Congratulations to all those who attended the rally in Canberra, and other capital cities, against the carbon tax. And especially to the organisers … you got enough people there to be noticed and vilified. Well done.
I understand the Prime Minister was invited but declined. And thanks to 2UE for the cartoon…
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
And what a hideous spectacle it was too!
Ah, a new troll; what’s this one’s pedigree-less background.
I’m not sure that being on the demonstrably wrong side of history should be reason for pride.
“demonstrably wrong side of history”?
There is nothing wrong with carbon dioxide, but it can’t provide a unifying theory of climate. And until there is a general theory of climate we can’t forecast or explain the big cycles that repeat themselves. For example, until the Bureau of Meteorology can explain the recent flooding rains in Australia, it should stop pretending it knows anything much about weather or climate.
But even the Bureau should acknowledge that recent increases in concentrations of carbon dioxide have had no demonstratable effect on weather or climate.
Speaking of the “wrong side”, has everyone voted:
http://ninemsn.com.au/?rf=true
“demonstrably wrong side of history”?
That is yet to be demonstrated.
RD… do you really believe CO2 causes global warming?
“There is nothing wrong with carbon dioxide” – indeed it’s a well formed molecule with interesting properties.
“For example, until the Bureau of Meteorology can explain the recent flooding rains in Australia, it should stop pretending it knows anything much about weather or climate.” golly I thought it did ! Weren’t they telling us it was because of fairies at the bottom of the garden or was it something else called La Nina.
” do you really believe CO2 causes global warming” – of course it does. Evidence is abundantly clear.
Carbon taxes however are another matter. But hey reality is Julia’s vote has just bounced back. And the Libs desperate (if anyone with half a brain is listening – if not you can chuck the switch to sceptic mode and slum it) to prove they are not in denial.
Other committments. Lots of “middle Australia” couldn’t make it either, but were there in spirit.
RWFOH, on the subject of hideous spectacles, would this be OK by you?
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/the_demonisation_of_the_anti_gillard_protesters/#commentsmore
Luke says ‘the evidence is abundantly clear’ that CO2 causes global warming.
It’s all nonsense, we are looking at a benign trace gas of which humans produce 4 parts per million per year. Any rational person understands this cannot warm the atmosphere.
What bunk el Gordo – “benign trace gas” is simply a rhetorical appeal to teensy weensy non-toxic. IRRELEVANT. It’s a straight physics calculation and observation. The numbers are in.
“Any rational person” is code for someone on the street who hasn’t got a clue except for not wanting to pay more tax.
Anything else is pure denial given the now massive weight of evidence. A carbon tax is another matter. Julia’s on a winning formula – climate change action + no gay marriage + no legal suicide = carbon tax bill.
Luke,
So happy that you are eager to pay your carbon tax bill. Tell us, how much carbon sequestration and carbon offsets have you personally financed as you KNOW that you are the source of earth destroying CO2???
Sadly, I imagine you as being the typical leftard who will do NOTHING to abate their own pollution until forced!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
It was great to see people at a rally telling the truth and using facts for a change, instead of the lies and exaggerations coming from the lunatic left and labor.
Here’s more proof that their solutions can’t work or how to waste 12 billion dollars over 15 years for neglible result.
Flushed straight down the loo, what crazy times we live in.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/climate-programs-fail-at-first-step/story-fn59niix-1226027088557
KookyKat – did I say I was happy with a carbon tax? Droopy draws.
Neville – The rally – What a bunch of rednecks and old codgers + Hansonites and League of Rights – you’re with your mates mate. Wake up. The pro carbon tax vote just increased after yesterday.
It’s really up the sceptics party (lower case and unelected) to now say whether they are allied with the Australian League of Rights and One Nation. Perhaps Cohenite might inform us?
So Luke your incredibly powerful gas has given us 0.7C warming over 100+ years, but what about an increase of 10C over ten years after the younger Dryas?
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/abrupt/data4.html
Of course you are talking total nonsense as the NOAA site above proves, I mean that’s real and NATURAL CC.
Makes your 0.007C imcrease per year look wimpy indeed.
Of course your warming came at the end of one of the coldest periods on earth for thousands of years, so much of it is probably natural as well.
What a total wimp trying to con people with a wimpy increase in temp.
Luke,
What caused ‘La Nina’? I think the point Jen is making is that we don’t know what drives the big sea surface temp changes in the Pacific. Do we?
It has been warm over the past 30 years and CO2 has been increasing, but there is no indication that they are related. It’s a post hoc argument, nevertheless the extra carbon dioxide has been beneficial in greening up the world.
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2011/03/23/global-greening-continues-did-we-cause-it/
Look at ’em blow smoke – how many confusing bogus arguments can you guys run.
CO2 correlation yep and a swag of other corroborating physics.
La Nina – yep natural variation – and see my previous post on evidence it was supercharged !
Neville – tell us what all the other forcing factors were at the same time. Don’t try it on eh?
Not even Spencer or Lindzen takes your position guys.
Lubos Motl (a very clever physicist) has some strong words here http://motls.blogspot.com/2011/03/australian-carbon-tax.html . Lubos can run rings around anyone about quantum physics and mathematics.
Luke you’re hopeless, but here’s one of your heros confessing that there has been no “statistically significant warming”since 1995. 15 years and counting you silly fool.
When are you going to wake up, surely you don’t this need country outhouse of a fraud to completely smother you in smelly stuff before you understand?
BTW some incredibly poweful gas, what a joke.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html
Luke,
you can believe whatever you like, and in your abrasive and insulting manner, you might even convince people to believe what you do, but until you are ware of the consequences, it’s all pretty useless really.
If the problem was SO drastic, then governments across the World would be closing down those ‘big emitters’, the power plants, and doing it without delay, no matter how drastic that sounds, because if it was so dire, then it becomes a necessity, and you can then work on fixing the lack of power problems in the interim.
However, those emissions from those power plants are in fact rising, and rising all across the Planet, because people have a crying need for access to a reliable and constant source of electrical power.
China and India are perfect examples.
China with 1.35 billion people has only recently surpassed the US (with 300 million people) as the largest producer of electricity. Almost a billion people in China have NO electricity whatsoever. Until those people have even a fraction of the standard we have in the Western World, then emissions, especially from China and India will keep rising.
Even here in Australia, in the U.S. and all across the Planet, electrical power consumption is rising, as are those CO2 emissions just from the generation of power, because those plants that do emit CO2 provide the only effective means of actually supplying that power.
To find ‘VIABLE’ replacements, you are looking at seven to ten years from thought bubble to supplying power, and that applies for nearly every plant.
Currently, there’s nothing to replace those large scale plants that ARE desperately needed.
In the interim, the ONLY thing that has resulted from this CO2 driven Climate Change debate is that everyone, (and most especially Governments) is trying to make money from it.
None of the things they are even thinking about doing are having any effect.
Until you realise the consequences, you can believe whatever you like, but don’t put us down for pointing them out.
It’s after all only my humble opinion.
Tony.
Luke your previous post on a supercharged system was flawed, the lesson I learnt from that exercise is that natural variability rules.
I do miss your posts, where we had your undivided attention in all matters climatic.
Guys – these are now the big guns
http://climatescientistsaustralia.org.au/about/members.html and were in parliament today available to both sides
Neville – hopeless – “statistically significant warming” tell us what that means Neville….
Note how many times the PM refers to carbon dioxide as a pollutant? A complete lie of course.
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/reject-the-climate-extremists-20110323-1c6pa.html
And she says don’t be swayed by extremists, the irony is delicious.
Luke if you don’t know then ask your hero Phil.
Here he is again on the BBC confessing the same thing. Just because you can’t answer Luke don’t try avoiding the question — is this the biggest scam and fraud of the last 100 years?
Even to a rusted on religious fool like yourself no warming for 15 years must make you pause and start to doubt your silly belief.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm
Yesterday’s rally was an embarrassment to Australia. It makes me further ashamed to be Australian. I take heart that it was only representative of a small vocal, whinging far right minority.
Neville you are way out of your depth and it’s frankly embarrassing. Phil says “Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level.”
95% is completely arbitrary – at 90% it is ….
Tony has said it all really,
It is quite ludicrous to make claims and demonise those ‘polluters’ and ‘make those polluters pay’ (Julia Gillard page 11 SMH March 24th), when we all rely so very heavily on them.
This is particularly true of the power providers.
Nearly everything we do relies on power production.
Even the existence and use of this blog does.
Not many people would be happy about their access to affordable power being tampered with, yet there are so many of them gleefully contributing to the ‘demonising’ of the companies who provide that extremely necessary resource.
To further quote her article in today’s SMH “If you make polluters pay when they pollute, then they’ll reduce their emissions.”
Does that mean that even our own Prime Minister does not understand that power stations cannot just switch off and reduce?
Does she truly believe that they work the same as our switches in our homes?
Does she really believe that replacement sources of power are suddenly going to spring up?
Every known alternative so far is either politically unpopular or prohibitively expensive.
How on earth are we helping CO2 reduction if we’re merrily exporting coal to countries like China and India?
SERIOUSLY???? That’s a very fair question.
Does she really believe this could possibly work, or, is it far more likely as Tony points out:
“In the interim, the ONLY thing that has resulted from this CO2 driven Climate Change debate is that everyone, (and most especially Governments) is trying to make money from it.”
It’s the only outcome I can see. Our Bureaucrats, Brokers and Bankers will make an absolute killing on this.
I can’t for the life of me see how it will reduce CO2 emissions at all.
It looks far more like some sort of elaborate scam to me.
And Luke, I have no affiliation with any particular political party.
I would rather see this one removed from politics and put back into the hands of genuine scientists.
I would rather see that group of 3 Bs forced to back off and keep their greedy mitts to themselves.
The real shame is that it has become political and opportunists have seen a way to make money from it.
I would further add that no one will be happier than us ‘redneck’ farmers if the climate puzzle was solved.
Us ‘rednecks’ would support this tax if we believed that it would contribute to some genuine breakthroughs in climate science and alternative energy sources.
That’s not what we’re seeing.
Not even close by a country mile.
Face it – a swag of top flight highly published numerate scientists (above) versus you rabble? What advice would you expect the PM to take? Perhaps you should advise her on brain surgery techniques too? Everyone can play! No expertise needed.
BTW I’m not in favour of a unilateral carbon tax, especially not on agriculture.
I am in favour of considered global action by a significant majority of emitters.
However, I am going to defend the core science against nefarious attacks.
Luke said : Guys – these are now the big guns
I see Karoly:
so where was he when all hell let loose in Queensland – I don’t remember his expertise in El Nino predicting that this La Nina will cause widespread flooding. He was talking droughts if I recall.
Ove Hoegh-Guldberg has made as many predictions as Flannery and has been just as outstandingly wrong!
Yes – if the planet doesn’t warm over the next decade, as it hasn’t over the past decade, they are all out of their cushy jobs and all their expansive environment departments will be firing staff left right and centre.
Bring it on!
Luke,
And there’s the problem.
Do the ‘top flight highly published numerate scientists’ really believe this carbon tax will solve our CO2 climate woes?
Do they believe that power stations can just switch off and on like it does in our homes?
If the answer is yes, then maybe they need to get off the ‘top flight’ and put their feet firmly on the ground and pay attention to the ‘rabble’.
It bothers me more than a little that you are so very dismissive of people who do have genuine practical experience and have gained much of it by first hand observation, genuine research and a willingness to understand that statistical computer modelling has a nasty habit of confirming the basic assumptions and basic inputs from the hands that fund them.
The debate over CO2 is only one of the political debates that have clearly hijacked statistics for questionable political reasons.
I guess if you have never been personally involved in one of these politically hijacked debates you don’t understand.
Primary source information has its value too Luke. So does age and experience.
Believe it or not, so does History, Geology, Biology, Geography, Literature, Sociology and numerous other softer sciences and arts.
They would all help to complement the ‘numerate scientists’ if they weren’t so snobbishly ‘top flight’ and dismissive.
luke, consider this:
http://www.jcronline.org.pinnacle.allenpress.com/doi/pdf/10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-10-00157.1
My take: if eustatic sea level rise rate is declining how can melt water from the alleged melting of the Greenland and Antarctic ice caps be occurring? It isn’t is the only conclusion one can draw from the paper; and GIA offers the answer; GIA, glacial isostatic adjustment, refers to 2 processes by which ice levels can be misinterpreted by satellite measurement; the first is weight with increased ice actually depressing the underlying bedrock and giving a false impression of ice loss; the second is an increase in underlying viscosity where increased overhead ice compaction causes, through friction and general motion generated energy, the underlying ice to melt.
Neither of these 2 aspects of GIA are to do with AGW; and the point remains if freshwater melt is increasing from Antarctica and Greenland it would have to be going into the ocean; the Houston and Dean paper, along with the Ablain and Cazaneve papers show it is not.
Neither is there an increase in steric sea level rise rate; steric is to do with an increase in stored heat or OHC in the ocean; this has been contradicted by the work of Knox and Douglass who show OHC is decreasing at both depth and near the surface which is also confirmed by NODC.
If sea level is not increasing and OHC is not increasing then there is no delay in climate response; the climate sensitivity does not have a delayed equilibrium and Spencer’s conclusions about short term negative feedback from clouds means that AGW is wrong in both the short term and long term.
Luke what a joke, he said it not me and you can see the trends from the 19th century until now, talk about clutching at straws.
Then you have the problem of attributing what part of the miniscule warming of 0.7C is attributable to increased co2, just something else that has so many problems for you believers to overcome.
Once again for you dummies, the slight warming started at the end of a minor ice age, ring, ring.
If as asserted it ended around 160 years ago then the temp must either go lower or higher or somehow stay the same.(most unlikely)
But as we know it started to warm slightly perhaps helped slightly because of a higher level of co2, but so what?
“Face it – a swag of top flight highly published numerate scientists (above) versus you rabble? What advice would you expect the PM to take?
Yeah looks like paranoia is also a prerequisite. Rabble or superb? Here is an “expert” opinion straight from the horses mouth:
ELEANOR HALL: How much damage then do you think this sort of sloppiness on the part of the IPCC has done?
ANDY PITMAN: Oh, my personal view is that climate scientists are losing the fight with the sceptics. That the sceptics are so well funded, so well organised, have nothing else to do. They kind of don’t have day jobs. They can put all of their efforts into misinforming and miscommunicating climate science to the general public whereas the climate scientists have day jobs and this actually isn’t one of them.
All of the efforts you do in an IPCC report is done out of hours, voluntarily for no funding and no pay whereas the sceptics are being funded to put out full-scale misinformation campaigns and are doing a damn good job I think. They are doing a superb job at misinforming and miscommunicating the general public, state and federal governments.”
Perhaps a non-paranoid reason that “climate scientists” are losing the debate is that they can’t seem to get a single prediction right. Is it possible these climate scientist’s brains are being addled by AGW or perhaps the “science” is a bit innumerate?
Wind gives way to coal. How does this fit in with the carbon dioxide tax?
http://www.theherald.com.au/news/local/news/general/coalloader-expansion-may-squeeze-out-wind-turbine/2111826.aspx
Sorry Luke,
I had left the blog page open, half done, then completed it later and missed your second post.
I note that you don’t agree with the unilateral carbon tax.
Do you mind sharing why you don’t agree with the tax?
Do you also mind sharing why you said “especially not on Agriculture”?
Gawd! Luke is blowing hard.
But what is he blowing?
Debbie – simply because it puts us at a competitive disadvantage for no climate outcome.
“Not for agriculture” – well terms of trade are tough, animal industries have few options, and Australia has perhaps the world’s worst climate variability already.
I see Neville has returned to the recovery from a cold meme…. sigh ….
John Sayers – what utter tosh – if you were in Queensland and not aware of the La Nina and IPO and the strength of it – you were obviously asleep. All this science brought to you by the scientists you’d like to sack. Yea bring it on – gut BoM and you can forecast cyclone behaviour yourself and ensure aircraft don’t fly into major storms. What a dick you are.
Luke – I wasn’t referring to BoM – they got their forecasts right.
I was referring to the bludger who calls himself an international expert in ENSO and totally missed the biggest event in decades, in Queensland.
Is it up to Karoly alone to do this is it? sheesh !
Interestingly Tony Abbott says he believes in climate change and that anthropogenic CO2 has an impact and it is important to have a serious policy response THROUGH more tree, better soils and better technology? hmmmmm (He just said it on 7:30 report)
Thanks for your non answer Luke, but then I know your limits.
BTW Climate commissioner Flannery will be talking to the Bolter tomorrow morning after 8 am.
Geezzz must be a hog for punishment, he certainly copped a belting last time, didn’t have a bloody clue. Can’t say I was surprised.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/mtr_today_march_24/
Luke
I agree with you re, TA and the opposition.
I’d be damned if I know what game they are playing.
I can understand M Turnbull’s stand, he knows where the money is, but is Tony Abbott so weak in his position as a “leader” that he has no authority, or is he really a gutless wonder, swaying, vacillating and undecided, as some would say?
Myself, I will never forget or forgive the way he pursued P Hanson, to jail.
Agree or disagree with her policies, that is the way dictatorships deal with opponents.
Abbott is a featherweight and Turnbull’s determined to get his job back. Still, I thought TA might have been a man of principle, but he’s just as useless as the rest.
It’s like living in a third world country, where the politicians all sing the same tune.
Apparently Lukie just likes to BLOW!!!
You are just going to defend the core science?? I think you had better be explicit and lay out what that CORE SCIENCE is as the tree cores or rings or whatever seemed to have found even more hidden data.
Seriously Lukie, since Climategate and a number of papers that were allowed to slide through the gates, what IS the CORE SCIENCE?? I have been trying to get a number of you whack jobs to actually tell us what you are defending now a days and haven’t gotten a clear explanation. Radiative transfer? Hotspot? Cooling Strat? Humidity change? Ocean hidden heat?? Some combination?? Please be explicit so we can be explicit in our commentary instead of the usual arm waving!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Kuhnkat we know it’s definitely not about co2 increases.
If it was Luke and all the stupid urgers would be demonstrating about our huge and increasing exports of coal.
Luke’s like the idiot Govt, he has developed a bi-polar mental disorder when it comes to the production and emission of co2, emitted in Australia bad, bad but exported overseas and emitted there it’s good, good.
Lukes like so many lefties when you actually scratch the surface you suddenly find they are mega hypocrites, they manifest an extreme belief in some cause then do exactly as they please and forget the cause.
You see it really is about the seeming not the doing.
Abbott and co. are the consummate politicians having a bob each way. They say they are believers yet intend to abolish the tax .
Does anyone else think it sounds really dopey when politicians and others say:
“I believe in climate change”??????? and then follow with something like “We must act on it”??????
I believe the climate changes too. It’s a bit hard to believe anything else after what’s happened in Australia in the last 12 months.
Doesn’t everyone believe that the climate changes?
Because I’m a farmer I have to act on it too.
Even you urbanites at least have to figure out your wardrobe for the prevailing climactic conditions.
I understand what they’re really saying is the climate is changing because of human actions.
Maybe they should be honest about that.
Unfortunately it has now stared to turn into some politically correct and religious mantra that everyone just has to accept as gospel because they say so!
If you dare to question it you can be treated like a leper or treated as if you’re a racist or a satanist or something.
It’s frightenly similar to the concerted attacks made by Christianity in previous centuries to silence anyone who dared to question the doctrines of the church.
Give me a break!
How on earth are we ever going to solve the climate puzzle while we have to deal with that type of zealous behaviour?
Of course we have to question the science and the theories. We won’t get closer to the answers if we don’t question.
That doesn’t mean we believe or don’t believe.
‘I believe in climate change’ is starting to sound outright ridiculous to me!
KookyKat – trivia amongst a sea of evidence. perhaps we should do a review of the documented and proven disinformation and rank and recycled lies spread by so-called sceptics. Would make a much larger volume. In fact Kookers – you don’t ever make an intelligent comment except for drive by shootings. Which stupid whacko unpublished alternative sceptic mind game are you on this week? Mate there’s a whole chocolate wheel of options – let’s spin the wheel shall we?
Let’s see – the old 2nd law ruse, solar, cosmic rays, volcanoes (hahahahahaha), PDO, planetary alignments, “recovery from an ice age”, Euro-centric MWP worship, Al Gore is fat – pullease
Only rank imbeciles and political fifth columnists would not evaluate the evidence and come up with AGW at 95% – not even the few intelligent sceptics refute that position.
You guys can join your good mates in One Nation, the League of Rights and the Gun Lobby.
What a bunch of evil little crooks you are.
Open letter to Luke,
We the older generation Luke, would like to formally apologise to you and many of the naive 20 or 30 something yr olds for feeding you a quack CO2 Theory at school and at university, which has resulted in a parlous understanding of science and a severe brainwashing over a “greenhouse ” phenomenon.
As a consequence of our lack of understanding we sincerely regret the anguish to the Australian people and parliamentarians over the imposition of a carbon tax which has unfortunately arisen because of people like yourself quietly sucking their lungs out on the state tit.
‘What a bunch of evil little crooks you are.’
Hmmm….robust.
The evidence of AGW is flimsy, unfortunately for Luke. Thirty years of rising temperatures, CO2 is going through the roof, one and one make two, post hoc ergo propter hoc.
It’s a fallacy old man.
And every day the paper boy brings more
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2011/03/23/science.1197219.abstract
Studies of climate change typically consider measurements or predictions of temperature over extended periods of time. Climate, however, is much more than temperature. Over the oceans, changes in wind speed and the surface gravity waves generated by such winds play an important role. We used a 23-year database of calibrated and validated satellite altimeter measurements to investigate global changes in oceanic wind speed and wave height over this period. We find a general global trend of increasing values of wind speed and, to a lesser degree, wave height, over this period. The rate of increase is greater for extreme events compared to the mean condition.
Here is evidence that this is a never ending CON TRICK, in fact it can’t be disproved even after a thousand years according to silly Tim.
We spend endless trillions forever and as each generation dies the next takes up the baton and pays for something that doesn’t show a result.
What mind numbing green madness these idiots believe in, but I’m sure Luke will lap it up and follow Tim, Juliar, Al etc with blind obedience.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/
I’m sorry this relates directly to Flannery’s idiocy, not the above.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/mtr_today_march_25/#commentsmore
‘The rate of increase is greater for extreme events compared to the mean condition.’ Over the past 23 years the wind and waves have been more robust compared to what?
In case you missed it, Stockwell has a guest post at Watts.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/24/show-us-your-tests-australian-drought-models/
So Trenberth’s missing heat is blowing in the wind, eh luke; that was your point wasn’t it?
More trouble with those hockey sticks found by McIntyre.
Seems if those blasted tree rings won’t do what they should you just have to help them along a bit.
But I’m sure Luke would understand and agree with the team’s adjustments. Very TRICKY fellows these climate scientists.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/24/steve-mcintyre-uncovers-another-trick/
For those who may not know about Trenberth’s missing heat.
“The heat will come back to haunt us sooner or later,” says NCAR scientist Kevin Trenberth, the lead author. “The reprieve we’ve had from warming temperatures in the last few years will not continue. It is critical to track the build-up of energy in our climate system so we can understand what is happening and predict our future climate.”
Cohers, might i suggest that the ocean levels could be falling ( or rate of increase)despite increased glacial melt because temperatures of the oceans have actually been falling and cooler water “contracts” whilst warmer water expands?
Toby; you can’t be serious. can you?
While away, I returned to a couple of spots on the South Coast I carefully photographed a good twelve months ago and the tides are noticibly higher than before with big wash outs round the dunes in a few places.
Guess what; that sea is very very warm!
What looked like a Flummery gaff, is in fact straight out of AR4. We can thank Tim Curtin for bringing this to our attention over at Watts, in a thread called – Quote of the Millennium.
“We find a general global trend of increasing values of wind speed and, to a lesser degree, wave height, over this period. The rate of increase is greater for extreme events compared to the mean condition.”
Luke, I did not read that paper as it is behind a paywall but if the extreme events have been less [and they have] then it doesn’t make sense.
My own experience of ever increasing sail area of racing yachts in recent decades also refutes this argument.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/global_running_ace1.jpg
Hi toby; my understanding is that sea level increase is based on steric or heat expansion masured by temperature and mass or eustatic increase from freshwater which is measured by sea salinity dilution; however you may be right; I made a comment about the new Houston and Dean paper earlier; whatever is happening the doomsday AGW scenario of inundation seems as fanciful as anything else to do with it.
Toby,
Have you ever tried adding cold water to a bucket of ambient water to make it reduce?
Give it away guys. You’re classless and totally outgunned.
Publications – nil ! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAA
spangles, this might be it.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/suppl/2011/03/22/science.1197219.DC1/Young.SOM.pdf
Too technical for me to even contemplate.
“My own experience of ever increasing sail area of racing yachts in recent decades also refutes this argument.”
It doesn’t get any more scientific than that. You may as well chuck it in Luke. Pack up your empirical evidence and fancy pants scientific papers and hit the road mate. They don’t want none of you book learnin’ types round here.
http://www.theage.com.au/environment/scientists-find-waves-are-getting-bigger-20110325-1c97e.html
“Give it away guys. You’re classless and totally outgunned.”
Luke,
What a withering argument!
Left Wing Festival of Stupidity,
You and Luke make a charming couple. There’s something about your matching logic.
“As a result, some doubt arises as to the ability of the altimeter to accurately measure extreme wave heights and wind speeds”
They don’t even realise that when winds exceed a certain speed that wave heights actually LOWER, not rise.
After spending most of the week on rocky headlands watching some of those waves as they hit the coast I have to say we don’t need any fancy pants scientific papers to see the change.
In case you are wondering about the weather, I’m sure BoM has not given us an alert re that current low passing over the Tasman Sea (no storms). Also we had warm days and clear skys making it even harder to explain why some coves and points were burried in foam or why other normally sandy beaches were littered with masses of seaweed
” Ocean wind speeds and wave heights around the world have increased significantly over the past quarter of a century”
I guess you missed the first phrase in the first sentence drongo? Possibly all that foam on your monitor? Dang!
And did someone ask me about the difference between the protests against Howard taking us to war in Iraq and Hickstock 2011 the other day? Well, off the top of my head, Howard’s great big lies took us to a war that killed hundreds of thousands and the proposed carbon tax won’t kill anyone. Aside from that minor detail, Howard as a mutt sniffing GW’s butt was funny while the bloke who got his 11 yr old daughter to describe Gillard as “Bob Browns bitch” on a placard made me wonder why you need a license to own a dog but not to inflict your genes on some hapless child.
SD; on one established lookout we had lots of company, like guys in one tonners with overalls and boots on their way to work. In the local weekly one writer was on about the tides being messed up by events off Japan.
We can’t all be wrong hey
“publications – nil”
So does it only matter if it is published?
Are you serious??????
We can all publish just about anything we like on just about any topic we like.
Maybe you mean published in a specific place?
It’s still pretty hollow.
If nothing else, we are all being subjected to total information overload!
I have already posted this comment somewhere on this blog but it doesn’t hurt to repeat it.
When it comes to statistics, especially from funded studies:
“You can torture figures for long enough and they will admit to anything.”
Don’t believe me?
Have a look at the tortured figures that were bandied about when Kevin Rudd wanted to introduce the mining tax.
They were all procured from reliable sources and they were made to prove whichever argument was being loudly proclaimed on whichever day.
Have a look at the woeful figures put together by the MDBA about how much water would be needed and from where and from what source.
It’s all in the input and all computer models have to start from a solid moderating point.
Sometimes the results can be radically (and I mean radically!) altered by adding just one more year or one more variable.
Give me a break Luke.
We all need to question the figures.
We all need to question the publications based on the figures.
We will NEVER find out anything if we don’t challenge and we don’t question.
There is way too much evidence around that proves that computer modelling can be misused and also politically hijacked.
If we put garbage in to a computer model it can only put garbage out. Computer models do not have the power to reason or to question their inputs.
That’s up to their human masters.
We absolutely must keep questioning those inputs.
gav,
If you’d lived on the coast prior to ’76 and spent a lot of time sandbagging and saving what are now multi-million dollar houses from falling into the sea you would have a more balanced perspective. If you’d been to sea in cyclones where the sea is almost flat and covered in “smoke”, you’d realise what you’re looking at there is just a good travelling breeze.
BTW, where do you think these “measurements” are coming from?
Our friends Topex/Jason etc who bring us never-ending SLR that conflicts with all the tide gauges and real-life obs.
Debbie – I’m sorry – sceptics run a mile from serious scrutiny by assiduously avoiding publication in main stream journals. Unless it’s the softly reviewed partisan E&E. You’re parroting tired old sceptic memes and you’ve never read a scientific journal paper in your life have you?
As for “computer models” give me a break – so sceptic scientists don’t use computers eh? They don’t make measurements and derive relationships with mathematical equations. They have some new science without numbers do they Debbie? After all computer models are nothing more than solving equations – lots of them. In fact modellers are obsessed with model validation. That’s the point !
spangled drongo,
I’m a great believer in empirical evidence, I read a lot about the “CC ” ‘science’ understand maths
and try to keep an open mind.
Sailors are not stupid, too much sail and even the advanced hulls will not cope with the wind.
As to wind strength and wave hight, even wiki gets it right, like blowing at a fire, you can increase the intensity, and passing a point you extinguish it.
But when people like RWFOH turn up and sprout filth not even close to the topic, or gavin with his poor imitation of Jed Clampett’s wisdom, I wonder if it’s worth bothering to try to convince them that they are misguided?
Now Luke, he is an other matter, he is smart cookie all right, he knows where his next meal is coming from.
Crikey, you leave this site for 1/2 a day and it gets infested with the likes of this greenie thug rw whatever; it’s bad enough enduring the geriatic bloviations of gav and the half-hearted nonsense from luke; for a primer on winds see here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/12/earths-changing-atmosphere/#more-31173
I mean you guys are jokes; bigger waves and faster winds; it’s only been months since luke was throwing papers detailing increasing “stilling”:
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/2008GL035627.shtml
In fact there is a multitude of AGW approved papers listing global ‘stilling’ [apart from some parts of the Antarctic] in recent years: Roderick et al, Betts, Held and Soden, and Lorenz and DeWeaver’s work shows that climate models generally predict reductions in zonally averaged mid-latitude wind speeds.
You guys are idiots.
Here is the story from the Australian Brainwashing Corporation.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/03/25/3173587.htm?site=melbourne
” he knows where his next meal is coming from.” nope – nothing from climate – wrong again JW
Thanks for playing Cohenite – was waiting for you. No inconsistency at all. You can work out why as an exercise. LOL !
I’ve always imagined Luke invested too heavily in ‘renewables’ and is spending the rest of his life trying to claw that money back by demonizing right thinking individuals.
Right, no inconsistency at all between less wind and more wind; stillness has been found over oceans as well as land and at every latitude; if winds were increasing due to extra available energy from AGW hurricane and cyclone intensity and frequency would also be increasing; it isn’t; so what you are saying is we are getting more of those nice low to moderate winds which power kites and cool the evening air?
That was the point Luke,
We have to question all the models, especially when new raw data and new variables mess them up.
It seems our climate has a particularly nasty habit of doing that.
It sometimes appears that people are trying to stuff an octopus into a string bag!
Of course we have to keep crunching numbers, I have no idea why you would believe I thought otherwise.
Just wanted to point out that statistics get used for other purposes than their original intention.
That doesn’t help scientists either I would imagine?
My conclusions from reading mainstream science journals?
1)We have started to recognise some patterns but we have a long way to go.
2)AGW is not the only theory with scientific weight behind it.
“when winds exceed a certain speed that wave heights actually LOWER”
Yeah, I’m an idiot, I don’t even know what that “certain speed is”. Help me out?
Gav; Toby; you can’t be serious. can you?…my thoughts about most of what you write!
SD ( and cohers)…and for Gav if he is interested in actually learning anything!?…
From; http://www.science.org.au/nova/082/082key.htm
“Higher temperatures lead to higher sea levels
A warmer world will have a higher sea level because as the land and lower atmosphere of the world warm, heat is transferred into the oceans. When materials are heated they expand (thermal expansion). So the heat that is transferred causes sea water to expand, which then results in a rise in sea level.
In addition, water from land-based ice such as glaciers and ice sheets may enter the ocean, thus adding to the rise. A point to remember is that no extra water is added to the oceans when ice floating in the ocean melts. As floating ice melts, it only replaces the volume of water that it originally displaced.
Melting or expansion?
Which contributes the most to sea-level rise – melting ice or the thermal expansion of water? The answer depends on the time-scale you’re interested in. Warmer temperatures could lead to the following scenarios:
Non-polar glaciers
If non-polar glaciers such as those in New Zealand and Norway melted, they would release water that may enter the ocean and contribute to a sea-level rise. Glaciers are rather sensitive to climate change and they could melt rapidly.
Greenland ice sheet
In Greenland, ice increase from snowfall is balanced by ice loss from melting and the discharge of glaciers. Projections indicate that increased melting from higher temperatures would exceed any increases in precipitation. This change in the ice balance would add water to the ocean.
Antarctic ice sheet
Nearly all of Antarctica is covered by an ice sheet that is, on average, 2.5 kilometres thick. If all the land-ice covering Antarctica were to melt – that’s around 30 million cubic kilometres of ice – the seas would rise by over 60 metres! However, in the Antarctic it is so cold that even with increases of a few degrees, temperatures would remain below the melting point of ice. In fact, warmer temperatures could lead to more snow, which would increase the amount of ice in Antarctica.
Thermal expansion
While thermal expansion is a less obvious process than melting ice (mainly because you can’t see it happening) the IPCC projects that thermal expansion will be the main component of expected sea-level rises over the 21st century.
So the IPCC suggest thermal expansion will cause the main component of ocean rise this century….any apologies gav?
So SD and Cohers on the basis that warming will cause rises, could the cooling that has shown up in the ARGO buoys actually be negating some of the glacial melt?…im not saying it is but it would certainly seem to be a possibility?
Just a point of clarification.
When I said that stats get used for purposes other than their original intention I should have added: LIKE USING THEM TO JUSTIFY A CARBON TAX!
I’m pretty sure that our genuine researchers and genuine scientists would not like this behaviour either.
They did not put those models together so that they could be prematurely hijacked by bureaucrats, bankers and brokers.
I believe they would be genuinely attempting to continue their research into climate.
I’m not knocking the attempt to keep researching, I think that is absolutely vital.
Recent events and recent publications have convinced me that the jury is still out on this one. We have a lot more work to do before we can confidently predict climate patterns.
As I said before, there will be no one happier than farmers when that day finally arrives.
Thanks cohers and el gordo for those links.
The record of accurate world wave height measurement would equate with satellite SL measurement, ie, short and dubious.
As Lindzen says, any increased warming at the poles [which is where it is supposed to happen] will reduce the pressure gradient and reduce the wind energy as per cohers link.
” he knows where his next meal is coming from.”
Ah! Johnathan, that endless bounteous supply from the public bosom. Somehow, like the runt of the litter, I’ve always blundered around in the dark and never been able to latch on.
“could the cooling that has shown up in the ARGO buoys actually be negating some of the glacial melt?”
Toby, I agree that that’s what’s supposed to happen but it does equate with the bucket analogy above and I can’t see it happening.
So therefore the melt can’t be as big as claimed or a lot of it is refreezing.
toby, I made a comment about GIA at the beginning of this thread which may assist you in respect of the alleged ice melt in Greenland and Antarctica.
‘In fact, contrary to virtually all news coverage, the IPCC actually anticipates that Antarctica will gain ice mass (and lower sea level) as the climate warms, since the temperature there is too low to produce much melting even if it warms up several degrees, while the warmer air holds more moisture and therefore precipitates more snow.’
Pat Michaels
A big vote for the Nationals in NSW today will send a strong message to Canberra, the party is running on a platform of NO CARBON TAX.
Dullard believes in AGW and has impressed upon her ministers the importance of groupthink on a carbon tax.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/mps-told-to-warn-of-climate-mayhem/story-fn59niix-1226028368404