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.
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