compress:12/detrend:0.706/offset:0.52/plot/hadcrut3vgl/trend/detrend:0.706/offset:0.52/plot/hadcrut3vgl/trend/detrend:0.706/offset:0.97/plot/hadcrut3vgl/trend/detrend:0.706/offset:0.07
luke and his new toy; explain this or send it to Monbiot;
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1998/offset:-347/scale:0.008/trend/plot/uah/from:1998/trend
I thought Plimer wasn’t too bad; he’s just not as slippery or meaninglessly coherent as Monbiot; Plimer needs to address this issue of this decade being the warmest which is bunk; ask me why bazza or luke, eh, eh? And as I’ve said as well as not being the warmest the last decade conclusively proves that CO2 doesn’t dominate temperature.
Plimer’s big picture injects some reality into the debate which Monbiot couldn’t counter. He can only deal with small, obscure, debatable issues. When it’s two against one it’s hard work.
The hockey team thought they had neatly disposed of the corpse but hopefully climategate will stick around long enough to expose it.
However, full marks to Monbiot for his opinion on climategate.
Thanks for those, cohenite. They will be of use over at lambert’s blog where I’m fighting a loan battle against the Deltoid larrikins.
Is it true that most blogs just fade away, but rarely die?
Wood for trees huh? Right now I’m in the mood to throttle any discussion that involves wood chip after finally destroying a piece of old particle board that was supposed to be a drawer base in a plywood tallboy cabinet. Rough disposal is all it deserves after crumbling under the weight of staples that were driven half thought it during construction. All the ply panels twisted too.
When I can’t salvage a product this young it has to be just rubbish in the first place. Now did anyone watch that clown from TAS Forests on the 7.30 report last night extolling the virtues of old growth logging? As the lass said; most of it goes to the chip mills.
http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2009/s2772743.htm
BTW nobody quotes fuels used in forestry during that lot.
There was a discussion this week on the continued search for suitable radiant heat shelters in Victorian bushfire prone towns (ABC RN) however I’m still drawn by the air opacity argument earlier.
The cohenites of this world – ooops thought he went, have a lot more thinking to do on the question of what energy comes in and goes out through the various mediums gas, liquids and glass.
After chasing the higher frequency emf form round circuit boards, into transducers and out to space one becomes blasé about the physics of an interface however that’s not to say a little appreciation won’t help. However it’s unlikely we will get round to discussing the opacity or otherwise of a dipole. In fact it’s highly likely we only need the wavelength of any emission to get a handle on distance traveled or the extremes of useful propagation.
with no white knight on the horizon I’m going to miss these stouches
El is going to be in trouble quoting pure climate science as it unfolds here
Derek; going back a topic, one of the problems with water purification is we all then to use the stuff as a cheap transport system. The pulp & paper industry, sewage infrastructure, also mineral refining are good examples of water based process.
Consider too what happens to used paint brushes at home. Do we rinse them down the toilet or the gulley trap out side? Your car weekly wash on the nature strip out front is a classic ground water hazard. Industrial sites and some parts of agriculture may be ahead of the community now in what’s possible with water reuse.
Wood for trees
http://www.woodfortrees.org/notes.php#trends
Smart fellow hey
gavin’s handy home hints number 3296;
“Consider too what happens to used paint brushes at home. Do we rinse them down the toilet or the gulley trap out side?”
Luke,
Every now and again your mate over in Deltoid makes reference to offerings from Hot Topic run by that Gareth Whatsisname ; you know that South Canterbury farmer I told you about who hunts truffles and has written a book. Apparently he also writes childrens stories too.
For your interest his 2nd most recent post on…..”Something potty in the state of Denmark” should provide hours of absorbing reading for you Luke, and give you an insight into just what sort of a raving looney you and your mate over in Deltoid aspire to give credence to.
http://hot-topic.co.nz/
Cohenite; most of my handy hints come at great personal sacrifice.
I’ve just spent the best part of 3 days working out how to get our dead extraction fan assembly out of the kitchen cupboard installation with out wrecking the room, then laboriously degreasing the works in order to find faults within.
To cut a long story short I finished up repairing burnt neutral tracks on the speed control board with copper wire after a weird lamp short where carbonized surface grease arced out the power supply. Seems this darned Italian made contraption can’t be properly cleaned with out complete removal and disassembly nor can the kitchen fitter locate the thing easily as I found numerous pozidrive screws besides my own lost replacements hidden in the various metal folds.
It took longer to put it up again than the time I spent searching the work shop for the trusty Weller and other electronic “tools” in this case an opened flex to apply 240v direct to the fans after the bypassed micro switch failed to fix the fault.
Reinstallation required a considerable period lying back over the gas rings with torch, ¼ drive and extensions trying to locate old holes in the metal case and chipboard retainer. The spice rack hastily divided by jig saw in a vain search for the extraction fan retaining screws went back this morning after a touch up with some white acrylic base.
Can you guess where I washed that brush?
There’s no need to get personal gavin.
On standardization; I don’t often visit RC but they recently linked to NOAA and “talking points – re station location and its impact on the overall temp record.
I reckon it verifies what I repeatedly say here about UHI as a non event after some intelligent considerations that includes types of instruments and people involved in their recordings.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/about/response-v2.pdf
It can be as simple as the time our trusty max/min is reset.
Take this case; my max reading of 37C this arvo was neither a max or a min but the difference from both sides of the u tube ie 38-36 = 37 that suits me cause it generally agrees with other instrument when I bother to whirl it long enough in the shade from the house.
On the other hand they both tend to be higher than the official record for the local area Belconnen 35 today but it’s not exactly my suburb. Other ACT readings were 36 The question of my reading error is probably solved by considering the influence of drafts from hot masonry exposed to the morning sun but I don’t know if our hot bare soils likewise affect the official instruments.
One of my thermometers needs to go round to all three BoM sites about 3pm to find the average peak for the day.
http://www.bom.gov.au/products/IDN10035.shtml
This is priceless … sceptics in Copenhagen have boarded the Rainbow Warrior and unfurled a banner … more here:
http://cfact.org/a/1674/CFACT-drops-the-banner-on-Greenpeace-ships-in-daring-land-and-sea-raids
I dunno what it’s like in Ozland, but this is clearly the major reason that US voters will demonstrate against any Cap & Trade initiative.
http://cohort11.americanobserver.net/latoyaegwuekwe/multimediafinal.html
Obama and the Dem leadership are clueless as to what is motivating the Tea Party movement (conservative demonstrations) which is a new phenomenon. I reckon the current political climate there is not too different as demonstrated by the few hangers on of the pro-AGW movement and the Rudd Govt.
G’day, to Y’all!
Lord Monckton V Greenpeace Drones
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxIjygRPpmk&feature=related
Hilarious…
Jennifer, all,
You should check out the advisory board of CFACT. These are prominent experts in a number of fields, and quite stellar:
http://www.cfact.org/about/1551/CFACT-Board-of-Advisors
I have the impression that a number of scientists in a number of disciplines have become emboldened by the ‘leak’ of the ‘Climategate’ emails — they no longer feel like they are completely ‘under the thumb’ of the burgeoning Green Autocracy.
Even so, Green Autocracy thrives within the confines of the Climate Summit conclave. Phelim McAleer, famed for his documentaries exposing the wretched excesses of Green policies that drive destitute populations into desperation, was grabbed once again by UN security guards — for asking Al Gore the wrong questions.
Check out this link:
“Gore Refuses ClimateGate Questions “, Wall Street Journal, Dec. 15, 2009,
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704398304574598333184878524.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
People, this is the face of the ‘climate police’ when it comes to enforcing CO2 limits. Part of the enforcement will be Orwellian thoughtcrime.
Well, you might say, ‘They won’t actually prosecute ‘thoughtcrime’. At least, not in such a visible manner.’
Except for the fact that they’re doing it now. Will the UN relinquish its grip on discussions of energy policy if an international treaty on CO2 is signed and delivered?
No way. You give that power away, that power is put to use.
With kindest regards, and best wishes in this holiday season for my friends Down Under, and encouragement for those courageous enough to oppose the Green Machine that has bloated coffers and shrunken scruples,
I remain,
Yours truly,
Schiller T.
Gavin, The bloke you identify as the ‘clown for Tas Forests’ in the ABC 730 report on carbon in wood, just happens to hold a PhD in forest science and has spent his professional career in managing forests in Australia.
He was quoting from two published reports that have stood the test of public scrutiny. Firstly data from Forestry Tasmania’s Carbon Sequestration Position – an independent audit by MBAC Consulting that shows the carbon stored by the growth in forests managed by Forestry Tasmania is equates 6.75 Million tonnes CO2-e of emissions each year compared to an annual log harvest of 2.19 Mt CO2e with an accompanying above ground residue of 1.46 MT.
These results are summarised at http://www.forestrytas.com.au/news/2009/12/counter-global-warming-use-more-wood
The second report is from the former FWRDC called Carbon Wood and Australia’s Forest Balance available at http://www.plantations2020.com.au/assets/acrobat/Forests,Wood&CarbonBalance.pdf
This report states that wood and paper products produced in Australia in an average year (2004) stored 5.3 million tonnes of carbon (19.5 MT CO2e).
Yet the 7.30 report did not interview the authors of these reports but instead chose to interview Brendan Mackey the author of the Wilderness society funded report that modelled 1,500 tonnes of carbon per hectare quoted by Gavin’s “lass”.
The ABC chose not to state that Mackey’s relationship to this green group or of the funding received to publish his 2007 report that formed the opinions he expressed on the program.
The 7.30 report also chose not to mention that only last week the Wilderness Society released carbon accounting data they collected in the Upper Florentine over the last five months that found that in the 6 plots surveyed held only an average of 779 tonnes of carbon per hectare. Such a finding makes nonsense out of Mackey’s ANU model of 1500 tonnes.
This report continues the tradition of ABC news and current affairs of failing to question and failing to expose the flaws in the greens propaganda, perhaps we will also find that vision used in this report was supplied by but not identified as Wilderness society vision.
Janama,
I found the 2007 article by Dr Nils-Axel Morner interesting and convincing. The idea that the politicians of some island nations are simply beating the drum on sea-level in order to get money out of the richer nations is supported by recent riots at the Copenhagen Climate Circus. The island states have now been joined by clamour from other poor nations. ‘Give us money, or else’. Having worked in Africa since the 1950s, I know exactly what happens to that money, and so do Swiss banks.
Let’s help poorer nations, but in a constructive way, not by charity, or by daylight robbery, or by filling the bank accounts of political thugs. Mohammed Younis of Bangladesh, with his Grameen Bank, seems to have some useful ideas on how to go about it. He is a credit to Islam.
Green Davey check out this from Bolt’s site:
“The lead negotiator for the small island nation of Tuvalu, the bow-tie wearing Ian Fry, broke down as he begged delegates to take tough action.
“I woke up this morning crying,” and that’s not easy for a grown man to admit,” Mr Fry said on Saturday, as his eyes welled with tears.
”The fate of my country rests in your hands,” he concluded, as the audience exploded with wild applause. ”
So moving. But let’s now learn more from Samantha Maiden about this former Greenpeace official from “Tuvalu”:
But the part-time PhD scholar at the Australian National University actually resides in Queanbeyan, NSW, where he’s not likely to be troubled by rising sea levels because the closest beach at Batemans Bay is a two-hour, 144km drive away. Asked whether he had ever lived in Tuvalu, his wife told The Australian last night she would “rather not comment”….
Still, it’s a long way from the endangered atolls of Tuvalu, with his neighbour Michelle Ormay confirming he’s lived in Queanbeyan for more than a decade, while he has worked his way up to being “very high up in climate change”.
Ian Fry is a member of this mob
http://law.anu.edu.au/cclp/staff.asp
“Pump handle” Cinders
“The bloke you identify as the ‘clown for Tas Forests’ in the ABC 730 report on carbon in wood, just happens to hold a PhD in forest science and has spent his professional career in managing forests in Australia” Hmmmm; welcome back
ABC 7.30 “HANS DRIELSMA, FORESTRY TASMANIA: As we harvest the forest and it regrows, we can continue to – it’s like a pump, like a carbon pump, if you like. It’s taking carbon dioxide out of the air, putting it into wood, we harvest it, we put it into products, into long term storage and we grow more. So, if you’ve got a forest where you can maintain the carbon in the long term and create harvested wood products, you’re gonna be increasing your carbon store all the time
BRENDAN MACKEY, ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE, ANU: When you log a previously unlogged forest you cause a massive reduction in the forest carbon stock and a large – and cause large pulses of emissions over the following decades which actually take around 200 years to recover naturally.
HANS DRIELSMA: Yes, there’s an emission from harvesting, but it is more than balanced by the growth in the forest. So as long as you’re managing your forest on a sustainable basis, and sustainable, that means you’re not taking more out of the forest than it’s growing, then you’re maintaining the carbon, you’re maintaining the timber supply and you’re not creating net emissions.
CONOR DUFFY: Forestry Tasmania’s own research shows that as much as 65 per cent of the carbon trapped in native forests is released during burn-offs like these. The ANU team is currently working on calculating how much Australia could reduce its emissions by ending native forest logging”.
http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2009/s2772743.htm
Mackey, B., Keith, H., Berry, S. and Lndenmayer D.B. (2008). Green Carbon: the role of natural forests in carbon storage. Part 1. A green carbon account of the eucalypt forests of south east Australia. ANU E Press, Canberra Note; some great illustrations
http://epress.anu.edu.au/green_carbon/pdf/whole_book.pdf
Mackey B.G., Lindenmayer D.B., Gill A.M., McCarthy A.M. and Lindesay J.A. 2002. Wildlife, fire and future climate: a forest ecosystem analysis. CSIRO Publishing.
Old arguments
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/002263.html
Thanks Janama,
I note that Mr Fry is associated with the Fenner School of Ecowhatever at ANU. That makes me very wary of his views. Gavin might care to note that Brendan Mackey is of that band of scholars. I get the feeling that logic is not prominent in the curriculum there. Perhaps they are too busy in other fields, such as eco-politics. Besides, I am allergic to people who wear bow-ties.
And Bonyhady is the presiding Professor; enough said.
I notice Gunns is pouncing on mainland timber opportunities however I suggest that resource group and the state as a whole continue to be quite slack on local opportunities particularly in regard to value adding at home.
I have on good authority there are a couple of mills sites going up for sale. The old “Reflex” paper mill at Burnie is still in production and there are other assets such as the old board mill that is ideally sited close to transport etc and could become another industry
http://abc.gov.au/news/stories/2009/12/08/2765597.htm?site=news
Its been my view for a while that when customers go into a store such as Bunnings hardware for a new tool handle etc we don’t seem to be able to find a piece of Tasmanian hardwood all dressed up with their forest logo on it. I won’t mention particle board again as it’s been another bad week for factory made furniture recycling at my place and it’s my bet your forest guru has no idea how long forest products such as Reflex and furniture last in general circulation.
BTW I make new handle wedges out of very old broken handles because such good wood is very hard to find round about, besides a bought wedge made of metal costs a few dollars now.
Reckon I can do well in a low carbon economy?
cheers
Gavin, you forgot to copy and paste “We are grateful to The Wilderness Society Australia for a research grant that supported the analyses presented in this report.” from Mackey, B., Keith, H., Berry, S. and Lindenmayer D.B. (2008). Green Carbon: the role of natural forests in carbon storage. Part 1. A green carbon account of the eucalypt forests of south east Australia. ANU E Press, Canberra
Same old argument and over a year ago it was Jennifer’s blog that exposed the ANU model to be wrong now it’s the activists in the Wilderness society recycling the news despite their society funding the ANU figure.
But of course the Fenner School of environmental activism is back in the news not only hosting Mackey’s Wildcountry Hub and its collaboration with the wilderness society, but now providing the chief climate negotiator for Tuvalu, that has been hailed a hero for the island state for taking on Australia’s position at the Copenhagen Circus. This acadamic is also part of the ANU’s climate change institute who’s Executive director is the Australian Government’s chief advisor on the ‘science’ of climate change.
No wonder the Greens who replaced your Australian Democrats in the senate, said “Cheers for Tuvalu, jeers for Rudd”,
recent update from copenhagen from the Australian;
“Then President Chavez brought the house down.
When he said the process in Copenhagen was “not democratic, it is not inclusive, but isn’t that the reality of our world, the world is really and imperial dictatorship…down with imperial dictatorships” he got a rousing round of applause.
When he said there was a “silent and terrible ghost in the room” and that ghost was called capitalism, the applause was deafening.
But then he wound up to his grand conclusion – 20 minutes after his 5 minute speaking time was supposed to have ended and after quoting everyone from Karl Marx to Jesus Christ – “our revolution seeks to help all people…socialism, the other ghost that is probably wandering around this room, that’s the way to save the planet, capitalism is the road to hell….let’s fight against capitalism and make it obey us.” He won a standing ovation.”
this is exactly what we are dealing with and you believers ( deniers!) need to wake up to this rubbish before you do some real damage to everybodies wellbeing on this planet!!
gavin, do you the timber that is cut down immediatly releases its stored carbon? it decays over hundreds if not thousands of years ( look at old english houses?).
old trees do not absorb much co2, new trees absorb a lot as as they grow.
so it is logical that to cut down trees and regrow them not only stores the carbon as timber, but also reduces emissions by absorbing extra co2.
further to this old trees die and decay and rot from the inside emitting co2! so chop them down before they start to decay.
In my area the mountain ash is a dominant species, nobody cuts down trees for woodchip, they cut them down for timber and the parts that are not good enough for timber are chipped. the same happens in tassie.
the money is in the timber, not the woodchips.
if you visit a logged forest 60 years later the trees are at or near maturity in height. They will continue to grow in width, but they stort to decay internally.
surely you don t take anything the wilderness society says on face value?!! no wonder you believe in this myth of AGW so strongly.
gavin,
sorry i sent before rereading, i missed a word “think” in first line, please read this instead.
do you think the timber that is cut down immediately releases its stored carbon? it decays over hundreds if not thousands of years ( look at old english houses?).
old trees do not absorb much co2, new trees absorb a lot as as they grow.
so it is logical that to cut down trees and regrow them not only stores the carbon as timber, but also reduces emissions by absorbing extra co2.
further to this old trees die and decay and rot from the inside emitting co2! so chop them down before they start to decay.
In my area the mountain ash is a dominant species, nobody cuts down trees for woodchip, they cut them down for timber and the parts that are not good enough for timber are chipped. the same happens in tassie.
the money is in the timber, not the woodchips.
if you visit a logged forest 60 years later the trees are at or near maturity in height. They will continue to grow in width, but they start to decay internally.
surely you don t take anything the wilderness society says on face value?!! no wonder you believe in this myth of AGW so strongly.
Also, timber that is not harvested burns, rots, or is eaten by termites. All these processes emit greenhouse gases. Especially termites which emit METHANE – oooer! But you can, of course, simply ignore some of the processes, and build models which only allow for emission of CO2 by burning or logging, but not sequestration by regrowth, or charcoal formation. Wonderful fun, modeling. Much like writing science fiction.
Toby “do you think the timber that is cut down immediately releases its stored carbon? it decays over hundreds if not thousands of years ( look at old english houses?)”
Being out and about in the landscape helps a lot Toby
Untreated regrowth mesmate stringy bark lasts only a few years in the ground, as bull nose weather boards- a few years longer. However as shingles I say there are no such roofs left anywhere in Tasv now but as a very large fallen tree in the bush on our place, several hundred years before crumbling. Myrtle timber as used for doors etc in Adelaide or Melbourne after it was shipped across Bass Strait by the “mosquito” sailing fleet has mostly dissappeared through urban renewal programs but the tas oak hardwood frame flooring etc in my Canberra home is all as it was but its only about 3 decades old.
“surely you don t take anything the wilderness society says on face value”
What I write is mostly from experience however the Wilderness Society was initially formed by Hobart folk who may have been influenced by a group based in Victoria where I was most supportive in opposition to the continued federal finance for Tasmanian resources exploitation when it impacted massivly on rain forest timber reserves. In fact I went back mid 70’s for about a year to follow state developments post the L Pedder/ L Gordon hydro scheme.
Unfortunately local unions failed to heed my quiet message on starting redeployments away from big biz then and later on with the proposed Franklin / Lower Gordon dam.
“Wonderful fun, modeling. Much like writing science fiction”
What you guys have to realize is our world has changed and this Fenner group, like me only have to look out the window to see a vast parched landscape flying over our heads again as hot winds tear this country apart. Official temperatures in the high 30’s were slightly above my max/min today and that is quite unusual.
This is already a horrendous fire season in the making but we still have contractors cutting more roadsides today despite the 40 C conditions. I fear some country towns have a long way to go yet
Gavin,
WRT painting, I did a fair bit recently and was dismayed by how much water it took to clean acrylic paint from a roller( at least 30 liters). Then my wife said to wrap the roller and tray in glad-wrap and simply reuse it for each coat, brilliant idea. I paint so infrequently that I would rather trow used stuff away than waste water cleaning it.
janama,
Thanks for that article of Morner’s. I had read it some time ago but it was worth another read. I can certainly relate to what he says.
gavin,
The carbon accounting manual on old growth forests, wetlands, peat bogs, and many long established natural situations is yet to be worked out in a believable way. Even for farms.
I personally hate to see magnificent old growth cleared or even partially scarred but then I also hate to see beautiful rock formations quarried.
I suppose, unrealistically, I want some part of my world to remain perfect.
GAvin,
Cinders has it right. Mackey’s work is flawed and has been for some time now. He takes no account whatsoever of internal degrade in the forests that he models. As one who has built models of forest growth for wood production I know that unless internal defect is adjusted for the end result will overstate the volume of timber in a stand that could be converted to sawn timber.
On the one hand Mackey carries on about habitat and tree hollows in senescent forests but takes no account of those same hollows and what they mean to his carbon figures. He has never been able to model Australia’s forests at a scale that captures their variability well. If he did his work would be used and respected by those that are responsible for forest management. As it does not capture the variability inherent in Australian forests real forest managers have no respect for it.
Pandanus “Mackey’s work is flawed” yes but it depends on which tram we ride, wood productin or carbon storage I googled ‘flawed Mackey’ for you and found this. Recall too Mackey is big on offshore jobs.
“Harnessing ancient primary forests for continued carbon storage requires ending industrial logging, and in Australia too”
http://candobetter.org/node/757
Beware thought I found these links only after Cinders quoted some PHD to humble me on Tassie issues. Also some of those pics in “Green Carbon” can speak for themselves as illustrations of total storage in that they are strait out of places where I have been too.
BTW on models for resource purposes I once recommended such photos accompany all maps as used by federal agencies for RFA purposes
Spencer points out where the GCMs could be wrong.
Occam’s razor?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/17/spencer-on-his-agu-presentation-yesterday/#more-14258
The reason pristine wilderness areas should not be disturbed has little to do with CO2.
They are the last refuge of much of our rare native wildlife which are disappearing all too quickly.
A next door neighbour a couple of years ago cut down a mature Moreton Bay Fig of ours that had a DBH of over 10 feet, to improve the view for his B&B. Since then, Superb, Rose Crowned, Wompoo, Topknot, White Headed and Emerald doves and pigeons have reduced considerably.
Sometimes just one such reliable food source like this can make the difference between life and death.
Spanglo,
Don’t despair. About ten years ago I cut down a large Tassie Blue Gum (E. globulus) at my place, because it was a fire hazard, and was drying up my borehole. A neighbour (we are good mates) complained that it was a nesting place for White Faced Herons, which was true. The herons disappeared for a few years, but then started nesting in a large native marri (Corymbia calophylla) nearer the house. They have raised two broods a year for some years. Now the neighbour on the other side is complaining, because the fish and frogs keep disappearing from his wife’s garden pond. Ecology is difficult.
P.S. Gavin, the fires in NSW have little to do with ‘global warming… er… climate change’. They are mainly due to too much fuel lying around, because of crackpot neglect of prescribed burning. I think I once heard your favourite expert, Professor Mackey, say on television that, due to ‘climate change’ bushfires would become more frequent AND more intense. I gave him a score of D minus on bushfire knowledge.
Christopher Monckton trying to enter the conference in Copenhagen has been pushed from behind by a danish cop, he consequently hit the ground and was knocked out.
That this sort of thuggish behaviour could be applied to an accredited delegate is a bloody disgrace, by the coverage at WUWT it seems that Aussie senator Steve Fielding was also prevented from entering the venue as well.
While leftwing maniacs like chavez and mugabe can address the conference and recieve standing ovations from an audience of fellow traveling socialist embeciles decent people are prevented from even entering.
The biggest cheer for chavez came when raged against capitalism and now of course those same free countries are expected to hand over billions to these basket cases to prevent a non problem .
George Carlin let’s loose on saving the planet. 🙂
Neville
“The biggest cheer for chavez came when raged against capitalism and now of course those same free countries are expected to hand over billions to these basket cases to prevent a non problem”
The truth is out!
It’s all about money, and destroying the western-capitalists system.
When China and India, both nuclear powers and major exporters of manufactured high tech. goods can claim “developing” nation status, AND ask for money, one has to despair at the stupidity of our politicians.
For Mugabe to claim CC has destroyed Zimbabwe’s economy and we owe them compensation there is nothing to do but laugh (and cry at the same time at people’s gullibility)!
Cohers and his mate DS have been up to some GOOD STUFF!
http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/stat-model-predicts-flat-temperatures-through-2050
Folks,
When are you going to stop arguing over the science and realise what is really going on – it’s a well orchestrated charade to implement the Fabian agenda – a world socialist system and they are close to achieving it. The ETS is to fund their parasitic lifestyle. Remember Rudd and the ;political class don’t produce anything but consume capital.
Go read http://www.keynesatharvard.org and see what the intellectual basis that underpins Rudd and the ALP here in Australia.
This blog seemed more to blind side us than anything else – and it seems to have worked – many of you are still arguing over the science, when it has nothing to do with science.
The only hope is that the US senate rejects the cap-and-trade legislation.
SD; the idea of breaks and sudden steps in the temperature are not new;
https://pantherfile.uwm.edu/kswanson/www/publications/2008GL037022_all.pdf
http://www.arl.noaa.gov/documents/JournalPDFs/Seidel&Lanzante.JGR2004.pdf
http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/203_2001GL014074.pdf
David, however is the first to do a Chow test analysis; the thing is the 1976 transition or break is well supported with observable oceanagraphic events and the coincident PDO phase shift; so to the 1977-8 transition although the other writers pick other dates.
I think even Luke would be outraged at this cheering for a criminal against humanity like Mugabe. I wonder how our left leaning freinds who work for the various aid agencies feel about this.
cohers,
the finer points are over my head but I strongly agree that the climate shift of ’76 [33 y ago, and it had been cooling for 33 years till then] is worth focusing on as it was not progressive as though driven by progressively increasing ACO2, it was very sudden.
As I have said before, we have not had one TC cross the coast south of the TOC since ’76 whereas we had several PER YEAR prior to that.
Folks,
It turns out that Rajendra Pachauri, chair of the IPCC, is just as much a Climate Profiteer as Al Gore! His conflicts of interest are so glaring that there are now calls for his resignation.
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2009/12/busy-man.html
Monckton’s open letter demanding Pachauri’s resignation:
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/pachauri_letter.pdf
Excerpt:
“We should be grateful for your response within 48 hours, failing which we shall be entitled to presume that you, the IPCC and the EPA – to whose administrator we are copying this letter – intend to conspire, and are conspiring, to obtain a pecuniary advantage by deceiving the public as to the nature, degree, and significance of the global surface temperature trend. ”
“Given this and other mistakes that an international body of this nature ought not to have made, and given your numerous and direct conflicts of interest that have, in our opinion, been insufficiently disclosed, we are also copying this letter to the delegations of the states parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change with a request that you be stripped of office forthwith.”
The AGWers have long been insisting we ‘follow the money.’ Taking their advice has totally bit them in the @$$!
Here’s an article by Pat Michaels, in the Wall Street Journal, on the difficulties of staying relevant in the climate debate.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704398304574598230426037244.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
It seems we have a deal of sorts ABC RN 9 AM NEWS
“US officials say the agreement includes a commitment from wealthy and key developing nations to limit global warming to two degrees Celsius”
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/12/19/2776502.htm?section=world
Dr Richard North sums up the “deal” well here http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2009/12/theatre-is-over.html
“This slugfest was not about saving the planet. It was not about the climate, global warming or any of that shit. It was and is about money, renewing the “Kyoto Protocols” and thus protecting the income stream generated by the carbon market.
They had to buy off the “bunnies” with a few bribes, and the Mercedes salesmen will do mightily well out of the deal, but most of the funding is “funny money” which will be tied up with the carbon market and the “Clean Development Funds”.
The greenies are, of course, screeching with fury. But then they have every right to be – they have been stitched up, kippered and spat out.”
As does Gerald Warner
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geraldwarner/100020279/copenhagen-climate-summit-most-important-paper-in-the-world-is-a-glorified-un-press-release/
janama,
It seems as if the science of AGW has run out of breath and now hopefully most people are awake to the hysteria which is all that the carpetbaggers and the greenies have left to sell.
12 months ago we had these discussions on a higher level.
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2008/12/dip-in-global-sea-level-won%e2%80%99t-save-tuvalu/
D’ja get any rain? Looked like a good storm down your way. Very dry here.
Big storm but no rain – just enough to wet the veranda. I thought it was heading your way and you might have got some 🙂
So despite the best efforts of the dishonest sceptic movement, illegal CRU hackers, good progress has been made at Copenhagen.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/12/18/obama.copenhagen/index.html
Bad luck dudes !
Also of note
http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/index.php/csw/details/ben_santer_open_letter/
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2009/12/open-letter-to-climate-science.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/dec/11/science-climate-change-phil-jones
Shame on the dishonest sceptic movement – history will judge you harshly.
Oh dear Luke – poor old Ben and Phil.
Don’t worry – they will have their day in court to claim back their tarnished reputations.
It’s a nonbinding goal, and the emissions targets “will not be by themselves sufficient to get to where we need to get by 2050,” Obama said. However, he added that it is a first step, and that for many countries “this is going to be the first time in which even voluntary they offered up mitigation targets.”
Yeah, China’s gonna open the books!
It’s simply an agreement to disagree in the future.
And isn’t it interesting that Luke can read the UEA emails and call the sceptics dishonest?
From Lules link at the Guardian….
“If we allow personal attacks on individual scientists or criticism of irrelevant software to be used as an excuse to discount data that people don’t like, it will be open season. Presumably they will be hunting through the emails of someone involved in the Nasa temperature series next, and so it will go on.”
Where could they possibly get those ideas from?
Wikipedia’s Wm. Connolley coming in for a bit of overdue.
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/12/18/lawrence-solomon-wikipedia-s-climate-doctor.aspx
Luke, Calling Hypenhagen anything other than a complete and utter debacle is simply to lie.
It imploded into irrelevance due to its flagrant corruption.
Cheering for Chavez and Mugabe is a perfect illustration of jsut how wacked you poor maroons are.
And you can no longer pretend it is about the science.
It is about sleazy corrupt lefty politics wrapped in a veneer of pseudoscience.
You lost.
Deal with it.
cya,
“Australia has thrown its support behind a controversial new climate deal that world leaders have agreed on at the Copenhagen summit”
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/rudd-backs-new-climate-plan-20091219-l6e8.html
“The summit is dragging on through the small hours on Saturday morning, Danish time, as the 190 countries participating work out whether they will formally approve the deal.
But the world’s powerbrokers have backed it”.
Luke Mate,
An intellegent person does not continue to “flogg a dead horse.”
Learn, comprehend, adapt and grow.
Have a pleasant Christmas and New Year.
Pikey.
Well known deltoid gadfly, BJ has posited these questions for sceptics to prove their case against AGW:
“1.the Arctic is not warming
2.that sea ice extent is not decreasing
3.that sea ice is not thinning
4.that ocean heat content is not rising
5.that the stratosphere is not cooling
6.that plant and animal species are not shifting their ranges and/or their phenological traits, and/or are not suffering from alterations in their bioclimatic envelopes
7.that glacier mass-loss and -retreats are not increasing
8.that sea levels are not rising?
Oo, and one last – what is your best piece of evidence that demonstrates that mean night-time minimum temperatures are not increasing?”
I can do all but 6 as I have misplaced a good paper recently; but it is obviously a fool’s errand since ANY human activity will have that consequence; one anthropogenic factor that BJ will have overlooked is the effect of wind-farms on migratory birds. Anyway, here are the responses;
1 http://users.tpg.com.au/johnsay1/Stuff/Arctic_1.jpg
http://www.lanl.gov/source/orgs/ees/ees14/pdfs/09Chlylek.pdf
2 http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/2007JC004254.shtml
http://www.climate4you.com/images/SeaIceNHandSHlastMonthSince1979.gif
but it is a mixed bag;
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg
That may be all I can get in one post.
3 http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/2007JC004254.shtml
But I’m not sure what BJ means by thinning since ice is usally measured by area and extent;
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/10/31/arctic-sea-ice-continues-rebound/#more-3933
4 http://climatesci.org/2009/05/05/have-changes-in-ocean-heat-falsified-the-global-warming-hypothesis-a-guest-weblog-by-william-dipuccio/
The official OHC measure is NODC;
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/index.html
This graph isued by Levitus but it is wrong;
http://landshape.org/enm/possible-error-in-ohc/.
5 http://junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Stratosphere1278-1204.gif
6 will get back to BJ
7 Another fools errand but that’s ok, I like to drop to Bj’s level; some glaciers are advancing such as those in Alaska;
http://www.farnorthscience.com/2007/07/10/ak-sci-forum/icy-bay-glaciers-advance/
Some like Pine Island glacier are retreating. The movement of many glaciers is independent of AGW, if it exists;
http://www.farnorthscience.com/2007/07/10/ak-sci-forum/icy-bay-glaciers-advance/
8 http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/n/#commentsmore
9 Night time minimum temperatures are not increasing;
http://gustofhotair.blogspot.com/2009/04/analysis-of-australian-temperature-part.html
Now, in the spirit of quid pro quo, let BJ explain why any of these disproofs of AGW aren’t legitimate:
1 Miskolczi and MEP
2 No change in the measure of optical depth for the last 60 years
3 A decrease in outgoing longwave radiation in contradiction of every AGW model as found by Lindzen and Choi
4 A decline in specific humidity as found by Paltridge Arking and Pook, and a decline in relative humidity as found by Minschwaner
5 That clouds are a negative feedback as found by Ramanthan et al, Spencer and Braswell, The Climate Process Team on Low-Latitude Cloud Feedbacks on Climate Sensitivity (cloud CPT) which includes three climate modeling centers, NCAR, GFDL, and NASA’s Global Modeling and Assimilation Office (GMAO), together with 8 funded external core PIs led by Chris Bretherton of the University of Washington (UW).
Go for it BJ!
“What was agreed at Copenhagen – and what was left out”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/18/how-copenhagen-text-was-changed
“The UN climate negotiations in Copenhagen broke up last night with Gordon Brown hailing the night a success on five out of six measures but most observers united in damning the meeting a grave disappointment”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/19/copenhagen-reaction
Brown “- one of the outcomes of the day’s negotiations was that Angela Merkel would be announcing shortly a conference in Germany to deal with the issue of monitoring emissions targets. This body would be tasked with developing the most effective means of monitoring whether a nation is cutting its emissions without intruding on its sovereignty – a major stumbling block in this week’s negotiations”
Proof ?
6.that plant and animal species are not shifting their ranges and/or their phenological traits,
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/opinion/editorial/general/up-a-gum-tree-out-on-a-limb/1709817.aspx
howzat?
No gavin, not really; I think BJ, who is currently convulsing in snide, is referring to something along these lines where animal populations are having their habitats displaced by AGW;
http://www.nosams.whoi.edu/PDFs/papers/Holocene_v12a.pdf
That is, things are moving polewards due to the extra heating and seasonal disruption and this is causing extinctions of animal populations; well, the polar movement of temperature zones isn’t happening except in computer models; and as for extinctions from this non-existent ‘side-effect’ of agw, this is rebutted here;
http://landshape.org/enm/errors-of-global-warming-effects-modeling/
With apologies, but as I am forever banned from Lambert’s Deltoid, I feel the following mendacity there yesterday should not be allowed to pass unchallenged
“Evidence doesn’t seem to change Eric Raymond’s mind
Category: Global Warming
Posted on: December 18, 2009 11:25 AM, by Tim Lambert
“Eric Raymond (the one responsible for the botched analysis of the stolen CRU code) responds to my post on Essex and McKitrick’s error in treating missing values as zeroes in a spreadsheet:
The error described is so stupid that I have trouble believing a statistician actually made it. Whether McKittrick understood thermodynamics or not is red herring; even somebody with my non-specialist knowledge of statistics alone would have known better, let alone a pro like him. The most plausible theory I can think of is that the spreadsheet was expressing temperatures as deviation from mean, that the “zeroes” actually pegged missing observations to that mean, and that the author misunderstood McKittrick’s response”.
“Raymond clung to his theory even after a commenter pointed out that I included a link to the spreadsheet and that you could easily check that they counted missing values as zeroes.”
Well, just using the McKitrick Excel spreadsheet linked to by Lambert, I immediately found that it does NOT count missing values as zeroes. It tells you all you need to know about university education in Australia that a “top” computer programmer at a “top” university (UNSW) that regularly cons Asians to register in droves for its costly but worthless degrees is unaware that the Excel function AVERAGE does NOT include zeros in blank cells when it computes the average of a series. Use the Lambert link, and compute the average “by hand” – they do not include “missing values as zeroes”. But then what else would you expect from a fervent supporter of Phil Jones, Tom Wigley, et al., crooks all, at UEA’s CRU?
Lowe “No rise in temperature when the sun goes down” is clever hey
hence
‘Curious” asks (via blogspot) “I’m interested in how you’re calculating your averages – specifically:
– are you combining your stations into a national value using a straight arithmetic mean, or some kind of area-weighted average?
– are you calculating differences from normal for each station and then averaging those values across Australia, or averaging the temperatures across Australia and then calculating a difference from normal for that value?”
Answer –
http://gustofhotair.blogspot.com/2006/11/analysis.html
However I tried this for say an inland station over the Divide mid winter with 3C at midnight then -6C at dawn According to Lowe we can discover wonderful insight by subtracting minimum anomalies from a midnight; but before we start with anomalies;
on the trusty calculator 3 – -6=3? gav’s way 3 – -6 =9 or perhaps 3 + -6 /2 = -1.5
Well Cohenite, as far as I am concerned it is up to warmers to prove the hypothesis of AGW, not the other way round….. Natural climate change is the accepted science.
Deltoid’s gadfly needs to support his Human caused Global Warming case first… With empirical evidence, not computer modeled predictions.
cohenite,
I’ve been trying to find some photos of old tree stumps in the arctic islands [somewhere near Ellesmere Is.] but this is the best I can offer, showing how much warmer it was a few thousand years ago and how flora was closer to the poles then.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/10/21/researchers-find-arctic-may-have-had-less-ice-6-7000-years-ago/
cohers,
It was Axel Heiberg Is., close to the North Pole. Not much there these days.
http://www.eurekalert.org/multimedia/pub/14645.php?from=138955
Guardian Headline – Low targets, goals dropped: Copenhagen ends in failure
When the Guardian, that champion of everything “green” says it, you know it was a failure.
From WUWT http://wattsupwiththat.com/
Political winds of change blowin’?
Thanks SD; as usual gavin is muddying the waters with the Lowe analysis of Australian temperature trends for all hours; this is helpful:
“There are many things that we can talk about with regards to the above graphs. Readers will first note that night time temperatures (Midnight, 3am, 6am) show little increase in temperature. In fact, they average just 0.43, 0.26 and 0.28 degree increase in temperature per 100 years. This is a lot lower than the expected, which clearly indicates that night time temperatures in Australia are only increasing a very small amount.
But how can this be when the minimum temperature is shown to be increasing a lot more? Well the answer is simple and surprising to many, in that, the minimum temperature more often than not occurs during the day. Basically, as soon as the sun sets, the temperature decreases over night. When the sun rises it starts to heat up the atmosphere, and only after 30 mins to an hour after sunrise to we fall to a minimum and the temperature starts to increase again for the day.”
The decrease in the diurnal temperature range is one of the cetre-pieces of AGW temperature predictions such as the THS, even though the reason why AGW should produce such a result ar not clear.
Looks like this El Nino has reached its maximum strength and will be gone by Easter. With a neutral IOD and La Nina on the horizon, I predict 2010 will see the end of the drought in NSW.
When participants in a meeting like Copenhagen describe it as a ‘success’, and add that ‘it’s a first step’, you can figure the meeting accomplished next to nothing at all. Which is good news.
The other good news is that, whatever may have been accomplished at Copenhagen, will have to be later sold to the citizens back home. Since we’re likely to see a spate of resignations, and perhaps even a couple criminal prosecutions over Climategate, selling AGW to the public at large will become even more difficult than it is already. Which is also good news.
All of this means that Climategate is far from over — which is also good news. Long live Climategate!
What really amazes me is that the AGW fanatics think that by throwing a few more billions pa on the fire the global temp can be adjusted down another fraction of a degree C, simple as that.
The bob brown idiot last night said that krudd should negotiate with the greens to make sure the temp only increased by 1.5C , simple as that.
This from a country producing just over 1% of co2 emissions, perhaps we should call on NZ to throw in their hefty 0.1% as well, I mean china, india, brazil etc will comfortably cover our decrease in a few months of BRAND NEW emission growth, so while the idiots feel that warmer inner glow our economy gets flushed down the plug hole.
Nev “What really amazes me is that the AGW fanatics think that by throwing a few more billions pa on the fire the global temp can be adjusted down another fraction of a degree C, simple as that”
Mate; you’ve got to remember that your billion makers can’t their dirty filthy rotten loot with them when their time is up but they can sure leave a mess for others
Gavin, that was actually quite a silly thing to say. It’s not the Packer fortune that they would throw at the “problem” but your tax-payer dollars!
Folks, does anyone know Lord Monkton’s email address? He needs to realize that for coral to be able to grow at the same rate as sea level rise, it needs to be UNDER WATER!
Gavin that’s my point , it’s what we do with ( post krudd not Howard) borrowed funds now that should concern us.
Krudd has saddled us with $115 billion of new debt and seems to want to increase this by another $120 billion giant tax to pay for this AGW hoax.
Until the left can address this issue properly / honestly you can’t blame people of sanity and reason for their scepticism.
If china and india will not allow a proper audit of their emissions growth why should we Aussies spend a further dollar reducing our tiny 1.2%?
The FACTS are that the only real growth in emissions will come from the developing world, not from the USA, Europe etc.
The plot thickens
“Why would a Middle Eastern kingdom be funding a British Climate research business?”
http://jamesdelingpole.com/2009/12/19/climategate-peak-oil-the-cru-and-the-oman-connection/
NZ temperature record exposed yet again.
http://briefingroom.typepad.com/the_briefing_room/2009/12/nz-study-may-hold-key-to-faulty-world-temp-data.html
“A long-forgotten scientific paper on temperature trends in New Zealand may be the smoking gun on temperature manipulation worldwide.
Since Climategate first broke, we’ve seen scandal over temperature adjustments by NZ’s National Institute of Water and Atmospheric research, NIWA, which in turn prompted a fresh look at raw temperature data from Darwin and elsewhere.
Now, a study published in the NZ Journal of Science back in 1980 reveals weather stations at the heart of NIWA’s claims of massive warming were shown to be unreliable and untrustworthy by a senior Met Office climate scientist 30 years ago, long before global warming became a politically charged issue.
“
Janama
The Russians also confirmed that UK scientists manipulated Russian data.
http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com/2009/12/russians-confirm-that-uk-climate.html
WTF! My son is watching a show on ABC as we speak with guys wearing T-shirts with “carbon cops” written on them, who go around to peoples places and help them improve their carbon footprint. It’s some sort of Bob Brown version of “backyard blitz”.
“US officials say the agreement includes a commitment from wealthy and key developing nations to limit global warming to two degrees Celsius”
HAHAHAHAHAHAH What a bunch of idiots. Well thats a relief. We don’t need to do a damn thing since there is no way we are going to be fortunate enough to get temperatures up to that level again until the next interglacial. So its over. What a relief.
We have to go back to the start with the analysis of the effect of CO2. When the CO2 level increases at sea level it also increases all the way up to an altitude of about 100 kilometres. But this is not the distance that the light has to travel through this increased CO2 level, except at the equator at noon. In all other cases the light must travel through extra CO2 for a far longer distance prior to the light hitting the ground.
More then 40% of the radiation from the sun is in the infrared region. Hence the first step to understanding this matter is recognising that prior to the heat coming up from the ground, that same energy is earlier blocked by extra CO2 doing its work for hundreds of kilometres, depending on the angle of incidence. So right from the beginning the extra CO2 is having a cooling effect. There are also other cooling effects along the way. So any alleged warming effects has to over-match this initial cooling effect, and all the other cooling effects as well.
Now watts and joules are not equal as to their usefulness in heating us. The extra warmth from a change or other is not independent from at what level that change is made insofar as the joules are concerned. A heater in the basement is doing double and triple duty as compared to a heater in the attic. So the joules that the extra CO2 prevent from lodging deep into the ocean during the daytime, are far more important than some joules that the CO2 might allegedly slow from leaving during the night-time. By this I mean if an initial tally is made of the joules blocked coming inwards with the joules slowed going outwards, still we have to put a much heavier weighting on the inwards joules blocked to reflect that they are blocked from lodging deep in the ocean.
Empirically this movement has to be rejected as a clear fraud. But where is the apriori assumption in its favour coming from? Clearly it is coming from ignorance and the effect of propaganda on the sheeple. Clearly it is coming from these sources alone.
Janama; it never ceases to amuse me where some posters get their stuff from. I can just about bet now on a handful of common sources for most of its origine. Sure, as authors come and go, as few of us will decide which lot should go on the same shelf as Dan Brown.
So I say it again; many posters and authors in Blogsphere Climate Science have never attempted a series of practical measurements in their entire life.
In passing I found a blog on silly beliefs and their relation to fundamentalism however I’m not about to delve into that here except to say that concept shorts out some circuits I could have built in handling a lot of dogged nonsense about detail before science.
In the past many, temperature recordings could have errors with a magnitude about 5-6 % of range so even with today’s hindsight we have to work with them as they were without good documentation on proceedings back then. For the pure statistical analysis it’s a stab in the dark which side of norm those errors are.
For the first case I suggest those interested can work back to how readings were made with and without a Stevenson screen and what differences we can expect from housings in general. The next step could be the types of thermometers employed then try to estimate how many country stations were in fact based on a substantial building before airports etc were utilized.
This leads to what is “urban” and how many bricks do we need to create the so called UHI.
Note: With a whirling instrument airspeed becomes almost a constant thus spot readings made with a “sling” cyclometer with its matched pair of thermometers provides the best spot check of all for the old timers, +/- 1C or better.
Now we may consider backtracking station elevation with all else about equal.
Todays Yahoo poll…
Do you think the world meeting in Copenhagen was a success?
Yes–its a step in the right direction—-13%
No–nothing concrete was agreed—–67%
Don’t care—-20%
as usual Gavin you’ve written another post I can’t understand a word of 😉
As a long time supporter of the solar theory of everything climatic, I was surprised to come across a snag.
Solar cycle 4 was a long one and the downward January mean temperature trend from 1790-1820 in Philadelphia appears to tally with the Dalton perfectly.
But ten years earlier, in the winter of 1779-80, the US suffered one of its worst winters in history. No big deal, but we had just come off solar max and chugging along comfortably. Which seems to put the sun out the window.
La Nina was in charge of operations and just by coincidence 1780 is know as the ‘great hurricane year’. The fleets of the British, French and Spanish navies in the Caribbean all suffered serious damage.
What was the trigger if it wasn’t the sun?
“This leads to what is “urban” and how many bricks do we need to create the so called UHI.”
gavin old chap,
It’s not so much the bricks as the people. All six billion of them. They would have a slight bearing on temperature what with their varied land uses etc.
If you could remove them alone and still have the ACO2e you would have definite cooling.
However, arguing about the incrementals, the science and the politics is pointless when, as Mark Steyn said on Counterpoint the other day, it is all about the self loathing of many with comfortable western lifestyles and targeting the western [mainly American] way of life. And he is so right, America haters are invariably of the warming persuasion for so many completely non scientific reasons.
The combination of guilt and hate is never going to be washed away by simple reason.
Thanks for the great blog, Jen.
To the anti-alarmist community, I would say ‘maintain the rage’. This talk of ‘failure’ by the MSN is nothing more than a call to arms to the faithful. They will be using it to step up activist rhetoric and crisis propaganda.
They are not going to take it well. Most of them have known no other career.
Janama; beware of Johnny come lately booksellers flogging their wares on the net on behalf of some not so sound empires. Blogsphere is full of unauthorised critics in all manner of things including genuine climate science by a handful of professionals.
It’s true a lot of msm commentators are saying now, many of those who would be skeptics if they only knew how simply can’t handle the prospect of AGW. Yes; we consumers as a whole balk at any sacrifice in personal lifestyle for the good of a wider community but it doesn’t alter the fact a whole lot of what we do is unsustainable in the long run.
Although climate science was not one of my fields I do have considerably sympathy for those few veterans whose job it is to get it right knowing how limited those old weather records are for the task of determining long term change.
Working with worst case scenarios is second nature to me after decades of support in a wide range of situations involving engineering and physical measurements. For instance I used to do instrument installation calibration and repairs in a few hazardous industries with furnaces, reactors and the like on chem. manufacturing or gas & fuel sites.
Predicting explosive conditions in advance was often dependent on my associates learning to trust the apparatus however it’s so common to blame the gear when there are uncertainties. I consider myself a veteran of campaigns to spoil the record
But safety regardless of industry standards, regs etc is a subtle art at the best of times. Where I was sometimes hired because of the trusty references in my personal kit it evolved into merely handling the available literature for creating reports to cover advanced technology used in say VIP protection, personal medical aids or mobile communications generally.
Visualizing the spectrum of users in complex environments was another job us technical types could be employed to do during major infrastructure transitions before stats people and computers got into it. Hence my cautions re these half baked smarties from blogsphere
@ janama
“…as usual Gavin you’ve written another post I can’t understand a word of ;)”
Ditto, but then we are bereft of the organ grinder and merely stuck with his monkey…sigh!
“So I say it again; many posters and authors in Blogsphere Climate Science have never attempted a series of practical measurements in their entire life.”
I have. So I can see that your point is that the pressure to fudge the results is very strong. I agree with that. There is no doubt about that. But you have no real point. Since we can be sure that this pressure was less the further we go back. It was less prior to this science fraud. And it clearly was less in prior centuries when people took science seriously. So you have no real point gavin. Though you’ve mentioned this business a number of times.
Here is Piers Corban. He explains his technique for predicting the weather. It works in with the actual science presented at this forum. With the idea that the solar wind is by far the most important determinant. With the idea that the solar wind is akin to an electric current. In that Piers determines when the suns and earths magnetic fields are working with and not against eachother. And he’s figured out how this is affected by the moon. He predicts pretty much what I’ve said about the longer term. I said that we can be sure the the 2030’s at the very least will be a lot colder than the 90’s. I said we are no way recovering from that anytime short of midcentury. Piers says that we will be cooling all the way into the 2030’s. And that he expects the cold period to last all century from there. Well at least thats what I think he’s implying.
So its really just about looking at the evidence gavin. If you learnt to fudge the data in your life as a professional still that doesn’t matter. Its remains the case that the idea is to block out all sentiment and stick with the evidence.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Qi8oZ2vG0c&feature=PlayList&p=ABACFC214CE1C4C8&index=0
This is where the science stands right here. This is a qualitative step forward from the Archibald summary. Because Archibald knew that the solar wind was probably more important than the nuts and bolts of the solar cycle and the solar cycle generalisations. But since he had no way to predict the solar wind he had to work with the material he had for his excellent summary of where the science stood. But Piers has made progress on predicting how the solar wind will work. So here we have a step forward, backed up by good predictions. This is where the science is at. This ought to be established as where the science is at officially. Its consonant with the actual evidence. And not with the pseudo-evidence that your crowd of idiots come up with.
Jabba “you’ve written another post I can’t understand a word of”
hey I’m not surprised but I won’t go on with why other than say Graeme too is way out of his depth with solar winds, fudging data and so on.
Unsupervised max min temp readings are not by themselves a decent data base for the study of climate change however imo they are far more suitable than a pile of old tree rings and ice cores for recent time series global temperature analysis
Some folks looking on may not agree but all we have still squeaking here is the sceptical rear guard, no science, no physics or practical experience. Its only junky zealous opinion based in an order provided by some religious style sect working for certain big biz behind the seen
For those still interested they can’t do much with those early temp time series with ever increasing uncertainties as we go back other than complain about those who have had a go and been accepted by the boarder community.
Arguing the science is fiddling while Rome burns.
‘Global warming’ was never about the climate. ‘Environmental safety of GM crops’ was never about the environment.
You can explain the facts to the AGWers all you want, and it makes no difference. Here’s some fun new headlines:
CLIMATE CHANGE: “We’re Not Finished Yet,” Civil Society Warns
IPS/TerraViva
Dec. 19, 2009
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=49757
World must prepare for climate migration, IOM warns
Agence France-Presse
Dec. 19, 2009
http://rawstory.com/2009/12/world-prepare-climate-migration-iom-warns/
“Climate change and environmental degradation are already triggering migration or displacement all over the planet,” the IOM [International Organization for Migration] warned …
What’s interesting is that they’re the ‘International Organization for Migration’.
If this is a problem, wouldn’t they rather be the ‘International Organization against Migration’?
This is not a trivial question. In the US, the Sierra Club has come out against migration into the US.
The reason? People who relocate to the US, especially from poverty-ridden nations, invariably use more energy, and therefore increase their ‘carbon footprints’.
At bottom, this ‘climate refugee’ thing is just a play on xenophobia.
If you didn’t think global warming was a problem, think again — your neighborhoods teeming with unwashed hordes of slants, gooks, beaners, wops, kikes, and who knows what else!
This is so abysmal.
“hey I’m not surprised but I won’t go on with why other than say Graeme too is way out of his depth with solar winds, fudging data and so on.”
No thats rubbish gavin. I’m not out of my depth with any of that stuff. You are. Basically you are saying that you, as a professional meter reader, were under pressure to fudge the data. When you didn’t get a reading you thought was credible or that people would take seriously you felt under pressure to introduce a fudge factor, to at least bring the series to within the alleged normal bounds. And what you are doing is extrapolating backwards in time in an arbitrary and self-serving way to anything you don’t want to believe. So you don’t want to take seriously Becks history of CO2 levels? Well you decide that you are not going to take it seriously.
But any sort of thought about it would have told you that this is another stupid anti-science argument out of many, since back in time the pressures were never so great, and people to take science far more seriously. They still held strong scientific values rather than priesthood values. And the case for individual instruments being no good back then doesn’t hold up either since outliers will cancel.
So its just more bullshit on your part. No more or less than if you had been FDB or Luke or any other nutter.
“Well Cohenite, as far as I am concerned it is up to warmers to prove the hypothesis of AGW, not the other way round….. Natural climate change is the accepted science.”
Well yes of course Mr Hansford. But the whole trick of the fraud side of the argument, for several years now has been to NEVER come up with evidence. Always come up with attacks on the opponents case but always avoid coming up with any actual evidence. The discipline these guys have exercised in this regard is astonishing. For example George Monbiot filibusterd for weeks and refused to come up with any actual scientific evidence or argument. And maintained this ability, even through the entire TV showdown, and even after he pulled the leftist reversal on Plimer.
I’ve been looking into this since about 2003. And they are totally consistent in this regard. It would be an incredible faux pas within their circles to even so much as try to come up with any evidence. Since once they do so, it can quickly be refuted. This is the entire secret of the movement. And they don’t really have anything else going for them but this tactical inspiration of pure genius and discipline.
So were I to say….. “Enough is enough gavin. You’ve been filibustering long enough. Lets have that evidence have a nice day fool”
Then the tactic is to filibuster and talk all around the subject. Like drug talk. Until such time as the conservative is house-trained never to ask for primary evidence of the other side. Or until the persistent conservative can be banned from the site in question.
Thats it. Thats their whole secret. Never once have these clowns come up with any evidence for a specific hypothesis, justifying their policy goals. Never. You cannot find someone who could find someone to track it down for you.
Fascinating documentary from Ch4 17 years ago questioning the validity of the Global Warming scare.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5949034802461518010&hl=en#
Yep, I do like the dalek guarding the thermostat.
http://joannenova.com.au/2009/12/shock-un-finds-earths-thermostat/#more-5530
“Meter reader” and so Graeme goes on but he knows not
One for the sceptics on record snows .
http://www.alaskadispatch.com/dispatches/news/3334-valdez-socked-in
What caused this event? Record lows in the tropics?
Hey; lets go to Booksellers Inc. US style
http://www.iceagenow.com/Order_book_Not_by_Fire.htm
bloggers follow this wiki “Advance of Whitney Glacier” for my answer and an insight to rising moisture reaching much higher altitudes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitney_Glacier
@ gavin
“….bloggers follow this wiki “Advance of Whitney Glacier” for my answer and an insight to rising moisture reaching much higher altitudes…”
Ah yes, I see your David Icke moment racing towards us with increasing velocity…
For those too young to remember here is a rerun of the original Wogan Icke interview…
It’s great to see London’s Daily Telegraph doing a solid piece on the Pichauri fraudster and all the cash he is rolling in and where it comes from, you know like strong and gore etc.
This corrupt fraudulent group will soon be seen for what they are and hopefully the krudd idiot will be branded with the same iron. He’s just handed Pichauri another lazy million to play with, go to Bolt’s blog top find out the detail.
Looks like the climate delegates are returning home to unhappy crowds — the heaters, the coolers and the realists are all, in their curiously divisive way, united in a general agreement that Copenhagen was expensive balderdash.
Now, if everyone could at least agree that ‘global warming’ has nothing to do with global warming, and it’s just politics writ large, we could get back to the usual business of condemning the lying fraudsters who contend for popular votes.
Or, in the case of Third-World kleptocracies, to condemning their perennial begging for Mercedes and Learjets and shoulder-launched missiles whilst the indigenes languish from the lack of infrastructure which Greenpeace et. al. are insistent on denying them.
Anyone have a problem with Warwick Hughes lates post:
http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=378
Seems Luke et all still has it WRONG!!!!
Jabba,
Are these guys [Strong et al] the conspiracy group that Icke was talking about?
http://www.prisonplanet.com/exclusive-lead-author-admits-deleting-inconvenient-opinions-from-ipcc-report.html
Viva climategate!
its been a good year for climate sceptics… climategate confirming what many suspected…
and i’m going to enjoy this christmas week – its hot in central Queensland, I can hear the sea, there is a tree laden with mangoes in the backyard, and I’ve been watching a green frog catching insects by the kitchen light…
and I now see there are lots of useful links to read provided by contributors to this thread…
merry christmas and happy reading.
Yes I have a problem with it Dumb Bum Kat – it’s pretentious cherry-picked drivel.
http://www.ioci.org.au/pdf/IOCI_PaperJan6.pdf
WAKE UP !
And dudes you made not have noticed – “ClimateGate” is goooonnneee. It’s now yesterday’s fish and chip wrappings.
Merry Christmas to you too Jen.
If you’re near the sea you’ll get good trade winds to keep you cool.
Today I had a visit from Barred Cuckoo Shrikes from NQ and Latham [Japanese] Snipes from the Kushiro wetlands in Hokaido, both rare visitors.
@ spangled drongo
“Jabba,
Are these guys [Strong et al] the conspiracy group that Icke was talking about?”
Could be, though we won’t know for certain until we can verify that they have turquoise track suits in their closets, and, sport OND or HND measurement certification as their sole academic qualifications. If so then we have an open and shut case and Cohenite can proceed with drawing up the indictment.
Dr Richard North continues his investigation into the esteemed IPCC chairman and railway engineer, and exposes Pachauri’s expenses scam
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2009/12/pachauri-basques-in-glory.html
kuhnkat,
How can you possibly suggest that Luke et. al. have things wrong? Their main concern is about pretense, drivel, and ‘fish and chip wrappings.’
There’s no way to objectively verify or falisfy ‘findings’ of such a nature! At most, their ‘findings’ can be described as irrelevant.
A new paper by a Canadian scientist shows that a combination of CFC’s and cosmic rays could be the driver of CC over the last 100 years.
Who knows but you can read about over at WUWT.
Ah luke, the gift that keeps on giving; the Sadler paper has some issues; I’ll do some last minute xmas shopping and get back to you.
Latest paper from Canadian scientist (via Uni Newcastle) claims GW over the last century may be due to cosmic rays and CFC’s.
See at WUWT or Bolt blog.
cohers,
While you are out shopping Luke will be at the movies.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/column_avatar_the_answer_to_a_copenhagens_dream/
Neville,
Yeah, Luke needs to read that too.
For warming delusionists to be claiming that natural climate change combined with land use change from 6 billion people [two given situations that both sides surely agree on] is not accounting for the bulk of any measurable climate change is bizarre.
These two factors could be responsible for more than 100% of measurable change.
Luke,
The world does drought and has done so forever.
“multi-decadal, non-linear shifts of this scale might be natural in this region.”
Well, well eh! Who’d ‘a’ thunk it?
And I was also under the impression that the WA wheat crop was doin’ OK. {like doubled}
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL2490349020080425
Schiller Thurkettle.
“kuhnkat,
How can you possibly suggest that Luke et. al. have things wrong? Their main concern is about pretense, drivel, and ‘fish and chip wrappings.’
There’s no way to objectively verify or falisfy ‘findings’ of such a nature! At most, their ‘findings’ can be described as irrelevant.”
These are extremely important issues for AGW. On them the whole edifice holds or falls.
Fish and Chip Wrappings are an especially contentious issue. Have you ever tried to do an inverse regression of the oil spots on an appropriately selected sampling??
I though not. Lukefartard has this one all over us!!
Lukefartard,
too bad you linky doesn’t have data through the current 5 years!! If they did I MIGHT pay more attention to it. As it is, the one chart that runs through 2001 only shows cachement inflow, NOT rainfall.
I guess the amount of rainfall has nothing to do with whether there is a drought huh??
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
You are such a gullible BOOB!!!
merry Xmas to Jen and all. I’m also moving to the coast for a few days to smell the sea air and layabout with fine food and wine 🙂
No Luke – it’s not last week wrappings – it’s just starting to unfurl. It will fully break out next year.
Leave Luke alone you bullies. He is still stiff from that baton therapy served up by the nasty Danish plod in wonderful Copenhagen – the heartless thugs call it ‘shiatsu for smellies’. Try cold cucumber poultices, Luke. Then a nice cup of Earl Grey.
I haven’t told anyone about your trifling error with the Central Limit Theorem in calculating ‘global mean temperature’. Statistics can be so tricky – but then, Dr Pachauri won’t know any different either.
Did Phil Done travel to Copenhagen? And did you see Pinxi in Nyhaven? How is she?
Well, I answered BJ’s questions and had my questions effectively ignored at Deltoid and got insulted by the usual crew; I don’t know why I expect a rational debate there. Jakerman did ask about the Lindzen and Choi paper which finds that OLR is increasing which contradicts the GCMs’ predictions and demonstrates much less sensitivity in the climate system than is required for AGW.
Lindzen allegedly was rebutted on this point in 2 recent areas; the first is the Colose thread but this is easily dealt with at WUWT; basically the allegation was that Lindzen based his assertion that OLR was increasing on faulty data from Wong et al who had corrected an earlier piece finding increasing OLR; Lindzen’s reply to that allegation is here;
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/30/lindzen-on-negative-climate-feedback/
The pdf source is no longer extant but I believe that Lindzen will supply it on request.
The second rebuttal is by Roy Spencer;
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/11/some-comments-on-the-lindzen-and-choi-2009-feedback-study/
frankly I find Roy’s comment contradictory; even though Roy did include the obvious caveats about different data sources and methodology between his analysis and the Lindzen effort he still concludes this;
“While the authors found decreases in radiation loss with short-term temperature increases, I find that the CMIP models exhibit an INCREASE in radiative loss with short term warming”
The authors are Lindzen and Choi. This is the paper [GRL version];
http://www.drroyspencer.com/Lindzen-and-Choi-GRL-2009.pdf
And can you believe this?
http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=12&fd=09&fy=1999&sm=12&sd=09&sy=2009
Season’s best wishes to Jen and everyone over the work break.
I hope you can enjoy the weather for the duration. We ought to expect more rough stuff Imo like the cat 4 cyclone off WA and those big fires. Have a kind thought for the fire fighters where ever they are working
Re AGW; before deciding whoz side you are on; something sceptics should consider over the holidays – Mark Lynas of the Guardian
“How do I know China wrecked the Copenhagen deal? I was in the room”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/22/copenhagen-climate-change-mark-lynas
For the hard headed evidence seekers that need proof of this “climate change” I will cobble recent BoM info on the local situation that I witness everyday, then rant on about it here with a good tossing of home grown “meter” readings as our Graeme would put it.
In winding up I hope Santa provides you with a good sprinkling of domestic thermometers in the form of a digital station that has remote inputs for outside monitoring. Too easy hey
Trust me; in a decade or so you too won’t need help from WUWT etc.
A selection of recent BoM statements and my “evidence” for something unusual.
Please note its not their stated intention to demonstrate “climate change” here however follow the link to the Nov Max Temp Anomaly map for NSW
“Record heat for Canberra during spring-
It was the warmest spring on record at Canberra Airport for overnight minimum temperatures. The mean minimum temperature was 7.9 °C, which is 1.9 °C above the historical1 spring average. Canberra Airport has now experienced 15 consecutive springs with above average mean minimum temperatures. There were 6 days in spring with a minimum temperature of 15 °C or higher at Canberra Airport, above the historical spring average of 2.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/season/act/summary.shtml#recordsTminAvgHigh
“Record breaking heat in November for the ACT
Below average rainfall was recorded throughout the ACT for the month of November. Canberra Airport recorded a total of only 17.0 mm during the month, which is well below the historical average of 64.6 mm, and the 5th lowest for November since records commenced in 1939. This is also in contrast to the last two years, where November falls were above average. The rain fell on 6 days, compared the the average of 10 days. The biggest fall of 11.6 mm at the Airport was recorded in the 24 hours to 9am on the 27th, due to local thunderstorm activity. The highest fall in the Territory was recorded at Mt Ginini on the 1st of the month, also due to thunderstorm activity (on 31st October). Mt Ginini was the wettest overall location (despite missing some days of data), with a total of 62.0 mm recorded for November.
The majority of the falls in the ACT during November were due to thunderstorms associated with the passage of low pressure troughs.
See a map of rainfall deciles.
Temperatures
The ACT experienced extreme daytime temperatures for November, with large parts being on average 6°C warmer than usual. The mean maximum temperature for Canberra Airport was 29.0 °C, which is well above the historical average of 22.7 °C and the highest on record, exceeding the previous record of 28.7 °C (November 1982). It is the 8th consecutive November to record above average temperatures. The Airport recorded a significant 15 days during the month where the temperature exceeded 30 °C, which is also the highest on record (previous, 13 days in 1982). The Airport also recorded three days where the temperature exceeded 35 °C, which has only happened on two other occasions (in 1982 and 1997). The hottest day was reported on the 20th, where Canberra Airport reached 38.9 °C. This is equal to the hottest November day since records commenced (also occurred on 26th November 1997).
Minimum temperatures were also extreme, with average nighttime temperatures being up to 5 °C warmer than usual in some parts. The mean minimum temperature for Canberra Airport was 12.7 °C, which is 4.0 °C above the historical average of 8.7 °C, and the highest on record (previous record 11.8 °C in November 2007). It is the 6th consecutive year where November temperatures have been above average at this site.
Similar very high temperatures were experienced through much of New South Wales and the ACT. The high temperatures were mostly a result of a persistent high pressure system in the Tasman Sea, which restricted the passage of any significant cool changes and directed warm northwesterly airstream over the ACT. In addition, an El Niño event has matured in the equatorial Pacific Ocean. These events are usually (but not always) associated with above average temperatures in eastern Australia. The recent high temperatures experienced are likely due to the current influence of El Niño combined with the background, long-term warming that has been observed across Australia since the start of last century.
A special climate statement was released during the month giving further details about the heatwave conditions that were experienced through central and south-eastern Australia.
Some sites had their highest November temperature on record.”
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/month/act/summary.shtml
The met office has released a large ammount of data and code, let’s hope McIntyre can give us some useful info in a short while.
What a hero the man is and what a fight he has fought, not surrendering to pig ignorance and bigotry and enduring all sorts of intimidation, but quietly he has held his ground.
Good luck Steve and good hunting.
Wikipedia is now embroiled in Climategate. William Connolley, Green Party activist and insider with the RealClimate/Mann “Hockey Team”, created or rewrote 5,428 unique Wikipedia articles to bolster the AGW cause. With administrative permissions, he also ‘disappeared’ over 500 ‘skeptical’ Wikipedia articles.
Two of his main projects were to remove evidence of the Medieval Optimum, and of the Little Ice Age — events which distort the famed, discredited Hockey Stick. And that’s just for starters.
Thus, the behavior of the Climategate scientists is mirrored by a similar effort by one of their colleagues to deceive the public via Wikipedia. The amoral impudence of these zealots is astounding.
Links:
Climategate: the corruption of Wikipedia
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100020515/climategate-the-corruption-of-wikipedia/
Wikipedia’s climate doctor
http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=62e1c98e-01ed-4c55-bf3d-5078af9cb409
Lawrence Solomon: Wikipedia’s climate doctor
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/12/18/370719.aspx
Schiller thanks for these links. Jen
gavin,
Cherry picking weather is a waste of time. This is what it is all about:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704238104574601443947078538.html#articleTabs%3Darticle
And this too:
http://joannenova.com.au/2009/12/climategate-30-years-in-the-making/
Merry Christmas to you all!
If The Guardian report is correct, and Copenhagen was deliberately wrecked by the Chinese, then that is evidence that the Chinese leaders are more intelligent, and better educated, than those in the west. They see through the pseudo-climatology, and pseudo-economics, and pseudo-ecology. They are confident enough in the real strength of their economy not to need ways of generating funny money, by such things as carbon trading. I doubt if Ross Garnaud would get a job in China.
On the other hand, western leaders, with a few noted exceptions, are taken in. The real crisis facing the west is our way of selecting politicians. We seem, more often than not, to end up with glib duds, who increasingly rely on ‘media advisers’ to tell them what mantras to chant. Their policy is sometimes determined, or supported, by cunningly staged street demonstrations. The education system must be failing somewhere.
I think I love Joanne Nova.
Well said SD; the best to everyone and may Jennifer change her mind in the new year!
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year Y’all.
Yes even the Believers!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
or should I say
HOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHO
Green Davey,
Western pollies have to make a long term ideology problem into a short term political quick-fix without getting their fingers burnt.
So far so good for those pushing the catastrophe barrow but how far till they run out of plank?
And will this endless supply of young ideologues that support them keep extending it?
Gavin,
you haven’t been paying attention obviously. GISS, GHCN, NOAA, HADCrud, BOM… are all biased HIGH!! Your quoting record highs is meaningless!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
And Davey, how’s all that “catastrophic” weather goin’ over your way?
I always managed to survive the “extreme” weather in summer but I dunno about this “catastrophic”.
I’ll just have to spend more time out sailing.
Quite pleasant here in the south-west, Spanglo, but the north-west has had a cyclonic soaking. I gather the BOM think it might even get down to NSW. As far as I can remember there have always been cyclones, but younger people might think it is ‘climate change’
I think the ‘catastrophic’ label truly applies to the lack of prescribed burning and the amount of leaf litter lying around. The fire authorities would do better to issue ‘Catastrophic Fuel Warnings’. We had a 10,000 ha fire south of Perth a week or so ago. Uncontrollable, until it ran into an area burnt a few years before. I doubt if it made the eastern news, because nobody was killed.
Watch out when sailing. In the summer of 1841 the smoke from Aboriginal fires was so thick off Fremantle that a ship ran aground. Nobody on land was killed, because fires then were in light fuel, with flames less than a metre high. People used wet bags, not expensive helicopters from the USA. Nobody had white shirts, silver braid, or rows of medals, or million dollar budgets. The first Bushfire Ordinance was in 1846, and provided for flogging of Aboriginals lighting fires. After that, fires in the settled areas started getting bigger. Really clever, those whitefellas. Must have a lot of scientific insight.
Have a good Christmas, and may you prosper in the New Year, despite Kevin, Wayne and Penny’s best efforts.
“I’d be inclined to agree, wbb (Marohasey will never admit she’s wrong, whatever her private thoughts), but when someone does a drive-by (as she did), they need to be ridiculed to within an inch of their lives to discourage them in the future.”
Look at this little bitch. Jennifer shows up and asks for evidence and debate and thats a “drive-by” for this holocaust-denier and his namesake. Look at that hey Jennifer? A punk like Bahnisch can get you out on some blog dinner. Splash your photo all over the internet as some sort of trophy. But when you show up and ask for debate or evidence the word “troll” gets bandied around, you get blocked, you are lucky to have your say at all, and these mental midgits reckon its a “drive-by” I could not loathe and disprespect these low-rent retards more than what I do. I hope Bahnisch and David Irving and that fat idiot that teach at Swinburne particularly have a crap Christmas.
A drive-by.
Ask them for evidence you are a troll and thats a drive-by.
They ought to be put down before they breed accidentally.
What’s the difference between Santa and Tiger Woods. Ans: Santa only has 3 ho’s.
Very amusing luke only 3 ho’s, quite funny.
BTW Green Davey there is a forcast tonight for flooding in the NW corner of NSW due the leftovers of the cyclone, nature certainly is a powerhouse.
Merry Christmas everyone, and thanks to Copenhagen, have a better than anticipated new year.
Folks,
You will find this article interesting and instructive, especially since it puts forth a solid physical foundation for much of Luke’s position on AGW.
Physicist: global warming ‘will happen all at once’
22 December 2009
http://www.thespoof.com/news/spoof.cfm?headline=s5i65634
After all, a good theory actually fits the data!
Merry Christmas to Y’all, and that even goes for Luke. Jenn, what would it take?
On a bright note for the day, we had rain overnight and according to BoM there is more thanks to Cyclone Laurence. Three cheers for that hey!
http://www.bom.gov.au/products/IDN10035.shtml
A special thought for our dear friend Graeme; the world seems to be still in good hands regardless of our best efforts in 2009.
SD; you can wait for another basket from this old cherry picker
CHEERS !!!
gavin,
As a frustrated cherry picker myself and the possesor of a lone cherry tree I have tried many times to propagate a few cherries for Christmas but a single tree forms fruit but they will not grow without cross pollination from another cherry tree of a different genus and as my tree is a very early flowerer, there is not much hope of this.
Anyone know about cherry trees?
And good luck with the rain. Be good to see the MDB get a good soak for the sake of all of our sanity.
Wiki had a green editor who set out to misinform and successfully eliminated the MWP.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=119745
el gordo,
yeah, I hope that gatekeeper gets shown the gate.
gavin,
Looks like that big rain prediction for the west from Laurence is a fizzer [as if we didn’t know. Why can’t they just keep quiet?]
Folks,
Below you’ll see an attempt to compile a list of the money paid to AGW proponents– from whom, to whom, and amounts involved. It’s quite incomplete, and a thorough listing would be a project well worth the time.
There are some factors which vastly complicate this effort.
For instance, the IPCC has a ‘modest’ annual budget of 7-8 million Swiss Francs. (Its forecast of future budgets resembles a hockey stick.) The problem is, the IPCC does not conduct research. So, this money is for spinmeistering the work of the “thousands of scientists” who supply research. Diversions of public and private funds to these “thousands of scientists” isn’t part of the figure, and so will be accounted for elsewhere.
Another complication is that there’s lots of AGW money that’s not diverted to research, but rather, to companies that profit from AGW, or to lobbists who push for regulations that will create demand for certain technologies, such as carbon capture, smart grids, bird choppers, tidal turbines, photovoltaics, biofuels, fluorescent light bulbs, you name it.
The figures below are obviously quite substantial, but considering the complications just noted, these figures must be considered as merely the tip of the iceberg in the global warming industry.
Funder – Amount (US$) – Recipient*
European Commission – 3 billion – general climate research
US Gov’t – 1.3 billion – NASA climate research
US Gov’t – 400 million – NOAA climate research
US Gov’t – 300 million – NSF climate research
California – 600 million – Calif. ‘climate initiative’
Heinz Award – 250,000 – James Hansen
Dan Davis Prize – 1 million – James Hansen
Exxon Mobil – 100 million – Global Climate and Energy Project, Stanford University
Richard Branson/Virgin Atlantic – 3 billion – ‘fight global warming’
European Union, NATO, US Department of Energy – 19 million – Hadley CRU
Al Gore etc. – 1 billion – 40 companies set to profit from new environmental and energy laws and regulations
BP, governments, etc. – 20 million – Robert Socolow/Princeton
————-
Sources:
http://www.examiner.com/x-32936-Seminole-County-Environmental-News-Examiner~y2009m12d23-Spreading-global-warming-doom-delivers-big-money-to-climate-researchers
http://cultofgreen.com/2009/06/19/al-gore-texts-me-about-his-finances/
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/12/10/taking_liberties/entry5964504.shtml
http://www.courierpress.com/news/2009/dec/19/follow-the-money-in-global-warming-hoax/
“Wikipedia is now embroiled in Climategate. William Connolley, Green Party activist and insider with the RealClimate/Mann “Hockey Team”, created or rewrote 5,428 unique Wikipedia articles to bolster the AGW cause. With administrative permissions, he also ‘disappeared’ over 500 ’skeptical’ Wikipedia articles.”
I’ve been trying to tell people about the Connelly menace on wikipedia for a long time. I’m glad that they’ve finally caught up with him.
William Connelly is a fellow who is anti-thetical to science he didn’t realise that one of his wiki-threads amounted to a confession. I wound up saving his whole page for the permanent record so as to not let him alter it when he discovered the confession he had made.
http://graemebird.wordpress.com/2007/12/01/empirical-evidencewpsm-models-never-the-twain/
Here is what I wrote on the discussion page two years ago. Amazingly it remains lovingly preserved for the moment. If only they had listened to me earlier.
“These factors suggest that CLIMAP systematically overestimated the temperatures in the tropical oceans during the last glacial though there is at present no consistent explanation for why or how this should have happened.”
This is the most idiotic conclusion imagineable. Its the models that are wrong. When you are constructing models you don’t, for fucksakes, turf out the empirical evidence in favour of the models.
Can we have some real scientists here?
Instead of alarmist idiots pretending to be scientists?
This is all people like Connolley do. Fit a square peg in a round hole. This is science fraud.
Its come to my attention that William Connelly has basically been on an obsessive crusade to warp the Wikipedia as propaganda for the “global warming” science fraud.
Its not any sort of one-off with this guy but an intentional crusade to co-opt Wikipedia as an instrument of propaganda.
There is no use invoking the “There is no conspiracy” bullshitartistry. Thats just more dishonesty. Connelly’s entire activity on the wiki ought to be investigated and his dishonest warping of topics ought to be mitigated. He’s not a scientist. He’s a maths and software guy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.183.191 (talk) 09:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Birdy,
It’s amazing what conspiracy theories arise on little evidence, yet when it is all here in black and white, in the handwriting of the guilty, not just the warmers but the rest of the world remain in denial [or at least keep quiet and do nothing].
Hard leftism is a conspirational outlook. Hard leftists act in conspirational ways at the same time as they vigorously run down any notion of conspiracy. One leftist on my site was successfully pretending to be a teenage Chinese Christian rapper, as well as an outright marxist, as well as an unmasker of people allegedly pretending to be sockpuppets, when all the time it was him.
Conspiracy is second nature to these people. They are always up to something. The TV rigup with Monbiot has all the markings of a setup and the signs are in this case the ludicrous lengths that Monbiot goes to maintain “plausible deniability.” When you see such a thing you ought to just start sacking all the public servant “journalists” involved. Since spying on them all the time has terrible precedent implications. Once you see or smell the sort of behaviour we got from Monbiot and Jones one ought to just suspect the worst and start sacking people.
Tony Jones ought to be down at the Centrelink. Doing some sort of job to spread more thinly the tax burden. He ought not be conducting rigups with other leftist lunatics under the pretense that he is a journalist.
More fuel for the conspiracy fire, particularly Rajenda’s little “conflicts”.
http://www.examiner.com/x-3854-Cincinnati-Weather-Examiner~y2009m12d23-The-Copenhagen-Crash-and-Global-Cooling
Graeme,
I admire your willingness to actually look at facts.
When it comes to conspiracies, I’d invite you to consider that when eight dogs go after the same bone, it’s not a dog conspiracy.
When you throw a bone to the dogs, the dogs will show up.
If the dogs have anything to say about the matter, and, in this case, they do, the dogs will actually beg for more.
That’s no conspiracy, that’s just how things work. You reward a certain behavior, and it gets repeated.
An extreme example: the government of India used to offer a payment to the family of anyone who committed suicide.
A spate of suicides ensued, which the freaks attributed to farmers planting GM cotton. The government withdrew its ‘suicide subsidy’, and suicides among farmers declined.
Bottom line: if people will take money to actually kill themselves, they’ll for sure take money to fake climate data.
And you don’t have to allege a conspiracy either way.
When there’s money on the table, and all you have to do is tell lies to get the money, well, the liars will show up.
When the game is rigged in favor of liars, the liars will lie. That’s where the ‘smart money’ is. Like, a few hundred billion or so.
It’s not a conspiracy, it’s just a crooked game, where honest people lose.
Yes, that is right Schiller, although I think the machinations now taking place behind the various closed doors do resemble some mini-conspiracies. But overall AGW is not a conspiracy. It is a convergence of truly divergent values and groups; the pollies can see rivers of revenue and social control and vast opportunity to pork-barrel; the spivs see even vaster opportunity to channel government funds into their pockets; we are already seeing strong criminal interest in carbon trading and procuring land for carbon credits; this will spill over into the manufacturing and energy sectors where productive businesses will be closed, carbon credits received, which will be redeemed in the international trading market and the funds used to set up the same businesses in other countries with no restrictions on emissions. The whole apparatus of carbon trading is a business with no asset base; even the recent GCC at least had some asset base with the houses which had been bought by the ‘deserving poor’ propping up all sorts of asset splitting, derivatisation, amortisation etc; but a carbon credit is worth nothing more than hot air; in fact a carbon credit actually has a negative value because it was created by closing productive businesses or farming land.
Then there is the UN which wants to become financially independent; which it will achieve as the banker for carbon trading and intermediary for the wealth transfer from the Western to the third world.
The various pro-AGW scientists are motivated by variously money, power, ego/glory; the usual human failings.
Lastly there are the ideologues, the nature freaks and the other assorted misanthropes who think nature is more important than humanity; this ratbag element controls, with a few exceptions, the msm, and more than anything [except perhaps the cost aspect] will cause the general public to become disenchanted with AGW.
“When the game is rigged in favor of liars, the liars will lie. That’s where the ’smart money’ is. Like, a few hundred billion or so.”
Schiller, true but when jointly getting rid of a few inconvenient facts via a common ajenda and workplace promotes the game?……
Schiller Thurkettle
“It’s not a conspiracy, it’s just a crooked game, where honest people lose.”
To a certain extent you are right, there probably was no conspiracy to begin with, but as the facts emerged and the “scientists” realised, that the theory was false, and that their funding is threatened, then the conspiracy began.
See data hiding, obstructing other’s publications, suppressing inconvenient fasts etc.
You know the saying,”if people really are out to get you it’s not paranoia”, well I think that what’s happened at the CRU and Connelly at Wikipedia definitely constitutes a conspiracy.
Right thats the other side of the coin of course Schiller. What we mistake for conspiracies a lot of the time are often probably just the way the puny humans work when they gather together in the millions. Not many people could interpolate the behaviour of air molecules as winding up causing anti-cyclones by merely looking at the molecule on its own. And so it probably goes with human behaviour as well. The larger workings of complexity coming out of the individual behaviour of millions.
I don’t want to say its right to see conspiracies everywhere. But Australians generally have the opposite vice. They are embarrassed to interpolate guile and cunning to their antagonists. I think its important that we drop this automatic disrespect for people who are more conspirational then ourselves. For example Ron Paul is about the same level conspirational as me. Alex Jones is far more conspirational. But it was a personal character fault of my own to automatically disrespect Alex Jones because of this. And I think we have got to go beyond this sort of Pavolvs dog reaction when we see people that are more conspirational then ourselves.
It becomes a matter of semantics. Since we don’t have any cutoff as to where conspiracy starts and finishes. Nor between the prime movers and the useful idiots in any conspiracy so-called. The most important thing is we don’t let these leftists control us by making us feel embarrassed about conspiracy or the speculation of potential conspiracy.
This sort of stuff always has the whiff of conspiracy to me:
“We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.” Timothy Wirth, President of the U.N. Foundation and former Democratic U.S. senator from Colorado.
“No matter if the science of global warming is all phony…climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.” Christine Stewart, former Canadian minister of the environment who led that country’s delegation to Kyoto.
“A massive campaign must be launched to restore a high-quality environment in North America and to de-develop the United States,” John Holdren (Obama’s Science Czar) wrote in a 1973 book he co-authored with Paul R. Ehrlch and Anne H. Ehrlich. “De-development means bringing our economic system (especially patterns of consumption) into line with the realities of ecology and the global resource situation.” See also John Holdren and the Anti-Growth Malthusians for interesting links and quotations.
“The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States. We can’t let other countries have the same number of cars, the amount of industrialization, we have in the U.S. We have to stop these Third World countries right where they are.” Michael Oppenheimer, Princeton professor and member of Environmental Defense Fund.
“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?” Maurice Strong, a native of Canada considered by some to be one of the leading environmentalists in the world. He is an official at the U.N.
“It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.” Paul Watson, co-founder of the environmental group Greenpeace.
“My three main goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness, with its full complement of species, returning throughout the world.” Dave Foreman, U.S. environmentalist and co-founder of radical environmental group Earth First.
That was from this and John Ray
http://www.amconmag.com/blog/2009/12/12/why-the-global-warming-hoax/
Merry Christmas from Minnesota where we are buried under snow. (It’s still Christmas here.)
Jennifer, thank you for all the time you spent on this website. I keep checking every week to see if you are back. The postings and commentators were were always interesting.
Best wishes for the New Year
Minnesota hey? Do you know these guys?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJUFTm6cJXM
Set the Flamingo free.
Schiller is this helpful http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/climate_money.pdf
I think we are in the end game, what is the guess how long before it ceases to be of any interest. For all of you what triggered your disbelief. For me it was the environmental film on Tuvulu it rang for me alarm bells of scam. Following that the mathematical manipulation that 80 ppm being stated as 20%. We must be all grateful to whoever or whatever organisation let loose ClimateGate. Those involved will suffer how much remains to be seen. Jail time would be less than deserved but a doubtful outcome, we can only hope. May Luke, Gavin, SJT etc be among the punished.
In 2010 many are saying particularly the Western world has very severe financial problems. They say we have not seen the last of the GFC and that it will develop into a deep depression. Look here http://www.debtdeflation.com/blogs/ it scares the hell out of me and hope it is another fabrication but I suspect not.
So this really will be my last comment here. Thanks Jennifer and thank all of you for a mostly erudite discussion of the doom mongering called “Climate Change”. Happy new year and I wish you all well.
“On her web site, Jo Nova has posted a 30 year time line of Climategate created by Mohib Ebrahim. It is long, but demonstrates that the Climategate scandal is not isolated or insignificant. http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming/climategate-30-year-timeline/ ”
info from Kenneth Haapala
As with all home grown philosophy, with a little cheer from the festive season we continue to go round in tiny circles….and end up contemplating navels.
The fact that we can think at all is the wonder of it all.
With some regret that I won’t be better stationed this time even as a minor observer on the wharf as the salts celebrate their Sydney Hobart classic, its worth contemplating the expeditionary spirit that endures despite the actual weather or the predictions of such.
http://rolexsydneyhobart.com/default.asp
BTW we met Paul Watson and several crew a while back in similar circumstances.
Jen,
How is the MSM managing to ignore this. Says heaps about journalistic [and editorial] ideology.
But wait, people don’t want to hear this what with Chrissy and the cricket unless there is a warming story, and at the moment it’s cool and raining.
100 mm so far fo us this month but I thought there would be more in the Macquarrie Marshes from cyclone Laurence.
Just checked the falls in that area in the last couple of days; Dubbo 85 mm, Trangie 74, Nyngan 47, and Coonamble 112, so maybe there will be enough run-off to do some good.
I suppose you could say the glass was half full.
gavin,
That yacht tracker link of yours gives ten times as much info as the MSM. Also the yachts have been getting a lot of bad predictions from the BoM.
I get that link also from Google Earth.
This year the MSM don’t even seem to have any aerial video of the yachts as they leave the coast at Gabo and head out into the strait.
Dr Richard North and Christopher Booker continue to shed further daylight on the conflicts of interest surrounding our esteemed chairman of the IPCC and former railway engineer Rajendra Pachauri.
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2009/12/more-lucrative-by-day.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6890839/The-questions-Dr-Pachauri-still-has-to-answer.html
Jabba,
Hope they rip it up ‘im.
Meanwhile back in the swamp it might be better than I thought.
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/wrap_fwo.pl?IDN36501.html
Isn’t that interesting. As soon as the money runs out, the astroturf dries up.
Having spent some time in civilisation over the past few days I finally managed to grab a copy of Ian Plimer’s book and I immediately searched out his info on volcanoes as it was the first question put to him by George Monbiot and Tony Jones on Lateline. In the interview (and the book) Plimer stated that 85% of the world’s volcanic activity isn’t measured and accounted for as it’s in the deep oceans. Monbiot and Jones pounced on that stating that T Gerlach from the US Geological Survey had been asked and he confirmed that undersea volcanoes were taken into consideration so Monbiot went on to accuse Plimer of deliberately lying.
On this page at the USGS http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/index.php they make the following statement:
Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (Gerlach, 1999, 1991). This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts.
equal amounts?? the oceans cover 70% of the earth’s surface, how can they be in equal amounts – also – they reference Gerlach 1991, as does everyone else who makes the claim that man’s emissions are 140 x volcanic activity. so how many submarine volcanoes were found and measured in 1991?
Plimer’s 22 referenced pages on volcanoes covers the various types of volcanic activity we know about and makes a clear case that when we take into account what we do know and estimate what we don’t know, his conclusion that volcanic activity is greater than human CO2 output is perfectly valid.
The CO2 from tens of thousands of submarine hot springs associated with these submarine basalt volcanoes dissolves in the high pressure deep ocean water and does not bubble to the surface. Water at the bottom of the oceans is undersaturated in dissolved CO2 , hence very large volumes of CO2 can dissolve. One hot spring can release far more CO2 than a 1000mW power station. page 208.
I remember reading that in 2007 they discovered a group of 33 active volcanoes just north of White Island in New Zealand. They were 200 km deep!
http://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/viewArticle.do?id=34926
Clearly neither Monbiot or Jones had read that chapter in Plimer’s book.
But what I find to be more disturbing is that they immediately took T Gerlach’s information as fact and Plimer’s info in the book as lies despite the fact that Plimer has referenced everything!
Considering the huge amount of time and effort Prof Plimer must have spent gathering all the info together with references etc surely he deserves more respect than to be hounded by a couple of consenting journalists on national TV!
janama,
Good stuff. There are new undersea volcanoes being discovered all the time and Monbiot should know this but doesn’t wish to. Another known unknown that the warmers and their models choose to ignore.
You should bring it to his attention. I think his Plimer post is closed now but others were also pointing out new under sea discoveries to him.
I’m sure Tony Jones would be interested to know too. [sarc]
Be good if current affair show hosts had a website where the common herd could set ’em straight.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/dec/16/ian-plimer-versus-george-monbiot?showallcomments=true#end-of-comments
SD – I sent a copy of this post to Monbiot via his contact page on his blog.
Janama it just proves the rationalist case once more, if the fantasists were so sure of their argument they wouldn’t have to lie and display their desperation.
Moonbat and jones are desperate to ridicule anyone who holds a scientifically rational view and would give a fantasist fraudster like gore a free pass everytime he tells a blatant lie about sea levels or co2 leading temp or lake Chad being depleted by CC or kilaminjaro suffering reduction in ice cover etc because of CC.
At least moonbat concedes they are losing the argument on AGW, which I’m sure will drive him to even further desperation, great time to be alive.
Good old Bruce Petty
http://images.smh.com.au/2009/12/24/997795/petty24cartoonofday-620×0.jpg
Spangled; it’s raining steadily and I guess widespread throughout my region after an almost sunny day. Before; I had over half a bucket full just sitting on the back lawn. That been the best rain all year. There isn’t as much gouging of the front garden from run off round the block as we had with some thunder storms, in all a very unusual period.
For another aspect, see “March of the 40 footers”
“The Bureau of Meteorology told crews to expect mixed weather throughout the 65th edition of Australia’s summer ocean classic. Owners, tacticians and navigators agreed on Boxing Day it was one of the most confusing weather reports they had ever received. It was welcome news for many though, as it meant every yacht in the fleet would have the opportunity of shining, as is being witnessed tonight”
http://rolexsydneyhobart.com/news.asp?key=4581
Finally got to read Monbiot’s blog “Ian Plimer’s volcano claims vaporise under questioning on Australian TV” but I’m not surprised having known dozens of geologists, drillers, miners and off shore types who never mentioned CO2 venting through the crust anywhere.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/dec/16/ian-plimer-versus-george-monbiot
Yes Gavin – that has been Monbiot’s claim – “how I slayed the Plimer Dragon”
please stop for a second and ponder what you claimed…….. a journalist has slain the science of one of Australia’s leading geologist.
“http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/dec/16/ian-plimer-versus-george-monbiot”
Has anyone noticed how the Grauniad has censored out all the critical comments following the article, and then locked the comments completely?
Folks,
Judging from the relative tone of discussions here, I am inclined to conclude that the AGW crowd is on the run, with no place to go — unless they’re willing to change their minds.
By definition, skeptics change their minds when the evidence points in a new direction.
Why? Because our notion of reality, a ‘mental picture’ of what exists, is a model. It’s a model in the same sense that a climate model models the climate. Skeptics adjust their notions of reality — their internal model — to match the best available data.
In fact, they’re eager to change their view of reality in light of new data. It’s the adaptive thing to do. In fact, it’s the smart, pragmatic thing to do.
Non-skeptics stick to one model religiously — literally and figuratively. Like the Hadley ‘hockey team’, they change the data to fit the model.
With a mind-set like that, a sea-change in public opinion based on a sea-change in available information will send these people into hiding, or into denial. Because, quite simply, they can’t change their minds, and, religiously, can’t even countenance the notion. It would be heresy.
Here’s a real gem: “Forget Climategate. Watch the animals and the plants and judge for yourself if they are adapting to climate change.” http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/21097
The author worries “that animals will have to adjust their ranges by several hundred meters per year in order to keep up with global warming.” At that rate, even snails and slugs can keep up, and with the way seeds disperse, plants would have no problem, either.
The non-skeptics, in spite of Climategate, will fight every inch of the way, because they can’t change their minds. The public at large can, and does.
But the non-skeptics sure have been quiet here lately. Perhaps that has more to do with the holidays, and their penchant for imbibing.
At WUWT, physicist Luboš Motl demonstrates how easy it is to show that there is: No statistically significant warming since 1995
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/26/no-statistically-significant-warming-since-1995-a-quick-mathematical-proof/
Jabba,
Historic accounts agree with non-fudged temperature data: The Medieval Optimum was a great time for civilization, and we haven’t warmed things back up to that level.
Getting temperatures back to the MO level is, from all indications, a good idea.
Which probably accounts for how there are no ‘Global Cooling’ advocates, i.e. people wanting the planet to get colder.
After all, wishing for an Ice Age, even a little one, would sound as ridiculous as it sounds.
Personally, I’m very concerned about climate change. Because I have to live in the climate.
Adjusting the climate is a very appealing notion. It would be great if we could actually do that.
I’d be totally in favor of setting the Earth’s thermostat if we could do it. We can’t, at least not with CO2. We’re very nearly at the upper limit of the warming we can induce with CO2 emissions. Increasing saturation of CO2 has a lesser effect as saturation increases.
We’ve had Ice Ages where CO2 was ten times as high.
Increasing methane emissions may be the thing to do.
We have a ways to go before we come back to the Medieval Optimum.
@ Schiller Thurkettle
“Personally, I’m very concerned about climate change. Because I have to live in the climate.”
Well you’d better get used to it and just get on with your life because climate changes all the time, always has and always will…
We have a new climategate going on where all these leftists are standing by a brazen lie and calling it the truth. I would hope you might go to Deep Climate, Tim Lamberts site, The ABC and anything George Monbiot has got anything to do with and complain about all of these people lying with the same excuse. Instead of “The Devil Made Me Do It” they are shifting the blame for their lying onto the USGS. The United States Geographical Survey.
Here is the excuse for the lie they are all anticipating in, along reader commentary proving that the lie has been brought to the blog owners attention. I think it would be helpful if as many people got to the various blogs and protest this matter as strenuously as possible. Its important to do this with malice afforethought so as to let these frauds know that we know what they are up to. Its important to set up a lot of moderated statements. Then to copy and record those moderated statements. So that it becomes clear to the public that this lie could not possibly have slipped the attention of the liars who are now willing participants in its propagation. This is what I have done as you can see below. Its not important that your post makes it through since it won’t. What is important is recording the fact that these people have been informed of the lie, and hence they are themselves liars for using the lie.
Alfred Nock // December 27, 2009 at 8:57 am | Reply
The idea that Plimer is lying does seem to hinge on the notion that we put out 130 times the amount of CO2 as the volcanoes. Does anyone wish to stick up for this point of view? Would you put your knowledge of this matter up against Plimers?
If so why? What do you know that the rest of us don’t know? Can you give us a breakdown by region of CO2 output? We are talking tens of thousands of kilometers of volcanic activity here. I wonder what is making people so sure of this matter?
“[DC: I would put up the US Geological Survey (USGS) against Plimer.
Comparison of CO2 emissions from volcanoes vs. human activities.
Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (Gerlach, 1999, 1991). This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts. Emissions of CO2 by human activities, including fossil fuel burning, cement production, and gas flaring, amount to about 27 billion tonnes per year (30 billion tons) [ ( Marland, et al., 2006) – The reference gives the amount of released carbon (C), rather than CO2, through 2003.]. Human activities release more than 130 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes–the equivalent of more than 8,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea (Kilauea emits about 3.3 million tonnes/year)! (Gerlach et. al., 2002)
http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/index.php (and click on the Effects tab).
By the way, Plimer recently reduced his volcanic CO2 claim by a couple of orders of magnitude. Several more to go, though. I’ll post about this soon.
The facts are beyond debate, and so we must stop there, unless you can point to peer-reviewed literature substantively disputing the USGS sources cited above. Thanks!]”
Alfred Nock // December 27, 2009 at 5:43 pm | Reply
Why would you put up the USGS against Plimer? What do you find so convincing about their argument? In fact they don’t make an argument. They rely on a 1991 study by Gerlach. The facts are indeed beyond debate. The study claims that underwater volcanic CO2 release is equivalent to above ground CO2 release. Which is a lie.
So why do you put up this USGS claim, which in 2009 everyone must know to be a lie?
A lot of people appear to be relying on this lying claim. When they ought to be listening to Plimer.
“(Gerlach, 1999, 1991). This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts. ”
About in equal amounts? There is no relevant Gerlach 1999 study. So we are talking a deliberate lie.
And yet you are saying you put this deliberate lie ahead of Plimers estimate? Why so?
Here’s one going off 4000 feet down.
It seems that in areas like the Pacific, Antarctica, Gakel Ridge etc., there is still plenty to learn.
Greame, I’ve been trying to access Gerlach’s original paper to see how he came to his conclusions but have been unsuccessful. Does anyone know if he did an actual survey or is he just making it up , what’s the empirical basis for his claims?
I couldn’t find Gerlach’s paper either Derek. I spent hours the other day searching for it.
Don’t we already have to do this in Australia even without an ETS?
http://www.nachi.org/forum/f14/cap-and-trade-license-required-your-home-44750/
The thing about the volcanoes vs anthropogenic CO2 emissions is not just a 70/30 split based on the ocean land ratio; most of the Earth’s volcanoes are along tectonic plate divides; 90% of these divides are in the oceans;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Plates_tect2_en.svg
Therefore the USGS assumption of an equality between land [subaerial] and submerged [submarine] volcanoes is drastically wrong.
SD; in QLD there is this;
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/selling_your_house_it_could_be_a_green_crime/#commentsmore
And nationally there is this;
http://www.energetics.com.au/services/government-programs/nger
Thanks cohers.
“most of the Earth’s volcanoes are along tectonic plate divides; 90% of these divides are in the oceans;”
That makes for a lot of unrecorded CO2.
This was an interesting comment on house licenses:
——————————————————————————–
Old Butch
———— ——— ——— —
John was in the fertilized egg business.
He had several hundred young layers (hens), called ‘pullets,’
and ten roosters to fertilize the eggs.
He kept records, and any rooster not performing
went into the soup pot and was replaced.
This took a lot of time, so he bought some tiny bells
and attached them to his roosters.
Each bell had a different tone, so he could tell from a distance,
which rooster was performing.
Now, he could sit on the porch And fill out an efficiency report
by just listening to the bells.
John’s favorite rooster, old Butch, was a very fine specimen,
but this morning he noticed old Butch’s bell hadn’t rung at all!
When he went to investigate, he saw the other roosters were busy chasing
pullets, bells-a-ringing, but the pullets, hearing the roosters coming, could run for cover.
To John’s amazement, old Butch had his bell in his beak, so it couldn’t ring.
He’d sneak up on a pullet, do his job and walk on to the next one.
John was so proud of old Butch, he entered him in the Renfrew County Fair
and he became an overnight sensation among the judges.
The result was the judges not only awarded old Butch the No Bell Piece Prize
but they also awarded him the Pulletsurprise as well.
Clearly old Butch was a politician in the making.
Who else but a politician could figure out how to win two of the most highly coveted awards on our planet by being the best at sneaking up on the populace and screwing them when they weren’t paying attention.
Vote carefully next year,
the bells are not always audible.
——————————————————————————–
Doug Edwards, CMI
cohers,
There’s nowhere on that form that gives me any credit for having 150 acres of scrub c/w natives and no farting livestock.
“That makes for a lot of unrecorded CO2” hmmmm
http://www.marine.csiro.au/marq/edd_search.Browse_Citation?txtSession=8385&brief=Y
Schiller; unfortunatly for you guys, there is no original scientific evidence for “The Medieval Optimum” downunder
Janama; on Plimer being top dog in climate maters here I find some local sources would dissagree
I say; try the Australian Institute of Geoscientists –
http://aig.org.au/conferences-and-seminars/aig-climate-change-debate
and on what’s most topical in “MINING”
Michael Mills – “The top 10 groundbreaking events of 2009”
But Janama, why not consult Australia’s “leading climate scientists” David Karoly, Amanda Lynch, Andy Pitman etc
gavin, what is your point in linking to GASLAB; and Karoly Australia’s leading climate scientist, or Pitman; you’ve been eating the mushrooms again.
More sterling work by Monckton
http://sppiblog.org/news/scientific-american%e2%80%99s-climate-lies
They should give him an Honorary Order of Australia because he is go to save us from spending heaps uncessarily and at the most from a trivial outcome.
Much more deserving of our recognition than FlimFlam himself
Gerlach et al CO2, H2S, SO2 method
“Gas Emissions and the Eruptions of Mount St. Helens Through 1982”
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/sci;221/4618/138
Soil efflux and total emission rates of magmatic CO2 at the Horseshoe Lake tree kill, Mammoth Mountain, California, 1995–1999
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V5Y-4379FWY-9&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1147866945&_rerunOrigin=scholar.google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=9838e26702e4b40ce328fef04420ea30
“Eruptive and diffuse emissions of CO2 from Mount Etna”
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v351/n6325/abs/351387a0.html?rel=nofollow
“Summit CO2 emission rates by the CO2/SO2 ratio method at Kīlauea Volcano, Hawai i, during a period of sustained inflation”
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VCS-4T0FF5G-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1147862509&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=0519c10a7252ddaaaa5267edec94db43
“The influence of a sulfur dioxide point source on the rain chemistry of a single storm in the Puget sound region”
http://www.springerlink.com/content/n2877m32m881317n/
Janama; on Plimer being top dog in climate maters here I find some local sources would dissagree
Gavin – despite your denial Ian Plamer is one of our countries leading geolgists. Accept it!
I’m not going to post his credentials here – I can’t be bothered but I suggest you check them.
But Janama, why not consult Australia’s “leading climate scientists” David Karoly, Amanda Lynch, Andy Pitman etc
I have and they just parrot the establishment – their “climate change departments” are dependent on it – as is their income.
They are quite happy for Penny Wong to state that sea levels will rise by 1.2m because either they believe it or they are too dependent to speak out.
OK gavin, Mammoth Mountain had emissions of 93t per day; Kilauea 2900-6900t per day and the Mount St Helens link does not work; keep connecting your dots.
Edmonds & Gerlach on “Vapor segregation and loss in basaltic melts”
http://geology.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/content/abstract/35/8/751
See also Edmonds “New geochemical insights into volcanic degassing” 2008
Well, I’m lost gavin, although your last link says this:
“A CO2-rich gas slug travels up the conduit at a few meters per second, displacing magma as it expands”
“A CO2 rich gas slug”; that would be Al Gore?
“A CO2 rich gas slug”; that would be Al Gore?
nice one 🙂
“Greame, I’ve been trying to access Gerlach’s original paper to see how he came to his conclusions but have been unsuccessful. Does anyone know if he did an actual survey or is he just making it up , what’s the empirical basis for his claims?”
Well thats funny. Because I found a summary. And I found a list of Gerlachs different studies. And it was pretty clear that not any of Gerlach’s 1999 studies were relevant. So the 1999 date mentioned on the site is just a lie to cover for the fact that they had to go back to 1991 to pull this lie off. That they’ve got the date 1999 thrown in shows this is an orchestrated lie.
Now there is a bit of background to this. And more than one scientific scandal. The plate tectonics theory and the theory of continental drift gave everyone the impression that the Atlantic had been growing. And since the Atlantic had been growing its floor will be young. Therefore it was believed that the Pacific floor would be old. And that there would be as much subduction zones going on to balance the spreading floor and volcanic rift-zones in the Atlantic.
Now here is the scandal. When they checked out the Pacific its floor was young too. And instead of finding much in the way of subduction zones they found thousands and thousands of kilometres of volcanic rift zones. Now this contradicts the extant theory of continental drift. This is a scandal as well. And this is yet another reason why its hard to get good information on this matter. Because now we have two science maffias covering things up. The man to ask about this matter is probably Louis Hissink. But he’s unlikely to contradict this basic outline.
Now I’m a bit hazy as to when everyone was apprised of these matters. But as you have seen, when there is a science scandal involved big holes start developing in internet information. And here there are two big scandals. But consider in the light of all this. The miscreant controlling the website at the USGS had to go back to 1991 to find a study which appears to be incredibly ignorant of the reality that most of us would know about now.
“Greame, I’ve been trying to access Gerlach’s original paper to see how he came to his conclusions but have been unsuccessful. Does anyone know if he did an actual survey or is he just making it up , what’s the empirical basis for his claims?”
Yeah I saw a summary. And you know. I probably cannot prove it now. But I tell you it was no survey. They didn’t ask the American navy for a favour in this 1991 study. Most of the talk I saw was speculative statistics. And in light of the sheer magnitude of kilometer after kilometer of more or less constant activity that we now ought to know about …………….. the 1991 study could not be more ridiculous as to its conclusion if it were judged retrospectively in the light of what we now know. So this is almost definitely another Climategate.
All these leftists are practicing plausible deniability. And they ought to be taken down for doing so. If you look at Monbiots act before and after setting up Plimer, it fair reeks of plausible-deniability. We know what he is up to by the incredible pantomime of plausible deniability. I’ve been sending Monbiot emails saying that I’m onto his act and generally harassing him. So if Gerlach’s record has disappeared from the internet, thats enemy action right there.
Here is a very good link and right here we see the magnitude of the gyp that Monbiot and the others are trying on:
“The Yellowstone volcanic province produces 6-7 x 1012 mol of annual CO2 (72-84 MtCpa), which is about three times more CO2 than the total subaerial volcanic emission of Kerrick (2001) and Gerlach (1991). It just goes to show that consensus is political, not scientific.”
Yellowstone province alone gives off three times the CO2 output that Monbiot is trying to sell us on. Also this link makes it pretty clear that Plimer in 2009 is obviously a better authority then Gerlach in 1991.
“and Plimer (2009) maintains that the amount of CO2 from volcanoes is enormous, and without estimating an amount suggests that it dwarfs anthropogenic contributions. If we take the updated estimate, correct the conservative bias, and extend to submarine environments we still wind up with a figure around 1.575 GtCpa for total passive volcanic emissions (excluding imponderables such as mid oceanic ridge emissions) and that is still only 20% of the 7.8 GtCpa attributed to anthropogenic CO2 emissions.
As it turns out, there is alot more to the distribution of volcanoes across different tectonic settings, and Plimer (2009) omits the rather small detail of a 2007 paper presenting primary evidence that underpins his claim in spectacular fashion.”
I tell you this is a full blown scandal that Monbiot and the others are trying on. And I can confirm that I wasn’t able to find websites that I was looking at just a couple of weeks ago. They do appear to have gone missing.
This ought to be the study that backs Plimer up, and it may be the most recent serious relevant study.
Hillier, J. K., & Watts, A. B., 2007, “Global distribution of seamounts from ship-track bathymetry data”, Geophysical. Research. Letters, Vol. 34, L13304, doi:10.1029/2007GL029874
The 1991 Gerlach study is of no use whatsoever. Not hassling Gerlach himself mind you. But its clear that the fraud side of the argument has just dragged Gerlach’s study out of mothballs to further their lies.
I’ve downloaded the Hillier study. And they are calling underwater volcanoes “seamounts”. They have managed to suss out an order of magnitude more of these seamounts then previously thought. That is to say more than 200 000.
And more speculatively they put forward an estimate of THREE MILLION OF THESE “SEAMOUNTS” of the size 100m or more. On top of this I think you’ve all seen those fairly flat riftzones that just spew out small amounts of the red hot stuff day and night.
So yeah there is massively more activity then anyone thought in 1991. The rort that Monbiot and the others are trying to pull off is just incredible. And Plimer was well within his rights to make an estimate based on the proxy of sedimentary rock chemistry.
Plimer making an estimate is no scandal as liars all around the world are now claiming. Rather its what we would call a single proxy estimate. Surely this is the sort of thing that Plimer has done for a living for half a century. Is making estimates now forbidden?
Where is the scandal in a single-proxy estimate? Its not going to be the revealed truth since you need three or more convergent proxies to get to the revealed truth. But these lunatics are calling it science fraud.
Its as if all their poxy estimates are official and all ours are criminal. We need to hit back hard at these lunatics. This is business. Sometimes you’ve got to fight fire with fire. Think of how many people this movement has damaged professionally. Lest we forget.
Gerlach stuff is lost on folk in cyber space hey
Tut tut….
Cohenite can check this out though –
“Identifying the Molecular Origin of Global Warming”
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jp905097g
Gavin, 28th 4.07pm,
Yes, there is scientific evidence for a MWP down-under;
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/studies/l2_laketutira.php
Malcolm, I read the Sciam article as well as about half of the 967 comments, Monkton is spot on. For interest sake I clicked on many of the links within the article and was astounded to find that the majority were to either Realclimate or Tim Lambert’s blog. Fancy a “respected” science magazine referencing blog sites as evidence for their claims.
A vast number of the comments were from disgruntled subscribers who were strongly critical of Scientific America’s decline over recent years from an informative magazine to a biased, politicised front for the AGW crowd.
gavin; the dipole moment and the change in dipole moment in the various greenhouse molecules is a tough subject; Barrett explains it best;
http://www.warwickhughes.com/papers/barrett_ee05.pdf
eli of course thinks that CO2 saturation cannot occur;
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2007/07/temperature-anonymice-gave-eli-new.html
But eli fudges because he assumes that CO2 dipole moment increases [ie the higher rotational levels] with temperature [or pressure] increases; this is really a restatement of the AGW tautology that CO2 causes temperature increases with more CO2 causing more temperature increases AND, as well, an expansion in the absorption capacity of the CO2 molecules; BUT, as Barrett explains CO2 doesn’t have a dipole moment? Perhaps you can explain?
Folks,
Your discussion about volcanoes and plate tectonics raises some interesting questions.
First off, the interior of the Earth is a very dynamic place, with ‘convection cells’ transferring heat from the molten core outwards to the mantle and crust. These convection cells are discontinuous and vary by location — constituting a sort of ‘weather’ in their own right.
Temperature at the center of the Earth is 4150 Centigrade/7502 Fahrenheit.
That’s darned hot, and there’s a lot of it. Consider: most of Earth’s mass is its interior, not its surface. And that internal heat is radiating toward the surface constantly.
Seems to me if a calculation of global heating rests entirely on sunlight, it’s ignoring a huge factor — so huge as to generate erroneous results.
As far as we know, has anyone determined the relative contributions of sunlight and the molten core to observed heating? If not, the climatologists will have to start all over again.
Handy links:
http://csmres.jmu.edu/geollab/fichter/PlateTect/heathistory.html
http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/mar97/856964891.Es.r.html
https://www.washington.edu/burkemuseum/geo_history_wa/The%20Restless%20Earth%20v.2.0.htm
“Gerlach stuff is lost on folk in cyber space hey
Tut tut….”
What is that supposed to mean gavin you idiot? Are you claiming its not a scandal. The scandal is confirmed by the fact that you, being an idiot, were not able to post one of the relevant Gerlach studies.
Seriously you complete idiot. What do you mean by the above? You are a blockhead mate. What do you mean by “Tut Tut” you brain dead insect?
I’ll check back on you a bit later gavin to see if you have some excuse for your idioctic statement. See if you reckon you can explain why this isn’t Climategate Mach II. What a moron you are.
Cohenite; you are just a skimmer i.e. no depth when it comes to technology but hey I don’t hold that against anyone who hasn’t had the necessary background. Just sit back and wonder at it all while the pros fight it out.
Today there are a lot of fields we can latch onto with relative safety and one of those is the steady rise in atmospheric CO2 regardless of interruptions from volcanoes, undersea vents etc. That world wide study above even allows identification of CO2 sources.
Graeme; just sit down and calmly go through my “Gerlach links” and find the numerous works and references that remain on the internet via geoscience academic papers re findings, methodologies etc.
I notice commentators since have not mentioned the physics of gas measurement, SO2 ratios and so on associated with well established vulcanology.
Look gavin, your Will Rogers, ah shucks, folksy ramblings are wearing thin; I put a specific aspect of eli’s musings on how ACO2 supposedly cannot be saturated in contradiction to the Barrett paper; it has nothing to do with skimming, how do you reconcile the conflict; is CO2 incapable of ever being saturated in its ‘heating’ effect; and mind you we are not talking about feedbacks, this is the unlimited capacity of CO2 to continue interacting with IR at a seemingly endless frequency range; I know eli believes this, what do you think? And does CO2 have a dipole moment or not? Now’s your chance gavin, enlighten us.
“A little knowledge…” says the chirpy one who hates the PC, blogs, sceptics and me for bothering but one last try.
Cohenite; your Jack Barrett dos not feature in authorised sources with his greenhouse stuff however I did look into it and concluded it was too narrow to be real.
Yours truly has retired and won’t do the math but I can pass on a few tips. Last week a retired science teacher looked at my TV antenna and thought his makeshift device made with a metal doughnut could be better in this difficult reception area. My recently installed device has 2 complex sets of V & H polarised dipoles and was recommended by a former Telco engineer. Oddly the guy who lives next door but up one level was the Fed Dept’s TV reception rep before he retired and uses a tower to gain some extra height. In such a situation any thing that works is OK for the day.
My former work allowed some spectrum snooping too and I found dipoles simple enough till we went from band to band in big steps. We go from whips to an eye in a circle in no time. Also band pass in a channel requires a fiddle too and we could start with some feathered ends on the dipoles. I could go on but I guess there is some slackness in your average gas molecule too. In the end we must use the broad spectrum approach an receive the radiation as a fuzz from all directions then be satisfied with only that warms the sea and me.
Schiller can buzz off with thoughts of Mother earth warming our tail as crust insulation is way good enough to keep us freezing up top with out help from our jolly old Sun
I might have known; I ask a specific question and I get the parable of the TV antenna; Barrett references HITRAN and K&T, so his source for first principles is immaculate; for those who are interested in a good discussion about saturation see;
http://www.junkscience.com/jan08/Global_Warming_Not_From_CO2_20080124.pdf
Cohenite, let me jump in here and say that no, CO2 does not have a dipole moment. Although it has polar bonds between the C an O atoms, if you refer to to CO2 diagrams in Barrett, the molecule is linear and the polar bonds are exactly opposite to each other and equal in magnitude, so cancel each other out resulting in a zero net polarity. A molecule has to be a net dipole to have a dipole moment.
Now the 2nd and 3rd vibrational frequencies create dipole situations by changing the net geometry of the molecule. Note that all 3 vibrations occur at the same time butt at different frequencies so you get a nodal system similar to Milankovic cycles.
Hope this helps, cheers.
Yes Derek, this is the gist of eli’s piece where the vibrational or excited states of the CO2 molecule cause rotational changes and create dipole moments which allows aborption; eli takes it a step further to argue that saturation doesn’t occur, that is the vibrational caused dipole moments can increase further, but he relies on temperatures which don’t occur on Earth.
‘Graeme; just sit down and calmly go through my “Gerlach links”
I have done you worthless pondscum moron. They are the wrong ones. They are not the least bit relevant to either this new scandal or to the question of global volcanic CO2 release.
You couldn’t find the right one dopey.
This is a scandal so the 1991 study in question was removed. No Gerlach study is relevant. Since he only had one study to do with worldwide release, this was 1991, and as it turns out it was hopelessly wrong, His calculation for the entire globe bested three times over by the yellowstone area alone. You are just a blockhead mate. You’ve been taken in by this rubbish. Which means of course you never had what it takes to be employed in any science job.
So the scandal is on. No-one can find the Gerlach study. He had a whole page with a summary of all his work. Seems to be that this page has gotten to be hard to find as well. Of course none of his studies are the least bit relevant to the question of CO2 output. Only to the Climate Gate Mach II Scandal. Otherwise known as George Monbiot and the outer limits of plausible deniability. Personally I hope they don’t put the relevant studies back. I’m fine with these morons hiding stuff.
Hello All,
I have been scouring the daily papers and I still cannot find any headlines or articles on climate gate. Piers and Andrew did have some comments before Xmas.
Climategate should be being screamed about from every rooftop. How dare these leftist wankers with their “use your trick to hide the decline” brand of non science waste our tax dollars and threaten our economy .
The sooner these AGW idiots are outed for all to see, the sooner we can all move on ( third world incuded ) to a brighter futre!
That should read; brighter future!
“N2 and O2 are not greenhouse gasses but make up 99.9% of the dry atmosphere.”
That puts it in perspective, cohers.
Here’s Hansen making his alley good post climategate:
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2009/20091216_TemperatureOfScience.pdf
Although not my field, from practice associated with physical chemistry we get this approach
“Spectroscopy is the study of the interaction of electromagnetic radiation with matter. There are many forms of spectroscopy, each contributing useful information to identify substances and to determine various characteristics of their structure” see ‘bonds’ &
“Molecular responses to radiation”
http://www.wag.caltech.edu/home/jang/genchem/infrared.htm
I also continue to avoid Maxwell’s equations, the Schrodinger wave equation etc from quantum physics but suggest others use the ‘selection rules’ according to electronic, vibrational and rotational transitions at the molecular level
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selection_rule
The cohenite post mentioning “moment” caused me to think bum steer because the pure physical chemistry approach does not allow for wave complexity or non ridgid dipoles. Again from wiki in “Dipole moment density and polarization density” we get the following discussion –
“but for a neutral array it is simply a vector property of the array with no directions about where the array happens to be located. The dipole moment density of the array p(r) contains both the location of the array and its dipole moment. When it comes time to calculate the electric field in some region containing the array, Maxwell’s equations are solved, and the information about the charge array is contained in the polarization density P(r) of Maxwell’s equations”
Derek “A molecule has to be a net dipole to have a dipole moment”
An electric dipole moment ? perhaps! But before we find a gaseous medium with charge and dipole densities we should consider another basic, the dielectric sphere in a uniform external electric field but not the whole raft of info from modern particle physics symmetries, CP violations etc
Back to spectroscopy and coupled transitions for another fudge in impacts to niggle the purists
“Two-dimensional IR spectroscopy can be designed to eliminate the diagonal peaks and expose only the crosspeaks needed for structure determination”
http://www.pnas.org/content/98/20/11265.full
spangles; unfortunately that “hockey stick” temp graph stands
“spangles; unfortunately that “hockey stick” temp graph stands”
gavin,
Is that right? What sort of a handle would you like?
http://i45.tinypic.com/iwq8a1.jpg
gavin, you are either eli in drag with a corn-cob pipe or making things up; as I said the dipole moment issue is complex; I have already linked you to eli’s, IMO, erroneous discusion on the expanded capacity of CO2 to continue heating; let me respond to your cut and paste with another link to eli;
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2007/03/what-is-local-thermodynamic-equilibrium.html
In effect an LTE establishes that CO2 absorption and heating is a near surface phenomenon; the LTE is defined by internal equalised thermalisation; it is the same temperature; it does not matter whether the CO2 molecule has an expanding absorption capacity as eli has described because the LTE has no temperature gradient; in effect the LTE has no dipole moment; the CO2 inside the LTE cannot heat further the parcel of air which is the LTE; further transfer of the heat in the LTE to the external gases by diffusion is defeated by convective uplift which is much more rapid; the LTE loses its heat differential with the external atmosphere as it rises until it becomes the same temperature as the surrounding atmosphere; at this level which is the characteristic emission layer [CEL] the mean free path of the CO2 molecules is expanded because there are less other molecules to collide with; the CO2 emits and then convectively sinks.
The point about the above macro process is that such processes are not determined by the quantum properties of CO2 as gavin’s mention of “wave complexity” implies: decoherence sees to that and the “butterfly effect” is nonsense and Schrodinger’s cat is not similtaneously alive or dead but one or the other; the relevance to AGW is that there is no such thing as a tipping point. Now if only gavin would decohere.
“spangles; unfortunately that “hockey stick” temp graph stands”
No no. It doesn’t stand. You are a liar. For starters, before all the other fraud involved with this graph, you clearly cannot use tree rings data as a proxy for temperature, since CO2 makes the tree rings grow faster.
See you are an idiot pal. You cannot get the simplest thing right. The hockey stick lie is just like the volcano lie you guys are into. Over at deltoid there is one person claiming that the 130 times business overstates the volcanic release. “luminous beauty” has tried to wing it that volcanic release is actually negative. Eli Rabbet is also buying into the 130 times figure. They are just like you. They lie all the time.
HAPPY NEW YEAR ONE AND ALL!
Well, Mother Nature really is a feisty but temperamental old Dame, isn’t she?
She has NO time for those who would assume to know her moods, predict her actions or seek to change her ways.
Recent weather events around the Globe and particularly here in Australia are typical of the old Dames response to people like Al Gore, Tim Flannery and James Hansen.
Not only is she treating them like precocious children, she is demonstrating their irrational foolishness in a manner familiar to most farmers.
However, her greatest delight seems to be in making gooses of Politicians like Mr. Rudd, Mr. Turnbull, Mr. Brown and Penny Wong.
She is demonstrating her displeasure at Politicians and their “Gravy Train” supporters who have allowed themselves to be swept along in a flood of hubris and immeasurable arrogance, boasting they can legislate to change her moods.
She will have none of this impertinence.
Mother Nature is complex beyond comprehension, unpredictable always, fiecely independent and will continue to make fools of Politicians (and AGW supporters on this site) who have allowed their egos to subdue their common sense.
How great it is to see the rivers of the Darling system flowing again.
If you have read the release put out by Prof. Mick Young yesterday via the BOM. in relation to the present flood in the Darling.
It was mostly false and is just another example of self proclaimed “experts” getting unquestioned coverage in the MSM.
Another one this morning in the Aus. from my adversary Prof. Richard Kingsford.
Pikey.
The point about the above macro process is that such processes are not determined by the quantum properties of CO2 as gavin’s mention of “wave complexity” implies
Hey Cohenite, if Harald Schneider, Wolfgang Wernsdorfer or George Christou said that I would be worried also this decoherence thing get everybody into deep water
As I said previously no math and that includes Dirac notation and Copenhagen interpretation
“Many physicists and philosophers have objected to the Copenhagen interpretation, both on the grounds that it is non-deterministic and that it includes an undefined measurement process that converts probability functions into non-probabilistic measurements. Einstein’s comments “I, at any rate, am convinced that He (God) does not throw dice.”[14] and “Do you really think the moon isn’t there if you aren’t looking at it?”[15] exemplify this. Bohr, in response, said “Einstein, don’t tell God what to do”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation#Criticisms.
BTW cohenite, several posts above were composed before I read your most recent serves and I have deliberatly avoided your eli links, prefering to do my own revision from more familular stand points associated with practice. That has yet to include some old thoughts on harmonics re dipoles at very high frequencies and radiation v H20 the liquid and its vapour for a contrast since the atmosphere is virtually transparent
Physics as theory hasn’t moved much since I gave it up a long time ago but we can start here with confidence
http://www.wag.caltech.edu/home/jang/genchem/infrared.htm
“These different types of motion occur at different frequencies”
http://science.widener.edu/svb/ftir/ir_co2.html
Pike
Happy new year to you too!
“Recent weather events around the Globe”
Some years back, before this hysteria about CC started we would put this down as the vagaries of weather-climate.
Now everything is interpreted according to the CC bible.
Too cold, too hot, too much rain, not enough rain?
It’s all caused by man made CC!!
Makes you despair of human stupidity.
Gavin, I’ve noticed you seem to refer to Wikipedia a lot, perhaps you have more confidence in it than the rest of us. I’ve also noticed that you found the same sites that I did re;CO2 spectra, so I’m wondering if you are just pretending to know more than you do. Case in point, the “Dipole moment density and polarization density” section isn’t referring to molecular dipoles but an array of point charges so I’m not sure if you actually understood what you were referencing just trying to blind everyone with technical stuff.
Gavin,
I am surprised you didn’t jump on Cohenite’s statement:
“Yes Derek, this is the gist of eli’s piece where the vibrational or excited states of the CO2 molecule cause rotational changes and create dipole moments which allows aborption; eli takes it a step further to argue that saturation doesn’t occur, that is the vibrational caused dipole moments can increase further, but he relies on temperatures which don’t occur on Earth.”
Of COURSE these conditions occur on earth. In COMBUSTION CHAMBERS!!!
Some of those gear heads could school those touting Atmospheric Radiative Physics!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
Dr Richard North continues to unearth the intricate spiders web woven by our esteemed IPCC chairman and railway engineer Rajendra Pachauri. The plot substantially thickens.
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2009/12/pachauri-teri-europe-enigma-part-1.html
Derek “Gavin, I’ve noticed you seem to refer to Wikipedia a lot, perhaps you have more confidence in it than the rest of us” Sure; I studied physics more than 30 years ago but I come here with an open mind to help re you lot and wiki
A search begins – see NO wiki, no text books either
“Although Carbon Dioxide is a triatomic molecule, it behaves much like a simple diatomic molecule because its structure is linear”
http://www.phy.davidson.edu/StuHome/derekk/Resonance/pages/co2.htm
Quantum harmonic oscillator – note the index, the Planck hypothesis, Bernoulli, Voltage law, First law Thermodynamics..
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/HBASE/hframe.html
kuhnkat; clown I really did a lot of work on combustion chambers. What about you?
Spangles; we have seen the mystical “floating mountains” and the “tree of life”
gavin, what is the point of this? The fact is the quantum process by which CO2 interacts with IR of certain wavelengths is well-known; there is no evidence that it has any, let alone a dominant effect on climate.
gavin
give it a rest, you are just digging yourself in deeper and deeper and embarrassing yourself.
When you stopped posting a year ago I thought you came to your senses, alas not!
You are quoting popular sci. stuff meant for interested laymen as part of general knowledge.
You even fail to distinguish between the different roles CO2 plays in the atmosphere and as used in a laser.
Like it or lump it fellows, it’s there no wiki, no sceptics blogs!
“The carbon dioxide strongly absorbs infrared and does not allow as much of it to escape into space”.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/grnhse.html
“The greenhouse gases
Quantum mechanics provides the basis for computing the interactions between molecules and radiation. Most of this interaction occurs when the frequency of the radiation closely matches that of the spectral lines of the molecule, determined by the quantization of the modes of vibration and rotation of the molecule”.
http://en.allexperts.com/e/g/gr/greenhouse_effect.htm
“Greenhouse Warming is Classical.
A new joint study by French and Russian scientists shows in detail how carbon dioxide molecules absorb and sometimes scatter light energy not only singly but also during inter-molecular collisions. The absorption by single molecules is indeed governed by quantum laws, but absorption by molecules during collisions is, the new study shows, a process governed by classical laws of motion. The new look at this important greenhouse gas should help scientists better model greenhouse warming. Visible light coming from the sun pours down daily and is reflected back from earth as infrared (IR) radiation”
“ the new study improves the study of greenhouse warming in several ways: (1) It allows us to calculate exactly how much of the IR photon energy (intercepted by a CO2 molecule during a CO2-CO2 collision) is transferred directly to the neighboring gas molecule, where it is converted to kinetic energy of translation; it’s about half of the IR photon energy. The other half of the IR photon energy goes to rotation of the two molecules, which will then start spinning more quickly. (2) It shows how to introduce higher-order effects, such as the simultaneous collision of three molecules. On Venus such collisions should add significantly to IR absorption. (3) It provides evidence that inter-molecular interactions at close range separations (interactions acting when the colliding molecules approach to within a few angstroms) have no effect on absorption, a conclusion in conflict with the mainstream belief that short range interactions should play a substantial role in collision induced molecular absorption. Instead, the new study argues that absorption owing to CO2-CO2 collisions is exclusively governed by long range interactions, which can be modeled and interpreted with the known laws of classical physics alone. (Chrysos et al., Physical Review Letters, 4 April 2008)”
http://www.aip.org/pnu/2008/split/862-1.html
If you can, it’s time you guys to moved from the micro to the macro
gavin,
Here’s a bit of macro for you:
http://www.literaryreview.co.uk/appleyard_12_09.html
gavin; your paper is junk; the Venus analogy is the AGW equivalent of Godwin’s Law; it is thoroughly disingenuous; how can collisions between CO2 on Venus greatly add to IR absorption when SW cannot penetrate the cloud cover of Venus? Little SW [about 5%] reaches the surface of Venus so IR cannot be reemitted; Venus warms from the bottom up not down as Earth does. Another slight problem is that because the mass of the Venusian atmosphere is 4.8×10^20kg, about 90 times as massive as Earth’s, the pressure at the surface of Venus is 67kg/m^3 which means that CO2 at the surface would be a supercritical fluid which could not absorb IR even if there were any. Furthermore the mass and density of the Venusian atmosphere ITSELF causes the temperature profile of Venus and explains why it is 500K greater than Earth’s. In any event if CO2 was causing Venus’s temperature why isn’t Mercury warmer than Venus since Mercury’s atmosphere has a greater % of CO2 than Venus, while Mar’s atmospheric concentration of CO2 is the same as Venus’s but it is colder than Earth?
Cohenite, the graph at the following “http://joannenova.com.au/globalwarming/graphs/CO2_infrared_sorption_Tom.jpg” shows that the absorption band that Eli is so excited about is already saturated. The peak at 675 at Rabbit corresponds to the CO2 peak at around 15 micrometers and you can see that the width of saturation is already much wider than the one on Eli’s graph. Not to mention it’s already strongly absorbing from H2O at that wavelength.
Derek; that graph of radiation transmission is from wiki; I’m surprised that gavin didn’t find it; the crucial area is the IR window from about 8-12 microns; eli’s alleged point is that under temperature increase and consequent increase in gas pressure an increase in collisional activity will cause the absorption range of CO2 to cover that window; but to achieve that the temperature rise for eli’s prediction would be considerable; for a more realistic look at the widening of the absorption range of increased CO2 look at figure 3 from this article;
http://www.junkscience.com/jan08/Global_Warming_Not_From_CO2_20080124.pdf
Cohenite, I don’t miss much but you do your Eli homework I while scout hey.
Back to school for Derek. I see the atmosphere this way. Do you? “NASA’s eyes on earth” The big picture darn it, shows the curvature and it spoils my flat earth approach. BTW in Feb 09 I took some pics over the Tasman Sea, Bass Strait etc.
See “Sea Level Data” updated 12.01.09, also Artic Sea ice, CO2, Global av temp, Ozone hole,
http://climate.nasa.gov/keyIndicators/
This lot only goes half way “Cold Facts on Global Warming”
http://brneurosci.org/co2.html
“Carbon dioxide, the ocean and climate change”
http://www.csiro.au/resources/ClimateChangeCO2inOceans.html
“Greenhouse Gases”
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/energyexplained/index.cfm?page=environment_about_ghg
Gavin, could you please explain to me (probably via wiki) why all of the “greenhouse effect” diagrams have IR not interacting with CO2 until it gets higher up in the atmosphere?
You’ve lost the plot gavin.
Gavin, your first link? Seen it all before, your point? 2nd link? Been there before too so I didn’t bother reading it again.
3rd link? Please, CSIRO media releases that don’t give any data or references? Total waste of time. 4th link? Now you’re trying to insult me.
BTW, haven’t we danced around this “ocean acidification” thing before? I read a news article recently that claimed a projected acidity increase of 120% by some time in this century and it had some Swedish sounding professor doing a “frightening”demonstration to the pollies in US of the effect that level of acidity would have on sea shells. Did the calculations and found that 120% increase in “acidity” results in a change in pH from about 8.2 to about 7.9, whoopteedo! You know what happens to sea shells (hell! use limestone ) at a pH of 7.9? SFA!!!!
We stick boiled eggs in vinegar and leave them for a COUPLE OF DAYS to dissolve the shells away so I’m wondering just how strong the acid was for this professor to get a “frightening” demonstration.
BTW#2, hydrothermal vents generally have very low pH’s, as low as 2.8, but are still often surrounded by crustaceans
including muscles, not to mention corals.
It’s interesting that gavin is the only expert here who will comment on the notion that an internally-heated planet would have a climate influenced solely by the Sun.
In gavin’s scholarly estimation, the 7,000-plus (F) heat at the Earth’s core which, after all, must go somewhere, cannot be a factor in any equation regarding ‘warming our tail’ since ‘crust insulation is way good enough to keep us freezing up top’.
That refutation is certainly worthy of Hadley CRU’s hockey team, obviously.
Curious persons will still want to know: where in the equations is the Earth’s internal heat factored in?
AGW proponents complain about arguments which rest upon the notion that CO2 is ‘only a teeny tiny component’ of the atmosphere.
Well, what about a planet with a molten core powered by the decay of transuranic elements running red-hot, 24/7?
They wanna do a competent model, ignoring a stable heat factor is flat ignorant.
Schiller I wish you’d get your temp correct, didn’t big Al tell a tv interviewer recently that the earth’s core had a temp of a million degrees or so.
You’ve got to stop quoting that measly 7,000 F, but I can’t understand how cool the soles of my feet are lately, must be good insulation or something.
Gavin,
“kuhnkat; clown I really did a lot of work on combustion chambers. What about you?”
then you should know better. The magnitudes of physical properties often vary based on the specific state of the material.
There’s no fool like an old fool!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Gavin,
““The carbon dioxide strongly absorbs infrared and does not allow as much of it to escape into space”.”
Specifically “…does not allow as much of it to escape into space”.”
Not even the warmers believe that!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Oh, and Gavin, how can Venus emit more than it absorbs??
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
“The magnitudes of physical properties often vary based on the specific state of the material” kuhnkat; you should try feeding that back into google before posting. “specific state of the material” is a clanger hey. BTW the state of some gases in the presence of O2 improves with presure in the hot box. Now it’s your turn to detail the ratio of emissions re “does not allow as much of it to escape into space”
Neville; next time you and your folks take a paddle in the briny; ask all which process heats your bare soles then tell Schiller.
Derek; if you can’t use CSIRO info page by page then we are doomed by a more ignorant next gen. Recall; I don’t do calcs but I can assure you that I had a long assocation with pH controlled process streams and fully appreciate your input on that issue. Disolving complex mineral bonds and hardening celulose fiber webs depended greatly on our pH loops.
The “Cold facts” link gives simple diagrams of radiation in and out through the atmospheric layers, even strike angles such as they are however I not convinced any of it could be used as the basis for those calculations.
These diagrams in particular are misleading and the best proof of that is a glance at the expanded “backround” photo on the NASA page where the atmosphere is all down under the observer. As I say its’s the flat earth and its rather thin atmosphere below that determines what happens on the perpendicular from the sun
Cohenite; Gavin has no plot other than suport for good science that gives us indicators such as those on the NASA page above. That great global thermometer, Sea Level tells all whats up not the hired guns on blogs who have never noticed the fragile coastal evidence for both recent and past changes. Sand dunes every where protect much old sea bed we now live on.
I urge younger families to re discover wet caves, dry caves, shell middens, barren bottoms, mangroves, coastal lakes and river estuaries then compare with our fixtures such as historic jetties, breakwaters, shacks, shipwrecks and so on.
To all, Happy New Year! May 2010 be a great year for us all!
Gavin Schmidt has been caught out lying and supporting liars in his promotion of AGW catastrophism.
It is long past time for even the most strident supporters of AGW theory to stop pretending other wise.
Gavin,
As it turns out, heat from the Earth’s molten core provides a great deal of heat to the Earth’s atmosphere, via mechanisms that are increasingly well-understood. See links below.
The major mechanism is the heat transferred into the oceans from the Earth’s core, since the crust beneath the oceans is thinner than continental crust — facilitating heat transfer to the oceans, which account for most of the Earth’s surface. And oceans circulate and transfer a great deal of heat.
We’re looking at about 62 mW/m2 for the average oceanic heat flow (Hofmeister & Criss, 2003). About half of this is a transient effect from the plate-forming process and half is the background flux from the mantle. Measured oceanic heat flow varies from about 300 to 25 mW/m2 with 45 to 55 mW/m2 being a representative range through old oceanic crust.
Since it appears there is a consensus that this source of heat is *not* factored into AGW models, then it should appear easy to form a consensus that these AGW models are flawed to the point of uselessness.
Links:
http://www.es.ucsc.edu/~thorne/TL.pdfs/LWG_cmb_Nature1998.pdf
http://www.mantleplumes.org/Energetics.html
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O112-heatflowintheEarth.html
So gavin you agree with al’s estimation of a million degree temp at the earth’s core do you?
Please, say yes so we can speed the process and send for the white coat brigade to cart you off to the funny farm for the barking mad and save everyone the trouble of responding to your increasingly silly posts.
G’DAY and best wishes to all in 2010. Now let’s get down to battle
“Earth’s molten core provides a great deal of heat to the Earth’s atmosphere”
Schiller I suggest you feed that statement straight into Google then spend some time up front studying the results. Also; your links don’t exactly cover the issue of the heat source we feel most on the surface of earth, but thanks anyway.
Similarly a Google search for “Earth’s crust cooling” finds not a lot on our predicament with global warming however Lord Kelvin appears to have found the appropriate handle on the science. See
“Cooling of the Earth and core formation after the giant impact”
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v437/n7063/abs/nature04129.html
Beware; we have to contend with clowns with their a pen or pc,
“Is the Earth actually cooling?”
http://www.policybytes.org/Blog/PolicyBytes.nsf/dx/soundbytes-209-is-the-earth-actually-cooling.htm?opendocument&comments
One thing for certain, they won’t find a temp series by thermometer to assure them about global crust trends
Okay Gavin,
I have succumbed completely to your awesome powers of persuasion.
Obviously the molten core of the Earth would not emit anything noteworthy. There’s obviously an unknown factor that works as an impermeable insulator to prevent the internal heat from escaping outwards.
Oh, wait… then we’d have to cook up a new theory. Who installed that mighty insulator? Perhaps the space aliens who erected the pyramids, and Stonehenge, and all that.
On second thought, no.
Gavin, the strength of your denialism is a credit to your faith.
Be not abashed before the unbelievers! Go forth and proclaim!
You’d be better received by your fellows, though. This doesn’t appear to be the right audience. Us being interested in facts and so forth.
Neville “you agree with al’s estimation of a million degree temp at the earth’s core do you?”
Mate; al’s estimates are about as good as yours since neither can verify exactly what goes on below our feet. But for me, after walking around on an aged fire brick dome over moulten tin and glass it’s easy to imagine the earth’s core is mostly moulten rock immediately below the crust we stand on. What escapes the cracks is the best clue in both cases.
About thermal reactions in general, Ive had a fair amount of experience in industry with various vessels including reactors operating at extremes for continuous proceses and can say that besides operating temperatures, pressure is a major factor. On the old imperial scale 2000 psi requires a pretty robust steel container and given that the magma below needs a massivly thick crock pot to keep it under control. Here I’m assuming some volatile reaction keeps the whole brew churning.
It’s your turn to impres with something solid first hand but I’m thinking we are dealing with another parrot.
Schiller, facts are what you make them
“Schiller, facts are what you make them”
I read this and I thought to myself “This must be the idiot gavin” And sure enough.
If I may interrupt this discussion just for a second. Southwest and central Eastern China has experienced a strong cooling trend of between 0.1 to 0.3 degrees C per decade because of brown cloud.
If natural cooling takes place over the next two decades, the AGW signal in China will probably disappear off the radar.
Schiller Thurkettle,
I think Gavin breathed too many fumes from his ethanol and mercury thermometers over the years.
The really fun stuff they have been finding in the last few years!! Supercritical Water!!
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2008/08/extreme-water-f.html
http://www.nature.com/news/2006/060522/full/news060522-15.html
Now that pumps a couple joules into the oceans from the bottom!!
Yup, ocean vents are the baseboard heaters of the Oceans!!
Hope everyone had, are having, or will have a great New Years!!!
“interrupt this discussion”?! What discussion? The situation is we are trying to salvage what is left of gavin’s cognitive faculties. Personally I can’t understand gavin’s last comment; has he worked at the molten core? What union represented him; does his pension plan cover feet blisters and fried brains?
On a more productive level, AGW has never considered the input of the ocean, core heat or atmospheric pressure into atmospheric heating of the Earth. Arthur Smith’s much lauded response to Gerlich and Tscheuschner does not consider any of these 3 determining factors;
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0802/0802.4324v1.pdf
2 papers which do consider them are;
http://biocab.org/Induced_Emission.html
http://www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com/pdf/Rethinking_the_greenhouse_effect.pdf
“The major mechanism is the heat transferred into the oceans from the Earth’s core, since the crust beneath the oceans is thinner than continental crust — facilitating heat transfer to the oceans, which account for most of the Earth’s surface. And oceans circulate and transfer a great deal of heat.”
Schiller, very good point.
Added to what cohenite said about 90% of tectonic divides being under the ocean….
A happy new year to Jen and everyone. I managed to keep well away from those hippocritical fireworks displays that the MSM just love. Noticed in Japan they just let balloons go and Paris merely lit up the tower. I had my earth hour in protest and got up early on the one morning of the year when the world is quiet, to listen for birds.
this article may interest you.
http://www.gsaaj.org/articles/TempPaperv1n22007.pdf
Interesting snippet here
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091230184221.htm
Cohenite – I believe you also have a legal background. I do not, but do have a science background. I wish to pursue a FOI action in relation to one or two of the Climategate emails relating to Australia. Please contact me at marybATpowerup.com.au if interested.
Hey, did anybody see this article? Which says
“ScienceDaily (June 11, 2009) — Damon Matthews, a professor in Concordia University’s Department of Geography, Planning and the Environment has found a direct relationship between carbon dioxide emissions and global warming. Matthews, together with colleagues from Victoria and the U.K., used a combination of global climate models and historical climate data to show that there is a simple linear relationship between total cumulative emissions and global temperature change.”
And “These findings mean that we can now say: if you emit that tonne of carbon dioxide, it will lead to 0.0000000000015 degrees of global temperature change.”
Wow, I guess it’s case closed. Someone tell Luke he was right all along and that we are all going to vote for Bob Brown from now on.
Sorry, I’ll try again, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090610154453.htm
This is a crucial paper Jabba, which contradicts conventional AGW theory that sinks are not expanding to accommodate the increase in CO2 which is also assumed to be due to increases in ACO2. In fact sinks are expanding which can only explain why less than 1/2 of ACO2 is the measure of CO2 increases; in addition if sinks are increasing then it is likely that CO2 is increasing which would mean that ACO2 is not responsible for the increase in CO2
Here is the Damon Matthew’s paper which purports to have established a precise and historically consistent carbon-climate response [CCR];
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v459/n7248/abs/nature08047.html
This is of course utter bunk as these demonstrate;
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/CO2,Temperaturesandiceages-f.pdf
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/MSUCRUvsCO2.jpg
Excellent links, thanks Cohenite.
Since global warming models don’t take into account the heat contributed by ocean circulation, they have to account for the heat that shows up that you can’t attribute directly to sunlight.
As a result, it’s necessary to invent some mechanism to account for that extra heat from the source you’re overlooking.
This is as bad as Climategate, and it’s been in plain view the whole time.
janama,
Thanks for the link to “MAGNETIC INTENSITY AND GLOBAL TEMPERATURES: A STRONG CORRELATION”, at http://www.gsaaj.org/articles/TempPaperv1n22007.pdf
It puts forward an interesting and very plausible theory, but there is a terrible problem: the authors find a ‘strong correlation’ with the GHCN climate data, which we now know to be highly questionable — if not hopelessly corrupt.
I wonder how many other scientific findings in other fields have been dealt a devastating blow like this through unwitting reliance on the false results presented by the Hockey Team.
Plotting this against the hockey stick could be a revelation:
Knorr, W. (2009), Is the airborne fraction of anthropogenic CO2 emissions increasing?, Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L21710, doi:10.1029/2009GL040613.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL040613.shtml
No Rise of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Fraction in Past 160 Years, New Research Finds
ScienceDaily, Dec. 31, 2009
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091230184221.htm
“It is shown that with those uncertainties, the trend in the airborne fraction since 1850 has been 0.7 ± 1.4% per decade, i.e. close to and not significantly different from zero.”
“Despite the predictions of coupled climate-carbon cycle models, no trend in the airborne fraction can be found. “
Flooding has been reported in n.e Vic around Albury Wodonga overnight, I hope the Murray gets some long needed rain in the catchments.
Won’t luke and his team be disappointed if Hume and Dartmouth get a bit of a fill.
Schiller; although your Science Daily reads somewhat like a Popular Mechanics mag. I can recommend it as a relatively broad source provided its climate change articles are not cherry picked by our average skeptic bloggers so let’s dig deeper hey
“Oceans Absorbing Carbon Dioxide More Slowly, Scientist Finds”
ScienceDaily (Nov. 27, 2009) — The world’s oceans are absorbing less carbon dioxide (CO2), a Yale geophysicist has found after pooling data taken over the past 50 years. With the oceans currently absorbing over 40 percent of the CO2 emitted by human activity, this could quicken the pace of climate change, according to the study, which appears in the November 25 issue of Geophysical Research Letters
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091124140957.htm
Cohenite: when I find your links lead straight back to What’s up I immediately dismiss your post on the simple basis there in most likely no other citation of merit. Your Frank Lansner doesn’t rate in mainstream science.
Kuhnkat “I think Gavin breathed too many fumes from his ethanol and mercury thermometers”
Good guess but did you know that apart from the mercury in my buckets mostly coming from manometers not thermometers; the vast amount of liquid that I could readily access was used in chlorine production plants. IMHO yours truly was a very careful chap indeed.
Spangles; you need to address my NASA link on SL etc before joining the congo lines searching the deep.
Maryb; imo Australian science over many decades has been quite robust and easily accessed. From personal experience a direct approach is productive except perhaps in cases of commercial restrictions. Stats on the other hand are generally embargoed till authorized.
Derek; see some interesting adds on Science Daily links above. check also the tarantula story
Gavin, I did in fact check out a number of the other articles at Science daily but not the tarantula one. Of note was the fact that one or two articles contradicted others (which is weirdly refreshing from the one site) so when it comes down to it , we can play the “my article versus your article” game all day and not reach a satisfactory resolution.
One of Schiller’s excellent links http://www.mantleplumes.org/Energetics.html , apart from it’s intrinsic value, also shows that good science never “settled” but should always be open to conflicting views and rigorous debate.
BTW, if you have been brave enough to get a hold of “Heaven and Earth”, I recommend reading pages 323 to 339 which covers the whole issue of submarine volcanism, oceanic CO2 solubility and pH quite nicely.
gavin, your disclaimer about not reading my links because they are not peer reviewed would be funny if it were not so grotesque coming from the the great anecdoter and perveyor of truth from the hallowed halls of CRU; disprove this or be a troll;
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/USHCNvsCO2.jpg
Gavin, how about this one re: the hockey stick? http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/11/22/292/
I guess you’re right about Cohenite’s links to WUWT, whenever someone posts a link to Realclimate I almost never go unless I want a good laugh as it is a PR site for the CRU clowns and full of BS. So hey, each to his own eh?
It seems the oceans and trees have been soaking up all that CO2, so there is nothing to worry about.
http://www.biomind.de/realCO2/realCO2-1.htm
Cohenite; those dashed lines performing the USA temp zig zag are unauthorized and its my opinion points on the graph is too wild for it to be useful
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/ushcn/mean2.5X3.5_pg.gif
BTW we could be impressed by new methods of detecting undocumented discontinuities in the ref’s but why bother with tatty US data anyway? If someone had the time it should be here for us
http://www.bom.gov.au/products/IDT60701/IDT60701.94954.shtml
however I found this
“CLIMATE CHANGE – ANNUAL MEAN TEMPERATURE ANOMALIES”
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Latestproducts/8E310CC0B0BD392ACA2572340020DDC0?opendocument
Given my region remains at the top for records, with details that I expect to be available soon, the following observation is still relevant
“When it comes to climate change, people in the Australian Capital Territory showed the highest levels of concern (eight in ten people concerned), while the Northern Territory had the lowest (seven in ten)”.
http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/mediareleasesbyReleaseDate/53DA36DD9E7B3FD2CA2575D80081F4FE?OpenDocument
You don’t get it do you gavin; the ‘official’ sites you quote are tainted; the BoM national temperature is contradicted by the majority of the temperature histories of the particular locations which are averaged to give the national record;
http://joannenova.com.au/2009/12/smoking-guns-across-australia-wheres-the-warming/#more-5172
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/#more-13818
The reason for this is BoM and the IPCC ‘adjust’ raw data to suit the AGW theory; it was initially sad that you cannot see this corruption but now it is pathetic.
A quarter of all men are not concerned about climate change. That couldn’t be true.
The ABS said a record temperature was set in 2005 because both ‘daytime and night-time temperatures were high’. If there were more clouds at night and less in the day, it may account for the DTR spike.
http://gustofhotair.blogspot.com/
Your first graph of USHCN temps seems OK Gavin , but guess what ! it stops at 1999! Like at the very highest point eh. Too out of date Gavin and worthless.
Your second referral sends us off to Aust. govt b/s (ABS) where the boffins there are trying to convince us that some of the years in this century are virtually the hottest in living memory. The same b/s about temps in this century being the warmest is being voiced by the top brass of our meterological service here in NZ also. You read it in their statements in the papers about the weather,and it relies on the fact that the public just soaks it up because they have no option . Just more abuse of science. They know that nobody can remember past climate.
But your Aust BS meterologist unashamedly reveals his hand Gavin……
” Scientific studies have linked global and Australian temp increases to the enhanced greenhouse effect”
Your last linkage merely proves there are more brainwashed boffins in ACT .
Mack
Like this?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6924898/The-Met-Office-gives-us-the-warmist-weather.html?state=target#postacomment&postingId=6925094
And
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/boffins-may-be-illegal/story-e6frg6zo-1225815349833
Another Ian,
Thanks for the links. They both invoke a popular preconception among ‘skeptics’ that AGW is a ‘religion’.
To be sure, it behaves like a religion, which is, essentially, an unassailable model to which facts must either be fitted, or ignored.
There is an important message here, which even atheists should heed: the scapegoat is too convenient. Far too convenient.
What sort of religion would it be that seduces the rich and powerful, from nations and cultures around the Earth? The rich and powerful haven’t been co-opted by a religion — if they had, the obviously secular religion would co-opt their wealth as a natural consequence.
The rich and powerful have what they have largely because of not being stupid. The money and power behind AGW naturally attract the most corruptible.
To say that AGW is some sort of ‘spiritual/religious affliction’ is to divert attention away from motives far more powerful and persuasive than the accident of choosing the wrong god to worship.
Schiller Thurkettle,
Calling it a religion is a compliment. As you point out, it would appear to be more of a Cult where those running the scam gain from their followers and try to take from those they can coerce!!
Among the followers it is believed LIKE a religion.
In support of Shillers comments.
This whole AGW scam is far more important than the theological debate about the new religion and its true belivers faith.
These misguided fools are threatening our whole way of life that has been based around affordable’and sustainable energy.
The debate should not be allowed to simply live in the academic world of “should we do science this way or that way?”
The quasi scientific promoters of AGW should be exposed for what they are . Liars and misanthropists who If they had their way would see the first world economies and living standards back in the middle ages and the third world suffering as they are today, or as the warmaholics would prefer, even worse off.
Thurkettle
The people of Britain will vote with their feet if this goes on for 20 years.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/NAO.jpg
When Arthur Phillip was raising the flag for empire at Sydney Cove, the Thames was frozen solid. The weather system operating at the time was probably a negative AO/NAO, so the possibility of a serious freeze-up may see the UK Met in very hot water.
Yes, El Gordo,
Ya wonder if the “experts” ever come out and apologise. [And of course it fills you with great confidence in their ability to guide our future]
http://www.prisonplanet.com/cru%E2%80%99s-forecast-uk-winter-snowfall-will-become-%E2%80%9Ca-very-rare-and-exciting-event%E2%80%9D.html
Has anyone here read Lance Endersbee’s book “A Voyage of Discovery”?
Look at the big picture and get some perspective folks.
Cohenite “the ‘official’ sites you quote are tainted”
Ok, which sites did I mention besides Cape Grim?
But reading on we get only second hand references (post after post) joanne, watts, gusto, who ever blog after blog, great company you keep cohenite
Every time I read a post with a blog ref there is nothing to bother me in the least. Not even the rhetoric from their exclusive cult bothers me because nobody above has the experience to do a simple temp test by themselves.
For the benefit of others I don’t worry about official statements either as I have always done my own checks and balances where possible before reaching conclusions about this or that system. In fact we were all born with the necessary tools and references to do our own navigation through events as they happen. After all what have I got to loose in these challenges? Crusaders acting as a front for vested interests are the real problem here.
As a veteran of climate control I offer this insight to all temp series. Max / Min records are of no use whatsoever in this scenario as we are after efficiency in our stabilizing systems not records one way or the other. However I could read a max / min thermometer after a basic calibration check to obtain data for the ambient temp record by constant observation of the device as I often do at home in my retirement. The next step may require some guess work however with experience it gets better and this is finding the RH value needed to adjust temp before say adjusting the chillier plant connected to a large cool room.
Its worth noting here imo all old temp series based on max min records from weather stations are somewhat redundant in climate change analysis and one reason is they won’t fit as is with other non instrument temp series so in the end we are left with a great deal of guessing apart from instrument calibration issues with those histories in particular long lost by a disinterested public at large.
http://www.bom.gov.au/info/thermal_stress/
Please read the section on AT
http://ams.confex.com/ams/89annual/techprogram/paper_149894.htm
At this point I’m going to relate directly to one instrument and that is the “Rosemount” at Cape Grim. From memory Peter of such and such instruments based in Melbourne won the govt contract based on two thing’s price and reliability. Big Peter had a winner on various counts including system ruggedness in hostile environments. Other guys I knew then were also into data logging design for deep sea research an so on.
We could be sure US manufactured equipment similar to these Rosemount peripheral devices would come on stream in the States too as other NASA contractors searched for opportunities to expand. Continuous weather station data had arrived.
I suggest every one study the advantage of continuous single point data logging from ideal stations over stats from the max min era. This is the real hands on stuff.
http://www2.emersonprocess.com/en-US/brands/rosemount/temperature/Single-Point-Measurement/Pages/index.aspx
“Rosemount was founded in 1956 and initially built up its business through government aerospace contracts until it diversified into PCIs in the mid-1960s. After gaining a reputation for manufacturing reliable pressure and temperature transmitters, Rosemount merged with Emerson Electric in 1976 and, in 1993, acquired Fisher Controls International to form Fisher-Rosemount, one of the world’s largest manufacturers of PCI equipment”
http://business.highbeam.com/industry-reports/industry/industrial-instruments-for-measurement-display-control-of-process-variables-related-products
prisonplanet is hardly a science show is it spangles? comments are a bit tribal too
Can somebody let me know when icecap links “ambient” temps to ice cores?
Um…… is it just me or does anyone else also think Gavin has got lost down the rabbit hole?
We may need a ferret, gavin is deep down splitting hairs. Proud, arrogant and intractable, but I don’t think he’s a member of the Gaian faith.
Derek’s early response is as weak as ….
Anyone else up for the congo line?
Gavin says….
” As a veteren of climate control I offer you this insight”……
AAaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha….a veteren of CLIMATE CONTROL…Aahhahahahaha .That’s man-made climate control isn’t it Gavin? You’ll have plenty of insight into that to offer us.
Just try to offer the insight without doing the rounds of govt. depts. if can please Gavin.
is Gavin Luke’s holiday persona?
Folks, we have some excellent news!
Michael Mann and his twenty-odd colleagues at the Earth System Science Center (1) have all received a very interesting offer from an attorney in the US who specializes in whistleblowers and federal fraud.
The offer? Bring forward evidence of fraudulent use of grant funds in Climate Research in the US, and take a share of the reward money. (2)
Here’s the information sought: “When they lie to get the grant or keep the grant or if they use the funds for purposes outside the grant, they are liable under the DOJ program”, said Joel Hesch, Esq., of Hesch and Associates.
And there’s big money tied to ‘doing the right thing’ in this case. As Hesch puts it so eloquently:
“30% of $50 million [of possible fraud in this case] is more than $12 million. Ask your friends to do the right thing, and be rewarded for doing it. Our country, and in fact, the entire world is counting on someone to stand up and tell the truth about climate research.”
In the US, NOAA and NASA (the latter being home to the infamous James Hansen) are obviously vulnerable to the same approach. Which puts quite a bit more than $12 million on the table for those who expose climate fraudsters.
I have to wonder if there aren’t some climate skeptics who jumped ship from the IPCC and elsewhere who might be eligible for a rightful reward.
Pass the word!
——————-
1. http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/people/index.html
2. http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100021135/climategate-michael-manns-very-unhappy-new-year/
Folks,
As I mentioned earlier, faculty and staff at Penn State University associated with Michael ‘Hockey Stick’ Mann are being asked to come forward with information about misuse of US government funds in the course of ‘researching the climate’.
The next question is: what other US universities might be targeted for inquiries regarding the use or misuse of federal ‘climate change’ money?
The results below were gleaned from the first two pages of a Google search on the topic. The amounts of money are staggering, the topics are somewhere between astounding and weird, and of course, the opportunities for misuse of funds are obvious to anyone who likes to spend other people’s money.
The scary element hidden amongst all of this is that you can sell nearly anything, from coffee-pots to university research, by tying it to climate change. Coffee-pots and research are both excellent things, but now, the sale of either — and anything in between — that has been linked to climate change is open to scrutiny. And possibly condemned as outright fraud, right out of the box. But who knew? IPCC and others were thought to be legitimate, for a long while. There could easily be a great deal of finger-pointing over who wrote the grant applications, and why they wrote them the way they did.
The information presented below is: recipient(s), federal funding agency (designated with a ‘+’ symbol, the amount of money (in US$), and the stated purpose of the funded project. The information was gleaned from newspaper articles and press releases.
Western Washington University
+NASA
$289,000
study how the planet’s cold-weather forests are responding to climate change
University of Florida
+NASA
$870,000
analyze relationships among climate variability, climate change, land use and land cover change
Texas Tech University
+US Geol. Survey
$634,000
bring together a team of experts to learn how to model, study and predict the influence of climate change on Texas surface waters
University of Kansas
Kansas State University
Two Oklahoma universities
+National Science Foundation
$6 million
research that will examine how climate change affects various elements of the environment
University of Georgia
+NASA
$450,000
study the effects of climate change on birds
Iowa State University
Idaho State University
Boise State University
+National Science Foundation
$15 million
Idaho Research Infrastructure Improvement: Water Resources in a Changing Climate
Western Washington University
+National Science Foundation
$419,000
research how plants have reacted to historic climate change so scientists can better predict species’ reaction to the current worldwide changes in climate
ASA has awarded an
Auburn University
+NASA
$1 million
Land cover and land use changes impact on the variability and intensity of the Asian monsoon
University of Michigan
+NASA
$900,000
study of humans, adaptation and climate change on Mongolian Plateau
University of Texas – Austin
+Department of Defense
$7.6 million
identify how climate change could trigger disasters in Africa that undermine political stability
University of Wisconsin
+Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
$900,000
prepare the state for public health problems related to climate change
Schiller; the Australian equivalent is interesting;
http://sciencespeak.com/ClimateFunding.pdf
And now lads, shall we join gavin’s CONGO LINE; malapropisms are such a delight.
gosh, goodness, merde, stercorum, and other expletives.
cohenite, that is such an incredible list at that link.
And of course, if you’re a ‘denier’ or a ‘skeptic’, you’re denied your place as a hog in the trough.
Exxon et. al. never laid down this kind of cash money. Never had a ghost of a chance against such a torrent of greed.
I have to wonder, though — does Australia have something to compensate whistle-blowers who point out misuse of public funds? It would be great fun, not to mention, a great deal of justice, to appropriately compensate those who expose bogus science for what it is.
Suck, squish, suck, squish, suck, squish, suck, squish, suck, squish, suck, squish, suck, squish, suck, squish, suck, squish……
I hear a flat footed centipede or Congo line with a severe right lean trudging round in it’s own pool of slush trying to find it’s own Khyber pass and any potential sturdy barriers moving within to on going public interest in AGW associated climate change. Pass another stinky bundle hey
Schiller; which alternative book flogging outfit or shady corporate front are you so diligently working for?
Cohenite; have you ever worked for a pure research instruction where independent teams compete within and with out for various grants that may enable ongoing work beyond the current projects?
From experience your average professor often with considerable international recognition struggles to fund the necessary research assistants, visiting academics, appropriate equipment and maintenance etc to support both old and new lines of inquiry.
In fact most teams I saw, hardly had time to write up current research let alone ongoing proposals. Team leaders in particular are distracted by the need to be multi tasking and multi skilled themselves to the point they can stay on after the expiry of appointments to complete unfinished works in their leisure time.
So how about we return to that latest NASA sea level etc research link instead of farting round in blogsphere
I note those very loud AGW believers Karoly and Hoegh-Goldberg are big recipients of grants. Hoegh-Goldberg has been caught several times pronouncing that the barrier reef will die out in five to ten years when in fact other researchers and dive operators say the reef is better than ever. It seems that not only do you need to say that the research work involves climate to get a grant but shout loudly and praise the government climate department you will then get lots more money to line your pocket.
It’s a CONGA line you knucklehead!
Oh my heart just bleeds for the poor under-funded ,under-resourced scientists who struggle desperately to ram this quack science down our throats.
It hasn’t seemed to have sunk in to you Gavin that your AGW theory was hanging by a thread . Since climategate the thread has severed. Our opinion of some scientists has hit worse than rock bottom. We don’t even trust meterologists any more. The science of climatology has been hijacked by politics from the left starting with Al Gore back in 1980 leading to any politician today who thinks that a fistful of graphs saying we’re doomed will trump the common sense of the public.
So you see Gavin some of us would much prefer to “just fart around in blogosphere” than follow any more loony goose-chases you have in store for us.
Just pop yourself over to Tamino’s for a bit of comfort from your fellow travellers; theres a good boy Gavin.
http:// tamino.wordpress.com/2009/12/31/exogenous-factors/
They’ve got some reassuring graphs for you ,all pointing straight up saying were doomed with 2009 being the warmest year on record!
I wonder how many more years worth of hot air they can pump into their balloon before it bursts.
AAaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
I prefer it when you guys provide web links – useful links with info – rather than ‘poetry’
The current gavin is Luke. The ‘real’ gavin prefers to engage in specious argumentation and pseudoscience, while Luke is content to rely on bizarre ad hominems and non sequiturs. Not that it makes any real difference — it’s merely interesting.
December is back down.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/
Current January temperature is pretty well spot-on average since “reliable” global temps began [via satellite] in 1979
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/01/daily-monitoring-of-global-average-temperatures/
Just think of the money we could’ve saved. [not to mention the ACO2]
Thanks for those links Spanglers,
You see Gavin this is just the reason why we all just fart around on the blogosphere. It’s because its the only place you’ll get the truth about global temps.and we have no reason to doubt the accuracy and authenticity of sattelite recordings.
Mack,
How do you know that the satellite data haven’t been ‘smoothed’ and ‘adjusted’ to take care of those gosh-awful ‘anomalies’?
Those nasty anomalies, after all, are data which fall outside someone’s model of what-should-be.
It’s worthy to give evidence a favored place in one’s considerations, but after the data have passed through so many hands, so to speak, are those data really your friends?
If there’s any casualty of Climategate, it’s trust.
And Climategate has taught untold millions the value of skepticism. Once we re-learn the value of skepticism, we can go back and try to learn about trust.
gavin,
“So how about we return to that latest NASA sea level etc research link instead of farting round in blogsphere”
Still can’t force yourself to look into the adjustments and error range in the satellite sea level measurements can you. I love watching alledgedly technical people shove their heads in the ….
Hey Gavin, wiggle your butt so we know which one is YOU!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Schiller Thurkettle ;
You seem to have reservations that the satellite data displayed at Spencers might be “smoothed” and “adjusted” to take care of “anomalies” in favour of scepticism.
I would be grateful if you could direct me to some other site where there is a different version of the satellite readings.
Cue Luke?
Schiller Thurkettle ;
You seem to have reservations that the satellite data displayed at Spencers might be “smoothed” and “adjusted” to take care of “anomalies” in favour of scepticism.
I would be grateful if you could direct me to some other site where there is a different version of the satellite readings.
Cue Luke?
Schiller,
I’ve read your posting 11.52am again and again and realise you are only being sarcastic on my behalf. You have to be careful on this format.
The global temps. revealed by Roy Spencer (thanks Spanglers) are (to borrow Coher’s terminology) the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth . 😉
This melts all the cooler clowns hey
“Annual Australian Climate Statement 2009
Issued 5th January 2010
2009 will be remembered for extreme bushfires, dust-storms, lingering rainfall deficiencies, areas of flooding and record-breaking heatwaves
Second warmest year for Australia
Data collected by the Bureau of Meteorology indicate that Australia’s annual mean temperature for 2009 was 0.90°C above the 1961-90 average, making it the nation’s second warmest year since high-quality records began in 1910. High temperatures were especially notable in the southeast during the second half of the year, with Australia, Victoria, South Australia and NSW all recording their warmest July-December periods on record.”
http://www.bom.gov.au/announcements/media_releases/climate/change/20100105.shtml
“South Australia’s 2009 Annual Climate Summary
Warmest year on record for South Australia
In 2009 the mean temperature was 1.3°C above average for South Australia as a whole, a record since the area averaged state figures begin in 1910. This is the 17th consecutive year that above average temperatures has occurred.
Many locations around South Australia recorded record warmest nights in 2009 when averaged across the year as a whole.
For Adelaide, 2009 was the equal warmest year with 2007, being 1.3°C above average for mean annual temperature, while several locations mainly inland, had warmest years on record.
2009 saw a very significant late January and early February heatwave event and the first spring heatwave for Adelaide as temperatures as a whole for November exceeded previous November temperature records by very significant margins. Temperatures were also very much above average in mid-August.
Rainfall was generally near to slightly below average in 2009, with rainfall across the state as a whole 88 percent of the average for the year.
After low summer rainfall, the remainder of the year tended slightly above average each month, apart from May, August and October. Growing Season (April to October rainfall) was slightly above average for this year, and the wettest since 2000.
Temperatures for the decade from 2000 to 2009 averaged +0.9°C for the state as a whole, the warmest decade in the record, and continuing a steady increase in temperatures since the 1970’s. Rainfall across the decade, for South Australia, has been below average across the agricultural areas, particularly in the eastern districts, tending above average in the far west of the state.
For more detailed information please go direct to the complete Annual Climate statement for South Australia.
On our ABC
“Climatologist David Jones says each decade since the 1940s has been warmer than the previous one.
And he has warned that this year is set to be even hotter, with temperatures likely to be between 0.5 and 1 degrees above average.
“There’s no doubt about global warming, the planet’s been warming now for most of the last century,” he said.
“Occasionally it takes a breather, during La Nina events for example.
“But we’re getting these increasingly warm temperatures – not just for Australia but globally – and climate change, global warming is clearly continuing.
“We’re in the latter stages of an El Nino event in the Pacific Ocean and what that means for Australian and global temperatures is that 2010 is likely to be another very warm year – perhaps even the warmest on record.”
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/01/05/2785653.htm
gavin,
Don’t be gullible. I know you don’t really believe that records began in 1910.
Just check the incredible cherry picking that 1910 provides:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/compress:12/detrend:0.706/offset:0.52/plot/hadcrut3vgl/trend/detrend:0.706/offset:0.52/plot/hadcrut3vgl/trend/detrend:0.706/offset:0.97/plot/hadcrut3vgl/trend/detrend:0.706/offset:0.07
If you accept satellite data as the most reliable “world temperature” then my earlier link shows about a quarter of a degree of warming.
That’s just thermometer error.
Next month will be zero.
Would these highest temperatutes on record be raw data? No I thought ont.
It would be after “corrections”, like the 2 C correction found necessary to make Darwin’s temp show an increase.
Like most people, I was too busy to find out about global warming, & just accepted the IPPC line, until I retired. Then, with a little study, I found out the facts.
I have never, previously, ever wanted to harm anyone, however, I can not imagine anything more satisfying, than personally kicking these rip off merchants, firmly up the back side.
cohers,
I hope the learned Bernard J. read this from Willis Eschenbach. It might stop him preaching death by AGW for our wildlife.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/04/where-are-the-corpses/
Today I saw a koala feeding on a brush box tree [Lophostemon confertus]. It’s the first time I have seen one feeding on non-eucalyptus leaves.
Bound to be the result of AGW.
Pathetic gavin; Newcastle’s 2009 was not the hottest; it was equal to the annual average mean maximum in the period from 1871-1900, 22.3C; I’d like to go into it further but it looks as though the individual stations at BoM are all down for maintainence [!!?]; fortunately we have this which shows how the individual locations which are averaged to give these national warming figures show no such thing at the particular locations;
http://joannenova.com.au/2009/12/smoking-guns-across-australia-wheres-the-warming/#more-5172
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/
Look at figure 4 which is the average of 222 locations; it produces a graph history which shows no warming at all. What a fix; and garrett supports it.
spangled drongo, Mack,
Nosing about the WoodForTrees site, I get the impression from the graphs presented (1) that there is remarkable agreement between the satellite record and HADCRUT.
Would you care to comment on that?
1. http://www.woodfortrees.org/notes.php#trends
Hey blobs; smile cause I’m taking a break for a couple of days. BTW not one came back on “ambient” or “apparent temperatures AT” and methods of adjustment. Very serious stuff for energy minded engineers.
“Newcastle’s 2009 was not the hottest; it was equal to the annual average mean maximum in the period from 1871-1900, 22.3C”
cohers you haven’t a shred of evidence 1871 > 1900 that stands in engineering terms above. Since I worked with thermometers and charts for 50 odd years there is plenty of evidence to say only an experienced practical reviewer has any idea on how to handle the very old weather station data from anywhere as it is.
BTW I’m most interested by your faith in the likes of joannenova etc. What have they done?
Spangles I got to calibrate big brand name but ancient instruments from all over industry and common elsewhere but unfortunately max min types were about the crudest. As I’ve said often enough, there was little change in design until the post ww2 aero space race. Lab craft in particular was handicapped by frequently faulty gear and techniques that failed to cross reference with other handy standards. For flat earthers that could be SL, ice water, BP horizons and so on but beware.
Did any body see Chadar: The Ice Trail? H20 @-2C and flowing swiftly
http://www.abc.net.au/tv/guide/netw/201001/programs/ZX0208A001D2010-01-05T203000.htm
Non linear temp instruments with both zero errors and drift were a curse for all and sundry however it was the human hair hygrometers that most foiled climate control.
Schiller; keep up your nosing but try some official sites first
Blobs? Creatures that live on blogs and act like the scattered remains of a deep frozen fish after it was dropped on the concrete pavement in the midday sun. Tiny puddles of not much substance that will be completely evaporated in an hour or so. All gone except for that rotten fishy smell that lingers as the sun goes down.
Going to really miss you hey
Hey guys, being from SA I took notice of Gavin’s data on Adelaide etc however it was obvious from my frequent purveyance of BOM SA data that cherry picking is alive and well. Some months were cooler than ave but Gavin must have missed that, also my rainfall was happily 28% above ave.
Having said that, in the last few days I saw some maps (possibly one of Schiller’s links) that was showing the difference between instrumental records and satellite ones. There was a supposed warming over Nth AM and Russia but the satellite map showed the opposite. Anyway my point is that the 2nd thing I noticed was that OZ stood out as being almost completely orange (blue was cooler) such that overall the planet was either steady or cooler but we were actually warmer.
It seems we in OZ are the “victims” of regional warming while most of the northern hemisphere is suffering under snow and ice.
BTW, Gavin admits that he “don’t do calcs” but surely he understands that to get an average, tou have to have half of your data above the ave mark?
Because Australia is a large hot country it is much more easy for the govt. employed metrologists to fudge and manipulate data to suit the govt. agenda. The lying from your govt. depts. is much more overt than here in NZ . Easier to pull the wool over the eyes of a bigger population too. (no sheep jokes please)
Here in NZ where the climate is more variable and snow can’t be hidden,they’ve only managed to squeeze a +0.05 deg increase for the decade above the 1980’s? according to the propaganda in our local rag. They had to wait for Dec’s figures; that’s how small the increment. That is how much they reckon the public is up for swallowing considering the temps we’ve actually been feeling. They’ve managed to accomplish this quite easily here really by just quietly shifting plenty of previously airport sited stations to urban environments to get rid of the wind chill factor.
My home town here in Nelson is a case in point. It’s been shifted inland from the airport right next to a busy motorway.
AAaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.
And you wonder why we have reason to be sceptical Gavin.
yes, gavin will be missed; “scattered remains of a deep frozen fish” indeed; charming; but the real issue is, is BoM reliable; they say 2009 was the 2nd warmest nationally [what was the warmest?] yet when you visit their site to check particular locations more than 1/2 show temperature histories inconsistent with the national average; my local station is Nobby’s where 2009 average maximum temp was 22.35C; the average over the 145 years of records is 21.8C, so 2009 was above average but it is not in the top 20 hottest years most of which occurred before 1900;
http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/cdio/weatherData/av?p_nccObsCode=36&p_display_type=dataFile&p_startYear=&p_stn_num=061055
I suggest people check their own location and see whether 2009 was the 2nd hottest year.
not around my area Cohenite – Tamworth and Moree both show cooling generally.
Happy New Year!
And here’s something to dance to:
http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2010/01/the-king-has-got-no-clothes
yeah – great! – shame they blew the audiofile and only gave us verse 1 and chorus.
Gavin,
Couldn’t you do us all a favour and make it a couple of months?
Pikey.
correction – it does play it all – good one Dennis Boothby 🙂
Happy New Year Jennifer!!
We miss you!!
I’ve checked Mildura and it’s way behind the warmest temp which was in the old records from 1889 to 1949.
Mildura was a warmer drier place in the early records, 1889 to 1949 mean max 24.6C and mean min 10.4C, rainfall 268mm.
In the period 1946 to 2009 mean max 23.7C , mean min 10.3C , rainfall 283mm.
Cohenite I checked your site and every monthly record was set before 1900. You can just choose highest from the menu and the highest months are highlighted.
If you want a graph just click on annual top right to generate. It was certainly a warmer area 100 to 140 or so years ago, probably for at least 35 years.
Yep; it just astounds me that BoM can generate a national average which shows the warming extent it does.
Cohenite, I foolishly spent a couple of hours checking dozens of sites from all over Australia, mainly ones with 50 or more years of data. While not exhaustive in the least, nevertheless I noticed a trend towards cooling in the top half of the country including much of QLD and a trend towards warming in the bottom half, although this was definitely mixed.There were some cooling exceptions in the south which suggests localized climate effects play a part. I don’t think that a warming or cooling signal is as clear cut as finding the slope of the graph as that depends on your start and end points.
another way to check is via this page at BoM
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/hqsites/site_networks.cgi?variable=meanT&period=annual&state=nsw
Heres one for all the idiots who see increased CO2 as a magical fertiliser.
“However, the latest bit of news should be equally alarming to those concerned about global warming and the “What, me worry?” faction.
Research published by three scientists at Southwestern University in Texas suggests that the price of rising carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere is sharply falling nutritional value in staple crops upon which 40 per cent of the world’s population relies for its dietary protein.
Daniel Taub, Brian Miller and Holly Allen analysed more than 220 experiments in which plants were exposed to levels of carbon dioxide that ranged from the present ambient level to about double the existing level. They discovered that as the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere goes up, the protein in wheat, barley, rice, potatoes and soy beans diminishes, in some cases quite sharply.”
http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/editorial/story.html?id=d06935f3-c41d-4ff0-8f3a-c287a8db5367
welcome back SJT – glad you came back with an offering of a paper Received 26 June 2007 and accepted 22 August 2007. – catch up mate!!
here’s the abstract – looks pretty sus to me – if they had higher soil nitrogen the plants could keep up with the added CO2 and there was no loss in protein. Duh!
They sound more like bad gardeners more than good scientists.
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/119416696/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0
Now that is weird; gavin takes off and little will reappears. That study, little will, is bogus because it has long been recognised that slight increases in nitrogen fertilizer overcomes the protein deficiency problem.
I’ve been having a look at your Aust BoM site and it looks just like a hotbed of AGW propaganda. No wonder you guys are sweltering. One visit to that site would break anybody out into a sweat.
You are right Mack
The day time could cover alone seems to be in decline over the last 20-30 years in many of the stations I checked.
No wonder the temperature is rising.
So I suppose its the Co2 thats causing reduced cloud cover… thats not bad hypothesis for starters.
How would I go putting in for a Grant to prove it.
Since SJT has come up with a bit of biology I thought I might reassure him that the Great Barrier Reef will be OK . There’s a girl there with tea-shirt which might suit him.
http://www.climategate.com/oceans-love-carbon-dioxide-say-sea-scientists
Malcolm,
” How would I go putting in for a grant to prove it”
Merely the keyword “Carbon Dioxide” will open the govt. coffers for you Malcolm. 😉
Gavin – On our ABC
“Climatologist David Jones says each decade since the 1940s has been warmer than the previous one”
Surely not the same famous BOM David Jones as mentioned in the Climategate emails –
Email 1182255717.txt
Wei-Chyung and Tom,
The Climate Audit web site has a new thread on the Jones et al. (1990) paper, with lots of quotes from Keenan. So they may not be going to submit something to Albany. Well may be?!?
Just agreed to review a paper by Ren et al. for JGR. This refers to a paper on urbanization effects in China, which may be in press in J. Climate. I say ‘may be’ as Ren isn’t that clear about this in the text, references and responses to earlier reviews. Have requested JGR get a copy a copy of this in order to do the review.In the meantime attaching this paper by Ren et al. on urbanization at two sites in China.Nothing much else to say except:
1. Think I’ve managed to persuade UEA to ignore all further FOIA requests if the people have anything to do with Climate Audit
.2. Had an email from David Jones of BMRC, Melbourne. He said they are ignoring anybody who has dealings with CA, as there are threads on it about Australian sites.
3. CA is in dispute with IPCC (Susan Solomon and Martin Manning) about the availability of the responses to reviewer’s at the various stages of the AR4 drafts. They are most interested here re Ch 6 on paleo.
Cheers
Phil
Wonderful, an antipodean CRU toady who has taken it upon himself to have no correspondence with anyone whatsoever who has had “dealings” with an IPCC reviewer who published a peer reviewed paper pointing out some ever so minor flaws in MBH 98/99. Or maybe he hasn’t taken it upon himself, perhaps it is BOM policy. Anyway, thanks for the info DJ and I suppose anyone who wants to correspond with the BOM in the future will just have to stop accessing CA.
For the philosophers out there: enjoy!
“It is an unwelcome fact for all of these ideas about theory testing that data are typically produced in ways that make it all but impossible to predict them from the generalizations they are used to test, or to derive instances of those generalizations from data and non ad hoc auxiliary hypotheses. Indeed, it’s unusual for many members of a set of reasonably precise quantitative data to agree with one another, let alone with a quantitative prediction. That is because precise, publicly accessible data typically cannot be produced except through processes whose results reflect the influence of causal factors that are too numerous, too different in kind, and too irregular in behavior for any single theory to account for them.”
-“Theory and Observation in Science”, Bogen J., Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Jan 6, 2009,
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/science-theory-observation/
Mack – careful with those t-shirts:
Next time you see headlines about coral bleaching on the Great Barier Reef –
From http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/04/where-are-the-corpses/#more-14809
DirkH (20:26:57) :
“r (20:11:43) :
About the sunscreen and coral:
http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/docs/2008/10966/abstract.html
NOT warming.”
Ecotourism
It is still the case that the abscence of water in the MDB is not because of an absence of rainfall,
and further ..there has been no change in the rain fall pattern over the MDB is 110 years.
http://reg.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/timeseries.cgi?graph=rain&area=mdb&season=0112&ave_yr=11
But still the officials invovled insst in saying the drought has been the cause .
Bollocks
About the sunscreen and coral: – great article Another Ian –
when I lived on the beachfront I had an altercation with my daughter when she was around 16 – she refused to go to the beach without sunscreen. I remarked that she had beautiful olive skin and a normal exposure wouldn’t harm her yet she insisted.
Finally I asked what would happen to the dolphins if everyone wore sunscreen that washed off into their environment – she thought for a moment then agreed to go to the beach without it 🙂
After heavy seas the beach would have a brown scum that came from the seaweed that grew on the reef around 500m offshore, when the tourists asked what it was I told them it was the sunscreen from Byron Bay further down the beach 🙂
Bollocks! Yup.
in fact if you change the running average to trend it is slightly up!
Another Ian,
Yes you’re right, I noted with some concern that the study only said it was some starfish that thrived on “acid conditions”
Nature is so delicate in some respects.
Malcolm just move the toggle to T and you get a linear trend of +3.31mm decade.
BTW all other states except Tasmania, Vic and SW tip of WA show a positve trend. Vic is line ball and tassie has just had the wettest winter in 100 years.
Tassie has much higher rainfall at something over 1400mm pa.
But even SA has a positive trend presumably because it has northern aspect that is picking up the positive trend over the last 100 years.
Check out 1,000 year drought on ABC catalyst ( couple years back) Prof De Deckker shows that southern Aust has been drying out for at least 5,000 years and we are still suffering a downward 800 year trend.
So we haven’t done too badly, btw while there check out Narabeen man, very interesting story about a speared aboriginal in Nth Sydney some 4,000 years ago, but mentions sea level at that time was 1.5 metres higher than today. Gotta go.
What I do find quite suss is that if you look at the same area using anomalies based upon 1961 -1990 as the base, the picture appears to be dire,even though thankfully the trend line is still up
http://reg.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/timeseries.cgi?graph=rranom&area=mdb&season=0112&ave_yr=T
When I did Maths/ Stats at University a deviation from a base, mean or other wise was called just that Deviations ..
The conveniently perjorative term anomaly was’nt needed to tell the truth about the stats.
Also, if is all Ok for David Jones to be making press announcments as to the temperature, because it suits their advocacy agenda, why dont they do same and tell the good news about the MDB rainfall.
Oh no that wouldnt do now would it ..it would show up where the real problem lies and their masters wouldnt like that.
You could also add the fact that the cloud cover over Ausrtralia has been decreasing, and the number of days with rainfall have not changed for many years, or the number of sites that have experienced cooling are significant etc
but no it has to be the temperature according to them was….. blah
No qualifier that it doesnt make the globe warmer or cooler..we alone just happen to be getting a teeny bit warmer.
Thats global warming as a hypothesis for you.
Well done David and the BOM
Schiller,
A while ago (Jan 6th 5.39am) you sent me and Spanglers off to Wood for Trees .
On the UAH graphs I would like you to compare just the period from 2000 to the present with those of Spencers.
There’s no resemblence is there. Notice that there is a sharp drop in 2004 in Spencers that is absent from Wood for Trees. That was because the winter of 2004 was long and cold because I keep a dairy myself.
Now the guy running Wood for Trees admits he’s a “life long green” but strenuosly denys any bias.!!!!
Yeah right.
Go with Spencer , What you are looking at there is the truth . This guy Paul Clark looks like some green boffin who likes to play with graphs.
Mack; do you have a link to the 2 graphs you are referring to?
Cohenite,
Hell I’m no scientist but do you think I’m talking nonsense here?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/
cf
http://www.woodfortrees.org/notes.php#trends
Maybe there is resemblence but I’ve jumped the gun and didn’t look hard enough.
Mack, no need to worry; the graphs are showing the same thing in different ways; the WFT graph uses a 12 month mean OLS trend calculation, Roy has a 25 month running average; the extra ‘jerkiness’ of the WFT graph is caused by the Y axis only being 1/2 the extent of Roy’s so that Roy’s looks less dramatic.
Thanks Cohers
Well I’m all in favour of less dramatic graphs. They are not so ALARMING. 😉 : )
Excuse an old man if he repeats himself, but the old Greek idea of hubris and nemesis seems relevant to the current weather in the northern hemisphere. I have just had photos from my niece in England, showing a front end loader clearing snow. The temperature is close to that at the North Pole. This is God’s nemesis for the hubris of computer playboys, one-eyed journalists, and political climate mountebanks. Back to the humanities, ye sinners, and boast no more.
P.S. As a Quaker descendant, I confess I know no more about God than anyone else.
Green Davey, I’ve always (or at least in the last few years) thought that the idea of God controlling things like the weather would be a bit like Gepetto wishing Pinochio was a real boy. I tend to think that God set the universe in motion and then sat back and watched with profound interest to see what wonders might spring forth.
Or maybe he knows what is going on and what will go on so is currently thinking about something totally different. 🙂
There are 3 types of God; a timeless God, outside the cause and effect of space-time; a God ‘which’ is spacetime and a God who created space-time and who operates within it; only the 3rd type of God has a consciousness and will. I suspect the gaia and green acolytes reserve their adoration for the 2nd type, while the traditionally religious greens follow the 3rd, which incidentally is a form of deism rather than theism; the 1st is philosophically the most interesting since no consciousness can occur without time.
My God, Cohenite, that’s a bit tricky. I like Derek’s view, even if a bit anthropomorphic. Janama makes a good point too. I note that Luke and SJT have kept out of it. Perhaps Luke’s God speaks Fortran, and SJT’s is called Kevin or Julia.
Green Davey
Luke’s God speaks Fortran? Get a listing to E.M. Smith at
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/gistemp/
to keep his hand in
while he waits to get the code for some of these gcm’s!
A common view is that God is outside of time and sees eternity all at the same time, sort of like looking at a large temporal, panoramic vista. I think that God would also come with a straight jacket. What do we really know about time anyway? And how is it that time is affected by acceleration?
Hey blobs; I’m still watching from the sidelines and I’m sure cohers has avoided explaining how joannewho? gets a life beyond blogsville. I’m also sure you all won’t get much in response to shenanigans here from DJ @BoM for very different reasons.
Just to keep you all updated, I spent a couple of hours today snapping pontoon marks on pylons at a new marina in a well protected spot inside Sydney Harbor. Guess what? There is no way SL is not going up here too. NB King tide marks or storm surges whatever are very high indeed compared to your average 1.5 M rise and fall. But don’t quote me yet as that 1>1.5 M av is just a sloppy fig from the locals in the yacht biz around the old pier.
Mack, Neville & co; my advice is get out and scout for yourselves as cohers and one or two others prefer second hand blog flotsam in general to the real thing
Malcolm; I suggest deviations derived from pure stats are of little practical use. In the AGW case we have few if any global series for either atmospheric CO2 or temperature that can be referenced to some absolute value at the time prior to about 1960. So any concept of global average before then is just not on with out laboriously working backwards with some target in mind.
Spangles; that target must include a notion of ambient temperature and its derivation taking all energy indicating factors not just max and min. SL likewise needs an agreed basis to account for a range of factors however I’m quite happy looking for unusual peaks as they truly represent worst case senarios.
For green Dave let’s ignore the bushfire experts as we doubtlessly will but they too are watching worst case for dryness, wind speed and temp now
Gavin says,
“Mack Neville e Co my advice is to get out and scout for yourselves”…….
Well yes Gavin, I do get out and scout for myself.
I did so back in the winters around 1998, (that big peak on Spencer’s graph) My house overlooks the Tasman mountain range on the other side of bay; and during those winters around 1998 the shortest day would come and go and still there would be no or insignificant snow on the ranges. Not being a skier I observed this with some perverse pleasure.
But I can tell you Gavin that two skifields went into recievership around those winters because of lack of snow. The Rainbow Skifield here at the Top of the South and one up in the Nth Island. (Rainbows chairlifts were dismantled)
These are facts Gavin . No figures or graphs were required to tell me it was warmer, I just observed the lack of snow.
Now the people pushing the AGW tripe will try and convince you that Global Warming creates more atmospheric activity and thus more snowstorms. The chief of China’s met. dept. is running around at the moment saying that global warming is responsible for the terrible amount of snow.
But just my observations prove snow equals cold Gavin.
Incidently since the 1998s I’ve not observed that lack of snow again. The skifields have since thrived (a bumper season last year). Winter of 2008 the local paper reads “Rainbow gets too much of a good thing; access road blocked with snow” “Worst snow in 40 yrs say farmers”
And if you want to see snow Gavin, try
http://briefingroom.typepad.com/the_briefing_room/
And don’t come back saying the eventual snowmelt from the northern hemisphere will raise your Sydney Harbour sealevel!
AAahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.
There is no god, but three great religions have been arguing for thousands of years that their god is best – it’s the same deity.
We know there was a garden of Eden during the Holocene climate optimum, yet we have evidence to show humans have been around a lot longer than that. Mitochondrial Eve had many daughters and those who found their way out of Africa 83,000 years bp proves we are fairly bright, but not necessarily an intelligent design.
Evolution doesn’t prove natural selection, but natural selection proves evolution.
” Malcolm; I suggest deviations derived from pure stats are of little practical use. In the AGW case we have few if any global series for either atmospheric CO2 or temperature that can be referenced to some absolute value at the time prior to about 1960.”
That may be the case in the global sense,Gavin, but in the instance of the MDB rainfall records that go back 110 years it makes no sense to bastardise this by the use 1961- 1990 as the base line.
The data is only of relevance to us in Australia,and distorting the material used for decision making here is Australia just to suit some dopey IPCC ruling is nonsense….that just compounds the already difficult management issues
Gavin – “I’m also sure you all won’t get much in response to shenanigans here from DJ @BoM for very different reasons”
DJ or someone at BOM may have to make a response to DJ’s CA shenanigans irrespective of any reasons you might think they have. There are formal means available and who is to say they might not be used?
El Gordo,
“Mitochondrial Eve had many daughters and those who found their way out of Africa 83,000 years bp proves we are fairly bright, but not necessarily an intelligent design.”
Other research on based on periods of about 500 years (think dug up bodies) show Mito DNA picks up mutations over 4 times as fasshnkatt as currently thought!! Careful with that 83.000 number!! ;>)
http://www.mhrc.net/mitochondria.htm
Has links and abstracts.
“Just to keep you all updated, I spent a couple of hours today snapping pontoon marks on pylons at a new marina in a well protected spot inside Sydney Harbor. Guess what? There is no way SL is not going up here too. NB King tide marks or storm surges whatever are very high indeed compared to your average 1.5 M rise and fall. But don’t quote me yet as that 1>1.5 M av is just a sloppy fig from the locals in the yacht biz around the old pier.”
gavin,
A random visit to a new site for SLR observation is cherry-pickery in the extreme.
If you had maybe installed the infrastructure decades ago and thereby knew in detail to what MSL it had been built [because this data changes] and also had a close association with it since, you might have something to offer.
Go down to the Isle of the Dead and hang about for the length of a full tide range and then get back to us.
Spangled,
I notice there is no geological data on whether the land is rising, stable, or subsiding in the area of Gavin’s harbour. He has got to be one of the sloppiest observers on the warmer side!!!
In the San Francisco Bay, depending on where you are, the land is doing all 3!!!! Probably why new tide gauge installations will typically include laser levels and GPS sites to help keep everything adjusted!!!!
Kuhnkat,
How do they measure post-glacial rebound and other land movements accurately?
Probably against SLs. [sarc]
But it must be difficult to be certain.
The whole hot globular mass complete with faultlines must be in a constant state of flux vertically as well as horizontally so how do you arrive at a bedrock benchmark for vertical movement.
If the globe shape isn’t a regular oblate spheroid [let alone a sphere] how accurate can a GPS be?
I have had my marine GPS more than 20 seconds of arc out of whack [1/3 of a mile] but that is exceptional and probably due to faulty geodedic maps.
How much more accurate are military or scientific GPS?
Spangles; perhaps you missed something in school but most vertical anomalies are actually referenced to SL such as it was, however things are changing from various points of view
http://www.geoproject.com.au/gda.faq.html
http://www.icsm.gov.au/gda/faq.html
BTW it’s a quite while since I started looking at the horizon, SL, erosion, corrosion etc through a camera lense. Its also a while since I started looking at surfaces with long wave reflections that may enhance or hinder communications networks. So with my little eye I can sight off recent tide markings against vintage concrete corrosion on more historic sea walls.
Mack; I don’t need to know exactly which snowball you are hatching but this photo evidence thingy is also used by some well learned academics BTW we were on the Sth Isle last Feb photographing the steadily retreating glaciers Fox and Franz Joseph the same days your Tasman lost a large amount of ice from its outfall. I got a good look from above too on our way home.
“NZ glaciers continue to shrink
The National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research (NIWA) has just released the results of its annual end-of-summer survey of the snowline on key South Island glaciers, showing continued loss of glacier mass.
The survey uses a small fixed wing aircraft to fly over 50 glaciers in the Southern Alps and Kaikoura. Scientists take photographs and then analyse the images to determine the position of the snowline after the summer melt but before the first winter snowfall. This provides an index of the mass balance or ’health’ of the glaciers of New Zealand. The survey has been going since 1977”
http://www.sciencealert.com.au/news-nz/20092411-20286-2.html
Gavin;
The glaciers are a long term thing and everbody is relaxed about them because they are behaving pretty well as you would expect them to coming out of the Little Ice Age.
For some reason the Fox and Franz on the West Coast are actually increasing in length hence the last paragraph in your article.
But what you have to do is read between the lines of anything coming out of NIWA. Notice they give no figures or measurements.
In fact nothing but AGW propaganda comes out of NIWA Gavin. It is the NZ govts. mouthpiece for the IPPC.
http://www.niwa.co.nz/our-science/climate/information-and-resources/clivar
( click on that stuff at the bottom )
The David Wratt fellow is the equivalent of your David Jones.
Gavin,
I’m assuming that David Jones is the head of your Aust BOM. Whoever is the head of your BOM he will be glad he is only suffering a little bit of Australian heat. Compared to the roasting being endured by the head of the UK met. office. Aahahahahahahahahahaha
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/thedailypolitics/8443687.str
Sorry ,Try….
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/the daily politics/8443687.str
Sorry again I’m only learning,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/the_daily_politics/8443687.stm
“Spangles; perhaps you missed something in school but most vertical anomalies are actually referenced to SL such as it was,”
Sea level such as it was, gavin???
And wot was that, then?
Mack,
I wish our ABC would grill our warm experts [ BoM, CSIRO etc] like that but they save it all for Tony Abbott.
As far as they’re concerned the country’s in the very best of hands.
There is plenty of evidence of the connivance of Phil Jones of CRU in the Climategate scandal, and plenty of evidence to implicate BoM and CSIRO but I can’t find a specific mention of David Jones of BoM; does anyone have any info on David Jones of Australia rather than the torrent of info about Phil Jones of England?
gavin,
You can use SLs to calculate vertical land movement if the land is moving at a much greater rate than SLs but if similar then it becomes another known unknown.
The earths crust is pretty plastic and if SLRs since the ice ages are weighing down and depressing coastlines while they are at the same time experiencing post-glacial rebound causing cantilevering further inland, you can possibly imagine that getting a fix from which to asses all this is, to say the least,somewhat difficult.
As all sceptics accept, the more we find out, the less we know [and the more there is to be sceptical about].
Here are some somewhat random links to different types of tidal gauges and article/papers on calibration and measurement. Wonder why that instrumentalist Gavin can’t seem to come up with any of this??
Hong Kong is interesting as it is probably one of its SINKING tidal gauges that is used as reference for the satellite instruments.
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/tidegauges.html
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/calibration.html
http://gcmd.nasa.gov/records/AADC_Davis_TG_2.html
http://www.pol.ac.uk/ntslf/gibraltar/
http://academic.sun.ac.za/statistics/SASJ%20Version2004_3877.pdf
http://www.eas.slu.edu/GGP/fullpapers/sun_etal_tideloading_hongkong06.pdf
kuhnkat,
Thanks for those interesting links. A complex subject for a layman like me.
cohers,
Seems more than a coincidence that BoM and CSIRO have the same ideology. Be interesting to read their communications with HADCRUT.
Yes SD, BoM and CSIRO are as one on this and there are many Australian connections;
http://blogs.news.com.au/couriermail/greenblog/index.php/couriermail/comments/the_insider_story_on_climategate/
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/the_global_warming_conspiracy_the_trashy_australian_data/#commentsmore
But I can’t find anything specific about David Jones.
Cohers,
http:www.eastangliaemails.com/index.php
Put David Jones in search and bon-appitite.
Spanglers,
Nothing beats the bland-faced obfuscations of an overpaid public servant. : )
Gavin,
Your AGW crowd have been…
knee-capped by climate-gate
disallusioned by Copenhagen
and are now suffering a terminal case of Northern Hemisphere frostbite.
But you are still here arguing!
Your AGW faith must be very strong Gavin.
Aaaahahahahahahahahahahhahaha.
Cohers, Damn done it again….
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/index.php
( suggest put in your favourites)
Actually sorry everybody there’s only 1 email and A Physicist covered it further up the page.
Mack,
Very good!
cohers,
Here’s something. Is this him?
“2. Had an email from David Jones of BMRC, Melbourne. He said
they are ignoring anybody who has dealings with CA, as there are
threads on it about Australian sites.
3. CA is in dispute with IPCC (Susan Solomon and Martin Manning)
about the availability of the responses to reviewer’s at the various
stages of the AR4 drafts. They are most interested here re Ch 6 on
paleo.
Cheers
Phil”
Mack,
Guilty, likewise.
http://reg.bom.gov.au/announcements/media_releases/vic/20070515.shtml
Dr David Jones is Head of the Clmate Analysis section..still
Phone number is as given.
Cohers private D inc;
a little caution here if you please on the subject of asking others publicly to do your dirty work as it may not go down well in other quarters, at least those tasked with protection of PS admin in general. Now get back to developing your own independent evidence for cooling, warming even the status quo whatever before damning any individuals or their job. This is more about the Aussie notion of fair play than anything else I care to go into here.
Let’s have decent limits on personal inquiries.
Kuhnkat: Yours truly is open to dissection from any point of view as I’m retired and won’t do the decisive math for you no matter how you clown about. Hey there was a guy grinning his face off today at my expense as I tried to pack up some old tools that were on display in the morning sun. It’s been about 40C for most of our daylight hours under a cloudless sky @ elev 600M however this hot and extremely dry air is no joke believe me.
As I read back up the posts in my semi darkened sweat box otherwise know as the study it seems dear old spangles is slowly catching on that a constant SL is highly desirable from various points of view. So let’s spell it out again for others; SL at some mark on the horizontal plane is the basis for real estate boundaries, at another mark on the vertical it’s used to calibrate altimeters and various other instruments that indicate atmospheric pressure (atmospheres) as such it’s been in vogue for ages.
In fact anybody who has produced an instrument will know just how important SL as a reference is when it comes to being pedantic about mainstream science. But what spangles has to concede is total mass above and below SL is pretty constant despite continental drift except for those times when global temperature changes i e more or less permanent ice in ice caps.
Mack; are you aware that much post ww2 intelligence, data etc depends on a series of high res photographs? The science of estimation has changed somewhat in recent decades too.
Getting off our level playing field for a mo, lets look briefly at trusty old max min thermometers again and ask how were they all initially calibrated, maintained and recorded ? Also ask if elevation or pressure was a factor at any stage of an instruments service history?
elevation or pressure was a factor?
In a totally enclosed measuring device?
WTF?
“enclosed”
read “sealed”
gavin, as usual I have no idea what you are talking about; “decent limits on personal enquiries” indeed.
For the rest of us not in cloud cuckoo land another search engine for the CRU scandal seems to be this;
http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/
But again David Jones does not figure.
Gavin says,
“The science of estimation has changed somewhat in recent decades too”
That’s right Gavin; change you can believe in. The science of estimation of global temps followed by the IPCC has changed from crystal balls to tarot cards.
The NIWA scientists flying around over glaciers in summer are just having scenic flights at taxpayers expense which accomplish nothing except provide “evidence” to satisfy David Wratt.
What a life.
wtf Marcus
for starters, see “Make your own thermometer”
http://www.csiro.au/helix/sciencemail/activities/thermometer.html
see “Test a thermometer” 2.115
http://www.uq.edu.au/_School_Science_Lessons/UNPh22.html#22.7.3
then we can worry about calibration of older weather stn u tube types
C’mon Mack; your are chatting with someone who has done considerable homework including a preliminary look see at the JASANZ treaty that binds us as equal trading nations. Don’t bother with a fresh lesson on progressing standards, data bases, MOU’s etc.
Besides being the most parasitic mob downunder, from numerous discussions with the local crowd on harbour sites, it’s my opinion your average kiwi with a sea going motorized tub wouldn’t know if SL was going right up the exhaust tube.
What’s important is someone is up there doing actual science on possibly warmer and drier regions west side that could further affect that deliberately treeless near desert agriculture area over east.
Thank you gavin but I decline to make my own thermometers.
I could be nasty and point out some symptoms connected to age, that are greatly affecting your thought processes but I leave it at just ignoring your future ramblings.
Have nice retirement and enjoy every moment of it, I mean it too.
Cheers
Now now Gavin try not to destroy good trans-tasman relations.
……”possibly warmer and drier regions west side that could further affect that deliberately treeless near desert agriculture area over east”
Nothing is possibly warmer Gavin; Nothing is possibly drier. You are just speculating in hope.
You must have visited the Canterbury Plains at the height of summer (when things are a bit brown) Gavin. The rest of the time they are a patchwork of green like dear old England.
The plains have always been grassy. The maori used to hunt the moa bird (to extinction)on the open plains and fires went through the place. But the agriculture is just fine with plenty of irrigation from rivers and streams.
But what’s this got to do with the price of fish and AGW? You’re starting me rambling on like you Gavin.
Perhaps it’s gavin, but this blog has been going nowhere for quite a while, which is why I only visit occasionally plus I have time constraints.
I’ve been reading Lomborg’s Cool It and although he is a AGW believer I think he does the best job of tearing down this fraudulent industry.
No matter what the issue whether floods, hurricanes, disease, sl rise, temp, rainfall etc, etc he easily shows what a waste of money kyoto was or a mark 2 version would be.
Now that the Copenhagen farce is behind us surely we should accept the fact that china, india, brazil, s africa and the rest of the developing world are not going to play ball and adjust our thinking accordingly.
Firstly even if the whole world changed tomorrow and agreed to a perfect kyoto 2 according to Lomborg’s team this would only postpone the enevitable by 5 years, thus we would reach this dubious target by 2095 not 2100.
His team includes top economists and statisticians so I presume they can easily do the calculations at least as well as other groups.
Surely within a decade or so more cars will be powered by much more reliable and cheaper battery technology that will make a normal 500 Klm trip plus allow a 5 minute recharge a normal occurence.
Perhaps in 20 years a combination of solar plus other technologies will see the average home power the entire requirements of the average family.
I’m sure technology will change our near future at a much faster rate than we can imagine and spending trillions on reducing co2 will prove to be the greatest criminal act of stupidity the world has ever seen.
BTW I’m not a AGW believer, but even if I was it would not alter these previous arguments in the slightest.
Taking a scattergun approach will not solve our problems but carefully targeting our resources now will I’m sure pay us the bigger dividend by 2100.
Gavin the Canterbury Plains are the sheep fattening grasslands. The sheep are grown in the high country then transported to the lush green plains for fattening before market.
Janama (note; I learn something new every day) like Mack “when things are a bit brown” thinks I’m silly when it comes to reckonising a dust bowl under the Nor’west arch. Hey there was no grass let alone green for much of out trip down from about Blenheim. Any water had all but dissapeared in rivers or streams and so had stock. However you are not alone in that things were considerably worst in some parts of Tasmania and elsewhere.
“Assistance to drought-affected North Canterbury and Central and East Coast North Island farmers
We are aware of the drought causing financial issues for many farmers within the North Canterbury and Central and East Coast North Island regions, and understand it is likely to affect income for both 2009 and later years”
http://www.ird.govt.nz/business-income-tax/income-equalisation/special-provisions/.
“Government widens drought assistance
Agriculture Minister David Carter announced today that the Government is extending drought relief to farmers in parts of North Canterbury, Central Plateau, Taihape and Wairarapa.
This follows a recent decision to assist drought-stricken farmers in the Hawke’s Bay and Gisborne/Wairoa regions.Farmers in all these areas are heading for a tough winter. As soil temperatures plummet, rain has come too late for many. Rain, sunshine and high soil temperatures are needed for grass to grow,” says Mr Carter.
“What is making it worse is these farmers have suffered back-to-back drought for three years.
http://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/government+widens+drought+assistance
“Further drought assistance package
The impacts of the persisting drought in parts of Tasmania are being tackled with an additional suite of measures to assist affected communities. The Tasmanian Drought Taskforce has provided advice to Government on extending existing support and the introduction of new assistance measures. The measures announced today focus primarily on helping with the community impact of the drought, and extend assistance through to the end of June. Business-related support and continuation of the community and social support packages will be developed”.
http://www.farmpoint.tas.gov.au/farmpoint.nsf/Drought,BushfiresEmergencies/F0E3D1B0F8558C57CA25757600185F3F
There are similar pages for NSW & Victoria
Gavin,
Sea level as some kind of benchmark for land demarcation??
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
The only demarcation sea level can give is between Above Water and Under Water!!!!
Would you like to tell us about Nils-Axel Morner’s work on sea level?? Would you like to tell us how much sea level has changed in the last 10000 years?? Could you estimate for us when the last time the continental shelves around the world were mostly above water???
Are you aware that there are coral reefs in the Pacific where the tops (indicating they grew at the then surface) are about 1 MILE underwater?? Kinda fast sea level change huh??
You really are a useless old SOD!!!
Listen Gavin the farmers have been moaning about droughts in this country off and on for as long as I can remember. It’s nothing new . What you saw around the Blenheim area is not unusual for that time of year. The east coasts of both islands are by nature very dry at times.
At these times it is of course unsuitable for carrying stock hence you have a “drought”. It’s like building your house next to an airport and complaining about the noise.
Of interest the biggest cause of sheep loss here is COLD.at lambing time.
I would like you to briefly tell me Gavin how if the globe is getting warmer it will get dryer.
Gavin – I went to school with the sons of these poor farmers and believe me they are some of the wealthiest people in New Zealand!
The climate of Christchurch and surrounds is similar to Melbourne in may ways. Freezing cold winters and stinking hot summers.
I was driving through Victoria about 4 years ago when you were experiencing severe drought and would look out over the scorched brown dirt which used to be pasture with quite some depression ; but then would strike bush either side of the road and cheer up because there appeared no drought (I suppose if had slowed down and looked hard enough at the bush it might have seemed drier than usual) but it was like …drought….no drought……drought…no drought.
I think drought is only a farmer thing.
Mack “I think drought is only a farmer thing”
Fortunatly the science of extreems in weather is progressing despite our various personal views. In my own contributions to several inquiries post Jan 2003 I made a lot of fuss about the grass fire hazard and arson yet the battlle for public awareness still goes on. To this end we have new alert regimes based on recent science from the Bushfire CRC and other studies.
I followed the output of several profesional scientists after wittnessing much of the devistation several days later round Hobart in 1967 I just missed a violent flare up of wild fires in the region but slowly came to the conclusion it was fine fuels at ground level that became the swiftest killer in high winds. Proof of this was a fire at Lara near Geelong in Victoria that killed a lot of motorists on the 4 lane highway from Melbourne. No bush there, just open plains. At that time I was upgrading controls around furnaces and reactors in nearby Petro chemical industries. Drought and tinder dry grasslands became my no one target thereafter.
Typical headlines in the current heat wave –
“Crews battle blazes ahead of catastrophic warning”
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/01/10/2789132.htm
“Worst yet to come in sweltering south”
– “South Australia and Victoria have catastrophic warnings in place today and Victoria’s north and north-eastern areas face code red conditions tomorrow.
There have been minor fires in Adelaide and people in Tasmania’s Derwent Valley have been told to activate their bushfire plans as a blaze moves slowly towards three towns.
Firefighters in southern New South Wales, meanwhile, are on alert for any new fires that could be sparked by strong winds combined with the higher temperatures”.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/01/11/2789886.htm?section=australia
For the science I often start here with Regional SST, one of the many services provided by BoM under their NWP products
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/show_prod.cgi?IDY00004
The detail, including “Soil Dryness Index” & “Drought Factor” see “Fire Weather Forecast” by the Tasmania Fire Service
http://www.fire.tas.gov.au/mysite/Show?pageId=colWeatherfwxfct
It’s getting ridiculous Gavin – this morning’s paper announced that the area that is in flood in central NSW is in severe drought!!
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/floodwaters-fail-to-stop-droughts-creep-across-state-20100111-m2s6.html
I see that an ipcc modeller and scientist has spilt the beans on what the climate will be like over the next 30 years.
Professor Mojib Latif at Leibniz Institute at Kiel Uni in Germany is a leading member of UN ipcc.
He says that Multi decadel oscillations can account for 50% of the temp rise from 1980 to 2000 and earlier periods of the 20th century were due to these cycles.
The extreme retreats in glaciers and sea ice will halt .
Prof Anastasios Tsonis head of Uni of Wisconsin atmospheric science group says that MDOs will continue to determine global temps and their shifts explain all the temp changes in the 20th and 21st centuries.
Gee gavin this is a blow, I mean who would have thought that oceans could influence our climate , I mean afterall they only cover 71% of the planet’s surface not much really.
Surely it must still enormous ammount of co2 that we humans have pumped into the atmosphere, that one hundredth of 1% increase that caused the climate to change not some piffling change effecting only a mere 71% of the planet surely?
Gavin,
make a copy of your post and get back to us in 5 years!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Neville,
This cooling must be a blow to the projected “1/4 mile poleward” migration of all species to keep abreast of the warming.
I wonder who blows the whistle and tells us when to advance and when to retreat?
cohers,
I hope Bernard J. is paying strict attention.
http://www.skynews.com.au/eco/article.aspx?id=415747
that shoul be “1/4 mile ANNUAL poleward”
http://www.skynews.com.au/eco/article.aspx?id=415392
Will Barbara come too, to hold Penny’s hand?
SD; an ice-berg could drop on BJ’s noggin and he still wouldn’t change his mind.
Neville; Latif co-authored the [in]famous Keenlyside paper which really set the ball rolling about natural cooling overwhelming AGW for the next decade or so;
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7191/full/nature06921.html
Whether natural variation can create trends rather than oscillations which are neutral over a cycle is the hot topic in AGW right now and 2 recent Australian papers dealing with it are;
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2008JD011637.shtml
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0908/0908.1828v1.pdf
Is there a resident expert on the Indian Ocean Dipole? It seems to me that the current hot weather in south-eastern Australia may be caused by cooling in the Timor Sea, sending relatively cool dry air across the red heart of Australia. By the time it reaches Victoria, it is, of course, dry and very hot. I can’t find any information on the current state of the IOD – positive or negative? According to Wiki, fossil corals show the IOD has been operating for thousands of years, but its cycle may be speeding up. The papers by Saji et al (1999) and Ummenhofer et al. (2009) seem to be much neglected by the news media, and the climate politicians.
P.S. BoM seem to soft pedal it too.
Green Davey the latest from BOM shows the IOD to be at +44, so I presume that is a proper positive phase (dry for us south of the Broome to Wollongong line ) or perhaps verging on a neutral phase.
Of course we haven’t seen a negative phase IOD for 17 years which was the last flood year of the Murray river.
Thanks Neville,
Is that +44, or +4.4? Can you give me the URL? I could not find it, but I am a little impatient with web-sites.
I was going to suggest Neville was up to speed with the IOD; I remember Neville’s exchanges with Luke on the IOD:
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/06/agw-is-just-a-theory/?cp=all
The BoM site for IOD is
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/IOD/positive/
That number is 0.44 not 44, just search for Enso monitoring graphs then bring shutter down to IOD index time series.
After another day of heatwave over SE Oz, it’s still too hot! Can’t sleep etc
Neville; “I mean who would have thought that oceans could influence our climate , I mean afterall they only cover 71% of the planet’s surface not much really”
Mate; as I wrote back up the thread we start here – easy stuff hey
Global
http://www.weatherzone.com.au/climate/indicator_sst.jsp?lt=global&lc=global&c=ssta
Australia
http://www.weatherzone.com.au/climate/indicator_sst.jsp?lt=wzcountry&lc=aus&c=ssta
Seems Cohenite has been reading Sunday supplements.
Kuhnkat; I simply went over to NOAA for the latest on climate and weather predictions so lets say you guys have nothing of value in regards to eminent cooling anywhere soon
gavin’s comment about the Sunday supplements reminds me of an episode of Rippng Yarns about Eric Olthwaite, the World’s Most Boring Man; I reckon gavin would give him a run for his money.
Neville, our IOD situation was well covered by BoM etc back in Dec. IMO the most significant global influence currently is that big blob of warmer SST out in the Pacific Put in proper perspective it’s very large
From the Dec BoM ENSO Wrap-Up
“Summary: Pacific Ocean warming near its peak
Central Pacific Ocean temperatures remain well above El Niño thresholds. Trade wind strength returned to near normal over the past fortnight, slightly reducing the excessive warmth of the equatorial Pacific Ocean. However, significant areas remain more than 2°C above average at the surface, and over 4°C warmer than normal at depth”
“The Indian Ocean Dipole (IOD) has a reduced impact upon Australia over the summer months.
See IOD forecasts, DMI values”
“In the latest survey of eight international computer models, all are predicting warm conditions to persist throughout the southern hemisphere summer. A majority of computer models are predicting that Pacific Ocean SSTs will start to cool by March next year, which is the typical timing for the decay of El Niño events. Recent forecasts from the POAMA model, run daily at the Bureau of Meteorology, show a continuation of warming with SSTs remaining above El Niño thresholds through the summer months”
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/
Vic Gov “Our Water our Future”
“Seasonal Climate Outlook – December to February 2010
The Bureau of Meteorology released its rainfall outlook for December to February on 24 November. The outlook reports that across the majority of the State, the odds of the coming season being wetter than normal are the same as the chance of it being drier.
The Bureau issued its latest ENSO Wrap-Up on 25 November. The Bureau reports a ‘maturing’ El Niño event, which is likely to extend into 2010. Temperatures in the central Pacific remain at the highest levels since at least the El Niño event in 2002, and the warm ocean conditions are expected to last into the first quarter of 2010. Satellite observations show increasing cloudiness near the date-line and a shift of the South Pacific’s major rainfall zones toward the northeast of the region. Although slightly higher, Southern Oscillation Index (SOI) remains at levels typical of an El Niño event. Negative SOI values are associated with El Niño events. El Niño events are usually (but not always) associated with below normal rainfall in the second half of the year across large parts of southern and inland eastern Australia.
Despite these conditions, the value of the Indian Ocean Dipole (IOD), as measured by the Dipole Mode Index (DMI) is neutral and is expected to remain neutral over the coming months. A positive IOD is typically associated with decreased rainfall across parts of central and southern Australia”
http://www.ourwater.vic.gov.au/monitoring/monthly/seasonal_climate_outlook.
Oceans circulate heat away from the Earth’s molten core, but we’ve decided to ignore that factor, so let’s just ignore oceans completely and get on with the business of establishing a world government. That’s the whole point of this sordid exercise.
Let the nominations begin for Benign Despot of the Earth Autarchy. A more-or-less immortal Despot would be ideal, which would simplify things. How about the Dalai Lama?
If we have to go for mortals, Ms. Marohasy would be a good pick.
Cohers does the Black Knight enjoining us to revisit the now discredited and dismembered Carter effort “Whether natural variation can create trends”. It is true that trends are hard to find if you first remove them.
I was interested to see Gavin’s statement that ‘A majority of computer models are predicting that Pacific Ocean SSTs will start to cool by March next year.’ If the science is settled, and the models are accurate, then surely they should all predict exactly the same thing? Are there ‘denialist models’? How disgraceful.
Did the consensus models predict the current minor ‘cold snap’ in the northern hemisphere? Did the denialist models predict a warmer than usual winter? Or was it the other way around? Reality bites – as in frostbite.
Very droll bazza; fortunately the mechanism by which asymmetry in natural variation can cause trend is becoming pretty well known;
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/325/5944/1114?ijkey=765987568ebc55b719dbe2b4e1f51ae836e44acc
So when David Karoly is quoted as saying “”It’s very very difficult with a 20 or 30-year time scale to separate a climate change signal from natural variation” should this be the sceptics’ bitch-slap response to Garrett’s inane musings on every spell of hot weather ?
“Professor David Karoly, a world-leading climatologist at the University of Melbourne, said the research did not change this expectation.
‘”It’s very very difficult with a 20 or 30-year time scale to separate a climate change signal from natural variation. You would not expect to see a signal until about 2030.”
“Last week Opposition Leader Tony Abbott criticised the Government’s proposed emissions trading scheme, saying it should ‘”not politicise events such as floods or cyclones to try to justify a new tax.”‘
Mick in the Hills,
We’ve also had a dozen jellyfish scares this summer and the deadly stingers are about to take over the world because of AGW.
It’s too much to expect the MSM to ask a logical question like: Is the ocean actually warming? or: How common have jellyfish plagues been in the past? etc.
How many sandwich boards can these alarmist “scientists” and MSM wear at once?
I was about to suggest our honietec had been into those Sunday issues again however something caught my attention so in a creative streak I found these connections by following one of cet’s authors above.
The Climate Change Research Section (CCR) is part of the Climate and Global Dynamics (CGD) Division at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder, Colorado
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/index.html
“Assessing trends in observed and modelled climate extremes over Australia in relation to future projections”
Abstract
Multiple simulations from nine globally coupled climate models were assessed for their ability to reproduce observed trends in a set of indices representing temperature and precipitation extremes over Australia. Observed trends over the period 1957-1999 were compared with individual and multi-modelled trends calculated over the same period. When averaged across Australia, the magnitude of trends and interannual variability of temperature extremes were well simulated by most models, particularly for the index for warm nights. The majority of models also reproduced the correct sign of trend for precipitation extremes although there was much more variation between the individual model runs. A bootstrapping technique was used to calculate uncertainty estimates and also to verify that most model runs produce plausible trends when averaged over Australia. Although very few showed significant skill at reproducing the observed spatial pattern of trends, a pattern correlation measure showed that spatial noise could not be ruled out as dominating these patterns. Two of the models with output from different forcings showed that the observed trends over Australia for one of the temperature indices was consistent with an anthropogenic response, but was inconsistent with natural-only forcings. Future projected changes in extremes using three emissions scenarios were also analysed. Australia shows a shift towards warming of temperature extremes, particularly a significant increase in the number of warm nights and heat waves with much longer dry spells interspersed with periods of increased extreme precipitation, irrespective of the scenario used. Copyright © 2008 Royal Meteorological Society
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/120835621/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0
“A Coupled Air–Sea Response Mechanism to Solar Forcing in the Pacific Region”
ABSTRACT
The 11-yr solar cycle [decadal solar oscillation (DSO)] at its peaks strengthens the climatological precipitation maxima in the tropical Pacific during northern winter. Results from two global coupled climate model ensemble simulations of twentieth-century climate that include anthropogenic (greenhouse gases, ozone, and sulfate aerosols, as well as black carbon aerosols in one of the models) and natural (volcano and solar) forcings agree with observations in the Pacific region, though the amplitude of the response in the models is about half the magnitude of the observations. These models have poorly resolved stratospheres and no 11-yr ozone variations, so the mechanism depends almost entirely on the increased solar forcing at peaks in the DSO acting on the ocean surface in clear sky areas of the equatorial and subtropical Pacific. Mainly due to geometrical considerations and cloud feedbacks, this solar forcing can be nearly an order of magnitude greater in those regions than the globally averaged solar forcing. The mechanism involves the increased solar forcing at the surface being manifested by increased latent heat flux and evaporation. The resulting moisture is carried to the convergence zones by the trade winds, thereby strengthening the intertropical convergence zone (ITCZ) and the South Pacific convergence zone (SPCZ). Once these precipitation regimes begin to intensify, an amplifying set of coupled feedbacks similar to that in cold events (or La Niña events) occurs. There is a strengthening of the trades and greater upwelling of colder water that extends the equatorial cold tongue farther west and reduces precipitation across the equatorial Pacific, while increasing precipitation even more in the ITCZ and SPCZ. Experiments with the atmosphere component from one of the coupled models are performed in which heating anomalies similar to those observed during DSO peaks are specified in the tropical Pacific. The result is an anomalous Rossby wave response in the atmosphere and consequent positive sea level pressure (SLP) anomalies in the North Pacific extending to western North America. These patterns match features that occur during DSO peak years in observations and the coupled models.
http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1175%2F2007JCLI1776.1
How Much More Global Warming and Sea Level Rise?
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/307/5716/1769
“These results give the clearest indication yet that anthropogenic forcing played a role in the drying of SWA. Note, however, that ambiguities remain. For example, although the observed decline fits within the range of downscaled model simulation, the ensemble mean rainfall decline is only about half of the observed estimate, the timing differs from the observations, drying did not occur in the downscaling of one of the four full-forced ensemble members, and not all potential forcing mechanisms are included in full forcing (e.g., land surface changes). Furthermore, while the observed rainfall decline was a sharp reduction in the 1960s, followed by a near-constant rainfall regime, the full-forcing ensemble suggests a more gradual rainfall decline over 40 yr from 1960”.
http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1175%2FJCLI3817.1
“A simple econometrician’s guide to global warming”
http://home.alphalink.com.au/~jperkins/gwstats.htm
Noticed this ad in the Byron Echo – thought someone here might chuckle: 🙂
Spangled Drongo
Come for a drive to iconic Nimbin during the
holidays and eat at the Spangled Drongo,
the town’s grooviest restaurant.
Look for the Spangled Drongo on the orange wall on the north
side. Chef Tommy Price serves up tasty and fresh Thai and
Aussie dishes in an open kitchen for dine in or out or takeaway.
And don’t forget the organic wines and Thai beer!
Open six days for lunch and dinner from 5.30pm-9pm. Closed
Tuesdays. Open for lunch Monday to Saturday from 11am-
2.30pm.
Bookings please, call 6689 0033.
Very good article over at WUWT by Roy Spencer, seems like his theory on low clouds being the culprit of warming/ cooling and not co2 has been strengthened by more REAL measurements.
Of course hansen insists that there is still more warming hidden in the system .( wonder where)
Spencer finishes by stating that ” the ipcc’s lack of diagnostic skill on the subect verges on scientific malpractice, very true.
“How Much More Global Warming and Sea Level Rise?”
gavin,
About the same as last century. [with or without GCMs]
janama,
Thanks for the info. I’ll have to check out those “organic” wines.
Neville,
Thanks for that. Do check it out, gavin.
A pity this study of Kirby’s has been delayed 10 years:
“http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=975f250d-ca5d-4f40-b687-a1672ed1f684”
sorry, that was Kirkby and hopefully this is the post.
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=975f250d-ca5d-4f40-b687-a1672ed1f684http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=975f250d-ca5d-4f40-b687-a1672ed1f684http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=975f250d-ca5d-4f40-b687-a1672ed1f684
Oh well, I’ll just have to make do with this:
http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1181073
Cohers, you should be more careful – the Black Knight of Newcastle now has no leg to stand on. The link you supplied was Meehls paper – the last line cautions “This response also cannot be used to explain recent global warming because the 11-year solar cycle has not shown a measurable trend over the past 30 years “. Who is the court jester now?
The Penn State U investigation of Michael Mann by three of their own staff is hardly a nail-biting affair.
With big govt funding at stake it seems like a whitewash must happen.
Particularly as this seems to be their new agenda:
http://www.nas.org/polArticles.cfm?doctype_code=Article&doc_id=1126
At the Conference of the Parties in Bali, some might remember, that we saw the extraordinary pre-release of the Australian National University’s Green Carbon report on Australian forestry at a Wilderness Society event. We also saw the announcement that Australia was involved in a road map for REDD, (reducing emissions from deforestation and degradation) in developing countries.
At the time it was reported that 18-20% of the world’s greenhouse gas was from deforestation, a figure used by environmental NGO’s, the UN’s FAO, the IPCC, the ANU paper and the Garnaut report.
Prior to the Copenhagen COP, the Wilderness society had formed an Ecosystems Climate Alliance with other international environmental NGO’s such as the Humane Society, Rainforest Action Network and Global Witness. This group at the Copenhagen conference demanded billion of euros to reduce REDD initially by 25% and then to 50%. http://www.ecosystemsclimate.org/NewsEvents/Pressreleases/tabid/1617/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/2016/Default.aspx
Copenhagen delivered with an Agreement on funding for deforestation. Australia, France, Japan, Norway, the United Kingdom, and the United States collectively agreed in an ambitious and comprehensive outcome to dedicate USD3.5bn as initial public finance towards slowing, halting and eventually reversing deforestation in developing countries.
What is amazing, now that the snow has settled on Copenhagen, is that a new study by a group of Dutch and American climate scientists in the November 2009 issue of Nature Geoscience asserts that the UN’s estimate of atmospheric CO2 caused by deforestation is substantially overstated – by as much as 40 percent. Recalculating the 2005 figure with updated satellite-based estimates on carbon emissions, the researchers calculated the relative contribution of deforestation and forest degradation to be only about 12 percent.
See http://blogs.nasa.gov/cm/blog/whatonearth
Looks like job done! Perhaps the USD 3.5 billion can be spent on sustainable forestry in these coutries to alleviate poverty!
News Flash!
John Coleman, KUSI meteorologist and founder of The Weather Channel, will shortly reveal in a special report that NASA has ‘cooked the books’ on climate change — making the US agency part of the Climategate scandal.
The report will be broadcast on TV on January 14th, at 9pm, Pacific Time, from KUSI in San Diego, Calif., USA. A related report will be available on the internet at 6pm on that date.
The full press release is available at:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/25175763/KUSI-Release
KUSI TV home page:
http://www.kusi.com/
As they say, ‘The timing is curious, therefore it is a conspiracy.’
Judicial Watch Uncovers NASA Documents Related to Global Warming Controversy
Judicial Watch
January 7, 2010
http://www.judicialwatch.org/node/9643/talk
NASA docs:
(215 pp., .pdf)
http://www.judicialwatch.org/files/documents/2010/783_NASA_docs.pdf
[excerpt]
09 Aug 2007
Reto Ruedy to James Hansen
“Steve [McIntyre] will keep asking me for our “software” and I’m tempted to ignore those requests, since our description of what we do with the data completely describes our procedures.”
Luke, SJT, and gavin are obviously running hard — running away, actually — from the deluge of reality that is about to completely swamp their years of evangelizing for AGW!
In the perspective of Civilization, is there anything to compare to the sight of shills, acolytes, hedge-priests, money-grubbers, rent-seekers, and seething, snarling, foul-mouthed neo-Hippies running like a pack of feral cats when the facts come home to roost?
Civilization, which always seeks complacency, needs a regular wake-up call to force people to notice that subverting civilization has a big payoff.
Civilization needs next to see Gore and Pachauri and Hansen in irons.
Such a foul misguidance of humanity, and divergence of largesse that could have been used to help the least of us, deserves no less.
Schiller thanks for that Kusi tv info, there are four very good videos at Kusi by Lindzen, Soon ,D’Aleo and Coleman explaining why they don’t buy the AGW nonsense.
A very good informative package that I’m sure the majority of the non religious types at this blog will enjoy.
Just like to inform people here that the magic 500klm barrier has been broken by an electric car on a single charge.
On 27/ 10/ 09 a Tesla roadster completed a 500 klm journey near Coober Pedy SA on a single charge to set a new world record for an electric car.
This lithium Ion battery pack didn’t have a scrap of Nano displacing the Graphite etc, but if it did the much safer pack could be charged in 10 minutes not the usual 3 hours.
Just shows you in our era if you take your eye of the ball for even a few months new technology jumps out and bites you on the bum.
Let’s say in ten years time we are gradually changing to electric vehicles for a comparitive price, how many trillions of dollars in fuel savings worlwide could we expect say by 2030?
BTW the Tesla can out drag a Ferrari, porsche Audi etc because of instant torgue over all revs.
In USA the cost to travel 100 klms is very cheap also.
Neville, good news. I’m actually looking forward to electric vehicles for a number of reasons, not just the pollution (non CO2) aspect. Someone needs to invent infrared photovoltaics so that they can be mounted on the underside of cars and absorb energy from the hot bitumen roads.
Schiller,
Data manipulation is not just rife in the NH. Our own BoM in Australia have tossed out all the data prior to 1910 so you can guess what was happening prior to 1910.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/compress:12/detrend:0.706/offset:0.52/plot/hadcrut3vgl/trend/detrend:0.706/offset:0.52/plot/hadcrut3vgl/trend/detrend:0.706/offset:0.97/plot/hadcrut3vgl/trend/detrend:0.706/offset:0.07
The only difference is you NHers are doing something about it.
Somehow I missed this, it explains my feelings about science and scientists today far more eloquently than I ever could.
Most of you probably read it already.
http://www.michaelcrichton.net/speech-alienscauseglobalwarming.html
Deforestation is a seperate issue to AGW but the attachment of deforestation to worsening AGW through release of CO2 from removing trees and the removal of the tree sink is just plain garbage; if indigenous forest is removed for the planting of crops those crops will remove more CO2 from the atmosphere than the original plants even taking into account the emission amounts from cropping.
Breaking news: GISS and NCDC found fudging the 2005 temps, to hide the decline. Icecap has something on it.
cohers,
Miskolczi and Zagoni must be an on-going thorn.
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7715-Portland-Civil-Rights-Examiner~y2010m1d12-Hungarian-Physicist-Dr-Ferenc-Miskolczi-proves-CO2-emissions-irrelevant-in-Earths-Climate#comments
I’m trying to post but it won’t accept my post
maybe I can confuse it
http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/81557272.html,http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/81558532.html,http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/81558842.html,http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/81559212.htm,http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/81559582.html
worked – deciper it yourself 🙂
janama,
that link wouldn’t work. Do you mean this?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/14/john-colemans-hourlong-news-special-global-warming-the-other-side-now-online-all-five-parts-here/#more-15267
SD, that’s bad news about Zagoni being unemployed; the last I heard from him he was negotiating with K&T about the size of the window;
http://www.atmos.uiuc.edu/colloquia/080430.htm
If miskolczi is right the window should be 60wm2 and that would tie up the complaints about M’s theory.
Jennifer,
It would be very nice if you would consider coming out of retirement.
Gavin,
SL has never been static. Why do you imply it has been?
This is becoming really, really bad.
The people who relied on “climate change data” who thought they were standing on solid ground in forecasting what-the-heck-ever are now looking stupid at best, or even liars.
This crap is going to hurt everyone, even the sellers of carbon credits.
Will Al Gore’s bankruptcy follow soon? Nope, his buddies don’t want to go bankrupt either.
What an escapade.
Hansen has just released a statement denying that they manipulate the data to which someone posted this 🙂
http://www.rockyhigh66.org/stuff/USHCN_revisions_wisconsin.htm
It’s interesting that Letterman didn’t allow Hansen to get onto his favourite hobby horse, nuclear power.
You don’t want to feed a Letterman audience with too much reality.
Hansen was talking about the increase in the difference in temps between upper and lower atmosphere and how it will increase wild storms and hurricanes yet that’s total BS!! Hurricanes are less! It appears he’ll do and say anything to sell his damn book!
bazza; do try to use some imagination; so “the 11-year solar cycle has not shown a measureable trend over the past 30 years”, eh? Some other solar cycles have though;
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/solar_ap_index_10062008.png
Anyway I’m not so sure Meehl is right;
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/pmod/mean:12/normalise/plot/sidc-ssn/mean:12/normalise/from:1978
But the point I was making, bazza, was that the role of clouds in responding to and adding to variation in insolation does not require much variation in the 11-year cycle especially since other internal factors such as PDO asymmetry can cause cloud variation.
Warmists are dangerous to every one. There are so many things that are not getting the attention they deserve, because “it is because of global warming” is used as an answer. This is often by people who have accepted the the “science”, at face value.
The other day I was listening to an interview of a research marine biologist, talking about his research into stingers.
Their season, & range are increasing. When asked why, he blamed global warming. From the interview it was obvious that he honestly believed this was the reason. Believing this, he was not undertaking any work to find other reasons for this increase. This lack of research is endangering lives.
Unfortunately, the research comunity becomes very incestuous, & does not take advantage of wide knowledge in the general community. In this instance, if they did, they would know that in their own town, Townsville, in the late 40s, just after the war, there were 3 shark enclosures on the strand beach, & thousands of people swam there all year round. Stingers were unheard of, & no one suffered stings in these enclosures, which only kept large sharks out.
If you could swim in the open sea, around Townsville in the late 40s, without a stinger threat, where have they come from?
Our researcher may be a bit slack in gathering the history of his subject, but perhape he would have done better, if he was not convinced he had the answer supplied by our warmists.
janama,
That’s an awesome link.
Amazing that the ‘raw’ data from 1920 could vary up to 1 C depending on whether it was downloaded in ’09 or ’10!
That ain’t acting like ‘raw’ data at all!
Folks,
I have a question, and it involves whether we ought to extend some sympathy to the Hadley Crew.
The Hadley Crew were dealing with, in great part, temperature data supplied by the USA. We now know that those data were ‘cooked’ by selectively excluding the records of various stations, to generate a ‘warming’ signal when otherwise, ‘a decline’ would have been evident.
Hadley claims to have done ‘research’ ‘independent’ of NASA, NOAA, etc., but — working with USA ‘cooked’ data, would they have not been driven to extremes to reconcile their results with USA data?
Meanwhile, there *are* indications that at least some on the Hadley Crew knew that the Penn State’s (Mann’s) ‘hockey stick’ was a fabrication, but the information might not have been widely shared amongst the Crew.
So, maddened by their inability to replicate the hockey stick, might they not have been driven to extreme measures to preserve their credibility with the AGW crowd by employing the frightful deviance from scientific discipline that is now apparent to all?
I am not suggesting in the least that any of this involves a moral justification. What I am suggesting is that the USA, by providing corrupted data, and announcing that it’s authoritative, may have prompted any number of ‘bad computing’ efforts around the world to perform bizarre computations to become ‘in synch’ with what the USA data purportedly were saying.
Current investigations are ongoing, new investigations are being demanded, and who knows what the fallout will be. We know in advance that politicians will direct the investigations, and that everything ‘follows the money’.
For now, the money is still on AGW, because the money is actually on who gets to control the use of energy.
But that’s beside my main point. The USA corrupted its data, everyone got on the bandwagon to come up with new explanations for corrupt data, and it’s the USA’s fault.
I apologize, and I’m sure that apology makes no difference.
Actually Schiller no apology will be necessary because the whitewash has began;
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/a-wholesale-climate-fraud-not-here/story-e6frg6zo-1225819884224
The AP article on 1000 + emails reads as ‘no fraud intended’ despite cohenite’s insinuation of a “whitewash” by the press. Cohenite; a hard case indeed, is also not moved by the fact out of all papers it was the “Australian” that raised the findings here.
Since my earlier post hit the blog reject switch – the following is somewhat a test at this point
Schiller, case you failed to notice, Luke & SJT are not on deck so that leaves me watching blobs bobbing in the wash & clowns frothing round their gills. BTW your last posts must be last gasp too, nothing new nothing on science and empty of original thought. By that I’m insinuating you too are nothing more than a parrot in the rhetoric so common on pseudo climate science blogs.
Spangles, I saved this lot for you after fishing round from your link. Cosmic rays are real enough however I won’t buy the argument they control atmospheric temperature to any extent compared to solar radiation. Note I can cherry pick blogs after Sunday mags too.
January 2009 – Cosmic rays detected deep underground reveal secrets of the upper atmosphere
http://www.ncas.ac.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=446&Itemid=249
Cosmic weather gauges
http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/cms/?pid=1000688
“How noisy naysayers led Fielding on to false path”
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/how-noisy-naysayers-led-fielding-on-to-false-path-20090616-cghf.html
More
Evidence for solar radiation impacts at ground level is easy enough to find as is SL variation due to green house effects on the radiation balance in all regions where terrestrial life exists.
“A 20th century acceleration in global sea-level rise”
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006/2005GL024826.shtml
“Myth: Sea levels are not rising”
http://www.climateinstitute.org.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=361:myth-four-sea-evels-are-not-rising&catid=115:cm2
“Waves in the bathtub”
http://climate.nasa.gov/blogs/index.cfm?FuseAction=ShowBlog&NewsID=239
More
“Answers to Key Questions Raised by M. Crichton in State of Fear”
http://www.pewclimate.org/state_of_fear.cfm
Rounding up; Tree rings were never more than a guide to CO2, temp etc, early thermometers probably had gross errors including false zeros and latter max min series apart from drifting fluid level were often read high due to poor quality manufacturing, improper routines for sticky floats etc, or inadequate shielding. I contend this lot is the basis for researchers bogging down today in hopeless data sets saved way back by naieve regimes tasked with the record keeping
Note too I have little faith in paleo stuff trotted out as hard scientific evidence of anything in particular then.
“Unfortunately, the research comunity becomes very incestuous, & does not take advantage of wide knowledge in the general community”
Same could be said about blogs but hey from personal experience with various institutions I have developed great faith in the ability of the general community to impact on most places as they commonly seek interaction both ways. For instance the researchers I meet as individuals still have mums, kids, cars, washing machines, tv’s regardless of their origins
“Note too I have little faith in paleo stuff trotted out as hard scientific evidence of anything in particular then.”
gavin,
How do you go on this sort of paleo stuff? This is more accurate than satellites.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1066712/Uncovered-lost-beach-Romans-got-toehold-Britain.html
And so is this.
http://www.john-daly.com/
And that CSIRO SL measurement is not too credible when compared with later measurements. As I said earlier, the more so-called SL measurement you get, the more you realise how dubious it really is.
gavin,
Over 2000 years ago the Frisians started building the dykes and polders of Holland and these days 60% of the population live below sea level.
Does that tell you anything about SLR?
Spangled Drongo
Dont forget that the land in southern england has been rising and has been doing so for a long time and evee since the ice load retreated.
It doesnt need one roman example to show this. The coast along southern UK is littered with examples of what was once shore line, is now deep inland. Castles and old fishing villages all miles inland when once they were on the coast
Incestuous, eh; there is no doubt the ‘ideas’ of AGW are inbred so the resident pontificator’s concern with climate science is well-founded; but gavin I find it amusing [actually I find it blood-curdling tedious] that you and many alarmists find that there is nothing corrupt in AGW; I especially find it amusing that you dismiss the “paleo” evidence; AGW would be nothing without the paleo evidence; hasn’t gavin heard of the hockeystick? As a point of interest gavin do you even know what the main technical complaint about Briffa’s hockeystick was; this complaint which has been verified clearly establishes gross incompetence; do you understand it?
Cohenite I see nothing but blog waffle and speculation re Briffa and climate change
Not one cited Dendrochronology expert !
Hey we have this gem from the creation side – “when the interpretation of scientific data contradicts the true history of the world as revealed in the Bible, then it’s the interpretation of the data that is at fault. It’s important to remember that we have limited data, and new discoveries have often overturned previous ‘hard facts’….”
http://creation.com/tree-ring-dating-dendrochronology
and this from downunder – “Coral growth rings point to bad weather ahead”
http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/2348/coral-growth-rings-point-bad-weather-ahead
or we could consult the local Fenner school since they have been at it for a while with kauri etc
http://fennerschool-associated.anu.edu.au/environhist/links/publications/anzfh/anzfh2boswijk.pdf
The Indian glacier story just shows what a hick, numbskull group of idiots inhabit the ipcc.
This started out as a yarn from some obscure hayseed talking to another hayseed who passed it on to a stupid science (?) mag and eventually won the endorsment of pauchari the corrupt boss of the ipcc.
One of the hayseeds now says he knows very little about glaciers anyhow.
If it wasn’t such serious corruption we could all get a giggle to lighten our day, instead of steeling ourselves to hand over exhorbitant ammounts of money to pay for this stupid new ets tax that krudd wants to fund his corrupt climate science.
What a bloody farce.
Malcolm,
There seem to be stories that tell it both ways but I always understood that England was rising in the north and west and sinking in the south and east. The fact that there is confusion helps to make my point re SLs.
http://planetearth.nerc.ac.uk/news/story.aspx?id=555
Fair dinkum gavin, that’s weak even for you; dedro experts; that’s rich; Briffa’s supposed to be an expert but what did he do? In dendro interpretation thin varves = warm temperatures and thick varves = cool temperatures; Briffa reversed this so that thick became warm and thin cool; this is like saying on a thermometer that 1000C is cold and 0C is warm; not only that but the data itself was reversed or turned upside down so that recent became old and vice versa; it was a schmozzle.
Just what is your point Gavin? We’ve got Gretel rabbiting on about kauri signifying nothing. I looked hard but there was no purpose to your posting. Then there is Octavia and Nerilie the greenies from Cosmos who start their article with..
” Australia may be in for more severe and frequent droughts”……
Pigs may or may not fly.too Gavin ; I hardly read any further because I’m reading alarmist b/s . With articles like this I just count the number of …coulds ,may, expected to, projected to, likely to, should, possibly, probably , might, etc. A link with any of those words is an insult to everybody’s intelligence.
cohennite is on fire over at deltoid.watch em try to keep up.
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/01/roy_spencer_hides_the_increase.php
Thanks for the reference Spangled Drongo.
Absolutely fascinating stuff. The standard line peddled by the natives in the southern england area when questioned as to why such and such is so far from the sea, is that the land has risen, and the cause is the release from the ice over burden.
The old fishing village of Littlehampton is one case in point, plus there is a couple of castles deep inland where the records show that it was a coastal area defensive fort. Hever Castle springs to mind.?
I obviously need to do some more home work.
Al Gore is incommunicado — even on the internet.
He has a blog at http://blog.algore.com/ and hasn’t written a thing in ‘Al’s Journal’ since Jan. 12.
Search in vain for a cogent discussion of the Hadley computer code, the recent release of the NASA emails, or the revelation that NOAA et. al. have been ‘cooking the books’ by ignoring data from sites that don’t indicate warming.
Re Trenberth, the data that don’t indicate warming must be wrong data.
Will Al Gore fall off his horse on the road to Damascus (or wherever he is) and discover a virtue somewhere?
With his Carbon Control Empire in peril, I doubt it…
Good to see this getting local coverage. If only to expose the credibility of “authority” in the debate.[ we all realise of course that in spite of these minor oversights and transgressions that the AGW science is rock solid]
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/united-nations-blunder-on-glaciers-exposed/story-e6frg6n6-1225820614171
More on the pachauri fraudster over at WUWT, surely even by the ipcc’s low standards they must get rid of this corrupt numbskull before he inflicts even more damage.
A tasty drop or two for Spangles –
“Jury still out on climate change: CSIRO”
“Australia’s peak science agency, the CSIRO, has backed away from attributing a decade of drought in Tasmania to climate change, claiming ”the jury is still out” on the science”
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/local/news/general/jury-still-out-on-climate-change-csiro/1728307.aspx
“Water resources secure despite climate change”
http://www.abc.net.au/rural/tas/content/2010/01/s2796000.htm
Poor old Gavin, having to rely on the Canberra Times to gain information about Tassie. The CSIRO report mentioned is all about sustainable water supply, as Gavin should know Tasmania has an annual runnoff of 47,000 GL or about 12% of the nation’s fresh water.
The report made a number of comparisons of rain fall including the recent 10 year period ending 31 Dec 2007, the ‘driest decade’.
It is lucky they did not attribute this to climate change, as the Greens Senator, did as the BOM reports:
“After three “dry” years, 2009 was wetter than usual across almost all of Tasmania. Not since 1996 has there been such widespread wet conditions across the state. Several sites in the southeast had their wettest year on record or their wettest year since the 1970s, and some had one and a half times their usual rainfall. Hobart received 862 mm, making it the sixth wettest year since records began in 1882 and the wettest year since 1958. Hobart was also over 100 mm wetter than any other year since 1975, and over 500 mm wetter than 2006 (the driest year on record).”
THe CSIRO modelled sustainable yield under four scenarios, Historic 1924 to 2007, Recent 1997 to 2007, Future (3 alternatives of 2030 using models and IPCC storylines of global warming) and a future devlopment scenario adding to the future climate more irrigation development as well as incleasing forest plantations.
All scenarios excluded the west, the wettest part of Tasmania with over 54% of the rainfall, but basically found as quoted by the ABC, Tasmania’s water resources were secure. Water will remain one of Tasmania’s competitive advantages.
G’day cinders. “It is lucky they (CSIRO) did not attribute this to climate change”
Lucky???? Who said they should? Anyway this was to be a light exchange with SD who I reckon is a bit jealous of all things sweet on the apple isle.
What’s the bet cinders is just selling more chips hey. BTW yours truly still has a big toe hold in the bush well back from the coast just in case climate change is real everywhere else. Also Gunns are keeping me upto date on their developments and I’m very appreciative of the big change in the company rhetoric on many issues.
“Tasmania has an annual runoff of 47,000 GL or about 12% of the nation’s fresh water” and it’s a great place for dams, leeches, spuds, cherries, seagulls, windfarms … windy lookouts …however her grand kids live on the conservative side of Sydney
Southern Aust has been drying out for over 5,000 years, (see Catalyst abc 1,000 year drought) but the sw of WA plus Tassie and Vic are still very wet areas compared to most states.
In fact over the last 100 years SW WA at 644mm is much wetter than WA at 352mm , Vic at 654mm ( line ball) SE Aust 625mm ( slight increase ) SA (increase) haven’t done too badly in this 800 year drought . ( again catalyst De Deckker.)
In fact Tassie and SW WA are the only places to recieve less rainfall in the last 100 years.
“Anyway this was to be a light exchange with SD who I reckon is a bit jealous of all things sweet on the apple isle.”
gavin,
I’ll have you know that I have a definite fondness for that odd and insular little part of the country.
My ancestors arrived there soon after the Napoleonic Wars and I am endeavouring to grow English oaks from the acorns of a tree in front of their Launceston pub.
Qlders have a soft spot for Taswegians in spite of them often coming up here in winter with just a clean shirt and a 10 dollar bill and not changing either.
“They” say the best thing to come out of Tassie is the big ferry but I disagree. Huon pine is one of the wonders of the world.
How many times have skeptics here been castigated for suggesting exactly this?
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/local/news/general/jury-still-out-on-climate-change-csiro/1728307.aspx
is it not time to wind down the hysteria, and to reign in the fear mongers?
hunter,
But that’s not what the warmers were saying just recently.
“http://www.theage.com.au/national/its-not-drought-its-climate-change-say-scientists-20090829-f3cd.html”
” One of the report’s co-authors, hydrologist David Post, told The Canberra Times there was ”no evidence” linking drought to climate change in eastern Australia, including the Murray-Darling Basin.” Quote from the Canberra Times.
That is an accurate statement. You only have to look at the BOM time series rain fall records of the MDB going back over 100 years to see that the absence of water in the MDB, is not caused by the absence of rain.
Indeed the long term trend over that time is that the rain has increased.
Re: Hunter’s of the 29th:-
Drought a result of natural causes, says researcher
December 28, 2006 – 8:00AM
Source: ABC
Drought a result of natural variation in climate: research
Drought a result of natural variation in climate: research
Photo: ABC TV
New research from the CSIRO suggests the current drought is due to natural variation in
climate, not the greenhouse effect.
Barrie Hunt, an honorary research fellow at the CSIRO’s atmospheric research centre in
Melbourne, has studied 10,000 years of climate variability in Australia.
His research shows about 30 periods of drought which occur at random times and he says
the length of each drought does not follow a predictable pattern.
Mr Hunt says this drought is not caused by the greenhouse effect.
“I think it’s probably a bit too early yet to say we’re having a greenhouse effect on rainfall,
rainfall’s a very difficult climatic term to get to grips with,” he said.
“There’s definitely a greenhouse effect on temperature; I’m not sure we’re having one on
rainfall yet.
“This drought will break and it’s important for people to say, ‘Well, I understand that when
the drought breaks, it’s not the greenhouse effect. It’s a load of rubbish, of course – it’s
rained again’.
“Everyone says this thing’s due to the greenhouse effect and therefore they expect it to go
on forever in a way, the naive people do.”
abc logo
Source: Bigpond News 28/12/2006
This was suppressed/ignored in the same way as was the internal Productivity Commission report of 2007 concluding that climate change as not a big economic problem was.
I see the denialist scum that inhabit the blog haven’t gotten any better. What pretentious twaddle – an out of date and semi-retracted comment by a CSIRO retiree – an off the cuff comment by a CSIRO hydrologist somehow is more important than the serious published science on the issue. I see Hill’s up to his usual skunk stats of using the whole MDB area when this is not what the science is saying. Good to see the scientifically illiterate denialist rabble is keeping it up. You’re a credit to your creed creeps. zzzzzzzzzzzz
(I wonder how the Jan MSU anomaly is going …. dum de dum de dum)
Oh good, luke, for a while I thought you had died and been reincarnated as gavin; pity about the CSIRO chap, I suppose he’ll end up like the last poor fellow who bucked the company line:
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/breaking-news/clive-spash-resigns-from-csiro-after-climate-report-censorship/story-e6frf7jx-1225806539742
So the university teat suckers are slowly returning from the 5 week holiday – just making a campus appearance are you Luke – no real work starts till late february so I assume you’ll go home and return later when the action starts.
No turd – I’ve been here all along – by who would you distract you guys from your mutual circle jerk and scummy little try-ons and misquotes.
So just for dear Wogers’ edification here’s what Barrie Hunt said in the Age – (Never trust a denialist !)
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/rain-wont-end-our-problems-climate-expert/2006/12/28/1166895421393.html
Luke,
……”somehow more important than the serious published science on the issue”
serious published science?!!! Aaahahahahahahahahahahahaha. Like hockey sticks , Briffa tree ring data, etc you mean? All that fudged ,manipulated ,corrupted stuff you call AGW science Luke?
Aahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Real serious Aahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
No comparison to the puerile fabricated twaddle that denialist scum peddle. Never trust a denialist.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/01/first-published-response-to-lindzen-and-choi/
hohohohohohoho !
endless denialist nonsense.
No comparison to the purile fabricated twaddle that alarmist scum peddle.
Never trust an alarmist.
So are you subjecting us to another year of endless alarmist nonsense Luke?
From
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/19/quote-of-the-week-26/
This week’s quote is prescient and entertaining at the same time. I predict it will be repeated on the blogosphere hundreds if not thousands of times.
Comment left on Lucia’s Blackboard by Kusigrosz:
“Climate doesn’t kill people. Weather kills people”.
Seen on Dr Clam’s accidental blog.
Shortened, it flows better:
“Climate doesn’t kill people. Weather does.”
And then in comments
Alexander Feht (19:38:27) :
People didn’t kill climate change. Weather did
My god the vexatious bloggerant is back. Probably out on day release from his psychiatric hospital.
As for the MDB, it is very strange science indeed that cannot accomodate the real life data and what it is has clearly been saying over the last 110 years..but then given the events of late, nothing surprises me.
I suppose now you are going to quote Hennesey et al back at me ….Dont bother
BTW Walker dont forget to put in your application to the Australian Regulatory Authority on Climate Change. The dopes that dreamt that up are going to need all the village idiots they can muster.
From
http://climateresearchnews.com/
“Obama’s Climate Socialism Voted Down in Massachusetts
Republican Scott Brown has won a shock victory in the race for the US Senate seat in Massachusetts left vacant by Democrat Edward Kennedy’s death.
The Republican win has robbed the Democrats of their filibuster-proof 60-seat majority in the Senate.
The BBC’s Paul Adams, in Boston, says Ms Coakley’s defeat is a humiliating blow for the Democrats and their agenda, and a deeply unwelcome anniversary present for President Obama a year after his inauguration.
CRN comment: It’s appropriate that this Republican victory should take place in the former senate seat of deceased climate alarmist Ted Kennedy. Hopefully, the loss of Obama’s filibuster-proof 60-seat senate majority will hamper crazy ‘climate’ policies such as ‘cap and trade.’
January 20th, 2010 | Tags: Climate Policy | Category: News, Opinion | Leave a comment ”
Interesting times ahead here!!!
Lindzen and Choi’s paper showing a drastically reduced climate sensitivity with ocean and atmosphere heating being balanced by increased OLR and negative SWR feedback is, if validated, a death-blow to AGW. It is not surprising that there is a disconcerted effort to attack its findings; luke’s RC link quotes with favour “agwobserver” where this is said:
“First part is correct, the nonfeedback change is the direct response I described above. But it is the second part here that is wrong. ΔSWR/ΔT is basically the change in the albedo of the Earth, it is the amount of change in the reflected sunlight. ΔOLR/ΔT is the change in OLR. Now, when the SST changes, it directly affects the amount of OLR, but L&C are suggesting here that it has a direct opposite effect of equal size to the reflected sunlight. Why would Earth’s reflectance change directly in accordance to changes in SST? There is a known feedback effect that affects the reflectance; the amount of high level clouds changes and causes a negative feedback, but remember that here we are not dealing with feedbacks yet, we are dealing with direct response. What direct response a warming event in SST could cause Earth to reflect more sunlight? That is what L&C are claiming here. Perhaps the reflecting properties of sea surface changes when it warms? Perhaps the reflecting properties of clouds change when the warmer thermal radiation from sea surface hits them? There might be some minor effects like that but L&C claim that they are of equal size to the change in OLR”
There are 2 things wrong with this; firstly high level cloud is a positive feedback because high level cloud passes SW but blocks outgoing LW; 2ndly, the direct response to warming over the tropical oceans is an increase in evaporation and low-level cloud formation which increases albedo; cloud data shows this happening.
A related part of the L&C critique is the Clements et al paper which is being touted as proof that low level cloud is a +ve feedback;
http://thingsbreak.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/observational-and-model-evidence-for-positive-low-level-cloud-feedback.pdf
From the abstract:
“The only model that passed this test simulated a reduction in cloud cover over
much of the Pacific when greenhouse gases were increased, providing modeling evidence for a
positive low-level cloud feedback.”
That’s right the only evidence of low-level cloud being a +ve feedback is less low-level cloud. Lindzen is going to reply to the peer reviewed O’Dell et al critique; I wouldn’t crow yet luke.
Hill – you don’t even know the right researcher – you goose !
Mack – what alarmist nonsense have I peddled to you exactly?
The scandal over ‘cooking the books’ at the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN) is growing. Selective deletion of temperature records from over 70 percent of stations globally has resulted in a ‘warming signal’ that warmists have been touting for decades.
Fortunately, the US has laws which make it a crime to delete/destroy/falsify official records. It’s only a matter of time before some AGW ‘scientist’ is hustled to a holding cell pending a prosecution involving the hoodwinking of non-skeptics and the waste of billions of dollars.
But inquiring minds really want to know: is Luke performing an auto-tonsillectomy, picking his teeth, biting his nails, massaging his gums, trying a ‘Vulcan mind-meld’ on himself, struggling with a split personality (one of which is bent on suicide), pulling out his dentures, replacing his dentures, removing an obstruction from his esophagus, attempting to induce emesis, being assaulted by an intimate partner, or what?
Luke, gavin etc can rave on forever, all day and every day screaming their fantasist claptrap but it won’t alter the facts.
Even if you believe the alarmist drivel that co2 is dangerously warming the planet there is nothing we can do to turn the dial to cool.
In an article in the Aust on 27/ 7/09 Keith Orchison claims govts around the world have been repeatedly warned by the IEA that” even if the entire OECD countries collectively reduce their GHG emissions to ZERO ( YES ZERO) by 2030 they cannot put the world on track to achieve stabilisation of co2 levels in the atmosphere at 450 ppm.”
He calls this a gobsmacking message, but the non OECD countries are heading towards a collective volume of emissions of more than 25 billion tonnes a year by 2030, compared to 15 billion tonnes for the OECD countries.
As I’ve said here before, if you believe in this nonsense you must give a real PRACTICAL alternative and demonstrate how you can even begin to turn the dial back to cool.
To me we are left with only one blindingly obvious choice, NEW TECHNOLOGY.
If an overdone Tesla electric roadster can travel 500 klms on one charge surely govts around the world can throw a fraction of those soon to be wasted trillions on sequestration etc and fast track new nano battery technology.
Surely we must look more closely at latest generation nuclear, geothermal and check out algae harvesting to see whether it could ever be part of the answer.
Anyhow Luke give us your thoughts, what is the answer and PLEASEEEZ concede that reducing our emissions by 10% or 20% or 30% will only delay the increase by days or months.
Neville,
Your notion of new, more efficient technologies is very appealing.
Actually, it’s been an appealing notion since just prior to the Stone Age. Fairly apparent.
What I don’t get is your notion of “turn the dial back to cool.” That’s the persistently missing element in this whole wretched debate.
Is cooler really better? Do we really *not* want things warmer? According to the historical record, past ice ages were really not very nice for plants or animals.
So — assuming we actually have a hand on the Global Thermostat, what would we rather do? Warmer or colder?
For sake of argument, I assert that the Medieval Optimum was pretty good, and since it was warmer than now, we should work towards achieving that climate once again. *That’s* what climatologists ought to be working on, if anything.
Neville, what say you?
P.S. Now that I look more closely at Luke’s picture, it appears he is doing that famous hallucinogenic thing with a cane toad. You can see its nose peeking out.
Schiller you’re addressing Neville the devil’s advocate, I’m not saying cool is better or that we can literally change the weather/ climate, in fact I probably agree with your take on things.
But I don’t believe in static technology either, I’m sure we will change our energy mix overtime.
BTW the result in Ted’s old seat overnight just shows what happens when a leader or govt gets too far ahead of public opinion on an issue, like health or perhaps in the future very steep increases in the cost of energy.
I would like to see the look on Ted’s nephew robert’s face after this result, he must be the most stupid fool I have ever seen interviewed on AGW.
It would not matter who you quoted back at me Walker the simple fact is that the real world measures of rain falling across this collection bowl called the MDB which dominates the southern part of Australia is not contestable. That was the point being made.
Unless of course the BOM has also been fiddling the books
Neville,
You’re right, I was being a bit of a devil’s advocate there for a while. I’m sure you don’t advocate a colder climate.
Fact is, I have not heard even the most ardent warmist advocate making things colder. That simple fact is the most salient in ‘the debate’. The warmists don’t actually want a colder planet, they just want everything else. A subsidy for this, a study for that, votes for so-and-so, and the list goes on.
But, amidst all the shrill proclamations, where is the advocacy for the best temperature and how to get us there?
That’s where ‘the debate’ should be, where it should have been all along, and after these decades of debate, we haven’t come close to even addressing the most obvious issue.
It’s time to consider that there should be some AGW advocates out there.
By that, I mean, people who are in favor of a warmer planet. Funny thing — those people haven’t shown up at ‘the debate’, either.
Bottom line — if nobody wants a colder planet, or a warmer planet, what the heck are we all arguing about?
Schiller will be back going on about his beloved “darkies” soon. How we know you matey. Pure politics boyo – no substance. On true denialist turds would try to spin that the world has not warmed.
Hill – SEACI has well unravelled the severe rainfall decline in the southern part of the MDB – a thing called “the Murray”. We await your critique of that research – which being a ranter – you haven’t read. Similarly good work on the SW WA rainfall decline has done the same. Nothing like seeing a true blue ideologue like yourself in full denial.
I couldn’t help but notice a 30 year milestone – http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/mean:12
Hmm – has the world cooled? Duh – gee dat’s a hard question. Hmmmm I wonder what Jan 2010 will look like …..
Luke as you well know southern Aust has been drying out for 5,000 plus years, so what has this got to do with the AGW fantasy?
What if Jan comes in higher, so what does that prove. only that the SH has been warmer for a month, then what if Feb comes in cooler?
I’m still waiting for your diagnosis about the climate and what would an all powerful dictator luke do to fix the problem if he had complete control for say the next ten years?
What an utterly stupid non-analysis Neville. If it’s drying why is Malcolm telling you there is no trend eh?
So you’re now deciding detailed mechanistic studies on recent changes in STR and SAM are beaten by a TV show on long time scale phenomena (unpublished). Good lord.
And de Dekker himself says in the last line of the interview … “and then the unknown is, what is the greenhouse effect?”
January temps can’t be high Neville – you lot have told me we’re in a cooling trend – hahahahahahaha
Dear Luke,
Welcome back. Just to bring you up to speed, I can now reveal all.
Due to political stability, oil sales, and rising incomes, there has been an increase in refrigerators, air-conditioners, and flush toilets in east Timor. This has resulted in cool water flowing into the Timor Sea, and the cooler SST has led to lower humidity in the flume from north-west to south-east Australia. This low humidity gives greater heating as the flume pases over the Red Heart. Hence drought and heat waves in south-eastern Australia, and the occasional burst of heat in south-western Australia, when a trough forms on the coast, and the wind turns north-easterly. Don’t even mention the bushfires.
Prince William told me this on his recent visit, and he got it from his dad, who takes a great interest in such things. I will pass the economic details on to Professor Garnaud (Garnaut? Garbo? Garbage?) – can’t remember the dratted feller’s name.
All the best for 2010,
Your Uncle Davey
P.S. How did things go in Copenhagen?
Luke you are beyond stupid, 99% of the population look only at the last 150 years and that certainly shows a slight trend of increasing rainfall in the MDB, SE Aust, SA but not in Tas or SW WA.
Who knows perhaps Tassie’s wettest winter in 100 years (2009) may lead to a trend to higher rainfall.
You do understand what mean or average stands for don’t you, there are 12 months in a year, so what if some trend down and others up, what rule is broken?
Also you still haven’t told us how you would react to CC if you had the authority to do so, come on show us how to move the dial back to the pre industrial ( 1750 to 1800) climate nirvana.
Davey,
The name is Guano. And Luke believes that southern Aus has only been drying since cockies and squatters have been asking for susso.
Luke,
Here’s your big chance, take up Neville’s challenge and tell us what your solution is to that big, 1/4 degree global problem.
[if I ruled the world…….every day would be the dum, dum, de dum….]
Spangles,
Thanks for correcting me on Guano. Is that the batty or booby variety?
In my search for hard data, I am keeping a graph of the number of times key words are mentioned on the ABC news. ‘Haiti’ is, of course’ well ahead at present, and ‘climate’ has almost disappeared – no cooling towers, cracked mud, polar bears, or melting icebergs for days. The word ‘republic’ has popped up briefly, with a quick denial by Julia. However, I suspect ‘republic’ will soon replace ‘climate’ as a favorite ABC topic, once ‘Haiti’ dies down. I have not yet seen any claim that the Haiti earthquake was a result of climate change, but we can always blame the monarchy. Poor old ‘Osama’ has dropped off the radar altogether. I’ll bet it’s cold up in those mountains, what with the northern hemisphere ‘cold snap’. Perhaps he has drowned in a melting glacier. Everything’s connected to everything, y’know.
Green Davey, I believe Danny Glover blamed the Haitian earthquake on AGW;
http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/timblair/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/pact_with_gaia/
Good grief…
Davey,
Last night the ABC 7.30 report gave us the story of Obama’s 1st anniversary with all the glit and glam. After that ended they brought us the story of the MA senate election. In the US the two stories are being combined in order to get things in proper perspective.
Obamania is still alive and well at the ABC.
Well Neville – the reason you’re a dumb denialist hick is that you never read any serious literature. Believe what you like doofus.
” Luke believes that southern Aus has only been drying since cockies and squatters have been asking for susso” – no that’s just more horseshit nonsense from a moronic denialist too thick to even discuss the issues properly.
“Here’s your big chance, take up Neville’s challenge and tell us what your solution is to that big, 1/4 degree global problem.” – never said it was an easy problem as Copenhagen failure well illustrates. So I suppose in the denialist mind if the problem is difficult then the science must be wrong. That’s intelligent – not !
Neville, sorry but you’re wasting your time with Luke. I tried to get him to commit to an optimum temp last year but he just squirmed and whined and couldn’t come up with an answer. I totally agree with your previous comments and may I remind you that even Luke is a fan of new generation nuclear.
BTW, does anyone know why the “powers that be” use 1960-1990 as the benchmark for temp anomolies?
“no that’s just more horseshit nonsense from a moronic denialist too thick to even discuss the issues properly.”
You mean like you do?
If you were denied the word denialist you couldn’t hold a conversation.
Derek; the use of adjusted data referenced to a base period to generate anomalies has in my opinion been one of the most controversial and contentious aspects of AGW; personally I do not see why data has to be anomalised at all; the main excuse for doing it is that it allows a global mean standard temperature to be generated; the concept of a GMST has been critiqued in this paper:
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/globa…
And one of the best analyses of the deficiencies of a GMST is to be found here;
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2008/spatial-va…
What lucia did was look at the regional effect of the Stefan-Boltzmann law and how regional effects defeat the supposed worth of changes in GMST as an indicator of AGW. To me there is no reason why particular location temperature histories based on raw data cannot tell their story unaffected by manipulation; if comparisons between locations and even regions are to be done that can simply be done on an averaged basis without resorting to the fable of a GMST.
The best refuatation of anomalies is here:
http://justdata.wordpress.com/2009/12/28/step-by-step-debunking-climate-change/
Sorry, that first link did not come out; here it is again;
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/globaltemp/GlobTemp.JNET.pdf
I thought so , all those endless years of luke’s arguments are of course a total fraud, when he’s asked the simple question he can’t event attempt an answer.
He stoutly believes in AGW but can’t tell us why or what you could achieve by following his rhetoric, little wonder these fanatics collapse and throw in the towell at the first hurdle.
” squirmed and whined and couldn’t come up with an answer” – well what a stupid question in the first place?
Why do the powers “that be” use 1960 etc as a benchmark. Agreed old WMO standard. If you used a new one every year you would have no basis for comparison. But use any period in a single analysis – matters little. and the old GMST debate – snore – how boring – it’s merely and index. For heavens sake. One day you lot argue about something serious. Until then zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Spanglers despite much serious discussion you guys are just like dogs returning to your vomit. You never listen, never read anything, repeat the same old disproven rebutted crap over and over. Why bother explaining it all again – it’s in the archives – it’s more satisfying reminding you that you’re a dickhead.
The difference between the raw data and the anomalies is that with the raw data there is no warming trend; with the anomalies there is only a minor warming trend inconsistent with AGW theory; it is really quite irritating that all this upheavel and garbage is being based on some statistical manipulation.
I absolutely agree Cohenite
It doesnt get any more sillier than with the use of the MDB figures.
Anomalies based upon 61-90 base is about as useful as tits on a bull, when you can use a base of 110 years.Why compromise your analysis by using base that is 1/5th of the available data.
Who gives a stuff about an international comparisons and so called standards when the data is used only for national management and policy.
Thats why the BOM time series graphs based upon the actual absolute data is so revealing.
There should be more.
There..that will stir the vexatious one into a frenzy.
Cohenite,
There is another difference ‘between the raw data and … statistical manipulation’ to which you refer.
It’s the same as the difference between the Bulk Media and the internet.
Netizens are accustomed to finding raw data where available, and processing it on their own terms. Bulk Media consumers, on the other hand, prefer their information predigested, like Pablum.
To find the data are ‘cooked’ is instantly, almost reflexively, offensive to netizens (with some exceptions). Bulk Media, on the other hand, are in the business of cooking data. After all, they’re selling advertising.
Then there are the odd hybrids out there, such as Luke, a netizen who prefers his data cooked — nearly burnt to the bone, as it were.
Luke will likely protest that the ‘cooked’ data he relies upon have been ‘peer-reviewed’, but the Climategate emails reveal that ‘peer review’ in that sector means: ‘reviewed by your good buddies and pals.’
On second thought, Luke will likely protest with foul language and misdirection.
But that’s quite valuable to the rest of us: AGWers are a foul-mouthed, hysterical breed, and we need to get used to it.
I’ve just sent an email to Senator Judith Troeth who crossed the floor to vote with the govt on the ets last time and seems to want to do so again.
She is retiring at the next election and seems happy to inflict this economic madness on the Aussie battlers, all pain and zero gain.
I’ve given her the same challenge as luke asking her how our ets will change the climate or in krudd’s/ wong’s words save the Murray, Kakadu, Great barrier reef and bring an end to the drought.
I see luke is as timid as ever, he can spend years sprouting foul abuse trying to mask his lack of argument and principle’ but when asked to give his answer to AGW ( I mean luke it must be a REAL PROBLEM SURELY ) he can’t even produce one timid solution.
He must give a clear and concise answer or he really is the most contemptible and foul fraudster in blog history.
It appears that Gavin has stopped posting since Luke has returned.
Something for those of the “settled science” to chew on:
“It is at this “stitching together” layer of science—one could call it a “meta-discipline”— that the principles of the scientific method have broken down. Reading through the Climate-gate emails, one can see members of that community usually those with slightly different experience and wisdom than the power-brokers questioning (as they should) this “stitching together” process, particularly with regard to the extremely subtle mathematical methods that need to be used to try to extract answers. Now, these mathematical and statistical methods are completely within my own domain of expertise; and I can testify that the criticisms are sensible, carefully thought-out, and completely valid; these are good scientists, asking the right questions.
So what reception do they get? Instead of embracing this diversity of knowledge— thanking them for their experience (no one knows everything about everything) and using that knowledge to improve their own calculations—these power-brokers of climate science instead ignore, fob off, ridicule, threaten, and ultimately black-ball those who dare to question the methods that they—the power-brokers, the leaders—have used. And do not be confused: I am here talking about those scientists within their own camps, not the “skeptics” which they dismiss out of hand.
This is not “climate science”, it is climate ideology; it is the Church of Climatology.
It is this betrayal of the principles of science—in what is arguably the most important public application of science in our lifetime—that most distresses scientists.”
I note that Christine Milne has made a plea on the ABC’s Drum website
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2798589.htm
read the comments :):):)
I believe Alan Jones is responsible for the huge public turnaround on the CC issue. Next Monday morning he will be interviewing Lord Monckton again! He has been lambasting the AGW movement every morning over the past week.
Just booked a table at the Monckton debate luncheon at the Hilton Brisbane nect friday.
Anyone else going??
welcome back Luke
Janama; yours truly has just had a lump of rusty steel removed from the good eye with an electric drill by a mob of fumbling docs in casualty. Apparently it’s been there for a few days hence the counter engineering. This should go to prove there are other activities in retirement besides endlessly attacking denialist blogs.
I noticed between other chores though Cohenite persists in his blog based homework and Spangles follows on in his own way despite my attempts to enlighten all with some history on the measurement scene.
Schiller; it occurred to me while reading your post that I expect my late breakfast to be in part made up from selected processed whole grains rather than the rough as found in the wild
cheers
ah gavin, so that’s why you’ve failed to observe the obvious, that AGW is dead 🙂
Gavin,
“Spangles follows on in his own way despite my attempts to enlighten all with some history on the measurement scene.”
When are you going to start enlightening us Gavin???
Cohenite,
have you seen the recent Chinese paper on pan evap?? Lukefartard is oging to squeal!!!
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2010/01/20/hydrocycle-looking-better-than-ever/
OK Gavin. Here’s a little nudge. Explain this measurement issue!!
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/01/20/do-%e2%80%9cadjustments%e2%80%9d-lead-to-a-warming-bias/
Hi kuhnkat; thanks for that; Stewart Franks has a possible explanation;
http://www.newcastle.edu.au/news/2009/11/flawsrevealedinclimatechangeresearch.html
And other Australian researchers, Roderick and Farquhar, have noted the same thing;
http://www.rsbs.anu.edu.au/Profiles/Graham_Farquhar/documents/271RodericketalPanreviewIGeogCompass2009_000.pdf
This means that Paltridge and the view that overall SH is declining must be right; and therein Miskolczi.
This guy is worth supporting;
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/serving_it_hot_to_the_warmists/
Over at Bolt’s blog he relates that krudd donated $1 million to the pachauri fraudster and fell for the Himilayan glacier story along with garnaut.
Will these fools now apologise to the Aust people for peddling lies and misinformation?
Did anyone go round topping up pan levels routinely with an eyedropper? No we use a kitchen jug to refresh the bone dry beaker every time a reading is made
As one who says the death rate amongst large mature tree specimens growing in isolated patches out on the farms is a good indicator of climate change, you can all do pan evaporation science as you like till the cows come home. This is a very sloppy instrument indeed for referencing sunshine, temperature, relative humidity, soil moisture or even major disturbances on the main runway at Canberra airport. The thing can’t be calibrated or maintained at present in some universal standard with like kind anywhere in the world.
Cohenite; Many variables have to be isolated and researched independently before we can arrive at meaningful trends with this one.
Several old timers have correctly guessed that in the general field of scientific measurement I can stretch a yarn with the best but here is the difference and it’s about the respect that one has for the practical skill that makes any work place event a proper one. It’s faith built on experience not religion that is important in our acceptance of all manual skills.
Today when I submitted the good eye to a smart young medico with a battery operated Dremel with spinning router bit, we had been through the formalities of mutual recognition. Needless to say we had an audience and that’s about training within the peer group on the day. Hand to eye hey!
My initial training in wet web evaporation techniques also leaves me in some doubt about the usefulness of old pan data even as a guide to climate on the whole. Wind speed and RH must be tied to volume loss at the temperatures of the fluid as the heat source changes. Any error in levels will definitely muck the calcs.
BTW did anybody notice the ANU team were firm on warming?
Thanks cohenite
Nev; Bolt’s blog? Oh!
“BTW did anybody notice the ANU team were firm on warming?”
You are a goose gavin; the significance of the Roderick paper and reduced evaporation generally is discussed here;
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2009/11/11/pan-evaporation-trends-and-its-relation-to-the-diagnosis-of-global-warming-comments-on-a-new-article-by-roderick-et-al-2009/
Kooky Kat – yawn – we knew about the evap story before you were hatched.
Now I wonder why wind run is down …. do de doo de dooo
However I have done plenty of process analysis based on either max or min turning points as they outline the limits of particular variables in analogue form. It’s also necessary to say step functions what ever their cause defy analysis in ordinary terms
Cohenite; please don’t put up endless links to articles you don’t quite understand.
By not associating pan loss trends with RH and a few other factors like dew point, you get nothing on the effective temp or climate change. Do some of the work yourself or shut up hey
What amuses me most is the audacity of these commentators in not considering the obvious like the current 40C heatwave affecting Sydney and the fact I’m sitting typing in only a loin cloth after another long day in the high 30’s. Lets count the human impact another way. How many extra heat waves do we need this summer? How about a review of SST in the Tasman?
Another fact, there are no mothers of babes on blogs carrying the candle for your lot because they are too busy keeping up with homemade ice
I’m also watching tennis on 7 for the duration
Well it proves there are two of them Janama and Cohers….. the old codger with a screw loose and the puerile youngster with a foul mouth. Same mentality; different age.
Oh, that’s great, being lectured by a buffoon in a loin cloth; the only dew point around here gavin is between your ears.
From
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/20/u-n-abandons-copenhagen-deadline-countries-not-signing-on/#more-15465
Leon Brozyna (22:22:49) :
“Those that can, do…
Those that can’t, become bureaucrats and tell people what to do, when to do it, how to do it, and if it is permitted to do it…
And in the surreal world the UN inhabits, its little hamster critters will keep on furiously racing in their little wheel, going nowhere and with nothing to show for all their frantic motions, except for promises to have another meeting.
After the Mexico meeting, hold the next meeting in Moscow … in January 2011.”
A description of a regular poster here – and it isn’t me
Correction to above
From
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/20/u-n-abandons-copenhagen-deadline-countries-not-signing-on/#more-15465
Leon Brozyna (22:22:49) :
“Those that can, do…
Those that can’t, become bureaucrats and tell people what to do, when to do it, how to do it, and if it is permitted to do it…
And in the surreal world the UN inhabits, its little hamster critters will keep on furiously racing in their little wheel, going nowhere and with nothing to show for all their frantic motions, except for promises to have another meeting.
After the Mexico meeting, hold the next meeting in Moscow … in January 2011.”
A description of a regular poster here ??? – and it isn’t me
Sorry Gavin and Luke,
I’m finally reduced to ad-hom attacks on you.
I need to take a break….
WUWT has hansen’s latest “hottest decade on record” BS and reposted Bob Tisdale’s earlier post giving his version of this nonsense.
OT but it’s interesting reading Dick Condon’s ” Out Of The West” ( 2002) and his mention of the Horror Years 1900 to 1945 in the western division of NSW, when the worst droughts on record ( only about seven years average rainfall or slightly above) battered this area covering 41% of NSW.
He also claims studies show that winds were more of a problem then than now. ( much windier he says)
Of course he mentions the period up to publication (2002) as being a much easier existence than that of the earlier years, less severe wind problems and higher rainfall.
This shows up in the Qld govt publication ” Pasture Degradation and Recovery In Australian Rangelands” ( 2004) and there certainly has been a good recovery in nearly all of the rangelands studied. Most have better rainfall now ( on average) than the earlier record.
This latest piece of news is difficult to interpret.
“Past decade warmest ever, NASA data shows”, New York Times, Jan. 22,
http://news.cnet.com/Past-decade-warmest-ever,-NASA-data-shows/2100-11395_3-6250415.html
Here’s NOAA’s press release on the topic:
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/20100121_globalstats.html
Since this warming signal doesn’t seem to be generated from raw satellite or ocean data, it must be that NOAA/GISS are using the cherry-picked land-based thermometer data to generate ‘adjustments’ to the other data.
Or?
If these people don’t continue generating the same ‘hot’ numbers, that would be like pleading guilty to blackmail. So they continue.
breaking news…
The UK Commons Science and Technology Committee has just announced an inquiry into the CRU at East Anglia, demanding to know:
— What are the implications of the disclosures for the integrity of scientific research?
— Are the terms of reference and scope of the Independent Review announced on 3 December 2009 by UEA adequate (see below)?
— How independent are the other two international data sets?
Now, friends and others, the independence of the international data sets is quite a good question, because US Congressman Joe Barton (R-Texas) “is pressing Energy Secretary Steven Chu for information about department ties to the U.K. climate institute at the center of the controversy over the infamous hacked climate science emails”.
Interestingly, he’s following the money trail to the CRU from the US Dept. of Energy. Which, as we all know, means that the scent of fraud — and, maybe, racketeering — is in the air.
Everything after this will be determined by whether public prosecutors have the political cojones to put the fraudsters in chains. But things are looking good!
Links:
http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/science_technology.cfm
http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/677-e2-wire/77519-barton-presses-energy-department-on-climate-science-emails
You know what you’re going to find Schiller – nothing. You’ve been puffing up the volume for years and have achieved nothing.
It’s pretty obvious that grubs like you will do anything to stop all environmental science. History will judge conspiratorial creeps like yourself harshly.
Reality is that sceptics have done climate science a massive disservice. History will reveal it take years to repair the damage done by vile and evil sceptic creeps.
Just ponder what you’re saying – in this one area of science – there is a massive international conspiracy that links multiple institutions. Just say it – go on …
Beggars belief.
Neville – you’re not very bright are you.
(1) is anyone saying that there are not natural causes of climate variation and drought
(2) would the existence of AGW suddenly makes these causes stop
(3) might AGW and natural causes interact
(4) would one look for mechanistic physical climate reasons that some recent drought patterns have been influenced or attributed to AGW. Note I did not say “all”
(5)Wouldn’t take you too much to see that there is a “reasonable” case for AGW to have changed SAM, STR, and the Walker circulation.
Of course that requires a modicum of intelligence and inquiry vis a vis reading prosaic anecdotes and sensationalist blog drivel.
Of course we’d be hoping far too much for that.
Frankly the complexity of what you’re dealing with is above your intellectual ability. And your rapidity to dismiss the science with no personal research simply shows you’re just another denialist.
Well, between Gavin’s dementia and Luke’s foul mouth say-nothing comments this blog is no longer worth the visit.
Pity! It was, for me, quite eye opening and educational, thanks JM.
See you all.
Luke,
You’ve read before what I’ve said about conspiracy; just because a bunch of dogs go after the same bone doesn’t mean the dogs have a plot.
As for your attempt to score ‘scientific’ ‘points’ against Neville, everyone knows that ‘might’ and ‘would one look’ and so forth have nothing to do with causality.
In the physical sciences, such as climatology, one deals with causes and effects. Speculation is fine, but in the end, one must offer proof in such a manner that others may replicate it as described.
Pictures of floating bears and accusations of ‘drivel’ and ‘creep’ are equally worthless contributions to climatology.
What constantly astounds me is that AGWers and those of a similar stripe continually appear to take themselves seriously, and to suffer no embarrassment whatsoever, when contradicted, or when found to be grossly uncivil in their discourse.
It occurs to me that those who have convinced themselves that they ‘speak on behalf of’ the planet, etc., can excuse themselves of any moral trespass whatsoever.
Moronic drivel Schiller. Simply moronic. But you are a denialist aren’t you. Will be a red letter day if we EVER get something touching on a science comment from you. Time for your DDT milkshake isn’t it. How’s your concern for “darkies” going these days?
It is clear that Luke is after the last foul word on this retiring thread. I won’t stand for that, in the name of Jen I will defeat you.
University of Waterloo professor Qin-Bin Lu, recently had a paper published in the prestigious Physics Reports and it offers a new perspective on the debate.
Lu claims the warming from the middle of last century to 2001 was caused by CFCs not CO2. This is fine, but then he goes on to say that the elimination of CFCs will make the world cooler over the next 50 years.
This fellow is starting up his own gravy train.
cohenite,
“This means that Paltridge and the view that overall SH is declining must be right; and therein Miskolczi.”
Yup. I’ve started irritating people by asking them to explain the observations since they don’t understand his math!!
Gavin,
“Did anyone go round topping up pan levels routinely with an eyedropper? No we use a kitchen jug to refresh the bone dry beaker every time a reading is made”
Thanks for demonstrating that you are IGNORANT when it comes to measurement!!!
The important measurement of the pan is the DELTA in the level. Unless the pan is almost empty how much is refilled is meaningless!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
I guess it is too late to tell you mommy not to let you sniff the broken mercury thermometers!!
Lukefartard,
“Kooky Kat – yawn – we knew about the evap story before you were hatched.
Now I wonder why wind run is down …. do de doo de dooo”
Careful, I think your ware doo dooing in you pants!!
The wind is run down?? Why just a while ago you were screaming at us that AGW, then Climate Change, meant all kinds of violent WIND EVENTS!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
When you come up with some kind of consistent theory you WILL let us know won’t you??
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
But lukey a major part ( krudd and wong) of the fantasist’s argument is that droughts are longer and somehow AGW must be the cause.
I mean don’t you read , listen to or watch the msm or do you just have this amazing selective attention span or are you just plain dumb?
All these things have come to pass before the invention of AGW, I’ve just tried to explain how one expert on a large chunk of NSW (Condon) can call a near half century the horror years and you carry on like a first class twit.
Trouble is these horror years occurred at the wrong time to suit your silly arguments.
My argument is consistant you numbskull, I believe in natural CC while you hystericly cling to your AGW dummy.
As I’ve said before subtract the planet’s recovery from the LIA and your argument is left floundering, especially when we have such dubious climate keeping records.
The shrill insults increase as the warmers spiral backwards down the plughole. Meanwhile Marc Sheppard sums it up well:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/01/climategate_cru_was_but_the_ti.html
From WUWT
kuhnkat; luke is a fan of ‘stilling’; purported decreases in wind globally;
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/2008GL035627.shtml
This allegedly is caused by AGW and explains the decrease in pan evap; sort of puts the kibitz on wind power though, not to mention gore’ s assertions of increased storm activity.
And we all know that the warmers’ agenda is not about the science but more about getting square with and getting rid of their fellow man.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100023339/james-hansen-would-you-buy-a-used-temperature-data-set-from-this-man/
cohers,
This stilling has been apparent and factual since the late 1970s and luckily, by being aware of this I was able to optimise a racing yacht design and win several international offshore series in the Pacific during the eighties.
The penalty for the extra sail area was not enough to off-set the extra speed it provided.
Nowadays every boat has a big rig but back in the “wild days” you could rarely use it and had to always suffer the penalty.
Well, SD, anyway you look at it there are homeostatic mechanisms in place; if AGW is right then ‘stillness’ occurs which reduces evap, less water at crucial atmospheric levels and therefore cooling; all hail Miskolczi; if I had a lazy $50k I’d sponsor Miskolczi to oversee a replication of his experiments and confirm his theory.
Kooky Kat – Gee we never thought of that one. Wow ! That about finishes us off. Major changes in world circulation patterns – probably nothing. zzzzzzzzzz
And what I did agree with was less major storms but of higher energy dissipation.
Neville – mind numbingly stupid – you didn’t absorb ANYTHING !! You are thick as a post. But most denialists are.
“is that droughts are longer and somehow AGW must be the cause.” WRONG ! Of course 1940s was perhaps the first AGW influenced drought.
“Recovery” from LIA – what fanciful crap.
Cohers – why do you bother with these goobers? You’re the only one with any nous.
“You’re the only one with any nous”; not at all luke; good old Bernard J thinks this:
“Cohenite is either even more confused than I had previously thought, or he is a greater master of mendacious misrepresentation of scientific fact than even one as cynical as I had given him credit for.”
I think I’ll frame that, or put it on my business card; in his usual turgid fashion Bernard J even allows for the possibility for both:
“Whichever of the alternatives (and they are not mutually exclusive) is the case,”
I’m stoked; I really enjoy the odd [sic] foray into Deltoid.
Luke – stop trying the old divide and conquer trick. Cohenite won’t be won over with flattery.
How do you argue with a nong who just makes things up as he goes along.
We’re told now that the 1940’s drought could be the result of AGW, GEEEZZZ even the ipcc idiots only credit the AGW effect to be post 1950, what a dumb bum.
I’m using historical facts, but this fool throws in any wild looney nonsense from left field the moment he gets painted into yet another corner.
The consensus says the little ice age ended around 1850 and unless we’ve all missed something the planet gradually started to warm.
That’s unless we morphed into a Medium ice age, but I don’t think even this dumb bum would try to sell us that one.
Anyhow dummy even by the ipcc idiots estimate droughts, floods, temp were entirely natural for the next 100 years and certainly wouldn’t have caused the 1940’s drought.
This is the same creative nong who will fight in the gutter for his beloved AGW fantasy, but hasn’t the guts to explain how we could practically fix this most important problem facing the planet. WHAT A MORONIC WHACKO.
““Recovery” from LIA – what fanciful crap.”
Well waddaya know! The LIA just didn’t happen!
Imagine if that were the case, the warmers wouldn’t have any upward variation to scream about.
Following Schiller’s comments re “Past decade warmest ever” it seems the Science Daily is more up to date than most on the wider AGW issue
“Worldwide Nitrogen Deficit Constrains Carbon Dioxide Uptake by Plants”
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100121164209.htm
Same page
“Ice Is ‘Rotten’ in the Beaufort Sea”
Avoiding wiki for our perspective btw I insist your MWP & LIA did not exist
“The Past 100 Years: Putting the 20th Century in Perspective”
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/ctl/cliihis100a.html
The ice core record
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Paleoclimatology_IceCores/
One down (Marcus) not many left hey. Sorry Luke but I put cohenite in the same basket as jo nova. Not an original fact between them.
back to tennis
“The Past 100 Years: Putting the 20th Century in Perspective”
you’ve got no idea Gavin – you post a page that quotes Mann et al (2002)
Well Neville – you certainly are a prize goober.
You didn’t read carefully what I said about the 1940s. Did you dopey bum ! Of course not.
Now you have introduced floods spuriously.
And you still believe in “recovery” from the LIA. How wonderfully quaint.
And did I see the word “consensus” in your waffle.
And in terms of the problem – sorry I don’t have to pose a solution. Maybe there isn’t an easy one.
Gavin,
Your note about “Worldwide Nitrogen Deficit Constrains Carbon Dioxide Uptake by Plants” from Science Daily demands a reference to another Science Daily article: “Excessive Reactive Nitrogen in Environment Alarms Environmental Scientists”, May 18, 2008,
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080515145419.htm
Pull quotes:
“”A unique and troublesome aspect of nitrogen is that a single atom released to the environment can cause a cascading sequence of events, resulting ultimately in harm to the natural balance of our ecosystems and to our very health,” Galloway said.”
and
“We are accumulating reactive nitrogen in the environment at alarming rates, and this may prove to be as serious as putting carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.”
So… we have excess nitrogen, and also a nitrogen deficit.
Fun!
Luke when you digest the real facts instead of nonsense from some left weekly magazine you’ll understand that the problem (?) won’t be fixed easily or at all.
You did consider that the 1940’s drought could be perhaps be the first influenced by AGW, so don’t try and lie your way out of that as well.
Just to check the stupidity factor of your argument, by say 1930 ( allowing 10 years for AGW to build influence) the co2 levels had only increased by 10% ( too generous because only 313ppm by 1960) over pre industrial times ( 1750), so a level of 310ppm was PERHAPS the cause of the 1940’s drought?
What a total embarrassment for a loud mouth who’ll spend years castigating anyone questioning AGW, but can only excuse his cowardice at not offering a solution by limply saying “perhaps there isn’t an easy one.”
Well perhaps you’re starting to wake up because ouside of new technology coming out of leftfield there definitely won’t be any solution.
The IEA has recently warned that by 2030 all of the OECD countries will be producing less than 15 billion tonnes pa of GHG emissions while the non OECD countries (Chins, India, Brazil,S. Africa etc) will be producing more than 25 Billion tonnes pa.
Bit of a pain in the backside isn’t it dumb bum, all those rants and all that abuse just a total waste of time and space because at this juncture there is sweet fanny adams any country can do about it whether from the first or developing worlds.
THE ONLY ANSWER IS NEW TECHNOLOGY to perhaps produce hydrogen cheaply ( can only be by solar or algae etc) or invent better battery cells, or produce biofuels from say algae that don’t produce much GHGs, that’s my two bobs worth anyway.
Schiller; Re Science Daily “Worldwide Nitrogen Deficit Constrains Carbon Dioxide Uptake by Plants”
On the issue of man made growth I suggest you start here,
“The Nitrogen Cycle Of Microbes and Men”
http://www.visionlearning.com/library/module_viewer.php?mid=98
Note, “Figure 3: Recent increases in anthropogenic N fixation in relation to “natural” N fixation. Modified from Vitousek, P. M. and P. A. Matson (1993). Agriculture, the global nitrogen cycle, and trace gas flux. The Biogeochemistry of Global Change: Radiative Trace Gases. R. S. Oremland. New York, Chapman and Hall: 193-208”
Quote: “Reactive nitrogen (like NO3- and NH4+) present in surface waters and soils, can also enter the atmosphere as the smog-component nitric oxide (NO) and the greenhouse gas nitrous oxide (N2O). Eventually, this atmospheric nitrogen can be blown into nitrogen-sensitive terrestrial environments, causing long-term changes. For example, nitrogen oxides comprise a significant portion of the acidity in acid rain which has been blamed for forest death and decline in parts of Europe and the Northeast United States. Increases in atmospheric nitrogen deposition have also been blamed for more subtle shifts in dominant species and ecosystem function in some forest and grassland ecosystems. For example, on nitrogen-poor serpentine soils of northern Californian grasslands, plant assemblages have historically been limited to native species that can survive without a lot of nitrogen. There is now some evidence that elevated levels of atmospheric N input from nearby industrial and agricultural development have paved the way for invasion by non-native plants. As noted earlier, NO is also a major factor in the formation of smog, which is known to cause respiratory illnesses like asthma in both children and adults”.
Neville Neville Neville
“Luke when you digest the real facts instead of nonsense from some left weekly magazine you’ll understand that the problem (?) won’t be fixed easily or at all.”
– yep agree.
BUT – not my fault – and doesn’t have anything to do with the climate science being right or wrong. Simply that it’s a hard problem.
Your game is to tell me AGW is a hard problem to solve with limiting CO2 production or new technology which has downsides, and therefore ergo – coz that’s unpalatable – so AGW mustn’t be a problem. HOW ILLOGICAL !
And yes as I have posted before, research has produced evidence that, AGW induced changes in circulation patterns have been most influential in recent southern Australian droughts. Not I did not say “all of Australia”. Note I did not say “it will never rain again”.
And I did say a key researcher suggests that AGW was partially influential in the 1940s drought from trend movement in the STR intensity.
Note I did not say that natural variation does not cause droughts. e.g. El Nino, IOD.
But a good body of investigation has now shown that AGW may indeed influence the Walker circulation, the IOD, SAM and importantly for southern Australia – the STR. Indeed all of this may be linked as one yet to be unravelled mechanism. I find it fanciful that researchers would go to an extraordinary amount of travel to unravel all of this. And knowledge is incomplete for sure – which they acknowledge.
But at some point enough evidence piles up to suggest that for Australia AGW is a potential risk in terms of hydrology in some locations (which coincidentally are most agriculturally valuable).
I have tabled all this many times before. You have chosen not to read it and ignore it.
To ignore that research, to blackball the researchers involved, is frankly appalling. Even Cohenite would find it at least interesting. Interesting enough to get Stewy peddling hard to rebut it. Problem is that case keeps getting stronger.
Gavin,
That’s a very good piece you brought up.
So: we now have proof that human-induced increases in CO2 and nitrogen are good for plant life.
Since plant life is good for humans, it’s all good, all over.
Luke will shriek about ‘invasive species’, as all his ilk is prone to do, but everyone knows that every species everywhere ‘invaded’ some place to be where it is.
Wait, no.
Luke will use foul language instead. Alzheimer’s is such a cruel disease.
A review of recent climate variability and climate change in southeastern Australia
Bradley F. Murphy *, Bertrand Timbal
Australian Bureau of Meteorology, Australia
International Journal of Climatology
Volume 28 Issue 7, Pages 859 – 879
Published Online: 15 Oct 2007
Funded by:
Southeastern Australia Climate Initiative
Southeastern Australia (SEA) has suffered from 10 years of low rainfall from 1997 to 2006. A protracted dry spell of this severity has been recorded once before during the 20th century, but current drought conditions are exacerbated by increasing temperatures. Impacts of this dry decade are wide-ranging, so a major research effort is being directed to better understand the region’s recent climate, its variability and climate change. This review summarizes the conditions of these 10 years and the main mechanisms that affect the climate.
Most of the rainfall decline (61%) has occurred in autumn (March-May). Daily maximum temperatures are rising, as are minimum temperatures, except for cooler nights in autumn in the southwest of SEA closely related to lower rainfall. A similar rainfall decline occurred in the southwest of western Australia around 1970 that has many common features with the SEA decline. SEA rainfall is produced by mid-latitude storms and fronts, interactions with the tropics through continental-scale cloudbands and cut-off lows.
El Niño-Southern Oscillation impacts on SEA rainfall, as does the Indian Ocean, but neither has a direct influence in autumn. Trends have been found in both hemispheric (the southern annular mode) and local (sub-tropical ridge) circulation features that may have played a role in reducing the number and impact of mid-latitude systems around SEA, and thus reducing rainfall. The role of many of these mechanisms needs to be clarified, but there is likely to be an influence of enhanced greenhouse gas concentrations on SEA climate, at least on temperature.
“THE ONLY ANSWER IS NEW TECHNOLOGY”
Neville; after years of roaming through Australian industry and trying to control the emissions like the smog causing nitrogen oxides above while reducing unburnt fuel etc you realise technical solutions to human growth problems create as many if not more long term headakes.
From dealing with the worst of dirty manufacturing plants we get another perspective, free enterprise operations can be entirely responsible for a vastly degraded environment over wide areas beyond cities.
From Figure 3 above :”Recent increases in anthropogenic N fixation in relation to “natural” N fixation” we can see the general case, another hockey stick relationship with nitrogen fixation v fossil fuel combustion, much less than ammonium fertilizer production sure but nether the less worrying considering the knock on effect.
We don’t see enough discussion on the nitrogen cycle
Gavin, you do realise that ““Figure 3: Recent increases in anthropogenic N fixation in relation to “natural” N fixation. Modified from Vitousek, P. M. and P. A. Matson (1993). Agriculture, the global nitrogen cycle, and trace gas flux. The Biogeochemistry of Global Change: Radiative Trace Gases. R. S. Oremland. New York, Chapman and Hall: 193-208””
completely contradicts your previous “Science daily ” link ” “Worldwide Nitrogen Deficit Constrains Carbon Dioxide Uptake by Plants” ”
I got caught up reading several of the articles at Science daily from your link and found that a lot of them contradict others on the same topic. Interestingly, when you get to the topic of hurricanes, it seems that it’s Trenberth versus everyone else.
Now tell me, and I expect you should be able to answer this one without googling it for a change, how can a 1.2F/century increase in global air temp. produce a 1.7F increase in SST in ONE year as Trenberth alludes?
The Walker is not doing anything unusual;
http://landshape.org/enm/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/articletxt.pdf
Cohers – Unpublished sceptic science I’m afraid
Cohenite, interesting article, one thing (of many) I don’t get though. “A declining WC was regarded as a confirmation of anthropogenic climate change by Vecchi et al. (2006) and Power and Smith (2007).”
Anthropogenic means a link to increased CO2 levels but I couldn’t see the connection in the article. Why couldn’t a declining WC be due to natural climate variations?
I particularly liked this bit; “One should be extremely
cautious of studies using climate simulations to justify their claims, as natural
variance may be greater than contemporary observations encompass,
and projections of climate models often cannot be fully substantiated by
their performance.”
BTW, didn’t I see recently that those stepwise increases in the first graph of fig. 3 were caused by “adjustments” by our friendly neighbourhood climategate crew?
Cheers.
“Cohers – Unpublished sceptic science I’m afraid”
What, like the Himalayan glacier BS that found it’s way into the IPCC’s report?
Keep up that supply of personal lubricant buddy.
“Unpublished sceptic science I’m afraid”
I’m afraid for most of us the terms “published” and “peer review” have a somewhat tarnished sheen to them these days!
Accuracy, truth and fact count far more, than being “peer” reviewed by a friend or colleague.
The reemergence of Luke made me remember this article found at Climate depot,
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=121884
Particularly the following, “”We suggest a distinctive tactic for breaking up the hard core of extremists who supply conspiracy theories: cognitive infiltration of extremist groups, whereby government agents or their allies (acting either virtually or in real space, and either openly or anonymously) will undermine the crippled epistemology of believers by planting doubts about the theories and stylized facts that circulate within such groups”
and, “Sunstein said government agents “might enter chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups and attempt to undermine percolating conspiracy theories by raising doubts about their factual premises, causal logic or implications for political action.”
Seeing as how Luke’s preferred style has nothing to do with constructive debate or honest contribution, but rather constant ridicule sprinkled with smatterings of redundant articles by Realclimate at al., well…does the above quote fit our little Lukey or what?
I’m just pointing it out is all.
Derek, the background to the paper and a detailed analysis of the Scott and Power paper is here;
http://landshape.org/enm/walker-circulation-and-enso/
David also looks at Vecchi here;
http://landshape.org/enm/weakening-of-the-walker-circulation/#disqus_thread
Vechhi has developed the idea that AGW can ‘mimic’ natural events like El Nino but produce an aggravated version [why is everything AGW does much worse than delta conditions?].
Luke I think we’ll have to agree to disagree, but I’ll try once more to put my point of view.
Lomborg agrees that AGW is real, but he believes the Ipcc, Kyoto remedy is a complete waste of time and money and will only achieve a tiny delay of perhaps five years, say 2095 instead of 2100.
He has assembled a team of experts in all the scientific fields plus Nobel prize winning economists to arrive at the best conclusions for dollars spent and when you look at his info plus his swag of graphs it makes sense.
I am a layman so my understanding of the science must be limited, but then I can look at the past in Aust and around the world and read the conclusions of numerous scientists telling me the problem is minor or isn’t a problem at all. Also some of the conclusions are suspect like the LIA recovery not taken into account, UHI effect not properly accounted for , particulsrly since the closure of thousands of weather stns around 1990 in rural areas.
D’Aleo’s famous graph shows a vertical plunge from 1990 to 2000 of about 2/3rds of the ( mostly rural) sites and the much higher temp readings over the same period. See Ross McKitricks site to download the full explanation.
The sun’s increased output over the last century also bothers a lot of people plus the lack of real info about clouds etc, also the lack of a properly recorded hot spot proves to a lot of scientists that AGW is not proven.
I could go on but there is no need to because even if I held your exact knowledge and conclusions I would say that the Kyoto remedy is a provable disaster because in the end it will not work and will waste trillions $ worldwide.
So simply forget about reducing carbon and spend a tiny fraction of that money on new technology because with proper rewards it will happen much faster than ghg reductions.
Just a note to finish on, when some of the first experiments to fertilize the Pacific ( Trefil 1996) with iron to form algae to bloom soaking up co2 ( then die and sink to the bottom) seemed to at first fail a journalist at the Smithsonian noted a sigh of relief from environmental scientists as if a discovery that might work would be just too much for them to bear.
Then when Electrochemists ( Pons & Fleischmann) shocked the world in 1989 announcing they had achieved fusion at room temp, the reaction from some scientists was bizzare.
Rivkin thought it was the worst thing that could happen to our planet, inexhaustible power would just give man the ability to inexhaust the planet’s resources.
Same nonsense from Holdren and Ehrlich ( the perennial idiot) said that fusion although clean and cheap would be like giving a machine gun to an idiot child.
So to the extremists it’s really about political science and totalitarian control over ordinary people, not the reduction of ghg’s. Needless to say after a month or so fusion was shown to be a failure, but at least it showed what a mob of idiots some of the scientists really are.
When the main data bases are shown to be a complete fabrication, put together and managed by academic fools and frauds, then the sooner the whole show has its throat cut the better.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/01/climategate_cru_was_but_the_ti.html
If AGW/IPCC has any merit at all left, then it has to be set up quite differently.
Pachauri should be told to bugger off, and the IPCC main office moved to another country, and staffed with new blood..would be good way to start.
All panel and board appointees, including the Chair should be required to make declarations of pecuniary interests as is standard practice.
The very idea that Pachauri was not required to do so because he wasnt being paid by the UN/IPCC just beggars belief,and indicates that the con job was well planned from the start.
All aided an abetted by the incompetence of NOAA and Nasa/Gissas indicated in the above.
Mug tax payers are on the receiving end of all of this.
Methinks Cohenite is way off beat using his term “delta” for conditions.
Derek; with all this Science Daily stuff you have to remain firm in that they are only offering papers about indicators and their academic interpretations, not definitive measurements. A little work in the calorimetry bath on the bench should clear that up.
With two fluids, one heat source, various radiative surfaces and non linear mixing we could be chasing equilibrium for ages but since its not up to me to do the math I chose these from au google – turbulence timescales Trenbeth
“An estimate of Lagrangian eddy statistics and diffusion in the
mixed layer of the Southern Ocean”
http://www.marine.csiro.au/~sal119/SiteWeb_files/paper/EddyStat_SO_accepted.pdf
Submission by Dr Robert Carter
http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/economics_ctte/cprs_09/submissions/sub126.pdf
not much science hey
A quote from a 2000 thesis “Dynamics of laboratory models of the
wind-driven ocean circulation”
“From the point of view of fuid dynamics, understanding the behavior of the global
ocean is an immensely complex problem. There are processes operating on spatial scales ranging from millimeters to tens of thousands of kilometers, and timescales from seconds to millennia. The fluid is rotating, stratified, turbulent, contained within a domain with a highly irregular boundary and subject to forcing which is generally unpredictable in
both space and time. The complex physics leads to a plethora of different wave modes
and instabilities, and highly nonlinear motions are common. In addition the motions and
properties of the ocean and atmosphere are intimately linked, leading to coupled modes
of variability such as El Ni~no and the Antarctic Circumpolar Wave”
http://dspace.anu.edu.au/bitstream/1885/47497/2/02Front-Chapters1-2.pdf.
Then I got sidetracked by the mob responses here, hopeless lot to the ABC program Nov 09 “Planetary Boundaries”
http://abc.gov.au/unleashed/stories/s2728850.htm
However the search provides rich pickings for true AGW believers like me
Neville; in the general scheme of things UHI is a furphy like the LIA & WMP.
Point 6 or 7 C is a lot in the scale 0 -15 C and becomes more significant in the scale – 50 > + 50 C when considered over 100 years. The last point relates to the recent rate of change.
Why bother with the scale 0-15? Food keeps well within the range and 18 – 21 C is easy for us to live in over long exposure periods. Bump up either targets and big things start to fall apart for humans in particular. 6-9 billion becomes unsustainable any how you look at it if we loose the plot on climate
WMP would be wimp I presume; so along with Delta T due to AGW which is 0 we also have Delta W as the alarmists go to water as the scam unravels and their wimp quotient increases; Delta S for stupidity as the nonsense becomes manifest will also increase along with DP which is the increase pain as gavin persists with his ramblings.
Alright Gavin show us your wisdom , what temp should the planet be and how do we get there and tell us the cost.
Apparently we’re a bit warm at 14C + or – a fraction of 1.0c so what temp should we be and how do you hold the temp at that level, remember we’ve only increased the temp by 0.7c in the last 150 years, if you believe the science as you do.
Explain the technology you would invent because it can’t be done now or in the future or do you know more than the IEA.
Neville, I told you already I’ve asked almost exactly that same question and persisted for a number of days. In the end all Gavin could come up with was something about being “happy with the status quo” and Luke just admitted he didn’t know.
They both know that if they gave a definitive answer they would have to justify it and then the wolves (us) would move in and rip ’em to shreds.
Luke kept whining that it was a stupid question but in fact it is a highly logical and profound question. Most alarmists believe it’s too hot already, otherwise there wouldn’t be all of this dismay about “the hottest decade on record” and the arctic melting etc. So we have an upper limit that says around 14.7C is too hot. That only leaves one way to go, cooler. But how much cooler? And what factors do you use to make a determination?
Unfortunately I think that both Gavin and Luke are smart enough to know a Chinese finger puzzle when they see it.
BTW Gavin, what possible excuse do you have for denying that the LIA never happened? Did you check out the book I directed you too? Or do you simply believe the gospel according to Realclimate like a good little alcolyte? You know you can’t trust Wikipedia on these matters any more.
BREAKING NEWS: scientist admits IPCC used fake data to pressure policy makers
From
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/23/breaking-news-scientist-admits-ipcc-used-fake-data-to-pressure-policy-makers/
And the back pedalling is on –
“The Science is Scuttled” – NASA climate page, suckered by IPCC, deletes their own ‘moved up’ glacier melting date reference
And the purge begins.”
From http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/23/nasa-climate-page-suckered-by-ipcc-deletes-a-moved-up-glacier-melting-date-reference/
Watch for roll-backs here!
Derek; I don’t need RC or Wiki.
After a google search for Crowley I select these items and say they are not mutually exclusive because one good thermometer would destroy the pair of them on the issue of LIA or MWP. As one reconstruction is potentially as good as the other and neither present a solid variation from the near steady state for past global temperature I see no reason not to wait for some one’s sea level account for either case assuming significant temp change did occur.
“Global surface temperatures over the past two millennia”
http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/shared/articles/mannjones03.pdf
“Highly variable Northern Hemisphere
temperatures reconstructed from
low- and high-resolution proxy data”
http://coast.gkss.de/staff/storch/pdf/moberg.nature.0502.pdf
Mann and Jones; how grotesque.
Derek – perhaps you could indulge yourself and dream about conspiracy theories or maybe we’re just pugilistic types who just don’t like slime balls? You decide.
There is a more than good chance that unmitigated increase in CO2 will cause significant changes in the climate system, already manifest in fact. The systematic pseudo war by faux sceptics on the broad science findings is despicable. We spit on your morally bankrupt philosophical position.
Gavin, Mann and Jones? Is this a joke? You take your evidence from the very ratbags that deliberately set out to get rid of the MWP and the LIA. I’m afraid you’re in even greater denial than I thought.
Out of interest, it so happens that this time Wiki actually has a quite reasonable account of the LIA.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age
If you read the whole thing you will see that there IS evidence that it was both global And much colder than the 20th C.
There’s more than a good chance that your precious IPCC will be so badly discredited that it will cease to exist, Mann and Jones will never work in science again and AlBore will have to give back his nobel prize. There is a much smaller chance that you will ever be able to prove that CO2 is the cause of climate change in the last 50 years and virtually no chance that you will ever admit that you’ve been conned.
From http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/23/sanity-check-2008-2009-were-the-coolest-years-since-1998-in-the-usa/#more-15539
E.M.Smith (04:13:07) :
Since real climate is a function of things like altitude, latitude, and distance from the ocean (yes, check the definitions of things like ‘desert climate’ and ‘mediterranean climate’ and ‘temperate zone climate’…) that means that the “30 year average of weather” used by the AGW guys is no more climate than a “10 year average of weather”.
So I’m quite happy to say that there is a definite strong cooling trend underway. Heck, if they can ignore 60 year cycles like the PDO and 80 year and even 176 year cycles of solar output, and, for that matter, the 1500 year Bond Event Cycles, then so can I.
Filter with 30 years, you can not see a cycle longer than that. (Heck, even a 20 year cycle can look a lot like noise or a mistaken trend). So once you’ve decided to blow off all the really interesting long cycles of weather, what’s one more? In fact, the faster response is more useful for things like crop planning and ski trips…
So we’re headed down, and harder than we had been headed up. Give it another 20 years and this cooling 1/2 cycle ought to be taking a break (if it is PDO related… I don’t want to think about a Maunder event… and a Bond Event, well, we ARE just about due for one, but we don’t want to go there… that cycle leads to WW III from starvation… The last one was The Dark Ages and started about 530 – 540 AD. Add the nominal 1470 years of a Bond event and you get 2000 – 2010 AD. Gee, just about the time temperatures started falling… and the Sun went very very quiet… but the error band on that 1470 can add a decade or three… )
This posting:
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/04/06/bond-event-zero/
has a couple of my comments but mostly just collected together some details from Wiki as the Wiki Langoliers started to erase the MWP, LIA, and everything else interesting… so I grabbed what I could still find and stuck it there. Needs cleanup, but does give you an idea about things like “The Iron Age Cold Period” and other “pessimums”…
I’m still holding out hope that all that ocean heat (currently driving our global Lava Lamp at extreme speeds moving all that ocean heat to the poles to dump at high rates) will keep the place warm for the rest of my lifetime. Toss in a short solar cycle recovery and we might just have a “normal” if cold winter for a decade or three.
Well, I can always hope…
FWIW, I think you can use a “loopy jet stream” vs a flat one as an indicator of how much heat differential there is between the tropical oceans and the cold poles. So we’re getting darned cold poles, and heat is being dumped big time, now you have a larger thermal gradient between equator and poles to drive interesting air flows for a while. Thus the frozen Canadian Express and Siberian Express dumping cold all over, yet more warmth running up the oceans to the poles to get frozen and return.
I’d give it a decade of that before we cool the oceans enough to start getting Real Cold… So just hope the last sunspots are a sign of things to come…
(And yes, I think the sun is the driver of our climate on a long term macro scale, with short term waffles caused by ‘ringing’ of misc fluid systems…)
Oh, and take a nice look at that chart. Notice that the GIStemp baseline is set at the bottom of that blue dip… 1950-1980
Folks,
This Climategate thing is getting better all the time! (Or worse, depending on your perspective.)
It turns out that the IPCC claim of molten Himalayan glaciers by 2035 was known to be a fraud at the time it was published — and the purpose of publishing it was to “put political pressure on world leaders.”
Attribution of the now-discredited claim of molten glaciers was traced to Syed Hasnain.
Even so, the plan to pressure world leaders worked very, very well.
You see, the head of the IPCC is paid by TERI instead. As a result of the molten glacier claim, TERI got 3.5 million Euros from governments (taxpayers) to study the glaciers.
And Syed Hasnain? Well, he has a nice job with TERI, too. It’s the Al Gore trick — lie like a rug and take the money on the other end.
Gotta wonder if Michael Mann is going to be working for TERI soon.
Gosh, what a den of thieves and liars. But at least they are ‘Green’ thieves and liars, which, some would argue, makes it all a quite noble undertaking.
Sort of like Luke’s huffing and puffing and cussing. Sure, it’s a big carbon footprint, but it’s a ‘Green’ carbon footprint. One which is likely powered by — shall I say — the rather obvious ‘biofuel’.
Links:
http://wizbangblog.com/content/2010/01/24/glaciergate-scientist-admits-fraud.php
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/7062667/Pachauri-the-real-story-behind-the-Glaciergate-scandal.html
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/23/highnoon-for-pachauri/
This is getting even better.
With ‘Glaciergate’, NASA is withdrawing claims of molten glaciers.
But not really. The IPCC originally forecast molten Himalayan glaciers by 2035. NASA, relying on that report, said the glaciers would be gone by 2030. (Probably an ‘adjustment’.)
With the glacier hoax exposed as a hoax — and a rather remunerative hoax — NASA has just removed the ‘2030 claim’.
At the same time, NASA has expanded the number of ‘endangered’ glaciers!
Interesting move, but much more interesting is the fact that NASA is still resting authority for its claims on ‘IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, Summary for Policymakers, pp. 5, 7’.
Turns out, NASA still treats that as authoritative, though its authors have abandoned and repudiated it — and NASA claims it’s good authority for both versions of its webpage.
What a beautiful meltdown!
Links:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/23/nasa-climate-page-suckered-by-ipcc-deletes-a-moved-up-glacier-melting-date-reference/
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:0osmsixKS-sJ:climate.nasa.gov/evidence/+site:http://climate.nasa.gov/
The IPCC has decided to have another look at its report linking extreme weather to climate change. This will be the cruncher.
Google; “glacier melt 2010” my setection from the press release –
“Understanding Glacier Melt : UNEP and WGMS report highlights global trends on glaciers and ice caps”
“Nairobi, 21 January 2010 – The last assessment on glacier melt by the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Glacier Monitoring Service (WGMS) shows that the average annual melting rate of glaciers doubled after the turn of the millennium.
The report, ‘Global Glacier Changes: Facts and Figures’, was published by UNEP and WGMS in September 2008. It highlights global trends in glacier retreat and shows that record losses were posted in 2006 for a key network of reference sites.
The previous record loss in the year 1998 was already exceeded three times in the years 2003, 2004 and 2006, with the losses in 2004 and 2006 being almost twice as high as the previous 1998 record loss.
The global average annual mass loss of more than half a metre during the decade of 1996 to 2005 represents twice the ice loss of the previous decade (1986–95), and over four times the rate of the decade from 1976 to 1985. Early measurements indicate strong ice losses as early as the 1940s and 1950s, followed by a moderate ice loss between 1966 and 1985, and accelerating ice losses until present.
Overall, the 2008 report provided mounting evidence that climate change is triggering a shrinking and thinning of many glaciers worldwide, which may eventually put at risk water supplies for hundreds of millions of people”
http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?DocumentID=608&ArticleID=6449&l=en
“World’s glaciers melting at accelerated pace, leading scientists say”
“From the Alps to the Andes, the world’s glaciers are retreating at an accelerated pace – despite the recent controversy over claims by the United Nations’ body of experts, leading climate scientists said today.
Lonnie Thompson, a glaciologist at Ohio State University, said there is strong evidence from a variety of sources of significant melting of glaciers – from the area around Kilimanjaro in Africa to the Alps, the Andes, and the icefields of Antarctica because of a warming climate. Ice is also disappearing at a faster rate in recent decades, he said”
“It is not any single glacier,” he said. “It is very clear that these glaciers are behaving in a similar fashion.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jan/20/climate-change-glaciers-melting
“Major Antarctic glacier is ‘past its tipping point”
a selected passage from the Jan 2010 article-
“According to Katz’s model, the grounding line probably passed over the crest in 1996 and is now poised to enter a period of accelerated shrinking.
The model suggests that within 100 years, PIG’s grounding line could have retreated over 200 kilometres. “Before the retreating grounding line comes to a rest at some unknown point on the inner slope, PIG will have lost 50 per cent of its ice, contributing 24 centimetres to global sea levels,” says Richard Hindmarsh of the British Antarctic Survey, who did not participate in the study.
This assumes that the grounding line does eventually stabilise, after much of PIG is gone. In reality, PIG could disappear entirely, says Hindmarsh. “If Thwaite’s glacier, which sits alongside PIG, also retreats, PIG’s grounding line could retreat even further back to a second crest, causing sea levels to rise by 52 centimetres.” The model suggests Thwaite’s glacier has also passed its tipping point”.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18383-major-antarctic-glacier-is-past-its-tipping-point.html
According to WUWT the eraser has been vigorously used on the stern report as well, to readjust to the new adjusted ipcc report.
They shifted the decimal place wayyyy to the left, what a complete bloody farce, almost up to the high standards of flannery, gore, krudd, pachauri, stern and all the rest of the spin doctors, carpetbaggers, snake oil salesmen and shysters.
But what about the Aussie taxpayer’s 1 million $ given away by krudd to pachauri’s teri company, headed by that renowned glacier expert, let’s hope they’ve put it to good use.
Geesh, Gavin.
If those glaciers stop melting, the rivers dry up.
But if the glaciers are melting to the point of impending disappearance, we’d have flooding like crazy — which we don’t.
This is all such a glorious debacle. This hoax is on such a grand scale that we may perhaps shortly see the first global generation of humans who have been vaccinated against liars who pretend to be scientists, and against the media shills who abet them.
My concern is that this will only be good for one generation.
It may be good for far longer; without the internet, the IPCC could easily have imposed global governance, with few knowing any better.
Schiller you’re wrong , there are some who can read but still cannot seperate the truth from BS and even when it all falls apart ( like now) they still clutch to that last drop of BS to try and sooth their souls.
It is the true religion for secularists and just like true faith in any religion they react the same way when inconvenient facts and the truth belt them around the ears.
Like an old mate of mine used to say ” you wouldn’t be dead for quids,” which roughly means I’m happy to be alive for this moment.
Our idiot krudd was telling us 12 months ago that AGW was the number one issue, but now he won’t say boo about the subject, flying from one state to the next talking up every issue known to man but alas no AGW BS anymore.
But before we crow too loudly wong is quietly talking to the greens and weak minded others trying to contrive a tempory deal to get them off the hook.
Of course the IEA is unaware of this but krudd and wong reckon that if we Aussies cut our own throats on the AGW alter we’ll save Kakadu, the Murray, fix the droughts and save the great barrier reef, amazing what we can do reducing just a few percent of our GHG’s..
Neville,
I may very well be wrong — as some famous pundit said, I wish I could remember his name: ‘You won’t ever go wrong if you bet on human ignorance.’ Or something like that. A corollary to P.T. Barnum’s ‘sucker born every minute.’
Meanwhile, and you may take this as heartening, I have a strong impression from those in the blogosophere that the world is looking to Australia to establish a political precedent on AGW.
Australia has had a powerful ‘debate’ (paltry and poorly-descriptive term) on AGW, and the forces of ignorance (read: short-termed political and financial interests) seem to be on the run.
Australia could set a precedent for the world on how charlatans are dealt with, and I believe the world is looking forward to it.
The US (where I’m resident) is a total train-wreck on ‘climate policy’, and any details I could offer would be either boring, or redundant of other train wrecks elsewhere.
The world’s eye is now on Australia, and I wish the best for you, and for all of us, everywhere.
Cohenite,
“kuhnkat; luke is a fan of ’stilling’; purported decreases in wind globally”
You, you don’t mean, Lukefartard is a GCM DENIER!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Hey Lukefartard, as I mentioned before, when you come up with a consistent theory you will let us know won’t you?!?!?!?!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Great interview with Monckton on Alan Jones this morning, Jones will MC the meeting in Sydney on wednesday.
Monckton expands the pachauri till tickling in the interview saying that he claimed only 10,000 pounds was paid to him when a check revealed he had recieved millions.
For Schiller and others just go to Alan Jones 2 gb for the interview.
Monkton on ABC radio this morning:
http://blogs.abc.net.au/nsw/2010/01/lord-christopher-monckton.html?program=702_mornings
here is the link to the Alan Jones interview:
http://www.2gb.com/index2.php?option=com_newsmanager&task=view&id=5507
Alan Jones as source – hahahahahahahahahahaaaaa … oh it hurts …..
Just think guys – all this is having no impact at all. Churn churn churn ….
He’s not really sharing a stage with Plimer is he? Oh dear.
http://nofrakkingconsensus.blogspot.com/2010/01/more-dodgy-citations-in-nobel-winning.html
It would seem that the use of WFF as references points in the AR4 is a more common practice than just the glacier stuff up
….and that twat Prof Andy Pitman claims that the sceptics dont use science to win their arguments ….what hoot that is
…the AGW sciencetsits apparantly dont use science either.
The robust IPCC story regarding the seriousness of AGW has to rely upon multiple references to WWF material put together for glossy magazines.
That just cracks me up.
So guys – how does it feel to be akin to smoking causes cancer denialism ?
http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/news/audio/twt/201001/20100125-andy-pitman-extra.mp3
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/01/more_monckton_2.php LOL !!
And you have to read through to the end. LOL !
http://www.chron.com/commons/readerblogs/atmosphere.html?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=54e0b21f-aaba-475d-87ab-1df5075ce621&plckPostId=Blog:54e0b21f-aaba-475d-87ab-1df5075ce621Post:a2b394cc-5b5f-47ad-8bb5-c1aec91409ad&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest
Good old Syed – our lil’ mate.
World today transcript of Pitman. http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2010/s2800538.htm
compare his claim:
We need to be clear on that error. It doesn’t say that the Himalayan glaciers are not vulnerable to climate change or are not melting or are not melting at an accelerating rate. It is the date of 2035 or 2040 that is in error. There is no suggestion that the Himalayan glaciers aren’t melting, aren’t melting at an accelerating rate and are not threatening the fresh water supply to Indian and Chinese communities, it is.
to that in the UK Mail http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1245636/Glacier-scientists-says-knew-data-verified.html
The claim that Himalayan glaciers are set to disappear by 2035 rests on two 1999 magazine interviews with glaciologist Syed Hasnain, which were then recycled without any further investigation in a 2005 report by the environmental campaign group WWF.
It was this report that Dr Lal and his team cited as their source. The WWF article also contained a basic error in its arithmetic. A claim that one glacier was retreating at the alarming rate of 134 metres a year should in fact have said 23 metres – the authors had divided the total loss measured over 121 years by 21, not 121.
and
Professor Graham Cogley, a glacier expert at Trent University in Canada, who began to raise doubts in scientific circles last year, said the claim multiplies the rate at which glaciers have been seen to melt by a factor of about 25.
What a pity the ABC journo did not read the UK Mail or the WWF ‘correction’. Just like the ABC the WWF doe not beilieve in apologies, but perhaps they might give back the millions of dollars donated to them to fight climate change since they published the error.
cinders,
More on that here:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1245636/Glacier-scientists-says-knew-data-verified.html
CINDERS – ABC NEWS on the 21st under CLIMATE – ran this AFP item
“UN admits Himalaya glacier data dodgy”
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/01/21/2797485.htm
There is a very simple answer to that Walker
Cancer research is well founded on sound ethical and moral principals.
GW science on the other hand is beholden the antics of the venal and thoroughly poliltical organisation called the IPCC.
Cancer research doesnt have the equivalent of an Al Gore and Rajendra Pachauri whose ability to manipulate matters to their own ends knows no bounds.
Even the scientist who is responsible for the glacier stuff up works for TERI, (Pachauri’s company) and because of that convenient stuff up TERI made big bucks.
Anytime a GW warming scientist invokes the big tobacco or cancer analogy you know they have lost the argument in the same way invokers of the Hitler era lose.
Whilst they are raging against sceptics,with piss weak arguments, they tolerate someone like Pachauri whose conflicts of interest are absolutely shameful.
They also are guilty of tolerating the shameful manipulations of Mann , Hansen and Jones et al
The best thing that could happen is that the IPCC is rubbed out and a fresh start made ..because one thing is sure you cant trust what is emerging as being sound and truthful.
Pathetic Hill – When you lot start to take some stock of the utterly disgraceful tactics of your fellow travellers we may give you the time of day. Typical denialist scum tactics – invent bullshit – continue to restate even if rebutted.
We need a new corollary to Godwin’s law of Nazi Analogies.
That law states: ‘As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.’
The suggested corollary: ‘People tired of using Nazi analogies inevitably use oil or tobacco for the same purpose.’ Luke is a perfect example of this.
Link: http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/2.10/godwin.if.html
**Global cooling threatens endangered sea turtles**
Folks, this is Florida!
Recent Cold Wave Prompts Major Sea Turtle Rescue at Canaveral National Seashore
National Parks Traveler
January 25th, 2010
http://www.nationalparkstraveler.com/2010/01/recent-cold-wave-prompts-major-sea-turtle-rescue-canaveral-national-seashore5257
‘Thousands of sea turtles were rescued from the unusually cold water, many of them at Canaveral National Seashore.’
‘Similar situations have occurred in the past, but never at the magnitude of this year’s incident. The largest number of turtles collected in the park in previous years was 256; this year’s count: Over 2,100 sea turtles’.
So which piece has been rebutted Walker ? .
…The follow on post referring to Godwins law was right in the mark.
Who has rebuttued what exactly Walker?
…I thought them mire just got deeper or hadnt you noticed from the reference provided at 5.15, or dont you read ..still.
And who are the ” we” you deferring to ?
…Had your contract renewed have we ?
Just when you thought it couldnt get any murkier
( Thanks to D Patterson)
” Here’s a list of reviewers for WGIII: Mitigation
B. Hare, Greenpeace International (Netherlands)
K. Jardine, Greenpeace International (Netherlands)
K. Mallon, Greenpeace International (Netherlands)
T. Gulowwsen, Greenpeace International (Netherlands)
N Mabey, World Wide Fund for Nature (UK)
F. MacGuire, Friends of the Earth (UK)
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg3/453.htm
and more reviewers for AR4 WGIII: Mitigation
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg3/ar4-wg3-annex4.pdf
G. Von Goerne, Greenpeace (Germany)
S. Sawyer, Greenpeace International (Netherlands)
S. Teske, Greenpeace International (Netherlands)
D. Pols, Friends of the Earth (Netherlands)
C. Pearce, Friends of the Earth (UK)
G. Volpl, WWF International (Brazil)
”
What sort of science is it that needs Greenpeace et al as part of the formal review mechanisms as paid reviewers
No wonder all the extreme stuff with errors galore got through and the scientific fraternity remained silent ..as usual.
Is this what counts as Peer Review?
Pachauri doesnt have to provide a Statement of Pecuniary Interests and his company goes on to make a squillion out of grants based on b/s
And they wander why people are so cynical and distrusting.
Malcolm,
Your reference to ‘Luke’ Walker perhaps having his/her ‘contract renewed’ could perhaps have a great deal of substance.
In mid-December ’09, the National Post (Canada) carried an article titled, ‘Lawrence Solomon: Wikipedia’s climate doctor’. The article [1] revealed that Solomon, a member of ‘the Hockey Team’, erased more than 500 articles of various descriptions and barred over 2,000 Wikipedia contributors who ran afoul of his mission.
In the course of those labors, Solomon rewrote 5,428 climate articles. [2]
No person, Luke or otherwise, would be willing to expose themselves to public embarrassment by saying what Luke says, unless (1) he’s in on the Hockey Team like Solomon, or (2) that he’s paid by someone somewhere to make the Greens look foul-mouthed and stupid.
If (1) is true, Luke is likely paid very little. If (2) is true, Luke is likely paid only a little bit more — that’s because Greens are foul-mouthed and stupid all on their own and don’t need much help looking that way.
————-
1. http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/12/18/lawrence-solomon-wikipedia-s-climate-doctor.aspx
2. http://spectator.org/archives/2009/12/30/wikipedia-meets-its-own-climat
http://www.google.com/search?as_q=wwf+ar4&as_sitesearch=www.ipcc.ch
This is self explanatory
167 Google hits on AR4 + WWF
I wonder what Professor Pitman et al will have to say about this.
The hits seem to be right across the whole document.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=greenpeace+ar4+site:www.ipcc.ch&start=60&sa=N
..and 71 for Greenpeace
Interesting info Malcolm, but scrolling down the whole list doesn’t inspire much confidence in the majority of the reviewers either. I would guess that less than 10% were researchers at universities and most of the others would appear at face value to have a built in bias.
Schiller, minor correction, it was William Connolley that did the “adjustments”, Solomon wrote the article.
Cheers.
Sorry Hill – was that “paid reviewers” ? hohohohohohohoho pull the over one matey !
Never trust lying politically motivated denialists ! Do you guys get paid and by whom is the question – coz it seems your tactics are straight out the tobacco denialists handbook !
And we all know that denialist filth wouldn’t know peer review if they fell across it – take their preferred journals of “publication” for starters. That they never correct each other’s mistakes. Any old waffle will do. . 1000 contradicting theories is fine.
Let’s face it – denialist scum don’t publish – coz they can’t. They don’t have anything except moral bankruptcy.
This is all water off a ducks back Luke and you really are getting quite boring with your shrill and mindless rantings.
O.K., I am finally going to say it.
Luke, you are an idiot!
Interesting article by Tom Quirk in the latest Quadrant online magazine, adding up all known fossil fuel reserves and the possible recovery and use of these fuels.
Tom claims that the present 380ppm level of co2 could’nt be doubled by our future use even if we tried.
He claims that the present 380ppm equals some 800 giga tonnes of contained carbon, but if we were to exhaust the available 647GT divided by 2 we would only have half that or 324 gigatonnes in the atmosphere.
But that extra 324GT would only add an extra 154ppm to the present 380ppm ( 534ppm ), nothing approaching the 760ppm doubling we are bombarded with in the media.
What I’d like to know, is Tom correct in his tally of oil , coal and gas reserves or not, I can think of shale, but what say you ?
I just heard ‘tobacco’ again. What is it with this guy? Probably got the wrong blog by accident.
You are quite right Derek he is an idiot and thats being polite.
He has been playing this game for some years now and everyone is used to it.
Notice yet again that he doesnt answer questions nor explain his previous bouts of dribbling.
Moral bankruptcy is little disingenuous though coming from a paid performer..but then hypocrisy is rife the GW scene.
Australia Day and once again the great flag and monarchy debate and how do we accommodate all cultures on one flag.
One thing that is always overlooked is that we are all arrivals. The only country that humans evolved in is Africa.
Seeing as the union jack tribe were the first to “unite and civilise” the country and bring it up to speed law wise, they were the first to introduce a flag and monarch so, as that situation is still in existence after a couple of centuries of some pretty testing times, there is nothing else with more overall meaning and credibility.
To change this now would, IMHO, only increase disunity without adding any cement.
There’s no was I could put with the process the US goes through to elect a head of state!
SD,
well said, I see no reason for changing the flag at all.
If you want to represent your history by your flag, you have to include some reference to the founders of the nation.
Conversely, if one wants to constantly display the changing nature of the country, then we have to change the flag and all the trappings of state every 25 to fifty years, and have no history at all.
Some of this haste to change, comes from a portion of the population hostile to the English, for historical reasons.
I’m afraid, that was never a good reason to change.
Even a US flag still bears the Union Jack.
http://www.netstate.com/states/symb/flags/hi_flag.htm
PS. It must be Australia Day, we have just had a Wedgetail Eagle circling outside the kitchen window.
Happy Australia Day.
And I’ve posted a nice collection of links via Marc Morano here:
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2010/01/pachauri-must-resign-un-ipcc-is-sub-prime-science-why-is-gore-silent-banks-withdraw-from-carbon-trading-withdraw-un-ipcc-nobel-marc-morano/
Should make some of you smile.
Sorry Luke.
😉
Malcolm Hill
Just research who fund Greenpeace – and you need to be quick because the principal funders are starting to use anonymous trusts etc, but David Rockefeller is one plus a couple of uber-rich US families on the east coast US.
Rockefeller is quite open about his agenda as well.
Incidentally if one idiot has reappeared, then the other cannot be too far behind. Both work for the QLD climate department, longpaddock section.
“Both work for the QLD climate department, longpaddock section.”
Louis, happy New Year!
Is that long paddock where they they tell all potential future Coal-Fireds that they have to build CCS-ready power stations even though they don’t know if, when or how CCS will ever work?
That sounds about right.
Spangled Drongo
Happy New Year to you as well!
Don’t know about the CCS thing though but your conclusion seems plausible.
Well, just back from holiday and the whole bloody world is a different place–Massachusetts replaced the Dead Kennedys with a Republican??? – Obama is now a no hoper, one-termer like Carter. A lame duck after only a year in office. The horizon is darkening for the Rudd government as well. The zeitgeist has turn.
Who would have thought it 90 days ago? Copenhagen is the laughing stock of the free world, ETS is dead and buried in the US, China and India and soon to be in OZ as well. Climategate proves AGW is a con and on cue the IPCC AR4 turns out to so laced with fraud and corruption that even the ABC has to run (albeit propaganda by omission) stories about it. Not to mention NASA and GISS are facing charges of corrupting data in pursuit of a very special political agenda as well. The AGW hypothesis is road kill politically, although it will take a few more years to properly bury it scientifically.
Oh, and it’s bloody cold on planet Earth outside of Oz. Coolest year since 1998. As the warmists do, let’s extrapolate global cooling since 1998 forward linearly a hundred years…we get a new Little Ice Age. So much for all those lovely IPCC computer models showing massive upward trends in temperature for 1998-2010. Oh well, you are what you eat. Garbage in, garbage out.
And yet, remarkably here at jennifermarohasy.com – a blog with out a single update in months – Nothing has changed…the debate continues unabated… Bravo! This is a testament to how significant this blog once was…and could be again. Alas.
Cheers to the Green and Gold on Australia Day…
This reminded me of Luke, our resident mental midget…
Section 4.4.3 of the Garnaut review predicted the high consequences of climate out comes: melting of the Himalayan Glaciers, along with the failure of the Indian monsoon, and destruction of coral reefs.
His reference was the flawed WWF report.
Will the Garnaut review also be ‘corrected’ along with any policy that was based on this ‘error’.
In another chapter Garnaut also quoted the “The Implications of Climate Change for
Australia’s Great Barrier Reef”, published by WWF–Australia and Queensland Tourism Industry Council.
Good to see Sinkers and Wessy Woo back. Nothing like pure bred denialists.
Had to enjoy this – illustrating the simplicity of the denialist brain.
“If my name was not Mojib Latif, my name would be global warming. So I really believe in Global Warming.”
http://climateprogress.org/2010/01/14/science-dr-mojib-latif-global-warming-cooling/
Now this shows how much checking your average pure bred denialist does.
“Climategate proves AGW is a con and on cue the IPCC AR4 turns out to so laced with fraud and corruption that even the ABC has to run (albeit propaganda by omission) stories about it.”
“proves” I kacked myself …..
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA – fraud and corruption – say the new tobacco denailists.
and wait for it …
“Not to mention NASA and GISS are facing charges of corrupting data in pursuit of a very special political agenda as well”
facing charges – ROTFL !!!!
and and and “it’s a very special political agenda” – woo hoo ! very special….. giggle
Wes do you actually eat your own shit too? Lordy me …
The Luke has answered the question, “Has Luke no sense of shame?”, in the negative.
Luke, you are the Baghdad Bob of AGW.
You will be strutting around, impressing yourselves greatly, even as the entire rationale of AGW apocalyptic claptrap continues to fall apart around you.
Please keep up the farce.
Cheers,
Folks,
Think ‘Glaciergate’ is a big deal or a one-off problem? No way. The WWF has written lots of ‘research’ reports relied on by the IPCC as ‘authority’. As a result, we now have ‘Amazongate’, with many more ‘-gates’ to come. More than a dozen.
See: “More Dodgy Citations in the Nobel-Winning IPCC Report”, The Heartland Institute, Jan. 23,
2010, http://www.heartland.org/full/26856/More_Dodgy_Citations_in_the_NobelWinning_IPCC_Report.html
Thanks to Malcom’s lists of IPCC ‘Expert Reviewers’ representing Greenpeace, WWF, Friends of the Earth, et. al., we now have a much more complete picture of the IPCC’s notion of ‘peer review’.
It’s basically Luke’s friends patting each other on the back.
I doubt any would be friends with Luke considering his attitude.
Janama,
Even Pachauri himself uses phrases like “voodoo science” to describe disagreement with the IPCC. He and Luke should get along well.
Hmmm… what if Luke is Pachauri? Gasp! Have we been arguing with a railroad engineer? They cuss like sailors! Like Luke!
Being a skeptic, though, prevents me from reaching the tempting conclusion. Drat!
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/supporting-material/ipcc-workshop-2005-06.pdf
Here is one picked at random from the hits identified above.
See page 2
This is a workshop on ” Emissions Scenarios” with His Emminence Rajendra Pachauri present along with an Australian Govt official , and guess what… a person from the WWF.
Despite what Prof Pitman et al might say, the probability of their NOT being another stuff up in the remaining 1599 pages of the AR4 is zip zero niz.
What an absolute farce..all designed to con/deceive from the start.
Plus if you want any further evidence just go to WUWT and read the Mosher guest post.
If the Australian Auditer General and the ONA had any balls and brains they would be asking what the hell is going on here… like wise the Office of the Chief Scientist might do something useful.
Are they looking after our best interests…pigs.
Friends,
Now for a more serious note. When analyzing the news and such things, it’s crucially important to ask the question: ‘What’s missing’?
There’s something very missing from Climategate. What’s missing is commentary from the Greens who are outraged over being lied to, hoodwinked, deceived, and betrayed.
To be sure, the Climate Profiteers will never admit to any such failure, whilst slowly winding down their involvement in climate investments. (European banks are closing their carbon trading desks, by the way.)
But what about the True Believers in Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming? Surely there are a vast number of The Faithful who would react in a manner similar to the discovery that there is no Santa Claus.
They should be wailing and howling and condemning, and they’re not.
As it turns out, there’s a reason for this. As grownups, they’re incorrigible and stay ‘on task’ regardless of contrary evidence.
Check this out:
“Beliefs [in] Realistic and Unrealistic Control: Assessment and Implications.” Zuckerman, et. al., Journal of Personality, Vol. 64 No. 2, Pages 435 – 464, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-6494.1996.tb00517.x. Published Online: 28 Apr 2006. Available at: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/119204865/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0
Abstract:
Scales were constructed to measure perceived control over controllable events (realistic control) and perceived control over uncontrollable events (unrealistic control). Internal reliability, test-retest reliability, and discriminant validity of both scales were adequate. Study 1 measured perceived personal control over hassles that judges rated on general controllability. For hassles very high in controllability, perceived personal control was related to belief in realistic control but not to belief in unrealistic control; for hassles very low in controllability, perceived personal control was related to belief in unrealistic control but not to belief in realistic control. Study 2 showed that participants high in unrealistic control belief (but not those high in realistic control belief) persevered more on a task that was in part uncontrollable. Study 3 showed that the combination of low realistic control belief and high unrealistic control belief predicted poorer future health, particularly for participants who have reported the experience of many negative events and/or hassles. The conditions under which unrealistic control results in maladaptive outcomes are discussed.
Very cool, very explanatory.
Schiller, that is amusing but your link doesn’t work; could you repost it?
Cohenite,
The link works for me, but here’s a repost–perhaps there’s something broken.
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/119204865/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0
If that reposted link doesn’t work, try these:
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/119204865/abstract
and
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8656324
Surely there must be an explanation for these people’s clearly irrational behavior.
“When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?”
–Keynes JM. as quoted in “Lost Prophets: An Insider’s History of the Modern Economists”, (1994). Alfred L. Malabre, p. 220. Cited in “John Maynard Keynes”, Wikiquote, http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_Maynard_Keynes, accessed January 5, 2010
Why is WUWT the greatest waster of time ever?
What denialists will never tell you or correct !
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/v2/monthly/menne-etal2010.pdf
http://www.skepticalscience.com/On-the-reliability-of-the-US-Surface-Temperature-Record.html
So much for Lindzen & Choi – dusts hands….
More sceptic nonsense for the shredder
http://climateaudit.org/2010/01/18/curry-reviews-lindzen-and-choi/#comments
Strangely sceptics quite quiet on this one !
So much for CO2 being good for plants. CO2 wrecks rangelands.
http://qcl.farmonline.com.au/news/nationalrural/agribusiness-and-general/general/woody-weeds-love-co2/1729857.aspx?src=enews
Sceptics never tell you this stuff. Never trust a faux sceptic !
Luke,
As usual you crap on. Judith says:
“The basic assumptions behind this type of sensitivity analysis based on top of atmosphere fluxes used by LC need to be tested by climate models.”
And Lubos replies:
I don’t understand the logic here. One can’t say that the LC theoretical model – which is just about the framework of quantities to be tested and their conjectured relationships – is falsified just by showing that the existing climate models don’t reproduce its assumptions, can he? Quite on the contrary, the logic here is that the disagreement between LC and the climate models shows that that climate models are wrong – as long as one compares the models results with the empirical data. The objects that LC are calculating are really phenomenological ones – they can be defined operationally from the empirical data, in a simple way. Whatever the theories and models are, they must be able to calculate the corresponding quantities because they’re measurable.
The only thing done and dusted here is you.
Luke’s link states the following.
“HIGHER levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide may be contributing to the woody weed invasion that has taken over much of Australia’s rangelands, and other grasslands across the world.”
may be – so they naturally assume that CO2 is to blame – that’s the damn problem with this climate change bull dust – if you can’t explain it, blamed AGW or CO2.
Perhaps the fact that we have been taking protein in the form of cattle off these rangelands for years without ever putting anything back might explain why weeds thrive as weeds are natures soil repairers. All the grasslands around my area suffer from overgrazing and neglect.
Lukefartard,
the first paragraph in your link:
“HIGHER levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide may be contributing to the woody weed invasion that has taken over much of Australia’s rangelands, and other grasslands across the world.”
Lemme see, that means that deserts will be shrinking and the ‘tard is worried about weeds growing better along with everything else!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Leave it to the ‘tard to find the rotten apple in every orchard!!
What’s really interesting about Judith Curry review of Lindzen & Choi is that it appears on Climateaudit. Imagine Realclimate allowing a sceptical researcher to post a review of some AGW orthodoxy on their site. I know, you can’t. Couldn’t happen.
That’s the difference between the sceptic camp and the true believers. The majority of sceptics simply want to see good transparently reproducible science presented and tested without bias. If the empirical evidence comes down in support of the AGW hypothesis then rational, thinking observers who are sceptical will change their position. It all about a sense of wonder… about being curious to see how things really work and honest enough to admit we don’t know.
One wonders if Luke has ever been curious?
That Menne paper just beggars belief .. and as he says himself the corrections are counter -intuitive.
Since when can the method of measuring, change the corrections to be made to data read when an instrument of any sort is alongside a building. Surely that would show up as a step function in the record as well
That has a definite smell about it, which I bet has more to do with being embarrassed by being exposed as incompetent manages of the network in the first place.
Its a snow job
Mally boy – that smell is the ever present stench of sceptic b/s. Powerful and lingering. Probably with a whiff of tobacco too !! And a hint of total dishonesty as after taste.
Spanglers attempts a rebuttal from a fairies at the bottom of the garden string physicist and arch-denialist !! Woo hoo. Pullease matey. Try at least something serious next time.
BoofheadKat reveals he’s a total ecological ignoramus as well as sceptic toejam – matey multibillion beef industries tend not to eat woodies. “Oh gee is that right” “Yes moron it is”.
Woodland invasion is common place from overgrazing & lack of fire in Aussie, southern USA and southern Africa – CO2 fertilisation is helping it along.
luke; your comment about the Lindzen and Choi paper is inane; Dr Curry states:
2. The time scale of the feedbacks considered here are short term processes (over the tropical oceans) associated with clouds, water vapor and lapse rate, which are assumed to have equilibrium responses on time scales from a few months to less than 2 years. Even if this assumption re the timescale of equilibrium response is correct
Read page 6 of this by your good mate Trenberth:
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/papers/2000JD000298.pdf
She then says:
3. Given that LC focus their analysis on the tropical oceans, the results from their analysis of ERBE data seems very implausible: a strong negative feedback in the shortwave (SWR), with a small positive feedback in the infrared (IR). The negative SWR feedback is basically an increase in the planetary albedo with increasing temperature, without a correspondingly large decrease in outgoing IR. How could this possibly be?
Curry offers as her final solution an increase in LL cloud and a decrease in HL cloud which she assumes isn’t happening; in fact tropical LL cloud cover has been increasing since 1998 and global temperatures have been dropping since 1998;
http://www.climate4you.com/ClimateAndClouds.htm#Tropical cloud cover and global air temperature
Well Walker you would know all about dishonesty.You have a track record that goes back what..5years now.
What was the pseudonym before this one…. Phil Done wasnt it.?
At least I have the honesty to use my real name over the same period… you gut less creep.
and it still doesnt alter the fact that the Menne paper reads like a snow job.. and probably with good reason.
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/surface_temp.pdf
Havnt the time to read it fully but whats the bet there is a connection in timing and substance between the Menne paper and this.
Hill don’t lecture me about dishonesty given your commentary. It’s just too rich. Try putting your brain in gear instead of your mouth.
And fancy having the temerity to put some bit of fluff from a think tank up against something to be published in Geophysical Research. Pullease !
I tell you what is rich, a creep like you raising the matter of honesty whilst hiding behind a pseudonym, and at the same time posting material he hasnt read– yet again.
You where the one who raised the issue of honesty and like the true hypocrite you are react when things are pointed out that you dont like.
Have glass jaw do we.?
I like the Menne paper; among other delights it shows that there has been no movement in maximum temperature since 1980 and that minimum temperatures have even declined. Sterling work.
I think our Luke is just agitated ’cause his precious IPCC has been caught out trying to pass rumour and Chinese whispers off as “peer reviewed science”. He probably thinks the WWF and Friends of the Earth are more qualified than any skeptic wannabe scientists.
Come on Coho – this is why you’re a lawyer – but you’re not gonna get your clients off with that sort of sophistry. Incidentally why do you bother with these drongos?
Sophistry? What about the last graph?
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/v2/monthly/menne-etal2010.pdf
Regressions are all +ve. Surely you’re not a last value freak. If so let’s look forward to Jan temps !
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/be-truthful-on-climate-british-science-boss-john-beddington/story-e6frg6nf-1225824148004
“THE impact of global warming has been exaggerated by some scientists and there is an urgent need for more honest disclosure of the uncertainty of predictions about the rate of climate change, according to the British government’s chief scientific adviser.
John Beddington said climate scientists should be less hostile to sceptics who questioned man-made global warming. He condemned scientists who refused to publish the data underpinning their reports.
Australia’s chief scientist, Penny Sackett, told The Australian last night she shared Professor Beddington’s concerns.”
…..
And check out the poll on the same page. The Australian asks online visitors “How much do you trust scientific projection concerning global warming?”
Out of 5623 votes as of early this morning, 64% checked “not at all.” The true believers, all 8.4% of ’em checked “completely.”
The ETS has become in just 90 days a political albatross and it’s only going to get worse.
Spot on Wes and an amazing turn around from penny in 24 hours, yesterday she was preaching the same old BS, but after the pommy head started to talk like a scientist she had to quickly drop some of her BS and return to partial sanity.
I’d still like to know what some of the more sane people here think of Tom Quirk’s estimate of the total recoverable fossil fuel reserves ( last page 50).
He estimates there is only 154ppm or 374 GT left in the system, I must say I find it hard to believe that we could only ever get to 534ppm?
Anyhow got to go, busy next couple days.
BTW overflow at Monckton’s Sydney meeting yesterday, people lined up down the streets trying to get in to hear the facts and the truth about CC.
Sackett and the krudd and wong idiots were telling us we only had 5 years to save the planet ( BS) now krudd will only go to 5% unless the world signs up, gosh the poor planet.
Sackett now wants to hear from the sceptics ( waaddya say luke) amazing seeing she was deaf, dumb and blind only 24 hours ago.
We are lead by Embeciles, thank our luck for Abbott and the people of reason, logic and sanity.
Folks,
The long-awaited SURFACE TEMPERATURE RECORDS: POLICY DRIVEN DECEPTION? by Joseph D’Aleo and Anthony Watts, Science and Public Policy Institute Original Paper, January 26, 2010 is finally available for downloading.
It’s available (.pdf, >100 pp.) at either of these two links:
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/policy_driven_deception.html
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/26/new-paper-on-surface-temperature-records/
While proof that the IPCC is comprehensively corrupt continues to grow, with a new ‘-gate’ scandal nearly every day, this report places NOAA at the epicenter of the cruel and expensive global hoax.
Surface station records around the world have been so comprehensively tinkered with by US ‘scientists’ that it’s now actually impossible to validate anyone’s climate model.
With the IPCC, we have:
Climategate — the ‘liberation’ of the emails and code.
Glaciergate — molten Himalayan glaciers by 2035, with bonuses paid to various parties for the bogus ‘finding’
Amazongate — unsubstantiated prediction of doom for the Amazon rain forest
Destructiongate — forecast of destructive weather based on an unpublished article that, when published, did not reach that conclusion.
Quotegate (forthcoming) — reliance on WWF ‘research’ in at least sixteen instances
Reviewergate (forthcoming) — accepting reviewers from lobbyist groups like Greenpeace, Fiends of the Earth, etc.
But, with NASA/NOAA etc., we have a concerted effort to corrupt data on a world-wide basis. That corruption has, in turn, corrupted everything, literally, which has been built on the supposed reliability of the data from surface stations.
Read the SPPI report by D’Aleo and Watts, and be astounded at the lengths to which the US agency has gone to drive public policy with cooked-up data.
My gorge rises. I had long known that AGW was a con in many ways, but to be vindicated to such an extent is not an embarrassment of riches, but rather, a deep and abiding embarrassment for my country. And for, gosh, the list goes on.
Schiller.
P.S. Since it hasn’t yet been settled how the ‘Climategate’ emails etc. were assembled for ‘liberation’, it’s premature to think that the collection — as large as it is — is complete. It’s entirely possible that the ‘liberated’ data, damning as they are, constitute merely the tip of an iceberg. The iceberg will be collusion between Hadley CRU and NOAA etc. Hold me to that forecast.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/27/rumours-of-my-death-have-been-greatly-exaggerated/#more-15729
I didnt think it would be long before the true story started to be revealed.
There is an odoure about the Menne paper, and there is more to come.
..cue to His Wackerness.
Climategate is an example of the emerging paradigm of social singularity, where the only currency is credibility and transparency.
“This is not about their personal ideology or religion, although it is about that, too. It is about the realization of their newfound and individual power to influence and change the outcomes of current and future events and long and short term trends. It is about their ability to exchange facts, information, ideas, plans and concepts with others around the world. It is about their power and ability to coordinate ad hoc political and social movements in real time. It is organic, fluid, leaderless and very, very adaptable to changes in its environment. The People are beginning to work together towards one goal and one goal alone. The betterment of humanity, as they, themselves, have defined that goal.”
http://www.atlanticfreepress.com/content/view/2579/81/
‘The future will not be about ideology, ambition or agenda. It will be credibility. This is called a social singularity’.
Nice words and very utopian. Do you think it has anything to do with Ray Kurzweil’s ‘the singularity is near’?
Wes,
Hopefully, if we can prevent it from becomming manipulated, it will be a permanently efficient B/S filter and political scanning machine for the great multitude.
I can feel it working already.
Lukefartard,
“Regressions are all +ve. Surely you’re not a last value freak. If so let’s look forward to Jan temps !”
Unfortunately for you, there is no UN-adjusted temperature data that isn’t retrieved from the station. Everything else has been adjusted up due to homogenisation and other poorly stated tricks. Even the data from the CIDC site here in the US that is considered un-adjusted has been adjusted!!
The other issue is that The Surfacestation Project was biased to Urban easily accessible sites. The most remote rural sites have mostly been done in the last year or so. all the sites checked in the NCDC paper were primarily Urban/Airport. Most of the sites in their DB listed as rural no longer are.
This paper used what, about 500 hot stations out of a possible 1200??
Jan temps?? You mean the latest temps adjusted artificially upwards compared to the older temps which have been systematically adjusted downward??
You just can’t win with your superficial spouting of the party line ‘tard!!!
By the way, you ever bother to look where all the warming comes from?? Ever think it might have something to do with infilling of areas like Bolivia, Central Africa, the Poles…??? NAAAAH. Didn’t think so!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Schiller are you in the fencing business – so many gates. “While proof that the IPCC is comprehensively corrupt continues to grow” – I had to laugh – Well Darkies Schillsbo – you need some Viagra mate – you gonna need something to get it up and keep it up. Bullshit won’t work. Who writes your shit for you anyway?
And what a limp wristed rebuttal by Whats Crap with Me on Meene – boofer-boy even admits “he may be wrong”. Woo hoo.
And dear KochHead Kat – might be MSU my son.
But you have to hand it to the denialist scum mafiaso – reports that the “glaciergate” journalist verballed the whole story – BUT ARE WE SURPRISED – NOPE – denialist scum stop at nothing in their journey of wrecking ….
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/01/rosegate_scandal_grows.php
(Oh yea – one point Penny is so piss weak and poorly briefed – about as useless as those Greenpeace idiots getting reamed out by Moncky)
Hmmm what else might denialists have failed to tell us
Heatwaves on the rise as record lows decline
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/01/28/2803928.htm
Been busy with the Monckton talk at Newcastle; idiot press said only 400 turned up; I had 655 sold tickets paid at the door. Anyway luke says the regressions are all +ve; the paper concludes:
“Moreover, the bias in unadjusted maximum temperature data from poor exposure sites relative to good exposure sites is, on average, negative”
That is, the paper concludes that the UHI affect cools maximum temperature; that’s odd but if you look at fig 2e you see the comparison between the 2 methods only has the cooling bias in the MMTS system after 1985; why is the CRS system cooler prior to 1985 and the cooling ‘bias’ of the MMTS system after 1985; the impact on the regression trend of that is to produce the upward trend; that is, if the pre-1985 cooling ‘bias’ of CRS is combined with the post-1985 cooling’ bias’ of MMTS the regression is -ve; the homogenisation is, however, the other way round; pre-1985 MMTS is adjusted down to CRS while post-1985 MMTS is adjusted up to CRS; the homogenisation creates the trend.
Seems I’m on firm ground every day measuring temp and watching BoM updates (often enough to know) while thinking blog suckers get off too easy on their UHI issues.
Yesterday was so still outside that I emptied two spray cans of paint onto some old metal tool boxes with out using mist guards and with out runs while doing continuous over coating. Good result considering the forecast for probable thunderstorms. Unfortunately the odor hung around for hours.
The breeze here can be either up slope (normal) or down slope after sunset, but my outside thermometer hangs close to the house in a corner and protected somewhat by the semi enclosed back yard formed by the deeply cut landscape Therefore my daily max can be several degrees C higher than the 3 official Canberra Sites. Not so today though; although the forecast was 29, while the city reached 30, the airport and my place either side reached 33.
From these readings one could assume all the city buildings had their A/C running in reverse cycle. Hardly! When it’s this hot our house stays up around 25C overnight but with the elevated humidity it’s too uncomfortable to sleep with out fans on everywhere.
Conclusion; mountain air is no substitute for AC in the Capital during these ever increasing summer heat waves. Also any built up area has the right to be represented in full on the global warming map.
SST Australia
http://www.marine.csiro.au/~lband/web_point/
SST Anomaly
http://www.cmar.csiro.au/remotesensing/oceancurrents/sst_anom/latest.html
Sea glider?? off Sydney
http://www.cmar.csiro.au/remotesensing/oceancurrents/SNSW/2010010915.html
“Unfortunately the odor hung around for hours.”
Yes we know gavin, that’s why we prefer, you restrict your visits to this blog, to maybe once a week, deal?
“during these ever increasing summer heat waves.”
You maybe old but either you have a poor memory or were less then observant in your younger days!
Ever increasing summer heat waves indeed?
“The figures also come after Australia experienced its hottest decade since records began in 1910.”
Luke,
You really believe that records first began in 1910?
I just randomly clicked onto an old site that is coastal and not too influenced by UHI and the hottest period was 1884 as were many of the true max temp records [1880s].
Even you are probably well aware that 1910 was a particularly cool period and this is just a permanently installed BoM swindle.
Come on spanglers – you full well know the pre-1910 issues. But in any case – explain the trend – that’s TREND of records – THAT IS TREND in case you are DEAF !!! try doing some basic stats – I know it’s a big problem for denialists. Cherry picking is not a stats technique.
Actually try doing some English comprehension lessons too.
http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2010/s2803674.htm
Another take for disabled readers like Spangly chook
Global warming is man made at GISS, CRU, Met and BOM.
Comment from: el gordo January 28th, 2010 at 10:24 pm
“Global warming is man made at GISS, CRU, Met and BOM”
By convention isn’t this becoming MANN-made global warming?
Folks,
I think you’ll get a kick out of this.
I went back and revisited “More Dodgy Citations in the Nobel-Winning IPCC Report” (1) to see if one of the ‘dodgy’ citations to WWF twaddle would catch my eye.
Right off, I spotted one that seemed like it would interest the folks Down Under:
WWF, 2004: Deforestation threatens the cradle of reef diversity. World Wide Fund for Nature, 2 December 2004. (2)
Connecting deforestation with coral reefs absolutely must be an amazing scientific feat, you would think.
Well — check out the link. This eminently citable scientific work begins:
‘It is mid-day, humid, and stiflingly hot. The cicadas’ high-pitched song creates a sound curtain blocking out all other noise. Hundreds of spiky roots point up through the grey mud like a bed of nails.’
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Is this what the IPCC calls ‘grey literature’? More like purple prose.
Come on, Lukey, defend this one on behalf of your beloved IPCC!
————
1. http://www.heartland.org/full/26856/More_Dodgy_Citations_in_the_NobelWinning_IPCC_Report.html
2. http://central-america.panda.org/about/countries/belize/?uNewsID=16870
Isn’t it a fascinating study of denialism the way that Luke and Gavin just keep on citing the same discredited authorities as if they are deaf and blind to the central meme of 2010?…. the emerging critique of the way climatological research has been corrupted since Mann’s infamous Hockey Stick graph of circa 1998?
Instead of seeking to answer to questions of credibility the true believers pretend everything is OK and the AGW propaganda machine with the faux peer review varnish of authority can just keep on rolling out biased research and we’re all going to mindlessly forget and submit.
This is the new denialism of our day. The AGW faithful don’t grasp that because of their own betrayal of honest science they have lost control of the climate diegesis, despite controlling most of the media and the academic research institutions.
The true believers in AGW have shown a deep disrespect for the processes of the scientific method by manipulating data, hiding and destroying negative results and generally obstructing any attempt to reproduce their work. Not to mention fiddling with the peer review process and violating the IPCC’s own rules of documentation and procedure. The Team have use propaganda and fear to promote what should have been a purely scientific hypothesis. They became millenarian and messianic and as such have committed scientific apostasy.
Yet warmists pretend to respect the scientific method. In truth, they represent collectivist authoritarianism. (“The Science is Settled”…”We Have a Consensus”…”The Debate is Over”…Skeptics are slandered as “Denialists” a term coined originally to describe Nazis who denied the Holocaust occurred.) The warmists secretly hate transparency, open source, reasoned debate and independent reproducibility of results because in the end such Enlightenment processes will always white ant orthodoxy.
It’s hilarious to watch Luke and Gavin appropriate the “style” of science-y sounding banter as they promote what is essentially a socio-political dogma never tested by rational scrutiny. They seek a veneer of “truthiness” as opposed to objective empirical knowledge. This is because adherence to objective empiricism could lead anywhere, but Luke and Gavin already “know” the truth, so the process must work backwards arranging the evidence to fit the dogma.
Lest we forget: The idea of government legislating fine weather from the comfort of parliament was a scheme designed to tax and control every aspect of personal existence. As such it was the greatest single attack on our civil liberties by a sitting government in Australian history.
The true believers are on the wrong side of history.
Sorry, plum out of appeal-to-corrupted-authority links.
Anyone see Obama’s state of the nation address?
<> I know some of you may be questioning the science behind global warming – pregnant pause followed by mass chuckles throughout the Congress – either way it’s good policy to continue to move to clean energy – I announce that the US will start on a project to build a series of Nuclear Power stations and expand offshore oil exploration <>
say’s it all really.
Off to the Monckton Luncheon today 🙂
Wes,
Good points all — several of which prompted me to notice an interesting irony that pervades many discussions of Climategate amongst the AGW True Believers.
The AGWTBs are claiming that the ‘denialists’ are making the public distrustful of science and scientists generally. And thereby damaging science.
Remarkable. What they’re actually saying is, the skeptics are making the public skeptical, and that a gullible approach is preferable.
Gosh, how loathsome. But at least they’re honest about their creed on this one point.
Janama, Let us know how the lunch goes…
And Phil Jones is found guilty, but … http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7004936.ece
Well “Darkies” Thurkettle – you’re telling the story here. But your typical denialist filth you only ever get half the story. Context with which this was cited was ???????? Sound of crickets….
And as for “Connecting deforestation with coral reefs absolutely must be an amazing scientific feat, you would think.” – well gee I’m sure you’d be well aware of excellent forensic work showing Great Barrier Reef sediment loads increasing 5-10x pre-European through land clearing for grazing and agriculture.
I’m sure you’d be well aware of the useful attributes for mangroves and have reviewed the literature too (not!).
In fact I’m sure you’d have kept up with a recent comprehensive review of land use impacts:
Ecological Applications
Water quality as a regional driver of coral biodiversity and macroalgae on the Great Barrier Reef
GLENN DE’ATH AND KATHARINA FABRICIUS
Australian Institute of Marine Science, PMB 3, Townsville, Queensland 4810 Australia
Degradation of inshore coral reefs due to poor water quality is a major issue,
yet it has proven difficult to demonstrate this linkage at other than local scales. This study
modeled the relationships between large-scale data on water clarity and chlorophyll and four
measures of reef status along the whole Great Barrier Reef, Australia (GBR; 12–248 S). Four
biotic groups with different trophic requirements, namely the cover of macroalgae and the
taxonomic richness of hard corals and phototrophic and heterotrophic octocorals, were
predicted from water quality and spatial location. Water clarity and chlorophyll showed
strong spatial patterns, with water clarity increasing more than threefold from inshore to
offshore waters and chlorophyll increasing approximately twofold from inshore to offshore
and approximately twofold from south to north. Richness of hard corals and phototrophic
octocorals declined with increasing turbidity and chlorophyll, whereas macroalgae and the
richness of heterotrophic octocorals increased. Macroalgal cover experienced the largest water
quality effects, increasing fivefold with decreasing water clarity and 1.4-fold with increasing
chlorophyll. For each of the four biota, ;45% of variation was predictable, with water quality
effects accounting for 18–46% of that variation and spatial effects accounting for the
remainder. Effects were consistent with the trophic requirements of the biota, suggesting that
both macroalgal cover and coral biodiversity are partially controlled by energy supply
limitation. Throughout the GBR, mean annual values of .10 m Secchi disk depth (a measure
of water clarity) and ,0.45 g/L chlorophyll were associated with low macroalgal cover and
high coral richness, indicating these values to be potentially useful water quality guidelines.
The models predict that on the 22.8% of GBR reefs where guideline values are currently
exceeded, water quality improvement, e.g., by minimizing agricultural runoff, should reduce
macroalgal cover on average by 39% and increase the richness of hard corals and phototrophic
octocorals on average by 16% and 33%, respectively (all else being equal). Such guidelines may
help focus efforts to implement effective pollution reduction and integrated coastal
management policies for the GBR and other Indo-Pacific coral reefs.
Or would you be a pure political content-free agitator who likes licking the slimey exudate from right wing front groups?
Come on Wes – you’re soooo tedious. Big on long winded prosaic rants that just go nowhere. No science. No evidence. I normally fall asleep before finishing them. What was your point again ….
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz – huh what – yea someone put the cat out … zzzzzzzzzzzzz
Anyway Phil Jones – martyred for the cause of science. What a hero ! And after all this what do we find – the science still stands …. it’s just sceptic harassment – a witch hunt in fact…. that just wants to silence the science effort by intimidation. History will judge the sceptics very harshly. Add to tobacco denialism bookshelf.
Just remember to do the wanker test too Wes.
Just say the following for me:
“I Wessy Woo do believe that there is a global multi-institutional conspiracy to invent bogus climate science – linking hundreds of scientists across the world. I seriously believe that”.
“I further believe that a Dad’s army of retired geologists, economists and prickle farmers know more”.
“I believe that the UN can run chook raffles and could implement world government”
“I am not mental”
Excuse me Wes while I adjust my alfoil hat !
Lovely excerpt on the reefs, Luke.
Did you read it?
The part where it says, ‘yet it has proven difficult to demonstrate this linkage at other than local scales.’
Now show me the part where it says AGW causes the reef damage.
Not there.
Of course, you can wave your hands and repeat mantras like ‘linked with’ and ‘very likely’, but masquerading such stuff as ‘science’ is — in spite of the IPCC — primarily the domain of those who sell herbal remedies, crystals with astral auras, etc.
For instance, I could say that ‘belief in AGW is linked with coprolalia, making its victims highly likely to express themselves using foul and/or offensive language.’
Would you treat that claim as authoritative, Luke? And if so, what would you consider to be a ‘responsible countermeasure’?
I fear this may provoke a bout of coprolalia instead of a reasoned response, but we will see…
Luke,
The main pre 1910 issues are that it was as warm then as it is today. Something like this:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/compress:12/detrend:0.706/offset:0.52/plot/hadcrut3vgl/trend/detrend:0.706/offset:0.52/plot/hadcrut3vgl/trend/detrend:0.706/offset:0.97/plot/hadcrut3vgl/trend/detrend:0.706/offset:0.07
If they were colder do you really think that they would have discarded those data?
When early settlers lived or died by the weather, their recordings were arguably much more diligent than what you get today. If their thermometers were half a degree out so what!?
They would have been consistently out and your TRENDS would still have been perfectly evident.
And I can’t believe that you quote ABC garbage links when arguing your case.
But I suppose it follows……like the GCMs….. GIGO.
janama,
Hope you have a great time today. Looks like Newcastle was a success.
Jen,
Couldn’t raise your link on Jones but I did find four missing glaciers.
Maybe they formed just recently.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7007094.ece
Spangled,
The game the AGWers constantly play is when to ‘begin’ what they want to call a ‘trend’.
Pick your starting point and you can say anything.
Luke’s just gaming the system.
The question remains, anthropogenic, or not? That’s been answered, folks, it’s all speculation.
Jen,
Links working now, thanks.
That statute of limitations is crazy.
Well – the lunch was a success for the Brisbane Institute that hosted it. The biggest event they’ve ever staged we were told.
It was totally subscribed and my table estimated attendance at around 500 people – at my table was a graziers wife from west of McKay, the rest were geologists 🙂 The average age would have been above 50 😉
Lord Monckton was his shining self with his own charts that debunk all the IPCC nonsense, Prof. Barry Brook was very dry and used the same old Hansen NASA charts for temp we’ve seen many times before. Prof. Plimer backed Lord Monckton’s remarks with his historic geology references and Graham Readfearn just got more and more confused and tried unsuccessfully to attack Prof. Plimer and Monckton personally in typical warmist style. He was quietly booed once when he took it too far. Totally beyond his expertise.
All in all it was very interesting, hardly a debate as the audience were clearly mainly sceptics.
I checked out the media and it was covered fully by the ABC and the BBC was also represented. The full video will be avaliable on the ABC website and the Brisbane Institute told me it will be up on their website within a week.
To all the diehards here you’ve seen it all before but I enjoyed seeing all the participants in person. I must say I admired Prof. Brook and Graham Readfearn for turning up as the audience was clearly biased and as Lord M said – no one else on their side is prepared to debate this subject.
I thoroughly enjoyed myself and I did get the opportunity the shake the hand of Prof, Brook and Graham Readfearn and thank them for ‘being there’ as Tony Jones would say. 🙂
janama,
Good on you, I think Brook and Readfearn deserve to be congratulated too.
Thanks for the summary. Won’t hold my breath till Tony Jones presents it on Lateline though.
I have some time for Brook because he is at least reasonable about nuclear; Redfearn I don’t know much about except for the occasional link to him at Deltoid which constitutes damnation by association; I don’t put much stock on the willingness of warmists to debate; up to now they have known that the msm will report them favourably no matter what; for instance NBN 3 at Newcastle, which funnels channel 9, reported that 400 people attended the Newcastle talk by Lord Monckton; actually 650 attended with about 50 turned away; in addition 1/2 of the NBN report consisted of an interview with one of the local greenies denigrating LM because he was not a scientist and peddaling the usual rubbish about the poles turning into steam; this is not balanced reporting.
This idea that LM’s comments are worthless is a pernicious concept; pro-agw scientists haven’t been delivering the word to the public, it has been a biased msm which has concocted the story and trained the pro-agw scientists to legitimise what they have been doing; it is therefore hypocritical to castigate LM because he is not a scientist, which he admits, when he uses his media expertise to counter the expert agitprop which has been delivered by the msm up to now.
Agree, cohers, and Doltoid is such a sad little site but anyone who is prepared to debate openly is ok.
I heard from CS that 700 turned up at your place.
I bet ya never knew this:
“Water vapor is a potent greenhouse gas, and its decline in the stratosphere would reduce the rate of global warming expected from other gases such as carbon dioxide, the researchers said.
According to the researchers, water vapor enters the stratosphere primary from air rising in the tropics.”
Who’d ‘a’ thought?
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=9689224
SD, the Soloman paper vindicates Paltridge and proves Dessler, Soden and the models are junk; what a sick mess AGW science[sic] is.
Spanglers – simply a moronic off-topic response. And fancy being so utterly dishonest as to furnish a detrended graph. You’re a twit.
Darkies Thurkettle – as usual dribbling on off-topic. We weren’t talking about AGW – but land use change impacts – your comments are simply stupid and reveal your ignorance of any science at all.
But Cohers – sometimes you do come up with something. Of course your aside to Dessler and Soden is just denialist bunk but note that it’s Solomon herself – a source you would normally discredit – so why accept it here. Anyway no accounting for massive hypocrisy.
Nonetheless it’s about the only interesting thing in the last few years. And of course denialist scum wouldn’t do quality work like this.
Contributions of Stratospheric Water Vapor to Decadal Changes in the Rate of
Global Warming
Susan Solomon,1 Karen Rosenlof,1 Robert Portmann,1 John Daniel,1 Sean Davis,1,2 Todd Sanford,1,2 Gian-Kasper Plattner3
1NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory, Chemical Sciences Division, Boulder, CO, USA. 2Cooperative Institute for
Research in Environmental Sciences, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado, USA. 3Climate and Environmental Physics,
Physics Institute, University of Bern, Sidlerstrasse 5, 3012 Bern, Switzerland.
Stratospheric water vapor concentrations decreased by
about 10% after the year 2000. Here we show that this
acted to slow the rate of increase in global surface
temperature over 2000-2009 by about 25% compared to
that which would have occurred due only to carbon
dioxide and other greenhouse gases. More limited data
suggest that stratospheric water vapor probably increased
between 1980 and 2000, which would have enhanced the
decadal rate of surface warming during the 1990s by
about 30% compared to estimates neglecting this change.
These findings show that stratospheric water vapor
represents an important driver of decadal global surface
climate change.
Science is far from settled eh? Wow !
Luke,
How thick do you have to be to not realise that I simply point out that 1910 was a well accepted low point temperature-wise and that the BoM are being dishonest in choosing this point to throw out data.
There are many instances of highest temp records in the 1880s.
And how is it that you cannot respond either rationally or honestly?
Why would I normally debunk Soloman? Anyway, the science is settling rapidly;
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n7280/abs/nature08769.html
This paper supports the assertions about the lack of climate sensitivity by lord Monckton in his epistle to Mr Rudd; the abstract reads:
“The processes controlling the carbon flux and carbon storage of the atmosphere, ocean and terrestrial biosphere are temperature sensitive1, 2, 3, 4 and are likely to provide a positive feedback leading to amplified anthropogenic warming3. Owing to this feedback, at timescales ranging from interannual to the 20–100-kyr cycles of Earth’s orbital variations1, 5, 6, 7, warming of the climate system causes a net release of CO2 into the atmosphere; this in turn amplifies warming. But the magnitude of the climate sensitivity of the global carbon cycle (termed γ), and thus of its positive feedback strength, is under debate, giving rise to large uncertainties in global warming projections8, 9. Here we quantify the median γ as 7.7 p.p.m.v. CO2 per °C warming, with a likely range of 1.7–21.4 p.p.m.v. CO2 per °C. Sensitivity experiments exclude significant influence of pre-industrial land-use change on these estimates. Our results, based on the coupling of a probabilistic approach with an ensemble of proxy-based temperature reconstructions and pre-industrial CO2 data from three ice cores, provide robust constraints for γ on the policy-relevant multi-decadal to centennial timescales. By using an ensemble of >200,000 members, quantification of γ is not only improved, but also likelihoods can be assigned, thereby providing a benchmark for future model simulations. Although uncertainties do not at present allow exclusion of γ calculated from any of ten coupled carbon–climate models, we find that γ is about twice as likely to fall in the lowermost than in the uppermost quartile of their range. Our results are incompatibly lower (P < 0.05) than recent pre-industrial empirical estimates of ~40 p.p.m.v. CO2 per °C (refs 6, 7), and correspondingly suggest ~80% less potential amplification of ongoing global warming."
Lukebaby,
I know you’re good at “research” ie providing links; you’ve told me so yourself.
So I would like you do a little research for me please.
I would be grateful if you could provide me with a link to any original literature prior to 1973 that contains the word “greenhouse”
I await in breathless anticipation.
Thanks for the report, Janama. If you have any links to broadcasts of the debate that would be good.
As for Luke’s use of hate-speech term, “darkies” in relation to Schiller, whatever the inside joke may be, this isn’t the first time Luke has exhibited xenophobic and supremacist sentiment on this blog. He’s been censored here before– a very rare event on our very tolerant host’s part — for advocating in the most foul racist and hate-speech slurs that Japanese sailors should be murdered to protect whales. Certainly, few condone Japanese whaling, but murder and sociopathic racist rants are not part of a rational solution.
Luke has in the past often advocated violence and used hate-speech language against any one who doesn’t toe the orthodox AGW dogma. He has often suggested legislative limitations on free speech for those critical of the AGW hypothesis, even possible prosecution for crimes against humanity and imprisonment for anyone critical of the ETS. It’s all part of his bully boy style which apparently is beyond reproach on the Internet, although he would surely have been haul before a tribunal long ago in the workplace.
Personally, I would wish for a more rational representative of the AGW apocalyptic POV as I fear Luke does the warmist position far more damage then it actually deserves. Then again, perhaps karma is at play here.
Once again, no links to appeal-to-authority are needed. I think for me self.
And so should you!
Cohenite, there is a discussion about that paper on WUWT http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/28/new-paper-in-nature-on-co2-amplification-its-less-than-we-thought/
A few have made comments that the authors have used corrupted temperature data for the comparison. I made the comment that they based the CO2 on the corrupt Keeling CO2 curve which used selected icecore data and ignored actual accurate measurement such as by Kreutz 1941 (measuements ofl a range of data including wind speeds, temperature, rain, solar radiation and CO2 every 90 minutes for 1.5 years) see the results on http://www.biomind.de/realCO2/realCO2-1.htm which several others mentioned. Several commentors doubted the ice core proxies especially when one looks at the satellite image on top of the post. The CO2 is lower at the poles.
Those who have thought about it feel that paper still exaggerates the link between CO2 and temperature as a number of researchers are finding that temperature leads CO2. In the case of the Vostok ice cores it is 800 years (long term). In Beck,2007 it is 5 years in the period 1840 to 1960 (medium term) and in a recent post on Jonova a plot of CO2 vs UAH temperature on Woodfortrees in 2000 to 2010 one year (short term). These latter shows that the CO2 alarm is nonsense. The same, can be shown calculating the absorptivity of the present level of CO2 (0.038%) and it will be found to be insignificant to that of water vapor and of clouds (ice and water mist). Inspite of billions of research dollars no one has proved the hypothesis of AGW but there is a range of falsification from straight physics, spectra and heat transfer, temperature leading CO2, past CO2 similar or higher than present, no increase in satellite temperatures and now corruption of surface temperature records (and likely no measurable increase).
Some of the people on WUWT at least know what they are talking about and there seem to be no Lukes or Gavins (anyone who is rude is blocked)
Spanglers – irrelevant twaddle for the topic of trends in Australian extremes.
Wes – Schiller’s beloved term – not mine. – don’t be bluffed by Thurkettles “fine sentiments” Wes. Know thy ring wing spruikers for what they are.
As for Japanese – if you’re happy to let your family and friends suffer at the hands of the Japanese nation in WWII – to win that war – and now have them trash our sovereignty – well mate you’re un-Australian. So perhaps at times one’s emotions may run somewhat high. But for the record I have no issue with Japanese people in general. Get some backbone Wes and stop being an apologist for their national behaviour on this issue. But shhhh – don’t upset the coal exports. shhhhh
And yes many sceptics deserve a punch in the nose for their rancid tactics. But I’m sure we really wouldn’t do that. Would we? Could just be our frustrations with gutter tactics getting the better of us.
And yes I’d lock you up for your thoughts on the ETS – although I also might be pulling your leg. What do you reckon eh? And how old are you?
Surely Wes with your pugilistic rhetorical style and libelous career assination of many good scientists who you have never met you would have a great deal of difficulty laying straight in bed. Shame on you ! But you have created us Wes – we’re just a mirror to your own style.
In terms of a more rational position on the AGW POV – well you’d have to STFU and listen for a while. Have you ever asked which aspects I ascribe to for example?
I have for example said that the ETS isn’t a good idea. Doesn’t mean that AGW is not a risk. I have not said that AGW has affected drought in all of eastern Australia. I have acknowledged natural climate variation. I have said that there is a good case for AGW influence in rainfall decline in SW WA and the Murray, southern Australian region. I have also said that the science is not perfect. Just a few bits n pieces.
Wes – sceptics won’t allow a rational exposition on AGW. You either take the whole 100% or nothing. It’s simply wedge tactics.
You ought be most interested in Cohenite and Spanglers aside to Solomon’s latest Science paper.
P.S. Mack – am I your librarian? You yourself could find Solomon’s paper in about – oh …. mmmm – a whole 20 seconds. Why don’t you just make your point.
P.S.S. Cohers – when Monckton publishes and gets some peer review I might take notice. But I suppose Lords don’t need peer review? They “just know”. In any case the Nature paper is another variant on “sensitivity”. And – normally you’d rubbish Nature as an alarmist source – so why accept this paper? From the same stable?
Folks,
By now I’m sure you all know that the people at Hadley CRU have been found to have unlawfully refused to comply with a legitimate FOI request for climate data, etc. — and that they cannot be prosecuted because the six-month statute of limitations has run out.
Even so, there remains the possibility that Phil Jones, and perhaps others, could be prosecuted under the provisions of the United Kingdom Fraud Act, which offers imprisonment of up to ten years. (1)
There’s another prosecutorial route that no-one seems yet to have noticed.
Have you heard about the hackers who got into the Hadley and NOAA computers and corrupted the databases?
Sure you have. It was an inside job — the kind of hack that IT professionals fear worst of all.
Hacking government databases and corrupting data is a criminal offense nearly everywhere. I’d love to see Hansen, Mann, Jones et. al. defending ‘hacker ethics’ in front of a jury.
—————
1. http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100024266/the-criminal-case-against-dr-phil-climategate-jones/
Wes – I had to laugh heartily.
“Once again, no links to appeal-to-authority are needed. I think for me self.”
YOU DO ! WOW ! I must have missed that sentence ….
And Wes – I’ll leave it to your good judgement – read Thurkettle 12:13am – now Wes – how genuine do you reckon this bloke is. “Think for yourself” as you say.
And you’re “worried” about me Wes – wow !!
Folks,
Things are revealed to be worse (or better) than we earlier thought about the IPCC’s ‘scholarship’.
Turns out, there’s a ‘revolving door’ at the IPCC between Greenpeace’s authorship of what the IPCC cites, and Greenpeace’s ‘expert review’ of Greenpeace’s ‘research’ cited in IPCC ‘scholarship’.
There’s even a juicy Pachauri/TERI- style tidbit involving a Greenpeacer, a cited paper, and a new wind-power company the Greenpeacer is involved in.
I’m waiting for Luke to defend the research of WWF, Greenpeace, et. al. as being authoritative enough for the IPCC, and to hear if he believes this is the way climatology should be handled.
Link: http://nofrakkingconsensus.blogspot.com/2010/01/greenpeace-and-nobel-winning-climate_28.html
Now that it is shown that positive feedbacks to CO2 increases have been grossly overstated, are any of those demanding extreme measures willing to reconsider?
Now Hunter – as a bloke who has scorned formal science institutions and derided the mainstream peer reviewed literature – how do you know this paper is any good. Perhaps they’re “on the take” like you allege the whole other climate science community are. And what if they use “models”. Surely on consistency you’d reject the paper. Unless of course you’re completely unobjective?
Darkies Schiller – just keep trying to pump up the volume. Just some pimples for you professional activists to pick at.
There you have it, folks!
We finally have an answer.
Luke considers what he calls ‘pimples’ to be authoritative enough for the IPCC, and the use of them to be acceptable in the field of climatology.
Wild.
More religious, totalitarian scholarship on AGW to support luke and the other fundamentalists on this blog.
Asama bin laden has come out strongly in support of luke and other numbskulls here, gee luke what brilliant support, I don’t know how you do it.
It’s all America’s fault, of course the biggest emitter China and the other non OECD group won’t have any influence by 2030 when theywill be producing over 25 billion tonnes pa.
OECD countries will be producing less than 15,000 billion tonnes by 2030, but that won’t matter will it luke, anyhow congratulations on your important new found support, it really bolsters your case.
Remember this same luke still thinks that AGW could have had some link to our 1940’s drought, just so you understand the qualitative argument he can produce when cornered.
Folks,
Here’s a bit of a potpourri.
First off, I wanted to be the first to notice that Bin Laden and Al Gore are now on the same team, but I got beat to it. (1) The conclusion that Luke is on that team is beyond dispute, of course.
But there’s other stuff.
Apropos of the earlier discussion regarding Godwin’s law of Nazi Analogies, and its equivalence with the yet-unnamed corollary regarding the law of tobacco analogies, it turns out that Al Gore exemplifies this as much as Luke.
But it gets worse: Al Gore demonizes tobacco, but he takes tons of tobacco money — and has, for years. (2) Sort of like Pachauri, the head of the IPCC, sitting on the board of an oil company.
Now for the cool stuff: in the UK, it will soon become massively expensive — in terms of criminal fines — to screw with climate data. Fines up to £500,000. (3)
According to the cited article, after April 6, 2010, the fine will apply to those ‘contravening, overlooking or being merely careless with data’, resulting from ‘a serious breach that was likely to cause damage or distress (not just financial), it was either deliberate or negligent ( i.e. the data controller must have known that there was a risk that a contravention would occur) and the organisation failed to take reasonable steps to prevent it.’
This means that internal hacking of public records of climate data will no longer be priceless, but rather, costly. Hadley’s claim that the data were ‘lost’ or ‘erased’, or other claims that they were corrupted beyond retrieval, might be prosecutable.
After April 6, hijinks like that will be appropriately subject to criminal fines.
Luke will, of course, consider intentional corruption of data to be a ‘pimple’.
Luke considers the IPCC’s forecast of the disappearance of the main water supply for 40% of the world’s most destitute population, based on erroneous crap published by a fund-raising group, to be a ‘pimple’.
Luke, as long as you insist on the importance of ‘pimples’ in climatology, the more you appear to be a ‘pimple’ yourself.
———
1. http://beforeitsnews.com/story/14452/Bin_Laden_Warns_World_Of_Dead_In_Quote;_Joins_Al_Gore_In_Climategate_Fight.html
2. http://nofrakkingconsensus.blogspot.com/2010/01/al-gores-tobacco-hypocrisy.html
3. http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=a08d0a40-c2fa-4abe-b15e-fc61a1098794
Try not be such denialist scum Darkies Schiller. Maybe Bin Laden likes donuts too? Let’s demonise donuts.
“Internal hacking of public records” – go and say that in the UK on public record – although we all know rednecks and denialists love innocent until proven guilty. You’d be good in the wild west mate – in a lynch mob.
You’re just an old experienced astroturfer Darkies Schiller. But Wes loves you. He loves your morality.
And it is a pimple on a major report Darkies Schiller. Timing is wrong – issue still exists.
Denialist scum simply want to stop climate science. And if they can concoct any bogus legal device to do so they will. It’s fascinating to see the tawdry history of those involved in the denialist movement.
As for 1940s Neville – can I help it if you don’t understand forcing…. and are a science ignoramus?
Luke,
I’d like it if you could explain to me the origin and meaning of the phrase, ‘Darkies Schiller’, which you appear to employ as derogatory.
I am very concerned about your defense of Bin Laden. There are extreme defenses of AGW everywhere, but your defense of Bin Laden, in this context, or any other, is utterly, completely, and without equivocation, abhorrent, odious, and disgusting.
Luke, aligning yourself with the most horrid exemplar of extremism engaged in the exploitation of religionist maniacs has exposed you as worse than foul.
You are repugnant, Luke. A prize example of your pustulent, festering brood.
.
This argument about Monckton not being a scientist and peer-reviewed is a furphy; Monckton is an erudite layman with a good grasp of statistical analysis and a great ability to communicate; this puts him light years ahead of the Monbiots, Gores and other self-appointed experts in and out of the msm which is doing the promulgation of AGW. Monckton’s analysis of climate sensitivity in his letter to Rudd was done using the IPCC’s own methods and data; all the Deltoid boys could come up with is that Monckton was wrong in saying IPCC did not have its own formula for calculating CS;
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/01/the_australians_war_on_science_43.php
deltoid also argues that Monckton wrongly used the IPCC estimate of CS which was 2-4.5C for CO2x2 not 3.26C as Monckton calculated; in fact by doing this Monckton underestimated the IPCC estimate of CS. But none of this invalidated Monckton’s key point about how useless the proposed Copenhagen agreement would have beeen in reducing AGW at vast expense, even if one accepts the IPCC estimates of CS.
Of course these IPCC estimates for CS are wildly wrong as not only the Frank et al paper on CS shows; the simple fact is that CO2 increases do bugger all to anything except plant growth; the key to climate change is water and now from inside the heart of AGW territory comes the news from Soloman et al that water is contradicting AGW theory as well.
Lukefartard,
“Stratospheric water vapor concentrations decreased by
about 10% after the year 2000. Here we show that this
acted to slow the rate of increase in global surface
temperature over 2000-2009 by about 25% compared to
that which would have occurred due only to carbon
dioxide and other greenhouse gases. More limited data
suggest that stratospheric water vapor probably increased
between 1980 and 2000, which would have enhanced the
decadal rate of surface warming during the 1990s by
about 30% compared to estimates neglecting this change.
These findings show that stratospheric water vapor
represents an important driver of decadal global surface
climate change.”
Yup, it is your quote.
The best part is they only give a water vapor increase from 1980-2000 a PROBABLE!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Can’t even definitively show that it happened!!!!
Just wanted to point out that your loverly models had that demon water vapor feedback continuing through the early decades of the 2000’s. So, it is time for your rational explanation of what suddenly blocked the monotonic feedback that was alledgedly causing the unprecendented warming through the late 1900’s so that even the water vapor feedback that could maintain the temps started falling resulting in the current lower temps.
That’s right ‘tard, time to put up or shut up. So far you have presented NOTHING to show why that dangerous CO2 rise causing Water Vapor feedback isn’t continuing that temp increase.
You keep shuckin’ and jivin’ and throwing out one irrelevant paper after another. The one you quoted is laughable. It alledges that the temps would be even lower without the feedbacks that are allowing the decrease. What does that mean?? Are we heading for an Ice Age even as CO2 continues to increase?? They are claiming the ridiculous high atmospheric sensitivity can’t prevent the loss of the Water Vapor that the models REQUIRE for their temp increases!!
Time to pull your head out and realise how psychotic these papers and their claims are becoming!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Come on ‘tard, time to tell us how it works!!!!
Cohenite,
You bring up an interesting point about:
‘This argument about Monckton not being a scientist and peer-reviewed is a furphy; Monckton is an erudite layman with a good grasp of statistical analysis…’
The AGWers cannot bear any dissent from their false claim of ‘consensus’.
What they fear more is the ‘erudite layman’. After all, such people have exposed AGW and its advocates to the sort of scrutiny it, and they, have utterly failed to withstand.
This would be a shabby, stupid debate, except that the lives and livelihoods of billions are in the balance, along with billions in public-financed ‘Green’ projects that subsidize multinationals.
AGW is big business — it’s not a scientific debate, and hasn’t been, for a long while.
And, according to Luke, AGW is a good part of jihad.
.
Lukefartard,
“Stratospheric water vapor concentrations decreased by
about 10% after the year 2000. Here we show that this
acted to slow the rate of increase in global surface
temperature over 2000-2009 by about 25% compared to
that which would have occurred due only to carbon
dioxide and other greenhouse gases. More limited data
suggest that stratospheric water vapor probably increased
between 1980 and 2000, which would have enhanced the
decadal rate of surface warming during the 1990s by
about 30% compared to estimates neglecting this change.
These findings show that stratospheric water vapor
represents an important driver of decadal global surface
climate change.”
Yup, it is your quote.
The best part is they only give a water vapor increase from 1980-2000 a PROBABLE!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Can’t even definitively show that it happened!!!!
Just wanted to point out that your loverly models had that demon water vapor feedback continuing through the early decades of the 2000’s. So, it is time for your rational explanation of what suddenly blocked the monotonic feedback that was alledgedly causing the unprecendented warming through the late 1900’s so that even the water vapor feedback that could maintain the temps started falling resulting in the current lower temps.
That’s right ‘tard, time to put up or shut up. So far you have presented NOTHING to show why that dangerous CO2 rise causing Water Vapor feedback isn’t continuing that temp increase.
You keep shuckin’ and jivin’ and throwing out one irrelevant paper after another. The one you quoted is laughable. It alledges that the temps would be even lower without the feedbacks that are allowing the decrease. What does that mean?? Are we heading for an Ice Age even as CO2 continues to increase?? They are claiming the ridiculous high atmospheric sensitivity can’t prevent the loss of the Water Vapor that the models REQUIRE for their temp increases!! Without the water vapor there is little warming in the models!!!
Time to pull your head out and realise how psychotic these papers and their claims are becoming!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Come on ‘tard, time to tell us how it works!!!!
As for Bin Laden – “my defense” – Where did I offer any support ?
You are a fabricating feral!
KochHead Kat – no not my quote. WRONG. and your diatribe is simply mindless twaddle – so stupid in its contorted stupidity – I can only suggest you stop playing with hallucinogenic substances and your willy or whatever alien species have.
But guys – just tell me – the end of video 2 here.
http://www.australianclimatemadness.com/?p=2978
Do you guys like this? Or does it make you feel somewhat uneasy. Personally I barfed. What a nauseating performance.
Cohenite – when you get any of your bunk from landscape published let us know. Until then zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
All unpublished rot – like Monky’s stuff. Fringe literature.
I note that Luke has not explained his pejorative use of the phrase, ‘Darkie Schiller’.
I note that Luke has not explained his defense of Bin Laden.
I note that Luke has not justified frightening 40 percent of the world’s most vulnerable population with the fallacious notion that they will run out of water by 2035, a claim that Luke asserts is a ‘pimple’.
Every blog has its ‘village idiot’, but we have Luke.
Luke is more than the village idiot, he’s the village jihadist.
Come on, Luke, let’s hear your rejection of Bin Laden and jihad.
I want to hear you reject it. I want to see your rejection of Bin Laden and jihad, and to see your rejection of any connection with AGW, loud, clear, and unequivocal.
Luke, can you really bring yourself to rejecting jihadism?
Take a stance, dude. There’s ‘friends’ that some don’t want to have. Or, to acknowledge.
.
Oh, sure, published; maybe Dr Jones can help out; do you happen to have Dr Jones’ address; oh, that’s right, Dartmoor.
It’s your term Schiller. Your usage. It’s all in archives old chap.
And yes Schiller I saw the pictures of the frightened peoples of India running crazed about the streets after the IPCC report. It was in the news everywhere. Tell us Schiller are they your Darkies or do you have another name for them? I’m sure you do.
Schiller how long now have you been a jihad supporter? When did you convert? You certainly know a lot about it?
Take a stance Schiller – refute that you don’t use underhand astroturf tactics – refute that you don’t just make shit up. – refute that you don’t sex up commentary for political ends. I just want to hear you say it.
SD – here are some charts for you to ponder.
This is the current .csv file available from BoM regarding station 66062 – Sydney Observatory Hill.
http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/cdio/weatherData/av?p_nccObsCode=36&p_display_type=dataFile&p_startYear=&p_stn_num=66062
It covers 1859 – 2009
http://users.tpg.com.au/johnsay1/Stuff/Sydney_current.png
Here’ is the Data for Sydney 66062 that I took from that site I linked to on Jo Nova’s site which was Torok’s original data back in 1999. and covers 1859 – 1993
source: ftp://ftp2.bom.gov.au/anon/home/bmrc/perm/climate/temperature/annual/
http://users.tpg.com.au/johnsay1/Stuff/Sydney.png
BTW – here’s Darwin over the same period
http://users.tpg.com.au/johnsay1/Stuff/Darwin.png
and why use 1910?
here’s why
http://users.tpg.com.au/johnsay1/Stuff/Sydney_1.png
BTW – I saw the Monckton Brisbane debate on Sky Climate Change channel being repeated over and over this morning on my hotel video.
janama,
Thanks for that. That is exactly the point. The hottest recording was 1896 and now all that pre 1910 data is being tossed out and Ken U B Sodum doesn’t think it’s relevant.
I sent David Jones a couple of emails in protest but I’m sure he’s related to Phil.
I listened to and watched the reports and he is really precise and crystallizes the argument, whereas many of the advocates of either side of the debate are often not specific enough.
Lukebaby…Jan 30th 12.11 am
” Why don’t you just make your point”
My point is Luke is that you won’t find any literature with the word “greenhouse” in it prior to 1973 because , as I have told you before, no one had ever heard of anything “greenhouse” before then.
The only heat kids were given to worry about back then was thermonuclear.
You can’t imagine a world without “greenhouse” can you Luke.
Us older guys have witnessed the genesis of your AGW scam from its inception. We’ve seen how Al Gore called together the first meeting of US scientists back in 1980 and was chairman of that meeting. We’ve seen how the media dropped quote-marks around the word “greenhouse” turning scientific hypothesis into scientific fact.
We can see through your corrupt scam of science in its totallity.
( Sorry for breaking thread a bit everybody)
Yes SD – I understand what you mean by the hottest year etc but didn’t you notice that the two charts are entirely different. The current chart shows a warming of 1.9C since 1859 whereas the data pre 1993 from my link shows a cooling of approx 0.2C since 1859!!
someone has been cooking the damn books since 1993!
Luke,
Thanks for the video links for the Sydney presentation. I noticed Andy Pitman described you to a tee – if you replace “climate sceptics” with Luke Walker.
Folks,
You’ll get a kick out of this bit.
We have the IPCC relying on the WWF ‘research’ as everyone knows.
But Australia’s CSIRO was helping the WWF!
Specifically, A. Barrie Pittock, who says he changed his analysis of climate data for ‘pedagogic’, rather than ‘statistical’ reasons.
He also notes, intriguingly, that his method ‘has the effect of showing precip. changes for the majority of Australia even in the B1 scenario.’
Link: http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=126&filename=.txt
A fine read for a wet day – or any other day in fact!
http://web.me.com/sinfonia1/Clamour_Of_The_Times/Clamour_Of_The_Times/Entries/2010/1/30_Global_Warming%3A_the_Collapse_of_a_Grand_Narrative.html
“Global Warming: the Collapse of a Grand Narrative
For over a month now, since the farcical conclusion of the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference, I have been silent, partly through family commitments abroad in the USA, but also because, in this noisy world, in ‘The Clamour Of The Times’, it is on occasion better to be quiet and contemplative, to observe rather than to comment. And, as an independent academic, it has been fascinating to witness the classical collapse of a Grand Narrative, in which social and philosophical theories are being played out before our gaze. It is like watching the Berlin Wall [pictured] being torn down, concrete slab by concrete slab, brick by brick, with cracks appearing and widening daily on every face – political, economic, and scientific. Likewise, the bloggers have been swift to cover the crumbling edifice with colourful graffiti, sometimes bitter, at others caustic and witty.”
Schiller
Gee, that’s an interesting group of emails – there seems to be a very cosy relationship between the WWF and CSIRO. These people are also well entrenched in the system, so the AGW may not do a Titanic, but might limp back home, and venture out again when things become quiet.
Thanks Ian, that was indeed a dam fine read. So much so that I’ve bookmarked the site to explore at my leisure.
Unbeleieveable Janama & Spanglers – have you guys the faintest idea. The issue is trend in hot records vs cold records NOT which measurement was the hottest. Honestly do you guys have ANY clue? Seriously dudes – your utter silliness is why sceptics (well faux sceptics or shonk sceptics) are simply giggled at. Spanglers was peddling a detrended graph the other day. Pullease ….
Darkies Schiller – If you have any evidence of impropriety table it – don’t be a slimey little innuendo skunk. Put up or shut up !
Mack – simply the most moronic comment I’ve ever ever ever seen. You denialists don’t have 2 neurones to rub together. http://www.aip.org/history/climate/ i.e. you’re a dickhead
Louis,
The scandals revealed at that site are endless. A search for ‘Greenpeace’ generates 26 hits. For ‘WWF’: a paltry 16, but still far too many for the comfort of any group of scientists interested in preserving an appearance of professionalism.
A search for ‘CSIRO’ brings up 21 results, which in this mix is not a good sign. Connecting these dots alone could generate a new ‘-gate’ all of its own. Government scientists bending data so that lobby groups can raise funds? Very bad.
The one email excerpted is symptomatic: a scientist saying he’s changed the analysis of data for ‘pedagogical’ purposes — and to satisfy the need of the WWF, at that. If that’s science, it’s political science at best. More accurate to call it malpractice, and that’s being kind.
This is like buying a carton of food at the grocery store, only to open it and find it teeming with maggots. My gosh, what a festering mess. Not even the most skeptical skeptic ever thought it was actually this bad.
hehe.
One need not look very far for bad stuff on that index of the CRU emails.
Just did a search on ‘Pachauri’.
Two of the early hits show that Pachauri was in on the discussions regarding the strangulation of authors/papers challenging the AGW religion:
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=306&filename=1051156418.txt
and
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=308&filename=1051202354.txt
One of the hits was on an email from Mike Hulme to Phil Jones, and Mike says, ‘Why should not an Indian scientist chair IPCC … why not get an engineer/economist since many of the issues now raised by CC are more to do with energy and money, than natural science.’
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=270&filename=1019513684.txt
LOL! How refreshingly honest! CC is more about energy and money, than about science!
Since we don’t know how the ‘liberated’ emails and documents were assembled, we don’t know if this is a *complete* set of the *relevant* stuff. We know for a fact that this is *not* the complete set of everything, and until we know how this was collected, and by whom, this will remain an open question.
Luke – as you are so knowledgeable perhaps you can explain to me why this maximum temperature series for station 66062 – Sydney, Observatory Hill
http://users.tpg.com.au/johnsay1/Stuff/Sydney_current.png
is entirely different to this one
http://users.tpg.com.au/johnsay1/Stuff/Sydney.png
yet both are sourced from BoM.
Janama,
Luke won’t explain it to you, but I will. Re Trenberth’s famous observation, if the data don’t fit the theory, the data are surely in error. So, once you ‘correct’ for ‘erroneous’ data, the data confirm the theory. Quite elementary…
Poor old lukey the stupid , what’s the bet this dummy will be the last idiot to wake up to the corruption and fraud.
All these gates just seem to be jumping out of the woodwork, over at WUWT the latest one is from students via a popular climbers magazine, complaining about reduction in ice due to AGW on popular climbing sites around the world.
REAL PEER REVIEWED stuff and yet these hopeless, fanatical believers seem to go on and on, clinging on to their AGW dummy like a dysfunctional babe.
As an old mate of mine used to say ” some silly buggers are so dumb they wouldn’t wake up if a country outhouse fell on them.”
Suits lukey exactly, he hasn’t got a clue and hasn’t enough brains to suffer any embarressment or feel any shame, what a dunce.
janama; are those 2 graphs both of the maxiumum temperature for each year and not mean [monthly] maximum temperature for each year?
It just gets more bizarre, now we are told that the pachauri looney has written a sordid sex novel, I mean hasn’t this idiot created enough fiction already?
Neville,
Sorry to have doubted you about the Pachauri sex novel. Being a skeptic, I had to look for confirmation — and here it is:
“Revealed: the racy novel written by the world’s most powerful climate scientist”, Telegraph (London, UK), Jan. 30, 2010, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7111068/Revealed-the-racy-novel-written-by-the-worlds-most-powerful-climate-scientist.html
Remarkably, the novel ‘tells the story of a climate expert…’
We are assured that ‘passages in the novel involve group sex and more risqué sexual practices.’ Reminds one of Copenhagen and ‘strange bedfellows’.
This is great: ‘The novel was launched amid much fanfare with Bollywood stars and wealthy industrialists in attendance, a reflection of Dr Pachauri’s esteemed status in the country.’
This Pachauri dude definitely knows how to monetize. The open question is: where’s the biggest market for this novel? The ‘skeptics’, or the AGWers?
Will Al Gore show up to do a book-signing event for this novel? Shewt, these days, nobody can find Al Gore any better than they can find Tiger Woods.
Who needs novels anyhow? The real thing’s far more entertaining!
P.S. I wonder if there’s a Luke character in the Pachauri novel. There’s a twisted notion.
Schiller, something that really disturbs me about these emails that are about “peer review” is; how can Mann, Jones etc all be willing to put their hands up to be a reviewer when they are mostly from different fields of climate research? Doesn’t that negate the idea of “peer” review? It also comes across that any science that disagrees with their point of view is “bad science”. If there are literally thousands of climate scientists out there who agree with the AGW hypothesis, (as the true believers maintain) then by definition, there must be plenty around to be peer reviewers without the CRU boys having to be involved every time there is a dissenting paper waiting to be published.
If the word “conspiracy” is too harsh,surely there is plenty of evidence of collusion at least.
Cohenite – The Torok data is Maximum Temperatures from 1859 – 1993
The current data is from BoM and is Mean Maximum Temperature from 1959 – 2009
http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/cdio/weatherData/av?p_nccObsCode=36&p_display_type=dataFile&p_startYear=&p_stn_num=66062
Surely the trends should be similar.
here are my two spreadsheets
http://users.tpg.com.au/johnsay1/Stuff/sydney_current.xls
http://users.tpg.com.au/johnsay1/Stuff/Sydney_Torok.xls
here’s how the data is described at the Torok BoM site
finaln.utx.Z ‘Data file of minimum temperatures’
fianlx.utx.Z ‘Data file of maximum temperatures’
Derek,
Your question is excellent and worthy of discussion.
The notion of ‘peer review’, as popularly conceived, implies a circular, insular process where those who agree with the ‘accepted notions’ review papers to determine if those papers express ‘accepted notions’.
The result is, obviously, the excrescence of some thoughts of ‘consensus’ and ‘the science is settled’ and so forth.
It is precisely at this point where ‘peer review’ goes wrong.
The editor of a scientific publication cannot be a master of all scientific disciplines and their sub-specialties. At best, the editor has enough acumen to sift out pseudo-science, but the question remains, what to do with the rest.
What to do with the rest is left to those whom the editor considers to be ‘peers’ of the authors involved. Is the paper junk science, or not? So, essentially, the editor is delegating the editorial task to others.
This is an unfortunate, but unavoidable, aspect of science journalism. And it is just as corruptible as cronyism, subject to political whims, and — what is just as bad — the financial pressures exerted by the sales department. Subscriptions to scientific journals are incredibly expensive, and they have very small groups of subscribers.
A concerted blow to a journal can result in unemployment, and this is precisely the vulnerability which the Hockey Crew employed to strangle competition with the AGW creed.
I personally cannot see how ‘peer review’ can be improved upon. There is an observation that democracy is the worst form of government, except that all the other alternatives are far worse than that.
If you can say that about democracy, consider how things must be for science.
Science is, at its best, most beneficial exertions, anarchic. It obeys no creed, disdains tyrants and dogmas as equally pernicious. As actually superfluous.
Accordingly, ‘peer review’ is the worst process devisable for the publication of scientific findings, except that all the other alternatives are so dismally, frightfully worse that they’re not worth considering.
In the interim, the best we can do is to jettison preconceived notions of the function of ‘peer review’. It is most emphatically *not* to form ‘a consensus’, but rather, to provide expert assistance to editors of science journals as they attempt to determine what is worth the paper, the ink, and the journal’s reputation.
I hope this helps.
Now even the bbc seem to have doubts, when these loopy ratbags look like throwing in the towel you just know that the 5th report is looking more doubtful day by day.
The king tides this weekend are being quoted by both the BoM and MSM in SE Qld as the Highest Astronomical Tides for over a year and heavy coastal erosion is predicted so I thought it would be an ideal test for observable SLR against my benchmark of a river estuary wall and jetty I built in 1963, nearly 50 years ago.
With strong wind warnings out and cyclone depressions up north there should be additional wind pressure to raise SLs along the Qld coast.
Saturday’s and Sunday’s tides turned out to be about the same even though Sunday was predicted to be higher on the Gold Coast, [Saturday on the Sunshine Coast] however they were both about 8 inches [200 mm] below HATs of nearly 50 years ago.
If we are getting SLR as predicted, how can that possibly be?
Can anyone explain what’s really happening?
Sorry Lukefartard,
it IS your quote!!! I refed the paper for the measured decrease in water vapor. YOU SWALLOWED THE CRAP ABOUT THE DECREASE IN WV CAUSING LOWER TEMPS!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Ok – I’ve blown it – my apologies – I misunderstood the mean v max in the data.
forget about my previous posts.
Have to laugh, if pachauri’s dirty book is about a climate expert, it can’t be auto bigraphical can it, yuk yuk.
Thanks Schiller, I would have thought though that if peer review were pure, then research outside the bounds of “accepted” paradigms would still have to be assessed based on verification of calculations, empirical evidence and adherence to correct and accepted methodologies. If this were to happen, perhaps more so-called “fringe” science would get a fair hearing.
On that note, I recommend getting hold of a copy of “The electric sky” by Donald E. Scott. The section on dark matter and related topics is most illuminating and an example of how the guys with the biggest reputations can get away with making stuff up despite an abundance of empirical evidence to the contrary.
Spangles:
“If we are getting SLR as predicted, how can that possibly be? Can anyone explain what’s really happening?”
It’s simple – the BOM forecasting methodology is based on the flawed assumption of AGW. It’s built into the computer models, and when SLR doesn’t happen, then the model assumptions are wrong.
“your jetty” Spanglers – gee need one even ask. Maybe it’s settled/moved !! Moronic drivel from Sinkers in support.
What I did enjoy was this comment in RealClimate on sceptics from a sceptic.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/01/the-wisdom-of-solomon/#comment-157571
Says in part:
“I have to say, I label myself (privately) as a “skeptic”, but I can’t use the term, because deniers have absconded it and twisted it to their purposes. But I’m a layman (2/3 degree in chemistry) who takes nothing at face value. I visit sites from both camps. For everything I read, I look for more, and when that seems to explain/debunk it, I look for more, and keep going, until I’m perfectly secure in my own knowledge and opinion. It’s still only a layman’s POV, and so incomplete, but it’s not simply what I’ve been asked to accept, or worse yet, just as much as I need to find to confirm my own desires, and nothing more.
That said… I’ve never once seen a denial argument pan out. They can be cleverly constructed so they take a lot to untangle, but they never ultimately come to anything.”
How exactly correct – denial arguments however clever don’t pan out. Denialists don’t advance science. THE END !
Lukebaby,
“you’re a dickhead”
Whatssamatter Lukebaby? Strike a raw nerve did I?
You sent me to Spencer Weart who just spouts AGW claptrap in the guise of history. Not history as I know it Lukebaby; no dates and times to speak of.
No mention of Big Al although he was part of your AGW history too eh Luke.
But now he is just history.
That also suits your case too eh Lukebaby.
Yeah, you’d like to disassociate yourself from Big Al but unfortunately he’s your annointed one. Tough dilemma eh .
If you come back to me with any original literature prior to 1973 containing the word “greenhouse” then you might be able to bend my ear about history.
Until then you’re the dickhead.
“your jetty” Spanglers – gee need one even ask. Maybe it’s settled/moved !!
Settled???
And still above the exceptional high tide?
The Domain name of Climategate.com has sold for over $10,000 US.
http://domainnamewire.com/2009/12/07/climategate-com-domain-name-sells/
http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/12607#more-12607
IPCC Junk Science Exposed – Why Would Anyone Still Believe?
New AGW Climategater Tactic!
Here’s a remarkable tale from NewsoftheNorth.net They called for a debate, and nobody came — nobody from the AGW camp, that is.
Here’s an excerpt:
Event organizer Kim Simac spent weeks organizing the debate and was clearly frustrated by her failed attempts to get some balance into the discussion.
“I invited scientists from all over the country — even some from around the world — to a fair and balanced event,” she said. “I was amazed at the lack of response to the many invitations that went out, but more interesting were the insulting, mocking, sarcastic replies I received from scientists who seem to share a similar belief that a debate is ridiculous on such a settled science.”
–That’s right, folks! The ‘science is settled’, which is why Al Gore canceled his session in Copenhagen, and hasn’t been heard from since. Maybe why Pachauri has moved on to a new career in writing porn. (The ‘self-stimulation’ element in his opus may be meaningful.)
The fraudsters are now gone into hiding (with some exceptions) and pleading the excuse that ‘debate is ridiculous on such a settled science.’
They’ve likely been advised by their lawyers that further public statements will be constitute additional evidence of their involvement in fraud.
This is a terrible episode in human history, but I remain a hopeful cynic. As the dust settles, and the members of the global Doomsday Cult either go to prison or subside into oblivion, the practice of science will emerge in a way which is so robust that it will challenge the European Enlightenment.
———-
1. ‘Global warming – hoax or fact? Debate rages on in search of truth’, Jan. 30, 2010,
http://newsofthenorth.net/article/Top_Stories/National/Global_warming_hoax_or_fact_Debate_rages_on_in_search_of_truth/34186
Since it’s well-settled on both sides of ‘the AGW debate’ that we’re dealing with notions of Global Apocalypse, it makes some sense to investigate past experiences with Doomsday Cults and what we know of them.
Wikipedia is polluted with political interests and therefore unreliable, but it’s an easy starting point. Apologism for doomsday cults (1) is apparent, but there is a more reasoned approach in the article on apocalypticism. (2)
These articles serve as general introductions to better investigations, (3) which reveal such behavior as a ‘club good’ shared amongst members, even though these behaviors are deleterious in a wider context.
Consider Luke, for instance.
Nearly every day, he is revealed as cognitively compromised, and verbally vacuous. While he is reviled as ridiculous, he nonetheless perceives himself as receiving accolades from other members of the Doomsday (planetary carbon suffocation) Cult, and that gives him a sense of purpose.
Making sense of these people is making more sense all the time.
—————–
1. Wikipedia: Doomsday Cults, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doomsday_cult
2. Wikipedia: Apocalypticism, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apocalypticism
3. http://www.jstor.org/pss/2138608
Meanwhile while Darkies Thumbkettle dribbles on laying more and more astroturf, (Hi Ho Hi Ho – it’s off to work we go laying astroturf and bullshit as we go, paid by think tanks in the know – hi ho hi ho) it appears we ain’t heading for an ice age after all.
But hey you can’t trust the numbers – motivated by those who want socialist world govt by the UN (who can’t seem to organise a chook raffle) in a major global conspiracy over multiple institutions and multiple jurisdictions. Oh excuse me I just have to shoo the flying pigs away from the fairy lights again ….
Warmest since records began: 2009
MATT CAWOOD
29 Jan, 2010 03:47 PM
NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) has placed 2009 as the warmest year in the Southern Hemisphere since records began 130 years ago, and the past decade as the warmest globally.
Globally, 2009 tied with 1998, 2002, 2003, 2006 and 2007 as the second warmest year on record after 2005, according to the GISS analysis of planetary temperatures.
The decade from January 2000 to December 2009 was clearly the warmest since modern instrumentation was introduced in 1880.
“There’s substantial year-to-year variability of global temperature caused by the tropical El Nino-La Nina cycle”, said GISS director James Hansen.
“But when we average temperature over five or ten years to minimize that variability, we find that global warming is continuing unabated.”
Over the past three decades, according to the GISS analysis, the global average temperature has increased 0.2 degrees Celsius a decade.
The Australian Bureau of Meterology (BoM) is waiting on the results of a similar analysis by the UK Met Office’s Hadley Centre, which BoM has traditionally used as a guide to global temperature trends.
The Hadley Centre analysis tends to be more conservative than GISS, according to BoM senior climatologist Dr Karl Braganza, because Hadley scientists leave out areas of the Arctic and Antarctic where climate monitoring stations are scarce.
GISS extrapolates data for these areas from the nearest monitoring stations in an attempt to deliver a fuller climate picture.
In the Hadley analysis, polar areas without monitoring stations are assumed to be warming at the same rate as the global average. GISS incorporates sea ice data from satellites that indicates the Arctic is warming faster than the rest of the planet.
Dr Braganza said while the two methods produce slightly different results – although often within a tenth or a hundredth of a degree – both show the same global warming trend.
A key driver of natural climate variability is the El Nino-La Nina cycle, which stems from the cyclic warming and cooling of the Pacific Ocean.
GISS and BoM climatologists believe the El Nino of late 2009 combined with greenhouse gas-driven warming to produce an unusually warm year in 2009.
“The unusual thing about this El Nino when it got going around mid-2009 was that Pacific ocean temperatures were already very warm, which was likely a continuation of the greenhouse warming effect,” Dr Braganza said.
That warmth across the Pacific generated rain, which counteracted the usual El Nino drying effect on eastern Australia for several months. But as the year went on, across eastern Australia as a whole it was very dry.
“Tasmania got some good rainfall, and Victoria had two or three rainfall events, but they were just weather events. Typically during an El Nino we get less of them.
“When you are talking about climate, you’re talking about what history can tell you might happen over a particular stretch of time–but during an El Nino, you can still get a good rainall event coming through with the normal weather that gives a bit of relief.”
The global warming trend, which is reflected in the warming of the Australian temperature record, appears to be continuing despite the deepest recorded solar minimum.
During solar maximums, high sunspot activity is generally correlated with higher surface temperatures on Earth. Solar minimums, or low sunspot activity, are generally related to cooler temperatures, but this is not the case during the current minimum.
Aerosols, particularly sulfate aerosols produced by volcanoes, are also known to cool global temperature by reflecting sunlight, but aerosols appear not to have played a significant role during 2009.
hahahahahahaHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH – denialist scum. Oh diddums – I forgot – aren’t we heading to an ice age? Oh that’s right it’s all “fabricated” isn’t it.
Pigs bum it is ! Flying pigs bums – hahahahahahahahhHAHAHAHAHA
Gee Mack – I see your point. Pretty devastating comeback. Don’t think I’ll recover after that dressing down. I had’t thought about the issue like that before. Yes indeed Al Gore is responsible for 100% of the science so I guess it’s all bunk then.
Can I join you guys? How long before I can have a gun and a white gown. Which right wing think tanks will be paying me?
Goodness gracious, Luke!
Now, I’m ‘Thumbkettle’?
I’d like to hear your etymology on that one! Doubtless, your explanation will be equally as magisterial as your explanation of ‘Darkies Schiller’, which I trust is forthcoming.
With ‘respect’ to your attempt at authoritative augury about claims based on GISS, we all already know that GISS stuff is cooked. The data are useless.
Luke, you’re not going to convince anyone here with your bogus claims.
I really have to wonder what you’re doing here. Being thumped on the head constantly can’t hardly be a fun thing for you.
Yes Jonathan, great logic, as you’d expect.
The river wall BTW, is quite long, fronts 4 properties, is reinforced concrete with a step height set at the old king tide level. It is still straight, level and completely intact. The jetty would have moved somewhat but the wall and step could not move enough to affect the data without cracking badly and that has not happened.
Boring Darkies Schiller – your term used here. We remember all our little rednecks very well.
Darkies is what you kindly refer to the 3rd world people you are “so” concerned about.
Mack Mack Mack – you’re a bit of a moronic clown aren’t you. Two minutes work Mack …. tsk tsk tsk -1935 even … dear dear me – now ping off !
I wonder what a serious search would turn up.
Venus: Implications from Microwave Spectroscopy of the Atmospheric Content of Water Vapor
J. B. Pollack and A. T. Wood, Jr.
Science 13 September 1968 161: 1125-1127 [DOI: 10.1126/science.161.3846.1125] (in Articles)
……Venera 4, the existence of aqueous ice clouds, and a greenhouse effect caused by water vapor and carbon dioxide. The computed…percent, re-quired for a carbon dioxide and water-vapor greenhouse effect (18). We have considered models having water-vapor……
Abstract » References » PDF »
Earth and Mars: Evolution of Atmospheres and Surface Temperatures
Carl Sagan and George Mullen
Science 7 July 1972 177: 52-56 [DOI: 10.1126/science.177.4043.52] (in Articles)
……significant con-tribution. The total greenhouse effect is only a few degrees Kelvin…absorption; and eventually a runaway greenhouse effect wyill occur, as previously…would yield an insig-nificant greenhouse effect. 27. J. Bada, in Proceedings……
Abstract » References » PDF »
The Planet Venus: Recent observations shed light on the atmosphere, surface, and possible biology of the nearest planet
Carl Sagan
Science 24 March 1961 133: 849-858 [DOI: 10.1126/science.133.3456.849] (in Articles)
……have been per-formed on the existing environment of Venus. As the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere falls, the greenhouse effect is rendered less efficient and the surface temperature falls. After the atmospheric temperatures decline suf-ficiently……
PDF »
Space: Highlights of Recent Research
Robert Jastrow and A. G. W. Cameron
Science 11 September 1964 145: 1129-1139 [DOI: 10.1126/science.145.3637.1129] (in Articles)
……infrared radiation from the atmosphere is analogous to the ac-tion of the glass panes of a greenhouse, and is called the “greenhouse effect.” It is sufficient to raise the temperature Fig. 1. Geoid heights (in meters) relative to an ellipsoid with a flattening……
References » PDF »
Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols: Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate
S. I. Rasool and S. H. Schneider
Science 9 July 1971 173: 138-141 [DOI: 10.1126/science.173.3992.138] (in Articles)
Abstract » References » PDF »
Solar Energy: A Feasible Source of Power?
Allen L. Hammond
Science 14 May 1971 172: 660 [DOI: 10.1126/science.172.3984.660] (in Articles)
……energy extremely efficiently by means of specially coated collecting surfaces, which would be heated by the resulting super “greenhouse” effect to temper-atures as high as 540?C; the heat en-ergy would be collected and stored in a thermal reservoir, to which conven-tional……
PDF »
Venus: The Next Phase of Planetary Exploration
Donald M. Hunten and Richard M. Goody
Science 26 September 1969 165: 1317-1323 [DOI: 10.1126/science.165.3900.1317] (in Articles)
References » PDF »
THE ATMOSPHERES OF THE PLANETS
HENRY NORRIS RUSSELL
Science 4 January 1935 81: 1-9 [DOI: 10.1126/science.81.2088.1] (in Articles)
……ob-serve the sunlit (and warmer) side; partly to the “greenhouse” effect of the atmosphere, which lets in the short-wave…Whether the difference arises from the powerful “greenhouse” effect of the methane itself, or from internal heat, can……
PDF »
Solar Energy: The Largest Resource
Allen L. Hammond
Science 22 September 1972 177: 1088-1090 [DOI: 10.1126/science.177.4054.1088] (in Articles)
……trans-parent to the incoming sunlight, but absorbs the longer wavelength radiation emitted by the hot metal, so that a “greenhouse” effect is created and the effectiveness of the collector is in-creased. The heat is collected in water or air that is circulated……
References » PDF »
Man-Made Climatic Changes: Man’s activities have altered the climate of urbanized areas and may affect global climate in the future
Helmut E. Landsberg
Science 18 December 1970 170: 1265-1274 [DOI: 10.1126/science.170.3964.1265] (in Articles)
……J. Namias, in Proc. Amer. Water Resources Conf. 4th (1968), p. 852; J. Geophys. Res. 75, 565 (1970). 18. The term greenhouse effect, which has been commonly accepted for spectral absorption by atmospheric gases of long-wave radiation emit-ted by……
Abstract » PDF »
Will the SST Pollute the Stratosphere?
Virginia D. Nuessle and Robert W. Holcomb
Science 26 June 1970 168: 1562 [DOI: 10.1126/science.168.3939.1562] (in Articles)
……temperature by radiating heat into space and an increase of 0.6?C in the tem-perature at sea level, as a result of the greenhouse effect. Both models are based on imprecise knowledge and con-tain simplifications, but Machta’s model contains more uncertainties……
References » PDF »
Jupiter: His Limb Darkening and the Magnitude of His Internal Energy Source
Laurence M. Trafton and Robert L. Wildey
Science 5 June 1970 168: 1214-1215 [DOI: 10.1126/science.168.3936.1214] (in Articles)
……smeared to reproduce the effects of astronomi-cal “seeing” and of a nonzero photom-eter aperture. We thus neglected any greenhouse effect due to NH3, which can be incor-porated into the model only with con-siderable difficulty. Preliminary compu-tations indicate……
Abstract » References » PDF »
Power Generation: The Next 30 Years
Robert W. Holcomb
Science 9 January 1970 167: 159-160 [DOI: 10.1126/science.167.3915.159] (in Articles)
……balance by producing car-bon dioxide that absorbs energy reradi-ated from the earth after being received from the sun. The greenhouse effect of carbon di-oxide has long been known, but effects resulting from man’s production of the gas have not been established……
PDF »
Jupiter’s Atmosphere: Its Structure and Composition
Jack A. Greenspan and Tobias Owen
Science 16 June 1967 156: 1489-1494 [DOI: 10.1126/science.156.3781.1489] (in Articles)
……hydrogen abundance can be obtained from the recent work of Trafton (17), who has shown that hydrogen can produce a greenhouse effect in the atmosphere of Jupiter. The atmosphere thus as-sumes a temperature gradient depend-ent on the amount of hydrogen……
Abstract » References » PDF »
Global Weather
Philip H. Abelson
Science 13 January 1967 155: 153 [DOI: 10.1126/science.155.3759.153] (in Articles)
……If present trends of release continue until the year 2000, global atmospheric temperatures could be increased, through a greenhouse effect, by as much as 4?C. Potentially more serious are effects we cannot now foresee or evaluate. The atmosphere has intrinsic……
PDF »
Behavior of Carbon Dioxide and Other Volatiles on Mars
Robert B. Leighton and Bruce C. Murray
Science 8 July 1966 153: 136-144 [DOI: 10.1126/science.153.3732.136] (in Articles)
……bright-nesses of Mars at wavelengths of 10 microns and 20 microns are similar, and consistent with the absence of any such greenhouse effect. Furthermore, the average disk temperature was found to be much higher than, and not con-sistent with, the radio……
Abstract » References » PDF »
Factors Favoring Nuclear Power
Philip H. Abelson
Science 6 May 1966 152: 703 [DOI: 10.1126/science.152.3723.703] (in Articles)
……land. In addi-tion, the large-scale burning of fossil fuels raises the specter of runaway climatic changes due to the “greenhouse effect.” For many years it has been clear that atomic energy is destined to be the primary energy source; reserves of fossil fuels……
References » PDF »
Meteorology of Air Pollution: The need to preserve our air resources challenges our understanding of the atmosphere’s capacities
Donald H. Pack
Science 27 November 1964 146: 1119-1128 [DOI: 10.1126/science.146.3648.1119] (in Articles)
……there are probably no undisturbed at-mospheric conditions left in any of the mechanized areas of the world. The possible “greenhouse” effect of carbon dioxide is not known pre-cisely, yet extrapolation of present measurements indicates a global in-crease in this……
References » PDF »
Atmospheres of Other Planets: Much has recently been discovered about the atmospheres of the planets, but some puzzles remain.
Seymour L. Hess
Science 10 October 1958 128: 809-814 [DOI: 10.1126/science.128.3328.809] (in Articles)
……on Earth. This is primar-ily due to the great dryness of the Mar-tian atmosphere, which cannot provide a strong “greenhouse” effect. The radiometric data apply to areas of the planet that are small enough to per-mit the temperatures to be plotted……
References » PDF »
Gases in Glaciers
L. K. COACHMAN, E. HEMMINGSEN, P. F. SCHOLANDER, T. ENNS, and H. DE VRIES
Science 30 May 1958 127: 1288-1289 [DOI: 10.1126/science.127.3309.1288] (in Articles)
……theory has has been postulated, though, that a high carbon dioxide content would result in a warm climate, through a “greenhouse” effect (8); this theory lends special in-terest to the study of the carbon dioxide content of the air. What was the climate……
References » PDF »
Photochemical Activity of Digitonin Extracts of Chloroplasts
RUSSELL A. EVERSOLE and JEROME J. WOLKEN
Science 30 May 1958 127: 1287-1288 [DOI: 10.1126/science.127.3309.1287] (in Articles)
……The theory has has been postulated, though, that a high carbon dioxide content would result in a warm climate, through a “greenhouse” effect (8); this theory lends special in-terest to the study of the carbon dioxide content of the air. What was the climate and……
References » PDF »
News of Science
Science 10 May 1957 125: 923-927 [DOI: 10.1126/science.125.3254.923] (in Articles)
……of the Antarctic with the atmosphere of coal and oil-consuming regions is ex-pected to give data on the suspected “greenhouse” effect caused by the release of large amounts of carbon dioxide. Meteorological data from all the IGY Antarctic stations……
PDF »
THE BRITISH WATER POLLUTION RESEARCH BOARD
Science 4 January 1935 81: 9-10 [DOI: 10.1126/science.81.2088.9] (in Articles)
……Solar radiation alone would maintain a mean temperature near 2200. Whether the difference arises from the powerful “greenhouse” effect of the methane itself, or from internal heat, can not yet be determined. It may be, however, that if the methane……
Man-made Carbon Dioxide and the “Greenhouse” Effect
J. S. SAWYER
Nature 239, 23-26 (1 September 1972) doi:10.1038/239023a0 Article
Abstract | PDF | Rights and permissions | Save this link
Late Precambrian Glaciation: an Anti-Greenhouse Effect?
J. D. ROBERTS
Nature 234, 216-217 (26 November 1971) doi:10.1038/234216a0 Letter
Abstract | PDF | Rights and permissions | Save this link
The Effect of Cloudiness on a Greenhouse Model of the Venus Atmosphere [Preview]
G. Ohring and J. Mariano
J. Geophys. Res., 69, 1, doi:10.1029/JZ069i001p00165, 1964
The Aeolosphere and Atmosphere of Venus [Preview]
E. Öpik
J. Geophys. Res., 66, 9, doi:10.1029/JZ066i009p02807, 1961
Elevation Differences on Mars [Preview]
C. Sagan and J. Pollack
J. Geophys. Res., 73, 4, doi:10.1029/JB073i004p01373, 1968
Carbon Dioxide Absorption for Path Lengths Applicable to the Atmosphere of Venus [Preview]
G. Plass and V. Stull
J. Geophys. Res., 68, 5, doi:10.1029/JZ068i005p01355, 1963
The Heat Budgets of an Ice‐Free and an Ice‐Covered Arctic Ocean [Preview]
W. Donn and D. Shaw
J. Geophys. Res., 71, 4, doi:10.1029/JZ071i004p01087, 1966
Some Comments on the Venus Temperature [Preview]
D. Applebaum, P. Harteck, R. Reeves, and B. Thompson
J. Geophys. Res., 71, 23, doi:10.1029/JZ071i023p05541, 1966
Planetary exploration: Accomplishments and goals [Preview]
T. M. Donahue
Rev. Geophys., 9, 2, doi:10.1029/RG009i002p00437, 1971
A Consideration of Microwave Radiation Associated with Particles in the Atmosphere of Venus [Preview]
C. Tolbert and A. Straiton
J. Geophys. Res., 67, 5, doi:10.1029/JZ067i005p01741, 1962
Mercury: Recent Observations at 3.75-cm Wavelength—Summary [Preview]
M. Klein
Radio Sci., 5, 2, doi:10.1029/RS005i002p00397, 1970
Anisotropic Nonconservative Scattering and the Clouds of Venus [Preview]
C. Sagan and J. B. Pollack
J. Geophys. Res., 72, 2, doi:10.1029/JZ072i002p00469, 1967
Measurements of Infrared Radiative Fluxes over India [Preview]
A. Mani, C. Sreedharan, and V. Srinivasan
J. Geophys. Res., 70, 18, doi:10.1029/JZ070i018p04529, 1965
The Relationship of Total Atmospheric Ozone to the Sunspot Cycle [Preview]
H. Willett
J. Geophys. Res., 67, 2, doi:10.1029/JZ067i002p00661, 1962
Studies of the Surface of Mars (Very Early in the Era of Spacecraft Reconnaissance)
J. Pollack and C. Sagan
Radio Sci., 5, 2, doi:10.1029/RS005i002p00443, 1970
Thermal Convection in the Martian Atmosphere [Preview]
F. Neubauer
J. Geophys. Res., 71, 10, doi:10.1029/JZ071i010p02419, 1966
Abstracts of the Papers Presented at the First Western National Meeting, American Geophysical Union Los Angeles, California, December 27–29, 1961
J. Geophys. Res., 67, 4, doi:10.1029/JZ067i004p01627, 1962
Abstracts of the Papers Presented at the Forty‐Second Annual Meeting, American Geophysical Union Washington, D. C., April 18–21, 1961
J. Geophys. Res., 66, 8, doi:10.1029/JZ066i008p02509, 1961
Maybe that 20cm observed fall in highest astronomical tide is this ocean cooling:
http://i47.tinypic.com/20kvhwn.png
Spanglers – you simply don’t know whether the whole structure has settled or not – no matter how big it is. Get serious.
Why don’t you get hold of the national tidal data and publish a paper showing the establishment where they’ve made a mistake. (sound of crickets …)
Funny isn’t it – obsessed over tenths of a degree in 1880s but and old crap will do for your sea level analysis. What hypocrisy. Which is why you’re denialists hahahahahahahaha
Spangled,
Surely your data are in error, since they do not match the ‘settled science’ which is captured precisely in the AGW computer codes we aren’t allowed to see.
We all know that sea levels are rising like crazy.
Therefore, we can conclude that Australia is rising really, really even even like, way faster than that, and will eventually become an airborne continent. Real estate investors will totally want to be there. Do the math. Extrapolate the curve. That would be like the coolest real estate anywhere.
“Now, everyone’s pretty much used to the notion that the darkies in Africa die when food is short, what the heck, but what happens when Australians and Irish face sky-high food costs because they prefer antique agriculture? Will they die just as quietly as darkies, or will they whine and complain and cajole and point fingers?”
Posted by: Schiller Thurkettle at September 17, 2007 08:26 AM
He’s your boy denialists ! Your little mate.
BTW must tell our Aussie cotton, sugar and rice growers they’re into “antique” agriculture.
Schiller – GCM codes are available – where is your critique. GISS codes are available. Caught lying again. Typical denialist.
Luke,
I sure am glad that you finally admitted your antipathy toward those in developing nations in the course of your explanation of how ‘Darkies Schiller’ is an epithet.
Did you ever think to ask if I might be darker than white? No. You are a stinking white-supremacist Aryan-nation [other descriptive terms deleted] ‘person’. Be astounded and relieved that I don’t say more on this point.
You still haven’t explained your etymology for ‘Thumbkettle’. That’s bound to involve far more inveigling.
Don’t try to wiggle out of it!
Schiller,
you can easily evaluate the quality of luke’s argument and intellect from all this brilliance.
Here I have an 80 metre RC wall that is still straight, level and intact and the only way it can go while remaining in this condition is [possibly but highly unlikely] down, and relative to SLR this benchmark is now 20 cm higher than it was nearly half a century ago.
What conclusions would any rational person draw d’you reckon?
I should have added that this wall is on an alluvial sand island and could not move without cracking. All the infrastructure on this island has a good record for foundation stability.
And no post-glacial rebound.
Luke, the “tenths of a degree” are what the BoM and the rest of you warmers use to prove your feeble case.
spangled drongo
re. your last post,
I really wonder if Luke reads the posts he is replaying to or thinking while typing.
To me “settling” means moving to a lower level.
I live in a seaside suburb myself and for the last 30 odd years walked the beach every day, rain or shine, and the high water mark never changed, OK maybe a few inches! one can see it by the deposited seaweed on the beach in turbulent conditions. ( not including severe storms of course)
As to the “tenths of a degree” , that was and still is the main stumbling block for me to except the warmists’
arguments. When the error of instruments used is greater then the anomaly, one simply cannot accept the data as proof.
And if the error is greater than the change, then one cannot reasonably claim trend either, because the error can go either way.
The only way to claim a trend from dodgy data is by “homogenising”, “adjusting” etc. the data.
here’s Jon Faine’s ABC morning debate with Lord Monckton – Go the Lord 🙂
http://blogs.abc.net.au/files/climate-debate.mp3
http://blogs.abc.net.au/victoria/2010/02/the-scare-is-over-climate-change-skeptic-lord-monckton-debates-rupert-posner-from-the-climate-group.html#comments?program=melbourne_mornings
The comments are worth reading 🙂
Lukefartard,
“That said… I’ve never once seen a denial argument pan out. They can be cleverly constructed so they take a lot to untangle, but they never ultimately come to anything.”
How exactly correct – denial arguments however clever don’t pan out. Denialists don’t advance science. THE END !”
OK, here is a really clever, intricate denialist argument.
WHERE IS THE WARMING!!!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Lukefartard,
“Over the past three decades, according to the GISS analysis, the global average temperature has increased 0.2 degrees Celsius a decade.”
Of course it was about .6C through 1998!!!
Thanks for ignoring all the excellent posts debunking GISS and HadCrud and NOAA…
WHERE’S THE WARMING!!!!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Lukefartard,
I see you have stooped to the Venus fallacy.
Please show how an atmosphere primarily CO2 and 90 times more massive than earths can generate more energy than it absorbs!!!
Oh, it can’t??? Well then, I guess Venus proves NOTHING!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
janama,
Faine’s early comment “often we’ve been…..CHALLENGED… to conduct debates with climate deniers and on several occasions we have…..” says it all really.
How’s that for an even-handed adjudicator? “Our ABC” really needs to take stock of itself and check its own rules about bias.
But Monckton blew ’em away.
KockFace Kat – didn’t say Venus did. Don’t verbal me matey. Read what Mack said and had answered fully. THE END.
And temperature record has been “discredited” only in the minds of the denialist filth. Is there a comprehensive set of peer reviewed papers of rebuttal. No – only “grey” literature like you salivate over. Not worth a crumpet ! I mean who has the time to track down every denialist slimey scam …. who can be bothered ….
Spanglers – of course you wouldn’t be talking out of your butt – you would reviewed the sea level rise analyses wouldn’t you. Of course not – easier to rant than engage 1st gear.
http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_hist_last_15.html
Now where is your “jetty” on the map !
Monckton has never been up against serious scientists in a long enough format to prove anything. Show ponies aren’t best for the long haul.
Lord Monckton debated Professor Brook recently [and won handsomely] and his calculations about climate sensitivity have been vindicated by this study;
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n7280/abs/nature08769.html
Monckton has never been up against serious scientists in a long enough format to prove anything. Show ponies aren’t best for the long haul.
so Posner isn’t a real scientist – I have to agree – are there any left on your side?
Lukebaby,
OK , yeah right , you’ve caught the layman out. Fair enough. 10/10 for effort. As a team maybe I’ll retract the dickhead comment.
It still dosen’t counter the fact that your precious science was hijacked and politicised by Big Al, and if it wasnt for him you would be banging away on your key board here in support of an old Arrhenius CO2 theory. A tad strange eh .
thx for the links to the monkton debate with faine. how anybody with an open mind could no longer be sceptical about climate change is mind boggling. Interesting that nearly all of the comments on the blog support the need for sceptiscm and raise the issue of balance. Im sure Jon thinks that just allowing a sceptic to air his views proves the ABC’s lack of bias. to me it shows just how far removed they are from balanced journalism.
We only have to read the bleating from Luke on this blog to know that the case for AGW is struggling.
I actually thought that Monckton swayed the steadfast Faine – Faine’s attitude calms as the interview goes on IMO.
Mack – I’ll turn off the derision for a moment – Al Gore may have a great public profile (good or bad) but he’s really irrelevant to the long term science of climate change. Al is one of the more bizarre personality cults (good or bad). He is a relative late-comer to the public scene on the issue. I’m not sure whether his net contribution is a hindrance or hazard to the subject. BTW finding those links was 5 minutes work with search engines on the journal sites. Anyone could do that in minutes.
And remember one only needs to consider AGW as a potential risk at high enough probability. So a potential risk simply need fair consideration. That’s all I ask. And all I am representing. Fairness in evaluation of the science. It would be most convenient indeed if AG was not true and we could all drive V8s forever.
So in terms of fairness in science evaluation, what would be a serious threat to Phil Jones is an alternative analysis, fully publicly available. I don’t think witchhunts like what are being proposed are dignified nor auger well for anyone contemplating a public career in science.
Cohenite – how can you possibly lay straight in bed and quote Nature. If it had set the opposite – in fact you would have derided it without thinking. And furthermore it’s about feedbacks. I really am amazed what you’ll consort with.
Luke,
I’ve been reviewing the satellite measurements for sometime and that’s what I am questioning.
If they were right this recent highest astronomical tide would have been 20 cm above my benchmark, not 20 cm below.
Also, I’ve got news for you. Monckton’s no show pony. He tells it like it is and if you fancy yourself, he’s always happy to talk to the difficult and the thick. Look how he spoke to that greenie in Copenhagen.
I just listened to “Climate Change skeptic Lord Monckton debates Rupert Posner from the Climate Group” on ABC site. And got Monckton on the issue about the accounts of some charity that the IPCC chairman is involved with. Fair dink guys !
How utterly nutty – in terms of the science – so you would like me to believe all the Australian scientists who have contributed to the IPCC reports have changed their writing because the chairman may or may not be involved with some charity with crook books in the UK?
His biofuel protest was pretentious. Is anyone arguing with him?
So we then endure the diatribe that it’s a difficult problem – so the science must therefore be wrong.
Just tell me you find it fanciful. Please tell me. Tell me you believe all scientists have been “bought”.
Will I have to laugh hysterically.
But Posner wasn’t very good (actually). Sigh. He could have had him on the ropes on a number of points but stuffed it.
Spanglers – his position is not invulnerable. His approach implying conspiratorial aims by the broad science community. But he is a fearsome debater and orator. Doesn’t mean he’s right however.
Back to sea level. If you go to the link I have provided above you will not some areas – probably your jetty have shown little rise. i.e. sea level rise has not assessed to have been even over the globe
You would also know there are major seasonal – ENSO and interdecadal IPO like influences as noise in the system. Up and down.
If you were fair dinkum you would ask John Church in CSIRO what the sea level rise in your jetty’s region would be over the last 30-40 years. It’s an email Spanglers.
Otherwise you may be railing against something which is not assessed as being high. At least know what the science source says the number is !!
Luke, I’ve already sent an email to EPA-Coastal Sciences but John Church might not be a bad idea.
‘Nature’ is irrelevant; the Frank et al paper raises the issue of climate sensitivity because ACO2 forcing cannot be different from CO2 feedback; I’m waiting on Nick’s response to this point here;
http://landshape.org/enm/moncktons-argument/?dsq=32276229#comment-32276229
Luke,
I would say Al Gore’s net contribution to your AGW science would be the biggest hazard the subject could ever run into.
“that’s all I ask……fairness in evaluation of the science”
I’ve done that Luke. From a laymans point of view I’ve evaluated the risk and it appears to me the risk from man-made CO2 is miniscule; if anything at all.
Any quackness of the science I might have referred to in the past is not actually the theory itself but the degree of total disproportionallity of the amounts involved and the extremely tenuous nature of the actual physics.
Sorry Luke but as Monckton says “the game is up” and Phil Jones has had his public career in science .
Thumbs down.
Hang him.
Folks,
Here’s a very interesting interview which reveals that AGWers aren’t really about CO2, or even about global warming:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/programmes/analysis/transcripts/25_01_10.txt
Let’s start a betting pool.
Penn State has concluded its investigation of Michael Mann regarding whether or not he violated University Policy, and the conclusions will be announced later this week. (1)
PSU is a top recipient of AGW money, which is at stake. At the same time, this investigation is considered a ‘personnel matter’, which makes everything essentially ‘secret’. (2)
At the same time, there’s federal whistleblower statutes involved, which could result in Mann et. al. having to pay back research money they got fraudulently. (3) Maybe PSU would have to pay the money back.
According to the campus newspaper, ‘The inquiry’s findings will determine if the university will further investigate Mann’s work.’ (1)
The maximum bet is 100 Lukebits. (We can call them Lukebits on account of Luke and the bits are known to have no value, thereby not being subject to authoritative oversight.)
I’ve included the links/footnotes below so that bettors can inform themselves of the political minefield.
I open the betting thusly:
I bet 60 Lukebits that PSU will say that Mann has violated university policy, but insignificantly
I bet 20 Lukebits that PSU will say the investigation was expensive
I bet 20 Lukebits that PSU will say that further investigation will have to be done by the government.
————-
1. http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2010/02/01/mann_inquiry_concludes_board_t.aspx
2. http://209.157.64.200/focus/news/2426954/posts?page=1
3. http://www.climategate.com/penn-state-paper-spreads-the-word-on-ex-cia-agent-going-after-michael-mann
Schiller I am pessimisstic about the PSU investigation; the British one will have longer legs; I think Mann will continue because he is rat cunning as this shows;
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/17/AR2009121703682.html
The comments are especially good; still your idea of lukebits is a good idea and perhaps all future grants for AGW research can be paid in them.
Mack – why are you going to hang him. Coz you’re in a mindless pack? Coz he hates faux sceptics guts and has assiduously avoided cooperating with people he distrusts.
Darkies Schiller is frustrated coz he’s trying to make mountains out of a molehill.
But hey sceptic shonks are always trying to pump up the volume.
Schiller all you have is people who have had a gutful of faux sceptics and behaving like human being who are being slandered on a daily basis by sceptic creeps. There is no conspiracy. There never was.
Instead of running around armwaving and persecuting people, sceptics could have whipped out 10 papers repeating analyses and rebutting previous findings. What everyone else does. Obviously too hard for our faux sceptics. Or if they do – non-peer reviewed tosh.
This isn’t about science – it’s about spoiling tactics. Marginalising debates. Running the car into a ditch.
And Monckton would say “the game is up” wouldn’t he. Gee whiz ! But alas Margie is gone – and he’s not in power anymore. A feather duster.
Mack if you have “evaluated” the evidence – I’d have to laugh. What? – using the information on your Weeties packet? How you “feel”. Or a few reactionary blog bilge sites full of sophistic nonsense.
Cohenite,
I’m also very skeptical about the ability of the university to investigate one of its main grant-suckers.
Sort of like, with Greenpeace all over the list of ‘Expert Reviewers’ of the IPCC. What’s the odds that Greenpeace ‘Expert Reviewers’ will reject ‘Greenpeace ‘research” as authoritative?
Yeah, right.
By the way, you have any sense of why Luke is working so hard to get my attention? It’s almost creepy. Maybe he’s paparazzi or something.
Bunk Schiller – all manner of faux sceptics are also IPCC “reviewers” – pull the other leg matey – hohohohoho ! I’m only getting your attention pointing out what a shonk you are.
Hey dudes – looks like Abbott has a …. wait for it …… “climate change policy”. I thought he didn’t believe in it? Did you sceptics screw up ? again …. Cohers is this your fault?
Tony Abbott is a politician and he said so, “I want people to vote for me”!
As long as there are believers who “want” something done, but not pay for it, he is playing their tune.
I bet you, K Rudd would give an arm and a leg if he could somehow weasel out of his ETS commitment, they already refused to cooperate with the Greens, to make sure it will fail.
One can never blame a politician for trying to garner votes any way they can, it’s their stock in trade, best world we could have, would be one without politicians of any flavour!
Unfortunately, like democracy, bad as it is, what we have is still better than all the others.
Simply don’t blame politicians on either side for what they do, they do it for votes!
Of course, sometimes they get it wrong and suffer!
Great to see even a rag like the guardian is playing catch up on the AGW fraud.
Over at Bolt’s blog we see that this rag now mentions the Phil Jones and Wang scandal and the siting of chinese stations and their supposed longevity and accuracy BS.
Aussie scientist Tom Wigley has been on this case trying to get jones to admit his involvement in this cover up, particularly his dismissal of the UHI effect as trivial because of some of these bogus records.
If this rag for leftwing idiots can get involved in exposing the corrupt fraud surely this could be the beginning of the end for the AGW ?
Then hopefully we can expect charges to be laid and some stiff prison sentences handed down to corrupt individuals ? Of course loss of accrued superannuation should be a part of the sentence as well.
Phil Jones is still looking at a ten-year prison term, which is good news.
Meanwhile there’s another ‘-gate’ blowing up in the press, relating to the ‘secret’ location of Chinese stations.
One thing that’s bothered me lately about Glaciergate is, why should that be special for the MSM? I mean, everyone knew the glacier thing was bogus, for a long time.
I went back and looked, and there was this popular old argument, ‘If you’re not sure about the science, look at the facts: the glaciers are disappearing.’
Folks in the MSM, when they found they couldn’t even rely on the glacier stuff, realized they’d been betrayed. No science, no facts, they’d been reporting crapola. Reporters don’t want to be lied to, and worse, don’t want to be found out reporting lies.
So that part makes a great deal of sense.
AGWers are having a field day saying that denialists are alleging a ‘conspiracy’, thinking that such a label will discredit skeptics. Likely there will be some conspiracies involved, if prosecutors grow some cojones.
Even so, AGW is better described as a Doomsday Cult. Like Y2K, Jim Jones, etc.
Just had a chin wag with a bloke from senator Judith Troeth’s ( liberal Vic ) office and it isn’t good news.
She voted with krudd to pass the ets before Copenhagen and it seems there is a good chance she will do so again, even the green’s ( latest) brainless nonsense.
There is a Queenland liberal senator who voted with krudd as well, but I can’t recall the name, of course the turnbull idiot is all set to cross the floor in the house reps, what a hopeless delusional fool.
Anyhow I hope that anyone concerned from either Vic or Qld could get on the blower or email them asking for the reasons they would side with labor and the greens destroying the jobs of their fellow Aussies .
Neville,
That’s Sen. Sue Boyce. I recently sent her an email to try and lead her down the paths of righteousness and every Qlder should do likewise.
senator.sue.boyce@aph.gov.au
This is the third reading speech of Senator Sue Boyce:
I rise today to speak with a heavy heart but in good faith. Last week in this place I urged senators to pass the amended CPRS bills. That continues to be my view. I continue to oppose the Rudd government’s unamended CPRS, but the changes that were negotiated in good faith, particularly by Ian Macfarlane and Malcolm Turnbull, have turned this into something that will assist not only Australia’s climate but also Australian business, Australian consumers and Australia’s energy-generating industries. It could be a solution to what I believe is a very real and uncontested problem that we must address in the near-term future, and that is the damage that climate change can do to this country if we do not act. It is part of the damage that climate change can do to the world. I am very much aware of the argument that has been put by many people that this must be a global agreement and it is ridiculous for Australia to act first.
My own background is as a manufacturer. In that sphere, I know the benefits of early adoption. I would just like to point out to the Senate that it was the Shergold task force, commissioned by the Howard government, who said, long before we got to this place, that Australia should not wait until a genuinely global agreement has been negotiated, because there are benefits which outweigh the costs in early adoption by Australia of an appropriate emissions constraint. That continues to be my view, but I think there are better ways to go about developing emissions mechanisms in Australia. A straight carbon tax, in my view, would have been the cleanest, easiest option, but that is not an option that is on the table. The option that we have is the CPRS as amended by Ian Macfarlane and Malcolm Turnbull. I was delighted to see yesterday that Mr Greg Combet has said that, irrespective of the outcome in the House, those amendments will form part of the Labor government’s policies around an emissions trading scheme. I hope that that is also a comment that has been made in good faith and will continue to be honoured by the Labor government.
I would like to associate myself with the remarks made by Senator Troeth. I think we now need to look at nuclear power as part of the solution to lowering carbon emissions. We are the only country in the G20 that does not have nuclear energy capabilities. I consider it completely hypocritical of the Labor government to have the stance that it does on Australia having nuclear energy whilst we are exporting all our uranium to assist others to have nuclear energy. I think we need to work very, very quickly in this area, and this has been borne out by Dr Ziggy Switkowski, from ANSTO, who was commissioned by the Howard government as part of our attempts to reduce emissions, to look at the question of nuclear energy. He continues to make the point that this is something that is not only feasible but necessary if we are to have the whole suite of measures that are needed to overcome the problems that are caused by carbon emissions.
I must admit that I continue to be very concerned by some of the specious and fallacious arguments that are put around carbon. Yes, carbon is a necessary building block. Yes, it naturally occurs. But to suggest that, because of that, all forms of carbon in all quantities are reasonable is, in my view, specious and fallacious. It is the same as suggesting that there is lots of chlorine around because there is a lot of seawater and claiming that all forms of chlorine and all quantities of chlorine are acceptable—when that is wrong. I become very concerned by people who use those sorts of false sciences to attempt to mislead Australian consumers into thinking that it is safe to continue to do what we are doing. As Senator Troeth pointed out, there are very few scientists in this place. But I think we should be using the science that is available to behave responsibly, not to encourage fear or scepticism that is wrong and unnecessary.
I realise that, by supporting the amended CPRS, I will disappoint many constituents within Queensland. I would like to say to them that I am acting in what I believe is good faith. I am supporting the party policy of less than 24 hours ago. When I rose to speak to say that we should accept the amended bill, I was supporting party policy. I find that I can do nothing else except continue to do that. I would ask people to accept and understand that from the viewpoint of many, many constituents this is the way to go. If you look at the areas of Northern Queensland and around the Great Barrier Reef, there is immense concern that action must start globally and it must start quickly. Part of starting that global action is for us to start. I do not see any problems with us being a first adopter; in fact, I see benefits. I would very much like to thank my colleagues on this side for their understanding and support of my view over the last few days.
Lukebaby,
“Coz he hates faux sceptics guts and has assiduously avoided cooperating with people he distrusts” Aahahahahahaha Thats superb spin there Lukebaby. Sure you’re not a politician?
No, your Phil Jones just stonewalls and denys access to data when a request is made by someone for it. There are suggestions he has had some material deleted. He’s claiming he’s “lost” the raw data!!! (just too serious too laugh Lukebaby)
He replies to a request by Warwick Hughes…
“We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you,when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it.”
I’d describe that attitude as arrogant, egotistical, unprofessional,but most importantly,UNSCIENTIFIC.
Science is supposed to be transparent, inquiring, and open to scrutiny (by anyone).
This snivilling little taxpayer funded “scientist” deserves the gallows Lukebaby.
“We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you,when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it.”
Dr. Jones sums up the crux of his scientific corruption in a nutshell, Mack. Please provide links to that quote and post it everywhere.
“Luke, you are the Baghdad Bob of AGW.”
Hunter said that and I laughed. However, Luke’s really a very sad classic textbook case study. He has wasted his cred and he is transparent, naked. He deserves our sympathy, if he wasn’t so annoying.
Luke has all the psychological traits of what Eric Hoffer defines as a “True Believer.”
Luke’s a follower who needs to feel part of a dominate collective because his own personal self-esteem is too low to dare imagine himself as a unique, thinking individual. He needs to be told what to believe by a strong authority. He thrives on a combination of blind faith, verbal (perhaps physical?) abuse and the hope of redemption through an apocalypse myth.
The only way he can feed his anaemic sense of self-worth is by directing his self-loathing towards those outside his mob. He thrives on Us versus Them mentality.
It’s extremely important to Luke to scatologically dehumanise those outside his mob not only to enhance his own self-esteem, but to justify his own violently sociopathic fantasies. Thus, Luke while trolling imagines that he is a brave soldier slaying evil deniers in order to save the planet from a sci-fi fantasy apocalypse. It’s not so much a delusion as self-medication. In Luke’s ritual posts content is irrelevant to the form. It’s not important for Luke’s posts to be rational outside of his self-referential fantasy life. As such Luke’s posts always harm the rational aspects of AGW theory. But Luke can’t control his need to fill that black hole inside himself with the instant gratification that outwardly projecting his self-loathing provides
Of course, there isn’t really anything we can do to help Luke in his struggle to find his humanity. Only he knows how to save himself. We can only refuse to indulge in the debasement, anger and descent into irrationality, which Luke so eagerly wishes to evoke. Instead, Luke’s example should steady our resolve to live compassionate and rational lives, but for the grace of enlightened self-awareness there go us all.
We should walk away in silence.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMA33Bs3zAk&feature=related
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_True_Believer
Mack – if you look at Hughe’s try-ons I wouldn’t trust him to cross the street. Why would you want to actually help someone like Hughes? Jones was 100% spot-on but politically naive.
So now you want to hang Jones by the neck do you. You need a punch in the mouth mate you prick. What a fucking disgusting thing to say.
Unless I hear some tuts tuts from your colleagues here I assume you’re all vile filth then? What say you Cohers – are you rabble now a lynch mob? But it’s about the level of conduct of your denialist filth isn’t it.
Tell you what Mack – do another 100% independent analysis – bet your learn NOTHING NEW.
Oh that’s right I forgot – you’re a moronic fuckwit. It’s already been done.
D. Parker, C. Folland, A. Scaife, J. Knight, A. Colman, P. Baines, and B. Dong (2007), Decadal to multidecadal variability and the climate change background, J. Geophys. Res., 112, D18115, doi:10.1029/2007JD008411.
So there we have another excrementally boring rant from Wes. Content = zero.point.zero. But makes me smile Wessy Wonk – as all you’re doing is being towed around in my wake.
Yes walk away in silence indeed – shame on the denialists – now a lynch mob – piss off !
Are you one of the lynch mob Wes ?
Settle down there Lukebaby
You don’t really think I meant that (hanging)
You’re going to have to cut down on that dosage of speed , or whatever you’re on.
Cinders,
You haven’t been paying attention to the science (or the political zeitgeist that is building quietly under the clueless ABC radar.) If you get on the wrong side of this question, history will not forgive you. You’ll have to live with it the rest of your life. We will never forget.
Some points to ponder for pollies who are too busy to do their homework:
1. Climate change is an oxymoron. I.e. climate is always changing by default. The only thing unnatural would be a climate stasis. A climate stasis is akin to believing in creationism. The climate is always evolving in one direction or another. The science is not settled on which way climate is changing. Therefore, the only logical political initiative is to fund an inquiry into how research can be conducted to provide more robust climatological forecasts.
2. Climate is not amendable by acts of parliament until the science is settled… even then fine weather can not be legislated. Any politician who imagines he/she can control climate is real on about expanding the authoritarian powers of central government while reducing civil liberty. Perhaps Canberra should demonstrate that it is up to managing the Earth’s climate by first completing a divided highway between Sydney and Brisbane or properly funding rural fire fighters?
3. Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant. It’s the breath we exhale and plants inhale. Lead and chlorine are pollutants. Don’t debase the language by labeling an essential gas as a “pollutant” in emulation of the Obamamericans. That’s pseudo-science Orwellian fear-mongering and will eventually be exposed as such. You’ll live to regret demagoguery about “carbon pollution.”
4.Heads up! The tide has turned. Climategate has exposed the fraud, misconduct and cultural bias of the IPCC assessment on global warming. It’s worst than Watergate. Momentum is building. People are learning about it slowly, but relentless, thanks to the Internet. The outcome will be that both the Australian Broadcasting Corp and Rudd government suffer permanently damaged credibility. Both have lied to the Australian people. Worse, neither seems to realize that we know they lied, so they keep on lying. Dig a little deeper. History will be unkind.
It’s a little like Bush/Blair/Howard on the Iraqi WMD issue. They probably actually believed Saddam had WMD. That was the “consensus” among the experts… But he didn’t. So Bush “lied” and people definitely died. Of course, the coalition had the media against them. But do you want to risk in our post-mass media internet world that the truth won’t get out about the true extent of climate change fraud and how little we actually really understand about the Earth’s most complex nonlinear system? That would be punting that the ABC propaganda machine can control public opinion in post-2011 as well as they did in 2006.
5. When the Australian public eventually cottons on to the fact that 97% of the earth’s CO2 is produced by nature and therefore not taxable under any ETS scheme or that Australia produces less carbon emissions each year than the mere percentage of growth in the Chinese and Indian economies, there will be a change of government.
6. That double dissolution better happen sooner than later for Rudd’s sake. Time is not on side of the ETS supporters. Obama is coming!
7. Yes, we can! Change you can believe in…it’s coming your way.
(1) Yea – so? And gee Wes if you had to guess a direction for the centennial trend what might it be. mmmmm dat’s a hard un’
(2) Stupid – so stupid
(3) Yes we know
(4) Bunk – ya got nuttin’ except the sound of frustration with denialist filth tactics
(4.5) LOL – fancy claiming that – most denialists LOVE wars in the Middle East.
(5) Yea we know …. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
(6) Doesn’t matter – climate doesn’t care who’s in.
(7) Nah – probably no we can’t …. a bit of bad luck with climate events and all the rats will desert the sceptics in droves
Now I wonder how the January MSU is going. Given how the sceptic filth here has been assuring me we’re heading for an ice age??!?!
We hear it over and over again….
“Overwhelming evidence,” ” Overwhelming evidence.”
AAahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.
I tell ya I ain’t overwhelmed Lukebaby.
In fact I’m distinctly underwhelmed.
Things are looking even worse for NASA/GISS.
They (and the AGWers) have long been claiming that GISS is ‘transparent’ because the computer code for it uses for climate modeling is publicly available.
Turns out, the code it uses is not the code it’s published! What’s more, the code it uses is designed to generate heat by default!
See, “Chiefio asks: why does GISS make us see red? Is the NULL default infinite hot?”,
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/01/chiefio-asks-why-does-giss-make-us-see-red/
Talk about caught red-handed!
HAHAHAHAHA!
Some good advice for Luke & Co. from Business Green:
‘How to fight the climate change backlash’, Feb. 2, 2010
http://www.businessgreen.com/business-green/comment/2257197/fight-climate-change-backlash
‘The golden rule of challenging a backlash is to return to the fundamental issues that originally inspired action – to get back to brass tacks.’
It’s an interesting list of ‘brass tacks’, but basically, it’s (1) ignore all evidence contrary to AGW dogma, and (2) bear in mind that the whole point is to create a ‘low-carbon economy’.
Oh, and by the way, this advice is for Green business leaders.
If you really believe that we have a AGW problem the only obvious solution is to invent new technology to replace coal , oil and gas, in that order.
All your spending must first be directed at replacing coal, the main energy production underpinning our high standard of living.
One western country France produces around 75% of it’s energy from Nuclear, so we therefore have this example to look at.
The examinanation should compare energy prices paid by French customers and business against coal energy production in other first world countries.
If the difference isn’t too extreme then perhaps the other countries should gradually phase out coal and phase in nuclear.
If private companies are given solid tax incentives I’m sure new generation nuclear power stations could be up and running inside 10 to 15 years.
In the meantime where possible try and bring on a few geothermal stations to prove up this technology as well. In Australia we have very shallow hot rock deposits that should be much cheaper to drill than in many other countries around the world.
Also put just a few billion $ into new battery cell research, if a Tesla roadster can easily travel 400+ Klms per charge now, what can we expect say in 10 years time with some new nano technology already allowing recharge times as low as 10 minutes.
Remember the average travel distance
per day per car is very low, something around 100Klms . ( I think)
I’m not convinced any of the above is necessary but it beats the hell out of putting a price on carbon that will ruin our economies and export jobs to China or India and will certainly make zero difference to CC.
Neville – err YES indeed !!!!! agree
Neville,
I agree with you — until you get to ‘private companies are given solid tax incentives’.
AGW is not about CO2 or global warming, not really. It’s about ‘solid tax incentives’ for ‘private companies’.
That’s where Gore, Pachauri, carbon traders, people who convert food to fuel, and all the other assorted AGW crooks are salivating.
Trouble is Neville it’s dreaming. Geothermal is racked full of problems, all they’ve achieved so far is an unreliable power station for Innaminka, solar thermal is the same – all the talk from the great solar hope, Ausra, about powering the US 24/7 has disappeared and they now tout themselves as a steam generator or an addon to supplement coal or gas power stations. http://www.ausra.com/
Atlantis is boldly pushing their new tidal powered underwater turbine as the largest in the world – 1MW – give me a break! http://www.atlantisresourcescorporation.com/media/news/1-latest/93-atlantis-to-test-worlds-biggest-tidal-turbine.html
The fact is there is no alternative to coal in the short term and Nuclear is our only alternative solution.
All this talk about China increasing alternative energy is just talk – they want to get into the alt market so they can sell wind turbines and solar panels to the greenies in the west who still believe, like Luke, that they can compete with coal – meanwhile they are building 20 new nuclear power stations and still 80% of it’s power comes from coal..
Here’s a letter to an aussie paper by a T L Cardwell regarding coal power:
The Editor
The Morning Bulletin.
I have sat by for a number of years frustrated at the rubbish being put forth about carbon dioxide emissions, thermal coal fired power stations and renewable energy and the ridiculous Emissions Trading Scheme.
Frustration at the lies told (particularly during the election) about global pollution. Using Power Station cooling towers for an example. The condensation coming from those cooling towers is as pure as that that comes out of any kettle.
Frustration about the so called incorrectly named man made ‘carbon emissions’ which of course is Carbon Dioxide emissions and what it is supposedly doing to our planet.
Frustration about the lies told about renewable energy and the deliberate distortion of renewable energy and its ability to replace fossil fuel energy generation. And frustration at the ridiculous carbon credit programme which is beyond comprehension.
And further frustration at some members of the public who have not got a clue about thermal Power Stations or Renewable Energy. Quoting ridiculous figures about something they clearly have little or no knowledge of.
First coal fired power stations do NOT send 60 to 70% of the energy up the chimney. The boilers of modern power station are 96% efficient and the exhaust heat is captured by the economisers and reheaters and heat the air and water before entering the boilers.
The very slight amount exiting the stack is moist as in condensation and CO2. There is virtually no fly ash because this is removed by the precipitators or bagging plant that are 99.98% efficient. The 4% lost is heat through boiler wall convection.
Coal fired Power Stations are highly efficient with very little heat loss and can generate massive amount of energy for our needs. They can generate power at efficiency of less than 10,000 b.t.u. per kilowatt and cost wise that is very low.
The percentage cost of mining and freight is very low. The total cost of fuel is 8% of total generation cost and does NOT constitute a major production cost.
As for being laughed out of the country, China is building multitudes of coal fired power stations because they are the most efficient for bulk power generation.
We have, like, the USA, coal fired power stations because we HAVE the raw materials and are VERY fortunate to have them. Believe me no one is laughing at Australia – exactly the reverse, they are very envious of our raw materials and independence.
The major percentage of power in Europe and U.K. is nuclear because they don’t have the coal supply for the future.
Yes it would be very nice to have clean, quiet, cheap energy in bulk supply. Everyone agrees that it would be ideal. You don’t have to be a genius to work that out. But there is only one problem—It doesn’t exist.
Yes – there are wind and solar generators being built all over the world but they only add a small amount to the overall power demand.
The maximum size wind generator is 3 Megawatts, which can rarely be attained on a continuous basis because it requires substantial forces of wind. And for the same reason only generate when there is sufficient wind to drive them. This of course depends where they are located but usually they only run for 45% -65% of the time, mostly well below maximum capacity. They cannot be relied for a ‘base load’ because they are too variable. And they certainly could not be used for load control.
The peak load demand for electricity in Australia is approximately 50,000 Megawatts and only small part of this comes from the Snowy Hydro Electric System (The ultimate power Generation) because it is only available when water is there from snow melt or rain. And yes they can pump it back but it cost to do that. (Long Story).
Tasmania is very fortunate in that they have mostly hydro electric generation because of their high amounts of snow and rainfall. They also have wind generators (located in the roaring forties) but that is only a small amount of total power generated.
Based on a average generating output of 1.5 megawatts (of unreliable power) you would require over 33,300 wind generators.
As for solar power generation much research has been done over the decades and there are two types. Solar thermal generation and Solar Electric generation but in each case they cannot generate large amounts of electricity.
Any clean, cheap energy is obviously welcomed but they would NEVER have the capability of replacing Thermal power generation. So get your heads out of the clouds, do some basic mathematics and look at the facts not going off with the fairies (or some would say the extreme greenies.)
We are all greenies in one form or another and care very much about our planet. The difference is most of us are realistic. Not in some idyllic utopia where everything can be made perfect by standing around holding a banner and being a general pain in the backside.
Here are some facts that will show how ridiculous this financial madness the government is following. Do the simple maths and see for yourselves.
According to the ‘believers’ the CO2 in air has risen from .034% to .038% in air over the last 50 years.
To put the percentage of Carbon Dioxide in air in a clearer perspective;
If you had a room 12 ft x 12 ft x 7 ft or 3.7 mtrs x 3.7 mtrs x 2.1 mtrs, the area carbon dioxide would occupy in that room would be .25m x .25m x .17m or the size of a large packet of cereal.
Australia emits 1 percent of the world’s total carbon Dioxide and the government wants to reduce this by twenty percent or reduce emissions by .2 percent of the world’s total CO2 emissions.
What effect will this have on existing CO2 levels?
By their own figures they state the CO2 in air has risen from .034% to .038% in 50 years.
Assuming this is correct, the world CO2 has increased in 50 years by .004 percent.
Per year that is .004 divided by 50 = .00008 percent. (Getting confusing -but stay with me).
Of that because we only contribute 1% our emissions would cause CO2 to rise .00008 divided by 100 = .0000008 percent.
Of that 1%, we supposedly emit, the governments wants to reduce it by 20% which is 1/5th of .0000008 = .00000016 percent effect per year they would have on the world CO2 emissions based on their own figures.
That would equate to a area in the same room, as the size of a small pin.!!!
For that they have gone crazy with the ridiculous trading schemes, Solar and roofing installations, Clean coal technology. Renewable energy, etc, etc.
How ridiculous is that.
The cost to the general public and industry will be enormous. Cripple and even closing some smaller business.
T.L. Cardwell
To the Editor I thought I should clarify. I spent 25 years in the Electricity Commission of NSW working, commissioning and operating the various power units. My last was the 4 X 350 MW Munmorah Power Station near Newcastle. I would be pleased to supply you any information you may require.
The global meltdown of AGW is spectacular, with the press and the blogosphere ripping apart the IPCC bit by bit.
Which means, there’s a welter of commentary everywhere, nearly all thumbs-down on AGW. Bulk Media hasn’t quite caught up yet, but they will.
Amidst the welter, there’s a gem:
“Climategate takes steam out of global warming litigation”, Keith Loria, publicnuisancewire.com, February 3, 2010, http://publicnuisancewire.com/stories/211852-climategate-takes-steam-out-of-global-warming-litigation
Pull quote:
‘Chris Horner, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute and author of Red Hot Lies: How Global Warming Alarmists Use Threats, Fraud, and Deception to Keep You Misinformed, says these revelations may prompt courts to refuse to take judicial notice of any claims attributed to the IPCC.’
The USA is rife with AGW-motivated lawsuits launched against everyone other than God. The news of Climategate will totally stall these stupid lawsuits as each petitioner is forced to prove AGW in court. With discredited IPCC reports, this will be difficult.
Maybe the petitioners could call Luke as a witness and all would be well with their cases.
No, probably not.
here’s another one Schiller
http://www.thesun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/news/papercolumnists/donaldmacleod/2831667/Inconveniently-for-the-experts-global-warming-is-a-con.html#comment-rig
Janama I’ve seen that letter by Cardwell and I’m not convinced by everything I’ve written above but it’s pure commonsense compared to the krudd and wong garbage trotted out by the msm.
It’s now official — it takes one decade to fix bogus science.
‘A major British medical journal on Tuesday retracted a flawed study linking the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine to autism and bowel disease.” (1)
‘Since the controversial paper was published, British parents abandoned the vaccine in droves, leading to a resurgence of measles.’
Junk science kills, no doubt about it, and I won’t add more footnotes.
Headline, February 2020: ‘IPCC withdraws claims, millions died in pointless climate programs’
Luke would be proud. Overpopulation amongst the darkies, he would say, is no loss. After all, they can’t afford to donate to Greenpeace or to purchase Carbon Credits. Economically meaningless entities.
———
1. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/02/02/health/main6166269.shtml
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2010/how-not-to-respond-to-skeptics/#more-9129
What odds that Luke takes any notice?
Just in case anyone’s interested, Lord Monckton will be on the 7.30 report tonight, let’s hope red kerry doesn’t do the usual pig ignorant down market interview he’s famous for, one can only hope.
I hope Kerry is up to speed on world opinion.
Editorial in the Washington Times.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/…home_headlines
here’s another one
http://www.thesun.co.uk/scotsol/home…ml#comment-rig
and yet another one
http://www.businessgreen.com/busines…hange-backlash
oops another one
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen…-weather-fraud
they just keep coming
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/SC1002/S00004.htm
” Just in case anyone’s interested, Lord Monckton will be on the 7.30 report tonight, let’s hope red kerry doesn’t do the usual pig ignorant down market interview he’s famous for, one can only hope.”
I agree… whats the betting that O’brien does his usual obnoxious tricks of asking questions of people he is obviously biased against, and then doesnt let the victim answer, by talking over the top of, and throwing in furphys that have little to do with the original question.
All the usual ABC lefty journo tricks. But OTOH he might have met his match with Monckton.
Jamana
You links above are incomplete and therefore dont conect..all but one are duds.
Sorry Malcolm try these
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/02/osama-and-obama-on-global-warming/?feat=home_headlines
http://www.thesun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/news/papercolumnists/donaldmacleod/2831667/Inconveniently-for-the-experts-global-warming-is-a-con.html#comment-rig
http://www.businessgreen.com/business-green/comment/2257197/fight-climate-change-backlash
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/01/dispute-weather-fraud
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/SC1002/S00004.htm
We should count our blessings. Smart people like Monckton et al on one side, and railroad engineers and people like Luke who say f**k all the time, on the other.
Maybe what we need is a ‘global stupiding’ scare, where we could raise some money to pay stupid people to shut up and weave baskets or something. Luke & Co. would buy into that for sure. We could tell them it saves CO2 or something.
and yet another one from MSM
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10623715
Usual distortions by the ABC in the 7.30 report. pictures of polar bears with no ice, chinese pollution, comment that monkton disputes the planet has warmed and equal / more time given to believers. As usual the ABC should be ashamed.
I wish that Ben McNeil would stop his bleating about how much science has been done by him and his colleagues and how offended we are that people without their exalted qualiifcations and brain power should not be questioning it.
Oh diddums ..tough. Pity that the science is so sullied with malpractice and atrocious management at the IPCC level of which McNeil was an expert reviewer of two main chapters.
The ABC couldnt help itself and just had to present film clips of fires and polar bears etc ,as Tony Robertson has highlighted above..but at least O’brien behaved himself
Luke, you got any cupboard skeletons like this one of Schneider’s:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/173/3992/138
Kerry simply wimped out while “Our ABC” turned the dogs on Moncton with no right of reply.
“In simple terms Moncton disputes the earth is warming and that humans are to blame.”
What absolute lies! He does not claim that. In fact quire the opposite. He simply claims that climate sensitivity is just a fraction of that claimed by the warmers and this is now being borne out in their own studies.
It was a very dishonest portrayal of Monckton as was only to be expected.
SD; excellent find! I’ll bookmark the Schneider effort; the log decline of ^ACO2 indeed.
Wes George, re my post at the top of the page, these were not my words but those of Sen Sue Boyce on why she crossed the floor to vote for the ETS last year.
There were from the third reading speech of the CPRS bill, and as such your points should be directed to her office. Contact details provided in the post above mine.
However, now the opposition has an alternative policy there should be no need to cross the floor.
Well as always – none of these TV interviews reveal anything for anyone seriously interested. A few drought pictures and sundry polar bears – yawn.
You’d need a multi-week series with a full-on exchange to get anywhere. “Climate Wars”.
But you’d have to admit Monky is a great showman for the over 50s rednecks out there. He tells you all just what you want to hear and panders to your inner needs. For anyone with half a brain though it’s patronising sophistry. Barf !
I reckon none of our politicians have a clue about climate change. Neither does the Chief Scientist.
It’s time to move on to the obvious question nobody anywhere is asking.
UK officials have decided that the Climategate criminals broke the law by refusing to respond to FOI requests. That part’s settled.
Obvious question: will they now comply with the FOI law?
There seems to be an assumption that the ‘liberated’ emails and data render those unfulfilled FOI requests moot. If we take the AGWers at their word, and the emails and data were ‘hacked by foreign spies to derail the Copenhagen summit’, that’s a poor proxy for compliance.
Did someone place an FOI request for ‘information that will derail the Copenhagen summit’? I doubt it, but even if they did, that’s still a *very* incomplete disclosure.
There’s more smoking guns to come — and the world (or at least, I) am waiting to see what comes of those FOI requests.
Governments and participating organizations are invited to nominate experts who can act as Coordinating Lead Authors (CLA), Lead Authors (LA) and Review Editors (RE) for the next IPCC report, AR5. The nomination period is open from: 15 January to 12 March 2010. (1)
You can nominate experts online. (2)
In a letter to ‘International and other organizations’ dated Jan. 15, (3) the IPCC says that “The role of the IPCC is to assess scientific, technical and socio-economic information, based on
peer reviewed and internationally available literature. Therefore, the IPCC requires that the
nominee(s) have appropriate expertise.”
One has to wonder if, this next time around, they will be accepting ‘Expert Reviewers’ from Greenpeace, WWF, IUCN, Union of Concerned Scientists, etc. Or, for that matter, any skeptics.
————————
1. http://www.ipcc.ch/activities/activities.htm
2. http://www.ipcc.ch/activities/activitiesar5nomination.htm
3. http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ar5/Web%20version%20-%20ORG%20Nomination%20of%20Authors%20for%20the%20AR5.pdf
“Usual distortions by the ABC in the 7.30 report. pictures of polar bears with no ice, chinese pollution, comment that monkton disputes the planet has warmed and equal / more time given to believers. As usual the ABC should be ashamed”
Not balanced enough Toby? Someone else should do the blow by blow timing, ie min v min for each side because I reckon it was fair enough given Monckton’s other recent exposure on our ABC
http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/
“It was a very dishonest portrayal of Monckton as was only to be expected”
SD, that interview actually softened my opinion of the guy
Gavin – we have seen all those warmists and their opinions on their own interview programs – why did the ABC suddenly need to have all the warmists opinions during a supposed interview with Lord Monckton? It wasn’t an interview, it was a fraud!
As Andrew Bolt has noticed:
The three warmists get to say 412 words (not including those of the reporter or of IPPC chairman Rajendra Pachauri); Monckton himself is permitted 401.
Gavin the fact that you could see no imbalance in the supposed “monkton” interview, says a lot about your own bias….if we needed a further example.
Do you think if an interview had been done with ;
1. stern or garnaut, would they have balanced it with the majority of economists who think there economics and cost benefit analysis belongs where the sun don t shine?
2. If they had interviewed gore or hansen or any of the disciples of AGW would they have allowed any, let alone equal time to sceptics?
wake up get those blinkers off and smell the whiff of common sense that is at last entering the debate.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/how_the_730_report_nobbled_monckton/
Andrew Bolts assessment of last nights ABC so called interview with Monckton is very incisive..jounos judging journos stuff, and exposing the games that were played by their ABC.
Isnt there a theme here.
Publically funded media outlet protecting publically funded science ..thats peddling a sullied and poorly managed science paradigm that wants the keys to the Treasury based upon highly contentious material because they failed to do their jobs properly..and that includes the IPCC crapola.
What sort of organisation is it that still tolerates being chaired by a crook with innumerble conflicts of interest and side lines that includes being a peddler of cheap porn..and they all remain silent ..including the politically appointed Chief Scientist
Can any of these people do their jobs in a professional and responsible manner just daring to tell the truth..and just for once act in our best interests.
What a fraudster you are gavin, as Bolt has pointed out why couldn’t Monckton have the normal interview allowed to all of the alarmists, without stupid interventions by dummies who have little knowledge of CC but are professional fraudsters.
The abc wouldn’t allow a normal interview repeatedly given to rudd, wong, sackett, flannery,stern, gore ,connor, o’brien, climate institute, greenpeace, aca, etc etc etc.
What a giant bloody con, but it just underlines their insecurity and complete lack of genuine argument.
If Monckton is such a dummy and knows so little about the AGW fraud then obviously you would get him on and let him make a fool of himself, amazingly this never ever occurs at your abc, what a corrupt mob.
Thank our lucky stars that this total fraud is now unwinding in the msm overseas even in the guardian and some other leftwing media that have previously promoted the same fraud for years.
Even Anthony Watts was asked to submit an opinion at the guardian and has now been approached by the bbc, WHY THE CHANGE?
.
Must admit I agree with luke and his assessment of our chief scientist and others on the alarmist side, they sure are dullards.
As I’ve said before, you can print endless hectares of newsprint or fill up the blogosphere with arguments for and against AGW but you can’t deny facts and the truth.
Irrespective whether you believe or disbelieve AGW, the IEA is telling us that by 2030 the OECD countries will be producing less than 15 billion tonnes of ghg’s while the non OECD countries will then be producing more than 25 billion tonnes.
There within those two numbers ends the AGW argument, which is meaningless without the advent of new technology.
What great bullduster you are too Neville. Listen to yourself – “giant bloody con”, “total fraud”, “corrupt mob” etc. hohohohohohohoho – I thought you were describing the denialist filth !?
Moncky hasn’t faced a decent interview with nerdy domain experts either. The sort of people you don’t see, who shun any publicity at all, but have knowledge in depth.
It’s just TV Neville – you’re having yourself on if you think you’re learning anything on this issue from the msm or ABC grab interviews …. it’s all just razzamataz ! It’s show business.
I think it’s absolutely fabulous to see the media giving Moncky and Wattzy a run. The public will remember when they see how they have been conned. We’ll see who the real fraudsters are soon enough.
And tides go in and out. Just a run of bad weather, some ice melt and higher temps and the media will all run back down the other end of the boat again (regardless of the merit of those weather events in the longer scale picture).
So if you like – sack the IPCC chairman, rerun all the temperature analyses, review and rewrite the all IPCC reports. Do you really really think they will change much at all. Of course not. You don’t want to listen. (AND you haven’t even read them – HAVE YOU? – of course not)
Something for both alamists and sceptics,
A small snippet:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8491154.stm
What we need is a new discourse which acknowledges the majority view on climate science, accepts uncertainties and encourages debate among scientists over their observations of the world – a debate framed in the language of risk and uncertainty in which economics and societal values play a central role.
Will we see such a debate? Don’t bet on it. There is more fun to be had for some journalists when combatants are throwing bricks at each other. The pity is that it’s public understanding of climate change that’s being damaged, and maybe the planet as well.
Regarding my comment above (February 4th, 2010 at 2:24 am) I think we should nominate Jennifer Marohasy as a Review Editor for the next IPCC report.
Nominations close March 12 (again, see above).
P.S. Luke, not even Pachauri has scrutinized, much less, read the IPCC reports. “You can’t expect me to be personally responsible for every word in a 3,000 page report,” he said. Well, with the WWF and Greenpeace supplying ‘expert’ editorial oversight, who needs to read the durn thing? Once we know it’s Green, that’s good enough for anyone. HAHAHAHAHAHA
Proof that Schiller is a complete imbecile:
“Once we know it’s Green, that’s good enough for anyone. HAHAHAHAHAHA”
We know you wouldn’t have read them either Schiller otherwise you wouldn’t make such blatantly STUPID comments.
And you know Schiller all manner of sceptics have all provided “expert” (hohohohoho) advice in IPCC reviews. (Barf !) Provided some of the great laughs of all time.
You’re such a shonk Schiller.
Luke you’ve been caught redhanded as a kooky whacko when you thought AGW might have caused the 1940’s drought , what an embarrassing stupid thing to say.
In other words a 5% increase of co2 by say 1930 could cause a drought in Australia in the 1940’s, what a loon. A higher level of co2 caused incredible droughts in the 1950’s and 1970’s as well I suppose, what an embarrassing fool.
Well, folks, there you have it.
Luke is on the run, fleeing for cover, abandoning the ‘settled science’!
We see Luke warmly [sic] embracing this quote:
‘What we need is a new discourse which acknowledges the majority view on climate science … a debate framed in the language of risk and uncertainty in which economics and societal values play a central role.’
Great! Let’s take a public vote on
– whether the glaciers are disappearing
– whether nearly half of the Amazon will become a savannah
– whether warming precedes increasing CO2 or not
– whether NOAA/GISS surface ‘measurements’ are more accurate than satellites
– whether there was actually an Ice Age with higher CO2
– whether there was a MWP/was the ‘hockey stick’ accurate
Whoopee! A public vote will ‘settle the science’, and then ‘economics and societal values’ can ‘play a central role.’ Like in all those luscious subsidies for wind farms and turning food into ‘biofuel’.
This is all so sordid and tawdry. Some day the world will wake up and discover AGW is all about subsidy money-grubbers and the politicians who abet them.
Sheesh, Luke. When you use social attitudes and pecuniary incentives to measure climate change, you’re flat busted.
Luke,
Regarding your assessment of my remarks as ‘stupid’, [all caps omitted] I would point out that a search of your remarks here leads to a count of the word ‘s**t’ in 34 of your posts, and the word, ‘f**k’ at 97 of them.
The asterisks were not part of the search string, i.e., as ‘wildcards’. The asterisks are merely to avoid engaging in the foul language you seem to prefer.
People who believe that saying ‘f**k’ and ‘s**t’ is somehow persuasive need to adjust their notions.
Such as you, Luke.
I’m still thinking that Exxon is paying you to make AGWers look like foul-mouthed idiots. Even though the AGWers seem to do that voluntarily, out of some intrinsic exuberance that surpasses the least notion of civility.
Now guys, occasionally luke does say something reasonable or at least interesting and this claim by him:
“a debate framed in the language of risk and uncertainty in which economics and societal values play a central role.”
has the the virtue of being a concession that there is no science supporting AGW but that it should continue to play a part in shaping economic and social values because of the precautionary principle; the PP is of course not a scientific indice but it does have great merit in shaping social parameters; religion used it to generate social conformity for yonks so it is no wonder that the boy-wonder should extol its merits; unfortunately it will still blur the real debate that humanity should be having and that is how humanity should interact with nature; that vital debate has been hijacked by green misanthropes and malthusians who have simply taken the gaia path and declared humanity to be of inferior and even destructive value to the idea of pristine nature, an idea I explore in these 2 posts:
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2008/12/ten-worst-man-made-disasters/
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/05/defining-the-greens-part-9/
‘What we need is a new discourse which acknowledges the majority view on climate science … a debate framed in the language of risk and uncertainty in which economics and societal values play a central role.’
we just need the MSM to allow those with a different opinion to the warmists to have a voice as Alan Jones allowed this morning regarding the GBR.
Check out the interview with Prof Peter Ridd on his page posted today
http://www.2gb.com/index.php?option=com_homepage&id=1&Itemid=44
it starts 1/4 way in.
Luke,
Amongst your many entertaining rants, there is occasional truth. I agree that a new climate discourse is needed. I would say that there is a need for a whole new climate epistemology, based on consilient evidence from natural science, social science and humanities, especially history (MWP and LIA?).
I say this because, in a recent writing exercise in my own field, I have concluded that there is a need for a whole new bushfire epistemology, as outlined above. Natural science is valuable, but not infallible. It must not be seen as the dominant form of knowledge. For example, the economics, psychology, and history of bushfire matter too. ‘Scientism’ in bushfire management has led to social and natural disasters, due to too much leaf litter and bark lying about, when history tells us that this is a sure recipe for disaster, no matter what climate does.
The more wooden headed climate scientists (and journalists, and bushfire ‘experts’) might note the wisdom of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences:
‘…But science offers only one window on human experience. While upholding the honor of their profession, scientists must seek to avoid putting scientific knowledge on a pedestal above knowledge gained through other means.’
I note that Lord Monckton seems to have a good grounding in the humanities, as well as other fields. Perhaps this explains his command of language, and rhetoric. His exopthalmia may also have a hypnotic effect. Is it due to thyroid deficiency? Just asking.
Lord Monckton apparently suffers from Graves Disease as that bastion of measured reporting and impartial responsibility to the populace, the age, kindly highlighted today;
http://www.theage.com.au/environment/mad-monk-meets-monckton-20100203-ndl9.html
Ah…poor fellow. Probably the result of working for Maggie Thatcher.
Isn’t it paradoxical that Monckton, peer of the realm, inadvertantly champions the rights of blue- collar workers for their jobs. ie coalminers etc.
It must also be refreshing to attend a “conference” laden with optimism rather than doom.(about the planet)
In addition to all this there is an element of rebellion against the establishment. Who would have thought that you are the establishment Luke.,and us 50+s are kicking against you.
Yeah, poor Luke, born in unexciting times and just another brick in wall of the establishment.
Come and join the revolution Lukebaby!!! 🙂
Mack February 4th, 2010 at 6:49 pm
“Come and join the revolution Lukebaby!!! :)”
Maybe the on-line display is because he thought he was in it??
Schiller – what fucking shit !
Don’t see me as trying to persuade you – it’s simply a combination of frustration and derision.
But maaaatttteeee – as a denialist you’re not very good are you. I mean this is bummper car bullshit.
OK – sigh ….
– whether the glaciers are disappearing
Yep most are. So says world glacier body. Some aren’t. Needs detailed analysis on some. Pine Island Glacier in Antarctica should have you worried especially.
– whether nearly half of the Amazon will become a savannah
dunno – but Amazon rainfall may be compromised. More fires.
– whether warming precedes increasing CO2 or not
*** Oh come – you mean in ice age cycles – WHAT ELSE WOULD YOU EXPECT ! SHOWS NOTHING. IF YOU THINK IT SHOWS SOMETHING YOU’RE DENSER THAN A BRICK.
– whether NOAA/GISS surface ‘measurements’ are more accurate than satellites
Well they don’t measure the same area do they doofus? They measure different things. But isn’t it REMARKABLE that they follow the same pattern. HOW CAN IT BE SCHILLER?
As does CRU – as does the two separate SST analyses. Fuck me !
– whether there was actually an Ice Age with higher CO2
OH DEAR – hmmmm dat’s a hard un. Tell me Schiller if solar output was 4% lower have you done the maths. OF COURSE NOT ! You moron.
– whether there was a MWP/was the ‘hockey stick’ accurate
Yes an MWP, exact extent and temperature debatable. Even McIntyre doesn’t know. BUT – how about them thar megadroughts in USA, Africa and China. You’ll love it ! Hockey Stick in heavy question IMO.
As for biofuels – hmmmm – is the engineer who builds a road responsible for someone driving on it with illegal drugs – of course not. Inappropriate market responses are irrelevant to the climate science. IRRELEVANT.
Jeez Schiller – you need to try what’s called thinking and reading…. Fuck !
No Neville – why do you keep lying. I have said continually “made a contribution to the 1940s drought”. But mate we know you’re thick and don’t get anything. But hey if you’re gonna have a go – don’t verbal me eh?
But for the record logic is this:
The on-going drought is explained by the strengthening of the STR
(80% of the rainfall signal reproduced by the STR-I anomalies)
•
The STR is responding to global temperature of the planet
(two periods of warming during the 20th century as well as one of stabilisation)
(not by chance since it is reproduced by a fully coupled GCM –ensemble-)
•
Anthropogenic emissions are needed for a model to reproduce the STR intensification
(as well as a long list of regional changes which resemble the observations:
regional temperature rise, MSLP build up, the rainfall decline: autumn in SWEA)
•
The WWII drought is the first protracted drought in SEA partly due to G.W.
(albeit only 30% can be explained by the STR-I linked to G.W.)
Now you’ll just roll your eyes and go back to divining chook guts – but that’s your loss.
No Cohenite – a few flesh wounds – but nothing major conceded at all.
And as I have said all along – let’s not be unfair to the science – rail against the ETS, Al Gore, Kevin and the 2 Pennies as much as you like. Really all the pollies are crap on climate change knowledge.
However, as Bazza has often tried to tell you – it’s a serious risk analysis issue. And Bertrand’s untangling of the Murray drought is quite concerning to anyone with half a brain.
But anyway with El Nino and IODs and the STR wreaking natural havoc surely an understanding of climate is important for reasons other than AGW.
IPCC is busted again!
This time, for wildly exaggerating the area of the Netherlands that is below sea level!
Another IPCC hit: Netherlands 20%, not 50%, below sea level
posted: 2010-02-04 08:25:00
http://patriotroom.com/article/another-ipcc-hit-netherlands-20-not-50-below-sea-level
“Dutch Environment Minister Jacqueline Cramer has ordered a thorough investigation into the quality of the climate reports which she uses to base her policies on.”
According to the European Union, about a quarter of the country is “at or below sea level”.
http://europa.eu/abc/european_countries/eu_members/netherlands/index_en.htm
Here’s what the IPCC did: Over half of Holland is below sea level.
Here’s a map: http://www.worldatlas.com/aatlas/infopage/holland.htm
But Holland is only a part of the Netherlands. Holland consists of North Holland, at 2,663 sq. km., and South Holland, at 2,877 sq. km. While all of the Netherlands is 33,935 sq. km.
http://www.statoids.com/unl.html
What’s more, Holland is the *lowest* part of the Netherlands.
Here’s a topo map of the Netherlands:
http://www.worldatlas.com/webimage/countrys/europe/lgcolor/nlcolor.htm
So the IPCC, true to form, ‘extrapolated’ the altitude of the lowest part of the Netherlands (about 20 percent of the country) to the entire country!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Hey Lukey! Maybe we should have a ‘public debate’ to get a ‘consensus view’ on the geography of the Netherlands! No altimeters allowed! HAHAHAHAHAHA
Hey Schiller – tell us – does a right wing think tank pay your salary – is it one who like to refer to Africans as “Darkies”.
And hey need we look any further than the corrupt campaign to exaggerate anti-IPCC claims. Indeed an inquiry into sceptic conspiracy is now being called for.
Deltoid reports:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/leakegate.php#more
“The IPCC statement on the Amazon is correct, but the citations listed in the Rowell and Moore report were incomplete. (The authors of this report interviewed several researchers, including the author of this note, and had originally cited the IPAM website where the statement was made that 30 to 40% of the forests of the Amazon were susceptible to small changes in rainfall). Our 1999 article (Nepstad et al. 1999) estimated that 630,000 km2 of forests were severely drought stressed in 1998, as Rowell and Moore correctly state, but this forest area is only 15% of the total area of forest in the Brazilian Amazon. In another article published in Nature, in 1994, we used less conservative assumptions to estimate that approximately half of the forests of the Amazon depleted large portions of their available soil moisture during seasonal or episodic drought (Nepstad et al. 1994). After the Rowell and Moore report was released in 2000, and prior to the publication of the IPCC AR4, new evidence of the full extent of severe drought in the Amazon was available. In 2004, we estimated that half of the forest area of the Amazon Basin had either fallen below, or was very close to, the critical level of soil moisture below which trees begin to die in 1998. This estimate incorporated new rainfall data and results from an experimental reduction of rainfall in an Amazon forest that we had conducted with funding from the US National Science Foundation (Nepstad et al. 2004). Field evidence of the soil moisture critical threshold is presented in Nepstad et al. 2007.
Leake deliberately concealed the fact that error in the IPCC was a missing cite, rather than a factual error. Furthermore, despite criticizing the IPCC for allegedly relying on “green campaigners who had little scientific expertise” Leake based his story on “Research by Richard North”. Richard North is part of a right wing think tank which describes his background like this:”
Maybe Ollie North is back ? hahahahahahaa
AND Schiller having been exposed for bogus claims in his last post couldn’t even defend the ground. Pathetic.
“Leake deliberately concealed the fact that error in the IPCC was a missing cite.”
Luke, I promise you, I will never do such ‘deliberate concealment’. I freely admit that the IPCC is ‘missing cites’ everywhere!
HAHAHAHAHA Seriously, do you actually consider the ‘missing cite’ argument to be persuasive?
And exactly what bogus claims did I make about the geography of the Netherlands?
Luke, you’re getting a bit frantic, aren’t you?
Schiller – Luke with his finger in the dyke?
http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/5745566/by-the-waters-of-denial-they-sit-and-weep.thtml
“By the waters of denial they sit and weep… (Melanie Phillips)
Climate Change Secretary Ed Miliband issued a warning that recent controversies over scientific data must not be allowed to undermine efforts to tackle global warming. Mr Miliband said the evidence that man-made climate change was occurring was ‘overwhelming’ and was backed by the vast majority of scientists.
Miliband resembles one of those people who are discovered living in the jungle decades after the end of a war without realising it is all over. Someone should sit him down with a nice strong cup of hot sweet Fairtrade tea and a blanket over his shoulders, and embark him without delay upon a course of post-traumatic stress counselling.
An awful lot of reputations are about to be reduced to, um, carbon – his included.”
Monkton’s Press Club address is here
http://www.a-pac.tv/
Well, folks, ‘the fix’ is in place for the Penn State investigation of Michael Mann.
First off, the ‘investigators’ looked at this wording from the Code of Conduct:
“research misconduct does not include disputes regarding honest error or honest differences in interpretations or judgments of data, and is not intended to resolve bona fide scientific disagreement or debate.”
However, the investigators extended that a tad bit. Not wanting to involve themselves in ‘the debate’, they excused themselves from considering that Mann’s climate model generates a hockey stick even with random data.
With their approach, any halfway clever fraud in a contentious field is cool and OK. And writing crooked code is, by any measure, a halfway clever fraud.
The ‘investigating’ committee concluded:
“In sum, the overriding sentiment of this committee, which is composed of University administrators, is that allegation #4 revolves around the question of accepted faculty conduct surrounding scientific discourse and thus merits a review by a committee of faculty scientists. Only with such a review will the academic community and other interested parties likely feel that Penn State has discharged it responsibility on this matter.” (1)
So, ‘conduct surrounding scientific discourse’ is the hot hot issue!
They’ll likely reprimand him for being too frank and plain-spoken. Which is no offense at all — it’s a repeat of the (by now) stale, tired defense by the AGWers that ‘the emails only show scientists arguing heatedly’ or some such rot.
AGWers always rely on the emails to defend themselves. To be sure, there’s lots of bad news for them in the emails, but the smoking gun has always been, and will always be, in what they told the computers to do with the data.
Like ‘press enter and generate global warming’. Sheesh. What rot.
——————-
1. http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/psu10-feb3-findings_mann_inquiry.pdf
Luke you are a tedious fraud, while you can argue ad nauseum about this or that drought or lack of rainfall and make zero historical sense, you can’t beat that 15/25 ratio of real world data from the IEA.
If the developing world is producing 10 giga tonnes more GHG’s than the developed world by 2030 then your total argument is fraudulent nonsense.
In simple language you can’t reduce GHG’s or change a thing without the advent of new technology plus large scale take up of nuclear energy.
You can flush as many trillions of dollars down the toilet as you like but you won’t reduce GHG’s in the slightest.
Lomborg got it right adaptation is the only solution.
Monckton in Adelaide was to a packed audience with over flow into another room.
He was in fine form.
Monckton said that he has been speaking to packed out audiences all over Australia..so much for Pachauri’s comment, that he is only getting small numbers.
What was surprising was the contempt being expressed for the MSM and its failure to report properly with the ABC being singled out for its obvious political biases and manipulations … as one would expect, and rightly so.
Monckton rightly pointed out most people were there not because of anything in the MSM but because of the Internet ..and similarly for the material presented.
Moncktons view is that Railway Man Pachauri is a goner..cant last.
The other comment I would make is that there is clearly a different mood afoot ..people are fed up with the crap being foisted on them..and Monckton was breath of fresh air.
Neville – seriously – listen – I am utterly amazed at your level of sheer stupidity and lack of knowledge on climate and forcing. You’re simply a drip. You DO NOT understand forcing. Tip – give up arguing on any factual basis – simply say “I don’t like it”. It’s more honest and less embarrassing.
Are you actually saying that from here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Climate_Change_Attribution.png there is no forcing in 1940 !!
Note I did not say 100% – read precisely what I said.
Like Schiller your refutation is a lot of off-topic arm waving. How much it costs to solve the problem (OR NOT) is simply IRRELEVANT to the topic of our discussion. Don’t try diversions and irrelevancies.
I probably agree with Malcolm – chairman can’t last – and it doesn’t really matter. It’s simply all politics – science will still prevail.
And for SCchiller that’s not fabricated truth from think tanks tainted with funny money.
And yes I encourage all sceptics to line up solidly behind Monky – put all your trust in Monky – hang off every word – coz dudes it’s just a matter of time. “tick tick tick”
“people are fed up with the crap being foisted on them..and Monckton was breath of fresh air.”
Just look at the poll on the front page of the online Australian – Rudd’s ETS V Abbott’s – 70.1% for Abbott!
People,
This is somewhere between weird and wrong.
Search Google News for ‘Pachauri tobacco asbestos’ (without quote marks) and you get:
‘Your search – pachauri tobacco asbestos – did not match any documents.’
Search blogs with the same string, and you get:
‘Why is this hysteric still head of the IPCC?’ Andrew Bolt (blog),
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/why_is_this_clown_still_head_of_the_ipcc/
Which cites:
‘UN climate scientist defends record’, Financial Times,
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/f9f86ef0-10cb-11df-975e-00144feab49a.html?nclick_check=1
Where is found this statement by Pachauri:
“They are the same people who deny the link between smoking and cancer,” he said. “They are people who say that asbestos is as good as talcum powder – and I hope they put it on their faces every day.”
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/f9f86ef0-10cb-11df-975e-00144feab49a.html?nclick_check=1
Okay, okay. We all know, if you don’t want to do the Hitler/Nazi thing, you do tobacco or Big Oil. And Pachauri can’t do Big Oil, because he’s in bed with them. (Oops, did I say ‘in bed’ in connection with the steamy ‘romance [hack, cough sputter] novelist’?)
Google can’t find this news article, but Andrew Bolt can?
Luke will accuse a ‘conspiracy’, but it’s likely a ‘bug in the system’. Either way, Pachauri did the corollary of Godwin’s Law I mentioned earlier. If they don’t want to do Hitler, they’ll do tobacco or Big Oil.
Although, I gotta admit, asbestos facial treatments is a new one.
Luke will likely spring to the defense and demand a sociological/economic dialogue about cosmetics and so forth.
HAHAHAHAHAHA
My father tried to get tickets for the canberra presentation by monkton but was unable to attend because they were sold out!…he tried to book 4 days in advance.
so much for comments of only 200 people attending. yet another example of the lies being spread by people with their own agenda?
Lukey, Lukeyloo, you still don’t understand us, or try to.
We don’t ‘put all [_]our trust in Monky – hang off every word’. I’m sure ‘hanging off every word’ is common in your religion, but we’re doubters. We want to see evidence and cogent evaluation.
I suppose I should apologize for ‘off-topic arm-waving’ with my reference to the Hockey Stick Fabrication’.
Luke, I would apologize, except I didn’t invent the hockey stick. It was invented by a completely innocent computer. Sheesh.
Luke, we’re narrowing down on the ‘think tank’ that funds your sad efforts.
You said: “tick tick tick”
Popular theme amongst your paymasters.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghUVT_Z5oDs
and
http://tcktcktck.org/pt-br/stories/climate-news/tick-tick-tick
Luke, you’re on your last legs. Give it up.
Luke, do not surrender to the Dark Side, not while you still have a chance!
” I probably agree with Malcolm – chairman can’t last – and it doesn’t really matter. It’s simply all politics – science will still prevail”
Two things Luke
1. I was reporting what Monckton had said regarding Pachauri. Personally I will be surprised if he does go within the next 6-9 months.. he has too many people in his pocket, all rattling the same till.
2. Yes I am sure the science will prevail ..I hope it does.
But it wont be the version that is corrupted by the ” Gate” scandals and the over 260 references to WWF,Greenpeace Friends of the Earth Climate Institute etc ..all being cited within the AR4 as quotable references from glossy magazines etc and deemed to be the equivalent of peer reviewed science…what a joke
The people running the IPCC are operating on double standards..Pacahuri’s going should be the catalyst for a clean up and review as to how it operates.
Further it wont happen until there is separation of roles. The temp record and data bases should not be in the hands of the scientists doing the analysis at all..and any that are.. should be excluded.
Any responsible policy maker and auditer worth his salt would have sorted this out long ago.
It was set up so that the result could be fiddled from the start …the greenoids involved made sure of that.
Malcolm,
Do you have a cite for ‘over 260 references to WWF,Greenpeace Friends of the Earth Climate Institute etc .’? I’d like to do some data mining on that.
Meanwhile, it seems that maybe the ‘liberator’ of the Hadley CRU emails has been identified, more news to come:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100025094/climategate-leaker-finally-revealed/
And now it looks like NASA is taking two years to respond to FOI requests about climate data. http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MWE1NGQ0MThjOWZhYjViY2IxMDE3MDc5OTQ5NWQ2NjY=
Doubtless Luke will point out the importance of sociological and economic concerns regarding the release of data!
Can’t let the people look at the data and methodology… they might ‘doubt the confirmed consensus’.
HAHAHAHAHAHA
Luke, you are going down, very hard, unless you repent and join the rest of us in the pending rebirth of true science.
http://www.google.com/search?as_q=wwf+ar4&as_sitesearch=www.ipcc.ch
Schiller
Just do the Google as above
replace the wwf bit with your favourite green ygroup and repeat
add up all the hits ..I stopped at 260
Malcolm,
I’m an old hand at data mining. Google counts on ‘hits’ is unreliable. It’s worse than the double, triple, and quadruple-counting that the AGWers are prone to do in their scurrilous methodologies.
The current count of citations to WWF, Greenpeace, and their presence as ‘Expert Reviewers’ is already bad enough:
Here’s some reviewers for WGIII: Mitigation
B. Hare, Greenpeace International (Netherlands)
K. Jardine, Greenpeace International (Netherlands)
K. Mallon, Greenpeace International (Netherlands)
T. Gulowwsen, Greenpeace International (Netherlands)
N Mabey, World Wide Fund for Nature (UK)
F. MacGuire, Friends of the Earth (UK)
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg3/453.htm
and more reviewers for AR4 WGIII: Mitigation
G. Von Goerne, Greenpeace (Germany)
S. Sawyer, Greenpeace International (Netherlands)
S. Teske, Greenpeace International (Netherlands)
D. Pols, Friends of the Earth (Netherlands)
C. Pearce, Friends of the Earth (UK)
G. Volpl, WWF International (Brazil)
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg3/ar4-wg3-annex4.pdf
This whole sordid incident is the Greenies taking in each others’ laundry. Dirty laundry.
Bolt has a good reference to the latest Swedish research on the LIA and the MWP, both show up clearly in cave stalagmites and the MWP was warmer than our present NATURAL warm period, sorry lukey.
Seems the Dutch and Indian govts are very upset with the numbskulls at lukey’s bible or ipcc, they are sick of all the kindergarten mistakes riddled throughout the 4th report.
Gee they’re a bit harsh lukey, just think they want this bible for idiots to actually contain some facts and some truth, WOW.
Schiller
If you can refine this to get some better metrics on the extent of the greenoid involvement and corruption of the process and outcome ..you go for it
Love to see what you come up with
Just having the names though only gives part of the story
They are/were/will be certainly more involved than just being expert reveiwers..they were providing input at the asessment and writing stages
Luke
Sweden recently found their MWP and LIA, plus their voice.
http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0120a85fc0ef970b-pi
This flies in the face of the cabal who did their best to hide the incline and decline.
Malcolm,
I’m on it.
Progress so far: WWF writes the ‘research’, and Greenpeace approves it. At least in the majority of items.
But there are other items, such as:
‘The great IPCC scam: now it quotes a how-to-clean-boots guide’, Andrew Bolt, Herald Sun (Australia), February 2, 2010,
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/the_great_ipcc_scam_now_it_quotes_a_how_to_clean_boots_guide/
As is there noted:
“So the IPCC cites a boot and clothing cleaning guide as evidence that the “multiple stresses of climate change…have necessitated the implementation of stringent clothing decontamination guidelines”.
This means, sorting out the Greenpeace, WWF, IUCN, UCS, et. al. references won’t answer the whole question of crock citations and shoddy review.
These people are so completely busted, it’s appalling.
What’s more appalling is, nobody’s actually read the IPCC reports until now. I’m guilty as hell on that point as well, I confess.
This is all so awful.
Luke your Wiki reference shows forcing by GHG’s from about 1910 to 1940 to be about 0.1C , solar seems to be about 0.15C over the same period so what’s your point?
Explain how this combined 0.25C of forcing was a factor in the 1940’s drought but we had such wet periods in the 1950’s and 1970’s, with solar forcing and supposed much higher GHG forcing?
Phillip Adams accepts Abbott’s soil sequestration idea
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/latenightlive/stories/2010/2809236.htm
Well he would because he’s a bio-dynamic farmer in the Hunter Valley, well his partner Patrice Newell is.
In fact we could sequester all the world’s carbon in our soils.
janama,
Thanks for the links.
Finally the Unspeakable Adams redeems himself.
But it’s a great idea. Who knows? Maybe some sense will come out of all this craziness yet!
Andrew Bolt is calling for a full inquiry into the fraudulent ipcc report before we spend one more dollar on this bogus nonsense.
Even garnaut fell for the Himalayan glacier fraud backed up by the pearman idiot, geez what a bloody farce.
A very good speech by Cory Bernardi ( lib SA) in the senate listing all the frauds in the ipcc report and how the dinosaurs in the labor party are still repeating these same frauds when speaking in the senate.
What are these idiots, lying fraudsters or just plain dumb and how can such low life be representing the Aussie voters in the senate?
The address by Monckton in Canberra will be on foxtel and austar tonight on the A pac channel, 648 on Austar.
Repeated tomorrow in the morning and afternoon.
Neville – so how much wrong in how many pages. Bloody little. But keep trying to pump up the volume.
But I think a full inquiry that Bolt suggests is a WONDERFUL inquiry. Let’s make it ever so FULL.
Sceptics may not like what they’ll hear if scientists are let off the political leash. The message indeed may be even more severe !! And sceptics won’t get off lightly. BRING IT ON !
In terms of your question above on 1950s and 70s – simple – not the only factors PDO/IPO a major influence.
However you will find it very difficult to attribute why drought persists in southern Australia in such long sequences – not why all droughts occur. So some very good detective work has unravelled that AGW is adding to and reinforcing drought sequences in southern Australia. The message is perhaps a little too subtle for you.
And as much as you rant Neville – we question whether you are also just plain dumb, an idiot or a lying fraudster. Helpful style isn’t it?
Soil carbon may be a dodgy idea – easy to rort in claiming what is sequestered – and will you lose the lot when the temperature goes up??
” Sceptics may not like what they’ll hear if scientists are let off the political leash. The message indeed may be even more severe !! And sceptics won’t get off lightly. BRING IT ON !”
Ooooohahhhh …I’m quivering in my boots, stupid idle threats Walker… just idle threats ..let off the leash ..whose leash is that then. Is this what ” they” are saying to you.
They have a very priviledged position of being paid out of the pubic purse with absolute buckets of money and have the ear of all the key decision and policy makers… able to manipulate research outcomes, in bed with green groups and industry when and where it suits.
Have a priviledged/biased relationship with the Govt owned media to an extent that has become nauseating to watch
If they have been put on a leash, thats because they have been providing advice that is not soundly based and almost certainly contradictory, naive and undefendable, as well as being the product of processes that dont even conform to best practice standards.
If they have been put on a leash thats because their own management doesnt trust them either
Bring it on buddy…
It wil be good to really expose this rubbish once and for all.
We might start with at the top and question why the IPCC is chaired by a porn promoter and follow it all the way down that slippery slope and look at the origins and management of data sets, role of greeny groups, over blown use of computer models by the seriously delusional, failure to consider all other views, publically supporting Al Gore AIT, making outlandish/exagerated statements to media purely aimed at beating it up just to ensure that they get more funding
..and on..and on it goes.
yeah bring it on Walker…. bring it on.
Can you guys explain given we’re heading for an ice age (you’ve assured me it’ll be a Maunder minimess or worse) and the world is cooling etc etc.
How come January ? How come?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/
Well Hillsy – I think you’ll find that most IPCC reports are actually watered down towards conservatism by the vested interests.
BRING IT ON ! Put Monky and all the sceptic know-it-alls in the box too. We’ll see …
Piss weak Walker ..is that all you can say to defend your idiotic threat .
Personally I really hope that it does happen because this incompetent shemozzle and its moronic processes should not ever be allowed to happen again. There are plenty of obvious ways of doing this better
The shonkademic industry wont like it though…and thats why it wont happen
ooooooooooooooooo – what a ranter ! zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
“Soil carbon may be a dodgy idea – easy to rort in claiming what is sequestered – and will you lose the lot when the temperature goes up??”
Probably, but they’ll just apply for drought relief. [Bastards!]
Alright luke why then is the csiro belatedly saying that there may not be an anthropogenic signal in the Tasmanian drought and our more recent drought in southern Australia, in fact it may be just an example of our variable climate?
I’m certainly sure that the message may be a little too subtle for me to accept, particularly when I can look at a state like S.A. and wonder why it’s rainfall has increased over the last 100 years, or why has Victoria remained unchanged over 100 years, or why SE Australia has slightly increased rainfall over 100 years.
You made/proposed the threat Walker..BRING IT ON is the boast… and you call me a ranter.
Hypocrite …typical of your type
BTW Walker, if the IPCC is watered down, does that include the way they determined the 90 probability factor by a show of hands …thats a sophisticated example of the scientific method being demonstrated.
All that work ..all that science on display… and when it gets boiled down to the last main element they do a show of hands.
God help us all.
Well there you go Neville – golly me – it was some hydrologist from CSIRO’s opinion versus some serious attribution studies by serious climate scientists – come on. One press grab and you’re anyone’s aren’t you. Led around by the nose.
And there you go again – THE WHOLE STATE OF SA – the issue is a band across the bottom of the continent. Tell me Neville – have you read the relevant science on the issue. Nuh – it’s easier to keep hand waving isn’t it.
You’re so pretentious Hill – don’t verbal me matey. I’m not making threats – you are. You’re the one pumping up the volume on “an inquiry”. Well bring it on !! Don’t bluff. Make it happen Mal. Will be great to see some serious examination of the septic sceptic scum position. No soap boxes – no hand waving political rants – but some serious science inquiry. You should be very afraid of the answers.
Who says the IPCC is being watered down. You are? – some chardonnay swilling crow eating wingbag – pullease – hohohohoho . Tell me Mal – how would you come up with an expression of certainty yourself? How would you? Sound of crickets ….
Thanks for that confirmation luke and what about Vic and SE Aust?
By the way I’m sorry to hear that hydrologists don’t count at the csiro, thanks for clearing that up.
BTW I’ll clear up that SA rainfall history south of say Renmark latitude over the last 100 years and get back with what I’ve found.
Well Walker there you go again I wasnt verballing anyone..I was quoting you.
” I think you’ll find that most IPCC reports are actually watered down towards conservatism by the vested interests.”
You are so stupid you cant even remember what you said only 4 hours ago.
Bring it on is also the threat from you..knowing full well there is nothing a wind bag from Queensland could do about it..despite what his mates in the various CC departments say.
As for estimates of certainty perhaps it is so uncertain that no rational estimate could be made…but they had to fill the hole by a show of hands. How hopeless and dishonest is that.
Sure lets have a inquiry and audit into the science and processes of the science and the IPCC.
Did you put your application into ” The Australian Government CC Regulatory Authority”.
You would be a monty for an Executive Role surrounded by a complete army of Canutian Delusionalists decked in their new brown cardigans … all supplied by the tax payer.
..”think you’ll find that most IPCC reports are actually watered down towards conservatism by the vested interests.””says Luke.
I wasnt verballing anyone… I was quoting him
You are so stupid Walker you cant remember what you wrote only 4 hours ago
As for my expression of certainty, perhaps it is the case that it is so uncertain that no rational person would, or could, make an estimate, but the darlings in the IPCC got around that by a show of hands ..what a hoot
Climate science at its best.
Folks,
Following on my promise to Malcolm, I’m slowly making my way through the AR4, starting at the beginning — Summary for policymakers.
Now, bear with me here. It’s a fundamental in all natural sciences, and, indeed, in cybernetics, which is a branch of philosophy, that you cannot draw a conclusion that’s more robust than the evidence.
So, first off, I found:
“Difficulties remain in reliably simulating and attributing observed temperature changes at smaller scales. On these scales, natural climate variability is relatively larger, making it harder to distinguish changes expected due to external forcings.” http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-understanding-and.html
OK, so the IPCC is asking us to draw robust conclusions based on data gathered ‘at smaller scales’, i.e., surface stations, which the IPCC itself says is, essentially, ‘noisy’ data.
Let’s move on.
Here we have the IPCC making another fundamental mistake which is glaringly obvious to anyone familiar with cybernetics: the map is not the territory. All models are, by necessity, less complete than the phenomena which are being modeled.
Yet we have the IPCC touting models as though they were actual experiments. Check this out:
“A major advance … is the large number of simulations available from a broader range of models.”
“Model experiments show”
“Based on current model simulations, it is very likely…”
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-projections-of.html
Now, let’s think of basic science. Causality is, of course, what science is all about. Well, physical science, at least. You know, the stuff about, ‘if you do A, B happens in the real world.’
Let’s see what the IPCC does with causality. The best they can come up with is “Virtually certain > 99% probability” http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/tssts-2.html
So, they don’t dabble in specious, suspect, ‘skeptical’ notions like causality. And a search on ‘virtually certain’ on the IPCC’s website — the hardest scientific claim the IPCC offers, yields TWO results (count them):
“It is important to articulate that WG1’s contributions to the understanding required to inform future policy decisions are virtually certain to grow in the future” http://www.ipcc.ch/meetings/session28/inf1.pdf
and
“The combined aerosol direct and cloud albedo effect exert an RF that is virtually certain to be negative, with a median RF of -1.3 W m-2 and a -2.2 to -0.5 W m-2 90% confi dence range.” http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter2.pdf
Conclusion:
The IPCC and their hot-headed cheerleaders believe (1) that models are the environment, and (2) they eschew notions of causality. I’ve never before seen such a breathtaking breach of what all scientists know to be the fundamentals of science.
Egads, this is so awful.
Further reports to come. Thus far, all the IPCC report does is cite itself.
Schiller,
If it helps here is a list prepared by someone else, the dubious and non peer reviewed citations by the IPCC crowd.
http://climatequotes.com/scientists/the-ipccs-questionable-citations/
It gives the lie to the comments by those senior people in the IPCC hierarchy ( interviewed bythe ABC of course) who say publically and brazenly that the Himalayan incident was but one error in a 3000 page document.
The probability that there are a lot more errors to be unearthed is very high and that doesnt need a show of hand,s as it seems is the current method of note.
Susequent events aso support this.
Malcolm,
I’ve been to that link, and while it’s quite instructive about the IPCC’s tendency to engage in crusty hijinks, it’s far from complete.
I’ve conclusively identified two catastrophically flawed assumptions made by the IPCC at the mere beginning of its latest report, assumptions which could easily be identified by the least student of the scientific method as tragically stupid.
From the fundamentally ignorant belief that computer models are what climate scientists ‘are about’, pure balderdash is sure to result. But — being a skeptic — I will have to read on. Perhaps these people redeem themselves, in spite of their impossible assumptions, later in the document.
In the mean time, I am heartened to discover that the IPCC claims only two things to be ‘virtually certain’. One of which is a political outcome. The other of which is vastly disputable, and neither of which dabbles in the ‘ghastly’ notion of causality.
It’s hilarious watching Mally and Scillsbo shit on – having a SERIOUS discussion. What a bunch of monkeys.
I loved this Schiller complains about this simple sentence: “Model experiments show”
“The probability that there are a lot more errors to be unearthed is very high” Mal assures us hand on the heart – barf ! If you weren’t so utterly dishonest you’d have advised us that the Amazon assertion is substantiated after all –
LEAKGATE !
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/leakegate_scandal_grows.php
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/leakegate.php
Denialists spinning away making webs to trap the unwary … immoral and disgusting.
This little beauty shows what a pinhead Schiller is ” You know, the stuff about, ‘if you do A, B happens in the real world.’” Well no actually – it’s a bit of an issue when you have A, B, C, D and E combining to give X !
zzzzzzzz
And still cricket white noise on Mal showing how he’d express uncertainty …. dum de dum de dum….
“bring it on” isn’t a threat – it’s an expression of hope for your wish to come true ….
anyway better let Mal get back to his chardonnay
Lukebaby,
I would like to comment on Jan’s figure of +0.72deg. C from the NOAA sattelite data you pointed out.
This figure for January is almost up in the El Nino territory of 1998. I’m finding this hard to believe. I don’t think anyone up in the Nthern. Hemisphere experienced those mild winter temps. you’d expect from that data. Here in NZ Jan. didn’t seem overly hot,in fact quite the opposite. It seems Australia is the only place in the world that cooked in January. (We had Gavin sitting in his loincloth to testify to this)
You may be unaware, but the eyes of the climate science world is firmly fixed on Australia,( 4 letters supporting Monckton in our local rag last night) . Our chief sceptic, (unfortunately experiencing a reverse “Gore effect”) is visiting your country and whatsmore talking to your powerful opposition leader. Your greenhouse theory and its ramifications are under the most intense pressure ever.
If upholders of the greenhouse theory including NOAA are fiddling satellite data to maintain an upward trend then who can we trust Lukebaby?
The whole premise of science is that we have to trust the scientists.
I’m certainly having doubts about this and believe I’m not just being paranoid.
Not interested in a revolution Lukebaby?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KrkwgTBrW78
Lukeyloo,
“Model experiments show” isn’t a sentence. It’s a phrase, and in this context, it’s also an oxymoron. You can run ‘experiments’ inside of computer ‘models’ all day long, and all they’ll do is ‘show’ you what your software can do. Surely that’s simple enough for you to grasp.
And as far as ‘Leakegate’ goes, I pointed out earlier, I agree with you completely — the IPCC actually omitted lots of citations. With so many thousands of scientists and so forth it was easy to not have all the footnotes they wanted.
HAHAHAHA
Sea level drastically wrong in the Netherlands. Arctic disaster based on boot-cleaning recommendations. Amazonian climate destruction based on goofy forest-fire claims. Fake heating of Australia, New Zealand and Russia. The hockey stick for the whole globe. The glaciers disappearing by 2035.
You ridicule the statement that ‘The probability that there are a lot more errors to be unearthed is very high’? With the mistaken assumptions and the degree of sloppiness which has been disclosed, Malcolm is being generous.
The revelation of a lot more errors can be guaranteed. You see, there’s lots of FOI requests that Hadley hasn’t responded to, and you and your buddies will be swept away when the rest is exposed.
Meanwhile, we’ll just keep looking at the IPCC report, exposing its atrocious errors patiently, and you can continue being poster-boy with your foul language. Untold thousands have learned how uncouth the advocates of AGW tend to be, as a result of your crude expressions.
Mack,
Nice points, all. Though, pointing them out to Luke is pointless. He has faith, and it is his job to withstand these tests of faith to prove that his belief is stalwart, and impervious to all contradiction.
Even if we descend into an Ice Age, Luke will want to be remembered as a ‘true believer’, who was faithful to AGW unto his last breath.
Of course, mocking him is fun, as he’s as incompetent and blindered as the rest of them, so it makes for good sport.
http://www.climatedepot.com/
Here of course are a heap of leads to add to the list.
Can there be any doubt about the integrity of it all.?
..and there is more to come.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/02/06/2812195.htm
and all in the same week we start debating an ETS…..
Mack Mack Mack – dear deluded and uninformed Mack – sigh – your satellite data belongs to your beloved Spencer (an arch sceptic).
He’s even showing it !
So funny.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Not wanting to put the mocker on you guys but hey – just say – you know – just say – the temperature went up and a record was broken. You know – just say. The press would desert the sceptics in droves. Would be a stampede.
So boys when you say your prayers before beddy byes – clasp those little white fingers (no Darkies for Schiller) oh so so so hard and pray ever so hard. Goes like this – “Dear {insert deity of choice} please let those warmers be wrong – pls pls pls – we hate them so much and they say shit and fuck a lot too. Pls give them a horrible disease. Pls turn them to the extreme right if you can. Pls pls pls.”
hahahahahahaha
And sorry boys
Michael Mann exonerated – sceptics pissed off.
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2010/02/michael-mann-exonerated.html
“Remind everyone that on three of the four charges McIntyre, Morano, Myron Ebell and Co were shown to be pond scum.” say Eli !!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
BUT BUT BUT I did enjoy the piece on mock concern by cryptic-denialists – “concern trolls” – the new sub-species.
http://rabett.blogspot.com/ “Concern trolls”
At least we don’t have concern trolls here – you guys are just plain full-on assault.
Hardly a credible inquiry ..A University investigating one of its own, whi jst happens to bring in big dollars that they can all slosh it around with.
Its no dam different to police internal inquiry investigating one of its own.
The public would not have confidence in the outcome of either..and doesnt.
Fancy that, Mann exonerated on 3/4 charges; shall we place bets on the 4th?
Schiller
Here is a news report translated from the German and quoting German Ministers of State
Not new but additive
http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=9685251
I bet that Mann gets 4/4……he always was going to get 4/4 .. its got nothing to do with rights and wrongs
you’d reckon blogsphere rules by now but I see only a clown show here that just goes on and on
google “warmest ever 2010” > lots of links to Nasa. google “coldest ever” and we get fiction
Lukebaby,
I think the record Jan. temps. on the sattelite data is probably as a result of the El Nino effect.
We had unusually severe southerly winds all through December here in NZ.,(typical of El Nino)
You havn’t got me clasping my hands and praying yet Lukebaby.
Ahahahaha.
Malcolm, Cohenite
You know the fix is in on the University investigation of Mann when they look for fraud and find none. According to their standards, the fraudulent ‘hockey stick’ apparently qualifies for the ‘interpretation of data’ exemption. Since climatology is nothing more than playing with statistics, fraud in the field literally cannot be committed.
Here’s something to bet on, though: Will Paul Dennis be prosecuted? Police are questioning him in connection with the ‘liberation’ of emails and data from Hadely CRU. They’ve established that he has ‘links’ to skeptics, and is himself a skeptic. Thus far it doesn’t appear he’s the whistleblower/hacker/international master spy. But he’s a skeptic with ties and links.
Surely they’ll find something to charge him with.
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/02/04/ids-out/#comment-20281
and
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/the_climategate_whistleblower/
Folks,
I went looking for a comprehensive list of all the ‘-gates’ which together form what’s generally referred to as ‘Climategate’, and found none. So I compiled one myself, which is below. There are so many that they’re hard to keep track of. If I’ve missed one, please tell me.
I tried to post the below with a link for each, but the filter on the site doesn’t like a post with so many links.
Enjoy!
Stationgate: NASA GISS disappearing temperature station data (many stations are still there) generates warming trend
Codegate: NASA GISS running different code from what it says it runs
Boliviagate: NASA GISS finds heat island on the snow-capped peaks of Bolivia
Madagascargate: GHCN says data unavailable in electronic form — but anyone can easily find it
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2010/01/31/mysterious-madagascar-muse/
New Zealandgate: Climatologists ‘adjust’ data which turn out to have actually disappeared
Hockeygate: Penn State climatologist Michael Mann invents a computer program that will generate a warming trend from random data
Hollandgate: Wild exaggeration of amount of the Netherlands below sea level
Bootsgate: IPCC uses boot-cleaning guide to ‘prove’ Antarctic climate ‘clear vulnerability’
Glaciergate: Himalayan glaciers will disappear by 2035
Citegate: Greenpeace, WWF, et. al. provide ‘research’ to IPCC, which is then ‘reviewed’ by Greenpeace, WWF et. al. IPCC ‘expert editors’
Amazongate: IPCC says global warming could deforest nearly half of the Amazon – based on WWF speculations regarding forest fire
Disastergate: IPCC cites unpublished research about global warming causing increase in disasters. When published, the research denies the connection.
FOIAgate: Hadley scientists broke UK FOI laws to avoid peer review of their work
Yamalgate: Russian heating trend based on rings of only one tree
Russiagate: British Meteorological Office caught tampering with Russian climate data by cherry-picking station data
Darwingate: US GHCN ‘adjusts’ data from Australia’s Darwin Airport to turn cooling trend into warming trend
Of course, more are on the way…
The biggest gate of them all is the IEA’s ratio of 15/25 it wrecks every possible argument for the next twenty years (2030 ) and beyond.
The IEA tells us that the OECD countries will be producing less than 15 Giga tonnes pa of GHG’s by 2030, but non OECD countries will be producing more than 25 Giga tonnes pa of GHG’s.
Simple maths that seems to be beyond some of the planet’s scientists & politicians etc just proves that if you believe the AGW theory then you should be urging a big total spend on new technology to produce our energy.
Trying to reduce co2 is a ludicrous solution because even if we spend countless trillions by 2100 we will only offset the enevitable by perhaps 5 years, or 2095 instead of 2100 and of course the temp decrease would be zero.
Schiller,
Here is another list to check off against
http://sppiblog.org/news/the-end-is-not-near#more-974
Soon we will be able to legitamately add Penngate to the list
… you can see it coming a mile off.
Neville,
There’s some cruel ironies running all through this sordid, hypocritical mess.
Try to make sense of this one by the IEA:
“In the Reference Scenario, 1.3 billion people still lack access to electricity in 2030 compared with 1.5 billion people today. Universal electricity access could be achieved with additional power-sector investment of $35 billion per year in 2008-2030 and with only a modest increase in primary energy demand and related CO2 emissions. ” [1]
Then compare that to this by the OECD:
“Traditional fuels or biomass’ – defined to include fuelwood, bagasse (the cellulosic residue left after sugar is extracted from sugar cane), charcoal, and animal and vegetal wastes – play an important part in satisfying energy demand in developing countries. But the exact importance of these fuels is difficult to measure since many of them are collected informally, and the available statistics therefore tend severely to underestimate their consumption.” [2]
On the one hand, you have the people in mud huts, etc. ‘generating energy’ with ‘biomass’, which all the warmists agree is ‘environmentally friendly’. While releasing CO2, of course. This generation (for cooking, heating, light) could be provided by power stations. Which, if not nuclear, solar, wind, etc. release CO2. But it’s politically incorrect CO2.
Throw into the mix the fact that Greenies oppose nuclear, solar, wind, tidal, etc. generation, you’re left with the conclusion that the least fortunate of us must rely on burning ‘biomass’ ‘for the good of the planet’.
And throw this into the mix as well: there is a ‘consensus’ that coal is not biomass. I guess coal was merely put in the planet’s crust ‘to ‘fool the unbelievers’, much as dino skeletons were cleverly devised to entice the wicked into notions of evolution.
————
1. http://www.iea.org/weo/docs/weo2009/fact_sheets_WEO_2009.pdf
2. http://www.questia.com/googleScholar.qst;jsessionid=LtjFx48tJhm4lnQmr4hRTP8r10K2N5xk057HRvPPmFsplG1hcm2P!2064974013!2144018255?docId=98559838
Malcolm,
That’s a good link you offered, but all the ‘-gates’ in that article are included in those I’ve listed.
Maybe I should add a ‘Lukegate’, where Luke alleges the IPCC’s failure is ‘failure to cite’.
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/?p=6540&cp=55#comment-167945
Well, we all know that sort of failure is so comprehensively rife that the IPCC reports are partisanly, one-sidedly, corruptedly useless.
Just to show what idiotic nonsense we’ve been told about reducing our emissions try this on for size.
On abc’s Inside Business one of the heads of our power generation in the Latrobe valley explains to Kohler that they could replace the entire brown coal generation with gas for a cost of about 2 to 2.5 billion dollars.
The GHG’s saved would be about 75% and the increased cost to customers would be about 20% to cover the change.
This could be accomplished over a 10 year period, but I wonder how this cost stacks up to the CC and storage that’s yet to be proved as a viable technology, I bet it’s a lot cheaper.
Meanwhile the krudd idiot will spend 45 billion on new fibre to the home internet connections when everyone seems to want to go the wireless route, particularly young people.
Schiller – a new one has just been revealed – africa-gate
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/06/ipccs-latest-blunder-africagate-as-told-by-dr-richard-north/#more-16128
Neville,
Here in the US, we bailed out crooked investment banks because they were ‘too big to fail’.
Government learned that lesson. They want to be ‘too big to fail’, too. But first, they have to set things up to be totally screwed if they’re out of power.
Sort of like the Maldives Cabinet holding an underwater meeting in scuba gear to highlight how global warming shows they need Copenhagen money.
http://www.sacsis.org.za/site/article/372.1
Hilarious, if the greed wasn’t so transparent.
Just think guys – all your little bleats – It’s not working. Why ? coz your position is bullshit and you know it.
You have so many alleged gates – you could be in the fencing business.
Oh but I forgot – you already are in the fencing business – you’re trying to corral the debate with a denial campaign.
Hurry on the big inquiry.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Such bravado lukey, I’ll bet if you were put under the spotlight at a real enquiry you’d need a permanent supply of fresh undies.
Resorting to your usual line of foul langauge and BS wouldn’t be allowed and honestly without the F word you’d be just about be tongue tied.
On Landline the south Australian farmers a reaping record wheat crop of up to 4 tonne and acre with patches of 5 tonne – amounts never achieved before. 7.5 million tonnes all up – second highest crop for Sth Australia.
could this be because of additional CO2 and a warmer climate?
Luke – bring on the inquiry – I hope they get Dr Spencer to testify as he says this on his website
““Global warming” refers to the global-average temperature increase that has been observed over the last one hundred years or more. But to many politicians and the public, the term carries the implication that mankind is responsible for that warming. This website describes evidence from my group’s government-funded research that suggests global warming is mostly natural, and that the climate system is quite insensitive to humanity’s greenhouse gas emissions and aerosol pollution.”
Janama,
That’s an excellent find!
“referenced only to a report produced by a Canadian advocacy group, written by an obscure Moroccan academic who specialises in carbon trading, citing references which do not support his claims.”
and
“this “50 percent by 2020″ claim forms part of the key Synthesis Report, the production of which was the personal responsibility of the chair of the IPCC, Dr R K Pachauri.”
This richly deserves to join the list of ‘-gates’. Should be near the top of the list.
Lukeylooooooo… ‘Hurry on the big inquiry’? Yeah. The big inquiry is on already. You know. That awful thing skeptics do, like… hmmm… what’s the word? Inquire.
Too late, Lukeyloo. The joke’s on yoooo. The big inquiry started last year and it’s already February.
Dude.
Over at The Abc’s Drum Unleashed (now there’s a mixed metaphor!), that avuncular Deep Green David Horton has a chortle-fest about the scorn these days being heaped on his co-religionists. I have posted a comment to his piece, which the ABC appears disinclined to publish, so I thought I might take the liberty of posting it here, where it will at least see the light of day.
Here’s my comment. Should Luke bother to reply, I will ignore him.
However, the views of Green Davey — who knows a thing or two about brown rings on grasstrees — would be appreciated.
Horton’s piece is here: http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2803662.htm
And my (unpublished) response:
If David wants to know why greens are held increasingly in such low esteem, he need look no further than the mirror.
Horton champions the notion that Aborigines firestick practices exerted no discernible impact on the bush. Indeed, he categorically rejects the very idea that they burned as a matter of course. Pioneer testimonies, forensic evidence, contemporary anthropological confirmation — all are rejected because David prefers to believe that fire must come to the bush only when ordained by Nature, never by the hand of man.
This would make Aborigines a genuine rarity, by the way, as I can think of no nomadic culture which did not set pockets of its environment aflame.
But David demands that we take his word for it — and, sadly, those in government pursuing invaluable inner-city green preferences do just that. The result is forests that are littered with debris, which burn far more intensely when they do catch aflame, and which leave vast tracts of forest inalterably changed, and always for the worse.
And that is why greens are increasingly held up to ridicule, their stereotyped dreadlocks and vegan evangelism notwithstanding.
The moment their smug, self-righteous, world-as-it-should-be absolutism strays off the university campus, real-world problems ensue. And sometimes — quite often, actually — people die.
It is not a charge to be laid lightly, but Horton is one of the reasons Black Saturday’s toll was so high. His insistence on viewing forest management through an ideological prism encouraged fools, like those on Nillumbik Council, to reject any and all suggestions of fuel reduction, even to the extent of making sure that local roads were turned into death traps.
On this weekend of all weekends, Black Saturday’s first anniversary, he really should shut his mouth.
A bunch more ‘-gates’ have just been revealed. I believe the number of them now stands at 22.
‘Only 22’, some might say. Except that all these IPCC claims are now busted: the deforestation of the Amazon, the devastation of African agriculture, the rise of destructive weather events, the disappearance of glaciers, the inundation of the Netherlands, and the authoritativeness of conclusions drawn from data from weather stations. Hard to call this a ‘minor problem’.
New errors in IPCC climate change report
Telegraph (UK)
February 7, 2010 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7177230/New-errors-in-IPCC-climate-change-report.html
Excerpts:
a diagram used to demonstrate the potential for generating electricity from wave power has been found to contain numerous errors.
The source of information for the diagram was cited as the website of UK-based wave-energy company Wavegen. Wavegen insisted that it was not the original source of the data.
The diagram is widely cited in other literature as having come from a paper on wave energy produced by the Institute of Mechanical Engineering in 1991 along with data from the European Directory of Renewable Energy.
It can also be revealed that claims made by the IPCC about the effects of global warming, and suggestions about ways it could be avoided, were partly based on information from ten dissertations by Masters students.
One unpublished dissertation was used to support the claim that sea-level rise could impact on people living in the Nile delta and other African coastal areas, although the main focus of the thesis, by a student at the Al-Azhar University in Cairo, appears to have been the impact of computer software on environmental development.
The IPCC also made use of a report by US conservation group Defenders of Wildlife to state that salmon in US streams have been affected by rising temperatures. The panel has already come under fire for using information in reports by conservation charity the WWF.
Estimates of carbon-dioxide emissions from nuclear power stations and claims that suggested they were cheaper than coal or gas power stations were also taken from the website of the World Nuclear Association, rather than using independent scientific calculations.
Folks,
It looks like Australia ‘leads the world’ in investing retirement funds in ‘Green’ initiatives, including Al Gore’s project…
http://twawki.com/2010/02/04/super-green-putting-your-retirement-in-al-gores-hands/
Someone should demand an investigation by, i.e., financial/brokerage regulators. Investing in ideology, as Climategate has shown, is highly speculative. Pun, pun.
Schiller,
There is also this compendium of articles (50) critical of the way the IPCC has gone about its business produced by John McLean and going back a few years
http://mclean.ch/climate/IPCC.htm
Cue Queenslands notorious Village Idiot to come back on this.
Malcolm and Schiller enjoying a private moment assuring each other that they have denialist source criticising IPCC source. You are actually complaining about the IPCC not checking facts and you are doing the same. A number of the gates have been rebutted and replaced with denialist bullshit-gate. Clowns who can’t see their own hypocrisy
Luke,
Cite the rebuttals of the clowns. And I don’t mean like Deltoid, who — like you — says it’s a problem of ‘missing citations’.
I mean, the real stuff. Not IPCC crapola. You must have another font of veracity somewhere.
HAHAHA you don’t have it!
You’ll have to do your ‘research’ all over again. You can probably get some kids from elementary school to evaluate Al Gore’s videos and supply some footnotes.
HAHAHA
In drama, there’s a real difference between being a tragic hero and an idiot.
Choose your drama, Luke. Scientific acumen is not your forte.
Schiller
You will note of cooruse that the village idiot can only come up with possible rebuttals to some not all.
Meanwhile every passing day is revealing more and more that is wrong with the IPCC crapola and its processes.
Whatever gates there are, still leaves the failure of the IPCC to comply with normal standards of forecasting principles to the extent that the 90% confidence limit was arrived at by a show of hands
So much for the science.
Malcolm,
To be sure, the ‘show of hands’ test is shabby science, but even so, ‘Virtually certain’ (> 99% probability) is the IPCC’s most robust claim — which it/they apply to two worthless ‘findings’.
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/?p=6540&cp=56#comment-168478
If Isaac Newton had claimed ‘Virtually certain’ like that for his proposed laws on the motions of planets, that would have put him in the same range as the epicyclists who drew up the ephemerae old-style.
But it appears we’re supposed to adhere to Medieval standards. Without the Warm Period, of course.
Do you folks ‘Down Under’ have ‘Medieval Fairs’ where the public can show up (with money, of course) and watch Medievalists re-enact Medievalism? We have them, up here, and they’re great fun.
If you have such public fairs, it may be that Luke has accidentally missed his true calling.
The Challenge has been met!
Lord Monckton has accepted Lecturer Tim Lambert’s Challenge to
Debate Anthropogenic Global Warming
In attempting to avoid having to turn people away as we had to previously. We ask you to please REGISTER NOW to attend this lecture and pay a $30 cash donation at registration validation on arrival at the venue
Details follow:.
Please register Name:
by providing: Address:
Phone & email:
email to: cool@exemail.com.au
or FAX: (02) 4861 2029
Special enquiries ring 0419 703 465…
The Moderator and MC will be
Australia’s leading Broadcaster, 2GB’s
Alan Jones AO
Friday 12 February 2010 – 12:30pm
at
HILTON HOTEL SYDNEY, Grand Ballroom.
I wonder if Luke will show up for this.
He’ll be the one shouting ‘f**k’ and ‘s**t’ and ‘tobacco’ and so forth.
Hello All,
including luke et al, a study says those who blame recent drought in MDB have it backwards .Also, that shister Karoly is quoted as the source in the AR4 report. See Andrew Bolts blog for more detail.
At least karoly only attributed this latest drought to AGW ( mad as that is ) , but luke found some attribution of AGW in the 1940’s drought nearly 70 years ago, with little forcing by GHGs but more forcing by solar?
Bunyip, I’m no Green Davey but I do know that the Nullabor plain use to be heavily forested (due to finds of tree kangaroo fossils) and there is strong evidence that the flora was not able to survive indigenous fire stick farming practices.
There is also at least anecdotal evidence that prior to European settlement, feeding habits of local marsupials coupled with native flora meant that fuel loads were significantly less than the modern era.
Most introduced grasses are high density annuals compared to native perennials, which have a much smaller fire hazard. Unfortunately, the evidence suggests that the only way to get back to pre settlement conditions is through c ontrolled burning regimes.
Bunyip,
Thanks for the David Horton post. I certainly find his view that Aborigines did not deliberately use fire puzzling. Nobody seems to have told the Aborigines, at least not the southwest Nyoongars I have spoken to. In his book (I forget the title) he compared himself to Martin Luther, pinning his 95 theses to the door of Wittenberg church, in 1517. I have been unable to discover any evidence of a resulting widespread ‘reformation’ in bushfire beliefs. Not, at least, among those who have some real bushfire experience and knowledge. We’ll have to classify Dr. Horton as a prescribed burning sceptic. Good luck to him, say I. I only hope he does not have a house amongst the gumtrees.
jnw – a minor paper on drought severity not mechanisms for lack of rainfall. Yawn. All above Neville’s head of course.
Luke, someone needs to say it, and since I am only an occasional visitor here, allow me: GET A JOB.
(Do it now, before the dole queues are full of Assistant Climate Change Officers and Acting Carbon Abatement Managers.)
Monckton had a good run on our ABC. Their effort was summed up on Media Watch tonight
http://www.abc.net.au/tv/guide/netw/201002/programs/FA0935H001D2010-02-08T212000.htm
of much greater interest though was the bushfire program “Inside the firestorm” last night
http://www.abc.net.au/tv/geo/documentaries/interactive/firestorm/
for me this climate change horror thing starts here
“Remembering the 1967 bushfires in southern Tasmania” ‘Black Tuesday’, 7 February, 1967: the day Hobart was on fire
http://www.abc.net.au/local/photos/2008/10/08/2385051.htm
there is an irony re Feb 7 and bushfire frequency caught by ABC interviews that are reflected in the observations of other keen observers
http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2006/s1748465.htm
I guess Jimmock rhymes with pillock.
From
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/08/ipcc-gate-du-jour-aussie-droughtgate/#more-16206
IPCC Gate Du Jour: Aussie Droughtgate
And this comment!
Zorro (03:09:48) :
You’ll know that AGW is really true when KRudd goes to the IMF to raise money to put the Sydney harbour Opera House on stilts.
Drum roll,
Com’on, someone do a cartoon, – please.
Ah yes lukey it’s all in that massive 0.1C of GHG forcing brought on by that incredible 300ppm of co2 by 1930’s, YERRR that’s what helped make the 1940’s drought such a disaster.
Funny,Dick Condon calls the near half century from 1900 to 1945 ” the horror years” in the Western Division of NSW not just 4 or 5 five years in the 1940s.
So what AGW forcings caused that record dry period?
As I’ve tried to explain before ( thick cranium I think) when he finished his book on that 41% of NSW in 2002 he considered that later period to be some of the best years for higher rainfall and lower wind speed etc and he gives references.
In other words a much easier existence and it’s exactly the opposite to your silly arguments dummy.
Neville,
You are absolutely correct regarding the last 100 years of weather in western NSW.
However you should be aware by now that trying to reason with a Galah is impossible.
Somebody give him a biscuit to shut him up for a while.
I am presently in USA where it is freezing cold and most people are awake to the IPCC fraud and are starting to get annoyed at the Obarma admin. and its support of AGW.
However Congress is not going to have a bar of any legislation to tax CO2.
Pikey.
A recent paper by Solomon et al. offers a convincing argument that too much water vapor in the stratosphere caused the warming of the 1990’s and the dry spell over the past decade has seen temperatures go flat.
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2010/02/01/what’s-happened-to-global-warming/
People,
You are being too hard on Luke.
He’s a poet, so gentle, tender and perceptive as to notice that ‘Jimmock rhymes with pillock’.
Next thing we know, he’ll discover rhymes for f**k and s**t, which will be similarly gentle, tender and perceptive.
As properly befits a p**t such as he.
I just kacked – Bolt & Wattsup utter horseshit beatup with Lockart et al will be rebutted into the Stone Age in an upcoming GRL. They have stuffed their analysis.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
You scum will NEVER live this down. Oh happy day.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA ……….
Neville – whatever – but study this http://www.ccrc.unsw.edu.au/PDF/Timbal_UNSW2009.pdf
Maybe one day you might ask an intelligent question.
And as I said at Wattzy
“What denialist twaddle. All the usual nonsense.
Issue should be what causes or prolongs droughts – not drought severity. SO deceptively Bolt in his usual bulldusting style fogs an entire issue.
(1) Not on the pace – and as usual it’s what denialists don’t tell you – not what they tell you as they fail miserably in their duty of care
What is not told is that there is very good research (Indian Ocean Climate Initiative (IOCI -CSIRO & BoM) and the South East Australian Climate Initiative (SEACI – CSIRO & BoM)) that documents changes in the Southern Annular Mode (SAM) and the intensification of the subtropical ridge (STR) which adds to, reinforces, prolongs drought caused by natural factors ENSO and Indian Ocean Dipole. Perhaps even AGW changes in the IOD itself. Maybe even Walker circulation.
The SEACI research shows that circulation changes in the south-east region are likely to have been influenced by AGW. (greenhouse and stratospheric ozone decline forcings). This work is very detailed and very specific.
(2) It’s about agri-business risk management which those sitting in air conditioned offices know little about – is it your agribusiness dollars, your investment or your family property
(3) confounding the ETS with the climate science i.e. if you don’t like the ETS – therefore the climate science MUST be wrong – illogical
(4) that suddenly AGW theory demands all natural drought influences must disappear – who said ?
(5) fail to quote the last line of the Lockart et al GRL paper which says “It is stressed that the results of the analyses presented here in no way negate genuine concerns over anthropogenic climate change” – as they says in Aussie – this is having two bob each way? pretty weak … as they know what they’ve left out
(6) nothing on the changes in wind run which reflect in changes in pan evaporation – more atmospheric AGW circulation changes
(7) and yawn Lockart et al have missed http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2007GL031524.shtml –
But of course who would come to Wattsup to get a serious education?
P.S. Usual ruses here – (1) present rainfall stats for the whole Murray Darling Basin (MDB) – issue is lower MDB – i.e. Murray itself. Better still present rainfall stats for the whole of Australia. (NW has become wetter – while east, SE, and SW drier – average that and learn nothing !!)
Ruse 2 – “there have been droughts before” – duh !
Ruse 3 – pretend AGW science doesn’t know/care about natural variability”
Hah I see that the bloggers over at WUWT are onto the village idiot as well,rebutting the same crappy and desparate arguments he raises here..yet again
Like the man said ” Get a life”.
May be one day you will gvie an intelligent answer instead of this faux bristling because some one has called the shonkademics out..
or
Found another piece of unacceptable behaviour by the UN heavies starting with the SG
http://pajamasmedia.com/claudiarosett/un-climate-cronies/
Is there no end ..and all the while the shonka demics remained silent
luke, that McIlpine paper deals with changing vegetation cover through land-use and that impact on climate; as a concept that may have some legs whereas AGW has the legs of a dead snake; of course if you are going to deal with clearing of vegetation as a contributor to changing climate than you had better read what your mate Flannels has to say;
http://www.pnas.org/content/105/34/12150.abstract
And perhaps some reading up on ‘firestick farming’ would be useful.
Just a little off topic, take a look at this negative AO. The UK will get another blizzard very soon.
http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/daily_ao_index/ao_index.html
“there have been droughts before” – duh !
Luke,
This argument of land cover change is well accepted and combined with NV is more than capable of being responsible for what’s happening.
But you should stop kidding yourself that you are “across” it any more than anyone else.
PS: you know we love your opinions but that’s all they are.
cohers,
Probably one of the few times when Flummers was anywhere near the truth. But it would not take too much working out. The same thing is happening here now on a smaller scale. The feral wildlife are killing much bigger native fauna by killing the young and preventing breeding and it would be easy for feral man to have done this back then as he did it everywhere at some stage.
Do you know if native man in Africa ever wiped out any megafauna or has it only happened with ferals?
Outstanding rebuttals guys. Don’t think I can recover from that intellectual onslaught.
Sound of crickets …
Luke,
I just received a reply from the principal scientist, coastal div. WRT to the HAT of the 31/1/10 and my obs that in spite of it being a HAT it did not reach within 20cms of the usual king tides for the past 47 years.
“To assist, I have attached a plot of the tide information that I obtained from Queensland Transport’s tide gauge located at Southport for the period 29 January to 2 February. This plot clearly shows that the actual tide recorded by the tide gauge exceeded the HAT value for this region. It also indicates that the actual tide was higher than was predicted to occur.”
To me this indicates that SLR is not only not occurring in my NOTW, it is considerably less than it was almost half a century ago.
It’s hard to imagine that el nino is responsible for that much anomaly.
I sent Dr Church from CSIRO an email as well as you suggested but no reply as yet.
I have been trying to make a point about possible doubt in SLR over at doltoid but those jokers are really in serious denial.
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/andrew_bolt_in_one_graph.php#comments
I probably just don’t explain myself very well.
Spangles,
Actually EL Nino isn’t a cause of anthing – it’s actually weather itself, and has an external cause.
And don’t worry about Doltoid, they are impervious to reason and the blindingly obvious, so it’s not you but they who have the problem.
Louis, good to hear from you again, is it possible that El Ninos may be caused by submarine volcanic activity or at least hot spots in the sea crust?
El Nino; here is the latest paper re: El Nino, which is argued to be an expression of a subharmonic reasonant pattern, solar related, of climate. I’m still trying to wade through it after David Stockwell sent it, so you guys might as well suffer as well;
http://arxiv.org/abs/1002.1024
http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_drives_longer.html
Spangles note the figure – not all regions behave uniformly !
Here’s Luke with the old ‘failure to quote’ argument, this time turned the other way around:
fail to quote the last line of the Lockart et al GRL paper which says “It is stressed that the results of the analyses presented here in no way negate genuine concerns over anthropogenic climate change”
Is it really an important scientific datum to note that some people are truly hysterical and nothing will change their minds?
Actually, it probably is.
Schiller – Lockart et al will be soon rebutted into the Stone Age in an upcoming GRL. i.e. it’s rubbish a.k.a they’ve cocked it up. ROTFL
So eat shit and die (as they say – rhetorically of course).
Moving on to something much more interesting than denialist waffle …
“It is important not to make the mistake made by Lord Kelvin and argue that there can be no influence of solar variability on climate: indeed, its study is of scientific interest and may well further our understanding of climate behaviour. However, the popular idea (at least on the Internet and in some parts of the media) that solar changes are some kind of alternative to GHG forcing in explaining the rise in surface temperatures has no credibility with almost all climate scientists.”
http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/466/2114/303.full#F8
LOLZ !
The Royal Society has become captive to the Greens, in both climatology and genetic engineering. They’re not the credible bunch they used to be.
Meanwhile, in an announcement on Feb. 8, 2010, the US Department of Commerce and NOAA proposed establishing a NOAA Climate Service — and its website is already up and running!
Here’s how NOAA ‘proves’ AGW: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/indicators/
And here’s the Climate Service website: http://www.climate.gov/
Obviously they haven’t heard of Glaciergate. And does NOAA actually need to fund another misinformation project? Of course. After Climategate, the need is greater than ever!
Brace yourselves — the warmers have more money to spend than anyone else, and more money at stake as well. All those lovely tax dollars for windmills.
The only interesting question left is whether those who claimed to be ‘scientific’ were duped, or were they willingly going along, with hyping AGW?
Luke shrieking irrelevance leaves the question open in his case.
Schiller,
The true sign a partisan is on the losing side of an issue is when, like NOAA, they kid themselves into believing that if they can just talk a little bit louder, everyone will finally understand.
If anyone at all on the AGW believer side actually thinks they have not gotten their message out at this point, they are only kidding themselves.
Their message, to their dismay, is becoming more and more well understood. That is why it is losing credibility by the day.
Reflect on this: The AGW social movement has always been a perversion of science and government. Their answer to any challenge is to toss more money at the problem.
When you look at AGW which is the biggest fraud of the last one hundred years, you must apply the proper questioning as to its cause and ongoing momentum.
First of all you must follow the money whether the supporters come from the left or the right, whether green groups or business or wealthy businessmen/ women.
Look at the vulnerable super funds invested by the BBC or ABC etc for example that require the setting up of a carbon economy with a price on carbon to bolster those same funds.
Look at the merchant bankers and banking houses that have a vested interest in this PRICE ON CARBON mantra that they all require to make this the next trillion $ product.
Hunter,
By latest count, over $70 billion, with a ‘B’ has been funneled into ‘climate research’ as a result of the global warming scare.
You would not fool yourself for that kind of money, but would you fool others for that kind of money, with the promise of more to come, if you fooled a few more?
Untold riches beckon, and the lure of being a ‘rock star’ in the field of Saving The Planet… all you have to do is tell some clever lies.
You could be like Bill Gates, except that people actually like you. Maybe even worship you.
Imagine the corruptible turning aside such opportunities. No way.
The other night I was doing the washing up, but half heard a climate expert (?) on TV. I think he said that low rain in southwestern Australia over the past few decades is due to more snow falling in Antarctica. Has more snow fallen in Antarctica? All over, or only in the peninsula?
I remember a Belgian professor of climatology, who had worked in the antarctic, telling me, decades ago, that a slight rise in temperature there would lead to more snow. The models at that time were predicting a 12 degree rise at both poles, but, as he pointed out, even if that came true, the temperature would still be well below freezing. Also, would not more snow in the Antarctic lock up more water there, so leading, if anything, to a fall in sea level? I am looking for truth through consilience.
Interesting link on the bolt site indicating that one of hansen’s colleagues is highly sceptical of the IPCC. http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/no_scientific_merit_to_ipcc_document_says_hansen_colleague/
While perusing some of the review comments to the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report, I came across the contributions of Andrew Lacis, a colleague of James Hansen’s at GISS. Lacis’s is not a name I’ve come across before but some of what he has to say about Chapter 9 of the IPCC’s report is simply breathtaking…
Remember, this guy is mainstream, not a sceptic, and you may need to remind yourself of that fact several times as you read through his comment on the executive summary of the chapter:
There is no scientific merit to be found in the Executive Summary. The presentation sounds like something put together by Greenpeace activists and their legal department. The points being made are made arbitrarily with legal sounding caveats without having established any foundation or basis in fact. The Executive Summary seems to be a political statement that is only designed to annoy greenhouse skeptics. Wasn’t the IPCC Assessment Report intended to be a scientific document that would merit solid backing from the climate science community – instead of forcing many climate scientists into having to agree with greenhouse skeptic criticisms that this is indeed a report with a clear and obvious political agenda. Attribution can not happen until understanding has been clearly demonstrated. Once the facts of climate change have been established and understood, attribution will become self-evident to all. The Executive Summary as it stands is beyond redemption and should simply be deleted.
game set and match?
Davey shows you never read anything I have ever said here. I have quoted a number of papers showing changes in the Antarctic vortex which keeps Antarctic colder. And modelling of stratospheric ozone depletion with greenhouse forcing reproduces these changes in the southern annular mode SAM). And the Indian Ocean Climate Initiative in your fair state attributed changes in SAM and natural variability to be causes of WA rainfall decline. i.e. rainfall bands miss SW WA …. Sigh … but why would believe that ? It’s just a bad patch Davey. She’ll be right mate.
Toby in a world of 6 billion people many people will have issue with the IPCC report. This dude has probably had a falling out and now knows better. Or sour grapes? i.e. really who cares?
Toby don’t you find it strange that 2009 is still warm despite the quiet Sun. We’re all amused. Indeed a “pulversing ice age” about to hit according to the pundits here. And why with all this cold going on has the satellite Jan temp almost spiked to record levels. I know it’s because we’re heading for an ice age. Wake up !
Furthermore the Lockart et al paper will be shredded in next GRL.
The guys here should be in the fencing business. They’re into “-Gate” manufacture.
And reproduced from Deltoid. (what Bolt crap – more denialist utter bunkum)
Andrew Bolt doesn’t know or care what a draft is
Category: Bolt
Andrew Bolt has written a post where he pretends that comments made by Andrew Lacis about the first order draft of the summary of chapter 9 of AR4 WG1 are actually aboout the published report.
Andrew Revkin asked Lacis what he thought about the published report:
“The revised chapter was much improved,” he said. “That’s different than saying everything in there is nailed down, but I think it’s a big improvement.”
Overall, he said, “I commend the authors for doing as good a job as they did. That’s the way the science process ought to work. You get inputs from everybody, find any bugs, crank through and the science moves forward.”
And from Gabriele Hegerl, one of the lead authors:
We felt Andrew Lacis’ comment reflected that he couldn’t clearly see where statements came from, which is why we strengthened the pointers from the technical sections to the executive summary.
The heading ‘Human Induced warming ..widespread’ is exactly as strong as we felt the finding summarized under it reflects: ‘Anthropogenic warming of the climate system can be detected in temperature observations taken at the surface, in the troposphere and in the oceans.’ We felt that the term ‘widespread’ well reflected the fact that we have detection and attribution results that show that recent warming is inconsistent with internal climate variability and other external influences alone in surface temperature (see Section 9.4.2), tropospheric temperature (see section 9.4.4.), and in ocean temperature data (see section 9.5.1).
Luke, given the world has been warming for a few hundrd years, wouldn t you expect temperatures to be high? Yes the sun has been less active, would you expect it to cause a sudden cooling given the additional heat in the system? That said I must say I was very surpised to see january being so warm. However, given that I am sceptical of global average temperatures I do not place much faith in the veracity of this data. The fact that we know how cold it has been in the northern hemisphere would suggest it must have been much hotter in the southern hemisphere. Has it been?
Personally I think the science is irrelevant ( ie for or against) because without new technology, emissions can not be cut. Nothing we do here matters in any way unless we find the new technology. All we will get is more greenwashing and wasted money just like the 360,000 homes who have received greenhouse assessments and the 10,000 assessors who paid $1000-2000 for training on the basis they would have employment for at least 3 years…… all the funding will be gone within 9 mnths with little if anything to show for the 250 million spent. Look at the fraud with emissions trading in Europe and it is abundantly clear that the theory of global warming is being used to line peoples pockets. And there is no doubt many scientists are also guilty of this. It s human nature.
When we can cut emissions effectively then maybe its worth trying to lower co2. However that said whilst I do believe in co2 being a green house gas, I am far from convinced that it will cause dramatic increases in temperature. I find the reliance on positive feedback highly suspect….but as i said the science of climate change actually does not matter because the world is kidding itself if it thinks emissions will be cut without a new cheap energy source. Dont you think?
Well Toby how do you know the Earth is warming then? No confidence in the data you say?
Whether a solution if difficult or political has nothing to do with the science.
And I doubt many scientists are making their fortune from climate research. They should have done law, medicine or accounting if they wanted dollars. BTW if you do a research grant you do have to actually do some considerable work in return or you won’t get another.
As for the northern hemisphere – how warm is the Olympics? Any snow yet?
Yes Vancouver is unusually warm, the east coast unusually cold. I have no issues with believing the trend in temp has been up since the LIA. I am just sceptical of the veracity of any “global temperature average” and how it is created.
The reason i say the science is irrelevant is because even if its right in its dramatic projections, there is nothing we can do about it without doing things that we all know will not happen ( ie culling people and making us stop burning fossil fuels).
When we find a new technology, then we can have a debate about the science. Until then, right or wrong, humans can do ntg. This is not defeatist, just reality. Currently, adaptation not mitigation is the only way to reduce hardship if there is a problem.
Its not a question of making a fortune, its a question of making a living. Yes some could have the skills and ability to be lawyers or bankers, but there are only so many of those jobs around. Science is relatively easy to do at Uni, Law is not. Once you become a trained scientist that is your career, so you rely on govt grants etc for your living to support yourself and your family. Im sure most believe they are acting in mankinds interests. Self interest has a funny way of distorting thinking.
Given the obvious exagerations and distortions being disclosed on an almost daily basis surrounding teh IPCC, I have little doubt that it is the sceptics that have won the recent battles and the war will not be over for many years one way or the other.
I would just like somebody to stand up and acknowledge the futility of trying to cut emissions and be honest that we are really discussing “moral” gestures given current technology. moral gestures are fine for the rich like al gore, but not for people struggling to pay their bills…myself included. I would also like acknowledgment that an ETS is incapable of changing australian or global temperatures and will cause large price increases year in year out. To me the science is far from settled and the politics is a complete wank.
Heaps of snow for the Olympics Lukebaby,
It ain’t that warm.
Aahahahahahaha.
” Science is relatively easy to do at Uni” – Gee – yep those science PhDs just pop out no worries …
“Once you become a trained scientist that is your career, so you rely on govt grants etc for your living to support yourself and your family” – gee mustn’t be any scientists in business. Must tell Monsanto, Shell, Bayer ….
Somehow Toby I think you haven’t got a clue about lowly funded competitive science ….
Luke, just like you have no idea about the real world. The people you refer to as climate scientists are invariably attached to universities or environmental and lobby groups and do without doubt rely a huge way on the gravy train that has become “climate change”. The scientists that work for companies like shell, bayer, monsanto get paid better because they actually produce a “good or service” with a market value.
As you usual you twist statements to support your own paradigm. I never said science degrees “just pop out” im sure they work hard for them, but once youve got one you need a job don t you??!! how many
You also as usual ignore the majority of what i say and the questions because of their inconvenient truth.
Do you actually think you need higher grades to do science than law/ business law??
If you do a degree in science, how many jobs are there for you in the business world where you actually produce anything?
the new gravy train is a way of securing your future. Would you want to be the scientist that blows up that train of money?
Serious science is heaps harder than law. (not that law is trivial) Stream popularity is a social issue.
And Toby – you’re the one making sweeping generalisations – not me !
Indeed some scientists are disappointed and don’t get to use their skills. i.e. just no jobs.
Your mere thought about gravy trains means you have no idea what most scientist endure….
Mate making money is NOT why most people do it. Stop swallowing all the denialist bunk like the complete sucker you are..
“Climate scientists are invariably attached to environmental lobby groups” – pullease !!!!
Are you such a tosser that you think young people will do climate science – one of the hardest of hard disciplines (maths, physics galore) to “get on the gravy train”. Mate you have come down in the last shower.
Admit it Toby – you have signed onto the denialist mantra which asserts in this one field of science there is a world-wide multi-institutional conspiracy to corrupt all science results to form a new world govt (that’s by the UN who can’t organise a chook raffle i.e. see Rwanda).
Luke says; “Are you such a tosser that you think young people will do climate science – one of the hardest of hard disciplines (maths, physics galore) to “get on the gravy train”. Mate you have come down in the last shower.”
Your naivety demonstrates that you are the tosser. You may set out to save the world by doing climate science. Once you have your degree do you need a job? Having found your job do you need to keep it? If your job relies on climate change, is there any self interest in producing science that cuts off that money.
Whilst you may consider 70 billion dollars and rising an insignificant sum of money, those of us in the real world recognise it as a lot of money. Sure the scientists dont do climate science to get rich, but they do have needs that can only be met by having a job. No climate change equates to many fewer jobs and an incapacity to meet those needs. join the dots…….if you are smart enough…..
As usual you have ignored my main point. The science is irrelevant until we find a new form of energy. Nothing humans do until then will help even if the science is correct.
I would just like to see the truth being spoken rather than the never ending lies that we are fed.
Your words over the last 5 years make it abundantly clear who the tosser is
I see that lead authors from the Ipcc’s AR4 report think that it’s time there was a change to the basic structure and inputs into future reports.
This of course is the direct result of all the GATES that have wrecked the so called science from the previous reports.
The report in Nature even suggests a type of open wiki structure that any QUALIFIED scientist could contribute to may be a good idea.
Scientists from Britain, USA, Swiss and Germany (all lead authors ) all agree with a fundamental change away from UN control, about bloody time.
Even Barry Brook seems to agree, wonders will never cease.
Toby,
You’re right to notice that ‘the trend in temp has been up since the LIA’. A beneficial trend, by all historical accounts.
Then these people come and say it’s all due to ‘car-farts’ and ‘cattle-farts’ and ‘sheep-farts’ (haven’t heard anything about swine-farts, but that’s likely coming soon), and you wonder: when is Greenland going to be ‘green’ (with a small g) again?
Those stinking Vikings were all such liars, of course, and the archaeological evidence of their presence as thriving communities was put there by The Devil, to lure The Faithful.
Right.
Comment from: Luke February 11th, 2010 at 8:51 am
“Serious science is heaps harder than law. (not that law is trivial) Stream popularity is a social issue.
And Toby – you’re the one making sweeping generalisations – not me !”
Just had to put it up again
Dear Luke,
I must protest that I have, for many years, carefully read your stuff, with the exception of the obscene adolescent outbursts, which I rapidly scroll over. Too embarrassing. Plainly, you have not followed my prescription of more cucumber sandwiches. They have a brain cooling effect, and reduce pimples, especially when the crusts are cut off.
The question is, do you read my questions? What I want to know is:
1. Is it snowing more in Antarctica of late, as claimed by the alleged TV climate expert? If so, is this true all over the continent, or confined to the peninsular?
2. If it is snowing more, isn’t that a sign of slight warming? My understanding is that over most of Antarctica it is currently too cold to snow, and getting colder. I believe the ice dome was laid down a long time ago, when it was warmer. The peninsula does appear to be warming, possibly due to volcanic activity, as happened around South Georgia some years ago. Unlike some AGM botanists, I intend to keep well away from Heard Island.
3. Would not increased snow in Antarctica lead to lower sea levels? What does the Maldives president have to say on this? Has he published in Nature?
4. If, on the other hand, most of Antarctica is getting colder, will south-western Australia be increasingly plagued by the smell of methane and ammonia laden penguin-poo, carried on the southerly breezes? What effect will this increased methane have on global warming? Will penguin culls be needed? Can the crew of the Sea Shepherd help? What is their methane and ammonia footprint? What do Peter Garrett, Penny Wong, WWF, and Greenpeace say? Have they published in Nature?
Can you help me with these trifling matters? I trust you are already writing Fortran code to incorporate them in your GCM.
Your affectionate uncle,
Davey
P.S. Ahem … that’s AGW, not AGM (Annual General Meeting).
Schiller, its funny isnt it how the hundreds of peer reviewed papers prior to the 1990’s supported the MWP, but now we are being told it was just local! And yes i doubt few would like the temperatures of the LIA! thnk goodness the trend has been up.
Davey, i do enjoy your humour!
Toby,
What do you mean, ‘humour’? I am terribly serious about Anthropogenic Global Warming, just as I am about Annual General Meetings. Luke is the only one who can help us, and the penguins.
Schiller being a farming type you must spend lotsa time inside. Cows and sheep belch the methane – something about a rumen – oh never mind.
Vikings eh? How Eurocentric. And Vikings probably were liars – would go with all that raping and pillaging? Like denialist scum do daily with science. You forgot the MWP mega-droughts – would your little farm more interesting. And you’d be happy that the Darkies in Africa would also have been similarly affected.
Can’t help you with trifling matters Davey – but perhaps you might need to do a thing called a mass balance – i.e. subtracting the accelerating Antarctic glaciers like PIG from any increased deposition. Oh that’s right we discussed all that. …. zzzz
Undersea volcanoes causing Peninsula warming – yes dream on ….
Neville – yes open Wiki is great. Let’s do medicine the same way. Everyone gets a turn. LOL
And dear dear Toby – hmmm – ” You may set out to save the world by doing climate science. ” well now – alternatively you might have been interested in weather, aviation forecasting, instrumentation – you may end up on climate change if you show higher intelligence and research skills. Pullease Toby – use the other hand for a while ….
And again Toby – wait till we have a new form of energy?? Don’t think so matey boy. There are investment decisions involving climate every day by individuals, business, and government (e.g. whether to invest or sell the family farm, whether to invest in a new industry like peanuts in the NT or domestic/irrigation water supply strategy that requires climate advice. We know what your advice would be – dunno … and let’s even try to find out.
Q: How many climate sceptics does it take to change a light bulb?
A: Seventeen to complain about how crummy and dangerous the swirly new lightbulbs are; forty-three to explain that lightbulbs have natural cycles so if we do nothing the light bulb will eventually get back into its warm light cycle; and three hundred and fourteen to blame Al Gore for inventing the science of lightbulbs to make money and to impose socialist government controls over life in general.
How many climate skeptics does it take to change a light bulb?
First off, the light bulb is not burned out, and even if it was, it is not MY fault so why should I change it? Besides, it is far too expensive for me to change a light blub. Why are light Nazis always trying to get me to change my bulb? Also, we are not taking into account all of the wonderful benefits of living in the dark! In fact, after I did all these really complicated calculations, I find that it would take half a million skeptics spending a billion dollars each to change that light bulb. Oh, and you don’t see the Chinese changing THEIR light bulbs do you? Well do you?
Green Davey, I didn’t realise that cutting the crust off pimples had a beneficial effect, thanks that’ll come in handy.
Toby, not to agree with Luke but I tend to instinctively put greater trust in the impartiality and integrity of university scientists and even our own CSIRO than those working for BIG Corporations like monsanto or pharmaceutical companies.
They probably get paid better because of the huge profits involved.
Recently of course, my instincts have been betrayed by the shameful behaviour by SOME at CSIRO, plus the fact that some of our esteemed friends at this site have and do do work for mining and oil companies etc and I have no call to question their integrity, has moderated my thoughts on that issue.
Just because Hansen is a fruit cake, doesn’t mean everyone that works with him is crook.
Luke, your last post about light bulbs was actually quite entertaining.
On a serious note, a question with no traps or sneekiness intended. What is your position on the way the Greens ang Wong keep labelling the power companies as “the big polluters” as if they deliberately and maliciously set out decades ago to destroy the atmosphere? Do you agree with them or do you think as I do that the consumers are responsible and the power generators are simply providing a service?
PS, this question does not imply anything about AGW or not.
Cheers.
so you luke my little naive friend would rather lie to the farmers that we can fix the climate and cut emissions. So how exactly do you expect to reduce emissions without a new source of energy?
so how many jobs rely on climate change for their funding little luke?
the only scientists you and your ilk consider to be “qualified” to hold an opinion on climate are “climate scientists”. The thousands of others who dispute the science get swept under the carpet as being in the pay of big oil etc
Derek, i never said i place greater trust in scientists working for corporations ( i don t trust them much at all and certainly less than many in the csiro). I am merely trying to point out to our naive little friend that without climate change most of them would be without a job. Having chosen to study science at uni, they need a job eventually. Even the smart ones run out of masters and phd funding and need to get a real job one day. Without climate change many would struggle. Of course scientists in corporations who are producing a product rather than a service get paid better…if they are any good. If they arent they get sacked….and probably look for a uni job……..
The point i have also tried to make is with a world with a growing population and more than half living in poverty and striving for higher living standards, ntg anybody does is actually going to lower global emissions levels. It may slow the growth marginally but that is it. No new technology ( or improvements to currently available, including a means of storing this energy) means we are merely wasting money. better to save it and spend it on adaptation if the world does keep warming, and maybe ensure their are enough insentives for research and development of new technology, or innovation of old technology, including a massive prize for an invention or innovation of significance….that might get old codgers like gavin to have a go as well. I ve got a lot of faith in human ingenuity, but not in their lack of gullibility and certainly not in the IPCC or politicians!
But dear luke would apparently rather lie to people. If i was a farmer i would of course be trying to look at trends and predictions, and i d be bloody cross with the exagerations and lies being pushed by many. I would also not be stupid enough to think the models can predict what will happen long term….would you?
By the way luke , how is the snow at the olympics? East coast? mmmmlovely and warm, not. ( yes i know its weather, but you brought it up)
“and maybe ensure their are enough insentives for research and development of new technology”, apologies their should obviously be there.
I know a number of people who have dealt with the IPCC and United nations, and none of them hold them in high esteem…infact they have mentioned how fraudulent they often are……anyone that places any faith in them is a fool.
Ken Stewart believes GISS have manipulated climate data in Mackay, a very good appraisal.
http://kenskingdom.wordpress.com/2010/02/05/giss-manipulates-climate-data-in-mackay/
This is the thin edge of the wedge and may prove to be James Hansen’s crime against humanity.
“What is your position on the way the Greens ang Wong keep labelling the power companies as “the big polluters” as if they deliberately and maliciously set out decades ago to destroy the atmosphere?” Derek – pretty stupid by them. Doesn’t help. It’s nobody’s “fault”. Simply our energy generation has a side effect despite our best intentions. We should aim for better technology. How to do that and maintain living standards is a major challenge.
OK Toby – this piece of work http://www.ccrc.unsw.edu.au/PDF/Timbal_UNSW2009.pdf do you think the author did it for political reasons? Did he do it to “get rich”. Do you think the work tells you anything about his political views? If you lived on the south-east eastern Australia should you be interested in the findings?
Toby do you actually think as El Gordo writes above that Hansen wants to “commit crimes against humanity”? “James Hansen’s crime against humanity.” rants El Gordo !
Luke, totally agree. In light of this, I find it a bit confusing that both the state (QLD) an federal Labor governments are so happy about the new deals with China re; coal and gas. This is just more of the same “old” technology and it appears that they are putting profits before principle. I’m yet to be convinced by “clean coal” and have little faith in carbon capture and storage.
I tend to side with Toby and Neville as far as developing new technologies regardless of whether AGW is true or not. I like running my house on solar and wind power, I like being independent of the grid. I also think that some oil companies have done a lot of damage both to the environment and to societies in third world countries and i look forward to the day when we don’t need them any more.
How many AGWers does it take to change a light bulb? A complicated matter.
First, someone has to invent the ‘compact fluorescent light’. Then, someone has to manufacture and sell it. By this time, tens of thousands are involved — the bulk of them being consumers.
Then, someone has to discover that the CFLs aren’t selling near fast enough.
Then, someone has to have the bright idea that ‘there ought to be a law’. And another person gets the bright idea that ‘they will save us from climate chaos’. And they get together with some AGW lobbyists/NGOs, and get lawmakers who want the ‘green’ vote to pass a law mandating CFLs.
Due to the mercury content, these bulbs cannot be manufactured in the US. Thus, they are made in China for the US market.
By this point, the number involved is pretty huge.
Now, here’s a question for Luke, or for anyone else who wants to handle it. It’s not a simple question.
How often does the climate trend change?
Re compact fluorescent globes; when I moved into my newly built house 3 years ago it had over 1000 watts of standard light globes fitted. Now this may not seem like much for all you 10+Kw households but we are on solar power and it was too much of a drain, especially in winter. we changed to CFL’s even before we actually moved in, cutting total power from lights by 80%. Not leaving lights on when not in the room means that at any given time, the 4 of us are only using about 50 watts.
We have a very comfortable lifestyle with most things that the average household would have and can do it most of the time without generator backup.
All of this would have been significantly harder without CFL’s.
As far as Cfl’s being non-disposable and environmentally hazardous, so are disposable nappies! I used to frquent a computer wreckers back in the old days when big businesses all had mainframes, lots of cool stuff like big 12V DC motors etc. Anyway, they could extract all sorts of stuff from that gear and I once saw 16 old fashioned milk bottles full of mercury in one of those old milkey’s cradles. I couldn’t lift it at the time, it probably weighed about 130Kg.
The point is, I’m not sure that Mercury is that hard to recycle so if there is the will (and money involved) there should be a way.
I’m also hoping that within the next 5 years there will be LED “globes” on the market at a reasonable price and we will just switch to them.
I’ve contacted the SMH Online dept andThe Sydney Morning Herald will be streaming the Monckton/Lambert debate live at 12.30 sydney time.
You can see it on their main page http://www.smh.com.au/ it will appear in the main picture top left currently joyce/abbott.
for overseas viewers you can sync your time here.
http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/
Blast from the past:
“In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming … would fit the bill.”
– The Club of Rome, 1999, http://mickysmuses.blogspot.com/2010/02/hills-are-alive.html
And sudden fast-forward to today, with ‘Bill Nye, the Science Guy’, whose forte is communicating science to children:
It’s “unpatriotic” to think that being cold makes you doubt global warming, and doubting global warming is a problem associated with being a member of the “older people” crowd.
http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2010/20100211063234.aspx
You know, that crowd that’s seen enough media ordure to supply organic farms from now until the Sun goes dark.
But, due to an accidental concatenation of self-aggrandizing efforts, we have…
… drum roll…
–the Green Police! Enjoy this short video, it’s squarely on the mark, and the profit motive is not difficult to discern, when you reach the end. Remember, it’s advertising!.
http://www.breitbart.tv/the-green-police-audi-super-bowl-commercial/
I’d say it’s too good to be true, but Luke’s ideal vision of the Club of Rome’s fondest wishes is very effectively portrayed in that video.
Luke will doubtless defend this video as ‘an inspired vision of the ideal society’. Go, dude!
“Toby do you actually think as El Gordo writes above that Hansen wants to “commit crimes against humanity”? “James Hansen’s crime against humanity.” rants El Gordo !”
No I would be surprised if he was motivated by anything other than good intentions. But to set out to exagerate as we know he has done is not something to be condoned at all. To actually manipulate data and cheat is something that should be prosecuted if for no other reason than to prevent others from doing the same. Dont you think?
Your link is an intersting one and i have no problems with scientists looking to monitor what has happened and look for reasons why. If I was a farmer would I be interested, you bet.
That does not change the fact that the govt has funded an enormous amount of research that has been linked tenuosly to “climate change” to attract those funds. Just like if you didnt want a factory built near you or your favorite spot you would automatically claim there was some endagered species there and would cause environmental damage etc…….its human nature to see things through a prism that is most likely to support your own bias.
Derek,
I didn’t mean cut the crust off pimples – er, what I said was – like, umm. Enlarging the historical perspective, cutting the crusts off CUCUMBER SANDWICHES was a well kept secret for hundreds of years, since the MWP in fact. That’s how the Plantagenets (I am one, but, alas, twice illegitimate) kept such cool heads in times of insurrection and global warming. Even the current German imposters in Buckingham Palace follow the practice, just in case. Do try to keep up with social trends.
Luke,
At some unpredictable time in the future (could be tomorrow, next year etc.) you will hear, on the ABC, of a vast volcanic eruption on Heard Island, or thereabouts. Hundreds of botanists will be killed, and the sea shall boil, and great monsters crawl upon the land etc. The price of pumice stone will plummet (sell now). Professor Marty Feldman told me this, just before the solar wind blew his telephone box into the Antarctic vortex. Do try to keep up with the science.
Schiller’s got a point. Everyone MUST SEE this American commercial which ran during the latest Superbowl seen by the biggest TV audience in US history. It represents perhaps the most stunning proof that the climate wars are virtually over but for clearing a few caves of climate-jihadi extremists.
http://www.breitbart.tv/the-green-police-audi-super-bowl-commercial/
It’s a well-documented sociological rule that when a sacred cow (in this case authoritarian/collectivist environmentalism) is employed on a prime time TV commercial as comedic trope to sell a consumer item, said sacred cow is well on its way to the slaughter.
Where’s Baghdad Luke?
Fire in the hole!!!!!
Toby – “That does not change the fact that the govt has funded an enormous amount of research that has been linked tenuosly to “climate change” to attract those funds.” – hardly – Work was funded by SEACI as agriculture was concerned about 13 years of ongoing drought – a period in southern Australia of worst on record. Research program wasn’t “made up” for something to do. And a very hard problem.
Green Davos – they dragged a probe across the submerged volcano in the Antarctic Sound – hardly registered a temperature blip. And yes sub-Antarctic volcanoes may or may not erupt – ho hum…
Anyway science wise Tim Lambert whopped Monky’s butt – so happy day.
Still plugging the STR variation as a barometer of AGW luke; the solar connection looks more promising:
http://eprints.usq.edu.au/4710/4/Williams_Stone_IJC_2009_SV.pdf
Anyway science wise Tim Lambert whopped Monky’s butt – so happy day.
dream on Luke!
actually he only got him on the Pinker paper but the Monck slayed him on everything else including the wrap up.
I bet there’s a phone call tonight between the Monck and Ms Pinker 🙂
janama: I don’t think Tim did score with the Pinker paper except to the extent that LM thought she was a he; here is what I posted at Deltoid at 269:
“The reference to Pinker at al by Lord Monckton was the basis of his point that CS to AGW is much lower than IPCC estimates. Tim’s rebuttal was forensic to the extent that he obtained an opinion from the horse’s mouth, as it were, to state that the Pinker paper found nothing inconsistent with the IPCC estimates of 2-4.5C for 2XCO2. Unfortunately I feel Tim undermined his point by putting up an image depicting incoming SW blockage by cloud albedo and outgoing LW blockage by low level cloud. To impugn LM’s estimate of reduced CS relies on an equivalence between the reduced forcing from cloud albedo and increased forcing from cloud LW blockage; this is not the case:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/243/4887/57
Ramanathan et al found negative SW forcing from cloud albedo to be 4 times forcing through SW/2XCO2; 4 times is not as much as LM’s 7-8 reduction of CS from 2XCO2 but well on its way. “
Cohenite,
I missed the debate and am trying to make sense of the Pinker issue.
Could you update me privately please?
Thanks
Louis, the e-mail I have for you is not working; can you send me one?
A J Strata has a post up claiming that Europe’s temperature data is a mess and an outlier. He says if you take Europe out then temperatures fall by 1.5 degrees C. (AJ has been looking at E M Smith ‘Chiefio’)
A lot of this goes over my head, but perhaps it may be of some interest.
http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/12736
Well Cohenite – that’s why you’re called DENIALISTS.
Just sit back now and wait for the backlash after the sheer blatant dishonesty of the faux sceptic campaign starts to sink in.
Janama – don’t confuse showmanship and razamattaz with science. It’s usually the nerd who looks uncomfortable wearing the tie that really knows.
Brilliant El Gordo – that explains all those papers showing species responding to warming conditions, why two SST analyses show warming, why all 4 commonly quoted data sets have similar patterns. I know let’s just make up some fanciful shit and quote it like source. I read on the internet that denialists are actually from Jupiter – is that true? More like the planet Penis.
Louis – the summary is here on the letters page of the SMH
http://www.smh.com.au/national/letters
Luke – I never confuse showmanship with science which is why I don’t bother with your posts.
Monckton in his summary clearly refuted Lambert’s claims about Pinker by his statement that he’d sent the paper to various mathematicians who had all confirmed his interpretation of Pinker. That’s the trouble with science today in a nutshell, Pinker was obviously too scared to criticise the IPCC and support a sceptic.
Louis – there’s an mp3 of the debate available here.
http://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B3F3kbD-1xCDZWE3YTBmYzktZWIxOS00MGIyLTk1ODMtNmRiMjU5ZGJkNWVj&hl=en
G’day Green Davey,
Next weeks hearing schedule, for the Bushfires Royal Commission, shows 2 witnesses coming from your way, Lachie McCaw and Rick Sneeuwjagt , Dept. of Environment and Conservation, WA . Topic is land and fuel management.
Any comment from you re these two. Do you think they will provide any useful insight into this matter, notwithstanding different forest types, etc?
The commissioners will be present as per usual but will be sitting to one side. An expert panel will sit in their place at the head of the room. Could be very interesting. Maybe dissappointing. Don’t know who the panel is.
Last week, we had the revelation that, legislatively speaking, it was shown that native vegetation laws override human safety issues, when it comes to bushfire management. Who’d have guessed, eh.
Cheers,
Stewie.
janama; I had to leave before the summaries [and in fact some of the audience questions were straying from any meaningful path] so that SMH presentation is good; I honestly believe that LM has his heart in the right place and speaks great sense and with conviction. The Pinker issue really is a dead duck as my 2nd comment at Deltoid at 297 shows; that is the point; Pinker shows that insolation and solar forcing increased from 1983; how can that be in accord with IPCC reporting which says solar forcing declined and was dominated by AGW in that period; combined with the LACK of equivalent forcing between reflected LW [a negative forcing] and blocked LW [ a positive forcing] as shown by the Ramanthan paper it is clear that AGW forcing is negligible as LM asserts. Time to concentrate on real environmental issues.
http://sppiblog.org/videos/lord-monckton-on-climate-change-melbourne-highlights-clip-parts-i-ii
Having trouble with the mp3 reference above. If anyone else in the same boat there are other records of Moncktons presentations given in Australia.
No wonder Lambert came off second best
All good stuff
Cohenite – Dr Pinker is not as scathing about Monckton’s interpretation of her work as Lambert suggests. Yes the IPCC interpreted her work correctly but it appears she has sympathy with Monckton’s interpretation also.
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/upload/2010/02/debate_australia_tim_lambert.pdf
Two extracts:
5. While our work dealt only with the variability of solar radiation reaching the
ground at a global scale, it is legitimate to interpret the results in a new direction, as was
attempted by Mr. Monckton. The question raised by you is related to this interpretation.
I will try my best to understand the comments of all sides and clarify the concept of
“cloud forcing” used by Christopher Monckton.
I believe that one of the issues pointed
out in your communication is related to the use of the “cloud forcing” concept. Indeed,
this is not the official definition of “cloud forcing”; however, if we give Christopher
Monckton the benefit of doubt and assume that he meant “the impact of clouds on the
surface shortwave radiation” than it can pass.
I note with interest that Luke did not respond to my question about how frequently there occurs a change in the trend of global temperatures.
Face it guys – Monckton is finished !
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/moncktons_mcluhan_moment.php
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH – read it and weep
And off the denialists BUT BUT BUT BUT BUT BUT …….
Say what Schiller – you mean the upward trend !
Luke, any trend at all. Up, down, whatever. What is your answer?
Anyway I hear there’s going to be a Barry Brooks/Tim Lambert national tour to counter the disinformation campaign of the usual spruikers and dropping of the ball by government on the climate issue. LOLZ !
Luke is still dodging… how frequently is there a change in the trend of global temperatures, Luke?
” Anyway I hear there’s going to be a Barry Brooks/Tim Lambert national tour to counter the disinformation campaign of the usual …”
Thats what they the alarmists have been doing all along, so what is the difference Baghdad Luke.
Lambert and Brooks will in effect be doing so out of the public purse yet again…and what has that been but disinformation….if it was based upon the current IPCC reports then it would come close to being gross misrepresentation.
..and what has Al Gore been doing allalong but drumming up business via his AIT Prospectus…even has trained monkeys doing the rounds as well.
Anyway both of them should be good for another $1m out of the Labor Govts state and Federal for their road show.
If they time it right with the election cycle like Rann did for Brooks previously, it would be no brainer. Tax payer funded to the hilt ..unlike Moncktons tour heh!
..and what has CSIRO been doing with that chap Torok previously doing his rounds of local and state govt ..again tax payer funded..peddling the message according to Al and the IPCC(Nobel Prize winners ..what an absolute farce that is )
..and you talk about dis-information campaigns.
..as for Monckton being finished ..dream on Flukey old son.
And Luke is still dodging the question: how frequent is there a change in the trend of global temperatures?
OK Darkies Schiller – what is your stupid question?
Minister for UNtruth, Astroturf and Sceptic Bunk – whingy whingy grizzle piddle in the corner Who funds Carter & Plimer – can I help it if all your spruikers are second rate ?
As for “..and what has CSIRO been doing with that chap Torok previously doing his rounds of local and state govt ..again tax payer funded..peddling the message according to Al and the IPCC(Nobel Prize winners ..what an absolute farce that is”
are you some sort of goober – CSIRO is supposed to advise governments on THEIR research. Perhaps they were even INVITED. Would you like them to tell lies like the denialists do?
Moving on, I enjoyed this comment on Deltoid – WHAT A CLASSIC !
“You can spin it all you like but the fact is the good ship Monckton was powered by his argument on climate sensitivity. Tim launched a torpedo that hit amidships. Monckton is still looking for survivors but it is clear that it sank with all hands lost”
HOHOHOHOHOHOHO
Stewie,
Good to hear from you. I have known Rick and Lachie for a long time, and they are good men. They have both theoretical and practical experience of bushfire. Both have fought many wildfires, and carried out many experimental fires. Rick has a Master’s from Washington, and Lachie a PhD from Melbourne. The Royal Commissioners should listen carefully to their evidence, as I’m sure they will.
The Commissioners might also ask other witnesses how many bushfires they have actually attended, over what period. I get the impression that some academics, with strange theories on fire ecology and behaviour, may never have actually attended one, relying on ‘desk research’ to publish many papers. The Commissioners might examine those papers very carefully, especially the statistics, calling on expert help if needed.
I can’t remember the exact words of Jim and Aled Hoggett, after the 2003 fires – something like ‘environmental theory met ecological reality’.
Luke, come on, that was not even an attempt at being clever. Please tell me, how frequently do we have a change in the trend of global temperatures?
Well Flukey old son, advising Govt one thing but peddling porkies around town as policy isnt.
They werent invited… they suggested it to the lefties in LG and States and it went from there.
Monckton isnt finished by a long way ..you are only wishful thinking like all the other frebile unaccomplished air heads that pass themselves of as climate scientists in this country.
You people are really getting desparate.
In the meantime the greatest manifestation of all their work the IPCC AR4 is sinking further into the heap of crap it came from. What is a it now 20 years of work at a cost of over $50bn, for 3500 nongs and all they produce is giant dud full of lies and crooked analysis
If thats all the donkeydemics can poduce… then they are done for anyway… and nothing Lambert and Brooks can do will save it, even if they do score a bucket of money at election time.
Have another go Flukey…
I watched most of the Monckton/Lambert debate and noticed a number of things. Lambert was not totally at ease from the start which got me bored very quickly even though I was prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt, despite his blog site showing him to be a pretentious prick.
He put all his eggs in the one “climate sensitivity” basket, stating that the entire debate rests on whether his calculations are correct or not.
He also thought he was being clever by using quotes from Monckton to make him look foolish to the audience.
Question; if the whole argument rested on the reported figure for climate sensitivity as he says, why are we all still arguing? Why does the IPCC feel the need to use spurious sources to promote exaggerated claims? Why do the CRU and GISS crowd feel the need to fudge the data? Why is there still ongoing research into other climate forcings?
On the surface, Lambert’s argument seems to be a “slam dunk” for the AGW team, as all but one of the commentators over at Deltoid seem to think. But yet again, empirical evidence and “equations” don’t agree.
It is clear that for the past 600K years there has been a correlation between CO2 levels and Temp but it is also clear that these correlations disappear over a much larger timescale.
I made a suggestion once before that perhaps when the CO2 concentrations get really low, the “signal” becomes linked to fluctuations in climate and then shows up as a correlation. But when CO2 concentrations are orders of magnitude higher, that link disappears. Kind of like the signal to noise ratio for old fashioned cassette tapes, the lower the volume, the more you can hear the background hiss.
Could it be that CO2 concentrations have a sensitivity to climate and not the other way around?
Another thing, there is a misguided belief that a change in air temp will cause a similar change in SST. (How does that explain the 1C jump in SST in 76?) Seeing as how the oceans have about 2000 times the thermal inertia as the atmosphere, it is more likely the other way around. It would seem that a cooling atmosphere would take a long time to have any real effect on ocean temps whereas a rising SST would have a more immediate effect on lower atmospheric temps. All of this leads to quite complex interactions with air/ocean/CO2 which suggests to me at least that Lambert’s arguments are quite naive.
Also, most people don’t know that the oceans get some of their heat from the mantle. I wonder how Milankovic cycles affect the Earth’s inner workings?
Good point Derek; you are no doubt aware of the logarithmic absorption and emission aspect of CO2; the simple fact is that CO2 at very low levels has an incremental temperature effect which is proportionately higher than incremental increases from a high base; the argument put by AGW supporters is that heating from CO2 is nonetheless linear because thresholds occur whereby the absorption frequency of CO2 is expanded or broadened into the wings frequencies; eli has an interesting description of it here;
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2007/07/temperature-anonymice-gave-eli-new.html
But this pressure broadening only occurs at temperatures and pressures which are not present on Earth and much higher concentrations of CO2 in themselves cannot produce these higher temperatures and pressures, and if they do occur as possibly in the PETM than homeostatic processes from the immense water reserves of the Earth mitigate the CO2 effect.
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7715-Portland-Civil-Rights-Examiner~y2010m1d12-Hungarian-Physicist-Dr-Ferenc-Miskolczi-proves-CO2-emissions-irrelevant-in-Earths-Climate
The theory of GW is bull dust anyway so who cares who won between Monckton and Lambert.
These two gentlemen sound good Green Davey.
Wednesday, Thursday and Friday are looking at land and fuel management. Unless, there are any prearranged outcomes, this could be a very interesting week. I’d imagine there could be some very worried ‘experts’ in some departments. As they should be.
I don’t know about you Gdavey but I find it quite surreal, listening to those that advocate AGW and the enormous effort they go to. The sky is falling. The sky is falling!!!!!
Meanwhile, in their own country, right under their noses, there is an enormous problem with wildfire, which is having
catastrophic results. Nowhere near as much concern from these environmental saviours. Intriguing.
Academic says, the sky is falling?
Man replies, no it’s not mate but your arse is on fire.
Derek Smith
“Also, most people don’t know that the oceans get some of their heat from the mantle. I wonder how Milankovic cycles affect the Earth’s inner workings?”
In terms of the Plasma model the earth accumulates electrical energy internally but leaks it out via volcanic activity and/or earthquakes which seem to be the subterranean equivalent of lightning bolts in the atmosphere.
We do know just prior to a volcanic eruption that the geomagnetic field around the voclano has massive disruptions a couple of days before the eruption, and in terms of the plasma model suggests a surge in some electric current whose escape path is the volcanic eruption itself.
As for the PDO – notice that it’s in the Pacific Ocean, which is an electrically conductive medium, and the source of that weather would be the energy coming in from the Van Allen Belts that form a plasma toroid around the earth.
It becomes more complex with the earth’s axial tilt as well.
And these plasma phenomena take decades to operate over.
But restrict the scientific analysis to Victorian era gas light physics then Milankovitch cycles and other obscure effects need to be invoked to explain the anomalous thermal behaviour. Use the Plasma Model and it becomes more tractable.
(I also note Tim Lambert admitted to some creative audio for the Monckton debate – though Lucia and a few others thought it was Pinker herself commenting. In any case Monckton (pers.comm) indicated he won it).
What fanciful bunkum Sinkers. Just drop a few buzzwords…..
Malcolm – not even Niche believes Mizwottzy….
Luke Walker
Re Miskolczi’s Theory
Niche Modelling has 5 authors.
I cant find any comments by any of the 5 that says they dont believe.
They discuss it at length, but do not as far as I can tell come out with the statement that is is not believable..
Seem like more make believe by Luke.
Louis, good to hear from you. Re; Milankovic, I was thinking about how electric and magnetic fields change with 1/r2 so as one of the cycles has something to do with the distance from Earth to the Sun, the change in distance would have significant increase in electromagnetic interaction with the Sun. I was thinking what if this interacts with the core in some way which would have a flow on effect with the mantle? Like the way Jupiter interacts with Io.
I know I’m just dribbling here but I thought if I put it out there, people who know a lot more than me could say if it was nonsense or not.
BTW, have vulcanologists tried using electric field strength to predict eruptions yet?
Cheers.
Stewie,
I agree. By any rational analysis, Australia’s Number 1 environmental problem is extreme bushfire. The main cause is not ‘global warming’, but neglect of fuel management. I wonder who the ‘expert panel’ will be? If I knew the names, I could predict the outcome. If they have actual experience of bushfire, they will favour more prescribed burning. If they are only theorists, they will say prescribed burning is impossible, ineffectual, and harms ‘biodiversity’.
I also wonder if Dr Christian Kull, of Melbourne University, has been invited. He did his PhD on the political ecology of fire in Madagascar, and wrote an excellent book, based on direct experience. He attacked the ‘received wisdom’, amongst French academics, and Malagasy politicians, that fire is totally evil and destructive.
There’s a lot of political ecology around bushfire in Australia, and it gets in the way of reality. As with ‘anthropogenic global warming’, there is a need for some clear thinking, and leadership, in the political arena. For those who are worried about that dreadful pollutant, carbon (eh?), then the best way to sequester it is to burn the bush often, and so mildly, so creating plenty of charcoal – umm – biochar.
LOL Michael Mann is now defending himself:
“The major datasets mostly agree,” [Mann] said. “If some of our critics spent less time criticising us and prepared a dataset of their own, that would be much more constructive.”
– ‘Climate data ‘not well organised’ ‘, BBC News, Feb 12, 2010,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511701.stm
That’s rich.
Luke, it’s OK. You can just say that you don’t know, or that nobody knows.
Unassailable insights on AGW by one of the High Priests of the Temple of Global Doom, Phil Jones himself!
Q&A: Professor Phil Jones
BBC News
February 12, 2010
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm
[excerpted]
Phil Jones is director of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA), which has been at the centre of the row over hacked e-mails.
Q: Do you agree that according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical?
A: So, in answer to the question, the warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other.
Q:Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming
A: Yes, but only just.
Q: There is a debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was global or not.
A: Of course, if the MWP was shown to be global in extent and as warm or warmer than today (based on an equivalent coverage over the NH and SH) then obviously the late-20th century warmth would not be unprecedented. [Apparently he’s unaware of the data at
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php%5D
Q: If you agree that there were similar periods of warming since 1850 to the current period, and that the MWP is under debate, what factors convince you that recent warming has been largely man-made?
A: The fact that we can’t explain the warming from the 1950s by solar and volcanic forcing – see my answer to your question D. [The answer to D: “This area is slightly outside my area of expertise.” hehe. Meanwhile, the argument ‘since we don’t know, we can be confident that…’ doesn’t work in *any* context. A conclusion is only as robust as the evidence it relies upon, and ‘the fact we can’t explain’ isn’t much to go on.]
Lukeyloo, seems like your faith is stronger than Phil’s! HAHAHAHAHAHA!
Schiller – you don’t even understand what you’ve read. And certainly present no additional context. zzzzzzzzzzz
Luke,
Let me explain it to you. Phil is saying that the latest warming trend is not, statistically speaking, significantly different from previous warmings, if its currently not as warm as the MWP, the warmness now is not unprecedented, and he’s “convinced” that the current warming is anthropogenic because “we can’t explain” it.
Here’s the context: Phil is talking like a skeptic.
And by the way: if you don’t know how often the global temperature trend changes, you can just be honest and say you don’t know. And maybe say something like, ‘Phil knows the answer, he just hasn’t told us yet.’
Schiller you’re asking luke to think for himself and counter to his fundamental religion, he hasn’t got the sense or the guts to do it.
Remember this pea brain thinks that co2 at a level of 300ppm may have contributed to the 1940’s drought. ( whopping forcing of .1c )
Phil Jones has blown the AGW fraud wide open from the inside out, we now know there is nothing unusual in four trend lines following the natural warming after the END of the LIA.
It’s an entirely NATURAL recovery from the LIA over the last 150 years, surprise, surprise.
Neville,
Now that Phil Jones has abandoned the Doomsday Cult, I have to wonder if others will follow, and if it will become a stampede.
Some will do the blame-game finger-pointing, others too numerous to mention are already busy ‘revanching’ history, but the smart ones, like Phil, will simply redact their opinions and hope that their cosy careers aren’t completely down the toilet.
We’ll always have those like Lukeyloo amongst us, credulous fools who search amongst ‘the literature’ like Bible-thumpers desperate to find authority for a fashionable claim within the Gospels, but the world will move on without these poor benighted souls.
Likely they will find good employment stuffing shopping bags at grocery stores if they can restrain themselves from shouting f**k and s**t at the customers.
It may be that the AGW legislation we most need is to assist those suffering from the AGW delusion. Counseling and medication as needed.
I don’t think there’s a med for coprolalia, though. Might be, people like Luke will simply sit on street corners, beg for money (common in the AGW ilk), and wander about exhibiting random offensive behaviors until they get arrested, which means a warm bed for the night, and breakfast.
I had to laugh at this mornings “Have you Say” episode on Insiders on the ABC – they interviewed 3 members of the Sceptics Society!
On guy claimed he wasn’t sceptical about AGW because there was overwhelming evidence to support it.
Derek Smith
Last question first – no, volcanlogists don’t use the magnetic field fluctuations to predict earth quakes because they don’t understand how those fields are linked into erupting magma. Basically thinking with the wrong ideas.
First question – you have to think of the earth as part of a homopolar motor mechanism, the solar system itself, rather than an isolated sphere behaving in a mechanical fashion.
I asked Peratt some years back about a particular aspect of the Earth’s rotational instability, (it speeds up and slows down based on solar plasma eruptions etc, as well as due to electric charge distribution on its surface), and his advice was to think bigger than what I had been doing until then. This puzzled me for a while until I realised that we are not dealing with a sun-earth objective relationship, but an earth – solar system link that is meshed in with a larger galaxy system. Hence the electric currents coming into the earth come not only from the sun, which is a plasma z pinch effect, but also from the space environment around it.
It’s crucial to not forget the scale of the planets wrt each other, and DOn Scott’s example of a dust particle etc should put things into perspective, so when you think about it in this way, then the electric plasma model becomes easier to understand. We have to get out of the habit of thinking in terms of isolated bodies moving in a Newtonian space.
As Schiller pointed out above, Phil Jones’ belief that the recent warming “has to be due to us” because they can’t think of any other explanation for it, is quite correct – and why I have always assumed that they weren’t falsifying the data, but because they ignore the role of electric plasma in the solar system, and hence the earth, then that is the only conclusion possible in the model they are using.
But this is only part of the reason, the other is the way they think, and you can recognise them as “intellectuals” in the Thomas Sowell sense. They know what to think, and are very good at it, but it’s partly restricted to what they have learnt and partly by being mainly an abstraction, and most of their research is devoted to “proving” the abstraction that humanity is, by default, the cause of the observed warming.
It also explains the Lukes of this world, and the abuse they heap on sceptics is part and parcel of the progressive mind set, a mind set that knows what to think but not how to think, and hence the visceral dislike of individuals like Monckton, who does know how to think, apart from the sceptics here who are probably sceptical because they are still connected to physical reality which the intellectuals are global warmers are not, and hence as a result of serious cognitive dissonance. You only need to read the comments on Tim Lambert’s or John Quiggin’s blogs to get a feeling for the visceral hatred they have for sceptics and conservatives. It’s basically them in their imaginary world, and we, the tragicians, in our world where shit often happens.
Remember that the whole issue is well into the future, not in the here are now which, quite plainly, is not the issue for them.
I’m not sure we will ever convince them that the reason they have decided that humanity has to be cause of the observed temperature is because the science is incomplete. Heaven’s knows how hard it is to get the astronomical community to change their existing paradigm, and climate science is part of this paradigm as well.
Louis,
To your comments I would add: it’s up to the skeptics and conservatives to provide technological progress, and up to people like Luke to complain about it.
Folks,
There’s something in this ‘Climategate’ mess that deserves to make the skeptics abashed.
All along, the skeptics have pointed to independent research that showed ‘climate chaos’ etc. was not imminent.
Yet, all along, the IPCC reports were littered with junk science. Reports which no-one apparently bothered to read with any degree of scrutiny, for years. It’s one thing to clamor for the raw data, and quite another thing to have thrust upon you the scores of citations to bogus science, foisted upon us by ‘green commentators’ and approved by green ‘expert reviewers’.
This ludicrous crap was hidden in plain sight, for years.
Pachauri says that he should be excused from this monstrous fraud because the document is ‘too big’, or some such folderol.
The skeptics should have been all over this ‘too big’ document the moment it was delivered.
‘Climategate’ could have happened well before the release of the emails etc., and all for a failure of scrutiny. This should be a wake-up call for everyone in the scientific community:
look more closely at the crap spewing out, and you’ll observe crap.
Schiller,spot on, if there ever is an AR 5 report ( surely not) it will be a fraction of the size of the present fraudulent mess and every sceptic and his dog will be all over it with a fine tooth comb.
If we see outright lies and fraud plus climbers and students reports as a source then it will be exposed in days, same goes for the extreme green groups etc.
But surely by 2013 the fraud will be well and truly exposed in all the msm before that date?
Professor Jones has told the UK Mail Online that there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming for the past 15 years. He also accepts the MWP may have been global.
Amazing comedown and it’s all happening in my lifetime.
You mean this
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html
This will get Lukes nickers in a right old tangle.
Exactly what Monckton has been saying in all his his speeches, good to see Jones concede on lack of warming for 15 years and MWP being an historical reality.
After you’ve scrapped off all those eggs luke you’ll be able to sit down and tackle that meal of boiled crow.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2OjPJnEtfUE
If Jones’s office such a mess then how was he going to reproduce his work at anytime for anyone.
Now know why ..its all fiddled up anyway.
What does it say about the BOM’s methodologies.?
Gust of Hot Air chap has been saying the same thing for ages.
Malcolm Hill
I read the article, and while some may and I’m sure will argue, that he made only small concessions,
what matters is where the concessions come from?
To hear it from such a powerful and distinguished supporter of AGW is very significant.
You lot are clueless morons. You really are. You don’t even understand what he’s saying. Significant at what level?
Hill have you considered the at least 10 lines of separate evidence of global temperature rise – of course not – you’re a poncey cherry-plucking no-science no-data ranter.
Spin it any way you can nancy boys – the Lambert debate win is the end of Sceptic FraudGate.
Boofhead Neville uses a global number to substantiate a regional argument. Even more moronic.
As you’d expect from the denialist filth:
The revelation http://initforthegold.blogspot.com/2010/02/journalism.html
As I said – you guys are such rope-a-dopes – can’t even understand what you’re reading or when you’re having your chains tugged.
Since Phil’s not a warmist anymore, he’s out of a job. Obviously Luke wants that job for himself!
Phil Jones has made February 14, 2010, the the world’s most memorable Valentine’s Day ever! His BBC interview was truly a gift to humanity, and people everywhere are celebrating! Here’s a selection of headlines, and more keep coming, too fast to keep up! They ought to revoke Al Gore’s Nobel and hand it to Phil instead. The spirit of the European Enlightenment lives on!
Headlines:
ClimateGate Grifter Does The Kansas City Shuffle
Climategate’s Phil Jones Confesses to Climate Fraud
Climategate star Phil Jones digs his own hole
Global warming confession
The professor’s amazing climate change retreat
Professor: Data Used for ClimateGate Not Organized
About Global Warming: Never Mind!
Now who’s a denier?
Is this the Whimper ?
Top Global Warming Warming Scientist Admits Errors
Climategate: Ingen statistisk betydelig oppvarming siden 1995
ClimateGate’s Phil ‘Hide the Decline’ Jones Admits Manipulating Data
Get Rich or Die Warming: Climategate Scientist Admits the UN’s Global Warming Alarmism Is a Fraud and There is No Consensus
Climategate’s Phil Jones publicly admits: No statistically significant warming for past 15 years
La pregunta del millón: qué buscan realmente estos climatólogos?
So, can we have our incandescent light bulbs back now?
Virage à 180 degrés : les scientifiques du ClimateGate admettent que le réchauffement climatique est une arnaque
Confirmed: Glo-BULL Warming is Real(ly A Lie)
Phil Jones momentous Q&A with BBC reopens the “science is settled” issues
Phil Jones’ Partial Redemption
Decline and Phil
The end of the Hockey stick graph?
Meanwhile, people wondering how the folks at Deltoid, RealClimate and algore.com are reacting to Phil Jones’ BBC interview are all getting the same message:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_2k22z8vH128/S3g6YOYj3iI/AAAAAAAAHWQ/DvbGyI9JgPQ/s1600-h/made_at_www.txt2pic.com.jpg
“The temperature records cannot be relied on as indicators of global change,” said John Christy, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, a former lead author on the IPCC. ”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7026317.ece#comment-have-your-say
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/surface_temp.pdf
As they say… its all just policy driven deception, by a morally bankrupt elitist group..either that or they are just plain incompetent.
Not bad heh.. $80bn spent by 4000 scientists, in bed with NGO’s and greeny groups, to produce an outcome that is not worth a crumpet because they cant even get the base line data right..and truthful
..and the village idiot spray his obnoxious bilge at others seemingly as a shield against the reality of their culpability
Poor old flukey hasn’t got a clue, I see in one of the recent interviews Jones notes that attribution of AGW for CC only occured after the 1950’s, certainly not the 1930’s but still a ridiculous statement to make.
Let’s concede that this is the biggest con/ fraud of the last 100 years and immediately stop the funding until a proper enquiry can be set up, hopefully after completion all guilty parties should be named and charges laid.
In the meantime let’s resort to the tried and tested method of ADAPTATION to whatever the weather/climate throws at us. Focusing on a target is by far the best and cheapest way to tackle any climate emergency and broad brush GHG reduction is hopelessly expensive and will never work.
But given time we will invent new technology that will make carbon based energy less convenient, in the interim if we can change say latrobe valley coal to Gippsland basin gas for a few billion $ and reduce GHG’s by 75% I’d say that’s a lot cheaper/better than trying make CC and storage work anytime soon, at an horrendous cost.
Neville by now it has become apparent that you’re as scientifically illiterate and philosophically bankrupt as your fellow denialist scum bags. You have NO IDEA what you’re even reading.
Darkies Schiller thinks listing a bunch of newspapers that have repeated a line of bullshit (remember WMD) somehow legitimises the story. You rope-a-dope. You don’t even understand what you’ve just read.
What denialist filth.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/02/ipcc-errors-facts-and-spin/
Neville,
Your suggestion that we should “immediately stop the funding until a proper enquiry can be set up, hopefully after completion all guilty parties should be named and charges laid” is quite interesting, because it is completely fraught.
Political careers and financial empires hang upon the outcome(s) of Climategate. These careers and empires are artificial constructs, and therefore fragile and vulnerable. The vested interests in both are nonetheless influential and well-financed, within, and outside, of government.
Stopping funding, and conducting enquiries, endangers all of this. So, unfortunately, scientific skepticism/climate ‘realism’, whatever you want to call it, actually poses a challenge to governments which will be loathe to prosecute the scientists who have for decades functioned as government-paid lobbyists. What is becoming known as PGOs.
In contrast to NGOs (non-governmental organizations), PGOs are para-governmental organizations. This can be understood by contrasting ‘military’ with ‘paramilitary’.
Will governments unleash their prosecutors, hired by the government to bring criminals to judgment, when those governments are complicit in the criminal behavior alleged? There are few in the system who are motivated to contravene the fundamental motivations of their governments.
Those in the private sector who built largesse upon global warming will of course also want to avoid ‘the heat’ resulting from credible enquiries. Shareholders/stockholders of Big Oil will question the donations East Anglia, whilst investors in Carbon Credits will face a scandal easily comparable to the collapse of Enron.
In the terms of one pundit — perhaps Barack Obama — Global Warming has become “too big to fail”.
But, on the other hand, Climategate poses a fundamental challenge to a government/corporate hegemony that urgently needs to be decoupled and destroyed.
There’s no way that governments and corporations invested in global warming/climate change/climate chaos/AGW will want to do anything like that. They have other motivations, and none of them involve skepticism (except in the financial/political sense of the term).
It will be difficult to cure ‘institutional autism’, and accomplishing that will require quite a bit, from many. The electorate, actually.
It is so awful that humanity has been led into a situation that presents such dire straits.
Realclimate spin luke!
You carefully avoided discussing Gavin’s mate who is throwing them all, with their spurious theories, under a bus!
Closing down all the university departments with the words Climate Change in their titles will be a start! Plus the web sites spouting the disinformation like Realclimate.
New paper on mathematical analysis of GHG
14 02 2010
Polynomial Cointegration Tests of the Anthropogenic Theory of Global Warming
Michael Beenstock and Yaniv Reingewertz – Department of Economics, The Hebrew University, Mount Scopus, Israel.
Abstract:
We use statistical methods designed for nonstationary time series to test the anthropogenic theory of global warming (AGW). This theory predicts that an increase in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations increases global temperature permanently. Specifically, the methodology of polynomial cointegration is used to test AGW when global temperature and solar irradiance are stationary in 1st differences, whereas greenhouse gas forcings (CO2, CH4 and N2O) are stationary in 2nd differences.
We show that although greenhouse gas forcings share a common stochastic trend, this trend is empirically independent of the stochastic trend in temperature and solar irradiance. Therefore, greenhouse gas forcings, global temperature and solar irradiance are not polynomially cointegrated, and AGW is refuted. Although we reject AGW, we find that greenhouse gas forcings have a temporary effect on global temperature. Because the greenhouse effect is temporary rather than permanent, predictions of significant global warming in the 21st century by IPCC are not supported by the data.
http://economics.huji.ac.il/facultye/beenstock/Nature_Paper091209.pdf
Folks,
It’s now official.
Luke has determined, with his usual perspicacity and back-alley argot, that what Phil Jones says is a “line of bulls**t”.
When Luke offers that description of claims made by a High Priest of the Church of Planetary Pyrotechnic Doom, you can be assured that the hard-liners will be launching a severe denialist assault.
Uncle Phil was smart to get out early. As time goes on, he will eventually retrieve his credibility. As for the rest, it’s all in the wind.
RealClimate has finally decided on its new ‘spin’.
IPCC errors: facts and spin
RealClimate
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/02/ipcc-errors-facts-and-spin/
Check out these lovely quotes:
“The IPCC is not, as many people seem to think, a large organization. In fact, it has only 10 full-time staff in its secretariat at the World Meteorological Organization in Geneva, plus a few staff in four technical support units that help the chairs of the three IPCC working groups and the national greenhouse gas inventories group.”
WOW! Gone are the between 2,000 and 3,000 scientists! Maybe they all jumped ship like Phil Jones.
“The actual work of the IPCC is done by unpaid volunteers – thousands of scientists at universities and research institutes around the world”
WOW! What happened to the $72 billion paid to ‘study the climate’?
“Its [the IPCC’s] three volumes are almost a thousand pages each, in small print.”
WOW! That’s like the Bible, but with lots more pages!
Errors in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4): RealClimate counts them.
Total: two: Himalayan glaciers, and Sea level in the Netherlands.
RealClimate admits there exist “Some other issues”, which are few, and everything after that is “Media distortions”, such as:
“TV teams coming to film a report on the IPCC reports’ errors, who were astonished when they held one of the heavy volumes in hand, having never even seen it.” Astounding.
WOW! That’s like actually holding the word of God in your hands, but with lots more pages!
“And there are well-organized lobby forces with proper PR skills”. Who would those be? The ones who forecast Planetary Doom so well that ten$ of billion$ were paid to $tudy the problem?
I won’t belabor you with more from this lame tirade, which is sure to be lapped up as Gospel by the true believers, but remember — we were all warned that Climategate did not herald a return to sanity.
Lukeyloo will love and defend it all, of course.
But, guess what? There’s no mention of Phil Jones in the bombastic screed.
HAHAHAHA! Luke, not even your best friends are on your side any more! HAHAHAHA!
Climategate: Viscount Monckton Takes a Victory Lap
February 14, 2010
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-viscount-monckton-takes-a-victory-lap/?singlepage=true
“Now, Professor Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia has admitted publicly, and — as far as I know — for the first time, that there has been no statistically significant “global warming” for 15 years. He has also admitted that his Climatic Research Unit has lost much of the data behind the “hockey-stick” graph, via which Michael Mann and other Climategate conspirators had falsely attempted to demonstrate that the Medieval Warm Period was not warmer than the present.”
All this time, people have been debating over who should be awarded ‘debating points’ in ‘the debate’.
When the other side concedes, well,
it’s like when you turn the lights on in a roach hotel. It’s easy to see what runs for cover, and what they are.
The RC defence of the IPCC includes this gem: “As lucidly analysed by Tim Holmes”; anyone who can say that can say anything.
http://www.nationalacademies.org/coi/bi-coi_form-1.pdf
Conflict of Interest …this is from Pielkes site.
By this standard Pachauri would fail and demonstrably so.
The IPCC doesnt have any of these basic standards and policies in place so people like Pachauri can run amok.
Absolutely shameful..cretins and crooks like him and Gore can do so well at everyones elses expence..and they gave these shonks Nobels.
Hey Luke, I personally have no problem with global temp rising, It’s supposed to be rising due to rebound from the LIA. I have no problem with melting polar ice, permanent ice is NOT the geological norm and is THE key indicator that we are still in an ICE AGE! Rising sea levels? Oh I forgot, THAT’S NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE AHHHHHHHH!
But seriously Luke, I think I can speak for most here when I say that the problem isn’t what should be happening, it’s the lying, falsification of data, scare mongering and manipulation of people and governments for financial and/or ideological gain.
What do you think, we are going to sit back and say “well the data contradicts what these guys are claiming but it doesn’t matter so what the heck”? That way leads to tyranny.
Yes we know that tribalism is rampant in this debate but there are a good many “skeptics” who challenge the orthodoxy because they believe that it is wrong.
There HAS to be dissent, even if that dissent turns out to be wrong. It keeps the bastards honest!
Schiller, I think you’re on the money there. If you look at what is happening with the 2 Japanese Greenpeace activists and the black market whale meat saga, There are obvious parallels to how governments might react to what’s happening with climate change.
Janama, unfortunately I am not as confident in mathematical models to prove or disprove AGW anymore. I think the climate has too much of a mind of it’s own.
Folks,
Here’s two utter gems:
“The climate crisis could be solved by courteous communication”, The Guardian (UK), 15 February 2010, http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2010/feb/15/science-conflict-resolution
Makes a bit of sense, in an awkward way. How many tons of CO2 are emitted annually by AGWers shouting ‘f**k’ and ‘s**t’? Or ‘denialist retard’? Etc.
The second gem: “A complete list of things caused by global warming”, NumberWatch (UK), 15 February 2010, http://numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm
This is a list of 690 things that will be caused by global warming. Obviously, the IPCC suffers more grievously from the ‘failure to cite’ problem, which Luke conclusively identified, than anyone’s heretofore thought.
Everyone will have their favorites, but here are mine: Earth spinning out of control, Earth wobbling, Earth slowing down, Earth spins faster, Earth to explode, Earth upside down, and… cannibalism!
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/politics/opinion/climategate-is-just-the-tip-of-the-iceberg/story-e6frgd0x-1225830658086
An excellent article by David Henderson in today’s Australian.
Right on the mark.
Rudd/Wong/Combet et al would do well to heed the clear and well enunciated message… and particularly the last paragraph..or at least I hope they do.
But being the clunkers that they are, they almost certainly wont.
Malcolm,
I have to wonder about Henderson’s claim regarding government officials’ “uncritical acceptance of the results of a process of inquiry so obviously biased and flawed”.
I think he’s wrong.
First off, the IPCC (intergovernmental panel) is itself composed of government officials. In spite of the appealingness of the notion, the reports were not written by monkeys with typewriters. The content of the reports is not accidental.
When it comes to other government officials around the world, the number of officials involved in ‘climate change’ etc. outnumber the number of pages in the IPCC reports. This means that at least some of the defects currently in the media were known for a long time, and were either (a) privately applauded; or (b) ignored, because to mention them out loud would mean ostracism from ‘the consensus’.
Now for some good news. Glenn Beck, on US’ Fox News has this afternoon brought the Climategate scandal to the attention of the US public. This means that US Bulk Media, which has thus far mostly ignored Climategate, will have to say at least a little bit about it.
Glenn Beck: No consensus? February 15, 2010 – 14:13 ET (Transcript, audio available)
http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/36336/
Malcolm the govt really should pay particularly close attention to the last paragraph.
Did you notice that google has today announced a super fast wireless that operates 10 times faster than the Nationla broad band scehme teh govt wants to give us for 43 billion…..and i m sure google will creat ethe infrastructure themselves………this govt is actually negligent if it goes ahead with the uncosted NBN…a disgrace.
The Henderson article points out that nobody seemed to apply any critical analysis to the hysteria surrounding AGW other than bloggers. I doubt any of us here on this blog have any interest other than ensuring the right thing is done by our society, i doubt anybody here is in the pay of “oil shills” etc….and yet we are accused of an industry bias etc. The fact that so many of us have been pointing out the holes in the theory for years, does not say very much about the competence of govt and govt departments.
From my perspective, fighting against the mass ignorance induced by the green pill, this is a non-violent revolution. Let there be no regrets, victory is within sight.
Here’s two more fun bits:
Prison Planet is, as far as I can tell, the first blog that’s tried to do a complete list of all the ‘-gates’. See “Guide To The Climate Scandals”, February 15th, 2010,
http://www.prisonplanet.com/guide-to-the-climate-scandals.html
Then there’s the issue of ‘how often is there a change in the trend in global temperatures’.
Luke refused to even think about it, but there’s a webpage that proposes to answer the question, at http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/12/15/how-long/
The author says that the trend could change every three days or so, but statistically, it takes at least 15 years to establish a climate trend.
Hmmm… Phil Jones says there’s no statistically significant warming in the last 15 years, so that answers that one.
Poor, sad, Lukeyloo. He could have offered an answer himself and done a spin on it. The best he could do with the question was instead to say offensive language. Increasingly apparent as a common response amongst his ilk.
At least Phil Jones was polite enough to recant in a gentlemanly way.
Darkies Schiller – you’re just a quote mining denialist turd. Jones didn’t say that at all.
There only 2 acknowledged errors in the IPCC report – the rest is simply JournalismGate – the shonkiest journalism ever seen in a long while. Probably all ghost written by Morano and just wrong wrong wrong.
“Jones didn’t say that at all.”
Yes he did, read the article again!
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/02/15/hatton_on_hurricanes/
The village idiot of course had his fingers crossed, fervently hoping that there were only two errors… but alas and alack
..and yet there is more to come in the pipeline.
It ‘s getting hard to reach this website lately with the denial-of-service attacks. That’s what the AGWers have been reduced to.
Luke, can you tell me what two IPCC ‘errors’ you consider ‘errors’?
I can hardly wait for Luke’s response. He’s probably consulting bird entrails (extispicy or haruspicy) to tell him what the ‘true errors’ are. (1)
But, it’s absolutely amazing how often divination figures in AGW predictions of the future.
There’s aeromancy or acromancy (divination by examining what the air does to certain things).
There’s arithmancy (divination by numbers). Also botanomancy (divination by herbs), hydromancy (divination by examining what certain things do in water), kapnomancy (looking at smoke), and ornithomancy or orniscopy (interpreting the flights of birds).
All of these ‘scrying’ mechanisms can be found at work in the IPCC reports. Someone needs to add ‘dendromancy’ (divination by tree rings), though.
I suspect Luke of using two more: oinomancy (divination by wine), and gyromancy (divination by walking around a circle of letters until dizzy and one falls down on the letters or in the direction to take).
Luke, you really have to tell us which two errors were ‘errors’!
———-
1. http://www.skepdic.com/divinati.html
From http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/jones_comes_clean_kind_of_on_his_dodgy_data/
One of the greatest scandals behind the IPCC’s fourth report was its use of seemingly fraudulent data in a paper co-authored by Climategate ringmaster Phil Jones which purported to use data from weather stations in rapidly urbanising China to claim the urban heat island effect was no big deal.
Jones now finally admits to Nature that his Chinese data was actually dodgy, if not worthless when he and the IPCC used it to claim that the inevitable heating of newly concreted, asphalted and machines-installed cities hasn’t in fact caused much of the rise in measured temperatures:
But in 2007, amateur climate-data analyst Doug Keenan alleged that this claim was false, citing evidence that many of the stations in eastern China had been moved throughout the period of study… Jones says that he did not know that the weather stations’ locations were questionable when they were included in the paper, but as the study’s lead author he acknowledges his responsibility for ensuring the quality of the data. So will he submit a correction to Nature? “I will give that some thought. It’s worthy of consideration,” he says.
Keenan, who as an amateur did what the peer-reviewers didn’t and exposed Jones’ trick, now explains why both Jones and Nature still aren’t telling the shamefull truth:
The (Nature) news report also misrepresents my allegations.
My principal allegation is that some of the data on station histories never existed. Specifically, Jones et al. (1990) claim to have sourced their data from a report that was published by the U.S. Department of Energy and the Chinese Academy of Sciences. Yet for 49 of the 84 meteorological stations that Jones et al. relied upon, the DOE/CAS Report states “station histories are not currently available” and “details regarding instrumentation, collection methods, changes in station location or observing times … are not known”.
Those statements imply that the quoted claim from Jones et al. is impossible: “stations were selected on the basis of station history: we chose those with few, if any, changes in instrumentation, location or observation times”. ..
I have also alleged that, by 2001, Jones knew there were severe problems with the Chinese research and yet he continued using that research–including allowing it to be relied on by the IPCC 2007 Assessment Report..
Read the whole thing here, where you’ll also find Keenan’s proofs. This is the scandal that not only shocked even one of the Climategate scientists, Australian Tom Wigley, but perhaps most starkly illustrates how corrupt some of the science behind the great warming scare became.
And the enquiry into his conduct is yet another example of the ethics involved in AGW.
really how could even Luke not be concerned by the blatan??!! They state they will have an enquiry with impartial reviewers, and then they stack it with believers!
( once again from bolt blog)
The impartiality of glaciologist Geoffrey Boulton has been questioned after he admitted he firmly believed that human activities were causing global warming…. In a 2005 paper Boulton penned for Edinburgh University, he wrote that the argument regarding climate change was “over”.
It has also been revealed that Boulton was one of a group of scientists and meteorologists who signed a statement in December, in the wake of the climate research scandal, pledging their continued support for the IPCC and their unwavering conviction that global warming is being caused by humans.
They thought to profit from AGW, now they’re deserting the sinking ship…
– BP, Conoco, and CAT Abandon Ship, Feb. 16, 2010, http://www.globalwarming.org/2010/02/16/bp-conoco-and-cat-abandon-ship/
N.b.: BP was one of the ‘Big Oil’ funders of Hadley CRU! Boo hoo, goodbye, gravy train!
This is like the story of the Abandoned Wind Farms that’s ‘blowing up’ everywhere:
http://webecoist.com/2009/05/04/10-abandoned-renewable-energy-plants/
and
http://hawaiifreepress.com/main/ArticlesMain/tabid/56/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1698/Wind-Energys-Ghosts.aspx
and
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/death_of_the_wind_farms/
Thus we confront as a global society the true cost of rubbish.
Schiller, its all finally coming out. Its a sad indictment on human gullibility, and lack of critical thinking skills, that it has taken this long for people to wake up. I never buy petrol from BP because of their “greenwashing”, if they make a stand i may reconsider!
You’re kidding yourselves dudes – just keep try to keep pumping up the volume – you’re being ignored by science. Face it – you’re just a bunch of retired whingers.
So entirely pathetic that you can’t even report the Jones interview properly.
The latest denialist turd tactic is quote mining. Only rednecks are convinced.
yawn ….
Luke,
You disappoint me. You were going to identify the two ‘errors’ by the IPCC. Too bad, so sad. I guess you are guilty of ‘failure to cite’, too. Seems to be a common malaise amongst you all.
Surely you could have managed some clever remarks about the IPCC’s use of aeromancy, arithmancy, botanomancy, hydromancy, kapnomancy, and ornithomancy to perform its supreme and arcane occult divinations.
At least you’re not dealing in f**k and s**t this time around!
(You know they know they’re losing when they’re not yelling f**k and s**t all the time — it’s like they almost want to be civil or something.)
fortunately the world is starting to pump it up for us, because they have finally awakened. It amazes me that you think all of the revelations are unimportant, talk about blinded by your religion.
Given that FLuke’s Desk favourite words are turd and s**t, shouldnt copromancy be added the list
….Divining insight from the shape of turds..dogs and his own.
It also seems that the need to yawn all the time stems from the fact that the Qld public service places no value on what he does, so gives him nothing to do. Dont blame them really do you?
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2010/02/16/another-ipcc-error-antarctic-sea-ice-increase-underestimated-by-50/
Oh dear this is getting so cruel ..someone should put them out of their misery.
eg
Sack Pahauri
Shut down the IPCC secretariat.
Make a fresh start using a different approach and let the science drop where it may.
Well can I help it if you are quote mining denialist turds. I learnt the term from Mottsa actually – at his school of personal diplomacy and deportment. Your guy guys.
Whatever.
And speaking of whatever
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/02/whatevergate/
So whatever dudes … nobody is listening except your fellow geriatric redneck mates.
Pump up the volume …. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGPhUr-T6UM
yawn – back to sleep. So boring.
The answer to quote mining denialist filth
http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/CRUstatements/guardianstatement
And now for the backlash
RoseGate becomes DailyMailGate: Error-riddled articles and false statements destroy Daily Mail’s credibilty
Two top climate scientists and the NSIDC accuse Daily Mail of misquoting and misrepresenting them or their work.
http://climateprogress.org/2010/02/15/rosegate-dailymail-error-riddled-articles-misquote-credibility-science/
Luke, cast your mind back to the NH summer of 2008 and you will find other journalists publishing ‘error riddled articles’.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/3345666/North-Pole-ice-may-disappear-by-September.html
Tim Lambert is going hard on journalists and I suspect his strategy is to morph his space into a political science blog.
Journalists deserve a kick up the bum for dropping the global warming ball, when the blogosphere has been screaming for years about this scam.
Something the IPCC can cite in its next report:
“Suicide Penguins” arouse global warming awareness
February 14, 2010
http://english.sina.com/life/p/2010/0213/304313.html
Arizona and Texas are resisting moves to impose AGW inspired policy demands regarding CO2.
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=521142
http://blogs.chron.com/sciguy/archives/2….n_of_carbo.html
Bob Watson, former head of the IPCC, says:
““The mistakes all appear to have gone in the direction of making it seem like climate change is more serious by overstating the impact. That is worrying.””
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7026932.ece
Now AGW true believers, immune to facts, can do the Baghdad Bob all they want, but pretending that no one is paying attention is entertaining, in a rather pathetic way.
The attempt to blame the journalists who are no longer lap dogs for AGW promoters is not going to work out so well, either.
Interesting info this morning on Bolt’s blog, re how much did krudd know about the problems of insulation and safety procedures and did he press garrett to get on with the mad scheme anyhow just to get the money spent?
How much of this money went straight to China and how much of this dangerous useless material is out there just waiting for fires and more electrocutions to make matters worse?
WUWT has another Gate, this time in the under reporting of sea ice increase around Antarctica by about 50%, so we can now add Antarticagate to the list.
I find it interesting that the village idiot uses the phrase pump up the volume,when that is exactly what the bed wetters and over excitable wacademics (being conned by their various media arms)… have been doing for the last 20 years.
Now that they have been called to account, and it is all falling in a heap, the frenetic energy being expended in trying to defend what was from the beginning very poorly organised is amazing.
I still reckon David Henderson’s article in the Australian earlier this week was the best analysis and a sensible way forward that has been written.
More ‘homogenization’ uncovered by E M Smith. ‘Czechgate’ will now join the other gates. LOL
http://www.climategate.com/czechgate-climate-scientists-dump-worlds-second-oldest-cold-climate-record
Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli turned up the heat on global warming yesterday.
On behalf of the state, Cuccinelli filed a petition asking the federal Environmental Protection Agency to reconsider its December finding that global warming poses a threat to people.
Cuccinelli also filed a petition with the federal appeals court in Washington seeking a court review of the EPA finding.
It can be found here:
http://www2.timesdispatch.com/rtd/news/state_regional/article/CUCC17_20100216-222005/324766/
Phil Done, “quote mining” seems to be the new warmist meme to try and dismiss the damaging Phil Jones Q&A.
It’s supposedly taking a persons words out of context and using them to “refute” that persons stated position, or to ridicule them.
No warmist has ever used that tactic, especially not against Christopher Monckton.
John Quiggin accused me of it when he banned me the other day, apparently poor Phil made the mistake of answering honestly, so therefore to quote him is “quote mining”. I guess you have to be an academic to understand that logic.
Luke… You might wanna read this about NASA Giss and their unprofessionalism and bias.
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-2-0-%E2%80%94-the-nasa-files-u-s-climate-science-as-corrupt-as-cru-pjm-exclusive-%E2%80%94-part-one/
Well J Hansford (and must we be so formal) you should read about more ….
More drivel from the denialist filth conspiracy exposed –
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/02/15/dropouts/
How much more quote mining by shoddy journalists and even shoddier pseudo-sceptics must we endure?
Monkey twaddle exposed
http://astroblogger.blogspot.com/2010/02/snowballs-snowjobs-and-lambert-monckton.html
Snow job – yea right !
Do you believe in anthropogenic global warming? Or catastrophic carbon-driven climate chaos? Do you have difficulty defending your faith, much less, remembering all of your climate catechism? Well, your worries are now over, if you have an iPhone!
-“Defeat climate change sceptics with iPhone app”, TechWatch, Feb. 18, 2010,
http://www.techwatch.co.uk/2010/02/18/defeat-climate-change-sceptics-with-iphone-app/
You can browse through the ten most common anti-climate change arguments – such as “it’s the sun”, or “we’re heading into an ice age” – and then view the science behind their rebuttal.
Or you can explore general themes, such as “it’s not happening”, or “it’s nothing to do with us”, and the counter-arguments.
This handy application will help make sure that you don’t accidentally say something factual, like Phil Jones did recently, and become an outcast from the doomsday cult!
Likely the iPhone app includes instructions to chant “denialist hurl scumbag barf twaddle f**k s**t babble twit filth turd puke slime” over and over again, if the challenge to your faith is not found on the handy, user-friendly menu.
Hey everyone,
Climate summary update here: http://www.climate4you.com/
And nice ‘response’ to the Minister here: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/penny-wong-signals-doom-for-iconic-beaches/story-e6frg6n6-1225831970915
… AUSTRALIA’S most iconic beaches, including Bondi, Bells and those on the Sunshine Coast, could erode away or recede by hundreds of metres over the coming century, according to Climate Change Minister Penny Wong.
But locals aren’t so sure.
Bondi veteran Lee Boman has swum at the beach for more than 30 years and was adamant he had seen “no change” to the coastline over that period. “Nothing too drastic that indicates it is going to be changed in the future,” said Mr Boman, 53.
Bob Carter, a geologist and environmental scientist with James Cook University in Queensland, said Senator Wong’s comments appeared to be an attempt to panic the public.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/penny-wong-signals-doom-for-iconic-beaches/story-e6frg6n6-1225831970915
16 cm rise = ca 6.3 inches. If that’s less than wave/tidal surges, which supply the mechanical force necessary to induce erosion, there’s hardly a cause for concern for the beaches.
If you hypothesize a beach shallow enough, of course, a rise of even one cm would engulf hundreds of thousands of square miles. There are few such beaches so shallow, as they are mostly known as tidal flats, etc.
Regardless, if you reward persons for saying certain things, some persons will count the reward as more important than the truth of what they say.
The sea level trend is going down according to the Argo Buoys
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_nOY5jaKJXHM/S3xTTpWSGjI/AAAAAAAAAyk/lWAqvOnb72Q/s1600/Fullscreen%2Bcapture%2B2172010%2B122234%2BPM.jpg
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/02/global-sea-level-decrease-2004-2009.html
Wrong says “”It is possible that with climate change and without large and expensive nourishment programs, Bondi Beach, (Queensland’s) Sunshine Coast and (Victoria’s) Bells Beach may no longer be the beaches we know today.”
Of course it could, its just not very likely. The alarmists have learnt nothing from being caught with their pants down.
“Stupid is as stupid does”, and the AGW industry just gets sillier by the day as it gets more and more desperate.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/02/18/2824113.htm
Yves de Boer boss of the UNFCCC resigns. Paid the price for not being able to make a silk purse out of sows ear
Does this also mean that there may be a chance that Pachauri might follow and that there might be a chance that this thing can be put on a sensible and professional basis, and that Hendersons model for the IPCC part might get up?
Not if Wong and the brain dead bozos in Canberra have anything to do with it.
Who is advising her? They are the ones that should be brought to account!
Folks,
More good news! The crooks at NASA, after two years of ignoring FOIA requests, finally coughed up their own batch of emails. You can find them at:
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/business/foia/GISS.html
There’s four links, each to a .pdf The first one is 73 pp. long.
You can search the files, *sort of*. That’s because a lot of the pages have been scanned crookedly. (Oops, was that a pun?)
Even so, it’s fun to read about them scoffing at Steve McIntyre’s inability to get station data to match records, while they themselves complain of the same problem! There’s lots of fun stuff in there, even better than the East Anglia stuff.
Enjoy!
Janama – your links are statistically laughable ! Come on mate are you that much of an utter shonk to post dogshit like that ….
Darkies Schiller does some more libeling. What a denialist creep.
Folks,
Still more good news. There’s a searchable version of the NASA FOIA emails at:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/25395671/Searchable-PDF-created-for-NASA-GISS-FOIA-documents
You know it’s terrifically good when Luke gets obfuscatory and coprolalic!
what’s the shonk Luke – the blogger downloaded the Pacific Marine Atlas program that executes the download of data from the Argo center. Any one can do it, even you.
ftp://kakapo.ucsd.edu/pub/argo/Pacific_Marine_Atlas/Pacific_Marine_Atlas_setup_v1.2.2.exe
I won’t be doing it as the program is 564meg but that’s all he did and the data produces the chart posted.
Now would you care to repeat what he did and prove him wrong?
Still going through the NASA emails… you know, those folks who made Australia smoking hot with their ‘adjustments’ and ‘smoothing’.
On August 10, 2007, Reto Ruedy is talking about “the [unnamed] person” who “still had the old map series saved”.
NASA doesn’t have the data, but “the person” has it? This is ‘the dog ate my data’ all over again.
Visit http://www.scribd.com/doc/25395671/Searchable-PDF-created-for-NASA-GISS-FOIA-documents
and have fun!
Unfortunately, the documents display in flash, so you’ll have to use an OCR to move text around.
The remarkable thing is, NASA could have disclosed the emails in a standard format, but instead, printed them, and scanned them crookedly.
Yet more evidence of crookedness.
Still, read the stuff. Luke will assail you for reading it, which means, it’s bad on his religion.
Pielke, Jr. also points out that your Ms. Wong is dedicated and deliberate in misrepresenting the science on storm losses and hazards. There is no way she is getting this so wrong by accident.
She could be an american political hack, by her ability to fib sincerely.
Perhaps Luke is writing her boilerplate?
Hunter,
The writing’s on the wall. Mene, mene, tekel, upharsin. The warmists are overwhelmed, all over the ‘net. Problem is, the big money is on the side of junk science, and junk politics.
The basic problem is, you can’t make really big lots of money, or get big lots of votes, unless you really scare big lots of people.
If there’s a way to make really big lots of money or votes from the message, ‘Don’t worry, it’s natural’, I’d like to hear of it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rY0WxgSXdEE
….apropos De Boers resignation this is right on the button …specially for Lukey boyo.
The ship was rat infested to start with and the sooner its cleaned out the better.
janama,
Thanks for the Argo link.
Jen,
In SEQ there is no indication of SLR and my “backyard” shows a fall of 20 cms over the last 47 years based on king tide readings over that time.
This is very interesting
http://comments.americanthinker.com/read/42323/540020/page-1.html
The smoking Gun
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/the_agw_smoking_gun.html
Spangled Drongo: I see you are having strife on this point from Bernard J over at Deltoid (where I am banned) – perhaps you could try explaining to him that there is something called the lunar year, which is quite different from ours, and means that say January 2009 is not quite the same as January 2010. You will of course also have to explain that the moon has something to do with tides – but that is surely over his head and that of his equally cretinous mates in Queensland.
In reading Janama’s link, I once again got stuck on this concept;
“It is well-known that IR radiation causes CO2 molecules to vibrate, but only at very specific wavelengths (wavelengths are the distances between peaks of each wave), and that wavelength is 15µm. (Fifteen µm means that each wavelength crests at a distance of 15 millionths of a meter.) As was discussed above, this vibration of the molecule causes it to heat and then radiate IR radiation back toward the atmosphere and the surface of the Earth. If the solar activity is taken to remain constant, more CO2 in the atmosphere will trap more of the OLR, and thus cause a net heating of the planet.”
I remember this stuff from 2nd year chem @ uni but I also recall (perhaps through rose coloured brain waves) that if said CO2 molecule interacts with another molecule, thus transferring some of its kinetic energy, then it can no longer re-emit in the IR. This means that CO2 would, in many cases, transfer heat kinetically to its immediate vicinity rather than radiating IR back down to the surface. So the whole re-radiating back to the surface thing has never made sense to me.
I should mention that I don’t know if CO2’s energised state is metastable or not or even how long on average a CO2 molecule will hold it’s energy before re-radiating.
It appears that what Gary Thompson ( I wish American Thinker would at least state who the hell he is and his qualifications !!!!!! before publishing such an article) has done is find data in previous papers that all link together and relate on to the Lindzen-Choi paper.
Tim,
Thanks for that.
What’s your thoughts on janama’s link re neg SLR from the Argo data. Is that calculated only from falling temperatures?
We have some strange media behavior going on. European media have covered Hadley’s Climategate extensively. Only now are US mainstream media picking up on it — one CBS (TV) news spot, and some second-tier newspapers finally today:
Climate turning against kooky alarmists
Chicago Sun-Times
The crackup of the climate ‘consensus’
New York Post
Global warming not a threat
Halifax-Plympton Reporter
Global doubting: Why the cloudy outlook?
Houston Chronicle
The global warming swindle has imploded
Tampa Tribune
Climate change claims are bunk
Idaho Mountain Express and Guide
Meanwhile, European media are ignoring NASA’s Climategate entirely, even though US-bashing is a continental spectator sport and the NASA emails are publicly available. And the US media are completely ignoring the NASA story.
Janama’s smoking gun says:
” So the results of three different peer-reviewed papers show that over a period of 36 years, there is no reduction of OLR emissions in wavelengths that CO2 absorb. Therefore, the AGW hypothesis is disproven”
So if AGW hypothesis is completely disproven at the evidence level, by showing the physical basis is not what they thought , then what does this say about all the other lines of so called evidence that the bed wetters and shonks rave on about.
There must be something else that is causing whatever legitamate warming there is.
Conversely if we are heading into a Dalton Minimum as seems to almost certainly be the case then we cant rely upon Co2 to keeps us warm.
Thats a bugger.
Malcolm,
Two things about global warming have bothered me for a decade and a half, including blithe assumptions, or perhaps, poorly-formed elisions, at the link cited by Janama.
One is that CO2 somehow ‘absorbs and stores’ heat. Fact is, there is no element, nor any molecule, anywhere in the known universe. Such a thing would violate thermodynamics.
The other is that CO2 molecules somehow ” radiate IR radiation back toward the atmosphere and the surface of the Earth”.
This, too, violates thermodynamics. To be sure, ‘Maxwell’s Demons’, a theoretical construct, could accomplish this feat, but that theory has been debunked. What is more, there is no evidence that CO2 molecules somehow orient themselves to selectively direct their ‘stored’ heat energy towards, rather than away from, a gravity well.
Couple these absurdities with the fact that CO2 is ~380 ppm and near the ‘saturation point’ (where doubling its component in the atmo makes about zero difference), and you have two flights of fantasy, which — even if true — would make about zero difference.
What balderdash. If they can’t get the physics right, the rest is a waste.
Denialist filth still scratching around right wing think-tanks for the “word”. As “evidence”. Hohohohohoho…. You guys could make money from quote mining.
Darkies Schiller and Mally-boy pretending they’re physicists and “dig it”. Schiller your last comments indicate you’re a moron. Go back to school mate.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
BTW denialists you can now get anti-sceptic info on your IPhone – apparently Piers is pissed.
That’s as in “off”. http://www.skepticalscience.com/skeptical-science-iphone-app.html
So if you’re stuck a social function with Mal or Schiller (probably a cross burning you went to by mistake) you can counter each one of their slimey denialist filth claims in situ. Even a child can do it.
Reckon the comments will get to 3,000 ?
Janama – are you that stoopid that you think a trend that long proves anything (even assuming it’s right which it won’t be). Just go and look at the history on sea level rise.
Sigh – why do we bother ….. yawn ….
Luke,
Thank you very much. Your explanation of AGW and thermodynamics was quite persuasive.
HAHAHAHA… Not!
Luke, why do you even bother?
Dont be too harsh Schiller. He is after all a product of the same education system and Public Service that has given us the worst PM in Australias histroy.
He has all the same traits:
Foul language and abuse
Bad tempered
Irrationality
Inabiilty to separate spin from bull dust
Quite delusional and egotistical
etc
As for the twitty GG he appointed ….same again.
“Just go and look at the history on sea level rise.”
Luke,
Ya mean this!?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1066712/Uncovered-lost-beach-Romans-got-toehold-Britain.html
And if you check out some caves in Spain you’ll find where it was a metre higher than at present as far back as 81,000 years ago.
So Luke – I suppose I should reference the guy who has spent a lifetime studying sea level rise
this guy, Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner.
http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2007/2007_20-29/2007-25/pdf/33-37_725.pdf
Schiller, Atoms and molecules can in fact absorb heat via collisions or EM radiation. As you probably know, this causes either their electrons to jump to higher energy levels or an increase in vibrational and/or rotational frequencies of their bonds. Excited electrons will lose their energy by emitting photons, bonds can either re-emit the same energy photon as they absorbed or transfer their energy kinetically to neighboring molecules.
Excited states are not stable and will rapidly return to the ground state by one of those mechanisms, the question for CO2 is; how long does it maintain its excited state before re-emitting IR? If it is long enough for a collision to occur, then very little energy will be redirected as IR but if it is virtually instantaneous, then much of it may be.
As gasses have a mean velocity at STP of approx. 600 m/sec, I find it hard to believe that most CO2 molecules wouldn’t pass on their energy kinetically, which is why I’m so confused by the “theory”.
BTW Luke, “Darkies Schiller and Mally-boy pretending they’re physicists and “dig it”. Schiller your last comments indicate you’re a moron. Go back to school mate.”
You keep dismissing peoples arguments and/or questions with these childish statements but don’t back it up with arguments that show why they are wrong. I think it’s time you put up or shut up! Mate!
Excellent article in todays Australian ( Sat 20th Feb) entitled ” Science’s Peer Reveiw system needs a review” .
by Frank Furedi Professor of Sociology at University of Kent.
Piece is quite damming about Peer Reveiw, which is what many bloggers and other people covered in ” denialist filth” have been saying for yonks.
Pity that the Prime Minister didnt do some proper homework instead of listening to one eyed fools and frauds of the academic alarmist brigades.
janama; your “Smoking Gun” link has links to 3 papers; I can’t get the final paper to load; can you post a seperate link to the 3rd one?
Derek; according to AGW after CO2 absorbs an IR photon, it rapidly returns to the ground state as a result of collisions; it will require many such collisions to lose a quantum of vibrational energy [ie the absorbed energy of the IR photon] BUT even so the rate of excitation and rise above the ground state due to absorption is many orders of magnitude slower than the rate of collisional deexcitation; the point is CO2 loses the energy through collision much quicker than it gains it through absorption therefore CO2 can never be saturated [according to AGW]. As you can work out there are a number of problems with this; collisional deexcitation, as you have noted, means the CO2 cannot back radiate; all it can do is reabsorb; this unlimited capacity supposedly stopping saturation, however, is simply defeated by LTEs which are thermally equalibrised parcels of air near the surface which feature no internal transfer of energy [ie no gradient]; the LTE is convectively transferred to an atmospheric level where the internal temperature matches the surrounding air and reemission can then occur which must be upward because the air below is opague to the CO2 wavelengths; energy is not transferred from within the LTE to the surrounding air at the surface because the speed of convective upwards transfer is at many metres per second whereas heat transfer by collision or diffusion does not exceed several cm/s.
The fundamental mechanism of further greenhouse warming by extra CO2 is simply contradicted by empirical and measureable physical processes.
here’s the Link Cohenite – it works for me.
http://www.eumetsat.int/Home/Main/Publications/Conference_and_Workshop_Proceedings/groups/cps/documents/document/pdf_conf_p50_s9_01_harries_v.pdf
Thanks janama; I see that American Thinker has reinterpreted the Harries papers to show that the TOA radiative flux do not agree with the AGW orthodoxy; Harries along with Philipona and back-radiation are one of the mainstays of AGW; here is what Steve Short had to say about Harries;
Comment from: Steve Short July 21st, 2008 at 6:14 pm
AB: In Harries (2001) he said:
“A recent comparison between data taken by two different satellite instruments, the Interferometric Monitor of Greenhouse Gases (IMG) that flew in 1997 and the Infrared Interferometer Spectrometer (IRIS) that flew in 1970, showed evidence of a change in the clear-sky greenhouse radiative forcing due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations between those years.”
http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&issn=1520-0442&volume=016&issue=22&page=3820&ct=1&SESSID=c77dfc4874e5f3592aa7131cffb3b4f5
The phrase “evidence of a change in the clear-sky greenhouse radiative forcing” is a much weaker claim than the previous “experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth’s greenhouse effect”. After all, they did not perform an experiment in the usually understood sense, nor did they directly measure the Earth’s greenhouse effect, which relates to radiation across the whole infrared spectrum, from the surface to top of atmosphere.
However, by 2004, in Griggs and Harries (2004) Harries had considerably watered-down his message and said this:
“The results suggest that while the sampling pattern of the IRIS instrument is sufficiently well distributed and dense to generate monthly regional mean brightness temperatures that are within 1.5 K of the true all-sky values, the IMG sampling is too sparse and yields results that differ from the true case by up to 6.0 K. Under cloud-free conditions the agreement with the true field for both instruments improves to within a few tenths of a kelvin. Comparisons with the observed IMG–IRIS difference spectra show that these uncertainties due to sampling presently limit the conclusions that can be drawn about climatically significant feedback processes.”
http://www.ggy.bris.ac.uk/staff/personal/JennyGriggs/paper_3.pdf
In addition, in this latter paper comparing three satellites spectra, an increase in methane was found even between observations when methane was not increasing. They also highlight an inaccuracy in the MODTRAN spectroscopic model.
This suggests the only really significant result of Harries et al. 2001 at all, the deepened methane line, could have been an artifact.”
That is from here;
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2008/07/four-reasons-why-carbon-dioxide-is-not-driving-global-warming/#comments
Was that the Mörner who makes up stories about Aussie students moving mangroves in the Maldives. Oh pullease.
Well Derek old boy – isn’t it strange that the back radiation measured by Philipona is about what you’d expect. Pretty good for something that doesn’t exist. So why don’t you shut up.
Cohers bluffs some more – “Harries along with Philipona and back-radiation are one of the mainstays of AGW” – not really … they’re just interesting and Harries not really useful as evidence.
Yes Malcolm – the GG is dreadful. And of course Rudd and Wong don’t know what they’re doing on AGW.
But hey do I say you are:
Into every conspiracy theory you can find
Ignorant of any serious science literature
Indiscriminant
Abusive
Bad tempered
Irrational
Inabiilty to separate denialist spin from bull dust
Up yourself
And from South Australia
Of course I don’t ….
But I do admire your resolve.
Jeepers – who’s Frank – what’s Sourcewatch reckon –
“Frank Furedi is professor of sociology at the University of Kent at Canterbury, UK. He was, while using pseudonym Frank Richards, the founder and chairman of the Revolutionary Communist Party (RCP) of Great Britain. The RCP has traversed one of the longest ideological journeys in British politics, moving from the hard-left through several incarnations into a broad collection of organisations on the libertarian right wing, including Spiked Online and the Institute of Ideas. Furedi continues to be a leading figure in this network of organisations, characterised by a vigorous anti-environmentalist, pro-GM stance, known as the LM group.
Aside from his academic work, he is freqently quoted in the media as an expert on how our society has become obsessed with risk. He writes regularly for Spiked online, and has written several books on the subject, with titles such as Paranoid Parenting, Therapy Culture, and Culture of Fear. He wrote an article about risk culture post September 11, one of only two papers published by Global Futures.
Furedi has also written under the name of Linda Ryan [1]. He was born in Hungary in 1948. His family emigrated to Canada after the failed 1956 uprising and has lived in Britain since the 1970s”
hhmmmmm – probably objective would we think ?
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Frank_Furedi
so let’s F**k climate change hey Lukey – we are all justa a naive youngster
The US mainstream media aren’t covering Climategate, but that doesn’t mean nothing will be done about it here.
The Green Machine has consistently wielded vastly more money and power than the AGW ‘skeptics’, but that situation has suddenly changed, drastically. Now, skeptics with money and power are stepping up to the plate all over. Some foolishly (or cleverly) complain that this means ‘science is under attack’, when in point of fact, the Green Machine is under attack. This means that the ‘environmental movement’ faces a catastrophic, collective defeat on nearly every front. And it may well be that some day soon, ‘warmist’ will be a pejorative synonymous with ‘flat-earther’.
US Senator Lisa Murkowski is preparing a resolution to veto the US EPA’s finding that CO2 emissions endanger public health and welfare. US Rep. Joe Barton is planning to introduce a companion House resolution.
The state of Texas and a coalition that includes 17 associations and businesses – including the National Association of Manufacturers – and 12 Republican congressmen have asked for a court review of the EPA’s finding.
The groups that filed petitions are the Ohio Coal Association, the Utility Air Regulatory Group, the Portland Cement Association, the state of Texas and the Competitive Enterprise Institute, along with a coalition that includes the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), the American Petroleum Institute, the Corn Refiners Association, the National Association of Home Builders, the National Oilseed Processors Association, the National Petrochemical and Refiners Association, and the Western States Petroleum Association.
Other petitions have been filed by , the American Iron and Steel Institute, Gerdau Ameristeel, the American Farm Bureau Federation, the National Mining Association, Peabody Energy, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the Southeastern Legal Foundation.
The states of Texas, Alabama and Virginia have filed petitions against the EPA finding, and Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour is asking members of the National Governors Association’s natural resource committee to urge Congress to block the EPA from regulating CO2.
On the other side of the court battles, and intervening on behalf of the EPA, are the US states Arizona, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington.
Representing the $600 billion global protest industry and the wind, solar, etc. industries in the case are the Natural Resources Defense Council, Environmental Defense Fund, Sierra Club and the National Wildlife Federation.
Schiller properly differentiates between climate science and the AGW social movement.
How much money has the AGW social movement squandered on CO2, that could have actually solved real problems in the environment?
From the numbers in the article, huge amounts.
And the other distinction is between AGW theory- that CO2 is going to cause/is already causing a climate apocalypse, is another that people need to see more clearly.
The list that Schiller shows is already out of date- Arizona is no longer participating in a western states alliance of AGW promotion.
More will follow.
Luke,
Everyone knows that ‘Sourcewatch’ is partisan and worthless.
Check out its entry on Norman Borlaug, whose crop development efforts saved about 1 billion persons from starvation:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Norman_E._Borlaug
Luke, you can’t hardly think that dredging up things like this is informative or useful when your High Priests are either recanting, or in hiding.
Luke – Morner was the scientist who actually went to the Maldives and actually studied the sea level via the geology and showed clearly that the sea level has actually dropped.
His detractors were computer jockeys who worked out the seal level was rising from their offices.
Who are you going to believe?
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/how_many_more_before_rudd_winds_back_his_reforms/
Yet another example of the Rudd Governments duplicitous and incompetent behaviour.
Why should CC be any different.
Never thought I’d see Schiller supporting commies – strange bedfellows eh?
Schiller do you like communists now….. woo hooo …. Darkies Commo Schiller !!!!! Comrade ! Mate !
I never thought I would see that day !!!!
yawn …..we’ve been over Morner’s denialism and bunk before…. like most denialists you just recycle the same old same old ….
Morner has been rebutted comprehensively by 4 EXPERT studies from different groups
He’s goofed on his TOPEX data analysis – errr what analysis
Instead of staying professional he’s been let go out of INQUA but has still been running round pretending to represent people he does not – says heaps in itself
Check Warwick Hughes blog – implications he made up his video presentation on the tree nonsense – even Louis was taken aback
Korgano 30/4/2007 at http://www.climatebrains.com has summarised the early papers before Church et al. (2006) – added below.
Korgano STARTS:
I have thoroughly checked Morner’s work as well as the work of all nine who cited his work (including Kench – who does not support Morner) and several others, and now I am completely unconvinced that the sea level is falling at Maldives. It is either rising, or one could say as Kench et al. said “ The region’s sea level history remains uncertain”. None of the papers I read (other than Morner’s) support Morner’s conclusion that the sea level is falling. Woodworth directly address the evaporation explanation and rejects it. Here are some statements, but one has to read the whole paper to get the complete picture. It is very difficult for me to believe that the sea level is falling after reading these reviewed journal publications combined with all the other current news reports.
Woodworth PL
Have there been large recent sea level changes in the Maldive Islands?
GLOBAL AND PLANETARY CHANGE 49 (1-2): 1-18 NOV 2005
“…..A number of met-ocean data sets and regional climate indices have been examined, at least one of which would have been expected to reflect a large sea level fall, without any supporting evidence being found. In particular, a suggestion that an increase in evaporation could have caused the fall has been demonstrated to be incorrect. Without any real evidence for a hitherto-unrecognised process which could lead to a sea level change as significant as that proposed by the fieldwork team, one concludes that a rise in sea level of approximately half a metre during the 21st century, as suggested by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change…”
Woodroffe CD
Late Quaternary sea-level highstands in the central and eastern Indian Ocean: A review
GLOBAL AND PLANETARY CHANGE 49 (1-2): 121-138 NOV 2005
“…Regardless of minor past fluctuations, most reef islands in the Maldives are particularly low-lying and appear vulnerable to inundation, and extracting a more detailed sea-level history remains an important challenge….”
“…Mörner et al. (2004) appear to base much of their narrative of past sea-level change upon their interpretation of the morphology of reef islands. They postulate a series of levels shown schematically in their Fig. 2, representing, they claim, stepwise coastal evolution, including a higher storm level, a sub-recent level now vegetated, and an older and higher island surface….”
“…implied, by Mörner (2004). If there had been such a sea-level fall, then those microatolls that had grown up to the limit of coral growth prior to the fall, would have shown a ‘top hat’ morphology with continued growth during post-fall years constrained at a lower level….”
Kench PS, Nichol SL, McLean RF
Comment on “New perspectives for the future of the Maldives” by Morner, N.A., et al. [Global Planet. Change 40 (2004), 177-182]
GLOBAL AND PLANETARY CHANGE 47 (1): 67-69 MAY 2005
“Here we raise a number of concerns with arguments and data presented by Mörner et al. (2004) that are central to the interpretations and conclusions presented in their paper….”
“…We conclude that the sea level history and data presented by Mörner et al. (2004) is less than compelling and can be readily explained via an understanding of contemporary coastal processes. The region’s sea level history remains uncertain. Consequently, we believe that this work does little to inform the international community on new perspectives of the future of the Maldives…”
The short reply to this by Morner is hardly convincing.
There are other papers, but they all take the same tone.
Kench’s article in Geology that you provided (stating that “The islands have existed for more than 5000 years and are morphologically resilient rather than fragile systems, and are expected to persist under current scenarios of future climate change and sea-level rise.”) does take into account sea level rise as current prediction, but he says that the island is resilient. The conclusion that the island is resilient is entirely different than saying the sea level is falling
Janama – good retro – but wouldn’t you lot be playing Cool World
In fact we warmist alarmists just want break into your Cool World
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3BoxPNggew&feature=related
Your world is as cold as ice, your world is so nice
But you don’t want me arou-ound
Your world is a barren place, that look upon your face
Says you don’t want me arou-ound
I might break into your coo-ool world
Break into your coo-ool world
I’ll break into your-our coo-ool, coo-ool, coo-ool wor-orld
In your world there are no regrets, your goals have all been set
There are no more to be fou-ound
Your world is so well controlled, you will not be told
You know you don’t hear a sou-ound
It might break into your coo-ool world
Break into your coo-ool world
Break into your-our coo-ool, coo-ool, coo-ool wor-orld
Somewhere way down deep inside, passion burned so bright
And walls are shakin’
In the tunnel deep and wide our two worlds will collide
If I am no-ot mista-aken
Cool and calm your world may be, but why do you believe
That you don’t want me arou-ound
Well, I can touch you in a way, that you’ll cease to say
That you don’t want me arou-ound
I will break into your coo-ool world
Break into your coo-ool world
I’ll break into your-our coo-ool, coo-ool, coo-ool wor-orld
I will break into your coo-ool world
I’ll break into your coo-ool world
I’ll break into your-our coo-ool, coo-ool, coo-ool wor-orld
‘Cause your so-o, your so-so coo-ool
It’s such a cool-cool wor-orld
Break in, break in, aghh, coo-ool world
Break in, oh-ho-ho-ho, coo-ool world
I’ll break into your-our coo-ool, coo-ool, coo-ool wor-orld
Yes I will break into your coo-ool world
Break into your-our coo-ool world
Break into your coo-ool, coo-ool, coo-ool wor-orld (fade)
Cool Hand Luke,
Oceans rise and fall and the Maldives and Tuvalu which are coral atols do likewise as Willis explains well here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/27/floating-islands/
As I’ve been known to say, they suffer from too little deckspace, not insufficient freeboard.
BTW, looks like I’ve finally been banned from the “Doltoid’s War On Sceptics”. All I finally said was that Tim’s fav CSIRO chart and SLR hockey stick contradicted its statements about old Roman SLs [by about 3 metres].
Well Luke – those papers haven’t deterred Morner – here’s his letter to the President of the Maldives in Dec 2009:
here’s a fun rave for your entertainment
George Carlin’s rant on environmentalists.
janama,
That’s a very straight forward letter which, of course, will get no recognition.
BTW do you or anyone know how much computer modelling, prediction and/or code is used in generating satellite measurements?
Was Morner right in claiming that they had to use the incorrect upward trends from poorly sited tide gauges to get pos SLR from satellites?
Again a cherry pick – Maldives isn’t the best place where you would be looking for sea level rise actually. Time to turn the argument spatial and global.
Meanwhile “climate science alive and well”.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gmrh51uyFR9RCBhi-wbw2l86QbAg
Luke…from that article.
“Instead when we have a major snowstorm on the east coast of the US, jokes are proliferating about how wrong all this global warming stuff was. And yet you turn on your television and look at the winter Olympics in Canada and you find no snow…”
Jet stream’s gone wobbly, AO/NAO negative and a weak El Nino have conspired to produce a lot more snow in the NH. Any scientist worth his salt would explain in simple detail why we are heading into a colder regime. And why there is no snow in Vancouver.
Last year the UK Met said it was the snowiest in a decade, this winter is the coldest in two decades. If next year is the coldest in 30 years will they call it climate and not weather?
Climate science has been hijacked by zealots.
“Maldives isn’t the best place where you would be looking for sea level rise actually”
While there are other factors to be considered for different locations, I would have thought that eventually
the rise in sea levels would affect all places ie. the effect would be the same everywhere.
Johnathan,
I’ve been saying that for ages but apparently I’m stupid. There are these places around the world where SLs keep rising forever and others where SLs keep falling forever and never the twain shall meet.
I know the earth is a pear-shaped geoid with flat spots and lumpy bits but I always thought water was supposed to vigorously seek equilibrium.
But apparently the satellites are telling us there is a mountain of water building up somewhere that is going to hit us sceptics like a sunami if we don’t pray to the great ALgod.
Strangely we don’t ever get to see the graphs where the SLs are going down forever.
Would three thousand posts be some sort of record?
Spanglers bruised after having the crap punched out of his argument at Deltoid still bungs it on.
Phenomena like ENSO change sea level in seasons, the PDO has decadal effects, local features cause local effects – but the long term trend is UP !
Why do you not understand that the global mean as measured by satellite is up up up !
Luke,
This is the CSIRO story on SLR. Why are the satellite SLs going up like that when the observed SLs haven’t done anything for the last 2000 years?
Have a look at those fish traps from Roman times. They’d still work today!
But have a look at the “hockey stick” graph and it shows that SLR since then is 3m.
http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_hist_intro.html
Someone’s telling lies.
Thank you luke, for that little bit of humour about Morner; has anyone else noticed the difference between the CSIRO graph based on the Uni of Colorado satellite measurements;
http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_hist_last_15.html
And the actual TOPEX and Jason measurements:
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/current/sl_noib_global.jpg
Folks,
It seems that the ‘skeptics’ invented the notion of ‘scientific consensus’, and the warmers grabbed it and ran off with it.
The notion appears to have been invented in 1997, with the Leipzig Declaration. (1) Even back then, many scientists had already noticed that “These [AGW] predictions are based on nothing more than theoretical models and cannot be relied on to construct far-reaching policies. ” It had about 200 signatories.
Then came the Global Warming Petition Project, in 1998. (2) Even back then, it was known that the human release of atmospheric gases had no significant effect on climate. The petition has since been endorsed by 31,486 American scientists, including 9,029 with PhDs.
Then came the Manhattan Declaration in 2008. (3) Its endorsers note that “global climate has always changed and always will, independent of the actions of humans, and that carbon dioxide (CO2) is not a pollutant but rather a necessity for all life.” Thus far, this declaration has over 700 ‘qualified endorsers’.
While this indicates there actually never was a ‘scientific consensus’, it also indicates that there have always been more skeptics than the ‘thousands of IPCC scientists’ so often mistakenly referred to — a number which includes ‘expert reviewers’ from Greenpeace et. al.
———
1. http://www.sepp.org/policy%20declarations/leipzig.html
2. http://www.petitionproject.org/seitz_letter.php
3. http://climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=37&Itemid=1
Hunter,
I have not been able to substantiate your claim that “Arizona is no longer participating in a western states alliance of AGW promotion.”
Do you have a link?
Sorry, I’m a skeptic. So embarrassing.
Did you notice that, Lukeyloo? Skeptics, by nature, cannot form conspiracies, because they look for facts. They don’t trust anyone well enough to form a conspiracy.
HAHAHAHAHAHA
Dear Jennifer,
Two bits of news that might interest:
(1) My new book, The Alternative Manifesto, is published next week, on 25 February ( http://tinyurl.com/yal5yn ). It follows my 2009 The Rotten State of Britain, which identified the problems of unbridled central power and fiscal alcoholism in Britain. This one is a workshop manual for getting a spanner round these nasty issues. So I’m hoping it will help stir up our election debate and show that our problems are larger than just left v right.
(2) My colleague Madsen Pirie and I are being given the national Free Enterprise Award on Tuesday 23 February. It’s a great honour. We’re rather chuffed.
Many thanks,
Eamonn
this url works
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Alternative-Manifesto-Government-Should-Country/dp/1906142696/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1260958047&sr=1-1
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/how-rudd-the-dud-dropped-australia-in-the-alphabet-soup-20100221-ontz.html
Rudd The Dud…the worst PM Australia has ever had. The Queensland PS has a lot to answer for..and thats not including Luke boy of course.
There is no chance these turkeys are ever going to come to their senses over AGW anytime soon…. irrespective of whether the SLR is going up or down.
Plenty Wrong will just spin more lies …Garrett will create more stuff ups…. and Combet will buy more sea front properties.
Cohenite there is an inverse barometer correction applied to the csiro graph, and not to the other, although both have the same source.
But why and to what end I’m not sure, but the basic graph sure has a flat trend over the last six or seven years.
Folks,
More good news. The world’s largest private sector coal business, the Peabody Energy Company (PEC) has filed a mammoth 240-page “Petition for Reconsideration,” a full-blown legal challenge against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s finding that CO2 is ‘endangering’ everything at all. (1)
This comprehensive document (2) includes damning revelations, such as:
Reliance on Inappropriate Non-Peer Reviewed Secondary Sources Material From Advocacy Groups
1. Himalayan Glaciers
2. African Agricultural Production
3. Amazon Rain Forests
4. Melting Mountain Ice
5. Netherlands Below Sea Level
6. Other Instances of Reliance on Advocacy Group Material
Beware, this is a big pdf file. It’s still worth reading. It’s the most comprehensive, well-done deconstructions of the AGW business I’ve ever seen in one place.
There’s something elegant about the collapse of the AGW hypothesis. The vindication of the scientific enterprise has never before been seen to be justified on such a scale.
———-
1. Business Week, Feb. 16, 2010, http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-02-16/peabody-seeks-reversal-of-u-s-s-carbon-finding-update2-.html
2. Petition to EPA: Your Agencey Has No Legal Option But To Reexamine its Endangerment Finding, Feb. 11, 2010, http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/no_legal_option.pdf
From the leipzeg declaration link above from schiller
http://www.sepp.org/policy%20declarations/LDsigs.html
there is a huge list of scientists who “wear white coats and are boring” ( at least thats what rudd thinks of scientists) that dispute AGW and the kyoto protocol.
Many of them seem to be emminently qualified to comment and hold a strong opinion
Neville, this is NOAA’s methodology for calculating sea level at different locations;
http://www.grdl.noaa.gov/SAT/gdrs/geosat_handbook/docs/chap_4.htm
You can see the inverse barometer adjustment is simply deducting atmosphere pressure from the sea level height; in effect the sea level is higher than it actually is because the supressed height due to atmospheric pressure is added. Given this it is ironic that the temperature profile of the atmosphere is never adjusted for pressure affects on temperature.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/02/22/2826417.htm
Well well Clive Hamilton is writing a piece about cyber bullying and foul abuse from people who hide behind pseudonyms.
Good on you Clive ..go for it.
Schiller your list is pure denialist hogwash.
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/leakegate_how_jonathan_leake_c.php
Time to start rebuking liars !
Tony – “Many of them seem to be emminently qualified to comment and hold a strong opinion” – errr not really ….
Yeah and you would know Luke?! all those “climate” based qualifications mean they arent qualified to comment…Well given what we think of “climate scientists”
most of us would probably agree. But its reassuring to hear it from you, you are starting to engage your brain!
Unbelievably it seems that the ipcc paper on sea level changes over the next 100 years has been withdrawn, they’re now not sure what the rise will be, but mistakes were made apparently. WUWT reports on article in Guardian newspaper. GEEEZZ will these gates ever stop.
Toby – yea they can comment – but what’s it worth? Weed out their quals and fields of expertise seriously. Bit of a stunt really don’t you think?
It doesn’t matter what their qualifications are does it Luke? They are clearly all in the pay of Exxon Mobil and card carrying members of the Heartland institute!
It’s a bit like saying that only Ford mechanics know how to work on cars properly. Face it young’n, you will never admit that skeptical scientists have any credibility.
Derek – well it depends whether they are sceptics or faux sceptics (i.e. partisan activists). And it does matter how up to date they are, and whether they’re actually practicing in a field, or just opinionated like the rest of us. Many on both sides of the debate are simply ornery and outraged by perceived injustice. Very hard to achieve useful dialogue.
Over the past 30 years Antarctica has been building up ice and snow, but the IPCC underestimated this by up to 50% and pointed to ice melt in the Arctic.
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2010/02/16/another-ipcc-error-antarctic-sea-ice-increase-underestimated-by-50/
Their strategy was simple and mindless.
Derek, Toby,
I can tell you how it works, because Luke isn’t being very clear about the methodology. First, you start with a list of scientists. Any arbitrary list will do. Then you identify those who believe in, and support, AGW. They are declared to be ‘mainstream’ and, naturally, form ‘a consensus’ without even having to ask them. The rest of those on the list can be ignored as ‘not credible’.
It’s the same process used in model/data interactions. As Trenberth explained, when your model is ‘the globe is warming’, data indicating otherwise must therefore be erroneous. Which means all the data you accept on that basis are ‘overwhelmingly consistent’. Quite elementary!
On a related noted, here’s something offered by James McCarthy of the Harvard Medical School Center for Health and the Global Environment, in the warmist rag Scientific American: (1)
“If you were to go back and map the IPCC projection for sea level rise and temperature in 1990, look at it in 1995, look at it in 2000. In retrospect you would find that they were conservative. So we talk about errors. If you were to do two ledgers—here are IPCC overestimates, here are IPCC underestimates—over the 20 or so years that these assessments have been running, the underestimate ledger would be much larger than the overestimate.”
One has to wonder what those underestimations are. The area of the Netherlands below sea level? The extent of African agriculture, or the Amazon, under threat? The warming predicted 20 years ago that turns out not to be statistically significant?
Maybe it’s sea level rise. Check out ‘Climate scientists withdraw journal claims of rising sea levels’, in the Feb. 21, 2010 edition of The Guardian. (2)
The study, published in 2009, confirmed the conclusions of the 2007 IPCC report, and predicted that sea level would rise by between 7cm and 82cm by the end of the century.
The paper, written by Mark Siddall, is titled ‘Constraints on future sea-level rise from past sea-level change’ and used fossil coral data and temperature records derived from ice-core measurements to reconstruct how sea level has fluctuated with temperature since the peak of the last ice age. The retraction was due to two “technical errors”, and Siddall won’t predict anything at all at this point. (A recantation comparable to that of Phil Jones, perhaps?)
It appears that the main complaint against the IPCC prediction of rising sea levels was that it was “too conservative”.
Maybe it really is as James McCarthy explains it. The more doom-laden predictions you want, the more predictions fall into the “too conservative” side of “the ledger”. Likely there are some who claim the IPCC is “too conservative” because it fails to consider a scenario involving an invasion of space aliens.
See, guys? It’s the same process used to ‘settle the science’ with ‘a consensus’, the same way you make ‘the data’ agree with ‘the model’.
———-
1. ‘Despite Climategate, IPPC Mostly Underestimates Climate Change’, Feb. 22, 2010,
http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=despite-climategate-ippc-mostly-und-10-02-22
2. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/21/sea-level-geoscience-retract-siddall
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
The wages of sin…
According to Fox News, (1) Thomas Karl has been put in charge of the US Commerce Department’s new climate change office. Karl has played a pivotal role in key climate decisions over the past decade, has kept a low profile as director of National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) since 1998, and he has led all of the NOAA climate services since 2009.
Also according to Fox, Roger Pielke, Sr. wrote in his resignation letter to the IPCC that he (Pielke) had completed the assessment of current knowledge for his chapter of the report, when Karl abruptly took control of the final draft. He said the chapter he had nearly completed was then rewritten to discount the importance of land use changes on temperature.
Now, according to the NASA GISS FOIA emails at p. 124 (2), station data were actually ‘fixed’ over at Karl’s National Climatic Data Center, a fact which supposedly could be used to divert the attention of “a jackass or a jester” away from NASA GISS.
So, Karl — having ‘fixed’ the data, is now going on to his just reward: another appointment to head a dubious agency. After all, you wouldn’t want a straight arrow for the job! Read on…
From: Reto Ruedy
Reply-To: rruedy@giss.nasa.gov
To: James Hansen
Cc: Gavin Schmidt , Reto Ruedy
, Maldko Sato
Subject: Re: Town Hall Story on NASA blocking McIntyre access
Date: FrL 17 Aug 2007 19:28:05 -0400
I understand, that was just meant as a suggestion to bring up on Gavin’s RealClimate site, if he needs to counter requests for our “fixing” code.
Reto
On Fri, 2007-08-17 at 19:06 -0400, James Hansen wrote: Technical arguments with a jackass or a jester, which most observers not wanting to understand the details, can appear to lower one to a comparable level. Better not argue with him about whether we fix data; we do an urban adjustment, for example. Jim
On 8/17/07, Reto Ruedy wrote: TOBS does not have the station history adjustment (SHAP} – FILIN has it and is the last stage before their urban adjustment. I can run with or without the filled-in data (filling in added .0SC/century to the US mean trend in our analysis).
Once the new USHCN data are reformatted, it’s just a question of what to do with years 2006 and 2007. Otherwise it’s simply switching an input file.
I still think, Steve (in the Town Hall interview below and when he talks to anybody but us) mixes us up with Tom Karl’s group – they ” fix ” station data, we don’t. If we get this misunderstanding out in the open, it might die down as well.
——————–
1. New Climate Agency Head Tried to Suppress Data, Critics Charge. Feb. 22, 2010. http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/02/22/tom-karl-tried-to-suppress-data-critics-charge/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%253A+foxnews%252Fscitech+%2528Text+-+SciTech%2529
2.Searchable pdf downloadable from http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/18/searchable-pdf-created-for-nasa-giss-foia-documents/
Also known as doublespeak. 1984 should become compulsory reading all over again, and while they are at it, a read of animal farm would not go astray either……..
Toby,
When I said “It’s the same process used in model/data interactions. As Trenberth explained, when your model is ‘the globe is warming’, data indicating otherwise must therefore be erroneous. Which means all the data you accept on that basis are ‘overwhelmingly consistent’.” I forgot to add something — the fact that this entirely explains, in context, Phil Jones’ remark regarding the “trick” to “hide the decline”.
Mann’s explanation: “The “decline” refers to the “divergence problem”. This is where tree ring proxies diverge from modern instrumental temperature records after 1960. ”
The problem: one set of data showed declining temperatures, the other showed rising temperatures. The choice: which to “believe in”. The decision: use the one that’s showing rising temperatures. The result: ‘overwhelmingly consistent’ data. Whether you call it a ‘trick’ or not is completely beside the point. The point: the kindest, most generous interpretation of the whole fiasco is such rampant confirmation bias (1) that it counts as mass hallucination. (2)
————
1. “Tendency to filter information to retain only what conforms to one’s preferences, and to reject that does not. See also cognitive bias.” Business Dictionary,
http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/confirmation-bias.html
2. “an episode of psychogenic illness affecting a large group of individuals at the same time. Examples include the witchcraft trials of the 17th century and the irrational mass reaction to the 1938 radio show based on H.G. Wells’ science-fiction novel, War of the Worlds. Also called collective hysteria, epidemic hysteria, major hysteria, mass panic, mass psychogenic illness.” Mosby’s Medical Dictionary (Elsevier, 2009) via The Free Dictionary,
http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Mass+hallucination
Schiller, there is no doubt that we all have biases and we do filter using those bias. It is however of course crucial to recognise that when trying to create an argument or justification for others we need to be able to show we have been beyond fair with the opposing data, information etc. This is clearly something that the IPCC is incapable of doing. And as you point out associating with people that agree with you merely reinforces that thinking. Whats really needed is open debate from people with differing bias. Very few things are black and white.
Thats why the issue of AGW pisses me off so much, there is crap on both sides. But the biggest problem is reality doesnt seem to matter to so many of those who believe. The sceince is actually irrelevant until we have technology to allow us to move away from fossil fuels. And then of course the reality is emissions will naturally come down again. But until then trying to pick winners and subject economies to lower economic growth is entirely counter intuitive. Money and wealth will help us cope with a changing climate, poverty will not.
The political parties ( even our liberal, non believing tony abbott) are all happy to pick winners and look to reduce emissions, some by as much as 80% ( can u believe that stupidity!!).
A classic example of picking winners is our govt building a fast broadband network at a cost of 43 billion dollars. Its currently available in our major CBD’s and yet fewer than 20% of use it. Why? cost of course….but the govt wants to make it avaible to every australian wherever they live!!……last week google announced they will provide super fast wireless that is 10 times faster than the FBN our govt is building. so within 9 mnths the winner they picked at huge cost is a joke.
i m starting to believe in anarchy!
Toby,
It’s a bit early to start believing in anarchy as a political model. Anarchy is the fundamental model for well-done science, but doesn’t work well for social governance.
The perversions we see in Global Warmism result from the financial/political interests involved. The syndrome repeats itself in every branch of science. Once a controversy is monetized, enough money/power and you get critical mass, and it goes fissile.
People will go to crude extremes to get what they want, when enough of it seems within their grasp. Global Warmism is merely an example in a long and sordid list.
Be well, be skeptical, and demand intelligent democracy is the best bet.
Schiller, you are of course correct, anarchy is not the way to go. It just seems a long time since we were governed well…and certainly not intelligently!
what a shame common sense is not very common.
cheers and stay well yourself.
nice summary of last week here:
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2010/02/warming-since-1995-not-significant-phil-jones/
Jen – you have totally misrepresented the Jone’s interview.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/02/daily-mangle/
Skeptics have not been vindicated at all. All we have is an entrenched plan of deception and recycled nonsense.
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/leakegate_roundup.php
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/the_lomborg_deception.php
Let’s not confuse political performance with science.
Luke,
Those who perpetrated the largest, most expensive hoax in the history of the human race can scarcely complain of poor political performance, or of being inept with the media.
As expected Luke pulls out the RealClimate article saying that 15 years is not long enough to establish a trend therefore Jones didn’t say there has been no warming over that time.
Ok – So I’ll pull out the Tamino article of December 2009 that says it is.
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/12/15/how-long/
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=7db3fbd8-f1b4-4fdf-bd15-12b7df1a0b63
Who cares what Jones said or didnt say ..the simple fact is that he and his mates colluded to corrupt the process and thus became part of the the main basis for the GW scam.
What corruption Malcolm – what a load of cobblers ! You really should think before you call all the people in all IPCC panels involved “corrupt”. Do you seriously think Jones is “corrupt” or simply very pissed off with “so-called” sceptics.
Janama – you’re just quote mining, Stats 101 – significance levels are arbitrary – there is no magic dividing line. The trend is very close to significance at 95% – which is what Jones ACTUALLY said. Why are denialists quote-miners? Why can they not speak the truth?
Meanwhile Clive continues to analyse the anti-AGW mindset.
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2827047.htm
And Malcolm you wouldn’t take a minority report by Goof-off as evidence that the Sun rises in the east.
Luke,
I am quite impressed that you went so far as to say that the “trend is very close to significance at 95%”. Are you, like Phil Jones, trying to rescue your reputation by saying that your absurd and inflammatory claims are five percent less than worth a statistician’s notice?
Not.
You just like to come here and say things like ‘Goof-off’, ‘cobblers’, ‘Sun rises in the east [sic]’ and other things.
At least, you didn’t say f**k and s**t and so forth. Is it possible that one result of Climategate might be that the AGWers want to suddenly act polite?
Yep. Like when they host the Winter Olympics in Hell.
Repent, Luke, your paymasters are withdrawing. Phil Jones and Tiger Woods are doing the smart thing.
” CRU EMAILS SHOW SCIENTISTS
Obstructing release of damaging data and information;
Manipulating data to reach preconceived conclusions;
Colluding to pressure journal editors who published work questioning the climate science ―consensus‖; and
Assuming activist roles to influence the political process.”
Well Lukey boy this is what the very first page says.
They did collude to corrupt the process and therefore for they stand to be condemned.
BTW why dont I, and others now warrant the usual Luke expletives such as ” denialist filth” and ” turd etc “.etc
Have we gone down in your estimation or is that the Hamilton tripe over at the ABC ” The Drum” has scared you off.
” CRU EMAILS SHOW SCIENTISTS
Obstructing release of damaging data and information;
Manipulating data to reach preconceived conclusions;
Colluding to pressure journal editors who published work questioning the climate science ―consensus‖; and
Assuming activist roles to influence the political process.”
This is what the document referenced said
On the basis of this they DID collude in a corrupt manner designed to deceive the international community, and at the cost of the tax payers.
Its not hard
BTW has Hamiltons turgid tripe over at The Drum resulted in your mouth being washed out..
I hope not . I miss my regular dose of denialist filth and turd etc.
Luke, one of the many significant comments Jones made was that “Further, there is no statistically significant difference among the four warming trends of 1860-1880, 1910-40, 1975-1995, and 1975-2009.”….so why are we being told to be so alarmed? why do we keep being told that the temp increase is unprecedented? infact i seem to recall you telling me that ……
Utter pretentious drivel Malcolm – pure bunkuml. Apply the same standards to your own mates like Plimer and Moncky if you want real try-ons.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/02/the-guardian-disappoints/
Remember Mal – I learnt my craft at the Ian Mott school of diplomacy and deportment. Your guy? Never heard you complain then ….
1. You are pathetic Walker. Pure school boyish nonsense. Please teacher that kid mott is being rude therefore I can as well…so there.
Mott is streets ahead of you ..at least he did his homework and had a solid background to underpin his judgements..as well as being humorous.
2. Please show me references to where Plimer and Monckon have been as consistently and repeatedly rude and obnoxious as you have to the extent of repeatedly referring to people are denialist turds, arseholes and full of shit etc.
3. You can’t hide the fact that Jones et al have been in a position of trust and have betrayed that trust by their collusion and manipulation whilst being paid by the tax payer, and they deserve our contempt for having done so. Along with all the other examples of less than satsifactory behaviour by the alarmanistas the public has every right to be concerned.
4. If you are also saying that a side commenary from someone like G. Schmidt at RC on an article in the Guardian some how negates a report of the USA Senate, minority or other wise, then it is you who is doing a try on.
Monckton is the epitome of diplomatic,suave and polite. He uses humour and politeness to attack, not poor or foul language. You may not like what he says but how anybody could consider him a potty mouth is very strange. Luke does cop stick and occasionally is “verballed” but it is usually retaliation for his own behaviour. It is very school boyish to suggest because someone else does something wrong that makes it ok?!!
Real climate deserves our contempt because they have continually cut and ignored people that post comments that do not suit them. Make a comment negatively about them and they whinge and comment or just delete. Now they are worthy of “scum” in IMO and they are blatant propaganda tools for the AGW industry. I gave up visiting them a long time ago.
Luke – could you think without Real climate to think for you?
When Luke posts on RC, Doltoid etc, he wouldn’t say shit for a shilling.
OK Mal
1. when in Rome – I just adopted Motty’s debating style. You say Mott did his homework – ROTFL
“a report of the USA Senate,” written by Morano for his denialist boss – pullease Malcolm ! “we’re politicians – you can trust us ” hohohohoho
Plimer – mate Deltoid had a field day – he has a whole archive
“Monckton is the epitome of diplomatic,suave and polite” – Toby – bunk is bunk. “Hitler youth !”
“It is very school boyish to suggest because someone else does something wrong that makes it ok?” LOOK IN THE MIRROR GUYS !
But yea – RC is wasting time. They’re been suckered into the pretend debate. Time to get back to the science.
First greenhouse gas animations produced using Envisat SCIAMACHY data
[methane and CO2]
20 March 2007
Available at:
http://www.esa.int/esaEO/SEM1DUQ08ZE_index_1.html#subhead1
Apparently the oceans are so unimportant that it’s reasonable to drop those data out.
Thats just like you being the little school boy your are Walker blame some one else for your own bad behaviour… when that person hasnt posted on this site for many months..and very infrequently before that. Not like your own frenetic hit rate.
As for going back to the science ..which science would that be walker..the cooked up crap from Jones et al ..which the Senate Report shows is a prima facie case for charges to be laid.
Or will it be the science based upon temperature records for which the view of many is that they cannot be relied upon to interpret anything with any confidence.
BTW Walker is the Hamilton Tripe Show which continues to run on their ABC an example of the ” scientists” having the shackles taken off and let lose ..then he in particular is having the opposite effect. Hamiltons nonsense is a perfect example on why you wouldnt trust these people with anything.
As for Ian Chubb’s biased and nonsensical comments that sceptic commentators are just trying to be celebrities..then I wonder what the well know promoters of the cause have been doing ..you know people like Gore,Hansen, Mann, Brooks,Hamilton, Karoly etc ad nausea.
..and he is a VC
That Senate report is laughable Hill. You would have to be kidding ! Do wank on…. redneck republican trash isn’t evidence.
OK our little South Aussie poser – Do a little intelligence test – don’t you think it’s a bit remarkable that 2 surface analyses and two independent SST analyses tell that same story. That the satellite record lines up too. That 1000s of biological records tell the same story. I wonder why ….
Hamilton’s latest essay is excellent. Shame on the denialist filth. Sums it up doesn’t it – creeps like you lot manufacturing a scandal.
But that’s the denialist agenda – deny EVERYTHING and puff yourself up with assumed righteousness and lecture us from the pulpit.
And Toby you must be bloody blind if you can’t see how obvious it is.
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2829295.htm
Folks,
I agree that it’s great fun to poke fun at Luke, our residential village idiot, but it’s rather bad form.
Luke is a fictitious entity. It’s instructive to learn from Luke that the AGWers are foul-mouthed and intellectually vacuous, but it’s far better to share information on what’s going on.
Schiller.
I hope this is not too OT, but below is my attempt to post a comment at Tamino’s Open Mind [sick] (http://tamino.wordpress)
where he is redoing the GHCN “global” [sicker] temperature series in ordert to rebut Anthony Watt’s and Joe d’Aleo’s saga on the disappearing thermometers in cold places.
“Sorry but I am not very impressed.
1. Data for 1880 to 1920 and even later are hardly representative of NH Africa and Asia.
2. NOAA raw trends since 1960 show Tmin rising and Tmax stable or even falling, and an average of 2 single point measurements is not very informative.
3. Inviting linear projection of trends of 0.0365 oC p.a. is as unwise with climate as it is with the Dow Jones! Projecting the Tmin and Tmax trends for Hilo (Hawaii) implies the nights will be hotter than the days in due course. Is that likely?
4. Why not use the NOAA data on average daytime temperatures? could it be because they are often trendless?
5. Use of anomalies as ever visually exaggerates by 100 what are really trivial changes. Why do it?”
Further to my (1), the point that escapes Tamino and his colleagues Gavin Schmidt and James Hansen is that again to use “global” temperature data for 1880 to 1900 as the baseline for showing “warming” since 1900 is unacceptable, even if worthy of Enron-type accounting (see great post today by Stephen McIntyre at his Climate Audit on the recent letter from Robert Bradley (ex-Enron) to Gerald North (ex Climate adviser to Bradley in Enron days, and now chief defender of Michael Mann of Penn State and hockey sticks and Phil Jones of CRU).
Tim,
Regarding your comment, “Use of anomalies as ever visually exaggerates by 100 what are really trivial changes. Why do it?”
I can offer a partial answer, but unfortunately, can’t recall or cite the source. Likely a statistician here can vindicate the point.
But the point was something like the following: if you keep a record of only the tallest and shortest children in elementary school, that is unlikely to tell you much about the rest of them.
From the point of view of information theory, this amounts to the deliberate introduction of ‘noise’ (a term of the art), out of which emanates a great deal of freedom to interpret ‘within the range’, and so forth.
Quite ghastly.
Tim – it appears to me that the increasing minimum temps is related to UHI effect where the concrete, bitumen and human development release the stored heat during the evening thus raising the min temp. As you said, the max temps (daytime) are stable or even falling so the whole concept of warming, and remember we are only talking about .7C over the century, can be directly attributed to UHI.
Oh – I forget to mention – Plus the Hansen fiddle – homogenisation or whatever they call it..
More whackoness on the way:
“MANILA, Philippines – Nobel Peace Prize Laureate and former US Vice President Al Gore is set to visit Manila in April to bring his urgent climate change message to top Philippine leaders.”
Stuuupendous!
Looks like Gore is reaching for a new demographic, or perhaps seeking a place where he’s less likely to be extradited for criminal behavior. Trouble is, global fraud can be prosecuted anywhere on the globe.
Of course, the denialist mantras continue. “The science regarding climate change is settled, and human activity is responsible for global warming,” said Lisa Jackson, US EPA Administrator. When asked if new information would change her mind, she said, it wouldn’t lead to a “new conclusion”. (2)
There’s putative ‘good’ news of investigations on the climate fraudsters, even though they’re going after the small fish.
The Brit Met Office plans to ‘re-analyse’ ‘millions of observations dating back more than 150 years’. (3) Cretins. Analysis, corrupt and otherwise, has been the problem for decades. Just release the data — others will deal with the issues. (Though it would be fun to see more of the corrupted code.)
Of course, there’s those out for blood, and justly so. (4)
Then, there’s ‘climate porn’.
“Ofcom is to investigate the Government’s notoriously emotive ‘Drowning Dog’ prime time TV advertisements. Ad industry self-regulator the ASA is already conducting its own investigation of the ‘climate porn’ campaign.” (5)
“The taxpayer-funded advertisement features a father reading a bedtime story to his young daughter. The picture book comes to life, with a Carbon Monster engulfing a town; many cartoon animals are swept away in the resulting floods – which are the result of humans keeping the heating on and driving cars, the advertisement says.”
You can watch the video online. (6)
Don’t share the video with your children, please.
———–
1. Al Gore coming for new pitch on climate. Philippine Daily Inquirer. Feb. 25, 2010
http://globalnation.inquirer.net/news/breakingnews/view/20100225-255267/Al-Gore-coming-for-new-pitch-on-climate
2. EPA Head: No Warming Since 1995 Doesn’t Mean Warming Isn’t Occurring. Prison Planet, Feb. 24, 2010,
http://www.prisonplanet.com/epa-head-no-warming-since-1995-doesnt-mean-warming-isnt-occurring.html
3. World’s temperature record to be re-analysed. The Independent (UK). Feb. 25, 2010.
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/worlds-temperature-record-to-be-reanalysed-1909909.html
4. Investigate Climate Crimes. Investors Business Daily. Feb. 25, 2010.
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=522120
5. Ofcom probes TV climate porn: But too late to save Drowning Dog. The Register, Feb. 24, 2010.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/02/24/ofcom_drowning_dog_probe/
6. Video available at the link on footnote 5.
Luke your link to hamiltons article says the following ( capitals are my comments following the hamilton quotes…i’m not trying to shout)
Soon after AR4 appeared in early 2007, those familiar with the science began to say that as a result of the consensus process and the natural caution of scientists, the Fourth Assessment Report had seriously understated the risks from climate change, particularly in its selection of scenarios and its estimates of likely sea-level rise. SEA LEVELS HAVE APPARENTLY BEEN FALLING FOR A WHILE AND THERE IS CERTAINLY NO EVIDENCE FOR RAPID RISES…SO A LIE. INFACT ALMOST NTG THAT HAS BEEN PREDICTED HAS OCCURED YET?! (ie temp has been “static” or not statistically significant for the last decade or so?)
Rather than rehearse the evidence for these warnings, well known to those who follow the science, let me make mention of a number of developments in climate science that have been published or reported in the five months since the leaking of the Climategate emails. It is evidence that warming is more alarming than previously thought yet which has been buried in the avalanche of confected stories claiming that climate scientists have exaggerated.
We have just had the warmest decade on record. (duh, the temperature has been rising since the end of the LIA, we would expect this!!?…but tell that to all those suffering undue cold in the northern hemisphere since these leaked emails)
A new study concludes that an average warming of 3-4°C (which means 7-8°C on land), previously thought to be associated with carbon dioxide concentrations of 500-600 ppmv, is now believed to be associated with concentrations of only 360-420 ppmv, a range that covers the current concentration of 385 ppmv, rising at 2 ppmv per annum. If confirmed by further research, the implications of this are terrifying.
(THIS HAS TO BE BASED ON MODELS AND THE EVIDENCE FOR POSITIVE FEEDBACK AND HENCE MORE THAN A 1c INCREASE FOR A DOUBLING OF CO2 IS UNLIKELY…SO THIS “NEW SCIENCE” IS MORE OF THE SAME CRAP…..remember the real physics suggests around 1c for a doubling of Co2….without positive feedback)
While news reports allege glacial melting has been exaggerated, the best evidence is that the rate of disappearance of glaciers is accelerating. The University of Zurich’s World Glacier Monitoring Service reports that “new data continues the global trend in strong ice loss over the past few decades”. ( GIVEN THE WORLD IS WARMING DON T WE EXPECT MORE GLACIERS TO BE CONTRACTING THAN EXPANDING??!!)…NO MENTION OF COURSE OF THE OPPOSITE OCCURING with RECORD LEVELS OF SEA ICE ( ALSO UNDERESTIMATED BY THE IPCC BY 50% I READ LAST WEEK?!)
The rate of flow into the sea of Greenland and Antarctic glaciers is accelerating, adding to sea-level rise. This augments the evidence that IPCC cautiousness led to significant underestimation of the likely extent of sea-level rise in the 21st century. The East Antarctic ice-sheet, previously believed to be stable, has now begun to melt on its coastal fringes. The West Antarctic ice-sheet continues its rapid melt. ( WHAT IS THE TEMP FOR MOST OF THE YEAR DOWN THERE? -40c, AND IF SEA ICE HAS BEEN AT RECORD LEVELS HOW LIKELY IS WHAT HE SAYS TO BE ACTUALLY HAPPENING?)
Sharply rising temperature in the Arctic has, over the last five years, caused a rapid increase in the amount of methane being emitted from melting permafrost. The limit of the Arctic permafrost has retreated northwards by 130 kilometres over the last 50 years in the James Bay region of Canada…. YUP PROBABLY AS THE WORLD WARMS OF COURSE THIS WILL HAPPEN,
The fact also remains that the IPCC was established with a political purpose.
its boring going over the same old things over and over again, but if you believe as i do that it was warmer in the MWP and probably in the ,RWP and Minoan WP and that warmer is better than colder, the fact the world has warmed up is not such a bad thing.
If you also believe in human ingenuity as I do you would also believe that new technology is just around the corner and when its available we will be able to produce more energy without emitting CO2 and hence emissions will fall later in the century.
Whilst I am sceptical of much of the science, i am more worried that it is and will be used as a political tool that will do few people any good and cause immense harm to most.
” I agree that it’s great fun to poke fun at Luke, our residential village idiot, but it’s rather bad form.
Luke is a fictitious entity. It’s instructive to learn from Luke that the AGWers are foul-mouthed and intellectually vacuous, but it’s far better to share information on what’s going on.”
You are so right Schiller I should stop doing it..Its just too easy taking the piss out of a cowardly village idiot from Qld hidng behind a pseudonym
The moron has no idea about cause, effect and attribution.
Luke that link is also very intersting because most of the comments seem to be from people finding holes in what hamilton is saying. Have you read them? Hamilton has written an article that suits your bias
http://joannenova.com.au/2010/02/the-big-picture-65-million-years-of-temperature-swings/
has an interesting graph of how much warmer it has been in the recent past, according to the greenland ice core data…..so should we worried that this decade is the hottest in teh last 150 years? I think not……
Hey Malcolm, you’re from SA? Me too, Wistow in the Adelaide hills. Maybe we could get together and NOT talk about Luke aver a glass of whatever.
Cheers.
Toby – do you really by now need answers to your long post and Hamilton comments ? You should know what the rebuttals would be off by heart.
Toby,
Thanks for the link to the interesting MWP graph and discussion.
Here’s a link for you: graphs covering the MWP from places all around the globe:
http://pages.science-skeptical.de/MWP/MedievalWarmPeriod.html
It truly was a global phenomenon!
There’s another graph available from NCDC/NOAA which covers the MWP, at
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/medieval.html
They’re still using the Hockey Stick!
HAHAHAHAHA
Schiller, thx for that global map, pretty cool to look at!
I thought it was fascinating when Jones in his interview was asked “was the MWP global “and he said something along the lines of , ‘there are very few paleoclimate records from the southern hemisphere’…as if that then allowed the IPCC and others to make the claim that it was a northern hemisphere event.
I think given all the evidence from proxy data ( at times doubtful) and the written accounts it is highly likely that it was warmer then and also during the RWP AND Minoan WP.
Yes the NOAA graph does of course contradict this! I wonder which map Luke likes best!
Toby,
We know of course that Luke prefers an al-gore-rithm that generates hockey sticks from plain noise. NCDC/NOAA/NASA/IPCC/Hadley CRU/Penn State U/consensualists obviously agree.
After all they’re getting the mo$t dollar$ to produce thing$ that re$emble hockey $tick$.
Yeah, I’m not too hot on proxy measurements, with Briffa and Yamal, and Mann’s having to ‘hide the decline’ by pasting ‘cooked, fixed, and smoothed’ station data over the top of treemometers, and all that.
These days, you can trust climate data about as much as your friendly ‘climate credit’ broker.
Once you monetize crap, crap is what you get. Expensive crap, of course, or they’d be working a different job.
I’m a skeptic, but I’m still trying to encompass how things could be truly this wretched.
Schiller being an arch-denialist keeps reading his mantra from the coal-industry provided hymn sheet. Spreading the utter libellous horseshit that they were paid off to produce a result.
Toby you could well reflect that MacIntyre himself doesn’t know if the MWP was warmer than today. Doesn’t know !
Anyway let’s assume it was for arguments sake. The mega-droughts that impacted America, Africa and China of no concern? Perhaps a nice Euro-centric view of cathedral building is all one needs.
Well Walker in addition the information we are all waiting for on Plimer and Monckton ,viz
” Please show me references to where Plimer and Monckon have been as consistently and repeatedly rude and obnoxious as you have to the extent of repeatedly referring to people as denialist turds, arseholes and full of shit etc. ”
Please provide the evidence that Mcintrye doesnt know if the MWP was warmer than today.
You may start with this.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/04/jo-nova-finds-the-medieval-warm-period/
I expect this home work to handed up by end of class today as befits all good school boys.
I noticed just a few days ago Luke, that the Sahara has been becoming increasingly wetter and more arable since the 1970’s with the desert actually contracting not expanding. This i recall was completely the opposite of what the ipcc were saying and predicting?
Luke
Steve Mac recognizes that there were megadroughts during the MWP.
http://climateaudit.org/2006/12/06/underwater-in-the-sierra-nevadas/
Malcolm – he made the comment when the Craig Loehle stuff was doing the rounds …. you can choose to believe me or not – do i care.
Didn’t say Plimer or Moncko did – but plenty on here have extended that discourtesy to me – so when in Rome Malcolm….. I just morph your behaviour back at you….
Malcolm – he made the comment when the Craig Loehle stuff was doing the rounds …. you can choose to believe me or not – do i care.
Yes of course El Gordo – coz MacIntyre is a smart guy.
Didn’t say Plimer or Moncko did use expletives – but plenty on here have extended that discourtesy to me – so when in Rome Malcolm….. I just morph the group behaviour but as a warmist …. unlike others Malcolm I have not threatened anyone. And you would notice Malcolm that my on-line interaction with Toby is much less robust as he treats me far better.
Toby – better quote the IPCC ! Was said where ….
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/26/a-new-paper-comparing-ncdc-rural-and-urban-us-surface-temperature-data/#comments
As the auther says.. “the consequence of the NCDC’s protocol for adjusting the data is to cause historical data to take on the time line characteristics of urban data.The consequence intended or not, is to report a false rate of temperature increase for the contiguous USA.”
And earlier he says…. ” The temperatures due to nature itself ,at least within the contiguous USA, have increased at a non significant rate and do not appear to have any correspondence to the presence or lack of presence of carbon dioxide.”
Watch this with interest. The truth will out one way or tother..and it looks like the truth is slowly being exposed to some fresh air at last.
Perhaps most people would treat you differently if you began by not abusing them with your foul language and personal abuse just because they expressed a view you didnt like.
Many many decently expressed posts get an reaction from you that is just the pits and you know it because it has been your whole modus operandi, and done so from behind the shield of a pseudonym.
To try and weasel out of it by saying it has been a reactive response is pure and absolute b/s but then what else can you expect from a pseudonomous operator.
Malcolm, all,
Here’s a link to the paper:
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/Rate_of_Temp_Change_Raw_and_Adjusted_NCDC_Data.pdf
The way they get a ‘global warming signal’ is to very slightly reduce temps for urban stations (to correct for UHI), and then exaggerate rural temperature rise by a factor of FIVE.
What rot.
For a while, the skeptics thought Climategate was big, and then came this…
http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/022510_greeneconomy.pdf
It never was about climatology.
“Mott is streets ahead of you ..at least he did his homework and had a solid background to underpin his judgements..as well as being humorous.”
and
“Perhaps most people would treat you differently if you began by not abusing them with your foul language and personal abuse just because they expressed a view you didnt like.”
Malcolm,
I suggest you revisit the archives and familiarise yourself with Ian Mott’s blog diplomacy and excellent research skills. Your current view of such suggests you lack the ability to view contributions objectively.
As for pseudonyms, there are plenty on your side here who use them and I don’t see you complaining. It has been discussed over and over again and it is the same “side” that does the complaining yet partakes in exactly the same activity. If you want to be taken seriously (and I assume your posts are meant as such), then play fairly.
“The following information was printed in bold letters on the first page of my 93-page
extended summary report to the Stern Review An assessment of the likely consequences of
global warming on the climate of South Africa dated November 2005. It was ignored.
Continued global warming will NOT
• Pose a threat to water supplies
• Adversely affect agricultural production
• Increase the risk of floods and droughts
• Increase the spread of malaria
• Increase the eutrophication of water in dams
• Increase soil erosion
• Result in the loss of natural plant and animal species
• Result in desertification
There is no believable evidence to support these claims.
I rest my case!
Regards”
Read more at http://www.tech-know.eu/uploads/IPCC_carcass.pdf
Thanks for that Schiller, and the Green Economy.The standard turgid prose of UN documents doesnt make for easy reading. I wonder where the $2bn estimate for Australia came from and who is responsible for it? …… One couldnt have any confidence that the UN will handle this any better than all that has gone before .
This reference on the Review of Pachauri’s position came from Andrew Bolts’ Blog.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7316758/IPCC-chief-Rajendra-Pachauri-to-face-independent-inquiry.html
I dont care what other people like Hamilton and Flannery et al might say about Bolt, at least he is doing his job as an excellent and incisive journalist.
As a case in point this reference indicates that commons sense may be about to erupt, and they may move to replace Pachauri, and do a top down over haul of how this shameful organisation has been allowed to operate. This is important information.
Perhaps the reviewers may even contemplate instituting some best practice standards,and proper management protocols…. but that could be pushing the expectation too far.
http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/12882
The Walls Of Anthropogenic Warming Come Crashing Down
Published by AJStrata at 7:46 am under
Another Ian,
Surely, you realize that the IPCC has identified its abject failure to prove the bullet points identified in your summary report to be ‘minor misunderstandings’.
Hahaha. And the ‘look around you and you will see it’ argument is looking stupider all the time.
Malcolm,
Your wondering “where the $2bn estimate for Australia came from and who is responsible for it” is not much of a poser, and likely a low estimate. You consider the co$t of $wirly light bulb$, and the carbon credit$ that could be generated from imposing a carbon tax on your coal exports, and a few other thing$, and you can quickly count up the billion$ which many hope to reap from Global Green Governance.
This was never about the atmosphere, or the global temperature.
Well Malcolm
Perhaps I would treat you differently if you began by not abusing me with your personal abuse just because I expressed a view you didnt like.
To try and weasel out of it by saying it your case if holier than thou is pure and absolute b/s but then what else can you expect from a pseudonomous operator. Who’s M Hill anyway – never heard of him?
So Mal – where do you get off libeling scientists you don’t know and spreading total misinformation from crap sources ? You lot really are indiscriminate in your conduct.
1. Malcolm Hill is my real name
….and yours is?
2. I will make comment back on things I disgree with. It called Freedom of Speech
3. Whether or not it is ” misinformation from crap sources” is a matter of opinion.
4. Based upon what we now know it is clear of lot of the so called science is also a source of crap.
5. What ever my faults at least I am not hiding behind the skirt of a pseudonym.
McIntyre cuts the mustard!
http://www.climateaudit.info/pdf/mcintyre-scitech.pdf
I wouldn’t read it if I were you Luke – you may be embarrassed.
Hottest on record – pigs arse!
Oh so common!
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=pig's%20arse
http://www.nicholsoncartoons.com.au/rubbery.php
http://www.mp3.com.au/Track.asp?id=127395
hey Gavin
Hmmmm..now what was that about crap science.
Please read some of the submissions to the UK Govt to the Parliamentary Select Committee from:eg
Warwick Hughes
Benny Peiser
UK Met Office
UEA Vice Chancellor Memorandum to the Select Committee
….together with the McIntyre Climate Audit report of the UEA dated Feb 10th referenced by janama above.
What an absolutely disgraceful situation.
Perhaps this thread will win a Guiness record or something?
I see Baghdad Bob is still defending the AGW regime, even as it collapses around him.
I think the question for folks to answer is this:
Who has more credibility?
Luke and pals, or the Institute of Physics?
What are the implications of the disclosures for the integrity of scientific research?
1. The Institute is concerned that, unless the disclosed e-mails are proved to be forgeries or adaptations, worrying implications arise for the integrity of scientific research in this field and for the credibility of the scientific method as practised in this context.
2. The CRU e-mails as published on the internet provide prima facie evidence of determined and co-ordinated refusals to comply with honourable scientific traditions and freedom of information law. The principle that scientists should be willing to expose their ideas and results to independent testing and replication by others, which requires the open exchange of data, procedures and materials, is vital. The lack of compliance has been confirmed by the findings of the Information Commissioner. This extends well beyond the CRU itself – most of the e-mails were exchanged with researchers in a number of other international institutions who are also involved in the formulation of the IPCC’s conclusions on climate change.
3. It is important to recognise that there are two completely different categories of data set that are involved in the CRU e-mail exchanges:
· those compiled from direct instrumental measurements of land and ocean surface temperatures such as the CRU, GISS and NOAA data sets; and
· historic temperature reconstructions from measurements of ‘proxies’, for example, tree-rings.
4. The second category relating to proxy reconstructions are the basis for the conclusion that 20th century warming is unprecedented. Published reconstructions may represent only a part of the raw data available and may be sensitive to the choices made and the statistical techniques used. Different choices, omissions or statistical processes may lead to different conclusions. This possibility was evidently the reason behind some of the (rejected) requests for further information.
5. The e-mails reveal doubts as to the reliability of some of the reconstructions and raise questions as to the way in which they have been represented; for example, the apparent suppression, in graphics widely used by the IPCC, of proxy results for recent decades that do not agree with contemporary instrumental temperature measurements.
6. There is also reason for concern at the intolerance to challenge displayed in the e-mails. This impedes the process of scientific ’self correction’, which is vital to the integrity of the scientific process as a whole, and not just to the research itself. In that context, those CRU e-mails relating to the peer-review process suggest a need for a review of its adequacy and objectivity as practised in this field and its potential vulnerability to bias or manipulation.
7. Fundamentally, we consider it should be inappropriate for the verification of the integrity of the scientific process to depend on appeals to Freedom of Information legislation. Nevertheless, the right to such appeals has been shown to be necessary. The e-mails illustrate the possibility of networks of like-minded researchers effectively excluding newcomers. Requiring data to be electronically accessible to all, at the time of publication, would remove this possibility.
8. As a step towards restoring confidence in the scientific process and to provide greater transparency in future, the editorial boards of scientific journals should work towards setting down requirements for open electronic data archiving by authors, to coincide with publication. Expert input (from journal boards) would be needed to determine the category of data that would be archived. Much ‘raw’ data requires calibration and processing through interpretive codes at various levels.
9. Where the nature of the study precludes direct replication by experiment, as in the case of time-dependent field measurements, it is important that the requirements include access to all the original raw data and its provenance, together with the criteria used for, and effects of, any subsequent selections, omissions or adjustments. The details of any statistical procedures, necessary for the independent testing and replication, should also be included. In parallel, consideration should be given to the requirements for minimum disclosure in relation to computer modelling.
Are the terms of reference and scope of the Independent Review announced on 3 December 2009 by UEA adequate?
10. The scope of the UEA review is, not inappropriately, restricted to the allegations of scientific malpractice and evasion of the Freedom of Information Act at the CRU. However, most of the e-mails were exchanged with researchers in a number of other leading institutions involved in the formulation of the IPCC’s conclusions on climate change. In so far as those scientists were complicit in the alleged scientific malpractices, there is need for a wider inquiry into the integrity of the scientific process in this field.
11. The first of the review’s terms of reference is limited to: “…manipulation or suppression of data which is at odds with acceptable scientific practice…” The term ‘acceptable’ is not defined and might better be replaced with ‘objective’.
12. The second of the review’s terms of reference should extend beyond reviewing the CRU’s policies and practices to whether these have been breached by individuals, particularly in respect of other kinds of departure from objective scientific practice, for example, manipulation of the publication and peer review system or allowing pre-formed conclusions to override scientific objectivity.
How independent are the other two international data sets?
13. Published data sets are compiled from a range of sources and are subject to processing and adjustments of various kinds. Differences in judgements and methodologies used in such processing may result in different final data sets even if they are based on the same raw data. Apart from any communality of sources, account must be taken of differences in processing between the published data sets and any data sets on which they draw.
The Institute of Physics, with worldwide membership of 36,000, has just submitted (Feb 27, 2010) a memorandum to the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee of British Parliament in response to its inquiry into ‘Climategate’.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/climatedata/uc3902.htm
Marvelous quote therefrom:
“However, most of the [Hadley CRU ‘leaked’ etc.] e-mails were exchanged with researchers in a number of other leading institutions involved in the formulation of the IPCC’s conclusions on climate change. In so far as those scientists were complicit in the alleged scientific malpractices, there is need for a wider inquiry into the integrity of the scientific process in this field.”
Beauty.
Its a pretty significant statement thats for sure. I hope the main stream media run with this, so much of what we have been saying is vindicated by this statement alone.
A big thank you to Janama and Hunter for the links and info. It is now completely clear and unequivocal that the researchers involved in the climategate scandal ceased being “scientists” several years ago and have been using their “research” purely for advocacy purposes based on personal ideologies.
I’m afraid that pure science has been infiltrated by activists who embark on a science career path with the aim of using their qualifications for the promotion of their personally biased world view.
On an encouraging note, my son was at a Uni party last night as a volunteer “harm minimalisationist” and listened in to a conversation where a small group were discussing climategate and recent IPCC issues. They were all quite scathing of recent events and commented that it’s not getting out to the MSM.
I guess you really can only “fool some of the people some of the time”.
In Luke’s case however, we have to make an exception eh?
Folks,
Whilst we have a lull in the news this weekend, perhaps it’s time for a bit of comedy.
Check out “Watch how the greenhouse effect works.”,
http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/energy/site/EIZInfogr9.asp
Fun and clever little animation that helps prove how using energy is smothering us in a blanket of warmth!
The UK Science Museum was founded in 1857.
From the same source, some weed-huggers and others speculate about the Doom of Earth:
http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/antenna/climatecalculations/
hehe. Look at the URL. ‘climatecalculations’? It is to laugh. One of the ‘calculations’ is a greenie preparing to deliver French kisses (there is a more accurate term) to some floral weeds.
One remarkable aspect of this whole climate thing is the vast number of people who do and say goofy, stupid, erroneous, and outrageously odd things on behalf of AGW and don’t feel embarrassed in the least. The Brits call it ‘eccentrism’, and even admire it as a prized aspect of culture. But something like AGW goes well beyond that.
Here we go again. Yet more evidence of things not being as they originally were so keen to portray.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/27/spencer-spurious-warming-demonstrated-in-cru-surface-data/
Do you just love Spencer’s concluding remark.
“It is increasingly apparent that we do not even know how much the world has warmed in recent decades, let alone the reason(s) why. It seems to me we are back to square one.”
It seem also that janamas, “ pig arse” is entirely appropriate
Malcolm,
The levels of cold, snow and ice we currently have Up North is being contrasted to satellite records showing an unusually warm January for the planet.
Some are blaming the Northern Hemisphere experience on a North Atlantic Oscillation event.
Do you, or others, have any thoughts on this?
For those few of you who don’t regularly visit Morano’s site, here is a long but compelling article that you might find interesting.
http://anhonestclimatedebate.wordpress.com/2009/04/03/climate-change-%E2%80%93-the-clash-of-theories-by-professor-will-alexander/
Derek,
Have a read of the following blog post by a scientist – seems we are dealing with Post Normal Science and Mike Hulme is in the thick of it, as is the IPCC etc. Science has indeed been hijacked by the political activists as are our universities and educational system. It’s Lysenkoism in other words.
http://buythetruth.wordpress.com/2009/10/31/climate-change-and-the-death-of-science/
Back in 2007 I noted some highly questionable commenting shenanigans at HotCopper, “Australia’s most popular stock-market internet discussion site”.
From RF Beck:
“A HotCopper commenter has now been found guilty of defamation:
Legal counsel Martin Bennett has a short message for those who allow themselves to attack reputations over the internet, imagining they are safe under the cloak of anonymity. ”You can be hunted down and found,” he said yesterday.
Mr Bennett has done just that for a Perth client, winning $30,000 in damages and costs, an apology, and undertakings from a Colac man that he won’t post any more defamatory comments.
Oops!”
So wotcher Luke,
Schiller Thurkettle
Bookmark the AO Daily Index for a clearer understanding of what’s happening.
http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/daily_ao_index/ao_index.html
We know that a negative AO and weak El Nino will bring snow and ice to the continental US.
It’s the Post Normal Science.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100027748/the-real-reason-for-agw-post-normal-science/
Check the cartoon at
http://diggingintheclay.blogspot.com/2010/02/cartoon-by-josh-oh-joy-scientific-body.html
Louis,
Just when I thought it couldn’t get any worse, or bizarre, or frankly f**ked up! I couldn’t read the whole article, it was too depressing. I’m just a simple science teacher and this “real world” you are showing me is just too scary.
Then Spangled gives us a link about the same stuff!
How come I’ve never heard about this stuff before? I’m sure even Luke would be appalled.
I think I’ll go read some comics, at this point fiction is much more appealing than fact.
I really think it’s time I should out myself – Janama was a skin name given to me by an old Aboriginal Sharman named Scotty Birrell in the Kimberly. I recently heard on Maccas Australia all over radio show he is still alive which would make him 89 which is amazing for an old guy like him. I classed it an honour to be given a name from the last of the great Sharmans so I used it as my web name in all the climate change discussions.
My real name is John Sayers. I design recording studios and have been a music producer for most of my 64 years.
So Luke – you can see why I posted Come Said the Boy as a relative song the AGW as I produced it.
http://johnlsayers.com
John Sayers,
Amaxing, all this time I thought Janama was a girls name, I’ll never think about you the same way again.
John Sayers,
Amazing, all this time I thought Janama was a girls name, I’ll never think about you the same way again.
I’m not sure I could handle some of the ways you may have thought about me then 🙂
That’s interesting Derek – we do reference women differently than men.
wow – the software won’t allow me to post as John Sayers
try again
janama-John Sayers,
that’s very interesting. I recently helped my son build a recording studio under his house [you could probably find a lot wrong with it] but it keeps him very occupied spending all his spare time as an amateur producer.
Hopefully it doesn’t upset the neighbours too much.
John Sayers,
What’s a sharman? A sort of spiritual healer?
Congratulations to John but not everyone should “come out” completely.
My main excuse has always been that my musings here could cramp the good work of another, a close relative who because of our rather memorable surname would be horrified at the thought of any interference from retired seniors who still get out on a limb over issues.
The other is my habit of personal campaigns to various institutions that may at times change a media response to acute political problems. However one can never be sure even as late as last week that it wasn’t simply their timely change of tactics in the face of general feedback when some great minds think alike.
I was also reminded in a review program last week that one of my old campaign tactics went horribly wrong. Influencing PS policy & jobs should be the least of our concern.
On another note I listened to a discussion on RN about the often anomous review process that passes in science circles before papers are published. In this interview the comments were about dodgy medical science and occasional fraud that gets through the usual barriers as a direct result of slack routines developing in closed publisher groups.
In my ramblings elsewhere I have a lot to say about the way good practice develops with out resource to rigorous application of old standards. Flexibility is the key word when dealing with a mess in any situation.
Measuring chaos in nature is a very young science. We can learn to run with what rhythm persists, but reliable products are most likely to come from extensive collaboration in the field. A sharman would just know how it was
Visionary, poet, and Nobel laureate Al Gore has returned from his mountain retreat at an undisclosed location to intone a new prophecy of doom and destruction:
Gore A. We Can’t Wish Away Climate Change. New York Times, February 27, 2010. Available at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/28/opinion/28gore.html
Almost all of the ice-covered regions of the Earth are melting — and seas are rising. Hurricanes are predicted to grow stronger and more destructive, though their number is expected to decrease. Droughts are getting longer and deeper in many mid-continent regions, even as the severity of flooding increases. The seasonal predictability of rainfall and temperatures is being disrupted, posing serious threats to agriculture. The rate of species extinction is accelerating to dangerous levels.
and
The lags in the global climate system, including the buildup of heat in the oceans from which it is slowly reintroduced into the atmosphere, means that we can create conditions that make large and destructive consequences inevitable long before their awful manifestations become apparent: the displacement of hundreds of millions of climate refugees, civil unrest, chaos and the collapse of governance in many developing countries, large-scale crop failures and the spread of deadly diseases.
Thus saith our Green Messiah:
From the standpoint of governance, what is at stake is our ability to use the rule of law as an instrument of human redemption.
Yea, verily, I say unto ye: if ye would be redeemed, bend your necks under the yoke of Green Regulation, knowing that ye suffer in a Noble Cause, to help me go to and fro, and up and down upon the Earth, (1) to spread the doctrines which have been revealed unto me.
————-
1. Bible, Old Testament, Job 1:7, http://bible.cc/job/1-7.htm
Folks,
I’ve tried twice to post here. The first was perhaps rejected because of too many weblinks. After I took out each and every one, it was still rejected.
Does anyone here have a sense of the software rules?
JD Wiley
I seem to have missed your previous post, or it was one of those that apears long after the Send button has been pressed.
It obviously has slipped your notice but there is vast dfifference between the blogger known as Luke, and Ian Mott
Ian Mott is his real name, and Ian Mott has a web site and one can take up matters of interest with him directly.
Playing fair also involves proportions and balance .
John/Janama,
I pictured you as a 30 something female university graduate, probably with honors, possibly PHD in some unspecified science area. You came across as relatively young and energetic/enthusiastic (which makes sense if you’re into music in a big way). You may be relieved to know that my images of you in no way contained anything of a sexual nature.
Wouldn’t it be interesting if we were all to meet one day, I’m sure everyone would be very surprised.
Cheers, Derek (my real name) Smith.
Wild imagination is no substitute for facts hey Derek
Curse this rain, it never stops. Nearly 20 inches for Feb.
I heard on “our ABC” this morning where the CSIRO were at it again telling farmers that it ain’t gonna rain no more and that doom is nigh. I don’t think they were in Birdsville but Luke might be able to fill us in on the details.
BTW Luke, d’ya still think that raising the Wivenhoe wall by 50 feet and trebling capacity like they just did at the Hinze is a dumb idea? Nah! well what’s another few bil plus multi-emissions on dumb desal?
And it was a bit disappointing about yesterday’s tsunami arriving on top of a very high tide that nothing happened.
My benchmark for the last 47 years showed SLs 26 cms below 1963 levels at yesterdays max.
Must all be due to the inverse Al Gore effect.
Drongo – a sharman in the aboriginal community is medicine man, visionary etc. I got the impression the communities in the Kimberly keep their spiritual beliefs to themselves so we don’t know much about them.
I was told that there was a young girl in the hospital in Wyndham and she was so sick the doctors had given her up and were just waiting for her to go. Apparently Scotty walked into the hospital and 1/2hr later walked out with her – the doctors were stunned and asked Scotty to help them in the hospital, he abused them. 🙂
The Sharman’s are also able to project their images into fires and communicate over long distances by this method. I saw a face in my fire one night clear as a bell so I noted the facial features exactly. There was a scar on the top of his head and another scar on the side of his mouth. The next day I saw Scotty so I told him I had a face in my fire – that was me he said – but Scotty you don’t have a scar on the top of your head – yes I do look – it’s under my hair and the scar on the side of my mouth was when I was bitten by a dog – I hadn’t mentioned the scar on his mouth. Weird stuff I tell you.
Derek Smith,
Thanks for that link re Prof Alexander’s experiences with the true believers in southern Africa.
I hope he gets some comfort from the craziness with possible improving trends.
We can only hope.
John,
I served an interesting “apprenticeship” with an aboriginal rainmaker and learnt some of the trade of “mustering up them clouds”. The main thing apart from getting the brew right was notifying the surrounding tribal rainmakers to enact their medicine in unison and this was my job to write the letters to the various rainmakers which went to Adelaide on the mail truck and then came all the way back to the tribal areas. You had to prepare well in advance but sometimes it worked.
When it did there was “big c’rob’ree, kurroo”.
Scotty told me of a story when he was in a Halls Creek pub he suspected the guy he was drinking with was spiking his drink – he didn’t say anything but the two left with a few bottles and headed for the creek. The other guy had a piss by a tree and went and fell asleep by the creek. Scotty got a needle from his pack and placed it in the ground where the guy had pee’d and went back to the pub.
the next morning the blokes wife came racing in to the pub and pleaded with Scotty to come and help her husband because he couldn’t pee! Scotty went down to the creek and the guy was rolling around in agony, so Scotty went to the tree and removed the needle and the guy immediately flowed forth – Scotty pointed the needle at him and suggested in future don’t f**k with me mate!
Any’ow, someone’s been makin’ rain out there lately. Have a butcher’s at this map!
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/silo/rain_maps.cgi
Not often you see it where all the rain is in Birdsville. My old rainmaker boss would be tickled pink. Somebody out there has learnt the trade.
Al Gore would say they have been ‘redeemed’. Except the baby, which continues to emit CO2.
Baby Survives 3 Days in Argentina with Bullet Wound in Chest
Latin-American Herald Tribune
March 1, 2010
http://www.laht.com/article.asp?ArticleId=352991&CategoryId=14093
BUENOS AIRES – A 7-month-old baby survived alone for three days with a bullet wound in its chest beside the bodies of its parents and brother, who died in an apparent suicide pact brought on by the couple’s terror of global warming, the Argentine press said Saturday.
The cops found a letter on the table alluding to the couple’s worry about global warming and their anger at the government’s lack of interest in the matter.
Jones fronts Parliament.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1254660/Climategate-expert-tells-MPs.html
From El Gordo’s cited link:
“Prof Jones today said it was not ‘standard practice’ in climate science to release data and methodology for scientific findings so that other scientists could check and challenge the research.”
Crap science has led to deaths, and an infant clinging to life after a gunshot wound. (scroll up)
And these cretins say they don’t know how to deal with the media? The problem is, they have “dealt with” the media. And now they have blood on their hands.
Freaking Doomsday Cults. Jim Jones and the Green Kool-Aid. This is so awful, except it just keeps getting worse.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/climatedata/uc3202.htm
I dont understand why there hasnt been an even greater outcry over this sort of behaviour ..it as sure as hell isnt science, and a variety of science that was suggesting we stuff up our economies based upon the sort of rubbish McIntyre is now exposing.
Thank god Copenhagen fell over.
Malcolm,
Since Copenhagen, I fancy we have seen a lot less of Penny Wong on TV. Similarly, since the house insulation (green jobs) debacle, we have seen less of Peter Garrett. Last time I saw him on TV he looked like a sullen schoolboy, caught picking his nose.
Bob Brown and friends have adroitly distanced themselves from the insulation affair, although green jobs are part of their platform. Over the last few days, Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard seem to be hogging the media opportunities. However, I fancy that every time Kevin genuflects and does another mea culpa, Julia smiles like yon Cassius on the Ides of March. Fascinating stuff, politics. No wonder they get such fat perks and pensions. I doubt if they sleep well at night.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/climatedata/uc4702.htm
First of was the Institute of Physics
Then it was the institute of Chemistry
now its the Institute of Staticians
..and somewhere in there is the Forecasters industry group
…all saying good sensible stuff that would be part of any best practices protocol ..had the IPCC the wit to adopt them.
Begs the question just how smart have these people been, if they produce an outcome that by its very processes and protocols means that it is unsellable, because it failed to do the work according to the relevant industry set best practice standards.
It seems they have only themselves to blame.
I like the statisticians’ opinion that the referee process cannot guarantee correctness. Not ‘arf…
This has been the most negative AO Index winter since 1950.
Watts has a post up saying this is the first time in history without a tornado in February. Cooler weather dampens down tornados.
Then there is that warm patch of water off the west coast of Africa, which helped spawn the hurricane winds and rain in Europe. Is this the precursor to a violent hurricane season?
Natural variability right before our eyes and it’s not linear, but cyclic. Still, the ‘warmists’ point me towards the satellite graph which shows an unambiguous warming. It’s chaos out there.
SD – If you check the rainfall record of Birdsville you can see it’s not unprecedented. February 1917 was 299.5mm
http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/cdio/weatherData/av?p_nccObsCode=139&p_display_type=dataFile&p_stn_num=038002
Those who believe ‘a consensus’ is important in the field of climatology will be interested to note that in an online poll conducted by the Wall Street Journal, 81 percent of respondents would give the IPCC an ‘F’ for its work, and another 11 percent would grade it a ‘D’.
http://online.wsj.com/community/groups/question-day-229/topics/how-would-you-grade-work
Also of interest: a 100-point test to determine whether a group constitutes a cult. How many apply to the AGWers? Check it out at
http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-cult_q0.html#cq_guru_right
John the year 1917 was very wet and broke a drought during the early years of WW1.
Also it was a very high flood year on the Murray river.
Folks,
The story about the couple who shot their children, and themselves, over AGW has gone instantly viral.
Searching blogs on the story yields 20,833 hits. Searching news yields 81 hits.
A new term may have entered the vocabulary: ‘warmicide’, apparently coined by TheWorldCares.com,
http://www.theworldcares.com/war/warmicide-global-warming-suicide-pact-%E2%80%A6-baby-survives-3-days-with/
According to the latest news, the infant daughter is recovering, but the rest of the family are dead.
John the year 1917 was very wet and broke a drought during the early years of WW1.
Also it was a very high flood year on the Murray river.
Yes Neville – just like it has this past week – there was another similar period in the 50s after the WWII drought.
Peter Andrew said in his latest book “Back from the Brink” we get a heavy rain event around every 50 years and he said we are currently due for one. Well he was right, we are having it, but I hope his full prediction doesn’t come forth that being that our rivers have now gouged their way to well below the water table and all the salt will flush out and make our rivers undrinkable and unusable!!
He’s basically saying that our rivers are unique in that they spread out sideways underground and move to the sea slowly, but we’ve removed all the wetlands that slow down the process. The Darling originally had vast wetlands 50 km wide across the river and 20 km down the river where the water would slow down and spread out. The paddle steamer people burnt them all out so they could get through to haul out the wool. The river has never recovered and just gets deeper and deeper.
SD this current weather reminds me of the wet seasons we used to get in the late 70s early 80s. It would set in like this for weeks and eventually saturate the soil – then overnight we’d get 8″ and all the coast and Lismore would flood.
Lismore had Major Flooding in 72, 74,75, 76, 78, 84 and twice in 87, 89 – not once in the 90s. 01, 05.
John,
Thanks for those old Birdsville records. I note that some of the dryest were when I was was practicing as a rainmaker…….
But you are right, there is nothing unusual in this weather pattern in spite of the “experts” spouting “records” and “disaster” everywhere. The MSM would have us believe that the recipients of all this bounty are in a blue funk when in fact it has restored so much hope and expectation.
I was a bit apprehensive at first but it looks as though the floods will fill the Menindee Lakes and finally get to Adelaide.
Drought and flooding rains! It’s what this country does.
There are more La Nina during cool PDO, which means greater precipitation across Australia. So we are tracking back to the late 1940’s and early 50’s.
The rainfall is not uniform, but if BOM could focus the programming on natural variability (minus CO2 forcing) we may be able to predict the location and intensity of this next big flood.
Keeping in mind we still have a weak El Nino operating for a few months yet.
el gordo – you could hardly call it a weak El Nino –
http://www.weatherzone.com.au/climate/indicator_enso.jsp?c=nino34&p=monthly
isn’t it what Cohenite referred to as an El Nino Modoki (Japanese for similar but different) where we get minimum rain during Nov – Dec and March – May but extremely high rainfall in January – February. The forecast is it will finish at weeks end.
Thanx John, it does look fairly active. I retract my previous comment on the ‘weak’ Nino.
Hi all just gave here a skim having just watched http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Player.aspx?meetingId=5979 I had to use IE and it is 3 hours very worth watching. As to AGW I doubt the fat lady is singing yet.
I noticed janama saying who he is. My alias stands for Di Hydrogen Mon Oxide, see http://www.dhmo.org/ this is far more dangerous than CO2. That’s right H2O. No one picked it up or said they did. As for my name it is Mike and I have a degree in computer science. I started in computers in 1975 and retired in 2009. I am now 66 and wish I knew when I was 20 what I know now. I have a really unique family name and am damn sure I doubt not want to meet the likes of Luke in the flesh. Also have a well known brother who was a labor cabinet minister and AGW believer. So best I keep quiet sorry.
damn sure I don’t want to meet the likes of Luke
Mike dhmo,
Thanks for that link. Will watch it in more detail later but I somewhat despair of the outcome.
I’vw watched it Mike Dhmo – it’s a shame they were being grilled by politicians who appeared to no little about the subject – but of course they wall whitewash it all and carry on regardless.
The past decade in the US has been the snowiest on record. It’s just weather, nothing to do with climate.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/02/2001-2010-was-the-snowiest-decade-on-record/
Slight correction, that should read snowiest in northern hemisphere. This is not good news for the ‘warmists’.
” I dont not want to meet the likes of Luke in the flesh. Also have a well known brother who was a labor cabinet minister and AGW believer. So best I keep quiet sorry.”
DHMO if that is in relation to me giving the pseudonomous blogger known as Luke a hard time for hiding behind the skirt of a pseudonym whilst abusing people..it was in that context and that context only.
IMHO it would not apply to you….people have a right to use a pseudonym for precisely the reason you outlined, but not for the way the anonymous object used it.
Guys, you have to read this article by Monbiot;
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/mar/01/solar-panel-feed-in-tariff
He may be die hard AGW but after reading this , I think we need to get him to critique Wong’s ETS. BTW , a freind sent me this in an email;
“A VERY GOOD EXAMPLE OF THE KIND OF REPRESENTATION WE HAVE IN CANBERRA.
TRUE STORY:
A noted psychiatrist was a guest speaker at an academic function where Penny Wong happened to appear.
Ms Wong took the opportunity to schmooze the good doctor a bit and asked him a question with which he was most at ease.
‘Would you mind telling me, Doctor,’ she asked, ‘how you detect a mental deficiency in somebody who appears completely normal?’
‘Nothing is easier,’ he replied. ‘You ask a simple question which anyone should answer with no trouble. If the person hesitates, that puts you on the track’
‘What sort of question?’ asked Wong .
Well, you might ask, ‘Captain Cook made three trips around the world and died during one of them. Which one?”
Wong thought a moment, and then said with a nervous laugh, ‘You wouldn’t happen to have another example would you? I must confess I don’t know much about history.
………………….and she represented us in Copenhagen !
We should be worried, very worried !
Her nick name at school was “Sum Ting Wong”
“
Remeber that there is no “Luke”.
There is a hive mind of guys who post under the name of ‘Luke”.
Although it the numbers do appear to be reduced.
I think Jennifer knew of this pretense when the “Luke” started posting.
Think of his little fraud as a tiny example of the fraud behind the AGW social movement.
Greenpeace has a new jobs opening that would be perfect for Luke.
Communications Manager – Climate & Energy
Greenpeace International is seeking an experienced communication manager with exceptional strategic and management skills to work with our global climate change campaign. We need someone who can cut through the background noise to deliver clear messages to key audiences around the world.
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/about/jobs/communications-manager-clima
Spangled, Sayers,
If you’re inclined to despair about the outcomes of the various investigations into ‘climategate’, there’s a book you’ll want to read: The Predictioneer’s Game: Using the Logic of Brazen Self-Interest to See and Shape the Future, Bruce Bueno De Mesquita (2009).
De Mesquita should be up for a Nobel of some sort. It’s an excellent, readable book, and I recommend it highly. He claims that if you look only at the self-interests of the actors involved in a political situation, and factor in the amount of power they have over the outcome, you can predict the result with 90% confidence.
Accordingly, my cynical, skeptical views are dismally vindicated.
What we have currently ‘in play’ is the notion that AGW is ‘too big to fail’ (to coin a phrase), as its doom would mean failure/bankruptcy for any number of financial investments and personal careers.
What we’re witnessing is an ‘investment bubble’ in AGW.
‘Climategate’ may burst the bubble. If it doesn’t, the bubble will merely burst later, when it is larger, with far more catastrophic results than if it burst today.
It has not yet burst. There’s still too much money and power invested in AGW. Truth does not prevail over money.
Except maybe in 10 percent of cases.
Derek,
People who run entirely on their own renewables I admire because I know it means some sacrifice and regulation but this gov sub stuff is bullshit. And as Monbiot honestly states it loads up the ones who aren’t prepared to indulge in the bullshit.
“Sum Ting Wong”
Very droll, I thought they only told stories like that about Sarah.
Schiller,
We need to check our super [investment] funds for this “tulipmania” [you’re right, it is happening] and let ’em know what we think. Climategate probably won’t be enough.
Schiller,
Remember the old legal phrase ‘cui bono’?
The tulip mania sort of sums it up, no?
Great call.
Social manias are truly interesting.
The warmists, having first confessed their inabilities at public communication (demonstrably false), are now ‘fighting back’, as pundits have advised, but they’re back to their tired old (demonstrably false) bogusity.
More Warming Worries: Methane from the Arctic Permafrost. Time Magazine, Thursday, Mar. 04, 2010, http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1969767,00.html#ixzz0hFR12fVH
Remarkable statement: “They haven’t laid a glove on the science itself, however. Humans are pumping out planet-warming greenhouse gases at a prodigious rate, and the planet is warming. That’s no coincidence.”
The gas the Times is talking about? Methane. My automobile doesn’t poop out methane, does yours?
More beauty, from the same source:
Based on a series of expeditions to the margins of the Arctic Ocean by ship and helicopter, University of Alaska researcher Natalia Shakhova and her colleagues report that methane, a greenhouse gas that is 30 times more effective in trapping heat in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide, is bubbling up from the continental shelf and leaking into the atmosphere. The estimated total: 8 teragrams — that’s 8 trillion grams — per year.
Wow! Methane is revealed to be a unidirectional molecule that reflects heat towards the nearest gravity sink. Otherwise, methane would be a heat sink all by itself, absorbing heat from the surrounding environment, which would result in a net cooling effect.
Well, OK, nobody ever accused climatologists of any fundamental understanding of physics, statistics, or writing computer code.
And, get this — they’re measuring things in grams, when everyone else uses tons. Quite impressive numbers you get from that bit!
Then there’s the UK’s Guardian fighting back:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/mar/05/climate-emails-institute-of-physics-submission
The Guardian has established that the institute prepared its evidence, which was highly critical of the CRU scientists, after inviting views from Peter Gill, an IOP official who is head of a company in Surrey called Crestport Services.
According to Gill, Crestport offers “consultancy and management support services … particularly within the energy and energy intensive industries worldwide”, and says that it has worked with “oil and gas production companies including Shell, British Gas, and Petroleum Development Oman”.
This is such a stupendous discovery. Actually, an admission that there’s nothing wrong with the evidence, it’s just that … Hmm. Like they would actually hear that evidence from someone else?
I doubt it.
And now the Creationists are getting ‘on the ball’:
ClimateGate — is somehow “proof” that brave dissenters from science orthodoxy (such as creationists) have been suppressed by ideological conspirators. We’ve been tracking appearances of the meme in various organs of the kook-o-sphere. Our last post on this peculiar phenomenon was here: Global Warming, Creationism & Brain Death.
http://sensuouscurmudgeon.wordpress.com/2010/02/24/creationism-climategate-embrace-the-madness/
This is descending into madness.
Everyone who has a dog in this fight, which means, investments in “green” this, that, and the other, is desperately reaching for junk ideology that will rescue a crippled science from the dung-heap of history (and bankruptcy).
Climatology could have aspired to be credible, and even crucial to our species, but it’s come down to shenanigans and cheap appeals to scientific illiteracy.
Hubert Lamb would not be happy.
O/T While in search for answers on why the aerosol signal has failed to show, I stumbled across this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-NTUAtupYk&NR=1
If it’s a spoof, it’s a good one.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/03/global-warmings-biggest-winners/
What a sick – sick society it is that awards one its top honours to people who have clearly made use of their positions to line their own pockets.. by either peddling misleading information or being incompetent at the job they were asked to do, or both.
Every one loses out of this… except Gore and Pachauri of course.
Nobel Prizes now have a distinct odour about them and Government officials are held in lower regard, and the tax payers money jars have less in them.
“I don’t know much about statistics but I know what I like.”
AGW science in one sentence!
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/simon-carr/simon-carr-scientist-may-find-himself-a-convenient-sacrificial-lamb-1914296.html
Cohenite,
Schiller’s post concerning methane got me thinking about that previous issue about CO2’s dipole moment.
According to the theory, only molecules with a dipole moment can absorb in the IR and CO2 can have an induced dipole moment when it bends.
But methane doesn’t contain polar bonds, so can’t have an induced dipole so how can it be a GHG? Yet a simple search on google shows that methane does in fact absorb in the near IR, so something doesn’t seem to add up.
If you or anyone can sort this out, please let me know.
Now whose foot fits this shoe?
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100028525/warmists-overwhelmed-by-fear-panic-and-deranged-hatred-as-their-science-collapses/
The alarmists are trumpeting fresh vindication of their prophecy of doom with the following:
Detection and attribution of climate change: a regional perspective
Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change
Published Online: 5 Mar 2010
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/123310513/abstract
This is a pay-per view article, so I doubt that many journalists covering the story will have read it. But why waste the money? Consider this sentence from the abstract:
“We review the evidence showing significant human-induced changes in regional temperatures, and for the effects of external forcings on changes in the hydrological cycle, the cryosphere, circulation changes, oceanic changes, and changes in extremes.”
No mention of reviewing evidence contrary to their thesis. Cherry-picking all over again.
These people haven’t learned a thing. Their defense to Climategate is simply more of the same.
Derek,
I tried the ‘Captain Cook’ question you mentioned above, on March 3rd, 2010 at 9:11 pm, on my wife.
She hesitated. (!)
Then she said, if they kept the body, it could have been on any of them [the voyages].
How’s that for being a skeptic? Only one of the many reasons I love her so dearly.
Schiller and Derek,
I sent it off to a couple of my lefty friends who both replied that they thought it was cruel and that they liked Penny Wong.
So I then reacquainted them with a few exponentially worse cheap lefty shots on Sarah Palin.
Folks,
We have massive more good news. Or bad news, if you’re a warmist.
The Competitive Enterprise Institute has announced the release of emails from the US National Academies of Science. These emails reveal, at a minimum, collusion over what the warmers say they’re ‘not good at’: influencing the public.
Press release at: http://cei.org/news-release/2010/03/05/climategate-reloaded
Emails (.pdf, 17 pp.) at: http://www.globalwarming.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/CEI%20-%20Climategate%20Reloaded.pdf
“Quote mining” of the emails at: http://www.globalwarming.org/2010/03/05/climategate-reloaded-scientists-plan-their-counter-attack/
This is so wonderful. As the foundations of spurious ‘climatology’ crumble, there is a Renaissance of the ideals of the scientific enterprise. I’m seeing it all over, and it’s cause for rejoicing.
Global warming on the way down?
“In Denial
The meltdown of the climate campaign”.
BY Steven F. Hayward
March 15, 2010, Vol. 15, No. 25
Read more at
http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/denial
Another Ian,
Great article at your link.
And a quite nice graphic from there, at
http://www.weeklystandard.com/sites/all/files/imagecache/teaser-large/images/teasers/15-25.Hayward.jpg
Not entirely in line with the current state of the climate, but certainly in line with well-deserved criticism of junk science climatology.
http://agmates.ning.com/forum/topics/nasa-temperature-measurements
Same old, same old.
SD – the southern hemisphere shows no warming since the satellite record started. The tropics are flat also – it’s only the NH that shows warming and it affects the global temps.
Derek Smith
small world I am just around the corner at Bugle Ranges would like to catch with another realist.
JS
Do you have a link for SH shows no satellite warming?
yes I do
http://www.climate4you.com/images/MSU%20UAH%20TropicsAndExtratropicsMonthlyTempSince1979%20With37monthRunningAverage.gif
spangled drongo
As usual, I had my morning walk on the beach and I was surprised that after all the rain we had last night, the water level was actually down a bit.
Must be CC or AGW.
G’day Allen, I’m hoping to get together with Malcolm sometime soon, if you’re in the phone book I’ll give you a ring and we can swap email addresses.
Cheers, Derek.
Yet another scandal in the saga!
Phil Jones tells Parliament that he can’t release the data because the Swedes won’t let him.
In a press release the Swedes call Jones’ claim “false”. They say their data is available to anyone.
BUT — they object to the release of data that has has undergone “processing” by the East Anglia research unit! http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/013510.html
Some think Sweden is taking a principled stand, or even bashing Phil a bit. But consider: what if they’re actually protecting East Anglia? With the raw data available, but the “processed” version kept under wraps, we can’t know what sorts of “tricks” have been played on Sweden’s climate records!
Thanks, John. I wonder, why is it so?
And some thought, perhaps Climategate will introduce some sanity to the ‘consensus of lemmings’.
Misguided optimism.
The insanity continues apace. Zambia, of all places, has instituted a carbon tax! (1)
You know, Zambia, that African country that’s so energy-intensive that it… Okay. Basically, Zambia is a Stone Age kleptocracy. The take-home message is: they have the same problem we do. That is, AGW was never about the climate, it was about taking people’s money.
The article is well worth a read, as the reporter struggles with the ‘carbon narrative’ and the government thievery that’s apparently commonplace.
The ‘consensus of lemmings’ is revealed to be, in rich and poor economies alike, a ‘consensus of greedy lemmings’.
——
1. A Directive should be issued to immediately abolish Carbon Tax, Lusaka Times (Zambia), March 6, 2010, http://crazationsice.blogspot.com/2010/03/carbon-tax-in-zambia.html
Allen, it appears that you aren’t in the phone book, I am and Malcolm found me easy enough so give me a ring.
Cheers.
Schiller,
I read the Lusaka Times article with great interest, because I lived in that country for eleven years. When I went there in the 1950s, it was a British Protectorate, called Northern Rhodesia. In the 1890s, the chiefs had signed an agreement with Queen Victoria, under which they would be protected from Arab slave raiders, in return for mineral rights, mainly copper. David Livingstone (‘munali’) was still remembered, with affection, by the Africans.
A popular profession was making charcoal (‘malasha’), by burning green logs under a dome of mud. Archaeology suggested that this had been going on for at least 500 years. It emitted CO2, but also sequestered large volumes of carbon as charcoal. This was later burnt by women for cooking, and heating their huts against the cold winter wind. The smoke kept mosquitoes away. The villagers also burnt tall, dead grass every winter, to keep down ticks and snakes, and give green feed for their cattle. The colonial government did not tax any of this smoke emission. The villagers believed that plenty of burning made for a good rainy season (aerosols?).
I remember some very courageous Zambians, and Mr Kabela Sumba B.Sc. has shown courage in speaking out against the Carbon Tax. The money raised would probably be used for some noble cause, such as buying more shiny, air-conditioned Mercedes limousines for Zambian government ministers. He knows that, I know that, but does Bob Geldorf (sp?) know that?
Beg pardon, yer ‘onor .. isn’t it Sir Bob?
Are the Carbon dioxide levels also being fiddled?
Have a read of
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/03/06/historic-variations-in-co2-measurements/
Another Ian,
In the realm of climatology, I think it’s fair to say that any numbers that can be fiddled, will be fiddled.
George Monbiot (a.k.a. ‘Moonbat’) at the Guardian (UK) is lamenting the demise of his “life’s work” with the public’s “emotional” rejection of fakery disguised as science.
He’s not alone. Many among the ‘consensus of greedy lemmings’ have a similar lament.
And look at the bashing he’s getting in the commentaries.
The trouble with trusting complex science, March 8,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2010/mar/08/belief-in-climate-change-science
Derek; re dipole moments of CH4; I find this useful;
http://www.barrettbellamyclimate.com/page8.htm
Click on rotators as well; CH4 has a transient dipole moment [TDM]; the reason for that is the oxidisation process which eli kindly explains;
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2010/02/passing-gas.html
Soven though CH4 has more TDMs than CO2 it breaks down so rapidly that its effect would be dependent on short term mega quantities as perhaps happened during the PETM.
Cohenite,
Thanks for the links, they were quite informative.
Schiller,
It’s an interesting article and I find a lot that I agree with from old George strangely enough. I went to Realclimate to ask my question about methane (also got a useful answer there) and while i was there read many of the comments and responses by a couple of guys called David and Jim.
These guys sounded very sincere and seemed to believe that they were being totally honest at all times and only wanted the correct science to prevail etc. etc.
We know that there are a few frauds out there but I can’t get away from the idea that most climate scientists truly believe what they say and are trying to do the right thing.
When Monbiot talks about the inability to convince people, it applies to both sides. I really think tribalism is the dominant factor in this debate and that it is mostly the undecided that can ever be convinced one way or the other.
I now believe that there is virtually no chance of my being convinced that AGW alarmism is true.
Derek,
If you follow trends in the polls, at least 12 percent of people in Anglophone countries were able to change their mind from AGW to skeptic.
Not a majority, to be sure, but a demonstration that ‘tribalism’ in ‘the debate’ is not universal.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100029193/green-pressure-groups-get-e66-million-from-the-eu/
Not much different to here where the Govt gives money to NGO’s and Govt entities to lobby it to get the result they want, and democracy has bugger to do with it…until the cycle comes around again.
Malcolm,
Thanks for that excellent link. I’m gratified to see journalists finally doing their homework.
They’re not doing it very well, though. EC/EU expenditures on ‘green’ lobbyism are roughly three times greater than these articles mention, perhaps because the journalists ignore expenditures on lobby efforts around the world.
For instance, the ‘Friends of the Earth’ receives nearly all of its income from European governments, and now boasts of having over 5,000 member NGOs in over 300 countries. And it, and its counterparts, internationally, have about E700 million budgeted for ‘green’ lobbying.
Believe me, this crap doesn’t go to mitigation, it’s all slush funds and profiteering.
Translate E700 million into your local currency and wonder: who would be tempted to shout ‘global warming’ from the rooftops in exchange for a piece of that pie. Heck, I’d personally be tempted, but then, God would judge me, and then it would be a long, miserable, nasty time in a bad place.
A bargain Al Gore has obviously made. Shades of Faust? Jones has redeemed himself, but Gore is determined to follow the road to perdition.
What really stuns me Schiller is that some 46% of the citations in the IPCC AR4 are from these same NGO’s as part of the un peer reviewed literature they have relied upon.
It seems to me that the poor old tax paying punters are being screwed by the whole shebang
PS : I reckon Al Gore wouldnt realise he is on the road to perdition ..he would be too busy laughing all the way the to the bank..having pulled the greatest sucker con ever.
http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2010/03/hansenist-climate-alarmism
Whether you believe the material contents it or not, the fact that the ABC ..sorry their ABC ..has declined to publish Bob Carters contribution to The Drum debate on the ABC, is of great concern.
It confirms yet again the reality of the embedded bias in the ABC.
There is nothing that Bob Carter has to say in his Quadrant article that could be construed as being anymore offensive or out court than the drivelling nonsense published in the same ABC forum as that from that academic gad fly, Clive Hamilton.
Carter’s single piece is infinitely more credible than all 5 of Hamilton’s wonderings
Malcolm,
Do you have a cite for the claim that “some 46% of the citations in the IPCC AR4 are from these same NGO’s”?
http://nofrakkingconsensus.blogspot.com/2010/03/almost-half-non-peer-reviewed.html
Schiller
Here is one but its not the one I was thinking off at the time..
Will advise later today when I have some more time.
Given the small band banging on here now, I reckon it’s worth looking for the masses via MSM
“Climate change is a fact, says China”
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/03/11/2842415.htm?section=justin
so China is one man Gavin – an economist. – yeah sure!
Gavin we all accept CC as a fact you silly boy, back to school donkey.
Btw over at WUWT a good article by Spencer on UHI , very interesting stuff.
The ABC report on the China pronouncements came at the same time that ABC Chairman was having his say about media bias about AGW; the key point about the China report is this;
“He said the responsibility for this climate change rested squarely with the Western world, so the onus was on it to clean up the mess caused in the rush to industrialisation”
Obviously China are playing the west for fools and allocating blame; simple shrewd tactics with no analysis by the ABC who in their gullible coverage of the China cynicism completely validate their Chairman’s observation; and of course more gullibility by gavin.
Totally agree Cohenite and don’t forget the 15/25 giga tonne ratio of the oecd countries compared to non oecd countries by 2030.
The IEA states that by 2030 that those numbers will apply, so the real growth will come from the developing countries rather than the first world.
That’s if you believe in AGW as holy writ.
exactly what i thought cohenite when i read the article. classic economics…self interest controls our actions……
Isn’t it peaceful with Luke gone and, hopefully, a’mouldering somewhere nice and dank and lonely, where he can use salty language to his heart’s content and nobody’s else’s discomfort.
But that’s not why I post. Rather, it is because, on the same day the ABC chairman tells his news staff to pull up their socks, The Drum publishes this piece of hysterical frothing:
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2842091.htm
I know its ‘their ABC”, but it has reached a point where the misuse of tax dollars to push propaganda has become so offensive, it simply has to be stopped.
The Drum is a case in point. The editor, Johnathan Green, was recruited from Crikey! and installed after a rigged and loaded selection process supervised by ABC honcho Bruce Belsham. Don’t ask me how I know this, just take it as gospel. I have my sources.
In any case, by installing Green as Chief Drummer the ABC also acquired Crikey’s full stable of writers. What that means, and this is the galling part, is that taxpayers are now underwriting the same crew who once had to look to Eric Beecher for their financial support. They are now on a much better wicket, and we are paying for it.
I don’t know what can be done to turn Aunty’s head to the point where she is conscious of the principles she has left behind.
But something needs to be done. Any ideas?
Comment from: cohenite March 11th, 2010 at 10:02 am
The ABC report on the China pronouncements came at the same time that ABC Chairman was having his say about media bias about AGW; the key point about the China report is this;
“He said the responsibility for this climate change rested squarely with the Western world, so the onus was on it to clean up the mess caused in the rush to industrialisation”
Obviously China are playing the west for fools and allocating blame; simple shrewd tactics with no analysis by the ABC who in their gullible coverage of the China cynicism completely validate their Chairman’s observation; and of course more gullibility by gavin.
ARGGGH ! INTERNET!!
Cohenite, sources for my previous post to the usual please.
(Hope the share price is ok).
Louis Bolt tells the full story on the abc China report.
Surprise, surprise they were telling porkies as a true translation of what was said shows.
Bottom line don’t trust their abc EVER.
What, not trust a news source that’s bought by the government? It must be ‘democratic’ news, and therefore reliable! The more people agree on something, the more likely it is to be true. It’s like having a consensus… Dang!
John; thanks for your brief response to the China story on Auntie. However following posters had to emphasize the obvious anti west bias to score a dubious point.
Enough said! and where is Luke?
BTW Cohenite; I noticed several nights back in your response to Derek, links from your fad “dipole moments”, and followed both. Although I have long since burnt my bridges to theoretical physics and the impact of calculus in discovering the practical from basic principles I had to stop with this gem after the Arthur Smith discussion where Eli said
“To return to the important point, Kramm and G&T represent what one might call the Pharisee School of Science. They are formularists (sic, Eli knows. . .). Real physicists are observers who examine nature and try and find the simplest set of principles that one can use to understand. These principles are then used to construct models from which one can mathematically describe the observations. There is a great benefit to simplifying the models and limiting the field of observation. If you are good at this the mathematics becomes simple. If you are really good it becomes elegant. If the system is complicated, it is usually the case that the model and mathematical description must also be complicated.
While there are advantages to beginners of shutting up and calculating, understanding and calculating less is a goal that all should strive for”.
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2009/05/krammed-to-our-misfortune-gerhard-kramm.html
Gavin,
Your point about elegance is well-taken, and perhaps more than many realize.
Philosophers/scientists/theologians have prized the principle of ‘elegance’ for over two thousand years. Being metatheoretic, it’s not capable of proof on its own, but it’s certainly served humanity and science admirably well for the same period.
Complicationists haven’t done very well in the interim.
Some people like John Quiggin just never get it. Here’s his latest on his blog on the CRU emails:
March 12th, 2010 at 13:15 “Since various commenters seem to have missed a basic point, let me restate. Gaining unauthorised access to someone else’s emails and publishing them is a crime”.
1. Note the time (13.15): Quiggin is paid for by us taxpayers, and so far as I know his terms and conditions do not require him to spend so much of the day running his blog when he could/should be at work as an academic.
2. As a Commonwealth-funded employee of a public university everything he does at UQ should be in the public domain. The same applies to Phil Jones and his merry team at CRU of the UEA, but they refused to comply either with that basic requirement or those of the FOIA.
3. His Blog accuses Stephen McIntyre of being the one who gained “unauthorised access to someone else’s emails…”. Note (1) SM had asked for access under FOIA, and that was as we now know illegally refused by UEA, and (2) there is no evidence that SM was the one who assembled and placed the cache of CRU emails on various websites.
4. JQ goes on “and publishing them is a crime”. Why? All the CRU and State Penn authors of the CRU emails are in the business of publishing their dubious research, at huge profit to themselves, at our expense (as with the many millions of pounds that Phil Jones received in grants from public sources). Publishing them, whoever did, even if it was SM, performed a public service, as Jones & co were as we now know fiddling their data.
5. JQ lives in his own ivory tower, in the real world employees of companies and of public bodies have no ownership of whatever they write in that capacity.
6. None of the CRU cached emails were of purely personal content.
7. Such is JQ’s dedication to the pursuit of truth that he does not allow me to post the above on his site, so that is why it is here.
Thanks Bunyip and Tim.
With friends like “our” ABC and JQ who needs Karl Marx?
John Sayers,
My son tells me that he got a lot of assistance from your website wrt setting up his recording studio and said to thank you for your help.
Yes Bunyip, the Unleashed article is disgusting; my comment, in case it is not published, is this:
“Wow! What a balanced article; sceptics are used to being compared to Nazis, or like those who supported cigarettes and oppose aids so these ad homs by the Professor are hackneyed to say the least; perhaps the best ad hom was by that serial exaggerator and bender of truth, Gore, who intoned that those who oppose AGW are like those who deny humanity being to the moon; of course Buzz Aldrin, Harrison Schmitt and even Australia’s own astronaut, Phil Chapman, are sceptics.
But his article is timely; with its ferocious deference to a non existent consensus, presumably the Oreskes ‘enquiry’, its scorn on those who contest the official line and its absurd adoption of authority it sets a new low on behalf of those who support the invention of AGW; in fact its attempt to oppress dissent is contemptible and makes one despair at what is happening in Australian Universities.”
Cohers,
Like the other strong objectors you got published. Good to see such a strong reaction but it was a pretty mindless article although right up “our” ABC’s street.
When people like this are professors and “our” ABC supports their crap, gawd help us!
Philip Adam’s fawns over his hero James Hansen
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/latenightlive/stories/2010/2839864.htm
It’s embarrassing
Good to see the denialist filth are still banging on – how’s the survey on how many of you lot are creationists going? Any scientologists. hohohohohohoho – Cohenite – surely how can you stand your fellow travellers – come on mate – some days you must just cringe !
And gee Tim 1:45pm for you – is that afternoon tea at the retirement home. maybe Quiggin was on his lunch break – do you really care? And how are the papers to Nature, Science and GRL going BTW? I must has missed them ….
But what you guys don’t traverse is the great range of serious blogs slowly exposing deniers – I did enjoy – Message to Anthony Watts
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/03/05/message-to-anthony-watts/
So much denialist quote mining – so much distortion – who can be bothered anymore.
Buzz is good value though http://www.oliverwillis.com/2009/07/18/buzz-aldrin-explains-life-to-a-moon-landing-conspiracy-theorist/
Sceptics respond well to that too….
Hi Luke, Buzz is, of course, a sceptic;
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/5734525/Buzz-Aldrin-calls-for-manned-flight-to-Mars-to-overcome-global-problems.html
Luke,
Arse-up again as usual!
Looks like a good sceptical right jab to me.
Yea I know – he also believes the universe is created by a higher intelligence …. value of Buzz’s opinion ? ….
Deranged as usual spangled headless chooky – I was responding to Cohers at 4:11 (gee shouldn’t he have been in court then ? or working for charity and not scepticing !)
But that reminds me – I also did enjoy Stoat’s IOP series on “openness” – although they are secretive about who writes their paff – some denialist infiltrator. And the Swedish bulldust too.
It’s amazing how many of these sceptic quote-mined beat-ups are always reeking off sceptic au de distortion.
http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/
Luke,
” higher intelligence”, that would God wouldn’t it Luke? or does that word just stick in your throat.
The value of Buzz’s opinion is quantified by the degree of expertise in that punch Luke.
Is Connolley still the gatekeeper for Wikipedia? Rinsing out the facts?
Or is he just catching crabs on the Cam?
Hey Luke, where have you been and…..um…..why aren’t you still there?
BTW, I used to be a creationist, does that count?
What’s all this about “quote mining” all of a sudden. It’s like a new mantra or something. The peer-reviewed literature is chock-full of footnotes, whatever the field might be. Is this now a bad thing and we’re supposed to just plagiarize or make things up as we go along? It’s weird.
There exist four temperature datasets from ground stations. One is completely gone, and replaced by ‘fiddled’ data; another is completely fiddled; the third is regarded as being poor quality; the fourth is in Japan!
“Climategate Stunner: NASA Heads Knew NASA Data Was Poor, Then Used Data from CRU”, March 10, 2010,
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-stunner-nasa-heads-knew-nasa-data-was-poor-then-used-data-from-cru/
As they say, “Forget the data, the evidence is overwhelming”. But when you go looking for evidence, it keeps not showing up. In about 40 ways.
“Forty Inconvenient Truths the UN Wants to Brush under the Carpet”,
http://bnp.org.uk/2010/03/forty-inconvenient-truths-the-un-wants-to-brush-under-the-carpet/
Quote mining is typical denialist filth tactics which you ought be ashamed of – and a very big database of quote-miners and examples are now being complied – a classic example being the rampant misquoting of Jones and the Leakgate affair. Cutting bits out of context is just scum tactics. And of course the filth are good at it.
Schiller of course being a classic denialist activist loves to selectively quote. On temperature trends why not give a full account of all the different data sets and evidence. NEVER in the one place coz that will give the game away (and it is a game i.e. see Watts-crap-with-that as a daily example).
Most of Schiller’s daily paff if just blog bilge put out by US think tanks – they have rooms of staffers fabricating this stuff every day.
Then there is coaching as in this interesting Lizzy-gate piece http://deepclimate.org/2010/03/02/round-and-round-we-go-with-lindzen-motl-and-jones/
Hey is Inhofe a creationist? Does he support teaching creationism in schools. I reckon we need a survey on how many faux sceptics and climate inactivists are actually creationists !
Derek – you used to be a creationist eh. hmmmmm …. yes well.
At some point Cohenite you’re going to have a big think about who you’re in bed with (rhetorically speaking of course). Some mornings you’re going to have to wake-up and say “I can’t believe I did that”
Time for a song: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_aYzQb6cc5E Remember denialists “It’s a fine line – and you’ve done it once – you’ll do it again”
And I missed it – Mack is a god-fearing creationists too. I JUST KNEW IT !
Time for a laugh http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZrU9MdECgM&feature=related
Luke,
Your style is exactly what is expected from someone losing an argument, but you are a bit slow, even for a group mind.
The creationist dissemble was last week’s effort of AGW true believers to stave off the mourning process.
You should get up to speed.
How is your ensemble doing?
Everyone healthy?
I would say you have been missed, but that would be fibbing.
Bitter much?
http://nofrakkingconsensus.blogspot.com/2010/03/almost-half-non-peer-reviewed.html
Yet more hypocrisy form the usual suspect, trying to call people on quote mining but ignoring, as you would expect, the greatest quote miner of them all… the IPCC itself.
The IPCC is and has relied heavily upon nothing more than marketing material being passed off as evidence by a congo line of NGOs and greeny groups producing reems of material that has not validated by any other means than it neatly fits a preconceived agenda.
..and thats global warming science for you…
“Derek – you used to be a creationist eh. hmmmmm …. yes well.”
What are you trying to say Luke? You don’t think people can change their minds? Not everyone is like you and i would listen to a creationist argument before I would pay any attention to your pretentious dribble, at least they a)come from a position of scientific ignorance, and b)they don’t tend to use obnoxious filthy abuse when arguing with someone.
Lukey-boy et al,
Seeing as you of the warming persuasion never look out the window to see what’s really happening I’ll try to put you in the picture.
We have just had a bountiful summer, great rainfall, no cyclones [yet], sea levels aren’t rising [going down, actually], there are as many, if not more, early winter arrivals [native species] as early summer arrivals, the Richmond Birdwing is back from the brink, even my koalas are thriving.
Lying awake at night, thanks to ACO2, the sound of vegetation growing is even drowning out the noise of the desal plant rusting away.
Generally, things are on the up and up and whether it is Allah giving nuts to the toothless or the inverse Algore effect I wouldn’t know but if I were you I would hang sceptical.
Hmmm… I think I’m starting to get the picture.
Peer-reviewed literature is done by quote-miners. Or not. IPCC doesn’t mine quotes? Well, some travel brochures are more privileged than others.
Denialists are creationists. Or maybe creationists are denialists. That doesn’t make sense in either direction.
It is so ultimately cool to have a pet AGWer, you get to learn so much about the sniveling, nervous bunch, just from having one member of the hive-mind.
Luke, you rock! Bring it on, boy, you’re establishing an excellent reputation for your creed.
Hey guys, do you think that if we could separate the latest Luke from his hive, he would grow disproportionately large breasts and call himself 7 of 9?
Quote mining denialists and faux sceptics – your bogus campaigns have defined you.
Spangled – your entire argument shows why you don’t it. Gee it rained … so?
Just tell us Cohers – are you proud to be associated with your fellow travellers. Come on Cohers – just say yes – does the end justify the means?
Derek – I tend not to listen to reformed drunks – you could get back on the creation wagon any day.
But hey I reckon there might be a good r-squared between creation science and denialisim. That certain penchant for simplistic nice fanciful answers.
And Inhofe will be excited
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/04/science/earth/04climate.html
Your youngster can be taught creation science followed up by some climate denialism. Will Plimer’s “text” be used in Australia (choke barf …)
and and and – you can have any theory you like – sunspots, cosmic rays, undersea volcanoes -that is if you believe in the Sun ….
I’m backing lunar myself just to be different.
Witch burning and phlogiston theory after PE
What a wonderful world.
To Walkers Team in Qld
Like the little girls you are I see that you still dont have the balls to come clean and out yourselves……Skirt hiders.
I would infinitely prefer these faux sceptics as you call them to the incompetent cabal of so called scientists thats responsible for the mess called the IPCC.
Only complete frauds would peddle the line that that its all Peer rewiewed when nearly half of it is NGO marketing material.
Only an incompetent UN backed organisation would have no provision for conflict of interest, and turn a blind eye when it happens.
Only the completely delusional would call themselves the world class scientists and expect people to accept their word without getting second opinions, and get all teary eyed because their mantra is questioned.
They are just like you in reality Walker…WAP
Gee Mal – hiding under skirts sounds sort of fun don’t ya think … and why would you think we have balls – isn’t that just predictable for denialists !
But you guys know your craft – there’s quote mining, verballing, intimidation (which is what you’re best at), and gee the ol’ Nexus 6 “making shit up” – http://n3xus6.blogspot.com/2008/03/lesson-2.html then you just keep repeating it even if untrue – of course the ol’ McIntyre and Pielke “concern troll” style, straw man http://n3xus6.blogspot.com/2008/03/lesson-1.html
and and and – reverse ad hom swift boat http://n3xus6.blogspot.com/2008/03/lesson-3.html while thinking you might be Galileo (if you think you are – you aren’t)
Yes Mal – IPCC could be better – bit more editing – get rid of Gore and Pachauri if you like – tell Hansen to drop off it makes you happy – And Penny and Penny could do better – but hey they’re pollies aren’t they.
but have some decency for the many quiet achievers researching and publishing away. All that boring stuff that you don’t read.
None of the basic facts have changed. It’s a risk management decision. I’m only asking for good consideration. Much at stake.
And if AGW was ever in doubt – a faux sceptic would be the last to tell you. Real science will break it first.
Luke – F**K off with your pathetic posts.
check this – a real debate between scientists.
http://www.tvo.org/TVO/WebObjects/TVO.woa?videoid?71356252001
David Hathaway thinks this deep solar minimum may have a cause – the great conveyor belt is speeding up.
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2010/12mar_conveyorbelt.htm?list35621
” And if AGW was ever in doubt – a faux sceptic would be the last to tell you. Real science will break it first”
What a ridiculous statement that is.
Its precisely because of the pressure from sceptics,( faux and whatever you groupies want to call them), and the general public, that the thing is being cleaned up, and mainly because the current GW scientific fraternity have been silent, on so many unsatisfactory aspects.
…” Real science will break it first “…yeah right …they dont have very good track record of coming clean so far.
Yes there may very well be many who are quiet achievers just chipping away at the issues and good for them ..but there are clearly many who are still more interested in cooking the books and exerting influence to achieve what they want… and bugger the science.
The scientific fraternity needs to earn its respect and it wont do that if some of the dopey and less than open statements I have read are anything to go by.
Having many of these so called scientists part timing as anonymous bloggers doesnt help their cause either.
Hey guys, there is quite a good article over at climaterealist comparing scientists to poker players but even betteris the second comment that quotes a passage from a book on Big Science. It’s a bit long but well woth the read.
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=5221
Thanks for that video link John, wonderful to see a debate between two great scientists and gentlemen. Just wish I had a bit more comprehension and knowledge to absorb all of the info discussed between two great minds.
The Luke is breaking down.
Clak-clak those ball bearings, guys.
Jeez John – watch the language or you’ll have to report to Malcolm for a scolding (WHO I NOTE DIDN’T SAY BOO abou robust debate !) Is that the Lindzen whose latest sceptic paper has been dismanted. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/01/first-published-response-to-lindzen-and-choi/ Pullease ! John – get a grip matey. Get out more.
Well Malcolm – what serious science has the sceptic community contributed. Sweet fanny adams. Unless you want to class E&E as “science”. Cooking the books indeed – jeez you’re a hard liner aren’t you. Face it – you’ve never quoted any science – you’re just a blog bilge recycler. There is nothing to clean up – do have yourself on – 99% stands.
Breaking science that septics will never aspire to is: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/science.1182488 This is what serious science looks like Mal – not blog bunk …
Mally boy didn’t say boo about Watts cooking some numbers either. Such selective eyesight.
Luke,
You can relax now. A Stanford researcher has proven that Climategate has had only a very limited impact on public perceptions. http://scienceblogs.com/framing-science/2010/03/stanford_researcher_climategat.php?utm_source=networkbanner&utm_medium=link
By the way, what the heck is a ‘faux skeptic’? Is that like being a rabid AGWer, but talking like a denialist? Maybe Luke is a ‘faux denialist’. How would we know? And why bother making the claim in the first place?
And what the heck is ‘verballing’? Is it related to nouning, or adjectivism?
Schiller,
Interesting link, I found this bit revealing;
“Consider that a Pew survey of AAAS members last year found that 55% of scientists self-identify as liberals compared to 20% of the public and that only 9% of scientists self-identify as conservatives, compared to 37% of the public.”
I wonder if there are stats on what proportion of those 55% are in the environmental sciences?
Lump this in with a previous survey which showed 80+% of journalists in the US are left wing and you start to get the picture on the lack of objectivity concerning climate change.
Folks,
There’s a truly interesting post at Gather.com. (1)
The author, Ken Coffman, went to RealClimate for some answers, “One is what exactly they think the excited CO2 molecule does when massaged by outgoing IR radiation.”
Since Luke is the authority on where to find authority, surely what is found at RealClimate is authoritative.
Lots of the RealClimateers chime in with explanations about how CO2 is a smothering blanket etc., and then Gavin Schmidt, the Frumious Bandersnatch himself, descends from his throne to say, about the discussion of the behavior of CO2, that “all further discussion of your confusion is OT”
Here’s the real problem with climatology. It deals heavily in statistics, but refuses to engage with statisticians. It deals heavily in writing computer code, but refuses to engage with programmers. It deals heavily in physics, but refuses to engage with physicists. It deals heavily in paleology, but refuses to engage with paleologists.
In short, climatologists are amateurs in every field relevant to their pursuit, but they refuse to engage with those with relevant expertise.
No wonder the majority of scientists around the world reject AGW. Warmers don’t care about the rest of science, or the rest of the scientific community. They’ve walled a fortress against all other natural sciences, in defiance of reason and centuries-old traditions, and deserve every bit of pain they incur as the walls crumble, and the city is sacked and laid waste.
——-
1. Carbon Dioxide and IR Radiation…A Kinky Affair. http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474978101390
Derek,
You shouldn’t make too much of the AAAS statistics about scientists’ political leanings. These people are scientists, not politicians. As scientists, they’re used to the prevalent model that emerged after the Dark Ages: anarchy. The notion of science as anarchy flowered during the Enlightenment, and its ideals survive to this day.
Thus, it should be no surprise that so many scientists consider themselves ‘liberal’, as that is the closest popular approximation to their anarchic ideals.
I’ve been told that in Australia, the term ‘liberal’ is quite different from elsewhere. As the AAAS and others in the N. Hemisphere understand it, ‘liberal’ means, historically, a belief in the notion that personal freedoms, and a concomitant respect for personal freedoms of others, is central to the notion of what it means ‘to be civilized’, or to have a culture that maximizes the benefits of discourse and commerce.
In these times, in the NH, ‘liberal’ now refers to a preference for the notion that individual rights derive from membership in certain groups, and descend, regardless of group membership, from a government which ultimately decides who has what right, and who does not.
But scientists are not politicians, and have little schooling in the humanities. They must be forgiven their mistakes in claiming what term most approximates their political preference.
The Gaia man thinks AGW has saved us from ice age. Hmmm…how very convenient.
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/162506/How-carbon-gases-have-saved-us-from-a-new-ice-age-
El Gordo,
The notion that 4 percent of 4 percent of the atmosphere will save us from an Ice Age is as fanciful as the notion that it will totally bake the planet in a Warmageddon.
Science plus journalism does not result in ‘science journalism’.
Someone needs to do a study regarding how the sales of newspapers challenge the market for fiction novels.
Schiller,
I accept what you say in the main, but I can’t help thinking as I’ve said earlier, that some people are getting in to science to support or enhance their environmental activism.
James Hansen for example has clearly crossed the line into blatant advocacy and activism, and I wonder when it was in his career that he had his epiphany and decided the world needed him to save it.
Lovelock could be considered more of a philosopher than a scientist and is clearly an ideologue but his views have had a significant effect on science nevertheless.
Derek,
You are nonetheless right. I’m not disagreeing with you.
But this highlights another issue. When ‘scientists’ run off the rails, like Hansen, they’re excused by the scientific community as ‘not speaking as a scientist’. When ‘scientists’ speak or write in a measured, intelligent way, using centuries-honored norms such as falsifiability and the transparency that enables replication, they’re doing the time-honored anarchy that typifies the best science.
When they go fracking nutso and get arrested at riots and say outrageously stupid things, the scientific community dismisses that juvenile behavior as being outside the ambit of science. It’s just a hobby. A rather unfortunate hobby. This is thoroughly discussed in Koertge, N (ed). Scientific Values and Civic Virtues (2005). Print ISBN-13: 978-0-19-517225-6, doi:10.1093/0195172256.003.0008. Available at: http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/oso/public/content/philosophy/9780195172256/acprof-0195172256-chapter-8.html
Not being ‘scientific’ behavior, it is therefore forgiven.
Even so, there are activists permanently outside what is considered to be the ‘halls of science’, even though they work hard to pretend they have laurels. Greenpeace, Al Gore, etc, you name the rest at your leisure.
Schiller this sort of comment just typifies your amazing ignorance (but you’re not that dumb are you – more like rat cunning).
“Lots of the RealClimateers chime in with explanations about how CO2 is a smothering blanket etc” – NO THEY DON’T !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
“Here’s the real problem with climatology. It deals heavily in statistics, but refuses to engage with statisticians. It deals heavily in writing computer code, but refuses to engage with programmers. It deals heavily in physics, but refuses to engage with physicists. It deals heavily in paleology, but refuses to engage with paleologists.”
YOU MUST HAVE NEVER WALKED INTO A CLIMATE RESEARCH INSTITUTION. You are the worst bullduster. This is an AMAZINGly ridiculous comment from you.
And illustrates the point -as your fellow travellers here let it slide …. it’s OK coz denialists never contradict each other. You can say ANYTHING for the cause.
And so Schiller – you now want to lecture us on the conduct of science. Sheeessshhh !
Oh – your questions:
Faux sceptic = pretend sceptic. You’re not really sceptical or you’d check out your own side too. You’d show discrimination. You would read widely. You’d look more sciencey than political. Faux sceptics don’t give a rats arse about scientific scepticism. They’re essentially denialists. They’ll deny anything. There is NO evidence you could ever provide them.
Verballing – a couple of definitions “‘verballing‘ that is, off-the-record threats, intimidation or physical violence often being used by the police to elicit incriminating statements from a suspect.”; a concocted confession or statement where words are inserted into another’s mouth; or like you guys regularly do – “report” what AGW people have supposedly said or think – when there is no evidence for it.
Verballing combined with quote mining is typical denialist style.
And this another typical statement – an appeal to absurd – but not a science argument.
“The notion that 4 percent of 4 percent of the atmosphere will save us from an Ice Age is as fanciful as the notion that it will totally bake the planet in a Warmageddon.”
Let’s rewrite that
“The notion that a widdle wobble in the Earth’s orbit can cause an Ice Age is as fanciful as the notion that a lack of farts on the Sun will cause Snowmageddon.”
Pure rhetoric Schiller. Pure rhetoric.
And this ….. “Warmers don’t care about the rest of science, or the rest of the scientific community. They’ve walled a fortress against all other natural sciences,” HOLEY DOLEY !!
Come on you lot – are you going to let this sort of paff stand.
Of course you are. Time for a diversion. Where’s Cohers !
I am sorry to say, you blokes are lost without a foil.
Now that Luke is back, what have you got?
If there are no new items to discuss, then cease until there are!
No need to go over ploughed ground.
If you need controversy there are plenty of warmenista sites where people are more than ready to abuse you.
Pathetic!
Remember you asked him to return!!!
Go away Johnathan – what a putzy name
I don’t bother discussing anything with Luke, he’s just an arrogant lefty shrill who barracks for Realclimate and the lefty propaganda establishment – do you really think we are concerned about the abuse he throws out everytime he posts?.
I’m completely satisfied that AGW is dead in the water – I’ve looked at all the evidence and it’s been found wanting. The rest of the world are slowly catching up and within the year it will be all over red rover.
Take your pompous attitude somewhere else, Deltoid would appreciate your attitude as they are also going under with all the egoism oozing from Lambert.
I didn’t ask Luke to return – in fact I wish he’d go away permanently as he’s a pain in the A.
John Sayers,
You doesn’t know me very well does you?
Luke will be laughing at you, when he reads your comment.
I’m sorry about my name, but I’m not about to change it because some twit doesn’t like it.
I have been a sceptic for a long time, after I looked at the evidence and found it wanting.
The reason I’m not arguing with Luke because his mind is made up.
There is nothing I or you can do to change it.
So matey chill out, what I said still stands!
A few years ago, I attended a talk by Professor Bob Carter http://members.iinet.net.au/~glrmc/ who explained the greenhouse effect and stated that the most important greenhouse gas was Water.
Now thanks to Luke earlier post, he has provided a scientific peer reviewed paper that supports Professor Carter’s observation, that H2O not CO2 drove the changing climate when it came to consideration of the greenhouse effect. Professor Carter mentioned a whole lot of other reasons for natural climate change.
Whilst I could not access the full paper of Luke’s link http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/science.1182488 i liked the last sentence of the abstract “These findings show that stratospheric water vapor is an important driver of decadal global surface climate change.” Just as Bob Carter, often labelled a sceptic by the ABC and by AGW supporters, had correctly observed.
Come on Jonny Wanny – don’t be all huffy now. I see you’re letting Schillers paff stand ? Your standards matey? As for lefty – mate I’d love to get rid of our Labor Govts.
Pullease Cinders – Bob observed no such thing. You won’t see sceptic papers at this quality.
If it’s water vapour is a greenhouse gas – well duh yea ! SO ? Bob hasn’t commented on stratospheric water vapour!? And Bob would be in direct conflict with Spencer – but hey so many denialists – so many opinions.
And Wilksey – Luke’s mind isn’t made up. It’s a risk management decision. But you’re not going to swallow utter bilge are you? Let’s have some standards for scepticism.
Schiller likes to polarise the debate towards Armageddon. If we alter the Earth’s radiation balance in a short period will likely increase extremes of climate long term. Not necessarily Armageddon but could be very costly.
Commentary on the Solomon paper http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/55762/title/Water_vapor_slowed_recent_global__warming_trend
But also at Realclimate and SkepticalScience. But I won’t waste my time listing the url’s.
Maybe more like Luke’s mind is made up by where his salary comes from
Some one should call in the plumber – the septic tank is overflowing again – Luke’s back in other words.
Lukesy, (since you insist on this bogan type address)
I don’t know how to respond to you personally, as you remember I told you I’m not talking to you a couple of years ago, because of your course language?
Anyhow I’m not taking in utter bilge or even mild bilge.
As a matter of fact, I’m more convinced than ever that A in the AGW is insignificant at best.
On the other hand, I’m disappointed at the quality of discourse from both sides, and if you are as intelligent as I think you are, you would agree with me.
JS.
As to my name being spelled the way it is, we can’t pick our parents or siblings, and having lived with it for so long, it’s a matter of stubbornness on my part to stick with it.
Makes some people feel superior and smug to remind me but!
“and if you are as intelligent as I think you are, you would agree with me.”
Cancel that, stupidest persuasive argument ever, I am ashamed I wrote it!
Agreeing with me and being intelligent have nothing in common.
Sorry!
Yes agree Johnathon on quality of discourse. So you have to weigh up some coarse language versus smearing scientist’s reputations and motivations ?
Thought I’d give Luke some bedtime reading:
http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2010/03/six-myths-about-deniers
I followed Luke’s link to the review of the Solomon paper and guess what, just as I suspected the whole thing is based around the presumption that climate is meant to perform according to the models.
One of the commentators also made the point that the models are supposed to account for all feedback mechanisms but didn’t consider the effect of changes in water vapor.
Being unable to access the full paper, I’m assuming that they are assuming causality between decline in water vapor and the cooling trend.
BTW, so much for those alarmists who still insist that temperature is still rising.
Luke is upset because he’s received “off-the-record threats, intimidation and physical violence” from some of us.
Okay, who’s the verballists here?
Look out folks, the ordure is about to hit the renewable wind farm!
Bureau, CSIRO weigh into debate
Herald Sun
March 14, 2010
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/national/bureau-csiro-weigh-into-debate/story-e6frf7l6-1225840652856
SOME of Australia’s leading scientists have hit back at climate-change sceptics.
Today the CSIRO and weather bureau will release a State of the Climate document, a snapshot of Australia’s climate data, observations and predictions.
The traditionally apolitical organisations have weighed into the debate on the basis that Australians are not being given correct information about temperatures, rainfall, ocean levels and atmospheric changes.
HAHAHA look at the ‘hit back’: the report “strongly suggests”, with “Modelling results show” and “has been detected”. Yikes! Do they seriously think that chanting IPCC slogans will bring AGW back to life?
If the Luke gang did not exist, they would have to be invented.
But hey! ‘Luke’ is an invention. There is no ‘Luke’.
There is an ensemble of over employed government hacks who pretend to be ‘Luke’.
AGW promoters and true believers are no different than tulip bulb sellers and investors during the Dutch tulip mania.
Hunter,
I’m fairly convinced that Luke is two people who trade off. One of them purveys junk science, and the other of them spouts gibberish and cuss-words.
Although, since I’m a skeptic, I’ll offer an alternative theory: that Luke actually is one person, who has a personality disorder. ‘Split personality’ is actually quite rare, vanishingly rare. Luke is obviously somewhere in the Narcissistic complex, where projection of his own personality onto others runs completely amok. After that, you can choose between Borderline Personality Disorder (which is well-known and common) and Bipolar Disorder (which is also well-known and common).
Since there are no effective medications for these disorders, the notion that Luke might be ‘off his meds’ is questionable. He would simply not be on meds in the first place, unless his physician is as bonkers as he.
Paranoid schizophrenia is plausible on the surface, but such people do not function as consistently as Luke, and actually are quite likely to be too frightened of computers to use them.
But, Luke aside, we have to live with the fact that some ‘issues’ become popular because they ‘resonate’ with some energetic unfortunates who suffer a mental illness, but are not completely debilitated.
“Luke is upset because he’s received “off-the-record threats, intimidation and physical violence” from some of us.
Okay, who’s the verballists here?”
Precisely Schiller
Also if he/she/it insists on hiding behind a pseudonym then what’s he/she/it on about.
I would have thought that people who have been on the receiving end of, he/she/its persistent abuse, intimidation and ridicule, and have the courage to use their real names, do have something to complain about.
As a member of the Denialati I think it unwise to put forward my real name, but here is Quadrant’s view of my thinking.
http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2010/03/six-myths-about-deniers
El Gordo,
Much wisdom and smartness at that link. Skeptics will always be in the majority, as well they should be, in any field.
An issue that demands wider attention is why climatologists are against skepticism, when, literally, every other branch of science embraces skepticism.
This is all so nasty.
Derek if that’s what you got out of the paper – you have to get a few more neurones into work old son.
Pullease Malcolm – intimidation – your crowd are the threat makers – and the threats of violence handed out by your fellow travellers in this debate is an utter disgrace.
And of course you lot deserve buckets of ridicule – you ought be ashamed of almost every smear you’ve written and the conduct of denialists. And you are uncritical of your fellow travellers – any old crap is good for the cause. And very selective in your application of standards.
You lot are conducting a war on science and it will not stand !
El gordo I had a really good laugh about your Quadrant article. It basically contradicts 50% of the denialist messages. When you lot get your facts straight – report back.
Let’s see – is it warming or cooling.
It’s cooling – but how would we know coz the temperature record is fiddled.
You can’t have a global average but hey look it went up/down/sideways last week.
Maybe it’s sunspots – or cosmic rays – or maybe it’s the PDO.
I know how about undersea volcanoes.
CO2 is teensy weensy – it ain’t doing zip.
There is no back radiation – well OK if there is – it ain’t doing anything …. and on and on and on ….
We’re entering an ice age – a bone pulversing ice age ….
So many denialist religions and myths. And Quadrant wants us to believe there is a “united” view. hahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Well I never.. what absolute humbug from Luke Desk
The issue is your right, and anyone else, who wants to hide behind a pseudonym to engage in abuse against those that have the courage to use their proper names ..as you have done on an never ending basis.
I have no problem with pseudonyms as such, and people with pseudonyms abusing other pseudonomous people ..but you forgo that right against some one who openly declares his/her full name, as many on this blog have do, and have done.
Its an ethical matter which obviously escapes you.
It is also a reaction that many have people, against bullies pure and simple.
…”and the threats of violence handed out by your fellow travellers in this debate is an utter disgrace.”
Is this just more of your make believe and verballing… because I dont recall any of my fellow treavellers threatening anyone, least of all you. Why would one bother.
Further how would it be possible if no one knows who you are…on the other hand. !!!!
Luke
We are entering an ice age. The climate at the end of the Eemian shows similarity with the present.
Have a look at
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/features/scientists-accuse-climate-change-sceptics-of-smokescreen-of-denial/comments-e6freowx-1225840714348
and then read the comments.
Luke will be likely choking on his coffee!
Luke,
Y’all call it a war on science, but reasonable people call it, ‘asking questions and demanding honest answers.’
When the science is corrupted by the likes of you and your pals, of course any tough questions would be considered war.
And to your allegation of threats of violence?
My bet is that you are making it up or concocting it with co-religionists. You are not worth attacking.
Another Ian,
The standard arguments by authority and misrepresentation, that worked so well for AGW promoters for so long are simply not working anymore.
Zonk!! Kapowie!! Bam!!! That hahahahaha.. used by Luke and others, must be Pierre Duhem laughing in his grave. Back to the trivium, folks…
http://www.gbt.org/text/sayers.html
“Y’all call it a war on science, but reasonable people call it, ‘asking questions and demanding honest answers.’”
Hunter,
Not many months ago the hockey stick was virtually the coat of arms of every govt dept that was trying to push “climate change.”.
What a pleasant climate shift Climategate has provided.
Let’s hope that the world can “maintain the rage”.
Of course it’s a war on science – otherwise you lot would discuss the science. You don’t !
“discuss the science”; alright luke, what do you think of the Beenstock paper on cointegration? And please, don’t resort to linking to eli’s rubbish on the thing.
New from WUWT
Andrew Montford’s new book “The Hockey Stick Illusion”
Shut-eyed denial – that suits you luke!
All day “our” ABC have been plugging this scienceless crap from CSIRO and the BoM without the slightest mention from the other side of the debate and they can’t even see their own bias.
Thank god at least the bolter gives them a serve.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/the_csiro_calls_this_proof/
Well c,mon Luke, discuss the science, what’s your take on B & R?
Does a doubling of GHGs not permanently increase global temp? Or not?
Luke, do you also post on BigFooty as bit_pattern? There is a remarkable similarity when comparing the crass style of commentary and severe lack of scientific knowledge from both aliases.
You’d better crank your tinfoil hats up to 11, the “conspirators” are multiplying exponentially.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/03/15/2846524.htm
I feel your pain.
LWFODHs,
Don’t let it worry you unduly, they only multiplied by one.
BTW, that pain you feel. It isn’t ours. It’s just your bowel and cranial stress disorder.
The discussion of the science, irt climate catastrophes caused by CO2 is that there isn’t any.
All that is there is hysterical and cynical arm waving from the tulip promoters.
And, of course, Orwellian rationalizations that to disagree with the basis of the false assertion is to be anti-science.
The BOM/CSIRO ” State of the Climate” is a good piece of marketing, and good for them for doing it.
They seem to be far better at producing reliable/credible data than any of the met office equivalents around the globe, and far better than either the USA or UK versions.
But they draw an incredibly long bow when they try to call it evidence of global anything.
If my calcs are right then the area surface are earth is 51,700m ha and that of Australia is 774mha which means that we are but 1.5% of the total.
Thats really pushing the regional game a bit too far.
But if they want to do that, then they still have examples like this to contend with.
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/timeseries.cgi?graph=rain&area=mdb&season=0112&ave_yr=T
The MDB shows no real change over the last 110 years and if anything the trend for 110 years worth of data is that it is up.
As for the assinine conclusion that ” climate change is real ” ..well of course it is, and more so if the definition for CC is that provided in the last AR4
PS I just the love the fine print on the last page.
Hooray, it looks like Malcolm is commenter #3,300 in this thread.
I went over to the BOM site and looked at the data for the famous “Darwin Zero” where had been earlier detected the “smoking gun” of US/NASA book-cooking. I didn’t see NASA’s fiddling apparent, though the data are presented in tabular format.
Could these data actually be raw, and not after GISS has ‘fixed’ them, etc.?
The latest word is that there are four ground temperature data sets, that NASA and CRU have fiddled them all, leaving us with one remaining, perhaps ‘inscrutable’ dataset from Japan.
Where is Australia in this mix? With the amazing claims for the authoritativeness of Australian data, and the claims that the data prove unequivocally, etc., I strongly suspect there’s been some smoothing, homogenization, adjustment, you know the drill.
Pure arse Schiller .
If we in Australia are only 1.5% of the total does it matter.
It seems to me that the bigger management issue is how they organised to create the various global data sets that would be the real evidence of global whatever, and it would appear that that has been a complete dogs breakfast.
Malcolm,
Might there not be room within this to claim that you guys had a ‘clean’ dataset? You could have bragging rights at least.
CRU’s fiddled, and the raw data is lost, both of NASA’s sets are comprehensively fiddled, and regarded as ‘lower quality’ than CRU (figure that one out!) and that leaves the Japanese dataset, and who knows what’s in there. They might have patched in something from the Toyota accelerator pedal algorithm for all I know.
Amid all this wrack and ruin, you can be assured that climatology will rise once again, and its only hope for being done properly is to have clean raw data from someone, somewhere.
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeseries.png
…and the Arctic sea ice is back to be within 2std.devs of the average.
… underscores the point yet again that the BOM/CSIRO Report On ” State of the Climate” , and Australia being 1.5% of the global total, means absolutely nothing ..but I guess it lets them get their jollies and feel good about themselves.
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/s_plot_hires.png
Whoops…. more conflicting news.
Oh for heavens sake Mal – 2 sd’s of average – it’s a MILE off average. BELOW !!!! The sky is also polka-dots.
And running the old MDB average ruse again when it’s well documented in the literature as to why southern Australia is missing out on rainfall. The ye olde say something true but hide the message by Mal.
The ye olde appeal for uniformitarianism …. sheesh – one might almost utter an expletive or get abusive …
You guys are shockers !
Mal – why always tell half the story?
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL037786.shtml
And one only has to look at the said rainfall map in http://www.csiro.au/files/files/pvfo.pdf to know why an MDB average would hide interesting spatial information. As would an Australian average time series. Wetter north + drier south trend = average
The BOM charts tell their own story…it just depends upon the size of what you call a region doesnt it.
…the MDB is its own well defined region ..thats why the BOM has gone to special lengths to include it in its portfolio of data that it has collected for the last 110 years. Its about 1/8, as a guess the o fthe over all size of Australia.
The totals for rainfall etc when plotted as absolutes and trended by their on board systems give the trends ..
No one else I know has any problem with understanding that but you… and that includes users in the MDB…sure there is some internal variability but so is there variability in much smaller areas.
Roy Spencer has a very good post at WUWT extending analysis of US sites by population density and the effect on UHI’s within those sites.
He makes the point that there may not have been any warming in the US since 1973, very interesting.
http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/
Yes Neville it is interesting and Warwick Hughes also has comments on his site.
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2010/03/02/most-of-the-observed-warming-since-the-mid-20th-century-likely-not-from-human-ghg-emissions/
..as does WCR
Extrapolating from the BOM/CSIRO data and GCMs to talk about global warming etc is a still a long bow and there is still lot of cleaning up and validation to be undertaken globally before anyone could have any confidence in what they say.
Utterly pathetic response Malcolm. Go tell you story to irrigators in the various zones. In fact I have never heard such a weener response. This alone shows why you are unqualified to have an opinion. The spatial trends are are NOT internal variability. They are well observed TRENDS ! Your excuse – oh BoM calculated a statistic – so I thought I’d just use that and nothing else.
You guys can’t be trusted to tell a full story.
Neville – so why does Spencer’s satellite data contradict that.
And I just love it – Malcolm said Australia is globally insignificant 24 hours ago – well the USA would be too in global area if that the case. But hey don’t hypocrisy in debate ruin the cause
boys.
And again half the story – pity the NOAA analysis with Watt’s station classifications didn’t show that at all.
Has the self-appointed climate cop and global concern troll McIntyre been through it !
And I wonder why the biology shows warming responses on a global scale (phenology, breeding), why the ocean temperature data series shows the same long term trends. And boreholes.
But denialists only EVER tell half the story.
Re the satellite data , I think you just answered yourself, Luke.
Well the perhaps the data should be for the zones that you talk about..and its like I had already sated .. it depends upon what you define as your region.
The people who mostly depend upon the MDB for their water, do so because they are irrigators, that is, they draw it out of the MDB river systems. The river systems have been empty because of incompetent management,nothing else, and not because of an consistent absence of rainfall over the over the MDB proper.
The BOM chart shows that over the basin there has been no change in the historic trend.
Its not diffcult, even those who are pretend scientists hding behind skirts, and in their employers time, should be abe to grasp that.
Luke,
That CSIRO link of yours is saying that coastal SEQ has had a 50mm per decade reduction in rainfall which over 50 years means we are getting about 10 inches a year less rain than we were 50 ya.
I find that very hard to believe. For one thing it is cherry picking because it comes off a very high base of the ’60s and ’70s floods but even so many parts of SEQ have had record rainfalls this decade and my local records which go back to the 1890s certainly don’t show this. I’m still averaging my 40 inches a year [or better] like I always have. Ya need 40” a year to grow good Kikuyu and mine is so thick it’s like a trampoline.
This map could well apply for say, the main Brisbane River catchment but not the Stanley and eg the Noosa R. has had a couple of near record floods this decade.
If you saw this sort of map averaged over a century it would be much more honest.
http://www.csiro.au/files/files/pvfo.pdf
I think this is like the CSIRO SLR story [take it with a grain of salt].
I see that the Chiefio has looked at USA and a lot of the world data and tends to agree that the USA temp has remained flat, but not Canada.
His conclusion is instrumentation ( for Canada ) and not co2, he is consistently annoyed by the tamino bug but seems to have a great sense of humour when he has to use the swat.
Anyhow more power to his arm.
Oh look butterflies get it !
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/03/17/2848242.htm Nasty little warmist butterflies conspiring away !
Agree Spangler – so let’s look at a larger period …
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/trendmaps.cgi?map=rain&area=aus&season=0112&period=1900
And see Figure 4 here for the lower MDB and Victoria
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/statements/scs16.pdf
And the calculated inflows into Wivenhoe for the Millennium drought were below the Federation Drought. (as we have been over before)
But being honest – AGW doesn’t claim (explain) all these trends. That’s the discriminating feature.
The latest science is suggesting that changes in SAM are contributing to the SW WA rainfall decline and that the intensity of the sub-tropical ridge is impacting on SE eastern Australia as well as SAM but at different times of the year.
With El Nino and Indian Ocean over the top of all that.
You would think you guys would be a little more curious as to why they think the effect has an AGW contribution. Note the word “contribution”
The mid-latitude ridge has been steadily moving south, but I’m not sure why or at what speed.
Hmmm…. OK Figure 4 ends Sept 2008 and only goes back for 12 years ie 1996.
But the times series goes back 110 years.
..and non of it includes the recent rainfalls.
Now what was all that about pots and kettles and the colour black.
“Nasty little warmist butterflies conspiring away !”
I’ve got some early WINTER visitors in the form of Golden Whistlers, Jacky Winters, Grey Fantails etc. that leave these early summer butterfly arrivals for dead. They arrived weeks ahead of time.
This is a dubious argument because in the wild, hatching and migration depend on a helluva lot more than temperatures. Consider one of my summer visitors, the Latham’s Snipe, all the way from the wetlands in Hokaido and they have recently left to head back there. When and if they arrive is in the lap of the gods. Move along everyone, not much science here.
That 1900 – 2009 map makes more sense.
Don’t know too much about SAM luke and I have heard it referred to as SHAM but I wouldn’t know why.
But I do agree that “A” does contribute to “GW”, and that without the enormous land-use changes caused by “A”, the world would probably be cooling even with similar CO2 levels.
Malcolm – what don’t you understand about WORST on RECORD in 110 years. It’s an percentile map that shows that 13 period is the worst 13 year period in the 100 years – try to understand what you’re looking at. This is kindergarten stats stuff. The fact that it rained in some places lately is bloody irrelevant to the point. Nobody said it would never rain again. It’s whether the drought probabilities are changing and/or whether there are physical mechanisms that imply AGW connections in protracted drought sequences.
You lack on interest in following up tells me “lah lah lah la lah” “I’m not listening”
Try figure 2 http://www.mdba.gov.au/system/files/Drought-update-August-2009.pdf
What whopper anomalies – but hey – it must all be made up – yea sure !
That sort of anomaly is bloody huge ! If it was all so ho hum what were all the billions in drought aid about then?
No spanglers – birds are not poikilotherms – irrelevant – do some basic biology for heavens sake. And long term trends are long term trends. Again more denialist goal post wiggling. A recent Nature paper listed 100s of such examples …. gurgle … but hey the world is cooling (yea sure)
http://www.philosophicalturn.net/CMI/Environment/Nature_Attributing_Anthropogenic_Climate_Change.pdf
Of course you don’t know about SAM as your eyes are wired shut. And I think most deniers dig SAM Spangly – so you must be “special”.
El Gordo – the latitude of the STR turns out be not as in important as the strength of the STR. So if you guys were awake you’d be very interested in research unraveling causes of Australian drought. So really great science even if you’re not into AGW.
Surely understanding Australian drought is a holy grail for those on the land.
Luke,
I really enjoyed that Nature paper by Rosenzweig et. al. Really proves that humans are warming things up!
hahahaha
Luke can posture all he likes but I repeat all states over the last 100 years with the exception of Tasmania and sw corner of W.A ( Victoria just about level) have experienced higher rainfall.
Even “southern Australian” ( check) rainfall has experienced higher rainfall and I repeat the worst drought in the last 100 years in the W/Div of NSW was from 1900 to 1945 according to Dick Condon, with only seven years of that half century having average or above average rainfall.
This horror period ( Condon’s term) has never been repeated since by any measure and please don’t tell us about that massive 0.1C of forcing again Luke.
Luke if we had several hundred years of rainfall records I’m sure we would find many more horrific drought periods and terrible flooding on the Murray that would equal anything we’ve seen in our lifetime.
I remember reading an old squatter’s recollection of talking to an aboriginal tribe on the Murray and asking about the droughts, floods etc. The reply was that some periods were very wet and lots of flooding and some periods were very dry with little rainfall, says it all really.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/breaking-news/power-bills-to-rise-by-up-to-64pc-in-nsw/story-fn3dxity-1225842212436
ELECTRICITY bills in NSW will soar by up to 64 per cent over the next three years, with the blame laid squarely on the Federal Government’s proposed emissions trading scheme.
“The state’s Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal confirmed the increases in Sydney today.
They are even higher than those first proposed by the tribunal in December.
They will send average electricity bills rocketing by between $577 and $918 a year by 2013.
They come on top of already significant increases last July.”
Tip…buy gold, inflation is coming!
Neville – means you would never accept any level of proof.
It’s all happened before…
So Neville just ignore the TRENDS IN CERTAIN REGIONS, ignore the science, ignore all the research information and trust your gut. Burn some witches at the stake too.
It’s about trends and mechanisms … but that would be a science view….
And yea – Dick’s a great guy too.
Thanks for that win Luke, but really bad historical droughts elsewhere have been found in latest research in Sierra Nevada from 800AD to 1300AD, a dryer and warmer period.
Testing giant sequoia trees the team found a real dry and warm MWP with much worse droughts and fires than today. At WUWT.
Thanks for the your last two posts Neville..they are right in the button.
And yea – Dick’s a great guy too.
do I detect sarcasm? if so why?
John Sayers – err nope ! Dick is a great guy.
Win ? ROTFL and LMAO
Neville – come in spinner – I know – so is this what happens if the world warms (for whatever reason – solar or greenhouse forced) – mega-droughts – and those in them perished. It’s not all Vikings and Cathedrals in Europe is it eh?
So according to Neville – AGW influences somehow has to be the “worst” on record anywhere on the planet for AGW to be true. How does that work? It’s simply moronic.
So you are choosing to ignore very specific Australian investigative science that informs why you have drying trends in major cropping, irrigation and populations in your own country. The trends are not explained by solar influences. But they are reproduced by adding greenhouse forcing. The probability of that just being a modelling fluke is remote.
But hey these evil people just “make this stuff up” to annoy Malcolm. Golly they are so evil to do that …. They spend all day doing all this high level maths & physics to perpetrate a fraud. Yea sure ….
Neville – it’s pointless arguing with someone who has an inability to get passed one + one. Really guys the level of debate here is drivel.
But here’s the logic of denialists:
(1) if it rains sometime any prediction on drought trends must be wrong – hahahaha it rained !
(2) any drought anywhere else in the world that’s bigger than today proves AGW is wrong
(3) we’ll average wet and dry areas to prove nothing is happening – let’s ignore highly significant regional trends
(4) we’ll pretend we don’t understand / ignore climate mechanisms so we don’t have to deal with the conversation
(5) we’ll just quote a few homilies about Aussie being a land of droughts and flooding plains and pretend that’s all there is
Schiller – of course all you do is pass a piss-weak mocking comment when confronted with that mountain of evidence. But you know better?
But here’s the logic of CLIMA-CHONDRIACS. (new term I learnt today 😉 )
1. We run the models without CO2 and there is no warming.
2. We run the models with CO2 – warming. Therefore CO2 must be causing all the warming.
What if the models in 1 are wrong for other reasons?
“Team member and climatologist Professor David Karoly applied global circulation models to the Melbourne region, taking into account local factors that influenced climate.”
Luke, pardon me if I don’t genuflect. This is just BAU bullshit from the usual suspects.
You can get any results you want and so can I.
The fact that you would be impressed by this crap speaks volumes.
BTW, just had an ex govt scientist [who strongly believes in AGW] check the local rainfall for the last 50 years and, like me, he says that 1960 – 2009 map is wrong for this part of SEQ.
The average annual rainfall has not reduced, let alone by 10 inches a year.
here’s your rainfall SD according to BoM.
http://users.tpg.com.au/johnsay1/Stuff/Canungra.jpg
John, thanks for that. Can you get the official Fern St. Tamborine Mt. data? This is near my place and is just up the Goat Track from Canungra.
Luke,
Go and take a looooooooong cooooold shower.
There is plenty of water out there.
Chill out for a bit and then honestly ask yourself. what exactly is your purpose here?
What is your purpose in life for that matter?
Freedom of thought.
Freedom to argue rationally.
Freedom to question and refute.
We all applaud and welcome here.
But you have become a Google Junkey.
Throwing up links, mostly irrevelent and misleading.
Arguing in areas where you have NO practical knowledge or understanding of the subject.
Try confining yourself to that which you have some practical knowledge.
Because you are making a fool of yourself.
Pikey.
Piss off Pikey- who cares if there is now plenty of water out there. What the fuck does that have to do with the price of eggs? The olde tiresome usual cherry pick of a single point YAWN ! Are you unable to do nothing other than pass anecdotes?
John – perhaps you believe a whirlwind blowing through a junk yard will build a 747. That a model would reproduce specific rainfall patterns? Take a few more Lotto tickets matey.
Spanglers – I hope you’re applying the same rigour that BoM did to their analysis – you would of course have checked what they did with which stations wouldn’t you !
And Pikey if you think the links are irrelevant – well sorry you just aren’t very intelligent. I’m surprised. I would have thought a major analysis of species behaviour in response to warming would have captured your attention. But you’d be happier just spinning yarns over the fence and reminiscing eh?
Luke,
I’d get more sense talking to a galah that trying to converse with a self-absorbed Google Junky.
Pikey.
At this rate, Luke will have the last word on Jen’s blog.
Luke let’s be serious for a moment, I mean one day, some day you’ve got to admit your argument is a waste of time.
If you really believe in Agw you must go to the next level and explain how we can fix the problem, otherwise you’re forever chasing your tail.
In other words your argument is incomplete, it’s like you never seem game enough to go to the next level and provide some sort of answer.
Let’s see is it the ets plus solar, wind, geothermal, wave power, nuclear, clean coal and then what do we do with China, India, Brazil, SA etc?
I mean we can’t influence a bee’s dick worth of CC from a base of 1.2% ( and reducing rapidly) so please explain yourself before you bore us all to death.
Luke,
You can repeat your litany of climate oddities for as long as you wish, and none of it proves humanity is at fault for much more than UHI.
You warmists haven’t even figured out the behavior of CO2, though others have.
World’s earliest Global Warmers were Tasmanian!
Shocking archaeological find shows AGW began 40,000 years ago!
Techno-villians abusing the environment earlier than thought!
http://www.aolnews.com/world/article/archaeologists-find-40000-year-old-tools-at-tasmanian-construction-site/19391927
Schiller,
You hit the dummy nail on the head.
The more Luke does, the more it is obvious they are a bunch of fools.
Nothing that happened is outside of historical norms, and no matter how many insults and ad homs the Luke does, it will not change this fact.
Hunter,
Someone ought to write a history of involuntary religions. Christianity and Islam were at different times and places made compulsory at the point of a sword. In modern Switzerland, everyone must pay a tax to support the Calvinist church — unless they profess atheism before an entire congregation on Sunday. Sort of like calling yourself a denialist in front of hundreds of believers.
AGW is a religion that seeks to proselytize by intimidation and coercion as well. Uncomfortably, it shares many features with the institutions we commonly call ‘government’. And I imagine we should not be surprised at that.
SD – here’s Mt Tamborine
http://users.tpg.com.au/johnsay1/Stuff/Mt_Tamborine.jpg
Spangled Drongo – here is the Mt Tamborine Fern St chart.
http://users.tpg.com.au/johnsay1/Stuff/Mt_Tamborine.jpg
John,
Thanks very much. That says it all.
John,
That actually shows an INCREASE of 10 inches a year since the start of records.
Ain’t statistics wonderful?
Gee Spangly – a single datum point
Neville’s logic – if a problem is difficult – ergo the problem doesn’t exist. Gee that’s smart Neville. Did you graduate grade one.
And take this bit of stupidity from Schiller – “You can repeat your litany of climate oddities for as long as you wish, and none of it proves humanity is at fault for much more than UHI.” uh-huh – and that’s why the ocean temperatures are affected by UHI too are they – both data sets and the all the biology too – what a dope you are Schiller. Pullease Schiller – at some point you’ll turn yourself into a pretzel with your denial. All those nasty little butterflies and plants – all running their clocks fast. Gee all those species must be commies ! Green conspirators.
And the satellite data shows the same trends. Spencer must be in on it too….
Guys lets face it – evidence means nothing to you. I think that takes YOU into religion – not me.
You lot squirm and squirm and squirm to deny everything bit of evidence.
So you’re non-science deniers – not sceptics.
“Gee Spangly – a single datum point”
Luke,
You’re quite right, but it’s where I live and it’s the EXACT OPPOSITE to what CSIRO, Bom and you are telling me and while you MIGHT [occasionally] make valid points when it comes to “the science”, pardon me for remaining generally sceptical.
It’s the same situation at my 47 yo Sea Level benchmark. Instead of rising by 3mm per year as the “science” claims, it is falling by at least this amount.
This is not denial by any stretch of the imagination. It’s called checking up on science using observable evidence and if you of the warming persuasion did it too then we would be getting a better standard of science.
So Lukey, I’ll give ya a tip: the “science” ain’t perfect!
Hey Luke, you wanna read something even funnier than your creative evidence-free opponents can muster up- schools in 3 US states including Texas of course, want to teach alternatives to the scientific consensus on global warming. ( New Scientist 13/3 p11). Problem is that even after a century the alternative cupboard is bare. As creationists are three times as likely as non-creationists to deny human origins of warming, maybe they have God on their side, and he might be able to create an alternative explanation and even a miracle cure in another century.
Gee this is too easy, Luke can answer ( mostly BS ) anything that we may throw at him but there is one question that trumps his BS everytime, i.e. how do you even begin to solve the problem?
Immediate retreat to cowards castle with the reply that it’s all too hard, afterall this entire year on year trial is really just his total wank.
Here’s a new challenge wimpy, I now say that other than new technology falling into our laps this really is mission impossible, do you agree or not, if not give us the facts and figures how you would do it.
It could be a compete compulsory change in the next 20 years or so to nuclear power perhaps for every country on the planet, but tell us how this could be done.
Remember we must reduce then stabilize co2 at 350 ppm or don’t you agree with Hansen on that as well?
Remember we’re producing some 6+ GT’s per annum at the moment but the IEA estimates that will grow to 35 GT’s by 2030, doesn’t quite add up does it , but please give us answer.
Hey anyone,
My stoopid question of the day. I have a general understanding of “Mike’s Nature trick” with respect to his original hockey stick graph, but I’m slightly confused by some of the arcane terminology. I’d like to be able to explain it clearly to non-scientists. Can anyone recommend a good general article that starts from Square 1, covers the important bases, and doesn’t oversimplify? Thanks.
Luke,
A bit more detail about that dumb butterfly story.
http://www.australianclimatemadness.com/?p=3444
spangled drongo
good article,
Only problem, who is going to read it?
Or more importantly, who with power in the media is going to mention it?
Coming back to sea level rise, my grandparents and now my parents, had this house right on the beach in Melbourne for over 80 years, and I can’t for the life of me discern any rise in the sea level. The pier here in Mordialloc, was first built around 1850 and subsequently rebuilt many times due to worms eating the timber and storms, (around 1900 and so).
The boat builder had his yard on the creek near the bridge for as long as I can remember, in the same spot.
Now I admit I can only go back 50 years or so, and in that time, if we had 50*3mm rise it would be just about 6 in in the old measure.
Coming here quite infrequently before, I’m sure I would have noticed it.
Living in the same spot some rise could go unnoticed, but 150 mm, I think not.
Cheers
Luke, bit pattern or whatever your real name is, why can’t you admit that the global warming industry has deceived the world via the use of cherry picking studies favourable to their pre-conceived “consensus”, false claims, dodgy data, biased computer models and a well funded propaganda machine?
The Luke,
“and that’s why the ocean temperatures are affected by UHI too are they”
Soooooooo…. are you trying to say that a less than 1C rise in air temp globally has produced a greater than 1C rise in ocean temp?
You’re from QLD, please explain?
Interesting article here about problems with the EU’s carbon trading market;
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/news/european-emission-trading-rocked-by-scandal-over-recycled-carbon-permits/story-e6frg90o-1225842148852
I was stunned by this statement; “Efforts to tighten up the market have been stymied by recession, which has reduced Europe’s overall carbon dioxide output and kept the carbon price low.”
Am I the only one who thinks this means that a viable carbon market relies on an ongoing high output of CO2?
Surely not, Penny Wong wouldn’t tell us a fib would she?
Luke,
you are really grasping at straws with this “brown butterfly” thing. If you knew anything about evolution at all, you’d realise that the female’s response to climate change is an adaptation to previously encountered conditions, thus an own goal if you can put 2 and 2 together.
“Team member and climatologist Professor David Karoly applied global circulation models to the Melbourne region, ” says it all doesn’t it, plus please tell us how taking the temp record from a nearby town to account for the UHI in Melbourne has any relevance when the study was ABOUT Melbourne?
I’d go see a doctor about that gunshot wound to the foot which is probably leaving an unpleasant taste in your mouth.
http://gustofhotair.blogspot.com/2009/12/analysis-of-australian-temperature-part.html
Well bugger me clouds do have an effect on the temperature, and the cloud cover over Australia has been decreasing
Who’d have thunked it.
..and of course the GCM’s handle clouds very precisely
Jonathan,
I was talking to an old bloke in his eighties [who still builds and flies ultralights BTW] who has been building jetties on contract as long as I can remember and I asked him about his thoughts on SLR and his own personal benchmarks and he said pretty much what scientists and council engineers have told me and that is that SLs are neither doing much either up or down but they are doing both in various places in very small increments.
IOW nothing happening.
Gee Spangly – a single datum point
No – a conclusive data point that shows you are a load of s**t as usual.
Yawn -a surfeit of denialists – so much bilge – so little time….
Anyway Spangly – as we were saying – and it pains me to quote someone like Hughesy – but shows the point ….
Let’s look at his http://www.warwickhughes.com/briswater/ and just to show “sceptics” also do “data adjustment” I suggest you read his “fine print”.
Anyway – lah de dah – if you started your analysis in the 1950s or 1970s you would get a significant trend in rainfall decline (I mean let’s look at something serious like the water supply catchment) – not bloody Mt Tamborine – fully of druggies, retirees and artists having a nice life.
But if you took a longer term view would be only a shallow decline – see BoM’s climate trend map series which bears this out. And if you look at their metadata they used a few high quality stations. You can probably find out which ones.
Although the calculated and simulated inflows in Wivenhoe – put the net result of Millennium drought as much worse than the Federation drought – for what that is worth – but of course it has rained now and the hydroillogical cycle has turned full circle. We’ll only worry about drought when we’re in the next one.
Derek – forget the Brown butterfly – just ponder all the 1000s of species world-wide all conspiring to change their temperature driven phenological development just so we can have “world government”. Commie insects ! hahahahahahaha
And ocean temps – gee so many “heat islands” Derek old son. At some point the light might go on that the UHI thing is a bloody bug furphy and crock !
What’s the first ocean EOF Derek – a bloody big centennial signal
“Three prominent quasi-global patterns of variability and change are observed using the Met Office’s sea surface temperature (SST) analysis and almost independent night marine air temperature analysis. The first is a global warming signal that is very highly correlated with global mean SST. The second is a decadal to multidecadal fluctuation with some geographical similarity to the El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO). It is associated with the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), and its Pacific-wide manifestation has been termed the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation (IPO).”
Parker, D., C. Folland, A. Scaife, J. Knight, A. Colman, P. Baines, and B. Dong (2007), Decadal to multidecadal variability and the climate change background, J. Geophys. Res., 112, D18115, doi:10.1029/2007JD008411.
UHI – what utter crap !
and gets even worse – denialists can’t analyse their own data
http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/global_warming/global_warming_misinformation_urban_heat_island.html
Wakey wakey Derek !
and and and – from someone called MS (my Space, my Shit, my Stupidity ? ) “Luke, bit pattern or whatever your real name is” – what’s an MS? – a typo? pullease ….
Luke,
Sorry to disappoint. The UHI is real, all the AGWers agree on it. The science is settled.
In fact, the UHI is so real that NASA GISS had to do an upward adjustment in temperatures of rural stations to make it seem like a non-issue.
That’s how climatology works. You know something is real when climatologists fudge the data to make it go away. Just like we know the MWP and the LIA were real, because climatologists put in a great deal of work to make them go away.
Smoke and mirrors. And brown butterflies. Geesh. Talk about desperation.
More news about AGWers and related nutters:
Turns out, people who buy “green” consumer items are “more likely to cheat and steal”.
http://pss.sagepub.com/content/early/2010/03/01/0956797610363538
Probably like the organic farmer who turned to robbing banks.
http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/03/19/25707.htm
And AGWers are using brain-scans of humans to try and figure out how to convince them of AGW. It’s called “neuroframing”. Can the warmists possibly get more desperate than this? Probably.
http://bouphonia.blogspot.com/2010/03/dim-witted-public.html
did you catch the dummy spit in yesterday’s Age by Michael Ashley. He is a professor with the Department of Astrophysics at the University of New South Wales.
Why do I get the feeling that the UNSW suffers from severe group think.
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/abc-should-be-praised-for-fair-reports-on-climate-change-20100318-qhqf.html
John,
It’s hard to believe a professor of any science at all wrote Ashley’s diatribe.
It’s fun to play with his grammar. Just add a period halfway through one sentence and you get: “I don’t know of a single credible climate scientist.” But that’s just part of the standard, transparent ploy. Once you posit that all credible scientists believe in AGW, you have an instant consensus among credible scientists.
Surely an astrophysicist should have better reasoning skills than that.
Confronted with a ream of alternative evidence Schiller shrugs and parrots a few mantras.
That’s why you are a denialist not a sceptic.
Luke,
Pretend to think like a scientist for once. The null hypothesis stands until other evidence shows otherwise.
The null hypothesis is that climate change is a natural phenomenon. The contrary notion, AGW, is upheld by only one thing, and it’s not even actual data: AGW rests entirely on the notion that “we don’t know why, which therefore proves humans are the cause.”
Which is of course quite useless reasoning. Though quite remunerative.
Did you get a diploma from your kindergarten, or drop out early?
Poor old Luke , same old, same old and still can’t answer one simple question.
If AGW is so real and you spend so much time defending it, then what would you do to fix the ( non) problem?
I mean if you can’t answer this simple question why bother displaying your cowardice and lack of reasoning day after day?
Luke,
All you got is a correlation between a rise in air temp and SST? Puleeese! You ever try heating up a beaker of water using a hair drier? WAKE UP!
According to the “data” SST’s have increased MORE than air temps over the past 150 years including a 1C JUMP in the 70s. So ask yourself, if you want to stick to the “correlation implies causation” mantra, which one is more likely to have caused the other hmmm?
Schiller, you beat me to the “smoke and mirrors” on luke, good one.
In a curious way, AGW, though a religion, has completely reversed religious accounts of causation.
Back in the day, it was “we don’t know, therefore, the gods did it.”
With AGW, it’s “we don’t know, therefore, we did it.”
Looking at the two assertions, the former is actually more plausible. That’s because the latter claim is, basically, “we don’t know what we’re doing”. That’s a fine admission, but you won’t hear climatologists stating the foundation of their “science” in such simple, accurate terms any time soon.
Piss off Neville – you would have to be a simpleton to to imply the a difficult problem is therefore a problem that doesn’t exist. Pullease ! Poor Neville out of his depth.
Yes Derek all you have is well known radiative physics and no solar driver. Wakey wakey. Correlation indeed …
Schiller drivels on …. zzzzz
Luke, to quote your ref. “The first is a global warming signal that is very highly correlated with global mean SST. ”
What do you think this “correlation” implies lukey boy?
No solar driver? According to everything I could find on SST’s, solar is the ONLY driver. Even Wiki says that and according to gavin, Wikipedia is the authority on all things scientific.
Geeez Luke talk about rope a dope, the problem is yours not mine dumb bum, I mean is there anything keeping your ears apart?
Anyhow we all know why you can’t answer, so its back to cowards castle with you and take your fundamentalist religion with you.
Oh pullease Derek – solar does not explain a large proportion of the warming – did you come down in the last shower.
Yes correlation is the correct word ? So ? Like denialist is the correct word.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm
One of the warmest years of record with a quiet Sun – sheesh ….
Err Neville – I think the problem might be …. “ours” …. somehow.
“One of the warmest years of record with a quiet Sun – sheesh ….”
but where is it warm? – definitely not the tropics or the Southern hemisphere as they have been consistently stable for the past couple of decades.
http://www.climate4you.com/images/MSU%20UAH%20TropicsAndExtratropicsMonthlyTempSince1979%20With37monthRunningAverage.gif
So where is this warming in the NH coming from Luke?? It appears it is in Siberia and Canada.
Care to explain why??
The warming is coming from that giant hot spot that NASA GISS discovered perching atop the snow-covered mountain peaks of Bolivia.
Neville,
You always know when lukey is caught out ’cause he dodges and weaves but never answers the question. Just like he’s trying to be cute with the correlation thing, he hasn’t figured a way out of that one yet so he just dances around with non-answers.
For example; “solar does not explain a large proportion of the warming” he says but isn’t explicit as to whether he means air or water and then doesn’t suggest what does explain it.
And again;”Yes correlation is the correct word ? So ? ” is about as non committal as you can get which means he’s stuck for an answer.
He may have a lot of resources at his disposal but I’m afraid ol’ lukey boy isn’t as smart as he thinks he is.
This is a different Luke.
Notice he hasn’t said the f-word for a long time?
nah – it’s the same Luke – he’s just realised his foul language seriously annoys us!
Well fuck … Luke isn’t smart – but you lot sure are thick as bricks – unable to undertake some basic research on matters obvious – instead sucking on “quote mined” denialist bilge for din dins. Really – how hard is it dudes – (the problem that is).
Do go on Derek – if you calculate the solar forcing from the observed data it doesn’t explain the observed warming. Like duh ! I assume you read all the references in the previous link. And isn’t it strange we haven’t plummeted to temperatures of 100 years ago – such a quiet Sun yet still so warm. Nah – don’t think about – you’ll turn into a pumpkin.
And yes correlation is the correct word ! Correlation of course does not mean cause and effect – but it is an English word used to express certain conditions. You seem to have a problem with it. One may say correlate then offer up other evidence to substantiate causation. Gee maybe I’m a deep philosopher to know that ? Like http://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/08/19/papers-on-changes-in-dlr/
Let’s try another one – how many “sceptics” are creationists. Is there a correlation.
Schiller keeps up with his denialism parroting Spencer’s latest “finding”. And like dogs returning to their vomit the denialists use the specific to argue the general.
The climate models have always predicted the north will warm faster than the south – something about more land and less ocean. Too subtle? And the ozone depletion has effectively walled inner Antarctica from greenhouse warming (for a while).
All the discussion on this has been done here ad nauseum but denialists love to forget everything unfavourable. (Thompson and Solomon, 2002; Shindell and Schmidt, 2004) Such selective ongoing amnesia.
“if you calculate the solar forcing from the observed data it doesn’t explain the observed warming. ”
There you go again luke, are you talking about air temp or SST?
You’ve just proved my point, you can’t give a straight answer.
I’ll ask point blank; does air temp affect SST ?
Luke, you can’t even stay on point with your own posts. The original point was that one of your links showed a correlation between air temp and SST, your last link gives a list of research papers suggesting a correlation between IR flux and air temp which is totally irrelevant to my question.
Correlations don’t establish a probability, ad hoc ergo propter hoc. Coincidences do happen.
Some of Luke’s ideas are worth pondering, like the coolest places should show the warming anomaly first. This will require some sleuthing.
And an improvement on the “sloppy science” would help.
http://discovermagazine.com/2010/apr/10-it.s-gettin-hot-in-here-big-battle-over-climate-science/
Luke says,
“if you calculate the solar forcing from the observed data it doesn’t explain the observed warming.”
I thought the warmists understood this and could explain it all because the ‘science is settled’. Is Fluke conceding the point? Or maybe it’s along the lines of the standard ‘we don’t know, therefore humans are doing it’ thing.
Yikes!
The IPCC was right about the glaciers, the only error, quite trivial actually, was that they simply named the wrong glaciers by accident.
“Shortly before midnight, the Eyjafjallajokull glacier, the island’s fifth largest, started to spew smoke and lava”.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/21/AR2010032100378.html
You see? AGW is really real, if you’re willing to see the obvious evidence!
“The BOM & CSIRO report–it’s what they don’t say that matters”
“Ken Stewart has scanned the trend maps at BOM (Bureau of Meteorology), and his point is spot on. As soon as I saw the neat joint 6 page advertising pamphlet for the climate-theory-that’s-backed-by-bankers, I wondered what happened to the first 60 years of last century, and Ken found it. Did the BOM forget they have hundreds of datapoints from back then? Did they forget to use their own website, where you can pick-a-trend, any-trend, and choose the one with err…more convenient results? Or is the case that their collective mission is not necessarily to provide Australians with the most complete and appropriate information available, but to provide them with what the bureaucracy needs them to know? (And what they need to know apparently is the carefully censored version of the truth that will keep government ministers happy–let me tax them more; keep department heads smiling–let the climate cash cow continue, and last but not least, help staff “feel good”–I’m sure I’m helping the environment?)”
Read more about what was left out here
http://joannenova.com.au/2010/03/the-bom-csiro-report-its-what-they-dont-say-that-matters/
Another Ian,
The CSIRO-BoM lot could do with a similar investigation to CRU, as someone points out here:
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/how_government_cash_created_the_climategate_scandal/
Barry Brill writes a good article.
http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2010/03/end-phase-of-the-climate-wars
John,
Brill writes a good article, but he has it all wrong, starting with the headline, ‘End-phase of the Climate Wars?’
People of good conscience and attentive to the scientific merit of various claims are very easily seduced into the notion that ‘the debate’ — or even, the ‘War’ alluded to in the headline — is about the climate at all.
It’s not. It’s about swirly light bulbs and biofuels and who gets elected the next time. Oh, and also, if your research funds are replenished. That’s all it has ever been about.
It’s fine to show the warmers are doing junk science, but let’s not forget, the big money and big politics (if there’s a difference) are on their side of the table.
Climatology is when you’re in a crooked game of poker and the guy across you has a pistol and difficult anger management issues, while all you have is what’s left in your wallet.
Appropos of the previous posting re Brill et al here is a posting by Ian Castles on another blog wherein he is commenting upon the sanctity (my word) of the SRES.
In postings to Roger Pielke Jr’s blog on 11 March 2010, the leading economist and former IPCC lead author Richard Tol wrote that “in sum, the IPCC made a mistake in SRES. Instead of admitting and correcting the mistake in AR4, the IPCC distorts the literature review to hide the mistake. There are five peer-reviewed, model-based papers that side with Castles and Henderson. There are zero peer-reviewed, model-based papers that side with IPCC SRES. Yet, IPCC AR4 concludes that IPCC SRES was fine. Despite protests by the reviewers… The IPCC response to Castles & Henderson has set the sorry standard for the current going-ons.”
So the failures of the IPCC are not just about the so called science but the underpinning economic assessments that try to model energy production and hence C02 increases over the coming decades etc.
But dont worry guys the Chief Scientist says the science of GW is rock solid…wheew I am so comforted by that…pigs.
Ah, les philosophes! Reading some of Luke’s contributions, and paraphrasing Voltaire, we may surmise that ‘climate science’ is to science as astrology is to astronomy: the mad daughter of a wise mother. Drawing on the same source, we may remember that Dr. Pangloss, in ‘Candide’, reasoned that, since the nose can support spectacles, then spectacles are clearly the cause of noses. I don’t know if Dr. Pangloss published in refereed journals. It would not surprise me.
The sceptic standard – Schiller bleats “It’s fine to show the warmers are doing junk science,” …
Now let’s see how that septic science is going …. uh-oh !
FROM DELTOID – and hahahahahahahahHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHHA
Cartergate
Category: bobcarter
Posted on: March 21, 2010 12:12 PM, by Tim Lambert
James Annan writes that their paper debunking McLean, De Freitas and Carter has been published and:
Amusingly, the comment will be published alone, without the customary Reply. Why? Because…McLean et al couldn’t muster a reply that was publishable (and not for want of trying, either – it was simply rejected).
I’m sure Energy and Environment will publish it quick smart.
Ove Hoegh-Guldberg is less kind:
1) Will McLean et al. retract the paper (and will Bob Carter admit fault or even discuss the errors publicly)?
2) Will the denial0sphere and the MSM give this story (a climate change scandal!) the same coverage it has recently showered on various IPCC hiccups?
3) Will there be an investigation as Bob Carter himself and so many other skeptics have insisted on over and over again, usually in response to bogus and unsubstantiated allegations.
4) Will Bob now reverse his policy positions and urge (vocally) politicians that may have been swayed by his bogus science to do the same? After all Bob, shouldn’t the science drive the policy?
5) Will The Australian cover this pending scandal! A scientist behaving badly!
I see that Luke Desk has studiously avoided stating who are ALL the authers of the so called rebuttal.
If I remember correctly doesnt the full list of authers includes such notables as Jones, Mann, Briffa and Trenberth.
What a wonderful list of scientific integrity and authority that would be.
As for Ove H-G isnt he the the one who has a well known propensity for self promotion and exaggeration.
Malcolm I think liars and con men would describe that list more accurately.
What a hopeless tribe of delusional fools, meanwhile France has pulled out of this tribal mystic nonsense, so it’s left to idiots like krudd and wong to save the world using that massive Aussie weapon of 1.2% of global emissions.
Let’s see if we decrease that under 1% by 2020 that should reduce global temps by .0001C, gosh that’s sure to save the GBR, kakadu, the MDB and stop droughts etc.
I mean the gutless luke pygmy believes this stuff so it must right.
Folks,
I’ve been following AGW stuff for about a dozen years now, mostly from the angle of who’s saying what to whom, and why they are saying it.
As the “science” of climatology went almost completely unchallenged, there was little else to really look at.
Now that climatology is actually getting scientific scrutiny, truly scientific scrutiny, I am beginning to wonder about the value of measuring the average global temperature.
Globally, we had a warm January. Up north, we had a cruelly cold January. There are explanations for this, none of them involving CO2.
Then there’s the MWP, quite obviously global, but it’s reasonable to wonder if that, too, is an aggregation of regional events. Explanations of that, quibbling aside, have little to do with CO2.
So, I have to wonder: the only dataset we can trust is from the satellites (I hope), but is there anything meaningful in a global average? There is no global average biome, no global average real estate, and meanwhile, things are getting cold or warm almost independently of each other.
Is there truly a point to measurements nobody can make sense of?
What I cannot fathom is why the people in the UN and others of influence, and who set up the IPCC and who then appointed Pachauri as the Chairman IPCC, are not being locked up for incompetence/malfeasance, and Pachauri for fraud.
How is it possible that the Chairman of the IPCC can have so many obvious conflicts of interest that he is tolerated to be within 100 miles of anything to do with the IPCC and certainly, he should not be allowed to have a seat on the board of the Chicago Carbon Futures Exchange.What a conflict that is.What an absolute joke this AGW saga has become.
Why should we believe anything they say.
Why is it that there is now so much that is wrong and utterly unprofessional about the AR4 that MUST have been evident to all those participating and yet nobody said anything…and certainly as far as I know, NO ONE from Australia.
But then when successive American Presidents ( and ex UK PM’s) have been able to take their bribes from the Saudis ,and others, after they have left office, when it is clearly and obviously a post hoc bribe…. and nobody says anything..then we can only give up… and hope.
Correction Chicago Climate Exchange
http://www.chicagoclimatex.com/content.jsf?id=68
Same villains in positions of influence and personal reward.
Addendum
And guess whose is a Director of the CCX?
….none other than Maurice Strong.
http://www.chicagoclimatex.com/content.jsf?id=67
This is just not in any way credible
Its not just that the UN/FCCC and IPCC have been abjectly incompetent and self serving but that the financial mechanisms that have been set up, and which flow from what the IPCC says are also corrupted.
If these F *&^ wit scientists are so dam smart why havnt they said something…
I think it is a pretty good guess that the AGW social movement long ago gave up any real interest in the science, and has now moved on to the exploitation of AGW’s acceptance in the public square.
Face it boyos – your heroes had the floor wiped from under them. Sceptic science = utter crap !
The test of your denial was to agree or disagree ! You passed as deniers.
I notice Neville dink is still verballing me. But what do you expect from denialistos.
If you can’t quote mine – try verballing
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Verballing
Yes you are right Luke Desk you have been verballed.
It goes with alarmist ethics ..utter crap.
Still haven’t answered our questions yet Luke, you do that and I’ll tell you what I think about Carter’s stuff.
Malcolm, great term. There should be a way to put in a reference to Luke as an example someone who has had it done to them. But really, the Luke gang has verballed themselves, when you get down to it.
Derek,
The Luke cannot answer questions. It is out of their pay grades, as it were.
People,
I just know that you’ll all have lots of fun with this:
Skeptic Arguments and What the Science Says
Skeptical Science
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
They’ve found a shill willing to call himself a skeptic while repeating the mantras of the hockey team. There’s just enough good stuff for the author to do the ‘faux skeptic’ thing (h/t Luke) but there’s vastly more disinformative crud.
I should have added: it’s a list of 101 ‘skeptical’ arguments rebutted by a ‘skeptic about skeptics’.
Ah just as I thought would happen ..there is a lot more to the stoush between McLean et al and the so called responses from the usual brigade of shonkademics.
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/censorship_at_agu_scientists_denied_the_right_of_reply/
… alarmist ethics are utter crap.
But then what else can you expect from a country that gave us the GFC and now has two alarmist charlatans in positions of influence on the Chicago Climate Exchange.
What an absolute joke that is
As the say in the classics…. just follow the money folks.
Apologies to the more literary members. I have refreshed on Voltaire, and it wasn’t Dr. Pangloss who proposed that spectacles are caused by noses, it was his boss, the formidable Baron Thunder-ten-tronckh of Westphalia. (As an aside, Baroness Thunder-ten-tronckh weighed 350 pounds, and was, therefore, greatly respected.)
You may remember that Voltaire, although not an atheist, was highly sceptical about the church, and religious dogma. He proposed that there are, in the world, a certain number of rogues, and a certain number of fools. Religions appear when the rogues succeed in hoodwinking the fools. I am sure that our gentle readers will draw their own conclusions from this.
Or was it noses are caused by spectacles? At any rate, after a certain age, there is significant covariance.
I’ve been absent from here and didn’t realise that some people are still posting here and what do I find but Luke trying very hard to fight off the encroaching awareness that he has become totally irrelevant.
Welcome back, Jan. You will have noted that, without Jen to whip us into shape, the blog has become a bit like a scribble wall used by graffiti artists. Occasionally interesting, nevertheless. I look forward to some comments from you.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/McLeanetalSPPIpaper2Z-March24.pdf
There is certainly smell about the way McLean etc have been treated by the USA Climate mafia and publishing in the (their) JGR, or in this case, none publishing of a sensible reply to queries made..by reviewers who were anti before they read anything.
I reckon part of the smell is that they dont like the fact that antipodeans have produced an outcome that shows them up… both in the research and the ethics of publishing. Its not as though there is much dispute about the effect of the SOI on temperature anyway.
I am reminded of when the French were at odds with Americans over Iraq,and several leading researchers in France were fearful that their own research wouldnt be published in USA journals because of the differences of opinion on international relations.
So it does and did happen.
Yet again Mann and Jones dont come out this smelling of roses, and neither does the President of the AGU…what a pompous nob he turns out to be
..as for ethics in AGW ..what a joke.
Pssstt – Mal – it was – ahem – errr junk ! At some point you have to realise. Come on ….
Yes, and the source of the junk is our alarmist gang.
Russia has just confirmed that this latest winter in the Northern Hemisphere has been the coldest in 30 years, and possibly, in recorded human history, for those in Siberia.
Everyone already knows, of course, that it’s been a brutal winter for China and North America.
So, here’s a question — but first, let’s make some stupid assumptions: ground stations are reliable, the data have not been fudged, and that the average temperature of the atmosphere is precise beyond all doubt.
The actual question: With people freezing their asses off in record cold, manatees and coral reefs dying of cold in Florida (of all places)! and so forth, does knowing the ‘average global temperature’ really say anything of any practical importance to anyone?
Aside from the warmists, that is.
Schiller,
The anomalies and averages pitched by the AGW community are increasingly looking to be useless for anything except sales props.
Thx Malcolm, an interesting link showing yet again how much collusion and lack of integrity is prevalent in the “climate” community.
Another interesting thing: I’ve been following ‘Climategate’ all over, for a long time, and suddenly find people claiming there are giant numbers of people who ‘deny climate change’.
Funny thing is, I’ve never found anyone denying that climate changes.
Isn’t that like totally weird? Where are these people the warmists are complaining about? I can’t find any.
The McLean response to the Foster rubbish is clear and damning; McLean established an empirically based relationship between SOI and a defined lag and temperature variation; detrending was necessary to delineate the form of the SOI factor; the issue of their paper was not to establish trend as opposed to oscillation or variation; once the SOI factor is defined then its contribution to trend, if at all, can be pursued; the Foster paper/comment has misunderstood this distinction. One other import of the McLean effort is that the precisely established lag of 7 months mitigates the AGW notion of the pipeline effect and the crucial for AGW distinction between transient and equilibrium climate sensitivity; if a dominant factor is resolved in 7 months than the the distinction between TCS and ECS does not exist and whatever AGW effect is floating around will already be manifest and not stored away to come out and bite later on.
In respect of the whether the SOI is a trend factor the subsequent Stockwell paper considers that issue;
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0908/0908.1828v1.pdf
Well now Luke Desk ..in your own words what specifically is wrong with the Mclean original paper and their response. I dont expect any answers, cowards never do..
In this case your paymaster will of course require that you follow the lead of Shonkademia Central and thereby demonstrate the basis of Luke Desks own ethical and scientific standards.
I can’t believe you Luke – you are a shame!!
hopefully one day you’ll be asked to account.
I hope it’s soon.
Schiller,
What passes for argument irt to people denying climate change is the equivalent of people who claim that anyone who does not believe in their chosen religion is denying morality.
Since the AGW community is once again re-branding their faith, this time as ‘climate crisis’, it is only right to point out there is no crisis.
That the Luke has to assert in their baboonery that the crisis is too sublime for any but the true believer to see is the sort of circular false reasoning that goes with frauds of all sorts.
Poor enraged threatening verballing quote mining shameless deniers – your boys have come the biggest gutser pretending to be “scientists”. A great big belly flopping gutser.
This – hohohohoho “RIDICULOUS PAPER” http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2009/07/editorial-standards-at-agu-journals.html
The “best of the worst” http://rabett.blogspot.com/2009/07/best-of-worst-john-mashey-asks-maybe.html
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/03/26/2857685.htm?section=justin
Denier-gate ! Guys lie down for heavens sake – you’ve been torpedoed amidships. It’s embarrassing.
Gee let’s remove the trend and find there is no trend – HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
If you all tiptoe quietly away muttering tut tut tut we promise never to mention it again. (LOL)
luke, this is really dumb, from your james blog link:
“Let’s take a linear trend plus noise, y=at+e where t (time) runs from -T to T, and e is any additive noise with variance s2. The expected mean over the first half [-T,0] is -aT/2, and the mean over the second half is aT/2. The standard deviation of the first half is sqrt(a2T2/12 + s2), where these two contributions come from the linear trend and noise respectively. The standard deviation of the second half is, um, sqrt(a2T2/12 + s2). In other words, when the means of the first and second half of a time series differ, but the variability does not, this tells us precisely nothing about whether there was a step change or just a linear trend. Ooops.”
Who said that the variability does not differ? This is the issue with a step-change; not only can the slope differ before and after the step/break but also the variation because the means are asymmetrical; your link to james blog confuses apples and oranges; a step change or break is where a change in variation slope is statistically validated as a break rather than an incremental change which is absurd when you think we are talking about PDO regime shifts; that is, how can a variation produced by PDO change carry the variation of the PDO shift in the opposing PDO value before the PDO shift occurs? The break represents the period of regime shift of the dominant climate factor; the variation in variation between the opposing slopes before and after the break depicting the different phases is a product of asymmetry between those phases. There is no doubt that there is asymmetry between PDO phases. The issue is does this explain any and all heating?
Cohenite,
Luke, like all others of his ilk, suffer from a consensus mentality which is grounded in two notions:
1. Nature is, by nature, in equilibrium.
2. Failures in equilibrium are therefore the result of non-natural forces, namely, humans.
From these two notions spring all the rest of their ‘science’ and rhetoric. For instance, this is how we can ‘know’ that humans are causing GW, simply because ‘we don’t know’ what’s causing it.
We can also use these to talk about biodiversity, and instantly blame humans whenever a census of plants and animals in a certain area undergoes a change in distribution. In fact, nearly all the ‘science’ and rhetoric of any Greenie-whackos whatsoever are ultimately founded on these two notions.
The fact that these two notions are false does not deprive the notions of their obvious secular-religious appeal.
The Luke is posting the equivalent of papers from the Vatican talking about how valid a particular relic is.
Luke, y’all let us know when you find something that is not self-referential pap.
caongrats on the quick uptake on ‘verballing’. At least you now know what your gang has been doing to themselves for, well, forever.
As usual Luke Desk avoids saying some thing in his own words, as requested, and just provides a hodge podge of references that just shows more about the nature of the people at Shonkademia Central…aside from the irrelevancy of the ABC reference of course.
..and then we are left to believe this sort of thing by GISS, is in any way credible.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/25/gisscapades/
You know that the clowns are in charge of the circus when they can’t even produce a credible and reliable base line global temperature data set … and thats after spending nearly $100bn and having 20 years to do it in.
But what they can do is tolerate in silence the behaviour and conflicts of interest of Pachauri et al, but speak up in support of Gore’s appalling AIT..and then fall silent again at the way he is making a poultice out of it all.
For collective scum baggery and hypocrisy you cant beat the ethical standards displayed by the Shonkademics.
..as for the Mclean paper and the response to it, the shonkademics where always going to gang up on them no matter what.
… they have 20 years of a cosey arrangements to protect, as the CRU documents so clearly demonstrated.
Schiller, you are SO spot-on that it redefines the term spot-on. Otherwise there is no reasoning to their notion that colder is better, even though we’re in the middle of an ICE AGE!
Cohenite, I tried to follow your argument but I couldn’t find my “Climate science for dummies” book, so I’ll just have to be content in the knowledge that you obviously know what you’re talking about whereas luke just quote-mines from pro AGW sites in the hope that some of it makes sense.
Hunter, tsk, tsk. You should know that ALL Vatican owned relics have the same intrinsic value, namely priceless! Some just may be more priceless than others. I swear I’ve got a dinner plate with leftover spaghetti sauce depicting the scene where Judas hanged himself.
Listen mate – you got my own words – don’t blame me for your mates crappola. Mally boy – nobody is going to waste any more time on this nonsense.
HAHAHAHAHAHHAAHHAHAHAHAHA
Cohers – well write the rebuttal for GRL or roll over and play dead.
Derek – the paper was shredded mate. Destroyed. Vaporised. Many many Exocets up the jacksie !
Hunter – maaaattteee – not verballing at all – a published peer-reviewed GRL refutation. Your fellow denialist creeps can’t even get it up ! Wilted !
When sceptics come out to play they get owned. We own all your bases Mal ! Your best sceptics can’t even write a decent paper. “This ridiculous paper” as Annan says. LOL !
B/S… Luke Desk, Walker Phil Done or whatever you call yourself..the clear evidence is that the shonkademics have lost the credibility battle hands down
Your sort can get your rocks off on whether Mclean et al is good or bad but the main front is that one of credibility..so you dont own a dam thing.
The public is heartedly sick of the crimatologists crying wolf and wasting our money doing unprofessional and incompetent things..and the antics of skirt hiders andd creeps from Qld just adds to the list.
luke, the GRL rebuttal is here, as you know;
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0908/0908.1828v1.pdf
Derek, I’ll have another go, perhaps trying to fit the explanation into the Jame’s blog nonsense confused the issue.
Foster et al concede in their McLean comment that variability in temperature is caused by natural factors, though to a lessor extent than McLean argue; the poblem is that Foster and AGW generally say that variation in temperature through natural factors is not a trend because the variation is oscillatory, that is neutral over the cycle. This is one sticking point, which I’ll come back to.
The other issue is the statistical depiction of the trend; typically AGW shows trend as a linear regression with an upward trend. it should initally be observed that even if Foster is correct and that natural variation is stationary and non-trending that because there have over the 20thc been 2 +ve PDO’s or up-temperature variations and only one -ve PDO then a linear regression will depict that +ve PDO dominance. However the linear regression is misrepresentative for several reasons; firstly, as has been shown by Stockwell and other step papers by Seidel, Tsonis and Lindzen, the temperature change with PDO phase shift is not gradual but occurs at the phase shift or transition boundary; it happened in 1975 and again in 1998 [or 2002 if Tsonis is correct]; this means that the temperature ‘trend’ is best statistically depicted by a break at the time of the phase shift.
Getting back to variation; the trends and temperature in the opposing variations either side of the break in PDO phase shifts are assumed by Foster and AGW to be oscillatory and therefore non-trending or stationary; this is not correct as the GRL rebuttal I link to above makes plain. That is, as well as the temperature during the 20thc being dominated by 2 +ve PDO’s the trend was also accentuated by asymmetry in the variation with the +ve variation being warmer than the -ve variation being cooler.
Yes Mally-boy – whatever ! The McLean issue goes to the very heart of sceptic credibility. Bob was silly to put his name to it,.
Cohers – unpublished free range blog papers are not a rebuttal Get thee to GRL or perish ! The PDO is not a first order principal component. The centennial trend is. When you’ve worked up the last 400 years of PDO data get back.
Meanwhile back in the real world of science. Greenland ice loss accelerating.
http://www.agu.org/news/press/pr_archives/2010/2010-07.shtml
Anyway guys it’s over – we’re everywhere
“All Your Base Are Belong To Us”
So, “Green”land turning from a frozen wasteland into a warmer, productive habitat is somehow a bad thing? You’re fighting the wrong battles lukey, we all want it to be warmer. You still haven’t got it into your collective hive consciousness, WE’RE IN A FRAKKIN” ICE AGE MORON!!!
And you STILL haven’t answered my question, because you CAN’T. You rely so heavily on trolling through cyberspace for all of your answers that you lack the capacity to actually THINK. You haven’t FOUND the answer yet, that’s why you won’t give one.
Cultists like you are afraid to think for themselves because you desire the approval of the “group” more than the truth.
Joanne Nova has an interesting article on the record breaking rain over 1.7% of Australia on the 1-3-10 and then 1.9% on 2-3-10, the previous record being 22- 12 -56, and boy was that wet.
Remember how the gutless luke parasite used to laugh at our severe drought and try and tell us how exceptional it was, well now that we’ve broken the old rainfall record set in 1956, perhaps we can feel a bit smug. BTW these are daily records of 100mm over that 1.9% area.
Also luke if you go back 400,000 years parts of Greenland was covered by thick forests and not a factory, plane or car or coal fired power station to be found anywhere to cause such a temp increase.
Must have been Martians or some such alien force I suppose.
Well boofhead Neville if it wasn’t exceptional why did we have Exceptional Circumstances where billions upon billions of drought aid was handed out eh? If it was a walk in the park matey every cockie would have pissed it in no sweat. Pullease.
And being a denialist turd Neville retreats into uniformatarianism. And gee Neville I guess worst on record isn’t enough for you – ho hum.
And yes Derek warmer is best – mega-droughts in USA, China and Africa are fantastic ! Only a few billion refugees… How’s your Chinese? Derek show some intelligence and you might get some questioned answered.
One thing Derek – who come it’s so warm given we’re in an ice age and low solar period? hmmmmmm – I guess USA will be under an ice sheet any day now – pullease !
One teensey widdle difference (or 20) between now and back in the day guys – 6 billion going to 9 billion humans, freshwater and arable land maxed out, millions living at sea level. No worries guys !
Luke,
Did you check if the permafrost in the Hvalbad cemetry has melted yet?
Hey guys, it looks like we’ve found a topic that luke knows absolutely nothing about; Paleoclimate!
Which would you prefer luke? Warmer, sometimes wetter, sometimes drier or glacial conditions where 80% of Australia would be uninhabitable.
BTW, it’s so warm because we are in an interglacial moron and interglacials have been significantly warmer in the past. But even the warmest parts of an interglacial period are still colder than before the ice age started.
This is a rhetorical question, but just how stupid is the Luke ensemble?
None of the apocalyptic AGW predictions are coming true, but the Luke just keeps echoing them.
Is this possibly the over employed bureaucrat’s version of a mantra?
Instead of Hare Rama, Hare Rama, Hare Rama, the Luke chorus chants ‘drought, drought, drought’
You guys in Australia are stuck with lazy parasitic govt. workers as bad as we are, I am sad to note.
Folks,
We have a ‘failure to cite’ problem. The IPCC forgot to cite this precious bit: Germans covering a glacier with plastic wrap to keep it from melting! Ultimate proof of AGW! They just got the wrong glacier, which proves the mistake is trivial…
http://www.thelocal.de/sci-tech/20100327-26163.html
Now for something much more fun. Seems there’s a new blog out there, “A Look at the Australian Climate Network”, and the author has done some hard work, and discovered the Aussie data has almost comprehensively been fiddled.
http://rcs-audit.blogspot.com/2010/03/more-holes-than-swiss-cheese.html
Climatology is a nasty business. Literally.
It seems earth hour has been a bummer in good old Aussieland, Bolt has the proof on his blog compared to a few years ago.
It’s been a stunning success in Nth Korea, but then again it seems to be successful every night of the week there.
This is the sort of totalitarian wonderland hoped for by the luke coward, where you praise the dear leader all the time for his total control over your environment.
Here’s the tip luke , pull up stakes and go and live in Nth Korea I’m sure you’d fit in beautifully.
Oh, lovely Earth Hour. Commemorating, in advance, “Lights Out on Humanity”.
Some human beings are not fellow human beings. They wish you benighted.
How far would they get with the notion of having an hour when everyone disconnected from the internet? Not very far.
Cretins.
Hunter says “You guys in Australia are stuck with lazy parasitic govt. workers as bad as we are, I am sad to note.”
Thats only one part of the problem, a far bigger issue in Australia is the incompetence of the Rudd elected government itself.
There are at least three major mega billion dollar schemes brought in by the Ruddites that are in serious trouble because of Ministerial and Government incompetence, and on top of that Rudd himself has managed to alienate two of our biggest trading partners, India and China.
Further, despite Rudd himself promising to keep our borders secure, they are under his watch never been so insecure and leaky…. not only that he came into govt with a large surplus which has now gone, and not likely to be back into surplus again for at least a decade.
That takes some doing, with or without the GFC.
So we cant blame for the poor old public servants, like the inmates at Luke Desk for everything..
OTOH you do have to wonder what planet some of them are on when they propose to create a new govt department in Canberra called the..” Australian Government Climate Change Regulatory Authority”.
King Canute was an amateur compared to these brainiacs.
Derek – merely pointing out the MWP period climate. Your problem matey ! How’s your Chinese?
I’m currently enjoying some videos exposing what lying filth the organised global sceptic disinformation movement are ….
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXesBhYwdRo&feature=related
Neville – pretty piss weak verballing. Take tips from Malcolm … he’s good at it.
“Here’s the tip luke , pull up stakes and go and live in Nth Korea I’m sure you’d fit in beautifully.” ooooooo – scary ….
Anyway Neville – let’s call you :-
“None of the apocalyptic AGW predictions are coming true” OK – give us the list and timelines !
Luke tell us how you would fix the AGW problem as of now and remember you must begin from a base of reducing Australia’s 1.2% of global emissions by 5% by 2030, then show how we can save Kakadu, the MDB, GBR and stop severe future droughts etc.
Remember we are talking about a much increased population years into the future to suit krudd’s mania for a big Australia.
Also remember during the period that Bush and Howard refused to sign the kyoto rubbish both countries actually reduced their GHG emissions or are you just plain dumb?
Another bit of info numbskull from wong’s major speech on climate , ( 2009 ) from 1997 to 2004 China increased it’s co2 emissions by 57% and now is the largest emitter. ( by 2007)
Virtually all the growth in emissions over the next 20 years will come from the developing world so how’s your Chinese loopy, enabling you to convince them to stop polluting. (?)
Make a start on this mission impossible and I might return the favour on the nonsense called AGW.
“OK – give us the list and timelines !”
Fair go Luke, some of the time lines, (wisely in my opinion) are beyond our and the prophets’ lifetimes.
How do you prove it one way or the other?
And if wrong, so what, the prophets would be dead.
The science is anything but settled.
I could give you the correct Tattslotto numbers for March 2178 for every draw, what good would it do you?
And don’t give me “I will leave it to my descendants” spiel! Please
Gosh the luke numbskull is still lacking the guts to answer the obvious for the 20th time, very timid when it really counts.
Just to prove what a total fraud this AGW nonsense is consider the vitriol if the US and Australia had increased their co2 emissions by 57% from 1997 to 2004, the screams from the leftwing idiots would be never ending.
As it was Howard and Bush were condemned repeatedly for not signing kyoto, yet the two countries didn’t increase emissions over that period, just proves how stupid these lunatics really are.
Also proves this is not about science but is about political control, hopefully the voters are now waking up, but it has certainly taken a long time.
““None of the apocalyptic AGW predictions are coming true” OK – give us the list and timelines !”
you can start here: None of the gloom and doom predictions have occurred.
http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2010/03/starck-barrier-reef
Heh Walker’s Luke Desk for Phil Done..that You Tube reference was pathetic..wouldnt last 5 secs in a court of law and you have the gall to talk about disinformation.
This on the other hand is much more intelligent, and explains well why we have a crisis in academia, and its idiot offshoot shonkademia.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704131404575117314262655160.html?KEYWORDS=Berkowitz
Further Luke Desk no amount of effort is going to assuage the fact that shonkademia has been very selective with its bed fellows, and in what directions it turns its blind eyes…
Here they are with access to huge sums of money, have the media like the ABC in their hip pockets, have govt appointed chief scientists behaving like dills, have the incumbent political party wanting to peddle their story line… and still they cant make their case standup against
…the sceptics who have prescious little organisation and even less money.
Surely thats telling you numbskulls something.
The warmers are fulfilling their own destiny but the truth is not in them.
The “file drawer effect”, if it doesn’t show a problem then it doesn’t get published.
So guess what? Everything is “worse than we thought.”
http://westinstenv.org/sosf/2010/03/26/soils-co2-and-global-warming/
more fun
Michael Mann gives an interview to an “investigative journalist”. Spot the errors and lies.
http://www.mcall.com/news/local/all-global-warming-interview-whole,0,3710848,full.story
And they say the scientists ‘don’t know how to communicate’. They’ve had the press eating out of their hands for two decades, and then say there’s a problem? McDonalds and Wal-Mart would be glad to have such a problem.
Schiller thanks for that mann interview, what a stupid delusional fool.
The fraud stick still remains intact and there has been no verified cooling over the last century, what about the cooling for 30 years from 1945 to 1975?
Phil Jones was right there has been no statistical warming over the last 15 years and the 20 to 30 year warming trends for the last 150 years show the same degree of slope.
I see the luke coward still can’t answer the obvious, how do you fix the co2 increase from the developing world.
He’ll argue all day about the cause ( BS ) of temp increase but hasn’t got the guts to answer the only real question that matters, how can this PROBLEM be solved.
Come on wimpy at least dip a toe into the water and give us all a good laugh.
Neville,
I strongly suspect that Michael Mann wrote his own interview questions.
That would be very much in line with the “new” notion of how scientists need to “communicate” the “message of global carbon apocalypse”.
Boo hoo effing hoo.
Mal WHO? NEVER HEARD OF YOU? Whoever you are? Maybe it’s Mal-desk – would we know?
What I want to know is what your’re going to do about
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2858332.htm
“Phil Jones was right there has been no statistical warming” and only a snivelling little quote miner like you Neville would clip a quote like that out of context. If you are not hopeless – explain statistical significance to us in this context !
Well Lukey Desk that IS my name…and yours is?
Don’t bother…. we already know the answer and the reason why.
As for Lewandowsky piece …hmmm its pity about all the material that was included in the IPCC assessment that WAS not peer reviewed. It was only when it was exposed, did that come out.
I well remember the interview the interview that Kerry O’Brien (of your ABC) did with Rajendra Pachauri where he made the same dishonest claims that all the Assessments by the IPCC had ONLY used peer reviewed material.
As for what am I going to do about whatever?
I would sincerely hope that the next IPCC AR5 has:
1. A new and truly independent Chairman, and new Board
2. Proper protocols handling the declaration of pecuniary and other interests.
3. A process whereby other points of view are handled.
4. Stricter controls over whether and when NGOs and Green groups have both access to and input into the IPCC process.
5. A complete bar on the inclusion of any published science where the data and files have not been released in accordance with the funders requirements etc
6. A separation of the roles between the handling of major data sets and the scientists.eg Hansen
7. Any paper that has been rejected for further considerations as part of the IPCC assessment process should be identified, and the reason for rejection published.
8. Dissenting reports are permitted,
9. The HQ office and support facilities are preferably relocated to another country, not in Europe.
10. Support staff to be turned over with at least 30% of new appointments made.
11. SPM to be written after the Technical Evaluations have been completed, and must be signed off by all senior scientists involved.
12. No paper can be assessed for inclusion and be part of in the IPCC process if the authors’ have not complied with the data storage and release requirements of the Grantors, to fully enable their findings to be replicated.
13. The IPCC AR5 should comply with standards laid down by all the relevant professional societies
14. Any statistical analyses should include the involvement and sign off by professional statisticians.
15. Forecasts should comply with the acceptable industry standards.
There that should be good start.
Next would be an assessment of the matters identified by Berkowitz in the WSJ. You have the reference.
As a self employed person I have done this in my own time.
No doubt you and your mates will go back to skiving on the tax payers shilling.
luke; thanks for that link to Unleashed and further evidence of the need to abolish our abc; I see that Annan has posted; I took the opportunity of directing him to my top 10 worst pro-AGW papers where his legendary windshear paper features;
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/author/cohenite/
Oops, that’s Casper Ammann not James Annan; my mistake; I’m sure he’ll understand.
Malcolm,
can you please provide a link to “…the interview that Kerry O’Brien (of your ABC) did with Rajendra Pachauri where he made the same dishonest claims that all the Assessments by the IPCC had ONLY used peer reviewed material.”
Cheers
then follow this thread if your are serious.
http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2010/03/01/global-average-temperature-increase-giss-hadcru-and-ncdc-compared/
Peterd,
http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2009/s2700047.htm
Here it is
No wonder the Luke gang- and all their many parasitic pals embedded in various soft jobs- are had waving so hard about AGW.
It beats working.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/global_sea_ice_oi_hadisst11.jpg
Don’t believe you lying eyes. Believe those bureaucrats, instead. After all, bureaucrats and their friends never make mistakes, do they?
John S,
So Bart thinks thinks the AGW signal goes back to, and has controlled, temps for ~130 years.
What a devastating admission.
Thanks for sharing that.
I am not certain of what VS is saying, but I am certain that AGW promoters, from the relatively well behaved Bart to our own little gang of wannabes, have bought into the biggest social mania since eugenics.
more proof of AGW
Drought Expands in China Despite Rain
Associated Press — March 29, 2010
http://www.soyatech.com/news_story.php?id=17844
Rainfall in southern China provided little respite for millions of residents suffering from the worst drought in a century, a local official said Monday.
This follows directly on the heels of the development of the coal-powered steam engine.
http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blsteamengine.htm
There you go! We can rest assured that Luke will accept this as obvious proof of AGW.
‘BEIJING, March 28 (Xinhua) — Meteorologists have attributed the once-in-a-century drought parching southwest China to climate change.’
Ahh, yeah. If they mean global warming then they are mistaken, it’s global cooling.
El Gordo,
Maybe it’s time to start a new petition: people willing to sign onto the notion that climate does not change.
Seriously, the AGWers are making a big deal about ‘climate change deniers’ and it’s time for the deniers to stand up and be counted.
If it didn’t change, they wouldn’t call it ‘climate’, but what the heck, there’s gotta be some minuscule portion out there that thinks everything is always the same.
Malcolm, yes indeed. That’s the same transcript I saw. However, what it says is different from what you claim. What you claimed was: “I well remember the interview the interview that Kerry O’Brien (of your ABC) did with Rajendra Pachauri where he made the same dishonest claims that all the Assessments by the IPCC had ONLY used peer reviewed material.”
What Pachauri says in the interview transcript is this: “Every stage of the drafting of our report is peer reviewed, and whatever comments we get from the peer review process are posted on the website of the IPCC, and the reasons why we accept or reject those comments are clearly specified.”
So, he’s talking about the IPCC’s reports themselves (and specifically the 4AR) being peer-reviewed. That’s not quite the same thing, is it Malcolm?
IPCC peer reviewed; yeah right, peer reviewed by who?
http://www.heartland.org/full/26856/More_Dodgy_Citations_in_the_NobelWinning_IPCC_Report.html
http://www.google.com/search?as_q=wwf+ar4&as_sitesearch=www.ipcc.ch
Try and keep the issues separate, cohenite. You’re confusing them. Pachauri was talking about the reports themselves. Malcolm (erroneously) asserted Pachauri had said that the IPCC had ONLY used peer-reviewed material. Two separate issues.
There is only one issue and that is the standard of material in the IPCC reports; Pachauri and other IPCC supporters promote the peer review standard for the IPCC content; that is not right.
Gavin Schmidt has gained an unpalatable reputation in some circles, but his admission that the Maunder Minimum was real had me wondering about the mechanisms involved.
A less active sun means fewer uv rays striking earth and decreasing ozone in the stratosphere. “A change in the stratosphere gave a change in the NAO”, said Schmidt, and the NAO shifted into an extended negative phase.
It makes sense.
Yes you may be right peterd ..but thats not the way it came across on the day, in a room full of people, who heard it the same way I did.
I guess it also depends upon whether one now reads Peer Review is an adjective or a noun.
You may also notice that nowhere in the I/V did Pachauri specifically mention grey literature or anything like it, even though the material is radically different…. that only came out long after this interview.
We all know the grey literature could not be classified as having been Peer Reviewed in the same way that the science process is conducted..so lets not get too coy about it..in fact its a b/s argument to say otherwise…because if the standards of Peer Review were applied to the bulk of the material from the NGO’s it would have been rejected outright.
I reckon its a fair call.
” Well, fortunately, look at the process by which the IPCC functions. We mobilise the best scientists from all over the world.” …..
The above is the context under which we all heard what Pachauri was on about
cohenite: I find myself less and less interested in what you have to say. However, the link to the Laframbroise article led to some interesting material, so thanks for that.
Malcolm, the issue of the IPCC’s use of “grey”, or non-peer-reviewed material, is covered in its own procedures:
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/IPCC%20Procedures.pdf
“The authors will work on the basis of peer(-) reviewed and internationally available literature,
including manuscripts that can be made available for IPCC review and selected non-peer reviewed
literature. Source, quality and validity of non-peer reviewed literature, such as private sector information
need to be critically assessed by the authors and copies will have to be made available to reviewers who request them.”
If you think Pachauri should have talked about this in the interview, then perhaps you should take it up with Kerry O’Brien.
How to use non-peer reviewed literature? Should a Keynote lecture from a conference, apparently not published in the primary literature, be cited as source for climate-change claims, as happened in AR4, Chapter 10, and pointed out by, e.g., Laframboise? (The citation in question is to “Bhadra, 2002”.) I would say, “Yes”, provided that the lecture in question summarises the accepted science adequately. Whether it does or not is not a question that you or I are likely to be able to answer easily. Keynote lectures are usually given by recognised experts in the field in question. (Non-experts are not usually invited to give Keynotes.) I looked on the net and cannot find the Bhadra lecture in question, only citations or references to it. So, we cannot know how good it is, unless we get hold of a copy of it, somehow (write to the author?). However, I would say that I myself, writing a review article, could easily cite a conference paper. And, indeed, I notice that I have done just this on accasion, in review papers I have written (the last time was for Physica Scripta). If the author is the author of other solid papers in the field, i.e., is an established scientific “presence”, and I know the contents of the conference article, and it “fits” with the field as a whole, then there seems to me nothing wrong with using such material to support one’s arguments.
But whether it’s good or not is only likely to be decided by critical assessment by the experts in the field.
Still, for all this, I would not myself be hurrying to use reports by the WWF to support my claims. 😉
Cheers
P.S. I should add that I acknowledge Brian Schmidt for his post #14 here:
http://scienceblogs.com/islandofdoubt/2010/01/forget_climategate_heres_a_rea.php
I’m devastated pete that you’re less interested in what I have to say; being an optimist I’ll assume its because I’ve made my case; the IPCC reports, AR4 especially, have always seemed to me to be utter travesties; chp 3 is typical, awash with grotesgue estimates of certainty and uncertainty. The basic , irredeemable flaw of this dumb document is the hockeystick, the ghost in the machine, tainting the whole ediface. I eagerly await the spill from the B&R paper and the application of cointegration technigues to the phony correlation between CO2 and temperature so that AR4 assumes its proper place and role as land fill.
If that is the case then both Pachauri and O’Brien were very sloppy.
One could excuse O’Brien for not asking, but not Pachauri for being misleading when he was in a position to know better.
You will also note that the IPCC documents which you have cited, they themselves do not use the words peer review in the context of assessing non peer reviewed literature..in fact they appear to be at pains to make sure there is a distinction..a distinction which Pachauri did not even attempt to make in his i/v.
So Pachauri was either being manipulative and treating his audience like idiots, or he was not across a major policy element of his own business.
Either way he is not fit for the job.
Chiefio is looking at Central European temperatures going back to the 1700’s and there’s not a hockey stick in sight.
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/
Well Malcolm I did enjoy your list – that pretty well bars all the mainstream sceptics from ever being able to meet your “standards”
But I was curious about “Well Lukey Desk that IS my name…and yours is?
Don’t bother…. we already know the answer and the reason why.”
You see I’d like to know what you mean by that actually. What’s the “reason” – tell us ….
And there goes cohenite muttering about “B&R”, like a drug addict looking for his next fix. First he tried G&T but that wasn’t strong enough. Then McL,C&deF… then…but who cares? Each new fix has to be stronger than the one before.
I suppose I could ask what exactly he means by the “grotesgue estimates of certainty and uncertainty” in AR4 (Ch3), or what “the ghost in the machine” (Gilbert Ryle’s term, a propos of Descartes) has to do with any of this, but what would be the point? That would be assigning more importance to cohenite’s utterances than would be their due. Why interrupt his salivations over B&R?
But never mind: I’ll take my own hit of anti-B&R from the likes of the Rabett and Tamino.
Malcolm: I still don’t follow what you’re on about. The authors of the chapters are supposed to review the peer-reviewed (and non-peer reviewed) material (as the doc says). The individual chapter authors’ output is then supposed to be itself peer-reviewed, as Pachauri said. Where’s the deception in this?
The ghost in the machine, pete, is the primitive; intelligence, of the higher kind, is an act of reason which can be mitigated by the primitive vestiges of the evolutionary antecedents; th id, as Morbius discovered to his chagrin can and still does dominate the higher intelligence; relevance to AGW; AGW is a primitive concept; couched in biblical terms of lost Eden and misapplied forbidden fruits of knowledge and technology; it gains currency through fear, paranoia and tribalism, all exemplary manifestations of primitive psychology. The Hockeystick is the emblem of the lost Eden when nature dominated and life was just great until the dirty engines of technology and fossil fuel led us astray. Allegiance to this primitive mentality creates all sorts of defensive reactions; your snide is at the lower end of the hostility which bubbles to the surface when religious belief [and the psychology of the amygdala is inherently religious] is confronted with the intelligence of the higher, more evolved brain such is displayed in acts of scepticism. In effect the devotee of AGW is like an addict and craves reinforcement rather than enlightenment, confirmation rather than uncertainty and acceptance rather than individuality. Genuflect away pete.
With solar activity remaining low we can predict a negative AO in the month ahead and a cool spring in Europe..
http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/daily_ao_index/ao_index.html
Dang, Cohenite, can I quote you? That’s a brilliant encapsulation of their creed.
Meanwhile, what Pete is trying to say is that the IPCC can cite any source whatsoever, with perfect authority. Anything that makes its way into an IPCC report becomes de facto ‘peer reviewed’.
They reviewed it, and in the course thereof, it becomes blessed.
‘Earth Hour’ Scandal!
Helpless Feline Erupts in Flames!
Split Emerges Between Animal Rights Activists, Environmentalists!
Shock Horror as Kitten Embroiled in Global Warming Fiasco!
http://www.upi.com/Odd_News/2010/03/30/Cat-sets-fire-to-itself-during-Earth-Hour/UPI-75261269969857/
“Rather than use an electric fan to clear the smell of burned fur, the couple said they opened windows until the hourlong Earth Hour observance ended.”
” Meanwhile, what Pete is trying to say is that the IPCC can cite any source whatsoever, with perfect authority. Anything that makes its way into an IPCC report becomes de facto ‘peer reviewed’.
They reviewed it, and in the course thereof, it becomes blessed.”
Precisely Schiller… precisely.
No amount of subterfuge and word twisting by an army of shonkademics can turn what is basically marketing material from a variety of NGO’s into the status of, and be passed off as, peer reviewed science…but Pachauri, the IPCC and peterd seem to think that it is quite OK.
Bolt has an excellent column at his blog on the earth hour farce, especially on the seemers rather than the doers among the hysterics.
Interesting facts from the Mongabay site and their numerous graphs etc on the official IEA and EIA numbers for the world by 2030.
At present China’s coal consumption ( Quadrillion Btu ) of 100 Qu BTU will increase to over 140 Qu BTU by 2030 more than the rest of the world combined.
Although it’s line ball at the moment with China just about equalling the rest of the world’s total consumption.
GEEEZZ I think the Luke and Petard numbskulls should muster a standing army of 15 or 20 million men to invade China seeing how the FACTS show this is where the action really is over the next 20+ years.
I mean the first world could literally abandon carbon and live in caves and 90% of the co2 increase would still happen by 2030.
Let’s write a “Carbon Facts For Dummies” because it’s definitely required by the cowardly dummies on this blog.
Neville
Haven’t read what the Bolter has been saying about the ‘earth hour farce’, but at least North Korea was in the green tent.
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/new-and-cool
Good one El Gordo, I did write a note above to the luke wimp suggesting he should move to the perfect totalitarian paradise of Nth Korea, because with his like minded views it should suit him nicely.
I mean if you’re leftwing and brainless ( like luke)why wouldn’t you move there.
I concur with Schiller, well said cohenite.
That is why all the AGWers just keep coming, no matter what the evidence or lack there of in their case shows. No reasoning, no cost /benefit, no good points. Only our ugly sins against Gaia that we must be held to account for.
However, in case anyone has not seen the Scifi classic ” The forbiden Planet” I fully recommend it . Even if the only benefit is that we will all understand what the ‘”id”is.
Not to be confussed with idiot .
We all already know thats Luke !
Scotland and Ireland are experiencing a backward Spring, with flooding rain and snow at higher elevations. The warmists will tell you its just weather, but come this NH summer they will show their climate card.
A small firm of forecasters from Wales, called positive Weather Solutions’ have predicted a BBQ summer and I believe them. They say ‘average temperatues in June, July and August will beat even those of the 1976 heatwave when stand pipes and drought became a feature of daily life.’
This extreme weather pattern is symptomatic of global cooling, but I don’t expect anyone will notice.
Well Neville’s little “totalitarian Korean” rant well shows the striking correlation between denialist turds and rednecks. Gee Neville wouldn’t it be such fun to all live in North Korea with no lights – mmm mmmmmmm – sooooo delightful. Yes Neville as soon as we get world government installed that’s what we’ll do. You’re so perceptive.
Still waiting on Malcolm’s analysis ….
yawn ….
I’m still waiting for shonkademia to produce an ethical and rational justification for the existence of this sort of material in the IPCC.
http://nofrakkingconsensus.blogspot.com/2010/01/more-dodgy-citations-in-nobel-winning.html
What ever Mclean et al may have done of not done, it pales into complete insignficance when put up against the fraud committed in the name of so called peer review by the inclusion of NGO marketing material.
As for the Lewandowsky piece on the leftist ABC ..not a pretty site seeing academics behaving like a bunch of vipers whilst ignoring the extensive range of dodgy NGO citations that should not have been anywhere near the IPCC. In fact its hypocrisy to do so.
..but then anything goes in this game doesnt it.
YAWN indeed
Neville and El Gordo,
The Luke types are hoping they will be huddled under the lights, so as to better afix their lips to the proper rears, and to keep their gullets well stuffed.
And of course it is always good to recall that IPCC reviewers are not without conscience, and do notice what is up with fear mongering:
The Triumph of Doublespeak – How the IPCC Fools Most of the People All of the Time:
http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=483&Itemid=1
When the welfare of the planet is thought to be at stake, telling lies on its behalf becomes “moral courage”.
But somehow demanding truth is not moral courage… What is wrong with this picture?
ooooo – Malcolm is mock outraged with all the usual rants of fraud. Oh pullease. 99% of the documents stand. They’ll try to get it 101% correct for you next time. Shed a few more crocodile tears mate.
I see the inquiry has found Jones not guilty – yawn …. next time be more helpful to McIntyre and Hughesy.
What we have a are simply a bunch of bad and rabid denialists ranting, quote mining, recycling and scraping everything they can find.
Of course Earth Hour is symbolic nonsense. Of course there are imperfections in any huge international report. Of course they could do better. But does it materially alter the main conclusions – NO !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
After all the cat fighting and eye gouging – the dust settles and it’s still there boys !!!!
HOWEVER – a complete dodgy sceptic paper comprehensively rebutted into the stone age by their own in GRL – and not even a tut tut. Your standards gents ….
Anyway – I’m still waiting on Malcolm to explain the …
“Well Lukey Desk that IS my name…and yours is?
Don’t bother…. we already know the answer and the reason why.”
You see I’d like to know what you mean by that actually. What’s the “reason” – tell us ….
Given you’re our resident defender of truth and moral virtue – go on – proffer the opinion ….
BTW Luke Desk..you thought you were being a smart arse by saying that my list of desired improvements to the way the AR5 might hopefully be conducted, would in your words,
” pretty well bars all the mainstream sceptics from ever being able to meet your “standards”
But you are obviously too thick to comprehend that it would also mean that much of the so called mainstream warmanistas material would be put were in belongs..in the dust bin.
No more being able to pull figures out of their collective bums and pronounce that we are 90% confident based upon nothing more than a whim. No decent statistician would allow that to survive without solid justfication according to best pratice standards
No more word twisting and misleading spin over what constitutes a projection as against a prediction.
As the man said forecasting by scientists is not the same as scientific forecasting.
Also stricter controls over what NGO material was admissable would eliminate most of it.
Etc …
The reason why has been self evident for years and there is no need for anyone to explain and expand …so keep on playing your silly little games… it just proves the point.
Good to see the artic misbehaving and returning more ice from all the monitoring centres, somehow gore’s prediction of an ice free artic in a couple of years looks like a real bummer. (as usual)
I think their abc made similar claims in a 4 corners skit a while back as well. Of course any goose knows that the artic was warmer from 1920 to 1940 than present, but gee that’s real observation like the present additional ice measurement so who believes that anyhow?
You know the left idiot mindset, if it’s real it must be wrong, like the projection of co2 emissions by the developing world by 2030, IT’s TOO HARD so let’s ignore it.
Anyhow WUWT has a good summary on the artic ice, interesting stuff.
Sorry arctic ice above not artic, done in a hurry.
“I see the inquiry has found Jones not guilty”
Well Luke, so the whitewash has begun as predicted. With an election coming up and billions committed in mindless AGW mitigation policies did we ever expect any different?
If you wanted a conspiracy script for the prevention of honest debate on AGW, you couldn’t really go past climategate but guess what? The [warming political] judges have spoken.
Nothing to see here!
Especially if you ignore the evidence. And this is only a tiny part of it.
http://sites.google.com/site/rossmckitrick/gatekeeping.pdf?attredirects=0
But what’s the bet that the rest of the inquiries will follow suit?
A little more evidence here:
http://climateaudit.org/2010/03/31/tricking-the-committee/
CBS story on it:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/03/30/tech/main6347584.shtml
Ludwig Wittgenstein famously described philosophy as a ‘word game’. Both the German and English languages are remarkably useful for hiding and confusing meaning. From Steve McIntyre’s comments at Climate Audit, and Vincent Gray’s from New Zealand (Hunter’s post), it seems that ‘climate science’ is a ‘word game’, with the IPCC dodging and twisting behind a verbal smokescreen. Luke’s abusive shenanigans strengthen the impression.
I propose that all climate papers should be written in French, which is possibly more precise than English, or in Latin, or even in one of the Bantu languages, which are even less ambiguous.
An old African villager once told me that Africans have curly hair, but inside the brains are straight. Europeans have straight hair, but inside – well, who knows? I am thinking of the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis. Despite claims that it has been discredited, I think there may be an invisible elephant or two roaming in that jungle.
Besides, compulsory publication in a less devious language than English might make ‘climate science’ less attractive to the less gifted mortals. Computers aren’t good at translation.
Talking of language, over at Deltoid it seems I’m a ‘concern troll’. John posted this explanation of my behavior…
A concern troll is a false flag pseudonym created by a user whose actual point of view is opposed to the one that the user’s sockpuppet claims to hold. The concern troll posts in web forums devoted to its declared point of view and attempts to sway the group’s actions or opinions while claiming to share their goals, but with professed “concerns”. The goal is to sow fear, uncertainty and doubt within the group.
All I said was that a secret service was probably involved in the CRU hack and that we will never find the guilty party. It’s no concern of mine.
I love Deltoid; to appreciate the human condition one should not be sanguine; one can never visit Deltoid and be relaxed; I always find after a soiree there that my appreciation of the human condition is greatly enhanced.
AGW is just part of a larger social trend.
Western culture now rewards bad behavior. Luke’s ‘cyber-bullying’ is just another part of the ‘hockey-stick’ phenomenon. Climatology as who can tell the most convincing lie.
http://www.ubertrends.com/casual-living-ubertrend/
The essential element of a good hoax is that it’s believable.
Thus, it should be no surprise to see media around the world reporting “Global Warming Activist Freezes to Death in Antarctica“. Makes absolute sense, as warmers are more involved in babble than practicality and put more faith in models than in measurements.
http://www.newshounds.us/2010/03/30/fox_nation_still_running_phony_story_about_global_warming_activist_freezing_to_death.php
http://www.ecoenquirer.com/south-pole-tragedy.htm
Great to see Bolt quoting Lovelock ( gaia man ) in his latest interview with the UK Guardian newspaper.
I’ve just read the full interview and he makes a lot of sense, particularly his ideas of spending money on adaptation to the problems of CC and not wasting it on the MOONSHINE of carbon trading.
He thinks a lot of young scientists are fraudsters but has a lot of respect for sceptics like Garth Paltridge ( climate capers) and Nigel Lawson.
Some of his quotes—
dump a trillion tonnes of co2 into the atmosphere and it may take 1000 years to kick in because of some other variables.
the climate centres are scared stiff and are well aware how WEAK the science is.
they don’t know what clouds and aerosols are doing, THEY COULD BE RUNNING THE SHOW.
we haven’t got the physics worked out yet.
one of the chiefs said we should be including biology, but it would take another 5 years before they could.
Great interview and a shot in the arm for real sceptics.
Schiller – you mean your cyber-libelling.
Malcolm (whoever you are?) – so you’re not prepared to advance your argument or defend your point? About what I thought – weak as water.
No whitewash Slanglers – the problem for drongos self admitted, is that Jones has been uncooperative and ornery for sure – but there is no corruption. No fraud. The data and results stand. NOTHING to see.
And you are so utterly piss weak and hypocritical that you’ll let the Mclean paper debacle pass without comment. (quick look away and pretend it’s not happening). I betcha Cohers is distancing himself big-time from these guys. Why would you knock around with them?
Not prepared to comment on the disgraceful “yet another GATE” fabrications exposed by Deltoid and others.
aka you guys are utterly of it. Bulldusters, shonks and political activists. It’s you that want to turn us back to the dark ages – except you’ll be burning your alleged witches with coal.
Wank on Neville – tug tug – the rate of climate science continues unabated – impervious to the sludge that masquerades for science on “blogs”. Pfffttt ! Lovelock as “source” – ROTFL – do go on…. and what a huge massive hypocritical anomaly that Bolt would even quote Lovelock – gawd ! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
But let’s see what Lovelock says elsewhere ….
“Lovelock places great emphasis on proof. The climate change projections by the Meteorological Office’s Hadley Centre — a key contributor to the IPCC consensus — should be taken seriously, he said. But he is concerned that the projections are relying on computer models based primarily on atmospheric physics, because models of that kind have let us down before. Similar models, for example, failed to detect the hole in the ozone layer;
it was eventually found by Joe Farman using a spectrometer.
How, asks Lovelock, can we predict the climate 40 years ahead when there is so much that we don’t know? Surely we should base any assumptions on things we can measure, such as a rise in sea levels. After all, surface temperatures go up and down, but the rise in sea levels reflects both melting ice and thermal expansion. The IPCC, he feels, underestimates the extent to which sea levels are rising.
Do mankind’s emissions matter? Yes, they undoubtedly do.
No one should be complacent about the fact that within the next 20 years we’ll have added nearly a trillion tons of carbon to the atmosphere since the industrial revolution. When a geological accident produced a similar carbon rise 55m years ago, it turned up the heat more than 5C. And now? Well, the effect of man-made carbon is unpredictable. Temperatures might go down at first, rather than up, he warns.
How should we be spending our money to prevent possible disaster? In Britain, says Lovelock, we need sea walls and more nuclear power. Heretical stuff, when you consider the vast amount that Europe plans to spend on wind turbines.
“What would you bet will happen this century?” a mathematician asked him. Lovelock predicted a temperature rise in the middle range of current projections — about 1C-2C — which we could live with. Ah, but hadn’t he also said there was a chance that temperature rises could threaten human civilisation within the lifetime of our grandchildren?
He had. In the end, his message was that we should have more respect for uncertainties and learn to live with possibilities rather than striving for the 95% probabilities that climate scientists have been trying to provide. We don’t know what’s going to happen and we don’t know if we can avert disaster — although we should try. His sage advice: enjoy life while you can.”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article7061020.ece
I’ve always said that most of these coral atol paradises suffer from a deckspace, not freeboard, problem but they usually have enough ballast to prevent capsize.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/01/congressional-tipping-point-not-an-april-fools-joke/#more-18094
“…… When he started looking at regional effects, Mitrovica recalls, some climate-change deniers were noting that sea-level rise was happening at different rates in different regions, arguing that this proved there was no global trend, and thus no global warming. That was already a bogus argument, but now that he and others have begun investigating the gorilla in the living room, it’s even more absurd. The science is so straightforward, he says, that “if you saw that sea level was rising uniformly around the world, it would be proof that the big ice sheets are not melting.”
hmmmmm – oh spangly poos ….
http://www.e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2255
Luke still clutching at straws, that interview was on 14-3-10, the Guardian interview was on 29-3-10 so perhaps he just got sick of all the bs and decided to tell a bit more of the truth.
The most important point he made is the only sensible, factual point that we must tackle severe CC by adapting to it.
Therefore use nuclear power if we must because as he says wind is just more expensive BS and if you have to build barriers to SLR ( like the Dutch) then you do that as well.
Like it or not the developing world will be using coal and other fossil fueled energy for many decades to come and will account for 90% of the rise.
Besides a completely new clean energy source that could be used world wide there is nothing we can do.
The fastest growing biomass is algae, perhaps one day that may be used to produce some of our energy, the Smorgan family have bio reactors using algae in the latrobe valley to test the process using co2 from one of the power stations as a growth promoter.
Their bio reactors are licensed by NASA and do work, but will it ultimately make a difference and supply some of our energy, who knows.
Ludwig – er – Luke,
Please supply, by noon tomorrow (Good Friday), some Fortran code which tests, in grand Popperian style, the hypothesis that God exists, and will exist in 50 years time. Please arrive at a conclusion, suitably qualified with the probability of a Type I error.
If you can do this, then I will believe that Fortran models can be used to test the hypothesis that significant AGW exists, and will exist 50 years ahead. If you can’t, I will dob you in to Jim Lovelock. Not that he would be much interested. By the way, he is a good cook, and deep freezes garlic, then hits it with a hammer, so saving on chopping. Now that’s useful science for you…
P.S. I will be extra impressed if you can do this in French, or Latin, or SeZulu.
Luke
“If the polar ice sheets shrink, though — as they’re currently doing, especially in Grenland and West Antarctica — their gravitational pull weakens and so does their hold on the surrounding water. About a year ago, Jerry Mitrovica, a geophysicist who teaches an entire course on sea level at Harvard, co-authored a paper in Science that laid out what would likely happen if the West Antarctic ice sheet, the smaller of the two sheets that cover the Antarctic continent, were to melt. (Like a complete shutdown of the Gulf Stream, this is not considered likely anytime soon. But recent satellite measurements have shown that glaciers that drain the ice sheet have begun moving faster toward the sea).
If you simply spread the resulting increase in sea level evenly around the world, it would amount to about 5 meters’ worth. But the ice sheet’s gravity is currently keeping sea level artificially low in the Northern Hemisphere, so if it disappeared, the actual increase along the U.S. mid-Atlantic coast would be more like 6.3 meters.”
If these ice sheets north and south shrink equally how is that going to specifically affect the mid-Atlantic US coast by an extra 25% more than anywhere else?
This guy is a professional alarmist no doubt extracting from his B/S fed machine his own B/S biased assumptions.
As I have bored you with before, my own benchmatk has actually fallen 20 cms in the last 47 years [possibly from reducing trade-wind strengths onto our east coast although the East Aust Current has not been reported to have reduced in strength] and if you read what this story says about geoid earth you must realise that the chances of getting good satellite SL measurements are not good.
Even with multiple fixes, satellites can be very, very wrong and when you have only one and it’s being fed through a computer statistical program please excuse me if I don’t genuflect.
No doubt you read about the recent court finding of that NSW yacht that ran up on the rocks with people killed. Well they were watching what the satellites were telling them instead of keeping a lookout.
Remind you of anyone?
Don’t always believe what satellites tell you. Even when there are multiples of them giving you a cross-fix.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/02/25/2830316.htm
I was helming a yacht in a Brisbane-Gladstone race one night and after rounding Double Island Pt the nav said, “we’re clear of all obstacles, you can rhumb-line for Indian Head.”
I replied, “oh yeah, wot’s that white stuff up ahead then?”
“Gawd” he said “the GPS said we were clear of that bloody [Wolf] rock.”
Most of these problems are due to the fact that the earth is a geoid, pear shaped, flat spotted etc and you gotta be a bit sceptical when they reckon it’s being accurately measured by satellites.
I tend to believe more in Nils Axel Morner.
Green Davey, Jack Vance, the great S-F writer, wrote a book incorporating the Sapir-Whorf idea, called The Languages of Pao; we may be seeing, despite its discreditation, SW make a comeback in AGW; certainly AGW is positing a different reality and I think the verification would be done and dusted with an Islamist strain of AGW.
What a waste of electrons this bog has become
What a sham/e
No wonder Jennifer doesn’t bother any more.
Self opinionated nitwits
Amazing news… Greenpeace has ‘discovered’ that Koch Industries is a ‘top funder of climate change deniers’. Astounding. A list of recipients is here:
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2010/04/02/18643626.php
Let’s pretend, just for fun, that all of the money was specifically earmarked for denying climate change. The total involved: US$48 million.
Compare that to the US$80 billion spent on the warmists.
Frightening?
Of course. You see, money from Koch Industries is like CO2. It’s only a small part of all the global warming money out there, but it has a Dramatic Forcing Feedback Effect that is Massive In Its Power and Totally Overwhelms Other Money.
Does it get worse? Yes. You see, the warmists actually believe that drivel.
I wonder if they handed the money over using their Greenpeace debit card 🙂
http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/debitcard
or on the other hand maybe Greenpeace is trying to draw people’s attention away from their OWN DONATION SCAM!!
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10634412
Green Davey – well mate you may have spent your career in unquantifiable eco-wankery and other soft systems drivel but why don’t you do some hard science write a critique that dismisses the entire knowledge of atmospheric radiative physics, the PETM event, the fact that the MWP was a tad dry in inconvenient places, that mankind is currently ill-adapted to climatic variation, and that supplying 9 billion humans with enough food and freshwater might be a challenge.
Spangles bum – we’ve been over your cherry-picked jetty before. You don’t learn do you you big dope. If someone can’t read a GPS what does that have to do with the price of eggs? Nuttin ….
Oh yes – exactly what you’d expect to find when you clean out the pipes ! Schiller are you on the payroll perchance – just asking?
Look at the denialist filth here trying to bluff their way out ! Too bad it’s in the open now boyos – only right wing extremist nitwits can’t see through the war on science campaign.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/mar/30/us-oil-donated-millions-climate-sceptics
BULLSHIT-GATE !
“Koch industries is playing a quiet but dominant role in the global warming debate. This private, out-of-sight corporation has become a financial kingpin of climate science denial and clean energy opposition. On repeated occasions organisations funded by Koch foundations have led the assault on climate science and scientists, ‘green jobs’, renewable energy and climate policy progress,” it says.
The groups include many of the best-known conservative thinktanks in the US, like Americans for Prosperity, the Heritage Foundation, the Cato institute, the Manhattan Institute and the Foundation for research on economics and the environment. All have been involved in “spinning” the “climategate” story or are at the forefront of the anti-global warming debate, says Greenpeace.
Koch Industries is a $100bn-a-year conglomerate dominated by petroleum and chemical interests, with operations in nearly 60 countries and 70,000 employees. It owns refineries which process more than 800,000 barrels of crude oil a day in the US, as well as a refinery in Holland. It has held leases on the heavily polluting tar-sand fields of Alberta, Canada and has interests in coal, oil exploration, chemicals, forestry, and pipelines.
The majority of the group’s assets are owned and controlled by Charles and David Koch, two of the four sons of the company’s founder. They have been identified by Forbes magazine as the joint ninth richest Americans and the 19th richest men in the world, each worth between $14-16bn.
Koch has also contributed money to politicians, the report said, listing 17 Republicans and four Democrats whose campaign funds got more than $10,000from the company.
Greenpeace accuses the Koch companies of having a notorious environmental record. In 2000 the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) fined Koch industries $30m for its role in 300 oil spills that resulted in more than 3m gallons of crude oil leaking intro ponds, lakes and coastal waters.”
John,
Ya gotta realise that the Greenpeace crash and burn sustainability industry costs money.
Ady Gills cost a couple of mil a throw. And then there’s all those other crash repair bills.
Greenpeace would have created exponentially more ACO2 than they’ve ever prevented as well as pollute the wilderness.
Especially when they deliberately wreck and abandon expensive carbon boats.
Of course if it stops a bunch of commies installing world government and turning off all the lights maybe the end justifies the means….
If someone can’t read a GPS what does that have to do with the price of eggs?”
Luke,
Not too with it this morning? Big night last night?
It’s not about how you read a GPS, it’s what it’s TELLING you!
And it’s telling you errors of up to 100 metres [occasionally] with multiple cross references.
So when you are recieving info from only one satellite instead of multiple satellites, how are those one millimetre per year etc SLRs totally believable?
Yeah – the Andy Gils would have been an insurance scam because the vessel was useless for anything else plus Greenpeace has to keep up the activity to draw in their team of volunteers.
Being an active Greenpeace member is a sure way of completing your PhD in environmental studies and gaining access to the lucrative environment jobs in big companies like Koch Industries, Exxon Mobil, BHP Billiton, RioTinto etc – do the names Harry Butler or Major Les Hiddins (Bush Tuckerman) ring a bell 🙂
So Kosh donated $13,000 to Senator Inolfe – wow – how about the AUD$205,626 salary and benefits Greenpeace paid it’s International Executive Director or the $125.000 pa salaries paid to the other 6 senior directors.
Spangly – why don’t you write us a little sub-post on how the satellite SLR work is incorrect – just a technical critique of their actual methods instead of a hazy slur. Alternatively you do a GPS course – LOL !
Anyway I hear all the denialists are now joining the Tea Party ?
Luke,
Since you have failed to supply, by noon on Good Friday, Fortran code testing the God hypothesis, I appoint you to the rank of pseudo-scientist (3rd Class). As such, you will be in suitable company amongst the ‘climate experts’ of the popular press, and some parts of the political spectrum. Jim Lovelock says that you don’t even understand why garlic shatters when it is frozen.
The true believer, when confronted with evidence that their chosen belief is false, frequently blames the skeptics who pointed the falseness of the belief.
By confabulating grand conspiracies behind the exposure of AGW promoters, true believers are able to cling to their pseudo-religion.
There is a name for this, ‘True Believer Syndrome’
http://www.skepdic.com/truebeliever.html
Here is great quote:
“Yet, this type of self-deception need not involve lying to oneself. To lie to oneself would require admission that one believes what one knows is false. This does not seem logically possible. One can’t believe or disbelieve what one knows. (Belief is distinct from belief in, which is a matter of trust rather than belief.) Belief and disbelief entail the possibility of error; knowledge implies that error is beyond reasonable probability. I may have overwhelming evidence that a “psychic” is a phony, yet still believe that paranormal events occur. I may be deceiving myself in such a case, but I don’t think it is correct to say I am lying to myself.”
That shoe fits AGW true believers perfectly.
Have a nice walk, Luke, I ordered enough pairs for your whole gang.
Hunter,
I think Narcissistic Personality Disorder fits better:
NPD is a type of psychological personality disorder characterized primarily by grandiosity, need for admiration, and lack of empathy. Narcissism occurs in a spectrum of severity, but the pathologically narcissistic tend to be extremely self-absorbed, intolerant of others’ perspectives, insensitive to others’ needs and indifferent to the effect of their own egocentric behavior.
It is not uncommon for persons with this disorder to frequently compare themselves to the accomplished, well-known and well-to-do. They feel entitled to great praise, attention, and deferential treatment by others. Those with NPD crave the limelight and are quick to abandon situations in which they are not the center of attention. Defects of empathy may cause narcissists to misperceive other people’s speech and actions, causing them to believe that they are well-liked and respected despite a history of negative personal interactions.
Interesting reading an article in Nature about the coral record of GBR from the Burdekin river over the last 250 years.
The team says the correlation is excellent for the the known record for flooding in this area.
The interesting fact is there wasn’t a major flood in the Burdekin until 1870 or more than 80 years after settlement of Australia.
In the last century there has been at least 10 major floods ( probably more ) the last one occuring in 1991. ( perhaps the last few months has added another major flood )
But that drought for 69 years from 1801 ( minor flood year ) to 1870 hasn’t been repeated since, so just another nail in the coffin of co2 induced drought.
Remember luke reckons that the massive increase of 20ppm of co2 ( by say 1930) played a part in the 1940’s drought, a forcing of 0.1C.
Got a link for that paper Neville?
Clearly Luke is both a true believer and narcissistic but he is also a liar and a hypocrite. His constant claims of “nothing to see here” WRT climategate are possibly self delusion, but more likely a rejection of truths that weaken his case. He has presented himself as inherently dishonest and amoral, valuing winning an argument by distortions, blatant cherry picking and vulgarity rather than a quest for the truth of a matter.
Schiller hit the nail resoundingly on the head labeling the luke as narcissistic. Luke’s primary purpose in blogging here seems to be to keep everyone’s attention on him and in this he has been very successful.
The fact that he has never shown any intention of answering any of our questions with anything other than condescension and abuse, demonstrates that he is not here for open and honest debate but purely to hijack and disrupt constructive and amicable discourse.
Some here find him amusing, sort of like a pet monkey or a boy going through the awkwardness of puberty but I think he is a twit.
Cohenite I’m sorry but I’m hopeless on a computer to put it mildly, but try this
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v421/n6924/fig_tab/nature01361_F2.html#figure-title
spangled drongo
I read the piece Luke pointed to, and lets assume everything is as stated, with gravity directing
troughs and hills so to speak in the sea level.
But the fact, at least as I can see is, that not all the melt water will be distributed to the higher gravitational areas only.
Surely, just as today, the level will be higher everywhere, even if proportionally, don’t you think?
Happy Easter everyone!
“Spangly – why don’t you write us a little sub-post on how the satellite SLR work is incorrect – just a technical critique of their actual methods instead of a hazy slur. Alternatively you could a GPS course – LOL!”
Luke, when sat-nav first kicked off it was accurate to within one minute of arc [one nautical mile] but it was still a great boon to sailors as long as you allowed for the discrepancy and then later as a Global Positioning System it became a lot more accurate [particularly the military version] and it became capable of measuring your speed over the ground [not over the water, you still had to asses the speed of the tide or current you were in and add or subtract that]. IOW it contains some sort averaging calculation but the fix is being ascertained by probably 7 satellites on your side of the globe that are above the horizon. This is very accurate and your GPS tells you it is calculating your pos to within a certain distance [10 to 20 feet etc. but occasionally much further].
However this averaging calculation is only peanuts compared to the averaging calculation that must be going on in the latest SL measuring satellites and they are working as a single entity.
I certainly don’t know the finer points of their workings but you can bet that the military stuff would be as good as it could be and if seven of them at a time are wrong, like I say, don’t expect the SL measurements using only one satellite and a huge computer program to be anything more than an educated guess.
Neville
Interesting to note the little spikes between 1801 and 1870 may represent floods in NSW. In the Gunnedah District they had a huge flood in 1861, where the ‘previously dry creeks became torrents and raced towards the already out-of-control Namoi.’
Thanks for that link.
Yes Johnathan, I would think slightly lower at the poles and slightly higher every else. But that paper is inferring that we will get an extra 25+% increase in SLs along temperate coastlines or somesuch areas as though the mass in these melted ice sheets represented something like 25% of the mass of the rest of the planet.
I would hazzard a guess that WAIS and the North Polar ice sheet [as opposed to ice caps] would be lucky to be 0.01% of the earth’s mass and would de-influence the gravitational pull on the world’s oceans very little.
Once again it is the result of computer modelling so [‘orreurs] could a bit of experimenter’s bias be creeping in?
Sorry to bore you all with another personal obs but I’m sure you have all noticed as summer fades and the weather gets a little cooler that the atmospheric haze [aerosols] start to clear and the visibility increases exponentially distance-wise. My view this morning was out to about 150 klm [100 miles] and I have not had this distance of view in months. By midwinter on a fine day it will be out to 200 klms. [mountain tops]
The same thing happens every year and I can’t help equating it with Lindzen’s “adaptive iris” theory. I realise this theory copped a lot of criticism and I know clouds and natural haze are poorly understood but there seems to be some natural negative feedback here.
NASDA hasn’t given up on the IRIS;
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Iris/iris.php
And the latest paper on high level SH by Soloman is consistent with the IRIS concept;
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/science.1182488
Spangles your post ending “I say, don’t expect the SL measurements using only one satellite and a huge computer program to be anything more than an educated guess” got me going again.
About 50 years ago I got interested in the difference “g” v “G” and all the assumptions with respect to “g” as used in our text books then. What I vaguely recall now is the prompt we got from a local physics uni about variations Melbourne g v Greenwich g as we calibrated some home made weights and measures designed to be used as handy references in local industry.
I recall too the pending geo-phys year got a few others going round these time honoured assumptions eg Melbourne & Greenwich obsrvatories were roughly at SL.
Wiki has a page or two on gravity considerations including “Standard” Gravity” however beyond Newton and Einstein’s theories, there some interesting practical details to be found elsewhere including this map “Gravity in the Australian Region –
http://www.earthsci.unimelb.edu.au/Thomas/lt304/es304img/gravitys.GIF
The host pade gives an appreciation of “Average g”, “Magnitude of departures”, “Other Effects” etc. But it seems we go to NASA for the latest in “Scentific challenges: Sea-level changes” at SESWG given g probably influences satelites too
http://solidearth.jpl.nasa.gov/PAGES/sea02.html
“Measuring absolute as well as relative sea-level change is a geodetic endeavor. Further advances in geodetic measurement techniques must provide information on sea-level changes and consequences in a routine fashion, with enhanced geographical coverage, spatial and temporal resolution, and measurement accuracy. Research is needed to integrate the various relevant measurements- changes in sea- and ice-surface topography, time-variable gravity, deformation of the surface of the solid Earth (particularly along coastlines), all under a uniform terrestrial reference frame, together with in situ measurements from tide gauges and buoys, remote-sensing data such as sea-surface temperature and salinity, and global atmosphere-hydrosphere-cryosphere models that assimilate diverse climatic data types”
Now; I reckon that is a big project
Cheers
Cohers,
Thanks for those links. At present it looks like it gets down to how correct your assumptions are that you are feeding into the common computer model that makes it either a substantial neg or a mild pos feedback. I didn’t realise that the objection was this basic.
I know what I’d be betting on.
gavin,
I’m not saying that a satellite with a huge computer program is not the best way to measure SLs. Combined with good tide gauges it probably is but as you point out it IS a big project and probably won’t get accurate results for a long time.
SD
Do you know if the satellites are checking the SL at every place over the oceans, or just at certain places?
I would imagine that the gravitational effect would be included in the final calculations.
SD; before our w/e guests pinched my other pc monitor cable to watch their new Dr Who preview on our tv tonight, I was reviewing a set of sth Is NZ pics we took a year ago and yes there is a very obvious ice retreat in glaciers on the West Coast. Also I can compare many shots over hydro lakes and fiords to observe shore lines. Up in the Sounds, all seas are calm but right up to the trees ie no freeboard! Two things, SL is high but steady or is rising slowly as it is in similar spots round Tassie.
Sure, the Fox and FJ have fickle tongues depending on rain and ice churn (this is now well discussed in glacier studies) but the valleys are vastly empty from their previous extent during discovery times. There is enough cliff scar and debris from recent quakes in the fiord region to track SL and shoreline movement but I bet the locals aren’t particularly concerned because it’s not ever going to be their new grassland. End of story in sleepy old NZ on the far side. This sort of science is a long time coming too.
Greenpeace gets it wrong again, as usual.
Remember that weird claim that Koch Industries was funding the ‘denial machine’? Someone’s taken the time to actually look at the numbers. Turns out, Greenpeace claims are a crock of Luke-spit.
http://www.examiner.com/x-9111-Environmental-Policy-Examiner~y2010m4d3-Global-Warming-Whos-funding-the-fight
Even so, the author is a bit gullible, believing that Greenpeace doesn’t take government or corporate money. Greenpeace takes it in by the bushel.
Greenpeace is also calling for violence against those they have falsely accused.
Ocean Tides
“The precise measurements of TOPEX/Poseidon’s and Jason-1 have brought knowledge of ocean tides to an unprecedented level. The change of water level due to tidal motion in the deep ocean is known everywhere on the globe to within 2.5 centimeters (one inch).”
Johnathan,
Don’t know too much about the exact track except that I think there are 3 or 4 satellites working non-polar orbits on a 10 day system and taking individual measurements. I understand they adjust their orbits from GPS measurements.
They know tides to within an inch, probably atmo pressure influence to within an inch, wave heights to within an inch, steady wind force to within an inch, storm surge to within an inch etc. etc. but the program can give you the annual SLR to less than one thousandth of an inch [0.01 mm].
Where’s Ripley when you need him?
Ding ding – and thanks for playing again Neville – you would notice of course that in the 20th century both drought and flood magnitude has increased in GBR catchments vs the previous 300 years – about what AGW would predict – ho hum.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2006PA001377.shtml
Just keep digging a bigger hole Neville. Ding ding !
And here it is again Neville on 1940s drought – given you have problems driving a computer you probably also have problems reading – but here goes – http://www.ccrc.unsw.edu.au/PDF/Timbal_UNSW2009.pdf
Tell us where he’s wrong !!
Wrong;
http://reg.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/extremes/timeseries.cgi?graph=R_30&ave_yr=A
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/rerain.shtml
http://reg.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/silo/reg/cli_chg/timeseries.cgi
http://eprints.usq.edu.au/4710/4/Williams_Stone_IJC_2009_SV.pdf
Cohers,
But you’re cherry picking 110 years whereas Luke is itemising from late’96.
BTW, early ’96 was a very wet year in SEQ so starting after that would have to show a decline.
In May ’96 we got a year’s supply in 6 days and overall we had at least double.
Cohers your rebuttal is so crummy – so pathetic – even I am shocked. Perhaps the cognitive dissonance bomb has finally gone off… sheesh ! maaaattteeeeee ! try reading carefully eh?
And gee a mongoose looks different to an ostrich doesn’t it. But all relevant to the price of dates in Paraguay.
Spangly bum – your comment is moronic – I’ll let you work out why. “whereas Luke is itemising from late’96” and “In May ‘96 we got a year’s supply in 6 days and overall we had at least double.”
zzzzzzzzzzz
Oh well luke, what then is your take on the cointegration approach to temperature and CO2 correlation?
Sorry Luke,
I stuffed that up. My excuse is that I have just come down with the ‘flu and I feel like death warmed up.
Also it was a good test to see if you were paying attention.
However, ’97, ’98 and ’99 were also above average rainfall years but we had some dry ones after that.
Olive leaf extract spangles 😉 works wonders with flu.
John,
Never ‘eard of it. I’ve got plenty of olive leaves. Should I steam my head with them in the water?
It’s probably something you take internally. I’ll check with the chemist tomorrow. Thanks.
I’ve been away, but geez luke you don’t get any better but here goes.
For one thing I’m not interested about C models and the predictions for higher rainfall events plus more severe droughts, talk about trying to cover all bases with deception.
If you must believe that increasing co2 from 280ppm to 300 ppm ( 7% ) by the 1930’s will have a 30% influence on the 1940’s drought you want your head examined.
So what hope have we got using those rubbery numbers if we are able to keep co2 at 450ppm, what a load of horse dung.
I’m looking at the Dalrymple shire rainfall from 1880 to 2002 from the Rangelands book ( Qld Govt ), from late 1880’s to 1898 there was very high rainfall, then 10 years of the federation drought, then good years of rainfall from1908 to 1922.
Next drought years from 1922 to 1938, then just above average to 1950, then 10 years of well above average rainfall to 1960, then drought to 1970, then much above average to 1978, then slipping back into drought to 1988.
Next above rainfall for 4 years to 1992 then a slide into drought for the next six years until 1998, then higher rainfall until the graph ends in 2002.
Your info from BOM seems to show that the next 6 years to 2008 was average or above average in this area, but I fail to see any pattern emerging over that 120+ year period at all.
The record started with rainfall well above average approx 10 years when co2 levels were only 290ppm ( also from this book ) so I dispute the co2 influence entirely for extremes of drought and flooding rains.
That’s what Australia does naturally always has always will.
A global warmist discovers yet another thing to worry about…
whether the island of Guam will capsize! It’s a US congressman. I wonder if Fluke worries about this as well?
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-20001611-38.html
Greenpeace has the answer:
The politicians have failed. Now it’s up to us. We must break the law to make the laws we need: laws that are supposed to protect society, and protect our future. Until our laws do that, screw being climate lobbyists. Screw being climate activists. It’s not working. We need an army of climate outlaws.
http://weblog.greenpeace.org/climate/2010/04/will_the_real_climategate_plea_1.html
And what will this “Final Solution” look like? Like this:
If you’re one of those who have spent their lives undermining progressive climate legislation, bankrolling junk science, fueling spurious debates around false solutions, and cattle-prodding democratically-elected governments into submission, then hear this:
We know who you are. We know where you live. We know where you work.
They’ll probably also have rather clever showers at a remote facility with “Arbeit Macht Frei” over the gate to the entrance.
Utter drivel Neville – you have very specific information about southern Australia and you change the area and subject and fail to address the basis. You are a mechanism-free ignoramus and a denialist disgrace !
I await any intelligent comment on the mechanisms of drought !
Schiller – the Greenpeace stuff is nuts – they’re not going to get anywhere with this sort of line. Not supported.
Neville ! Did you even READ what the Lough paper said. DID YOU READ IT ! Hello …………… Neville …. are you reading me – …………over ………… hello !
Au contraire, Flukey, Greenpeace actually has it right.
It was never about the science, or the environment, is was always about money and power.
AGW/science is just a distraction whilst the real ‘business’ is done elsewhere. Stage magicians have had this down pat for a long time.
While people of conscience argue about the actual effect of CO2, others are banging up hunge profits changing food into fuel, or putting up wind turbines. Or buying carbon credits from Al Gore’s Heat Machine.
They can hang Michael Mann out to dry and it wouldn’t make a difference. The fix is in, the smart money is on the spot.
Climatology was never a real science, not after it was monetized.
As we speak the temperatures in the north-east US are more like high summer and the jet stream is clearly responsible.
http://i42.tinypic.com/rur969.png
Sadly, many will say this is global warming, even though they have just gone through one of the snowiest winters on record.
Luke I arrived home late last night after a long drive, but yes I did read the lough paper which finished with this——
Significant, though weak, relationships are found between these reconstructions and an independent reconstruction of ENSO. The reconstructions highlight that observations from the instrumental records of high interannual and decadal rainfall and river flow variability in northeast Australia also characterize the past few centuries. Although there appears to be no overall trend toward wetter or drier conditions, the reconstructions suggest that the variability of rainfall and river flow has increased during the twentieth century with more very wet and very dry extremes than in earlier centuries, as projected for the region as a consequence of global warming.
I think this is just more nit picking or selecting the each way bet and anyhow I’d very much like to see a graph on that 350 year period, but at least the paper says there is no overall trend toward wetter or drier conditions, just the claim that the 20th century has increased variability of rainfall plus droughts and river flows.
Of course with ADAPTATION you easily adjust to these changes by building enough storage capacity, CHEAPEST way by far and will help to cover the increasing numbers as a consequence of krudd’s big Australia.
Just a tip luke, try as you might you’re not going to change the climate to suit, because it’s a lot more dynamic and complicated than forever concentrating on one single variable.
Any chance of Kevin, Penny, or any Australian scientific institution organising a similar debate?
Y’know, just in the interests of good, honest science?
http://www.thegwpf.org/ipcc-news/761-france-to-hold-official-debate-on-global-warming.html
With all the shonk that has been going on for the last couple of decades you would think that those of both persuasions would welcome the chance to de-lice themselves and start afresh.
I’m sure that the sceptics could be persuaded.
Spangled, it’s great to see a sceptic sowing the seeds of doubt with his book ” The Climate Fraud”,but the real debate is the total inability for us to change the climate by reducing co2 to 350ppm ( hansen’s fantasy )or trying to hold it to 450ppm. ( everybody else )
Just have a look at some of these charts and you can see that it isn’t going to happen, unless we stumble onto some new source of energy supply.
http://rainforests.mongabay.com/09-carbon_emissions.htm
I am searching for a word, and hope somebody can help. Imagine a situation (purely hypothetical, of course) in which someone is growing dope, covertly, in state forest. Such a person will clearly be opposed to fuel reduction burning, or any sort of forestry activity. Yet they cannot argue their case openly. Remembering the Arab view that ‘the enemy of my enemy is my friend’, they may ally themselves to an ‘environmental’ group, which opposes burning, thinning, and logging for other reasons. They may become the most ardent members, holding street demos, banging drums, and being interviewed on TV, shaking their dreadlocks.
In the climate debate, there may be parallel situations. Does anyone know a name for such persons? I can think of ‘dissembler’. Ambrose Bierce defines ‘dissemble’ as ‘to put a clean shirt upon the character’. Not bad, but there may be snappier versions. Luke?
Neville – ask Cohers for a copy of the Lough paper.
If you read the Timbal pdf carefully – you should have been interested in what dropped out of the analysis in terms of SI. If you were keen you’d be arguing that the sub-tropical ridge may be behaving thus so – but deny what’s causing the change ! Indeed Neville – you are throwing out very interesting science coz you think the proponents are “contaminated”. If you think are “sus” – it seems and extraordinary amount of subterfuge to go when 98% of the population doesn’t even understand what Timbal et al talking about? Why not make up simpler lies?
And even if one is powerless to halt AGW all manner of water policy and water management decisions need to be made or are being made. How? So an interest in AGW doesn’t mean that you have to solve the problem !
Green Davey – perhaps? but for some of us it is simply a risk management issue against a backdrop of an already risky climate. The disturbing creepy feeling when you start to see trends in met data and biological response everywhere. We just need to know !
Spanglers – debates are fine – but may not shed any light on the truth ! Unless of course it’s a very very long debate with detail indulged in.
Neville,
The elephant that should be in the room afa Australia is concerned is Nuclear Power.
It’s hard to imagine how any rational debate about CO2 emissions can be going on without including it.
“Spanglers – debates are fine – but may not shed any light on the truth !”
Luke, what are truth’s chances when much of it is being denied by the warmers.
It’s like the ABC condeming Israel for attacking Palestine without mentioning Hamas rockets.
Well I’m OK with nuke power (that’s “new gen” nuke power). Abbott will get ya some maybe?
Spanglers – after a while you tend to trust the nerds who look uncomfortable wearing ties – not showmen like Moncky !
And facts tend to be so boring.
“Well I’m OK with nuke power (that’s “new gen” nuke power).”
wow – I bet a lefty like you never thought you’d ever say that !!
I’m actually against nuclear for the same reasons every lefty like me has always been against it – if we go to war the power stations will become targets!!
I’m quite happy continuing with coal burning power because I don’t believe CO2 is dangerous and causes catastrophic climate change.
we’ve got enough coal and gas to keep us going until we find a viable, non dangerous alternative.
Climatology is dead.
The value of carbon credits is plummeting, and now even the German media acknowledge AGW is a total bust.
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/after-climategate-should-savvy-investors-short-carbon-credits-pjm-exclusive/
http://torydrroy.blogspot.com/2010/04/der-spiegel-reports-on-climategate.html
James Lovelock, who invented Gaia (like L. Ron Hubbard invented Scientology), now comes clean:
The purpose of environmentalism is to establish an alternative government.
“It may be necessary to put democracy on hold for a while,” he says, in order to save humanity.
An odd claim in one sense, since “saving humanity” is very not on the environmentalist agenda. But in his later years, with much less to lose, Lovelock is probably being uncharacteristically honest.
After all, if humanity goes away, the elitists won’t have proles to slave for them. Environmentalists need humans, the same way Greenpeace needs donations. Humans are good for at least that bit.
You have to laugh “climatology is dead”. Schiller has “killed” climate. Wow – no more climate. Prepare for ultimate blackness – no more hot cold, humidity, wind or rainfall.
Schiller how much do you to get paid to parrot utter utter fucking drivel like “The purpose of environmentalism is to establish an alternative government” – when most environmentalists actually don’t want anything to do with government.
You really are just a libellous right wing turd aren’t you.
Luke,
You appear badly confused. Perhaps they let you out of rehab a bit too early.
For instance, you claim that climate and climatology are the same thing. Well, there are climate modelers who live in a PlayStation(R)(TM) world who believe the same, so maybe you’re due some forgiveness.
As for your inability to apprehend that environmentalists want political power, all I can say is, read a newspaper once in a while. If you’re not an idiot, you impersonate one, and not too well. You curse like an idiot, but a real idiot would hvae ltox fo spelign erors. (Clue for you, Luke. Idiocy needs proper camouflage.)
Luke popping off with even less wit than usual. What is wrong with those guys?
But Luke, you parasites need government. No gov, no free ride jobs for your gang.
And the big enviro orgs utterly need government- they have to sell their idiocratic ideas to someone who will impose them.
Now the inability to tell the differenece between climatology and climate is a bit worrying. I would think that all those find taxc payer funded over emplyed brains could keep up with things a bit better.
God, we need Jennifer to finish up her projects and get back in the game.
Hunter,
Luke needs one of his buddies from Deltoid or RealClimate to impersonate him/them for a while. He/they are floundering badly and need something that nearly sounds rational.
Over at WUWT there seems to be a new study that confirms Milancovich’s work.
Here http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/06/sediments-show-pattern-in-earths-long-term-climate-record/#more-18238
Boy ‘o’ boy most of the trading in carbon offsets has hit rock bottom over the last couple of years, more good work due to Climategate and the fraudulent pachauri and ipcc.
I can’t understand the verification procedure if the certificates are onsold by dubious means to dubious characters, I mean how do you police this stuff ?
Thanks for that Schiller, but how does carbon trading really, honestly work in the great big wicked world and how does it really effect climate?
Seems to be plenty of elbow room for fraud and corruption.
Schiller,
Good links. Ain’t it sad to see a Nobel like Al losing money? Heart bleeds.
Change of subject but it’s good to see all that ice isn’t going to waste.
http://www.desalination.biz:80/news/news_story.asp?src=nl&id=5293
More drivel from Schiller
“For instance, you claim that climate and climatology are the same thing” – no I did not !
Typical verballing sceptic style and a stupid retort to boot. How much do you get paid Schiller to make this stuff up. It’s not even intelligible. Your contract needs review I think.
Hunter moons …. “you parasites need government. No gov, no free ride jobs for your gang.”
– why do I need govt?? I don’t need any climate research funds.
“Free ride” ? I don’t think so. It’s called an exchange of labour for salary – you may have heard of it. If a spruiker like yourself has any form – get elected and sack everyone in government. But you’ll just sit their having a sook – coz that’s all you can do as a little pussy denialist dweebie ….
Can the world’s best scientists help it if you’re on the dole queue. Maybe you should have gone to high school ?
On another tack (or is it?), there seems to be some common sense pervading the Bushfire Commission. The reality of horrific bushfires seems to have changed a few minds on the need for prescribed burning. I suspect that there will soon be a thunder of academic boots deserting the ‘all burning is bad for biodiversity’ bandwagon, and climbing onto the ‘mild burning is good for biodiversity’ bandwagon. Dr Jerry Williams, from the USA, was a powerful witness, and he really knows what he is talking about. Thanks to Roger Underwood for passing this on.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/03/31/2861373.htm?site=thedrum
My query (or is it?) refers to the links between climate and bushfire. A hotter, drier climate, if it occurred, would, no doubt, lead to higher fire hazard. Yet smoke from Aboriginal summer fires must have reduced day temperatures (ask any fire-fighter). It also seems likely to me that smoke aerosols would have provided nuclei for raindrop formation. Africans believe that burning ensures good rain later. ‘Folk ecology’ should not be ignored, but should be checked out by science.
““Free ride” ? I don’t think so. It’s called an exchange of labour for salary”
That’s one very loose way of putting it I suppose.
[Like the 5000 federal health bureaucrats in Canberra and not one bed provided]
It sure as hell hasn’t got anything to do with cost/benefits.
But we’re lucky our prime minister is a “fiscal conservative”.
All together now: “The country’s in the very best of hands…..”
Davey,
Those with the sound arguments will naturally win out in the Royal Commission but wait till it is over and you will see that little will change.
The Bolshies will white-ant any new regs as they have in the past.
And fart a whole lot of methane while they are at it.
Spanglo,
I fear you are right. It’s been going on since 1938. Or even since the siege of Troy, when Cassandra recommended burning the wooden horse, but the wise-beards decided on hauling it inside the city. No humbug, white pella sure is pool with pire.
Yes Spanglers – you’d turn in 7-10 years academic training in maths and physics so you could get a free ride on a low paid job based on ephemeral grants and join a global multi-institutional science conspiracy to form world government. Yes that makes perfect sense !
DO you EVER think what you’re saying.
Davey – yes science should check out your wacky ides – like here
” Several studies released in the past five years suggest that aerosols — tiny airborne particles of pollution found in smoke from forest fires — have a “semi-direct” effect on climate, causing a reduction in cloud cover and warming the land surface. According to a release from NASA’s Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission, “processes that often create rain in tropical clouds are practically shut off when the clouds are polluted with heavy smoke from forest fires.” The paper’s author, Dr. Daniel Rosenfeld comments “We’ve seen evidence of decreased precipitation in clouds contaminated by smoke, but it wasn’t until now that we had direct evidence showing that smoke actually suppresses precipitation completely from certain clouds.” In his paper, Rosenfeld focuses on observations over Kalimantan, Indonesia during a satellite’s overpass on March 1, 1998 when “the southeastern portion of the island was engulfed in smoke, while the northwestern portion was relatively smoke free. The spacecraft’s radar detected precipitation in smoke-free clouds, but almost none in the smoke-plagued clouds, showing the impact of smoke from fires on precipitation over the rainforest.” Last year a NASA study in the Amazon reached similar conclusions. ”
NEXT !
http://news.mongabay.com/2005/0414-rhett_butler.html
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?id=20740
‘In the paper, Rosenfeld highlights one specific area – Kalimantan, Indonesia. During a TRMM overpass on March 1, 1998, the southeastern portion of the Island was engulfed heavily by smoke while the northwestern portion was relatively smoke free. The TRMM radar detected precipitation in smoke-free clouds while almost none in the smoke-plagued clouds, thus showing the impact of smoke from fires on the rain forest rainfall processes.’
Good science, we will have to stop the Indonesians from clearing land in this way.
‘…citing a disturbing study at the Institute of Ecology in Edinburgh, suggested the Amazon rainforest could be lost in 50 years due to shifts in rainfall patterns induced by global warming and land conversion. Forest fires will only worse the situation.’
Unnecessarily alarmist, all the money we were going to give China for windmills will be better spent in the Amazon and Kalimantan preventing them clearing land and burning-off.
“Yes Spanglers – you’d turn in 7-10 years academic training in maths and physics so you could get a free ride on a low paid job based on ephemeral grants and join a global multi-institutional science conspiracy to form world government. Yes that makes perfect sense !”
Or you could do what your mate Jim recommends:
http://www.climatedepot.com/a/4993/Time-for-Meds-NASA-scientist-James-Hansen-endorses-book-which-calls-for-ridding-the-world-of-Industrial-Civilization-ndash-Hansen-declares-author-has-it-rightthe-system-is-the-problem?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ClimateDepot+%28Climate+Depot%29
Luke and El Gordo,
There is a great difference between dense, black smoke and the light, white smoke from frequent burning. I once asked a much quoted ‘environmentalist’, in the bush, what the difference is between white and black smoke. He was baffled, but any experienced firefighter will know the difference. The study you quote sounds like snapshot ecology, which is all too prevalent, and often quoted by cherry pickers. NEXT?
More bad news for climatology and “the consensus”:
Scientists are now questioning the theory that climate change is making sheep shrink.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7559596/Climate-change-row-over-the-mystery-of-the-shrinking-sheep.html
OK, folks, now here’s a really difficult problem for you all.
The latest story making the media rounds: ‘Ten green sex sins that can sabotage your love life’. April 7th, 2010, http://www.ethiopianreview.com/news/58662
That’s a link to the Ethiopian Review. Fairly obscure, but that just shows you the extent of this Green Plague in the media. You can find the same story all over elsewhere, at your leisure.
But that’s not the worst of it: one of the enumerated ‘sex sins’ is reproduction: “Each one of those “extra” children adds 9,441 metric tons of carbon to the planet.”
Now that that notion is firmly implanted in your mind, consider, and consider well:
Would it be reasonable to exchange Carbon Credits for abortions?
And who would consider it to be reasonable?
Interesting stuff on the debate (?) about a big Australia with the krudd idiot leading the pack.
Nowhere ( other than Bolt and McCrann ) do we see any reference to the GHG reduction of 5% by 2030, what a load of BS, just another reason why the whole case of AGW is a total fraud, even luke is timid and afraid to utter a peep.
Neville,
But ya gotta realise that if we can have 20 people sitting under one light bulb instead of 10 then we have reduced our emissions by 100%.
That’s green, man!
AGW 0 Natural variability 1
http://www.weather.com/outlook/weather-news/news/articles/0406-july-in-april_2010-04-06
Schiller – well could you retrospectively abort the extreme right ?
Why am I afraid Neville? That economic expansion and population increases will enhance emissions? Well yep makes it really difficult. But that doesn’t mean the science isn’t correct. Probably means our pollies aren’t serious. And probably means they’re illogical. Maybe even hypocritical. What else is new? We already know Labor aren’t serious on AGW nor good at the policy debate on the issue. Don’t confuse that with the science will you?
El Gordo – not necessarily – can we have CAO in a greenhouse world?
http://ams.confex.com/ams/87ANNUAL/techprogram/paper_117372.htm
Wrong luke, it makes it mission impossible even without an extra 16 million odd people.
A new energy source to be used by the developing world for decades into the future is the only chance for your AGW arguments to have any relevance and that is really another mission impossible all over again.
450ppm here we come.
Schiller Thurkettle,
The AGW movement is begging for a Jonathan Swift to come and offer a modest proposal. Of course reading the typical AGW true believer proves reality can parody itself just fine, but good literature is timeless.
Luke,
Except for the citation’s use of false assertions about the ocean currents failing and predictions about CAO’s being so hedged as to be non-falisfiable, it is a great paper. It really convinces me that AGW is, like you, non-falsifiable crap piled up on top of spittle dampened hand wringing.
I just worked it out.
As quoted above from the AGW literature, a baby “adds 9,441 metric tons of carbon to the planet.”
Skeptics will of course wonder about such a large baby, and even if a baby were to become so large, if the carbon loss to the environment associated with the baby wouldn’t be roughly the same, leaving the net change at zero. The baby would be a carbon sink.
The idiocy of the AGWer’s favored literature aside, Carbon Credits are now trading on the Chicago Climate Exchange for US$0.10 per metric ton.
This means that, ‘realistically’, an abortion is worth US$944.10 in carbon credits.
Which means, in Climatology Economics, a human life is worth US$944.10.
Luke would not be worth US$944.10, because he’s already contributed greatly to the Climate Carbon Collapse. Luke, do you think you’re worth maybe US$250 or so?
Your US$944.10 children could inherit your carbon credits.
No hunter – what it shows is that despite your lying and verballing that cold air outbreaks will continue in a greenhouse world – and that results are not necessarily intuitive i.e. blocking will cause movement in locations of such outbreaks.
Of course all this would be lost on a rank half-wit like yourself as you would have to engage mental capacity which you don’t have. I have yet to see anything resembling a science comment from you. Did you pass primary school by the way? You don’t seem very bright given your comments. e.g. “use of false assertions about the ocean currents failing” simply tell me you can’t even understand what you’re just read.
And here’s an example of the application of Neville’s logic – asteroid on collision course with the Earth – “Gee says Neville – that’s a hard problem and I also don’t like the news” – “so I therefore deduce the asteroid doesn’t exist”. The extreme perversity of the denialist mind is most fascinating.
Schiller if we retrospectively aborted right wing extremists and war mongers we’d have no need for carbon credits. Do you think such an idea might catch on? More cost effective than going after the big guys first.
And hey guys – how’s that ice age coming along. Denialists are having a big sook about the beloved satellite temperatures – Jan to March are all up with the bullet. And gee with a quiet sun and imminent (you keep telling me) ice age. You need a few more CAOs lads.
And you told me temps would be plummeting by now? Were you guys pulling my leg – come on – tell ….. hahahahahahahahaha You guys !
you watch them fall when the current el nino finishes Luke.
http://www.weatherzone.com.au/httpdata_r/images/climate/wz_nino34_monthly.png
Finally, Flukeloo offers a solution!
“If we retrospectively aborted right wing extremists and war mongers we’d have no need for carbon credits.”
So, if we abandon warfare and become left-wingers, we won’t have a carbon problem.
Quick, someone send a telegram to Al Gore. He needs to learn the good news! Wait a minute… it wouldn’t be good news for Al Gore. For Al and all the other warmists, the only good news is bad news.
Makes me glad I’m not a left-winger. Imagine how awful it would be when the only news you welcome is bad news. These nuts relish food riots, heat waves, hurricanes, every form of misery you can imagine.
There should be a word for people who love others’ misery. German offers the word Schadenfreude, but that’s not a good fit. ‘Gallows humor’ is even further off the mark. ‘Misanthropy’ is commonly used, but any rational misanthropist would commit suicide, and then we’d have a shortage of such people. Which we quite obviously do not.
Sadism fits somewhat, but the sadist enjoys inflicting pain. So the right word would be more along the lines of the sort of person who shows up at catastrophic events and deeply enjoys being a witness to misery.
Luke knows the right word. He even talks about global apocalypse with a monster meteorite.
Luke, what is the right word? And tell us how much you enjoy it. Is it visceral, or elsewhere?
It’s not rocket science, but the next 20 years will be cool and wet.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/winter10.jpg
A cool PDO generates more La Nina.
Luke you just seem to get worse over time, so let’s try to explain once again numbskull.
My position is logical while yours is illogical and here’s why–
Even if we all committed to Kyoto 2, Dopenhagen whatever, we won’t make a scrap of difference to SLR, temp, malaria, rainfall, cyclones, tornadoes or if we use Lomborg’s huge scientific and economic resources we will DELAY THE CRUNCH by about 5 years, after spending countless trillions for the the next 90 years.
So you reach the same position by 2100 and not 2095 after wasting all that money that could save the day by alternatively spending it on new technological research and adaptation to natural CC and every nation ends up much wealthier / healthier into the bargain.
Your position is hopelessly biased and ignorant and is exactly the wrong way to approach CC because the outcome will be a disaster.
After wasting all that money for zero gain you have lost the real chance to invent new technology that could help us all in the future, in other words totally illogical and stupid.
Of course this doesn’t even begin to explain how you would change the developing world’s use of fossil fuels that will add a staggering 90% of the increase in co2 in the years to come.
Which of the Luke sock puppets do I have the disgust to be addressing?
I do like your rep rate on the word that best describes what you do to yourself as your new favorite mantra.
Did you even read your article neverwuzzer?
It is premised on yet another AGW prediction that has been proven false- the disruption of the thermohaline system.
But heck, what do you care?
Yes Neville and what does that have to do with climate change science.
“Which of the Luke sock puppets do I have the disgust to be addressing?” – errrr you don’t.
“Huntsbum – “the disruption of the thermohaline system.” – nope doesn’t say that ! Try reading dumb bum. Disruption is your word denialist ! So you now deny that the thermohaline has changed its intensity in the past?
Provide a citation for ” yet another AGW prediction proven to be false.” Put up !
What is most worth reporting though is the excellent expose on what lying vermin the denialist movement has become.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/04/climate-scientist-bashing/
Provide a citation for ” yet another AGW prediction proven to be false.”
Give us one that’s right!
And if your mates at RC et al were so upright [as opposed to being so up themselves] they might just allow a little scientific scepticism instead of blocking this guy every way they know.
Talk about desperate agendas.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/apr/07/global-warmings-unscientific-method/
Any of us who have submitted papers to journals will, on occasion, been amazed at the drivel some referees write. My attention has been drawn to a guest editorial, in the Medical Journal of Australia, by Richard Horton, then editor of The Lancet. Those with accesss may care to read the whole editorial. For those without access, it says, in part:
‘The mistake, of course, is to have thought that peer review was any more than a crude means of discovering the acceptability – not the validity – of a new finding. Editors and scientists alike insist on the pivotal importance of peer review. We portray peer review to the public as a quasi-sacred process that helps to make science our most objective truth teller. But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong.’
Well I never! Could this apply to ‘climate science’? Surely not…
The reference is Horton, R. (2000) MJA 172(4):148-9.
My god luke – how can you read that shit at Realclimate?? They say the hockey stick was supported by The National Academy of Sciences and McIntyre and McKitrick were shown to be wrong so they link to a New York Times article – why didn’t they link to the Wegman report where even biased Wiki states:
MBH98 and MBH99 were found to be “somewhat obscure and incomplete” and the criticisms by McIntyre and McKitrick were found to be “valid and compelling.?
I couldn’t read much more as they lied and cheated there way through the article!! They’ve got serious honesty problems over there!
Spanglers – one just barfs at an article that starts off with “The prophets of global warming continue to lament as their carefully crafted yarn unravels before their eyes. Ross McKitrick, an intrepid economics professor from the University of Guelph in Ontario, Canada, has tugged apart the thin mathematical threads that once held together the story of climate change.”
spew ! what rhetorical sludge.
John S – Wegman has shown to be just another denialist.
http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/index.php/csw/details/deep-climate-investigation/
Luke – The Wegman report was authored by:
Edward J. Wegman, George Mason University,
David W. Scott, Rice University,
Yasmin H. Said, The Johns Hopkins University.
contributions by John T. Rigsby, III, Naval Surface Warfare Center, and Denise M. Reeves, MITRE
Corporation.
This Ad Hoc Committee has worked pro bono, has received no compensation, and has no financial interest in the outcome of the report.
so they are all denilalists with an agenda?
Don’t you think you are stretching it a bit??
BTW – I love this aside in their report as it sums up the whole CRU fiasco.
Luke,
When even your mate George Moonbat agrees that the hockey team are dishonest….
It’s only in the eyes of the warming beholders that their “carefully crafted yarn” is not unravelling. Everyone else woke up long ago.
Even the cows are becoming sceptical:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7564682/Cows-absolved-of-causing-global-warming-with-nitrous-oxide.html
You should work on this carbon accounting manual even further. Give you something to do.
Hi all, I just read this over at Louis’ blog site:
Distinctions Between Intellectuals And Pseudo-Intellectuals – By Sydney Harris, Detroit Free Press, (11/20/81)
*The intellectual is looking for the right questions to ask; the pseudo is giving what he claims to be the right answers.
*The intellectual is evidently motivated by a disinterested love of truth; the pseudo is interested in being right, or being thought to be right, whether he is or not.
*The intellectual is willing to admit that what he does not know is far greater than what he knows; the pseudo claims to know as much as can be known about the subject under consideration.
*The intellectual states as good a case for his adversary as can be made out; the pseudo sets up a straw man and beats it to death for the sake of seeming superior.
*The intellectual is deeply and constantly aware of the limitations of human reason; the pseudo makes a deity of reason and tries to force it into realms it cannot penetrate.
*The intellectual seeks light from whatever source, realizing that ideas are no respecters of persons and turn up in the most unexpected places from the most improbable people; the pseudo accepts ideas, when he does, only from experts and specialists and certified authorities.
*The intellectual advances an hypothesis that he hopes may be true; the pseudo propounds a dogma that he insists is true.
*The intellectual recognizes that opposites are not always contradictory, and may indeed reinforce each other; the pseudo paints a picture in black and white, right or wrong, leaving no room for a contrary viewpoint.
*The intellectual knows there are no final answers to human questions; the pseudo makes each tentative and provisional answer sound like a finality.
*The intellectual is courageous in opposing majority opinion, even when it jeopardizes his position; the pseudo slavishly follows “the most reliable authorities” in his field sneering at heresies.
*The intellectual never talks down to his audience, but tries to be as clear as possible; the pseudo talks above his audience to mystify and impress them.”
It occurred to me that these pretty much describe the unquantifiable entity often referred to as Luke.
Derek,
I’ll bet that “unquantifiable entity” will be gettin’ one of these:
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Sorry-your-Chinese-made-iPad-wont-save-the-planet-90089372.html
Spangles, what’s the bet he doesn’t drive a Prius either.
BTW, do I recall that you have done some revegetation work on your property? Did you grow your own seedlings and if you did, did you use a potting mix or soil from your property?
I’ve used Trees for life in the past but found many of the seedlings were sickly and had stunted growth.
I have a situation now where I’m getting too much of a good thing from natural regeneration, I keep having to pull up red gum seedlings from around the house and the middle of the track. The natural growth seems to all be robust and I’m inclined to think it’s a bit of the old “survival of the fittest” at work here.
This leads me to think that maybe the “tender loving care “approach produces too many “unfit” specimens.
Cheers.
Luke,
Try reading your own propaganda links:
“The North Atlantic response is consistent with a slowdown of the thermohaline circulation,”
You sock puppets are the bestest. You cannot even keep up with your regurgitations of used cow food.
But really, the list of distinctions of pseudo intellectuals sort of sums your mob up perfectly.
And when the axiom about a committee’s intelligence being inversely proportional to the number in it, the only conclusion can be that either you are a very large gang or had very little wit to start with.
A slowdown is not a disruption oh denialist slimeball. Stop verballing eh? And what a utter moron you are – propaganda – are you a total looney – WHY oh WHY would anyone go to the lengths required to that complex study as propaganda. An interesting little known bit of side research. So pathetic …..
I think *this* Luke is actually Pachauri. Doesn’t know squat, but willing to blarf about it.
Luke,
A slowdown is a disruption. Now you are back peddling.
the report is a projection based on bogus crap and it takes one reading to see it for the transparent reaction to the NH harsh winter that it is. Everything is AGW. Hot, cold, mild warm wet, dry, storms, no storms, El Nino, La Nina, flower smells, and your bloody minded obsessional stupidity- all are caused by AGW.
I do not care why people write crap.
Why did the Dutch fall for tulips?
Why have serious people believed in bleeding relics?
Why did the world financial markets buy into obviously stupid risk management algorithms?
Who really cares? AGW is a popular delusion that lowers the IQ of its true beleivers to, as you demonstrate, to practically 0. But maybe for you it was not such a loss?
Popular delusions are like earthquakes- explainable but not really predictable.
No it’s not …. stoopid person. I varies considerably on a decadal basis and well as a long term historical basis. Slowdown or speedup is not “a disruption”.
You are a really moronic uniformitarianist ! Pig ignorant of any science literature. Spending your life recycling denialist filth. and one of the worst fit-out verballers I’ve ever come across.
e.g. ” Everything is AGW. Hot, cold, mild warm wet, dry, storms, no storms, El Nino, La Nina, flower smells,” – no my little denialist – you said that – I didn’t. Don’t verbal me mate.
.
Hi guys, there’s an interesting post over at CA that’s worth a read, including the comments;
http://climateaudit.org/2010/04/08/more-and-more-concerned-about-our-statement/
Reading some of the emails from people I’ve never heard of before WRT getting rid of the MWP got me thinking about what could have precipitated the transition from reputable behaviour to advocacy driven deception by originally serious, credible scientists.
Were the structure and processes within the IPCC enough of a corrupting influence by themselves or were there some bad apples from the start that rose to power (e.g. Mann)?
It appears that at some point in time it became a fight, battle lines were drawn and sides were taken.
If you look at the recent South Aust. election as an analogue, people who clearly and passionately believed that Labor deserved to be in government still thought it necessary to deceive voters with fake “how to vote” cards.
The same thing has happened at the CRU and the momentum and level of fabrication have continued to build with the slide into pseudo-intellectualism.
Luke,
You say AGW is non-falsiiable with every dipshit post you write. And every post you write is a dipshit post.
The whole point of the fucking piece of toilet paper propaganda bullshit you posted was that AGW would make CAO’s a thing of the past and it offered a mechanism for it.
I would call you stupid, but that would be an insult to stupid people.
I would call you a self-inflicted imbecile of micro-cephalic proportions, but that would be redundant.
I would point out that however big your gang of under worked lazy shit bureaucrat ass-wipes may be, the cumulative intelligence would not be able to give a cockroach a run for its money, but that might insult the cockroach.
The only filth on this blog are the residues your mob of cesspool flotsam leaves behind as they ooze on by.
You are just another bunch of true believer wannabes, who found that giving up thinking and just accepting the nice warm authoritarian bullshit of AGW beat the effort of thinking. And you never realized that in reality you never thought in the first place.
Note to post at your message board: never, never never leave the tender confines of a nice safe govt. job.
Real work would kill your style.
No don’t do the nana when you’re beat Hunter. Didn’t your mommy tell you anything. Kitchy kitchy koo – who’s a little angry coz they’re out of their depth.
Let’s examine your level of comprehension
“The whole point of the fucking piece of toilet paper propaganda bullshit you posted was that AGW would make CAO’s a thing of the past and it offered a mechanism for it.”
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO ! WRONG – ding ding – wakey wakey – hands off snakey.
Your sentence above shows what a dim single neuron occupies your unfilled cranial space. The RESEARCH simply shows that cold air outbreaks do continue to occur in a globally warmed world. In general they are lower in frequency but the distribution of change is not uniform. In some areas it may even increase. WHY – because AGW will reorganise climate systems – blocking patterns, highs lows etc. A duh !
So your nauseating pretense that the climate models show something else is incorrect.
BTW how can an obscure presentation at a science meeting be propaganda. WAKE UP.
Do not be such a fraud as to misrepresent the science at such a fundamental level.
Stop being a complete liar.
Stop being a little criminal piece of denialist filth and get some decency.
Stop verballing me for things I have not said.
And stop fabricating things out of thin air.
Why can’t denialists like you stop lying? Is it some sort of disease?
BTW – what do you do a for a living Hunter besides your daily excursion to Centrelink?
There were cold outbreaks during the MWP, with the circumpolar vortex tilted towards the Pacific. In the case of AGW we could have a closer look at the Holocene Climate Optimum for similarity, CAO’s may have been non-existent.
Derek,
Sorry to take so long to reply, got involved in a local fund-raiser.
“This leads me to think that maybe the “tender loving care “approach produces too many “unfit” specimens.”
I think you are right. I started regen with Qld Forrestry seedlings which were not very appropriate but I didn’t understand the local flora and made a lot of mistakes. Later I collected a lot of local seed and both broadcast and regenerated them with seedlings I grew myself and all the time the birds and nature were doing their thing etc. to the point where, as you are finding, they are making their own arrangements quite well.
If you have good reason to believe that some vital species are missing then it is always good to go in search of those [I’ll bet there are some smart people in your NOTW who are experts on this] but it is wonderful to see what comes up just by the natural method.
If you can find a local area of original growth and/or a good publication of what should be there [both of which I was able to do] it can be a big help.
Thanks Spangles,
When we moved here there were 25 old river red gums, a dozen or so xantherias down at the creek and grassland dominated by wild oat. There was also a prickly pear the size of a house down at the creek.
The property ran sheep before we bought it and it’s been stock free for about 13 years. The up side of that is we have all of the known native grasses for our area back in large numbers, including about a square meter of kangaroo grass, and lots of regen of redgum, golden wattle and a heap of young xanterias. The downside is the creek turned from a lush green promenade to a tangled feral mess.
The plants I’ve gotten from trees for life have been mostly local natives that are missing from this area, basically we’re talking hundreds of square km’s of sheep and cattle grazing land with a few trees dotted here and there.
I’m trying to create a wildlife corridor by planting gums plus understory along my southern fence line down to the creek. I’m also fortunate in that 2 of my neighbours are like minded so progress is being made.
When you grew seedlings yourself, what type of soil did you use?
Luke,
You have not won one exchange at this site, except in your mind. And since your mind has plenty of room to let, I am sure you like to stack up your little masturbatory trophies in lieu of actual memories or accomplishments.
And you clearly cannot read the crap you post.
But I do like your new obsessive word- verballing. It helps balance out your use of ‘liar’ and ‘denialist filth’ and ‘criminal’.
It nearly gives you enough vocabulary usage to pass a Turing test.
What do I do? Mostly laugh at pitiful little shits like you.
Pathetic response Hunter. I am amazed how often you fundamentally fail to comprehend the most simple material. Very simple points. And then you fabricate a whole fantasy of additional irrelevant and expansive material around it. Your response to a scientific comment is to attack me. Seek help and stop totally misrepresenting the work of people that you don’t know !
CO2 fails to produce global warming in the face of natural variability, but it has great potential in the agribusiness world.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Greenhouse_Gases.jpg
“When you grew seedlings yourself, what type of soil did you use?”
Derek,
I found the local soil was fine if I sort of made a potting mix with that and as much local old mulch as I could rake up. Check out what the soil looks like where the healthy, vigorous seedling comes up on its own.
One good thing about using the naturally occurring seedlings is that they are likely to be much more resistant to any diseases that may be around.
El Gordo – selective paff – FACE experiments with crops in the REAL world show nothing like this. And crop plants may have higher frost sensitivity with increased CO2.
Also – good bye to multi-billion dolalr grazing industries as C3 woodies choke C4 grasses out.
http://qcl.farmonline.com.au/news/nationalrural/agribusiness-and-general/general/woody-weeds-love-co2/1729857.aspx
It’s called the real world !
el gordo,
Not only that, I reckon that bloke’s grown a bit as well.
By 2100 the world’s gonna be populated by 10 billion flamin’ giants!
We’re gonna need more CO2 to feed ’em.
Derek and SD
This women’s work is worth checking out
http://www.abc.net.au/landline/content/2008/s2490568.htm
as is this bloke’s
http://www.biologicagfood.com.au/
Luke,
C3 = wheat, soybean, cotton.
C4 = sorghum, maize, millet.
This is more of the usual bush-bashing BS from our CSIRO treasure-trove of enlightenment.
One thing in Dr Stokes’ favour, he didn’t use computer generated software [not that he admitted to, anyway] and he warned not to believe greenhouse results because [would you believe it?] the real world is often a little different.
So it’s all a load of old shoes but, what the heck, it’s a good alarmist story so let’s not waste it.
It’s not the real world Luke – It’s CSIRO’s grant fantasy land. CSIRO is now so polluted that serious researchers are leaving, Dr Maarten Stapper in the link I posted for SD and Derek above is a perfect example – here’s a guy who is developing real sustainable agriculture but can’t survive in CSIRO because he opposes GM and chemical farming.
The guys around here chemical farm with glyphosate. I watch them race around a paddock spraying, then they direct drill soy beans and chemical fertiliser. What I find interesting is that after the crop is harvested the paddock sits there bare throughout the summer – nothing wants to grow despite the added nitrogen due to the soy bean. It’s like the paddock is dead.
John,
Good links! I emailed Dr Christine a couple of weeks ago when I heard Tony Abbott was using her services in his CCS policy to get her advice on how I should lift my game wrt carbon storage in soils. She very kindly replied and said she thought I was doing all I could.
I believe in this process.
SD – on Phillip Adams LNL she claimed that aussie agriculture could sequester The WORLD’S CO2 simply by returning it to our carbon depleted soils. I’m trying to get a farmer friend of mine to direct drill an oats crop straight into the grass after he’s harvested the seed just as she demonstrates in that Australian Story program. I drive past seed harvested paddocks everywhere and they are already ploughing them up for either oats or rye grass yet she demonstrates how you just plant straight in – now ploughs.
John,
Thanks for the links but at this stage I’m not actually trying to improve my soil, rather trying to grow plants that are adapted to the soil conditions. Australian soils are generally nutrient poor and that’s apparently what our native plants prefer. My daughter works for a biodynamic farm and she is putting all of her expertise into preparing our vegy plots but hat wouldn’t be suitable for natives.
Spangles,
Thanks, I’ll have a go at using soil from our best native regen sites. Another option that just occurred to me was to use soil from intended planting areas and then select out the weaker seedlings.
Cheers.
Derek,
What are your local pioneer trees? If you have a local wattyl these usually establish easily and they lead on to better things tree-wise. They also fix nitrogen in the soil, grow fast and are great at providing habitat for birds.
John,
That low till/no till has got to be the way to go if you can get away with it.
Low energy farming but what are you gonna do with that big John Deere?
Clydesdales might make a comeback.
Come on guys – real world FACE experiments with crops show nothing like phytotron yields with CO2 fertilisation. And they ain’t CSIRO – sorry dudes !
All depends on rainfall !! CO2 is not Jack’s beanstalk.
And the threat to grazing lands from C3 woodies is not trivial at all. The CSIRO work is simply telling you what detailed experiments are saying backing up a lot of overseas work. If you knew anything you would already know that graziers in the southern USA, southern Africa and northern Australia have concerns about woodland thickening and shrub invasions. Some of it is fire regime but CO2 gives C3 woody species an edge. The CSIRO work tells you why !!
Your ignorance is simply breathtaking !
Derek; for another two bobs worth on soils seeds and trees, it used to be a big interest of mine going back to the 50’s when natives of any sort weren’t that popular for anything.
When still a kid I noticed my uncle who spent most of his life opening up the bush with a dozer had very little success transplanting odd specimens in grandma’s extensive gardens. About the same time a young cousin from the other side won a young farmers award to study “keyline” farming as it was being established in NZ. A very different experiment on natural cover for slag dumps finally convinced me there was only a little knowledge established for major soil recovery projects.
By the 60’s I was searching for a solution in particular for areas degraded by pine plantation around the fringe of agriculture and was directed to a private nursery in Melbourne by Vic forestry. “Treeplanters” had already established propagation methods for hundreds of natives so I took advantage of their expertise and sent hundreds of tube stock specimens to like minded friends around the country to see what grew where at a pinch. Needless to say there were both failures and surprises, for one example; frost bite in large canopies of Vic eucalypts we grew in Tas being more than just curious
Indeed, we need to follow the form of normally mature trees in odd places for various reasons. Various companion plantings at stock transfer stage seemed to help a lot as did the widespread use of large artificial mounds on poor sites such as clay and stone but stragglers do die out in fierce species competition. Also some “natural” pruning is achieved when a mob of sturdy steers can reach in despite the “temporary” fences. I reckon we achieved much more woody thickets however it was the wattles that became the main attraction as most types flourished. For some time I favoured only several eucalypt groups, candlebarks, ironbarks and snow gums for exposed sites.
BTW for harsh conditions, tube stock does best when the tap root length is about double the head height. Generally, overgrown pot plants won’t do well anywhere Greening Aus people in Canberra advise me that their current preference for private land holders is broadcast seeding with what ever grows from a mixed lot so I save them a few pods from several wattle types s that grow in my back garden. The emphasis now it seems is on performance and ground cover first crops, not certified locals as gathered by selected contractors.
yeah SD – do you know that a Chrysler 300 car has 435 hp.
http://www.chrysler.com/en/2010/300/performance/powertrain/
John Deere used for ploughing fields has similar HP.
http://www.deere.com/en_US/ProductCatalog/FR/series/tractors/9030series/9030series.html
“The CSIRO work tells you why !! ”
No it doesn’t Luke – it just shows they’ve measured it!! which is all the CSIRO is good at!
They can’t explain why it happens so C02 becomes their scapegoat.
there are others who refer to the ability of weeds to restore land, like Lantana restores cleared red volcanic soil. Nature heals itself naturally and woody weeds are a part of it.
catch up puleeze 😉
John,
Like they say, horses for courses. Slight difference in torque, gearing and speed but both fun to drive.
Luke,
All feral weeds are doing very well with the added CO2 { there are places where the velcro weed [Silver-leaf Desmodium] will grab you and never let you go} but so too are the natives. My native sorghum is over my head, I’m up to my arse in kangaroo grass and up to my knees in clover. Soil carbon levels are obviously increasing.
You don’t get plagues of locusts when you’re having a drought.
Look at all those “disaster” rainfall stories last month. How pathetic were they?
There are always problems but things are generally “better than we thought”.
The glass is two thirds full, not one third empty. It doesn’t get much better and all this in spite of [certainly not because of] the politicians.
Spangles, we get lots of golden wattle, presumably from bird droppings, and the dominant tree is river red gum.
Gavin, thanks for the input, tis much appreciated.
Cheers and goodnight all.
Luke,
I am not the one missing the obvious. You are, have been, and I am sure will be. After all, you and yours are the ones declaring climate catastrophe based on laughable evidence.
But it was fun to channel Bird for a bit. Thanks for playing.
John Sayers – for heavens sake. Lantana is not present in these system. Obviously you’re a coastal dweller. Nature heals itself – what utter crap. Are you some sort of hippie on an ex-rainforest retirement plot?
And you are AMAZING ignorant of the woody weed problem. Another example – You have an induced woody patch in western NSW the size of Tasmania !
Spanglers we know by now you’re a scientific cherry picker. Try looking outside your backyard. Vast tracks of irrigation country in NSW still need rain badly ! And now that the billions of dollars in Exceptional Circumstances drought relief has stopped we’ll see 100s of farmers go the wall in the next big drought. Spanglers – you can tell them their glass is half full and to cheer up. You haven’t got a fucking clue about agricultural issues. Another retiree tending tending their little poofy postage stamp hobby farm. Pullease !
And here are some good numbers of what 2C practically means to water balance for the mentally challenged.
http://qcl.farmonline.com.au/news/nationalrural/agribusiness-and-general/general/two-degrees-is-much-more-than-it-sounds/1797597.aspx?storypage=0
John – are you on acid?
“No it doesn’t Luke – it just shows they’ve measured it!! which is all the CSIRO is good at!
They can’t explain why it happens so C02 becomes their scapegoat.”
HOLEY DOLEY ! What an amazing response to detailed ecophysiological research.
More verballing from Hunter – you just can’t help yourself can you? – “you and yours are the ones declaring climate catastrophe based on laughable evidence.” – join the NSW police mate or 60 Minutes editing room !
Derek,
Some way back you mentioned kangaroo grass (Themeda triandra). This is a particular interest of mine. As you probably know, it grows all around the Indian Ocean, from Africa to Australia, via Pakistan, India, Sri Lanka, Indonesia, Papua-New Guinea. There is a theory that it was, long ago, spread by humans, using frequent fire, which it loves. Left unburnt, it smothers under its own thatch. It needs burning every 2-3 years, in summer (now illegal, of course). Long fire exclusion, based on the crackpot idea that ‘fire destroys biodiversity’, is losing this beautiful grass species. Burnt the right way, it is capable of expanding, and pushing out weed species. Kangaroos, of course, love it, and smaller animals hide in the tussocks. It’s good fun to burn – snap, crackle, pop. It can form useful patches in a fire mosaic.
“Exotic woody weeds become important where a pasture system has been disturbed (e.g. Lantana camara and Baccharis halimifolia)”
http://www.tropicalgrasslands.asn.au/Tropical%20Grasslands%20Journal%20archive/Proceedings%20TP%20Conference%2085/Paper%2002.pdf
Green Davey,
That’s the stuff alright, but I’ve only got 2 patches. The biggest patch is about 1(that’s right, ONE)square meter and the other one is a solitary plant. There are some large patches along the track near our place but would you believe the council sprayed herbicide on a large area a couple of years ago.
I would love to take your advice about summer burning but unfortunately, I’ve already been fined once for starting a grassfire with an angle grinder so I’m open to other less dramatic suggestions.
Interestingly, a year after the bush-fires on Kangaroo Island, rangers have discovered several species of flora that haven’t been seen for several decades.
Green Davey, pardon me for appearing to promote a book I have just written, but your point about fires promoting vegetation long-since thought vanished is covered in a chapter of “Inferno: The Day Victoria Burned” which deals, in part, with a “designer burn” program instituted in the parks and reserves around Middle Head overlooking Sydney Harbour. I mention the program in the book as a way of pointing out not only the ecological importance of fire but also as an example of how an intelligent fire policy can reconcile the needs of the bush with the safety of surrounding (human) residents.
There, too, species not seen for 80-or-more years returned. The program has been so successful the council now gets requests from residents who want the drip torch applied to their local reserves.
If Nillumbik had been similarly enlightened, the fuel-choked roadsides of Kinglake and surrounds might not have proven so deadly on Feb 7, 2009.
Roger, where might one get a hold of said publication?
BTW, I’ve heard it said that introduced grasses such as wild oat and Phalaris bear significant responsibility for the intensity of many bush-fires. Phalaris BTW is the second most widely sown perennial pasture grass in Victoria. Anyway, it appears that before European settlement, native grasses which are mostly perennial, coupled with the foraging behaviour of the myriad native fauna, meant that fires were much less intense and therefore much less destructive back then.
My own native grasses are still green quite late in the summer.
Derek, as I said, I’m reluctant to use this forum to push the book, but you could get it at pretty much any library and, for $40, at any decent bookstore — although not the Sun Bookshop in Yarraville, where the proprietress apparently decided it was a bit anti-Green for her tastes and declined to stock it. As this is my local bookshop and a place where I have spent considerable sums, I am a little miffed.
And the funny thing is that it isn’t anti-green at all. Quite the reverse, actually, as it is also a plea for better management of our forests. Consider: after banning the cattlemen from the High Country, the very next action by John Brumby’s government was to remove the bounty on dogs and foxes.
Go figure — actually you don’t need to think too hard about it. Killing things is not popular with the vegan hordes of Brunswick and Fitzroy, so the little wild doggies and those cute foxies were given a license to continue ripping up the very same forests that dispensers of those green preference votes seldom, if ever, visit. And if they do, while they might see the forests, they certainly don’t understand them (or wish to).
stop beating around the Bush Roger – where can we access your damn book??
John see http://www.angusrobertson.com.au/book/search/7334642/
for those interested in Themeda triandra (kangaroo grass) in Tasmania and the latest fiasco on listing it under the EPBC start at http://www.tfga.com.au/media/media-releases/070709-the-hypocrisy-of-peter-garrett.aspx
O/T
Antarctic sea ice increase underestimated by 50%.
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2010/02/16/another-ipcc-error-antarctic-sea-ice-increase-underestimated-by-50/
This should join Climategate, Amazongate and Himalayagate, along with any other gates I may have left out.
El Gordo,
The numbers involved in climatology have been so thoroughly ‘adjusted’ and ‘smoothed’ and things like that, that there is actually no longer any point in discussing them.
It’s fine to discuss data, but discussing fictional data is about as useful as discussing the weather with Flukeyloo.
Flukeyloo is like that guy who squats on the ground floor of a two-storey outhouse and wonders about what that stuff is that keeps falling on his head. Dude, that’s not meteorology.
Thanks for that El Gordo, we can now add Antarcticagate to the list, but I bet the next report from ipcc will have armies of sceptics and sceptical scientists using the best forensic tools to flush out the lies and exaggerations in a matter of weeks after publication.
Interesting info on ipcc warming trends and when/ how they were inserted in the report, China not impressed, WUWT http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/12/the-new-math-ipcc-version/#more-18382
Sciller – are you really that much of a numb nuts. Don’t you think it’s funny how 2 land climate series, 2 independent ocean series, 2 satellite series, borehole data, a vast array of plant and animal phenology studies, ALL SHOW THE SAME THING !
And you the last denialist dumb bum on the planet.
Not even serious sceptics back your position.
And hilariously when NOAA analysis What’sSusWithMe’s (aka WUWT) beloved “OK” climate stations vs “the rest” we find …… wait for it ….. a cooling bias. OMIGOD !
PULLEASE !
Do you know why there are earthquakes Schiller – Answer: Coz there are so many wankers like you in the world, you lot sometimes get in sync and set up an harmonic wave.
But what is so beautiful is to see Moncky dissected ! (and in colour)
http://climatecrocks.com/2010/04/11/debunking-lord-monckton-part-one/
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA – classic stuff.
Roger,
I have heard of your book, and will try to get a copy. You mentioned that it was banned, from a certain bookshop, as ‘anti-green’. From my pseudonym, you may guess that I have green sympathies, but from my posts that I want nothing to do with crackpot ideas that actually destroy the bush, especially by uncontrollable fire. I get into arguments with some urban ‘greens’.
I am involved in some catchment and fire work at present. Imagine a situation (purely hypothetical, of course) where someone is growing whacky weed, illegally and covertly, in a catchment (it shows up on satellite photos, because it is so ‘green’). They will, of course, be opposed to prescribed burning. Yet they can’t openly argue their case. Following the Arab idea, that ‘the enemy of my enemy is my friend’, they may join an urban ‘environmentalist’ group.
Ambrose Bierce, in his Devil’s Dictionary, defined ‘dissemble’ as to ‘put a clean shirt upon the character’. As my gravatar suggests, I believe strongly in the value of mosaic prescribed burning, both to prevent killer fires, and to promote native plants and animals. I will listen, with respect (up to a point, Lord Copper), to those with different views, but I will keep a sharp eye open for freshly laundered shirts, especially green ones.
Perhaps you are a similar kind of ‘green’ to me. Should we call ourselves ‘green sceptics’, ‘old school greens’, ‘independent greens’, or even ‘rational greens’? Maybe you, or others, can think of a better term (silence Luke, you rude, stupid boy, and stop chewing your fingernails).
I think the bone of contention, as far as the bookshop owner was concerned, was my dismissal of climate change as having anything measurable to do with the scope of the Black saturday disaster. Within days of the main fires, David Karoly (and many others) was thumping the lectern and blaming Big Carbon and John Howard and all the usual suspects. Even from a naked opportunist I thought it unseemly. Bodies would continue to be draggeed from the rubble for another month, yet here was this kept creature of the warmist cabal already pointing the finger.
And in the wrong direction, of course, which suited the incompetents who run Victoria’s emergency services panjandrum to a tee. How convenient to have the climate change villain ready and handy to cop the rap when, as the Royal Commission has found time and again, communication systems were chaotic and the “leaders” of the emergency effort had no clear notion of their responsibilities nor any evident desire to assume them.
And of course Karoly’s pavlovian response helped shroud the most obvious facts of Black Saturday: In terms of area burned, it was a middling fire(s) — much, much less than Black Friday. And of the 173 casualties, some 140 perished in a box 20 kms x 20 kms (which does not include Marysville), which sits on the urban-bush interface about 30 minutes drive from cetral melbourne.
So I looked into the land use in that area over the past century and, guess what? No matter how much the Greens like to claim it as “natural”, the evidence indicates that much of it it was transformed over the previous four decades by council fiat. From piggeries, orchards and pastures, it had been densely “re-populated” with incendiary vegetation growing thick and unburned in all the wrong places. David Packham and Rod Incoll both warned the council in two reports in 2003 (Incoll’s is a masterpiece of explaining basic fire science to simpletons, by the way) that a momunmental loss of life and property was looming, but the council refused to accept the report and went right on caring more about preserving hollow spaces in dead trees than of protecting its ratepayers’ lives. This reached absurd levels in 2008-9, when the council spent months (and many dollars) deciding if its workers could lop two branches off a dead tree. They did and then the overgrown roadside on which it stood became a fuse leading straight into Strathewen.
Overall, it was a temporary triumph of green sentimentalism on the part of the council and state authorities. But the fires put pay to that, as reality always does to the cosiest dreams.
In the book, incidentally, I deliberate avoid the climate change debate, as it is largely irrelevant to the fires and their harvest of human life.
But if you don’t sing from the approved hymnal, expect to be shunned by the choir, which happened when The Age reviewed Inferno. The book, mind you, is very critical of bruce esplin, emergency services commissioner, whose self-serving investigation of the campaign fires in the high country gave him and his department — surprise, surprise — top marks. So guess who the Age chose to review the book.
One of Esplin’s senior aides.
Black Saturday was not a natural disaster. It was the consequence of “environmentalist” ideology, political convenience, bureaucratic intertia, wilful stupidity and incompetence of the first order.
Why the citizens of Victoria have not lynched the people who allowed it to happen is quite beyond me.
G’day Roger,
I was introduced to Bruce Esplin during a public meeting following the 2007 wildfires, here in East Gippsland. At the time I was on the executive of the Wildfire Taskforce, a group which had it’s beginnings as the Bushfire Taskforce in 1991. Our group was in essense trying to bring public awareness to the threats we faced by wildfire, which is a story in itself.
After the introduction to Mr, Esplin, he asked me what I thought of the situation with regards to wildfire management. I replied that while I understood the issue carried with it some difficulties, overall and above, it seemed to me that the authorities had ‘lost the plot’. My very words
He did not say another word, looked at me in disgust and walked off.
Just prior to the interval period of that meeting, I had slipped out to have a smoke and was standing just outside the doorway. Esplin and his aide were the first to come out for a breather and I heard him say to his aide in a hushed voice, “how do you think I’m doing?”. While I suppose this was one of those ‘you had to be there’ type of scenarios, it seemed to me he wasn’t to confident about what he was talking about. Bit of a concern when he’s the Minister for Emergency
Maybe this lack of confidence explains why he didn’t ask me why I thought the authorities had ‘lost the plot’.
Roger and Stewie,
Thanks for all the informative comments. The public will, eventually, arrive at the truth about bushfire, which is now, beyond doubt, Australia’s number one environmental problem.
You may both be aware that Bruce Esplin, with two academics, Malcolm Gill and Neal Enright, wrote a report on the 2003 fires. It was severely criticized by a prominent QC, who pointed out that, although the two academics had qualifications, these did not include practical forest fire management experience. In the report, the authors tried to dismiss Aboriginal burning, by saying we do not know enough about it.
I have two photos from CSIRO’s Project Vesta, organized in Western Australia by Phil Cheney and Jim Gould. One shows a fire in 3 year old jarrah litter, on a summer’s day of 35 degrees. The fire is small, and a human can step over it. A bandicoot could run through a gap in the fire front. There is hardly any smoke, just a few white whisps. That is how Aborigines burnt the bush.
The other photo is a fire in 25 year old jarrah litter, on a day of 25 degrees. The flames are 20 metres high. There is dense black smoke. All a fire crew could do would be to keep clear, and wait for nightfall. Apart from birds, all animals in the area would have been killed. A house would stand no chance. That is how whitefellas let the bush burn.
Stewie, you may have read the “Esplin Report” which preceded the Black Saturday debacle. But if you haven’t, you should. One all the important issues, it oozes Sir Humphrey-isms.
Did blackfellas burn regularly? Well, this is a contentious issue and more research is needed, so we can’t take any cues from what they may or may not have done.
Is fuel-reduction to be encouraged or curtailed? Fuel reduction is a valuable tool, but it can only be done 12 days of the year.
It goes on and on in that vein, never finding the courage to arrive at an actual, this-we-believe conclusion. In it’s attempt to find “balance” — ie. placate green sentiments — it neuters any possibility of effective policy.
And a few years later, 173 people die.
Gents – Australia is a big place – in as much as forest maintenance leaves much to be desired – (and I honestly can’t fathom why anyone who is seriously “green” could ignore fire ecology) – much of Australia’s woodlands don’t burn enough and northern Australia burns too late and too hot. So we seem to have it wrong at all ends of the spectrum. Mammal ecologists seem very concerned about a supernova extinction event in northern Australia from a combination of fire, cats and toads. But nobody really cares !
And for the climate junkies a sensible article as the pendulum returns from hysteria.
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15719298
Roger, while I have read volumes of material over the years regarding wildfire, when the Esplin Report was released, I’d had enough. It had become quite clear to me by then, that not only did we have a significant problem with fuel loads but also a significant problem with politics (and the media), especially environmental politics.
In my submission following the 2003 fires, I wrote that if something was not done with regards to fuel loads and public awareness, that whole towns would be destroyed and hundreds of lives lost. I had put this to many in authority over many years, preceding these fires. The replies varied from denial, to personnel attacks, through to the usual rhetoric, as per the Esplin Report and many similar ‘reports’.
For years I have said that charges of manslaughter or of a similar nature, need to be laid regarding deaths from wildfire. This would apply from Ash Wednesday forward in the least.
Yes Roger, it is incredible that nobody has met a lynch squad over this issue and as for these people coined as an environmental movement, funny ha, ha. They are a dangerous joke. The Architects of Disaster I call them.
I haven’t read your book yet Roger. I think I am avoiding getting angry. To much anger over to many years takes a toll. My sister has a copy (you gave it to her I believe) and I will grab it off her some time. It sounds like good reading.
Speaking of my sister… She interviewed you some time ago on a regional radio show she hosts (Alexandra).
Are you ever out East Gippsland way Roger? Drop in for a chat if you do.
Hi Green Davey. No doubt, as we have discussed before, wildfire is and has been for a long time, the number one environmental issue in many parts of Australia. This is a problem for the green movement agenda at many levels, I’m sure. It would be seen as the greatest ecological threat and undermine many of the greens political goals. The ball would be aimed at the goals rather than it being kicked out of bounds all the time.
My neighbour is the local fire chief and he made the point that the aboriginals didn’t have worry about where the fire went, (like he does) in fact if it went toward their neighbours all the better for the neighbour as it drove all the roos in their direction.
I found that the Kimberly aboriginals regarded fire as a cleanser, it cleared the land ahead of you so as to avoid snakes. An aboriginal friend on being shown our new camp immediately set fire to it, so it was clean.
Stewie, Green etc,
Although I personally subscribe to the idea that evolution can move at a fast enough pace for native plants to have adapted to Aboriginal practices, it is clear that Australia’s natural environment facilitated the dependence on fire intrinsic to many of our plant species. With this in mind, and with all due respect to John’s excellent point, at a base level shouldn’t we simply allow bush fires to burn themselves out? Clearly that is what happened more than 50K years ago.
Nom obviously that is usually impractical WRT the point John made so what level of control would be most effective in our modern Australia?
I may be mistaken but aren’t natural fires usually caused by lightning strikes and doesn’t lightning often precede thunderstorms? In which case natural fires would burn long enough to do their job and then the rains would put them out.
This probably happened rather frequently, preventing any build up of litter.
Stewie, what are the options for management of fires in your opinion?
Derek,
I know the lightning option is attractive to those who dislike deliberate burning by humans. It would create a mosaic, but a very coarse grained one (Victoria, for example). Plants and animals would take a long time to repopulate large burnt patches.
Ecologists tried a ‘natural fire’ (i,e, lightning) regime in Kruger National Park. Rangers were even instructed to help fires over nasty, man-made roads. The result was a monster fire, that killed both animals and people. They have gone back to opportunistic burning, relying on local knowledge and judgement. We will do the same, eventually, but maybe it will take a few hundred more human deaths, and the destruction of a few million more ‘old growth’ trees, not to mention the odd koala and possum.
Landscape has involved humans, and their fires, for millennia. We should not try to go back to pre-human situations. It is worth considering that the bigger a fire, and the broader its front, the fiercer and faster it will be (CSIRO research). Our hunter-gatherer ancestors got fire right, with a fine grained mosaic. If they had not, they would have perished, and we would not be here.
Interesting GD – when I was up north there were fires everywhere but no lightning yet where I am south of SD lightning is common yet fires aren’t.
Davey, well put. The most compelling argument for aboriginal burning is the simplest: If you live in a fire-prone environment, wouldn’t you want some patches of bush in which to seek refuge, patches that weren’t going to go up? To claim, as David Horton does, that aboriginal burning had no effect on the land is to understand that stupidity is no impediment to a sucessful career in the eco racket.
Stewie: was that your sister? I remember talking to her. Lovely gal, hope I didn’t get too carried away.
Hi Derek, you asked,
Stewie, what are the options for management of fires in your opinion?
Jeez, thanks Derek. Such a broad question. Let me answer it in this way.
If Mr. Esplin had asked me that question back in 2007, I would have replied, “We need a Royal Commission, urgently, before many people die.”
Green Davies somes up well (as usual) the situation with aboriginal burning history and mosaic burning.
Derek not trying to weasel out of giving you an answer but being more specific would help.
One thing there is no doubt about though. Many areas have/had excessive fuel loads. Many at alarming levels covering huge areas. Often very huge.
We also have a recent fire history. For starkness, Black Friday 1939 alone, should be enough to tell us that fires of that magnitude and destructive force can’t be ‘normal’ or enviromentally acceptable.
The aboriginals must have had a great role to play in fire regimes, otherwise as Gdavies points out, if lightning was the only ignition point the whole lot will go up (so to speak).
The aborigines did not have the restrictions that we do in modern society. They did however live off the land and needed to do whatever was necessary to survive. Fire did undoubtedly enhance their hunting prospects, in a significant and dependable way. This was no more than a crude form of farming. It also made it far easier to travel from area to area. Good weapon to, if circumstances require and allow it.
Sorry Derek, best answer I can give at this stage.
Roger, no, my sister did not mention you getting carried away at all. Have no doubt, she has been well conditioned by her big brother in that regard. This is a highly emotional issue, undoubtedly real and undoubtedly tragic at many levels.
Stewie,
Sorry to be so vague but GD’s response and your answer give a pretty good picture that sounds good to me.
My local council has made it illegal to collect wood from the road-side, I think because it creates habitat but that leads to the question of habitat versus wood removal. What are your thoughts on that balancing act?
Talking of trees, the harsh winter in the UK has knocked some of them about.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1265594/Coldest-winter-31-years-leaves-trees-bare.html
Luke an interesting link to the economist. The economist has been pushing climate change for a number of years…to the point my father a subscriber for decades, gave it up in disgust. This article does make a good attempt at at least allowing for the possibility of doubt. A step in the right direction……
Have you read the comments? on the first page ( havent read anymore)they are almost all from sceptics and realists who make some very telling points and sum up exactly why anybody pushing for a sudden cut in emissions is an idealist and a long way from being realistic or even credible.
Personally I remain bemused and amazed that anybody could be so convinced about AGW that they would advocate doing anything significant, given our currently available technology.
Mind you I am amazed that anybody would support the fast national broadband scheme or Rudd’s desire to impose another level of beaurocrats on a hospital system already weighed down pen pushers. I hope Brumby stays the distance.
Derek,
Generally speaking, it seems to me that the idea of roadside vegetation being seen as habitat, is complete exaggeration. Especially when terms such as wildlife corridor are used.
You didn’t specify the habitat or species involved, so hard to be specific.
To me generally speaking though, it seems habitat is one of those ecological terms that can be easily abused. It can mean anything. You could have 100 trees, 10 trees, 1 tree or no trees and just dirt and still you have habitat.
So we have a highly flexible word, habitat, in competition with a not so flexible word, safety. Road safety. But it seems individuals have decided their political future is more important than the general populations safety. Vote 1, habitat.
I see a lot of farmers fences burning down.
I see more collisions between cars and animals.
More collisions between cars and trees/ fallen limbs.
More car accidents due to poorer line of vision.
And of course deadly outcomes for people during wildfires.
Councils save on road maintenance and can spend more on consulting, lunches and signs.
Roadside habitat seems exaggerated green politics to me and makes a limited contribution to biodiversity. Maybe it could be good for birds but seems limited for ground dwelling species.
Stewie
A more detailed look at “roadside habitat”. We have a lot of 3-chain lanes , i.e. about 60m wide.
Of this the road takes about 35m. The boundary fence clearing either side takes about 8m, leaving two strips of about 8.5m to achieve the wonders of roadside habitat.
These strips do not meet prescribed conditions of length/width required of land owners on either side, who also must have strips of at least 200m for habitat purposes.
Obviously biology is much more efficient when in the hands of government!
Then there are the 1.5-chain lanes.
Good stuff from WUWT on the climategate enquiry fiasco http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/climategate_even_a_whitewash_cant_hide_the_faults/
Sorry for the above link to Bolta’s very good accurate article, here is WUWT,http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/14/ipcc-ar4-also-gets-a-failing-grade-on-21-chapters/#more-18479
More on ipcc corruption and dishonesty at Jonova http://joannenova.com.au/2010/04/the-ipcc-5600-small-white-lies/#more-8118
“It is very surprising that research in an area that depends so heavily on statistical methods has not been carried out in close collaboration with professional statisticians,” the report concluded.
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/04/15/michael-mann-climategate-global-warming/
Wow. And if they’d looked a bit closer, they’d have noticed that research in an area that depends so heavily on physics has not been carried out in close collaboration with physicists.
If they’d looked closer still, they’d have discovered that research in an area that depends so heavily on writing computer code had not been carried out in close collaboration with professional programmers.
Perhaps, in the end, the ultimate crime of climatology will be that climatologists simply didn’t know what they were doing, but were nonetheless well paid to mess around and scare people into buying windmills.
Stewie and Ian: Re roadside corridors, some very interesting results came out of a small-mammal survey of cleared land under powerline easements — cleared to reduce the fire threat. Briefly, the study found that the initial clearing led to increases in the mouse population and did nothing for native mammals.
However, when the easements were in mid-stage recovery, the incidence of small native mammals, which were low in the adjacent untrimmed forest, rose significantly.
When the easements had returned to “normal”, however, small native mammals matched the same redcuced levels found in the surrounding forest. In other words, an overgrown green strip actually reduced the biodiversity that the proponents of “wild” roadside habitat claim it achieves.
Admittedly, power easements aren’t roadsides, but the findings still seem relevant.
Abstract: “Management of powerline corridors in Australia has traditionally focused on the complete removal of vegetation using short rotation times owing to the perceived hazard of fire associated with corridor vegetation. Because of the intense management associated with fire hazards, little thought has been given to use of powerline corridors by wildlife. This has resulted in corridors traditionally being viewed as a source of fragmentation and habitat loss within forested ecosystems.
“We investigated the responses of small mammal communities living in a powerline corridor to management-induced vegetation changes at different successional stages, to determine whether a compromise could be reached between managing corridors for fire and biodiversity. Habitat modelling in the corridor and adjacent forest for three native and one introduced small mammal species demonstrated that species responded to changes in vegetation structural complexity, rather than time-since-management per se.
“Early seral stages of vegetation recovery after corridor management encouraged the introduced house mouse (Mus domesticus) into corridors and contributed little to biodiversity. Mid-seral-stage vegetation, however, provided habitat for native species that were rare in adjacent forest habitats.
“As the structural complexity of the vegetation increased, the small mammal community became similar to that of the forest so that corridor vegetation contributed fewer biodiversity benefits while posing an unacceptable fire risk.
“If ecologically sensitive management regimes are implemented to encourage mid-seral vegetation and avoid complete vegetation removal, powerline corridors have the potential to improve biodiversity. This would maintain landscape connectivity and provide habitat for native species uncommon in the forest while still limiting fuel loads in the corridor.”
Anyone interested can chase up the full report via this link: “Powerline corridors: degraded ecosystems or wildlife havens?” — Clarke, Donna J. Pearce, Kate A.
http://www.deakin.edu.au/dro/view/DU:30003622
What a ridiculous thing to study. A waste of time and money.
If a powerline corridor is a degraded ecosystem or wildlife haven makes no difference. Seriously. Whether it’s one thing or the other, you still need the powerline corridor.
If the animals don’t like it, they can go elsewhere. If they like it, they’ll stay. That’s something you don’t even need Animal Behavior 101 to understand. Unlike plants, animals tend to move to where they want to be.
It’s crap like this that keeps the greenies “in business”. Study a “green” issue, publish useless crap, get more money from the public, make more friends with Greenpeace and the WWF, study more “green” crap, and come back for more.
Junk like this is why NASA is mostly about climate. Forget a Moon or Mars shot any time soon. They aren’t “green targets”. Heck, another Moon shot would probably require an Environmental Impact Statement from the Environmental Protection Agency and about a dozen years worth of lawsuits. Those damned boot prints on the Moon will last for centuries. Talk about desecration. Gack. I am so godawful tired of this stuff.
Roger,
I found that interesting. In WA, roadside burning was banned several decades ago, on ‘ecological’ grounds. Along a strip that I know, near Boddington, the long absence of fire has resulted in prolific weed growth. When it was burnt every few years by cockies, there were native grasses, including kangaroo grass.
Schiller,
Consider Plato’s idea of the real, and the imaginary, world. Is it more useful to discuss the real world of fire, plants and animals, or the imaginary world of ‘catastrophic climate change due to CO2’?
P.S. I am enjoying the volcano reports from Iceland – how much CO2? No mention of that yet in the media, but we are still being shown power station cooling towers steaming. I must admit I haven’t seen cracked mud, or a polar bear, for a while.
Poor Schiller, it’s a;ready happened:
http://www.donaldfrobertson.com/marstrn.html
Roger,
I also found it interesting, particularly as one of my goals is to create a wildlife corridor/sanctuary on my property. I would be interested to know the difference between “mid-seral-stage vegetation” and forest, litter density etc, plus what species of mammals were involved. I’ll read the article so if all the answers are in there, sweet.
GD, I’ve had 2 significant grass-fires on my property and in both cases the opening rains brought out a stack of weeds. Admittedly back then the place was covered in wild oats with only isolated patches of native grasses (mostly wallaby and brush-wire grass)but this is still the case now. The first rains bring out the opportunistic weeds like Jane and capeweed.
Roger, would you know the best time of the year to do a burn off in the Adelaide hills?
Derek,
Yes, fires certainly do bring up weeds at some places. At others, weeds proliferate in long unburnt conditions. Tricky, ain’t it? Some work in South Africa suggested that weeds could be crowded out by kangaroo grass, burned in summer. Capeweed is a bugger. I assume it is adapted to frequent fire in South Africa. I think an important point is whether the seeds of a particular species sit on top of the ground, or burrow under (curly awns). The South Africans found that even head and back fires had different effects.
Green Davey
When I saw the Kruger Park fire research the aim was to burn the park in about a 5 year cycle. They had about 1500ha of fire research plots (3 reps). Sampling was done in company with a game warden with loaded rifle in case of “tabbies”.
A slow back fire can be pretty hot.
Look for Winston Trollope, an avid S. African fire researcher, in the literature as a start.
Effect of fire on woody weeds depends on seed load. Some Charleville Pastoral Lab fire plots showed long lasting control with one fire. Others in the same area were back to original or better populations within years.
Thanks Ian,
I have never been to Kruger NP, but have followed its history, with interest, since the big, killer fire in 2001. Trollope is good – I think it is Trollope & Trollope sometimes (wife or son maybe).
We really know little about Australian seed banks – it’s waiting to be done. As I’m sure you know, it can be difficult, with some seeds as small as pepper. I suspect that long fire exclusion makes little difference to effective seed numbers in eucalypt forest. For the first 2-4 years, shrub seeds can drop onto soil, but after that they drop onto leaves, are covered by the next leaf fall, and so on, like a layer cake. They then all burn in the next fire, with only those that fell in the first few years actually germinating. Also seeds produced some years after fire may look alright, but often have no endosperm. Lack of calcium, from ash, to form pollen, perhaps? Some have a neat little hole in the end, and no contents again. Looks like weevils at work in long unburnt litter. Them’s some of me hypotheses, anyway! By God it’s tricky. What do you think?
There must be a story in this, but the lame stream media are unlikely to say boo.
http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/2010/planes-or-volcano/
Bishop Hill spoke to the Royal Society and he is not amused. The RS chose the panel and the CRU chose the questions – nice, very nice.
‘They missed out things like Jones 98 ( which would have led to discussion of Polar Urals and the suppressed update, which would have led to Yamal. Also Tornetrask and the Briffa bodge.). Osborn and Briffa would have raised the spectre of proxy selection issues.’
April 16, 2010 | Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill has a wonderful post of an overheard conversation:
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2010/4/17/overheard.html
John,
If it wasn’t so true I could laugh but the tears won’t let me.
Just back from camping in the bush where the glass is fuller than I thought at around 90%.
While the CO2 is no doubt helping, you can’t escape from the fact that good wet seasons are what seriously replenish this country.
BTW, Wivenhoe dam is now virtually full but the emergency spillway is still another nearly 20 metres higher than the surface level, giving it additional capacity of nearly three times its present full capacity simply to provide flood mitigation for Brisbane.
You would think that SEQ Water would use some of this rather than talk of spending more billions on their proposed trebling of that useless, rusting, non-productive Tugun desal plant.
Lake Eyre is currently being filled again. The whole of eastern Australia is flooded –
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/gallery-e6frg6n6-1225854623381?page=1
we have water coming out our ears. The drought has dispersed as has the environmental scare.
SD – yesterday I noticed one of those fancy caravans that expand doubling their size parked in our common land. So I wandered down and met a guy from tweed heads who was setting out on an 8 month trek across Australia – I was so envious 😉
Central Aussie is flourishing – lake Eyre is being filled again contray to all the CSIRO
/BoM predictions. The Murray Darling system is being rejuvenated and water is flowing in all directions.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/gallery-e6frg6n6-1225854623381?page=2
Global warming graph attacked by study
Financial Times (UK)
April 14, 2010
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/162b0c58-47f5-11df-b998-00144feab49a.html
A key piece of evidence in climate change science was slammed as “exaggerated” on Wednesday by the UK’s leading statistician, in a vindication of claims that global warming sceptics have been making for years.
John,
Fabulous photos!
I used to muster and drove cattle in those sandhills and the claypans in between are now flooded. Those sandhills run roughly north/south and when it’s like this you have to swim cattle from sandhill to sandhill. Sometimes it’s only a deep wade but sometimes it can be a half-kilometer swim. The channel country can be even worse especially when you hobble your horses out at night and they swim the channels in hobbles, trying to get home and you have to swim after them on a freezing winter morning fully dressed with your boots on carrying a bridle.
You can’t work that country with motor vehicles in the wet.
It would be good to fly out for a look but those photos are nearly as good and a lot more enfren.
“Central Aussie is flourishing – lake Eyre is being filled again contray to all the CSIRO
/BoM predictions” – got a reference John or just pulling that from thin air to help the cause !?
” The whole of eastern Australia is flooded ” what utter nonsense – try http://wron.net.au/DemosII/DamData/DamLevels.aspx check Burrendong, Keepit, Split Rock, Copeton, Pindari, Coolmunda, Cressbrook, Cooby Ck, Clarendon, Leslie, Glenlyon, Perseverance …
And I wonder how the Murray on the “Murray-Darling” is going. Check Hume !
Try not to talk crap John …
Schiller – as an experienced quote miner – how can you excuse your failure to report “He accused sceptics of “identifying a few particular issues and blowing them up” to distort the true picture. The handful of errors found so far, including the exaggerated hockey stick graph and a mistaken claim by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035, were “isolated incidents”, he said. “If you look at any area of science, you would be able to find odd examples like this. It doesn’t detract from the vast bulk of the conclusions,” he said.”
Why – coz you’re a denialist. Try to stop lying Schiller. I know it’s hard.
Schiller,
Why can’t all the warmers be as honest as Judy?
http://www.earthzine.org/2010/03/22/judith-curry-on-the-credibility-of-climate-research/
Mr. drongo,
Because they would not then be warmers.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA – good one Spanglers – so after having caught Schiller with his grubby hand right in the rhetorical till above – you have indecency to engage Schiller in a discussion of morality when he has just totally misrepresented an article. Are you that much of a loon Spanglers?
Let’s get some perspective on our mate St Jude
http://climateprogress.org/2010/02/24/my-response-to-dr-judith-currys-unconstructive-essay/
A ‘handful of errors’?
Here’s a short list of the different ‘-gates’ which comprise Climategate: Pachaurigate, TERIgate, Hurricanegate, Disastergate, Glaciergate, Amazongate, and NGOgate (consisting of WWFgate, NWFgate and Greenpeacegate), Magazinegate, Thesisgate, Bootgate, Chinagate, Africagate, Reviewgate, Thermogate (consisting of GISSgate, CRUgate, Darwingate, Russiagate and NZgate) and Jamalgate.
Flukeyloo complains that I did not cite the misleading portions of the article. Boo hoo Luke.
We’ll probably see ‘Investigate’ added to the list. Investigations of the Hockey Team are all a whitewash, which means the investigators themselves are now de facto part of the Hockey Team.
El Gordo,
Thanks for the link to: Planes or Volcano? (Information is Beautiful, April 16, 2010), at
http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/2010/planes-or-volcano/
You wonder if this is news? No, it can’t be, because it’s pure warmist balderdash. If we assume that the CO2 involved is accurately quantified (bad assumption where warmists are involved), the claimed result is still fraudulent. Typical warmist fraud.
The graph supposes that the people who didn’t fly on an airplane because of the volcano will simply stay where they are — that’s where the illusory CO2 “savings” occurs. Fact is, all these people have booked tickets, and many of them are stranded away from home. So there are no actual CO2 savings at all.
Flukeyloo and his aberrant, ill-begotten tribe never shrink from the task of lying for The Cause. Given the whitewashes that have followed on the heels of Climategate, one can only conclude that these people feel so morally righteous that preaching falsehoods merely strikes them as virtuous. Blinded by their self-ascribed virtue, they’re unable to notice that a growing number of citizens around the world see their chicanery and obfuscation for what it is.
Schiller being a denialist apprentice bootlace keeps spinning – doing what denialists do – recycle old debunked garbage over and over. Schiller’s “Gates” are fabricated bunkum and you know it matey.
Be honest Schiller – I know it’s hard – report that the inquiries have found NOTHING !!
Bad luck Schiller – tell us – how much to do you get paid to spin this stuff?
Does denialist = fraud = right wing think tank = fascism !
Luke,
Ever wonder about how the inquiries couldn’t find problems that everyone knows are well-documented? Is it possible that you don’t understand the concept of whitewashing? You’ve been doing it for ages, surely you consider yourself adept at the practice.
I get paid nothing to say what I do.
And when it comes to fascism, you’ve obviously not read Umberto Eco. Then again, it’s likely you’re using the term because adverting to Hitler would be instantly recognized as empty rhetoric.
Luke – dam levels might be one thing but rainfall is another
http://www.weatherzone.com.au/climate/recent.jsp?lt=wzcountry&lc=aus&c=rain_decile&p=3mth
blue means above average – and eastern Australia means exactly that – the stuff on the right!
The ever-so-predictable Luke.
I bet you never made the football team. [Maybe not even the hockey team]
You should take a leaf out of Judith Curry’s book yourself.
Even George Monbiot agrees with her.
John,
The way Luke complains in the good times, I’d hate to be around if his arse was on fire.
Luke, if you yourself truly believe that all these “gate” investigations have been shown to be false then you need to reset your bullshit meter and engage the critical thinking part of your brain. Even you couldnt support the findings that the mann hockey stick had ntg wrong with it!? surely this alone is sufficient to prove to you that the investigations have been done with the outcome already decided?
“The problem is all the oil and coal we are running our sheep on. Farmers need to learn from the biofuels industry, which is powered by plants that need CO2 to grow, thereby making vehicle emissions “carbon neutral”.
I have been experimenting with some stuff called ‘grass’. Initial results seem promising”.
The possibilities are endless.
SD – they are drilling for gas in my area – they found it in one place near Peacock creek and have now set up another drill closer to Tabulam.. According to the locals there is a huge coal seam running from here to Warwick. They’ve found gas in the Casino/Kyogle valley so I’d imagine soon we’ll be seeing a new port at Yamba or Ballina.
John – flooded !!! – “The whole of eastern Australia is flooded” your words – no it ain’t ! Evidence provided. So Spanglers – is the whole of eastern Australia flooded or not. Your silence will be my answer.
Toby – come off it – http://www.thenation.com/doc/20100503/hari
Pretty well 99% of the IPCC report stands. You’re a victim of denialist propaganda fraud ! Wake up ! Whereas 0.001% of the denialist nonsense stands.
National warnings
Queensland
* Warnings current:
* Coastal Wind Warning 1,
* Queensland flood warning summary.
NSW and ACT
* Warnings current:
* Flood Warning – Culgoa, Bokhara, Narran,
* Flood Warning – Warrego River,
* Flood Warning – Paroo River,
* Flood Warning – Barwon-Darling DS Bourke.
Floods from Queensland have entered northern NSW, cutting off roads and isolating farms and small communities.
Following torrential rain that deluged southern parts of Queensland late last month and early this month, the State Emergency Service (SES) is warning residents in the Weilmoringle and Goodooga communities, in Brewarrina Shire, to leave their homes because of a risk of property damage.
Road access in and out of Goodooga is likely to be cut off by floodwaters by the weekend, while the village’s Bokhara River is expected to peak near 4.3 metres on Sunday, the Bureau of Meteorology said.
Residents there could be isolated for up to six weeks, the SES warned.
Towns already cut off by floodwaters include Paroo, Wanaaring and Angledool.
Residents of Lightning Ridge are likely to be surrounded by floodwaters later this week, potentially isolating the town for about a week, the SES said.
Swollen rivers – including the Paroo, Warego, Darling, Bokhara, Culgoa, Birrie and Narren Rivers – may inundate tens of thousands of hectares, from Walgett to the Queensland border and west towards Bourke, Emergency Services Minister Steve Whan said.
People living in affected areas need to make sure they either evacuate ahead of the rising waters, or be prepared to be isolated for some time.
Coast flooding March 2010
The Coast has copped a bucketing. Send your pictures to news@thedaily.com.au
http://www.sunshinecoastdaily.com.au/photos/galleries/coast-flooding-march-2010/#num=1&id=coast-flooding-march-2010
Queensland rain and floods
Autumn 2010 has brought heavy rain and localised flash flooding across parts of Queensland and in particular, the south-east corner. Send your current flood photos to editorial@finda.com.au.
http://www.byronnews.com.au/photos/galleries/queensland-rain-and-floods-march-2010/#num=1&id=queensland-rain-and-floods-march-2010
Hey Luke – why don’t you go read this:
Top British boffin: Time to ditch the climate consensus
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/05/06/mike_hulme_interview/print.html
yeah, whatever you say luke……no bias in the article at all. How many billions have been spent proving your case….? the exagerations continue and the coverups. For a start not many “sceptics” deny its been warming or that co2 is a greenhouse gas. And yet we are forever beiing accused of not believing in the science.
If you can t see that many in the climate community have not been ethical in their output and have been working to an obvious agenda and blatant “advocating” of political outcomes, then i suggest you remove your blinkers. There is no consensus, there never was and yet we keep still being lied to about a consensus. how many statisticians, physics, chemistry, biology, disease etc scientists have to come out and discuss how appalling the methodology and skills of these AGW proponents are, before you wake up?
You yourself have held the IPCC up on a pedestal and continually use the” fact” that their material is “peer reviewed”. For starters despite pachuria lies, this is far from the case (60-70% is a long way from 100%?!). The stacking of the peer review process and the whitewashing of the “investigates” by stacking are yet more evidence of the lack of acountability and ethics that appears to riddle many in the climate change profession.
Thx John, but I bet Luke won t understand its real meaning……
Yet another fairly devastating commentary on the integrity and competence of the IPCC.
http://nofrakkingconsensus.blogspot.com/2010/04/seasoned-veterans-view-of-ipcc.html
It’s no wonder then that the people in charge research funding in Australia have taken steps to ensure that they have the right processes in place to handle complaints, as to scientific integrity.
http://www.arc.gov.au/media/releases/media_12Apr10.htm
But even this isn’t going to stop the GW fraternity making compete fools of themselves by endorsing and tolerating frauds like Gore and Pachauri
Luke,
You know only too well that just about every river on the east coast was flooded. Plus a heap of inland rivers.
I posted two lists but they are not coming up
Luke,
Some NSW rivers in flood recently:
Tweed, Brunswick, Richmond Wilsons, Clarence
Bellinger, Nambucca, Macleay, Hastings, Manning, Hunter
Wyong, Nepean-Hawkesbury, Georges, Parramatta
Shoalhaven, Moruya, Clyde, Tuross, Bega, Pambula, Snowy
Macintyre, Gwydir, Namoi, Peel, Casltereagh, Barwon, Culgoa
Macintyre, Dumaresq, Weir, Moonie
Macquarie, Bogan, Lachlan
Queanbeyan-Molonglo, Cooma, Murrumbidgee, Murray
Darling, Warrego, Paroo.
Similar numbers in Qld etc, etc.
Try again wordpress.
Try again wordpress.
Try again
John,
These LNG deposits are mind boggling. If only they would convert it to diesel fuel we would all be in clover.
It’s a travesty we can’t hide the incline.
http://rankexploits.com/musings/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/HadCrutNOAAGISSTemp.jpg
There must be a logical explanation, but at the moment it escapes me.
Excellent new book just released!
Spencer, Roy W. The Great Global Warming Blunder: How Mother Nature Fooled the World’s Top Climate Scientists. http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/04/great-global-warming-blunder-how-mother.html
Some of the book’s claims:
Believe it or not, this potential natural explanation for recent warming has never been seriously researched by climate scientists. The main reason they have ignored this possibility is that they cannot think of what might have caused it.
They think that the only way for global-average temperatures to change is for the climate system to be forced ‘externally’… (the erroneous presumption of ‘natural equilibrium’ I mentioned earlier)
But what they have ignored is the potential for the climate system to cause its own climate change.
Read more at Dr. Spencer’s website: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/04/the-great-global-warming-blunder-how-mother-nature-fooled-the-world%e2%80%99s-top-climate-scientists/
Good news from the USA!
In spite of Bulk Media’s inattention to the topic of AGW, credulity and gullibility are decreasing markedly. This is according to a new Rasmussen poll, results at:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/environment_energy/energy_update
Choice tidbits:
Fifty-nine percent (59%) also said it’s at least somewhat likely that some scientists have falsified research data to support their own theories and beliefs about global warming.
But 43% now say global warming is not serious, including 21% who say it is not at all serious. The number who say global warming is not serious at all is at its highest level measured in regular tracking in over a year.
The plurality of voters (47%) says there is a conflict between economic growth and environmental protection, a number that has held fairly consistent over the past several months.
My take: there’s still plenty of sheeple out there, but fewer all the time. Those who thought Western Civ was heading to Hell in a hand-cart, with the Greens leading the way, might want to entertain the notion that hope (the last critter to emerge from Pandora’s Box) is justifiable.
Yet another reason for hope: ‘UK university ordered to give data to climate sceptic’, New Scientist, 20 April 2010, http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18801-uk-university-ordered-to-give-data-to-climate-sceptic.html
Actually, two reasons for hope. First is that Queens University Belfast was ultimately forced to disclose the data from its 40-year investigation of Irish oak-tree growth rings dating back more than 7000 years. Normally, scientists are proud to disclose their data, so it’s good to see QUB join the time-hallowed traditions.
Second reason for hope: the QUB admission that the tree-ring data are useless in the AGW debate.
According to the article, palaeoecologist Mike Baillie and his colleague Ana Garcia-Suárez published a study showing that Irish oak growth rings are a good proxy for summer rainfall, but not for temperature.
Nice! When climatologists are forced to join the mainstream and disclose their data, they dismiss the value of the data.
Could this become a trend? Absolutely. Climatologists are no strangers to obfuscation. The Hadley CRU emails talk about sending crap datasets in response to questions posed by the curious. All they need to do is respond to FOI, call the datasets useless, and then sit back and say — we’ve heard this before — ‘forget the numbers, look at the obvious’. (Like looking at Himalayan glaciers, hahahahaha.)
Watching the game of the charlatans unwind is a tremendous spectacle, and Western Civ may well view this (historically) as a turning point.
Schiller again ducks answering any questions about his bulldusting …. predictable … How many articles will he have misquoted or quote mined this time. Who has time to check?
John – ho hum – if all of eastern Australia is flooded – that’s IS FLOODED – strange how Toowoomba down to the Macquarie seems to have missed out (again) – dams still on the dregs. Try to do some basic research eh? More selectivity in quoting -and that’s the problem with you guys – always adding bits in – leaving bits out. Never get a full story. Cut and paste.
http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/awap/rain/index.jsp?colour=colour&time=latest&step=0&map=decile&period=12month&area=nat note the important areas of EASTERN AUSTRALIA that have missed out
According to Luke’s paradigm, if the whole planet is not flooded, such as in the time of Noah, then pointing out flooding in various regions is irrelevant, or quote-mining, or whatever. So puerile.
“So Spanglers – is the whole of eastern Australia flooded or not. Your silence will be my answer.”
he wasn’t silent Luke – better accept his answer.
Toowoomba has had 345mm so far this year well over average so it hasn’t missed anything Luke. Macquarie has had 228mm also above average rainfall, ditto.
What was that you said about doing basic research?
checked your map – so there’s a tiny area around Moree that’s missed out, it’s 22mm short of average rainfall – quelle horreur!!
The rest is flooding mate!!
BTW Luke:
“The area of New South Wales in drought has dropped dramatically.
Recent heavy rains have seen the figure fall to 7.3 per cent of the state in March.
In February, 39.8 per cent of New South Wales was in drought – in January the figure was 81 per cent.”
John thanks for that piece on Mike Hulme, it’s great to see a warmist using his brains and ageeing that the climate can’t be ” fixed ” and that we should stop this stupid MSM/ political fixation on a concensus.
His interesting observation that if Hansen, Hulme and Singer were shown the same scientific info they would probably draw different conclusions says it all really and it’s the way it should be.
For example hansen and gore’s nonsense on glacial melt rates and SL are not backed up by any reputable scientist or Uni team, something hansen belately acknowleged, ageeing that it was outside his field of expertise.
Eastern Australia hasn’t flooded for 30 years yet, so don’t worry “it’s only weather”
Another peer reviewed study showing the Roman WP , Dark ages, MWP, LIA and present day warming from the Indonesian area, proving once again that there is nothing unusual about the present warming and it was world wide and not just a NH phenomena during those past warmings, coolings etc.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/20/another-indication-of-mwp-and-lia-being-global/#more-18729
Anyway while denialists are playing with their dicks (if they have any?), the real world of science marching on ignoring the libelous bilge that comprise the various bogus
“-gate” reporting that now masquerades for any serious science commentary.
BTW Neville & Hunter – don’t bother reading it – it’s above your education level.
Nature Geoscience 3, 267 – 272 (2010)
Published online: 7 February 2010 | doi:10.1038/ngeo761
Snowfall increase in coastal East Antarctica linked with southwest Western Australian drought
Tas D. van Ommen1 & Vin Morgan1
The southwest corner of Western Australia has been subject to a serious drought in recent decades. A range of factors, such as natural variability and changes in land use, ocean temperatures and atmospheric circulation, have been implicated in this drought, but the ultimate cause and the relative importance of the various factors remain unclear. Here we report a significant inverse correlation between the records of precipitation at Law Dome, East Antarctica and southwest Western Australia over the instrumental period, including the most recent decades. This relationship accounts for up to 40% of the variability on interannual to decadal timescales, and seems to be driven by the meridional circulation south of Australia that simultaneously produces a northward flow of relatively cool, dry air to southwest Western Australia and a southward flow of warm, moist air to East Antarctica. This pattern of meridional flow is consistent with some projections of circulation changes arising from anthropogenic climate change. The precipitation anomaly of the past few decades in Law Dome is the largest in 750 years, and lies outside the range of variability for the record as a whole, suggesting that the drought in Western Australia may be similarly unusual.
Australian Antarctic Division and Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Cooperative Research Centre, Private Bag 80, Hobart 7001, Tasmania, Australia
Ah yes the good old stand bys could be, may be, seems to be, suggesting that and consistent with some projections. I mean give us a break.
In the meantime what we do know is that southern Australia has been drying out for at least 5,000 years, just about 4,900+ years before there could have been an AGW influence.
Read it or watch it again, lukey.http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/s1848641.htm
You posted that back in February when it first came out Luke – couldn’t you find anything recent to post as a distraction from that fact that your eastern weather argument was trounced!
Re. snowing in the Antarctic, just think logically, given the amount of compressed snow-ice on the continent, the weather MUST have shifted from time to time in the past causing abnormal snowfalls. Normal precipitation just would not have been enough to build up the height of ice over land since the last warm period.
“TROUNCED” ! balderdash …
Eastern Australia is NOT flooding if a vast swathe of its dams (I gave you the list) are on the dregs ! John now thinks that mean rainfall = flooding !! WOW
Neville – no you don’t have any evidence on SW WA from “that show” – watch your show (unpublished speculation actually) again.
And Neville – I love it how you ignore all the science in that article with “your hunch”. Back to Grade 2 with you.
And you have to hand it to Wilkesy – well maybe stuff has happened before …. the old meme ….
Guys we’ll just add this little science output to change in El Nino to Modoki mode, change in IOD behaviour, an intensifying STR. But denialists never read the literature – only Andrew Bolt. (when they’re not listening to talk-back radio).
” A range of factors, such as natural variability and changes in land use, ocean temperatures and atmospheric circulation, have been implicated in this drought, but the ultimate cause and the relative importance of the various factors remain unclear” yeah you nailed it Luke, must be man made climate change………
And Luke we have had discussions in prior years about Australia drying out and the twentieth century being wetter than normal….but it must have passed you by , like most of the arguments and evidence that doesnt fit in your paradigm.
“well maybe stuff has happened before”
luke, are you saying, that whatever is happening today is all unique?
The Antarctic is claimed to be the driest continent on earth, and yet has over a mile thick covering of ice.
Luke the term southern Australia is used to describe De Deckker’s work and over 20 years he has cored more than 15 of these “rain gauges” as well as marine canyons.
I will do my best to find out where these other core sites were located, but I’d be surprised if the sw of WA missed out.
Luke this paper shows that De Deckker’s work included SW WA from about 2003 and it mentions a number of lakes were studied, plus how the marine canyons were worked, interesting photos.
http://uos.anu.edu.au/resources/AUSCAN2003.PDF
Anyhow it was definitely Southern Australia.
Excellent Neville; the chart/graph MD2603 is interesting.
Luke,
See what some extra ACO2 can do for cow pea.
http://www.co2science.org/education/truthalerts/v13/cowpea.php
Cohenite I can’t find MD 2603, do you mean MD 2607 and how do you understand it?
MD2607! The graph covers, as I understand it, 320000 years, and shows, via CO2 and sea level proxies, that both have been higher in the relative recent geologic past, with sea levels increasing rapidly [geologically speaking] from about 20000 years ago, the beginning of the current interglacial. CO2 levels look to have been higher 5000 bya and much higher 20000-30000 bya, in the middle of the last ice age. How amusing.
Toby – you’re a shocker – here you go with the ye olde whole Australian average scam. What a shonk.
This
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/timeseries.cgi?graph=rain&area=aus&season=0112&ave_yr=0
versus this
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/trendmaps.cgi?map=rain&area=aus&season=0112&period=1900
Neville – an unpublished glossy report not in SW WA – sigh ! If you want to hop randomly around the nation you could balance this unreviewed bit of very early work against published evidence of no overall trend in reef catchments rainfall over the last 400 years.
In any case who cares.
Did anyone ever say there may be no background trends – In any case SW WA is a step change in the last 30 years not a long run climate trend drift.
AND – No climate circulation mechanism = no science. The SW WA anthropogenic mechanism is well understood.
The paper concludes:
“This study suggests that the recent post-1970 anomaly in Law
Dome precipitation lies outside the envelope of natural variability
and supports the hypothesis of anthropogenically induced climate
shift. It also suggests, given the SWWA teleconnection, that if the
mix of factors that influence SWWA rainfall over the past century
reflects that of the longer term, then the recent drought in SWWA
may be similarly unusual.”
But Neville – I did have to have a very big laugh – as you guys have been saying there are no trends in droughtedness in Australia – now you’re saying there is – WHICH IS IT ?
WHICH IS IT Neville – denialists as we know just chop and change at will !
Again the guys have no concern at the myriad of many effects going on around them. All these climate systems changing in their own backyard with good mechanistic explanations but the stooges aren’t convinced. Sigh …. again we see the there is never any evidence that can ever convince denialists that there may be a case. You guys will always change the goal posts a few more metres to avoid admitting that all these science results are very bloody interesting.
El Nino changing, IOD, sub-tropical ridge, SAM – all changing – the whole southern hemisphere circulation changing in response to climate change. The data are flooding in. Mechanisms are modelled and understanding increasing. But the denialists are still NOT EVEN CURIOUS !
These papers aren’t alarmist. They’re very dry. Very boringly scientific and statistical. And you lot have not the slightest bit of curiosity. Of course you are non-scientific denialist ideologues – so what would we expect?
Back to talk-back radio and Andrew Bolt with you – time for another tanty ranty !
Michael Mann threatened a lawsuit over the musical YouTube ‘Hide the Decline’ video mocking him and his hockey stick, so YouTube pulled it. So the group, Minnesotans for Global Warming, created and posted a new version which is arguably better than earlier versions.
More Censorship? You Tube Yanks All Versions of Hide the Decline ClimateGate Song
Before it’s News
April 21, 2010
http://beforeitsnews.com/news/35413/More_Censorship_You_Tube_Yanks_All_Versions_of_Hide_the_Decline_ClimateGate_Song.html
In addition to its tremendously high production values, it’s marvelously didactic as well.
How do you argue with a fool, but here goes for the umpteenth time, over the last 100+ years records show that Australia is recieving more rainfall.
All states except Tasmania are officially recieving more rainfall, but Victoria is about the same and the SW tipof WA has a reduced rainfall pattern, I mean what is it about these facts that a 5 year old couldn’t understand?
Next a lengthy study by De Deckker has found that SOUTHERN Australia has been drying out for at least 5,000 years and we are probably nearing the end of a 1400 year period of severe drought, once again what can’t you understand about this study?
Interesting study on SL by a home grown team in Bangladesh that shows that gore’s hooplah or BS on SL for this area is total nonsense, from the very people who will suffer (? ) the most http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/ipcc_wrong_20_million_bangaladeshis_saved/#commentsmore
BTW Luke what do you think of Cohenite’s assessment on MD 2607 above, afterall you’re the expert ( ? )on such matters, right ?
Neville,
You are missing the point.
The weather is not the climate. Unless the weather is bad, in which case, bad weather means that the climate is going ‘catastrophic’ due to human intervention.
You need to get your politics straightened out before you talk about climatology. That’s how the game works.
Luke says I am a shocker for throwing his quote back at him because it clearly did not state that the report found any specific cause of the change.
Or Luke are you doing the usual bait and switch. I find valid fault in your quote and you then refer to something else i said to imply i am wrong. So was Australia on average wetter in the past?
And Luke your BOM links show that with the first map of oz that the majority of australia did receive above avg rain last century, and the other that trainfall has been very varied but in fact the end of the century had increased rainfall. Neither of which counter my statement that until last century the data shows us that the country on average has been drying out….particulalry the south east.
As usual i miss your point…or suspect there really wasnt one because you didnt understand the point being made…..
Great time to be on the side of the denialist filth. sea ice extent in Arctic highest at this date in 8 years. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/22/earth-gives-us-an-earth-day-present-arctic-sea-ice-is-highest-for-this-date-in-9-years/#more-18800
Just for laughs look at Earth Day’s predictions in 1970, yet some of these apocalyptic fools are still going strong and still firmly attached to the public teat.
Erhlich and his ilk should be laughed out of their cozy, crazy bludgers retreats.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/forty_years_of_earth_day_and_armageddon_no_closer/
Neville – de Dekker – peer reviewed reference for SW WA is ? ….
“Next a lengthy study by De Deckker has found that SOUTHERN Australia has been drying out for at least 5,000 years and we are probably nearing the end of a 1400 year period of severe drought, once again what can’t you understand about this study?”
hmmmm – well that would explain all those floods in the 50s and 70s – PULLEASE NEVILLE.
And your peer reviewed reference is ….?
Gee Neville – just what you’d expect in the Arctic given
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100414/full/news.2010.184.html
Toby – yes you completely miss the point of regional drying trends in the last 40 years driven by mechanisms which you avoid discussing like the plague.
Luke- sigh ( as u would say)
you never seem to actually discuss the point that has been made……the twentieth century was unusually wet, there may have been regional changes during the last 40 years but there are always changes and that is irrelevant to the fact the very end of the century reverted to the drying phase that has been going on for thousands of years.
Regarding the last link…..fancy that, the sun did it stupid!
in your immortal words- ya got nothin….
http://kenskingdom.wordpress.com/2010/03/20/political-science-101/
Luke perhaps the comments/ debate at the bottom may interest you.
I particularly liked this “I read the State of the Climate report and did a “protasis” count on it. This is a count of equivocal terms, such as “could”, “might”, “if” (condition is true), et cetera.
This document gets a score of 10. A scientific paper, by definition, should get a score of 0.
I then looked for statements with unsubstantiated declarations: declared “facts” with no references.
This document gets a score of 7. Again a scientific paper should get a score of 0.
the csiro and bom are too often being caught out playing politics not science.
Luke over a period of 5,000 years you’re going to get some wet periods like the 1950s and the 1970s and some dry periods like the early 1900s or the 1940s or 2002 to 2009, that’s been my argument all along.
30 years of weather or climate involves changes always has always will, some dynamic some more sublime, but anyhow I’ll let you carry on the argument with yourself, you seem so self absorbed and deceptive you give me the creeps.
I found the link to low solar activity and cold European winters very interesting, seems the sun does play a role in CC.
Another reason to know Luke and pals are full of shit:
http://www.climatedata.info/Precipitation/Precipitation/global_files/BIGwprc-02-simulation-of-global-precipitation.gif.gif
Toby,
Your ‘protasis’ bit was an excellent find. I’ve often wondered if anyone had bothered to analyze text according to the prevalence of ‘weasel words’, which is the Greenies’ stock in trade. They’re also fond of phrases like ‘has been linked with’ and ‘many believe that’ and so forth.
Turns out, there’s some freeware out there that can do that very thing. It was developed by the US Centers for Disease Control. The robot that oversees this site will not allow me to put the link here, but it’s called EZ-Text.
It would be great to turn this thing loose on the text of the gray literature that comprises 30 percent of the foundation of the IPCC reports! Automated quote mining, what could be better?
The Russians still think we are heading into cooler times.
‘We expect that the next relatively deep minimum of the solar activity, radius, and radiation flux in the 200-year quasi-cycle will be close to the Maunder minimum level and will occur in the year 2040 ±10.’ Kh. I. Abdusamatov
I just don’t know what to believe;)-
EZ-Text, here it is “http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/resources/software/ez-text/installation.htm”
Roy Spencer’s new book ” The Great Global Warming Blunder “, how Mother nature fooled the world’s top ( ?) scientists should be a good read.
He looks at clouds and asks could nature’s sunshades could be the cause of the recent warming.
If clouds changed by -1 or -2% then this could easily change the temp by allowing more solar radiation to reach the planet’s surface.
Of course his latest research is looking more closely at the UHIE and population trends and he shows that the temp increase over the last century may be related to this trend as well.
He ponders whether the tiny ammount of co2 on the atmosphere is really a problem since natural sinks seem to reduce our increasing percentage by 50% even as we produce more.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/23/new-book-from-dr-roy-spencer/#more-18840
Above should read ” tiny ammount of co2 in not on.
Toby – peer reviewed reference pls for “the twentieth century was unusually wet”
“that is irrelevant to the fact the very end of the century reverted to the drying phase that has been going on for thousands of years” – peer reviewed reference pls?
Neville has failed to provide any …
and Toby this was an intelligent test for you (you failed)
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100414/full/news.2010.184.html
“Lockwood is quick to point out that even if the recent lull in sunspot activity extends into another Maunder minimum, the effects are regional and it will not offset global warming. “This is very much a European phenomenon,” he says.” – you don’t have a clue what you’re reading Toby !!!
Hunter – for you to post that graph indicates you are so silly as to be the greatest denialist doughboy of all time. Tell me you’re joking. Tell us in a para or two how these models have been run and for what purpose?
Neville – pity species don’t know about heat islands and neither do the ocean or satellite data sets – NEXT !
Reading the comments on Kenskindom I found Frank to be enlightening.
‘The alarmist’s conceptual model that human CO2 raises temperatures amuses me when it’s actually the reverse – rising temperature raises atmospheric CO2 expelled from the oceans to a much, much greater extent than humans contribute and would ever contribute. The circulation of CO2 in the atmosphere is only in the range 5 to 10 years with oceans, soil and vegetation removing it from the atmosphere over this period of time.’
Brilliant!
so the planet reacts when the temperature increases, plants have a better environment to grow, so the oceans supply additional CO2 to assist. wow – who’d have thought!
Like you’d expect from Gaia. he he .
If it worked that way things would IMPROVE.
That can’t possibly be right.
The glass is half empty, I tell ya.
Found this link at Watts and thought it might lighten the way. You will find Luke there in all his beastly glory.
http://www.cartoonsbyjosh.com/
I found the Luke/bit_pattern cartoon – http://www.cartoonsbyjosh.com/OT_troll_nighish_scr.jpg
Thanks for the link el gordo.
The historical record demonstrates unequivocally that, from the standpoint of biodiversity, cold is worse than warm. Where is the contrary evidence?
If higher CO2 concentrations leads to ‘runaway global warming’, why hasn’t it happened before? Or if it did, where is the evidence of catastrophe?
Has the IPCC ‘settled’ these issues? Has anyone?
We should probably not be talking to Luke.
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/04/25/dont-talk-aliens-warns-stephen-hawking/
The problem: Luke and its friends want to “simply raid Earth for its [financial and political] resources and then move on: “We only have to look at ourselves to see how intelligent life might develop into something we wouldn’t want to meet.”
Ghastly creatures. We already know the greens are misanthropic. According to the quality standards of the IPCC regarding data, we’ve already been invaded.
Don’t Talk to Aliens, Warns Stephen Hawking
Sunday Times
April 25, 2010
New mathematical model shows the 19th and 20th centuries and takes the climate out to 2100 but it isn’t what Luke would like .
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/25/predictions-of-global-mean-temperatures-ipcc-projections/#more-18900
el gordo,
“when did you last see your data”?
If only they had asked questions like this.
Schiller,
So true. Let’s hope we don’t find out. Got enough problems with ferals now!
Professor GO highlighted the following over at Watts. It’s not science, so it must be politics.
In an email dated 3-Jan-2009, Mike MacCracken wrote to Phil Jones, Folland and Chris:
I think we have been too readily explaining the slow changes over past decade as a result of variability–that explanation is wearing thin. I would just suggest, as a backup to your prediction, that you also do some checking on the sulfate issue, just so you might have a quantified explanation in case the prediction is wrong. Otherwise, the Skeptics will be all over us–the world is really cooling, the models are no good, etc. And all this just as the US is about ready to get serious on the issue.
…
We all, and you all in particular, need to be prepared.
Similarly, in an email dated 24-Oct-2008, Mick Kelly wrote to Phil Jones:
Just updated my global temperature trend graphic for a public talk and noted that the level has really been quite stable since 2000 or so and 2008 doesn’t look too hot.
…
Be awkward if we went through a early 1940s type swing!
MacCraken must be the only sceptic amongst them.
Maybe he realises there are a few unknowns that aren’t in the GCMs [like this]:
Massive Southern Ocean current discovered
>
> A deep ocean current with a volume equivalent to 40 Amazon Rivers has been
> discovered by Japanese and Australian scientists near the Kerguelen
> plateau, in the Indian Ocean sector of the Southern Ocean, 4,200
> kilometres south-west of Perth.
>
> In a paper published today in Nature Geoscience, the researchers described
> the current -more than three kilometres below the Ocean’s surface – as an
> important pathway in a global network of ocean currents that influence
> climate patterns.
Yes Spangled and I bet Luke and other warmists will thrash around and claim that the newly discovered current only came about because of the co2 increase caused by humans, or some such garbage.
Neville,
Unknown currents, unknown undersea vents and volcanoes etc., this energy budget chaos is “worse than we thought”!
Rintoul also told ABC Science that these new measurements will serve as a “benchmark” by which global climate models can be fine-tuned.
“Climate models will need to reproduce this current if they’re going to capture correctly how the ocean transports heat, and therefore be able to provide reliable climate predictions,” he says.
Rintoul says that current climate models have assumed a much weaker current.
“A stronger overturning circulation would transport more heat from the lower latitudes towards the poles,” he says.
No need for alarm, the system is naturally fine tuned, but we ask the modellers (humbly) to take this into account.
I bet that’s were Trenberth’s missing heat has been hiding all this time.
…yet another revelation makes it increasingly clear that the IPCC reports are ‘gray literature’:
The IPCC broke three of its own rules when it cited the Stern Review 25 times in 12 chapters.
– No Frakking Consensus, April 24, 2010,
http://nofrakkingconsensus.blogspot.com/2010/04/stern-review-scandal.html
First, it had to deliberately overlook the fact that this document is not peer-reviewed. (See examples here of Pachauri claiming that the IPCC bases its report solely on peer-reviewed literature and that non-peer-reviewed material belongs “in the dustbin”.)
Second, it had to violate the published-before-January-2006 rule about which Pachauri recently reminded us.
Third, it had to subvert its own requirement that text in the IPCC report be subject to two rounds of expert review.
Lord Oxburgh, head of the panel investigating the fraudsters at the University of East Anglia, has more than a mere conflict of interest. The plain-vanilla conflict: he chairs a company that builds wind farms.
A worse conflict: his company affiliates are involved in a scam involving the sale of wind-generated electricity from windmills that aren’t hooked to the grid. The Mafia is involved as well.
This is only a part of a “green racketeering” trend emerging world-wide, with nearly two dozen arrests and billion$ ripped off.
Seems to me that a ‘filthy capitalist’ will sell you something, while a ‘kind generous green’ will just take the money and run.
Link: http://www.examiner.com/x-9111-Environmental-Policy-Examiner~y2010m4d24-Global-warming-The-Oxburgh-Incident-and-the-Italian-Job
Same thing as Oxburgh is happening in the Deakin Lectures
http://wheelercentre.com/calendar/program/the-deakin-lectures-2010/
For their Future Energy Solutions lecture they get Michael Bielinski the head of Siemens in the Pacific region who manufacture wind turbines.
Tim Flannery will head it all – sheeeesh!
John,
And don’t forget: the Stern Review (9:40 pm above) was designed to promote corporate interests in wind power.
I’ll let you in on a dirty secret — an explanation of why conventional energy is funding alternative energy and Left-wing think-tanks so much.
‘Alternative’ or ‘renewable’ energy costs up to twice as much as conventional energy. Thus, mandating ‘alternative’ or ‘renewable’ energy sets the market price.
Thus, to make massive unprecedented profits, a conventional energy provider needs merely to almost double the selling price of conventional energy. That’s the pure and simple reason why British Petroleum, et. al., is pouring so much money into ‘climate research’ and all of its dirty denizens. What corporation, beholden to its shareholders to return profits, would turn down such a sweet deal? Have the government double the cost of energy, and jack up your prices to a *teensy bit* below the government mandate. You know. To be ‘competitive’.
Actually this amounts to a massive transfer payment — government subsidies for crap techno mandates, and the market passes those subsidies right back to coal and oil. And their shareholders.
Money like that could easily suborn Oxburgh and just about anyone else.
What great news to wake up to, the krudd govt will postpone introducing an ETS until 2013 or probably past the end of next election, that’s two elections to cover their dirty backsides.
But before we celebrate too loudly think of the effect this will have on gullible weak minded fantasists like Luke.
For some who don’t vote for the green fanatics already but support the hard left of the labor party this “tragedy” will probably entice some to change to the green side.
Just what we need,more support to the embeciles who believe that the MDB, Kakadu, the GBR,
more severe droughts etc will be saved when Australia brings in an ETS.
But hold on what am I saying, that last mantra is supported by Wong and krudd already so I suppose it makes very little difference anyhow, because they’re all mad.
Ever notice how Flukeyloo avoids the topic of eco-profiteering?
He doesn’t want to bad-mouth his paymasters.
Nina’s back in town!
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ocean/anim/wkxzteq_anm.gif
Schiller, we need Luke here to keep Jen’s blog alive. It has stalled in its tracks without our regular sounding board.
Kevin has dropped the ETS and Merkel is doing the same because India and China think it’s a bit dodgy. Spiegel online reports:
‘Frustrated by the climate change conference in December, German Chancellor Angela Merkel is quietly moving away from her goal of a binding agreement on limiting climate change to 2 degrees Celsius. She has also sent out signals at the EU level that she no longer supports the idea of Europe going it alone.’
With the fall of Copenhagen the war was won, but there will still be a lot of mopping up to do.
Wong replies to Fielding’s questions on climate change.
1a. Is it the case that carbon dioxide increased by 5% since 1998 whilst global
temperature cooled over the same period.
Yes.
1b. If so, why did the temperature not increase; and how can human emissions be to
blame for dangerous levels of warming?
That temperature did not increase measurably despite additional forcing from carbon
dioxide emissions indicates (i) that human emissions are only one of a number of
forcing factors governing climate, and (ii) that the effect on temperature of the human
emission forcings is numerically small (i.e., the climate sensitivity is lower than the
IPCC acknowledges).
2a. Is it the case that the rate and magnitude of warming between 1979 and 1998 (the
late 20th century phase of global warming) were not unusual as compared with
warmings that have occurred earlier in the Earth’s history (Fig. 2a, 2b)?
Yes.
————–
That’s why the game is up in Oz.
Any agreement to limit “global warming” to 2 degrees C is complete balderdash as the temperature records have been comprehensively fiddled and fudged. Smoothed and homogenized.
The corporats will of course like the notion, since it’s a pretext for raising energy prices, which means unprecedented profits, but the greenfreaks have busted the climate record so badly that even if we could ‘adjust the planet’s thermostat’ we still wouldn’t have a useful measure of how ‘our planetary infant baby child has a temperature’.
Criminitly, did you ever notice, with the disappearance of the MWP, ice ages disappeared as well?
Your ‘planetary baby infant’ could be frozen rock solid and they’d find warming somewhere.
El Gordo I think Luke must be grief stricken, cowered and dismayed after he heard the krudd announcement on the cprs.
Of course the silly fool can’t tell you why he supports this dopey idea but as we’ve seen he is fanatical in his support none the less.
When asked a hundred times to explain what difference Australia could make by introducing this nonsense he hasn’t the guts to even offer a peep to support his mad claims.
I think skeptics and others who realize that AGW is just another full of crap social movement owe the Luke and those many other neverwuzzers who resemble the Luke so much a great deal of gratitude. His blithering hateful ignorant spew gave so many great reasons to increase skepticism in the utter bullshit of AGW.
Thanks, Luke!
Luke helped save Australia and the world from wasting even more money on CO2.
Arctic sea ice returns, better than ever.
http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/observation_images/ssmi1_ice_area.png
More denialist goobers exposed.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/sunshine-claim-clouded-by-dispute/story-e6frgcjx-1225859043744
and HOLY COW !!!
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/04/claude-allegre-the-climate-imposter/
The stench over the denialist camp rises with every new sceptic turd uncovered.
BTW Neville – I never supported the CPRS – neither did Hansen ! Read the blog history.
More Global Warming Profiteering by Obama Energy Official
Pajamas Media
April 26, 2010
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/more-global-warming-profiteering-by-obama-energy-official/?singlepage=true
Surprising documents made available to this author reveal that Assistant Secretary of Energy Cathy Zoi has a huge financial stake in companies likely to profit from the Obama administration’s “green” policies.
Zoi, who left her position as CEO of the Alliance for Climate Protection — founded by Al Gore — to serve as assistant secretary for energy efficiency and renewable energy, now manages billions in “green jobs” funding. But the disclosure documents show that Zoi not only is in a position to affect the fortunes of her previous employer, ex-Vice President Al Gore, but that she herself has large holdings in two firms that could directly profit from policies proposed by the Department of Energy.
Luke et al.
Regarding Stewart Frank’s paper, the newspaper article by Cheryl Jones got it wrong:
He (i) acknowledged the possibility of spurious artefacts in the simply averaged MDB timeseries, and (ii) consequently, analysed individual station data, not for ‘underlying trends’ but for strength of correlation.
The results – that sunshine hour duration is better correlated to temp than rainfall (as expected). This invalidates the ‘filtering’ of temp using rainfall that form the basis of Cai’s work as well as Karoly/Nicholls which appeared in the IPCC 4AR.
And who is Jones? Related to Phil or David?
Welcome back, blithe spirit! Prithee, bide a while…
What an excellent time to decide to drop by and visit.
Beautiful Jennifer stomps some more really poor science..
A few bon mots from Prof. Nasif Nahle:
Nahle, like many other respected analysts, insists that a scientific law is exactly that and cannot be ignored. While theories, like AGW, come and go dependent on their ability to withstand scrutiny. The harshest criticism made by Professor Nahle is that global warmists have absurdly discarded the accepted laws of thermodynamics to prop up their improbable theory.
The professor reminds us that, “at night time, the heat stored by the subsurface materials is transferred by conduction towards the surface, which is colder than the unexposed materials below the surface. The heat transferred from the subsurface layers to the surface is then transported by the air by means of convection and warms up.”
Thereafter, the direction of the radiation emitted by the atmosphere can only go upwards into the upper atmosphere and then out into deep space. Nahle says we are then forced to conclude that, “atmospheric gases do not cause any warming of the surface given that induced emission prevails over spontaneous emission.”
Re: the Franks/Cai gerfuffle; Cai apparently says this;
“He also suggested that high temperatures had worsened the drought by increasing evaporation and transpiration, or loss of water from plants. ”
Franks on the other hand said this:
“During drought, when soil moisture is low, less of the sun’s radiant energy goes into evaporation and more goes into the heating of the atmosphere which causes higher temperatures.
“Most importantly, the elevated air temperatures do not increase evaporation but are actually due to the lack of evaporation and this is a natural consequence of drought.”
Franks is correct; when moisture is scarce the energy required to evaporate it is proportionately higher so heating rather than evaporation will occur. I haven’t
read the Cai paper but if he is reported correctly it is a dumb thing to have said.
The Dept of CC could spend the next few years playing cricket with the fed Dept of Health to fill in the time.
http://www.news.com.au/national/kevin-rudds-department-of-hot-air-costing-taxpayers-90m/story-e6frfkvr-1225859701357
The effects of AGW are even worse than IPCC estimates, according to the US government:
Twenty-one authors affiliated with official U.S. government institutions argue that global warming leads to the increase of cancer, mental and neurological illnesses, impotence, asthma, allergies, foodborne diseases, nutrition disorders, human development dysfunctions, heat-related and weather-related morbidity and mortality, vectorborne, zoonotic, and waterborne diseases, as well as all other diseases.
Link: http://motls.blogspot.com/2010/04/us-government-agw-causes-cancer.html
Now it looks like Climategate may eventually engulf the President of the United States.
While a Board Member of the Joyce Foundation, Barack Obama took part in funding the formation of the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX).
Goldman Sachs owns ten percent of the CCX. Al Gore’s Generation Investment Management owns another ten percent.
If the US passes cap-and-trade, volume on the CCX would be roughly $10 Trillion per year, generating massive brokerage fees. Meanwhile six former employees of Goldman Sachs have been hired to various positions by the Obama administration.
Obamagate, anyone?
Links:
http://www.examiner.com/x-14143-Orange-County-Conservative-Examiner~y2010m4d27-Scandal-Obama-Gore-Goldman-Joyce-Foundation-CCX-partners-to-fleece-USA
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/9629
Arctic sea ice still behaving badly , not playing by the rules again.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/29/another-arctic-sea-ice-milestone/#more-19040
I see Luke’s hero gore has bought a new shack on the beach for a lazy 8+ million, really shows his fear of SL rise doesn’t it and of course he is really following his own advice to us to be responsible for our personal carbon use, you know his exhortation that this is a MORAL issue.
All the comments on this story at the LA Times are scathing of this horrible swine, so at least we know that others are waking up to this fraud.
I mean this swine must have a carbon footprint the size of a Yeti.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/gore_bets_the_seas_wont_drown_his_new_ocean_view_home/
Buried deep inside the British Parliament’s report on its investigation into East Anglia University’s Climate Research Unit:
Moreover, we are disturbed by the CRU scientists’ treatment of the so-called divergence problem. That is the fact that, for that period of time where both a proxy global temperature series and a recorded global temperature series are available, the two series markedly diverge. This clearly suggests either that the proxy series is unreliable or that the recorded series is unreliable (or possibly both: the point is that they cannot both be true). The CRU scientists’ attempt to hide the problem by concealing the divergence demonstrates, we believe, a lack of integrity.
Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/04/the_climategate_investigation.html
Good one Schiller, but I suspect some proxies are better than others.
Neville,
When million$ and billion$ hang in the balance, which proxies are ‘better’? Your guess is as good as mine.
My guess is, the best proxies are ‘smoothed’ and ‘homogenized’ and ‘adjusted’. There’s no money to be made with the actual data.
Well one proxy we know are crap , bristlecone pines a’ la Mann made warming and only selecting the proxies that give the results you’re sfter, like a Yamal tree here and another one there.
“I’ll call Mann a climate crook all day long: let him sue me, I’m game.” John O’Sullivan
Insightful and informative video on Global Disastrification at YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tUZRjHK8rQs
A brief, riveting documentary by Rod Baxter on the greatest challenge of our time.
Interesting recent video from Pat Michaels and Joe D’Aleo ( 16-4-10 ) looking at the temp record etc.
Pat has a blinking graph showing the temp manipulation over the last 10 years or so by GISS etc ( like Anthony Watts )
But I can’t understand why this isn’t called corruption and outright fraud, I mean if their record isn’t convincing enough how are they allowed to continue these record adjustments?
Pat has managed to reduce the temp increase to about 0.3 C when allowance is made for UHI etc, but I’d like to know what others here think of this temp adjustment ( UP )by our record keepers.
http://www.blip.tv/file/3539174
Neville,
Oddly, there are people who believe it isn’t data until it’s been ‘fixed’, and then it’s data.
Once you’ve convinced people that ‘analysis’ occurs after the data have been ‘fixed’, you can convince them of anything at all.
Neville if they don’t get their work published in a peer reviewed journal (other than E&E) – they’re just another bunch of lying denialist turds ! They wont’ ! Just stop fucking around and get published.
If you weren’t such an evil little dipshit you would find it strange that 2 ocean data sets, 2 land data sets, 2 satellite series, 1000s of species records and boreholes all tell the same story. What a massive conspiracy it must be ! Pullease ….
And I would love Michaels to publicly debate this with GISS or do a full blown court case.
BRING IT ON !!!!
“Warwick Hughes, Climatologist, Australia” – HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHHAAAAA
Like “Dr” John McLean is a “climatologist” too eh? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA
Neville if you are so gullible that you can’t critique this horseshit by now – matey you truly have come down in the last shower.
Hmmmm…. ‘lying denialist turds’. I believe that’s Pachauri’s term of art for a confidence level somewhere between ‘voodoo science’ and ‘putting asbestos on your face’, which is somewhere around 64 percent.
Or was it 68 percent? ‘Virtually certain’ is what… 72 percent? It’s so good to quantify these things.
Well, Luke will know.
Luke, what percent confidence level do you assign to the evaluation of ‘lying denialist turds’? Can that be distinguished from ‘lying turds’ and ‘denialist turds’? Amongst turds, which turds have the highest vs. lowest confidence?
I would imagine there is a vast spectrum of turds, so it would be good if you could follow in the footsteps (with rubber boots, of course) of the IPCC and quantify the various points of turdism.
Turdism being your apparent specialty, we are prepared to accept your evaluation of relative turdity as authoritative.
Heck Luke where does one start to reply to your latest silly nonsense?
Well for a start Michaels has been trying to get his latest research published for the last 18 months, but we know the way these liars work from the c/gate email evidence.
You know like getting editors sacked and trying to stop other scientists access to the peer reviewed stage with their latest research all because of the fear of the quality of their work.
If not why not let them publish lies and make fools of themselves a’ la Mann and his hockey stick rubbishy, corrupt fraud.
Same goes for Carter , McLean etc, the paper had no problems until the liars and fraudsters took over, once again doing everything they could to stop publication.
In case you don’t know dummy, Michaels has been trying for ages to debate Hansen anytime , any place but jimmy has run for cover everytime.
In case you don’t know there is another study showing the MWP and LIA using not tree rings but boreholes from Greenland, seashells from Chesapeake bay and stalagmites from Norway.
Moberg et al, 2005 and Hadley data ( YES HADLEY) from Brohan, Kennedy, Harris, Tett and JONES, 2006, CRU, 2006.
Probably why Phil Jones when pinned down had to concede that the MWP probably existed and could have been as warm as the present day warming.
BTW I’m amazed that you don’t support an ETS, so once again what the heck do you believe in, just full on total BS as far as I can tell ?
Watts has just written a long post looking at the different types of El Nino, rarely does La Nina follow a Modoki.
http://i43.tinypic.com/33agh3c.jpg
Shiller,
Anyone who has the hide to defend the peer review process following climategate is just a frothy-mouthed hypocrite.
If they can’t see that these “gatekeepers” need a little correction then god help our sad world.
“Playing the man” is not good but when these men “play themselves” and admit how corrupt they really are and people like Luke don’t get it and continue to support them, hopefully it is so obvious that it leads to a better solution, more quickly.
Neville,
Sorry, that last comment should have addressed to you.
Weak as water guys. The problem for you denialists is that utter rot is unfortunately utter rot. That’s why it doesn’t get published.
Neville caught in the open with pants down tries a diversion …. so predictable …
this is well worth watching, climategate and the world temperature data manipulations summed up.
http://www.blip.tv/file/3539174
“On April 16th, the Cooler Heads Coalition and the Heritage Foundation hosted a briefing on Climategate by Dr. Patrick J. Michaels, Senior Fellow in Environmental Studies, Cato Institute and Joseph DAleo, Executive Director, ICECAP, and Consulting Meteorologist. “
If CO2 is the major cause of global warming, then we should see a constant increase of temperature in summer as in winter. The blanket of Co2 should increase the temperature constantly over the year. Likewise it should increase the temperature constantly over the day and night, however this does not happen.
I paraphrased the above from ‘Gust of Hot Air’, but cannot confirm if the comment is based on sound science.
El Gordo,
We now know that ‘climatologists’ do not listen to physicists or statisticians. Climatologists occupy an Empyrean realm where crucial overlapping/fundamental disciplines are either irrelevant, or reinterpreted to achieve the most important outcome: more research funding from governments and multinational vendors of energy or energy feedstocks.
Meanwhile, there’s too much money on ‘global heating’ to trust anything as ‘sound science’. After all, look what Luke is up to. His problem is everywhere, and it’s not science anymore.
” The blanket of Co2 should increase the temperature constantly over the year” – El Gordo – this sort of comment well indicates why you lot are clueless.
John – your inability to see at least 10 faults in that presentation puts you in El Gordo’s league of nongery.
Schiller you mean “climatologists” like McLean et al !!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHHAHAAHHAAAA
CO2 constitutes about 0.037% of the atmosphere and it’s kept in balance by the sinks – I’m partial to the Gaia Effect when seen in that light.
So CO2 won’t increase temperature constantly? Is that because of natural variability?
Interesting article over at WUWT about the early 20th century Arctic melting like crazy from a book giving first hand accounts of the areas concerned and the people invovled.
If this doesn’t convince even the most alarmist giggling Gerti that the present climate in the Arctic is not unusual and natural then we know what fraudsters they really are, but hey we know that anyhow.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/02/catastrophic-retreat-of-glaciers-in-spitsbergen/#more-19179
It is a good read, unfortunately far too many warmists are suffering from the Dunning-Kruger Effect and won’t read it.
Luke – care to point out maybe 5 of the faults as you see them?
John,
The No.1 fault is that Jones and Mann know that they were wrong.
http://www.co2science.org/articles/V13/N16/C2.php
Oh shock and awe!! – spangled you can’t post that!! it comes from a site funded by BIG oil!!
shame on you 😉
John,
Here’s one being anti-funded by big oil etc:
http://carbon-sense.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/taxing-the-outback.pdf
Oh, the irony…
Frankfurt prosecutors said on Friday they had arrested four people in Germany and Britain in connection with suspected tax evasion in carbon permit trading and 50 more people were being investigated.
The probe in Germany, where total damage is estimated at 180 million euros ($239.7 million), follows investigations in Britain, France, Spain, Norway and the Netherlands into carbon credit fraud over the last year.
http://planetark.org/wen/57822
More than 2,450 UK and German tax officers were involved in the operation, with 81 house and office searches. The UK investigation saw 13 arrests in England and eight in Scotland as part of a major inquiry by HM Revenue & Customs.
Britain removed VAT from carbon allowances last year, as European authorities revealed that carbon-trading fraudsters may have accounted for up to 90pc of all market activity in some European countries.
Criminals mainly from Britain, France, Spain, Denmark and Holland are estimated to have pocketed €5bn (£4.5bn).
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/7659747/Tax-officers-arrest-22-in-UK-carbon-fraud-probe.html
Never mind that the fraudsters in ‘global warming research’ have ripped off over a dozen times as much money.
John Sayers,
The the link you posted above on May 3rd, 2010 at 3:11 am, http://www.blip.tv/file/3539174 brings up this message: Sorry, this video has been removed from blip.tv.
Any chance that legal threats a la Mann and the Hide the Decline video played a role? At least the Mann video is still available at http://www.junkscience.com
Would you know if the video you linked to is available somewhere else?
don’t know why it was removed Schiller – no I don’t have another link for it. The original link came from Icecap
http://icecap.us/
and this link
http://www.globalwarming.org/2010/04/28/the-climategate-scandals-what-has-been-revealed-and-what-does-it-mean/
and they both still reference the same link to the video.
The US EPA is warning of serious consequences if we don’t come to our senses.
http://in.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idINIndia-48047720100428
“Considering that future warming projected for the 21st century is very likely to be greater than observed warming over the past century, indicators of climate change should only become more clear, numerous and compelling,” the EPA report concluded.
Oh my gawd!
What that means is: “We hope so, so that we also can become more clear, numerous and compelling.”
The EPA along with the rest of the CAGW alarmist industries are the only positive feedbacks in system.
el gordo
On page 33 of the report the EPA make the following statement:
reference 25 is:
25 CCSP (U.S. Climate Change Science Program). 2008. Synthesis and
Assessment Product 3.3: Weather and climate extremes in a changing
climate.
Yet I have a link to a 2009 reseach paper that says the opposite:
no wonder the EPA is losing credibility.
“Many researchers have maintained that warming waters of the Atlantic are increasing the strengths of these storms. We do not see evidence for this at all, however we do find that the number of storms has recently increased.”
From my casual reading there hasn’t been an increase in cyclone or hurricane activity for awhile.
It has been a backward Spring in the UK, apart from a warm blip the other week, but I can’t confidently predict a BBQ summer yet.
http://wxmaps.org/pix/temp4.html
Dr. Pielke, Sr. sums up things pretty well here:
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2010/05/04/update-to-andy-revkins-question-in-2005-is-most-of-the-observed-warming-over-the-last-50-years-likely-to-have-heen-due-to-the-increase-in-greenhouse-gas-concentrations%E2%80%9D/
AGW is a social mania that the late great John Maddox of “Nature” magazine and author of “The Doomsday Syndrome” would have enjoyed busting:
http://www.jstor.org/pss/2821427
The book, which is highly recommended, is available still:
http://catalogue.nla.gov.au/Record/489568
The forecasting procedures described in the IPCC 4th Assessment Report violated 81% of the 89 principles relevant to climate forecasting.
http://www.climatedepot.com/a/6451/Team-of-Scientists-Counter-US-Govt-Report-Global-warming-alarm-will-prove-false–Climate-fears-based-on-faulty-forecasting-procedures
We have shown that the alarming climate forecasts are not based on scientific procedures. Calls for drastic action are neither logical nor responsible.
so where are the team of environment reporters making this their next report Schiller?
If you buck the ABC’s belief system you don’t get printed. Since when has an institution such as the ABC had a belief system? ……………since global warming hit the stage!!
Monckton’s testimony before congress yesterday. I understand that he was the sole sceptic with four warmers supporting the IPCC.
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/testimony_of_the_viscount_monckton_of_brenchley_before_congress_may_6_2010/
Dunno what we’re gonna do when all the savvy old sceptics fall off their perches.
I suppose you could say that the mindless result couldn’t’ve happened to more deserving people.
Scientists’ letter calls on climate-change deniers to end threats
The Vancouver Sun
May 7, 2010
http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/Scientists+letter+calls+climate+change+deniers+threats/2997887/story.html
More than 250 prominent scientists, including 11 Nobel laureates, are calling on climate-change “deniers” to cease with the personal and political attacks and focus on the facts.
Climate McCarthyism?
The Daily Bayonet
May 6, 2010
http://dailybayonet.com/?p=3846
Here are TEN very real threats issued to skeptics:
Heidi Cullen, of The Weather Channel ‘is advocating that the American Meteorological Society (AMS) revoke their “Seal of Approval” for any television weatherman who expresses skepticism that human activity is creating a climate catastrophe.’
Talking Points Memo pondered the question ‘at what point do we jail or execute global warming deniers?’
Death threats were made against Tim Ball and others.
The United Nations kicked skeptic scientists out of press conferences.
Professor Stephen Schneider, an IPCC member, called armed security to have a skeptic removed from his presence.
CBS’s Scott Pelley compared skeptics to holocaust deniers.
Greenpeace uttered a threat to skeptics, ‘we know where you live’
David Suzuki called for politicians who questioned global warming science to be jailed.
Joe Romm wanted to strangle skeptics in their beds.
NASA’s James Hansen suggested skeptics be tried for high crimes against humanity.
Are the skeptics really behaving badly? At worst, they could be accused of playing fair.
I thought simply exposing sceptics for the shonks that are and mocking them was enough !
Strangling eh? mmmmmm – but how could you get your hands around those thick red necks? Too hard.
And don’t you love it how Schiller just can’t help himself “Greenpeace said” … no they didn’t – someone who belonged to Greenpeace said…. stop fabricating Schiller. And they were denounced for the comment.
Face it guys – it’s war without end ! Evidence keeps piling up. Best you lot can do is pray for an ice age.
One should never pray for an ice age, its bad form.
I see in the Herald-Sun that most Australians don’t believe in AGW and even if it was true they wouldn’t spend money to stop it. The green propaganda machine has been relentless, but the rank and file won’t have a bar of it.
In the US there has been a more concerted effort to inculcate the green ethos through academia and they may be more gullible than the people of Oz.
http://www.academia.org/green-mind-control/
“Evidence keeps piling up.”
Luke – I’m still waiting for your 5 points that refute my previous post:
“On April 16th, the Cooler Heads Coalition and the Heritage Foundation hosted a briefing on Climategate by Dr. Patrick J. Michaels, Senior Fellow in Environmental Studies, Cato Institute and Joseph DAleo, Executive Director, ICECAP, and Consulting Meteorologist. ”
It appears their opinions disagreed with the global group think so it couldn’t stay on the web and was removed.
The oceans are cooling Luke! The temps are dropping Luke!
where is your evidence that keeps piling up?
Please list it here so we sinners can be taken from the darkness into the light.
Yeah, that video of Michaels and D’Aleo was just too honest a piece of “peer review” to be allowed to see the light of day.
Can’t have inconvenient truth like that being circulated.
The gatekeepers must’ve got to it.
John Sayers,
It is well known in ‘the consensus’ that cooling temperatures are an AGW signal. You see, it shows that humans are causing heat to be stored where it’s not accessible to thermometers.
A little light night music for Luke to improve his understanding of droughts.
http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/monsoons-megadroughts
This is classic
http://www.pjtv.com/v/3485
AGWers caught again peddling lies!
ABC NEWS WATCH
Fake photo used in Science article
May 8, 2010
http://abcnewswatch.blogspot.com/2010/05/fake-photo-used-in-science-article.html
ABC recently reported on a letter signed by 250 scientists published in the journal Science.
The letter is accompanied by a photo of a lone Polar Bear on an ice berg credited to ISTOCKPHOTO.COM. The photo is a fake with the following note in the photo caption at Istockphoto: “This images is a photoshop design. Polarbear, ice floe, ocean and sky are real, they were just not together in the way they are now.”
Here’s a thought: AGWers would make some credible headway if they quit faking stuff.
The downside: if they quit faking stuff, nobody would worry about AGW, and there goes notions of selling windmills or getting jobs for their idiot nephews and so forth.
Schiller – I don’t think the authenticity of a side photo has much to do with the quality of the article.
What I do suspect is that the majority of the signatures are offered by scientists who have never seriously investigated global warming science and only offer their support because they feel their profession is being attacked.
The medical profession does the same thing with regard to controversial items such as vaccination and fluoridation.
“The oceans are cooling Luke! The temps are dropping Luke!” – they are – HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAA
Wanker !
“where is your evidence that keeps piling up?” – ummmm – gee dat’s hard – read my posts for the papers
John – if you don’t think the level of science put forward by sceptics, their conduct and behaviour – involvement of putrid think-tanks proud to associate with such stuff is a worthy campaign – then you have truly come down in the last shower.
Yes John – here’s you cooling trend http://rankexploits.com/musings/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/RSS.jpg – PULLEASE !!!
John re your video – what a sleazy spurious attack – yes the MSU data were adjusted for drift – FOR VERY GOOD REASON AND CHRISTY EVEN AGREES !! ! Do you not see how you have been spun a WHOPPER at this early part of the video.
(Michaels being pure of denialist stock conveniently leaves out all the other evidence he could have supplied)
Then we have our friend “Warwick” – a “climatologist” – errr do we mean “blogger” person from Australia known for NON-STOP beating up on climate science. He is not a climatologist.
Gets worse with every breath John.
At 7 mins He sets up a fog attack – doesn’t say that there are good documented science reasons for the adjustment.
And here we go at 8:42 – the big whopping spurious heat island crappola totally debunked in the recent NOAA paper – and utterly smashed by independent satellite and ocean data sets – and natural histories.
Can you believe the utter bunk as he lays fog at 10 mins – -” mumble mumble – not sure what happened but I’ll make it look bad”. Realclimate went through that issue in extreme detailed and killed it. Oops we won’t mention that …
At 11:00 mins on stratosphere he’s just pulled an adjustment out of thin air without any justification. Sorry change was a step-change – ya just can’t do that !
He has misrepresented Ramanathan’s work http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080323210225.htm
I stopped watching at this point and threw up.
John – this stuff is such paff. If an amateur like myself can see this stuff for what it is what’s your problem.
Put the ring back in the nose John and resume being led around the ring…
Best thing is to have a serious Royal Commission and hammer these guys on the detail. let’s see some cross-examination. Bring it on !
Luke – here’s the ocean heat content reference:
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2010/05/07/recent-variations-in-upper-ocean-heat-content-information-from-phil-klotzbach/
global temps
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:2001/to:2010/trend
Warwick Hughes:
Refereed Published Papers:
1992 Robert C. Balling, Jr., Sherwood B. Idso, and Warwick S. Hughes. “Long-Term and Recent Anomalous Temperature Changes in Australia.” Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 19, No. 23, pp. 2317-2320.
1995 Robert C. Balling, Jr. and Warwick S. Hughes. “Comments on “Detecting Climate Change Concurrent with Deforestation in the Amazon Basin: Which Way Has It Gone ?” Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Vol. 76, No. 4, 9. 559.
1995 Warwick S. Hughes. Comment on D.E. Parker, “Effects of Changing Exposure of Thermometers at Land Stations.” International Journal of Climatology, Vol. 15, pp. 231-234.
1996 Warwick S. Hughes and Robert C. Balling, Jr. “Urban Influences on South African Temperature Trends.” International Journal of Climatology, Vol. 16, No. 8, pp. 935-940. Online at http://www.john-daly.com/s-africa.htm
1997 Warwick S. Hughes. Comment on, “Historical Thermometer Exposures in Australia.” by N. Nichols et al. International Journal of Climatology, Vol. 17, pp. 197-199.
Regards you comments on UHI – Bunkum Luke!! It’s clear to anyone, i.e those without a RealClimate nose ring, that UHI has dramatic effect on urban temperatures!
Here’s one that isn’t affected:
http://users.tpg.com.au/johnsay1/Stuff/Casino_temp.jpg
I agree – let’s have a Royal Commission!! Bring it on!
Well here’s the challenge Luke, you show us how Australia with 1.3% of the planet’s co2 emissions can influence our climate in any discernable way as well as saving the GBR, MDB, Kakadu and bring an end to droughts and I will apologise profusely to you for all my errors.
I’ll even throw in NZ with their massive 0.1% of planetary emissions as well.
Gee it’s too hard isn’t it, in fact a mission impossible so go away like a good little silly fantasist and pestor some other blog with your irrational nonsense.
‘The warmer conditions of the medieval era were tied to higher solar output and few volcanoeic eruptions, while the cooler conditions of the Little Ice Age resulted from lower solar output and frequent explosive volcanic eruptions.’
Penn State press release, Mann et al, 27 Nov 2009
Okay, I’ll pay that.
Stupid choice John – doesn’t include the poles ! Try to not be a denialist cherry-picker and give us a full tour of the various temperature indicators.
“The climatologist” – being a guest on a few old as the hills papers and trying to make some comments doesn’t make you a climatologist. And Balling eh – what a fascinating choice of co-author. LOL !
And as usual a denialist like you leaves out the reply to COMMENT ON HISTORICAL THERMOMETER EXPOSURES IN AUSTRALIA BY N. NICHOLLS ET AL. which summarily dismisses the comment.
And sorry John – are you actually asking me to look at Pielke as some sort of whole of system long term discussion ? Are you actually serious.
And sorry John – if the met stations are in parks – the heat island effect may be unimportant? Have you ever measured temperature in your life? So it’s far from obvious matey. And and and using Watt’s own best station list you get a cooling bias from UHI !! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
http://www.skepticalscience.com/On-the-reliability-of-the-US-Surface-Temperature-Record.html
And how about the station drop-out ruse !!
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/03/05/message-to-anthony-watts/
Hopeless denialists.
As for Casino being unaffected – how do you know? Have you researched the metadata in detail?
Neville – Of course it makes no difference. Did I EVER say it did ? Stop being such a stupid little denialist twit.
Let’s see what Nature says about UHI’s.
http://www.nature.com/news/2009/091224/full/news.2009.1164.html
Hmmm, this is interesting; “When Zhang and his team ran a model in which Washington was bulldozed and replaced by trees, things got cooler in Baltimore. The heat-island effect there was reduced by 25%, and the city was cooler by 1.25 °C.”
Do the math, if 25% of a heat island effect is 1.25C, then the total effect would be a whopping 6C hotter than the surrounding countryside.
So much for UHI being irrelevant.
Luke,
Even without all the non-GHG influences on warming of 0.7 deg over the last century [and they probably account for 50%], fundamentally your argument for the predicted catastrophe is based on hockey sticks and computer models.
Not exactly “robust” science.
Until you can come up with a better argument than that you should just be quiet and enjoy the ride.
Tim Lambert at Deltoid has rather contrarily on successive threads poured scorn on the 31000 who have signed the Oregon petition and crowed about the 255 cretins who signed a fatuous letter to Science last week.
Here is my response to the 255:
Point by point:
1. “For a problem as potentially catastrophic as climate change, taking no action poses a dangerous risk for our planet” What is the actual potential catastrophe? – that say Glasgow shifts from its average mean temperature of 8oC to 11oC, which IPCC claims is the climate sensitivity (CS) of doubling of [CO2] from 280 to m560 ppm. – or Dubai from 27oC to 30oC? In the latter nobody would notice, in the former – hallelujah!
2. “…there is compelling, comprehensive, and consistent objective evidence that humans are changing the climate in ways that threaten our societies and the ecosystems on which we depend”. Really? GISS global up by just 0.7oC since 1900 from a 40% increase in [CO2]. Arrhenius’ geometric analysis means that the next 60% might just create an extra 0.7oC, for a total of 1.4oC since 1900. Is that really a killer, in Glasgow, Canberra, Darwin, or Dubai?
3. “The planet is warming due to increased concentrations of heat-trapping gases in our atmosphere”. Is it? Not one of the 255 signatories has produced ANY regression analysis to show this, least of all Australia’s Karolys, Wigleys, Pittocks et al. The TRUTH is that there is not a single location on earth where the mean temperature since 1958 correlates at all with rising [CO2]. The few attempts (eg the ineffable BPL here) to show that all fail elementary spurious correlation tests (e.g. unit roots, Durbin-Watson, Dickey-Fuller). Watch this space for my next paper showing this.
4. “ Most of the increase in the concentration of these gases over the last century is due to human activities, especially the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation”. True – but what of the huge free benefaction of free increases in [CO2] on rising food production, as documented in my unchallenged seminar (here or anywhere else so far).
5. “Natural causes always play a role in changing Earth’s climate, but are now being overwhelmed by human-induced changes”. Absolutely untrue. I have yet to find a location in the USA or Australia where mean temperature changes are attributable to rising [CO2] rather than changes in situ solar SURFACE radiation (NOT TOA solar irradiation), water vapour and relative humidity.
6. “Warming the planet will cause many other climatic patterns to change at speeds unprecedented in modern times, including increasing rates of sea-level rise and alterations in the hydrologic cycle. Rising concentrations of carbon dioxide are making the oceans more acidic”. Mere armwaving. There is NO evidence whatsoever for “more acidic oceans” – a statement that itself shows none of the 255 has any scientific grasp whatsoever, as the oceans are not acidic now and never have been. Unlike [CO2], there is no data base for oceanic pH anywhere in the world, except at Townsville, where they tip hydrochloric acid into tanks to simulate what might happen if the oceans ever did become acidic. And even if they did, we could then use the sea for drinking and to irrigate the land. None of the 255, and especially not their leader, Paul Ehrlich, has any concept of basic science (like Hank Roberts here who thinks we can burn fossil fuels in the absence of oxygen).
7. “ The combination of these complex climate changes threatens coastal communities and cities, our food (sic) and water supplies, marine and freshwater ecosystems, forests, high mountain environments, and far more…” drivel… Rising [CO2] is known already to have been conducive for more global rainfall and rising food supplies.
NB – for my own seminar paper at ANU on 29th 2010, go to
http://www.timcurtin.com.
John Sayers,
I disagree with you. The side picture of the polar bear implies (1) Arctic ice is disappearing; and (2) polar bears are threatened.
In the real world, the extent of Arctic ice is steadily increasing and is now as great as a decade ago, [1] and the population of polar bears is booming. [2]
That the medical profession engages in charlatanry as well is neither excuse nor justification.
1. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1263207/Increase-Arctic-ice-confounds-doomsayers.html
2. http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba551/
“Do the math, if 25% of a heat island effect is 1.25C, then the total effect would be a whopping 6C hotter than the surrounding countryside”…. and –
the rest is due to what other influences?
Derek: Despite my doubts in this UHI “science”, in my book AGW must be the sum of all the parts
Climate4you has a page on UHI with reference to a series of measurements taken at various towns and cities in Europe.
Here’s an image of the temperature change driving from the country through St Andrews in Scotland showing the UHI temperature variation.
http://www.climate4you.com/images/StAndrewsUHI%2020071213.gif
There’s a 1C variation which is well within the claimed global warming range and that’s a town with a population of 17,000 – the UHI in larger cities would be even higher.
Luke: “As for Casino being unaffected – how do you know? Have you researched the metadata in detail?”
Yes – I’ve visited the station, in fact both stations at Casino airport. The original station is sited in a grass section well away from heat influences including the exhaust from planes. It’s a perfect rural station which why it has been dropped from the station list. The data in the chart is directly from the BoM site.
here’s another chart for Casino airport including the Torok 1996 data: Torok adjusted the Australian temperature record in 1996.
http://users.tpg.com.au/johnsay1/Stuff/casino_airport_3.jpg
as you can see there is warming in the Torok data but when you compare it to the current BoM chart you can see clearly how the global world warming has been created. The other chart is the GISS data for Casino and is similar to the BoM data.
The measuring station is over the hill from the small town of Casino that has probably remained the same for the past 100years as it’s been a centre for an agricultural community. The airport is over the hill from the main town and remains a rural station.
Yet Torok used the same homogenisation system used by CRU, (he worked at CRU) – somehow he justified lowering the early temps -.7C, he filled in the missing data around the 50s and 60s and created a new interpretation of the 70s and 80s. This is a typical example of the manipulation of the global temperature data.
The station is still operational.
John Sayers,
That is an excellent ‘smoking gun’ find.
Since Mann was outed with software that produces a hockey stick from random data, it appears that the focus has shifted to fudging the data, so that an “honest” computer program can generate the hockey stick instead.
So, instead of ‘GIGO’ (garbage in, garbage out), we have ‘WIWO’ (warming in, warming out).
The difference between GIGO and WIWO is simple, but significant: what’s fed in is not, strictly speaking, garbage: it’s an intentional artifact. And, as a wise man once said, if you can choose your data, you can prove anything. All you have to do is ‘fix’ the data first.
John; your St Andrews post is hardly a case for anything scientific without a proper comparison with say a drive in the country side that I suspect will show similar unsettleled digital jitters as we go.
btw I prefer an analogue thermometer for measuring drafts because of its paticular stability in quick stabs at decent result in any location.
Also; in an ideal trial we should drive the course in both directions
Gavin – Anthony Watts has driven similar trips, in both directions – you can hardly deny the results – go and do it yourself Gavin.
The Casino airport data is just like the smoking gun at Darwin zero.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/
Didn’t seem to be warming all that much, and then the adjusted data portray a looming catastrophe of global proportions. Nay, of Biblical proportions. Except it’s all fudged. Or, actually ‘bodged’, according to the current terminology.
For a comparison between a UHI affected site, Sydney, and a non-UHI affected site, Nobbys, this from the horse’s mouth, BoM, is interesting:
http:www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/hqsites/site_data.cgi?variable=maxT&area=aus&station=061055&dtype=anom&period=annual&ave_yr=T
[ // removed ]
Tim,
Doncha love this from Doltoid?
“Peter H. Gleick, one of the signers adds:
It is hard to get 255 members of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences to agree on pretty much anything, making the import of this letter even more substantial.”
Especially when the letter contains no science, only alarmist ejaculant.
Cohenite – here’s Torok’s version of Nobby’s Station after he homogenised it.
http://users.tpg.com.au/johnsay1/Stuff/Nobbys.png
and here’s GISS version of Newcastle.
http://users.tpg.com.au/johnsay1/Stuff/newcastle_GISS.png
cohers and John,
If you click on this and go down to cohers’ comment [5th] you can get a better one.
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/09/risking-the-reputation-of-science/?cp=3
yeah – well that’s what it’s all about SD – data all over the place, manipulated and strangled till it shows what they want.
After looking at cohenite’s BoM link I have to say all you amateurs fall in the same traps time after time, confusing temp anomalies with your supposed UHI effects and so on
Take a glance at your NSW station minimum temp anomalies to get the long term trend instead of stuffing round to find bits of data that suits your case. Try this for clarity
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/hqsites/site_data.cgi?variable=minT&area=aus&station=065070&period=annual&dtype=anom&ave_yr=0
or
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/hqsites/site_data.cgi?variable=minT&area=aus&station=061086&period=annual&dtype=anom&ave_yr=0
etc
Gavin,
Many thanks, that was very instructive.
Your link to the airport data, showing warming:
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/hqsites/site_data.cgi?variable=minT&area=aus&station=065070&period=annual&dtype=anom&ave_yr=0
On that page, a link to data at a ‘nearby’ alternative site — an agricultural experimental station:
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/hqsites/site_data.cgi?variable=minT&area=aus&station=063005&period=annual&dtype=anom&ave_yr=0
No warming. Your point is?
Many skeptics have mocked the notion that man-made global warming could contribute to mental illness. Mock no more, you filthy peddlers of optimism! It’s now a proven fact.
Global warming fears seen in obsessive compulsive disorder patients
Voxy
May 6, 2010
http://www.voxy.co.nz/national/psychiatry-congress/5/47523
Climate change related obsessions and/or compulsions were identified in 28% of patients presenting with obsessive compulsive disorder. Their obsessions included leaving taps on and wasting water, leaving lights on and wasting electricity, pets dying of thirst, leaving the stove on and wasting gas as well as obsessions that global warming had contributed to house floors cracking, pipes leaking, roof problems and white ants eating the house.
We found that many obsessive compulsive disorder patients were concerned about reducing their global footprint,” said study author Dr Mairwen Jones.
Schiller; pick what station you will to confuse the issue but some are quite clearly showing the trend
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/hqsites/site_data.cgi?variable=minT&area=aus&station=063231&period=annual&dtype=anom&ave_yr=0
Gavin – I did not confuse anomaly with actual temps which is why I posted the real data for Cohenite.
You actually pointed out the UHI effect as it’s the minimum temps, i.e. night time temps that show the UHI warming as the stored heat is released at night.
My charts show the mean temp and still they show little or no warming because the dropping max temp is countering the rising min temps.
Gavin,
Your remark that “some [stations] are quite clearly showing the trend” sits very uneasily next to the phrase, “pick what station you will”.
Picking stations is quite the game, isn’t it? Ranks right up there with ‘adjusting’ their output.
Anyone who purports to make an authoritative claim about the climate, based on surface station data, is either lying, or relying on liars.
It all comes back to what Trenberth said: when the data don’t fit the model, the data are wrong and must be fixed. Quite the opposite of what we expect of those who work in the physical sciences. But I guess we have to give climatologists a pass because they are so concerned about our whole planet and everything.
Friends and others,
It occurred to me that it might be beneficial to counter warmist claims that skeptics are ‘conspiracy theorists’ by looking at the Australian Criminal Code. After all, conspiracy is a crime, and is defined by law, and there are people serving time in prison for the offense.
Warmists are fond of dismissing any claim of conspiracy as instantly vacuous, no explanation needed. So, herewith, some citations.
CRIMINAL CODE 2002 – SECT 334 – Conspiracy to defraud
(1) A person commits an offence if the person conspires with someone else with the intention of dishonestly obtaining a gain from a third person. Maximum penalty: 1 000 penalty units, imprisonment for 10 years or both. [1]
PUBLIC INTEREST DISCLOSURE ACT 1994 – SECT 4 – Disclosable conduct
(1) For this Act, conduct is to be taken to be disclosable if—
(2) (e) a conspiracy or attempt to engage in conduct referred to in paragraphs (a) to (d).
Referring back:
(a) conduct of a person (whether or not a public official) that adversely affects, or could adversely affect, either directly or indirectly, the honest or impartial performance of official functions by a public official or government agency; or
(b) conduct of a public official that amounts to the exercise of any of his or her official functions dishonestly or with partiality; or
(c) conduct of a public official, a former public official or a government agency that amounts to a breach of public trust; or
(d) conduct of a public official, a former public official or a government agency that amounts to the misuse of information or material acquired in the course of the exercise of official functions (whether for the benefit of that person or agency or otherwise) [2]
Since there are actual legal standards that define conspiracy, it is clear that the claims of Luke and other warmists which ridicule ‘conspiracy’ are quite misinformed.
Furthermore, it is clear that Australian public officials and others who collaborate to ‘bodge’ climate data are completely vulnerable to prosecution.
——-
1. http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/legis/act/consol_act/cc200294/s334.html?stem=0&synonyms=0&query=conspiracy
2. http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/legis/act/consol_act/pida1994295/s4.html?stem=0&synonyms=0&query=conspiracy
here’s one to start with Schiller.
Tenterfield Federation Park is classified as Rural! yet the park is in the middle of town, and has been since federation (duh!) So to say it’s rural (and unaffected by “some urban influence “) is an outright lie.
It shows a slight decline in maximum temperature and a rise in minimum temperature, typical UHI.
In fact here’s an outright FRAUD.
BoM list Glen Innes Airport as a High Quality Rural Data Station from 1900 – 2010 and include it in the Annual temperature analyses.
Site name: GLEN INNES AIRPORT AWS
Site number: 056243
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/hqsites/site_data.cgi?variable=maxT&area=aus&station=056243&dtype=raw&period=annual&ave_yr=T
But if you go to the BoM data site Glen Innes Airport AWS 056243 was established in 1996.
http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/cdio/weatherData/av?p_nccObsCode=36&p_display_type=dataFile&p_startYear=&p_stn_num=056243
So where did they get their data from 1900 – 1996??
Here’s all the data.
http://users.tpg.com.au/johnsay1/Stuff/Post_and_Airport.png
1 is Glen Innes Post Office 1907 – 2009
2 is the data from the High Quality Site 1907 – 2009
3 is the actual Bom Data fro Glen Innes Airport from 1997 – 2009
It’s clear where they got the data from yet Glen Innes Post Office is definitely NOT rural.
I’m just laughing John – you have NO IDEA about UHIs in places like Tenterfield of Glenn Innes. Are you kidding. It’s probably a cooling bias if anything as these places are also leafy glades. You guys are simply clowns.
And if you haven’t personally discussed these issues with BoM you’re a disgrace as you have no idea what they may have done. Denialist scum never make the phone call. It’s easier to have a tanty ranty and imagine global conspiracies.
In fact John if you’re serious PUBLISH your own analysis. But hey isn’t it just that bit strange as wheat breeders seem to notice declines in frost frequency and date of frost through the cropping belt. Must be the UHI !!! LOL !!! But denialists don’t see anything – they’re too busy fabricating !!
Schiller – Spread your libelous filth at home or come to Australia and say fraud to the researchers faces !! Don’t be so gutless.
Hey Timmy have you actually published a “paper” with your “views” – HAHAHAHAHAHAHA – and yes E&E doesn’t count.
Laugh as much as you like Luke – it’s all you can do.
They have put up 90 years of data for a station established in 1996. Pretty obvious what they have done.
hey Luke – refute this WITHOUT and Ad Hom.
http://www.climatedepot.com/a/6506/Atmospheric-Scientist-Slaps-Down-255-Warming-Scientists-Letter-There-is-no-scientific-evidence-that-burning-of-fossil-fuel-is-responsible-for-climate-change
John,
Good stuff! and combined with the fact that BoM have tossed out all the data prior to 1910 [warmer] helps their pathetic argument.
When you’ve only got hockey sticks and GCMs to back you you need to dredge up all the help you can.
Remind you of someone here?
Plus it allows you to say things like this:
http://www.bom.gov.au/announcements/media_releases/ho/20100503.shtml
John interesting that Moree Air/port shows a trend over 100 years of -0.09c per decade.
A good quality video showing John Christy at his best, only in the last few months debating Gavin Shmidt.
The charts and graphs are brilliant and the definition of the video is extremely sharp.
But be warned this should only be for rational viewers using logic and reason.
Just think of the effect if this sort of factual presentation could be shown on TV in prime time.
I knew it was a good idea to cut all that firewood.
http://www.spaceandscience.net/id16.html
seems schiller is moving from limb to limb however the local clowns remain a good target in the area of UHI
Given I don’t believe its an issue based on many years in temperature measurement and instrument calibration, lets avoid BoM data for a mo then consider what research makes it available today. Btw I notice no one tries on wet bulb figures down the thread.
What we are neglecting with all this UHI scrounging is the simple history of station thermometer calibration. Pre ww11 instruments had zero errors of several degrees C from point of manufacture and that alone makes any temp series reconstruction rather hazardous from our point of view. We are left with homogenising station records area by area.
So, what other climate references do we have? My pumpkin leaves in particular showed up a little frost this morning and thats better than some max / min device. While they stay alive I can say it’s a late start to winter again.
We can say too BoM is ahead of you guys on UHI
http://www.bom.gov.au/amm/docs/2001/torok.pdf
good company hey spangles
http://issuepedia.org/Space_and_Science_Research_Center
Shock horror!
Photographic evidence that Antarctic ice has completely melted!
Biodiversity plummets to zero, as penguins abandon arid southern waste! Greenhouse gas production races out of control on lifeless continent!
Research at Antarctica’s ‘Mars on Earth’ reveals non-organic mechanism for production of important greenhouse gas
University of Georgia/Press Release
May 10, 2010
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=30778
I already have the Torok paper Gavin – in the conclusion it states:
“Nonetheless, these results imply that climatological
stations in large cities should preferably be
excluded from studies into long-term climate change,
and those in small towns should be located away from
the town centres. Data records exhibiting discontinuities,
particularly those associated with moves from
the centre of town to outskirts such as to the airport,
must be treated with caution.”
So why do they integrate the data from Glen Innes Post Office, which is in the centre of town, with the airport data (7km out of town)and call it a reliable rural station and use it in their long term climate figures? They also ignore the Agricultural Research Centre that is only 1km from the airport and has a record starting in 1971 as opposed to the airport’s 1996.
Similarly with Tenterfield where Federation Park is in the centre of town.
According to the recommendations of Torok -neither record should be used.
BTW – did you notice that Torok’s alternative address was The Tyndale Centre at UEA.
Gavin,
Responding to your interest in ‘wet bulb’ thermometer measurements — the latest news:
Scientists say Earth could get too hot for humans
CTV (Winnepeg, Canada)
http://winnipeg.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20100507/warming-temps-100509/20100509/?hub=WinnipegHome
New research theorizes that if global warming continues at its current pace, Earth’s temperatures could exceed livable limits for humans in the future.
If “wet-bulb” temperature is warmer than the skin, metabolic heat cannot be released by the body, which can lead to heat stress.
Purdue professor of earth and atmospheric sciences Matthew Huber co-authored the paper which appears in the May 6 issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
He says researchers have calculated humans can only handle a wet-bulb temperature of 35 C for about six hours before succumbing to a lethal level of heat stress.
–my favorite part of the article: “research theorizes”. If it wasn’t climatology, it would have to be “research has shown”, and if not, it would be cast into the pile of idle speculation. Which PNAS should have done. But recent experience has shown that quality at PNAS has deteriorated as badly as quality at the Brits’ Royal Academy.
Gavin,
The Torok paper isn’t the only approach to adjusting for the UHI effect.
The US has ‘adjusted’ the temperature record of rural stations to inflate the amount of post-LIA warming by a factor of five, under the guise of imposing a slight downward adjustment for urban stations, to ‘correct’ for the UHI effect. Of course, the result is an ‘alarming’ ‘upwards trend’ in temperatures.
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/Rate_of_Temp_Change_Raw_and_Adjusted_NCDC_Data.pdf
The only real answer is to actually visit the surface stations and see if they meet criteria. In the US, with 82 percent of surface stations visited, the vast majority do not meet the quality criteria set by NOAA, rendering most of the dataset useless.
http://surfacestations.org/
So, Gavin, I’m not exactly “moving from limb to limb” on this issue. When data are impeachable on the most obvious grounds, it’s time to look for better data. There’s not one single other branch of physical science known to humanity that so wholeheartedly and uncritically embraces crap data.
Schiller; it’s not crap data in the general scheme of science looking backwards. Although I’m not privy to BoM and other agency methods and I make a lot of wild guesses re our young fellows trying their skills in retrieving useful info from old weather records such as they are, I can say it’s all much better than paleo stuff in showing current climate trends.
John; where you guys fail is in your selection of max trends when most weather records are simply max and min but little else. There are few clews there to the analogue instruments in use at the time. I bet they were issued like army boots. It then comes down to the users where ever they were in the job.
What I am certain of is the fact that air is pretty consistent over a given area at a given time. The instruments at Cooma, Dubbo, Merimbula, Canberra Airport, ANU, CSIRO and the ABC studios or even my place are all going up or down at about the same rate every day. Also in the real world of measurements, practitioners are looking over their shoulder all the time in case anyone sees a fudge after a bungle.
In the end we must have a good feeling about our work if it’s to remain valid. Unfortunately BoM probably hasn’t got their hands on all the early instruments or their records. After all, who really cared about the weather one hundred years ago?
Something to ponder is the calibration of a typical max/min device with say hot water and ice.
Roy Spencer’s latest on that missing heat that the sook Trenberth cried over in the C Gate emails.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/11/spencer-on-earths-missing-enery/#more-19394
Well Gavin, that’s quite a well-taken position and my hat’s off to you.
Neville,
That’s an interesting link and comments as well. Raises a question I came across in a blog maybe a year or so ago.
It was a challenge: In physical ecology, how many positive-feedback systems can you identify?
I’m not a stinkin’ Gaia-kisser, but the consensus was, negative feedbacks rule.
Gavin – All the charts I’ve shown are based on mean temps taken from min and max. As the computer programmer in the Harry file said – it’s a mess!!
I have been in contact with an old retired engineer (water board) who has worked on the Torok climate data with me. All the adjustments made to the climate data made by Torok are all filed and the reverse process can be applied.
When you reverse the adjustments made to Sydney it starts to look like all the rural stations with max temps dropping slightly and min temps rising slightly as you would expect due to UHI.
http://users.tpg.com.au/johnsay1/Stuff/Adjusted_Sydney
“After all, who really cared about the weather one hundred years ago?”
gavin,
Thats an irresponsible statement. The population then were a lot closer to the edge of survival than they are today and while analog thermometers were in good supply they were therefore easily compared with others and anyone interested [and I know many were] were easily aware of discrepancies.
At our farm as a kid we had many thermometers with all sorts of ranges for all sorts of jobs and one of the things we enjoyed doing was comparing readings and errors.
I doubt if they are much different from today’s errors which still vary a degree or so.
I remember weather being so hot in the sand hills that birds dropped dead when they attempted to fly [123 f in the shade] yet a lot of those old records [mainly the hot ones] have been tossed out by the BoM because they use that weak argument that people, instruments and locations weren’t up to scratch.
Also those verandahs where the thermometers were placed often had water-cooled hessian or spinifex curtains that created evaporative cooling which would make them cooler than stevenson screens.
BTW a wiki report by the “gatekeepers” on SSRC that plays the man and not the ball is not an argument.
More from the bunk factory:
The UK Information Commissioner’s Office has ruled that Prof. Mike Baillie of Queen’s University Belfast must hand over data obtained during 40 years of research into 7,000 years of Irish tree rings.
Baillie explains:
“I am neither a climatologist nor a dendro-climatologist. I have no academic stance on human-caused global warming except that, as a scientist reviewing the issue from an evolutionary perspective, if humans are even partly the cause of the warming since 1990 then we are already doomed as a species.” [1]
Really? How does one reach such a firm conclusion without doing climatology? Aeromancy, perhaps?
It gets worse.
In 1997, researchers published a paper that was based on data from 6,000 plus borehole sites from all the continents. The reconstructed temperatures clearly showed an unprecedented Medieval Period warming.
A year later, Mann published his hockey stick, famous for erasing the MWP and the LIA.
The borehole researchers then went back and re-published the original paper. The new paper used data from 358 sites instead of the 6000 sites, and dropped the first 19,500 years out of the 20,000 years.
The result? ‘Independent’ confirmation of Mann’s ‘findings’ of ‘unprecedented warming’ during the modern age. [2]
Scamming scammers.
——–
1. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/may/11/climate-science-tree-ring-data
2. http://www.c3headlines.com/2010/05/peerreviewed-research-unprecedented-global-warming-during-medieval-period-boreholes-reveal.html
Gavin,
You are really, truly, scaring me when you say, “In the end we must have a good feeling about our work if it’s to remain valid.”
If you believe that’s the validation standard for climatology, you’ve definitely gone over to the Dark Side. Doubtless Mann and many others felt quite elated over the hockey stick.
On the other hand, if you’ll stipulate climatology is not a science, I’ll gladly concede that emotional response is the proper measure.
Of course John Sayers – instead of speculating on scandals – does it ever occur to you to pick the phone – call the National Climate Centre and ask them – or send off a substantive email ! It’s easier just to rant isn’t it !
Schiller – you are a doofus – NOAA did re-visit the stations recommended by Watts as OK from surfacestations.org and guess what – if anything a slight cooling bias in the other set. The paper is un-rebutted.
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/01/so_thats_why_surfacestationsor.php
Of course any drongo with half a brain would have noticed many other data series of an independent nature saying the same thing. But not you ! It’s not in your contract to examine such evidence is it?
Luke,
Apparently you, your source, and the source your source relies upon
http://www.skepticalscience.com/On-the-reliability-of-the-US-Surface-Temperature-Record.html
don’t care about minimum standards.
I especially enjoyed the use of the neologism ‘microsites’ in those references. I would imagine, these are contradistincted against ‘macrosites’, whatever those might be. Perhaps Briffa’s Special tree with the special rings that are like totally better than all those other tree rings. So one tree could be like a ‘macrosite’ and we could, like, pray to it or something.
And Luke, yes, you’re right — NASA did ‘re-visit’ the compromised sites. By simply applying an algorithm (Al-Gore-rhythm) that cooled older temperatures to further amplify a heating signal.
Luke, here’s some toilet paper. For your nose. It’s got some brown stuff on it.
Sadly, there is no cure for those who have olfactory impairment.
A sad day- five months since what was one of the most interesting blog sites on the internet went into a somnambulistic mode.
Perhaps our gracious hostess can reconsider and re-enter the fray?
‘algorithm (Al-Gore-rhythm)’
Very nice ST, I will take it away and use it wisely.
SD _ I’ve found a site you’ll just love. – I’ve been going through all the NSW sites and comparing the “High Quality Site data and station position” with the actual data and the urban/rural grading.
Here’s Deniliquin Post Office 074128 which they call a high quality site and use in the annual climate data. Yet it’s definitely urban as it’s in the middle of town on top of the post office but they call it rural. It appears to stop in 2003.
The dark blue mean temp is from the BoM data base and goes back to 1874 (It actually started earlier but the earlier data has bits missing everywhere) the pink is the homogenised data from the “High Quality” Site.
There’s your “they cut out the 1800 stuff to get an increase in temp”
http://users.tpg.com.au/johnsay1/Stuff/Deniliquin_Post.png
There’s some weird stuff going on with these sites and Yes Luke – when I get it all organised I will contact them and request an explanation, I’ve already started the email.
More porkies being told over at realclimate, surely the site for numbskulls and hillbillies.
Do Mann and Jones ever get anything right, let’s see there was the famous bent stick graph, the famous lonely tree by Briffa used as proof for climate in years long past.
Now Jones tells us that there has been nothing unusual about the weather for the last 15 years ( 50% of climate) and the MWP was probably as warm or warmer than today.
Now there is this gem, http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/12/where-the-is-svalbard/#more-19434
John,
Well done! That’s unbelievable.
They’ve removed that record [53 c?] for Cloncurry too I believe which was also in the late 1800s.
Just following on from the Watts/NOAA/Menne gerfuffle; firstly Watts will be in Australia in June; a full itinerary is here:
http://climatesceptics.com.au/watts.html
I’ve been trying to get a handle on the time line of when NOAA published their rebuttal and Watts his follow up and his reply to Menne. Here’s the NOAA effort:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/about/response-v2.pdf
Here’s the Watts reply:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/27/rumours-of-my-death-have-been-greatly-exaggerated/
Here’s the Menne paper:
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/v2/monthly/menne-etal2010.pdf
And here’s the fulsome reply to Menne by Watts and D’Aleo;
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/surface_temp.pdf
No published Coho ! – not worth a crumpet ! Simply bleating. What a pathetic rebuttal. Don’t you love the way think tanks try to package bilge up as “important” reports.
Hey Coho – hope Watts will be well rested. Might be some good questions in every venue. Perhaps he may need a “lawyer”. I’m sure you could advise him. hohohoho
The ol’ 53C Cloncurry hoary chestnut – hohohohoho
BTW John – rung NCC yet? What makes you think these guys have no experience of UHI http://www.earthsci.unimelb.edu.au/~ihs/publication_pdfs/Morris%20Simmonds%20Plummer_quantif%20UHI_JAM%20%202001.pdf
http://cawcr.gov.au/bmrc/clfor/cfstaff/lec/IntJClimatol2005.pdf
John – do you ever stop to think that Deniliquin has been visited by research already?
http://www.earthsci.unimelb.edu.au/~jon/WWW/deniliquin.html
And Spanglers – do you clowns ever stop to read why the 53C was disputed ? Ever do any research. Or do you just open your mouths and crap emanates forth?
http://www.bom.gov.au/amm/docs/1997/trewin.pdf
Perhaps Coho one might take an initial question from http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/02/15/dropouts/
hohohoho
Thanks for those links Luke.
Luke,
I doubt if the case for discrediting those old records is any better than the case for discrediting some of the current ones and I would not necessarily deny any of them however the fact is that there were very warm periods prior to 1910 which the BoM has chosen as the “beginning”, further promoting the AGW case.
Thank you luke, you are a treasure; and in his own mean, fretful way so is Dr Foster; where to start; the easy one is the comment from the acolyte that satellites and ground based temps are in accord; no doubt over the whole period from 1979 to now they are, but what about from 1998:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1998/to/trend/plot/rss/from:1998/to/trend
From 1979 to 1998:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1979/to:1998/trend/plot/rss/from:1979/to:1998/trend
What happened in 1998 luke?
Tammy goes on to make 2 main charges against Watts and D’Aleo; the first is that they are stupid for asserting that by getting rid of colder, rural stations NOAA has produced a cooler temperature trend; if indeed that is what D&A did assert they would be silly; what they did say is that by getting rid of the colder sites the average temp over the whole site range would be warmer; nothing about trends. Now the GMST is the benchmark of AGW; people can gesticulate and hand-wave about trends but if the temp, the GMST, is warmer then you have an argument which supports AGW. And that is what removing the colder sites accomplished. Tammy side-steps this by putting up a GISStemp graph showing no temp drop at the time of the removal of the colder sites; but this is a anomaly trend graph; it shows the change in temp of the remaining sites not the change in GMST created by the absence of the cold sites.
The second gooseberry is that D&A were wrong to say:
“The number of stations that dropped out tended to be disproportionally rural –”
Tammy says this is wrong because since there were more rural stations to begin with then as a fraction actually more urban stations were lost; but look at the graph:
http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/fraction.jpg
There is a drop in urban sites but that is more than matched by an increase in suburban sites; in % terms the rural station increase has been exceeded by the combined increase in suburban and urban stations.
Cohenite,
It appears someone is bodging the surface population records.
Your link to the graph of the number of urban/suburban/rural sites,
http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/fraction.jpg show some interesting fluctuations but are essentially close to flat.
This bears almost no relationship to the graph of the number of total stations found on p. 8 of
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/NOAAroleinclimategate.pdf which shows total stations dropping from about 6,000 to about 1,200 during 1971-2008.
This issue came up back when dropping surface stations was the hot topic, and the answer was: it seems that the stations are still there, at least a good number of them, and still generating data; however, the majority of stations are for one reason or another excluded from the final dataset. (Parenthetically, I will note that these stations were “dropped” not all at once, but over a period of more than 30 years — so if you drop them in the right sequence you can generate any signal you want.)
Which means you can have two graphs; one with the number of actual stations, another of the number of ‘acceptable’ stations, and the graphs do not resemble each other.
Oddly, Watts and his volunteers at surfacestations.org say they’ve personally visited “87% of the first 1000+of the 1221 US Climate stations” (in the US), which means (a) most surface stations no longer exist, or (b) Watts & Co. are only visiting the ones from which data are accepted.
What are your thoughts on this conundrum?
It was wetter in south-east Spain during cooler times, so the increased floods predicted by the IPCC from AGW are probably wide of the mark.
http://www.co2science.org/articles/V13/N19/C2.php
Stationing AWSs beside tarmac runways [see Spitzbergen] can give excesses in both directions as they are over exposed to wind as well as heat.
Witness this morning’s readings in Brisbane: airport [by the bay where it should be warmer but exposed to the cold front that came through] 6c; City [with UHI effects] 10c; Redcliffe [also by the bay but less UHI] 9c.
Schiller, my thoughts on the situation is that Anthony Watts will be addressing this issue during his talks in Australia; and David Stockwell is going to look at CSIRO’s prognostications about climate and the data it uses. This is a crucial issue; if you can’t trust the official sources then there is no debate; this is why, on balance, I agree with the legal action being brought against Michael Mann; Mann has distorted data and presented conclusions to the public and legislation and financial damage has flowed from his conclusions; experts, who not only advise in a way they know people will rely on their statements, but who make prescriptive statements designed to coerce, should be held accountable; with a cloud hanging over the normal science distilling system of peer review I don’t see any other alternative but for the conflicting views to be tested in a legal jurisdiction.
Heaviest snow cover in 43 years in NH, last season and this last decade as well.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/13/october-through-march-was-the-snowiest-on-record-in-the-northern-hemisphere/#more-19475
Coho – you guys have told so many lies now on this stuff that nobody listens anymore. Vast amounts of time chasing stuff down that invevitably comes to nothing. We’re simply not listening anymore. You’re time wasters.
Again
We have 2 land based data sets that says the world has warmed.
2 independent sea surface data sets
2 satellite data series
bore holes
100s of studies of species behaviour of changes in phenology, breeding time, migration etc that says the same thing
It all tells the same story.
Then we have a swag of sus circulation changes all modelled out as can’t be explained without AGW – Modoki, SAM, STR-I, IPO
And you have no solar driver, it’s not the PDO. You do have well understood radiative physics
You guys have NOTHING except BO – and certainly no publications. Getting a think tank to produce a glossy cover ain’t a publication.
So you would like government advised on the whims of a bunch of immature scoundrels, bigots and disaffected ratbags.
And a penchant for always assuming that BoM are up to something with their temperature data – my experience is actually that they are tedious nitpickers – and I’d be doing a lot of research before pulling out the hunting knife. Easy to rant on a blog – harder to engage !
Keep close to Watts on his vacation in case you get some serious questions for a change. Will he be quoting some Latin?
Gee Luke you’re really sounding more desperate than usual, what is it the fact that the public aren’t listening anymore and ditto for rudd the dudd as well?
What you do concede no argument, no conjecture is that even if this nonsense called AGW was correct there is absolutely zero you can do to fix it, short of trying to stop the developing world from reaching per capita emissions with the developed world.
That’s your problem in a nutshell, in the meantime sensible people know that we must adapt to natural CC whatever it does and whenever it occurs.
As well we should be trying to develop new technologies with the scarce funds we have and not pouring billions/ trillions down the drain just to placate stupid people who plainly haven’t got the guts to think for themselves.
Here are the 3 sets of data for Hay (Miller street) site number 75031.
The site is on Miller Street, South Hay, sounds innocent enough, but it’s actually at the intersection with the Sturt Highway – the main highway from the east to Mildura and SA via the Hay Plain and would have a procession of B Doubles, trucks and Grey Nomads passing day and night. Yet they determine it to be rural.
http://users.tpg.com.au/johnsay1/Stuff/Hay-Miller-St.jpg
There are 3 sets of data for this site.
1 – the data available from the main BoM data site. 1881 – 2009
2 – Torok’s adjusted data – 1881 – 1993
3 – The re-adjusted High Quality Climate Site Network. 1910 – 2009
It really speaks for itself.
http://users.tpg.com.au/johnsay1/Stuff/Hay_Miller_St_75031.png
The whole High Quality Climate Site Network is full of fiddles.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/hqsites/
It infers that these are high quality sites selected for their long term accurate data. In reality you have many HQ Rural sites like Bourke airport where the airport has only been functioning for 12 years and only has 10 years of actual data, the rest of the data from 1910 has been gleaned from nearby adjacent urban sites, in this case the Brewarrina Hospital 100km away. Why don’t they just use the full Brewarrina Hospital site? because it’s urban hence is excluded from the annual temperature analyses. so they tack it onto the Bourke airport site instead. It’s a deceptive method of re-branding urban data as high quality rural data.
Here’s the two sites together showing how all the data has been adjusted.
http://users.tpg.com.au/johnsay1/Stuff/Brewarrina_Bourke.png
BTW the Brewarrina Hospital data starts at 1911 and has 16 years of missing data in it’s 98 year record. (Torok filled those years in) Yet the Brewarrina Hospital Rainfall data starts at 1872 and has 5 years of missing data in it’s 137 year record.
Cohenite,
A few posts back you mentioned the need for legal process in the ‘climate case’. It appeared to me, some time ago, that the scientific ‘peer review’ system has broken down, due to carefully selected, or incompetent jurors, and a dysfunctional appeal system. We need to look to the legal system for guidance, given its hundreds of years of experience in sorting the wheat from the chaff. Science is but a novice, and prone to silly mistakes. Instead of a Department of Climate Change, might we do better to spend the money on a Department of Scientific Jurisprudence, staffed by well-paid, incorruptible lawyer-scientists?
I think I’ve mentioned this before but the longest temp and rainfall record close to my residence is Mildura.
From 1889 to 1946 the mean max was 24.5c and mean min was 10.4c and rainfall 268mm ( old Mildura PO )
Then from 1946 to 2010 the site shifted to the Airport and the mean max has been 23.7c and mean min 10.3c and rainfall 283mm.
Therefore over the last 60+ year record Mildura has been a little bit cooler and wetter than the first 57 years.
John – if you haven’t talked with NCC and understand what they may or may not have done – you are simply speculating ! Easy isn’t it …
” incorruptible lawyer-scientists?” GD, it is a conundrum, isn’t it? Seriously though the legal process has many layers and filters; the science system doesn’t have the range of filters and checks and balances and the scientists are starting to realise that; witness the recent letter/opening adress by the 255 plaintiffs from the US Academy of Scientists;
http://www.pacinst.org/climate/climate_statement.pdf
This is, as all opening adresses should be, declatory and synoptic; but for all that the arguments are simplistic and transparent; for instance; validity by association:
“For instance, there is compelling scientific evidence that our planet is about 4.5bn years old (the theory of the origin of Earth), that our universe was born from a single event about 14bn years ago (the Big Bang theory), and that today’s organisms evolved from ones living in the past (the theory of evolution). Even as these are overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, fame still awaits anyone who could show these theories to be wrong. Climate change now falls into this category: there is compelling, comprehensive, and consistent objective evidence that humans are changing the climate in ways that threaten our societies and the ecosystems on which we depend”
Then there is disassociation from perceived weaknesses in the case such as consensus:
“This process is inherently adversarial— scientists build reputations and gain recognition not only for supporting conventional wisdom, but even more so for demonstrating that the scientific consensus is wrong and that there is a better explanation. That’s what Galileo, Pasteur, Darwin, and Einstein did.”
But then turning the weakness [which really can’t be disassociated] into a newly discovered strength:
“But when some conclusions have been thoroughly and deeply tested, questioned, and examined, they gain the status of “well-established theories” and are often spoken of as “facts.””
The best addresses always strive to take the high moral ground or purpose:
“For a problem as potentially catastrophic as climate change, taking no action poses a dangerous risk for our planet.”
And when you have claimed the high moral ground claim the status of victim or underdog; and heap opprobrium on the defendant:
“Many recent assaults on climate science and, more disturbingly, on climate scientists by climate change deniers, are typically driven by special interests or dogma, not by an honest effort to provide an alternative theory that credibly satisfies the evidence.”
Practice reductionism of issue and be black and white:
“Society has two choices”
And generally lie through your teeth.
Incidentally, there is a discussion about local temp histories and fabrication of temp here:
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2889755.htm
Wade in.
Coho
“Seriously though the legal process has many layers and filters; the science system doesn’t have the range of filters and checks and balances and the scientists are starting to realise that”
– simplistic and laughable given the demonstrated proof of the power of technology to transform the whole world in the 20th and 21st century.
What’s all that science based on then?
We could then reflect on the legal system – with its many perverse legal outcomes and the wrong people executed !
The problem with climate is that like the Higgs Boson it is a complex grand challenge problem, with many sub-problems.
Funny how there is little ruckus about the more fanciful notions of string theory, quantum mechanics and multiverses.
The assessment needs to be – what level of risk do we put on humans changing global climate. Land clearing certainly already has made changes in regional contexts.
And even if one feels there is little opportunity for any global agreement on CO2 reductions we do need to apply risk management in design or any public or private investment infrastructure in a greenhouse world. So called adaptation.
So your best advice in drafting an MDB management plan covering diverse sub-regions is …… ? what? will you be ignoring all science and data?
Just saying “I don’t know” doesn’t actually help anyone needing to make climate risk related decisions.
So after climate sceptics have raised the climate library of Alexandria to the ground via their nefarious attacks – what actually will be left for those left behind still needing to make any decisions.
The moral bankruptcy of the essential denialist sceptic position will be apparent for all to see.
Still waiting on Bob’s plan B Coho …. I hope Watts, Archibald and Stockwell will be providing us with one.
If this doesn’t prove that the ipcc 2007 report is a game for con artists then what does?
Or how to quote from a report that unfortunately doesn’t have the correct timeline, perhaps they’ve invented a time machine, but why isn’t the MSM reporting this latest CON.
http://nofrakkingconsensus.blogspot.com/2010/05/ipcc-cites-unpublished-journal-39-times.html
Our beloved UN, those crusaders for the saviour of the planet via the IPCC have overnight announced that LIBYA was elected overnight to the United Nations Human Rights Council despite numerous complaints that the country was unfit to serve on the international rights body.,, But the appeal fell on deaf ears, and a General Assembly secret ballot produced 155 votes in favor of adding Libya to the council, significantly more than the 97 votes needed.
And last month:
Without fanfare, the United Nations this week elected Iran to its Commission on the Status of Women, handing a four-year seat on the influential human rights body to a theocratic state in which stoning is enshrined in law and lashings are required for women judged “immodest.
so these saviours of the planet preach their morals and values at us to save the environment but clearly have warped ethics, morals and values when it comes to human rights.
Still trust anything they support Luke??!
luke
“Funny how there is little ruckus about the more fanciful notions of string theory, quantum mechanics and multiverses. ”
They don’t ask for our money and change of lifestyle!!
“They don’t ask for our money and change of lifestyle!!’ well they do actually – zillions to pay for the Hadron Collider”
Toby – UN is pretty hopeless …. irrelevant though ….
luke
Sorry like I forgot to add “under false pretences”
I thought it was unnecessary!
why is everything today the “coldest, warmest, driest, whateverist since 3, 10 50 years ago!
I’m damn sick of it!
Tonight they said it was the coldest for 3 years – SO FU**IN WHAT!
Well said Cohenite re the 255. I think their Open Letter warrants investigation as a prima facie conspiracy.
One of their many canards is that “iv. Rising concentrations of carbon dioxide are making the oceans more acidic”. As I tried to post at Lambert’s Deltoid, but have been spiked there yet again, (1) there is no evidence for that claim, in the absence of global time series measurement of falling pH (there are as many places – eg river deltas – where it is rising as falling) (2) the claims by IPCC (AR4 WG1 (pp.403 ff) in support of (1) are contradicted by their own claim on the very same pages that the absorption of CO2 by the oceans that allegedly cause the falling pH is itself falling (Nathan Bindoff is the Aussie goon who crooked up this nonsense in his Chapter 5 – Oceanic Change…. – he exemplifies the ample evidence in AR4 that calculus is no longer taught in Australian schools and universities); and (3) what is bad about falling pH?
Tim Lambert who is as mathematically challenged as John Quiggin and the said Bindoff cannot grasp how much “carbonic acid” is required to produce even a 0.1 reduction in pH, as pH is measured on a reverse Richter scale, “whereby pH is a measurement of the concentration of hydrogen ions (H+) in solution. Since this represents a logarithmic expression, H+ concentration at pH 6.0 is 10 times greater than at pH 7.0 and 100 times greater than at pH 8.0.” That means hugely larger increases in oceanic CO2 are needed to get the alarming fictional fall in pH claimed by the 255 goons of the NAS than have EVER been observed, especially when the same goons are claiming that oceanic uptakes of CO2 emissions are falling.
Now you know why Lambert has refused to put up my post on this.
My source (apart from my own field experience of the BAD effects of rising pH in places like Egypt and Zambia etc) adds: “In this relationship, pH has no direct effect on plant growth. However, pH does affect the form/availability of nutrient elements in irrigation water, fertilizer solutions and the growing medium. The pH of irrigation water should usually be within the range of 5.5 to 6.5. These levels enhance the solubility of most micronutrients and avoid a steady increase in the pH of the growing medium. This pH range also optimizes the solubility of nutrients in concentrated fertilizer stock solutions.”
Thus if the 255 cretins of the US National Academy of Sciences are right about falling oceanic pH, they and us should be having a party, as this holds out the promise of the cheaper irrigation from the oceans that we would achieve if pH fell to say 6, as we would then have only to deal with salinity, and not the acidic oceanic pH at today’s 8.1.
Thus to any REAL scientist, of whom there are NONE at US NAS or (with just a single exception, at the UK’s Royal Society), falling pH from rising fossil fuel emissions and (at only 44% of the last) atmospheric CO2 will actually be a huge benefaction to humanity, permitting lower cost irrigation of the Kalahari, Sahara, and the c80% of Australia that is desert (like 99.9% of its climate scientists). This is a corollary to my recent ANU seminar (at http://www.timcurtin.com) showing the benefits to all humanity through the higher food production that has been facilitated by rising atmospheric CO2 since 1958.
Cohenite’s link to “Climate change: a cultural crisis” seems to have naught to do with “local temp histories and fabrication of temp”
Individual failure to appreciate indicators of change has long been a topic of mine. In most instrument work I had two types of clients, those who meerly wanted an opinion and those who wanted details so they could argue the point. I usually made decisions about what to pass on in both cases.
By fishing around the edges of a problem and in gaining opinions from all around we build a frothy scum on the surface. However this is in practice what I use for trail blasing another temp reference. Yesterday I took 444 digital photos of costal sceens in my private quest to monitor events such as fishing fleets, catches, max sea level etc. Unfortunatly I don’t do min SL for the tides yet.
In our travels, its sometimes convienient to ask questions about what others see as evidence of climate change. Dissapointingly yesterday a Harbour Master and a visiting pier pile inspector could not advance fresh experience from their routines but a fisheries officer was quite open to issues of change in our marine environment.
Lets say, on a big swell today some of our easterly margins become pretty exciting.
Tim Curtin,
This is quite odd. The ‘investigators’ who claim to ‘investigate’ the climate shysters, and who exonerate them with obviously superficial scrutiny, are merely adding their names to the list of those implicated in Climategate.
Al Gore is doing the smart thing and avoiding the whole mess, whilst investing in beach-front real estate. Which will disappear under the rising ocean levels he has promised us.
Phil Jones has rescued himself by admitting that our recovery from the Little Ice Age is ‘not statistically significant’ compared to earlier returns to a warm, green planet. The rest seem determined, with lemming-like behavior, to follow their fellows from the brink and into the precipice.
With $billion$ at stake on carbon-trading options, photovoltaics, cuisinart$ for bird$, and government $ubsidie$, we should not be surprised that the charlatan$ are lining up like hog$ at the $lop.
Gavin – “Dissapointingly yesterday a Harbour Master and a visiting pier pile inspector could not advance fresh experience from their routines but a fisheries officer was quite open to issues of change in our marine environment.”
doesn’t that tell you something? – the marine environment physically hasn’t changed else the Harbour Master and Pile Inspector would have noticed, especially SLR.
On the other hand the fisheries officer has noticed changes which I suspect would be more due to natural variability or over fishing etc than the alleged sea level rise.
Says the plant non-physiologist – “Dr” Curtin. “Please believe me” says Tim – I have secret information that nobody else has. Alas no one is listening. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
“Phil Jones has rescued himself by admitting that our recovery from the Little Ice Age is ‘not statistically significant” NO HE DID NOT SCHILLER _ DIRECT QUOTE PLS ! The entire notion of a “recovery” is bogus anyway – it’s denialist-speak for mental manipulation.
luke – when the world was nice and warm and Europe bathed in warmth and grew fruits and extensive crops it suddenly plummeted to the cold temps of the LIA and everyone froze and disease was rampant. Don’t you think it would be reasonable to call a return to the previous warmth and prosperity a “recovery”?
Jones:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm
Some highlights:
“Do you agree that according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical?
An initial point to make is that in the responses to these questions I’ve assumed that when you talk about the global temperature record, you mean the record that combines the estimates from land regions with those from the marine regions of the world. CRU produces the land component, with the Met Office Hadley Centre producing the marine component.
Temperature data for the period 1860-1880 are more uncertain, because of sparser coverage, than for later periods in the 20th Century. The 1860-1880 period is also only 21 years in length. As for the two periods 1910-40 and 1975-1998 the warming rates are not statistically significantly different (see numbers below).
I have also included the trend over the period 1975 to 2009, which has a very similar trend to the period 1975-1998.
So, in answer to the question, the warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other.
Here are the trends and significances for each period:
Period Length Trend
(Degrees C per decade) Significance
1860-1880 21 0.163 Yes
1910-1940 31 0.15 Yes
1975-1998 24 0.166 Yes
1975-2009 35 0.161 Yes”
And that concession requires some cherry picking; in fact the warming from 1910-1940 is arguably greater than from 1976:
http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b370/gatemaster99/warmtwice.png
But anyway read what Jones has to say about the MWP then look at Fig 6 here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/11/making-holocene-spaghetti-sauce-by-proxy/#more-6961
Plus there’s plenty of other studies dealing with the MWP in the SH; it looks as though Jones should get out of his cloistered ivory tower a bit more; his confessional is only partially done.
Cohenite,
I can’t believe my eyes. Luke insisted on quote-mining, you mined the quote, and Luke, perennial opponent of quote mining, had nothing more to say.
Maybe Luke is a faux anti-quote-miner.
Speaking of faux, as in Luke’s favorite phrase, ‘faux skeptic’, I may have found an explanation of the term. It’s an artifact of AGW paranoia:
They debated about whom they could trust, who was a part of their “team” — and who among them might secretly be a skeptic. All those who were between the two extremes or even tried to maintain links with both sides soon found themselves under suspicion. [1]
So, there you go! Luke is being paranoid about the possibility that some here who evince skepticism are actually CAGWers in the closet.
———–
1. How the Science of Global Warming Was Compromised. Part 6: From Deserved Reputations to Illegitimate Power. Spiegel Online, 5/14/2010,
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,694484-6,00.html
—-breaking news—-breaking news—-breaking news—-breaking news—-
PJTV Streams Climate Debate LIVE
Online media leader offers viewers on-the-ground coverage of International Conference on Climate Change
PRNewswire-USNewswire
May 13, 2010
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/pjtv-streams-climate-debate-live-93677844.html
PJTV today announced it will stream LIVE coverage of the Heartland Institute’s 4th Annual International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC-4) – a worldwide gathering of global warming “realists” – from Chicago, IL, on May 16-18. The online television network will offer viewers videos and analysis from each keynote speaker as well as a number of the conference events.
“Goin’ to Chicago”… for the Climate Conference
Roger L. Simon (blog)
May 15, 2010
http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2010/05/15/goin-to-chicago-for-the-climate-conference/
Yes, this is largely a climate skeptics’ event. Not that Al [Gore} couldn’t have come. A long list of notable climate “alarmists” – among them Gavin Schmidt, James Hansen, Michael Mann, Phil Jones and William Schlesinger – were invited to the Chicago conference, yet declined.
Popular tactic for eco-freaks: it happens over and over and over again. They refuse to show up for an event and then call it “unbalanced”. As usual, the bulk media will fall for the ploy, and say it’s a ‘denialist’ event.
Just remember, you heard it here, first. The eco-freaks will make this a set-piece and their refusal to take part will be slid under the carpet just as swiftly as a paper that claims to show the MWP was nicer than now.
Anyone want to take bets?
John – hmmmm – the usual Euro-centric view of the world. Pity the MWP meant mega-droughts for the USA, China and Africa. Try to open your eyes matey ! It’s only teh whole point about the MWP !
This sort of sophistry is why Coho should stick to the “law”.
“So, in answer to the question, the warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other.” – let’s carve up an obvious centennial trend into little bits and pretend the little insignificant bits don’t amount to a current day significant whopper bit. Coho should well remember that PC1 from TWO independent ocean dats sets is not the PDO by a long shot – it’s the centennial trend.
And you want something else ! PULLEASE>
Not even Lindzen or Spencer go on with the amount of horseshit that you lot do.
Schiller – why would any scientist want to attend a freak show? You could have more real fun at a circus or perhaps experience the same reality at your nearest asylum?
A popular technique with right wing eco-rapists: it happens over and over and over again, is to “announce” some shonky “faux” event and pretend it has some status ! It doesn’t. Or to put a nice cover on a right wing think tank “faux” report and pretend it has some value. It doesn’t.
So Schiller – too gutless to provide a direct reference or “quote” How gutless.
And no – a faux sceptic is a pretend sceptic – a dishonest turd-like creature who makes up bogus or sophistic arguments to win a political not a scientific debate.
wonderful Luke – great to see you finally admit the MWP existed.
“and pretend it has some status ! It doesn’t. ”
so why are all the lefty shonks crying that we need to re-educate the public (at Aussie taxpayers expense) because the sceptics are winning – appears they must have gained some status.
Good point John, if the sceptic side wasn’t winning why would the krudd idiot need to allocate an extra $30 m in the budget to further lie and promote this corrupt fraud.
Luke just seems to adore corruption as most leftwing idiots do, but I suppose it’s good to see that he finally agrees that there was a MWP preceeded of couse by the Minoan WP and RWP.
Our present Modern warming had to happen because the LIA finished so that recovery makes it even less dramatic, plus higher solar radiation and the increasing UHI effect which can be found throughout the modern record.
Probably the best book to read ( from a believer )is ” Cool It” by Lomborg. I don’t agree with him on AGW, but he does a good job using OFFICIAL graphs, charts and records to totally demolish the stupid nonsense comprehensively.
No BBQ summer in the UK.
http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/daily_ao_index/ao_index.html
Luke,
You wanted a quote, and a citation.
The quote is in italics. The citation is in the footnote.
What is your problem?
Schiller – your citation provides no such evidence – point out where it does !
But as the “sceptics” return to their witches’ cauldrons for more “insight” the science moves on
http://www.earth.columbia.edu/articles/view/2691 ah yes 🙂
Luke,
It pains me to have to point this out to you, but the fact is, a citation does not provide evidence. It provides the location/source of a claim or a text.
I really enjoyed your link to the article “A Rare 114-Year Record, Kept by Generations, Logs Changing Climate”. Mohonk Lake, NY. The article is accompanied by a picture of the location of a rain gauge.
What about the temperature station?
Check out the pix at surfacestation.org. These are pictures of the station that “never seen its surroundings change” “for 114 years” and “kept in a box out of direct sun, in the same place, a short walk from the Mohonk hotel”.
It gets full sun. Wonder when the trees around it, especially that big one right next to the station, got cut down.
Notice also the upward temperature trend beginning around 1979 (but not setting a new record until 2000.
Here’s a picture of the “Mohonk hotel” in the “Mohonk Preserve”:
http://www.mohonk.com/
That sure isn’t the outbuilding with the modern siding we see in the background! Wonder when that was built. Maybe around the time when they cut the trees down? Luke, that is a bogus article based on bogus claims.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
Is there anything worse than cherry picking? Yes. When it turns out you can’t even pick cherries.
HAHAHAHAHAHA Luke you are a sad sack loser bum.
More evidence about Arctic temps ( Giss) 1880 to 1934 , strong increase in temp, 1934 to 2004 flat or decline with much increased co2 emissions.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/16/wuwt-arctic-sea-ice-news-5/#more-19564
So you are impressed by a 114 year temperature record Luke?
here’s a 150 year temperature record that has been adjusted and is typical of the adjustments the whole of the Australian and New Zealand temperature record has faced. Read how this one was created.
Wow – how did they manage to move Observatory Hill – fascinating. You don’t think there might be a bit of UHI related to this site eh matey?
http://users.tpg.com.au/johnsay1/Stuff/Observatory_Hill_Full_Adjustments.png
Neville,
When GISS can find a ‘hot spot’ atop the snow-capped mountains of Bolivia, based on a surface station down by the beach, I wouldn’t say this is terribly meaningful. It’s like Luke finding a ‘pristine’ surface station.
John,
Good catch on that movement of Observatory Hill. Sometimes you move the hill, or, in Luke’s case, remove the trees and put a building next door.
The neat-o thing is that, in Luke’s ‘pristine surface station’ dramatic find, that shabby bit of work was the basis of a peer-reviewed article. Probably reviewed by Mann et. al.
Gosh, what a lot of garbage and bad science to wade through.
Is it not time for JS to contact BoM re ST? It seems to me the latter is sailing perilously close to misconduct.
Not sure if its relevant, but temperatures at Observatory Hill were one degree warmer when Sam D was in town. Australia’s first meteorologist was given the sack by the Governor for insubordination and we missed the opportunity of witnessing the effect of the Dalton Minimum.
Yeah – I suppose so Tim but I really don’t think they will be take any notice of a record producer/recording studio designer with no science qualifications. (type John Sayers into Google) I just happened to teach myself spreadsheet coding via LDW Power on my old Atari back in the early 90s 🙂
I’m posting the info with the hope that someone with science cred will pick it up and run with it. JoNova has this info as does WUWT now, even Roy Spencer is aware of Torok’s work but they’ve all got other matters on their plates.
John Sayers, Warwick Hughes at http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/ has done a lot of work on Australian temperatures. Some of his correspondence with Phil Jones is in the Climate Gate emails.
He would be aware of the GISS false adjustments but may not have looked at the Sydney Observatory.
Post on WUWT http://wattsupwiththat.com/ have looked at Darwin adjustments and other places around the world. It appears GISS has been wrongly putting in correction factors. Population centres with UHI effect have had no temperature adjustment or even upwards instead of down while rural sites have had temperatures adjusted upwards in recent years (to match population centres) instead of no adjustment. Also, have a look at Chiefo’s dT/dt series http://chiefio.wordpress.com/category/dtdt/ . The latter highlights the fiddles.
Many area’s around the world have had no measurable temperature increase.
I have been away from this site because of the nonsense posted by Luke and Gavin. I suggest to everyone do not reply to them. I am surprised Cohenite bothers when I see that he enters sensible discussions on other sites which have a majority of educated professional people such Dr Stockwell on Niche Modeling http://landshape.org/enm/ or the interesting discussion about CO2 effect on The Air Vent http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/
CAF – I informed Warwick Hughes and posted the link about the Torak files on his site but he didn’t seem at all interested. I don’t think he realised that the files at this site
ftp://ftp2.bom.gov.au/anon/home/bmrc/perm/climate/temperature/annual/
are not on the public record. The Observatory Hill data came from there – it’s not available anywhere else as far as I know.
Contained in the ftp site files are all the adjusted data for the selected sites across Australia. They are contained in 2 text files finaln.utx and finalx.utx which open in Word as maximum and minimum data in text format. The text pasted in Excel and with the Text to Columns function will produce a full data record for each station listed by station id number. That’s how I produced the charts.
There is also another file called method.txt which shows what adjustment was made to each station and the reason.
It is therefore possible to un-adjust each station’s data as my engineer friend did with Observatory Hill.
Thanks for the info anyway – you’ve encouraged me to maybe post it on Warwick Hughes site again 🙂
John Sayers
Thanks for the link I have been interested in a small rural Queensland town data (temp from 1894, rainfall from 1877). I will see how this data compares with the raw BOM max. min. temperature data on http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/data/weather-data.shtml
The station closed in 2009 for a move to the airport but there was a six year overlap which showed average temperature at the post office was 0.2C higher than the airport 2km away.
I have the data in Excel but have not yet done the dT/dt to look for adjustments.
Do post on Warwick Hughes site again. I note it is read by many – Prof Oliver Manuel posted in the topic about solar cycles Meandering solar cycle 23 to 24 transition. I just noted that your link on Sydney Observatory has been posted by janama – you might like to add some words.
I’m janama 😉
John, let’s say it again; perfection is at best, an illusion. Only naïve students expect science to preform miracles round every turn.
That BoM link to their FTP dir etc gives us an outline of a quite normal approach to cloudy data filtering via a system of references created from within the old data sets. It comes from particularly good engineering practice where everything starts from scratch where comparing 3 or more like sets gives us the first standard or base for the rest as they are rotated within groups.
When I go through a large assortment of nuts and bolts it’s often easier to start with the largest diameter then move down a size towards the bottom of the pile before examining any of the threads for pitch. Chances are there are only one or two significant thread changes in each dia group. Thus finding that typical nut in each case becomes a breeze without a thread gauge or other measuring device.
CAF like Thurkettle offers little in the way of personal background or practical interest in these climate change issues. What about you get off your cyber and do something original instead of constantly linking to the incestuous blog machine?
For those curious I can relate to a raft of Labs and their testing routines but standards for R&D often have to be hand made on location from a variety of materials and sources like a fresh 1.5V cell, a knotted piece of string or a glass jar.
Short term sea level change is best viewed on a wide beach or sand bar but mangroves in a estuary have tell tale vertical tubes on their roots. Dead melaleuca forest on the edge of the briny tells a tale too. We can map all that in many of NSW coastal features.
What a load of bollocks Gavin.
This is why so many people remain unconvinced about CAGW! Thanks, gavin!
If we would use beaches, mangroves, and dead melalueca forests as proxies, all would be clear and authoritative and undeniable, and we wouldn’t have to worry about ‘adjustments’ to ‘data’, or reading about the travel adventures of the WWF or the utter failure of every single ‘predictive’ climate model ever devised.
Why didn’t someone think of this before? What’s more, those pesky satellites are expensive. Especially in light of their inability to detect the catastrophe that ‘everyone knows’ is out there.
John; while you guys remain hung up on the instrument temp record I may pursue my parallel interest in a slightly longer time scale represented by estuaries, frontal dune systems and brackish lakes on the costal flood plains of the nearby world in relative peace.
However I remain concerned that almost no one else bothers with this approach in measuring global climate change since there is much evidence round Australia at least of relatively recent shifts in sea level of around 2 meters despite the constant tides and odd tsunamis. Given the SL rise and fall between ice ages, the last 15,000 years or so is a gentle SL study but much more useful in forward estimates of atmospheric temp than any man made thermometer series.
Btw those Torok BoM files have confirmed the many points I posted here over the years about max/min thermometers and users etc based on personal experience in general with older instruments.
Schiller; basic principles apply to all instrument systems such as ground truthing satellite info via photos from typical sites on land
http://www.waclimate.net/bureau.html
http://www.ozcoasts.org.au/indicators/beach_dune.jsp
Gavin SL off the east coast of Australia was 1.5 metres higher 4,000 years ago, which rather stuffs up a lot of theories about temp both now and then.
http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/2278381.htm
Gavin “seek and you shall find”! if you look hard enough you can prove anything for yourself. ive said it before as have many here, but when you ask people who live on the coast if they see any evidence for sea lvl change or climate change they invariably laugh in your face. mate currents change, beaches move, dunes shift, cliffs collapse, deltas expand, rivers get cut off from the sea, inlets become lakes, lakes become inlets etc etc…always have and always will. as neville so clearly points out sea lvls have changed dramatically in our recent past…and they prob will do again.
The fact that CO2 does not correlate with temperatures, or, at best, that a rise in CO2 *follows* an increase in temperature, and the fact that at ~380 ppm we’re essentially at atmospheric saturation, where further increases in C02 make about no difference at all, and that climatologists ritually refuse to make any claims which even remotely smack of *causality* (a notion fundamental to physical sciences), makes all of this wasted effort.
All the action is on the political side, where the profiteers are poised to rape the consumers. They don’t care about the science. You can speak truth about the bankrupt CAGW pseudo-science all day long, and you’ll always be off-topic.
The only remaining questions in climatology is how much to pay, and who will pay it, for what kind of energy source.
Climatology is simply a side-show in the carnival of greed. Having people argue over the “science” is an intentional distraction from a political imperative which is heedless of any physical science whatsoever.
The ‘skeptics’ have been as thoroughly cozened as the CAGWers. The former, by thinking it’s a scientific controversy, and the latter, by thinking their secular gods have ‘settled’ the imperative.
The former are, at least, honest. That will prove to be a shabby consolation when the cost of energy drives you to penury, and your employer, as well.
gavin,
This will give you more detail than those “floating” alluvial indicators:
I met a traveller from an antique land
Who said: “Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert. Near them on the sand,
Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown
And wrinkled lip and sneer of cold command
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them and the heart that fed.
And on the pedestal these words appear:
`My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings:
Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair!’
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare,
The lone and level sands stretch far away”.
To read the sands of time you need to keep them in an hour glass.
Better to use the “Isle du Mort”.
Science Subpoenaed
– S. Fred Singer, Comment, Nature.com
May 13, 2010
http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=2787
Fortunately, the blade of the hockey stick is still there, showing rapidly rising temperatures in the past 30 years, thanks to the valiant efforts of Prof. Phil Jones. We are breathlessly waiting for expert scrutiny of his methods of selecting data from thousands of weather stations to arrive at a single number for “global temperature.” Perhaps he will reveal the algorithms he devised to “adjust and correct” the raw data. But unfortunately, he did not save the original temperature records; as the saying goes: “The dog ate them.”
Remarkable.
To our misfortune, the most salient ‘climate data’ are measured in dollars, yuan, rubles, yen, and other currencies.
Spangled, good quote. I just have to wonder what this implies for our grandchildren growing up under a global energy-rationing scheme.
S.
Because of higher solar radiation over most of the 20th century thermal expansion of the oceans would have to account for at least 40% of SLR over the last 40 or 50 years.
Water warms up more than land from the sun and Richard Tol estimates that 0.1% expansion of 1 kilometre of water yields 1 metre of SLR. Ipcc, 2007b : table 5. 5. 2 or Lomborg’s Cool it page 247 no 369.
Anyhow Gavin what did cause that SLR of 1.5 metres above present levels 4,000 years ago only a mere 8,000 years after the end of the last ice age, when SL was some 150 metres lower?
IN other words SL’s passed our present level in just 8,000 years but then have lost another 1.5 metres?
Gee it’s good to get a few tragics off BoMb Data. so lets earnestly consider some wider horizons.
Neville: “what did cause that SLR of 1.5 metres above present levels 4,000 years ago only a mere 8,000 years after the end of the last ice age, when SL was some 150 metres lower?”
First; I need to ask how do you know SL was exactly 1.5 M above present SL 4000 years ago?
Second: what exactly do you know about that earlier period following the last ice age?
My answer to your question is another question about rate of SL change re your 8000 year period and in what form is the true differential written to give the appropiate overshoot re natural feedbck and damping?
Recall; I don’t expect to use math and physics long forgotten After many years of relying on direct observation and measurements. However there was a time when I was fairly good with physics and some of the calculus associated with cyclical events but it became easier with time to visualize waves and interference patterns then guess strengths of the forces involved. This comes after decades in seeking signs of non linear events in advance. I started trouble shooting in industry long before we had electronic computers.
Anyone use a PDP8 or a Motorola D2 kit?
Last weekend I found signs of a large shell midden part way down a steep rocky cliff butwell above either recent SL rest points so it was not a likely reference by it’s self. By noting midden sise associated with particular sand formations I get a fair grasp on the period of occupancy by our aboriginals and changes in their targeted marine species. Yes it’s not a familular science here but I’ve done it on and off over fivty years now and it helps me keep up with the professionals.
Neville,
Narrabeen Man is a bit like Otzi.
It’s all happened before without CAGW.
http://gentner.us/blog/index.php?category=3
gavin,
The Dutch have been reclaiming polders for millenia and they show SLR in the past to agree with Neville’s argument.
http://members.casema.nl/errenwijlens/co2/denhelder.html
Re the previous comment I should also have said it’s also happened of course without ACO2.
Geezz Gavin , if you don’t like the shore line of 4,000 years ago that has been found by the UNSW go and argue with them.
Anyhow its all happened before without increased co2 levels, so if you factor in a recovery from the LIA, more solar radiation and the UHI effect the slight increase in temp over the last 100 years is explained quite easily.
Metabolism in bacteria, which constitute ~80% of Earth’s biosphere by weight, produce H2O and CO2 as by-products. When the climate warms, metabolic activity and habitat increase, leading to increased amounts of these two by-products. This is why warming precedes an increase in CO2 levels. This also would explain to some extent a rise in sea level, though it has yet to be quantified. Countervailing these two tendencies is the Solar wind, which carries molecules in the upper atmosphere away from earth orbit and out into the Solar system. Were it not for the Earth’s magnetic field, the Solar wind would long ago have removed the majority of water from the biosphere, leaving it as arid as Mars, which has by comparison virtually no magnetic field. The losses of CO2 and H2O from the magnetosphere and replenishment by biological processes must be quantified to achieve a realistic explanation for CO2 and sea level fluctuations.
Leading Global Warming Skeptic Lindzen: Time to Abandon the ‘Skeptic’ Label
– Jeff Poor, Business & Media Institute, 5/18/2010
http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2010/20100518112514.aspx
“Lindzen, speaking at the Heartland Institute’s International Conference on Climate Change on May 17 in Chicago, explained that by assuming the “skeptic” label, the anti-global warming alarmist movement implies the theory is plausible. And according to the M.I.T. professor, it isn’t.
“One suggestion I’d make is we stop accepting the term ‘skeptic,’” Lindzen said. “As far as I can tell, skepticism involves doubts about a plausible proposition. I think current global warming alarm does not represent a plausible proposition.”
For the record
http://climate-change.suite101.com/article.cfm/no-scientific-consensus-on-human-climate-chan#ixzz0o1PzpVdA
C’mon Spangled, that was a very light weight link; fig1 is not exactly linear, fig2 is only a crude attempt to neutralize the recent Atlantic SL rise, fig3 is best described as odd
Why not quote our Uncle Bob
“SOME NOTES ON SEA-LEVEL CHANGE
AROUND THE AUSTRALIAN COASTLINE” 2008
“Recent acceleration in rate of sea-level change”
http://members.iinet.net.au/~glrmc/RMC%20-%20aspects%20of%20sea-level%20rise%20in%20southern%20Australia%20Z.pdf
Now I could have referred to Google for support
“Glaciers Dominate Eustatic Sea-Level Rise in the 21st Century” 2007
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1143906v1
or “Sea Level Rise-“ here
http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_drives_recent.html
However I have numerous photos of well picked over mussel lines above low tides that show local SL at max for this era. For example I conclude Merimbula Airport is a most likely candidate for early inundation. See 2 m huh!
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/averages/tables/cw_069093.shtml
Gavin is part of the Luke hive-mind. Which may be only two minds. One is full of expletives, the other full of bogus distractions to bogus science.
Schills the suggestion from Lindzen is indeed an excellent one. thx for the link
More on those numbers making up the concensus or the 2500 ( only about 50 really ) men in white coats often mentioned by that numbskull krudd.
These can be seen as that incestuous group who fraudulently dreamt up the bent stick graph or in scientific terms they are right up there with the piltdown fraudsters.
You see they had to get rid of the MWP even after publishing their own graph showing a big camels hump smack bang in the same MWP, also much higher than modern warming. ( Ipcc 1990 )
Just a pity about the Minoan WP, the RWP the colder dark ages then the MWP, then the LIA then a slight modern warming of about 0.65C over the last 100+ years.
More on those numbers making up the consensus or the 2500 ( only about 50 really ) men in white coats often mentioned by that numbskull krudd.
These can be seen as that incestuous group who fraudulently dreamt up the bent stick graph or in scientific terms they are right up there with the piltdown fraudsters.
You see they had to get rid of the MWP even after publishing their own graph showing a big camels hump smack bang in the same MWP, also much higher than modern warming. ( Ipcc 1990 )
Just a pity about the Minoan WP, the RWP the colder dark ages then the MWP, then the LIA then a slight modern warming of about 0.65C over the last 100+ years.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/18/consensus-what-consensus/#more-19653
Sorry for the double act above , the second has the link.
Anyone here notice that Flukeyloo (the other one) has been absent since his ‘pet’ surface station was revealed as a sham with the trees cut down and a new outbuilding next door? He’s probably lurking over at Doltoid and licking his wounds.
Viv Forbes, chairman of ‘Carbon Sense’, takes a swipe at computer models.
http://carbon-sense.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/dice-games.pdf
The following is an excellent link to the perils of going down the “green” route.
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/spains-green-policies-an-economic-disaster/
gavin,
Your Uncle Bob is more believable than your Uncle BoM but nothing unusual is happening. That paleo-sealevel link I gave you is derived from human experience in very sea-flood-prone lowlands.
Nothing like personal experience to improve the education [and the memory].
Toby,
That’s an excellent link, but as usual, it doesn’t cover the full spectrum of financial interests in CAGW.
Some say it’s wealth redistribution to developing economies — but that’s actually false, because it pays developing economies to not develop.
The actual wealth redistribution will go to corporations gobbling at the public subsidy trough for ‘green’ energy that’s cripplingly expensive and pointless.
You, as a man of conscience, would never stoop to imposing poverty on millions in exchange for Al Gore’s lifestyle. But Al Gore does, and so do the rest of them.
Hey SD – are you going to make the Anthony Watts lecture:
Gold Coast QLD: Wednesday 16 June 2010, 7:00 pm
Sheraton Mirage Hotel, Seaworld Drive, Main Beach Gold Coast
Anthony Watts, David Archibald and Bob Carter
$25 per person, $20 if you make a booking or are a pensioner
Contact: Bob Brinsmead (02) 6677 7279
would love to catch up there – I can even pick you up on my way through 😉
Schiller, most of the western world has gone mad. Massive debts that will at some stage bring on a depression. People flocking to the USD AND TREASURIES when they are basically bankrupt and will never be able to prepay the money. Europe who continues to believe that the world owes them a living. And now the only western country worth investing in becuase of its fiscal prudence and lack of debt has introduced a reseource rent tax that has led to the australian dollar collapsing 15% and 10% wiped of the stock market. The world is going / has gone mad.
Its getting to the point where its best that i stop caring because its just raises my blood pressure!
You point about AGW action being to the detriment of the developing world is well made and i m in complete agreement and have been for many years now.
within the next decade the world will pay for its overspending and passion for debt and that will unfortunately create the desired outcome of so many believers..a massive reduction in co2 because the world goes broke and many will have no job or even hope of a job……its a funny old world!
You can reply via john@johnlsayers.com .
John,
Yes I am and thanks for that offer. But it’s a long way out of your way so either I meet you there or you camp here the night. BTW Bob Brinsmead says it starts at 6.30 pm.
Ring me on 07 5545 1070
Jim
Spangled; RI have been on firm groung
“JOHN LYMAN: The ocean acts as a sink for 80 to 90 per cent of the heat that comes in at the top of the atmosphere and is trapped by our planet. And so it really is the bellwether for how much global warming has occurred”
http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2010/s2904672.htm
.
Ooops hit the wrong button
Spangled; Re the oceans, I have been on firm ground despite our uncle Bob
John; save your money and take note when I frame a method or measurement here
Schiller ; ever the skimmer, go home
Sorry for rused posts, been a busy day
See John Lyman et al here
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v465/n7296/full/nature09043.html
Gavin – both Spencer and Lindzen say the heat getting in to the system is getting out – the oceans are not warming because of it. The Argo buoys confirm it! get that silly idea out of your head.
Gavin,
Those are both interesting links you supplied about the warming of oceans. I was particularly impressed with the notion that the signal is six times as great as the noise. All too often, this ratio is reversed, making the notion of ‘signal’ rather problematic.
Lyman’s comparison of the warming to dropping in the course of “16 years two billion of those [Hiroshima] bombs” was really quite poetic. It either trivializes nuclear warfare, or CAGW, or both, with “0.16 of a degree Celsius” warming spread over 16 years. For a rebound from the LIA, that’s far from spectacular, and no cause for alarm (aside from possible complaints that the recovery is a bit slow). And finding attribution to human activity in that tremendously weak signature is nothing more than an exercise in imagination.
Like the nuclear weapon analogy. Overblown theatrics.
Gavin, you used to be a nice guy. Calling me a “skimmer” and telling me to “go home” is not characteristic.
love his final conclusion 🙂
“John Lyman says the study can’t explain why the increase in warming seems to have slowed in recent years.
He says it may be due to new equipment but it could also be a natural fluctuation within the warming trend. ”
slowed? it’s stopped
John Sayers,
My favorite graph — it’s out there somewhere — shows the correlation between spending on research into global warming, and global temperature. Like research money makes the planet hotter.
Then there’s the other graph — the fewer temperature stations, the hotter things get.
Of course, correlation is not causation. Then again, the ‘A’ in ‘AGW’ might have a meaning more profound than climate modelers would prefer to discuss. On advice of their lawyers, probably.
Wouldn’t it be interesting to discover that models as robust as the CAGWers like to tout could be equally robust in proving fraud? Fair is fair, and turnabout is fair play.
Now that would be justice in her full glory.
Spencer predicts cooler ocean temps along with a la nina.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/20/spencer-global-average-sea-surface-temperatures-poised-for-a-plunge/#more-19771
Jo Nova has an interesting 100 year graphic on the great dying of thermometers.
http://joannenova.com.au/2010/05/the-great-dying-of-thermometers/#more-8625
gavin,
So 1/6 of a degree c ocean warming gives a signal to noise ratio of 6:1?
Does that mean the noise is only a mean of 1/36 of a degree?
It’s amazing how desperate “our” ABC is to publish trivial, alarmist rubbish.
I noticed they broadcast a prior “calm-down” by Richard Lindzen but they had to keep faith with their true believers and spout this from Lyman.
Schiller,
You forgot that other graph: the older, the colder.
Neville,
And this:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/07/the-decrease-in-upper-ocean-heat-content-from-march-to-april-was-1c-largest-since-1979/
And talking about the older, the colder, the Kiwi bleeders are also off to the races:
http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2010/05/crisis-in-new-zealand-climatology
Amazing watching the intellectually challenged trying to spin their way out of the Lyman paper – that’s why you’re denialist scum guys – you’re deniers – not sceptics. Always moving those goal posts and hanging around blog red light districts.
While the denialist scum chortle among themselves – the Arctic sea ice plummets !
Yeah, plummeting Arctic sea ice…
Sea Ice Ends Year at Same Level as 1979
http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=13834
graph: http://images.dailytech.com/nimage/9972_daily.gsia.jpg
Luke :
““Perhaps we should stop accepting the term, ‘sceptic.’ Scepticism implies doubts about a plausible proposition. Current global warming alarm hardly represents a plausible proposition.”
Dr Lindzen.
http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2010/05/five-hallmarks-of-denialism.html
The five hallmarks of denialism.
* The first is the identification of conspiracies. There is also a variant of conspiracy theory, inversionism, in which some of one’s own characteristics and motivations are attributed to others.
– People not convinced of CAGW claims are in the pay of Big Oil, Big Coal, work together in a vast network, etc.
* The second is the use of (a) fake experts. These are individuals who purport to be experts in a particular area but whose views are entirely inconsistent with established knowledge. The use of fake experts is often (b) complemented by denigration of established experts and researchers, with accusations and innuendo that seek to discredit their work and cast doubt on their motivations.
– (a) Al Gore, Rajendra Pachauri, Greenpeace, WWF, Union of Concerned Scientists, IPCC “Expert reviewers”
– (b) ‘voodoo science’, asbestos facial treatments, Big Oil/Coal, environment wreckers
*The third characteristic is selectivity, drawing on isolated papers that challenge the dominant consensus or highlighting the flaws in the weakest papers among those that support it as a means of discrediting the entire field.
– This goes both ways, but gets quite skewed when one side acts as a ‘gatekeeper’ for what the other side publishes.
* The fourth is the creation of impossible expectations of what research can deliver.
– CAGWers created this problem for themselves, so they’re stuck with…
…* The fifth is the use of misrepresentation and logical fallacies.
– faked up temperatures and trends, misrepresenting data quality (Like Luke’s “pristine” surface station), code that generates a hockey stick from random data, argument from ignorance (we don’t know what’s causing the warming, therefore it’s humans), etc.
… in the end, it’s the CAGWers who are the denialists!
La Nina is coming quickly and should be here by Xmas.
http://www-argo.ucsd.edu/nino3_4_atlas.gif
El Gordo,
Why should we give a toad’s hoot about La Nina, which is meaningless in the face of impending CAGW doom? It’s not the weather, it’s the climate.. but not the numbers, but the… other stuff. The migration of birds, they know best. And the larvae of Cicada bugs. Or.. well, the spread of weeds or some tree-ring stuff. Or sheep-farts in NZ.
You gotta see the Big Picture. The trick about CAGW is that it’s always somewhere else when you look for it. Dude, you gotta have some faith, man! Even railroad engineers can grasp the tremendous enormity of our pending global collapse into savagery, penury, illiteracy, and… what did I leave out?
Well shewt. I’m not a railroad engineer, so what do I know?
CAGW is a scam, that’s obvious to any rational thinking person, but as so many people have taken the green pill we will have to use weather to convince them that they have climate it wrong.
Where’s your resident troll?
…they have climate wrong. Global warming has stopped.
So who is in the pay of big oil?
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/polluted-by-profit-johann-hari-on-the-real-climategate-1978770.html
El Gordo,
OUr resident troll has run out of expletives, as they have become so time-worn as to be as meaningful as alphabet soup. Likely, he, she, or it will return after studying another language and will curse us in Malay pidjin, or Urdu, or Klingon, or something else. Maybe Esperanto, that would be interesting.
While we’re waiting for his coprolalic return, enjoy this: a map of the Great Dying of Thermometers.
http://joannenova.com.au/2010/05/the-great-dying-of-thermometers/
Turns out, the less data you have, the hotter it gets!
Don’t quote me, but I’ve heard there’s a lot of investment ‘on the sly’ for beach-front property in Antarctica. With the heat and the ozone hole, you’ll get a movie-star tan in a short afternoon. And polar bears are extinct down there, so you’ll be relatively safe in the modern resorts being planned.
John “Dr Lindzen.” – oh pullease – whose latest “breakthrough” has been summarily trashed !
And “brilliance” by el Gordo “La Nina is coming quickly and should be here by Xmas.” like a duh – jeez that’s what indeed happens in a La Nina season – holy smoke – what amazing insight. You guys are genius level.
Being a true denialist Schiller continues to obfuscate. Here’s the level of Schiller’s intelligence – “And polar bears are extinct down there” – what an amazing load of crap ! “Extinct !! hahahahahahahahahahahaha He’s your boy guys ! Put on another duelling banjo album – yeee ha !!! What a dickhead.
Anyway this site is most helpful to the cause – thanks for the URLs – saves the movement heaps of time us tracking them down for ASIS – so kind of guys to provide a daily summary. Schiller does an excellent job for us- keep it up. Saves at least one staffer.
Watch that Arctic boys – anything abnormal and it will open season on denialist turds.
More stinking putrid denialism exposed – shame shame shame !!!
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/don_easterbrook_hides_the_incl.php#more
The five hallmarks of denialism quoted above are light on. There are six. The missing one is to cast doubt, would you believe.
New Scientist last week actually quoted the correct source. McKee identified six tactics that all denialist movements use:
1. Allege that there’s a conspiracy.
2. Use fake experts to support your story.
3. Cherry-pick the evidence: Carry on trotting out supportive evidence even after it has been discredited.
4. Create impossible standards for your opponents.
5. Use logical fallacies.
6. Manufacture doubt.
Martin McKee ( in New Scientist 18 May, and from European Journal of Public Health vol 19 p2)
But I am sure I have seen more than six used by the participants here.? Any additions welcome.
The question is important not least for the other big D campaigns and for the ones to come. These 6 all used the 6 hallmarks.
Tobacco, vaccines, 9/11, aids,holocaust and evolution
There are others too.
Maybe future contributors could put the number of the one they are invoking after thier contribution, or maybe just post the number, it would have the same information content.
On the other hand, I think a good denialist would want to deny there is a science of denialism by discrediting the set of six..
James Delingpole attended the 4th International Conference on Climate Change and came across the BBC’s Roger Harrabin.
‘Indeed, when I introduced myself to him, he snapped back “I’m not sure whether I should shake your hand. I want to punch you.” He sounded jolly cross indeed – and ranted that I was utterly irresponsible and had disseminated lots of lies – though he later apologized to me saying he was jet-lagged and had confused me with Christopher Booker. Hmm.’
UK Telegraph 19th May
Itz all such fun!
Only 5 or 6 bazza?
Try 50 or 60 that you guys crawl through:
http://pgosselin.wordpress.com/2010/05/20/gate-blowup-come-on-in-gate-lover
If you guys stuck to the science and gave away the dodgy hockey sticks, adjusted data and GCMs you might lower everyone’s b/s detectors and we could address the real problems, come up trumps and save the world a fortune.
Oh what a joke Luke!! Deltoid being upset because of one stupid graph.
He then follows it up with another stupid chart that is also wrong!
This is the correct 2000 – 2010 RSS trend.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:2000/to:2010/plot/rss/from:2000/to:2010/trend
and if you move to 2001 to avoid the strong temperature drop following the huge el nino it’s been cooling ever since.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:2001/to:2010/plot/rss/from:2001/to:2010/trend
wow is that all they could criticise him for ha ha ha!
so that would be a 1, 3 and a 6 from spangled.
Oh com’on bazza
let’s list the The five hallmarks of warmists.
1 – attack the poster with Ad Homs about who ever was quoted.
2 – Use Realclimate or Deltoid to support your story.
3. – Ignore the evidence.
4.- Attack your your opponent with references to Authority.
5. – Ignore logic.
6. – attempt to show you know that you are talking about.
And then there’s “abandon the science”.
http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2010/05/csiro-abandons-science
John Sayers, I rest my case.
On the road to Damascus, bazza?
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/05/american-physical-society-begins-to.html
I lead a sheltered life here in North Canberra, so can somebody please tell me what CAGW is? In the US it means Citizens Against Government Waste, but in Australia the majority of the electorate is in favour of Government Waste, so what does it mean here? Citizens Against Global Warming? – not here in Canberra, where tonight is already a 3-dog night, luckily we have 3 else we’d be dead by morning.
Glad you asked that Tim, because it started showing up and I felt like the last cab off the rank. My guess it’s not political and more to do with science.
I am under the impression that you, Bird and Professor O have been banned from Deltoid, along with me. Is this the gang of four?
Tim,
When you’ve got to increase your supply of domestic animals to keep warm, how does that stack up in the carbon accounting manual?
Are they a pos or neg feedback?
C’mon John; on point 1, you guys run light in many posts. 2, I hardly ever refer to other blogs. 3 the evidence is only what you make of the signs. 4 our authorities are needed for order in the general scheme of things public. 5 who’s logic ? 6 only those inside the practice know what’s up.
Schiller; mate, get out and about more.
After running a couple of adds here and there, I had a lot of folks call round to my den today and quite a few came from other countries one way and another. So as captive prey I grilled them on a range of pet topics including their private expectations of this place. Guess what; they all stay because they like it and that’s something worth hearing over and over.
The passing parade is quite warm on the evidence as presented by the media that our climate is changing but it’s fair to say not many are extreemly concerned yet. The real estate guy noted that some coastal councils have cut back on certain development because of threatened SL rise. On the other hand home improvements here are booming because we live at some 600 m above SL and a long way inland.
Another guy has gone into green home improvements as a government inspector since we last met. One young lady with babe has just finished a bathroom renovation course however I would love to chat with her absent hubby who drives an ocean floor sub from above on and off for the big boys.
One yarn in particular with a former process trouble shooter for BHP was most satisfying because it reminded me of a tech school class mate with a flare for 3D drafting who regularly relined their blast furnaces by hand after a major fire brick failure. He also did Rivkin’s last big kitchen by hand.
Perspective and measurement ability in all craft is a creative thing that require genes not jeans. I t was often my job in industry to know who had it and who did not before a project was finished. I talked to a lot of people there too because it was very necessary to also get feedback from the long timers at the core of any opps before and after transition to automation.
I’m saying we need to develop that grey matter so dependent on genes within a framework of experience before all IT programming begins. I find the good ones are generally across a number of diciplines when they get there.
3 dog night?
Tim; we had a great day North side in and out
CAGW is Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming. I is used because many accept AGW of a few 1/10ths of a degree as opposed to CAGW which involves more than 1C.
Tim, the C in CAGW stands for !***CATASTROPHIC***! Y’ano the agony of the future of mankind and the poor other life forms on this planet without mankind spending trillions destroying economies and devastating itself to save the planet and the other poor life forms from that nasty pollutant CO2. Oh, and I almost forgot the other Green House Gases (GHGs) and water the physics of which is not as well understood as that other truly nasty GHG pollutant. Have I mentioned the impacts on the poor life forms?
Luke, Gavin et.al. this is where you are supposed to enter the scene (stage any direction is OK) and backup the !***catastrophic***! portion of the findings.
G’day to Y’all! (Back to lurking)
CoRev,
The catastrophism of AGW is thoroughly discussed in the latest IPCC findings. Turns out, that’s where much of the “grey literature” is concentrated, alongside a few measly peer-reviewed bits that turn out either to be fatally flawed, or even reach opposite conclusions.
Turns out, if there isn’t a C for the AGW, the AGW isn’t something to worry about.
CAGW is the biggest scientific hoax since Piltdown man. There, fixed.
Dr Will Happer’s testimony before the US House Select Committee on energy independence and CAGW:
I keep hearing about the “pollutant CO2,” or about “poisoning the atmosphere” with CO2, or about minimizing our “carbon footprint.” This brings to mind a comment by George Orwell: “But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought.” CO2 is not a pollutant and it is not a poison and we should not corrupt the English language by depriving “pollutant” and “poison” of their original meaning.
May 20, 2010
El Gordo,
From your remarks at May 22nd, 2010 at 9:47 pm, the CAGWers could easily conclude that you are part of a conspiracy to get an group of persons banned from Deltoid. Given that putative conspiracy, you will now have to answer questions regarding your *obvious* “connections” and “links with” Big Oil and Big Coal.
If you deny such “links” and “connections”, that will be taken as you not being “transparent” or “honest”, which will be taken as further proof of the existence of an impenetrable “underground network” of “denialists”.
These charlatans need to be exposed at every turn, be it bogus science tarted up with “who knows?” prospects of impending planetary doom, or the frauds who sell wind power and other sorts of crap technology that can only subsist on the public dole.
In reference to catastrophic and lies and liars, WUWT has an interesting graph showing the killing cold versus the nicer summer temps.
That Mann idiot has just recieved another 1.8m $ to study malaria increase in a warming world, what a waste of time and money.
Schiller if I was you I would be complaining loudly to your senator or house of Reps member for wasting yet more millions, but I suppose it’s only petty cash these days.
Here’s the article http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/22/manns-1-8-million-malaria-grant-who-do-we-ask-for-a-refund/#more-19810
Neville,
Interesting waste of money. Fact is, the prevalence of malaria correlates with the use of DDT, rather than with climate.
Trouble is, I don’t have Big Money to waste. Money takes the day, and facts don’t mean much.
Schiller, you left out big shale.
We should devise a way to break down the propaganda which has been directed at young people for at least a decade. I think most of the Deltoid larrikins are retired teachers.
‘…as is generally the case for most young people, when approached politely and firmly, and engaged in discussion, they became almost eager participants in their own de-propagandization.’
Bob Carter writing for Quadrant at the 4th International Climate Conference.
John desperately trys to defend putrid denialism at its absolute worst. Pullease – don’t be such harlots for the cause. Deltoid lobbed a rhetorical Exocet up your jacksies. You’ll be sounding like Schiller next.
“Attack your your opponent with references to Authority” – code for denialists not being published or if they do it’s the McLean paper standard – HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA
And then there’s – what for it – E&E – hahahahahahahaha – the place for Archibald to publish.
“Ignore logic” – code for see everything that comes from the mouths of “sceptics”
AND
HAHAHAHHAHAHAAAA
I kacked.
” attempt to show you know that you are talking about” fuck me !! – you’d rather we didn’t. OMIGAWD – what logic.
I guess given the Arctic situation and heat content paper – denialist brains (well small neurone clusters) must be frying in cognitive dissonance soup.
Bazza’s right of course – you lot and your band of kooky fellow travellers would be AIDS deniers, evolution deniers, 9/11 deniers, moon landing deniers, holocaust deniers, tobacco deniers, and DDT sniffers too. And probably Tea Party signed up members too.
And if you’re in any doubt Schiller doesn’t mind darkies dying as darkies do.
Put another duelling banjo record on rednecks. Yee ha !
STAND BY TO DENY GUYS – here’s where you’re about too see your denialism kicked into the stone age. Better steal a bunch of emails quick. Come on – where’s the diversion.
No wonder the nitpicking on records is reaching fever pitch.
http://climateprogress.org/2010/05/16/nasa-easily-the-hottest-january-and-hottest-jan-april-in-temperature-record/
http://www.grist.org/article/2010-05-13-weighing-greenland/
WOW ! – I just found a picture of Schiller on the internet. What a skanky butt.
http://www.desmogblog.com/new-scientists-%E2%80%9Cliving-denial%E2%80%9D-special-issue-discusses-climate-deniers
That would be NASA’s homogenised data set wouldn’t it luke.
As usual it is naturally assumed that Greenland ice melt is due to GW – they have forgotten about the other possible causes like:
“Scientists have discovered what they think may be another reason why Greenland ‘s ice is melting: a thin spot in Earth’s crust is enabling underground magma to heat the ice”
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071212103004.htm
You know, the rising magma that recently gushed forth from Iceland. It just happens that the melting Ice is in the NE corner, where the magma melt is occurring.
luke’s links, as usual, are splendid examples of CAGW; I sometimes think the alarmists would be glad if the dire predictions did come true. Anyway, as I said to luke before, the fact that the anomalies are the hottest in this decade is besides the point; what is relevant is the rate of increase, which is declining:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1970/to:1980/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1980/to:1990/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1990/to:2000/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2000/to:2010/trend
One of the other scary things luke’s link looks at is the increase in OHC; the alarmist side has had a recent spurt with the Schuckmann paper allegedly finding an increase in OHC at the abysmal depths below 2000 meters; but if you look at SST over the last PDO periods [1976-1998, 1998-] something strange is evident;
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2003/to:2011/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1976/to:2003/trend
SST increases to 2003 where the ARGO floats took over; the hiatus between the 2002 and 2004 is obviously an instrument effect but indisputably since 2003 SST has been falling; how can SST be falling when OHC is rising below 2000mt? This is especially contradictory since recent NOAA info states that upwelling has reduced; in that case SST should be increasing because the cooler [warmer?] deep water is not replacing the warmer surface water.
and if you change one year from 2000 to 2001 you get a dramatic change in the last trend.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1970/to:1980/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1980/to:1990/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1990/to:2001/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001/to:2010/trend
Yeah I know John, I was just keeping it within the hottest decade EVER parameter.
but doesn’t a decade start from year 1 🙂 oh no – we went through that at the change of the millennium.
If this slight warming of 0.65c over the last 100+ years is so unusual ( it’s obviously not ) why does the temp and SL’s of our present interglacial period lag behind the other recent interglacials.
Every inter/Glac has had higher temps than the Holocene, take for eg the previous Eemian where temps were some 2c to 5c higher and SLs were much higher, at least 6m to 8 m higher.
The temp of the North sea reached some 2c higher and trees grew much further north than is possible today.
Of course in those relatively recent times Hippos swam in the Thames and the Rhine, so tell us Luke are these temps wrong and why do all these previous 450,000 ( back )years of interglacials show decreasing temps?
Comment from: bazza May 22nd, 2010 at 8:55 pm
John Sayers, I rest my case.
Bazza – you don’t have any case to rest. Wake up mateee – it’s over!
Just following on from luke’s and every other alarmist’s claim that 2010 is the HOTTEST year EVER;
http://noconsensus.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/1977.png
What you also get out of this graph is that while the trends are similar between the various indices, the temp range between the indices is enormous [based on the alarmist’s scale of CAGW]; the graph also splendidly demonstrates that temp has a fundamental unit root quality.
It’s all over red rover. The backlash has commenced. Just hand yourselves in to the nearest collection centre.
Luke – may I suggest you read this article before you embarrass yourself any further.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/23/on-being-the-wrong-size/#more-19819
Any word on how much money the Luke gang is stealing of Australian tax money to continue to sell catastrophic AGW policies and try and sneak them through when people are distracted?
Can’t you Aussies do something against obvious sleaze-balls like the Luke gang?
Human-induced climate cooling:
Are farmers cooling Midwest’s summers?
CHICAGO, May 23, 2010 (Chicago Tribune – McClatchy-Tribune News Service via COMTEX)
http://news.tradingcharts.com/futures/4/5/140098654.html
This has to be completely wrong. Everyone knows that human-induced climate change is always in the hot direction.
Cohenite,
That’s an interesting graph over there at the link you provided:
http://noconsensus.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/1977.png
Let’s assume for the moment that the graph is based on honest, accurate data.
It appears to show three periods of no significant change, separated by two upward jumps. Indeed, it appears that the warming trend is more due to “jumps” than to a continuous warming. I sincerely doubt that these “jumps” (1985-1989 and 1996-1998) correlate with “jumps” in CO2.
The only analogous behavior I am aware of in the physical sciences is the “punctuated equilibrium” model of evolution. As far as you know, has someone advanced a theory to explain this behavior?
“the graph also splendidly demonstrates that temp has a fundamental unit root quality”
Steady up there cohenite!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Graph_of_sliding_derivative_line.gif
John; one comment on that “Being the Wrong Size” article
“The loss of 200 tonnes of ice per year…” should read “The loss of 200 gigatonnes of ice per year…”
champions of perspective hey!
Gavin,
The phrase, “The loss of 200 tonnes of ice per year…” does not appear in the main article. It only appears in the comments.
Looks like you are the champion of perspective, Gavin. And a strange one indeed.
hahahahahaha!
Friends and others,
I have for a long time been seeking in the literature an explanation of why ‘greens’ generally, and ‘CAGWers’ in particular, give themselves permission to speak and behave in ways which are odious, offensive, or morally reprehensible. I have yet to find an explanation on how the adherents of the green/misanthropic narrative have gained a wide-ranging license to do anything from faking data to arson.
However, the following are quite instructive:
http://www.jstor.org/pss/3694247
and
http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.psych.49.1.259
and
http://pcl.stanford.edu/research/2008/iyengar-redmedia.pdf
The main trend of these articles is the notion of “confirmation bias”, such that the adherents of CAGW only pay attention to those who present information supportive of their cause.
This makes a great deal of sense. Consider, for example, Luke’s ‘discovery’ of a ‘pristine’ temperature station which has, in fact, become a heat island. Or Gavin’s ‘discovery’ of a 200-tonne mistake in a calculation which appears not in the article, but in sloppy commentary.
The take-home message is that CAGWers have abandoned curiosity in favor of partisanship.
Which means, of course, that they’re no longer part of the scientific enterprise.
Schiller; “On Being the Wrong Size” as it reads now is most likely an update and that would prove It was always another untested blog item for the naieve.
A better reference would be total loss of beach from that altitude but I bet nobody else is on to that picture yet
Predicting ENSO a year in advance would be a great boon to farmers and graziers.
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/sciencefair/post/2010/02/study-el-nino-could-be-predicted-more-than-a-year-in-advance/1?csp=obinsite
Gavin,
Your speculation that “On Being the Wrong Size” as it reads now is most likely an update” is quite precious.
But, let’s assume arguendo that your speculation is correct, and that the mathematics have now been corrected.
With that assumption, one thing is glaringly obvious: that you offer nothing to contradict the mathematics as they now stand.
Your notion that “A better reference would be total loss of beach from that altitude” is ridiculous. With global warming, there’s actually gains in beaches, and the melting is disclosing ancient farmsteads.
Ancient farmsteads established back when GW (not AGW, and certainly not CAGW) made the Earth a green and friendly place to live.
You and Flukeyloo have yet to explain what the ideal temperature is, and why warming is bad. Just saying “warming is bad” says little, and contradicts the historical record regarding temperature, biodiversity, and humanity’s general welfare.
Pity it’s not about the temperature Schiller – it’s about climate system reorganisation
AND speaking of which – every day the paper boy brings more
A new climate change index to cause denialist mouth frothing. The index rises steadily from 1980 – the earliest date the index has been calculated. The change is unequivocal, it is global, and it is in one direction.
Hand yourselves in early deniers and we’ll go easy on yas !
http://www.igbp.net/page.php?pid=504
And here’s some relaxation music for Schillsy (play at Tea Party cross burnings)
Hi Schiller, those “jumps” are called steps or breaks; PDO plays a part:
http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/PDO_AMO.htm
A number of papers examine the step or break effect:
http://landshape.org/enm/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/09071650v2.pdf
https://pantherfile.uwm.edu/kswanson/www/publications/2008GL037022_all.pdf
http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/203_2001GL014074.pdf
Flukeyloo,
Warmer is better, colder is not. Go figure. And meanwhile, apologize for the ‘pristine’ station you touted, and ask Gavin to make amends for his enthusiastic mathematical failure.
Luke
That first link made me laugh, is it meant as parody?
El Gordo,
That first link is a parody, except that that stuff is believed in earnest. The only bit that’s not obviously fiddled is the CO2 ppm. The CAGWers have pretty much given up on CO2 concentration as a measure of anything worth concern, as a doubling in concentration will yield a warming benefit so small that it’s undetectable.
Meanwhile, Luke and Gavin, our resident cherry-pickers, have proved that they can’t pick cherries.
One has to wonder what thoughts flow through their minds as they try to assimilate their failures. Do they forget their failures, and merely seek other cherries? Or go to Doltoid to absorb encouragement from the benighted? Probably both.
Luke and Gavin will have to change their names and come back, the reputation behind those names has been destroyed utterly.
Luke and gavin,
Here are the top ten decades of SLR since 1700 in mm/decade as per Jerejeva et al [2008]:
1804-1813 12.75
1803-1812 10.67
1728-1737 10.30
1789-1798 8.38
1842-1851 7.87
1858-1867 7.82
1788-1797 7.72
1861-1870 7.66
1808-1817 7.58
1785-1794 7.18
And here are the top ten decades since “CAGW”.
1989-1998 4.66
1990-1999 3.95
1991-2000 3.86
1956-1965 3.79
1986-1995 3.78
1974-1983 3.71
1952-1961 3.65
1993-2002 3.63
1988-1997 3.44
1975-1984 3.30
You can both go back to your drinks by the fire now and relax but dont get too fixated by the melting ice.
Coho thinks PDO builds heat at centennial scales – ROFLcopter !
Good info Spangled D, boy oh boy those CAGW pereiod numbers are a real bummer for Luke et al, but the decades for the early IR are certainly much higher, by a factor of 3.
Correction on above. Those SLRs are mm/year, not mm/decade.
Neville,
And of course they have slowed even further since 2003 in spite of Hansen, Flannery et al.
Shiller
‘Do they forget their failures, and merely seek other cherries?’ It’s what trolls do.
‘Or go to Doltoid to absorb encouragement from the benighted? Probably both.’ It is only political science over at Deltoid, there is little climate data to be found there, so they are visiting other haunts to find sustenance.
Cold upwelling in a cool PDO will create La Nina and if it’s strong we might expect floods in south eastern Australia.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_update/wkxzteq.shtml
Or have I misread the signs?
luke, you should read this; it is the best overview of the defects of AGW I have read; it is by a Professor of environmental law and peer reviewed:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1612851
The full paper can be downloaded at the abstract.
And while luke is in lady ga ga mode he should read this latest travesty from his good mate Dr Cai:
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo868.html
How’s this for a classic conclusion:
“Therefore, despite considerable progress in our understanding of the impact of climate change on many of the processes that contribute to El Niño variability, it is not yet possible to say whether ENSO activity will be enhanced or damped, or if the frequency of events will change.”
Is that the same as knowing nothing?
A shameful display by Cohers – utterly shameful. A serious state of the art analysis and all you get is “they know nothing”. No wonder CSIRO just laugh at you guys.
You’re not getting any better are you? You’re not going to see this level of analysis from the so-called sceptics are you?
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/oce/markus/ENSOCLIV.pdf try reading the full paper and understanding for a change !
Oh come off it luke, Vecchi has form with his ‘it looks like an El Nino, tastes like an El Nino but is really AGW’. I’ll read your paper and you can read mine:
http://landshape.org/enm/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/articletxt.pdf
There are more El Nino (negative SOI) during warm PDO and so we can expect more La Nina over the next 20 years. This par from cohers link:
‘The Great Pacific Climate Shift (GPCS) around 1976, occurred at the start of the recent increase in global mean
temperature. Temperature continued to increase while the SOI remained largely negative. Another shift occurred in 1998 where both reverted to the previous state with temperature remaining at a higher level, suggesting El Ninos may have a greater role in warming than generally thought (Stockwel l and Cox , submitted).’
A common sense observation which even the general public will understand when the msm decide to tell them.
“Sea level rose by 6 cm
during the 19th century and 19 cm in the 20th century.
Superimposed on the long-term acceleration are quasiperiodic
fluctuations with a period of about 60 years. If
the conditions that established the acceleration continue,
then sea level will rise 34 cm over the 21st century”
http://www.psmsl.org/products/reconstructions/2008GL033611.pdf
seems a few sceptics have trouble reading in addition to not understanding rates of change
Fig 1 above is another hockey stick!
see “JEVREJEVA ET AL.: SEA LEVEL ACCELERATION OVER PAST 300 YRS”
As I said before; SL in our region has not been higher for some hundreds of years if not a thousand or two.
sorry guys – beaches everywhere remain our best clue
Schiller,
Interestingly, even the “fiddled” data at the IGBP link shows 3 of the 4 graphs moving in the “toward normal” direction for 2008, yet the composite STILL shows an overall upward trend!
I’m guessing that the CO2 data gets the same sort of weighting as Briffa’s lone Yamal tree, but what do you expect from such an obviously biased advocacy source?
In southern Florida, during the Medieval climatic optimum, sea level stood at least a half meter higher than present. After 1275 the sea level decline accelerated by at least 2 meters in 200 years.
Now that’s what I call abrupt climate change. Are we prepared to adapt?
Hey el, can you cut the crap for a bit and have a look at this?
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=8723170
“As I said before; SL in our region has not been higher for some hundreds of years if not a thousand or two.
sorry guys – beaches everywhere remain our best clue”
gavin,
Particularly this beach. 2,000 years ago and little change. And even CSIRO agree.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1066712/Uncovered-lost-beach-Romans-got-toehold-Britain.html
gavin,
Most of those records are from tide gauges that change every few decades etc. but sea levels have fallen as well as risen over the 2 millenia and the best gauge I have seen is the Roman fish traps in Britain which [like my last link] show virtually no change.
gavin,
This is that fish trap link you posted yourself recently.
http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_hist_intro.html
Spangles, there is a lot of stuff in the UK from Roman times covered with dirt. We watch the BBC Time Team on our TV at every chance.
For others interested in the fragile, this article on Miami is worth a read
http://www.nature.com/climate/2010/1004/full/climate.2010.27.html
Here is my final dig for tonight
Although long retired I’m still the professional here with the right rule
Utter obfuscation Coho. Is that your considered response to a state of the art analysis about competing effects.
Get published and I’ll read your “paper”. Oh that’s right – sceptics don’t publish. I forgot. Although I guess there is “that” McLean et al “paper”. Ahem …. In any case a trifling examination of the Walker circulation is a rounding error compared to Collins et al’s master treatise.
Cohenite,
Excelling link you found. In concise fashion, it presents what the rationalists have known for years:
A review of the peer-edited literature reveals a systematic tendency of the climate establishment to engage in a variety of stylized rhetorical techniques that seem to oversell what is actually known about climate change while concealing fundamental uncertainties and open questions regarding many of the key processes involved in climate change. Fundamental open questions include not only the size but the direction of feedback effects that are responsible for the bulk of the temperature increase predicted to result from atmospheric greenhouse gas increases: while climate models all presume that such feedback effects are on balance strongly positive, more and more peer-edited scientific papers seem to suggest that feedback effects may be small or even negative.
Gavin – if the sea level is rapidly rising – following the law of angular momentum the earth should experience deceleration in it’s rotation. Yet it’s not slowing down.
The actual motives of CAGWers in a nutshell:
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=7526
There is, indeed, a consensus.
Joe Bastardi joined in the comments over at Watts with this gem:
‘NH ice is in a recovery, but in a herky jerk one step down , 2 steps up fashion. The real turn in this will come in 10-15 years when the AMO joins the PDO with cyclical cold in tandem.’
Schiller has linked to stylized rhetorical techniques without realizing how it usually underlines all sceptic posts here and that it so turns me off sources like wwuwt etc.
Mate; this clumsy rhetoric form has become the badge of your own false science.
Btw if I want another view on Aus politics in particular it’s here with this most experienced lady almost every day at breakfast time. Recommended listening? sure.
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/brkfast/grattan.htm
downloads here
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/breakfast/stories/2010/2908312.htm
Recommended reading? Sure!
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/opinion/by/michelle-grattan
Thanks Gavin for confirming that you’re really away with the fairies at the bottom of the garden.
Grattan, I mean could you pick a sillier numbskull and fantasist to sheepishly follow, but I must admit she’s giving her once idol krudd a harder time lately, but isn’t everybody?
“state of the art” and “master treatise”!? As David Stockwell says of the Collins et al “master treatise” it is at best a mea culpa and at worst a capitulation; the AGW treatise that major circulation patterns were being determined by AGW is in tatters:
http://landshape.org/enm/no-clue-on-global-warming-and-el-nino/#more-4301
As for getting published, I’m thinking of applying to Phil Jones for a recommendation.
Thanks Schiller for that site DT leftwing idiots, just had a look at their homepage and when I get the time will have a read about some of these looney fools.
Neville,
They are not ‘leftwing idiots’. They are very smart, very rich, and very well-connected.
The difference between them and us is that they are very rich, and very well-connected, and have no conscience whatsoever.
“Spangles, there is a lot of stuff in the UK from Roman times covered with dirt. We watch the BBC Time Team on our TV at every chance.”
gavin,
You orta see our place. My wife never stops complaining. Hate to see what it would look like by 4,000 AD. That’s just the sands and dust of time.
I don’t think that has much bearing on SLR but if those fish tanks are on the south coast where it is sinking slightly then SLs were almost certainly higher in the RWP than they are now and Lambeck’s graph is wrong.
gavin
Thanx for that link, it was fun strolling through. I came across this anomaly which is inexplicable.
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_global_station.shtml?stnid=040-321
Coho – this sort of utter drivel from Stockwell “Their paper flatly contradicts Power and Smith [2007] that increased El Ninos are caused by weakening of the pressure differential, indicated by the SOI:” well indicates why you lot are really a laughing stock.
Give it away – CSIRO would be giggling at your silliness. You lot don’t even understand what you’re reading.
The paper was actually called
“Weakening of the Walker Circulation and apparent dominance of El Niño both reach record levels, but has ENSO really changed?”
and concluded.
“[18] On the other hand, there is currently no consensus amongst climate models concerning change in the behaviour of ENSO in response to global warming [Cane, 2005; Collins et al., 2005; Guilyardi, 2006; Nyenzi and Lefale, 2006; Philip and van Oldenborgh, 2006; van Oldenborgh et al., 2005; Zelle et al., 2005; Meehl et al., 2007]. Yet if ENSO events are defined as years in which the magnitude of the June–December SOI exceeds 5 then El Niño events appear to have been more dominant in 1977–2006 than in any other 30 year period on record.
[19] However, if global warming is largely responsible for the observed decline in the average value of the SOI over the period 1977–2006 then the threshold values used to define ENSO events need to be lowered (by approximately 3 SOI units). Under the new thresholds the apparent dominance of El Niño disappears. This simple interpretation gives a result that is consistent with modelling results: global warming weakens the Walker Circulation and warms the tropical Pacific Ocean, but has little impact on tropical ENSO-driven variability about the new mean-state [Meehl et al., 2007]. While plausible, further research is needed to help quantify the extent to which global warming has in fact driven the unprecedented recent decline in the 30-year average value of the SOI.”
Coho – after the McLean et al train wreck – nobody evens reads Stockwell anymore.
You lot don’t engage mainstream researchers and write drivel about what you think they’re saying. How amateurish.
BTW scrawling “submitted to GRL” on a draft – isn’t the same as getting it published. Frankly it’s simply pretentious. Tell us when you do.
AND Coho – AGW effects on El Nino have always been problematic to calculate – even the IPCC says so in their review – tell us something we don’t know – do you actually think you’re informing the debate???
tell us when you get through IOD, SAM, STR-I, ocean gyre changes and temperature changes in EAC and Leeuwin. Any reasonable person would be giving high risk factors to AGW involvement. – that’s ‘involvement” – there are massive changes afoot in the southern hemisphere.
El Gordo I think you’ll find that the sea level fall in that graph is actually land level rise after the end of the last ice age.
Stockholm in Sweden is rising as well due to the kilometres thickness of ice that has since melted and allowed the land to recover and rise to the normal intergacial level.
gavin,
I never get much joy from the incredibly biased ABC these days but I came upon this which makes me wonder why I never get to hear these stories:
http://blogs.abc.net.au/queensland/2009/05/climate-chang-1.html
Only trouble is Spangled that interview is a year old and I’ll bet the compere got into hot water since that anomoly.
Monckton wins at Oxford Union debate, http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/24/lord-monckton-wins-global-warming-debate-at-oxford-union/#more-19868
Neville,
Sadly those sceptical reports are rare events for “our” ABC but they foolishly missed out on reporting on that very paper which has only just been published:
http://abcnewswatch.blogspot.com/2010/05/update-omission-is-most-powerful-form.html
luke, you should take your comments over to David and get a conversation going; for my part I’m afraid you’ve lost me; the measurement of El Nino based on SOI is explained by the BoM here;
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/glossary/soi.shtml
That is, NEGATIVE values of SOI = El Nino.
But the Cai paper says this:
“ENSO events are defined as years in which the magnitude of the June–December SOI exceeds 5”?
Point 19 of the paper is simply S-F:
“However, if global warming is largely responsible for the observed decline in the average value of the SOI over the period 1977–2006 then the threshold values used to define ENSO events need to be lowered (by approximately 3 SOI units). Under the new thresholds the apparent dominance of El Niño disappears.”
What they are saying is that AGW not only warms but it also suppresses natural warming; the threshold for the natural warming mechanism, El Nino, drops , so that all the warming is AGW and little natural. This in fact was the main point of the cacophony against McLean et al; that natural factors merely oscillated and contributed nothing to trend.
Now luke, just think about that for an instant; AGW warms while suppressing natural warming; and you wonder why there are sceptics out there pulling their hair out at the utter gibberish produced by our so-called top scientists.
And you have totally ignored the Wentz paper:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1140746
The significance of this paper is that it shows that natural processes rather than decreasing due to warming are compensating; increased rainfall of course removes extra warming from the system. And it also shows the Walker is not weakening.
Just because some papers get published and others are finding it difficult doesn’t reflect the worth of the published papers.
Cohenite – changing the planet’s energy balance will cause myriad changes in circulation systems which may cause relative warming and coolings as well as an overall warming. Surely we’re not going to argue some uniformitarian outcome as response?! Is is that bad ….”
Which is why one uses a “global climate model” to attempt resolution of such problems.
I find it irksome that a low level smear is all you guys can muster as a comment on a grande tour of a most difficult problem.
“there are massive changes afoot in the southern hemisphere.”
LoopyLuke,
Ya mean with the temperature and the sea ice?
Or d’ya mean with NIWA or BoM?
“Which is why one uses a “global climate model” to attempt resolution of such problems.”
At least you had enough sense to say “attempt”.
Nev-el et al; yes we can all cherry pick but on finding the unexpected it’s necessary to carry on to the end of our quest.
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=9453220
conclusion; SL remains constant while the land goes up and down however I bet it’s the moon that trucks our briny round and round
Neville, thanks for clearing that up for me.
Gratifying to read what McIntyre said at the 4th international CC conference. This from the BBC:
‘Mr McIntyre urged the audience to support the battle for open source data on climate change – but then he counselled them to stop clamouring for the blood of the e-mailers. McIntyre does not want them jailed, or even punished. He just wants them to say they are sorry.’
The Age has a particular bias in this debate and they must be losing readers because of their bent. They are running a poll, which suggests the Age has backed the wrong nag in a two-horse race.
http://www.theage.com.au/environment/climate-debate-almost-infantile-20100524-w81e.html
el gordo – that question is very carefully written.
“Do you believe the media has exaggerated the uncertainty surrounding climate change?”
the answer is NO – they haven’t exaggerated the UNCERTAINTY they’ve exaggerated the CERTAINTY.
very different answer to yours.
I
I wrote a letter to the editor of the Age. _ I doubt it will be poasted but here goes:
Gavin,
I also am a big fan of ABC AM radio. I have only one criticism of Fran Kelly and that is She tends go be too obliging with Gillard and allows her to answer every question with an uninterrupted campaign speech. Gillard is the most accomplished spin doctor/question evader in govt.
I’m afraid I also find Michelle Grattan to be an apologist for krudd and the labor party, just like Paul Bonjorno.
Clearly the best show on the ABC is counterpoint.
Derek; for your info, I have long been on middle ground with conserable interest in swinging voters and so reckon Michelle does a fair job in reading both the masses and their clowns.
Party watchers should know Gillard is a very steady foe to be reckoned with. It’s quite possible that I could feed her troops with a few private thoughts down the track on any pet subject.
Back to climate:
IMO sceptics get nothing from the likes of wuwt that replaces wisdom gained from working on the inside of a problem over time. Flashy posts based on mere opinion although spiced with links to numerous blogs can’t shift me off a simple observation, SL is not falling. btw they can’t find anything in “Nature” nor do they seem to notice the odd trap I set here in support of my argument such as posting the following link with the colour blind in mind
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/surface_anim.gif
Gavin,
I’ve said before that I’m not fussed by SL rising or ice caps melting etc. etc., it’s what one should expect coming out of the LIA. I just don’t accept that CO2 is the main driver of climate change.
BTW, there should always be a small but overall net rise in SL due to continuous sediment deposition and cosmic dust influx but I’ve been unable to find firm info on annual rates of total deposition.(I guess I’m not as good as flooky at surfing the net)
On the Gillard front, every interview with Steven Smith or Martin Fergusen gives a bag full of straight answers without spin or obfuscation but Gillard is a master at deflection and most of her responses are itemized accounts of the “great things we have done”. I just can’t stand listening to her.
I’ve noticed nobody in the conservative ranks ever criticizes Smith Fergy or Faulkner, although I think that Martin is once again forced to “defend the indefensible”.
‘working on the inside of a problem’ irt catastrophic AGW promotion is simply working inside of an immense idiocracy.
That you last public parasites and true believers keep trying to sell your non-existent apocalypse in the face of nothing special going on is simply evidence of stupidity.
Now gavin raises the bar to ‘SL not falling’. What utter stupidity.
The issue is whether or not SL is doing anything unusual.
It is not.
John Sayers’ letter points out the utter stupidity of catastrophe believers rather well, but the Lukes demonstrate it better than mere words could ever do.
As a professional media analyst for over a decade, it was with a bit of a surprise to come across a news article that states what should be blindingly obvious to any journalist:
Polluted by profit: Johann Hari on the real Climategate. The Independent (UK), 21 May 2010,
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/polluted-by-profit-johann-hari-on-the-real-climategate-1978770.html
Hari’s contention: “Yet as we confront the biggest ecological crisis in human history, many of the green organisations meant to be leading the fight are busy shovelling up hard cash from the world’s worst polluters – and simultaneously burying science-based environmentalism.”
The unfortunate thing is that Hari is still blinded by the corporate-owned Greenspeak that he derides.
What’s more, he’s somehow failed to notice that Climategate has made it permissible to criticize the Greens.
Africans are emboldened to speak in favor of GM crops designed for the continent’s punishing conditions, and in favor of DDT to control malaria. It’s become OK to complain about Europe’s impending ban on rat poison, and to question the fashionable bogus link between vaccinations and unrelated maladies.
Remarkably, the world’s most sacred cow — organic farming — has now been revealed to the public as a sham and a fraud.
The Greens have for years been mouthpieces for corporate/government interests, and as this whole shabby story unfolds, there will be continuing political/money-laundering revelations.
John Sayers
Damn, I’ve been conned by a play on words. Not that it particularly matters at this stage, nature will ultimately win the debate.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/AARI_PREDICTS_ARCTIC_COOLING.pdf
Spanglers – The fact that you don’t know is why you are a self-confessed “drongo”
We have definitely reached a tipping point and it’s all downhill from here.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/jd14.JPG
If there is no large volcanic eruption over the next decade (to muddy the waters) we should have a better understanding of the sun’s influence. At the moment we are tracking solar cycle 5 and it looks like a perfect match.
It’s unofficial, but you’ve heard it here first, summer will be backward in the UK.
http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/daily_ao_index/ao_index.html
El Gordo,
Since when are data from NOAA deemed reliable?
I understand your angst with NOAA, but it’s all I have to work with. They call it the AO forecast, which it isn’t. Looking at the Pacific SST anomaly it’s obvious UNISY is superior.
Who needs NOAA when you have marvelous paleo records like Lake Tanganyika. Give it away lads. You’re finished.
I read the new today oh boy
Nature Geoscience
Published online: 16 May 2010 | doi:10.1038/ngeo865
Late-twentieth-century warming in Lake Tanganyika unprecedented since AD 500
Jessica E. Tierney1, Marc T. Mayes1,2, Natacha Meyer1, Christopher Johnson3,4, Peter W. Swarzenski5, Andrew S. Cohen3 & James M. Russell1
top of page
Instrumental observations suggest that Lake Tanganyika, the largest rift lake in East Africa, has become warmer, increasingly stratified and less productive over the past 90 years (refs 1,2). These trends have been attributed to anthropogenic climate change. However, it remains unclear whether the decrease in productivity is linked to the temperature rise3, 4, and whether the twentieth-century trends are anomalous within the context of longer-term variability. Here, we use the TEX86 temperature proxy, the weight per cent of biogenic silica and charcoal abundance from Lake Tanganyika sediment cores to reconstruct lake-surface temperature, productivity and regional wildfire frequency, respectively, for the past 1,500 years. We detect a negative correlation between lake-surface temperature and primary productivity, and our estimates of fire frequency, and hence humidity, preclude decreased nutrient input through runoff as a cause for observed periods of low productivity. We suggest that, throughout the past 1,500 years, rising lake-surface temperatures increased the stratification of the lake water column, preventing nutrient recharge from below and limiting primary productivity. Our records indicate that changes in the temperature of Lake Tanganyika in the past few decades exceed previous natural variability. We conclude that these unprecedented temperatures and a corresponding decrease in productivity can be attributed to anthropogenic global warming, with potentially important implications for the Lake Tanganyika fishery.
And something for everyone – a free kick or two – I like to keep Cohers up to date.
http://eprints.usq.edu.au/6407/
Queensland and much of eastern Australia have had significant rainfall declines since ~1951, causing economic hardship on rural and urban communities. However, no significant attempt has been made to identify and understand the physical causes of the rainfall declines over southeast Queensland (SE QLD) and whether they are likely to continue into the 21st century under higher levels of global warming. In this research, climate observations, models and global climate data as well as palaeoclimate information are used to investigate past, present and future rainfall trends in SE QLD. Five global climate models (GCMs) from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report (IPCC–AR4) show a significant decrease in rainfall will occur over the SE QLD region during the 21st century. Observations since ~1951 show the mean sea level pressure (MSLP) has been increasing over much of Queensland, indicating the subtropical ridge has been expanding. This study attributes the increase in the MSLP and some of the rainfall decline to changes in the subtropical ridge and the Southern Annular Mode (SAM). Projections show increases in the MSLP over the region are likely to continue during the 21st century associated with the positive polarity of SAM. Land cover changes over SE QLD were investigated using a regional climate model and show rainfall decreases with higher surface albedo values. Finally, a palaeoenvironmental record developed using lake sediments from Lake Broadwater in SE QLD, indicates a gradual rainfall decline has occurred during the last ~3.2 kyr B.P. Hence SE QLD has undergone a slow rainfall decline since the late Holocene and also since ~1951, with these conditions likely to continue and intensify during the 21st century.
Must be frustrating Cohers for you and Stockwell never actually ever creating anything, but just being dragged around in the research wake. 🙂
Oh F**k off Luke with you job security data – we’ve got better things to do.
I’ll see luke’s Lake Tanganyika and raise it with one Mediterranean sea:
http://omniclimate.wordpress.com/2009/06/24/scientists-mediterranean-sea-not-warming/
Luke
Jonathan DuHamel did some investigative journalism and found a gravy train pulling out of the station.
http://tucsoncitizen.com/wryheat/tag/science/
Dr Robert Baker (University New England) thinks the ‘simple response’ model of global warming causing sea levels to rise is not reflected by past events.
“The ocean current conveyor belt is far more complicated than the modelling suggests. Approximately 4000 years ago sea levels along the NSW coast were 1.7 metres higher and two degrees warmer. The whole of tropical Australia moved south. There is scientific basis to Aboriginal dreamtime stories of crocodiles in Moreton Bay.
“There is evidence from relic boulder beaches in northern NSW of more intense tropical cyclones penetrating further south. Likewise, 6000 years ago, in an earlier warmer period, dugong remains have been found in middens (including one found in Botany Bay) and coral remnants as far south as Wollongong.”
” Tanganyika’s waters lap Tanzania, Burundi, Congo DR and Zambia. It is the longest fresh water lake in the world and the second deepest after lake Baikal in Russia. The immense depth is because it lies in the Great Rift Valley, which also has created its steep shoreline. It reaches a depth of 1433 metres (4 700 feet), which is an astounding 642m below sea level.
Lake Tanganyika has a remarkably uniform temperature. The lower regions are only a mere 3° C colder than the surface. The reason for this strange phenomenon has yet to be discovered.”
Ummmm… maybe because it’s sitting on top of a RIFT VALLEY!!! You know, MAGMA UPWELLING!!! Thinning of the Earth’s crust etc.etc.
“We conclude that these unprecedented temperatures……. can be attributed to anthropogenic global warming,”
And how pray tell do they make that connection? Oh, that’s right, “we don’t know what else might be causing it so it must, by a process of elimination, be AGW”
What sort of try-hard latches on to such a weak conclusion and thinks it’s a slam dunk for the CAGW case?
These arguments are getting more and more desperate and pathetic.
Those guys at the long paddock desk must find it frustrating to have to rely on models that have been consistently wrong with their projections and have no scientific credibility. Not to mention the now discredited IPCC and it’s reliance on climbing magazines etc. for their “peer-reviewed” data.
Contrary to what Luke thinks the sceptics or the followers of reason and logic have had a great 12 months.
Just about everywhere in the OECD countries the populace has become less apathetic and has started to wake up to the AGW CON, all the recent poliing around the world clearly shows this to be a fact.
I’ve had friends and relatives complaining bitterly about the cost of their electricity bills over the last year or so and I tell them the reason is this stupid AGW fraud and all those extra dollars they are forking out will do nothing whatsoever to change the climate or save iconic sites or reduce droughts.
I also tell them that they may as well flush those extra dollars down the toilet before they hand it over to govts because it will have the same effect.
I’m happy to say that most people I’ve talked to over the last 12 months or so agee with me.
Oh no – the lads have gone feral when confronted with reality …. the old cognitive dissonance effect has kicked in. Or maybe excessive onanism.
“Oh F**k off Luke with you job security data – we’ve got better things to do.” an example from a clueless denialist when confronted with some facts. You moronic dickead. So angry you can’t even construct a sentence.
“You know, MAGMA UPWELLING!!! Thinning of the Earth’s crust etc.etc.” – errr nope ! Another moronic illiterate dickhead.
(Has he read the paper – no coz dickheads can’t read).
“And how pray tell do they make that connection?” wow that’s hard. Gee I don’t know – maybe they don’t have any evidence from science and made it all up. Utterly brilliant Derek – write a letter of rebuttal around that thought.
Here we have the creme de la creme of the denialist intellect in full flight. I think the world’s scientists would be gobstopped.
A prize for an intelligent comment. Oh that’s right – denialists are dickheads. And – well – dickheads are well – ahem – dickheads.
And even Cohenite fights a steam train with a feather. So there’s no warming in a data set of a few years – well fuck eh ! Jeez Cohers – devastating …. But there is over a long term data set of over a 1000 years.
But alas Coho – every day the paper boy brings more –
http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20100524/sc_livescience/mediterraneanseagettingsaltierhotter
It appears the Mediterranean is warming after all. Maybe it’s a heat island. Maybe it’s undersea volcanoes. Maybe it’s heat from denialist masturbation. That’s what caused the Iceland volcano you know. Denialists in a great big harmonic inducing cluster wank.
OK we’ll do it again – let’s try for an intelligent response…
P.S. Hey John – rung the NCC yet or are you just sitting out there tugging away?
Neville – “I’m happy to say that most people I’ve talked to over the last 12 months or so agee with me.”
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Coz I only talk to dickheads !! (I crack myself up !)
Time for some more relaxing music. Especially for Coho.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ktff3bZpux8
Sux eh?
Oops, looks like the other more snarly, abusive luke is back.
Tell me oh omniscient one;
1. what causes a rift valley?
2. how can such a deep, unmixing lake have such an even temp differential?
3. where in their paper do they make a real, scientific connection to AGW as the cause of the lake warming?
4. when you are going to counter ANY of my questions/arguments with facts?
5. why you are such a pathetic loser?
luke, your link to the Mediterranean study showing warming in the Western part of the sea links to another study by John Lyman of the revision fame:
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/heat_2006_1.pdf
Lyman is wrong inasmuch that OHC since 2003 has fallen quite drastically:
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/index.html
And with the 2003 artifact removed:
http://landshape.org/enm/possible-error-in-ohc/#more-3180
OHC since 1983 is close to and heading back to the 1983 level. I also think Lyman’s comparison to 100 million atomic bombs is reprehensible:
http://www.livescience.com/environment/ocean-warming-100519.html
The warming results in Lake Tanganyika are an artifact of core sampling, similar to the NASA/GISS trick of selecting surface stations.
The researchers compared data from an earlier study with later data from cores nearer the shoreline, and voila, they get a warming signal.
This is about as conclusive as Luke’s famous ‘pristine’ ‘unchanging’ surface station that turns out to be in the midst of recently-cleared trees and a new building next door.
Liars. Frauds. Shysters.
This post in response to others way back is later than intended. Got side tracked on the domestic front, sorry.
Hey all you cynical guys; there is a lot more to climate science than cruising round the globe looking for odd blog articles to suit your cause what ever that may be for certain individuals here.
Let’s take this newly discovered SL one point something m above present for starters and ask how good is your time line and temperature?
Using local info I say nothing is set in concrete except SL does change about 2 m on a whim (Gaia).
I use a little knowledge of Bass Strait and its recent history. Sure, the sea was higher a while ago; say 7-8000 years ago but we don’t know for how long.
I found old middens not far from our present high water marks on a number of wide beaches so the get some perspective for SL v Temp, we need more references for our time series at the margins. One obvious technique is to look for max / min SL and the impact on human habitation with respect to familiar comfort zones including temperature at the extremes. We can start with the last glacial maximum then study moraine and sand dune formation inland but unfortunately there aren’t many places to do that in Oz and few if any studies have linked the lot downunder. Interested parties including acquaintances commenced the necessary fossicing from around the 1960’s.
A few clues after google
‘Mid-late Holocene sea-level variability in eastern Australia’ 2007
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/119409940/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY
=0
“Exposure dating and glacial reconstruction at Mt. Field, Tasmania, Australia, identifies MIS 3 and MIS 2 glacial advances and climatic variability” 2006
http://ogma.newcastle.edu.au:8080/vital/access/manager/Repository/uon:3199
“Cosmogenic nuclide ages for Last Glacial Maximum moraine at Schnells Ridge, Southwest Tasmania”
http://eprints.utas.edu.au/2352/
“Technological organization and settlement in southwest Tasmania after the glacial maximum”
http://arts.anu.edu.au/arcworld/resources/papers/paapapers/mcn1994.htm
Utter utter rot Schiller – you really are simply lying denialist filth on all counts. More fabrication from our industry activist.
And Derek – yes the world is just warming up for no reason. No solar driver. Good radiative physics driver. So for every interlocking piece of evidence in an avalanche of evidence you’re going to deny it. That’s why you lot are incredulous deniers.
“how can such a deep, unmixing lake have such an even temp differential?” try thinking for 20 seconds longer !
Cohers citing bunkum blog sites as a refutation is hardly impressive. The Mediterranean study is most specific. Keep denying.
At some point it’s going to start dawning on you !
On how good is your time line when I say 7-8000 years bp, there is a lot going for a slower recovery and less bumpy retreats than el suggests above and that puts recent SL gains in a worse light given that approx 2m oscillation downunder.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_(period)
Note how the Atlantic period above via wiki is most relative to various signs from Gaia. This is again typical of my own flat earth approach
One can find on a number of blogs the same gang from downunder intent on fiddling with the science based on their view of current climate models and other people’s stats while blissfully ignoring the only model that counts.
When I dropped that NOAA link above for the colour blind, nobody commented on the possibility that hot water from the NH that so moved the ice up there has moved considerably south. Now; how long did that heat transfer take? Certainly not a thousand years so any test piece of coastline will do in the analysis (rates of change)
Aboriginal coastal shell middens are fairly useless with respect to historical sea levels. If you subtract ‘false middens’ created by tidal activity, the best you can say for human-created middens is that they were not under water when created.
Everything after that is strictly an artifact of those who created the midden. Their motivations are complex. “Middens are usually in the best possible spot – a pleasant place, that’s easy to get to, where there are plenty of shellfish.”
Building a house on the coast would take similar factors into account. Computing sea level rise according to where people build houses would be similarly meaningless.
A confounding factor is that “Over time, some of these natural shell beds will be raised through coastal uplift.”
Gavin, if middens is “the only model that counts”, you’re not going to get very far with related arguments.
Links:
http://www.coconutstudio.com/Shell%20Middens.htm
http://www.aboriginalaffairs.vic.gov.au/web7/rwpgslib.nsf/GraphicFiles/AA_13_ShellMiddens_13/$file/AA_13_ShellMiddens_13.06.08.pdf
http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/nswcultureheritage/ShellMiddens.htm
More great news this morning on THEIR abc of a new poll showing that Aussies won’t pay more for sustainable food supplies, seems like these dickheads ( luke’s description of the majority of Aussies) are waking up fast.
They don’t want to pay heaps more for electricity and ditto for food to service this great big ,fraudulent , corrupting CULT.
Schiller “If you subtract ‘false middens’ created by tidal activity, the best you can say for human-created middens is that they were not under water when created”
Let’s say Schiller does quite well these days for a mere writer however I suggest other amateurs like me will only count as possible middens those piles of shells associated with lots of charcoal.
“A confounding factor is that “Over time, some of these natural shell beds will be raised through coastal uplift.”
Mate; that’s hardly relevent when considering the numbers of middens that were created in or on shelters such as the higest points in the frontal dunes.
“if middens is “the only model that counts”, you’re not going to get very far with related arguments”
Precicely, that’s why I suggested studies of issolated moraine debris on the tail of the last ice age to confirm minium SL and colder times. Yes, I conceed middens below present SL are hard to find on the sea floor.
Sand dunes, sand dunes, more sand dunes and coral reefs please!
Slightly off subject but right on my point about humans at the margins in another guide to temp and SL this gem has appeared across the daily media
“Fragile’ Aussies at risk in winter”
http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/fragile-aussies-at-risk-in-winter/story-e6frfku0-1225871521157
Cohenite: While reading stuff associated with your links I found a discussion re atmospheric pressure differentials over the Pacific and it made me shudder. I would be most interested to know exactly what kind of barometric data we have in terms of instruments and length of series also what was their relationship with tides, weather patterns or other instruments at the time of readings.
Lets have it all again re barometers hey
BTW, I have two aneroid barometers with those common nautical tiller wheel style frames lying flat in my library awaiting assessment as either antiquities or novelties. One is made in France, the other Germany. I can’t compare their readings yet as one is way off scale, blow it.
Luke your link to lake tangiyaka may well show the lake has warmed up, but how does it “prove” that it was due to human co2 emissions?! another huge leap of faith but that is what agw is based on, this happened, we can not explain why ….so it must be humans.
Why can t you see this?!! AS YOU WOULD SAY ARE YOU REALLY THAT DUMB!?
Derek pointed out a quite valid point that the lake is very deep and yet interstingly has a relatively uniform temp variant..they say they don t know why.
You are nt seriously suggesting that AGW would cause the lake 1400 m down to be roughly the same temp as the surface? are you ?!
talk about blinded by faith.
The world has awakened from the crap that is “CAGW”. YES CO2 MAY HAVE CAUSED SOME WARMING, FEW OF US DENY THAT, WHAT WE DENY IS THAT FURTHER INCREASES WILL BE CATASTROPHIC AND ALSO THAT IF YOU LOOK AT THE COST OF TRYING TO PREVENT CO2 INCREASES VS THE POSSIBLE BENEFITS, THEN ADAPTATION GIVEN CURRENT TECHNOLOGY IS THE ONLY VIABLE OPTION.
ONLY INSANE OR STUPID OR PEOPLE BLINDED BY A NEW “FAITH” COULD THINK OTHERWISE.
THAT IS WHY YOU HAVE LOST AND WILL CONTINUE TO LOSE
Toby Toby Toby
Yes you lot DENY everything. It is not as you say. You deny EVERY single piece of AGW evidence. You deny all warming.
Here again you have a nice little study confirming AGAIN the broad picture which most of your fellow travellers DENY. That’s DENY DENY DENY.
The article says NOTHING about catastrophism or costs of mitigation. It is as it is … and again you lot are in denial.
Billions believing whatever they like is irrelevant to the science facts. Billions believe in disparate religions and they cannot be all correct can they?
Our lake surface temperature reconstruction is qualitatively similar to Northern
Hemisphere temperature reconstructions19 (Fig. 3a), implying that
Tanganyika LST largely followed global trends in temperature
during the past 1,500 years, much as it has in the past half-century17.
As LST closely tracks air temperatures over the instrumental
period, we can also infer that air temperatures in this region
of East Africa varied in concert with the global average and
thus were controlled primarily by the major forcings influencing
temperatures over this timescale, both natural (solar radiation,
volcanism) and anthropogenic (greenhouse-gas emissions; refs 19,
20). The temporal resolution of our dataset precludes comparison
between Tanganyika LST and volcanic events of the past, but we
can compare our record with changes in solar irradiance (total
solar irradiance (TSI) anomaly, estimated from 10Be in ice cores21;
Fig. 3b). TSI and Tanganyika LST share some similar centennial scale
features, including maxima near 1350 and minima at 1450,
1250 and 1000. However, TSI variability clearly does not explain the
dramatic twentieth-century increase in LST, which, as with global
temperatures, is probably a response to greenhouse-gas forcing.
And you want more do you ?
Schiller, cohers, John, Neville, Derek, el gordo, toby et al,
Luke is like the school-yard bully when the kids all front him and he stands there frothing at the mouth and making ever-increasingly hysterical threats.
That’s what it is eh, Luke. You want us all to DIEEEEEEE!!!!
gavin,
I find that an Aneroid barometer even new is inaccurate [inconsistant] and only good as a general indicator.
They’re necessary at sea because a Torricelli can break plus it doesn’t like movement but on land there is no comparison.
Luke, found somebody who supports your contention that the SR is apparently moving south.
Hurrell and van Loon (1994) ‘found that the subantarctic trough in surface pressure deepened and moved northward during 1972–92 while the subtropical ridge strengthened and moved southward’.
Will you be lecturing here, Luke?
Don’t forget your lunch.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/dealing_with_denialism_poster.png
Just a little something else CSIRO would like us to attend to:
http://www.cse.csiro.au/forms/form-survey-sea-level.aspx?gclid=CJz-meTx7KECFcgvpAodNxw0Lg
Once again contrary to what Luke and Gavin believe there is plenty of science that shows we are at the coldest part of the Holocene.
This central Greenland ice core study over the past 10,000 years shows the Minoan, Roman, MWP, LIA and the smaller modern warming.
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/lappi/gisp-last-10000-new.png
Here’s what a prof of law thinks if Luke was put on trial:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1612851
Gd link SD , it sums up AGW well and the point I was trying to make to luke a few comments up!
“That’s what it is eh, Luke. You want us all to DIEEEEEEE!!!!” – not so – I love you guys.
You are my only friends. Ever since the accident with the blender and the goat you are all I have.
It’s sort of like dropping into the local pub….
I no longer wish to participate in this blog. I find Luke’s retorts offensive and he draws the level of discussion down to a level I can no longer accept as being reasonable.
thank you Jennifer for your hosting this site and like you – I’ll ignore it.
John,
Don’t let a dill like Luke get to you, we need all the help we can get. Particularly with changing opinions such as this:
http://climatology.suite101.com/article.cfm/apollo-mission-a-giant-leap-to-discredit-greenhouse-gas-theory
Poor John – I guess Lake Tanganyika blew his foofer-valve. The ol’ cognitive dissonance overload. I wonder if he’ll ever ring up the NCC or not? Now we’ll never find out. It’s all your fault spangles.
“However, TSI variability clearly does not explain the
dramatic twentieth-century increase in LST, which, as with global
temperatures, is probably a response to greenhouse-gas forcing.
And you want more do you ?”
Want more? Mate, if you had a girlfriend she’d be putting you onto AAMI’s nasal delivery system ’cause you keep coming up short.
There is no evidence of causality in your references, only supposition so yet again you are unable to provide any valid arguments.
““how can such a deep, unmixing lake have such an even temp differential?” try thinking for 20 seconds longer !”
As you believe I’m incapable of rational thought, how about you explain it to me.
Luke is the typical true believing goon:
Desperately working to maintain his apocalyptic faith, no matter how little critical thinking it takes to accomplish.
That a lake influenced by growing area populations and agricultural runoffs can only change its temps due to CO2 in the atmosphere is so stupid that only a brain dead true believer (yes, a redundant term) like Luke could believe it. But only a fool like Luke would trumpet it as if it were more than a sad example of bad work pretending to be science.
The problem with Luke is that he’s an incompetent cherry-picker. He keeps picking boogers instead, and gets upset when others point that out to him.
Finally, someone’s done some real work regarding the actual physical basis of “the greenhouse effect” and found that CAGW “science” is bogus from the ground up.
The paper tells us how far out Stefan-Boltzmann’s crude equations really are, “the surface of the real moon is roughly 20° cooler than predicted by day and 60° warmer by night, the net result being a surface that is 40° warmer than predicted.”
But it isn’t just Earth’s Moon that refuses to comply with the GHG theory. Other planets don’t conform either. As the paper tells us, “The atmosphere of every planet in our solar system is also ‘warmer than predicted.’”
The paper concludes that the Earth is not “unusually” warm. It is the application of the predictive blackbody equation that is faulty and overly simplistic and should not be applied in a real-world context. The proven ability of common substances ( e.g. the Earth’s Moon) to store heat makes a mockery of all such blackbody estimates.
Link:
http://climatology.suite101.com/article.cfm/apollo-mission-a-giant-leap-to-discredit-greenhouse-gas-theory
As usual Schiller – unpublished drivel from disaffected retirees. It’s simply wrong – get published and we’ll be impressed. Every retiree out there is having a little go. Good on them.
Hunter – as usual you’re an ignorant specimen of denialist twittery who doesn’t (maybe can’t) read – “Our record is based on analysis of two lake-sediment cores,
piston core NP04-KH1 and an overlapping multicore MC1
(Fig. 1). These core sites are located near the remote and sparsely
settled Mahale Mountains, thus are not heavily influenced by
local anthropogenic impacts (for example, deforestation, human induced
fire or nutrient loading from agriculture”
boom boom !
And poor old Derek – who sounds rather familiar with strange US medical companies – “There is no evidence of causality in your references” – gee Derek – by now you’d have thought that every bit of paleo evidence doesn’t need to restate the entire history of radiative physics and contemporary climate science. Keep hard Derek.
And it looks the Luke gang and other Australian parasites are busy defending their tax payer funded rip-offs:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/26/australias-victorian-government-creates-seminar-to-deal-with-denialism/#comments
Oh…to be able to travel to your fair land and help riase awareness of the scam being perpetrated by bureaucrat schmucks posing as scientists.
It would be wonderful if the brainwashing session advertised in the above link was inundated with skeptics, asking the tough questions and not accepting the used sheep fodder answers the promoters dish out.
Luke,
I know that any sort of used food is enough for true believer’s like you all, but claiming that a core is ‘unaffected’ and the core being ‘unaffected’ are two very diffeerent things.
And with the low standard set by what is laughingly called peer review by you climate con-artists, there is no reason to believe this as anything other than what it appears to be:
more horseshit from idiocrats.
Seems to have done the job, since your hydrocephalic credulity slurps it up like a maggot to crap.
Hunter,
They got the ‘warming signal’ in a lake with an anomalously low temperature gradient by taking later cores closer to the coast. This is basically the same approach as the famous NASA/GISS “March of the Thermometers” from the mountains to the sea. It’s utter crap and everyone knows it.
And what the heck is an “overlapping core”? Cores don’t ‘overlap’. But you can pretend the data overlaps, sort of like that one, single, solitary ground station in Canada that by prestidigitation and mendacity yields a temperature map for the entire Arctic region. Also utter crap.
There are times when I think Luke is a valuable addition to this group. You can actually interact with someone who is perfectly emblematic of the incompetents and liars in the Climate Industry, all the way down to the chronic ‘poopy-mouth’ syndrome.
Oh and, Luke, you still haven’t apologized for the ‘pristine station’ FAIL, nor have you addressed the FAIL of the black-body hypothesis that underlies the pretense of CAGW.
Luke, be a man. You could do it if you tried. Maybe.
Boys Please!
Derek, Luke; there could be girls here!
Schiller (sKATE): No more skimming!
Kiwis Inc. Simply recall those retreating glaciers south side and ignore that silly Lappi curve at jonova. BTW these is a case for 600 years of greenhouse damping (CO2) from the Alley curve.
A more interesting post go me searching after the much cited Richard Alley
Abrupt climate change – Guest Post by Andrew Glikson
http://joannenova.com.au/2010/05/debate-part-5-the-planetary-atmosphere-and-climate-change/
Younger Dryas – R B Alley et al
http://www.libraryindex.com/pages/3439/Younger-Dryas.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Alley
“Ice-Sheet and Sea-Level Changes”
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/310/5747/456
This is another Gavin.
The other Gavin said he was proud to not cite blogs. Actually, he didn’t cite anything, but dealt instead in rambling and often incomprehensible monologues about beach middens.
This Gavin is even citing Wikipedia. Maybe he’s the other Luke.
Isn’t it funny that although the “core” maps the MWP and LIA so dear to the denialist heart that they still even deny it. So dweebs – which way would you total hypocrites like it. You have just totally shot up your own argument.
The trap being fully sprung. And you fell for it. The goons committed. Luke walks off and dusts hands. Another slew of denialist drones dispensed. You utter morons. You are the most unthinking stupidest of the stupid. But hey that ya denialist brain for you.
Note Coho didn’t swing at it – the one with any class.
Sigh – such little opposition.
Luke,
You should pay more attention to what you cite. The core maps the MWP and the LIA, and the “grafting” of later data from a warmer source gives your much-beloved CAGW “signal”.
Clever liars are good about making sure there’s no contradictory evidence, and you continually FAIL on the most elementary test of the ‘credible liar’. Whoever is paying you is wasting their money.
Liar, fraud, shyster.
The Alan Siddons paper on Stefan-Boltzmann, which luke dismisses as unrepresentitive swill, reminds me of Arthur Smith’s opus on the greenhouse effect which is also unrepresentitive swill, erroneous and the basis of AGW:
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2008/10/proof-of-the-atmospheric-greenhouse-effect-arthur-smith/#comment-66797
The Royal Society is about to recant CAGW. Will wonders never cease?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science_and_environment/10178124.stm
Schiller
“You should pay more attention to what you cite. The core maps the MWP and the LIA, and the “grafting” of later data from a warmer source gives your much-beloved CAGW “signal”.”
WRONG !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Dunce cap for Schiller. You’re so stupid you know.
Coho – it behoves our trio to publish their outstanding novel findings. Reckon we’ll be waiting awhile. Hey – are you coming to the Watts roadshow. I can buy you a drink.
No El Gordo – when you stop spinning wonders will cease. Perhaps we may be about to see some useful scepticism – the denialists are crap at it as they’re mostly shonks.
Schiller for example doesn’t even understand English.
Thanks Hunter for that link to the seminar on how to handle denialists. It is by Paul Holper who also writes good science textbooks for kids. Maybe that is what denialists really need rather than unleashing evidence on them to try and exorcise thier denialist demons. You cant kill off ideologies with evidence.
“You cant kill off ideologies with evidence.”
bazza,
“I rest my case”.
Good stuff El Gordo, let’s hope the Royal Society keep their word, great to see the agnostics forcing their hand.
Amazing what a few facts and truth will do when fraudsters are backed into a corner.
Luke
The Denialati think the cooling has already begun and will pick up pace going forward. I cannot speak for the Sceptics.
In the interior of the Eurasian continent they have found a 400 year wet/dry climate oscilliation on centennial scale. Wu, J et al took a sediment core from Ebinur Lake and also examined oxygen isotope in an ice core from a glacier in the nearby Tibetan Plateau.
‘This approximate 400 year periodicity of wet dry climate oscilliations appear to correlate with solar activity.’
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2010/05/26/solar-story-update/#more-431
NOAA thinks La Nina will develop quickly and they have predicted a hyperactive hurricane season.
“La Niña contributes to reduced vertical wind shear over the western tropical Atlantic which, when combined with conditions associated with the ongoing high activity era and warm Atlantic SSTs, increases the probability of an exceptionally active Atlantic hurricane season (Bell and Chelliah 2006). NOAA’s high-resolution CFS model indicates the development of La Niña-like circulation and precipitation anomalies during July.”
Joe Bastardi says much the same thing, so on this issue the science is settled.
Once again luke confirms that he’s got nothing credible to say.
On top of mostly ambiguous or meaningless rants, you still haven’t answered any of my questions. Once again proving that you’ve got nothing.
A speleothem from south Oman showed that monsoon variation over the past century is little different to the past 800 years.
‘Decreasing monsoon rainfall over the past century is related to increasing sea surface temperature in the Indian Ocean. Spectral analyses of the record are dominated by cycles that are similar to those observed in records of solar activity on centurial timescales. Decadal to interannual cycles in the record appear to originate in the tropical Pacific Ocean.’
(Burns, S.J. et al 2002)
Sol has a lot to answer for.
Hi Everyone! 😉
Are ya’ll still here???? I was just poking around seeing what’s up. I sure do miss my girlfriend El Creepo. (ROFL) Gosh, we had such great times together. A quick search showed that out of the 985 comments I made here, 212 were bend-over Luke-baby moments. It was like Whack-a-mole! Or like shooting fish in a barrel. I know, I know, it’s not like winning a debate with Richard Feynman, but here’s one of my top 10 favorite Luke “game-over” moments… (from my Greatest Hits DVD)
First, the context: Luke is defending the fact that the IPCC computer scenarios from 2000 forecast far more warming than has occurred by 2009:
* * *
Comment from: wes george April 1st, 2009 at 4:54 pm
Luke wails:
“…the current stasis in temperature is completely unremarkable and predicted by individual GCM runs. When the temperature inevitably begins to rise again you’ll find yourself cut off behind enemy lines I’m afraid.”
Another action packed comment by Luke!
First, he nods to the creationist concept of a climate stasis, an oxymoron of logic encouraged by the tautological Orwellian newspeak of “climate change.” Obviously, if you want to stop “climate change” you have to believe that a climate stasis is possible, which it is not. This is anti-evolutionary thinking at its most profound.
Second, he reveals his faith in computer modeling over fundamental causal science and empirical evidence.
Third, he reveals the only way to even get the GCMs to support observational, objective T-data is to lie. The GCMs did not predict the global temperature “stasis”, or cooling of the last decade, quite the contrary. We should be well on our way to the apocalypse by now.
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/slides/large/05.24.jpg
Fourthly, Luke, the evangelist, prophesizes that temperature will begin to rise again. No evidence is required. This is an act of faith.
Fifthly, he reveals that he regards anyone who reasonably differs from his own (faulty) evaluation of the data as the “enemy.” This isn’t a remotely rational worldview. Welcome to the Inquisition.
Rare is the commenter that can pack so vast a variety of pre-Enlightenment values into so few words. I’m impressed.
Here’s the link, Luke, if you’d like to travel down memory lane with moi.
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/03/open-letter-to-president-obama-from-climate-sceptics/
I love you too, baby girl!
xxx
wesley
Oh it’s verballing Wessy Woo droning on about ” climate stasis” again. You could get a job in many police depts matey. Consider verballing as a career?
” temperature will begin to rise again. No evidence is required” well alas it did and not faith. It’s called science.
“We should be well on our way to the apocalypse by now.” – no that’s simply verballing denialist turd-speak. Let’s plant some more words as “truth” and hope the audience doesn’t notice.
“in computer modeling over fundamental causal science and empirical evidence.” – no you’re a denialist who doesn’t understand your empirical data as evidenced by your many foot in mouth insertions. And as we know Weswald – you see but you don’t observe.
Wessy – so much rhetoric from you – so few facts.
El Gordo – how quickly denialists forget
From Science (that’s not E&E dudes)
Chinese Cave Speaks of a Fickle Sun Bringing Down Ancient Dynasties
Richard A. Kerr
A 1.2-meter-long chunk of stalagmite from a cave in northern China recorded the waning of Asian monsoon rains that helped bring down the Tang dynasty in 907 C.E., researchers report on page 940 of this week’s issue of Science. A possible culprit, they conclude: a temporary weakening of the sun, which also seems to have contributed to the collapse of Maya civilization in Mesoamerica and the advance of glaciers in the Alps.
Science 7 November 2008:
Vol. 322. no. 5903, pp. 940 – 942
DOI: 10.1126/science.1163965
A Test of Climate, Sun, and Culture Relationships from an 1810-Year Chinese Cave Record
Pingzhong Zhang,1 Hai Cheng,2* R. Lawrence Edwards,2 Fahu Chen,1 Yongjin Wang,3 Xunlin Yang,1 Jian Liu,4 Ming Tan,5 Xianfeng Wang,2 Jinghua Liu,1 Chunlei An,1 Zhibo Dai,1 Jing Zhou,1 Dezhong Zhang,1 Jihong Jia,1 Liya Jin,1 Kathleen R. Johnson6
A record from Wanxiang Cave, China, characterizes Asian Monsoon (AM) history over the past 1810 years. The summer monsoon correlates with solar variability, Northern Hemisphere and Chinese temperature, Alpine glacial retreat, and Chinese cultural changes. It was generally strong during Europe’s Medieval Warm Period and weak during Europe’s Little Ice Age, as well as during the final decades of the Tang, Yuan, and Ming Dynasties, all times that were characterized by popular unrest. It was strong during the first several decades of the Northern Song Dynasty, a period of increased rice cultivation and dramatic population increase.
The sign of the correlation between the AM and temperature switches around 1960, suggesting that anthropogenic forcing superseded natural forcing as the major driver of AM changes in the late 20th century.
So for observant non-drongos (Wes – you can get back to your gay-bo or hot sheep mags) you will note the devastating impact of climate changes impacting humanity. AND how AGW has now taken over the signal. What might these new changes bring. Winners? Losers?
So we’ll just chuck that on the pile with Lake Tanganyika. Now think carefully denialist tools – if you deny the data – you also deny your beloved solar links. Which way would you like it?
Ready for a few million climate refugees? Send them to Wessy’s rocky outcrops.
What was that about fish in barrels Wezoid?
Very interesting, Luke.
So, you are taking the position that, if it’s not the Sun, it has to be people.
That ranks right up there with: if it’s not the Sun, it’s mammoth farts.
http://www.australianclimatemadness.com/?p=3821
From time to time it’s possible to locate a bootleg copy of a paper behind a paywall, and such is the case with Luke’s latest darling paper:
http://dahuang.dhxy.info/ClimateChange/940.pdf
The final sentence in the paper: “The proxy records establish the character of natural climate change, from which we distinguish late–20th-century trends as clearly anomalous.”
Look at the adjoining Figure 3. It plots ‘models’ and ‘simulations’ against monsoon proxy data from WX42B, a 118-mmlong stalagmite which had grown continuously from 190 to 2003 A.D.
Weak monsoons correlate with colder temps. The models and simulations show a current warming trend, while the proxy indicates a current cooling. That’s your anomaly — the models and simulations are off.
Pretty shabby, Luke. Go pick another booger.
haha, hehe, hoho, Luke, got nothing to say?
At best, we could accuse the authors of failing to use “the Nature trick” to “hide the decline”. The frauds behind the Lake T. paper were at least smart enough to move their cores to a warmer location.
Luke, you need to contact Pachauri and beg him for better material. Your inability to pick cherries is embarrassing your evangelism severely.
Geesh. If you can’t trust Luke to pick cherries, whom can you trust? This is becoming a crisis.
Whenever I see M. E. Mann and P. D. Jones in a reference I recognize the conclusion will be tainted, but ignoring that minor flaw the rest of the paper is very interesting.
‘Solar irradiance reached its highest value in the past two millennia at the same time as the 550 A.D. AM peak. At about
the time of the MWP, the AM and solar irradiance peaks have similar timing. These observations suggest that the AM and Chinese temperature respond more strongly to solar irradiance than does mean NH temperature.’
Looking elsewhere we find that the extreme weather events of 535-536 in Europe saw the beginning of the ‘dark ages’, so we can safely say that a small asteroid or large volcanic eruption will overpower solar irradiance everytime.
Well done Schiller, it’s interesting that when one gets to read a whole paper and not just the abstract it often turns out to be an own goal from the lukes.
Interesting that Mann et al’s graph in fig 3. is so much different than the others, interesting that the DACP in fig 1. corresponds to the strongest periods of summer monsoonal activity in contrast to the LIA, but this discrepancy is not mentioned anywhere in the text.
Interesting that the paper confirms that the MWP and LIA were not just local phenomena.
Lukless luke just keeps digging himself into a deeper and deeper hole.
Keep up the good work Schiller.
Derek,
Good catch on the discrepancy in Fig. 1.
Even so, I fear the “science of CAGW” is merely a sideshow that distracts from the actual agenda.
A while ago, I posted a piece about a speaker — perhaps Delingpole — who asked a crowd, “If I were the CO2 fairy, and could wave my wand, and make CO2 not a ‘greenhouse gas’, would you like that”?
The crowd resoundingly said, “No.”
The wisdom of crowds is dubious at best, but the actual thrust of all Greenie arguments is quite old-fashioned: Greenies against modern culture. Or post-modernist, if that’s your fancy. Which is actually quite retro, and retro is kewl and rawks these days.
It’s very likely that Luke has orange hair and eats seed sprouts with his McGutBustingBurgers and insists on Fair Trade organic McCoffee. And praises him/herself.
Schiller – I have just spent an hour cleaning coffee from my screen and keyboard – having a laughing fit while drinking coffee is not recommended.
are you actually a mental case? Did you seriously read the paper? Of course not !
“That’s your anomaly — the models and simulations are off.” Huh ?
Tell your understanding of what the “models” are based. You haven’t a clue what you’ve just read. Admit it Schiller – science has never been your strong suit ! But as we know denialists are usually dickheads too.
Anyway if you want to deny that paper logically you have to throw all you solar notions in the bin as well.
Also throw away all the GISP2 cores and everything else.
Schiller now pronounces all science as dead, including his own sides material ! You have just shot up all your own science you doofus.
As the paper concludes … “The proxy records establish
the character of natural climate change, from
which we distinguish late–20th-century trends as
clearly anomalous.”
You would have to be one of the thickest twit ever to represent the denialist side. I am seriously gobstopped at the level of your comments. Utter gibberish.
Luke,
Do you seriously believe that phrases like “cleaning coffee from my screen” and “mental case” and “denialists are usually dickheads” are persuasive?
Either someone is paying you to make CAGWers look like foul-mouthed idiots, or else, CAGWers are foul-mouthed idiots.
Perhaps you might be interested in engaging this topic, Luke. Does poopy-mouth really help your case?
The warmists down-play the impact of the sun on climate change, but when the AO is involved it becomes wonderfully clear.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/sci;294/5549/2149
You all might do well to ponder McIntyre’s comments – http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8694544.stm and not whether his science is right or wrong – simply about style.
Piss weak Schiller – simply a baseless position – you are unable to read a science paper. You have now shredded your own side’s position. You’re simply ridiculous.
El Gordo – warmists do not down-play the impact of the sun of climate change – the assertion is simply denialist clap trap
Schiller; it is indeed the case that proxy records of the Zhang paper contradict the model findings in the crucial AGW modern period; the paper explains this;
“The sign of the correlation between
the AM and temperature switches around 1960, suggesting that anthropogenic forcing superseded
natural forcing as the major driver of AM changes in the late 20th century.”
This is a common trait among AGW papers; that the natural signal is submerged, lost or reversed by the AGW signal; this was the theme in the last paper offered by luke:
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/oce/markus/ENSOCLIV.pdf
And memorably it was in Meehl’s paper on the delay of the PDO phase shift:
http://ams.confex.com/ams/88Annual/techprogram/paper_133611.htm
I also believe the AGW argues that the Modoki form of El Nino is not natural but the turbo charged AGW variety, a previous theme of Cai’s co-author Vecchi.
“You all might do well to ponder McIntyre’s comments – http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8694544.stm and not whether his science is right or wrong – simply about style.”
Luke,
You’re more of a fraud than the hockey team.
McIntyre said they were wrong and should repent, but not that they are fraudulent.
McIntyre is showing a strong spirit of generosity here but whether he is right or not is another argument altogether.
Cohenite and Schiller,
With all of the graphs in fig 3. the sign of the correlation between the AM and temperature switches a number of times, some of them multidecadal but the only one mentioned is for the late 20th C. This is clearly a case of seeing what they want to see based on assumptions and not science.
From the abstract we can see that the main thrust of the paper is explore a correlation between historical climate, driven by the AM and historical Chinese civilizations and culture. One would rightly expect that the late 20th C would hold little relevance to the findings of the paper therefore we can assume, particularly with the inclusion of the Mann graph which is itself anomalous to the rest of the data, that references to anthropogenic forcing both at the end of the abstract and in the body of the paper, were merely an afterthought to appease the gods of CAGW. (that sentence was way too long)
Luke, as usual, pretends to have digested the whole paper but then relies exclusively on the one section that, spuriously and without actual evidence, supports his twisted, banal and juvenile world view.
Like I said luke, you keep kicking own goals, you’re just too stupid to realise it.
cop this
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/wksst/wksst.20100519.gif
Spanglers – no it’s about the nature of debating style. Denialists have been utterly disgusting. McIntyre is simply saying there are limits to conduct.
Derek what a whiney little feather duster critique. I think the anthropogenic argument somehow may have been made elsewhere. This paper simply reports YET ANOTHER anomaly in line with predictions to throw on the ever accumulating mountain of evidence. And with every brick that is thrown on the pile – you guys have a little whine. Bleat – bleat …. Even the most strident sceptic would have to admire the size of the evidence mountain by now …
And how is that Arctic going – oh look denialists have been telling me we’re in an ice age – pigs bum we are !!
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
Come on guys – give it away.
‘Ice extent remained slightly above average in the Bering Sea and the Sea of Okhotsk…’
http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst_anom.html
Would you like to hazard a guess as to what is happening there? In the meantime, I will search for clues.
Quote from luke; “And how is that Arctic going – oh look denialists have been telling me we’re in an ice age – pigs bum we are !!”
Quote from Wikipedia;
“An “ice age” or, more precisely, “glacial age” is a generic geological period of long-term reduction in the temperature of the Earth’s surface and atmosphere, resulting in an expansion of continental ice sheets, polar ice sheets and alpine glaciers. An ice age is a natural system. Within a long-term ice age, individual pulses of extra cold climate are termed “glacial periods” (or alternatively “glacials” or “glaciations”), and intermittent warm periods are called “interglacials”. Glaciologically, ice age implies the presence of extensive ice sheets in the northern and southern hemispheres;[1] by this definition we are STILL IN THE ICE AGE that began at the start of the Pleistocene (because the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets still exist).[2]”
BTW, anomalies based on spurious data based on dodgey models that are heavily tweaked to fit preconceived beliefs of a handful of biased, agenda driven shonks does not constitute a mountain of evidence.
Evidence that global warming has actually occurred is rapidly disappearing, evidence of an anthropogenic cause is virtually non-existent except in the weak minds of hardcore loons and pseudo environmentalists.
As you luke, clearly fit into both categories, and as you still haven’t effectively answered any of the questions/criticisms of your last 2 papers, you keep proving to all of us that YOU GOT NOTHIN’.
“Spanglers – no it’s about the nature of debating style. Denialists have been utterly disgusting. McIntyre is simply saying there are limits to conduct.”
Luke,
You’ve got the bull by the foot as usual. Even Harrabin said that McIntyre said it was wrong. Just not fraudulent.
The way McIntyre actually put it was this:
“Despite the failures of the inquiries to do their job, I strongly disagree with Cuccinelli’s recent investigation of potential financial abuse. Regardless of what one may think of the quality of Mann’s work, he has published diligently. In my opinion, Cuccinelli’s actions are an abuse of administrative prerogative that on the one hand is unfair to Mann and on the other provides easy fodder for people to avoid dealing with the real issues.”
The real issues being what the the first two enquiries stacked with warmers studiously avoided.
And on top of that McIntyre avoids discussing the results of a non-scientific hockey stick being used as the basis for SPMs everywhere. Virtually a coat-of-arms for every warming wanker world wide. When you see what the hockey team et al received in grants from taxpayer funds as a result it gets pretty close to fraud for mine.
“Virtually a coat-of-arms for every warming wanker world wide.” not really – just more propagandising by lying denialist scum like you. A minor piece of evidence.
Derek – you’re too stupid for words. The evidence keeps piling up and you think it’s over coz of an email leak. Pullease !
So many conspirators on so many continents all conspiring together. Have another tug matey.
Answers to questions about the last 2 papers – sorry did you guys actually ask an intelligent question? I must have missed it.
Gavin
Why is NOAA SST anomaly different to UNISYS?
“You all might do well to ponder McIntyre’s comments – ”
Ponder them yourself. And his attitude. You hypocrite!
Hardly hypocritical. The putrid scum level of denialist ethics has to be seen to be believed. See the tone of the comments on Bolt, Nova, Wattsup – it’s putrid. You guys have no problem libeling hard working scientists. It’s absolutely extraordinary as a social development. And in doing so you’ve simply descended to the level of filth ! Utter gutter level filth.
McIntyre has disappointed the blood hounds – he has effectively said – get some perspective – get a grip – it’s a science dispute. Settle the f down.
cop this gavin:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1998/to:2010/normalise/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1998/to:2010/trend
“Why is NOAA SST anomaly different to UNISYS ?”
Bob Tisdale wrote a long note here in 2009
tp://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/09/note-about-sst-anomaly-maps.html
note the comments
http://climateaudit.org/2009/05/19/bob-tisdale-on-sst/
The evidence keeps piling up, and it’s not, as Luke says, just “coz of an email leak.”
Here’s a list of 63 component ‘-gates’ which are part of ‘Climategate’.
http://pgosselin.wordpress.com/2010/05/20/gate-blowup-come-on-in-gate-lovers/
The list is obviously incomplete, since it doesn’t include the bunk papers Luke is fond of, and a few other things. But it’s a very good start.
Actually, it’s a list of 63 things that Luke needs to explain away. Luke, you have a writing assignment.
Schiller, don’t you realise? Luke never explains anything, he never answers any questions and he never concedes a point.
He just hides behind his abusive comments and wriggles around things in his squirmy, wormy way. He doesn’t answer or explain because he can’t, for all of his infinite access to payview journals and an unlimited internet account, all of his arguments are secondhand. He has shown himself incapable of critical analysis and obviously relies on others in the background to do the thinking for him.
BTW luke, the only evidence that keeps piling up is the evidence AGAINST CAGW.
If we happened to slide into the next glacial period within luke’s lifetime(which is not impossible or unprecedented), he would go to his grave screaming “just you wait, it’s going to get hotter, we’re all gonna burn, this is just a pause, we’re gonna burn I tell you, BURN!”
Schiller – And they’re all fabricated denialist nonsense. 2-3 errors at best. One of note. Deltoid alone has hit many right out of the stadium – come on Schiller – pullease ! 63 gates indeed – you’re simply kidding yourself. Bulk fabricated ex-tobacco shill think tank crap are not science journal papers by a US country mile.
I think the denialist mind is a fascinating beast
(1) so you have the “we don’t know the temperature” paradigm – the records are no good
(2) but then with no hypocrisy we’re sure that it’s cooling with some precision – huh? howzat again
(3) apocalyptic ice age predictions – “bone crushing ice age I tell you” seems to a while away – ho ho
(4) so even though it’s cooling we have alternative explanations to explain why we’re warming – no contradiction here – LOL !
(5) many tell us that CO2 isn’t a greenhouse gas – but sceptic idols Lindzen and Spencer say of course it’s a greenhouse gas – no contradiction here – ROFL
(6) we were assured that the trend in Arctic ice melt has changed direction but it hasn’t…
Poor denialists – now caught in the backlash of their own making. McIntyre senses it and urges caution.
No wonder anyone of a rational mind is unimpressed with such a divided swill
“just you wait, it’s going to get hotter, we’re all gonna burn, this is just a pause, we’re gonna burn I tell you, BURN!” – so Derek – simply more hysterical verballing from you – where have I ever said that?
But verballing and quote mining are the denialist tools in trade.
And if the evidence is piling up against AGW – sorry which journal papers were they again? The denialist scum are throwing everything bare the kitchen sink against the science. Such a campaign of intense dishonesty is not peer reviewed science. Putting a glossy cover on utter nonsense doesn’t polish a turd.
You seriously believe that you can change the planet’s energy balance and there will be no consequences at all? I guess you must.
Hey guys, I was reading some comments on Jo Nova’s blog when I came across one from our old friend Louis that had a link to this;
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=5783&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ClimaterealistsNewsBlog+%28ClimateRealists+News+Blog%29
In a nut shell, NASA proved the greenhouse effect was bogus 40 years ago!
Have a read and enjoy.
Derek,
Great links, both. I’ve been saying for years that the warmists had the basic physics wrong. And it’s not difficult physics at all. The violations of thermodynamics at the core of CAGW theory are obvious, as well as the functionally miraculous claims regarding the properties of CO2. One reason why “climatologists” like Trenberth have never been able to find the “missing heat” in the energy budget. As Trenberth pointed out, “it’s a travesty”.
Luke will of course want a journal citation. Here it is:
Gerlich G. Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics. International Journal of Modern Physics B, Vol. 23, No. 3 (2009) DOI: 0.1142/S021797920904984X.
Available at: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf (115 pp.)
It is important to note the word “falsification” in this context. This is, literally, the strongest statement it is possible to make in the field of the physical sciences. It does not mean “highly unlikely”, or anything of the sort. It is a term of art and rarely applied, as it means 100 percent unalloyed certitude.
The abstract begins: The atmospheric greenhouse effect … essentially describes a fictitious mechanism, in which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump…
Compare that to this claim by the IPCC: The reason the Earth’s surface is this warm is the presence of greenhouse gases, which act as a partial blanket for the longwave radiation coming from the surface. This blanketing is known as the natural greenhouse effect. The most important greenhouse gases are water vapour and carbon dioxide. The two most abundant
constituents of the atmosphere – nitrogen and oxygen – have no such effect.
Historical Overview of Climate Change Science, http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter1.pdf (36 pp.)
If the physics is wrong, everything built on it is wrong. CAGW is a fraud scam lie. Or, as Luke might call it, “a little mistake”.
Folks,
After a much closer reading of the Gerlich paper, I recalled some related efforts involving “Maxwell’s Demon”.
Maxwell imagined a molecule sized trap door in the partition with his minuscule creature poised at the door who is observing the molecules. When a faster than average molecule approaches the door he makes certain that it ends up on the left side … So after these operations he ends up with a box in which all the faster than average gas molecules are in the left side and all the slower than average ones are in the right side. Then one can use this separation of temperature to run a heat engine … [1]
This amounts to a perpetual motion machine, popular in fiction and science fiction, and there is no shortage of its (mis) use. [2]
The remarkable thing is that the CAGWers have, essentially, cast CO2 in the role of Maxwell’s demons, who are, eponymously, “created to contradict the second law of thermodynamics.”
CO2 is the “gatekeeper molecule” that prefers to keep heat in one box (the Earth) rather than the other box (the whole Universe).
AGW+ CAGW = babble, balderdash, baloney, bull, bunk, chatter, crap, drivel, foolishness, gibberish, hogwash, hooey, hot air, idle talk, jive, mumbo jumbo, palaver, poppycock, prattle, rubbish, and, not to trivialize the annual waste of $8 billion+ on warmists, silliness.
————-
1. http://www.auburn.edu/~smith01/notes/maxdem.htm
2. http://www.spiritus-temporis.com/maxwell-s-demon/maxwell-s-demon-in-culture.html
Luke says:
‘McIntyre senses it and urges caution.’ No, he is a rational, left leaning, liberal minded individual who would prefer a simple sorry from Jones et al and let’s get back to the science.
‘The science’ is devastating to the CAGW cause, so going back to science is not about to happen any time soon. At least, not amongst the CAGWers.
IMO Schiller & Co are well covered here
“Dealing in Doubt”
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/publications/reports/dealing-in-doubt/
“Climate Skeptics Are Recycled Critics of Controls on Tobacco and Acid Rain”
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/02/21-6
More real scientific measurement from the US Navy on the real state of the Arctic ice volume, needless to say it’s exactly the opposite to Luke’s silly fantasist nonsense. ( surprise, surprise )
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/29/arctic-ice-volume-has-increased-25-since-may-2008/#more-20022
Lord Martin Rees, president of the Royal Society, admits that CAGW has been exaggerated. At the same time Professor Robin Batterham (AATSE) is trying to breath some commonsense back into the discussion. It appears NASA is also about to give ground.
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=5783&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+ClimaterealistsNewsBlog+ClimateRealists+News+Blog
When the msm finally comes to its senses the game will be up for the warmists. I would just like to offer Luke and Gavin the opportunity to recant before its too late.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/05/are_climate_alarmists_losing_t.html
When one looks at the latest revelations from the Royal Society and Professor Robin Batterham perhaps it’s time for Luke to apoligise briefly then leave.
Or if he can’t manage that then perhaps he could place his head in a bucket of dung and practice deep breathing exercises.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/consensus_crumbles_but_why_did_these_scientists_not_say_so_earlier/
Gavin,
When I first read your post I was inclined to be extremely offended that you would consider any of us to be recycled pro-tobaccoists. I quit smoking 30+ years ago and my father died from tobacco caused cancer and I’m sure many of us here have similar stories to tell.
But then I downloaded the 25 page greenpeace document and had a look.I won’t lie to you like luke does and say I laughed so hard I had to wipe the coffee of my screen, it was more a case of profound disappointment.
I actually hold you in a certain esteem and so am somewhat surprised that you would stoop to using a greenpeace document to argue or support anything. If you have in fact read it, you should be aware that it is obviously preaching to the rabid converted and so has no qualms about using deceptive and dishonest material to discredit those “evil skeptics”.
Honestly ,the document is so full of holes that it more resembles a collander than a dispassionate piece on the “denial industry”. Don’t bother requesting a breakdown of complaints about the article as I’ve already trashed it and have no inclination to read it again. It’s too pathetic.
El Gordo, excellent link on arctic ice but I’m afraid luke will just claim it’s invalid ’cause it’s not “peer reviewed”.
Derek; two points – glad you quit smoking and I’m less likely to actually read Greenpeace than wuwt on climate (as I’ve often said I normally don’t rely on links). However you made the connection with Schiller & Co, not me. Recall, I set traps?.
So; that leaves some of us asking, why?
Some decades ago after a prolonged industrial campaign around an national Industry Award, a fellow worker announced at our then regular gathering on the grass outside our factory that he was off to Phillip Morris permanently. He had five young children while I had four. Most of crew had something on the side to fill idle work time by this but it was with a degree of sadness we each bid him good fortune on his way. Keeping the day job is sometimes a very costly business.
Derek: Key words were in those headings; denial industry dealing doubt!
By chance yesterday I met a girl on the move with only one child. She is a corporate risk management consultant who was directly involved with current ministers so I popped my usual question about climate change – do you believe etc. not her field though.
Fortunately this lady offered one comment – our pollies generally don’t want to know.
Hey that leaves me with a finger on the pulse, alone
Luke calls the hockey stick “a minor piece of evidence”.
And HE calls US denialist scum?
Is that Socratic irony or Socratic ignorance?
Or just plain stupid ignorance?
Schiller – how desperate – the Gerlich paper is soooo trashed it’s laughable.
http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=G._Gerlich_and_R._D._Tscheuschner – it even gets a Wiki write-up for the very many critiques.
The old “contradict the second law of thermodynamics” bullshit. Dear dear me. You aren’t even a very good denialist.
Here’s the rebuttal published in the same place
Halpern, J. et al. (2010) Comment On “Falsification of the Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects within the Frame of Physics”, in IJMP(B), Vol 24, Iss 10, 20 Apr 2010, pp 1309-1332.
Funny that although the greenhouse effect doesn’t exist you can take a pyrgeometer and measure it in your backyard? Care to explain Schiller?
Stern, S.C., and F. Schwartzmann (1954) An Infrared Detector for Measurement of the Back Radiation from the Sky in J. Atmos. Sci., 11, 121-129. This documents early measurements of backradiation with a pyrgeometer.
Tobin, D. C., et al. (2006) Radiometric and spectral validation of Atmospheric Infrared Sounder observations with the aircraft-based Scanning High-Resolution Interferometer Sounder, in J. Geophys. Res., Vol 111, D09S02. Validation of atmospheric emission measurements from space, using high altitude aircraft measurements
– you stupid clown !
Spanglers – as early as 2005 Realclimate canvassed “What if the Hockey Stick was wrong”
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/what-if-the-hockey-stick-were-wrong/
It’s a minor piece of evidence.
AND McIntyre himself doesn’t know whether the MWP was globally warmer than today. He simply isn’t convinced either way.
You guys must be getting desperate – you’re now recycling the old arguments,
Gavin,
“Fortunately this lady offered one comment – our pollies generally don’t want to know.”
Surely that tells you that the ETS was never about saving the planet, it was always about tax and control. You must have read some of the news reports about the scamming and corruption involved with the European cap and trade industry. The loudest alarm bells for me was when the big banks and investment houses started pushing for an ets citing “market certainty” as a reason. That just proved that there was money to be made.
Whan we find that Al Gore has major shares in cap and trade investment houses, you’ve got to ask yopurself the whole thing was a scam to begin with.
Frank Hill (National Solar Observatory) recently got together with other solar scientists to discuss the sun. It’s a consensus, the recent behavior of Sol is odd and they don’t know what is happening.
Hill later told the media that “my main impression of all this is I’m gratified to see that we all agree that this is an interesting minimum. What’s not so gratifying is we have no clue why any of these effects are happening.”
Luke – time to take your hand of it mate – if your belief system and theories were correct the world would be acting upon it by now with intense rigour. It’s been 30 years.
They are not.
They’ve dropped it all in spite of scientists with a leading position in some new fangled department with “Climate Change” in it’s title protesting vigorously. The science doesn’t stack up- the empirical evidence doesn’t stack up and you and all your obtuse arrogance doesn’t stack up.
I’d get back into sustainable agriculture if I were you, there’s real breakthroughs to be made there.
here’s a track I produced especially for you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eib7OocRrzs&fmt=18
unfortunately you didn’t leave your straight job, did you.
“You guys must be getting desperate – you’re now recycling the old arguments,”
Yeah, right, Luke! Like these crappy old warmer arguments that never held water.
Sorry, you can’t wriggle out of it. The H/S is and has always been almost the sole basis for you warmers’ “evidence” of the AGW hypothesis. It was featured as headings on SPMs and the reason for their recommendations, the foundation stone of AIT-Al’s propaganda, on the newly formed Aust Govt Dept of Climate Change front page as its reason for existence and now when the warmers can no longer con people about its credibility, [RC secretly realized how bogus it was from day one] you say “its a minor piece of evidence”?
The only other “evidence” you have is the GCMs and you know what? They are even minorer.
Doncha just luv this story on peer review?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/29/leif-svalgaard-on-the-experience-of-peer-review/
With gatekeepers like this it’s amazing that any sceptical scientific papers get published at all.
Oh goodie – John’s back. With in flight entertainment too. Cool. I knew he’d miss me ….
John pls don’t mistake my passion for the science debate as aggression … it is only science !
Now back to beating up on Spanglers
“The H/S is and has always been almost the sole basis for you warmers’ “evidence” of the AGW hypothesis.” – errrr NOPE !
How much of the IPCC’s analysis is about the Hockey Stick. Stuff all.
The basis my dear doofus is in many decades work on radiative physics.
The actual reality is that serious climate scientists think that if anything – the IPCC reports are watered down. The private concerns are actually higher than reflected.
It’s all about perception of risk. And humans aren’t good at it !
luke, so Eli and various luminaries including Arthur and Joel have made a peer reviewed comment on G&T; you will note that G&T have replied to the eli effort; this should be interesting.
For the record I have great trouble with the greenhouse effect calculations; according to the K&T cartoon 396w/m2 leaves the surface after backradiation while only 240w/m2 is OLR; that difference of 156w/m2 therefore is responsible for the GMST greenhouse temperature of 33C; however the GMST effective temperature of 255C is produced by 161w/m2 of solar reaching the surface; by that standard the 156w/m2 producing the 33C should produce a GMST of 101.5C.
Please explain luke or ask eli will you.
‘It’s all about perception of risk. And humans aren’t good at it!’ You may be right on that score, but when reality dawns they will adapt.
Back to a previous abstract, co-authored by Michael Mann and Gavin Schmidt, ‘Solar forcing of regional climate change during the Maunder Minimum.’
‘We examine the climate response to solar irradiance changes between the late 17th-century Maunder Minimum and the late 18th century. Global average temperature changes are small (about 0.3° to 0.4°C) in both a climate model and empirical reconstructions.’
‘However, regional temperature changes are quite large. In the model, these occur primarily through a forced shift toward the low index state of the Arctic Oscillation/North Atlantic Oscillation as solar irradiance decreases. This leads to colder temperatures over the Northern Hemisphere continents, especially in winter (1° to 2°C), in agreement with historical records and proxy data for surface temperatures.’
Luke, does this make sense to you? It does me.
This is the crux of the matter. The present solar minimum should produce more negative AO, even in summer.
http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/daily_ao_index/ao_index.html
“Many decades work on radiative physics” eh Luke?
And how did you quantify that?
“The actual reality is that serious climate scientists think that if anything – the IPCC reports are watered down. The private concerns are actually higher than reflected.”
You’re not tellin’ us that it’s worse than ya thought?
You’re pathetic, Luke!
A few of these blokes have done many decades work on radiative physics too and to put it in your own terms: zzzzzzzzz
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/local/news/general/scientists-at-academy-row-over-climate-sceptic-policy/1843775.aspx
Spangled,
Global temps have stopped going up, the Arctic has stopped shrinking, hurricane activity is in decline and there’s every chance krudd will be kicked out come October. Of course it’s worse than luke thought!
Wow! I hope you’re right Derek.
Luke,
If your H/S is dubious and the MWP was as warm as now then all your work on radiative physics is meaningless.
It’s also likely that todays warming will similarly be followed by cooling.
You need that H/S B/S now more than ever.
Ironic, ain’t it?
spangles
Robin seems a little confused, it must have something to do with the ‘precautionary principle’.
According to a report of the lecture published in a mining newsletter, Professor Batterham said despite scientific uncertainty, ” we need to drastically reduce CO2 or face runaway temperature rise”.
Prof Batterham despite his various other positions was a miner
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/author.asp?id=458
http://www.earth2006.org.au/batterham.shtml
Now that the Royal Society is about to re-state its position on CAGW, it makes sense to go back and look at their “current” position: “A guide to facts and fictions about climate change”, March 2005, http://royalsociety.org/uploadedFiles/Royal_Society_Content/News_and_Issues/Science_Issues/Climate_change/climate_facts_and_fictions.pdf
According to the document, it
examines twelve misleading arguments (presented in bold typeface) put forward by the opponents of urgent action on climate change and highlights the scientific evidence that exposes their flaws. [em added]
The document shows that the claims of rationalists have remained quite consistent over the intervening five years. And, in light of Climategate and post-Climategate revelations, their claims are more reasonable than ever.
Derek
…’hurricane activity is in decline’… That should probably read, ‘was in decline’. Now that global cooling has set-in we can expect the hurricane season to warm-up.
El Gordo, all,
You need to check out “A complete list of things caused by global warming”, found at
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm
About 760 bad things are caused by global warming. So you’d reverse that for global cooling.
With global cooling, we can look forward to a reduction in acne, heroin, allergies, alligators in the Thames, barbarisation and cannibalism, to name a few things.
Surely, no-one could argue against such benefits.
It’s great to see Mann being pursued over the HS fraud and to see the usual army of fellow fraudsters howling loudly on his behalf.
Interestingly when Pat Michaels lost his job as a state climatoligist these same cowardly swines howled for his blood, when all he was trying to point out were a few truths and their lies.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/30/ken-cuccinelli-versus-810-academics/#more-20046
Thanx for that link schiller, should keep me occupied for hours. Out of that collection I found this gem from the UK Tele 7 July ’08 on a UFO flap in the UK.
“Some experts believe it could be linked to global warming and craft from outer space are appearing because they are concerned about what man is doing to this planet.”
Classic stuff!
Neville,
You will likely find this interesting:
The fraud law “does not authorize the attorney general to engage in scientific debate,” the lawyers for the university wrote. [1]
Which means, of course, that if Mann were advocating smoking cigarettes as a method to prevent lung cancer, whilst taking money from the tobacco industry, that would not be part of the inquiry. Yep yep. We can’t look at goofy data that someone “might” disagree with.
Or, let’s look at something more extreme: Let’s suppose that Mann was taking money from Big Coal and Big Oil and Big Carbon. No way! Mann is too honest, he’d rather bankrupt his research program.
hehehe. Yeah, right.
Meanwhile, the case to discover Mann’s data, computer code, and correspondence is on thin ice. The State inquiry involves Federal dollars (outside the state’s ambit) while one element involves fraud *before* the State fraud statute came into effect. At least, according to some sources.
Unless people are lying like Luke, the Mann inquiry has a very good likelihood of being tossed.
Mann could be caught selling marijuana on campus as a contraceptive, and they’d let him go, as it has to do with “the interpretation of academic data”.
———
1. U. of Virginia Asks Court to Halt Attorney General’s Demand for Documents. May 27, 2010.
http://chronicle.com/article/U-of-Virginia-Asks-Court-to/65721/
“If your H/S is dubious and the MWP was as warm as now then all your work on radiative physics is meaningless.” – what an amazing dickwitted comment from Spanglers. Care to explain Spangly?
“It’s also likely that todays warming will similarly be followed by cooling.” – pssstt – you heard it here folks (Spanglers pers comm).
Meanwhile denialists are shitting bricks over the sea ice.
http://climateprogress.org/2010/05/21/arctic-sea-ice-area-extent-volume-record-low/ look at that trend in area and volume go
http://climateprogress.org/2010/05/21/arctic-sea-ice-area-extent-volume-record-low/
you lot better come up with some distractions soon or you’ll be a laughing stock
And Neville being a good little denialist is recycling more old tired crap. Coz that’s what denialists do – keep repeating the same old debunked bullshit.
“Interestingly when Pat Michaels lost his job as a state climatoligist ” Oh pullease ! He never was !! hahahahahahahahahahahaaaaaa http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/08/virginia_tells_pat_michaels_to.php#more
Read it and weep Neville http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Patrick_J._Michaels
Damn, recalcitrant ice. If it drops below 2007 the warmists will have a field day.
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm
Well I’ve read it and I’m not weeping , you’ve shown me nothing that is new, I mean who gives a rats what the deltoid site has to say or some prejudiced nonsense trying to heap scorn on a decent man.
Interesting tool for every fantasist to play with showing how much you can reduce temp by choosing co2 reductions etc.
I mean this is the sort of stuff luke believes in right? Clever bit of software though, if you lived in the UK.
Sorry, I hope this works http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/interactive/2009/dec/14/climate-simulator
And for denialists having cognitive dissonance dizzy spells – let’s have a bloody big review on that sea ice.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Arctic-Sea-Ice-Part-1-Is-Arctic-Sea-Ice-recovering.html
I reckon I’m on a roll here. Heaps of fan mail about looking good.
“some prejudiced nonsense trying to heap scorn on a decent man.” ROTFL !!! what a classic – have you ever heard him in person?
You wouldn’t know the difference between a roll and a tail-spin.
If you don’t believe in the H/S and you finally agree that the MWP happened [as has been proven over and over] then the hundreds of billions spent on research into non existent [natural variability excepted] AGW has been a waste of taxpayer’s money.
As cooling followed the MWP [natural variability] so it will happen again.
As you AGWers deny the H/S, you deny your own existence.
Luke,
I really enjoyed your links about the endangered Arctic ice. They’re saying that satellite measurements indicate too much ice, because their models of ice show there’s a lot less ice.
The problem with CAGWers is that they live in a PlayStation(r)(tm) universe where models are more important than data.
And what’s your problem with Pat Michaels? State officials are confused over who his boss is, and this is relevant to exactly what? Luke, your arguments are getting pretty thin.
Still, it’s good to see how desperate and reckless you people are. Post-Climategate, you’d think the CAGWers would want to come up with good, solid stuff instead.
You are of course correct E.G., I was just having a little chuckle at luke’s expense.
And of course he’s probably right about the dire state of the Arctic ice plummeting out of existence. Chances are there will be nothing left by the end of this summer but what the heck, it was probably all rotten ice anyway so good riddance.
How about this one; if all of the snow on the himalayas melted, it would make Mt. Everest a lot safer and easier to climb and people wouldn’t have to worry about getting frostbite or even dying. See luke, there’s an upside to just about anything, …………..with the possible exception of krudd getting back in next election.
The CAGWers have identified another facet of ‘denialism’ and the ‘assault on science’.
Optimism.
That’s right, folks. If you’re an optimist, you’re a science-bashing denialist.
watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/2010/05/30/the-rational-optimist-part-2regurgitated-denialist-propaganda-from-matt-ridley/
There is a scientific consensus that everything is going to Hell, and they have the models to prove it!
It’s convictions like that which make headlines like this actually plausible: “Christian Groups: Biblical Armageddon Must Be Taught Alongside Global Warming”
theonion.com/video/christian-groups-biblical-armageddon-must-be-taugh,17491/
Gavin,
Many thanks for those links you supplied. I learned a great deal from them.
There is no consensus! And, what’s worse, they’re incoherent.
Greenpeace talks about a “denial movement that is distributed, decentralised” [1], while economist Jeffrey Sachs talks about “critics – who are few in number but aggressive in their attacks – are deploying tactics that they have honed for more than 25 years.” [2]
Greenpeace calls climate rationalism “populist venom”, but the group has on many occasions pointed out that they represent the environment, rather than humans. Thus, any narrative that runs counter to their narrative is quite naturally “populist venom”.
The rest of the Greenpeace screed is nothing more than a variation of Godwin’s Law, according to which any discussion of any length will invariably invoke a Hitler or Nazi analogy. The variation, which I hereby dub the “Flukeyloo corrollary”, is that those who would rather not run afoul of Godwin’s Law will instead invoke Tobacco, Acid Rain, Big Oil, or Big Coal.
Much more egregious are the transgressions of Jeffrey Sachs, whom I at one point admired. An economist normally would be interested in ‘following the money’, but he prefers to insist that the Big Money is on the skeptic side.
And then he pulls forth this big blunder from the nether regions of his fundament:
“But errors in the midst of a vast and complex report by the IPCC point to the inevitability of human shortcomings, not to any fundamental flaws in climate science.”
Okay. Think about that a while. How can ‘climate science’ exist independently of humans, or even of human shortcomings?
Grade-B rhetoric like this can be expected of Greenpeace, but from a noted economist? Stunning. The rot and corruption are everywhere.
———–
1. http://www.greenpeace.org/international/Global/international/planet-2/report/2010/3/dealing-in-doubt.pdf (25 pp.)
2. http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/02/21-6
Jeffrey Sachs has helped communist states make the transition to free market economies and he has been named one of Time Magazine’s “100 Most Influential People in the World” twice, in 2004 and 2005. Sachs is also a CAGW zealot of the first order, which will ultimately ruin his reputation as an economist.
There is little likelihood that Arctic ice will disappear by 2013 or anytime over the next 200 years. It’s just an educated guess, based on observation.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/global_sea_ice_053110.png
Schiller; re Godwin’s Law – if you hang around long enough you attract barnacles
“the group (Greenpeace) has on many occasions pointed out that they represent the environment, rather than humans”
On the issue of who represents the environment, we should all do that. I have two tabbies at my place. The older cat was rescued as a tiny kitten from a couple of kids at the local market after they had spent dad’s pocket money on a pet he didn’t want. The younger one was purchased from the RSPCA after being abandoned by a young working female who lived in a flat. This one has never learned to hunt outside or play inside however she knows to always watch my face when we try to compete with our extremities in developing touch and tap. Despite my wriggling toes way down under the bed clothes I can expect a well considered swipe in the face every time she gets excited.
It’s my considered view Gaia responds likewise and Greenpeace have their work cut out in trying to modify the environment game by evening scores on both sides.
“The rot and corruption are everywhere” B grade rhetoric too like “zealot, venom” and many other odd words appearing regularly here.
“100 Most Influential People in the World” ?? ok but I don’t know if Jeffrey Sachs is featured that much in our msm or at least places where I pride myself in having a go from time to time at influencing in the political sense.
We ca do that here too I hope.
Ben Stewart is head of Greenpeace media in the UK and he believes journalists who are ‘climate sceptics’ need to be afraid. Personally, I think he should be afraid.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/05/are_climate_alarmists_losing_t.html
Giss up to more tricks http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/31/giss-deletes-arctic-and-southern-ocean-sea-surface-temperature-data/#more-20082
Is denying certain thermometers a form of denialism?
Maybe there’s another term for the practice.
Schiller sprouts more utter denialist drivel ” They’re saying that satellite measurements indicate too much ice, because their models of ice show there’s a lot less ice” huh ? WTF?
As for Michaels his research associations and words speak for themselves – LOL !
Neville – read the now many independent reproductions of GISS temperature series – answer is actually worse upon review. – You utterly STUPID denialist dingbats!! Take a hike.
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2010/another-land-temp-reconstruction-joins-the-fray/
“The time has come,” the Walrus said,
“To talk of many things
Of shoes—and ships—and sealing-wax—
Of cabbages—and kings—
And why the sea is boiling hot—
And whether pigs have wings.”
Reading the comments on Luke’s link, lucia jumped in:
‘Steve McIntyre told me about the Nazi weather station during a conversation where we were challenging each other to come up with the few situations where bloggers can mention Nazi’s without it being an obvious attempt to smear anyone.’
A recent study found that ‘when sea ice retreated towards the end of the ice age, the returning surface winds switched the deep ocean currents back on, upwelling the stored carbon and mixing it into the atmosphere,’ said Dr Stewart Fallon (ANU).
http://www.sciencealert.com.au/news/20103105-21013.html
During the ice age carbon dioxide is absorbed by the cold oceans, until a warm pulse releases it back into the atmosphere. CO2 does not cause global warming.
Really silly El Gordo – why would CO2 cause global warming analogous to the current situation in that system, when the driver is insolation.?
I cannot believe that you lot are so stupid as to keep harping on this irrelevant model.
Ice age CO2 transitions are not the model. The PETM is !!!!
DeSmogBlog hoist by its own petard!
Doug Craig, over at Redding.com, posts “Three essential questions for the deniers”, which he credits to DeSmogBlog. [1]
The answers to these three questions, he asserts, will justify denying the accuracy or truthfulness of what certain persons say about CAGW.
The first two questions are rather limp-wristed appeals to elitism. Then there’s the third:
And the final question that few so called contrarian scientists can ever pass is the most telling:
3) Are they receiving (or have they ever accepted) funding from the fossil fuel industry?
Well, gosh. Now we have to toss all the data and conclusions from Hadley CRU because of that fossil fuel money. And the IPCC stuff built upon that ‘most telling’ corrupt stuff.
A good question to ask of CAGWers: if there’s “a consensus”, why can’t they keep their narrative straight?
Meanwhile, there’s actual news in the field of climatology. NASA has been caught peddling junk science warmist equations, which it knew as early as 1997 to be dangerously wrong. [2]
As it turns out, the Stefan-Boltzmann blackbody equation which underlies the CAGW madness was in 1997 discarded by NASA as it yielded clearly erroneous results, such as ‘global warming’ on the Moon — which has no atmosphere.
Once again, it is revealed that the ‘climatologists’ have their physics wrong, and that everything after that is chicanery and rhetoric.
———-
1. blogs.redding.com/dcraig/archives/2010/05/three-essential.html
2. canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/23800
One just has to laugh and laugh and laugh – Schiller thinks some right wing rant rag like Canada “Free” Press is source. Ho ho ho ! Pullease !
This is Schiller we’re talking about – elite physicist … ho ho ho …
You have to love this stuff “NASA Charged in New Climate Fakery: Greenhouse Gas Data Bogus” – NO THEY’RE NOT
Let’s just make up some shit – any old shit and see if we can make it stick. Let’s simply fabricate a headline. Anything to distract from the Arctic melt.
Where’s the “charge” Schiller ? The only charge is in your vibrating companion.
Luke,
Thank you for that deft clarification on the use of the Stefan-Boltzmann blackbody equation. Or was that about the credibility of Hadley ‘researchers’ funded by fossil fuel companies? If I’m to quote you, you need to be more explicit.
Luke,
I didn’t mention the Arctic, molten or otherwise, you are a very confused person.
Climatology is crumbling. Was it ever a science?
Wired Magazine [1] says it’s a PR failure. Really? Scaring the world into spending over 8 billion annually to discover Earth’s Heat Armageddon (when Hell comes to Earth and combusts everything), is that a PR failure?
Meanwhile, CAGWer Al Gore and his wife Tipper are separating after forty years. [2] Since living together has a smaller “carbon footprint” than living apart, Gore will of course fight this separation on the grounds of a “planetary emergency”. Doubtless the EPA will show up in court to stop this planet-smothering break-up. You know, how CO2 is “like a blanket” according to the IPCC.
Gotta wonder if she gets the house on the coast in the settlement. That house that Gore bought a few weeks ago in anticipation of being able to catch fish in his front pantry due to the forecast stupendous rise in ocean levels.
CAGW is collapsing into a charade. It’s good that we have Luke around, to make sure that everyone knows CAGW’s ultimate defense is poopy-mouth.
———-
1. http://www.wired.com/magazine/2010/05/st_essay_sciencepr/
2. http://www.helium.com/items/1849071-former-vp-al-gore-and-wife-tipper-separate-after-forty-years
Luke
From the beginning of the interglacial the warming took about 5000 years to complete. Significant warming began in the Antarctic and several hundred years later the warming caused the carbon dioxide (CO2) increase, mainly through ocean processes.
That seems straight forward and then ‘the Northern Hemisphere deglaciation follows the CO2 increase. Therefore, increases in CO2 contribute an amplification (positive feedback) throughout most of the warming.’
Is this the line your side is taking?
The “greenhouse radiation” description is a vast simplification of what GCMs actually use and is therefore incorrect. I look forward to Schiller’s critique of the codes used. The end !
El Gordo – the CO2 increase would factor into the warming in proportion to the insolation changes. So the greenhouse effect is also dependent on the solar input (which is varying dependent on the 3 Milankovitch orbital parameters). And the extent of the cyrosphere is also an albedo factor in radiation balance. So yes there would be some additional amplification. More relevant though is to observe what happened after a relatively short sharp addition of GHGs as occurred in the PETM. It’s rather obvious.
More importantly …
http://qcl.farmonline.com.au/news/nationalrural/agribusiness-and-general/general/worrying-climate-trends/1841180.aspx
“TWO climatic cycles at work in south-eastern Australia are showing worrying trends as global temperatures increase.
CSIRO’s Dr Wenju Cai said the Indian Ocean Dipole, the alternate warming and cooling across the Indian Ocean, is now markedly different from a century ago.
In a “dipole event”, winds push warm Indian Ocean water towards Africa so that cold water upwells near Indonesia, damping the sea-driven atmospheric convection that in other years can stream moist air down to eastern Australia to generate rainfall.
Only 2-3 dipole events were recorded every 30 years early in the 20th Century, Dr Cai said: in the past decade there have been five.
Eleven of the 16 major bushfires of south-eastern Australia since 1950, including the Victorian fires of 1983 and 2008, have been preceded by a dipole event.
Unfortunately for winter croppers, an IOD can only be confidently forecast in mid-June, after the winter planting is all but over.
“It would be good to find some precursor to give a longer lead time on predictions, and that is an important research topic we are engaging in,” Dr Cai said.
Another important factor in rainfall across all southern Australia, the Southern Annullar Mode (SAM), is also on an adverse trend.
SAM refers to the movement of a high pressure ridge that runs in a band across the lower half of Australia. The position of the ridge roughly determines the latitude of fronts moving west to east.
In summer, the ridge is further south, and forces rain-bearing fronts to spin over the Southern Ocean.
In winter, the ridge shifts north, historically allowing fronts to move over land and deliver southern Australia its once-reliable winter rainfall.
The pressure ridge sits on a specific temperature band, and shifts north and south with the band as the southern hemisphere warms and cools with the seasons.
But as the globe warms, Dr Cai said, the temperature band is trending south – and taking with it the influential high pressure ridge, and in turn the rain-bearing fronts, which are now more likely to move across ocean.
SAM is even harder to predict than the IOD, Dr Cai said, because SAM is purely atmospheric, “and the atmosphere has little memory”.
But Dr Cai said the recent IOD and SAM trends can be strongly linked to global warming.
Computer modelling indicates that the trends will become even more pronounced with further warming.
“
El Gordo,
Luke won’t answer you coherently, so I will.
In line with the stupendously accurate, peer-reviewed, unassailable findings of the worldwide consensus of thousands and thousands of scientists who all expressed their unanimous opinions in the IPCC documentation, which even passed muster with Greenpeace and the WWF, who understand Gaia better than anyone at all, the lung-busting pollutant greenhouse-gas CO2 is like totally and majorly implicated, linked with, correlated with, and associated with, all of the alarming, major, unparalleled, unprecedented, and frightening collapse into oblivion of the world’s climate, which all experts, scientists, and observers agree is happening before our very eyes.
hehe. right.
Luke says,
“Computer modelling indicates”
Amazing. You can also get a computer model that proves the Zaxons will conquer the Klingons, form a treaty with The Federation, and thereby subdue the Farengi.
Being a so-called denialist, I think the Klingons will do a deal with the Federation, blow the Zaxons away, and marginalize the Farengi.
If I were a railroad engineer, I’d know for sure. Those guys are really smart and know their computer stuff.
It may well be a symptom of the Dunning-Kruger Effect, which concerns me greatly because its so intrenched.
http://cred.columbia.edu/guide/guide/principles.html
The ABC today is running a BBC story that melting ice is making Mt Everest climbs dangerous. http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/06/02/2915724.htm?section=justin
The BBC story copies and pastes the following statement from a December 2009 BBC report on the Nepalese cabinet meeting held on Mt Everest to highlight climate Change: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8394452.stm
The copy and pasted claim is “Studies show temperatures rising faster there than in the rest of South Asia.”
Now here is the challenge can the ABC, BBC or any of the expert bloggers on this site provide details of these studies, or are they projections or the submissions of various lobby groups to the United Nations.
Or will we need to wait until Anthony Watts arrives in Australia for his major speaking tour to explain this claimed increase.
Things are looking up, Jo Nova gets a mention in parliament from some gutless spiv and layabout. Good column from Jo http://joannenova.com.au/2010/06/high-praise-im-insulted-in-parliament/#more-8811
Antarctic drillers found a lot of black soot around the time of the MWP.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704655004575114010457906340.html?mod=wsj_india_main
Interesting article about WW2 bombers and Greenland ice.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/WWII-plane-recovered-in-Greenland/2007/06/23/1182019412243.html
Well Schiller – simply tell us how you would YOURSELF untangle the attribution of multiple forcings on a climate system. What would you recommend for attribution studies. Just two paras will do. Shouldn’t be hard for you. Lack of an answer will tell me all I need to know.
neville from your jonova link we get a link to what is described as outright fraud by gavin schimdt …or how incompetent his scientific understanding actually is!
http://climaterealists.com/attachments/database/GreenhouseGasTheoryDiscredited.pdf
“Schmidt wrote that he and his colleagues took the Stefan-Boltzmann blackbody numbers and multiplied them by an additional factor of two to devise NASA’s official Earth energy budget. But why multiply by two? Schmidt explains:
“The factor of two for A (the radiation emitted from the atmosphere) comes in because the atmosphere radiates both up and down.” – Gavin Schmidt (Real Climate, April 10, 2007)
It is Schmidt’s lunatic “up and down” elaboration on Stefan-Boltzmann’s numbers that Siddons proves contradicts the laws of physics. Gases do not radiate “up and down”- their radiation is isotropic, meaning the intensity is equal in all directions-not just ‘up and down’ as Schmidt describes.
Thus multiplying CO2 by a factor of two is at the very least junk science, or worse: criminal fraud.
Pointedly, Schmidt soon entered the dark side by appearing to cover up his gaffe. Within a month he
snuffed out all debate by closing the comments thread on his heavily censored website.”
So the hole bloody lot is based on crap science…just like most of have recognised for a long time.
AND yes i know Luke will scoff and say what rubbish, but the article is pretty clear that the models rely on 2 dimensional flat body numbers and it seems to be well acknowledged that the models rely on oversimplification.
Dr. Judith Curry who responded, “Everybody would agree that the
simple black body planetary energy balance model is a drastic oversimplification, it is used only for illustrative purposes.”
but as seems apparent NASA does have a 3 dimensional model that is more realistic…but since it does create scary scenarios is of no use for political/ environmental agendas!!
“The ‘Moon Paper’ spectacularly reveals that Apollo mission scientists devised a three-dimensional
model for accurately determining Earth’s energy budget far more practicable than the rudimentary
flat blackbody numbers of Stefan-Boltzmann. But those numbers contradicted any greenhouse
warming effect and have thus been ignored by global warming tax advocates.”
it wil be very interesting to see how “climate scientists” get treated over the next few years……
tha fact that organisations like the royal society are admitting to uncertainty implies those pushing the agenda are begining to question their own dogma…and possibly becoming concerned about legal and professional liability.
sorry one of my sentences above is missing a “not”…but as seems apparent NASA does have a 3 dimensional model that is more realistic…but since it does (NOT) create scary scenarios is of no use for political/ environmental agendas!!
Toby – it’s utter utter rot ! It’s now how GCMs calculate radiation anyway. Are you that gullible to astroturfing matey?
It’s pure fabricated nonsense, and why I hold denialists in utter contempt.
Just think about this for 2 seconds “Gases do not radiate “up and down”- their radiation is isotropic, meaning the intensity is equal in all directions-not just ‘up and down’ as Schmidt describes.” ummmm for and sphere around any molecule – that means on a probabilistic basis half would in the upwards direction and the other half down down. Sheesh !! Do you guys ever think?
Luke, on the surface what you say appears true ( i did consider exactly that as you put it), which is why i assume schmidt used it, but the point is it is a massive oversimplification and placing it into his “equation” as such creates just what he wants and /or expects to see…..but is it neccersary to put it in at all?
why wouldnt they use the 3 dimensional model designed for the moon trips if they are able to more reliably explain what happens?
i am happy to admit that my bias favours sceptical material, but the pro warming material predominantly relies on likely, probable, could be, can not be explained by anything else….. etc.
When i hear that there is a 3 d model that appears to work and yet it is discarded my alarm bells ring.
you can argue ( and would be right) that i should find out more about the 3-d model…but where do i go? i do not trust realclimate etc to even tell me if its raining outside!
“but the pro warming material predominantly relies on likely, probable, could be, can not be explained by anything else….. ” WRONG !
Maybe real GCM radiation might have a bit in them …
http://www.cawcr.gov.au/publications/technicalreports/CTR_009.pdf
Perhaps there might a whole community of radiation physicists out there? Gee eh?
Yes Luke – there were a “whole community of radiation physicists out there? Gee eh?” in 2008.
Have you noticed it’s now 2010?
Well shucks John – that’s a major point. I honestly hadn’t thought of that. Gee.
Hey Toby – you really have come down in the last shower. You are actually uncritically being led by the nose. “When I hear that there is a 3 d model that appears to work and yet it is discarded my alarm bells ring.” – who says it was “discarded” – some right wing extremist denialist creep writing bullshit filler for the shit stir value. Schiller does it all the time – pick any outrageous comment and pass it off as authoritative source. Geez you’re gullible.
And the fact that you’re too lazy to make a reasonable attempt to educate yourself is really telling. So let’s not beat around the bush eh? You simply discard any information that’s informative.
Unimpressed matey.
cinders “here is the challenge can the ABC, BBC or any of the expert bloggers on this site provide details of these studies, or are they projections or the submissions of various lobby groups to the United Nations”
G’day mate, again!
Hey; lets have a go with some results from a simple google – Mt Everest climate change 2010 and say there is one guy who truly knows watts up cause he has been right up there on a few occasions
http://www.theuiaa.org/news_243_New-Everest-record-and-climate-change–Nepal-newsletter
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2010/05/sherpa-warns-mount-everest-changing-from-global-warming.html
and so on with variations from the horse’s mouth.
It seems they do have a problem at that altitude with out the ice
In case someone missed it, we had an add from Google on the previous page seeking comments for ” A survey on Housing and Sea Level Rise”
http://www.cse.csiro.au/forms/form-survey-sea-level.aspx?gclid=CMr4jrug_qECFYEtpAodZUeEEw
why should we bother?
Gavin – so this is your Sherpa:
“Apa Sherpa, SAARC Goodwill Ambassador for Climate Change carried the Nepal Tourism Year 2011 Campaign flag and WWF banner with the slogan “YOU HEARD OUR VOICE, NOW RAISE YOURS – WE CAN STOP CLIMATE CHANGE IN THE HIMALAYAS” to the summit of Mt. Everest to draw international attention for Nepal Tourism Year 2011 Campaign and Global Warming and Climate Change. Eco Everest Expedition 2010 is led by two time Everest summiteers, Dawa Steven Sherpa, a passionate advocate of climate change issues. Dawa Steven is the Managing Director of Asian Trekking (P) Ltd. and also a WWF Climate for Life Ambassador.
Having suffered personal loss of home and property during the Dig Tsho Glacial Lake Outburst Flood (GLOF) on 3 August 1985, a direct result of the melting of himalayan glaciers, he has been active in raising awareness about the impacts of climate change on the fragile mountain environment and the mountain communities”
According to Wiki a Glacial Lake Outburst Flood (GLOF) can happen due to erosion, a buildup of water pressure, an avalanche of rock or heavy snow, an earthquake or cryoseism, volcanic eruptions under the ice, or if a large enough portion of a glacier breaks off and massively displaces the waters in a glacial lake at its base.
I notice it doesn’t mention Climate Change.
Luke,
You totally flubbed the counter-argument about how CO2 molecules radiate “up and down”.
The argument relies on the notion of horizontally bisecting a sphere of radiation. If you bisect the sphere vertically instead, then 100 percent of CO2 radiation is emitted horizontally, which proves conclusively how the molecule “traps heat in a smothering blanket of pollution”.
I bet someone would give me a really big grant to promote the theory of ‘sideways radiation’. The model yields the expected result, so of course it has to be correct.
LOL doing climatology isn’t all that difficult…
“Climate science needs professional help to rebuild its reputation.” [1] Maybe they could do it with lawyers — basically, sue the skeptics until they shut up. [2]
But don’t skeptics get to use the “academic freedom” argument? There are some who believe a warmist with a Ph.D. has a license to commit fraud. [3]
———
1. ” How climate scientists can repair their reputation”, New Scientist, 02 June 2010 ,
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20627624.700-how-climate-scientists-can-repair-their-reputation.html
2. “Climate Scientist Strikes Back: Libel, Canada, and the Meaning of Weaver vs. National Post”, Yale Forum on Climate Change, May 27, 2010 ,
http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/2010/05/climate-scientist-strikes-back-libel-canadaand-the-meaning-of-weaver-vs-national-post/
3. “Jefferson v. Cuccinelli Does the Constitution really protect a right to ‘academic freedom’?”, Slate, June 1, 2010,
http://www.slate.com/id/2253938/
Schiller – so stupid it defies comment.l
” If you bisect the sphere vertically instead”
HHhahahhahahahahahahahaahahhaahahahahahhahah
go on guys defend him – this will be fun to watch…… Schiller has discovered geometry and physics in the one day – no wonder denialists are regarded as fuckwits
BTW – I see that given you’re gutless you have ducked the opportunity to write a few paras as I asked above. You gutless wonder.
Luke,
You just don’t get it. Your horizontally-divided “up and down” model of isotropic radiation is just as arbitrary and meaningless as my humorously postulated “sideways” model of radiation. But it’s my bad — I keep forgetting that you people lack both curiosity and a sense of humor.
As for your challenge that I “untangle the attribution of multiple forcings on a climate system”, I decline, for several reasons.
To date, all attributions have been political, not scientific, decisions. The political decisions have been amply demonstrated, while the scientific evidence is so thin as to be inconsequential.
Forcings, multiple and otherwise, are figments of the modelers’ imaginations. Some things claimed to be ‘forcings’ may actually be part of negative feedbacks.
‘Untangling’ these is a fruitless exercise, unless you’re taking in the Big Money, in which case you can cash in on untangling, or on tangling, it all pays the same as long as you come up with warmism.
You know, Luke, sometimes the null hypothesis is accurate. In fact, it prevails most of the time, and climatology is by no means unique in that respect.
Luke
Looking back at the PETM (55.8 million years BP) I can see why you’re worried, it was the most abrupt perturbation to the carbon cycle over the last 65 million years.
Unfortunately, drawing conclusions that now is similar to then will only attract derisive criticism from the rank and file. Do you have any other examples closer to home?
The sinking island ‘thingy’ was opportunistic and overblown.
http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/nz-research-shows-pacific-islands-not-shrinking-3577883
el gordo,
More SLR and disappearing shorelines here:
http://www.bing.com/?cc=au
Gavin, thanks for your help, but whilst a first hand account in a newsletter is interesting, it can be open to interpretation as John points out, a personal view may not cooincide with reasons indentified by a scientific study.
The BBC report also quoted the Sherpas, but also said “Studies show temperatures rising faster there than in the rest of South Asia”
I was after the details of these studies. A google search of this quote only brings up media reports and web sites that have copied the “news’.
Surely it should be incumbent on the media , in this case the ABC, to check.
As I said, I might have to wait and ask Anthony Watts, his tour dates can be found at
http://www.climatesceptics.com.au/watts.html
Loopyluke,
Give us a quick couple of paras of how you would program your climate models with radiative energy flux.
http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/EnviroPhilo/FunctionOfMass.pdf
And don’t let the fact that it’s an E&E publication put you off your stride.
Jelbring is a Swedish climatologist. He says above that it is the WHOLE atmosphere that determines warming, not just the tiny and trivial CO2 fraction. Note as an aside that Mars has 15x higher level of that wonderful CO2 in its atmosphere than we do yet it shows no sign of a “greenhouse effect”. But Mars has a very thin atmosphere. So then it follows that the “greenhouse effect” on earth is just a result of its bulk atmosphere, mainly nitrogen and oxygen — as Jelbring points out.
“Surely it should be incumbent on the media , in this case the ABC, to check.”
cinders,
Ya mean, like “our” ABC usually do?
Schiller you’d would love the statement that our head of treasury ken henry made recently about the new super resource rent tax the govt is going to impose on miners in oz. he basically said the models have shown that a 70-80% super profits tax ( deemed any profit above the long term bond rate!) would have no impact on future investment decisions. It must be right because thats what his model s say! How fu…n stupid are these fools who live in acedemia and govt departments. They have no grasp of the real world so they have no common sense.
he was even pushed further and asked what happens at 100% and his reply was that at 95% in Norway they still attracted investment so it would have no effect here either.
And these guys are advising our dopey politicians.
And it looks like they will be doing a lot less with a lot more in the future.
http://abcnewswatch.blogspot.com/2010/06/abc-news-productivity-survey-models.html
Spangled,
Did you notice that the IPCC has declared nitrogen and oxygen are *not* greenhouse gases?
Yup, yup.
Take a sealed container filled with nitrogen and oxygen and apply as much heat as you want, and they won’t do anything at all. These elements are completely unable to retain heat!
Wow! These people have the physics down to … (drum roll) a science!
Of course, this explains why CO2 is the ‘magical molecule’ and, indirectly, well, maybe, where all the ‘missing heat’ went that Trenberth complains about.
Here’s an appetizing notion: it’s ‘dark energy’, the counterpart to ‘dark matter’. Luke will like that one.
Toby,
Here’s how things work in the real world.
If you’re the government, you have a license to steal.
If you’re a warmist with a Ph.D., you can’t steal, but fraud is encouraged. That’s because the fraud justifies the license to steal.
Quite elementary.
Meanwhile, I really like the ‘horizontal radiation’ variation on the ‘vertical radiation’ model posed by Luke. I think I should patent it. I bet I could get some really big grant money.
Luke the scary scenarios DO rely on models, otherwise a doubling of co2 causes a rather pleasant increase in temp and since only an idiot thinks colder is better than a mild temp increase, excuse me for being a sceptic!
the onus is on warmers ( those who think we will see much more thana 1 degree temp increae rom a doubling of co2) to prove their case and they cant, they have been caught lying, exagerating and when i hear they have avoided using a 3-d model rather than an oversimplified 2-d model i am far from surpised. And you seem happy to rely on the oversimplication in “up and down”.
luke i looked at your link and ive no doubt they believe everything they say ( im not smart enough to debate it and happy to admit that)…but do you really think the models actually work and should be relied on? they do not work in economics and thats much simpler. they do not work in finance ( as predictors) and thats much simpler. Just because a model is able to give you an answer you expect to see does not in way act as a proof for that model.
climate scientists that have been pushing this boat so vocally ( not the ones quietly getting on with it who in many instances do not buy into the scary scenarios) have lost the trust of many people and they only have themselves to blame because those who believe we are causing an increase, buts its unlikely to be catastrophic, should be more vocal in shouting down the nutters…and they dont!…generally speaking….buts it is interesting that they are potentially becoming more outspoken because the physics society and the royal society have all recently made statements suggesting that all is not so cut and dried…why didnt they say that before climate scientists were caught out in the climate gate scandals and all the other “gates”?
But my biggest gripe is with the politics of this issue. Many scientists have become political activists and the governments of the world are using it for political purposes as well.
They believe yet they build desal plants and refuse to build dams to save the fish/ bird/ frog/……..
From my part, i believe the planet has warmed.
I believe there is abundant evidence to make it highly probable it has been warmer in our recent past.
the evidence provided merely supports that the planet has warmed not that it can be “proved” in any likelhood that its human related on anything other than a local or regional scale. ( although as i said the science suggesting a doubling of co2 causes roughly a 1c temp change is probably correct)
There is sweet FA we can do about it currently without new technology and everything being suggested, has far greater costs than the associated benefits will bring.
I do not believe in the precautionary principle when the options provided create huge costs and few benefits.
The agenda relies on people ( like many of my friends) who make no effort to investigate at all the gross exagerations and then say ” well I am all for looking after the environment so it cant do any harm!!!”
WHO THE HELL doesnt want to look after the environment?!….its just sceptics care about humans as well and recognise that nothing currently available will reduce co2 emissions even if its required.
AND the biggest furphy that gets my goat and makes me biased is the frequent resorts to ad homs and “follow the money trail” from believers.
the industries and businesses in support invariably are looking for funding or will make a mottsa trading carbon credits or the latest gimmick for solving the worlds problems…as for the politicians and government departments well ……………no more needs to be said!
Scientists like jo nova make no mony out of this and yet are vocal in their sceptiscm. Why? because they honestly believe we are being sold a crock of shit.
Yes Schiller I did like your sideways idea and ive no doubt you could apply to any number of governments for substantial funding. maybe we can work on it together!?
Nice one SD!
Toby,
Let’s call our study “Orientation of the bisection of the spherical emissivity of the molecule implicated by multinational and transnational bodies in the interpretation of political failures to prevent the accumulation of lung-busting carbon pollution.”
Schiller 8:31am – what a utter drongo – a collection of the more dumbest ever denialist silliness.
I just loved this “Did you notice that the IPCC has declared nitrogen and oxygen are *not* greenhouse gases?” Schiller for president ! What a loon. You are the dumbest dumb bum ever. Go on troops mount a defence !!
Toby – “rather pleasant increase in temp and since only an idiot thinks colder is better than a mild temp increase, excuse me for being a sceptic!” – Toby you’ve learned almost nothing have you. The mean temperature increase isn’t the worry ! It’s the massive short sharp change to ecosystems, circulation patterns and climate extremes. BASED ON – what you ALREADY have now as climate variability. What an amazing silly argument.
“. And you seem happy to rely on the oversimplication in “up and down”.” gee Toby – mate this is rocket science – pick a point above your head – imagine it could emit a photon randomly in ANY direction – spherically around it – do you with your Einsteinian intellect think about 50% might be broadly upwards and I wonder where the other 50% would go !! Gee eh?
“to prove their case and they cant, they have been caught lying, exagerating and when i hear they have avoided using a 3-d model rather than an oversimplified 2-d model i am far from surpised. ” – are you like a dog returning to its vomit. I have just told you it isn’t what is being used and you having your chain pulled by a bullshit story. For heavens sake matey !!
And how exactly have they been caught lying?? Fark !
And so you believe that the planet has warmed spontaneously without a solar driver and the radiative physics is “too hard” for you ….. mmmmmmm….
Better divine some chicken entrails then.
Hey look Schiller- it’s a greenie commie leftist warmist plot – “new” greenhouse satanic gases ….. oooooo …..oooooo http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/06/03/2916904.htm?
Wouldn’t it be better if we didn’t know eh?
And look Toby – TOTAL PROOF of climate change. Tornadoes in Australia ! It’s the end I tell you – repent now ! http://www.smh.com.au/environment/waterspout-wrecks-homes-in-nsw-town-as-storm-hits-hard-20100603-x0fy.html
If someone hadn’t mentioned the word “waterspout” [which are very common in the Tasman and stuffed you alarmists up completely] I’ll bet you and the MSM would be claiming exactly that!
Luke
The SMH and ABC are warmist networks, so we are not alarmed or surprised. ‘Mr Palmer said spouts were not uncommon for this time of year and were one of the hardest things to predict.’
Time to have a look at the history of sea spouts off the east coast. As for the CO2 story, it’s nothing we didn’t already know. Carbon dioxide will continue to rise even as the planet cools.
Luke
It is abundantly clear that we will always go around in circles because things you say i do not agree with…what fkin rapid change?!the rate of change is simalar to many we have had in teh past…ntg you have ever shown disproves this
and i agree the fact you dont think they have been caught lying/fiddling is indeed worth a faaaaark………. have you learnt ntg from this blog?
i guess thats why there is a market! for every buyer there is a seller , one thinks it goes up one thinks it goes down.
yeah nice one about the tornado……
“to prove their case and they cant, they have been caught lying, exagerating and when i hear they have avoided using a 3-d model rather than an oversimplified 2-d model i am far from surpised. ” – are you like a dog returning to its vomit. I have just told you it isn’t what is being used and you having your chain pulled by a bullshit story. For heavens sake matey !!…you may well be right there Luke its not what they use, but my point is it would not surpise me if they did…as a believer ( not meant rudely) i can understand how frustrating that must be, i am continually frustrated when i can t persuade people about issues ( such as how crap this government of ours is at doing anything!..or people that blindly say how good the liberals would be…but most of all anybody who would vote green or give money to greenpeace, wwf etc)
“And so you believe that the planet has warmed spontaneously without a solar driver and the radiative physics is “too hard” for you ….. mmmmmmm….”..as if..there must be an explanation i am just not naive enough to think it is all because of co2, nor am i naive enough to think humans really do understand the intricacies of what does drive climate!?
We can safely say that some contrarian water spouts were out and about before global warming kicked-in.
16 May 1898, Eden, New South Wales, Australia: At least 20 waterspouts are spawned by a huge cumulonimbus cloud off Eden. The first was “as straight as a shaft, and was estimated to be thirty times as high as a clipper ship, say 5,000 feet,” according to D.R. Crichton, a mining engineer.
Joseph Banks also remarked on the large number of water spouts in the Tasman and as Luke well knows – that makes it pre-industrial.
It’s not an isostatic uplift, but it’s still an uplift.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/06/03/2916873.htm?section=justin
Just pulling your chain guys.
Toby Toby Toby
So we know CO2 is a greenhouse gas. In the laboratory you can observe it absorbing infra-red radiation. So you think you can change the radiation balance of the atmosphere and the energy just “disappears” ! So much for physics – don’t get in your car. It’s magic.
As for you morphing the 3D story into how crap are govt is. Irrelevant as a science argument dear boy.
“caught lying/fiddling” they have? I must have missed among all the sceptic lies.
Oh luke luke luke,
we are destined to disagree i fear, you misinterpret much of what i write and your argmuments seldom persuade me to your certainty about AGW.
your use of a lab expirement with super high quantities of co2 convinces me of ntg. I accept a doubling of co2 will cause about a 1c increase…but do not consider likely the positive feedback effects you rely on for everything else.
Your analogy with a car and physics is silly , i do not need to know how a car works, only how to drive it.
i did not morph 3’d models into crap govt, i was merely emphathasing with your inability to convince me about the merits of models. What i meant was i am so sceptial of what is said by so many agw proponents that it would not surpise me if a better model was available but was being hidden. my bullshit meter is set by my bias, just like yours is.
i liked your wit with the tornado and knew you were throwing in a red herring.
now sleep well and rest assured that things are seldom as bad as they seem and usually much better. Humans are ingenius and any problems thrown our way ( other than those created by idiot govt and central banks..ie ponzi money) are likely to be solved when a real need comes along.
Luke finally sums up his work perfectly:
“Just pulling your chain guys.”
Luke,
Let’s take a look at your position regarding “imagine it [a CO2 molecule] could emit a photon randomly in ANY direction – spherically around it”. Let’s extend this a bit to include what that randomly-emitted photon would intersect. With nitrogen at about 78 percent, and O2 at about 20 percent, the odds are 98 percent that it will intersect with what the IPCC says is *not* a greenhouse gas.
N and O2 are much better at losing heat than CO2, and their predominance, coupled with the second law of thermodynamics, ensures that CO2 cannot work like the “blanket” which the IPCC says it is. 98 percent of heat exchange involving CO2 will be with “cooling” gases, and any back-radiation from these gases to the CO2 molecules will be be proportional to the predominance of CO2, or roughly 0.03 – 0.04 percent.
This means, of course, that if humans accounted for *all* CO2 in the atmosphere, and CO2 is mainly responsible for global warming, that means that humans are responsible for about 0.3 – 0.4 percent of global warming physically attributable to the proportion of gases. This does not take into account alleged ‘positive feedbacks’, but you can easily see that it takes a massive multiplier to make human CO2 emissions a “catastrophe”, even with the overblown assumption that all CO2 is human CO2.
So, Luke, you see that your point about random emissions within a sphere do not result in CAGW and therefore must be false. You should actually consider adopting the model using the vertically-bisected sphere with all radiation going horizontally: depending on your preferred plane, it would be, for instance, 50 percent going North and the other half going South.
The disappearing Arctic ice.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/pips_anim.gif?w=450&h=450&h=450
Notice the trend is opposite to the atmospheric CO2 trend. In the physical sciences, causation leads to correlation. Therefore, climatology is not a physical science. Quod erat demonstratum.
About 80 percent of the islands appear to be growing, according to the ABC.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/06/03/2916873.htm?section=justin
Ahhh… that’s news to me, but why am I not surprised?
Excuse the post above, meant to drop it off at Watts but had a brain fade. Just ignore.
Less sunspots equals more hurricanes. Don’t know, but it has promise.
http://opinion.financialpost.com/2010/06/01/sunspots-may-predict-hurricanes-as-well-as-global-warming-and-coooling/
El Gordo,
This is surely bad news. The expansion of islands will certainly do something very, very bad. Maybe even ‘catastrophic’!
As we well know from the CAGW brigade, all change is evil, bad, and wrong.
“N and O2 are much better at losing heat than CO2, and their predominance, coupled with the second law of thermodynamics, ensures that CO2 cannot work like the “blanket” which the IPCC says it is. 98 percent of heat exchange involving CO2 will be with “cooling” gases, and any back-radiation from these gases to the CO2 molecules will be be proportional to the predominance of CO2, or roughly 0.03 – 0.04 percent.. ”
IDIOTIC ! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAHAHHASHAAHHAHAHHAHHAHAHAHAAH
Back to school doofus !
You clown – you can go into your backyard and measure the backradiation with a pyrgeometer. But Schiller tells us it’s not there – how can this be?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH You’re a dickhead ! Look up (giggle snort – laughing fit) – dipole moment
And and and – guess what Schillsy – the back radiation is there at night too – keeping ya warm.
ROTFL !!!!!!!!!!!!!
Come on guys – come to Schillers defence – I haven’t heard any defence so far…. chicken?
“The disappearing Arctic ice.” Watts is shitting himself (as all denialist filth are) — he’ll be grilled on this and his other crap on his Aussie tour – we have a whole reception committee for him with video recording at every venue except Emerald. It’s gonna be a rout.
Luke,
The notion that the CO2 molecule is sensitive to local gravitation and preferentially emits/absorbs IR along a vertical axis has long been discredited.
Either you’re pulling our leg again, or you’re serious. Either way, you’re not advancing your political position very well.
At some point, your paymasters will notice your self-contradictory incoherence and you’ll have to go back to pulling weeds on the organic farm for room and board.
So much for luke’s melting ice and sea level rise, even their abc are starting to bark the truth about Tuvalu, Kiribati, Micronesia etc.
Anyhow here’s the Bolta’s accurate and factual take on the gore idiocy and dopenhagen chirade/ con on behalf of these island groups.
I mean the young Darwin worked this out 150+ years ago on his voyage of discovery, it isn’t new stuff except to the dumb lying al.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/column_more_to_tuvalu_than_the_alarmists_claimed/
“The notion that the CO2 molecule is sensitive to local gravitation and preferentially emits/absorbs IR along a vertical axis has long been discredited. ”
“Local gravitation” – wow ! A new phenomenon. Your knowledge of physics is sure impressive.
But ignoring the details – Really Schiller – I must have missed that Nobel prize winning paper on CO2 absorption being discredited. Do you have a physics journal reference that overturned all those 1000s of papers on spectroscopy? Must be an amazing paper.
Or would you be just making stuff up ?
Neville – why would your expect to see anything at this point? totally irrelevant analysis.
Guys; about those Pacific islands.
I listened to the ABC interview on Radio National and reckon their expert (source) was only referring to an island selection where waves and winds could easily deposit beach debris over their middle as they went under from time to time.
Oh Com’on Luke – for Christ’s sake will you let up? You act like you are the authority on the subject yet fail to acknowledge that it is constantly pointed out you have no clothes.
Day after day your religion is shattered by empirical evidence yet you come here and vent your frustration by attacking all the posters.
Please go away – you are not welcome – you aren’t even relevant.
You are just wasting Jen’s expensive data space. Have you contributed to the tip jar recently?
In about six months the results from the latest NGRIP ice core will be revealed and I suspect it will be a shocker. The Eemian was warmer than the Holocene and a lot more stable, except for the final 2000 years.
Looking back 115,000 years it’s easy to make imaginative comparisons with the present, but we will have to wait a little longer for the high resolution.
Professor James White, principal investigator for the international NGRIP effort, had already discovered a lot from the previous ice core. Just prior to the slide from the Eemian into a glacial period, there is evidence temperatures jumped quickly in just 50 years. “This is one of those classic, abrupt changes we have seen before in Greenland ice core records, where temperatures can shift dramatically in less than a human lifetime.”
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?id=25353
I don’t know where carbon dioxide was at the time, or the mechanisms involved in this climate shift, but solar influence is bound to be involved.
O/T Luke is a resident troll and should be treated with all due respect, befitting his rank.
Oh come on yourself John – the Earth has warmed – no solar driver. Well known CO2 radiative physics (unless – giggle – Schiller shows us his Nobel prize winning breakthrough), Arctic melting, Antarctic glaciers accelerating, species galore showing changes in phenology, circulation systems changing that cannot be explained by anything other than a change in forcing which comes from pixies in your garden.
And you have the temerity to talk about empirical evidence you denialist dweeb.
Rack orf yourself John.
Hey didn’t you do the nana and throw in the towel – so why are you back?
The sooner we lock up denialist criminals the better. We could round them up and put them in a climate gulag for retraining in not telling lies.
BTW I’ve contributed to Jen’s tip jar – have you?
Flukeyluke,
Run some of those phenology and forcing changes past us again that tell us beyond any doubt that it is all our fault.
But be sure to make it more convincing than “a natural recovery from the LIA”.
Natural global warming is evident in the CET.
http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c012876f1e223970c-pi
The point about abrupt climate change, within 50 years it fell about 3.5 C degrees.
luke, backradiation is irrelevant; the important thing is how the heat leaves the surface: The NET [ie less backradiation] fluxes from the Surface are:
a. Direct Radiation “through the window” to Space. According to Kiehl&Trenberth this is 40W/m^2.
b. Fluxes into the Atmosphere:
(1) Evaporated Water Vapour, 78W/m^2
(2) NET Radiation, 26W/m^2
(3) Conduction, 24W/m^2
[Numbers are from Kiehl &Trenberth, 1997. See IPCC, AR4, WG1, Chapter 1.]
The items at b are all converted to sensible heat, at various heights in the atmosphere, and are ALL then convected. For Conduction, we know this is at the bottom of the column. For Radiation, this is also very close to the ground, probably the majority of radiation is absorbed by 25m altitude (if you doubt this, check out the absorption tables for CO2). For Evaporated water vapour the injection of heat into the atmosphere is more spread out, and probably most of this heat enters the atmosphere literally in the clouds.
It doesn’t matter about the small amount of back radiation because heat transfer from the surface and within the atmosphere by radiation is tiny compared to the other methods.
And I think you said there was no solar driver to the recent warming, that is before 1998;
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/13/scafetta-paper-increasing-tsi-between-1980-and-2000-could-have-contributed-significantly-to-global-warming-during-the-last-three-decades/#more-6194
http://landshape.org/enm/celestial-origins-of-climate-oscillations/
Luke,
Local gravitation is common in this universe. For example, Earth has its gravity well, Mars has its own, etc. So it would be ridiculous to claim that Mars’ gravity determines the orientation of CO2 molecules on Earth.
Luke, I need a citation for the claim that Earth’s gravity orients CO2 molecules in such a way as to make its emissions primarily vertical. Since as you say there are thousands of such papers, finding one should be easy for you.
Luke, WRT N2 and O2 you are of course correct(sorry Schiller) neither have a dipole moment and so are transparent to IR. There is one thing that has bothered me for some time however and I would appreciate it if you could clarify this for me.
When a CO2 molecule absorbs an IR photon, the extra energy is converted into an increase in rotational and vibrational energy which is kinetic. If that energy isn’t transferred to another molecule kinetically, then at some point the CO2 will return to its previous state by re-emitting the same frequency IR photon. Now much like a microwave oven does a similar thing to water molecules and they transfer the kinetic energy to the surrounding food, what is the likelyhood of CO2 molecules doing likewise to the surrounding N2/O2 atmosphere before they had a chance to re-emit? This would be a form of conductive heat transfer and be somewhat localised or short range. Note also that if a CO2 molecule has ANY contact with another gas molecule, it would lose kinetic energy and no longer be able to re-emit.
Please note that these are all musings that I don’t have the answer to and would appreciate a serious response.
Ah yes Spanglers – the old denialist ruses
(1) there’s no evidence anything is happening – which morphs into “well OK something might be happening”
(2) well if something is happening we’ve been here before – so you then invoke the “earth is recovering from a cold” ruse – the most noxious non-scientific statement – it’s just bouncing back after the flu – why – well who cares why – it just is – OK?
(3)that looking dodgy we address the old “it’s been warmer before” ruse – invoke images of cathedrals in Europe – but ssshh sssh don’t mention the horrid mega-droughts
(4) and if it has been warmer before – well it’s always been something else – but sssh sssh – don’t the war – errr I mean PETM – so one invokes the exclusivity story – that the world can ONLY ever warm for one reason – the Sun (unless of course it’s galactic rays, Jupiter, subterranean volcanic warming – go wild at this point and shoot up fellow sceptics ideas)
SO …
Even if the whole story if tight as a drum – it just can’t be
AND
This why you’re a denialist. There would NEVER be enough proof.
The old goal post moving trick.
Drivel Cohenite – the back radiation is there – measurable and what one would expect. Schiller denies it exists ! HE DENIES IT EXISTS ! That’s the point.
Rampant stupid denialism at the highest level of goonery.
And yes Schiller the ladies will be along with your medication soon – that local gravitation sure is impressive. Off you go quietly now. Don’t disturb the other patients. And sorry Derek has just told you that you’re an idiot too. He didn’t mean to.
Luke, Derek,
I don’t deny back-radiation — I simply deny that it works the way Luke insists it does. The CO2 molecule most definitely does not preferentially emit in a “downward” direction. Instead, it emits and absorbs in all directions. Furthermore, in a closed system, it will act like all other molecules — it will emit and absorb at the same rate. It will not preferentially “hold heat to itself” because, if it did, adding CO2 to a closed system would induce cooling which is of course absurd.
Since N and O2 are essentially translucent for IR at atmospheric pressures, and constitute 98 percent of the atmosphere, photons emitted by CO2 in IR will only be re-absorbed by CO2 to the extent that CO2 is a component of the atmosphere — 0.04 percent at the high end. The rest is radiated out to space. What is absorbed by the surface of the Earth — the main element in Solar energy — is similarly radiated out to space according to what one would expect of the 2d law of thermodynamics and the prevalence of N and O2. Of course this has to be adjusted for the effects of water vapor, but that’s another discussion. Without something such as water vapor intervening in this picture, 98 percent of IR is lost to space and only 0.04 of that IR will be intercepted by CO2 along the way.
The CO2 molecule has no “verticality”, there is no “smothering blanket of carbon”, and, to the extent that it accomplishes ‘back-radiation’ of IR, it is not a significant quantity.
By the way, Luke, is it Newton or Einstein, or both, which causes you to reject the laws of gravity?
Hey Guys; be careful with you rhetoric in these discussions around the physics associated with radiation and gasses. Also from a practical point of view, it’s not necessary to have such a detailed knowledge of the actual transfer mechanisms to understand and accept some more general concepts.
More finger on the pulse.
I hope nobody doubts that we can get a hot ear while using a mobile phone or the battery goes flat in the process. You see; although “Radiation” is a very broad term it’s definitely not to be confused with “Gravity” or “Gaia” for that matter as they are both very different concepts. Note too, we have to find another hole for “Magnetism” once we get onto electrical fields.
All can have a role in our notion of transducers and most other things under the Sun. Recall too; much of what we see is only an illusion that gets more real with practice.
Regarding models, a lot of accepted science begins with examining thin slices. Hey; a thin slice of toe can tell us something about the composition of you head. After all, how do you normally test the water? Unfortunately that same toe is not much good at anything associated with using modern complications like the mobile phone or the pc.
So here is the rub, our latest devices are merely adaptations from bits of science based on our ability to use them. IMO climate science must start with using one’s toe, and then develop only as every other device round our extremity is thoroughly understood before each of their signals are interpreted. Individual awareness is a just hap hazard event otherwise.
Gavin,
I agree wholeheartedly. I personally would prefer to proceed after the most fundamental physical questions are answered. Start, say, with Boyle’s law of gases, and incrementally add other physical features, check for approximation with real-world measurements, and so on.
The behavior of gases would seem to be a good starting point because they have been the subject of research for far longer than what we call ‘climatology’. So there will be more data and more reliable models than other aspects of climatology.
And that’s a real problem — the ‘other aspects’ of climatology. ‘Climate science’, if you don’t consider its current state an oxymoron, is actually a vast hodgepodge of pieces from other more-or-less monolithic disciplines. There’s some particle physics, there’s behavior of gases, there’s astronomy, there’s statistics, galciology, geology, and other things. A science of the climate needs to embrace all these different disciplines.
The notion that these were all, in essence, ‘thrown into a blender until mixed thoroughly’ with the result that every leg of the climate -science footstool is wobbly. Which is why we get what proclaims to be a ‘physical science’ issuing proclamations about ‘what percent reliability’ is assigned to the phrase ‘highly likely’. That might be good for public opinion polls, but in the physical sciences, we rightly expect claims on the order of ‘X causes Y, and here’s how’.
I’m personally inclined to cede some slack to an ’emerging science’ (nanotech and MEMs being examples), but when ‘climatologists’ (the discipline is too young to award that designation to anyone) soak up billions, demand unprecedented taxes and lifestyle changes, whilst calling the rest of us ‘idiots’ and other things in Luke’s vocabulary, it’s apparent that science is not what’s being done.
So there you have it in a nutshell.
Scafetta gets a guest post at Watts and undoubtedly Luke will be derisive, but I have faith in the celestial model.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/04/new-scafetta-paper-his-celestial-model-outperforms-giss/#more-20188
Well hasn’t Schiller come a long way in a few hours. Nut shells are correct. That’s what’s left by nutty squirrels.
Back radiation now exists. N2 and O2 aren’t greenhouse gases. CO2 is now a greenhouse gas too. Wow ! No backflip here – just some pure hypocrisy. You simply now pretend you’ve always believed that. Yuh – sure !
He’s dead right about two things though “The CO2 molecule has no “verticality”, there is no “smothering blanket of carbon” WELL DONE – correct. But hey that also just shows how clueless he is !
You’re just a bullshitting denialist Schillsbo. And pig ignorant to boot. You’ll lie like anything if you think you can get away with it.
Oh we’ve back to celestial models are we? Which denialist option will it be this week. I think it’s undersea volcanoes myself.
Anyway – what a piece of crap. More of the old discredited cycles crap. Note the absence of any decent stats or a cross validation bootstrap. ZERO STATS. And NOT peer reviewed.
El Gordo – this sort of b/s has been around for 100 years – the problem is that there is enough quasi-periodicity in climate that you could fit any oscillation to it. Little better than witchcraft. Bugger all predictability.
There is also the 60 year climate cycle, which ties in very neatly with the PDO and the heavens.
http://www.appinsys.com/globalwarming/SixtyYearCycle.htm
Hey luke, perhaps you could dig up one of those “peer reviewed”papers that addresses my query one way or another?
Hey guys, maybe someone here that’s a lot smarter than me can decipher this paper;
#
article.pubs.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/ppv/RPViewDoc?issn=1480-3291…
#
Someone made the observation recently that the science may not be settled but the physics is.
That is true but the only problem is, is that no one fully understands the physics.
Luke is forever wetting himself about droughts but droughts have been around forever.
And when you get surprises [which happens all the time] even in the “hard” sciences, in climatology it’s more likely to be the rule than the exception.
Luke said:
‘The problem is that there is enough quasi-periodicity in climate that you could fit any oscillation to it.’
That is like red rag to a bull, so I will chase-up some peer review and attempt to demolish your theory.
Hathaway’s latest looks like a Dalton.
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/predict.shtml
El Gordo – seriously – there is a lot against “cycle” theory in all its various forms.
I’m not kidding – two things bedevil any attempt at these sort of predictions (1) enough quasi-periodic behaviour to “appear” to have something (2) too many parameters in your predictive model. So when you tune or calibrate it to past data you appear to have a fit. First prediction it falls over.
And that’s why you need some sort of cross validation or bootstrap statistical testing at least. Or leave a swag of data from your initial formulation of the model and see if the model predicts the rest.
Over-tuned models = self delusion.
Having waved the red rag – you might learn something. I’d like to be wrong. Lots of people chasing cycles for a long time.
Spanglers – it would be fun to see the current planetary population cope with mega-droughts – essentially regional climatic shifts. Stuffed up the odd American and Chinese dynasties no end.
Read Brian Fagan’s the Great Warming. Good history even if you don’t believe in AGW. Will remove your Euro-centric view of climate.
Derek I’m not ignoring you – I don’t have a good enough explanation of how excitation of GHGs and kinetic transfer to other non-GHG gases work to explain your issues.
http://www.radix.net/~bobg/climate/halpern.on.radiation.html
Bits are here http://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2008/03/10/physics-of-the-greenhouse-effect-pt-2/
But not really enough explanation
Your link doesn’t seem to work article.pubs.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/ppv/RPViewDoc?issn=1480-3291…
luke says of the Scafetta paper on a celestial basis for climate oscillations and synchroniscity:
“Note the absence of any decent stats or a cross validation bootstrap. ZERO STATS. And NOT peer reviewed.”
In section 4 of the paper the theory is cross validated with GISS modeling, the stats certainly appear robust in that they graphically show the relevant harmonics; look at figure 15; it shows that Scafetta’s model is bistable with an internal field frequency and external forcing frequency. Which it is synchronized to depends on the strength of the couplings and size of forcings. It could plausibly switch suddenly and cause climate steps or breaks. This is a concept which Parker, Folland et al and others so beloved of luke miss.
As for being peer reviewed, it has been submitted to the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics; we’ll see if Scafetta can get past the usual gauntlet.
‘Over-tuned models = self delusion.’ Hmmm….I take your point, but I will cherry-pick climate history in the hope of finding something useful.
As Cohenite said, it depends ‘on the strength of the couplings and size of forcings. It could plausibly switch suddenly and cause climate steps or breaks.’
It happened in the past and it will in the future. Just heard a rumor that New Scientist is predicting an ice age, that can’t be right.
But when you deliberately won’t get the economics, science or the physics right, who would you say are the real deniers?
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/opinion/treasury-and-csiro-both-have-breached-trust/story-e6frg9if-1225872732507
Coho – get Stocky to explain cross validation, bootstrap and “one in, one out”. Graphically is not “cross validation”.
Would have thought Stockers would have done a post on validation and false “skill by” now actually.
Get him to give you a run on LEPS, ROCS, Kruskall-Wallis and Kolmogorov-Smirnov for testing “skill” while you’re there ! He can tell us which is best?
Surely sceptics would be interested in false skill. And this is why many seasoned climate scientists sigh when they hear “solar cycles”. Even though everyone still looks 🙂
Note skill and cross validation are used in the specific mathematical sense.
BTW Coho – “submitted” is not accepted. And might I say pretentious to even declare that you have submitted until accepted. Implies that “it’s likely” to be accepted. Which it may or may not be.
Also many people have trouble getting published. Try lunar drivers if you’re keen !
El Gordo – as soon as your model has too parameters – statisticians will smell a rat (false skill).
And here’s a free kick !
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20627624.700-how-climate-scientists-can-repair-their-reputation.html
They look like throw-aways luke, LEPs and the rest of the hyphens; when AGW can even manage a good hindcast then I’ll get David to do a lecture; oh, actually he’ll be lecturing with Mr Watts shortly and his topic will be the forecasting skills of CSIRO; or lack thereof; is that what you had in mind?
Oh well – I guess you’ve just dismissed the entire history seasonal forecast skill measures. Throw aways indeed ! Stick to the law matey.
BTW – I hope and David and Wattsy are up for a few warm audiences. Just a few questions to get answers or squirms on video.
Stupendous
Steve McIntyre asks Ronald Oxburgh (of “UEA Oxburgh Inquiry” fame) for documentation of the terms of reference of the inquiry, and for the eleven papers the inquiry focused on.
Oxburgh replies:
“I am afraid that I am not able to be very helpful as none of the documents about which you inquire exists.”
http://climateaudit.org/2010/06/04/oxburgh-refuses-to-answer/#more-11102
Positive Weather Solutions are already making a prediction for the UK winter.
‘As far as Winter 2010/11 goes, a very good percentage is showing for a ‘White Christmas’ and we expect this coming Winter to be as brutal as last year’s, which we predicted very accurately indeed, right down to the prolonged cold temperatures extending into March.’
Luke,
John Sayers and I are going to the GC meet. Are you going to be there?
Research by Robert Hodges and Jim Elsner of Florida State University shows that hurricanes will be more commonplace over the next couple of decades.
There’s only a 25 percent chance of at least one hurricane hitting the United States in peak sunspot years. The chance spikes to 64 percent in the lowest sunspot years.
http://www.news-press.com/article/20100601/WEATHER01/100601010/Few-sunspots-more-hurricanes-FSU-researchers-warn
When sunspots are few and the SST is above-normal it will create an unstable atmosphere and more hurricanes, while high SST and more sunspots produce a more stable atmosphere and thus fewer hurricanes.
So what happens when the SST is below normal and there are few sunspots?
Luke, sorry for the delay in getting back to you but I just finished reading your first link for the third time. Thank you, I did find it quite informative (at least the parts I understood) but on close inspection it seems to confirm what I was suggesting.
“In sci.environment Onar Aam wrote:
: >While the most detailed discussions of collisional energy transfer
: >requires specifying the molecular system, effectively
: >thermalization of IR excitations requires 10-100 collisions.
: >at most. At room temperature the average collision time
: >per Torr is about 1E-7 second. This is much faster than
: >the time characteristic of IR emissions
: But the transition to equilibrium is not complete when the CO2 has
: lost all its surplus energy. The heat doesn’t just disappear.
: The cooling of CO2 naturally causes nearby molecules to warm up. ”
And;”: The average emission rate at 15 microns is about 1E-3 seconds. ”
These bits in particular seem to support my contention.
Have you read the whole thing, what is your take on this?
Derek; my selection after Google “The average emission rate at 15 microns is about 1E-3 seconds”
Now; when is a Photon NOT a Particle? Light speed hey!
From Macro IR studies
“O I 63 Micron determined Mass-Loss Rates in Young Stellar Objects”
http://iopscience.iop.org/0004-637X/476/2/771/fulltext
CO2 studies
http://www.atmos.ucla.edu/~liougst/Group_Papers/Ou_JGR_88_1983.pdf
Tree studies
http://www.coloradotrees.org/benefits.htm
This Q in Yahoo Answers
“How often (times per second) is a photon of infrared radiation absorbed and re emitted by CO2 molecules?”
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100221112837AA5CCH2
Derek: It’s been my view for a long time that any model in physics derived solely by one individual is likely to fall far short (in many ways) of obtaining absolute certainty for all. Even the multi disciplined approach wont crack the big nuts up front. How long did it take us to design and build the Bowing 747?
In a good piece of work, you should find lots of thin slices.
Derek,
This bit you quoted isn’t entirely true:
“The heat doesn’t just disappear. : The cooling of CO2 naturally causes nearby molecules to warm up.”
The cooling of CO2 causes nearby molecules to warm up only if those molecules absorb in the same spectrum as CO2. Basically, other CO2.
In our atmosphere, 98 percent of those nearby molecules will be N or O, and they don’t absorb in that spectrum, so goodbye 98 percent of the ‘warming nearby molecules’ theory.
At sufficient pressures, however, N and O will start behaving “greenhouse-like”, but that is by the transfer of kinetic energy. None of warmists, as far as I can tell, are forecasting an air-pressure-driven global warming.
Schiller – TOTALLY WRONG ! – this simply shows how far you’re out on basic understanding. Get thee to a text book and stop thy bluffing.
Luke,
That was a masterfully cogent and incisive refutation. Hehe. As though.
Apparently you’re not well-read enough to defend whatever your position is or might be.
Schiller; in that great big melting pot of atmospheric gasses. a little bit of physics goes down the wrong way
Gavin,
Yes, that’s right. I recall something about ‘down the wrong way’ in the equations describing ‘great big melting pot’. Actually, no, I think it was a bad recipe from some cookbook.
Surely the valiant defenders of CAGW can do better than this.
If we’re ‘denialists’, you should at least offer something falsifiable a la Popper. You can’t make that baseline, you’re wasting electrons.
Schiller – do I need to tell you again that Derek has already conveyed. They’re called “collisions” – you could find that out in a few minutes if you’re weren’t such an illiterate wonk. There are excitation, emission and thermalization processes. IR only interacts with “greenhouse” gases but that’s not the full greenhouse story is it?
You couldn’t be trusted to represent anything Schiller – even your own mob here haven’t defended you ! (Note well) So before you pretentiously try to demolish greenhouse gas theory at least have the decency to represent the science position properly and not make outrageous assertions. Although what would you expect from a denialist scumbag?
Luke,
I’ve explained things, if you don’t like the explanation, offer your own. Sheesh, you CAGWers are supposed to have the physics totally in hand.
I note en passant that mob, pretentious, scumbag, and other terms are not common terms in physics. And, in spite of the fact that the IPCC has discovered that ‘likely’ is quantifiable, the IPCC has not yet quantified ‘scumbag’.
But you, Luke, seem to be an expert in the field of ‘scumbags’. Likely you can quantify ‘scumbagness’, but I don’t want to know, or even think about, how you reached this level of expertise in scumbags. After all, children might visit this blog and your explanation could be deleterious.
After all, you don’t bother yourself with science, just with, well, very bad words.
“I’ve explained things” – hahahahahahaha – no you’ve made up some pure bullshit !
And if ever did explain anything I must have missed it.
“you don’t bother yourself with science, just with, well, very bad words.’ – says a serial libeler of career scientists using fifth columnist tactics
Schiller – kids aren’t that stupid. You’re an old anti-science career anti-environmentalist.
Kiddies – you’ll notice at this point that in a few Uncle Fester changed a disbelief in “greenhouse gases” to a belief. All just with a wave of the hand. Pullease !
Luke,
Once again:
I’ve explained things, if you don’t like the explanation, offer your own. Sheesh, you CAGWers are supposed to have the physics totally in hand.
Hello?
This-all reminds me of when I used to submit racing yacht design to Lloyds of London or American Bureau of Shipping for survey [as I was required to do] and my plans would return covered in red ink.
Everything was wrong and nobody could say what was right so I went ahead and built it anyway. Then, often years and endless arguments later I would advise that the yacht had been built, completed x thousands of racing sea miles successfully and everything was working fine.
They would then reply “in that case we will approve it”.
When things are not fully understood but you have good grounds for confidence, you just have to wait and see. And maybe modify as you go. It’s called Plan B.
James Annan (James’ Empty Blog) is interested in the problem of parameter estimation and its specific relevance to climate prediction. So it’s only natural for him to ask Piers Corbyn to put his money where his mouth is.
On the 2nd February 2005, Piers Corbyn said:
‘In the next 5 or 10 years warming is likely to be maintained as a transpolar shift occurs. This will be followed by the magnetic pole moving away from the geographic pole, a decrease in solar activity, a southward shift in the Gulf stream and considerable world cooling by 2040 AD.’
Corbyn’s forecast contradicts the projections of the IPCC and Annan thinks he’s on a winner, but Piers hasn’t replied.
Derek; the rate of excitation of the CO2 molecule due to thermal radiation, that is absorption of the IR photon, is many orders of magnitude slower than the rate of collisional deexcitation which can occur between the CO2 molecule and the bulk of the atmosphere. This process whereby the CO2 molecule returns to its ‘receptive’ state quicker than the process of being excited has been used by AGWers to argue against saturation. The problem for this argument is that thermalisation of air through collisions creates LTEs, Local Thermodynamic Equilibiums, where there is no further collisional transfer of energy. These LTEs are subject to convective uplift which is much quicker than the resolution of the thermal equilibrium within the parcel of air and further diffusion. So, while saturation theoretically cannot occur and increased CO2 would likely lead to further heating, the convective processes of the atmosphere place a limit to heating by further CO2.
Swiss glacier changes linked to AMO for last 100 years. Impacted for at least 250 years.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2010GL042616.shtml
And what’s your reference Cohers? Serious question…
With the AO negative you might think the average punter would not be betting on a BBQ summer, but one bookmaker puts the chances of the highest temperature recorded in Britain, currently 38.5c, being exceeded at 7/2.
Spokesman David Williams said: ‘Weather betting has hit an all-time high and we’re scared of the temperatures doing the same.’
Not much chance of that happening.
Geoff Sharp takes a close look at Nicola Scaffetta’s recent paper.
http://landscheidt.info/?q=node/180
‘Celestial patterns have been coming off a high at around 2000 and are now well and truly on the decline phase, with the PDO also into its cool phase. Add to the Landscheidt minimum and the stage is set for a reasonable period of cooling along with a platform to prove/disprove our theories.’
Which part are you having trouble with luke?
Thanks Cohenite, the first half of your response confirms what was said in lukes link, the second half seems to be open to speculation. It also begs a few questions e.g. where in the atmosphere is this occurring? Where does the heated air go? How does it lose its heat again? Is that why the ionosphere is so hot? If this is occurring at high altitude, how does it affect surface temps? Where can we read more on this?
Schiller, you know I hate it when I’m forced to agree with luke but Cohers confirmed the point that it is collision transfer not radiative transfer that is at work here.
Did anyone else listen to Counterpoint on ABC radio this arvo? Pleasant interview with Anthony Watts.
Anyone read David Marr’s essay on krudd? It’s pretty bad when someone as left as him thinks kevin is a lame duck.
Derek,
I said ‘transfer of kinetic energy’, which is the same thing as ‘collision transfer’. So there’ no difference of opinion there.
To that I merely added that 0.04 percent of molecules noticeably heating 98 percent of all molecules through a random process requires at standard atmospheric pressure a multiplier that no physical process can account for. Not even Maxwell’s demons could account for it.
It requires atmospheric pressures vastly higher than what we have, to cram enough N and O into a volume of space, to have kinetic transfer happen as fast, or faster than, the CO2 IR absorb/emit cycle.
Guys, so delighted with everything blogsphere seem to have forgotten that the earth’s atmosphere is transparent to most stellar radiation. Radiation that counts and that is a whole lot of spectrum still passes through the air like it was also a vacuum.
For Derek; however at the terrestrial level reflection and absorption considerations get quite complicated particularly with em waves emitted parallel with the surface where all things are somewhat denser. The problem is we can’t hear or see exactly what’s going on but we can sure feel it and so we have the weather men doing the local temp forecast day by day.
My bottom line is our extremities remain as good a guide as any on all those issues we lumber under the word “climate”. Climate was always about our perception at the surface so don’t you forget it when wandering about out past the clouds.
Republic-MainStreet has just updated its list of ‘-gates’ related to Climategate, and the total now stands at 70. Helpfully, they are in alphabetical order, with an explanation for each — there’s so many it’s hard to keep track. Unfortunately, the list borrows heavily from the Number Watch list of everything ever blamed on global warming, such as Vampire Moths and slavery. This unnecessarily inflates what I would consider a list of ‘-gates’ per se.
http://republic-mainstreet.blogspot.com/2010/06/70-climategate-scandals-data.html
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm
Gavin,
You’re exactly right when you say, “the earth’s atmosphere is transparent to most stellar radiation. Radiation that counts and that is a whole lot of spectrum still passes through the air like it was also a vacuum”.
That’s why Earth is not heated by gases interacting with Solar radiation, but rather, by Solar radiation heating the planetary surface, with the resulting heat heading back out — and intersecting CO2 molecules about 0.04 percent of the time.
WOW – we’re almost having a “discussion”. Schiller you’ve come a long way – but I knew you’re always smarter than you make out.
Cohers – the issue is the relative speeds of excitation, emission and thermalization. My question was what’s your reference.
Yes Derek – fascinating essay by David Marr on KRudd. Interestingly voters still wary of Abbott – alas many will vote Green which will cycle preferences back to Labor. Time for a 3rd conservative party in politics.
Thanks for some of those links Gavin.
Schiller – your 6:17am – you have a problem though – given the amount of radiation the world should be colder than it is. AND you can measure back radiation with a suitable radiometer. The resulting surface energy balance will be the net difference of inputs and outputs. And if you want to introduce the old bogus violation of 2nd law of thermodynamics ruse – well you obviously don’t believe that reflective furnace heat shields work.
Here’s something for cohers: Global Warming Advocacy Science – a cross examination by Scott Johnston from the University of Pennsylvania. May 2010.
http://www.probeinternational.org/UPennCross.pdf
Schiller: This wiki pic is for you!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Trees_and_sunshine.JPG
I found this in “Radiant Energy” after looking up the radiant section in “Furnace” following Luke and the notion of “reflection”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Furnace#Radiant_section
Note: Energy in this part of the spectrum tends to travel in straight lines despite course filtering
Luke,
Exactly what part of a radiometer is supposed to behave like atmospheric gases?
And what part of the radiometer responds to back-radiation instead of radiation?
(1) none – why would it? what part of a thermometer behaves like a hot gas?
(2) it’s called a Pyrgeometer which as you know is not a Pyranometer – and it we know what spectrum comes form the Sun … and the back radiation is still there at night (look no Sun – no hands !)
http://www.bsrn.awi.de/en/project/background/ has a whole community of science on the subject.
And if you want a full energy budget – you have 2 of each – one up – one down – you see. http://www.campbellsci.com/nr01 – clever what ?
Luke,
Although I am never surprised at your climatic comments, I was deeply shocked at your political ones, such as – ‘alas many will vote Green which will cycle preferences back to Labor. Time for a 3rd conservative party in politics.’
I had always thought you were one of us, fighting to save biodiversity, global warming, the environment, and ecosystems to boot. Wasn’t that you at Copenhagen, two steps behind Penny Wong? Surely she is Green? Or Red, or Pink?
However, your suggestion of a third conservative party has merit. How about the Green Islamic National Socialists (GINS)? In connection with the recent Gaza incident, I was thrilled by the massed banners and ranting speeches in Ankara. Ah, it took an old fella back to the 1930s. I remember my trusty former comrades, such as Oberleutnant von Kolmogorov-Smirnov, and Sturmbannfuehrer Kruskall-Wallis. We could start with compulsory roof insulation. Will you join me in this brillig cause? Oh frabjous day, calloo callay.
Davey,
Come to my arms my beamish boy.
Luke was wearing us down with his usual garbage which has all been done and dusted.
These blokes slew the jabberwock a hundred years ago.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/28018819/Greenhouse-Niels-Bohr
I think the jabberwock morphed into Schroedinger’s cat.
http://astore.amazon.co.uk/nullhypoththe-21/detail/0552125555
More natural CC from the rational, reasoning, Dr Roy Spencer.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/07/minority-report-50-year-warming-due-to-natural-causes/#more-20301
“Comment from: Luke June 5th, 2010 at 9:34 pm
BTW – I hope and David and Wattsy are up for a few warm audiences. Just a few questions to get answers or squirms on video.”
Hey luke/bit_pattern, why don’t you just show An Inconvenient Truth outside every venue just for some ROFLOLs?
And on your lame peer review straw man argument? Wasn’t the IPCC reports full of non-peer reviewed sources like travel magazines?
And congratulations on rewriting many laws of physics.
More dead jabberwocks:
“CO2 accelerates heat loss.”
http://www.kidswincom.net/CO2OLR.pdf
Nev; my Google on “most of the warming that the IPCC has attributed to human activities over the last 50 years could simply be due to natural, internal variability in the climate system” leads down the usual rabbit warren, blogs!
IMO the word COULD above is a right copout from your Roy.
For an a more inteligent discussion I suggest we disect this recent artical “The Earth’s Fidgeting Climate”-
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2000/ast20oct_1/
gav,
You wouldn’t be talking about the great adjuster, would ya?
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/NASA1.jpg
Spanglers – pullease – the Wood experiment – and so what? You think this actually means something and another eccentric unpublished rant. Gawd ! Do go on …
The fact you’d even table this drivel means you’re a clueless …. How will I tell you at the Gold Coast – will you be wearing the dunce’s cap?
el gordo, thanks, I have seen the Johnston essay; it is very good.
The heating effect of CO2 through collisional transfer is not discriminatory; kinetic energy can be transferred to any other molecule; photon reemission is selective and depends on whether the CO2 molecule has returned to its ground state through collision or not; the energy state of the CO2 molecule will determine the wavelength of the reemitted photon and whether it can be reabsorbed by other CO2 molecules.
luke, when I was just a pup I had this interesting and informative discussion with your experts; the discussion turns to the topics you are interested in; my, how times have changed;
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/04/19/city-of-musicians/#comments
But for a good, sceptical read…..
http://www.heartland.org/full/27749/Politics_Outweigh_Science_in_Global_Warming_Debate.html
Spanglers – Stoat aka the great warmist blogger William Connolley described the Wood experiment back in 2001. DO try to keep up.
http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/wood_rw.1909.html
“How will I tell you at the Gold Coast – will you be wearing the dunce’s cap?”
I will if you will.
Spangles; where did you get the power point pdf about water:
http://www.kidswincom.net/CO2OLR.pdf
Luke,
I was actually referring much more directly to Niels Bohr who’s quantum theory is the basis for many new discoveries.
Hence “I will if you will”.
cohers,
Our local boy [and I don’t mean Luke]:
http://antigreen.blogspot.com/
SD; after fishing for Hansen, GISS etc I found this map gen then pluged in the years 1980 -2010
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/maps/
That hic cup noted in iceblog and elsewhere fails to convince old timers like me. Recall; climate measurements pre the first geophys year don’t count for much anyway
cheers
luke; Wood’s conclusion about the low radiating power of a gas is part-way to the reason why the guts of AGW, backradiation, will fail; backradiation confuses radiation with heating; in their reply to Eli’s comment on their original paper, G&T note this:
“The radiative transfer equations do not yield the portion of radiation
energy that is transformed into heat. This can be easily seen by observing that
the direction of the gradient of the temperature determines whether the lines
of the spectrum are present as absorption lines (Fraunhofer lines) or emission
lines. In the case of the so-called scattering atmosphere after Chandrasekhar22
no portion of the radiation energy is thermalized at all.”
This is difference between radiation and heat is shown in the net fluxes at the surface; the net fluxes from the Surface are:
a. Direct Radiation “through the window” to Space. According to Kiehl&Trenberth this is 40W/m^2.
b. Fluxes into the Atmosphere:
(1) Evaporated Water Vapour, 78W/m^2
(2) NET Radiation, 26W/m^2
(3) Conduction, 24W/m^2
[Numbers are from Kiehl &Trenberth, 1997. See IPCC, AR4, WG1, Chapter 1.]
Note that the items at b are all converted to sensible heat, at various heights in the atmosphere, and are all then convected. For Conduction, we know this is at the bottom of the column. For Radiation, this is also very close to the ground, probably the majority of radiation is absorbed by 25m altitude (if you doubt this, check out the absorption tables for CO2). For Evaporated water vapour the injection of heat into the atmosphere is more spread out, and probably most of this heat enters the atmosphere literally in the clouds.
Thanks Spangles
Cohenite
It looks like you stumbled upon the same paper as I regarding the difference between radiation and heating.
Thing is, the CAGWers’ failure to acknowledge the difference obviously results in Trenberth’s famous observation that they can’t find “the missing heat”.
Once you acknowledge competent physics, you don’t have the “missing heat” problem. The heat has radiated away into the near-vacuum of space. Which should surprise no-one.
One thing that is completely missing in these theoretical constructs is the molten core of the Earth, estimated at roughly 7,000 F. The theoretical constructs assume that the Earth has no molten core and thus would tend to approach zero Kelvin without atmosphere. Which is a glaring omission.
We are permitted to assume that there is not a layer of CO2 between the surface layer and molten core, such that ‘back-radiation’ (from rocks with special thermodynamic privileges, etc.) keeps the core hot and the surface cool. Any model that uses heating of the surface, which does not account for continual seepage of heat from the planet’s interior, is going to be glaringly incomplete.
New Zealand glaciers refuse to behave and it’s obviously related to the hemispheric see-saw.
http://www.scientificblogging.com/news_articles/contrarian_new_zealand_glaciers_grow_age_global_warming
From this morning’s SMH: Rudd was asked why he would not call a double dissolution over the ETS and he replied that climate change would still be a core issue regardless of how the election was held.
“Whenever the election is held, and whatever form the election takes, let me be very clear with you, that climate change and emissions trading will be absolutely central to that,” he said.
“We accept the science.
“Mr Abbott rejects it.
Ahhh… just love the political spin. Rudd is about to join Scullin as a one term government.
Barack Obama is heading for a one-term presidency, partially on the failure of his ‘green’ agenda, but at least he had the foresight to make a joke of ‘settled science’ during his last State of the Onion address.
But who knows? Maybe he’ll go two terms on account of his notion that he will “kick the ass” of an oil company that’s been paying millions to CAGWers.
Hmph. Kicking the British Petroleum friend of the greenies in the ass? That would be while he’s wearing his fluffy rabbit pajama slippers.
Cohers – Wood simply demonstrates that in glasshouses convection is important – the end !
Irrelevant to GHGs really.
Schiller – – the old “missing heat” ruse – Trenberth was simply lamenting the infancy of decadal modelling – the end ! But keep misrepresenting what he said. Schiller treads carelessly around a science minefield and wonders his leg just blew off.
Fear not el Gordo – ETS is gooone … climate is off the agenda. Sceptics have won – so rejoice. But the witch hunt will now commence at the wakeup call (probably the Arctic going ice free) …. tick tick tick tick … nothing has fundamentally changed. History will judge harshly. I don’t think the global atmosphere cares what Rudd, Abbott or Obama think really !
The Bolta absolutely belts flannery with the truth and facts dealing with his past lies and distortions and proves what a liar/fraudster he really is.
How can such a numbskull sell so many stupid books and get his own TV show on their abc?
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/mtr_today28/#commentsmore
“the wakeup call (probably the Arctic going ice free) …. tick tick tick tick … nothing has fundamentally changed. History will judge harshly. I don’t think the global atmosphere cares what Rudd, Abbott or Obama think really !”
Yeah, when those New Guinea natives started cultivating yams 10,000 years ago the planet was DOOMED! DOOMED, I tell ya!
I’ll lend you a curry comb to run over your mind with.
Anna Haynes (NCFocus) admits to hassling Anthony Watts.
http://ncfocus.blogspot.com/
el gordo,
That was pretty disgusting and worse still she [and some others] don’t see a problem in her invading Watts’ space and shouting ad homs and accucations in front of others while being asked to leave.
It’s good to see that she is being condemned for this in blogland.
spangles
It was disgusting and should be roundly condemned.
O/T
The BBC now run their own weather forecasting, with assistance from the UK Met. We should know fairly soon whether they are any better at understanding how this chaotic system operates and be able to offer seasonal forecasts with confidence.
‘Monday 14 June 2010 to Sunday 20 June 2010
Winds stick in the northeast, so it won’t warm up. The forecast suggests that the northeasterly winds will be very reluctant to give up. This means that there’s little chance of the weather warming up significantly.’
‘A few showers are likely, mainly in northern and eastern areas but overall amounts of rain are likely to be fairly small.
It will feel cool in areas facing the northeasterly winds, but sheltered southwestern parts should see the best of any sunshine and so it should be warmer here, with temperatures near expectations for mid-June.’
‘Missing’ Heat May Affect Future Climate Change
ScienceDaily (Apr. 15, 2010) — Current observational tools cannot account for roughly half of the heat that is believed to have built up on Earth in recent years, according to a “Perspectives” article in this week’s issue of Science. Scientists at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) warn in the new study that satellite sensors, ocean floats, and other instruments are inadequate to track this “missing” heat, which may be building up in the deep oceans or elsewhere in the climate system.
‘Flat Earthers’ Ridiculed By New Climate Science Revelation
Apr 22, 2010 John O’Sullivan Suite101:
Climate predictions have failed because scientists wrongly calculated that the Earth was flat thus explaining their ‘loss’ of half all global warming.
Luke will like this one better:
Tracking Earth’s Energy
Kevin E. Trenberth and John T. Fasullo
Science 16 April 2010:
Vol. 328. no. 5976, pp. 316 – 317
DOI: 10.1126/science.1187272
[Introductory paragraph:]
By measuring the net radiative incoming and outgoing energy at the top of Earth’s atmosphere, it is possible to determine how much energy remains in the Earth system. But where exactly does the energy go? The main energy reservoir is the ocean, which sequesters energy as heat. Because energy is exchanged between the atmosphere and the ocean, this heat can resurface at a later time to affect weather and climate on a global scale. A change in the overall energy balance will thus sooner or later have consequences for the climate. Existing observing systems can measure all the required quantities, but it nevertheless remains a challenge to obtain closure of the energy budget. This inability to properly track energy—due to either inadequate measurement accuracy or inadequate data processing—has implications for understanding and predicting future climate.
Bootleg of full paper at: http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/trenberth.papers/TrenberthSciencePerspectives-1.pdf
Interesting quotes (‘mined’ of course):
CO2 concentrations have further increased since 2003, and even more heat should have accumulated at a faster rate since then. Where has this energy gone (see the figure)?
You see, since the model cannot be questioned, the energy has ‘gone missing’.
yet, ocean temperature measurements from 2004 to 2008 suggest a substantial slowing of the increase in global ocean heat content (see the figure, panel A) ( 10). If the extra energy has not gone into the ocean, where has it gone?
Since Luke and Co. deny the second law of thermodynamics, the answer is obvious: the ‘missing heat’ has been absorbed into the Earth’s molten core, from whence it will emerge in Catastrophic Anthropogenic Volcanoes. Conclusive evidence is found in the eruption of the Eyjafjallajökull volcano in Iceland, where, true to form, it caused a glacial meltdown.
Further confirmation is found in scientists’ warnings of a second, much larger volcano in Iceland, which is showing signs of eruption.
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=128019§ionid=351020606
You know, humanity can pump only so much heat into the Earth’s core and not expect it to come out and get the glaciers.
Over at Watts the other day everyone was quietly stunned when Willis said he believed humans are responsible for the increase in CO2. So now the real battle begins, what comes first: CO2 or temps?
Lon Hocker has a guest post and the comments are lively. He put up an abstract from Michael Beenstocks and Yaniv Reingewertz which supports the contention that CO2 has no case to answer.
‘We show that although greenhouse gas forcings share a common stochastic trend, this trend is empirically independent of the stochastic trend in temperature and solar irradiance. Therefore, greenhouse gas forcings, global temperature and solar irradiance are not polynomially cointegrated, and AGW is refuted.’
‘Although we reject AGW, we find that greenhouse gas forcings have a temporary effect on global temperature. Because
the greenhouse effect is temporary rather than permanent, predictions of significant global warming in the 21st century by IPCC are not supported by the data.’
Schiller:
‘Flat Earthers’ Ridiculed By New Climate Science Revelation
Apr 22, 2010 John O’Sullivan Suite101:
“Climate predictions have failed because scientists wrongly calculated that the Earth was flat thus explaining their ‘loss’ of half all global warming”
In defence of Flat Earthers like me, lets look again at El’s link above (NZ glaciers) and see why climate science should begin with the more recent record available on “flat” earth. As I have often said here; that flat earth record (SL & glaciers etc) is suitably “stretched” in temp terms. On the other hand, science re turbulence (atmosphere & oceans) begins with spot checks and thin slices looking upwards to say cloud levels.
The big picture is not enhanced by the micro physics of amateurs. Nor is it enhanced by red herrings like the LIA MWP etc from literature and Blogsphere.
El gordo:
“New Zealand glaciers refuse to behave and it’s obviously related to the hemispheric see-saw”
http://www.scientificblogging.com/news_articles/contrarian_new_zealand_glaciers_grow_age_global_warming
“Conventional wisdom holds that during the era of human civilization, climate has been relatively stable. The new study is the latest to challenge this view, by showing that New Zealand’s glaciers have gone through rapid periods of growth and decline during the current interglacial period known as the Holocene”.
Following Joerg Schaefer et al
“Glacier History of the New Zealand Southern Alps” june 2010
http://climatechange.umaine.edu/glacier_history_of_the_new_zealand_southern_alps
Find that interactive map!
http://maps.gns.cri.nz/website/csigg/
Another link to some home territory glacial studies (Tasmania not NZ)
“Glacial Modelling and Climate Change in New Zealand”
http://www.victoria.ac.nz/antarctic/research/glacial_modelling.aspx
Gavin,
Since it’s comprehensively been proven that NZ temp records have comprehensively been fiddled, NZ ‘data’ are useless. Or maybe useful to the increasingly marginalized CAGWers.
You need to stay abreast of the news.
Schiller
We may need to differentiate between the ‘fiddled NZ data’ and these drillers on top of the glaciers. The scientists up there are looking for clear precision on what happened a long time ago, so they won’t be fudging.
Gavin
Interesting articles, but they told me nothing new. If Denton had said we have found the cause of Meltwater Pulse 1a, then I would be jumping out of my body with excitement.
QUOTE from above NZ geo link
“The Central South Island Glacial Geomorphology Maps form part of a comprehensive paleoclimate research project investigating, among other things, the age and structure of the Last Glacial Maximum in the central Southern Alps of New Zealand. GNS (Institute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences) has assisted in the production of a set of digital 1:50,000 scale glacial geomorphic maps of the research area”
Contributors to the mapping work, and associated paleoclimatic and paleoenvironmental investigations, include:
George Denton (glacial geology, University of Maine, USA)
Bjørn Andersen (glacial geomorphology, University of Oslo, Norway)
Thomas Lowell (glacial geology, University of Cincinnati, USA)
Peter Almond (soil and process geomorphology, Lincoln University, New Zealand)
David Barrell (Quaternary geology and geomorphology, GNS, New Zealand)
Pat Suggate (Quaternary geology, GNS, New Zealand)
Chris Hendy (paleoclimate studies, Waikato University, New Zealand)
Marcus Vandergoes (palynology and paleoenvironmental studies, University of Maine, USA)
Rewi Newnham (palynology & paleoenvironmental studies, Plymouth University, UK)
Christian Schlüchter (14C dating & paleoenvironmental studies, Bern University, Switzerland)
Frank Preusser (luminescence dating, Bern University, Switzerland)
Jörg Schäfer (surface exposure-age dating, Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, USA)
Trevor Chinn (glaciology and paleosnowlines, NIWA, New Zealand)
Schiller; Ive been looking at glacial remnants and coastline changes since well before many of these guys and presumably you were born ang given my daily use of thermo also other scientific instruments over much of that time I can say your lot is just skimming the blogs for support.
A transcript of the Bolt and Flannery stoush, amazing how such a prominent drongo can be exposed as a lying fraud in just a few minutes work.
So Luke and Gavin what is the time scale, 100’s or 1,000’s or tens of thousands of years, because poor Timmy ( your hero )doesn’t seem to know?
Interestingly Lovelock now says we may have a thousand years before anything much happens, so hands up the numbskulls who think we will still be burning fossil fuels to supply our energy in say 100’s of years?
Sorry transcript here I hope http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/flannery_vs_bolt_transcript/
Nev; mate I don’t need or have “hero/s” from blogsphere or MSM. These nongs you constantly refer to are mere writers on outer the fringe of science.
Without reference to others; my time scale has always been the current inter glacial period and the recent SL max / min as all the associated climate signals here require proper calibration with reference to each other before we go wandering further backwards or foward for that matter in studing climate dynamics.
Came across this new blog, which should pick-up traffic going forward.
http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/
SL max?
Well then Gav let’s look at the higher temps of the mid holocene and why that period was warmer than today.
Immediately after of course sea levels were higher around much of the world than they are today and we had the higher temps of the Minoan WP, leading to the RWP.
No higher co2 levels to prove/ disprove your case, so what caused those higher temps four to six thousand years ago.
Obviously it was NATURAL CC for a few thousand years, perhaps like now.
Without these “heroes” we wouldn’t have the problem of AGW:
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=5806
More evidence of non-ACO2 influenced climate variability:
“To reconstruct “the environmental evolution of the last 3000 years.”
“In doing so, the six Spanish researchers were able to identify five distinct climatic stages: “a cold and arid phase during the Subatlantic (Late Iron Cold Period, A.D. 1400).”
“Noting that “the Iberian Peninsula is unique, as it is located at the intersection between the Mediterranean and the Atlantic, Europe and Africa, and is consequently affected by all of them,” Garcia et al. significantly advanced the likelihood that the classical climatic oscillations described for the Late Holocene — of which the Roman Warm Period is a prime example — were indeed both real and global in scope, as well as not-CO2-induced, which means that earth’s current level of warmth need not be CO2-induced as well.”
http://www.co2science.org/subject/r/summaries/rwpeuropemed.php
spangles
It’s always gratifying when someone finds the RWP. In the CO2 post highlighted, Kvavadze and Connor say the warmth was real.
“Western Georgian pollen spectra of the Subatlantic period show that the period began in a cold phase, but, by 2200 cal yr BP, climatic amelioration commenced,” noting that “the maximum phase of warming [was] observed in spectra from 1900 cal yr BP,” which interval of warmth was Georgia’s contribution to the Roman Warm Period.’
If the Romans conquered England dressed in sandals with bare arms and legs as the cavalcade of costume tells us, it couldn’t have been too cold.
I couldn’t dress that way at my place in SEQ Aust [lat 28s] today.
Found this paper which says the sun is the main driver of weather/climate in Europe.
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/5/2/024001/pdf/1748-9326_5_2_024001.pdf
Very sobering, but no need for alarm, we will just have to adapt.
el gordo,
Nah! Not the sun! Couldn’t be!
Seem Spangles want us bogged down with another tree ring type episode (with mercury) extracted from Blogsphere in support of that elusive global LIA – MWP saga. However the real science goes on elsewhere.
After Martinez-Cortizas et al 1999
“Mercury Sequestration in Forests and Peatlands” 2002
http://jeq.scijournals.org/cgi/content/full/32/2/393
“Estimating the Natural Background Atmospheric Deposition Rate of Mercury Utilizing Ombrotrophic Bogs in Southern Sweden” 2003
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es020065x
C’mon Spangles, it’s not a writer’s paradise, is it?
For those who don’t know; CO2 Science and most of their ilk can be seen as paid hacks.
Cohenite may have been sucked in too a while back, but are we suprised?
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2008/09/ten-of-the-best-climate-research-papers-nine-peer-reviewed-a-note-from-cohenite/
Idso via Hughes
http://www.warwickhughes.com/papers/idso98.htm
A tight little circle hey
Leave me out of your conspiracy theories gavin.
Gavin,
You can’t be serious. A review paper titled ‘Mercury Sequestration in Forests and Peatlands’ and merely mentions “potential climate change” in passing? That essentially makes a seven-part begging pitch for more research money? Your point is?
Nigel Calder has his own Blog – former editor of New Scientist.
http://calderup.wordpress.com/
this article is a must read
http://calderup.wordpress.com/2010/06/07/tradecraft-of-propaganda/
John: I’m disappointed That Calder article besides being one big whine hasn’t a shred of climate science in it. Writers Inc. hey
Cohenite; It was your decision to parade that CO2 Science “paper” here as a form of evidence against AGW without mentioning funding issues.
Schiller: “That essentially makes a seven-part begging pitch for more research money?”
Yeah, and take note where all the industry “climate change” money goes hey
Gavin
take note where all the industry “climate change” money goes hey
yeah to counting molecules of mercury. Real important to that doomsday climate thingy.
Left a comment at the Calder article. Gavin is peddling meddling about money trails; what a hypocrite; the disparity between the money propping up the lies of AGW compared to the arse out of pants funding to fight this pernicious rubbish is astounding. In Australia, despite the vile ets being postponed, over $2billion is still being spent ‘solving’ AGW. Your money folks, not gavin’s, which is obviously under his bed.
This minima may not be grand, but I’m keeping my options open.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LP-project1.gif
It should be similar to the Wolf and Dalton, coming off the backs of warmer periods the glaciers extended because of increased precipitation and coolness. Unlike the Maunder where the glaciers expanded because of the lengthening of the winter season.
wow – I’d love to know what you DO call climate science Gavin – if the writings of the former editor of New Scientist and author of a book on the subject can’t be classified as climate science what the f**k can?
“peddling meddling” huh!
Calder: “If CO2 follows temperature rather than the other way around, then changes in CO2 become a measure of temperature, as in a thermometer”
After Hocker
“Using two well accepted data sets, a simple model can be used to show that the rise in CO2 is a result of the temperature anomaly, not the other way around”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/09/a-study-the-temperature-rise-has-caused-the-co2-increase-not-the-other-way-around/
After this gem
http://zfacts.com/metaPage/lib/zFacts-CO2-Temp.gif
What a fiddle!
John; the CO2 v Temp data from our Cape Grim global monitoring station would be a good start to your climate science. Since its opening, we could all see confirmation of the hockey stick like rise in both CO2 and temperature. That rate of change can’t be just written off by some mob of diehard authors babbling on for fossil fuel.
Good science requires a hard look for other signals that confirm the latest CO2 v Temp data and the hockey stick rate of change. Also we don’t begin further climate research by blaming those modern instruments.
Here’s a scientist to Gav’s liking, gee how genuine he seems , I mean it only took Bolt a few minutes grilling to expose the fraudster.
His support of branson is priceless, but gee what an ungrateful swine after krudd has thrown countless millions at him and his companies and their abc has given him his own TV series.
You see poor timmy won’t vote labor next time.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/column_flannery_cant_take_the_heat/
I spoke to a couple of people involved with the solar thermal plant at Windorah yesterday and while it’s hard to get a true picture because they were only small cogs, the 4 million spent to provide power for 40 houses is still requiring nearly as much diesel fuel for the back-up as was needed to power the town prior to the existence of the solar plant.
The new installation is doing very little and requiring a lot of extra maintenance.
The economics are absolutely woeful at almost zero return for $100,000 per house plus this crazy expense for the taxpayer. There is probably no net CO2 benefit either.
I wonder when Ergon will do a cost/benefits study on it and if it will be published?
gavin
A couple of days ago you said: ‘my time scale has always been the current inter glacial period and the recent SL max / min.’
What is the SL max/min?
The cold pool in the mid-Atlantic is novel to the untrained eye. Is it odd?
And the cool outbreak off east Asia. Is that unusual or a precursor for La Nina?
http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst_anom.html
Ahhh…the penny dropped, you’re talking about sea level rise.
John: Re SL max / min, my answer to your Q is best illustrated here
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1d/Post-Glacial_Sea_Level.png/300px-Post-
This wiki article seems to follow recent work by Dr John Hunter et al
http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_about_us.html#hunter
Like CO2, these SL records do not show rapid variations however that hockey stick is quite evident.
http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_hist_few_hundred.html
Thanks Gavin
So they are looking for signs of glacial and sea ice melt from CAGW in the SH. It looks a gravy train, but I’m sure they can still be usefully employed when sea level shows a downward trend.
I’m interested in the work of Dr Robert Baker and Dr Bob Haworth at the University of New England who have made some important discoveries on sea level change. They are looking at semi-fossilised shellfish and calcareous coated worms in caves, and their study takes us back to the Climate Optimum when SL was considerably higher than now.
Comments or submissions needed here by erudite sceptics to improve IPCC climate assesment objectivity:
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2010/06/10/interacademy-council-iac-review-of-the-ipcc-input-by-marcel-crok/
gavin,
It’s interesting that many climate scientists but not those from the CSIRO have been able to locate evidence of periods in the last few thousand years where SLs were actually higher than today.
I suspect that they suffer from too much [personal assumption fed] GCM exposure.
An example of Luke’s conversational style:
Iceland experiencing earthquakes of an unfortunate kind – it doesn’t bode well for the peoples of Europe.
http://en.vedur.is/earthquakes-and-volcanism/earthquakes/myrdalsjokull/
El Gordo,
We were warned of the earthquaky stuff. Courtesy of Number Watch which compiles ‘things caused by CAGW’,
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm
In alphabetical order, right after ‘violin decline’ we find:
“Another effect of global warming: earthquakes and volcanic activity”, June 11th, 2006,
http://psychoanalystsopposewar.org/blog/2006/06/11/another-effect-of-global-warming-earthquakes-ad-volcanic-activity/
Unfortunately, the other link no longer works:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=ice-cap-thaw-iceland-volcanoes
But you gotta give it to the CAGWers: they called this one right!
Yeah right. Anybody who predicts earthquakes or volcanoes will be right eventually.
Was the FSB responsible for the CRU hack? If so, MI5 are up to light-speed on the matter because there is this deathly silence. Rich Matarese made a comment over at Watts – referring to the hack.
‘It’d be the equivalent of performing an appendectomy through a keyhole with nothing more than extra-long forceps. The “hack” of all time.’
Seems like the terminally ill NSW labor govt is going to punish the poor electorate even more before they get booted out at the next election and it won’t change the climate or temp or SL’s by the width of a bee’s dick.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/powering_down/
The SMH article on the irrigation farmers being the sacrificial lambs is being tied into krudd’s failure and abandoning so many schemes and policies in the last 6 months, with number one being the backdown on the ets.
Dum de dum de dum
Let’s see how that Ice Age is coming along – what was I told ” a bone crushing ice age”
woo hoo !
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/AMSRE_Sea_Ice_Extent_L.png
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2010/uah-0-530-may/
And hey it must be the Sun – but whoops the Sun is in a weak state – imagine what will happen when it steps up a notch.
Denialist turds having a good old deny session . ROFL !
And what could be more hilarious than seeing Leif rip into Archy here
What a turkey shoot
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/15/hey-dude-where%E2%80%99s-my-solar-ramp-up/
Read it well my little denialists – this is the state of your “science” – you pathetic shonks.
And you fools are going to pay hard money to hear this guy? And Carter and Wattsy are sharing the stage. OMIGOD ! How laughable.
Hey Luke/bit_pattern,
I bet your kicking yourself for buying An Inconvenient Truth. You got “burned” by Al Gore. We were told about increasing temperatures, more natural disasters, polar bears dying etc. but so far nature has turned Gore and friends into nothing more than half-assed fantasy writers.
With the Arctic ice, you may want to get yourself up to speed science-wise.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/10/concentration-vs-extent/
Oh right luke, Leif thinks Archibald is sloppy; what is your take on the disastrous [for humanity] tendencies of SC 24?
Mount Washington is still open for business in summer.
http://www.timescolonist.com/Hill+opens+June+skiing/3140765/story.html
This has something to do with the jet stream, but late season snow cover is probably not new. Time to visit google scholar, armed with only a few key words.
Hey MS – have you ever thought of shortening your name to ” ” – more descriptive. But what could MS stand for – My Shit, Multiple Sclerosis, Mind Shot – or perhaps Mi-Sex – in which case you’d be listening to this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7aT8iO6Pwz0&feature=related
because of this
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeseries.png
– and you all assured it wouldn’t happen. – waiting for that bone crushing ice age …
Oh yea – and all with a quiet Sun too.
Look at that trend line go
http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20100608_Figure3.png
Cohers – I enjoyed this in your Watts tour promo
$25 per person, $20 if you make a booking or are a pensioner
Well golly the whole audience would be pensioners wouldn’t it? Denialism and talk back radio would be synonymous?
What’s the difference between a public servant and a pensioner?
A PS does less, stuffs the system and gets paid heaps more.
Plus pensioners have better bodies.
But most sceptics aren’t public servants and aren’t necessarily pensioners.
From Bishop Hill:
‘It looks as though the pressure has paid off. Ross McKitrick has emailed to say that he has now been invited to submit to the Interacademies Council inquiry into the IPCC.
Better late than never, I suppose.
I’ve also had an email from Marcel Crok, who has also been speaking to the IAC. Marcel’s information seems to suggest that McIntyre will be contacted too, so this may well turn out to represent a small step forward.’
gavin
“After this gem”
I may be slow, but to me that graph tells exactly what was proposed.
Temp increased followed by the increase of CO2.
If I got it wrong, tell me why and how?
The political landscape of Britain may have changed, but still there’s no commonsense on climate change. Chris Huhne, Liberal Democrat, is calling for tougher climate targets. “We need 2,500 more wind turbines”, he told the UK Mail.
‘Just weeks after party leader Nick Clegg became Deputy Prime Minister, his lawyer wife Miriam accepted a lucrative job with Acciona – the world’s largest provider of wind farms.’
No conflict of interest there, surely?
el gordo,
Thanks for the BH pointer. Looks like the IAC review panel are trying harder than Oxburgh et al.
This could be just as alarmist as the IPCC but the carpet baggers may not be so interested:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jun/09/france-japan-ipcc-for-nature
Jonathan, “I may be slow…” etc.
It’s about putting the cart before the horse rather than the chicken or egg dilemma. We should do what comes naturally but only after maturing a bit in whatever discipline is in question.
Too slow to enjoy math and literature, I had to make my own rules early to get by. With drawing though in both 2 & 3D I caught on quickly so my mentors had me start an engineering trade that would eventually lead to industrial measurements and process control a decade or so before electronics and computers became common.
Analysing signals from various sources via charts and recorders had to be a daily routine. Likewise, predicting problems in a complex or hazardous environment requires all that and some imagination. Handling delayed response and system noise on any site must be second nature when passing rapidly through a wide range of automation as applied to various processes. The reality could involve side stepping both academics and manuals as dressing a signal to the nth degree may be bad for all and sundry.
Yes, I devised a lot of filters too but despised the need somewhat as it frequently meant covering design failures. These tended to evolve from a pure and clinical approach which probably avoided some ground truthing in the first place. It’s a long way from the lab to the production line at any time. Writers on blogs have invariably not done that journey.
Sunspots were rare or absent during the Maunder Minimum (1645-1715) and yet the tree rings in Longmire, Washington say temperatures were the same as now during that period.
The paper by Lisa Granumlich et al. says: ‘the reconstruction of mean annual temperatures between 1590 and 1900 to be approximately 1 C degree lower than those of he 20th century.
Only during a short period from 1650 to 1690 did temperatures approach 20th century values.’
This must have something to do with a persistently negative NAO, which is more common during low solar activity. This appears to show that the MCA and LIA may have been more European centric, as some warmists have suggested.
Hey Luke/bit_pattern,
20 years of Arctic data has produced this:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/deetest/deetmp.25024.png
And 30 years of Arctic data has produced this:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/deetest/deetmp.23305.png
More ice is more ice except in Luke/bit_pattern’s world.
Science overcomes CAGW. Game over for the scam artists.
Friends and others,
We’re used to hearing claims denying Climategate by those who focus on the emails alone. The deniers won’t go anywhere near Michael_Read_Me, it’s too toxic and indefensible.
The natural response is to consider anyone focusing on the emails to be a Climategate denier.
One author has taken the time to read the Climategate emails in toto, and to figure out what was going on — just in the emails. And it’s far more damning than anything heretofore presented. And it’s available online for free.
It’s not a quick read, as it’s lengthy. But links to original text are rife, and the picture it presents of ‘climatology’ is even worse than has heretofore been seen.
Lies, fraud, collusion, spinmeistering, it’s all there for an author who connects the dots between, my gosh, who said what to whom, and when, and about what. The crucial data are found in the email headers and dates.
There’s even a point where there’s an agreement with the WWF to make the climate change scenarios more scary.
You can find this wonderful excursion into the murky depths of Climate Extortion at
http://www.assassinationscience.com/climategate/
This is such a tour de force that Climategate denialists will have to start from scratch to re-align their narrative. Their first success was to re-direct scrutiny towards the e-mails, and call it ‘scientists being informal and unflattering’.
Now, the Climategate denialists will have to demolish the ‘it’s just emails’ rhetoric and reach for something else — and they’re running out of options.
Are you some sort of denialist clown MS – the edge erosion (extent decrease) is fantastic ! The volume decrease is fantastic. As is the amount of new ice.
Concentration ! – trust MS to bring a knife to a gun fight – you need extent, thickness and concentration. The olde goal post moving trick by the denialist filth – take a hike chum and stop slopping round at Watts.
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/ArcticSeaiceVolume/IceVolume.php
Game over for denialist turds who love to quote mine, pervert, subvert, corrupt and bullshit at every opportunity. Go get your tobacco company pay check.
Schiller – another denialist dog who continually returns to his vomit. I love the ongoing attempt to fabricate shit into sapphires by denialists like Schiller – Deltoid has exposed these supposed “gates” for what they are – scams. Ah yes – Leak-gate, Journalism-gate. The Africa and Amazon gate cons.
So instead of Maccer doing some work (perhaps he might publish something novel – hahahahahahahahaha) he’s trawling around someone’s emails. Wow ! Now that’s science.
Stop rubbing it Schiller and it will get better.
You’d think that Luke’s paymasters would prefer that he portray ‘climatology’ in a positive way, and its sycophants and acolytes as benign, well-meaning and erudite persons.
It’s increasingly obvious that Luke is a pseudo-CAGWer, hired to make the warmists look like urban troglodytes chewing on the pasture-muffins which spontaneously arise behind the fundament of bovines.
I’ve noticed that the lukes have stopped quoting Realclimate a while ago and instead use “deltiod” as their premier source of “factual” science. In my few visits to realclimate , while I disagree with their basic position, I have found many of the comments to be a serious attempt to discuss the science. The same can’t be said about deltiod, which bears striking similarities to creationist propaganda against evolution. This leads me to the suspicion that the lukes are not seriously trying to use deltoid for salient argument purposes but rather to simply insult and enrage us.
I for one never bother with luke’s deltoid links ’cause going there is like treading in dog shit, even a short experience of it leaves a lasting bad smell.
Derek
Having just spent a year at Deltoid (eventually expelled) I noticed that Tim posted climate stuff until he had that run-in with Lord Monckton. Since then his blog has been concentrating on attacking journalists.
I agree that ‘going there is like treading in dog shit, even a short experience of it leaves a lasting bad smell,’ but I survived and earned my stripes.
Luke has gone over to Watts and embarrassed himself.
EG, really? What’s his moniker, this should be fun.
Looks about normal to me:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg
But anyway, I’m using up all the spare firewood keeping warm until GW arrives. Be a shame to waste it.
Well Derrick – why quote Realclimate – you lot are never up for a science discussion, only politics, preferring to wallow in the slops of contrarian delight. Tim has done an excellent job of exposing you lot for what you are. Shonks.
Spanglers – try the volume matey ! Desperate spanglers. So desperate.
Hey, I found one of luke’s comments and he’s defending BOM’s record on UHI(haw haw) at this link
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/hqsites/
But if you go there and click on a number of the stations that were filtered out you might notice that most of them show a zero or negative trend in temp gradient over the last C. Looks like another own goal from the lukes.
How would we know luke? We’ve never gotten any a) science, or b) discussion from you, just ad homs and abuse.
Derek – can I help it if you’re an illiterate member of the denialisti.
BoM’s analysis of the temperature trend with the best stations is totally clear.
Which angry old soul will you be at the Watts convention? Any distinguishing marks?
Luke has embarrassed himself twice on the same thread at Watts:
Luke says:
June 12, 2010 at 7:21 pm
[~snip~ The d-word is not welcome here. ~dbs, mod.]
Darn? Drat? Drongo?
Katla is about to erupt, according to this link.
http://scienceray.com/earth-sciences/major-activity-iceland-katla-volcano-over-11-earthquakes-in-24-hours/
Hey Gordo, did you notice that no-one over at Watts has payed any attention to our widdle wooky? Da poor guy, he must be getting so fwustwated.
Question; How many lukes does it take to change a light bulb?
Answer; None ALL light bulbs are too dangerous to the planet!
(yeah, I know it’s pretty lame but what the heck.)
Luke,
You didn’t seem to get around to responding to this clanger:
http://www.noaa.gov/features/02_monitoring/weather_stations.html
Oh yea – I got plenty of attention. Yep got myself banned at Watts – guess I’ll just have to ask him in person. So much for free speech. So this is how denialists do it – shut down the debate. That’s your style chaps.
And all I did was say that the El Gordo remark over there was wrong coz they were using a Glaisher stand back in the day.
What clanger Spanglers? – you see my dear denialist chumpie – when 2 terrestrial data sets, 2 satellite sets, and 2 ocean data sets and a bunch of biological phenological type data all tell you the same story only a dickwitted denialist might think it wasn’t highly likely that the place had warmed.
But hey just tell me – if the records are so crook why are you drongos (yourself self confessed too) always banging on about warming or cooling – how do you know?
Just answer the fucking question for once !
And BTW what are you drinking at the Mirage? And are we all going to Crazy Horse later with Wattsy and Archy for a few quiet ones and a lappy? I’m sure they’ll be up for it.
I guess the denialist pensioners at Rockdale will be rattling their canes and tsk tsk-ing as we speak. And Coho must be beside himself – only 4 sleeps till Xmas.
Hey is this one of you guys – http://www.bobbrinsmead.com/ Woo hoo ! I guess that rules Crazy Horse out then. Drat.
http://greenhousebullcrap.bigblog.com.au/index.do or this dude maybe?
http://www.australianclimatemadness.com/?tag=wuwt
I guess democratic access to the internet means these things will happen.
Luke, you were snipped for the improper use of the English language. Not banned!
Nah banned. Next post not accepted even for moderation. Such is life.
“What clanger Spanglers?”
Silvertongue, like why it is ok to have incorrect temps through ever increasing UHI as long as you continue to record from the same point? [as per that link]
Blinding logic or what?
“why are you drongos (yourself self confessed too) always banging on about warming or cooling – how do you know?”
We don’t “bang on” about it – we’re just react sceptically to your extravagant claims.
And we don’t usually bang on at the Crazy Horse afterwards either but don’t let that stop you.
Luke
Being banned at Watts will make you kid of the kids over at Lambert’s blog.
So now UHI is EVER increasing? Oh pullease. Any refs? Infinite UHI?
“don’t usually” eh? hmmmm
Read it and weep boys – look no hands and no UHI !!
GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 37, L10701, 6 PP., 2010
doi:10.1029/2010GL043321
Twentieth century tropical sea surface temperature trends revisited
Clara Deser and Adam S. Phillips
National Center for Atmospheric Research,
Boulder, Colorado, USA
Michael A. Alexander
Earth System Research Laboratory, NOAA,
Boulder, Colorado, USA
[1] This study compares the global distribution of 20th century SST and marine air temperature trends from a wide variety of data sets including un-interpolated archives as well as globally-complete reconstructions. Apart from the eastern equatorial Pacific, all datasets show consistency in their statistically significant trends, with warming everywhere except the far northwestern Atlantic; the largest warming trends are found in the middle latitudes of both hemispheres. Two of the SST reconstructions exhibit statistically significant cooling trends over the eastern equatorial Pacific, in disagreement with the un-interpolated SST and marine air temperature datasets which show statistically significant warming in this region. Twentieth century trends in tropical marine cloudiness, precipitation and SLP from independent data sets provide physically consistent evidence for a reduction in the strength of the atmospheric Walker Circulation accompanied by an eastward shift of deep convection from the western to the central equatorial Pacific.
Looks like Modoki is the go Cohers !
If you say so luke; the ARGO floats and accurate OHC measurement came into play in 2003; what has SST done since then?
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2003/to:2011/mean:10/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2003/to:2011/trend
NH:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst2nh/from:2003/to:2011/mean:10/plot/hadsst2nh/from:2003/to:2011/trend
SH:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst2sh/from:2003/to:2011/mean:10/plot/hadsst2sh/from:2003/to:2011/trend
And this:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2003/to:2011/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2003/to:2011/trend
Hey Luke/bit_pattern,
The Cryosphere Today pictures show no dramatic loss in 30 years. Only a rabid warmist would dare deny that fact.
You and Al Gore will make a fine couple now that he is divorcing Tipper. You could live at one of his seaside homes that he bought during and since his Inconvenient Truth days.
Cohenite – so tedious – what an hilarious bit of cherry-picking – the trend is your friend and it’s UP. Stockers would tick you off for a try-on like this – is this the standard of your attempt to publish in J Geophys Res !!!
Hey MS – yes Cryosphere Today clarified my thoughts so much. Thanks http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.arctic.png
http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=06&fd=12&fy=1980&sm=06&sd=12&sy=2010
Only a paid-for-opinion denialist like yourself would be so deluded.
Dare I say the trend here in a more serious review than cherry tree analysis wood for brains seems to be … errr …um …UP !
http://icoads.noaa.gov/climar3/c3oral-pdfs/S5O2-Levitus.pdf
blink comparator of U.S. Navy PIPS sea ice forecast data, zoomed to show the primary Arctic ice zone.
2008 and 2010. Notice the trend.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/pips_anim.gif
Pesky darn models. They keep contradicting the facts.
At least, now we know the “missing heat” is not hiding in the Arctic. Too bad. Lots of people were hoping for a Northwest Passage.
Luke, give it up. Your side has surrendered.
The IPCC consensus on climate change was phoney, says IPCC insider
National Post
June 13, 2010
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/06/13/the-ipcc-consensus-on-climate-change-was-phoney-says-ipcc-insider/
The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change misled the press and public into believing that thousands of scientists backed its claims on manmade global warming, according to Mike Hulme, a prominent climate scientist and IPCC insider. The actual number of scientists who backed that claim was “only a few dozen experts,” he states in a paper for Progress in Physical Geography …
Paper:
Climate Change: what do we know about the IPCC?
Mike Hulme and Martin Mahony
School of Environmental Sciences
University of East Anglia
Progress in Physical Geography, 12 April 2010
http://www.probeinternational.org/Hulme-Mahony-PiPG%5B1%5D.pdf (22 pp.)
Claims such as ‘2,500 of the world’s leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate’ are disingenuous (p. 10-11)
N.b. Hulme, Professor of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia – the university of Climategate fame — is the founding Director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research and one of the UK’s most prominent climate scientists.
Luke
Too bad you can’t make a comment over at Watts, they are talking about arctic amplification.
Pullease Schillsy – more quote mining from you …… a rambling philosophical paper that says nothing about the science. Ho hum. zzzzzz
Pravda tells the truth or are they just being overly alarmist?
‘Many sources of data which provide our knowledge base of long-term climate change indicate that the warm, twelve thousand year-long Holocene period will rather soon be coming to an end, and then the earth will return to Ice Age conditions for the next 100,000 years.’
Folks, we’re making headway with Luke.
He’s announced that Mike Hulme, Professor of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia, is wrong.
Add that to Luke’s claims that Phil Jones and Kevin Trenberth are wrong, and I’d say, he’s well on his way to becoming a skeptic. It’s only a matter of time before Luke rejects Al Gore, which would be the ultimate test.
Then again, Luke could be one of these:
http://www.damninteresting.com/the-soldier-who-wouldnt-quit
Modoki is over for now and La Nina is almost a certainty.
http://www.jamstec.go.jp/frsgc/research/d1/iod/
Schiller, I think you’re wrong about luke.
With his track record of own goals and avoiding answering our questions, it’s pretty obvious that his beliefs became collateral damage a long time ago to his “war on skeptics” If he bothers to read any of our links, it’s only to find fault. He’s more one-eyed than a Collingwood supporter.
It’s clear that for him the science doesn’t matter any more because he’ll happily use cherry-picking and bogus science in a pathetic effort to score points, much like the labor pollies in question time.
He is a fanatic, and fanatics don’t actually care about the truth, they just care about winning at all costs and if that means sacrificing pawns like Hulme and Jones then so be it.
I’m just surprised he hasn’t turned on Gore yet.
Schiller – nope you’re simply a quote mining shonk. The end. Denialist stock in trade. Never give the full story.
And now you’re into verballing me. I simply said Hulme’s paper added little to the science debate. A rambling philosophical rant for quote miners like you.
Avoiding questions – come on Derek – Schiller is paid to come here every day and read us the “news”. Quite handy of course as it saves a lot of googling.
I do bother to read your links – alas most are pathetic. And without being insulting – they’re just angry fodder for retired talk-back radio devotees such as yourselves.
Have a look – in the main – I post science which has no political comment – seriously – you lot post “rant” links. Simply sceptic rants. Of course it’s war on sceptics – they’re basically dishonest. And it seems that I must have dreadful luck picking “good” science – my science quotes comes from journals with established reputations – not soft review rags like E&E.
Face it – climate science denialism is a great hobby for eccentric retirees needing a good old conspiracy theory to rail about.
And it’s not about “winning” – it’s about putting a measure of risk assessment on an important issue.
‘And it’s not about “winning” – it’s about putting a measure of risk assessment on an important issue.’ Agreed, although I think it criminally negligent not to factor in global cooling.
After all the hype about global warming, the Norwegians are not happy with their miserable summer.
http://eklima.met.no/metno/trend/TAMA_G5_22_1000_NO.jpg
Joe Bastardi says ice is expanding in Antarctica, while Gavin’s mates thinks its shrinking.
‘Temps are plainly below normal around Antarctica where there is a very strong positive ANTARCTIC OSCILLATION! That is why ice is expanding to what may be a record.. it’s cold!!,’ said Joe Bastardi.
http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/daily_ao_index/aao/aao_index.html
Why does a positive AAO make conditions cooler in the SH, while a positive AO in the NH creates a warmer environment throughout Europe?
Hey Luke/bit_pattern,
Thanks for posting the satellite comparison link to the The Cryosphere Today confirming no drastic loss of ice in the Arctic.
And how does it feel to have Hulme confirm what most already know regarding the “consensus” lie of the IPCC’s views? You have nothing, zip, zilch and nada on this site. Keep posting though, as I love seeing others on here destroy you with logic.
Well Mi-Shit is an interesting study in denialism extremism. 30 year trends not enough …. The olde “I won’t be impressed until it’s all gone” moronic variety. The olde “I have to see the entire structure collapsed” mentality. And even then you’d be in denial.
Well turd – wait around and see.
el; re your joe and science!
http://climateprogress.org/2010/03/01/accuweather%E2%80%99s-joe-bastardi-admits-earth-continues-warmest-winter-since-satellite-measurements-started-and-feb-should-be-warmest-on-record/#comment-264971
“destroy you with logic’ hahahahahahahahahahahahahaaaa … is that what it is …. hahahahahahahahahaha – oh the pain ….
/lurk-off/ I see Luke has lied, even again. He said: “Nah banned. Next post not accepted even for moderation. Such is life.”
Banned???? When he has posted again today. So clearly he is not banned. My only conclusion is on a site that does not tolerate his type of uncivil commentary, he was warned and then after submitting a second uncivil comment it was moderated out.
But he has definitely NOT BEEN BANNED! Luke, What part of telling the truth escapes you???
/lurk-on/
el et al; its a pity you guys can’t do something original like a tiny bit of research on just a few of your sources
An environmental scientist discusses Luke’s problems:
If the Science Is Solid, Why Stoop? — An Environmental Scientist Parses Climategate. Stanley W. Trimble, Acad. Quest. (2010) 23:54–56, http://springerlink.com/content/p3128wk8x6041101/fulltext.pdf (3 pp.)
I must add that Climategate is, in my view, the greatest science scandal in my lifetime. Beyond any scientific implications are the implications of the behavior of the East Anglia scientists and their correspondents—suppressing information, denigrating those who don’t agree with them, trying to deny others access to scientific journals, questioning motives, and conniving to disfellow skeptical colleagues. These are the earmarks of zealotry. While maybe not illegal, they are most certainly unethical. Civilized people, much less scientists, just don’t do those things— but then, apparently they do.
Trimble goes on to describe five problems in the warmist narrative, which precisely describe Luke’s issues.
/lurk-off/Gavin makes this statement: ” el et al; its a pity you guys can’t do something original like a tiny bit of research on just a few of your sources”
just after referencing one of the vilest pro-AGW sites on the web.
Gavin, if you have to stoop to referencing that site (one from which I stopped referencing articles) then you are truly in desperation mode./lurk-on/
CoRev,
Gavin fancies himself to be a climate researcher because he sometimes looks at rocks by the beach. From thence he claims to have a privileged perspective on the alleged ravages of CO2.
So, if you went out and looked at rocks by the beach, that would make it an “even contest” between researchers and he wouldn’t have that useless excuse any longer.
Gavin
Joe Bastardi seems perfectly sane in his comments and will ultimately be proven correct in his assessment.
C’mon Schiller; you guys can’t take the psss! Rev n Co come in here straight from the land of evangelism with words like “liar and truth” while furiously hacking for hired guns or Writers Inc.
BTW el, that Joe blow guy is hardly a substitute for a decent weather map and a bit of personal experience with the seasons lived anywhere out of town.
Gavin,
‘Taking the psss’ is not a proper element of polite discourse. Even though it comprises a major part of the CAGW lexicon.
If CAGWers were more polite in their discussions, they might get more credibility. Unfortunately, the ‘Luke model’ of scientific investigation prevails.
Fact is, when doing science, you always risk being wrong. Hey it happens. Normally you fix your theory and move on. Shrieking and cussing certainly proves a level of commitment to a certain narrative, but it does little to improve humanity’s store of information.
Getting seasonal forecasts correct, in a consistent sort of way, is something the UK Met failed to achieve. Joe Bastardi predicts a freezing winter in Europe and I believe him.
It’s only weather, but history will look back and recognize that he saw where climate was heading.
El Gordo,
Isn’t it a bit funny that when weather forecasters align with CAGW that their predictions go completely awry?
Okay, okay. I can hear it already: “The weather is not the climate”. Conversely, “The climate is not the weather”.
But climatologists measure the weather — well sort of. The model thingie. But if neither is neither, what’s the point?
Hey Luke and Gav here’s the place to go that’s the greenest state in the USA, also groaning under hopeless debt.
Yes California dreaming where you might be able to smoke weed legally after November if the proposition gets up.
They’re hoping that the good ol weed might help them get out of the hopeless green mess that green Arnie got them into, like the green madness that’s sinking Spain etc, you know the formula— for every green job the taxpayer funds you lose two real jobs in the private sector, that helps to build the real economy.
So when you see wind turbines ruining the view for miles around you know the mad greens have taken over and you’re heading for power black outs and the power you do use will cost thousands more per household, with the end result bankruptcy for that state or country.
Anyhow it’s on tonight ABC FC. http://www.abc.net.au/foreign/content/2010/s2923813.htm
CoRev: Now, I’m genuinely sorry if I have exposed you to something “vile”, past or present. Note the following for Schiller.
Mate; we have endured rave after rave about Al Gore, AGW conspiracies etc. Now it’s my turn to find those odd expletives like the one used below.
http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2010/s2923968.htm
What you guys should know about me is some thing else about my life long hobbies.
One is recycling quality hand tools; the other is interrupting sales pitch stemming from international orgs that give no freedom to the guy on my doorstep or footpath.
It’s all about resisting the invading scams and “what’s yours is mine” psychology. See below some consequences of the Hubbard book selling racket, based? Guess where.
http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/special_eds/20100308/scientology/
My tool issue is also about retaining independence, local and international quality control, historic manufacturing trends etc leading to ones personal expectations with general hardware use. I could go on to machines, production lines, power and transport, all things beyond the home that should be in the pipeline, not under a pyramid.
Thus I keep a wiley hand on every day.
Neville,
Perhaps you have not yet heard of the Worker’s Paradise, where laborers will gladly slave away in government-guaranteed jobs which are in service of the Environment.
It will be ‘From each according to his ability, according to the needs of Gaia’. The State will wither away and everyone will be busy Saving the Earth.
And saving Al Gore the prophet.
There was recently a bit of news from a British gardener farmer who said that his government payments for ‘protecting the environment’ were twice government payments for his crops.
It’s started already hey, the rest is progress hey.
Hey Luke/bit_pattern,
Quoting from Joe Romm of Climate Progress is like quoting from Tom Cruise on Scientology. And why has Romm avoided any debates with critics with scientific backgrounds?
On the 30 years of sea ice data, well at least I can use 30 years worth of data which is much more than the warmists use in their sermons.
Co-Rev – My second comment with science content was deleted and replaced with simply snip. Interestingly other commentators made similar comments and were not snipped. My 3rd attempt – nothing happened – NOT EVEN a standard moderation response from the system. It eventually did appear so I was incorrect in my assumption. Was not a lie – so you can just piss off. Typical style of the framing and verballing denialisti. Get back to quote mining.
I must say that you guys have a standard diet of junk food – a complete inability – save Cohers – to discuss the science. So we have the usual asides about Gore, wind power, “Climategates”, a litany of abuse from your favourite right-wing think tank – all from the incessant pay for comment team hired by the ex-tobacco denialist industry.
The daily stirring of the pig slops by those too intellectually challenged to make a serious comment. So tedious – so boring.
I see Gavin has you on the run – hi-5 to Gavin.
Uh Schillsy – who’s Stanely Timble. I asked the guy down at the fish n chip shop. He didn’t know.
After the fall of Copenhagen I assumed the war was over, with only the mopping-up to do. Who could have imagined a government funded rear-guard action.
http://www.theage.com.au/national/scientists-to-tackle-scepticism-20100614-ya7j.html
el gordo,
Just love that last bit:
“In February, scientist Tim Flannery [or lukes IOW] urged scientists to again explain the evidence of man-made climate change to a ”confused” Australian public.”
C’mon Luke, run it past us all agen. Us’s sooo confused by your breath taking science.
So El gordo – which bit of your denial are you having trouble with?
I liked this big word REPRESENTATIVES in the opening paragraph. Reminds me of Pravda in the good old days, when the population were forced to read between the lines.
Any journalist worth their salt should ask for the names of those ‘representatives’.
Staying in that part of the world – Kamchatka volcano is waking up.
http://english.ruvr.ru/2010/06/12/9692858.html
We may have a problem sorting out the true cause of global cooling, but I’m confident the CAGW signal will disappear off the radar as soon as the fireworks start.
Luke; have you noticed the one thing this motley assortment of Kiwis, Yanks and one or two locals have not denied? They are also on the PAY!
From our ABC on The World Today, “Scientists study shifting attitude to climate change” This statement in particular caught my attention –
Doctor Cathy Foley. I think the scientific community has been putting it out in a way, which they are scientists. They put out the information, which is the facts as they understand it. Scientists are focusing on that and trying to make sure that they put things across in a way which isn’t alarmist and I think that there always trying to tread that very delicate pathway.
ABC Rural
“Scientists put the heat on climate change sceptics”
Dr Cathy Foley, from the Federation of Scientific and Technological Societies, says scientists will campaign to convince rural Australians that climate change still matters.
http://www.abc.net.au/rural/news/content/201006/s2927133.htm
IMHO Obama could use this lady and her team right now
http://www.dsto.defence.gov.au/events/5884/page/6029/
Gavin – the only person “on the pay” is Dr Cathy Foley, from the Federation of Scientific and Technological Societies
Foley says ‘scientists will campaign to convince rural Australians that climate change still matters.’ Telling farmers and graziers ‘climate change matters’ is laughable, many generations of people living in the same spot know a lot about CC and are naturally sceptical.
“We want to try and understand what it is that we need to do to have effective communication,” she says.
Bit late for that Cathy, old thing. The climate scientists have been feeding the world on bovine pancakes for too long for your average aware farmer to ever take them seriously again.
It’s only the mentally challenged like gavin and the lukes who are still prepared to swallow these pearls.
Who’s “on the pay” did you say?
Antarctic ice is increasing. Nothing to get alarmed about, but worth watching.
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/S_daily_extent_hires.png
What this mob of scientists meeting in Sydney today are not telling us is the truth.
Even if you convince everyone in Oz that AGW is real they forgot to inform us there is absolutely nothing we can do to change the climate back to some supposed nirvana.
Even Luke concedes this point after tortuous months of trying to avoid the question.
Their latest nonsense is to wax lyrical about how must sustainable energy China is producing, which means the 3 gorges dam hydro power, which of course wouldn’t have a snowflakes chance of getting past the green zealots in any developed country.
They forget to mention that China will still be opening up CF power stations every few days for a decade or more to come, so their meeting is a total waste of the taxpayers time and money.
So a fair assumption is , they are either fools or liars or a bit of both.
Arctic sea ice isn’t too bad either el gordo.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/14/wuwt-arctic-sea-ice-news-9/
“Comment from: el gordo June 15th, 2010 at 7:41 pm
Antarctic ice is increasing. Nothing to get alarmed about, but worth watching.
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/S_daily_extent_hires.png”
“Comment from: John Sayers June 15th, 2010 at 8:16 pm
Arctic sea ice isn’t too bad either el gordo.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/14/wuwt-arctic-sea-ice-news-9/”
This data bodes well for ice levels at both regions. Although, Luke/bit_pattern will try to argue that more is less.
Not looking too good in the GOM.
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6593/648967
More AGW “science” questioned:
http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/2010/06/07/rsbl.2010.0053.short/reply#roybiolett_el_31
You just have to laugh at denialists squirming – what part of lowest don’t you understand.
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeseries.png
HELLO …… !!
And of course Antarctica would be gaining ice. http://psc.apl.washington.edu/zhang/Pubs/Zhang_Antarctic_20-11-2515.pdf
Still waiting for the Northwest Passage… Buy an SUV and do humanity a favor! (As though CO2 would make the difference.)
No, Luke, I’m not squirming. That Arctic ice is in the way of all sorts of stuff, it’s useless. The sad thing is, doubling CO2 wouldn’t help.
The psychology of green crooks/scoundrels, etc. What happens when you buy Green Kool-Aid.
“Building on recent research on behavioral priming and moral regulation, we find that mere exposure to green products and the purchase of them lead to markedly different behavioral consequences. In line with the halo associated with green consumerism, people act more altruistically after mere exposure to green than conventional products. However, people act less altruistically and are more likely to cheat and steal after purchasing green products as opposed to conventional products.”
Do Green Products Make Us Better People?
Nina Mazar, Chen-Bo Zhong
University of Toronto
In Press at Psychological Science
August 27, 2009
http://www.rotman.utoronto.ca/newthinking/greenproducts.pdf (16 pp.)
Schiller: ; Please address my point about PAY!
Gavin,
I assume your ‘point’ about being ‘on the PAY’ is a question about if I am paid to make comments here.
I am not paid to make comments here. The comments I make here are not part of my job description, and will have no discernible effect on any personal investments in stocks, bonds, etc.
On the other hand, my job description involves ‘engaging with’ Greenie-whackos on a regular basis, and I have found it quite good sport to mock them with their own rhetoric, and to expose their foul animosity for what it is.
Once you get past the junk science that comprises the foundation of ‘Climatology’, the rest is rude and expensive political initiatives.
Aside from the thrill of debunking frat-boy sophomoric science, I also gain encouragement from fighting within the culture-war which lurks at the heart of what pretends to be a science.
Hoping that is clear enough for you,
Schiller.
Luke
Zhang’s opening par: ‘Estimates of sea ice extent based on satellite observations show an increasing Antarctic sea ice cover from 1979 to 2004 even though in situ observations show a prevailing warming trend in both the atmosphere and the ocean.’
It makes sense that warmer conditions on the periphery would create more snow and ice. This is where Gavin’s mates come in, measuring, calculating and modelling.
Yet another paper about how the Greens excuse themselves from being civilized. Gotta wonder if Luke ever published a paper, if it would be littered with the expletives which he obviously feels are meaningful:
Moral Self-Licensing: When Being Good Frees Us to Be Bad
Anna C. Merritt, Daniel A. Effron, and Benoît Monin
Social and Personality Psychology Compass
Volume 4 Issue 5, Pages 344 – 357
Published Online: 5 May 2010
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/123417122/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0
ABSTRACT
Past good deeds can liberate individuals to engage in behaviors that are immoral, unethical, or otherwise problematic, behaviors that they would otherwise avoid for fear of feeling or appearing immoral. We review research on this moral self-licensing effect in the domains of political correctness, prosocial behavior, and consumer choice. We also discuss remaining theoretical tensions in the literature: Do good deeds reframe bad deeds (moral credentials) or merely balance them out (moral credits)? When does past behavior liberate and when does it constrain? Is self-licensing primarily for others’ benefit (self-presentational) or is it also a way for people to reassure themselves that they are moral people? Finally, we propose avenues for future research that could begin to address these unanswered questions.
A poleward shift of the jet stream will make Antarctica warmer on the outskirts. It happened 15 million years bp, so it could happen again.
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2010/06/abrupt-antarctica-warming-cycle-15-million-years-ago.html
Picked this up at the Bolter: Ocean acidification is a red herring.
http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/threat-ocean-acidification-greatly-exaggerated
Polar scientists get together to discuss Arctic amplification.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/06/100611093710.htm
Well I can proudly review the Watts roadshow last night.
The Tara ball room oozed charm of a bygone era. A waltz perhaps with an old flame? The boys had their suits on. The bar was open.
An audience of mainly retirees and old fogies – looking for something more than talk back radio to rail about. Was no room for warmists and young eco-warriors. But who were the warmists – hard to tell? Maybe anyone under 60 could be sus !
Except for Ove from UQ pushing hard, the questions were kind and about 50:50 warmist vs sceptic
Anthony did the hatchet job on compromised met stations – nice slides – and such shit met stations really – USA has crap met stations – Wattsy seemed like a nice guy actually. Deaf as a post apparently, has an electric car and solar roof with energy saving light bulbs. So the obvious questions were what happens if you ignore the crook stations and look at other data sets – Meene et al, satellite and oceanic – the answers were simply fluffed and glossed over.
We got into logarithmic CO2 (water vapour being let well alone), CO2 fertilising plants.
Archibald was an imposing super-confident West Australian. Clearly would like to slay as many warmists as he could – with a big broad axe. A fearsome advocate for the cause. But alas all the naughty Archy tricks of over-fitted models and using the US temperature series for the world. Beautiful sophistry and well presented.
Bob summed up passionately – he also claimed (unlike the goonery here) that most climate scientists are hard working and well meaning. It’s the process that has become politicised. And we need a climate plan B for the real climate problems.
AND – alas for the goonery here too – they all believed that CO2 was a greenhouse radiation affected gas (but just a widdle wussy one). Poor Schillsy.
Towards the end – Archy said ocean acidification was the last refuge of scoundrels and Ove bit hard. Was classic stuff. Thought it might be on for a minute. A bit of biffo. Archy hates warmists – he loves to get in his big boat and give a big CO2 whoffing rev. And an old Qld Tully boy too – a strapping lad who you’d like to have your back in a stoush. But he does love his solar stuff – he obviously spends heaps of time on it.
Was fun watching the devotees nod and tsk tsk at the many points – in the main the warmists just smirked and rolled their eyes. A full big exhales on the major bullshit.
But I came away a bit sad – everyone’s getting older – the guys weren’t very good really – cold war warriors out of time some how. So much left out. But vintage denialism. The faithful loved it.
I probably would have ripped in a lot harder and broader if one was up for a bit of warmist bashing.
CSIRO and BoM must just be spewing to know how these guys really get so much air time and print space.
Might come down to Surfers tonight and take the boys to Crazy Horse – certainly you need a bit of livening up – as long as your heart medication will take it. I’d be keen if Archy would come too. I’d feel safe with Archy.
Seems Luke has missed out on those intros via Watts to fellow posters. Sad hey
Schiller; I really did appreciate your frankness above however “The comments I make here are not part of my job description, and will have no discernible effect on any personal investments in stocks, bonds…” raises another Q for me, who pays?
Yes; I have noticed numerous links via this blog net to “investment” pages so I have to say it’s time the USA got off the oil train for its own good. Some industries dwell in self perpetuation.
“my job description involves ‘engaging with’ Greenie-whackos on a regular basis” elitism huh?
As one sportsman to another, I hope some of your adversities have a bit more going on the practical side. There is nothing like grass roots nouse in a stouch.
Not a bad effort, Luke. Reduce it to a few pars (retaining the colorful insights) and post it at Watts.
I’d be snipped El Gordo – perhaps you could quote me ! (that’s not quote mine!)
I look forward to a review of the Watts tours here from the various protagonists.
You’re too modest. You have a colorful turn of phrase and obviously a keen observer of human nature.
Someone said the north pole is melting on Mars and straight away I thought angular momentum.
http://www-mgcm.arc.nasa.gov/MarsToday/marstotal.gif
Good post Luke, I also think Watts, Carter and Archibald seem to be pretty reasonable blokes, pity about Ove though, what a gold standard oink.
Seems like Karoly has got himself into the poo again, this time one of youngsters has easily handed him a lesson.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/butterfly_broken/
According to Dr Frank Fenner we humans may not exist in 100 years and he believes we are certainly heading for irreversible extinction some time in the not to distant future, oh well we may as well pack it in I guess.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/frank-fenner-sees-no-hope-for-humans/story-e6frgcjx-1225880091722
Gavin, mate , get a grip! funding is enormously biased towards AGW, climate sceptics have to fund themselves, nobody hands us money. Talks such as those by Watts and Monkton only get up because a few individuals who care about the cosequences of crap science and even worse politics, get off their butts and fund the speakers. On your side you have billions of dollars, on ours a few pennies. This is a sign of how desperate believers have become they resort to “follow the money”. SURELY YOU CAN SEE THAT THE FUNDS SUPPORT AGW NOT SCEPTICS?.
Face it you guys have lost the argument because people have started to be told the truth by even the deepest believers.
You get “scientists” like Ove Hoegh-Guldberg who keep bleating “the reef is dying the reef is dying” who get millions of dollars in funding and yet keep being proved wrong by the reef.
You get other “scientists” such as Karoly who use examples such as butterflies emerging 10 days early as evidence of doom, who also get huge funding. And then you get a simple PHD student who is able to show just how bad scientists like Karoly actually are!
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/butterfly_broken/
AND YOU WONDER WHY WE ARE DOUBTFUL?
That and comments such as yours that sea levels are rising dramatically etc that nobody who lives on the coast actually sees!?…you even gave us a link to the isle of the dead that infact is considered to be evidence for how little sea lvls have changed…….and if you visit port arthur the port and creeks do not indicate any real change in sea lvl. Have you been there? You seem to be unable to grasp that sea lvls were higher in our recent past, you pass scorn on dutch records. If they havent had good reeason to monitor sea levels then who has?…but their data doesnt suit you ignore and look for “middens” as your evidence. I better stop before i get rude and i do not mean or want to be.
And then there is the obvious …well even if it is happening there is currently nothing that can be done about it!?…which is completly true and yet we are preached at that renewables will save the planet!
anybody with half a brain has to be able to see that the whole thing is a massive scam based on a small amount of truth.
Toby – read http://www.spaceweather.ac.cn/publication/jgrs/2003/Geophysical_Research_Letters/2002GL016813.pdf and also http://www.coastalconference.com/2007/papers2007/Peter%20Helman.doc
Tell us also what the IPCC is projecting for sea level rise – what range and average?
Give me your assessment
And speaking of UHI – here’s a nice lil’ sub-Antarctic island example
http://eprints.utas.edu.au/2355/1/Glacier_retreat.pdf
http://instaar.metapress.com/content/m716t541j2514798/
In case Schiller missed my point again “I have to say it’s time the USA got off the oil train for its own good. Some industries dwell in self perpetuation” However by oil “train” I meant oil “line” = pipeline!
On our ABC today (AFP): Mr Obama also urged Americans to use the Gulf oil spill to embark on a “national mission” to develop clean energy.
“The tragedy unfolding on our coast is the most painful and powerful reminder yet that the time to embrace a clean energy future is now,” he said.
“Now is the moment for this generation to embark on a national mission to unleash American innovation and seize control of our own destiny.”
Im glad we all agree!
luke, you are a shameless recycler; the Helman paper; isn’t he that ratbag running around Byron telling people they have to let go of their houses as the rising seas claim them?
And the Hunter, Coleman and Pugh paper; dealt with by the late lamented JD:
http://www.john-daly.com/deadisle/index.htm#appendix
Well Cohers – you have to reuse with denialists as they don’t learn. So as with the football – was it – errr 34:6 – one has to keep teaching you lot lessons. There are many salient features of the Helman paper. And funnily enough Byron’s a great example of the problem.
“Dealt with by Daly” – hahahahahahahahahahahaha – pullease – only a lawyer would use Daly as source. Perhaps modern satellite altimeters also have problems with 5s and 6s. LOL !
In any case all a test for our Toby’s reasoning ability to see what he says…. we’ll see.
Luke, I am totally surprised by your description of the Watts learning experience. It appears at first blush you were impressed.
BTW, what happened to all the bluster re: tough questions and embarrassing retort? Better prepared than you thought? Or maybe just smarter and better informed than your average warmist?
Gavin,
Did you notice that there were two things Obama did not mention in his speech? 1) global warming and 2) climate change.
He’s probably a closet skeptic. At least he’s honest about wanting to “seize control of our own destiny,” which is the whole point anyhow.
“It appears at first blush you were impressed.” “Or maybe just smarter and better informed than your average warmist?”
Nope – you could have driven a truck through the arguments. They weren’t very good.
Selective paff for the time slot – for the mainly believer audience. They believe in what they believe – Watts point about the crook stations is correct – and the US government wants a giant kick up the arse for that effort.
Not for siting stations in cities as that is where people live and so city based stations have applications for local use – e.g. local weather (although not next to the air-conditioner).
Climate change stations need careful siting such as with BoM’s attempt here to develop a reference network.
So it begs the question – what answer do you get if you look at the good stations, what answer do you get from satellite, what answer do you get from the two SST data sets, what answer do you get from biology (save Karoly’s butterfly). THE SAME ANSWER !
And Watt’s ducked it. And substantially ducked the question when it was asked.
But the guys have missionary zeal. They’re keen. Archibald is fearsome and commanding.
And yes carbon taxing would be a real bummer. Yes there are other causes you could spend on. Yes science funding is considerable – but still tough for individuals in the various bureaucracies – it’s hardly “fun”.
Bob Carter said (and they all agreed ! unlike Schiller who doesn’t believe in GHGs) that CO2 IS a greenhouse gas with radiative properties. He said everyone knows that? AND that no sceptic doubts that (pigs bum ! a lot do).
So he said it was reasonable (initially in 1990) to examine the consequences of growth of CO2 in the atmosphere. It was a FAIR question. But he personally does not feel the case has delivered.
He does however believe in natural hazards – e.g. earthquakes, volcanoes, tsunamis – even citing positively a branch of the class enemy – NIWA – http://www.niwa.co.nz/our-science/natural-hazards – which studies such things. He even suggests droughts, floods and tropical cyclones are also hazards needing to be dealt with.
He fears nature has lots in store for us. And life isn’t meant to be easy.
I think Bob would find some of the caked on opinions of the inmates here plain stupid and pig ignorant.
CoRev – however interesting (and FUN) as it was – their analysis of contemporary climate change science was trite, sophistic, cherry-picked and sometimes even point blank wrong. The answers to audience questions were almost scripted by now.
But you have our willingness to immerse ourselves in the alternative argument. How many dudes here would attend a CSIRO climate science day? (none coz you know without even listening that they’re wrong).
Luke said: “Watts point about the crook stations is correct – and the US government wants a giant kick up the arse for that effort.
Not for siting stations in cities as that is where people live and so city based stations have applications for local use – e.g. local weather (although not next to the air-conditioner).”
From that I take it you are in agreement that siting is/can be very important. Could those badly sited stations account for a fraction of the .1C/decade rise?
BTW, are you Mr Green Shirt in some of the comments describing the audience?
And while we’re into alarmism – Archy is a bit of an alarmist himself – was really putting the case for low solar output and a big freeze. Wheeled out a diagram on retraction in US grain belt from cold.
So strangely not much comment on cold alarmism? The audience was relaxed about freezing to death.
Although interestingly enough – New Scientist has a quite interesting article this week – http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20627640.800-whats-wrong-with-the-sun.html
CoRev – of course – yes it could – but the analysis Watts should have done – say NO ! (Meene etal) as does all the other data sources (oceans, satellites, species) ….
CoRev – you just don’t ask the obvious question. You do the OBVIOUS other analysis. And look at alternative lines of evidence.
BoM for example were looking at heat island effects 20 years ago. It’s hardly new.
Anyway thanks to ClimateGate we’re about to take 3 years to recompute it all again to find the same answer – that’s progress !
No heat island on Heard Island ! (oh yes I forgot – it’s volcano !)
Bad example hey Luke
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heard_Island_and_McDonald_Islands
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=7288
Heard Island does have an active volcano and it would be silly not to mention it as a possible explanation for retreating ice.
El Gordo – and it’s been checked out and is not the cause ! (sigh)
Luke,
Your notion of “CO2 IS a greenhouse gas with radiative properties” is ridiculous and I reject it utterly. It doesn’t sit there all day long pumping out heat. If it did, CO2 would eventually drop to zero degrees absolute, which obviously it does not do.
Your notion of “driven a truck through the arguments” is interesting. In IPCC slang, would that be “likely”, “highly likely”, or what? What would you say if I asserted the ability to run a passenger liner through CAGW arguments — sideways? Would you agree with the metric involved?
Your complaint that “thanks to ClimateGate we’re about to take 3 years to recompute it all again” is disingenuous.
The problem with the temperature record is that it has been recomputed. Which is why you’re able to claim the effort will “find the same answer”. How about just revealing the actual data?
Back in the day, in the physical sciences, it was considered important to rely on actual data. Climatology has obviously rejected this bit.
Oh, and, cry me a river over “not much comment on cold alarmism”. The climate cools and warms. That’s why they call it climate. The CAGW theory requires warming, caused by humans, that is catastrophic. Nobody has proven the A, and the C element is best left to movie producers. The GW element shows that the GW remains smaller than the error generated by the methods used, i.e., GW is an attempt to retrieve a signal from overwhelming noise.
Luke, give it up. IPCC scientists are jumping ship all over.
Then it’s warming from some other natural cause. The characters who checked it out are biased towards a CAGW theory because natural scientists appear to be more ‘left leaning’.
http://opinion.financialpost.com/2010/06/15/junk-science-week-climate-junk-hard-to-dump/
el gordo: In defense of Luke I must say how impressed I was in his finding that link to an old acquaintance form Tasmania. As a consequence I spent some time on Google following up this guy’s scientific exploits. I knew him only as a very young adventurer however it seems he has maintained a personal career at the fore front of post glacial kast studies in our region and elsewhere.
A quick look at the McDonald Island group topography confirms my view that our dedicated Southern Ocean scientists remain amongst the best of explorers.
“The Australian Antarctic Division conducted an expedition to Heard Island during the austral summer of 2003-04. A small team of scientists spent two months on the island, conducting studies on avian and terrestrial biology and glaciology. Glaciologists conducted further research on the Brown Glacier, in an effort to determine whether glacial retreat is rapid or punctuated. Using a portable echo sounder, the team took measurements of the volume of the glacier. Monitoring of climatic conditions continued, with an emphasis on the impact of Foehn winds on glacier mass balance.[9] Based on the findings of that expedition, the rate of loss of glacier ice on Heard Island appears to be accelerating. Between 2000 and 2003, repeat GPS surface surveys revealed that the rate of loss of ice in both the ablation zone and the accumulation zone of Brown Glacier was more than double average rate measured from 1947 to 2003. The increase in the rate of ice loss suggests that the glaciers of Heard Island are reacting to ongoing climate change, rather than approaching dynamic equilibrium.[5] The retreat of Heard Island’s glaciers is expected to continue for the foreseeable future.[1]”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allison_Glacier_(Heard_Island)
Luke, I am not sure what you expect me to say ? i am not saying the sea lvl is not rising. We would expect it to with warmer temps causing ice to melt and water to expand.
I have read the hunter paper before and the john daly paper as well ( thx cohers). I like the way hunter is so certain that it was not the mean sea level, daly paints a pretty convincing contra argument i think!? his comments also support what i saw when i visited port arthur. I might also add that yes hunter provides a well reasoned explanation to support the sea lvl rise of approx 0.8mm per year, but daly provides an equally well reasoned argument that does not rely on statistical arguments to persuade us that the tidal mark on the isle of dead is infact the mean sea level and not the ” tide gauge indicated level at or near high tide”( hunter coleman pugh)
My comment was to gavin because he is always going on about his observations. My point remains that if you look harder enough you can find evidence for whatever you want. his comments about sea lvl rise etc seem to me to be ramblings, and his harking on about funding is ridiculous when you realise how much money supports the theory. It shows how blinded he is.
I also liked your summation of the watts meeting, i look fwd to seeing them in melbourne next week.
Wouldnt you agree that having a meeting about “denialism” and suggesting that the reason people are becoming sceptical is because of a well funded sceptic campaign is infact bullshit?…the people targeted such as jo nova and viv forbes are not in the pay of “big oil” and to suggest as much shows how weak their arguments really are.
But hey its too late to save us anyway…we might as well make the next 100 years a big party….http://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/frank-fenner-sees-no-hope-for-humans/story-e6frgcjx-1225880091722 .I will admit that the guys accomplishments would indicate he deserves some respect, but his comments do seem a bit alarmist don t you think?
Well Schiller – you are totally at odds with Carter, Archibald and Watts about greenhouse gases – and they nodded when Bob said “NOBODY” is in disagreement about greenhouse ! So perhaps you should fight your own side.
And CO2 doesn’t sit there all day “pumping” out radiation. At least make an accurate description.
And yes there has been a number of temperature recomputations of late – with little difference to the answer. So wrong again Schiller. This time at great expense an international effort will do it all again – you can even sit with checking each calculation if you like. Care to bet on the answer?
So Schiller I look forward to your peer reviewed publications proving where the 2 climate land data sets, the 2 ocean temperature sets, the 2 satellite sets, boreholes, and species behaviour are ALL – (THAT’s ALL) WRONG !!
At some point even died in the wool denialists give it away.
If you were any good you’d be arguing about water vapor and cloud feedbacks not trawling around irrelevancies. Honestly matey.
Toby,
The actual issue in CAGW and other Green things is whether you’re ‘a believer’. You see, the point is to generate a ‘community of faith’, or, in other terms, ‘a consensus’.
If you don’t believe, if you doubt the consensus, only one question remains, and that is, what or who has ‘corrupted’ you, or, in other terms, what has led you into ‘denialism’.
The science involved is not the issue. The issue is your personal morality. Believe is good, doubt is bad.
This is why Al Gore can get away with any environmental transgression whatsoever. He’s proven himself to be a True Believer, and after that, all is permitted.
At bottom, all Green and CAGW things is fundamentally ad hominem.
Have you repented and been saved?
Toby if you had learnt anything you would have quoted the actual IPCC sea level rise number which isn’t large. You would have quoted the sea level rise that is attributed to different parts of the coastline – it’s not even. You would have also noted the decadal variations.
A casual observor would not notice day to day.
I assume you also disbelieve the JASON altimeter data.
As for alarmism – have you heard rampant alarmism from myself?
Talking of alarmism.
David Archibald is well known for his prediction that over the next decade the annual average temperature of Hanover, New Hampshire will be 2.2 C degrees cooler during solar cycle 24 than it had been on average over solar cycle 23.
That’s a big drop and dwarfs CAGW. So what did Archy have to say at the meeting you went to?
Luke you are pointing out what i already know, how am i to know what you want me to point out…..i thought my points were very valid.
i am aware the IPCC has reduced its claims of sea levels rises….it wont be long before they are changing most of their predictions me thinks!
have i accused you of alarmism?….i have accused others however and i stand by the accusations—ie gore, flannery, ove, hansen, karoly, wong,Rudd, most politicians and all GREENS, IPCC etc
i expect the sea level to change…just like i expect climate to change.
I seem to recall reading critiscm by jon daly of how accurate the predictions can actually be from satellites given wave movement and peak to trough, and using averages for this type of data is not an accurate way to come up with scientific data. The error factors is greater than perceived change if my memory serves me correctly?….http://www.john-daly.com/altimetry/topex.htm. is a link to the article i recall reading.
it does however look like other interesting science arises from “jason” however, such as “Ocean Variability
The missions revealed the surprising variability of the ocean, how much it changes from season to season, year to year, decade to decade and on even longer time scales. They ended the traditional notion of a quasi-steady, large-scale pattern of global ocean circulation by proving that the ocean is changing rapidly on all scales, from huge features such as El Nino and La Nina, which can cover the entire equatorial Pacific, to tiny eddies swirling off the large Gulf Stream in theAtlantic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jason-1
…yes but do we understand what causes these changes? not yet me thinks …what about you?
Daly wouldn’t know. It’s pure opinion from a dedicated denialist. Not source by any means.
As for “yes but do we understand what causes these changes” – only soemwhat but it’s important to know these things affect local events and trends in short time periods. Sea level rise is LONG time scale stuff.
El Gordo – yep same story at my session and grim predictions. Indeed any reduced solar output would have to affect the greenhouse warming. The radiation is a fundamental input. Any sign of this yet though? However I suspect Archy had overfitted his model and I am very sceptical. He produced no hindcast stats. Was too good to be true.
Luke i thought it was intersting that your second “helman” link shows sea level higher during the MWP than it is currently.
Further evidence that temp was warmer then than now? good reason to expect sea level to continue to rise while temps are warm?..evidence for AGW…no
If Archibald is correct then we would see greater precipitation. Cool/wet summers in Europe and freezing winters will become more the norm.
Luke you can dismiss daly all you like but its pretty hard to dispute the following i would think?!
“How many stages of statistical averaging can take place from a body of raw data before the statistical output becomes hopelessly decoupled from the raw data which creates it?
Imagine for example getting ten people to take turns at measuring the distance from London to New York using a simple ruler on a large map from an atlas. Each person would give a slightly different reading, perhaps accurate to +/- 10 miles, but if all these readings were averaged, would that make the final resolution of the distance accurate to one mile? Perhaps. But if a thousand people were to do it, would that narrow the resolution to mere yards or metres? Intuitively, we know that would not happen, that an average of the measurements of a thousand people would be little better than an average from ten people.
Clearly, there are limits as to how far statistical averaging can be used in this way to obtain greater resolution. An average of even a million such measurements would be scarcely more accurate than the average of ten, diminishing returns from an increasing number of measurements placing a clear limit on the resolution achievable. The problem lay not in the statistics but in the inherent limitations of the measuring devices themselves (in this case, a simple ruler and map).
This is precisely the problem which applies in the case of the TOPEX-Poseidon (T/P for short) satellite altimetry system, a joint U.S.-French project which has been active for 9 years measuring `sea surface height’ to a claimed resolution, after statistical processing, of around +/- 4.7 centimetres. In other words, that other manifestation of global warming – sea levels – is now being measured from space minus the problems suffered by some tide gauges in tectonic locations.”
Toby,
good discussion on SLs. Luke’s paper is full of estimations, adjustments and assumptions and still bemoans the fact that it can only support a 10cm per century SLR.
Likewise, Jason measurements are computer-fed, assumptions-added statistics with error bars wider than their claimed measurements. Highly suspect.
“You would have quoted the sea level rise that is attributed to different parts of the coastline – it’s not even. You would have also noted the decadal variations.
“A casual observor would not notice day to day.”
Probably not in a century Luke, up or down. Unless you choose to use your own benchmark which I did 47 years ago and that’s now showing a 20cm fall for that period.
Did you get lost last night? You were supposed to go to the crazy horse AFTER, not before.
For gavin; http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/no_trickle_up_his_leg_this_time/
obama may be advocating a move to renewables but in his speech that you point to according to these reporters ( a pro democrat/ super pro obama media outlet) basically poured complete scorn on what he had to say. Like our great kevin he is fantastic at platitudes but useless at accomplishing much except sending his country into bigger debt( also like our kev, who fortunately had some more astute politicians before him who actually recognised that fiscal balance over the economic cycle is important and so created a savings pool and no debt to make us the envy of the world…..now they are all wondering how we could be stupid enough to have voted for somebody who is so incompetent that he cant even get a policy through that most people agree with in principle).
Gavin perhaps you could turn your mind to creating a way of storing renewable energy that could actually make it a viable option for modern societies? until then it is not a viable option as a few hours of reading would undoubtedly prove to you if you were open minded about it.
Nobody objects to renewable energy in principle. What a super idea! but we do object to not being allowed to live a modern lifestyle…or the ridiculous cost of installing renewables for ourselves . Are you aware how much it costs to build a solar power unit that can actually power a normal house? Are you aware that they usually also require a diesel generator as back up? friends in teh outback use it and the start up cost is around 50k which includes subsidies that mean teh real cost is over 75k.
Wind is rubbish as pretty much everybody is starting to acknowledge.
Geo thermal? great in principle, works well in iceland…but ask flannery how his investment is going!?
wave energy? maybe one day, nice idea but try and run a town on it?
Platitudes are lovely but they dont accomplish anything…just ask the poor aborigines after the great rudd said sorry!….200million spent on housing and so far less than 10 houses if i recall correctly.
SD, i have read your posts in the past about your own measurements with interest. I know a number of people who have lived on the coast for many decades with similar examples. I shoudl say that i do think it very likely that sea levels have risen and so it is interesting when evidence is provided to suggest otherwise.
I posted above daly’s reasoning on errors in the hope that luke may be able to say something other than “daly wouldnt know”.
This is where the ‘precautionary principle’ would be more effective. Money spent preparing for natural impacts, which are certain to happen in the future. Smooth transitions will help us adapt.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/7819201/Nasa-warns-solar-flares-from-huge-space-storm-will-cause-devastation.html
el gordo,
The logical question is, “what happened last time”?
Back in the late ’80s and early ’90s I was using satnav to find my way around the oceans and I didn’t notice any problems. I don’t remember anyone mentioning it [but it must have been bad].
Alarmism didn’t seem to take hold until around the turn of the C with the Y2K disaster prognostications and it has been all downhill ever since.
‘Multi-decadal trends of surface air temperatures [SAT] indicates that the AO was negative for 1950-1969, the AO was positive for 1969-1989, and the AO was negative for 1989-2008 (2010 is the extreme value). Those are realized as the natural variability superimposed on the general trend of global warming.’
Hiroshi L. Tanaka
Clearly we are looking at a 20 year cycle, must be orbital forcing.
spangles
I agree with you 100 percent on that score.
The good news is that ice thickness around the top end is 4 to 5 meters thick and there is no need for alarm.
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/mobile/story.html?id=3158931
So where’s the Watt’s tour report on Gold Coast and Newcastle !
Clear evidence that ACO2 does not cause warming:
http://climaterealists.com/?id=5866
Brilliant! Tonight’s “Catalyst” on our ABC with “Aussie Amber, Ice Core Drought, Changing the Globe, Animal Action: Cleaning Station for Sharks and Rays …”
http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/
Earlier today on Radio National a story about preserving Tasmanian “heritage” huts and inland haunts of Basil Steer, the last of the fur “trappers” also their inovative skin drying methods for such a wet climate. I probably met these folk in my travels there and certainly was told about the snare made from a springy stem set down by the “run”
http://www.abc.net.au/rural/telegraph/content/2010/s2929560.htm
Toby: Re Port Arthur, been there several times but can’t recall the first as a child. One of mother’s ancestors was a long time warder before the prison was closed.
Note (again), vertical SL data is less important than the horizontal. I found this old coastline photo while searching for web info on the Middlesex Plains (old route to Cradle Mt). Trial Harbour is another place I have visited, imo more likely to show recent SL rising impacts.
http://www.nationaltrusttas.org.au/latrobe_photos/images/p1986-257.jpg
Same area but more recent pictures including the Ocean Beach and Henty Dunes near the old port at Strahan. Note too the Gordon estuary high water level at a somewhat more sheltered spot in from the ocean. It’s about here that we tourists met the lads retreating from their Franklin River caves with that crutial evidence of ancient aboriginal occupation.
http://www.themercury.com.au/visit-tassie/westcoast-strahan.html
Luke,
Anthony Watts put on a great power point and it was probably similar to Bris except a little less formal and more friendly. No HOGs there but plenty of sceptic questions. Not a large crowd but quite a few. I was able to talk to Anthony before and after and also to Bob Carter. John Sayers was a bit late due to following the earlier schedule but he won the lucky door prize [bottle of booze] and I was able to find him. We had a drink at the bar later, hoping you might show.
Toby: Re your Daly concern, I took one look at the official SL sites via coher’s post and found sceptics were blogging round only a couple from their longer term site “selection”. By contrast I checked on several north side of Bass Strait which I know is geo stable then chose Stony Point to represent SL rise downunder. Stony Point like Cape Grim is recent science though. For those who don’t know Stony Point = BHP/LYSART. Good instruments hey!
It’s the same for those Mercury pics. Although having lived and worked on the West Coast in a rapidly changing environment with respect to industry, mining and hydro electric development, I maintain considerable faith in the experts (engineers, scientists, project managers etc) even after having tramped most of it myself and seen a lot of environment destruction. Guys like Kevin Kiernan the Tasmanian geomorphologist are the best we’ve got and ever had believe it or not.
At Newcastle a small enthusiastic crowd watched Stockwell demolish Csiro and BoM, while Watts gave a committed appraisal of his growth from gullibility to rational sceptic; Archibald gave a cogent talk incorporating historical verification [ie hindcasting is not necessary when your data is what has actually has happened] and extrapolation based on that historical verification.
Had a few beers later at the Delaney. Very cold – 5C -; really needed some AGW.
Turns out Al Gore was cheating on Tipper. Turns out purchasing infidelity offsets (diamonds) wasn’t enough to prevent the marital climate overheating.
http://www.starmagazine.com/al_gore_laurie_david_affair/news/16986
We won’t have to slaughter the whales after all. Even though whales exhale tons and tons of CO2, they offset all of that with iron-rich whale poop. Which proves that some offsets actually work.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1287019/Whales-offset-carbon-emissions.html
The wheels are coming off at NASA. Shortly after it was revealed that NASA used the wrong equation for the heat budget (the ‘Moon Paper’, it backtracked and said that was ‘for illustrative purposes only’, but it takes a lawsuit to discover what their equation actually is. Part of the problem is the Gavin Schmidt model of radiation “up and down” and how that effectively doubles the greenhouse effect. Which would solve Trenberth’s problem of the “missing heat”. It’s missing because it doesn’t exist.
http://climaterealists.com/attachments/database/GreenhouseGasTheoryDiscredited.pdf
Meanwhile the Michael Mann fraud probe is heating up, with defensive claims of academic immunity. Hmm. If there’s no fraud, why claim immunity? The probe is said to have a “chilling effect” [beautiful pun when you think about it] on the academic community. Hmm. If there’s no widespread fraud, why would there be a chilling effect?
” hindcasting is not necessary when your data is what has actually has happened” – ah young Cohers – ask Stockers – very much the problem. You get a perfect fit with a relationship to now and then it falls over on predictions. No marks I’m afraid. Welcome to basic prediction gotchas 101.
Schiller – you know there’s this thing called the internet – where lots of crackpots post ideas – and then other crackpots echo them as source. Your climaterealists post is an example of the virgin birth combined with perpetual motion. Something comes into existence from nothing, is nothing, but lives on as source. HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAA
” it backtracked and said that was ‘for illustrative purposes only” – gee Schillsy – it’s called “read the model documentation” – so secret (not!).
PURE 100% fabricated denialist bunk.
Luke,
Has anyone ever told you that if you disagree with something, you should say why? Raving and cussing are not even mentioned in the list of logical fallacies.
You get close to rational thought with the suggestion to “read the model documentation”, but it’s already known that NASA does not use the same model as is published. That’s why the lawsuit to make them divulge their models and other data has not been thrown out of court. It’s a live issue.
Maybe the problem is that every time you come up with something you consider rational and conclusive, it’s not. Luke, you’re picking boogers (are they called Bush Oysters on your end?) instead of cherries. You need to work harder.
“Well Schiller – you are totally at odds with Carter, Archibald and Watts about greenhouse gases – and they nodded when Bob said “NOBODY” is in disagreement about greenhouse ! So perhaps you should fight your own side.”
Luke you failed to add that having stated that CO2 heats the planet they then went on to show it’s logarithmic relationship which shows a doubling of CO2 to produce a measly 1C per the century. IIRC Anthony used the salting of soup as the example.
It was good to meet up with Spangles and have a couple of drinks. Sounds like the Brisbane meeting was more lively.
John Sayers,
My position is solely, and simply, that CO2, being a ‘greenhouse gas’, does not exhibit the behavior ascribed to it by CAGWers.
Some take the position that CO2 is not a ‘greenhouse gas’ at all, which is quite entertaining, but as false a position as the CAGWers.
Bottom line, we’ve recently experienced GW, but the A is dubious, and the C (in CAGW) is also dubious.
The thing about AGW and its reliance on the greenhouse properties of ghgs like CO2 with attendant phenomena like backradiation and the K&T radiative cartoon is that despite these proven effects there doesn’t seem to be any consequent temperature result.
Consider temperature has gone up since 1900 by about 0.7C. TAR allows for a solar contribution to that of 0.4C reduced to 0.1C in AR4. Natural oscillation, even if stationary, which it isn’t, from ENSO adds another 0.3C. That’s either 0.7C or 0.4C from the 0.7C. The climate sensitivity amount from IPCC from 2xCO2 is 3.2C. CO2 has gone up over 40% since 1900 so pro rata temperature should ahve gone up ~ 1.3C. With the natural factors considered the AGW component is either 0.0 or 0.3C; at best 25% of the obstensible greenhouse effect; and there is no measureable pipeline lag.
So, even if CO2 is a greenhouse gas and has increased where is the effect?
Yes Cohers an obvious example of where the theory slips up when faced with reality. But heh, the models must be right , so the data must be wrong..shall we adjust it?…or its all being absorbed by the oceans and soon it will cause runaway heating……
It’s probably old hat for most of you, but I was shocked to find that the Eemian was 4 C warmer than the Holocene.
http://www.c3headlines.com/2010/06/2010-antarctica-peerreviewed-research-ice-core-data-confirms-medieval-period-warmer-than-present.html
Yes el gordo it is intersting that all teh evidence indicating a global MWP RWP MWP etc are ignored. Luke yday sent me off to look at paper on sea levl rises. it contained a lovely graph showin gthe MWP sea level being higher than today. but this is also swept under the carpet. another strong piece of evidence i would think that if sea lvels were higher 1000 years ago there were also probably higher temperatures.
how this theory gained such traction really amazes me.
‘how this theory gained such traction really amazes me.’
Pure and simple propaganda works every time. At the next election this emotive issue will divide families.
I just received this email from Alan Barron who tried to attend the vict govt attempt to further manipulate public servant attitudes..its a must read for everybody whether you believe or not. Luke, Gavin etc you should also be up in arms that our money is being used to manipulate opinion in this way. This is a pure disgrace. And if this alone doesnt make you stand up and say thank god for a few sceptics, then i dont know what will open your minds!?
“`Dealing with climate change denialism’ meeting in Melbourne.
By Alan Barron.
There was a meeting held today (Friday, the 18th June at 12 to 1.30pm) for Victorian Public Servants on climate change at the Treasury Theatre, Lower Plaza, 1 Macarther Street, East Melbourne. The guest speaker was the CSIRO’s Paul Holper. The flyer sent out advertising the meeting stated, “DSE invites members of the Victorian Public Service to a presentation on: Dealing with climate change denialism. Popular opinion on climate change often waivers, particularly when the media focus on denialist views (they have to be kidding right?) and encourages “debates” with climate change scientists. The Victorian Government, along with other governments in Australia and across the world, rely on the scientific community for advice on climate change and its likely impacts.
“The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is recognised as the international authority on climate change science and denialist views often lack rigor and credibility in comparison. Paul Holper (CSIRO) will present on ways to approach climate change denialism in a Victorian context.” The blub went on to say that Mr Holper manages the CSIRO’s involvement in the “Australian Climate Change Science Program, a $15 million program supported by the Commonwealth Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency” which among other things, makes “projections of Australia’s likely future climate.”
So there we have it; taxpayer’s money being used to hold a closed meeting to brainwash public servants on climate change! Seeing I’m a Victorian taxpayer, I thought I would see if I would be allowed to attend as it’s my taxes which have made this meeting possible. When I arrived there two `security protection officers’ out the front and two gentlemen inside the door.
No doubt the powers that be at DSE (Department of Sustainability and Environment) must have become worried when Andrew Bolt ran a story about the meeting in his column. After all, we can’t have embarrassing question to be asked! No, we must have complete control of people’s thought processes. I told the security people I was a federal public servant and a Victorian taxpayer and would like to attend the lecture. I was curtly told in order to gain entrance, one must have pre-registered and have one’s Victorian public service identity card on their person. If you had no ID and your name was not on the list, that was the end of the discussion. The meeting was for only registered public servants only – capis! I felt like Winston Smith, shades of 1984!
I got talking to fellow sceptic – Colin – who was standing not far from the entrance. He said he had gained entrance and had just become seated when the security guys came up and said they needed to check his details. Seeing as his name was not on the list, he was told that it is an offence to `trespass on government property’ and then promptly frog marched him out of the theatrette.
So Colin and I stood around for awhile and counted the people going in. About 40 people in all, and given the theatrette held, we thought, about 200, it was not a big turnout. Oh dear, all those empty seats! What a lost opportunity to brainwash another 160 poor souls!
I don’t get it. If the government thinks climate change is such an important issue, why not throw the issue open for public discussion and debate? This nonsense about presenting only one side of the debate and holding meetings to warn people of the dangers of alleged `climate change denialism’ smacks of arrogance and manipulation as well as being patronising and condescending. I’m going to write to my local member and protest, but given his fulsome support for global warming alarmism, I don’t think I’m likely to get a warm response from him.”
Isn’t it good to see the piglets coming home to roost:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/06/17/spain_sustainability_scam/
Toby gets excited about a hand drawn graph around the MWP ! LOL.
” runaway heating” Toby – are you actually deranged. WHO is talking about runaways – denialists love to slip in a dash of bunk don’t they.
Gee Toby – governments put on lectures all the time on all manner of stuff. And golly gee – they’re 100% effective. You see all public servants always vote for the govt of the day. They are 100% loyal. Nobody ever dissents or leaks. Certainly nobody looks at norty denialists blogs at home. In fact public servants are incapable of independent thought. LOL !
Toby – all the Watts tour has to do – is ask for an opportunity to present at BoM HQ or Aspendale.
They wouldn’t be game ! They’d have to actually answer some questions.
I’m the sure the establishment would host them.
In fact if Cohers and Leon are fair dinkum they’d arrange it.
How many times do we have to catch Luke in his hypocrisy? He said: ” runaway heating” Toby – are you actually deranged. WHO is talking about runaways – denialists love to slip in a dash of bunk don’t they.”
Luke, asks who? James Hansen and many of the other warmist community of ?scientists?. To what are those ole “tipping points” referring. Cold? Nope! Acidification? Maybe! Heating (runaway and otherwise?) Absolutely!
Luke, you are shameless. You are so far gone, that I fear there are no names for the planets in that far, far galaxy upon which you must reside. Maybe there CAGW is accepted, but here, not so much.
A while back I went looking for claims regarding the ‘tipping point’, ‘point of no return’, etc. to see if the claims had held up. The notion being, if those making the claim of such a phenomenon gave a date for the event, we could verify or falsify the claim.
I invite others to replicate my effort.
All I was able to find was that the tipping point would occur ‘soon’ or ‘in the near future’ or ‘any time now’, etc. and so forth.
So what we have is a proposition that’s not falsifiable, which, as all scientists know, is not a scientific claim.
Pure booshwah. Fraud, scam, hoax.
Schiller: From a practical point of view; THE tipping point could be a time when some one realizes we are looking (up) at the toe of that “hockey stick” in a relatively smoothed graph of recent GLOBAL temperatures.
With a little imagination, some of us would then go looking for a touch of positive feedback in the turmoil of causes and effects.
I doubt if any individual can say when we are there.
Gavin,
From a practical point of view, the forecasts of a tipping point are twaddle.
Some claim the ‘tipping point’ will occur after the planet has too many ppm of CO2. Others, that it will occur when the planet has too much warmth.
The planet has in the past vastly surpassed current heat and CO2 levels without spontaneously combusting or whatever other Catastrophes (the ‘C’ in CAGW) which might be envisaged, as you say “with a little imagination”.
With a little imagination, you could write a sequel to Pachauri’s novel, too. Add enough from the gray literature to provide footnotes, you could even add a section to the next IPCC report, to deal with impacts on reproductive behavior and its analogues. [could be a pun there]
If there’s a possibility that catastrophic ‘positive feedbacks’ in the climate actually exist, all of them have been eliminated in the course of the planet’s history. Life continues to thrive.
Toby: Re your Allan Barron email, I see only a right wing political campaign on the go prior to our next Federal election. May I suggest: you are up to your neck in it too right now. That motive if true distracts from our climate debates here.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/minister-there-is-nothing-wrong-with-scepticism/comments-fn558imw-1225864253854
IMO it’s this link that confirms any Gov’s right to throw out campaigners in their midst.
http://www.australianclimatemadness.com/?p=3651
btw I’m generally for a bit of stirring round election time however as a former PS that meeting was never on the cards for mere dropins.
Schiller: When has modern society faced a rough climate?
Gavin,
The question about ‘modern society’ and when it ‘faced a rough climate’ depends on when you place the starting date for ‘modern’ society.
I would say that humanity has always faced a rough climate, from whatever date you’d like to choose. Some better than others, but it’s always been a battle.
Sir, sir…I think I’ve found a tipping point!
It happened around 2000 AD and looking back over millennia we can see many other examples of global cooling. The mechanisms are simple, reduced sunspots and a long solar cycle starts the ball rolling. Throw in a large volcanic eruption which dampens conditions even more and then boom, boom, as positive feedback comes into play.
Of course negative feedback usually saves the day, but on this occasion…..
18 Jun 10 – “NASA is beefing up (sunspot) numbers and not measuring in a way where we can use their method to compare to previous cycles,” says Accuweather meteorologist Joe Bastardi.
“Rewrite and confuse the public,” says Bastardi. “The old method, as they were using back in the last downtime, would never say there was a sunspot. They are picking out what they term a sunspot now.”
Yeah, we are looking for a CAGW tipping point and are blind to reality. Seeing spots that were previously invisible will ultimately count against the zealots.
Spot 1082 is a good example of what Joe is talking about.
http://www.solarcycle24.com/
luke says, “Toby – all the Watts tour has to do – is ask for an opportunity to present at BoM HQ or Aspendale.”
David Stockwell has been approaching CSIRO and BoM for yonks; they won’t respond so he gives talks about how their predictions about droughts and rainfalll and temperature are flawed on the basis of their own data; I really don’t know what else he can do.
Cohers – having seen Stockers talk last night am I utterly shocked how bad it is. You can take my opinion as predictable – but mate I’m not sure he’d survive well in a serious audience. All your audiences are aged and mostly non-scientists, they believe every graphic, don’t see the sleight of hands. It’s a horrid mix of semi-science and anti-ETS commentary.
Didn’t see the ppm and ppb differences in scale on one graph. And he just suckered them graph after graph.
You guys are chicken to take that tour to BoM and or CSIRO – chicken !! It’s for old halls with old fogies I’m afraid. (as fun as that is).
Indeed the guys last night knew it too. They want to bring Monckton back and engage Australian youth.
CHICKENS ! It your job as the Sceptics Party to arrange the presentation.
I posted this over at Watts
******************************
WHAT NEVER HAPPENS !
So seeing Anthony, Bob Carter and David Archibald in person makes it hard to dislike them. Ove is a good bloke in private too. But he was genuinely outraged and his blood was up – but alas wasn’t his show and he should have sat down earlier. Alas if you were a sceptic there was almost nothing he could have said to start your cognitive dissonance wobbling – coz you already know don’t you?
So we’re all very polarised on the issue of AGW. Warmists and sceptics have deep distrust of each other.
Nobody would doubt Anthony Watts has totally shown the parlous nature of the US recording network. But the obvious question left out from the talk is – what do the remaining “good” stations – that’s all of them in toto – (not cherry picked) tell us. Does it line up with our ocean data sets, our satellite data sets, boreholes and our 100s of records of changes in species behaviour and phenology.
So it’s not what’s being told – it’s what is left out.
Goes for both sides actually.
What never happens – never enough time to do a proper discussion – too combative – positions are entrenched.
But people are still people close up and personal.
But alas – the two sides really never engage. Why – any compromise will be seen as giving oxygen to the other’s position. Distrust is rampant.
Having now sat through two Watt’s tour talks I can safely say you can drive a truck through many (not all) of the arguments presented on the Watts tour. SOme very naughty stuff guys.
Most of you will simply dismiss this as a warmist rhetoric or religious belief. Sorry guys – as objective as you may think you are – there are reams of crud in there – and major bits left out. However – some points are also quite OK.
But in the end – don’t we all simply want to know the facts.
The public is seriously not being well served by the quality of the current debate.
So what about it Aussie sceptics? Where is the serious debate? All that’s at stake is the truth.
What should happen !
The Watt’s road show should present at Bureau of Meteorology HQ or CSIRO Aspendale.
The Australian Sceptics Party should arrange it. Chicken?
P.S. Anthony’s Aussie schedule is punishing – it’s as bad as an election campaign – I hope you’re looking after him.
CoRev – the vast majority of AGW persons – DO NOT believe in a runaway greenhouse on Earth. I am most angry at your assertion and misrepresentation ! Grow up. When will you lot stop quote mining and misrepresenting IPCC opinion.
Ove is at it again.
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/whale-watch/global-warming-threatens-whales-reports-20100618-ykqg.html
They’ve been migrating further south since the 60s-70s and what he doesn’t mention is that the main predator for the urchin is the Tasmanian Rock Lobster, I wonder where they went. Perhaps if they caught the urchins and shipped them to Japan they’d get $450/kilo as they are a sushi delicacy.
I’m so sick and tired of the blatant scaremongering press announcement made purely as an attention getter in the media.
Luke, give it up. Your are embarrassing yourself with the hypocrisy and feigned anger. You claimed I said: “the vast majority of AGW persons …” When I actually said: “Luke, asks who? James Hansen and many of the other warmist community of ?scientists?.” You do see the difference between “vast majority” and “many” don’t you?
BTW, if that anger is real, then you just showed all here how to get under your skin. That’s a much needed lesson after all the bovine pizzas you have dished out.
More disinformation or lies from the ipcc, seems they can’t help themselves.
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2010/06/ipcc-disinformation.html
luke, this is the Noosa talk? I wish you’d got in touch with us, we could have arranged a bulk discount since you are going to so many of the talks. As for this idea that we are squibing taking on CSIRO; read this:
“Sceptic evicted from Vic Public servants meeting on brainwashing techniques
Two climate sceptics Colin Ely and Alan Barron attended a Vic public servants meeting on Climate Brainwashing techniques conducted by the CSIRO
Here are their accounts plus that of an un named attendee (so he does not get sacked)
Colin Elys account: The Department of Sustainability and Environment were sponsoring a lecture today by the CSIRO’s Paul Holper, entitled, Dealing with Climate change Denialism.
As a former Victorian Public Servant and a member of the Climate Sceptics Party, I thought I would attend and listen to what was said and, hopefully ask a few pertinent questions.
I attended this morning and actually was the first to arrive and just walked in and sat down and waited for the lecture to attend. A short time later a Public Servant came down and said it was a government function and asked me to leave. I replied that I believed the Treasury Theatre was a ‘public place’ and that you can’t be guilty of trespassing in a public place. He advised that he was going to call ‘security’, I replied that if that was what he thought was needed, then go right ahead, and I sat down again and waited for the lecture to begin.
A short time later two members of the Victoria Police Protective Security Group arrived and asked me to go outside with them. They advised me that it was a Victorian Government ‘private’ function. I replied that I believed it was a ‘public place’ and therefore I wasn’t trespassing . They advised that that wasn’t correct and if I tried to re-enter they would arrest me, (I would hasten to add that at all times these two officers treated me in a professional and respectful manner)
I therefore said that I understood them and would stay outside the theatre and, as is my democratic right under the Westminster System of Democracy, would stand outside and ‘politely’ abuse the attenders of the lecture. They advised me that I couldn’t do that in the Treasury Reserve either. So there I was, standing outside the entrance, being ‘guarded’ by two of ‘Victoria’s Finest’!
Later Alan Barron and I asked if we could hand out flyers to attenders after they left, they told us that we couldn’t do that either, so we bid them good day and left.
Alan Barrons story
I told the security people I was a federal public servant and a Victorian taxpayer and would like to attend the lecture. I was curtly told in order to gain entrance, one must have pre-registered and have one’s Victorian public service identity card on their person. If you had no ID and your name was not on the list, that was the end of the discussion. The meeting was for only registered public servants only – capis! I felt like Winston Smith, shades of 1984!
I got talking to fellow sceptic – Colin – who was standing not far from the entrance. He said he had gained entrance and had just become seated when the security guys came up and said they needed to check his details. Seeing as his name was not on the list, he was told that it is an offence to `trespass on government property’ and then promptly frog marched him out of the theatrette.
Alan says “If the government thinks climate change is such an important issue, why not throw the issue open for public discussion and debate? This nonsense about presenting only one side of the debate and holding meetings to warn people of the dangers of alleged `climate change denialism’ smacks of arrogance and manipulation as well as being patronising and condescending.”
Someone who attended the forum had this to report
Chris Mitchell introduced the presentation. He is a Ministerial Advisor to the Minister for Climate Change on Adaption.
Chris acknowleged the traditional owners of the land on which we met (and said how they guided Australia through climate change in times before European invasion).
Chris declared that he has a ‘day job’ as a director of an ASX listed carbon offset company.
Paul Holper then went through the graphs of CO2 levels over time, temperature over time, talked about Cape Grim. He said “more heat trapping gasses means more heat is trapped”, and talked about correlation, but not about causation.
Paul has worked at CSIRO for the last 20 years, and commented how predictions of 20 years ago have come true, and how current predictions are now much worse.
Paul then quoted a “European Journal of Health” (or something like that) and an article that analysed “Denialism” in the health area. He said there were 5 main characteristics used by denialists, including:
– Believe there is a conspiracy
– Pull out their own fake experts
– provide selective evidence
– misrepresent things and use logical fallacies
Paul then talked about an (unnamed) US scientist who denied Ozone was causing a problem, was a passive smoking sceptic, and is now a anthropogenic global warming sceptic.
He showed slides by John Gardener at CSIRO (Social scientist) who classified people into one of four groups – Sceptics (know but don’t think it is a problem) (5%), “Disengaged (don’t know don’t care)” (15%), “Engaged” (know and care) (35%) and “concerned uninformed” (45%). This was charted on an x/y graph with x being concern and y being knowledge.
Paul recommended not treating Climate Change as a green issue, as that puts people off.
Paul suggested that CSIRO had put out “Fact Sheets” and FAQs to counter all of the sceptical arguments.
He then went through tips on how to communicate the problem of cilmate change effectively:
– Be Clear; Impartial; relevant
– Be Objective
– Be Practical
– Message must resonate
– Avoid doom and gloom
– Avoid impenetrable language
– Use different media
– Provide info for different levels of understanding
– reiterate over time
– be positive
He also mentioned Graeme Pearman (his boss in CSIRO) standing up in a room 10 years ago saying “If anyone can disprove what we’re saying here, I’ll give you people, money, resources, what ever, to disprove this science”. No one has taken up that offer.
There was no heated exchange, although the microphone lady was a lot quicker to take the microphone back from people who asked sceptical questions that from people who asked “the right” questions.”
luke; I’ve just spoken with David; he says there were some, what he presumes, CSIRO folk at his Noosa talk and he invited questions; none were forthcoming; was that you? Have you squibed it?
Graeme Pearman is a zealot with a PhD in carbon budgeting.
And, ” Ove is a good bloke in private too.” Yeah well, a pity he doesn’t stay in private instead of trying to petrify the punters with his chicken little nonsense. At the Brisbane talk he apparently had some offsider taking pictures of his antics; sounds like the usual Hansen hubris syndrome to me.
CoRev – make with the quotations and papers – put up !
Archy should relax – I’m unaware of CSIRO or BoM being at Noosa. I would suspect not. Me- I’m just a hobbyist.
As for squibbing it – well where do you start – you could put up 100s of questions – sometimes on each slide. One could be there for hours. Besides I was there to concentrate and seriously listen.
You know the format for these things 4-5 polite questions from an aged audience – usually zany and political. It’s a sceptic event – i.e. your show – not a warmist faire – in Brisbane when the pro-AGW questions started most of the pro-sceptic audience were angry and felt invaded. Wasn’t a good look nor productive exchange.
Wattsy said “get your own hall”.
As for what you wrote about Victoria – well yep – govt aren’t nice? Have they ever been? probably par for the course anywhere. Don’t think everyone isn’t affected by this stuff. And all organisations have controlling managers that …. well …. “manage”.
I was suggesting you have a science exchange not a media stunt. You owe it to yourselves and your constituency to test your ideas robustly. This is what science is all about – running the gauntlet. Lions den. Has Archy overfitted his solar data – I don’t know, but I suspect he has – he should get it checked out.
Cohers – I had this friend who came up with a forecasting scheme. He showed it to BoM and they said it was crap. So he asked why? They told him. He then asked what would he have to do to prove it wasn’t crap – this was in a statistical sense – and he was told. Took him a year to get the maths done but now he’s back !!
Another guy has been looking a lunar influences. Has been told it’s crap on 2 publishing attempts. Did he run off to E&E and squib it – no he’s addressing the reviewers concerns. Does he think there’s a conspiracy – nuh – just that publishing in an establishment environment is hard yards. i.e. so suck it up and keep going.
The Watts tour boys looked tired – hope you’re looking after them (seriously). I’d be looking after them 100% with venue setup and driving.
Cohers – yea I bought Archy’s book – was after Bob’s too but they didn’t have any. Very important to have David’s book as he has made a prediction.
Luke, if the science was being pushed as a doubling of co2 will cause approx a 1c increase in temperatures, (which is what the science says without positive feedback effects) then the need to be concerned about AGW would be gone. Without relying on exagarations or doubtful science ( positive feedback) both scientists and politicians and media run out of things to say …and so would you…
and yes luke govt departments run meetings all the time…but they dont shut out people because they do not believe in what is being lectured about…dont you see that!?? Man talk about warped thinking. I am not saying public servnts cant think for themselves..another straw man built by you……
and Gavin sees only a right wing campaign on the go….so what was that meeting barran tried to get into all about!?
Mate there has been a massive left wing campaign underway for 15 years now and you know what? You are losing headway not making it! When a few sceptics get together and fund a speaker out of their own pockets it beomes a “right wing campaign”…how about a campaign of concerned citizens?
Sorry Toby – yes they do shut people out – any institution, company or organisation is entitled to have a private meeting or a public one. For heavens sake. So now you’re saying that anyone can rock up to any govt meeting anywhere anytime?? You may not like what was being said – but that’s another issue. It wasn’t a public forum. The end.
I’ll tell all of you what the number one problem is, we are about to spend unbelievable billions of dollars for zero effect on the climate, that’s what will annoy the crap out of the majority of people when they wake up.
Krudd has just allocated $30 million from the last budget to continue to con the people that we will save all the iconic locations by doubling the price of energy and we’re supposed to sit back and not protest when we know this is nonsense.
The number one reason I’m in this fight is to expose it for being the greatest lie and fraud for the last 100 years.
Spain has bitten hard on this poisoned green pill and is close to bankruptcy, because they have lost twice as many real jobs by trying to invent expensive, inefficient green jobs that have to be funded by the taxpayer at a criminal cost.
You can argue the science of AGW forever or until a type of madness takes over, but the remedy is illogical and doesn’t even pass the simple arithemetical test of proper attribution.
Luke,
Deal with the substance. It may not have been a public forum but as a forum it was one eyed with no intention of balance.
If it had been right wing govt sponsored forum for discussing ONLY the other side of the debate, what do you think would have been the reaction?
“What Never Happens”??????
Both sides are fully aware of the other’s POV. It’s been detailed in writing ad infinitum. They just won’t accept it, however the sceptics are always prepared to debate it, unlike the warmers.
That alone says that the warming argument is the shakier of the two.
The most efficient way to handle this problem is to have the politicians argue their views on CAGW. For this to happen the issue of climate change should be front and centre at the next election.
CC should not be party political, every pollie must be allowed to speak independently on this subject.
We have to find a way to educate journalists to ask intelligent questions.
What’s that – El Gordo – an actual forum – one eyed with no intention of balance. Unheard of in public administration. !!! I AM SHOCKED. Unprecedented !
But are you sure you weren’t confusing it with a sceptics’ seminar?
“We have to find a way to educate journalists to ask intelligent questions.” especially of sceptics
Well Neville rant as you will – both left and right governments have funded climate science for a long time. Even your mate Bob carter says we need climate research. In fact he’s all for it? As you now saying Bob has criminal intent? Not nice.
Buy hey let’s examine how sceptics go with Paul Holper’s checklist
– Be Clear; Impartial; relevant (UH-OH – better skip this one)
– Be Objective (OH DEAR – NEXT !)
– Be Practical – yea OK
– Message must resonate – yes – a virtual harmonic set up by group wanking
– Avoid doom and gloom ….. hmmmm Archy says we’re all gonna freeze
– Avoid impenetrable language – yes – had not to if you’ve only gone to grade 7
– Use different media – yes – well done
– Provide info for different levels of understanding YES YES – so many conflicting ideas – every child player wins a prize – anyone can play – any theory except CO2 is cool ( a pun)
– reiterate over time – YES YES – recycle debunked b/s ad nauseum – see Schillsy
– be positive – well YES definitely
‘Bob carter says we need climate research. In fact he’s all for it?’
Me too, simply on the basis that we need to record exactly what is happening. The billions spent so far may seem a little excessive, but in the long run it will prove to be money well spent.
Luke said: “CoRev – make with the quotations and papers – put up !” I make it a point to not get into competing papers discussions. Too many on each side for any point.
But, all you are doing is changing the subject and introducing even another strawman. The real point in my original and ensuing comments was your actions. They were substantiated with your own comments.
The only good of your commentary that I can see is that you have probably single handedly by being so offensive kept this blog/thread going.
Frank Fenner claims the human race will be extinct within 100 years.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1287643/Human-race-extinct-100-years-population-explosion.html
This fellow should get the blue planet award.
So CoRev – you have NOTHING then do you. Utterly weak.
Hey guys; I reckon today was a first for Canberra at this time of the year. We ate the last of our home grown tomatoes at breakfast time, so thats it for June. Winter is either very mild or not happening at all!
‘The only good of your commentary that I can see is that you have probably single handedly by being so offensive kept this blog/thread going.’
That is true and I for one appreciate Luke’s huge contribution in keeping Jen’s blog going.
Luke said: “So CoRev – you have NOTHING then do you. Utterly weak.” I answer; Got plenty, just not gonna bite on the diversion.
But keep up the good work. Don’t let the blog die.
Mount Washington still open for snow business in June.
‘With an astounding 15 metres of snowfall from November 2009 through April 2010, there is still plenty of white stuff at the higher elevations and enough down low to allow snow sliders to make it all the way to the Alpine Lodge.’
Europe is also experiencing cool/wet conditions.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/europe/surface_pressure.html
This is outrageous cherry-picking, but I’m hopeful of finding order in a system which is apparently random.
Cohenite,
That is a very disturbing account of the ‘Dealing with climate change denialism’ meeting.
It reminds me of accounts of how skeptics were treated at the Copenhagen summit. Unbelievers get handled by security guards.
The remarkable thing is that, in this ‘climate’, it’s the believers who are most likely to offend against the public order.
This is beyond any doubt a textbook instance of eco-fascism. That’s not a term to be treated lightly, and anyone interested in what fascism truly means should read, ‘Eternal Fascism:
Fourteen Ways of Looking at a Blackshirt’, Umberto Eco, New York Review of Books, 22 June 1995, http://www.themodernword.com/eco/eco_blackshirt.html
Change ‘Blackshirt’ for ‘Greenshirt’ and you get the same result.
Schiller
Good read and I’ve bookmarked it. Sadly, my son has become a greenshirt.
The massive floods in central Europe would have caused starvation in the past, but not in the post modern era. At the moment there is also flooding in China, while excessive rain in Canada is having a negative impact on crops.
The US will easily pick up any shortfall with a bumper wheat harvest.
Luke you silly boy , I would be the last person to complain about genuine climate research.
As I said it’s the billions $ wasted and soon to increase to try and change the climate back to…… ? that annoys me , because I don’t believe you can achieve anything by such expenditure, except waste money.
Yes put more money into new battery technology, 4th generation nuclear, geothermal, photo voltaic sheet rolls ( already achieved experimentally ) or whatever seems sensible, but slugging the population by doubling the cost of energy will achieve nothing except reduce the income of all of us for zilch
As I’ve said before we should follow the tried and true path of adaptation and forget about this spurious nonsense of trying to change the climate.
” billions $ wasted and soon to increase to try and change the climate back to” – errr nope – most of the world has done nuttin’ as yet – so where’s the alleged waste?
Billions spent on understanding a climate system that periodically wreaks havoc with humans is well worth it. It’s the same physics dude ! The same models that do the weather now do the projections. One physics.
As for putting more money into other technologies? Well big oil and big coal doesn’t want you to …. get it? Given these technologies cost more – why would any rational person use them? Easier to burn coal. Get it? So some economist then says well if we want to force a shift we’ll use this thing called a tax….
It’s not gonna happen. Move onto adaptation.
The trouble with adaptation is that everyone is looking in the wrong direction. Th EU put out a green paper in 2007 – adapting to climate change in Europe.
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/com/2007/com2007_0354en01.pdf
It is easy to see they are looking in the wrong direction and they will be king-hit very soon. The warmists are sheepl.
So most of the world’s govts haven’t been subsidising technologies such as wind, solar, geothermal, wave etc etc, you could have fooled me, this even happens in China.
All those ugly wind farms you can now see dotted around Australia are not viable without state and federal govt subsidies.
The power from wind farms is not a reliable source of energy and must be backed up by the reliable CF stations that are the only true base load power source other than hydro.
I don’t mind research into other power sources but please don’t try and change our grid mix until these are viable and the cost of such power isn’t so expensive.
Adaptation, phooey! This gravy train will become a white elephant.
http://www.csiro.au/science/Adaptive-Primary-Industries–ci_pageNo-2.html
Piers Corbyn is running hot with his predictions and telling governments to wake up to natural climate change.
http://www.weatheraction.com/docs/WANews10No21.pdf
This is the point Carter made about adaptation.
El Gordo I don’t think you and I are far apart on adaptation, I believe you adapt when you have to, not reacting hysterically to some bogus problem because some group has another agenda.
Therefore if you must adapt to floods, droughts, fires whatever you do so but most importantly you don’t waste money on ” future” problems that haven’t yet arrived.
Neville
‘The current human-caused global warming hysteria – promulgated by the media – is especially dangerous because it is causing governments to neglect the much more real (though long-term) dangers of natural climate change. Even worse, it is
causing profound damage to the use of science as an impartial arbiter in public affairs.’
Bob Carter 2007
That about sums up my view on this issue.
Neville – how do you really evaluate things like wind installations without some trial systems. Are we inundated with wind farms. I don’t see many?
Any Neville Nicholls has cinched it – why denialists are pooping their pants. A low Sun and look at that trend keep going up.
http://www.climateshifts.org/?p=5505
Read it and weep boys. What you won’t see on the Watts tour. So if Anthony listened to Archy on tour about solar he might put two and two together.
gavin,
“Winter is either very mild or not happening at all!”
That’s strange gav, I’d ‘a thought that Canberra’s temperatures of -4.8 deg c last Sunday would be pretty chilly and a max of 7.7 deg c the Wednesday before would even be a miserable day in Tassie.
But I s’pose if your either insensitive or never get out of bed……
At our place it’s been the opposite with our regular winter visitors, the Eastern Spinebills, arriving in February and our Rose and Scarlet Robins coming early too.
Possibly because of the extra atmo CO2 the soil is alive with earthworms and our Kookaburra population is increasing. We have about 2 dozen around the house these days.
A recent Albert’s Lyre Bird survey has shown a record number of these unique to this area birds.
In spite of the bed-wetters, all is not doom and gloom.
Dear oh dear Luke what a load of crap, have a look at real temp drop, even faster than the 2007/ 08 plunge.
Amazing what an el nino to la nina change can do.
Let’s hope you don’t wet yourself again and no I haven’t got my hanky out yet.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/06/global-average-sea-surface-temperatures-continue-their-plunge
DROP? DROP DROP?
Come on Neville – Spencer LOVES the satellite data. It’s his gig and it’s going up up up up – are you actually mental – May and June are way up.
The long term trend is up – maybe you don’t understand the term trend – which is why you’re a denialist.
Look Mum – no hands – and no heat island
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA….
Strong La Nina expected this year.
http://www.jamstec.go.jp/frcgc/research/d1/iod/sintex_f1_forecast.html.var
Sorry about that latest accident Luke, disappear quickly and clean yourself up.
El Gordo here’s Obama’s version of adaptation $7 gasoline, should be popular.
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/gallon_gas_9GlF3o1xIcIBelOV3k0RsK
Roy Spencer said: ‘What this shows is an unusually large increase in reflected sunlight over the last several months, probably due to an increase in low cloud cover.’
‘At this pace of cooling, I suspect that the second half of 2010 could ruin the chances of getting a record high global temperature for this year. Oh, darn.’
So a lack of sunspots sees more cosmic rays creating clouds, which reflect heat and increases precipitation and coolness.
All seems perfectly straight forward.
This is how you evaluate wind farms Luke.
check it out – it makes your rant disappear into fluff……….. as you like it.
http://windfarmperformance.info/?date=2010-05-08
John,
Very good info. Just shows how you have to keep building coal fireds to keep pace with these wind farms’ [non] performance.
What’s the equivalency rate? 100% for when you get a mild high and the wind stops blowing everywhere?
Which happens quite often!
Wow! What a solution! And what are they made from?
OIL!
John – I wasn’t advocating 100% wind farms – simply one needs an evaluation… read what I said again.
But as for cosmic rays – hohohoho … long dispatched …. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/10/taking-cosmic-rays-for-a-spin/
Gee I hardly ever quote RC anymore too.
And Luke says: “Gee I hardly ever quote RC anymore too.” When did that “tipping point” occur? Some time after Climategate?
Luke, I had a look at RC and read the comments too. Svensmark’s theory is controversial so I’ll keep an open mind.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_Lxqre8hMG3M/S0kyhDlc5aI/AAAAAAAABDg/mC8stt6ucAI/s1600-h/weatherAPindex.jpg
“But I s’pose if your either insensitive or never get out of bed……”
Truth is Spangles, I don’t spend much time in bed although I just got up for “dinner’ and Dr Who. Luckily there was no frost earlier today but I still donned a balaclava just in case one settled closer to dawn. In fact we had two beaut days outdoors this w/e and a visitor from Qld commented on that fact at our markets this morning. Btw I haven’t covered the lemons yet.
Re our bird life; a senior acquaintance opposite readily accepted my pocket sized gift of a twisted piece of old galv wire stronge enough to spread a roo skin. Aparently he already had the missing harness and was about to help with the burgining population of currawongs on the east coast. Reckoned we had in excess 10 mill or so. Explanation,”they thrive on cantoniaster berries and nestlings of all other bird species”.
“In spite of the bed-wetters, all is not doom and gloom”
An interest over recent decades has been satisfying my curiosity about other folk’s motives in wanting to remain in Aus and in particular the Capital. Seems every second guy has a young asian wife minding his spending. In this ever changing demographic we must adapt to the oportunities as they present. Sidchrome and Willow ware have become a “hard sell” in any tradition. Cheap stainless steel is king today across a whole range of gadgets but it’s hardly green is it?
We won’t look at the piles of 2nd hand clothing yet but let’s say now it’s quite a mobile population downunder. However the quote from our purrfect cat lady is it costs us $35 / day to mind a couple of moggies so that’s why I stay put most of the time.
What I can say in conclusion; there is no way known that pesky global temp is on the way down either now or in the near future.
Final note: Gunns are going to stop using 1080. Now that’s progress!
CoRev – on Realclimate – Meaning – I used to be criticised for often quoting that most excellent source. And pray tell what SCIENCE issue has “climategate” informed you of PRECISELY. Other than ranting material. Oh that’s right – you don’t use cites. I forgot.
Gavin,
Big Dr. Who fan myself, LOVED David Tennent, Matt Smith is pretty good but I think the writers have changed and “the doctor” seems to be flying by the seat of his pants somewhat more than usual. He hasn’t had a “plan” for a number of episodes now and relies a lot on luck. Do you read the show the same way? Amy Pond is a great character though.
Cheers.
Luke said: “And pray tell what SCIENCE issue has “climategate” informed you of PRECISELY. Other than ranting material. Oh that’s right – you don’t use cites. I forgot.”
Lessee, what did Climategate teach us about the science? That it’s manipulated. That the key players are the manipulators. That’s a pretty big science issue, don’cha think?. Past that, not to believe manipulated science on its face, and to always wait for the knowledgeable to pull back the covers. And, that latter is the real lesson from Climategate.
Luke, you know I could use cites. You helped me build some portions of my own blog site. Stop firing blind, and shotgunning bad attitude. You are not Cohenite, Dr Roy Spencer, and even further from Steve Short. Folks like E. M. Smith, Jeff Id, Steve Mosher and even Anthony Watts are doing great work at discerning what is going on in the CC science community. Googling may be your friend, but it is not any better than the users selection biases. Yours are obvious, and being proven wrong headed.
Anyway, I’ll be gone for a few days, so enjoy the peace from my commentary.
CAGWers of course want to indoctrinate the children, a standard shameless ploy, but there’s a victory on that front:
Global Warming book axed from curriculum
Not Evil Just Wrong
18 June 2010
http://www.noteviljustwrong.com/blog/general/452
Millard Public Schools in Nebraska [USA] announced they are pulling Laurie David’s book, “The Down-to-Earth Guide to Global Warming,” from classes. … Three parents, including the wife of U.S. Rep. Lee Terry of Nebraska, called for the removal of the book after it depicted Global Warming as fact, while many scientists disagree.
The accompanying video, narrated by [Hollywood actor and noted authority on whatever] Leonardo DiCaprio, will be removed from the course entirely. In the video DiCaprio says Global Warming is happening because of mankind’s “destructive addiction” to oil. Terry called the video a “political commercial.”
CoRev – Don’t talk to me about Climategate – AND oh look what Google found….
Proving the point – Amazongate and Africagate RETRACTED
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/06/leakegate-a-retraction/
(N.B. comment 7 – precisely Schiller’s problem)
Denialist agenda – full of it, bad and deceitful.
What an utter disgrace. Will every stinking denialist blog RETRACT as well. Of course not.
Your standards CoRev and Scillsbo.
What’s the next fabrication?
Global warming and cooling is all down to the PDO.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/06/heartland_conference_establish.html
The warmists have nowhere to hide.
Utter utter twaddle el Gordo that doesn’t even pass the giggle test.
We know that from coral core and other paleo records that the PDO has been going for at least 400 years and most likely 1000s. Heat would be through the roof by now if that was the cause – the PDO merely causes decadal level redistribution.
Like Coho – you’ve discovered Jack’s Beanstalk. Magic PDO beans.
The most basic analysis of the data http://www.gi.alaska.edu/~bhatt/CJC/Parkeretal_2007.pdf shows the PDO as a second order effect – the major effect is the centennial warming signal of solar and greenhouse origin. Increasingly greenhouse as solar levelled off and has now dropped somewhat.
The Heartland bolsh merely reflect the death throws of increasing desperate sceptics as the temperature keeps going up
http://www.climateshifts.org/?p=5505
More nonsense from the wind farms, now they’re being paid not to to run the stupid things, what a complete and utter fraud.
A bit like Lukes fraudulent mantra about rising temp, pity Phil Jones doesn’t agree with him.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/20/firms-paid-to-shut-down-wind-farms-when-the-wind-is-blowing/#more-20818
Temperatures trend upwards along with CO2, while the northern hemisphere land mass cools because of a mild sun. The PDO may be a second order effect, but your contention that greenhouse gases are of the first order, fails to pass muster.
A strong La Nina in a cool PDO will cause floods in eastern Australia. It has happened before, but the msm is apparently unconcerned.
The oceans are cooling, except for a hot spot near Greenland.
http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst_anom.html
Ove is at it again. It’s enough to make a grown man weep.
http://www.radioaustralianews.net.au/stories/201006/2931322.htm?desktop
Luke, this is fairly typical of what we can expect over the next few years – longer ski seasons.
http://www.welove2ski.com/jsp/index.jsp?lnk=201&id=434
I see luke is upto his usual mischief, recycling the usual nonsense about surface and satellite temps being tandem and rates of temp increasing; I posted this at Watts:
“June 20, 2010 at 9:04 pm
luke, temp trends are not increasing, they are decreasing;
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1970/to:1980/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1980/to:1990/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1990/to:2000/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2000/to:2010/trend
And as for the surface and satellite sources being in synch about temp trend, I keep showing you this:
Up to 1998:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1979/to:1998/trend/plot/rss/from:1979/to:1998/trend
From 1998:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1998/to:2011/trend/plot/rss/from:1998/to:2011/trend
Any pertinent comments?”
None were forthcoming and instead I see luke above still handwaving Parker et al and cyber mooning the idea that natural cycles are stationary not trending; this is simply not true; ENSO asymmetry is established; in addition the virtue of McLean et al, still not appreciated by the foot-soldiers of AGW like luke, is that it establishes that nature dominates cycles; this contradicts the emerging idea, also championed by luke with reference to S-F writers like Vecchi, that natural processes like the Walker, Hadley and ENSO are being altered or possessed or something by AGW; also not true.
That first graph combination is particularly powerful I think Cohenite, given the dramatic increases in co2 emissions. However given the diminishing sun spot activity, do you think the fact that temperatures are not actually declining is pause for thought, or the system still playing catch up?
‘We can do without iPhones, but hungry masses due to declining growing zones tend to get a bit more testy than texters gone wild.’
Anthony Watts, June 20, 2010 Brisbane
Is Archy making an impression on Anthony? No matter, it’s my quote of the week.
toby, Glassman’s site on the solar effect concludes there are a number of solar cycles of varying length and it is fairly well accepted that there are lags in the system; as for temps still going up:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:2001/to:2011/trend/plot/rss/from:2001/to:2011/trend
I [cherry] picked 2001 because that is the date at which Pinker’s study about SW flux at the surface and TOA concluded; her conclusions were that a period of increased surface SW up to that point was possibly due to cloud variation; 2 things can be concluded from that: firstly, temp can increase with a subdued sun due to cloud variation; secondly, the temp increase in the 1990’s was most possibly due to that cloud variation and not CO2. And now a favourite showing the recent ‘correlation’ between CO2 and temp:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1998/to:2010/offset:-347/scale:0.008/trend/plot/uah/from:1998/to:2010/trend
The reason I picked 1998, as luke knows, is that, arguably, that is when a PDO based climate shift occurred.
Come on Cohenite – you’re back to the PDO building heat long term – it doesn’t ! McLean is the most laughable paper of all time and the very fact you’d even mention it means you’ve both lost the plot and are shameless. It has been laughed out of the stadium – a ROTFL and LMAO.
You are shamelessly and nonsensically smoothing and defining arbitrary bounds with impunity. It’s a science disgrace. And unpublishable twaddle except perhaps in E&E.
The Parker paper just does something very very simple. It simply says what are the major trends in the data set knowing nothing about the data at all- it is not a PDO signal – it’s a second order effect. As is ENSO. Frankly not surprising. The primary trend is the centennial signal.
But most importantly – it has been noticed that the Watts tour is too chicken to present to BoM and/or CSIRO.
You guys wouldn’t survive the questions.
Toby read your own question at 4:45 – then go to the mirror and slap yourself hard – report back.
Luke,
I assume you believe there can be no other explanation than co2 and that there are not lags in the system when it doesnt suit the argument? Remaining sceptical …..I prefer to consider other options and since we all know clouds play an important role ( we do agree there dont we!) in trapping and reflecting the sun rays, it does seem at least plausible that this is the reason temperatures have levelled off rather than declined? ( depending of course on where we cherry pick the start point..thx Cohers for the other links showing we can argue they are declining despite the blip back up this year……which seems debatable when you actually look at how cold the northern hemisphere winter was and how they are still waiting for summer to arrive….dont you think Luke?..my folks just arrived in Scotland and the blossom and spring butterflies etc are only just coming out!)
you might like to consider this as well…”Not that these correlations are perfect. “The winter of 1684 was the coldest in the whole record,” says Lockwood. “But the very next year, when solar activity was still low, was the third warmest.” http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100414/full/news.2010.184.html
So perhaps 2010 can be a very warm year despite declining solar activity…..
When “I SAID MIRROR MIRROR ON THE WALL WHOSE THE WISEST OF THEM ALL” it only said ‘Cohenite has it right, Lukey poohs just in a stew” and most of all not the IPCC….. ( sorry poetry is not my thing!)
luke, why is ENSO a “2nd order” effect and PDO not? The answer is straight forward. As for ENSO accumulating heat, what I am talking about is ENSO nonlinearity:
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/adai/papers/MonahanDai_JC04.pdf
In effect this is an asymmetry between the distal elements of the ENSO cycle;
http://www.atmos.ucla.edu/~sun/doc/Sun_Yu_JCL_2009.pdf
In otherwords the El Nino part of the ENSO cycle causes more warmth than the La Nina part cools; nature is not just stationary and as McLean et al showed nature is dominant over the part that is stationary. If you can’t understand that you’ll just have to cry into your milk.
Oh, and luke, I don’t think David will worry about presenting to CSIRO:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/06/21/2932699.htm
Perhaps a game of roulette instead?
Luke, my teachers Union, the AEU (Australian education union) has recently been advertising that they have trained a “rep” to present the Al Gore slideshow about AIT.
I wrote to express firstly my disgust with anybody spruiking his propaganda, and secondly to invite her along at my expense to see the Watts/ Archibald talk in Melbourne. Needless to say as yet I have had no reply.
Blimey, not a bloody banker, no self interest in that at all………now if the “insurance” had even a remote chance of achieving anything noticeable he might have a point. But we all know there is no currently available technology to reduce co2 emissions on a global scale…..so what good is his insurance? sure spend money on renewable technology if you have to, although govts can t pick winners can they!? But dont bugger up economies in the process (think spain, UK and california)
Luke, without being rude, do you notice how Cohers provides links and a simple to understand explanation in his own words that demonstres he understands what he is saying. Whilst you tend to just provide links with quotes.
Cohers – coz you’re all CHICKEN – that’s why.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gKosmXx1gkc
Face it – the guys would too scared. They’re scared of serious comment. Pensioners are easier fodder.
P.S. Toby – sorry that you find Coho convincing. You’re easily pleased. A few graphs – drops a few words that are pleasing and you’re anyone’s !
I am back publishing in the peer-reviewed literature. First article for a while: ‘Accessing environmental information relating to climate change: a case study under UK freedom of information legislation’, by JOHN ABBOT and JENNIFER MAROHASY, Environmental Law and Management, ISSUE 1 VOLUME 22 [2010]. Don’t think it is available online. Sorry.
Well done Jen; does the paper touch on the CRU scandal?
Cohenite thanks for that csiro chairman’s appointment, what a full blown looney.
He says “it’s a no brainer that we take out insurance to future proof our well being”, where oh where to we get these dopey bastards from, they seem to be available in increasing abundance.
According to these loonies by reducing our massive 1.3% of co2 emissions by 5% or whatever we’re going to change the climate and save all our iconic sites throughout Australia doubling the cost of energy to families in the process. Of course that’s just the start of this spiral into madness, later on they want to increase our cuts to much higher levels and it still won’t change the climate but will bring real hardship onto every family in the country.
Interesting article from Dr. Spencer: “If Greenhouse Gases are such a Small Part of the Atmosphere, How Do They Change Its Temperature?”, June 17th, 2010,
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/06/faq-271-if-greenhouse-gases-are-such-a-small-part-of-the-atmosphere-how-do-they-change-its-temperature/
Interesting quote:
“It is rather amazing that these relatively few “greenhouse” gases are largely responsible for the temperature structure of the atmosphere. Without them, the atmosphere would have no way of losing the heat energy that it gains from the Earth’s surface in response to solar heating.”
That seems to be suggesting that ‘greenhouse gases’ are responsible for global cooling, a claim I’ve never seen before. Is this a string of typographical errors, or is there actually such a theory out there?
W/B jen. The only link I found via google –
http://www.lawtext.com/lawtextweb/default.jsp?PageID=2&PublicationID=6&pubSection=4
So the CSIRO is now run by a banker.
But that is OK becuase he believes in CAGW.
But if a scientist questions CAGW, he is to be run off by the toe cheese gang of Luke and pals.
amazing.
Luke: I think Cohenite should say exactly what he gets from that Monahan / Dai paper with some detail from the process.
I gave it away after reaching that scatter plot, first time I viewed the thing and realized I didn’t understand or need the fancy math following it. Had another look though when feeling somewhat fresher this morning and recon their last paragraph (p 3035) says it all, despite their fancy work.
El Gordo; your welove2ski link is as weak as – in this context, I still have the considered thoughts of our charming quite senior lady visitor a while back, who said she was very certain about the decreasing ice over the years in her Swiss mountains and this new “warming”.
Derek; I’m a true tragic gadget Tardis fan from way back in the early series. Amy IS a bright doll but Matt plays the new Dr role with considerable charm. The gals however preferred the more positive Dr
Watt’s tour = chickens !!
Denialists = fraudulent science.
Climategate = fabricated evil and now exposed – http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/06/leakegate_corrections_needed_f.php
Meanwhile in the real world of real studies there is much work that shows Antarctica was much warmer from early holocene through to Minoan WP, RWP and MWP and also shows the LIA plus some studies show the modern WP.
Simply put how come we have these warmer periods and lower levels of co2 in our present Interglacial?
Of course the Eemian interglacial was much warmer with higher sea levels than the Holocene as were the previous 3 interglacials, real inconvenient stuff for the bed wetters.
http://www.co2science.org/subject/m/summaries/mwpantarctica.php
gavin’s paragraph from the Monahan paper:
“The physical mechanisms responsible for the asymmetry
between El Nin˜o and La Nin˜a are still unclear.
Suggested mechanisms include nonlinearities in oceanic
vertical temperature advection in the cold tongue region
(Hannachi et al. 2003; An and Jin 2004), nonlinear rectification
of the Madden–Julian oscillation (Kessler and
Kleeman 2000), nonlinearities in the dependence of
tropical deep convection on the underlying SST (Hoerling
et al. 1997), and the action of phytoplankton as a
‘‘biological thermostat’’ (Timmermann and Jin 2002).
Yet another possibility is that the positive skewness of
SST in the eastern tropical Pacific reflects the positive
skewness of the surface zonal wind in the western tropical
Pacific (Monahan 2004). The winds in the western
tropical Pacific are characterized by westerly bursts, and
not easterly ones; the standard stochastic oscillator conception
of ENSO (e.g., Penland and Sardeshmukh 1995;
Burgers 1999) would then predict stronger El Nin˜os than
La Nin˜as, on average. Of course, all of these mechanisms
may play a role in generating the nonlinear structure
of ENSO, the understanding of which is an important
step in improving our understanding of the
ENSO attractor.”
The point is obvious; the ENSO factors are themselves unequal so it is not surprising that ENSO has a slight asymmetry; more generally the idea that natural process for the last 150 years should be in balance so as to not produce a temperature trend is nonsense and one of the furphys/lies of AGW.
Finally for luke and the Parker designation of PCA dtermined categories of climate effects, also from the Monahan paper:
“the anomaly spatial pattern that changes sign between El Nin˜o and La Nin˜a events (the ‘‘linear’’
signal) strongly resembles that of principal component analysis (PCA) mode 1, while that which does not change
sign (the ‘‘nonlinear’’ signal) resembles the pattern of PCA mode 2. The linear and nonlinear patterns also
strongly resemble the standard deviation and skewness fields, respectively. Furthermore, temporal subsampling
of long (130 yr) SST reconstructions suggests that the magnitude of the nonlinear signal and its similarity to
PCA mode 2 are functions of the strength of ENSO, as measured by the standard deviation of the PCA mode-
1 time series.”
Gavin
Professor Cees de Jager is a prominent astronomer, solar expert and former head of the Utrecht University Observatory “Zonneberg” – The Netherlands.
Jager claims we are bound for a period of very low solar activity. He and his colleagues think we are headed for a “long Grand Minimum” – either a Gleisberg or a Maunder Minimum – “not shorter than a century.”
Cherry-picking late snow is all about real climate change. So it’s a shame that you have taken the green pill and buried your head in a bucket of sand, because you are missing the greatest show on earth.
el mate; when you give me a couple of years in a row with snow on the ground for a day or so right here in Canberra I can do a retraction in Jen’s just for the record hey!
Gavin, when has snow ever stayed on the ground in canberra for a few days in a row?…for that matter how often does it snow in canberra?…i can recall snow on the hilltops on new years day, but i rarely recall snow actually falling in canberra.
so in other words when you see a pig fly you will consider some contrary evidence?
“The point is obvious; the ENSO factors are themselves unequal so it is not surprising that ENSO has a slight asymmetry; more generally the idea that natural process for the last 150 years should be in balance so as to not produce a temperature trend is nonsense and one of the furphys/lies of AGW.”
hmmmm – so how many 1000 years has ENSO been in operation ? Archy will be upset – it’s not solar anymore – that’s off – it’s now “ENSO drift”. Paper in Nature here …. woo hoo…
The reason EOF1 is the centennial trend is because the effect is “global” ! All +ve i.e. global warming !!
Whereas EOF 2 has both BIG +ve and -ve patches. – as ENSO / PDO redistributes heat.
Coho – try pulling my other leg …
The MWP (950 – 1250) may have been universal in its effect, but there is a problem.
In 908 many English rivers froze for about 2 months and in 923 the Thames was frozen for 13 weeks in London. That’s before the official start date, yet it froze again in 998 (5 weeks), 1063 (14 weeks), 1142 and in 1149 it was frozen over at London Bridge, supporting even loaded wagons.
I’m highlighting only the times the Thames froze solid, littered throughout the anecdotal evidence there are plenty of examples of severe winters, where the ‘ale was frozen within houses and cellars and sold by weight’.
It would be interesting to see what the NAO was doing at the time.
Luke,
Why not come to the Watts presentation in Hobart at 6.30pm tomorrow night 23 June 2010, at the Uni of Tasmania. Perhaps you could explain your ‘chickens’ comment or experience the impact of the temperature difference between the Queensland presentations and the Hobart one.
Because, due to your theory Hobart’s winter will soon be like a Queensland summer, see http://www.metacafe.com/watch/1116015/global_warming/
Jennifer,
Welcome back to the blog, apologies for the video as linked.
We’ve seen how much warmer the early Holocene temps were in Antarctica, but it seems that from the early Holocene ( 10,000 years ago ) boreal forest advanced over Northern Russia and Siberia to near the current Artic coastline.
The temps in July would have been 2.5c to 7c warmer than today, but the retreat of these forests started because of a colder climate and they retreated to the present position 3 to 4 thousand years ago.
Remember all these temp variations, certainly many degrees higher than today and the co2 levels were lower as well, sort of proves that something else was involved doesn’t it?
http://thedeadhand.com/Resources/ReferenceLibrary/tabid/164/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/184/Holocene-Treeline-History-and-Climate-Change-Across-Northern-Eurasia.aspx
Neville
Lovely abstract.
We are about to experience that sinking feeling. Any bets on the depth?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/AMSRE-SST-Global-and-Nino34-thru-June-17-2010.gif
I’ll bite El gordo, my bet is it will be lower than the 2007/ 2008 drop, that’s my guesstimate.
Neville
I agree with your guesstimate, but what about the strength of La Nina?
The 1954-57 La Nina had a strong effect across the eastern third of Australia. It continued for 34 months with extensive flooding, but of particular interest is the inundation of the Murray Darling Basin in 1956 which was the wettest year on record for the area.
It’s no coincidence that ‘during this time there was a Ross River virus outbreak in April 1956, with over 2000 cases reported throughout South Australia, Victoria and NSW near the river system.’
Tim Flummery has such strong convictions on this issue he may offer 100/1 that it won’t happen.
El Gordo I’m not sure how strong the la nina event will be, but in the 1970’s to 1980’s ( another wet period on the Murray ) I had a bout of RR fever that stuffed me for a while and effected a lot of people in the MDB area.
Nev & el; I can get bored with your NH cherry picking. As we know the Arctic is a just a hot spot in a fickle climate without a suitable LONG TERM baseline other than Greenland ICE!
MacDonald et al- “Radiocarbon-dated macrofossils show that during the period of maximum forest extension, the mean July temperatures along the northern coastline of Russia may have been 2.5° to 7.0°C warmer than present day temperatures” MAY have been??
Lets have some temperature calibration please!
SH Coastline- (LOCAL studies)
“Tectonically, the Australian continent is relatively stable and, as such, it provides a good platform for studying Late Pleistocene and Holocene sea-level change”
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V6R-48RWR0K-13&_user=10&_coverDate=10%2F31%2F1990&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=9ebba17a593fdaa8da25ce6e92fa2d0b
SH occupation-
“Evidence of plant food management through fire around 6800 BP suggests a longer history of deliberate swamp exploitation than indicated by the archeological record, and lends support to models which propose long-term gradual change in zones of high productivity”
http://www.springerlink.com/content/v2676026ux12419h/
Coastal dunes-
Abstract “Along the South Australia coast sea level has been relatively stable since 6.5 ka B.P. Tides are generally <1 m, and sediments are predominantly shelf- and shoreface-derived carbonate detritus. Deepwater wave height is persistently moderate to high, although breaker-wave height is highly variable along the coast. Shoreface barriers range from low-energy prograding tidal flats, cheniers, and beach and foredune ridges through moderate-to-high-energy prograding-to-recessive systems of foredune-ridge progradation to high-energy barriers, consisting of massive mobile dunes. Breaker-wave regime dominates location, nature, and evolution of shoreface type by influencing sediment supply and morphodynamics"
http://www.jstor.org/pss/214171
In a stunning demographic of self-selected groups, defying the fundamentals of elementary polling practice, ignorance of the tenets of scientific inquiry, verging on a vindication of ‘the wisdom of crowds’, we have:
Experto Crede: Climate Expertise Lacking among Global Warming Contrarians
Scientific American, June 22, 2010,
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=climate-expertise-lacking-among-global-warming-contrarians
The new analysis, published June 21 in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, surveyed 908 researchers publishing in scientific journals from around the world on the subject and found that not only were those in the unconvinced camp less expert in the field, they were also less likely to be trained in the climate science.
We find that counting heads among the self-selected group to be authoritatively objective:
“We wanted to ask by objective measures, ‘Who publishes the bulk of the new science in the refereed literature and gets cited the most: those who accept anthropogenic global warming or those who deny it?'” Schneider says.
At least, nobody’s accused Scientific American of being a respected journal.
For those prone to invention, rather than to find the source, I provide:
Expert credibility in climate change
1. William R. L. Anderegga,
2. James W. Prall
3. Jacob Harold and
4. Stephen H. Schneider
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.abstract
The full paper can be found at
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.full.pdf+html
I hope that Jennifer’s paper on climate science secrecy emerges soon. It’s somewhat remarkable to get such agreement amongst scientists when raw data and model code are kept under wraps.
Also, note the new acronym: Anthropogenic Climate Change (ACC). Very kewl. It rawks. No matter what the Climate does, it’s Anthro.
“How can you trust models to predict the future if they can’t explain the past?” David Douglass (Physicist)
El Gordo – a perceptive observer would have noticed that recent La Ninas did not deliver to the Murray region. Be good if this one did. The problem with all ENSO and anti-ENSO events is that they’re all individuals in spatial pattern and intensity. There’s a tendency to feel certain events are classics and judge others by that standard e.g. 1982/83 El Nino. Perhaps wishful thinking. Of course followers of such things may be asking has ENSO changed?
Neville – how can it be going to rain if southern Australia is “drying out”
” No matter what the Climate does, it’s Anthro.” – more fabrication and verballing by Schiller. You just can’t help yourself can you.
El Gordo,
That notion is just so passe. This is the post-modern era, where explaining the past is nothing more than that, and furthermore, cannot be done — by definition. We now treat science as texts, and discussion of those texts as deconstruction, which can only be accomplished pristine, context-free, by abandoning preconceived notions of Science, which is the Masculine Rape of the Natural (Feminine) World, and embracing the notion that all perspectives are equally privileged.
Unless you disagree with ‘the consensus’, which means you are an outcast in the socially-constructed significance of meaning. Or do they contradict themselves.
Gack.
Luke you dummy, I mean you’re the one who always talks about trends.
Go back and look at De Deckker’s rainfall graph from the Catalyst program, the graph shows a downward trend but with spikes of higher rainfall over the 5,000 or 10,000 year period.
It also mentions we are nearing the end of an 800 year drought, that may have more time to run.
Trust the recent past, when a negative IOD ( positive or neutral since the last Murray flood in 1991 ) lines up with a la nina event we will probably have higher rainfall.
Luke
The buildup of moisture over 1954-55 left the ground so saturated that it became a runaway flood in 1956. A persistent strong Nina should provide the same outcome now, with flooding in the Murray Darling Basin.
Ah so now it’s downward with spikes – so what does this mean Neville – the proposition isn’t sensible. What’s the driver? Magic dust? So it’s an 800 year drought except when it buckets down eh? hmmmmmm
El Gordo – just your prediction on my wall.
And even more fascinating Neville as the coral cores off reef catchments (published !!) show for northern Australia at least – 400 years of El Nino / La Nina and PDO cycles – with no “long time scale” trend except to drier drys and wetter wets. More variability.
Coincidences do happen. Sunspot minima was 4.4 in 1954.
It appears that 12 million acres of Manitoba farmland is under water, along with 10 million acres of Saskatchewan and Alberta farmland. One farmer was quoted as saying ‘the people in the cities of western Canada will feel it in 2-3 months when there is no food in the stores to put on the table.’
Last nights melbourne presentation.
Not a huge turnout but there were a number of people under 40 who expressed concern at how so many intelligent people seem to be blindly believing what is being thrust down our throats. Even a few AGW believers who asked some good questions that got replies that they listened to and seemed to satisfy them.
I spent a sleepless night being sceptical of what i had seen and its raised a few things for me to follow up. I can understand how Luke would say some of the slides were “cherry picked” or unclear. In particular at one point Watts showed the IPCC co2 temp projections vs less dramatic projections and suggested this was evidence that no tipping point would be reached due to co2’s logarithimic effect. This conveniently ignored feedback effects. But they did however demonstrate why positive feedback effects are unlikley so they probably just tried to keep things simple.
and Luke you may be interested to know that whilst you have mentioned many times that even removing all of the dodgy weather stations in the USA you end up with the same/ similar increase, this is not what Watts himself finds and he will publish shortly about this issue.
He showed all of his data on the dodgy weather stations and people pinched his own research to produce their own papers. He spoke to lawyers but was told it would probably not be worth the effort and he asked the scientists out of professional courtesy not to use his data until he was finished with it. They ignored him…not a surpise eh when we consider some of the obvious ethics following climategate.
He believes the reason these scientists claim removing the dodgy stations (90% of them!!) makes no difference is once again because of the use of dodgy statistics.
Another interesting point came from Archibald when he showed that the supposed unprecedented temperature rise over the last 100 years ignores the 3 times larger temp increase in the 40 year period following the dalton minimum….not of course to forget that over the last 100 or so years we have seen similar increases to the last 30 years.
And crucially he also suggests the current and next solar cycle will potentially lead to some serious cooling. Start burning more fossil fuel guys!
http://www.davidarchibald.info/papers/SolarCycle24.pdf ..well worth a read if people havent already read this paper.
Picked this up from BoM:
‘The La Niña years of 1916, 1917, 1950, 1954 through 1956, and 1973 through 1975, were accompanied by some of the worst and most widespread flooding this century. It can safely be said that, over much of Australia, flooding is more likely than usual during La Niña years, and less likely in El Niño years.’
There doesn’t seem to be a clear correlation between sunspots or the length of the solar cycle with flooding, but as soon as I get my super computer cranked-up I should get a better picture.
From the Archibald paper:
‘The Spring Wheat growing regions of the Canadian Prairies conform to the areas in which the July daily average temperatures are in the range of 16 to 20 degrees centigrade. A two degree decline in temperature will halve the growing area, with production going from 22 million tonnes per annum to perhaps 10 million tonnes per annum.
Similar effects can be expected through Russia and into northern Europe.’
Apart from that, adjusting to longer ski seasons will be a problem.
EG, last night David Archibald was suggesting that growing zones will move potentially 300 km closer to teh equator, meaning Canada will start to suffer by not being able to grow so much food. The way you put it however shows just how dramatic this decline in output could be!
They had another guest speaker last night who talked about the impact of particle pollution on rainfall. He believes SEAustralias declining rainfall is related directly to these tiny particles that prevent clouds forming properly and hence restricts their water bearing ability. He and his company came up with acloud seeding concept to help produce more rain in our catchment areas. He approached the CSIRO in 1999 with his work, and they said pay us and we will use it otherwise go away. No climate change in it, only solutions to water problems…so in his words no interest!
“and they said pay us and we will use it otherwise go away.”
that’s why they’ve added a banker as CEO.
Toby
As part of the cooling process there will be greater precipitation in the NH, especially in summer, which is likely to force agricultural prices higher.
Luke, buy wheat futures! Personally I don’t have the heart.
Anthony Watts put this up and commented on the recent drop in temperatures.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/hobart_temperature_record_gistemp.jpg
The cooling is overwhelming the UHI, so I can only assume the heat must have settled west of Greenland.
Oh no – not the cloud seeding mob…. gawd …. wasn’t Gingis was it? He could of course do a desktop study and show us all the pollution rain shadows….. hmmmm …. so I wonder why it’s rained again? hhhhhhmmmmm
And you believed Archy’s overfitted solar projection did you. …. anyway I bought Archy’s book. I’m keeping it with my El gordo predictions, and ice age predictions collection.
And Watts is moaning a bit – Meene et al have already done the good station analysis. He could have done it himself by now.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/22/a-short-note-about-the-state-of-affairs/#more-20903
Says “Overall there’s too much pointless bluster and sniping in climate science. I wish there was a volume control. Kids, can we just all “get along”?”
As I posted on Wattsy – I spat my coffee all over keyboard.
But what do you all reckon?
P.S. I had to laugh – first comment was Hunter with “no”…. LOL
el mate; why you do get sucked in all the time?
My one min google ‘temp trend hobart’ found this recent well illustrated media item on Tassie temp
http://www.themercury.com.au/article/2010/06/08/151085_opinion.html
Do some homework before posting junk from wuwt!
Gavin
Very amusing, as they try to sort out the noise from the signal. The journalist who wrote that is blind in one eye and your upward temp trend over the past 50 years will be trending down over the next half century.
Tasmanian trends for particular locations are shown here:
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/hqsites/site_data.cgi?variable=maxT&area=aus&station=094029&period=annual&dtype=raw&ave_yr=T
Min temps shown a greater trend consistent with UHI.
“your upward temp trend over the past 50 years will be trending down over the next half century”
let’s get the here now bit right before taking the anti AGW bait hey
http://www.weatherzone.com.au/climate/indicator_sst.jsp?lt=wzstate&lc=tas&c=ssta
BoM acknowledges La Nina most likely by winter’s end.
http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/la-nina-more-likely-than-not-says-bom-20100623-yxap.html
Hi Luke, yes it was Gingis and he did come across as a mad scientist and i was sceptical of what he had to say….it is however quite plausible isnt it that pollution will influence cloud formation and hence rainfall?…he didnt go into “cloud seeding” in any detail, but i do recall reading it can be done depending on moisture content and other atmospheric conditions. Certainly the chinese tried it for the olympics.
I also as I said had a sleepless night trying to be sceptical of what I had seen.
can you please point me to an understandable and reasonable refutation of what david says please? i have done a google and not found much to get my teeth into. i have emailed the climate institute for some papers as well. i can see that the overlays can be easily manipulated and the predictions may be ridiculous..( lets hope so right because they would be worse for us than the possible warming!).
I thought david was far more impressive than watts and he was certainly right in predicting a very cold NH winter. But once again some of the work relies on models and as usual whilst i understand they have a purpose, i seriously doubt there output.
Watts does raise some pretty reasonable questions however about how reliable the temperature record actually is don t you think?
Toby; recall the instrument record (such as it was) is only a series of max/min points read from numerous old thermometers of dubious merit in the current array of scientific equipment. Also beware of massive culling that has occurred since wuwt and co became active.
IMO the depth of useful data is somewhat reduced now as a result of vigorous campaigns to destroy anything curious leaving the remainder still exposed to silly UHI scenarios so common place on the blogs. All those retired but ever diligent postmasters etc would be disgusted with so many disconnected gurus on the prowl. Wreckers inc can write books without regard for the toil that went before and that causes me to try and defend the more traditional contributors in the climate story.
Two of my posts have been snipped out of bounds. I feel the force…Jen is back.
Toby – yes Gingis will quote Danny Rosenfeld – well respected on pollution inhibiting rainfall http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?id=20740
However do we have rain shadows behind all our major population and industrial centres? How come Brisbane’s dams have filled again. Do major forces like El Nino and the Indian Ocean Dipole simply swamp these small scale effects.
CSIRO indeed used to be the Division of Cloud Physics which spent years on cloud seeding. Indeed recent technologies with seeding warmer subtropical clouds with salt flares have appeared in South Africa. Mather noticed an INCREASE in rainfall from pollution downstream of a kraft paper mill !
But Gingis need not worry – in the recent few years In December 2006, the Queensland government of Australia funded AUD$7.6 million in funding for SEQ seeding research to be conducted jointly by the Australian Bureau of Meteorology and the United States National Center for Atmospheric Research. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_seeding
And cloud seeding contrary to popular view isn’t about drought busting – La Nina weather years will probably afford more opportunities to seed than El Nino years. You have to have something to seed. So the idea would be to increase rainfall in moderate to good years as a buffer against droughts. Not try the traditional drought busting approach.
I found the report here. This is what serious climate research looks like http://www.climatechange.qld.gov.au/pdf/cloudseedingfinalreport.pdf VERY complex stuff.
I think the Snowy trial is still proceeding too http://www.snowyhydro.com.au/levelTwo.asp?pageID=85&parentID=6
But all very hard to prove statistically significant results without long time investments.
Toby – Watts raises very good points about poorly sited met stations in the USA. What a shambles – no contest. Although given people do live in heat islands you do need some stations to tell you what climate in cities are (apart from climate change science).
However what does it mean ?
What do the 10% good stations tell you? http://rabett.blogspot.com/2010/01/hedgehog-and-hyena.html
The USA is NOT the whole world (this sleight of hand used a couple of times on the Watts tour)
Why is the major warming not over the big UHI regions
What do the 2 satellite data sets show. http://www.climateshifts.org/?p=5505
What do the 2 ocean temperature sets show?
What about the change in station numbers – http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/03/tamino_calls_out_anthony_watts.php
What do the phenology and behaviour of 25,000 species studies show? Nature Paper !
Why are we still warming when the solar output if anything has lessened a tad.
Did the Watt’s tour tell you all that? Why not? NO they only told you what they wanted you to hear.
Toby – lastly on Archibald’s solar prediction. I’m not disputing that solar insolation has an effect on climate – fundamental. But we got the cosmic rays – now you’d have to to refute this to invoked that issue. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/10/taking-cosmic-rays-for-a-spin/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/10/cosmic-rays-don%E2%80%99t-die-so-easily/
You didn’t hear any of that at the seminar did you?
Lastly on his prediction – you have to know some statistical theory – you can get a polynomial fit to almost any set of data – then project the curve into the future. The prediction often falls over. Why? Coz all you’ve done is trace over a pattern. You don’t know how the pattern works. Given we can’t wait till the future most people would try to hindcast the past leaving out a chunk of data and attempting to predict it. This is basic stuff.
A classic approach would one-in-one-out cross validation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-validation_(statistics)
You were presented with no validation data – ain’t seen any either ! As soon as you get predictive regression type models with more than a few parameters always get suspicious. It’s called “over-fitting”.
You also have to be careful when people assure you they have perfect records of predicting the past. If so – and I could – I wouldn’t be telling you – as I’d be rich !
And if it’s a La Nina season coming up – well you aren’t making a fair bet either. We know certain areas of the globe will warm and cool more than normal. And rain more and less than normal.
Then finally there was this regrettable episode http://n3xus6.blogspot.com/2007/02/dd.html
So Toby – call me sceptical ! 🙂
Toby – You asked me – I responded … all of the above is very very basic stuff and the tour didn’t tell you did it?
And Toby
The other tricky dicky bit was CO2 as a fertiliser – so we had the piccies of CO2 effects in a lab on a selected species. Cow pea I think.
No mention how free air carbon dioxide experiments (FACE) don’t get near those benefits.
Nothing on how CO2 increases risk of frost injury
Nothing on how CO2 doesn’t help in a drought – so what’s the frequency of droughts doing?
The sleight of hand saying that CO2 fertilisation has fed the world when there have been huge improvements in crop growth from genetics (conventional and GMO), agronomy -nitrogen and phosphatic fertilisers, machinery, herbicides and insecticides. All glossed over – no omitted. Benefit all given to CO2 – what tosh !
Nothing on the effect of CO2 on savannas promoting C3 woody weed and shrub growth over C4 grasslands. Bye bye grazing.
So as usual you only got what they wanted to serve up.
Thx Luke, i went out last night and have only just seen your detailed responses. Thx very much I will have a look during the day when/ if i get a chance ( or this evening)and respond.
cheers
Readers may wish to keep up with our new leader Julia
http://www.abc.net.au/news/justin/
Toby, believe me I have doubts too about our climate science reaching out from a pile of simple weather related records. However my bottom line has always been that half a degree C real or not rise in global temp in our lifetime should be alarming.
My scale for reckoning was simple too, ½ degree C versus the average of 15 C or so above the melting point of ice in water because it relates in general to the global heat budget at or near the surface for all mediums. Being a flat Earther, we need to watch only a few things ice extent, SL etc in conjunction with our environment studies despite the more complex issues of the global radiation balance at the surface.
The fact is we don’t have a better thermometer for looking backwards. Any statement about actual temperatures way back must be tempered with other surface data corresponding with the period in question. Also our written history is hardly the basis for fresh scientific studies in this context. Almost any point on the globe can be a rough place due to natural atmospheric turmoil given our needs for security.
In many ways though, I have grown with modern technology. My career began in industry where we used a lot of heating energy distributed in the form of wet steam and it wasn’t long before they moved me on to upgrading boiler control projects with new fuels. That demanded developing a particular interest in furnace dynamics where the generation of super heated steam became just one aspect in dealing with the intense radiation from the furnace. It was a near accident with a failing super heater tube that woke me to the need for operator intervention at critical times. Direct observation by an experienced minder still provides the best clues in any chaos. We can always enhance our personal ability to evaluate the situation though.
An essential tool during my period in service to Melbourne’s industry was a long piece of clear plastic tube and some water that I used regularly to ensure those furnaces didn’t go bang. Their tipping point was merely a chamber pressure that may go + with respect to ambient. Trust me; other instruments around in those days could be quite floppy.
My bottom line is that a 2 degree C fall in NH temp in our lifetime will be alarming.
gavin and luke, the yang and the yanked of the chicken little brigade; luke, one again, shamelessly regurgitating the usual dog’s breakfast of AGW whimsy; let’s look at this trail of delusion and obfuscation:
1 The satellite temps and land temps do not correlate after 1998; GISS and RSS go in opposite directions. I have posted these many times but luke links to ratbaggery by serial offender, ‘what about the coral, please won’t someone think about the coral, Ove Guldberg’, so here it is again:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1970/to:1980/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1980/to:1990/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1990/to:2000/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2000/to:2010/trend
Up to 1998:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1979/to:1998/trend/plot/rss/from:1979/to:1998/trend
From 1998:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1998/to:2011/trend/plot/rss/from:1998/to:2011/trend
2 Watts and UHI; the Menne paper ‘confirming’ the USHCN data network is typical of AGW peer reviewed literature; Watts and Pielke Snr’s paper in response will reveal the Menne paper to be the sham that it is; UHI adds about 80% of the AGW temperature increase, not just in the US [which may be only 2% of the world but has the longest and most reliable temp system, or did have until the authorities started tampering with it] but in the rest of the world as well, everywhere from Russia to New Zealand to China to Australia, UHI effects on ground based temp collection is a FACT. Confirmed by the satellites! I see that luke is still referring to tammy’s ‘critique’ of Watts; just pathetic; I have already responded to this gibberish by Dr Foster on page 79 of this thread, here: “Comment from: cohenite May 13th, 2010 at 10:10 pm”
3 I love it when luke gets statsy: ” Lastly on his prediction – you have to know some statistical theory – you can get a polynomial fit to almost any set of data – then project the curve into the future. The prediction often falls over. Why? Coz all you’ve done is trace over a pattern. You don’t know how the pattern works. Given we can’t wait till the future most people would try to hindcast the past leaving out a chunk of data and attempting to predict it. This is basic stuff” This is Freudian; subliminally luke’s subconscious has taken over, since he really is a decent chap, and has spilled the beans about AGW. Yes, I concede Nexus 6’s take on the Archibald paper is fun but the RC efforts which luke links to are severely dated; the real guts of the Cosmic Ray dispute is in the Svensmark and Lockwood dispute; RC and Skeptical Science have written threads disparaging the Svensmark position that CR’s do correlate well with temperature; Motl and others support the Svensmark position; for me the Pinker paper dealing with SW variation matched with cloud cover from 1983-2001 lends support to the Svensmark thesis that CR do have a good correlation with temp. This is a bit far from Archibald and solar cycles but the point is that understanding the solar influence is in its infancy but the IPCC and AGW theory consistently dismiss solar influence, downgrading the solar impact in TAR from 0.4C to 0.1C in AR4; for a good summary of the lack of consideration by AGW of solar influences and Archibald this is a bit fairer than Nexus 6:
http://landshape.org/enm/cosmic-ray-flux-and-the-ipcc/
Luke I agree with much of what you write here.
Thx for the cloud seeding links, it does look comprehensive and let’s hope it has the potential to increase rainfall in catchment areas during good seasons. It’s great to see good science like that is going on.
You are quite right people do live in UHI and so it does make sense to be recording this data. It is interesting though how many stations have been removed since the cold war ended, which leaves large areas with no weather stations. This has the potential to make comparisons very difficult I would think.
Re the weather stations I would agree that watts published his data, and it was critical of NOAA so it does seem reasonable they would use this data to inform their own work. It does however still require spatial averaging and adjustments that allow doubt to creep in over the bias in adjustments. I recall reading a number of articles indicating how consistently adjustments are up rather than down?
“Did the Watt’s tour tell you all that? Why not? NO they only told you what they wanted you to hear.” Yes that is true, but in a 20-30 minute talk there is only so much you can impart. As I said I thought the Watts talk interesting because it highlights how stupid people can be but do not believe his work to be important to being sceptical of dangers associated with co2.
Archibald was much more impressive and much of what he said is precisely why I am sceptical. Note they were not saying co2 is not a greenhouse gas but they doubt positive feedback effects. They also highlighted how volatile temp can be so a 0.7ish change in temp over a century is nothing unusual at all. So Gavin your comment about 0.5 c being alarming is merely IMO scaremongering with no basis whatsoever. The “UNPRECEDENTED” rate of change is nothing of the sort and hence a red herring.
Talking about 25,000 species studies is also not evidence of human influence on the warmer climate, merely a symptom of a warmer climate. (Note I am not sceptical of temperatures having warmed!)…although I have no doubt that humans have a significant influence on species and more often than not a negative one!
I agree the blip back up in the temp anomaly over the last few months may be cause for concern given declining solar activity as I mentioned a few days ago. But as Archibald pointed out there are lag effects that may account for this or changes in cloud cover and water vapour etc. I guess the next year or so will tell us much more on that front and if temp keeps climbing co2 becomes a much more likely villain.
“You also have to be careful when people assure you they have perfect records of predicting the past. If so – and I could – I wouldn’t be telling you – as I’d be rich!”… I couldn’t agree with you more, the same goes for modeling. When I worked in finance I had many salesmen trying to sell me there latest foolproof money making model and they all assured me it worked on historical data. I would just say in which case go and invest your own money and give up your day job!
From Nexus he says “You’ll note maximum amplitude of each solar cycle has been getting smaller since 1956” and yet temperature has kept increasing…yes but those solar cycles are still longer than the ones that precede it so you would presumably expect them to be creating more warming?
I need to reread it and think about it a bit more before saying more. And I agree “Lastly on his prediction – you have to know some statistical theory – you can get a polynomial fit to almost any set of data – then project the curve into the future. The prediction often falls over.”
I also agree it is likely that much maybe most of the increase in crop yields is related to technology.
“So as usual you only got what they wanted to serve up.”…yes but in a limited time it is not surprising, the intention was to inform people of reasons to be sceptical. I would agree you can drive a bus through some of the arguments…but I think you can park a battleship in much of the climate science promoting positive feedback effects, modeling, no global MWP or RWP or MWP etc
Thankyou once again for your considered links and explanations, i genuinely appreciate them.
The MWP is not overly important for AGW “proof” – what happening in the MWP was ….
As for water vapour feedbacks – http://www.skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas.htm It’s not as though there is no evidence. You have to immerse yourself in this issue – it’s not an easy one.
Want to pick some holes – I’d be going cloud feedbacks, decadal influences, and solar output.
In the end it’s a perception of risk. No – a formal analysis of risk !
And we deserve the best analysis of that risk as our current climate is a hazard already.
Do the sceptics want you to have that analysis ?
We probably have enough information already to at least to suggest changes in water policy design.
The models are only formal explorations of possible new climates. They are not “predictions”. And will never be !
Cohers – denialists have an answer for everything. There’s a ruse for every argument. At some point Occam’s razor cuts in – you guys just wiggle and squirm. Someone out there will always write another refutation. You take on stats simply shows why you should stick to law and why you ain’t published.
What do you mean, my “take on stats”?
Incidentally, for those who missed David Stockwell’s talks during the Watts tour, here is David’s p/p; David calls it the Monkey Mean; I think “CSIRO, an unauthorised biography” would also suffice.
http://landshape.org/data/StockwellCSP.ppt.pdf
Luke OMG, one again I agree it is a risk issue. However when taking out “insurance” you must consider costs and benefits. There is currently no way humanity can cut emissions given current technology without creating enormous hardship and reducing our freedom of choice in a dramatic way ( i do not think that is an exaggeration, do you?) and there is also no way with china and india developing so fast that anything the west does will lower emissions. Even trying to make very modest reductions in the west will cost a lot and achieve little or nothing noticeable. So we know the costs of attempting to reduce co2 will cost a lot and we also know it will not actually reduce temperature in a way that anybody will recognise or appreciate.
However we humans are clever and we will find new technology. Hell i read today that an american has built his own fusion reactor in his back yard!
http://www.news.com.au/technology/web-designer-builds-a-nuclear-reactor-in-spare-time/story-e6frfro0-1225883566928
so i have little doubt that in the foreseeable future it will be possible to take out “insurance”, but currently i think the costs of the action being proposed by governments is in no way warranted by the benefits.
I think both sides of the science debate are motivated by “doing the right thing” ( in general) but i think bias warps peoples perceptions of the possible and the likely. I do doubt the intentions of political motives and the motivation of the IPCC I also find very dubious. I do not trust them at all. I think carbon tax and credits will be rife with fraud and make bankers very rich for no real benefit.
But there are things that can be done for little cost or if there is a cost a potentially huge future saving or benefit. Stopping rainforest being chopped down surely is a good thing. Supporting new technology with research and development tax rebates seems sensible but govts picking winners is crazy and open too significant politicising with the potential for fraud. For instance rebuilding the electricity distribution infrastructure could save money and emissions. I hear up to 30% of energy generated is lost via the distribution network because so much of it is over 60yrs old. This will also help overall energy consumption and potentially improve renewable energy potential. Renewables are bloody great in principle, but currently they are merely a “platitude” and too many people bullshit us they are a solution that is currently viable.
We all say things we dont really mean and i recognise much of the work being done has benefits, if i was a farmer i would want to know what future weather may do based on PDO, la nina/ el nino/enso, cosmic rays, solar cycles, ocean currents, cloud formation ( and seeding!) etc. this is all useful science.
I wouldnt be bullshitting by saying AGW is the greatest moral challenge and then building a desalination plant and neglecting even a discussion of nuclear which could at least make producing water through desal a cheaper and more viable option. I would nt be blaming climate change for changes in rainfall or water shortages when population has increased but dam storage is constant or even reduced ( i would however blame land use changes and pollution as human regional influences on climate)! I wouldnt be locking up potential catchment areas and dam sites when the population keeps growing.
I would be asking serious questions about sustainable population levels in oz and more importantly for the planet….and this is where i suspect the whole crazy IPCC campaign began ( yes you could say that makes me a conspiracy theorist but i do not trust govt and i place the united nations firmly in that basket)
Big Brother frightens me and i can see him on the horizon if we are not very careful. Hell much of the western world is already moving that way with govt in america and europe increasingly nationalising the means of production and imposing controls on our civil liberties. And unfortunately AGW is an important tool in their armoury
The OMG is because we seem to be finding common ground today!
AO back into negative, it doesn’t look good going forward.
http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/daily_ao_index/ao_index.html
Gavin, do yourself a favour and have a look at Cohers link and see if you still feel that 0.5C increase in our lifetime is alarming?! ( try slide 9!) ( you obviously havent followed my links to see how rapidly temp changed during dalton and maunder minimums!?)
when i see slide 12 on rainfall patterns my bullshit meter comes on when co2 is blamed, but not when landuse change is blamed.
Cohers, slide 17 shows in red declining droughts but if i am reading it right they are stopping 20-30 years ago on the “observed” and the same for slide 18…why is that?
slide 26 sums up my objections nicely!…thx again cohers for your contributions
Gavin you say “Also our written history is hardly the basis for fresh scientific studies in this context”..it seems to me this is an excellent place to start !?…and if we want a gauge of what has happened in teh past given that we werent there these seem the most obvious place to start!?..then you can use proxy data as well and i guess if it fits with “history” it provides a check…otherwise what do you have?…not bloody models please!?
Coho – Stockwell’s talk was scurrilous. No guts unless he presents to CSIRO in person instead of scaring pensioners.
So Toby – we’re not too far apart after all. Don’t something about growth of CO2 in the atmosphere is extremely difficult and I for one don’t want to go back to the caves.
So what’s happened – after some years – an almost useful exchange. WOW !
Toby, the red line observations are smoothed using a 15 year moving average so they stop around 1998, a peak warm year which should have increased the trend; no doubt luke will impress us with a critique of drought observations shown in such a way; given his criticisms up to date have been so substantial.
O/T
Joe Bastardi of Accuweather is forecasting 18-21 storms this hurricane season. This has happened only five years in the 160 year record and he thinks the swing from a freezing winter to extreme storm activity is worth mentioning.
“It’s hard to fathom another 12-month period where such wild swings would make weather so significant for such a large area of the population,” said Bastardi.
La Nina doubles the chance of hurricane activity, so this year is becoming a repeat of 1780. Gavin believes “our written history is hardly the basis for fresh scientific studies in this context”, where I think we should include historical records along with proxy data.
Toby; Thanks but I don’t bother with astrologists. Apart from wiki, most current sunspot- cosmic ray discussion is purely a bloggie thing,
Also as Cohenite (like Schiller) is neither mathematical nor technical I generally won’t follow far down his personal path to climate enlightenment. Another question remains, why is he so inclined? My best guess, him being such a bright spark has worked out another way to the gravy train, supporting controversial blogs, books and their authors.
” a peak warm year which should have increased the trend” oh dear Coho – you can’t help yourself – if solar output has lessened – why so. Merely your convenient assertion.
el your joe gets a good run via google in posts linked with astrology
Sorry luke, I was speaking in AGW; read Pinker, think clouds, drink scotch, fall down, do whatever you have to to make sense; whatever you’re doing now ain’t working.
gavin
Kepler was a mathematician and astronomer, but his day job was weather astrologer. If Joe is offering accurate seasonal forecasts with this inexact science, then he is doing better that the UK Met who have suspended their effort in this regard.
The Working Group 1 contribution for the IPCC 5th Assessment Report is looking dodgy. Although Chapter 8 should study the influence of the Sun, there are no astrophysicists (or astronomers) in the list.
OK, folks! Why do I have to go to an American site to learn that Rudds’s out? Isn’t that two party leaders in a year that ETS has cost them their jobs?
El gordo “Although Chapter 8 should study the influence of the Sun, there are no astrophysicists (or astronomers) in the list”
Sorry mate; but I can’t help wondering why you must have the cart before the horse. Also I get annoyed with your handle here. Let’s say it’s time you gave us some substance re your interest in what I call this blog astrology.
From an early age I sat for hours on our kitchen cupboard right next to a large window and watched weather evolve under a distant sun over Bass Strait. I soon learned those latitude 40 systems were caused by our “spin”, not the sun and so became fascinated with the weather map as published in the local daily. Problem was though, much had already passed. That kindled my interest in radio broadcast from our ABC.
Simultaneously I listened for sunspot news as that often meant remarkable night viewing of our Southern Aurora however it was mostly low in the sky. Finding big ones up in the Milky Way was a challenge but I usually stayed out long enough to see the background flicker amongst the mass of stars. Yes we got radio interference but weather? No.
Climate study based on weather info can assume a steady state sun. That leaves us fishing through bands of water vapour and other atmospheric factors for the solar energy that comes in. What escapes has to be less than the total we receive through any given period as much of it drives evaporation from the surface, So we have suspended energy waiting to be dumped. I doubt any of it affects the sun.
Easy huh! So why bother the IPCC? Tell me it’s not personal financial.
CoRev; I posted this link yesterday
http://www.abc.net.au/news/justin/
CoRev
The local msm was awash with this bloodless coup, so nobody said much here except for Gavin, who is overjoyed because now it gives his side a fighting chance at the next election. We all love Julia (even though she’s a closet Fabian), but Labor will still lose the next election if she doesn’t drop the ETS.
Gavin, the recent article in New Scientist about the sun has now been adapted for the Washington Post. The writer is Stuart Clark who holds a PhD in astrophysics, so I can’t help wondering why he hasn’t been asked to join the IPCC.
Gavin
Just wandering about I found this story, which may interest you.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/06/100603091825.htm
Gavin you really shouldnt make outlandish statements like a 0.5c temperature increase is alarming in your life time, then be shown that its happened many times before and by a greater degree, and come back with a reply like…i dont bother with astrologists.
did you look at the charts…have you any reason to doubt them?..can you show any temp charts that disagree with the rate of change of temp in our recent past?
You are making outlandish and stupid comments that demonstrate a lack of objectivity.
Gavin believes in delusional predictions of the future and not facts from the past and of course so does Luke.
Show him real studies of both poles showing much higher temps in the earlier Holocene and he hasn’t the wit to understand, but show him a prediction of the future out of delusional models and he will fight in the gutter to defend this ectoplasm.
Like all lefties he believes in delusional nonsense while conservatives believe in hard cold facts.
el gordo re your science daily link above, I hole they don’t strike oil!
BTW I found this item is so interesting, how come you missed it?
A choice quote “….Nowadays, additional methane and carbon dioxide are artificially emitted into the atmosphere by human activities and are the main driver of the observed climate warming.”
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/06/100624144105.htm
Nev mate; I have no interest in this wild stuff either. Without SL or other meaningfull references, it’s just junk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png
toby; you can’t say “that its happened many times before” because you havn’t got a shred of verifable evidence at hand.
Toby; can I back that point “a 0.5c temperature increase is alarming in your life time”
With this 2010 abstract “This paper presents the first high-resolution chironomid-inferred mean July air temperature (C-IT) reconstruction for the early Holocene from England. The reconstruction is based on a core recovered from a terrestrialised carbonate bench at Hawes Water, a small hard-water lake in northwest England. The record shows that temperatures rose rapidly after the Younger Dryas with temperatures reaching 14.0°C at the beginning of the Holocene. Over millennial timescales, the temperature record points to a slight rise in temperatures towards the top of the sequence at around 8000 years before the year 2000 (b2k). The trend is punctuated by a series of cool oscillations (at 11 200, 11 400, 10 700, 10 400, 9300 and 8300 b2k) and by a short period (11 300 to 10 250 b2k) when temperatures were considerably warmer (up to 14.9°C). The five cool oscillations coincide with temperature reversals found elsewhere in the North Atlantic region and in the Greenland ice core records. These cool events correlate well with both meltwater fluxes from the Laurentide and Scandinavian ice sheets and periods of low solar activity. Two of these oscillations (at 9300 and 8300 b2k) vary significantly from the early-Holocene mean. C-IT shift rapidly during both these events and temperatures fall 1.6°C below the early-Holocene mean trend for 50–60 years. The results presented here provide an insight into the instability of the early-Holocene climate in the British Isles and demonstrate the sensitivity of chironomids to rapid climatic events during the early Holocene”
http://hol.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/0959683610366157v1
Hasn’t occurred to Neville that we’d be a Chinese colony under the MWP. Global mega-droughts …. get yourself the book
http://www.amazon.com/Great-Warming-Climate-Change-Civilizations/dp/1596913924
Cold hard facts = Gulf Oil Spill ! = what Neville likes
Gavin you are the epitome of why sceptics are so important to the AGW debate. There is abundant evidence to support rapid temp change in the recent past, you do not have to go back 10,000 years!
You cast aspersions on cohenites motivation for being an outspken sceptic. Another typical trait of those so blinded by their faith and it does you no credit what so ever. Being sceptical in this modern world takes bravery, it is already clear that it can cost you your job and being an advocate can gain you a job. I can assure you being a sceptic does not win you friends and in the work place can cause you grief. You need a thick skin. ( By the way how many lawyers have you met that need to worry about where their next pay cheque is coming from!?)
From my experience sceptics are motivated by an overwhelming urge to save humanity from its own stupidity.
Nobody in their right mind could truly believe we can cut emissions without causing a dramatic loss of freedom and choice, given current technology. Renewables are currently a platitude if we are talking about base load power and modern lifestyles.
Any real cost benefit analysis of AGW action shows adaptation over action is overwhelmingly the viable option. Hopefully if AGW is real ( and i mean positive feedback effects here, not a pleasant 1c increase from a doubling of co2) then we will soon find an alternative energy source that can allow us to move away from our fossil fuel based economies. Currently that is not possible and i think you have to be foolish to think otherwise. Nobody has shown otherwise …have they?
More on the mad delusional left, when they don’t like the truth they can turn really dangerous, like sending you bomb parts so that you GET the message.
This is the mad totalitarian facists exposed, let’s hope the police will do their job.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/24/green-energy-company-threatens-economics-professor-%e2%80%a6-with-package-of-dismantled-bomb-parts/#more-21015
A paper by Charles A Perry and Kenneth J. Hsu leans towards the solar-input model. They are relying on geophysical, archaeological, and historical evidence from the last full glacial Pleistocene (30,000 years BP) through the current Holocene interglacial to the present.
‘The solar-output model is based on a superposition of a fundamental harmonic progression of cycles beginning at 10 and 12 years and progressing to the 13th harmonic (90,000-year cycle), which is approximately equal to the average continental glacial cycle.
‘This model was date calibrated to the Pleistocene/Holocene boundary at 9,000 years BP and compared with geophysical records of sea level, carbon-14 production, oxygen 16/18 ratios, and other geologic evidence of climate fluctuations.
‘The approximate 1,300-year little-ice-age cycle and intervening warmer periods agree with archaeological and historical evidence of these cold and warm periods. Throughout history, global warming has brought prosperity whereas global cooling has brought adversity.’
Gavin….It’s closer to orbital forcing than astrology.
Interesting effects of El Nino events on west Antarctica, during a major el nino event from 1939 to 1942 the temp on west antarctica rose between 3c to 6c and then dropped from 1942 to 1944 5c to 7c.
If we take a mid range, temps over a period of 5 years went from +4.5c then dropped -6c and remember this is entirely natural before co2 could have had any effect, amazing what nature can do.
I hope Cohenite reads this and gives his opinion on this El nino temp induced shift.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/08/080812160619.htm
Neville WA and the PIG have been topical:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/21/new-research-sheds-light-on-antarcticas-melting-pine-island-glacier/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/19/antarctic-agreements-and-disagreements/#more-20755
The problem with the Antarctica for AGW is that the Antarctic is such an unhomogenous area with large climatic and temperature conditions; this was the fundamental problem with the Steig and Mann paper on temp trends in the Antarctic and this flawed [corrupt] method is still being used by AGW advocates today; that is, extrapolating from the warmer WAP to conclude temp trends about the whole of the Antarctic. The WAP and its resident glaciers such as the PIG are in fact a product of a different climate regime and geological underpining.
Coho – I’m happy for Antarctica to stay cold. Suits my agenda just fine.
BTW Coho – got censored over at JoNova – was hoping you might put in a good word for me.
Actually luke, it would suit my agenda if Antarctica melted quickly, like in the next 10 years. I’ve got 60 acres 300m above sea level, I’d make a fortune!
Oh and this is what they think of our luke over at Jo Nova; “Luke wont the kiddies play with you anymore at Jens blog”
Happy to put in a good word for you luke; will “amphigory” do?
Good one Cohenite, I wonder if he’ll get it!
IPCC “Consensus” on Solar Influence was Only One Solar Physicist who Agreed with Her Own Paper
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/06/ipcc-consensus-on-solar-influence-was.html
And the paper relies on manipulated data, what a surprise.
“kiddies” ! Inter-blog snobbery guys. Face it – Jen’s blog has a superior type of sceptic. More committed. Better looking. Possibly even somewhat intelligent.
What is being called ‘Judithgate’ is going viral. The one-woman ‘consensus’ that the Sun has little effect on climate change is totally outed. So is the irrefutable fiddling of the ‘data’ upon which the conclusion is based — a conclusion contradicted by six peer-reviewed papers which the IPCC decided to ignore. Google blog search already brings up 15 hits for ‘judithgate’. Gotta love it!
This just in: the PNAS ‘black list’ of climate skeptics is based on fiddled numbers, specifically, who has published how many papers.
wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/22/the-blacklist-of-climate-science/
The PNAS counts only four papers for Kenneth P. Green, when in fact he has 113 to his credit!
blog.american.com/?p=15768
Pretty bad when the CAGWers have to fiddle the numbers to ‘assess the (lack of) expertise’ of skeptics. It’s more like a damning admission. Gotta love it!
Guys; I’m all for going in with this gal. Simply, year for year she’d be far better looking fellow than the rest of you given this forum. Besides Schiller, you can’t pump the radiation variability forever.
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Judith_Lean_Discusses_Solar_Variability_999.html
Gavin,
Satellites showed that the total solar irradiance between 1986 and 96 increased by about one third.
Lean says changes in the total solar irradiance vary by 0.1 percent between cycles.
It will be possible to pump the radiation variability for precisely as long as the IPCC continues to sponsor fiddled data.
And actually, for as long as the Sun keeps changing its output.
‘Without SL or other meaningful references, it’s just junk’, said Gavin, who needs something to get his teeth into otherwise its not real.
Solar activity is not ‘ramping up’ up as much as Lean imagines, so I see your solar physicist and raise you astronomer David Whitehouse.
‘I fear that the decline will be far greater than that. The next beat of the Little Ice Age cycle is due. The next beat of the 11,500 year old ice age cycle is due. And the next beat of the 105,000 year ice age cycle is due. In other words, we’re due for the big one.’
According to Lamb, this is how it begins, the snow doesn’t melt in the summer.
http://www.ifyouski.com/ski-extras/more/news/10-06-23/23_Jun_-_Heavy_snow_for_Europe_s_glaciers_plus_more_Southern_Hemisphere_resorts_open.aspx
El Gordo,
According to the CAGW consensus, the data in that article are erroneous since they contradict authoritative models designed by spectacularly accomplished climatologists.
Michael Kelly’s notes from the Oxburgh Climategate inquiry include:
It does a disservice to centuries of real experimentation and allows simulations output to be considered as real data. This last is a very serious matter, as it can lead to the idea that real ‘real data’ might be wrong simply because it disagrees with the models!
http://climateaudit.org/2010/06/22/kellys-comments/
‘Nuff said.
Interesting debate or belting taking place at Jo Nova’s site about models and real evidence showing real measurements.
Poor John Cook has done Jo over with a feather duster and in return she’s belted him with a sledge hammer, what a non contest.
http://joannenova.com.au/2010/06/how-john-cook-unskeptically-believes-in-a-hotspot-that-thermometers-cant-find/#more-9167
Typically the SMH downplays how wet La Nina can be. Aaron Cook says ‘La Nina tends to cause more rain across south-eastern Australia and, if it develops, the extra rain could help to soften cricket pitches.’
Yeah, how about huge floods.
Interesting info from NASA on the NGRICP ( 2004) that throws some light on how large and unprecedented the temp rise was in the last 160 years, remember that rise was an enormous 0.7c after the end of a minor ice age.
One hundred and fifteen thousand years ago just before the Eemian’s slide into the last ice age the temp at this site increased 5c in just 50 years.
Repeat that again, at the end of the warmer Eemian interglacial the temp increased 5c or more than 7 times the increase in less than a third of the time to produce our present 0.7c rise.
Then when the planet emerged into the Holocene about 10,500 years ago there was a temp increase at this site of 10c in just 50 years again.
Repeat again, the temp increased some 10c in just 50 years or 14 times the .07c increase over the last 160 years.
Now that’s what I’d call a real temp increase.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?id=25353
PS– and that’s why the alarmists are a bunch of liars and fraudsters.
“Poor John Cook has done Jo over with a feather duster and in return she’s belted him with a sledge hammer, what a non contest.”
Says who – Neville and Jo – pullease !
Credentials of Aussie sceptics = zero.zero
http://www.climateinstitute.org.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=681:be-sceptical-of-climate-sceptics&catid=112:blogs
Check the list dudes !
Thanks for that light relief Luke from the institute, what a load of smelly stuff, you’d think you could do a whole lot better than that.
Anyhow is my post from Nasa and representing numerous countries years of work peer reviewed enough for you or don’t you like 5c and 10c temp increases in 50 years, it rather buggers up a good hissy fit scare doesn’t it?
But Neville – you know what matey – it’s true – none published. The whole lot – what a crock !
All your mates have done is sprout unreviewed pure bunkum.
NOT PUBLISHED. NO EXPERTISE ! Zip Zilch Zero …
Luke
‘unreviewed’? Well, it has been a little hard to get published for some inexplicable reason, while so many other papers reveal the fingerprints of Jones, Mann et al. Heads will roll and there will be a lot of red faces around when cooling takes hold.
Excuse my mantra: CO2 is a harmless trace gas and does not cause CAGW.
“Well, it has been a little hard to get published for some inexplicable reason, ”
yes coz
(1) can’t be bothered
(2) huh – wot’s peer review
(3) the idea was actually crap or methodologically flawed and the paper rejected
(4) you have to be able to write
(5) the idea was crap so you pretend the establishment is against you – it’s a “conspiracy” (Galileo syndrome)
(6) you can pseudo-publish by putting “submitted” work on the internet
“there will be a lot of red faces around when cooling takes hold.” is that a prediction?
Yes, that is a prediction and it will happen in your lifetime.
‘If indeed the world does enter another Little Ice Age cold period, the people-driven-warming beat-up will be over-trumped by a far more serious problem – external influences beyond our control, leading to global cooling. World food-production would be endangered.’
‘Clearly, Australia’s policy-makers deserve a broader spectrum of advice than the dogmatic and self-serving promotion by CSIRO and Met Bureau of the implausible hypothesis that people are the primary driver of global climate – with only more and more warming ahead.’
Bob Foster 2009
So what’s your SCIENCE basis for another Little Ice Period – evidence being?
G. Usoskin et al. Jones and Mann also get a mention in this paper.
http://www.mps.mpg.de/dokumente/publikationen/solanki/c153.pdf
They say there is a strong correlation between NH temps and solar activity, but there are obviously other factors operating.
The first signal for global cooling will be increasing sea ice in the East Greenland Current.
Here is your hockey stick, solar activity over the last 70 years has been the highest in 8000 years.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v431/n7012/abs/nature02995.html
The conclusion in the Usoskin paper doesn’t mention this small fact and we can see why. Got to love that gravy train, but unfortunately this sin of omission comes across as propaganda.
Even Solanki et al. have bowed to the consensus view in an unnecessary, blatant way.
‘Although the rarity of the current episode of high average sunspot numbers may indicate that the Sun has contributed to the unusual climate change during the twentieth century, we point out that solar variability is unlikely to have been the dominant cause of the strong warming during the past three decades.’
On the other hand I may be suffering from Dunning Kruger Syndrome.
(2) huh – wot’s peer review
I’ve often wondered the same thing.
http://climateaudit.org/2010/06/22/kellys-comments/
I think this one’s called Judithgate [but not Curry].
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/06/ipcc-consensus-on-solar-influence-was.html
But Solanki et al also say – “Although the rarity of the current episode of high average sunspot numbers may indicate that the Sun has contributed to the unusual climate change during the twentieth century, we point out that solar variability is unlikely to have been the dominant cause of the strong warming during the past three decades”
and what happened to the MWP “as warm as today” in Solanki et al.?
Luke
That is exactly the point I was making. Why does Solanki say that without explanation?
And why do the Russians think differently to the warmists?
http://www.thegwpf.org/international-news/712-siberian-winter-may-be-coldest-on-record.html
Solanki may have thought it prudent to ignore the MCA, I’ll follow it up.
Luke that study was published in Nature Sept 2004, six years ago.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/ngrip2004/ngrip2004.html
Picked this up at RealClimate:
‘Based on a 10Be record from Antarctica Bard et al. (2000) conclude that currents levels of solar activity were also reached or exceeded around 1200 AD. By contrast, Solanki et al. (2004) conclude that solar activity during recent decades is exceptionally high compared to the past 8000 years. Their method seems to be confirmed by a 10Be record from Southern Greenland (Dye 3, Beer et al, 1990). However, the two 10Be records from Antarctica and Greenland exhibit big disagreements for the last 55 years which is the main reason for these very different conclusions (Raisbeck and Yiou, 2004).’
I believe Bard et al. so theoretically we should see increased sea ice and icebergs in the East Greenland Current by 2020.
Neville
This is from that abstract: ‘Our record reveals a hitherto unrecognized warm period initiated by an abrupt climate warming about 115,000 years ago, before glacial conditions were fully developed.’
Intriguing high resolution image of the present? Hockey-stick and all that.
Congrats and best wishes to Australians for forcing out a committed CAGW promoter as your Prime Minister.
I note with amusement that skeptics are now called ‘climate change delayers’ and that removing your PM by lawful means is now a ‘putsch’ by ‘delayers’.
If climate change is so bad, what is wrong with delaying it?
And how much more of the language will have to be tortured by CAGW hysterics before their social mania peters out?
Hunter – I knew you always were thick. One of the reasons Rudd became unpopular and eventually removed was NOT delivering on an ETS. As usual you’re clueless. If you’re so worried about the term putsch why not complain about our carbon loving Opposition’s leader rhetorical slops about “political assassinations”. Why country are you from anyway.
Luke,
When I look up ‘thick’ in the dictionary, why do I find your picture as an example of an extreme case of the dangers of ‘thick’?
So ETS, with Rudd gone is coming back right and tight?
LOL at you.
Do you not recall where I said I was from last time this came up?
But I do like the morphing names for skeptics and am a bit disappointed that you don’t have a rationalization for it…but only a little, since you are congenitally limited in your ability to describe those with whom you disagree. Sort of a Turret’s manifestation, I am sure.
You mean Tourette’s numb nuts.
Hunter
When Kevin Rudd came back from the Xmas break the opinion polls had him way out in front and his advisers said lets have a double dissolution over the CPRS.
For some inexplicable reason he said no (lacking political nous) otherwise we would be on the road to a Spanish disaster by now.
With the fall of Copenhagen only the green shirt zealots were still keen to go it alone, without the rest of the world. The electorate thought it dumb. The Ruddster also got brickbats for the insulation fiasco, among other things, but his ultimate undoing was the supertax.
Julia is smarter than Kevin, so she will not be reintroducing the ETS in any form.
This is an old story, but it’s news to me.
It appears that Britain has been inhabited at least eight times over the past 700,000 years and on seven of those occasions the population moved elsewhere or were wiped out by cold winters.
An investigation into the prehistoric sites of Britain has shown that the last colonisation occurred less than 12,000 years ago – making Britain a younger country than Australia, which has been continuously inhabited for at least 50,000 years.
“Britain had to be repopulated over and over again. Completely new people had to come back, sometimes with a gap of 100,000 years between these occupations,” said Professor Chris Stringer, the head of human origins at the Natural History Museum in London.
“Early Britons had to cope with these changes of climate. Often they couldn’t and they died out completely. Britain and the British people today are new arrivals. We’re products of only the past 12,000 years,” Professor Stringer said.
Hunter Gillard knows that the ets is a pain in the backside to a growing number of Aussies, that’s the reason she and others forced krudd to shelve it. ( Hartcher smh )
Just listened to Macca on the abc say that he wasn’t upset at all by the shelving of the ets, in fact everyone he talks to thinks “it’s a crock of……”, great to listen to MY abc for a change.
The real science is gradually getting out there to the great unwashed, which isn’t a surprise when you look at the facts.
Unbelievably we want to spend trillions on the price of carbon, when even a cursory glance at the last 500,000 years tells us that the Holocene is the coolest interglacial out of the last five with lower temps and sea levels.
Just eg during the last Eemian inter/gl the coast of west Aust had 4 metre higher seas than now and coral that no longer exists because the seas are now too cold.
Humans moved out of Africa to begin their planetary journey and OH the polars bears thrived, the ice pack storage of G/land and Antarctica didn’t thaw much, forests grew much more widely and trees grew at least a 100 metres higher in the mountains
http://www.climatechangefraud.com/behind-the-science/7220-new-global-warming-scandal-consensus-on-sun-is-one-expert
Gillard probably knows she is surrounded by incompetents peddling a fraudulent ideaology that is falling apart at the seams with every passing day.
This consensus of one on the sun is just another example.
I wonder if there is ANY evidence at all of any of those in Australia involved in contributing to the IPCC AR4 speaking up about this,and the other stuff ups and blatant shonkiness or did they just sit on their hands and remained silent whilst these untruths were being peddled, and thereby they are probably just as complicit?
Malcolm, it’s amazing after all the climategate frauds plus this one on the sun that there isn’t a more strident demand from more politicians around the world to bring these corrupt fraudsters from the ipcc to account.
At least they should withdraw their funding and support until a proper enquiry sorts out this corrupt mess.
Jo Nova has torn John Cook apart. Poor Cook seems to believe in things that doesn’t exist much like our Luke/bit_pattern.
http://joannenova.com.au/2010/06/how-john-cook-unskeptically-believes-in-a-hotspot-that-thermometers-cant-find/
Luke/bit_pattern, quoting from real climate, deltoid, skeptical science and rabbet run regarding AGW is akin to quoting Tom Cruise, John Travolta, Kirstie Alley etc. regarding scientology. Only the brainwashed or deluded would give any of those sources credibility.
So Neville assures us – who’s Jo Nova – some TV celeb followed around by fawning geriatic whingers. Climate expertise is what? Pullease ! Perhaps you’re charmed her Neville – others engage brain power – see a real debate http://rankexploits.com/musings/2008/who-expects-a-tropical-tropospheric-hot-spot-from-any-and-all-sources-of-warming/ – she wouldn’t beat an Arthur Smith?
What bunk luke; I answered all of Arthur’s ‘concerns’ about a THS at comments 54 and 107 here:
http://joannenova.com.au/2010/06/how-john-cook-unskeptically-believes-in-a-hotspot-that-thermometers-cant-find/comment-page-5/#comment-60293
Luke tries to dismiss Jo’s dismantling of yet another CAGW promoter by appealing to authority but only succeeds in reminding us that CAGW promoters are being taken down by informed people who decline to let the Luke-esque sort think for them.
Thanks again, team Luke.
Luke,
So you are familiar with it. Not surprising.
Cheers,
Cohers – lawyers and other sundry UNPUBLISHED denialists don’t count for zip. It’s all just blog hot air. You’re kididng yourselves. You’re simply a cheer squad recycling your own bilge. I wonder who really wrote it? anyway?
I wasn’t appealing to authority hunter – just someone with half a brain.
Too gutless to present your findings to CSIRO or BoM – so much for your “national interest” – what piss weakness. You had a good opportunity while Wattsy was here and you’ve all run away like the little chickens you are. Squeak squeak go the mice . Squeak. Scaring halls of pensioners.
Ludicrous as per usual Luke, anyhow when are you going to apologize for your silly waffle about the international,published peer reviewed ice core studies on Greenland during the last two interglacials and ice age.
Judithgate has gone viral.
http://sppiblog.org/news/new-global-warming-scandal-consensus-on-sun-is-one-expert
It’s the sun, stupid!
Not exactly a trend, but it looks like the beginning of one.
http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/western-australia/perths-cold-snap-chilliest-in-four-years/story-e6frg13u-1225884091345
Here’s that Bard et al. abstract which says solar activity during the Medieval Warm Period was similar to now.
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/121386580/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0
As the NH gets cooler and wetter because of reduced solar activity, it’s possible to see ‘global dimming’ becoming a political issue.
‘In a 2009 Met Office study into the effects of contrails, scientists from a number of UK institutions used a weather satellite to track a large military aircraft as it circled over the North Sea. The team expected high-level winds to disperse its contrails without trace.’
‘But instead they helped to form clouds, which the researchers were astonished to find eventually covered a massive 20,000 square miles.’
Would that be classified as positive feedback?
Remind me what I am supposed to apologise for Neville ….
Luke said: “You had a good opportunity while Wattsy was here and you’ve all run away like the little chickens you are. Squeak squeak go the mice . Squeak. Scaring halls of pensioners.”
And I remind him of all the HUFF & PUFF he promised when they were touring. Nope! didn’t happen. As a matter of fact, his first review showed Umm, Ahh, Err he was somewhat impressed by them and their materials.
Yes CoRev you are correct correct – he’s complained about numbers. Bugger all turned out. And most of the numbers were poor old pensioners. We agree.
Luke, dunno about Oz, but in the good ole US of A it is the pensioners that vote consistently. Why? Because they are active, interested, have more time to study and in general better informed. We seldom make “pensioner” a politically pejorative term as you are doing without paying the consequences.
Might take that to heart, Mate!
el gordo; I remain concerned about your motivation. Many posts here by others also show an odd zeal in a particular area of blogsphere anti AGW publishing on issues such as solar variance “science” however you can’t shake my view that the jolly old Sun isn’t the culprit.
Bard et al 2005
“Overall, the role of solar activity in climate changes— such as the Quaternary glaciations or the present global warming— remains unproven and most probably represents a second-order effect. Although we still require even more and better data, the weight of evidence suggests that solar changes have contributed to small climate oscillations occurring on time scales of a few centuries, similar in type to the fluctuations classically described for the last millennium: The so-called Medieval Warm Period (900–1400 A.D.) followed on by the Little Ice Age (1500–1800 A.D.).”
http://www.scribd.com/doc/334357/Climate-change-and-solar-variability-Whats-new-under-the-sun-Bard-and-Frank
Mate; come out and get real.
As climatology is currently practiced, Solar output will have to be modeled to represent what models of surface temperature readings indicate.
Which means, raw Solar data are not accurate.
By their own (nearly) logic, that means that untrustworthy data can be made trustworthy by application of a model.
How bass-ackwards is that?
No wonder ‘climatologists’ are stonewalling or waving their hands at ‘data theft’, etc. Perpetuating a lie is a lot of work.
CoRev – well down here in the Antipodean convict colony we have 95% voter turnout vis a vis your 54%, so I’m not too worried. The chair of one Watt’s tour meeting lamented at the podium the lack of interest from young people and said they need to redress that.
gavin
I understand your concern, but your CO2 trace gas had nothing to do with Meltwater Pulse 1A. It happened quickly and for no apparent reason.
A little closer to home the MWP was enjoying the fruits of an active sun, then sea ice around Greenland was increasingly encountered on the old sailing route from AD 1203 onwards.
Imagine an inactive sun having an effect on the circumpolar vortex and jet stream, which alters weather patterns. I’m not concerned about global warming, it would be highly beneficial for most of the world.
‘The chair of one Watt’s tour meeting lamented at the podium the lack of interest from young people and said they need to redress that.’
That may take a little while, the power of propaganda is formidable.
El Gordo,
Up in these parts northward of the tropics, there is a saying: ‘A young person who votes Republican (right-leaning) has no heart, and an old person who votes Democratic (left-leaning) has no brain.’
Schiller
It will be left to the old warriors to fight the green shirted zealots, whose propaganda throughout the education system and the msm over the past couple of decades has done wonders in brainwashing a generation.
Meltwater Pulse 1A – Bard et al. 2010
“The resolution of the few sea-level records covering the critical time interval between 14,000 and 9,000 calendar years before the present is still insufficient to draw conclusions about sea-level changes associated with the Younger Dryas cold event and the meltwater pulse 1B (MWP-1B).”
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/327/5970/1235
“I’m not concerned about global warming-”
So, where do you live? Most in Oz live quite near the sea.
“CoRev – well down here in the Antipodean convict colony we have 95% voter turnout vis a vis your 54%”
Luke,
That says it all about your complete lack of honesty in debate.
Comparing apples with apples? Compulsory voting vis-a-vis voluntary?
What a fraud!
Gav, how’s that mild winter goin’ down your way this morning?
http://www.bom.gov.au/act/observations/canberra.shtml
I’ve got the fire going and I’m about 15 deg. warmer than you!
And BTW, don’t forget to check the king tide on the 12th for an update on SLR.
With a bit of luck it’ll only be 6 inches below normal what with all the extra ice in the antarctic.
One of Queensland’s coldest days:
http://www.bom.gov.au/qld/observations/qldall.shtml
-6 in Oakey. Good weather for picking cherries.
Good grief Spanglers – I am merely saying there is little margin locally in CoRevs comment about the oldies being registered in the USA. Touchy lil’ denialist varmit aren’t you… go and shoot up a few road signs with your redneck mates.
Gavin, if you must know, I’m on the tableland to the north of you.
BOM says Queensland will get a drenching next weekend and it’s ‘unseasonal’. A cool PDO has this effect and La Nina hasn’t even started, so we can expect floods next year.
I presume you’ll be putting on your glad rags for this one luke:
http://www.csiro.au/events/Climate-Adaptation-Futures-Conference.html
Thanx cohers, might go along and give them a piece of my mind. Adapting to natural climate change is of paramount importance and they can stick their global warming up their arse.
More importantly Cohers – where are the sceptics telling them where they’ve gone wrong? Is the Watts tour attending?
But you must admit – it looks attractive doesn’t it – nicely run – unlike your raw aggro sceptic do. And perhaps a lack of retirees?
But alas – it’s about adaptation – one could be critical. It’s all very post-modernist isn’t it. And Wenju isn’t speaking so what’s the point!
BTW – Joanne’s a bit of a snipper isn’t she? And golly aren’t they rabid over there.
It’s a lot more genteel here, but never boring. Just found this snapshot of temperatures under the influence of a cool PDO.
http://www.climateapplications.com/GISSMaps/stationtrends1940to1969raw.asp
Google +”Judithgate” +climate 706 hits (total web)
Google Blogs +”Judithgate” +climate = 212 hits
Google News +”Judithgate” +climate = zero MSM hits
SD; for your info I took a look at the trusty max/min outside just before 5 am thinking yesterday’s -5 could be repeated however -2 will have to do for your “official” Canberra min today. Besides; Radio National only had us at -1C in the city at 6.30 AM.
Now I reckon it’s bloody cold here and both our thermometers are exposed to UHI!
btw mine is directly exposed to our internal black body IR via the kitchen window cause I ‘m too lazy to put the old Al venetian blind back up after stripping the cedar sill etc back to bare wood. Still have dozens of old screw or nail holes to fill and cover.
Above the frosty pic on page 3 in the Canberra Times, this headline “Accept climate science, economists told” – Martin Parkinson (Dept Climate Change & Energy Efficiency head) at the ANU Leslie Melville lecture last night.
Luke will now say Michael Mann is wrong.
Michael Mann says hockey stick should not have become ‘climate change icon’
The Telegraph (UK)
28 Jun 2010
telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7849441/Michael-Mann-says-hockey-stick-should-not-have-become-climate-change-icon.html
However, speaking to the BBC recently, Prof Mann, a climatologist at Pennsylvania State University, said he had always made clear there were “uncertainties” in his work.
“I always thought it was somewhat misplaced to make it a central icon of the climate change debate,” he said.
According to Luke, Jones is wrong, Hulme is wrong, too.
Looks to me like the rats are abandoning the stinking ship.
Thanks for that admission by Mann Schiller,I’ll try and see if it highlights this time.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7849441/Michael-Mann-says-hockey-stick-should-not-have-become-climate-change-icon.html
‘Prof Bob Watson, a UK Government adviser on climate change, said even if severe global warming is not certain it is worth preparing for the higher temperature projections.’
What a joker, it would be smarter to prepare for lower temperature projections.
CO2 is not a large CC driver.
http://www.dnaindia.com/scitech/report_global-wind-shift-caused-earth-s-last-ice-age-to-end_1401582
So let’s end this gorebull worming scam pronto.
gav, appreciate your probs with maintaining SSs. And my wife wants a wooden toilet seat!
This AM I’m standing in steaming wallaby dung, observing sleeping owls and koalas and having my eardrums blown out by lyrebirds. I live on a mountain shelf where the worst of the cold air slides off down the mountain. I get relatively high mins and low maxs with a temp range of around 5 deg on a sunny day.
It appeals to wildlife too.
Yea CO2 isn’t an ice age driver – everyone knows that. Try PETM instead !
Hilarious stuff from the leftwing sisters, don’t charge Al the perv, because he’s needed to save the world.
I’m sure Gav and Luke would be in full agreement.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/save_the_world_shut_up_with_your_sex_abuse_claims/
Yeah Luke,
Tell us agen wot caused the PETM.
I’m sure you could nail if the methane caused it or resulted from it or anything in between.
The Deltoidians always point to the PETM, but as it happened 55 million years ago…
Then there is this warm anomalous glow around Greenland.
http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst_anom.html
folks; can any one appreciate this mouthful?
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/paper/gistemp2010_draft0601.pdf
Yes gavin, just another big, fat lie from hansen; he references Menne and his fig 5 is based on well documented GISS manipulation:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/02/a_tale_of_two_thermometers/
It’s a relief to know the MWP was warmer than now, but what the dickens happened in AD 1200?
http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0133f1a5356f970b-pi
So Coho – looks like the wussy Watts tour has ducked their chance to front CSIRO and BoM.
Luke,
A few bon mots about your revered peer review:
“This is from an article that has nothing to do with global warming or climate science. It is simply talking about the state of academic publication these days, and it finds that state far from ideal. It nevertheless bears on global warming because everyone who believes in global warming talks about how reliable the science behind it is, and to prove it is reliable they point to peer review. But why believe that peer review is reliable? This quotation suggests it is not.”
http://iwantanewleft.typepad.com/i-want-a-new-left/2010/06/global-warming-and-peer-review.html
I don’t do gossip columns either so cohenite can cut out pasting anthony, jo, steven etc.
I wonder why Jimmy didn’t tell us about the moon?
http://news.suite101.com/article.cfm/american-physicist-joins-attack-on-global-warming-theory-a255036
El Gordo – your c3headlines post simply illustrates why denialists are such frigging liars. As I suspected the data don’t go to the year 2000. What utter bullshit !
And one knew it as soon as you laid eyes on the graph. You should know by now we always check !
And because Spanglers it’s manufactured crap. And not how GCMs work anyway. It’s a faux scandal. What pox !
WOW! Luke,
I wouldn’t have put it quite as strong as that but I must agree peer review is pretty bad.
Luke
I have it on good authority that they looked for the hockey stick and couldn’t find it.
http://www.c3headlines.com/2010/06/2010-greenland-ice-core-study-modern-era-is-a-lot-cooler-than-medieval-global-warming-period.html
What’s this anomalous cooling in the north-east Pacific?
Ahhh….picked this up at C3.
Perlwitz et al. argue there has been “a decade-long decline (1998-2007) in globally averaged temperatures from the record heat of 1998,” citing Easterling and Wehner (2009).
They go on to say that U.S. temperatures in 2008 “not only declined from near-record warmth of prior years, but were in fact colder than the official 30-year reference climatology (-0.2°C versus the 1971-2000 mean) and further were the coldest since at least 1996.”
The five researchers say this “widespread coolness of the tropical-wide oceans and the northeastern Pacific,” is natural and has nothing to do with AGW. Looking at the Nino 4 region they report that “anomalies of about -1.1°C suggest a condition colder than any in the instrumental record since 1871”.
More fallout from the Oxburgh inquiry:
Pursuant to a FOI request, emails incident to the Oxburgh inquiry are now available. [1]
In one of the emails, Fiona Fox (of the PR firm engaged to help with the inquiry) sent a redacted email to a batch of unknown recipients [2] , regarding how to handle the press conference regarding the findings of the Oxburgh inquiry. Excerpt:
Comments I picked up that from Lord Oxburgh and David Hand may be of interest at the press conference (pleas don’t quote these -they are just my recollection of some of the key points having chaired the conference)
Our job was not to judge their conclusions – in fact the climate change aspect was incidental to us – it was to look at the scientific integrity of these scientists
Yes they could have used other statistical approaches and maybe they should have done but there is no evidence that their conclusions would have been any different
There’s the whitewash, right there. Ignore what the hockey team actually did, especially since you get CAGW no matter what statistical method is used, and you get integrity. And since when does an inquiry require a PR firm?
———-
1. http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/35907/response/94112/attach/5/Sir%20Brian%20Hoskins%20s%20emails.pdf
2. Science Media Centre. Profile at http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/pages/about/staff.htm
The mainstream media (MSM) is still in denial. No wonder newspapers are going broke.
Web search: +”Judithgate” +IPCC = 4940 hits
Blog search: +”Judithgate” +IPCC = 248 hits
News search (MSM): +”Judithgate” +IPCC = 0 hits
el gordo re those C3 offerings –
Kobashi et al via icebubbles. Note: No SL v Temp calibration!
“Persistent multi-decadal Greenland temperature
fluctuation through the last millennium”
http://icebubbles.ucsd.edu/Publications/Kobashi1000yr.pdf
“Argon and nitrogen isotopes of trapped air in the GISP2 ice
core during the Holocene epoch (0–11,500 B.P.):
Methodology and implications for gas loss processes”
http://icebubbles.ucsd.edu/Publications/Kobashi_GCA_methods%201.pdf
“4±1.5 °C abrupt warming 11,270 yr ago identified from trapped
air in Greenland ice”
http://icebubbles.ucsd.edu/Publications/Preboreal_EPSL_2008.pdf
A good discussion of the value of ice core data can be found at
http://www.climatedata.info/Proxy/Proxy/icecores.html For purposes of paleoclimatology, proxies are inherently suspect, as any conclusions drawn inherently rely on the standard “compared to what?” issue. The lack of data from surface stations or satellites during the period being proxified ensures that appeal can only be made to the authority of the model being used. Which often relies on other models.
The problem of effervescence is persistent; how much CO2 escapes during the process of snow becoming a glacier? Any loss whatsoever would necessarily result in atmospheric readings of any gas whatsoever that are lower than actual levels at the time.
Apparently, a good deal of atmospheric gas is nonetheless preserved in the ice cores:
Alaska Journal; Marketing Glacier Ice Is a Hot New Industry
Special to the New York Times
September 2, 1988
http://www.nytimes.com/1988/09/02/us/alaska-journal-marketing-glacier-ice-is-a-hot-new-industry.html
Wetco and another ice entrepreneur, Jamie James of Seward, sought out the lighter colored ice that crashed into the sea from the upper portions of a glacier. That ice is filled with tiny pockets of air, and as it warms in a drink the air expands and cracks the ice, giving off a distinct popping sound.
This company has no good reason to lie when it says the ice it sells for beverage use comes “from the upper portions of a glacier”.
Indeed, it would be better marketing ‘spin’ to claim that its ice comes from the lowest, most ancient regions of a glacier. Think: “Ancient Ice”. Conclusion: there’s a substantial ‘trapped gas’ gradient that must be addressed.
NZ emits just 0.1% of the planet’s co2, but look at the mess this tiny country has got itself into persuing the ETS monster.
What a fraudulent, corrupt example this is, just the sort of thing that Gav and Luke are demanding we in Australia follow on the road to disaster.
Won’t make a scrap of difference to CC, but let’s help bankrupt the country anyhow.
Have a look at the 200 hundred year tipping point at the bottom of the article.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/meet_new_zealands_ets_costly_corrupted_and_useless/
Schiller; I have long suspected that ice science has been looking down through its own hole. Until we get all that paleo stuff properly associated with modern temperatures and instruments, nothing can be assured in even our most immediate future.
At best the ice core data gives us only a wild stab at global atmospheric conditions in any time past. My guess is both temperatures and sea levels were somewhat more stable than the ice core data would otherwise indicate.
Neville,
You need to be careful of your use of the ‘CC’ abbreviation. It’s variously used as a place-holder for ‘Climate Change’, or ‘Climate Chaos’.
Of course, both phrases are waved about repeatedly by the deniers of natural variations, but the ‘Climate Chaos’ variation on ‘CC’ seems to have fallen out of fashion. The failure of the IPCC to accurately forecast horrific storms, etc. has made that derivation of ‘CC’ rather awkward and passe.
Sort of like predicting that a century from now, we’ll all be wearing Love Beads and bell-bottom pants and tie-dyed tee-shirts and protesting Viet Namh.
On the other hand, there may be a movement to ‘strike back’ against ecotards and ecofascists, which will not be pretty.
Thanks for that Schiller, but I don’t think I’ll worry too much about using CC.
Interesting info from Morano on the ever changing tipping points,. from hours ,to days, to years, to decades, to centuries, to millenia.
What ridiculous idiots we’ve had commenting on AGW over the past 30 years, I’ll say this that I’ll bet over the next thousand years we will see different climate all over the world , sometimes colder, sometimes warmer, more rain and less rain, just like we’ve had in the previous thousand years.
http://www.climatedepot.com/a/7115/Laugh-Riot-190year-climate-tipping-point-issued–Despite-fact-that-UN-began-10Year-Climate-Tipping-Point-in-1989
Neville – “What a fraudulent, corrupt example this is, just the sort of thing that Gav and Luke are demanding we in Australia follow on the road to disaster.’
Don’t verbal me you lying little prick.
NZ has a democratic process – they should exercise it.
Ken Stewart continues on his rounds and David Stockwell sees a warming bias of 133%.
http://landshape.org/enm/
From that 1975 Newsweek article on global cooling.
‘The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually.’
Most likely to happen in the coming decade, but not necessarily a mini ice age.
El Gordo here’s some more silly predictions by NASA, in 2006 ’07 Antarctica was getting warmer but now they’re not so sure, so the continent has been coloured red to blue, what a pack of fantasists.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/29/amazing-grace/#more-21204
NASA has been tainted by dimwits.
Nuthin like a bit of “Obama Prosperity” to give the stock market larry dooley.
http://www.jsonline.com/business/97225544.html
gavin,
So you think this is all a load of old shoes? Me, I’m for cutting more firewood.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_VS5yaLD0bWs/TCpAc0CPIJI/AAAAAAAABvA/u5TvtCK1Moo/s1600/G6+6a010536b58035970c013480b280e3970c.png
spangles, that is a stark image. We need higher resolution for the end of interglacials, to compare mechanisms.
You’re right EG, but with gavin you need a blunt instrument.
Dr George Kukla believes global warming always precedes an ice age.
“I feel we’re on pretty solid ground in interpreting orbit around the sun as the primary driving force behind ice-age glaciation. The relationship is just too clear and consistent to allow reasonable doubt,” Dr. Kukla said. “It’s either that, or climate drives orbit, and that just doesn’t make sense.”
C3 dipping again SD? Once on a blog theme, it gets so repetitive hey.
Btw it’s my birthday in an hour and a bit so I got shouted a lecture tonight.
We missed about half of Tim as our club dinner was a while coming through the early orders. David was ok later on but she slept through most of it. By the time Anthony was about to take over I reckon they had about 60 seated in anticipation but we got an interval instead while some late slides were added.
Watt a great presentation! Weather monitoring sites as seen via his blog plus many more, from all over the USA (and elsewhere) in various compromising situations. Our special treat tonight was several glimpses of Canberra Airport and the proximity of a VIP aircraft and other airport activities to the Stevenson screen containing those BoM sensors. Most convincing: Anthony doesn’t miss an opportunity to add another site to his list of dubious preformers.
After the function closed, I said hi to Tim and we met a charming lady who had driven several hours north just to be there in the “numbers” Luke was mentioned briefly in dispatches.
Does “Don’t verbal me you lying little prick” constitute verballing? Should those who oppose verballing refrain from verballing?
Al Gore’s ‘little problem’ just got a lot bigger!
http://www.nationalenquirer.com/new_evidence_gore_sex_scandal_exclusive_interview_masseuse_/celebrity/68913
I bet Luke would be glad to ‘release’ Al’s ‘chakra’.
http://townhall.com/columnists/BenShapiro/2010/06/30/gore_come_on,_baby,_release_my_chakra
Schiller – don’t confuse straight abuse with verballing. Neville being a true lying piece of denialist filth loves to make things up. Try to understand your internet memes Schiller.
This will explain http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hk1aKxczHSA
Luke,
Most of my interaction on the ‘net is with people who have substantial social skills, so my exposure to ‘verballing’ is minimal. Your use of invective and profanity is, in my experience, quite unusual, and since ‘verballing’ seems to be a pejorative term, I am tentatively concluding that nearly all of what you have to say constitutes that which you most complain about. The video link was very unhelpful as it appears to deal with a different term, in a different context.
By the way, I would like politely to suggest that if you truly wish to make a contribution to your chosen field, you should go relieve Gore’s second chakra for him.
Well shiller – stop shilling, libeling and lying ! i.e. piss orf !
For those who want the full text, the statement of Al Gore’s erstwhile masseuse is available at
http://i.cdn.turner.com/trutv/thesmokinggun.com/graphics/pdf/algoreportland.pdf
It’s over 70 pp., and the text is non-searchable. It’s interesting that Al Gore’s alleged preferred alias is ‘Mr. Stone’ (pp. 4 and 9). That’s either a graphic pseudonym for his ‘second chakra’, or a more general observation of how he would describe his ideal self.
What’s most intriguing is Gore’s alleged remark to the masseuse that he recently ‘became clear’ about “Letting go of results”. That’s found at p. 14.
One might ask, ‘What results?’ (The event pre-dates Climategate.)
What’s disturbing is that ‘becoming clear’ is a main aim of the the late L. Ron Hubbard’s Church of Scientology. Is Gore a scientologist? It’s possible, of course, but impossible to verify at this juncture. It’s worth noting that scientology is popular in the Hollywood crowd, where Gore is not a stranger.
Luke you’re a nonsensical phoney, but seriously you should do something about those temper tantrums.
Here’s some interesting info about real man made CC in Victoria, what a disgrace. Fairies at the bottom of the garden anyone?
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/a_few_men_make_victoria_much_warmer/
Jo Nova punching above her weight again, when they go to these lengths you just know she’s got them worried.
I mean it only took them severals months to dream up something to say.
http://joannenova.com.au/2010/07/the-great-leap-forward-professors-et-al-realize-they-need-to-talk-about-evidence-instead-of-insults/comment-page-1/#comment-61422
Neville; I’m going to ignore a whole lot of recent posts like Schiller’s that aren’t about our personal perceptions of temperatures or “climate” and return to the substance of last nights lectures.
IMO Anthony Watts has effectively hammered the weather stations as they were. Moving on, he also raises doubts about the official data reviews and biases that are left in current temperature reference data as a result of these reviews. Tim Curtin during a private conversation after the event raised another issue in support of Anthony, the failure of some officials to disclose sources and methods upon request.
David Archibald seemed to follow this theme “why we shouldn’t be concerned about climate change” well enough to raise doubts on the whole question of modern “climate change” theory. Some actually bounced in their seats in demonstrating both their appreciation and expectation.
The audience last night was very receptive except for one who was asleep on and off through all three sessions. Guess what, I heard this morning? “Never again!” an invite to such a show. IMO it was all the graphs that lost the plot for her.
For a really negative review, read here
http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?n=235
A financial bubble is set to burst and hasten our journey into a dark age.
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTCARBONFINANCE/Resources/State_and_Trends_2010_final.pdf
Hey guys, wander over to this unbelievable site; who said coal companies wheren’t the good guys?
http://www.newgencoal.com.au/climate-change.aspx
Why don’t you cover the site gavin and do a review for us all?
This is what I sent them:
“Amazing site! My ideas:
1 Clean coal is a joke:
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=8408
10 reasons why anthropogenic global warming [to use the Gorian nonsensical term] or AGW is rubbish:
1 Previous levels of CO2 were much higher than today and correlated with temperatures higher, the same and lower than today.
2 Movements of CO2 do not correlate with movements in temperature; during the 20thC from 1940-1976 CO2 increased but temperatures dropped; the same from 1998. See Lansner:
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/CO2,Temperaturesandiceages-f.pdf
3 Climate sensitivity of 2XCO2 = 3C has not been verified by the 40% increase in CO2 and temperature increase of only 0.7C since 1900. Of that 0.7C increase solar influence has been 0.1-0.4C [TAR] and natural variation at least 0.3C.
4 The mechanism by which CO2 causes heating has never been adequately explained; see:
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0904/0904.2767.pdf
http://biocab.org/Total_Emisivity_CO2.html
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all?content=10.1080/15567030701568727
5 The optical depth, which is as good a measure of the ‘greenhouse’ effect as any has not increased in 60 years of measurement.
6 Outgoing TOA IR has declined [Lindzen and Choi]
7 Increased SW flux at the surface during the crucial period of AGW warming from 1983-2001 increased [see Pinker et al]
8 Clouds are a negative feedback
9 Water vapour has not increased as required by AGW theory [see Paltridge, Soloman and many others]
10 Miskolczi has a new paper which provides further empirical evidence for his first paper’s thesis that internal variation of greenhouse components such as CO2 and WV will not increase the greenhouse effect. Miskolczi has never been rebutted by a peer reviewed paper.
Are you guys a real coal company?”
1. ruse – solar output
2. ruse – other well known factors
3. …
4. well to mere mortals maybe
5. dunno is it? says who? http://ams.confex.com/ams/Annual2006/techprogram/paper_100737.htm
6. debunked
7. brightening
8. maybe
9. nuh
10. mainly ignored – how precocious
Starting out with 2 ruses ain’t impressive.
Good effort, cohers. They highlight a CSIRO document which states that ‘during the last major ice age, the global average temperature was only 3-5 ºC cooler than today and sea levels were more than 120 m lower than present.’
At the height of glaciation it must have been at least 8 degrees cooler.
Good onya cohers,
These dopes need to live in the real world, not La-La-Land.
Talk about trying to whitewash the black stuff!
How much taxpayers money will they waste and how many disasters will they create before the penny finally drops!
It’s obvious they must have to genuflect to the warming genie to get any pork barrelling.
And so Lupy Stupy, from that withering logic CCS becomes a sound practice?
When are you gonna come out with anything that amounts to a hat-ful of sense?
You’re coasting luke; that’s a lame effort. Your linked paper is about backradiation not OD; read this about backradiation;
http://biocab.org/Induced_Emission.html
I’d really like your response as a very interesting discussion between Nasif and De Witt Payne has recently taken place on this issue.
As for your disparaging comment about the Lindzen and Choi paper, see comment 125 here:
http://joannenova.com.au/2010/07/the-great-leap-forward-professors-et-al-realize-they-need-to-talk-about-evidence-instead-of-insults/comment-page-3/#comment-61626
I was number 5,000 – nah nah nah nah na
Congrats Luke, you really do deserve to be number 5000.
I think you said a long while back you would like to see 1000 comments and now look where you got us.
Luke,
In spite of your caustic comments cultivating ceaseless climate chatter, your goose is cooked:
http://johnosullivan.livejournal.com/18114.html
Without the dynamic of Luke it would have been just a few blokes shouting the same slogans in a small shed. As it stands now we have a couple of warmists, four sceptics and one denialist arguing the toss.
Spanglers – I’m feeling a bit emotional after 5000 – I love you guys – you denialist bastards. Sniff. It’s a sad day when your only friends are on-line denialists you’ve never met.
If only Jo Nova and Wattsy wouldn’t snip me !
Anyway – no time for being a pussy …. there’s denialists about and groins to kick…
No backradiation says your link? Wonder what one measures with an upward facing ground based pyrgeometer on a clear night …. hmmmm
BTW old mate Spencer gives you guys a greenhouse lesson. Now you wouldn’t tell Roy he was a drongo would you? http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/06/faq-271-if-greenhouse-gases-are-such-a-small-part-of-the-atmosphere-how-do-they-change-its-temperature/
And I see Coho’s dubious mate over at Niche has got his E&E proofs back for his scandalous (can’t publish anywhere else) attack on CSIRO. Shame Shame Shame.
And not only a shot at DECR but David is rewriting the break paper from an IOD perspective; he has a very nice correlation between the IOD and rainfall.
Trivia questions:
(1) Can you name two Nobel laureates who advocate CAGW and have a preoccupation with promiscuity?
(2) Can you name two Nobel laureates who advocate CAGW and are linked with India’s medicinal folklore?
(3) Can you name two Nobel laureates who advocate CAGW and have published no peer-reviewed papers based on their research?
(4) Can you name two Nobel laureates who advocate CAGW who have recommended changes in personal lifestyle which they refuse personally to adopt?
(5) Can you name two Nobel laureates who advocate CAGW and are preoccupied with the mammary glands of human females?
(6) Can you name two Nobel laureates who advocate CAGW who refuse to engage in public debate about their claims and positions?
Tough questions.
Schiller; can you appreciate this story as picked up today by our daily (Canberra Times) breakfast suppliment with a Reuters photo
http://www.zimbio.com/AFP+Technology/articles/aZBNUXx2fj5/Peru+inventor+whitewashes+peaks+slow+glacier
Who’d have thought it – but see what gets discussed – what Cohers doesn’t want you to know !!
Climate change means positives, too
MATT CAWOOD
01 Jul, 2010 08:44 AM
CLIMATE change science has been focused on science, not people; on negative outcomes, not opportunities; and on economy-wide and nation-wide changes rather than at the level of the farm business.
That needs to change, leading CSIRO scientist Mark Howden said this week.
Dr Howden, who leads CSIRO’s Adaptive Primary Industries, Enterprises and Communities stream, told the Climate Adaptation Futures conference that the scientific focus to date “has provided few practical options for policy makers or other decision makers”.
“In the past most of our science has been climate-centric; it hasn’t been human-centric. It’s identified the problem, but not the solutions.”
Agriculture makes decisions in timeframes of one to 10 years, Dr Howden said. The benchmark years in climate prediction, 2050 and 2100, don’t have any relevance to current management.
But possibly the biggest obstacle to change has been the scientific and political focus on negative outcomes.
If the prognosis for a region was warmer and drier, the story that accompanied the prediction emphasised the prospect for problems like increased drought, wind erosion, or reduced carbon sequestration.
If increased rainfall is likely, there are warnings about flooding, increased salinisation, increased pest and disease risk.
Tallying up the papers presented at the Climate Adaptation Futures conference, Dr Howden found that 65 per cent focused on the negatives and only 12 per cent on positives. The remainder were neutral.
“We have a situation that continually tells us that our past climate is the best of all possible worlds,” Dr Howden said.
“We have an attachment to that historical climate. To detach people from that is a pretty significant challenge.”
Dr Howden aims to reinvent science’s engagement with agriculture along new lines.
“Clearly, there have to be opportunities. Change doesn’t always bring only negatives.”
“We need to be framing our science to be dealing with the opportunities, because it’s clear that our stakeholders are doing this already.”
For instance, in the south-east of South Australia, a high rainfall zone that has historically been too wet for cropping, farmers responded to lower rainfall between 2003 and 2008 by increasing their cropping area by 52,000 hectares – often making better returns on crops than from the area’s traditional grazing systems.
Adaptation to changing climatic conditions does not have to be all-or-nothing, Dr Howden said.
First stage adaptation within existing farming systems in response to a 2 degrees Celsius rise might involve changing crop varieties, planting times or row spacings.
Under further climate pressure – around a 3C rise – farmers might alter their farming systems by diversifying, using different genetics or changing the supply chain.
Ultimately, there is “transformational adaptation”–fundamentally changing the product mix, or changing locations.
Dr Howden said at each stage, science can provide the information and supporting technology to help farmers adapt.
The agriculture sector can help science deliver the answers it wants, Dr Howden later told Rural Press, by accepting climate change as a real and almost certainly unstoppable phenomenon.
“If there’s an acknowledgement of climate change, agriculture can take longer-term decisions that recognise the prospect of change.
“And if there’s acknowledgement that climate change is virtually unstoppable, it changes the balance of research. Instead of saying that we need to breed wheat for both warmer and cooler conditions, you can automatically drop out with a high degree of confidence the cool side of the program.
“Acknowledgement of climate change should mean better farm management and better design of science policy.”
http://qcl.farmonline.com.au/news/nationalrural/agribusiness-and-general/general/climate-change-means-positives-too/1872391.aspx?storypage=0
Interesting I just noticed
Denialists bang on about Gore and Pachauri all the time. – we never mention them? Why is that?
Coz what they do have diddly squat to do with the science ! They’re part of the regrettable AGW personalities syndrome.
So Schiller can you name Australia’s and the U.S.’s best climatologists given you’re an expert in matters AGW…. this will be fun – betcha he obfuscates. No helping Cohers.
Well Schiller – I guess they’re not rooting sheep like most denialists eh? Look on the bright side? At least they’re consorting with humans.
Baa baaa baaa ….
Following up after oats and honey, my good mate says she has not heard so much rubbish in a very long time (the tour downunder). On one hand Tim (another pommy?) says we are on a good thing with a little warming (CO2?) while Anthony (that American guy) says it’s not happening.
Contradictory themes hey!
For our curious dear Emma, I will have a lot to say about that campaign overall and it starts with knowing glaciers such as those over in kiwi land are loosing ground all the while.
When expanding our perspective in the era of recorded instruments, we can also rely on few old fashioned natural signals. Daily temperatures from old thermometers such as they were became our common talking points but we rarely bothered about details like sites, sensor calibration, other routines or archives. It was enough to feel good or otherwise about personal choices as we went about.
Feeling good about our scientific instruments as applied to industry and commerce with associated routines was my bread and butter for long periods. A necessary preliminary adjustment is to appreciate the people and the environment where these devices operated.
Given the norm, understanding a transition to or from expected standards becomes an art form.
Shame! Shame! Shame! The CSIRO thinks temperatures were only 3.5 degrees cooler during the last glaciation.
http://www.csiro.au/resources/Climate-is-changing–ci_pageNo-2.html
Just going out, but I’ll be back.
A paper by Keith Briffa and Tim Atkinson looked at beetle faunas between 22,000 and 20,000 years BP when mean annual temperatures were in the range of zero degrees and -15 C, most likely closer to -12 C.
This evidence is from the British Isles, so presumably it was warmer nearer the equator and this would have had an effect on the final figure.
Imagine being in London 18,000 years BP the mean temperature of the warmest month was between 5 C and 14 C averaging around 7 degrees. That’s a very short summer and in winter it averaged around -30 degrees C.
The Devensian ice sheet had reached London.
” mean annual temperatures were in the range of zero degrees and -15 C, most likely closer to -12 C” and so on in London 18,000 BP whenever between 5 -14 whatever probably tells us no body was there hey el?
It was a bit cool, but more importantly did the world average hover around 3.5 C degrees? How did the CSIRO find that number?
That is 3.5 degrees below present average.
“Denialists bang on about Gore and Pachauri all the time. – we never mention them? Why is that?
“Coz what they do have diddly squat to do with the science !”
Luke,
You silly, twisted boy! Even Gritpipe Thynne would point out to you that that is because they are skelletons in your collective closet.
Most of your warmist accredited scientists you would want to sweep under the rug [Hockey Stick Mick, One Tree Keith, Eight Storey Tim et al] but these non-entities, wow!
Sceptics, OTOH, use them as a mirror so you AGWarmers just might see how stupid you really are.
el gordo,
It’s hard to imagine 3-5 c cooler could have generated the ice and glaciation to the extent recorded.
When the aboriginals walked to Tas as naked humans how could they have survived all the ice that was supposed to be there. And why would they go there if there was sufficient ice to cause the post glacial rebound that CSIRO claims is happening?
Free kick http://www.amacad.org/pdfs/scientistsUnderstand.pdf
Academy of Arts and Science is an oxymoron.
spangles
Around 18,000 years BP you could see Bondi Beach 20 kilometers to the east of Watson’s Bay. The Tasmanians must have adapted by going walkabout when conditions became too horrid. There is probably evidence of human habitation in caves.
Interesting subject and worth a closer look.
spangles
Very severe arid conditions existed from 18,000 BP, with extensive dunning in South Australia and Victoria, then by 14,000 the cold conditions began to ease. I don’t know how the locals adapted.
Cutting to the chase, sometime between AD 1750 and 1780 there must have been a huge flood in eastern Australia. In South Australia in the north-west bend region the Murray rose approximately 14 meters above normal level and it was as wide as the Rhine.
Do we have an adaptation strategy in place for such an eventuality?
Spangled, I think our luke is probably too young to understand a reference to the Goons but it reminds me of a Gritpipe comment heard in the darkened corners of the Copenhagen summit; “open your wallets and repeat after me, help yourself”.
Spangled, 18K y BP Oz was 30% extreme desert and there was no significant glaciation from what I’ve read. But there were punishing Antarctic winds which are said to have blown salt water as far inland as lake Eyre. The Tasmanian Aboriginies fled south to escape being killed off by the Murrambigines according to some contraversial evidence.
“open your wallets and repeat after me, help yourself”.
Derek,
If it wasn’t so true I could laugh.
EG and Derek,
Wouldn’t it be good if we could get Luke and the Warmistas to pay a short visit to that blissful time of 18,000 BP?
Here we go again.
IPCC AR5.
Quoting satellites with error bars bigger than their calculations.
Are they ramping up the orchestra or orchestrating the ramp-up?
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/higher-sealevel-forecast-likely-20100629-zjaj.html
There was abrupt global warming in Scotland around AD 1540 to 1600, which saw average temperatures rise 1.1 degree C higher than present. O’Neil et al. say CO2 was not responsible.
http://www.co2science.org/articles/V13/N25/C2.php
From that SMH article:
‘Climate Change Minister Penny Wong told the conference that science would be at the heart of rebuilding a consensus on climate change, which Prime Minister Julia Gillard says is needed before Australia can have an emissions trading scheme.’
Hmmm….I think Julia may have found an escape hatch, but she will need to talk with Carter and Archibald or its curtains for her.
You wouldn’t believe it but it seems the Oxburgh enquiry into the shenanigans at the CRU etc wasn’t about the science at all.
Steve McIntyre recieved an email from Oxburgh that states this to be the case.
Except McIntyre then shows quote after quote that definitely states that the science was the issue.
Phil Jones has apparently admitted that it could well be impossible to plot the last 1000 years of climate with any accuracy. It’s definitely impossible using a Yamal tree here or there and relying on Bristle cone pines, probably the worst proxy one could find for this purpose.
Now we know without a shadow of a doubt that the entire enquiry eminating from the climategate emails into Jones and others was/is a total farce.
http://climateaudit.org/2010/07/01/oxburgh-and-the-jones-admission/#more-11331
SD; that NH ice loss senario is illustrated here
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
hot topic SH
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/New_Light_On_Antarcticas_Melting_Pine_Island_Glacier_999.html
It’s now official.
A group of scientists at the University of Pennsylvania conducting an inquiry into the conduct of Michael Mann have confirmed what skeptics have been claiming for years.
The investigators determined that manipulating data and writing code to reach a predetermined conclusion (‘hockey stick’) are, among other things, the accepted standard of practice in climatology.
As scientific standards in climatology are exceptionally low, Michael Mann is absolved of wrongdoing.
http://live.psu.edu/fullimg/userpics/10026/Final_Investigation_Report.pdf
Steve Mc will be attending the Guardian Symposium, which starts on July 14.
‘I think that if you want skeptics to have an even keel in the debate, skeptics need to push their position more often and that means writing more letters to the editor, to newspapers, to magazines and trade journals and to scientific journals. And, when there are people on the radio that are claiming things that are patently absurd, someone should be phoning in and calling them on it and not giving them a free pass.’
Anthony Watts July 2010 Hamilton, Vic
Just to have a quick look at the disputed (above?) ice age temp, using the 400,000+ Vostok ice core record.
The temp measured here seems to be at least 10c to 11c lower than todays temp at least in Antarctica, but I’m sure most sites show the temp difference to be about that level.
http://ethomas.web.wesleyan.edu/ees123/proxies.htm
Very informative, Neville. Noticed that 18,000 years bp there was still a lot of warmth about.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/image/climap18sstaug.gif
Yes indeed El Gordo – and so sceptics like Watts himself should be very afraid.
I note the pensioner scaring tour is now over.
Phil Jones of the CRU says it is “probably impossible to do the 1000-year temperature reconstructions with any accuracy.”
http://climateaudit.org/2010/07/01/oxburgh-and-the-jones-admission/
Clever.
Since it can’t be done, it can’t be fraud. Jones has good lawyers.
“good lawyers”; another oxymoron; McIntyre has a very logical mind; I don’t know how he maintains his sanity when dealing with the sophistry and lack of logic of AGW and its supporters.
As mentioned earlier, Scotland was warmer than now between 1540 and 1600 in what was technically the LIA. ‘Northern Russia was also relatively warm and there was notably little ice on the Arctic coast in the sixteenth century and for some time after,’ according to Hubert Lamb.
Looks like Julia’s Tim is a good labor man in the making, if you can judge from his past.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/meet_the_first_bloke/
China has come up with a high resolution image of temperature history going back 2000 years. It’s a ‘clever trick’ of nature.
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2010/06/30/china’s-2000-year-temperature-history/
Just a minor point: The authors discovered a cold phase from the 1470s to the 1710s, which is slightly out of sync with what was happening in Scotland and northern Russia. Not sure why, but its bigger than solar irradiance.
Penn State clears Michael Mann of any wrong doing.
http://live.psu.edu/story/47378
Thanks Neville – so you’re a pond dweller as well as a verballer then? Libs must be very worried if they’re at this level …. but reckon hit that theme harder myself – will give her another 5% on the backlash reaction. Really – who cares?
Game, set and match.
‘Ms McKew, a former journalist, dispatched former prime minister John Howard in 2007 by winning Bennelong, his northwest Sydney seat.
Now she is facing Liberal celebrity candidate John Alexander, a former tennis champion and businessman who has knocked on 3000 doors in the electorate to hear residents’ concerns.’
And Lord Lawson talks of post-imperial arrogance.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/greenpolitics/7860478/Lord-Lawson-We-need-to-get-off-this-carbon-cessation-hook.html
Luke
The other day I noticed Leif Svalgaard took a swipe at Tallbloke on Watts and now he is dismantling Archy, and straight after Anthony said what a great bloke he is.
This break in the ranks is creating confusion and I sense this is your big chance to get over there and tell them what you think.
El Gordo I think you’ll find that there is a lot of prof jealousy amongst some scientists, but I think that David’s forecasts so far are much more accurate than NASA’s .
Hathaway and team have had a fairly hard time recently trying to get a reasonable forecast together that stands the test of time.
But please don’t encourage Luke, he’s a hopeless enough fundamentalist as it is and uses every deception to muddy the waters.
This is Bolt at his best exposing the green deception at its worst.
How can we have some 18% of Victorians breaking their necks to vote green?
As Bolt shows you only have to understand primary school sums to know that the entire movement is a fraud, best left to tweeny minds.
Of course I don’t expect Luke or Gav to understand this common sense, I mean Luke hasn’t got the guts to even answer the simple question ( he’s the believer), what is the answer in your opinion to help fix AGW.
We’ve seen the green loonies answer like saving 5% of energy use at Uni over a weekend.
Five eighths of four fifths of sweet fanny adams.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/column_live_green_before_you_vote_it/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/03/a-note-of-sincere-thanks/#comments
Leif has simply crucified Archy ! Come on well know the game (well Neville doesn’t coz he’s more worried Jools hair colour).
That’s why these guys ducked and will continue to duck any fill on presentation to CSIRO or BoM. They’d be sliced and diced.
And remember el Gordo – McIntyre has given gives Svalgaard many guest blog posts.
Archy’s book is simply a collection of piccies. Nice bloke mind you but science – hah !
Now you do some research and make your own mind up but Watts singing his praises after having sat through – what 20 – presentations of his stuff – and he has not critical comment – well it ain’t science is it? Coho will show up soon with some half arsed explanation.
Told ya ! All good for scaring pensioners….
You see if sceptics weren’t denialists they’d be equally critical of their own side. They’re not – any old crud will do.
Neville says: ” I mean Luke hasn’t got the guts to even answer the simple question ( he’s the believer), what is the answer in your opinion to help fix AGW.”
Listen numb nuts – it’s not about guts – I don’t have to give you an answer – maybe I have an answer – maybe I don’t – I’m arguing the AGW science
– whether there is an answer or nor is immaterial to the science. If there is no answer adaptation is important.
So piss orf and stop verballing. Answers – try bravenewclimate ! Go over and tell them it all can’t be done …
I think Leif is much more eccentric than David Archibald; Leif is utterly courageous too, to say that sunspot activity has no effect on climate; or did he say solar has no effect on climate? As I say outrageous, er sorry, courageous. Anyway, someone posted this the other day, or maybe it was from Benny, about the extent of humanity’s knowledge about the sun and sunspots:
http://thegwpf.org/the-observatory/1179-solar-influences.html
This argument won’t be settled for a few more years, but the hot money would have to be on a Dalton. Looking at the larger perspective, it’s order masquerading as randomness.
Robert Bateman pointed to this graph and it indicates there is a healthy balance.
http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/seaice.anomaly.Ant_arctic.jpg
Yuk Yuk, maybe he has an answer, maybe he hasn’t, what a weak response, but that’s to be expected from such a wimp.
I say it’s obviously ALL about adaptation dumb bum and the small increase in temp perhaps due to humans (say .2c of .7c ) isn’t worth worrying about. Why, because outside of new technology you’re just wasting money and you won’t change anything.
But as Bolt illustrates so convincingly it’s only the loonies who involve themselves in this exercise in futility and the poor bloody taxpayer has to pay the bill.
Bob Carter has joined GWPF’s Academic Advisory Council and he’s in good company.
http://thegwpf.org/international-news/1180-more-scientists-join-global-warming-policy-foundation.html
Spartacus commented over at WUWT (July 3, 2010 at 9:11 pm)
‘This rbateman graph poses a question…the short term variation of ice from both poles seem to be linked in opposite directions. When the anomaly of one goes up the other one goes down. There’s some mechanism here that it’s not fully understood. For me it’s some astronomical effect related with short term tilt and precession variations of earth’s axis.’
What’s wrong with that?
El Gordo that polar opposite variation has been observed for a long time, whether it holds up under closer scrutiny like satellite observation etc in the future who knows.
El Gordo let’s hope the GWPF can make a difference in some small way, there doesn’t seem to be any alarmists among the names I’ve seen from that list.
Neville
If the PM saw the graph she would know instantly that global warming is a fraud and why sea level is not rising.
Positive Weather Solutions is predicting more snow for the UK this winter.
‘As far as Winter 2010/11 goes, a very good percentage is showing for a ‘White Christmas’ and we expect this coming Winter to be as brutal as last year’s, which we predicted very accurately indeed, right down to the prolonged cold temperatures extending into March.’
Coho – if you even try to mount a defence you have no credibility.
Yeah Luke,
And maybe you should take a random walk.
http://www.dreamscitech.com/
Fishing round elsewhere after cohenite posts in support of that tour downunder I found this gem
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_June_10.gif
But what I intended to comment on after a hard day out in the winter sunshine was the fact that this blog “science” in it’s entirety is not measuring anything real including public opinion.
In case some folks can’t read a graph at a glance; it shows about 1/2 a degree C global temp rise in about 1/2 your life time. That’s a slope of one in thirty given our needs on average for a hospitable place.
“it shows about 1/2 a degree C global temp rise in about 1/2 your life time. ”
Well Methuselah, since you’re about 1000 years in the shade, that would be 0.5C per 500 years.
Cohenite probaly missed this footnote – “These satellite measurements are not calibrated to surface thermometer data in any way, but instead use on-board redundant precision platinum resistance thermometers (PRTs) carried on the satellite radiometers”
for a general discussion –
http://www.scribd.com/doc/26406885/Climate-Change-%E2%80%93-Nothing-Pretty-Just-Data
RTD’s at length – note; yours truly deployed this stuff using home made probes, leads etc during the early days of commercial remote sensing thermometer upgrades. What we have access to now seems greatly superior. However imo even these systems as carried by satelites need a high degree of ground truthing before anyone condems other temp series.
c/26604219/Resistance-Temperature-Detectors-Rtd-s-Liptak-Vol-1-4Ed-Process-Measurement-amp-Analysis-Jpg
Gavin
Some time ago I made a remark:
“You remind me of the crusty old tradesman in the movies, who fought the young inexperienced engineer”
It wasn’t meant as a compliment, although you took it as such!
I didn’t have the heart to correct you.
The longer I read your incomprehensible reminiscences, the more convinced I am of the fact, that age does not necessarily bring wisdom.
Revealed: the Sunday Times ‘Amazongate’ retraction was a mistake!
Amazongate: the smoking gun
EU Referendum
July 3, 2010
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/07/amazongate-smoking-gun.html
More than five months after the IPCC was accused of making assertions on the fate of the Amazon forest on the basis of a non-peer reviewed WWF report, it now appears that the original source of the IPPC’s claim is a Brazilian educational website which was taken down in 2003 (pictured – click to enlarge).
Furthermore, it appears that this is the only source of the IPCC’s claim that made up the basis of “Amazongate” – that the IPCC was, once again, using unsubstantiated material which exaggerated the threat.
It would appear now that the WWF must explain why it is relying on data culled from the IPAM website to support its report. It must also explain why it is using material which has no academic or scientific value, while giving the impression that the material is fully supported.
Will the Sunday Times now retract its retraction?
Will Luke apologize on behalf of his beloved IPCC?
I don’t think so Schiller … denialists are such lying creeps aren’t they.
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/06/sunday_times_shamed_by_bogus_j.php#more
Here’s the list who need to make apologies
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/06/leakegate_corrections_needed_f.php
So Schiller do they pay you lots to report the latest denialist ruse every day?
Luke,
I don’t care if you believe me or not, but actually, my sole payment for posting here is tormenting you with a constant stream of embarrassment.
Every time your response to a revelation consists of phrases like “lying creeps”, or similar terms, I personally experience a jolt of approbation, knowing that I have once again confounded a CAGWer with a bit of fact.
Every last bit of your foul-mouthed diatribes is further proof of the intellectual poverty of your your alleged ‘position’, and I relish every one of them.
I think the sceptics should always be focused and aware of the ace they hold whenever deception begins to re badge the AGW argument.
That ace of course is their temp record beginning at the end of the last ice age, usually measured from 1850.
This record shows that half of the so called AGW occured before 1950, well before co2 could have had an influence, so consequentially we are left with at best 0.4 c of warming to account for over the last 60 years, with a step up in 1976 after a cool period and the end of the 30+ year C/F PDO.
It doesn’t matter what deceptive tactics they try, in a proper public debate with all the facts the sceptic side must triumph because the AGW fantasists will be left with nothing to argue with.
Then throw in the LIA recovery, the UHIE biased for higher temps , a more active sun for most of the 20th century, the influence of the PDO and their CAGW is laughable.
G’day Johnathan: Yes I can and probably did accept your original remark because it could have covered a small part of my early industrial experience. Unfortunately dealing with upstarts who many would consider up themselves for one reason or another became routine from time to time. Although quite young then I had considerable input from true veterans of our WW2 period of engineering. Minding safety in hazardous environments was not a job for the uninitiated.
As a direct result from that experience I can see a comment from Neville like “This record shows that half of the so called AGW occured before 1950, well before co2 could have had an influence” is only based on blog speak since good CO2 measurement did not exist until the late 1950’s. Yes; I can look back to working with consultant engineers on new gas analysis systems developed for our space age technology.
Btw my Google Jonathan – physics etc leaves me wondering where you are coming from.
Gavin I presume you think that the pre 1958 measurements cannot be estimated accurately then, even as short an interval as 8 years?
From memory I think the 1958 level of co2 was about 310 ppm up from the estimated 280 ppm existing in say 1800.
Here’s a nice piece:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jul/04/climatechange-hacked-emails-muir-russell
“The release of the emails was a turning point, a game-changer,” said Mike Hulme, professor of climate change at the University of East Anglia. “The community has been brought up short by the row over their science. Already there is a new tone. Researchers are more upfront, open and explicit about their uncertainties, for instance.”
And there will be other changes, said Hulme. The emails made him reflect how “astonishing” it was that it had been left to individual researchers to police access to the archive of global temperature data collected over the past 160 years. “The primary data should have been properly curated as an archive open to all.” He believes that will now happen.
I wonder how much has changed at BOM?
Interesting article Jennifer in which the secretive science boffins are left smelling like a dung heap, as they should.
I like the finish that warns of the new more complex climate models not helping to reduce the uncertainties in forecasting climate.
Yet these people expect the taxpayers to waste billions of dollars on this very uncertainty.
A new publication (The Climate Files) by Fred Pearce is being reviewed at ClimateAudit.
On the difference between what people presumed climate science peer review to be and what it actually was (here talking about Jones at the Parliamentary Committee):
Following that came the most startling observation, when Jones was asked how often scientists reviewing his papers for probity before publication had requested to see details of his raw data, methodology and computer codes. ‘they’ve never asked’, he said. The rigour of peer review came crashing down before our eyes. p. 217
“Back in the lab, a new generation of more sophisticated computer models is failing to reduce the uncertainties in predicting future climate, he says – rather, the reverse.”
Jen,
It will be fascinating to see what the Muir Russell report says.
It’s hard to believe that it will be much of a game changer if what’s been reported so far is any indication.
The great, lumbering AGW “science” machine is such a massive monstrosity, so dependant on the dumb taxpayer for its billions and so far so well fed that it just will not roll over and die anytime soon.
I would love to be proved wrong.
Interesting article from WUWT on regime shifts, like PDOs and perhaps how they are caused by or combined with solar changes.
Hope Cohenite has the time to have a look and give his opinion.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/05/spotting-the-solar-regime-shifts-driving-earths-climate/#more-21407
“Yet these people expect the taxpayers to waste billions of dollars on this very uncertainty.”
Typical junk statement – find out how much El Nino costs society Neville.
I like Fred Pearce’s piece – quotes all the usual suspects. Yawn. Game changer indeed… pfft …
Feeling smug hey?
Quote from the Guardian article- “The veteran Oxford science philosopher Jerome Ravetz says the role of the blogosphere in revealing the important issues buried in the emails means it will assume an increasing role in scientific discourse. “The radical implications of the blogosphere need to be better understood.” Curry too applauds the rise of the “citizen scientist” triggered by climategate, and urges scientists to embrace them”
Now you guys can remove that smile because it’s time to do some actual science rather than just hug one another in response.
Btw “The primary data should have been properly curated as an archive open to all.” imo was a fair comment.
How about this for starters?
MODIS Rapidfire For Citizen Scientists – #4
http://www.scientificblogging.com/chatter_box/modis_rapidfire_citizen_scientists_4
An important new study by Associate Professor Jason Box (Ohio State University) and undergraduate student Adam Herrington, have found that the melting Greenland glaciers mimic what happened in the 1920s.
Because NASA and the National Science Foundation funded the research there is mention of ‘tipping point’, but we can’t take that too seriously.
http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/grnlndice.htm
There is a lag so we can expect the glaciers to continue melting and if there is a tipping point we will see large icebergs floating down the East Greenland Current in a few years. Which will take us back to AD 1203 – the butt end of the MWP.
Scientists funded by governments need to declare a competing interest.
Hi One & All,
Still drop in from time to time and see the same old adversaries going over much of the same old argument.
We really are in a mini dark age at present, where unreason and untruth are embraced as dogma.
I note Luke is pontificating for credibility.
Now that has really given me a good laugh.
We had Bob Carter and David Archibald here in Coffs last friday.
Good to hear some rational opinion for a change.
All the best.
Pikey.
Neville, thanks for that link to the PDO/Break paper which incorporates a seasonal aspect to a well known natural phenomenon of temperature movements which is antithetical to IPCC claptrap; luke is well versed in this concept from his kind appreciation of this earlier, pathfinding paper:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/06/stat-model-predicts-flat-temperatures-through-2050/#more-14854
gavin
The SST warm spot off south-east Greenland is next to Helheim.
http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst_anom.html
Would you like to hazard a guess as to what is happening?
And here is a little more reading, if you have nothing better to do on ‘tight arse Tuesday’?
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2009/12/21/a-christmas-story-some-facts-about-greenland/#more-396
Does this rain have something to do with a positive IOD?
http://www.bom.gov.au/products/IDE00902.loop.shtml
el gordo,
Thanks for the links.
I wonder how much longer the trolls will keep it up?
Jennifer,
It is so good to have you back.
hunter – trolls meaning yourself – only you can tell us ?
Cohenite your Chow mein test paper is laughable. Tell us when you get it published somewhere that is serious. And projecting into the future with it !!! Ye Gods ! Tell us Cohers your hindcast evaluation of your model through cross validation. I’ll be waiting.
You nong luke; the model is based on the 1976 break and examines data back to 1905; anyway the paper is being revamped and the original author, Tom Quirk, has come on board.
el gordo,
Lovely day in the Alice. Check that temp.
http://www.bom.gov.au/products/IDD60801/IDD60801.94326.shtml
Some of those maxima out west today would hafta be an all-time record low.
el gordo; that hot spot off Greenland is hard to fathom in the unisys plot cause the colours dazzle me. Imo this latest bobspot offers a better perspective re watts up
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2010_07_01_archive.html
Recall April/ May?
http://climateprogress.org/2010/05/17/hurricane-season-record-atlantic-temperatures-hottest-april/
was going to add something on New York hot spots in July but got side tracked by weather info on wunderground
cohers,
Luke just can’t cope with that ’76 break.
That was 34 years ago and some aspects of our weather have never been the same since.
Not progressive, a big step.
You nong Cohers – doesn’t mean you have any predictability. Any mongoose can put a relationship through some data. Tell me this isn’t what you did?
“Would you like to hazard a guess as to what is happening?”
el gordo,
I’ve got it by george!
It’s those Hvalsey grave diggers using blow-torches to get through the permafrost.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Eastern-settlement-eng.png
Maybe Luke needs to read about the “death of global warming”.
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=1396
“Amongst other things the above link (2) shows how the negative PDO from 1961 to 1975 cancelled out the warming effects of solar cycles 18 and 19 and led to a cooling trend during those years despite the relatively high TSI levels. The switch to a positive PDO from 1975 to 2001 allowed the solar warming influence to resume. We now have both a falling TSI and a negative PDO which is an entirely different (indeed opposite) scenario to the one which led to the concerns about runaway warming.”
Here is the prediction graph from David’s break paper;
http://landshape.org/enm/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/article-003.png
Here are Hansen’s predictions:
http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/hansen12.gif
And the IPCC predictions;
http://www.johnstonanalytics.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/akasofu.93103420.jpg
I didn’t realize that Angstrom destroyed Arrhenius’ theory of global warming over a century ago
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=5950#comments_top
Peer review 1901 style.
http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/029/mwr-029-06-0268a.pdf
Cohenite – more comedy – your Hansen gif is out of date.
DID YOU SAY PREDICTION GRAPH from David’s paper (OMIGOD !)
And your are kidding with the j-analytics aren’t you?
How can Hansen’s 1988 predictions be out of date?
What a joke Luke, you’ve got 3 scenarios of Hansen to choose from surely they can’t all be out of date?
The trouble is we’ve seen by the passing of 22 years that they’re all bloody hopeless whatever co2 emissions you care to pick.
Face it wimp you’ve chosen the wrong side, but fundamentalists hardly ever wake up to themselves so why should we bother.
@ the Luke gang,
Care to put who is a troll to a vote?
‘out of date’ is a euphemism for ‘wrong’.
Hansen, in his stage crafted testimony stunt to Congress in 1988 predicted a dire future.
It has not passed. At the same time in interviews, he predicted specific climate conditions for New York City as a result of his predicted future: inundations of Manhattan, potable water shortages, new vegetation successions due to climatic shifts. Not one of his Congressional predictions and not one of his contemporaneious predictions came true.
But climate science is all about ‘false but true’ as its standard.
And instead of climate scientists offering more mature nuanced and reasonable predictions, instead they have doubled and trebled down, claiming things are actually worse than their failed predictions of old.
CAGW refuted yet again:
Terrestrial Gross Carbon Dioxide Uptake: Global Distribution and Covariation with Climate
Science Express online, July 5, 2010 | http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1184984
Behind a paywall at http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/rapidpdf/science.1184984v1.pdf
Press release: http://www.mpg.de/english/illustrationsDocumentation/documentation/pressReleases/2010/pressRelease201007041/index.html
Some earlier investigations at the ecosystem level resulted in threefold to fourfold accelerations, which would enhance the greenhouse effect. It was not possible to reconcile these data with global models and atmospheric measurements of carbon dioxide concentrations and their seasonal variations, however. “We can now settle obvious contradictions between experimental and theoretical studies [em added],” says Miguel Mahecha, who played a crucial role in coordinating and evaluating the new measurements on ecosystem respiration. His colleague Markus Reichstein adds: “Particularly alarmist scenarios for the feedback between global warming and ecosystem respiration thus prove to be unrealistic.”
Thanks Cohenite.
Those projection graphs either side of Hansen had me thinking about their mathematical simplicity, often a useful tool in a good cause. Then I noticed the haphazard relationship with that sinusoidal curve and the observed temp oscillations. To say the least, we should see that the increase in amplitude needs explaining so I had another look for the source info.
http://www.johnstonanalytics.com/climate
We are using comic book science here aren’t we Cohenite?
‘The notion of a static, unchanging climate is foreign to the history of the earth or any other planet with a fluid envelope. The fact that the developed world went into hysterics over changes in global mean temperature anomaly of a few tenths of a degree will astound future generations.’
Richard Lindzen
The Max Planck Institute for Biogeochemistry says CAGW is bogus like we’ve known for decades.
Scroll up.
Likr Schiller, we get round to the latest
“Climate predictions could become more accurate and more reliable in the future – thanks to new findings on the role of terrestrial ecosystems in the global carbon cycle. International teams of researchers headed by the Max Planck Institute for Biogeochemistry in Jena now present comprehensive data analyses in two related studies”
http://www.mpg.de/english/illustrationsDocumentation/documentation/pressReleases/2010/pressRelease201007041/index.html
Recall? Gaia is at large!
Coho – Hansen’s graphs aren’t the issue – the other data in the graph are – typical denialist trickery
Listen to Neville – what a little rightist creep ” but fundamentalists hardly ever wake up to themselves so why should we bother.” – the old “fundamentalist” jibe eh? Mate no point in turning your light on – we’re only going to see cob-webs.
Schiller are you some sort of illiterate dickhead? Did you read the actual paper – of course not…. you’re so hopeless you don’t even understand what you’re reading. AND you’re now using a model are you? a Model ? what a denialist harlot – you’d go with anything !
“Complementing
theoretical or process-oriented results (37, 38) about climatic
limitations of GPP, our observation-based results now
constitute empirical evidence for a large effect of water
availability on primary production over 40% of the vegetated
land (Fig. 3A) and up to 70% in savannahs, shrublands,
grasslands, and agricultural areas (Table 2).
Our findings
imply a high susceptibility of these ecosystems’ productivity
to projected changes of precipitation over the 21st century
(39), but a robustness of tropical and boreal forests.
Results of
current process models show a large range and a tendency to
overestimate precipitation-associated GPP (Fig. 3B). Most
likely, the association of GPP and climate in process-oriented
models can be improved by including negative feedback
mechanisms (e.g. adaptation) that might stabilize the systems.
Our high spatial resolution GPP estimates, its uncertainty, and
its relationship to climate drivers should be useful for
evaluating and thus improving coupled climate carbon-cycle process models”
What up Schiller – ding ding !
Luke
It would be helpful if you said what your point is.
Gee the csiro’s new chairman is a bright spark, he has a disappointing sail or three in his yacht and it helps convince him it must be agw.
His promotion of Luke’s earth hour crap saves heaps in co2 as well ( not), where do they find these fools.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/column_the_csiro_chairmans_yacht_no_measure_of_global_warming/
“It would be helpful if you said what your point is.”
Schiller,
Venting its spleen on long suffering sceptics.
BTW, today’s the big day when Sir Humph.., er Muir makes his finding.
Neville,
ya couldn’t believe that this is the best illustration of conviction that someone in his position could come up with.
Why doesn’t he just say “all my life I wanted to wear a sandwich board with ‘the end of the world is nigh’ on it and now I can”.
Luke,
Why did you change your name over at Jo’s?
er…yes but…
Interesting to note that David Stockwell and Anthony Cox believe temperatures will flatten out to AD 2050 and then pick-up modestly.
This is encouraging news, our modern climate optimum will still have some puff for the second half. Although I hasten to add that this break may behave in a different fashion to the cool PDO of 1946 -77. At this point the Deltoidians would raise the flag and mutter ‘post hoc ergo propter hoc’ to settle the troops.
Schiller, that Beer et al paper about the carbon flux cycle and its connection with precipitation and and vegetation reminded me of this paper:
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2007JD008431.shtml
The last line of the abstract is interesting.
gavin; I always thought of you more as a Mrs Hudson type but your sleuthing skills in tracking down my link means you’ve been upgraded to Dr Watson’s hat.
ENSO Wrap-up is out: ‘The combination of current trends and model outlooks suggest the chance of a La Niña in 2010 is now clearly more likely than not.’
Incredibly cautious prediction from BOM.
Spanglers – to avoid getting gonged.
But alas the illiteracy rate here is only eclipsed by the comprehension rate.
Schillsy
(a) you had not read it
(b) you didn’t understand it
(c) you only selected the bits you liked – see my fav savannas
(d) you’re a total hypocrite coz it’s MODELLED from the same stables you’d normally poo poo
Do I need to explain it some more?
El Gordo – bet money on Stockwell and Coxie – they have form. Put all your money on them in fact.
It’s an even money bet if CO2 is scratched. The long shot is ‘global cooling’ of the Archibald variety.
gavin
Would you like to take responsibility for this appalling propaganda?
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/07/07/2947476.htm
Steve McIntyre prepares to go into battle.
“I’m 100% confident that they will make concessions on topics where the tide has already run against CRU – data archiving and availability, topics where the Commons Committee has already expressed its extreme impatience with climate scientists. These are easy issues for Muir Russell to concede and you can pretty much book them already. I’d pay attention to the report on these issues only if Muir Russell unexpectedly supports some forms of data petulance.”
Luke,
Let me patiently explain to you a few important things about models.
First, models are fundamental to cybernetics and hence essential for any understanding of the physical world. Every putative understanding of the physical world, from building an airplane, to purchasing groceries, relies upon a model.
The trouble with models is that, as required by the thermodynamic constraints on information (there are others), every model is necessarily less complete and less detailed than what is being modeled. Add the constraint that the model should be pragmatic, and you get the basis for the dictum, ‘All models are false, but some are more useful than others’.
Thus it is erroneous to reject a model because it is a model.
When it comes to ‘climatology’, the essential elements of modeling have been thrown out.
You will recall from the paper I cited above that there is a distinction between experimental and theoretical studies. In cybernetics, models are continually refined and tested against what happens when you use the model.
Let’s consider it this way:
Likely you’re familiar with the Bishop Berkeley/Samuel Johnson debate about the nature of reality. Berkeley maintained that ‘reality’ was composed entirely of ideas, and nothing more. Matter does not exist and reality is only in our (non-physical) heads, he maintained. Johnson said Berkeley was wrong, and powerfully struck his foot against a stone, saying, “I refute you thus!” or words to that effect.
Those are two competing models of reality. And Berkeley was able to explain away Johnson’s refutation by saying the pain of Johnson’s wounded toe is also merely an idea.
Now, if you’re a climatologist, you’re with Berkeley. If you’re a skeptic, you’re with Johnson.
Why? All Berkeley needed to do was present a model of reality that was self-consistent, to be happy with himself. But his theory is not falsifiable, which makes it fundamentally non-scientific.
On the other hand, scientists, like Johnson, insist on things like toe-stubbing. They insist pace Popper that their models be falsifiable.
If you’ve followed this at all, then you understand why the bulk of climatology is not a science. It’s merely an attempt to construct a self-consistent system of code and data.
Anyone who’s ever constructed a website that doesn’t crash knows it’s a self-consistent system of code and data — but none of them would claim that a well-constructed website = truth.
Producing code and data which consistently prove 2+3=5 does not mean you can predict the weather. Remarkably, Michael Mann’s boss says that climatology doesn’t involve falsifiability, etc., so he, too, is admitting that climatology as practiced by Mann is not an actual ‘science’.
Luke, I know you’ll bluster and blather about this post. I merely wanted to be on record as knowing vastly more than you about modeling.
Very interesting Schiller, so let’s look at the real world and real data, like Trenbarth’s tragic missing heat.
So far it can’t be found and so they keep looking, but other scientists hold the view that its probably escaped back into space, straight through an inadequate blanket.
If it’s in the oceans at great depth way below 700m, then how did it get there without being detected in passing by thousands of Argo bouys?
Seems like so far the models don’t match real observation and measurement.
Schiller – yes I patiently read what you wrote and understand what you are saying.
(1) you haven’t read the above paper from Germany – and it’s SATURATED in modelling – so this goes to the heart of your “scepticism” – you’ve simply demonstrated pure hypocrisy by endorsing biosphere-climate modelling when it suite you. And it didn’t even suit you as you only read what appealed to your eye.
(2) you have demonstrated no understanding of climate modelling at all
(3) just how would propose doing science on something to big, expensive or dangerous with 20 replicate planet Earths to investigate chaos – your answer is you cannot
(4) what’s this stuff about Mann and climatology. Talk about fixated on personalities. Let’s assume Mann is 100% wrong if it makes you happy. Matters not to AGW science.
(5) nobody is trying to “predict” the future climate – they are trying to explore in broad terms what might happen if you radically changed the planet’s energy balance in a very short period 50-100 years with 6-9 billion humans. Even if the climate model was 100% right – who knows how CO2 will grow in the atmosphere. We know from PETM, Siberian and Deccan traps that major ecosystem disturbance can happen.
(6) in the end it’s about perception of risk (a) whether to mitigate emissions (b) whether to hasten development of new technologies especially nuclear (c) of whether to adapt – adaptation means making decisions – especially about water resources
Given demonstrated skill in predicting the weather better than persistence or dice throwing – you would actually consider that climate physics has demonstrated useful knowledge about meteorology. Also at seasonal to interannual scale.
Last simple point – it’s about an assessment of risk. You are not going to get absolute proof ! So don’t think about beating me – ask yourself – have I seriously evaluated the risks – of acting and not acting ! I would find it extraordinary that anyone would put the risk at 0% – but also “religious” if you put the risk above 70%.
You have not done that – it’s simply all anti-green politics to you.
Neville – yep – they don’t model decadal behaviour (yet) – does it matter in the long run?
Luke you should read ” Cool It” by Lomborg, he accepts the science and a very small price on co2 emissions, but his main point is adaptation and new technology.
He’s got an entire team of experts on the cost effectiveness of trying to reduce emissions, but he proves it just doesn’t work, it’s a waste of time and money.
Interesting to note that the leaked CRU emails amounted to about 0.3% of the material on the hacked UEA server.
The Muir-Russel panel said the remainder was in the hands of police investigating the breach. However, conditions imposed by the police had made it impossible for the team to go through all the rest of the material.
Very convenient.
‘yep – they don’t model decadal behaviour (yet) – does it matter in the long run?’
It does matter and we are only a stone’s throw from discovering it’s tied in with the sun, but at the moment we are in the dark.
‘Causes for the PDO are not currently known. Likewise, the potential predictability for the climate oscilliation are not known.’
http://jisao.washington.edu/pdo/
Sir Humphrey couldn’t have done much better….
http://claesjohnson.blogspot.com/2010/07/muir-russell-ipcc-conclusions-not-based.html
Muir Russell: IPCC Conclusions Not Based on Science
Sir Muir Russell summarizes his CRU inquiry as follows:
•This was not about forming a view on the content or quality of the scientific work and the conclusions drawn by CRU.
•We did not find any evidence of behaviour that might undermine the conclusions of the IPCC assessments.
Let’s subject these statements to a logical mathematical analysis:
•(1) The scientific work was not an issue.
•(2) The conclusions of the IPCC assessments were not undermined.
Combining (1) and (2) we conclude that what Muir Russell effectively says is:
•IPCC conclusions are not based on scientific work.
Seems correct.
Does this mean the IPCC Fifth Assessment will be more transparent?
We generally assume that the early thermometers were not up to scratch, but I think the technology was adequate and the early weather men quite capable.
Anyway, it’s such a blessed relief to see graphs without a hockey stick.
http://climatereason.com/LittleIceAgeThermometers/Europe.html
SD; we had this version on Radio National this morning – Professor Edward Acton, from the University of East Anglia, says the findings “show there was…absolutely nothing to hide”
then “-Sir Russell Muir, who led the investigation, says their work could have been more transparent”
fair enough?
http://www.radioaustralianews.net.au/stories/201007/2947842.htm?desktop
el gordo: you won’t get much out of me while the bike race is on SBS. Did anyone else notice all the wind farms in that part of Europe?
el gordo,
In spite of the blatant climategate white washing you would expect AR5 to be a bit more circumspect.
Yeah gav,
Nothing to hide but we hid it anyway!
Mark Renshaw is a local lad and we are proud of him.
Gavin,
Don’t you find it interesting that one UEA inquiry says the code and data are all publicly available, while another claims a ‘lack of transparency’?
Your whitewashers need to coordinate more to keep the narrative consistent.
Your credibility is in tatters SChiller
Climate Scientists vindicated yet yet yet yet again
Following vindications from the NRC panel, the independent Penn State Committee, the House of Commons report, the International Panel, the Penn state Investigatory Committee, the Independent Climate Change Email Review ………….. http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/07/climate_scientists_vindicated.php
Mate you’re going to need a kangaroo court !
Okay, let them off the hook now, but in the frigid years ahead there will be copious amounts written on this deceit and the whitewashers that followed.
NOAA makes the startling prediction that times are about to get cooler for most of us.
http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/images3/glbT2mSea.gif
The examiners’ reputations are in tatters. They all refused to look at the data and the codes, or at any ‘scientific conclusions’. Which comprise the locus of the Hockey Team’s malfeasance.
The examiners determined at the outset not to look at the evidence. If you won’t look at the evidence, you won’t find any, making exoneration the only option.
The Muir Russell report says that the Oxburgh inquiry had examined ‘the science’, but Oxburgh himself said that such was not part of the inquiry. If that’s not an inept whitewash, then it’s finger pointing.
And everybody praised the Duke
Who this great fight did win.
“But what good came of it at last?”
Quoth little Peterkin.
“Why, that I cannot tell”, said he,
“But ’twas a famous victory.”
Schiller; “Don’t you find it interesting that one UEA inquiry says the code and data are all publicly available, while another claims a ‘lack of transparency’?”
Mate; if I take the above Q as genuine for a mo and ignore the gulf between us in assessing technical problems with a positive outlook we could start with el gordo’s “Little Ice Age” thermometers over at “Climate Reason”.
Besides this LIA being a red flag to me because I know we can’t do a proper global temp via instrument records that far back, I can go off on the whois sources tack. Despite cohenit’s latest nudge, from practice I can find a blocked pipe as well as a leak in the system.
That whole LIA page non hockey stick graph depends on someone’s notion of UHI adjustment. Now lets suggest you all consider this simple fact; I once did a lot of direct air temp measurements around large heat sources on a daily basis and knowing their impact on ambient was my bread and butter. I don’t see UHI as the bogie.
Just think for a mo those old weather records could be spot on for your max/min data analysis and any local adjustment then or after required proper documentation as to why.
Going back via Rimfrost isn’t much help as it turns out and that’s after ignoring a couple of gifs over at the LIA thermometer page that look the same at a glance.
I was most interested in spots like Malta out in the briny where UHI was unlikely however the Rimfrost record is far from definite. Then I looked at Canberra airport as it was via the open source and wondered who authorized that gif.
In any case we don’t get a blow by blow account of the gear that was in service; quite useless from my point of view. So how do you guys get on?
Gavin,
Are you somehow making a point in all that? Doubtless your travels have been interesting, but otherwise?
So, what details did you check Schiller?
http://climatereason.com/LittleIceAgeThermometers/Europe.html
http://www.thegwpf.org/news/1205-russell-review-whats-it-mean-for-the-bloke-on-the-bus.html
None of the reviews have any credibility.
When government officials/academics are reviewing the antics and work of other goverment officials and academics, then the end result was entirely predictable before they wasted yet more public money.
What was that old dictum. Never hold and inquiry for which you dont already know the outcome.
Poms are past masters at the game, as would be Australian academia and beaureucrats.
None of them were in any sense independant, including the Penn State one.
Yet more examples of how our systems of Govt are failing us.
Gavin,
It’s still not apparent what you’re talking about.
Perhaps you should post earlier in the day before you’re in your cups.
Interesting article over at Roy Spencer’s blog about Mt Pinatubo as a radiative forcing, ( cooling of course) which he claims is the largest in the satellite record.
He tries to calculate the radiative feedback signature and then uses this info to again check the feedback expected from a doubling of co2.
Again he finds only a 1c rise in temp for the doubling of co2 not the much higher temps as shown by the models.
Seems that he will have better info next big volcanic event because the argo bouys will provide the actual temp in the deeper surface water to add to the calculations, see comments below on his blog.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/06/revisiting-the-pinatubo-eruption-as-a-test-of-climate-sensitivity/#comments
Malcolm, very true.
As Pielke Jr says:
“Had the Muir Russell review actually taken an accurate view of the IPCC, it is likely that its judgment about the appropriateness of the behaviors revealed by the emails would be considerably different.”
It was entirely predictable!
If you didn’t have Caesar judging Caesar, bureaucracy couldn’t survive.
What is amazing is the huge number of “useful idiots” that allow it.
gavin, that thermometer link to historical European sites is the only decent link I can remember you making; it’s a beauty! Of course, it kills AGW stone dead.
cohers,
even if you apply Luke’s LIA “recovery principle” [ ie, rubbish] there is still no AGW.
If you apply anyone else’s, there is even less.
But gav, those old merc sticks would hafta be duds?
gav,
I always thought you only needed a litre of water.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/06/15/1952269.htm
SD; LIA “recovery principle”; I don’t think I know that one; I’d ask luke but I suspect he is off somewhere licking his wounds; the regulars at Jo’s are less tolerant than here.
Muir-Russell is a travesty.
el gordo,
“Travesty” Trenberth wouldn’t agree.
cohers,
Luke is a street urchin. He loves to go out and trail his coat to see how big a pack he can attract.
In real life he couldn’t survive. You’d find him dead in an alley. But in the virtual world he doesn’t have to go outside yet he can still wet his pants with excitement.
Heavens it was torrid over at Jo’s. What a bunch of ferals. And sour too. Shudder.
Reason I don’t like the recovery notion is simply that’s anthropomorphic. Does climate just move around by itself or is it forced. Interesting point actually – the bloke who used to write interminable borings essays – yes Wes George – misunderstood me on that once. But how much would climate drift if it wasn’t being forced. Would it simply just PDO and ENSO about the mean – or could it get itself into a new state?
Coho – you need to check up on a few long integration runs. And here’s a free kick – how come you never bring up AOGCM flux correction?
The GWPF is unhappy and have decided to commission their own investigation into recent whitewashers. Andrew Montford has been given the nod to conduct proceedings.
http://www.thegwpf.org/news/1204-investigation-into-climategate-inquiries-announced.html
Spangles; I noted the following-
“The international project, known as the Avogadro Project, plans to link the kilogram to numbers of atoms through the Avogadro number.
This universal constant is the number of atoms in 12 grams of carbon-12, 1 gram of hydrogen or 28 grams of silicon-28”
Aren’t we going to have trouble measuring 12 grams of carbon-12, 1 gram of hydrogen or 28 grams of silicon-28???
I guess we could start by displacing 1000cc of water cause that’s about where I started. Wiki “From 1901 to 1964 the litre was defined as the volume of one kilogram of pure water at 4 °C and 760 millimetres of mercury pressure. During this time, a litre was about 1.000028 dm3”
Re “those old merc sticks would hafta be duds?” I reckon nobody here nor anybody else knows exactly what thermometers were used when or where. My guess has always been some had big zero errors and various range problems such as the scale materials employed, right from manufacture. Recall too, certain max/min float types needed a daily reset by magnet.
Btw I can’t do justice with these issues while the 21 day Tour de France competes with a recall of Collectors on ABC, the final days of Hans Heysen’s masterpieces at the NGA (his trees tell stories about our climate) and my needs to finish restoring some old tools before this w/e.
“how much would climate drift if it wasn’t being forced”; you mean as in a perfect equilibrium where everything is in balance; it doesn’t matter because it would still be subject to MEP decline; I assume we are talking about natural as opposed to some thought bubble exercise? With a constant imput a system cannot vary its energy availability except through storage, which is why AGW is so dependent on equilibrium climate sensitivity; to find that stored energy is the holy grail of AGW. And this is why your AOGCM’s are still as handicapped as disparate GCMs; they still need assumptions about energy exchange between the ocean and atmosphere; your flux corrections; and if those energy exchanges are deficient in locating the missing energy [Trenberth’s despair] it doesn’t matter how good you think they are.
ARIMA models are better because they are more honest with a capacity to incorporate ‘drift’, or unexplained elements, which may be stochastic, into any forecasting. This is why you guys did not say much about this:
http://cbe.anu.edu.au/research/papers/pdf/wp495.pdf
They are saying its unseasonably cool in Monterey. The cool SST off California is a likely symptom of jet stream behavior.
https://www.fnmoc.navy.mil/ncoda_web/dynamic/ncoda_1440x721_global_sst.gif
It’s been advantageous for those of the warming persuasion that the industrial revolution commenced around the end of the LIA and thus the signal of the natural “recovery” has been lost in the noise of so called AGW.
Without the IR, climate may not have been any different from what we now have.
And drift is what it mainly does seeing as how the feedbacks are mostly negative.
Luke “Would it simply just PDO and ENSO about the mean – or could it get itself into a new state?”
Turning points, tipping points, internal and external triggers can be covered while watching the moods of Gaia.
I forgot to add this to today’s distractions, a repeat of Late Night Live “The storms of James Hansen A discussion with the prominent NASA climate scientist about his journey of scientific discovery, the gradual process by which he became convinced of the science of global warming, and how he believes scientists need to address current public doubt” ABC National, originally broadcast on 8/3/2010.
Coho – relax modern AOGCMs don’t use flux correction.
As for your paper – well the conclusion says it all doesn’t it – “It is impossible to uncover
detailed trend patterns from such temperature records without corroborating data
from other sources and close knowledge of the underlying climate system.” … yes yes yes
Michael Mann reveals highly sophisticated, well-financed, coordinated conspiracy between professional deniers, tobacco and oil companies.
That the current heat wave on US Eastern Seaboard is caused by global warming.
That the last 12 months are hottest on record, ever. This guy is smooth. Who said climate scientists ‘couldn’t communicate’?
Climate science is clearer every day.
Exonerated Climategate Professor Speaks Out
CleanSkies TV
Published: 07/08/10 3:18pm
Running Time: 10:51
http://www.cleanskies.com/videos/exonerated-climategate-professor-speaks-out
Quick quiz, folks! Test your climate rhetoric acumen. Read the paragraphs below, and ask yourself, Who is talking about whom? To determine if your guess is correct, visit the link at the bottom.
And it appears that the oil, gas, and coal industries, along with some secret private donors, fund most of the individuals and organizations involved.
Describing the public relations emails outlining strategies, words to use, and spokespeople, they show that the campaign is clearly a coordinated strategy to blacken the names of those involved.
How do they get away with it? They follow a tried and true playbook. First, smear them, and make it risky for them to speak out. Claim they are liars who serve some nefarious plot. Create an atmosphere of intolerance and do everything possible to convince people that the opponents cannot be trusted.
Finally, create a media firestorm. Feed the need for ratings and readers by giving reporters plausible-sounding theories. Take advantage of the changes in journalism that result in reporters being forced to be generalists, with no time or background to deconstruct your arguments. Stay on the poll-tested message points developed by industries’ pollsters.
Link: http://www.northcentralpa.com/news/2010-07-09_pennfuture-facts-vol-12-no-14
Did you get it right?
“The ‘exoneration’ by Climategate investigations (like Muir Russell) that never bother to talk to skeptics, create an impossible conundrum of having essentially a trial with judge, jury, reporters, spectators, and defendant, but no plaintiff. The plaintiff is locked outside the courtroom sitting in the hall hollering and hoping the jury hears some of what he has to say.”
Anthony Watts
July 9, 2010
If it looks like a travesty…
El Gordo,
Have you noticed that none of the inquiries looked into the most salient allegations?
It’s not just a matter of cherry-picking the witnesses, it’s also a matter of cherry-picking the topics.
If this ever saw the inside of a courtroom, in the US at least, the real stuff would come out. Wouldn’t work in the UK, not at all.
In one famous case in the UK, Greenpeace climbed a smokestack and smeared it with graffiti ‘to prevent global warming’. The Greenie-whackos were charged, and the matter went to a jury. The jury decided, after listening to testimony from Hansen, that the graffiti were justified because of the global CO2 emergency.
Take-home message: Painting the smokestacks is urgently needed to prevent CAGW.
Well that’s the Brits and Monty Python and all that. The Brits call sailing ‘messing about in boats’, and consider progress as ‘muddling forward’. They profess to hate the Germans, while secretly aspiring to German ideals, and they hate the Germans and French so much that they’re willing to prove the point by insisting on bad food. Their paradoxical cultural fixations guarantee that they’ll never do anything right.
Can’t even keep their colonies.
“I think we need to develop a deep and lasting community consensus about pricing carbon,” Ms Gillard said yesterday, declaring herself to be a believer in human-induced climate change.
Heather Ridout (CEO Australia Industry Group) is trying to talk her out of such nonsense, but alas the PM is destined to fall on her sword.
El Gordo,
The intention is plain. If you can’t sell oil like the Saudis (extraction price $14/barrel), you can make yourself a Saudi by siphoning with cap-and-trade, or whatever.
Beauty is, you can also do it with natural gas, coal, biomass, wind power, nuclear, and ethanol.
With the right laws in place, you can make anyone a quasi-Saudi, anywhere.
But of course, that would not influence decisions by bureaucrats or plutocrats.
Right.
“If it looks like a travesty…”
el gordo, at least someone in the UK is speaking out.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/07/09/stringer_on_russell/
El Gordo, Ridout must have changed her tune, she’s been one of the worst alarmists on the business side for years.
Just another labor govt stuff up to add to the list, all funded by the poor bloody taxpayer.
Countless billions have been and will be wasted on these green stupidities but will not change the climate in the slightest.
Just think what might happen if just a tiny fraction of this wasted effort was directed to fast track better battery technology or working out a smarter, cheaper way to split water or what ever.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/yet_another_costly_green_plan_hits_the_wall/
SD thanks for that report from the register, at least one labor member ( a scientist )has the balls, scientific knowledge and sense to expose this white washed report.
Yet more disturbing evidence as to how our systems of government are failing us.
http://aussienewsviews.blogspot.com/2010/07/australia-alan-jones-and-melanie.html
The warmanistas, and government/academic officials reviewing and protecting their own, in quite shamefull circumstances whilst also blindly accepting in continuing silence the conflicts of interest of their Chairman Pachauri etc shows that they have no idea about integrity and public responsibility.
Public policy on the very fundamentals of multiculturalism and immigration is also failing us, as it has already in the UK.
No surprises there either I guess.
I’m going to be nice to Malcolm – but Mal – you seem pretty angry and you are into some heavy blog sites. Wow.
Re the various inquiries – there is nothing. Nothing. All you have is evidence that establishment science hates sceptics guts. Why – hmmm – probably the tactics. Come on – are you surprised.
The only real issue for the long run is whether the science has been systematically rorted – there is no evidence of it. You might not be happy with their science or maybe even the quality but that’s another matter.
The problem for the sceptics is that you have not proved that you are acting in good faith and without being offensive – jeez you sound like a nasty lynch mob.
Just look at Bolt’s blog – it’s just whinge after whinge. Some people love it. Does anyone find anything positive out there.
How did you lot get so angry?
Because we look at the evidence and compare it with the normal standards of behaviour that are expected in an open and liberal civilised society.
Because we look at what people say and do, and compare that with the law.
Because we look at the silence from people who should know better.
Because we notice the stunning level of hypocrisy and ignorance from our elected leaders and senior government officials all over the place.
Because we have done things with our lives and have read and travelled widely.
Easy really…and its not anger either, but disgust and frustration.
They have found a cooling trend in the USA.
http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0134854ca443970c-pi
Admittedly it’s only a short trend, but it holds the promise of a cooler world. When the masses eventually realize they have been taken for a ride they will LAUGH OUT LOUD, yet happy in the knowledge that CAGW is not a problem.
Luke Pot,
At least it is Malcolm you are calling black and not Schiller TheKettle. [please forgive my feeble pun Schiller, but I can’t believe this hypocritical rant from Loopey]
Luke is the most angry, abusive person on this blog and he has the hide to have a go at Malcolm and other sceptics.
Wasn’t having a go – I was just asking?
On the western continental margin of Svalbard, north of the Greenland Sea, researchers took sediment cores from Fram Strait and did a detailed analysis.
http://www.co2science.org/articles/V13/N27/C2.php
The authors say there was a warm interval from AD 500 to 720, whereas I thought this period was predominantly cooler in the NH. Any ideas?
http://www.thegwpf.org/climategate/1220-parliament-misled-over-climategate-report-says-mp.html
It was blindingly obvious from the start that this inquiry,would be a cooked up job, so a report like this is not at all surprising after the event.
The absolute arrogance of the people who set out to paper over the cracks of what is simply appalling unprofessional behaviour is also not at all surprising.
Academics reviewing the antics of other academics was always going to be an predictable outcome..its no different to police investigating complaints against other police,or lawyers investigating complainst against other lawyers. Never works.
Graham Stringer should be applauded, but will probably get abuse.
“I view this as a Parliamentarian for one of the poorest constituencies in the country. Putting up the price of fuel for poor people on such a low level of evidence, hoping it will have the desired effect, is not acceptable. I need to know what’s going on.”
This last winter in the UK reportedly killed an extra 40,000 old people because of ‘fuel poverty’. This winter is predicted to be the same.
A clear cut case of criminal negligence if they press ahead with higher fuel prices.
Climatology has moved well beyond a scientific dispute, and become a front in the culture war.
The Climategate inquiries demonstrate this. It no longer matters what is true or false, but rather, what is right or wrong.
Time to investigate the whitewashes…
Parliament misled over Climategate report, says MP
Russell report is inadequate, says Stringer
The Register (UK)
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/07/09/stringer_on_russell/
Parliament was misled and needs to re-examine the Climategate affair thoroughly after the failure of the Russell report, a leading backbench MP told us today.
Not only did Russell fail to deal with the issues of malpractice raised in the emails, Stringer told us, but he confirmed the feeling that MPs had been misled by the University of East Anglia when conducting their own inquiry.
After the Select Committee heard oral evidence on March 1, MPs believed that Anglia had entrusted an examination of the science to a separate inquiry.
Ron Oxburgh’s inquiry eventually produced a short report clearing the participants. He did not reassess the science, and now says it was never in his remit.
Earlier this week the former chair of the Science and Technology Committee, Phil Willis, now Lord Willis, said MPs had been amazed at the “sleight of hand”.
What a load of utter bullshit. How many inquiries and what – NOTHING ! Zip. Zero.
Pathetic.
The reason being – there is NOTHING there ! .
Like dogs returning to their vomit the denialists do it again. Fuck off and do some science and stop whinging. Go and reproduce the results or not and PUBLISH them ! Which denialists never do of course. Time to investigate the denialists and all their little chummy relationships and vested interests.
Luke, Luke. Resolving allegations of fraud is in this case dependent on scientific evidence. Which the investigators haven’t looked at yet.
Meanwhile, research continues apace:
Climate Crisis Narrowly Averted: Missing Heat Found in Gore’s Second Chakra
July 10, 2010
http://www.thespoof.com/news/spoof.cfm?headline=s5i78565
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/06/17/2929300.htm
The resident serial abuser is so obsessed with peddling his own mantras, he is even unaware of current examples that have occurred in his own State of Queensland.
Malcolm,
As Luke would say, since the police were exonerated by the investigation, it’s quite obvious that they’re very nice well-meaning people.
The kid from Margaritaville is doin’ the right thing.
http://www.margaritaville.com/
I wish them success with the whole effort.
Malcolm,
Actually, let’s consider the case of the death of Cameron Doomadgee at the hands of the police as if we were official Climategate investigators or CAGWers.
– the officers would not have achieved the level of trust they are given in enforcing the law if they were not trustworthy, therefore they did nothing wrong
– police officers are subject to different standards than other people involved in law enforcement and therefore were acting the way police officers do, and that’s OK
– it’s not necessary to look at the reports of the medical examiner/coroner regarding the injuries suffered by the dead person, because the medical examiner’s/coroner’s findings are not at issue
– other police officers not implicated in the death of the subject don’t see a problem
– people who are critical of the behavior of the police officers are not police officers, and therefore, their conclusions are immaterial
– this is just a minor isolated instance and therefore doesn’t reflect on the work of the officers involved
– it’s certain that the dead person would have died eventually anyway
– modeling of the events that led to the death of the subject are consistent with the data supplied by the police officers involved, which is conclusive even though the ‘raw data’ cannot be found anywhere
– the police officers involved have always been honest, forthcoming, and transparent with respect to events leading to the death of the subject, and anyone at all who looks at the data and model would reach the same conclusion as the police
– there is a consensus among the police that the officers involved did nothing wrong
– people who think the officers involved did something wrong are anarchists who oppose the rule of law
The list could go on.
Bottom line: Crime does pay, but job #1 is getting away with it.
Ah so now we’re expanding the scope to every inquiry ever held on every subject everywhere in the history humanity. Uh huh ! That’s logical ….
And in this case a jury has acquitted the officer. And without taking any sides nor excusing misconduct – this is a very challenging police environment with often very difficult individuals. Probability of things going wrong is high.
As always, you dont read what is being said.
The issue is that peope from the same tribe shouldnt be reviewing the antics of their tribal members, when there are issues of external responsibility and accountability involved….and even more so when they are spending other peoples money.
So let me repeat for the dimmer …it never works when academics are reviewing the antics and accountabiilty of other academics, lawyers, and police etc
Thats why we also have ONA,s Auditer Generals, and ICACs for everywhere else.
But not for the Climatariat ..they do it all themselves and keep it in house with members of the boys club doing the work of damage minimisation.
Not credible for one moment, and never has been, but they are so arrogant and up themselves they had to give it a try.
It’s interesting that Luke is bringing up what the jury said.
Normally, Luke would insist that the jury is useless and that they should “go out and do their own research” and so forth, instead.
Gotta wonder why Luke likes the jury in this case.
This bit from Luke is also interesting: “challenging police environment with often very difficult individuals. Probability of things going wrong is high.”
Like the Climategate inquiries, he’s lowering the bar to the point where crap is the standard. For the police, on his analysis, “massive internal injuries” inflicted on a suspect therefore becomes an acceptable norm.
You know things are bad with a movement when they offer corrupt, vapid arguments with no hint of personal embarrassment. They feel they are above pedestrian concerns, such as honesty, or even, politeness.
I liked your post a 10.16 Schiller…amusing stuff
I am surprised that the serial abuser hasnt been counselled by his many mates in the various outposts of climatarianism,eg BOM ,CSIRO and the various universities where I suppose his buddies are, and told to moderate his behaviour, because he is not a good look.
Its a bit like employing a medical sales man who wears thongs and shorts to visit clients.
Oh BTW here is another example/evidence of how we are run by idiots.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/national/bid-for-islamic-teachings/story-e6frf7l6-1225890240936
But its not half as bad as letting in boatloads of Afghani youths and men of fighting age, whilst our men are being killed over there, trying to give them a functioning society.
Can it get any more absurd
It’s scandalous to say it, but what about we inform would-be asylum seekers that women dressed in blankets will not be admitted, along with men and boys. The young women who decide to stay will become good Australian citizens.
The whole thing is a beat-up, most illegal immigrants fly in.
Same logic applies el gordo..what is the point of letting them in by any means, whilst our men are being killed over there.?
Even the politicians are telling this one:
How do you know when a climatologist is not telling the truth…..?
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/07/10/2345-2/#more-9545
Well Schiller all I can say is if you had to police Palm Island or Doomadgee, with ongoing violence, public drunkenness, being abused and spat on every day – well you’d find it a challenge. Some people are very difficult to handle and the propensity for things to get out of control are high. Schiller do you know this case in detail ?! And being darkies I would have thought you’d care little – as you have said darkies die as darkies do? Such interesting observations and sentiments from one such as yourself.
My opinion – tragic stuff. Very difficult social problem.
Malcolm – on the contrary in term of civility – I think the time has come where many will stop being so polite while creeps pot shot them and management and politicians wedge them.
Somehow I think you may be a difficult client to please.
As far as Afghanistan – as another one of our lads has died on Friday and another injured by an IED – one wonders why we’re there. It’s not about giving them a functioning society is it? Do they even want it. It’s about revenge for 9-11 and taking down the enemy. Mission not accomplished.
MH
Those on active duty in Afganistan are professionals soldiers who have chosen to be there. I know one personally and that is the general impression she has given me.
It reminds one of the old fashioned Imperial wars, long tiresome patrols with only the occasional sniper fire or booby trap to contend with.
War is a farce, but it’s out of my hands.
Meteorologists were predicting drought conditions across the Canadian prairies this spring and summer, but it was flood.
Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta have been hit the hardest.
Farmers fields are flooded and grain normally waist high by now is stunted and struggling. They estimate only 40% of normal will be harvested this year and that’s with ideal conditions through the rest of summer.
http://sppiblog.org/news/oxburgh-and-the-jones-admission#more-2100
The science was not the subject of their inquiry say Roxburgh…etc.
What an absolute crock.
Plus
” Unfortunately, there are no documents of the Jones interview since Oxburgh flouted the Parliamentary Committee recommendation that the inquiries conduct their business in the open, in which they stressed the importance of opennness in achieving acceptance of the inquiry results. Lord Oxburgh in effect spit in the eye of the Commons Committee recommendation by not taking submissions, not transcribing interviews and not even reporting interview notes. Worse, at least one panelist has already destroyed his interview notes.”
So much for openess and transparency from the academics in the UK.
Like I said the public can have no confidence, when the boys club reviews the antics of the naughty boys. They cant even obey the normal standards of decency and keep proper records of formally constituted inquiries.
This is just not on.
I have to agree with Luke both re. the incident in Qland and the war in Afghanistan.
I have followed the matter in Qland very closely out of professional interest, and I have my very strong opinion as to what actually happened, but since the case is under review I keep stumm.
The war in Afghanistan is an ill though out (if thought entered into the decision at all?) badly conducted and doomed to failure for many reasons.
For one thing, a civilised army will never win a fight against an “uncivilised” (meaning against someone who considers life and civilians as disposable).
The Taliban fighters are part of the people, but the people are not part of the Taliban, they are afraid to act against them.
If the commanders of the coalition army had any guts and were not “civilised” and had no moral scruples, all that needed to happen is to raze a few villages that harbor the Taliban after a roadside bombing or ambush, and in short order the Taliban would find themselves on the receiving end of the villagers wrath.
MIND you I’m neither advocating such action nor would I be capable of carrying them out myself, BUT I would not be there either.
Never start a fight that you either don’t intend to win, like Vietnam, or more importantly you can’t win with conventional, civilised methods, and loath to use any other.
I’m not sure actually if there is any civility in war, but at least we have international conventions to the conduct of hostilities.
At the recent Heartland Conference Don Easterbrook talked about a strong correlation between the PDO and solar activity. Geophysicist Victor Manuel Velasco Herrara agreed, predicting this mini ice age will last for at least half a century.
They were joined by Habibullo Abdussamatov who believes there has been 18 LIA over the past 7500 years and claims “each deep bicentennial descent in the TSI caused a Little Ice Age.” He claims the new LIA epoch will begin around 2014.
Hurricane specialist William Gray said the LIA was a period of stronger than average Meridional Overturning Circulation (MOC) and predicts that strengthening ocean currents portend global cooling over the next 30 years.
http://sppiblog.org/news/oxburgh-and-the-jones-admission#more-2100
Can there now be any doubt that it was sham,snow job and white wash.
They couldnt even keep properr records as required by the Parliament
What a disgrace
The “science was not the subject of our study”. Amazing boldface travesty.
The warm weather in the UK has prompted the Government to take the unusual step of issuing a ‘heat health warning’ through the Met Office in a bid to avoid the death toll of August 2003.
You will remember at least 35,000 people died in Europe from a heat wave, including 2,000 in Britain. As I mentioned before, 40,000 elderly died unnecessarily in the UK last winter because of fuel poverty and the authorities didn’t seem too concerned.
The Met Office and msm are basking in this brief moment of ‘intense heat’ and associated drought, thinking it CAGW.
In regards to Johnathan Wilkes comment at 7.08 pm concerning the Vietnam War, the Australians never lost a battle. The Australian withdrew in 1973 under a truce brokered in Paris. Two years later the North communists broke the truth and invaded the south. Some idiot claimed last week in the Wes Australian that the allies lost in Korea. General McArthur could have gone all the way to Peking if he was allowed to.
Alexander Solzhenitsyn criticised the US for pulling out of Vietnam in 1973. He said the war could have been won.
After the invasion in 1975 the people where exposed to terrible treatment on the hands of the communists. This could have been adverted if the US had not been undermined at home by a certain press people.
el gordo; in private communication with folks now on hols in the UK, we are getting good reports on the weather up north, HEY no UHI
http://www.holiday-weather.com/isle_of_skye/index.html
out of interest Johnathan Wilkes; just what was your interest in the above discussion? Was it political?
El Gordo,
Interesting that you should bring up the “35,000 people died in Europe from a heat wave” story.
It was about as hot as it gets in Chicago, Illinois on a regular basis in your average summer. The problem: in Europe, electricity is so expensive that few would consider having an air conditioner, much less turning it on. So they baked.
Electricity is so expensive in Germany, for example, that those who possess an in-home water heater that they only turn it on once a week, for bathing. Same thing in France, except that it’s once a month for bathing.
Carbon penalties could cause a spread of such bathing habits. And the death toll from heat waves, too.
Schiller, the revelation that Europeans don’t bath on a daily basis is extraordinary news.
Picked these up from ‘Just the Facts’ at Watts, with a nod to ‘dark horizons’. Sea level will not rise alarmingly because the system is in perfect sync.
The Antarctic Sea Ice Area Anomaly, is currently a positive 1.461 Million sq km;
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.antarctic.png
and at close to parity with the Arctic Sea Ice Area Anomaly, currently a negative 1.500 Million sq km;
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.arctic.png
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/7883372/Amazongate-At-last-we-reach-the-source.html
I wonder how the serial abuser and his mates are going to react to this.
Yet another exposure of the collusive and shonky behaviour of the IPCC and the equally vaccuous and shameless WWF .
What with the Roxburgh appallingly incompetent report and now this…
Who says that our sytems of Government are not failing us.
Thanks for that info on Skye Gav showing a forecast of 12c max for the day( 11/7/10), then further down we read that the warmest months on Skye are June to August ranging from 15c to 21c.
So your point is?
Malcolm,
Thanks for that link, but I spotted the issue and mentioned it here a good time ago, and it appears the author has lifted my note here almost verbatim, saying, “perhaps we can look forward to a retraction of the retraction?”
http://carbon-sense.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/science-corrupted.pdf
..and on it goes.
What a sensible suggestion of putting the science out to tender..that should in theory give others a chance at the ARGC honey pot.
The only problem with that is that it is the boys club that would be doing the assessing at the front and at the back end.
el gordo; my point was local opinion counts for more than these blogs on the issue of AGW. We only get a particular stream here because we arn’t all watching the Tour de France or MSM in general. I guess some even dont go outside their own house.
Yesterday I was out before daylight and picked up an old sewing machine in the rain soaked markets. Then I spent the rest of our dismal day either watching a recorded tour stage or trying to get that lump of electro mechanical bits going again. That required further attention down in the work area of the garage finding tools in another pile of unfinished jobs.
Anyway, there is no time for detailing traveler’s thoughts on their weather but I can refer you to Bob’s sst plot again
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2010/07/june-2010-sst-anomaly-update.html
Thanks Gavin, I’ll keep an eyes on those. Excuse my cherry-picking.
http://www.meattradenewsdaily.co.uk/news/140710/australia___global_warming_my_backside_with_the_coldest_day_in__years.aspx
Len,
I wasn’t speaking of the Australian soldiers in particular, as they were there in a “supporting” capacity, and as everyone knows, they performed brilliantly and way above what their numbers would predict.
It’s the US admin. I was referring to. You know as well as I that the military in both the US and in Aus. have to follow their civilian masters and when reelection is in question the politicians will pay attention to the loudest noisemakers.
When a soldier is being attacked and has to ask permission to shoot back, that’s when I would say “What’s the point?” and this is precisely what’s happening in Afghanistan.
————————————-
gavin
Not political at all.
Sorry to digress from climate matters.
Tallbloke has been accused of having astrological leanings and now he has gone public with a prediction.
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2010/07/10/something-is-brewing/
Icelandic volcano will blow its top in the last week of August or early September.
It’s great to see Jennifer’s blog still active.
Are we still talking about the weather?
Re Afghanistan, as far as I know, the troops don’t need to ask permission to return fire. Where do people get these nutty ideas?
Paul
We still talk about the weather and climate, along with matters of associated interest. I noticed Bower and Chorley are at it again.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1293805/Maybe-thisll-help-win-Dutch-crop-circle-followers-spotted-dancing-200ft-cube-ahead-World-Cup-final.html
Interesting video presentation from Joe Bastardi forecasting a big drop in temp, perhaps as large as the Pinatubo drop .
http://www.accuweather.com/video/110914873001/more-on-the-coming-cooling.asp?channel=vbbastaj
Neville
That would be a 0.8 C temperature drop in fairly quick time.
Warwick Hughes says BoM is incompetent and their models useless in predicting precipitation.
‘The BoM rolling 3 month rainfall Outlook prediction published in late March. Has turned out to be just as irrelevant and useless as the previous four.’
‘Compared to the actual rain deciles for April-May-June the poor hapless BoM can only approach reality in the Kimberly-Northern Territory sector. All the other major features of their prediction are wrong.’
The cause of the Younger Dryas (NH cooling in 13,000 BP) has generally settled on the idea that meltwater sloshed down the St Lawrence River into the North Atlantic, switching off the deep water ‘conveyor’.
But a new study suggests it flowed down the MacKenzie River and poured into the Arctic.
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100331/full/464657a.html
Not to sure how that would work. This will require further investigation.
El Gordo – not being overly defensive – but given that period is the El Nino/ La Nina transition period – the so-called Austral autumn “predictability” barrier – the hardest period to get right.
To evaluate these forecast systems properly and they have changed over the years one does need to understand the technology fully – i.e. firstly the forecasts are probabilistic – 70% accurate is about as good as you can expect.
Minority odds (i.e. wrong!) will and should occur.
Some areas will have higher accuracy than others and that changes throughout the year.
You not only need to use the probabilities but use a LEPS skill score map to see if the forecast has any “skill” in a specific area. (There are other “skill” measures like ROCS.)
So the probabilities (for example) might seem high but skill low.
How do you know if the system is any good – well you probably need 6-7 independent new years (not used to formulate the model) with the SAME system. One year tells you nothing.
You can get some idea of past performance with the one-year in, one year out cross validation type of statistical analysis. (in hindcast mode)
However – BoM have problems don’t they. Insiders are very suspicious that global warming is changing the baseline in terms of the Southern Oscillation, El Nino SST patterns (Modoki mode) and Indian temperature and state.
If you don’t immerse yourself in this – don’t complain ! No excuses – one simply needs to understand the product. It’s far from perfect and always will be. If anyone says they can do 90% you should be VERY suspicious. Too good to be true.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/pi-cpp/assorted/LEPS.ppt
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/pi-cpp/training/nms/SO_Verification.ppt
http://www.cawcr.gov.au/projects/verification/
If Coho was any good he’d sic Stockwell onto the issue !
Folks,
You know things are going bad for the Leftie wing-nuts when Newsweek, a mass-market neo-Marxist rag, runs this headline: ‘A Green Retreat – Why the environment is no longer a surefire political winner.’
http://www.newsweek-interactive.com/2010/07/12/a-green-retreat.html?from=rss
Greens have been warning about such an outcome for at least a year, if not longer. The problem, as they see it (as do I) is that CAGW came to dominate environmentalism to such an extent that it overshadowed every other environmental concern. (Except the concern over profiting from environmentalism, and CAGW has been a real moneyspinner.)
The result: the cachet of environmentalism rises or falls with perceptions of CAGW — and is falling due to the growing consensus that environmentalists simply want to control the planet whilst taking our jobs and money.
It might be premature to celebrate, but grinning hugely would be appropriate.
Luke
Without a super computer you may think me mad for making a seasonal prediction. A positive IOD, a cool PDO and a strong La Nina should produce floods across most of Australia next year.
BOM can’t do that and I wonder why?
El Gordo,
Check out online weather betting at freebettingonline.co.uk/Weather-Betting/
and
paddypower.com/bet/novelty-betting/weather
What are the odds that the Hockey Team are actually becoming multi-millionaires with online gambling on the weather?
All that weather data, and all those powerful models… Of course they’re getting rich.
Thanks ST, I have been up to speed on the betting over the past year.
One of the first things we should do (come the revolution of ideas) is sack ABC journalists who are on the green drip.
Picked this link up at the Bolter and it’s clear that global warming is not news.
http://geology.gsapubs.org/content/38/7/635.abstract
So El Gordo – you’re asking them to
(1) make a personal not mathematical forecast for (a) single year
(2) is every El Nino, La Nina, IOD event the same? Or are patterns quite diverse? Does ENSO affect all of NT, WA, and SA – what about PDO? This is probably the best example of this I could find http://www.longpaddock.qld.gov.au/products/australiasvariableclimate/index.html
If you’re gonna play forecaster don’t double dip – publish your own forecast now on-line ! It’s harder than you think – but OK – let’s see your forecast map – tinyurl? We can all play !
Too late for betting business – commodity traders on Chicago stock exchange have been betting on ENSO for years in terms of hedging on commodities e.g. grain, cotton etc
The ‘Monty Python Parrot” is alive and well with the “East Timor Solution”.
BTW as a POI, last night was the big winter king tide.
For the layman there is only one way to get any sort of handle on sea level rise and that is from the king tides that occur twice a year. If any SLR is occurring it will show up eventually in king tides becomming progressively higher.
You may recall that I reported that last summer’s KT was 20 cms lower at my benchmark than the KTs that occurred 47 ya well, last night’s KT was 20 cms lower again! That is 40 cms lower than 47 ya!
There were no notable weather patterns that would account for this marked difference except possibly a lack of onshore trade winds over recent months possibly due to the El Nino. If that were so it would show up in the East Australian Current [which I have not yet checked].
But it seems SLR is going the way of the Monty Python Parrot.
You beat me to that article from Geology El Gordo, but when we see that west Antarctica was as warm or warmer 700 to 900 years ago it proves that the present climate is not remotely unusual.
According to this peer reviewed study this warming has occured at least three times in the last 5,000 years.
This last warming before now lands right in the middle of the MWP 1100 to 1310 AD.
Just proves once more how absurd this religious cult has become and how delusional and desperate its adherants are proving to be.
http://geology.gsapubs.org/content/38/7/635.abstract
That link is very impressive, Luke. Time to ramp-up my intuitive intellect, before taking the plunge.
I purchased the big glossy poster from LP about 12 years ago and have looked at the online poster + updates ever since.
On the online poster at the bottom is the two in one graph showing enso (spikes) and PDO or IPO. ( smoothed curves)
Amazing how the cooler or warmer periods tend to follow the IPO/ PDO cycles and probably enhanced by el nino or la nina.
El Gordo – I urge you to make a forecast – and put it up. I will be the last one to make a remark if it’s wrong. Forecasting is a brave thing to do.
There is a school of thought that suggests IPO does not really exist as a mechanistic phenomenon. Simply “left over” El Nino / La Nina “debris”.
What was the phrase : “The existence of decadal teleconnection patterns in low pass filtered records does not imply decadal predictability
The existence of decadal signals in low pass filtered records does not imply decadal predictability.”
from http://iprc.soest.hawaii.edu/users/axel/AMO/Power.ppt
The Gore fraudster up to his old tricks. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/12/gores-web-crusaders-cant-handle-a-dissenting-opinion/#more-21807
http://www.longpaddock.qld.gov.au/products/australiasvariableclimate/index.html
Remember we all love cycles – so beware ! You may see cycles where none really exist.
If you look at the IPO index above – hardly predictable?
But then is the IPO the same as the PDO.
The great climate shift of 1976-77 was preceded by three anomalous years of rain and later in ’98 we see the same pattern of wet years, but it is unlikely to happen now.
I’m betting on a repeat of the 1951 precipitation.
http://qcl.farmonline.com.au/news/nationalrural/agribusiness-and-general/general/all-the-signs-point-to-rain-for-east-coast/1879249.aspx?storypage=0
El Gordo – and speaking of recent forecasts and “skill”
Pin your forecast on the wall now El Gordo !
Interesting post by Goddard shows that giss has no increase in Greenland temp for the last 90 years.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/12/greenland-hype-meltdown/#more-21825
Luke
That article is on the same track, so I will stay with my original theory – a repeat of 1951 and a Maitland flood. The positive IOD will break down in late Spring and be replaced with a neutral or negative IOD, just as La Nina makes itself felt.
Interesting that BOM only has the confidence to forecast a month in advance.
El Gordo – I did some more research on LP site.
see middle of the page LEPS skill score on a “pasture growth forecast” – it’s only growth “potential” though (not what grass is there)
And you asked about long lead forecast – well here’s an experimental one http://www.longpaddock.qld.gov.au/spota1-getpassword.html
SPOTA-1 (Seasonal Pacific Ocean Temperature Analysis version 1) monitors Pacific Ocean sea surface temperatures (SSTs) from March to October each year and, on this basis, provides long-lead ‘outlooks’ for Queensland summer (November to March) rainfall. says home page.
Whoops on LEPS http://www.longpaddock.qld.gov.au/rainfallandpasturegrowth/index.php?area=nsw
Viv Forbes spells it out:
http://carbon-sense.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/science-corrupted.pdf
SD; any photos of the latest KT and it’s place near your mark?
Luke
Little point relying on instinct while the farmers and graziers have the benefit of a package. It’s understandable, their livelihood depends on it.
http://www.longpaddock.qld.gov.au/seasonalclimateoutlook/rainfallprobability/useoftrends.html
Spangled,
I’m amazed that Viv Forbes fumbled the easiest part of her project at
http://carbon-sense.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/science-corrupted.pdf
The paper ends with a section: ‘Skeptical books – the trickle becomes a flood.’
There are lots more than her short list. Go to Amazon with this string:
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=climategate&x=0&y=0
The wheels are coming off.
Meanwhile, has anyone here noticed the flood of news articles which openly criticize organic farming? Or, which expose the ‘renewable energy’ and ‘green jobs’ frauds?
Post-Climategate, it’s become politically possible to criticize all sorts of ‘Green’ things.
Civilization is preparing itself to cast off the onerous yoke of the environMentalists!
Check out
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/07/09/greenthink/
which starts
“Greenthink
Posted by Jeff Id on July 9, 2010
First there is no such thing as renewable energy, it’s kind of fitting that the very word greenies have coined is itself a lie. “
What an amazing load of crap –
““Both CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology are now focussed, not on climate research or
weather forecasting, ‘ UTTER TWADDLE- you’ve never had so much freely available climate info – did you have as much under the “stewardship” of “backwater” Kininmonth (now sceptic) LOL !
“The corrupting influence of government money and government control has destroyed the
spirit of open enquiry in Universities, CSIRO, BOM, the EPA, the government media
machine and most of the state departments of Agriculture, Environment, Forestry, Energy,
Planning and Resources.” OH Yes – it’ a major conspiracy. 1000s are affected. They’re ALL mad – except me. Funny how Viv doesn’t think there is no incredible corruption in the money trail of R&D Corporation dollars?
What puerile trash.
“The wheels are coming off.” HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Says Schillsbo – funny how the major journals are producing more than ever. Yes Schilly person – it’s the end. Hohohohohohoho !
And after every inquiry has vindicated the scientists. And after the paper actually apologised after “amazongate”.
“Post-Climategate, it’s become politically possible to criticize all sorts of ‘Green’ things.” HAHAHAHAHA ! What a hoot ! You read it here folks. But Hey Schillsy – Anthony Watts tells us he’s a bit of a greenie – he’s done the bulbs, the solar and the electric car. Get over to Wattsup and tell him to stop it. And he said he’s in favour of clean air and clean water too. Bloody greenie. Commie ! He’s even saved trees in hos town from development. Bloody treehugger ! Look out Schills you’ve been infiltrated.
AND AND AND
“Civilization is preparing itself to cast off the onerous yoke of the environMentalists!” GREENS UP 13% HAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA A
http://au.nielsen.com/news/200512.shtml
Tell us some more stories Uncle Schilly
Forbes is a goose.
Think how much research there has now been in the last decade on ENSO, IOD, SAM, STRI, cyclones etc.
Now weather forecasts. New weather computers. New weather models. New Doppler radar systems. More satellite imagery.
More public access than ever to data and systems.
Put on the duelling banjo record Viv. Yee haa !
There you go, folks.
Luke is against R&D. He’d rather have projects on the public dole that use crusty, inefficient technologies. And he considers research into the alphabet soup of climatological antics to be a good spend.
Believe it or not, there are greens and environmentalists who are honestly green and environmentalist. They just don’t use it for political cover to cloak unrelated schemes to dishonestly generate wealth.
Honest people generate wealth and welfare. Dishonest people go to the government begging for a vote to make them rich.
Scum, twaddle, fraud. 13% increase in green? That’s like 13% in organic farming. Half of that in pastures, and meanwhile near zero percent of actual farming.
Public access to data? Why would the fraudsters say in emails that they won’t reveal the data? If it’s public access, protesting is bizarre.
Other Ian, good point on ‘renewable energy’. Greengas creeps want to pretend they have a lock on the perpetual motion machine.
They openly deride thermodynamics, but their ‘science’ is nearly on a level with Democritus.
Oh well. As a wise man once said, ‘Against ignorance, the gods themselves strive in vain’.
(Gegen die Dummheit streben die Goetter selbst vergebens.)
That’s a Friedrich von Schiller quote.
” And after every inquiry has vindicated the scientists.’
Rubbish
It only seems that way because they were con jobs to start with.
What astounding arrogance, and what appalling contempt these people must hold the rest of us in, that they set up a boys club to review themselves, and then cant even comply with the Tof R.
They couldnt even comply with the requirement to keep proper records and hold interviews in public and be open and transparent in all respects
Don t worry, you poor darlings, our politicians will keep shelling our tax dollars to pay your bills, and protect your closed shop boys club.
Legally it fails.
http://opinion.financialpost.com/2010/06/06/legal-verdict-manmade-global-warming-science-doesn’t-withstand-scrutiny/
luke you dont believe the enquiries have been balanced do you?! the climate gate enquiry was clearly a con job and the evidence seems highly damming.
EG intersting link, i bet we never hear about it in the main stream media.
The warmist arguments are full of flaws, but it will require great effort to tip the propaganda machine on its head.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/04/nasa_confirms_natural_climate.html
Does anybody know if 1905 or 1926 was the beginning of a warm PDO?
David Archibald has a guest post over at Watts and I was surprised to find Norway ‘has been storing CO2 at the Sleipner gas field off the Norwegian coast since 1996, and more recently built another facility to waste money at Mongstad in 2008. Now comes a big whacking from the Sun.’
We may be in a little strife.
What ho,
Being exasperated with the repetitive drivel on ABC television (especially the ‘news’) I have taken, of an evening, to watching ‘Jeeves and Wooster’ on DVD. It has been suggested that P.G. Wodehouse is one of the world’s leading restorers of sanity. For those weary of climate change, refugees, terrorists, Julia Gillard’s hair dye, roof insulation, soccer, biodiversity, and renewable energy, may I suggest a nice dollop of Bertie Wooster? In the last episode, set in the 1920s, there was a wonderful punch-up between the storm-troopers of the far right, and the comrades of the Red Dawn (Clapham Branch). Nearly a century on, it looked reassuringly familiar.
gav,
The king tide was at 10.00pm at my benchmark and I was using a strong spotlight so I took no photos but I’ll get you one next summer when it will be mid morning.
I checked with Maritime Services and they said that the kt was around 15 cms below what they expected at their tide gauge.
At my benchmark it was a whopping 2 courses of blocks [40 cms] below.
GD,
Yes I’m a bit partial to PG. The ABC is certainly no comfort these days. Just about everything I watch or listen to results in me sending an email to A&CA [which is a complete waste of time].
This is a good cure:
http://abcnewswatch.blogspot.com/
I should add that the Maritime Services tide gauge only goes back about 10 years [if that] so they don’t know about the real world.
The AGW true believers are cheap dates. They actually believe that the inquiries to date reviewed the science and were designed to discover anything about climate.
The only things these whitewashes proved is that true believer faith is strong enough to let them eat offal, if the offal supports their faith, and call it caviar.
Spamglo,
Yes, NewsWatch is a bit refreshing. Has anyone drawn their attention to the inane use of photos of power station cooling towers as visual ‘evidence’ of global warming? Or that astounding photo of cracked mud, sometimes with a sheep’s skull? If not, should I give it a dash?
Sorry Spanglo – slip of the finger, as the archbishop said to the actress.
Hockey stick! What hockey stick?
http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0133f2387065970b-pi
Scandinavia is a standout.
Green Davey: OT, but I agree with you re Bertie Wooster & Jeeves. Did you ever know Sir Stewart Gore Browne? I did, briefly, have you seen his lifestory in The Africa House? He was of course a terrific if unsung environmentalist.
Tim, I did not know him personally, but knew of him, including his penchant for nude tennis. His African name was ‘chipembere’ (rhinosaurus), due to his large nose. Despite his overt support for African rule (early member of UNIP), I believe he was murdered by ‘freedom fighters’. I assume his castle has now returned to the bundu, like Angkor Wat (?). Is The Africa House a website?
Apologies Tim,
I have just read about Chipembere. According to the article, he died of pneumonia. Perhaps history has been tidied up a bit, or perhaps I am getting confused with another farmer who lived near the Congo border.
This looks more acceptable, but I’m not totally convinced.
1900-1925 COOL – PDO NEGATIVE
1926-1946 VERY WARM – PDO POSITIVE
1947-1976 VERY COOL – PDO NEGATIVE
1977 – 2007 – VERY WARM – PDO POSITIVE
2008 – COOL – PDO NEGATIVE
This is more accurate: 1890-1925 – VERY COOL – PDO NEGATIVE
el gordo,
I’ve always understood 1910 to be the bottom of a cool phase w/w so guess where the BoM commences our historic recorded temperature? and discards all the previous data.
With the last [approx] 30 yr positive it will be interesting to see what develops. Until last summer, all those country Qld dams that Joh built 30-odd y ago had hardly had a drink.
We are due for a deluge or two.
Well Malcolm – hate to say but when a slew of inquiries come up with the same answer – maybe the answer is the answer. Perhaps you’d like to keep going till you get the answer YOU want? The odds are Malcolm they just hate sceptics – and that’s all it is.
Schiller – what a ridiculous rant even for you. I simply said green votes are soaring in Aussie polls. So contrary to your assertions the green side is being joined. I didn’t say whether that was good or bad. Just a statistic. SO your style has convinced them old son. Your redneck Klu Klux clan style. Don’t blame me.
And what ho chappies – Moncky roasted – and he’s done his nana by the looks – don’t watch or you’ll all turn to stone.
http://www.stthomas.edu/engineering/jpabraham/
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/monckton_is_wrong.php
Will it be “what-ho darkie” for Schillsy
spangles
I agree, they seem to think nothing happened before 1900, so I will look further back.
Franco Biondi et al. says the PDO weakened in the late 1700s and mid-1800s. ‘A comparison with proxy records of ENSO suggests that the greatest decadal-scale oscillations in Pacific climate between 1706 and 1977 occurred around 1750, 1905 and 1947.’
It’s obvious 1905 is still a strong contender
Greg Pederson and colleagues at Montana State University say from 1770 to 1790 and again from 1800 to 1830, the PDO was in positive phase.
A weakened PDO in a Dalton Minimum?
They came up with the same answer you dope, because they used the same flawed and shonky processes.
If the answer is the answer, then intelligent people would have used a process that was credible, defendable and transparent from the start, but with shonkademics the logic is in the reverse. How do we defend the ramparts so that those pesky external Auditer Generals etc dont get inside our walls and uncover what naughty boys we may have been.
Whats that about justice must not only be done, but be seen to have been done.
Normal standards of accountability dont apply in the hallowed halls
So you’d like a kangaroo court then Mal – so many people on the take – such a massive global conspiracy – all the science academies – all the major institutions – excuse me while I adjust my alfoil hat
Isn’t it time those of the warming persuasion accepted the null hypothesis on CO2?
http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/EPA_Submission_RClark.pdf
Luke
“so many people on the take – such a massive global conspiracy – all the science academies – all the major institutions ”
Why do you think this to be so unimaginable?
Forget global conspiracy!!!! that is just crap but the rest? Oh yes!
Wouldn’t you protect your job, specially when you actually believed in what you were saying even if the proof was a bit iffy?
Now, about that back radiation…..
http://claesjohnson.blogspot.com/2010/07/collapse-of-climate-physics.html
Weeeellll maybe – it’s theoretically possible – but good scientists are like herding cats. And disagreeable.
Protect your job – LOL – actually many people leave to make “some real money”.
I wouldn’t argue money – if you want to try something go for “group think”.
You could argue the Harvard disease of managerialism dumbs things down. Is upper management political?
And the sceptics only have themselves somewhat to blame – aligning with a general anti-environmental ethos. So it almost becomes a fight for “truth” against forces of darkness.
Remember the excellent commentary by Kerry Emmanuel on why AGW seems leftist. If it were rightist we’d have nuclear power by now. Indeed Emmanuel sheets this home to the greens.
excerpt from http://e-courses.cerritos.edu/tstolze/Kerry%20Emanuel_%20Phaeton‘s%20Reins.pdf
“….Especially in the United States, the political debate about global
climate change became polarized along the conservative–liberal
axis some decades ago. Although we take this for granted now, it
is not entirely obvious why the chips fell the way they did. One
can easily imagine conservatives embracing the notion of climate
change in support of actions they might like to see anyway.
Conservatives have usually been strong supporters of nuclear
power, and few can be happy about our current dependence on
foreign oil. The United States is renowned for its technological
innovation and should be at an advantage in making money from
any global sea change in energy-producing technology: consider
the prospect of selling new means of powering vehicles and
electrical generation to China’s rapidly expanding economy. But
none of this has happened.
Paradoxes abound on the political left as well. A meaningful
reduction in greenhouse-gas emissions will require a shift in the
means of producing energy, as well as conservation measures. But
Kerry Emanuel: Phaeton’s Reins 08/23/2007 05:16 PM
http://bostonreview.net/BR32.1/emanuel.html Page 21 of 22
such alternatives as nuclear and wind power are viewed with deep
ambivalence by the left. Senator Kennedy, by most measures our
most liberal senator, is strongly opposed to a project to develop
wind energy near his home in Hyannis, and environmentalists
have only just begun to rethink their visceral opposition to
nuclear power. Had it not been for green opposition, the United
States today might derive most of its electricity from nuclear
power, as does France; thus the environmentalists must accept a
large measure of responsibility for today’s most critical
environmental problem.
There are other obstacles to taking a sensible approach to the
climate problem. We have preciously few representatives in
Congress with a background or interest in science, and some of
them display an active contempt for the subject. As long as we
continue to elect scientific illiterates like James Inhofe, who
believes global warming to be a hoax, we will lack the ability to
engage in intelligent debate. Scientists are most effective when
they provide sound, impartial advice, but their reputation for
impartiality is severely compromised by the shocking lack of
political diversity among American academics, who suffer from
the kind of group-think that develops in cloistered cultures. Until
this profound and well documented intellectual homogeneity
changes, scientists will be suspected of constituting a leftist think
tank.
On the bright side, the governments of many countries, including
the United States, continue to fund active programs of climate
research, and many of the critical uncertainties about climate
change are slowly being whittled down. The extremists are being
exposed and relegated to the sidelines, and when the media stop
amplifying their views, their political counterparts will have
nothing left to stand on. When this happens, we can get down to
the serious business of tackling the most complex and perhaps the
most consequential problem ever confronted by mankind.
Like it or not, we have been handed Phaeton’s reins, and we will
have to learn how to control climate if we are to avoid his fate. …”
Who said anything about Kangaroo courts .
Why would it be a Kangaroo court for, if there were independant people involved, and there was in fact high degree of transparency and openess.
Why would it be a Kangaroo court when say, police were not allowed to investigate themselves etc
Gte out into the real world and do something useful ..you and your mates might find it enlightening
Handing out rifles to CAGWers… now there’s a scary thought.
– Culling farting feral animals could curb carbon, Pew says. Herald Sun, July 14, 2010,
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/lifestyle/the-other-side/culling-farting-feral-animals-could-curb-carbon-pew-says/story-e6frfhk6-1225891569720
CULLING the feral animals that burp and fart their way around Australia’s outback could eliminate billions of tonnes of carbon emissions, an environmental group says.
“When feral animals belch they release methane, a particularly noxious greenhouse gas, and every single camel or water buffalo releases the equivalent of around one tonne of carbon dioxide each year,” he told reporters in Canberra.
“When you’ve got hundreds of thousands, in some cases millions, of these feral animals, it’s a very large amount of pollution each year.”
Google climate map offers a glimpse of a 4C world
The Guardian (UK)
July 14, 2010
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/jul/14/google-climate-data
A new interactive Google Earth map was developed using peer-reviewed science from the Met Office Hadley Centre and other leading impact scientists.
Using a map that was first launched by the former Labour administration in October 2009, the coalition government has taken temperature data from the Met Office Hadley Centre and other climate research centres and imposed it on to a Google Earth layer.
Deforestation of the Amazon, failure of crops in Northern Africa, half of the Netherlands under water… yeah, that ‘peer-reviewed’ claim is a real attention-grabber! Gads, this is so terribly lame…
It’s just weather news.
http://www.theweathernetwork.com/news/storm_watch_stories3&stormfile=jaspersnow_13_07_2010?ref=ccbox_weather_bottom_title
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/07/climategate-and-the-big-green-lie/59709
“At best they are mealy-mouthed apologies; at worst they are patently incompetent and even wilfully wrong. The climate-science establishment, of which these inquiries have chosen to make themselves a part, seems entirely incapable of understanding, let alone repairing, the harm it has done to its own cause.”
The closed shop boys club at its best.
…and on the say so of these and other bumbling pompous incompetents we are supposed to stuff up economies and put thousands out of work to achieve an outcome in 50-100 years time, that in Australia, would not be detectable.
So who do you think would be independent Malcolm ?
And put up the top 3 allegations that PROVE there is systematic corruption in the science. That’s corruption in the science as opposed to giving faux sceptics the finger.
1…..
2…..
3……
Nippy news from across the gap.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10658655
And let the parodies begin.
I take great offence to the fact that somehow academics are allowed to review themselves covering an issue that in ANY other domain would have to be undertaken by independant people, being open and tranparent… which none these inquires this far have been..and that is the authors contention as well.
Is that corruption or just plain incompetence ?
Obviously people around the world believe that they are being conned.
But in any case here are 4 warmist crooks for you, identified at this very informative site
http://antigreen.blogspot.com/
One could also safely add in Gore and Pachauri as well.
Not a pretty picture when added all together is it.
In any case the Americans seem to be suffering from terminal stupidity on another front at the moment, proving that incompetence and ignorance means anything is possible….and even more so when palms are greased as is most likely.
If this is possible, given the enormity of what had transpired on 9/11, then anything is possible.
Golly gee – I’m bloody upset that someone has upset Mal.
Now pls put up the top 3 allegations that PROVE there is systematic corruption in the science. That’s corruption in the science as opposed to giving faux sceptics the finger.
1…..
2…..
3……
I have given you six reasons as to why it is highly likely, or cant you cant either.
Plus I have never claimed that there is systematic corruption…
….but they cant show by their boys club approach to things that there isnt.
Thats why there is the phrase about ” justice being seen to be done.”
Given the history of law and justice in Qld I can undesrtand why you would be having trouble with that quite basic concept.
Luke,
Allegations don’t PROVE. That’s why they’re called allegations.
Sheesh.
UK summer predicted to go off the boil.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1294726/Will-40-days-rain-blight-UK-Gloom-horizon-wet-weather-forecast-St-Swithins-Day.html
As the AO flounders.
http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/daily_ao_index/ao_index.html
Susan Watts speaking in the aftermath of the Russell-Muir fiasco: ‘And another key finding in today’s report – if scientists use computer software, they should release their source code as well as their raw data.’
FREE THE CODE…FREE THE RAW DATA!
Green Davey: “The Africa House” is Christina Lamb’s biography of Gore-Browne (some of us unfairly called him Sir Stewart Gore-Blimey); I met him and his driver Henry at dinner with Theo Bull in Salisbury in 1960, and I knew his daughter Angela’s husband Basil Bell in Zanzibar in 1971, not to mention Dick Hall, Sir Roy, KK and Harry Nkumbula who all figure in the book (the latter got to LSE thanks to G-B). His other daughter Lorna & her husband took on the mansion and estate when her father died in 1967(it’s not far from where David Livingstone died), but it was more less abandoned without being ransacked, amazingly, until one of Lorna’s children began to restore it in just the last few years. G-B was way ahead of his time in what is now Zambia with his complete lack of feelings of racial superiority and his work for African advancement, recognised when KK gave him a State funeral. Question, was G-B related to Al?
Apologies for OT except for last query!
el gordo
“should release their source code as well as their raw data”
That is neither necessary nor desirable, a lot of work can go into coding, depending on the task.
I used to do a lot of it early in my carrier, and I would certainly be reluctant to give away some of my work for free to anyone.
Some I did as an open source contributor.
The thing with source code is that most of it is reusable and sometimes your work will be used in other’s commercial apps.
Raw data most definitely!
And if there is a problem with recreating the same outcome, then one can ask specific questions about the methods used.
All code produced under that tax payers shilling should Open Sourced and placed in the public domain creative commons licenses etc
Australia is miles behind the pace in doing this, including having a national policy of Open Source.
Europe, UK, USA, Tunisia, Uganda and Malaysia etc are miles ahead of us.
What is so very interesting is that when Bill Gates is spending his billions earned from being a proprietary software king…he insists that any medical research produced, for AID’s etc, must be freely available to others.
Mojib Latif (top modeler with the IPCC) made a stunning revelation earlier this year, that “a significant share of the warming we saw from 1980 to 2000 and at earlier periods in the 20th Century was due to these cycles – perhaps as much as 50 percent.”
It’s old news but the PDO is king in my book.
So where does the heat come from (and go) El Gordo?
Malcolm – in broad terms I agree and you would pleased to know that despite the Qld police and bananas the Sunshine State is leading the way in creative commons licencing. Howzat !
However – all this costs big bucks to put up full public access. Would you like on-line access to petabytes of raw satellite information. Some will be free – some will have been purchased under licence of course. Like Spot Image ain’t free.
And what about commercialising IP which our CSIRO management friends tell us is next to Godliness. So if we had the home wireless code in public domain CSIRO would not have made its $100Ms from US IT giants would it? The Aussie taxpayer would be worse off.
Isn’t research supposed to be profitable?
I guess you’ll qualify with all should be open source if collected by government on public good (see environmental) issues. I agree. But it will cost ya. Accountability costs big bucks.
I do wish Jen would start the blog again; just imagine, Jo and Jen; that would be a formidable pair of book-ends against the AGW scripture.
So where does the heat come from and go?
It comes from the sun and 80% is absorbed by the oceans. Kevin Trenberth says we can’t find it at the moment, but he thinks it might be lingering in the Arctic and melting the ice. This whole CAGW mess will come back to haunt him one day.
http://www2.ucar.edu/news/missing-heat-may-affect-future-climate-change
cohers
I second that.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704075604575356611173414140.html
…and on it goes …whatever happened to integrity, public duty and proper accounting of public funds.
and what was that about being exonerated.
“I do wish Jen would start the blog again; just imagine, Jo and Jen; that would be a formidable pair of book-ends against the AGW scripture.”
Me too!
Have a go at this test, I of course got 10 out of 10. http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/GlobWarmTest/start.html
I concede that co2 is a ghg and should normally increase temp a bit, but at question 6 the Berner and Scotese graph shows an ice age some 450m years ago when co2 levels were more than 10x the present level. How can this be?
Ladies, gentlemen and Luke, I present the new hockey stick!
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01679/google-earth2_1679237c.jpg
Ditto to Paul Willams and ditto to Neville
Neville – the young faint Sun paradox – so to work out the greenhouse effect the first number which I’m sure you remember is the amount of radiation entering the atmosphere. If that’s lower – well CO2 will have less effect. Very basic.
AND – what were the configurations of the continents – e.g Pangea –> Laurasia, Gondwana – so whole ocean circulation and land feedbacks would have been very different.
It’s not comparable to today.
Excuse me Malcolm but was that article written by the fair and independent PATRICK J. MICHAELS – barf !
Gee I’m surprised he would say that. Must make it true then.
Drool Schillsy – very drool.
The faint sun does not compensate for the much higher levels of CO2 or the great variations in temperature.
Says who!
Luke
Here’s an early example of where the earth received less sun and didn’t become a snowball. CO2 was of no consequence.
http://www.labspaces.net/102985/Early_Earth_absorbed_more_sunlight__no_extreme_greenhouse_needed_to_keep_water_wet
By now, we all have read about how ‘Climategate’ has revealed the inability of climatologists to communicate effectively. You know, about how climatologists convinced the world that it was on the brink of doom, and we had to give up access to energy at reasonable cost, and open our wallets for over $1 trillion a year for carbon credits.
OK, so not a communication failure at all.
Nonetheless, the climate whitewash inquiries criticized the Hockey Team for not communicating. OK, so far, so good. As Umberto Eco points out, fascists have an incredible tolerance for contradicting themselves.
But there is yet another development: the IPCC telling climatologists to avoid contact with the press! Yes, that’s right, folks, back to the stonewalling/’communication’.
IPCC to Scientists: Shut Up!
National Post
July 15, 2010
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/07/15/ipcc-to-scientists-shut-up/
The July 5th letter, written by IPCC Chairman Rajendra Pachauri to hundreds of scientists preparing the IPCC’s next mammoth report, expected to be published in 2013, stressed the importance of managing the media through the IPCC’s PR department:
“I would also like to emphasize that enhanced media interest in the work of the IPCC would probably subject you to queries about your work and the IPCC. My sincere advice would be that you keep a distance from the media and should any questions be asked about the Working Group with which you are associated, please direct such media questions to the Co-chairs of your Working Group and for any questions regarding the IPCC to the secretariat of the IPCC.”
One might be suspicious enough to entertain the notion that this bit of advice is directed at Jones, Trenberth, and Hulme, who have been caught making some unfortunately reasonable remarks which could endanger research funds.
El Gordo – that’s Ok as CO2 mustn’t have been high says the article. Can’t have it both ways.
Have to smile Schillsy: “Fascist” – An adherent of fascism or other right-wing authoritarian views
I think you mean neo-Marxists. Aren’t you guys are the fascists.
http://www.economist.com/node/16537628
Pity about the Economist saying exactly the same thing then, isnt it Luke.
..and there are plenty of others
Like I said, whatever happened to integrity ..and of course the notion of being exonerated is just more distortions and exagerrations from shonkademia.
Good article from the Bolta on the climategate whitewash.
At the bottom see reference to a new book by AFR science editor and journalist Mark Lawson.
The book is “A Guide To Climate Change Lunacy” –Bad Forecasting Terrible Solutions and Luke he has a science degree from Melbourne Uni.
The review of the book is scathing of both the projections and the personale invovled in this fraudulent industry.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/climatewash/
Luke,
You need to read up on Fascism and Marxism.
In lieu of you actually learning about what you discuss, I’ll just point out that Fascism is so extremely Leftist that it comes around on the Right wing. Being socially good, which is normally considered to be optionally ethical, becomes a government mandate with punishments galore. And government, in concert with industry, becomes the instrument to enforce elitist mandates that force wealth into preferred categories.
Marxists are into the big economic re-distribution thing. In the context of CAGW, it’s where the developed nations pay money to developing nations to not develop. Instead of development, we would have billions of humans embroiled in a welfare society.
The Fascist/Marxist hegemony is vastly apparent in the CAGW movement.
And you, Luke, have near zero wiggle-room for disclaiming an affinity with either of these stunningly discredited movements.
We can’t win ,it seems that the extra co2 has acteed as a coolant on a much weakened Thermosphere.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/15/earths-thermosphere-collapses-film-at-11/
Video is now available of the Guardian Climategate debate with Monbiot as moderator and featuring gentleman Steve McIntyre.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/15/video-guardian-climategate-debate/
luke says: ” El Gordo – that’s Ok as CO2 mustn’t have been high says the article. Can’t have it both ways.” No you can’t have it both ways; CO2 levels were orders of magnitude higher and coincided with colder, warmer and similar temps than today. You just haven’t got an open mind about this point luke; you need to have a good hard look in the mirror and readjust your thought processes [sic]
So that’s your citation ! (Cohers – trust me – pers comm)
Historical level of CO2:
http://earth.geology.yale.edu/~ajs/2001/Feb/qn020100182.pdf
CO2 and temperature:
http://www.junkscience.com/images/paleocarbon.gif
Solar variation over time is by this formula [from James Kasting] for TSI as a fraction of the present day value:
1/(1 – 0.38*t/4.55), where t is the number of billions of years from now, negative for in the past. So:
75.0 % at 4 Ga (billion years ago)
80.0 % at 3 Ga
82.7 % at 2.5 Ga
85.7 % at 2 Ga
88.9 % at 1.5 Ga
92.3 % at 1 Ga
93.0 % at 900 million years ago (Ma)
93.7 % at 800 Ma
94.5 % at 700 Ma
95.2 % at 600 Ma
96.0 % at 500 Ma
96.8 % at 400 Ma
97.6 % at 300 Ma
98.0 % at 250 Ma (~Paleozoic/Mesozoic boundary)
98.4 % at 200 Ma
99.2 % at 100 Ma
99.6 % at 50 Ma
Snowball Earth:
http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/shaviv-veizer-03.pdf
oooo – you cruel beast Cohers – but I think we need a better cite than “junk science”
Anyway – do the MODTRAN next … and put it all on one graph
Meanwhile – still waiting for the ice age – June 2010 a record
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/?report=global&year=2010&month=6&submitted=Get+Report
Has anyone noticed that Luke & Co. suddenly have very little to say about what they dubbed ‘Leake-gate’? Luke himself was quite fond of it, to the point of touting it as irrefutable evidence of his unassailable opinions.
Why the deafening silence?
Because Leake was right, after all.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100047574/north-reports-the-press-complaints-commission-to-the-press-complaints-commission/
http://www.eureferendum.com/docs/amazongatepcc02.pdf
The multi-billion-dollar international denial machine that surrounds and defends the corrupt, inept IPCC will be further embarrassed when the entire sordid chain of events becomes widely known.
http://multi-science.metapress.com/content/q56572583672g02p/
What would be the channces of anyone getting funding for research along these same lines here in Australia from the normal sources like the ARGC.
A big fat zero. Not even worth bothering about.
OTOH one could try Griffiths University ..they dont care were they get money from, including Saudi Arabias Wahhabi tainted dosh, and all the bagage and obligations that would would carry..thats quite is OK with them.
What a joke its all becoming.
Some incredible work by Dr frank Lansner at the Jo Nova site about giss use of land temps in the NH to replace some of the frozen sea temps.
He estimates that an extra .134 c of temp could have been added to the trend.
Let’s hope that he has the time to have a look at the SH as well.
BTW I see Cohenite gets a mention at the bottom of the article as well.
http://joannenova.com.au/2010/07/did-giss-discover-30-more-land-in-the-northern-hemisphere/#more-9450
Luke
This must be the thin edge of the wedge.
‘Guizhou (southern China) had its coolest June on record.’
Pathetic Schiller – I’ve answered you before – the Amazon science papers exist ! The end.
But what will be most excellent is some FOI-ing of sceptic scum.
http://solveclimate.com/blog/20100706/attorney-general-cuccinelli-under-investigation-climate-probe-greenpeace
A whole new ball game.
Cuccinelli under investigation by Greenpeace.
Well there is the epitomy of enlightentment and balanced reasoning if ever there was
No conflicts of interest there at all….oh no.
To quote your own words back at you ..BARF
It would be good if your puppet masters at climatariat central actually did something right for once.
Of course Cuccinelli wouldn’t have any vested interests either ! Barf !
No sanctuary for faux sceptics either. Start deleting your emails boys and girls.
So ” Operation Push Back ” has begun..bring it on sunshine.
No doubt you will do your bit from the security of the Public Service somewhere, like all the rest of them.You are obviously well connected into the climatariat because you have been threatening this for some time. Part of the puppett master briefing sessions was it.?
I like the odds though… common sense and reason up against the combined resources of one huge Federal Dept in Canberra, 7 state agencies, one huge central research organisation, countless university bolt holes, and an army of NGO greenoids. All up, thats about $1bn.
No vested interest anywhere in that lot at all…. no not a skerrick… and all under the control of the same class of dumboes who cant even run a simple thing like an insulation program, or, a building program, never mind handle a tax policy of real import..god forbid how they would go with something as complex as climate.
Up against what ..a gaggle of self funded retirees on blogs.. you know the type that pays their own way …But I guess the odds are only fair, we dont want to stretch the poor dears too much.
It really is just not fair being asked to do the job you are paid for, properly and above board and also having the courage to speak up, when you see things that are not right.
I really feel sorry for them.
PS: They, whoever they are, can have my emails anytime they like, as long as I can have Gore,Pachauri, Hansen et al.
At least I would learn how to make some money out of this scam..the way they have.
Steve Goddard has an interesting post up at Watts, looking at temperature anomalies. Moving on from that discussion, apart from a unusually cool Australia, notice the stream of cool air from Canada to Mexico.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=44664
UK Met Office spokesman Barry Gromett said: ‘It will be as hot as the previous heatwave and could be even hotter. It is oppressively hot on the Continent now and we are on the edge of that hot air.’
Damn! Didn’t see that coming. Might be safer to forecast climate change.
Luke,
Things becomming naturally dryer in SE Australia?
“Until now, much of what was known about drought of the past decade had been based on
instrumental climate records, which in eastern Australia, extended back to the 1800s,”
explained Dr McDonald. “Given natural climate variability, 200 years is insufficient to capture
the true variability of moisture patterns in SE Australia.”
http://www.aesc2010.gsa.org.au/PDF%20Documents/Media/6%20July%20Tues_Rainfall.pdf
Spanglers – pretty interesting – I’ve been waiting for the results on this for some time. But would like to see the data (well time series) and a paper.
Malcolm – “You are obviously well connected into the climatariat because you have been threatening this for some time.” – nope. More verballing.
Pays your own way? Laugh – what ? – built on how many years of “tax minimisation”.
Malcolm – see what has just happened to Moncky when facts get checked out thoroughly. Have a whopping Royal Commission. I know who will come up looking stinky.
Our ABC is softening its views, ever so slightly.
Janece McDonald from the University of Newcastle says the stalagmites show the south-east has been particularly dry for the last 150 years.
Dr McDonald says in that context the recent drought is not unusual.
“What it is showing is that we have had a lot of change in the last 1,000 years,” she said.
“That the last 150 years are not representative of what has happened over the last 1,000 years.”
My guess is that it was wetter during the LIA in south-east Australia.
Luke,
I seem to recall you ridiculing me for mentioning this before.
Also….
“I’ve answered you before – the Amazon science papers exist ! The end.”
Where abouts is that?
The IPCC are always happy to quote those dubious advocates WWF and Greenpeace as much as possible.
http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2010/07/12/14690796.html
” No sanctuary for faux sceptics either. Start deleting your emails boys and girls.
What is that but a threat in the context of the Cuccinelli saga, and threats by Greenpeace
The bone heads on Luke desk ought to get their act together as they are in effect accusing themselves of verballing.
Richard North looked at the Amazon papers Luke is referring to, and found that none of them supported the IPCC Amazon claim.
Climatology is, fundamentally, the logical/mathematical construction of human perceptions. So, if you see a graph that ‘looks like’ CAGW, you construct a logical/mathematical model that explains CAGW.
Climatology is not alone in using such an approach to ‘science’. Since 1979, meteorologists have been using a ‘heat index’ to quantify what current conditions ‘feel like’ to the average human.
The seminal work in this ‘field’ is titled, ‘The Assessment of Sultriness’. The simple version: multiply temperature (as measured in the shade with a dry bulb) by relative humidity (%), multiply that by 1.9, and add ten. That is the temperature if ‘feels like’.
An ambient ‘feels like’ heat index of 172 F has been recorded. A ‘well done’ steak has an internal temperature of 160 F, so we can conclude that an index of 172 F ‘feels like’ you are not only dead, but also cooked well beyond what is palatable.
Notice that the ‘simple’ heat index equation looks quite objective — but there are two ‘fudge’ factors — 1.9 and 10. The equation is sublime, but the result is ridiculous.
The take-home message: quantifying subjective impressions can yield bizarre results, both in climatology and in meteorology.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_index
This is like a red rag to a bull, so I expect Luke will be beside himself with rage.
Former NASA researcher, Dr Ferenc Miskolczi, talks about a ‘greenhouse constant’ of 1.87.
‘Despite the 30 percent increase in CO2 in the last 61 years, this value has not changed. The atmosphere is not increasing its absorption power as was predicted by the IPCC.’
http://kirkmyers.wordpress.com/2010/07/17/miskolczi-destroys-greenhouse-theory/
El Gordo,
There is a stark difference between the work of Miskolczi and the work of the hockey team.
In climatology, one has a choice of measuring phenomena, or, of modeling human impressions of trends in a manner redolent of natural science, but is in fact an idealized and circular representation of those subjective impressions.
If that point isn’t immediately apparent, consider the relevance of the theme: how the IPCC assigns percentages to notions of ‘likely’, ‘possible’, etc. They are quite simply trying to quantify ‘what looks like’.
It takes no stretch of the imagination to see the IPCC in its idle hours quantifying the artistic merits of the Mona Lisa, in comparison to the Venus de Milo.
Let me remind you of the origin of “Luke desk cabal”. Mott is true lying fashion made it up as a wedge tactic. Given the pre-disposition of faux sceptics to love conspiracy theory – you bought it, you loved it, and it spread everywhere. Which goes to the heart of your judgement, ability to assimilate evidence, and to assess motives.
You’ll notice Luke “desk” never really cares who are … if you were perceptive you would also notice that Luke desk does not advocate for government policy or positions. Strange given Mottsian spin?
It’s always been about the science, a fair assessment of that science in terms of risk, and the disgusting methods of faux sceptics.
“There is a stark difference between the work of Miskolczi and the work of the hockey team.”
ummmm – like publishing anywhere serious. Oh that’s right – I forgot – it’s a conspiracy.
“Climatology is, fundamentally, the logical/mathematical construction of human perceptions.”
Oh I get it – should I knew I was confusing winter with summer and floods with droughts. Makes perfect sense now now that Schiller explains it.
“An ambient ‘feels like’ heat index of 172 F has been recorded.” yes – used outside it’s range. Does the index work most of the time in my normal conditions is the question !! Do muggy days of high humidity and moderate temperature feel most uncomfortable?
And what is this – Schiller using neo-Marxist Wiki as source? OMIGOD
It’s odd that CAGWers know so much about conspiracies and ‘big money’.
Likely because CAGWers are in a big money conspiracy and suspect the ‘other side’ of doing the same. Normally, an academic/intellectual set of arguments would not include these elements.
There’s a boundary condition that triggers investigation in other areas. When the adherents of one particular position discard the facts, and go for the ad hominems instead, you can be sure that ulterior motives are at work.
Normally, having the facts on your side are good enough. When that’s not good enough for others, that means they’re not really involved in factuality.
There exists in the skeptic community an inability to believe that CAGWers would lie, or distort the facts. There is a compulsion to believe that the ‘other side’ is being honest in its claims/prevarications. This is the Achilles’ heel of skeptics. Skeptics persist in believing that it’s a difference over facts and their interpretation, and that the ‘other side’ is interested in the same thing.
One need merely to look at the population of lawyers, who advocate, and do other things, to be unsurprised that lawyers might have analogues in the $billion$ CAGW community.
You think it’s about science, but they are just trying to sell windmills and solar panels.
The problem with skeptics is that they’re arguing about things the CAGWers don’t care about.
If you’re not trying to sell ‘renewable energy’, or demanding degradation of human welfare, you’re a bad person. The only remaining question is how bad of a person you are.
Factual claims are quite beside the point.
El Gordo – still hard to say
Reconstructing annual inflows to the headwater catchments of the
Murray River, Australia, using the Pacific Decadal Oscillation
GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 36, L06707, doi:10.1029/2008GL037049, 2009
Hamish A. McGowan,1 Samuel K. Marx,1 John Denholm,2 Joshua Soderholm,1
and Balz S. Kamber3
1School of Geography, Planning and Environmental Management,
University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
2Snowy Precipitation Enhancement Research Project, Snowy Hydro
Limited, Cooma, New South Wales, Australia.
3Department of Earth Sciences, Laurentian University, Sudbury,
Ontario, Canada.
Results presented here show the PDO to be a robust
indicator of the hydroclimatology of the headwaters of the
Murray River. …….. Using the Shen et
al. [2006] PDO record we have modeled inflows to the
headwater catchments of the Murray River back to A.D.
1474. These show penta-decadal and quasi-centennial
cycles with lowest inflows toward the end of +PDO phases.
Lower frequency penta-centennial variability may also
occur, although this remains equivocal highlighting the
need for longer PDO/inflow records. Interestingly, inflows
during the past decade are far less than the lowest of the
modeled inflow record for the previous 529 years. Whether
this reflects a global warming signal on the hydroclimatology
of southeastern Australia is unknown…..
As you can see – the hydro are concerned about inflows….
They then advocate more work with local PDO indices for each river system. The Wombeyan Caves being a prime example – albeit not Murray River headwaters which is what I’ve been banging on about.
Remember the case for AGW driven STR-I, SAM, IOD influence on south-eastern Australia is built not so much the drought extent/extremeness) – but can you explain the changes in the above factors without greenhouse forcing.
El Gordo – you now know probably more about all this than Tim Flannery !
More UQ work – http://www.uq.edu.au/uqresearchers/researcher/mcgowanha.html?uv_category=pub
http://www.uq.edu.au/uqresearchers/researcher/mossp.html?uv_category=pub
And some work from the Darling Downs
http://eprints.usq.edu.au/6407/ see Lake Broadwater paleo especially
Interesting… Luke desk says Wiki is neo-Marxist.
We can treat that as an authoritative opinion. Luke desk would know.
http://climateprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Lewis_S_Times_PCC_Complaint_As_Sent1.pdf
Balch, J., D. Nepstad, P. M. Brando, L. M. Curran, O. Portela, O Carvalho, Jr., P. Lefebvre. 2008. Negative fire feedback in a transitional forest of southeastern Amazonia. Global Change Biology 14, 1–12, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2486.2008.01655.x
Brando, P., D. Nepstad, E. Davidson, D. Ray, S. Trumbore, P. Camargo, P. Moutinho. 2009. Drought effects on litterfall, stemwood production, and belowground carbon cycling in an Amazon forest: results of a throughfall reduction experiment.Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. B doi:
Merry, F., B. Soares-Filho, D. Nepstad, G. Amacher, and H. Rodrigues. Balancing conservation and economic stability: the future of the Amazon timber industry. Environmental Management DOI 10.1007/s00267-009-9337-1 DOI 10.1007/s00267-009-9337-1
Nepstad, D., B. Soares-Filho, F. Merry, A. Lima, P. Moutinho, J. Carter, M. Bowman, A. Cattaneo, H. Rodrigues, S. Schwartzman, D. McGrath, C. Stickler, R. Lubowski, P Piris-Cabezas, S. Rivero, A. Alencar, O. Almeida, O. Stella. 2009. The end of deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon. Science 326: 1350-1351.
Nepstad, D.C., C.M. Stickler, B. Soares-Filho, and F. Merry. 2008. Interactions among Amazon land use, forests and climate: prospects for a near-term forest tipping point. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B. doi:10.1098/rstb.2007.0036
Nepstad, D., C. Stickler, O. Almeida. 2008 Managing the tropical agriculture revolution. J. Sustainable Forestry 27 (1-2): 43-56.
Nepstad, D., A. Veríssimo, A. Alencar, C. Nobre, E. Lima, P. Lefebvre, P. Schlesinger, C. Potter, P.R.d.S. Moutinho, E. Mendoza, M. Cochrane, V. Brooks. 1999. Large-scale impoverishment of Amazonian forests by logging and fire. Nature 398: 505-508.
Nepstad, D., D. McGrath, A. C. Barros, A. Alencar, M. Santilli, M. C. Vera. 2002. Frontier governance in Amazonia. Science 295:629-630.
Nepstad, D., I. Tohver, I., D. Ray, P. Moutinho, G. Cardinot. 2007. Mortality of large trees and lianas following experimental drought in an Amazon forest. Ecology 88(9): 2259-2269
Nepstad, D., S. Schwartzman, B. Bamberger, M. Santilli, A. Alencar, D. Ray, P. Schlesinger, A. Rolla, E. Prinz. 2006. Inhibitation of Amazon deforestation and fire by parks and indigenous reserves. Conservation Biology Vol. 20(1): 65-73.
Stickler, C.M., D.C. Nepstad, M.T. Coe, D.G. McGrath, H.O. Rodrigues, W.S. Walker, B.S. Soares-Filho, and E.A. Davidson. 2009. The potential ecological costs and cobenefits of REDD: a critical review and case study from the Amazon region. Global Change Biology 15:2803–2824
Luke,
Nice list of citations.
Now, tell us, which paper says that 40 percent of the Amazon forest could become savannah with a reduction in rainfall.
With all the other Lukes at your hive-mind disposal, you will surely come up with the actual paper.
HAHAAHAHAHAHAhaha
You can’t!
Well Turdkettle – that was quick reading wasn’t it?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2373903/
Do rightist filth tanks pays your way my little fifth columnist?
And may we see all your emails?
Anyone who doesnt take all legal means to minimise their tax is just plain dumb..so it comes as no surprise to me as to the authorship of the attempted slur..as above.
As Kerry Packer famously said in Senate inquiry..he is totally opposed to giving Canberra any more than he should ..they will only waste it.
Luke,
What paper was that? Surely there’s at least one. You know. One paper, which can’t be found in that list you offered.
One paper. That’s all. Forty percent, rainfall, CAGW, Amazon. Dude, you know you want to cite it. Come on… You need, you want, that paper. Surely you can find it.
OK people, move on, nothing to see here. The dog ate Luke’s paper, it’s all gone, the 40 percent paper is nowhere findable
Malcolm – as I suspected.
Yes sorry Schiller – it was 55% above.
I also enjoyed
Science 6 March 2009:
Vol. 323. no. 5919, pp. 1344 – 1347
Drought Sensitivity of the Amazon Rainforest Phillips et al.
Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2008 May 27; 363(1498): 1857–1864.
Published online 2008 February 11. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2007.0028.
Towards quantifying uncertainty in predictions of Amazon ‘dieback’ Huntingford et al.
You’re a clown Schiller. Schiller who pretentiously squeaks “there is no evidence in the literature”
Squeak, squeak.
Luke
Thanx for those UQ links, I will browse them and find something to support my theory.
You have got to be bloody joking.
Are you trying to tell the world, that you are happy to pay more tax than you are legally obliged to.?
If so, that blows your credibilty right out of the water. No rational thought processes going on there at all.
You and Rudd have more in common than just coming from Qld.
OTOH, I bet his wife doesnt subscribe to your ridiculous principles.
Luke,
Thanks for admitting the IPCC had no paper supporting the 40% Amazon claim.
You’re almost becoming honest. Keep working at it.
luke, that Nepstad et al paper about the Amazon is not a support for the IPCC allegation; Nepstad say:
“approximately 55% of the forests of the Amazon will be cleared, logged, damaged by drought or burned over the next 20 years, emitting 15–26Pg of carbon to the atmosphere.”
This is different from what the IPPC claimed at Chapter 13 of the IPCC’s Working Group II report on “climate impacts”:
“up to 40 per cent of the Amazonian forests could react drastically to even a slight reduction in precipitation”.
You are comparing land use process to predicted effects from AGW. That is mischievious of you; what a rascal you are; the connection between the Nepstad paper and the IPCC report is explained by our good friend Mr Booker:
“The only source cited for this claim was the Global Review of Forest Fires, a paper written for WWF and the International Union for Conservation of Nature in 2000, the lead author of which was an environmental activist and freelance journalist. This in turn appeared to cite a paper published in 1999 by a team led by Dr Daniel Nepstad, “senior scientist” with another advocacy group closely linked to the WWF, the Woods Hole Research Center. However, Nepstad’s paper was primarily concerned not with climate change but with the impact of logging and fires.”
You are a scallywag luke.
Not in the slightest boys:
(1) what do you think causes fires – mmmm might it be dry vegetation and drought
(2) is there a significant body of peer reviewed (yes doesn’t mean you have to like it) literature that puts the Amazon at risk – yes
From Phillips et al …
“Fast-growing, light-wooded trees may be
especially vulnerable to drought by cavitation or
carbon starvation (7, 29–31), and consistent with
this, trees dying during the 2005 period had
lower wood densities than those dying before.
In 25 drier-than-average plots with dead trees
identified, trees recorded as dead in 2006 were
5% lighter than in previous censuses [mean
wood density of dead trees fell from 0.60 to
0.57 g cm−3 (P = 0.02) (20)]. Apparently, Amazon
drought kills selectively and therefore may
also alter species composition, pointing to potential
consequences of future drought events on
the biodiversity in the Amazon region.
Our on-the ground
data reveal that, despite apparent
“greening up” during dry periods (13, 14),
Amazon drought accelerates mortality over large
areas (Fig. 2B) (20).”
The newspaper knowing what they’d done apologised. Can’t have it over again – sorry !
You’ve apologised as you were WRONG !
THE END !
You lot could not lay straight in bed. IPCC could have referenced better. But that’s it.
BTW Mal – most tax minimisation by the rich is tax avoidance in moral terms – and the richer you are, the more opportunities you have. The middle class objects isn’t prepared to pay more tax for your lowly taxed life of tax dodging funded retirement – hard working souls don’t have tax “minimisation” schemes ! (rhetorically speaking of course as I’m sure Mal you would be a pillar of virtue).
Looky: everything in that link of yours to the seriously economical with the truth Nepstad et al & their sponsor (the eugenicistsWoods Hole) on the Amazon is pure moonshine, with not a shred of observational evidence, and total disregard that even if the whole of Amazonia was replaced by savannah, the latter absorbs more CO2 perennially than the moribund mature trees of Amazonia.
Kerry Lonergan on ABC Landline today said that this winter was one of the best ever food production seasons.
Good general rainfall, good crops. [sparing on irrigation]
http://www.abc.net.au/landline/content/2010/s2950365.htm
Today’s report may not be up yet.
Apparently a big drought in Russia has pushed the wheat price up. [or maybe it’s the weak TSI]
More left wing socialist nonsense from the Luke dope.
It really puts it all into context now doesnt it… a shiney arsed pube from Qld lording the roost over others on the basis of whether in his judgement, people who are being responsible enough to ensure that they only pay the amount of tax they area obliged to pay, are morally wrong for doing so.
I wonder what all those under SES contracts, for example think about it. Listen up fellas this tosser thinks you are morally wrong to minimise your tax when under contract …
Minimising tax is not just available to the so called rich but everyone in business.
Credibility….? zero.
I love this article by Lawrence Solomon – it clearly demonstrates the bias in climate change.
Lawrence Solomon July 17, 2010 – 4:12 pm
The planet is experiencing “a summer of swelter,” states a front-page story in today’s Globe and Mail that provides us with anecdotes of the upshot, such as “more than 1000 Russians have drowned in the last month trying to escape record temperatures.” The Globe then speculates that one cause of the worldwide heat wave could be “the ever-shrinking size of the world’s ice caps.”
First, the Russians. The Globe might have told us that they drown in droves every year, disproportionately in the summer months, and the Globe might also have told us why. “The majority of those drowned were drunk,” explains Vadim Seryogin, a department head at Russia’s Emergencies Ministry. Last year, when 3000 Russian drowned, one analysis of drowned Russian males found that 94% had been drunk.
Perhaps the heat caused Russians to drink more – the data is not yet in – but most don’t need heat to drive them to drink. According to a study last year published in the British journal, the Lancet, alcohol was responsible for the deaths of about three quarters of all Russian men, and half of all Russian women, aged 15-54.
Next, those “ever-shrinking” ice caps, of which this planet has two. The ice cap in the southern hemisphere, in the Antarctic, has been growing steadily since the 1970s, especially so this summer. The ice cap in the northern hemisphere, in contrast, did shrink temporarily over the last few months, after having expanded temporarily earlier in the year, and it is now expanding again. On balance, Planet Earth now has slightly more ice than usual, according to the most recent data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. It shows the Arctic to have 1.379 million fewer million square kilometres of ice while the Antarctic has 1.404 more.
“Ice reflects sun and when you melt it, the Earth absorbs more heat, which causes further melt back, which causes more warming,” Danny Harvey, a climate researcher at University of Toronto, told The Globe. “So when you lose ice, it means we’re in big trouble.”
So, when we gain ice, as the Earth is now doing, does it mean we are we safe and sound? The Globe didn’t ask, and Harvey didn’t answer.
Read more: http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/…#ixzz0u0K9SwvG
spangles
The worst drought in 130 years makes it a climate story.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/dd3bbe82-8ff8-11df-91b6-00144feab49a.html?ftcamp=rss
The Canadians also had devastating floods, which should see the price go even higher.
That link didn’t work too well, this one says they have large stockpiles of wheat and there is nothing to worry about.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-07-14/wheat-drops-as-stockpile-estimate-outweighs-concerns-over-russia-drought.html
At this rate I will be voting for a sceptic in the Senate and a donkey in the Reps.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/07/17/2956698.htm
Tim does the old shoe shuffle. Forgets to mention the massive one-off emission from clearing. Pullease !
Malcolm – why should I subsidise tax minimisation. Sod off. It’s not about socialism at all. It’s about taxing the crap out of the middle class. It’s about capitalising gains and socialising losses by the rich – is this what you’re on about. You’re about to experience a whole new generation of voters who aren’t going to cop it.
You dont have clue what your are talking about..stick to being serial abuser after all thats what you good at..all the rest is humbug.
John,
In Rome it was bread and circuses, in Russia it’s vodka, bread and circuses. We’re all headed that way.
Was it Harry Secombe that said, “Drowned from the inside”?
Perhaps a raw nerve for Malcolm? Too close to the truth perhaps?
http://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=19980
US Government Halts Funds For Climate Unit
Jonathan Leake, The Sunday Times (UK)
18 July 2010
http://www.thegwpf.org/climategate/1262-us-government-halts-funds-for-climate-research-unit-cru.html
http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/Environment/article348120.ece (subscription)
The American government has suspended its funding of the University of East Anglia’s climate research unit (CRU), citing the scientific doubts raised by last November’s leak of hundreds of stolen emails.
The US Department of Energy (DoE) was one of the unit’s main sources of funding for its work assembling a database of global temperatures.
It has supported the CRU financially since 1990 and gives the unit about £131,000 a year on a rolling three-year contract.
This should have been renewed automatically in April, but the department has suspended all payments since May pending a scientific peer review of the unit’s work.
A spokesman for the DoE said: “The renewal application was placed on hold pending the conclusion of the inquiry into scientific misconduct by Sir Alastair Muir Russell.”
The DoE peer review panel will now sift through the report and decide if American taxpayers should continue to fund the unit.
The big question: What will they do when they discover that Muir Russell did not investigate scientific misconduct?
Schiller
Funding should be stopped until they find a new crew for CRU, who will return the blip to its rightful place in the scheme of things.
Tom Wigley to Phil Jones: It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still left with “why the blip”.
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=1016&filename=1254108338.txt
El Gordo,
I have to wonder why the US is financing British scientists. Supposedly, NOAA etc. are ‘independent’ of Hadley CRU, yet both have a common source of funds.
If the Brits aren’t funding US scientists, I would say that another hard look at NOAA etc. is warranted.
NOAA etc. are now the subject of a lawsuit regarding correspondence, etc. as the aftermath of 3 years of NOAA etc. stonewalling requests.
Hopefully there is an honest cog in the enthusiastically financed CAGW machine.
Negative gearing is but one element of the legal and fully authorised tax and investment systems in this country. It has it positive side as well.
Further, if you had even an ounce of awareness you would realise that the ATO has no difficulty with people minimising their tax by lawful means. Any one doesnt do so is just dumb.
Further still, its a big assumption on your part that all self funded retirees, who number in the many thousands, if not hundreds of thousands are currently engaged in negative gearing… but one thing is certain they dont need the services of Centre Link..which was why the Govt set up the system in the first place.
..and to think dumboes like you fancy yourself as being at the forefront of climate science analysis and have the ear of the climatariat..
God help us.
The other day I mentioned the Arctic air reaching Mexico, at the same time we have SH cold reaching Brazil.
http://www.wane.com/dpp/weather/temperatures-plummet-across-argentina
Not sure how unusual all this is, so I will reserve my judgement.
Someone struck a nerve at the Luke gang, apparently.
Nothing like a little panic to make punkass sock puppets try to fill a board with their lies.
Luke, no matter how many of pretend otherwise, you are losers and you lost.
You chose to be sleazey little offal spewers pimping apocalyptic claptrap, and now your lies are carrying you down.
Go ahead the fill the board with crap that doesn’t actually say what you cling to, and hope that by sheer volume you can make what isn’t, real.
I notice that since most skeptical sites, unlike AGW pimp sites, the hosts are open minded and tolerant people. I notice that at nearly every site some foul mouthed sock puppet troll nearly always metastasizes into what Luke has here; a parody of all that he claims to be fighting.
Good luck, Luke. You are just another never wuzzer blow hard.
What Ho,
What do you chaps think of Farhad Manjoo? If you haven’t heard of him, try Wiki. He has suggested we are now in a Post-Fact Society. This is actually an old philosophical idea, that we humans tend to create a model in our mind, than seek ‘facts’ to support it. Sometimes we are not too choosy about the source of our ‘facts’, or may (subconsciously?) choose to ignore those which don’t fit our model.
I first encountered Farhad through an article by Tim Ball. I was seeking information on termite production of methane. This was after I set fire to a termite mound (Coptotermes acinaciformis) on my property, and it burned for three days, like a mini-volcano. Ripping fun – but did I add to CAGW, or diminish it?
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/20986
P.S. Tim Curtin – I liked KK, but not some of his mates, such as Simon Kapwepwe. Harry Nkumbula was okay when sober, which was not often.
That’s the spirit Hunter – I agree !
“sleazey little offal spewers pimping apocalyptic claptrap” = “foul mouthed sock puppet troll ”
I know you’re angry. Have long have you felt this way?
el gordo,
“Tom Wigley to Phil Jones: It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still left with “why the blip”.”
Been out birding today since early, in the real world of the “lost world” [back of Lamington] and just read that email again. [ I mention my activities because they tend to crystalize one’s thoughts]
If the world [and three enquiries] can’t see the fraudulent agenda behind this crap then there is no hope for us.
You are sadly right SD; this is a response to a constituent query about AGW:
“Thank you for your attached email regarding the article in the Surf Coast
Times about State Government appointing new “Climate Communities
Facilitator” for the Barwon South West region.
I wish to inform you that I am not debating this issue with you. Climate
Change is real and the science is rigorous and irrefutable.
Thanking you and I have noted your concerns.
Yours sincerely,
MICHAEL CRUTCHFIELD MP
State Member for South Barwon
Parliamentary Secretary for the Environment and Water”
Mad.
cohers,
Is it possible to bring a class action against any level of govt and require them to demonstrate factually how climate is changing any more than normal and if they cannot do this then to publicly announce that they cannot, so that all can see that they do not have genuine, honest policies?
At least the US DoE is a wake up.
As per Schiller’s earlier comment:
http://www.thegwpf.org/climategate/1262-us-government-halts-funds-for-climate-research-unit-cru.html
spangles
That’s a novel approach, but we only have four weeks to convince the electorate.
el gordo,
Yeah, 4 weeks to save ourselves from this draconian garbage:
http://bnp.org.uk/news/climate-change-scepticism-could-soon-be-criminal-offence
My god what is the world coming to.
They surely must be joking…it’s a criminal offence to be sceptical!!!!!
That will go in my files with headings: How our systems of Govt are failing us, and/or
How we are truly being run by village idiots.
A few bon mots:
“You don’t need a weatherman to tell which way the wind blows” according to Bob Dylan. You don’t need a PhD to read the writing on the wall. If you gathered the worlds greatest experts on tile chips you could get endless reports on the base clays, the ceramic coatings and information on the firing methods and none would notice the mosaic. With each new chip the AGW mosaic is getting clearer.
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=3751
Malcolm,
Hansen has been pushing for similar for some time. Like Lysenko who used to make all the real scientists in the Soviet Union applaud his scientific fantasy or take an extended holiday in a Siberian gulag.
“I do not support the government going out there and making consumers pay a price on carbon,” Tony Abbott said.
“One thing is for sure, if this government is re-elected there will be a carbon price. It will be a high one and it will impact on everyone’s standard of living.”
It’s a simple approach and the political strategy is sound. It should work, because of the hip pocket nerve. Australians are naturally sceptical and will vote accordingly.
“Criminal offence to be sceptical” – do wank on guys ! Brought to you by the anti-EU white supremacist national front. Ya sure ! I read it on the internetz Mum ! OK self-funded retirees get back to your talk back radio shows – ring in and BE REALLY ANGRY.
Luke,
You guys spew more and worse as a matter of daily fare.
And as for criminalization of skeptics, your gang of punks have been calling for it for a long time.
The inspiration behind your desperate attempt to bury posts is just another expression of the stages of mourning you are going through as AGW falls apart.
Those whitewashes aren’t holding up too well, are they?
5,400 posts, and it turns out we’ve wasted all that time and effort.
According to the United Nations, biodiversity is a way bigger issue than climate change.
http://www.postchronicle.com/commentary/article_212312516.shtml
– by the author of ‘Green Power, Black Death’.
http://www.eco-imperialism.com/main.php
A stunner:
New Scientist, long regarded as pro-warmist, observes that all the Climategate inquiries quite pointedly avoided looking ‘at the quality of the science itself’, and concludes:
Without candour, public trust in climate science cannot be restored, nor should it be.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20727692.900-without-candour-we-cant-trust-climate-science.html
Another stunner:
Remember how the Royal Society initially denied supplying Oxburgh with Hockey Team papers to review, and Oxburgh himself didn’t know who selected them?
It turns out, Phil Jones helped select the papers!
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2010/7/18/more-on-oxburghs-eleven.html
What are the odds that the CAGWers are as competent in climatology as they are in whitewashing? It bears mentioning that whitewashing and hogwashing are highly related, largely overlapping, disciplines.
Fantastic news, schiller. Now all we need is for the msm to follow suite, especially our ABC.
Is it true that Gavin has recanted?
And a CAGW warrior passes away.
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/19/the-passing-of-a-climate-warrior/
El Gordo,
De mortuis, nihil nisi bonum.
My condolenses to Stephen H. Schneider’s family.
… a Stanford University climate scientist who for decades built the case that global warming, while laden with complexity, justified an aggressive response, has died.
If you need evidence to prove how corrupt and fraudulent this AGW industry really is you only have to look at the recent enquiries post climategate.
Here we’ve had scientists caught red handed trying to hide or delete data, conspiring to stop other scientists from publishing their work and demanding that others delete emails before their real purpose and dishonesty reaches the public domain.
All of the above is true but they have been cleared of any serious offence, plus the enquiries didn’t really look at the science behind the whole corrupt mess.
Now to top all that we have the revelation that one of the chief fraudsters helped one of the enquiries in the selection of which hockey team papers to review.
This is definitely an in house corrupt whitewash added by a corrupt msm, Luke must over the moon with joy thrilled with the level of deception.
Well said Jen and Schiller.
A shame John Daly didn’t get similar from UEA.
It is a shame for Dr. Schneider. I wish his family well.
Cold weather anomaly in Argentina a repeat of 2007.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-10679088
http://sppiblog.org/news/climate-change-scepticism-could-soon-be-a-criminal-offence
Can it get any sillier.
And still the climatariat in this country, and overseas, remains silent.
God protect from the ignoramuses that pass themselves off as academics.
Is it they who should be made criminally liable for their actions and their silences..Not Sceptics.
It’s only weather, but Charlotte Pass was far and away the coldest location overnight, not only in NSW, but the entire country. The mercury there dipped to a glacial -20 degrees! This is the coldest it’s been anywhere in Australia since 1994. It was also the third coldest temperature ever recorded.
el gordo,
gavin has at least stopped complaining about the warm Canberra winter.
Haven’t heard from him for a while. Must be out cutting firewood.
“A man who cuts his own wood is thrice warmed”
http://www.mapleroad.com/atticjournalJan2000.htm#warmed up
Are AGWarmers getting more desperately desperate or what?
http://pgosselin.wordpress.com/2010/07/19/die-welt-earth-could-become-like-venus-875%C2%B0f/
SD; from that Venus piece:
“Due to its thick cloud cover, only 20% of the solar energy reaches the planet’s surface. This 20%, however, cannot be radiated back into space because of Venus’s dense atmosphere, and thus leads to enormous heating of the planet.”
If this were true the temp on Venus would still be going up; it’s been stable for eons; Science of Doom has run a couple of good Venus pieces; the issue: does the atmospheric pressure contribute to the heat; after about 1000 posts from the creme de la creme of the blogverse the answer; who knows.
James Hansen is an expert on Venus. He knows.
Apropos of NOAA and the CAGWers (would be a neat name for a band) touting June 2010 as the ‘hottest on record’, we have this news to ponder:
175 people killed in South America cold spell
Trend News
July 20, 2010
http://en.trend.az/regions/world/ocountries/1723309.html
Thousands of cattle also froze to death on their pastures in Paraguay and Brazil. There are no stables for the animals as temperatures usually do not drop that low.
Several regions in Bolivia and Peru closed schools until the end of the week and larger cities opened emergency shelters for homeless people.
Electricity and gas networks are operating at capacity limits in many of the affected regions. Argentina reported natural gas shortages in several provinces.
The poorest population groups are worst affected by the cold spell with their homes poorly equipped to deal with the cold, lack of heating and access to health care.
This news is of course in error since it disagrees with the NASA GISS model which shows the region is a ‘hot spot’.
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2010/01/08/ghcn-gistemp-interactions-the-bolivia-effect/
The Venus dodge is one of my favorite dodges of the AGW promoter crowd.
It is ridiculously laughably ignorant, it is disproven for decades, yet it persists, like UFO abduction stories or trilateral commission fantasies.
Nothing says circular, empty, non-rational arguments like trotting out assertions that Earth could ever be like Venus.
The MetSul Weather Centre said the polar air reached the tropics and temperatures dropped to 7ºC in towns in the Amazon Forest in the states of Acre and Rondonia. Temperature even fell in Roraima, where the state capital Boa Vista record 20C (normal lows are 25C) and the wind was blowing from the South.
‘Boa Vista is located at 2º North of latitude, so the influence of the Antarctic cold blast crossed the equator and reached towns in the Northern Hemisphere. It would be the same if a cold snap from the Arctic crossed the entire North America continent, the Caribbean and reaching North Brazil in cities at 2º South of latitude as Santarem, a bizarre situation.’
Hunter,
I really enjoyed that remark about climate change and UFOs.
And then I thought, you know, I bet somebody has actually linked the two somehow. I went googling, and this was the first hit:
UFO Technology Could Provide Climate Change Solutions: Former Canadian Defense Minister
UFO Digest
February 26, 2007
http://www.ufodigest.com/news/0207/climatechange.html
Relating to climate change and extraterrestrial civilizations’ advanced non-polluting technologies, Hellyer said:
“What I want is what a lot of the members of the Exopolitics Institute want, is to try and make contact and say: ‘What can we learn from you that will help us save our planet, save our civilization, reduce some of the disparity between the wealthiest people in the world and the poorest, and give us more abundant life for everyone here.”
“The financial stakes couldn’t be higher, but they still pale in comparison to saving the planet for the benefit of future generations. There is no doubt that the adjustment in moving away from oil dependency would be unprecedented. But it doesn’t have to be accomplished
overnight… By international agreement it could be done over 10, 20, or even 30 years, and that would be fast enough to save the planet from disaster.”
There you have it. We urgently need that alien technology.
Wait — could it be that we are using alien technology? Do the aliens use windmills to make electricity?
Probably not. It looks more like aliens are against windmills.
UFO damages Lincolnshire wind turbine
The Register
8th January 2009
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/01/08/ufo_turbine_prang/
If only we could get everyone around Australia to read Bolt’s facts about the green maniacs before they cast their vote on Aug 21st.
I should add that it takes two maniacal groups to swap preferences, so just what have the labor maniacs promised the greens after the election?
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/column_the_green_plan_to_kill_your_job/
Freedom is in grave peril when delegated democracy makes it possible to cast votes on who shall become rich.
schiller
Talking of UFO and all that, I have found a psychological parallel. Crop circles turn-up every summer in Britain and they appear more complex than the average human could manage.
So the authorities should convince the public that Jack and Fred are making these works of art or we will assume they are of extraterrestrial nature.
Likewise, the authorities have to convince us that humans are causing CAGW or we will assume it’s just natural variability and (as sure as night follows day) it will get cooler soon.
The onus is on the authorities, but unfortunately they are not in the mood to think outside the square.
Red is high pressure and blue is low pressure, here you can see the polar air sweeping into South America.
http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/intraseasonal/z200anim.shtml
‘Just the Facts’ (over at Watts) thinks it might have something to do with the very positive AAO.
Interesting video ( 1977) about the coming ice age, let’s hope that we don’t see this happen in our lifetime.
BTW a young Stephen Schneider makes an appearance at the end of the video.
El Gordo – there is a new set of crop circles this year and yes – they are more complex.
There’s no way they are man made. An advertising agency set out to create a crop circle ad for a car and it took them 4 days yet these things have been recorded to appear in minutes.
I have yet to see a reasonable explanation for the occurrence.
This is the most spectacular – the butterfly crop circle insinuating we are about to morph into something new.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_4A9r9yKkkNs/SqItZMUuBOI/AAAAAAAAD_Q/qk0RorGsDfw/s1600/Netherlands%2BButterfly%2BMetamorphosis%2BTransformation%2BCrop%2BCircle.jpg
John
Yep, a couple of blokes from the local pub in the pay of Big Rupert didn’t do it, so from my perspective the science is settled.
Neville
How quickly we forget and seeing young Schneider in bell-bottoms was heart warming. Interesting to note that 1976-77 was the Great Climate Shift of the PDO to a warm mode.
‘It is now highly likely that the Pacific is in the early stages of a La Niña event, and that 2010 will be considered a La Niña year.’
BOM
There’s going to be so much noise that they will have trouble finding the CAGW signal.
The strong positive AAO seems to be indicative of cooler conditions in the southern hemisphere, while a robust negative AO brings cold NH winters.
http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/daily_ao_index/aao/aao_index.html
SD; apologies for being absolutely side tracked while the tour is on.
Stage 16:
http://www.pezcyclingnews.com/?pg=fullstory&id=8472
http://www.rbaction.net/Race-Reports/content/70/3465/Tour-de-France-Stage-16-Fedrigo-for-France,-Thor-Goes-Green.html
Ive been thinking, those pesky Euro summer temperatures seem well up this time round.
http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/n.php?n=bikinis-in-moscow-europe-wilts-in-heat-wave-2010-07-16
Not wanting to be left out, the Netherlands has organized its own Climategate whitewash event.
Are You Ready For The Third Hockey Team?
July 21st, 2010
http://sephari.nl/uncategorized/are-you-ready-for-the-third-hockey-team/
Friends and others,
Previous reports that the US Department of Energy was spending US$200k/yr were in error.
The actual amount is closer to US$1.5 million per year.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/21/us-doe-apparently-funded-cru-millions-not-200k-as-reported/
I sure would like to know the meaning of the line item ‘Staff buyout Jones 71,708.00’.
Also, it turns out, there’s over 300 papers published on climate, paid for by government money.
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/07/20/adfa/
Just when you think things can’t get worse for the CAGWers, they do.
Just imagine what we’ll find when Hadley CRU actually complies with the FOI requests. Everyone knows the ‘hacked’ etc. emails, code, etc. is not the complete set.
Here’s the DOE accounting for the U of East Anglia:
http://www.osti.gov/rdprojects/details.jsp?query_id=P/CH–FG02-98ER62601
“Second, the research team will seek to identify signals of climate change forced by the increasing concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases.”
Imagine them reporting the signals can’t be found. Right. Not when that kind of money is on the line. DOE was paying them to stay on the same page as NOAA/NASA.
Friends,
Here
http://gov-spending.solutionpipe.com/investment/3447-7-nnsa-llnl-mo-kp1206000-climate
it looks like the US DOE budget for ‘Climate Change Modeling’ jumped from zero in 2009 to US$340,000 in 2010.
In contrast, the 2010 budget at Oak Ridge National Laboratories for ‘A Scalable and Extensible Earth System Model for Climate Change Science’ is US$864,000.
http://www.osti.gov/rdprojects/details.jsp?query_id=P/ORNL–ERKP576
Reminds me of one of the Muir Russell findings: ‘They get so much money because their work is so good.’
Cohenite,
what is your take please on teh record warm that canada has recently experienced with avg winter temps 4.4c above norm and some areas as much as 7c. Is the lack of temp stations really a satisfactory explanation for teh excessive warm? I note the satellite data is also showing similar warmth?
It seems intersting that apparently the world had its hottest 12 months on record and yet i recall so many record cold and snow spells and i note a i saw yday here
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/17/northern-hemisphere-snow-extent-second-highest-on-record/ which doesnt really correlate with so much warmth? Luke and others pls feel free to also respond.
cheers all
Toby,
You never know which data were fudged, but NASA probably did not have a hand in this:
Kansas heat wave has killed 2,000 cattle: state
Source: Copyright 2010, Reuters
Date: July 20, 2010
http://www.climateark.org/shared/reader/welcome.aspx?linkid=174193
But: roughly at the same time, thousands of cattle in South America have perished from the cold.
http://en.trend.az/regions/world/ocountries/1723309.html
Is this the ‘climate chaos’ long foretold? Probably not. It’s the old IPCC adage: ‘We don’t know what’s causing it, therefore, humans are to blame.’
Schiller i am very sceptical of how reliable data is and how it is manipulated. But Roy spencer who i think deserves our trust has apparently done an audit of satellite data and this also shows a very warm winter. Yes it is “weather” just like your 2 extreme events above. But I am interested what cohentite and others think specifically relating to this extreme warmth , particularly given that thenorthern hemisphere was apparently very hot and at the same time had record( last 44 yrs) snow cover.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/17/northern-hemisphere-snow-extent-second-highest-on-record/
Given that we are apparently in a solar minimum and yet the last 12 mnths is likely very warm/ hottest , it certainly does raise questions. I know teh oceans store and release heat and may be responsible as could many other things. But if we continue warm while people like david archibald are suggesting we are going into a serious cooling period due to lack of sun spot activity it certainly does add some weight to co2 being the culprit. wouldnt you say?
Toby
Archibald says New Hampshire temperatures will decrease by about 2C over the coming decade. That is a fairly safe bet.
Most of the action will be in the mid-latitudes and it seems obvious the jet stream is responsible for a very hot Russia and a chilly Brazil. Abrupt climate change is natural and happening now, but most likely it will only be a repeat of 1946-76 and nothing to fear.
Excuse me for dropping this here again, it didn’t work last time and I hope this works.
http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/intraseasonal/z200anim.shtml
Toby, red is high pressure and blue is low and they are all talking about the polar air reaching Brazil.
Intersting link EG, presumably it shows why S America has been so cold and Europe is currently quite hot.
I have to say your comment that Archibalds predictions of 2c decrease over the next decade is a fair bet, would be rather dramatic and as a betting man, knowing how unpredictable weather is I would take the other side of the bet…not because i am in any way a believer in CAGW but rather because that would be a significant drop in 10 years. I m not sure how you can think it would just be like 1946-76? Temp did not decline by that extent at all..did it? Part of me hopes you are right…because it might just shut up the CAGW brigade, but I can t imagine it will be good for food production and those living in cooler areas, and economies which would in turn cause great hardship for millions/ billions.
http://sppiblog.org/news/the-satellites-are-missing
Sorry if someone has already pointed this out as I have been off line for while..doing other things
Seem that all is not well with the temperature records… still
toby, Canada and heatwaves:
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2007/04/09/canadian-heat-waves-declining/
http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/2005-09-09/trends.htm
http://www.john-daly.com/canadian.htm
This year has not been the hottest;
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1974
Here we go again!
Give us a break!
http://climatechange.thinkaboutit.eu/think2/post/iac_the_dirty_dozen/
Toby
Archibald is radical, basing his prediction on the length of solar cycle 23 and assuming the next couple of cycles will imitate the Dalton Minimum 1796-1824.
CO2 has risen by 4% over the past decade, yet temperatures remain stable and within the limits of natural variability. So if world temperatures drop by only 1 degree over the next decade, it should be enough to convince the average punter that CAGW is a ‘no brainer’.
There is a better than even chance that a large volcanic explosion in Iceland will dim things a bit and its social impact far worse than Pinatubo.
The third leg of the trifecta is a cool PDO and plenty of La Nina over the next 20 years, which will naturally dampen temps down.
The glorious uncertainty makes it all very exciting, but remains speculation for now.
Spangled,
Re your link to a litany of United Nations corruption, here’s a new wrinkle:
‘Deplorable and reprehensible’ UN boss savaged by outgoing aide
The Independent (UK)
21 July 2010
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/deplorable-and-reprehensible-un-boss-savaged-by-outgoing-aide-2031240.html
Wagons were being hastily circled around Ban Ki-moon, the UN Secretary-General, last night as top aides absorbed the shock of one of their own blasting him for allegedly thwarting attempts to combat corruption in the world body and leading it into a “process of decay” and “irrelevance”.
The damaging and highly personal charges were made by Inga-Britt Ahlenius, a Swedish auditor who until last week served as the UN undersecretary general of the Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS), which is meant to keep the fight against internal fraud and corruption alive.
See what happens when people refuse to whitewash?
The US Democrats are pulling the plug on their climate bill, because they don’t have the numbers. This should have an impact on the Australian election,
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0710/40109.html#ixzz0uRB94wsK
Schiller,
Don’t upset the gravy of world govenance.
I just hope a few of the main contributors scrutinize and withhold.
el gordo,
Thanks for that. I just sent that link off to my local fed labor MP.
Yesterday I sent him a detailed email as to why he should not support any ETS.
Spangled,
Those who lately have proposed global governance, explicitly or otherwise, are invariably liars and thieves.
For some reason, the notion is not attractive to those whose conscience is not hostage to greed.
The Krudd idiot meets Pat Michaels and first pleads personal ignorance and then resorts to the usual expletives, but not deleted.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/play_ball_labor_tells_rudd_or_else/
FYI, recent Washington Times editorial focusing on Abbot and Marohasy FOI climate paper:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jul/21/global-warmings-unscientific-attitude/
*********
EDITORIAL: Global warming’s unscientific attitude
Peddlers of phony scare stories are afraid to release data
By THE WASHINGTON TIMES
7:17 p.m., Wednesday, July 21, 2010
…In the current issue of the peer-reviewed journal Environmental Law and Management, Australian researchers evaluated the community of so-called climate scientists and found them to be “antagonistic toward the disclosure of information.” Professor John Abbot of Central Queensland University, a chemist and lawyer, and biologist Jennifer Marohasy studied the response of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia (CRU) and the Met Office – Britain’s national weather service – to various information requests. The most noteworthy of these was United Kingdom resident David Holland’s demand for the raw data underlying the infamous “hockey stick” graph that was published in the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessment reports. This chart was the centerpiece of the claim that the 20th century was the hottest in a thousand years. The stir that Mr. Holland’s request triggered among the scientists who worked on the report was captured in the Climategate e-mails…
Under the British Freedom of Information law, like the similar U.S. statute, information created at the public expense must – with limited exceptions – be made available to the public that paid for it. At first, the Met Office answered Mr. Holland’s request for data regarding a relatively uncontroversial chapter in the IPCC report. When he asked them for similar details regarding the hockey stick, the Met Office got around the law by claiming the data were “personal information” generated in the free time of the scientists involved. When this dodge failed to hold up, the Met Office began claiming that the records had been deleted…
Jennifer,
Marvelous write-up on an excellent paper.
I have to marvel, however, at how the Penn State investigation looked at some of the issues you examined, reached similar conclusions, and then took one more step: since this is the standard of practice and behavior for climatologists, the standard had not been breached.
Incredible.
Of course, one now has to wonder if your peer-reviewed paper will now be referenced as the benchmark for climatologist behavior, and thence be used to excuse what others regard as malpractice or fraud, in a more authoritative manner than before.
Thanks Schiller, and
Climate sceptic ambushes ex-PM
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/climate-sceptic-ambushes-ex-pm/story-fn59niix-1225895832913
A CLIMATE change sceptic followed Kevin Rudd into a toilet in Washington last week in the hope of flushing out the former PM on an ETS.
Well another lie that the climatariat like to peddle is nailed, with dagger through the heart.
http://sppiblog.org/news/partial-list-of-cru-funders#more-2219.
Given what they have tried to portray with great ferocity they have no credibility left… shonkademia are their own worst enemies.
Thx Cohenite, your first link about Canadian heat wave and max temps not really changing, does negate the “heat wave” argument, but is not really relevant to why last winter was so warm. It points out min temps have risen pushing up teh mean by 0.9c over the century. But doesnt really answer why the mean rose so significantly 4.4c. last winter..and that if it is true is pretty big change i would think?
The next link suggests that the winter record temps were not unprecedented. Do You think the PDO is sufficient explanation for this warm winter in Canada? Or are you suspect of the data due to fake/ favourable data being substituted in areas where they have removed stations and therefore created “grids” of extra heat? Or is it infact potentially something to be very concerned about? The fact that the satellite data apparently supports the hot winter seems to indicate it really was very warm last winter?
Your woodfortrees graph, is that for the world or just Canada? If for the world( and it looks like that from what is shown on the page) it is not really relevant to whether the spike in winter temp is genuine or not.
Cheers and thankyou for the links
Malcolm,
Nice list of funders. Gosh, being a ‘partial’ list — even though it’s huge — makes you wonder who was left out, and why. Good topic for a FOI request, I would think.
Turning to the matter of government funding, we now know the DOE dropped about US$ 1.5 million annually on Hadley CRU; but that’s a mere drop in the bucket for US foreign climate expenditures. And foreign expenditures are a mere drop in the bucket for the grand total of near US$ 80 billion in US climate funds:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/climate_money.png
(note: the graph is cumulative).
The skeptics/realists are ‘well funded by special interests’? It is to laugh.
Sadly Jen, Rudd does have a point when he says that all his scientists are telling him it is a pressing problem. What is the point of having all those scientists on the books if you do not listen to their advice (If you do not understand or investigate for your self to recognise that there is doubt and the consensus is not as overwhelming as his scientists tell him), then its hard to actually be surpsised he tried to act on the advice. Acting alone however is just plain stupid so his policy of action prior to copenhagen was very stupid politically and economically. ( Bugger moral action i say if teh its really just a platitude) Of course he should importantly have had cost benefit analysis done on adaptation vs action etc. To be fair he did do this, although once again I believe it is reasonable to be sceptical of the garnaut report and also the prior stern report which the uk govt sponsored ( I think they were very badly done). IT all seems to come back to trust and risk….excluding of course the politics. Cost benefit analysis seems to be a forgotten skill when it comes to policy formulation..think desalination plants, National Broadband, no dams etc etc….
I might add i can not stand rudd so its hard for me to try and support him, but i do try to be fair and balanced ( even if i am not!).
Great write up on your article, well done. Might be worth sending to people like Deltoid who keep running stories on how teh scientists are always vindicated and how squeeky clean CRU/ Hadley and East anglia have been.
Toby,
You can tell things are bad when your risk/benefit analysis relies critically on ‘who can you trust’. A whole additional level of analysis.
And obviously the whitewashers are doing nobody any favors in that regard.
Jen, sorry that last post is hard to follow. I guess my point was his experts were telling him to act on strong scientific grounds which as a non scientist he would rightly find hard to ignore. He should then have considered the economic consequences of acting alone whilst considering the actual benefit of action. Without global action an ETS would be economic suicide and this is where i think he was stupid to push for an ETS prior to copenhagen. Otherwise it was a mere politial platitude ( in not influencing actual global temp…its purpose)coming at significant economic cost. Fortunately the liberal party woke upand the rest is history….for now.
Yes Schiller, it is a can of worms. But if you are paying “experts” it must be very hard not to take that advice?….we may think its bad, but i doubt pollies actually have teh time or inclination or dare i say it in many cases intelligence/ critical thinking skills to even challenge the “truth”.
Toby,
It bears mentioning that in all the various factions involved in climatology, politicians will be drawn far more strongly than most by the notion of ‘a consensus’.
Presenting politicians with ‘a consensus’ in climatology could easily be viewed by them as being on a par with ‘winning by a landslide’. Siding with a minority view is as good as getting a minority of the vote, and what politician aims for that?
So it’s no wonder that ‘consensus’ has been so important to climatology. Politicians want consensus, and it was manufactured and delivered.
Schiller, all that you say there is true….never was a truer word spoken than churchills ” democracy is the worst form of government..except for or all the others that have been tried from time to time…” or something like that anyway!
It is why I think there does seem to be such a clear left/ right divide between CAGW believers and sceptics. Those on the left seem to generally believe, those on the right much less so. The left believes in controlling our lives for teh benefit of all and that the state knows best ( within reason) and is big on “consensus”. The right believes less control is good within reason and that self interest is overwhelmingly important. I am firmly in this camp. If I was convinced CAGW would hurt me or my family I too would want action and it would need to be “collective”.
personally i think there is an enormous amount of waste and lots can be done about this …we just need to educate people how and ideally provide a cost incentive. This sadly is the premise of an ETS / carbon tax. In principle it is sound, i just doubt the end result and with no global agreement they become merely a platitude.
I can t even get my family to turn off the lights or heating consistently, and god knows ive tried!….of course personal cuts will not create a huge change because its industry that is such a major contributor.
I do think it is interesting that many of we “sceptics” do try to reduce our “footprint” and indeed care deeply about the environment!
Toby
I followed what you wrote in both comments.
I was told the same thing by Greg Hunt when he was minister for the environment… he couldn’t believe me because everyone else was telling him something different.
We were both speaking at a function in Geelong. I replied by asking he simply consider the rainfall graphs that i was putting up on the screen. He said he couldn’t believe them because BOM had insisted to him/told him that there was declining rainfall. I explained to him, and the audience of a couple of hundred, that BOM could only say that if they used a start date of 1950s.
I showed him graphs from 1900 and from 1950 etcetera. Greg Hunt refused to compute what I was saying.
Surely they have a responsibility to think?
Toby let’s face it , the whole of the first world could reduce emissions just like the greens want and total emissions would still not go down because of China and India and the rest of the developing world’s increases.
The first world emissions have (on a per capita basis) been flatlining for years .
Jen, I certainly do think they do have a responsibility to think…sadly im not sure many of them actually know how to beyond short term politial gain. I do not know how you have gone at converting believers into sceptics, but i certainly struggle whenever i get involved in a blog of CAGW believers, or in a discussion with believers in everyday life.
Neville quite agree what we do will not change global emissions, doesnt mean turning off the lights and reducing wasteful activities is not not a sensible thing to do though?
I wish to nominate Jennifer Marohasy as one of the PMs 150 citizens, to discuss a matter of great importance, along with Carter, Archy and cohers, and that’s just for starters.
toby
You must have spent time at Deltoid, a very abrasive environment.
Yes EG, a good guess, i have wasted some time their this week, i did learn a bit but i dont think anybody else did!
My point remains though, how many believers have you managed to persuade…particularly ones who believe they are already well informed?..iv been trying for years at school here with science and geography teachers, some were already sceptical, but those who keep pushing the dogma and love a good cause have no interest in anything i say or send them…….but i keep trying!
And EG…I second Jen as one “our represenatives”..id like to see jo nova on the panel as well!
I shoudl say briefly in defence of deltoid whilst many had a “superior attitude” and a few comments were snide, mostly people responded with reasonable comments, even if i didnt agree with their conclusions or points. I didnt get a feling they were very open to dissent though!
El Gordo I agree Jen would be a good choice plus Jo Nova and many others to try and teach these people a bit of sense.
Toby I’ve cut back on my use of electricity every way I know how and try and think of improvements every day, so I agree we should all try and do our best.
Best thing is you save more money. Every time I look at white goods now I study the star rating and also noticed that LED TVs require a lot less power to run than LCDs and plasmas.
Welcome back Jen. Congrats on your thoughtful article.
This undirected theme is now far too long and contains trivial posts. Could you start a new theme please?
How about something on Miskolczi’s new peer reviewed paper in August 2010 Energy and Environment.
This can be downloaded by clicking on “paper” from the following site http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/07/miskolczis-death-knell-on-greenhouse.html
The blog article at http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/07/must-read-global-warming-alarmists-in.html is also interesting reading and worthy of comment.
I consider that hitting at the basics of technology is one of the most important ways of changing public opinion and with that the political direction. Economic analysis is also important to sink the “Green” agenda. Back in the 1980’s I was making cost comparisons about different forms of electricity production. At the time in Japan, Nuclear energy was about 30% more expensive than coal but almost on par with oil. The Japanese were installing Nuclear for strategic reasons to diversify supply. The fourth generation Nuclear stations being installed by the Chinese could well be lower cost than many assume beside being strategic importance. Australia should be considering Nuclear for all sort of reasons including acquiring and retaining the technical skills.
I consider that the public does not understand measurement, statistics, and the errors in measurements. They can be fool by short term figures but have enough sense to know about significant change such as sea levels, and rainfall.
Jen,
Good stuff! Never let ’em forget it.
BTW, the reply from my fed labor MP [for Forde] was: “The weight of scientific views is in strong support of human influence on climate change. While there are alternative views among a number of individuals, no scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on climate change”.
Is that true?
Interesting info today from a BOM SA scientist on the Victorian ABC Country hour show.
He stated that the transition from el nino to la nina now taking place was the fastest on record and should now bring more rain across (presumably) SA and Victoria.
Just wondered why this change over should be so fast, in fact the fastest on the record.
Jennifer,
It is great to see your posts again.
Neville I also look at the star rating…then i work out of if the yearly electricity saving covers the additional cost over the expected life time of the product. When it comes to LED vs LCD the cost does not warrant spending teh extra money ( currently..i bought a new flat screen a few mnths ago)…and unfortunately it doesnt with most things ( also recently bought a fridge and a washing machine). Our hip pocket is the best way to change attitudes and actions which is why in theory an ETS carbon price will cause change. Of course the reality is that unless everybody does ( globally) it nothing really happens….and thats on the proviso that co2 is causing our warming. Which as we believe is still debatable…..all of which are reasons why i do not support what in theory is a viable proposition.
toby
The Deltoid larrikins love the ad homs, nevertheless, they helped sharpen my arguments.
As for your comment: ‘those who keep pushing the dogma and love a good cause have no interest in anything i say or send them…….but i keep trying!’
Yeah, we have to get the msm to give us equal time, then reason will prevail.
Re Jennifer 23rd July 11.45
There was this comment on Steve Austin’s ABC radio interview with Lynette Ramsay Silver the other night
“The unpalatable truth is not a welcome ingredient in the making of myths”
Jennifer, congratulations on your paper; as your experience with Greg Hunt shows most lawyers are pro-AGW for various reasons, including easy bucks. The Journal of Environmental Law and Management is also fairly pro-AGW so it has been a major coup to get your article published there.
Jennifer said,
“Surely they have a responsibility to think?”
Why? They are politicians with agendas, if the facts don’t fit the agenda they are discarded.
It’s against the grain, but I almost wish the green or the independent in Flinders would turf him out.
Met him many times and frankly…
Cheers
A recent paper by Tol and Wagner – Climate change and violent conflict in Europe over the last millennium – puts to rest the notion that global warming will lead to conflict and war.
The authors say global cooling is a much greater threat to civilization in Europe.
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2010/07/22/not-warming-up-to-war/#more-439
This is insane. What’s beyond insane is that it’s published in Nature.
Climate change: Fatter marmots on the rise Marcel E. Visser, Nature 466, 445-447 (22 July 2010) | doi:10.1038/466445a; Published online 21 July 2010
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v466/n7305/full/466445a.html
Abstract
Demonstrations of coupled phenotypic and demographic responses to climate change are rare. But they are much needed in formulating predictions of the effects of climate change on natural populations.
Climate change is affecting natural systems, as is clear from the ample data on shifts in the seasonal timing — the phenology — of reproduction and migration, and in body size and species’ distribution ranges. Evidence that climate change is affecting population numbers is less abundant; variations in population size can have many causes.
———-
Does this suggest that climate change may have caused the human obesity epidemic? Will CAGW make us all rotund, cancerous diabetics?
Speaking of marmot news and glaring bias….
The publication New Scientist has its own interpretation of the piece published in Nature.
Here’s the introductory paragraph to its writeup, at
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn19207-baby-boomer-marmots-fatten-up-with-climate-change.html
The good times have been rolling for Colorado’s baby-boomer marmots. They’ve been getting fatter and their population has been swelling – but the news is not all good. The changes seem to be caused by the warming climate.
Did you see the sleight-of-hand? Lately, life is better for marmots, in a number of ways. But that’s bad, solely because it’s “linked to” global warming.
The obvious rationale of New Scientist is that anything associated with global warming is automatically, per se, and by definition, bad.
You would think that New Scientist would be inclined to hire persons acquainted with science journalism, or at least, persons with such credentials in an editorial capacity, but that appears not to be the case.
Just the other day some prat, the future king of England no less, accused me of being insensitive and greedy:
“It has been profoundly depressing to witness the way the so-called climate sceptics are apparently able to intimidate all sorts of people from adopting the precautionary measures necessary to avert environmental collapse. For too long we have treated the planet like a perpetual cash machine which doles out money without there ever being any need to check the bank balance. But now finally the money is running out.”
El Gordo,
That is truly amazingly hypocritical of Prince Big Ears. He and Gore are tarred with the same brush
Quite happy to lay into others but not interested one bit on leading by example.
At least he and Gore have one other thing in common..complete irrelevancy.
Hey Toby, my school is a country one and we have a fair mix of conservative and left leaning staff. As I AM the science faculty, I don’t get much opposition from anyone with any actual knowledge of the science but that doesn’t stop people from believing the CAGW crap anyway. I recently received an email with this info and had an anxiety attack!
Operation: Coolenation is an Education Resource for primary schools. It uses a diverse range of methods to help you present the science behind global warming and climate change, and the potential solutions to these issues. Operation: Coolenation aims to provide educators and students with the tools needed to become the change-makers the world needs to ensure a sustainable future – at school, at home and in our daily lives.
The complete Education Resource Pack contains the following:
»» The science behind climate change, the issues and the solutions in one easy-to-read resource
»» Easy to implement educational activities divided into lesson plan ideas
»» Interactive classroom activities
»» Special project – The Planet Pledges Challenge
»» Four A2 colour posters containing useful diagrams of The Atmosphere, Global Warming, The Water Cycle
and Elements of the Earth
»» Three sheets of motivational stickers
»» Four sheets of tip cards for the classroom
»» An original comic book entitled “Planet Saving Superheroes: Defending against Climate Change” featuring the characters Cyberwind and Aerogreen
»» DVD containing soft copies of the educational booklet plus a transport emissions estimator
The complete Education Resource Pack is available for $195 inc. GST
If you would like more information or to order your copy, call us on (08) 8237 9000 or visit:
http://www.coolenation.com
Operation: Coolenation is Carbon Planet’s award winning Schools’ Program.
I managed to talk to the relevant people at my school to make sure we didn’t get those clowns but I’m sure that most of you would find this blatant propagandising of our schools alarming.
Derek
Keep up the good work. Society will be depending on teachers of your calibre to explain to the youngsters (when CAGW goes belly up) the insidious connection of dodgy science and propaganda.
Derek, that is a scary compilation of propaganda for our young minds! In Victoria the australian education union now has its own CAGW propaganda dept. Thy have a vice president who is “available” to come around to schools and deliver the An Inconvenient Truth slide show prepared by our beloved gore.
When I heard I immediately emailed an invitation to the watts up with that tour, promising to pick her up and drop her back home. I also sent her a number of questions on a separate email, including pointing out the legal requirement to point out the errors if its being shown in the UK. I suggested the union might need to be prepared for a similar sensible parent to challenge the exaggerations and lies and i hoped they were showing something that indicated the significant areas of doubt.
I also asked if she had a better explanation for steve fielding’s questions, than the appalling attempt at good science presented in response by wong et al.
Reckon I got even an acknowledgement of my emails or invitation?
You guessed it nothing. I hope someone does challenge them
Don’t be alarmed, it’s just a Hansen adjustment.
http://zapruder.nl/images/uploads/screenhunter3qk7.gif
Curiously I’m also the union secretary at my school, which means that I get to go to branch meetings and hear what the AEU really thinks about Gillard. Up to the last SA state election there was open (within the meetings) hatred for both Gillard and media Mike Wran. That didn’t prevent them from all voting ALP anyway.
I should mention that although I subscribe to a belief in the idea of unionism, I am appalled by the level of corruption, political ladder-climbing and misuse of workers fees for partisan political ends. Not to mention criminal activity, well… the list could go on….
This all leads me in a totally ambiguous and convoluted way to a question; What was really wrong with Mark Latham?
When he was shadow education minister, I thought he had some excellent ideas and nothing that I have read in the biased MSM has provided any actual evidence to me that he is a “fruit cake” as the labor machine keeps telling us.
Could someone please enlighten me?
Derek,
He was like Tony Abbott, too honest and down to earth and nowhere near cunning enough.
Saw this a minute ago:
“The real world is muddy and messy and full of things that we do not yet understand. It is much easier for a scientist to sit in an air-conditioned building and run computer models, than to put on winter clothes and measure what is really happening outside in the swamps and the clouds. That is why the climate model experts end up believing in their own models.”
http://www.examiner.com/x-32936-Seminole-County-Environmental-News-Examiner~y2010m7d22-Global-warming-alarmists-in-full-retreat-lash-out-at-skeptics
Derek
From memory, in the end he turned on ‘the machine’ and they didn’t like the publicity. So they called him a ‘fruitcake’ instead of the more odious ‘party rat’.
Hi, everyone
Just thought I’d drop by to see what’s hangin’. The amazing staying power of Jen’s blog! It really is the best enviro blog ever. Congrats to Jen on her citation in the Washington Times. I hope her book (s) and research are going well.
Update on Luke sightings: He’s been trolling Jo Nova’s blog. I think he just got his bad attitude banned. But more to the point, I think Luke is losing it. He’s not his old self on top of his game. Sure, he was never into complete sentences, but now he’s slurring and getting all lachrymose, if that’s possible in a blog comment. I think he knows enough about the science to know it’s all over but like some Japanese soldier on an isolate Pacific atoll thinks he has to fight to the bloody end. He’s in denial. Ironic, no?
Sometimes I wonder if any warmist has ever been successfully deprogrammed? If not, then the mopping up operation is going to take the rest of our lives. And cost taxpayers another few billion dollar wasted on futile policies.
Well, good luck to everyone. I do miss the good old days. cheers, wes.
Yea Hi Wes – jeez they’re a rabid lot over there. I was just taking the piss. I thought I’d see if I could slip in denialist for the 2nd time and get away with it. But adding filth was too much for Jo. In the old days of course Motty would have put the boot back in even harder.
Wes you do know some big words – what’s lachrymose – and can you cure it with anti-biotics.
Anyway Wes – bored bored bored – nothing much happening at GRL, Coho’s gone all serious, Jen’s at the beach writing bloody philosophy, I had actually been lurking learning some stuff at more refined sights where one would not even think of being silly (which you never do of course). Still cruising the same sceptic red light districts I see. Chocking up on all the old political sophistry. So tedious Wes.
Derek, I had similar experiences at my schools union meetings. They were very vocal in their disgust for gillard and rudd. i am also a member of teh union becuase i wanted input when wage negotiations were going on. At the last meting held prior to gillard which was about the my schools web site and potential strike action, i made the comment that considering how appalling the current govt was in implementing or even getting policy passed ( good or bad) it was hardly surprising that what in principle was sound policy ( the my schools web site) had been stuffed up by the most incompetent govt in my memory. Everybody laughed and agreed and the Secretary for the AEU ( not our school secretary the big honcho!) said “yes we are recommending our members vote green!.
I suspect that is no longer the case, but it concerned me then and still does concern me that this means the greens will get a much bigger slice of the electoral pie and will end up having a big say in how this country gets run…heaven help us!
I can understand people who vote liberal or labor but for the life of me i can not see how anybody could vote green!!
Luke
One cannot cure tearfulness with antibiotics. Recant lad, while you still have breath.
El Gordo – but what has really changed. Sceptics are running amok. But the science is the same.
Temp trend is still up ! http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1979/to
Arctic still melt still high. http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20100720_Figure2.png
Essentially few fundamentals have changed. As you are close to the scene and sceptics have CRU and Mann on the ropes at essentially political inquiries you think the science has changed that much?
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Assessing-global-surface-temperature-reconstructions.html
Toby – yes that school kit is crap ! Post modernist drivel.
You are right Toby, unions are caught between a rock and a hard place. They cant vote Lib/nat ’cause they are the “enemy” and they won’t vote green ’cause they know that it would cost jobs if the greens ever got any real power. It’s safe at the moment as a vote for green is just a proxy labor vote.
I thought Howard having a majority in both houses was a bad idea, the greens having the balance of power in the Senate would be scary. Maybe that’s just what we need though for people to finally see the greens for what they really are.
Luke
Greenland’s Jakobshavn Isbrae glacier has been retreating at 20 meters per day, but earlier this month it lost 1.5 kilometers in just one day.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/07/100712154438.htm
They had a warm winter in west Greenland, probably because of the altered jet stream, so this may go some way to understand what is happening.
Just asking – and why do they think the jet stream has altered. Natural variation?
Well, it certainly has nothing to do with a particular trace gas, which will remain nameless.
Amendment to NASA Bill Seeks to Ensure Climate Data Integrity after Climategate
Sensenbrenner: “Important that we clear the air on whether NASA records polluted by scandal.”
US House Select Committee on Energy Independance and Global Warming
July 22, 2010
http://republicans.globalwarming.house.gov/Press/PRArticle.aspx?NewsID=2829
The House Science and Technology Committee today required NASA to provide more details on how much of its temperature record overlaps with data collected from the University of East Anglia’s (UEA) Climatic Research Unit (CRU), the research body at the center of the ongoing Climategate scandal.
Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., sponsor of the amendment to NASA authorization legislation (HR 5781), said the measure is needed to ensure the integrity of the agency’s temperature data following the scandal.
“Climategate revealed a pattern of suppression, manipulation and obstruction that pushed climate science towards predetermined outcomes in order to promote hysteria and, in my opinion, justify a heavy-handed regulatory response,” said Sensenbrenner, ranking Republican on the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming. “I think it is important that we clear the air on whether NASA records ended up being polluted as a result of the scandal.”
The remit:
Not later than one year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall issue a report to Congress detailing the extent and degree to which NASA’s temperature records overlap with the records at the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, the reasons for and sources of that overlap, and the possibility that NASA’s temperature records have been compromised.
Reading closely, it appears that the matter of “the possibility that NASA’s temperature records have been compromised” is independent of the question of overlap with CRU data. That is to say, NASA’s compromise of its own records will be one object of inquiry.
With NASA investigating itself, over the course of an entire year, what are the odds that this will be the most elaborate whitewash of all?
(Claes Johnson, professor of applied mathematics)
“It is surprising to see large parts of the scientific community including academies of sciences embracing a hypothesis of global warming from atmospheric CO2, without any convincing scientific support. It appears that the mere mentioning of Stefan-Boltzmann’s Radiation Law has been enough to annihilate any further demands of scientific evidence.
“This may be a result a 2Oth century physics education with both the Radiation Law and the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics being based on statistical mechanics not understood by anybody. In any case, the acceptance by the scientific community of CO2 climate alarmism without physical basis, needs to be understood and corrected.”
I pulled the quote from an article by Kirk Myers in the Examiner.
El Gordo,
The statement by Claes Johnson may not be all that meaningful in the context of the IPCC.
Others may be interested in Stefan-Boltzmann’s Radiation Law, but the position of the IPCC is quite different. The IPCC claims that recent warming cannot be explained, therefore, humans are causing it.
Arguing the physics is of course a very good thing, but the IPCC doesn’t care; the argument from ignorance is good enough for them.
Gack.
P.S. It’s good practice to provide links for sources, although the ‘bot that oversees this site seems to have ‘attitudes’ about links.
luke seems to have been banned at Jo’s;
http://joannenova.com.au/2010/07/another-10-of-the-worst-agw-papers-part-3/comment-page-3/#comment-68076
comment 106.
Cohenite,
Interesting follow-up remark about Luke there (#108):
Eddy,
That says it all! He was the worst of the worst. It’s clear that he was here for the sheer delight in being as nasty as he could be and picking a fight with anyone who would fight. His fight was a lashing out in desperation. While the humanitarian side of me hates to see someone in that position, I’ve little sympathy for them and learned long ago not to take up a burden about something I can’t do anything about. We’re well quit of him and I’ll rejoice in that and let the rest go into the hole where history throws its failures.
All told, it’s interesting that the skeptics are so consistently polite. But then, it’s easy to be polite when you have the facts on your side.
Yes but there are another 1400 Luke Butts waiting in the wings:
http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2010/07/lights-out
Dr Roy Spencer has provided a very easy to read explanation of what is happening.
http://sppiblog.org/news/my-global-warming-skepticism-for-dummies
Being scientifically illiterate I found it very worthwhile. Luke, take it seriously or you will become a political rump.
Thanks El G – exactly. Thank you Roy.
Well it took her a while. Anyway – served it’s purpose. I got a good swag of comments for my book. Josy has reacted as I’d hoped.
Listen to Schillsy “All told, it’s interesting that the skeptics are so consistently polite. But then, it’s easy to be polite when you have the facts on your side.” HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA !
“My book”; The History of Mr Polly part 11: Mr Polly learns to swear and discovers the delights of hallucinogenic mushrooms.
Guys thought I’d tender this excellent biographical piece by Wes here:
http://joannenova.com.au/2010/07/another-10-of-the-worst-agw-papers-part-3/comment-page-3/#comment-68297
#109 on July 25th, 2010 at 9:42 am
A very thoughtful and reasoned biography by Wes.
Luke, it is my melancholy duty to inform you of the Dunning-Kruger Effect. Strongly suggest you seek professional advice.
Here is the Wiki version.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect
So what do you think I should do then el gordo? Can I be cured?
Give up the green pills and accept that there is another reality.
schiller
Here’s the full article with the Claes Johnson quote.
http://www.examiner.com/x-32936-Seminole-County-Environmental-News-Examiner~y2010m7d22-Global-warming-alarmists-in-full-retreat-lash-out-at-skeptics
More suicidal lemmings here:
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/07/stuffed-stuffed-stuffed.html
Luke, old chap,
You could just jump off the cliff with the rest of these lemmings.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/06/22/2934080.htm?section=justin
1
Good idea Spangles.
Guys – after what Wes said at Jo’s there’s no going on.
Au revoir.
Hmmm……
A reporter reports on how hard it is to get Michael Mann to answer a few probing questions. This may explain why the Penn State inquiry was inconclusive at best…
Michael “Hockey Stick” Mann hides atop the climate change ivory tower
The Daily Caller
07/25/2010
http://dailycaller.com/2010/07/25/michael-hockey-stick-mann-hides-atop-the-climate-change-ivory-tower/
My attempt to give him an opportunity to explain his comments, however, wound up reinforcing the public perception that climate scientists, like Mann, don’t see their tax-funded grants, or public university employment, as making them accountable to the public. It paints a picture of an ivory tower academic slinging mud on the little people down below …
After a number of frustrating, uninformative responses, the reporter emails Mann:
Mike,
Instead of answering directly, you denigrate your academic rivals and the UK Telegraph (‘predictable’, ‘denial machine’, ‘out of context’, ‘fringe media’, ’sloppiest’, ’slanted’, ‘very misleading’, ‘deniers’, ‘disingenuous’, ‘twisted’, ‘contorted’, ’sad’).
But, now we know, this meets the scientific standards of practice for climatology, and should not be amazed or chagrined.
Luke,
You’ve got me really worried now. Where would we all be without you.
Spangled,
I could pretend to be Luke, real easy. If you’d appreciate my efforts in that regard, please say so.
I can cuss like a drunken syphylitic sailor, and ignore pointed, explicit arguments even better than the average born-again Scientologist.
Of course, BP, or the Department of Energy, or the UEA, would have to pay me. Betraying reason and your fellow man has to come at a price.
The best plans can get stuck on details like that.
SD, luke needs some time out; the boy has overextended; it happened before when he had a blue with Steve Short.; since Steve does not suffer fools [or anyone for that matter] luke took his ball and went and sulked for a while.
Schiller and cohers,
You don’t think, that like St Paul, he could be having a Damascene moment?
Do miracles still happen?
What AGWarmer Prof Barry Brooke is doing at present [and flying around the world to do it]:
” integrating spatial-demographic ecological models with climate change forecasts, and implementing multi-species projections (with the aim of improving estimates of extinction risk and provide better ranking of management and adaptation options).”
How to live in La La Land on taxpayer funded govt grants.
Nah – I was just being mucking around. And am totally enjoying Wes’s misrepresentation.
Guys it’s like this – sceptics are so bad IMO half the time I’m just taking the piss. It doesn’t dignify a serious response.
And I know you disagree but all I have done is turn some of the vitriol back at you (well now and again) and you don’t like it – do you?
So it’s important to subject one’s self to the abuse to know the depth of feeling. You’re studying me – but I’m also studying you.
And if Coho was any good as sceptics secretary he’d get smarter. Was the moment when greenies got hair cuts and started wearing suits. So to any moderate person sceptics look extreme right wing and rabid. Most would vote against you just on appearance.
Now you can’t see that of course as you are you.
However if you were smart you’d want to know why “warmists” don’t trust sceptics. It’s not about “green religion” – the sceptic side simply appears extreme and non-scientific. Take Schiller for example – lives for the daily AGW politics. I guess someone has to.
Anyway – what am I reading at the moment – science of doom site – backradiation.
And skeptical science is simply going gangbusters building content.
But anyway – all my warmist friends don’t trust me anymore – I know too much sceptical shit to be allowed on demos.
Well now, let’s all shed a tear for poor misunderstood Luke.
Might be enough to fill the dams.
Doubt it though.
Pikey.
Poor old Lukey seems to have worn out his welcome everywhere, or is it just that he seems to be having two bob each way.
Remember the famous Joh line about straddling a barbed wire fence, you could easily become the boy soprano if you keep that up.
BTW it seems that the ice news from both north and south looks fairly respectable at the moment.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/25/sea-ice-news-15/#more-22526
If Comrade Luke says it, it must be right.
NOAA models are predicting a 2 degree drop in NH temperatures.
http://pgosselin.wordpress.com/2010/07/22/noaa-models-predict-big-arctic-deep-freeze/
Journalist Scott Ott asks Michael Mann to come clean on the ‘hockey stick’ and this is how he replied.
“…it was somewhat misplaced for the hockey stick to be made the central icon of the climate change debate, for the obvious reasons.”
Hindsight is a wonderful thing.
Luke
For more than 20 years your side has been pushing ideology in the name of science and been extremely successful. The msm has run with the Greenpeace pseudo-facts, ignorantly supplanting facts with propaganda.
With the next two decades set to be cooler, as CO2 continues to rise, it will be interesting to see how the msm handle this new reality. The unanticipated and anomalous weather will send shock waves throughout society, leaving journalists, politicians and scientists acknowledging their reality is in tatters.
The distractions and disinformation will disappear, but for many people around the world it will be a very steep learning curve. Which might have been avoided if the zealots weren’t so deceitful in their efforts to create scientific consensus.
O/T If Julia asked you to pick four citizens for her gabfest on climate change, who would you choose?
” your side has been pushing ideology” – what’s this your side stuff? I don’t talk about this issue much at all with any one else off-line? Do you think there’s some sort of army of greenies at my place ! Most people out there don’t give a rats actually one way or the other. Most don’t even know what it’s about. The ultra AGW committed are impossible to have a conversation with.
“With the next two decades set to be cooler” – oh pullease – a prediction? I just wrote it on my wall.
“four citizens for her gabfest ” – OK – Someone from BoM who you don’t know (science), someone from CSIRO who you don’t know (science), Cohenite and David Crombie (President NFF)
They would be given 12 months and lots of support to “phone a friend(s)”
El Gordo – give me your considered opinion
http://iri.columbia.edu/climate/ENSO/societal/index.html#impacts
and
http://portal.iri.columbia.edu/portal/server.pt?open=18&objID=988&parentname=CommunityPage&parentid=7&mode=2&in_hi_userid=2&cached=true
Ultimate proof of CAGW:
Every place is warming faster than everywhere!
http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2010/07/settled-science-can-everyplace-really.html
Talk about runaway global warming, this is way, like, the totally ultimate proof! If you want confirmation, just ask Luke!
Luke
Pielke Jr et al. are on the money with this one. The US hurricane season is more expensive when La Nina is out and about.
http://iri.columbia.edu/climate/ENSO/societal/example/PielkeLandsea.html
If I recall aright, someone here wanted to hear of a CAGWer who had abandoned the cult.
Here it is: http://www.climatedepot.com/a/7477/Leftwing-Env-Scientist-Bails-Out-Of-Global-Warming-Movement-Declares-it-a-corrupt-social-phenomenonstrictly-an-imaginary-problem-of-the-1st-World-middleclass
Here’s a juicy bit: CAGWers abandoning the sinking ship in favor of ocean acidification inadvertently lend credence to the CO2 skeptics.
http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1896142/icy_arctic_waters_facing_acidic_threat/
And also this: global cooling nearly wiped out the human species — in contrast to the MWP.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1297765/Last-humans-Earth-survived-Ice-Age-sheltering-Garden-Eden-claim-scientists.html?ITO=1490
Interesting how CAGW just doesn’t resonate anymore.
The IRI is in agreement with Pielke Jr et al. that the US hurricane season will be worse under La Nina’s sway.
http://portal.iri.columbia.edu/portal/server.pt?open=512&objID=699&parentname=CommunityPage&parentid=2&mode=2&in_hi_userid=2&cached=true
Whoops…try this.
http://portal.iri.columbia.edu/portal/server.pt?open=512&objID=699&parentname=CommunityPage&parentid=2&mode=2&in_hi_userid=2&cached=true
Nope…go to the active hurricane season.
schiller
That’s an excellent story from climatedepot.
I’ll second your nominations Luke and without sounding like a sychophant, I believe this blog would be much the poorer without your input. Sometimes your frustration shows but we are all guilty of saying stupid things sometimes. All “debate” needs at least 2 sides and your “abuse” I generally see as humour.
Schiller, i asked jen if she felt she had ever converted a believer ( have you Jen? genuine question), i wonder whether any of us have actually had any luck once someone has decided. I know as much as I try i am lucky to get them to even acknowledge there is any reason for doubt. Lets hope Rancourt is the beginning of a change in the tide. He makes some intersting points that have been discussed here many times.
One of the big problems i see with blogs is they seem to attract people who all think the same way. Then when someone disagrees everyone is shocked and often snide comments or worse ensue. Reading through comments on deltoid last week it is apparent they are very guilty of this. They all reinforce their own certainty and appear unable to even consider any thing else that is said. When i mentioned this blog as a source of great discussion and interest, it was called the worst pseudoscience blog around and full of idiots and lunatics. Very open minded!
Maybe since Jen shut down the threads we are a bunch of sad old fools for staying around…or maybe we live in hope of Jen starting a new thread?
Or maybe we are all addicted to Luke’s input!
I certainly value the input from everybody on this blog and tip my hat.
cheers all.
toby
Without the input of Luke this blog would probably have folded in Jen’s absence, he provided the dynamic. I like the singular thread, but will be happy to see Jen back here again.
Toby,
I’m always suspicious of people who say, “We need a public debate”, because those who “call for” a “public debate” inexorably profit from donations from those who want to influence the debate in favor of ulterior motives.
If the issue of ‘global warming’/’climate chaos’/etc. had not been monetized, it would have remained merely an item of academic interest.
Abetted by avaricious perfidy, CAGW became corrupt beyond recall.
When cold snaps hit modern, affluent societies, it’s only the elderly who die from fuel poverty – usually the homeless.
But in Peru there is an equal number of old and young who failed to adapt.
http://www.laht.com/article.asp?ArticleId=361111&CategoryId=14095
El Gordo,
Wow. Bad news at that link.
A state of emergency was also declared in the jungle regions of Madre de Dios, Ucayali and Loreto.
Frozen jungle. Maybe CAGWers will have to give way to the ‘climate chaos’ crowd.
I’ve long been a fan of the ‘climate chaos’ angle. If lots of weather events are happening all over the world that you can’t account for, that’s the same as chaos. By definition.
Thus, you can prove a faultless foundation for climatology by adverting to rampant ignorance. It’s actually a rather elegant argument, in spite of its grotesque perversity.
Luke keeps this board alive, and drives people to the skeptical side every time he posts.
We should do all we can to encourage his particular brand of hucksterism/true believer clinging.
His offensiveness, evasiveness and just plain rudeness is an unbeatable combination to get people to notice that only people hiding something act as the Luke acts.
Perhaps we could make a ‘team Luke’ button for skeptics to wear to honor the Luke gang and the other trolls whose rudeness, blithering ignorance and confrontational angry denialism of facts counter to their obsession helps swell the ranks of skeptics.
Now come on Huntsbum – you don’t come here looking for a pro-AGW view do you? I feel my ability to convince anyone is quite low. However unlike yourself I follow up a great many ruses.
And dare I say that you yourself have engaged in a fair bit of “rudeness, blithering ignorance and confrontational angry denialism”. So be nice.
Thanks for sentiments Toby and El Gordo – this thread is sort of like dropping into the local pub for a quick pint. Sort of habit forming and always good for a bit of sledging with ya mates. Back back to the debate …
Remember the story so far – I am pro-agriculture, pro-nuclear, anti-ETS a la Rudd
At the end of the day it’s simply a risk management decision as to whether a short sharp injection of CO2 into the earth’s atmosphere over say 150 years will change the radiative balance enough to set a train of detrimental consequences at play. So it’s a value judgement as to whether the story adds up (enough).
You would not expect it to be 100% obvious given the volatile nature of background variability. God ain’t gonna give the answer to you on a platter. Why would she?
Schiller could do well to ponder the independent reconstructions of temperature. All say roughly the same thing. So isn’t this whole CRU thing so boring really.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Assessing-global-surface-temperature-reconstructions.html
and for silly persons arguing about background radiation
http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/07/26/do-trenberth-and-kiehl-understand-the-first-law-of-thermodynamics/
http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/07/17/the-amazing-case-of-back-radiation/
http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/07/24/the-amazing-case-of-back-radiation-part-two/
Oh yea – I almost forgot – getting soft – Hunter you are a denialist numb nuts. 🙂
Luke I agree in general with your statement and also agree with your pro ag, pro nuclear, anti ETS sentiments.”At the end of the day it’s simply a risk management decision as to whether a short sharp injection of CO2 into the earth’s atmosphere over say 150 years will change the radiative balance enough to set a train of detrimental consequences at play. So it’s a value judgement as to whether the story adds up (enough),”
There are however a lot of people out there using AGW/ CAGW as a political tool, or a money making tool. Rancourt makes that point quite clearly by the sounds of it.
I think we all have much to fear from “greenies”.
A big part of the risk management should also be recognising the futility of so much that is being “sprouted” as beneficial as a risk management tool. Currently renewables are mostly a con and it would be nice to hear more believers acknowledging that even if there is a high risk of CAGW( and hence need for action) we need to be cognisant of not wasting money on “green initiatives”. ( That said your comment from a few years ago about how much money has been wast ed on iraq and afganistan still rings in my ears!).
Cost benefit analysis seems to be a decaying art, certainly our govt seems incapable of doing these and the report produced by garnaut and stern were so blatantly produced with a political agenda in mind that more peoples alarm bells should have been going off.
In theory an ETS is the way to create an environment in which renewables and alternative energy sources will be developed. Sadly the reality is very likely that we get more of what the europeans have found, lots of fraud and profit for banks and traders….and of course expensive electricity that will cause great hardship for many, without any real cuts in emissions or any potential to actually alter the temperature.
I know its naive of me, but it would be nice to believe that our “leaders” really do have our interests at heart and that what we are being told is actually believable. Reality of course is very different and those capable of critical thinking must be both sceptical and outspoken so that we can point out to the many the lies, distortions and cons that are fed to us as “gospel”.
There is a place for trolls in the new media – the dialectic is important. Andrew Bolt of the ‘Hun’ has a very popular blog and most of the traffic is generated by the majority attacking minority trolls. It’s the sport they come for.
“we need to be cognisant of not wasting money on “green initiatives”. ( That said your comment from a few years ago about how much money has been wast ed on iraq and afganistan still rings in my ears!).”
toby,
As a POI, I’ve always wondered how much is actually “wasted” in war when you are fighting in another country.
Apart from your own “collateral damage”, you have to feed the war machine whether it is “working” or not and if you are seriously into war machines it could be argued to be cost effective.
Some “green initiatives” OTOH……….
Luke,
Thank you for your kind remarks and clarification.
Your gang, at least as how you manage to express yourselves on the internet, are a negative barometer.
If you behave like this in your tax payer paid roles, then you owe a refund to the tax payer because nothing you ever touch will avoid turning to crap, no matter how much gold may be in the idea.
I come here to read what I will never read at RC: unfiltered discussion.
But face it: your gang of sock puppets glommed onto a preposterous idea- that a climate crisis was underway, and that the behavior of those promoting it is justified no matter what they do.
And it cost you your manners, your ethics and your integrity. But you still trudge on, like a good proll.
Yet you are fairly bright, even for a gang of tax payer funded bureaucrats.
That is the central conundrum of AGW: how fairly intelligent people ended up buyin so deeply into bogus apocalyptic claptrap.
And don’t start in with your bs about how *your gang* doesn’t believe it is a crisis, etc.
If it was not sold as a crisis, no one would allow concern about managing the climate by way of CO2 regulation the central obsession to solving environmental problems and energy consumption problems in the world.
You sold out and probably did not even notice the transition as more than a road bump.
SD, you make a fair point in the sense that the armed forces must be paid etc, but i am sure they are far more active using far more resources than they would be back in “camp” at home. And the cost of the weapons being used is also very high. And I suspect the armed forces are expanding not contracting also utilising/ wasting more money.
Another anology could be how much money is now being wasted on “security” to prevent another terrorist act. It pisses me off every time I travel and see all these “security guards” standing around or making peoples lives difficult.
Even just spending some of this money on improving teh electricity distribution network would in the long run save much of the 30-40 % of energy that just disappears between the power station and home. Resulting in lower co2 emissions and hypothetically cheaper energy?
Luke
From an earlier link you put up, I disagree that ‘no two El Nino and La Nina events are identical’.
http://iri.columbia.edu/climate/ENSO/globalimpact/overview/overview.html
It is my contention that this La Nina will be severe, in that it lasts for a few years, so we can expect a lot more hurricanes hitting the US coastline – as Pielke Jr et al. have made perfectly clear.
Luke thx for the links, any sceptics who doubt that temps have been warming should most assuredly check out the first link. It does also raise questions
Overall, the satellite measurements show lower trends than surface measurements. This is a bit of a puzzle, because climate models suggest that overall the lower troposphere should be warming about 1.2X faster than the surface (though over land there should be little difference, or the surface should be warming faster). Thus, there are at least three possibilities:
•The surface temperature trends show slightly too much warming.
•The satellite temperature trends show slightly too little warming.
•The prediction of climate models (about amplified warming in the lower troposphere) is incorrect, or there are complicating factors that are being missed.
I particularly like the line ” or there are complicating factors that are being missed.” Given that this is likely true, why do you think so many believers in CAGW seem unable to acknowledge room for doubt and keep relying on the “well nothing else explains the warming so it must be co2?” and “well the onus is on you sceptics to provide an alternative explanation.”…SURELY THE ONUS IS THE OTHER WAY AROUND!
Your next 2 links also show how complicated the science is when it is discussed in an informed and interesting way. There are obviously many differences in opinion judging by what appear to be many knowledgeable comments. More reason to look for more confirmation before changing the way our economies function?..particularly given the NOAA link from the previous page that is suggesting cooling for the next 5 years?
toby,
We sure could do better than we do, one would think!
el gordo,
IMHO when the PDO is neg during a la nina is when we seem to get the worst storms, TCs etc.
As I keep saying to Luke, this last occurred in 1976 and since then we have not had a tropical cyclone cross the east coast south of the tropics whereas before then we had them at the rate up to six a season.
I was an amateur yacht designer in those days and I suddenly realized the trade-off advantage of more sail area compared to the handicap penalty for that extra SA [because of the lighter winds that have generally been the norm ever since].
When this cycle returns you will hear screams of AGW to make your blood run cold.
http://ffden-2.phys.uaf.edu/645fall2003_web.dir/Jason_Amundson/enso.htm
“If you behave like this in your tax payer paid roles, then you owe a refund to the tax payer because nothing you ever touch will avoid turning to crap, no matter how much gold may be in the idea.” not very nice given the massive improvements in agricultural science, new crops, new practices, the availability of climate information (compare the David Jones era to the Kininmonth era!!), practical knowledge of ENSO, IOD etc. The same scientists unravelling ENSO – are the same who believe by knowledge of physics that CO2 is changing the radiative forcing.
Our current climate is far from benign. Episodic droughts, floods, cyclones, cold and heat waves.
Imagine yourself as dryland cropper – make a loss 3 years in 10, break even 4 years in 10, make good money 3 years in 10. Doesn’t take much change to render you not viable !
It might be difficult for Hunter to understand that one may come at AGW specifically on these farming issues. Not as a greenie at all.
“And it cost you your manners, your ethics and your integrity.” And so Hunter it has cost yours too …. sigh ….
Steady on SD – I told you first. No contest. Beach erosion is decadally episodic, and out of sync with droughted cycles on land it seems. http://www.coastalconference.com/2007/papers2007/Peter%20Helman.doc Figure 4
Toby – you have no appreciable change in solar output – you do have all the physics related to the back radiation links above saying it’s CO2. More than just “that’s all you have left”. You have a mechanism and an effect. Isn’t that what science is about. So that ratchets up the level of a match !
And indeed a paper that says IPO has already been nudged by CO2 forcing.
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2008JCLI2552.1?journalCode=clim
“Steady on SD – I told you first.”
Luke,
What, exactly, did you tell me first?
Was it that I should increase sail area back in 1977?
I seem to recall that every time I suggested that the lack of cyclones since 1976 on the east coast showed a sudden step change which had nothing to do with progressive increases in ACO2, you pointed out that cyclones still happened elsewhere.
BTW, Helman’s paper is very interesting but he should state that SLR began again with the “recovery from the LIA”.
However for him to blame the coastal erosion that has taken place on the small SLRs of the last two centuries and not on those periods of extreme tropical cyclones and storms when instead of rising 100cms in a century, the seas rose several metres in hours driven by extreme winds and record flooding, is absolutely wrong.
This is why Stradbroke Is. was cut in two in 1893 and in four in 1974 from these events, not SLR.
SD, as expected the climate signal of La Nina ‘will be stronger when the PDO is highly negative. This does not mean that the PDO physically controls ENSO, but rather that the resulting climate patterns interact with each other’.
Thanks also for the anecdotal evidence.
You’re such a fraud luke; SoD runs a sedate blog but an alarming tendency has appeared in the form of Mark; anyway on the links you referred to; backradiation [BR] 1 is dominated by Christopher Game’s masterful exposition of Miskolczi and how his work defeats, not he idea of BR, but how BR cannot create additional heating from extra CO2; in BR2 Mark has wilfully misunderstood me [is he related to you?] and worked at cross-purposes; the K&T thread I will get too shortly. I also recomment the Venus 2 thread where Leonard Weinstein and Williamcq argue for the impact of mass and pressure on temperature profiles when AGW assumes the opposite.
The Meehl et al. paper appears unsound when they say, ‘this inherent decadal variability associated with the IPO delayed until the 1970s what likely would have been a forced climate shift in the 1960s from a negative to positive phase of the IPO.’
Did I miss something?
No credibility.
‘However, during the mid-1970s there was also a significant increase of global temperature and changes to a number of other quantities that have been associated with changes in external forcings, particularly increases of greenhouse gases from the burning of fossil fuels.’
The NAO is one of the main drivers of NH winters.
http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/pi/NAO/
So if the NAO remains negative we can expect heavy snows in the UK and Europe this NH winter.
It is negative now and likely to remain in this phase for a few years.
http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/pna/nao_index.html
Fraud says Cohenite – well why are you associated with a bunch of stooges like the pretentious climate septics party. What a Dad’s Army of drongos, activists, and property rights nutters. Let’s see your final senate numbers – will they beat our old mate from Dobell. LOL !
The bunch of girly guys who wouldn’t front CSIRO – but preferred the School of Arts pensioner scaring tour. I mean it was utterly embarrassing Cohers.
And is that the unpublished Miskolczi? Apart from the Hungarian Journal of chook farming? And isn’t it embarrassing that all the back radiation is being measured every day and night by all those stations around the world. Oh diddums.
Cohenite – you and your mates are simply unpublished unrepresentative swill.
El Gordo – no you didn’t miss the point – that is precisely the point. Why would you not believe him. Coz you don’t wish to?
I just had a laughing fit and had to be resuscitated – http://landshape.org/news/?page_id=1261 what a video
So already the property rights crowd have hijacked the party. We’re into the campaign and we have one senate nominee. He seems familiar? And WOW – a whole 158 members. Could be an avalanche guys.
And I’m sure the voters in the marginals will really go for the advert. Jeez give me the money I can do you a better anti-AGW ad with a mobile phone camera.
And how is the competition going?
http://www.ldp.org.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1227&Itemid=512 Drat Birdy not running.
One rhetorical trick that CAGWers frequently play is to call any scandal involving the Hockey Team, or the IPCC, an “isolated incident”.
Problem is, there are so many scandals that none of them can plausibly be considered to be “isolated”.
With that in mind, I found another page that lists the various ‘-gates’ collectively referred to as ‘Climategate’. The page counts 70 of them. Most will be familiar, but there are many that nearly escaped notice in the blizzard of well-founded accusations.
http://pgosselin.wordpress.com/climate-scandals/ Enjoy!
Luke; since I last dropped by, have we finally got round to outing coho and his mob here?
Two good points, they stay cosy with Joanne etc but can’t tackle msm without paying their way so that brings up the whole question of funding for this or that view. I’m afraid eloquence of argument such as we got with the old folks tour won’t do for the long term because they ignored Gaia big time.
Repeat; “Nature” is seldom linear from a distance.
Who saw that bit on our ABC 1 last night (7.30) about plankton in the Southern Ocean post industrial era? Can’t find now on ABC news 24, seems it’s not good news for our ocean grown food chain.
Btw Luke; I can’t go along with your “I am pro-agriculture, pro-nuclear, anti-ETS a la Rudd” fudge copout whatever, its too easy!
Gavin,
Don’t worry about Luke too much. He’s doing trade-offs in an attempt to appear moderate or reasonable.
If you espouse junk science, you can still get credits for ‘being normal’ by claiming to be ‘pro-agriculture, pro-nuclear, anti-ETS’. It’s a crude, but effective, measure.
At least, for those who aren’t familiar with political hijinks.
You would be surprised to learn of historic depredations which have been excused because their exponents confessed a personal weakness for furry mammals with large eyes.
luke and gavin, the Steptoe and son, on drugs, of the AGW circus; gavin in search of a straight line, luke a fractal parrot regressing to infinity with his cruel jibe of “not published, not published”. Have you ever stopped to think luke, that your agist claims must be cutting poor old gavin, who surely must be due a letter from the queen, to his core?
Gavin – wasn’t about outing. He makes no secret of his preferences.
Schiller – it is YOU who promote junk science being the indiscriminate fabricating little sceptic zombie that you are.
Schiller – one of the denialist’s trick in trade is to quote some partisan source in a right wing extreme rag as “source” claiming there are 70 “gates”. Only denialist zombies like you believe that.
My “pro-agriculture, pro-nuclear, anti-ETS a la Rudd” is not new Schiller – it is years old. Check the records. Whereas Schiller your misrepresentations are legend. You name it – you’ve denied it.
Reasons: If you like to eat you’re involved in agriculture. Long term sustainability a challenge. Agricultural technology has a lot to offer here. Let’s not be luddites.
Pro-nuclear – well as at bravenewclimate blog – new technologies have a lot to offer. IMO risks are overstated. Again let’s not be luddites. However that doesn’t mean sloppy nuclear either.
Anti-ETS under Rudd – well simply that it’s globally unilateral and so ineffective. And impacting on our local competitiveness at a time of global economic turmoil.
Cohenite – aren’t you embarrassed to find yourself attached to a climate sceptic party hijacked by the property rights crowd. Or maybe it was never about climate?
Aren’t you embarrassed about that dumb video. Poorly shot. Dreadful pictures. Yokel fodder. Alarmist.
And can I help it if you guys have assiduously avoided the mainstream journals and establishment science. All the metrics of a political outfit avoiding scrutiny.
Do you need Gavin and myself to give you a hand?
That’s very kind of you luke but I’m sure you and gavin have plenty for your hands to do. Your critique of whatever video you are talking about misses the point about cinema verite completely.
Denigration of ‘the property rights crowd’ is a sure and certain signal of that which needs not be named.
Well, this old timer has been thinking a lot about new age technologies v the natural order after the young folks finally blocked out the local possums from their half renovated kitchen.
Can you imagine the impact on resources if all of us stopped using the WC?
Many are living in an aberration of good times post industrial revolution but I have just questioned the ALP policy of wide spread home two way integration with the grid in the absence of an ETS. Tinkering at the edges while the planet burns hey?
Broadband could save a lot of newspaper too but we don’t get neck ache from radio while working round about. Note, one possum found the added warmth of stereo!
Luke: “aren’t you embarrassed to find yourself attached to a climate sceptic party hijacked by the property rights crowd”
re outings; I keep finding remnants of the old gun lobby in my midst and can’t tell the difference between them. What worried me way back is why coho got so protective about his links to that lot.
gavin; have a bex and lie down, you are writing drivel.
luke, on the CSIRO issue, some exchanges are taking place between them and sceptics; here is the latest one:
“Thank you for responding to my message of 14 July by forwarding a paper written by two of your colleagues on the question of temperature trends, with particular reference to what has happened in recent years. You suggest that it explains much better than you could about global temperature trends.
Their conclusion is certainly quite clear – that “there is very little justification for asserting that global warming has gone away over the past ten years”. As I understand it, their view is that temperatures changes must be assessed by calculating underlying linear trends over periods of at least ten years and that appear to be calculated after adjusting for one-off influences, such as from volcanoes, El Ninos, and “different effects of day-to-day and week-to-week fluctuations in the weather”. Their graphical presentations include the period back from 2007 to 1910 (and even to 1850) as well as the period from 1998 to 2007. For the latter their linear trend shows a very slight warming trend; for the longer periods they appear to show global temperatures increasing from 1910 to the early 1940s, followed by a slight cooling to the mid to late 1970s, then a marked increase to 1998.
In my email to you on 14 July I said that there was “no questioning by me that concentrations of greenhouse gases and global temperatures have increased over the past 100 years or so (although one would have to say that there seem to be serious questions about whether the method of measuring temperatures has overstated the rise, including in Australia). But the increase in concentrations over the same period as temperatures rose does not establish a cause and effect relationship”. Those comments still stand.
To take this aspect a little further, while nobody doubts that there has been a warming trend since the depths of the Little Ice Age during the 1600s, this commenced well before anthropogenic emissions began to increase rapidly after World War 11 and we do not know what caused that underlying trend. Taking the last decade and a half, we also know that while CO2 concentrations have continued to rise, temperatures have formed a plateau, or even on your colleagues’ calculations, an increase much lower than might be expected given the dangerous warming thesis.
Indeed, if we projected forward the linear trend for the period 1998 -2007, then using the HadCRUT3 calculation by your colleagues in Figure 2 it looks as though one would get an increase in temperature of about 0.5 of a degree by 2100. My statistician colleague has in fact calculated that the linear regression for the HadCRUT data has a slope of 0.05 +/- 0.10 0C per 10 years ie over 100 years the projected temperature rise is 0.5 +/- 1.0 0C. This means there is in fact no statistically significant temperature rise in the last 9 years because the error margin is larger than the temperature increase from the linear fit.
Without access to the detail of your colleagues’ calculations, it is not possible to reach a definitive view on their trend analysis over longer periods. I do observe that, while they have adjusted temperature data to remove what they describe as the “marked effect on global temperatures” from the El Nino-Southern Oscillation, no adjustment seems to have been made for the major determining influence on the surface temperatures from the Pacific Decadel and the Atlantic Multi-decadel oscillations. Nor it seems have any adjustments been made for the major warming effect from the Great Pacific Climate shift in the mid 1970s. Further, a colleague of mine has pointed out that no account seems to have been taken of the recent analysis by Wang and Dong (in Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 37) suggesting that the Atlantic Multi-decadel oscillation changed phase in the late 1990s and thereby contributed to the subsequent plateau in temperature.
I should mention that I have also received an email from another of your colleagues, who appears to have seen our exchanges. His assessment is that “there was about as much warming in the period 1900 to 1950, when computer models agree that man made contributions were negligible (IPCC Ch 9, p703, FAQ9.2, Fig.1), as in the period of 1950 to 2000, when man-made additions of CO2 to the atmosphere have been increasingly large”. His assessment of recent years is that they “illustrate your point that recent 5 year averages show some recent cooling although 10 year averages generally show warming”.
Also relevant is that your colleagues’ paper is dated April 2008, after which the Climategate issue in November 2009 raised serious questions about the accuracy of published temperature data.
Perhaps they would regard those questions as being dismissed by the exonerations given by the Muir Russell and Oxburgh inquiries. However, although those inquiries “cleared” Professor Phil Jones, head of the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia, reactions to the inquiries make it apparent that they have not improved the confidence of independent analysts in the data and analyses by the scientists involved: rather the opposite. I see that even the US Department of the Environment has suspended the financial contributions it was making to the CRU pending further examination of the matter.
Even so, because Jones (and the CRU) appear to have been key contributors to the data and analyses contained in IPCC reports, his views are relevant when considering the temperature analysis by your colleagues. In an interview he gave on the BBC in February 2010 (the transcript of which I have), Jones agreed with the BBC’s environmental analyst that there has been no statistically-significant global warming since 1995. He also agreed that the trend from January 2002 to “the present” (ie Feb 2010) was slightly negative (but again not statistically significant), that analysts have “different ways” of assessing the quality of temperature data, and that the Met Office needed to release more “station” data. I note also that Jones said that he judged the vast majority of scientists did not believe the debate on climate change is over and that “there is still much that needs to be undertaken to reduce uncertainties”.
I hope that, with the previous material I have sent you, the foregoing might encourage you and your colleagues to review thinking at CSIRO on the global warming issue.”
Interesting, eh?
Cohenite,
Well done. When the uncertainty exceeds the claim, the claim means little.
Bottom line, a conclusion is only as robust as the evidence behind it.
Eat that, Fluke, and choke.
Schiller I particularly like this link from your “gates” http://climateaudit.org/2010/04/15/giss-warmest-march-ever-in-finland/
Interesting article from Ken Stewart looking at BOM’s guesstimate of Australia’s temp record.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/27/the-australian-temperature-record-the-big-picture/#more-22631
cohenite; the difference between us increases when you can’t even try to touch something in the natural world.
Also, your “statistician colleague” would be a hopeless hunter
Cohers – impenetrable gobbly gook – who said what? Context of discussion? What have you probably left out? Colleagues?
Colleagues? Colleagues?
Verballed again!
Luke, do you do those RACQ insurance adds?
Ah gavin, the master of segue: “your “statistician colleague” would be a hopeless hunter”; what on Earth does that mean? Don’t tell me, I don’t want to know.
Luke, don’t play dumb.
Geoff Sharp is pulling no punches when he predicts this NH winter will be atrocious. ‘It is reasonable to suggest the same forces were in play with the same timings during the Dalton Minimum.’
http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/189
He also believes ‘recent research is pointing toward EUV flux as a very likely climate oscillator candidate.’
Cohenite – yes I am dumb. Don’t be coy ! Who said what to whom?
El Gordo – always write those sort of predictions on your wall ! And check back.
Shame on you luke; asking me to betray confidences; the info is from an exchange with CSIRO and is, I would have thought, indicative of the efforts being made by sceptics to engage the scientific establishment.
Roger Pielke Jr takes a swipe at Princeton’s professor Michael Oppenheimer’s prediction that up to 6.7 million Mexicans will be forced to migrate to the US because of climate change.
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2010/07/silly-science.html
Cohers ! I’m “sceptical” and an unaware of the context. However if you are – full marks.
Lukr; someone in the pivotal position for sceptics inc. won’t claim such a poorly framed piece of correspondence with our premier science outfit.
Well done Cohenite.
I like the form of words used in the correspondence back.
Much better balanced ..even the placing of ” cleared” in italics is recognising the reality of the matter.
Yes Gavin agree – so we have presented to us some known context text fragment….
Luke; we could have a small campaign secretary fishing for something to past in msm asap
Chen et al. have found that central Asia was warm and dry during the MWP, but in the depths of the LIA it was cool and wet.
http://www.co2science.org/articles/V13/N30/C2.php
CO2 had little (if anything)to do with that earlier warming, anymore than our post modern warming.
P.J.Morgan, a graduate from the University of Auckland, has sent off a letter to the NZ Prime Minister’s chief science adviser, Professor Sir Peter Gluckman and told him to study physics because “you are devaluing my degree”.
http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=650&Itemid=1
Seems el gordo, our roving sceptic commando has tripped over Idso inc again
C’mon mate, the campaign must go forward as our Julia says
BOM is predicting warmer than average temperatures over the next few months, especially the minimum temps.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/ahead/temps_ahead.shtml
The Indian and Pacific oceans have cooled, so I’m 60% certain they are wrong.
Lovely to see you back amongst the fray, Gavin. Care to make a seasonal forecast? The Deltoidians knock Idso, but I thought you had more sense.
Spinmeistering begins anew… can you spot the outright balderdash?
Climategate scientist breaks his silence
New Scientist
28 July 2010
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20727713.700-climategate-scientist-breaks-his-silence.html
Some Phil Jones and Trevor Davies quotes from the interview:
Unless the alternative views are in the peer-reviewed literature, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change cannot refer to them.
…criticism of the Russell review was around the panel membership and who spoke to whom when, rather than addressing the CRU’s scientific answers to the inquiry.
Discussions at conferences are no different from the discussions in the emails.
it difficult engaging with people who deny the evidence and say the world has not warmed.
I think we should be given some time to develop a dataset before releasing it.
I have deleted emails because I just have too many to cope with. I’m deleting 50 every day at the moment.
At the very least, it’s back to business as usual for the Hockey Team. It may be even worse, after being vindicated by so many whitewashes. The arrogant tone is unmistakable, such as the brazen admission of continuously deleting emails, along with the willingness to distort by misrepresenting the skeptic position. Forty percent of IPCC citations are to grey literature, but skeptic positions have to be peer-reviewed? Note the lack of any sense of embarrassment.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz huh what did Schiller make a point – errr no …. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
P.S. By now Schiller you could have actually checked the data yourself and done your own temperature record as those mentioned in http://www.skepticalscience.com/Assessing-global-surface-temperature-reconstructions.html have – stop whining like a little bitch and get computing
el gordo: Thanks for those comments. My intended post left over from last night seems a minor contribution as our ABC news is awash this morning with the latest global climate report.
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/breakfast/stories/2010/2967200.htm?site=brisbane
I thought yesterday this end of Blogsphere had missed the July issue of widespread NH forest fires reported in both Russia and Canada
Today in USA
http://interceder.net/i/forest-fire
current images
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=44958&src=eorss-iotd
Thank you, Luke.
Nearly every time I want to make a point about what’s wrong with CAGWers, you step forward and generously make an example of yourself.
adding one of the numerous July Moscow news items
http://en.rian.ru/Environment/20100723/159925062.html
summary from Canada
http://fire.cfs.nrcan.gc.ca/firereport/report-rapport-eng.php
Gavin,
Lovely little article about Moscow in July.
“”Temperatures like this have not been recorded in 130 years,” the source said”
You will notice that the article explained the heat wave 130 years ago.
Not. No wonder it’s “the source said”.
CAGWers will say anything. Odd, considering fabrication is unnecessary if the facts are on your side.
gavin,
and don’t forget that we also had the hottest March records in Finland. [koff]
http://climateaudit.org/2010/04/15/giss-warmest-march-ever-in-finland/
But adjuster Jim strikes again:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/28/hadcrut-is-hotting-up-adjustments-over-a-few-months/#more-22657
I always think it telling that the raw data warming comparisons of the early and late periods of the 20th century are almost identical yet for the former ACO2 doesn’t apply.
I probably shouldn’t make the assumption that Big Jim had anything to do with it but now that the gatekeepers have been “exonerated” there is some serious catching-up to do.
Gavin
I see your bushfires and raise you drought and floods.
The Chicago Board of Trade front-month wheat contract rose almost 28 per cent in July, in its biggest monthly gain since 1996 on estimates of lower output in Canada, Russia, Ukraine and parts of western Europe.
Canada was badly impacted by floods, while Russia and the Europeans have been affected by drought and heat.
10 items of indigestion for Schillsy http://www.skepticalscience.com/10-key-climate-indicators-point-to-same-finding-global-warming-is-unmistakable.html
And conclusive proof of AGW http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/07/27/2965791.htm Sianara Schillsy
Linking to the abc; this is so tedious; I see they presented the latest NOAA report about 2009 being the hottest ever in Australia; of course it was:
http://www.weatherzone.com.au/news/minus-13-degrees-the-coldest-its-been-in-april/11794
The 200 killed by the cold in Peru outweighs your puny 66 from heatstroke in Japan. We have to agree on something: weather is micro climate and has nothing to do with CO2.
Luke you know full well that just having your indicators showing warming is not proof of a human footprint. most of us do not dispute the direction in those indicators, people do question the precision of those measurements and they may well have a point. This does not however change the facts that the indicators show we are warmer than 100 years ago or 200 years ago…..and we would expect these indicators to be moving in the direction they have because…wait for it…the world has been warming!…so if you had been around over the last few hundred years since the end of the LIA, would the indicators have been in the same direction? Would it be because of humans?
http://joannenova.com.au/2010/07/australian-warming-trend-adjusted-up-by-40/
Case in point , I dont think many of us say australia has not become warmer…..but by how much?
How desperate do ya haftabe to quote the ABC as proof of anything?
To use a Hockeyism, the ABC is to facts what PH is to celibacy.
Did they mention why it was hotter 100 years ago? I would’ve thought that definitely proves it was NOT AGW.
Maybe you meant cyanara?
Luke was being humourous with his japanese heatwave link, he was just taking the mickey out of gavin and his cherry picked evidence…….at least i am assuming that to be the case since he knows full well it does not prove anything.
I don’t know if we can really compare apples and oranges. A large volcanic eruption close to the equator (Tambora) is different to an Icelandic explosion.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/07/could_2011_be_the_year_without.html
“http://joannenova.com.au/2010/07/australian-warming-trend-adjusted-up-by-40/
Case in point , I dont think many of us say australia has not become warmer…..but by how much?”
..and more importantly what is causing it, with a standard of proof that is a tad better than just shrugging shoulders and saying we can think of anything else.
Comments on TCS’s latest ad:
http://landshape.org/news/?page_id=1261
I would especially welcome yours luke.
Cohers – you guys don’t get it – you’ve go to market yourself. Look if you were in the seat of Griffith – would you like this babe representing you or cruddy old Ruddy. http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/federal-election/rudd-rival-rediscovers-photogenic-side-with-fashion-splash-20100726-10rng.html
She’s got my vote ! Who cares what she stands for.
So get Leon off the page – and get Joanne in there showing showing a bit of leg and tell me I’m a naughty boy for entertaining evil warmist thoughts. Look Cohers – Jo and Jen are seriously hot ! And Climate change is a bloody boring subject – you have to pizzazz it up a bit !
Who gives a stuff about the adiabatic lapse rate. There is a tropospheric hot spot – it’s where these femme fatales are.
You’re preaching to the converted with Leon’s advert – all you need is someone firing a banned semi-auto wearing a balaclava with T-shirt saying “From my cold dead hands” or “Licence gays not guns” to complete the picture. (we know you’ve hid a few semis away haven’t you?)
If you want the demographic you need to make those metrosexual transurban Gen-Y types to think scepticism is healthy, young, hip, fun, light and dare I say “sexy”. I almost converted after seeing this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0veQQgGxKus What a hottie ! I only got banned so she noticed me. Maybe denialists do have more fun?
Give Leon the boot ! Unless you want to have the granny camphor and lavender theme as the meme.
Splendid, simply splendid luke; you’ve had a poor run lately; good to see you’re back in top form.
Finally, something we can all agree with luke on…………………………both Jo and Jen are attractive women.
cohers,
This has been doing the rounds a bit today. What do you make of it?
Does it blow AGW to smithereens?
http://www.spinonthat.com/CO2_files/The_Diurnal_Bulge_and_the_Fallacies_of_the_Greenhouse_Effect.html
Gentlemen…please try to concentrate.
http://climateinsiders.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/s_timeseries-1.png
What happens in the Antarctic is important and I fully expect to see icebergs within view of Margaret River within a decade. OK Luke, it’s up on the fridge.
‘There should be an acceptance that the climate has warmed since measurements began. OK, there’s then debate about what caused that warming. But I do find it difficult engaging with people who deny the evidence and say the world has not warmed.’
Phil Jones 28/7/10
Hmmm…
SD; Pratt goes nowhere with google and I wonder why you can’t see the light after that piece below wine glass 2
gavin,
Specifically what piece is that and what’s wrong with it?
Spanglers – another wacker. If he’s so good get published in GRL – it will be a Nobel prize (they never do though do they). Small problem in that back radiation from the non-existent greenhouse effect can be measured on any clear night. Of shit – reality. Poof !
Toby re your 2:00pm 29 July – well as a teacher Toby how would your get your class to work through the problem.
So you think the world has warmed – WHY ?
Is it solar, PDO or …. what’s the evidence? Come on Toby – you should be solving these yourself by now !
“Small problem in that back radiation from the non-existent greenhouse effect can be measured on any clear night.”
I don’t think he is denying that.
He is saying that if this back radiation doesn’t happen the GH still works.
SD; another piece in the jigsaw; what luke is talking about is N2 and O2 backradiation which is measured as being much less than CO2 which is much less than H2O:
http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/07/24/the-amazing-case-of-back-radiation-part-two/
Those interested in the behavior of ‘back-radiation’ should consider how solar ovens can be used to freeze water, even though ambient temperatures are above freezing.
Using a Solar Oven as a Radiant Refrigerator at Night
http://solarcooking.org/radiant-fridge.htm
How to Use the Solar Funnel as a Refrigerator/Cooler
http://www.provident-living-today.com/Alternative-Refrigeration.html
Obviously, the warming effect of ‘back-radiation’ is not terribly impressive.
Are you feeling short of breath?
Worldwide phytoplankton levels are down 40 percent since the 1950s, and they produce half the world’s oxygen.
Gasp, wheeze.
It’s due to global warming, of course!
Plant plankton – some of it visible, some microscopic – help keep Earth cool. They take carbon dioxide, the key greenhouse gas, out of the air to keep the world from getting even warmer, [lead author Daniel] Boyce said.
Phytoplankton, base of ocean food web, declining
Associated Press
July 29, 2010
http://www.theolympian.com/2010/07/29/1319023/phytoplankton-base-of-ocean-food.html
Global phytoplankton decline over the past century
Nature, 29 July 2010
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v466/n7306/abs/nature09268.html
Well Schiller if back radiation isn’t impressive – you’d better tell GE and Osram
Look no hands Schillsy http://www.osram.com.au/osram_au/Tools_&_Services/Calculators_and_Consultants/IRC_Energy_Saver/index.html
Bulb can get the same temperature and light output with less power due to IR reflecting glass – it’s a bloomin’ miracle mate. – it’s magic Schillsbo. I reckon Osram invented it as part of the global conspiracy with CRU and the IPCC. Excuse me while I adjust my tin foil hat.
Shhhh GE is in on it too.
http://www.gelighting.com/na/business_lighting/faqs/halogen.htm#9
And speaking of foil. http://rabett.blogspot.com/2008/09/light-dawns-there-are-styles-in-science.html
You’re a clown Schiller. Get educamuckated ya big dope.
Hmm… Luke explains ‘how the Earth’s atmosphere is like the inside of a light bulb with a reflective coating on part of it’. Not.
Luke then explains the super powers involved in ‘visible IR’ (we’ll call this the ‘Superman Theory’). Not.
Luke, if you’d actually have read the articles at those links, you would have found that there is back-radiation. From clouds. With a clear night sky, with all that CO2 between the ground and outer space, the heat in the oven leaks away to below ambient — all in perfect accordance with the 2d law and the known properties of water vapor and CO2.
The US EPA has determined that the IPCC reports had only two errors, and fixed both of them.
The US EPA has determined that the CRU emails said nothing about the science. Meanwhile, the EPA did not look at the science any more than Oxburgh did.
Skeptics/realists keep pointing at the science, whilst the warmists insist on looking nearly anywhere else.
EPA rejects ‘Climate-gate’ bid to scuttle carbon rules
The Hill
07/29/10
http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/677-e2-wire/111733-epa-rejects-climate-gate-bid-to-scuttle-carbon-rules-
Stepping back a bit, women have been trading on their good looks from the days of Adam and Eve but it hasn’t made them practical engineers in leading the fight one way or another.
I think you guys were confused by the looks rather than the so called “glass ceiling” when it comes to someone doing home based back radiation studies with wine glasses and light bulbs. Such entertainment also comes at a price.
Why in “Hell” here are we hung up with puny links to “Greenhouse” and Glass?
Lets offer a link with substance
http://glacierchange.wordpress.com/
Those pictures should make it easier for Schiller and one or two others.
Thanks for your attention
NO Schiller – NO NO NO NO NO NO NO
Back radiation on clear nights you hopeless denialist nitwit.
And the Osram light bulb proves the sheer stupidity of the “colder can’t warm the warmer” ruse. It’s about NETT !
And Schiller that’s why you are a denialist.
Just answer yes or no on this for the blog record Shillsbo “I Schiller hereby state categorically that back radiation it not detectable from a clear night sky” Go on Schiller – say YES !
The msm journalists have lost their way and one day, when reality finally dawns, the ignorant zealots will get the sack. Particularly the ratbags at our ABC.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/07/the_left_and_its_talking_point.html
The Japanese current is cooling the US west coast and there is a casual suggestion that the sun may have an effect on the PDO.
Dang, Luke.
A clear night sky is a net loss of heat. What is your problem? Oh, maybe that there’s a ‘measurable quantity’ of back radiation from cloudless atmosphere. You’re apparently relying on the ‘teensy little bit’ argument.
Now personally I’m a fan of the ‘teensy little bit’ argument. So, when the quantity of back-radiation results in frozen water below ambient temperatures, I’m gonna say your teensy bit of CO2 doesn’t result in AGW, much less, CAGW.
Luke, your side has completely lost it on fundamental physics, what do you have left? The behavior or light bulbs I suppose, which is rather demented.
Schiller; are you tracking both the story and the comments?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/07/experiment-to-test-the-temperature-influence-of-infrared-sky-radiation/
Gavin,
You and Luke are suffering from plankton-mediated loss of oxygen. You and he should seek out pensioners and borrow a few lungfuls from their tanks and try again.
Hard to make sense when you got anoxia and a bottle of sheep-dip Bourbon between yourselves.
Mann defends the indefensible.
http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentary/99588169.html?elr=KArksc8P:Pc:UthPacyPE7iUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUU
Jobs for the “boys” and only the converted need apply….. http://www.theage.com.au/federal-election/15m-for-climate-chiefs-20100729-10y1x.html
Thanx Toby
‘Part of the commission’s role will be to assist the 150-member Citizen’s Assembly, a group designed to find a consensus on the issue.’
This has to be a no brainer and the commissioners are a pack of bastards. Sorry, I’m really, really angry.
If ignorance is bliss and foley to be wise, I am indeed a fool.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/07/30/2968669.htm
That is ‘folly to be wise’.
‘Yes, we could have one of them [skeptics] in a story, or on a show, and have a representative of the other side. But that would be false balance.’
PBS ombudsman.
‘Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts’.
Richard Feynman
http://www.thegwpf.org/opinion-pros-a-cons/1320-the-difference-between-true-science-and-cargo-cult-science.html
Yamal chronology once again under the spotlight.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2010-07/haog-sor072910.php
This is the part that Steve McIntyre highlights in that paper.
‘The reconstructed summer temperatures of the last four centuries from Lapland and the Kola and Taimyr Peninsulas are similar in that all three data series display a temperature peak in the middle of the twentieth century, followed by a cooling of one or two degrees. Only the data series from the Yamal Peninsula differed, reaching its peak later, around 1990. What stands out in the data from the Kola Peninsula is that the highest temperatures were found in the period around 1935 and 1955, and that by 1990 the curve had fallen to the 1870 level, which corresponds to the start of the Industrial Age.’
el gordo; how does this fit with my previous link?
http://instaar.colorado.edu/aaar/browse_abstracts/abstract.php?id=2706
Last point for the day, I forgot to mention this front page headline from our Canberre Times
“Data deluge to make sceptics feel the heat” and I recommend those global pics 1979 & 99
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/local/news/general/data-deluge-to-make-sceptics-feel-the-heat/1899669.aspx
gavin
Looking in a rear vision mirror is okay, but melting glaciers will soon ground to a halt, along with above average temperatures. The warmists are pushing a monstrous lie when they say temperatures will continue to trend upwards, I have no faith in their nonsense.
Talking of deluge, a strong La Nina is developing and it may parallel the intense 1949-51 period, but obviously it’s just speculation. Nevertheless, big floods are coming and it will be on our patch.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/lnlist/194951/194951_anim.gif
Gee Scillsbo – teensy weensy – yes about 300 watts worth – and a magical 30% energy reduction for same light from our Osram bulb. You clown Schiller ….
Well Gavin we’ll see if Schillsy disagrees with Roy Spencer (LOL!) This should be good as he obfuscates his way out. Expect diversionary ad homs to fly.
Luke,
Spencer built a device similar to the solar ovens/refrigerators and got a similar result.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/07/first-results-from-the-box-investigating-the-effects-of-infrared-sky-radiation-on-air-temperature/
Of course, I am not surprised or amazed. The real world tends to generate replicable results. As opposed to climatology — which apparently now also relies in part on thoughts about a light bulb.
Are you a bit dense Schiller – what don’t you understand about the light bulb. Hardly thoughts – demonstrated in reality you mean. According to you and your fellow anti-science travellers the bulb violates the second law of thermodynamics.
And are you in disagreement with your icon and idol Roy Spencer?
Luke,
How exactly does the bulb violate the second law? I see no violation.
And no, I am not disagreeing with Roy. Why would I? BTW he is neither my icon nor idol. Personality cults are for CAGWers.
El gordo; you have absolutely no evidence for global temperatures suddenly turning down or even drifting down in the near future. And what about our msm; you reckon they should all be suckers too? In contrast to your latest internet probing I find these NH reports of record HIGH temperatures and widespread deadly fires
“Forest fires raged across Russia on Friday, destroying villages, surrounding one southern city and killing at least 25 people, including three firefighters. Prime Minister Vladimir Putin consoled survivors at one smoldering village and urged officials to redouble their efforts against the blazes”
http://www.newser.com/article/d9h9f4l00/putin-visits-russian-village-destroyed-by-forest-fires-death-toll-from-blazes-up-to-25.html
Have you no pity? Both the Age the Canberra times are running the story today by David Nowak in Moscow so don’t be smug like Schiller and have a look for your self.
http://www.theage.com.au/world/hundreds-of-homes-razed-as-deadly-fires-hit-russia-20100730-10zu7.html
“And what about our msm; you reckon they should all be suckers too? ” Well gavin, if you mean fairfax and the abc, yes I would; one only has to look at their typical reader to see that.
luke, this perpetual heating concept is looked at here:
http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/07/26/do-trenberth-and-kiehl-understand-the-first-law-of-thermodynamics/#comment-5553
ChrisG, well known Deltoid provocateur, is there trying to white-ant my hypothetical; perhaps you can help him.
gavin
Having once worked for Rural Press I agree with cohenite about Fairfax and the ABC.
Apart from that, the ‘wheat futures have surged for a fourth day, set for the biggest monthly gain in almost three decades, on concerns that drought in Russia and other parts of Europe will continue to curb global supply.’
The floods in China and drought in Russia and Europe have come about because of a wobbly jet stream. This is natural variability and has nothing to do with soot or CO2.
Schiller – so you don’t admire Roy Spencer then – WOW !
How does it violate the second law (Accoding to denialist) – well Schillsy a colder source (the IR reflecting glass) is warming further a warmer source (the filament) by reflection of radiation – the net result is what you get from NET !
Deniers deny it !
Cohers – it’s not “perpetual” – it’s simply a new equilibrium. Do go on. Perpetual is your Jack’s beanstalk PDO tripe ….
Well Cohers – http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/07/26/do-trenberth-and-kiehl-understand-the-first-law-of-thermodynamics/#comment-5553 – the Ebex graph says it all for me – SoD comment 31 July 12:01am.
Schillsy could alos do well to explain to me to 4 measurements – solar shortwave downwards, upwards
and IR long wave upwards and downwards over 24 hours.
Congrats to SoD to get some serious empiricism measurements into the many silly debates of the last year.
And hat tip to Roy Spencer too for his experiment. (did I say that ! – eeek)
Some choice commentary on CSIRO modelling capabilities at
http://blogs.news.com.au/couriermail/andrewbolt/index.php/couriermail/comments/yet_another_green_con_unravels/#commentsmore
Does the bulb violate the second law of thermodynamics? Came across this riveting story on solar physics, which puts CO2 in its rightful place.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/07/the_thunder_and_the_firecracke.html
From the UK mail online, we can see a knock-on effect of a failed harvest.
Commodity experts from Russia have also announced that the country’s wheat exports could almost halve because of a drought, raising fears of an export ban which would have a significant-impact on UK food inflation.
Tom Vosa, chief economist for the Clydesdale and Yorkshire Banks, said: ‘We expect to see an acceleration of food prices and a return to double-digit increases by early next year if the situation doesn’t change.’
Another Ian, thx I saw the article in the Australian today about this. What a joke! So is it easier to model the efficiency rating of a house, or to model the climate? It really is pathetic all of this green washing and people wonder why the sceptics are increasing not decreasing. And they call us deniers for doubting their exagerations and certainty.
El Gordo – from American Thumper “Would a stream of ionized particles help to energize the Pacific Decadal Oscillation?” ROFL.
Alternatively would stream of ionized particles make my ears fall off?
Cohenite’s pretentious blather on Nova’s “The bulk of Ms Tranter’s article concerns itself with casting aspersions on the motives of sceptics. ” Yes matey – that’s why you’re in bed with the property rights crowd.
Pullease your slip is showing. Hey can we have a look at all your emails?
Hold the phone! I just read this rather long but fascinating article by a lefty environmental scientist that is quite revealing.
http://activistteacher.blogspot.com/search/label/1%20-%20GW%3A%20Truth%20or%20Dare%3F
Heave a read and see what you think!
And I’ve just seen the climate sceptics senate list – what a bunch of Dad’s Army dudes. Rivetting guys. And the dead bird ad full of wildlife shot by rednecks was nauseating. You guys are simply ratshit. You suck.
(Except for the Tassy candidate – If were in Tassy I’d vote for her. What a stunner)
Try this Coho https://www.getup.org.au/campaign/ClimateActionNow&id=1181
so the fact that wind turbines destroy eagles in the LA mountains is not a concern for you Luke? It’s well documented on
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xe85OaacwB8
Surely you are not a supporter of wind power and it’s inability to provide.
http://windfarmperformance.info/?date=2010-05-08
Oh, you noticed luke; the enformed voter speaks.
The gods are smiling on the Sceptics in SA.
http://www.news.ninemsn.com/article.aspx?id=7937577
The donkey vote should reap a plentiful harvest.
So John lets also ban cats, gun nuts, motor cars, pesticides, oil spills, habitat destruction – the real majority of things that kill birds – are you in full support?
Meanwhile back at the science – something for everyone http://climatehistory.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/Neukom_GRL_2010.pdf especially Coho
Anyone in their right mind would put Climate Sceptic Drongos last – not only a Dad’s Army and bad ads. But simply a front for right wing extremists.
“”It is the number one spot, it should give us a bit of an opportunity, but you never can tell until you know what the preferences are like.” Jeez !! That’s hopeful …
We won’t see one Faux Sceptic senator.
Next week the Farmonline website requires a $52.00 membership fee to have access to the site. It is a Fairfax organisation. El Gordo mentioned Fairfax and the ABC above. Ian Mott mentioned one of his posts had not been accepted from the day before. The journalists on Farm Online always report the Alarmists story. Ben Cubby etc. Is there something unusual about this.
If there was a “free comics for every school” party, which I think is a great idea, I still wouldn’t vote for them ’cause it’s
a waste of a vote.
I voted for krudd last time(fool me once…..)the reality check has been quite painful.
Luke,
You need to do your reading prior to presenting arguments. Such as about halogen light bulbs.
Halogen bulbs generate tremendous quantities of heat (IR), compared to other bulbs. This is essentially wasted energy, as IR is not visible.
The bulbs you are touting have an added feature — a dichroic coating that acts as a reflector for IR generated within the bulb. It reflects the IR back toward the base of the bulb, where, due to the nature of halogen bulbs (gas/filament interaction), it is re-emitted as visible light. This makes the bulb more efficient in producing visible light, lowering the amount of energy required for the same amount of illumination.
This is of course quite useless as an explanation of the behavior of Earth’s atmosphere, and does not refute the 2d law, either.
Where do you come up with this goofy stuff? No way you did it yourself.
Yes Schillsy – brilliant you read it – but under standard denialist mantra this cannot happen – the cooler reflector warming the hotter filament. The Osram bulb is a practical implementation of Rabett’s tinfoil experiment to demonstrate the same …. http://rabett.blogspot.com/2008/09/light-dawns-there-are-styles-in-science.html
Same thing with radiation shields and ovens.
Schiller – you are a dope – you’re on record here as denying the 300 watts of back radiation exists. You’ve supported your stupid fellow travellers with their 2nd law ruse. Just shows you are totally indiscriminate in the crap that you support. You’re an activist twit. Now go away.
Hey Coho
Are you proud to be associated with these crazies in your “party”
From your Queensland candidate…
“Next time will be too late and the great country we once knew will be gone forever.
Handed over to extreme greenies and extreme muslims who want to remove our democratic way of life and replace with the horrendous Sharia law.”
SHARIA LAW – mate – so somehow aussies are about to vote in Sharia Law – tell you what matey – your climate clowns must be the greatest collection of looney tunes ever assembled. What a joke ! Put them in the nursing homes quickly !!
Couldn’t you have found a blockie at Gympie with some semi-autos buried up the back?
Just tell me he has your full support Cohers – just say it. I dare you.
Luke,
The efficiency of a reflector does not depend on the temperature of the reflector. Temperature and reflection are two different things, and it is good not to confuse the two.
The notion that CO2 ‘acts like a downward reflector’ is of course ridiculous, though CAGWers have been known to advance such a claim from time to time. For certain, it’s not a claim that a skeptic or a denialist would make, and your assertion that they would is bizarre.
Which makes the experiment at http://rabett.blogspot.com fairly useless — unless you’re trying to prove that the atmosphere does not behave like a tin foil reflector. Which is what the experiment actually proves.
I have never made any statement quantifying the number of watts of downward radiation, from any source.
The 2d law is not a ruse. What is more, it it accounts for radiative refrigeration.
I think you are a very confused person.
What a joker you are Luke, have a look at this green madness that wastes hundreds of millions of dollars but still cannot get one big solar farm off the ground.
Brumby’s response is to order a whole new batch of these ruinous white elephants, fair dinkum the Sceptics are rank amateurs compared to the labor and green loons that you vote for you twit.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/brumby_sells_us_a_solar_crock_just_as_even_gillard_sees_the_light/
Very good post from Paul Driessen at WUWT, everything he says is accurate and factual, so don’t bother reading it Luke you wouldn’t understand.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/31/climate-proposals-threaten-pursuit-of-happiness-and-justice/#more-22821
Utter rot and sheer stupidity Schiller – do you think a photon knows whether it has emitted downwards or reflected. A duh.
(1) The background downwelling radiation has been measured – exists on clear nights
(2) It’s about NET energy balance – not the 2nd law ruse ! As proved by our little light bulb
What a stooge you are Neville – are you also proposing we’re about to be overtaken by Sharia Law – you stupid geriatric galoot.
Neville it begs the question whether denialist turds are entitled to a vote at an election. Do the mentally disabled get a vote. Sharia Law Neville – your mate not mine !
Some of my thoughts on climate change policies and the upcoming election in Australia:
http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2010/08/least-worst-climate-policy
Good read, Jen. It deserves a larger audience.
Yes, it is a good read; a couple of points before I turn my attention to luke who is rapidly degenerating into banshee mode – perhaps he has read the latest opinion polls -. Bob Carter’s Plan B is, as you’d expect pragmatic and reasonable; he does, however, neglect some of the most likely natural hazards; for instance asteroid strikes are proven hazards; the strike in 1908, at Tunguska in central Siberia is a good example; TCS would provide asteroid monitoring funds and reactivate Australia’s space exploration program which has been neglected by the navel staring narcissicists of the Green and left side of politics.
Luke has worked up a sweat over Sharia law; I am happy to debate anyone about the conflict between Sharia law, which is advocated by all major Islam groups, and democracy. A recent poll in Pakistan showed that 90% of the people want Sharia law. The point is, is this representitive of all muslims and what does this mean for the concept of a moderate moslem, defined as having a willingness to abide by secular and democratic structures and to oppose terrorism. But I’ll start easy with luke: what is your view about the burqa?
Gee why do we bother arguing with a donkey like Luke?
I’m happy to refer anyone to Hitchens , Harris or Dawkins and their warnings of Islam and Sharia law.
They are all of the left but are realists as well and have all the facts and numbers about this mad cult and its threat to our freedoms in western countries.
In one debate Sam Harris quoted poll figures from Britain that showed that 55% of British moslems would like to see Sharia law introduced to the UK.
Because Luke comes from the mad left these numbers won’t register on his tiny mind but at least we know that some of the left are as worried as the more conservative percentage of the population which of course includes the old labor blue collar people as well.
Ho ho ho – what Plan B – you don’t have one.
As for burkhas – fine in your own home. I’m sure you’re wearing one and fish net stockings too.
Just not at the banks or cash register. But come on Coho – why are you indulging this paff? We’re all gonna be under Sharia Law HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA – “licence climate sceptics not guns” says my bumper.
This is your Qld Senate candidate – it’s hilarious !
It doesnt surprise me one bit that the serial abuser is also remarkably lacking on other fronts.
Its only few posts back he exposed his appalling ignorance as to everyones rights and responsibilities under the Taxation Law, and had some simpletons version of it.
The fact that he is also ignorant as to what Islam and sharia Laws means to us, is therefore no surprise
This survey of the make up of the main books of the Koran is also revealing as to its embedded hatred of the kaffir and its blatant antisemiticism, all of which is at the root of much of the trouble around the world.
Perhaps this might encourage him to do some homework.
http://www.politicalislam.com/blog/the-acid-test-for-islamophobia/
‘Plan B is a plan of adaptation, a plan for change without illusionary and naturally unachievable goals to stop climate change, a dynamic system that will accompany us for the rest of our lives and the life of planet Earth.’
Bob Carter 2009
It’s the NZ model, modest in cost, yet very effective in saving lives and property. Politically it would be a winner, if only someone would take the time to listen.
You know, you might be sincere in your naivety luke; I was interviewed earlier today and the nice lady radio interviewer responded to my observation that Green energy policies would inevitably mean power cuts by saying that ‘they’ wouldn’t let that happen; she did admit she might be naive. And this is the point, most people are well meaning and assume other people are too; quite simply this is one of the main reasons Green and Moslem fundamentalists get away with what they do; the other reason is, of course, left duplicity and complicity: Nic Cohen’s great book “What’s Left” explains ‘the enemy of my enemy is my friend’ logic of the left in dealing with such groups as the greens and the islamists. So, which are you luke: naive or duplicitous? We already know you have bad taste; fishnet stockings indeed; everyone knows anybody who is anybody is wearing sheer nylons.
According to BOM it was the 11th consecutive July with above average maximum temperatures in NSW and mild nights with above average statewide minimum temperatures.
The warmists must be slipping, another global warming story goes to waste.
In Luke’s absence, I vote he’s naive.
One could hope he has gone away on quiet retreat somewhere to ponder matters, and even do some wider reading. If he had an ounce of introspection, which is unlikely, one that could give him nightmares, would be Barbara Tuchmans book…. ” The March of Folly”
” The book defines folly by examining the first case, letting the Trojan Horse into Troy. To qualify as folly for this book, Tuchman explains, acts have to be clearly contrary to the self-interest of the organization or group pursuing them; conducted over a period of time, not just in a single burst of irrational behavior; conducted by a number of individuals, not just one deranged maniac; and, importantly, there have to be people alive at the time who pointed out correctly why the act in question was folly ”
If the great lady was alive today I bet she would add Global Warming to the list of modern follies…. there are not many but this would have to be the dooziest of them all.
Sorry El Gordo – my jaw is on the floor watching Malcolm and Cohers indulging this Sharia Law threat nonsense. So here you are in a politically centrist society and you actually think a majority of people will vote for an Islamisation of Australia combined with self-induced falling living standards. You guys are DESPERATE !
There is no Plan B – as you have trashed all climate science and all climate data ever invented. You now have no basis for knowing anything. You are the book burning barbarians within.
Anyway guys there is hope with 20% of Australians atheists and growing !
” So here you are in a politically centrist society and you actually think a majority of people will vote for an Islamisation of Australia combined with self-induced falling living standards.”
Not in so many words; in fact just one word: Green. Anyway Islamisation does not proceed by vote. Read Nic Cohen’s “What’s Left”; or Sam Harris’s “The End of Faith”; or say something sensible.
‘…you have trashed all climate science and all climate data ever invented.’
Well, no. I’ve always been a big fan of Hubert Lamb, but recent CAGW modeling leaves me cold.
OK Coho – “Islamisation does not proceed by vote” – so you’re a looney tune too. Time to leave Newcastle !
Well El Gordo – let’s see what you have:
(1) no data worth having – it’s corrupt
(2) no organisations – CSIRO or BoM or unis worth having – they’re all part of “THE BIG conspiracy”
(3) none of the climate models are of any use
(4) no physics – 2nd law is wrong
(5) and sceptics don’t like publishing and peer review is shot – so being able to make discerning review is all gone
You don’t have much left to work with I’m afraid…. what you have left of your making is anarchy
Time for a song: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQkActP-isE
Anyway – who cares we’ll all be under Sharia Law soon (ROTFL!)
“The second law is wrong”
WTF? Is this really part of the CAGW mantra?
I accept the data (even though adjusted) because global cooling will dwarf the AGW signal.
CSIRO and BOM are worth keeping, just the CAGW zealots need to be purged.
The climate modelers should acknowledge that natural warming is real.
I don’t see how you can convince any lay person that the 2nd law is relevant for your argument.
The peer review system has broken down and will need to be resurrected.
We agree on only one thing, burkahs (sic) should not be worn in public. I do not believe in a monotheistic god, but have always been a great supporter of women’s rights in a free and just society.
Bob Carter shows that this CAGW debate is all about religion and not logic and reason.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/01/the-phenomena-of-disinvitation-and-the-brotherhood-of-silence/#more-22834
Wandered over to Bishop Hill and picked up a quote from somebody well respected by the German msm. Dr Reinhard Bohm works at ZAMT (the Central Institute for Meteorology and Geodynamics.)
When you call it “strong scientific evidence for the existence of a global MWP’ , then I agree with that. There is no doubt about it. If you had said, like the extremists on one side happily state, that the MWP has clearly exceeded the current temperatures, then I would have had to contradict you. That is not “state of the art”. The fundamentalist fraction on the other side talks down the MWP with glee ……[?? the rest of this sentence is really not intelligible]
Despite a heatwave and the hottest temperature in decades, England suffered the wettest July ever recorded, according to the UK Met.
This July was also the rainiest month in Mexico’s history, but I’m not too sure if either of these events is a global cooling signal.
LUKE
“Anyway – who cares we’ll all be under Sharia Law soon (ROTFL!)”
Maybe not, if Europe succumbs first, and we wake up, we still may have time, to avoid it.
Nothing like a good dose of practical experience of the perils to wake people up.
Not unlike the hip pocket nerve, but unfortunately this one could be permanent.
Steve Goddard knocked this graphic up to show below average temperatures, over the past six months, in the continental US.
http://climateinsiders.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/yeartdeptusanomaly.png
Is this a cooling signal?
The Second Law of Thermodynamics is ‘The biggest, most powerful, most general idea in all of science.’ [1] Also known as the principle of entropy, it has implications for all matter and energy in the universe, but is most often discussed in the context of heat transfer, such as the examples here. [2]
There are actually people who deny universal application of the Second Law. They believe it does not apply to climate change.
One formulation of the claim: “The surface of the Earth actually receives in total more radiation from the atmosphere than it does from the Sun.” [3] (Actually, since this implies ‘created’ energy, there’s also a violation of the First Law.)
Experience with solar ovens/refrigerators differs. [4] During the day, with full sun and a clear sky, solar radiation raises the Earth’s atmospheric temperature. At night, with a clear sky, the only incoming radiation is “back-radiation” from the atmosphere. A solar oven receiving only this radiation actually acts as a refrigerator, reducing temperatures *below* ambient temperatures.
The system described by CAGWers obviously would not yield this result, and if it did, that would indicate a violation of the Second Law.
Interestingly, NASA has *removed* back-radiation from Earth’s energy budget, leaving the IPCC as the main proponent of global warming due to back-radiation! [5]
————-
1. http://secondlaw.oxy.edu/two.html
2. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/seclaw.html
3. http://www.skepticalscience.com/Second-law-of-thermodynamics-greenhouse-theory.htm
4. http://solarcooking.org/radiant-fridge.htm
5. http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/05/nasas-earth-energy-budget-contradicts.html
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/IQAPetition.pdf
So much for the unambiguous evidence and theory that all the data sets were independantly derived and are therefore independant of each other.
Complete b/s of course… and yet more evidence of the incompetence of the publically funded warmanistas….who need to explain to simple tax payers why is it that if the argument is so compelling why is there a need to engage in subterfuge and lies to get the message out.
Shonkademia has a lot of questions to answer.
For luke:
http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=MzYwZWRjYTJhZGM0YTY4NzJmOTgwMDNiZmI0ZTdjNTE=
And for your delectation Cohers
http://cccma.seos.uvic.ca/imsc/11imsc/final_program_abstracts.pdf
Suggested perusing of 80, 81, 83 and page 88 (at least!)
And El Gordo – when Bob rolls out Plan B – you’ll be sacking all the scientists above. You’ll be back in the stone age before you know it. Good old Bob eh? The scope of Plan B has just flattened me – what breadth – what depth – what insight.
Plan B – good old Plan B.
Cohers – where do you find these guys ? http://climatesceptics.net/?p=1639 I won’t say it.
And as for http://climatesceptics.net/?p=1744 – well maybe she is a flake – but you guys quote mined her – evil turds that you are.
And Leon reminds me http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fl5v0vCWfh8&feature=fvsr – it’s the new Sceptics campaign video. Better soundtrack too.
Very interesting article Cohenite, but don’t hold your breath waiting to get an intelligent response from Luke.
This mad cult believes in the forced subjugation of women, paedophilia, honour killings, (?) intolerance of jews, intolerance of other religions or non religion, intolerance towards other branches of islam etc, etc.
But of course the cults greatest supporters in western countries are the liberal left, probably the strangest grouping in recent history.
Hitchens, Dawkins and Harris can’t understand why the mad left has thrown their weight behind this mad cult but it’s simple because they judge that the enemy of my enemy must be my friend.
What a vile pack of cowards.
Thanx Luke, could you please translate.
‘We show that greenhouse gas forcings share a common stochastic trend, but the latter is empirically independent of the stochastic trend between temperature and solar irradiance.’
‘Therefore, greenhouse gas forcings, global temperature and solar irradiance are not polynominally cointegrated, and AGW is refuted.’
http://cccma.seos.uvic.ca/imsc/11imsc/final_program_abstracts.pdf
http://rossmckitrick.weebly.com/uploads/4/8/0/8/4808045/surfacetempreview.pdf
Mckitricks paper on the temperature records.
I reckon the people put in charge of these temperature records have the same IQ levels as those running the BER and Insulation program farces.
Doesnt give you confidence that any of them know what they are doing.
Thx Malcolm an interesting report indeed, it seems to make a compelling case for questioning how much warming has occurred. And since we know that at least sum (20-50%) of the warming can be explained by natural changes, we have to wonder what is really going on!
I love this quote from pg15
“There are two notable features of the graph. The first is that the adjustments are mainly negative prior to
1940 and positive up to about 1990, effectively “cooling” the early part of the record and “warming” the
later record. In other words, a portion of the warming trend shown in global records derived from the
GHCN-adj archive results from the adjustments, not from the underlying data. Our calculations show that
this adds about 0.12 degrees to the 20th century average over land.
The second, and more obvious feature is the chimney-brush appearance of the graph, indicating a
massive increase in the volatility of the adjustments after 1990. The instability in the record dwarfs the
size of the century-scale global warming signal, with fluctuations routinely going to ±0.5 degrees C from
one year to the next. The southern hemisphere (bottom panel) is particularly noisy.
On substantive grounds I therefore conclude that after 1990 the GHCN archive became very problematic
as a basis for computing precise global average temperatures over land and comparing them to earlier decades.” boom boom bang.
Note Luke it is not that temp increases are really being questioned, rather the degree of warming..as per jo nova’s recent post on australian temps.
Neville – personally offensive. Pls don’t align me with any of these groups. And tell us Neville when did you stop flogging your wife.
Well El Gordo – translated – it means that dissent does make it to serious science meetings contrary to sceptic opinion. But do read the full account.
Toby – you are really a sucker for the latest sceptic street-walker that comes along – so you’d probably check how SSTs and NMAT has progressed over the same time, Meene et al, what poikilotherms may have done, what the satellite series shows – and so on. Haven’t we been here before – sigh ….
Cohenite – what is the Climate Sceptics Party’s climate policy. I would especially like your party’s position on Southern Ocean research, water resources allocation policy in the MDB, and the surface recording network in broad detail.
Given Bob has a Plan B?
Convince me you have a robust alternative policy and I will vote for your senate candidate.
Luke we have been here before you are right…it doesnt go away though does it? We are talking tenths of degrees and a need to change the way we run our economies. Doesnt what he shows concern you at all? Just how sure are you that we have seen even 0.6-0.8c change over the last 100 years? Having GHCN as the main source of data for all 3 temperature series makes it hardly surprising that they they show similar trends! You do agree with him on that I assume?
Toby – it doesn’t go away as you never think about it broadly and denialists love to recycle.
ocean data sets? bore holes? satellite data – species behaviour – 21,000 studies…. pullease
Toby a couple of degrees SST changes rainfall patterns from on to off over global scales. Have a look at ENSO/IOD/AMO type anomalies
If you want a dry run of the last warming – check out the decades of mega-droughts in USA, China and Africa,
And Toby – if you are not sure it’s warming don’t come back here in the next 10 years saying it’s cooling – like how do you know?
Luke, these types of programs would be assessed according to their benefit/cost to the Australian taxpayer, on a fully competitive basis, with full regard to the state of the budget and preservation of rural communities. We would give particular regard to the entrenched scientific organizations like the Bureau of Meteorology that their programs deliver value to Australian people and industry. Global warming research in particular seems to provide little benefit for all its costs. However anaysis of rainfall patterns as a response to landuse would seem to be a productive area of research. Leon Ashby’s award winning pasture replenishment and rotation methods, as well as other crop enhancement methods would be of keen interest and a basis for further research; I’m sure you have seen them before but here is a link to them again;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qgqn56_TKKA&feature=channel_page
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PpitYF8ISHE&feature=channel_page
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LvgMlueA1uY&feature=channel
In respect of the MDB TCS recognises that as full a stream flow as possible must be maintained; to marry that with preserving a vibrant and vital agricultural industry drawing on the water flow a system of water storage to capture the flow in excess years, such as now, to cater for the lean years would be one solution that we would look at. We’d certainly be consulting with experts whose impartiality we could depend on:
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2008/09/emissions-not-making-rivers-run-dry-a-note-from-stewart-franks/#comments
Even professor Nicholls may get a guernsey:
http://www.weeklytimesnow.com.au/article/2010/03/03/163081_water.html
But don’t misread Neville’s words – what he’s saying is precisely correct – “not clear” -. But this is all about what you don’t know – they are very suspicious that there is a signal in there – see young Timbal. So again we come back to risk. And be fair – how could you “prove it” – only when the trend is completely established in 50 years time would you have the stats to call it.
So back on the Sceptic’s policy ….. and don’t think I’m being snaky …. you really don’t know.
You haven’t thought about it. So I would like to you to take the message that you don’t have a policy back to your brethren with love from your guardian fallen-angel Luke.
What’s your northern Australia policy? Your power base is southern centric to start with ….
Which international science programs will you be supporting? What’s your policy towards the IPCC? Which reps will you be endorsing by what process?
Now a policy doesn’t begin with “Well for a start what we won’t be doing is …”
It starts with what we will be doing is ……
You guys have much work to do !
Two newly-updated lists:
NumberWatch, A complete list of [789] things caused by global warming, August 1, 2010,
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm
P Gosselin – NoTricksZone – Climate News from Germany in English, Climate Scandals: List Of 94 Climate-Gates, August 3, 2010,
http://pgosselin.wordpress.com/2010/08/03/climate-scandals-list-of-94-climate-gates/
Hmmm… that comes to 883 ‘isolated incidents’ of lies, bogus claims, intentional malfeasance, etc. by CAGWers.
Or maybe it’s actually a pattern.
Luke said:
‘If you want a dry run of the last warming – check out the decades of mega-droughts in USA, China and Africa.’
We covered this here recently, the mega drought around 1644 in China saw the collapse of the Ming Dynasty and again in the early 1870s we see another.
Neither had anything to do with warming.
Adaptation to a cooler climate requires only a modest capital investment.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/aug/01/peru-freezing-weather-emergency
Better food, warm clothes, medical support and warmer dwellings.
“And Toby – if you are not sure it’s warming don’t come back here in the next 10 years saying it’s cooling – like how do you know?” Luke’s how do you know is the essence of our debate!
Late yesterday I got a phone call from my home state re the return of some cousins settling the end of an era for their old folks. I immediately called up my long lost “junior” who has spent much of her adult life living far out in the Pacific and we had a long chat about what each one does in retirement.
When we got off island politics, trade restrictions, the msm, the internet and the Federal Government, the subject of climate “change” was raised but I quickly realised we were coming in from opposite sides of the debate. I also realised my cousin was well heeled in sceptics arguments such as “the climate is always changing so I had to go over my observations re high tides, receding beaches and glaciers in our region. My easy point was SL is not going down any time soon and we had to leave it there.
Btw we also discussed ideas for individual independent living in 3rd world countries. What can we do without etc.
Toby; even more current discussion is the flood, and the extreme food predicament for the unlucky people of Pakistan. This record I believe reflects a growing trend in natural disasters that can affect so many.
Are we going to have a food security minister here post election? Given we can also feed some 40 mil offshore now, is it likely we have to grow much more in our lifetime? Should we invite hundreds of displaced persons from changing climates to come over to mind say this ageing lot at 3rd world rates as we go forward?
Nothing is settled hey
When it goes against the warmist trend the (AR4SPM) says it’s ‘consistent with a lack of warming’.
http://diversitylane.wordpress.com/2010/02/12/cold-day-in-hell/
By my reckoning it should become worrisome very soon.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/AMSRE-SST-Global-and-Nino34-thru-July-29-2010.gif
Food security will depend on the free market.
Just a few more peer reviewed papers that the sceptics could glance over to further update their knowledge and skills.
http://joannenova.com.au/2010/08/800-peer-reviewed-papers-to-deny/#more-9734
One factor in “climate change” that’s seldom mentioned is the speed at which adaptation measures can be adopted.
In Europe, during the LIA, wine production was badly hit, resulting in the development of beer; and potatoes became popular due to difficulties growing wheat. This was an adaptation with mixed results, as it was accompanied by warfare over resources etc. popularly known as the Thirty Years’ War.
Our crop breeding and seed-delivery systems are far more robust than in the past. So, too, our air-conditioning systems. And a host of other technologies.
The successful deployment of adaptive technologies depends critically on the availability of economic wealth. If that wealth is all crapped away with cap-and-trade schemes, adaptation will be hobbled to the same extent. If anything, the “public debate over global warming” has brought this issue to public attention.
Now is not the time to decide, like the game show, “Who Will Be a Millionaire” with dodgy subsidy schemes, but rather, how to create enough wealth and technological power to deal with warming, cooling, or a mix of both.
Neville; what a lot of rot!
That list of papers looks like a builders demolition yard. Most of it is from just a few well tramped sceptics sites where old cronies are the norm.
Schiller, I agree we will adapt as a world community to cope with any eventuality. Australia will have a bumper wheat harvest as the Canadian and Russian crops suffer, but over the longer term we should increase our food stocks worldwide as a buffer against abrupt climate change.
Gav, I’m shattered, who would have thought you’d say such cruel things about me?
But seriously I couldn’t give a rat’s khyber what you think about the listed papers, I mean you would say something like that wouldn’t you?
Schiller and El Gordo if you can get a copy of Lomborg’s COOL IT this gives all costs etc of adaptation compared to expensive carbon taxes .
Every library will have a copy or you can purchase a copy in Australia for $24.95, ( 2010 edition) he has assembled the largest team of experts to pull apart the science of CAGW and points out the lies and exaggerations as well.
Gavin, Luke is quite correct when he says if i question the degree of temperature increases i must be equally sceptical of temp decreases. Theory and reality are often completely different and whilst much of the theory of AGW is sound, the evidence is
Gavin, Luke is quite correct when he says if i question the degree of temperature increases i must be equally sceptical of temp decreases.
Theory and reality are often completely different and whilst much of the theory of AGW ( not the CAGW) is sound, the evidence is IMHO far from convincing. How reliable are bore holes? ice cores? tree rings? other proxies? 26000 studies? Schiller sounds like your list of 883 scares, lies exagerations etc may need updating!
Its well documented that if you need funding for research tag AGW onto it. Is it surpirising that these find in favour of AGW?…….more funding please?…and if you set out to find something it is very easy to find it because we “select” what fits instinctively ( myself included without doubt).
It is a relief to hear that your daughter or sister (?) is sceptical even though she is living in the pacific where presumably scares of sea level rise are frequent. She has presumably done some reading and concluded there is doubt. Good for her. I expect she laughed about your rising sea levels and replied with the obvious “yes since the end of the LIA…or better since the end of the last ice age”?
Sorry i sent the start of my email with my”fat fingers”.
More interesting info and latest photos of Arctic sea ice, plus photos taken in 1959 of the same area.
Joe Bastardi is running very strongly on lower temps and more ice in the Nth and Sth poles as la nina builds along with the cool PDO.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/03/open-water-at-the-north-pole/#more-22962
Don’t forget the other book
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/06/the_lomborg_deception_1.php
Speaking as a member of the Denialati I think Lomborg is a ‘centrist’. More wishy washy than a Sceptic, yet more than a populist with an economics degree.
Trust Luke to drag up some looney left nonsense about Lomborg being a CC denier, (?) I mean is that garbage the best you can do?
Lomborg ( wrong I think) certainly believes in AGW, he mentions it a number of times in his books but he also points out the flaws and exaggerations and lies, that’s the bit the alarmists can’t tolerate.
He is a master debater and shows the utter uselessness of the Kyoto agreement for example and any other post Kyoto nonsense that won’t work either.
Thx for the link Neville…interesting
This recent paper by Ge et al. found three extended warm periods between 1470s-1610s, 1700s-1780s and after 1900.
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2010/06/30/china’s-2000-year-temperature-history/
Their MWP was also warmer than present and note the warmth during the European LIA.
Hey Coho – are A4 diaries two-tooths?
“Originally from a diary farming family at Meadows.” diary farming?
Tony – Lomborg’s work – 100s of errors – sigh ….
This is an old yarn, but it seems to me there is a strong connection between a warm PDO and the strengthening of the subtropical ridge.
‘As of May 2009, south-eastern Australia had recorded its driest 12 year period on record, with an annual average of 506mm since October 1996. Previously, the driest 12-year period was from 1935-1947, when the annual average was 511mm.’
Dr Bertrand Timbal and colleagues at BOM linked the ridge’s behavior to global warming. Which is obviously only half the story, the subtropical ridge presumably shrinks during global cooling?
http://nqr.farmonline.com.au/news/state/agribusiness-and-general/general/modelling-the-climate-change-possibilities/1607862.aspx
Accuweather is predicting it will be cooler in LA this NH winter. The north-west is set to cop the most snow, while the southern half of the US is looking awfully droughty.
http://www.accuweather.com/blogs/news/story/34891/winter-2011-heavier-snow-for-c.asp
http://chartsgraphs.wordpress.com/ Interesting site for all
El Gordo – nope it’s got a centennial signal ! Try again. You might be ready for this by now
http://www.ccrc.unsw.edu.au/PDF/Timbal_UNSW2009.pdf
La Nina will be in place by the summer, while the Indian Ocean Dipole may remain neutral, according to Elders weather.
‘Forecasts until October continue to show likely rainfall close to or above median for southeast QLD, and for central and eastern NSW. Early rainfall forecasts for summer 2010/2011 are generally near or above median for summer-rainfall regions of northern and eastern Australia, driven by the high probability of a La-Nina event.’
No, there were three last century and presumably three more in the nineteenth century. Why does it always have to be the result of AGW? They are always so keen to find a connection that they believe natural variability only happens on other planets.
http://www.clw.csiro.au/conferences/GICC/timbal.pdf
El Gordo,
If you’re willing to accept the notion that history does not repeat itself, that means that current climatic conditions are unprecedented.
Since they are unprecedented, that means they’re caused by AGW. Quite simple, really.
US, Russia in opposite directions
In the US, cap and trade is dead. “It’s quite obvious for the last several years that the climate debate has sucked up all the oxygen from other environmental issues,” said Frank O’Donnell, president of the nonprofit group Clean Air Watch. “After the fighting and exhaustion of climate, there are a lot of other issues waiting in the queue.” Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0810/40607.html#ixzz0vfhx5VSZ
Russia reverses course, embracing CAGW. Who cares about that radiative forcing and feedback mumbo jumbo? The country is burning!
…as TV cameras zoomed in on the perspiration shining on his forehead, Medvedev announced, “What’s happening with the planet’s climate right now needs to be a wake-up call to all of us, meaning all heads of state, all heads of social organizations, in order to take a more energetic approach to countering the global changes to the climate.”
“We will not cut our development potential,” he said during the summer of 2009 (an unusually mild one), just a few months before attending the Copenhagen climate summit, which in December failed to reach a substantial agreement on how to limit carbon emissions.
http://www.obamaers.com/russian-leaders-reverse-global-warming-denial/
Seems that political attitudes are as changeable as the weather… or climate, or whatever.
The heat must be on the Rusky leadership – from their wives. No matter that Russian scientists say we are approaching cooler times, which may last a century, the authorities decide to play CAGW catch-up.
El Gordo,
This is likely an attempt by Russia to avoid the stigma of vodka abuse. After all, CAGW has been blamed for everything from UFO visitations to the risk of cannibalism.
“They are always so keen to find a connection that they believe natural variability only happens on other planets.”
A silly comment – given the science is ABOUT UNTANGLING natural and AGW climate variation. Sheesshhhh !
Get a grip El Wanko – or maybe let go?
Okay, Luke, so untangle it. Untangle AGW right here.
The IPCC says they ‘don’t know what’s happening, it’s unprecedented, therefore it’s AGW’.
Do better than that, hey, you want untangling, do it or concede the point.
You can do it Luke, I am encouraging you all the way. Cheering.
Go Luke!
Luke! Luke! Luke!
More ludicrous green madness, when will it ever end? What’s wrong with caveat emptor, let the buyer beware?
Surely even Gav and Luke don’t believe this stupid bloody nonsense?
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/fear-of-coastal-swamping-leads-to-unprecedented-ruling-on-property-dream/story-e6frf7kx-1225901323695
AGW is statistically insignificant, compared to natural variability.
NSW is not far behind Victoria in their idea of adaptation.
http://www.mav.asn.au/CA256C320013CB4B/Lookup/CraigMorrisson/$file/Craig%20Morrison.pdf
Sea levels are set to fall as more water gets locked up in ice. Perhaps a class action is in order?
“For the next two decades a warming of about 0.2°C per decade is projected for a range of SRES emission
scenarios. Even if the concentrations of all greenhouse gases and aerosols had been kept constant at year 2000
levels, a further warming of about 0.1°C per decade would be expected.”
IPCC 2007
They casually talk in tenths of a degree, over a century, oblivious to the sharp cooling about to take place.
The latest ENSO report from BOM is out and La Nina is definitely emerging.
‘La Niña periods are usually, but not always, associated with above normal rainfall during the second half of the year across large parts of Australia, most notably eastern and northern regions. Night time temperatures are typically warmer than average and Tropical Cyclone risk for northern Australia increases during the cyclone season (November-April).’
So if the Nina is strong, lasting a few years, then the outcome must be floods.
McIntyre has been proven right once again, showing up RC for the fraudsters they are.
After claiming they could use upside down proxies ( unbelievable) of Tiljander sediments to claim they could show spurious cooling for the last 1500 years they’ve now admitted they were wrong.
They were told repeatedly that the sediments were contaminated and atificially mixed but the arrogant numbskulls wouldn’t listen.
All credit to Lucia, Bishop Hill and Steve for exposing the fraudsters Gavin, Michael etc, what a bunch of idiots.
http://climateaudit.org/2010/08/01/the-no-dendro-illusion/#more-11632
…“the exact level of warming is uninteresting”….gavin
Did the IPCC really write a whole chapter on this? Getting the data to fit the narrative has gone badly wrong.
Tony – Lomborg’s work – 100s of errors – sigh …. I am guessing you missed the b ( an easy thing to do) my comment referred to the north pole link….and it was intersting, even if it just reinforces some of teh many points made on this blog over the last 5 years. It is a lie to say the north pole has not been ice free, it is a lie to say the northwest passage has not been open before etc etc etc
Early on August 4 a solar flare eruption struck earth and the result was a quick reduction of cosmic rays striking the planet.
http://cr0.izmiran.rssi.ru/mosc/main.htm
Picked up the link at C3.
Bon mots from Judith Curry:
Most importantly we need to stop playing the power politics of climate science by saying “Here is what science says we must do” and start saying “Here is our best understanding, and here is where our uncertainties are . . .”
Another excellent short vid from Pat Condell sticking it up the religion of peace
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mC35KHoI6_E&feature=player_embedded
Pity he didnt make some vids about the stupidity of the GW bandwagon funded by tax payers.
‘The crashing of global temps over the next year, to levels not seen since the 90s, and perhaps even the earlier part, should put to rest the co2 argument.’
Joe Bastardi August 1, 2010
On the basis that CO2 has risen by 5% since 1998, any steep downward trend in temps will be hard to hide.
blah blah blah blah
Do go on El Gordo – what part of up don’t you understand !
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1979/to/plot/rss/trend
Gee Coho – just viewed your latest advert – wow ! Incredible stuff. You could win an award with this series. I really liked the picture of land in a drought and then after rain. Sums it up doesn’t it – you numb nuts think seasonal variation is a trend. Probably explains that McLean et al paper ….
Anyway good job letting yourself be trapped by property rights activists.
“property rights activists”
WTF
Those would be people who oppose burglary and other varieties of theft.
Yes, yes, of course Luke, all in good time. The last occasion South America experienced anything like this was back in the early 1960s.
http://en.mercopress.com/2010/08/05/snow-in-brazil-below-zero-celsius-in-the-river-plate-and-tropical-fish-frozen
” A retired litigation attorney, I began studying agw in earnest when i realized the “evidence” the warmers submitted, if presented in a trial, would not survive cross-examination. In trials, I often saw logical inconsistency, glossing over or hiding “bad FACTS,” conclusions lacking support, arrogance disguised as expertise, and refusal to concede or even consider strong contrary evidence. It’s the same here. I just wish these climate “scientists” could be placed in a witness chair in a trial where they would testify under oath (with the attendant penalties for perjury) and be required to answer opposing counsel’s questions directly and completely. I believe none of the warmers, including Gore, would allow themselves to be put in this situation, especially the part about testifying under oath.”
Quote from a post at WUWT …and How True is That
Not the first time there has been legal opinion as to how the mantra would standup in court,
and rather poorly is the answer every time.
It would be absolutely brilliant entertainment if the one dimensional single issue intellectual pigmies were put on the spot in a court of law ..instead of the cosey and contrived boys club inquiries they are used to.
el gordo; as I look out my window on a clear blue sky I can say we have only seen a decent snow fall on those hills to the west once this winter. No way is the globe cooling!
“Global sea level has risen during the past decades as a result of thermal expansion of the warming ocean and freshwater addition from melting continental ice…..”
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v3/n8/abs/ngeo901.html
C3 probably exists for those who can’t help themselves with simple observations
This ultimately proves the attitudes of the CAGWers. When they discover that most people think their science is crap, they ‘double down’.
PEOPLE REJECT POPULAR OPINIONS IF THEY ALREADY HOLD OPPOSING VIEWS, STUDY FINDS Ohio State University Press release August 2, 2010 http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/majorityopinion.htm
… people grow more confident in some beliefs when they find out later that a majority of people disagree with them.
“It may be that you feel proud because you were able to disprove, in your own mind, an opinion that most people have accepted,” said Richard Petty, co-author of the study and professor of psychology at Ohio State University.
“You actually become doubly sure you were right.”
“People may be thinking that ‘if I can find the flaws in a position that the majority of people believe, then my thoughts must really be good ones,'” Petty said.
So, confronted with popular opinion that most people don’t think climatologists are worth the trouble, or are simply being troublesome, the CAGWers go double-bonkers in their fervor and irrationally inflate their confidence in computer games.
Paper: The effects of majority versus minority source status on persuasion: A self-validation analysis. Horcajo, Javier; Petty, Richard E.; Briñol, Pablo Journal of Personality and Social Psychology Online First Publication Available at: http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=browsePA.ofp&jcode=psp#
Artic temps during the melt season show a downward trend, even from 50+ years ago, so what’s the fuss about?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/05/dmi-polar-data-shows-cooler-arctic-temperature-since-1958/#more-23037
‘—if ongoing anthropogenic warming dominates natural variability—’
Thanx Gavin, we can safely say that won’t happen, although it’s interesting reading about the regional nature of sea level rises.
Trouble with regional variability is that the CAGWers automatically conflate that with a global situation.
The science zealots and their political supporters were led up the garden path by a bankrupt ABC and BBC.
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2010/8/5/bbc-review-proceeding-with-vigour.html
Here we have Greenpeace, Jon Snow, the BBC and Moonbat ‘caught like flies in amber’.
“Thanx Gavin, we can safely say that won’t happen, although it’s interesting reading about the regional nature of sea level rises.”
el gordo,
I only read the abstract but can they quantify the volumes involved with the various rises and falls of SL?
As I’m currently getting falls of 40 cms due to unknown changes in weather patterns then there must be some very high SLs elsewhere to make up for this whether SLs are rising or even stable.
If they can’t quantify these volumes then they are blowing in the wind trying to predict future SLRs of 2 or 3 mms PA.
Interesting article on sea levels and coral reefs around Margaret river area 120,000 + years ago during the last interglacial.
Sea levels were at least 3 to 4 metres higher, possibly as high as 6m for a time, with higher temps, so what caused this CC, certainly not cars planes and factories.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/11/061109094732.htm
The NAO is recalcitrant?
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/data/teledoc/nao.timeseries.gif
Neville,
Good link.
IOW “How to destroy yourself trying to solve the wrong problems” or “How much should we reduce our emissions to alter the earth’s orbit?”
For those who have the time, a debate between the leader of Canadian greens and George Monboit and Lord Lawson ( Nigella’s dad) and Bjorn Lomborg.
Bjorn actually loses his cool with this green fool, but who wouldn’t ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1HhSC9XRaIg
luke was making some obscure point, or lack thereof, somewhere above and mentioned the Climate Sceptic ads; here is another one:
cohers,
A lot more positive than those dumb Labor ads on Tony.
Is it AGW that’s doing the damage:
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/sci/2010-08/06/c_13433136.htm
Or is it the unintended consequences:
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/photo/2010-04/21/c_13261632.htm
Some say the LIA ended in the SH around 1900, so icebergs must be the result of global warming?
There were a lot of icebergs in the southern ocean during the 1890s and all the old sailors were impressed, not so much with the length as the height. One huge berg was ‘1000 ft asl at the NE end’.
Basil Lubbock, who looked at the Log of the Cutty Sark, said ‘this ice was encountered by every ship bound round the horn in 1892 and 1893, and extended from 44 degrees to 55 degrees South and from 25 degrees to 52 degrees West. Evidently a huge continent of Antarctic ice had broken adrift during the summer weather, and was in the grip of the current slowly working north.’
The captain of the Himalaya, from Liverpool to Wellington, reported in 1895 “that from the Cape to the Crozets was a most trying time as icebergs were in sight for a distance of two thousand miles.”
With a massive buildup of ice during the LIA the AMOC must have been the trigger for such a large discharge of icebergs.
Cohenite, all,
If you like Climate skeptic ads/videos, you will find a good many at this link:
http://www.youtube.com/user/Bushvision
The nice thing about the videos at this link is that they take on the Green Left directly. There are too many people who fear to do that, on grounds of ‘political correctness’.
Luckily, there are many who have discovered the Green Left’s positions lead directly to poverty, disease and death — which are not nearly as nice as they’re said to be.
Okay, here’s a good new one.
Oyster Herpes: Latest Symptom of Global Warming?
National Geographic
August 6, 2010
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/08/100806-oyster-herpes-global-warming-climate-change-science/
The scare machine never quits.
Let’s use just all get together and run off a cliff to spare ourselves from the horrific sequelae of CAGW.
Of course, Luke will want to provide an example and jump off first.
Conditions are shown to be similar in 2010 in Arctic to the conditions in 1853, by a physically measurable piece of evidence. An old boat that was lost and now found.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/06/climate-craziness-of-the-week-nw-passage-open-first-time-in-history-and-all-that/#more-23059
BTW Malcolm that Pat Condell video says it all, I just wish I had the guts and ability to make such a video, but anyhow I agree with his point of view 100%.
He has a very clear even voice that helps his delivery as well.
A minor eco disaster in Bolivia because of regional cooling.
http://www.boliviabella.com/1-million-fish-dead-in-bolivian-ecological-disaster.html
Just thought I’d throw in this George Carlin video ” Saving the Planet” a bit hard hitting and crude perhaps but very funny all the same.
Sorry here it is, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjmtSkl53h4
Thanks for that Neville, I saw that one before but quite forgotten about it.
Now we know the meaning and purpose of life: 42 and Plastic.
A downward trend is developing in the continental US.
http://www.paulmacrae.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/screen-shot-2010-07-31-at-121626-pm.png
The PMs citizens’ assembly, to untangle AGW from natural variability, will never get up. James Allan, in a guest post over at Quadrant, thinks it’s only spin.
‘No one for a minute thinks this citizens’ assembly will be set-up to indulge in vigorous differences of opinion, with stinging minority reports being written, and blasts issued in the direction of a Prime Minister Gillard. No, no, no. This will be stage managed theatre.’
El Gordo,
The notion of a ‘citizen’s assembly’ to evaluate CAGW invokes notions of a trial by jury, when those who have no notion of the facts of a case get to decide an issue based on the power of rhetoric advanced by the two sides.
And, before the case ‘goes to the jury’, it is decided before-hand how the issue is framed, so that they can vote on one proposition or the other.
So, one might ask of the citizen’s assembly: ‘Is it a good idea to risk the future of the human race and the biodiversity of the entire planet, in order to fulfill our short-term appetites for fossil fuels that bloat our atmosphere with CO2?’
This would only be an occasion for intentional mischief.
And of course someone from Luke desk would be called as a witness.
The notion of a citizen assembly is totally noxious.
Schiller
Yeah, I agree the process is flawed and worthless.
The Royal Society has replaced May as its head, leaving Bob Carter and Pat Michaels to ponder if it will make any difference to the RS view of the world.
http://www.heartland.org/environmentandclimate-news.org/article/28167/Scientists_Reject_Royal_Societys_Global_Warming_Position.html
This is from the Kola data (full story at Watts) which isn’t a hockey stick. At last something to believe in.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/kola-illustration-diagramm_rgb_e_big13317.jpg
Back in 1760 it was as warm as now, so why the alarm?
This is a typical story from a biased viewpoint, not a word about the dead tropical fish in South America.
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/climate-change-whips-up-floods-fire-and-ice-20100807-11pb9.html
Lubos Motl talks about the random walk in the Central England Temps (CET) and points out the fastest warming decade was 1694-1703. Of equal interest was the fastest cooling trend of 1733-1742.
http://motls.blogspot.com/2010/01/warming-trends-in-england-from-1659.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+LuboMotlsReferenceFrame+%28Lubos+Motl%27s+reference+frame%29&utm_content=Google+Reader
BBC apologises to University of East Anglia for “incorrect” remark
UEA Press Release
Undated, ca. 8-8-2010
http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/CRUstatements/rebuttalsandcorrections/johnhumphrys
The BBC has apologised for an “incorrect” remark made by John Humphrys that UEA researchers had “distorted the debate about global warming to make the threat seem even more serious than they believed it to be”.
But when you read the actual ‘apology’, the BBC is merely saying it ‘could have been more accurate’. This does not amount to a retraction.
Humphrys’ remark was not substantiated at the time, but subsequent revelations have shown he was right all along, and understated at that.
Neat new website, worth checking out: http://www.friendsofscience.org/
Neat old website, newly updated: http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/default.asp
Use the search function using terms such as ‘climategate’ and ‘Chicago Climate Exchange’. Or a host of other things. These people do their homework.
Enjoy!
Hi guys, spread this one around:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_5jZBDDPldG8/TF4H1UfbclI/AAAAAAAAAPg/5vtivDmb308/s1600/scaled.jpg
Anomalous wave height in the southern ocean may have no relevance, but on the other hand….
http://www.oceanweather.com/data/
el gordo,
I encountered 30 footers some years ago but not 40 footers and they were like waterfalls. I wonder how common 40 footers are? Down in that part of the world probably not too uncommon.
The big waves usually happen when a big system passes and the wind drops a bit. When it’s really blowing the seas are flatter but longer.
Thanx spangles.
Looking behind a report by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation reveals yet another incompetent blunder by the IPCC, such as confusing rainfall and temperature:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/07/himalayan-warming-%E2%80%93-pulling-another-thread-from-ipcc%E2%80%99s-fragile-tapestry/
And Roy Spencer does what Luke has been urging, regarding ‘back-radiation’, and finds no ‘greenhouse effect’:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/08/help-back-radiation-has-invaded-my-backyard/
You’d think that with all this effort, the IPCC and the Hockey Team would get something right by accident, at least.
As they say, a stopped clock is right at least once a day. But consider: a perfectly functional clock that is set to the wrong time will be wrong forever
The IPCC can’t get anything right because it doesn’t want to.
US Government in Massive New Global Warming Scandal – NOAA Disgraced
Climate Change Fraud
August 9, 2010
http://www.climatechangefraud.com/climate-reports/7479-us-government-in-massive-new-global-warming-scandal-noaa-disgraced
A beleaguered federal agency appears to be implicated in the most blatant and extreme case of climate data fraud yet seen. Official records have been confirmed as evidence that a handful of temperature records for the Great Lakes region have been hiked up by literally hundreds of degrees to substantially inflate the average temperature range for the northeastern United States.
Under a scheme called ‘Sea Grant’ NOAA collaborates with national universities to compile an official federal temperature record. In this instance, the partnersip is with Michigan University’s ‘Coastal Watch.’
Together the two institutions show temperature maps for northern Lake Michigan registering an absurd 430 degrees Fahrenheit -yes, you read it right –that’s four hundred and thirty degrees-and this is by no means the highest temperature recorded on the charts.
It appears that isolated, monumental spikes in temperatures were ‘averaged into’ the ‘normal’ data to produce a warming trend that isn’t actually there.
Some more models vs data
“Although key Santer et al 2008 results are invalid with up-to-date data, they have been widely cited as showing that there is no inconsistency between models and observations in the tropical troposphere (e.g. CCSP, EPA), as had been previously believed/argued by some.”
See also Jeff Id Posted Aug 9, 2010 at 1:05 PM
“one of my favorite lines form the paper references adding the last ten years into the analysis record:
“But with the addition of another decade of data the results change, such that the differences between models and observations now exceed the 99% critical value.”
Good stuff that!”
And read the lot at
http://climateaudit.org/2010/08/09/mckitrick-et-al-2010-accepted-by-atmos-sci-lett/#more-11745
Hey; you guys badly need an umpire! Can’t be left playing on your own it seems.
That Cohenite how to vote card reads like something straight out of our old League of Rights campaign manuals.
Schiller’s Canadian “friends” of “science” website looks like the sole work of another half baked hack writer trying to get published some where (anywhere). When I glanced though several hopefully familiar topics re oceans etc I find there is no depth to the work and the one paper referred to was stale in our terms. Hardly worth mentioning; the “CO2 Science” pathway, which is not news around these parts, C’mon!
Also thinking we need a visual update for el-g & Nev
Interesting that the liars and fraudsters from the ipcc sometimes come clean, see figure one ( ar4 page 462 ch 6 )on this page from Pat Michaels showing much warmer temps all over the world ( except some tropics ) during the early to mid holocene.
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2007/05/02/arctic-ice-and-polar-bears/
BTW good stuff Schiller go for the juggler when dealing with liars and fraudsters and boo hoo to Luke and Gav, even though they’ve thrived on this corrupt mendacity for years.
Surely Luke and Gavin have an explanation for a lake at 430 degrees F. Can’t hardly be a UHI adjustment.
There’s a limit to cleverness, even for habitual liars.
Written about USA, but sounds like might apply here
“Garbage In, Money Out
July 23, 2010, 12:03 pm
In my Forbes column this week, I discuss the incredible similarity between the computer models that are used to justify the Obama stimulus and the climate models that form the basis for the proposition that manmade CO2 is causing most of the world’s warming.
The climate modeling approach is so similar to that used by the CEA to score the stimulus that there is even a climate equivalent to the multiplier found in macro-economic models. In climate models, small amounts of warming from man-made CO2 are multiplied many-fold to catastrophic levels by hypothetical positive feedbacks, in the same way that the first-order effects of government spending are multiplied in Keynesian economic models. In both cases, while these multipliers are the single most important drivers of the models’ results, they also tend to be the most controversial assumptions. In an odd parallel, you can find both stimulus and climate debates arguing whether their multiplier is above or below one.”
From
http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2010/07/garbage-in-money-out.html
Hey guys, I would appreciate comments about this:
cohenite
‘I believe that climate change is not a crisis’, just about says it all. Overall, a very positive clip.
A young, attractive and intelligent person, is speaking directly to the electorate. The old as well as the young cannot help but notice, but getting them to confront reality after so many years of propaganda will not be easy.
Thanks el.
Cohenite I’d already seen that add, it was sent to my email.
Of course you’re talking to the converted with me but it’s a pity that balanced point of view wasn’t provided by the msm years ago.
Neville; we just had a complaint from within the ranks so I wanted some feedback; the criticism was that the idea that humanity’s impact on nature has created prosperity and was good for that reason, but also that proper husbandry and agriculture also enriches the environment, was at best jumbled in the ad and not clear, even if this idea was legitimate. The contrast was meant to be with the Green ideology which asserts that pristine nature should not be encroached by humans and was a higher priority than human needs. While it is true that it is in humanity’s interest not to have a polluted environment this is completely different from saying that pristine nature is more worthwhile and that humanity’s interests are best served by leaving nature pristine; clearly it is not in humanity’s interest to leave nature untouched.
Do you think the ad brought out some of those points?
I may be mistaken but havnt we become village without its idiot.
cohers
The idea is possibly too complex to get across in the time. As a heretic with a degree in quote mining, I suggest you tell the electorate they have been deceived by politicians, scientists and the msm into thinking AGW is real.
Shock them with the truth and damn the consequences. Use the same young lass to say the words – that’s a real winner.
cohers,
Well thought out, responsible development is always a positive for the envirnment, as opposed to locking up areas so “wilderness” can take control.
As an example, 30 years ago the Qld govt resumed Fraser Is and kicked out the sand miners, timber and other industries and turned this island into what was intended to be [and had the potential to be] an island refuge for our endangered native wildlife.
So what happened?
Fraser Is is now a dingo nursery and virtually no ground dwelling natives exist there. The dingo as you know came to Australia 3500 years ago as an Asian fisherman’s dog, proceeded to wipe out the Thylacine and replace it as the top predator but our wildlife never evolved alongside the dingo and cannot survive against it.
Now the Qld govt is doing the same with North Stradbroke Is and it will go the same way.
This is also happening with mainland national parks but on islands the results are much more devastating and noticeable.
These are the enviro-catastrophies that are happening today–not from AGW but simply bad planning that is fixable for a fraction of the cost of AGW mitigation but no one does anything.
cohers; re your election add, don’t run it as is because that nice looking well spoken kid is simply TOO young to carry such a smug theme by herself.
“that nice looking well spoken kid”, is 18 old man; and why is it “such a smug theme”?
gavin, I disagree, that lass is perfect in getting the message across. A whole generation of young people have been convinced (through the education system) that CAGW is real and it will take one of them to turn it around.
The arrogance and blindness of the warmists will not stand the test of time.
They have more on the cold snap in South America over at Watts, with the upshot being that ‘Bolivia experienced the coldest winter in over 47 years in mid-July. Temperatures dipped to 0 degrees Celsius outside the water, and inside the water temperatures dropped to about 6 degrees Celcius. That’s about 10 degrees Celcius below our normal lows. The water along the river banks actually turned to frost, something that is virtually unheard of in the tropics. Bolivia’s tropical fish can withstand a dip in water temperatures to about 15 degrees Celcius before the cold adversely affects them. Below that they begin to experience hypothermia.’
“the criticism was that the idea that humanity’s impact on nature has created prosperity and was good for that reason, but also that proper husbandry and agriculture also enriches the environment, was at best jumbled”-
It sure was but not for the reasons you expect like a contrast with the Green ideology. Let’s say putting either (right or left view) on a high pedestal with an “I believe..” statement won’t do in this adult world.
Try imposing the “I know (better than you)… approach on your audience! Besides imo she hasen’t quite got the knuckle yet.
on second thoughts after a few replays; go as is cause she does a grand job for you guys in the time available but get rid of that tragic male voice at the end.
Put Mrs Cohers in instead hey
gavin,
In this current world of youth bathing in the glow of propagandized AGW, how refreshing is it to hear a contrarian voice.
Sounds like instant cred to me.
Meanwhile Bob tells us not to take our eye off the ball of natural climate hazards.
Some of us have been crying wolf for so long they’re bound to feel the fang-in-testicle before long.
https://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2010/08/politicians-miss-the-point
gavin
Here is a story on sea level rise, which Watts is also covering.
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2010/08/09/sea-level-history-lesson/
As this is your area of expertise, I thought you might be interested.
Here’s a challenge for you folks:
http://cr4.globalspec.com/blogentry/13445/Peak-Electric-Field-Newsletter-Challenge-08-03-10
Peak Electric Field: Newsletter Challenge (08/03/10)
This month’s Challenge Question:
We track of the daily distribution of the strength of the global atmospheric electric field, and invariably register the maximum electric field strength at 19:00 Universal time (GMT) every day.
Why?
Some answers so far, which may be interesting for climatology:
– Global thunderstorm activity peaks at 19:00 GMT
– Temperature differentials (day to night) are highest over land as opposed to sea. Taking a rolling average the greatest area of the earth’s land mass i.e Southern Africa up to Scandinavia is just beginning to pass into night.
– By 19:00 the biggest continent escapes exposure to solar radiation.
el gordo; fig 1 shows sufficient sensitivity despite error and noise bands to indicate well enough that the sea level rate of change is not linear. It also shows an inflexion similar to both atmospheric CO2 and global temperature rise over the same period. Loosely speaking, we could say they are all related which is my own tip based on quite a few personal observations.
Unfortunately, what we have today is a global society hell bent on exploiting the larger underground carbon reserves in a relatively rapid moment of time that were originally sequested by nature over millions of years in a process (Gaia) yet to be fully understood by us humans. I truly doubt your campaign lass can really appreciates it either.
I hope she is someone’s daughter here rather than a hired blonde and therefore knows a bit on both sides of the debate as she could be remembered on msm long after this sceptics election campaign has died. Let’s also allow our youth to grow with their own experience.
For example; here is one that caught my eye recently on our ABC with Travel Oz. Is she just another green? Hardly! C’mon guys, move over.
http://carlywilson.com/
gavin, you valiantly support the ABC but how do you explain this:
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/column_a_culture_of_hate/
gavin, I had a look at the gaia theory on wiki and enjoyed the criticisms immensely.
Gavin,
The sensitivity is impossible to determine because of the paucity of variables, making multivariate analysis impossible. Also, the signal-to-noise ratio is too small, and falls within the margin of error for measurement. As a result, any ‘signal’ must be an artifact of data processing.
Even this perspective has its shortcomings.
Applying an algorithm to raw data, and calling the result ‘raw data’ makes it possible to propose a curve-generating algorithm which seems quite innocent, when the actual finagling is in the ‘corrections’ to data.
Which means you have two sources of noise: actual crap data, and actual crap ‘fixing’ the data.
And when self-appointed ‘climatologists’ are the source of the ‘adjusted’ crap data, that’s noise of magnitudes greater than any model on the market.
Even the polite, cultured tones ABC’s classic FM is also a parody of bias. Listen to Margaret Throsby’s interview with the late Stephen Schneider.
Justifying their attitude with all sorts of “balance”. She even discussed his early proclamations on global cooling but sadly she forgot to ask him, “if you admit you were wrong then why couldn’t you be wrong now?”
More likely he was right then but wrong now.
http://www.abc.net.au/classic/throsby/stories/s2977145.htm
It must be over, the fat man sings.
http://greenhellblog.com/2010/08/10/gore-concedes-on-climate-this-year/
Picked this story up through C3 Headlines.
People living in Chile’s capital of Santiago suffered the coldest July since 1908, according to the University of Chile’s Department of Geophysics.
The Santiago Times reports one in three capital residents have reported respiratory illness during the past few weeks due to the chill, which was accompanied by a record amount of frost at the depth of the southern winter.
Frost damage to avocados, oranges and lemons could reach as much as forty percent, according to the English-language daily.
“It must be over, the fat man sings.”
el gordo,
You wouldn’t want to hear him if his arse was on fire.
He’s even got all this going for him:
http://www.climatechangefraud.com/climate-reports/7479-us-government-in-massive-new-global-warming-scandal-noaa-disgraced
Nice one spangles, but are the msm onto the scoop?
LUKE! Are you there? We are ‘untangling’. It seems your side has been cooking the books, to make it seem hotter than it is, so now we are stuck with global cooling. Thanx fer nuthin.
Pacific sst is falling fast and I wonder how deep this Nina might be.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/indices.shtml
This may be of interest; we got a guernsey at our abc:
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2979736.htm
cohenite, the comments really depressed me. Apart from my old compadre Billy Bob, there are a lot of angry, deluded people on that thread.
Following Spangles blog link on lake data fraud I decided for starters to find what slant msm would give us say Reuters or AFP. I reckoned their daily pictures would tell another story.
July
http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2010/07/summer_is_here.html
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE66O0VY20100725
more via Reuters re recent human impact on the world
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6792IW20100810?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+reuters%2Fenvironment+%28News+%2F+US+%2F+Environment%29
You guys just fishing for cooler events with a finger or two stuck in a bit of frost make good targets from the other direction. Two birds with one stone, too easy hey!
This BOM prediction is essentially wrong, I’m 80% certain it will be wetter and not neutral.
Neutral rainfall outlook over most of south-eastern Australia
The outlook for total rainfall over the late winter to mid-spring period (August to October) is neutral with the odds favouring neither wetter nor drier conditions across most of south-eastern Australia. Parts of southern Victoria, northern Tasmania and lower south-eastern South Australia do have a slight tendency in odds favouring drier conditions.
And still politicians continue to argue over buying back water
“I’m 80% certain it will be wetter and not neutral” Hmmm!
Although I’ve struggled while working under the shelter of our carport to stop my freshly polished tools from immediately rusting in the drift from many heavy showers this week, I’m wise enough NOT to say our long standing S E Aus drought is finally over. Sure; local dams are about 60% full but I half listened to our David Jones on RN discussing BoM’s latest rainfall outlook as I raced in and out for a cuppa between several of those really big drops today.
Now I suggest our David like someone else I know who is constantly minding facts about other events has to tread the dreaded msm with a high degree of confidence. What el gordo missed in his BoM assessment above is rather interesting.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/ahead/temps_ahead.shtml
Finally, the truth comes out. UAE wasn’t ‘stonewalling’, it was holding the data hostage! Now, for £600,000, it will “study” making the data available.
Gotta wonder how much actual hostage release will cost…
Climategate’ university to open up data — Gets JISC funding
The Register (UK)
11th August 2010
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/08/11/uea_open_data/
The University of East Anglia is to receive JISC funding for a project to open up its research on global warming to scrutiny and re-use.
The university, which was at the centre of a scandal revealed by leaked emails from its Climatic Research Unit, will examine how best to expose climate data for re-use, make it easier for researchers to find the data and to understand its validity.
3
Gavin, I didn’t miss it and they are wrong on that score too. The games up, cooler times ahead. The Pacific is losing heat at a rapid pace, Nina reigns supreme and the IOD is neutral.
Joe Bastardi gives us less than nine months before the warmist game is over.
gav,
Funny how droughts here are AGW and floods in Pakistan are AGW. After 70-odd years of wet and dry gullies [99% dry] I really haven’t noticed much change.
But then I don’t listen to David Jones.
BTW it’s a chilly August up here. We’re directly downwind of Canberra. [Politically too!]
The fires in Russia are now blamed on incompetence by the authorities, which rings a bell closer to home.
In this article we see the Russian fires and the Pakistan flood are connected, because low solar activity is associated with summer blocking highs.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20727730.101-frozen-jet-stream-links-pakistan-floods-russian-fires.html
Here is more on the blocking high, which suggests its not just confined to the NH summer.
http://www.accuweather.com/blogs/andrews/story/2093/what-is-a-green.asp
Schiller,
Just read your link. Good comment.
You would think that if there has been a JISC in existence it would ensure establishments like UEA honoured FOI for those very few requests like McIntyre’s etc without the need to add bribery to corruption.
How hand-in-glove are these bureaucrats to milk the public purse?
The madness of big govt in the world today!
” The resulting heatwave is responsible for extensive drought and nearly 800 wildfires at the latest count.”
el gordo,
Hard to imagine a blocking high effect like a Rossby Wave causing a drought unless you get a lot of repetition.
http://rossmckitrick.weebly.com/uploads/4/8/0/8/4808045/inquiries_response.pdf
Thsi is just not good enough, and is a clear indictment of the shenanigans of the climatariat.
Their collective credibility could not possibly get any lower.
spangles, I thought the argument was that we get a lot of repetition when there is low solar activity. Don’t know, did a browse and turned up nothing concrete linking Rossby Waves and drought. Here’s the Economists slant on the same story.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/newsbook/2010/08/extreme_weather
Do these people wear snugglers or what?
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/huge-rise-in-sea-levels-forecast-if-global-warming-ignored-20100811-11zqc.html
Bedwetters Inc!
From that article:
In Russia, this block provokes feedbacks that make things worse. High pressure makes it hard for clouds to form, and thus for rain to fall. Under cloudless skies the surface heats and gives up its moisture, making things at ground level hotter and drier while not increasing the chances of rain. As things get drier fires start and spread. The still air keeps the smoke close to the surface, exacerbating its malign effects on health. The sooty particles in the atmosphere heat it further.
el gordo,
More known unknowns to add to the mystery. Something else that is beyond predictability; interactions unclear; forecast models don’t like them etc etc but they only produce weather, not climate.
O for the good old days when we could just shrug-and-get-on-with-it instead of now having to try and step on know-it-all alarmists from organising our demise through economic world sacrifice.
wow – a whole page without Luke – I might consider checking in again.
John,
Yeah. Good eh. Welcome back!
BTW, here’s James Delingpole telling it the way it is:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100050359/what-the-chinese-really-think-of-man-made-global-warming/#dPostComment
This is similar to one that was built in Windorah last year at around $100,000 per household.
They still have to run the diesel generator nearly as much as previously so there has not been any measureable savings [certainly not in money terms] and emission-wise it is a joke.
Hopefully the govt has finally woken up to what a disaster this idea really is and is using this reason as an excuse:
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland-solar-power-project-in-cloncurry-may-burn-up-taxpayer-dollars/story-e6freon6-1225904103874
“Satellite-gate” NOAA data 10-15° high
CO2 Insanity
08/11/2010
http://co2insanity.com/2010/08/11/satellite-gate-noaa-data-10-15%C2%B0-high/
We reported the other day here about satellite-gate, where we see problems with the current Landsat 7 satellite and problems.
Evidently there’s more problems with another current satellite.
we now have a major controversy brewing over a malfunction with climate sensors onboard the ‘NOAA-16’ satellite. The entire data set has been removed from the official NOAA government website. Disclaimers have been posted and NOAA are declining to answer my questions as to whether a decade’s worth of North American satellite data is will discredited and will now have to be junked.
But the spokesman for the Michigan Sea Grant Extension, a ‘Coastwatch’ partner with NOAA screening the offending data, then confessed that its hastily hidden web pages had, indeed, showed dozens of temperature recordings three or four times higher than seasonal norms.
Deep-sixing embarrassing data is, indeed, an ‘accepted practice’ in climatology.
More on the Russian heatwave from a reliable source.
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2010/08/12/the-great-russian-heat-wave-of-2010/
John, if Luke fails to return we will only have rhetoric and no dialectic (apart from Gavin) which would place this singular thread on a death spiral.
Archy has a guest post at Watts.
‘If the average temperature decline at Hanover, New Hampshire over Solar Cycle 24 is 3.1°C rather than the previously predicted 2.2°C, then that will be early confirmation that flattening of the heliospheric current sheet should be used. We will only have to wait until early next decade for that data.’
El Gordo, the site has to keep going at least until the election; a green victory – balance of power in the senate – would be a disaster!
If the green totalitarians get the balance of power in the Senate, you will find me at the barricades.
Not sure if anyone has been following the Kelly ‘suicide’ saga, which smacks of MI5.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1302640/Dr-Kelly-investigation-inadequate-Now-NINE-doctors-demand-inquest.html
Thanks el gordo.
You must ALL go and see Polanski’s Ghostwriter, which provides circumstantial evidence in support of the David Kelly not-suicide case, as does also the intriguing timing of the USA government’s request to Switzerland for extradition of Roman Polanski to USA for an offence committed over 30 years ago.
Amazing to see the SMH talking about Rossby waves.
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/weather-blocker–jet-stream-stops-and-causes-disasters-20100812-120th.html
el gordo,
All good grist to the AGW mill. Getting to be like the “stolen generations”.
Guilt driven hogwash.
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2010/08/it-has-been-foretold.html
And yet more climate astrology:
http://www.climatedepot.com/a/5738/FaithBased-Climate-Astrology-Women-hit-by-global-warming-head-to-Capitol-Hill-We-have-freezing-temps-when-we-shouldnt-have-freezing-temps
I s’pose he’d have to say that:
http://notrickszone.com/2010/08/12/russian-scientist-extreme-central-russian-heat-wave-not-an-indication-of-a-future-climate-change/
Monckton prepares to roll out the guns:
http://www.cfact.org/a/1794/Target-Monckton
spangles
That’s odd, I thought this sequence of current events matches my projections of more frequent and intense extreme weather events due to global cooling.
Another CAGW ‘special effect’:
Frog weddings.
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/world/view/20100812-286320/Bangladesh-farmers-use-frog-weddings-to-combat-drought
To counterbalance the 884 false and outright weird claims made on behalf of CAGW, there is a list of 119 ‘rebuttals’ to CAGW skeptics.
Okay, so the count of bogus claims is a bit lopsided, but 119 is the best the CAGWers have been able to compile so far.
http://planetsave.com/2010/08/13/119-one-liners-to-respond-to-climate-science-myths/
Looks like skeptics are ahead by about 8:1.
By the way, I predict that the frog weddings will result in frog infidelity, which will also be blamed on atmospheric phenomena.
There will, however, be no frog divorces, since frogs cannot afford lawyers, which will also be based on atmospheric phenomena.
Sea level specialist from Sweden, Nils-Axel Morner, says Greenland will not melt anytime soon.
‘The Greenland Ice Cap did not melt during the postglacial hypsithermal (some 5000 to 8000 years ago), when temperature was about 2.5 C higher than today. Nor did it melt during the Last Interglacial when temperature was about 4C higher than today. As to time, it would take more than a millennium (with full thermal forcing) to melt the ice masses stored there.’
Picked up the quote from Icecap.
Andreas Muenchow, professor of ocean science and engineering at the University of Delaware, said he had ‘expected an ice chunk to break off from the Petermann Glacier, one of the two largest remaining ones in Greenland, because it had been growing in size for seven or eight years. But he did not expect it to be so large.’
Take note, it had been growing for years before it calved.
From observation there appears to be a cooling off in Chicago and its unlikely to remain regional.
http://www.chicagoclimatex.com/market/data/summary.jsf
From Schiller’s list:
90 “Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity” Lindzen and Choi’s paper is viewed as unacceptably flawed by other climatologists.
This is wrong; L&C’s follow up paper where they take on board Trenberth’s criticism of their previous paper and still find the same results is out:
http://www.legnostorto.com/allegati/Lindzen_Choi_ERBE_JGR_v4.pdf
el gordo,
Re that Morner Icecap article:
Could anyone doubt what that graph is telling us?
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Icecaps_and_Glaciers.jpg
We are on a slippery slope.
El Gordo that Axel Morner article from Ice Cap is interesting and has this graph from Alley showing the temps from central Greenland over the Holocene. ( Used by Jonova as well. )
Looks like more chance of us getting colder than warmer don’t you think?
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Icecaps_and_Glaciers.jpg
Just to confirm the fact that the graph is from the same alarmist Richard Alley from Penn state uni who is now raising the fresh sea level scare.
How do they sleep at night?
Neville,
Makes me wonder if I’m going troppo or these guys are as blatantly, bare-faced, flat out money grubbing as they appear.
The UK Met says summer is over in Britain and it will remain wet and mild going into Autumn. The AO Index has gone negative.
http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/daily_ao_index/ao_index.html
Friends,
I have a couple questions which one or more of you might be able to answer. It has to do with satellite temperature readings.
By now, I am sure all of you have heard of an incident involving NOAA and Michigan State University, a joint project known as ‘Coastal Watch’, and surface temperature readings as high as 600 degrees F. over northern Lake Michigan. [1]
Coastal Watch has removed images with the anomalous readings from its website, [2] and has posted this on its home page:
NOTICE: Due to degradation of a satellite sensor used by this mapping product, some images have exhibited extreme high and low surface temperatures. Please disregard these images as anomalies.
The questions: how would a degraded satellite sensor render anomalous readings only over water, and not over land? Would it not deliver anomalous readings throughout its entire orbit? Isn’t it far more likely that this is a coding error?
(Like someone trying to generate a ‘warming signal’ got results a tad bit too ‘robust’?)
A map of the satellite readings has been saved at another location. [3]
————
1. http://www.climatechangefraud.com/climate-reports/7479-us-government-in-massive-new-global-warming-scandal-noaa-disgraced
2. http://www.coastwatch.msu.edu/
3. http://www.climatechangefraud.com/images/stories/pics3/2010_Jul04_959EDT.gif
Addendum:
One satellite implicated in this fracas is NOAA-16. [1] According to the NOAA Office of Satellite Operations, all subsystems of the satellite are condition ‘green’, with the exception of a ‘scan motor’, which is listed as ‘operational within limitations’. [2]
It is important to note that the problem with the scan motor dates at least to 2005, while the ‘green’ subsystems are those involved in spectral channels.
Meanwhile, NOAA maintains its own CoastWatch program to monitor the temperatures of all of the Great Lakes, and it appears hotter than usual. [3] For instance, Lake Superior (largest of the lakes) averages 60 degrees F this time of year. [4] Even so, there’s no indications of temperatures of 300+ degrees F, and the NOAA temperature map for northern Lake Michigan — the lake involved in the temperature anomalies — comes in at a balmy 75 degrees F.
Which also argues more for a coding error than a satellite error.
————–
1. http://climatechangefraud.com/climate-reports/7491-official-satellite-failure-means-decade-of-global-warming-data-doubtful
2. http://www.oso.noaa.gov/poesstatus/componentStatusSummary.asp?spacecraft=16&subsystem=4
3. http://coastwatch.glerl.noaa.gov/cwdata/lct/glsea.png
4. http://www.fisheries.org/blog/warmer-great-lakes-nice-for-a-dip-but-worrisome/
On the evidence presented it looks like a coding error.
From the RSS satellite data, put together by Monckton et al.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/monckton-notalarming5.png
Some of the Russian fires are blamed on humans – dried up peat bogs.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/13/world/europe/13russia.html?_r=1
Colder Arctic melt season and there are not many days left.
http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/posts/colder-arctic-melt-season-temperatures—prognose-2010—6-days-to-go-189.php
The msm should be onto this, but you won’t hear a word.
El Gordo,
Could you posit a motive for blaming above-boiling-point lake temperature readings on the satellite, rather than on a coding error?
If it’s a satellite issue, then all temperature records from the satellite must be tossed out, along with all conclusions which are based in part on data from that satellite. Which means, blaming it on the satellite endangers more CAGW findings than blaming it on coding error.
What is more, it endangers the entire satellite database, because it calls into question whether NASA accurately monitors the operational status of those satellites.
One might, of course, consider that making the satellite data questionable would be of benefit to the CAGWers, since the satellite data don’t support the radical warming trend generated by surface station data.
Except that, in this instance, the satellite data were delivering a warming signal, which CAGWers would of course welcome.
How would you parse the issue?
Schiller.
4
“The msm should be onto this, but you won’t hear a word.”
It’s just breath-taking that this data that is the basis for our self-loathing, the Kyoto madness and the trillions that entails, the impassioned “walks against warming” that are happening this morning etc, etc can be suddenly so questionable without a word from MSM.
Spangled,
You’re right to wonder about the MSM. Normally, they love a scandal. But of this moment, none of them have emitted the slightest breath regarding boiling lakes and towns baked to the point of incandescence.
Schiller
I’m hopeful it’s only a coding problem, but we need to know the truth either way. The outcome can’t be far off.
El Gordo that’s interesting info from Frank Lansner and don’t forget our own Luke and Gav.
Normally they show a definite interest in melting ice, but run a mile when the argument runs against them.
The lower temps for Arctic ice melt seems to have been going on for at least 10 years, if Frank’s chart is correct.
New paper finally completely buries the hockey stick crap and backs up McIntyre and McKitrick.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/14/breaking-new-paper-makes-a-hockey-sticky-wicket-of-mann-et-al-99/#more-23450
‘the fat lady has sung loudly’….lol
And, of course, it will be all over the news tonight! Especially the ABC!
Oh well! Dripping water eventually wears away stone.
Found this new Indian Ocean MSLP Analysis at BOM.
http://www.bom.gov.au/australia/charts/indian_ocean.shtml
Those cold fronts really do come from Antarctica.
el gordo,
Yes indeed. You can see why it’s fast circumnavigating at 50 deg south if you’re brave and foolhardy enough.
{All that and icebergs too}
BTW did you read Corbyn on Satellitegate:
http://climaterealists.com/?id=6134
Good to see Miskolczi’s paper on GHG optical thickness has been published [by E&E] but will the scientific community be honest enough to review it?
http://www.aim.org/aim-column/blacklisted-scientist-challenges-global-warming-orthodoxy/
Marc Hendrikx also comments on the missing news:
http://abcnewswatch.blogspot.com/
Ocean’s Color Affects Hurricane Paths
ScienceDaily (Aug. 14, 2010)
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/08/100813121916.htm
It turns out that the formation of typhoons — as hurricanes are known in the region — is heavily mediated by the presence of chlorophyll, a green pigment that helps the tiny single-celled organisms known as phytoplankton convert sunlight into food for the rest of the marine ecosystem. Chlorophyll contributes to the ocean’s color.
In the study, to be published in an upcoming issue of Geophysical Research Letters, a journal of the American Geophysical Union, Gnanadesikan’s team describes how a drop in chlorophyll concentration, and the corresponding reduction in ocean color, could cause a decrease in the formation of hurricanes in the color-depleted zone.
In the latter scenario, the absence of chlorophyll in the subtropical gyre affected hurricane formation by modifying air circulation and heat distribution patterns both within and beyond the gyre.
In the no-chlorophyll scenario, sunlight is able to penetrate deeper into the ocean, leaving the surface water cooler. The drop in the surface temperature in the model affects hurricane formation in three main ways: cold water provides less energy; air circulation patterns change, leading to more dry air aloft which makes it hard for hurricanes to grow.The changes in air circulation trigger strong winds aloft, which tend to prevent thunderstorms from developing the necessary superstructure that allows them to grow into hurricanes.
Ocean ‘acidification’ = more CO2/’plant food’ = more chlorophyll = more hurricanes? Except that scientists are now claiming a dramatic decrease in phytoplankton. Hmmm…
Buying global warming research works extremely well. The same could apply to buying votes…
Green farmers in Australia to get carbon credits if Gillard re-elected
People’s Daily (China)
August 15, 2010
http://english.people.com.cn/90001/90777/90851/7104815.html
Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard on Saturday … announced that if re-elected, Labor will spend 46 million dollars (41 million U.S. dollars) setting up a scheme that would allow farmers to sell carbon credits that they earn from progressive farming practices.
They could attract credits by planting trees, applying fertilizer more efficiently or by planting crops without tilling the soil.
Gillard said farmers could earn 500 million dollars (446 million U.S. dollars) over the next decade by selling their credits on the international market.
“planting crops without tilling the soil.”
Would that include planting the demonic Hell-spawned zero-till genetically modified crops that make farmers slaves of multinational corporations that are tools of the Illuminati?
There’s a Green consensus that that could not be ‘green’.
Temperatures are now a High Court matter in NZ.
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/political-climate
Here’s more on that story.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/4026553/Court-challenge-to-Niwa-climate-records
El Gordo,
That’s an amazing pair of articles.
There’s a funny thing, though. One says the raw data went missing, the other claims the raw data were manipulated.
How do you prove data manipulation if the raw data are gone?
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100050537/ccx-lay-offs-youd-need-a-heart-of-stone-not-to-laugh/
I agree that one shouldnt laugh, but what hoot this is.
Gore and his shonky cronies have now been caught out and their fraudulent little scam has been all for nought.
His mate Pachauri who is on the management advisory team for the CCX would have also taken a caning.
…..there must be a god after all.
Oh well at least Pachauri will be able to use his role as Chairman of the IPCC to ensure that the next report is even more alarmist and exgaggerated ..at least then he may then be able to recoup some of his losses…for a short while at least.
Malcolm,
All is not lost.
All it takes is one significant economy to do cap-and-trade, and other economies will stampede in concocting the same scheme.
‘Green’ farmers living ‘on the dole’ will out-compete counterparts in other markets, selling commodities for below fair value, because carbon subsidies make up the difference.
The CAGW Greenies know this. Sure, there might be layoffs short-term, but one significant ‘win’ on establishing a carbon market will Balkanize the world and hand the gang-green watermelons a success they’ve striven for decades to achieve.
Too soon to gloat, friend. The lure of billion$ and trillion$ remains.
Schiller.
Thanks Schiller ,
Bu what makes my blood boil is when leaders of the academic climatariat come out with their nonsense that all sceptics are in the pay of Big(X) where X = Oil, coal, gas, companies etc. (Including one or two leading academics in this country)
..completely oblivious and ignorant of the fact that:
1.They are funded by tax payers to tune of billions that far outweighs any marginal sums that may or may not have been paid to some marginal group trying to take a balanced/sceptic view.
2. The leaders of the push in GW alarmism are themselves engaging in rorting further sums out of the unsuspecting public. eg Gore Goldman Sachs Pachauri et al
3. That the boys club has it all set up to suit themselves ,eg
a) The so called reviews undertaken in the UK and Penn State..Total incompetence being on display..and so damnably arrogant they treat us as though we were all fools.
b) The enormous and unacceptable conflicts of interest that abound in this circus.
Now where did I put that photo of the BOM and CSIRO climatariat attending the release of Al Gores AIT film, and where they pronounced it being remarkably accurate.
Malcolm,
The CAGW movement isn’t a stand-alone exercise. It’s part of a Green Machine that dates back at least to Rachel Carson and her book, ‘Silent Spring’. http://www.rachelcarson.org/
With her and her genre, environmental misinformation became monetized, and every year since her ‘revolution’ has seen increasing amounts of funds poured into ‘green’ initiatives. Green is a growth industry, though it doesn’t grow on its own — though it relies in part on a gullible public, the most money to be made is by government mandate.
CAGW is but a mere part of the Green theft of democracy, but the most tempting of all to date.
cohers
The crowd over at Watts are eager to buy one of those t-shirts online (CRAP – Carbon Really Ain’t Pollution). $$$$ for the fighting fund!
More assurance that Antarctica is not melting and is indeed gaining ice, surprise, surprise.
I bet you heard this loud and clear in every country from your msm, yuk yuk.
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2010/07/29/recent-news-from-antarctica/#more-440
Of the Tedesco and Monaghan paper they say ‘the melting index has been unusually low the past three years. The plot also shows the value of the Southern Oscillation Index (SOI) which is basically an index related to El Niño conditions (the index is negative during an El Niño). The Southern Hemispheric Annular Mode (SAM) shown in the figure is a measure of the pressure gradient between the Southern Hemisphere’s middle and high latitudes. The authors perform some analyses that lead them to conclude the recent decline in melting is partially explained by variations in SOI and SAM.’
I like the science.
SAM is looking very positive, as one would expect at this time of year.
http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/daily_ao_index/aao/aao_index.html
El, we sold a few of the C.R.A.P. t-shirts but the people started doing them themselves; I made one up with this on the front:
People are carbon life-forms
Greens hate carbon
Greens hate people
A guy in a Koala bear suit didn’t like it.
Yeah, we live in a fast commercial world, cohenite.
On an entirely different matter, it looks like the hurricane season won’t get up because of falling SST and wind shear.
http://ioc-goos-oopc.org/state_of_the_ocean/sur/atl/tna.php
There will be many red faces and sober comments if nothing happens soon.
Biggest snow dump in Tassie since the mid-1980’s.
http://www.themercury.com.au/article/2010/08/16/166395_todays-news.html
Wheat farmers in South Iceland are expecting a good harvest this year.
‘Olafur Eggertsson from Thorvaldseyri, who is head of the Icelandic Wheat Growers’ Association, told RUV that this years crops are looking excellent.’ Warm weather has helped growth and the droughty conditions did not have a deleterious effect
.
It’s believed the volcanic ash from the Eyjafjallajokull eruption added nutrients to the soil and its dark colour retained the sun’s heat. And as in the MWP, ‘domestic flour sells at a premium.’
El Gordo Tasmania also had its wettest winter on record last year in 2009, amazing how it averages out over time.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/season/tas/archive/200908.summary.shtml
Hear is an excellent response to a question raised over at Jonova
August 16th, 2010 at 8:11 pm
“At xyz you ask the good question:
What does correct science have to do with people’s decisions? Your Voodoo Science will fan the flames of Hell on Earth, consuming future generations.
Yes, the “voodoo science” of AGW will have such dire consequences as you suggest if it is allowed to influence government’s decisions.
Climate has always changed everywhere and always will: this has been known since the Bronze Age when it was pointed out to Pharaoh by Joseph (the one with the Technicolour Dreamcoat). Joseph told Pharaoh to prepare for the bad times when in the good times, and all sensible governments have adopted that policy throughout the thousands of years since then.
That tried and tested policy is sensible because people merely complain at taxes in the good times, but they will revolt if they are short of food in the bad times.
But in 1990 several governments decided to abandon that policy and, instead, to try to stabilize the climate of the entire Earth by controlling it.
This attempt at global climate control arises from the hypothesis of anthropogenic (that is, man-made) global warming (AGW).
AGW does not pose a global crisis but the policy of attempted global climate control does because it threatens to constrain the use of fossil fuels. And that constraint – if implemented such that the use of fossil fuels were constrained to present levels – would kill billions of people before 2050.
AGW is a political issue. It is not a scientific issue. Simply, the AGW hypothesis is voodoo science of a most extreme kind.
The AGW hypothesis always was implausible and it is now known to be wrong (e.g. it predicts the ‘hot spot’ that has not happened).
The AGW-hypothesis says increased greenhouse gases – notably carbon dioxide (CO2) – in the air raise global temperature, and anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide are increasing the carbon dioxide in the air to overwhelm the natural climate system.
The hypothesis is founded on three assumptions: viz
(1) It is assumed that the anthropogenic CO2 emission is the major cause of the increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration
and
(2) It is assumed that the increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration is significantly increasing radiative forcing
and
(3) It is assumed that the increasing radiative forcing will significantly increase mean global temperature.
There are reasons to doubt each of these assumptions. But if any one of them were known to be false then the entire AGW hypothesis would be known to be false.
Think about it.
The hypothesis is that a trace atmospheric gas which is the very stuff of life itself may – if it increases its atmospheric concentration – become Shiva, the Destroyer of Worlds. In fact, it’s worse than that. Nature emits 34 molecules of CO2 for every molecule of CO2 emitted by human activities so AGW suggests that a minute increase to the annual emission of this essential trace gas could cause Armageddon. Furthermore, in the geological past and during ice ages the atmospheric CO2 concentration has been more than ten times greater than it is now.
If you had never heard of AGW and somebody came in off the street and tried to sell it to you would you say, “Oh dear! Of course, we must change the economic activity of the entire world”?
So, as you say, the AGW hypothesis is “voodoo science”.
What does correct science say? The following.
The global temperature seems to vary in cycles that are overlaid on each other. The cause of these cycles is not known but some are associated with known phenomena (e.g. ENSO, NAO and PDO) although the causes of these phenomena are not known.
There is an apparent ~900 year oscillation that provided
the Roman Warm Period (RWP),
then the Dark Age Cool Period (DACP),
then the Medieval Warm Period (MWP),
then the Little Ice Age (LIA), and
the present warm period (PWP).
And there is an apparent ~60 year oscillation that provided
cooling from ~1880 to ~1910,
then warming from ~1910 to ~1940,
then cooling from ~1940 to ~1970,
then warming from about ~1970 to ~2000,
then cooling since.
These oscillations form a pattern of climate change over time.
And if this pattern continues then either
(a) cooling will continue until ~2020 when the ~60 year oscillation change phase and warming will resume until global temperature reached the levels it had in the RWP and the MWP
or
(b) the ~900 year oscillation will change phase and the globe will start to cool to the temperatures it had in the DACP and MWP.
There is no observation that indicates there has been any change to this pattern.
But the ‘voodoo science’ of AGW says cooling will not happen so people should not prepare for it and billions will be killed by its reduced crops, etc..
Yes, as you say, that “Voodoo Science will fan the flames of Hell on Earth, consuming future generations” if we do not ensure that it is displaced by correct science.
Ms Nova’s handbook is a weapon for use to defeat the proponents of the dangerous voodoo science of the AGW hypothesis.
Richard
Hot debate. What do you think? 12 2
110Richard S Courtney:
August 16th, 2010 at 8:14 pm
Ooops! In #109 I wrote:
“(b) the ~900 year oscillation will change phase and the globe will start to cool to the temperatures it had in the DACP and MWP.”
Obviously, I intended to write:
(b) the ~900 year oscillation will change phase and the globe will start to cool to the temperatures it had in the DACP and LIA.
Sorry.”
This should be cleaned up and widely published if only to counter the Greens usual distortions of reality.
God help us if they have the balance of power …
Malcolm, I wonder if the DACP and LIA began in the SH? Antarctic ice cores might reveal the answer, I will go for a browse and get back.
Jo Nova has a good article on SL trends in the South Pacific, fat Albert Gore was certainly a BS merchant.
http://joannenova.com.au/2010/08/south-pacific-sea-levels-no-rise-since-1993/#more-9902
http://www.science.org.au/reports/climatechange2010.pdf
Here is the Australian Academy of Science report on CC, funded by Wong’s Department of CC, so it is completely impartial and a proper use of public monies…of course.
But read what their definition of CC is, and compare that with the narrower version that Wong and the alarmanistas in general use …invariably in a context that precludes any other source of any increase in temperature, other than that caused by our naughty use fossil fuels.
Have a look at the graphs on page 11 where they graph the increase in fossil fuels over time with that estimated from the scenario predictions.
… But note, they don’t go on and graph the temperature predictions from the same scenarios with what is being measured right now…and we all know what that looks like.
That wouldn’t do now would it …would fit the impression they are trying to create.
Finally, why release a document like this, funded by Wong’s Department, one week out from the election. They could have at least demonstrated some sincerity by doing it the own time, but no, we couldn’t have the poor dears being out of pocket.
Pardon me for being cynical but this is a cooked up job of work by the alarmanistas fraternity, timed to perfection … and synchronised beautifully with yet more of the usual pap from Flannery, Hamilton and Lewandowski.
Simple observation suggests the next decade will be wet in south-east Australia.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/PDOENSO.gif
The Canadians are getting into the Australian wheat market, supposedly as a springboard to Asia, but ultimately it’s about food security.
http://www.smh.com.au/business/awb-will-be-in-safe-hands-say-canadians-20100817-128hs.html
BTW I’ve worked out why Luke and Gav have been AWOL lately.
They’ve been working their butts off helping Labor and the Greens to get re elected so they can bring in an ets as promised by Gillard and Brown.
Wish L & G were here to give me a critique on this latest Erl Happ view of the world. ENSO is the main driver, not CO2.
http://climatechange1.wordpress.com/
El, you’d get no sense from luke about the Happ thesis and less from gavin; luke would say that El Nino has been taken over by AGW as his favourite Vecchi supposes; the Happ idea really goes back to how much natural factors [variability] contributes to temperature and the McLean, Carter and De Freitas paper; the argument is that natural variation, ENSO, doesn’t contribute to trend and not much to variability. This is debatable as this paper notes:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0908/0908.1828v1.pdf
The question as to what determines ENSO; I read an interesting paper recently which suggests geologic, mainly volcanic activity, is providing the heat; one would think the sun played some part though.
Thanx cohenite, a well-balanced critique.
Something is happening over at Watts and I don’t just mean the layout. The blog is becoming more inclusive, allowing CAGW voices to be heard, which is a calculated decision to open up the debate and get the msm to take them seriously.
The conversation will become more robust and should attract a larger audience.
May and June saw flooding in central Europe, now flash floods have returned. China, Pakistan and now Indonesia is experiencing unseasonal flooding.
‘Indonesia has been affected by extremely heavy rain over the past few days with some areas seeing rainfall totals in excess of 150-200mm in just three days. The heavy rain and thunderstorms have affected a vast area of Indonesia, stretching from Sumatra to New Guinea, and come during the time of year when temperatures should be at their highest and when rainfall is climatologically at its lowest.’
Is it possible to say this excessive amount of water has come about because of limited sunspot activity over the past few years? More cosmic rays have been bombarding earth and overdoing the cloud building?
Conroy states it’s a waste of time preparing a business case for the NBN, I mean it’ll only cost 43 billion.
How can anyone vote for this white elephant when it’s uptake by the few in Tassie is not for the 100mbps but 25 mbps, mainly because it’s so bloody expensive.
Unbelievably a majority will probably vote for these embeciles.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/waste_of_time_seeing_if_nbn_is_a_white_elephant/
Utah Science Technology and Research initiative (USTAR) representative, speaking about climate change and a $100 million carbon-capture project:
“We’re an economic development organization,” he added. “We have no position on the science.”
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/home/50133693-76/carbon-ustar-climate-utah.html.csp
The nationalization of agriculture by regulating carbon:
Carbon Profit Grows on Trees as Kiwi Farmers Ditch Sheep
Bloomberg News
Aug 19, 2010
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-08-18/carbon-cash-accelerates-cull-of-new-zealand-sheep-as-farmers-turn-to-trees.html
New Zealand’s sheep farmers are flocking to a government carbon trading program that pays more to plant trees than sell wool and mutton.
The nation’s carbon-trading project … will include agriculture, forcing farmers to pay for emissions their cows and sheep make through belching.
That, says Don Nicolson, president of Federated Farmers of New Zealand Inc., is too big a burden on its 25,000 members.
Introduction of carbon trading incentives will add to an existing trend to convert pasture land for forest, driven by sales of lumber to China.
Carbon trading makes planting forests even more appealing, the University of Canterbury’s Evison said. Instead of waiting for trees to grow before they can sell the timber, they’re now paid annually for storing carbon, he said.
Federated Farmers’ Nicolson estimates 20 percent, or 2,800, sheep and beef farms could be replaced by carbon forests, harming communities that rely on livestock farming for jobs as shearers, mechanics and vets.
Make your votes count lads; consider The Climate Sceptics!
Results of an inquiry into the Climategate inquiries will shortly appear — scheduled for ‘the end of August’.
The investigation will be conducted by Andrew Montford. Andrew Montford is the author of The Hockey Stick Illusion: Climategate and the Corruption of Science, a history of some of the events leading up to the release of emails and data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.
From: Investigation Into Climategate Inquiries Announced
The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF)
Wednesday, 07 July 2010
http://www.thegwpf.org/climategate/1204-investigation-into-climategate-inquiries-announced.html
Could be interesting. Gotta wonder if the report will include new revelations that the US satellite data is corrupt.
Surface station data are hopelessly contorted, now the satellite stuff is FAIL, all we have left to rely upon is counting polar bears, with hopelessly bogus numbers.
We wouldn’t be in this situation if there wasn’t so much money backing crap theories.
Just dropping this in for fun, because I’m curious about the direction and strength of that 12 meter wave bubble.
http://www.oceanweather.com/data/
Woops…In the southern ocean to the south-west of Oz.
A pricing of government inefficiency (most of these ought to be a scheduling job as they won’t change year to year) or is Luke’s mob after another computer? Check out
“Outrage at 400pc Crown rent rise”
http://qcl.farmonline.com.au/news/state/agribusiness-and-general/general/outrage-at-400pc-crown-rent-rise/1918928.aspx?storypage=3
Sorry if any of you guys missed my thoughts during these final critical days before our federal election but I have been busy advising campaigns elsewhere. Since that’s almost over I have returned to the blog to see how it’s been running on the issues.
One observation; Cohenite’s mob have not been featured on msm, however youngsters generally are waiting for some one to act on climate change. My tip is the Greens will win much out of this election because of better defined long term goals than the major parties.
In my view Tony Abbott has campaigned extremely well and has remained on theme throughout although with smaller goals re expenditures than the ALP who have struggled to maintain their momentum and message after Rudd. If Labor stumbles home with Julia, it will be her slimmer outline on TV and a bigger broadband across the nation that appealed to many voters. Both images are worthwhile.
El gordo; I looked up the Oz wave plot thinking this has been a rough day and the Bass Strait region has lived up to to my expectations
http://www.oceanweather.com/data/
Gavin, welcome back.
The greens seem to have won every election since bob brown got elected through a back room deal on preferences that saw your beloved democrats lose a very good Tasmanian senator in 1996. These wins are despite only get less than 15% of the vote!
now it seems that they are winning due to yet another grubby preference deal, this ignores their cliam that 80% of the voters support their loopy polocies on forestry and their even loopy plan to finance social welfare based on a dirty coal tax after closing down the coal industry.
Or perhaps you campaigned for the abolition of the private mediacal insurance rebate that would double the waiting lists at public hospitals.
It is a shame that no Australian democrat will be elected to the sanate, but perhaps they can only blame them selves by shifting from a policy ‘to keep the bastards honest’ to trying to out green the loopy greens!
Thanx Gavin, big swells hit Tassie.
Jen, I crave your indulgence to allow me to post something that Tim Lambert has totally banned from his Deltoid.
First, some background. As you know I have for some years pointed out that banning CO2 emissions will have some unintended consequences for global food production, as in my papers in Quadrant (Jan-Feb 2009) and Energy & Environment, October 2009 (both are on my website http://www.timcurtin.com).
Amazingly, Lambert started a thread attacking my seminar at the ANU on 29th April 2010 (available at http://www.timcurtin.com), which led to over 1000 posts, about 10:1 against me, until closed down today.
Recently, and just before I gave up on it, one P. Lewis offered this:
CO2 is plant food, really. Yes, it really works. A higher rice yield with higher daytime temperatures, too.
Whaddya think!?
Posted by: P. Lewis | August 10, 2010 3:19 AM
P. Lewis’ link was to a paper published in PNAS just the day before by Jarrod Welch et al. which actually assumed away any and all contribution of rising [CO2] to rice yields, as I pointed out immediately:
P.Lewis, many thanks for that link, really hot off the press, to which unfortunately I do not have ready access.
Until I do get to see the full paper, can you confirm that the authors do not consider increasing [CO2]? It seems not, from this in their Abstract:
Temperature and radiation had statistically significant impacts during both the vegetative and ripening phases of the rice plant. Higher minimum temperature reduced yield, whereas higher maximum temperature raised it; radiation impact varied by growth phase.
Perhaps you could check out the slides in my Seminar (available at my website) showing the offsetting effects of rising [CO2] in the face of rising temperatures.
Regards
Tim
Posted by: Tim Curtin | August 10, 2010 6:13 AM
I followed that up with this:
P. Lewis. It appears that Welch et al is not yet available online, apart from their SI, which I now have in front of me. Regrettably their SI confirms that they are in truth Madoffian, as in their Abstract they conclude: “Diurnal temperature variation must be considered when investigating the impacts of climate change on irrigated rice in Asia”, while their SI makes no mention of [CO2].
Why not, given that rising [CO2] is what they believe causes the diurnal temperature variation (as if that had never before existed)?
The fact is that their SI nowhere even mentions [CO2] despite some 50,000 papers documenting that higher [CO2] is associated with higher yields.
This is as much actionable false accounting as any at Enron, Goldman Sachs, Citigroup or Madoff. For example, just 2 weeks ago Citigroup were found for years to have classified billions of their borrowings as “sales”, duly certified as such by all their honest accountants, just as Welch & Co ignore the benefits of rising [CO2].
P. Lewis, do YOU endorse the FALSE ACCOUNTING of Welch & Co?
Posted by: Tim Curtin | August 10, 2010 8:06 AM
No reply from Lewis, but I have since had some unresponsive correspondence with one of the authors of Welch & co (PNAS, 2010).
Yesterday I managed to get this onto Lambert’s Deltoid (he must have been asleep!):
[To Jarrod Welch et al, PNAS, 2010]
I am disturbed by several features of your otherwise very impressive co-authored paper in PNAS that appeared this week. In particular I would be interested to know why the paper ignores any positive impact on rice yields from the rising atmospheric level of carbon dioxide (hereafter [CO2]) that one suspects the paper attributes to be the proximate cause of the rising temperatures that it claims will produce declining rice yields.
So far as I can see, the paper only mentions [CO2] once, and then inaccurately, as a “fixed effect” whereby the ambient CO2 concentration is “common to all farms at a given site in a given season and year” (p.2 of online version). Sure, that is true not only for any given year but for every year, but the level of [CO2] is of course higher in every successive year, so to describe that as a “fixed effect” is unacceptable, or so it seems to me.
That is especially the case when many thousands of papers have described both the fertilizing effect of [CO2], without which of course there would be no rice at all anywhere, and the impact of rising [CO2] on yields of all crops everywhere, whether in greenhouses, in FACE experiments, or in general, as I have myself shown in a peer-reviewed paper (2009).
Your paper assumes that the rise in [CO2] from 356.7 ppmv at end 1993 to 367.89 ppmv at end 1999 had no impact on rice yields at the locations of study, but it certainly does not verify that assumption.
To do so, you and your co-authors need to show why Krishnan et al., for example, are mistaken to have found that in eastern India while “for every 1 °C increase in temperature, ORYZA1 and INFOCROP rice models predicted average yield changes of −7.20 and −6.66%, respectively, at the current level of CO2 (380 ppm)… increases in the CO2 concentration up to 700 ppm led to the average yield increases of about 30.73% by ORYZA1 and 56.37% by INFOCROP rice” (2007:233, my italics).
Your failure even to mention the Krishnan paper when their eastern India covers your site in Tamil Nadu is not acceptable practice – except of course in Proceedings of the National Academy of Science.
It would also be interesting to have your explanation for how Vietnam managed to become the world’s second largest rice exporter when reckoned in terms of exports as a % of its total production from 1990, despite both its own rising population and rice consumption, in the face of the alleged falling yields there from 1995-99 resulting from the adverse weather trends in Welch et al.
Even more interesting would be to have your co-author David Dawe’s explanation for how in Welch et al (2009) he endorses your paper’s claim that the observed national yield growth in the Philippines was only 1.51% p.a. “at the end of the 20th century (Table 1), when in the book he edited and largely wrote for IRRI, he reports larger increases in rice yields in the Philippines, despite his claims that yields are falling in his co-authored with Welch PNAS paper.
Here is Dawe in the IRRI book:
“Data from the Bureau of Agricultural Statistics (BAS) show that the average national yield increased from 2.99 tons per hectare in 1997 to 3.33 tons per hectare in 2002. How much of this yield change can be attributed to the use of quality seeds? (Quality seed as defined here includes foundation, registered, certified, and good seeds.) Based on a large PhilRice-BAS random survey of rice farmers, the percentage of farmers who used quality seeds in at least one cropping season increased from 38% in 1996-97 to 49% in 2001-02.
The same data set showed that the average yield advantage of using quality seeds over farmers’ seeds was around 300 to 470 kilograms per hectare in irrigated areas and 500 to 650 kilograms per hectare in rainfed areas (Table 2). Thus, from 1997 to 2002, it was calculated that only around 9% of the yield increase was due to increased use of high-quality seeds. The other 91% of the gain must be due to other factors such as fertilizer or chemical use, improved irrigation, or weather [!!!]”.
So Dawe simultaneously holds beliefs that “weather” can over much the same 5 years explain both rising and falling average yields in those years!
What about the rising [CO2] that in Welch 2010 causes the rising temperatures? Or do Dawe and the other authors of Welch et al. deny that rising [CO2] has ANY fertilizing effect?
Finally, please explain in what respects your paper does not fully vindicate Bernard Madoff’s version of investment analysis?
I am sorry if I appear abrasive, but, dear Dr Welch, you yourself made large claims about your paper in Science Daily, August 10, 2010: “’We found that as the daily minimum temperature increases, or as nights get hotter, rice yields drop,’ said Jarrod Welch, lead author of the report and graduate student of economics at the University of California, San Diego”.
That was a wholly misleading statement, and actionable had it been made in connection with an issue of shares on the NYSE.
References: Curtin, T. 2009. Climate Change and Food Production. Energy and Environment, 20.7: 1099-1116.
Krishnan, P., D.K. Swain, B. Chandra Bhaskar, S.K. Nayak, R.N. Dash 2007.Impact of elevated CO2 and temperature on rice yield and methods of adaptation as evaluated by crop simulation studies. Agriculture Ecosystems and Environment, 122, 233-242.
Posted by: Tim Curtin | August 19, 2010 10:10 AM
This led to a demand by one of Lambert’s greatest fans, Gaz, that in the inimitably charming language Lambert invites at Deltoid, “WTF is Tim Curtin doing on this thread? Tim Lambert, I thought this source of inane, time-wasting blather had been qaurantined”. Posted by: Gaz | August 19, 2010 8:22 PM”.
And sure enough it was soon quarantined: my next attempted post (see below) was consigned by that great social democrat and advocate of free speech, Tim Lambert, to oblivion, but for Jen:
Here is my Last Post at Lambert:
Adelady (August 19, 2010 8:58 AM): you said
“frank. Photosynthesis isn’t the only effect of CO2 on a plant’s growing environment.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/08/100809161138.htm
Not so encouraging.”
Addie’s link is to a media release from IRRI (near Manila) announcing the paper by Welch et al that appeared in PNAS on 9th August and referred to here by P Lewis for allegedly refuting any role of [CO2] in rice yields…
That ScienceDaily report merely parrots without acknowledgment the IRRI media release on the Welch et al paper. Even the BBC was forced by Anthony Watts to retract its own parroting of Welch/IRRI with their ludicrous claim that ABSOLUTE rice yields had declined, rather than merely, allegedly, the rate of growth of such yields, which is what the paper actually claimed.
“adewoman: the Welch paper specifically assumes ZERO CO2 fertilization, exactly what we have come to expect from the so-called National Academy of Science (aka Walt Disney Studios).
And dear adewoman (how can we meet?), if you had any shred of competence you, unlike Welch and co who do not have any, you would check the FAO data base on rice yields from 1990 to 1999 in the countries covered by Welch & co, against the yields from 1990 to 2008 inclusive”.
“Dear addie, the FAO data shows that while Welch et al claimed their data for six countries from c.1994 to 1999 was enough to project declining rice yields worldwide for ever after from 1999, here are the actual linear trends for rates of change (GROWTH or DECLINE) in rates of growth of yields in their six countries from 1990 to 2008:
China: y = -0.0526x + 1.4725
R² = 0.0222
India: y = 0.1092x + 0.4847
R² = 0.0075
Indonesia: y = 0.0992x – 0.2249
R² = 0.0868
Philippines: y = 0.0772x + 1.0813
R² = 0.0099
Thailand: y = -0.0265x + 2.2615
R² = 0.0009
Vietnam: y = 0.0469x + 2.1476
R² = 0.0117
Now they projected the following DECLINES in absolute yields for those countries (in % p.a.):
China (high): 0
China (low): – 0.07
China (actual, 2nd d, 1990-2008):y = -0.0526x + 1.4725
India (high): -.04
India (low): – .07
India (actual, 2nd d, 1990-2008):y = 0.1092x + 0.4847
Indonesia (high): 0.22
Indonesia (low): 0.17
Indonesia (actual, 2nd d, 1990-2008): y = 0.0992x – 0.2249
Philippines (high): 0.31
Philippines (low): 0.32
Philippines (actual, 2nd d, 1990-2008):y = 0.0772x + 1.0813
Thailand (high): 0.23
Thailand (low): -0.35
Thailand (actual, 2nd d, 1990-2008):y = -0.0265x + 2.2615
Vietnam (Hanoi, high): 0.38; (Omon, high): -0.33
Vietnam (Hanoi, low): -0.22; (Omon, low): -0.76
Vietnam (actual, 2nd d, national):y = 0.0469x + 2.1476”
I concluded “Dear addled (“adelady”): if you think the actual trends in rice yield growth rates support the claim in the IRRI/ScienceDaily/BBC that ‘“as the daily minimum temperature increases, or as nights get hotter, rice yields drop,” said Mr. Jarrod Welch, lead author of the report’, all plans for us to meet are off!”
Tim Lambert’s “science” (sic) blog is a gross perversion of the discipline, no less than you would expect from a supporter of the Greens in tomorrow’s election.
Tim,
Plant response to higher levels of CO2 depend greatly on whether they use C3 or C4 photosynthesis. The majority of species are C3, and respond best to elevated CO2. About one percent of species is C4, and respond about half as well, but those species are widely grown. They include sugar cane, corn, sorghum and millet. (Rice is C3.)
So you see there is a great deal of latitude for creative number-crunching ‘crop’ response to CO2.
http://www.co2science.org/subject/b/summaries/biodivc3vsc4.php
‘Switzerland’s two open glacier ski areas have seen remarkable August snowfalls with Saas Fee reporting 45cm of new snow on Sunday, with more falling since, including another 5cm yesterday. Neighbouring Zermatt, the only area open 365 days and home to Europe’s highest lifts, reported healthy snowfalls too.’
Picked the story up from Marc Morano.
US Government admits satellite temperature readings ‘degraded’. All data taken offline in shock move. Global warming temperatures may be 10-15 degrees too high.
http://www.climatechangefraud.com/climate-reports/7491-official-satellite-failure-means-decade-of-global-warming-data-doubtful
Hmmm…leaves us in limbo.
El Gordo,
It’s worse than you think. Two more satellites have been revealed as faulty. [1 – 3] What’s worse, some NOAA data ‘clients’, such as India, have known about the problems for a while already and have rejected the data.
Worse still is that it appears the data from three faulty satellites were subjected to automated processing for later use in generating climate trends, where anomalies in excess of 600 F were combined with more reasonable temps of 75 F — which might also be inaccurate, although obviously less so.
Even worse than that is that the ‘satellite that started it all’ has been having technical problems dating to at least 2000. [4]
After it was discovered that the surface station had been comprehensively fiddled, we were asked to believe that at least the satellite data were good. Now that a full decade of satellite readings are questionable, we have to ask: is there anything in climate trends worth arguing about any more?
——–
1. http://co2insanity.com/2010/08/19/leading-us-physicist-labels-satellitegate-scandal-a-%E2%80%98catastrophe%E2%80%99/
2. http://www.oso.noaa.gov/poesstatus/spacecraftStatusSummary.asp?spacecraft=15
3. http://www.ssd.noaa.gov/PS/SATS/MESS/MSG2101718.01.txt
4. http://www.oso.noaa.gov/poesstatus/componentStatusSummary.asp?spacecraft=16&subsystem=4
Aaah Shiller. you can still sail on with your little pinky on one hand raised towards the wind but mind it’s always properly shaded by your hat raised with the other hand
A mix of perhaps good news.
First off, Roy Spencer dropped data from satellite NOAA-16 back in February 2007. [1] That means that he and his team get credit for discovering the problems well before climatechangefraud.com revealed them to a larger audience. (Albeit 7 years after the problems first occurred.)
The other is that a mere six hours ago, Spencer announced amendments to what is considered meaningful data [2]:
You can rely ONLY upon two channels at the Discover “Temperature Trends” page:
(1) the “Aqua ch.5 v2” channel for global-average mid-tropospheric temperatures, from the AMSU on NASA’s Aqua satellite, and
(2) the “Sea Surface” temperatures, which are averaged over the global ice-free oceans (60N to 60S), from the AMSR-E instrument on Aqua.
Do not trust any of the other channels for temperature trend monitoring.
We may be able to salvage meaningful data after all. (For several heart-stopping moments I nearly considered we’d have to go back to using treemometers. But then we’d need to ‘hide the decline’ all over again.)
But isn’t it utterly weird that the ‘skeptics’ are the ones most concerned about data quality? Perhaps not, if corrupt data are supporting your CAGW position…
———
1. http://www.remss.com/msu/msu_data_description.html
2. http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/08/daily-global-temperature-updates-on-the-discover-website-an-updated-tutorial/
Tim,
The Royal Society also seem to agree with you.
http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/365/1554/2835.abstract
Tim, never mind about Lambert; we’ll see how the NZ climate coalition goes in its litigation then do something in Australia.
Good luck today, cohenite. And I agree that litigation is the way ahead, if we fail to convince the electorate at the ballot box.
Talking of criminal negligence, half of Briton’s wind farms are misplaced.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1303688/More-half-Britains-wind-farms-built-wind.html
Cohenite: Many thanks, I’ll keep working on my Brief for you!
Schiller: thanks for the link.
Interesting assesment of the world’s energy budget:
http://activistteacher.blogspot.com/2010/08/is-burning-of-fossil-fuel-significant.html
Good afternoon, spangles. ‘Furthermore, there is approximately fifty times more dissolved carbon in ocean water than contained as CO2 in the atmosphere.’
So what happens to that carbon during full glaciation? Would there be an increased quantity released as CO2 or would conditions remain much the same?
I’m hunting for negative feedback.
el gordo,
Do the ice cores show the true levels of CO2?
Also WRT SLR, what’s falling? rising? accreting?
http://www.co2science.org/articles/V13/N33/C2.php
‘Consider the earth 14,000 years ago. CO2 levels were around 200 ppm and temperatures, at 6C below present values, were rising fast. Now consider 30,000 years ago. CO2 levels were also around 200 ppm and temperatures were also about 6C below current levels, yet at that time the earth was cooling. Exactly the same CO2 and temperature levels as 14,000 years ago, but the opposite direction of temperature change. CO2 was not the driver.’
Steven Goddard ’09
Some people think trading carbon credits would be a scam.
What about trading ‘green-ness’ credits? Yep, there’s a market for it. First, the Greens find a market to punish. Like palm oil. After the Greens punish that market, then they offer to declare products of compliant companies (green dhimmis) to be ‘green’ — for a fee.
Then, they open trading in ‘green certificates’.
http://www.greenpalm.org/
Now, suppose you’re a Green and you’ve just purchased a bunch of Palm Oil Certificates at $6 each. What do you do if you want the value of your Certificates to go up? Protest against Nestle and make them drop an ‘unsustainable’ palm oil supplier.
http://www.naturalnews.com/029508_Nestle_palm_oil.html
The Greens know how this works, all they have to do is repeat things with CO2.
More proof that CO2 is beneficial for trees and presumably for crops.
http://carbon-sense.com/2010/06/03/tree-growth-near-power-stations/
Pumping human induced CO2 underground is not cost effective.
Schiller,
I suppose when you are selling guilt-pardons and indulgences, the market is endless.
Green being the new religion, they are just repeating how it was done in past centuries.
el gordo,
Yeah, but this guy is only a civil engineer, what would he know?
Seriously though that is so true. My 150 acres of vegetation has exploded in recent years and I am in sight of Swanbank. But whether it is that or just the general increase in CO2, growth sure ain’t gone backward.
I used to mow the same area 20 years ago with a 48 inch mower, now I have a 60 and a 72 inch mower. Maybe old age has something to do with it as well as extra CO2.
The CO2 discussion should be front and centre if there is another election, but how to achieve it?
http://www.cartoonsbyjosh.com/
Humor will go a long way.
It’s delightful stuff but it would be completely wasted on doltoids et al.
Let’s not concern ourselves with the Deltoidians, we have to convince a large swag of the voting public that climate change is natural.
BoM says the IOD is neutral, but with so much cloud coming across it’s going to get very wet as it goes negative.
The SOI is still pos but the BoM predict an el nino by the end of the year. There are many parts that still need the big rain depressions of the 60s and 70s so I hope you are right.
The probabilities for La Niña persisting into next year declines to about 64% by March-April-May, and below 50% from April-May-June onward. The odds may change going forward, it depends on the ‘upwelling’ in the central and east Pacific.
The average duration of La Niña conditions is about 12 months, with a range of 6 to 23 months, but how can we predict back to back Ninas like 1954-56?
In addition to my new ban at Deltoid, I am also proscribed at Tamino, Quiggin, Barry Brook, and Real Climate, all feathers in my cap, think of me as von Richtofen! Tamino’s Blog is ludicrously named “Open Mind” – if anybody in the whole world has a closed mind it is Tamino (aka Grant Foster of Real Climate).
Tamino has joined in the general hate Monckton campaign. Now Chris is often a chump, much like his grandfather the 1st Viscount who led Edward VIII astray, but his heart is in the right place, and this time it is Tamino who shows himself to be the pompous ass.
Commenting on his second graph he says “It’s clear. The rate of CO2 increase has gone up during the time span covered by the NOAA global data set. Including recently (sic)”. Tamino is a consummate liar, for if we add in the “recent” data for the atmospheric concentration at Mauna Loa (or NCDC), it increased by only 1.6 and 1.73 ppm in 2008 and 2009, well below the more than 1.9 ppmv claimed by Tamino.
BTW, one of the oddities about especially American climate scientists, including all those at CDIAC and NOAA, they have never heard of percentages and cannot compute them just like our own dear Ken Henry and Wayne Swan (who claimed that a royalty of 5% of mineral sales and a company profits tax of 30% generated at most a gross 17% yield from mining profits to the Australian Treasury), so Tamino in his first graph refers to a “growth rate” when his graph actually shows only the absolute increases, not the percentage increase, which is what the term “rate” usually means everywhere except in USA and Canberra.
Then Tamino goes on to claim that Chris Monckton is wrong to suggest that the [CO2] concentration is growing linearly rather than exponentially. As Tamino puts it “If you want to know whether or not the growth in atmospheric CO2 is exponential, there’s an easier way. Log-transform the data. Here’s a plot of log (CO2) concentration using the NOAA global data (his fig.3)” and adds “It sure looks like log (CO2) has increased faster than linear, i.e., that CO2 concentration has increased faster than exponential. We can test this by fitting a quadratic curve to the residuals from our linear fit” and finds from his Fig.4 that “Sho’nuff. CO2 has increased faster than exponential. Even using the shorter NOAA global dataset, and yes, the result is statistically significant”. Wow! Yet he began by saying [CO2] is growing exponentially while he ends by saying it grows faster than exponential. Yer pays yer money…but this proves Tamino is a self-proclaimed bigger idiot than Chris M.
Tamino has merely proved yet again how easy it is to lie with statistics (and he has form), especially in regard to selective reporting.
I have taken the annual data ex Mauna Loa as reported by CDIAC from 1959 to 2009, and what we find using the actual trend equations (unlike Tamino who can only eyeball his graphs) is that the exponential does give better a better prediction from 1959 to 2009 than the linear using the respective trend equations
y = 310.7e0.0042x
and y = 1.4752x + 309.21
But what about the annual increments that Tamino thinks are growth RATES? Again the exponential looks better than the linear, but the logarithmic actually gives the best predictions for the last 4 years.
However given the enormous intra-annual variability in [CO2], a real climate scientist would assess the monthly growth RATES even if mission impossible for Tamino and all other American climate ‘scientists”. What do we find?
The linear trend from March 1958 to July 2010 is y = 0.1201x + 308.62
and generates 384 ppm for July 2010, only 6 ppm short of the actual, while Tamino’s exponential
y = 310.13e0.0003x
generates only 374.5 ppm, nearly 16 ppm short of the actual 390.09 ppm.
Chris M, m’lud, you are right, linear is both “faster” and better than exponential for the full date set, and I’m ever your faithful manservant – while Tamino is now as always and forever a varlet!
Here’s an analogue for the Climategate situation:
MonkeyGate: the latest scandal after RoundEarthGate & ClimateGate
Landover Baptist Church
‘Guaranteeing Salvation Since 1620″
From: True Christian™
http://www.landoverbaptist.net/showthread.php?t=48758
Apparently, it takes at least three years to determine if there’s been a bit of scientific fraud.
Wouldn’t it be interesting to discover that there is money for investigating Climategate?
Render inconclusive reports on the climate scam, and get hired to do another report on the Hockey Team?
Good money for no work.
If joolya wins and the senate is stacked against us, we may need to resort to litigation to stop the ETS. To prove that the warmist church is shonk it will be necessary to do a lot more cherry-picking.
Joseph D’Aleo believes the establishment has selective memory and I think this is the fraudsters biggest weakness in the public arena.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Selective_Memory.pdf
We will have the ratbags on the ropes if this NH winter is a fridge and I’m prepared to use up all my indulgences to make it happen.
‘About 132 years earlier there was a series of very wet summers in England & Ireland (1875, 1876 & 1877) and there was superheat in West Russia around 130 or so years ago and great floods in Pakistan/India in 1878 (yes check 1878+132=2010, and now join the dots) and I don’t know about Australia & S America so reader Check it out!’
Piers Corbyn 13 August 2010
Might just do that. Piers gets a lot of flack because he predicts weather by sun and moon, but if it works…
Back to back La Nina 1872-74, 1875-76 and the Burdekin was in flood.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/statelibraryqueensland/3737308443/
Don’t know what to make of all this.
EL G, the 1870’s was a very high rainfall period with flooding in the MDB.
Floods that probably came close to the 1956 floods so the old timers used to say.
Thanks Neville, the 1950s also saw back to back La Nina. If it’s cyclic then its probably the well know, yet slightly irregular, 60 year cycle.
The trick will be to find more back to backs to confirm the theory one way or another.
Besides the 1950s there is also the 1970s, which suggests to me that it’s the beginning and end of a cool PDO.
http://ggweather.com/enso/oni.htm
The government should stop buying back water, immediately! Floods are coming.
On top of all this we have a spotless sun.
http://www.solarcycle24.com/pictures/spots6.jpg
Let’s hope tallbloke’s prediction of an Icelandic eruption is wrong.
Hey guys; why is it we see only a tight little circle now? Is it water tight though? No cause I reckon there is more thinking possible, but only just!
Btw I did Google Tim Curtin “banned” 2010 for kicks while recalling a recent comment on ABC National about blogs being all clogged with plaque now as various aspirants continue to seek any outlet in a very competitive media environment. On page two I found a link to a 2008 discussion with Barry Brook”Just who does climate science” imo that says it all. Yes we try to go round and round elsewhere. My Q to Tim is why aren’t we discussing Gape Grim CO2 data in the general scheme of things downunder?
Since I’m ‘the’ patriotic one here let’s suggest it’s cool to go on with the election campaign my style to secure stable government asap given we got the mob we deserved. That means fresh ideas for reliable feedback from the grass roots in the short term because the average punter needs another voice ringing in the ears of both chambers when they next get down to working.
I can say you guys must have voted for the wrong candidate as no side won a mandate.
gavin
The weather channel is talking about those big swells off Tasmania.
http://www.oceanweather.com/data/
I think we deserve another election.
Cape Grim Trends
‘These measurements indicate a rise in annual average atmospheric CO2 concentrations, from 354.07 parts per million by volume (ppmv) in 1992 to 378.50 ppmv in 2006, or an increase of almost 1.75 ppmv per year, on average.’
Gavin, you will most likely see snow on the nearby mountains over the next few days.
elg, I bet we don’t se more than a flutter of snow in Canberra despite the warnings out for those exposed in higher places and Ive been thinking our min temps could be up not down as we go through this winter.
http://www.bom.gov.au/act/forecasts/snowy.shtml
Also those fresher independents won’t want a quick return to the poles
Hi Gavin
Here is the regression of annual temps at Cape Grim on [CO2] and Solar Radiation at Cape Grim; Adj R2 is 0.04.
The situation is no better for you with regressions for absolute or changes in (1st diffs) temps in January or June.
The idea that [CO2] or changes therein has any statistically significant relationship with temperature is not merely a furphy but the biggest fraud since the witches of Salem were done to death, with our Australian Academy of Science and Australian Economic Society at the forefront of this modern witch burning (the latter refused to accept my paper with these data for a large number of places here and in USA).
Coefficients Standard Error t Stat P-value
Intercept 0.402467242 0.292898724 1.374083289 0.199428286
dCO2 -0.129077436 0.112203946 -1.150382317 0.27675262
dSR -0.277816768 0.28962001 -0.959245766 0.360053036
The UN High Church is selling indulgences to the Chinese.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/24/the-biggest-environmental-scandal-in-history/
The big breakthrough is that it’s the environmentalists blowing the whistles.
El Gordo,
Wow.
And the really interesting thing is that the ‘ozone hole’ pre-existed the widespread use of old-fashioned Freon, and retains its annual fluctuation to this day. The whole thing is a hoax based on a hoax.
The ‘Freon scare’ gained no public traction until DuPont, owner of the patent on Freon, noticed that its patent on the refrigerant was about to expire. The corporation heavily subsidized anti-Freon activist groups, with the mission of making the product globally illegal.
The effort succeeded, and, guess what? DuPont was the patent-holder for the replacement product.
None of this fracas had any impact on ‘the environment’, but billion$ changed hands nonetheless.
What utter crap, and it never ends.
It beggers belief, but I don’t think this particular story on the DuPont scam has ever surfaced in the msm.
Britain’s Met Office has figured out how to put Climategate behind us: start all over again with a new and different hoax. Proclaim that climatology is actually about weather after all, and re-write the data all over again to make it more ‘useful’. Oh, and also include a lot more people in the effort, which means even more spending than before.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/25/surfacetemperatures-org/
Yet more proof that you can ‘sell’ nearly any message by linking it with ‘climate change’:
Unusual frost hits potato plants in South Africa
http://business.iafrica.com/news/2614121.htm
… and cryopreservation of coral samples will save the species ‘until the seas are safe for them again.’
http://news.discovery.com/earth/cryogenic-coral-seed-bank-will-save-endangered-reefs.html
BTW, the next post you see here will be #6,000!
‘In the end, we will see who is right and who is wrong. I think we will see a great example of what I am talking about in the next nine months, this being enso driven, as we see a monster of a La Nina, reminiscent of the 1950s, come on. Over the coming decades, I expect to see the Earth’s temps retreat back to where they were in the late 1970s. Why do I think that? Because TOTAL GLOBAL SEA ICE is near where it was in the late 1970s.’
Joe Bastardi 25 August 2010
El Gordo,
Cold temperatures being uniquely more fatal than warm temperatures, a return to the late ’70s ‘climate’ (which was abysmal) will signal the impending collapse of a major portion of the environmentalist narrative. Incorporating ‘global warming’ into so many different campaigns has left them vulnerable to a veritable bloodbath.
BTW, congratulations on posting comment #6,000!
Time to contact the Guiness Book of World Records.
I was hoping Luke would come back to claim it, but alas he appears to have jumped ship.
El Gordo,
Luke presented so many failed arguments that even someone with a pseudonym would have to depart in a sense of embarrassment.
We still have Gavin, but his screeds are largely so incomprehensible that it makes no difference.
Perhaps we could recruit someone from RealClimate to be our token warmist.
Come quickly! What’s this? (Out the study window) “Ah that’s snow”. I just caught a glimpse through a peep hole in the swirling mass of bad weather out to the west, of a solid white cap on the inner range as I salvaged my news paper. “That’s way too close” she said.
About the same time we got a call from old mates driving along the NW Coast in Tassie where they had bright sunshine and quite a pleasant day after a presumably equally wild crossing over Bass Strait last night.
El gordo: It must be our altitude not attitude that counts when seeking a better place in our retirement.
Tim; your brief comment on Cape Grim data won’t do as it doesn’t make sense while considering the impact of ever rising CO2 in our time. What we have done is burn up the sequested global carbon reserve in one historic breath!
Gavin,
Your notion that ‘What we have done is burn up the sequested [sic] global carbon reserve in one historic breath’ is somewhat at odds with the fact that our current supply of fossil fuels is sufficient for the next ~300-500 years.
My advice for you: nod off in your rocking chair and wait for lucid moments when your grand-children come to visit and deliver glad tidings regarding their energy-intensive life-styles. Your lucid moments becoming ever so rare of late…
The BBC’s Roger Harrabin is having a rethink or recant, maybe the sun has something to do with it?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00tj525
El Gordo,
The behavior of the MSM is completely dictated by its sense of what news will most effectively drive revenues. Behind any notion that they’ve ‘seen the light’ is that they’ve ‘seen the money’, or at least, that they think they have seen the money.
From the above BBC link I make these observations about your use of their context re the sun and natural “cooling”. Think about it again hey.
“Roger Harrabin has reported on the climate for almost thirty years off and on..”
“He finds that the public under-estimate the degree of consensus among scientists that humans have contributed towards the heating of the climate”
I recently asked Schiller about who is paying for his septic internet research with the view he is just another would be writer if only he could get published somewhere in his own right. I’ve also wondering what keeps el gordo going as it sure isn’t useful research for a fully developed independent operator like me to use on any target.
From experience proper feedback in a good campaign needs to begin with folk working at the grass roots.
The question was asked again today on our MSM, is big biz down under ready for a price on carbon regardless of the actual method of implementation, ets or otherwise. Stay tuned for an answer after conferences scheduled over the next few days are concluded.
I keep a file called “interesting snips” based on articles that look forward in many of such debates as climate change. Today’s theme was “transparency” in delivering programs.
‘He finds that the public under-estimate the degree of consensus among scientists that humans have contributed towards the heating of the climate.’
There is consensus because of the gravy train, but as it gets cooler those unfortunate grass roots scientists will have egg on their faces.
‘Being a fully developed independent operator’ …..ha ha ha. Gavin has a science degree and is a warmist, now retired but defending the faith.
In the absence of Luke, I think our Gav has taken on the mantle of resident troll with a sense of determination.
“In the absence of Luke, I think our Gav has taken on the mantle of resident troll with a sense of determination.”
And chattering teeth.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/travel/holiday-ideas/wet-wild-and-wooly-winter/story-e6frfhg6-1225910130699
Yet another conundrum for climatologists to solve… atmospheric electricity. Another version of ‘electrosmog’, it has to do with the electrical charge of water vapor and aerosols.
Electricity collected from the air could become the newest alternative energy source
EurekAlert
August 25, 2010
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2010-08/acs-ecf080910.php
Scientists once believed that water droplets in the atmosphere were electrically neutral, and remained so even after coming into contact with the electrical charges on dust particles and droplets of other liquids. But new evidence suggested that water in the atmosphere really does pick up an electrical charge.
Hey guys, just letting you know I’m still here reading all your stuff. Haven’t had anything intelligent to say so I’ve been content to follow what you guys have been posting.
Keep up the good work .
Cheers.
El Gordo,
The notion of ‘a consensus’ has always rested, and continues to rest, on a circular definition. If you are a physicist, geologist, astronomer, statistician, meteorologist, tree-ring-looker-atter, icehole sniffer, or something like that, and argue in favor of AGW, you’re a climatologist. If you are a skeptic, the best you can be is a physicist, geologist, astronomer, statistician, meteorologist, tree-ring-looker-atter, icehole sniffer, or something like that.
Voila, behold the consensus of the climatologists.
Elg; troll, mole whatever you like I return with a purpose true, to expose the irresponsible rhetoric that is the under current in all far right campaigns. Sure I make a small target as it is now but beware; I can do so much with each wild response elsewhere.
On the other hand I know blogs like Jen’s are a much needed place given our desire for freedom of expression on so many vexed issues.
At this point I should say I value most feedback from the grass roots and think everybody with a concern about the detail in all major social initiatives should have such a public place to go but let’s not mix it up with commercial aspirations or covert empire building from either side. Recall; Don Chipp’s position in “keeping the bastards honest”. It was then a very public affair.
Folks,
In the midst of a web search, I came across the saying, ‘Many Eyes Make All Bugs Shallow’, as if its meaning were obvious.
I went looking for meaning. The meaning is not obvious, except in small circles, but it deserves wider currency because it explains much of Climategate.
The saying is known as Linus’ Law, [1] and expressed in more standard English, means ‘Given a large enough beta-tester and co-developer base, almost every problem will be characterized quickly and the fix obvious to someone.’
It wasn’t until the Hadley CRU ‘hacked’, ‘stolen’, ‘purloined’, ‘whistle-blown’, ‘misplaced’ or whatever emails that people actually read with some care the IPPC documentation. So many eyes led quickly to an identification of ‘bugs’, and a revelation that the ‘fix’ for the IPCC’s problems is fairly straight-forward.
Scrupulous honesty.
Getting them to fix the dishonesty bug is another problem altogether.
———
1. http://blogs.technet.com/b/security/archive/2006/06/07/433813.aspx
x
Truth is treason , but Kevin Hayden thinks he has found the answer to our dilemma.
http://www.truthistreason.net/pat-sajaks-solution-to-global-warming
El Gordo,
Pat Sajak is a skank. If he said anything right, it would be by accident. He’s a game show host, after all.
But, since he believes in AGW, that makes him a climatologist…
Gack.
Thanx Schiller, i’m suffering a brain fade.
The other day I saw three magpies, flying in close proximity, uttering harsh cries. It was a novel experience and the locals said it predicted windy weather.
They were spot-on.
Here we are just coming into spring and I have run out of firewood [which is normal] but the weather is still like midwinter so I’ll have to shoulder the axe and lay up some more. My cheese and kisses has had chillblains since May. [Now is the winter of our discontent]. On top of all this the grass is growing like it is high summer. I don’t know what they put in that ACO2 but it’s great fertilizer.
Ah, “high summer”; magic; why would anyone, other than misery-guts greens and nutters begrudge a little more warmth; that’s assuming AGW has a shred of validity in any event; at least the plants like it; CO2 that is.
The POAMA model predicts ‘the IOD index will fall slightly during coming months, potentially meeting negative IOD levels in spring.’ Along with an inclement La Nina a negative IOD will bring ‘above average rainfall over large areas of southern Australia’.
I predict a muggy summer.
Interesting video on NGRIP drilling where it’s conceded that the Eemian interglacial had temps 5 F to 9 F ( 2c to 5c) higher than our Holocene, but then they go on with the usual BS about AGW and what we can expect in the future.
But then one birdbrain drops the clanger that higher levels of co2 in the past caused temps to rise, I thought that was dropped after Al’s AIT Sci-Fi flick.
Does Heidi Cullen ring a bell, Cohenite or Schiller, anyone?
Neville; Heidi gets her comeuppance here:
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/column_raining_on_the_alarmists_crusade/
Climategate aftermath: UN-mandated review to appear Monday
Earth Times
Fri, 27 Aug 2010 19:41:35 GMT
http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/news/341356,un-mandated-review-appear-monday.html
An umbrella organization of the world’s science academies will release on Monday an assessment of the work of a United Nations panel on climate change, which was criticized for a claim that the Himalayan glaciers will disappear by 2035 and other findings.
and other ‘findings’?
Sounds like they’ve decided the outcome in advance. But climatologists do that in the regular course of business.
Clive Hamilton has a piece in todays Australian 29/8/10 which again just shows what an ignoramus he is about GW and matters in general.
The arrogance of some of these so called academics is just beyond belief, and his opinon piece is so far off the mark, and flawed in so many respects its just not worth making a reply.
Its the same as the piece in todays Advertiser where a so called Professor says climate change is real …and no body has ever bothered to ask him… well whats being going on over the last 4bn or so years then?.
God save us from pretentious and pompous gad fly academics who think they know everything and treat the public with contempt.
Hi Everyone,
I see you guys seem to have finally run Luke out of the blogg.
Bit of a shame really as I would have liked to hear his views on the breaking of the drought and the huge inflows from the catchments into our dams.
Kind of blows his extreme pessimism out the window, but he would have responded with mutliple threads of obfuscation and nonsense, I guess.
I also note that a multi-wheel, all-terain vehicle recently drove to the North Pole.
This is in stark contrast to 1958 when the USS Skate (nuclear submarine) was able on several occaisions to surface at the NP.
Keep up the good work folks as it appears we now have a serious fight on our hands with the political greens thinking they will be able to control our every move.
What a worry!
All the best.
Pikey.
Yeah, Pikey. Trust Luke to be MIA when there are some facts to account for.
I’ll bet he’s on extended holidays on a tropical beach checking on SLR through the bottom of a bottle.
Neville, good video.
Can anyone explain why, if ice cores show that CO2 did not trigger warming, that same CO2 definitely contributed to further warming?
They seem to be a pretty unsceptical lot.
Here’s a bloke I can relate to:
http://www.cgfi.org/2010/08/%E2%80%9Cextreme-weather%E2%80%9D-not-yet-by-dennis-t-avery/
Guys; despite a bit of snow on the alps this week I reckon this pic says it all
http://www.weatherzone.com.au/climate/indicator_sst.jsp?c=ssta
cheers
gav,
Do you know if their sea temperatures are any more accurate than their sea levels?
Their SLs are plain wrong.
This pic of the east coast of Aust at the height of the ’09-’10 EL Nino is way over stated.
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/images/earth/20100825/elnino20100825-full.jpg
Gavin, looking at your link I acknowledge there may be more TC this summer, but ultimately its oscillations like ENSO and IOD which will determine our weather.
‘The Bureau’s model POAMA is predicting that ocean temperatures will remain at La Niña levels throughout the remainder of 2010. Almost all of individual model runs from POAMA are below La Niña thresholds for the forecast period.’
gavin’s SST anomaly map is a bit misleading: SH SST anomaly trends for the last decade are here:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst2sh/from:2000/to:2010/trend
The JPL nasa press release suggests the newly discovered Modoki El Nino might be caused by natural variability. On the other hand, they think it may also have something to do with global warming….and they need more time and money to investigate.
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2010-277
Watts is discussing it.
Yes dudes – Luke has been on hols with a couple of babes. But also bored with it all. Have no idea where things climate are up to – have lost track. So you can tell me anything.
As for Pikey – pfft – droughts break – I always said so if you read the gazzillion comments – the issue if their frequency over time and whether AGW affects that or not. And what that does to farm incomes over time. But yawn it’s all been said before ….. anyway we’ll see won’t we – no point in swinging at every little wiggle in the time series worms.
Just sitting back waiting for Bob and the sceptics party’s Plan B. Have the 3 Amigo independents asked the sceptics for a personal briefing? Like Julia gave them? LOL.
What I did have a good kack over was the embarrassing showing of the sceptics party in the election – what a Dad’s Army classic and Motley crew – gawd ! LOL. Let us never speak of this tawdry episode again. Cohers would be better sub-contracting some AGW believers to do the sceptic case. Would be more professional – and fancy being hijacked by the property rights nutters.
But must say I have been enjoying Bob Katter sticking it up southerners, Canberra and the media.
Full marks to Gavin for keeping the sceptics under pressure.
More data proving the existence of WMD (Weather of Mass Destruction):
Cold empties Bolivian rivers of fish
Nature News
27 August 2010 | doi:10.1038/news.2010.437
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100827/full/news.2010.437.html
Scientists who have visited the affected rivers say the event is the biggest ecological disaster Bolivia has known, and, as an example of a sudden climatic change wreaking havoc on wildlife, it is unprecedented in recorded history.
“There’s just a huge number of dead fish,” says Michel Jégu, a researcher from the Institute for Developmental Research in Marseilles, France, who is currently working at the Noel Kempff Mercado Natural History Museum in Santa Cruz, Bolivia. “In the rivers near Santa Cruz there’s about 1,000 dead fish for every 100 metres of river.”
The prolonged cold snap has also been linked to the deaths of at least 550 penguins along the coasts of Brazil and thousands of cattle in Paraguay and Brazil, as well as hundreds of people in the region.
Perhaps Luke will describe for us the CO2 mechanism that forces events like this one.
Meantime Lambert has canned this Comment by me on the appalling paper in Science by Zhao & Running which claims that NPP (arising from photosynthesis) has declined since 2000 despite obvious increases in total output from agricultural, livestock, fisheries, and forestry…
Here is the monstrous error at the heart of Zhao and Running. In algebra, A is the stock of CO2, dA is the net addition from gross E, CO2 emissions, less Uptakes via NPP (and some oceanic solution in addition to oceanic NPP). The ratio of E to U has demonstrably remained remarkably constant on average since 1958, (since 1850 according to Knorr GRL 2009), so that dA is only 44% on average of annual E. That simple arithmetic from the actual statistics on the flows in dA, E and U recorded by Le Quere et al totally refutes the claim by Zhao and his Running dog that NPP has declined since 2000. If it has, what has happened to the 52.08 GtC of the total 92.7 GtC of E from mid-2000 to mid-2009 that did not become Airborne? Actual dA in that period was 40.63 GtC, or 44% of total E.
Hint: the trend in the Airborne Fraction was actually down to mid-2007, pace Raupach, but any given year’s reading depends on ENSO.
Lambert still allows others to support the false claims of Zhao and his dog. The question is, does this render him liable under the NSW Fair Trading Act which provides that “a person shall not, in trade or commerce, engage in conduct that is misleading or deceptive or is likely to mislead or deceive. It defines “trade or commerce” to include “any business (which includes a business not carried on for profit and a trade or profession) or professional activity” (Source: Kelly Tranter, ABC, The Drum…). Or perhaps we could sue the AAAS as publishers of the Zhao & Running drivel? and perhaps also UNSW, for allowing Lambert to peddle these and many other lies?
Where are Slater & Gordon’s Gillard and Bandt when we need them to do this for us?
The South American drama continues with widespread fires.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=45449
Before Luke gets too cocky about the election results, let’s consider the outcome if first past the post voting was applied, you know like it applies to 90% of countries.
The coalitiion would have won 81 seats, labor 66 and independents 3 ( their constituents are mainly conservative).
No green member, no Dennison Ind and Tuckey would have won as well in O’Conner.
Tim,
I see your point, but your point is in danger of oversimplification, and therefore vulnerable.
To be sure, everyone knows that an increase in CO2 leads to an increase in plant life. Just ask someone in the business of horticulture, who has a greenhouse. Machines artificially elevate CO2 levels inside the greenhouse, and voila, bigger, better plants, faster.
World food production is another matter entirely. Changes in fertilizer prices, government regulations, availability of modern seed, infrastructure like roads, electricity and storage, random assaults by crop diseases, droughts, floods, heat waves and chilly temperatures, all effect the final tally, and that’s just the short list.
Which means that anyone who proposes to quantify the food supply produced outdoors, in terms of inputs — CO2 being only one — is bullsh!tt!ing you. All of those inputs are quantifiable, but none of them are quantified and factored to the point where any reasonable conclusion is possible.
A good skeptic will stick with the most robust data and rationale available. Trying to match the CAGWers with an equal level of bullsh1t will leave you just as vulnerable as they are, and have long been.
Dude, stick to the greenhouse (actual physical structure greenhouse) data and you’ll not go wrong.
The Fairfax bias is blatantly obvious, along with the scientific quotes smacking of gravy, but there is a story here.
http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-world/nz-seabed-samples-clue-to-global-warming-20100828-13wbp.html
Surely Neville you’re not going to recommend some bogus electoral system where someone can get elected when the majority don’t want them – a duh ! Indeed why not have a proportional lower house system reflecting the true will of the people where Greens would have got 17 seats. But hey I’m just shit stirring ya – coz you’re a mug denialist.
Let’s face it – the Climate Sceptics party vote was an utter utter disgrace. What a joke. Wonder if Cohers does better at the track?
And by cripes – Schiller has actually made a intelligent point above. Gads !
Anyway dudes – as I said – it’s all been said – just wait till the time series get a bit more length on them – you won’t be getting any carbon taxes anytime soon. Commenting on every little weather episode is so tedious (but hey let’s not forget Pakistan floods as evidence – go on – swing at it!)
But my interest in the climate issue had diminished severely after the Watts tour – such a pathetic performance and cruddy old foggie audiences (yes I was one of them).
OK what’s new at GRL?
GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 37, L16802, 4 PP., 2010
doi:10.1029/2010GL044255
Comparing variability and trends in observed and modelled global-mean surface temperature
John C. Fyfe
Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis, Environment Canada, University of Victoria, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
Nathan P. Gillett
Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis, Environment Canada, University of Victoria, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
David W. J. Thompson
Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA
The observed evolution of the global-mean surface temperature over the twentieth century reflects the combined influences of natural variations and anthropogenic forcing, and it is a primary goal of climate models to represent both. In this study we isolate, compare, and remove the following natural signals in observations and in climate models: dynamically induced atmospheric variability, the El Niño-Southern Oscillation, and explosive volcanic eruptions. We make clear the significant model-to-model variability in estimates of the variance in global-mean temperature associated with these natural signals, especially associated with the El Niño-Southern Oscillation and explosive volcanic eruptions. When these natural signals are removed from time series of global-mean temperature, the statistical uncertainty in linear trends from 1950 to 2000 drops on average by about half. Hence, the results make much clearer than before where some model estimates of global warming significantly deviate from observations and where others do not.
GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 37, L14701, 5 PP., 2010
doi:10.1029/2010GL043991
Precipitation, radiative forcing and global temperature change
Timothy Andrews
Institute for Climate and Atmospheric Science, School of Earth and Environment, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
Piers M. Forster
Institute for Climate and Atmospheric Science, School of Earth and Environment, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
Olivier Boucher
Met Office Hadley Centre, Exeter, UK
Nicolas Bellouin
Met Office Hadley Centre, Exeter, UK
Andy Jones
Met Office Hadley Centre, Exeter, UK
Radiative forcing is a useful tool for predicting equilibrium global temperature change. However, it is not so useful for predicting global precipitation changes, as changes in precipitation strongly depend on the climate change mechanism and how it perturbs the atmospheric and surface energy budgets. Here a suite of climate model experiments and radiative transfer calculations are used to quantify and assess this dependency across a range of climate change mechanisms. It is shown that the precipitation response can be split into two parts: a fast atmospheric response that strongly correlates with the atmospheric component of radiative forcing, and a slower response to global surface temperature change that is independent of the climate change mechanism, ∼2-3% per unit of global surface temperature change. We highlight the precipitation response to black carbon aerosol forcing as falling within this range despite having an equilibrium response that is of opposite sign to the radiative forcing and global temperature change.
GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 37, L16707, 5 PP., 2010
doi:10.1029/2010GL044136
Increasing fall-winter energy loss from the Arctic Ocean and its role in Arctic temperature amplification
James A. Screen
School of Earth Sciences, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Ian Simmonds
School of Earth Sciences, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Arctic surface temperatures have risen faster than the global average in recent decades, in part due to positive feedbacks associated with the rapidly diminishing sea ice cover. Counter-intuitively, the Arctic warming has been strongest in late fall and early winter whilst sea ice reductions and the direct ice-albedo feedback have been greatest in summer and early fall. To reconcile this, previous studies have hypothesized that fall/winter Arctic warming has been enhanced by increased oceanic heat loss but have not presented quantitative evidence. Here we show increases in heat transfer from the Arctic Ocean to the overlying atmosphere during October–January, 1989–2009. The trends in surface air temperature, sea ice concentration and the surface heat fluxes display remarkable spatial correspondence. The increased oceanic heat loss is likely a combination of the direct response to fall/winter sea ice loss, and the indirect response to summer sea ice loss and increased summer ocean heating.
Global warming began with early hunters
According to a new study, early hunters 15,000 years ago in Siberia and Beringia contributed to global warming even before the emergence of agriculture. Sometime after the ice age, the mammoth population began to die down due to climate change and hunting. According to Doughty et al. (2010), the decrease in the mammoth population led to an expansion of birch trees. The birch had a positive biophysical feedback on the landscape, absorbing more of the Sun’s heat and warming the planet, which in turn led to increased birch growth. The scientists studied records of birch tree pollen preserved in lake sediments from Alaska, Siberia, and the Yukon Territory. The pollen records showed that the extent of birch increased rapidly about 15,000 years ago. They also simulated the effects of mammoths on vegetation, based on the grazing habits of modern elephants. The researchers estimate that 23% of the birch growth could be attributed to the declining mammoth population and the rest could be attributed to the warming climate. Using a climate simulation model, the researchers found that the birch growth would have warmed the Earth by more than 0.1°C over a period of several centuries. The study implies that the human contribution to global warming may have begun much earlier than previously thought following human hunting of mammoths.
So tedious – yawn …..
‘…researchers found that the birch growth would have warmed the Earth by more than 0.1°C over a period of several centuries.’
That’s negligible. You have been missing out on the CO2 burp at the end of the ice age.
luke’s “babes”:
http://www.imdb.com/media/rm1611634688/tt0112431
Congratulations to Spencer and Braswell on the publication of their updated paper.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/28/congratulations-finally-to-spencer-and-braswell-on-getting-their-new-paper-published/#more-24040
El G don’t forget Luke’s a BS merchant and dreamer who clutches to 0.1c of co2 forcing to try and promote droughts in Australia 70 to 80 years ago.
Good to see you’re still a little creep Neville. Distorting and lying as denialist scumbos do.
Yes Cohers – tres amusant – but can you walk down the street of Newcastle after those Senate numbers – what a chuckle ! I must say we laughed for hours at the coven meeting. But what about those Green numbers eh eh eh?
But yawn – all so tedious….
Deny all you like Luke, you said it and condemned yourself because of your own stupidity and ignorance.
I can walk down the streets of Newcastle luke; I think the Green vote involved the leakage from the dumb ALP party of these parasites:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/my-party-was-trashed-by-the-middle-class/story-fn59niix-1225910722814
I left this article out; it should be read in conjunction with the “chattering classes” article I previously linked to:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/the-vote-that-dares-not-speak-its-name/story-fn59niix-1225910724146
Greens/chattering classes/wankers; solution: let them freeze in the dark for a couple of years; that should grind off their navel-gazing narcissism.
Wb Luke: Actually, these guys are just siting ducks in a backwater. I keep one or two links on hand to scare them up every so often. This one is the exception though because it all floats on stagnant waters like the Stevenson Screen issue.
http://www.waclimate.net/bureau.html
For those who don’t know, my bread and butter for decades was monitoring various instruments including temperature recording systems in all sorts of engineering where reliability was paramount for process control. Variability due to probe location screen design etc is only important to a select group of fundamentalist junior writers sponsored by a few old fashioned business interests based primarily in resource extraction and exploitation. I dismiss them all at a glance, too easy huh
Newbie’s in this climate debate are advised to seek simple evidence first up starting with local observations at the margins and using a camera to verify say the horizontal change in a flat earth approach to your real estate. This is best illustrated here-
http://glacierchange.wordpress.com/
Yes; I remain a reminder to these silly sods who have never done practical time series work or established data from first principles using standards at hand.
I’m not denying anything Neville – it’s simply your stupidity in interpretation of the science. Again you have this simplistic uniformitarian nonsense pervading your biased interpretation of results. The issue was whether the STR-I has been influenced by AGW – there’s a modest case that it has. From there you have wondered off into silliness.
gavin boasts: “I remain a reminder to these silly sods who have never done practical time series work or established data from first principles using standards at hand.” The only “silly sods” you are a reminder to gavin, are the silly sods at BoM:
http://kenskingdom.wordpress.com/2010/05/12/the-australian-temperature-record-part-1-queensland/
An epic state by state critique of the warming lies of BoM, who are using all of the first principles espoused by our resident amphigorist.
Luke have an aspro and a lie down.
Gavin some glaciers are retreating and some are advancing, so your point is?
Nine thousand to 3 thousand years ago temps were much higher in the NH (certainly in Alaska ) and boreal forests grew in areas of N Russia and Siberia where today only tundra and ice exist, so was this AGW as well?
The temps in LIA were at the lowest point for 800 years ( to that time) and one of four lowest temps periods during the holocene, so our increase of 0.7c in the last 100+ years is to be expected and is easily explained.
Have another look at this graph from central greenland and point out the CAGW to us.
BTW I can show you the raw numbers from Richard Alley if you doubt the reconstruction.
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/lappi/gisp-last-10000-new.png
Luke
How many research assistants are working for you? The holidays, did all of you take them? What award do you all work under, Federal or State public service? How do you arrange the shifts? Looking forward to your reply
Neville- “some glaciers are retreating and some are advancing” Did you google these words re to 2010?
Mate; few minutes homework (schoolboy level) even without wiki would save you considerable embarrasment
“Many of Asia’s glaciers are retreating, having an impact on water supplies to millions of people, increases the likelihood of outburst floods that threaten life and property in nearby areas, and contributes to sea-level rise”
http://www.hydro-international.com/news/id4125-Glaciers_Retreating_in_Asia.html
Same article continues here-
http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=2573&from=rss
“The U.S. Geological Survey, in collaboration with 39 international scientists, published a report on the status of glaciers throughout all of Asia, including Russia, China, India, Nepal, Bhutan, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Georgia, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Kazakhstan”.
Newbie’s should know too; the level R&D at Jo’s is another embarrassment
Len – well if you want to know we’re members of the Association of Satanic Societies (ASS). Our volunteers are available 24 x 7 – we are many and well funded by philanthropic sources. Hey what do you reckon mate?
gav, old chap,
Being such an expert in thermometers etc, you would be aware of their variations and vagueries so what would you consider to be a reasonable error for their performance during the last century?
And do you think that [or human] error [or intent] could be the trouble here?
http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2010/06/nz-climate-crisis-gets-worse
And do you think it possible that Australia could be suffering a similar situation?
Thank you for your prompt reply, Luke.
Luke could be the shorter version of Lucifer, the father of all lies. Are you a senior Wizard?
Gavin that graph is not Jo Nova’s you silly sod and I’ll ask again do you believe that reconstruction or not?
What don’t you understand Gav about that 0.7c rise in temp since the end of the LIA, I know perhaps you’re living on some other planet with a different holocene history, like lower temps at the beginning trending higher and higher until we reach a peak in 2010.
I repeat again some glaciers are advancing and some are retreating and if you believe that we are the cause then you have to show some proof.
Don’t forget the last 4 interglacials reached higher temps than the holocene and the Eemian temps were high enough to allow corals to grow as far south as Margaret river in WA, so once again explain to me what makes the Holocene so unusual except that its temps are the lowest.
Once again we find a graph without a hockey stick, although there is a gradual warming trend. Perfectly natural?
http://i38.tinypic.com/2ewply8.png
Probe Seeks Climate-Panel Changes
Wall St. Journal
August 28, 2010
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703418004575455860620171290.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
A group investigating the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change will recommend in a report Monday that the scientific organization beef up its capacity to ferret out errors in its scientific assessments, a member of the investigating body said.
But the group, appointed by the InterAcademy Council, a consortium of national scientific academies, won’t pass judgment in its report on the state of knowledge about global warming and its causes. It also won’t address whether IPCC Chairman Rajendra Pachauri should resign—a step that some critics have called for and that the chairman has said he doesn’t intend to take.
InterAcademy Council
http://reviewipcc.interacademycouncil.net/
Watch Live – Monday August 30, 2010 at 10:00 AM
The InterAcademy Council committee that conducted an independent review of the processes and procedures of the IPCC will deliver its report to U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and IPCC Chair Rajendra K. Pachauri in New York City on Monday, Aug. 30.
94 climate-gates total
28 new gates
http://notrickszone.com/climate-scandals/
Spangles asks “what would you consider to be a reasonable error…” so I offer anther perspective given the last fifty years of technical developments.
Yesterday during my big day out, a fine faced gentleman with silver hair and beard asked if I was ever been a “tradesman” and if so which one because he had seen my collection of restored punches on our hired tables.
It caused me to think back and wonder what he was after on the day. I told him there was a period in my training where I sharpened tools for everybody while stationed on the big belt driven lathe salvaged from bombed out factories in England. In those days I got the boilermakers to gas cut sintered diamond tips from old jackhammer bits so I could smash them up for fragments to use in turning arc welded repairs in other broken machinery. Tasmania was a long way from the original manufacturers.
Btw my foreman was a former railway fitter and he wasn’t too happy with the way I used his sledge hammers to break down those drilling tips on a makeshift anvil. Today I collect the older but smaller hammers if they have survived well such treatment.
Respect for tools is the order that must be demonstrated before one becomes too pedantic about finishes. A young lady yesterday was carefully feeling a buffed up de mushroomed wide blade Evro bolster and wondered if it was a scraper. Well yes, but not really!
Back to instruments, like a range of hammers we need to know how each one works best in a given situation. Satellites too should have a bunch of them so experts can differentiate their footprints, blemishes and all.
Spangled,
There you have it, from Gavin himself: He doesn’t know the answer, you should trust the experts. Which apparently doesn’t include him, since he doesn’t know.
Time to move on, folks… there’s nothing here to see.
Nev; my clients in retirement as always are still gathering tools for various innovative projects, sculpting freestone, molten glass art, new bathrooms, gunsmithing, education etc where adaptation is the name of the game. From your input here I know you don’t have the imagination to get by and decide what’s what for yourself. You can’t know what past temperatures were by comparison with today with any certainty because you deny science as such. On a whim you chose the under current not the mainstream like a follower of an obscure priesthood that won’t face daylight.
“Science” is the broadface of our inquiry.
Schiller too is constantly casting for any hold on the concrete. Google and see all those frail comments scattered behind the writings of others, those with real guts on issues.
Satisfaction comes from doing your own thing well.
SD at least cuts wood and knows why I ‘m keen on letting the latest science develop before abusing it.
Neville,
There you have it, from Gavin himself. You’re supposed to ‘have imagination’ and ‘decide what’s what for yourself.’
Although, Gavin also recommends just trusting the experts.
Maybe there’s two Gavins. We have two Lukes, at least.
Gavin, Luke,
You know what? It’s looking more and more like the Weapons of Mass Destruction/Iraq thing is about the same as the Weather of Mass Destruction/IPCC thing.
Going to war over invented data. And you know what? The capitalists were/are behind the WMD thingie in either case.
And the faux capitalists as well. Those being paragovernmental/nongovernmental organizations (PGOs/NGOs) who, as the phrase goes, ‘call for’ whatever.
An important new initiative which deserves watching is http://www.consumerprosperity.com/
CAGW has been exposed as an effort to monetize inefficient technology and to increase political power, especially since its scientific basis is about as good as that for homeopathy.
Schiller; deep in the rhetoric, way below the hype, you should be looking for the sincerity of the individual regardless of task. Start with yourself, then the ones you know personally before trying everyone else who dares publish around environment and climate issues.
Gav this is a peer reviewed study from Alley and there is a reason they call the early holocene the thermal maximum, it was warmer for thousands of years, except for one period of approx 400 years just over 8,000 years ago and another just over 7,000 years ago, but both much warmer than today.
I confess I don’t have your delusional imagination and I’m forever thankful to my parents for that, but if we can’t rely on earlier records from ice cores (sea bed cores as well) how do you know that the present temps are unusually high? Just think about that for a moment.
Anyhow have a look at the REAL SCIENCE, although I’m not sure you would recognise it.
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/greenland/summit/gisp2/isotopes/gisp2_temp_accum_alley2000.txt
Gavin,
The sincerity of the individual, which may be either genuine or feigned, is a poor guide to discerning truth. Unless you’re a Feyerabend fanatic, according to whom everything believed is true. At which point you don’t really need thermometers.
I’m sorry the period over 8,000 years ago was much cooler than today for at least 300 to 400 years and the period just over 7,000 years ago was probably slightly cooler than today as well.
Gav here’s a more recent study of Greenland temp by Chylek etc comparing 1920 to 1930 warming (not AGW) and 1995 to 2005 warming, both similar but the temp increases were faster back then than now.
http://www.joelschwartz.com/pdfs/Chylek.pdf
“delusional imagination” hey. “the period over 8,000 years ago was much cooler than today” When I get time, there is an easy way to find all your sources. and this time through I even found Colby Beck however I’m mostly amused by those sites that dress up mere opinion as “facts”
http://www.grist.org/article/global-warming-is-nothing-new/
Mate; 8000 years ago whiteman was still in the stone age where nobody kept scientific records and spent most of his time dodging like kind. The fact is we have only a few decades of reliable temp records and my experience indicates the average jo has limited appreciation of climate science in terms of evaporation, due point, wind chill etc.
http://www.eh-resources.org/timeline/timeline_prehistory.html
Also good agitation and therefore accurate measurements around changing fluids is extremely hard to achieve even in the lab.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_transfer
Hands up those bullet heads who can’t trust their trimmer to get a satisfactory natural look despite our modern tools as used for hairdressing?
hmmm – ” 0.7c rise in temp since the end of the LIA,” – how do we know anything like that if the temperature record is crap and thermometers are all inaccurate….. oh the hypocrisy of it all…
selective scepticism …. gurgle ….
” 0.7c rise in temp since the end of the LIA,” –
Luke,
They could easily be a similar amount either way, ie 0 – 1.4c but the fact that the natural warming rate was 4 times that figure during this same interglacial, means that the bed-wetters should relax and just stick to BAU.
This is the nub of what my intellectual green-voting friends are claiming as “absolute proof” of AGW, not the fact that we are warming but this “unprecedented” rate of warming.
Include me OUT!
Gav and Luke I’m busy at the moment, but can I just say that the .07c is quoted frequently by all sides and certainly isn’t my invention.
Gav I still say that you have to explain the warmer earlier holocene forests that were a lot further nth than today and have since receded .
Also explain the instrumental record of Chylek, what does that say about a warmer Greenland and warming recently at a lower rate?
Gav logic dictates that you must compare the instrumental record to some sort of proxy to get a comparison to temps thousands of years ago, the northern forests area now under ice will do it for me.
Sorry the .07c above should read 0.7c, just too busy at the moment.
Jeez spangled -let’s throw our hands in the air – it’s warming, it’s not warming, it’s cooling, well even if it is warming it isn’t us as the solar input has been going up, even though it hasn’t , I know it’s the PDO – ENSO – squirm squirm….. haven’t progressed much have we …. gurgle
See
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/28/weather-versus-climate-sine-of-the-times/
“Weather versus climate: sine of the times
Posted on August 28, 2010 by Anthony Watts
Finally, this vexatious question has been settled with a meteorological time series analysis.
I’m sure the media and all who support their important work in factual climate reporting will approve.”
Not much CAGW in Nuuk, Greenland’s capital in the last 100 years.
http://climateinsiders.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/paintimage1824.jpg
Well Luke, you may not believe this but my mind is open on AGW.
I’m sceptical of the CAGWers, I’m sceptical that we can do much about ACO2 without nuclear and still sceptical that nuclear [and reduced ACO2] would reverse warming but most of all I’m sceptical of charlatans like the Great Adjuster who, as public servants, at taxpayer expense, continue to push a personal agenda and keep rigging results like this:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/29/gisstimating-1998/
Neville,
The permafrost in the Hvalsey graveyard would not have thawed much.
Easier digging 1,000 years ago.
http://explorenorth.com/library/weekly/aa121799.htm
Luke is having trouble settling down after his sojourn in some exotic place with ‘a couple of babes’. Now back home we are criticized for arguing about the same old stuff, splitting hairs over CO2 and ….. well I admit to having fallen into the habit of aggressive cherry-picking. He thinks we haven’t progressed, so I am putting up Tallbloke’s prediction page which may sharpen our intuitive intellect.
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2010/07/24/new-predictions-page/#comment-1469
You can do a lot to reconstruct past temperatures without thermometers or treemometers.
The Viking ‘farm beneath the sand’ in Greenland is a good one.
http://www.mnh.si.edu/vikings/voyage/subset/greenland/archeo.html
http://www.archaeology.org/online/features/greenland/
Nev, sitting duck mate; here is my method on a plate. Google your ‘northern forests under ice + 2010’ also avoiding jo, wuwt in the good cause; we get stuff like this
“Sea Ice Extent Far Below Previously Recorded Levels in Northern Route of Northwest Passage” August 2010 page two
http://www.wwfblogs.org/climate/content/sea-ice-extent-far-below-previously-recorded-levels-northern-route-northwest-passage
“Northern Forests Do Not Benefit from Lengthening Growing Season, Study Finds” Jan 2010 page two
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100112121940.htm
“Richard Peltier was a lead author on the IPCC 4th Assessment Report Chapter 6. This describes what past climates can reveal about the quality of models that predict future change. He has concluded that climate models are actually quite accurate. He says the climate anomalies quoted, such as the Medieval warm period, and the little ice age, were not global, but experienced locally. Richard Peltier analyses satellite data of world ice cover and sees a clear massive and increasing rate of ice loss on Greenland and west Antarctica”. Feb 2010 page 1
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2010/2831507.htm
But all fine folks, there was nothing of merit on lost forests as we go through!
Following a link from about page 6 in the above search (Kilimanjaro ice cap 07) I found more some recent observations
tp://www.lonelyplanet.com/travelblogs/109/66234/Kilimanjaro.+Tanzania.+June+2010.?destId=355640
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/05/06/ugandan-ice-cap-split-in-two-by-global-warming/
and
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2010/02/the-worlds-largest-tropical-ice-field-is-vanishing.html
The tug of war over science is all my way as too many people can see for themselves what’s up now
Gavin
You should know better than to tout the WWF, the ABC, and Science Daily as reliable sources.
The WWF is a front operation for corporate interests. Science Daily will publish nearly anything if it has attributable quotes from ‘a scientist’. The ABC is a government mouthpiece.
Try again.
Schiller; who made you THE authority on science hey
Gavin,
Revealing the source and nature of my authority on the subject would be, as they say, ‘not security-minded’.
For purposes of this discussion, though, the fact that I’m right is certainly good enough.
Kilimanjaro is fine.
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2008/07/28/back-to-africa-kilimanjaro-update/#more-337
Ah, it’s from the boy with the bigest all-day sucker on the block
Gavin,
You’re not advancing your cause very well by using terminology like ‘bigest all-day sucker’ and its glaring typo. Talking like that seems so … how can I put it gently … uneducated.
And your earlier remark strongly indicates that you are not well-read, and quite gullible to boot.
Steve McIntyre had a close look at the moss exposed on quelccaya and I conclude that Gavin is being unnecessarily alarmist.
http://climateaudit.org/2006/08/15/plant-deposits-at-quelccaya/
“From ICECAP
Climate Change Dictionary
PEER REVIEW: The act of banding together a group of like-minded academics with a funding conflict of interest, for the purpose of squeezing out any research voices that threaten the multi-million dollar government grant gravy train.
SETTLED SCIENCE: Betrayal of the scientific method for politics or money or both.
DENIER: Anyone who suspects the truth.
CLIMATE CHANGE: What has been happening for billions of years, but should now be flogged to produce ‘panic for profit.’
NOBEL PEACE PRIZE: Leftist Nutcase Prize, unrelated to “Peace” in any meaningful way.
DATA, EVIDENCE: Unnecessary details. If anyone asks for this, see “DENIER,” above.
CLIMATE SCIENTIST: A person skilled in spouting obscure, scientific-sounding jargon that has the effect of deflecting requests for “DATA” by “DENIERS.” Also skilled at affecting an aura of “Smartest Person in the Room” to buffalo gullible legislators and journalists.
JUNK SCIENCE: The use of invalid scientific evidence resulting in findings of causation which simply cannot be justified or understood from the standpoint of the current state of credible scientific or medical knowledge.
berfel of Perth (Reply)”
Via
http://blogs.news.com.au/couriermail/andrewbolt/index.php/couriermail/comments/tips_for_tuesday_august_31/P20/
We see Schiller picked up my ‘bigest all-day sucker’ comment on schedule as intended but let’s not dally, here is a reasonable article on Kilimanjaro
http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/id.3752,y.0,no.,content.true,page.1,css.print/issue.aspx
Gavin,
Everyone already knows the effects on Kilimanjaro are the result of local land-use changes.
Get a clue, dude, you need to stay current.
I have to wonder if Luke will agitate for your departure from this conversation. He suffers great embarrassment, but you make him look even worse.
Gee Gav what a hotch potch of sources and even flogging poor old Kilimanjaro again, easily explained but suffice to say it’s not AGW.
Anyhow here’s some more green madness brought on by the CAGW myth and of course won’t change the climate in the slightest.
http://joannenova.com.au/2010/08/canberra-the-act-will-cut-emissions-by-40-by-2020/#more-10033
DENIER = see shonk, shill, extreme right wing activist, also see Tea Party
LOL !
Schillsy – get up to date – everyone knows the land use change story has been severely challenged ! – sigh – and just when I thought you were sounding sensible too. sigh
I thought you’d all be broadcasting the latest IPCC review stuff.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/climate_change_assessments_review_of_the_processes_procedures_ipcc.pdf
and
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/08/ipcc-report-card/
Schiller; I doubt Luke is bothered but I enjoy exposing the flak from your desk. When you rise above making a few blog splatters and produce a proper article somewhere in msm I may rise with a nod to your superior science. Meanwhile it’s just tit for tat round the back yard and you can’t claim any sponsorship while crusading in default.
At the grass roots the campaign terrain gets rough.
latest
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2010-08/osu-iif081010.php
previous
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?id=21455
Over at Watts they are discussing a new paper which argues against an extraterrestrial object as the cause of the YD.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/temperature/100KYearsGreenlandTemp.jpg
WARNING: This graph from the Greenland ice core has a multitude of hockey sticks.
I see that normality has been restored in that the village has got its idiot back.
Better the idiot we know, otherwise the thread may attract a far worse troll. How could we defend ourselves against a totalitarian green? Who would delete the expletives?
From this morning’s one-eyed SMH.
As the city welcomes its first official day of spring tomorrow with expected maximum temperatures of 24 to 25 degrees, bureau climatologist Acacia Pepler said the string of warmer winters was “very unusual”.
“What we are seeing is consistent with what we would expect under global warming,” Ms Pepler said.
Hmmmm…..
el gordo,
The MSM just can’t help themselves but I was pleasantly surprised to see the ABC actually report the IAC’s investigation of the IPCC.
They actually interviewed Bob Carter for a split second [didn’t catch what he said] and I can’t access that bit online.
That’s the only bit of sceptical “balance” they’ve come up with in a dog’s age.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/08/31/2997900.htm
Yeah, I also caught Carter and was so shocked to see him on Aunty that I didn’t catch what he said. Bit by bit they will slowly come around. How else to save face?
What follows has to be a spoof, but I honestly dunno.
http://gazbom.blogspot.com/2010/08/comanche-outcrop-on-mars-indicates.html
NASA has pulled the Comanche Outcrop pic.
http://zuserver2.star.ucl.ac.uk/~apod/apod/archivepix.html
Very odd behavior.
Two competing theories of global warming/climate change:
http://www.thespoof.com/news/spoof.cfm?headline=s5i65634
and
http://www.thespoof.com/news/spoof.cfm?headline=s3i64512
“Balance” – come on guys – very little has changed except public opinion. After all the fighting, smoke and chaos – the mist clears – and all the science is still there. Don’t confuse bitching on blogs as progress towards a sceptical cause.
And what about that embarrassing showing of the sceptics party in the election – eh eh eh ? What a fizzer ….
Poor old Dad’s Army !
Luke,
Lemme get this straight. On one hand you say that politics is no indication of the state of the science but in relation to the performance of the Sceptic Party it is?
But if you really want a great con job of science by politics your link re the IAC investigation of the IPCC should persuade even you.
Even the ABC reported on it. WOW!
Spangled,
I trust you have scanned more than several media accounts of the IAC investigation of the IPCC.
Have you noticed that there’s a suggestion in MSM accounts that the IPCC has received a just comeuppance for its malfeasance? It’s like the MSM has fallen out of love with the CAGW narrative and has taken the IAC report as an excuse to express their displeasure at being duped.
Interestingly, none of the media have acknowledged that the IAC report establishes a new consensus — that the IPCC and the Hockey Team shall not be investigated with respect to the overwhelming likelihood that data fraud is involved.
No inquiry has looked at ‘cooking the books’ on climate data.
As a result, even if the IPCC has its procedures overhauled, all fraud by the IPCC and the Hockey Team — which is well-documented — gets a free pass.
So, what’s the odds that the IPCC will generate different results, with new rules?
Zero. They get a free pass on fraud, we’ll get the same GIGO as before. But ‘blessed’ with the imprimatur of ‘new and improved’ rules.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Watching themselves has failed 7 times, so it’s going to be a long, hard slog.
Icecap’s Joe D’Aleo in a recent radio interview.
“I believe we’re headed into at least a Dalton minimum kind of cooling which could be a degree or two Celsius below globally for over the next couple of decades,” says D’Aleo.
“Three degrees Fahrenheit globally. You’ll still get your heat waves. Winters will be colder and longer, more extreme. There will be plenty of snow, and snow in places where you usually don’t see it.
“The point is that cold is much more dangerous than warmth. This could create crop failures and famines and plagues.
“We believe strongly that cooling is coming.
“We’re preparing for something that is not coming.”
Now that the IAC Report has made a start at bringing the well known unethical and incompetent management practices of the IPCC up closer to best practice standards, perhaps some attention can be paid to the other elements,such as the idiot Peer Review system, and the incompetent way in which the temperature records have been non managed
Even if half the following list is true then it doesnt say much for the over all organisational competence of Government institutions in USA, UK and here.
For a class of people who have also been awarded various prizes, and many National awards such as Orders of Australia, Knighthoods and USA congressional medals etc they are a disgrace, and should be fired.
SUMMARY FOR POLICY MAKERS
(by SPPI)
1. Instrumental temperature data for the pre-satellite era (1850-1980) have been so widely, systematically, and uni-directionally tampered with that it cannot be credibly asserted there has been any significant “global warming” in the 20th century.
2. All terrestrial surface-temperature databases exhibit signs of urban heat pollution and post measurement adjustments that render them unreliable for determining accurate long-term temperature trends.
3. All of the problems have skewed the data so as greatly to overstate observed warming both regionally and globally.
4. Global terrestrial temperature data are compromised because more than three-quarters of the 6,000 stations that once reported are no longer being used in data trend analyses.
5. There has been a significant increase in the number of missing months with 40% of the GHCN stations reporting at least one missing month. This requires infilling which adds to the uncertainty and possible error.
6. Contamination by urbanization, changes in land use, improper siting, and inadequately-calibrated instrument upgrades further increases uncertainty.
7. Numerous peer-reviewed papers in recent years have shown the overstatement of observed longer term warming is 30-50% from heat-island and land use change contamination.
8. An increase in the percentage of compromised stations with interpolation to vacant data grids may make the warming bias greater than 50% of 20th-century warming.
9. In the oceans, data are missing and uncertainties are substantial. Changes in data sets introduced a step warming in 2009.
Malcolm.
The consensus is that climatologists are excused of any fraud.
Nothing is new.
Schiller,
When the MSM shouts out loud that the IPCC is a scam for the UN to rule the world I’ll start to think we might be getting somewhere but until then the do-no-wrong UN will make sure that the boat is only rocked enough to put it all to sleep.
Caesar judging Caesar! [is it 7 times now?]
el, that Mars photo is interesting as is the removal at NASA.
Malcolm, thx for that list, Ive been very busy and not had time to follow through on the findings. Is that really what they found or your “precis”/ interpretation of what they said? If they really found that then surely it should be the end of any belief in the IPCC and climatology!
It also vindicates the statements sceptics have been making and should make all believers hang their heads in shame.
Toby,
We’ll see if the process ‘vindicates the statements sceptics have been making’ when at least one inquiry looks at the scientific claims.
Of which there have been none.
What we get from the IAC report is an even larger IPCC bureaucracy, and a blanket exemption for scientific fraud.
Who could ask for more? This is manna from Heaven.
Or from the other place. And it’s not called ‘manna’.
Schiller I hear you when you raise obvious and important concerns about even more bureaucracy and the refusal to consider that fraud has been involved. Hardly surprising when you consider how much harm has been done to science by the AGW climatologists and spruikers of certainty and exaggeration. On the other side it will also hopefully open peoples eyes to how often “science” is used to manipulate opinion and consumer and producer activities.
But if Malcolm has accurately summarised some of the findings of the IAC surely every sceptic is vindicated and owed a huge apology by all those abusive believers out there.
Bob Carter for the next nobel prize?
Gavin for a man who claims to be so practical and hands on why do you consistently gloss over inconvenient facts? You couldnt find any evidence of forests in the arctic?
proof of trees in the arctic only 8-9000 yrs ago
from 2004 Arctic Climate
Impact Assessment (ACIA 2004).
4.2.2 Northern Forests
“Recent Studies in Siberia have established conclusively that trees were
present across the entire Russian Arctic, all the way to the northernmost
shore, during the warm period that occurred about 8000-9000 years ago, a
few thousand years after the end of the last ice age. Remains of frozen
trees still in place on these lands provide clear evidence that a warmer
arctic climate allowed trees to grow much further north that they are now.”
The authors of ACIA 2004 presented a doom and gloom future for the Arctic
due to GW, while knowing that the Arctic was warmer 8000-9000 years ago.
http://www.greenfacts.org/en/arctic-climate-change/l-3/4-arctic-tundra.htm
this is the link for that quote and it is verbatim. The article is very long and is pro AGW. But that does not change the fact the trees are there!
You can also download the 140 page report here… http://www.acia.uaf.edu/pages/overview.html
Or the fact that receding glaciers are uncovering evidence of prior human activity that has been covered up from the MWP?
Toby
Sorry for the confusion, but my list is an extraction from the paper at WUWT and SPPI, and is a summary of what Watts and D’aleo found.
I did say now that they have sorted out the IPCC poor management practices (something I have been commenting on many times before), they should put some effort into cleaning up PR, and temperature data bases.
If it was any other domain, public or private, the people responsible would have been fired long ago….instead in shonkademia central they give them Nobel prizes and other gongs.
Thx Malcolm and agree with your sentiments.
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/surface_temp.pdf
Toby
Here is the actual reference. Its still as devastating and a very poor reflection upon the quality of people involved in climataria.
These people couldnt run a piss up in a brewery.
cheers and nor could the labor party!…heaven help us now they are in league with the greens!, me thinks they have signed their own death warrant….which is actually not a good thing for our democracy.
Interesting post at WUWT, does co2 heat the troposphere?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/31/does-co%e2%82%82-heat-the-troposphere/#more-24218
Schiller I put up a peer reviewed link here months ago on the high NH forests during the mid holocene so it’s nothing new, but Luke turned feral at the thought.
Another interesting thing , breeding grounds for Elephant seals were much further south during the MWP and RWP in the SH so points to a much warmer period there as well.
It was an early Autumn for UK residents, with August the coldest in 17 years.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1307782/Coldest-August-1993-mercury-failed-rise-higher-27c.html
It’s only weather until it becomes a trend,
I’ve posted this before from Pat Michaels showing a graph from the IPCC, with temps for different parts of the world and whether those places were warmer or cooler during different time periods in the holocene.
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2007/05/02/arctic-ice-and-polar-bears/
Carbon instruments flat lining. Does Bob Brown know about this?
http://www.chicagoclimatex.com/
German weather report:
‘The weather pattern across western and eastern Europe has been consistent with global cooling! Reports that the grain harvest is in jeopardy because it’s been too cold and wet and the corn fields are not looking all that great either for this time of year! The outlook for September is cooler and wetter than average!’
“Fraud” – they scream – keep wanking boys. The number that voted for the sceptics party are listening.
BTW seems that Bjorn has converted.
There’s early snow in the Alps. In Austria the Tux glacier had its snow depth topped back up to 55cm after a long summer melt.
A few more years of this I presume the glaciers will begin to grow?
Bjorn always was a fence sitter. Have to hand it to Bob Brown for gaul, a parliamentary committee, indeed.
Schiller here is that study on the early holocene boreal forest advance in northern Russia and Siberia, in fact right up to the Arctic coastline.
Needless to say much higher temps then than now and lasted for thousands of years.
You can download the full paper at this site and it certainly proves that our current minor warming is not unprecedented or unusual, except that in this area the temps were much higher than today.
http://thedeadhand.com/Resources/ReferenceLibrary/tabid/164/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/184/Holocene-Treeline-History-and-Climate-Change-Across-Northern-Eurasia.aspx
Isnt wanking in public what village idiots are noted for.
NSW experiences coolest winter in more than a decade.
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=7953683
You’ll be right boys – Bob Katter will save you all ! He doesn’t believe. Bloody nonsense – get a bloody big Sirloin and some local bananas inter yas – although what was the comment “all hat – no cows”.
I didn’t hear a fat lady sing, so it’s not over.
Greenland was warmer during the MWP, so I think our exit from this Modern Optimum should follow a similar route.
http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0133f3742509970b-pi
el gordo; Lord Nic said on our TV today (National Press Club address) the last time we had these temps was 30000 years ago and he is well on the way to getting the billions from all over to combat further greenhouse rise. So there!!
From recent trends, it appears we are unfortunately not going to establish an Anthropogenic Optimum.
No Northwest Passage or drilling in the Arctic. No farming in Greenland.
The failure of AGW to materialize is a blow to many hopes.
Current loopiness here on blog:
(1) reporting every weather incident as “something” – like coolest winter in a decade – so what !
(2) it may have been warmer before – SO WHAT ! – so varying levels of insolation, volcanism and greenhouse affect global temperatures as does ENSO – gee insight outstanding guys – Nobel Prize stuff – of more interest is to what the conditions would have been like for humanity at levels of 6 billion going to 9 billion exposed to those conditions e.g. US, African and Asian mega-droughts
(3) countless predictions sans backside as if they were source
(4) shrill cries of fraud – when there is no fraud
(5) quoting SPPI as source – come on dudes
(6) climate sceptics party showing in polls – LAUGHABLE ! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Loopiness:
1. ‘The climate is not the weather’, but claims about climate are based on measuring the weather, and weather events is what we’re asked to expect from climate change.
2. ‘Coolest/warmest temperature during period x’ mocked, even though anomalies is the most favored data format for computing alleged trends.
3. It may have been warmer before, population trends is the issue.
4. Countless predictions that have fallen flat for two decades.
5. Obvious fraud, such as ‘the march of the thermometers’, with seven investigations pointedly looking the other way.
6. SPPI is a better source than a boot-cleaning guide.
7. CAGW skeptics prove not to be single-issue voters.
If an issue based party doesnt poll well in an election it can be caused by many things… including in this instance the fact people have seen through the rubbish being passed off as science by shonkdemia..and no longer count it as an issue. Unless of course you are a brain dead Greeny
As for fraud, which bunch of examples would you like, or shall we just stick to Gore and Pachauri being involved in the CCX and because there is a God after all, they have taken a caning. The fact that they lost heaps doesnt alter the fact that it was a con job from the start.
Or shall we discuss Pachauris conflicts of interest, something that the even IAC has said that requires that the IPCC have proper protocols in place..Its only taken them 20 years to come to bring it up to near best practice. Even tea ladies would understand that, but obviously not shonkademia central and the 4000 so called scientists who remained silent.
Quoting open sources for evidence is certainly superior to the IPCC using material from WWF and Greenpeace and passing it off as peer review input. The SPPI/WUWT have done some sterling work establishing just what a bunch of incompetent fools are actually in charge of collating and producing the climate records on a world wide basis.Mcktrick has also exposed the IPCC and the CRU various so called inquiries to real analysis.
Go and read Watts/D’aleo document and tell the world which bit is wrong. It is heroic stuff done by volunteers who didnt have access to the millions already paid by the tax payers to the cretins who were supposed to have done the job properly in the first place
Climate science in this country and elsewhere is in a sorry state, and all that frenetic un accomplished acolytes do is just draw yet more attention that fact.
So keep at sunshine, you, Katter and Rudd have a lot in common.
Luke said:
1) reporting every weather incident as “something” – like coolest winter in a decade – so what !
Well, big boy, I wouldn’t do it except that your side is still at it. SMH saying this August was the warmest ever in Sydney, while Channel 9 says it was the coolest winter in NSW for 12 years.
It’s all very selective, so the battle is really about media interpretation of CAGW. Now, if you want catastrophe, global cooling is where its at and my prediction is that we can expect a large number of asset rich (but otherwise poor) UK residents coming to live in Oz to escape the miserable winters.
Take note, they will be flying in.
What you get when you influence weak minds, this embecile’s anger and issues sounds eerily familar to readers of this blog.
Part of Hansen’s legacy http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/01/when-warmistas-attack/#more-24278
Luke’s way off the mark as usual, your” so what” nonsense just ignore’s the daily mantra that our warming is unusual or unprecedented which of course it’s not.
In fact it’s the safest bet in climate history, if a minor ice age finishes eventually it has to warm a bit and if you can’t concede that then you really are a fundamentalist fanatic.
Plus a 1976 shift and increased solar radiation, some UHI effect, strong warm PDO for 25 years, etc.
Thanks Neville for that link to Mr Lee’s ultimatum to the Discovery Channel, what I want to know is how did he get hold of the Gillard-Brown deal before it had even been signed?
Interesting that the ABC’s news omitted any mention of Lee’s demands.
http://rossmckitrick.weebly.com/uploads/4/8/0/8/4808045/iac.ross_mckitrick.pdf
Read this and add it to the store of what we already know about how inept the climataria have been.
Will the UHI be ‘adjusted’ as it gets cooler?
Luke said: 3) countless predictions sans backside as if they were source.
For my predictions I lean towards Hubert Lamb, the first head of CRU, who explained what has happened in the past and will undoubtedly happen again. Jones et al. have downplayed his achievements as he lacked sophisticated models to work with, but ultimately his reputation will be restored.
It is easy to see what is coming by looking back, because climate is cyclic and non-linear. In the 13th century (the tail of the MWP) the Europeans were troubled by the fluctuation in the weather, it was like nothing anyone could remember.
The climate trend was towards wetter summers and more frequent severe winters. According to Hubert Lamb there was increased storminess in and around the North Sea, so it seems reasonable to imagine it may happen again.
What an amazing rag tag collection of recycled denialist delusion.
A warm PDO – says who? It’s a second or third order effect.
Pity all the independent temp reconstructions tell the same story…. but until it tells the story the denialists want – they’re all frauds?.
… the SPPI as source – what a nonsense.
“Will the UHI be ‘adjusted’ as it gets cooler?” pity it’s getting warmer – talk about projection …
Do you have a source to backup your claim that the PDO is ‘a second or third order effect’?
El, take that question back before he wheels out Parker, Folland et al; again!
Oh good, Luke is OK. I thought maybe we were going to find out he was actually Thomas Lee and had finally gotten himself shot after compiling his rambling incoherent spew into a single manifesto strapping on some explosives and doing the logical final acting out an enviro-extremist can do.
Luke; I need to go back to your points 1 & 2 re weather, temperature and humanity.
In my reckoning we can see greenhouse energy dispersing round the atmosphere with ever increasing system differentials. More energy = larger and less predictable events with higher max and min temps over longer periods. Also odd lows and nasty seas = cooler or intensely wet periods for a given season, all capable of savage impacts on populations, food production, transport etc as outlined again by Stern at the Press Club yesterday.
Stern briefly focused on our recent droughts as a probable consequence of climate change and the need to change our ideas about economies based purely on growth as they were all last century. In his view we have good opportunities if we can look at the longer term and find just a few of the next gen technologies then help develop those as required including carbon capture.
Stern says the generally agreed goal remains, a max 2C rise
That projected nine billion demands another target, each and everyone of us has to live in a much smaller footprint
”Not participating in this new industrial revolution runs two types of risk: you drop behind technologically and you risk, not tomorrow or the next day but 10 or so years from now, finding real difficulty in the trade story,” he said. ”Ten or 15 years from now, those that produce in dirty ways are likely to face trade barriers.”
Nick Stern Press Club
He’s threatening us, what a joke.
gavin says:
“In my reckoning we can see greenhouse energy dispersing round the atmosphere with ever increasing system differentials.”
as he resumes his journey on the yellow brick road.
Cohenite; In keeping my form with expressions , google revealed this article after checking that quote re differentials
http://climatechange1.wordpress.com/2010/08/17/is-enso-rather-than-a-%E2%80%98greenhouse-effect%E2%80%99-the-origin-of-%E2%80%98climate-change%E2%80%99-by-erl-happ/
But I don’t expect you or the others to bother!
btw; I doubt erl or the “climate realists” are any closer than any of us in resolving via blogs, the issue of “climate change” but I found it interesting
An environMentalist martyr…
http://habledash.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=845:discovery-channel-hostage-situation-reveals-real-threat-of-eco-terrorism&catid=46:political-insight-no-bull-no-bs-not-the-mainstream-liberal-media&Itemid=61
Meanwhile, Greenpeace only wants to kill jobs.
http://datacenterjournal.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3857:greenpeace-versus-facebook&catid=120&Itemid=100116
Facebook is coal-powered? Who knew…
gavin,
It is interesting that you think that events are well predicted today.
Please give us examples of this.
http://sheikyermami.com/2010/09/01/the-islamization-of-france-2/
There are more serious problems developing on a global basis than a bit too much co2
..and that includes Australia.
The Americans have lost their way with the current POTUS, and when Bloomfield as Mayor of NY can allow a mosque to be built near Ground Zero because of his need to protect his business interests in Dubai..and the rest of the country is too piss weak to protest enough, and amazingly doesnt understand the game that is being played by the Islamists ..then US of A is stuffed.
So who cares if the place is going to get warmer and Luke has got his knickers in a twist, and shonkademia central pulls some more fiddles, aided and abetted by Gore and his mates..we are all stuffed anyway
There will be minarets on top ofthe UN building within the next 30 years anyway, and the arabs with the oil will be calling the shots, more than they are at the moment.
With Joolia Dullard now signing the Greens up, in pact of the devil here in Australia, investment capital will run a mile..and mining capital even further and quicker …but to make matters worse the pokey barrons will be fighting like scolded cats to protect their interests.
…and all the while the Laborites will be extracting vengeance on each other over what has just transpired, and Australia will slowly do down the gurgler
The Americans are trillions in debt so they wont be able to help themsleves never mind anyone else, and the Chinese and Indians will protect their interests and all the while we are importing a fifth column of political activists with a medieval ideology based upon the ravings of an illiterate desert dweller, and who want to see us all taken over and converted to their global ummah anyway.
…and the nonces on this web site and elsewhere, want to play semantic games over whether a few extra molecules of a plant fertiliser will create a tipping point of warmth and doom…and we need to bankrupt our economy even further so as to be seen as doing our our bit, when in fact there is bugger all we can do that would make any measurable difference.
Verily I say unto you we are truly run by f..wits but at least they are of the highest calibre.
Cynicism off
‘The change in differentials at this latitude is slight. The lower pressure differential in the north is probably due to the fact that the warmest equatorial waters are located between the equator and 10°north rather than at the equator itself. This means that the 10-30°north zone is warmer than in the 10-30°south zone. The northern zone does not support the generation of high pressure cells like the cooler zone in the southern hemisphere.’
Erl Happ
Hunter; in case you miss read my recent comments including “More energy = larger and less predictable events with higher max and min temps over longer periods” which relates to considering how large weather systems that turn up in our latitudes are now compared to my recolections of childhood searches for changes vis the daily maps, we need to expand these thoughts about where I’m coming from. The following blog post is a good start as perhaps it states my thinking better than I can
http://theragblog.blogspot.com/2010/06/climate-change-ten-times-faster-than.html
The arguments about agw however are increasing, typical
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/06/warming-in-last-50-years-predicted-by-natural-climate-cycles/
As Robyn Williams said today on Radio National “Science dosent just happen”
http://abcscience.com.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2010/2992897.htm
After 35 years some still don’t recognise the progress in climate science and models as used for long range predictions re increasing carbon emissions
So Gavin, how exactly do you explain the fact that there were forests all along the rusian arctic coastline around 9,000 years ago?.Do you think it may just have been warmer back then? You are always harking on about how practical you are. Well here is obvious proof…you can go and touch the damn things!
Gavin, treasury cant even model the economy or get the budget right within cooieee and you reckon models can predict climate!?
And Gavin how can you place any credence in an article that goes on and on about unprecedented temperature change by orders of magnitude when we know that after the dalton minimum there were much more rapid temp changes..up and down. Your bullshit detector sure is wired strangely for someone who claims to be so practical.
Robyn williams is a scaremongering fool who is competely irrational in his thinking. You really must try and open your mind to the absurdity of so many claims surrounding CAGW….Engage your critical thinking skills Gavin.
Toby,
Those were ancient cold-tolerant trees up by the Arctic, with the warmer climate introduced by the cooking fires of the Roman Warm Period they all died out and did not reproduce at all. So this proves how all forests are endangered by a warm climate.
If things were suitably cold, we’d still have lovely megafauna wandering about, decorating the landscape. Like those endearing cuddly woolly mammoths, stately aurochs, swift three-toed horses, and so on.
Funny thing, though. The CAGWers don’t come out and say they want cold. It’s like, half of their narrative is completely missing. If you’re against warming, you want cooling, right?
Where are the global cooling advocates?
“Engage your critical thinking skills Gavin.” Great advice Toby, and wildly optimistic; I get a headache trying to follow gavin’s thread of thought [sic]; he links to Erl Happ and Spencer who are arguing natural climate change and talks about energy differentials and “More energy = larger and less predictable events with higher max and min temps over longer periods” , but AGW would have less energy differential because the poles are warming quicker than elsewhere; and there is not more energy as EERB shows.
Toby has obviously read articles like this
http://www.eoearth.org/article/Climate_change_and_forest_distribution_in_the_Arctic
but I ask the question about historic tree line changes in the S-H also subalpine regions
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_line
I don’t see vast piles of old carbon in these places
http://www.answers.com/topic/tundra
Gavin, let me get this straight . You are very concerned about the increase in temperature over the last century BUT you point me to an article showing temperatures have declined by 6-8 c over the last 10,000 years or so?!….it also suggests the best climatic conditions for tree growth ( ie warmer!) prevailed 5000-1700 years ago. It then goes on to discuss the sudden and large temp changes that occured in very short periods of time.
Still stand by your “order of magnitude link” and your concern at current temps when it was obviously warmer “recently” when presumably human co2 was not the culprit…..so why is it now??!!…..
then you point me to a link about the tundra…..is that because you do not believe there were trees growing up there??!!
i seldom understand what you are saying but i finally think i understand why…..
Schiller i must look into your comment that the trees were cool climate trees that died out due to warmth?..seems to be in contrast to gavins top link “eoearth”
They don’t call it the British Brainwashing Corporation for nothing.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11152077
I see that Rachel Carson is alive and well at EPA, with CO2 as the new DDT to be regulated out of existence, but as before no scientific evidence justifies Ms Jackson’s new moves. I have just been running some new regressions on NASA’s temperature data for Mauna Loa, along with NASA’s data on solar radiation and relative humidity there plus of course the data on the atmospheric concentration of CO2 as measured at Mauna Loa itself. As I have previously found for other locations like Cape Grim in Tasmania and Point Barrow in Alaska, there is no statistically significant relationship between either the level of, or annual changes in, [CO2] and any of average, minimum, or maximum temperatures. Solar radiation at ground level plays a big part in explaining Tmax, but not Tmin, and changes in Relative Humidity play a major but inverse (negative) role in explaining temperature changes. It is strange but true that climate scientists either cannot do, or refuse to undertake multivariate regression analysis. Nowhere in the IPCC’s AR4 is there ANY regression analysis of CO2 and temperature at any location on the globe, so the EPA cannot be blamed if it takes the IPCC on trust as it did. My regressions using the NASA data are available on request (tcurtin at bigblue.net.au).
In the BBC article above, ‘researchers’ say the winter of 1783-84 was the same as the NH winter of 2009-10. I think they are mistaken about the nil-impact of Laki volcano, it was 4 C degrees cooler than average.
http://forums.wallstreetexaminer.com/topic/872633-europe-and-the-laki-volcano-in-1783-84/
What is it about denialists and dogs returning to their vomit.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009AGUFMGC13A0727T
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2009_09_01_archive.html
Denialists are really greenies after all – they love to recycle shit.
I had no idea Tim spent time in Deltoid’s troll dungeon, this elevates him in my estimation. The link which follows is a pinata and it looks nothing like the accused, so don’t know what Eli’s on about.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/66/PIÑATA.jpg
http://www.2gb.com/index2.php?option=com_newsmanager&task=view&id=6938
The only dogs returning to their vomit are the Laborites and their Greeny mates who are about to screw this country over well and truly.
…and the greenies will be in the box seat to recycle their shit with impunity, along with all their mates in the greenoid climataria industry.
luke, the master of regurgitation, once again links to eli who says:
“Since CO2 concentrations are increasing approximately exponentially, and since the effect of CO2 on global temperature is approximately logarithmic,”
This is really wrong; CO2 is NOT increasing exponentially as figures 6 & 7 show:
http://brneurosci.org/co2.html
Toby “i must look into your comment that the trees were cool climate trees that died out due to warmth?..seems to be in contrast to gavins top link “eoearth”
I wondered what was behind your phantom warm period where forest trees suposedly preceed the waste lands of today, so I searched briefly for authorities on NH margins after recalling there is much more than higher temps required for maintaining flourishing stands of timber in our least hospitable climate zones. The following links give an outline of the practice
Alaska pre history “Archaeological Overview of Alaska”
http://www.nps.gov/akso/akarc/early.htm
“SOME CHARACTERISTICS OF THE CLIMATE IN
FOREST AND TUNDRA REGIONS IN ALASKA”
http://pubs.aina.ucalgary.ca/arctic/Arctic12-4-214.pdf
“Climatic classification in forestry”
http://www.fao.org/docrep/x5375e/x5375e02.htm
“This is really wrong; CO2 is NOT increasing exponentially as figures 6 & 7 show”
Cohenite; Sure, and you checked their barbie diagnostic too!
http://brneurosci.org/barbie.html
Thanx Gavin, this is useful knowledge.
‘At the height of the Pleistocene, the Alaskan interior formed a relatively ice-free bowl, covered by “steppe tundra” vegetation (also called mammoth tundra), out of which a narrow, ice-free corridor led eastward and southward, between the Cordilleran and Laurentide ice sheets into the continental interior. Another possible ice-free zone that could have formed a migration route was down the coastal zones into the Pacific northwest. By 10,000 BP, the melting of the ice sheets had removed the barriers and opened all routes from Alaska.’
Cohenite, your link has stretched Luke far beyond his mental capacity, not least because he has (1) not asked for my Excel Mauna Loa file, and (2) has never shown any capacity here to do or read regression analysis.
Eli Rabett (aka Josh Halpern once of NASA-GISS) has an equal incapacity, matched only by his former boss, James Hansen, the inspiration behind the Discovery Channel siege.
BTW, Eli picked up my Mauna Loa post here last year (see Luke’s link http://rabett.blogspot.com/2009_09_01_archive.html)
and tried to rubbish it.
As I said there, NASA and /or GISS are as incapable as CRU-UEA of maintaining data bases.
When using the link to NASA by the corrupt authors of the “rice yields are declining” paper in PNAS on 8th August (Welch et al, Welch as “lead author” being no more than a graduate student in economics, so much for the US’ National Academy of Science, which will soon be publishing stuff by Year 9 school-leavers), I found that NASA cheerfully claims temperarture readings for the Lat/Long of Mauna Loa Slope Observatory (altitude close to 3,500 metres) that are obviously at sea-level. Put in altitude, and magically, the temps are “adjusted” but not any of the other data fields in the NASA database for that “location”.
The truth is that ALL data published by NASA are fraudulent, but that is because James Lee’s hero Jim Hansen thinks that temperatures up to 1,200 km away from any site are as good as temps at that site, whatever its lat/long/altitude.
It follows that ALL climate scientists are liars, and especially their fellow travellers (like the totally ineffable and incapable David Karoly) at the Australian Academy of “Science”.
Just when you think the corruption and malfeasance embedded in the IPCC reports has comprehensively been catalogued, something new comes to light.
This time, it’s plagiarism.
The Book the IPCC Plagiarized
No Frakking Consensus
September 3, 2010
http://nofrakkingconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/09/03/the-book-the-ipcc-plagiarized/
It appears unlikely that a good faith, bona fide review of the scientific literature took place prior to the writing of significant sections of the IPCC’s first health chapter. Instead, the climate bible surreptitiously incorporated numerous opinions expressed a few years earlier by the activist-oriented person in charge of writing this chapter.
!
Schiller,
Mc Michael is as far we know currently at the ANU.
http://nceph.anu.edu.au/Staff_Students/staff_pages/mcmichael.php
The only thing that is surprising is that: a) McMichael almost certainly would have known that he had been plagarised and, b) he chose to say nothing to the wider community about that.
The bigger issue of course was/is the duplicitous nature of the IPCC.
The activist person responsible for writing that part of the report would probably have known McMichael personally, who himself was reportedly a student activist whilst at the Adelaide Uni.
So many of these tentacles point to the ANU and MU.
Not surprising really when Mckitirck says that 50% of the responses/comments on the AR4 came from just two countries, Australia and the USA.
So much for global commitment and involvement.
Malcolm,
It’s worse than that.
McMichael plagiarized himself. He wrote that chapter for the IPCC by stealing from his own book.
The victim of such plagiarism will of course not complain — he’s just getting his book published twice over.
Climatology incest can’t hardly get any closer than this.
We can rest assured that Luke will defend this practice, cogently and precisely, as usual.
hahahahaha What a shabby bunch at the IPCC.
The PDO is not a second or third order effect.
http://i53.tinypic.com/jb6wph.jpg
Just to highlight what nonsense is preached on CAGW, this Hall, Koffman, Denton peer reviewed study shows that the west antarctic peninsula had similar warming to today a number of times over the last 5600 years.
http://geology.gsapubs.org/content/38/7/635.abstract
The abstract also states that this is coincedent with ice reduction elsewhere in the SH at that time, so more studies are accepted on this evidentally.
The time of 700 to 970 years ago puts this warming in the MWP 1040 to 1310 AD, so just more evidence of a warmer SH during MWP.
Well, just as has been the case for the last several hundred years a drought in southern Australia always gets washed away in a flood, usually followered by others.
As most of the rivers in Victoria are flooding into the Murray and most storages will be near capacity within a week I expect the “Hanrahan’s” like Luke et all will still be able to sprout some persimistic drivel.
The Murrumbidgee and Lachlan will likey follow.
It would be great to see Wong, Brown, Flannery, Luke and Tribe and all the other sensationalist clowns washed down the Murray for a few days.
It may just knock some sense into them.
As has been my experience over many years we have the same situation now as at the end of every other drought since 1900.
The storages are near full and we have nowhere to conserve excess water.
Bloody marvelous!
But dams destroy rivers they cry.
What a bunch of incompetent fools.
Enjoy the wet weather everyone.
There is more on the way.
Pikey.
El Gordo – the simplest analysis one can do is to see the ordination of the global SST over the last 150 years – the centennial signal from most of the globe is #1, with SST data (NMAT data also gives similar answers) – the centennial signal explains 14.2% of all seasons and 56% of the low frequency variance, whereas EOF #2 aka the PDO/IPO pattern explains 2.6% of all seasons and 10% of the low frequency, the AMO pattern as EOF3 giving 2% and 8% respectively.
There is a bloody big centennial trend out there – THE END !
Timmy Curtin simply disregards a detailed micro-met analysis of Mauna Loa temperature and CO2 relying instead in blunt object analysis. So tedious and why nobody serious ever listens to Tim except halls of scared pensioners. Sigh …. back to confounding agronomic and genetic improvement with CO2 fertilisation (for God sake – even Schiller didn’t buy it )
Anyway – Bob Katter has told me to have a bloody big sirloin and some Qld nanas…. and put more ethanol in my tank. Even Peter Beattie has agreed … http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/beattie-backs-katter-ethanol-call-20100903-14tn8.html
There’s times when Luke makes as much sense as Gavin.
Perhaps these people are random word-generators, you can download them all over.
My god thats even worse.
Nothing surprises me anymore about the crap that comes out of the ANU.
They even have a Professor of Public Ethics who has never once, to my knowledge had anything to say about any of the unethical behaviour of the climataria involved in the IPCC…never once.
In fact he is constantly on the go writing his peurile rubbish in all the usual outlets pushing the opposite line…and defending it and the CRU debacles.
Schiller,
As an additional observation on this, it appears that the Chairman of the WG2 that McMichaels was self quoting from, was run by this bloke.
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/02/3-million-mistakes.html
What do you reckon about that.
We have been played for suckers
‘This means that the scientists and experts who “volunteered their time” on WGII were paid to the tune of nearly £3 million (£2,921,777) by British taxpayers alone’…..
I always thought volunteer meant gratis, apparently not. They say the English language is very fluid.
I thought I’d better write up the abstact of the Russian, Siberian treeline advance just so Gav and Luke can’t tell lies about this inconvenient truth.
This study was carried out by scientists from Russia, USA, Latvia, Canada and Sweden and published in 1999.
The advance started 10,000 years ago and reached its maximum 9,000 to 7,000 years ago all the way to the Arctic coastline.
Temps reached 2.5c to 7c higher than today and was caused by higher insolation, ice loss on land and sea and extreme Arctic penetration of warm Atlantic waters.
Then it states the late Holocene retreat of the treeline was caused by declining summer insolation, cooling Arctic waters and neo ( new) glaciation. ( like the LIA )
No more human’s fault than several warmings in the Antarctic and SH at different periods during thousands of years of the Holocene.
http://thedeadhand.com/Resources/ReferenceLibrary/tabid/164/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/184/Holocene-Treeline-History-and-Climate-Change-Across-Northern-Eurasia.aspx
More fraudulent nonsense from the Ipcc http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/03/and-the-hits-just-keep-on-coming-the-book-the-ipcc-plagiarized/#more-24399
More fraudulent nonsense 2, this time from the head liar Pachauri.
Fair dinkum this bloke would do Gav and Luke proud. http://joannenova.com.au/2010/09/pachauri-admits-the-ipcc-just-guesses-the-numbers/#more-10078
Don’t you love fabrication from denialist creeps. Otherwise verballing, quote mining, dross recycling. It’s endless.
Own a blog. Editorialise some bullshit. Others quote as source. Recycle. Stir until confused. ROFL !
Quote mining is acceptable behavior.
I’ve been looking everywhere for a graph on the past 150 years of global SST, but having no luck.
Poor old Luke, he hates facts and the truth.
You know I’ve thought a lot about what motivates people on both sides of this CC debate.
I’m sure the bedwetters are motivated by control of peoples lives and control over the purse strings of the ( each) nation.
But I’m sure part of the motivation from the rationalist side is the realisation that the money used to try and change the climate will be totally wasted with little return on the investment.
Anyhow the waste involved both in time and money is the thing that really gets up my nose and should be directed only to research into new technology and adaptation when and if required.
The village idiot doesnt realise that when you have got a target rich environment created by shonkademia central and climataria in general then its not hard to dig it out.
Its not even mining, it just falls into your lap.
The inernet is just loaded with all the evidentiary material one needs to see what a crock it all is.
With out the antics of the loopy one, we wouldnt have an incentive to just keep tripping over the stuff.
The climataria have only themselves to blame for treating the public like they were dupes.
Oh BTW… the Australian today Saturday, has a vg editorial on this same issue as well as a good article about shutting down the IPCC as being hopeless.
Like I said, one doesnt have to do any mining at all… they are gold nuggets sitting in the surface.
Folks; on a wild Saturday night after switching the the main TV off I can say the most interesting show of the day was the new BoM web site. It sure has been beefed up with more info for voyers like me. See the maps
http://www.bom.gov.au/australia/charts/4day_col.shtml
the radar
http://www.bom.gov.au/weather/radar/
Rainfall & rivers (quite exciting after years of drought)
http://www.bom.gov.au/australia/flood/index.shtml
and much more! Cheers
Ooops See my “big systems” here
http://www.bom.gov.au/gms/IDE00035.latest.shtml
Loopy Luke: you said “Timmy Curtin simply disregards a detailed micro-met analysis of Mauna Loa temperature and CO2 relying instead in blunt object analysis”. Where’s that micro-met analysis? Where did I use “blunt object analysis”? Do tell.
Truth is that there is not a single climate scientist who has ever used multi-variate regression analysis to “prove” that anthro CO2 has anything to with global warming. Reason: like you, either they lack that capability, or more likely, like you, they are Madoffian.
Either way, there is NO such regression analysis that can show rising [CO2] has anything at all to do with whatever minimal rising temps there may be, and even if there were, the demonstrable net benefits from rising [CO2], in terms of increased NPP, far exceed any costs from whatever pathetically trivial rising temps are attributable to rising [CO2].
That IPCC self-plagiarist was a quote miner of course.
El Gordo; here is a SST graph from 1860; luke can’t complain about it since it is from his favourite authors Parker and Folland:
http://www.warwickhughes.com/sst/
Cheers.
Paid for think tanks – paid for opinions – fabricating fodder for gullible rednecks to promulgate every day. The propaganda sausage machine of rightists.
Exaggerate, cherry pick, quote out of context, verbal, quote mine –
Cohenite quoting more ignorant blog dross. Unpublished swill as always. Out of date and out of time.
Tell me, Luke, if you disagree with the InterAcademy Council Report on the IPCC, which found weak leadership, lack of transparency, poor credibility, conflicts of interest, partisan editorial policies, reports riddled with errors, low standards for research, and exaggerated or unfounded claims of certainty?
Tim; a simple google “regression analysis” etc more or less goes straight to Judith Lean’s methods and her 2007 paper at Wiley
http://wires.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WiresArticle/wisId-WCC18.html
New multiple regression analysis of climate change Options
“I quite like Judith Lean’s paper – I think it is a model of clarity.
I think the methodology is hugely promising. Simple, robust,
refreshingly empirical and captures a major aspect of nonlinear
climate variability through ENSO. And yes I do note that she
concludes that anthropogenic influences are predominant”
http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange/browse_thread/thread/451e3b67bebdcd2c?fwc=2
and there is more
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/03/more-on-sun-climate-relations/
BTW I’n not saying Tim and Judith are shooting the same rapids but we do have to be carefull with our rhetoric
Thanx cohenite, nothing to be alarmed about with that graph. Nice little dip at the turn of the nineteenth century into the modern era and no major up-tick to be seen anywhere.
A guest post by Paul Vaughan over at Watts and he put this graph up to cover the same period.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/northpacificsst_pdo.png
Friends,
A good while back, a question was posed here, and no answer was given. Since then, I’ve gone looking for the answer myself, and found none.
Here is the question: why do climatologists deal in temperature ‘anomalies’, when they could deal in temperature averages, instead?
As I understand things, temperature anomalies are excursions from an average temperature which is computed against X months, years, etc.
Why is that average temperature not enough to establish a trend?
I’m inclined to think that using anomalies has intentionally been chosen so that weather events can be portrayed as ‘climate events’.
Do any of you have thoughts on this issue?
Interesting article from Matt Ridley in the Australian and I must admit I agree with nearly everything he says, although I am a very very luke warmer, just.
But what caught my eye was his introduction which just about sums up the stupidity of Govts and pro scientists (?) around the world reacting to this CAGW fraud.
He mentions the severe condemnation of scientists reacting to the fraudulent behaviour of a fellow scientist engaged in the behaviour of monkeys and the exaggeration of that behaviour.
You could almost laugh at the comparison if it wasn’t for the billions wasted already and trillions about to be wasted on this CC fraud from Govts trying to fix a non problem that can’t be fixed and totally based on fraud.
We are governed by MAD people that’s for sure.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/climate-panel-must-be-purged/story-e6frg6zo-1225914025436
Neville,
Can you answer the question?
Luke: While searching “severe condemnation of scientists” I came across a familiar commentator here
“Scientists defend UN climate panel”
http://theland.farmonline.com.au/news/nationalrural/agribusiness-and-general/political/scientists-defend-un-climate-panel/1928700.aspx
Gavin,
You need to read the actual IAC report and understand the phrase, ‘damning with faint praise’. Professionally, scientists are not alone when it comes to presenting mild insinuation as utter condemnation.
By the way, Gavin, can you answer the question?
Schiller
Correct me if I am wrong but I always thought it was because they wanted to avoid calling them deviations from a mean, because it would require that they always specify the period being used to calculate the mean.
That would have been too hard, so they selected a period of 1961-1990 and specified that as the common base and every other measurement was then an anomaly,even when the anomaly was way outside the base period ,and in some cases 80 years out ie 1880.
Naturally the short base period distorts the result.
Malcolm,
I am in no position to correct you if you are wrong.
But if your and my suspicions are right, it could very well be that using ‘anomalies’ to establish trends is the most comprehensive fiddle of the climate record, or at least on a par with the ‘march of the thermometers’ which progressively deletes high-latitude, high-altitude records in order to generate a warming signal.
Would be nice if Steve McIntyre would drop by.
Schiller I’m not a scientist and only have a very average IQ, so what would I know?
But I’m told that the results change if the the base period changes, sometimes dramatically.
For example what would the temp trend look like if we chose 1941 to 1971 or 1951 to 1981, I bet it could be very different. Anyhow averages would be okay by me, but the man you should be asking is Cohenite not me.
Interesting new study covering the last 1000 years from central Greenland shows the MWP and LIA with higher temps during the warmer periods than now, but there seems to be a warm spike 60 years ago as well.
http://www.co2science.org/articles/V13/N35/C1.php
The unusually heavy rain in Canada this summer has put Alberta’s vast crop fields weeks behind schedule and now frosty nights are threatening. It appears that wheat and barley can take some frost, but canola would be killed outright.
Keep an eye on wheat futures.
Neville,
You will not be amazed to learn that the stock market is the subject of more statistical attention than anything else on the planet.
Look at the data and you will discover intense concentration on running averages. If people could win money on the market by looking at statistical anomalies, in the manner of climatologists, they would.
Contrariwise, if climatologists could accomplish anything by studying statistical anomalies, they would invest in the market and be as rich as Croesus and wouldn’t have to go begging to oil and wind-power companies.
gavin
‘Understanding solar‐terrestrial linkages is requisite for the comprehensive understanding of Earth’s evolving environment.’
Crap
El Gordo, Gavin,
The CAGWers long ago gave up on the project of describing the climate in terms of physics. They now operate in the realm of ‘pure mathematics’ and only use anecdotal accounts of weather to prop up their in silico creations.
Newton would barf.
Schiller; I did think for a moment about your question then drifted on to wondering what’s important when watching the pen on a chart in analogue recording.
From a control point, “deviation” is more about rates of change than anything else and “averages” just don’t come into it In fact I have stepped away from this lot
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_chart
and this
http://www.investopedia.com/articles/technical/03/032803.asp
to this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PID_controller#Control_loop_basics
there is a great deal on the subject under process automation, PID controllers, runaway processes, models, loops, virtual plants and deviation!
Schiller: re: your enquiry about anomalies; I had a shot at this point here:
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2008/08/cooling-the-human-climate-signal-a-note-from-cohenite/?cp=1
Gavin’s comments are helpful.
Schiller,
“Would be nice if Steve McIntyre would drop by.”
I’m sure he would not mind if you asked him. Or McKitrick. It’s a good question.
BTW I liked McKitrick’s discussion on LOSU [level of scientific understanding] in his sub to the IAC on the IPCC.
http://rossmckitrick.weebly.com/uploads/4/8/0/8/4808045/iac.ross_mckitrick.pdf
Cohenite,
Excellent link, that. Seems to me that using anomalies, we could prove that the world is in the midst of an unprecedented economic boom.
Spangled Drongo
The whole of the Mckitrick document is a serious indictment of the competence and professionalism of all of those involved,directly and indirectly in this shonky exercise.
It absolutely beggars belief that these people are advising countries and elected leaders to institute policies that would do serious harm to people individually, and to whole economies.
But what really gets under my wick is how they have also corrupted the public awards systems to finangle themselves into also receiving awards they have not earned, and dont deserve.
What an absolutely disgraceful thing AGW/IPCC is
If there is case for manmade warming that is going to be harmful, then let the case be made without all this shonkiness and amateur hour behaviour by an elitist group one would have expected to have had more nous…but obviously strings of degrees are not a guarantee of either ethics or competence.
Well said, Malcolm.
And many thanks Gavin for the link to Judith Lean, I’ve read earlier stuff of hers, and this latest of hers is a real advance, but has its own deficiencies:
1. Solar irradiance at TOA is not relevant to local temperature trends, as my regressions show very clearly, and the global is the average of the locals. That is because SI at TOA bears little relation to solar radiation at surface level.
2. Lean’s regression results are not set out (no Standard errors, t stats or p values); there is no indication of her testing for spurious correlations. And so on. Her paper could never have appeared in Econometrica or similar.
Schiller; this is very interesting on the subject of anomlies and unadjusted temperatures:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/04/in-search-of-cooling-trends/#more-24414
The sine wave is a proxy for PDO; what is equally interested is the difference between raw and adjusted GISS data. Many of the data sets show warmer temps in the 1930s; to get an upward trend you would have to really adjust your base period and anomaly structure.
We haven’t heard from the Luke desk yet about Cohenite’s explanation on anomolies, does he agree or disagree?
I’m certain he has the full weight of the Csiro and Bom to back him up, whatever that means.
Here’s one for cohers to consider.
http://www.agu.org/sci_pol/asla/alerts/2010-18.shtml
It’s up at Watts.
Interesting Insight program on SBS on tuesday 7-9-10 called the Sceptics.
Evidently according to Jo Nova about 50 sceptics listen to Stephen Schneider’s take on CAGW and at the end of the program are asked if they have changed their minds.
No prominent sceptics are involved according to Jo, but I hope a few of the leading lights here watch and offer their opinion after the program.
Schneider died recently but here is a video on the 1970s scare of the coming ice age featuring a young Schneider at about 5.55 minutes.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nprY2jSI0Ds&feature=related
Sorry video address not active so I’ll try again.
Sad really; you guys are unlikely to benefit from an exposure to either practical physics or instrument engineering at this late stage of the climate change debate. Luckily some of us did go direct from school to technology without a diversion through economics, stats and all that bluff.
We now have some six decades of thinking behind industry automation via PID control loops where most practitioners are forced to consider limitations in measurements, feedback loops, and control hardware as designed while developing their expectations of optimum outcomes.
Earlier it was mechanical devices then pneumatics as the main mediums before electronics and data streams were developed. The best forms of process control probably employed cascaded loops after sectioning the variables somewhat and it’s my guess it’s still the same today as these short cuts became universal in complex situations.
Writers on the sidelines of climate science don’t have a chance. Although the medium of communication in process measurement and control has evolved in recent decades the pipeline nature has not. Also; for a ringside view to be properly entertaining each one has to groomed from direct experience at the coal face but not necessarily punch drunk
Subject reading should include “distributed” control DCS, user interface, problem solving- decision making, IEEE conferences, complex systems and so on. For a mouthful of rhetoric read this but it’s not my thing today!
ABSTRACT
“Existing requirements engineering approaches manage broadly scoped requirements and constraints in a fashion that is largely two-dimensional, where functional requirements serve as the base decomposition with non-functional requirements cutting across them. Therefore, crosscutting functional requirements are not effectively handled. This in turn leads to architecture trade-offs being mainly guided by the non-functional requirements, so that the system quality attributes can be satisfied. In this paper, we propose a uniform treatment of concerns at the requirements engineering level, regardless of their functional, non-functional or crosscutting nature. Our approach is based on the observation that concerns in a system are, in fact, a subset, and concrete realisations, of abstract concerns in a meta concern space. One can delineate requirements according to these abstract concerns to derive more system-specific, concrete concerns. We introduce the notion of a compositional intersection, which allows us to choose appropriate sets of concerns in our multi-dimensional separation as a basis to observe trade-offs among other concerns. This provides a rigorous analysis of requirements-level trade-offs as well as important insights into various architectural choices available to satisfy a particular functional or non-functional concern”
http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1100638.
The insight program also features David Karoly and it can be viewed from here after tuesday, see video at the bottom.
http://news.sbs.com.au/insight/episode/index/id/
The University of East Anglia (UEA) paid Muir Russell £40,000 for chairing the UEA Climategate inquiry.
A spokesman for East Anglia University said: “We agreed a fixed fee in advance with Sir Muir.”
Did they get their money’s worth? The inquiry report praised the “rigour and honesty” of UEA scientists — you decide.
Holyrood fiasco peer’s £40k for chairing Climategate review
The Herald (Scotland)
5 Sep 2010
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/politics/holyrood-fiasco-peer-s-40k-for-chairing-climategate-review-1.1052947?localLinksEnabled=false
The mandarin “always seems to land on his feet”. It’s not corruption, or jobs for the boys, more to do with strong personality and good luck. sarc off/
Friends,
More on the business of trafficking in statistical ‘anomalies’ in the context of climatology:
The UC Berkeley Glossary of Statistical Terms does not mention ‘anomaly’.
http://statistics.berkeley.edu/~stark/SticiGui/Text/gloss.htm
The National Cancer Institute (US National Institutes of Health) does not have ‘anomaly’ in its glossary of statistical terms.
http://www.cancer.gov/statistics/glossary
Statistics.com does not have ‘anomaly’ in the glossary.
http://www.statistics.com/resources/glossary/fulllist.php3
The OECD Glossary of Statistical Terms only mentions ‘anomaly’ in the context of explaining El Nino. http://stats.oecd.org/glossary/
In fact, the study of anomalies seems to be the peculiar province of climatology. See, e.g., Anomaly Regression – Do It Right!, RomanM, Statistics and Other Things, March 18, 2010, http://statpad.wordpress.com/2010/03/18/anomaly-regression-%E2%80%93-do-it-right/
The claim of ‘doing it right’ seems odd in light of mainstream statistics not mentioning computing anomalies as a standard of practice. Even so, there is an explanation to look at. And it appears that computing anomalies is a very good way to amplify trends, or find trends that aren’t actually there.
No wonder is such a favorite of climatology.
So, if a climatologist offers to share his anomaly data, the books are cooked already.
Spot on Schiller
Anomaly is one of those perjorative b/s words selected by the climataria to enhance the dark image of supposed GW.
It is the same as the thoroughly dishonest and repetetive use of the word ” climate change”.
Deliberately selected at the behest of the NGO’s involved in the IPCC, to enhance the dark side and confuse the masses into thinking that all climate change was man induced.
These people couldnt lie straight in bed.
Mean while the old sheep dam is the fullest it as ever been since about ca1998 and all the public water storages are full… all of which should make that dill Flannery squirm with embarrasment over his previous idiotic predictions, but wont.
Also another front more of the previous behind the scenes manipulations are coming to light.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/7981979/A-cunning-bid-to-shore-up-the-ruins-of-the-IPCC.html
Lukey Flukeyloo is fleeing from the IAC condemnations. He’ll be back when he figures people have forgotten that the IPCC has been found shoddy and corrupt.
Malcolm that Booker article is one of the best I’ve read for a while, it even mentioned a few things I wasn’t aware of before.
Tomorrow nights insight program will give us a unique chance to see two of the biggest hitters from both USA and Australia try and convince 50+ sceptics about the accuracy of CAGW and if they really are sceptics ( not a con) it will be most interesting indeed.
I’m going to watch and see if there is one issue or fact used by these big guns that I haven’t heard before, if there is I will be very surprised.
‘Malcolm that Booker article is one of the best I’ve read for a while’ …
I agree Neville, excellent article, thanks Malcolm.
Visiting Bishop Hill I found this in comments.
‘Amazon UK though seems to have dropped pretty much all of the sceptical books from their science or climate categorys and now has most of them uncategorised.’
This is just one way to maintain consensus, but if that fails there will be a book burning.
Lordy me – the goons are back to discussing anomalies. We could express the data in Kelvin?
Listen to Schiller rant ” shoddy and corrupt.” you loon. Talk it up scumbag – that’s all you can do. And don’t forget to fire your M16 skywards.
luke, the sceptics don’t have the weapons, the alarmists do; vale Jason Lee, footsoldier for AGW. And the thing is there are plenty more like Lee:
Cohenite,
We need to remember that Al Gore, and his book, ‘Earth in the Balance’, also inspired Ted Kaczynski aka The Unabomber.
http://patriotconcerns.blogspot.com/2010/09/al-gores-poison.html
His 20-year mail-bombing spree killed three people and injured 23 others.
Green Leftists are notoriously vicious.
Tell me, Luke, do you disagree with the InterAcademy Council (IAC) Report on the IPCC, which found weak leadership, lack of transparency, poor credibility, conflicts of interest, partisan editorial policies, reports riddled with errors, low standards for research, and exaggerated or unfounded claims of certainty?
Surely the efforts of the IAC amount to peer review. You should be attacking them, not me.
The University of East Anglia has just ‘responded to’ the Muir Russell report. You can find it here:
http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/CRUstatements/independentreviews/UEAreviewresponse
The text of the Muir Russell report is here (pdf, 160pp):
http://www.cce-review.org/pdf/FINAL%20REPORT.pdf
See how many whoppers you can spot in the UEA ‘response’. Clearly appalling.
Schiller re the UEA response and your “Clearly appalling” comment; well, no because points 9.1-6 cover the science as it was and don’t condem it however leaving room for the considerable number of improvements that follows. Nothing startling, nothing foul considering the fuss after sceptics complaints.
Yout intensity is a worry though!
Gavin,
Many thanks for identifying a big whopper (aside from your failure to do homework).
UEA claims scientific vindication, but the Muir Russell report says, at p. 23:
9. It is important to note that the allegations relate to aspects of the behaviour of the CRU scientists and not to the content of their work and hence this Review addressed scientific questions only to the extent necessary to place this behaviour in context.
That’s no vindication, it wasn’t even looked at, and they further have the gall to pretend that nobody made allegations about their scientific claims.
But then, how could they investigate the scientific claims anyhow, when, as revealed on the same page:
6. The team did not carry out interviews other than with CRU and other UEA staff
(apart from preliminary discussions with ICO and the police and interviews with
two relevant IPCC Review Editors).
Sorry, Gavin, try again. Keep on and you’ll find something by accident perhaps.
Well Luke and Gav will you be watching tonight at 7.30 SBS when Schneider and Karoly try to convince 50+ sceptics about CAGW, what new info will we be gleaned I wonder?
Just been informed that several Climate Sceptic party members will be in the audience, one can only hope…….
Please quote all these phrases from the source Schiller – I know academic standards are a new concept to paid activists.
“weak leadership, lack of transparency, poor credibility, conflicts of interest, partisan editorial policies, reports riddled with errors, low standards for research, and exaggerated or unfounded claims of certainty”
Neville – by now you should know that nobody ever learns anything from debates. The denialist robots have their minds closed – so what’s the point. Look you loonies are still debating “anomalies” for heaven sake. It’s all beyond you mate ! (yes I’ll be watching – all the same old stuff will be trotted out – yawn)
With the start of the winter still several months away, northwest China’s Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region has already experienced its first snowfall of the year.
More than 10 centimeters fell across the northwestern region which has affected the region’s agricultural industry, wrecking some 46,000 hectares of wheat crops. Meteorologists say more snowfall is expected as a cold front is forecast to sweep across northern China, which could make temperatures drop by up to 8 degrees Celsius.
In regions such as Inner Mongolia and Heilongjiang, temperatures could drop by up to 10 degrees Celsius, while in Sichuan, Henan and Shandong provinces, heavy rain is forecast.
Which is what we would expect as regional cooling takes hold.
http://www.co2science.org/articles/V13/N36/HaroldShapiroOpenLetter.pdf
One could only hope that the climataria at shonkdemia central will this time around consider all the evidence and not just that which suits their own prejudices and agendas.
Well folks; it’s been one big day of real political drama in Canberra and I have been tuned in to every minuit of it.
At last the people’s house has become a proper chamber for national debate!
So you didn’t learn much from SBS did you?
No
gavin
Under normal circumstances I would congratulate you, but I’m a poor loser.
On another matter, found an old story about Alaskan glaciers which may be of interest. The cold winter of 2007-2008 and the mild summer that followed saw the glaciers get ‘thicker in the middle’.
http://www.adn.com/2008/10/13/555283/bad-weather-was-good-for-alaska.html
This gets more interesting all the time.
In its response to the Muir Russell report, the University of East Anglia (UEA) says:
Again, the Review has been invaluable in demonstrating that the great bulk of the temperature data used by CRU was already readily available and that there was no barrier to checking or seeking to offer alternative hypotheses compatible with the data. [1]
Really? In November of last year, according to The Telegraph (UK),
Scientists at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based. It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years. [2]
If the data had been thrown away, and therefore had become unavailable to other academics, how is it that the bulk of the data were readily available, with ‘no barrier’?
Assuming it’s true that the bulk of the data were readily available, with ‘no barrier’, Why would the UEA say in its response, We accept that the University was slow in providing this data when requested.? [1]
On the other hand, if the data had been thrown away and become unavailable, there can be no issue of being ‘slow in providing’ — ‘providing’ would be impossible.
Someone is lying. Or maybe Luke, their mouthpiece, can explain things.
————-
1. http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/CRUstatements/independentreviews/UEAreviewresponse
2. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece
No way I’m the only one here who’s noticed that Luke is incapable of a reasoned response to a challenge.
But then, that seems to be a common problem amongst CAGWers.
http://news.sbs.com.au/insight/episode/index/id/302#transcript
Didnt watch it, (have better things to do, than watch Brockies nonsense ) but have scanned the transcript… and there is no mention of Karoly in the transript.
But he was in the promos though….hmmmm.
Perhaps the climataria are keeping their heads down because they are on hiding to nothing for having over stated the case and the competence of the process.
el gordo; yes, you can congratulate me but I ‘m not sure what I’ve done!
By that I’m starting to wonder just how hard it’s going to be maintaining an edge day to day as we slip along with an advantage of one in the middle of the people’s house.
“record snowfall neither proves nor disproves global warming. However, the increasing trend in extreme precipitation events is consistent with global warming. And this will lead to increased snowstorms in certain, colder regions”
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Does-record-snowfall-disprove-global-warming.html
“Today most glaciers are retreating because of the general warming of global temperatures since the beginning of this century (Figure 10ae-7). This indicates that the mass balances of these glaciers are negative because of less snow accumulating or higher levels of ablation”
http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/10ae.html
selected from Google ‘summer snow loss has exceeded winter snowfall glaciers 2010’ Try it hey
I agree with Bolt that there should have been a sceptical Scientist on stage as well, like Lindzen( see link), but I don’t think Schneider did that well.
Must look at the 12.40 min at this link when I’ve time.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/sceptics_meet_warmist_scientist/
Roger Peilke jnr on Labor’s ETS for Australia.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/labor_is_lying_about_its_dud_ets/
You are right Neville
Schneider didnt do that well at all.
In fact he was digging holes for himself all over the place.
“In fact he was digging holes for himself all over the place.”
Malcolm, was that an intentional pun?!
No…not intentionally
I was musing quietly for example, about Scheiders silly response to the medico who queired why,s if we are only 3% of the problem whats the big deal.
Scheiders anology of bath tub of fixed capacity, and a fixed outlet, but a variable input tap is just pure academic tosh because it assumes that the Co2 level without humans being involved, would be constant..which based upon the evidence is plainly not the case.
The level of Co2 would be subject to all sorts of other variables, including a variable size drain hole
The medico was not buying to either.
You would think that after all this time and money, they could do better than that.
gavin
The way Hubert Lamb saw it the increasing trend in extreme precipitation events is consistent with global cooling.
There will be increased snowstorms in unusual places and colder regions like Greenland will be warmer than usual.
In the 13th century glaciers thickened and lengthened with cooler and wetter seasons.
In fact malcolm Schneider must have known he was wrong. The idea that human CO2 emissions, ACO2, are entirely responsible for the increase in atmospheric CO2 increase is based on the idea that if ACO2 exceeds the increase in CO2 then all of the increase must be due to ACO2. This has happened with ACO2 about 8GT PA and CO2 increase about 4GTPA.
For this to happen CO2 sinks must be expanding to absorb 1/2 the ACO2. But this ignores 2 things:
1 Sinks may be expanding at a greater rate than ACO2 in which case natural CO2 will be contributing.
2 The above is confirmed by this paper:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/knorr2009_co2_sequestration.pdf
This paper shows that the % of ACO2 in the atmosphere has stayed the same despite increases in ACO2 and CO2 so ACO2 cannot be responsible for the entire increase in CO2 levels.
This can be demonstrated quite easily, the principle is a constant in an increasing total: say ACO2 is 20% of CO2 which is 100, so ACO2 is 20; when CO2 is 200 ACO2’s 20% will be 40 so other CO2 has contributed 60; at 300, ACO2 is 60, other is 140 and so on; natural CO2 must be contributing to the increase in total CO2 and sinks must be expanding more than the 4GTPA.
gavin
The Gangotri Glacier will eventually return to the length achieved in 1780. Luke calls that ‘projection’.
Unusual warm water surrounds northern Japan, but it’s probably nothing.
http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst_anom.html
And of course we have this over estimation.
http://sg.news.yahoo.com/afp/20100908/tts-climate-warming-science-ice-c1b2fc3.html
Cohers
Well, in light of the Knorr paper Schneiders bath tub analogy looks even dopier.
But then KNorr has to pass to test of the IPCC climataria actually considering what he has done, probably competing with some marketing dross from WWF and Green Peace etc.
Cohers: I hate to challenge the legal profession, it can be costly! But I think you are mistaken in your last. The atmospheric carbon budget works like this:
Change in Stock = d[CO2]t = Opening inventory minus purchases (E) less sales (U), or d[CO2]t = Et – Ut, where t is the year in question, E stands for Emissions (from all sources in any given year) and U stands for ALL biospheric Uptakes of CO2 (in the respective year).
Now we have no data on non-human additions to atmospheric CO2 i.e. [CO2], but we do have data (admittedly seriously understated) of human additions (dEt) to [CO2], and since these exceed d[CO2]t, the latter being on average only 44% of the former (Curtin October 2009, Knorr November 2009), then on average dUt are 56% of dEt.
However you are on the right lines in the sense that any non-human additions to Et must be exactly offset by higher biospheric Ut, given the known d[CO2]t.
I have yet to come across a climate scientist who understands this concept, although it is of course elementary to any mere accountant or storekeeper. One very eminent attender (FRS no less) at my 29th April 2010 Seminar at ANU (available at http://www.timcurtin.com) commented that uptakes of Et (emissions of CO2) lead to plant respiration, especially at night, and so less dUt. Such respirative emissions of CO2 belong of course in the dEt expression in the budget equation, not in the dUt, and so in any given year, the more the respiration adds to Et, the higher must be the Ut
Thus when we humans and our livestock emit at least 4 GtC of CO2 p.a. (EPA & FAO), all such extra Et like respiration and total human animal & fish exhalation imply an exactly equal dUt, given the known levels of [CO2] as measured at Mauna Loa and elsewhere on 31st December every year.
Amongst those unable to grasp this are especially Corinne Le Quere of, guess where, CRU at UEA, and of course our own usual suspects Canadell & Raupach (and ALL other staffers at CSIRO). Visit their grotesque website http://www.globalcarbonproject.org to see how they believe there can be negative withdrawals from [CO2] that are Ut but not Et. Tell that to Kmart.
El Gordo,
That story was also picked up by Science Daily, at
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/09/100906085152.htm
“The corrections for deformations of the Earth’s crust have a considerable effect on the amount of ice that is estimated to be melting each year. We have concluded that the Greenland and West Antarctica ice caps are melting at approximately half the speed originally predicted.” The average rise in sea levels as a result of the melting ice caps is also lower.
The CAGWers will naturally point out, of course, that they were only half wrong, and that any melting at all is bad and proves them right.
El gordo; after “glaciers thickened and lengthened with cooler and wetter seasons 2010” and ignoring blogs I found this in my google page 2. Naturally; I selected the most recent article
http://glacierchange.wordpress.com/
Schiller; the fact remains despite this latest correction.
Lets see what people have to say in msm hey
http://news.brisbanetimes.com.au/breaking-news-world/climate-new-study-slashes-estimate-of-icecap-loss-20100908-14ztk.html
Lord Oxburgh grilled by MPs on the UK Parliament’s science and technology select committee:
Oxburgh: UEA vice-chancellor was wrong to tell MPs he would investigate climate research – Edward Acton gave ‘inaccurate’ information to MPs by telling them the university would reassess key scientific papers following the UEA climate emails controversy
The Guardian (UK)
Sept. 8, 2010
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/sep/08/uea-emails-inquiry-science
“We were told very clearly both by press releases and by Acton when he came [before the committee] that this was going to be an investigation into the science. Oxburgh made it very clear that it was an investigation into the integrity of the scientists,” he [Graham Stringer MP] said.
Gives new meaning to the phrase, ‘It’s not about the science’.
Tim Curtin
Your explanation of the atmospheric carbon budget again underscores what I said originally …Schneiders simplistic nonsense on Insight was only digging another big hole of alarmist stupidity.
Again I have to say, if after all this time and all the public money that has been spent and all the opportunities that they, and he, has had to explain the theories to the general public on a TV show, is a patently idiotic bath tub analogy…. then god help us all.
Schiller; something for both you and elg to ponder.
How bumpy is the ride on Grace?
http://www.accuweather.com/blogs/climatechange/story/36779/melting-rates-of-icecaps-calle-1.asp
Gavin,
The ‘bumpy’ ride on GRACE has been quantified — that’s the point of the exercise.
And what’s to ponder? There’s yet another finding that contradicts CAGW. Nearly a ritual these days — climatology has been corrupt from the beginning.
Or do you find something different whilst performing aeromancy?
Meanwhile, things have become so bad for climatology that Luke him/itself is asking me to do quote-mining.
The devolution of climatology — from science into hoax — is a beautiful thing to behold. Future generations will learn from this sordid episode, and science will return to its proper place as a result.
In fact, given that Schneider was responding to a GP re the 3%, if Schneider was smart he could have used the human body as a more appropriate analogy.
Variable input, variable output,variable consumtpion, and variable storage just like Tim C’s well known accounting equations.
But that would have been too embarrassing because……..of the bleeding obvious.
More proof of a warmer NH in the Holocene thermal optimum 6000 to 7000 years ago that cooled by 4000 to 3000 BP.
In fact the Arctic could have been ice free, unprecedented temps anyone?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/08/inconvenient-ice-study-less-ice-in-the-arctic-ocean-6000-7000-years-ago/#more-24579
So they’ve moved on from debating use of anomalies as to whether the increase in CO2 is due to anthropogenic causes. Impressive stuff boys.
Luke,
Interesting debating technique. Since you repeatedly fail in discussions involving facts, you’ve returned to merely re-describing others’ discussions.
Not terribly helpful, our dear little emo Hansen fanboi.
But you gotta say something so your bosses can see you’re ‘on the job’. No wonder you can’t man up and make a few factual concessions.
It’s gotta be painful to portray yourself as ignorant for pay. But then, there are people who are ‘ethically challenged’ and don’t give a rat’s. Of which we have a surfeit.
Is anyone going to answer Spencer’s challenge among the physical scientists, I mean this should be a doddle for Luke and Gav and their lot.
Perhaps even some of the regulars here can have a go, Cohenite, Schiller, El G, Malcolm, Tim anyone?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/09/one-the-debunking-spencers-feedback-ideas-an-appeal-to-physical-scientists-everywhere/
Between 1090 and 1230 ad there was little surging or calving, which is basically what one would expect in a warmer world.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WPN-4DV0VP2-64&_user=10&_coverDate=07%2F31%2F1986&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_origin=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1455196802&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=9809db26a63b3be43b894fdae5eed45e&searchtype=a
Neville,
Comments at Dr. Spencer is off the rails.
Meanwhile, it is appropriate to mention that ecological positive-feedback loops are nearly impossible to find. And, upon finding them, they don’t work — that’s because positive-feedback loops violate the laws of thermodynamics.
Of course, our emo Hansen fanboi has a different view on fundamental laws.
Well Mr Walker …you obviously have not noticed that the issue was raised by a GP asking a sensible question in a public forum for which he was given really stupid answer by a leading member of the climatariat….
…but then to divert attenton from that stupidity, I guess as the regular sock puppet you are, you are only doing your job by displaying yet again just how inept the climatariat are in general.
BTW Schneider was employed by the tax payers here in SA to be a Thinker in Residence on Climate Change …. snort snort.
Along with Flannery and Brooks et al, these morons induced the govt to spend some $2bn on a desalination plant which comes on stream in a few months time…exactly at the same time that finds ALL the public dams are full and over flowing ..including Mount Bold
This was also based upon Flannery’s breathless and stupid prediction given few years ago that Adelaide will be out of water by 2008-9.
So between an option of raising the height of the dams for $.5bn or spending $2-3 bn on a desal plant it is no surprise which way they went.. obviously they were also swayed by the so called science being peddled by CMAR and BOM
But it doesnt matter folks, the power to drive the desal plant will come from green energy…so its all square.
Hi Tim, I don’t mind being wrong; my clients pay regardless of whether I am right or wrong. But just on this point and using your terminology:
Change in Stock = d[CO2]t = Opening inventory minus purchases (E) less sales (U), or d[CO2]t = Et – Ut, where t is the year in question, E stands for Emissions (from all sources in any given year) and U stands for ALL biospheric Uptakes of CO2 (in the respective year).
With d[CO2]t only 44% of dEt then dUt are taking 56% of dEt, the 2 variables which are unknown, or, at least unquantified, are natural emissions of CO2 and uptakes or sinks; given this, we still don’t know if the dEt is solely responsible for the increase in d[CO2]t.
Now the human part of d[CO2]t is a constant according to Knorr, or at least for purposes of the discussion; we know human E are increasing and so is CO2 so either:
1 Ut is constant but natural E is declining at 56% of the rate human E is increasing.
2 Natural E is constant so Ut is increasing at 56% of the rate of increase in human E.
3 Ut is increasing at a rate greater than 56% of the rate of increase in human E in which case natural E must be increasing at the same rate as Ut is increasing. In this example human E becomes an increasingly smaller part of the CO2 cycle while still having its % of the CO2 remain constant.
Have I got that right?
El; you can’t expect anyone to swallow statemens like “Between 1090 and 1230 ad there was little surging or calving, which is basically what one would expect in a warmer world” based on your solitary link above! Given you haven’t been there, done any glacier science etc the very least you can do is take the guts out of the abstract and see for yourself how it stacks up elsewhere as any budding science writer should.
Btw I’m not saying your linking is wrong however it’s well worth the glance elsewhere for another perspective.Try this for size ‘glacier fluctuations ice-core acidity sulfur-rich aerosols volcanic eruptions primary forcing mechanism’
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2009JD012892.shtml
My bet is you can’t get away from those sulfur-rich aerosols that go with increasing CO2
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/09/08/years-setbacks-looks-world-leader/?test=latestnews
Now this is scary stuff
Note the position papers prepred before the hidy hidy away.
While searching on SO2, human induced v natural acid rain etc I found a recent paper “Interactions between Mineral Dust, Climate, and Ocean Ecosystems”
http://elements.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/content/abstract/6/4/247
Malcolm those useless layabouts from the UN make me sick.
Little wonder the Krudd idiot is so in love with this money wasting, corrupt pack of morons.
Our taxes at work.
gavin
Volcanism and its average accumulation rate were lower during the “Little Ice Age” than during the “Medieval Warm Period.”
Which may indicate volcanic activity is less influential in lowering temperatures than reduced solar activity.
I’m seriously looking at the end of the MWP for a cooling signal.
Something happened around 1200 and 1300 AD. What was the forcing mechanism?
http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0133f1a5356f970b-pi
….thats easy, too many polar bears in the one spot right.
Malcolm
At least we can all agree it had nothing to do with CO2.
Malcolm thinks doc made an intelligent comment. ROFL.
cohenite: excellent point, and as I know I can never win against a lawyer, I hope you will agree to share your Nobel?
You said: “Now the human part of d[CO2]t is a constant according to Knorr, or at least for purposes of the discussion; we know human E are increasing and so is CO2 so either:
1 Ut is constant but natural E is declining at 56% of the rate human E is increasing.
2 Natural E is constant so Ut is increasing at 56% of the rate of increase in human E.
3 Ut is increasing at a rate greater than 56% of the rate of increase in human E in which case natural E must be increasing at the same rate as Ut is increasing. In this example human E becomes an increasingly smaller part of the CO2 cycle while still having its % of the CO2 remain constant.
Have I got that right?”
Not quite!
The secret of budget and inventory projections is to begin with the Opening Stock, in this case [CO2] at 1 January 2010 of 827.97 GtC (or c. 390 ppm). Then add anthro Emissions, according to Lord Garnaut of Lihir & Ok Tedi, of c.10.2 GtC, and assuming Curtin and Knorr 2009 are right, the increase in the Stock in 2010 will be only the Opening Stock times 1.0041%, or 831.36 GtC, an increase of 3.39 GtC. It then follows that the Uptake by the Biota must be 10.2 – 3.39, say 6.8.
If there are no other (i.e. non-anthro) emissions, and we project the stock at the observed rate of 0.0041% pa since 1958, and the anthro emissions at the current (Garnaut) rate of 0.03% p.a., we find that the percentage of anthro emissions that adds to the atmospheric stock in 2010 is only 33.28%. Retaining those factors (growth in [CO2] at the observed rate of 0.41% p.a. and of anthro. emissions at 0.03% pa), the percentage uptake by the Biota rises from 67% in 2010 to 88% by 2050.
If however Cohenite is right that there are other incremental non-anthro emissions of CO2 that add to the stock of [CO2], subject to the constraint that the stock continues to grow at only its rate since 1959 of 0.0041% p.a., then the total percentage Uptake of Total Emissions by the biota rises to c95% of total Emissions by 2050 (if non-anthro Emissions are 1.2 or 1.5 times larger than anthro), and to 96% if they are double the anthro emissions.
Climate scientists (sic) are generically incapable of the simple mathematics involved in inventory analysis. Cohers, who can we get to nominate us for the Nobel we certainly deserve?
Correction! This “(growth in [CO2] at the observed rate of 0.41% p.a. and of anthro. emissions at 0.03% pa)” should read “(growth in [CO2] at the observed rate of 0.0041% p.a. and of anthro. emissions at 0.03% pa)”…
Apologies, Tim.
Oxburgh Inquiry:
45 hours
5 pages
0 individual interviews
£40,000
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/09/lord-oxburghs-whirlwind-whitewash-tour/
http://climateaudit.org/2010/09/08/oxburgh-tricks-the-committee/
Conclusion: The committee could have put in more hours and been more transparent, but its findings are not at issue and therefore of no concern. Move along, folks. Oxburgh has been vindicated.
Thats the whole point Mr Walker…Dr Schneider made a fool of himself in trying to answer a simple question from a GP on the floor…WAFJ.
The poor man is obviously is not in good shape, but this is a simple answer that should have been at his finger tips and wasnt.
The whole thing just gets even sillier with the exposure of via the common sensical enumeration that Tim C. and Cohenite have done, which your mates in climataria central obviously havent done.
No doubt your next idiot comment will be to suggest submitting it all to Peer Review….and the answer will be why does even common sense have to be subjected to the precious PR…just because some people on grants, or in some PS bolt hole, are legitamately thick.
Malcolm,
In this climate (pun), there’s no doubt they will insist on peer review. Especially since crimatologists get to cherry-pick who is ‘a peer’.
I’m willing to bet Cohenite will back me on this one: ever had a client accused of crime who demanded a ‘jury of his peers’ and insisted that the jury be composed of people who’ve been jailed? For sure, it’s a jury of peers, but not quite what the law has in mind.
But Luke, our resident emo Hansen fanboi, will have a brand-new idea about this issue…
Not!
Schiller; I stay away from criminal matters ever since I was on a duty roster and had as a client the varmint who had just broken into my car and stolen my Pink Floyd tapes; which I never got back!
Cohenite,
With your involvement in climatological matters, I would think that you are quite heavily involved in criminal matters.
After all, we have supplying false data in support of applications for government funds, corruption of data gathered by government agencies, lying under oath to government bodies, consumer fraud & false advertising, agreements in restraint of trade (antitrust), money laundering, my gosh, man, this is a target-rich environment for prosecutions.
Maybe that will be the ‘next wave’ after global cooling becomes undeniable. The players in the climate game have ‘deep pockets’, which will monetize both prosecutions and civil actions.
Can you say, ‘feeding frenzy’?
It would be glorious.
Bolt gives a good description of the green totalitarian in todays column and he gives numerous examples of the direct looney opinions of some green leaders.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/column_the_freen_totalitarian_itch/
Tim; I can’t help feeling your bias towards a carbon rich atmosphere based on improved plant growth remains a red herring in the argument for limiting post industrial CO2 generation. On a more general question, who else wants more CO2, I suggest your view fails to convince many who may be engaged in the reduction process long term. By that I mean most of us!
This recent exchange caught my eye. Has it ended? “Positive & Welfare Effects of Carbon Taxes: Some Basic Economics” btw imo Harry writes a good doc here
http://www.harryrclarke.com/2010/03/09/positive-and-welfare-effects-of-carbon-taxes-some-basic-economics/
Gavin,
You need to understand that suppliers of ‘traditional’ forms of energy have a lot to gain from the drive for ‘renewable’ resources, i.e., antique technology.
You see, antique forms of energy generation are tremendously inefficient. That’s why they’re antique.
But, if government mandates the use of more-expensive methods of generation, that forces a rise in the price of energy.
Which of course makes it reasonable to increase the price of energy for coal, gas, oil, etc.
A ‘traditional’ energy company would be foolish not to back CAGW. Such a company could easily double profits by competing against costly ‘renewables’.
Nev; your bolt link is nothing more than far right sour grapes after the Greens got a gong in the Senate. Low grade hey
btw from experience, protests and planes don’t mix. Democracy depends on fun. Outcomes beyond that are all sus.
Schiller; “antique” crap!
Gavin,
Tell me what is modern about windmills, alcohol, or burning wood. If they were ever efficient, coal, oil, and natural gas would never have had a chance.
Antique. Old. Outdated.
Although, alcohol production seems to be a perennial favorite.
For beverages.
In an effort to find the cooling signal at the tail of the MWP I now think it began in the NH around 1130 AD.
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/studies/l1_mobergnh.php
Bao Yang et al said there was increasing dust frequency in China from 1140-1220 ad, which suggests a change in climate.
Gavin you said “I can’t help feeling [my] bias [sic] towards a carbon rich atmosphere based on improved plant growth remains a red herring in the argument for limiting post industrial CO2 generation. On a more general question, who else wants more CO2, I suggest your view fails to convince many who may be engaged in the reduction process long term. By that I mean most of us!”
So you do not accept that a global population of 9 billion by 2050 will need more food than today’s c.7 billion, and that the extra food can ONLY derive from atmospheric CO2?
Interesting. Climate scientists clearly have rules excluding biologists from their deliberations, which is why this ineluctable truth is ignored, as by Harry Clarke in your invaluable link,
http://www.harryrclarke.com/2010/03/09/positive-and-welfare-effects-of-carbon-taxes-some-basic-economics/
where if you get beyond his verbiage to my comments on that very thread, you will see he totally fails to address my comments, other than by armwaving, and then silence, because of my inconvenient truths to which he has no answer. He absolutely refused to acknowledge that atmospheric CO2 has positive externalities, like the photosynthesis without which we would none of us exist.
what’s modern? An article like this
http://wastedenergy.net/2010/09/03/whats-in-store/
or this
http://wastedenergy.net/2010/08/18/breaking-down-clean-coal/
On efficiency, I consider all fossil fuel sources as a massive footprint issue after thinking how we got wood (past tense, see peak wood) from the environment.The fact that fossil fuels can be dense and therefore easily transportable has obscured this footprint issue. Sure; a once vast but finite underground fuel resource is our easy option today and it keeps some of us flying, but imo we don’t need to squander it all ion firing up the electricity grid.
One position on our footprint from rural industry
http://www.dairyaustralia.com.au/Farm/MicroSite1/Home/Climate%20and%20greenhouse%20basics/Climate%20change%20projections/Key%20greenhouse%20gases.aspx
A green guide from commerce and industry based education
http://www.rmit.net.au/thinkgreen/jargon
Cory Bernardi spoke at the Heartland Institute climate change conference in Chicago earlier this year and has emailed me to say there will be a day long seminar in Sydney on 1 October.
‘The seminar program is packed full of clear thinking, knowledgeable and entertaining speakers like Jo Nova, David Evans, Alan Moran and Jim Lakely.’ Cory will also be there to share his thoughts during the morning session.
Its free admission thanks to Heartland. For full details (including how to register) please visit http://www.heartland.org/events/PacRim/index.html
PS – if you do intend to attend please let me know as it would be good to be able to meet on the day.
PS Please don’t let me know, but you could tell Cory.
This NH winter will convince the Europeans that global warming is a no brainer.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/WINTER_201011.pdf
Joolya will make Greg Combet the new climate minister.
http://www.theage.com.au/federal-election/pm-eyes-combet-for-climate-20100909-15374.html
Feel free to comment lads:
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s3008509.htm
And Timmy recycles Jack’s beanstalk on and on …. gurgle ….
Loopy Luke, perhaps you could favour us with just a short list (say 10) of your own peer reviewed articles? Specifically, I would like to see your paper(s) proving that NO food contains carbon derived from photosynthesis of atmospheric CO2, and that therefore a global population of 9 billion in 2050 will eat just as well from CoP15’s 40% of 1990 or 2000 emissions, or from the Hansen target for [CO2] of just 350 ppm. Please supply your detailed calculations and references, or bugger off.
Tim,
Loopy Luke, our indigenous emo Hansen fanboi, has a long history of not responding to challenges.
Don’t hold your breath waiting for a response.
A question actually worth pondering:
‘Is this science, or literature?’
The Register
10th September 2010
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/09/10/oxburgh_science_select_committee/
Climatology has more in common with literature and drama, than with science. And if you’re Luke, it mostly involves scatological epithets.
Pretentious Tim – show us ONE decent publication of your own on the subject in serious journal (yes that’s not E&E). Your correlations of CO2 with crop yields simply show you’re a statistical and ecophysiological fool.
Meanwhile – http://www.skepticalscience.com/skeptic-contradictions.html ROFL !
Luke,
Little emo fanboi, tell me: do I need to publish before proclaiming 2 + 2 = 4?
You’re so stuck on the cult of personality and publication that you can’t see any error in the narrative.
Are you big on PlayStation?
Go squeeze a turnip and come back with results.
Hmmm…
An inactive sun creates more H20 and a slightly cooler world, seems straight forward. The oscillations may work independently, but at least we know they exist and recognize their influence.
On the other hand, to blame a harmless trace gas for a warming world is stupid and dangerous. This NH winter in Europe will be shockingly cold and thousands of elderly people will die prematurely because of fuel poverty. Throwing due diligence out the window, the warmists believe severe cold winters are a thing of the past and the authorities accept the dogma.
This is criminal negligence and I blame Luke desk, whose arrogance far outweighs any perceived pretensions of others here. Did someone mention Dunning-Kruger, there are none so blind as those who cannot see.
Utter drivel El Gordo – simply mindless rambling waffling endless drivel
Tim,
Did you notice that Luke came back and did not respond to your challenge?
Lil emo fanboi loses by default.
As usual.
Mortality Update, the latest offering over at World Climate Report.
The article spares the reader all the gory details and includes a “Main messages” section in which Carder et al. write “Cold temperature is a strong predictor of mortality in the Scottish population. The strongest associations were observed between cold temperature and respiratory mortality. The effects of cold temperature on mortality persisted for periods in excess or two weeks. The evidence does not suggest that wind chill temperature, as measured by the Steadman Index, is likely to be a better predictor of mortality than dry bulb temperature.”
El Gordo more people die in the winter from cardio vascular problems than they do during summer.
This is well known by doctors and the numbers are published and available, Lomborg lists the numbers by country in his books, but don’t expect Luke to have a clue about such facts.
Oxburgh caught lying to parliamentary committee!
Oxburgh:
Ultimately the choice of panel members was mine, but I talked directly and indirectly to a number of people. We ended up with 3 people who had absolutely no connection to climate work or meteorology – 4 including me.
But:
Lisa Graumlich has written dozens of articles using proxy evidence to reconstruct past temperature.
Kerry Emanuel has taken a strong and very public position on climate change, and collaborated with Michael Mann.
Oxburgh himself is president of the Carbon Capture and Storage Association, chairman of wind energy firm Falck Renewables, and a member of the Green Fiscal Commission.
That means only Huw Davies met Oxburgh’s criteria.
http://climateaudit.org/2010/09/10/more-oxburgh-misrepresentations/
Oops,
Climate Audit missed a turn.
Huw Davies heads the ETH Zurich Dynamical Meteorology group. It maintains a suite of numerical models encompassing idealized research models, mesoscale weather forecasting models and global spectral models. [1]
He’s also part of the UK’s Natural Environment Research Council. [2]
That’s two groups beholden to slops at the public hog trough.
Result: 100% of members of the Oxburgh committee were as financially compromised as the rest of the CAGWers. And, what’s more 100% of the committee FAIL to meet what Oxburgh touts as qualifications for ‘independence’.
There are two choices: (1) that Oxburgh has Alzheimer’s, or (2) that CAGW is so huge and well-financed that lies will be excused at any turn.
———
1. http://www.iac.ethz.ch/groups/davies
2. http://www.nerc.ac.uk/about/work/boards/council/biographies.asp
Schiller – time and time again has shown it’s a waste of time checking sceptics nonsense – inevitably wrong and so a waste of time. Just as you promote daily whatever you get given to release from mission HQ.
Luke,
How has it been a waste of time to show that skeptic findings of 75% corruption of a climategate committee should actually be 100%? And I have to wonder why you would applaud such a finding. Surely you would rather learn of ethical purity amongst the Hockey Team.
It’s also odd that you would suggest I am released things from mission HQ. There is none such for me, but you seem oddly familiar with the notion.
What I find on my own time, I report on my own time, and my sole recompense is to poke corrupt culture-vandals like yourself in the eye with a sharp stick, and to savor your incoherent howls of dissonant pain.
Let’s call it ‘ethics in action’, with liars and miscreants such as yourself exposed at every turn, and no way out except the admission of failure, or cowering in the face of defeat. Which is coming your way, fast.
Dr Richard Keen, reporting from Coal Creek Canyon, said ‘according to NCDC analysis this warming is occurring. According to actual observation it is not.’
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog
The equipment is working perfectly, but the system is badly flawed.
El Gordo,
The computers are doing what they are told. The measuring devices remain ill-behaved.
P Gosselin critiques Joe Bastardi.
http://notrickszone.com/
el gordo; when I scratch around after Keen, there is just a few links to Morano , Hartland and the Australian?
http://www.australian-news.com.au/
Such good company. imo you need to find sombody more popular in the ms science journals. Last ditch defense indeed, lone voice and all that.
Also I can’t stop wondering why we need a regular blog dose from el re other forecasters, pg or jb
“A La Niña event is now well established in the Pacific Ocean. All computer models surveyed by the Bureau suggest Pacific Ocean sea surface temperatures (SSTs) will continue to exceed La Niña thresholds through the southern hemisphere spring, with the majority indicating the event will persist into at least early 2011”
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/
Bastardi and others are predicting back to back Nina, which means big floods in eastern Australia. I find BOM is always trailing with their forecasts. Here’s the other point, apart from a magnetic filament burst, it’s on track for a Dalton.
http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/realtime/mdi_igr/1024/latest.jpg
Space weather is much more interesting, don’t you think?
Schiller – you’re very convincing – (to yourself).
El Gordo – do try to remember that all Los Ninos and Las Ninas are individuals….
e.g. http://www.longpaddock.qld.gov.au/products/pdf/MapUpdate_forPoster.pdf
Luke
Yes they are, but surely BOM could give us a few pointers based on where the PDO, IOD and La Nina are situated. With all that taxpayers money to buy a state of the art computer, they won’t hazard a guess.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/d3a195556.shtml
I’m still punting on a back to back La Nina and floods on the eastern seaboard.
It may be as Luke said, just a load of drivel. In an effort to disentangle fact from fiction I theorize that less sunspots will allow more cosmic rays to strike earth and increase cloud cover.
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/08/paper-cosmoclimatology-is-real.html
Amazing what the warmists come up with. These aerial units are 40 tons apiece.
http://www.jobyenergy.com/tech
Here’s an innovative idea which Luke and friends are bound to find attractive:
http://abortioncarboncredits.blog.com/2010/09/12/saving-the-planet-one-abortion-at-a-time/
Gotta wonder if the people running this outfit are sitting on any climategate investigation committees.
Schiller; it’s sick when you are left behind gouging for crap like that!
‘But do the math! That’s almost a thousand dollars’ worth of CO2 that the child will emit if allowed to live!’
But CO2 does not cause global warming,
Rightous lot hey. The pair of you don’t have the right to comment on the private affarirs of families who are struggling through difficult choices, unless you have been over this issue with wives or daughters in distress.
That raiese another question, are either of you still married? Probably not! IMO freedom of choice should have applied way back at home in your case.
Btw; all species have some form of crude population controll but here you are every day, blatantly supporting that section of our community who thrive on growth and development.
Gavin,
When John Holdren (Obama science ‘czar’ and CAGWer) suggests mandatory sterilizations and abortions to ‘save the planet’, the notion of voluntary abortions for cash is certainly more mainstream.
And Holdren’s ideas on the topic were endorsed by Paul and Anne Ehrlich, both Uber-Greens.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Obamas-science-czar-suggested-compulsory-abortion-sterilization-50783612.html
The notions of James Jay Lee, the Discovery Channel gunman, regarding ‘parasitic infants’, is certainly not new, and were inspired by CAGW High Priest Al Gore.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/09/01/maryland-police-respond-hostage-situation-man-gun-enters-building/
So actually, voluntary abortion for profit is not a serious deviation from Green ideology.
Pretty good sponge to soak up gases e.g co2 or hydrogen, just 1 teaspoon full equals the surface area of a football oval.
If this problem (?)of increasing co2 is to be solved it must come via new science and technology and adaptation , at least it will allow the bedwetters here have a better nights sleep.
This girl has to resort to winning awards of $20,000, why can’t govts like our present hopeless morons actually invest a few million on this type of research?
http://www.scienceinpublic.com/loreal/fellows/deannadalessandro
Gavin,
Surely you realize that regulation of CO2 completely involves “the private affarirs [sic] of families”, such as use of air conditioners, automobiles, food, and everything else.
And having a child is a decision based on economic considerations.
Abortioncarboncredits seems merely to monetize the fundamental premise of CAGW. How can you argue against that?
‘Good for the planet’ hey.
You want BoM to “HAZARD A GUESS”
Uh – huh – right – and you’re worried about real science are you !!
Jeez El Gordo – you’d be a sucker for mug solar cycles forecasts wouldn’t you. A come in spinner !
To evaluate any seasonal forecast – (1) do you have 6-10 years independent data to test any system; and/or (2) what does the leave one year out – put one in – cross validation statistic show you (3) what’s your test variable (precisely)
False skill, wishful thinking, and post hoc retrospective fitting of the facts await all young players.
Neville,
Re the girl and the sponge: why should governments invest in research like that when, if the technology works, the private sector will move in and wipe coal, gasoline, etc. off the map?
All current energy sources on the market are pitifully vulnerable to any new technology that’s more efficient, etc. No need for government intervention if the tech works.
CAGWers, unfortunately, sunk all their cash into political lobbying. Imagine what might have been done if they’d invested the billion$ in research instead.
Yeah, imagine. The CAGWers are all out there agitating for status quo technology. Which is not surprising: the big money is always behind the status quo. New tech, and I mean, new tech (not windmills) is the scary stuff.
Well, also, making money from abortions is scary, but then, that’s also old tech.
Luke,
What do you think about http://abortioncarboncredits.blog.com/2010/09/12/saving-the-planet-one-abortion-at-a-time/ ?
Don’t you like it a lot? It’s totally in line with what your paymasters advocate.
The perennial bane of CAGWers is their inability to maintain a narrative that is logically consistent.
But Luke may be able to resolve this, him being a CAGW expert and so forth.
Carbon credits for abortions; a new growth industry; things really have gone hay-wire.
Cohenite,
You’d be surprised what people will do when you put money on the table.
Or probably not. Seven inconclusive inquiries into climategate, it’s becoming a drill. Killing ‘parasitic babies’ is not reaching very far, for them.
Luke
Simple observation might be ‘false skill’, but it’s all I have to go on. Lancashire council is taking no chances, guessing this winter will be like the last one, have put up a Facebook page to assist the snow bound.
They have also ordered 2,500 tonnes of salt.
ooops
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-11272439
There is nothing to you guys, is there? No family, no good will, no science, no substance of any sort.
“Simple observation might be ‘false skill’, but it’s all I have to go on.” Error # 1, you have to write down all your wins as well as losses – most only remember their wins ; are you better than flipping a coin or persistence (e.g. wet tomorrow if wet today) and also tell me something I don’t know – e.g. winter can be cold.
Well Schiller – maybe it’s spot on if we could make it retrospective in your case.
I’m happy to look at anomalies, above average snowfall or precipitation and temperatures cooler than the mean in a global warming world.
In theory a warmer planet would see the winter cold air mass become milder, while the jet stream weakens and retreats poleward. What we see now, by direct observation, is the opposite.
So this European winter will be like the last, because the jet stream is recalcitrant. A string of VERY COLD winters will determine the outcome of this debate.
Gavin that is the sort of stupid comment i get from teachers when they question why i dont vote green ” Youve got kids they say…dont you care about their future…?” …more than you is my response! I suggest voting green implies they are idiots unless their paradigm is such that they want to see business moved offshore, death duties, higher taxes, higher prices, higher unemployment and much more poverty…
That point will wash straight over you I am sure.Well you know what i reckon i care a damn site more than most about all kids …not just my own, i teach because i care about educating our children and because they need a non politically correct, capable critical thinker to actually expand their horizons and open up their minds.
I usually dont bite at your inane and/ or cryptic comments. You learn ntg from this blog and to my mind contribute little of any value. But I can not let your ignorant and biggotted comment pass without retaliating. Its not often if you look back at this blog that I actually say nasty things…but you have earned it with your “No family, no good will, no science, no substance of any sort.”…take a look at your self when it comes to science. I am sure you feel you offer goodwill, but your goodwill causes great hardship for millions/ billions, so keep your ignorant sentiments to yourself. You have been shown beyond reasonable doubt that CAGW is far from proved and infact most likely complete rubbish. You never respond with admission of any one else being right, you ignore questions and comments that make it quite clear you are wrong and then snipe at others. Schillers point about “renewables” ( particluarly wind, ethanol and wood)being old technology is well made and extremely valid, and anybody capable of critical thinking would have said…oh my goodness thats a good point”…but not you…….
Well do us all a favour and ……..
sorry everybody else for my rant but I am sick to death of his dribble.
Toby; I sure can ignore heaps of stuff and for lots of reasons, one being there is not enough time in the day but as tolerant being by nature I get going after watching slam after slam posted against those not represented here namely “Greens, public servants and various concerned other who by no fault of their own get up the nose of the usual hired guns that hang out in this back room tavern.
As for those other teachers I suggest they are the norm based on my own acquaintances past and present. On the alternative generating technology issue, I don’t need a guide from those working outside science and engineering.
Given the election outcome, let me remind you the national priority is keeping a full range people gainfully employed in our regional areas. Technology not raw materials extraction is one answer to redress declining populations in remote areas. Women and children are most likely to benefit from the pending development of our NBN and its proposed connectivity for all at reasonable rates. Powering that thing will be less long term than transporting many people too and fro
Not really El Gordo – so much you don’t know about – but may now be ready for this:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/joc.1301/abstract
http://ams.confex.com/ams/87ANNUAL/techprogram/paper_117372.htm
Conclusion says in part:
“Our most important finding is that although CAOs (with respect to late-twentieth century standards) should
become less common during this century, these extreme cold events will not disappear, despite pronounced increases in mean wintertime temperature. The models even project increased CAO frequency in certain regions through the 2090s. This result is consistent with that of Hunt and Elliott (2004), whose transient greenhouse simulation using the CSIRO GCM produced very strong CAOs over North America through the 2060s and over Eurasia through the 2080s, even though their model was driven by a more extreme CO2 forcing (SRES A2 scenario) than the A1B case we used. Hunt and Elliott noted that CAOs could exist in an increasingly greenhouse-forced climate due to the continued presence of intense polar anticyclones that advect Arctic air masses into middle latitudes. Our study of several GCM runs underscores the potential for atmospheric dynamics to mitigate the thermodynamic tendencies from greenhouse warming. We have demonstrated that changes in the mean circulation can account for many of the changes in extreme patterns.”
Right on Gavin – we are submerged in a daily rant about alleged fraud and criminality from the mean spirited here. I tell you what – these public servants much be really busy to generate this ongoing multi-organisational international fraud. I wonder how they get time to publish and run international science programs. But there are other universes – for one I can’t keep up with the pro-science blog at http://www.skepticalscience.com/ – I’m overwhelmed
and more alternative views at
http://www.climateshifts.org/?p=5802 and http://www.climateshifts.org/?p=5789
Good explanations at http://scienceofdoom.com/
And alternative views on nuclear energy at http://bravenewclimate.com/
But not here – while we bask in the negative.
” I am sure you feel you offer goodwill, but your goodwill causes great hardship for millions/ billions, so keep your ignorant sentiments to yourself. You have been shown beyond reasonable doubt that CAGW is far from proved and infact most likely complete rubbish. ”
Utter drivel Toby !!
How exactly has great hardship been caused to billions when policies have not been enacted?
“in fact most likely complete rubbish” – what according to the retired tobacco denialist lobby and other shill factories? – pullease !! Don’t mistake ranting and politics with science.
Gavin,
I’m happy to say that the majority of teachers at my school vote conservative, most being farmers or married to them. The couple that voted green are proclaimed socialists.
Curiously, my worksite is almost totally unionised, which proves that you can be both conservative and activist at the same time.
BTW, there are a number of informative posts over at Louis Hissink’s blog, http://geoplasma.spaces.live.com/blog/
which discuss the whole Green/solcialist/Fabians issue for anyone who’s interested.
Cheers.
UK Investigation Completely Debunks Global Warming Science
“Summary: This is a long post, but the bottom line is worth the time to read it. Under oath, in front of the House of Commons Committee on Science and Technology, Lord Oxburgh testified that it is impossible to reconstruct an accurate global temperature record over the past 1,000 years. Especially one that could claim modern climate is significantly different from that seen over the last 1000 years.”
Read the rest at
http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/14243
‘CAOs could exist in an increasingly greenhouse-forced climate due to the continued presence of intense polar anticyclones that advect Arctic air masses into middle latitudes.’
Sounds like natural climate change. You’re clutching at straws big fella.
Another cold Arctic summer.
http://opinion.financialpost.com/2010/09/09/lawrence-solomon-another-cold-arctic-summer/
Another Ian,
That’s a devastating post at Strata-Sphere that you referred to.
But it’s also rather curious. Oxburgh earlier claimed that he and his jolly band did not look at the science — that their remit was only to determine the moral qualities of the Hockey Team.
Yet here, Oxburgh is delving into science as practiced at the CRU, and reaching some very damning conclusions. Is he actually a skeptic, or did he actually investigate more thoroughly than originally claimed, or what?
El Gordo – this is old work – simply shows you’re clueless on the issue.
Laughable Schiller – you’re quoting a quote mined puff piece from a goon think thank – LOL !
Derek; It’s some time ago now but I had a part time job for a couple of years that allowed me to travel from school to school and watch the science classes from the lab bench. It was a good way to see my lot in action every now and then. As a result I have great admiration for the profession as a whole but with the grand kids I send them lots of practical stuff to like cameras and computers get that exssential hands on experience after hours.
Also I often reflect on what we gained from using dads tools at home, and the extra lessons after accidents. Then there was grandad who kindled my interest in old wood crafts and this is my lead for a fresh observation about current Arctic temperatures. Last night I did some home work re tree rings from Greenland via the PC as I must agree; we don’t know exactly what ancient temps got to between the ice ages.
It seems half a million years ago some woods went north for a while but there is no evidence of forests since. Only tundra give us some green there in between!
2007 “Warming Revives Flora and Fauna in Greenland”
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/28/world/europe/28greenland.html
2010 “A surprisingly lush vegetation is found in the inner south Greenland valleys. But it is vegetation that is species-poor. There are no conifers except for the creeping common juniper (Juniperus communis var. saxatilis). The reason for the lack of species richness is found in Greenland’s isolated position which makes it difficult for plants with heavy seed to invade”
http://en.sl.life.ku.dk/faciliteter/groenlandsarboretet/skovplantninger.aspx
Gavin the NBN is an immense waste of money, do some research on the topic and their is only one conclusion an intelligent person could reach…….. in tassie its cost 500,000 per household that currently has access to it!
the life expectancy of fibre laid above ground is around 15 years. The cost to get it from the road to your house ( your own expense) is expected to be upwards of 1000 if you want two connection points. The interst on teh debt to buil it is at current low interst rates over 400 per person and teh cost per person to build it is over 2000 for every man woman and child.
fast broadband is currently available in CBD’s and less than 15% of business use it!!
surely you can think of better ways to spend (waste) 43b dollars?!…is it even likely that it will not blow out by 50-100%!…and dont listen to conroy who hasnt got a clue.
How could anybody spend this much money without doing a cost benefit analysis?!…surely you bliev in c/b analysis?!
It is quite possible to use 4th generation wireless to provide similar speeds at much lower cost, talk of lack of bandwidth is crap, it will just require more to be built….at a much lower cost. When you use your computer ARE YOU on wireless or cable? The Liberal policy is actually very sensible and would be rolled out quickly. the NBN will probably never be rolled out across australia. Seriously does anybody actually think governemnt can run a succesful business?!
seriously you need to learn to think critically and actually question what is said by media and politicians.
talk about conpiracy theories…you seriously think most of the commentators here are paid for their views?! get a grip man.
Luke great hardship WILL be imposed on people if the greens policies get up …i didnt say they had been, fortunately few of these loonie ideas have actually got through yet…ie ETS/ CARBON TAX ( will it change temperature? clearly no, but lets push up everybodies bills any way, smart meters..yes being installed but are you aare to run them uses the same electricity as a large fridge?…and the technology as yet does not allow households to see how much energy appliances are actually using!?..exactly what they were supposedly designed for).
the only good thing to come out of the greens getting into bed with labor is the media might actually focus on their wealth destroying policies.
Luke,
It’s actually rather cute that you, as an emo Hansen fanboi, surge to the rescue of Oxburgh (if he can be rescued), like someone hell-bent on saving little kitty-cats and so forth.
Come out and tell us, Luke, Oxburgh never said those things.
Come on, Luke, tell us those are not real quotes.
You keep wanting me to supply real quotes, and then, when they’re supplied, you accuse me of the arcane misdeed of quote-mining.
Luke, you need to supply a rationale for not quoting people. People have been quoting each other for at least 5,000 years. You need to explain why this is bad.
Apologies to everyone else, I understand that Luketrolldesk knows nothing, and says nothing, but the emo fanboi CAGW hive-mind needs to get reminded every so often that making sense is an appropriate activity.
Anyone here notice that ‘Luke’ has not used the f-word and other words in that ‘genre’ of late?
Looks like we are dealing with yet another ‘Luke’.
A CAGWer independently discovering the benefits of polite discussion would be a huge anomaly.
Toby; as an ex tech, I phoned Conroy’s team every other day to give them the benefit of my practical experience in spectrum restructure during big comms systems rollout nation wide. Buz word during that little campaign peak was ‘connectivity’ for all. Btw I choose to stay with Telstra ADSL despite Transac cable in our back yard in order to know our common limitations.
C’mon Schiller, thats childish!
Gavin,
You’re unmistakable, with incoherent Alzheimer rambling that’s quite unique. At least you don’t cuss like a sailor.
Luke on the other hand has any number of personae. But when there’s 80 Billion dollar$ floating about, you can hire as many Lukes as you want.
‘Coal Has a Future in Australia’. My gosh. Who knew? It was slated for ‘responsible’ elimination.
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2010/09/coal-has-future-in-australia.html
Of course, Australians might shortly face extinction with the carbon-credit-for-abortion scheme:
http://abortioncarboncredits.blog.com/ Good money when you can find it!
That will have to compete with the The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement,
http://www.vhemt.org/ but they don’t pay money. So that’s not much competition.
Gavin, it looks like once again i have wasted my time responding to what you say because you ignored all teh facts provided and still appear to want to stick with our initial comment about developing regional Australia…yes do it but do it with something that will actually create real benefits.
I heard conroy on abc yday saying that rolling out NBN in new england would create millions of dollars of benefits….yes but at how many hundreds of millions of cost?!
the world is seriously mad……
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/greens-fight-labor-on-uranium/story-fn59niix-1225921514002
another example of how crazy the greens actually are. They want us to cut co2, but the only cheap reliable way to do this, nuclear, they want to stop!
Instead they want us to use old innefficient technology like wind and ethanol.
Or try this one http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/worried-about-big-slugs-try-a-carbon-tax/comments-e6frg6zo-1225921437822
on how inept are pollies are at actually doing what they set out to do.
money is no object with these fools and you arent worried?
Toby,
Money isn’t an object when it’s other people’s money and you can take as much as you want from them, completely legally.
Although, Margaret Thatcher once famously observed, ‘The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.’
Smart gal.
Perhaps this Gavin http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/aunty-is-mistaken-but-not-malicious/story-e6frg6zo-1225921441996
may profoke you into some critical thinking. You seem to get much of your information from “aunty”, perhaps if you spent more time thinking about the rubbish they spruke, and less on trying to convert “us” on this blog you might actually learn something…and visiting some more sceptical blogs with an open mind might also make you a more informed and rational thinker?
Schiller, Yes maggie certainly did an excellent job in her first term, she did lose the plot a bit as time progressed, but that quote of yours always seems appropriate when we look at Australian politics as well…..and your own!
its gonna get a whole lot worse before it gets better over here me thinks…..
The Japanese are predicting a very BIG WET in the top end over the next three months.
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/model/probfcst/4mE/fcst/fcst_gl.html
While BOM thinks precipitation will be neutral.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/ahead/rain_ahead.shtml
The 1998 El Nino was very strong and produced a sharp temperature spike, but La Nina was hot on its tail. This is not so unusual and there are similarities with the present.
The Japanese predict increased rainfall across Indonesia and a disappearance of rainfall across the east-central equatorial Pacific, as in 1998. In line with this proposition, we can expect above-normal rains across northwestern, eastern, and northern Australia.
Just making the point that BOM is behind the times.
Whoooa Toby; I don’t bother with the Australian any time these days, so give your rants another foundation hey. To help you understand where I get my info from, Let’s go back to last weekend. On Saturdays I cruise the garage sales and chat with families just arrived, about to leave or plainly downsizing. Given I can fix just about anything I take on quite a few projects with the aim of recycling much of their household junk come valuables, thus I’m constantly analyzing our consumerism and other expectations.
On Sundays I offer it back after a hectic Saturday sorting, improving and in many cases restoring in an effort to find what others want from their regular cruise through Trash n Treasure.
This Sunday I asked a young lady with a bit of an accent where she came from and what she was doing in our city with her partner, possibly a local. Turns out she is a recent immigrant from Canada so I asked the usual questions re AGW and personal experience of climate change and sure I got the usual answer, yes yes to both issues from both people i.e. NH & SH in one!. Next question was about the Canadian Government and its position re AGW. Her big smile said a lot!
To be quite sure that the younger set had the proper clues I asked a more mature couple next to another regular from Afghanistan the same questions; do you believe..and how do you know… Their answers involved greater frequencies and bigger events. Career sailors now stationed in town with two lovely young girls to educate did not hesitate!
I won’t go on, cheers.
More drivel Toby – Barry Brooks, Hansen and Emmanuel are very much on about nuclear.
And obviously you’ve never played with new Sierra card wireless and had to put up with it – yes you enjoy wireless – what shit – do the job once and right with fibre.
Fibre lasting 15 years !!! – mate what crap.
Luke,
Here is another opinion. If you are relaxed about our govt spending taxpayer dollars on wild schemes well you must be losing it.
“I am a network architect for one of Australia ’s largest Telco’s – so I speak with some authority on this issue.
Here are the technical reasons this will fail :
1) fibre optic cable has a maximum theoretical lifespan of 25 years when installed in conduit. Over time, the glass actually degrades (long story), and eventually it cant do it`s bouncing of light thing any more. But when you install fibre outside on overhead wiring (as will be done for much of Australia ’s houses, except newer suburbs with underground wiring), then the fibre degrades much quicker due to wind, temperature variation and solar/cosmic radiation. The glass in this case will last no more than 15 years. So after 15 years, you will have to replace it. Whereas the copper network will last for many decades to come. Fibre is not the best technology for the last mile. That`s why no other country has done this.
2) You can not give every house 100Mbps. If you give several million households 100Mbps bandwidth, then you have exceeded the entire bandwidth of the whole internet. In reality, there is a thing called contention. Today, every ADSL service with 20Mbps has a contention ratio of around 20:1 (or more for some carriers). That means, you share that 20Mbps with 20 other people. It`s a long story why, but there will NEVER be the case of people getting 100Mbps of actual bandwidth. Not for several decades at current carrier equipment rates of evolution. The “Core” can not and will not be able to handle that sort of bandwidth. The 100Mbps or 1Gbps is only the speed from your house to the exchange. From there to the Internet, you will get the same speeds you get now. The “Core” of Australia ’s network is already fibre (many times over). And even so, we still have high contention ratios. Providing fibre to the home just means those contention ratios go up. You will not get better download speeds.
3) new DSL technologies will emerge. 15 years ago we had 56k dial-up. Then 12 years ago we got 256k ADSL, then 8 years ago 1.5Mbps ADSL2, then 5 years ago 20Mbps ADSL2+. There are already new DSL technologies being experimented on that will deliver over 50Mbps on the same copper we have now. $zero cost to the tax payer
4) 4G wireless is being standardised now. The current 3G wireless was developed for voice and not for data, and even so it can deliver up to 21Mbps in Australia . There are problems with it, but remember that it was developed for voice. The 4G standard is specifically being developed for data, and will deliver 100Mbps bandwidth with much higher reliability (yes, the same contention issues apply mentioned earlier). $zero cost to the tax payer
5) The “NBN” will be one of the largest single networks ever built on earth. There are only a few companies who could do it – Japan ’s Nippon NTT, BT, AT&T;, Deutsche Telekom etc. Even Telstra would struggle to built something on this scale. Yet we are led to believe that the same people who cant build school halls or install insulation without being ripped off are going to to do it ??? Here at Telstra, we are laughing our heads off !! Because when it all comes crumbling down, after they have spent $60+billion and the network is no more than 1/2 complete, it will be up to Telstra to pick up the pieces ! (shhhh don’t tell anyone, it`s our secret)”
Google ( I am a network architect for one of Australia ’s largest Telco’s + 2010) finds this comment on page one “I was wondering when that email chain letter might appear on the forums. And here we are…!”
http://www.itnews.com.au/News/230733,qld-government-leaves-broadband-to-katter.aspx
Spangles: I said to an appropriate contact a few days back, Telstra was hardly likely to ever promote our proposed NBN over their tired old copper backbone (spread as it is out in the suburbs). Also on the wireless thingy, I had to be enlightened up front on new spectrum techniques as proposed with CDMA after Analogue closed down.
Thinking improved traffic density was a priority (CDMA v GSM) for digital I slotted our first city trials in between rearranged STL’s. That’s history now. What we can say in hindsight, gen 4 mobile needs precious low end spectrum to get far in anybody’s new network.
In any response to that email, think of the comms bottleneck at the mobile towers and the satellites before condemning outright the proposed backbone based on fresh glass connections everywhere. Btw I we own the whole thing from start to woe there can be no excuse for lack of service anywhere and that should include the last 10% of would be customers
Spanglers – you’re parroting recycled blog bilge. With no attribution either – tsk tsk tsk. What a load of bunk from LNP central pay for comment propaganda control.
Reality is that peak speeds of wireless and DSL bear no resemblance to the real world experience.
http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/archive/1515125
Anyway – the NBN is way beyond general web surfing – the medical, on-line education, business opportunities are considerable. “Download speeds” – yes that’s about the mentality. Would be typical of rightist creeps to play wreckers.
So tell us Spanglers – what specific experience do you have with the Sierra Wireless 306 ?
Tell us how many Mbps?
Luke,
For someone that bleeds over a bit of drought relief to farmers you don’t make much sense.
and gavin,
No one knows what the cost blowout on this will be but on past form it’ll be twice as much for half the service. If we’re lucky.
It should cost taxpayers nothing, only the service fee, not 40-100 bil.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Andrew Montford, apparently.
In ‘The Climategate Inquiries’ (pdf, 54 pp.) Montford details the failings of the three UK inquiries into the Hadley CRU.
http://www.thegwpf.org/images/stories/gwpf-reports/Climategate-Inquiries.pdf
“Gone are the times when the “authorities” could largely assert their message without challenge using their superior resources, and thereby ensure that difficult issues remain hidden”, says Lord Turnbull in his Foreword to the report.
And here’s Montford’s short and plain statement of the report’s conclusions:
All inquiries have now reported and, as I show in the pages below, there can be little doubt that none of them have performed their work in a way that is likely to restore confidence in the work of CRU. None has managed to be objective and comprehensive. None has shown a serious concern for the truth. The best of them – the House of Commons inquiry – was cursory and appeared to exonerate the scientists with little evidence to justify such a conclusion. The Oxburgh and Russell inquiries were worse.
In 228 numbered paragraphs, with 119 footnotes, Montford has presented a clear outline for proceedings, should the Science Assessment Panel reconvene to conduct a thorough inquiry.
I was wondering if any of you folks Down Under did any investing in the weather futures markets.
http://www.cmegroup.com/trading/weather/temperature/australian-seasonal-weather-cooling_contract_specifications.html#prodType=undefined
All this concern about Aussies and the expense of implementing renewable fuels ideas is way overblown, obviously. You folks are so rich you don’t know what to do with your excess money…
Australian taxpayers foot $2.3m bill for audience’s trip Down Under
Daily Mail (UK)
Sept. 14, 2010
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1312002/Fury-Australian-taxpayers-foot-2-3m-Oprahs-gift.html#ixzz0zXCx7puW
Oprah Winfrey is well-known for giving expensive gifts to the audience members on her show.
And the crowd [of 300] on Monday’s episode, which was the premiere of her 25th and final season, were not disappointed.
When Oprah she was sending them all on an all-expenses-paid trip to Australia, the audience went wild, clapping and cheering and even crying.
But it seems Oprah failed to mention that the ‘gift’ is actually being paid for by the Australian tourist board.
According to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, the trip will cost local taxpayers more than $2.3 million. And John Travolta himself will be piloting the plane.
I actually feel sorry for you guys. John Travolta is a Scientologist, and Oprah fans are loons. The notion of turning 300 of them loose on an innocent population is sadistic. Although they do blend well with gang-greens and warmists.
Skimmer; you are being positivly tiresome as usual and a waste of blog space.
Spangles; I was positivly unimpressed when you hoisted that election scum but it did cause me to look for sources and comments which were about 50/50, not bad considering the normal Bolt audience etc.
It’s quite clear why the far right depend on such crap in their campaigns, they expect the average guy to be as gullible as they are.
Btw we don’t seem to get the gals interested so you don’t know what half the population is thinking about such matters. Herself for one, gets very annoyed with everything that starts from a religion.
Fiber for the bush? Yes please.
talking of climate change, Ryanair’s Michael O’Leary thinks like me.
http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/global-warming-is-bullstsays-ryanair-boss-oleary-2333336.html
The Montford report on the three UK climategate whitewashes has gone viral, nearly on a par with the first news of the ‘liberated’ CRU emails. MSM accounts are found with the BBC, The Guardian, and The Telegraph.
At the same time, blogs are swarming on this issue, beyond counting. Well, nearly. 156 Google hits on the reviewing-whitewash-reviewers topic in the last 24 hrs.
The Montford review of reviews delivers a series of crushing blows to the climatology cult at the heart of CAGW.
This is lovely to behold. The triumph of science over ideology reinforces the notion that humans are not all that bad after all, and can even be smart.
More decline due to Climategate, this time it’s poor old Al and his Sci Fi presentations.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/14/another-%e2%80%9cunprecedented%e2%80%9d-decline-due-to-climategate/#more-24858
Interesting stuff from Ken Stewart looking at the BOM adjusted data, I hope some of the more intelligent people here can have a read and give us their response to his hard work.
http://joannenova.com.au/2010/09/australian-temperatures-in-cities-adjusted-up-by-70/#more-10263
Schiller,
That Montford Report is a stunner.The round up by Andrew Turnbull is also vg
Like the last para:
” There is a final lesson to be drawn from the inquiries and Andrew Montford’s
report. Gone are the times when the “authorities” could largely assert their
message without challenge using their superior resources, and thereby ensure
that diffi cult issues remain hidden.
We increasingly live in the world of Erin Brockovich versus Pacific Gas and Electric or David versus Goliath, where committed individuals with few resources can dig away at an issue.
Armed with strengthened rights to information and the forensic power of the internet
they will eventually get to the truth and quick but superficial inquiries will not
stand in their way.”
One would hope that the ” ethos of suffocating group think ” that also pervades AGW here in Australia might also wake up to these same realities.
They could start by cleaning up their act, by firstly purging the IPCC, cleaning up Peer Review, revisit the way research funds are allocated, clean up the public awards system and then perhaps then they might move on to start using honest definitions of what constitutes Climate Change, and finally stop Parliamentarions from both sides mis- using the terms.
As most of them are legally qualified the latter shouldnt be too hard.
Why?
Malcolm is that ‘why’ meant for me, if so then I plead guilty to asking what fellow bloggers here think of Ken’s results.
Given at least 90% of the debate here is about the climate over the last 100 years and temp variation, then raw data and adjusted data could be interesting perhaps as it applies to Australia.
Here’s another topical issue, I’ve just checked my adsl speed and it comes in at a whopping fast 1.3mbps. So I’d just like to ask , has anyone here got a slower speed?
http://www.zdnet.com.au/broadband/speedtest.htm
Neville
I was impressed by Darwin.
http://kenskingdom.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/darwin-adj.jpg
Ken is doing a great job and deserves a medal.
Luke, are those names you mention part of the australian greens party ? No I didnt think so so stop creating straw men and read what I actually say, not what you want to think i am actually saying….the greens are complete hypocrites. They want to cut co2 but refuse to consider nuclear and want to ban all uranium mining even though its a seriously viable base load provider of power . They refuse to let us build dams despite some 90% of the renewable energy produced in this country coming from hydro! They even want to shut down lucas heights despite the health systems unquestionable need for their material. They are completely loopy and pander to any crackpot idea.
I read a clever comment recently that suggested we let adam bandts electorate live the green dream.
Do you think anybody would ever vote green again if they actually had to live the way the greens policies would have us live?!
Gavin you read the canberra times, no wonder you dont like the sensible australian newspaper and no wonder you have been so sucked in by CAGW.
Gavin most people that say they are worried about CAGW have not investigated the issue, they just choose to believe the biased reporting and science from the media and IPCC and the propoganda of AIT. It doesnt take much digging and critical thinking to discover there is serious doubt over the C in AGW….most people dont have the time or inclination to think for themselves….how else could so many people vote green?
ironic but the first article i link to in the mighty oz newspaper is this… http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/hypocrites-greens-would-block-clean-power-sources/story-e6frg71x-1225922933832
maybe i like the oz because they think like me…..or maybe its just because they can actually see the big picture through all the bullshit!
Luke and gavin,
I live in the “bush” within sight of the capital yet my ADSL2 is on a kilometer of copper slung beneath h/v power lines running through wet and dry forest in very steep country.
You can’t put it underground because tree-roots would wreck the conduit yet bushfires periodically burn the lines [storm damage too].
This is just a tiny part of the millions of problems that the NBN is faced with and I’m not even one of the 3% who live in the difficult 97% of the continent. I’m one of the 97% who live in the “easy” 3% of the continent.
And now they’re gonna do that difficult 97% first!
If you jokers think this govt with its present form can tackle a job like this and still have an asset that can be privatised, you gotta be on something.
BTW my so called 20mbps delivers 3mbps.
Toby,
It’s a pity that when the greens embrace James Hansen they dont want to acknowledge his nuclear “skeleton”.
I also agree with you about the Oz and hopefully these watermelons will now get displayed in their true colours for all to see.
Sorry Neville about the why ?
I was actually expressing some frustration with the blog for putting a post I had done, into the ” under consideration loop” ..which it seems to do randomly.
I was making comments supporting Schillers exposure of this document:
http://www.thegwpf.org/images/stories/gwpf-reports/Climategate-Inquiries.pdf
The Forward by Lord Turnbull had a very interesting final para
“We increasingly live in the world of Erin Brockovich versus Pacific Gas and Electric or David versus Goliath, where committed individuals with few resources can dig away at an issue. Armed with strengthened rights to information and the forensic power of the internet
they will eventually get to the truth and quick but superfi cial inquiries will not
stand in their way. Andrew Montford’s report is such an example and the authorities
would do well to accord it the respect it deserves.”
I then went on to say something along the lines it is a pity that the climataria havent woken up to this fact etc etc.
Good link neville demonstrating how CAGW is losing momentum around the world as measured by the climate group conferences.
Spangled copper can actually generate very fast speeds if you are close enough to a fibre node so infact households could still use the copper wire to access fast broadband at a massively reduced cost of national installation. In the bush you need to build a lot more towers which are expensive but will be much cheaper and will still allow for very fast downloads speeds because of the limited number of users.
But of course telstra will be forced to turn off the copper network. have we learnt nothing about monopolies and competition over the last century!?
How Conroy can have the gall to spruik introductory prices when the providers will be charged nothing for access over the trial/ introductory period is classic poliiebabble and perfect for people incapable of thinking critically.
Turnbull this morning was suggesting that the comment from conroy yday that the roll out in tassie had come in 10% under budget, was infact cherry picking because conroy neglected to point out that fewer than 50% of houses had been connected and yet 90% of the budget had been spent! The ABC had this to say…
“There are calls to make the National Broadband Network’s budget more transparent after stage one of the rollout saw 90 per cent of funds used to connect just 50 per cent of houses.
Communications Minister Senator Stephen Conroy says stage one of the national rollout in Tasmania has gone according to plan.
“We came in on budget, in fact, 10 per cent under budget and on time,” he said.
That means almost all the budget was used to connect only the 50 per cent of homes which opted to have broadband fibre optic cable installed.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/09/14/3011388.htm?site=northtas§ion=news
And the cost of this rollout is 500,000 per household!….do you think we might have been able to spend that money in a more appropriate way?
I read last week the cost to rollout NBN in New England is around 22,000 per household.
There is a lot in common between NBN and CAGW….a lack of common sense!…and yes luke you can say “drivel” again if you want but it will not change the veracity of what i say.
Intersting that you mention watermelons SD, I was informed last week that clive hamilton that pin up boy of the “greens” and CAGW, was kicked out of ANU for preaching communism at Korean students.
Long may the Australian put the spot light on these lunatics.
As we always suspected, coral reefs regenerate very quickly after bleaching.
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2010/09/13/coral-bleaching/
Toby can safely tell his students the Queensland tourist industry is safe.
Malcolm Hill
To get your post appear instantly as usual, you MUST type in your Email address and your name as registered, any deviation, even one letter out will make you wait for approval.
=========================
spangled drongo “3mbps”
You are doing well, I’m almost close enough to pee on the exchange here in Melbourne and the average speed is about 2mbps on adsl 2
Must say though, I’m happy with the speed. No downloading movies or such, but even MS service packs take only minutes.
At work we have the same ADSL2 connection and so far we need no more, although there is a very fast Telstra connection available in the building.
Toby; you belittle your fellows when thinking for them
Spangles; don’t be so sure the NBN co expects to be privatised. Yes, they can sell traffic in blocks while offering a variety of means at the end of our fiber. I bet the private sector will go for it as hosts and seek interconnections everywhere for their mobile networks etc.
Toby; if you wan’t to stay with us, you need to brush up on the costs of implementing other infrastructure projects like electricity, telephone, natural gas, water and sewage to the home. However my advice on the seeing difference between these and is the last one (NBN) as a national project is it’s designed to run backwards from the lesser towns in the regions. Therefore ask first which towns and what regions have natural gas in the pipeline. Also what homes have no electricity from the grid.
Did anyone hear Turnbull slip out these words “National Broadcast Network” ??? Some work to do there too it seems
tw I love yuo all so much i’m reading & typind with one eye bandaged and no glasses
Jonathan,
I’m about 3k from the exchange and my speed used to be about 2mbps but when I signed a 2 year contract with Telstra recently my bill went down and my speed went up. May not last though.
“Our” ABC are claiming this could backfire on the GOP but I’m not so sure.
More like the “Abbott Effect” to me.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/09/14/hours-polls-close-gloves-come-delaware/
gav,
By the time NBN is finished [if ever] this lot will be so far in the poo they will have to settle for 10cents in the dollar. [and they’ll be scratching to show a return even then]
But to raise funds to provide the coming green-dreams there’re gonna be some nightmare scenarios.
Tea-Party anyone?
If only Sarah was coming instead of Oprah. [figuratively speaking]
And here I was thinking it was the whale meat:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/japan/7994352/Japan-mislays-230000-centenarians.html
Antarctic blast to warm the cockles of my heart.
http://squall.sfsu.edu/gif/jetstream_sohem_00.gif
Natural climate change is so much more dynamic than silly old global warming, which appears to have stalled. It was the coldest winter in Peru for 50 years and it has been very dry throughout a lot of South America – hence the recent large fires.
Dick Whittington (sic) at the Weather Channel is comparing the present precipitation in Australia with 1973-76. Back to back La Nina.
Gavin, have you actually got a point to make that refutes anything i have said?! ….other than you obviously believe it is the duty of the government ( thats me and you …… cos its our bloody money) to provide infrastructure all over the country?
Why is it we dont have hospitals and doctors available on all aboriginal stations and “towns”? I doubt you’d find many people who dont want to offer them better care…could it be cost?
Do you think 43 billion would be better spent building 20 hospitals? ( the stated cost of a new hospital in wilkie’s seat was 1 billion but lets allow an extra billion for all teh equipment eh,…whats a billion here or there its only money…..)
Or maybe renewable energy ( no thx but im sure you would like that?)
Or a real education revolution?
or…?
The NBN was scratched together on the spur of the moment.
It should surely be an obligation to demonstrate real benefits and to consider alternatives before spending such a vast sum of money…..Or do you think government should just spend money?…why for instance dont we provide sewage and electricity for every house in Australia?…could it be the costs outweigh the benefits?
Are you aware for instance that we have sent $35 million to pakistan to help them in a genuine time of need. And yet the govt is happy to spend 43 b on something most of us will never need ( super fast download). They have wasted billions on the BER but we only donated 35m! ( that may have changed in the last week and now Rudd is on his way it will hopefully increase dramatically in my opinion)
Why Gavin do fewer than 15% of businesses with access to fast broadband currently avail themselves of it, if its so beneficial to productivity and will reap such significant benefits?
Do you seriously think in 5 or 10 years time that new technology will not have made fibre “old technology”? The pace of change in communications has been enormous over the last decade and without any government assistance, so why step in now and create a government enterprise at such huge expense?
It could be there really are benefits, but I have spent a lot of time reading up on it and it sure seems hard to justify to me…I could be wrong but dont i and others have a right to get some idea of the quantifiable benefits …we know the costs they are huge! Do the benefits run close?…would the libs 6.3 b provide significant benefits at a fraction of the cost?…Do you trust this government to actually build it and make it work? ( They cant even get their cabinet right!, we know they stuffed up insulation and the BER, but you think they can build and run a communications network?)
Is it unreasonable that Australian tax payers have the opportunity to assess the benefits versus the costs for themselves?
Why do socialists lack the capacity to understand anything about money?…oh thats right because most of them never have any and it is so easy to spend other peoples money.
Re broadband access:
I live out in the countryside, where population density is low. Access to the internet is strictly governed by the marketplace of Internet Service Providers.
There is no DSL, fiber, or even cable TV, the latter capable of internet access, because the cost of installing the requisites is higher than they can justify economically.
Thus, my only option for ‘broadband’ is via satellite, with a dish.
My ‘broadband’ runs at 940 kbps.
There is good cell phone reception here, and the newer stuff is optimized for data transmission, so I’m considering using that for connection, instead of the satellite.
So, basically, that’s the situation you would have ‘in the bush’ if you want your system to ‘pay for itself’.
“super fast download” meaning Toby fundamentally doesn’t get it.
“Is it unreasonable that Australian tax payers have the opportunity to assess the benefits versus the costs for themselves?”
– it’s called “an election”. That’s over. It was a significant issue. Get over it !!!
“Why do socialists lack the capacity to understand anything about money?” – your slip is showing you 19th century rightist scrooge – so how was the economy faring – oh never mind….
zzzzzzzzzz
Toby,
The issues you raise are by no means simple.
For instance, there is no doubt that it’s a government job to supply roads for transportation. This in spit of the fact that not everyone has an automobile.
It’s also generally accepted that the government should supply roads for high-speed traffic, even though streets and dirt roads are available.
The fact that much of business and commerce is increasingly dependent upon internet access makes the internet/transportation analogy somewhat reasonable. In my situation, where private enterprise yields very meager ‘broadband’ access, it is nonetheless true that it is not a government creation, and it works. At slower speed than is available to others (also via the private sector), but I have it nonetheless.
I find your concern about fiber optics etc. being outdated in a few years to be the most persuasive. The bit rate I find slow today would have been considered blindingly fast a few years ago, and meanwhile, there are cell phone bit rates which leave my satellite connection in the dust.
I personally would oppose the government installing an internet infrastructure for only one reason: if they install it, they govern it, and who knows what they then might be tempted to do with that governance? Nothing very good, I would think.
Toby said: Why is it we dont have hospitals and doctors available on all aboriginal stations and “towns”?
It has nothing to do with cost, doctors have been offered monstrous salaries to go bush, but they prefer city life. Out my way the docs are often young or from overseas, getting the runs on the board before returning to the big smoke.
Building a hospital with plenty of beds (but no doctors) is straight out of ‘Yes Minister’.
Folks, this is extremely cool [sic].
Scientists unmask ‘Ghost Mountains’ of Antarctica at last, Newsdesk, 15 September 2010
aychteeteepeecolondoublerightslashnewsdesk[dot]o_r_g/2010/09/scientists-unmask-ghost-mountains-of-antarctica-at-last/
Scientists at the International Polar Year conference in Norway this week revealed startling new images of the Gamburtsev Mountain Range of Antarctica, a huge and mysterious “ghost range” buried beneath more than a mile of ice.
The images are the result of radar technology, and reveal a dramatic landscape of rocky summits, deep river valleys, and liquid, not frozen, lakes, all hidden beneath the ice. The range itself rivals the Alps in size and cover an area that is roughly the size of New York State.
Anyone want to venture a guess on how much CO2 it would take to melt all that pesky ice out of the way?
Anyone want to venture a guess on what it would take to have palm trees flourishing on Antarctica, as in days past, without ‘melting the planet into thermal oblivion’?
As usual, Luke will have a reply to this request, in his usual cerebral style.
Well Schiller in the race for slow broadband you’ve trumped me with your 0.9 mbps, but I’d still like to know from adsl 2 customers what their best speeds are, Gav , Luke anyone?
I see bhp has come out this morning calling for a carbon tax because we must do something about CC mitigation, what a bloody joke these people are, but Bob Brown is happy as a pig in dung.
Still gives Abbott an advantage if he sticks to his guns and tells the public the blindingly obvious truth about this fraud.
http://www.weeklytimesnow.com.au/article/2010/09/16/234025_latest-news.html
Just a thought about BBand, last night I watched part of the latest Dr Zhivago (Kiera Knightley, Sam Neill) on youtube, not one problem and a very sharp picture, though not full HD of course.
I can watch video like this with my 1.3mbps speed so how much faster do we need than adsl 2 which is supposed to be up to 25mbps?
In the meantime there are many articles online claiming that in a few years we will have at least 40mbps or faster using wireless at a fraction of the cost of the NBN.
Thanks Neville, just following on from that.
The big BHP story is about thermal coal, used for electricity generation, and unless something strange has happened over the past few years I suspect a slight-of-hand by Kloppers (sic).
http://www.bhpbilliton.com/bbContentRepository/070313indianthermalcoalimportsprospect.pdf
El, the “sleight-of-hand” by Kloppers is simple; he, like Combet, is talking to 2 markets; the internal one to keep the feral greens on side and the rest of the world who will still keep gobbling our coal. The meat in the sandwich are us poor buggars who will be paying more for less until johnny voter wakes up and sees the greens for what they are: mad.
cohenite: Kloppers is barking mad. Can’t he grasp that the MRRT – on oil and coal mining – is already a carbon tax? How many more such taxes does he want? No wonder Bob Brown was ecstatic on ABC news.
Luke I get it much more than you get “it” i suspect. sure business and hospitals etc may benefit from this infrastructure….but why should i and the public pay for it….and why do so few actually use it where it is currently available. And dont go suggesting the unknown benefits, you arent that stupid. We all have a right to know how we will benefit from this massive investment.
You say very stupidly imo that the election was about this. What you actually think it was explained? You actually think they have spelled out the benefits? You actually trust them to build it?
How can we have made a rational decision when no cost benefit analysis was done? and comparing it to things like the electricity grid, or sewage or harbour bridge is a cop out. There were very significant and easily explained benefits that were actually tangible, even if they were hard to place a financial figure on.
Look at how far we have come in 10 years and tell me it wont be old technology by the time its built.
I live 15 mins from the outskirts of melbourne and can only get adsl, yet i can run a trading platform, view youtube with minimal buffering times etc etc. Why should i pay for you to “drive a ferrari” when your old holden worked just fine?
as per your comment re socialism etc, perhaps you can explain why labor governments have never created a surplus to pay for the “bad” times when it is needed?…and having 1 surplus in 20 years does not count. spending other peoples money is easy.
EG you are right about doctors not wanting to go bush ( i was trying…obviously badly to suggest there might be better things to send 43 b on), my sister cant even get dr’s in canberra for her practice without paying them 80% of their fee, effectively it costs her to employ dr’s. There needs to be a massive injection of money into training more dr’s and nurses, particularly as our populations ages. But heh its much better to spend it on the NBN…….
Schiller, i agree that the government has a job to provide infrastructure and services, particularly when they are not commercially viable. But dont they have a duty to do so on a value for money basis? And if so shouldnt they be able to demonstrate the costs and benefits of their proposal as well as considering alternatives and the value for money that they offer?….It could be NBN is the way to go, but from my investigation I am far from convinced and I have good friends in the communication industry, including an ex director of optus ( now retired and a multi millionaire so his hip pocket is not the issue) who is losing sleep over what he believes to be gross incompetence and stupidity.
i am blocked at school from visiting your “alps” ..i will try from home.thx
Guys; don’t follow the leader by repeating the usual mistake in discussing only the download speed of your network connection.
It’s been my view for a while that a digital age network like the proposed NBN must cater for significant uploads from the majority of customers including my grand kid’s (numerous) HD movies, my medical records including all the x-rays to some common health data point and a pile of detail on a daily basis from the brightest and most creative graduates who decide to work more or less from home.
If only I could remember half the theory and groundings in technology, there would be an independent network of peripheral devices giving us a real-time pictures of agriculture and climate minute by minute downunder.
When data up is equal to or greater than data down it becomes easier to see why we need the entire emf spectrum at our fingertips
Schiller, it is a worry thinking about what the govt could do if it can control the internet….the same govt that wants to build this network also wants to impose an internet filter that will slow downloads considerably negating the benefit of their 43 b investment!….
They are also forcing us to install smart meters on our electricity supposedly so that we can see how much each appliance is uisng and helps us to cut our usage. Just a couple of simpel problems so far, they dont actually allow us to see how much energy each appliance uses ( even though that is how it has been sold to us) and the meter uses over a year a similar amount of electricity to a large fridge!
beware big brother ……
Had to laugh and laugh at your rightist propaganda Toby. And you still don’t get it !
essjay over at the Drum has the drum
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/09/16/3013119.htm?site=thedrum
“Labor is NOT proposing to spend $43 billion of taxpayers money. The figure is $26 billion with the remainder coming from private investment.
As for the Coalition providing value for money, consider that as reported by Treasury in 2008, the Howard Government blew $314 billion (94%) of a $340 billion China/economic windfall buying votes with baby bonuses, tax cuts etc in the 2.5 years from the 2004/5 Budget until 2007. That’s spending of $350 million PER DAY and for which we have absolutely nothing to show for it. $314 billion could have built the NBN 7.31 times over!
Turnbull wrote yesterday what Abbott wanted to hear. Abbott and Co are continuing where they left off in the last parliament – to wantonly oppose and obstruct anything and everything, and to carp, whine and be completely negative – the only one consistent policy that they’ve had for 3 years., borne not out of any sense of duty to the nation, but simply out of sour grapes.
The Coalition aren’t interested in parliamentary process, or debate over policy. They want power at ANY cost and will destroy anyone or anything that gets in their way.”
and stacks of others …. rightist clowns …. wreckers – not builders – frigging typical
You galoots would have also opposed the Snowy Scheme too.
And Crispydog
“Abbott’s a reactionary. First it was “stop the boats”, and now it’s “stop the bytes”.
Ably assisted by (non)-Citizen Rupert, (and let’s be really frank here, the crumbiest media ‘groupthink’ of ‘our’ ABfrigginC), Abbott was almost pushed into power. I say pushed because the voters who deserted Labor, mostly went Green and the Coalition picked up the leftovers. There was no overwhelming attraction to a message of fear and blatant lying about Australia’s economic health or the supposed ‘incompetence’ of the previous government.
Abbott’s “message” did not appeal, even with the massive help from both the ‘pernicious’ press (John Menadue’s description of The Australian) or the befuddled ‘balanced’ ABC.
So now we have, by accident almost, a government which actually represents the majority of voters ie Labor/Green, and no matter how strange the manner of it’s birth, we get to live with it.
Which brings us to the reactionary Mr Abbott, whose behaviour is entirely predictable: on a good thing, stick to it. Or, so he thinks.
The world is, despite the Liberal Party, going to move on. (Note: I did not say ‘move forward’!). The economy is not ‘ruined’, far from it, our public debt is still minuscule and employment is gaining on the right metrics (full-time jobs are up, hours worked).
Abbott/Murdoch can keep up the ‘sky is falling’ routine for a certain period, but eventually even the punters will stop listening.
The NBN will not only be ‘on the ground’ it will be in the ground, and the case against the national interest will be very hard to make. The biggest cost benefit to Australia? Well remember that thing called the ‘tyranny of distance’? Well, now forget about it again. For the first time in 200 hundred years the nation will be mapped into one network of instantaneous high capacity communications, which will shrink that tyranny by some orders of magnitude. It will take much of the ‘remoteness’ out of ‘remote’ Australia.
Offset the ‘cost’ with the enormous ‘benefit’ of a capital expenditure of some $26 billion dollars of public money (the rest is private capital) over many decades of this infrastructure, and you have a 2.6% of GDP investment (in round numbers) amortised over a very long period.
Arguing, as we heard Abbott say yesterday, that Australia ‘cannot afford’ the NBN, is another lie, right up there with ‘our huge government debt’.
When Australians stop listening to “we can’t”, and start enjoying the benefits of ‘we can’, Mr Abbott’s reactionary strategy is dead in the water.
And Malcolm? If he thought the Godwin Grech affair was an embarrassment to him, then get ready for the smack down he’ll get when we get our NBN.”
kack !
Neville – me – 8Mbps ADSL2 (alas end of the line from the exchange ….)
But guys the NBN isn’t about piddling around watching Youtube, blogging or downloading your Windows updates. Dabbling in Linux isn’t even a problem at my speeds – I have download a 1 Gig Linux Mint distro in a short while. Movies – probably still to slow to be practical.
But the NBN isn’t about lay internet surfing – it’s about teleconferencing – no – telepresence – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcfNC_x0VvE
and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akzNWS5dygQ&feature=related (corny eh). But serious reduction in carbon footprint. And travel costs.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7IojFFHtiA&feature=related tele-surgery – scary eh? wouldn’t want a wireless dropout?
Multi-channel for high speed physics research http://evo.caltech.edu/evoGate/tutorials/vievo_tutorial.jsp
See research collaboration http://www.arcs.org.au/ And the research networks are already doing it http://www.aarnet.edu.au/aarnet3.aspx
But no – let’s STOP THE BYTES !
A casual question, before I make up my mind. If we had a large coronal mass ejection (CME) which system would continue to operate?
Luke giving people tax cuts is not wasting money? It is allowing individuals to chose how to use their own hard earnt money. Its stops crowding out of the private sector by inneficient and expensive govt projects…tried to get a tradie recently even though the economy slowed down?…wanna try to get a sparkie/ engineer etc when they are all ( many…) working for the NBN?
As an example of “govt pay” my sister who i have said runs a dr’s practice earns more money doing 1.5 days of consultancy work for “hospitals” than she does out of her own business that employs 5 doctors!
then they paid off 100 b in debt and paid the interest on that debt.
I do not however agree they should have created so much middle class welfare. I do not think they did much good either in their last term.
I also do not have muc time for the liberals, but i do believe in getting value for money and for anybody spending our money to be able to justify having done a cost bnefit analysis…don t you?
i have to go but will consider the rest of what you wrote later.
Folks; find this good NBN summary on wiki.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Broadband_Network#Industry_Reactions
I found it after searching on optical network and access
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_optical_network
Good friends; I can see you clearly again! Although it can be a big distraction, have faith in our constantly developing tools and technology
Yesterday I submitted to something like this but my doc won’t say how he fixes a new lens cause “its a trade secret”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phacoemulsification
Apparently my head automatically drifted away from what ever that buzzing tool was despite my conscious attempt to be still. Other patients were amused by the weird colored images we each hosted during that oh so brief but amazing ordeal
Oh yes, private enterprise is going to take up the $17 billion NBN shortfall; and to switch entirely to renewables by 2020 will only cost $37 billion pa with private enterprise again stepping up according to Melbourne Uni’s Energy research Institute. The green perspective would have as much chance of knowing about private enterprise as Dicaprio would of knowing about AGW.
Private enterprise! This from the pink batts/BER/super profit fu crew. One of your best yet luke.
Gavin you have it in a nut shell with your quote “Although it can be a big distraction, have faith in our constantly developing tools and technology “…but you want to spend 43 b on NBN, when as you point out technology is “constantly developing”… I m glad you have your eye sight back.
Did you read your link to the wiki on the NBN? It makes a very clear case under “criticism” for being somewhat concerned I would say. Thx for the link!
gavin
Surfs up in Tasmania, with 12 meter waves.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/heading-into-new-little-ice-age.htm
Just think Gavin – these antediluvian knuckle-draggers would have voted against the internet too and be blogging by carrier pigeon or smoke signal. What weeners. “wot’s an internetz Mum??”
These will explain the benefits of the Intertubes to Toby and Cohers http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_xqLaj0tvM&feature=related
Luke
“(and let’s be really frank here, the crumbiest media ‘groupthink’ of ‘our’ ABfrigginC),
or the befuddled ‘balanced’ ABC.”
Now I know you are so far to the left, to be in hollering distance of G Khan from the opposite direction.
To call the ABC supportive of the coalition is insane.
—————————————–
“But the NBN isn’t about lay internet surfing – it’s about teleconferencing – no – telepresence ”
The technology is here now, the fact it’s not used more widely is a testament to the fact that business either does not want it or that they like the perks of travel.
——————————————————-
tele-surgery – scary eh?
My word it is!
———————————–
Incidentally, I can download movies fairly fast if I want to, I just don’t need it.
Listening to you about the internet one must wonder how on earth we had any advance in general and in science in particular before the internet.
Btw my statement “we need the entire emf spectrum at our fingertips” was a lazy technical slip up unless you too can dream about mediums with out clumsy transducers
It’s all about ubiquitous national bandwidth Johnathon. Major organisations are using heaps of teleconferencing – wait till a carbon tax is inevitably introduced and the real costs of pollution externalities are internalised.
And yep gigabit internet is transforming research in a major way. International teams that can meet daily are now possible.
What happens when we all get it?
Luke
“What happens when we all get it?”
Nothing.
Luke, before you call me a Luddite, let me assure you that I’m all for advances in thech. that actually benefits us in real terms and not only makes it seems so.
I give you an example, I was working for a building company at the time when affordable mobile phones were coming on the market.
Again I have to point out that I like them very much, but the point is, their appearance did not in any way saved time or money for us. It still took as long for delivery as before, when we ordered the stuff the day before or early in the morning. Nobody had then or has now the capacity deliver a single item you might have forgotten unless you are prepared to pay through the nose, and was the same before.
We used to say “we are not getting more done but we sure talk a lot more about it”
Mobiles are great for emergencies and mobile services like car repairs and such but they had message banks before doing the same job, and if the service man was busy it didn’t matter anyway.
Now we can’t imagine how we lived without them, but we did and we did OK.
Are you telling me, that research is getting done faster now that scientists have fast internet communication? It still takes the same amount of time for experiments data collection etc…
And what if the scientist doesn’t want to share data? That happens too, you know!
Sorry Luke but I think you are getting a bit carried away here.
Gavin, I posted the wrong link over the page. Very impressive waves around Hobart.
http://www.oceanweather.com/data/
Luke; “What happens when we all get it?”
You and I can go mentoring on line with all the expressions our grand kids need
el gordo; this article is a few days old now but I suggest it’s the common view of climate change.
http://www.voanews.com/english/news/Chinas-Heavy-Rains-Blamed-on-Unusual-Climate-Patterns–101458654.html
Did anyone watch Catalyst tonight?
Gavin,
You’re behind the times. John Holdren, Obama’s ‘Science Czar’, has concluded that the proper term is ‘global climate disruption’.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/09/wh_science_czar_global_warming_1.html
http://www.americanthinker.com/james_lewis/
Dregs; Schiller dregs!
http://www.yourdictionary.com/dregs
gavin
Only Stephanie Ho was talking about global warming, the Chinese official didn’t mention it.
gavin
I used to watch Catalyst with interest, but gave them away after I realized the crew had become addicted to the green pills. That was more than a year ago.
“The first message is that ‘global warming’ is a misnomer. It implies something gradual, something uniform, something quite possibly benign. And what we are experiencing is none of those. It is rapid in relation to the capacity of societies and ecosystems to respond. It is highly non-uniform and it is certainly not benign. And that’s why I prefer the term ‘global climate disruption’ to ‘global warming.'”
John Holdren 6 Nov 2007 Obama science czar
Okay, so we are talking about natural climate variability.
What John Holdren says is of little concern however imo the slant on society published by American Thinker is enough to trigger a revolution as things deteriorate in the US
El Gordo,
You got that right, but you also got it wrong, from the standpoint of The Narrative.
Since Nature is ‘always in balance’, anything ‘highly non-uniform’ must be artificial, i.e., things humans do.
This is why ‘Climate change needs social science and humanities’, supposedly. Except that reasoning is already deeply embedded in the Climatology Narrative — it actually forms the ‘physical science’ basis for the IPCC reports.
See ‘Climate change needs social science and humanities’, Nature (blog), September 15, 2010,
http://blogs.nature.com/news/thegreatbeyond/2010/09/climate_change_needs_social_sc.html
Huh. And all this time we thought that Nature was committed to science, or at least, to scientific values.
Out, out, damn’d spot!
Gavin,
‘a revolution as things deteriorate in the US’ is well under weigh. Fox News and talk radio have eclipsed MSM as a source for information, to the point where MSM is actually no longer MSM.
On the other hand, Britain’s MSM has maintained its position of credibility by its willingness to discuss skeptical perspectives — including organic farming and the value of having Greenpeace fracking idiots running around.
At the same time, I’d say Australia has held its own in originating skeptic blogs — though the USA probably has the lead there, just on account of the size of the blogger population.
The Czechs, unbeknownst to many, are generally the first to signal the popularization of a new junk science thingie, and I would count them as worlds ahead of everyone on this. Emerging from Communism, they can spot a government con-artist game better than anyone.
So it goes.
Johnathon – well it seems that you really you don’t get it in the slightest. High speed networks are not for everyone – but in some fields like physics, earth sciences, remote sensing, bioinformatics, molecular biology and climate they’re increasing important for communication, data processing, data transfer, and distributed computation. Perhaps you could do well to familiarise yourself with AARNET – who are the reason that you actually have the current internet in Australia. Your reaction is typical of someone who would have denied technical innovation at every step – what do we need a… insert list … gene probe, satellite, laser, internet, personal computer, DVD, mobile phone …. for !!!
In fact AARNET and connection to the US, Japanese and European networks is now simply taken for granted these days ….. yes it’d not for all problems, isn’t a substitute for good thinking, some work still takes time blah blah blah …. but why not work on bigger problems with better tools and involve the world’s best brains every day??
http://www.aarnet.edu.au/
And why do I even need to tell you guys this? Are you that out of touch?
C’mon Schiller; you really don’t know these people or what they think from blogsphere. As I see it you are just a country boy still living at home with mum and no other social ties.
By contrast since I have not traveled, we often play a game of spotting the accent with locals who are prepared to chat because my mate grew up in Germany and went to a boarding school off shore that specialized in educating post war international students from all over. On the other hand I frequently worked in industry here with refugees from all over.
On the question of adaption post communism, long time acquaintances include folk from most of central European and colder states. Most don’t carry chips on their shoulders today.
Earlier this week we had another conversation with a couple who represent Slovakia as it is today, Industry, trade, climate and fuel sources were discussed at length because I was interested in how their old folk live in retirement and life in general away from major cities. One clue is they have returned to using wood as fossil fuels become more expensive.
So Schiller your thesis explains our soaring green vote and call by Australian industry for a carbon tax, not to mention the hilarious non-performance of the Dad’s Army Australian Sceptics Party in the election (now seen as as a front and simply stooges for the extreme LNP and property rights nutters) . My friend – you’re talking to yourself.
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/big-business-backs-push-to-cut-carbon-20100916-15eqq.html
Don’t shoot the messenger !
Australia can cut carbon until we drop and it’ll be a total waste of time and money, but hey Luke what would you care?
Every week that goes by while we’re committing economic suicide China and the third world are bringing another CF power station online for years/ decades into the future.
We’ll waste billions every year and even if you believe in CAGW the climate won’t alter in the slightest, it may get a bit warmer or a bit colder, more drought or less drought.
These are the real facts but try and penetrate these pig ignorant numbskulls and you’ll fail every time,
luke, I know you fling half-baked and derisory opprobrium around with such largess as only a well paid bureaucrat can, and most of them are sufficiently jejune as to be wryly and easily stepped over but your latest intriques me:
“property rights nutters”
Are there propery rights ‘non-nutters’? Should property rights not be an issue? Do you live on a commune? Why is this a topic for scorn? Do you and your ilk have Rosebud issues? Are material possessions an existential delusion? Enlighten us.
Luke
You don’t listen, just carry on with your drivel, but what’s new eh?
You seem to think that no one else but you have any intelligence or even general knowledge.
News for you, you are wrong.
This is what you voted for Gavin…and you think they are rational?
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/old-tech-nuclear-power-is-not-the-answer/comments-e6frg6zo-1225925023935
cohers,
Thanks for all your hard work of late. Great stuff!
Loopy’s contemporary Marxist philosophy allows endless public expense on NBNs et al but we must all remain children of the state and own nothing.
Materialism and private property are a no-no from which only wicked things develop. We should live the simple existence of the birds of the forest, fired only with the desire to help our fellow man and free of the baggage of civilisation.
Modern high-speed NBNs excluded, of course.
Luke and gavin,
How do ya reckon y’d both go accompanying Joan Baez?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/16/gavin-to-attend-we-shall-overcome-seminar/#more-24961
Spangles; I used reckon on your independence.
Toby; I don’t bother with the Australian
Cohers; you must be a little guy who started off in a big car
Nev; a little bit of extra tax on those cf energy sources will work wonders here
Winner on New Inventors this week is a nano water based solar paint, claimed to be very cheap to produce and could power homes, factories etc. Who knows what the future might be.
From the Uni of Newcastle. http://www.abc.net.au/tv/newinventors/txt/s3008638.htm
Too bad about the nano paint Neville; the greens won’t tolerate it; nano is bad, Prince Charlie said so, and anyway it’s too much like GM.
Gavin: I like cars.
Thanks SD; it’s a labour of disbelief.
Gavin you voted for the greens and wear the badge proudly. Yet you want us to to cut co2. The idiot green scott ludlam basically makes a statement that all nuclear is wrong and evil because all 400 power stations use 1940 technology and they were all designed to produce nuclear weapons!…read the comments for some insight into just how ignorant and emotive the greens are.
For instance 650g co2 are produced for every kwh from wind, but only 90g from nuclear….but we shouldnt even have a discussion according to teh greens! And you support these nuts?
property rights = storing as much water as you can on your place, emitting as much as possible downstream, capitalising gains and socialising losses
http://www.climatechange.qld.gov.au/climatechange/whatisclimatechange.html
I see that Mr Walkers mates in the Qld Public Service use the thoroughly dishonest definition of climate change, so that like all the frauds in Climataria, they can manipulate the message.
Cant do the science in a credible and defendable way, using defendable processes and forms of documentation, and cant do basic record keeping of something a simple as reading thermometers, so they have to dress the story up by calling it something it patently isnt ….ie climate change is all change…. because all of it is caused by us sinful buggers using fossil fuels.
Thats dishonest in my book when there more accurate and truth ful descriptors.
Malcolm,
Judith Curry thinks the “team” are just looking for a better way to spin it.
I think they’ve lost it.
http://judithcurry.com/2010/09/15/doubt/#comment-1047
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/we_are_thinking_the_wrong_thoughts.pdf
I agree spangles
They are so bumblingly incompetent that they have to resort to this sort of utter nonsense
This wont help their credibility one jot
Toby; this statement by Scott Ludlam must have got you boiling with all that super invested in mines somewhere.
“In no deregulated energy market, anywhere in the world, is the private sector putting up its own money to build nuclear power stations. The industry remains on subsidised life support everywhere and is making headway only in a tiny handful of countries with state ownership of generators and command and control energy networks. The net effect, as researcher Mycle Schneider has graphed in stark terms, is that the nuclear industry flatlined in the 80s, began to decline in 2002 and is headed for steeper decline, or in the best case stagnation, for the foreseeable future”
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/old-tech-nuclear-power-is-not-the-answer/story-e6frg6zo-1225925023935
on CO2 footprint for wind; check your facts
http://www.libertyparkusafd.org/lp/BuildingGreenUSA/Carbon%20Footprint/Carbon%20Footprint%20-%20Wikipedia.htm
btw when you say I voted for the greens and wear the badge; you must be fishing for targets so let’s ask,
what’s your background?
gav,
Ludlam fails to make the obs that neither wind nor solar is being privately developed without taxpayer assistance either. And on top of that they require additional CF power to make them viable. What a joke!
Even without the CF assistance their carbon footprint is way above nuclear.
The reason nuclear cannot be developed privately is because the green army keep narrowing the goal posts and the cost blowouts are beyond the capacity of the private sector.
Ludlam is a fool, a typical green whose ignorance on nuclear once again demonstrates that the green party should rename itself the bilious pixies’ party; gavin would be the resident gnome; luke of course would be the token goblin.
More green idiocy:
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/9557/
The Department of Climate Change has a Hot Topics article called ‘Understanding current climate change over the long term.’
There appears to be something wrong in the following, which may require the razor sharp mind of Gavin to untangle.
‘Average NH temperatures during the second half of the 20th century were very likely higher than during any other 50-year period in the last 500 years and likely the highest in at least the past 1,300 years (National Research Council, 2006; IPCC, 2007, Mann et al., 2008, 2009). The linear warming trend over the past 50 years (0.13°C per decade) is much more rapid than the 4°C to 7°C warming between ice ages and warm interglacial periods, which takes about 5000 years, i.e. about 0.001°C per decade.’
Malcolm – “mates?” – I don’t have any except for you guys. Something about dreadlocks….
Solar activity is grounding to a halt, so if there are no volcanic eruptions over the next couple of decades we should know if the sun really is the major determinant of climate change.
http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2010/09/say-goodbye-to-sunspots.html
El Gordo,
That is heresy! Everyone knows that robust predictions of phenomena are not an important element of climatology. You don’t even have to get the underlying physics right.
Just to prove what an embecile this Aussie alarmist of the year really is just read these two messages only 12 months apart.
First message, we only have 20 years to fix the problem, message two it’s a problem over thousands of years or tens of thousands of years, not short term at all.
Methinks that stupid Timmy now feels there’s a chance that the weather/climate may not perform to his desires for the rest of his lifetime, so it’s best to have an each way bet, hoping it may reduce a large portion of the egg on face that may be coming his way.
I mean he was totally wrong on the empty dams predicted by now all over the country.
http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/timblair/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/pessimist_turns_optimist/
Neville,
You are also behind the times. The currently appropriate term is ‘global climate disruption’. According to which, anything inconvenient is unnatural.
But that’s the latest word.
People have forgotten the actually most important word, which was announced not long ago:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uj0GtRI4Ulo
Enjoy!
Yes I know Schiller but how do we keep up when they change the rules and the terms of scientific intercourse every other year.
BTW I notice that Cate Blanchett that great scientist and enormous pea brain will be launching Timmy’s latest delusional fantasy, I mean what a plus for all the pixies and fairies.
This is Big Julie on the ABC:It is in the context of the carbon tax:
“We are in a new environment where in order for any action to happen in this Parliament, you need more consensus than the views and policies of the Government and this committee is the way of recognising that.”
Does anyone know THIS committee is being selected and is it the phantom 150 that was so ridiculed during the election.
Anyone taking bets that it will include all the usual alarmist mouth pieces eg starting with Hamilton, Flannery et al and all the way down..to heads of Climate Change Departments all around the country… and as well as at least a dozen NGO’s
I bet Kinninmonth, Carter, Franks et al are not on the list, or anyone from over seas like McKitrick and Spencer
Malcolm I think you have a very safe bet there, particularly after listening to Christine Milne over the last week, what a whacko.
el gordo; Saturday is my most busy time but here goes- Background “Is the Current Climate Change Unusual Compared to Earlier Changes in Earth’s History?” 2007
http://co2now.org/Know-the-Changing-Climate/Climate-Changes/ipcc-faq-why-climate-change-today-is-unusual.html
Review “Has the IPCC underestimated the risk of sea level rise?” 2010
http://www.nature.com/climate/2010/1004/full/climate.2010.29.html
Theory “Abrupt Climate Change: Should We Be Worried?” 2003
http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?cid=9986&pid=12455&tid=282
Big Julie has another quote in the press:
” With climate change policy now being shaped by a cross-party committee comprising politicians and outside experts, Ms Gillard said that what she said before the election no longer applied.”
A cross party committee plus outside experts ?
So that means it will be the Greens, who know everything, plus the independant nutters, and the Chief Scientist, advising her. What a superb collection of intellectual geniuses that will be.
The CS is the one who has said on a number of occasions that the science is settled..and so she/they will plump for all the usual crazies.
Not a good look if it comes to pass
Gavin, me too, but I will look at your links and get back. Thanks.
Sceptics are such frauds – now you lot have assured me we’re heading for a bone crushing Ice Age. You’ve been kidding me ….
Now I would have thought Uncle Bob would have been there with Plan B ??
Russian heatwave killed 11,000 people
Updated 3 hours 9 minutes ago
The Russian authorities have faced searing criticism for downplaying the health risks amid the country’s worst ever heatwave (Reuters: Alexander Natruskin)
RELATED STORY: Russian wildfire death toll rises
RELATED STORY: Morgues fill as deaths double in sweltering Moscow
RELATED STORY: Burning Russia battles to defend nuclear plants
RELATED STORY: Storm to lift heatwave’s siege of Moscow
RELATED STORY: UN climate scientists link Russia, Pakistan calamities
Moscow registered nearly 11,000 deaths due to an unprecedented heatwave this summer, a city official said, as the mortality rate more than doubled in the Russian capital.
In August alone, 15,016 deaths were registered in the city of more than 10 million people, compared with 8,905 for the same period last year – an increase of 6,111 deaths, city official Evegenya Smirnova said.
The month earlier, Moscow saw 4,824 deaths more compared with the same period in July 2009.
Flukeyloo,
Last time it was this hot in Russia was 130 years ago.
Hmm… So what caused it back then? Do tell, emo Hansen fanboi.
HAHAhahahah
‘Local climate changes are often much larger than global ones, since local factors (e.g., changes in oceanic or atmospheric circulation) can shift the delivery of heat or moisture from one place to another and local feedbacks operate (e.g., sea ice feedback).’
Okay, I will pay that, but this is absurd.
… ‘there is no evidence that this rate of possible future global change was matched by any comparable global temperature increase of the last 50 million years.’
Gosh Luke you’re really getting desperate because of a blocking high over a part of Russia this year.
It’s all happened before, but all the research shows that in a warming period there are of course less deaths from cold temps, in facts cold deaths drop by a lot greater numbers than the increase in heat related deaths.
So tell us the one about the floods in Pakistan Luke, I mean you seem to be now so desperately grasping at straws.
Have a go at this recent article Nev
http://www.science20.com/chatter_box/arctic_ice_september_2010_update_1
and this guy
http://www.cleanbreak.ca/2010/09/09/arctic-ice-loss-is-far-from-normal-study-sun-hack-calls-the-bad-news-good-for-canada/
Also
http://www.arcus.org/search/seaiceoutlook/2010/august
gavin,
Some obs on your links this morning:
1/ So you think that 0.7c since the end of the LIA is unusual?
Remember most of this was in the NH and yet the hottest year in the US is still 1934. As they say, it makes it hard to distinguish the signal from the noise but who knows? ACO2 is probably up for some of it.
2/ If you want to believe satellite measurements [semi-empirical is such a convenient term] that at times are proven to be hundreds of METERS out….
3/Just think, all those wild, catastrophic extremes happened without one drop of ACO2.
So just relax…all those catasta strofes are gonna happen anyway.
I’d be interested to hear what you make of them.
Ok, gavin gives us a link to a script for the sequel to The Day After Tommorrow with its conveyor belt scenario for sudden cooling; the reality is slightly different:
http://icebubbles.ucsd.edu/Publications/Preboreal_EPSL_2008.pdf
There was a rapid reorganization of climate around 11,270 bp because of a large abrupt warming ‘triggered by a small forcing’.
‘After the abrupt warming, the overall oceanic condition may have passed a threshold, and locked into the warm stable Holocene mode.’
Gavin, the system changed modes quickly, which may indicate sensitivity.
gavin
Woods Hole is covering all bases.
‘It is important to clarify that we are not contemplating a situation of either abrupt cooling or global warming. Rather, abrupt regional cooling and gradual global warming can unfold simultaneously. Indeed, greenhouse warming is a destabilizing factor that makes abrupt climate change more probable.’
I see that Birdsville and some of those far western towns today had their coldest September day EVER.
AGW strikes again.
I wonder how much power that solar thermal at Windorah punched out today under the big cold cloudbank?
http://www.bom.gov.au/products/IDQ60801/IDQ60801.94488.shtml
Well Neville – these are the events that AGW predicts – and now that they are happening you “don’t like them” as evidence. Expect to see more disruption of circulation systems, more trends in extreme events – the actual point of AGW that loopy deniers “don’t get”. They expect some sort of universal even pattern. Dimwits.
And here come the ecosystem effects
http://www.globalwarmingisreal.com/blog/2010/09/16/walrus-again-forced-to-flee-melting-arctic-sea-ice/
http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/news/press_releases/2010/pacific-walrus-09-10-2010.html
and enjoy the additional warming http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2009JD012603.shtml
It’s only an option but why not look at SH ice history? We don’t want just one study running the week do we cohenite? This turns up in an odd place hey
“Glacial and Climate History of the Antarctic Peninsula since the Last Glacial Maximum” 2003
http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1657/1523-0430(2003)035%5B0175%3AGACHOT%5D2.0.CO%3B2
for el gordo, a steady plan and model outline, see this SCAR report No 38 July 2010
“Ice Sheet Mass Balance and Sea Level”
http://www.scar.org/publications/reports/
reckon this lot missed out in the MWP “Permafrost dating from the end of the last Ice Age around 13,000 years ago recently discovered in Poland…”
http://www.physorg.com/news200316423.html
The MWP and LIA are distinguishable in South America. Meanwhile, as spangles pointed out, we have some serious weather happening here.
‘Charleville in the Maranoa suffered its coldest September day in 68 years of records with a maximum of just 13 degrees. Boulia in the Channel Country struggled to a maximum of just 14 degrees, 16 below average and the coldest September maximum in 114 years.’
Well Gav I suppose we can throw links all day but this one does it for me as far as the NH is concerned.
From 10,000 to 7,000bp the treeline over the whole of eurasia advanced to the arctic coastline and then retreated to the present area by 3,000 to 4000 bp, the temp was 2.5c to 7c higher than today.
The temp today is is not unprecedented, in fact it is cooler by several degrees than it was in the holocene thermal optimum and don’t forget we are living at a time just after one of the coldest periods of the holocene known as the LIA therefore of course the 0.7c increase is not unexpected or unusual .
http://thedeadhand.com/Resources/ReferenceLibrary/tabid/164/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/184/Holocene-Treeline-History-and-Climate-Change-Across-Northern-Eurasia.aspx
You can download the full study at this link.
“In order to be able to build reliable models of future climate changes, we need to have trustworthy data from the past,” Professor Szewczyk said.
It’s a fair assumption.
Tha Calgarians say September is still summer. This time last year the temperature was 30 C, but now it’s an entirely different picture.
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/14092010/76/prairies-calgarians-best-snow-yes-snow-clouds-forecast.html
Luke, this is what we expect if regional cooling is taking place.
As I’ve shown before this study shows warming in west antactica peninsula in the MWP, with similar warming at least 3 times over the last 5600 years.
http://climatechange.umaine.edu/news/article/2010/09/13/reduced_ice_extent_on_the_western_antarctic_peninsula_at_700970_cal_yr_bp___geology_july_2010__hall_koffman__denton
Informative proxies discovered by “snow patch archaeologists”.
http://www.visajourney.com/forums/topic/274347-melting-ice-exposes-pre-viking-artifacts-in-northern-europe/
Neville
From your link it appears that the SH experienced earlier warming than NH during the MWP.
‘Radiocarbon dates show that ice on Anvers Island was at or behind its present position at 700–970 cal. yr B.P., coincident with ice reduction elsewhere in the Southern Hemisphere.’
Good stuff Schiller just to confirm to the numbskulls here that our warming is not unprecedented and happened NATURALLY many times before over the holocene.
But of course our warming had to happen because we are emerging from a minor ice age in fact one of the coldest periods in the Holocene.
If we didn’t emerge to a slightly warmer period (increase of 0.7c) during the last 150 years we would of course be static or becoming colder, something none of us would want.
These are important indisputable proxies that can’t be faked, but don’t tell Gav cause he’s a thermometer man and only believes in temps that are so measured.
That’s a bit of a problem Gav because the earth is around 4.5 billion years old and scientists have to find acceptable proxies to try and measure or estimate temp over the last few hundred million years at least as well as the more recent glacial/interglacial periods.
Yet another hoax by the climataria and their bed mates, the greenoids and a compliant media ..the walruses are not behaving unusually.
http://notrickszone.com/2010/09/17/walrus-desparatus-by-medius-doofus-the-latest-media-hoax/
And yes Schiller isnt it strange that we now find artifacts under what was the snow line that are 3400 years old..and scare sticks for coralling reindeer that are 1500 years old.
I wonder if any of this will get into the IPCC 5 ?
..or indeed, Neville, the evidence that there has been cycles of warming in the west antarctic over the last 5600 years. There is mountains of this stuff appearing. One could be hopeful that the academic climataria might do a more competent job at attribution this time around.
I dont care what eventually gets shown to be the case, but lets have some integrity in the process this time around…but with continued prescence of the rail road engineer being in charge and handling the signals ( as you woud expect)… plus a basically incompetent and corrupted peer review process you cannot have any hope.
El Gordo if we subract 970 from say 2000 we have a date of 1030, then subtract 700 and we are at the year 1300, not a bad fit with the NH MWP, say around 270 years from 1030 to 1300.
I’ve shown this before but it’s worth repeating.
In the last interglacial ( Eemian )115,000 years ago the NGRIP cores show a rapid warming of 5C in just 50 years and of course as the planet was emerging into the Holocene there was a super rapid warming of 10C in just 50 years.
So Gav and Luke what caused that rapid warming at the end of the Eemian, more than SEVEN times our modern warming in just half the time, or 50 years?
Oh and please Gav leave your ignorance and thermometers at home this time.
This link from NASA .
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?id=25353
Neville, Malcolm,
It looks like the CAGWers (now known as AGCD (Anthropogenic Global Climate Disruption)) have borrowed a page from fundamentalist creationists, with an interesting twist.
Before date X, God controlled the climate. After date X, humans controlled the climate.
So these ice-bound artifacts date from a warm, beneficent Eden-like environment when Man was in Harmony with Nature.
If a similar climate emerges later, it is the Fault of Mankind and a punishment.
Huh?
Well, Luke can explain it.
Schiller’s back on God – OMIGOD ! Mate – even Hawking has pronounced god as irrelevant – we now have science not superstitious bunk – http://news.softpedia.com/news/Stephen-Hawking-No-Need-for-God-in-the-Creation-of-the-Universe-154823.
“Before date X, God controlled the climate. After date X, humans controlled the climate.” – barf !
You guys have no science – no physics – go and examine the tea leaves….
Hey guys – where’s that bone crushing ice age you promised ?
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1979/to
Schiller these people are the followers/disciples/cultists of the single variable its gotta be co2, its gotta be co2, its gotta be co2 despite all the evidence showing past very rapid warming when it wasn’t.
It’s like trying to explain the historical Mary to a Catholic and pointing out that the early Christians didn’t think Mary was a virgin and lived and died like everyone else and had at least six other children by Joseph or another husband.
The extreme veneration of Mary can’t be found in the Bible but began more than 300 years after the death of Jesus in the late 4th century.
Of course fundamentalist Christians are just as hopeless when it comes to creation and all the rest of it. But I have many friends who are catholics and protestants and I would never poke fun at their faith because they are very decent people.
Yes Schiller, exactly.
How do these “sharp” minds conclude that these earlier, natural warm periods prove that current similar temperatures are inescapable proof of CAGW?
And the true situation would be more like this: Otzi and his cohorts whose remains are being progressively unearthed as the ice melts, didn’t necessarily occupy these areas in similar temps to what is happening now but in times that were definitely NO COLDER.
The climate was likely considerably warmer.
Luke,
No worse than this one and you gotta admit it hasn’t got any hotter for the last 12 years.
What a travesty!
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1910/to:1940
BTW, I don’t remember that promise. Just be careful of what you wish for.
” You guys have no science – no physics – go and examine the tea leaves”
..and obviously neither does the IPCC and the shonks involved in the game thus far.
Can’t define things by their proper names, can’t manage temperature records, can’t handle ethical peer review process, cant manage the IPCC in a ethical and best practice way,can’t underake public inquiries without cheating , dont know and dont care about conficts of interest, criticise and ignore others who dont have their same exalted qualifications, but employ a Railway Engineer as their head and laud the tosh from greenoid campaign and marketing material, produced by bright young things with a Mktg and Communications degrees from some third rate university…and on it goes
…but boy, they know how to spin the crap with the best them
The tea leaves are in the various IPCC reports and they dont cut the mustard…something about clouds and computer based guestimates.
OK Mr Walker where is the integrity you have been promising ….still waiting
zzzzzzzzz
This one probably shows it a little better:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1910/to:1942
Neville, Spangled,
I’m a Catholic and take no offense. Catholics are expected to struggle with their faith and to embrace skepticism as a challenge, rather than heresy. We accept that there is a difference between faith and gullibility. On behalf of Catholicism, I would call it ‘the thinking man’s religion’, but this isn’t the place to debate that in any direction.
One thing the AGCDers (Anthropogenic Global Climate Disruptioners) need to explain, from the experience of the snow patch archaeologists, is the stink.
Upon the melting of ancient ice, the stench of reindeer feces becomes nasty. That suggests a very swift cooling. Any farmer will tell you, animal ordure loses its odor after a time, one summer is enough.
The returning stench suggests an extremely rapid cooling event. Such an event would delight the AGCDers, but not the rest of us.
Speaking of AGCDers (Anthropogenic Global Climate Disruptioners), I would put forward the proposal that we now call them Disruptioners.
Should we not grant them their newest wish? Of course we should.
Yes Schiller, that’s a logical conclusion.
It suddenly got very cold, very quickly and stayed that way for a long time.
Paying attention, Luke?
Luke is a disruptioner, whether he likes it or not. Holdren has spoken, with no dissent from Hansen.
Schiller, I believe that a similar thing happened to the frozen mammoths that were found with partially digested buttercups in their stomachs.
“The climate, it is changing, it is very effervescent!”
“Do you remember ven it effer vasn’t?”
[groan]
Thanx Neville, it is a good fit.
When the Headman spouts this sort of stuff, what price logical debate?
http://climatelessons.blogspot.com/2010/09/naive-climatology-what-chance-have.html
SD we’ve got a woman who comperes the Country hour on ABC radio in Victoria called Libby Price.
On a number of ocassions when the debate heated up about AGW she droned on repeatedly saying to an expert ( ?)” but we’ve got a lot of country people who don’t believe in climate change” until someone phoned in and corrected her silly nonsense.
But after a while she was repeating the same garbage again, fair dinkum I felt like kicking my radio accross the room.
We know with 100% accuracy that the climate changes in small ways most of the time and every 90,000 years or so drops into an interglacial, nothing to do with humans whatsoever.
It therefore is accurate to say that anyone who believes mankind to be the driver of CC worldwide and doesn’t believe in any NATURAL CC is certainly the true denier.
Nev; as usual your homework is only half done. Same advice to you as el; always goodle your key statements before hoisting that victory flag!. I don’t know what the global temp was anytime last interglacial and neither do you or your mates here. As I said to cohenite, one study (bore hole) does not give you global temps. NH +SH = Earth’s surface at any given time. Also, you can’t say we wern’t bouncing in orbit or wobbling on axis then. And what about Mother Earth v Gaia?
After Google page I ‘2010 NGRIP ice core record Eemian-period polar regions 9 degrees warmer than the present interglacial’
“This record shows a slow decline in temperatures that marked the initiation of the last glacial period. Our record reveals a hitherto unrecognized warm period initiated by an abrupt climate warming about 115,000 years ago, before glacial conditions were fully developed. This event does not appear to have an immediate Antarctic counterpart, suggesting that the climate see-saw between the hemispheres (which dominated the last glacial period) was not operating at this time” 2004
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v431/n7005/full/nature02805.html
So no more blog links on this subject hey
But lets have another tack on the issue of paleo uncertainties “Tree rings and ice cores reveal 14C calibration uncertainties during the Younger Dryas” 2008
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v1/n4/full/ngeo128.html
Abstract “The Younger Dryas interval during the Last Glacial Termination was an abrupt return to glacial-like conditions punctuating the transition to a warmer, interglacial climate. Despite recent advances in the layer counting of ice-core records of the termination, the timing and length of the Younger Dryas remain controversial. Also, a steep rise in the concentration of atmospheric radiocarbon at the onset of the interval, recorded primarily in the Cariaco Basin, has been difficult to reconcile with simulations of the Younger Dryas carbon cycle. Here we discuss a radiocarbon chronology from a tree-ring record covering the Late Glacial period that has not been absolutely dated. We correlate the chronology to ice-core timescales using the common cosmic production signal in tree-ring 14C and ice-core 10Be concentrations. The results of this correlation suggest that the Cariaco record may be biased by changes in the concentration of radiocarbon in the upper ocean during the early phase of the Younger Dryas climate reversal in the Cariaco basin. This bias in the marine record may also affect the accuracy of a widely used radiocarbon calibration curve over this interval. Our tree-ring-based radiocarbon record is easily reconciled with simulated production rates and carbon-cycle changes associated with reduced ocean ventilation during the Younger Dryas”.
You see Nev; I reckon if Greenland got so hot, there would be no icecore record!
Gav regarding your first reponse, I don’t know what you are accusing me of doing with the study.
You show a tiny precis of the study in Nature but if we want to read more we have to pay, just to expand on the earlier preliminary of the study from NASA that I used.
I stand by those abrupt climate changes and you can read more from this study by Richard Alley that indeed shows correlation in the SH with these changes at some sites in Sth America and some sites in Antarctica.
He states that dating is secure for some of the Antarctic sites.
If you look at the section headed Geographic Coverage it will show some of the sites that have correlation, notably indications of abrupt changes in some Antarctic sites.
http://www.pnas.org/content/97/4/1331.full
Nev; I was just reading the ipics white paper #3 on the 40k y bp bipolar record and still can’t see how any one can say there was a much warmer period recently that wipes out AGW rates. See modelled extent of the Antarctic ice sheet present v glacial.
According to ALL you skeptics, that stuff dosn’t suddenly shrink.
http://www.pages.unibe.ch/ipics/whitepapers.html
Cheers; been up since 4am
Folks,
Remember the suggestion earlier that we start calling the CAGWers ‘disruptioners’? Well, over at Watts up with that, the term ‘disruptors’ has been coined in response to Holdren’s suggestion that CAGW be called ‘climate disruption.’
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/19/disruptor-vs-galacticus/
Schiller
You are ahead of the story, which supports the notion that you would make a good journalist.
Talking about the Younger Dryas, it was regional and not universal. There was no pickup in dust.
Nano-diamonds discovered in Greenland adds more weight to the theory of extraterrestrial bombardment.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/09/100914143626.htm
el gordo; where does this science daily article leave us?
“A high proportion of the nanosize diamonds in the Greenland ice sheet exhibit hexagonal mineral structure, and these are only known to occur on Earth in association with known cosmic impact events, said Kennett. This layer of diamonds corresponds with the sedimentary layer known as the Younger Dryas Boundary, dating to 12,900 years ago” James Kennett 2010
I don’t recall the related item featuring here, “Why Is Greenland Covered In Ice? Changes In Carbon Dioxide Levels Explain Transition”
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/08/080827163818.htm
On the question of a warmer Greenland with extensive forest cover, it’s my bet if we go back far enough that land mass was a blob oscillating round the equator. What the skeptics need up front is a time line in this interglacial relevant to a stable earth that has some bearing on us today.
El Gordo, Gavin,
The interpretation of this discovery of nano-diamonds is somewhat conflicted by the apparently still-open question of whether these diamonds were brought to Earth aboard the comet or meteorite, or were formed upon impact. [1,2]
With respect to Gavin’s contention of an “interglacial relevant to a stable earth”, I would simply point out that there is nothing in the paleoclimatic detritus, nor in the modern thermometric ‘record’, which indicates there is or was a ‘stable earth’, at any time whatsoever. The relentless search for ‘anomalies’ unfortunately subsumes this mistaken notion as its premise.
————
1. http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/meteor-impact-ice-age-debate-100726.html
2. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1590/is_n3_v53/ai_18773113/
Schiller; as the one who champions alternative (science?) discussion via the blogsphere you can’t have your cake and eat it too. “still open questions” are a fact of mainstream science and discovery, so shut up and watch.
Gavin,
You want me to ‘shut up and watch’, then take your own advice, and go away.
Thanks for those links schiller, they have saved me from making a fool of myself (in a hostile environment) elsewhere.
Humph ! Jen’s put up a new thread – don’t like it ……
Guys; never forget the basic concept, ice v CO2 when searching on previous warming
“Eocene bipolar glaciation associated with global carbon cycle changes” 2005
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v436/n7049/abs/nature03874.html
Far enough back?
Aradhna Tripati et al feature a lot in science mags
“Levels of carbon dioxide have varied only between 180 and 300 parts per million over the last 800,000 years — until recent decades, said Tripati, who is also a member of UCLA’s Institute of Geophysics and Planetary Physics. It has been known that modern-day levels of carbon dioxide are unprecedented over the last 800,000 years, but the finding that modern levels have not been reached in the last 15 million years is new” 2009
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091008152242.htm
El Gordo,
You’re welcome. Things like that are what makes us different from the disruptors. We keep looking for evidence and evaluating it, whilst the disruptors keep insisting that they have settled everything and it’s now time to legislate the world into eco-poverty.
gavin quotes:
“It has been known that modern-day levels of carbon dioxide are unprecedented over the last 800,000 years, but the finding that modern levels have not been reached in the last 15 million years is new” 2009”
Yet temp levels during that time have warmed both in degree and rate far in excess of the present.
QED
Interesting article from Wiki about the Holocene climate optimium.
After saying the NH was warmer in the early holocene it states that lower latitudes did not warm as much and SH wasn’t as warm.
Then it goes on about the GBR water being 1C warmer than now and parts of Antartica were warmer back then but states that it is probably warmer globally today than the earler time.
I think they are trying hard to convince themselves and have the graph showing 2004 being the warmest point of the holocene as usual.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_climatic_optimum
Breaking in with an urgent news story. Anthony Watts is making a political point in West Oz.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/18/urgent-a-call-to-action-for-the-wuwt-community/#more-25023
Neville
No mention of a see-saw, but I may have missed it. In this sentence they appear to be opting for a SH start to the Holocene.
In the far southern hemisphere (e.g. New Zealand and Antarctica), the warmest period during the Holocene appears to have been roughly 8,000 to 10,500 years ago, immediately following the end of the last ice age.’
Bit more sleuthing required.
el gordo,
Yesterday I emailed the WA premier and sent a donation.
Hopefully these greens will be confronted and sanity will prevail.
spangles
There is more to this story, I’ve read what the locals think about the stink. They are probably not Greens, so Anthony might have the wrong end of the stick.
El Gordo – it’s a great story isn’t it. And who couldn’t feel sorry for the farmers involved. But I’m very sus – “greenies” in the WA wheat belt? In a small town like Narrogin? hmmmmm – I really wonder. An area largely devoid of native vegetation for cereal production. http://maps.google.com.au/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=narrogin&sll=-27.502909,152.979912&sspn=0.018633,0.033023&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Narrogin+Western+Australia&ll=-32.967195,116.394653&spn=2.255888,4.22699&t=h&z=9
Maybe the neighbours in town simply and seriously don’t like the stench? Who knows. Do we really know the full story? And wouldn’t one make sure you had all this enviro stuff sown up before investing. Feedlot smell issues aren’t exactly new.
Other issue is that often traditional farmers (e.g. dryland wheat growers) may or may not take kindly to new “upstart” industries. Competing for scarce labour.
I find all this discussion about some period in the ancient past being warmer than today. So?
There are many drivers of climate. Not just one.
Changes in radiative forcing imply changes in atmospheric and oceanic circulation patterns.
The difference between today and the past – 6 billion humans going to 9 billion. Freshwater and arable land resources highly exploited. Military superpowers. 30 days food security.
A few mega-droughts – and who wins and who loses. How the global circulation rearranges itself, how fast, and who wins and who loses is the issue. Not a few degrees in temperature which is merely a coarse symptom/diagnostic.
Luke congratulations, this would be imho your best post not that I agree with all of it, but I agree with some of it.
Yes the climate has many drivers and I’ve conceded before that in the last 50 years one of those drivers would be co2 BUT the start of this modern warming of 0.7c started from one of the two or three coldest periods of the last 11,000 years, so it’s not surprising at all.
As I’ve said many times here it had to happen with more solar radiation, an increase in co2,
ocean oscillation changes and the biggy being the very low base of the LIA.
If we know the LIA has finished ( not static, not even cooler temps ) then a rise of 0.7c is not unusual at all.
Soybeans, Sorghum Use Water More Efficiently With Higher Carbon Dioxide Levels, Says New USDA Study
September 14, 2010
http://www.soyatech.com/news_story.php?id=20202
The first long-term study comparing tillage practices under high CO2 levels showed that elevated CO2 caused soybean and sorghum plants to increase photosynthesis while reducing transpiration-the amount of water the plants release. This resulted in increased water use efficiency, whether the crops were grown with no-till or conventional tillage, according to researchers with USDA’s Agricultural Research Service (ARS). ARS is USDA’s principal intramural scientific research agency.
The scientists also compared current ambient CO2 levels—about 370 parts per million (ppm)—with levels of 720 ppm expected within this century.
With the higher level of CO2, regardless of tillage method, soybean photosynthesis increased by about 50 percent, while sorghum photosynthesis rose by only 15 percent. This was expected because crops like soybean, which have a C3 photosynthetic pathway, are known to respond better to high CO2 levels than crops like sorghum and corn that have a C4 photosynthetic pathway. Most plants worldwide are C3 plants.
“720 ppm expected within this century” WTF? Where did they get that number?
Britain has had a fairly ordinary summer and this early Autumn chill looks ominous.
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/200256/Britain-set-to-shiver-as-cold-snap-brings-frost
Luke, food security is going to be a problem as the world cools and 30 days is not enough to get us over the hump.
So you guys want to go soft on AGW?
I can’t agree with Luke that the issue here is about population food production. For years now the skeptics have been fussing over global temp records and the hockey stick. In order to slow the average response, we’ve had months of tripe chucked in about ancient climates as the ms science on warming got down to biz,
All this blog chat counts for “0” in my estimation as we have geared up on a whole lot of relevant climate research. What goes on here now is only the rear guard of the anti agw and their last gasp in diversions, egg and chicken, hide and seek with our CO2.
Mates; the more you go round the blogs looking for fresh clues the more I find in a backlog of cited articles. Witless writers don’t make science!
Gavin,
‘Witless writers don’t make science’? Oh, but they do. WWF writes ‘gray literature’, WWF ‘expert reviewers’ with the IPCC review the WWF literature and approve it. The IPCC publishes the report, and then it’s called ‘science’.
Well, maybe they’re not entirely witless. Con-artists can often be quite clever. In fact, they have to be, or else be compelled to find another line of business.
Interesting post from physicist on human’s co2 contribution, bit different conclusion than Gav, but then probably not leaning so far to the lunar left either.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/20/physicist-says-fossil-fuel-burning-is-insignificant-in-the-global-carbon-pool/#more-25134
Neville,
That’s quite an interesting post. The disruptors’ narrative portrays humans as contributing to massive heaps of garbage (CO2) which linger, and corrupt.
What you cited challenges that narrative. Nature has long been a garbage-heap, and will continue to be so, for any realistic contingent future. It should be no surprise that humans make a contribution to the heap, but it’s all the same heap.
Speaking of which, the Amazon is the world’s largest source of CO2. It is, literally, the ‘lungs of the planet’. Rotting trees and other vegetation breathe in oxygen, and breathe out CO2. Anyone serious about ‘the CO2 threat’ would immediately demand logging in the Amazon, in order to take the CO2 ‘out of circulation’.
But of course, they won’t, because logging is not part of the ‘green’ narrative.
If the gang-greens had a different idea, they’d demand a crash program to deforest/decarbonize the Amazon via logging. And, heck, they might do that tomorrow if someone shows up with enough dollar$ to $ertify $u$tainable lumber.
‘Sequester carbon in your new home!’ Hey that would sell.
“scientists know virtually nothing about the dynamic carbon exchange fluxes that occur on all the relevant time and lengths scales to say anything definitive about how atmospheric CO2 arises and is exchanged in interaction with the planet’s ecological systems” – another writer who needs a proper job
Gav and Luke the whole idea of quoting warming and cooling from earlier periods during the Holocene (Eemian as well) is to show that this present modern warming is not unprecedented or unusual in any way. That’s what the experts and msm keep telling us, or didn’t you notice?
It sometimes also took place in both hemispheres and poles at the same time e.g. warming at the west Antarctic peninsula during the MWP.
If this warming had started in a relatively warm time and temp increased from a much higher base then you might have half an argument and we could scratch around and try and dig up reasons for the rise.
But the problem is it started from one of the coldest periods in the last 11,000 years and you still have to prove that there is a real positive feedback to co2 and not negative, meaning a small rise of about 1C.
Gavin,
I’d be quite impressed if you had said, scientists have definitive knowledge and predictive skill “about the dynamic carbon exchange fluxes that occur on all the relevant time and lengths scales to say anything definitive about how atmospheric CO2 arises and is exchanged in interaction with the planet’s ecological systems”
But then, people would know you are lying. Which of course you would rather not do.
Interesting study showing that sea temp has declined over the past 10,000 years in the tropical west pacific and is now less saline than earlier times.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/metadata/noaa-ocean-2634.html
So here’s why Schiller is unqualified to speak on greenhouse
No it’s not “literal” at all – plants don’t breathe
‘Rotting trees and other vegetation breathe in oxygen, and breathe out CO2. Anyone serious about ‘the CO2 threat’ would immediately demand logging in the Amazon, in order to take the CO2 ‘out of circulation’.”
What utter nongery….
Rotting trees “breathe” in oxygen do they – mate they’re “decaying” – i.e. rotting to CO2 not photosynthesising .
“to take CO2 “out of circulation” BRILLIANT – not only misses the zero sum gain net balance of close to zero; but fails to account for the one-off massive emission of clearing.
What a twit – what an ape-arse.
Neville – the bit you leave out in your thinking is how a planet of 6 billion humans going to 9 billion with fully extended freshwater and arable land supplies, 30 days food security and a touchy bunch of military powers would cope with a rapid (50-100 years) major global climate shift (from whatever reason).
What does paleo-history tell you ! THIS IS THE POINT>
Luke unfortunately we won’t change human nature in a hurry, but we do know that the first world has been flatlining for years on a per capita basis re energy use.
Your real immediate problem is China and the developing world, then in time the third world, they’ll all want a better standard of living for themselves and their kids.
If this is a problem of over population and scarce resources then the only solution is new technology and a different source of energy .
I hope you’re not a “something in their water” fanatic as has been proposed by a number of green extremists lately?
Paleo-history reminds us that abrupt climate change has happened in the past and will in the future, but we may have to wait for the high resolution NEEM data before we see the big picture.
http://annposegate.blogspot.com/2010/07/neem-ice-core-reaches-greenland-bedrock.html
Humanity will adapt.
Luke,
Settle down, I’m sure Schiller meant the reverse.
BTW, which side of history do you want to be on?
el gordo,
Ice cores don’t always get the answers. Often a few discrepancies. Gavin take note. Check page 4.
http://www.haapala.com/sepp/twtwfiles/2010/TWTW%202010-09-18.pdf
Interesting info here that despite some warming in west Antartica overall there was no warming or cooling for 32 years over the entire continent from 1970 to 2002.
BTW this is not a co2 Science study they are just reporting on it.
http://www.co2science.org/articles/V10/N51/C1.php
BTW Bjorn Lomborg hasn’t changed his ideas and still believes in the middle path.
Sensibly he want to see green power become so cheap that everyone will want to use it, I wish him luck and hope they hurry up with the solution(s).
http://climatechangedispatch.com/editorials/7679-lomborg-denies-global-warming-conversion-i-told-you-so
Looks like one of Lomborg’s critics has just about thrown in the towell, just shows that Australia’s stupid attempt at puting a price on carbon will be a complete and costly disaster.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/sep/20/climate-change-negotiations-failure
Neville,
Looks like the easiest way is just chuck yer rubbish on a big heap. Don’t bother recycling. Makes more sense than sequestration:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/17/AR2010091705373.html
I meant to say the above follows on from the point Schiller was making earlier.
spangles
The only data I want to see is dust, because there was supposedly 400 years of dust storms at the end of the Eemian. Which might be a very broad tipping point into full glaciation at the end of all interglacials.
‘Through analysis of dust, they also provide up to 800,000-year chronologies of global
scale volcanic eruptions and major trends toward desertification. Clearly, data from ice cores play a
critical underlying role in the science of climate change.’
What a bunch of blind fools! Going by recent posts the penny hasn’t dropped.
After Nev; I google ‘Antarctica no warming or cooling for 32 from 1970 to 2002’ and get blog after blog. One exception, “Current Understanding of Antarctic Climate Change” 2007 note the ref at the end
http://www.pewclimate.org/global-warming-basics/antarcticfactsheet
The wiki on global cooling surfaces which ever way I run the Google but this gem pops up after ‘Antartica no warming or cooling 1970 to 2002’ “Antarctic temperature changes during the observational period”
http://www.unis.no/studies/geology/ag_204_more_info/ole/AntarcticTemperatureChanges.htm
And there is more; consider the 21 skeptics points in this “Responses to Questions & Objections
on Climate Change”
http://users.monash.edu.au/~bparris/bpclimatechangeq&as.html
If you guys can’t check key statements from your blogsphere before posting then expect a shower from me every time
The last link has some useful information.
‘Intense, abrupt warming episodes appeared more than 20 times in the Greenland ice records. Within several hundreds or thousands of years after the start of a typical warm period, the climate reverted to slow cooling followed by quick cooling over as short a time as a century. Then the pattern began again with another warming that might take only a few years.[41]’
Slow cooling followed by quick cooling. Now that’s what I’m talking about.
el, your R B Alley quote should be compared with something like this “Carbon dioxide levels are now 27 percent higher than at any point in the last 650,000 years, according to research into Antarctic ice cores published on Thursday in Science”
http://news.mongabay.com/2005/1124-climate.html
The 7.30 report tonight had a story about a waterfront development approval by the local council at Lakes Entrance being objected to [they weren’t game to say who but you can guess] and the objection being approved by the court. So the property owner now can’t build on his very expensive waterfront block [made even more expensive by the considerable legal fees] and he can’t sell it either because no one else can develop it.
This is based entirely on the “projections” of GCMs, bad CSIRO predictions and general bed-wetting from Tim Flannery, Robyn Williams et al.
The real evidence doesn’t show anything has changed wrt SLR.
This is going to develop into a wide ranging and incredibly expensive battle!
SD, lets assume no abrupt climate change is possible in the forseen therefor no abrupt SL rise, do we want everybody squatting on the water’s edge?
Two things I offered way back, SL has been higher round the SEAus coastline and frontal dunes are fragile. In some places there is a great deal of occupied space now between high tide and old sea cliffs inland. What stood in the recent past over recorded human history and what stands long term is still a guess on average.
How old are the dunes at the Murray mouth?
gavin
Scary stories about CO2 being too high are of no concern, because carbon dioxide doesn’t cause global warming. I agree in principle that the frontal dunes are fragile and should be protected.
How old are the dunes at the Murray mouth? Don’t know, but I’ll punt for 15,000 bp.
Here’s a guy Luke would would agree with…
Global Warming Alarmist Calls For Eco-Gulags To Re-Educate Climate Deniers
Prison Planet
September 20th, 2010
http://www.prisonplanet.com/global-warming-alarmist-calls-for-eco-gulags-to-re-educate-climate-deniers.html
Philosopher Pentti Linkola has built an enthusiastic following of self-described “eco-fascists” receptive to his message that the state should enact draconian measures of “discipline, prohibition, enforcement and oppression” in order to make people comply with environmental dictates.
Under Linkola’s proposal to save earth from man-made climate change, “only a few million people would work as farmers and fishermen, without modern conveniences such as the automobile.” This system would be enforced by the creation of a “Green Police” who would abandon “the syrup of ethics” that governs human behavior to completely dominate the population.
Linkola calls for forced abortions, while also adding that another world war would be “a happy occasion for the planet” because it would eradicate tens of millions of people. The environmentalist believes that only jackbooted tyranny can help to save mother earth from “the worst ideologies in the world” which he defines as “growth and freedom”.
We’ve been calling them ‘eco-fascists’ for years. Nice of them to finally admit it. And if you think Linkola is aberrant, think again; Obama’s science czar, Lovelock, and the Erlichs, to name a few, hold similar views.
Just when you were about to believe that the anthropogenic global disruptionists were in favor of renewable biofuels, it turns out, they really aren’t…
EU exec sued over biofuels as suspicions mount
Reuters
Sep 16 2010
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE68J2XW20100920
Europe’s biofuels policy could cause unwanted side-effects equal to as much as 1.5 billion tonnes of greenhouse gases — roughly the annual emissions of Russia or India, official reports warn.
That means biofuels could produce more carbon emissions than gasoline over a 20 year time frame.
Luke and I are mainly concerned about 30 day food security, so hopefully commonsense will prevail and those greedy capitalists will give up biofuels.
‘In essence, the concept of “indirect land-use change” says that if you take a field of grain and switch the crop to biofuel, somebody, somewhere, will go hungry unless those missing tonnes of wheat are grown elsewhere.’
Gavin,
Have you bothered to read the Monash University diatribe you have threatened us all with and then updated what he is saying in light of current knowledge, are you like Mr Walker et al, and just Google for its own sake….. and dont read what is said in the hope that some shit sticks.
I didnt read it all either but enough to discern that author is either laying it on, and/or doesnt know himself, and /or acknowledges the extent of the uncertainities.
The one about the IPCC not being a political body and its science beyond reproach is just laughable. I gave up after that.
The IPCC is managerially and procedurally incompetent..and its scientific conclusions highly suspect. Thats just for starters.
So shower away …you might just get a load back…thats if I could be bothered stating the obvious.
I read one of your sources showing no change from 1960 to 1998 in Antarctica, once again I don’t know what you are talking about.
If the west antarctic peninsula is warming slightly but the vast majority of the continent is static or cooling or slight warming on the fringe you end up with no change.
That Monash garbage is laughable.
El Gordo,
Your lumping together of ‘greedy capitalists’ and ‘biofuels’ (don’t forget, coal is biomass) is interesting.
Supposedly, all greedy capitalists are not green, and those who are green are not greedy capitalists. At least, that’s the green narrative.
This green stuff is built upon fallacies.
As far as the food vs. fuel thing goes, that’s irrelevant to subsistence farmers. They grow their own food, hoping not to starve, and meanwhile don’t give a rat’s about international trade.
The important thing about biofuels, which everyone should bear in mind, is that artificial government restraints on trade of commodity crops drives the conversion of those crops to biofuels. It’s a way to make agricultural surpluses go somewhere else, when a trade war (often driven by greenie-whackos) erupts.
This is a very accurate article from Terry McCrann showing what a load of crap Kloppers was spewing when he talked about Australia needing a carbon tax asap.
This bloke is ceo of the world’s biggest mining company BHPB yet he talks like he is a half mad green looney.
Of course they don’t intend that the world will use less coal etc at all because they wish to double their output to export twice as much in the near future as they do today.
It’s just that the coal will be used overseas and not here, what a bunch of whackos, they must believe the planet is operating in some parallel universe mode and the co2 can be compartmentalized and kept apart.
He finishes accurately by pointing out that we could reduce our emissions by 100% and it wouldn’t make the slightest difference to the climate, but it will no doubt cost us billions in higher ernergy costs at home and send more of our jobs overseas.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/business/terry-mccranns-column/marius-kloppers-sells-bhp-billitons-soul/story-e6frfig6-1225924317912
Malcome: Thanks for your frankness ; “I didnt read it all either but enough to discern that author is either laying it on, and/or doesnt know himself, and /or acknowledges the extent of the uncertainities”
I posted it after reading the status of the author ‘Dr Brett Parris, Research Fellow, Dept. of Econometrics & Business Statistics, Monash University, Lecturer, School of International & Political Studies’ Deakin University’ and thinking the article was superior to most of the skeptics posts here. Yes, I read it several times.
But on the whole, be assured I’n not phased by such arguments from either side. As I look out my study window on a relaxed spring scene with an old tabby cat draped over one shoulder, there is nothing to worry about today.
Yesterday I took a truck load of shrub prunings in my wagon to the green recycle and if I wanted to we could grow a feast in the backyard with out chemicals despite this hill side site. Yes; I can tinker and get one of the 4 2nd hand mowers going then cut the lawn in a few minuits.
A couple of seasons back it was a very different story.
After growing up in a rural area surounded by farming, forestry, fishing etc I still value my foot hold back there in what is now “broadband” country. Yes if I had too, there is a barrow load of firewood on the ground there to be gathered every day and hopefully all the wild life has survived despite the local shooters.
El, what bothers me now, my retreats are in poor soils and as such won’t be missed by the spralling masses. However large tracts of our once fertile regions are now covered in houses, useless gardens, roads and other infrastructure. It would take my lot ages to become self suficient if they had to.
There is no doubt Victorians who vote for Labor will be like turkeys voting for an early christmas if you understand how this solar energy fraud works.
First a big solar plant like the one proposed for Mildura cannot get of the ground unless govts chip in a couple of hundred million, then energy companies are forced to use this electricity and we the consumers then have to pay much higher prices ( double or triple the cost) to keep this white elephant afloat.
Of course Brumby wants to see 10 of these plants established across Victoria using the same corrupt system and hopes to be producing 5% of our electricity from renewables by 2020.
In the meantime our CFired plants have to be running in the background to supply the other 95% plus chip in to back up this heavily supported taxpayer funded fraud when the sun don’t shine and at nightime.
Of course it won’t alter the climate by the width of a bee’s dick but who cares about that when we can all play fairies at the bottom of our gardens.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/business/terry-mccranns-column/so-thats-renewable-energy/story-e6frfig6-1225927611317
gavin,
re your reply yesterday, 9.25 pm:
As usual you don’t quite get it. This is like the Matt and Janet Thompson story a million times over!
You’ve got to remember that these alluvial sand flats around the Aust coastline have been settled for generations and heavily settled for the last fifty years. It’s not just the waterfronts but all the adjoining flat, privately owned land. These blocks already have substantial buildings and improvements on them. It is not as though they are doing anything different to what already exists next door.
The owners are generally middle class “battlers” who have used their growing asset to fund both their own and their family’s future.
If a govt can remove this accumulated “wealth” at the stroke of a pen based on dubious “projections”, unsupported by hard evidence, where is the future certainty for anyone?
This is a prescription for bankruptcy for millions.
We bought a house in Ocean St., Mermaid Beach [near the beach, not on it] in 1964 [for 2800 quid] and I had serious concerns about SLs then and I spent the next decade fighting to stop our neighbour’s houses from being washed away by the high SLs caused by the multiplicity of cyclones and high SLs of that era.
Since those days SLs have fallen, the dunes have re-established, the beaches are 10 times as wide as they were then, and those ocean front houses are worth many millions. [These BTW are not representative of the average]. Not once has a cyclone returned since 1976 but if they did it could be “the mixture as before”.
Well, so what?
Spangles; although we’ve also had access to beach shacks I never supported the idea that some sharp developer could turn it all into glorious real-estate and the same goes for flood plains. Also given a situation such as in Pakistan after their big climate event, I doubt your willingness to suddenly want to share our hillsides with all and sundry from below.
Nev; lets say governments don’t invest our tax dollars in coal fired power, hydro electricity or gas down the street, we would all pay more for the energy we use, and I base that on years of work around Victorian industry.
One of the great benefits of state owned utilities SECV, MMBW, railways etc was high quality design and engineering that meant infrastructure lasted for decades. It also provided high quality R&D, training and community support. None the least was our independent development of technology and National Standards
An outline of Victoria and the SECV is part of this extensive historical review “Technology in Australia 1788 -1988”
http://www.austehc.unimelb.edu.au/tia/807.html
Although I did not work for the SECV at any time it was very important to understand brown coal as a fuel while servicing other industrial boiler furnace controls. Even with the briquette solution, brown coal was a very dirty and dangerous fuel to handle. I came across this wiki on the Hazelwood power station.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hazelwood_Power_Station
Gavin,
I have had a better look at the first of Perris 21 reasons as to why everything is hunky dory…
If the first one is the standard that applies to the the remainder then the lot it is not worth a crumpet..which I suspect is the case.
Apart from the other reviews, here is what McKirtick thinks of the IPCC.
http://opinion.financialpost.com/2010/08/27/fix-the-ipcc-process/
My Summary
1. Written policies not always followed.
2. Annexes not produced.
3. Important text in AR4 altered, and deleted after close of process.
4. Lead Authors in Chapter 3 fabricated evidence…para inserted after close of Peer Review
5. Selection of Lead Authors and Working Group Chairs based upon their predetermined view.
6. Claim that once Lead Authors is known, the conclusions are then known in advance.
7. Serious conflicts of Interest with Lead Authors reviewing their own work and that of their critics.
8. Of 140 Govts involved only 23 submitted review comments on the 2007 IPCC report and more than half came from USA and Australia. The claim by the IPCC and Pachauri in particular that the Report had been reviewed by all Govts is therefore quite clearly nonsense.
I cant see why one cannot say that on the basis of this evidence, rather than being the ants pants, their behavour was actually fraudulent.
Changing documents after the tenders have closed alone would seal it
gavin,
These “beach shacks” are owned by millions of Australians and their asset is being destroyed.
They haven’t been flooded as in Pakistan and there is no indication or evidence that the majority ever will.
Do you think it is equitable to bankrupt so many people on doomsday predictions?
gavin said:
‘I doubt your willingness to suddenly want to share our hillsides with all and sundry from below.’
What is it about people who live in a rarefied air? The whole nation could live comfortably on the Great Dividing Range and tablelands, but there is no need for alarm because SL is stable.
Malcolm; the IPCC has to be a recognized process regardless of what you and other skeptics think of it. My perspective is essentially based on practical experience. I learned several things today while trying to recycle two old power tools. The old vinyl case Black & Decker sander with its cooked motor was virtually indestructible in terms of material separation, couldn’t even crack the housing in a vice! The tiny Japanese reversible screw driver with dead rechargeable cells was so well made with a cute reduction gearbox I decided to keep it and search for replacement batteries.
Generally though I find it difficult working on tools made else where in Asia and that’s the point; I don’t expect output from other nations to reach our standards every time. We could mention those games too, but my theme on here has always been about generating support for our own team (of scientists).
Spangles; it must come back to who do you believe? Is there really such a thing as rapid climate change? My guess is it will become as difficult to ensure a house on the fore shore as it is to ensure the same thing in uptown Christchurch and that’s apart from maintaining the publicly owned infrastructure, roads, water, sewage and power. Do we want the general taxpayer footing the bill for sea walls?
El gordo; recall, abrupt climate change and SL probably go together? You know; all this paleo max over the top stuff we’ve been debating for weeks?
gavin
The catalyst for abrupt climate change is not apparent, for warming or cooling, but I will concede that after the next 20 years of cooling it may begin to warm again.
Temperatures are unlikely to reach as high as the MWP, but it would give us a benchmark to work from. What is the highest and lowest SL (in the same spot) during the MWP and LIA?
It’s got nothing to do with what you believe unless you’re crazy enough to believe that AGW is a religion.
This is about observable evidence and the observable evidence is that what has been hapening for our known history wrt SLs has not altered in any measurable way.
The PALSEA group think the asymptoting curve offers a better view of future sea level rise.
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2010/08/09/sea-level-history-lesson/
This Mongabay site has many charts and graphs showing countries co2 emissions out to 2030, plus coal consumption etc.
It just shows how China will take over everything in just a very short time.
At top left you can look at individual countries co 2 (?)emissions back to 1851. Fascinating stuff.
http://rainforests.mongabay.com/09-carbon_emissions.htm
El; I found that asymptoting curve link earlier but imo it’s not fresh enough for this discussion.
After revisiting the Jeffrey Dorale et al inspired headlines from Feb this year such as Sience News “Sea levels erratic during latest ice age – Cave research finds new evidence of surprising rise 81,000 years ago” I checked for the latest AGW news.
This week “Warming in Deep Southern Ocean Linked to Sea-Level Rise”
http://www.livescience.com/environment/global-warming-southern-ocean-sea-level-rise-100920.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Livesciencecom+%28LiveScience.com+Science+Headline+Feed%29
“Disasters mirror climate models: US environment chief”
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100921/sc_afp/climatewarmingweatherdisasterus
“Arctic Ice in Death Spiral”
http://news.yahoo.com/s/oneworld/20100920/wl_oneworld/world3694891285019437
Spangles says not much is happening. I reckon we need more than one pair of eyes watching King Canute
Has anyone here read the new rebuttal of Monckton’s testimony before the US Congress, and formed an opinion on that rebuttal? It was available at the Guardian but now may have been taken down at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/sep/21/climate-scientists-christopher-monckton
Also, there’s this:
Join us in Sydney, Friday October 1
A free one day seminar in Sydney on Climate Change. Friday, October 1
Hosted by The Heartland Institute, it’s the fifth in a series of international conferences on climate change that Heartland has hosted since March 2008, and the first to be held outside the United States. http://joannenova.com.au/2010/09/join-us-in-sydney-friday-october-1/
Luke will be the one waving a ‘The End is Near’ placard and shouting epithets.
Deep ocean heat storage seems fanciful, here is a guest post by William DiPuccio over at Watts.
‘Deep Ocean Heat. Is it possible that “lost” heat has been transferred to the deep ocean-below the 700 meter limit of our measurements? This appears unlikely. According to Hansen, Willis, Schmidt et al., model simulations of ocean heat flow show that 85% of heat storage occurs above 750 m on average (with the range stretching from 78 to 91%) (1432). Moreover, if there is “buried” heat, widespread diffusion and mixing with bottom waters may render it statistically irrelevant in terms of its impact on climate.
The absence of heat accumulation in deep water is corroborated by a recent study of ocean mass and altimetric sea level by Cazenave, et. al. Deep water heat should produce thermal expansion, causing sea level to rise. Instead, steric sea level (which measures thermal expansion plus salinity effects) peaked near the end of 2005, then began to decline nearly steadily. It appears that ocean volume has actually contracted slightly.’
Schiller; Heartland hacking today hey
el; re “It appears that ocean volume has actually contracted slightly”- see another 2010 “guest” post by one Scott A Mandia “The complete guide to modern day climate change”
http://climateprogress.org/2010/04/14/the-complete-guide-to-modern-day-climate-change/
More Dipuccio hacky stuff
http://climatechangedispatch.com/climate-reports/7655-have-changes-in-ocean-heat-falsified-the-global-warming-hypothesis
C’mon el!
Gavin says: “Malcolm; the IPCC has to be a recognized process regardless of what you and other skeptics think of it.”
Come on Gav thats naivety at its best.
We need a recognised process for sure ..but also one that can do the job in an open, transparent and competent manner.
What,McKitrick, IAC, Mclean and others show is that the IPCC fails on all counts.
..thats what the main issue is, and it is at the core of why the Perris/Monash University Phantom 21 reasons you were threatening us all with is a complete load of bollocks.
Whats that about fish rotting from the head down.
Malcolm,
The IPCC procedure is actually a recognized process. Your friends (WWF, Greenpeace, Hockey Team members) produce reports. Then, ‘expert reviewers’ from the WWF, Greenpeace, and Hockey Team members look at the published thingies. Then, the WWF, Greenpeace, and Hockey Team members approve the reports of the WWF, Greenpeace, and Hockey Team members. Then, the IPCC publishes the findings of the WWF, Greenpeace, and Hockey Team members.
Quite streamlined, when you think about it.
McKitrick, IAC, Mclean – what a joke
meanwhile back in science on the missing heat
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/people/gjohnson/Recent_AABW_Warming_v3.pdf
Gavin
Dipuccio is long winded and I’m all at sea with his workings, so I’ll just move on.
An international team of scientists have ‘discovered an unexpectedly abrupt cooling event that occurred between roughly 1968 and 1972 in Northern Hemisphere ocean temperatures. The research indicates that the cooling played a key role in the different rates of warming seen in the Northern and Southern Hemispheres in the middle 20th century.’
Its over at Watts, hot off the press.
el gordo see the article by David W. J. Thompson et al “Ocean Cooling Contributed to Mid-20th Century Global Warming Hiatus” here
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/09/100922132002.htm
However there is another Thompson related link you should find, 2007 Butler et al – relationships for SAM and CO2; fancy math for big sys
Luke; perhaps Malcolm thought IAC = http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBuAbPAr1dgV
but then we have the IOC see “Assessment of Assessments” and the “regular process”
http://www.unep.org/dewa/assessments/ecosystems/water/marineassessment/meetings.asp
luke, the Johnson paper mentions geothermal once, on page 30, yet the heating trends he finds are basin particular and confined by ridges which appear to correlate with plate formations.
His figures for steric SLR are contradicted by these 2 papers, not to mention Lyman amongst others:
http://www.ocean-sci-discuss.net/6/31/2009/osd-6-31-2009.pdf
http://sciences.blogs.liberation.fr/home/files/Cazenave_et_al_GPC_2008.pdf
And his claims about rising OHC in the top 700 metres contradicted by NOAA:
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/index.html
So, what gives?
” McKitrick, IAC, Mclean – what a joke”
The only joke around these parts is your consistent inabilty to exhibit one ounce of managerial nous.
According to you, well documented managerial and procedural incompetence is quite OK because the people who identified it dont belong to the elitist dopes, who think that AGW/CC science and fraud, are interchangeable and mutually enabling.
Thats no different to that other religion called Islam, that has a fully sanctioned practice called Taqiyya, which means that lying to benefit of the religion is justified.
Gavin,
I dont have the faintest idea what you are about with your reference to Mozarts sublime music.
If you can, perhaps you can then come and explain, and perform, the intracacies of Bach’s English suites particularly the Preludes …now thats real music.
It also has got bugger all to do with the madness of global warming as perceived by the dodgy climatariat…
Well Mally – after that regrettable GRL paper – joke is correct. Playing the Islam card gets you disqualified. We’re satanists.
This response by the real team dingalings just shows how hopeless and ignorant they really are, but then with these upside down dopes I suppose ignorance is bliss.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/23/rcs-response-to-mcshane-and-wyner-the-teams-steaming-pile-of-snip/#more-25226
For those willing to play with their instruments; you can’t get past these home grown assessments
http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_hist_last_15.html
gavin,
Satellite measurement of SLR is statistical clap-trap.
The CSIRO are the only authors who claim that SLR accelerated during the latter part of the 20th C.
Other authors, using the same tide gauge dataset as Church and White claim that SLR is in the lower range of the IPCC estimate at around 1.2mm/y or around 4 ins per century.
Even if all that sea ice melts, it won’t raise SLs.
New cause of global warming identified:
Samoan clerics finger homosexuals over global warming
Shock at conference on climate change and creativity
21st September 2010
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/09/21/climate_change/
Clarifying springtime temperature reconstructions of the medieval period by gap-filling the cherry blossom phenological data series at Kyoto, Japan. International Journal of Biometeorology 54: 211-219.
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/studies/l1_kyotojapan.php
Description
The authors investigated documents and diaries from the ninth to the fourteenth centuries to supplement phenological data series pertaining to the flowering of Japanese cherry trees in Kyoto, Japan, “to improve and fill gaps in temperature estimates based on previously reported phenological data,” after which they “reconstructed a nearly continuous series of March mean temperatures based on 224 years of cherry flowering data, including 51 years of previously unused data, to clarify springtime climate changes.” In addition, they estimated still other cherry full-flowering dates “from phenological records of other deciduous species, adding further data for six years in the tenth and eleventh centuries by using the flowering phenology of Japanese wisteria.” The resulting temperature reconstruction “showed two warm temperature peaks of 7.6°C and 7.1°C, in the middle of the tenth century and at the beginning of the fourteenth century, respectively,” and they say that “the reconstructed tenth century temperatures are somewhat higher than present temperatures after subtracting urban warming effects.” Quantitatively, that difference during the 10th century was determined to be as high as 0.5°C.
See also: Peer-Reviewed Cherry Blossom Reseach Confirms Japan’s Medieval Climate Warmer Than Current One, C3 Headlines, September 22, 2010,
http://www.c3headlines.com/2010/09/peer-reviewed-cherry-blossom-reseach-confirms-japans-medieval-climate-warmer-than-current-one.html
Nothing like rampant hypocrisy – Schiller has previously denounced phenology as evidence of anything. And strangely he doesn’t want to see their data to check it for “adjustments”. Did they say “reconstructed” and “subtracted” – jeez – sounds like it’s been MANIPULATED by one of them thar sta-tisk-tical anal-a- sees
Selective denialist harlotry
Barf !
Just think if were now back in the MWP the temperatures would be even HIGHER due to the extra greenhouse forcing from CO2. So if anything drongos we should be even more concerned.
Luke,
I’ve backed phenology many times. Such as grape-growing in Britain, farming in Greenland, etc. And if you have any appreciation for Japanese culture and the native attachment to cherry blossoms, you know you’re dealing with quality product.
When you understand that it takes million$ and crap code/bodging to make the MWP go away, that’s yet another indication of quality.
You are so right Mr Walker. If there was a return to the climate that was experienced at the time of the MWP, it may indeed be hotter.
But most of it would be because of:
a) They cant manage the temperature records in a competent and professional mannner. A bit like this lates example:
http://notrickszone.com/2010/09/21/a-light-in-siberia/
and,
b) dont know what is natural, and what is caused by our naughty emmissions
but,
c) they can deliberately confuse the issue by engaging in blatant misprepresentation, a bit like your mates in the Long Paddock division of the Qld PS, and call it all Climate Change , and then brief all the dopey lawyers passing them selves off as Politicians to parrot the phrase CC all the time
and,
d)just to make sure of it, corrupt the IPCC process so that the out come is pre ordained, and by collectively remaining silent of quite obvious breaches of the rules, become entirely complicit
Yeah I can see that, if that makes me drongo then so be it …but I sleep well at night …do you?
NZ south island has been hit hard by cold weather with a large loss of lambs.
http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/snow-hit-farmers-call-help-3795585
Malcolm,
Good link and well said.
You can’t believe that “scientists” use this “data”.
This could be the game changer.
A new peer reviewed study has shown that the Arctic has had less ice cover than now over most of the past 9,000 years, or the entire Holocene.
In fact in the last 1,000 years there has been more ice cover (Arctic)and cooler SST than most of the earlier record.
This fits in with all those other studies we’ve been highlighting showing much warmer conditions during the earlier Holocene than we now experience in this so called modern warming.
So Luke and Gav get off this modern brain dead thirty year prism ala Hansen and Gore and open your eyes to temps and ice cover over the entire Holocene.
But yes I’ll now admit, this present time is probably UNPRECEDENTED because it has more ice cover and lower SST in the Arctic than most of the Holocene.
So now will this be headline news in the MSM and how long before we get a fresh line of attack on this study (with lies and exaggerations again) and an even heavier concentration on the west Antarctic peninsula?
If this hits the headlines the straw clutchers, liars and fabricators will be working overtime.
What use now is a price on carbon and the trillions to be wasted on this fraudulent garbage over the coming decades .
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/23/surprise-peer-reviewed-study-says-current-arctic-sea-ice-is-more-extensive-than-most-of-the-past-9000-years/#more-25249
Re your cherry picking of blossoms; let’s say it again the LIA – MWP scenario is blog nonsense because we still don’t have combined paleo evidence including SL series strong enough to confirm your chart start at any point beyond the instrument record. In fact there is no improvement after Mann’s tree rings etc.
Google “research Confirms Japan’s Medieval Climate 2010” finds blogs, bogs and mire from anti AGW inc.
Wow gavin!
“let’s say it again the LIA – MWP scenario is blog nonsense because we still don’t have combined paleo evidence including SL series strong enough to confirm your chart start at any point beyond the instrument record. In fact there is no improvement after Mann’s tree rings etc.”
That’s serious denial!
There are literally hundreds of papers to refute that.
Blog nonsense is admitting there was no MWP, this quote from CO2 Science.
Medieval Warm Period Project
Was there a Medieval Warm Period? YES, according to data published by 881 individual scientists from 523 separate research institutions in 43 different countries … and counting!
Ah the sweet smell of massive hypocrisy – uncritically accepting any papers you like – on mass dismissing any papers you dislike e.g. Schiller’s about face on the Nature 20,000 studies paper with a single paper on cherry blossoms. No need to check the cherry blossom data as it suits him fine. No need to see the data by Climate Fraudit – it will do just fine.
Torrents of libellous screams of fraud from Mally ponce and Neville. Weally guys – Neville unpublished swill who? Who cares what you think you dweeby bit pattern.
I haven’t seen so much bunk and hyprocrisy since the pensioner scaring Watts tour. Reams and reams of utter drivel and recycled nonsense at those – and now Watts is droning on about someone using “his” data – WTF?
As I’ve pointed out before Luke doesn’t like either facts or the truth.
Of course we now have many studies showing the earlier and mid Holocene temps were higher than our present warm period (a few decades) and ice cover in the Arctic was lower for most of the last 9,000 years than the last 1,000.
Luke sounds like RC complaining about McShane and Wyner’s data:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/23/rcs-response-to-mcshane-and-wyner-the-teams-steaming-pile-of-snip/
Spangles; that unpublished math essay by hired guns can’t survive in genuine climate science circles
WTF? World Trade Federation?
Luke, your side also uncritically accepts only papers they like and dismiss any papers they dislike. I’ve been spending time at John Quiggin’s blog and find them a humorless bunch, at least you make me laugh.
“genuine climate science circles”
What are they, gav?
D’you mean RC? UEA? The Hockey Team? IPCC?
Who would you like me to tug the forelock and genuflect to?
SD; you can start by looking up the right Alley
Gee Gav that last remark is so scientific.
THE global climate change industry is now worth more than $528bn, powered by China’s rise as one of the top nations for climate revenues. Wall St. Journal, September 18, 2010,
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/china-powers-booming-world-climate-change-industry/story-e6frg8zx-1225925596796
Shows you the magnitude of the scandal of funding people with different ideas: Kochs have sent nearly $50 million over the past five years to “climate-denial front groups”—more than even ExxonMobil. The New Republic, Sept. 20, 2010,
http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-vine/77806/the-koch-brothers-vs-the-climate
Luke and Gavin are excused of any serious obligation to make sense when the big money is almost entirely on their side.
Test your knowledge of ‘the debate’ over Anthropogenic Global Climate Disruption! How do the laws of Proportionality and Inverse Proportionality apply, and why?
Laws of Inverse Proportionality
“The number of different hypotheses erected to explain a given natural phenomenon is inversely proportional to the available knowledge.” Murphy’s Scientific Law #12
“The fury with which untenable beliefs are defended is inversely proportional to their defensibility” Dawkins’s Law of Divine Invulnerability, Lemma 4.
“Passion is inversely proportional to the amount of real information available.” Benford’s law of controversy.
“Religious freedom in a cultural complex is inversely proportional to the strength of the strongest religion.” Robert A. Heinlein, Glory Road.
“The probability of someone making a mathematical formulation on a non-mathematical subject is inversely proportional to its usefulness.” Brust’s Law of Mathematical Formulations.
“The credibility of a complaint is inversely proportional to the volume of e-mail that is generated on that subject.” Jeffrey Dvorkin, Dvorkin’s Axiom
Laws of Proportionality
“The importance of information is directly proportional to its improbability.” Jerry Pournelle
“The number of people watching you is directly proportional to the stupidity of your action.” Murphy’s Quantified Law No. 17
Thats a bit rich coming from you Walker…you of all people putting the words ” hypocrisy” and ” abuse” in the same sentence as a charge against others, is the very essence of hypocrisy.
We all know about your proclivity for foul abuse against others over the last 5 year on this blog.
As a matter of interest I am keeping a file most things to do with this scam called AGW (CC in the parlance of the scambologists) because I reckon there is a book sequel for someone to write that will fit in beautifully with Barbara Tuchmans ” March of Folly ” master piece.
Hypocrisy as a chapter is well covered and there no point over doing it.
I wonder how a chapter on misfeasance would go.
Malcolm,
Are you sure that Luke = Luke Walker? The latter has a rather poorly populated RSS feed from this site, but the items therein seem well-reasoned and short on expletives.
A marked contrast to the Luke who exemplifies most of the laws of Proportionality and Inverse Proportionality shown above. (He’s apparently unqualified to exemplify all of them.)
Boo hoo, Luke.
So why do you non-critically accept those studies and not others Neville – coz like Malcolm you’re abusive hypocrites. You will jump on anything that remotely satisfies your needs. No analysis. Just blog parrots. “Polly want to deny”. “Polly wanna recycle bilge” “AAARRRRRHHKKKKK !”
What amazing slander of a whole slew of scientists that you have never met. Let’s add up the number of times you’ve accused scientists of “fraud”. It’s offensive.
So darkies Schiller has turned himself inside out on the cherry blossom story. Phenology is now cool (no it was warm sorry).
Now Schiller have you personally checked their data, have you checked the social network of the publishers, have you met anyone on a blog anywhere that has accused them of fraud. And for you guys just anyone will do. And who cares if it’s right or wrong. As long as it fits your meme.
“As I’ve pointed out before Luke doesn’t like either facts or the truth.” BARF – how does Neville know “THE TRUTH” – coz the shonkies at WUWT told him. That’s it matey. Your little daily sewer line of suitable factoids. If WUWT tells Nev it’s kosher – he’ll swallow it.
Just remember dudes – despite everything you’re thrown at it – 98% of the AGW story is still there. And you know it. That’s why you’re still here.
Luke,
I have personally checked their data, checked the social network of the publishers, and met no-one a blog anywhere that has accused them of fraud.
What say you now? Surely you are impressed, after having put forth these criteria.
Erp — should have mentioned, Luke, your claimed ‘98% of the AGW story is still there’ because it’s a story.
Heck, last I looked, 98 percent of Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth is ‘still there’, as well.
With criteria like that, you must feel incontrovertible or invincible or something.
Another interesting article on the Arctic,that’s the area that has increased in temp by 4c according to Hansen but was as least as warm earlier in the 20th century ( much warmer in earlier Holocene) when we know that co2 couldn’t have been a driver.
The warmists are pinning their hopes on an area that holds just 3% of the planet’s ice, so what’s new. ( excluding Greenland)
http://www.hawaiireporter.com/questioning-the-arctic-ice-melt-and-temperature-scare
Like I said Walker when it comes to abuse you have no equal, if anyone has been been sticking it back to you, its because you have well deserved it
…so dont cry you sook …mummy will be home shortly to give you a cuddle and bikkie.
Here’s the peer reviewed study Luke, read it for yourself.
http://bprc.osu.edu/geo/publications/mckay_etal_CJES_08.pdf
“Just remember dudes – despite everything you’re thrown at it – 98% of the AGW story is still there. And you know it. That’s why you’re still here.”
Luke,
You’re righter than you think. Us sceptics are happy to accept that 98% of the signal in that 0.7c of warming may be due to ACO2.
That’s about [98% of] 0.2c.
It’s just the mindless “projections” that we’re a little sceptical of.
So how about telling us in your own words what you really think the 98% consists of.
You too gav.
And what we should do to fix it.
http://devconsultancygroup.blogspot.com/2010/09/salute-this-man-pachauri-did-what-no.html
The poor old IPCC is pretty well done for:
Pachauri is hopeless, and the big boys want him to go, but if does the Indian Govt will pull out of the IPCC, which would then render it an even bigger dud.
Seems that the IAC will get its wish… but at a cost.
Silly buggers should have done it right first time around.
Well Schiller – how many lines or kbytes is their data set then – or would you be a big fat liar?
Surely Neville – you’re not suggesting we use “peer reviewed” material. When you’ve told us that peer review is broken. Systematically corrupt indeed…
Well Spanglers – that 98% of the diverse array of evidence that world continues to warm as a result of anthropogenic CO2 emissions is quite intact.
What to do about – well it depends whether you’d like to adapt or mitigate. The recently deceased Pakistanis and Russians seemed to have a tad of trouble adapting. Nobody seems to want to mitigate.
And lying denialists fresh from tobacco school have done their job – create uncertainty to stall any action whatsoever.
But you just sit there isolated from all this – and ignore every part of the wakeup call as it all unfolds.
Mitigation won’t work, so it looks like adaption with Bob Carter’s Plan B. All in favor say I….
“The recently deceased Pakistanis and Russians seemed to have a tad of trouble adapting”
And of course the Indus has never flooded before nor the Russians had high temperatures and bushfires.
D’you think that part of your 98% might be population increases? And that most of the proposed mitigation is not going to be any help to them.
But if you’re really saying they’ve just gotta go, well, you’ll just have to call for volunteers and lead the way to the future.
” And lying denialists fresh from tobacco school have done their job ”
My God he is into conspiracy theories now, as well as abuse.
Bu then I must admit that I was being paid $1m per year by big tobacco to wreck havoc, and it would have been money for old rope.
Didnt have anything to do though. They made mess of it all by themselves, and I had to give the money back. Dam, I was so looking forward to driving a new Bentley.
But then, if they put a new Chairman in as head of the IPCC, and make all the changes the IAC and others are suggesting it might just be credible….oh and sort out whats going on with clouds, and all the other low LOSU’s etc…. Oh and get handle on the temperature records etc etc…. and sort out the stupidly anachronistic Peer Review systems…like bring into the 21 st century….. etc etc.
If there is a delay its been mainly caused by their own ineptitude, and treating tax payers as though they were fools.
Latest issue of New Scientist admits the sun may be a factor in climate change. The cooler NH winters must have had a sobering effect on the editors.
el gordo,
As Jennifer says, Plan B is the right path.
“Of course Carter’s Plan B has been ignored by the Australian Greens, because it doesn’t acknowledge that there is a man-made climate crisis right now; and by Labor and the Coalition because no one gets paid off. In short, despite Plan B being an effective policy that addresses real problems, there is nothing in it for the rent-seekers. So, thanks to the lack of leadership, insight and cost-effective thinking by their politicians, Australians can’t exercise a vote for Plan B, or even anything resembling it, at this upcoming 2010 federal election.”
[Perhaps that is the “right alley” you were talking about, gav?]
“Latest issue of New Scientist admits the sun may be a factor in climate change.”
More very low readings on the LOSU meter.
Luke if you really believe the floods in Pakistan and a heat wave in a part of Russia was caused by co2 you are sillier than even I thought you were.
Of course the only plan is adaptation, just don’t become delusional and think you can FIX the climate.
Some good comments over at BH’s blog on the proposed science cuts and insights into the madness we are facing by using Plan A instead of Plan B.
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2010/9/24/science-cuts.html
Human caused flooding, if not GW:
“Illegal logging supported by the Taliban in the northwest province of Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa has felled as much as 70% of the forest in some districts. The lack of trees, combined with overgrazing by livestock, reduces the soil’s ability to hold water and leads to soil erosion. Flash flooding in the northern, mountainous areas then sends silt downstream, reducing the amount of water the river channel can hold. Diverting the Indus through irrigation channels has encouraged people to build closer to or even in the river channel. Many of the irrigation channels are built using techniques from the 18th century.”
Read more here:
http://judithcurry.com/2010/09/20/pakistan-on-my-mind/#more-120
“Climate Science and the Uncertainty Monster”.
Various aspects of LOSU. Judith again:
http://judithcurry.com/2010/09/22/the-uncertainty-monster/#more-146
After reading it I know I’m in the category of “recognised ignorance” or “border with ignorance” [knowledge of the presence of ignorance] but how about this:
“Monster exorcism. The uncertainty monster exorcist focuses on reducing the uncertainty through advocating for more research. A growing sense of the infeasibility of reducing uncertainties in global climate modeling emerged in the 1990’s, in response to the continued emergence of unforeseen complexities and sources of uncertainties. Van der Sluijs states that: “monster-theory predicts that [reducing uncertainty] will prove to be vain in the long run: for each head of the uncertainty monster that science chops off, several new monster heads tend to pop up due to unforeseen complexities,” analogous to the Hydra beast of Greek mythology.”
Is that climate science or what?
Isn’t Mr Walker ‘the man who walks who cannot die’? Lived in Africa and wore a theatrical costume?
Excellent cartoon illustrating climategate:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_blnN-QHR9C4/S0PSgrNU2vI/AAAAAAAAAPg/DQO6_3KAw88/s400/12-07-Ramirez-Climategate.jpg
There should be a term for humor that’s funny but hard to laugh at.
Danish ice core analysis has found that the Holocene started precisely 11,711 years BP.
http://politiken.dk/newsinenglish/article611464.ece
It was abrupt climate change in the direction of global warming, but they don’t know the cause.
Gavin, we are looking for a cause celebre other than CO2, because it was too fast and doesn’t fit the models.
“Climate Science and the Uncertainty Monster”.
Various aspects of LOSU. Judith again:
http://judithcurry.com/2010/09/22/the-uncertainty-monster/#more-146”
Spangles
Reading your reference to this Judith Curry piece, and the various comments made by people like Don Aitken, makes that dope Walkers claim that 98% of the AGW story is still there, look even more ridiculous.
I suppose there is something to be gained in teasing out mindless stupidity from Luke ,like how co2 helped cause 1940’s drought in Australia and now is the cause of the Russian heat wave and Pakistan floods.
Just a pity that new scientist doesn’t agree with him and uses terms like frozen jet streams that held systems in place for longer than usual. ( I used blocking high)
They now think the SUN may be the culprit and good old Sol will play a role in the new ipcc report to be delivered in 2013, about time.
CAGW proponents are pretty stupid we know, fundamentally believing that we have changed the climate and caused a slight warming of 0.7c in the last +100 years. This after a minor ice age had completed it’s cycle over hundreds of years and the planet naturally started to either warm slightly, cool even more or somehow remain static with no warming or cooling.
But incredibly they also believe that we can change the climate back to some nirvana of temp and rainfall that has never ever existed over the entire planet during the Holocene.
You probably don’t have to be mad to believe this nonsense but it would certainly help, anyhow Luke click on Russian heatwave in this article to see their version of the cause of the floods as well.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20727793.100-the-sun-joins-the-climate-club.html
Schillers’ done a runner.
You lot are pretty interesting.
(1) oh there’s no evidence for AGW. Well if there is – it doesn’t count…. so no evidence would ever count. Brilliant. Just let it keep piling up guys while you deny it.
(2) a change in circulation patterns can’t be AGW – how stupid is this ! Gads !!!
(3) a slight warming – hmmmmm …. see how much of an SST anomaly you need to completely change the planet’s rainfall patterns. That “small” anomaly is terawatts of energy.
AGW will manifest itself in a reorganisation of the world’s circulation systems. It won’t be a little “warmer” all over and that’s all. Are you galloots for real !
And Neville – how can you even quote a temperature number when you don’t believe the temperature record? Mate you don’t know whether it’s warmed or cooled. What a hypocrite.
Who’s mad and who’s sane. Well geriatric old codgers who suck on paid-for-opinion extremist right wing blogs for their daily sustenance, uncritically accepting anything that suits them, ignores reams of evidence, drying all peer review, continually making excuses over any evidence, yelling fraud like please and thank you, not satisfied with any inquiry that gives them any answer than the one they want – well YOU GREAT FESTERING HYPOCRITES.
BTW where’s the bone crushing ice age you promised would be here by now?
And PLAN B – WTF – Bob has no plan except there should be a Plan B – where’s Plan B – what a con.
Luke,
Your question about “how many lines or kbytes is their data set” makes no sense. You don’t specify whose lines or whose dataset, nor how such a count would be relevant to anything.
Luke I’ve never said there hasn’t been any warming but I’m sure most of it is natural and easily explained.
Just explain for us using science not BS how the earlier Holocene could have been much warmer (2.5c to 7c in parts of the NH) between 4,000 to 10,000 years BP.
The recent Canadian study also shows that we have lower sea surface temps now and more ice than over the previous 9,000 years in the NH, explain this as well.
We know for sure that it wasn’t co2, also when have I said we are heading for an ice age any time soon, I leave that global cooling scare to those other urgers 30 to 40 years ago.
“how many lines or kbytes is their data set”
A gigabyte of crap data, is just that.
Plan B is preparation for warming or cooling, I think that’s fair.
Jonova says: Australian Temperatures in cities adjusted up by 70%!?
Dr David Jones of BOM said:
“On the issue of adjustments you find that these have a near zero impact on the all Australian temperature because these tend to be equally positive and negative across the network (as would be expected given they are adjustments for random station changes).”
Ken Stewart finds:
The raw trend is about 0.4C (actually slightly less than 0.4C)- that’s a full 0.2C less than the non-urban raw trend using the same comparison; the adjusted trend is about 0.78C: and that’s a warming bias of 95%. (The 70% figure is based on averaging all the changes in trends- from the table of 34 towns. 95% is from plotting the average temperature for all sites each year, then calculating the trend from this average. It’s artificial as BOM say they don’t do it but it’s a way of comparing at the large scale. It removes much of the error.)
So much for “these tend to be equally positive and negative across the network”.
Of course, BOM says that this data is not used in their climate analyses, so my trend lines shown above are for illustration and comparison purposes only. However, they illustrate the problem quite well: there is a warming bias apparent in the High Quality data.
As well, the “quality” of the High Quality stations leaves much to be desired.
Many of the sites have large slabs of data missing, with the HQ record showing “estimates” to fill in the missing years. Some sites should not be used at all: Moree, Grafton, Warnambool, Orange, Bowral, and Bairnsdale.
\8 of the 34 are Reference Climate Stations (RCS) and were used by BOM and CSIRO in their State of the Climate Report released in March 2010.
BOM and Dr David Jones then say:
“You may wish to prepare and submit your work to a scientific journal. This will then mean that your work will be given serious scientific consideration…. It is difficult for the Bureau of Meteorology to assess work that has not been published”.
I ask…
Why does some basic procedural analysis and data normalisation have to be passed through a Peer Review process when commons sense should prevail?
People in other disciplines and occupations are doing this all the time, and they don’t see the need to have to publish the application of some arithmetic.
What the hell is so special about normalising some temperature data, collected at different times with different instruments and perhaps at sites that may have altered and which may also have missing data.This isnt science its data processing and data validation 101.
These people are up themselves. What the hell is the BOM so afraid of that they can’t hold a civilised round table discussion with people like Ken Steward and Warwick Hughes, with a moderator if necessary?
We are run by light weights and idiots.
Basically Malcolm coz most deniers are time wasting eccentrics. Let’s see we could have BoM chasing fairies all day or maybe they could so some actual work. I wonder how many kook letters these guys get each day.
You have to be kidding – “civilised people” – do have a toss – it’s total politically motivated attack. Hughes is a serial BoM basher from way back (well actually pretty well all mainstream scientists) – but you well know mate – nudge nudge – wink wink – the big coordinated multi-institutional conspiracy that everyone in science is in on. With all the help out there e.g. Watts, Carter, McLean, etc etc etc – shouldn’t be hard for them to get help and get published.
I know – why don’t you help them Mal – I’m sure David Jones would love to waste a few hours with a bloke like you – after all you’ve said over the years.
Schiller – stop lying – if you had checked out the cherry blossom data set you’d have answered me in 10 seconds.
Actually, I “wasted a few hours” with Malcolm a while back and found it to be a thoroughly enjoyable experience. You on the other hand Luke would not be welcome. I’ve never been able to suffer fools.
I am not at all surprised by the nature of your response Walker. Completely in line with the nature of your responses over the years, namely failing read what you cite… you have already failed to notice that Jones and BOM have already responded to Ken stewart, and it is the dumbassed nature of that response, is what I was commenting on.
Further anyone who believes that units of government are infallible areas of expertise knows no history, and has no, as in zero, life experiences worth bothering with.
Who hasnt in their life been on the receiving end of some petty little creep in the PS who thinks he knows everything, and uses his positional authority to enforce a blatant piece of stupidity. But as a bottom feeder you probably wouldnt have noticed.
May I remind you of but one example of recent origin, it was public servants who were in charge of the pink bats debacle that killed several people.
Based upon well established examples overseas it wouldnt be at all surprising if the BOM hadnt also stuffed it up, and Ken Stewarts work shows that something is amiss.Jones certainly has some explaining to do.
Therefore if the managers in the BOM were half smart they would be engaging with Stewart and Hughes if only to make it known to the public that they have the answers etc.
By their silence they are actually confirming that something is amiss….spinnnig the peer review top on something so basic, is a con job by the BOM, and it just makes worse.
There is one final point that has also obviously escaped you ..which doesnt surprise me as a pube yourself….the BOM is paid out of the taxes we pay, including Ken Stewart and Hughes.
The public may require that the BOM relates to these people, and stops giving them the typical arrogant public service brush off.
G’day Derek
I bet that gorge of yours has been running a torrent of late.
I just wanted to add an afterthought regarding the previous asinine comments from Mr Walker.
Actually all it requires for the perceived arrogance of the BOM to be sorted quick smart, would be for people on this,and the Jonova blogs, and elswhere to write to their local members, and, who ever is the Minister, …and get a Ministerial/Member reply in writing with explanations.
Then we will see who is wasting whose time and over what because Jones does have some explaining to do to Ken Stewart and now the rest of us….and they would be perfectly legitamate questions to ask
Climate disruption by Josh.
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/category/josh
Some kind of hiatus.
The madness of govt subsidies in business:
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/water-tank-industry-almost-down-the-gurgler-20100926-15rw2.html?from=smh_ft
Is there any evidence for the proposition that abrupt climate change has come about because of CO2?
Luke,
What am I supposedly lying about?
El Gordo,
The abruptness isn’t there, but the rest is clear: CO2 measurements show the climate has changed.
Well Malcolm – Yes genius I know he has responded as has been said – probably had his feet up waiting for something to do – but you go and write to all the Ministers you like. Keep going and you’ll have nobody in these positions soon. Who could be bothered putting up with rants and harassment from guys like you. Really and seriously. Perhaps you should lobby the Minster to replace them with Stewart and Hughes. Then they can answer our letters.
You forget that David Jones has been quite generous with his time here over the years. And received nothing but abuse for it. So perhaps one learns after a while that sceptic = pain in the butt ranter. Pavolvian response.
And isn’t it fascinating that under the stewardship of Kinimonth, who you all fawn over as sceptic royalty, it was darned hard to get data from BoM, but under Jones you can now get reams of it over the Internet – unprecedented access (and that is far from simple to set up). The lesson is “don’t bother” as you will be hounded by every hobbyist for the rest of your days. Might as well be greedy and do accountancy or medicine. Who could be bothered.
Schiller don’t b/s – you said you had been through the cherry blossom data – you haven’t. The end.
Bolt’s back from hols, good yarn on Flannery’s recent silly nonsense.
Is this bloke the most delusional fool we’ve seen in the CAGW debate?
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/alarmist_reports_from_his_virtual_reality/
Luke has taken a runner — wants to do politics when the science has failed. Last resort of crooks hey.
Meanwhile I never said I had been through the cherry blossom data. Saying that I did such a thing requires a bit of proof — but as we all know, CAGWers can make a proof out of the slightest innuendo. Grey literature canonized by the fiat of the WWF and its nefarious ilk.
But let’s pretend I went through the cherry blossom data. Counting lines of code indicates what? How many k of data says what?
Dude, you need to seriously adjust your notion of what’s relevant.
Dont be such a dope Walker
The standard that applied in Kininmonths day over data access etc was also a function of the technology available to him.
There is no excuse for such basic material to be hidden from scrutiny these days.
If people wish to ask questions of the holders of tis data then that should be their right.
We are about open and accountable government these days says..or hadnt you noticed.Even Big Julie has said so.
If the data holder can’t be bothered providing these answers and data then perhaps they should get another job.
One would also have to be little dopey not to have excepted that given what has already transpired in both the UK and the USA and elsewhere with Anthony Watts etc, that there wasnt going to be some scrutiny of the BOM approaches.
Sticking their collective heads in the sand at this late stage, is just asking for trouble, and trying to fob someone off with the Peer Review canard is just making it worse.
I repeat, on the face of it the questions raised by KS are perfectly valid, and it doesnt require peer review papers to answer them. Nor did Anthony Watts et al need PR to deterimine what a mess the USA termperature records are.
BTW these are questions for the BOM:
1. The raw data and the adjusted data both show much less warming than the non-urban sites.
2. Many of the sites show distinct cooling, especially in south east Australia.
3. The data has been subjectively and manually adjusted.
4. The methodology used is not uniformly followed, or else is not as described.
5. Sites with poor comparative data have been included.
6. Large quantities of data are not available, and have been filled in with estimates.
7. The adjustments are not equally positive and negative, and have produced a major impact on the temperature record of many of the sites.
8. The adjustments produce a trend in mean temperatures that is between roughly 0.3 degree Celsius and 0.38 degree Celsius per 100 years greater than the raw data does.
9. The warming bias in the temperature trend is from 60% to 95% depending on the comparison method
Perhaps your mates in the Long Paddock can have a go at answering them as well.
Malcolm,
Good points, all.
Meanwhile the CAGW ‘consensus community’ seems to have taken a new approach. If the data are ‘adjusted’ in a certain way, the interpretive software for identifying trends can be dead-simple.
So, you won’t find the misdeeds in the code, the bodge is in before the data get fed to the code.
The current fashionable term for bodged temperature readings is ‘High-Quality’.
Thank goodness these ‘high-quality’ scientists don’t build airplanes or nuclear power plants.
Neville,
He’s been sorely missed lately, with all the hipocrisy happening. This was much needed too:
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/rudd_tells_the_un_not_to_be_like_him/
“Perhaps you should lobby the Minster to replace them with Stewart and Hughes.”
Hughes couldn’t do any worse:
http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=651
Without honour Schiller just walks away – a true lying denialist.
“Comment from: Schiller Thurkettle September 25th, 2010 at 9:22 am
Luke,
I have personally checked their data ………”
Mate – you will say anything – your word is worthless.
Spanglers – what a wank – does the “forecast” graph express a percent probability. Fools like yourself and Hughes can’t even separate a deterministic versus a probabilistic forecast.
Tell us Spangly chook – if it is said that 60% the temperature will exceed “x” degrees – what happens 40% of the time.
Moronic ….
Although I’m feeling quite bored with this continuous unpublished swill, its worth another attempt to disperse the passion after an invite from SD (some days back now), “genuine climate science circles” What are they, gav?
Well; it sure isn’t Bolt, Hughes or Malcolm’s Stewart via that other charming blog host would be climate writer jo whoever. SD, still poohing the hockey stick??
The issue is still about ice, SL and where CO2 fits that climate.
What you guys so easily forget is my position on the importance of surface measurements in calibration of paleo series. Ice points remain the only zero on the curve. Old deviations can be as wild as you like but you can’t fix them into a parallel instrument series or compare max/min with today.
Blog discussion is usually only a diversion (slithering away) from the current evidence; our glaciers everywhere have been retreating over the more useful instrument period.
K’dom’s review of BoM HQ data is no more than a letter of private concern with the result from years of dedicated effort to transfer what remains of documented daily weather records into some certifiable climate change info. This 8th attempt presumably in a series to uncover plots and serious omissions with BoM’S data handling over the years is very short on inside info than come with practical experience.
I can think immediately about instruments that were “sticky” (my term for sluggish response) and those with a common problem like bead separation, typical liquid in glass thermometer error that could be overlooked for ages. So I can say it’s highly likely certain correction will go only one way depending on the breed of both manufacturer and user.
Also IMO methods from stats wont help here and a competent reviewer must find the error path first. Therefore the agony today (BoM) is required to cross reference any curious anomalies then discard the obvious, a rough justice if one considers the more faithful recorders who may not have been suspicious of errors at the time.
Interesting info on what really drives the climate, some of the graphs are very interesting indeed.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/26/a-must-read-european-climate-alpine-glaciers-and-arctic-ice-in-relation-to-north-atlantic-sst-record/#more-25384
Luke,
If there is one person with his hand on his gear lever and his mind in neutral it’s you.
These “forcasts” are only ever excessive in one direction yet they keep doing it.
Same in UK.
So what is your solution?
Ad hom the messenger!
These “genuine climate circles” you talk about, gav, are surely acknowlegements of the situation as we know it, allowing for all that uncertainty as per above.
The HS is uncertainty heaped on uncertainty, poorly assimilated.
You don’t seem to take on board any evidence of paleo warming where no ACO2 was ever involved.
This business with thermometer readings needs to be highlighted but it is only about increments over relatively short terms after all and doesn’t even cover the necessary areas.
The paleo data tells the real story.
Moronic comment Spanglers …. give us your statistic of how often right and wrong. This should be good.
The ABC spruik warming daily from the BoM. Last week when SW Qld was having record cold spells it hardly got a mention and the “barbecue summer” forcasts of the Met Office are legend [they still get a bonus when they’re wrong though].
You must have selective hearing.
Here, I know how you love Hughesey:
http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=529
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=18772
Something happened 11,711 years ago which kick-started the Holocene and ACO2 was not involved. How do we resolve this dilemma?
el gordo,
Easy peasy! Just ignore it.
We didn’t have pollies 11,711 years ago and anyway, we gotta MOVE FORWARD.
Can you imagine Ross Garnaut and this new green committee taking these facts into consideration when they’re working out our new “never gonna happen” carbon tax?
Luke, [and gavin]
More BoM virtues to ponder over:
http://rcs-audit.blogspot.com/
el gordo,
“Something happened 11,711 years ago which kick-started the Holocene and ACO2 was not involved. How do we resolve this dilemma?”
When you can’t get this point into people’s minds that this rate of warming makes our current WP look trivial, you really wonder about our future.
SD; my google for your linkage ‘paleo warming no CO2 involved 2010’ reveals it’s just a blog concept. Suprised?
It also found another conformation after that Wattsey lot (chuckle) of my position (ice, temp, CO2 and sea lea level go hand in hand all the way).
;
“One of the most remarkable aspects of the paleoclimate record is the strong correspondence between temperature and the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere observed during the glacial cycles of the past several hundred thousand years. When the carbon dioxide concentration goes up, temperature goes up. When the carbon dioxide concentration goes down, temperature goes down”
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/temperature-change.html
el; some red herrings turn into awfull smelly fish!
Whats up in real science circles hey
“Surface cooling could have pushed down temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere 40 years ago”
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/43789
CO2 = greenhouse, ice > freshwater = CLIMATE CHANGE
This might help take the smell away and spell it out in simple terms:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm
Luke’s Utopia: The Game!
Fate of the World is a global strategy game that puts our future in your hands. Decide how the world will respond to rising temperatures, heaving populations, dwindling resources, crumbling ecosystems and brave opportunities.
http://www.fateoftheworld.net/index.html
n the new game, you are no longer just a European dictator which was way too modest a job.
Now you are chosen the global dictator – the head of the G.E.O. junta – who is hired immediately when the 2010 climate talks fail (see the trailer) and whose task is do everything to reduce the emissions of CO2 in the world.
On each continent, you can introduce “mandatory euthanasia” for $100 billion – a policy to kill all the old and ill people. Or you can pay the same money to develop special bio-weapons to predictably exterminate whole nations. For the same payment, you may also induce a regime change just to overthrow politicians who are climate skeptics or who are otherwise hostile to your world government and replace them with “biddable”, corrupt politicians of your choice.
http://motls.blogspot.com/2010/09/red-redemption-fate-of-world.html#more
Ghastly.
New Northern Hemisphere Research: 30 Datasets Prove Roman/Medieval Warmings Hotter Than Current Temps
C3 Headlines
September 26, 2010
http://www.c3headlines.com/2010/09/new-northern-hemisphere-research-30-datasets-prove-romanmedieval-warmings-hotter-than-current-temps.html
A new study reconstructs 2,000 years of temperature variation from 30 datasets. The authors eliminated the discredited data and techniques utilized by Michael Mann (of Climategate fame) for multiple studies, and also used by his close paleo research comrades. For example, this study totally avoids the bristlecone pine and foxtail pine data that so miraculously produced the fake hockey-stick blades of temperatures in the 20th century.
This new study’s findings demonstrate that climate change has been very active over 2,000 years, with pronounced changes in temperature being one of the results. This past climate change and temperature variation happened in a atmosphere of low CO2 levels. These results also reveal Roman and Medieval temperatures that exceed modern temperatures derived from the same 30 datasets.
Hmmm… Is it cherry-picking if you refuse to use bodged data?
Reference: Ljungqvist, F.C. 2010. A new reconstruction of temperature variability in the extra-tropical northern hemisphere during the last two millennia. Geografiska Annaler 92A: 339-351. DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-0459.2010.00399.x Buy & download fulltext article: Price: $43.00 plus tax
Abstract: http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/bpl/geoa/2010/00000092/00000003/art00004;jsessionid=9rzbvbmnwjee.alexandra
But Schiller have you personally been through the data, checked their social networks, and made sure the authors are not involved in a global conspiracy. How do we know that paper is kosher?
Luke,
I’m not going to spend $43 for the article, merely to discover that the data are held elsewhere. But I’ll point out that, with appropriate criteria, meta-studies tend to be far more robust than their individual components. Or individual non-components.
As far as advocating a scrutiny of ‘global conspiracy’ and ‘social networks’, that’s just plain weird. I mean, so what? They either got things right, or not.
I guess things are different on your side of the fence.
Talking about global conspiracy.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100055500/global-cooling-and-the-new-world-order/
El Gordo,
If you’re interested in the greenie misanthropists and global cooling, check this out:
http://htomc.dns2go.com/text/ENVIRO.TXT
Advocating death on an unprecedented scale to prevent global cooling.
For Luke and fellow travelers, death seems to be the favored answer no matter what ‘the climate’ does.
More on global cooling:
Global Cooling and the New World Order
The Telegraph (UK)
September 26th, 2010
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100055500/global-cooling-and-the-new-world-order/
They’ll be demanding human sacrifice, no matter what happens.
These people are not our friends. Rather the opposite.
Dont worry about that Schiller
This is far more disturbing
The Poms are going to be paying billions in subsidies for wind power that could have been generated by nuclear for the same cost and have 13 times more to use.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/8025148/The-Thanet-wind-farm-will-milk-us-of-billions.html
Mean while back in the jungle, Big Julie now has her climate change comittee made up of predominantly greenoidal lefties who will bankrupt the country in flash just to feel good.
Not only are we run by idiots, but we are well on the way to being screwed over big time.
When will they get it into their collective thick skulls that there is nothing Australia can do on its own that will make one tot of difference to the temperature irrespective of how incompetently it has been measured and by whom.
Malcolm,
You perhaps mistake the motivations of the ‘greenoidal lefties who will bankrupt the country in flash just to feel good.’
Fact is, that’s all that the ‘greenoidal lefties’ are about. It makes no difference if the ‘good’ idea is a good idea, i.e., an idea that works.
It merely needs to sound good, and to make voters feel good about themselves whilst voting. Impossibly expensive? It’s for a ‘good’ cause. Doesn’t work? It’s for a ‘good’ cause, which proves you’re a good person.
It’s the modern version of Medieval selling of indulgences. With a twist. Used to be, you could purchase your way out of Purgatory, but now, you can enjoy the indulgences whilst corporeal. You can scowl at the rude multitudes who merely want to raise a family in comfort, tax them to death, and feel blessed in this life, rather than the next.
‘I oppressed millions seeking to escape poverty’ will not likely be rewarded in the great hereafter, but in the present, there’s billion$ to be made.
Good post Schiller just confirming what we know from other sources, but don’t worry about Luke/ Gav they’re not bright enough to consider any new evidence that conflicts with their fundamentalist religion.
At least their hero silly Timmy is flexible, changing what he thinks (?) and says every second time he opens his mouth.
http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/timblair/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/were_really_resilient/
Skimmer; the source of your fake science was so easy to find. Why do you persist in shoveling such obvious crap?
http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0133f49cf6dc970b-pi
el gordo; a word. Yesterday I received an unsolicited message on my mobile from some lotto group that stated I’d just won $200k and they needed my email to confirm my winnings. At the time I was busy, so I ignored it but was thinking about going down the investigation path with our legal authorities.
Its so annoying to be hassled with invitations to rackets run by parties unknown that I often get wild enough to go all the way but I don’t like that either. If self appointed sleuths are to be avoided, we need to know and trust our sources and that usually means having our badges of honor prominently displayed.
I don’t like C2, C3 and a host of other crap merchants hiding on the net and that’s why I depend on direct contact for most of my info.
Cheers
http://www.alp.org.au/federal-government/news/prime-minister-establishes-climate-change-committe/
Its a bit like what they say about the IPCC reports really …you can write the document before they meet just by looking at who is involved and what their known biases are. Steffen and Garnaut will be quite predictable. Plus the advice from the CSIRO and BOM will be the usual eminently predictable and alarmist tosh. Suspect science based on dodgy data is not a good mix.
But the real irony is that Big Julie and the Independants having previously said so much about open government… the meetings will now be in secret.
I guess with people like Kloppers expressing view that we should have a carbon tax but then not adding that as an exporter we BHP will not have to pay it, and Combet saying that coal exporters are safe that hypocrisy will rule the day..they will have to be secret.
Milne and Brown will have apoplexies.
Gavin,
The chart at the link you posted reinforces the point I was making, and the point of the paper I cited, a paper which you inscrutably would wish to denigrate. Since your chart agrees with the point of the paper, I cannot see your point about ‘fake science’ being ‘so easy to find’.
This much is obvious: you’re not in the pay of the CAGWers, they would insist on better work.
Schiller don’t argue with a fool, just save your breath and walk away and spend more time digging out the real science on this scam.
I mean even the Flannery fool is turning himself inside out trying to sound credible when the evidence changes.
Neville,
It’s possible that the USA in its upcoming elections will ‘scotch the snake’ and leave the CAGWers ‘hoist by their petard’.
Many are easily angered by the notion that the US takes the lead in various issues, but the byways of the system are unavoidable:
US Republicans v EU Enviro-Nazis: this should be fun!
James Delingpole
The Telegraph (UK)
September 24th, 2010
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100055264/us-republicans-v-eu-enviro-nazis-this-should-be-fun/
When the warmanistas are voted out and left to their own devices, like bagging groceries, we’ll be able to go back and be generous, kind, and inclusive.
Ol’ Travesty is still looking for that missing heat, unlike Foolya Joolya who has just rediscovered it and is gonna twice cool us with a big tax.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/27/examining-trenberths-the-heat-will-come-back-to-haunt-us-sooner-or-later-statement/#more-25413
BTW, someone from the BoM on the ABC this morn had the good sense to point out to a warmist announcer that September has not been as warm as usual in Qld.
There’s hope for salvation yet.
Gavin, what do you make of this?
http://www.nature.com/climate/2010/1005/full/climate.2010.35.html
http://htomc.dns2go.com/text/ENVIRO.TXT
Schiller, that bears repeating and ought to be put on the Greens banner here. Our Julia in the meantime is happy to waste millions courting them at our expense:
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/wooing_the_greens_labors_20_million_game_of_lets_pretend/
Everyone around my way is complaining bitterly about the price increase on their Country Energy bill, so I looked to see why.
‘A major component of the proposed price rises included costs relating to the Commonwealth Government’s proposed Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS).’
All the restaurants have already put up their prices by 20% and this inflationary spike is not appreciated.
el; if you do the usual google on the author and 2010, a small number of links pop up including this
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/08/100824092408.htm
Its just another piece of science hey
“Its just another piece of science hey”
gav,
More like another piece of science projection.
And then there’s always the facts:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/11/new-paper-in-science-sea-level-81000-years-ago-1-meter-higher-while-co2-was-lower/
“All the restaurants have already put up their prices by 20% and this inflationary spike is not appreciated.”
el gordo,
As they say in the classics, “you ain’t seen nuthin yet!”
It’s only weather…
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1315636/First-snowmen-2010-spotted-shivering-Scotland.html
But it’s cold weather.
Aus ski resorts are doing well and Canberra is still getting frosts:
http://www.bom.gov.au/act/forecasts/canberra.shtml
But I don’t expect it to get through to Joolya’s committee. Tony Windsor on the 7.30 Report tonight claimed he was not a dyed in the wool believer in the carbon tax but we’ll see his true colours before long.
gav,
Betcha can’t make thermometers like these:
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2010/09/25/thermometer-magic/
Abandoning the sinking ship:
Phil Jones, The ‘Closet’ Skeptic: Is He Now Throwing The CO2-AGW Hypothesis Under The Bus?
C3 Headlines
September 28, 2010
http://www.c3headlines.com/2010/09/phil-jones-the-closet-skeptic-is-he-throwing-the-co2-agw-hypothesis-under-the-bus-.html
Obviously, Jones and company are now recognizing that natural, large-scale factors are forcing global changes in temperatures besides the IPCC favored trace gas CO2 from human emissions.
And apparently, they are not claiming that human CO2 is the cause of the ocean oscillations that initiate the sea temperature changes in the first place.
Hmm…. and it now appears that climatologists are finding a ‘new consensus’ on what warms the globe… what could that be? Probably something really big and really hot.
The Sun? No way! ROTFL and other abbreviations! Such as LOL!
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/24/climate-science-solar-shock-and-awe/
THE idea that changes in the sun’s activity can influence the climate is making a comeback, after years of scientific vilification, thanks to major advances in our understanding of the atmosphere.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20727793.100-the-sun-joins-the-climate-club.html
And all this time we were thinking it was Trenberth’s ‘missing heat’. Pwned!
What crap Schiller – just another bit of fabricated quote mining by the denialist filth. What lies. Jones meant nothing of the sort. Snip snip – go the cutting room scissors. Trim those quotes.
And we know Schiller that you’re an uncritical goon doing only what your masters pay you to write – maybe you can’t even read your own material – the last para says:
“So how large are these effects? In its 2007 report, the IPCC stated that changes in solar irradiance accounted for less than 5 per cent of planet warming since 1750. The scale of the effect is unlikely to change. But having established that global average temperatures are rising and will continue to rise over the 21st century, the key task for the next IPCC report will be to refine regional and medium-term forecasts. For this, including the upper atmosphere in climate models will be key. “We have known for a while that this makes a difference,” says Gavin Schmidt of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, “especially for solar effects.””
YAWN ….
Luke,
If you don’t like quote-mining (i.e., not being a plagiarist), you shouldn’t do it yourself. Sets a bad example for other anti-quote-miners who might get the impression that hypocrisy is acceptable.
From now on, I expect you to provide an example to everyone by not quoting anyone.
By the way, Luke,
My earlier remark about looking at the code and data regarding tree blossoms was merely meant to draw you out. You fell for it, announcing that total lines of code and bytes of data were important metrics.
Which of course they are not.
I therefore absolve you of any suspicion that you are in the pay of the $500+ billion global warming industry. You are clearly not of a caliber anyone would pay for.
Come in Schiller dont be too harsh on the dope….he is a past master at quote mining and then getting it wrong…
In any case I would have thought that the alarmanistas were too busy rubbing their hands with glee at the prospects of the harm they can now do to Australia by being included in the Big Julie Committee for Public Safety.
There is no counter balance in the arrangements what so ever…
So how one interprets the so called science is irrelevant… we are stuffed …hoisted on the minority petard of more Green extremism and irrationalities.
One day these cretins may realise that there is nothing, as in zero, that we can do that will make one ounce of difference, no matter how much of the carbon scam is believed.
SD; re your rhetorical “thermometer” I reckon this quote from Malcolm is valid “I didn’t read it all either but enough to discern that author is either laying it on, and/or doesn’t know himself, and /or acknowledges the extent of the uncertainties”. But the fact that anyone can still jest around the basics of our instrument record recovery remains a concern.
Believe it or not, I did some serious work with conventional oven thermometers as used for commercial batch cooking prior to our festive season and was surprised by the respect production managers had for their performance. My job was to replace these old “Rototherm” dial gauges with remote sensing RTD probes that could withstand smokehouse conditions where fresh hams and sausages were handled by forklifts.
The object of that exercise was to avoid periodic opening of the cooking chambers to merely check their target’s core temperatures. Imagine those oozy grimy dials. Errors? Yes; too much disturbance had interrupted the cooking. What we have to learn as critics is the operator can do so well even with their crudest instruments, is comparative analysis. In this case it ends up with a product taste test.
SD; you mentioned those Canberra “frosts”. Reality however allows us to plant tomatoes out in the open despite the forecast lows this week because we’ve had a lot of sunshine. We also had a few days due to large weather systems where a guru like me could back calibrate a dozen or so BoM max/ min series based solely on the temporary uniform environment.
“A quality control procedure is performed that uses trimmed means and standard deviations in comparison with surrounding stations to identify suspects (> 3.5 standard deviations away from the mean) and outliers (> 5.0 standard deviations). Until recently these suspects and outliers were hand-verified with the original records. However, with the development of more sophisticated QC procedures at NCDC, this has been found to be unnecessary”
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/epubs/ndp/ushcn/ndp019.html#abstract
It goes on
“Temperature data at stations that have the Maximum/Minimum Temperature System (MMTS) are adjusted for the bias introduced when the liquid-in-glass thermometers were replaced with the MMTS (Quayle et al. 1991). The MMTS program debiases the data obtained from stations with MMTS sensors. The NWS has replaced a majority of the liquid-in-glass thermometers in wooden Cotton-Region shelters with thermistor based maximum-minimum temperature systems (MMTS) housed in smaller plastic shelters. This adjustment removes the MMTS bias for stations so equipped with this type of sensor. The adjustment factors are most appropriate for use when time series of states or larger areas are required”
More tricks
“The homogeneity adjustment scheme described in Karl and Williams (1987) is performed using the station history metadata file to account for time series discontinuities due to random station moves and other station changes. The debiased data from the MMTS adjustment are then entered into the Station History Adjustment Program or SHAP. The SHAP allows a climatological time series of temperature and precipitation adjustment for station inhomogeneities using station history information. The adjusted data retain their original scale and are not anomaly series. The methodology uses the concepts of relative homogeneity and standard parametric (temperature) and non parametric (precipitation) statistics to adjust the data. In addition, this technique provides an estimate of the confidence interval associated with each adjustment. The SHAP program debiases the data with respect to changes other than the MMTS conversion to produced the “adjusted data”. Specific details on the procedures used are given by Karl and Williams (1987).”
And so on however IMO all the raw data should be kept available as it was.
LOL we now have cooks with ovens telling us about climate. Next thing will be cooks with fry pans bedizening us with insights on convection and conduction. After that, the ‘raw food’ experts.
Holy moly. Pretty soon, we’ll be told the climate is like a wok. Or like sushi. Kewl, let’s start another useless debate.
Quote mining?
‘The practice of quoting out of context, sometimes referred to as “contextomy” or “quote mining”, is a logical fallacy and a type of false attribution in which a passage is removed from its surrounding matter in such a way as to distort its intended meaning.’
I’m accused of this all the time, so I imagine it must be some form of ‘projection’.
El Gordo,
I get your point. In climatology, the most salient example is “Mike’s Nature trick to hide the decline”.
The global climate distortionists talk a lot about the meaning of the word, ‘trick’, while avoiding the rest of the phrase, ‘hide the decline’.
‘Trick’ is susceptible of many innuendos, but it’s hard to find any equivocation in ‘hide the decline’.
So, I’d say your notion of ‘projection’ is on point. The climate distortionists are the original quote-miners, and they want to keep that line of business to themselves.
Wait… is it climate distortionists, or disruptionists? They keep coming up with new turns of phrase.
I like ‘disruptionists’.
Actually, I like ‘climate distortionists’ better.
Arctic ice turns the corner sharply:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/sea-ice-page/
el gordo,
I meant to say that those big seas you noted east of Tas. arrived in SEQ last week. Much reduced but still impressive.
AAPOI, I often wonder when the reverse monsoon [northerly winds] starts to take over around this time every year on the east coast of Aus and the East Aus Current abates, whether there is a measured SL drop?
One would think that when the forces that produce a 4 knot current abate there would be a measureable difference in SLs.
The fact that the Bom don’t seem to have the capacity to supply this data makes you wonder about the accuracy of their SLR figures.
Six meter swells off Brisbane. Probably not unusual, but coming from the south may be a bit weird for this time of year.
Six meter swells off Brisbane. Probably not unusual, but coming from the south may be a bit weird for this time of year.
Ooops, under pressure. Moving right along, I noticed James Hansen was arrested yet again.
http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2010/09/27/appalachia-rising/
Was there ever any doubt that the leaders of the AGW push are mainly Government funded scientists abusing their positions of trust to push their own agendas.
Where does the long suffering tax payer draw the line between what is advice based upon the science they are paid to undertake, and their own political/environmental activism.
I have no doubt that this issue will be only get even more difficult as the Universities in Australia are predicting that over the next few years they will be turning out ca 500 so called environmental scientist per annum…no doubt a large number of which will be activists.
We are going to be inundated with never ending streams of doom and gloom based upon bugger all all information, the bulk of which will total exaggerations presaging a bid for funds
Schiller – If you had obtained the data you would be able to tell me in seconds. What a typical lying denialist.
The point being matey is that like most denialists you’ll uncritically accept anything if it suits you. You haven’t an objective bone in your body. So let’s not pretend this is anything other than politics eh?
Malcolm
They are in every nook and cranny, courses under obscure names – funding by Gravy Train. Nothing short of a cultural revolution will be required to fix this problem and the peer review system.
“500 so called environmental scientist per annum…no doubt a large number of which will be activists.”
Malcolm,
As they all age another 20 years or so some will join the sceptical but the ever-increasing new crop plus the old drones like Luke will always outnumber them.
It’s nearly worth suffering another ice age to be relieved of the madness.
I see that the village idiot is raving on about somone being a “typical lying denialist”
If there was any group that has tried to hood wink the public more it is the scumbags who pass themselves off as the intelligentsia and warmanistas. You know, the elites that know everything, and who reckon everyone else should just bend over, and do their bidding.
You can spot them a mile off by the way they spin the language.
Its not AGW but Climate Change…..
Its not a tax on the excessive output of carbon dioxide, but its a Tax on Carbon.
Its not cost benefit,economic analsyis, and rational decision making, but its Sustainability.
That stupid word is being used in all the most inappropriate ways …it was even used to describe the work of razor gang called the Sustainable Budget Commission.. ..when in truth there was nothing in the least sustainable about their recommendations it all.
…because what they were proposing was a retreat back to the dark ages, with no one left to do any work or generate any wealth.
To prove that it was unsustainable it the Govt sensed the mood and had to ignore most of it…they would have copped a big hiding if they hadnt done so.
Have a good look at anything with the word Sustainable in it and I can bet you its a case of b/s at work.
Odds on a back to back La Nina must be shortening.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/
Luke,
Your people can’t even get the basic physics right, so why should we be impressed with anything else you all purport to have discovered?
Malcolm,
Here’s the complete definition of a ‘sustainable’ society:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/global-warming-alarmist-calls-for-eco-gulags-to-re-educate-climate-deniers.html
A Finnish environmentalist guru has gone further than any other global warming alarmist in openly calling for fascism as a necessary step to save the planet from ecological destruction, demanding that climate change deniers be “re-educated” in eco-gulags and that the vast majority of humans be killed with the rest enslaved and controlled by a green police state, with people forcibly sterilized, cars confiscated and travel restricted to members of the elite.
Under Linkola’s proposal to save earth from man-made climate change, “only a few million people would work as farmers and fishermen, without modern conveniences such as the automobile.” This system would be enforced by the creation of a “Green Police” who would abandon “the syrup of ethics” that governs human behavior to completely dominate the population.
You can go to the link above to read the rest. And, bear in mind, he has built an enthusiastic following. These people actually mean it!
Excellent article, Schiller.
The U.S. Education Secretary vows to make American children ‘Good Environmental Citizens’
‘Sadly, the NSF used to be a high-quality, independent funding agency for high quality research, but no more; like all government agencies it is now corrupted on this issue. The cognitive dissonance between (i) the propaganda machine and the real science; and (ii) the views of the businessmen, bureaucrats and politicians who are determined to implement the Green AGW dream and Joe Voter is absolutely remarkable, and daily gets wider.”
Bob Carter Sep 26, 2010
The buildup of snow around the world might be indicative of a cool PDO.
http://www.planetski.eu/news/2089
El Gordo,
Where do you stand (if it is possible) on the question of whether a PDO is weather, or climate? Assuming it’s reasonable to make such a distinction. Climatologists measure the weather (when they’re not busy bodging) to reach climatologicalismist conclusions, while many suspect that climate drives weather. Which is all rather circular in the end. (Hehe. Not linear! Such a pun, I couldn’t help myself.)
Schiller now wants to discuss physics – this would be the back radiation denying Schiller who suddenly recanted. The only physics you understand matey is knot theory – well maybe knot after all – you simply are an example of it.
Luke,
Even NASA has rejected the ‘back-radiation’ theory, in defiance of the IPCC.
And, since the favored Global Climate Distortionist theory relies fundamentally on falsification of the 2d Law of Thermodynamics, well, you must feel a certain pang of loss, the 2d Law has not been falsified.
Your theory might be resurrected by adverting to UFOs who/which do who knows what. I’ll trust you to complete the narrative, it’s bound to be interesting.
Your people being so good at concocting explanations. Be proud. You’re in the company of the world’s most accomplished fiction writers. You should contact Pachauri and ask him for pointers.
Of course you are into eco-porn, especially with your preference for foul language and dominatrix approach to people.
Pielke Snr reports at WUWT on this new paper on what effect groundwater extraction has on SLR.
They estimate that the components of the rise of 3.1mm per year may consist of 50% thermal expansion, 25% due to glaciers and ice cap melt and a further 25% due to groundwater extraction.
While this paper isn’t published as yet it just throws up another study that shows there is another reason for SLR than the normal farce of humans melting icecaps and glaciers, which is mostly natural anyhow.
http://www.uu.nl/EN/Current/Pages/Wereldwijdonttrekkenvangrondwaterleidttotzeespiegelstijging.aspx
More on mad Timmy Flannery who got the inspiration to write his latest book of hope ( after several of doom) from a fellow (crying)mad person he met in a supermarket.
It would be a joke if this bloke wasn’t paraded by Govts here and Unis around the world to spread his delusional crap science for years and now suddenly realize things may not be so bad, but heck it can make you millions of dollars ( a billion for AL Gore) so can’t all be crap can it?
Embarrassment heaped upon embarrassment for Australia, but I guess Schiller can give examples of fellow mad ones in the US as well.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/mad_lady_in_shop_inspires_flannery/
That Canadian loon Suzuki has gone fully troppo and spends nearly all his time these days at the bottom of his garden dancing with the fairies
There are 60 year cycles that we know about, which takes us back to the cool PDO of the early 1950s. The increase in precipitation and snow cover in winter is natural variability (weather to Luke) which will become the norm going forward.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but it looks like climate change.
Talking of snow, observations over Antarctica supports the contention that it snows more at minus 10 C than it does at minus 20 C.
Perhaps the Royal Society is starting to grow a brain, just as Australia is starting to pursue a price on carbon.
How come we governed by these numbskulls?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/29/royal-society-blinks-embraces-sceptics-and-uncertainty/#more-25598
http://sppiblog.org/news/smearing-global-warming-skeptics
The lie about sceptics being funded as a group or individually by big oil/coal/tobacco/xyz makes interesting reading.
This will be a disappointment to some climataria academics here in Australia.
Arn’t they beauties heh…dont mind slagging off at anyone who doesnt agree with their views and accuse them of being in the pay of whatever …but as usual they remain absolutely tight lipped about the obscene amounts of money that Gore was making… as well as the crap nature of Gores science.
You are right Neville what have we done to deserve this.
Now watch the VI come back and just pooh pooh the source and not the message
Meteogroup’s Frank Abel (more a warmist than an alarmist) stood up to a pesky journalist in need of a scoop.
http://notrickszone.com/
Neville,
That paper on SLR caused by irrigation is an interesting theory. IMO and experience it is mainly flat country that is irrigated and irrigators don’t use any more than they need for obvious reasons and runoff is fairly limited. A small amount would evaporate but the majority would soak back into the ground. Possibly not into the original aquifer but probably not into the ocean. How much MDB irrigation water would end up in the ocean? Probably about half of what evaporates. Also SLs are not rising by these satellite figures [3.2 mm/y]. As Bob Carter says, the limited accuracy of satellites gives a measurement of +/- 100 mm which by can be improved to +/- 20 mm by averaging 10 day-separated repeat measurements at particular locations plus the problem of corrections for orbital drifts, stitching records from different satellites and the short 15 year record where probably 50 is needed and as Carl Wunsch [US oceanographer] says, at best, SL change is at the very edge of knowledge and technology.
Just as an example, cross-checking positions today, running off 7 satellites I had a latitude error of 5 metres and a longitude discrepancy of 15 metres.
IOW, IMHO, a high degree of uncertainty here.
The ABC have been going on all day about Qld having the wettest Sept ever.
I wonder how they measure that?
Neville,
You mentioned that Andrew Bolt’s account of ‘Mad lady in shop inspires Flannery’ may have a counterpart in the US’ narrative on anthropogenic global climate distortion (AGCD).
It does not.
Such a story has innumerable parallels in the British narrative, but in the US, these people are swiftly bundled away to a psychiatric facility, from whence they emerge, after being pronounced ‘cured’, to become homeless persons who are off their meds.
So, from the US perspective, anything about the ‘Mad lady in shop’ would not merit the back page of a newspaper anywhere, especially since our MSM doesn’t publish anything about anthropogenic global climate distortion (AGCD), either.
!
Our ABC has been chatting with Dr Bob Allen about First Fleetl log books and the ACRE project.
“1: Historical climate quality reanalyses based only on surface observations over the globe”
“2: Historical reanalysis generated weather input variables for climate applications and impacts models”
http://www.met-acre.org/Home/manager
Key word – “seamless”. Other links –
http://climatehistory.com.au/2010/04/20/first-fleet-google-earth/
the book!
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wea.608/full
The NZ diaries link and real science
http://www.sciencemediacentre.co.nz/2010/09/30/dirty-weather-diaries-of-reverend-davis-rescuing-lost-climate-data-from-the-past/
Schiller’s latest return to his past ….
“Even NASA has rejected the ‘back-radiation’ theory, in defiance of the IPCC.
And, since the favored Global Climate Distortionist theory relies fundamentally on falsification of the 2d Law of Thermodynamics, well, you must feel a certain pang of loss, the 2d Law has not been falsified.”
You utter clown. The level of denialist drongoism on full display. And remember fellow nursing home members – he’s your boy (LOL).
Well Mr Walker wouldnt it better for every one if you used your energies to encourage the BOM to reply to Ken Stewarts documents.
After all they do have their credibilty to protect and if KS is wrong then they should be saying so..with the reasons why.
But then again the silence may be denoting that they have stuffed it up …
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/australian_big_picture.pdf
Here is the Summary claim again:
” The High Quality data does NOT give an accurate record of Australian temperatures over the last 100 years.
BOM has produced a climate record that can only be described as a guess.
The best we can say about Australian temperature trends over the last 100 years
is “Temperatures have gone down and up where we have good enough records, but we don’t know enough.”
If Anthropogenic Global Warming is so certain, why the need to exaggerate?
It is most urgent and important that we have a full scientific investigation, completely independent of BOM, CSIRO, or the Department of Climate Change, into the official climate record of Australia.
I will ask Dr Jones for his response.”
As far as I know there has been nothing but deathly silence
By any standard that is not good enough from a publically funded organisation
Wow, Luke.
You have utterly demolished my argument by saying, ‘utter clown’. That is so clear, concise, and irrefutable that I will have to go back and review the atmospheric research involving clowns.
Luke, I absolve you as well from any suspicion that you are on the payroll of the anthropogenic global climate distortion (AGCD) people.
I have researched clowns, and while it is suggested that they are very scary, [1] their affiliation with anthropogenic global climate distortion (AGCD) is not immediately apparent.
Even so, the association you invite between Evil Clowns and AGCD might well merit some scrutiny by the ‘Hockey Team’. Think ‘modeling’ and ‘Evil Clowns’. A childhood nightmare.
Luke, have you posed lately for a ‘clown spread’? OOoh, terrifying. I poke a sharp stick into my mind’s eye. Gross beyond belief.
——
1. http://scaryevilclowns.com/
gavin,
Yes, there are plenty of historical data in ships logs and pilot charts. Stitching it all together without stitching us up at the same time would be the problem.
Meanwhile why do they deny and trivialise some of the most relevant historical data available:
http://www.john-daly.com/
What a mob of vile bastards these CAGW clowns are, with this video they’ve sunk to an all time low.
Just what the left enjoys, more street theatre violence and just what the kids of this planet don’t need is this bad example in response to the fantasy of CAGW.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/30/o-m-g-video-explodes-skeptical-kids-in-bloodbath/#more-25619
Neville,
It’s the Al Qaida and the Hamas system. The green lefties are very impressed by it and think that normal people are cowed by similar actions just because they are.
Of course, if you accused them of this they would pathetically claim it’s all a bit of a joke.
It will backfire against them big time.
Spangled, Neville,
I urge you also to consider Luke’s recurrent antipathy towards the elderly. Perhaps it’s because ‘Bill Nye the science guy’ has:
offered a simple explanation for the continuing confusion about the science of global warming: old people.
Nye says he’s seen a generational gap in the ability to grasp climate change. Unsurprisingly, young people get it. [1]
Apparently, a time-tested ‘bu||$|-|!t meter endangers the Grand Climate Narrative.
Which apparently prompts observations such as this:
For Labor, I see three options to cap the influence of aging voters: embrace voluntary euthanasia and back it with a vigorous marketing campaign [2]
You might view that egregious, disgusting video as a bad effort, but the fact is, the Green Left has no problem whatsoever with human mortality ‘for the cause’.
———
1. http://consequence09.org/2010/02/bill-nye-the-science-guy-young-people-get-climate-change/
2. http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/die-hard-how-grey-australia-keeps-the-libs-competitive/
Schiller,
Euthanase old conservatives + move into a virtual world = problem solved:
http://ecosia.org/
“In fog, the frog calls from the bog”.
Spangled,
I’ll leave it to you to vouch for cultural norms in Australia.
But here in the US, those who consider the elderly to be a disposable burden would be reviled as filth.
Well Malcolm – you see Schiller is your classic example of a time wasting denialist clown ritually regurgitating past arguments that he lost comprehensively, even recanted on, like they never happened. Experience has shown that it is always to see a published paper before wasting time on clowns.
Neville – as for that video – thought it was hilarious – WHY – coz you HYPOCRITICAL turds just love the Monty Python Black Knight sketch. How many runs has that had on here? So what’s wrong with this enhanced version? And you guys just love the Iraq War – the creation of the extreme right i.e. with real blood splatters, $700B, 100,000s dead – but you never say anything about that. Now that is REAL pornography.
(yes of course the video is bad taste and yucky – but also funny – but get off your utterly pretentious mock outrage moral high horse).
And can I help it if you geriatrics have lost the plot. We don’t want to euthanase the elderly – although retrospective abortion may have been recommended for improving the gene pool with some of you.
Let’s face it dudes – you all just at the frothing at the mouth and so utterly desperate to persuade us that anyone with a green empathy gene is a world controlling eugenics-loving commie. Now settle the fuck down – they’ll round with morning tea in your nursing home soon – have another arrowroot bikkie today. And next week there will be a whole new round of talk-back radio to get really really angry about. Now time for a nana nap guys.
Schiller I am aware of that science idiot Nye having seen him bluster trying to debate Lindzen on youtube.
At one point Lindzen looks at him increduously and says something like ” but that isn’t science” as if the idiot could care less.
Anyhow it looks like the latest eco fascist attempt has bombed out for now with the exploding children video taken off, but they are sure to try again.
The idiot who directed the video of course has a carbon footprint the size of dozens of normal people combined, but that’s always the case.
Luke and Gav will be pleased to know that a like minded religious totalitarian agrees that CAGW is a major problem, particularly the recent floods in Pakistan.
Yes Luke along with the Asama lunatic you’re in very good religious company, congratulations my boy.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/life_suddenly_too_hot_for_the_eco_fascists_of_1010/#commentsmore
Hmmm…
Luke favors ‘retrospective abortion … with some of you.’
He views the spattering of human bodies as ‘hysterical’.
And what the hey — he thinks killing the aged is on a par with ‘the Iraq War’.
War on the aged? After all, he says, ‘geriatrics have lost the plot’. And that killing them is on a par with Monty Python.
Gross, disgusting, inhuman. Gotta wonder if Luke is a proud matricide.
You’re loosin’ it Lookey;
What makes you think sceptics aren’t green? I’d be happy to compare my enviroprint with anyone. We’re just not witless watermelons.
To equate that 1010 video with the ROF humour of Monty Python is really desperate.
Even 1010 are so proud of it they pulled it.
Luke,
Here’s a challenge for you:
Would you like to compare carbon footprints and the winner presses the red button?
JD tells us how taxpayers fund this crap:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100056586/eco-fascism-jumps-the-shark-massive-epic-fail/
As usual the scummies look the other way on real atrocities like Iraq coz the righteous religious right loves a big gun. And they weren’t Protestants so they probably deserved it hey? So yes Neville you’re in great company with righteous right mass murderers. Well done.
….. fitting AGW science with some Osama pronouncement is simply irrelevant and sooo desperate.
But great fodder for the nursing home cold war warriors on a talk-back radio free weekend with nothing to rail or froth about. Be about lunch time now boys? Stew again?
You are just being stupid Walker…in fact just as stupid as the bumbling cretins running the BOM.
It DOESNT require a peer review document to publish an operating procedures manual describing the how and why, all of the adjustments that are made to the raw station temperature data.
We already are witnessing the NZ BOM equivalent being taken to court, and the absolute shambles that the American system is, as well documented by Watts et al.
It also DOESNT require a peer reviewed document from Ken Stewart for the pompous nobs in the BOM to say where and why his analysis of their data is right or wrong.
In most other organisations it would be called good public relations.
Only in arrogant Goverment Departments run by corporate psychopaths who are out of touch with reality, would it be called time be called time wasting to respond to members of the public..who pay their dam salaries in the first place.
Disgusting stuff.
Do go on Malcolm – the net result of analysing Watt’s good stations – the warming stays (Meene et al) !! For heavens sake matey.
Honestly whatever BoM does won’t be good enough. Sceptics have been baiting them for years and I would imagine they would regard you as bad faith negotiators. You have libelled them as corrupt and fraudulent for years so why would want to deal with them?
If you guys are serious (and I doubt it) get together with your fellow sceptics, including academic sceptics, and get published on an alternative climate trend record for Australia.
Then you will have achieved 3 things
(1) demonstrated some integrity
(2) undertaken and independent analysis which is probably better than nit-picking
(3) have a peer reviewed solid document to go into battle with
What I have said there is not easy but also not inordinately difficult – it’s simply a matter of doing it !
But you may be correct in one respect “Only in arrogant Goverment Departments run by corporate psychopaths who are out of touch with reality …” – yep most likely ….. it’s self selecting I suspect
Well wanker walker… missed the point yet again havnt you.
I am asking them to respond to the inquiry from a member of the public who has done some homework ie due diligence , that seems to indicate that something may be wrong with the BOM analysis.
Its only pretentious clowns like you that fail to see the fact that members of the public are perfectly entitled to ask of the government for an explanation of the matter.
I personaly dont care one way or tother as long the evidence has been properly construcetd and presented in an open and transparent manner….and we all know about that standard
..BTW I am not running a Government Department so I dont know what is being self selected
Gee I wonder how crank letters BoM gets per week? I imagine all letters need to be answered – there’s probably a whole sub-section for answering letters. And who says the evidence is constructed in a “open and transparent manner” – YOU ? LOL !
And when you say “you’re asking them” – what by having a whinge here? As I said – instead of raising your collective blood pressures ranting – you could have the paper written by now.
“Self selected” – well probably the process of adversarial politics selects for corporate psychopaths who want to do the job of the govt of the day resulting in where things are at. Public interest? Ha !
Well Mr Walker lets get some obvious things straight.
1. ” You guys” is suggesting that there is an organised group involved. I do not know Ken Stewart from a bar of soap.
2. The work undertaken by this citizen, is his ” due diligence” surrounding what may be at the heart of a very significant piece of public policy. He has every right to undertake this and to ask for answers from the responsibile authority whether they like it or not. We pay taxes so that they can do the work required of them, and to answer questions of them through a Minister. If the officers dont like this… then they should leave..or be fired for not doing their jobs.
3. Mr Stewart appears to be highly numerate and has bothered to produce a substantial document. Classing his work as crank is just a nonsense, and as a self professed ex public servant your self, your comment is just adding weight to my point of institutional arrogance.
Its ingrained these days,and obviously even the Qld PS is not immune
4. Your last para trying to explain away the self selection barb is just agreeing with my observations.. but I reckon you are too stupid to even realise it.
5 . Finally, I repeat the queries being made to the BOM do not require a resort to the PR process any more than a recipe does..and it would be false and misleading for the BOM to pretend other wise. Invoking that canard would just make people more suspicious
…and BTW I reckon Local Govenment is more open and transparent than this bunch.
Are BOM data and graphs published in peer-reviewed journals? Nope, just posted on its website.
By Luke’s standards, they should be ignored as useless.
Hehe.
By now, it’s likely they’d prefer to be ignored, but that’s no way out, as many consider BOM’s stuff to be useful, and a sound basis for public policy.
Let’s start a movement hey. Demand all BOM facts & figures survive peer review prior to web posting. Nope, won’t work — gotta find a journal somewhere.
Funny how the global anthropogenic climate distortioners can’t be consistent with their own narrative.
Well Malcolm – your inability to differentiate between science grunts and corporate managers is simply why you don’t get it. You seem to have some lofty idea that institutional scientists are there to do the public’s bidding. How charmingly 19th century. These places are not universities – broadly they do what “management” tells them and in the end there are only a certain number of hours in the day. You guys have no idea. Having a little tanty and stamping your feet coz you’re important and from South Australia won’t get you there.
Well Walker if normalising a set of data collected over period of time back to a common base is science, then what most other people do in a whole variety of other disciplines should be called scientists as well…but given what they see, I reckon they would run a mile from being tagged with that appellation
BTW scientists ARE required to the publics bidding in the sense that they receive monies out of the public purse to do job defined by the mechanism that gave it to them.
A Schiller has rightly points out the BOM publishes its reports on its web site and also makes reports to Parliament. It is the quality of that data that ceratin individuals are querying anf they have every right to do so.
You are correct in that the employees of the BOM are required to do what the management tells them and that would include the so called scientists. If the so called scientist produced produced that data the they have questions to answer for and on behalf of the organisation/management…full stop
Nothing I have said contradicts standard practice and community expectations…but obviously up in the red neck country standards must be different…
You still don’t get it Malcolm – you’re so naive – depts in the main do what “management” and the pollies tell them. If management thinks it’s not kosher – that’s the end of it. Full stop.
“Scientists on tap not on top” is what they’re told. “Science supports the policy base”. No free thinking.
And for heavens sake never speak to anyone from the public.
Blame “managerialism” invented by the righteous right from Harvard.
BTW BoM is sanctioned by a special act of parliament.
I was well aware of that.I am also aware that I have been referring to the entity called the BOM,fully cognizant of the fact that it would be a management decision ..BASED upon the advice of the scientists.
I am also aware that when the BOM talks about peer review it can and did include having their papers printed in the “in house” magazine called Australian Meterological Magazine.
I am also aware that many of the so called peer reviewed papers eg Torok & Nicholls on which much of this pins were nothing more than Phd Research funded by guess who? ..National Greenhouse Advisory Committee. Unbiased search for truth all along the way there…pigs.
What you reckon would be the chances of KenS getting funding from anywhere in this country, where all the funders are part of the industry.
Even if Ken S did decide to pursue it further, his chances of getting published anyway..even if he was of a mind to, would be zip.
None of that however changes the fact that they could do the decent thing and respond to KenS questions in the same manner as all other entities of government have to do.
But it looks like they may not have the brains to deal with it in a proper manner ..and will just let it float around out there, and their credibility will suffer some more. Its not only their loss but the countries as well
Will this La Nina be so mighty as to lay low the warming of the EEAARRTH!
SOI 25+
Folks; for an interesting concept in official feedback on the status quo, see this ABS “Measures of Australia’s progress 2010”. I found it while looking up “Product Releases” for last Friday, October 1st 2010 after watching the above discussion getting boged down imo by differences in personal experience.
http://blog.abs.gov.au/blog/mapblog2010.nsf
Now let’s suggest there is some creativity allowed in developing directions depending on the “Government” and a particular minister’s interests. On the other hand, our business sector interests can be much more rigid.
Malcolm; a thought on how one can appreciate the backwards review of info recovery.
Today I played a Deutsche Grammophon ADD disc with a 1968 recording of “Carmina Burana” by Carl Orff for the first time. It featured “Chor und Orchester der Deuschen Oper Berlin with Eugen Jochum”.
It was greatly appreciated via my makeshift stereo system with old solid state amp, early player and 3 way JBL’s with replaced 12” drivers. I noticed great vocals, crisp cymbals, excellent base and ultra quiet spaces. It seems all were “translated” by DECCA 1984.
How many processes has this sound been through? I doubt the classical buffs want this digitally premastered lot peer reviewed by some mag before buying.
What’re the odds that the satellite warming of 0.5c for the last 30 years will be wiped out by Christmas?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/
Thats a very interesting observation Gavin.
I had been reading about how Bach expected his keyboad pieces to be played and why he wrote them the way he did with almost no annotations and phrasing, but on the other hand had separate and detailed instructions on how the ornamentations were to be played.
He expected the player to use his own skills to interpret the pieces in their own way, and breath life into them whilst remaining true to the rules.
Thank god Bach’s hasnt been subjected to the peer review magazine industry ,and we get to enjoy a whole variety of interpretations and styles.
…I bet you have got an old DGG set of Beethoven Symphonies under HvKarajan and the Berlin Philharmonic. Still unbeatable.
Here is one of Bob Carter’s more recent interviews promoting his book, really good sound common sense without BS.
Scathing denunciation of Pachauri by an anthropogenic global climate distortioner:
In the name of the planet, Patchy must go: Acclaimed science writer Fred Pearce calls for head of bungling climate change boss
Fred Pearce
Daily Mail (UK)
3rd October 2010
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1317160/Science-writer-Fred-Pearce-calls-head-Patchy-UNs-climate-change-boss.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
‘He turned a one-line mistake into a diplomatic incident. And the voodoo science was at the IPCC.’
So how much more disgraceful is it that the IPCC stats – stats highlighted personally by Patchy – were junk?
How did that happen? Well, they used ‘non-peer-reviewed literature’, such as WWF reports, without the findings being ‘adequately evaluated’ – perhaps a polite phrase for the IPCC’s disgraceful use of that old standby of students: copy and paste.
There is a pattern of behaviour here, I think, from the man with arguably the most important role in protecting the world from climatic meltdown. Complacency. Loyalty to those who do not deserve it. Intemperate statements at inopportune times.
Will Pachaury be scapegoated to keep the other climatologists in business? Probably.
And dear Spanglers – what an amazing comment – what’s the odds of a bloody big El Nino putting the anomaly back. So tedious.
And dear Flukeyloo — what an amazing comment — what’s the odds of a bloody big bloodbath amongst the Climate Distortionists. Jones, Hulme NASA and the Royal Society already turning ‘denialist’. You’ll be on the street in front of the health food store begging indulgences from the anti-fur elites in their Bentleys and Rollers.
Luke Desk
The odds of a bloody big El Nino over the next two decades of a cool PDO? Most unlikely to happen, perhaps 10 to 1 against.
Based on what El Gordo – your opinion – sans butt
Increasing intensity of El Niño in the central‐equatorial Pacific
Tong Lee1 and Michael J. McPhaden2
Received 15 May 2010; revised 7 June 2010; accepted 17 June 2010; published 24 July 2010.
[1] Satellite observations suggest that the intensity of
El Niño events in the central equatorial Pacific (CP) has
almost doubled in the past three decades, with the
strongest warming occurring in 2009–10. This is related to
the increasing intensity as well as occurrence frequency of
the so‐called CP El Niño events since the 1990s. While
sea surface temperature (SST) in the CP region during
El Niño years has been increasing, those during neutral and
La Niña years have not. Therefore, the well‐documented
warming trend of the warm pool in the CP region is
primarily a result of more intense El Niño events rather
than a general rise of background SST. Citation: Lee, T.,
and M. J. McPhaden (2010), Increasing intensity of El Niño in the
central‐equatorial Pacific, Geophys. Res. Lett., 37, L14603,
doi:10.1029/2010GL044007.
Looks like more quote-mining by our denialist-in-residence.
Interesting post from Jo Nova, with more to come.
I like that Schiller, “denialist in residence” very accurate.
http://joannenova.com.au/2010/10/is-the-western-climate-establishment-corrupt-part-i/#more-10726
Neville,
Come, now. You know the importance of putting the thermometers in places like that. It’s so we can document the changes in temperature due to effects of land use.
In fact, the more thermometers we put in such locations, the more accurate become the data associating global warming with land use. It’s actually all for the best.
Sorry… Couldn’t help myself. I occurs to me that the climate distortionists should hire me to write their drivel. They’re face-down in the organic fertilizer all the time.
luke; I read your Lee et al paper on El Ninos in the central Pacific becoming warmer [while noting El Ninos in all other regions are getting less intense and cooling is occuring] and it says some strange things: for instance:
“The above analysis reaffirms that the SST in the CP
region during El Niño years is getting significantly higher
while those during La Niña and neutral years are not.”
Isn’t this what you would expect with a La Nina being based on cooler conditions? And this:
“In fact, it is the increasing amplitude of El Niño
events that causes a net warming trend of SST in the CP
region.”
I think they have got this around the wrong way; an El Nino, ENSO generally, is a product of oceanographic phenomenon not the other way round because if El Ninos determined SST then where would El Nino heating be sourced from? Oh, of course, AGW? So, ENSO is no longer a product of ocean energy but is now caused by CO2? That goes beyond Modoki and is at the level of Meehl’s alternative universe speculations.
“So, ENSO is no longer a product of ocean energy but is now caused by CO2′
Huh? ENSO if a linked atmosphere / ocean system. EN being El Nino SST anomaly, SO being Southern Oscillation.
Nobody is saying CO2 causes ENSO. However greenhouse forcing “may” change it’s behaviour.
And maybe this has indeed happened recently. Or maybe it ain’t – just natural whatever.
You see the big problem is that you should expect AGW to simply warm everywhere a little bit. The energy balance is perturbed and that may move circulation systems around. Or not. I can’t see how you can do attribution with modelling.
Indeed the Lee paper isn’t even an AGW paper if you read closely. But was offered to Spanglers as to what the current ENSO trends are. i.e. more intense. In Australia IPO reinforces La Nina impact and moves El Nino drought patterns around. But evidence that cool phase PDO means wussy El Ninos is??
If you still have it – look at the Hadley EOF Parker Powerpoint I sent you – slide 11 6 maps of Australia – ENSO x IPO
We’ve done this dance before luke with the Modoki supposedly increasing in intensity when there was no evidence for this assertion; and David Stockwell put out a paper in support of McLean et al arguing for an accumulation of energy/heat due to successive El Ninos and/or an asymmetry between El Nino and La Nina and +ve and -ve PDO phases, which incidentally had substantial support, but was derided. Now we have this little gem observing on the basis of SST that El Ninos are increasing in intensity; well SST is not increasing:
http://www.klimadebat.dk/forum/vedhaeftninger/uahoceantemp.gif
And neither are combined El Nino:
http://i33.tinypic.com/2ihxycn.jpg
You should also note, bearing in mind your comment “You see the big problem is that you should expect AGW to simply warm everywhere a little bit.”, that the Lee paper only found warming for the CP El Nino while the others were cooling.
Reading Stewart Franks from 2008.
‘The observation that El Nino and La Nina events cluster on 20-40 year, multi-decadal timescales is an important one. It demonstrates that Australia should always expect major changes in climate as a function of natural variability. When viewed in this light, the drought is most likely a recurring feature of the Australian climate.’
He goes on to say the ‘models cannot reproduce the observed multi-decadal variability of El Nino and La Nina in anything like a realistic manner.’
Why? Is there a technical problem? Farmers and graziers deserve more certainty.
Fuel poverty has arrived.
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/sit-in-the-cold-and-count-pennies/story-e6freuy9-1225934047811
Richard Lindzen stands up for commonsense in a recent BBC interview.
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog
Positive Weather Solutions is predicting another fierce winter in the UK.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1317484/Forecasters-predict-white-winters.html
Thousands more elderly may die from fuel poverty, but the authorities are not raising the concern flag. Could this be the start of a mass migration by asset rich Britains to somewhere a little warmer.
Personally, living on the NSW Central Tablelands, I’m thinking a three month holiday to Sri Lanka every SH winter would be kinder on my wallet and health.
Since we loners have no where else to go with an off topic, I return with this link on the perils of ignorance – “Red Dread” !!
Interesting article from Roy Spencer about a mock trial he participated in on the CAGW issue.
He says at the outset that the problem with such a trial is all the stupid BS issues that will be brought in that the bedwetters think might be caused by humans.
He notes that hurricanes like Katrina will always be used as proof of CAGW but then goes on to state the obvious that cat 3 hurricanes are now at a 90 to 100 year low so it rather buggers the case for the prosecution.
I hope Cohenite might have a look at this and see whether he could get a transcript of the trial from Roy, because this is your level of expertise.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/10/a-mock-global-warming-trial-in-the-big-easy/#comments
Grim stuff, Gavin.
According to a new poll by the Washington Post, 96 percent of people agree that ‘environmental activists have lost their minds.’
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/post-carbon/2010/10/reduce_your_carbon_footprint_o.html
Meanwhile, it appears that elevated levels of CO2 have health benefits, such as a reduction in heart attacks (as opposed to increased odds of your head exploding):
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/greenhouse_gases_help_us_live_longer.html
http://www.suite101.com/content/legal-defeat-for-global-warming-in-kiwigate-scandal-a294157
I wonder it the BOM will now condescend to communicate with people like Ken Stewart and answer his questions.
The public has a right to know…particularly as the adjustments real or concocted appear to be of the same orderand seem to produce the same shape/slope of warming .
The nasty 10-10 clip has not received any recognition by the German msm and I suspect its because power has a corrupting influence. Arrogance and ignorance is a lethal cocktail and the German Greens have it in spades.
http://notrickszone.com/
NIWA falls on its sword.
http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/2010/10/observations-on-niwas-statement-of-defence/
El Gordo,
There is some skepticism in the skeptic community with regard to whether what is claimed in that blog post actually occurred. The central problem (identified by Watts) is that nobody seems to know where the relevant document is, nor how to find it.
The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition at http://www.climatescience.org.nz/ would most certainly be the first to brag of such an event, since it filed the lawsuit in question. The group is very silent on this particular issue.
Interesting article from Jo Nova’s hubby David Evans on Argo buoys and SLR ( developed software for Australian Greenhouse Office under Howard) but now a sceptic.
http://joannenova.com.au/2010/10/is-the-western-climate-establishment-corrupt-part-3/#more-10896
Thanx Schiller, we will have to assume it’s just speculation.
Neville,
We need a keen bean like Craig Loehle to give us an on-going breakdown on the data.
But of course he has to get the raw data processed by Josh Willis first and he might start “omitting” again.
It’s starting to look like we may have a newly-emerging paradigm: that air temperatures measure weather, and that ocean temperatures measure climate.
http://joannenova.com.au/2010/10/is-the-western-climate-establishment-corrupt-part-3/
Makes remarkable sense when you think about it.
This is an important letter of resignation from a courageous scientist, exposing some of the corruption in recent climate change science.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/08/hal-lewis-my-resignation-from-the-american-physical-society/#more-26117
http://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/statement_of_defence.pdf
This I presume this is the Statement of Defence for NIWA… which runs a mile from the jiggery pokery done by others, to their raw data base of temperatures….which shows no real change.
Assuming that the BOM applied the same thinking, that these “others” did to the NIWA data base, were does that leave us.?
In fear of another freezing winter in the UK, they are handing out shovels.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1318765/As-Arctic-winter-looms-council-hands-2-000-spades-tells-residents-dig-snows.html
el gordo,
Beats our bucket and spade.
http://johnquiggin.com/index.php/archives/2010/10/09/sandpit/
Yeah, they a weird lot over there. Here’s an article by Mann defending delusion.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/07/AR2010100705484.html
Malcolm,
Many thanks for digging up that link to the NIWA Statement of Defence. How they can manage to file such a thing with the court is beyond me.
But from experience, this much is clear: climate distortionists have a) no sense of shame; and b) no sense of humor.
El Gordo,
That Washington Post op-ed by Mann is alarmingly bad. He says the notorious emails were “stolen”. He says that “greenhouse gases trap heat”. He talks about “climate-change deniers”. In line with a corollary to Godwin’s law, he brings up “cigarettes and lung cancer”. He plays the “children and grandchildren” card, and moans/groans about how “carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels is heating the planet, shrinking the Arctic ice cap, melting glaciers and raising sea levels [and] more widespread drought, more frequent heat waves and more powerful hurricanes.”
In short, he sounds like the ignorant lemmings who post alarmist rants at RealClimate and Deltoid.
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
I am not going to read all 800 to see if their claims are anywhere valid, but I would have thought that if someone can produce a list of 800 Peer Reviewed papers, then according to the climatariats owns standards, the probabiilty that at least some would knock the hypothesis into a dust bin would be extremely high.
But here on the home front we have Queen Julia forming up a committee of all the usual lefties and greenoids like Hansen Young and Milne at al, aided and abetted by Steffen and Garnau,t to ensure that we encumber our economy for no valid reason, in order to achieve an outcome that would be so small it could not be measured by the BOM, even if they were doing their job properly, and it was all true.
800 papers saying its crap but still we will have a carbon tax because a bunch of academic nit wits, misanthropic leftoids and greenies think it will make us feel good.
Thats a good sound basis for making public policy….I can understand that.
I think I will go back out into the garden and join the cabbages and pumpkins…. they have more functioning neurones than Big Julies Committee.
Malcolm,
You should submit that link to Julia’s committee.
They’d read ’em all. [kof]
Malcolm,
I sent it to Tony Windsor anyway. It may help [hope springs…]
Let me get this right – you think they’re all “scientific papers”. (Scoff, giggle, derision)
“I am not going to read all 800 to see if their claims are anywhere valid, but I would have thought”….. yea well – that’s about the level of Malcolm’s judgement. Good grief ….
(However – you’re probably right about the committee – probably stacked with a whole bunch of people who haven’t a clue – some are called … “politicians” and they be left, right or whacko)
As usual Mr Walker doesnt even bother to read the heading…its says peer reviewed.
Or, you are as cynical about that as a process for assessing science as I am.
Never the less the fact that there are 800+ PR rated papers says the odds of one knocking your prescious little scam into a cocked hat is high.
But then realists would already know this…and to close the loop… thats why there IS …800+ in the first place .. and thats before we even start to look at the idiocies in the scenarios.
To add further to the evidence of your inability to read and comprehend, the Committee IS already stacked with politicians, and yes they are already leftists etc eg Hansen Young and Milne for starters.
Hansen Young and Big Julie played all the games necessary to keep anyone with any brains out.
Malcolm,
Here’s how it works: 800+ peer-reviewed papers disagree with the consensus, therefore the consensus remains at 100 percent.
That’s part of ‘the model’, you know.
Speaking of models, you know the thing is going off the rails when the modelers model themselves.
Institutional narcissism, anyone?
Wot ! “Peer reviewed” in soft journals like E&E or irrelevant off-topic industry mags – pullease Malcolm.
Remember trash reported like http://n3xus6.blogspot.com/2007/02/dd.html
Maaaatttteee !
As for precious scams – well your side would know….
I see …. ALL of them accord your prejudices !!!! ALL!!!!
Snort… snigger. ..giggle ….hoot.
For starters the sceptics dont have a suction hose into the tax payers coffers for starters…and as we already know and have declared, most if us had to hand our grants from BIG(oil/coal/x)back on the basis that there was nothing to do.The warmansiats are making a pigs ear of everything on their own.
Nor have we corrupted most of the national and international awards systems either.
I mean, the very pinnacle of the warmanistas endeavours is that people like Gore and Pachauri/IPCC get Nobel Peace prizes…..how utterly hypocritical and manipulative can you get.
Sorry… its a no contest.
BTW Walker you should be more careful when you post references sites
The tosser running the site referred to has a go at one of his targets for his spelling, but he himself should go back to school and learn to spell as well.
But then hypocrisy in the alarmist game is almost a universal trait so I wasnt too fussed..par for the course really.
Sorry to be kinda OT but Lambert’s Deltoid thread claiming that the Wegman Report plagiarised Ray Bradley et al of the Hockey Stick (MBH 1998 et seq) provoked me to submit the following, duly erased because His Holiness Tim Lambert disapproves of dissent:
“Wegman’s report sets out to critique Bradley, so why would he plagiarise him? Only an immensely stupid person plagiarises an author he/she disagrees with, and such a person truly does not know whether he/she is Arthur or Martha (ht to my wife).
Note that Bradley does not claim Wegman misquoted him, which is actually worse than plagiarism. He accuses Wegman of plagiarisms, that is, using Bradley’s text word for word and then claiming it as his own. Why would Wegman want to claim credit for Bradley’s stupidities when his aim is to expose those stupidities?”
Incredibly, Bradley has incited George Mason University to indite Wegman for plagiarising a person (Bradley) he disagrees with root and branch.
Reading Lambert’s Deltoid is to realise the depths of the dire straits typical of most (?all) Austraklian univrsities: any old tosh will pass muster.
Only a computer nerd like UNSW’s Lambert would join in Bradley’s exhaltation of his own stupidity.
Peer Reviewed Study: CO2 warming effect cut by 65%, climate sensitivity impossible to accurately determine
More and link at
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/12/peer-reviewed-study-co2-warming-effect-cut-by-65-climate-sensitivity-impossible-to-accurately-determine/#more-26297
Check out
“Three years later, those rains that Peter Beattie warned wouldn’t come”
at
http://blogs.news.com.au/couriermail/andrewbolt/index.php/couriermail/comments/three_years_later_those_rains_that_peter_beattie_warned_wouldnt_come/
Re Mashed Potato October 12th, 2010 at 11:21 pm
Comment from http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/09/mashey-potatoes-part-1/#more-26182
“Steven mosher says:
October 9, 2010 at 11:18 pm
Ok:
Steve McIntyre shows you how to handle the Mashey pile.
:Steve McIntyre (Comment#53771) October 9th, 2010 at 10:21 pm
The Oxford Companion to Global Change, David Cuff and Andrew Goudie
Variations in tree-ring widths from one year to the next have long been recognized as an important source of chronological and climatic information. The mean width of a ring in any one tree is a function of many variables, including the tree species, its age, the availability of stored nutrients in the tree and surrounding soil, and a host of climatic factors, including temperature, precipitation and availability of sunlight.
Bradley textbook:
Variations in tree-ring widths from one year to the next have long been recognized as an important source of chronological and climatic information… The mean width of a ring in any one tree is a function of many variables, including the tree species, tree age, availability of stored food within the tree and of important nutrients in the soil, and a whole complex of climatic factors (sunshine, precipitation, temperature, wind speed, humidity, and their distribution throughout the year).
Wegman:
The average width of a tree ring is a function of many variables including the tree species, tree age, stored carbohydrates in the tree, nutrients in the soil, and climatic factors including sunlight, precipitation, temperature, wind speed, humidity, and even carbon dioxide availability in the atmosphere.
###################
time for somebody to get Bradley textbook. Apply some software and go full bore.
Wegman is a bit player in the HS. Bradley is on the core team. Target Bradley.”
Another Ian, if you had read Mashed Potato’s comments carefully, you would have realised that a declared REVIEW of any author’s books or papers, which is what the Wegman Report very explicitly was, cannot be plagiarism, especially when the reviewer (Wegman) shows the author (Bradley) was conveying total garbage that Wegman had no interest in claiming to be his own work, because he knew it was of course garbage.
Ian, unless I have misunderstood you, you appear to be as incapable as John Mashey and Tim Lambert of understanding what plagiarism really is, namely passing off another’s ideas as your own because you like them and would like to claim credit for them yourself.
Both Mashey and Lambert not to mention all the other trolls who inhabit Lambert’s Deltoid, and especially the ineffable Bernard J, simply do not have the mental apparatus need to grasp that.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/13/aps-responds-deconstructing-the-aps-response-to-dr-hal-lewis-resignation/
This is quite shameful
When the organisation of the APS shoots itelf in the foot so badly over the resignation of one noted member then they are run by idiots.
But the conflicts of interest that have been exposed just prove the point…the scam is infiltrated by the money men and vested interests from the highest levels..and same names keep re appearing
No wonder Lewis resigned.
“Comment from: Tim Curtin October 13th, 2010 at 6:01 pm
Another Ian, if you had read Mashed Potato’s comments carefully”
Tim, You’ve probably given Jen a laugh here
I’ll gear this review to 2 types of people: current Zune owners who are considering an upgrade, and people trying to decide between a Zune and an iPod. (There are other players worth considering out there, like the Sony Walkman X, but I hope this gives you enough info to make an informed decision of the Zune vs players other than the iPod line as well.)