Page 2 story in Bild today! The first of a series.
“THE CO2 LIES … pure fear-mongering … should we blindly trust the experts?”
That’s what Germany’s leading daily Bild wrote in its print and online editions today, on the very day that renowned publisher Hoffmann & Campe officially released a skeptic book – one written by a prominent socialist and environmental figure.
This is huge. More than I ever could have possibly imagined. And more is coming in the days ahead! The Bild piece was just the first of a series.
Mark this as the date that Germany’s global warming movement took a massive body blow.
Read more here:
http://notrickszone.com/2012/02/06/body-blow-to-german-global-warming-movement-major-media-outlets-unload-on-co2-lies/
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Both sides of politics in Germany have installed possibly 100billion Euros of useless wind and solar energy for a zero return.
But why do it in the first place because simple maths proves it won’t change the temp or climate? They could have saved all those billions and spent it on hospitals, education, infrastructure, adaptation and more R&D etc.
The calculations to save wasting those billions could have been done on the back of an envelope.
Yet this idiot Gillard govt is stepping up to the plate and will repeat the same failure again.
What a pack of clueless morons. It makes my blood boil.
“Professor Dr. Fritz Vahrenholt, a social democrat and green activist” – like who cares? So somebody of non-importance has a hissy fit – is this of scientific moment? Might as well ask Neville’s opinion – if you could medicate him long enough to get an answer.
The rent seeking bureaucrats will of course try to derail this.
Luke, for instance, is doing a nice impersonation of Baghdad Bob.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s27Oq5ot0ZI
Oh this is rank – expect to hear a lot more
http://www.rwe.com/web/cms/en/113648/rwe/press-news/press-release/?pmid=4007403
Our mate Fritz gets around – like CEO of RWE Innogy GmbH
LOLZ !
I don’t get it, Luke. Why is there something wrong with believing in a ( practical) renewable future, while doubting the veracity of the IPCC and all the other AGW churches ? That appears to be the man’s position.
The book itself reminds me of Ian Wishart’s “Air Con” . Another book from an author who originally believed until looking at the science. I would expect that you have read it Luke, just for the sake of balance.
if you bothered to read the article ( and know that is hard for you given your track record for not doing so) ..you will note that he was CEO…and he has written extensively on the subject of AGW incompetence, some thing which you would of course be also familiar with.
Luke I believe in logic and reason completely, 100%. But that is exactly my point because you obviously don’t.
One definition of madness is to repeat the same message and action over and over again when nearly everyone knows this is stupid. The sums literally don’t add up, or can’t you understand that.
Can I just remind you again that there is certainly zero the OECD countries can achieve by installing useless solar and wind energy, except waste countless billions $ down the drain.
But as I’ve said before arguing with you is a complete waste of time because at the first opportunity you’ll throw logic and reason out the window.
You’ve either surrended to a form of madness or you just don’t have any shame. After your strange claim that the 1940’s drought was caused by an increase in co2 I think it’s a bit of both.
For those of us who haven’t surrended to illogical unreasoning, here’s Bolt on some of BOM’s latest work.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/bureau_predicts_we_wont_remember_its_last_prediction/
It is a significant moment. I love Germans, but those I’ve encountered lately a worry. A professional hysteric like Fritz is often more of an influence on German opinion than a German scientist. Of course, by “scientist” I do not mean a peer reviewing, computer modelling, paper publishing, smoothing, adjusting, proxying charlatan. I mean someone who knows a lot, knows the enormity of what he doesn’t know, and gets his feet wet.
Robert,
Your blog is very interesting. I hope to read it more thoroughly later.
It is interesting to me that pointing out the result- predicted by me and many other skeptics- that solar ‘inveestments’ in places in the far north (or far south) would be doomed to fail, is considered to be hysterical.
Bild Zeitung investigative journalism is about as reliable as Britain’s Sun newspaper.
Utter twaddle Neville – none of those are predictions. It was emotional concern at a ONGOING RECORD dire situation. NOBODY predicted these Las Ninas outside the rainfall season they were in i.e. autumn/winter onwards.
And one more year and you would have been out of water in many cities.
Then the howls would have been – why didn’t somebody do something?
Just more sceptic meme talking points with 20/20 wisdom after the fact. We should have seen the Australian sceptics in their robes pronouncing exactly which year the drought would break ! They didn’t !
And of course the 1940s drought had an AGW component. It’s only your inability to read is why you don’t understand.
Really, I should not have called Vahrenholt an hysteric. It’s just that one assumes that of anyone who is German and the least bit Green. He is not a “climate scientist”, he has a real discipline – as chemist – and has wide practical and business experience. Most importantly, he was publicly against the recent anti-nuke hysterics.
We’ll overlook his role in solar. Anyone can get carried away at some point, especially a German. And they say Bosch do make nice solar wafers and cells, useful for something, surely.
“And one more year and you would have been out of water in many cities.”
Would that have something to do with green and lefty influence preventing almost all dam construction in recent years.
While they make sense in maritime desert countries, the move to Desal plants in most of Australia is crazy and unforgivable. They will most likely spend the whole of their short, rusting lives as a millstone around the public’s neck, costing a daily fortune and never producing a litre of water.
Re Germany’s energy policy turmoil: it just had to come but we will have to wait for years for it to play out to the point where over-all sanity will prevail.
It makes you realise how well off we are when we can afford this incredible luxury of spending billions on mindless stupidity in western countries. No wonder we are easy pickings for economic migrants.
Well poor illogical unreasoning Lukey wants to now return to the 1940s drought being forced by a whisker increase in co2 levels.
Many of the scientists now seem to agree that even the latest drought and rain have a natural cause although our co2 levels are much higher.
That tiny co2 increase from 1800 to 1900 must have been coated with pixie dust to provide the forcing that you’d need to make your case.
You’ve made a first class fool of yourself on the 1940s drought fiasco so why not just admit it?
Even the IPCC only finds an influence from higher co2 emissions from about 1960 onwards , but silly Lukey wants to go back a further 60 years to 1900. What a whacko crank.
I’ve stated here for years that we get our floods and droughts from different PDO phases combined with more El ninos or La ninas and the historical record backs this up.
SE Australia also comes under the influence of the IOD and it certainly played a part in the 1940s drought and the most recent drought.
Special Climate report 38 from the BoM.
This is some of the data we need to use to update our Australian focused modelling:
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/statements/scs38.pdf
As I said at the previous post, there are literally 1000’s of these projective models…so the odds say that some of them may still be tracking OK.
I’m willing to bet very heavily that it won’t be the models that the AGW celebs and the current political agenda have hijacked.
Yes Debbie the BOM lastest statement makes for very interesting reading.
Not one mention of the dreaded words global warming, or AGW, or human induced climate change etc.
Looks like they have learnt to do the right thing for once, and stick to collecting, collating and publishing facts and nothing else..and leave the promotion of unsubstantiated fantasies to the marketing departments…
Neville an intelligent person would look at the level of 1940s GHG forcing – have you thought about it? No!
You would also look at a detailed analysis of the area in question. Month by month. Correlations with known phenomena – have you done that? No !
And then for likely mechanisms explore the interaction of the most likely phenomena in a state of the art climate model. Have you done that ? No !
And a perceptive person would also note in Debbie’s BoM report
“The high 2010 and 2011 rainfall was therefore not associated with winter-time storm systems, and
did not represent a return to normal conditions over the southern Australian winter season. In this
way, the recent trend of rainfall reductions in autumn and winter was not reversed by the back-toback
La Niña events.”
Gee imagine looking at more than annual rainfall charts. That’s novel.
In the fact the latest BoM report has still gotten AGW written all over it ….
Luke you’re still clutching at straws, even David Karoly doesn’t agree with you.
Quote, on 2002 being the FIRST DROUGHT. Get it.
Warmist scientist David Karoly, 2003:
The Murray-Darling Basin… covers towns north to Toowoomba, west to Broken Hill and south to Victoria and South Australia… Drought severity in the Murray Darling is increasing with global warming… This is the first drought in Australia where the impact of human-induced global warming can be clearly observed.
I suppose you’re only out by about 80 years and that’s being generous. Karoly was wrong though the year 2002 wasn’t the lowest rainfall for MDB, 1902 was, but who cares about such incidental inaccuracies by warmists.
..”latest BoM report has still gotten AGW written all over it”…
What rot…
Its only because thats what you want it to say… its not what the data is incontrovertibly showing.
With dim wits like you making such unfounded leaps of judgement… its easy to see how the academics have also cobbled their PR documents together to get the result they want.
Luke,
The report is full of the usual qualifying disqualifiers.
My point was the data needs to be fed into the models.
There are 1000’s of them.
A few of them will probably be still tracking OK. Out of 1000’s the odds would indicate that some would still be OK.
Wanna bet which ones won’t be?
BTW Luke,
tit for tat. I have to take issue with your terminology.
It is not Debbie’s BOM report, it is most definitely the BOM REPORT.
In particular it is the BOM SPECIAL CLIMATE REPORT 38
All Debbie did was supply the link. Debbie lays no ownership or adjective claims.
Trouble is Debbie out of thousands some are bound to be correct. If I had many bets on every horse race I’d certainly pick the winner most of the time.
But the problem is I’d go broke most of the time just trying to cover the cost of my bets.
Debbie – FAIL – no models dearie – it’s called simple data analysis 101. You really don’t know your obs from your mods do you Debs.
Neville – Karoly said “clearly observed” and he would back that up with detail which is consistent with what I have said.
Luke?
What on earth are you talking about?
No Models?
I wasn’t claiming the special climate report 38 was a model….how did you arrive at that conclusion?
I clearly said that this DATA needs to be fed into the models. Did I need to say the DATA from THIS REPORT? Maybe that would have made it easier for you to focus on the actual point I was making?
More help for Luke
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/08/interesting-presentations-from-the-nagoya-workshop-on-the-relationship-between-solar-activity-and-climate-changes/#more-56210
And check the last slide
“Global warming activists posing as scientists have engaged in a systematic pattern of altering data sets to prove global warming.”
More and graphs at http://www.real-science.com/consistent-pattern-data-tampering
Well Luke as they say some people will BELIEVE anything. Anyhow that “clearly observed” claim of Karoly’s would not be supported by any number of scientists around the world.
Of course your 1940s drought claim would only be supported by a small number of zealots.
Look at the 1000 year PDO reconstruction again and just ponder what that means.
Here in E. Australia you’d be either drowning in floods caused by centuries of La ninas or in super droughts caused by centuries of el ninos.
This type of extreme climate change may not be rare at all, but let’s hope we just continue to have similar climate/ weather that we’ve had over the last 60 years.
This would be easy peasy compared to the centuries of extremes shown in the reconstruction.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PDO1000yr.svg
NO NEVILLE – your analysis is simply trivial. You are self confessed not a scientist. You have neither read nor commented on the SEACI’s detailed investigation. SEACI is THE definitive investigation by multiple parties on the rainfall decline in SEA. (yes I know it rained of late but the anomaly still exists in a rainfall history sense) as Debs (whoops BoM’s) climate statement well shows. Yes I read what you write and think about it. You should do the same on the SEACI material. It won’t kill ya or turn you into a commie/greenie/leftie.
In fact on such issues it puzzles me why someone in the firing like Debs never asks a pertinent question about such material?
And thanks for the help “Another Ian” – I hope you actually studied the SCIENCE in the excellent Judith Lean pdf recommended now by Wattsy at his solar expose – NO JOY for sun worshipers there – aren’t some science facts a bummer?
http://st4a.stelab.nagoya-u.ac.jp/nagoya_workshop_2/pdf/1-1_Lean.pdf
Indebted to Another Ian
a Wattsy comment from Lief himself
“Leif Svalgaard says:
February 8, 2012 at 11:57 am
Louis Hooffstetter says:
February 8, 2012 at 11:40 am
Dr. Svalgaard, could you please clarify this for us? What is your (& Dr. Lean’s) take on the correlation/causation between sunspot activity and the Earth’s temperature?
Her last slide was not intended to show her own research or opinion, but simply to show that there is interest ‘out there’ in the Danger zone, but also that there is conflict and poor science, i.e. the same person [West] claiming 69% solar and 70% man-made.
There is definitely a causation between solar output and temperature. The solar cycle produces a temperature cycle of the order of 0.1C. On the longer term, the sun does not vary enough to be important, e.g. solar activity is now what it was around 1900, but the climate is not. This does not deter people to believe otherwise especially if it fits their personal [or cult-induced herd-] bias and agenda. My own presentation at the very same meeting was intended to show that the Modern Grand Maximum that some take as indication of a solar cause of recent warming probably didn’t happen, i.e. that the Sun had not been markedly different than during times of the 18th and 19th centuries. What happened during the Maunder Minimum is less clear and is an active area of research, cf. my last slide.”
oh dear
When expert commentators learn to use inverted commas life will be easier, won’t it? We will know who said what without having to puzzle.
Meanwhile, it should be obvious that all current knowledge is hopelessly inadequate, though not useless. To replace AGW with “the sun” is to fall into the trap of Big Lever causation. Bolshies do that all the time, with everything. Leave the Big Levers to GetUp.
Let’s get skeptical. Let real climate scientists refuse to publish for a decade. It’s the only way. So little is known of cosmic, solar, global, oceanic and orbital influences on climate that careerists are reverting to the old intricate percentage scam. That’s when you make a wild speculation on a vast and largely unknown subject, and make it look scientific with numbers like 71% or 69%. 70% is for the losers who don’t know how to milk the funding cow.
Oh dear! Another one!
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2012/2/8/dont-sell-your-coat.html
Poor poor Luke. His desperation increases daily as it becomes more and more difficult to maintain his fiction. His attacks on people increase and his use of logic and fact decreases. Take more pills dear boy – you will need to – its only going to get worse. You have been fooled and are beginning to realise it – its ok Luke, there is life after AGW.
When one of Germany’s most prominent committed environmentalists like Vahrenholt come out with this and write a book on it, it shows they just “can’t take it anymore.”
It will be interesting to see if he gets trashed by the “believers” as all before have been.
http://www.thegwpf.org/international-news/4923-solar-shift-rock-germany.html
Another Ian, from your last link above, Mann’s new book too. Some interesting reviews:
http://www.amazon.com/Hockey-Stick-Climate-Wars-Dispatches/product-reviews/023115254X/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt/184-3930243-1910466?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1
Joe Romm is clasping at straws.
http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2012/02/06/419154/climate-change-arctic-europe/?mobile=nc
So real scientific discussion instead of the negative drivel that gets trotted out here. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=10475
Debs might be AMAZED – don’t read it Debs – you’ll go blind.
Luke
Negative drivel? so you go for positive drivel?
Luke you are embarrassing yourself lately, don’t you care any more?
I used to stick up for your intelligence, hoping that it never lets your faith get in the way, but I’m afraid I was wrong.
Pity that.
Well there you go JW – no science point and negative drivel.
Luke
What science point?
Mate, we are going over plowed ground already.
And speaking of ploughed ground, here’s something gav and luke can get their teeth into:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/feb/08/glaciers-mountains
RealClimate has a very dynamic presentational approach, which is sure to find favour with GetUp types. One is bombarded with speculation, fudging, falsehood and distortion at such speed and in such quantity that it’s like landing on a nest of bull ants. Which one do you pull off first? Meanwhile, a hundred more are biting. Very GetUp.
The failure of Arctic ice to continue its “death spiral” after 2007 really has disappointed some people. (Just as well there were no satellites in the early twenties!) For these down-in-the-dumps climate Bolsheviks, the wordsmiths and graphic artists of Real Climate will always be able to come up with some kind of unspecified “record low” as the Arctic “continues to melt faster” than some tosser’s model said it would.
It’s worse than we thought!
So just who was using voodoo science regarding the Himalayas?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/feb/08/glaciers-mountains
No net loss of ice from the Himalayan glacial system over the past 10 years.
How many failed predictions of climate doom have to pile up before even the Lukes of the world start to question their faith?
Poor Robs – RC has smoked his little motor. Confronted with some science he’s had an attack of the vapours. Time for a Bex and good lie down. He’s resorted to graphic art as his defense. RC’s Arctic graphic is a small adaptation on http://www.cee.mtu.edu/~reh/papers/pubs/non_Honrath/stroeve07_2007GL029703.pdf – mate I could have made the changes with my texta – no need for art school – hey isn’t the trend supposed to be the opposite as Archy assures us we’re heading for an ice age ….
Did you actually the Himalaya article hunter- – of course not.
“He added: “The new data does not mean that concerns about climate change are overblown in any way. It means there is a much larger uncertainty in high mountain Asia than we thought. Taken globally all the observations of the Earth’s ice – permafrost, Arctic sea ice, snow cover and glaciers – are going in the same direction.””
drat
” And so, in the year 1980 the RealClimate priest created the planet within his computer. He remarked to his disciple Luke, ‘ Brother ,this is one cool day which I have chosen, but henceforth things should get warmer’ . And behold- they did . And from then until eternity, 1980 was observed by all the true believers as the real day of creation. And all which had gone before was to be washed from the minds of the people of the World.”
Luke, you frequently link to RealClimate. While I can sometimes be exasperated by facile “skeptic” claims of impending ice ages and “it’s the sun”, nothing is so blatantly fraudulent and manipulative as RC. It’s very worrying that you respond to their overwrought, mock-technical style of presentation.
Really, Luke. You need not only to stop linking to them, but you need to stop going there. Every word on RealClimate is a shabby stunt, including “a” and “the”.
Did YOU read it Luke?
What it really says is that the Guardian which has preached continuous doom and gloom has finally been given some data from GRACE which blows all their religion away.
I posted this link for you prior to Hunter to point out that you warmers quote the accuracy of GRACE data only when it suits you.
My response was gonged.
I would have agreed with your quote re uncertainty but Prof Jonathan Bamber also said as a result of these GRACE measurements:
“The very unexpected result was the negligible mass loss from high mountain Asia, which is not significantly different from zero.”
That is much more specific than “much larger uncertainty in high mountain Asia than we thought.”
What a frantic post with luke in crazed weasel mode extremis. Some of his links worked, some didn’t; one that did is the 2007 Arctic sea ice 2007 paper co-authored by Holland about observations exceeding the doom and gloom predictions of the models.
Perhaps Holland should have looked at the Polar see-saw:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/309/5734/536.1.full.pdf
Smith notes:
“A series of warm episodes, each lasting several thousand years, occurred in Antarctica between 90,000 and 30,000 years ago. These events correlated with rapid climate oscillations in the Arctic, with Antarctica warming while the Arctic was cooling or already cold. This bipolar seesaw is thought to have been driven by changes in the strength of the deep overturning circulation in the North Atlantic Ocean, but some have questioned how completely that process can account for the fine details of Antarctic warming events.
Keeling and Visbeck offer an explanation that builds upon earlier suggestions that include the effects of shallow-water processes as well as deep ones. They suggest that changes in the surface salinity gradient across the Antarctic Circumpolar Current were caused by the melting of icebergs discharged from the Arctic, which allowed increased heat transport to Antarctica by ocean eddies. This mechanism produces Antarctic warming of the magnitude observed in ice core records.”
Svensmark has another explanation for the ‘see-saw’:
“The cosmic-ray and cloud-forcing hypothesis therefore predicts that temperature changes in Antarctica should be opposite in sign to changes in temperature in the rest of the world. This is exactly what is observed, in a well-known phenomenon that some geophysicists have called the polar see-saw, but for which “the Antarctic climate anomaly” seems a better name (Svensmark 2007).”
Whatever the cause[s] the see-saw exists independently of AGW and with some warming now in the Arctic correlating with some cooling in the Antarctic it would seem the models and AGW are wrong again.
JW says about one of our “blind friends”…..”I used to stick up for your intelligence, hoping that it never lets your faith get in the way, but I’m afraid I was wrong”
ive reached the conclusion that if you still believe ardently with no room for doubt about CAGW, you are either stupid, ignorant or a zealot blinded by your faith.
Serioulsy you would surely have to be embarrassed to be tied to this band wagon of deception and exageration..wouldnt you?!
You know Cohenite’s scrambling when he can’t even cite properly – it was actually Quat.Sci.Rev. 10.1016/j/quascirev.2005.04.005 (2005). (mate).
And typically fails to learn the lessons I have taught him – models failing – wot rot – indeed – Thompson and Solomon (2002) and by Shindell and Schmidt (2004) tell us why ….
As for Svensmark – well the last refuge of the desperate eh?
Good to see Toby having a froth – maybe if he thought about it – if it quacks like a duck and fingerprints like a duck maybe it’s a duck? But for deniers it will be a solar cycle instead of poultry. thanks to Judith Lean’s pdf above we can all have a good old laugh at the rot being spread around on that score. Soon by Fox News I guess.
Interesting stuff, cohenite….and refreshing to see the different viewpoints on the see-saw.
To be perfectly candid Comrade Luke, the Denialati aren’t certain we are in for a Maunder.
Trouble brewed for Luke?
Check out http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/10/friday-funny-carbonated-drink-stands-in-for-joe-romm-in-debate/
From BoM, a seasonal outlook under stress?
‘The national outlook averaged over February to April 2012 shows the following:
‘warmer days are more likely over southeastern Australia
‘cooler days and nights are more likely over northwestern Australia
‘warmer nights are more likely over northeastern and southwestern Australia’
The real costs hitting us from the AGW mania is found in higher food prices, higher insurance rates, bad flood control policies, high energy prices and increasing taxes.
Hidden costs are the opportunity costs of having a significant fraction of the research community becoming rent seekers for AGW promotional funding and grants, the time not spent pursuing real solutions to real problems, and the confusion of food and energy policies with a fantasy called “mitigation”.
Another Ian,
Who needs Joe Romm to show up for a debate when Luke can do it here quite handily? Luke even makes as much sense as Romm. Luke will likely interpret this as a compliment.
Have you got your Bob Katter app ?
“Happy days are at an end my friends”
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/bob-katter-immortalised-in-soundboard-for-iphone-ipad-ipod-touch-on-apple-app-store/story-fnbt5t29-1226266841624
Luke,
Seriously,
Apart from this comment that many of us would agree with:
…..”I used to stick up for your intelligence, hoping that it never lets your faith get in the way, but I’m afraid I was wrong”
ive reached the conclusion that if you still believe ardently with no room for doubt about CAGW, you are either stupid, ignorant or a zealot blinded by your faith.
As well as appearing blinded by faith, you are now taking some type of ‘leap of faith’ by linking to Bob Katter and therefore insinuating that if people aren’t adhering to CAGW faith that automatically means they must adhere to some other ‘much more sinister’ faith?
Methinks you are projecting?
errr joke Debs – and what’s wrong with Bob?
and I think your knowledge of the AGW subject is zippo. Frankly you can’t string a sentence together on the topic. and what’s with this CAGW business – don’t try to verbal me girlie.
Who is verballing whom Luke?
I didn’t say there was anything right or wrong with Bob, I commented on the Leap of Logic and the insinuation from your link.
My question to you is therefore:
What does Bob Katter’s app have to do with the topic we are discussing?
Great news from overseas, it looks like more and more of this silly fraud is starting to crumble.
Poor extreme Luke will be the last clueless BELIEVER standing.
http://joannenova.com.au/2012/02/we-are-winning-eh-part-4-or-so/#more-20194
Even Gavin Schmidt admits that models suck:
http://www.real-science.com/real-climate-worse
SD – obviously you’re unable to comprehend the graph.
Neville and Nova thinks that the atmosphere cares about carbon markets. And isn’t it strange if Nova thinks it’s “all over” she can stop writing crap and get a real job.
Nicola Scafetta has a guest post at Watts.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/figure9new_thumb.png
The solar lunar cycle theory is provocative.
Good paper El Gordo – an arxiv copy here http://arxiv.org/pdf/1201.1301v1.pdf
Need to digest what’s he’s done.
Yes it is a good paper,
The tracking and modelling seems to be describing reality in climate patterns with a fair amount of success.
It clearly states that the IPCC methods cannot be trusted.
It offers another hypothesis to explain what could be key drivers in our global climate..
As always, time will tell.
Perhaps you can explain the paper to us then Debs. It could be overfitted statistical nonsense with no predictive capability at all – do you know? Why do you think he has anything?
Beware the ides of cycles Debs (and March too)
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/12/curve-fitting-and-natural-cycles-the-best-part/#bib_1
Even terms like “IPCC methods” indicate you’re talking through your hat.
Y’know Debs, those IPCC methods of projecting AGW, melting Himalayan glaciers etc. You cannot criticise those!
Least of all in simple English. Horreurs!!
And with papers like McLean et al, Archibald http://n3xus6.blogspot.com.au/2007/02/dd.html , and science fiction like Heaven on Earth weeeelllll …..
we’ll just away very quietly now and pretend it didn’t happen …. tip toe … ssshhhh
All those hopeless DUD predictions from Flannery and BOM about rainfall are covered by Bolt in this mornings show.
Denis Jensen does a good interview with Bolt about those clueless predictions and BOM tampering with Darwin’s temp record etc. He also agrees there should be a Royal Commission into CAGW.
A retarded five year old could see through this super expensive fraud so why shouldn’t there be an enquiry?
One quick benifit would be the saving of countless more billions $ soon to be wasted down the plug hole for zero return to the Aust people.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/the_bolt_report_today4/#commentsmore
Luke,
I can’t be bothered doing an entire critique of the paper to prove anything to you.
However a quick re read and I’m happy to direct you to a few salient sections.
Go to page 3 & read the first paragraph.
Page 4 paricularly point 2.
Page 6 & 7
Conclusion page 9
page 11
And the actual clear message from this paper on page 19 and this time I quote directly:
“Consequently the IPCC projections for the 21st Century cannot be trusted”.
So I’m sorry if I used the word methods instead of projections, but I don’t believe it actually changed the point or one of the clear conclusions in this paper? Maybe you missed it?
Does that help?
And I also repeat, the hypothesis looks partly credible and the tracking and modelling does somewhat reflect reality.
However, as always, time will tell.
So Debs – how do you know it’s simply not curve fitting? THE POINT ! I reckon it’s rubbish.
Yes Neville – call a Royal Commission by all means. Bring it on.
I don’t,
And neither do you.
I don’t know if it’s rubbish, I was just quoting the paper. It appears credible. It did clearly state that the IPCC projections can’t be trusted.
You posted the link Luke, not me.
There are plenty of questions about whether the IPCC have been merely curve fitting.
But as I said, time will tell.
” It did clearly state that the IPCC projections can’t be trusted.” now why would he say that? LOL !
“There are plenty of questions about whether the IPCC have been merely curve fitting. ” – errr nope!
Luke,
You posted the link and you said it was a good paper: Here: copy/paste.
Good paper El Gordo – an arxiv copy here http://arxiv.org/pdf/1201.1301v1.pdf
Need to digest what’s he’s done.
I am not defending it…I read it because 2 people from here had recommended it….I would ask exactly the same questions….just commenting on it’s main points and also noticing that their tracking and modelling appeared to have some credibility.
It will be time and real data that will be the judge of this hypothesis….as it is with any other projective work…INCLUDING IPCC!
‘The 9.1-year cycle is shown to be likely related to a decadal Soli/Lunar tidal oscillation, while the 10-10.5, 20-21 and 60-62 year cycles are synchronous to solar and heliospheric planetary oscillations.’
Perfectly fine starting point.
‘We show that the IPCC GCM’s claim that all warming observed from 1970 to 2000 has been anthropogenically induced is erroneous because of the GCM failure in reconstructing the quasi 20-year and 60-year climatic cycles.
Fair comment.
‘Finally, we show how the presence of these large natural cycles can be used to correct the IPCC projected anthropogenic warming trend for the 21st century.’
As Debbie points out correctly ‘It will be time and real data that will be the judge of this hypothesis.’
“Sceptics are like viruses”
IPCC lead author reaction is that scientific scrutiny and enquiry are mental disorders:
http://notrickszone.com/2012/02/12/leftist-german-taz-daily-article-on-vahrenholt-climate-skeptics-are-like-viruses/
Which side of the fence do the real mental disorders lie?
Back on the subject of Europe, Tim Blair notes how certain sections of the media are describing the weather there as “extreme” while avoiding the word “cold” when possible. Warmies are like tricky little kids, aren’t they? I don’t think the present Big Cold proves a thing about anything, but it seems to be making some climate zealots edgy.
We’ll hear of more and more “extreme” weather as the present is distorted and sensationalised and the past is blurred or even buried. The classic message: It’s worse than we thought! The Galveston hurricane, the Arctic ice melt of the twenties, the Big Heat of the thirties will, presumably, be better than we thought! That’s if they can’t be expunged from history all together. Maybe GetUp are working on that.
Meanwhile, I’d keep an eye on the new Spanish leadership. Mariano Rajoy looks just like Gareth Evans, but all resemblance stops there. The guy is a genuine conservative, and, rare in modern Europe, very much an adult. He has a mess on his hands, he’s on his own and needs to tread carefully around the EU and the luvvies, but the guy is a skeptic and has already declared an intention to reform the energy sector.
Keep an eye on him. Europe has been kids-in-the-kitchen till now. That may change.
Robert, you wonder if those Warmies will ever become sceptical but you have to wonder about people who can’t be somewhat sceptical of the second dose of 20th c warming, knowing the first dose was natural. And this present bind is all about that last 0.35c:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1909/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1909/to:1943/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1977/to:1998/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1998/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1943/to:1977/trend
Hot on the tail of Nicola Scafetta….this is getting interesting. Global cooling until 2030.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/13/do-latest-solar-studies-confirm-upcoming-global-cooling/#more-56469
Spangled the interesting thing about that graph is the trend. If the latest rise from 1977 to 1997 is influenced by humans why does it have a flatter trend?
Print that graph out and look at the trend and you’ll notice the first natural trend rate is higher. ( 1910 to 1946.)
Of course silly Luke sees a human influence all the way back to early 1900s, but the IPCC only claims an influence from about 1960.
That flat trend from 1946 to 1977 is a problem for the warmists as well. But the cool PDO during that time seems to be a good bet, plus more la ninas and higher rainfall in OZ.
Yes Neville, the rate of warming is certainly no worse in the latter half of the 20th c with all that ACO2 to assist it.
How could you not be sceptical about CAGW?
Is it about the sensitivity of the atmosphere or the Warmists?
Envisat has been delivering those body blows for years but the Warmists are an insensitive lot.
http://www.real-science.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/ScreenHunter_113-Feb.-08-19.04.jpg
And as people have pointed out, the world is already back to 1940 temperatures:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1880/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1880/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1940/scale:0.00001/offset:0.28
And the prize for the most stupid analysis of all time goes to SD !
GOOD GRIEF MAN !
In the US they’re currently WAY below their 1940 temps. As we are in Australia. And NZ.
It’s only the highly manipulated “global average” that is high due to those sweaty winter retreats in Siberia etc.
I believe you can still buy cheap land in those high lats for a winter playground.
What’s holding you back, Lukie luv?
No time for head in the sand SD. Of course when the sea levels were rising it was the earth was sinking. Now if the satellites still show rising sea levels, it can only be because the sky is falling down.