THERE is only one global accord that specifies curbs in greenhouse gas emissions, The Kyoto Protocol. It’s named after a town in Japan and it was the culmination of a process launched with the Rio Summit in 1992.
The Kyoto Protocol was used to lambaste John Howard for not ratifying it when he was Australian Prime Minister and ratifying Kyoto made something of a hero of Prime Minister Kevin Rudd.
Now it appears Canada is on the verge of announcing its formal withdraw from Kyoto. This is a big symbolic deal. Canada would be the first country to abandon the agreement after ratifying it.
Under the agreement Canada agreed to reduce greenhouse emissions to 6 per cent below 1990 levels by 2012. Canada cannot meet this commitment with emissions having continued to rise. By officially withdrawing from Kyoto Canada can apparently avoid paying the associated penalty for failing in its quest.
Not surprisingly various activists including the head of the international climate strategy for WWF, Tasneem Essop, are crying foul. Canada may be lambasted, but they will be setting a good example, an example Australia should follow.
And the UN climate conference opened yesterday in Durban. When are they going to start doing these things by Skype?
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Interestingly I posted a comment about the nightmare this treaty has created for Australian farmers and the land that has been wasted because of it at the last post re bushfires.
If you want to google Kyoto Protocol, native vegetation you can find out more.
This treaty is over prescriptive and it has caused the Australian Govt (both sides) to systematically sell out productive capacity in order to create ‘carbon sinks’.
Some of the damage (as very ironically Luke has pointed out) is probably irreversable.
Well posted, Jen.
kyoto is dead.
きょとおわ であづ ルクワ ヂクヘヅ
OK Geoff, but what does this mean?
きょとおわ であづ ルクワ ヂクヘヅ = “There came on Yotoowa Dzu Rukuwadjikuhedzu”
Or did you just like the looks of it?
From Bret Stephens in the Wall Street Journal.
‘The U.S., Russia, Japan, Canada and the EU have all but confirmed they won’t be signing on to a new Kyoto. The Chinese and Indians won’t make a move unless the West does. The notion that rich (or formerly rich) countries are going to ship $100 billion every year to the Micronesias of the world is risible, especially after they’ve spent it all on Greece.’
What is Julia going to do?
Wonderful leadership shown by Canada. let’s hope they dump this rubbish pronto then perhaps the other squibs might join in.
Meanwhile our stupid climate commissioners are a total disgrace and embarrassment to OZ just look at the loons make fools of themselves.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/climate_commissioner_humans_just_stuff_up_environments/#commentsmore
A conundrum if our incompetocracy thinks other countries will take notice of us with our carbon tax then why aren’t we following what the Canadians are doing.
“There came on Yotoowa Dzu Rukuwadjikuhedzu”
Makes sense to me; Yotoowa is the great slayer of stupid, destructive ideas. Go Yotoowa, slay that most stupid of ideas, AGW!
Neville,
Who is that vacant woman ? I didn’t even know we had two CC’s.
How much are we paying her ?
How have we pretty much stuffed the South ?
Surely these clowns can somehow be called to account and asked to justify such comments, as can the people who appointed them.
Ian don’t forget Will Steffen is a CC as well. He famously told Bolt in a radio interview that China’s co2 emissions were not soaring and they were the great green hope for our future.
The Greens tell the same lie ad nauseum of course, plus all the other delusional loonies.
China has increased emissions from 2.8 giga tonnes to 7.7 giga tonnes from 2000 to 2009, or just 10 years. Thats an increase of 4.9 Gtonnes while the developed world has virtually flatlined over that same period. These people are either liars or barking mad, or both.
http://www.eia.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/iedindex3.cfm?tid=90&pid=44&aid=8&cid=CH,&syid=1990&eyid=2009&unit=MMTCD
Good morning Jennifer. You intrigue me – what were your thoughts in choosing this particular issue to post amongst a suite of other recent climate change developments? Are you hoping for the failure of the protocol and international agreement – the protocol goes beyond just responding to climate change and has an important role to play in international relations beyond the normal ‘economic’ or military. Will you be celebrating the demise of the protocol and in some way feel satisfied that you played some part in its demise through provoking anti-protocol sentiment in the www community? I reiterate, your really do intrigue me.
Neville
For what it’s worth my view tends towards the ‘barking mad’ end of the spectrum. They have moved to the point where they honestly and sincerely believe their own lies.
Marc, i am sure you know this already but if there is no kyoto 2 then our carbon tax becomes a blatant bit of self flagelation, not even our government could be stupid enough to think that acting alone will accomplish anything? could they?
The reality is our government will be bringing in a policy when everybody else is running away from action. We sure aint the smart country whilst we are run by idiots like ours.
Nearly everything that gets spoken about AGW is twisted and turned in to some kind of spin.
That said there are a number of things that could be posted that are even more damning to AGW and its prophets of doom and you are right…why arent they up?
‘Will you be celebrating the demise of the protocol and in some way feel satisfied that you played some part in its demise through provoking anti-protocol sentiment in the www community?’
Don’t know what everyone else thinks, but I’ll be popping the bubbly.
Hell Toby how could you not believe that reducing CO2 emissions by 3 PPB by 2020 will have a dramatic effect on our climate? I suppose as such a heretic you do not believe in fairies and flyng pigs either!
Toby – “Nearly everything that gets spoken about AGW is twisted and turned in to some kind of spin.”
and sceptics should be totally ashamed at the level of ongoing skullduggery, pseudo-science and disinformation
But the absolute worst is getting any climate change celeb anywhere near a microphone – they can’t be across the whole subject well enough and inevitably in a corralled debate where someone like Bolt or Jones does the asking they’ll get pinned on a stupid point – you can never get any science across. And any ill considered quip will be quoted forever more as if it’s actually some statement of physics.
Meanwhile the real world physics doesn’t give a rats what we all think of do… a warming Southern Ocean – some real science
http://www.acecrc.org.au/access/repository/resource/4f15b7ba-6abc-102f-a3d0-40404adc5e91/ACE_OCEANS_POSITION_ANALYSIS_LOW_RES.pdf
Here’s a sceptic with a good idea, Roy Spencer wants to give weight to an alternative view.
‘After all, scientists will go where the money is. If scientists are funded to find evidence of natural sources of climate change, believe me, they will find it.
‘If you build such a playing field, they will come.’
Geeezz Luke real intelligent stuff from you as per usual. So these people are dummies according to you but of course we pay them big bucks to be C coms and their job is to hold meetings and EXPLAIN all the details of AGW, plus the co2 tax.
But of course they don’t seem to understand simple maths and can’t keep up to the sceptics better arguments/understanding of the science and the same simple maths.
Marc the mitigation of AGW is an easily understood con and fraud, the entire developed world could go and live in caves and co2 emissions would still continue to rise because of soaring emissions from the developing world.
Jennifer is spot on persuing this con/fraud and it should be the number one priority for all sane people to expose this idiotic , delusional nonsense before any leader is stupid enough to sign up to a new protocol.
Thanks cohenite,
easy if you know these things! (or are pulling?)
‘At short notice, a multi-disciplinary team of Australian scientists, led by ACE Oceans Program Leader Dr Steve Rintoul, organised a voyage to investigate the impacts of this unique event. This voyage to the Mertz region was undertaken in the summer of 2010/11 on the ice-breaker Aurora Australis…’
A junket to discover that the water is fresher than normal.
Comrade Luke, the Colaition is going to dismantle the Klimatariat and I suspect this sort of nonsense will come to an end.
el gordo – and thefore you believe that cigarettes are not bad for your health?
I am sure if you think about it, it wouldn’t take to much, you and your loved ones have benefited from scientific research and discovery.
Gee whiz Marc,
How far off track can you possibly get?
WTF does smoking have to do with it?
Of course we have all benefited from scientific research and discovery.
What a completely stupid insinuation and comparison you are advancing here.
That is not and has never been the argument.
Pay attention for goodness sake.
I can assure you that I and my loved ones are definitely not benefitting from the fact that this particular branch of scientific research and discovery has been shamelessly hijacked by politics.
As each day passes it has less and less to do with genuine science and research and more and more to do with politics, economics and government funding.
Dear Debbie. Not wishing to convey an insult, however your retort would appear to reflect your IQ – underpinned by your use of WTF.
To qualify – the reference to cigarettes was in relation to the ‘scientists’ that have been ‘bought’ by big business to deny that smoking is bad for your health. There are comparable examples wherever big business and big money is involved.
On balance – big money resides with keeping the status quo and therefore some scientists and scientific research produces results that reflect the ideals of exponential profit growth, greed and continued use of ‘cheap’ fossil fuels, alas rejecting the case for anthropocentric induced climate change.
Well Marc what about it being an easily understood con and fraud?
But please keep the smokes and other bad habite out of it. Here’s a tip just use simple maths like above and disprove that the mitigation of AGw isn’t a total fraud.
Please Marc don’t bring any new delusional idiocy into your arguments.
But perhaps first you’d better explain what “anthropocentric induced CC means.”
Gee Debbie you’re really up against the brain of OZ. Marc you must definitely be a green voter, I can see that now.
Do wank on El Gordo – the Kook-a-lition aren’t going to do diddly squat. And that would be the Spencer who couldn’t analyse his own satellite data ?
Good afternoon Neville. I don’t personally have the evidence to prove that AGW is not a fraud, just like you and others don’t have the personal evidence to prove that it is.
As we are neither generating the information or the source of it, we all rely on incoming information from a multitude of sources and should ideally, objectively analyse it to come to a conclusion, but still remain open to new evidence and insight.
Personally, I have not seen or heard anything to date that, on balance, supports AGW being a fraud.
Luke, the science is irrelevant without a global plan to cut co2 anything we do here is self flagelation. There is crap and spin on all sides of this debate that is for sure.
Marc asked why this post re kyoto. It should be self evident that there will be no kyoto mark 2 and hence our governments decision to impose a carbon tax is beyond stupid.
Luke ive seen the “science” on southern oceans but i am well past believing anything any scientist tells me which is a very very sad state of affairs….why isnt it impacting on sea ice levels then? why is sea level rising at a decreasing rate if all of this additional warmth should be expanding the ocean and causing additional rises?
Climategate 2 which you dismiss out of hand, paints a picture yet again of scientists manipulating and obfuscating issues. It shows them admitting to serious doubts and yet demanding that anybody who voices these doubts be shut down because the “debate is over”.
You dont need to be a scientist to recognise CAGW is riddled with self interest and poor politics. So if alarm bells dont go off any time you hear anything associated with climate change then your bullshit meter aint working.
Ive been saying to you for many years, without new technology we are playing at platitudes that bring with it huge costs and lower living standards.
The only thing keeping climate change on the agenda is desperate politicians and scientists who rely on the gravy train of govt funds. In case you havent noticed the world has real issues to contend with and at last people seme to be focusing on it……
More idiocy from Flannery and his promoters in the MSM.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/flannerys_scare_backfires_we_could_actually_be_healthier/
Marc I believe that AGW should increase temps by 1c, just like Spencer ,Lindzen, Carter etc but probably no more.
So I believe in AGW to that degree, but I’m sure it’s not worth worrying about any further.
But I definitely don’t believe in the MITIGATION of AGW because of the simple maths above.
Because of the simple maths above trying to mitigate/fix AGW will DEFINITELY be a complete waste of time and money. Unfortunately we have wasted billions on this fraud and all we see is soaring co2 emissions and this will always be the case because of the developoing world emissions.
Jeepers Tony – have a little thinky poos – expanding sea ice, warming Southern Ocean, increasing glacial discharge. About what you’d expect !
I assume Tony that your logic would be if told of a fatal illness with no cure that the science is therefore wrong and furthermore your doctor is ugly and has made some rude emails too.
I assume you are responding to me Luke…
its you who has no logic?!
if the oceans are warming you would expect thermal expansion ( we are told)…and hence a rate of acceleration in sea levels well above the historical averages….you point to increasing glacial discharge which should also be accelerating the change in sea levels….and yet….the evidence is pointing to a decelerating rate of sea level!!
excuse me for asking but how do you link a warming southern ocean with more sea ice? my ice melts in my drinks!…or does that melting ice runoff suddenly hit the possibly slightly warmer ocean and decide to freeze!!?
If i was told i had a fatal disease i would seek more opinions and look for a variety of solutions that would include ( but certainly not exclude) looking outside western medicine. I would also consider the likelhood of statistical error and seek further testing
As usual you either ignore or simply cant understand the incredibly valid and relevant points made and obfuscate and create straw men.
Lukey, this little question may just possibly make you think a teeny weeny bit before you discard it as irrelevant despite it being quite the contrary.
“The probability that a woman of age 40 has breast cancer is about 1%. if she has breast cancer, the probability that she tests positive on a screening mammogram is 90%. If she does not have breast cancer, the probability that she neverless tests positive is 9%. Wwhat are the chances that a woman who tests positive actually has breats cancer?”………. many people would say roughly 90%.
if i rephrase this to
” think of 100 women. one has breast cancer and she will probably test positive. of the 99 who do not have breast cancer, 9 will also test positive. thus a total of 10 women will test positive. how many of those 10 actually have breast cancer?….now its easy to see 1 in 10 who test positive actually have cancer which is 10% chance of actually having it if you screen positive.
so i would certainly seek alternative testing if i was diagnosed with a fatal disease. Wheras perhaps you would just go and waste all your money living it up for the little time you had left, only to hopefully discover you lived to 100 but no longer had the money to live it well!
“reckoning with risk” by Gerd Gigerenzer penguin books is a very good read and spells out how innumeracy and a lack of understanding of risk is systemic among everybody, including the very bright…like our scientists…….
el gordo – and therefore you believe that cigarettes are not bad for your health?’
No.
‘And that would be the Spencer who couldn’t analyse his own satellite data ?’
We have been through this before. Spencer is a scientist and accepted the critique in good faith. He got something wrong and admitted his mistake.
First day of summer today and had to get my woollies out.
And that’s in Queensland!
So luke, warming in the antarctic oceans = more sea ice. Warming in the arctic oceans = less sea ice.
I rekon Rintoul is a good mate for Steig.
Marc,
Not wishing to be insulting but I have to say that insinuating that Jen is subject to some conspiracy and that big business conspires to corrupt science…. and then…..you get all huffy when it’s pointed out that AGW science is doing much the same thing…..is rather funny.
I do believe in genuine science and research….I’m just not seeing a great deal lately.
Jeez Tony – . Sea level decelerating – err nope !
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/07/22/how-not-to-analyze-tide-gauge-data/
Antarctic size ain’t your cup of tea with ice cubes is it?
Author(s): Zhang JL
Source: JOURNAL OF CLIMATE Volume: 20 Issue: 11 Pages: 2515-2529 Published: JUN 1 2007
Abstract:
Estimates of sea ice extent based on satellite observations show an increasing Antarctic sea ice cover from 1979 to 2004 even though in situ observations show a prevailing warming trend in both the atmosphere and the ocean. This riddle is explored here using a global multicategory thickness and enthalpy distribution sea ice model coupled to an ocean model. Forced by the NCEP-NCAR reanalysis data, the model simulates an increase of 0.20 x 10(12) m(3) yr(-1) (1.0% yr(-1)) in total Antarctic sea ice volume and 0.084 x 10(12) m(2) yr(-1) (0.6% yr(-1)) in sea ice extent from 1979 to 2004 when the satellite observations show an increase of 0.027 x 10(12) m(2) yr(-1) (0.2% yr(-1)) in sea ice extent during the same period. The model shows that an increase in surface air temperature and downward longwave radiation results in an increase in the upper-ocean temperature and a decrease in sea ice growth, leading to a decrease in salt rejection from ice, in the upper-ocean salinity, and in the upper-ocean density. The reduced salt rejection and upper-ocean density and the enhanced thermohaline stratification tend to suppress convective overturning, leading to a decrease in the upward ocean heat transport and the ocean heat flux available to melt sea ice. The ice melting from ocean heat flux decreases faster than the ice growth does in the weakly stratified Southern Ocean, leading to an increase in the net ice production and hence an increase in ice mass. This mechanism is the main reason why the Antarctic sea ice has increased in spite of warming conditions both above and below during the period 1979-2004 and the extended period 1948-2004
And Tony it is you that is obfuscating – the point of the fatal disease is that it is logical to AUTOMATICALLY assume that medical science is wrong if you are greeted with bad news.
It is illogical to suggest that if AGW is a grand challenge problem that AUTOMATICALLY the science is wrong as there may be no easy political, technological or economic solution.
Science doesn’t care if we find times hard going.
Yes the science (or the doctor) may be wrong. But your logic of any serious science problem MUST have a solution is actually quite silly. Surely that is apparent.
Anyway did you actually try to read the latest above from the Antarctic CRC – I thought it rather interesting and quite nuanced. Surely more interesting than ranting on?
You guys need to check this out. Global warmists are warning of …. CO2-driven cooling! And it is affecting satellites in orbit!
http://www.livescience.com/11350-top-10-surprising-results-global-warming.html
Oh, no, woe R us!
Hey Tony, Tony, I hope you’re listening!
I don’t mind the brain washed morons like luke believing in Rintoul’s model that claims results even the hockey team would baulk at making but please spare us the authority of extrapolating dire predictions from it without a huge slice of scepticism.
Very interesting column from Bob Tisdale on sea levels, from the latest data and all the graphs as usual.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/18/tisdale-on-2011-sea-level-changes/
And is this why the brainwashed/convinced like gav and luke are so certain of SLR?
When you find yourself in this company so often, you have to go looking for reasons:
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/sydney-nsw/climate-change-science-being-stifled-by-nsw-labor-bureaucrats/story-e6freuzi-1226211748047
Neville,
The details on SLs from Envisat, the largest earth observation satellite ever built, are interesting too.
http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/screenhunter_01-jun-19-08-51.gif
ooooo – oooooo – the graph had a widdle wiggle – oh pullease !
But look the last value is trending up – hahahahahahaha
And what’s the comment about Rintouls’ model. You see Spanglers – that sort of ill considered comment means you haven’t read anything and are simply a denialist zombie.
Luke, are you talking to me? my name in case you hadnt noticed is Toby, not tony. I have no problems with the occassional mistake but am getting to the point where im thinking you are just being rude?
Are you capable of reading what other people say when it doesnt fit your paradigm?!
As usual we will walk away disagreeing and in a year or 2 you will as usual find the sceptics are right and you were wrong.
Mate when will you grasp the reality that scientists who manipulate, distort and cherry pick dont deserve respect?
We know the IPCC is corrupt
We know from the hacked emails ( more like honorablewhistleblower..assange is a hero, this bloke despised by so many……) that the science is not settled, many doubts remain and basically all of teh CAGW predictions have been found to be false.
Precisely what is it that makes climate science a science not a pseudo science?
usually theories get thrown out when contradictory evidence arises. BUT NOT WITH CAGW. No hot spot alone should have been the end of this theory, the fact more heat is being radiated into space than thought shows just how flawed the models are on which the whole theory relies
Everything about this issue reaks. I certainly never said the science is automatically wrong because of the diagnosis! can you read??…..you said “I assume Tony that your logic would be if told of a fatal illness with no cure that the science is therefore wrong and furthermore your doctor is ugly and has made some rude emails too.”
my reply was to prove to you the first thing to do is to seek more opinions because most people do not understand statistics…its you as usual ranting and being unable to comrehend an argument
BUT if the science is right why rely on fraud like the hockey stick?
why keep bleating the science is settled, the debate is over…when those same scientists express significant doubt in private emails?!
Your abstract above…could be valid science, could just be a way to fit the real world into the prism of global warming. Seek and you shall find. confirmation bias etc.
I dont trust them simple as that. and that is sad but they have brought it on themselves.
Luke, are you talking to me? my name in case you hadnt noticed is Toby, not tony. I have no problems with the occassional mistake but am getting to the point where im thinking you are just being rude?
Are you capable of reading what other people say when it doesnt fit your paradigm?!
As usual we will walk away disagreeing and in a year or 2 you will as usual find the sceptics are right and you were wrong.
Mate when will you grasp the reality that scientists who manipulate, distort and cherry pick dont deserve respect?
We know the IPCC is corrupt
We know from the hacked emails ( more like honorablewhistleblower..assange is a hero, this bloke despised by so many……) that the science is not settled, many doubts remain and basically all of teh CAGW predictions have been found to be false.
Precisely what is it that makes climate science a science not a pseudo science?
usually theories get thrown out when contradictory evidence arises. BUT NOT WITH CAGW. No hot spot alone should have been the end of this theory, the fact more heat is being radiated into space than thought shows just how flawed the models are on which the whole theory relies
Everything about this issue reaks. I certainly never said the science is automatically wrong because of the diagnosis! can you read??…..you said “I assume Tony that your logic would be if told of a fatal illness with no cure that the science is therefore wrong and furthermore your doctor is ugly and has made some rude emails too.”
my reply was to prove to you the first thing to do is to seek more opinions because most people do not understand statistics…its you as usual ranting and being unable to comrehend an argument
BUT if the science is right why rely on fraud like the hockey stick?
why keep bleating the science is settled, the debate is over…when those same scientists express significant doubt in private emails?!
Your abstract above…could be valid science, could just be a way to fit the real world into the prism of global warming. Seek and you shall find. confirmation bias etc.
I dont trust them simple as that. and that is sad but they have brought it on themselves.
Did you even look at the Envisat data?
The interesting flatlining is in contrast to all the other data which only shows ever upwards.
As the real scientists say, satellite measurement of SLR is very suspect but when they don’t agree it is even more so.
And the same goes for this twaddle with bells on:
“This riddle is explored here using a global multicategory thickness and enthalpy distribution sea ice model coupled to an ocean model.”
When the models are so wrong, what do you think of the chance of coupled models being any better? What’s 10 : 1 times 10 : 1? Better or worse?
At least he has the honesty to admit it is a riddle, something unknown, and that he explores it but doesn’t solve it.
Toby,
He had a big nite, last nite.
Apologies on name typo
“Mate when will you grasp the reality that scientists who manipulate, distort and cherry pick dont deserve respect?”
You mean like most sceptic publications ? fair dinkum matey. Are you that silly. McLean et al, Archibald E&E, Lindzen and it goes on ….
You might get second opinions on your “disease” Toby – but I don’t recommend witchdoctors (see sceptics)
“We know the IPCC is corrupt” – well no you don’t – septic think tanks are what are corrupt.
In fact CAGW is simply sceptic meme speak.
Spanglers -“The interesting flatlining is in contrast to all the other data which only shows ever upwards.” well a duh – raw data versus a trend analysis – real sea level data has all manner of interannual and decadal wiggles. Pathetic Spanglers – leave it to the experts hey?
Poor Spanglers when confronted with some serious physics – “it’s all twaddle”. Well that’s coz you don’t know shit about ocean dynamics do you? What knuckle dragging.
SD, inconvenient science must be wrong and usually created by someone with “big oil” behind them. Your graph supporting so many of our comments about a decreasing rate of sea rise therefore must be wrong…….as much as I appreciated seeing it yet again.
“Doug Lord helped prepare six scientific papers which examined 120 years of tidal data from a gauge at Fort Denison in Sydney Harbour.
The tide data revealed sea levels were rising at a rate of about 1mm a year or less – and the rise was not accelerating but was constant.
“The tidal data we found would mean sea levels would rise by about 100mm by the end of the century,” Mr Lord said yesterday.
“However the (federal) government benchmark which drives their climate change policy is that sea levels are expected to rise by 900mm by the end of the century and the rate of rise is accelerating.”
Mr Lord, who has 35 years experience in coastal engineering, said senior bureaucrats within the then Department of Environment Climate Change and Water had rejected or stopped publication of five papers between late 2009 and September this year.”
from http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/sydney-nsw/climate-change-science-being-stifled-by-nsw-labor-bureaucrats/story-e6freuzi-1226211748047
no bastion of truth a newspaper of course, but how convenient that today appars an article verifying my statements (and others) and showing just how flimsy the theory of CAGW is….now it could be confirmation bias, but i have seen too much evidence to start believing the oceans are warming ( why no thermal expansion accelerating teh rate of rise?!). why isnt all that additional glacial melt also accelerating the rise in sea level?
simple cos its pretty likely what we are told is happening is being massivley exagerated.
And the Australian also supports what i was telling luke yday..Australia sticks neck out as global climate shifts .
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/australia-sticks-neck-out-as-global-climate-shifts/story-e6frg75f-1226211704953
the world has woken up to the con that is CAGW, it is refreshing to see that eventually common sense does sink in, shame we have moved the other way in this country.
If the scientists had no lied, manipulated, distorted and been so dogmatic and overly confident, perhaps sceptics couldnt have demolished their argument so easily……
“Well that’s coz you don’t know shit about ocean dynamics do you? What knuckle dragging.”
Having won the odd international yacht race where calculating ocean current speeds before the days of sat nav was absolutely essential and done on sea temperatures alone, I did learn a bit about ocean dynamics.
How about you?
Certainly enough to know that trying to measure sea level changes on this pear shaped, flat spotted geoid by means of an orbiting satellite has to require a lot of assumptions and when you get one group of satellites all run by NASA telling you one thing and a separate one run by a different party telling you something else, it proves my point.
“We must learn to take the environmentalists’ predictions with a huge pinch of salt. In 2005, the United Nations Environment Programme predicted that climate change would create 50 million climate refugees by 2010. That was last year: where are those refugees? And where are those sea level rises? The true facts are found by observing and measuring nature itself, not in the IPCC’s computer-generated projections. There are many urgent natural problems to consider on Planet Earth — tsunamis, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions not least among them. But the threat of rising sea levels is an artificial crisis.”
I know you dont like this bloke, but you cant dispute he is a real expert on sea level…..
http://www.spectator.co.uk/essays/all/7438683/rising-credulity.thtml
he is convinced the sea level isnt rising.
“In 2003 the satellite altimetry record was mysteriously tilted upwards to imply a sudden sea level rise rate of 2.3mm per year. When I criticised this dishonest adjustment at a global warming conference in Moscow, a British member of the IPCC delegation admitted in public the reason for this new calibration: ‘We had to do so, otherwise there would be no trend.”
“As with the Hockey Stick, there is little real-world data to support the upward tilt. It seems that the 2.3mm rise rate has been based on just one tide gauge in Hong Kong (whose record is contradicted by four other nearby tide gauges). Why does it show such a rise? Because like many of the 159 tide gauge stations used by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, it is sited on an unstable harbour construction or landing pier prone to uplift or subsidence. When you exclude these unreliable stations, the 68 remaining ones give a present rate of sea level rise in the order of 1mm a year.”
yes this article suits my confirmation bias but if you believe the sea level rise is accelerating I think you are suffering a great delusion.
I am amazed that anybody could be anything but sceptical
Here’s a perfect example of cooking the books on Sea Level Rise:
http://www.euro-argo.eu/content/download/21586/311615/file/Cazenave_et_al_2008.pdf
Here is a paper by Cazenave et al (2008), that uses the GRACE satellite measurements of the earth’s gravity, 2003-2008.
Look at fig 1. The raw data shows no trend, but the “GIA adjusted” data shows a trend of 2mm per year.
Now look at the corresponding text:
“The raw GRACE-based ocean mass time series is dominated by an annual cycle caused by the annual exchange of water between land and oceans (Cazenave et al., 2000). As we are interested here in the interannual fluctuations, we remove the annual cycle. The resulting time series, shown in Fig.1, has a slightly negative slope of∼−0.12+/−0.06mm/yr over the time span January 2003–December 2007 (we consider this time span – called 2003–2008 – to work with an integer number of years). However, a GIA correction has to be applied to this raw ocean mass time series….This linear correction is quite large and available from GIA modelling only.”
h/t to Paul at Bishop hill.
That raw GRACE data is what we are observing. A slight downward trend but there’s no money in that.
But GIA modelling soon fix that.
Isn’t there a law to put people who rob the public in gaol?
“Isn’t there a law to put people who rob the public in gaol?”
SD; there certainly should be and anybody found manipulating data ( Morner included) and making statements they know to be false should get prosecuted.
I suspect we wouldnt hear much from the likes of flannery ever again……
Yes Toby, if only those climategate enquiries hadn’t been whitewashes and the green NGOs were held accountable, Europe & Co wouldn’t be in half the financial trouble it now is.
It’s gonna be interesting to see how far into poverty people will let themselves be pushed.
Imagine the huge number of redundant idiots like luke when the EMU collapses….
“anybody found manipulating data” should be prosecuted – are you some sort of anti-science clown Toby?
Luke,
You are making yourself even dumber than usual on this.
Workers int he area much much more accomplished than your whole hive mind put together regarding slr raise important points, and your response is the equivalent of a sour fart of dismissal.
If was a bureaucrat wanting to survive the fubar AGW is causing and the obvious to anyone actually paying attention implosion of AGW supporting politics, I would at least be studying where AGW and reality might have parted paths and set some ground work to offer ways back to reality when the political blowback hits.
But keep on braying away. Maybe its all you got.
Obviously Luke, Toby is referring to that class of data manipulation that is fraudulent..so rather than being anti science, he is being critical of the antics of your mates in GW shonkademia…who have done more by themselves to demean the image of science over all, than any one on the blogosphere.
The Climategate 2 emails and the review on WUWT reveasl just what are an absolute disgrace the GW scientific community are.
Moreover what an absolute time wasting disgrace the climate sceptic community are. Contribution to science = 0.0 WUWT is simply a source of disinformation for rightist frothers.
You are priceless in your desperation to support the real clowns Luke arent you!?
“anybody found manipulating data” should be prosecuted – are you some sort of anti-science clown Toby?”………manipulating data to achieve a pre-conceieved objective is not something i consider to be science…but in the world of political climate science anything that achieves the preconceived objective is honorable and moral…… GET REAL YOU CLOWN!
“Moreover what an absolute time wasting disgrace the climate sceptic community are”
As opposed to climate scientists who are so honorable…….you CLOWN!
MOT; The really sad thing about all this crap science is i am now sceptical about all science.. How people like Luke can stand up to defend the clearly indefensible is a sad reflection on human development.
Roy Spencer puts it succinctly
“The Climategate 2.0 e-mails show how entrenched this bias has become among the handful of scientists who have been the most willing participants and supporters of The Cause… I believe that most of the hundreds of scientists supporting the IPCC’s efforts are just playing along, assured of continued funding…
I am up front about my biases: I think market forces will take care of the fact that “fossil” fuels are (probably) a limited resource… I also think currently proposed energy policies will cause widespread death and suffering. The IPCC not only destroys scientific objectivity and scientific progress, it also destroys lives.
Therefore, I view it as my moral duty to support the “forgotten science” of natural climate change, a class of alternative hypotheses that have all but been ignored by the IPCC and government funding agencies.”
Not much to disagree with there and precisely why Luke is wrong in saying sceptics are a time wasting disgrace…
And that second paragraph says it all. The Crap that is CAGW is lowering living standards and causing far more harm than any minor change in temperatures….something ive been telling you luke for 7-8 years!?
How did that 287 b spent in europe go in helping people??>>>>>> oh thats right , all that wasted money has helped to impoverish many european countries, massivley raising unemployment and pushing the world to the brink of global recession/ depression. Sure its not just the wasted money on CAGW, but all that extra cost of power and money thrown at non productive ideas , all that wasted human endeavour funnelling limited resources at an unsolvable problem ( without new technology), when some real good have been done.
INSANITY
What you said is what you said Toby and you meant it – you’re an anti-science antediluvian clown who likes to sprout terms like fraud against a large number of hard working scientists you don’t know. And you’re second guessing that their motives are less than honorable. Shame on you.
It’s become a lynch mob mentality out there – like the regular letters that your fellow travellers like to pen ” you’ll be all right mate but your f…ing c… wife and f…ing c…. kids won’t be. We’re warning you.”
What filth.
Pre-conceived is anything with a tangible known objective of removing bias with any electronic sensor. Of course adjustments are pre-conceived – you would like adjustments for no preconception. Something you would know NOTHING about – try for example googling bi-directional reflectance (BRDF) as a major issue with all remotely sensed data.
Spencer quite frankly wouldn’t know having been dragged kicking and screaming into adjusting his satellite data for platform drift – i.e. remote sensing 101 !
“It’s become a lynch mob mentality out there – like the regular letters that your fellow travellers like to pen ” you’ll be all right mate but your f…ing c… wife and f…ing c…. kids won’t be. We’re warning you.”
Yeah right, i see that kind of thing all the time on this blog and other sceptical sites and I NEVER EVER SEE ANYTHING LIKE THAT WRITTEN BY THOSE RELIGOUS ZEALOTS WHO BELIEVE SO VEHEMENTLY IN CAGW….GEE LITTLE LUKEY YOU ARE GETTING SHRILL
Mate you are the joke
“you’re an anti-science antediluvian clown who likes to sprout terms like fraud against a large number of hard working scientists you don’t know. And you’re second guessing that their motives are less than honorable. Shame on you.”
the shame is on you and your ilk who keep supporting so dogmatically this “catastrophic theory” in the face of overwhelming reason for scepticsm.
simply by dismissing out of hand all those hacked emails makes your opinion worthless. The fact your filter system allows you to support the science so blindly in the face of such blatant actions demonstrates your own lack of common sense.
I deliberatly dont get involved here very often because i am sick of basically going over the same old crap, with you remaining as ignorant as ever.
It seems to be nothing that i started saying here to you 8 years ago has changed. My case is stronger , yours much weaker….based on the temperature, sea level, hot spot, ocean temp, crap model projections, WORLD WALKING AWAY FROM ACTION etc etc etc ….
end of debate
“Spencer quite frankly wouldn’t know having been dragged kicking and screaming into adjusting his satellite data for platform drift – i.e. remote sensing 101 !”
However you like to exaggerate this Luke, at least he fixed it.
How does that stack up with your hockey team mates who have just dug their toes in for years and refused to provide any co-operation, data, emails or acknowledge their team massaged junk science.
They’re digging themselves in so deep that at least when it eventually blows over and they die of shame and ill-fame, they won’t need a burial.
‘What filth.’
I agree comrade and Jen will snip you.
Toby – CAGW is a sceptic meme. Meanwhile Toby the AGW results keep piling up and sceptics are like dogs returning to their vomit. Your filter system only absorbs what denialist central serves you up for brekky. You’re told what to think.
end of debate
Spanglers – crap – it’s fundamental stuff. Incompetence.
So we know mann and his hockey stick is fraud, we know he and his cronies express doubt amongst themselves but in public “the science is settled”, we know the likes of hansen lack objectivity and admit to exagerating their case, we know climate scientists have been caught exagerating, we know that it is likely that humans have had some influence on recent warming but we also know that the way the planet has acted for the last decade is showing co2 is just not that important.
What we know is that the C in CAGW is most likely rubbish, but on the basis of this rubbish many are calling for a radical change in the way we run our economies …ie fossil fuels based. We know basically everything that has been done so far has just been a waste of money.
all things i ( and others here) have been telling you for a long long time.
so what if temp rises 1 c for a doubling of co2? without your C you got nothing.
Your inability to digest this and instead suggest that it is the sceptics who have lost the plot is remarkable indeed.
The only rubbish being peddled is the fallacy of fossil fuel, and the extrapolation of AGW from this fallacy.
Amazing stuff from Luke, the EU have just blown 270 billion on this fraudulent hoax of AGW mitigation and he castigates us for pointing out the obvious stupidity of such action.
Trouble is our AGW mitigation per capita is much larger and will have a guaranteed zero result as well.
This isn’t supposition or an opinion but cold hard reality and fact. Simple maths proves this to be true, but Luke evidently is just clueless and dumb or just couldn’t give a stuff.
Adaptation is the only way to fix problems caused by droughts, floods, fires etc and anything else is a spectacular waste of time and money.
Adaptation is the future, just like in the past, but a lot more sophisticated. Clever humans have been reducing the loss of life from natural disasters and will continue to do so, even as the population of earth multiplies.
EG,
Lots of cheap energy needed for adaptation.
New paper in GRL suggesting a Maunder type minimum:
Key Points
■Can we predict the onset of the next grand solar minimum
■Grand minima can be predicted using some solar indices
■The design and operation of systems influenced by space climate can be optimised
Abstract:
The recent low and prolonged minimum of the solar cycle, along with the slow growth in activity of the new cycle, has led to suggestions that the Sun is entering a Grand Solar Minimum (GSMi), potentially as deep as the Maunder Minimum (MM). This raises questions about the persistence and predictability of solar activity. We study the autocorrelation functions and predictability R2L(t) of solar indices, particularly group sunspot number RG and heliospheric modulation potential Φ for which we have data during the descent into the MM. For RG and Φ, R2L(t) > 0.5 for times into the future of t ≈ 4 and ≈ 3 solar cycles, respectively: sufficient to allow prediction of a GSMi onset. The lower predictability of sunspot number RZ is discussed. The current declines in peak and mean RG are the largest since the onset of the MM and exceed those around 1800 which failed to initiate a GSMi.
More on the fraudulent SLR at Sydney, this hoax just adds to the corruption that infests the CAGW industry.
Just another case of corrupt govt departments removing a decent person from his job for presenting the facts . You can indeed lose your job just for doing your job.
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/other-nations-including-big-greenhouse-gas-emitters-have-no-intention-of-following-our-kamikaze-carbon-tax-lead/story-e6frezz0-1226213060148
I should have added to the above that this bloke isn’t even a sceptic, but importantly still refused to lie and cook the books. Good for him, certainly a genuine hero for sure.
“Your filter system only absorbs what denialist central serves you up for brekky. You’re told what to think.”
says the L plate nutter
Thats also a bit rich coming from him, suggesting that its sceptics that are being told what to think when the documented record of the alarmists is exactly that …they are trying to tell the public what to think, based upon fraudulent constructs and misinformation … and all mouthed by mindless toadies like this L boy
Well face it Minister for Disinformation – all the lads do here is swallow the latest crap from Wattsie and rightist blogs in the most indiscriminate manner. You name you’re on it…. fabricating away, conspiring in your own little minds, having a good wank, and frothing away in disease ridden non-stop ranting. You all need medicating for rabies.
You see CAGW does actually cause earthquakes – so many wanker sceptics – that occassionally you all get into sync and set up up a global harmonic wave.
And remember CAGW is a sceptic meme. All part of the disinformation campaign.
Meanwhile back at the science and light years away from rabid frothers
Northeast tropical Queensland rainfall is concentrated in the summer half year and
characterized by high interannual variability, partly related to El Niño–Southern
Oscillation (ENSO) events. This results in highly variable river flows affecting nearshore
coral reefs of the Great Barrier Reef, Australia…………….Since the late 19th century average rainfall and its
variability have significantly increased, with wet and dry extremes becoming more
frequent than in earlier centuries. This suggests that a warming global climate maybe
associated with more variable tropical Queensland rainfall.
Lough, J. M. (2011), Great Barrier Reef coral luminescence reveals rainfall variability over northeastern Australia
since the 17th century, Paleoceanography, 26, PA2201, doi:10.1029/2010PA002050.
I see that there is a complete absence of evidence to show an un ambiguous connection between human activity, and the production of GHG, and her conclusions…just that any warming may produce a more variable tropical rainfall.
More crap from the L Plater.
Dopes like you shoud be made to hand their degrees back… thats if they have any
…or go and find some academic bolt hole, con some more grant money and produce more crap AGW “science”..there is plenty of it.
And what about the fact that SEQ hasn’t had a cyclone for 35 years. They just stopped coming in 1976 when the “warming” just happened to start.
Is that ever a catastrophic result of ACO2 or what?
Go home and wash the sheets luke, stand in the corner for an hour and say to yourself 100 times, “I promise not to wet the bed again before I consider the possibility of natural variation…..”
You dickheads think that with just 30 years of satellite data you understand everything sufficiently well to predict the future.
What ignorant arrogance!
You do need to give it a bit of a rest Luke,
The issue is not that people hate scientists or science.
The issue is that this particular branch of science has been shamelessly hijacked by politics and some self proclaimed expert charlatans.
At our place and in our business we actually love the work that BoM does re tracking weather patterns and helping to predict weather. The science is not exact however and the genuine scientists are very happy to admit that.
We use the information as input but we have learned not to rely on it….it is too often wrong.
What completely irks me is that we are having something that we know is inexact trumped up into a ‘the science is settled’ political nightmare.
There are patterns emerging that indicate the world may be warming but it is not conclusive WHY that is happening.
The more that the political agenda tries to make it look like it is human induced or indeed that humans can control it, the more shonky it is looking.
You can only claim wiggles and wobbles and blips and extreme weather events for so long. Most thinking people only fall for PR spin for a certain amount of time. Most thinking people will judge on results and evidence, not on clever spin.
It’s not a sceptic meme Luke.
People like me are not employees who do as their boss tells them. We actually run our own independant businesses and are very much used to making up our own minds and making our own decisions. We also know that we sometimes make bad decisions.
It would be so nice if the people who have created this nightmare agenda were gracious enough to admit they also make bad decisions.
To me it appears they would rather keep spending billions on PR that says they are right and they have made perfectly acceptable decisions rather than admitting that they are just as fallible as anyone else….and it is very likely that their theories are not conclusive.
The fact that they won’t do that further proves this is political and it has left genuine science and genuine research far, far behind.
Debbie it is pointless trying to have a sensible discussion wilth Luke. The best thing is to ignore him. Maybe he might realize that ad hominem insulting attacks convince no one but I doubt that such a revelation is possible for him. I am content that Durban is dead and that Kyoto is dead also. If our carbon tax survives until 2020 (it won’t) Australia will have decreased the CO2 by 3 Parts Per Billion, doesn’t it make you feel all cool and fuzzy. The world has real economic problems the pretend ones like AGW will be gone before we know it.
“The issue is not that people hate scientists or science.” ah come on Debs – you need to read their “fan mail” replete with family death threats.
Spanglers bleats on about cyclones – what an utterly STUPID comment by a self-proclaimed drongo when CSIRO have been talking about fewer cyclones for years. And well known decadal variation.
additionally recent work by none other than our local PDO/IPO expert Scott Power http://www.cawcr.gov.au/staff/sbp/journal_articles/Callaghan_and_Power_CD_2010.pdf
You ought read what the research is actually saying instead of fabricating stories like a typical scummy sceptic would do.
and furthermore SREX http://ipcc-wg2.gov/SREX/images/uploads/SREX-SPM_Approved-HiRes_opt.pdf …. try reading page 11
“Average tropical cyclone maximum wind speed is likely to increase, although increases may
not occur in all ocean basins. It is likely that the global frequency of tropical cyclones will
either decrease or remain essentially unchanged. [3.4.4]
There is medium confidence that there will be a reduction in the number of extra-tropical
cyclones averaged over each hemisphere. While there is low confidence in the detailed
geographical projections of extra-tropical cyclone activity, there is medium confidence in a
projected poleward shift of extra-tropical storm tracks. There is low confidence in projections of
small spatial-scale phenomena such as tornadoes and hail because competing physical processes”
Not that some pompous pencil sketch Mike O would ever read such material.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/04/scientists-behaving-badly-part-ii/
This is the sort of people the public is dealing with in relation to the campaign for GW.
The best thing that the authorities could do is call for a Commision of Inquiry into the funding,management, ranking and evaulation of all science and its output. With penalties for scientists being members of, and advisers to any NGO that are in anyway is related to their publically funded work. etc.
…. and a Code of Ethics wouldnt go astray either, particularly if it was attached to any tax payer funded grants.
There, that will send the L Plater into an absolute frenzy….starting with his usual cricisicm of the messenger not the message
For someone who dishes out verbal abuse at every opportunity it astonishes me how poorly you handle considered criticism Luke. 2 of my peers and friends are CSIRO scientists. Much of what I have argued here has been influenced by them. They are genuine people who are just doing their job. They are equally distressed at how ‘politicized’ this has become.
Your fan mail argument is not proving anything other than people are angry and frustrated and therefore sometimes behave inappropriately.
Because I am heavily involved in the related MDB fiasco I completely understand the frustration although I do not believe the inappropriate aggressive reactions are productive.
The so called solutions are worse than the so called problem.
Full of ideological detail and almost bereft of practical detail.
Environmental and Climate Science has unfortunately been hijacked by politics.
We are being overwhelmed by empty political rhetoric and PR spin.
The genuine science and research has been lost in all the fracas.
Boring Minister for Disinformation – lets see Wattsup’s emails ! I suppose he has to do something to compensate that his life’s work on surface stations has come a gutser.
Debs – after having been in a few rooms of such nutters it disgusts me the level of lynch mob mentality that’s out there. Your mates?
But anyway “Your fan mail argument is not proving anything other than people are angry and frustrated and therefore sometimes behave inappropriately.” hmmmmm like frustrated climate scientists emails perhaps?
“We are being overwhelmed by empty political rhetoric and PR spin.” are you describing yourselves?
“The genuine science and research has been lost in all the fracas.” NOT REALLY – YOU NEVER discuss it …. very telling
Luke,
Good to see you quoting a paper that supports sceptic views.
Good to see that in spite of your ideology you’re absorbing a bit of common sense.
Lindzen has been expressing these views on cyclones for decades and has always been ridiculed by the ranks of the convinced.
But to follow on my point of the complete lack of cyclones in SEQ since the “warming” began, if the convinced can whip themselves up into such hysteria when only good things are happening, what would they do if they really had a problem?
What we can’t argue about is that this period has been unbelievably kind to mankind generally but one way or another it will change.
Pay attention Luke,
We use the genuine science as input all the time. Most of what we enjoy in our life is a result of good scientific research and development.
I have a great deal of respect for it.
Your ability to miss the point being made here and to take such personal offence is rather amusing.
Maybe my definition of what is genuine is different to yours?
Projective modelling based on advancing a theory is cerebral but not necessarily useful in the real world.
It is worthwhile research but it is not ‘settled’. By its very nature it can’t be ‘settled’.
It must also tested against reality.
I have never said anything other than the raw data seems to be indicating that there is a general warming trend that has been occuring for years.
I have not seen anything however that proves conclusively or even convincingly that humans are severely influencing it on a global level or indeed that humans can control it…or for that matter why we should even attempt to control the climate.
I am not interested in discussing cerebral projective theories. I have read them and I commend the mind boggling work that has gone into them. They are not conclusive however and I’m sure you know that.
I do NOT like seeing that work so shamelessly hijacked and used for a non scientific agenda.
I am interested in practical and useful science.
Things like medical research and soil research and plant research and engineering research and and and……
http://www.abc.net.au/rural/content/2011/s3381465.htm
Oops!
Sorry about that link.
It belongs to Jen’s latest post, not this one. 🙂
It’s the warmISTS not the warmING that’s the problem:
http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/global-329709-warming-climate.html
This to me sounds like we can’t find the AGW signal because natural variability rules over the coming decades.
The draft report says “uncertainty in the sign of projected changes in climate extremes over the coming two to three decades is relatively large because climate change signals are expected to be relatively small compared to natural climate variability”.
Could someone help me out if there is an alternative meaning?
At last – the antidote http://itsnotnova.wordpress.com/
Luke, elsewhere I have been having a discussion on the warming southern ocean. I argue that it will soon cool, but they say it will get warmer.
Do you have an answer I can present to my associates?
Weeeelllll it’s been warming for some time says the science.
http://www.acecrc.org.au/access/repository/resource/4f15b7ba-6abc-102f-a3d0-40404adc5e91/ACE_OCEANS_POSITION_ANALYSIS_LOW_RES.pdf
says:
“Recent changes to the Southern Ocean
Observations over the past 50 years show that the Southern Ocean is changing. These
changes include:
• warming and freshening throughout most of the ocean depth (Gille, 2008;
Böning et al., 2008; Meijers et al., 2011);
• a shift of major currents to the south (Sokolov and Rintoul, 2009a,b), which may
have driven a change in the distribution of organisms (Cubillos et al., 2007) and
carried more heat southward to melt ice around the rim of Antarctica (Jacobs,
2006);
• changes to the acidity of the ocean as extra CO2 is absorbed in the water, and
consequent impacts on marine organisms (ACE CRC, 2008; Bindoff et al., 2007);
and
• potential future change to the efficiency of the Southern Ocean as a carbon
sink. This is a topic of vigorous debate (le Queré et al., 2007; Böning et al., 2008).
Although the maximum winter sea-ice extent in the Southern Ocean has increased slightly
over the past 40 years, there have been significant changes to its regional distribution
and seasonal duration (ACE CRC, 2009).
Temperature
A small change in temperature of the ocean requires a massive amount of heat compared
to that required to warm the atmosphere, and the capacity of the oceans to store heat
is very much greater than that of the atmosphere. Warming the whole atmosphere by
1 degree requires the same amount of energy as heating just the top three meters of
the surface ocean by 1 degree. The ocean is so deep and, in some regions the currents
so slow, that some waters have not seen the ocean surface for over 1000 years. These
time-scales indicate that it may take centuries for changes in the surface ocean to be
completely communicated throughout the depth of the ocean.
Nonetheless, significant
changes in Southern Ocean temperatures are being observed at all depths.”
But lots of detail and you should read the whole position analysis
And the base line for the measurements are what exactly ?
My guess is that they are comparing the last few years only, for many of their criteria and in fact they dont know if the changes are anything out of the ordinary at all.
Argo bouys are only decade old. Land surface temp spots are sparsely distributed, sea temperatures have been sparse and unevenly distributed and so are the Ph measurements.
Love the scientific term that the ocean is “freshening’.
The only truthful statement is that the Southern ocean is changing…but again from what base and what is natural as against the Co2 beat up.
IOW, apart from stating the bleeding obvious, like Steig they are hoping something is happening but they clearly don’t know.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, here’s the latest Southern Ocean SSTs having been measured consistently for the last 30 years:
http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/13-southern.png
On going reliable info:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/05/november-2011-sea-surface-temperature-sst-anomaly-update/
But what luke really needs to read is this:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/05/monckton-on-sensitivity-training-at-durban/
My guess is Minister for Disinformation can’t read. Doesn’t read.
Tisdale is shot after http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/11/20/tisdale-fumbles-pielke-cheers/
Mockton is shot after http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/07/moncktons_triple_counting.php He wouldn’t friggin know.
After his station re-analysis Watts is now a laughing stock in climate science. And what’s this a piccie of La Nina – unheard of – yawn.
Stop using goobers as “source” eh? It’s just pathetic.
For Spanglers to put a Tisdale SST analysis as some sort of rebuttal against a comprehensive analysis by the Antarctic CRC of ocean profiles to depth is frankly friggin stupid. What a limp wristed pathetic response. Wanker.
Thanks for all your help, including Luke.
Luke has the temerity to quote Doltoid quoting Romm on Monckton. How credible could that ever be?
Ditto our open minded friend.
How many messengers can a catastrophist shoot before he deals with the facts?
And just to confirm how doubly dumb lukey is, Tisdale uses Reynolds SST data from NCDC because it is an accepted standard even used by the warmers, not some computer sourced GIGO assumption.
Luke in action:
Of course, this is what the lukes are really worried that Monckton and sceptics will eventually convince govts to do:
“shut them all down and make their self-serving, rent-seeking bureaucrats go out into the real world and do a proper job.”
I am just teaching my year 8 history class about the renaissance period and their belief in the scientific method. Wwhich involved 4 key principles;
1. concerned only with evidence that can be directly observed
2. can be proved false by new evidence
3. tests can be done by anybody with repeatable results
4. methods or results are not determined or adjusted by belief systems.
How can we have gone back so far so quickly thx to “climate change”!…are we about to enter a dark age? ( he says tongue in cheek hopefully…….)
Toby, good for you!
At least your students will be better able to cope if [and I hope it’s only an if, not a when] that “dark age” arrives.
Well Toby
I guess that’s the end of atomic theory and quantum mechanics – “concerned only with evidence that can be directly observed”
and poor kids if they need advanced statistics, remote sensing, or isotopic analysis “tests can be done by anybody with repeatable results”
“methods or results are not determined or adjusted by belief systems” poor old schrodinger’s cat
AGW is a pseudo science ‘belief system’.
Luke, here’s your big chance to catch up on the SO.
Take a Damascene journey with Steig:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/06/realclimates-steig-pacific-ssts-influencing-antarctic-melt-no-link-to-human-causes-demonstrated/
Sorry don’t read Watts anymore. Disinformation source and waste of time. Remember that clown has been now wrong on so much why compromise yourself?
“Sorry don’t read Watts anymore.”
Oh Well! Nothing like an open mind. [I get all my facts from Romm and Doltoid]
Fact-free luke!
Ain’t it amazing what people will do to ease their consciences when shooting messengers?
Totally amazing!
Luke….everybody makes mistakes….even you.
The main issue here is that there is a very loud contingent who have made mistakes and are unwilling to admit it.
It is connected to politics….not science.
Any genuine scientist knows that they learn by mistakes….they in fact have to make lots of mistakes in their hypothesis’ before they can find the one that works.
The history is riddled with failed scientific theories and experiments….there isn’t actually anything wrong with that….it is actually the way it is supposed to work.
What is terribly wrong here is that people are now not allowed to admit they have made errors and therefore are unable to fix them.
Durban’s going to be a disaster for Julia and the Klimatariat,
http://reason.com/archives/2011/12/05/delusional-in-durban
OK – I lied. I peek.
A bit O/T but it just about covers all the illogicality and unreason you’d expect from a Gillard govt senior minister.
This delusional blubber mouth was the moron who dreamed up the NBN with Krudd on a plane and on the back of an envelope.
Still no business plan required and costs have now blown out to 50 billion $. Any layabout pulled off the street could do a better job than these fools because most would have more common sense.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/column_conroys_tears_will_not_wash_away_the_facts/
BTW this is Bolt at his fearless best using logic, reason and facts to scorn a conference full of leftwing idiots.
Gee wizzz I didn’t realise you could climate proof agriculture in Africa for a measly 25m $.
More hopeless unreason and stupidity from a delusional Juliar minister. But what is wrong with our pathetic media printing these fairy tales without question?
If Kyoto 2 or whatever eventually comes out of these barking mad conferences more hundreds of billions $ will go straight down the drain with zero effect on the climate and temp or droughts, or floods or cyclones etc, etc.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/breaking-news/climate-cash-for-africa-fast-tracked/story-e6frf7jx-1226216823538
Well Luke, havva peek and weep at this. Cooling till 2068. Maybe the Chinese know something:
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/
And lukie, this will really break your heart.
Global temps back to where they were over 30 years ago when it all started:
http://landshape.org/enm/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/07/ngos-its-worse-than-we-thought/
These so called GW scientists/IPCC/govt officials have absolutely no shame.
Caught out yet again.It not enough to be passing off NGO material as peer reviewed but giving weirdo activists passes into the Durban talk fest is just the pits…but then when the venal UN is running a corrupt and incompetent IPCC…then I guess anything goes.
No doubt the apologists for the GW science collective, will do a Gleick and attack without reading anything, as they usually do.
Picked this up at Reference Frame, there are some things you can’t give away so readily.
‘The background is that the Polish network operator PSE Operator is planning to add switches on the border. Their task would be meant to prevent the Federal Republic of Germany from exporting excess eco-electricity.
‘Whenever this occurs, the operators of the Polish coal power plants must suddenly shut down the plants to avoid an overload. People in Warsaw are worried that the active high-power stations are not ready for such shutdowns and that an unexpected surplus of energy could even lead to a blackout.’