ACCORDING to Murray Salby, Chair of Climate at Macquarie University, recent increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide are from predominately natural sources and changes in atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide follow changes in temperature. This was the thrust of the Professor’s message to an audience at the Sydney Institute last week.
You can listen to Professor Salby’s lecture here: http://www.thesydneyinstitute.com.au/podcast/global-emission-of-carbon-dioxide-the-contribution-from-natural-sources/
The following summary is courtesy of Luke Walker:
“Carbon dioxide is emitted by human activities as well as a host of natural processes. The satellite record, in concert with instrumental observations, is now long enough to have collected a population of climate perturbations, wherein the Earth-atmosphere system was disturbed from equilibrium. Introduced naturally, those perturbations reveal that net global emission of CO2 (combined from all sources, human and natural) is controlled by properties of the general circulation. That is properties internal to the climate system that regulate emission from natural sources. The strong dependence on internal properties indicates that emission of CO2 from natural sources, which accounts for 96 per cent of its overall emission, plays a major role in observed changes of CO2. Independent of human emission, this contribution to atmospheric carbon dioxide is only marginally predictable and not controllable.
Professor Murry Salby holds the Climate Chair at Macquarie University and has had a lengthy career as a world-recognised researcher and academic in the field of Atmospheric Physics. He has held positions at leading research institutions, including the US National Center for Atmospheric Research, Princeton University, and the University of Colorado, with invited professorships at universities in Europe and Asia. At Macquarie University, Professor Salby uses satellite data and supercomputing to explore issues surrounding changes of global climate and climate variability over Australia. Professor Salby is the author of Fundamentals of Atmospheric Physics, and Physics of the Atmosphere and Climate due out in 2011.
Professor Salby’s latest research makes a timely and highly-relevant contribution to the current discourse on climate.”
Thanks Luke.
********
Is scepticism of anthropogenic global warming on its way to becoming main stream? That carbon dioxide lags temperature has long been the message from Bob Carter and others, but not the Murray Salby’s of the world.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Dear Jennifer,
have you already had a look at the paper that Murry Salby is going to publish, or how else can you assess the merits of his findings? right now it’s just some scientist giving a talk, so i find it hard to tell whether he found something interesting or not.
p.
‘Is scepticism of anthropogenic global warming on its way to becoming main stream?’
It does appear to be happening, even SBS, a bastion of AGW faith, is now reluctantly looking at the possibility that maybe the science is not settled.
Equal time is all we ever asked for Luke, but just the other day when Watson spoke about sea rise slowing the Klimatariat went into a frenzy attacking the Murdoch press. Now the Salby story, illustrating simply that CO2 follows temperatures, will come as a shock to many who held the faith.
Recant, one and all, the Denialati are taking prisoners.
Wonderful to listen to a real atmospheric scientist give his opinion based on real measurement and observation and not silly models.
When asked in the Q@A he admitted he could be wrong, very refreshing to hear once again.
Luke and Gavs hero HIPPO Al has recently resorted to yelling BS at his various audiences, geezzz really fills one with confidence doesn’t it.
I’m so far convinced that most of our warming is entirely natural because +0.7C isn’t a lot of warming over the last 100+ years and coming at the end of a minor ice age.
“Carbon dioxide is emitted by human activities as well as a host of natural processes. The satellite record, in concert with instrumental observations, is now long enough to have collected a population of climate perturbations, wherein the Earth-atmosphere system was disturbed from equilibrium. Introduced naturally, those perturbations reveal that net global emission of CO2 (combined from all sources, human and natural) is controlled by properties of the general circulation. That is properties internal to the climate system that regulate emission from natural sources. The strong dependence on internal properties indicates that emission of CO2 from natural sources, which accounts for 96 per cent of its overall emission, plays a major role in observed changes of CO2. Independent of human emission, this contribution to atmospheric carbon dioxide is only marginally predictable and not controllable.”
Well. [wipes the dust off his hands]
Congratulations, everyone. It’s been a long time coming. Lots of fun putting our minds to an idea and sticking with it. Seeing it through. We are almost to the end.
Don’t stop now. There are still bondsmen out there lining their pockets off the fraud. Never stop, never stop fighting till the fight is done.
I’d add that in the short term CO2 and temperature have diverged markedly, with temperature flat to falling. On the other hand if you read Soon 2005 you’ll see in Fig 1 that temperature correlates closely to TSI, and still does…since TSI is down and temperature likewise this last decade.
Salby confirms Knorr; there is NO correlation between temperature and CO2 let alone causation and the sun does it all:
http://vixra.org/pdf/1108.0004v1.pdf
Salby is wrong. Ice core data shows that CO2 hasnt been near current levels, even during interglacials, during the last million years or so. The only time it has is the present – when we have been emitting large amounts of CO2, (mainly from fossil fuel burning). Impossible to view that as a coincidence.
Ocean warming can only have generated at best a fairly small part of the 110ppm rise in CO2.
You can see the lag (CO2 lags atmospheric temp. which in turn lags in coming radiation on daily and seasonal basis) in the data & graphs in the published research of W Kreutz 1941 which was brought to attention of the world by the late Ernst-Gorg Beck. His web site (maintained by his generous daughter) is here http://www.biomind.de/realCO2/realCO2-1.htm. Then have a look at his peer reviewed paper “180 YEARS OF ATMOSPHERIC CO2 GAS ANALYSIS BY CHEMICAL METHODS”
under the papers header. Over the 180 year time frame Beck has estimated a 5 year lag (look at the graph under the statements header). Ice core data indicates a lag of around 800 years over millions of years of iceage cycles.
At every stage CO2 lags temperature.
Beck’s website has a great reference list where you can download Kreutz’s paper (in German) and many others including papers from Nobel prize winners. Beck, also, provides (unlike all the AGW believer pseudoscientists) the data used in his papers.
Selby clearly states near the end of the Q&A that he doesn’t believe the ice core co2 record accurately measures atmospheric co2 levels at all.
That to me throws the largest spanner into the whole theory of AGW and of course he’s convinced because he can’t observe and measure that the recent increase in co2 of 100 ppmv could have an anthropogenic source.
At most the anthropogenic component would be small and perhaps Beck’s chemical measurement of co2 may be important after all? Who knows?
Bill says: “Ocean warming can only have generated at best a fairly small part of the 110ppm rise in CO2.”
Which is crap. Did you even read Knorr Bill? Here it is:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/knorr2009_co2_sequestration.pdf
Knorr confirms that the human CO2, ACO2, is staying the same, expressed as a %, in a growing CO2 total; natural CO2 must be expanding as well, much more than ACO2 is. The notion that because total CO2 is going up at a rate ‘about’ 1/2 the human emissions [as ESTIMATED] has no bearing on whether natural CO2 is increasing or what sinks are doing.
Throw into this mix of unknowns the doubt on whether the ice core record is valid in respect of past levels of CO2 and really the conclusions of AGW about ACO2 are stupid.
As for Salby; we haven’t seen his graph of ACO2 compared with CO2 levels but this one by Tom Quirk is undoubtedly similar:
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/co2/co2-emissions-atmospheric-rise-quirk.gif
Which is to say there is NO correlation between emissions and CO2 levels, which have actually been negativeat times during the 20thC:
Jan 1964 319.57
Jan 1965 319.44
ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_mm_mlo.txt
or May 1964 322.25
May 1965 322.16
or
Sept 1973 327.51
Sept 1974 327.41
[HT siliggy]
Rubbish. Salby may believe the ice core CO2 data is wrong but nearly everybody else seems to accept it as being tolerably reliable. Does Selby have any particular expertise in this field?
Beck’s volatile measures of CO2 come from chemical measurements in the early days of chemistry – ie the 19th century. Ridiculous to place much belief in that without supporting evidence – there isnt any.
Those charts by Quirk clearly show a strong correlation between emissions and rising CO2 levels. You must be blind if you cant see that. Of course the correlation isnt perfect from year to year – but that is because the Enso cycle influences net sink absorbtion, as do minor seasonal factors.
You are barking up a tree on this one.
Looks like the lads took the bait. James and Neville – have some circumspection guys…
Of course CO2 follows temperature in the ice core data – why wouldn’t it.
But Salby is a clever guy but alas way off reservation in carbon cycles. Deltoid and Tammy have already bagged it as another repeat of that dreadful McLean et al paper.
Nobody disputes the involvement of natural cycles. But how much?
And Salby doesn’t imply CO2 is not a GHG. Moreover that the warming itself is having more of a hand in the process and that the isotopes support his assertion (choke!).
Hurry on the actual paper. And pullease lets not revisit that tedious Beck nonsense.
Luke,
thank you for the summary. I’ll wait for the paper before putting the boot to myself!! 8>)
Bill, based on Prof. Jaworowski, the ice cores are poor for gas measurements.
http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/IceCoreSprg97.pdf
Luke, you should probably spend a little time perusing Dr. J’s papers or renewing your aquaintance with them.
As a general comment, Dr. Salby’s work sounds in line with Dr. Beck, and Dr. Jaworowski’s. Wonder if he has read them?? Might have given him some extra motivation to know that there were others blazing the trail of truth, justice, and the American way before him!! Oh wait, he isn’t American. Strike that last bit!!
Luke,
thank you for the summary. I’ll wait for the paper before putting the boot to myself!! 8>)
Bill, based on Prof. Jaworowski, the ice cores are poor for gas measurements.
http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/IceCoreSprg97.pdf
Luke, you should probably spend a little time perusing Dr. J’s papers or renewing your aquaintance with them.
Oh, and Bill, most of those measurements Beck catalogued were made with a process and equipment that gives an error of +-3%. Tell us what the range of a 450PPM measurement would be, hmmmmm? I should also mention while you are badmouthing people’s abilities that several of the scientists making those measurements were Nobel winners, and not for Peace prizes either!! Beck also did the data rationality check to try and ensure only reasonable data was put in the DB. When the Climate Community comes to their senses it should prove to be quite useful to have realistic CO2 measurements to match with the historic land temperature records.
Luke states,
“Deltoid and Tammy have already bagged it as another repeat of that dreadful McLean et al paper.”
More of that wizardy where they can see things us normal humans can’t?? Or did someone sneak them a copy of the paper??
It will be pretty funny if there is little Solar in there then!! We should really wait for the paper to see if the data is believable or not before bad mouthing it. Oh wait, even after Dr. Spencer provided data that supported his claim that the models have problems y’all still bad mouthed him. Dr. Salby must be expecting quite a reception!!
Deltoid my backside; Lambert accused Salby of differencing CO2 data; Salby didn’t; he did what Quirk did; merely plotted annual CO2 increases against ACO2 emissions.
Bill, you are either drunk, blind or in love, or all three, if you think that graph I linked to shows any correlation between ACO2 emissions and overall CO2 increase.
As for expertise; Salby is the professor of climate studies at Macquarie Uni!!
I repeat: did you read Knorr!! No, obviously not; or if you did in your current besotted state you did not have a clue what it meant.
You’re not ‘connected’ with luke by any chance?
As the only guy from the practice of measurements in general, I must remind the blog that Beck on historic C02 can’t be verified by modern science instruments.
It’s also important to realize that ice core data and other paleo CO2 measurements can’t be compared directly with AGW events by any stretch of your imagination.
BTW; whoz Bill?
Bill:
”
Salby is wrong. Ice core data shows that CO2 hasnt been near current levels, even during interglacials, during the last million years or so. The only time it has is the present – when we have been emitting large amounts of CO2, (mainly from fossil fuel burning). Impossible to view that as a coincidence.
Ocean warming can only have generated at best a fairly small part of the 110ppm rise in CO2.”
So how come that Antarctic Eemian temperatures were up to 6°C higher than current( Nature Letter October 2009)?
GW; your Q can’t be linked with Bill’s statements so simply.
Cohenite,
Knorr’s paper – I haven’t read it (yet) but considering the arguments by Engelbeen, and others on the topic here and elsewhere, just how do they estimate the proportion of CO2 attributable to humans in atmospheric CO2? Is it based on a quantitative mass balance based on one or other carbon cycle(s). Or are they basing it on the measureable decrease in C13 in the atmosphere, and are they able to show then that this decrease is either due to preferential increase in C12 or, conversely by preferential decrease of C13 from the atmosphere by one or other processes.
We already know that passing Methane upwards through a column of rock s/soil etc similar to the earth’s crust, results in a depletion of C13 chemically as the methane wells up through the column.
Just wondering.
Louis, Knorr’s data sources are eclectic and comprehensive:
“[5] The present analysis combines the average concentration
at Mauna Loa [Keeling et al., 2009] and South Pole
[Keeling et al., 2008] from continues atmospheric sampling
by the Scripps Institute of Oceanography with ice core data
from Law Dome [Etheridge et al., 1996; MacFarling Meure
et al., 2006] and Siple [Friedli et al., 1986]. Uncertainties
are set to 0.5 ppm for the monthly direct samplings, 2 ppm
for Law Dome and 3 ppm for Siple.
[6] Emissions from fossil-fuel use and cement production
are taken from Boden et al. [2009] and land use emissions
from Houghton [2008]. For 2007, a 3.3% increase in fossilfuel
emissions is assumed [Netherlands Environmental
Assessment Agency, 2009], while land use emissions after
2005 are kept constant for lack of newer data. Land use
emissions are assigned uncorrelated uncertainties for annual
values of 10% (estimated from the interannual variability of
the data), and a systematic error of 60%, equal to the
decadal uncertainty given by Prentice et al. [2001] and
implemented as a scaling parameter over the entire analysis
period (see below). No uncertainty has been assigned to the
fossil-fuel emissions.
[7] The Nin˜o-3 sea-surface temperature (SST) [NOAA,
2009] is used as a statistical indicator to reflect changes in
El Nin˜o/Southern Oscillation, as well as the Volcanic
Aerosol Index (VAI) [Ammann et al., 2003] for the presence
of climate-relevant stratospheric aerosols. It has been observed
that atmospheric CO2 increases faster if Nin˜o3-SST
is above average and more slowly if VAI is high [Jones and
Cox, 2005; Knorr et al., 2007]. No uncertainties are
assigned to those indices.”
BTW; whoz Bill?
More importantly, is Gordon Walker related to Luke?
Cohenite,
So basically it’s indirect methods and deductions based on what emits and what absorbs CO2, and the model explaining those observations. Given the uncertainty is all those estimates, it would suggest we don’t know, and probably will never know.
It’s a bit like Langmuire’s definition of junk-science, obsession over a barely measureable quantity of a substance that no one really knows much about. The fact that geological outgassing of CO2, and CH4 which converts to CO2 over 10 years, is more or less ignored means that I can use a Goreism – it’s BS!
Peter H., It will be interesting to see the paper when it published. Lance Endersbee was sending me data showing similar correlations before his death. And of course there is much published, including by Bob Carter, on the correlations with carbon dioxide lagging temperature in the longer geological record.
O/T NIWA has to go back to the High Court.
http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=769&Itemid=1
“there is much published – on the correlations with carbon dioxide lagging temperature in the longer geological record”
Apart from a few dozen blogs that dwell on this topic I find little in relation to the longer record and AGW or info supporting your view. In fact one recent blog leads to
Ooops – http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/CarbonCycle/s
and “This thermostat works over a few hundred thousand years” etc thus we must have very slow changes as the norm
People who criticize Beck have not read any of the extensive literature probably because they can’t be bothered to translate the German but there is plenty of English language literature. They have never made actual gas analyses with the various accurate instruments and they have no technical competence in analysing the data.
A lot of nonsense is written about the chemical methods. These were the standard methods upto 1960 and were in fact used to calibrate electronic instrumentation. Look at the paper 50 YEARS OF CONTINUOUS MEASUREMENT OF CO2 ON MAUNA LOA, ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT Vol 19 No 7, 2008,
I personally have made parallel measurements. and have some understanding of errors involved
Engelbeen’s calculations have been discredited by many and he has always ignored actual measurements around the world
Fredinand’s basic mistakes seem to be that he assumes that natural CO2 can’t be increasing and that if it isn’t that natural sinks are increasing in lock step with the increase in ACO2. They are major assumptions!
Gavin, Have you read any of Bob Carter’s paper that have been published in the Journal Science. They should cover it.
Gavin states,
“As the only guy from the practice of measurements in general, I must remind the blog that Beck on historic C02 can’t be verified by modern science instruments.”
I find that a rather strange statement. As the physical conditions no longer exist we can no longer verify ANY historical data. What we can do is read the papers and notebooks of those who made the historical measurements and repeat their procedures with similar equipment. Doing so has shown that the procedures and equipment used then for CO2 measurement gives repeatable accuracy that is more than good enough to show the data is useful for the purpose for which Beck collected it.
One thing we should not forget is that Mauna Loa and the other CO2 monitoring stations are specifically sited in areas that generally have the lowest readings of CO2 outside of the polar regions. This is alledged to give the “background” measurement of CO2 and may well do so. They then throw out all measurements which are “contaminated” or outside of a reasonable range they have set. This is the opposite of what is done for our temperature data where we measure where we are guaranteed to get local anthropogenic contamination.
As Cementafriend pointed out above, those procedures were used to calibrate the more modern instruments. Sadly, Keeling was not trained in their use so his earliest measurements were somewhatt unreliable!
I guess KK wasn’t around then but by the late 50’s we could give up on his “chemical” method for CO2 readings because it was so inaccurate for even the high concentrations as found in flue gas.
CaF could be pleased to know that even without papers I was hired by our leading electro-chem engineers to help implement some pretty major transitions in combustion monitoring that lead to Melbourne loosing its title as the “smog” Capital in Aus.
After some late training by one particular consultant for system design using gear manufactured in the US initially for their space program. I went from industry to industry and on occasions recruited personnel with the practical experience in gas and fuel monitoring likely to survive in rapid deployments elsewhere.
Needless to say it was my job to know ambient conditions as well as deviations in a range of environments without actually doing all the daily measurements. One essential fact was G differs round the globe. It was also useful to keep up with other peoples gear from both the UK and the US however just a few of my creations had to be assessed by the Prof and his students in the Phys. Dpt. at MU. I should add, we all needed to know where our Met people were going.
Instruments were a very big field of inquiry then.
I will add a few points for the clever dicks passing by.
1 ) It is extremely difficult for an individual to get a proper handle on local atmospheric CO2 variations using the old method.
2 ) Our best mathematicians and combustion engineers gave up on that method because they could never be sure there was no CO present in the mix.
3 ) Atmospheric gas ratios change very slowly and this indeed is the most useful fact of all.
cheers
Surely we’re not that desperate KuknKat to contest multiple global sites all with steady progressive annual increments from modern measuring methodlogies versus the scatter-gun of Beck results. Don’t you guys have anything better to do?
“Goreism” Jennifer really you should show more respect.Did you know that Al Gore many years ago said he invented the internet? He also worked with Enron in setting up the ETS and their proposed associated carbon taxes. He single handedly crammed NAFTA down the throats of Congress destroying industry and lowering wages.He still insistsnot profit from any of
“Goreism” Jennifer really you should show more respect.Did you know that Al Gore many years ago said he invented the internet? He also worked with Enron in setting up the ETS and their proposed associated carbon taxes. He single handedly crammed NAFTA down the throats of Congress destroying industry and lowering wages.He still insists not profit from any of this.
This has taken on an aspect of the surreal.
Col. Jessup *Did you order the Code Red?*
Jack Nicholson bellows from the witness stand, “You’re GODDAMN right I did!”
End of story, dude.
Luke admits that co2 follows temperature, then gibbers on like he doesn’t understand the import of that statement. Spare us the histrionics while the bailiff reads you your rights.
Humanity has been acquitted. Case dismissed.
‘Humanity has been acquitted. Case dismissed.’
Let’s not forget a harmless trace gas, much maligned of late, now set free to roam at will. Innocent of all charges.
Prophets are without honour etc – I actually published data showing how the world’s biota absorb CO2 emissions pro rata over ENSO cycle shortly before Knorr, and went beyond him by showing how the rapid growth of world cereals production since 1960 accounted for much of the uptake of emissions, even though respiration also increases pari passu – what we have are annual variations around a rising trend, with the atmospheric CO2 concentration varying much more during the year (DOWN by 5 ppm between May and September, the NH crop growth season, against the average annual (Jan-Dec) UP since 1958 of around 1.5 ppm, and by 6.5 between September and December because of respiration).
Yet there still climate “scientists” (like Singer and Garnaut) who are not aware that all our protein comes one way or another from grains etc produced from photosynthesis in (2) that is itself a beneficiary of the combustion of hydrocarbon fuels in (1):
C3H8 + 5O2 → Energy + 3CO2 + 4H2O …(1)
2CO2 + 2 H2O + photons → 2CH2O + 2O2 …(2)
Hence the endless flow of papers in PNAS denying that livestock etc are carbon neutral.
Unlike them Salby’s paper takes my points above into account.
Hey Tim, is it true that fast-growing crops are a bigger CO2 sink then established [natural] forest?
If so would it make sense to remove all natural forest and plant crops?
Cohenite, I wonder also if the increased growing and cropping of corn since WWII could be the cause of atmospheric C13 depletion, since apparently it preferentially sinks C13.
James drones “Luke admits that co2 follows temperature” – but only in ice cores James – and how utterly irrelevant. Why wouldn’t it?
Timmy’s quirky crop yield correlations with CO2 – yes ladies and gentlemen – ignoring all genetic and agronomic improvement and seasonal conditions. Pullease – publish it somewhere serious. BTW I think Garnaut may have employed some people who know about crop physiology – unlike yourself.
And only a lawyer could come up with this one ….”If so would it make sense to remove all natural forest and plant crops?” Which is why there are earthquakes ladies and gentlemen. So many wanker sceptic that occasionally get in sync and form an harmonic wave. Let’s just back away quietly and hope nobody noticed.
Just watched the dreadful SBS Cutting Edge program on why the public is sceptical about AGW science. Professor Nurse from the British Royal Society wanders around like an overfed git and interviews some twit from NASA called Dr Bob Bindschadler.
Bob intones at about 14 minutes into this tripe that humans produce 7Gts of CO2 while nature only produces about 1Gt.
This is completely and stupidly wrong and NASA’s own data shows this. NASA helped compile Figure 7.3 from IPCC report, AR4:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-7-3.html
This diagram shows all annual sources of all CO2 which go into the atmosphere; of this total of about 218.2 Gt, humans produce about 8 Gts, or about 3.7%; nature produces the rest.
If this expert from NASA can’t even get this basic fact right what hope is there for the rest of this swiss cheese science. No wonder the public is sceptical.
Cohenite – exposed Dinglingpole for the rightist little twerp that is. One of the great deniers.
So much that Dinglingpole stopped the interview. ROFL. What a sham. And Prof hardly said anything. How telling.
I can’t believe you’re still playing deadhead stuff like nature produces more CO2 – you’re not with your Tea Party mates at a carbon tax rally now. Don’t bung it on with the old net vs flux shell game.
‘And if all others accepted the lie which the Klimatariat imposed-if all records told the same tale-then the lie passed into history and became truth.’
Apologies to George Orwell
Done deal luke; Knorr and Salby have buried humans as the dominant source for CO2 increase. Even Ferdinand, who I respect, has hit the wall in arguing against this.
Funny how the medja, especially our abc, have been running with the story.
Gavin,
“I guess KK wasn’t around then but by the late 50’s we could give up on his “chemical” method for CO2 readings because it was so inaccurate for even the high concentrations as found in flue gas.”
As usual you maunder on with no numbers to support your useless comments. Most of the CO2 measurements Beck used are within 3%. Ya’ll seem to claim that CO2 was 280ppm until Man’s tiny contribution started increasing. Tell me what the lower bounds of a 450ppm measurement with an error of +/-3ppm is again?
Gavin, delusional as ever states,
“2 ) Our best mathematicians and combustion engineers gave up on that method because they could never be sure there was no CO present in the mix.”
I guess the newer equipment that AUTOMATICALLY did the work for you didn’t make it a heck of a lot easier.
Hey Gav and Luk, just how much data do you throw out on a monthly basis???
Luke,
well, if those sites were actually measuring the CO2 emissions rather than the CO2 absorprion, it might help. Ya see, if I want the average of something I need to measure highs and lows. If I want to fool people I carefully select sites that are all showing what I want to show.
By the way, did I even SUGGEST that CO2 wasn’t going up?? That seems to be your favorite straw man lately. I am GLAD it is currently going up cause I am not interested in expensive food unlike you Gaia worshipers. Of course, when you are using tailored readings at known low CO2 areas to collect data, y’all might actually get the idea that the earth is greening on a lower CO2 level than it is!!!
Could you please talk Mauna Loa into releasing their original measurements instead of throwing so much of it out?? Might be interesting to see what they actually do up there about 4400′ above sea level on the shoulder of an outgassing volcano besides adjust data!! Their stated goal is to get a BACKGROUND CO2 level away from the vagaries of actual biology in action. Of course, biology is what REDUCES CO2 so they pick areas downwind of that reduction!! The satellite measurements are more interesting as they show the variations. They are still averaged so y’all have to go to the data to see the large diurnal variation that suggests the Beck data is not out of the ordinary for some areas.
Just rememberd Gav, isn’t CO supposed another one of those demon gasses was rare before modern internal combustion engines? (snicker)
Luke lays it on the line.
“I can’t believe you’re still playing deadhead stuff like nature produces more CO2”
Well Little Lukey, I think you have outdone yourself trying to force something out of nothing.
Not even Ferdinand believes that WHOPPER!!
Not even YOU believe that WHOPPER!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Try engaging your BRAIN before writing.
No Kookers – why don’t use engage your brain and try what we call “reading” – and then maybe “comprehension”. The subtly is flux vs net. Of course annual CO2 fluxes are massive. Emits and then sucks it back in. Something called an annual cycle. It’s the way you lying little denialists parrot this as if it’s some revelation. Kookers – Turn your back and your lot are always up to some shit.
cohenite said: Hey Tim, is it true that fast-growing crops are a bigger CO2 sink then established [natural] forest? If so would it make sense to remove all natural forest and plant crops?”
Unlike you to be so silly. No and No.
However it is true that oil palm trees recycles CO2 faster and larger per hectare than any other tree or crop, as well of course as being a standing store of carbon. GP and WWF have never discovered that oil palm trees are trees.
Tim, I’m very silly; all serious people are silly; luke isn’t silly and he is not a serious person. I did write my silly comment to rev luke up but it had a serious base; different types of vegetation have quite large variations in emmissivity and wavelength:
http://scienceofdoom.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/emissivity-vs-wavelength-various-substances2.png
That being the case I thought it was evident that quicker growth rates would also be a factor.
Tim,
Thanks for that, I was just about to bulldoze the rainforest and plant GM canola.
Cohenite: I knew that already!
Interesting graphs, but I would rather see them showing emissions per hectare per annum. Emissivity by wavelength is not a big deal.
Well now,
I have read through the comments and notice something.
AGW believers have nothing left to sell.While the skeptics side have been focusing on the science.
I have yet to read of a credible posted comment from Luke,Gavin and ???
It is like that all over the internet now.
No wonder the skeptics are winning the arguments.They stay with the science much better.
I have long disputed Mr. Engelbeen’s argument that we are the cause of the increase.I have read many,many good counterpoints made by his opponents on the topic.I do not think he has a good case whatsoever.
Well Tim, they’re the best I can do; but it seems to me to be intuitively obvious that not all vegetation is equal in terms of CO2 absorption and that growing vegetation will absorb more than mature, non-growing vegetation.
I wonder where, if any place, such information could be found.
This comment got caught in moderation; I’ll try again:
Well Tim, they’re the best I can do; but it seems to me to be intuitively obvious that not all vegetation is equal in terms of CO2 absorption and that growing vegetation will absorb more than mature, non-growing vegetation.
I wonder where, if any place, such information could be found.
Interesting comment sunsettomy!
“AGW believers have nothing left to sell.While the skeptics side have been focusing on the science.”
The only thing they ever sold was the ‘predictive/ projective modelling’ (AKA doomsday prophecies) that are definitely coming back to bite them.
Our own highly unpredictable, non linear climate is just completely refusing to cooperate with their projections and predictions.
You’re right, the scientifically collected raw data is just not matching up with the projections, no matter how often they would like to claim (while looking down their noses) that: ‘weather is not climate’ and by association sceptics are just too uneducated and underqualified to understand.
At the end of the day, predictions and projections must be tested against reality. When we replace the projective data with realistic raw data, because time has moved on, the models start to tell a different story.
I guess they are also selling their ‘moral and social superiority’ and their ‘peer reviewed’ publications ?
It has recently startled me and severely disappointed me that there is a thread of ugly & dangerous racism underpinning the ‘moral superiority’ part of the AGW sales pitch.
And the ‘peer reviewed’ publications ??????
Hmmmm…..I’m not even going to go there!
Oil-palms? Tim, I always thought my moso bamboo was the world champion carbon gobbler. It’s long been a source of frustration to me that I have this massively offset carbon footprint…but don’t give a bugger.
A few thoughts for NH fly- by-“knights” peddling the usual sceptic junk across the net.
1) Ice core data needs to be broken down into small chunks relative to current SL before comparison to present data with the relevant rates of change for CO2 etc clearly represented on suitable time scales before we can argue around the concept of “unprecedented”.
2) We may then agree that SL is the only long term therm we have.
3) Papers and reports are not necessary when work done is submitted to peers including paying customers on a daily basis. Most of my testing and correcting was reviewed by many however it was never as extensive to say BoM today.
4) During the 1960”s we moved from +/- 1 or 2 % ROUTINES when for example one revolution could be seen as a thousand pulses and could be compared say via a dual trace oscilloscope to its pair in another part in of a fast process line.
5) It seems KK assumes combustion efficiencies relate to piston engines.
6) Hands up anyone who engineered with gasses.
Robert: our bamboo is also a gobbler and if we are not careful will take over both house and garden, as well as all telephone and power cables.
cohenite: it’s a stock and flow problem, something beyond the ken of climate scientists, especially those at CSIRO like Canadell et al. (they even have negative inflows into as well outflows from the atmosphere!) Standing timber is a good stock of CO2, but logged timber is better, as it gets rid of mostly moribund timber – whose canopy prevents saplings from developing their optimal CO2 absorption – and puts it to good use, whether for building, furniture, decks, and paper where it continues to store CO2 indefinitely. I like to brag about my cousins’ place near Glastonbury, it used to be the Abbott’s farm house on the “mere” (he had his monks in the fishing business) until he carelessly lost his head and monastery to Henry VIII. My ancestors became tenants of successive secular landlords over 200 years ago but my cousins now own it outright and thereby could apply for a grant for repairs, the first for about 500 years. Carbon dating established that the roof timbers in the parlour had been put up in 1227 and are still in great CO2-storage shape with no need for replacement. Name the climate scientist who has even heard of carbon storage and dating! – archaeologists do it all the time. The Kyoto Protocol (eg FCCC/CP/2005/5/Add.2) 30 March 2006 explicitly assumes like all Greens that trees cease storing CO2 the minute they are logged, which tells you all you need to know about the intellectual integrity of IPCC, Bob Brown, Combet’s DCC, CSIRO et al.
Here are comparative data on tropical forest and oil palm which however omit the permanent storage of carbon in timber used in buildings etc.
Tropical forest Oil palm plantation
Biomass production t DM ha–1 yr–1 22.9 36.5
CO2 fixation t CO2 ha–1 yr–1 9.62 25.7
Photosynthesis lmol m–2 s–1 13-19 21-24
Absorbed radiation MJ m–2 yr–1 51.4 82.9
Respiration t CO2 ha–1 yr–1 121.1 96.5
O2 production t O2 ha–1 yr–1 7 18.7
Source: Lamade & Bouillet, CIRAD-Foret, Montpellier
Between 1.7 – 1.9 tonnes of CO2 is absorbed from the atmosphere for each tonne of hemp cellulose produced (typically 10 tonnes of hemp straw per hectare is grown.
Well, I don’t know much about all this fancy measuring – hope it’s peer-reviewed – but my forest of moso should be sending up shoots late next month. Some of those will go from zero to eighty feet in six-to-seven weeks. There’s always the chance of a hundred-footer in a patch of red soil, now that the grove has matured.
Tim and EG, you know I don’t care about the carbon uptake and storage. I just wanted to say that mine is bigger than yours.
Debs and Sunset lament the lack of intellectual comment here from myself and Gav. Well guys we have great drongoism to respond to – clearing everything for crops summarily ignoring the massive one off emission from clearing – and 30-40 year loss of soil carbon, loss of a few orangutans (Although Kookers is surviving well out of the jungle). And what about the increased methane and NOx from such systems as revealed by Nature of late.
Debs could well ponder how our beloved pensioner tour scaring master, A Watts, has finally published – and guess what Debs – doesn’t matter. temp is still up. zzzzzzzzzzzzzz
What a time waster. Arctic near record melt. And all this with a low Sun, PDO switch and whopper La Nina.
Fair dinkers – you lot are just drongos. What has changed. And despite Jospehine’s recent rant sea level is accelerating. Love those quadratics….
And Timmy is still ignoring agronomic and genetic improvement in crops. Sunset give me a break.
And a selection of audience comments from a Monckton rally I noted
“Threats of violence against opposition – smash the greenie *unts, deck ’em
Manipulation of the crowd using gee-up techniques – thanks M Roberts from Galileo Movement – although he is good at it …. “Axe the Tax” “Love the Planet” “Save our freedom” (none of the audience clap on number 2 though !)
Suggestions to take up arms against fellow citizens (good grief!)
Listen to the Hansonite at 14:34 – Sydney youtube #1 – Smash the UN, Burn it Down. When Monckton talks about those starving Africa back comes the shout “not our fault”. He winced.
Suggestions Gillard should be assassinated/will likely be
Lurid sexual slurs against people like Bob brown
Monckton saying he shouldn’t interfere in domestic politics then doing just that for an hour straight
Conflating right wing Tea Party politics with a single issue – real Brown Shirt Zieg Heil stuff
People who drape themselves in the Australian flag or assume it’s theirs alone (see Cronulla rioters for same noxious ultra-nationalist stuff) ”
Barf !
Luke,
Lurid sexual slurs against Bobby B ? Tea parties ? Hansonites ? Cronulla riots ? Assasinations ?
What a sensational place this is. You left out Australian Idol and the ARL !
Starving Africans – at least we know the cause of that. A 65 yr cycle and a bunch of warlords.
Betcha Julia does get assassinated – by her own mates !
This chappie Prof. Salby is an extremely qualified atmospheric physicist!! He appears to be heavily steeped in academia and very much part of the establishment. His sudden defection, or should that be, his honest scientific questioning of CO2 has caught everybody by surprise.
This is surely rocking the foundations of AGW. and is going to leave the guys at RC the soul destroying task of trying to pick holes in the science of one of their own.
Whatever, this is very refreshing from Prof Salby. Good on him.
Perhaps you could introduce him to Bob Carter too Luke.:)
Ever get a feeling of an inexorable tide of scepticism?
‘Arctic near record melt. And all this with a low Sun, PDO switch and whopper La Nina.’
Patience comrade, we are dealing with a very complex system and the science is not settled.
“Perhaps you could introduce him to Bob Carter too Luke.:)” – why? who said he’s defected. You lot never listen and never learn do you. Salby’s made some very specific comments on “an” issue not the entire aspect of AGW – has he denied the greenhouse effect? Nope…. he’s “claiming” a role for greater natural CO2 growth in the atmosphere. That’s all.
“his honest scientific questioning ” – why? have you read his paper? or just going on what you’d like to believe?
“Ever get a feeling of an inexorable tide of scepticism?” – of course – the truth is unpalatable. Opinion polls aren’t science or reality though.
Anybody who comes out and says the science ain’t settled has surely defected Luke.
Would you hear Trenberth say such a thing? not likely. NZ has had famous scientists……Rutherford , Pickering etc …….and then there is Trenberth.
But Luke….
If it’s ‘natural’ CO2 growth then that means it is likely there is less influence from the A in AGW doesn’t it?
Isn’t that the whole point?
That is a defection you know.
It indicates that the science is not settled.
Thanks also for doing the classic ‘look down your highly superior nose’ at all these terribly uneducated and underqualified ‘drongos’….it helped me prove my point.
I’m not a fan of personal attacks and I tend to agree with sunsettomy….most of the people arguing the sceptic points here are mostly sticking to the issues and the facts.
Sometimes they are also highly amusing with their use of wit and irony.
The name calling is not their MO at this blog….. read back over just the comments here and check who did actually make personal comments and insinuations….. I agree that’s not the same elsewhere 🙂
debbie
I don’t think this is the Luke of old or he is losing it, you have joined the discussion only recently so you may not have noticed.
All he does these days is telling us how wrong we are and spout abuse, but never really puts up any arguments any more.
Little Lukey,
“(Although Kookers is surviving well out of the jungle). ”
It is amazing how you evolutionists seem to deny evolution, its corollaries, supporting theories, and other knock-on effects in real life!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Little Lukey,
sea level accelerating? Quadratics?
Little Lukey’s data:
+ quadratic
–sea level
______________________________+
______________________________+
_____________________________+
___________________________++
________________________+++—
____________________++++—-___–
______________+++++——–
________+++++———
_+++++———
_———
______________________________________________________________________
@Little Lukey Oceanographical Type Stuff From Those Things Flying Up There Productions
El Gordo,
“Between 1.7 – 1.9 tonnes of CO2 is absorbed from the atmosphere for each tonne of hemp cellulose produced (typically 10 tonnes of hemp straw per hectare is grown.”
This could be the issue in Yosemite, Humboldt County, and some other areas here in California!! 8>)
And most of it is burned here returning the CO2 to the atmosphere!!
Well Little Lukey actually explained what he meant with his brain dead comment:
“No Kookers – why don’t use engage your brain and try what we call “reading” – and then maybe “comprehension”. The subtly is flux vs net.”
Sooooooorrrryyyy, but “use” just don’t know do “use”. The difficulties in measuring natural CO2 production means it COULD be 10 times or more what is currently accepted!!
What Salby MAY have is more data that actually tightens up the error bars and gives us a better look at what is really happening. I don’t know. Unlike you I’m not psyho, er, psychic, so, will have to wait for the paper and the data to come to any conclusion.
“Patience comrade, we are dealing with a very complex system and the science is not settled”
EG; I reckon we should move on to the methane articles published in Nature today
“If it’s ‘natural’ CO2 growth then that means it is likely there is less influence from the A in AGW doesn’t i” …… err nope – it speaks very highly for feedbacks ! (and who says Salby is right – Tamino reckons his position is ludicrous). Where’s your scepticism Debs. ZERO !
And even more rot from Debs – wearing 6 inch rose coloured glass permanently on behind sunglasses
“.most of the people arguing the sceptic points here are mostly sticking to the issues and the facts. Sometimes they are also highly amusing with their use of wit and irony.”
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA – go read comments at Bolt or Nova. Pullease Debs. I’ve been to your little carbon tax love-ins – the audience is disturbing – a veritable exploitable lynch mob.
“Is There Evidence Yet of Acceleration in Mean Sea Level Rise around Mainland Australia?”
Alas poor Kookers they knew him well ….http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/07/22/how-not-to-analyze-tide-gauge-data/
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA you clown !
KK should go and get hands on something..
I case your wondering; our ABC radio returned to those enlightening science shows by Prof Julius Sumner Miller http://www.abc.net.au/science/features/whyisitso/ before today’s topic “The Biohackers: mucking about with the stuff of life” at home.
btw “Methane mystery just got murkier”
http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2011/08/11/3290365.htm
I wasn’t referring to Nova and Bolt Luke,
I was referring to Jen’s Blog.
I agree there are fanatics on both sides of this debate and I’m not a fan of that type of behaviour.
I agree with Jen, we’d all do better if we examined the evidence and discussed the results.
That’s why I liked Sunsettomy’s comment.
Who says any of them are ‘right’ Luke?
Whether they are Salby, Tamino, Nasif, Carter or whomever.
A large part of the debate is actually centred around that very question.
Time has moved on and a lot of the ‘settled science’ is proving to be not so settled after all.
The basis of a lot of the discussion is really questioning why we are spending insane amounts of money trying to solve problems that may only exist inside projective modelling.
It’s also about the supreme egotism on the part of some who believe that they can control and mitigate the climate if we would just believe them and give them enough money.
In the process we need to trust them to benevolently socially re adjust us all as they protect us from impending climate disaster.
That’s why I am a sceptic…The politics surrounding ‘climate change or AGW’ is very worrying.
Luke,
instead of using a clown like Foster for a crutch, try sticking your head out the window.
Even remote systems are supporting visible evidence:
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/06/19/hiding-the-decline-in-sea-level/#more-32692
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA you clown !
“Time has moved on and a lot of the ‘settled science’ is proving to be not so settled after all.” not really – that’s your confirmation bias kicking in.
“It’s also about the supreme egotism on the part of some who believe that they can control and mitigate the climate if we would just believe them and give them enough money.”
Well Debs make sure you and your mates never ever ever ask for drought or flood relief again as you have it all under control.
Spanglers – What Goddard wanking on about a system among systems and culminating in a massive La Nina. Pullease. Holy plucked cherry.
Arctic tundra CO2 sinks and bushfires.
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2011/08/05/arctic-fires-and-co2-emissions/
Why wouldn’t farmers be entitled to drought or flood relief Luke?
I thought I was pointing out that we don’t control the weather or the climate?
Agriculture has always been a good investment for Australia and will continue to be so despite the doomsday climate prophecies.
However, our climate is completely unpredictable and sometimes rural Australia does need to be bailed out.
Over the long term, rural Australia is way in front on the economic ledger…..way in front!
The recent drought seems to be have been just that…..a recent drought and a nasty one.
We have had them before and will have them again.
The recent floods are the same.
You should see it out here in the MDB now, it is absolutely awesome!
That happens a lot too.
We will be giving the OZ GDP a very healthy boost this year.
BTW….confirmation bias?????? HUH??????
We were told categorically by very superior and highly educated prophets (whoops sorry, I mean scientists and economists) that what is now happening would never happen again.
When I point that out, people like you get quite snippy about it.
So if that’s confirmation bias….I guess I’m guilty as charged.
Why do you need bailing out Debs? You know it all – you’re in native mode you tell me. You know it’s all cycles – so by now you should have adapted. Scientists are all corrupt etc. Can’t listen to them.
Debs you are the climate masters you’ve been telling me. Why would you know-it-alls need any help?
Unless of of course you’re one of them thar agrarian socialists – capitalising those gains and socialising them losses? eh eh eh?
A good investment – what agriculture a few piddling % of GDP ! Come on.
“We were told categorically by very superior and highly educated prophets (whoops sorry, I mean scientists and economists) that what is now happening would NEVER happen again.” were you really – or are you quoting some misc climate celeb like Flannery. No you were not told be scientists it would never rain again. Where’s the paper Deb – CITE IT or SHUT UP
Like I say – turn your back and sceptics are always up to some nefarious shit.
In fact Debs the people who do the work on the IPO and ENSO do the work on climate change too – are you really that far gone. Wake up !
Does the local panel beater get bailed out – don’t think so !
Little Lukey has to lean on Tammy yet again.
When will you wean yourself from suckling the teat of biased apologetics built on silly statistics Little Lukey??
I understand, when you KNOW what the answer is it is really disturbing when you can’t seem to convince those around you. It is even MORE disturbing when all the OBSERVATIONS turn against you. Your therapist must be getting a lot of business from you!!
It’s called the guide to the MDBP Luke and I believe you’re right, it was seriously influenced by misc climate celebs like Flannery who is now our climate change commissioner no less.
I also said we were told (via graphs and models) what is happening NOW would never happen again. I did not say that we were told it would never rain again….that was you projecting just a little.
You seem to be wilfully misunderstanding the point Luke.
Farmers are certainly not the climate masters any more than the climate scientists are.
We are still learning and so are they.
I think we should be adapting…. and we should be continuing to learn….. don’t you?
Not sure about the rest of your comment….looks like diversionary tactics with an ugly taint of misplaced urban snobbery.
It amuses me how you dismiss a few % of GDP. I’m sure that our policy makers both state and federal would be horrified to see that attitude.
All those percentage points go towards paying their wages you know.
Even 1% is better than 0%….for everyone….even you.
Look how hard they’re working to snag some of those percentage points via the carbon tax.
Vote 1 Agrarian Socialists – capitalising gains and socialising losses.
It may work, thanx Luke I’ll put it to the committee.
EG,
Maybe Luke thinks we should socialise gains and capitalise losses?
Wait a minute!….
Isn’t that how we’re told the the Carbon Tax and the ETS is going to work?
We make all those ‘big polluters’ pay and then somehow, magically, my elderly in laws will get all this extra money to pay for their increased bills?
As productive resources are shut down, somehow, magically, rural communities through the RDA will be able to survive on government grants and government sponsored community programs?
I’m sorry Luke, but I think that program may cost the Australian tax payer way more than the necessity to intermittently bail out rural communities when our land of ‘drought and flooding rains’ decides to be un co operative. 🙂
At least the government gets to recoup their investment….as they’re in the process of doing right now.
It’s a pity it hardly ever goes back to the taxpayers.
How do we get the Warmistas to read this?
Just what the sceptics have been trying to point out.
Economic growth is actually the solution to the perceived problems, not the cause. In the IPCC modelling the set up with the most economic growth has the least emissions.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2011/08/10/solving-climate-change/
Deb, Luke’s use of logic is same sort of logic that has so many people believing religously in the imminent demise of the planet from the rather pleasant warming we have seen since the end of the little ice age.
It is abundantly clear that logic and science is not really the hallmark of anybody tied so deeply to the climate change bandwagon.
Most people understand that when a theory is shown to have errors it is thrown out or modified. CAGW appears to be immune to any evidence that refutes it. Including removing the inconvenient MWP,RWP and MinoanWP. …I wont even start on gavin’s logic……
But the warmista science is so open, settled and transparent:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/11/multi-tentacled-mann-o-war-raging-over-uva-emails/#more-44917
“Like I say – turn your back and sceptics are always up to some nefarious shit”
Thats only to counter the shonky shit produced by the incompetent and publically funded climatariat
and that twit of PM Gillard…..
heh lukey boy …all nicely in equilibrium… its only the tax payers that are being screwed.
“its only the tax payers that are being screwed”
Why then are you guys screaming?
I enjoyed Tony’s journey into drongo-ism.
“believing religously in the imminent demise of the planet” hmmmm – not really – more sceptic framing dogshit – funny when Debs is desperate to get bailed out with drought and flood relief. Those on the Horn of Africa also pondering how nice the warming is too. So Tony tries the try-on that humanity never has run-ins with current climate. It’s all just hunky-dory.
“Most people understand that when a theory is shown to have errors it is thrown out or modified.” errrr not really what’s new – nothing except all your ice age predictions are bullshit !
I reckon a nice re-run of the MWP would be good stuff for building your character. How’s your Chinese Tony?
Tell us Tony which of the 6 wanker sceptic views on greenhouse are you with today. They all can’t be right?
I honestly, truly do not understand you Luke, specially when it comes to the MWP. (china)
You keep harping on about how bad (alledgedly) it was for some, it also must have been good for others.
When do you think it was nirvana for ALL areas on earth climate wise, and can we reinstate those climatic conditions?
Will taxing the crap out of us will do it?
No matter what the climate does it will always be harmful for some and beneficial to others.
As to climate scientists, I can give examples where they were admired as long they folloowed the “faith” and decried as heretics as soon as questioned the mantra.
“its only the tax payers that are being screwed”
Why then are you guys screaming?
gavin, ya wanna pray hard every night that some of us are carrying the can because those on the public nipple [like our darling boy Luke] sure aren’t:
http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/2010/02/fingers-in-pies.html
‘…nothing except all your ice age predictions are bullshit!’
If I’ve told you once I’ve told you a thousand times, it’s regional cooling not ice age.
At the end of the Eemian the paleo evidence described 400 years of dust storms, there are no tipping points in sight at the moment.
el gordo,
Here in the US the comforting meme the lefties are using is to claim that the Tea Party people are all unemployed white guys on welfare.
It is a categorical lie.
gavin is just channeling the same sort of bs.
Luke is being reduced to spit flecked ranting, I see. Keep up the good work.
Desperate Luke?
I was just questioning why you brought it up.
MaybeYou need to stop projecting?
Maybe you need to do a cost comparison re R A A assistance and the insane amounts of taxpayer money being spent on climate change politics?
Also the insane amounts of taxpayer money being earmarked for adjusting whole communities as productive resources are removed.
All in the name of A G W?
I think Johnathon ‘s question is valid.
When was the climate ever at nirvana? What was it like? What exactly do you think you can create?
“When was the climate ever at nirvana?”
When the best dressed gals round town wore a bikini as their badge of office (imho). However my mate ex UK thinks it may have been in the Arthurian times for the NH.
gav
“have been in the Arthurian times for the NH”
Luke will have your guts for garters for that!
It tantamounts of admitting a medieval warm period existed.
Johanthon – mega-droughts in the USA, China and Africa conflict very badly with nice old Euro-centric view of fine wine and cathedrals. Suggest you enjoy Brian Fagan’s book – the Great Warming. I don’t have any problem with an MWP although it’s exact warmth and influence is under some debate. But it does show what happens when major temperature variations occur. How do you think the Chinese would view a megadrought? Remember the world is now 6B going to 9B humans with what – 30 days food supply.
And don’t get me wrong – I’m not advocating for a unilateral Australian carbon tax or personally wishing to go back to the caves or have my freedoms curtailed.
I’m simply defending the science against stupid attacks and the real risk of AGW (didn’t say catastrophic – but define catastrophe??) as well worth our attentions.
Debs – current climate isn’t a nirvana – far from it – but you can change the boundaries and make it worse? Or perhaps winners and losers.
“When was the climate ever at nirvana?”
When the best dressed gals round town wore a bikini as their badge of office (imho).
I thought that every time you warmers saw a girl in a bikini, the effect was ruined because the sky fell on her.
Given those Arthurian times were as much myth as your MWP; I can say you guys still haven’t got even a limp leg to stand on where as we (Lukes) know this crowd of 6B going on 9B have had it pretty good lately.
“its only the tax payers that are being screwed”
Why then are you guys screaming?”
Says Gavin
Because you dope, that means all of us…the only beneficiaries are the university based climatariat, scammers and bumbling incompetents like Pachauri and Gore et al living high off the hog at our expense.
Huhahaa; Mots not only screwed but touchy. Time to come in and join the fun hey.
btw; the PS youngsters I know are quite hard at it with mortgages, kids etc besides their job.
Thanks Luke,
You had me seriously worried.
“And don’t get me wrong – I’m not advocating for a unilateral Australian carbon tax or personally wishing to go back to the caves or have my freedoms curtailed.”
Like you, I’m just as appalled at stupid attacks on genuine scientists. A lot of what’s happening around us is no more their fault than a lack of water in a drought or a lack of water for the SA lakes is the farmers’ fault.
These people are just doing the jobs they’ve been encouraged to do. I have no doubt that many of them believe in what they’re doing.
It also helps when you don’t bite the hand that is feeding you.
A lot of Ag rep groups have also been sidetracked by the lure of government grants/government funding.
They are very hard to resist but nearly always end up causing people to compromise themselves….it’s the nature of the beast.
The same can also apply to private funding although at least that funding is more honestly dishonest 🙂 We are rarely in doubt about their goals 🙂
You are defending climate scientists against stupid attacks and I am defending rural Australia against stupid attacks.
Considering the world food supply can sometimes get to that 30 day figure you quoted, maybe we shouldn’t be attacking farmers so much???????
There may or may not be a real threat from AGW but the touted remedies from current politics has got be the paramount of stupidity for Australia. (from my perspective)
The saddest thing of all is that when we’re sidetracked into arguing with each other, we take our eyes off the real villians in this whole debacle.
Can you change the boundaries and make it better/worse?
I have no idea Luke….I don’t think anyone truly does.
It is all speculative at this point.
The models say we can, but emerging evidence is tending to indicate that even though our population is exponentially increasing, we may not have the global control of climate/ weather that those models say we do.
We sometimes probably influence it… but… can we control it and make it better (whatever that actually is)?
Are we in fact now making it worse? or better??????
Why do we even contemplate the winners and losers position?
In Australia, I would like to believe we have the expertise and the will to think only in terms of win/win and at least have the courage to make that a goal, even if we sometimes fall short.
Maybe, long term, ‘the climate’ and ‘the environment’ couldn’t give a flying rip about what we can and can’t do?
As a farmer, that’s usually my conclusion 🙂
I remain a sceptic because I don’t like the accompanying politics.
I remain a sceptic because the currently touted solutions do in fact : advocate a unilateral Australian carbon tax which is romanticising the notion of going back to the caves or having our freedoms curtailed.”
I remain a sceptic because ‘the politics’ are using the scientific information and indeed all Australian census and economic information in a manner that they should not be used (ie hijacked) for an agenda that could not possibly influence global CO2 emmissions.
“where as we (Lukes) know this crowd of 6B going on 9B have had it pretty good lately.”
Yeah, since it started warming 35 years ago, we have never had it so good.
And isn’t it amazing that it happened in spite of such a high population!
Could that be trying to tell us that maybe AGW is not only nothing to wet the bed over but may even be a solution?
Out of the mouths of babes and sucklings…[even public sucklings]
“Yeah, since it started warming 35 years ago, we have never had it so good.” on what basis Spanglers – a defined study – or pers comm my two bobs now that you’ve now made it in life and are kicking back in retirement?
If we add up the cumulative cost of ENSO, anti-ENSO aka La Nina (check those Texas and Horn of Africa droughts), floods, cyclones, hurricanes, tornadoes, heat waves and cold snaps perhaps you may wish to re-consider? A southern MDB drought that ran from the mid 1990s till now? Have you done the sums?
Debs – do you honestly think any climate scientist is suggesting we can control climate like a dial on the wall? The current distribution of wet and dry (i.e. ENSO) is controlled by small variations in temperature. Very little changes the global water cycle (ENSO an example only). Changing the global radiation budget has to do something? And the best science says a number of effects are likely. Given we only have one planetary life system chocka with our fellow humans some circumspect behaviour is more than warranted.
I think you should consider the great number of scientists out there trying to unravel climate variations and many issues dealing with farming sustainability. I can tell you there’s a lot in the trade that will probably soon retire and you’d be a mug to sign up as a youngster for climate/natural resource/environmental science when faced with constituencies like you guys portray. Most people want to feel useful and respected and part of the greater community – not subject to ongoing daily abuse and sneer.
Let’s all do accounting or hair dressing instead.
While I totally understand the reaction to Julia’s carbon tax, the lack of a mandate, the negligible impact on global temperature and the framing as “carbon pollution”; but the crowd mentality is ugly – it’s a lynch mob and very worrying time to be an Australian. It’s that ultra-nationalist draped in the flag Cronulla riot feeling.
Just be careful you don’t totally burn all the libraries down and throw the baby out with the bathwater.
It’s interesting how calamitists take a break from their pretended scientific exactitude to go into oh-my-god mode, in case the pretense of exactitude isn’t holding.
The trick is to say things like: “We’ll be seeing more and more of this sort of thing in the future.” Because “this sort of thing” is a recent event and has the reinforcement of fresh emotion, and because “the future” is always unknown, there is an endless supply of alarm, which somehow can double as proof with sufficient factoids and, of course, modelling.
In the past, things like the Lisbon earthquake were quickly attributed to sin by egghead dogmatists who had more Latin than sense. The mix of intellectual and moral certainty lives on in today’s angry puritans. The great thing about Brown, Milne and Rhiannon is that they really look the part so perfectly.
No-one cares about the rolling droughts which weakened the Western Zhou dynasty thousands of years ago. In any case, Wiki can fudge that, like it fudged the medieval warming. The drought of 1961? Well, you just talk about the current drought being the worst in fifty years, and hope like hell that nobody will ask the obvious question about 1961. (Wiki can help by its usual game of weighting and shifting emphases.) Oddly, this kind of frivolous intellectual stunt works best on those most likely to vaunt their IQ and educational background. Go figure.
When I talked about the drought of 1961, I was, of course, referring to China’s. Australia had a vicious drought in ’61. I seem to remember that it broke in the east during my Christmas hols at Yamba.
Well Lukey babe, ten things the little bit of gentle warming over the last 35 years has not done are:
(1) unprecedented warming of the planet, (2) more frequent and severe floods and droughts, (3) more numerous and stronger hurricanes, (4) dangerous sea level rise, (5) more frequent and severe storms, (6) increased human mortality, (7) widespread plant and animal extinctions, (8) declining vegetative productivity, (9) deadly coral bleaching, and (10) a decimation of the planet’s marine life due to ocean acidification
in spite of the bed wetting you have been going through as a result of your wonderful modelling.
Of course diligent cherry picking can always bring doom to a place near you if you try hard enough.
But even the IPCC admits that economic growth is the solution, not the cause:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2011/08/10/solving-climate-change/
Luke,
Agree,
Not a good idea to throw the baby out with the bath water….never has been, never will be.
Also recognise the good guys who are genuinely attempting to unravel the mysteries of our climate.
however…..
Still not going to be fooled into believing the ‘science is settled’ and I certainly don’t believe that climate scientists can control the climate like a dial on the wall.
Do you seriously believe that we’re not being told that they can?
(well maybe not them specifically, but certainly the do gooder, know it alls who have hijacked their work!)
Seriously?
and this one:
‘Given we only have one planetary life system chocka with our fellow humans some circumspect behaviour is more than warranted.’
If it wasn’t accompanied by some highly questionable politics and an underlying thread of ‘superior’ intellectual, urban, western, social democratic, racism…..I would almost agree with you.
The behaviour at the moment is very far removed from ‘circumspect’ Luke….more’s the pity.
I would also add that many in Rural Australia are just completely fed up and are sick of the rhetoric and maniacal public spending on this CO2 obsession.
Just because they’re not all as articulate as you (when you so choose) in venting their frustration doesn’t make them dangerous.
That ‘Cronulla Riot’ analogy is rather counter productive.
It just further proves that there is an ugly thread of misplaced intellectual urban snobbery operating in this debate.
That is closely linked to the racism that is showing its ugly face you know.
That is a form of misguided personal attack and it completely ignores the underlying issues and causes of Rural Australia’s frustrations.
Your analogy attempts to paint them as uneducated and violent rednecks.
That is a long way removed from the rural Australian demographics.
Just for a start Luke….where do most of those riots all over the world actually flare up? Urban or Rural areas?
Where have most of Australia’s much, much, very much tamer disturbances (including the Cronulla riot you so often refer to of late) usually flared up?
And finally,
Unlike you….I think we’re incredibly fortunate to be Australian. It is not a worrying time.
I am proud of our fellow Australians.
Despite their best efforts, our current Govt are not able to silence the reasonable objections to their heavy handed carbon policies.
We still have the right to speak up and be heard…..thank goodness!
It is not a pre requisite to have a govt sponsored degree or govt sponsored job to have a public voice….thank goodness.
They’re not a lynch mob Luke…far from it.
They have just as much right to draw on their own practical and hard earned experience and their own practical and hard earned knowledge as Flannery, Stubbs, Grafton, Kingston, Ove, Tamino, Combet, Gillard, Turnbull, Abbot, Richardson et al….
They’re just good ordinary hard working Australians who have had enough of the intellectual, rhetorical, theoretical drivel and the bureaucratic bungling.
“Let’s all do accounting or hair dressing instead.”
Would you settle for taking in the neighbour’s washing?
Ken U B Sodum
I also wish Luke wouldn’t mention the “Cronulla riot” so often, or more precisely, without mentioning it in context by telling of what caused it as well.
True, just by it’s own it looks bad, I don’t necessarily condone the actions taken nor do I condemn it out of hand.
When you are provoked beyond tolerance and the responsible authorities do nothing, what are you supposed to do? Take and take more?
And for the record, the root cause of it stopped dead since, now ain’t that interesting?
‘circumspect’ Deb should try any other political system or “government” and see if it works any better, like current the UK for example.
Total bullshit Deb – intellectual snobbery my arse – I sat in a Monckton audience. A gullible seethingly violent angry mob. There was taking up arms, PM assassination, Greens assassination, green *unts and it went on. The venom was off the meter.
Johnathon – regardless of Cronulla riot tensions or Burleigh heads Australia Day police confrontations – the pattern is often the same ethos – those with Southern Cross tattooed on their backs and draping themselves in the Aussie flag. And now taking over Australia Day picnics at public venues. Anti-carbon tax crowd fits right in there and sounds about the same.
Anyway let’s get the GM scepticism, vaccine scepticism and HIV scepticism whipped up too. Why stop – let’s burn all of western science down.
I think the social undercurrents here are enormous.
Spanglers – your 3:50 comment is simply idiotic. That’s why you’re a died in the wool denialist.
About as stupid as Robert’s 2:45. Robert’s solution let’s not talk about any science or data. Let’s allude it’s all just fabricated. What a wanker.
Well Luke you move in different circles, all I can say.
I do not detect any of that “dangerous” undercurrent.
I don’t live a sheltered life my work takes me to all over OZ and half the time overseas, and I just can’t see what you say is happening.
But as I said we must move in different circles.
Strange that you would not recognize those 10 points, Luke, that you gory bleeders keep claiming has happened since the warming began.
Is this denial or the Damascene pathway?
Yes I must move in different circles too Johnathon.
Where did you see Monckton Luke? I saw none of that sort of behaviour when he visited the Riverina.
I have not a clue about the point of your comment Gavin.
I am probably going to regret this,but would you care to illuminate?
I thought I was defending our system?
It works better than most.
Oh I recognise them well Spanglers as a typically faux sceptic disingenous argument. More framing and bulldust.
Saw the Monckton concert in Brisbane – and video of Sydney rally suggests about the same mentality.
At LM’s talk in Newcastle I made sure the Fairfax hacks got in for nothing and Ms Carlisle from our abc had an open tab at the bar; fairfax still described LM as “bug-eyed” in their report and Ms Carlisle’s flushing, blushing, gushing gibberish was positively Victorian.
Debs; truly there are time when I’m a bit too faded to “illuminate” and this is one.
Luke could understand though as I have spent most of the week restructuring most of the CD collection, interrupted only by the recently purchased electric kettle fizzing, failing to find the receipt yesterday then a flat battery this morning that also had to be replaced before our supplier closed at noon.
SD may understand too. We had to go over to the youngsters for dinner last night to celebrate another job opportunity for the sisters. An aging bottle from downstairs was left mostly to me as I tried to lecture on potential issues associated with changing positions with out an official review of former roles and times.
How long have I been out of it now? Not quite long enough to forget past colleagues, paymasters etc can disappear of the radar further down the track. So who cares? So I suggested anyone wishing to serve a government may need a quick nod from ASIO at some point and a few doc details could help.
Getting into government after years of work in the private sector can be tedious I said last night but I was thinking oh boy, your exit can be swift when that job is over. For me there was a huge difference between policy and technical trained people in the PS and that is why IMO many on the outside can’t understand the role of scientists in agencies like the PS.
Sorry Luke, those ten points are commonly claimed by the warmers. The sceptics, like Joe, are happy to make a falsifiable claim.
Nothing faux or disingenuous about it.
Where do you stand?
http://notrickszone.com/2011/08/08/joe-bastardi-calls-manmade-co2-global-warming-an-obvious-fraud/
It’s the effluent society wots the trouble:
http://www.martindurkin.com/blogs/secret-global-warming-posh-anti-capitalism
Of course Luke, the greatest whinge of all from the warmers is this one:
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/08/11/ice-free-arctic-forecasts/
Spangled – so where are the papers that say those effects will be happening over the last 35 years? Cue crickets tape.
“About as stupid as Robert’s 2:45. Robert’s solution let’s not talk about any science or data. Let’s allude it’s all just fabricated. What a wanker.”
Checked back at my comment at 2:45. Couldn’t find any of that. But I took so many punches in the Cronulla riots I hardly know a thing anymore! I’m becoming an arm-wavingly denialist seethingly gullible science burner with an infectedly ultra-nationalist Southern Cross tattoo.
Deb
“I am probably going to regret this, but would you care to illuminate?”
Debbie you are now officially qualified to predict Melbourne cup winners/tattlotto numbers etc.
Obviously Gavin had access to more of those bottles “aging downstairs”
Made abs. no sense to me.
Sorry for the numerous posts, I’m free today as Mr H would say, but will be off to SA (South Africa) next week.
Little Lukey,
“Spangled – so where are the papers that say those effects will be happening over the last 35 years? Cue crickets tape.”
Yeah, except they also thought the Antarctica would be losing its ice also.
SOOOOOOORRRREEEEEEEEEEEEE!!
It really sucks when you find out your models have serious errors and have no idea how to fix them. Seems like having all the real physics included must mean they had comments in the code that lists a physics textbook.
It’s interesting that Roald Amundsen sailed a little wooden boat through here more than a century ago.
In spite of the screams of catastrophists he couldn’t do it today:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/NEWIMAGES/arctic.seaice.color.000.png
Just a warning to all the people on this blog about the Luke fool and why you shouldn’t bother wasting your time on him.
It took me forever to get a sort of weak response from him about the stupidity and uselessness of Aussies reducing our co2 emissions by 5%, but interspersed with all types of swearing and personal abuse before he actually ( sort of) conceded the obvious truth.
If you have a year or two to spare and your argument can be backed up by simple maths you may score a victory of sorts but you’d probably be better employed finding new studies that support the real science and sceptical arguments.
Here’a a good billboard going up in Qld and hopefully all over Australia in the next few weeks.
It’s an accurate and simple way to show the stupidity of Juliar’s idiocy, lies and the waste of billions $ that won’t change our climate by a jot, or change SLs. or drought, or snowfall etc, etc.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/sending_gillard_a_billboard/
Just sent Tony an email congratulating him on the billboards and suggested he try to get it on the side of a few of the convoy trucks/caravans etc heading for Canberra on the 22nd.
Luke,
Seriously?
‘ anti carbon tax crowd fits right in there and sounds about the same’ ? ? ?
Even you are an ‘anti carbon tax ‘ person.
You are trying to put down genuinely aggrieved people by your analogy.
They are not rioters and they are not part of some neo nazi organisation.
They are just using their democratic right to speak out against what they see as an insane impost on their livelihoods.
They are also seriously questioning the science that is being used to justify the CO2 tax and the ETS.
It isn’t a particularly dangerous under current despite the fact that some of their very real frustrations get vented a bit inappropriately on occaision.
Your analogy is counter productive and another example of an intellectual ‘put down’ and needlessly alarmist.
It is also dismissive of the underlying causes of their protest.
Their reasons for speaking up are far removed from the reasons behind the Cronulla disturbance.
They are also not the same demographic.
Debs – of course it’s not same demographic. Same mentality though. “They are not rioters and they are not part of some neo nazi organisation.” No the Tea Party drongos are there instead to sign you up – joined up yet Debs? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA –
“They are also seriously questioning the science” – no they’re not – they’re making up bullshit. Neville’s Billboard being a case in point – one of the great smelly festering fraud boards of all time.
And more rot from KuknKat on Antarctica. What drivel …
A classic case would be Neville who does a regular drive by shooting here screaming fraud at the top of his voice. And that’s about it – just an uncritical parrot of whatever blog slops he has just read. He’s not interested in any truth. He’s a moron but hey don’t that let stop him.
Bet the convoy is a big fizzer and they look like rednecks.
Especially for KuknKat – but more for Debs who never sees any quality work http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v4/n8/full/ngeo1189.html
Yes Debs – they just sit around trying to fabricate this stuff.
Gee whiz Luke,
After that rant all I need to say is :
I rest my case.
Your behaviour is worse than those you are accusing, especially your use of metaphor and analogy.
Tea Party ? Drive by shooting? Drongos?
Seriously?
R O F L.
BTW
I like the bill board.
Its a clever and simple way to get people thinking and asking questions.
Its not pretending to be a complicated or scientific paper.
Its just putting up some basic figures in a no fuss, pictorial fashion.
It should help to get people asking questions & hopefully getting some coherent answers.
Well luke, Overpeck has been let loose at the keyboard again and what a surprise, the models says; “its bad, you know”; this paper is almost as bad as the Steig paper; for an alternative viewpoint:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/333/6041/401.summary
The Bill Board is fraudulent – we’re probably going to take legal action against the perpetrators – or at least get their ASIO file updated. Trucking subversives.
Why – the big footprint is balanced by an equally big anti-foot print. This is why you can’t trust deniers. The fact that you’re impressed Debs means you have learnt NOTHING. It’s utter fraudulent rubbish. Tell us Debs when you look at your bank account do you only add up the credits and never the debits. I don’t think so.
Yes Debs the friendly Tea Party goons were sponsors and gave the vote of thanks at Brissy Monckers concert. You’re being infiltrated – you’ll be goose stepping before you know it. And learning creation science in schools.
“drive by shooting” was an analogy dear girl. But that’s what Neville does – no debate – just a random spray from some drongo blog.
Cohenite – no it’s obs matey. And notice how you never see a post of that quality from the denialist mafia – intellectually beyond them. But hey after Abbott is finished your local panel beater will be having a go at this science. Face it Cohers – you’re one of the Tea Party lynch mob now – no decency and anything goes.
And thanks for playing Cohers
your Kerr cite
“Their new preferred estimate for 1992 to 2005 spans a far narrower range, from a gain of 27 billion tons to a loss of just 40 billion tons per year. For 1992 to 2001, the researchers estimate a loss of only 31 billion tons per year. If they are right, an increase in East Antarctic snowfall—possibly brought on by global warming—may have been balancing much of the accelerated loss from West Antarctica.”
Probably nothing to worry about for Carbon Billboard types who only deal in one side of ledgers and never ask why?
What is “obs”? And I just gave a counterposing quality paper; your’s is all models, again.
I see with your vast resources that you have access behind the paywall; a couple of things; the range: “from a gain of 27 billion tons to a loss of just 40 billion tons per year.” And much of the WAP lost ice was already floating on the sea so it will have no effect on sea level; the collapse of the Larsen B shelf, for instance, was due to its growth out over the sea where turbulence seperated it; in other words the WAP ice loss is because it is growing not shrinking!
And I love “—possibly brought on by global warming—”; it must be de rigueur for the scientists on the payroll to close with the mandatory disclaimer. I am so over this end of the world crap.
Well no….not when I’m adding up my bank account…
However….
When I’m “modelling” my accounts it’s amazing how the same set of figures can tell different stories depending on what or whom I am “modelling” for…:)
Sound familiar?
Thanks to you for playing too….
And notice how you never see a post of that quality from the denialist mafia – intellectually beyond them.
You’re being infiltrated – you’ll be goose stepping before you know it. And learning creation science in schools.
Especially for KuknKat – but more for Debs who never sees any quality work .
Trucking subversives.
you’re one of the Tea Party lynch mob now – no decency and anything goes.
As I said….I rest my case Luke.
I like the billboard for its simplicity.
There’s nothing wrong with the basic concept.
It doesn’t pretend to be anything else but basic.
I like it because it will encourage people to ask some questions.
I think that is a good thing.
The whole point is that people are questioning the logic…. Will taxing CO2 in AUSTRALIA have any effect on GLOBAL CO2 emissions?
And then the next obvious question is: Is CO2 really a dangerous pollutant and is it REALLY (as in reality not inside a model) causing dangerous and alarming variations to the weather/climate?
They’re fair questions and I don’t think it has anything at all to do with subserviency or intellectual capacity (or lack thereof) or the Tea Party (whoever the hell they are? Is that the Yank mob?) or the Cronulla riots or even an undercurrent of scary nationalism.
I’m asking those questions and I’m not a member of a tea party (? seriously, I have no idea who or what they are other than some stuff about the Americans that I heard one day on the ABC radio????), I’m not intellectually challenged (ie I can read and like to read good quality work and look at both sides of any debate), I have NEVER participated in a riot or condoned that type of behaviour, I don’t suppport xenophobic style nationalism and I’m sure I’ve forgotten one or more of the other vague insinuating accusations you have recently made Luke.
I’m just asking perfectly legitimate questions.
Go figure?
“We conclude that projected subsurface ocean warming could drive significant increases in ice-mass loss, and heighten the risk of future large sea-level rise.”
Crikey! What definitive science by Overpeck et al!
And coming, no doubt, with the assistance of GRACE where melting ice is measured at 57 bil tons +/- 52 bil tons, except that it was found to be exaggerated by 50% and this would take all of 20,000 years to happen.
And there I was thinking Luke was on the sceptical road to Damascus and starting to see the light.
Silly me.
“Projections” that could, would, might, maybe, are fine for ivory tower PS wankers but I just wish sometimes they would pull their heads out of their anal gazing position and have a butcher’s:
http://home.comcast.net/~ewerme/wuwt/cryo_compare.jpg
Solar cycle 24 is blank and was wondering if this is how it behaved during the Dalton Minimum?
http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/realtime/hmi_igr/1024/latest.html
EG; hey lets play tit for tat (finding side winders). Howzat?
http://www.earthtimes.org/nature/japanese-tsunami-broke-chunks-off-antarctica/1231/
Porr Debs only adds up credits in her bank book. Debits – do whatever. Pathetic Debs. Which is why we just pile shit on you guys. Imagine being at a science meeting and trying to get away with that – they’ed flay you alive (rhetorically of course).
Who cares about sea level rise Spanglers. You just gloss over the obvious AGW enhanced atmospheric and oceanic effects at work as did the dynamic duo at the scared pensioner and seething rednecks meeting in Brissy. Just ignore the obvious glacial acceleration and increased snowpack. Drongo indeed.
As for your Jpeg – don’t you just hate deniers who cherry pick a date in a trend and don’t mention the volume. How many did you have to look through to find one that suite your argument? What Spanglers doesn’t want Debs to see is record low sea ice in the Arctic for July. http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/ Yes Debs the world is cooling – hahahahahahaha
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeseries.png
Cohenite if you stop running around the countryside facilitating the Tea Party perhaps you might be able to afford a personal sub to Science and GRL. Way out of a lawyers league.
For your personal delectation
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2011GL047995.shtml Increased storminess in Europe since 1871
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2011GL048417.shtml The missing heat – standby for open season on sceptics
And thermal expansion not a major cause of sea level rise http://www.agu.org/cgi-bin/highlights/highlights.cgi?action=show&doi=10.1029/2011GL048280&jc=gl
‘tit for tat’…yes Gavin, satellite observation is pretty cool.
Amazing to think about that wave uplifting and breaking off a big chunk.
I’m gonna post this page just for SD who should recall that I recommended we seek early signs of global temp changes on the horizontal, not the vertical.
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/wordpress/research/projects/arctic-sea-ice-volume-anomaly/
IMO in the case of our NH; we can work back from the daily “Arctic Sea Ice Volume Anomaly” graphs and say ice cap volume is proportional to surface area. Thus sea level must go up, not down in conjunction with the longer term data from this system.
But anyone can pussy foot round the cause, can’t they? Japan is lifting SL you reckon!
btw; as sea ice loss doesn’t count in SL rise, we are still looking for that tipping point with other ice teetering on the brink
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3AGlobal_warming/Archive_15
Luke,
Don’t be obtuse.
You just don’t get it.
I’m trying to tell you to be a bit more like that dingo you were telling me about and, if nothing else, have a good look round.
You’ll notice that there was even less ice in Amundsen’s day.
You need to get over it Luke.
I am neither poor or pathetic or any of the other strange accusations you have made.
I also dont hang out in science meetings. It’s not hurting me, despite your inuendos. I dont feel any less of a person because of the life I have chosen to live.
I repeat in the vain hope that you may understand.
I have no problem with genuine scientists doing genuine work they believe in.
I have a massive problem when I see the work of good people being hijacked and used for purposes they were not intended.
Even you know that the so called ‘ settled science ‘ does not prove that we must have a carbon O2 tax. Neither does it prove that we can do very much to mitigate or control the climate.
Climate science and climate studies are extremely useful tools to help all of us understand the world around us.
Us farmers love the Bom satelite and radar info.
However, climate science is not prophetic and it does not have all the answers. . . Not even close.
Climate scientists need to be left alone to continue their work. They also should try and avoid having their work hijacked by the Flannery types of the world.
I am and remain a sceptic because I object to the political hijacking and the political behaviour.
I also object to the insane and manic government spending and funding on this paricular branch of science as well as the shrieking and abuse if anyone dares to question.
The last time I looked, we are perfectly free to question.
SD
You’ll notice that there was even less ice in Amundsen’s day.
This is what bothers me also, there are well documented observations of an almost ice free Arctic
well before this scaremongering started.
Yet we never hear of that, only the impending one, obviously caused by us of course.
MA “You’ll notice that there was even less ice in Amundsen’s day”- “there are well documented observations of an almost ice free Arctic”
Sorry; but can’t find any. Why?
Btw there is very little info via systematic ice observations with flights etc before the 1930’s and almost no complete voyages that weren’t forged with modern icebreakers
” there are well documented observations of an almost ice free Arctic” there are? What sceptic bunk
“There is no paleoclimatic evidence for a seasonally ice free Arctic during the last 800 millennia.” Overpeck 2005
More lies from Luke’s lying Govt.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/trust_nothing_this_government_says_about_global_warming/
Prior to Amundsen, for over a thousand years, early explorers knew of ice-free periods in the Arctic but it was such a gamble to get through in engineless, wooden ships. It wasn’t until the end of the LIA, starting with Frobisher, that it was looked at again.
Because, similar to today, there was always the chance of ice blocking the route and they did not have modern technology, it was never a commercial proposition.
“After 1829 John ROSS confirmed the extension of Boothia Peninsula north from the mainland, which blocked any sea route through that part of the central Arctic, but he missed the narrow opening through Bellot Strait.
The many expeditions after 1845 in search of the lost Sir John FRANKLIN finally defined the coastal outlines of most of the arctic islands and reported an uncertain ice-free period for ships of only 1-2 months in August and September. In 1853-54 Robert MCCLURE became the first person to traverse a route from west to east, partly by sledge over the sea ice from Banks Island to near Devon Island. As a result of the natural environmental information accumulated, commercial shipping had no further interest in the passage. The Hudson’s Bay Co continued to use part of the water route to its posts around Hudson Bay.”
Sounds like what “Row to the Pole” are encountering now.
Mark A is dead right!
There is a big difference between his claim of “almost ice free” and Luke’s so-called refutation by Overpeck.
Ice core CO2 measurements are likely wrong. Prior to the early 1980’s these measurements often showed levels much higher than today. Then, methodology was modified to largely arbitrarily give the desired lower levels to fit AGW theory. This is akin to a circular argument or faulty calibration.
North of Greenland may have been ice free during the Eemian, but at this stage I can’t confirm or deny it.
There’s plenty of info about the Arctic being warmer at the beginning of the 20thC:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/03/16/you-ask-i-provide-november-2nd-1922-arctic-ocean-getting-warm-seals-vanish-and-icebergs-melt/
This makes it official: long-term:
http://bprc.osu.edu/geo/publications/mckay_etal_CJES_08.pdf
In the 1930’s:
http://www.lanl.gov/source/orgs/ees/ees14/pdfs/09Chlylek.pdf
Imagine people like Frobisher and Davis in the 16th C in square rigged ships that could not travel one inch to windward, having the temerity to think they could traverse the pole.
To believe that, there must have been huge areas of open water because on average, by not being able to go to windward, half the navigible water was denied them and as well, they were extremely vulnerable to storms with this lack of ability and always needed plenty of sea room to leeward.
It stands to reason that there must have been very little ice around to venture into these regions in vulnerable wooden ships.
‘It stands to reason’
Indeed it does spangles and thanx for the insight.
More support for Salby.
NASA data v climate astrology:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/08/03/nasa-data-pit-scientific-method-against-climate-astrology/
Well, well, lookey here Lukey,
What we been missing for the last warm while.
More storms during cold events:
http://www.gm.univ-montp2.fr/spip/IMG/pdf/Sabatier_QSRv2-3-1.pdf
This is hilarious. Most of this information on historic ice free arctic has been around for years, yet, Luke and fellow travellers are STILL DENYING IT!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Thanks to everyone for showing up Luke and fellow deniers for what they are!!
And kk, Luke has plenty of mates who can talk out of both ends at once:
http://www.agu.org/news/press/pr_archives/2011/2011-27.shtml
If Joolybob can have a reign of terror with a carbon tax, imagine what they could do with these:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/13/netherlands-testing-car-use-meters-that-tax-your-environmental-impact-as-you-drive/
Been wondering how long before the usual repeaters went back to wuwt for their on going support re our “ice free” NH.
SD; long before the internet with blogs replaced research by genuinely interested parties, I was well read on Hudson Bay and it’s history after Euro settlement. Industry, transport, topography etc were my major interests so I know these feeble blogs don’t have a shred of science, any NH climate history or integrity to boot.
For those who are half interested, we needed to keep track of any developments around pulp & paper also mining and it’s associated trade implications for similar processes right down in the SH
“Been wondering how long before the usual repeaters went back to wuwt for their on going support re our “ice free” NH.”
Where did I quote WUWT on ice?
If you are so well read on Arctic history, gav, you should be agreeing with me.
But please let me know specifically where you think I’m wrong and also, while you’re at it, where WUWT’s wrong.
SG
Thank for your support, I’m still trying to find the book I had in mind when posted.
It is a journal of a discovery voyage precisely to find a way to the East on top of the world,
at a time when ice was clearly less in the Arctic than usual, could have been in the timescale you mentioned.
As you said I never meant “ice FREE” but since everyone is talking about diminishing,
and eventually disappearing summer ice, I though it was time to remind them, that there were times in recent memory where summer ice was even less than it is now.
I’m not too concerned with Gavin’s comments, he does have lucid moments, albeit not often, it’s Luke’s attitude that bothers me, the man is clearly not a fool, the fact that he obviously takes us for one, I find annoying.
SD, as a wandering student between high school and technical classes I used to chat with a few English speaking sailors on board NH cargo ships berthed in our home port. These included the dear old ice breaker Nella Dan and her later replacements.
I also managed to see some of the officers on board too even though they could go ashore and frequently did but on the whole cooks were the best bet for small time stamp and coin traders like me. Needless to say I got a lot of first hand info on where the ships had been and when seasons were busy. Until mother gave my albums away, we had either Envelopes or stamps to prove it.
You see SD, most island people have a keen interest in the sea but it took a few of the mate’s (his ole-man’s) cream buns straight from the bakery to get some of these guys to keep all their correspondence on each voyage.
Mark A,
If you google North West Passage you get some great history on the early Arctic explorers that stirs my distant memories.
History like that, for me, wasn’t schoolwork it was fantastic entertainment.
SD can keep up with our ice floe when sailing from Murmansk with the big boys
“Northern Sea route opens early”
http://www.tankeroperator.com/news/todisplaynews.asp?NewsID=2793
Folks; there is a ton of practical web pages illustrating changing Arctic conditions including those from the petroleum trade.
I think you better read that article again.
Luke, its only weather, but is significant because it shouldn’t be happening according to the mantra.
http://www.voxy.co.nz/national/great-snow-storm-2011-starts-dunedin/1273/98132
SD; just go here instead
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
SD
re Gavin’s post, just amazing what one can read into an article if the faith is with you.
“Ships of the highest ice class, 1A, can operate in difficult ice conditions mainly without icebreaker”
This one has an icebreaker escort as well.
the mind boggles, but what’s the point really, there is no way to convince someone of faith with facts
The point we made was that it all happened before, not even in the remote
past but certainly before the “MMCO2” effect.
So what’s the point talking about the time interval between 1979 and now???
You guys do get excited hey
Luke posts an old out ofate reference regarding paleo-Arcitic ice.
that is too bad, because it is an exciting area of study.
But the AGW climatocracy cannot have a bunch of data to show up dispute the faith.
http://www.pnas.org/content/106/44/18431.full
Here is something more up to date, Luke.
You are wrong: It has not been that long since there was low ice conditions in the Arctic.
Now the Eocene was a lot more interesting, with temperate forest surrounding the Arctic ocean basin. and somehow, life was doing pretty darn well.
But the period I would want to focus on is the past several thousand years.
And son-of-a-gun, teh Arctic did have low ice.
luke, the bile drooling from your comments, along with the spittle flecked shouting, does nothing but make you look pitiful. And despite it all, I still think it would be a blast to drink some adult beverages with the Luke gang if there was ever a meting either here in the evil empire of Texas, or in the wonderful land down under.
So despite all of the spew from both directions, I do wish for a more civilized and calm future in the great cliamte disputation.
How about it, Luke? If we can get along better, then who knows? Maybe cats and dogs will get on, lions and lambs, etc.
Still looking for the AGW signal?
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2011GL048275.shtml
ENSO is free and clear…and the Gorical was wrong yet again.
“IMO in the case of our NH; we can work back from the daily “Arctic Sea Ice Volume Anomaly” graphs and say ice cap volume is proportional to surface area. Thus sea level must go up, not down in conjunction with the longer term data from this system.”
Uuumm – that means we suddenly changed the law of physics. So if I put an ice cube in a glass of water and it melts, the level in the glass should go down. Holy Moley !, Iv’e just translated to universe 26 in the multiverse. “The volume of ice is LESS than its equivalent volume of water” NOT!.
Interesting eg. When the big El Nino step occurred in 1976 it was not progressive, it was a step change that did not correlate to the then relatively small increase in ACO2.
Just as we then had a marked change in climate for little change in ACO2 we now, for the last decade or so, have a marked change in ACO2 for little change in climate.
We could only get to our present position from that data with green ideologies in command.
‘We could only get to our present position from that data with green ideologies in command.’
Yep, I blame the MSM too.
Sometimes a ray of light shines through:
http://katharinebirbalsingh.com/pages/conservative-conference-speech.php
http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2011/s3294651.htm
Hunter – are you the greatest come in spinner drip of all time?
your article matey
“But modern climate change is driven largely by atmospheric CO2 concentrations in the face of decreasing insolation (5). Therefore, we need only look to Arctic records of the mid-Pliocene to capture our geologic moment of déjà vu when CO2 is estimated to have been in the range of 350 to 400 ppm like it is now (19). Intermittently throughout this time period sea level may have been +5 to +40 m above present (ref. 19 and references therein), driven in part by massive reductions in Antarctic ice sheets (20). Syntheses of this Pliocene interval and later interglacials (ref. 21 and http://www.globalchange.gov/publications/reports/scientificassessments/saps/sap1-2) leave little doubt that renewed studies in the high latitude are well justified to test and improve the chronological coherence of Arctic records. With a seasonally ice-free Arctic now projected to be only a few decades from now, perhaps Yogi Berra was right: “it’s déjà vu all over again.””
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA jeez – out yer Mum on !
“How about it, Luke? If we can get along better, then who knows?” Well Hunter I’m quite easy to get along with … it’s just that you guys need to be kept level.
“Yep, I blame the MSM too.”
EG,
Some MSM claims for AGW:
http://asiancorrespondent.com/62435/a-short-history-of-climate-science-hysteria/
Luke,
I will even buy the first round.
Here is what I was trying to get you to read:
“In contrast, these same proxies measured on sediments representing the past century show an “ecological trajectory” away from this interglacial window, suggesting that factors causing this change are unprecedented for the past 200,000 years.”
As opposed to your 800KY.
But there is more, and I will get it posted here as I can dredge it back up.
gav,
A few more ice-free ports [if they happen] in the Arctic will only be win/win:
http://www.thegwpf.org/the-observatory/3636-false-alarm-total-loss-of-arctic-sea-ice-may-not-cause-any-warming.html
As those beaches rebuild on the shores of the Arctic ocean, just think of the extra surfing potential.
Just need thicker wetsuits, that’s all.
And those polar bears might have to change their colour again but they won’t go hungry.
Hunter – all these proxies are dodgy and regional as you would know from your Hockey stick attacks. Highly debatable.
“Highly Debatable”
Yep….you got that right!
From my perspective that’s the whole point.
There is a massive difference between “The Science is Settled” and ” The Science is Highly Debatable”.
There are pros and cons on both sides of this insanely expensive argument.
That definitely means it is ‘Highly debatable’.
When are the genuine scientists going to speak up and make that clear?
Because of this ridiculously expensive PR (propaganda) campaign surrounding the Carbon O2 tax, our government PR and high profile ‘pseudo experts’ (who sneer at anyone who dares to question them) have begun to systematically discredit the research and the reputations of good people.
Their work has been hijacked and used for purposes which it was never intended.
That is very sad to watch.
Luke,
We actually agree on those points.
Debs – a highly debatable minor point. Pullease. What’s debated – whether the MWP was warmer than today. Even McIntyre doesn’t know. He prefers “don’t know”. Global extent – well it’s debatable. Relevance to current AGW – not a lot.
Luke
“Relevance to current AGW – not a lot.”
It’s important Luke.
If this sort of thing happened in the recent past without human input, no matter how localised or widespread it may have been, then it’s important.
It shows that the climate can and does change whether we are around or not.
Even now the change is neither uniform nor significant, as a matter of fact some of it could easily be put down to instrument and-or human error, and by all means if the “A” in the AGW theory is true the change ought to be uniform .
I know you disagree so there is no need to hurl abuse, prefer if you just ignore.
‘…the change ought to be uniform.’
Indeed, although it’s going to be very hard convincing the zealots.
Any attempt to highlight the cooling trend in north-west America, or the cooler than expected winters in Europe, the warmists say its only weather.
The Antarctic cold blast to hit NZ is only weather, yet some zealots have told me its because of AGW “as predicted by the IPCC.”
You know the stuff, extreme snow, drought, flood, heatwaves etc.
“It shows that the climate can and does change whether we are around or not.” yep and so you should be even MORE worried.
“all means if the “A” in the AGW theory is true the change ought to be uniform .” what a daft stupid comment – why would it be? For heavens sake ! What drongosity.
“whether the MWP was warmer than today.”
It could hardly have been cooler!
D’you think the Vikings would have moved out of Greenland for a lousy less than 0.7c cooling?
The LIA drove them out and since then we have warmed 0.7c.
Even Lukeheads should be able to work that out.
And don’t come the “only in Greenland” warming raw prawn.
Most likely Moberg tells it as well as any:
http://theinconvenientskeptic.com/2011/04/2000-years-of-rate-of-temperature-change/
Why should we be even more worried?
More worried than what?
I was about to comment on MWP, in both Europe and Asia, and invite argument…then realised I don’t care. I don’t care because nobody cares any more.
It’s over: CAGW or AGW or Climate Disruption or whatever the spinners are now calling it. The ruinous Australian tithes to the Climate Faith have quickly changed name from “tax” to “price” to “transition to ETS” to “ETS” in hopes of keeping the proles quiet. But neither the spinners nor the spun believe any of it. It’s like Roman state religion during the Empire, or the fag-end of the Crusade movement in the 14th century. Lots of piety and pledging…but nobody believes.
Faces will have to be saved, the Pensive Classes will continue to be flattered and fed at the expense of a public they loathe. The ritual and preaching and sacrifices will go on, at ridiculous cost. But the belief is dead.
It’s over, isn’t it?
Don’t pack it in Robert, if enough public pressure is kept up something might crack.
“It’s over, isn’t it?”
If only, Robert, if only.
This govt is putting clothes on skeletons to give the appearance of life to this incredible moral minority.
How long can this zombie jamboree go on for?
And how are all those AGW droughts working out for you, Luke?
http://www.thegwpf.org/images/stories/gwpf-reports/mueller-sahel.pdf
“Don’t pack it in Robert, if enough public pressure is kept up something might crack.”
Certainly, Mack. What I’m saying is that we don’t need to argue with the air. Now is indeed the time for pressure and loud protest.
But the debate really is over because nobody acts or lives as if CAGW were true. Nobody. Celebs are only the most obvious and comical examples of this. Personally, I’m happy for my worst enemy to get stinking rich. But think of Branson taking bookings for space tourism. After John Travolta did some finger-wagging about climate someone showed a picture of his house with passenger jets parked outside the front door. Everyone laughed, someone spun some PR…and the jets are still at his front door. Carbon Cate and Tim Flannery whiz about the world and buy waterside real estate…because, really, they don’t believe. They talk and, in a weird way, they even care. Clearly, they don’t believe. There is no evidence of belief, so why go on dissuading people of beliefs they don’t hold?
And we’ve now reached a point where ordinary folk now know that the believers don’t have a belief. Think: Romanians listening to the late speeches of Ceaucescu.
I’m actually in agreement with Mack. This is a time to heap on pressure, any pressure, as much as possible. But arguing about the existence or relevance of the Medieval Warming? Getting angry over the factoid mongering and emphasis shifting practiced by Wiki or GetUp or MoveOn to alter history or rename a tax so it’s not a tax? They can keep it up forever, because they don’t believe in CAGW, and spin is infinite.
Nope. Without putting any strain on our fragile Constitution or its fragile conventions, let’s just get rid of this government. It’s possible. What about Craig Thompson and a by-election? A coalition promise to Oakeshott of a deluxe pencil-sharpening job in Paris? Rudd to the UN?
Nah sd, it will go right over his head or he’ll put it down voodoo magic.
Luke,
Here’s a few more “facts” from your mate Jonathan Overpeck who you were quoting on Arctic warming back up the page:
http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2011/08/bummer-carbon-dioxide-has-killed-so.html
MWP indeed! What BS in regard to wuwt, co2scinence, C3 etc that have nothing on our SH coastlines or NH for that matter SD.
You guys can get off your high horse or hobby horse whatever and go stake your blocks right by the beach, any where that is, down the east coast of Oz any time from now on if your so certain nothing will be awash from your own observations.
Btw; convince your councils too with respect for their risk.
Two reasons I won’t be setting up house at the beach.
Firstly, I’m into conservation and don’t approve of structures near dunes or structures which affect the littoral forests behind dunes.
Secondly, the building blocks have mostly been taken up by posh Green folk, the very type likely to proclaim a belief in rising seas due to CAGW. Needless to say, they don’t believe it at all.
from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-14554882
I thought these comments were of note
A bused-in attendance of only 4,000 – 5,000 (the ABC estimated 3,000 – 4,000) out of Australia’s population of 22.7 million must have disappointed those shock jocks like Sydney’s Alan Jones who preach these extreme views & publicise these events. A local march in Melbourne in support of live music last year managed 15,000. I like it that music means more to Australians than Tea-Party extremism
A small protest, Nick, in the schema of past public gatherings.
I’m old enough to recall Vietnam moratorium marches 40 years ago when 100,000 marched in Melbourne alone.
Over 300,000 Australians walked across Sydney Harbour Bridge 11 years ago in support of Aboriginal reconciliation
Still, there does seem to be the whisper of tumbrels being readied for the current government
When the looney, lukey left make relentless, extravagant claims on all things AGW and still forgive themselves when in the cold light of dawn it is so obvious to even them just how wrong they were, it is just as well that conservatives mostly manage to bite their tongues, stay quiet and do nothing.
If they flamed like said LLLs, we would have capsized the ship of state long ago.
But still the zombie jamboree lumbers on:
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/and_the_point_of_killing_these_jobs_is/
gav, WRT the MWP or coastal SLs, got any specific science to discuss or just rant?
A gullible seethingly violent angry mob. There was taking up arms, PM assassination, Greens assassination, green *unts and it went on. The venom was off the meter.
I’m guessing he’s been to a union rally, or a democrat presser.
Harry Bellafonte explains the zombie jamboree well:
Er,
reluctant as I am to enter any debate on Science, preferring just to visit the links to learn ‘stuff’ that will increase my knowledge base, I do have a question with respect to Sea Ice.
Did I misunderstand my High School Science teacher when he explained Archimedes Principle.
I was always under the impression that all the Sea Ice in existence could melt and it would not raise Sea Levels by one millimetre, because that Sea Ice is already ….. er, in the sea!
Tony.
Thats right Tony,
It actually reduces SL.
Yep,
Thought so too.
Seems to be a disconnect in the arguments here.
My understanding is melting SEA Ice would actually lower the sea levels.
Melting LAND Ice? I would presume it would raise the levels? However if it’s melted ice, the volume will be lower than the mass was as land ice.
So….if it’s sea ice melting….then the levels go down.
If it’s land ice melting….then the levels go up….but disproportionately to the ice mass as it shrinks when it melts.
If it’s both? Then there will be some levelling out here.
And Luke,
A 4,000 – 5,000 attendance is far from insignificant. Those attendees also had signatures and support from many more who were just not able to attend.
The demographics are also completely different to the ‘live music ‘ crowd or even a football crowd for that matter.
The issue is also not as clear cut or simple as the aboriginal reconciliation issue.
The demographics are also completely different to the ‘live music ‘ crowd or even a football crowd for that matter.
It wasn’t a weekend day just for a start. Nor did it have anything at all to do with ‘entertainment’. Even the Harbour Bridge walk had that ‘fun day out’ tag to it.
It would not be wise to dismiss the significance of a crowd that size in Canberra over this type of issue.
As we all know, most people are struggling to understand the complexities of the issues.
They’re also getting another visit on Monday & Tuesday which will be extra 1,000s on top of the 4-5000 from the other day.
Very unwise to dismiss the significance of that.
It would be much smarter to take proper note of the ‘type’ of people who are attending here.
Denigrating comments about ‘tea party extremism’ etc is not a good look.
While you will always find extremists at any sizeable rally, it is much wiser to take note of the demographic of the majority of the attendees.
The extremism from the other side of the debate is just as ugly and just as damaging you know.
It is not the right place to focus.
There is however a difference at Antarctica, where if all that ice did melt, then perhaps we would have a problem.
However, only 2% of that ice is at the fringes and in the surrounding ocean, Antarctic Sea ice, also subject to Archimedes. This is the only ice that can melt, being warmed from below by the Ocean, and also the only ice subjected to temperatures above Zero at the height of Summer when that ice might change from its solid state to water.
98% of that Antarctic ice is on the continental land mass, where the temperature never even approaches zero for that ice to begin to melt.
At its thickest, that ice is almost 5000 metres thick, and is being added to with each Winter.
Even at the height of the Antarctic Summer, the highest temperature reached is Minus 15C, so none of that ice will ever melt, even if, perish the thought Climate Change increases the temperature by more than the 2C supposed tipping point.
This site is quite interesting for some of the information it has.
http://www.antarcticconnection.com/shopcontent.asp?type=weather-index
One of the facts it has there says:
quote…..
Because of the tilt of the earth’s axis relative to its orbit around the sun, the sun does not shine at the South Pole for six months of the year. When the sun does shine, much less solar energy actually reaches the ground at the Pole because the sun’s rays pass through a thicker layer of atmosphere than at the Equator. Also, due to the predominance of ice and snow covering Antarctica, most of the sun’s rays that do reach the ground are reflected back into space.
…..end quote
So, when people tell me that melting Polar ice will cause sea levels to rise, I usually say nothing, because you just can’t argue with these people.
Tony.
Tony and Deb,
Another illusion the warmers labour under is that if treelines move polewards it will be a positive feedback because the forests will cause further warming.
Just try comparing forests to open country in any region in the world and see if they are warmer and you’ll soon come to the conclusion that forests are always cooler.
Even in warm savanna lands where the grass has a high albedo [almost white to almost silver], it is much cooler under a dark tree.
In the taiga you can still get sunburnt if you don’t stay in the shade.
Luke,
This is for your edification,
The obsevations from a Canberra Public Servant:
I find it interesting that a passer-by can clearly observe and report facts that the mainstream media either doesn’t observe or fails to report, for whatever reason. I work nearby Parliament House and often walk up Federation Mall on my lunch break, and I did so on the day of this protest. There has been derisive criticism of the attendees in the media, along the lines that they were all bussed in from Sydney and clearly had nothing better to do, i.e. they’re not passionate about the cause. I beg to differ. Yes, I observed about 20-30 buses parked all over the place behind Old Parliament House, but I have to tell you that there were hundreds more cars parked on nature strips, in no-parking zones, in parkland – wherever they could fit – with NSW, Vic and some Qld number plates. Now, the parking is tight at the best of times around here, but this was clearly evidence of a lot of people coming a long way at their own expense, which to me translates as “passionate about the cause”. As for the behaviour of the crowd: well, any large demonstration will attract the fringe ratbags, and there were a few about, but the overwhelming majority were polite but grim, well-presented, and yes, mostly near or past retirement age. Now, I wear a suit and have an access pass dangling from a lanyard round my neck, and I walk around with iPod ear-buds – I look, no, reek “Government”. But I felt completely safe wandering amongst this crowd, was never threatened with even a stern look. These are genuinely concerned, law-abiding citizens aiming to give the Government a piece of their minds. Anyone who says otherwise and was there was wearing political blinkers.
Debbie,
here in the US when the Tea Party started putting together rallies, if you had listened to the media you would have thought hardly anyone showed up. The big rally in Washington, based on the aerial photos, beat a lot of other get togethers, yet, the media estimated much smaller numbers.
We used to call Pravda and Communists the propaganda experts. They are the Western media now it would seem.
More question marks over warming “science”:
https://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2011/08/csiro-s-methane-problem
It’s bad enough to tax people on a known emission but when there are scientific uncertainties [known unknowns] this is crazy.
And the author was Dear Spangled – Tom Quirk
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA in where Quadrant – pullease
‘Humidity provides one of the inputs for the chemical reaction that removes methane from the atmosphere. Thus more from the sources and less taken away by the sinks.’
Quirk’s argument is sound and Luke’s a Quadrant snob.
OK Dear Scientific Luke,
As they say in the classics, point your gun at the message, not the messenger.
Well, let’s have it. No blanks now.
What a great paper – Cool dudes: The denial of climate change among conservative white males in the United States
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S095937801100104X
from http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/environment/climate-change/the-cwm-effect-what-climate-changes-biggest-sceptics-have-in-common-20110818-1izd6.html
There are many reasons CWMs, or anyone else for that matter, are sceptical of AGW but one interesting factor that won’t be put to rest is the scepticism of the GHE that has been going strong since Gerlich and Tscheuschner claimed it broke the second law of thermodynamics a couple of years ago:
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=8138
http://judithcurry.com/2011/08/16/postma-on-the-greenhouse-effect/#more-4585
When you’ve given us the benefit of your wisdom on Tom Quirk and Quadrant, Luke, maybe you could shine your torch on this for us.
We all need all the help we can get.
TfO; “So, when people tell me that melting Polar ice will cause sea levels to rise, I usually say nothing, because you just can’t argue with these people”
Seems our good Tony needs to do some research on land based ice movement before his next ice cap lecture starting with such terms as “glacier” “crevasse” etc. Try a wiki hey
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crevasse
Ice caps are constantly mooving despite varing atmospheric temperatures because of the “lubricants” underneath. As I said earlier in the thread, beware of “ice teetering on the brink”
“This cynical political rhetoric is really unfortunate, it undermines well-founded public belief, scientific credibility, and political will, and it is part of the reason that this urban myth exists.”
Urban myth? Idiot!
“ice teetering on the brink”
If the sun remains relatively quiet for the next 20 years, what would be the impact on Antarctica, more icebergs in the southern ocean or less?
We have good anecdotal evidence which suggests more bergs, but why?
SD, for the record; how does an icecap accelerate its glaciers?
Gavin,
you wrote: Seems our good Tony needs to do some research on land based ice movement before his next ice cap lecture starting with such terms as “glacier” “crevasse” etc. Try a wiki hey
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crevasse
What utter drivel, both your ignorance, and the WIKIPEDIA
Whoops,
WIKIPEDIA explanation you offer as compensation for your ignorance.
The Wiki post is best described as a non sequitur.
I’m not sure who is the more idiotic here, you, or Luke.
Ice crevasses are the result of horizontal shear stresses when two adjoining, hypothetical, plates are forced by directed external forces (?) to move alongside each other via plastic behaviour.
As a self confessed gas expert Gavin, should you not show some humility when describing the physics of nature you are so ignorant of?
Yes idiot EG,
Dr Reser…another brainwashed academic with a psycology degree? dabbling in the…
“Griffith University Climate Change Response Program” Aaahahahahaha. What, a swat team under the directorship of Joolya to stamp out deniers and impose tax. motto “To Preserve and Protect our Govt. Funding”
Most folk understand that a “crevasse” is a crack in an ice flow i.e. “glacier” associated with differential ice movement over varying terrain’. These cracks are described as longitudinal, marginal or transverse.
One way or another, its all heading for the sea.
My humble apologies Gavin,
I guess I should have realised that Antarctica is just one vast Glacier, teetering on the brink as the lubricant underneath 5000 metres of ice forces Antarctica to, er, fall off into the ocean.
You also seem to have confirmed my view as to why I don’t argue with your lot. You have an answer for everything it seems.
(aside to self ….. I wish Trout bit like this)
Tony.
Sure Tony.
Let’s not forget though that hotter water makes the SL rise at this time but leaving Antarctica for a bit, we can see Greenland is shedding ice also Mt Cook glaciers are getting smaller. My thermometer is about the state of all water round the globe.
Cheers
Oh dear Gavin,
Your line of argument is starting to resemble the dodo bird syndrome.
Weather patterns tend to be cyclic you know, but NOT in ever decreasing circles like the dodo bird.
Otherwise the Earth would have disappeared inside its own rear end a very long time ago.
Warmer oceans may melt glaciers but melting glaciers also cool oceans.
That creates simple things like evaporation and varying currents which then causes snow to be dumped back at the source of the glacier or the formation of new gaciers ad infinitum.
I know that’s a simplistic explanation but you get the picture.
I know we are all obsessed with long term climate predictions, but seriously, even though you often dismiss evidence as ‘just weather not climate’ you can’t ignore weather patterns and cyclic patterns entirely.
‘My thermometer is about the state of water all round the globe’???????
I hope you have at least 10,000,000 of them!
Nothing wets gav’s bed more than glaciers so I suppose they must be melting [in the dark like MacArthur Park].
But they have been doing that for 200 years so it’s not ACO2.
In fact many of them have been growing for the last 30 years:
http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/GW_4CE_Glaciers.htm
For Debs http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610 and the lads
For looney lefty get-a-life looke:
http://www.thegwpf.org/images/stories/gwpf-reports/happer-the_truth_about_greenhouse_gases.pdf
Deb; I’m not the only one looking for a global thermometer but it’s likely I thought of SL first as THE proper tool to reference other paleo methods used for greater climate change research as total H2O remains constant regardless of it’s state.
But the thermometer shown won’t be of much use to us unless we can measure small SL changes via some form of magnification and imo a tiny deviation from the norm has to be projected on a near horizontal plane such as exposed sea beds. See other links on this issue.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/04/science-story-the-making-of-a-sea-level-study/
A commenter on Bolt’s blog on the carbon tax:
“There has been nothing mentioned in the media about the “Carbon Tax’s” effect on refrigerant, so I feel compelled to inform you as a refrigeration wholesaler, that the impact of this useless tax will be massive.
In a nutshell, the price of refrigerant, which keeps all of Australia’s food fresh, will rise a minimum of 300% at the wholesale level. This is based on each refrigerants GWP (Global Warming Potential) multiplied by the carbon tax per tonne. eg. R404a has a GWP of 3862, which multiplied by $23/tonne equals $88/kg TAX.
Consider this…
The average supermarket has approximately 250kg of R404a in it to run all its fridges and freezers. So, after July 1 2012, the tax alone on the main supermarket gas, R404a, will equate to around $22000.00 for just 250kg, not including the cost of the gas itself, if they have a breakdown and lose their gas. Refrigerant leaks are a common problem in the trade.
Every new installation or breakdown will be affected. These costs will have to be passed on, or many businesses will simply have to close. The impact will be huge!”
The insanity knows no bounds.
I hope the convoy chokes the Canberra streets.
Over at Watts they are talking about the new Ryan Maue paper which ‘analyzes global tropical cyclone data from 1970 through May 2011 to examine the considerable interannual variability of the accumulated cyclone energy (ACE) metric.’
‘Since 2006, global and Northern Hemisphere ACE have decreased significantly, reaching the lowest levels since the late 1970s. Also, during 2010-2011, the overall global frequency of tropical cyclones reached a historical low. The researcher demonstrates that much of the variability in tropical cyclone energy during the past 40 years is clearly associated with natural large-scale climate oscillations such as the El Niño-Southern Oscillation and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.’
Amen to that.
But that’s not what the bed wetters want to hear, EG.
They’d rather waste time and money on useless papers like Jonnie Overpeck’s latest triumph:
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2011GL048280.shtml
Alright Gav, I’ll ask again for the zillionith time— please tell us how to reduce GHG emissions?
Just remember the developed world will flatline for the next 25 years at 0.1% per year and the developing world will soar at 2% per year.
We do live on the same planet you understand?
http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/ieo/emissions.html
If you can’t even begin to answer this question of how to stop these China, India, Brazil etc, etc increases your argument is entirely bogus.
Luke can’t answer it and won’t even try, but just loves to yell and abuse anyway.
But just remember reducing our miniscule emissions by 5% is just a total con and won’t alter the temp or climate by a jot.
Even your darling barking mad Timmy Flannery ( with the waterside home) states that stopping emissions entirely from all countries today wouldn’t change the temp for hundreds of years or perhaps a thousand years.
Some more madness from the Juliar loon and her assorted backsides of the world brigade.
This is probably the most insane nonsense we have ever witnessed out of Canberra since the idiot Whitlam years.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/opinion/australia-will-send-57bn-a-year-overseas-by-2050-treasury-modelling-shows/story-e6frg9k6-1226118430293
Well El Gordo – dishonest in the extreme – nothing has replaced Emmanuel’s work – the energy and lifetime of the biggest storms has trended up (THE POINT unless you’re a nonger) and from Power et al 2011 – the decadal signal on numbers and landfall (paths) in Australia is large. AGW predicts fewer storms with peak storms having higher energy and longer life terms. More clueless denialism.
Looks like Neville’s about to blow a blood vessel. Imagine having to live next to a ranter like that. He’d grab your arm and go off each meeting at the letterbox ….
Yes Nev – it’s pretty obvious without global action that our efforts would have no effect. If the rest of the world moved on mitigation because of our own efforts and our economy and energy systems had a head start on efficiency measures again there might be a good argument.
But as I have told you my views without a global deal. i.e. most in !
But obviously being a raving science denier you don’t realise that no action condemns us to the impacts and risks of doing nothing. And the science on that is quite good – although not enough for angry old white males and deniers. Climate change is a grand challenge problem. Nobody said answers were easy. But no action = adapt or if you don’t perish. The Earth itself don’t really care – it’s a rock !
And instead of quoting Flannery – why not grow up and quote the science itself.
But why are you the slightest bit worried – Abbot will reverse all measures in an inevitable landslide election. Long term carbon tax ain’t gonna happen.
So funny, all the stuff about old white conservative males. Talk about SWPL. Preppy middle class finger waggers of the left, always wanting to up their cool and “get down” with the brothers. Why is that such a big thing with them? So comical.
“Long term carbon tax ain’t gonna happen.”
You’re probably right, Luke, for lots of reasons but why do you think that the smart guys [and there are plenty] in the ALP are allowing themselves to be seriously gutted at the next election?
Tax and spend is bad enough but tax, destroy [jobs, skills and businesses] and spend without achieving any emission reduction or any intended goals [and arguably make them worse].
The green flypaper will be a long term setback.
Were the AGW indoctrinated youth, with no hope of a future, responsible for the riots?
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2843812.html
Hard to swallow that angle.
Plenty of generations have expected the end of the world.
I think it is much more likely the undisciplined “me” generation doing what comes naturally.
“Long term carbon tax ain’t gonna happen.”
D’ya think this might help people decide?
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/opinion/australia-will-send-57bn-a-year-overseas-by-2050-treasury-modelling-shows/story-e6frg9k6-1226118430293
Well it’s clearly as popular as a pork chop in a synagogue isn’t it?
(1) need a global deal IMO
(2) CSIRO and BoM senior scientists should have allowed to get the gloves off with the sceptics instead of being kept back by management
(3) need a serious debate on new nuclear
(4) Peak Oil and oil supply instability from rogue states requires a national liquid fuels security policy
(5) you need a mandate to introduce carbon pricing
(6) get Flannery & AGW “celebs” out of it
‘AGW predicts fewer storms with peak storms having higher energy and longer life terms.’
Certainly the most recent large cyclone in Qld seems to add weight to the AGW argument, so we’ll have to wait and see how things pan out over the coming decade.
‘Climate change is a grand challenge problem. Nobody said answers were easy. But no action = adapt or if you don’t perish.’
Now you’re talking, adaptation is the key to our survival… always has been.
‘you need a mandate to introduce carbon pricing’
The electorate demand it and if that silly bugger Thomson falls on his sword it will be sooner than later.
Our election strategy (conservative white males only) is to educate the masses before they cast their vote and we will start with the benefits of CO2.
http://sppiblog.org/news/5922
El Gordo – it’s never as simple as it sounds – more CO2 will have considerable physiological effects e.g. more poisonous principles in plants (cassava?), greater frost sensitivity, and C3 trees taking over massive areas of C4 grass savannas.
And if you’re currently at the Horn of Africa increased CO2 on a droughted landscape won’t help plants much at all. Try Liebig’s Law of the Minimum which is why Free Air Carbon Dioxide Experiments (FACE) don’t do near as well as greenhouse/phytotron experiments.
Wiki says about Liebig “This concept was originally applied to plant or crop growth, where it was found that increasing the amount of plentiful nutrients did not increase plant growth. Only by increasing the amount of the limiting nutrient (the one most scarce in relation to “need”) was the growth of a plant or crop improved. This principle can be summed up in the aphorism, “The availability of the most abundant nutrient in the soil is as the availability of the least abundant nutrient in the soil.”
So if you are water or nutrient limited so be it !
As for cyclones ftp://texmex.mit.edu/pub/emanuel/PAPERS/NATURE03906.pdf but for Queensland beware of http://www.cawcr.gov.au/meetings/fd/…/Power_SPCZ_wshop_Apia_2010.pdf and http://www.cawcr.gov.au/staff/sbp/journal…/Callaghan_and_Power_CD_2010.pdf
Yep, agree with all that as I’m sure any smart ALP person would too.
But sadly when we got Christianity we got the church and when we got democracy we got politicians.
As for storms world wide:
http://coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/graphics/global_running_freq_12.jpg
Thanx Luke, a couple of those links don’t work, but I’ll give some thought to the Emanuel paper.
Try these then El Gordo
http://www.cawcr.gov.au/meetings/fd/SPCZ_workshop_Apia_presentations/Power_SPCZ_wshop_Apia_2010.pdf
http://www.cawcr.gov.au/staff/sbp/journal_articles/Callaghan_and_Power_CD_2010.pdf
Spangled – not the point – it’s not about numbers – it’s whether AGW increases the high storm class intensity and lifetime. See Emmanuel above !
Bolt’s predictions from years ago seem to be coming true as they always seem to somehow.
Let’s hope these jobs losses don’t happen and something takes place that brings about a new election. But if this train takes off it will be hard to stop.
Hopefully Abbott and the coalition will grow a brain and drop their stupid plans to reduce our emissions by 5%. Big hope I know.
Luke all I’ll say is that words fail me , there is zip we can do to change the climate back to perfect temp or less rain , more rain, better solar activity, just the right ocean oscillations, plus nicer enso etc , etc.
By all means let’s carefully invest in new cheap, renewable energy technology if we can find any, hopefully one day we may crack it for a win, who knows.
I still think that new battery technology will lead to more electric cars in the near future, so I suppose that’s a start.
As of now a generic battery pack can be replaced ( in theory) in a service station in a matter of minutes so perhaps we may be further advanced than we think.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/no_chance_now_that_australians_will_buy_this_tax/
Neville,
Sorry for reposting that link from Bolt. However it needs repeating.
Luke,
I doubt if KE’s theory stands the reality test. Our history is very recent and further limited by technology which, by supplying more data on more recent events, further biases results.
We know for instance, that prior to settlement in Qld, there were floods far in excess of those we have experienced since, and they were probably produced by extreme cyclones.
More importantly, it is not only the increase in temperature that implies more storm intensity, it is the differential.
I just found your picture, Luke.
http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/images/si/science-idol-2011/web-UCScalendar-Nuez-attack_not-full-res.jpg
How do people act in a genuine emergency, when they are convinced that the emergency is genuine?
They may blunder or panic, but they will not concoct long-term plans which involve massive cost for purely speculative gains, when immediate and medium term results are achievable at much less cost.
No, they will act, however ineptly, in a direct way to deal with the emergency.
In a climate emergency, for example, legislated fetishism and waste would be out of the question. Worrying whether something is “renewable” would be considered frivolous and juvenile when the actual problem consists of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide entering the atmosphere.
In a real emergency, Goldman Sachs aren’t hoping to party like it’s 2007.
In a real emergency, that nuclear plant was built yesterday.
Of course, Robert, there is no emergency.
Only guilt, opportunism but mainly stupidity:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/20/is-economic-graceful-decline-the-true-agenda-of-some-warmists/
Liebig [great name] does not apply to human activity because we have the technological ability to overcome natural limitations; or would have if the greenies did not destroy new GM crops; of course their solution to the water shortage was to build desal plants; that worked!
The Emanuel paper which luke kindly linked to says this:
“net hurricane power dissipation is highly correlated with tropical sea surface temperature”
Emanuel claims the dissipation index is increasing markedly due to “both longer storm lifetimes and greater storm intensities.”
In respect of SST:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2003/trend
I have selected 2003 as the starting date because that is when the ARGO bouys were introduced; measurement before 2003 was a bit slapdash.
Emanuel is also wrong about greater intensity and duration of storms; this is measured by Accumulated Cyclone Energy [ACE] which measurment is shown by Ryan Maue:
http://coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/
What a fine looking young guy Ryan is; I might get him out on a speaking tour.
‘I might get him out on a speaking tour.’
I second the motion.
Luke,
A friendly observation.
You might want to lay off that white male conservative argument.
What socio economic group sits in the policy and advocacy areas of the opposite side? It is extra ordinarily easy to prove it is essentially thme same type.
It also dismisses the considerable influence of high profile people like Jen.
It’s just another attempt at intellectual snobbery and it is not a good look.
It’s also counter productive.
Let’s just leave that one alone and stay with the evidence and the debate.
I was happy to pick up luke’s white guy link and take it elsewhere…where it became a debate.
From the Ryan Maue link:
‘Globally, tropical cyclone frequency has reached uncharted lows — only 64 storms were counted from June 2010 to May 2011.’
Is it just a coincidence or is there a causal connection related to an inactive sun?
Cohenite you’d better be careful praising Ryan , after all he is a white bloke.
It’s so embarrassing when an aging suburbanite hipster gets into the anti-white-male thing. If there’s a pork-pie hat or tattoo or reversed baseball cap involved, so much the worse. An ironic moustache or hip-hop vocabulary or gang gestures deepen the tragedy of these people.
I live around a lot of black people who are happy to be black and to talk like black people. If they call me “cuz”, or “bruz” or “unc”, I just call them by their names or call them “mate” – because I’m perfectly happy to be a sixty-two year old white male (who’s conservative!).
Well, I suppose if hipsters liked themselves…they wouldn’t be hipsters!
This is off topic I know, and I hope you all forgive me this small branching away from the subject in question, but it is in reference to where Robert above mentions the reversed baseball cap thing, and also with reference to the old adage that everything old is new again.
I’m a keen fan of the Napoleon Bonaparte novels of Arthur W Upfield, and have read every one of them, (29 in all) nearly all of them twice and more, as he’s one of the most under rated of the Australian novelists, probably because of the Crime Fiction aspect, but his novels offer a snapshot from a time now long passed.
He centred his novels around the time in question, 1929 to the early 60’s, and while it was murder detection in the main, it was historically accurate for the time, and Upfield wrote from his extensive experiences from his arrival in Australia prior to WW1, and then after that War as well, with a small hiatus while he served with the AIF, from the second landing at Gallipoli, and then in France as well.
What surprised me was that in the early novels, from ’29 until the start of WW2, in each of those 8 early novels, he always mentioned a young man who wore a ‘baseball style’ peaked cap with the peak reversed.
As is mainly the case, newly invented fads always seem to have roots in the past.
I know it seems like a shameless plug, but for those who are interested in Upfield, I have a ‘Home Page’ on him with observations from his novels and reviews of all 29 Bony novels.
http://papundits.wordpress.com/2010/09/23/arthur-w-upfield-home-page/
Again, I apologise for going off topic, but Robert’s comment made me smile somewhat.
Tony.
Just to show what a load of crap the Luke dummy has been spreading about the anti co2 rallies lately.
He raves on about the people being rednecks and nasty types etc but just read about the demo organised by Labor and the unions just before the first Howard govt budget 15 years ago.
http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/piersakerman/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/piers_akerman_alp_history_a_real_riot/#commentsmore
These vile animals just about wrecked the foyer at the front of parliament after being addressed by Kim Beazley, Jenny George, Greg Combet etc.
They also charged and bashed police and looted and robbed small businesses. What a mob of gutless cowards these filthy Labor bastards proved themselves to be.
Remember this was a coordinated demo run by the top Labor scum in the country and anyone trying to excuse these animals should hang their heads in shame.
I well remember a young police woman was bashed senseless and after falling to the ground was set upon by gutless labor cowards and kicked in the head by an “aboriginal artist activist” who was arrested soon after.
She spent many months in hospital before she had a partial recovery and I don’t know whether she ever returned to police work again.
True conservatives never ever behave in this way because they don’t share the totalitarian instinct of the left to smash and destroy both property and opposition.
This was the start of a new coalition govt in Australia and the reason for these cowards demonstrating was the onset of their first budget.
What a bloody disgrace and embarrassment for Australia to have to stomach these vile labor swines.
Shove off Neville. What a grub your are. Don’t be so dishonest as to use bad behaviour of others as some sort of justification to your gun-loving hillbilly redneck Tea Party sceptic mates. I was there matey – I know what was said.
We can discuss Joh batoning charging 70s demonstrators if you want to get into primordial soup. Heard of the Special Branch Neville. Seen whole buildings levelled in the middle of the night? Rightist hypocrite you are. Go and take a shit.
“True conservatives never ever behave in this way ” HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAA
good one
Must change my number plate from “licence sceptics not guns” to “”licence sceptics not guns + Neville”
Now Debs – on the white conservative male – was from research you see http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S095937801100104X Perhaps we can add Neville as an exemplar datum point.
“Liebig [great name] does not apply to human activity because we have the technological ability to overcome natural limitations” _ HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA – good one ! infinite irrigation – what a wanker lawyer.
“Emanuel is also wrong about greater intensity and duration of storms; this is measured by Accumulated Cyclone Energy [ACE] which measurment is shown by Ryan Maue:” WRONG WRONG WRONG – his analysis isn’t inciteful. Adding everyting up is stupid sceptic science. If you don’t understand that the issue is with the biggest storms you probably in denial – nyuk nyuk nyuk. Emmanuel stands.
Spanglers – very funny – I kacked. Hope I wasn’t too rough on Neviile….
Maue isn’t “inciteful”; well of course not; noone has been set on fire. You still don’t get it luke; if AGW is correct then it is not the extra energy in the system which is relevant but the gradients; and since AGW predicts a relative increase in polar warming then the energy gradient between the equator and poles will decrease and the sysytem’s capacity to energise larger storms also decreases.
Oh what sceptic tripe – the issues are local SSTs and wind shear. And it’s not poles evenly.
Must be disturbing for scepos watching ice melt keep going (predictions were for ice age and all healed over by now – HAHAHAHAHAHA) – and despite La Nina and low Sun we’re still cooking !
Face it – it’s all about to kick in again and this time you lot are finished. There’ll be nowhere to hide. Of course you’ll then move onto the next ruse. After Brisbane line is overrun you’ll be trying to hold the Sydney line.
Wonder how the big 10-4 good buddy demo is going today. One can only hope they make yahoos of themselves and look like rednecks.
Anyway cheer up – can’t be long before Abbott gets in !
I tried to warn you Luke,
That report is just another example of how all of us are capable of torturing figures to prove a pet hypothesis.
If I could be bothered (and I’m not) I could easily procure another one that uses the same set of figures to prove a completely different argument re demographics.
After all the snide references about the Tea Party, I finally googled it.
TEA is an acronym for Taxed Enough Already and they also thought they were being a bit clever re the Boston Tea Party analogy.
While I agree some of their policies lean towards conservatism, most of it is just asking for some common sense. As with all political or lobbying groups….some of it looks good to me and some of it looks a bit ‘over zealous’.
They certainly don’t look any more dangerous than numerous other similarly constructed organisations on both sides of politics.
So this comment:
‘gun-loving hillbilly redneck Tea Party sceptic mates.’
Is not really helping.
I also agree that perhaps Neville was a bit rough re Labor Party but it was actually your snide references that provoked him.
As always there are zealots and extremists on both sides of this debate….neither group exhibits particularly attractive behaviour.
I’m also becoming confused about what you’re actually trying to prove here.
No one is arguing that the weather and the climate isn’t changing….it does and it always has.
I think everyone agrees that over the long term (using centuries of data not particular decades) that a very ordinary upward trend has been prevalent.
This post is just pointing out that some of the data is showing some ‘levelling off’ and that we may have to wait for some more raw figures to see if there is any AGW signal in the general trends….it’s hypothesising that it is entirely possible there could be an up or a downward trend.
As always….sceptics in general are just pointing out that the science is not necessarily settled.
Too many troubling variables and too much that we either don’t know or we don’t understand.
Luke
“Face it – it’s all about to kick in again and this time you lot are finished”
How can you be so sure Luke?
And if you happen to be wrong, where are you going to hide?
And about the “on the white conservative male”, could it be that they inform themselves a bit better than the others surveyed?
Let’s face it Luke, despite your vehemence, this whole CC, AGW is nowhere near settled and there are very good scientists out there who disagree with you.
Just because you don’t agree with them doesn’t make them wrong.
Luke
PS
“Anyway cheer up – can’t be long before Abbott gets in !”
I’m not too sure about TA being a good thing actually, but he can’t be any worth than Ms JG.
“but he can’t be any worth than Ms JG.”
he is probably worth two Gillards, but I meant worse of course
Debbie I fully intended to be a bit rough on Labor because they deserve it.
Just look at the disgace of the G 20 summit demo in Melbourne and the same Labor/union sponsored thugs were involved, again smashing and bashing police in front of overseas guests.
The WA Premier Richard Court was surrounded and threatened inside his car for a considerable time until the police came to his rescue.
Also police women were rough housed and threatened by these labor goons, once again displaying their gutless cowardice for everyone to see.
I repeat again all demos in Australia that carry out this level of viciousness and violence are always from the left with affiliations to Labor and the unions.
I won’t respond to Luke because he is an unprincipled fool who can’t even understand simple maths and can’t muster enough logic and reason to understand his own totalitarian instincts displayed here every time he starts one of his silly rants.
Fair enough Neville,
I agree that historically most (not all) demos in Oz that get out of hand are from the left.
However, I would also argue that most (not all) labor voters would find this behaviour just as distasteful.
Despite Luke’s insinuations otherwise, the vast majority of Australians, no matter what their politics, do not condone violent behaviour.
Many from both sides like to verbally flex their ‘white male’ testosterone but it is all bark and no bite.
It is also usually provoked….hence the friendly observation re that silly report Luke has posted twice.
I can’t see anyone winning any sensible debate by pointing at the extreme behaviour of individuals on either side of this debate.
There are many ordinary every day people who would prefer to stick to the actual issues.
It has nothing to do with our gender, our colour, our age or our voting habits.
Geewiz; I realy missed you guys while waiting to be reconnected.
Deb; I can’t aggree with your “most (not all) demos in Oz that get out of hand are from the left” because we only have to look at the current rhetoric from the far right then think of a few “industry” responses to protests round native forests.
btw; I have been at a few very big turnouts on various issues and witnessed baiting from all sides including a few bullish croud controll lines. Screaming women too can often add to the tension.
With my intrest in democracy though, it was easy to suggest that local Govt folk invite the truck convoy to stay over and tour the sights.
Gavin,
That has to be a classic case of totally missing the point!
Let’s get back to the real issues and stop making pointless comments about the bad behaviour of THE MINORITY !
Most people who are speaking up on this issue are just genuinely concerned.
That also applies to both sides of the argument and both sides of politics.
DID YOU GET THE POINT THAT TIME??????
Well, it’s been a long wait, but at last gav has said something I can agree with:
“Screaming women too can often add to the tension.”
That has been my experience, for better or worse.
“I won’t respond to Luke because he is an unprincipled fool ” – no Nev – you just ducked on one Aussie’s great totalitarian regimes – the Joh era. And corrupt to the hilt as well. You just squibbed and ran away. Ya big sook.
Of course Joh took notes from Hanlon – another bully but Labor to the hilt
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/ross-fitzgerald-another-saga-in-the-red-north/story-e6frg6zo-1111113575947
“Despite Luke’s insinuations otherwise, the vast majority of Australians, no matter what their politics, do not condone violent behaviour.” Dunno Debs – place is more anti-social all the time.
Silly report was a scientific study Debs. Sorry about the findings.
I think you need to go out more Luke.
You’re reliance on reports and MSM is creating mental social paranoid commentary!
Re the report: read my comment at 10:17 and then Mark A’s.
I read something the other day, all 580 pages of it, that gave me a new perspective on our present climate, and how ridiculous most of the discussions of the finer points of GHG’s and the rest are.
Read about the wild variations of weather over the last two millenia and be very, very thankful that we and our parents have lived in the most benign times of that period.
For examples, 466AD, Pestiferous smell killed man and beast over Britain, (fluoric acid gas from Iceland volcano?)
534AD, Sun gave forth light without brightness, lasted all year, Sun likened to the Moon, widespread famine from Europe to China.
763AD Black sea froze 30ft deep, snow drifts to 50ft
775AD the same , with 30 cubits of snow on ice
Skip to 829, ice on the Nile, 859Adriatic, Mediterranean, Ionic seas, Venice frozen over,
jump to 1004-6 Famine in England, half population dead, 1011 Nile froze
1030-2 seasons upset, constant rains, floods, famine from England through to Turkey, cannibalism rife. I missed the 30 year drought 300-30 in Cyprus, they abandoned the island.
Only a tiny sample, and some much worse, go on , read it. Well resourced.
‘A Chronological listing of Early weather Events’ by James A. Marusek
http://www.breadandbutterscience.com
Julian I too have come cross that site and been amazed by the enormous variety in weather , from hail stones the zize of bricks to cherry trees blooming 3 times in a year due to confusion of seasons.
it sure makes a mockery of the hockey stick!
Speaking AGW for a moment, this time last year I observed to my wife that the skeptic argument suggested a cooling period was coming and I fully expected a recovery in Arctic ice with the next northern summer. I even went on to say that I’d have second thoughts re my skeptical position if the Arctic ice hit a new low in 2011. Well…. it’s pretty damned low. And Antarctica is looking a little dismal too. In fact the Arctic is on track for a very low summer extent. Hmmmm…
On the matter of weather events, I recall that as a kid in Maryborough Qld we had a most remarkable hailstorm with hail the size of cricket balls and some reported as football size. I remember distinctly having to help clean up my uncle’s place after their fibro roof was well ruined by hailstones coming clean through it and depositing themselves on the floor… The noise during the storm was astounding, incredible hammer blows of huge ice chuncks on roofs. Must have been maybe 1966 or 67 I’d guess.
JB; your link leads to blog froth and mythology so stop wallowing in it now.
I gave up on fiction a long time ago and concentrated on anything that supports the next project, current trends, relevant reviews and so on. However all good engineering must allow for contingencies, availability of essential resources, skills, materials etc and familiarization with each won’t come from mere speculation.
GM;I suggested today my granddaughter now 16 who is considering college subjects for a career in interior design like her mum start with technical drawing so her measurements in the field add up for something like a pre-fab kitchen. Then I said she should be aware that some coastal folk may need a completely removable home.
Gavin,
Sima Qian ‘He who does not forget the past is master of the present’
Multiple sources from chroniclers of the past are not blog froth, have you ever heard of the philosophical concept of truth from ‘travelers tales’ ? Not what you first may think.
There are deposits of shells and foreshore debris some 400ft above sea level on the escarpment between Bulli Pass and Woolongong IIRC, dated a few hundred years ago, so your comment to your daughter may be of value, provided the home has a rocket launch or similar 😉
OK big tsunami; there is a bag of sea shells on our hall dresser and that is 600m above SL and a long way inland too. What does it prove? Something carried them here but it wasn’t the sea.
We watch Time Team on TV. Last week it was about a concrete block WW2 vintage in some park. A few programs go back to pre historic times via excavations that can be quite deep. Debris collects over the ages and the life process interferes with the dirt but it’s all relatively recent in earth time.
As a child my hobby was excavating crumbly mudstone fossils for show and tell classes. Another habit was following contours, postman’s tracks, disused tramways, ancient coastlines etc overland and through the bush. River pebbles, glacier conglomerate or worked flint I could tell before high school. Long forgotten middens came into the picture after I became more mobile.
Resource mapping should have been the next step but I chose manufacturing, engineering, electronics and measurements in particular so this is my true perspective in a nutshell. Resource exploitation and contour busting were never my cup of tea but both were oh so close most of the time. I also wanted to be an operator or a driver so there is no room for tales beyond the crib game.
Gavin, just wanted to point out that a Tsunami was as likely as a sea rise that would endanger any house within 100 years other than those built in erosion territory.
Seems we have a bit in common, remember finding glacial striations in the Glen Innes area on a fossiking holiday and was quite excited, and mud fossils of some large vertabra, think that was in Emerald area. I moved from a flood plain after getting flooded 🙂 and have finished up in a volcano caldera, with fossilized coral only ten k’s away. And just to stir you , I enjoy ‘water’ divining. Not just water, but disturbed earth from over a century ago, old dry pipes, cables , water pipes all confirmed by drilling or backhoe. Can teach most people, but there are mind sets —-.