Jennifer Marohasy

a forum for the discussion of issues concerning the natural environment

Gone Fishing

By

I am going to take some time out from this blog to try and complete a couple of projects that I’ve started, but am having trouble finishing. So there may be no new posts here for a while.

In the meantime you can subscribe for my irregular email updates here:
http://jennifermarohasy.com/subscribe/

And check the ‘Community Home’ page for updates from other readers with their nature photographs and more here: http://jennifermarohasy.com/category/community/

And here’s a picture I took of a fisher, a darter cormorant, in Kakadu National Park a few years ago.

Interestingly according to one account of life in the Lower Murray in South Australia one hundred years ago there was a bounty on cormorants (that are closely related to darters), with 34,000 taken in one year ostensibly because they ate too many fish [1].

*********
[1] Travels in Australasia, by Wandandian see page 301

26th July 1909 at Caurnamont, near Mannum

‘Birds were very scarce, though we saw one fine old spoonbill wading round the swamp and swinging his head from side to side in the peculiar fashion these birds have while feeding.

On the latter day, while out shooting, I picked up a freshly decapitated turtle of the kind called by the natives “emys,” and on meeting a fisherman enquired of him whether he had caught many, and why it was without a head.

He replied that the turtles were so destructive of fish spawn, that a scalp fee of one penny was paid on the head of each by the Government, and that he caught a good many from time to time.

On further enquiry, I found that in the past year the South Australian Government had paid over £600 in scalping fees to various people for 116,000 turtles and 34,000 cormorants, thus satisfactorily explaining why the cormorants are so shy, and look upon every man with suspicion; for when one contemplates what a hunting they must have in the course of the year to furnish such an enormous “bag,” it would be decidedly strange if they were at all otherwise. In spite of all this I saw hundreds of them on the Murray and lake waters, so that I am sure many must pour in from outside to take the place of those that are shot, and should this be the case it will be many years before their numbers are at all reduced, or the Government get anything like the full value for their money, or even justify its expenditure.’

[Back then Murray cod were plentiful despite the turtles and the cormorant though now there are no Murray cod in that stretch of river below Lock 1.]

Reader Interactions

Comments

  1. Pat O'Connor says

    Hi Jennifer,
    I think I am correct in saying that the “cormorant” is in fact a darter – related to the cormorants, but not the same.
    Cheers

  3. Max says

    Jennifer, I hope you enjoy the fishing and complete the projects that you are working on. Max

  5. cohenite says

    Well, you pick a topic luke; I see Manne has been making a fool of himself lately and the NZ NIWA case is at an interesting stage. There will be an article on Manne at OLO tommorrow and Jo is puting up something about NIWA shortly. You can’t swear at either of those sites so feel free to express your frustration here.

  7. Robert says

    Being the lazy blog-ranter that I am, mostly into sledging and rat-dirt, I only got as far as the abstract at the link.

    Ew. Talk about “so political” and “so tedious”.

    We get climate models spinning cheerfully with “fundamental thermodynamics”, we get future 2° to 3° warmer world (2 or 3, take your pick) – we even get a much-worse-than-we-thought scenario for the water cycle! That’s just the abstract!

    God’s truth. If civilisation doesn’t do something about Publish-or-Perish, there won’t be a bloody civilisation.

  8. cohenite says

    Ocean salinity; I saw the CSIRO PR release for luke’s linked paper some time ago; see:

    http://www.prodocom.com.au/html/actions/viewonline.php?ID=284204&cc=&loc=783a5c372d31315c74656d705c6175637369726f4d616361756c617943726169675c68746d6c656d61696c5c3238343230345c3836333237335c6174746163685c&email=harbs@iprimus.com.au

    It didn’t make sense but I got side-tracked, probably by some other distraction thrown up by luke, and didn’t look at it in detail; Willis has done the job for me:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/12/the-cure-for-anything-is-salt-water-sweat-tears-or-the-sea/

    All that money and resources and it’s still wall to wall crap.

  9. gavin says

    Maybe Jen has a project that can’t be finished, given her affair with the MDB bottom end.

    Offered to help by saying all us city folk depending on MDB catchment and health hold the biggest stick in the water carve up.

    Given common bird names, cormorant, darter, shag etc I consulted my “Field Guide to Australian Birds” by G Pizzey & F Knight.

    The darter is also known as the snake bird because of it’s neck and stiletto bill -1.2 m WS. The Great Cormorant our largest has a 1.5 m wing span. Little Black (cormorant or shag) 1m WS. Pied Cormorant (also yellow faced) hooked bill,1.5 m WS, MDB and other inland waters. Little Pied, smallest 90 cm WS and like the others is found just about everywhere round Aust. Black Faced (cormorant or shag) pied too and hard to pic in flight, 1 m WS, Bass Strait mostly.

    Note; plumage changes for all when breeding and some should be considered as SE Asian or Pacific birds.

  10. Luke says

    Cohenite anything from Wattsup is rat dirt and disinformation. Let’s not slum it with people who publish by press release. Hardly even a discussion of the paper.

  11. Ian Thomson says

    Gavin, you city folk and the brainless, aimless, short-sighted,vote buying politicians who you control, are actually the biggest problem faced by the MDB.
    I suppose I should include the ABC there too.
    Glad I am not some aquatic species relying on your lot for survival.
    Wish I had the power you wield in the Bush ,to wield in your cities.
    ‘Emus for Emu Plains’ ‘Unyoke the Yarra’ ‘Free the Hawkesbury’ ‘Unbuckle Boundary Bend’ ‘Clear the meadows at Meadowbank ‘ ‘Return the ACT to its natural state , by making it a real National Park’

    Going to bed to dream about it all.

  12. spangled drongo says

    The CSIRO whackos claim:

    “These changes suggest that arid regions have become drier and high rainfall regions have become wetter in response to observed global warming,”

    Why don’t they just look in their own backyard.

    Since the great climate shift of the ’70s when AGW “started”, the red centre has become an oasis in comparison to earlier years.

    But what can you expect from Lukwitz who casts dumb aspersions at a top website.

  13. Luke says

    Stupid tool SD – 1950 to 2000 samples 3 IPO regimes. Just moronic level comments from a Wattsy burger disinformation devotee.

  14. James Mayeau says

    “Salinity shifts in the ocean confirm climate and the global water cycle have changed.”

    Salinity shifted? Which way? What we have is an unquantified proving an unquantifiable.
    I’ll go one further. Instead of CSIRO charging people do read that paper, they should be forced to send everyone who wasted time reading it a hard copy, to be used for toilet paper.

    Something else that should be understood, a change in salinity means a change in the seas natural buffering system. More salts run off from the dry land making the oceans more alkaline. So is the water cycle changing, or is the ocean acidifying. GOT TO CHOOSE ONE. Can’t have it both ways.

  16. Rob H says

    Of course the scientific consensus of the time supported culling the turtles and cormorants. And whales. And American buffalo. And just about any animal in Africa.

  17. spangled drongo says

    Lukwitz as usual thinks the real world is in the modelling. If he had actually tried to produce anything in the dry centre of this country or even been aware of the problem he would have seen the big improvement since the ’70s.

    But I suppose when you worship warmist websites that only allow consensual opinions you get a little confused as to who are the real deniers.

  22. Neville says

    Spangled you have to laugh. All Hansen has done is to compare the biggest cool phase of the PDO 1945 to ’76 to the recent warm phase.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PDO.svg But we’re lucky that we didn’t live in the earlier periods over the last 1000 years.

    At that time the climate was so extreme that hundreds of years of cool and warm phases of the PDO are noted. This according to NOAA’s reconstruction.
    Thus the USA mega droughts that are well documented. Of course no fossil fuel burning humans to be seem anywhere.

  23. John Sayers says

    Neville – I’m not sure why they are surprised with the volcanic activity. The area is always active, I remember Mount Ngauruhoe erupting in the early 50s as I used to ski on Mount Ruapehu whilst Ngauruhoe was smoking away. White island has always been active.

    SD – the solar panel rebate scheme is a disaster – the rest of us are paying for these wankers to have solar panels that contribute sweet FA to the power generation of each State.

  30. Neville says

    There are probably many people who haven’t seen this transcript of Bolt’s very revealing interview with GAIA brain Flannery in March 2011.

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/mtr_today_march_25/#commentsmore

    Remember this bloke is the Gillard govt’s number one spokesman on AGW. He is afterall the Chief CC Commissioner and as such has to explain the mitigation of AGW to the Australia people.

    But here he admits that mitigation of AGW is a total fraud and con, in fact he states that even if the whole world stops emitting co2 today we would not see a change in the climate or temp for hundreds of years or PERHAPS A THOUSAND YEARS.

    Don’t forget only a few numbskull countries are introducing co2 taxes and the really big emitters are increasing co2 at an amazing rate.

  32. Ian Thomson says

    Hi Gavin,
    Think it means the State Govts have sold us out. Do not see one word in there about fixing the SA toilet blockage and giving them proper water.
    Just a lot of the usual political waffle. I think the useless NSW govt has just caved in .

  34. Debbie says

    Nothing to comment on Gavin,
    It’s just more of his continuous clueless waffle.
    I’m hoping you’re wrong Ian but I fear yoh may be right.
    I don’t think it’s the actual govt, I think it’s more likely the people and the mindset they have inherited from the previous mess.
    They could possibly learn some lessons from their QLD counter parts.
    Not much ‘possibility thinking’ coming from our mob.
    I was thinking yesterday that humans can be so technically amazing that we can set a goal like landing a craft like ‘curiosity’ on Mars, but refuse to look at technical solutions or set some achievable goals for our water woes.
    Go figure?

  35. bazza says

    Nev, what Flannery said was “If we cut emissions today, global temperatures are not likely to drop for about a thousand years. ” What you said was “we would not see a change in the climate or temp “. You could at least quote correctly – why did you misquote?

  36. Minister for Truth says

    Re Debbies reference to Curiosity

    I find it amazing that after spending $2.5bn, and the development of some of the most complex technology and systems ever, in order to land a car sized contraption, with a bloody great thump on MARS, they still cant answer that most basic of questions.

    ….Is the cat dead?

    Now I know that ever present Lukey dude, will probably say that we will not know until a Peer Reviewed paper appears in some highly credible journal. And one that he and his fellow nobs approve of,(and only after suitable white anting of any rival evidence….said to be in prepration for submission by the nearby University of East Mars, Faculty of Marscats Preservation Division,

    So I guess the question will forever remain unanswered.

    OTOH if they had installed the standard Dead Cat Smellometer(DCS) on one leg of the lander that some have been calling for (funds permitting), and which was to have been automatically applied to all climate science AGW papers… then we would know by now.

    Putting that aside, what a stunning achievement for properly conducted science and project management.

    ..and what an absolute embarrassment Hansen must be to NASA now.

  38. Minister for Truth says

    “I just hope Allah is not giving nuts to the toothless here:” says the Spangled one.

    Well he wouldnt be doing that during day light hours at the moment, as its rammadammadan.

    ….followed in few weeks time by a giant sized pig out….teeth or no teeth.

  39. Luke says

    Of course landing a rover on Mars is a much simpler question. You can solid engineer many of the variables (to an extent). And you don’t have sceptic nong nongs and tea party tribalists saying Mars doesn’t exist or maybe the atmosphere is made of strawberry jelly.

    Minister for Truth thingy obviously has no idea of the depth and breadth of climate science literature. Sigh ….

  40. spangled drongo says

    MFT,

    On the one hand you have the toothless but nut-endowed, on the other you have the toothy but nutless.

    The latter are the ones who think they can “solid engineer” our energy systems based on half-baked renewables and GCM predictions.

    This has the added advantage of extracting nuts from the nut-endowed via a nutty govt.

  41. spangled drongo says

    I should have added that the toothy nutless have become so successfull at this “solid engineering” that we now are seeing increasing signs of toothless nutless, the toothy getting nuttier and the govt fast running out of nuts and needing more gifts from Allah.

    It is said that they may arrive by boat but we shouldn’t look them in the mouth.

  43. Minister for Truth says

    “Minister for Truth thingy obviously has no idea of the depth and breadth of climate science literature. Sigh ….”

    May be not, but one can smell dead rats, and even dead cats, a mile off, and the blatant activism by these so called authers of the deep science, eg Hansen et al, together with the incompetence and misrepresentation undertaken by the alarmanistas in general, doesnt need a Phd to flush out and expose…just common sense …a commodity in short supply with you types.

    I mean for gods sake, they…the creators of all this science at depth that you wank on about cant even manage/organise/normalise temperature records in a credible and defendable way….and its fundamental to the case…or I would have thought it was.

    As for the AAS boys club granting Flannery a Fellowship with his track record for unfounded made up alarmist b/s, based upon your self same science at depth… it just beggars belief.

    WTF do you people take us for.?

  45. Neville says

    Bazza you’re correct I’ve made a mistake. He didn’t mention climate but said the temp was not likely to drop for PERHAPS a 1000 years.

    From my angle I’m not saying his prediction is worth a row of beans, but he is the govt’s top appointed spokesman on AGW.
    Just proves the quality of ratbag we have hawking this silly message around OZ. I just wish every aussie knew that he thinks their efforts won’t make a scrap of difference to temp for a thousand years.

    Just to remind ourselves he based his forecast on every country ceasing emissions today and this isn’t happening.
    In fact non OECD emissions are soaring and therefore his prediction is a sick joke.

  46. bazza says

    Nev, you got it wrong again.It cant be coincidence.
    Why do you keep on distorting?
    You claimed “he thinks their efforts won’t make a scrap of difference to temp for a thousand years”.
    He said nothing of the kind,Who is the ratbag now – ?.

  47. spangled drongo says

    Did you hear the one about leading scientist, geophysicist and climategate investigator being interviewed by Auntie ABC with the usual kid gloves and Dorothy Dixers this morning?

    http://blogs.abc.net.au/queensland/2012/08/former-head-of-shell-uk-lord-ronald-oxburgh.html?site=brisbane&program=612_morning

    In reply to a sceptic tweet Auntie comfortably reassured us that Lord Oxburgh was a true member of the House of Lords and a thoroughly consensual scientist.

  48. Neville says

    Bazza he said if the whole world stopped emitting co2 we wouldn’t see a drop in temp for perhaps a 1000 years.

    But most of the big emitters are powering on, so simple maths tells us it won’t make a scrap of difference.

    If he claims that the whole world must stop emitting to produce his prediction, then the current state of affairs means he must know it won’t make a scrap of difference.

    Simple logic and reason Bazza, so what don’t you understand about it?

  50. Johnathan Wilkes says

    Neville,
    “Simple logic and reason Bazza, so what don’t you understand about it?”

    Since it’s bazza you are asking, I’d say it would be this Simple logic and reason

  51. Minister for Truth says

    Yes Spangles the ABC went through their usual wet lettuce routine in questioning Little Lord Ronny and his rather inadequate Chairmanship of the his particular inquiry

    His version was very superficial and didnt examine the science or anything remotely difficult and he dispatched it very quickly, with a they were very naughty boys commentary.

    Sort of white wash one expects these days still from the political and academic elites

  54. spangled drongo says

    Yes gav, I’ve got insurance but, ya know what, the premiums are less than 1% of the risk.

    Not greater than 100%!

    I’d probably even cop Pascal’s wager but not oblivion.

  55. spangled drongo says

    BTW gav, you mustn’t’ve been paying attention during that pocket pissing comp between Attenborough and Williams.

    It’s hard to say who is the most climate scientifically ignorant of the two. Attenborough’s [like William’s] knowledge is woeful.

    He is still quoting the same ice-core errors that Al Gore quoted in AIT. I suspect even Williams was embarrased.

    Very sad to hear an old hero blithering.

  58. Debbie says

    Gavin?
    To what does Burke hold the key?
    Burke doesn’t even understand what ‘delivery constraint’ is.
    Burke thinks that all problems MDB will be solved by just adding water ….that he thinks he can manage out of thin air!
    Neither does he understand that the Murray is a RIVER …..not a channel.
    If it was a properly constructed, purpose built irrigation channel….it could be designed to deliver those ‘end of system flows’ from December to February…..but Gavin……it’s NOT is it?
    The ABC reporters have no more clue than he does.
    They all think Agriculture and the Environment use water like you do in the urban/industrial sector.
    Errrrr NOPE!
    So please….what key do you think he’s holding?
    The key to the door marked solution?
    It seems that you think that all will be solved by some cobbled together political compromise in the next few weeks.
    That would just be a POLITICAL outcome Gavin…..nothing to do with actually solving a technical problem!
    The actual PROBLEM, will still need solving even if Burke could achieve a POLITICAL outcome…..which is looking increasingly unlikely BTW.

  60. spangled drongo says

    Luke,

    WRT that CSIRO paper on change in wind speeds world wide they are a bit behind the times as well as being way out in their measurements.

    This all happened quickly with the 70s climate shift and during that time I was designing, building and racing, yachts. It became apparent that because of this drop in winds generally, you could win races with shorter waterlines and bigger sail areas rather than the opposite which were heavier with less horsepower.

    I sold a lot of plans and won a lot of races as a result.

    I’m not in that business these days but I think the CSIRO might find that things have changed recently.

    It’s called weather cycles. Y’know? Nat Var?

  61. Debbie says

    Really Gavin?
    Why does he have to make a decision soon? Is he facing an urgent problem? As in a REAL problem?
    And the loudest squawkers?
    That’s hilarious 🙂 🙂
    ROFL!!!
    What’s your definition of ‘squawker’?

  62. Neville says

    Murry Salby will give a talk on A PAC at 9 am this morning.

    Watch online here. http://www.a-pac.tv/ Probably repeated later, also on Foxtel chn 648.

    Conroy at present yapping on about the NBN.

  63. spangled drongo says

    “SD; .1% even 1 % is not much to pay for a scheme to reduce AGW on a global scale.”

    What’s that a percentage of gav? World GDP? For what area?

    Better give us some facts.

  65. Luke says

    SD – unanalytical comment. Just make something up on a global phenomenon. Maybe it was the advent of the mini-skirt.

    And so Neville – the relevance of that political comment on an enviro topic is what? Do you have anything positive in your life or just fulfilling the role of cranky old man.

  66. Robert says

    SD, it’s interesting what you say about winds post 70s. The climate changed markedly around 1979, and the change persisted, with the usual contradictions and variations. The climate changed markedly around 2007, so that wind patterns, real world effects of El Nino (2009, maybe 2012) etc are markedly different to previous decades.

    Our Green Betters of the Posh Left are great at noticing theories, movies, programs, policies, articles, papers, literature and studies about climate change…

    But they never notice climate change!

    Mind you, the same people are great at noticing theories, computations, taxation, pricing etc of CO2 emissions…

    But they are utterly indifferent to real CO2 emissions in real time! The subject – which ought to be central – does not even cross their minds. Which is the weirdest part of all this.

  67. spangled drongo says

    “SD – unanalytical comment. Just make something up on a global phenomenon. Maybe it was the advent of the mini-skirt.”

    Luke, you never cease to prove what a twit you are.

    This was a real world event that occurred as a result of the ’70s climate shift that people who had to deal with, commercially and physically, did so and quantified it much more accurately than your scientists with their selective smatterings of “data”.

    For many people to stick their necks out and gamble large amounts on weather and wind changes puts them way ahead of “scientists” that come along 30 years later with very second hand data.

    You reinforce the point that you and your mates simply need to be more aware and more honest.

  68. Luke says

    Bullshit SD and not even near the issue. Drivel. Maybe it was the invention of the internet?

    Salby from Neville’s more interesting link …. Salby is a clever guy but more bunk really. So he has compared a mean result of many models and ensembles with the single real world realisation. Any individual GCM realisation looks nothing like what he portrayed.

    On life in the 2000s – failed to mentioned aerosols.

    Trivially dealt with the research on sinks and sources, isotopic signatures in ocean and atmosphere. Really poor presentation.

    And as if modellers don’t think the physics of what they model – what rot !

  69. spangled drongo says

    Just open your eyes Lukwitz and notice what enormous increases there have been in sail areas in racing yachts in recent decades.

    Sail areas that haven’t been seen since the 1800s.

  70. bazza says

    Spangled had a link last night to an attempted job on the Hansen drought analysis using the Palmer Drought Severity Index. The attmept was as dumb as – if spngled had bothered to check that the PDSI has temperature as an input , so it is a bit circular using that in a relationship between drought and temperature. Even the intuitives that hang aroung here would work that out. So spangled bungled!

  71. Robert says

    The Intuitives! We’re an Irish Rock Group! So that’s our prob!

    No wonder spnlgled’s attmept went aroung circular. We’re dumb.

  74. spangled drongo says

    Been down the beach checking out the breeze.

    So Lukwitz, your earlier paper says the wind strength is falling but that last one says it is increasing during about the same time period.

    I think that sort of proves my point about scientists and the real world.

    Meantime you should take up sailing and find out which way the wind is really blowing.

    Bazza, if you’re so sure about that you should put your comment to Pat Michaels. He would be very interested in your logic.

  76. Robert says

    Deb, The Intuitives will probably need to play out-of-town redneck venues. Though if the hipsters decide we’re “ironic” or “retro” enough we might get a gig around Newtown. You never know.

    First single could be a cover of Light my Fire or Coalminer’s Daughter. I’ll approach Heartland for some sinister funding arrangements.

    On the subject of music, these were the only climate controllers around when I was young. I still love their work.

  77. spangled drongo says

    I’m talking about ocean winds. The only place where you get honest data.

    Bazza,

    Martin P. Hoerling, a researcher with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration who studies the causes of weather extremes, said he shared Dr. Hansen’s general concern about global warming. But he has in the past criticized Dr. Hansen for, in his view, exaggerating the connection between global warming and specific weather extremes. In an interview, he said he felt that Dr. Hansen had done so again.

    Dr. Hoerling has published research suggesting that the 2010 Russian heat wave was largely a consequence of natural climate variability, and a forthcoming study he carried out on the Texas drought of 2011 also says natural factors were the main cause.

    Dr. Hoerling contended that Dr. Hansen’s new paper confuses drought, caused primarily by a lack of rainfall, with heat waves.

    “This isn’t a serious science paper,” Dr. Hoerling said. “It’s mainly about perception, as indicated by the paper’s title. Perception is not a science.”

  78. spangled drongo says

    Even Muller:

    In an opinion article in the Washington Post, Hansen linked the findings to the “deadly European heat wave of 2003, the fiery Russian heat wave of 2010 and catastrophic droughts in Texas and Oklahoma last year.”

    Muller said that there is “not even a hint” that global warming can be specifically linked to those events.

  81. James Mayeau says

    Here’s a kinetic wind map of the United States, if you’re interested in that kind of thing. You can zoom in past the gales right down to the gusts, or if you’re in the mood all the way down to wiffs.

    Seems to me lack of wind would be a good thing. Fewer crops damaged. Easier Led Zeppelin come back tour. Fewer kites lost to trees. That is if it were true.

    Being that it’s a Luke link, chances are high that it’s Nintendo science, with little to no relation to anything in the corporeal realm.

  82. Luke says

    SD – are you serious – that is about as dickheaded as you can get. My golly. I wonder what else happens on humid days …. mmmmm dat’s a hard un’

  83. cohenite says

    luke, I had a look at the new Roderick wind, pan-evaporation, stilling paper; this is a vexed area; on the one hand AGW should lead to lessor wind activity since AGW affects cooler areas more than warmer and therefore temperature/energy gradients and winds should decline.

    A number of papers have shown this, including Roderick’s previous 2009 effort:

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1749-8198.2008.00213.x/abstract

    However there is contradictory evidence by your good friends at the CSIRO:

    http://www.csiro.au/news/New-energy-in-search-for-future-wind

    I could go on, but the main consequence of wind/stilling is evaporation which, as measured by pan-evaporation is declining with flow-on consequences for atmospheric humidity which needs to be increasing to support AGW. The question is, has the purported extra radiative energy available from AGW gone into raising temperature or evaporation, since it cannot do both, as Franks has pointed out.

    If AGW is solely impacting on temperature and not throwing more water into the atmosphere than obviously that is a very important negative feedback and rebuts quite simply the mechanism for AGW.

  84. Luke says

    Very interesting Cohers. Don’t you think it’s all very interesting.

    And of course there’s some AGW import – nothing like calling fire down on your own position (mine) – the consequences missed by the goons here with the exception of your good self of course.

    Of course the stilling if it’s real is only over land. Which is why you need models you see 🙂 so many interactions.

    Surface roughness is a reason for reduction in land wind speeds.

    Anyway isn’t it all very interesting.

  85. Debbie says

    Luke!
    Of course the models are useful.
    However they are JUST a useful tool.
    They are being used incorrectly and inappropriately.

  86. Luke says

    Deb. Are you some sort of thought police. Really what a amazingly repetitive comment. Science needs some sort of instrument – tell me in an analytical sense how would you resolve such a complex problem with multiple drivers and feedbacks. Stick a regression line through some data …. oh I know you’re not interested in any implementation details. I forgot.

    The fact that you keep harping really says to me that you think they’re not useful. Furthermore I reckon you think a GCM is some sort of farm budget spreadsheet.

    Climate scientists KNOW they’re a tool which is why they’re using them. And the whole aspect of modelling is a continual loop between checking observations, attempts to describe mechanisms and reality against outputs.

  87. spangled drongo says

    Debbie is absolutely correct.

    Models are no substitute for data yet that is exactly what they are used for.

    To find out if there is any wind change over land the amount of data you would need over so many impossible-to-measure places would be phenomenal but models do it with very little data.

    This suits dickhead pontificators like Lukwitz who won’t get out of their comfort zones to collect data.

  88. Robert says

    There’s an interesting fact about recorded wind-speed, the sort of fact that could easily be converted to one of those ridiculous factoids containing the words “record”, “ever” and “unprecedented”. The reason I say “ridiculous” is that there have not been people standing around all over Antarctica constantly measuring wind-speed for the last few millennia. (The only way we know about Australia’s still standing Marble Bar sustained heat “record” is that people happened to be there, with acceptable measuring equipment, from 31 October 1923 to 7 April 1924.)

    The “record” that’s “set” here involves one spot on the windiest of continents. It’s interesting because it involves a daily average of wind-speed, not a cyclone or tornado peak, or a one minute “record” gust like the one in New Hampshire in 1934. Nobody has measured a faster daily average than the 174 km/h at Port Martin anchorage, Adélie Land.

    Since “extreme” is the new “hot”, an event like this could easily make its way into the Guardian or NYT as some kind of proof of something, with experts expressing their “concern”. You might say it isn’t so, but I’ve seen and read worse.

    However, like last February’s big freeze in Europe, the 1951 big wind at Port Martin won’t be causing any experts any “concern”.

  89. spangled drongo says

    It was cold enough here this am for frost but there wasn’t any because of the cold sou’westerly which, though it has a strong chill factor, actually warms the coldest areas by preventing stratification.

  90. bazza says

    Why does Robert set new records for prattling on about records like a broken record. He should get used to them. So what if a tree should fall, and no one to hear it. Maybe a new record means compared with what was recorded.

  95. Robert says

    Sorry, bazza, I went beyond my customary sarcasm and called you names. Be as snobbish as you like, and if you sometimes don’t make your meaning clear, that’s a common fault with us all.

    Here is the big, big problem with “records”: the period of record is often very short, and it is very seldom specified. That goes beyond shoddy to the outrageous, especially where climate is concerned. How often do alarmists resort to this tactic, while pretending to be analytical? A lot! It is very worrying that you do not seem to understand this, or find it of little concern.

    Here’s a site where they do something very unusual. Where possible, they state the length of record:

    http://wmo.asu.edu/

    Of course, no amount of specificity will make up for the paucity and superficiality of data. (See spangled at 8:39 am). If you don’t hear the trees fall, don’t tell me all about the forest. The only climate scientist is one who knows his science is very raw and, dare we say, unsettled.

    To think that people don’t use the words “record” and “unprecedented” in a highly manipulative way is to be very young…or to be very resistant to maturity.

  96. bazza says

    So Robert, what would you say about each of the four points following, given your perspective on records.
    1.”If temperatures were not warming, the number of record daily highs and lows being set each year would be approximately even.
    2.Instead, for the period from January 1, 2000, to September 30, 2009, the continental United States set 291,237 record highs and 142,420 record lows, as the country experienced unusually mild winter weather and intense summer heat waves.
    3.A record daily high means that temperatures were warmer on a given day than on that same date throughout a weather station’s history.
    4.The authors used a quality control process to ensure the reliability of data from thousands of weather stations across the country, while looking at data over the past six decades to capture longer-term trends. (accepted for publication in Geophysical Research Letters)

  97. Luke says

    SD – imbecilic level of comment. There is not much point in data if you don’t know what it tells you is there. Clown.

    There is a whole feedback loop of hypothesise, gather data, analyse, model, evaluate – round and round. You’re clueless as to science matey.

  98. Debbie says

    Luke and Bazza,
    I apologise but the delicious irony in your last comments is causing me unbounded mirth!
    Broken record?
    Repetetive comments?
    That is truly hilarious.
    BTW Luke, I use modelling every single day and I am perfectly aware of their uses and their pitfalls.
    We can misuse them too.

  99. Robert says

    Bazza, I have no trouble believing in global or wide-ranging warming post 1980 (and pre-1950). I have no trouble believing that numerous records, in the literal sense, are broken continually in the USA, and increasingly in the last decade. Whether it is so or not, it’s not hard to believe.

    I have no trouble believing in trends, short and long term, and within trends there may be enhanced or lessened extremes, and overall rises and declines in general temp over decades.

    Assuming honesty and rigorous standards, I believe these things will be hard, but not impossible, to trace. Allowing for some inadequacy and trickiness, one can still get a picture. (For example, North America was a place of climatic extremes in the 1930s. China was the ultimate flood zone in the1930s. In the 1930s, Australia was still labouring mightily under very long term rain-deficit after the Fed drought, and the odd flood or cold wave didn’t help.)

    As to what I mean by inadequacy and trickiness, you might want to comb through Goddard or the countless postings on the subject on this site. You probably know what we think by now. You probably don’t agree.

    Lastly, I don’t believe or disbelieve in continued warming, nor do I believe or disbelieve in a new Dalton-style minimum. I know that the average does not exist, except as a handy mental concept – which is fine. Climate IS change. I firmly believe that nobody has a clue about the climate in ten years time.

    Wealth, nukes, dams and ultra-modern coal facilities will be useful in ten years time. I’m absolutely sure about that.

  100. spangled drongo says

    Lukwitz in full stride. Argumentum ad verecundiam. All mouth and trousers.

    If YOU don’t know what the data’s telling you, the answer’s simple:

    Model!

    Er..or adjust…or both.

    Or better still, learn how to read an instrument and use the raw stuff.

  105. Toby says

    As Dr. Roy Spencer points out in his book,

    “The most obvious way for warming to be caused naturally is for small, natural fluctuations in the circulation patterns of the atmosphere and ocean to result in a 1% or 2% decrease in global cloud cover. Clouds are the Earth’s sunshade, and if cloud cover changes for any reason, you have global warming — or global cooling.”
    Thx for that link SD, the science is however settled and you should be chastised for providing yet another reason for why the climate may have changed that does not relate to co2. Egg on your face Luke?! co2 is the only possible cause unless you believe in fairies……( pretty much exactly what you had to say a few threads back, luke)….except for all the other possible causes. sigh………

  106. gavin says

    Following Robert; “There’s an interesting fact about recorded wind-speed, the sort of fact that could easily be converted to one of those ridiculous factoids containing the words “record”, “ever” and “unprecedented” etc.
    I decided it’s too easy to confuse any old writer’s “climate” discussions with the actual science. Then I noticed Deb’s reply to Luke and Bazza, “BTW Luke, I use modelling every single day and I am perfectly aware of their uses and their pitfalls”

    Imo; whats most needed here is a little respect for the tools climate scientists use so I hopefully found appropriate info on where we are at today and background

    “The upcoming Dynamical Core Model Intercomparison Project (DCMIP) and associated two-week summer school from 7/30/2012-8/10/2012 highlights the newest modeling techniques for global climate and weather models. Special attention is paid to non-hydrostatic global models and their dynamical cores that now emerge in the GCM community”

    https://www2.ucar.edu/for-staff/daily/calendar/2012-08-08/studies-solar-convection-zone-using-reduced-speed-sound-techniqu

    Using a key point, a sub re Switzerland cause a dear old lady from there had told us about the hanging ice changes she had observed from childhood, I searched for “L. Panziera” and found this string of articles at Wiley online

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/qj.v137.661/issuetoc

    SD; there is a lot more to it than “learn how to read an instrument and use the raw stuff”. Lets say re all instruments, if it is not published by Wiley, then it’s not worth knowing.

  107. Debbie says

    So Gavin,
    Is Wiley a ‘Climate Scientist’?

    Here are some interesting questions for you:

    1. What is the relevant research qualification for a Climate Scientist?

    2. When was that qualification first bestowed?

    3. How many of the current “climate scientists” hold that qualification, and where and when did they receive it?

    4. How many universities have a chair in Climate Science?

    Modelling is definitely useful Gavin….I have no argument with that at all….I use it.
    It is NOT science however….it can be used by scientists …..and just like every other profession it can also be misused as well.
    I also think you are struggling with your definition of “Science”. You seem to be confusing it with “Scientists”.
    Scientists are just people Gavin….they’re usually very bright people…..but they’re just as fallible and just as vulnerable to undue influence as anyone else.
    They are also usually employed and are expected to do a job. The job description is what they must fulfil.
    You’re eternally attempting to use ‘Science’ and ‘Scientific modelling’ to argue for a ‘side’.
    By its very nature, science (as opposed to scientists) doesn’t take sides and is not ’employable’.
    It’s extra ordinarily easy to use modelling to argue for a side however….one day listening to a political debate in either the upper or lower house can demonstrate that fact quite easily.

  109. spangled drongo says

    Gav, you’re just talking about a great heap of unknowns. Compared with the relatively easy job of, for example, measuring SLR, they will likely never have full knowledge. When they can’t even get the knowns right, how can anyone have confidence in them getting the unknowns right.

    And then when their only way to get an answer is to start modelling sketchy unknowns you have to shake your head.

    Tossing a coin would probably be better. Or reading their horoscope.

    The easiest person to fool is yourself so stick to measuring the measurable and adjourn the adjustments.

  110. gavin says

    Shooting down over your back again Deb?

    Re SD’s latest blog slog,” Well, wadda ya know! Another new paper finds that climate models grossly under estimated cooling from clouds”.

    Well, I found this paper “Evaluation of Clouds and Precipitation in the ECHAM5 General Circulation Model Using CALIPSO and CloudSat Satellite Data” from Max Plank

    “Observations from Cloud–Aerosol Lidar and Infrared Pathfinder Satellite Observations (CALIPSO) and CloudSat satellites are used to evaluate clouds and precipitation in the ECHAM5 general circulation model. Active lidar and radar instruments on board CALIPSO and CloudSat allow the vertical distribution of clouds and their optical properties to be studied on a global scale. To evaluate the clouds modeled by ECHAM5 with CALIPSO and CloudSat, the lidar and radar satellite simulators of the Cloud Feedback Model Intercomparison Project’s Observation Simulator Package are used. Comparison of ECHAM5 with CALIPSO and CloudSat found large-scale features resolved by the model, such as the Hadley circulation, are captured well. The lidar simulator demonstrated ECHAM5 overestimates the amount of high-level clouds, particularly optically thin clouds. High-altitude clouds in ECHAM5 consistently produced greater lidar scattering ratios compared with CALIPSO. Consequently, the lidar signal in ECHAM5 frequently attenuated high in the atmosphere. The large scattering ratios were due to an underestimation of effective ice crystal radii in ECHAM5. Doubling the effective ice crystal radii improved the scattering ratios and frequency of attenuation. Additionally, doubling the effective ice crystal radii improved the detection of ECHAM5’s highest-level clouds by the radar simulator, in better agreement with CloudSat. ECHAM5 was also shown to significantly underestimate midlevel clouds and (sub)tropical low-level clouds. The low-level clouds produced were consistently perceived by the lidar simulator as too optically thick. The radar simulator demonstrated ECHAM5 overestimates the frequency of precipitation, yet underestimates its intensity compared with CloudSat observations. These findings imply compensating mechanisms in ECHAM5 balance out the radiative imbalance caused by incorrect optical properties of clouds and consistently large hydrometeors in the atmosphere” July 2012.

    http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00347.1

    You see Deb, there is climate technical stuff going on all the time and you don’t have to be involved with the hush conspiracy driven by one or two one eyed bloggers.

  112. Debbie says

    A website Gavin?
    So we have to have a little respect for the tools that scientists use?
    Climate technical stuff?
    Huh? ?
    Sorry . . . non comprehendo.
    I suppose you meant to make a point, but can’t find it.

  113. gavin says

    Much more than a website Deb;

    “Through the 20th century, the company expanded its publishing activities business, the sciences, and higher education. Since the establishment of the Nobel Prize in 1901, Wiley and its acquired companies have published the works of more than 450 Nobel Laureates, in every category in which the prize is awarded”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Wiley_%26_Sons

    The Wiley group is perhaps the largest technical publisher on just about everything we do but so often big note bloggers seem to be completely unaware of this massive reference.

  114. James Mayeau says

    Like the dolphin who guides you
    You bring us beside you
    To light up the darkness and show us the way
    For though we are strangers in your silent world
    To live on the land we must learn from the sea
    To be true as the tide
    And free as the wind-swell
    Joyful and loving in letting it be

    Aye, Calypso, the places you’ve been to
    The things that you’ve shown us
    The stories you tell
    Aye, Calypso, I sing to your spirit
    The men who have served you
    So long and so well

    Oops! Wait a minute. What I read here is Calipso doesn’t penetrate low level clouds either (nice visual presentation of what I’m talking about at that link). So I’m wondering how it can be used as a justification for re-calibrating the cloud penetration of a climate model, even going so far as demanding ice crystals to behave as the modeler would like?

  115. spangled drongo says

    Deb, the point gav was trying to make is that when you mix many wrongs, unknowns, inconsistencies etc, together, there’s a fair chance you will get the right answer.

    How’s your horoscope today?

  118. Debbie says

    SD,
    Is the ‘right answer’ the same as the ‘predetermined answer’? 🙂

    Gavin….please get this very clear….I have NO PROBLEM with smart technologies OR with the correct use of modelling…..NONE!
    I am a HUGE fan of science and what it has done for us all and what it can offer.
    I am NOT a fan of the way this particular branch of science has been politically hijacked.

    Much of what BoM and other meteorology organisations do is useful and helpful….this ‘climate technical stuff’ ….to use your terminology….is something else entirely!
    It is NOT ‘climate technical stuff’ it is a political misuse of data based on some very, very shaky assumptions…..not least being the way C02 performs when it is in in the ‘physical’ form of a trace gas in the atmosphere!

    I know the idea of AGW is ‘plausible’….and there is supporting evidence that on a local scale (or the UHI factor) that humans do have influence….but DUH!….we already knew that didn’t we? That’s always been the case all the way back to our cave man days.
    Us humans naturally work towards improving and enhancing our immediate environment….and we sometimes ‘stuff up’ and need to fix those mistakes.
    Your ‘climate technical stuff’ is attempting to prove that the human influence is GLOBAL and a negative impact that overides natural checks and balances and, very strangely, that it can be ‘managed’ on some type of calendar basis?
    And every single time Gavin…the ‘solution’ to all these problems is exactly the same solution…..the ‘climate technical stuff’ that is proving all this ‘alarming’ stuff….always concludes with the URGENT NEED for exactly the same strategy!
    That is NOT a sensible ‘insurance’ or ‘risk management’ strategy!

  119. Neville says

    So tell us Gav how can we manage the climate? What would you do first and how much would your actions lower the temp?

  120. Debbie says

    And PS Gavin,
    Our ABC said it snowed in Canberra on Wednesday….I guess you must now be able to see snow from the ACT?
    Or did the ABC get it wrong?
    Seems that your ‘hunch’ about the ACT July weather wasn’t proving anything much at all either in the ACT or around the globe?
    (which is not the same as climate you know especially since the accepted yearly calendar range for the winter season is June – August!) ….and a winter season is still only weather Gavin….not climate!
    Or maybe the ABC was incorrect?

  121. gavin says

    Deb; you could focus on some of the info in my links instead of beating round the bush.

    Nev; this is the can do age but only a few will get off the planet. The rest of us need to stay and fix it up and that should include you. Your questions look silly when given that task but I will say there is at least 200 years of fixing to do starting now.

    Btw Deb, that risk management philosophy came sometime after I began using Wiley texts everyday. Knowledge comes before strategy in my book.

  122. Johnathan Wilkes says

    gav
    ” planet..to stay and fix it up”

    Looks fine to me. Could do with a bit of warmth at the moment though!

  123. bazza says

    “I know the idea of AGW is ‘plausible’ ” from Debbie at 9:25 am. I wonder what evidence would be needed to show it was not plausible. ?

  124. spangled drongo says

    Been a soccer grand dad this morning. Hard work.

    Neville, can’t report the facts on the missing links in that Gillard/Wilson/S&G scandal.

    There would only be about 95% of Australians interested.

    Gav, some of us sceptics have spent their whole lives fixing fixing the planet but I never cease to marvel at how the catastros are the mindless consumers who, like their lefty, watermelon govts, need the sceptics to regularly take charge and fix their ever-increasing debt levels so they can have another crack at spending, wasting, over-regulating and generally digging an even bigger economic black hole.

    During the down-time they recharge their batteries by continually abusing the Campbell Newmans who have the courage to try and fix their mess.

  125. spangled drongo says

    “I wonder what evidence would be needed to show it was not plausible. ?”

    Bazza, I know this is a DD but I’ll bite. If we’ve had no warming for the last 15 years with exponential ACO2 increases, how long should this continue before you of the warming persuasion are persuaded otherwise?

  127. Robert says

    A family member flew over Qld during the week. I think he’s a bit Green these days, like a lot of well-to-do inner-city people. He talked about the gouging of what seemed to be good farmland and of the sheer visibility of coal mining. I didn’t argue, because I agreed to a great extent.

    What has happened to Conservation? It has been swallowed up by Environmentalism, a mass neurosis that likes any amount of waste and wreckage in the name of dogmatic purity. While monkish pseudo-scientists are busily spinning the post 18th century sea-level rises into a modern catastrophe, and killing temp and weather history as quick as they find it, we waste human resources, land, water, minerals, food, and money like the worst of the collectivist states of last century. Our Green Betters will do to the physical world what our Political Betters did to the human masses of Asia and Eastern Europe (and to the physical world!).

    Environmentalists, your masks are slipping. Your true faces are red and angry, with that familiar elitist sneer.

  128. Debbie says

    Bazza,
    ROFL!!!! 🙂 🙂 🙂
    I am laughing so hard at your comment there are tears streaming down my face. 🙂
    That was an absolute classic case of missing the point.
    On what planet (other than on planet Bazza) has anybody EVER said that Human influence (either positive or negative) on environment and/or climate is NOT plausible?
    You are very, very funny Bazza.
    ROFL 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂

  131. Debbie says

    BTW Bazza I most definitely wrote the IDEA of AGW.
    I even offered WHY it was a plausible IDEA.
    Capitals necessary to help you understand the actual point.

  132. spangled drongo says

    gav and bazza,

    If a climate/computer scientist is uncertain and ignorant enough then mere probabilities are as good as facts.

    With all the unknowns and uncertainties in climatology do you really think the results are believable?

    That you shouldn’t be sceptical?

  133. Neville says

    Gav the very last thing we should do is introduce a co2 tax. We should only commit to adaptation to future problems whether it be AGW or anything else.

    This decision is easy to understand because our reduction of 5% of emissions by 2020 is a pathetic joke that will cost billions for a zero return.

    We should also be trying to invest some of our scarce (now) borrowed funds on new technology, innovation and new inventions etc, with the hope that one day we may have some new cheap way of producing some of our energy.

  134. Debbie says

    And Gavin,
    with all due respect for current technologies, I very much suspect that in 200 years our current tecchie toys will look very amusing to those in the future.
    We can only sensibly deal with what we have now.

  136. Debbie says

    Knowledge comes before strategy?
    That sounds eminently sensible.
    But apparently in this particular case we have it completely back to front.
    The strategy is being rammed down our throats and it is the SAME strategy no matter what the problem.
    Apparently the ‘knowledge’ is ‘settled’.
    Apparently there is only ONE risk management strategy and it will even prevent people getting cranky in traffic jams in Western Sydney.

  139. Neville says

    Let’s have a look at real co2 emissions over the last 20 years.

    http://www.eia.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/iedindex3.cfm?tid=90&pid=44&aid=8&cid=CG6,CG5,&syid=1990&eyid=2010&unit=MMTCD

    In 1990 OECD countries emissions = 11.6 bn tonnes Non OECD countries =10 bn tonnes.

    In 2000 OECD ” ” ” =13.1 bn tonnes Non OECD ” ” ” = 10.6 bn tonnes

    In 2010 OECD ” ” ” = 13.0 bn tonnes Non OECD ” ” ” = 18.8 bn tonnes.

    Since 1990 OECD emissions have increased by 1.4 bn tonnes pa and NON OECD emissions have increased by 8.8 bn tonnes pa.

    Of course emissions have rapidly soared in China and India so much since 2000 that the tonnage has increased by 8.2 bn tonnes pa in just 10 years.

    How OZ can introduce a co2 tax under these conditions and claim we are ” tackling CC or taking action on CC ” is just about the most moronic statements of our time.

    Meanwhile the USA is not increasing emissions much at all and will continue to do so with increased use of Gas instead of coal etc.

    In fact the OECD will be almost flatling their emissions for decades and the non OECD emissions will continue to soar.

  141. Robert says

    Perhaps the carbon tax could help fund a clean, green war against all those Asian emitters. More revenues for our war to save the planet might be obtained by exports of coal to…well, to all those Asian emitters.

  143. bazza says

    Debbie, I agree you ” most definitely wrote the IDEA of AGW” as plausible. The G is for global. You then used UHI as an example. You are not serious?. Any other examples of plausability?

  146. Debbie says

    Dear Bazza,
    Thankyou so much for expaining the G in the acronym AGW. Thank goodness we have such smart people like you around to explain these things….should you also maybe point out to everyone that A stands for Anthropegenal (can’t be bothered to check spelling but synonym is HUMAN) and W stands for warming?
    I can only suggest you reread my post.
    You may discover that the point was that UHI …which DOES have supporting evidence (like DUH!!!!!!!!!!and DOUBLE DUH!!!!!)… is what has prompted the plausibile IDEA (or if you like theory or hypothesis) of the GLOBAL….which DOES NOT have supporting evidence!!!!
    The emerging real time data is NOT supporting the IDEA of the G bit in AGW.
    Get it?
    May I respectfully suggest that if you read people’s posts in the ‘spirit’ they are offered rather than trying to be some sort of smart alec tactician… one day I may be able to actually take you seriously….at the moment however, I still find you very, very funny…..in an ironically amusing context.
    kind regards 🙂
    Debbie

  148. Debbie says

    Thanks for that link Spangled,
    The point I tried to make, is made very clearly here by Patrick Moore:

    ‘The global average temperature has now been flat for the past 15 years, as all the while CO2 emissions have continued to increase. There are only 2 possible explanations for, either there is some equally powerful natural factor that is suppressing the warming that should be caused by CO2, or CO2 is only a minor contributor to warming in the first place.’

    I would also insert ‘Human produced’ in front of those C02s.

  149. bazza says

    So Debbie,you are now saying the idea of AGW is not plausible. You and spangled can go on mangling the evidence. You deserve each other. Anybody still hanging on to that 15 year story as evidence of anything other than a rising trend with mostly natural variability from record El Nino at the start and near record La Nina at the end has long ago crossed the line from sceptic to denialist and you would have to be a mug to bother trying to understand where they are coming from.

  150. spangled drongo says

    “You and spangled can go on mangling the evidence.”

    Well bazza, please give us your unmangled evidence.

    I’ve shown you the temp/CO2 chart for the last 350 years. That doesn’t correlate so as Dr Patrick Moore says there has to be something else and we are all aware that a few things can produce warming, both man made and natural, so what about giving us your take on why it’s happening and for what reason.

    And we won’t mind if you delete the desperate denier declamations. ☺

  151. Neville says

    So why aren’t bazza, Luke and Gav over in Asia demonstrating against the really big future ( and present) emitters?

    The OECD countries are emitting little new emissions and will virtually flatline for decades. The really big emitters China India etc are the only big emitters until 2035 at least.

    The OECD could stop emitting today and it would hardly make a scrap of difference to future co2 emissions for decades.

    Very easy, simple maths but these real deniers just don’t seem to understand.

  152. Debbie says

    No Bazza,
    I most definitely stated that due to evidence re UHI it WAS plausible. UHI is entirely supported by evidence, but it does not appear that it successfully extrapolates to that G bit in AGW. Not from the A bit that produces C02 anyway.
    I suggest that calling people names is not helping my current opinion of you.
    Your comment re el nino actually supports part of what Patrick Moore says: the natural factor bit, which you call natural variability.
    You need to explain that ‘evidence of a rising trend’ phrase because to me you haven’t done anything other than state the obvious.
    Maybe I have missed something?

  153. spangled drongo says

    As Pielke Jr says:

    “For years — decades, even — science has shown convincingly that human activities have an impact on the planet. That impact includes but is not limited to carbon dioxide. We are indeed running risks with the future climate through the unmitigated release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, and none of the schemes attempted so far has made even a dent in the problem. While the climate wars will go on, characterized by a poisonous mix of dodgy science, personal attacks, and partisan warfare, the good news is that progress can yet be made outside of this battle.

    The key to securing action on climate change may be to break the problem into more manageable parts.”

    As Tom Fuller says, we can solve this by attacking existing problems with doable, not faith-based, solutions.

    And even as James Hansen says, we can do it with gen 4 nuclear power.

  154. Debbie says

    Apology!
    I said IS but really meant WAS.
    However, IS is still OK.
    In theory it IS plausible because of UHI. But, the emerging real time data, which must be the judge, is clearly indicating the theory is not anywhere near ‘setlled’.
    Gotta ask why we aren’t focusing on mitigating UHI?

  156. Luke says

    Yes the damage from drought, floods, cyclones, tornadoes, heatwaves, cold outbreaks and hail has damaged trillions of dollars of agriculture, infrastructure and costs millions of lives.

  157. Neville says

    The mitigation of AGW is a total fraud and con. Lomborg’s economic team calculated that if the Kyoto scheme was followed to the letter it would only postpone AGW by 5 years before the year 2100.

    That is it would have the same result in 2095 instead of 2100. This would cost countless trillions $ for at least ninety years for almost nil return.

    The numbers are now in for the last 21 years and the results show the same useless return on investment and almost zero change.

    In 1990 human co2 emissions totalled 21.6 bn tonnes pa. By 2010 this had increased to 31.8 bn tonnes or an increase of 10.2 bn tonnes pa.

    But the OECD emissions only added an extra 1.4 bn tonnes pa of that total with the extra 8.8 bn tonnes pa emitted by non OECD countries.

    So if every OECD country signed up to Kyoto the change would have made little difference. For decades to come that difference will be much less because nearly all the increased co2 is now produced by the non OECD.

  158. Neville says

    Well Luke tell us how to fix all those problems. We’re not asking you to sweat blood or swing a pick and shovel, so just give us the answer.

    Should be easy for someone who has thought about this problem ? for some time.

  159. Debbie says

    Luke,
    droughts, floods etc are natural occurences.
    They certainly do some damage, no argument there.
    But? Relevance?
    Did humans cause these things to happen?
    Was it because of slight warming, either from humans or otherwise?
    Because that was SD’S question. His link was relevant to the posed question.

  160. spangled drongo says

    “Yes the damage from drought, floods, cyclones, tornadoes, heatwaves, cold outbreaks and hail has damaged trillions of dollars of agriculture, infrastructure and costs millions of lives.”

    Do you have any evidence that the preceeding 250 years of cooler weather was any better?

    Not to forget that the lower technology of that earlier period made average life harder and misfortune more deadly.

    As cohenite has pointed out to you on numerous occasions, warming reduces the world’s temperature gradient which reduces extreme weather.

  161. Johnathan Wilkes says

    Comment from: Luke August 12th, 2012 at 5:42 pm

    quote: SD “cost/benefits of the last 250 years ”

    Luke said:

    “Yes the damage from drought, floods, cyclones, tornadoes, heatwaves, cold outbreaks and hail has damaged trillions of dollars of agriculture, infrastructure and costs millions of lives.”

    Don’t much care one way or other Luke, but do you seriously believe what you just said?
    Taking into account the part of the question especially “last 250 years”?

    Are you saying that a measly 0.5C if that, of temperature change has changed the climate/weather patterns? (don’t even want to go into the question of “global” average whatever that means? when it’s cold in one part of the world and hot in an other)
    Luke your politics is clouding your mind or you are just too stubborn to admit that you were wrong.

  164. Robert says

    It’s true! In the 18th and 19th centuries far fewer people died directly from climate disasters. You had to be one of the elite who made it past birth, childhood, pregnancy, accidents, infection and starvation. The abundant droughts, floods, cyclones, tornadoes, heatwaves, cold outbreaks and hail couldn’t kill you when you were already dead.

    The cost of these disasters was far less, since there were far fewer people (see above) and far less infrastructure. True, the Great Hurricane of 1780 was more lethal than any Atlantic event since…but it was huge! And while Irene in 2011 was bad, let’s hope New York and Long Island don’t cop a repeat of 1821’s monster. Much of Manhattan was flooded, Battery Park copped a four metre storm surge in just one hour.

    Fortunately for the Left Coast of the US, only the one Pacific hurricane has arrived there in force, at least in the historical era. But that was in 1858, so no Prius dealerships were damaged. Not a patch on Galveston, 1900, or Miami 1926.

    Closer to home, and getting back into the 19th century, by a whisker, Australia’s own Mahina would NOT want to be repeated in a more populous Qld. To borrow a fave expression of warmists, Mahina claims a “world record” for the height of its storm surge that few will dispute. Dolphins and other fish were reported found on top of 15 metre cliffs.

    Of course, Katrina, 280 km/h and 902 mbar, was a real horror. If things aren’t worse than we thought, they’re not better either!

  165. spangled drongo says

    Neville,

    And we wondered why the HSU scandal got stymied. If we started investigating union corruption it would go all the way up.

    Can they get a big enough rug to sweep all this under?

  166. gavin says

    Anybody who continuously quotes WUWT or jono should be dismissed as radical right with extremely limited vision. Also anyone who uses UHI to scuttle out backwards from responsibility is another NIMBY. Its a furphy of the first order too.

    Today I met a regular acquaintance who has just returned from a big trip overseas. All he could say to me was how hot they were in the USA. Las Vegas topped 46C.

    http://www.8newsnow.com/story/19231224/heat

    Later; when a Liberal Candidate walked up my drive, we had a chat about what he stood for and it didn’t include AGW. Typical party line, so I advised him on his bad breath and the need to listen to all potential constituents.

  167. Johnathan Wilkes says

    gav

    I remember, part of a line in the movie “The Alamo” when the commander I think colonel Travis said to the hillbilly ex house of rep. (can’t recall his name) “please no more of your homespun wisdom and anecdotes” or something along those lines.

    I wish you did the same.
    It is getting tiresome.
    How come no labor or liberal or greeny candidate ever walks up our path? It’s a good path, I assure you, they wouldn’t trip or anything.

    I wouldn’t even tell them they have bad breath, suppose I have too much “kulcha” and manners?

  168. spangled drongo says

    gav, you’re not telling us it gets hot in the US in summer? Wow! Hastabe AGW.

    Try some facts for a change:

    “Anthony Watts has done it again and given the big boys a bloody nose – this time over the US temperature record.

    NOAA announced today:

    The average temperature for the contiguous U.S. during July was 77.6°F, 3.3°F above the 20th century average, marking the hottest July and the hottest month on record for the nation. The previous warmest July for the nation was July 1936 when the average U.S. temperature was 77.4°F. The warm July temperatures contributed to a record-warm first seven months of the year and the warmest 12-month period the nation has experienced since recordkeeping began in 1895.

    Anthony had always wondered why NOAA didn’t provide data from the brand-spanking-new United States Climate Reference Network (USCRN). So he did it himself.
    The difference is startling.

    Using the old network, NOAA says the USA Average Temperature for July 2012 is: 77.6°F

    Using the new NOAA USCRN data, the USA Average Temperature for July 2012 is: 75.5°F

    The modern USCRN is 2.1°F cooler than the old problematic network.

    It was no high record at all. To finish, Anthony delivers a funny, blistering rebuke.

    NOAA never mentions this new pristine USCRN network in any press releases on climate records or trends, nor do they calculate and display a CONUS value for it. Now we know why. The new “pristine” data it produces is just way too cool for them.”

    Try shooting the message instead instead of the messenger.

    It’s nearly as rude as telling someone they have bad breath.

  170. spangled drongo says

    gav, pay attention. See my comment at 8.46pm.

    Sorry to disappoint but that 77.6 F is wrong.

    NOAA’s correct temp is 75.5 F.

    1.9 F cooler than July 1936.

  171. Robert says

    Hot in Vegas? I can believe it. This particular big heat is widespread, and breaking records all up and down the record shop. Of course, many records stand and many are from the unmentionable decade.

    The census bureau reported 12,183 deaths for the July heatwave of 1936 (more severe in the middle of the continent than 2012, but with cooler periphery).

    That blew away the 8,851 deaths for July 1934. The corresponding week in 1935 only killed 7,435, still…

    1931 had lethal heatwaves, but it had lethal everything. From Europe, to North America, from China to Australia, people were getting chilled, baked, frozen or flooded. Just as well they didn’t have to worry about climate disruption or extreme weather events!

    By the way, France’s toll from the 2003 heat wave was well over 14,000. Though many deaths were due to so many elderly left alone in August, the heat was stupendous for some parts: 40C for seven days in Auxerre. So, like I said in my previous comment, things may not be worse than we thought, but they’re certainly no better!

    It’s a naughty world. We need lots of appliances, a/c, heating, dams etc to live well in it. (For the Fairfax/ABC set, by “we” I mean “everybody”.)

  172. Luke says

    Johnathon – I’m just using the principles of drongoist science which makes this blog infamous.

    What I have said is true. Now you surely don’t want to engage in a science discussion of attribution do you. This blog runs on straight correlation. Hot, cold, dry, wet – we’ll take any old iron as evidence.

    It’s raw data. it’s occurred, there’s a correlation, so that’s that !

    Funny that Jen and Jo have run the Gillard politics isn’t it. The previous rule was enviro-politics only – nothing off topic. Just another right wing front group though really.

  174. Debbie says

    Gavin,
    According to the definitions of Luke and others, that is clearly wiggle watching and you are also using the principles of drongoist science. Or if you like, that is just weather. Also Gavin, SURELY you’re not denying UHI are you?
    Luke & Bazza
    I note the name calling.
    Right wing front group? Ayn Rand? Enviro politics?
    That is actually funny!
    You are making it sound like this has more to do with ‘real politics’ rather than ‘real science’.
    Surely not?

  175. spangled drongo says

    The Gillard politics are geting more extreme and ridiculous by the day which essentially speaks to the cred of all her politics. So they are completely relevant.

    The AGW scam is so much a part of this lefty lunacy. All oportunistic subterfuge in the same boat.

    As in unwanted boat arrivals.

  176. Neville says

    Here’s more interesting facts for the real deniers. You claim it’s all about human co2 emissions, well look at this.

    OECD countries emissions in 1990 11.6 bn tonnes co2 pa increasing to 13 bn tonnes co2 pa in 2010. An increase of 1.4 bn tonnes pa co2 over 21 years.

    The non OECD emissions increased by 8.8 bn tonnes pa over that 21 year period.

    But the co2 emissions from the non OECD increased by 1.7 bn tonnes pa in just twelve months from 2009 17.1bn tonnes co2 pa to 2010 18.8bn tonnes co2 pa.

    Thats 0.3 bn tonnes more than the OECD countries increased by over the previous 21 years.
    Now that’s what you’d call an increase in co2, something like super soaring I’d say.

    BTW China alone increased emissions of co2 from 2009 to 2010 by 1.1 bn tonnes pa. When will you deniers wake up to your fraud and con of AGW mitigation?

    Some say that science is maths, well there’s the numbers. Time the real deniers resorted to simple kindy maths and worked it out for themslves.

  177. bazza says

    Spangled wants to get disentangled from the denialist tag, and he can be a born again sceptic in my book if he could find some odd and silly things about the wattsup link he offered to shootdown AGW. ( It was the shonky central England temp and CO2 comparison, 12:20pm on 11th). I wrongly accused him of being as one with Debbie. Wrong. SD once said he believed climate sensitivity was about one. Deb must believe it is zero if AGW does not exist (killed by UHI, she believes. That will get her back on the caps key. She should ask Jonathan Livingstone where is the bold key. What next?).
    I don’t mess around with peoples beliefs so what can I say. What I do mess with are schlock jocks putting up stuff to mislead the innocent who don’t have their sophistication ( only in rare cases) or their sophistry. Anybody who puts up a bit of so called evidence that is just about a bit of time or space and uses that in isolation from the relevant evidence is not a sceptic and I will call them what I like.

  178. spangled drongo says

    If bazza [let’s have a third person conversation] would only supply a little evidence himself to support his argument then we would all know better what he is talking about but just calling well established data “shonky” and not supplying any of his own is itself pretty shonky.

    If bazza could bring himself to look at the bigger picture he might realise that there is very little in climate science that has been quantified, so the people who are in denial are the ones that refuse to accept the raw data that’s out there.

    Some of that already-quantified big picture data gives very good reason for scepticism:

    http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/easterbrook_fig5.jpg

    Is this data too raw for our resident catastros to accept?

    Should it be denied?

  179. Debbie says

    Bazza,
    You are truly hilarious.
    Never mind SD
    Bazza claimed at an earlier post that to put it simply the absence of evidence does not mean that the evidence is absent or something similar!.
    I guess that means he doesn’t have to answer any genuine direct questions about evidence.
    He is trying hard to explain that he stands on the moral high ground and he is protecting the innocent.
    I’m a little unclear what or whom he is protecting the innocent from?
    It seems they need protecting from people like me who hasn’t bothered to find out how to use the BOLD option at this site and just uses CAPITALS instead. 🙂
    That makes me a serious threat to the innocent you know.
    He also claims that I wrote that UHI kills AGW.
    How deliciously ironic Bazza.
    You really are very very funny.
    I am a farmer, a business owner, self employed, a wife, a mother, a daughter/daughter in law an aunty, a sister and a sister in law, a community volunteer, I have 3 university degrees, my neck is probably the same colour as yours and most importantly I work closely with my environment and I care very deeply about it.
    I am also a swinging voter. I vote on ‘policy’ not politics or my opinion of politicians.
    Your ridiculous attempts to call me silly moral names is getting funnier and funnier. You now have a list of my primary name tags. You are welcome to call me one or a combination of those any time you please.
    How would you define yourself Bazza, and just out of interest, is Bazza really your name?
    Of course you could just as easily ask and answer questions about the evidence rather than making sneering personal comments and repetetive and hilarious attempts at ‘shooting the messenger’.

  180. bazza says

    Deb, impressive and can I predict your 3 degrees include a bit of stats 101 as well as semantics 101 because you want to know what I meant by rising trend. I meant a trend that is rising – the same as when I tried to engage you a while ago. On 21st MarchI wrote” Deb set the tone with her opening gambit “I have to giggle at the graph that shows the lack of correlation between C02 levels and temp”. Deb, only read on if you have got over your giggling about those pesky periods when the temperature graph intermittently not ever rising like the CO2 one with the wiggles. Not funny for the victims, but they were periods dominated by La Ninas as you well know. “ quote ends.
    You were not able to engage on that point so you went off on some other random tack. I suppose you would not need to bother if you find Arrhenius erroneus.

  183. Debbie says

    What victims Bazza?
    If I recall correctly you tried to imply I was a victim of AGW. I was certainly affected by natural variability. They are not the same thing are they?
    Natural variability and seasonal extremes do create problems Bazza. I have never claimed otherwise. There is no evidence that says those things are caused by AGW. So in that particular sense we must have been furiously agreeing with each other?
    I also recall your attempt at engagement was a refusal to answer a very simple question and a propensity to make a deal and then immediately break it.
    BTW your prediction was incorrect re university degrees. All of them are way beyond 101( including the stats one) I also note that you continuously imply that you have superior knowledge, is that related to your education and your occupation?
    You have often attempted to sneer at mine. It isn’t achieving anything BTW, other than making me laugh at you. I find that habit of yours increasingly hilarious.
    I also forgot to mention that I don’t drink much tea, I prefer coffee and tweed coats don’t suit me so I don’t wear them.
    I do notice however that you are still claiming that I lack empathy for someone or something? It is very unclear.
    Who is/are these poor victims of AGW Bazza? Who is it that you are protecting? How are you protecting them? What is the strategy and the policy? How are you going to make it better for them?

  185. Debbie says

    ROFL!
    🙂 🙂 🙂
    Nice freudian slip there Toby.
    If Toby is correct Bazza and the part in engagement where you would need to answer questions is above you I sincerely apologise.

  186. Larry Fields says

    It’s shameless self-promotion time again.

    Larry’s Tetrahedron Puzzle

    Here’s a link to the article at Hubpages.
    http://tinyurl.com/8nocdg9

    Summary:
    Can you find the distance from the base of a Regular Tetrahedron to its center, if you know the height of this 3D figure? This article also describes an important tetrahedron in the world of chemistry, as well as the Cavalieri Principle.

  187. spangled drongo says

    Fascinating puzzle Larry. You would initially think it would be 0.5 meters but naturally if it contains 4 smaller tetrahedra with the same base area [and it would] then the height from base to centre is 0.25 meters.

    I seem to remember that tetrahedra are the most roll-resistant shape you can construct and are used as army tank barriers.

  188. spangled drongo says

    Sorry, the above should read: tetrahedra are the most roll-resistant shape of any equal sided shape you can construct…

  189. Luke says

    Bazza – how can Debbie have 3 uni degrees and be so thick. Arts grad? Lawyer? Teacher?

    Debbies mob have already been AGW victims themselves having a good old feed on the EC drought relief funding.

  191. spangled drongo says

    Luke, can you give us any droughts that weren’t a result of AGW?

    The Mexican Mayan maybe? No?

  192. Luke says

    If there was any major influence it would be past the 1970s. Obviously changes in El Nino to Modoki and changes in the Walker circulation, SST temps regionally, IOD, SAM and STRi give pause to consider whether any AGW factors are at work. And then you have whether AGW might influence location, occurrence or severity or a combination. Complex questions until the evidence would be so obvious that even Neville would agree.

    Energy is not distributed evenly ! Circulation and quasi-periodic oscillations ensure that.

  193. gavin says

    “Energy is not distributed evenly”. Ain’t that the truth!

    Deb; going back to your Q earlier, I don’t think a single person can put a finger on UHI or know if the present US heat wave is more or less than some old records.

    Because I’ve been an “instrument maker” amongst a few other jobs around air “conditioning” I can say it is difficult to calibrate a thermometer in air or read the thing in turbulence. Radiation v conduction and convection around the temp sensor needs to be considered before conclusions about stability. Finally, although a liquid filled glass type thermometer can be reasonably reliable through out it’s life. many don’t make it to old age.

    Temperature records are riddled with undocumented site changes, instrument changes, observer changes and so on. It’s also quite unrealistic for one person to have enough data to find anything other than temperature changes across a range of sites based on their manual recordings. A far better way is to find another reference system and impose that over all max/min thermometer data starting with a search for that hand full of perfect sites and data.

  194. cohenite says

    luke says:

    “Funny that Jen and Jo have run the Gillard politics isn’t it.”

    “Gillard politics”; is that what it is?

    And the Modoki; gee, haven’t heard that for a while; all this stuff luke says about ENSO and other macro-climate factors being affected by AGW; well, it’s the other way round:

    http://www.duke.edu/~ns2002/pdf/CO2-MEI-LOD.pdf

  195. spangled drongo says

    Luke and his well known unquantifiables.

    How many faint possibilities with unknown cause and effect do you need, to add up to Neville-convincing certainty?

    But he is right on message. The more ignorance we currently have, the more certain the future.

    But gav goes on to make a good case for for scepticism.

  196. spangled drongo says

    gav, that data with all it’s errors is still the best we’ve got but BoM are convinced that it should be either completely deleted or adjusted according to their assumptions.

    They can’t assume in which direction errors were made.

    Why not leave it stand with acknowledged error bars?

  197. Neville says

    One thing we are can be very certain of is the complete fraud of AGW mitigation. The numbers are there for us to see and easily understand. ( except for the pig ignorant )

    OECD increased co2 emissions pa by just 1.4 bn tonnes in 21 years. But the non OECD has increased co2 emissions pa by 1.7 tonnes ( 1 year) from 2009 to 2010.

    This is more than a factor of 20 to 1 and this will go on for decades into the future. So ditch that stupid co2 tax and spend more on R&D and new technology and of course adaptation when required.

    A good start is to increasingly use gas for any new power stns etc.

  198. Debbie says

    Yep,
    interesting paper Cohenite.
    As per usual however, it is full of disclaimers.
    looking more n more likely that it is the other way around.
    Looking more n more likely that people like Nasif & G&T who operate from the well credentialed backgrounds of physics and mathematica (among others) are closer to the mark.
    Looks more n more like human produced CO2 when it is in the physical form of a trace gas in the atmosphere does not perform as per the AGW theory.

  199. spangled drongo says

    gav, we’ve got an old rambling house that I try to keep warm with the minimum of energy and thus have thermometers in lots of places to check and I know what you say about error but imagine the error in satellite measurement of SLR, ARGO measurement etc.

    You get smarter but you dont delete the old data.

    BTW, I rarely need energy for cooling and my warming energy is 100% renewable.

  202. Neville says

    Spangled a good cheap cosy method of keeping warm is to layer up ( more jumpers coats etc ) and use the new electric throw rugs.
    Kmart $39 but selling for $29 now. Very warm and very cheap to run, just cents an hour.

  203. Minister for Truth says

    Part iv from Pickering

    http://lpickering.net/item/16312

    Can it possibly get more shameful than all of this, and thats without adding in the shameful behaviour of the climate catastrophists.

    We demonstrably have the most incompetent and untrustworthy bunch of political and academic elites ever in this countries short history.

    This behaviour by the UWA doesnt help either.

    http://joannenova.com.au/2012/08/uwa-sponsors-world-wide-junkets-for-poor-research-inept-smears-oreskes/

  204. Robert says

    Apart from the fact that we are the biggest coal exporters in the world, and waste our coal by burning it in clunkers, and don’t have nukes at all, and have mythologised our opposition to hydro…

    …apart from those little contradictions, we really are doing our best. We sermonise, make brochures, push the tax buttons and pull the regulation levers to make things cooler somehow, somewhere…

    …and then, just the other day, bloody Mount Monowai, down in the ocean north of NZ, makes a floating raft of pumice the size of Belgium.

    Belgium!

    I hate it when that happens!

  205. Debbie says

    Luke,
    Did you read the paper Cohenite linked?
    What on earth does your comment have to do with it?
    Does it suddenly upset you that I have confirmed that I have a tertiary education?
    It is only one of the reasons I have cause to comment.
    Go back and look at the list of name tags.
    And strangely I agree that a university degree does not stop people from being thick!
    You also need to brush up on your maths and check what sectors are the greediest snout feeders in the government coffers.
    However, none of that is relevant to the paper that Cohenite linked.
    It concludes that CO2 trails and that other factors rule. Did you notice what those other factors were?

  206. bazza says

    Deb, it it tricky for that little trace of CO2 to remember whether it is supposed to led or lag temps depending on which hemisphere it is in. Tricky too because it is about the same concentration as your local cop would book you for with blood alcohol excess.
    Anyway there are still 172 denialist hoaxes left for you to deftly move on to. On the sceptical science site you have recently done 30 26 11 9 7 6 5 4 3 on a hit and run basis. Have you gone random or is it just hit and miss on a whim and a prayer.

  208. Debbie says

    Huh?
    Have no idea what you are trying to claim now?
    Am I only permitted to comment at one place?
    Denialist hoaxes?
    Seriously?
    The relevance of that comment?
    It’s tricky?
    You think?
    ROFL! 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂
    Would you like to comment on the paper that Cohenite linked Bazza or is it just too tricky for you?
    Did you not get the part where I said that bad habit of yours only succeeds in making me laugh???

  210. toby says

    Whats the bet our resident catastrophists also support the NBN?! I wont ask it as a question because they never get answered, but if ever there is an example of a lack of common sense and value for money the NBN personifies it……with the carbon tax a close run second.

  211. Luke says

    You’d have to be stupid not to support the NBN. It’s utterly essential. Only knuckle dragging luddites would think otherwise.

    Debbie – strike 3 – yer out.

    Anyway let Cohers look after himself. You try to use your THREE degrees to work out if Cohers paper is any good and tell us all about it. We’ll comment should we feel the need.

  212. bazza says

    Deb, I reckon you lost it even more when you had to throw in your 3 degrees. Only the evidence matters and yours is never original. Quoting your quals is the ultimate argumentum pro ego. Remember that yank who drops in – he had to tell us he once wrote a paper – what a hero.

  213. toby says

    I wonder why only about 15% of businesses with access to super fast broadband use it?

    typical bloody socialist, anti competition and considers cost benefit analysis pointless.

    The NBN is a joke, basically the most expensive piece of infrastructure yet built ( well thought of….by the time its built we will be re-laying the old fibre!) for a need we dont yet have.

    The very fact you support it and consider non supporters luddites should be proof enough your opinion is worthless and Debbie I wouldnt bother trying to argue with them because common sense is not welcome and models make reliable prediitions.

    seriously get a grip with reality man!!

    platitudes are for fools.

    think the NDIS is a good idea? most do, but since our current inept governments have spunked 237billion on nothing we cant afford to do what we all think is a good idea?

    letting socialists near the cookie jar is a very dangerous thing to do……..

  214. Robert says

    “argumentum pro ego”

    Regardless of “quals”, it takes a special blend of ignorance and snobbery to mangle Latin that badly.

  215. Johnathan Wilkes says

    Luke,
    “You’d have to be stupid not to support the NBN. ”

    You would have to qualify that Luke, depends what form the NBN takes, in its current form
    I’m afraid I don’t support it myself. Far too ambitious and overreaching, therefor too costly, in its aim.
    Laying fiber to the “node” and leaving the existing copper network in place, even if new distribution points were to be created that would bring every subscriber to a fast service (ADSL2 at least) distance
    would have been far more desirable and most importantly affordable.

    Also some new mobile network towers could and most probably will be built along the fiber routes thus catering for the needs of customers demanding wireless access and further eliminating the need of fiber to the home.

    Whether the aim was to ultimately control the totality of the network content by government, I don’t know, but it sure sounds like it. Getting rid of a perfectly good infrastructure accessible to all and sundry and replacing it with a government controlled one smells like it.

    “Only knuckle dragging luddites would think otherwise.”

    Or people who happen to know a bit more about it Luke, fast network connections are already available for those who need it and those who don’t really need it but can afford it.

    Some days I work from home and my connection is quite adequate for my needs and may I add that my needs for data volume and speed, even when at home are probably 5 times as much as for an ordinary customer.
    True, I don’t download movies, only big datasheets and graphics which sometimes are actually larger than a movie file.

    People are not stupid Luke, just because they happen to disagree with you.
    They simply see things from a different perspective. Climate “science” is hardly an exact science you have to agree with that.
    There is plenty of scope for other ideas, explanations, it’s not like adding two and two together and all coming to the same answer.

  216. bazza says

    Thought I would make your day Robert, what with your love of history and records. But I suppose if you were rooted in the past, you would be offended by a bit of dog latin.

  217. Luke says

    Of course you can afford it. In fact you’ve never had it so good. The cost benefit is phenomenal. Business is already on board. Just not your pre-historic businesses.

    All the arguments about wireless and decaying fibre are just so bogus.

  218. Debbie says

    No Bazza,
    I was just helping you out with your habit of using name tags.
    I’m actually stunned that it is the tertiary education bits that seem to have caused an issue?
    You can leave that bit out if it upsets you so much.
    While I am not unhappy that I am well educated, I don’t think it is that important.
    You can engage with me as an irrigation farmer or as a business owner if that makes you happier.
    I’m fine with that.
    But it doesn’t change the fact that I am tertiary educated as well.

    Luke?
    my comment was a direct result of reading the paper that Cohenite linked.
    It was also relevant to an earlier comment of yours.
    You tried to make it about something else.
    But if you don’t want to discuss it then that’s of course your choice.
    I’m a bit disappointed but that’s not your problem.

  219. Robert says

    Some dog Latin is fine for a laugh. Bad Latin used to impress and intimidate is another matter. It’s like quoting major authors without pertinence and just for pompous effect. Snob stuff.

    The New Man at Year Zero finds the past so old and smelly. It’s only good for retro fads and important sounding quotes.

    What’s worse, the past is full of bloody precedents!

  222. Neville says

    Why do some people have such a fanatical religious approach to AGW mitigation I wonder? It’s not as if there is any doubt about the source and percentages of human co2 emissions for every country on the planet.

    Simple kindy maths lets us add up the co2 emissions very easily over the last couple of decades.
    So why do they suddenly take this leap of faith and start believing in the barking mad mitigation of AGW?

    There can’t be any dispute about the numbers yet it remains hidden from most members of the public.
    You’ll never hear the MSM discuss the source and percentages ever and their ABC won’t discuss it either.

    Even here the real deniers avoid it like the plague except to throw a few insults as they run away.

  223. toby says

    “Business is already on board. Just not your pre-historic businesses.”..then let them build the bloody thing!…WHY IS THERE SUCH A LOW BUSINESS UPTAKE WHERE IT IS CURRENTLY AVAILABLE?…..cos its not needed and by the time it is something better/ cheaper will probably have come along.
    i repeat only an idiot would support the NBN …but I should have qualified that by saying in its current form.
    as JW so wisely suggests, fibre to the node, not home is a much more sensible option and in conjunction with wireless would provide cheap affordable access.
    But no, the govt in its stupidity wants to tear out all copper cable ( creating a monopoply?) and refuses to make use of teh optus and telstra cables already laid and being used.
    It makes outrageous excuses for why it is so far behind schedule and they blatantly lie to teh medias face and get away with…much like the hansen’s and flannery’s of this world…….they may try to do good but in their own stupidity they do far more harm…just like socialism and communism….hardly surpising they also support CAGW!

    I asked the question because it doesnt take a rocket scientist to work out the NBN in its current format is a lemon….much like most of CAGW…..and the people supporting both go hand in hand…unable to actually see through the bullshit…..

  224. Minister for Truth says

    The real knuckle draggers are the incompetent fools who cant do a CBA and a project plan and stage the back bone roll out in a systematic way.

    It would have made infinitely better sense to do fibre to the area nodes and use wireless to premises, where one was able, and then connect with fibre to home/premises when the local CBA at that level, justified it. FTTH for all is overkill.

    Henry Ergas was/is right.

  225. toby says

    Luke the way the cables are being laid will ensure that they do last much past 15-20 years. do some proper research and speak to people who actually are in the know and i would be shocked if you find many supporters in its current form.
    can you point me to a cost benefit analysis showing these huge benefits?….the govt refused to allow the productivity commission to do a cost benefit analysis…because the answer was an obvious no to the project.
    the NBN doesnt even provide the “loop” service that most big businesses demand from what I am told so they may not use it without further modifications. I am no expert but I know quite a few who are, and a lemon is a kind word for the NBN.
    surely when a monopoly is created with a “business model”in the name of the government, your alarm bells would be going off?!
    when the costs rise by billions and the reason provided is”rounding errors” dont you worry about who is running the show?!

  227. Debbie says

    Yes Neville,
    Despite the claim that it is all so tricky, the maths is not that difficult.
    Maybe those members of the public are the innocents that Bazza claims he is defending and others are harming?
    Still a bit unclear on that one.
    BTW Bazza?
    Who’s the Yank hero who published a paper?
    I thought you and Luke respected ‘published’ papers?
    Am I detecting a little case of xenophobia here?

    Re the NBN,
    I remember reading somewhere that NZ is/has implemented a system not unlike what Toby & Minister have described?
    One of our tecchie NZ associates was also recently rather scathing of the way the NBN is being implemented in Australia as a direct comparison to NZ’s system….especially for business use.
    Not my area of expertise…but the NZ guy certainly knew what he was talking about…got the quals and the experience.
    The CBA for our NBN is not available?
    Or not done?

  228. toby says

    Thx minister “”As the government has said many times, it is doubtful these benefits, which are so self-evident and pervasive, could be meaningfully quantified, and even if they could, whether there would be any particular merit in doing so,” …said conroy.

    melb and sydney CBD currently have super fast broadband…but around 15% of businesses use it……….why arent they using it if it has all these self evident and pervasive benefits?
    typical bullshit from the dumb and dumber mob, much like our CAGW comrades. Wanting to drive in a 200k mercedes when a 40k car will do the job fine . Only in this instance we are talking 40-70b compared with 6-10 billion. The way governments spend money nowadays the numbers just roll off the tongue……until the money dries up and real needs have to be foregone.

  230. cohenite says

    NBN now luke; just tell us what it is going to cost; go on, I’ll make it easy for you: name the cost to the nearest $10 billion; go on, how much?

  231. toby says

    “Looks like deniers and NBN sooks go together”..apart from my dislike of the term deniers (for people who are actually rational and sane, whilst indeed it is the other side who are in denial of the bullshit associated with the C in CAGW) i fully agree, your statement is merely rephrasing my own.

    shows where both camps sit.
    sceptics like to consider reality and costs, whilst warmers are completely out of touch with reality and live in a dream world of platitudes.

    So back to the point of my question on the NBN….Deb et al, why bother to try and change their minds? They aint listening cos they cant think with the part of the brain that involves the real world!!

    Im sure they think they are doing good and fighting the good cause, but the reality is the opposite. and ignorance is not an excuse…….

  232. Minister for Truth says

    “Looks like deniers and NBN sooks go together”

    Its more like its the incompetent catastrophists and the financially inept that go together ..the correlation would near exact.

    Must be Labor voters and academics as well.

  233. Debbie says

    Yes I know Toby,
    Giving oxygen is probably pointless.
    It’s good practice though.
    I had a bureaucrat tell me today that we need to stop being negative about agriculture and rural communities.
    When I asked who needs to stop? He meant us!
    So apparently it is our fault that there is a negative public perception about agriculture and rural communities.
    Go figure?

  234. toby says

    Deb, common sense should be called uncommon sense, because the obvious seems to be ignored so frequently….if it wasnt so sad and expensive it would be funny, but its not…….im not surprised you were blamed for -ve sentiment…just like sceptics are to blame for nobody(well many!) believing in CAGW……..

  235. bazza says

    Its the schlocks of the new.
    You wanta see a NBN CBA – Ill show you a break even one. Round figures $50b you would want a social return of about $2b annually. Fair go, all Aussies have to benefit by $2/week to get a $2b benefit?. But wait, we forgot the counterfactual. You can only compare an investment with a counterfactual – that can only be replacing the copper network for a lot less benefit, So a bit less than $2 will do. Should be do-able. Comments welcome.

  236. Luke says

    What a bunch of negative whingers who fill their days with bad thoughts, anger and never construct anything. The culture of rightist whinging.

  237. cohenite says

    “Round figures $50b”

    Nah; Kevin Morgan reckons more then $70 bill.

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/the_bolt_report_today18/

    The best part of the NBN is that it doesn’t even appear in the budget; even though the government is paying for it, because it is nominally run by a seperate entity it is not considered to be a government expense.

    If the NCTCS were run like that and associated entites were not declared for income purposes the AEC would be all over us like the rash on luke’s head, yet this government makes it’s own rules and wonders why the punters have no respect for it.

  240. Luke says

    Well thank heavens Cohenite – governments are not corporations unless you’re some sort of tea party loon.

    http://lpickering.net/item/12714 – have a good read of the comments. Neville’s mates- what creepy weirdos – how sad to actually be sharing a continent with this lynch mob. Be afraid – be very afraid. Neville loves it. Which was yours Nev?

  241. Debbie says

    Luke,
    It has nothing to do with what people drink and there is no lynch mob.
    It is just ordinary people who are very tired of being told lies. Some of those who comment are very angry and very frustrated and tend to over use hyperbole.
    Your claims about about terrifying mobs who fly around with only a right wing are bordering on delusional.
    They are NOT anything but ordinary people who live and work in the real world and have simply had enough of our self proclaimed ‘betters’ who are in fact just ordinary people too.
    These people you are so scared of tend to judge on ‘results’. They do that because in their world, they are responsible for their own actions and they believe if they ‘stuff up’ they are therefore supposed to fix it.
    They’ve noticed that our ‘elite’ think they can operate outside of accepted and legal social paradigms using the nefarious justification of ‘the greater good’.

  242. Neville says

    Luke I have never ever commented on his site about Pickering’s posts. I’ve hardly read any of them, but the left have the same stupid, clueless weirdos that infest their sites as well. So what?

    At least I understand simple kindy maths while you choose to ignore it or just don’t get it.

  243. toby says

    With an interest rate of 5% (generous) you need 2.5b pa to cover interest costs, on top of that presumably you would have staff, maintenance, electricity, rates, and all teh other inputs required, let alone considering the rate of deprecation on teh investment. 2b is ridiculously far away from teh cost. Add to this the negative consequence of ripping out the optus and telstra cables and the damage done to real competition by a govt owned and run monopoly that by definition will be managed inefficiently and with much higher running costs and i think we get a great glimpse at the ability of warmers to operate in the real world.

    also 70b is probably a conservative estimate of the cost………do you seriously expect a govt to run a business well?…in particular this govt?…have they done anything properly?

    Didnt we sell telstra and privatise many other state run enterprises because they are inneficient?…have you noticed how in the states with state run power the costs are much higher than states operating in a “free” market?
    did you notice how much cheaper airfares got when the 2 airline policy was removed??!!…or are you too young to rememeber…if you are i will tellyou a flight to sydney from canberra in the early 1980’s cost many multiples more than it currently does today.

  244. Neville says

    Luke I’ve now read most of the blogger’s comments on his site and I would probably agree with most of them.

    Larry should have deleted a small percentage and tried to track down the mongrels who talk about killing her or anyone else and give their email links to police.

    But the left does this sort of thing all the time and over the years nearly all the brutal bashings and extreme violence has come from labor and the unions.

  245. Luke says

    No Neville it’s just rank – the of putrid comments and pure evil misogynistic hatred towards Gillard if simply off the meter – it’s simply a fucking disgrace. Even with Howard in children overboard, Iraq wheat and WMD days did it get to this sort of stuff. It really is because she’s a woman (and well as poor politics). But it’s that bad misogynistic woman-bashing aspect of the ugly Australian society boiling over. Fuck’em all including Pickering for tolerating that level of violent evil debate. At some point mate you have to say it’s simply un-fucking-acceptable.

    And somewhat amazing in a society where the economy is doing well, most of us are getting a feed, and I don’t think on last look that the sky had fallen in despite predictions.

    Anyway not long now and you’ll enjoy Abbott so much as Queensland is enjoying Newman as we revolve back to a very divided society not even eclipsed by Joh. The level of buyer’s regret out there is through the roof !

  246. Neville says

    Luke I think you’ll find that people don’t like Gillard the person not so much Gillard the woman.

    Days out from the 2010 election Gillard and Swan deliberately lied to the Aussie people and after she agreed to the Green’s agenda her support dropped to new levels.

    This Labor Green coalition has been a disaster by any measure and Abbott will have a very hard job to fix their mess inside three terms of govt.
    BTW why do you need to swear so much, it certainly doesn’t help your case.

  247. toby says

    is it acceptable that unions rort their members funds?
    is it acceptable that accounts were set up by gillard that were used for the wrong purposes?
    is it acceptable to use as an excuse “i was young and naive”..when she was 34?

    is it acceptable that shorten has apparently deliberately covered up evidence and refused to cooperate with police to protect unions?
    if she did receive “kickbacks” is that acceptable?

    if she got sacked from slater and gordon…should we know why?
    is it acceptable that she rang and demanded teh australian pull its story last year?

    i doubt pickering would be making these accusations without strong evidence…..if he is then he should be done for slander etc…but do you seriously think he is making this up??!

    if guilty should they be in gaol?
    if guilty would it be the deathknell of unions in this country?

    threatening death and violence is wrong….but dont get on your high horse and tell us the left doesnt do this!!??

    i think most of the country celebrated when a female came into office ( i actually did! and i remember the screams of joy from students as they ran up to tell me)….but her inability to make the correct decision has done females no favours (i have 2 daughters and i think females bring tremendous benefits …but i think gillard deserves what she gets..she earnt it)

  248. Debbie says

    Luke!
    You’re spraying negative all over the place!
    This is very telling:
    And somewhat amazing in a society where the economy is doing well, most of us are getting a feed, and I don’t think on last look that the sky had fallen in despite predictions.

    Here you are asking for people to be nice who have been told (very, very, very, very, very rudely) variaions of these general themes….. that they have raped the environment, they’re evil polluters, they should feel guilty about their lifestyle choices, they are killing the GBR, there will be no carbon tax, that their employers are evil, that they need to be ‘transformed’, that there are ‘higher level principles’, the drought was caused by ‘over extraction’ by evil irrigators, the drought was caused by AGW, building dams and upgrading electricity infrastructure is ‘bad, bad, bad’, Progress is dangerous, we’re going to die from heat exhaustion and leave nothing for ‘future generations’, they are harming the innocent, that ‘capatilism’ is evil, that scientists who work for the government are the only ‘good’ scientists’, that they should just ‘trust’ several different ‘academics’, that they’re related to the KKK, that they are ‘deniers’, that they deny that climate has a habit of being variable, that Tim Flannery is an ‘altruist’, that they just ‘don’t understand’ etc etc etc., ….in short….that the sky is falling in!!!!!

    AND NOW????
    You’re saying that it’s not broken so why should we fix it?
    You seriously must be joking!!!!!

    In particular you have never strayed from your theme that we’re all complicit in the future demise of our world because we question the theory of CAGW.
    When people have tried to point out to you that it appears that “the sky has not fallen in”…..what has been your reaction????????

    I feel very, very sorry for people who are losing their jobs in QLD…..those jobs are PS jobs Luke….the bureaucracy has become top heavy and some balance needs to be restored.
    It is most certainly not their fault.
    They are generally nice people who were just filling their job descriptions.
    They have no more done anything wrong than the people who you are forever trying to put down.

    Look to your own behaviour Luke and you may see a pattern developing here.
    Your accusations have caused just as much ‘division’ as anyone else’s.
    There is an old cliche that seems to be operating here:
    ‘What goes around comes around’.

  250. Minister for Truth says

    Spot on Neville, Debbie and Toby

    I quite agree

    You should give it a break Luke, its got nothing to do with gender. The PM is her own worst enemy …by getting elected on the basis of a lie, and then displaying no more competence than Rudd.

    The list of stuff ups caused by her govt (inherited from Rudd or not) is endless and the cost has been horrendous. Here are a few:

    – boat people disaster, and the humiliating back down for something that should have never happened in the first place and her inept handing of it, albeit being caused by Rudd

    – NBN blowout, with another $3 billion of taxpayers’ money added to the huge costs.

    – carbon tax, inflicting more pain for no gain.

    – cost of the BER

    – shredding of our defence forces by budget cuts,

    – growing danger of a fall in mining investment and the looming sharp decline in our terms of trade.

    – lack of funding for the National Disability Scheme promised by the Prime Minister.

    – need to hide all of this by instituting limits on our freedoms of speech.

    Etc, need I go on

    If Pickering has evidence of wrong doing by people currently in positions of power and elsewhere then let that get exposed to the light of day …and most people don’t give a rats whether the PM involved is male or female.

    Why should the standards be lower just because she is female?

    As for Newman giving you poor dears a hard time well he probably has to, in order to fix up the problems caused by Labor in the first place. If the PS has to be cut then so be it thats what happens in the private sector as a matter of course.

    The fact that the sun is shining and all is good and we are all well fed is no excuse for squandering our wealth and capability to do better, by letting ignoramuses let standards slip and doing crap work. I would have thought that was obvious to any rational person.

    At least though, with the NBN you are also being consistent in displaying your own usual level of ignorance regarding what doing a CBA involves, and why one would do it as a matter of course, as well as understanding the NBN, and the range of options that were open to them to achieve the same outcome, all at much less cost. A properly conducted CBA would have uncovered this ab initio.

    But then truth distorters and peddlers of unwarranted alarmism wouldn’t have the practical knowledge that comes from having to earn one’s own keep by being a wealth generator, rather than a wealth consumer.

    At least when its one’s own money there would be more of an inclination to ensure that one gets the numbers right and use proper forecasting techniques. But no, neither the GW alarmists nor the NBN numbskulls could do even that…But then who cares, its only tax payers money seems to be the attitude.

    Try this for starters.

    http://www.theclimatebet.com/?p=401

  252. Robert says

    Of course, the sky has not fallen. No Whyalla wipeout, not yet. Nobody said Australia was easy to wreck, whether from an economic or conservation point of view. It’s just that Rudd, Gillard and Brown have tried hard. Gillard and Milne are still trying.

    You can’t combine waste and ineptitude with conservation. While pensioners are frightened to turn on heaters, high quality land is gouged for coal with savage haste. In a hungry world, we are aspiring to become a quarry. What’s more, as in some old colonial or plantation economies, that carbon is rationed to locals while it is hurried offshore in quantities which are, in fact, “unprecedented”.

    Money is ruling us, because the inner-urban Green Left are in charge, and they are empty of ideas and ideals. Shallow, conceited and materialistic elites never have cared and never will care about the ordinary currents of life.

    Even something as genuinely progressive and noble as a National Disability Scheme will become a Byzantine palace-culture, with a swilling-trough out the back for the Thomsons and Wilsons.

    Boot out Gillard and Milne. Just boot ’em out. If the new lot are a bit better, keep them around for a bit.

  253. bazza says

    Strong evidence of ideologues at work – they move on quick- they have no basis to sustain a discussion whether it is one of the 100 or more favourite denialist hoaxes they keep recycling through, or the NBN. Ill informed comments on NBN CBA included Cohenite who obviously could not think of anything useful to say, Toby who revealed he has no idea of real discount rates in social CBA let alone treatment of the costs and benefits of the preferred counterfactual. As for the Minister for Trite? All missed the point that if you get down to the per person level the net benefits only need to be about what lawyers spill at lunch and the answer is not sensitive to changes in the assumptions.

  254. cohenite says

    Don’t verbal me bazza; I’ve always got something useful to say even if it is only that you and luke are gooses.

    You estimated what the wretched NBN was going to cost $50 billion and I linked to an expert saying, nah, in excess of $70 billion; my point is if noone knows what the thing is going to cost it is ponitless talking about value for money since you don’t know how much money is chasing the value; goose.

  255. cohenite says

    luke, I read your linked article to Crikey having a shot at the Newman government cut-backs and wage limits; that is a political decision; that is what they were elected on; you can say it is not fair that bureacrats are being cut back and losing their jobs and the rest are having ceilings put on their wage increases which will probably be less than inflation; but they are political decisions.

    That is not what Gillard is accused of; she is accused of corruption and criminal offences.

    That is the difference.

  256. Debbie says

    Bazza,
    you are a turning into a bad joke.
    That social benefits argument is a crock.
    Of course we need good infrastructure and of course it is a social cost.
    Like DUH!
    It also needs to be implemented responsibly.
    That’s the bit that is missing.
    It has nothing to do with your stupid name tags.
    You are not standing on a moral high ground no matter how often you try to claim you are.
    Luke has now even tried to play the ‘sexist’ card.
    Good grief! !

  257. Minister for Truth says

    Bazza,

    If you read what I said it wasnt at the individual level, but at the area covered by the node.

    I dont believe for one moment that the CBA woud not have been highly variable according the assumptions.

    What a load of cods wallop that is…

  261. toby says

    “We drew upon scientific (evidence-based) forecasting principles to audit the forecasting procedures used to forecast global mean temperatures by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)—leg “1” of the stool. This audit found that the IPCC procedures violated 81% of the 89 relevant forecasting principles.” M of T, you really do have to wonder about these guys dont you!

    and this gem “In our ongoing study we have, to date, identified 26 similar historical alarmist movements. None of the forecasts behind the analogous alarms proved correct. Twenty-five alarms involved calls for government intervention and the government imposed regulations in 23. None of the 23 interventions was effective and harm was caused by 20 of them.”

    we all be ruined said hanrahan before the day is through…….

    surely it our duty to question this bullshit?!

  263. toby says

    so bazza, running costs dont matter? depreciation doesnt matter, pay back doesnt matter, crowding out of the private sector doesnt matter, potential for capital to be used elsewhere doesnt matter? destroying competition doesnt matter. value for money doesnt matter. Time to complete a project doest matter? government capacity (inability)to run an efficient business doesnt matter?You are a conceited ignoramous when it comes to reality. you go hand in hand with the labour and green fools who have no comprehension of money and priority and the reality that we have limited resources and unlimited wants.

    “Toby who revealed he has no idea of real discount rates in social CBA let alone treatment of the costs and benefits of the preferred counterfactual”…they havent even done a CBA!!? have they !?so as usual you are using red herrings to try and show your intellectual superiority.

    i repeat bazza, we know that superfast broadband is available in teh major CBD’S already and yet the vast majority of business and individuals do not use it!…why ? do you think we should build a 10 lane super highway between sydney and melb now, because in 50 years it might be needed?

    and i love this…typical socialist….when you think of 2b as 2 dollars per week per person it doesnt sound so bad…but its still 2 billion friggin dollars…let alone the fact your numbers are way off the mark…..show me where i am wrong…talking about running away from a debate
    every discussion i have tried to have with you is one way, you never answer a question. i promised myself i would never respond to you again, and here i am sucked in again.

  264. bazza says

    Toby, a break even analysis is useful to show something about what the break even benefits ( obviously net) woulld need to be and I scaled them to per capita per annum to stop people going bananas from using billions when you want something to sound bad. I could go through your tirades one by one but I suspect you are confusing a social CBA with a financial analysis. The counterfactual would account for some of the others like crowding out , payback is irrelevant in breakeven analysis etc etc.it would make my day if you dont feel up to responding again – you are entirely predictable anyway so it gets boring and it is hard to be tolerant of that.

  265. toby says

    says baz; “You wanta see a NBN CBA – Ill show you a break even one. Round figures $50b you would want a social return of about $2b annually”
    …ive shown you your numbers are way off….you have running costs, maintenance costs on top of your borrowing costs etc, you are probably out by a factor of 2-3!…or more?…and do you really think it will be built for 50b?!

    your counterfactual is a red herring….when the copper cables do deteriorate it would be Telstra paying to rebuild them …not the public directly, and they would only rebuild them if there was money in it. You want to provide something that currently few use, for a time when we might need it, completely ignoring the pace of technological development. Sure fibre can potentially travel near the speed of sound, but much prevents this….but if in 5 years we have found ( probably got it already!?) a cheaper and as good/ almost as good/ better…how stupid would the NBN look?!
    You also are entirely predictable….given your marriage to CAGW, it wasn’t a long bow to predict you would support the NBN.
    I am no expert , but i know a few and i am yet to meet anybody who really supports this lemon…except for those who place their own self interest over real needs.

  266. Debbie says

    Bazza,
    Net social costs/benefits, counterfactuals etc are meaningless concepts if there is no accountability and it is being implemented irresponsibly.
    NO ONE says that improvements in infrastructure is a bad idea.
    NO ONE says that it shouldn’t come at a social cost.
    Your attitude however is that everyone should stop complaining….they can afford it…. It doesn’t matter that the costs are blowing out because of the net social gains that we are going to achieve.
    That is a complete crock.
    Wasting money and squandering resources is wasting money and squandering resources….it is unforgivable no matter WHO is doing it.

  269. toby says

    It occurs to me that baz and luke probably dont understand what a CBA actually is? it is looking at alternatives uses of capital…or opportunity cost.

    so given that one wasnt done because the decision was made on a plane to brisbane, do you think there could be a more effective use of 50-70b?…we’ll never know because it wasnt done.
    BUT DONT YOU THINK IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED??!!

    I dont expect you to answer because none of that will have made any sense to you……..

    but given the liberals also wanted to provide fast internet via a comination of FTTN and wireless at a fraction of the cost, do you think it is possible theextra money could have been used in other more effective and socially benificial ways?…like roads, p[orts, railwaylines, schools, uni’s, hospitals etc etc….? sure the end product might not have been quite as good, but it would be up and running much quicker at a much cheaper price leaving money for other things….and actually earning income to pay the costs…..it will be years before teh current NBN gets anywhere near breakimng even on its running costs, let alone covering teh borrowing costs.

    can you understand that?

  270. Luke says

    Toby can’t read – only bleat. Thick. Wireless can’t hack it. There is only one technological solution. Tobes wants to condemn us to being a global backwater after the mining booms peters out. Perhaps you won’t need as much road infrastructure and planes if we had a serious NBN.
    http://nbnmyths.wordpress.com/

    Wonder what’s to become of any local manufacturing as the AUD keeps eroding away. More serious issues.

    Meanwhile AARNet will be only using the pissy NBN for local backtraffic. http://www.aarnet.edu.au// The little girl and Kermit the frog are where it’s at.

    Anti-NBN – all part of the Tory script to oppose everything on instinct.

  271. toby says

    so you dont understand what a CBA is then……..

    i love this gem…..wireless cant hack it. Have you told that to Apple?
    are you aware how fast wireless can actually be?
    do you understand what FTTN is as opposed to FTTH?…do you or i at home need FTTH?

    in its current form its a lemon, nobody is saying we shouldnt provide better facilities. JUST WE CAN DO IT NEARLY AS WELL FOR A LOT LESS AND USE THE MONEY FOR OTHER THINGS.
    when is it arriving at your place baz and Luke?

    have you understood yet that a CBA involves actually considering alternative uses of capital? have you really?

  272. toby says

    “The total capital cost of the NBN is $36.9 billion dollars, not $50 billion.”
    first line of your first link their on myths……..since that is already wrong do i really need to read any further?

    but i did…”If it were viable, the private sector would build it”…well they already have built much of it where humans actually live……optus and telstra both have fibre optic cables running from melb to brisbane. Where teh govt should potentially get involved is ensuring people have access to a resonable service…not ripping out what is already built.

    ‘Fibre optics only last a maximum of 15 or 20 Years’….depends where and how they are laid is what i am told……

    and your site links here http://www.sterlitetechnologies.com/pdf/KnowledgeCenter/AN0001%20-%20Optical%20Fiber%20Lifetime.pdf

    and states…”Fatigue or Stress Corrosion Susceptibility Parameter (n-value):
    Flaws in glass fiber can increase in size under the action of stress in the presence of certain
    chemical species like water. This slow crack growth can result in fracture at stresses below
    that which would occur in an inert environment for a given stress level and flaw size. The
    fracture behavior of glass in the presence of such chemicals is called dynamic fatigue. Higher
    the fatigue value lesser is the crack growth and longer the lifetime.”
    I am told they are using cheap blue fibre optic that is highly prone to water damage and since most of teh cable is just being dropped into holes in the ground many are suggesting the lifetime will indeed be 15-20 years.

    and this site of yours reeks of government or self interested propaganda.

  273. Debbie says

    I think you nailed it Toby,
    They don’t know what a CBA actually is.
    So instead we make sneering comments about TEA parties and Tory concepts and idealogues.
    Which is highly ironic.
    Sadly, the implementation of the NBN is not the only example.

  274. Ian Thomson says

    Gidday Baz,

    “Toby who revealed he has no idea of real discount rates in social CBA let alone treatment of the costs and benefits of the preferred counterfactual.”
    God, that is beautiful . I so wish us Neanderthals had such an imaginary command of basic English.

    And, I agree, ( with some of you), that the NBN will be a commercial success — For Telstra.–
    Just like ALL the rural phone towers, ( once owned by the Australian taxpayers), then given to Telstra by Little Johnny, still are.
    If you live outside the Cities they HAVE you, courtesy once again of the Oz taxpayer and crook Govt.

  275. toby says

    yes lukey i did mean speed of light not speed of sound…one to you ( although it was typo……)
    i was trying to counter what i expected you to say about how can we get faster than fibre optic which travels potentially close to the speed of light.

    now show me where the rest is wrong….you seriously dont think a CBA is/ was a good idea??!! you really dont think there could be alternative uses of capital and alternative ways of providing fast speed to those who really need it?

  276. bazza says

    Try a little quantification to put the NBN investment in perspective and they all go bananas in a qualitative way.( shades of attitudes to AGW). Toby still does not get it re opportunity cost etc being inherent. He could give us his break even, go on Toby, have a go. All I said for the benefits needed in per head per week was “So a bit less than $2 will do. Should be do-able”.

  277. cohenite says

    As with AGW the punters are not buying the NBN; as Manne says only the elites like luke and bazza can see the truth:

    “Based on its original targets, NBN Co has achieved only 9 per cent of its rollout target for homes passed by fibre and 3 per cent of the planned connections where customers are hooked up to broadband. Based on its initial estimates, by June this year 317,000 households should have been passed with fibre and 137,000 homes actually connected to a broadband service. In reality, fewer than 25,000 homes had been passed and fewer than 4000 connected.

    Those figures are for existing suburbs and fibre to new estates. When the figures are broken down, it is obvious this isn’t just a debacle but an abject failure by NBN Co, especially in new (greenfield) housing estates. In late May, Quigley told Senate estimates: “As of the last week or so a bit over 300 services have been turned on – activated – in greenfield areas … and there are probably three or four times that quantity of lots that have been passed.”

    So less than 20 months after predicting that 172,000 greenfield premises would be passed and 132,000 connected, 0.6 per cent of the coverage target and less than 0.2 per cent of the active service target have been met.”

  278. toby says

    i showed you your break even was a long way from break even…even if you allow for it being sold in 20-30 years time (if it stillworks or is viable with other technology..its along way away?). its not just a question of covering the borrowing costs….it does cost money to run a business you know? perhaps you dont? do you understand what opportunity cost is? do you seriously think we couldnt provide a similar service for a lower price and use teh money where its needed more?

    economics is all about prioritising the use of resources to maximise utility.
    do you seriously think this does it?!

    well yes you do but you also believe in CAGW….so enough said?

  279. toby says

    those models made it look so easy Cohenite! and they keep telling us that really they are on track.just like the climate is so much worse than we thought…….

  280. Luke says

    FTTH pullease. No latency compromises. Fibre optics ageing? – what paid off Tory plant was paid to spruik that. Bullshit.

    It’s not about CBA – this is national infrastructure., The future of everything. You guys would have also have the flag bearer in front of the steam engine too

    In fact the NBN isn’t fast enough – we should be going AARNet speeds now.

    Debbie knows CBA especially when getting a big feed from the single desk marketing and EC trough. Snort snort. Of course Debs idea of “modelling” is doing a farm spreadsheet with her 3 degrees.

  281. spangled drongo says

    “It’s not about CBA – this is national infrastructure., The future of everything.”

    Spoken in true porcine tones as a permanently attached feeder at the public trough.

    And you have the gall to berate Debbie!

  284. Neville says

    Everyone who thinks ? that “OZ can take action on CC”, just have a look at the following graph via Wikipedia. You’ll note Wiki also uses EIA info.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Carbon_dioxide_emissions_due_to_consumption_in_China.png

    Some how I think our 160 million tonnes reduction of co2 emissions ( most by fraudulent carbon credits BS ) by 2020 will be lost in the noise.

    The NBN is a total crock but so is OZ’s tackling AGW and countless billions $ will still be wasted decade after decade for zero change in temp or the climate.

  285. Debbie says

    Luke,
    At least my education has enabled me to do my sums correctly.
    Agriculture is a net positive return to Australia.
    It is one of the few sectors that is NOT continuously subsidised by the taxpayer.
    EC relief could most certainly be better managed, but the program and the reasons for it is not a drain and is not particularly open to rorting.
    Vesting in the rice industry is entirely grower funded and the gummint makes a very nice buck out of it.
    Rice is only ONE of the food and fibre crops that we grow and only ONE of the export earners from this area, albiet a highly successful one.
    The rice Industry is a $billion dollar industry. It is vertically integrated and delivers decent returns to all from paddock to plate, including the gummint.
    Calorific value for just this Industry is 23 million people.
    Australian rice is also the highest yielder/ha and the lowest ml/ha in the world. That means it is internationally recognised as the most efficient in the world.
    As I have suggested before, do your sums Luke.
    Your sneering, negative comments are very hollow and ill informed.
    If the industry supports vesting and it is no burden on the tax payer, why would you have a problem?
    In terms of CBA to the tax payer, it has only returned long term benefits.
    It is actually an industry that Australia can be proud of.
    AND it’s only ONE of our AG industries.
    But sneer away to your heart’s content if it makes you feel superior.
    I will be continuing to enjoy what I do and feel that I do my bit to help feed the world and raise my family, knowing that I produce more in ONE year than my whole extended family could ever consume in multiple lifetimes.
    I also forgot to add to my name tags that I am an EMPLOYER, which also provides another return to the gummint re a CBA.
    Your attempts to put down Agriculture are laughable.

  286. bazza says

    Debbie, you claimed for NBN “That social benefits argument is a crock”. Do you remember who paid for the headworks on almost all Australian irrigation schemes. What happened next. Excess profits quickly turned into land values and asset fixity problems. We ended up with a big irrigation industry at which we were less competitive anyway compared with dryland that had no lobby. The bush got populated for a while and most of the kids and oldies now leave as quick as they can. So much for social benefits in that case. But NBN is different because it is only a small cost per household and does not distort.

  287. Minister for Truth says

    Debbie

    If I were you I would stop trying to debate with these morons.

    They are demonstrating that they are not employers and wealth generators like you are, risking your own assets in tthe process, but are probably nothing more than superannuated PS’s with nothing to do other than post crap at 1.30am.

    They dont know what they are talking about, re either the NBN, or GW, or doing business cases, or CBA, but I am sure that the Productivity Commission AND the Business Council of Australia do…. whom they selectively choose to ignore.

    They clearly have never risked a dollar of their own, and never have had to undertake a CBA or FA, or had to pay someone elses wages out of house keeping monies.That sharpens the mind I can tell you.

    The dipstick is just an apologist for the academics, most of whom have the logical thinking abilities of nits, and who probably spend most of their time plotting and scheming with the GanGrenes on how to enforce their crappy science, and unfounded mantras on the masses.

    They are so far up themselves they cant even follow best practices for the application of stats and forecasting ,and have a limited understanding of cause and effect and in the case of the temperature records it would appear they struggle with basic arithmetic.

    The pinnacle piece of evidence that all is not well, and all that one needs, is that a clown like Flannery was made a fellow of the AAS. What does that say about the rest of them and the overall environment.

    I reckon the best thing to do is join a body that is counter this current non normal ideologically driven policy processes, with the aim in mind that situations like what happened to the Thompsons, for example, never occcurs again.

    http://joannenova.com.au/2012/08/thompsons-update-looking-for-work-in-the-us-and-pursuing-dec-legally-in-australia/

    This is so utterly disgusting, and every Australian should be ashamed of it, but it is the end result of what has been allowed to happen.

  288. Debbie says

    Yes Bazza,
    It was an extraordinarily good investment wasn’t it?
    You along with Luke need to do your sums Bazza.
    It is now paying back in bucketloads via Agriculture, value add industries (like Sunrice) and ….oh no!!!….CLEAN ENERGY!!!!
    Do your sums Bazza please.
    Your claims about the kiddies and the oldies are not supportable on long term social CBA values.
    When inland Australia was being crippled by drought there was an exodus.There was also restructure happening not just because of drought but the drought certainly exacerbated the pain associated with upgrade and restructure.
    That is paying off right now, straight back into Govt coffers and the exodus has reversed.
    It was not a pleasant time for rural Australia and the extraordinarily ill informed political rhetoric did not endear our opinion of the ‘urban elite’ one little bit.
    That appalling negative rhetoric has more to do with a lack of young people having interest in Agriculture than anything else.
    It even pervaded the education system and is still present in current HSC texts in Australia….even economics text books.
    Your comparison with dryland re competetive is also a total crock….do your sums Bazza.
    You clearly have no idea what you’re talking about and the reference to lobbying is hilarious!
    Rural Australia has obviously been very remiss in political lobbying….that is now changing….but Agriculture is a long way behind that 8 ball.
    Silly us….we thought Australians just knew that Agriculture was a good thing for Australia.
    I think Toby is correct and you have a very limited understanding of the real world and how to do a CBA and even WHY it is necessary.
    Agriculture is LONG TERM investment Bazza and the CBA needs to be LONG TERM….do you understand?
    Re the NBN,
    I do not object to the “CONCEPT”!!!!
    Your inability to understand the point being made is hilarious.
    As someone whose business is most definitely a result of wise LONG TERM investment in national infrastructure I of course can see the BENEFIT of wise, long term investment in infrastructure,
    You are failing to notice that it is the poor regard for responsible ,cost efficient, implementation that is the problem.
    Fobbing it off as a cost per household is not addressing the actual problem.
    BTW Bazza…..it is highly unlikely that we will get NBN here anytime in the near future….I wouldn’t perhaps be subsidising those who already have it would I?
    Isn’t that just a touch distorting of you to represent it that way?
    Interestingly, those same people already had decent internet access… we never even got ADSL here.
    And even more interestingly….I don’t particularly mind….we have wireless and we can cope.
    I don’t get bent out of shape that, without a doubt, I subsidise urban development far more than the reverse….but I do get just a tad irritated at the supercilious, ill informed attitude of people like you.
    I respect your right to work and live where you do Bazza….you go right ahead….. BUT…what makes you think you have the right to judge me and justify attacks on me via some vague moral high ground that you claim you are standing on??????
    What is it about what I do that you think needs your input?
    I don’t even know what you do.
    I don’t even know if Bazza is your name…..and you know what?…I don’t actually even care.
    I do notice however that whatever it is you do must involve a dislike of what I do and some sort of envy (?) or maybe dismissal (?) of my lifestyle choices.
    While that attitude of yours is a tad irritating, it is having NO EFFECT on my opinion of what I do.
    I am a net positive returner to Australia Bazza, I undoubtedly subsidise far more than I take, I care very deeply about my environment and yes, I am also very well educated.
    Your arguments about distorting can be quickly reversed on you….that’s the power of torturing figures…..you know…..statistics and projective modelling….the discipline that just about every profession and business uses as a tool…..but you seem to think is science.
    We also use that tool to do a CBA among other things.

  289. spangled drongo says

    “It’s not about CBA – this is national infrastructure., The future of everything.”

    And up spake Luke Porcina,

    A great consumer he,

    “I will abide on thy Left Side

    And quaff the trough with thee”.

    [apologies to “How Horatio Held the Bridge” by Lord Macaulay]

  290. toby says

    says wise all knowing Baz “Strong evidence of ideologues at work – they move on quick- they have no basis to sustain a discussion”
    so tell me baz how have you tried to engage with any point raised here? look in the mirror you hypocrite.
    you havent even shown that you understand what a CBA is or opportunity cost and yet you have the audacity to sneer.

  291. toby says

    Luke “Fibre optics ageing?priceless ”
    well yes you are…your links show they do decay. talk about thick. how and where are the fibres being laid luke? what quality are they using?

    can you show me you understand what a cba is or what opportunity cost is…do they matter? should we think about priorities? maybe i should ask if you realise that money doesnt grow on trees?….youll probably say well it costs ntg to print it so yes it does………..

  292. bazza says

    Debbie, have you checked out secondary benefits and why they dont count.? Toby, check out transfer payments and why they dont count.? Where is your break even analysis? As for credentials, I dont think they matter compared to what people write. For what it is worth I think the most important aspect of our culture and heritage and what makes it unique is the settlement of rural Australia. And that is where I am from. I just hope you would be a bit more respectful of the role that taxpayers had and have in irrigation development even if it did not do much in the way of drought proofing.

  293. spangled drongo says

    For the last 30 years my connection has been half a mile of copper line hung up in trees through the scrub to my house. It’s good for around 4MBPS which is quite satisfactory but I have asked linesmen from Telstra what I will end up with under the NBN and I have been told that I will have to go wireless at around a quarter the speed. Apparently they won’t run fibre to my place.

    What a great system!

    Proud to pay high taxes for infrastructure like that.

  294. Debbie says

    Toby,
    What they have shown is an ability to DISTORT figs and stat projections.
    They clearly don’t understand what the correct and advantageous use of a CBA is….but they clearly understand how to DISTORT a CBA.
    Regretfully, I believe you may have nailed it again with your ‘money doesn’t grow on trees’ comment.
    Bazza seems to believe it grows and is produced by a per household basis….so maybe that’s where the money trees grow in his mind…..in people’s back yards?
    Modern bureaucratic mindset re ‘cost recovery’ assumes that ‘cost efficiency’ is irrelevant.
    Unfortunately that is not just evident re the NBN.
    That behaviour is rampant.
    Opportunity costs and measureable fiscal outcomes? Sensible risk management strategies?
    Unlikely they get that unless they have been personally responsible for that type of fiscal stewardship.
    But because I don’t know if they have ever run a business and relied on doing that with a measure of PERSONAL fiscal responsibility and which others RELY on for their livelihoods via employment etc….I may be making a FALSE ASSUMPTION…..which would be very wrong of me.
    So Bazza and Luke,
    Would you care to illuminate your understanding of these concepts via PERSONAL experience?
    Would you care to explain how you run your business and support your livelihood with either a minimal or zero reliance on the continual exponential input of tax payer funding?
    And Luke….just reminding you….your ‘single desk’ rot doesn’t count. Vesting in the rice industry is ENTIRELY funded by the rice growers themselves and the NSW Gummint is a BENIFICIARY of that not a contributor.
    Rice growers also fund all their R & D work in conjunction with the Dept of Primary Industries.
    In a CBA that means it’s a POSITIVE return to the gummint and therefore the tax payer.
    And Bazza….the capitals are there for emphasis…..and because I still haven’t bothered to work out how to use bold at this site….so I apologise if that’s still annoying you….it’s not why I’m doing it that way.

  295. debbie says

    Bazza,
    Where oh where have I shown disrespect for tax payers?
    I have NO respect for your usual attitude….but I’m gonna go out on a limb here and suggest that I am a MUCH LARGER taxpayer than you and that I am a MUCH LARGER contributor to the nation via a CBA than you.
    Despite Luke’s silly little hissy snobby comments, I DO NOT rely on government assistance….and for the short time that I received EC I was VERY grateful and I have ALREADY paid it back.
    AND Bazza for goodness sakes!!!!
    The original tax payer investment has done a great deal towards drought proofing.
    How clueless can you possibly get?
    What kept water in the Murray all the way to SA even in 2006/07/08??????
    What actually kept all the MDB rivers operational (except for the Lachlan for a VERY short period of time) so that inland towns and cities, stock and domestic and permanent plantings managed to struggle through?
    IMHO, what has become evident is that we may need to do MORE to harness 2 of our most abundant and renewable natural resources (but sometimes highly variable)…water and gravity.
    When our totally variable climate turns around and does the EXACT opposite as it has done in the last 3 years….we still suffer from a lagging ability to manage those 2 resources effectively and for the benefit of all….including the environment.
    Come out and have a look for yourself.
    Every river is running a banker and we are wasting the excesses out to sea.
    Considering you believe that we are in danger from rising sea levels….HOW STUPID IS THAT????
    Maybe a more sensible approach to the implementation of the NBN could have seen some funds released to do some sensible R&D into water and gravity infrastructure benefits?

  296. debbie says

    OH! and silly me….in an attempt to keep a long broken deal on your part Bazza,
    I forgot to answer your question to me:
    Debbie, have you checked out secondary benefits and why they dont count.?
    Of course they would count!
    We are talking about CBAs and long term positive returns both fiscal and social are we not?
    As the particular example of Sunrice that I used earlier….those benfits are a direct positive return both fiscally and socially…and the growth of that ONE example is a secondary benefit is it not?
    They return in export earnings to the nation, they return in employment, they return in both direct and indirect tax dollars and they return in the form of community investments and community services.
    You may choose NOT to count them….but that would be distorting the CBA ledger would it not?

  297. gavin says

    Folks, I just spent days trying to get my internet back and so missed a few pages here. I should have left it there but on checking back three unfinished issues stand out,

    1 SD re old Met records “You get smarter but you dont delete the old data”, accept my total agreement but only for use in a polite society.

    2 Our Nassif encounters rank amongst the most unprofessional physics debates ever

    3 The NBN will have no greater cost overruns than the Sydney Harbour Bridge, the Snowy Scheme, National Highways, Railways or updated intersection hot spots but it will be even more essential day by day.

    The guy who sold me a new modem yesterday has his whole house running wireless via a modem/router backed by two big media filled hard drives. Two home based wireless frequencies are the order of the day. With WiFi the area covered is only 20m but I can see a few others in my street and there is that dodgy security thing as we go on.

    WiMax won’t be better either with overlaps occurring everywhere as multiple encrypt ions come at a cost and that’s most likely with increasing traffic density. Note TDMA technology with bandwidth sharing and lots of security issues including the IEEE spec.

    http://freewimaxinfo.com/wimax-vs-wifi-comparison.html

    http://freewimaxinfo.com/wimax-limitations.html

  298. bazza says

    Who takes secondary benefits into account when they make their own private investment decisions?

  300. toby says

    baz when you answer a question of mine or rebutt apoint well i will maybe answer your question. but since you dont understand what a CBA is or opportunity cost I dont see the point. Every year that it doesnt break even, means the break even income goes up. And since it wont probably break even for years on its running costs, let alone its interest costs your own BREAK EVEN ANAYLSIS IS RUBBISH. Come back and play when you actually know what you are talking about….even bringing it down to 2 dollars per person per week is crap analysis because in reality what it means( if you were right and you r not!) in my house is I pay 8 per week, or over 400 more per year to fund it……..sorry i am not happy with this additional charge. I know Luke thinks ive never had it so good…sure mate thx, 65k per annum and 3 dependents…im rolling in it! i worry about how to pay my electricity bill and you want me to pay another 400 out. Thx !!

  301. toby says

    Gav, are you for real, you dont think it will over run in costs?…it already has by their own admission. what world do you live in?…have you noticed what has happened with everything else this govt touches ( and i would think all govts….)

    SD, sorry you will be getting slower internet…its called progress……….

    sorry we will be removing that useful competition that would force NBN to be competitive. Without removing the copper they have no viable business, so in a typical totalitarian way they will rip it out and force us to use the NBN and drive many businesses out of business. It amazes me that even the warmers cant see the problem of monopoly and no CBA.

    so when is the NBN arriving at your houses gav, luke and baz?
    i currently pay 60 pcm for unlimted ADSL2….HOW MUCH WILL I PAY UNDER THE NBN FOR THAT?
    remember they are expected to charge a price that gives a7% return on capital!

  302. Debbie says

    But Bazza?
    Aren’t we talking about benefits to the nation and returns to the Australian tax payer?
    Isn’t that the justification for the NBN?
    And strangely Bazza, isn’t searching for a CAGW signal in climate a sort of ‘secondary’ item in the climate modelling?
    And BTW Bazza, in Agriculture we most certainly take secondary benfits into account which would be our own private investment decisions.
    Just as a couple of teensy weensy examples….we sow winter cereal crops into moisture left behind behind by our summer cropping program….that’s a secondary benefit.
    We obtain secondary benefits from our fat lamb production, 3 of them being wool,weed control and natural fertiliser for our soils.
    We also obtain a secondary benefit by grazing our lambs on our early sown winter cereal crops.
    We recycle water and re use it…which is a secondary benefit…from a direct personal investment into a secondary benefit.
    We employ workers and contractors, which is a secondary benefit….especially to those workers and contractors….they also pay taxes…which is yet another secondary benefit.
    We use natural fertiliser from other industries such as chook farming, feedlotting & wineries, which is a use of and an investment in a secondary benefit.
    We invest in our local rice industry and we receive returns in the form of dividends and the assurance that they will receive all our crop… which are secondary benefits….as a direct return on the investment.
    We invest in R&D in conjunction with DPI which returns a secondary benefit in the form of higher yields and better more efficient farming practices.
    That is just a FEW of the secondry benefits that we consider in our own private investment business decisions.
    But Bazza,
    I’m very tired of just answering your questions.
    I would appreciate you answering some of mine.

  303. debbie says

    Gavin,
    If I knew what you were actually asking me I would answer you.
    Are you claiming that we get our rail links for free?
    You maybe need to come and visit this area and have a look at what those rail links are used for and what the CBA benefits to Oz would be and BTW how much we have to pay to use them.
    Also Gav,
    Infrastructure projects run by Govt always have a nasty habit of blowing out….lately however….that has reached unforgivable levels….and the NBN is not the only example.
    You can’t fob it off by pretending it doesn’t matter….there MUST be at least a measure of fiscal accountability and responsibility.
    Massaging figures, dismissing bad behaviour and excusing blatant fiscal mishandling is not going to reduce the potential damage, it will quite clearly make it worse.

  304. toby says

    Deb, you should also point out that you would consider alternative uses of your resources in order to try to maximise your income ( at least i assume you do because you know how to run a business!)…ie I assume you would consider expected rainfall and temp and what you might be able to grow and then try and predict which crop might be best to plant. Sometimes you will be wrong, but at least you will know why you did what you did and why it went wrong!
    with the NBN, we ve no idea what the other uses of this capital could be or if a cheaper and quicker to establish strategy would have increased the benefits…because they didnt do one! how criminal is it in reality to use tax payer funds in this way without being able to show us teh real bnefit or opportunity costs.
    dumb and dumber is way to kind….

  305. toby says

    whilst also considering the secondary effects of your decisions……..i suspect baz only considers secondary benefits but not costs……… I ll bet you dont!

  306. Debbie says

    Well of course Toby.
    To both those comments.
    It is a COST BENEFITS ANALYSIS after all! 🙂 🙂
    But understand perfectly why you needed to point that out.

  307. Pikey says

    Blimey Guys.
    Reading this is like watching the All Blacks play rugby against the Upper Bethungra CWA.
    You Guys have been slaughtered.
    Yes that is Luke, Gavin and Bazza, you have used obfuscation, personal ridicule, character assassination and irrational hype and Debbie has destroyed you on all fronts; ably assisted by Cohenite, toby and others.
    Time to pack it in Guys and find a playing field where you can display the lessons that life has taught you, but you are out of your depth here.
    Pikey.

  308. gavin says

    Watching the Catalyst story on mobile phone use and brain cancer I’m reminded of the Radio National discussion this week about wind turbines and other personal health risks. Yes, I have severe tinnitus and have been exposed to both “wind” and “farms” simultaneously but I know most of us can put that down to long term exposure to heavy “industrial” type noise and yes, we can do that at home too.

    After following various studies on health risks generated by our use of modern technology at work and home I say we need to proceed with considerable caution any expansion of our radiation background, mobile phones and modems included. Most radiation heats and burns as the power goes up. Keeping your distance from unshielded transmitters gets harder with time in this wireless age.

    I clearly recall radio communications being two way and interference being quite common between users. My task was to assess in parts city sized groups of users in order to facilitate greater traffic densities i.e. maximum future potential based on CBA by our planners but that was decades ago when government’s could manage outcomes.

    Today every body is a potential hacker and as time goes on that is more and more your problem. Fixed links and private networks stand like farmers at the edge of a sprawling city.

  309. Johnathan Wilkes says

    Well said Pikey.

    I’m sitting back here and shaking my head at the silliness of Luke in this instance.

    bazza? well, I regard him as the little terrier running and yapping around the legs of the big butch bulldog in the cartoons, looking for approval from Luke.

    as to gav? less said the better. Time is a cruel master and it affects us differently.

  312. Larry Fields says

    While the cat’s away, the mice will play. Here’s my latest article at Hubpages. Enjoy.

    So you want to be a Cryptozoologist?

    Summary:
    This article considers the limitations of Cryptozoology as a scientific career. We also touch upon two aspects of Cryptozoology: some obvious codswallop, and some credible albeit inconclusive evidence for one particular Cryptid, Bigfoot.

    Here’s the link.
    http://tinyurl.com/cf92rkk

  313. Luke says

    Of course what’s fascinating about CBA is when issues like WMD and Iraq come up it all flies out the window and the inmates here never squeak. Just your Tory Tea Party talking sheet guys.

    I wonder if Bazza might know anything about NPV (LOLZ)

  314. Luke says

    Of course Pikey, Debbie was serious – we weren’t. Our performance indicator is to see how many lines of text we can get.

  315. Debbie says

    Hope it’s a duck Gavin,
    that catchment of yours is very wet.
    Got rain falling on that snow too.

  316. toby says

    wrong again luke, i always argued iraq was a stupid decision ..including a number of 2 way emails with bolt ( to his credit he responded with more than a page in each instance of his own opinion and words…not cut and paste.
    we agreed to disagree in the end.

    well if none of your comments were serious and you both just wanted to see how many lines people wrote you succeeded…doesnt say much about you if you really mean that….i suspect its just your defence for being made to look silly?

  317. Neville says

    Well everyone at last you have the confirmation from the donkey’s mouth. Luke, Gav and bazza are just BS merchants and liars and definitely not serious.

    They’re just here to write BS forever and they want to waste your time according to the number one donkey.

  320. Debbie says

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-08-17/climate-change-sees-tropical-fish-head-south/4203830?section=tas

    I actually have a lot of time for the CSIRO via their depts that actually do GOOD WORK for industry agriculture and the environment.
    But check this out.
    Who are they doing good work here for I wonder?

    Luke,
    Keep digging that hole for yourself.
    Your snide comments are not having any effect whatsoever other than making you appear increasingly belligerent.
    I for one don’t drink much TEA, I much prefer coffee.
    Am enjoying a cup right now but nearly splattered it over my screen when I started laughing at your comments. 🙂 🙂 🙂
    ROFL!!!!

  321. Minister for Truth says

    “Our performance indicator is to see how many lines of text we can get.”

    Thats been well understand for some years that it was your KPI, after all, it is on much the same basis for how GW science work is propogated … mostly by content free garbage being reviewed by people much like yourself…air heads who cant make or do anything properly.

  322. bazza says

    A dozen examples from Deb of secondary benefits and maybe one or two would scrape in to the definition as accepted by CBA analysts so they can have a sensible discourse. I had presumed from your fearless comments that you were a bit informed, maybe even a smidgen of economics in your 3 degrees. And no one game to straighten you out. Loyalty trumps ignorance. Even Toby feared to tread – still waiting for his break even which actually requires no knowledge of the actual benefits – it is usually and simply a guide to inform sensible discussion. One point about secondary benefits – would you invest in one that made a loss so some other business can profit.?
    And for something totally irrelevant given your challenge on who contributes the most – If you think you are paying more tax than me , then either stop guessing all the time, get a new accountant ( Ill do it for half the savings) , or do a course in time management.

  323. Debbie says

    Very, very bored with you Bazza,
    You have progressed from being ironically hilarious to a just a very bad joke.

    Here we go….some important unanswered questions for you.
    What’s YOUR definition of a CBA as accepted by CBA analysts Bazza? You need to substantiate that claim.
    Where are your practical examples of such things? Once again you have nothing to back that claim up….NOTHING!
    Just a little bitty hint…..they involve more important aspects that merely justifying cost recovery.
    Do you know the difference between a social and a financial CBA.?…or indeed the difference between a private business, public business and a Govt CBA?
    That is a question that has been asked of you several times by several different people here…and remains totally ignored….even though you skate precariously between making broad statements about all of them…..how about instead you actually ANSWER THE QUESTIONS with substantiating evidence that proves you understand what you’re talking about?
    Do you run your own business and are you personally responsible for your own fiscal due diligence?
    You continuously imply you have great personal experience and knowledge….PROVE IT!
    What is so ZOOOOPERIOR about what you do that gives you the self proclaimed and totally, completely unsubstantiated right to sneer at others?
    Is Bazza even your real name?
    More taxes?…hmmm….do you perhaps not understand the difference between PAYG and other forms of taxation? I don’t actually have a job anymore Bazza….I sacked myself from a good job that was related to my education a few years ago so I could devote my time to running our irrigation business as well as other business interests.
    I’m no longer an employee….I am actually an employer…..so the tax income I directly generate for the Gummint is actually duplicatable and sort of part of that secondary benefits thing you seem to have trouble getting your head around.
    And Finally,
    Why does it irritate you so much that I am very well educated?
    It seems strange that you & Luke would want to put someone down for that. I have already given you permission to ignore that part if it is so distressing for you…..you can engage on behalf of some of my other name tags if you like (which if you bother to re read them sort of makes your comment about time management absolutely hilarious).

    NO! 2 more.
    Are you trying to hint that you’re a cheap accountant?
    Are you trying to hint that you’re an expert in time management?
    I am fascinated….do tell.

  324. Debbie says

    And Bazza,
    Just so we’re perfectly clear, this is YOUR question that I answered:

    Who takes secondary benefits into account when they make their own private investment decisions?

    Reread my answer…..I most definitely answered the question that YOU asked did I not?

  325. gavin says

    A certain drive by shooter needs a serve too, just hit and run hey. I had a long post accumulating in the dialogue box overnight but the cat sat on the mouse and in one zip it was gone!

    Short version: I was tasked late 80’s to report on known radio hazards in modern law enforcement operations and VIP protection. Facts, if you sit on a working transmitter long enough it will fry your privates. Even a common 5 w hand held can burn your finger at the RF output. RF transmitted inside a vehicle can resonate inside the shell. Such a tank circuit can be an emitter or a cooker. We changed some setups.

    “While RF energy doesn’t ionize particles, large amounts can increase body temperatures and cause tissue damage. Two areas of the body, the eyes and the testes, are particularly vulnerable to RF heating because there is relatively little blood flow in them to carry away excess heat” most recent, US Drug and Food Admin- “Do cell phones pose a health hazard”

    For a more technical approach

    http://www.ohsbok.org.au/downloads/25%20Non%20Ionising%20Radiation.pdf

  326. Minister for Truth says

    http://joannenova.com.au/2012/08/thompsons-update-looking-for-work-in-the-us-and-pursuing-dec-legally-in-australia/

    It is a complete indictment upon us all as Austalians that there has been very little effective resolution and compensation for what and how the Thompsons were treated by the WA govt and the incompetent beureaucrats and political ideologues that did what they did.

    It is a more serious example of how our systems of governent are failing us and hurting hard working people in major way..but to do it to an overseas investor and hard worker and thoroughly decent people….. is something we should hang our heads in shame about

    Clearly our current political, academic and beuraucratic elites are the worst we have ever had.

    Shame

    ..

  327. bazza says

    yes, Minister, sadly several feedlots have recently gone down , not quite like flies, but probably none because of opposition to GHG policies or compiance with the odour issues. It was a tough decade for them. Try high grain prices from droughts in Australia, diversions to ethanol , exchange rates, GFC etc etc. Sorry to spoil a Nova story.

  328. Neville says

    Here is a talk by Lomborg to the Royal Society about AGW and all the problems trying to do the right thing.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MEKyJEn0Wk

    Just proves why mitigation by reducing co2 is a total fraud and con. Polar bears, the Maldives, SLR, UHIE, heat deaths,malaria etc are covered and the very easy solutions to these problems.

  331. Debbie says

    Sorry to burst your bubble Bazza,
    All of those factors you mentioned were certainly contributing factors. They contributed to making this business highly vulnerable.
    You are also correct that some of those factors have contributed to other feedlots having to cease operations.
    No argument from me there.
    The final straw in this particular case however was the treatment by bureaucrats.
    You may also need to explain why diversion to ethanol ended up being a problem….as it has a bureaucratic twist to it as well doesn’t it?

  333. gavin says

    Nev; I thought you could do better than repeat a whole lot of twaddle at WUWT.

    Deb; Still havn’t seen snow here but we had rain that sounded like rice thrown at the window

  334. Debbie says

    Gee Gavin,
    The ABC must have been wrong then.
    They reported that it snowed there on August 9th.
    Also Gavin,
    What is is your link re the fires in US proving as a rebuttal to SD’s links and comments?

  335. spangled drongo says

    So, what are you saying, gav? That during a hot summer ya gonna get bushfires?

    Well, well! Hard to believe.

    I’ve been working my tail off for the last few days cutting firebreaks in my place as well as the adjoining nat parks because the bureaucrats think we should eradicate this collossal fuel load and thereby keep their collective arses out of the fire. They have finally given the go-ahead only we are running way behind time. We had it all prepared this time last year but they backed out at the last minute because it suddenly became too dangerous.

    I’m expecting the same again. I say to them every time, just give me the box of matches and I’ll burn a bit at a time with min risk and a cool burn but they want to have the whole army there and do it in one hit. You’ve gotta be lucky to do that. One end will be too wet and the other too dry or one just right and the other explosive.

    I”m not prepared to start without their say-so because if it doesn’t go ahead the firebreaks only make a highway for the feral predators to kill all the wildlife.

    Good times create bad times and vicky verka. Economically, ecologically and all ways.

  336. gavin says

    Deb, I’m going to ignore your Q re that US fire season report and go strait to our situation as stated in the latest AU climate outlook. What SD fails to mention is this minor detail, our East Australian Current has been impacted in a big way.

    “What is expected?
    EAC flow will increase off southeast Australia with a compensating decrease off north-east Australia”

    http://www.oceanclimatechange.org.au/content/index.php/2012/report_card/

    This has been my drift here for years. It was all about my own observations re quite measureable changes in SL and SST during our lifetime. Our weather has changed too. We get a lot of rain from the Tasman Sea and if you look at those IPCC projection graphs in this report, its most likely to get more lumpy (extreems) as we go on.

    My case still rests with larger and more dynamic weather systems crossing Bass Strait

  337. gavin says

    SD; since we value your most direct observations I have only one point to make and it is simply grass is the wick to the bush.

    So you and your local authorities must not leave what could considered the fuel for a dry season fast running crop fire that can move at 3m/sec on a bad day.

  338. spangled drongo says

    So, gav, you supply the crock without the croc [with a little help from your friends].

    I know a little bit about the East Australian Current because my income depended on my ability to combat it for a few years and generally the faster it runs, the warmer it is. [southerly set]

    And the faster it runs depends on how strong the wind was blowing at some earlier period to cause the southern ocean to mound up on the east coast and over the continental shelf before reaching a height at which it will break back against same wind causing a current. So the EAC speed will be higher if the south wind is strong enough to hold the ocean levels high and then subsides suddenly or is replaced by a northerly which shoots the ocean back southward at a rate of knots. And the longer this mounded-up water stays in the north the warmer it becomes.

    Also the EAC is not continuous but can operate in gyres where inshore the current is reversed.

    The art of winning coastal yacht races is to be where it is going your way and prior to the GPS the only way to know this was by thermometer.

    The EAC also runs in the opposite directions in periods like October when strong northerlies persist. Then, the temperature is cooler the stronger it flows northward. [northerly set]

    This SLR and ST fluctuates regularly and has nothing to do with Global Warming and probably happens in some form where any continent fronts the ocean.

    CSIRO are on dodgy ground with this argument. Get years of southerlies and the EAC will be warm. Years of northerlies and the reverse. I wonder if they ever checked the mariners Pilot Charts to see what the ratio of southerlies to northerlies was over the last two centuries?

    No. thought not. Their data on this is tiny.

  339. Robert says

    There’s more than a whiff of El Nino with all these stiff north-westerlies. It’ll be interesting to see how this one behaves, if it emerges big time. I’m usually in the paddocks and bamboo grove a lot through the spring. I won’t miss it.

    For the Kool Kidz, history is a dank old thing, which makes bumps in well-crafted hockey sticks and which is so full of precedents that it makes even the Kool Kidz nervous of saying “unprecedented”. (They’ll still say it, of course.) Talk of fire conditions in North America brings to mind the Great Chicago Fire of 1871. What is interesting is not the well known scale of that disaster, but, rather, the time of year and what was happening elsewhere.

    The toll from Chicago was light, all things considered, and one should not be amazed that a large wooden city might burn in the right conditions. (Maybe General Sheridan’s ruthlessness worked for the good on this occasion.) But 400 km away, the Peshtigo Fire, on the very same day, was the most lethal in America’s history. In a far less populated place than Chicago, up to two and a half thousand perished – though census records etc were obliterated, so nobody knows. 1.5 million acres were charred.

    Does this make us think of climate conditions? Not yet? On the same day, Holland, Michigan, across the lake, was burnt to the ground. On the same day, 160 km north of Holland, the Great Michigan fire occurred. On the same day, the Port Huron and Urbana disasters occurred.

    On the same day, all this happened. And it was a day in mid-autumn. This wasn’t a great forest fire. These were fires that raged anywhere they could, and which jumped rivers, over several states. (Ontario’s turn came three days later.) Even till recently, people were trying to explain all this as the result of a comet!

    This is how it is. You have heat and drought that are bad enough. Then you have parching winds that are strong enough and dry enough. Then you get Chicago, Peshtigo etc.

    The value of being observant of the present should be obvious. We might indeed learn that things are worse than we thought, when thing are worse.

    History, however, shows us that things frequently WERE worse than we thought, till we were informed. History helps us to be more than intellectuals. It helps us to think.

    So think!

  340. spangled drongo says

    Just something further to add to the CSIRO claim of tropical species moving south with the EAC. What would you expect to result from a natural, almost continuous south-heading conveyor belt that is delivering warm water from the Great Barrier Reef area as far south as Tasmania?

    If tropical species did NOT end up in that southern area it would be much more unnatural.

  341. Debbie says

    Good one Spangled.
    Actually we have been getting pelicans and seagulls out here in the middle of the MDB…we have even spotted a sea eagle….and of course it has happened before.
    Sometimes I think these people must believe that our native flora, fauna and fish build permanent homes like we do…and they don’t like to move.
    They don’t seem to inderstand that fish know how to follow currents and that birds do something similar in slip streams.
    They are far, far more adaptable and far smarter than us humans sometimes.
    You should see the explosion of life out here in the supposed dead and dying MDB.
    Apparently Lake Eyre has been going ballistic as well?
    How’s the weather in the ACT tonight Gav?
    Bit chilly?
    Bit sleety and wet?
    Did you see the snow report?
    Or have our ABC got it wrong again?
    You might take the time to check those dam levels while you’re at it….could become a little bit tricky don’t you think?

  342. Minister for Truth says

    “Try high grain prices from droughts in Australia, diversions to ethanol , exchange rates, GFC etc etc. Sorry to spoil a Nova story.

    More bullshit from basil brush

    If that was the case why did the DEC go after them with every scum bag dirty trick in the book, they could have just let the market take its course.

    Even the DEC officers say that the Thompsons were unfairly treated

    You mob will do anything to cover up your bastardry and incompetence.

  346. gavin says

    Deb; as you are most likely aware, this stuff is coming out all the time now.

    http://www.csiro.au/en/Portals/Media/Warming-causes-more-extreme-shifts.aspx

    Regarding that snow, I’m too crook to have a look at even the nearest hills. Winter flu has really caught up with me today and I won’t be doing much this week end either.

    A guy on ABC radio being interviewed about rural tree projects said the snow was’t settling out his way, somewhere at the back of Canberra.

    Nite Caps all

  348. spangled drongo says

    gav, that CSIRO stuff on the SPCZ sounded OK until I read the first page of the paper, then this:

    “We estimate the increase in zonal SPCZ events from an aggregation of the climate models in the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phases 3 and 5 (CMIP315 and CMIP5) multi-model database that are able to simulate such events.”

    Oh dear!

  349. spangled drongo says

    Deb, it’s been a beautiful warm sunny day here today and my cheese and kisses [who is recovering from a cold] is tickled pink but that weather is heading for us tomorrow.

    More Oh dear!

  350. Debbie says

    Yes Spangled,
    It makes those exponentially increasing global averaging reports look increasingly ridiculous.
    The climate/weather is simply refusing to cooperate.
    It is of course changing but it doesn’t seem to want to change in accordance with the models.
    Even the Canberra weather/climate is refusing to cooperate.
    It is still freezing here but we have had a very welcome drop of rain.
    The birds, frogs, tortoises etc all look pretty chuffed too.
    Funny how they all re appeared like that. Supposedly we destroyed their habitats and VIPs like Tim Flannery can’t call them anymore. He is also deeply concerned about people getting cranky in traffic jams because of heat in Sydney.
    I guess they will all be in a good mood in the traffic today? BoM says it’s a bit chilly there.
    Winter crops look awesome!
    Pity all the excess water is belting out of storages, running the banks and off out into those scary oceans.
    I’m sure Luke et al will eventually figure out how to blame us for it somehow. . . and then justify an increase in taxes/charges because they can fix it!
    And of course keep those fragile tempers in the traffic under control.

  351. Neville says

    Just more proof that Mega droughts and climate changes occur around the world all the time , sometimes over thousands of years.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/17/climate-and-drought-lessons-from-ancient-egypt/#more-69403

    ZERO human involvement for these mega changes. I’m just glad we live in such a mild period today plus our adaptive human resource and our science based technology and all our personal mod cons.

    See down in comments at WUWT about some very interesting videos and some even from the BBC with no AGW BS.

  352. Debbie says

    http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/science/Climate-change-forces-mirgration-of-Australian-tropical-fish/articleshow/15535737.cms

    http://www.smh.com.au/environment/protection-to-help-save-shrinking-undersea-jungles-20120817-24duy.html

    Nope Gavin,
    At the moment they’re coming out thick and fast.
    All have that ‘climate change’ tag.
    Looks just a tad desperate to me….or maybe they were ‘commissioned’ to all appear at the same time? I am of course only assuming….which could be very wrong of me.
    There is clearly little doubt however that the PR dept has gone into spin overdrive.

    Here’s some simple direct questions for you ….Luke, Bazza and Gav…..
    Considering the discussion on CBA that has developed here…..
    Please outline the social and fiscal CBA analysis of this exponentially increasing number of items that appear under the guise of ‘science’, or as minister put it rather succinctly yesterday:
    “mostly by content free garbage being reviewed by people much like yourself…
    Considering the number of them, they are most certainly taking up a lot of time.
    And time is money in the world of employment you know.
    It is us tax payers who are funding these.

    What are the BENEFITS in relation to the COSTS?
    Who/what is this helping?
    What is it that they are hoping to achieve?
    What exactly are they attempting to prove?

    I also draw your attention to this analysis on energy….sorry it’s from the Jonova site, but the contributor is not pretending to do anything other than state the actual figures:
    http://joannenova.com.au/2012/08/how-much-electricity-do-solar-and-wind-make-on-a-global-scale-answer-not-much/#more-23371
    What’s also being pointed out here very clearly is that political performance is not matching the empty political PR rhetoric.
    Political PR spin is merely Political PR spin and that’s where we always find those figures getting tortured to the point that they will admit to just about anything.
    Of course they aren’t the only ones who do it….but in this instance we are all being charged for it with no choice and no right to question….which has nothing to do with how the market would operate and eventually curb this flagrant expenditure blowout!

  353. Neville says

    Debbie just to back up the info from Jo Nova. The facts are that in 2008 China only derived 0.2% of its power from solar and wind etc or other renewables.

    http://www.eia.gov/countries/cab.cfm?fips=CH See pie chart down page from the EIA.

    The Greens prattle on forever about how well China is performing using renewables but forget to mntion that most 6% comes from hydro.
    BTW Bolt showed yesterday that a lot of the solar companies in China are going broke and some company heads are suiciding as a result.

  355. Luke says

    Meaningless stupidity from Wattsy disinformation central. As if climate science does not know about or has no interest in palaeoclimate issues. Get real. More on the “shit has happened before” meme.

    Debbie stop prattling – its really is becoming tedious. Bazza has forgotten more about CBA than you’ll ever know. Your snide on the tropical fish movement is pure stupidity but that’s what we’re beginning to expect. You really are thick as a plank – the old “when it’s happening it’s still not happening” meme. Good grief. It’s only about what you’d expect, and not overclaimed. Yes Victoria under climate change species might move. A duh !

    As for CBA and costs – try working on the left hand side of the ledger for a while.

  356. Luke says

    Our self confessed drongo thinks CSIRO don’t know about decadal variability and our home spun old codger sailing stories of yore are somehow science.

    http://www.oceanclimatechange.org.au/content/index.php/2012/report_card_extended/category/east_australian_current

    “Summary

    The East Australian Current (EAC) is a complex and highly energetic western boundary system in the south-western Pacific off eastern Australia. The EAC provides both the western boundary of the South Pacific Gyre and the linking element between the Pacific and Indian Ocean gyres.

    The EAC is weaker than other western boundary currents and is dominated by a series of mesoscale eddies which produce highly variable patterns of current strength and direction. Seasonal, interannual and particularly strong decadal changes are observed in current which tend to mask the underlying long-term trends related to GHG forcing. WHAT’S THIS DRONGO !!!

    Observations from a long-term coastal station show that the EAC has strengthened and extended further southward over the past 60 years. The south Tasman Sea region has become both warmer and saltier with mean trends of 2.28°C/century and 0.34 psu/century over the 1944-2002 period which corresponds to a poleward advance of the EAC Extension of order 350-km.

    The observed intensification of the EAC flow past Tasmania is driven by a spin-up and southward shift of the Southern Hemisphere subtropical ocean circulation. Changes in the gyre strength are, in turn, linked to changes in wind stress curl over a broad region of the South Pacific. The oceanic changes are forced by an intensification of the wind stress curl arising from a poleward shift in the circumpolar westerly winds due to the trend in the Southern Annular Mode

    Observational and modelling studies indicate that these changes in the wind patterns are at least in part attributable to ozone depletion over the past decades. However, at least some of the trend is likely to be forced by increases in atmospheric CO2. Climate models under observed CO2 increases, also produce an upward trend of the SAM and a consequent intensification of the Southern Hemisphere gyre system.

    Climate model simulations strongly suggest that trends observed over the past 50 years will continue and accelerate over the next 100 years.”

  357. Debbie says

    Gee whiz Luke,
    I was just asking some questions.
    Can you possibly see your way clear to answer them?
    You seem to think that behaving like a cyber bully is helping to advance some logical case on your part.
    Here is a supplementary question for you:
    Can you please substantiate this statement of yours with evidence?

    “Bazza has forgotten more about CBA than you’ll ever know”

    There is no evidence of that anywhere at all….either way….whether I know more than he does or vice versa.
    He did hint that he is a cheap accountant with time management skills….but that was just a hint and certainly doesn’t substantiate your statement.

    BTW Luke… please rest assured that no one is disagreeing with you that MODEL SIMULATIONS strongly suggest trends…..you don’t seem to be getting it….we can all see quite clearly what the MODEL SIMULATIONS are strongly suggesting.

    If you would just pay attention, the question is if emerging real time data is supporting those projected trends, if the data has actually been presented and used corectly in the modelling and also if we should actually be charging everyone taxes to reverse these modelled trends …..especially since it is starting to look as if natural variability and the behaviour of countries like China is going to defeat any such efforts anyway.

    Also….please note Luke….this comment:

    “Climate model simulations strongly suggest that trends observed over the past 50 years will continue and accelerate over the next 100 years.”

    Is essentially no different in meaning to this one:

    “More on the “shit has happened before” meme.”

    But splutter and bully away to your heart’s content if it makes you feel better.

    I would still appreciate answers to some fairly simple questions… preferably without the personal comments if you can possibly manage it.

  358. Johnathan Wilkes says

    Neville, toby, Debbie, MoT, Robert and others.

    My hat’s off to you for persevering.

    I apologise to gav. about my quip, but honestly my BS tolerance is near zero and practically that is all we get from these people recently disguised as “science”, along with the customary name-calling and abuse.

  359. Luke says

    “He did hint that he is a cheap accountant with time management skills…” – no you’re just cluelessly projecting as usual. Like many on here. Maybe he’s a bot designed to test silly people? Certainly you have yet to pass your own Turing test.

    We’re not talking about models. Good lord ! So dense.

    Thick as Debbie – your many degrees must be on soft subjects.

  360. Luke says

    Johnathon – basically you obviously enjoy a thick soup of stupidity, disinformation, seasoned with redneck comments. Take the crass unintelligent comments about the changes in south-east Australian ocean currents and species distribution. An observed trend over a long period of time. For dimwits like Debs this is what we call “obs”. There might be some further work in an attempt to resolve is ANY anthropogenic influences might be at work. Ning nongs would have missed the import of ozone depletion (Debs can as a test of attention tell us why that might be a factor) versus GHGs versus natural variation in that process. Some of these attribution studies do not implicate AGW. It’s called science.

    Really Johnathon the level of commentary is Neanderthalian –

  361. Johnathan Wilkes says

    Luke
    “Really Johnathon the level of commentary is Neanderthalian -”

    I agree, that some are not peer review material but still worth reading and have relevance.
    Personal observation, whether done by PHD scientist or laymen are equally valid.
    What interpretations you put on it is the important factor.

    I think Robert wrote something along the lines of “Think”.
    One would assume that thinking, being a natural process is easy, it’s not.
    At least clear logical considerations of facts is not, we are all burdened with believes, group influence etc. which taints the outcome.

    You dismiss the links provided from WUWT and other sites out of hand as useless, I read most of them including the links you provided and I can tell you that I find just as much, if not more rubbish in those as I find in the former. Dismissing any on party lines is silly.

  362. Debbie says

    Luke,
    another supplementary question for you, while I note that you have avoided answering any of the ones I have asked.
    If we’re not talking about models, what are we talking about?

  364. Luke says

    Johnathon – 2 issues – I’m returning the favour of dismissal – study your colleagues (here) rejection of any “AGW-ish” science paper automatically. Secondly so many try-ons at Wattsup and so sneering political are the comments. All these try-ons take hours to work through. is it worth it?

  365. Debbie says

    So Luke?
    While noting you have still not answered earlier questions.
    What’s wrong with me observing that we have got seagulls, pelicans and even a sea eagle out here?
    What’s wrong with me observing that it has happened before?
    What’s wrong with me pointing out to Gavin that his ACT July obversation and his snow obversation are not proving anything at all re AGW and the snow bit was incorrect?
    What’s wrong with me observing that your claims about Bazza are devoid of evidence?
    And why are you not answering the very simple questions I asked earlier?
    They are not trick questions, I am genuinely interested in your answers.

  366. Pikey says

    Hey Guys!
    The match is over.
    You have lost by a record margin.
    The fans went home just after half time.
    By rehashing the same drivel and insulting the winners you are showing what poor losers you are.
    Time to try another sport, another subject, where you may have some skills, but it certainly is not on these topics.
    How about the price of camels at Leigh Creek for Christmas or will we be hunting whales for food in 2075?
    Be about as relevant as the proceeding hazy arguments.
    Pikey.

  367. gavin says

    Deb; When ever I see the words “evidence based science” in a skeptic dialogue I want to run a mile cause its certain for the writer at least they aren’t familiar with the basics of the topic and I feel the same about writers referring to Bolt, Jo or Watts.

    SD; We had this climate report written by dozens of highly qualified researchers being poorly read in the first instance then trashed?

    JW; I should give up too given my fragile state today but I won’t on principle. Besides, who are you to determine whats what in any event? Is there a chance you may have the background to follow government funded climate science across various agencies? What do you have to say about trust given SD’s comments?

    This blog’s focus on evidence is the problem. Technique is the only thing I respect in an individuals analysis. Most of science is about delivering technique, not results. My career was based on having just enough skill to get by with out major blunders. One can’t know it all so we must learn to depend on others in the team.

    I got to help in different development projects by being adaptable towards other disciplines. From web processing machinery, thin film evaporation plants and associated steam generators etc I went to retro fitting environment monitoring systems without doing CBAs as most of it would become mandatory.

    In passing through I failed to imagine this technique as it was used in the dark. Fluid currents are used in the paper industry too so I should have guessed. In this case we are changing the direction of a thin sheet and it’s wet photographic coating over multiple loops.

    http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/6533217.html.

    Slightly more scientific, the neural science “patch clamp” technique. I shared a lab bench with the lady (late wife) who developed single brain cells for this line of research. Visiting fellows doing microbiology usually took a while to clamp on.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patch_clamp

    Deb; while I remain essentially a metal worker who collects copper kettles and Swan Brand type teapots I’m often frustrated just fixing dents. Do I use a ball pene hammer or the round end on a wooden broom stick? Metal spinning is a craft that I must admire but can’t recreate for love nor money

  368. Johnathan Wilkes says

    gav
    “JW, Besides, who are you to determine whats what in any event?”

    Gavin, I know what I know, but claiming qualifications on a blog in general and on this site in particular seems to invite ridicule.

    You live on experiences way past their due date and totally irrelevant today.

    Quoting someone else whose ideology you happen to agree with while ignoring the other side, is meaningless, it simply brings us back to saying, my scientist is bigger than yours.

    Rambling on what you were talking about on the Sunday market with some obscure individual means nothing, but you do it every time and at the same time you and your cohorts dismissing SD’ and others’ personal observations.
    Pointing to cringe-worthy totally biased ABC programmes prove nothing.
    Get real man!

    You ignore and dismiss some papers because they happen to be on a website you deem inferior.
    If you don’t read it how do you know it’s no good?

    You are on my ignore list, nothing to gain from reading your drivel.

  369. Minister for Truth says

    I am with you Johnathan and Pikey. I reckon the only thing neanderthalian has been the antics of the GW protectionist society.They are too uninformed and inexperienced to know when they are beaten, and like a punch drunk boxer they will eventually collapse with yet more severe brain damage

    As for saying basil brush has forgotten more about CBA than Debbie knows thats a perfect example of the delusionality involved.As a self employed person employing others she would have a very sharp understanding of accounting which side of the ledger is nearest the window. Phlukey and his nong PS mates just spend the tax revenue raised by her efforts and sleep soundly at night not having to worry about cash flow and bank managers.

    But for a change of subject, the new world ranking for universities are out, so I thought I would have look at what criteria and weightings are used, and indeed do the rankings look at major areas like climate science/earth sciences.

    http://www.arwu.org/ARWUMethodology2010.jsp

    At first glance doesnt appear to be much wrong with the approach but I guess the devils are in the details.

    Heavy dependancy upon publishing (and hence peer review) and then citations by others. Not much on quality of teaching and what are they actually producing as graduated end products

    Hmmm thats for tomorrow

  370. toby says

    JW, I think the whole discussion around the NBN has given a useful look into the mindset of those who fall for CAGW. Clearly there is a strong correlation between NBN supporters in its current format and CAGW. A belief that platitudes are important and when it comes to using money, value does not matter. Nor even the need to protect tax payer funds and ensure value for money is achieved.

    Even the discussion of a social CBA vs a financial CBA is a stupid attempt to try and justify an expense at all costs.

    Since when would a real CBA not be considering the social cost/ benefit as well as the financial (however hard it may be to nail down all aspects of both), when government spending is being analysed? …or maybe that’s just naïve of me to expect the obvious?!

    I find it fascinating and very sad that anybody could argue that before tax payer funds are used there does not need to be any consideration of costs and benefits as well as opportunity costs.

    I m sure if we threw in something like boat arrivals these guys would also argue that Howard’s policies did not stop the boats, it was just that circumstances miraculously improved so there were no longer any push factors…..and they would think Gillard and greens justified in doing ntg for so long and probably now think that all of a sudden circumstances have changed to make Nauru viable again!! ( I personally have my doubts now its been left so long, there will be 4-5000 arrive before its even open!!). If I am wrong in that assumption I apologise, but my NBN assumption was correct.

  372. gavin says

    JW; all that proves you are just another cranky old commentator and dare I say it, SD and I have a great deal of mutual respect re our personal observations. Papers on WUWT etc don’t count despite what either of you say though and my science is bigger than yours, so lump it or go home. “cringe-worthy totally biased ABC programmes” ? Well I don’t depend on them but they are a bit quicker on the job than this blog.

    Deb; those birds are well within their normal range. Pizzey & Knight’s field guide give us the entire continent for the Silver Gull and Australian Pelican but N Cayley’s book keeps the gull to the coast. Both books have the White Breasted Sea Eagle ranging deep inland in S E Australia. We can argue frequency on a local basis but my experience with the birds in question and the books we are looking at very common and conspicuous groups.

  373. bazza says

    Going fishing. Hooks galore here. From the World Meteorological Organization -2011 was the 11th warmest since records began in 1850. It confirmed preliminary findings that 2011 was the warmest year on record with a La Niña, which has a cooling influence.
    – climate change accelerated in 2001-2010, which was the warmest decade ever recorded in all continents of the globe.
    –
    “record” – come in Robert with you invaluable perspective.
    “La Niña” – that proves it is only natural variability ( Debbie)
    “All continents” are they serious – perhaps SD ( she’ll be right mate) for this one did they include Antarctica. And what about the cooling in NW Australia where SD would have once camped about a bit.
    And it gets worse – they forgot to mention UHI is the likely cause of AGW ( Debbie again to straighten them out – what would they know – beliefs trump evidence.)
    And as for Debbies La Niña-related visitation from the seagulls – one could well be Jonathan Livingstone himself – check if it is the bold type? And Nev could come in with his bit on emissions still waiting for someone to respond to his numbers.
    Sorry nothing for Tobes but he is not responding to me ever ever again

  374. debbie says

    Gavin,
    I hope you’re feeling better today.
    The current flu that has been going around is making people very ill.
    I would imagine it is no longer dificult to spot snow from Canberra?

    On this particular comment I whole heartedly agree:

    ‘Most of science is about delivering technique, not results.’

    My question and my problem with all of this climate and enviro science stuff is simply this:

    Why, therefore, are we being forever told that ‘the science is settled’ and why is everything associated with these particular branches of science all geared to one AND ONLY ONE technique?

    As always my complaint is that most of this has absolutely nothing to do with the practical application of science and everything to do with politics.
    If it was about science then we would all be looking at all the different scientific techniques (including technical) that we could employ to improve the way we do things.
    That’s not what the ever increasing numbers of reports are about though are they?
    All of them are being used to justify a carbon credit scheme that will be administered and run by people whom we have all learned are incapable of running them efficiently.
    They don’t even follow very basic rules associated with responsible fiscal management.
    And sadly….even though there are many things that could be done, especially in heavily urbanised areas….but also in areas like the MDB and the lower lakes….we are not going to look at any of those options….they’re not in the ‘terms of reference’.
    We are all being herded in only one direction by this insane political PR machine that has hijacked the ‘science’ and used it inappropriately.

  376. Robert says

    “’record’” – come in Robert with you invaluable perspective.”

    You’re a big boy now, or you’re never going to be. I’m sure you know a little of the world before Lady Gaga by now.

    Nonetheless, thanks for reminding me things have warmed a bit since the mid 19th century. I suppose with the SL levels trending up long before that, something had to give. It’s always good to be reminded of these things, even with an overlay of klutzy irony.

    And, bazza, thanks for not saying “counterfactual” one more time. A small mercy, but much appreciated.

  377. debbie says

    Still waiting for you to answer questions Bazza.
    Still waiting for you to engage in a discussion rather than scoffing and blustering and attempting to prove you can be a bully.
    The scoffing and blustering and attempted character assassinations is no longer amusing…it is becoming entirely predictable and boring, boring, boring.

  378. toby says

    JW, I think he should just be HWSBI ( he who should be ignored).

    When I was 7 i visited disney world and had the pleasure of watching the ” yogi bear jamborie” and i will never forget this quote from big al “if you aint got ntg nice to say, then dont say nothin at all’!”

    so as per usual i have deleted what i wanted to say….well almost all of it. HWSBI!

  380. toby says

    HWSBI is not you Baz….. Im sure at some point i will be unable to ignore something you have said, and i do at least read your comments.

  381. spangled drongo says

    Deal with the message gav, instead of shooting the messenger.

    Ya know, the ball, not the man.

    Same with Wattsup, septic science or anyone.

    Even Wired does that.

  382. Ian Thomson says

    Hey JW,
    ‘ Neanderthal’ comments. The last reconstruction I saw of a Neanderthal head would, with a lot of hair added, look just like Mr Albert Einstein. You’ve just been given high praise by Luke. I hope you are impressed , mate.
    Bazza, yes sea eagles etc do range inland. Birds have a habit of FLYING to find food and sea eagles are partial to wood ducks. ( Bet they love the stupid, shallow carp too).
    What Debbie and others are trying to impress on Govts and City boobs is that , right now, there are millions of hectares of abnormal swamp etc out in AUSTRALIA , breeding millions of “endangered ” creatures.
    When it does sink in to City people, they may stop the politicians buying up inland properties, to protect stationary birds- then removing all the water storages which caused them to be there. Then giving feral predators free range.

  383. gavin says

    SD; what you have to see is that whole heap of Ridley type rhetoric should apply to your side exclusively, but I won’t be disappointed if you can’t .

    JW. the key issue with yesterday’s snow was a sudden temp inversion caused by heavy rain. Rain, not snow was the order of the day.

    Now, lets look at another frequent skeptic complaint, our ABC. Tonight we watched a gardening story about fixing an old floodway in Ringwood Vic with some intelligent landscaping. I knew about that problem almost fifty years ago when we lived in Oliver Street just off the new highway. Some man made problems take a long while for a community to recognize and fix.

    Another story Saturday Landline involved our hop growing industry and big changes in it’s ownership and location. A feature was changes in regard to evolving beer tastes but who can predict that outcome today? Marketing or science is the question.

  385. Robert says

    You’re so right, SD. The whirlygigs need to be banned in most places and dismantled except where owned and used privately. Medieval heaps of junk, just like low temp washing water and low flush dunnies. Waste, damage, expense, inefficiency and hazard: everything our Green Betters would recommend as “sustainable”.

  386. bazza says

    As Jonathan said wisely ” I know what I know, but claiming qualifications on a blog in general and on this site in particular seems to invite ridicule. You live on experiences way past their due date and totally irrelevant today.”

  387. Johnathan Wilkes says

    bazzard
    Keep on yapping little doggie, your quote above is as fraudulent as any of your other claims.

  389. Johnathan Wilkes says

    bazzyboy
    I know you are busting your tiny brain to find out what’s wrong with your quote.
    I’ll be kind to you.

    Quotation marks should only enclose the actual quotation, not your additional comment, my boy.

    Apropos, not that it’s any of your business, but I’ve not yet passed it, just turned 51 in February.
    Amazing how far out of our way we go to help an unfortunate fellow being even the undeserving ones.

  390. gavin says

    SD; I visited your link and after reading it through I was left wondering, 1; what else has your author done in wind on the internet, 2; what is the average turbine producing, 4, 8, or 25% of it’s rated capacity?

    Seeking more experienced wind commentary, I found this investment group. They buy what we had!

    http://www.guohua.com.cn/english/xsgs_01.jsp

    Silly, or not?

  391. Johnathan Wilkes says

    bazzy
    In case you are still confused, the second sentence of your post is to be considered as your own comment directed back at me.
    Hope it clears it up for you?
    No?

    Oh well never mind you’ll get it one day. Or not.

  392. Debbie says

    ROFL!
    Bazza,
    you are seriously your own worst enemy.
    Ian Thompson,
    well said.
    Inland Australia has gone ballistic.
    Bazza et al are still operating on the assumption that it is a desolate dust bowl out here and that we killed all the birdies and the froggies.
    Not only are all the supposed extinct and endangered species back in outstanding numbers, the coastal birdies are visiting too.
    Has it possibly occured to Bazza et al to ask the Tasmanians who possess generational knowledge, whether the same might apply to those fish?
    There’s a novel idea.

  393. cohenite says

    luke, and it seems, bazza, are great recyclers; they put up a paper or point, watch it get torn to shreds, go away and sulk and then after a decorous period of time, resubmit the same drivel again.

    For instance, bazza says:

    “From the World Meteorological Organization -2011 was the 11th warmest since records began in 1850. It confirmed preliminary findings that 2011 was the warmest year on record with a La Niña, which has a cooling influence.
    – climate change accelerated in 2001-2010, which was the warmest decade ever recorded in all continents of the globe.”

    Go and read McShane and Wyner bazza.

  394. gavin says

    Debs on the ball. A few years ago my cousin was one of several co authors in a new illustrated book about coastal fish species. Most of the work was done by a hand full of recreational divers who saw the need for a greater public interest in our lesser know sea inhabitants and their protection. This chap was also involved in topside recreational development and has pursued his interest in native orchids etc since leaving the PS.

    The precedent for public science is well established in Tasmania and I have no doubt it will play a major part in climate monitoring as it becomes more wide spread in the Australian scene. Maria Island as a monitoring station is just the beginning.

    Following SD, I returned to Judith Curry seeking recent papers. Can I be the first to suggest this lady probably makes more from writing than research today? This hunch is only based on the scientific flurry surrounding her base and the primary author, Dr. Peter Webster of “Are Category 4 and 5 hurricanes increasing in number?”

    http://www.wunderground.com/education/webster.asp?MR=1

    A much larger concern is covered by a review here re “The Battle over Climate Science”

    http://climatechangepsychology.blogspot.com.au/2012/06/must-read-battle-over-climate-science.html

    Do we ever trust anything US based given this battle, politics v climate science?

  395. spangled drongo says

    gav, you might have visited my link but you didn’t absorb anything. The graph of wind produced electricity is like a comb and consumption can’t run like that. The net production is almost useless and shockingly expensive in big systems.

    As Robert says, in private small systems with storage it can work [solar too, as in satellites] but it needs so much back-up in the real world that it is just a scam.

    Also if you were interested in Judith Curry’s progress you would know that with time and detailed investigation she has become ever more sceptical of warmist science.

    So we should shoot messenger-countries as well as messenger-people now too?

  397. Debbie says

    Politics versus climate science? 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂
    ROFL!
    Your problem Gavin is that the climate and the environment cares no more about your opinion of politics, or the USA, or Judith Curry or Manne, or big tobacco or tweed coats or even psychology than anyone else’s OPINIONS.
    It also has zero respect for long term averages and arbitary calendar points.
    That link is more of the same political hoo haa and has NOTHING to do with science.
    I noticed you missed the point about solution/technique?
    You also totally missed Ian’s point about the birds.
    In the MDBP it is ‘accepted’ as scientific fact that the numbers have declined to an alarming level.
    The ONE AND ONLY technique/solution to solve this alarming problem is for the FEDS to step in and control land & water by doing such brilliant things as shutting down prime land and drowning river red gums.
    Seems the Kingston’s of the world don’t know that birds have WINGS and if there is a drought in the MDB they fly off somewhere else?
    They rather liked the man made water conservation works during that time.
    Strangely they weren’t all that fond of the ‘iconic’ sites where ‘the scientists’ were counting them.
    They’re pretty chuffed at the moment and they don’t even mind their coastal cousins dropping in for a visit.

  398. Neville says

    Good info from Watts , explains why wind energy actually increases co2 emissions. The important point is that so called mitigation of AGW is the greatest con and fraud of the last 100 years.

    Because of use of cheaper gas the second biggest emiter on the planet ( USA) is almost back to 1990 levels of co2 emissions.
    This is achieved by new technology and human resources and much cheaper energy. Around the planet solar energy to the grid is a standing joke and even added to other renewables adds little for an enormous expense.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/18/mcintyres-talk-in-london-plus-the-uks-tilting-at-windmills-may-actually-increase-co2-emissions-over-natural-gas/#more-69484

  400. Debbie says

    I like the ‘idea’ of wind power. Us redneck country bumkins have been using it for years. We have also been using gravity for years.
    Wind power works fine for specific local/personal purposes like pumping water from shallow underground sources to fill water troughs, stock/house dams.
    However, when we want to do some serious pumping of either ground water or surface water, to do rather important stuff like produce food & fibre on a larger scale, wind power doesn’t measure up for 2 very important reasons:
    1) It is unreliable and
    2) To make it more reliable the CBA equation is totally out of whack. TOTALLY!

    So, for us, even though we like the ‘idea’, it doesn’t add up. If we were just feeding ourselves, it would be fine.
    I also notice that Bazza avoided that ‘conversion’ question re feedlots which suffers from similar problems.
    It’s a good ‘idea’ too.

  401. Robert says

    Neville, it’s a worry when a daffy leftist rag like Spiegel recognises the problem. Of course, they don’t headline the real cause – one has to read into the article for that – but it makes you realise how radically we need to change track in Oz. We’re coal and uranium rich…and pensioners have to worry about turning on their heating and a/c? For this we gouge the Darling Downs?

    Here’s the funniest bit:

    “Producers of batteries and other emergency energy sources are benefiting most from the disruptions.”

    Environmentalism truly represents the death of Conservation.

  402. Minister for Truth says

    “Environmentalism truly represents the death of Conservation.”

    Not so.

    Its been the death of common sense, aided and abetted by moonlighting scientific advisers to environmental extremists, whilst already being paid out of the public purse.

  403. bazza says

    Debbie, you have incorrectly attributed assumptions/comments to me I never made. Pls fix.
    “Bazza et al are still operating on the assumption that it is a desolate dust bowl out here and that we killed all the birdies and the froggies.”

    “I also notice that Bazza avoided that ‘conversion’ question re feedlots which suffers from similar problems”

  404. spangled drongo says

    The Law of Group Polarization:

    “In a striking empirical regularity, deliberation tends to move groups, and the individuals who compose them, toward a more extreme point in the direction indicated by their own predeliberation judgments. For example, people who are opposed to the minimum wage are likely, after talking to each other, to be still more opposed; people who tend to support gun control are likely, after discussion, to support gun control with considerable enthusiasm; people who believe that global warming is a serious problem are likely, after discussion, to insist on severe measures to prevent global warming. This general phenomenon — group polarization – has many implications for economic, political, and legal institutions. It helps to explain extremism, “radicalization,” cultural shifts, and the behavior of political parties and religious organizations; it is closely connected to current concerns about the consequences of the Internet; it also helps account for feuds, ethnic antagonism, and tribalism.”

    Just so true.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/18/the-reason-for-the-polarization-of-the-global-warming-issue/

  407. bazza says

    Your song Debbie, you cant make up stuff as you go along and you dont have the guts to apologise.

    Isn’t it rich?
    Isn’t it queer?
    Losing my timing this late
    In my career?
    And where are the clowns?
    Quick, send in the clowns.
    Don’t bother – they’re here.

  408. gavin says

    Any snow, if it ever was in the ACT has all but disappeared. Walked up our hill to the nearest trig point and there is very little on the horizon. Its only on the far western edge, possibly Mt Franklin and there is nothing close to Canberra. The Cootamundra scrub is flowering so winter is over.

  409. Debbie says

    Gavin,
    Wattle week is the first week of August, there’s a reason for that you know.
    All the wattles flower in August and every year the Cootamundras are among the most spectacular.
    They do particularly well in your neck of the woods.
    You are sort of putting yourself out on a limb there by making such predictions.
    Let’s see what the rest of August does shall we?
    Spring doesn’t officially begin till Sept.
    But having lived in Canberra I would also observe that quite often in Sept it feels more like winter than spring.
    Bazza,
    I’m still waiting.
    BTW the ‘conversion’ re feedlots explanation hasn’t happened so not sure why that one is a problem for you?

  410. Debbie says

    Or maybe Bazza I could explain it this way:
    Whenever you point your finger, there are 3 others pointing straight back at you.
    Or perhaps:
    Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
    Or perhaps:
    Let he who is without sin cast the first stone:
    Or perhaps look up the concept of karma?
    I also like:
    What goes round comes round.
    May I respectfully suggest you review your own MO?

  411. spangled drongo says

    “China is buying our wind. As I asked before, is it only 4, 8 or 25% of installed capacity that counts?”

    Gav, I can’t see that on your link. You better cut and paste the specifics. How could China buy our W/G elec?

    And if you are only getting a small fraction of what you pay for, and have to build big gas plants which have to be run at high production for when the wind unexpectedly crumps out [ie, back-up] then your energy costs will multiply. It’s called cost/benefit and where I come from that COUNTS.

    But the dumbest part of it all is that the net result of this backed-up wind energy produces more CO2 [wind is supposed to emit almost no CO2, FFS] than if you dispensed with wind completely and just used that gas back-up plus a bit extra.

    This backed-up wind is also costing 4 times the price of gas.

    Comprendez?

  412. spangled drongo says

    To spell it out a little more, if renewable energy costs 4 times the price of FF energy PLUS produces more CO2 that gives it a cost/benefit of at most one quarter of the cost/benefit of fossil fuel energy.

  413. bazza says

    spangled, that research you quote on polarisation is not seen as true in general . Sure, you often get biased assimilation but not strong evidence of polarisation .

  415. gavin says

    SD; there is going to be a lot of movement re wind farms, owners and operators. You need to follow Siemens, Vestas etc and Asian owned companies tendering for the next wave of major wind projects like the one off the UK with generator blades as LONG as an Airbus is wide.

    My previous comment referred to the break up of partnerships both sides of Bass Strait with wind projects sold off to raise further capital and there is more,

    http://www.eco-business.com/news/ratch-australia-plans-to-spend-a1-billion-on-acquisitions-wind/

  416. cohenite says

    “The Cootamundra scrub is flowering so winter is over.”

    And Xmas is coming gav so get your red suit out of mothballs. And forget about wind poower, it has as much viability as santa’s sled.

    Anyhow Pickering is still struggling I see:

    http://lpickering.net/item/8305

  417. Debbie says

    So Gavin,
    Is it just foreign partnership and/or ownership of these projects that is bothering you?
    I agree that is a bit concerning, particularly if it involves subsidy money….but is it the most concerning aspect of these wind projects?
    That particular concern is being highlighted in a number of areas BTW….seeing as we raised Tassie and fish at this post….one of the major concerns about that super trawler in Tassie is that it is partly financed by EC subsidy money and a Tas Govt partnership and will be directly competing with our non subsidised fishing industry.
    Not the only place it’s happening.
    I don’t object to foreign partnerships based on sound economic/market principles but I must admit I get a trifle nervous when subsidies and Govt partnerships are involved.

  418. spangled drongo says

    gav, that has nothing to do with the viability of wind power.

    That just emphasizes how you can depress the value of a good asset and boost the value of a dud with govt intervention so as to make them both attractive to cashed-up foreigners.

    Painting a diamond brown only makes it a better buy but putting a gold cigar-band on a turd doesn’t make it a good smoke.

    cohers, good to see Pickering getting the story out. SFSG.

  419. gavin says

    Glad you raised that super trawler issue Deb. It’s been on our ABC for a while and there are updates since this story

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-08-15/super-trawler-debate/4200114

    We don’t traditionally eat Jack Mackrel or bait fish from Bass Strait waters but obviously somebody else wants them for something and my guesses were salmon or tuna farm food and fish paste for the starving masses overseas.

    Who do we support, local fishermen, fish farmers or other private enterprise as supported by taxpayers through our fisheries management?

  420. gavin says

    Oh SD! Asian enterprise buying anyone’s turds? You don’t know how a Chinese family business works these days.

  421. Ian Thomson says

    Why on Earth would China want to buy gazillions of tonnes of Oz gas and coal, on long term contracts ?
    They have all this alternative energy coming online. Windmills, mirrors.
    Now they are going to help build windmills bigger than bloody Buicks with wings, elsewhere.

    How about someone gets real here . For my place – out a bit, no woolpress or welder or heavy pumping stuff going overnight , yep windmills and mirrors – with emergency back up .
    For Leeton, Melbourne, Griffith, Broken Hill, etc — The Chinese one should be our solution , ‘power’.
    Can’t work here though , because Australian gas is over $1.30 a litre here . It gets cheaper, the closer it gets to China. Down below 2 cents a litre .
    Both sides of Canberra think that is admirable. They would be considered traitors in most educated countries. Bye Bye Oz.

  422. spangled drongo says

    But these turds come with gold plated govt guarantees that will provide a good earner for the owner.

    The people who are stuck with the sticky stuff are the Australian taxpayers.

    If you are one of those you should be very concerned.

  423. John Sayers says

    “Comment from: Debbie August 19th, 2012 at 1:48 pm

    Gavin,
    Wattle week is the first week of August, there’s a reason for that you know.
    All the wattles flower in August and every year the Cootamundras are among the most spectacular.
    They do particularly well in your neck of the woods.
    You are sort of putting yourself out on a limb there by making such predictions.
    Let’s see what the rest of August does shall we?
    Spring doesn’t officially begin till Sept.
    But having lived in Canberra I would also observe that quite often in Sept it feels more like winter than spring.
    Bazza,
    I’m still waiting.
    BTW the ‘conversion’ re feedlots explanation hasn’t happened so not sure why that one is a problem for you?”

  426. Johnathan Wilkes says

    John
    “wish I could edit” yes it would be handy.
    Use notepad or word to compose your posts and then cut and paste.

  428. spangled drongo says

    Filed under: How to waste more hard-earned taxpayer funds or: One good turd deserves another.

  429. spangled drongo says

    As Graeme No3 said at JoNo:

    “In the meantime;
    On a cold winter’s night there is nothing like the warm glow of a solar panel to keep you warm.

    That, or a blazing fire of bundled $20 notes, which might be cheaper.
    (Lewis Carroll, The Hunting of the Sarc.)”

  430. Debbie says

    Good spot Ian Thomson,
    There is an alarming lack of common sense operating re power generation.
    The numbers don’t add up.
    Pickering’s cartoon spotted it too.
    People are opening their energy bills in shock.
    The pensioners out here are being asked to pay $200 to have someone come around and explain the govt sponsored ‘power pack’ to them.
    It tells them to do stuff they’ve always done and supplies them with things like sausages for the bottom of their doors and energy saving light bulbs which they could buy for a couple of bucks at the local hardware store or supermarket.
    It almost looks like what most ordinary people would call a scam!

  432. Minister for Truth says

    Hmmmm

    Cohenite : I wouldnt say that Pickering was stuggling at all, given what is now on his web site, and Bolts and others as well, and, given the inadequacy of the statement from Slater & Gordon.

    Why would one set up an Incorporated Association that uses the name of entity that is a client, without setting up a file, and further, why would you not get the entity, and very same client, whose name is being used, be consulted.

    Thirdly who were the office bearers of the Incorprated Association and who audited the accounts.

    As for Gillard complaining about the vicious/malicious nature of blogs, well I would have thought that the PM and the Parliament, has already set the standard.

    No wonder they want to muzzle the media and curb our freedoms.

    Hypocrisy anyone?

  433. Debbie says

    Interesting quote from that link SD.

    “And I must admit that those adjustments constituting virtually all of the warming signal in the last 40 years is disconcerting. When “global warming” only shows up after the data are adjusted, one can understand why so many people are suspicious of the adjustments.”

  434. Debbie says

    This is cute too:
    These numbers are simply not adding up.
    What is being said and then what is happening in reality is not even remotely connected.
    I wonder if these people actually understand that ‘cutting’ bills would actually mean that the bill would be CHEAPER than before????????
    I suspect that they think it means that it could have been even more expensive than it already is???

    http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/we-have-the-power-to-cut-our-bills/story-e6frfhqf-1226448703596

  435. bazza says

    Interesting on ther temperature adjustments.? Try going beyond interesting to curiosity even understanding then comes learning. From NOAA:
    “Applying the Time of Observation adjustment (black line) resulted in approximately a 0.3F warming from the late 1960’s to the 1990’s. The shift from Cotton Region Shelters to the Maximum/Minimum Thermometer System in the mid-1980’s is clearly evident in the difference between the TOBS and the MMTS time series (red line). This adjustment created a small warming in the US annual time series during the mid to late 1980’s. Application of the Station History Adjustment Procedure (yellow line) resulted in an average increase in US temperatures, especially from 1950 to 1980. During this time, many sites were relocated from city locations to airports and from roof tops to grassy areas. This often resulted in cooler readings than were observed at the previous sites. When adjustments were applied to correct for these artificial changes, average US temperature anomalies were cooler in the first half of the 20th century and effectively warmed throughout the later half. Filling in missing data (blue line) produced cooler temperatures prior to 1915. Adjustments to account for warming due to the effects of urbanization (purple line) cooled the time series an average of 0.1F throughout the period of record. “

  436. Luke says

    Debbie bleats – ANSWER MY QUESTIONS – sorry Debs you gave up your right to play seriously when you wouldn’t engage with us on forecasting. Couldn’t get a little peepy from you – as you don’t concern yourself with details. So we’re not into details now girly.

    Cohenite pretends he’s a legend in his own lifetime. So tedious but he does the part well. I respect Cohers actually. Good quality denialism with funny sledging. Needs a few papers in GRL with Stockers then he’d be dangerous. Maybe he’s even a nice bloke if you get him off climate and politics.

    Looks like Wilksey has blown a cog. Fair enuff too. Bazza is pretty good isn’t he?

    I just dropped in for a quickie but looks like just the usual squabbling. Sigh remember the old days and really funny acidic comments from Motty, rabid stuff from Birdy and a thorough ream out from S Short. Sigh …. and that stockbroker and banker bloke ….

    Abbott will be in soon. You’ll have nothing to talk about then. Have you planned for your retirements?

    By good time for lefties and middle-ists of course – back to pure hatred and ridding our selves of the Tory plague by all means possible
    (big time buyer’s regret in Qld! – oh well)

  437. Robert says

    Luke, bazza is at least comprehensible when he’s cutting and pasting. However, his original work still reads like this:

    “Interesting on ther temperature adjustments.? Try going beyond interesting to curiosity even understanding then comes learning.”

    But Gavin is pretty good, isn’t he?

  438. Johnathan Wilkes says

    Yup Luke, bazza is good… for a laugh that is!

    But even that is sad, since it’s not nice to laugh at someone who can’t help being the way they are.
    Before the PC era one could use a short and succinct expression.

    And no, I have not blown a cog, just can’t stand BS.

  439. Minister for Truth says

    Hi Johnathan W, have you noticed that the drop in commentator on comments, is the only one whose debating skills and subject matter knowledge is so poor that he is the only one, on this thread at least, who has had to resort to using the F word.

    ….and that comes on top of his frequent use of useless/irrelvant citations that he clearly has not read.

    ….and inability to answer questions

    No wonder Newman has problems.

  440. Debbie says

    ROFL! 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂
    So Luke,
    While noting you’re STILL avoiding some very simple questions….that don’t require much detail BTW….
    Is it more to do with politics after all?

    Bazza,
    I agree that a great deal of work has been done in an attempt to adjust figures to make them credible.
    In the process we have found out more about some of the natural variables that heavily influence our climate/weather patterns….that is not a bad thing.
    The work re CO2 and CAGW however is far from ‘settled’…..and therefore it is being misused by the politics (IMHO)

    Luke…your problem with me re forecasting was the negative, dismissive way you stated your opinions.
    I have since answered that question at later posts when you decided to ask it in a civil manner.
    It is not my problem that you don’t like the answer Luke….it is still my answer….IF it delivers on its early promises, I would imagine I would use it in a similar manner that I use sites like BoM and YR….that implies therefore that I LIKE the way sites like BoM present that type of information.

    I also don’t judge my rights, my abilities or my pass/fail capabilities on your say so Luke….why on earth would I do that?
    Considering how you judge….if I actually took any of that to heart….I would think I was an old white conservative male, who flies around with only a right wing, who attends secret TEA drinking parties dressed in tweed coats, who has a very red sunburnt neck, who is funded by mysterious vested interests, who doesn’t care about poor innocent someone/something or others, who thinks Abbot is our saviour, who doesn’t know anything at all about running a business, who invests in an evil social destroying industry that just operates from behind only one single desk etc, etc, etc, etc….. 🙂 🙂 🙂
    Oh….and of course….
    I’m also a ‘girlie’?
    Chuckle…..I actually get a laugh out of the ‘girlie’ one….but still not a sound way to judge….and a trifle ‘sexist’ don’t you think?
    Along with my earlier suggestion to Bazza…
    May I respectfully suggest you review and judge your own MO?

  441. gavin says

    SD, I’m quite impressed by your latest writer at WUWT, however I can’t pass it as science. I hope you weren’t sucked in, but if you were, stand still while I get right into it after lunch.

  442. cohenite says

    Minister for Truth; good points about the Association which Gillard set up; it is de rigueur for solicitors to set up a file and when setting up an account do a search of the named owner of the account; a simple search of Wilson’s association would have spilled the beans that it had nothing to do with the AWU immediately.

  444. Johnathan Wilkes says

    MoT

    I don’t know what happened to Luke, true he was always a bit abrupt but concerning science matters used to be quite reasonable.

    I think fighting a losing battle had got to him.
    Still, no call for swearing and the constant flow of abuse he is only capable of lately.

    I also wonder about the cavalier attitude Ms Gillard showed when setting up the association’s account.
    Can’t help wondering how she could miss the telling signs? Just as well she got out of lawyering.

  445. Minister for Truth says

    Cohenite,

    Thanks for your comments.

    Tell me, as someone with more legal training than myself can you explain how it is that JG can say she has done nothing wrong, and thus may on that account get away without being sanctioned in some way. I would have thought that she is as culpable/liable for not having done the right thing, ie wrong by ommission.

    Its not as though the practices, as you have described, both in terms of opening a file, and in registering an Incorporated Association are that difficult, being almost menial. A 30 year old lawyer, and partner, should have had no difficulty either performing those tasks themselves, or delegating to an office junior.

    I would have thought that she, and S&G, should also have had a duty of care to see that it was at least referred to the AWU for their concurrence, or other wise. After all the AWU was already a client.

    Why wasnt this also a matter that should have been referred to the Law Society/Council, or whatever the relevant body is, for possible breaches of professional standards.

    This smells….even though it is some years since it all occurred…. it still smells.

  446. gavin says

    Deb; Although Bazza kicked off first, I want to claim again that UHI is largely a condition for the skeptics. Also this latest probe linked by SD only takes us back to a simple minded campaign aimed at the gullible. Every time I see raw Met temp data I feel annoyed and want to get rid of all the noise immediately. Back when I managed lots of controllers and recorders on a daily basis I could usually do something positive to fix it and so steady the outputs. This amount of noise would obscure a signal transmitted by radio too. I minded that lot for the teams with probably the best signal analyser in the business.

    Going back to Watts, the only substance is here

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2012/04/ushcn-surface-temperatures-1973-2012-dramatic-warming-adjustments-noisy-trends/

    SD; what we should be discussing is this

    ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v3/techreports/Technical%20Report%20NCDC%20No12-01-Distribution.pdf

  447. Neville says

    MFT this smells a lot to me as well. If I was in her shoes and was innocent of any wrong doing, I would have taken action against Shane Dowling of KKOA years ago and Larry Pickering four months ago.

    These two blokes are not pulling any punches and ussually these type of sites can suffer legal action for less serious infringements against a person.

    She is the PM of OZ so why leave this “nonsense” up in the air and not demand legal action against these two men.
    Of course Pickering told Hinch that he hopes they do sue because that would open a real can of worms.

    At least it seems that even some Fairfax reporters are not convinced after her attack against Paul Kelly yesterday.

  448. cohenite says

    MFT; opening a file for EVERY matter is standard practice; the reason why EVERY solicitor does it is to cover their backside; contemperaneous notes are the BEST defence against a client complaint.

    Gillard, which ever way you look at it, was hopelessly compromised by her relationship with Wilson, who, it appears is an archetypal union man; on that basis, her lack of professional judgement alone, would make her unfit to continue in legal practice, at least at a senior position; and here she is running the nation.

  450. Debbie says

    So Gavin?
    Are you ‘denying’ UHI?
    I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming that’s not what you meant.
    Bazza also claims I argued that UHI kills AGW. Which would be incorrectly/assuming comments to me I never made don’t you think?
    I also think if you pay attention, that SD is pointing out that the ‘science’ is being muddied by the politics.
    My objection is similar, but I am judging political performance in relation to the stated goals in the Political PR.
    I am not a fan of the behaviour of either side in this polarised debate.
    The PR spin from both sides is simple minded gumph aimed at the gullible.
    It is all geared to one and only one technnique/solution which has little to do with using science appropriately.
    I also feel rather sorry for those who are genuinely trying to fill their job descriptions. They have been shamelessly abused.

  451. Johnathan Wilkes says

    Cohenite
    “here she is running the nation” (bit of a boldness to keep baazyboy happy)

    Of course that is a matter of opinion?

    As to keeping good records? Anyone with any financial or third party responsibility would be mad not to do it. There must be a very good reason why she did not, and no, being “young and naive” won’t cut it!

  452. cohenite says

    Gillard opened a bank account to a trust beneficiary at Wilson’s behest. The trust had a similar name to the AWU so that allegedly Wilson could demand businesses put money into the trust account.

    Some issues:

    Did Gillard do this without opening a file? if so, why?

    Did Gillard do this without doing a search of the trust? If so why not?

    Where are the bank accounts?

    Which bank was it?

    Were tax returns made on behalf of the trust; or was it a tax exempt trust; if so did Gillard apply for tax exempt status?

    Were any of Slater and Gordon’s trust accounts associated with the trust account?

    etc, etc.

  453. gavin says

    Deb; I am probably the only expert on this blog when it comes to muddling measurements. There was a place where I had to monitor both the air conditioning in a rather large office block and all the environment issues in a large urban factory. The hotness or coldness can vary with the person or the plant. For instance Deep freezers are quite different to a whole sale warehouse holding bulky fiber goods to be sold by weight.

    When challenged over a faulty measurement the technician has several options, change the instrument or review the measurement procedures. A third option is to interview the other witness and that is often the most difficult operation because it’s all about one’s perception. In the office situation I would change the draft towards the less squawky ladies. In the factory it was more about getting rid of the moisture and avoiding due points and rotting the place. With the radios, I tried to keep one beside the test gear to instantly check any doubt with a particular channel but that’s the one our users always wanted.

    In any doubtful situation such as we have with Met data, the first thing to do is find another reference and it could be just one good site to which all others are re calibrated. However an external reference provides a proper platform for guessing the direction of errors in the matrix i.e. glaciers melting, sea level rising therefore we thinks temperatures may be rising. Wrong?

    Avoid this skeptic jargon. In another field I come across, retro, shabby chic, vintage and gorgeous all stretch words in a campaign. I looked into brainwashing techniques and mass hysteria as a youth cause I wished to know what kept the great wars going.

    IMO Some commentators here want to run similar themes

  454. Johnathan Wilkes says

    Cohenite, extremely good questions.

    Who is going to ask them?
    It’s frustrating to listen to journalists interviewing politicians and hardly a relevant question asked, unless they want to bury the polly, and at the moment it seems like every journo is running scared from asking them.

  456. Robert says

    Well, cohers, those really are good questions. I guess now is the time for very specific questions like that. I’ll be paying attention if you wish to elaborate more.

    Lately, commenters here have been dismissive of the opinions of an ocean yacht specialist on currents and the opinions of a successful irrigation farmer on water, climate and species. Funny that.

  457. Debbie says

    Gavin,
    Despite your inference I avoid PR jargon, sceptic or otherwise whenever possible.
    I want to know about those tecniques/solutions.
    If they are not delivering on their loudly touted outcomes then I question why we are being herded in that direction.
    What are we fixing?

  458. gavin says

    Seems others have dropped off SD, so what is wrong with this?

    ftp://ftp.ssmi.com/msu/graphics/plots/msu_amsu_channel_tlt_trend_map_v03_2_1979_2008.png

    Deb; I do deny UHI but along these lines. Calibration and other station reading errors going way back will mask urban impacts. I give you about +/- 2% of instrument range to start with. Even in bad cases there is no direct observation of UHI over time and those far flung Met stations were never designed to find it.

    Alcohol thermometers are used for cooking food etc because their safe. Mercury thermometers were good enough for science labs, industry and me but what did the US and Aussie weather bods have?

  459. Debbie says

    So Gavin,
    you don’t think millions of acres of black bitumen, acres & acres of land clearing, millions of petrol or deisel driven engines, 1000s of GL of water runoff, acres and acres of rooftops, millions of air conditioning units, huge bundles of skyscrapers etc etc etc. . . . all concentrated in one area. . . have a local effect on the way the natural environment and the natural atmosphere would normally behave?
    Seriously?
    Because that is the UHI effect.

  461. Johnathan Wilkes says

    The mind boggles.
    I thought one uses an instrument to measure something wherever that something happens to be.
    After measurement we compare the results produced at different locations collected at the same time, if they differ we look for a reason.

    Using the same instruments available at the time I would have guessed the errors would be around the same, therefor any difference could only be due to location.

    Obviously I, in my naivety was completely wrong, we learn something new (useless as it may be) every day.

  462. Debbie says

    Nope JW,
    Makes perfect sense to me.
    It even happens in my patch.
    The thermometer in the pergola reads differently to the thermometer outside the shed which reads differently to the one on the header which reads differently to the ‘official’ temp at Leeton, which is different to the ‘official’ one at Griffith which is different to the one at Griffith Airport and different again at my parents and parents in law and different again at my cousin’s place.
    They’re all within 40 kms of each other but most of them closer than that.
    The difference, especially on those + 40degree days is often way, way more than +/- 2 degrees.
    Seems to me that location would obviously have something to do with it. 🙂
    But what would I know?
    Like you, I learn something new every day.

  463. gavin says

    You’v hit it Deb with your “The difference, especially on those + 40degree days is often way, way more than +/- 2 degrees”.

    As an instrument maker, I found that standard lab grade thermometers could vary every which way like my own but there was a simple rule for all, freezing point and boiling point of water soon sorted them out. It gets trickier for larger ranges though. Eventually one develops trust in something and you can stake your reputation on it. Usually it’s a system not an instrument though.

    At home I rely on a fresh D cell to check my analogue meter as I go on shuffling used batteries down the chain of duties. Needle response on a basic multimeter is a crude indicator of battery power. Professionally though I managed a large pool of rechargeable packs for two way comms and so got to evaluate a series of propriety automatic batch battery recovery units (deep cycling and pulsing) that employed increasing levels of intelligence i.e. CBA every day.

    Back to atmosphere: Consider the frozen warehouse at minus 40 C and drying hood where everything is too hot to touch and air streams fierce enough to blow a thermometer out of your hand. Evaporation rates were hand checked every day to monitor system inefficiencies as filters blocked.

    Thermometer readings are never stable so it’s always plan B for extremes and don’t forget that may have something to do with air speed besides bulb thinness.

  464. Debbie says

    But Gavin?
    What about UHI and location?
    I believe in good systems too. It’s important when you run a business.
    But you appear to be missing the point of my comment?

  466. gavin says

    Deb; you can’t use a Met grade max min thermometer to measure temperature gradients on site. Therefore weather station minders had no way of assessing site impacts over time on their recordings and most would be blissfully unaware of UHI issues if they existed at all.

    There is another point too, most of us can gauge a reasonable temp differential at close range with our cheeks i.e. an inbuilt sensitivity that is quite useful in protecting our bodies. However none of us would detect long term issues like UHI or climate change on our own. Naturally lulled into submission all the time by our own submissions hey.

    Now you have to believe me when I say the air round an urban or industrial site is pretty stable when compared with daily bureau points because I could often track an area during my own routines.

    Ambient is difficult to assess in turbulence though so depending on the day I had to repeat spot checks outside over and over before starting with the inside. We were assessing both heat loss and cooling round plant and process all the time, typically hospitals, factories, refineries and their office blocks. Capturing temp gradients in breezeways becomes an art.

    It would require a site expert to fix individual Met station errors and there are none in blogshere sorry

  467. Robert says

    Thanks for link, Minister. I’ll check when time permits. Smith has been impressive. He’s as dogged as Gillard herself, but in a good way.

    One caution about the growing scandal. Many of those investigating don’t trust Larry Pickering, and I’d say it’s with good reason. I’ve never liked the man. Just saying.

  470. Neville says

    Gav what is the difference in temp in Tokyo and the surrounding countryside and ditto London?

  471. cohenite says

    Beenstock has revised and published his paper on cointegration which establishes that CO2 plays little role in temperature movement with solar dominating:

    http://www.earth-syst-dynam-discuss.net/3/561/2012/esdd-3-561-2012.html

    Also of interest, David Stockwell and Ken Stewart will have their analysis of the defective HQ temperature network which was used by the BOM prior to the publication the ACORN temperature network, published this week.

    The further work which needs to be done is an analysis of whether ACORN has corrected the manifest problems in the HQ network; to do that ACORN will have to release their code, which they have promised they will do.

    Perhaps luke can use his good offices with the BOM to arrange for them to send their code to Stockwell?

  472. Debbie says

    They’re usually called obsevations Luke.
    Seems from that link Cohenite put up that others are ‘observing’ that CO2 is not a key driver?

  473. Neville says

    MFT thanks for that video link. Smith is very good and Flint has a series of these videos.

    I hope Cohenite has the time to watch this one and perhaps give us his opinion. Certainly a Royal Commission is the only way to properly untangle the mess of Australian trade union corruption.
    Even Labor men like McClelland and Cambridge agree.

  474. cohenite says

    Yes Neville, I’ve watched the Michael Smith piece; Faris QC is untertaking a review of the AWU trust/association set up by Gillard at Wilson’s behest. Faris was engaged by Nowicki who supposedly will pass on Faris’s report to the Victorian Law Institute. However, unlike NSW, in Victoria complaints about solicitors must come from clients.

    Conduct which may have established grounds for professional misconduct are no longer relevant; a criminal offence has to be alleged. The registration of the AWU association requires accurate information to be presented to the statutory body in the application; if Gillard has completed the application with false information that has the equivalence of lying under oath.

  475. gavin says

    Nev; ordinary I would have to say that I don’t know either situation well enough to answer your Q re Tokyo & London, but in taking it seriously I invite you to check this, +/- 2C for the whole of Japan on a day like today. I chose the 4th hour but you can use any. Have a go in east west slices for starters the north south for the max temp diff. Do it soon as the prevailing weather may change.

    http://www.jma.go.jp/en/kuko/

  476. Luke says

    Cohers, I don’t have sway with BoM or CSIRO for that matter. Ring them up – personal is always best – email so impersonal.

    Debs – its stats rubbish. Notice it’s published in a obscure journal. Tells you something doesn’t it. Not in GRL or J Climate where it wouldn’t get a soft review. You can’t solve this problem with polynomial regression – how stupid. When you’ve understood the paper and given you have 3 degrees give us an independent precis. By this evening should be easy for you. Stokers could tell you anything and you wouldn’t have a clue except it sounds impressive.

  477. gavin says

    PS; for anyone sitting on the fringe, the political/PM debate is a deliberate distraction from the climate science.

    Some commentators will never learn as we go on either. Spinning wheels stuck in a bog. Now I’m going to bang this home for the capable.

    Only the smartest temp measuring routines in extremes allow quality humidity control in man made closed environments. Relative humidity in atmospheric conditions is far more difficult than Met temp recording as it was. Air conditioning monitors had the right gear to do in house and UHI. Met observers did not and so we had to move on. The Japan Airport monitoring network as it is now allows us to think backwards in data reviews.

  478. Debbie says

    Luke?

    ‘You can’t solve this problem with polynomial regression – how stupid. ‘

    What problem are we trying to solve Luke?

  480. Debbie says

    So Luke?
    Without the expletives…..
    Did the sky fall in? Anyone get hurt? Children or animals injured?

  481. Neville says

    Gav in Lomborg’s “Cool It” ( pages 20 to 24) he gives examples of temp difference in Tokyo daytime august of 40+c and surrounding area of only 28.5c.
    Nights in Tokyo in August are 26.5c and surrounding areas 19c.

    Importantly he claims the studies show that this city area covers 8000km2 or equiv of 140 times the area of Manhattan.

    He claims that London now has 4-6c more urban heat and during the 2003 heatwave this reached 9c.

    He claims that this happens all around the world and gives the studies these measurements are based on.

    He mentioned all this in his talk to the ABARE conference in Canberra in 2011. When I have time I will link the video and where to find these claims.

  482. Minister for Truth says

    ..”if Gillard has completed the application with false information that has the equivalence of lying under oath”. Says Cohenite.

    If what Cohenite says is correct, and what Michael Smiths video is describing is also correct,

    namely what Gillard wrote in her own handwriting on the Application form to the officer for

    Registration of Incorporated Associations is also correct …then she has clearly lied under oath.

    So what now …does she, or does she not have case to answer. I would have thought the answer is
    Yes

    As Smith says she has misled the OIC of Incorporated Associations ….

  483. Debbie says

    Gavin,
    I don’t think anyone is saying that the equipment hasn’t improved.
    Of course it has improved and the Japan Airport equipment is a good example of that.
    I don’t believe however that it has the capabilities to ‘think backwards’.
    You still seem to be ignoring the influence of location and UHI and the capabilities of the equipment that were used in those locations and at that time.

    BTW Gavin, my ‘cheeks’ told me it was very cold at my place this morning.
    However, to record empirical data in my records I need thermometers to record the temp…because my ‘cheeks’ are not capable of giving me a number.
    Ours are pretty good thermometers as it’s important to us to keep good weather records.
    Our rain gauges, wind recording equipment and barometers are OK as well.
    The thermometers?
    They said freezing this morning….yet there was no frost.
    Yesterday they said not quite as freezing but we had a cracker frost.
    The one near the shed was different to the one near the house both mornings.
    We often swap them around to make sure that one isn’t just measuring differently to the other….they’re fine.
    What’s causing the variables?

  484. Johnathan Wilkes says

    Debbie

    I think some people can’t see the forest for the tree.
    My head is spinning with the stuff dished up here trying to explain away the inconvenient facts.
    Just as well I stopped reading some posts in full.

    The way I would have approached this is simple.
    Set up a measuring device in a certain position, doesn’t matter where!
    Observe the measurements for a meaningful period of time.
    Say ten years.
    (We have these records and longer than ten years!)

    Compare the recorded measurements day for day for each year and compare them.
    Do the same for each week then each month and for the year averaged or take the median, or whatever statistical method you wish to use.

    Then see if there is a trend or not.
    No need to allow for UHI effect or anything, same location same time.

    I do not buy the argument that methods changed and instruments changed so we have to adjust, we are not interested in specific degrees as such, we want to see a trend. Finer assessment can come after if really interested.

    If you really want to be finicky about it then, we know fairly accurately when measuring instruments and methods were changed, stop there with the old records and start anew with the analyses using the different data-sets produced by the later instruments, BUT do not ADJUST or extrapolate.

    Of course if you have something to prove then it’s advantageous to adjust the data to suit.

  485. Johnathan Wilkes says

    Sorry I forgot to add that anyone ignoring/denying the heat island effect is fooling himself.

    That is why I am so much against “smoothing” and adjusting past records.
    If the records were taken in an UHI position they would still provide a trend, BUT in only for that particular position.
    One simply should not be allowed to extrapolate from there, the temperature of a different location.
    If this make s sense?

  486. gavin says

    Nev; had a gander at Lombard links after wondering who did his measurements. You didn’t do the Japan thingy today where I can quickly demonstrate the whole region is about the same temperature regardless of sites. No point doing Lombard, is there?

    For the uninitiated, it was pretty hard to to find Lombard’s differentials in a little town like Melbourne on a hot summer’s day inside or out. Ambient is ambient down in the City, out in the oil refinery, under a hospital balcony, wherever. Typical heat rise in a boiler house is only a few degrees anytime unless it’s right up against the furnace or steam pipe. A few yards outside and that heat is gone and it won’t be picked up at the airport.

    Deb; the temp diff across your property is zilch. The only way to ground those readings is to hold the whole bunch of thermometers in ice water for a min or two and watch which one is closest to zero before your hand warms their glass and case.

  487. Debbie says

    But Gavin?
    They’re not hand held thermometers…they don’t have a glass case.
    They’re digital.

  488. Debbie says

    And BTW Gavin,
    How would you know that the difference across my property is zilch?
    Did you read them?
    It seems like you think I walk around with a bunch of medical type thermometers in my hot little hand?
    Has it occured to you that us red necked country yokel irrigation farmers might possibly know how to keep accurate weather records (including temps), find it important to use modern equipment and believe that keeping accurate records is useful for our type of business?

  492. Debbie says

    Apology accepted Gavin,
    However, let me assure you that although probably not perfect, the equipment is working OK.
    It gets checked regularly.
    The variations in readings from around my property/s is unlikely due to the equipment.
    Amazingly, us country yokel irrigation farmers, out of necessity, also know a fair bit about calibrating equipment.
    It helps prevent us from over using fertilisers and chemicals among other things.
    Amazingly, we also use satellite equipment.
    And metering equipment etc etc etc.
    However, thanks for your advice, I am always open to learning.

  494. John Sayers says

    Yes, Tony is surrounded by women so to call him out is ridiculous.

    Perhaps the next step is to line the leading women up and look at their record just like we do the boys.

  495. gavin says

    Deb; you may be amused but I have advised on bulk seed heads in transport and storage, doing moisture and humidity the old way, dry bulb v wet bulb hand held. Also core temperatures for mushroom compost in production and hams in the smoke house.

    Fork lifts broke or rolled up my probe wires almost every day in both plants so we reverted to using common 240v lead despite the kiln atmosphere curing it too after a while. Hard to say which was worst, compost juice or smoked ham juice but we had crossed the bridge in avoiding premature opening of a batch

  498. Neville says

    Gav here’s Lomborg at Abare outlook conference Canberra see 7 min 50sec into the video discussing the difference in temp for a number of cities and surrounding area.

  499. spangled drongo says

    Yes John and Debbie,

    Perhaps those women are just not very comfortable being scrutinising by a man and nothing works like the sexist card to take the pressure off.

  500. Ian Thomson says

    John and SD , need a like button.
    And I actually think Tony is a bit of a wanker in some ways
    Don’t trust any of them much.

    Gav etc, as a child we took turns, (4 brothers and Dad, ) at filling out official weather and temp and rain and cloud records for the day , out in the country . Looking at the sky and learning isn’t done by computers, it is done by people, has been for ever and ever.
    That is why some of us first thought the MODELS were sus and checked them out.

  501. Johnathan Wilkes says

    Listened to Jon Faine this morning and he compared JG’s setting up an association to receive moneys
    ( half a mil or more in this case) without recording it in a file to a solicitor writing a letter of demand re. a car accident.

    Not to mention that Mr Wilson actually represented her client the AWU, in the first place… hellloo?
    Why not a file and why no charge?

    Can’t understand why nobody finds this strange?

  503. cohenite says

    “Listened to Jon Faine this morning and he compared JG’s setting up an association to receive moneys
    ( half a mil or more in this case) without recording it in a file to a solicitor writing a letter of demand re. a car accident.”

    The ABC are beyond redemption.

  504. gavin says

    Ian; “some of us first thought the MODELS were sus and checked them out”

    Who, and how??

    I have great respect for the diligence of any first hand observers doing daily weather checks for the records but it’s not my way of analysis. In roaming industry it became necessary to find short cuts as it was more often about nailing causes of bad situations. Checking their instruments was the easy bit. Unlocking interlocks and bad practice was the hard part cause people tend to get embarrassed. Drifting away from routines takes courage as there is seldom a plan.

    Opened the blinds this morning and there is no cloud or wind. The foliage closest is absolutely still. I can see flocks of big white birds perched around a pylon in the far distance. There were some high in the eucalypt canopy too. While trying to decide what they are, they seem to get bigger. Tip, almost dead tree down by the creek is the roost for local Sulphur Crested Cockatoos.

    The first model to check is your brain cause we as individuals can determine to a certain extent, the inputs, connections and outcomes i.e perceptions as we go. Imagination is the next step cause that may determine the tools, hardware and software alike.

  506. Luke says

    Fascinating – what does the Gillard issue have to do with an enviro issues blog? Certainly no interest here previously on Iraq-wheat or children over-board? not relevant we were told

  507. debbie says

    Gavin,
    I am very close to withdrawing my apology.
    Once again you are trying to use that supremely ridiculous ‘cheeks’ argument which is extremely dismissive and actually downright rude.
    The only sensible thing you said was: who and how?
    Let me pose something for you:
    WHO….is looking at anything approaching sensible social policy?
    HOW….are they achieving it?
    Luke,
    In a sense I actually agree with you.
    I have very little interest in the Gillard issue or the stupid ‘sexist’ card that is being played at the moment.
    However….if people want to get in the gutter and make attempts to shoot the messenger rather than actually listening to the message….I guess they deserve everything they get.
    Both ‘sides’ are equally guilty of that behaviour and unfortunately the MSM loves it.
    But Luke?
    Enviro issues?
    Have you not understood that your so called ‘enviro issues’ have been shamelessly politicised?
    They have been played just as flippantly and shamelessly as this latest nonsense ‘sexist’ ploy.

  508. spangled drongo says

    Luke, like Faine, Cassidy, Fran Kelly and all the lefty proclaimers only want it to go away.

    If the press had done its job it would have been dealt with in the distant past.

    Now, surprise, surprise, it has festered into something much more meaningful.

    ♪I wonder who’s denying now?

    I wonder who’s teaching her how?

    I wonder who’s looking into her eyes

    Breathing sighs, telling lies…♪

  510. Luke says

    Well blog info says

    “Jennifer Marohasy, the weblog, is a gathering place for people with an interest in environmental issues, particularly climate change issues.”

    Jen has also talked about the need for evidence based science and environmental policy.

    For example – she previously didn’t engage on PETA issues as being “not on topic”. Also some agricultural issues. Well of course it’s her blog so ….

    Have we now drifted into a more liberal (hahaha) agenda? where the our fellow travellers politics and hand baggage of certain mind sets are along for the blog ride too?

    On the Gillard issue – if Pickering supposedly “has the goods” – well bring it ! Do we all need to speculate on what we don’t know? I’m simply suggesting rock over to Tim Blair or Andrew Bolt were it’s “on topic”.

    Would you like to discuss origami Debs?

  515. Johnathan Wilkes says

    Now, now John!
    You should know better by now that there papers and publications Luke approves of and there are those he does not.

    Same with scientists.
    Sometimes his opinion changes depending on the latest uttering of said scientist.

    Luke you are right about politics on this blog, but you have to admit it’s only a small number of posts compared to the main theme and it is a current issue worth mentioning.

    And quite frankly I would like to have someone as PM who has no problem answering a few questions re. her past actions and judgements.

  516. gavin says

    Nev; I struggled through Lomborg Utube 1 & 2 all whatif and crap then I found “The Skeptical Environmentalist”: A Conversation with John Tierney and Bjorn Lomborg and started to warm to the clown juggling his invisible balls of whatifs. Never built anything in his life most likely.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5YmgekQyNk

    Back to UHI; Japan all over on my link from yesterday has only 2C variation airport to airport almost anytime. But do a closer look Tokyo and its airport then workout the likely variation from a multitude of near by stations. Lets do UHI again.

    http://www.weather-forecast.com/locations/Tokyo-Haneda-Airport/metars/latest

    There is a great opportunity to see elevation and sat images here

    http://www.wunderground.com/weather-forecast/JP/Tokyo_Downtown.html

  517. cohenite says

    “Fascinating – what does the Gillard issue have to do with an enviro issues blog?”

    Gillard introduced the carbon tax, designed to solve the proven consequences of AGW; sometimes it is instructive to look at who is saying it rather than what is being said; although in Gillard’s case the 2 entwine.

    Archibald is doing some good work on solar/climate interaction.

    Is gav really denying UHI? Argue with NASA gav, they’re looking for signs of alien life; you fit the bill nicely:

    http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/heat-island-sprawl.html

  518. Luke says

    Somehow self publishing doesn’t quite convince John … couldn’t see any J Climate or GRL there.
    I have even personally invested in one of his “works”.

    and especially if you take the time to read in detail http://n3xus6.blogspot.com.au/2007/02/dd.html

    and more especially after numerous smack downs by Leif Svalgaard at Wattsup. I assume you know of Svalgaard?

    He certainly has diverse interests too – try googling him and chilli powder and prostate.

  520. Johnathan Wilkes says

    Luke
    “He certainly has diverse interests too”
    (bazzard, note the bolding!)

    Having interests outside of the prime is a now negative?
    What a bizarre notion.
    I really hope Luke, that you at least follow some sport or have a hobby?

  521. spangled drongo says

    “Fascinating – what does the Gillard issue have to do with an enviro issues blog?”

    When she and Wayne are wielding the machete on our country’s future from every angle, the sooner people wake up to her bona fides the better.

    If you’re happy to let someone who did what she appears to have done here, be in charge of your piece of paradise, you’re crazy.

    Anyone with half a brain would want to know a bit more detail.

  523. spangled drongo says

    “.Joke of the day – hilarious
    Seems the ALP has a sense of humour after all!

    Check it out yourself at ;

    http://www.pm.gov.au/contact-your-pm

    Some questions you might like to ask her;

    With previous work for Slater & Gordon with regards her ex boyfriend;

    Why no client identification?

    Why no deed of incorporation on file?

    Why no client risk & objective profile?

    Why no authorisation from the AWU Trustee?

    Why done in secret from partners?

    Why couldnt you rule out to your partners that you hadn’t personally profited from the situation?

    And lots more”

  524. toby says

    SD, its pretty hard to think of any current government policies that will genuinely benefit productivity. In fact as your article suggests they do the opposite.

    i dont think i can name any labor/ green policy that actually does benefit productivity, can you? and luke and baz i think suggesting the NBN would be embarrassing given its enormous cost and enormous lag time…maybe one day you will be able to point to it?

  525. spangled drongo says

    Yes Toby, and while the lefties run around in ever decreasing circles, here is a 73 year old scene that is also the present and the future:

    http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/08/22/1939-shock-news-antarctic-meltdown-deserts-expanding-rivers-drying-up/

    This is why I have similar evidence of no SLR and also why, by the end of the century there will be no appreciable difference.

    If they wish to castrate themselves based on current evidence they can include me OUT.

  526. Debbie says

    Need the like button again for Cohenite.
    There’s the simple answer Luke.
    They’re entwined.

  527. gavin says

    Guys; I reckon cohenite has finally done us a favor.

    My point re UHI was and is, even on this thread; hot surfaces in the urban environment don’t impact on Met sites because the atmosphere is larger than that (except at night it seems). In any case, we can only attribute a very small part of one degree to a few city based records under the old system of max/min on a daily basis.

    Note now, my concession to the nightly situation because I was totally unaware, air at night behaves differently to daytime in a big city. Sadly, I worked daytime in most jobs and missed those events.

    So, let’s hear from you, each one too after a gander at this –

    http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/505102main_Figure4.JPG

    Fickle Deb; fire away, I’m scientifically armored.

  528. gavin says

    cohenite; you did not read thoroughly the article in your NASA link, did you?

    The whole thing is based on urban surfaces via satellite. Even they don’t can’t give you publicly at least, appropriate UHI adjustments for the old temp data. Now go look at my case for air over Japan. At any given time we find nothing but several degrees C differential for the majority of island sites where ever they are.

    Come to think about it Nev, I guess we can treat the British Isles similarly.

    Now, all go off and do some real homework

  529. spangled drongo says

    “hot surfaces in the urban environment don’t impact on Met sites because the atmosphere is larger than that”

    Gawd gav, how long does it take for the penny to drop?

    That is exactly the point!

    That just happens to be where the thermometers are placed!

    In almost all situations!

    Of course it is not getting noticably hotter.

    IT IS JUST BEING RECORDED AS HOTTER!!

  530. cohenite says

    gav says:

    “The whole thing is based on urban surfaces via satellite. Even they don’t can’t give you publicly at least, appropriate UHI adjustments for the old temp data.”

    Gav, as SD notes, that is where the UHI affect happens; the thermometers in the city are going up at a greater rate due to localised, non-natural heating; ie UHI. The satellites confirm this, but the UHI effect has not been considered by the ground based temperature indices; for instance BEST disregards it simply because its methodology is wrong.

    The old grey mare ain’t what she used to be.

  531. gavin says

    OK Guys; how much is that air temp elevated by UHI at any site you chose, worst case even?

    Use Fig 4.

    I’m waiting by impatiently!

  532. Debbie says

    Gavin,
    Get real.
    If humans are not having a noticeable local effect where they are heavily concentrated, then why would they have any effect globally?
    Isn’t AGW human caused global warming?
    Where do most of the humans hang out Gavin? Where is most of the human activity Gavin? Where is most of the human GHG Gavin?

  534. gavin says

    Cohenite: Please answer my question properly if you can instead of offering irrelevant links.

  536. Debbie says

    Gavin,
    ROFL! 🙂 🙂 🙂
    That’s a bit rich.
    How about you answer questions?
    How about you cease offering irrelevant links?

  537. spangled drongo says

    gav, I’ve got a reliable thermometer, compass, altimeter etc in my info binnacle in my 4wd and as I drive from my place [in the bush] into the nearest village, just the effect of black asphalt and buildings raises temps 2c on most days but watch it as you hit the freeway and the traffic snarls of the city and 6c is often the case. When this infrastructure retains and slowly radiates this heat and blocks cooling breezes through the night the net effect is considerable.

    It’s not just my 4wd that is causing this. The temp goes into reverse when I turn around and head home.

  539. gavin says

    That BoM link was very good for all of us cohenite. Let me plunge in again with the worst case Melbourne, however I will claim protection from the after night scenario on the basis of ignorance for now. Recall though, I only air temp not surface UHI since air is what we measured for the met.

    First Q, was Melbourne’s met station badly compromised by the CBD? + 4 C you can say.

    What about the Airport? Interestingly once out of the CBD, temps are quite uniform for industrial and residential, so let’s give all those areas + 2C and remove that inflated CBD from the record. No?

    Given that equation, can we go out of the city proper and fix a few more? btw air temp is uniform out here too, give or take a bit of error +/- half a degree.

    Couldn’t our Mr Jones do that also and substantially improve the older data?

    SD; I was thinking before, perhaps we could have a shoot out in RL where I bring my old sling (pair) to a big Metro here (high noon, your side’s choice) and do a demo via a wander down town and further on as required to prove my point there is less than say 2C between places on an ordinary day

  540. cohenite says

    “however I will claim protection from the after night scenario on the basis of ignorance”

    Gav’s playing the Gillard young and naive card.

  541. Debbie says

    Gavin,
    So you obviously think there is no such thing as UHI?
    You obviously don’t think a heavy concentration of humanity/human activity has any measureable impact on the local environment and local air quality?
    And you think a tweak of +/- 2 deg will fix it anyway?
    Fix what Gavin?

  542. Neville says

    Lomborg’s 2010 movie “Cool It” is now on youtube. It is about 1 hr 30 mins.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZPbYF8v35g

    He travels all over the world and many of the top scientists are featured in the movie. If this doesn’t wake people up then nothing will.

    There is zero we can do at present except spend more on R&D and adaptation and new inventions or more geo engineering.
    Introducing co2 taxes are pure idiocy and can never , ever work and it is amazing how dumb we’ve become trying to do the impossible.

    UHI is featured at about 1hr 8 mins and the scientist with him claims they could cool Los Angeles by 5c for about 1 billion $ and it would be a more livable city.

  543. spangled drongo says

    Did you watch Leigh Sales savage Tony Abbott on “7.30” last night? I’ve never seen such an ill-mannered ABC interview. The hatred was palpable.

    Mainly over BHP’s withdrawal from Olympic Dam which Abbott rightly claimed was influenced by the govts new carbon and mining taxes. How obtuse do you have to be to not understand that the C/B of mining would NOT be affected?

    And to introduce them just as the boom is going off the boil. What a natural coup de grace.

    Likewise over Abbott calling boat arrivals illegals.

    When Abbott is so right and Labor and its cheer squad so wrong, I suppose the only thing you have left is to shoot the messenger.

    The ABC needs a reality check.

  544. Neville says

    I’m busy at the moment but I must link to that graph of the planet’s emissions again until 2035.

    http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/ieo/emissions.cfm

    In 1990 the world emitted 21.6 bn tonnes of human co2 OECD 11.6 and non OECD 10 , by 2000 the OECD was 13.1 pa and non OECD was 10.6 pa, by 2010 OECD 13 bn tonnes pa and non OECD 18.8 bn tonnes pa .

    Total in 2010 31.8pa and all but 1.4 bn tonnes p.a of that increase since 1990 was emitted by the non OECD.

  546. gavin says

    In a nutshell Deb; I treat UHI issues the same way your mob (other commentators here) treat AGW. Even Nev’s Lomborg acknowledges warming.

    In detail my objection to your mob’s UHI campaign against using Met data as our major indicator of AGW before and after intelligent adjustments is the fact that surface hot spots don’t necessarily impact on weather stations as shown by fig 4, note the dotted brown line – day time air temp that features in old Met records.

    http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/505102main_Figure4.JPG

    I had a feeling our David Jones had a good handle on local Met adjustment but until I partially read that Doc in cohenite’s link yesterday, I did not know how our methods had evolved. My +/-2C was simply an estimate of overall met station error, not UHI in particular. UHI it seems falls in 0>+2C error range for a discount at Post Offices as they were, but it depends a lot on time of day.

    SD; in fairness, your 4WD run does not roll over Met Station sites and we don’t really expect old technical folk to do air temp studies on the road way, do we?

  547. Debbie says

    Luke,
    apart from the fact that I could argue that this is unpublished in any ‘serious’ place, what does it prove or disprove about anything I have posted?
    I have not claimed anywhere that the climate isn’t changing. That is actually a given.
    Are you ageeing with Gavin that UHI is immaterial?

  548. Luke says

    What it proves Debs is that you’re ultra selective and chose not to explore past what you want to know. So why is the climate changing, how fast and what are the implications?

  549. Debbie says

    Gavin,
    If you could pay attention, my objection is that ALL the AGW material is geared towards one AND ONLY ONE technique/solution. Your accusations about mobs is patently ridiculous.
    If you could explain a technique/solution that would actually achieve a positive/useful outcome then I might take what you have to say a little more seriously.
    I would suggest that if humans are really causing catastrophic or alarming changes to the weather/climate, then perhaps we should look at the places where humans hang out in major concentrations?
    I would also suggest that you study the legislation and the stated goals and objectives and consider if they have achieved anything useful or progressive or for that matter fiscally/environmentally responsible.
    Maybe you might also check real time data re CO2 and warming and consider whether CO2 is really the key driver that the hypothesis and the projections have claimed?
    Because that is what the legislation and the political PR is using as its justification.
    The ‘science is settled’ according to the PR.
    Lomberg actually looks at ways we could achieve some useful and positive results Gavin.
    What he suggests actually has some logic attached to it.
    He is one of the few high profile commentators who looks at sensible, achievable techniques to mitigate any human influences.
    Maybe you need to watch again and read up on his work with your parochial, political blinkers off?
    He is not particularly focused on ‘politics’ per se.
    He is rather scathing of the current political assumptions and political behaviour.

  551. cohenite says

    luke scuttles to his big mate tammy, who says:

    “Warming hasn’t been the same everywhere. Land areas have warmed faster than the oceans, the northern hemisphere has warmed faster than the southern, and the Arctic has warmed faster still — just as predicted by climate scientists decades ago.”

    Predictions, yeah right.

    The Arctic:

    http://users.tpg.com.au/johnsay1/Stuff/Arctic_1.jpg

    From 2005:

    http://jennifermarohasy.com//wp-content/uploads/2009/04/rss-arctic-since-2005.png

    And tammy uses the GISS temperaqture; about GISS and temperature:

    http://www.ozclimatesense.com/2012/08/color-it-red.html

    This effort by luke is particularly shoddy; he either has a virus or has realised that AGW is a big fat lie!

  553. gavin says

    Deb, Lomborg is only a maverick commentator who helps others avoid the main game. When somebody says they can fix Las Vegas for a cool 1 billion, I surf and find all the links are about air conditioning and nobody mentions moving underground. Btw CO2 is what we make when we run our air conditioners.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/11/heat-wave-western-us_n_1768755.html

    Politics & focus; Michelle Grattan claimed today our Carbon Tax had a quiet start despite Abbott’s best efforts. Are we disapointed?

    http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/politics-with-michelle-grattan/4216994

    SD; I put your Abbott savage in the same boat as the current online campaign to hock rope our PM

  554. debbie says

    Gavin,
    You are obviously far more interested in the ‘politics’ than you are about anything that might approach a useful/achievable outcome.
    How about you attempt to answer questions and contribute to discussions about actual sensible social policy and evidence rather than your continual political/parochial/ personal comments & personal attacks?
    What on earth do you think the ‘main game’ is Gavin?
    Something happening in Canberra?

  555. debbie says

    BTW Gavin CO2 is something that we make when we breathe too!
    You seem to forget that all of us and most of our living environment are carbon based lifeforms.
    Conversion of carbon is a common way to produce energy….even in nature….even in the atmosphere.

  557. spangled drongo says

    “SD; I put your Abbott savage in the same boat as the current online campaign to hock rope our PM”

    So you’re still into shooting messengers rather than dealing with messages?

    Deal with reality, gav. It’s never too late.

  558. cohenite says

    “I put your Abbott savage in the same boat as the current online campaign to hock rope our PM”

    Hock rope!?

    Is gav implying our PM is a nag?

  559. debbie says

    But Gavin,
    While that 8 day disconnect can be explained in a variety of different and valid ways….and AGW is only ONE of them….
    Is he causing it?

  560. Luke says

    Cohenite trots out all the usual denialist stuff. zzzzzz

    SD – a single core somewhere eh? wow

  561. bazza says

    well, the PM gets an apology again from The Australian, she put Pickering in his place and by implication cohenite down there bottom feeding with him.
    Meanwhile on with the show and concern about where Deb sticks her thermometer, and all the usual questions like why dont denialists ever argue amongst themselves as true sceptics do.?

  563. cohenite says

    bazza gloats!

    “well, the PM gets an apology again from The Australian, she put Pickering in his place and by implication cohenite down there bottom feeding with him.”

    Let’s go through this: first The Australian’s apology:

    “An article in today’s The Australian reported that Prime Minister Julia Gillard had set up a trust fund for her then boyfriend 17 years ago,” the paper’s apology says.

    “This is wrong.

    “The Australian apologises for the error.”

    What The Australian got wrong was what Gillard set up; it was not a Trust but an Association; at law a crucial difference but in the context of the accusations about Gillard of no consequence.

    The key point remains; Gillard set up an Association with a declared purpose which was allegedly fundamentally different from its actual purpose; the declared purpose of the Association was:

    “development of changes to work to achieve safe workplaces”

    Gillard admitted the actual purpose of the Association was:

    “to hold a union re-election “slush fund”.

    Are these 2 things, the actual and declared purpose of the Association compatible or deceptive, bearing in mind that every solicitor is an officer of the court and whose legal work has the status of an oath. What got Marcus Einfeld in trouble was lying under oath; has Gillard done the same? Is that a question which has been answered by her?

    Tell me bazza, has she answered that question?

    And while you are at it, also tell me why Shorten and the other senior officials of the AWU are not interested in recovering the money which Wilson funnelled through his Association?

  564. Neville says

    Luke the current slight warming comes at the end of the LIA, so what. Do you want it to get even colder perhaps, or stay the same forever?

    Our current warming is not unprecedented or unusual at all and comes at the end of one of the coldest periods of the holocene.

    Now if we had real extreme warming like the exit from the younger dryas you might be forgiven for being alarmed, although that wasn’t caused by AGW.
    I.e. an increase of 10c in just ten years, not just 0.7c in 100+ years like this modern slight increase.

    BTW Gav Lomborg is stating the facts and shows actual data and numbers for all his assertions and gives the only credible method for tackling the problem as he sees it.

    I’ve given you the numbers and source for Aco2 emissions for the lat 21 years and if you can’t see that Gillard’s idiot co2 tax is a total fraud and con then you’re wasting our time.

  566. gavin says

    After Nev; “source for Aco2 emissions” I checked into this

    emissionshttp://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/statistics/climate_stats/gg_emissions/uk_emissions/uk_emissions.aspx

  568. Debbie says

    But but but Bazza?
    that would be conceding that
    a) Debbie knows what a thermometer is and
    b) Debbie knows how to read a thermometer and
    c) Debbie knows where to stick a thermometer.
    That can’t be right can it?
    Are you going to answer anyone’s questions anytime soon?
    Cohenite has a good one pending at the moment.
    I think I have just a few pending.
    Pretty sure that Toby and SD and JW have got a few pending.
    Broad, unsubstantiated political statements shouldn’t be acceptable on a blog like this according to Luke.

  569. Debbie says

    But but but Bazza?
    that would be conceding that
    a) Debbie knows what a thermometer is and
    b) Debbie knows how to read a thermometer and
    c) Debbie knows where to stick a thermometer.
    That can’t be right can it?
    Are you going to answer anyone’s questions anytime soon?
    Cohenite has a good one pending at the moment.
    I think I have just a few pending.
    Pretty sure that Toby and SD and JW have got a few pending.
    Broad, unsubstantiated political statements shouldn’t be acceptable on a blog like this according to Luke.

  571. Mark Aurel says

    Don’t worry Debbie it reads better the second time around.

    Looks like nothing much changed on the forum then, while I was away in Europe and Russia on business. Actually come to think of it most of Russia is part of Europe.

  575. Luke says

    Just think Bazza – all the trash feeders like Cohers getting on the Pickering bandwagon – Nova ran it too – how predictable. But this is the sort of conspircacy theorist creeps you find in sceptic parties and hanging around Monckton concerts. Shame !

  576. cohenite says

    “Trash feeders”! With Gillard shouldn’t it be bottom feeders?

    Seriously luke, I know your science is a bit up and down but supporting Julia “all youse people who hate me are mysogynists’ Gillard, well really. All I’m trying to do is point out that misrepresenting the purpose of a “slush fund”, sorry Association, is very naughty. Or are you DENYING that? Denying she did that and forgiving her are 2 different things; which are you doing?

  577. toby says

    I thought” the rule” was that the first person to pull the msyoginst or nazi argument had lost.

    Come on, as if its because we hate females??!!

    She performed well yday but do you seriously think it was ok for her to open an accountwith no file and for it to be used to as she put it yday ” help elect union reps that said they would support workplace safety”……is that what union funds are for? really? you would be ok with that?

    I would agree there have been some slanderous statements made…….i wonder why there will be no court case?

  578. Debbie says

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/electricity-and-gas-retailers-to-come-under-national-savings-scheme/story-fn59niix-1226457016425

    http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/time-to-harness-power-of-change/story-e6frfhqf-1226456104304

    http://www.canberratimes.com.au/opinion/politics/as-a-carbon-heavyweight-australia-needs-to-lift-its-game-20120821-24kjr.html

    Here’s a little run of MSM stuff under the heading of “SCIENCE” this morning.
    Anyone notice what is strange about putting these under the heading of “SCIENCE”.??????

    Luke is excited because he can comment on a Pickering/Gillard conspiracy and then take a swing at some type of other ‘political conspiracy’ to do with sceptic parties and Monckton concerts etc…
    Luke….
    People like me (if I’m a sceptic) couldn’t care less about Gillard, Abbot, Pickering, Monckton Concerts or anything similar….that is purely personal comments….character comments…..in the big picture I couldn’t give a flying rip.
    People like me care about POLICY!
    Why are you making such comments when only 2 days ago you were complaining about this stuff?
    Wouldn’t be because you think it has something to do with ‘sides’ would it?
    Wouldn’t be because you enjoy character assassination would it?
    As far as I’m concerned, if people want to get into the gutter and play bully tactics and attack people personally then they better learn how to take it when it comes back at them.
    Gillard has done an amazing amount of personal commenting and backstabbing…..not least being to memebers of her own party….why should she be surprised that some is coming back her way?
    I also find it amusing that a couple of days ago….according to you….cohers isn’t a bad bloke….now he’s suddenly a trash feeder….according to you?

  579. spangled drongo says

    So luke, you’re quite happy that all is “settled”?

    Like the science?

    As the sun sets the lefties just turn up the volume.

    gav, so pleased you could find an “unbiased” version.

    Weren’t they supposed to disappear by 2035?

    Or was that a biased version?

    And are you relaxing yet?

  580. John Sayers says

    That Anna Burke, deputy speaker is a real worry. She allows Gillard to call Abbott “Jack the Ripper” and all sorts of names yet when he called Julia a liar for totally misrepresenting what he had said he got turfed out of the Parliament.

    I actually preferred Slipper – he at least tried to be fair and balanced.

    Julia’s not off the hook yet.

  581. cohenite says

    As for Pickering; answer these luke; questions to Gillard:

    1. You said yesterday that you paid for your renovations. Why then did you previously say you couldn’t be certain that you did?

    2. You said you believed it was “slush fund”. As an industrial Lawyer did you seriously not know a “slush fund” could in no way be an Association?

    3. If you believed it was a “slush fund” why did you print on the Application Form that its intended role was to facilitate “worker safety and training”?

    4. Is it true that the four people present in the room when you drew up this document were yourself, Ralph Blewitt, Bruce Wilson and Senior Equity Partner, Bernard Murphy?

    5. An Association requires, by law, to have at least five members. Who did you nominate?

    6. When you drew up a power of attorney for your friend Bruce Wilson to act for Ralph Blewitt, why did you not inform Mr Blewitt of the mortgage, now in his name, prior to going to buy the house with Mr Wilson?

    7. When conducting the firm’s conveyancing (again pro bono) for the purchase and sale of the Kerr Street house, did you take note of where the money was coming from and going to?

    8. Why were the Association, the bank account, the purchase and sale of the house and the mortgage kept secret from the AWU.

    9. How could the purchase of the house be consistent with either a “slush fund” or “worker safety and training”?

    10. Why did you attempt to deliberately mislead the WA Commissioner for Corporate Affairs when setting up this Association?

    11. Why did you not inform your firm’s boss or your firm’s client, the AWU, of any of your actions?

    12. Do you agree it is your handwriting on the fraudulent form?

    13. When the AWU discovered the fraud, why did that union’s boss, Ian Cambridge, immediately sack Slater & Gordon and call for a Royal Commission?

    14. Why were you asked, by your employer, for a taped interview?

    15. After you were dismissed why did you not renew your Practising Certificate?

    16. Why is the six months subsequent to your dismissal missing from your CV?

    17. Why did your boss, Styant-Browne say, and I quote: “…the company took a very serious view of these and other matters and accepted her resignation”?

    18. What did Mr Styant-Browne mean by, “…a serious view of these and other matters?

    19. Is Mr Styant-Browne, or Mr Gordon correct?

    20 Why was Senior Equity Partner Bernard Murphy asked to make a settlement and leave at the same time as yourself?

    21 When your ex-Attorney General Rob McClelland stated in Parliament, “…a third party may have benefitted from…”, was this “third party” he referred to, you?

    22 What did you mean by, “I was treated shabbily”, when you were asked to leave the firm?

    23 You refuse to make a statement in the House. Is it true you realise it would be illegal to lie when so doing?

    24 And finally Ms Gillard, how can you profess to be a champion of the working class when you have clearly been complicit, with your boyfriend, in stealing their money?

  582. Minister for Truth says

    Wow..they are 24 very good questions which reveal what a theatre Gillards performance yesterday really was.

    ..and top of this Mann has taken the bait, and will be suing Steyn/NRO over an allegedly defamatory article.

    The discovery processes for the Mann/Steyn case, if it gets that far, will be most revealing.

    Interesting times ahead

  587. bazza says

    Poor cohenite, losing his audience as well. He desperately orders attention: “bazza, are you there? luke, gav?”.I will jump to it. He will be able to open a knackery soon with all the dead horses he flogs. That is if he gets over his OCD on legal semantics. It must be anathema for him – a legal firm daring to help the workers. Have we forgotten English law was designed to protect the upper classes from the excesses of the workers? cohenite will never be truly happy till the kids are back down the mines. Then again he is starting to make even Pickering look dignified.

  588. cohenite says

    bazza channels Dickens and the poor! Ha! I used to work for a Union compensation legal firm and was once a member of the ALP! Mate, whatever the current ALP is or is doing it isn’t for the workers!

  589. toby says

    So apparently luke and baz think gillard has done ntg wrong at all and union members funds should be used for the purposes of funding the “right” union candidates……not for promoting direct training etc to reduce workplace accidents??? is young and naive really an excuse?

    i thought chris uhlmann did a fine job on 7.30 last night.

    another interesting insight into the minds of intelligent people who seem to be able to reach entirely different conclusions from the same facts.

  590. toby says

    A letter in todays australian makes a telling point ( i think!) “not opening a file on behalf of the AWU meant that the union would not have been billed for the work and hence would not have become aware that the work had been done, nor would it have become aware of the nature of the work”…….how terribly convenient…….

    and “not opening a file meant that her partners at Slater & Gordon would not have been aware of this work and its nature.”….at the very least meaning no payment for work done. Is that Ethical?…if its normal process…..is that reasonable?

  591. Robert says

    Look, it may be wise to take a hint from Michael Smith about Pickering, who is best described as a right-wing Gillard, a gutter-smart survivor.

    Businesses have always looked for ways to make their bribes tax-free. If neither the donating businesses, the law firm or the union bodies wanted to make a fuss seventeen years ago it’s because Gillard and Wilson had gone too far in a game that was pretty familiar to all players. Who knows? Maybe Wilson was tight with his kickbacks, which should have been generous if the “slush” was tax-free to him. Who knows who was colluding with whom? Who disappointed whom? It’s a slippery gutter, but criminality may be very hard to establish.

    There is nothing new about unions colluding with big business, and some creativity and initiative with slush funds is what makes it all fun and profitable. (Obviously, the two fine nurses I know who can’t afford to pursue their chosen profession would not be amused by how Craig Thomson represented their interests, but country girls are born realistic about unions.)

    The law firm eased Gillard off the scene rather than opting to attract scandal. Who wouldn’t? I’m not justifying what these people did, but this whole thing plays to Gillard’s real strengths. She grows an extra brain when she is conniving and infighting. She’s PM of Oz for a reason, even if it’s not a good reason.

    Really, Abbott was wise not to buy into it. Some lawyer maybe should have been disbarred seventeen years ago? Leave it to McClelland and Michael Smith, who appear honest and have paid a price. If they come up with something new and compelling, then fine. But don’t make it a conservative cause.

  592. kuhnkat says

    Cohenite,

    how soon they bury their offal!!

    The IPCC and modeling community predicted that BOTH poles would warm at accelerated rates. Why Steig did that abysmal Antarctica warming paper!! Like any gypsy or Tarot reader they talk up their apparent successes while burying ther failures!!

    Still waiting for the FINGERPRINT of WARMING!!! That’s right. Remember how they had the fingerprint of Gorebull Warming and it never showed up?? When we threw it in their face they claimed that fingerprint was not for Gorebull Warming but for ANY warming?!?!?!

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    So, they either proved there was NO significant warming or that their models were useless or BOTH!!

    Then there are all the predictions of accelerating this and that that never seem to accelerate other than their claims accelerating!! They are so overdone!!!

    Oh, and Luke hasn’t been there for years!! Just a sock puppet descending into dementia. 8>)

  593. debbie says

    All I can say about your last comment Bazza is this:
    You have just taken the award for the LEAST dignified commenter here.
    Just a whole heap of political, rhetorical nonsense, along with an extremely obvious attempt at character assassination.
    Very undignified of you.

  596. Minister for Truth says

    http://www.theage.com.au/business/taxes-a-drag-on-coal-kloppers-warns-investors-20120823-24oyp.html#ixzz24PSrzzIW

    So Abbott was basically correct in saying that, of course BHP isnt going to bag the Gillard Govt on bad news day of announcing the deferral of Olympic Dam

    Just wait until Kloppers is speaking out of the country then see what he says

    I thought the Leigh Sales i/v with Abbott was the worst performance of an ABC journalist ever, and beat anything Red Kerry did.

    Abbott may not have covered himself in glory, but at least he kept his cool and was polite.

  599. toby says

    cohenite, maybe, just maybe he has thought about just what an atrocious call it is to label people who think she has questions ( let alone had questions) to answer, misogynists.
    I didnt think she could stoop any lower in politics but she has taken it even lower.

    and also maybe embarrassed about some of his low life, bigoted comments?

    possibly he has even thought about how union funds should be used…and shouldnt? But that is probably too much to hope?….please prove me wrong Baz.

  600. toby says

    Hope he sues SD! That would I suspect be funny to watch, he does have an exceptional use of language and humour to couple with his intelligence.

  604. bazza says

    You gotta laugh – what a story it would be Cohenite getting the boot from the ALP: spose it gives him a motive.

  606. Debbie says

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19348427

    So….let me see…. the warming is not unusual but it could still conceivably perhaps maybe have a human fingerprint at the moment? Because….it seems it could be perhaps be a bit faster than before?
    Well!….that’s settled then! (NOT!)

    Bazza…..I don’t ever think it’s funny or laughable when someone gets ‘the boot’.
    Do you also think it’s funny that all those PS people are losing their jobs in QLD at the moment?

    While the new LNP party in QLD is doing what they have been given a mandate for, as the balance was getting right out of whack, it is still distresing for people to lose their jobs at any time.
    They are usually just regular, nice people who were doing their best to fill their job descriptions.

    I would also interpret from Cohenite’s previous comment that he didn’t actually get ‘the boot’ as you put it.
    Whichever of us happens to be correct…..your attitude is still thoroughly appalling.

    Gavin….please define your comment ‘marginal writers’?
    Marginal compared to what/whom exactly?

  607. Johnathan Wilkes says

    Marginal compared to what/whom exactly?

    Anyone they disagree with!
    Could be a treasured scientist one day, “one of us”, say something contrary to the mantra and be ostracised the next day!
    That’s who!

  608. John Sayers says

    Eleanor Hall from the ABC Midday Report was on talkabout on radio 702 this morning and they were discussing Julia and the AWU and she mentioned the internet blogger (Pickering) causing the trouble BUT she couldn’t remember who it was!!

    These ABC reporters are in Pixieland.

  609. toby says

    i note baz is still avoiding questions and slagging off cohenite with his vitriolic humor.

    i think you should at the very least tell us if you approve of gillard opening an account that was used for an alternative purpose and used union member funds to support union cronyism.
    was that an appropriate use of funds?

    Are we misgoynists for believing she had questions to answer? i didnt think she could stoop any lower but she has, talk about gutter politics.

    if you actually approve of her actions then that will be a sad indictment of your sense of right and wrong.

  610. bazza says

    The comment on the link to the BBC article (10:59 am) may have misled some who like a little context. The context was the Antarctic Peninsula over the last 15,000 years . The warming of Antarctica is occasionally contested in these crass circles as there is some variability to be exploited and the ozone story to be ignored. What the article said included:
    “Changes in the Earth’s orbit and tilt produce natural fluctuations in climate.
    Locked away in the ice core is a historical record of Antarctic temperatures
    Average temperatures change slowly – at a rate of roughly 0.1-0.2C per century.
    But the research showed that the recent rate of change in the peninsula has been considerably faster. “
    Funny how context can change impressions.

  611. Luke says

    Toby like Cohenite – you’re contributing more with every word to the misgoynist sludge. Fancy you creeps backing Pickering – what a joke ! BUT ARE WE SURPRISED ! – it’s your typical wacko tea party climate sceptic archetype.

    Do you reckon you’ll get you semi-automatics back with Abbott – in any case you’ll just have to dig them up from the back block where you left them – dust them off and you’ll be ready to go again eh?

    Try this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uzae_SqbmDE Yee ha !

  612. John Sayers says

    Luke – perhaps you should read the editorial in The Australian this weekend. Here it is:

    Gillard opens a file on spin

    GULLIBILITY and incuriosity are not ideal traits if your job is to hold politicians to account on behalf of the public.

    The journalists of the Canberra Press Gallery have a special privilege and responsibility in our democratic processes and this week many of them showed how they sometimes failed. After stonewalling detailed and serious questions from The Australian, Julia Gillard decided finally to confront the issues surrounding the end of her legal career at Slater & Gordon in 1995. Her tactics were as clever as they were transparent. The Prime Minister had spotted a clear but relatively minor error in a page six corollary story to our investigations into the affair. Our reporter referred to a “trust” fund when he should have written “slush” fund — you be the judge. Having demanded and received an apology, Ms Gillard decided to go on the attack, accuse this newspaper of recycling “false and defamatory” information, conflate our coverage with a vicious online blogger’s efforts and try to put the issue to bed.

    While she performed strongly in taking questions for about an hour, she still had not responded to careful and fair questions submitted in writing by our investigative reporter, Hedley Thomas. Ms Gillard threw herself at the mercy of journalists whose insights were limited to what they had read in the paper. Some of the key questions were asked, some not. Indisputably, she confirmed the key elements of Thomas’s revelations: at the behest of her lover, Bruce Wilson, she had established a union slush fund; it had not been officially described as such; she had not opened a file at the firm on the matter or notified other lawyers; her firm was concerned about this and conducted a formal interview over the affair; she resigned soon afterwards. This is all particularly controversial because (without Ms Gillard’s knowledge) the fund was then used by Mr Wilson and Ralph Blewitt to syphon union funds. When Ms Gillard became aware of the alleged corruption, she ended her relationship with Mr Wilson. We do not know what other action she took, if any, to alert authorities.

    The Prime Minister has not attacked The Sydney Morning Herald for reporting on Thursday that she might have broken the law — something this newspaper has never alleged. Yet, astoundingly, their political editor Peter Hartcher accuses The Australian of being “dedicated to the destruction” of the government. The Age also has been spared Ms Gillard’s wrath, despite following our reports with accounts of its own. But then, commentary by its political editor, Michelle Grattan, has seemingly sought to build a bridge with the Prime Minister ever since suggesting in April that she should resign. Many journalist have accepted the invitation to move on. At the ABC, political host Barrie Cassidy has demanded journalists place Tony Abbott under more scrutiny. Yet he argues Ms Gillard should face less. Perhaps instead of writing about journalism, he ought to practise some.

  613. dave shorter says

    Misogynists (or is that misgoynists ?) seem to be leading the two party prefered 56 to 44 Luke.
    Time to get with the strength son!

  614. Debbie says

    Crass circles?
    Some variability to be exploited?
    CONTEXT? ? ?
    🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂
    ROFL!

  615. Neville says

    Bazza what about temp change of 10c in ten years as found in the NH and Venezuela after the Younger Dryas 11,500 years ago?

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/abrupt/data4.html

    Is that fast enough for you? Not too bad for NATURAL CC? Luke you haven’t got a clue. But Bolt and others will still ask the hard questions. He has an interesting question for Gillard about a cheque sent to S&G.

    Amazing that the present PM of OZ admits that the fund she set up was really to be used as a slush fund. Really makes everybody feel proud and confident. NOT.
    She admitted this in 1995 and yet seemed to be coy about this fact until the transcript was released in the last few days.

  616. Johnathan Wilkes says

    I was trying to find out what their reasoning behind the use of deuterium</font? was but no luck.

    Deuterium is supposed to be pre-galactic isotope available in a constant quantity through the ages, and today only produced in laboratories mostly.

    So I can’t see the relevance of using it in this manner, if I’m wrong, very likely, any explanation is welcome.

  617. Johnathan Wilkes says

    I was trying to find out what their reasoning behind the use of deuterium was but no luck.

    Deuterium is supposed to be pre-galactic isotope available in a constant quantity through the ages, and today only produced in laboratories mostly.

    So I can’t see the relevance of using it in this manner, if I’m wrong, very likely, any explanation is welcome.

  618. toby says

    just like the problems with the CAGW meme, Luke fails to comprehend what is so obvious to most with a decent moral compass.

    cronyism is not ok luke….using union member funds to fund mates for elections is not appropriate. YOU DONT GET IT DO YOU?! I AM AMAZED, ACTUALLY DISGUSTED THAT YOU THINK WHAT SHE DID IS OK…My respect for you has gone

    i have never said all of what pickering said was ok, i have said it is out there and he should be done for slander…I wonder why he wont be?

    any one with decent ethics and morals however should be able to see that gillard acted appallingly and either was incompetent/ negligent or fraudulent. …naive doesnt cut it.
    She clearly new that the account she opened was not for its stipulated purpose….and you think that is ok? sad, very sad.

  619. Johnathan Wilkes says

    Need editing option please! (or at least the ability to delete duplicate posts)
    Thank you.

  621. cohenite says

    I didn’t get the boot from the ALP; I let my membership lapse.

    I don’t know where this misogyny claim is coming from; back when Pickering did as much as anyone to get rid of Gough I hated his guts; I’m still objective about him but I can’t see where his expose of Gillard has anything to do with her gender as opposed to everything to do with her credibility, or anything to do with his views about women.

  622. Debbie says

    Did you also notice the second last paragraph Bazza?
    Here:
    In his Nature paper, Dr Mulvaney did not conclude that the recent changes observed in the peninsula were down to human activity.
    If I knew how to bold it I would bold DR MULVANEY DID NOT CONCLUDE!
    He then makes this statement:
    “If I am pressed to say whether I think it’s human-induced, then I would say what we are seeing is human-induced.”
    I WOULD SAY????????
    The problem is that he has NOT CONCLUDED that in his paper.
    He may be right and he may be wrong about his ‘think’ but his conclusions were basically inconclusive…..that is the context is it not?
    As Neville’s link shows and the heading of this article also says:
    ‘Arctic warmth unusual but not unique.’
    Your comments about the ozone story are not mentioned or apparently part of this particular study which as JW points out says it studied deuterium.
    So who is playing around with context Bazza? What has ozone got to do with this study Bazza?
    You also can’t seem to help yourself with those silly sneering comments like ‘crass circles’ and ‘exploited’.
    I notice you still haven’t managed to answer any direct questions you have been asked?
    Can’t even seem to come clean on what it is you do for a living that makes you believe that you have the right to put down people like me?
    Maybe you can just go off the rails like Luke obviously has and bring up sceptic tea parties and buried semi automatic guns.:-) 🙂 🙂
    Those sort of comments say way more about you than they do about anyone else.
    ROFL!

    JW…I needed that editing option a couple of days ago…..no idea why one of my comments duplicated.
    I obviously upset the technology somehow and am suspecting that the wireless signal may have had a hissy fit….but that would be me ASSUMING…..which would be wrong of me.

  624. Luke says

    Gee Neville – so the temperature has changed before hey? mmmmmm Now I wonder why? And I wonder what else happened when it did.

    Isn’t it amazing that when it’s happening it’s still not happening. mmmmm

    Back to idolising Pickering with yo’all. Love the comments on his blog. So pleasant.

    Now come on Debs – how many guns have you still got. You can tell us. We won’t dob you in.

  626. Debbie says

    So Luke?
    You just want to talk politics?
    No offence but 7 points is not nearly enough to call it a resurgence.
    I don’t think it’s a good thing but the Labor party nearly got wiped out in QLD.
    Also note this is a poll about Fed Labor seats in QLD.
    Guns Luke?
    Yes farmers own guns. We need them occasionally to shoot feral animals etc.
    No probs with the legality however.
    Can’t buy ammunition unless we have a license. We are also subject to a lot of other rules re storage etc.
    Can’t guarrantee there aren’t old guns buried in the back of old sheds, back of barns or similar though. Probably wouldn’t work anymore but it’s possible that some that used to belong to great grandfathers or whatever are hiding somewhere or other.
    I’ve noticed however that there must be a heap of illegal guns in urban areas according to the MSM. Rather a lot of drive by shootings lately?

  629. bazza says

    Mulvaneys Antarctic paper was simply a record of what happened. Causes were not his brief. Before his comment that he was pressed for there were two other comments Deb, deliberately perhaps , sidestepped.
    “Commenting on the likely cause, Prof Steig told BBC News: “A fingerprint of forced climate change – that is, anthropogenic (man-made) forcing of climate by greenhouse gases – is that it will warm in most places at the same time.

    “And that’s clearly the fingerprint that we are seeing.”

    This is a view shared by Prof Peter Nienow, a glaciologist at the University of Edinburgh, who said: “The significant warming being seen in many places across the planet makes it unlikely that the recent warming reported in this paper is due just to local natural variability.”

    Alternative explanations for the recent warming are awaited.

  630. spangled drongo says

    Luke, how’s that big Labor support jump going for you today?

    Our darling ABC just didn’t want to talk about the NT this morning.

    [only 15% swing in the aboriginal homelands]

  631. Neville says

    On the Bolt report today ex Labor treasurer Keith de Lacy (Qld) called the co2 tax “a collective insanity.”

    He also noted it couldn’t lower co2 emissions or change the climate at all.

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/the_bolt_report_today20/#commentsmore

    Also ex Labor NSW treasurer Michael Costa solidly endorsed Plimer’s “How to Get expelled”. He stated that Plimer is an unheralded national treasure and his book “systematically debunks the hysteria and misinformation that drives the manufactured political consensus on AGW.”

    He further stated “that ignorance is no longer an excuse for teaching ideology in the place of balanced scientific theory in our schools.”

    These two Labor pollies are to be admired for stating the facts and trying to warn Aussies of the insanity and deception of Gillard’s co2 tax.

  632. debbie says

    Yep,
    noticed that too SD.
    So Luke?
    If you truly want to talk politics here’s a couple of links for you:

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/indigenous-voters-dump-labor-in-territory-putting-the-clp-back-in-power-after-11-years/story-fn59niix-1226458204734

    http://www.smh.com.au/national/federal-labor-distances-itself-from-nt-loss-20120826-24u4g.html

    That first one is a hair breadth away from being racist. It looks like they thought better of it later in the day. Their real problem looks like ‘the bush’ right across the nation has had enough of this particular federal Govt.
    But the Feds distancing themselves?
    That is just wishful thinking as was your earlier post. That QLD poll is just restoring a little balance in an electorate that nearly wiped out the sitting party. 7% is not anything near enough to make a difference.
    I don’t think it’s a good thing that we’re probably going to witness something close to a wipe out at the next Fed election, but at this point, that is the most likely scenario.
    Lofty goals and ideologies have their place, but they are useless if they are implemented poorly and if they ignore essentials like fiscal responsibility.
    The saddest part is that the opposition don’t really have to offer up any decent policy alternatives, they’re actually better off politically if they don’t.
    That is not a comforting thought for people like me….I couldn’t give a flying rip about particular personalities, I care about sensible policy and even more about responsible implementation of sensible policy.
    The NBN discussion earlier at this thread is a classic example…..I think we do need some sensible investment into this type of infrastructure….but the current Govt just don’t seem to know how to manage it with anything approaching fiscal responsibility…and the NBN is not the only example of this problem.

    Bazza,
    You are correct that Mulvaney’s paper is simply a record.
    I do not understand why you think it’s therefore appropriate for Profs Stieg and Neinow to then use this paper to claim it is proof of a human fingerprint when the report DID NOT come to that conclusion.
    Your call for ‘Alternative Explanations’ is also inappropriate because this paper doesn’t offer anything as an explanation in the first place.
    The main conclusion was that the warming could possibly be seen as unusual but it was not unique.
    The rest, including the quotes you have pulled out is just speculation with no evidence from the paper itself.
    The ‘alternative explanation’ is therefore that so far there is nothing particularly alarming occuring there that hasn’t occured at other times and which humans had nothing to do with.
    Your interpretation along with those 2 Profs looks suspiciously like ‘confirmation bias’.
    They may be right and they may be wrong but this paper does not have any evidence that would prove it either way.
    I will also re iterate that you seemed to think that ozone had something to do with this paper.
    That was after you accused me of misinterpreting what the report studied and researched.
    But nonetheless, well done on managing to be polite about it this time around….except for that ‘deliberately sidestepped’ comment.

  633. cohenite says

    bazza has dredged up Steig to interpret [ie contradict] the Mulvaney paper which shows NOTHING UNUSUAL happening in the Antarctic; that is appropriate since Steig is the co-author of not only arguably the worst paper ‘proving’ warming in the Antarctic but also the man responsible for the delay in publication of a paper which showed why his paper is arguably the worst paper on the Antarctic; see here for details of the whole sorry mess:

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100075232/realclimategate-hits-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-peer-review/

    It occurs to me that the proponents of climate science are perfect bedmates for left-wing/green governments like the current federal one; they have no scruples and are incapable of seeing the moral defects in their actions; usally they are noble cause corruption candiates but really I think it is just a case of truncated ethics in inverse relationship to the size of their egoes.

  634. Debbie says

    Who knows Cohenite?
    There are conspiracy theories flying around left, right & centre, conservative, green and whatever else.
    What I am noticing is flat out incompetence with a large dose of ‘self serving’ thrown in.
    I think that just for a start, the Labor Party should look at sacking their PR dept.
    Their work is woeful.
    I also think they should take a serious look at their penchant for ‘international treaties’ as the electorate are quite obviously not of the same opinion.
    It is actually one of the major reasons that the Howard govt got tossed out and why the electorate liked Julia saying ‘there will be no carbon tax. . . . ‘.
    This lot have proven they are worse!
    It’s a pity however that the opposition don’t have to step up.

  635. Luke says

    Cohenite – wait till they taste the merchandise they’ve paid for.

    Neville – Costa and Plimer – hahahaqhahahahahahahahahaqhahahahhahahah- good one – have some decency

  636. cohenite says

    “wait till they taste the merchandise they’ve paid for.”

    Too cryptic luke, what do you mean?

  637. Debbie says

    Way too cryptic.
    What is your point Luke?
    You do realise that NSW & Vic flipped before QLD and the NT?

  638. gavin says

    Reading up the page, one comment in particular had to be considered. Luke had a go but –

    Nev; have you any idea how just +/- 2C can impact on this planet?

    Deb; you are such a unfaithful creature to reason, when three good guys spend all their time trying to get you over the science hurdles and you don’t budge from your sitting position. Have to agree though, Labor PR is pathetic

  639. gavin says

    btw; ” How long have you been on that machine? “. Spouse said, I’m sick but what excuse have you lot got?

  640. spangled drongo says

    “Nev; have you any idea how just +/- 2C can impact on this planet?”

    gav, not getting it as usual.

    It has always happened in the past [CC].

    How do you prevent it and why should you?

  641. Neville says

    Gav I don’t need any excuse when I state that mitigation of AGW is a fraud and con. I just need to look at the facts and numbers from 1990 to 2010 and use simple kindy maths.

    So what’s your excuse for supporting the co2 tax? Also I suspect that a 2C rise in temp wouldn’t have as much effect on the planet as 10C rise in just ten years.

    At least I hope you’re happy now that the Maldives doesn’t have any problems with that con and fraud of dangerous SLR?

  642. el gordo says

    ‘i have never said all of what pickering said was ok, i have said it is out there and he should be done for slander…I wonder why he wont be?’

    Perhaps he will argue it was meant as satire, but more than likely the PM won’t take him on because the muck is everywhere. Pickering’s assertion that her staff are all Socialist Forum mates could be easily tested and should be.

    In many ways its all west wing for joolya.

  643. Neville says

    Interesting study from antarctica finds that George VI ice shelf disappeared 9500 years ago and didn’t reform for another 1500 years.

    Probably caused by a warmer ocean after a prior warm period. Now where did that warmth come from during the early holocene I wonder? That’s sometime before 9500 years BP.

    The ice shelf is ok today and has been maintained for the last 8000 years.

    http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/press/press_releases/press_release.php?id=57

    I wonder if the warmth then was greater than your 2C Gav and where did it come from? Surely not from that extreme temp increase after the Younger dryas 11,500 years BP?

    Amazing what the planet can do NATURALLY without the help of humans and the effect can be very extreme indeed.

  644. Debbie says

    Which 3 good guys Gavin?
    What ‘scientific’ hurdles Gavin?
    The report did NOT come to any conclusions about a human fingerprint….it was purely a study/record of Antarctica history using deuterium in particular as the benchmark.
    The 3 ‘scientists’ were merely speculating and IMHO using this report inappropriately.
    You seem to be confusing the definition of ‘science’ with ‘scientists’.
    They are NOT the same thing Gavin.
    These scientists are just employed people doing their best to fill their job descriptions…..while they do indeed study science….they are NOT science. A bunch of them agreeing with each other is NOT science either.
    Also Gavin,
    +/- 2 degrees?
    What effect do you think it will have Gavin?
    While I don’t think it’s possible to answer that question with any veracity, you seem to make it sound like it would be something catastrophic if the average global temperatures rose or dropped by 2 degrees.
    Where’s your evidence that it is an imminent disaster Gavin?
    As Luke wailed with many expletives a few days ago:
    Is the sky falling in etc?
    What positive outcome can you see from the current obsession with pricing carbon?
    Unfortunately, it is not only Labor’s PR that has been pathetic….their fiscal behaviour is just as woeful.
    Grand ideas and grand challenges are quickly bad ideas and disasters if they are poorly managed and/ or implemented.

  645. gavin says

    Failed Nev. Sorry, but with all your appreciation of paleo temp changes I reckoned you should know even +/- one degree has a big impact on global conditions.

    “I state that mitigation of AGW is a fraud and con”. Mate, if we made AGW, then we can sure unmake it. Just leave it to the Armstrongs.

    Smile SD

  646. Neville says

    Gav if we need to unmake it then send the non OECD countries to another planet. Their emissions now and into the future are your big problem not mine. It is the most easily understood fraud and con in history, so what’s your problem?

    How much longer can you fools live in denial of simple maths? BTW Amstrong’s mate Aldrin doesn’t believe that AGW is a problem, so you’re really starting to clutch at straws again.

    But tell us how you’d reduce co2 emissions and the change this would make to our temp and climate? Oh yes and tell us when we would be able to measure that change. Would it be in 100 years , 200, 500 or 1000 years or more?

  647. Robert says

    The massive investment in the Maldives had made climate alarmism unprofitable there. Though it’s very low-lying, Kiribati is having all kinds of trouble getting the seas to rise and land area to shrink, though it can manage some erosion here and there, to offset aggregation elsewhere. But it just can’t get the kind of investment the Maldives attract (who can?), so it really needs climate panic for income. With clapped out resources, overpopulation and a limited freshwater lens, you should be able to manage an enviro disaster or two, even if you can’t get that stupid SL to jump. So blur the details!

    If you check that lightning fast google thingy (which Gav likes when he is helping us over scientific hurdles), Kiribati is nothing but a pin-up for CAGW. It’s scattered over a vast area of the tropics, so a decent storm or sand shift will give photo ops galore. When the Kiribati government wanted to buy Fijian land recently (not that unusual) it was portrayed as some kind of mass migration measure.

    Me, I like people, I like change and I like immigration. But we need to stop seeing our region as a backdrop to a preachy Pierce Brosnan disaster movie. Pacific islanders will want to move where there is more wealth and where resources and opportunities abound. The natural destinations are OZ and NZ, though with less welfarism and more dynamism. As to the long term effects of this greater development, hard money buys real conservation, and wealthy humans don’t breed like hamsters.

    Of course, filling the world with “crass” aspirationals will annoy people like bazza – but that’s half the fun!

  648. bazza says

    We can by now safely conclude that Research Methodology, Physical Chemistry, Journalism 1 and Introduction to Ethics were not among the subjects embraced in the 3 degrees of Deb. ( But she mastered Emoticon 101). She has had a few goes at misleading on the Antarctica link she supplied. Even the dogged Cohenite , self-styled leader of the pack self-enveigled. But he had to resort to inadmissable evidence. Deb has but two cards in her pack, the joker and conning with confirmation bias. Debs takes included “The main conclusion was that the warming could possibly be seen as unusual but it was not unique” Take 2:”So….let me see…. the warming is not unusual but it could still conceivably perhaps maybe have a human fingerprint at the moment? Because….it seems it could be perhaps be a bit faster than before?” . What will take 3 be?. Who cares.
    The unspun facts were: not unusual – sure in the last 15,000 years , but only once over 10,000 years ago.
    Take 2 : “a bit faster “– “ the research showed that the recent rate of change in the peninsula has been considerably faster.”
    Prof Steig said the fingerprint of forced climate change is at will warm in most places at the same time. And all Cohenite could do was go the ad hom.

  650. Debbie says

    So Bazza?
    What should we ‘conclude’ about you?
    You have been directly asked what you do and what it is about what you do that makes you believe you have the right to sneer at people.
    I am sorry it upsets you that I have a very good education. It doesn’t change the fact.
    I have already given you permission to engage on my other name tags.
    When you’re ready to come clean on your identity and your quals, if you really think it’s so important, I’ll illuminate you on my tertiary quals.

  651. bazza says

    I will say again – it matters not what you are it is what you contribute and anybody who has to plug there expertise in some ways is losing it. Evidence should be independent of who it is coming from. I dont care to waist my time and yours on irrlevancies. Maybe you could go spray some bennies. ( clue – I have done a bit of IPM).

  652. bazza says

    Apologies , the odd spelling error/typo is either evidence of my time management or some crums for the resident spell checker/record keeper. Sorry , nothing for Nev as long as he believes as international diplomacy on mitigating AGW is played out , feedback free, with sums of the form 1+1=2.

  653. Johnathan Wilkes says

    (clue – I have done a bit of IPM).

    Should have paid more attention in english classes (spelling and grammar specifically) instead.
    “waist” indeed?
    But then again, edumacation is a dirty word in your circles.

    And fancy this coming from a cheap accountant too?

  655. spangled drongo says

    “Evidence should be independent of who it is coming from.”

    Ya talkin religous or scientific, baz?

  656. Robert says

    Bazza, it’s not the “crums”, it’s the entire loaves of illiteracy. If you were less of a patronising snob, I’m sure we’d mind less.

    I see little use in apologising for sloppy language, then immediately following with:
    “Sorry , nothing for Nev as long as he believes as international diplomacy on mitigating AGW is played out , feedback free, with sums of the form 1+1=2.”

    Bazza, you need to choose between being inarticulate and being a snob. The one does not accommodate the other.

    Also, the sneering at Deb’s qualifications (mentioned by Luke and you far more than by Deb) would still be odious, even if it was witty. As things stand, the sneering is merely odious.

    Let’s be friends, bazza. Stop bunging on the superiority, and you can mangle the language as much as you like. Nobody will mind.

  657. debbie says

    But Bazza?
    You and Luke are forever castigating people for not respecting ‘scientists’ and their ability to have their work published in ‘serious’ journals.
    You are also quick to dismiss anybody who comments on these things unless you perceive them as a ‘who’s who ‘in the world of ‘climate science’.
    It seems you are the one who is guiltiest of all of ignoring ‘what’ people contribute in favour of ‘who’ they are.
    You are the one who is forever attempting ‘character assassination’ and forever attempting to ‘shoot the mesenger’ rather than discussing the actual message.
    Look to your own MO Bazza.
    Being a ‘patronising snob’ as Robert puts it….is not a good look.
    You can be polite if you try….I have seen it happen a couple of times.

  658. bazza says

    I suppose my odd error of the spelling kind could be construed as lack of respect for the high standards here. But , in a card I should not play, I am self employed and finalising a lengthy report which, you will be pleased to here, will be accepted as error free ( both logic and language ) . Thus my haste in taking an occasional procrastination break. Then again, if it wasn’t for my lapses what would you guys comment on – the science.? Perhaps the tone of my responses reflects frustration that I dont see any behaviour which would categorise you as sceptics – you are so locked into denial that you cannot sustain polite discourse, and you are all so loyal to some of the rubbish other denialists put up on any topic. Coincidence? I think not. A six pack – yes.

  660. Neville says

    Thanks bazza you’ve just proved my point that I’m right and you’re wrong. But don’t worry Luke can’t answer it and Gav can’t answer it either, so you’re in good company. NOT.

    Until you and yours wake up you’ll always be in denial. The answer is just that blindingly obvious and easy to understand. This is just simple logic and reasoning for 5 year olds.

    The mitigation of AGW is a total con and fraud, whether you choose to admit it or not.

  661. Robert says

    “Thus my haste in taking an occasional procrastination break.”

    Be careful. One should never hasten procrastination.

    On the other hand, I’m pleased to “here” that your lengthy report will be error free – logic and language!

  663. Johnathan Wilkes says

    Well folks what can one say?

    Robert, you beat me to it, that report be better sent to a proof reader first.

    Luke give it a rest, even you are not good enough to save him, not when he is in self-destruct mode anyway.

  664. Robert says

    I hope bazza’s report, whatever it is, meets with great success. I’m always boosted when anyone has a go, especially if it’s off his or her own bat. Yes, JW, in bazza’s case one would suggest very heavy proof-reading, but I admire that sort of initiative enormously.

    Similarly, I’m impressed by Deb being mother, wife, business-owner and food producer. The fact that she has acquired three degrees (mentioned by her in-context and only after some prodding) is proof that she likes to stay busy. I still don’t get the orchestrated shrieking which followed her disclosure of that simple fact.

  665. Johnathan Wilkes says

    Robert,
    “I’m always boosted when anyone has a go”

    So am I. My guiding principle in starting new things is; “if someone succeeded before, we all have a chance!”
    Start worrying when none can make it.

    I don’t particularly care about spelling as such on a blog, but as you said, when somebody claims the moral and intellectual high-ground then at least they should live up to it.

  667. bazza says

    thanks luke for the Qld gun laws story. I bet there are a few potential Dick Cheyneys about up there. The ironic bit was he was out quayle (no, not him) hunting and shot one of his campaign contributors. He only put in a grand so be generous when can do calls. I sometimes think that gun slinger right in the USA constitution was a typo or a dash of dyslexia – the right to harm bears – that was the intention.
    I didnt think you knew about the iridology – it is just a sideline, but interesting because it is evidence free.

  668. Luke says

    Guys have some respect for Bazza (Mr Bazza to you, Bazza to his business associates) is a busy man – being none other than Reggie Balowski, International arms dealer, scrap metal merchant and manager of a French cabaret chanteuse. And I apologise, I normally proof read his posts but was out getting his dry cleaning.

  669. cohenite says

    From luke’s link:

    “Firearms dealers, sporting shooters and hunters are represented on a new Newman government committee looking for ways to cut “red tape” for legitimate firearm owners.

    Announcing the new ministerial weapons advisory panel, Police and Community Safety Minister Jack Dempsey said the group would advise him on “how to reduce the red tape, delays and bureaucracy legitimate firearms users face when applying for a licence or new weapon”.

    From my experience the quickest way to reduce red tape is to shoot it, just shoot it right down.

  670. debbie says

    Luke,
    We have a gun for legitimate reasons…they are sometimes necessary in our environment.
    It is registered and we follow all the red tape that is required to own one.
    It is close to ridiculous how much red tape is actually involved….and despite all that red tape…..there have been an alarming number of shooting incidents in Sydney in the past 12 months (according to MSM) and they are not registered or legal guns…they’re not the people who are doing the right thing.
    So if the Newman Govt is looking at ways to reduce the red tape for legitimate gun licences/gun ownership…what would be the harm in that?
    It certainly doesn’t mean that everyone will be allowed to own one or that there will be an alarming increase in gun ownership….the actual reasons why people would apply and what the legitimate reasons are to own guns will unlikely change.
    I fail to see why you and Bazza think it’s alarming or a reason to sneer?

  671. Luke says

    The advocate mentioned in the redneck redtape article – what a guy. Mr “how-big-might-it-be” who needs a big “gun” is able to kill interesting animals for something to do as even though he he may also be missing a brain . Will fit in well climate sceptics and tea party types.

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/cowboys-calling-the-shots-for-bob-katters-party/story-fn59niix-1226177792065

    Woo hoo ! Shoot it, root it and chop it down. Yuh let’s have some more guns for right wing loonies. Good call. Never know when you’ll be attacked by an Oryx.

  672. gavin says

    Nev; you need to examine yourself here, continued use of “F” words like fools, fraud, etc. Hardly a mature debating style, is it ?

    Deb; I was simply referring several patient bloggers here. You do go off, don’t you ?

    I watched a debate on our ABC yesterday, on the topic “Having a University Degree is Grossly Overrated ? ” Amanda Vanstone, Annabel Crabb, Lyn Arnold and some guys were judged by the audience after an initial survey. For and against hardly changed but the undecided 20% shifted the result to roughly 50/50.

    It’s worth knowing who persuaded the undecided to the underdog position and how.

    http://www.abc.net.au/tv/bigideas/stories/2012/08/20/3569339.htm

  673. el gordo says

    With Jennifer on leave this place reminds me of the old days, a singular thread offers immediacy and general recognition by the other commenters. Luke will agree that there is not much value in having your insights lost on some lowly thread…never to be noticed.

  674. gavin says

    Returned from mate’s place today after a tour round his workshop and other indulgences feeling a bit uneasy. He does a bit of smithing, but lone guys and guns always bother me. Why ? many reasons including I once sold safes door to door in the bush.

    Two cabinets there now, latest not fixed yet but it will be used by a friend from QLD who is now renting here. The new strong box has a built on separate storage for ammo, bolts etc so I guess it cost a bit.

    I grew up in a boy/gun culture. Dad had a hole in his top lip after being hit with a stray pellet as a kid (older bros had the farm weapons), but his younger younger siblings remained a menace. New 22 repeaters could go off anywhere during our regular Sunday arvo rabbit hunts. One young uncle even split a barrel in the creek during a less frequent midnight trout stream events. My dad had to go as the least excitable family member and I had to go for a bit of a lesson in dangers of the extremes. We followed their remote upstream campaigns at a safer distance but could hear all too well some bullets fired at close range whizzing off submerged rocks and logs.

    But my country school cobbers were likely to be less controlled. hence the lessons. One former classmate did kill himself in a farm fence related accident. Several others were grazed by bullets before we gave up spotlighting parties. The end had to come anyway after we bogged another parent’s truck one night while they were at the cinema. Same night, two steers were shot dead on a neighboring farm by a useless pair of intruders blazing away at any eyes shining in the spotlight.

    Two lads we knew both used an old wartime 303 to blow their brains out. MY lad kept finding skull fragments after buying a cheap van from the local insurers. Daughter’s ex boyfriend chose a public place.

    Howard’s gun laws came too late for Tasmania.

  675. el gordo says

    Suicide is all too easy for farm boys. One young lad (facing the HSC) shared his last meal with us before killing himself, just like his cousin. Guns should be totally banned.

    Looking back, there was no indication he planned to end his life, but all of us feel somehow responsible because we might have prevented it.

  676. cohenite says

    “MY lad kept finding skull fragments after buying a cheap van from the local insurers.” and:

    “Daughter’s ex boyfriend chose a public place.”

    You know gav, your reminiscing indicates a very eventful life; eventful enough for 3 or 4 usual lives.

  677. Neville says

    Geezz Gav I think you have a vivid imagination and a lot of BS. BTW a fool is a fool and a fraud is a fraud, just engage me again if you see me using Luke’s F word will ya?

  678. Neville says

    Gav here’s a few more words for you. Hypocrisy, Ponzi scheme, deception, stupidity, liars, con merchants etc.

    Hypocrisy— why do we condemn co2 emissions in OZ but try our best to export as big a tonnage as possible to lucky importers overseas.

    Ferguson even wants us to turn Latrobe valley into another Pilbara.

    Ponzi scheme because our co2 tax relies on money chasing its tail and the end result is no change in temp and climate.

    Deception— all of the above.
    Lies— all of the above.
    Con merchants— involved through all of the above. Europe’s scheme ( 85% of trades) was closed a number of times because of fraud found in buying co2 credits. Fake certificates etc.

    The entire mess is a total fraud and con because, the Gillard govt couldn’t care less about increasing co2 emissions. Except for our flea bite here in OZ.
    It can’t change the temp or climate at all.
    Even Flannery admits it can’t change anything for hundreds of years perhaps a thousand years. AND THAT’s IF the ENTIRE WORLD STOPPED EMITTING TODAY. So end of the argument, because it obviously can’t work.

    So who’s in denial, it’s certainly not the sceptics. Nobody on the planet could believe more strongly in NATURAL CC than myself.
    I’ll even concede that there should be a direct increase in temp because of AGW (perhaps 1C). But I’m less sure about positive feedback. I think it’s negative and we should know for sure in a decade or so.

    In the meantime let’s use our scarce funds on adaptation, new technology and more R&D.
    USA co2 emissions are heading south because of new cheaper gas technology and that’s a small example of adaptation and new technology providing an answer.

  679. kuhnkat says

    So Gavin,

    would it have been better for the young lads to pipe the exhaust into the van and gas themselves?? your blatherings are so ridiculously pointless. I do give you a bit for color though.

    How about this logic Gav, you claim guns shuld be banned because they kill people. Well, drunk drivers kill people with their cars. Let’s ban ALL vehicles to prevent drunks, and some who are sober, from killing people with their vehicles. Yes you and the rest of the gun grabbers are that stupid Gav.

  680. kuhnkat says

    Luke,

    “The advocate mentioned in the redneck redtape article – what a guy. Mr “how-big-might-it-be” who needs a big “gun” is able to kill interesting animals for something to do as even though he he may also be missing a brain . Will fit in well climate sceptics and tea party types.”

    You are deteriorating fast Luke. I simply don’t have the time to try and translate this mess. The lack of any evidence for Gorebull Warming isn’t driving you to self medication has it??

  681. Debbie says

    I’m very disappointed that once again Luke, Gav & Bazza are just blandly assuming it is a rural issue. Along with comments like ‘rednecks’.
    KK is also correct that guns don’t cause suicide, in fact the tragedy of teenage suicide can’t be solved by removing method.
    It is a real tragedy and it isn’t just one demographic like ‘farm boys’ or ‘country school cobbers’. Far from it.
    Neither is it because of any perceived easy access to firearms.

  682. spangled drongo says

    Loony Luke complains because people wanting to renew existing gun licenses who are waiting over a year for renewal, want to streamline some of this ever-increasing bureaucratic red tape.

    What the Newman govt is trying to do is overcome this mindless inefficiency that is entrenched with the previous lot and get back to a working system.

    I am currently applying to renew, months ahead of expiry, because if I wait until I am notified by govt my license will expire and that then becomes a bigger bureaucratic nightmare.

    When my gun is only used to prop up other failed bureaucracy such as disappearing native wildlife, not through loss of habitat but almost entirely through wild, uncontrolled, feral predators in poorly run national parks, the nightmare is doubly galling.

    But luckwitz bureaucrats think that nightmares for the great unwashed are the perfect system.

    On a brighter note, thanks to the wonderful increase in atmospheric CO2, a lot of those aerial-sown legumes are taking over the groundcover in our NOTW and suppressing bushfire. We have been cutting firebreaks and burning-off to reduce the huge fuel-load from recent great seasons but even with weeks of no rain and dry westerlies it is hard to make the country burn.

    Though it is sad to see the native grasses disappear under the leguminous, feral onslaught, it probably works in favour of our ever increasing population.

  685. toby says

    There was an article over the weekend from an owner of a mining company saying that in 1998 when he opened his first mine it took 18 mnths from finding the resources to starting to dig, 5 years ago we were 15% cheaper than teh OECD average for starting up a business, now we are 75% more expensive because it now takes around 5 years to dig your first hole, and a lot of that is red tape…..which keeps Bureaucrats in work and helps build empires for some…….labour costs and union unrest, high aud, MRRT, Carbon tax etc dont help, but the biggest problem is govt red tape…..

  686. bazza says

    Debbie claims “I’m very disappointed that once again Luke, Gav & Bazza are just blandly assuming it is a rural issue”. Deb, desist from attributing stuff to me which I have never even remotely stated. It is a cheap and nasty ploy. Dont forget to come back with caps and smileys and your usual everything but an apology.

  687. John Sayers says

    Toby – he also said there 1400 specific requirements for a project to go ahead. One was the total removal of all the red back spiders from the area!

  688. John Sayers says

    I was most impressed with this post made at JoNova’s site by alan neil ditchfielld, pretty well sums it up.

    I was appalled to see Paul Nurse, the current president of a Royal Society, invoke appeal from authority as a reason why James Delingpole, his opposite number in a BBC debate, should believe in manmade global warming. It was implied in an analogy made by Paul Nurse to the effect that Delingpole should submit to the expert opinion of a heart surgeon, for a heart condition, not to the opinion of a layman.
    I would have retorted with another question. Would Paul Nurse agree to heart surgery tested only on a computer model of a mammal’s heart? That is what being asked of the world economy.
    Since no sane person would submit to Russian roulette in a matter of life and death it is sad to see Paul Nurse in an institution that once had Isaac Newton in his position.

  690. John Sayers says

    my God bazza, you’ve said something I can understand, of course it’s wrong but that’s typical.

  691. Debbie says

    Bazza,
    go back to your comment at August 27 3:44.
    Then go back and read most of your other comments where you pass unsubstantiated judgement on people and make sneering personal comments.
    According to you I am a number of dreadfully incompetent and dangerous ‘types’ all rolled into one and I have also lost something because I have an education.
    I have nothing to apologise for, I remain disappointed in your attitude and your tendency to try and stereotype everyone.
    You made a sneering stereotypical comment about gun ownership did you not?
    Which is sort of amusingly ironic because in a figurative, metaphorical sense. . . you fire more shots than most.
    You are also a poor shot.

  692. Johnathan Wilkes says

    “You are also a poor shot.”
    Sums him up precisely!
    Like button please! (providing I don’t have to join twitter or facebook)

  693. toby says

    John, thx for that link I will have a look when i get a chance. red back spiders eh…probably to ensure all the CFMEU members dont get frightened…..! is that part of their EBA! HAHA.

    The Royal society has firmly nailed its colours to the mast and its a sad indictment of modern science…….

  696. gavin says

    el gordo; on the question of private guilt, it’s not only about boys or farm guns but it is lack of experience on behalf of the witness that really bothers long term. it may also be the case that an impending suicide will confront the innocent at the last moment. This realization came soon after migrant welder with a mall adjusted UK family stuck in town tried to confide in yours truly (still only an apprentice) before drinking a lethal cocktail of agents from our workshop sometime after work that day. This forced a search for some ad hoc counselling ability as events accumulated.

    Back to guns el g; when did you first use them?

    We kept a shotgun in the kitchen broom cupboard by the back door. Mum kept the cartridges somewhere else. Intruding tiger snakes was our excuse and I knew what a mess fine shot made at close range however I didn’t think much about it because all the other kids at primary school knew a lot about guns. In fact some older boys had a weekend home loan of their cadet core 303 rifle and in one case the school Bren Gun , it’s big chest an all, went back and forth on our school bus.
    Sworn to secrecy, I got another look at the Bren in it’s case outside their backdoor at the big family house over the creek. While parents were briefly away the younger boys had ranged it well down the farm and shot an unfortunate crow perched high in a gum tree with ammo pinched from their older bro still doing his National Service. Black feathers scattered wide and a long dead twig was the only evidence of their clandestine crack shooting practice. They became quite reliable boyhood shooters using a 22 gauge and white tipped sight under my spotlight.

    A far more sinister development seemed to affect certain adults and it’s the power of a weapon ownership that has little to do with sporting fun. Worst case; a bunch of would be warriors from a ninja training camp established near our place kept confronting a bush based young couple at home in the dark while blatantly wielding their automatic weapons . First case; a group of well armed town based shooters confronted Mother and me aged about six at our rented farm house while dad was at work . It seemed to me they only expected a few cups of tea but Dad was off, hot on his bike soon after based on a few names we could recall after probably an extremely tense hour or so for my mum. The irony was Mother saying “we don’t have guns in the kitchen thank you very much” so they stayed out by the tank stand where I could see all from the old cart wheeled engine assembly complete with it’s fabulous magneto and glass bowl oilers. Envy my childhood playground.

    I could relate more cases of unchecked anti-social gun behaviour from direct experience but let’s finish on this point: A standover mentality that some must have guns at home won’t wash with the majority in this country after Howard’s Gun Law Reforms because an armed society is a very dangerous one whichever way we look at it today.

    To cohenites, freedom parties and others; there is a vast difference between behaviours of kids growing up and those who can’t. Gun weirdoes are simply late starters.

    Deb; hick cultures, urban and rural can generate extremists and by my unfortunate experience both generate too many youthful suicides. Recognition is one thing, dealing with it is another. We lost a niece while back still don’t know why but I watch the older half sis and her tribe via Facebook almost every day, all great animal fans too. Two other cousins, once close to my kids have all but disappeared from sight. Troubled dad, troubled next gen, seems we can’t help it.

  699. Johnathan Wilkes says

    “Bren Gun …

    While parents were briefly away the younger boys had ranged it well down the farm and shot an unfortunate crow.”

    I couldn’t help myself and read partway into this drivel to see if there was a germ of reason?

    Walter Mitty and the good baron Munchhausen could only dream to have your imagination.

    Bren guns and ammo to go with it to take home on the weekend? What next? Cannons and tank warfare?

  701. Johnathan Wilkes says

    Luke,

    ““Since 2000 half of the police gunned down in the line of duty were killed by licensed firearm owners.”

    Put some logic into it Luke, well try it for once anyway.
    How many licensed gun owners in Queensland?

    And only half the police were killed by licensed gun owners!
    What about the other half?

    PS. Notwithstanding, no one should be killed by any means no police and no civilians, but that is a pipe dream, as long as there will be humans there will be killings.
    This is but an unfortunate fact.

  702. Luke says

    Yuh sure Johnathan – that’s reassuring ! (jeeez)

    Fact #1 – Mr Feeney – It doesn’t take a year to get a licence. Do a safety course, submit the paperwork wait 1-2 months. If it takes that long they haven’t provided the information correctly.
    Fact#2 – You don’t need to apply every year for a licence or weapon registration. Only Cat D (semi-auto centre fire) & Cat H (concealed) weapons require annual checks and renewals. Licence renewals are every 5 years.
    Fact #3 – Dealers/Brokers don’t handle the paper work – why then are they advising the government about reducing it? Police & admin officers in the police do at a cost to the applicant. Around $30 for a Cat A Permit to Acquire.
    Weapons Licencing Branch needs to be streamlined and this requires robust systems and processes to be in place built with computersied, central and well resourced adminstration.
    This isn’t a discussion about gun ownership rights – it’s about the registration system that regulates it.
    Commenter
    Winston
    Location
    CBD
    Date and time
    August 28, 2012, 1:43PM

    Read more: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/police-exclusion-from-gun-panel-an-oversight-20120828-24xqg.html#ixzz24oog95d3

  703. Johnathan Wilkes says

    Luke, thanks for the info but I wasn’t querying the process.
    I was simply surprised by your conclusion and apparent condemnation of licensed gun owners.

    As a matter of interest I served in the army and know how to use a firearm, but since we sold the farm I no longer have a gun of any sort.
    On the other hand if you want to license my fishing rods and hooks, (just an other cruel killing device) there I draw a line.
    Out of my cold hands etc.

  704. debbie says

    Bazza,
    Maybe your tendency to miss the point has something to do with your poor aim when you take shots?

  705. Minister for Truth says

    I also have a gun licence and have also been trained to use weapons properly, having come through Cadets and National Service, ( and won the Musketry Cup (all weapons) for the Intake.)

    But since then have never really had a need to get a gun, to go with licence…until now.

    So whats changed

    A stupid professional environmental scientist as a near neighbour, and who earns his living telling others what to do, decided to get some pets rabbits to go in the chook run, so the kiddies could learn to care for animals etc. Say aaaarr…. now isnt that nice.

    But guess what..as expected the rabbits burroughed their way out and have now invested the whole district… in numbers. If it had been a normal unknowing bar fly, one wouldnt have minded so much, but when it is a greeny environmental scientist by profession, then there is no hope. They are f’wits of the first order, and not just in climate science, they are also ignorant about trees and wild life in general.

    The other reason is that currawongs, also a pest from elsewhere, have now invested the area and like all currawongs they need the chicks from other species to feed up their own with protein and fodd etc. They are killing all the smaller birds like top knots, red rumps and blue wrens, etc

  706. gavin says

    JW is such a doubting Thomas. Note, I said the home going Bren and ammo setup came from different Army sources.

    For others info, we also had a Vickers machine gun at our Area School that appeared at some general assemblies alongside our teachers and it got regularly outings by school cadets doing rifle practice on the adjacent recreation oval. Being a curious kid I got to see it many times. Btw boys could join cadets at age twelve and a half years (or younger in some places) and quite a few could handle most of the weapons by eight grade including bayonet drill with a dozen or so rifles. The big Bren got to be carried by a select group cause our war vet teacher instructor had suffered a serious hand injury that required his wearing a leather glove all day at school.

    Younger boys formed “anti Communist” school gangs and developed home made weapons, secret forts including some underground, defended by trip wires and so on. Some of mine got canned for possession of offensive devices in class

    Find the extensive online reference under “Cadet Corps 1946-57” in “The Torch and the Sword” by Craig AJ Stockings

  709. Johnathan Wilkes says

    I don’t need to find any online reference.
    Only have to remember that most people have common sense.

    Never have any individual responsible for army or Cadet Corps armory and ammunition would release it to children to take home and play with. End of story.
    You are rambling and talking nonsense as usual.

    If you are talking about pilfered stuff, even that do I find fanciful although just remotely plausible.
    It would have been all over the newspapers, justly so.
    We didn’t have ready access to ammunition in the regular army!

  711. cohenite says

    Geez gav, you lead an interesting life:

    “a bunch of would be warriors from a ninja training camp established near our place kept confronting a bush based young couple at home in the dark while blatantly wielding their automatic weapons .”

    Reminds me of a movie I saw.

    luke;

    “Since 2000 half of the police gunned down in the line of duty were killed by licensed firearm owners.”

    Here is the QLD police honour roll:

    http://www.police.qld.gov.au/aboutUs/commemoration/honour/roll05.htm

    That’s 5 too many but only the 1989 was a legal and after Howard’s 1996 laws banning semi-autos, it too would have been illegal.

    More recently the gun crimes in Sydney have nothing to do with legal gun owners.

  712. gavin says

    After seeking some evidence for cohenite of the official response to that illegal weapons training camp, I’m astonished to find some the intrigue associated with earlier Australian martial arts projects still goes on. Accreditation, business dominance, activity targets, hand weapons choice and dubious public tournaments remain key issues for all recreation admin, state and fed. I say it’s still potential nasty stuff left untreated

  716. debbie says

    From el gordo’s link:

    ‘But Greens leader Christine Milne backed the change, saying Europe had such a stake in the success of its scheme that it would manipulate the market to drive up the carbon price.’

  717. hunter says

    cohenite,
    Are you suggesting that Luke is actually using bogus made up bullship numbers in something besides climate?
    Tell me it ain’t so!

    On another and completely wonderful topic, congratulations are due to Australian climate skeptics for getting your govt. to blink rapidaly and back away from their manifestation of climate insanity, the so-called carbon tax.

  718. kuhnkat says

    Luke,

    You really are working on contentless posts that are all emotion!!

    “““Since 2000 half of the police gunned down in the line of duty were killed by licensed firearm owners.””

    Assuming that you even have valid data, how many of those civilian shootings of police were justified??? WHAT?!?!?! YOU DIDN’T CHECK?!?!?!

    Let me say that I know of many cases here in the US where the police have been completely out of line assaulting the wrong homes and shooting innocent residents. Occasionally they get shot doing this!! Your gross figures are pointless.

  719. gavin says

    kk; we live in a vastly different society where the public is most unlikely to respond to police raids with private firearms

    In general we are not awash with handy weapons. When sieges do occur, our quick response teams are tightly controlled and there is a good chance any nutter’s guns are known by authorities.

    Doubting Thomas; I have given support to SWAT team operations in the form of their communications. My gear usually went with their gear in advance but I had to know a likely scenario in advance planning, system design etc. Yes, it was limited contact with members and bases but I was employed partly because of my vivid imagination.

  722. debbie says

    Gavin,
    Just noticed you made a direct reference to me:

    Deb; hick cultures, urban and rural can generate extremists and by my unfortunate experience both generate too many youthful suicides.

    Hicksville shmickville !!!!!
    You are still attempting to apply a demographic to the issue of teenage suicide and some type of connection to guns.
    Teenage suicide is a tragedy that occurs right accross the board Gavin.
    THAT MEANS AT EVERY SOCIO ECONOMIC LEVEL OR EVERY DEMOGRAPHIC!!!!!
    IT ALSO HAS ZIP TO DO WITH METHOD OR MEANS OF SUICIDE!!!!!!
    Your attempt to pigeonhole it into a some type of socio economic demographic and then also try to connect it to some type of weird hick ‘gun worship culture’ is just silly nonsense.
    Your unfortunate experience?
    While I sincerely empathise with anyone who has been close to a young person who has committed suicide or attempted to commit suicide, your logic here would indicate that you and your family are from a hick culture (whatever you think that is in the first place).
    Not impressed at all Gavin….not one bit.

  723. Minister for Truth says

    I see that the resident blogger nut doesnt believe in the:

    a) proclivity of rabbits to reproduce.

    b) stupidity of people, including practising consultant enviro scientists, to have pet rabbits that escape.

    Me thinks that he has been in that sheltered worksop called the PS too long, and has no connection with reality. But still we already knew that.

    Go Campbell Newman ….give them a good flushing…. its been long over due every where.

  724. Neville says

    What a lot of clueless lying fraudsters these Gillard labor govt ministers are. Just read the comments from Bolt’s update in reference to the reasons we need a floor price as claimed by all these idiots over the last 12 months.

    UPDATE

    It’s a massive tax that kills jobs and hurts business, while transferring billions of dollars from earners to spenders. Yet these clowns just make it up as they go along:

    SECURING a clean-energy future, July 10 last year:

    THE floor is designed to reduce the risk of sharp downward movements in the price, which could undermine long-term investment in clean technologies.
    PM, July 11 last year:

    PM: The price ceiling is $20 more than the international price.

    John Laws: Why?

    PM: Well, we just thought for stability …

    PM, Hansard, September 13 last year:

    THE bill also provides for a price cap and a price floor … This will limit market volatility and reduce risk for businesses …

    Mark Dreyfus, Carbon Expo 2011, November 8 last year:

    FOR those investing in abatement technologies whose value is sensitive to the level of the carbon price, a price floor helps reduce downside risk.

    PM, November 9 last year:

    WELL, we have set a floor and cap so that there can be stability in pricing … because people are making very long-term investments …

    Penny Wong, Hansard, February 28:

    OUR policy does include a price floor which acts as a safety valve for investors in low-emissions technology by establishing a minimum price for the first few years.

    Christine Milne, May 4:

    ESTABLISHING a floor price is critical to certainty, as is sticking by an agreement once it has been delivered.

    Milne, May 8:

    GETTING rid of it would not only be a blow to business certainty but would also potentially blow a hole in the budget.

    Greg Combet, The Australian, July 5:

    WE have legislated a three-year fixed price period. We are committed to the whole package.

    Milne, Radio National Breakfast, July 4:

    IF you allow the volatility that has occurred in Europe, you get kind of chaos in the system.

  725. debbie says

    Christine Milne, May 4:

    ESTABLISHING a floor price is critical to certainty, as is sticking by an agreement once it has been delivered.

    Milne, May 8:

    GETTING rid of it would not only be a blow to business certainty but would also potentially blow a hole in the budget.

    Milne, Radio National Breakfast, July 4:

    IF you allow the volatility that has occurred in Europe, you get kind of chaos in the system.

    Milne, Aug 28:

    Christine Milne backed the change, saying Europe had such a stake in the success of its scheme that it would manipulate the market to drive up the carbon price.’

    Question:
    Why would any business set any benchmark based on anything that Christine Milne says?

  726. Johnathan Wilkes says

    “I was employed partly because of my vivid imagination.”
    As I said before. What can I say?

    You said it all gav.
    I’m only worried about one thing gav, what will happen to this country if, heaven for-fend, should you shuffle off to a better place?

    Looks like no agency or branch of industry could do without you.

  727. gavin says

    Deb; by their comments I judge all commentators here as products of a hick culture somewhere. Adding to that, we should include work, work ethics and so on as a restraining background.

    It is true, I have identified with marginalized groups and individuals in my past including post war migrant families, refugees, single men on run from their personal responsibilities and so on. I my youth I knew tramps, trappers and alcoholics who were unable to move out of the bush. None of these groups had a gun /weapon culture. So we are left with the question of who did?

    I say while moving from using rabbit traps to banning rabbit traps we left a few behind. Gun freaks made a huge impression over a lifetime. None the least they were glorified as hobbies and a contrast to some of my obsessions like collecting tools and instruments. Who has the biggest interest in terms of precision?
    One in law was a muzzle loader!

    One’s obsession Deb is at the core of the other problem

  728. bazza says

    Investment decisions obviously need to take a long term view on carbon price – who would have thought even libertarians would not go for the lesser evil of an eventual controlled move to an international market price. Who would have thought you could comment without referencing your comments to the Treasury modelling which so far has done a good job? Some might have even wondered whether melts in the arctic over the last six years add some urgency, or at least decrease their uncertainty, on the need for a coherent global response? Get on board or the devil take the hindmost.

  729. gavin says

    JW; MY childhood was one great big playground experience so the one thing that worries me now is that I can’t get all the grand kids into compost. I make a good brew but there is no particular formula and everything is negotiable. Can I pass it on in your scheme of things?

    Btw; when Dad finally came home, he drove a Bren Gun Carrier across the state from Barracks to Grandma’s place at night loaded with spare tracks and a motor bike. Dad had moved from Light Horse to Light Tank over the duration. We kept the silly bike but Mum refused to ride in the side car so it had to come off. That’s about the same time I burnt my hand on the muffler so I grew up with a motor bike related grudge.

    Grandma’s farm yard was another story. Besides the old buggy, saddlery, sandstone grinder, various horse drawn implements etc, there was this new machine so everything had to be modified by the boys. An oxy set had to be purchased to cut down excess armour plating on the carrier and much was done to salvage older gear. As the chief witness to the surge in backyard mechanics and on farm improvisation I remain as loyal as ever in this somewhat pedantic enviroment

  730. Luke says

    Minister drones on. So the fluffy little pet bunnies suddenly morphed into Aussie bunny mode did they. Or were they eaten in the first night or two by predators ? Come on.

  731. Debbie says

    An eventual controlled move to an international market price?
    Even libertarians?
    Devil take the hindmost?
    Huh?
    Was that an attempt to answer any questions and/or defend something?

  732. Robert says

    Twenty three-new coal-fired power plants are under construction in Germany. It’s all a bit too subtle for my redneck mind, but it seems this coal renaissance is due to the collapsing price of carbon in Europe. So, collapse away!

    Bloomberg reports:

    ““Lignite is the lowest-priced type of power generation and thus increasingly stormed the market,” Martin Pack, an RWE spokesman, said by phone from Essen, referring to a type of soft coal that dominates RWE’s consumption of the fuel.”

    Psst. By “lignite” and “soft” Martin and Bloomberg mean “brown”.

    As our Green Betters are fond of saying, when praising the green posturings of Goldman Sachs, GE, Virgin, the Oz supermarket duopoly etc:

    Big Business is on board!

  733. Minister for Truth says

    Well according to your theory then there should not be, nor has there ever been a rabbit problem in Australia because the fluffy things would ALL have been gobbled up by predators.

    Get real you moron…easy to see now why Campbell Newman needs to purge the PS in Qld.

  734. Minister for Truth says

    http://www.politicalislam.com/blog/bulletin-of-the-oppression-of-women-july-4-august-27-2012/

    Graham Morris got into serious trouble for referring to Leigh Sales as a cow.. Which of course he should not have said, and he did apologise.

    But lets have some perspective on this.

    The above reference is to the record of the serious mysoginistic behavior of Islamic cultures and their religiously sanctioned serious violence against women world wide …for July and August of this year only.

    Yet we are letting in boat loads of these people knowing little about them or their back grounds and their probability of engaging in these traits in the future…and thereby exposing ourselves to the possibility of behaviour infinitely worse than calling someone names.

  735. Luke says

    Well Minister – you must be the greatest redneck freak in your sorry little district. Perhaps bunnies introduced many years ago at European settlement didn’t look like Mr Fluffy. Somehow I don’t think Mr Cuddle Fluffs would be getting that far. Let’s not worry about licencing guns – let’s licence morons like Minsy.

    And you have to love the frothing “PURGE” – what a violent little turd you are. But hey keep playing to your tea party stereotype.

  736. Luke says

    Hello boys and girls – my name is Angel Rabbit and I like to play with all my friends. (unless they’re Tories, tea party loonies, libertarians or rednecks as logically we wouldn’t be friends)

    http://www.mybunnyfarm.com/doesrabbits/Angelrabbit.jpg

    Here’s a picture of my cousin “rooter feral rabbit” from the bush.

    http://www.i-fink.com/files/article_images/RabbitHunting.gif he needs to protect himself from people with legal and illegal guns. That’s why he can’t show his real face.

  737. Debbie says

    Bazza,
    I missed questioning ‘lesser evil’.
    I guess it matches up with your later reference to the devil?
    So does all this carbon tax/carbon pricing have something to do with evil and getting on board with the devil?
    You also seem to be convinced that an OZ carbon tax will have some mitigating effect on the Arctic?
    As Robert points out, Germany’s latest announcements re coal fired power stations would dwarf any effort on our part.
    Does Germany know something that we don’t know re ETS schemes?
    That would be devilish of them don’t you think?

  738. Robert says

    Poland plans to build another 11,300 MW of new coal-fired capacity by 2020. (That’s five Loy Yang A’s). They’ve had trouble fiddling free carbon permits out of the EU, but a garbage carbon price should see them right. Needless to say, there is also a Polish “target” for “renewables”: a little altar of piety out the back of the brothel.

    Poland probably thinks coal rich countries which don’t exploit their strategic energy position deserve to be called….Australia!

  739. cohenite says

    Combet has been everywhere over the last 2 days extoling the virtues of doing whatever the government is doing with the carbon floor price; this guy is great; he could not lie straight in bed; he and the rest of the criminal empire have been, to use luke’s latest fetish, rabbiting on about how important a floor price is for the last 6 months; the floor price gives stability they say and yet, here we are, with the floor price stuffed, removed, reduced to a level comparable to the combined IQ’s of luke, bazza and gav.

    And through all this Combet, the man parachuted into a safe ALP seat after the former ALP member was stitched up with some dalliance with her chauffeur, continues on his barefaced, merry way:

    http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/rudd-mp-asked-driver-for-sex/story-e6frewt0-1111113477543

    Just think by those standards Thompson will never have another ALP job even if he lives as long as it takes for AGW to take effect, by Flannery’s estimates.

    After taking over Hoare’s safe seat, which is 12 kilometers from the ocean as the crow flies, the first thing Combet does is buy a house by the beach from which he then announces to anyone who will listen, which is most of the MSM, that sea levels are going to rise.

    Not even gav could come up with this crap.

  740. Luke says

    “reduced to a level comparable to the combined IQ’s of luke, bazza and gav.”

    hahahahahahaha – classic sledging

  741. Neville says

    Cohenite the Combet idiot really is the dregs, but he has a lot of mates in the Gillard govt.
    What is it about this group of clueless numbskulls that appeals to 30+% of the electorate?

    Don’t forget the excuse these troppo idiots use for the co2 tax is that “we are taking action on CC or we are tackling CC”.

    Just imagine rolling up at the next election actually voting for ratbags who really believe this delusional nonsense?
    What an embarrassment for Australia. Next time they open their mouths they’ll be telling us that we must become a smarter country. Heard that one from Hawke to Gillard many times over the years, what a sick joke.

  742. Debbie says

    Well that’s a bit devilish of Poland too!
    Luke,
    ever heard of the cliche ‘what goes round comes round’ ?
    I don’t condone sledging, but there truly are occasions when people sort of deserve it.
    Let’s not forget countries like China & India, even though they’re not European.

  743. Johnathan Wilkes says

    Poland has lot of good quality black coal, why shouldn’t they use it?
    Makes good sense to me.

  746. Neville says

    Cohenite if you look at the Smith article called “AWU scandal The mortgage to Blewitt”, he is asking anybody who is expert in Vic law 1993 to get in touch with him. See below.

    Mortgage documents

    If you are expert in the law that prevailed in Victoria during 1993 in relation to credit providers in these circumstances I wonder if you might be so good as to render an opinion with your credentials inluded.

    Perhaps you know such a person?

  748. Robert says

    It’s worth remembering that our biggest coal customer by far is Japan, followed by Korea and Taiwan (which has that whopper Taichung power station). India and China have big reserves of their own, and Vietnam has a heap of the black stuff too.

    In spite of the slowdown caused by the Qld floods, have a look at how this Green Labor government has been abating carbon emissions since 2007.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:AustralianGoodsExports-coal_coke.svg

    Personally, I don’t care how much high quality coal is ripped out of low quality ground. Use it all up before some other technology makes it about as important as candle-tallow.

    But look at that graph of our coal exports since 2007 and tell me that the carbon tax is about the climate. Look me in the eye, and try to keep a straight face. Come on, stop giggling. Straight face, I said!

  749. Neville says

    While I have a lot of respect for my christian friends I think that Dawkins makes a number of good points in this snippet from one of his docos.

    Religion and science is a difficult mix only if religious people believe that the bible or koran etc is the written word of god.
    His interview with the science teachers is very revealing when he challenges their cautiousness about teaching evolution without regard for the pupils religious beliefs.

  750. Robert says

    A correction: I’m a couple of years behind in my facts. China has shot right up the rankings to second place as an importer of Australian coal. Let’s hope they’re burning much more of our stuff and much less of that toxic South China gunk. Ew.

  752. Johnathan Wilkes says

    Neville
    “Religion and science is a difficult mix”

    Very true but you have to remember the origin of this unfortunate mix.

    Only the monks of religious orders were educated enough and had time on their hands to pursue studies of any sort in the early stages.

    It took hundreds of years to disentangle science from religion because religion penetrated every aspect of everyday life.

    One can be a faithful follower of any religion and still be a scientist, provided they can their put faith aside. There are many such good people.

  753. cohenite says

    Hi Neville:

    “Cohenite if you look at the Smith article called “AWU scandal The mortgage to Blewitt”, he is asking anybody who is expert in Vic law 1993 to get in touch with him. See below.”

    I practice in NSW bit I am keeping up to speed on the issues; spoilt for choices really; but I have the feeling this will really gain momentum AFTER the election; although it may bring that election closer.

  754. Neville says

    Hey Gav here’s a brain exercise for you, although it still requires you REAL deniers to conquer your fear of simple kindy maths.

    In 1990 human co2 emissions were 21.6 bn tonnes, (11.6 Oecd and 10 non Oecd) by 2000 that had increased to 23.7 bn tonnes (13.1 OECD and 10.6 non Oecd) and by 2010 that had increased to 31.8 bn tonnes. ( 13 Oecd and 18.8 non OECD)

    The years 2011 and 2012 aren’t officially known as yet, but let’s look at the increase from 2009 to 2010 as a guide.
    That increase was 1.7 bn tonnes, so let’s just use that as a guide. Non OECD emissions of co2 jumped by 1.7 bn tonnes over that period of 1 year.
    Multiply that by 2 to represent the last two unreported years and we have Non OECD emissions of co2 totalling 22.2 bn tonnes by the end of this year 2012.

    That is 0.6 bn tonnes higher than the entire world emitted just 22 years ago in 1990.
    Just to repeat that again if you don’t ( want to) understand, 1990 emissions for the entire world were 21.6 bn tonnes.
    But by the end of 2012 the non OECD could be emitting 21.6 bn tonnes ( perhaps more, perhaps less) on their own. *All those numbers mean emissions per annum of course.

    http://www.eia.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/iedindex3.cfm?tid=90&pid=44&aid=8&cid=CG6,CG5,&syid=1990&eyid=2010&unit=MMTCD

  755. Minister for Truth says

    Its pretty clear that the Gillard Govt is in damage control mode, whilst at the same time making sure it has loaded all the bases with long term funding commitments, so that any incoming govt will find the cupboards empty, and the ability to fund new initiatives of real value very difficult.

    Not bad heh!…. they came into power with a surplus, and will go out leaving behind a debt huge, instability, huge on going commitments as well as many systems of govt that were originally not broken…. now stuffed. eg illegals in boats , mining taxes, carbon taxes, cost of energy,international competitiveness, industrial relations being run by union thugs, union corruption and a compromised judiciary. etc

    Labor at its best ..

  756. Luke says

    DENIERS WAKE ! as it all comes to pass you clowns will have fewer and fewer foxholes to hide in

    “With two weeks or so still to go before the annual minimum is reached, the record for lowest extent of Arctic sea ice has already been obliterated by a huge margin. The only question at this point is how much the ice cover will shrink. Frantic denial of reality by Anthony Watts, Marc Morano, and others has only made it obvious how ridiculous they are — they refuse to face the truth of this astounding consequence of global warming. You can smell their desperation.”

    http://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/08/29/arctic-sea-ice-death-spiral/

  757. kuhnkat says

    Gavin,

    “there is a good chance any nutter’s guns are known by authorities.”

    Please try and post reality and not your imagination. The suggestion was that honest peoples homes and farm owners may be getting attacked and responding. You suggest nutters. These are BOTH plausible, but, if the plod is making a mistake they do not know if their victims are the planned for nutter or honest citizen so they go in shooting on an honest citizen who responds thinking they are being attacked.

    So, you think your plod NEVER make mistakes?? OK, so they are doing it on purpose then? Your choice.

  758. kuhnkat says

    Luke,

    sadly you continue to show your ignorance and inability to think.

    “Somehow I don’t think Mr Cuddle Fluffs would be getting that far. Let’s not worry about licencing guns – let’s licence morons like Minsy.”

    First off aren’t you a believer in evolution?!?!?! How could Mr. Cuddle Fluffs survive with foxes, coyotes, hawks and other predators around if they were so defenceless and easy to snag??

    Ever hear one of those little fluffy things SCREAM?? You would swear a woman was being tortured. (probably being forced to listen to your pointless maunderings on climate science) Ever been bitten or seen anyone bitten by Mr Cuddle Fluffs?

    You are so amazingly ignorant.

  760. Neville says

    Luke it seems that Arctic ocean at depth was much warmer during parts of the last glaciation and 11,000 years ago. That’s 1 to 2c warmer than today.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/29/new-paper-finds-deep-arctic-ocean-from-50000-to-11000-years-ago-was-1-2c-warmer-than-modern-temperatures/#more-70100

    First graph in box is inverse (blue) and second graph is Grip graph from Greenland cores. Published in NATURE this year, see link.
    There’s a hell of a lot we don’t know about our changes in climate it seems. Incredible rises in temp over very short periods during the last glaciation appears on Greenland graph.
    Comparable to the YDryas 11,500 years BP.

    Wonder where those warm intervals came from and so rapid and over such a long period of time?
    Makes 0.7C increase over the last 100+ years after the end of a minor ice age look fairly timid.

  762. Debbie says

    Luke,
    check the language use in your link.
    Overloaded with emotion and hyperbole.

    Even your small cut/paste.
    Obliterated by a huge margin.
    Frantic denial of reality.
    How ridiculous they are.
    Astounding consequence.

    Don’t you find that rather strange?

  763. Robert says

    “With two weeks or so still to go before the annual minimum is reached, the record for lowest extent of Arctic sea ice has already been obliterated by a huge margin.”

    It’s quite true, going by the JAXA graphs I’ve followed for years. Winds and currents may account for some of the dramatic result, but Arctic ice is clearly having a very big bottom-out this minimum.

    However, what kind of scientist, or even intelligent layman, would leave out the words “since 1979”? Such people may claim that the qualification is well understood – yet they are never eager to make that qualification. And who consistently neglects to point out that the ludicrously brief “record” begins after a couple of decades of Arctic cooling and very high ice levels? Someone who doesn’t want to talk about 1817? Or 1922? Late 50s? Smelly old history stuff no fun for Kool Kidz? Mind you, if the Arctic is choked with ice twenty years from now, it will mean as much as the Big Ice of the seventies. It too shall pass.

    A far more important question is why these same people show not the slightest interest in reducing real CO2 emissions in real time. Not one skeric of interest. That’s the real climate mystery.

  764. gavin says

    Luke; your Tamino comment was quite predictable weeks ago. The global ice cover is the most reliable thermometer of all time so I watch it a lot.

    Also predictable was a lot of squawking round skeptic blogs to counter the facts. Robert’s reference to past peaks is part of their ploy. Simple, past measurements don’t rate with today’s especially on a year to year basis.

    kk; you don’t know the people or the place so clown off.

    Looking at the profile of those few weapons available to local plod on a daily basis and the special purpose arsenal locked away for a rainy day I concluded all were designed to deliver a knockout first time round. That is, a target is not meant to respond in any way. The idea is to protect kin, public and the law all at once. Very few mishaps here either way.

  765. debbie says

    So Gavin?
    I’m not sure why you say it is the most reliable thermometer of all time?
    That doesn’t make sense because the Arctic is not a thermometer.

    “The global ice cover is the most reliable thermometer of all time so I watch it a lot.”

    Does that include watching the Antarctic?

  766. bazza says

    Deb admonishes Luke “check the language use in your link”.Seems like we have a self styled webmaster/dominatrix/ standards officer to add to Richard as keeper of the records and sundry others who have an eagle eye for typos etc, for tangential responses and other ways of avoiding the issue.
    DING DONG – the dreaded deb has said, check the language use in your link.
    Not to worry Deb, I can help you respond on message. The higher temps in the Arctic and the melting are probably just one of those pesky coincidences as is the fact that those projectile models forecast more warming at the poles. Then again maybe the Arctic is warming from all those new roads, development and exploration going on – just more evidence of the ubiquitous UHI increasing from three percent of the surface of earth.!

  767. Robert says

    “The global ice cover is the most reliable thermometer of all time so I watch it a lot.”

    Okay, so it’s the most reliable of all time but…

    “Simple, past measurements don’t rate with today’s especially on a year to year basis.”

    So it’s the most reliable of all time since 1979? And only Arctic ice is reliable, since Antarctic ice (90% of all ice) has been running above the post-1979 mean for some years?

    Really, guys, the MWP was real and huge. The Roman and Minoan warmings were real. Greenland was settled and cultivated. The Arctic has been accessible and then inaccessible right through history to recent times.

    The past is real, history is real. Why is it that those who deny the past are the ones with most certainty about the future? What is it about history that makes our New Puritans so uneasy?

  768. Luke says

    Look at the deniers bleat – no solar driver ! It’s GHGs and it’s on.

    But I forgot the ultimate deniers’ excuse “Oh well it might be happening but it’s not really happening”. Makes sense.

  769. toby says

    Robert, you are wasting your time, model trumps reality everyday of the week. The fools have really made fools of themselves over the last few weeks and a bit of reflection might go a long way. Then again thats unlikely, everybody seems to be rusted to their position and anything that doest fit the paradigm is discarded as junk science/ politics/ self interest/ tea party. I am not saying I am not guilty of this but i try to at least consider the other side….its just to me it seems that the “emperor has no clothes.”

  771. Robert says

    bazza, I’m not sure who Richard is, but I assure you nobody has a prob with the odd typo. The problem is with high-flown and pretentious language that often lapses into incomprehensibility. If you gave more attention to your meaning and concerned yourself less with ham-fisted irony, I’m sure you could form a sentence of two. Courage, lad.

  772. debbie says

    Gee whiz Bazza,
    It seriously looks like you’re losing the plot.
    The ill will you obviously harbour is seeping all over this blog.
    Once again you’re leaping all over any comment you don’t like as some sort of proof that these people have a ‘Bazza diagnosed’ intellectual or personality disorder.
    What are you therefore?
    Some sort of self styled psycho analyst/webmaster/ standards officer to add to Lance’s keeper of all ‘serious’ and watcher of special tea drinking conventions links and sundry others who can’t stop attacking the messengers?
    Chuckle.

  774. Johnathan Wilkes says

    ” Early Greenland agriculture hardly larger than today hey”

    Population numbers taken into account of course, not to mention that we know exactly how much of the land was under agriculture at that time.
    Glad someone knows all this. Takes a lot of pressure off.

  775. Debbie says

    Oh well it’s happening but it’s not really happening?
    You are totally correct Luke,
    That doesn’t make sense and I can’t see where anybody (apart from you) has said that.
    The 2 areas of disagreement are:
    a) What is/are the key driver/s of our ever changing weather/climate and
    b) Can we/should we try to stop the climate from changing in a particular percieved direction.

    No one is pretending that:
    a) the climate doesn’t change or
    b) that human activity doesn’t influence/ alter local environment sometimes negatively, sometimes positively.

  777. bazza says

    There is another driver , Deb. It is not just the evidence but your perception of it. Farmers costs will increase by a not insignificant amount from a carbon tax. For Australian farms, GHG emissions/farm are probably about 100 times the global average/person. So even some small recognition of the inequity of it all would be a driver to think about what is fair and what is the chance that you are wrong and all those scientists are pretty much right. The usual driver of certainty in these matters is an extreme intolerance for ambiguity. As Yeats said “ the best lack all conviction, but the worst are full of passionate intensity”. He could have been on about scientists v denialists. Scientists live with uncertainty – they have to wait about till their last paper gets knocked from its perch!

  778. cohenite says

    SD, that is correct; GRACE was bedevilled with a major problem when it first was employed; that problem was GIA, glacial isostatic adjustment; simply put this is vertical movement in the bedrock due to the weight of the ice; initial use of GRACE showed a decline in the height of the ice being measured and it was assumed that this was due to there being less ice; in fact it was due to more ice compressing the underlying bedrock.

    The problems seem to have been rectified and water loss from the ice sheets have either been trend stationary in the Antarctica:

    http://rses.anu.edu.au/geodynamics/tregoning/36.pdf

    Or greatly reduced elsewhere:

    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v482/n7386/full/nature10847.html

  779. gavin says

    SD; on GRACE re my previous post I went here first.

    “Dynamic Ocean Topographies have been generated using ESA’s GOCE data, alone or in combination with GRACE”

    http://grace.jpl.nasa.gov/news/index.cfm?FuseAction=ShowNews&NewsID=14

    “New GRACE/GOCE GOCO02S geoid is superior to EGM08 for Arctic circulation studies”

    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2012/2011GL050052.shtml

    “The apparent sea level slope problem in Australia is solved”

    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2012/2012JC007974.shtml

  780. gavin says

    Well, well cohenite; re your Nature link, what do we make of this?

    “The total contribution to sea level rise from all ice-covered regions is thus 1.48 ± 0.26 mm −1, which agrees well with independent estimates of sea level rise originating from land ice loss and other terrestrial sources6.”

  781. debbie says

    No Bazza,
    Scientists are just people who study science.
    They are mostly employed and do their best to fulfil their job descriptions and the ‘terms of reference’ that guide their papers and their research.
    No better or no different to other employed professional people.
    I have many friends and acquaintances who are scientists…and I like and respect all of them.
    You are highlighting what Walter starck calls ‘academic pising contests’ and the fact that scientists actually enjoy arguing with each other.
    You seem to be confusing the definition of ‘science’ with ‘scientists’ and you seem to think that these employed professional people have some type of special crystal ball?
    re your Australian farms example.
    Have you also considered a simple table that would look at consumption vs production and productivity/ha etc
    Just from our average rice crop each year in this area (MIA), we feed 23 million people every day every year.
    Do the sums Bazza….average tonnage here is 960,000 tonnes. Figure out how many people 1kg of rice feeds each day (really, really big hint….WHO figs say 4 people)
    Add in our other cereal crops, fruit and veg and our stock programs and that number goes way up.
    Our current prime minister and our current Ag minister are both extolling the virtues of Australia becoming the food bowl of Asia.
    Has it possibly occured to you that people like me actually produce more in one year than our whole extended family could ever consume in multiple lifetimes?
    Hubby and I are also directly responsible for personally planting over 100,000 trees.
    So of course we emit more than the global average/person….. LIKE DUH!!!!
    That’s because we PRODUCE way more than the average person….and actually… we produce way more than the average farmer as well.
    However Bazza, how much does the average gobal person produce in comparison to what they consume?
    If Australian Agriculture, which is one of the LEAST SUBSIDISED and most efficient in the world gets priced out by a carbon tax…..who is going to fulfil Gillard and Ludwig’s ideas about Australia being Asia’s major food & fibre supplier?
    What would be the good and noble outcome and what grand challenge would that be solving?
    But Bazza,
    Thanks for leaving out the sneers for a change….can you also try leaving out the literary quotes?….they don’t really have anything to do with the statistics or the science.

  782. cohenite says

    gav, it also says this:

    “The GIC rate for 2003–2010 is about 30 per cent smaller than the previous mass balance estimate that most closely matches our study period. The high mountains of Asia, in particular, show a mass loss of only 4 ± 20 Gt yr−1 for 2003–2010, compared with 47–55 Gt yr−1 in previously published estimates”

    Just stick to being anecdotal and leave the facts to luke and bazza; ha, ha, luke and bazza, facts, ha, ha.

  783. Robert says

    Like the most primitive of Puritans, our Green Betters see human betterment as sin. You cannot dissuade them from the simplistic notion of wilful humans seated at a console, pulling levers and pushing buttons – variously called aerosols, CFCs, GHGs – and defying angry nature. Those who agree with them are “scientists”. As for the heretics and all those productive, small business types…well, for now they can be the butt of tea jokes. (The corporations, of course, are on board!)

    When Yeats wrote The Second Coming after WW1 he referred to a period where intellectuals and experts were carving up Europe and much of the rest of the world guided by a mess of revolutionary idealism, potty theory and ancient spite. And, I’m sorry to say, this is just the spirit that comes through in bazza’s last comment. Truly, the worst are full of passionate intensity. And what ferocious snobs they are!

  784. spangled drongo says

    cohers, thanks for those links. gav likes to believe the satellites except when they tell him that the earth hasn’t warmed for 15 years.

  785. gavin says

    What is “4 ± 20 Gt yr−1″ actually this telling us?

    Also, how much ice loss is this?

    “The total contribution to sea level rise from all ice-covered regions is thus 1.48 ± 0.26 mm −1”

    Next; tell us why some bloggers are focused on cooling?

  786. debbie says

    Out of interest, Hubby and I just figured out how many we feed every day, year in and year out (when we are not in drought of course), from our own humble rice farming operation:
    We produce 2,000 tonnes on average…..wanna do the sums Bazza?….that’s 2,000,000 kilos and the figs say 1 kilo feeds 4 people a day.
    Of course, rice is only ONE of the crops we grow…..and our winter cereal tonnage equals our summer cereal tonnage.
    However….rice conversion per kilo is higher than most….probably why it’s considered a world staple?
    But apparently we can aslo be portrayed as evil, way over the global average/person emitters of GHGs?
    Must depend on what you think is important I guess?
    Or from Bazza’s perspective there is apparently something to do with ‘right’ vs ‘wrong’ and also something about being fair and dealing with inequities?
    Also Bazza,
    Despite your concept of who’s right and who’s wrong….the science is clearly not settled….which doesn’t mean it is either right or wrong…..what it means is that we only know part of the climate story. As a farmer I soooooo wish we did know more.
    My objection has never changed.
    The good work of nice people has been inappropriately hijacked by the politics.
    It is all being used to justify one AND ONLY ONE course of action….which is a political outcome and virtually nothing to do with science at all.
    And finally Bazza,
    Uncertainties?
    Life is full of those….and farmers tend to deal with more than most….and we mostly don’t mind.
    Can you guess what is the MOST annoying of all the uncertainties we deal with? ????

  787. cohenite says

    gav says despite good advice:

    “The total contribution to sea level rise from all ice-covered regions is thus 1.48 ± 0.26 mm −1″

    Ok, now add the modelled steric increase due to expansion of warming water and compare that with the rate of increase needed to reach even the bottom of the IPCC’s sea level range this century; and compare it with the rate over the last century; and what do you get gav; an old coot spluttering his outrage.

  788. cohenite says

    Good on you Deb; I’m afraid the inner city nitwits backing AGW will only change what goes for their minds when the food runs out and the lights go off.

  789. Farmer Doug 2 says

    Bit woried about this fixation on ice melt, global temperature increase/decrease, sea level….thats climate change. If its up I still won’t believe it has anything to do with GHGs or worry about it “tipping over”.
    Doug

  792. gavin says

    We, those with climate science tucked up their sleeve, are going to blow you sceptics out of the water. Warm? Of course!

    Simply, from all modern measurements, as CO2 goes up, ice goes down and sea level rises. Checkout Barrow in Alaska or any other Arctic station.

  794. Debbie says

    Luke?
    What on earth do you think the rabbet link proves?
    Maybe, along with the rest of us mere mortals, Watts is fallible and he doesn’t have all the answers?
    What a surprise!.

  797. Johnathan Wilkes says

    classic Luke?

    I did not read WUWT on this, but I’ve read your link.
    Sorry can’t share your joy at all.

  798. bazza says

    Debbie, I made no value judgements about your worth as a farmer. I stuck to facts. You dont have to justify your productivity or feel guilty. But some other Australian firms that are highly productive and have high emissions take risk management seriously and recognise that their short term profits run a risk of imposing a cost on others, now and in future. Do you?

  799. Debbie says

    What facts Bazza?
    All you stated was an average emission figure/person.
    The rest was about perceptions and fairness and a literary quote from Yeats.
    What cost do you think Australian agriculture imposts on others Bazza?
    Which others?

  800. gavin says

    JW; it was clear to me way back especially after his RL lecture tour downunder, your Wattsy has not done any practical air temp measurements. In such a frigid environment as Antarctica, one could hang a thermometer two inches outside the hut wall and get an accurate reading 95% of the time. The other 5% needs a few rotations when the wind stops.

  801. spangled drongo says

    So gav, you don’t think human infrastructure on this planet where co-incidently thermometers just happen to be placed has any bearing on the temp? You don’t think that communities in the frozen zones where central heating pipes run over the surface because they can’t be buried makes any difference to temperatures? You don’t think AW has a valid point?

    Tell me your’re not that stupid.

  805. Neville says

    Alan Moran has a column in th Fin review that completely blows apart our idiot govt’s co2 pricing.

    We’ll be sending Europe a billion dollars a year for hot air for a zero return and it will lead to a loss of jobs and industry overseas.
    The budget will be shot to pieces and these loonies are supposed to have a target of 80% reduction of emissions by 2050.

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/we_pay_europe_1_billion_to_prove_were_carbon_mad/#commentsmore

    This is the most obvious con and super fraud in our history yet the msm will not look at the central issue of non OECD soaring co2 emissions and near flatlining OECD emissions.
    Why not?

  806. Neville says

    That new study that KK linked to is lead by Jennifer’s Norwegian friend Ole Humlum of Climate 4 you.
    It seems to bolster some of Spencer and Salby’s work carried out over the last couple of years.
    If true it still begs the question if not fossil fuels where does that extra co2 come from ( or why now) or have we been measuring co2 in ice cores the wrong way?

  807. Dave Shorter says

    I’m having trouble understanding the point you are trying to make to Debbie, Bazza.
    The vibe I get is that Bazza knows what farmers should be doing (as distinct from what we are doing) but is having trouble revealing his enlightenment to us.
    Debbie has three degrees and feeds 22,000people per year from rice alone and can’t understand you.If you want to save the river or the planet from people like us you will have to do better at making us understand.

  808. toby says

    Deb, I for one am grateful for our highly productive farmers, and in particular the ones not being run by conglomerates, you should be celebrated not denigrated. if these idiotic green thinkers have their way we will mine nothing, grow nothing, but still be expected to provide the best welfare services in the world. Im not sure why you engage with him, it gets my blood pressure up just reading his posts. Although he does at least make me thinks sometimes , so i continue to read his posts. But engage only when it suits you, cos he sure as hell only engages when it suits him!

  809. Neville says

    Toby the one question they will never , ever engage in is the Bolt question. Even Juliar runs away and hides when it is asked, although she still calls it the Bolt qustion.

    I’ve asked it here for years but just get abuse from Luke , while Gav and Bazza just stick their heads in the sand. Definitely not nice to look at. Flannery after much pressure from Bolt at least capitulated and told the truth. (as he saw it).

  810. Robert says

    Deb is in the position of not having the resources to pay consultants and PR people to come up with climate “policies” and “solutions” tailored to her company. Corporations do this sort of thing all the time, to defend their positions against government regulators and other businesses. It’s a huge part of what they do, and they have standard reactions and approaches, as well as millions set aside for legal and tax-deductible bribes.

    The policies and solutions will be mostly spin and claptrap, but a well paid “independent” consultant and some political donations work wonders. The consultant will report that the corporation is very serious about achieving desirable “goals”, and, though more will have to be done, progress is excellent. Government will always be keen to announce that “business is on board”, and leftist government is especially drawn to corporate business, which it sees as a kind of efficient version of leftist government.

    In the end, we need Deb’s rice. And if you think Aussie farmers are copping help and subsidies, just look north, east and west to a rather large area known as “the rest of the bloody world”.

  811. toby says

    http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/breaking-news/food-prices-soared-10-in-july-world-bank/story-e6freuz9-1226462111540

    the story starts by saying drought in the USA and eastern europe has reduced output, which some of course would blame on CAGW. But the article goes on to discuss the problem biofuel is having on prices because in the USA 40% of corn is now diverted for biofuel and as the price of corn is forced higher, wheat becomes a subsititute for corn as a feed stock, also driving up prices.

    so our futile attempts to control the climate are doing real damage to poor in the world. Yet another example of humans “trying to do the right thing” but stuffing it up, and failing to consider real costs and benefits over tokenism and platitudes.

    truly lunatics are in charge of the asylum.

  813. bazza says

    Deb, I was impressed by your tree planting effort. As you stated “Hubby and I are also directly responsible for personally planting over 100,000 trees. So of course we emit more than the global average/person….. LIKE DUH!!!!”. But the facts being non judgemental are agriculture is a major emitter of GHG and is exempt from the carbon tax. There are sound policy reasons for this, but that does not alter the equity implications or avoid thinking about future policies. Now it could well be that instead of the rest of the community carrying more of the burden of reaching the 2020 emissions targets, your trees put you on the plus side of the ledger. The sequestration from the trees might well outweigh the emissions from your rice paddocks, livestock etc. – have you done a carbon audit?
    Note that nothing I have said has in any way denigrated agriculture or your efforts in feeding thousands. I am not a greenie. I also recognise the major contribution agriculture has made to Australias development – more recently in particular to emissions reduction through the tree clearing saga and the possible benefits it might get from the Carbon Farming Initiative . And I am well aware of the difficulties in measuring emissions in many industries. So that would be a good carbon champion story if the trees were sequestering more than the rest of the farm was emitting and there was no externality issue.

  815. gavin says

    SD: “Tell me your’re not that stupid”

    No but AW probably is, cause it’s near impossible to to measure surface temperature with a air thermometer. Going the other way, it’s hard to find a difference of 2C across a circulating atmospheric environment, in side or out and to do so requires a standard air speed across the sensor at all the check points.

    Have a sling so can demo anytime.

  816. Dave Shorter says

    Deary me Bazza,
    If you think farmers should do carbon audits or that livestock emissions have anything to do with climate change you’ll do me for a greenie…..Or have you stumbled upon our dark little secret? We’ve been feeding our sheep and cows fossil fuels!!!!

  817. bazza says

    Dreary Dave, there is nothing left for you but to become a conscientous objector and stop paying those levies to fund R&D, for example “Meat and Livestock Australia is coordinating a national collaborative research program to develop practical options to reduce greenhouse gas emissions while increasing productivity so that individual producers and the industry can meet the challenges of new climate change policies.”

  818. spangled drongo says

    So gav, you say measuring temperature 1.5m off the ground in heated communities in frigid environments won’t affect the reading?

    And AW is stupid and you’re not?

    You would need to put more than your thermometer in that sling to get you out of this one.

  819. Dave Shorter says

    Conscientous objector sounds fine to me Baz,so long as I don’t go to gaol.
    Nobody in their right mind wants good money wasted seeking non solutions to non problems….Unless of course they have something to gain from it.
    It’s only a rort if you’re not in it!

  820. gavin says

    SD; 1) in moving air, no. 2) yes.3) I have the right set up ready and waiting. It compares well with others I have used in a fair variety of air conditioning situations like deep freeze and boiler house. Given both could occur on one site, ambient could be tricky but that is what I got paid for.

  821. spangled drongo says

    Get into the real world gav, stop applying your own conditions, stop wriggling and answer the question.

  823. debbie says

    But Bazza,
    If I did as you advise, I would be telling a porky and attempting to rort the tax payer.
    As you point out…. I’m more than likely carbon neutral (as far as that means anything)….so why is it necessary for me (and many, many, many, many others like me) to waste time and effort on doing a ‘carbon audit’?
    Why do we need to prove we’re not doing what we’re not doing?
    What would that add to your idea of fairness and equity? What problem would it solve? What goal would it achieve? Why do you think it’s important? Where’s the CBA for that?
    While stunned that the only thing that you have been interested in (actually IMPRESSED) is that we have planted a lot of trees ….we didn’t plant them because of carbon and we didn’t plant them because of any govt subsidised initiative.
    We planted them because it was the right thing to do.
    You are possibly unaware, but farmers in this area were forced by Govt policy to completely clear their land and they all knew it was a stupid thing to do…..like really really stupid!
    However, if they didn’t, they lost land, lost water entitlement, got fined and also had their crop payments docked….by…. guess who?
    On one of our properties, our grandfather flatly refused to remove beautiful old box trees on a lowland area because it was completely ridiculous and he knew it. He actually lost water entitlement and was heavily fined but could not bring himself to clear that area, which was an ephemeral haven for many wetland species and native birds….. that area still survives today…no thanks to govt policy.
    Today….farmers are being admonished for clearing their land….by the same depts and similar suspects that forced them to clear it in the first place.
    I agree with Dave and Robert….if I did a carbon audit and told the story (porky) that you are advising me to do….I would actually be rorting the tax payer. I have no interest or need to do that ….despite you and Luke accusing me of doing so not all that long ago…somehow connected (in your minds) to me being an AGW ‘victim’.
    I also sincerely hope that there is not too much of our R&D money going towards : ” a national collaborative research program to develop practical options to reduce greenhouse gas emissions while increasing productivity so that individual producers and the industry can meet the challenges of new climate change policies.”
    I suspect that the ‘tax payer’ is funding that one too…. don’t you?
    They have a lot more important things to focus on than GHG emissions from livestock….but like other organisations….they’ll take the funding if they can swing it….go back and read Robert’s post with a bit of an open mind and you may understand this point just a little better.
    Is that the ‘risk management’ you were referring to Bazza?
    Cilmate Change Policy??????
    Because the biggest risk we do face here at the moment is the very, very poor implementation of highly impractical, politically based policy.
    It is far more annoying, volatile and stressful than climate, weather and markets.

    I will give you one thing…..you are completely focused and persistent….more commonly known as a ‘one trick pony’.
    Why is that Bazza? Does it have something to do with your livelihood?
    It’s seemingly all about AGW and GHGs for you….linked directly to outdated stat modelling that is not standing up to the test of real time data….wiggles and all.
    You have apparently bought the sales pitch that:
    ‘climate change is the greatest moral challenge of our time’….lock, stock and barrel.
    Silly, silly electorate….after the last election, they largely bought that other sales pitch:
    ‘there will be no carbon tax under a government that I lead”.

  824. gavin says

    SD; I will go against the grain in this post and recommend all readers have a read at WUWT on this sub by Lance Wallace. Imo it’s a fair attempt to outline the pitfalls of past max/min data and obtaining the global mean from it.

    “Errors in Estimating Temperatures Using the Average of Tmax and Tmin—Analysis of the USCRN Temperature Stations”

    I don’t agree with Lance on method or conclusion but I probably can’t agree with anyone else doing it either first hand with only stats as support. We don’t know enough about individual station instrument error from m/m data to do any hindsight re calibrations. Finding a few bad ones would help find the mean but bouncing them via Lance alone won’t do.

    What we get before Lance, is unknowns about half a degree C +/- But they probably include at least that much instrument error with reference to 0 C and similar for max and min. The error sign could have been determined once upon a time and quite easily by the monitor simply reading both sides of the U tube at any temp in between max/min. But do we even know what U tube or other types of met thermometers were actually employed though?

    We should confer with Agriculturalists for their assessment of the critical mean long term

  825. spangled drongo says

    Thanks for that ultimate denial gav.

    That there is no chance that this heated community in a frozen environment would ever register any warming on a local thermometer.

    And that these few thermometers in these few situations are extrapolated out to cover a disproportionate area of the globe and give heavily weighted, exagerrated warming.

  826. spangled drongo says

    Yes, I’ve always felt that Tmean should never be Tmax plus Tmin/2 but that is how the old data is and should not be discarded.

    The best argument for changing the system is that a min or a max can be a very short time, unrepresentative trough or peak of the day’s temperature.

    But getting back to much more relevant thermometer problems, please see prior comment.

  827. John Sayers says

    It’s not about TMax TMin TMean

    it about the fact that the area we are dealing with is 1C wide!

    It’s wiggle stuff as Luke would say.

    It’s no longer worth discussion.

  828. Johnathan Wilkes says

    ” I will go against the grain in this post and recommend all readers have a read at WUWT”

    This sort of stupid comment really irritates me.
    AW puts up all sort of subject from sceptics as well as believers.

    I have no problem visiting RC or any other warmist site, not all what they say is wrong or rubbish, so why avoid it?

    It just clearly shows the blinkered-closed mind of some people.
    What’s even worse, they argue as it they actually knew something.
    I’m sure, in their mind the believe it too.

  829. Luke says

    Jeez Debs – I had to get a coffee and a donut to read your latest post. But I did. Debs look Bazza is independently wealthy – old Victorian gold money, good family etc – he’s writing a novel and only comes here for some relaxation. He now lives on Ephraim Island.

  832. gavin says

    SD; Lets be the most easy target of all with this leg up for your side, a NASA linked Doc on Wiley that covers UHI research at Barrow. This abstract is good enough to sink my arguments in one, however I make two points, wind speed and to a lesser extent humidity has to be a standard for proper comparison between data sets. Also Barrow is not Antarctica with it’s mass of ice.

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/joc.971/abstract

  834. Debbie says

    No Cohenite,
    Probably the subplot or the comic relief.
    Or maybe the suspension of disbelief?

  838. Debbie says

    1st day of Spring and we had the biggest frost this season.
    It even froze the water lines.
    Thermometers don’t say it was the coldest morning though.
    Neither do my cheeks.
    Of course it’s just weather.
    Who would have thunk?

  841. Neville says

    As we should understand by now the mitigation of AGW is a total fraud and con. But part of that equation is the adoption of useless solar and wind that saves virtually zero emissions and costs heaps of our now borrowed money.

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/towering_stupidity/#commentsmore

    There is no excuse for this waste of money for a zero return and purchasing dubious carbon credits from the disastrous EU wastland.
    Simple kindy maths proves this fraud is the most easily understood con of the last one hundred years and yet our stupid pollies will keep flushing billions down the toilet for decades into the future.
    And zero change to the temp or climate ever.

  842. Luke says

    While whiney little dweebs like Neville scurry around the blogs we’ll just keep adding up the toll. How many times can he yell fraud. Anyway must be time for morning tea at the nursing home soon.

    Historical records of precipitation, streamflow and drought indices all show increased aridity since 1950 over many land areas1, 2. Analyses of model-simulated soil moisture3, 4, drought indices1, 5, 6 and precipitation-minus-evaporation7 suggest increased risk of drought in the twenty-first century. http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1633.html

    Yes Debs – small things amuse small minds. 3 degrees too eh? mmmmmm Try not to slum it by lurking around disinformation sites Debs – and if you do pls try to be anonymouse and not squeak.

  843. gavin says

    Nev; you guys (SD included) must eventually decide what is being measured with each new post at WUWT.

    The old weather data isn’t necessarily going out of the climate business based on fresh UHI attacks. Weather data is the only good guide to atmospheric conditions in the post industrialization erea, and the critical account of CO2, AGW etc.

    Back to SD’s latest link; arctic stations don’t measure urban development when we consider air, water and ice. You can’t relate to current sea ice shrinkage via these recent local UHI studies.

  844. debbie says

    Yes I know Luke,
    It’s all so complicated and difficult. 🙂 🙂
    Us small minded, ignorant, uncaring mere mortals just don’t understaaaaaand how impooooooortant this all is….and why we must be continually subjected to these ever increasing PR publicised ‘academic pissing contests’ .

    It’s going to take soooooo much money and huuuuuuge radical ‘transformation’ of industry to ‘fix it’.
    The political otcome is already decided.
    But that will be after the science can be finally ‘settled’.
    Chuckle.

  845. Neville says

    Geeezzzz I suppose even if you feel like crying after reading Luke’s lastest delusional silly nonsense it’s still best to laugh at him.

    Look Luke if you feel that concerned why not do a tour of China, india etc ( the really big emitters) and loudly express that concern. Oh and take Gav and bazza with you, I’m sure you’ll get a most considerate and sympathetic response. NOT.

    Failing that just tell us how you can fix the problem. Don’t forget Flannery’s quote and China India etc now emitting the same co2 as every country emitted just 22 years ago.

    Come on mr jellyback tell us how the planet can return to 1990 co2 emissions.

  846. Robert says

    Australia’s great “aridity” ended, of course, around 1950. The Fed drought was terrible because there was no substantial recovery in many areas, just improvement, for half a century. The 50s brought back the 1890s, but it should be remembered that by the late 50s there was overall deficit again till the wetter, cooler seventies. Since that period, we’ve had numerous severe droughts: the very sharp drought of the early eighties, bad dry patches in the 90s, and the long Millennium Drought. Just for the moment, we happen to be okay!

    Like that famous Arctic ice level, we tend to judge “normal” by the 1970s. Big mistake. Just as there were Arctic ice scares till the late fifties, drought was master in Australia for most of the last century. Models are hogwash for reasons that ought to be obvious to an aphid, but they are right when they predict drought, at least in this part of the world. Australia will only escape drought by not being Australia.

    Humanity has experienced mega-droughts, civilisation enders, worse than recent disasters. These multi-decadal droughts have occurred through history, before the Industrial Revolution, and will occur again. So what can Australia do? It can believe that it can manipulate climate through taxation or pretending not to burn coal (while burning coal wastefully and exporting it desperately.)

    Alternatively, Australia can grow food during those La Nina phases which often bring rain to us and drought to others on the other side of the world. For that, we might need Deb and her hubby – at full production!

  847. Luke says

    Multi-decadal megadroughts wiped out whole civilisations and gave early humanity a brush with extinction.

    I just love Neville’s putrid stupidity – it’s the same as telling your oncologist that they’re ugly and they don’t have an easy solution when you’ve been diagnosed. Just because it’s a grand challenge problem to de-carbonise our energy production system doesn’t make the problem go away numb nuts. Are you really that stupid. Yes you are. What did you get for morning tea at the home today?

    Many of our capital cities did go close to running out of water. But luckily they didn’t – just.

    The only reason you are OK Robert are water storages, low population density, transport and substitution. That can work up to a point. Up to a point. Wait till 6B gets to 9B humans. What can Australia do – start the journey to a global solution. Being with Europe – and getting the US, India and China in is the point.

    Debbie – really you’re just a non-science denier pretending to be interested. Just another bushie bullshit artist. What were the 3 degrees in Debs – home ec and tapestry.

  848. Robert says

    “The only reason you are OK Robert are water storages, low population density, transport and substitution.”

    Not sure what substitution is, but I’m certainly okay with my water tank and two legs. Population density in my valley has gone up by about two people in the last decade.

    So much for me, and my bamboo forest, and my hyper-negative carbon print.

    As for “we”: mass nutrition, control of disease, vastly longer life expectancy etc will indeed increase population by extending that annoying thing called “other people’s lives”. The way to balance that is to create a global middle class. They’re the Kath-and-Kim people looked down on by clever people who read Fairfax and watch the ABC. They breed more than clever people, but far, far less than desperate people who have no electricity.

  849. bazza says

    Deb, sorry to disappoint you on your guess based on my guess “I’m more than likely carbon neutral”. I thought you might have done the sums as a risk manager given your industry has helpful guides and given possible future changes in the emissions law. The rice industry has obviously had a bit of a go, well it did make a start years ago and claimed to be the first with a greenhouse reduction strategy. Not surprising given the exceptional emissions from rice! But I could find nothing much on GHG emissions from rice to know what it is that is being reduced – a bit like when Alice asked the cat for direction and the cat say where do you want to go? Alice says she doesn’t know – the cat says then it doesn’t matter. So given the rest of the community is carrying the burden of reducing GHG, the industry claim of being unsubsidised may well be a wee bit rich. I recognise the rice industry has made great gains in productivity if you exclude emissions reduction. Given the GHG rice story globally if I was in a rice growers gum boots, I might have even thought denial was a soft option.?
    And I have not even mentioned the windfall gain in land value your grandfather got when the water arrived courtesy of the taxpayers of the day paying for the headworks. Note I have not said anything about whether the subsidies are warranted. But your claim you are unsubsidised needs to accountable. Show us for whom the belle trolls.
    No man is an island.

  850. Robert says

    A compromise:

    Deb brings her carbon footprint back to match bazza’s.

    Bazza grows enough food annually to feed 8 million people for a day. (Plus winter cereals.)

  852. Debbie says

    God no Robert!
    Been there, done that.
    I would be bored to tears!
    I am probably going to sincerely regret this but. . . Bazza?
    Go back to the beginning of the thread and you may discover we have already had this conversation.
    However, on your latest comment.
    To what should I be held accountable, for what should I be held accountable & to whom should I be held accountable? And maybe why is it sooooooo important to hold me (or people like me) accountable?
    And Luke,
    little hint.
    I hate sewing, tapestry, knitting, craft etc.
    NEVER

  853. spangled drongo says

    Debbie, you have to be made to understand that the benefits from this country just cannot be allowed to go to the workers and producers that feed and clothe the world with their blood, sweat and tears. Only to those that nobly suckle at the public breast. Plus those drop-ins that aspire to do likewise in big gulps.

    Our ABC have been showing their usual balance by praising with faint damnation Clint Eastwoods unscripted speech at the RNC that was received with great enjoyment.

  855. toby says

    Deb, “Just another bushie bullshit artist.” such a way with words

    much better than your average run of the mill bullshit artist…you know the sort who thinks there is value in statements such as “Meat and Livestock Australia is coordinating a national collaborative research program to develop practical options to reduce greenhouse gas emissions while increasing productivity so that individual producers and the industry can meet the challenges of new climate change policies.” so much money pissed up the wall on yet another platitude

    and the bullshit doesnt stop…carbon audits.

    Deb I reckon I would happily sit down and talk bullshit with you, “some” of these other type of bullshitters, I cant imagine it remaining civil for long.

  856. John Sayers says

    SD – Romney had a wonderful line in his speech:

    President Obama promised to begin to slow the rise of the
    oceans.
    (LAUGHTER)
    And to heal the planet. My promise is to help you and your
    family.
    (APPLAUSE)

  857. bazza says

    Deb, if you want to claim you or your industry are not subsidised then prove it rather than blather on with self serving guesses. And Robert, it is not in discussion about whether a subsidy is justified, and my C footprint – I made no claims.

  858. Neville says

    Sorry Luke but you really should feel embarrassed for the silly rubbish you’ve just sprouted.
    We know there were centuries of drought conditions in the USA west and very severe rainfall in east Australia at the same time.

    NOAA’s recon of the PDO shows this, as does De Deckker and just last week a new CSIRO study showed much wetter conditions in east OZ 1000 years ago than today. Also in MDBA.

    But the NOAA recons then shows 150 years of much more rainfall in USA west and opposite of course in east OZ.

    To state that we should de-carbonise because we may change the climate to some more favourable condition like the extremes of climate shown above is bizarre.

    You’ve just proved beyond doubt that you haven’t got a clue and would probably believe just about anything.

    Even silly Flannery stated that if the entire world stopped emitting co2 today wee wouldn’t see a change for hundreds of years, perhaps a thousand years.

  859. Debbie says

    Baz,
    while noting you have once again failed to answer any questions. . . . .
    please direct me to where I have claimed that I and my Industry are not subsidised.
    Because if I did claim that then you are right, I would need to prove it. If I did claim that, I need to correct it.
    I believe I did say something about one of the LEAST subsidised in comparison to the rest of the world. I’m happy to prove that one if you need me to?
    Also Baz, why is it OK to make claims about my C footprint but then excuse yours?
    Just asking.

  860. Debbie says

    Luke,
    If you want to fulfil your brief and get lines of text and tip this thread over 1000 you will have to do better than that. At the moment Bazza is doing a much better job.
    Which is a bit of a shame because you at least have a sense of humour.

  861. spangled drongo says

    Well John, ya gotta admit that he did slow the rise in SLs. Or somebody did. Or maybe it just wasn’t rising anyway.

    But maybe SLR correlates more with personal incomes than ACO2.

    Cos he sure slowed the rise in personal incomes.

    And I know those 100 lph booze cruisers cause SLR.

  862. Luke says

    Moronic Toby – but what would we expect from a rank drip. Less methane production is improved digestion and better feed efficiency.

    And pure drongoism from fraud ranting Neville – there was a couple of PDO cycles in that period and the study is cited is GLOBAL. And if unpublished De Deckker is right shouldn’t have rained again. Clueless drivel Neville – have you spoken to the Prof yourself?

    You’re piddling around with your little BoM graphs isn’t an analysis of detail, substance or mechanisms. You’ve entered the silliness twilight zone.

    Arctic is melting. And a myriad of other changes well documented – my recent Tamino cite but tools like you are too stupid and immersed in your denial to open your eyes.

    Would be no moon landing and no Snowy Mtns scheme with our Neville. Can’t respond to a challenge.

  863. Debbie says

    That’s better Luke.
    Gotta laugh at your last sentence though.
    Bloody lucky there was no such thing as an international treaty based ‘precautionary principle’ when we built the Snowy Scheme eh?
    Anyway, just got in from chugging out those GHGs in my big red diesel tractor.
    You guys have afforded me great amusement on my little wee breaks Baz & Luke. This little tablet thingy sure helps to remind me that I’m not an island.
    Hubby has been creating more GHGs too. Watering up the canola crops and burning off some stubborn stubble that has refused to break down.
    Can see most of my neighbours out doing much the same thing.
    Went from a cracker frost to 20+ degrees today.
    Aint life grand?
    Might go and light the fire and get tonight’s meal organised, and chug out some more GHGs.

  864. bazza says

    Poor old Romney chasing the family vote ( “help you and your family”) . But he has lost the Catholic families with dogs. They remembered how he tied his Irish Setter to the roof.

  865. Neville says

    Geezzz Luke you’re clutching at straws again. I’m just pointing out that the holocene has had much more extreme climate changes than we see today.

    Boreal forests grew up to the arctic coastline during the holocene optimum and SLs in OZ east coast was 1.5 metres higher than now only 4,000 years ago.
    More melting in Greenland for sure to achieve that result and less arctic ice because of the warmer climate.

    Southern OZ has been drying out for at least 5,000 years and certainly the last 1,000 years as well.
    But the woman from the CSIRO added on ABC radio that their latest study shows there was a dry period about 1100 years ago much like the last 100 years. This in southern OZ btw.

    We can see these extreme climate changes right through the holocene in different areas of the planet.
    Remember the sahara was grassland with patches of trees only 6,000 years ago but now is a monster desert.
    Your idea of de carbonising to fix our climate is pathetic babyish nonsense and a real giggle.

    Also that graph of De Deckker’s of the last 5,000 years across southern OZ shows a number of dry periods just like today.

    Just think Luke according to co2 emission records for thousands of years we had a record 21.6 bn tonnes human emissions in 1990, but the non OECD alone has equaled that level in just the last 22 years. Think about that you silly fellow and book that trip to China and India.

  866. spangled drongo says

    “Think about that you silly fellow and book that trip to China and India.”

    Luke would much rather roll up in the foetal position, banging his head on the floor while all the time groaning, drought, drought, drought.

    Debs, that wide temp range is interesting and so typical of the west. Here, we almost always get less than 10 degrees. Today, 8-16c.

  868. Debbie says

    Poor Old Romney?
    I confess I know little about Ameican politics but I’m fairly sure that neither of those adjectives are appropriate.
    Especially the poor.
    Yep SD, it is a semi arid climate here. Not unusual for this time of the year. It really was a glorious day for the first day of Spring.
    Lucky we built that Snowy Scheme eh?

  872. Neville says

    Jo Nova has a post about the wind farm fraud and con. Tony from OZ has a good post down the page that explains more about the con. The coal tonnages don’t change in the Vic power stations at all, wind or no wind. Zero saving in co2 emissions but billions $ flushed down the drain for zilch.
    Who did this to these people’s brains? When will we ever return to using simple maths and simple logic and reason?

    http://joannenova.com.au/2012/09/wind-farms-are-96-useless-and-cost-150-times-more-than-necessary-for-what-they-do/#comments

  873. Luke says

    Well if the climate was more extreme Neville you’d be trucked ! Utterly.

    So tell us Neville if southern OZ is drying out – home come it just rained cats and dogs.

    Yes Bazza – despite 3 degrees, our belle is simply a non-science denialist sympathiser. Probably a Tory sympathiser too.

  874. Luke says

    Interesting how whiney and whingey Nova and Wattsyburger’s sites are. Most viewers are retired geologists and engineers, pretty well all male, over 60 and many in nursing homes like Neville. A big case of cranky old man syndrome. What a tale of incessant whining and carping. Sook sook sook, oooo – ooooo – ooooo this and that.

    You’d think for all his yelling fraud Neville would have some court cases going – surely proving fraud would be in the national interest and earn him a few quid. But he’s here with the 6 other readers, 4 drive by shooters, Bazza, Gavin and I having a sook. Bit of of a good old whinge in fact.

  875. debbie says

    Baz,
    Did you find where I claimed that I and my industry are not subsidised?
    I’m a bit concerned that I may have said it inadvertently….I need to correct it.
    Here:
    Deb, if you want to claim you or your industry are not subsidised then prove it rather than blather on with self serving guesses.
    I can only find places where I wrote that Australian Agriculture is one of the least subsidised in the world and also where I pointed out that on balance, Agriculture returns a net positive to Australia’s GDP.
    I also did point out earlier in the thread that the Snowy Scheme has proved to be an excellent investment.
    You do know that as well as providing irrigation and keeping the southern MDB rivers flowing even in a millenium drought, it also supplies habitat for native wetland species and clean energy don’t you?
    I’m happy to point you in the right direction with those statements if you would like me to?

    Also Baz,
    Was that last shot aimed at me?
    Whether it was or wasn’t ……
    Just a trifle sexist….or perhaps I should use the sexier, more fashionable and PC terminology ….’misogynist’ (not misgoynist Luke)… wouldn’t you say?
    Wouldn’t that be behaving a bit like an old white conservative tea drinking tweed wearing male?
    I don’t know about you Baz, but I have noticed that women and men can be equally negative and equally nasty.
    They can be equally positive and equally agreeable.
    They can also be equally clueless or equally clever and/or intelligent.
    In fact in our very, very fortunate society, gender tends to have less and less to do with anything.
    Mind you…we’re not perfect….but we are most definitely fortunate.
    It would be soooooooo nice if you could possibly refrain from those stupid personal
    shots and actually answer questions with just a little bit of good manners.
    You know….try being a gentleman?

  876. debbie says

    Hmmmmm,
    It seems that Luke thought it was aimed at me too? 🙂
    So ditto Lukie….rather misgoynist (sp!) behaviour on your part….and just a little odd considering Jonova is anything but a:
    retired geologists and engineers, pretty well all male, over 60 and many in nursing homes like Neville.
    Chuckle.

  877. kuhnkat says

    Little Lukey whines:

    “Well if the climate was more extreme Neville you’d be trucked ! Utterly.”

    It IS more extreme than y’all try to put on. That is what has caused all that interesting change in the past and will cause it in the future!!!

    No ice in the arctic yet the world did not drown and the polar bears survived. No ice in the Antarctica, the same. Ice age over most ot the Northern Hemisphere and a little of the south, the same. Y’all are really short on facts there little lukey.

  878. debbie says

    In the interest of helping you fulfil your brief,
    This is what Jonova recently had to say about some commenters Luke,
    This is NOT coming from a old white, cranky old man BTW:

    “The most cowardly defamation artists write anonymous blogs — presumably they aren’t proud of what they write, they know their reasoning is bogus, and their modus operandi is equivalent to the schoolyard bully. They don’t want their normal careers muddied with their transparent attempts to stop people having a reasonable conversation.”

    “If you oppose the regulating class, you will get called an “extremist”, a “nut”, a “conspiracy theorist”, “right wing”, and every variation of “stupid” and “ignorant”, irrespective of the merits of what you say.”

    “But no matter, it’s just another variation of the pathetic Holocaust denier meme. It’s what a smear-artist does — denigrate speakers to try to stop people hearing their message.”

  879. Neville says

    Luke you drongo ask the woman promoting the latest CSIRO study. She says its drier today than 1000 years ago and so does De Deckker.
    Luke higher rainfall for us comes from a cool phase PDO and more la ninas, just look at the wet 1950s and 70s after the 1940s drought. A negative IOD brings higher rainfall over the land south of the Broome Wolongong line as well.
    Alas no nursing home yet I’m still working hard and paying tax, although I often wonder why?

    But climate and rainfall changes naturally over time, get used to it. And it goes on forever.

  881. Luke says

    By now Debs – you’re just another bunk artist trying to look reasonable.

    You must admit Debs – Nova is a tiresome unpublished whiner. She just whines …. You might be her only female reader.

    Neville does the ultimate denier tango – reckons it’s getting drier but it’s not … but it is. No analysis, no data, no science and just another whinger.

    And you have to laugh at KlownKat – looks like he’s over denying polar melt now. But it will be OK. He’s probably got shares in Arctic oil and minerals. I guess is there is no polar ice the baars will be using little boats to go hunting HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  882. Johnathan Wilkes says

    Debbie
    “women and men can be equally negative and equally nasty.”

    That is true Debbie, but if I’d have a choice of an enemy, not that I want one, give a man any day.
    They eventually forget or forgive or both.

    Luke now you are being silly, JN posts on many good subjects, admittedly some are rehashed from other sites, but if you don’t have time to visit them all it comes handy.
    And I’m sure she has many female readers, and some of them are neither geologists nor old let alone retired.

  883. debbie says

    I don’t really agree JW.
    I think negativity and nastiness is a feature of personality and not gender.
    I believe that because we’re different, men and women will respond and behave differently in certain circumstances…but one is not worse than the other….just different sometimes.
    I have met plenty of people, both Male and Female, who have no ability to forgive and forget and are downright savage….and usually very, very bitter.

    I was wondering however what is inherently wrong with being an engineer or a geologist regardless of age, race or gender?
    Can you explain your problem with those professions please Luke?
    I also should point out that the emotional language and over use of hyperbole is just as prevalent at the Tamino site that you are so fond of linking to…just as many whiners and whingers there too.
    What is it that you think these people are all whining and whinging about Luke?

    I watched Lomborg (sp?) on Bolt this morning….I hardly ever watch TV during the day and this is the first time I have ever watched Bolt….but I have read some of Lomborg’s work and also watched his doco/film and made an exception for that reason.
    He actually talks sense….he explained why current behaviour re policy will have little to no effect on mitigating climate…especially Australian behaviour.
    I also liked the fact that he gracefully ignored Bolt’s overly political over exaggerated comments.
    Seems like he is much more interested in achieving practical,sensible results?

  884. Johnathan Wilkes says

    You could be right Debbie, but I can only go by personal experience, don’t have enemies myself, being a very easy going feller, but one woman can’t forgive me for a to me, trivial matter even after thirty years!!

    As far as Luke’s animosity towards geologist goes, I can’t fathom the reason for it.

    I take the opinion of a geologist young or old re. past climate any day over a “climate scientist” without a training in geology.

    Just look a the mess M Manne made.

  885. Minister for Truth says

    http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/

    Now isnt this interesting. A compendium of all those papers that had to be withdrawn… after Peer Review…. for either lieing, or incompetence. GW has a few hits as you would expect

    Picked it up from a blogger, who referred to it on JoNovas site, and her excellent rebuttal of Loopy Lewandowsky’s shameful example of academic stupiditity.

    BTW Neville that Topher You Tube reference you cited, is extremely well done as well as being very concerning.

    It would seem that the Dullard and her camp followers will resort to any piece of bastardy, to put this unruly populace in its place, and to hell with democracy….and if it means taking away one of our mostc cherished freedoms…. these intellectual pigmies will do it.

  886. Johnathan Wilkes says

    Ps. I’m getting a bit tired of A Bolt myself, he is sort of OK but his constant harping on about his loss in court his inability to speak his mind on some racial matters is bordering on obsession.

    They had a very good chance of winning on appeal but did not go on with it, why?
    Spending a bit more money surely couldn’t be the reason? After all it’s all tax deductible anyway.

    Also as you said he wanted to push his political agenda too much and interrupted Lomborg just when he was explaining his point.

  887. debbie says

    That’s OK JW,
    I’m not into collecting enemies either…it looks to be very tiring and time wasting….and completely not worth it.
    I suspect the female who still hasn’t forgiven you is actually the one who has the ongoing problem.
    30 years is a very long time to bear a grudge….and it can’t be good for her health.
    Just wanted to point out that negative and nasty behaviour is not specifically gender related.
    BTW Luke….another question in addition to the one about geologists and engineers.
    Is there anything particularly morally reprehensible about attempting to be reasonable?
    Or….as you put it….trying to look reasonable?
    Because I’m a hokey pokey rednecked irrigation farmer, a female, a mother and a self employed business person, I actually think it’s important that any policy initiative is practical, achievable, sensible and can be seen as economically and fiscally responsible/reasonable. I also like to know that all the extra work and money that I’m usually required to pay/do because of new policy initiatives is actually for a good reason and a good purpose.
    The current carbon tax/MDBP/climate change stuff is a big fat fail IMHO as far as any of those benchmarks are concerned.
    I’m also apalled that good decent people have had their research work inappropriately hijacked by the politics.
    Tim Flannery’s recent behaviour re the climate change report is an excellent example of that.
    One of the reasons I like this blog and respect the person who runs it is because most of the time we get to discuss the interaction between environmental, business and policy/political issues in terms of evidence and sensible outcomes.
    Note also that the person who runs this particular blog is not old or male or particularly conservative and I don’t think she is an engineer or a geologist either….but nonetheless she still questions much of AGW evidence and also the policy initiatives that use ‘the environment’ and ‘climate change’ as their excuse.
    Pretty much the same reason why I respect much of what Lomborg says….despite the fact that he is a he not a she.

  888. Neville says

    Well at least Lomborg answered the Bolt question. For the entire EU they can spend 250Bn $ a year until 2100 to reduce temp by .05C and OZ can spend 25bn $ a year until 2100 and reduce temp by .005C. In other words ZERO change to temp or climate, in excange for wasting all that money down the drain.
    Wonderful investment, NOT.

    And don’t forget the non OECD emissions will continue to soar for the rest of this century while China, India etc try and lift another 1.5 billion ( at least) people into the modern world.

    So Lomborg’s numbers don’t really apply even if the EU or OZ can really reduce emissions at all.

    Luke you fool I’m quoting from the latest CSIRO study and De Deckker’s 20 year study of crater lakes and cores from the Murray canyons off the SA coast, plus the reco of the PDO from NOAA.
    If I’m wrong then they’re wrong as well. Grow up and grow a brain cell you nong. Prove that you’re not completely devoid of simple logic and reason.

    I take it english is your first language?

  889. Luke says

    Debs – geologists = (often) fossil fuels and see any reduction in emissions as a philosophical attack on their practice; geologists see a long history of palaeoclimate which they think modern climate science ignores; geology = mining = resource development; geology = making lotsa money to keep = right politics. No problem with all that – just saying.

    But alas geologists aren’t meteorologists.

    Come back when you’ve understood what you’ve read Neville.

  890. debbie says

    So it is all about politics after all Luke?
    Yet you keep shrieking it’s about science?
    We also seem to have good scientists and bad scientists or right scientists and left scientists?
    Ummmm….while obviously geologists aren’t meteorologists….are you implying that the only scientists we should listen to are meteorologists?
    What about engineers Luke because you have paired them in with the geologists?
    And Luke….is there something morally reprehensible about making lotsa money to keep?

    And Neville…you’re right…Lomborg did answer that burning question.
    It’s not actually all that difficult really….like you have often pointed out….it’s almost kindy maths.
    The proposed policy and the outlandish costs do not have a hope of achieving the stated goal or outcome….so even if the science was ‘settled’ the loudly touted policy can’t deliver.

  893. Johnathan Wilkes says

    Thanks for the link SD.

    That phrase struck me as odd as well.
    I’m sure with hindsight, the author would love to rephrase that, or not?

  894. bazza says

    Neville, I do think history is bunkum if you dont understand the drivers, the processes and the trends to see if indeed the trend is your friend. You need a system view. “Black Swan” had a highly relevant analogy about a turkey fed ad lib for 100 days. Day 101 had every prospect of more of the same until – its head went on the chopping block. The turkey view of things was limited, but the system view knew what was driving the show. Dont be a turkey and lose your head and end up running around all over the place like a headless chook like some of our top 6 contributors here .

  896. spangled drongo says

    JW, I assume you mean this phrase:

    “there needs to be a change in how science as an ideology is communicated and enacted.”

    Can’t blame our resident ideologues for not trying. It’s interesting that this is the left wing attitude to the problem.

    The new religion.

  897. spangled drongo says

    Well said cohers!

    If only the misanthropists didn’t blather so much and instead lead by example.

  898. Robert says

    You see, according to the systemic/mechanistic approach, there are red levers and buttons labelled GHG,CFC, Aerosol etc. What you need to do is pull the green levers and buttons, marked Tax, Regulation,Cap-and-Trade etc, to balance the effects of the red buttons. It’s like a console. It has to work!

    Muddling, messy intuitives will not appreciate the extreme simplicity of this process-centred system view, perfected through years of computer gaming in mummy’s basement.

    Turkeys!

  899. Johnathan Wilkes says

    there needs to be a change in how science as an ideology is communicated and enacted.”

    Yes SD that’s the one.
    I thought science as such had no ideology, once you introduce ideology it’s no longer science.

    What do you do if the fact doesn’t fit the ideology, you discard it?
    Oh I get it, you get “climate science”, silly me, staring me in the face and not recognising it it.

  900. Neville says

    Sorry bazza but english is my only language, you’ll have to provide an interpretor to unravel that maze.

    But you have to laugh at Lomborg’s numbers on the Bolt report. If the EU spent that 250bn every year until 2100 that would add up to 22 trillion $ and OZ would outlay 2.2 trillion $.

    But if both pops increased and throw in inflation, those numbers could easily blow out to 5 times that sum. Probably much higher.

    But poor little OZ is getting the rough end of the pineapple because the EU is at least 30 times our pop, therefore our spend every year should only be 8.3 bn $ or 731 bn $ by 2100.

    Just a hint, it won’t happen because taxpayers wouldn’t allow it. I mean fancy spending all those trillion $ for a guaranteed zero return on your investment.

  901. Neville says

    I’ve just managed to unravel part of bazza’s maze. Apparently some of the top 6 bloggers here are running around like chooks with their heads chopped off.

    I think I’m chuffed, bazza has given me a back handed compliment claiming I haven’t reached that headless stage yet.

    There youse other 6 I’m definitely smarter than youse are, because bazza said so.

  903. Johnathan Wilkes says

    Neville
    “I’ve just managed to unravel part of bazza’s maze.”

    Good on you, you’re smarter than the average blogger to do it so fast.
    If anything his post made me think that there are, God forbid, two “bazzas”.

    He posted a quite comprehensible comment earlier today, but most of them leave me scratching my head.

  904. Neville says

    Thanks JW, gosh this is catching I really must be a smarty pants, must have an IQ above 65 at least.

    Jo nova and Watts have been trying to understand the Lewandowsky paper and his claim that sceptics think that the moon landing took place in Hollywood. Funny that makes me a strange type of sceptic. I always thought it really was on the moon.

    McIntyre has suggested to Lucia that he should be dobbed in to WA uni. Let’s hope they make him prove his case.
    Until then his paper should be withdrawn. These people are clueless dopes.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/01/paging-dr-stephan-lewandowsky-show-your-invitation-list/#more-70214

  907. bazza says

    from SD “Ole Humlum using well known data sets to find that temperature rises BEFORE CO2”.
    Only if he starts his analysis in 1975 when temps were below trend from the La Nina period etc.

  910. gavin says

    Another glorious spring morning folks for much of SE Australia despite our cherry pickers. After breakfast I will sink their leaky old WUWT uhi Raft for good.

  911. debbie says

    SD,
    Bazza questions Humlum’s motives so it therefore doesn’t seem to matter if his graphs are OK.
    It seems a bit similar to Luke’s comment about geologists.
    We have right and left or good and evil and it doesn’t have anything to do with the data.
    It has something to do with the fact that he comes from Norway.
    Here…comment from Bazza on July 27 @ 8.42 am…in relation to a question about what was wrong with the Climate4you work:

    “Check out if he has form as unbiased commentator. Check out Norwegian dependency on oil revenue. Dont worry about the data – it comes from reliable sources. ”

    Apparently also….because Jen commented that one of his extrapolations was in her opinion “pretty stupid”…Bazza concluded that all of Humlum’s work was therefore no good.
    Apparently one questionable graph was enough to dismiss it all…even though there was nothing wrong with the methodology or the data.

    Neville….it is the best snow pack in years and the entire catchment up there is sopping wet.
    There is a very high probability it will be a massive Spring thaw this season…..yet all the southern MDB storage is at near 100% because our water authorities are still working on models that predict that this is not happening and there MIGHT be a repeat of OCT/NOV 2006.
    So in Nov 2006 they allocated water that relied on inflow models and ignored that the catchment was bone dry….and they had to take those allocations back and they actually put people in negative allocation…..and now in Sept 2012….they are ignoring the fact that the catchment is sopping wet, we have the deepest snow pack in years, that over 8,000 ML is belting out of Blowering nearly every day, that the southern rivers are in minor flood and have been for months…based on computer models that have what they call LIS (lowest inflow sequence) figures that dictate that they can’t give full allocations and that we have a water shortage!
    This mindless inflexible reliance on computer models and rules is also a key reason why water was being dumped from the top of the system into flooded rivers and full dams in 2010/11.
    But..Gavin must believe this type of nonsense too….because he couldn’t see any snow out his window or when he walked up the hill.

  912. gavin says

    Deb; let me make this point clear, your deep snow cover is confined to a very small part of our region and it remains only at maximum altitude. There is no snow anywhere near Canberra despite our freezing nights. That’s because it is actually quite dry too.

  916. spangled drongo says

    Your logic wouldn’t sink a paper boat, gav.

    You reckon those continuous, below zero Canberra temperatures are a cherry picker’s “typical” spring?

    Parts of Queensland have had the coldest September readings EVAH!

    And if you are thinking about the disappearing Arctic sea ice here’s a little something to ponder:

    There are significant oil deposits under Beaufort and Kara Seas, and Baffin Bay:
    http://geology.com/articles/arctic-oil-and-gas/
    In the Beaufort Sea;

    Shell Oil has already reduced the number of possible exploratory wells to be drilled this season in the Arctic’s Beaufort and Chukchi Seas from eight to three, or possibly two – one in the Beaufort and one in the Chukchi. http://my.firedoglake.com/edwardteller/2012/08/07/chances-of-shell-oil-drilling-in-arctic-in-2012-diminishing-by-the-hour/

    “The Beaufort Sea contains major gas and petroleum reserves beneath the seabed, a continuation of proven reserves in the nearby Mackenzie River and North Slope.[12] The Beaufort Sea was first explored for sub-shelf hydrocarbons in the 1950s and estimated to contain about 250 km3 (60 cu mi) of oil and 300,000 km3 (72,000 cu mi) of natural gas under its coastal shelf. Offshore drilling began in 1972; about 70 wells were set up by 1980s[28] and 200 wells by 2000.[29]” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beaufort_Sea

    Near the Kara Sea,;

    “A team of Greenpeace activists scaled the side of a Russian oil-drilling platform far out in the Arctic Ocean on Friday and suspended themselves on ropes while unfurling a banner that said “Save the Arctic,” as workers above sprayed cold water on them.”

    “The Gazprom platform is intended to tap a shallow-water deposit in the Pechora Sea, one of many ice-clogged inlets off the Arctic Ocean above Russia recently opened to drilling.

    Exxon Mobil is exploring for oil this summer in joint venture with Russian partners relatively close by, in the Kara Sea between the Novaya Zemlya archipelago and the Yamal Peninsula. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/25/world/europe/greenpeace-activists-climb-russian-oil-rig-in-arctic-ocean.html

    Initially, Exxon and Rosneft struck a deal last August to search for oil in three blocks of Russia’s Arctic that are estimated to hold 36 billion barrels of oil. This latest partnership expands on that deal.

    Overall, Exxon-Rosneft will invest up to a half-trillion dollars to develop fields off Russia’s north coast. The project will drill its first wells in the Kara as early as 2014, with a final decision on full-scale development by 2016. Full-scale production from the region is estimated to begin around 2027 after all the necessary sub-sea infrastructure is in place.

    While full production from the Kara is still far into the future, the potential is huge. The initial field the partnership will tackle contains nearly 9 billion barrels of oil equivalent, while the full region is estimated to hold 85 billion to 90 billion barrels. http://www.investorplace.com/2012/04/exxons-first-mover-edge-in-the-arctic/

    There was a drilling operation in Baffin Bay last year, i.e.;

    Cairn, which will be the only company to drill deep wells offshore in the Arctic this year, holds 11 licences in Baffin Bay covering over 80,000 square kilometres. It plans to drill four exploratory wells to depths of around 5,000ft, the deepest ever attempted in the Arctic.http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/04/23/969502/-Baffin-Bay-Drilling-for-oil-begins-in-June

    but it appears that it is shut down until 2014 after;

    “Cairn Puts the Brakes on Arctic Drilling After Unsuccessful $600 Million Campaign in 2011 ”
    Cairn hopes to begin another drilling campaign offshore Greenland in 2014–this time partnering with Statoil–focusing its efforts on the “multi-billion barrel potential” of the Pitu prospect in the Baffin Bay Basin.” http://gcaptain.com/cairn-puts-brakes-arctic-drilling/

    It is also interesting that;

    An AP investigation last year showed that at least 1 percent of Russia’s annual oil production, or 5 million tons, is spilled every year, according to various estimates. http://www.macombdaily.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20120423/NEWS05/120429836&template=printart

    While it seems as though some Arctic Drilling operations are struggling this year, there is likely some impact on Sea Surface Temperatures by large-scale resource extraction, even if it is only the ice breaking and clearing that’s done to open and maintain transit routes and drilling locations.

    More man made GW eh?

  917. gavin says

    After my recent tongue in cheek challenge to SD I’ve been mind full of the pit falls in using 1950’s technology to demonstrate reasons my anti UHI stand. Although once having had a lot of practice my current thermometer skill needed a thorough testing. At 9.25am I estimated local air temp to be 8C. At 9.35 Canberra airport had recorded 7.8C@ air speed 2 knots, and we also have a breeze. The guy across the road is still trying to start his truck: it has a frozen gas line, however all frost has disappeared.

    Our local air at this time of day can be largely influenced by early morning conditions in the Murrumbigee Valley. This edge can remain fog bound till late on a bad day. Canberra airport, on the other hand, is nestled between two cities along the much shallower Molonglo Valley making tracking from home difficult.

    My thermometers consistently follow Canberra airport regardless, but we are on opposite sides of the Canberra urban environment. I assume my backyard is more prone to air temperature distortions than the airport with its less than ideal max/min station close to our kitchen window, cream brick wall, minimum air flow etc. and so have modified routine checks.

    Due to a silly mistake late yesterday I was forced to check the calibration of both my air thermometers, the old max min, former CSIRO instrument hanging on the outside wall of our screened verandah and my sling psychrometer. How cold was the air against the house last night?

    Immediately after our coldest overnight frost this year -7C , and watching the ice linger till late in the morning, I purchased five hapless tomato seedlings from Aldi’s special remainders, thinking I could nurse them through early Spring. They were put out in the back yard late yesterday after lunch then moved to the western side immediately beside the front door to capture the last rays, and hopefully a quick recovery from days of indoor storage. Unfortunately they were promptly forgotten after that moment. We are now interested in UHI over very small indeed.

    Rising after 7am today I realised we had a weak frost and no wind. I then proceeded to calibrate both thermometers as the frost disappeared. At 7.25am I was reading very close to zero on both instruments, but the airport was reading -2.3C at 7am. The BoM update at 7.35am registered +.4C. We had both measured 0C air temp within minutes in an absolutely still hour as shown by the frost on and above ground at my place at precisely 7.30am. Thus I can pit my readings against the official record anywhere, more or less anytime. We can also establish the air temp gradient in a built environment using frost.

    http://www.bom.gov.au/products/IDN60903/IDN60903.94926.shtml

  918. spangled drongo says

    Luke, for once you are right about that NBN deception. As someone who has built and maintained up to 80 k of telephone line just to be on the “air”, put up with party lines which consisted of the top wire of the 100 mile fence etc, I have some idea of the job involved and at the estimate of 39bil you ain’t seen nuthin’ yet.

    To think it will show a 7% ROI on completion is whistling in the dark.

    The fact that something as huge as this would go ahead without a detailed C/B is appalling.

  920. bazza says

    BLOG PROGRESS REPORT – in the absence of Jen M, I am helping her out by doing a first draft of the progress report to her funders.
    SUMMARY – the past quarter has been extraordinarily successful in achieving our shared objectives. Even with the funding cutbacks you had to impose following the introduction of the Carbon tax, we have had a record month in August. There were over 900 contributors to my “gone fishing” post – it was a free range one rather than attacking fisheries regulation. And it was unmoderated which they all loved and some even respected – sadly I had to get a third job when you cut the funds. It was made worse because I had to pay a few warmists to provide some fresh targets as we had rerun all the old denialist lines. Performance by your key criteria follow.
    USAGE – The key KPI – Over 900 contributors in August alone. They are a broad cross-section of society if one makes demographic assumptions. The number of individual contributors has surely increased as now the top six only account for 90% of posts.
    GENDER BALANCE – this is a tough one as I am sure there are some using names associated with other genders and some use animal names etc. to look a wee bit like conservationists. But I am confident just on volume it is up near 50%. I do harbour a suspicion that some are here because Facebook limits are too restrictive and it is hard to be pithy when you have no point.
    QUALITY – good metrics are hard to come by but given “evidence debased” is a positive we are doing well.
    CREATIVITY – Skills are increasing so we can expect some contributors in coming months to rely on their own resources and less on cut and paste from o’seas. Although one or two contributor are very good at it and makes it look as if they know a lot about some of the heavy science. Others are experimenting with new ways to push the boundaries of the media for example liberal use of bold and caps, smileys, emoticons and expressions from the Simpsons. Bu t we are getting desperate as we have been through the list of 143 favorite denialists ploys twice. Some ground work has been done on UHI, recognising it not only measures local warming , it might be causing global warming. Makes sense as 3% of the globe is urbanised and the temperature has gone up 3%. So just paint all the bitumen white, eh?.
    CONTRIBUTIONS TO KNOWLEDGE – pass? Our aim is to detract. But I could offer up a couple of examples. One contributor is real hot (sorry about that) on emissions. He is fearless – does the lot – trends etc etc. He is about to move on from doing Australia’s contribution to lowering world temperatures if no other country acted to working out if only an individual lowered their emissions. ( eat your heart out Alan Jones and Bolt). Others excel on graphs – they can extract patterns that no one else has ever even thought of. We specialise in cheap shots at CSIRO and BOM. But in general we are dependant on our USA denialists who are better funded – all we can really do is cherry pick, cherry pick, hit and run, avoid, void, and hang on with a guerilla campaign. Still on the law of averages and by the grace of La Niña we should get the odd cooler year to run with. After all, The Australian will run with anything. I do wish we had just one Australian scientist who was a bit across climate change science with international credibility. Otherwise now that I am internationally published in climate, I will have to push my own barrow.
    MISCELLANEOUS – outstanding support for Pickering ( what a man) and for the attack on the NBN. Let us know any other extreme issues you need our support on. We have some great resources when all you need is a knee jerk activist campaign but I can’t guarantee they will be polite.

  921. debbie says

    Gavin,
    Let me make this point very clear.
    You obviously have no idea what you’re talking about re snow pack and hydrology of the catchment and therefore inflows and the high probablility of a much larger than average Spring thaw.
    Look up the daily inflow and release figures of the storages Gavin…..why would they be releasing over 8,000ML/day for weeks and weeks?
    I will also remind you that Canberra is not the centre of the universe…..not even the centre of the catchment.
    And your catchment is WET WET WET in comparison to anything in the last 10 to 15 years.
    Look it up!!!!!

  922. Luke says

    Bazza – you need to watch the counter carefully from now on if you want to get the magic 1000th comment. Jen has special prizes in store for 1000 and 1001 – but depends which side of the debate you’re on as to what you get.

    Maybe SD may remember what our previous record thread got to in comments ?

  926. debbie says

    Just wondering about this one:
    GENDER BALANCE – this is a tough one as I am sure there are some using names associated with other genders and some use animal names etc. to look a wee bit like conservationists. But I am confident just on volume it is up near 50%. I do harbour a suspicion that some are here because Facebook limits are too restrictive and it is hard to be pithy when you have no point.

    Maybe Bazza is a female?

    I also forgot to mention earlier SD, that Bazza also questions Jen’s motives because of her mysterious ‘funders’….even though after that appalling ‘Media Watch’ program she was completely forthcoming about her funding sources. 🙂
    Obviously Baz doesn’t believe her.
    And Luke,
    Pleeeeeeeease, for all our sakes, pleeeeeease teach Bazza about having a sense of humour….he’s truly pathetic on that score.
    He only seems to know how to use the lowest form of wit (ie sarcasm)…..and it’s getting powerfully boring and not worth the coffee and the donut.
    His forays into literary references are always badly tarnished by that lowest form of wit too….it’s a bit of a pity.
    While you’re at it, can you also ask him to toughen up a little?….oh and maybe….start answering direct questions?
    And Luke…. I think you’ll make it….les than 100 to go

  927. Robert says

    Interesting about Spiegel, SD. It’s one of the silliest of the leftie rags, always in the forefront of climate panics. Maybe it’s that German “lebensraum” thing.

    I like the cool, but it’s worth remembering how just a bit of global cooling in the 70s put the world under strain, some of it genuine, not just “modelled”.

    Anyway, thanks for the link. It’s a hoot.

  928. Dennis Webb says

    Bazza

    Just because you write something down at this blog thread, it doesn’t make it true. That is what Jen would say, and also she would say just because you ignore some fact, it doesnt make it go away.

    You think La Nina is keeping us cool. Well at least you acknowledge it has cooled.

    Could you also acknowledge the drought has broken and the carbon tax is broken.

    D.

  929. debbie says

    http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/qed/2012/09/an-early-election
    An interesting attempt to try and make some sense out of what appears to be senseless?
    I found the last paragraph rather telling…..it’s a bit of a sad indictment of our current political climate.
    ‘Overall, the Canberra political scene is depressing but not only because of the policies adopted by Labor. The refusal of the Coalition so far to outline any coherent alternative set of policies leaves a vacuum in the political debate. If, as now seems likely, there is an early election, the Coalition would find it difficult to explain its policies adequately in a campaign flowing from such an election and, on what we know to date, even a Coalition victory would likely leave Australians well “short” in terms of having a government with liberal policies. ‘
    Also Gavin,
    For your edumacation re inflows and catchments etc.
    Note particularly those Blowering figs over the last week…..that has been going on for weeks and weeks and weeks.
    http://waterinfo.nsw.gov.au/drr/murrumbidgee.shtml
    This shows you all the lates figs re the rivers in yours and my neck of the woods plus if you click on storage information you check out the levels in the dams and also the inflows outflows….but don’t forget to factor in releases from the eucumbene storages as well….they head off to both Blowering and Hume.
    Catchment must be a tad wet don’t you think?

  930. cohenite says

    Gav says:

    “I assume my backyard is more prone to air temperature distortions than the airport with its less than ideal max/min station close to our kitchen window, cream brick wall, minimum air flow etc. and so have modified routine checks.”

    Gav obviously lives in a volcano, or maybe a sauna; which would explain the Scandanavian flavour to his homilies.

  933. gavin says

    John; Air temperature readings, and calibration of air temp instruments are no so easy. My frost melt today was rare chance to zero my lot and BoM stations together.

    Ice melts also help with the bigger picture. Here is a new piece in the global trend adding to the well documented Greenland saga.

    http://www.icelandreview.com/icelandreview/search/news/Default.asp?ew_0_a_id=393055

    http://www.greenlandmelting.com/browse-maps-and-plots.html

    Last month evacuations were scheduled for Kuna islands off Panama after a SL study by the Smithsonian Inst confirmed 6″ + and more comming at a faster rate. This also reinforces the total land ice melt in absolute terms.

  935. Luke says

    The role of ocean thermal expansion in Last Interglacial sea level rise

    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2011GL048280.shtml

    “Taken together, the model and paleoceanographic data imply a minimal contribution of ocean thermal expansion to LIG sea level rise above present day. ……. These results reemphasize the concern that both the Antarctic and Greenland Ice Sheets may be more sensitive to temperature than widely thought.”

    Yuh !

  937. spangled drongo says

    It was very generous of them to state that “uncertainty remains” when they claim 16 inches of thermal SLR at that LIG.

    Maybe the simple explanation is that it was a lot hotter back then even without people.

    But the crux of the lesson for all ideologues: “UNCERTAINTY REMAINS”

    In big licks!

  938. Luke says

    a duh – well maybe if ya had duh peeples about, it might have been even hotter. Do you ever stop to think?

    Uncertainty is bounded.

  939. bazza says

    You got em reeling , Gav and Luke. SD is the last man standing (Sayers does not count with his Casino card, you got him Gav.) and SD has finally used the uncertainty word, he of the Climate sensitivity certainly =1 school. He needs help from ice blogger Neven “”Basically, I’m at a loss for words, and not just because my jaw has dropped and won’t go back up as long as I’m looking at the graphs. I’m also at a loss — and I have already said it a couple of times this year — because I just don’t know what to expect any longer. I had a very steep learning curve in the past two years. We all did. But it feels as if everything I’ve learned has become obsolete.”
    The last sentence certainly applies to the ideologue-free SD.
    How certain are you ,SD, that it is not AGW? Is it 90%, 100%, 10%.? Come on, give us a feel for what you are on about.

  940. cohenite says

    luke links to a paper showing ice loss in the past being due to a greater ice melt susceptiility to a thermosteric component of sea level rise which was only a “minimal contribution of ocean thermal expansion to LIG sea level rise above present day.”

    Given that this paper shows no thermosteric contribution to sea level rise and a declining rate of sea level rise the comparison is problematic:

    http://www.ocean-sci-discuss.net/6/31/2009/osd-6-31-2009.pdf

    Gav, you are becoming too cocky with your ice melting and sunny times in the Arctic garbage; anyone would think you have an option on some beach-side properties up there. Watts looks at whether there has been a record [since 1979!] ice melt this year:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/27/sea-ice-news-volume-3-number-11-part-2-other-sources-show-no-record-low/

    And even if there was this puts it in perspective:

    http://notrickszone.com/2012/08/27/oh-no-six-thousandths-of-one-percent-0-006-more-of-the-worlds-ice-melted-this-summer/

    166 years to get a 1% reduction in world ice at this rate; 166 years; just in time for gav’s birthday.

  941. bazza says

    Cohers forgot to mention the Rossby waves in his narrow perspective – circumstantial evidence I suppose, but it is the circumstance we are in.

  942. cohenite says

    “Cohers forgot to mention the Rossby waves in his narrow perspective ”

    Well bazza, enlighten me, mention the Rossby waves.

  943. toby says

    “You got em reeling , Gav and Luke.”
    more like puking from all the bullshit and hypocrisy. This thread has been interesting because the respect i had for 2 of our resident warmers has been blown apart and the other, well as usual the less said the better.

    interesting isnt it that despite thermal expansion and all the rapid melting being talked about by warmists the sea level is not rising at an accelerating rate, expect of course in the models.

  944. el gordo says

    ‘Uncertainty is bounded.’

    ‘It has been argued recently that the combination of risk aversion and an uncertainty distribution of future temperature change with a heavy upper tail invalidates mainstream economic analyses of climate change policy. A simple model is used to explore the effect of imposing an upper bound on future temperature change. The analysis shows that imposing even a high bound reverses the earlier argument and that the optimal policy, as measured by the willingness to pay to avoid climate change, is relatively insensitive to this bound over a wide range.’

    C J Costello et al.

  945. Debbie says

    No offense Baz but I don’t think the Tuggeranong card counts either.
    Canberra is not the centre of the universe or even a highly urbanised/industrialised hub by world standards.
    My jaw drops quite often when I notice how selective you are.
    Although a redundant question, how certain are you that we’re all doomed and we MUST spend $billions reducing CO2?
    How certain are you that human CO2 is a key driver of global climate?
    How certain are you that we can or we should attempt to control climate/weather through taxing &/or creating a carbon trading scheme that will be funded by tax payers and allow govt policies to forever manipulate it?

  946. spangled drongo says

    “a duh – well maybe if ya had duh peeples about, it might have been even hotter. Do you ever stop to think?

    Uncertainty is bounded.”

    Yeah, so’s the universe. Just that we havent found ’em yet.

    When your mates of the consensual pursuasion can’t even work out how much SLR is happening in the here and now and have been able to quantify almost NOTHING relating to their hypothetical CAGW you have no problem with supporting highly assumptive modelling about the last interglacial.

    Soooo convincing.

    Pardon me if I don’t bother to stop and think at your level.

  947. spangled drongo says

    “well maybe if ya had duh peeples about, it might have been even hotter.”

    Luke, that’s exactly the point!

    But in those days [100,000 years ago?] it was hotter without the peeples anyway.

    And that just proves how uncertain the CAGW hypothesis is.

    Why not settle for tossing a coin?

  948. gavin says

    SD; another classic spring day and the sling is right beside me. Pardon while I do a whirl on the front veranda.

    13.75 C@10.45am, Zero wind! you can check Canberra airport and Tuggeranong next BoM update

  949. Debbie says

    No offense Gavin, but even Luke would have to say that’s just weather.
    The first 5 days of Spring have been delightful here too.
    Aint life grand?
    You should see how fast our first spring watering is travelling accross the surface. Must have something to do with the state of the catchment don’t you think?
    It’s got about zippo to do with thermometer readings or the wind or any computer models that are not factoring in what’s really happening out here. They’re still modelling water shortages and dryish conditions.
    The abundance of native wildlife is also a pure joy to behold.

  950. spangled drongo says

    bazza,

    It’s hard to believe that an economist as dumb as J M Keynes ever said, ” when the facts change, I change my mind, what do you do?” but whether it was he, Winston Churchill or someone else, that saying is fundamental to mankind’s survival and that’s how I feel about AGW.

    There has been lots of science done for both sides of the debate and if you like I can supply you with around 1000 PR papers that are sceptical of AGW.

    The case for AGW is slight [but not necessarily a problem], the case for CAGW has not been proved and is remote.

    The world is full of problems and AGW is not at the top of them by any stretch but when you put it there it stops you solving so many of the REAL problems and your mindless, imagined problem [ERADICATING CAGW] then becomes, in itself, the world’s No1 problem.

    This is a self inflicted problem and it’s stifling necessary progress.

    If you lot are so convinced that you have to gather on the mount at the same time every month, just keep it to yourselves and STOP PREVENTING the rest of us from attending to the real problems.

  951. spangled drongo says

    gav,

    “Spring is sprung, the grass is riz, I wonder where the birdies is?”

    This morning I found my first [since autumn] Rufous Fantail, Rufous Whistler and Spectacled Monarch, all birds endowed with the rufous blush of spring. They were displaying so much the cuckoos came around to inspect.

    About 50 species so far this week including a stray Peacock.

    Situation quite normal.

  952. Luke says

    Come on Toby don’t be horrid – we’re only idling here – not really engaged. Sort of like the local pub for a quick pint. A bit of witty repartee and sledging. All in good humour of course. You’ll know when we put the peddle to the metal and go the big science discussion.

    SD my issue is how to keep my Princess Alexandrae male parrot from screeching. He seems to do it when I’m on Jen’s blog. Other syndrome is defecating on my keyboard while I’m blogging. And what sort of next box should I provide for the female.

  953. spangled drongo says

    What is annoying is that on such a normal, beautiful spring day all the consensual warmers can be so certain that the big disaster is implaccably unfolding.

    The naturally sceptical then have to look around and say, “well, they could have a point, life, I suppose was not meant to be this good.”

    But when you finally wake up that they are dipping their hands in your pockets a fleece you for their own interests, the sceptical become even more so.

    So gav, you’re not meant to praise the normality of spring. Your slip is showing a bit.

  954. spangled drongo says

    Yes Luke, pets are great but what to do about the defecating?

    This Peacock [we call him Andrew] adopted us recently and he is beautiful but he defecates all over the place. He then puts on a beautiful display to apologise. We can’t catch him, he goes away each night and returns each day to defecate some more.

    Maybe it’s like AGW. You’re meant to look at the beauty, not the shit.

  955. Debbie says

    The big science discussion?
    Luke, that is hilarious!
    Ha ha ha ha!
    Well done.
    BTW, what are those parrots doing in your house?
    I like my friendly birds to just come and visit when they feel like flying in. There are literally thousands of parrots here at the moment. Even though they’re incredibly noisy, I’m particularly fond of the Major Mitchels.
    Gonna be a big summer cropping season here this year so I am looking forward to the myriad of water birds that will be here very soon. Except for the imminent plague of whistler ducks. They’re a bit of a nuisance. They’re also supposed to be endangered. . . wish they would fly back to wherever it was that their numbers dropped. They’re in plague proportions here already.
    Got a new pair of brolgas and a new pair of wedge tailed eagles hanging out near our box tree lowland area. The female eagle has been enjoying hanging out in the paddock I’m ploughing at the moment. Lots of juicy goodies for her to pick at behind me. She is so big she has startled me a couple of times when she swoops near the tractor, casts a whopper of a shadow.
    Still got pelicans hanging around too.
    Even though the models still say we’re in big trouble, the birds don’t seem to be worried at all, nor do the frogs or the tortoise or the roos or the emus or any of the other usual suspects.
    They have all returned in spectacular numbers.
    Maybe they know something that we don’t know?

  956. John Sayers says

    Deb – have you ever seen wedge tailed eagles mate? I was privileged to see it one day.

    The male flew out and caught a thermal that took it high up into cumulus cloud, she followed and up and up they went till they disappeared into the cloud. They would have been flying high with cloud beneath them by then. The aim is to get as high as you can.

    I waited and sure enough down they came – they were locked onto each other in free fall mating as they fell then at the last moment they let go and peeled off in opposite directions.

    Amazing sight.

  959. spangled drongo says

    Nuthin’ “closet” about us Lukie. All good sceptics are nature lovers awa philanthropic.

  961. spangled drongo says

    bazza, in case you can’t recall, this is some of the sophistry used by warmers to pedal their wares and rightly debunked by sceptics:

    Stern’s central conclusion that “If we don’t act, the overall costs and risks of climate change will be equivalent to losing at least 5% of global GDP each year now and forever” whereas “the costs of action – reducing greenhouse gas emissions to avoid the worst impacts of climate change – can be limited to around 1% of GDP each year” is found to be entirely fallacious.

    Lilley’s study demonstrates that the benefits of curbing emissions now and henceforth will not be five times the cost of action, as Stern claims. “It is achieved by verbal virtuosity combined with statistical sophistry. In fact, even on Stern’s figures, the cumulative costs of reducing greenhouse gases will exceed the benefits until beyond 2100″, Lilley points out.
    “If we continue to follow Stern’s advice, the principal losers, apart from British taxpayers and businesses, would be developing countries who cannot raise living standards without massively increasing their use of fossil fuels and will therefore be responsible for most of the growth of carbon emissions,” Lilley argues.

    Lilley asks: “why should this comparatively poor generation make the sacrifices Stern demands to improve living standards of people in 2200 who, if we take no action to prevent global warming – even on the worst scenario depicted by Stern – will be 7 times better off than us?

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/03/a-stern-rebuttal-to-the-stern-review/

  962. Debbie says

    Luke,
    Unfortunately ‘greenies’ are overwhelmingly misanthropist and believe that humanity is a blight on the planet. They also believe there is an urgent need for a gobal benevolent dictatorship.I believe in something quite different. History teaches us there is no such thing as a benevolent dictatorship, it is an oxymoron. I also care very deeply about my environment, I am a generational custodian of my immediate environment. Got nothing to do with ‘greenie’. Got nothing to do with politics at all.

  963. Debbie says

    Definitely an extraordinary priviledge to see something like that John. . . I have not had that priviledge. They are amazing creatures.

  964. gavin says

    19.8 or 19.5 via U tube outside and a little breeze@2.52 pm. The breadmaker has been on for 3 hours a just few meters away inside. Now I wonder what BoM stations give us?

  965. Johnathan Wilkes says

    “there is an urgent need for a gobal benevolent dictatorship”
    I’m ready and waiting for the call!

    Seriously, unless the “democracy” as defined as, one person one vote, is amended, eventually we’ll end up like Rome.

    Go ahead and mock.

  967. Johnathan Wilkes says

    gav
    “breadmaker has been on for 3 hours a just few meters away inside”

    As the man said “you cannot be serious!”

    A breadmaker of a max 2400 Watts rating INSIDE, supposed to create UHI OUTSIDE?

    As I keep saying gav, you make the mind boggle.

  968. Johnathan Wilkes says

    May I add, most of that heat is supposed to be contained inside your breadmaker.
    If not, then you don’t have a breadmaker but a room heater!

  969. Debbie says

    Gavin,
    Do us all a favour and go and look up the definition of UHI.
    It has nothing to do with your breadmaker in Canberra.

  970. spangled drongo says

    In SEQ after years of good seasons we have had a month without rain. Horreurs! Our bed-wetting ABC and some of my like-minded neighbours are starting to get the vapours already.

    I recall many years ago looking at my 3 year old tyre tracks where I had once pulled a mill near Stonehenge and no rain had fallen over them since and realised that things were getting a bit dry. The tracks looked quite fresh and tread pattern still in good detail. That was in Mulga country where it didn’t matter much if it didn’t rain. The livestock ate the leaves and the trees were hard to kill. The wethers were still in prime condition.

    It seldom rains on the red-soil plains. And when you look around you realise it’s been like that for millenia.

  971. spangled drongo says

    ♪T’was such a tiny paper boat that toddled down the bay,

    T’was such a gallant, gallant breeze that beckoned it away.

    So out came gav to sink it with his logic and his wit,

    But now he’s down with Davy Jones a’swimmin’ in the… Sweet Violets,

    Sweeter than the roses……♪

  972. spangled drongo says

    “there is an urgent need for a gobal benevolent dictatorship”

    Yep JW, if I ruled the world:

  973. Johnathan Wilkes says

    A good one SD, a bit before my time but a good one just the same and you can actually understand every word he sings.

    Although I’d intend to do a bit more than what he proposes.

  976. Johnathan Wilkes says

    Give over SD, I’m not a miracle worker!
    You can be my the minister of the environment in my government if you like?

  977. gavin says

    Deb; my home readings at 2.50 pm of 19.8 or 19.5 compare favorably with airport 2.30 pm 19.5C rising to 19.9C and Tuggeranong 19.7 rising to 20.2 at 3 pm. That’s three points well apart and divided by mountains lakes and rivers.

    When will you silly people get it into your heads that air temperature a meter or so above ground is controlled by the atmosphere and nothing else?

  979. gavin says

    JW; apart from zeroing in all readings with the frost melt, I do other checks. This week on the ABC, I noticed the Inventors had guests from our mining industry. I picked the winner, a safety conveyor belt idler system over the rock face minder and the fatigue minder cause I used to do a variety of readings in that environment too.

    I’m still on the ball despite retirement. Sorry about you guys though

  980. Johnathan Wilkes says

    Did you look up the definition of UHI Gavin?
    —————————————————-
    The fact that Luke isn’t exactly jumping to gav’s defense re. UHI says something.
    You’re on your own there gav.

  981. gavin says

    Deb; in regard to air temp measurements I can write you all a book and I’m waiting for one of these amateurs to take me on over any terrain in RL.

  982. Mack says

    To stop the parrot screeching and defaecating Luke, wring its neck. Nah, just kidding. Pretty polly. Intellectual companionship at your level Luke?

  984. spangled drongo says

    gav, ever encountered wind?

    Check the difference in temperature between the windward and leeward sides of a brick wall on a cold, windy, sunny day with that beaut thermometer of yours.

    UHIs are crawling with brick walls. And they’re just a small part of the problem you don’t seem to understand.

    Meanwhile the full report on the failings of the Stern Review on the economics of Climate Change:

    http://www.thegwpf.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Lilley-Stern_Rebuttal.pdf

  985. gavin says

    SD; brick walls all round my place and next door either side. Also above and below on the hillside, makes no difference, updraft or downdraft. Granted; we might have a problem in LA or London though and anywhere else due to inversion layers forming.

    http://geography.about.com/od/climate/a/inversionlayer.htm

    Inversions and frosts go hand in hand

    http://www.bom.gov.au/info/ftweather/page_16.shtml

    JW; it may come as a surprise to some and Luke may disagree, our BoM doesn’t support your UHI fad either

  987. gavin says

    coh old matey; I was waiting for you. UHI was not defined or mentioned.

    What we have is an “enhanced greenhouse effect” world wide too i.e. AGW

  988. Debbie says

    Here you go Gavin,
    Please also note that BoM does recognise UHI….I have no idea why you have claimed that?

    Causes of UHI from Wiki:

    There are several causes of an urban heat island (UHI). The principal reason for the nighttime warming is that buildings block surface heat from radiating into the relatively cold night sky. Two other reasons are changes in the thermal properties of surface materials and lack of evapotranspiration (for example through lack of vegetation) in urban areas. Materials commonly used in urban areas for pavement and roofs, such as concrete and asphalt, have significantly different thermal bulk properties (including heat capacity and thermal conductivity) and surface radiative properties (albedo and emissivity) than the surrounding rural areas. This causes a change in the energy balance of the urban area, often leading to higher temperatures than surrounding rural areas.[4]

    Other causes of a UHI are due to geometric effects. The tall buildings within many urban areas provide multiple surfaces for the reflection and absorption of sunlight, increasing the efficiency with which urban areas are heated. This is called the “urban canyon effect”. Another effect of buildings is the blocking of wind, which also inhibits cooling by convection. Waste heat from automobiles, air conditioning, industry, and other sources also contributes to the UHI. High levels of pollution in urban areas can also increase the UHI, as many forms of pollution change the radiative properties of the atmosphere.[4]

    Some cities exhibit a heat island effect, largest at night. Seasonally, UHI shows up both in summer and winter.[5][6] The typical temperature difference is several degrees between the center of the city and surrounding fields. The difference in temperature between an inner city and its surrounding suburbs is frequently mentioned in weather reports, as in “68 °F (20 °C) downtown, 64 °F (18 °C) in the suburbs”. Black surfaces absorb significantly more electromagnetic radiation, and causes the surfaces of asphalt roads and highways to heat.[7]

  989. spangled drongo says

    Thanks cohers. Now gav, if the BoM agrees with what Anthony Watts has been trying to put forward for years, does that still make him a liar?

    Methinks you owe him an apology.

  990. Luke says

    Meanwhile back at the science effort, a very significant and complex paper in Nature Climate Change which is building on the role of fertiliser nitrogen and now phosphorus in coral decay. Complementary to the story that DIN is implicated in COTS outbreaks. The Nature paper shows biochemically how DIN and small traces of DIP affect the thermal bleaching levels. Quite a head spin. And truck to the cumulative effects story. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/08/120819153617.htm

    Before you all launch catapults I was assume that you’d all be briefed the considerable programs including BMP which is delivering significant results for GBR reef catchments. http://www.reefplan.qld.gov.au/measuring-success/report-cards/first-report-card.aspx

    Here’s an example for Debs http://www.reefplan.qld.gov.au/measuring-success/report-cards/assets/mackay-whitsunday-region.pdf

    Debs proclaims:

    “Unfortunately ‘greenies’ are overwhelmingly misanthropist and believe that humanity is a blight on the planet. They also believe there is an urgent need for a gobal benevolent dictatorship.”

    – no that’s just the bulldust you spread. It’s a meme you’ve ingested. Above shows how targeted environmental action urged on WWF, researched by government agencies, assisted by on-ground regional bodies (CMAs), and embraced by industry is delivering results.

  991. gavin says

    Debs; I hope there is a lesson in this for you in that Wiki can be biased towards a popular view. Be very careful when asking for a definition outside your particular field of knowledge. Now can we go on to urban “enhanced greenhouse” ?

    No, no, no SD; BoM does not agree with your wattsy. Recall my offer to demo over any terrain?

    Here I was thinking one of you would bite. Our AGW is partly about terrain change that must be seen as enhanced greenhouse over ever larger areas with its associated increased green house gasses. Merely changing the temp records won’t do. Sorry.

  993. spangled drongo says

    Gav, I’m sure you can run around with your thermometer and convince yourself that UHI doesn’t exist but the fundamentals on air movement are these:

    A wind-blocking wall allows a boundary layer of warm air to form. Moving air disrupts the boundary layer allowing cooler air to replace the warm air.

    As I said, that is only a small part of the phenomenon of UHI but that alone is detectible on inert objects by anyone with a thermometer or preferably two.

  994. gavin says

    SD; I reckon you are off on a tangent with your boundary layers so let’s go to the issue as defined by an authority closest to Watts. Here we are dealing with Urban Heat Island “Effect” and that’s all about delayed temperature change as the sun goes down.

    http://www.epa.gov/hiri/

    What we can’t do is say a heat island or UHI (your term) applies to all weather instruments and stations including arctic or even sub antarctic environments. This brings us back to what can we trust in the final measurement of AGW. From Cape Grim we have a true record, don’t we?

  995. Johnathan Wilkes says

    gav,
    you over-complicate things, UHI simply causes the temperature to be higher than it would be out in the open without the thermal mass of the cities. Specially at night.

    When you measure this artificially elevated temp. you introduce an error and claim it as AGW.

  996. Robert says

    Debs, thanks for that link to the Greens’ own creepy web page. It’s like a re-run of the vile Woodrow Wilson; except Wilson loathed blacks, Milne is an equal-opportunity hater.

    I’m sure when “global governance” comes into its own we’ll be assured that it’s a triumph of science and reason. No doubt there’ll be lots of “targeted action” which will be “delivering outcomes” and “bringing certainty”. No doubt it will all be “embraced by industry”. Big business will be on board for sure. Can you imagine GE or Goldman Sachs objecting to some global governance?

    For those who don’t keep up with their buzz-words, “governance” is when they tell you what to do but don’t actually govern you. If anybody is still confused, I know some guys who can write the brochures.

  997. Johnathan Wilkes says

    Was hoping to post comment 1000, but it’s not going to happen, have a meeting in a few minutes.
    Still eased the way for someone else, only 3 more to go.
    Cheers

  998. gavin says

    JW “When you measure this artificially elevated temp. you introduce an error and claim it as AGW”

    C’mon; “this artificially elevated temp” is your only target hey. Then you guys need to explain exactly where this artificial heat comes from if it is not part of AGW.

    You need to deal with this ever growing enhanced greenhouse effect in practical terms soon.

  999. Debbie says

    Gavin,
    UHI is not SD’s term. It is a universally recognised term and has been clearly defined. Your term ‘enhanced AGW’ however?
    Not that I like attaching name tags, but you’re behaving a bit like that ‘D’ word that Baz is so fond of throwing around indiscriminately.
    You have also inadvertently argued against yourself, which is extremely confusing to read.
    Robert, go to the ANU homepage and type in ‘deliberative global governance’ or just go to google and type same & it will bring up the ANU page.
    Also note the amount of funding supplied, particularly in 2007 and the ‘names’.
    Luke,
    isn’t that a type of global benevolent dictatorship?
    As always, I am interested in policy, not personalities and rhetoric. I am not a closet greenie or any other type of greenie that encompasses this type of policy. I do care very deeply about caring for our environment, but that has nothing at all to do with green politics or ‘big’ environmentalism…

  1003. Robert says

    Debs, I’m still digesting the Greens’ Global Governance site. I’m afraid that with Deliberative Global Governance the creep-out factor will be just too much for me.

    I get it though. We’re all supposed to become the colony of a global commissariat. There’ll be endless amounts of consultation and democracy to keep us “engaged” but impotent. Still, I’m sure there’ll be job opportunities building luxury dachas for commissars. And there’ll be huge opportunities in the brochure sector.

    Needless to say, in a world of bureaucracy and impotence, Conservation will be forgotten. Who needs Conservation when you have the intricate rituals and temple offerings of Environmentalism?

  1004. Debbie says

    Never mind Luke, 🙂
    JW was just quicker off the mark.
    I could have easily stolen it & deliberately left it for you.
    Maybe I’ll get a prize for 999?
    Luke,
    That page is straight off the Greens website and is a policy statement. If you support and vote for the Greens Party then you are also supporting and voting for this policy.
    It’s not rocket science or any other type of science, but could possibly, perhaps, maybe, conceivably be related to your ‘big science’.

  1006. Luke says

    Come on guys – what’s the real probability of Greens forming govt in Australia. Bogus target. Shouldn’t we also be worried about the Tea Party forming govt?

  1008. spangled drongo says

    Where have you been for the last couple of years, Luke?

    Thanks to an acquiescent, watermelon Julia who made out it was necessary to remain in control, the Greens have been running the country.

    Only recently, when her own lot finally woke up how stupid this move was, Bob has gone and the Greens are on the nose, is anything being done about it.

  1010. Johnathan Wilkes says

    What’s the point arguing with you gav?
    You either don’t understand or are too stubborn to admit, you were wrong.

  1011. spangled drongo says

    It’s the brick wall problem. One side hot, one side cold but there’s no point in talking to it.

  1012. Johnathan Wilkes says

    Luke
    “what’s the real probability of Greens forming govt in Australia.”

    I agree with SD.
    I’d rather see them in government where they would have to take responsibility for their actions, then see them influencing an other party, with no responsibility attached.

  1013. cohenite says

    “I’d rather see them in government where they would have to take responsibility for their actions,”

    I’d like to see them naked in the middle of the Simpson desert chasing some goannas for their tucker since the mad mongrels believe nature is so benevolent.

  1014. debbie says

    ROFL! 🙂

    Luke’s logic – Criticise the Greens=Member of TEA party.

    Luke,
    Google ‘Deliberative Global Governance ANU’ and you will find the program heavily funded by Labor under KRudd in 2007/08.
    For some reason the link won’t copy onto this site….it must think it’s a spam link or something?
    While you’re correct that the Greens can’t form their own Govt, they have been exerting undue influence, especially in the Senate….with no responsibility at all.
    The policy link from the Greens I pasted earlier is not just a hokey Greens policy although they most certainly favour it.
    They’re big advocates of a type of global benevolent dictatorship are they not?
    So what part of my earlier comment was just sceptic meme? Should I have said they believe in ‘global governance’….as if that is any different?
    Just asking.
    BTW….I also looked up the TEA party and can’t find anything to do with global governance there…but you’re probably right again….they will not have much chance of forming Govt in Australia….but not sure what it is about them that you find so scary….they quite clearly don’t like Labor much at a first glance….but they wouldn’t be the only ones I would imagine?
    Gavin,
    Try re reading all your posts re UHI and AGW.
    You are now trying to call UHI ‘enhanced AGW or enhanced Greenhouse effect’ or some such?
    Which if you had bothered to look up the definition of UHI….makes your terminology rather ironic to say the least.
    You’re basically mangling and murdering the IPCC stance on UHI….which they fully recognise BTW.

  1015. gavin says

    SD; from your Arctic Ice giff I followed the current science via their key scientist Dr Josefino Comiso. After reading these articles, I ask you to desist in picking bits to screw the context and outcome of their work re major changes in the Arctic perennial ice.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/48813125/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/why-arctic-becoming-giant-slushie/#.UEcALLIgd2A

    http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00113.1

    JW; the point is; a surface air temp anywhere is not to be fiddled with if we want to monitor AGW in all aspects. You can’t turn down climate change to suit some conservative argument re greenhouse gas emissions and their impact on local communities. The very concept of UHI is wrong in climate science.

    cohs; I don’t expect you guys will fail to run and hide in another long winded political slander campaign

  1017. gavin says

    SD won’t see it but I observed dewpoint this morning at 7.20 am without instruments during a rather dry spell. After consulting the Canberra Airport data we see that station observed a dewpoint near enough the same time. There is no difference in our air conditioning despite hills, lakes, and a few large urban developments in between.

    For those who have not tried it yet, dewpoint measurement requires ultra sensitive thermometers and good calibration for relative humidity readings. Right outside my window is a huge straggling banksia rose and it is almost leafless. These willowy canes did the job in forming the tiniest of droplets at their tips while I watched from inside, drops so small but diamond like against the sky for a few minutes so my hired help outside in her dressing gown could identify them.

    This is my point, that rose climbs up the wall from the garage below. Bet there is no wall so close at the airport.

  1018. Luke says

    An air con: when the poor pay to cool the rich

    Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/an-air-con-when-the-poor-pay-to-cool-the-rich-20120904-25cjh.html#ixzz25a83ejjX

    And look Debs – they support the WORLDWIDE Tea Party movement. I’m scared.

    Oh bugger you Cohers – have another free kick then (but Stockwell’s stuff is paff and not incisive)

    In addition to the analysis of SSTs, Solomon and Newman’s ENSO-filtering of one reconstruction of gridded mean sea-level pressure indicates no weakening of the atmospheric Walker circulation over the twentieth century ……. does challenge theories about the likely weakening of the tropical circulation tied to an expected weakening of tropical convection through energy-balance considerations.

    That’s ENSO filtering – we’re talking complex analysis here. Solomon, A. & Newman, M. Nature Clim. Change 2, 691–699 (2012).

  1020. Larry Fields says

    Here’s my latest article at Hubpages. I even mentioned Global Warming briefly.

    Psychic Computer Animation?

    Summary

    This article looks at Mamikon’s Attractor Puzzle. At first blush, it appears to be a psychic computer program. However the ‘obvious’ interpretation is really a mental illusion.

    LINK
    http://tinyurl.com/9v3xmm2

  1021. toby says

    Luke you are pathetic…fancy linking to a biased crappy article like that on air conditioners.. http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/tax-biting-pull-the-plug-on-beer-fridge-20120630-219bj.html ….. when this one suggests “It also found well over half of low-income households have an airconditioner and 37 per cent have a second fridge.” …and wait for it…writtenby the same fairfax journalist!!… talk about biased/ stupid/ zealot like behaviour.
    and when you actually take into account subsidies, surely nobody could actually argue that it is not the rich who subsidise the poor?

    let alone discussing the real problem, subsidising those stupid solar panels that basically do ntg for the environment as well as other pet renewable targets and subsidies. That really is a case of those unable to afford solar panels, subsidising those fortunate enough to be able to buy a system and pick up those rebates for input to the grid.

  1022. cohenite says

    gav says SD uses GIFF; what is GIFF; most of the acronyms are for film festivals but one that stood out is this:

    Global Islamic Finance Forum

    What nefarious implications are surfacing here?

    And luke says “paff” which is also mainly to do with film festivals with a few foundations thrown in for good measure; very esoteric!

  1023. el gordo says

    Milne says Labor can’t be trusted on the environment…I feel a premature election coming on. guffaw

  1024. spangled drongo says

    Bazza said yesterday:

    “How certain are you ,SD, that it is not AGW? Is it 90%, 100%, 10%.? Come on, give us a feel for what you are on about.”

    Well bazza I have been a bit remiss in reply but I was just reading a comment from Jim Cripwell at Judith Curry’s blog which says what I have said to you previously and puts it very simply:

    “1. There is no proof that any observed rise in global temperatures was caused by additional CO2 in the atmosphere.

    2. There has been no change in the temperature trend against time since good records became available about 160 years ago, and no trend since any records we have dating back much further.

    3. There is no discernable CO2 signature in any temperature/time graph, in the presence of natural noise.

    It follows from 3, by definition, that the value for total climate sensitivity is indistinguishable from zero, since we cannot detect any CO2 signal against the background of natural noise.”

    But as I also said before, if the facts change, so will I.

  1025. Luke says

    Come on Toby – you really are a rabid leg-rooting solar hater aren’t you. Get a rabies shot mate.

    But we’re talking huge installed base of air-con systems that push up the demand for peak electricity and add shitloads of new infrastructure cost on my power bill.

    It wuz ritten by a Fairfax journo – oooo – ooooo – sook sook

  1026. Luke says

    Sd – 1 – bulldust – only if you’re some knuckle dragging linearist
    2. irrelevant
    3. yes there is when you model all forcings which a drongo wouldn’t do

    Temp = F { solar, volcanism, aerosols, clouds, cryosphere ice, land use change, ENSO and IPO status – and yea GHGs] compute that !

  1027. Robert says

    “…if we had resisted the collective desire for household temperature control – like most families in the 1970s and 1980s – every consumer would now have a much smaller electricity bill.”

    If only Fairfax had resisted the collectivist desire in the 70s and 80s to make the SMH a continuation of Tharunka and Honi Soit, they might have consumers and their share price wouldn’t be in the pipes below the toilet. (We’re not talking complex analysis or serious science here.)

    Hey, everybody, brown coal to rock on! I’ve always quite liked that Marn Ferguson. Reminds me of an extinct creature called Labor Man.

  1028. toby says

    “It wuz ritten by a Fairfax journo – oooo – ooooo – sook sook”, the same idiotic journalist that also wrote an article recently discussing how many aircons and second fridges the poor have…….

    and if you cant see that the real cross subsidy is from those who can not afford solar, to those who can…then ….sigh……

  1030. Jonathan Wilkes says

    Luke
    “yes there is when you model”
    Come back when actual facts prove it. Sorry Luke, temp. adjustments and models don’t count in the real world.

  1032. Debbie says

    Luke?
    While that Australian TEA Party page has a great deal of hyperbole etc on that link.,
    Where’s the policy statement that explains a WORLDWIDE Tea Party movement?
    Not saying it isn’t there, but I can’t find one.
    Today was my first visit to that web page.

  1033. gavin says

    SD; re UK midland, what happened to their temps in 1740 and 1880? See how this written record is not that consistent

    http://www.hollinsclough.org.uk/weather.htm

    That dotted model prediction is arbitrary.

    Very few weather stations before 1880 and no error bands for temperatures either way.

    Can you do better than use C3 trash?

  1034. Debbie says

    I dunno,
    I rather like my reverse cycle air con when we have a run of 40+ degree very low humidity days here.
    Works better than the fan or even the old swamp boxes.
    Most offices and/or shops or malls that I visit all over OZ have them too.
    Most cars as well.
    You can leave them turned off if you don’t wanna pay the bill Luke.
    As Bazza has been pointing out though, infrastructure is actually a legitimate social cost. That even includes the NBN.
    If you don’t like the ‘cost recovery’ mindset, maybe you should have paid more attention earlier in this thread?

  1036. Luke says

    SD – pls explain how you’re going to look for a correlation with multiple interacting factors. Do you want to do science or just truck around? Come on pls explain. Want a serious dry run – try the PETM !

    Debbie are you daft – everyone pays the bill switched on or not – notice the price of power in recent years. Infrastructure to meet peak demand. What causes peak demand? The entire point of the article. Over your head of course.

  1038. Debbie says

    I read both articles Luke,
    Not seeing your problem.
    Of course there are peak demand times and of course air conditioning on stinking hot days causes demand.
    What do you think should be done about that?
    Maybe you don’t understand who/what determines the price? Like I said, maybe you needed to pay more attention earlier in this thread?

  1039. Robert says

    Are you still driving an XA Falcon? No? Well kindly don’t burn coal in clunkers while you waste money on medieval heaps of crap. Durrrdy Greenies.

    I’m down with brown, but once you’ve tried black…

    http://www.doka.com/web/newsroom/press/201109_eemshaven.en.php

    In the Netherlands they are using pre-fab and “kit” building methods to get an anthracite burner up in four years. Big construction savings, in time and money, and lots of coal saved, needless to say.

    However, to justify investments like Eemshaven and Grevenbroich-Neurath, a nation would need to be enormously rich in high quality coal deposits, with good access. Of course, if that nation was super-rich in uranium, it might prefer to take the extra time to build a nice gen 3 EPR nuke.

    Choices, choices! If only one could live in a country that had such resources and choices! Just imagine!

  1040. bazza says

    The world according to Deb ” As Bazza has been pointing out though, infrastructure is actually a legitimate social cost.”. Like many things you attribute to me, that is not what I said . There is no point in responding to you or even asking for a retraction. ( Hit me with a few smileys if you have not run out- about your level). It is a good thing to use your imagination to develop a hypothesis, but not to test it.
    As for SD, no need to look at his links – they are all recycled, rebutted, and regressing. Most show a total misunderstanding of science and common sense . None come with any text or context. All are one-offs which is not how science works.

  1042. cohenite says

    I always know luke has exhausted his little purse full of tricks when he resorts to the PETM; but then bazza trumps that with this little gem:

    “As for SD, no need to look at his links – they are all recycled, rebutted, and regressing. Most show a total misunderstanding of science and common sense . None come with any text or context. All are one-offs which is not how science works.”

    Bold words; I think SD has mentioned the THS somewhere on the thread and since I am currently arguing with a persistent and reasonably well researched troll elsewhere, let’s talk about that.

    The THS is an essential element of AGW; it predicts a faster rate of warming in the troposphere compared with the surface; is this happening. I say no; evidence:

    Fu and Manabe:

    http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~qfu/Publications/grl.fu.2011.pdf

  1043. bazza says

    Clutzing at straws again Cohenite. That discrepancy shows how science works – keeps on refining – what is your philosophy – a smoke screen?. As was widely reported a year ago ( got any fresh stuff to peddle) and as the paper stated “satellite MSU/AMSU observations generally support GCM results”. of course models aren’t perfect – they would not be a model if they were.

    Speaking of straw I am still appalled at the pall of smoke arising from your mate Debs comment “Hubby has been creating more GHGs too. Watering up the canola crops and burning off some stubborn stubble that has refused to break down.” I had thought the locals at Charles Sturt for example were quite concerned at health impacts of burning stubble on the young, the old and the pregnant. There are even bans some months – she may need a lawyer. It is one thing to have no humanitarian concerns for the risks of AGW faced by the rest of the world – it is unusual to be cavalier about your own tribe. Such hubris would have to be fed by arrogance.

  1044. spangled drongo says

    Luke, bazza and gav,

    The CET, while not perfect, is arguably the most accurate measure of temperature for the last 350 years and ties in with most of the old and new records.

    It also shows a slow, steady, progressive warming over that period. The huge acceleration of ACO2 in the last century is not evident in any correlating warming. The even greater acceleration this century shows no added warming.

    When most of the warming can be tied in with land use change with very little left for the GHG hypothesis, you catastros have to frantically theorise about unmeasurable cryptic warming that may be happening somewhere that we aren’t aware of, feed it into a computer and, Hey Presto! Instant catastrophe.

    You may have a point but so far it isn’t evidence.

    My links are blunt and don’t lead the unwary into the realms of fairyland because very good evidence exists that we are at the cooler end of the Holocene and the trend may not be our friend.

  1045. spangled drongo says

    Well, who’d a thought, cohers?

    Discrepancies and errors between GCMs? Nah, couldn’t happen.

    And on something as definite as the THS too.

  1046. Robert says

    Those urban Greens who sacrificed holiday time to “save” the Franklin might want to avert their eyes. Also, those who are made squeamish by the mere mention of Gina Rinehart should take extra bed-wetting measures.

    You see, the DRC has long been hobbled by financial, political and infrastructure probs. However, the Congo River has a potential for 39000MW, and the Grand Inga Dam is going to realise such potential. Combine that with the DRC’s enormous mineral deposits, and lots of Chinese investment money looking for a home…then think that this is just a beginning…

    And, yes, I did say thirty-nine thousand MW. Three zeros. This is all happening in something which resembles a model but is somewhat bigger. It’s call the world.

    Time to be a little more appreciative of those Australians who mine low grade land and farm prime land? Time to value hard production and accept that it will always involve entropy? Or will we all become fastidious, preachy, conceited luvvies…and just import somebody else’s entropy, till somebody else’s money runs out?

  1049. debbie says

    So Bazza,
    Have you found where I said that I or my industry have never been subsidised?
    I believe if you read back over the discussion earlier in the thread you will find some arguments advanced by you that did talk about social CBAs and how they translate to a figure /household.
    Are you now saying that isn’t a legitimate social cost?
    You also pointed out the taxpayer investment in the construction of the Snowy Scheme and irrigation networks and as added by me, the production of clean hydro energy, permanently running rivers that supply cities and towns and other critical human needs and permanent habitat for wetland species.
    And what do you think of Gavin’s ‘enhanced AGW or Enhanced Greenhouse’ hypothesis?
    And his question here:
    Deb; what is the hot air hanging over a city after dark (worst case) if it is not greenhouse?
    It sounds eerily similar to a question I posed to Gavin earlier in the thread re UHI does it not?
    Maybe you need to talk to him about painting the bitumen white and growing rooftop gardens?
    Chuckle.

    And what level is my level as compared to your level Bazza? Do tell, I am absolutely fascinated.
    It seems whatever your level is…it totally lacks anything approaching a sense of humour…except for the lowest form of wit….which is straight out sarcasm.
    I’m still chugging out those GHGs by the way as we are preparing ground for our summer cropping program and I need to drive a deisel tractor to do that. Until we can work out a better way to remove stubble so that we can continue to grow food and fibre there will be times when the particularly stubborn stuff gets burnt….it is not however some type of primitive slash and burn behaviour and it is done with respect for others.
    And….there are bans Bazza….don’t need a lawyer….we understand the bans perfectly and why they’re in place….but alas….apparently you have absolutely no clue at all.

  1050. spangled drongo says

    Deb, don’t disturb bazza, he’s disturbed enough and besides, he’s busy filling out his application for an assistant position with Stephan Lewandowski.

  1051. debbie says

    Oh OK SD, 🙂
    I didn’t realise that.
    My sincere apologies Bazza, you and Stephan Lewandowski will make a fine match.
    You two are apparently operating from a strikingly similar level.

  1054. bazza says

    Deb, you have no idea. If I used one specific example of where “infrastructure is actually a legitimate social cost” you can not generalise to all infrastructure. No wonder you drive all the spectators at this blog away with your all over the place verbosity and similar crazy logic. You are doing me out of a job. If you and SD are the flagships of denialism then it is no wonder you head a diminishing ragtag of ratbag losers.

  1055. spangled drongo says

    bazza, stop hand waving and shouting weak insults. I thought even you’d be mature enough to realise that when you can’t deal with specifics you’re really losing it.

    BTW, [talking of specifics] had a power bill lately?

  1057. toby says

    My electricity went up $300 and only included 6 weeks of carbon tax. my usage did go up 10% however accounting for half of that ( leaking hot water system…now fixed since my usage increase alerted me).
    my gas bill went up 80$ for two months.

    not sure if you heard but thx to wonthagi desalination plant in melb ALL households for teh next 20 years in melb will be paying $400pa irrespectivbe of if water is actually produced by the lemon. Another example of govt not doing a real cost benefit analysis. truly our politicians of all ilks are mostly a disgrace. baz and luke would be proud.

  1059. el gordo says

    ‘If you and SD are the flagships of denialism then it is no wonder you head a diminishing ragtag of ratbag losers.’

    They are Sceptics…I’m the only member of the Denialati here.

    We are winning on every front and you know it.

  1060. spangled drongo says

    Toby, the desal plant at Tugun on the Gold Coast is bad enough but that Wonthaggi plant is sinful. Just because politicians are too gutless to do the right thing by the people. Tugun costs us around $300,000 a day without producing a drop of water. At night time I can hear it rusting away from my place.

    Luckily I’m not on reticulated water or sewage but everybody still pays one way or another.

  1061. bazza says

    Toby, how cheap, how useless, how ungrateful is hindsight. Melbourne had a decade of inflows half the historic average and no evidence of a quick end to restrictions. I suppose you were up front with the greens opposing it. Or were you silent? You must have gone to the same risk management school that educates denialist trolls. Once you start judging well-informed risky decisions by outcomes , you are a dead set loser straight out of the Grand Old Oprey. Go for a bit of soul – at least they are losers on the way up. ( Thank you Sapphires).

  1062. toby says

    you truly are a dickhead ( sorry jen it has to be said).

    why no dams? i suppose you are so stupidly unable to relate to reality that you were conviced it would never rain again like your pin up idiot flim flam flannery…..?! if you put out 1 bucket how much water can you catch? 2 buckets? 3 buckets?……..

    or a pipe line from tassie ( not even considered!!)

    was i vocal, within reason yes very .,……anybody i came across i told them it was stupid idea, including writing to papers. I was highly vocal at school and continue to be….you know what a lot of staff come up now and say we are starting to agree with you…….

    i dont suppose you are even aware that where they built the bloody thing is known to flood on average once a year!!…and it has slowed construction.

    but dont let facts get in your way idiot

  1064. toby says

    somebody else linked to this clever young man on the topic of freedom of speech and finkelstein but he makes some good points in this doco http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADVB3DqEYK0

    he makes some even better ones on teh murray darling basin

    Yes SD, i heard about your lemon as well. at least you didnt build the worlds largest desaliantion plant!…and imagine how much electricity is required to run them when/ if they are used?…….imagine if someone sensible had suggested a dam that can actually generate renewable energy as well!! so little common sense and so much stupidity from our powers that be. tarred with the same lack of real critical thinking as some on this blog…..

  1066. gavin says

    Toby; I hope you are not suggesting that a new town water storage can also be used to generate electricity.

    Deb; both you and SD have failed to say where your UHI heat comes from. Is it greenhouse gases or the sun working overtime??

    eg; I leave the gate open for you to come in.

    Robert must be stuck in my gas fired combined cycle link.

  1067. Robert says

    “Robert must be stuck in my gas fired combined cycle link.”

    Gav, I pressed one of your links and it turned out to be a page of that lightning-fast google thingy you’ve mastered so amazingly. Way over my poor head! You guys are such techos, what with all those acronyms, and the google thingy, and that Tammy who isn’t Debbie Reynolds or Sandra Dee. So sciency!

  1073. kuhnkat says

    Little Lukey maunders,

    “SD – pls explain how you’re going to look for a correlation with multiple interacting factors.”

    Doesn’t appear to have stopped you and the rest of the alarmists!!! Y’all are still claiming little UHI with absolutely no actual investigation of the issue, just junk statistics with “multiple interacting factors” that CLAIM to address it!!

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  1074. spangled drongo says

    “Gavin,
    which part of ‘look up the definition of UHI’ do you not understand?”

    Debs, the brick wall part. The hot-body infrastructure. Gav’s sadly too much a part of the problem to ever be a part of the solution. ☺

  1075. gavin says

    Deb; As I’ve stated over and over, I don’t agree with UHI as a concept. I have always maintained that air temperatures are not surface temperatures and are directly related to our local atmosphere. Further the UHI campaign is a Wattsy led fad to destroy the integrity of old weather data.

    My concern is focused on the integrity of older an poorly documented instruments and their performance as the final climate reference. a task those early weather stations were clearly not designed to do. I also nominate an error band of +/- 2% of range for all thermometers used outside prior to our first geo phys year and +/- 1% through to the advent of platinum resistance bulbs. Even older thermometer records are a better bet than tree rings and other forms of climate records though.

    Rising urban AIR temperatures are directly related to AGW therefore we need to be aware of both the extent and mechanism. “Enhanced” greenhouse is the inappropriate term.

    Beware; if Victoria can have the waters of Lake Cethana, Tasmania can’t have the power. Also this is Senator Milne’s back yard

    http://www.hydro.com.au/energy/our-power-stations/mersey-forth

    http://www.hydro.com.au/energy/our-power-stations/mersey-forth

  1076. Debbie says

    UHI campaign?
    ROFL!
    Gavin, you like everyone else are entitled to your opinion and you are also free to personally reject any concept you like.
    But, good luck with that one.
    There is no question that a concentration of humanity and attendant infrastructure/reshaping of natural environment has a noticeable and measureable local impact. Temperature anomolies is one of those. It is paricularly prevalent in heavily urbanised areas, hence the name URBAN HI.
    But deny away to your heart’s content Gavin.
    I still suggest that you take the time to look up the definition of UHI. You don’t seem to understand what it actually is.

  1077. Minister for Truth says

    Yes Debbie,

    Those clips by Topher are very well put together, and if what he is saying in regard to MDBA reports is true, namely that they have not backed it up with references, and can produce NO evidence to support their claims, then that is quite shameful and the CEO and the nobs responsible should be fired.

    It would seem that the piss poor standards we have seen being applied in AGW, have their equivalence in the work being produced by bureaucracies for major documents of policy.

    It is indeed quite shameful that yet another independant non Govt funded person can, with very little effort, expose the MDBA reports for the incompetent stuff that it is.

    But it actually doesnt surprise me one bit. Its time the bunsen burner was taken to the lot of them.

    On top of all of this, the indomitable Bob Tisdale, yet another independant, has produced his tour de force of a book …..which again by just using data freely available, (and does not rely upon stupid contrived models) to show what an absolute beat up GW is. What Bob Tisdale is doing, and has been doing is quite heroic work.

    His book is well worth a read. Will the CSIRO nobs take note?..probably not..to dam arrogant for that.

    ….and again this is followed up by Jinan Caos’ recent paper on the dodgie use of the SB equations.

    … and again Lewandowsky must be a complete embarrassment to academia in general, and the UWA in particular, and as for Flannery et al, well ..what can one say.

  1078. bazza says

    Sorry Toby, I did not realise you were still at school. as you said “I was highly vocal at school and continue to be” we should all be proud you are a budding little activist. I thought your unprovoked outburst attacking me and not my point, suggested you had emptied the cask, but I realise now it is all those teenage homones out of control. Did you ever think the decline in rainfall in south west WA might be reflected in the trends in SE Australia?. Yes, I do know there have been a couple of wet years from a near record La Nina but given the best available forecasts show a possible downward trend in catchment yield exacerbated by increased risk of bushfires, there was a need for a quick response ( while engineers argued over the loss in head from Tasmanian high country water). Are you a fan of Bob Katter by any chance.

  1080. bazza says

    Robert, go back to your cherry bowl and pick out Victoria or South East Australia trends. Then try and take into account the uncertainty that the climate of the 20th century may not be relevant to the next few decades. And awaiting your response to my question “Did you ever think the decline in rainfall in south west WA might be reflected in the trends in SE Australia?.” You wont find the answer looking up old records.

  1081. toby says

    Baz are you really that stupid or just attempting humour? i am a teacher as i have told you before…..

    attack you , yes you deserve it, but i did as usual also rebutt your point about drought.

    like the good troll you are you ignore and move onto the next bit of antagonism.

    so do 3 buckets of water collect more water than none or 1? does it rain still?…were there floods even during the big drought?

    could we have built a pipeline from tassie? ( i suspect it would cost more than the 1 billion topher refers to….but probably not 5 billion….and teh water woudl be free, and would avoid all that pesky co2 converting salt water into fresh).

    i fail to see why i had to be vocal to voice disgust at the desal plant, but i also pointed out i was vocal, and if you had read this blog over the last 7 years you would know i have always been outspoken on the desal plant….i m glad you havent been around that long though.

    thx for showing us once again what a troll you are……

  1082. Debbie says

    Minister,
    it is very closely related.
    The MDBP is a complicated & impractical nightmare. I do feel slightly sorry for the MDBA as their ‘terms of reference’ are based on false and counter productive assumptions. They were essentially shackled and could only come up with only one answer.
    I also commend Topher for his delightful sense of humour in these clips.
    Sometimes pointing out the ridiculous but delicious irony is a good way to appeal to common sense.

  1083. Robert says

    Bazza, informed people know that all of Australian climate is highly unpredictable. If I find some “old records” for Vic I’ll show them, but the main lesson is that we know what happened but don’t know what’s coming. I don’t have to take uncertainty into account, because uncertainty is what the account consists of, by and large.

    We can be more sure of reversals than of continuation of trends, and that is what “old records” tell. Like most on the left, you dislike reference to the past because you have a hard time refraining from superficial extrapolation of recent trends. You also have a hard time seeing things as flux, rather than as “events” controlled or “driven” by simplistic levers and buttons – many of them being human monitored, as in a computer game!

    You are now awaiting my response to a question asked of Toby: “Did you ever think the decline in rainfall in south west WA might be reflected in the trends in SE Australia?.” Not only did I think it, but I think it now and all the time. Southern WA, as you may know, has had declining rainfall since the sixties while rainfall in many Eastern parts it has increased, even with the Millennium drought taken into account. What brings rain to one region, brings drought to another. Australia was blessed in its early history (sorry about the dirty word) by having geniuses like Goyder and Sid Kidman, who understood these things – to the great benefit of the emerging nation.

    Here’s rainfall for the MDB, if that will help you:

    http://papundits.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/rain2_thumb.jpg?w=500&h=380

    Here’s a rainfall graph for NE Vic. Unfortunately, it doesn’t show the drenching 1890s and the recent drenching, nor does it show the years of the Fed drought, which would be interesting to all – except our New Man at Year Zero.

    http://www.dpi.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/image/0016/32920/buffalo_1.jpg

    Because I don’t know what’s coming, I believe in Conservation. This does not, for me, mean placing a higher value on wilderness and “nature” than on agriculture and human well-being. It does mean I object to wasting money, electricity and rainwater. Our Green Betters are great wreckers and wasters, bazza. They’re also creepy. Get away from them.

  1084. spangled drongo says

    Debbie,

    Why work hard providing food to the world when you can utilise a cooked carbon accounting system that gives you a fantastic return like this:

    http://kzoo.co/VfEZvW

    To think that place is going to revert to its original state or change much at all with all the ferals out there is just corrupt make-believe and snake oil.

    But it’s really serious snake oil. I gotta get inta this.

  1085. Debbie says

    I think it might be both Toby 🙂
    Stupid AND a poor attempt at humour. It resembles the humour of year 8 boy standards don’t you think?
    Bazza needs to grow up and toughen up if he wants anyone to take him seriously. His poor attempts at sarcasm are so very, very predictable and he then over reacts when anyone occasionally throws his poor shots straight back at him.
    I wonder if he will attempt that difficult bucket question? He doesn’t seem to like basic maths questions. It must have something to do with his ‘level’ ? It is apparently a different level to others.

  1087. Debbie says

    Just took a lunch break while continuing to chug/plough and looked at your video clip SD.
    This little tablet thingy is a real gem when spending long hours in the tractor.
    You know the sad part? A lot of organisations will take this money even though they know it is basically a rort. Seen it happen before. Seen organisations brag about it before.
    It really doesn’t add up does it? Paying producers to stop producing?
    I wonder how sustainable that is? Irrespective of whatever the ‘higher level purpose’ is supposed to be.

  1088. spangled drongo says

    Deb, you are so right about people taking this up. Just like all these renewable scams, you would be mad to refuse. So far I have resisted but it is getting harder by the day.

    Talk about corrupting the ethics of the country!

    Full marks to you for your “carry on producing” ethos.

  1089. Robert says

    Land decarbonising? Big business has smelled the the coffee. Industry is on board. Driving profits in the New Economy just requires two white shoes and some incarceration-free time.

    Growing food is for durrdy polluders.

  1090. spangled drongo says

    Yes Robert, you can bet it’s a “mates only” deal for the big supporters club.

    What’s the bet the union super funds start buying up big properties.

  1091. spangled drongo says

    A few green groups have been buying big grazing properties recently, cheap, that have been on the market for years, run-down and virtually unsaleable. They have also received fed govt assistance with the purchase.

    With the profits they can go on a buying spree.

  1093. gavin says

    Guys; While I don’t need a plug from anyone, there are occasions when observations and reason from our side get swamped in BS, mostly political and far right that defeat all common sense debate. Classic, when bazza mentions “loss of head” re the Bass Strait water scheme it seems nobody saw it or it was more likely (yes or no?) deliberatly ignored.

    Now I am going to ask another Q; anyone, know the diameter and likely material for such a pipeline? Then, what is the terrain like down below? Pipe dreams hey.

    Nobody has tackled my enhanced AGW v UHI argument with any conviction and imo the probability that very few Australian met records will show some discernable error trend due to urbanisation has not been defeated with observation.

    Skeptic rhetoric in recent posts cannot be illustrated directly.

  1094. Johnathan Wilkes says

    “Nobody has tackled my enhanced AGW v UHI argument ”

    Don’t flatter yourself gav.
    Who in his right mind would bother to continue this argument with an obnoxious stubborn person who ignores even his own side’s conclusion?

    You think too highly of yourself I’m afraid.

  1095. Debbie says

    ROFL! 🙂 🙂 🙂
    ‘Who even ignores his own side’s conclusions.’
    Gavin,
    please do yourself a favour and look up what even IPCC says about UHI.
    It really has nothing to do with your breadmaker in Canberra or a comparison with Tuggers.
    Calling it ‘enhanced AGW’or ‘enhanced greenhouse’ actually supports Watts et al & much of the sceptic argument re CAGW.

  1096. spangled drongo says

    And gav, I think you’ll find that there are already pipelines across Bass Strait. A big poly water pipe would not be difficult and for most of the way would lie on the ground surface under water.

    When UHI is already accepted by the warming persuasion and there is only 0.6c to argue over, it is looking like “CO2 causes cooling” may be a valid argument.

  1097. gavin says

    SD; Diameters please, water v oil & gas. Btw I hosted a guy from China who engineered big plastic pipelines round the globe.

    Deb.From your wiki heat isl info and so I continue as an easy target to help get your lot into making factual statements besides the usual hysteric skeptic rhetoric

    “The preliminary results of an independent assessment carried out by the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature group, and made available to the public in October 2011, found that among other scientific concerns raised by skeptics, the urban heat island effect did not bias the results obtained by NOAA, the Hadley Centre and NASA’s GISS. The Berkeley Earth group also confirmed that over the past 50 years the land surface warmed by 0.911°C”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_heat_island

    “for only weakly populated sites with population density of 100–300/km2, there is an anomalous trend of 0.03–0.05 °C/decade” Japan study 2008

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/joc.1822/abstract

  1098. Robert says

    Not being an instant expert, I don’t know if Topher’s plan is better than a dam on the Mitchell (too hard, like most good things, till some gutsy people just do it). For his proposed system, Topher said, I think, 7% draw on supply, which is promising if accurate. As to whether it’s possible to run water through a pipe across Bass Strait, I’m guessing that’s not the greatest of hydrological challenges. What would I know? It’s between Vic and Tas.

    None of this will appeal to our Green Betters, who will always opt for the most wasteful, damaging and expensive solution. That’s because they don’t like people. They don’t even like themselves.

  1099. Debbie says

    Congratulations Gavin!
    You finally looked it up!
    So Gavin?
    Which ‘side’ of this stupid argument about CAGW does your ‘enhanced AGW’ or ‘enhanced greenhouse effect’ support?
    To repeat my question of many days ago, if you deny the immediate local effect of concentrated human activity, what else have you got re CAGW?
    Human activity most definitely impacts immediate local environment Gavin.
    You won’t find a single genuine so called ‘sceptic’ but I what I would call a ‘realist’ who would disagree with that.
    Thermometers placed in urbanised areas where not placed to measure global temperature, they were placed in convenient spots to measure local temperature. LIKE DUH!!!!!
    I would also suggest you think about climate/weather in our extremely variable but very fortunate country.
    If you wanted to, you could duck up to the ski fields from Canberra tomorrow morning. At lunchtime you could hop on an aeroplane and go swimming at the Sunshine Coast in the afternoon.
    How on earth could you homogenise and average out that to prove anything meaningful or mitigate anything with a carbon tax?
    Why would you even want to?

  1101. gavin says

    Robert; I suspect no one remembers but I have stated on Jen’s perhaps more than I care to recall of having worked on many MMBW projects including water and sewage monitoring. Those pipelines in the main or round the peripheral were quite large.

    The gravity fed water lines to Canberra are also quite large as is the outfall to our Lower Molongolo Treatment Works, that’s another place where I got in for a personal tour. On consideration, Geoff Croker’s (not Topher’s) Tassie pipe lines would be colossal. The fact that it was put up at all only relates to the ongoing MDB water campaign. It is thus not authorized or peer reviewed

  1102. Robert says

    Not sure what your last two sentences mean, Gav, but most of us are aware that Topher is a guy who makes videos on youtube, not a pipeline builder. Also, most know that water pipelines are quite large.

    I’m sorry if no-one remembers that you have expertise with pipes, in spite of your many reminders. I did note your words “Tassie pipe lines would be colossal”. I’m having trouble with the context, but I assume you think it’s a good idea to gravity feed water from Tassie. It also sounds like a great idea to me, but I’m hardly an expert.

    My understanding is that the refusal of the Croker consortium’s proposal came from the Brumby government, not the Tasmanians. Further, the Brumby government would not say if they had even been in talks with Tassie. Oh well, the Vics have plenty of brown coal to keep the desal humming. Handy stuff, lignite, though I prefer to economise such things. Conservation, and all that.

  1103. gavin says

    Robert; I appreciate your reply for it’s info and admissions. We could be on a roll in mutual respect

    My turn; I grew up with a great luv for water schemes including gravity fed mineral concentration. However I opposed both Mersey Forth and Pieman River hydro projects on the grounds that proposed lakes swamped considerable forests, wild river environments, waterfalls etc. I even socialized with a West Coast works captain to get a better understanding of the conflicting values in harnessing hydro energy. Although only a bystander I hope we achieved a better layout in Tasmania’s later schemes for wilderness areas.

    One observation over the years was penstocks are a vital part of any hydro electrical engineering. Pressures and pulses can destroy a power house and I thought our bazza was the only one to cotton on. This raises another question about your side’s dismissal of network design i.e grid infrastructure. I spent lots of time in smaller power houses and switch rooms watching load factor instruments. Phase shift is another angry beast that has to be seen. It too destroys infrastructure with a bang.

    Robert; I’m simply amazed how people can gloss over serious impediments to successful design, development and maintenance of such large resource diversion even though it may be for agriculture in the end.

  1104. spangled drongo says

    gav, ideology is an amazing thing. It can see all sorts of problems in proven, functional infrastructure but it can’t see a thing wrong with wind farms and solar plants.

    I wonder if it may be somewhat influenced by fanaticism and zealotry?

  1105. Debbie says

    Loss of head Gavin?
    While I accept that there are people who do not understand that concept, has it occured to you that it is one of the oldest known formulas to mankind?
    You are correct that the size of pipes will influence that formula….but that doesn’t change the fact that it is a well known formula.
    Even ancient civilizations like the Egyptians and the Mayans figured out how to combine the resources of water and gravity when they built their watering and irrigation systems.
    And just for a little bit of edumacation for you Gavin….have a gander at what water storages that also use the ‘head’ for hydro power is doing around the world:
    Sorry this ends up a large post…but it is relevant:

    ‘During the last 30 years the World Bank has funded over 500 large dams across 92 countries around the world.

    These include the 67 km long Yacyreta Dam on the Parana river in Argentina, four large dams on the Amazon river in Brazil, (Brazil intends to build three to four dams a year for the next 15 years), a 1,500 megawatt dam on the Zambezi River in Zambia, the Lesotho Highlands Water Project of 5 dams in South Africa, numerous dams in other African nations like Kenya and Ethiopia and numerous others on all continents except Australia.

    China is presently building 12 large dams on the Jinsha river alone and is planning to have 729 dams capable of generating carbon credits as a result of their hydro power capacity by the end of this decade.

    China aims to be producing over half of its power needs from hydro power within 30 years. Outside of China in Asia and Africa the Chinese Government is funding over 200 separate dams for the production of hydro power.

    Hydro electricity accounts for 16% of global electricity consumption. The United States currently has over 2,000 hydroelectric power plants generating 49% of its requirements. Norway has 98% and Paraguay has 100% hydro power plus it exports 90% to Brazil.

    Hydropower facilities in the United States can generate enough power to supply one-quarter of all households–28 million of them–with electricity. This is the equivalent of nearly 500 million barrels of oil or 100 average-sized coal power plants.

    While Australia for the last 35 years has not built any dams of significance (except Wivenhoe in Queensland in response to the 1974 flood) the rest of the world has been very industriously building dams for water conservation, the production of hydro power as well as flood mitigation.

    Countries have further recognised that rather than adversely affecting a watercourse, with the use of new technology, correctly sited and practically managed new dams can actually enhance the stream environment and provide increased habitat for aquatic flora and fauna.’

  1106. gavin says

    SD; I could easily accuse your side of fanaticism and zealotry but won’t except in extreme cases so lets move on to things wrong in my book.

    You did not follow my link on combined cycle gas generators did you?

  1107. spangled drongo says

    Debbie, good points. Around 40 years ago the Hinze Dam was built in the Gold Coast Hinterland and it has been a fantastic asset to that city. It has been increased in size three times in that short period because of spectacular growth in the area.

    It provides [1, a great environmental resource with its substantial catchment tieing in with the Lamington Plateau, Springbrook and many other national parks, [2, a very accessable, scenic recreation area for the city for rowing, fishing, sailing, hiking, picnicing etc, [3, Flood mitigation, [4, adequate, low cost, top quality water.

    There was objection from greenies back then too.

    As a result of the dam being built, city development has been concentrated more on the coastal areas but if it had not been built what would they have now, in its place?

    How about suburbia and industrial suburbs stretching to the NSW hinterland border.

    Is that a win/win/win/win/win or what?

  1108. Luke says

    “While Australia for the last 35 years has not built any dams of significance” exclaims Debs

    errr nope

    Paradise Dam, Burnett River, Nov 2005

    Wyaralong Dam, Teviot Brook, SEQ, Dec 2010

    Nathan Dam, Dawson River – on the books

    ” managed new dams can actually enhance the stream environment and provide increased habitat for aquatic flora and fauna.” – you mean turtle smashers and lungfish pounders – jeez Debs you’re a prime drongo

    And as for your adoration of SD’s bogus sunspot revival nonsense – tell us something we don’t know. Notice the end of the graph – the entire point.

    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a2/Climate_Change_Attribution.png

    A few neurones might reveal an interaction of drivers.

    And if you google Gerry Meehl (mentioned above in dispatches) has done lots of work on solar interactions – hardly an non-AGW person.

    http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/staff/meehl/pubs.htm 2011, 2012

    Debs despite your 3 degrees you seem to have an aversion for the mainstream literature and a predilection for the bogus grey literature. I will fall off my perch when you do a main stream citation.

    More additions to the blog drongosity index!

    Meanwhile back in bulldust fairy land. Typical Tory nonsense. (Gillars must be praying for such good luck)

    http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/national/queenslands-peter-costello-audit-trashed-by-experts/story-fndo1yus-1226466757844

    I hear the plans to replace Newman with a National are in full swing. If he stays he needs a new seat – given the public service demographics of his seat he’s gone at next election by a mile.

    Pretty interesting how divided the place is now – you can get into a brawl at a social BBQ or kids sporting fixture pretty easy these days. So we’re trajecting to a nation divided. A major schism that ain’t going away soon.

    Wait for Abbott – http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/bully-tactics-came-out-early-in-abbott-says-former-rival-20120907-25joi.html it’s gonna be so much fun.

  1109. Debbie says

    Luke,
    It said dams of SIGNIFICANCE!
    You are correct that some smaller en route systems have been built. They upgraded Cotter for the ACT too.
    Did you also miss the connection with Hydro power, flood mitigation & permanent aquatic habitat? Tortoises actually like them too Luke. Yes, sometimes they get caught in older structures, but far, far more tortoises get smashed in natural waterfalls/rapids and far, far more run over by cars and ride on lawn mowers and murdered by domestic pets.
    You also seemed to miss the point about new technology and siting?
    Notice also how far we have slipped behind the rest of the world?
    Seems other countries understand the concept of ‘multiple benefits’.
    BTW Luke, that was a short cut and paste from a much larger mainstream doc.
    Are you claiming those figs re the rest of the world are incorrect?
    You can look them up if you like, they’re freely available to the mainstream.

  1110. gavin says

    I forgot to ask; folks, where was the money for that big water diversion coming from?

    SD asks “How about suburbia and industrial suburbs stretching to the NSW hinterland border” but one wonders what happened to Tasmania after their great big dam splurge on behalf of all of us? Industry at any cost is not such a good thing nor is unchecked human growth in prime locations.

    Luke; I feel sorry for Q’Landers going back to cowboy Joh days

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joh_Bjelke-Petersen#State_development

  1111. Robert says

    Few things make more sense than dams. It’s worth interfering with “pristine wilderness” and “living rivers” for the right dams, and, like Jen and others here, I’m into wilderness and rivers. Dams give people a reason to care and preserve. Try doing a bush crap around Kosciusko.

    But it’s impossible to talk Conservation with our Green Betters, who are just the self-loathers and authoritarian ratbags left over from last century. Let’s hope this century is their last fling.

  1112. spangled drongo says

    “Wyaralong Dam, Teviot Brook, SEQ, Dec 2010”

    Tokenist crap, Luke.

    The big dam that was supposed to happen in SEQ to provide the much-needed water supply to the ever-burgeoning population, was the Wolfdene Dam just behind Beenleigh. On the Albert river in a natural gorge.

    And what a wonderful asset it would have been for this growth area.

    Poor old Joh had gone against the wishes of his Country Party mates and done all the difficult spade work for its resumption and construction when along comes that well known, long-term planner, Kevin Rudd, as Labor’s chief head-kicker at the time and says to the aspiring Wayne Goss prior to the ’89 state election, “if we promise to scrap this dam we can win the seat of Beaudesert from Nationals”.

    Well, they couldn’t win Beaudesert but they won govt and they had to scrap this fantastic project which was possibly even better than the Hinze Dam concept.

    One or two people in state Labor realised how dumb this decision was and for the next twenty years they tried all they could to find a site to replicate the Wolfdene Dam and the pathetic Yaramalong [too little, too late and too far away] was all they could achieve.

    The Wolfdene area is now suburbia and gravel quarries and has the added substitution of the horrendously expensive Tugun desal plant and the water grid. What progress.

    The unintended consequences of going green.

  1113. Luke says

    No Debs – they aren’t killed by cars or pets in numbers where I’m talking. The new dams are turtle smashers and lung fish pounders. Do a modicum of research. Seen the pics ? And we are talking iconic and endangered species. Get updated on CQ fauna.

    The Burnett, Mary and Fitzroy catchments have the highest level of endemic turtle species in
    Australia. Two of the six species of turtles in the Mary system (Elseya albagula – Burnett
    River snapping turtle and Elusor macrurus – Mary River turtle) appear to have a declining
    population and a restricted distribution.

    As SD probably does – these species are bum-breathers a unique adaptation http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nPRQbapungM

    http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/national/threatened-fish-die-due-to-dam-design/story-fndo45r1-1226426650565

    http://www.cqnews.com.au/story/2012/03/16/turtles-lose-paradise-north-burnett/

    Wyaralong and Paradise are hardly piddly. I could have mentioned many dam upgrades and weirs too. Alas Debs many of the good sites are already taken. I guess you’d like to dam the Fitzroy in WA even though the Ord isn’t being used anywhere near capacity?

  1114. spangled drongo says

    KRudd catered for Joh’s mates as they made a fortune subdividing their erstwhile resumed properties but Kev Lingard retained his seat.

    Joh was the statesman, Krudd the opportunist.

    Oh, the irony!

    And gav, how’s ol’ basket-case-Tassie doin’ these days?

  1115. Luke says

    Don’t tokenist me matey – pay for own dams. Debs didn’t pay for her headworks either as Bazza has previously mentioned.

    Wolfdene was defeated by nimbyism not Greens. People don’t want their place flooded. See also Mary River/Traveston and Rathdowney. Your “greens” sleight is pure bullshit.

    Same with the “Koala Hwy” failed Gold Coast bypass. The campaign was funded by local landholders (and they were definitely not greenies) who got the publicity and lost Goss the seats.

    The drivel on here just drips.

  1116. spangled drongo says

    Luke, you dummy, Wolfdene was done and dusted prior to Goss and that’s why KRudd thought it was such a weapon.

    The koala problem is a different argument but one that is considerably helped by big dam catchments close to urban areas.

    Where there is the greatest biodiversity combined with the greatest desire to live, such as SEQ and NENSW, it makes tremendous sense to get in as early as possible and build dams and provide pristine catchments to cater for those inevitable populations.

    NENSW is the big greenie frontier and it is probably already too late to provide the dams necessary for the development that will come.

    It is so comparable to the CAGW problem. The elephant in the room is being ignored and the ideologues are not prepared to even discuss the worsening problem.

    Hinze-type dams are a glittering example of how we can have the best of both worlds.

  1117. spangled drongo says

    Back in the ’60s I was in the bar of the Advancetown Hotel when the publican was bemoaning his fate across the bar to Russ Hinze [I had just come off my motorbike and slid along the bitumen and the publican’s wife was patching me up] and big Russ said jokingly for all to hear, “if you cut me in on the business I’ll get the main road to run through your bottleshop” or words to that effect.

    The point I’m making is that Russ and Joh made many tough decisions that affected their constituents [The Adancetown Pub was being seriously affected by Hinze Dam resumptions and had to be transported to a different site] but they loved to joke about the popular belief that pollys were on the take and probably used it in their own defence.

  1119. Debbie says

    Luke,
    I have no idea what your issue is. On this very same thread you castigated Neville(?) I think (?) pointing out that we would neve have built the Snowy Scheme with his attitude. No offense intended but I think it’s your attitude that is more of a problem.
    Your turtles are actially tortoises and they don’t get smashed in dams, they get caught in the older structures and they get smashed when they go over rapids, waterfalls and fast running spillways (on small weir and enroute structures).
    Tortoises like dams and irrigation networks Luke. We have 1,000s amd thousands of them here. No way they would be without the Snowy Hydro Scheme.
    Also Luke, of course we have paid our share and are still paying. The scheme also supplies hydro electricity, which gets paid for, permanently running rivers, which gets paid for, critical human and S&D supplies, which gets paid for, priority supplies to towns and cities, which gets paid for, and irrigation water which gets paid for. We even pay an ‘infrastructure charge’ and we have to pay that whether we get water or not.
    It’s called multiple benefits Luke. Everyone benefits and therefore everyone pays. Other basic infrastructure works the same. It would be nice however that the depts who run them would focus on ‘cost efficiencies’ as well.as ‘cost recovery’.

  1120. Pikey says

    Luke,
    Many of your commets here are a repeat of similar, over many years on this site.
    You get comprehensively refuted and made to look uninformed and then months and years later come back with the same indefensible drivel.
    Just do some searches on lung fish and you will see that where they are prospering best is in man made dams.
    The reasons for this to any practical environmentalist are obvious.
    As for your turtles, which are actually tortoises, well their shells are not as thick as your skull.
    If you think we can sustain a growing population in Australia without building further water storages and power plants, you are a post tortoise.
    Pikey.

  1121. spangled drongo says

    Luke, I may exhale occasionally from my nether region but I don’t talk out of it like some people.

    And a post on something that David Marr would say about Tony Abbott is as feeble as it gets.

    But I suppose when it comes from your cloaca…..

  1122. debbie says

    Gavin,
    ‘I forgot to ask; folks, where was the money for that big water diversion coming from?”

    Geeze Gavin, I dunno…where was it coming from?
    Wouldn’t be the same place that built the national capital (ie Canberra), our road, bridge and rail networks, our town and city water supplies our phone lines our power infrastructure our airports our health and education systems our public libraries and museums and numerous similar others would it?
    Wouldn’t be the same place that the NBN funding is coming from would it?
    Wouldn’t be the same place that the NDS and the latest announcements re Education funding are coming from would it?
    Wouldn’t be the same place our social security system gets funded from would it?
    It’s called INVESTMENT in SOCIAL infrastructure Gavin.
    If Govts invest wisely in these things it creates expansion, development and benefits for all and sundry.
    It’s a well known concept.
    As I have said in varying ways over this long thread however….it would be nice to see some sensible fiscal management going on in regard to these projects in terms of much needed upgrades and future infrastructure investment.
    They do need to recover their costs….but they seriously need to focus on behaving in a fiscally responsible and ‘cost efficient’ manner as well.
    The Snowy Scheme and most of the other water diversion schemes we have invested in have proved to be rather good investments don’t you think?
    Lucky for SA that we had them in the last decade eh?
    Lucky for nearly all the towns and cities in the MDB too eh, probably even the ACT eh?
    That’s probably a good reason why the world bank and countries like China are investing heavily in them too wouldn’t you think?

    BTW, Gavin? Where’s the money for solar power and wind power coming from?Where’s the money for the ever increasing PR and reporting on CAGW coming from?

  1123. bazza says

    Simple Gavin. “It’s called INVESTMENT in SOCIAL infrastructure Gavin.
    If Govts invest wisely in these things it creates expansion, development and benefits for all and sundry”.etc etc etc then Debs totally contradictory bit “They do need to recover their costs….” So why would the Government need to invest if costs can be recovered?

  1124. debbie says

    You are kidding aren’t you Bazza?
    I thought you were an expert on CBAs?
    You certainly tried to represent yourself that way earlier in this thread.
    Maybe you need to look up the definition of investment? Especially long term investments that include infrastructure expenditure?

  1125. Johnathan Wilkes says

    “So why would the Government need to invest if costs can be recovered?”

    “What you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard……Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it.” (Principal – Billy Madison)

    In case he doesn’t get it, there is a charge on the rail services, built by governments, on the wharfs, mostly built by governments, farmers pay for the irrigation infractructure etc. but why do I bother?

  1126. el gordo says

    ‘A courtroom format in Orkney next week will tackle the question of climate change.

    ‘For many years the debate has raged in newspaper columns and internet blogs – Is the climate really changing? And are we the cause?

    ‘Now as part of the Orkney International Science Festival the courtroom method is bring applied. The aim is to get at the truth by bringing the two sides together, gathering the evidence from each, and subjecting it to examination and cross-examination.’

    Sourced from Bishop Hill

  1127. spangled drongo says

    Poor old bazza.

    How does that saying go? “It’s better to shut up and let people think you are a dill than open your mouth and prove it.”

    Y’see baz, it’s like this; if govts do smart things with infrastructure, that same infrastructure generates value and wealth far in excess of its cost and the investment is returned.

    Sometimes many times over.

    And the net effect is that society benefits.

    OTOH, If it stuffs up, wastes money, builds white elephants that cost heaps and send us to the poor-house, we and the govt both end up all losing big time.

    And there is no way to duck these public losses.

    One way or another the taxpayer cops it in the neck.

    That simple enough to unnerstan?

    And who is doing this a lot at the moment? Who might it remind you of?

    Go on, just a wild guess.

  1128. Debbie says

    Well I hope if people like Jen & Judith & Jo go, they remember to wear their grey moustaches, their tweed coats & take their thermos of TEA with them & make sure they have got their necks nice and sunburnt!
    Oh! And they need to attach a right wing and make sure that other than their necks, their skin looks nice and white.
    What would people like Stephan make of them otherwise?
    Maybe they should also take their inadequate and somehow corrupted, mysteriously funded science credentials with them as well?
    OH! And they also need to attach a sign that says either ‘denialist’ or ‘ I believe in conspiracy theories’.

  1129. Luke says

    Didn’t say Goss did Wolfdene – I said NotInMyBackYard did !

    You have to love geriatrics like Pikey “If you think we can sustain a growing population in Australia” – yuh that’s why they’re endemic to only a few systems and in decline. Maybe we can take them to Mildura. hahahahahahaha

    and they are turtles you drongos – not tortoises- unless you wish to argue with biology luminaries like Col Limpus and the journal of Chelonian Conservation and Biology about taxonomic integrity.

    Engineering maddies like Pikey think whacking a big dam = fishy happiness. It doesn’t and he’s obvuiously an ecological ignoramus. “Construction of impoundments in the Burnett system has resulted in significant reduction in available habitat and, more importantly, breeding sites. Lungfish show considerable reluctance to seek out new spawning grounds and if one that has been used in the past becomes unsuitable due to exposure caused by river regulation (for example), the fish simply re-absorb the eggs and milt and return again the following year. If conditions have not improved, they may continue to do this year after year until they are too old to breed.” Native fish Australia.

    Smashing them to bits at the bottom of spillways always helps adults reaching sexual maturity too.

  1130. bazza says

    Silly me. I thought “They do need to recover their costs…” actually meant they do need to recover their costs. I missed the implicit “some” of their costs. Deb says ” farmers pay for the irrigation infractructure”. What percentage would that be? I would hardly expect an apology from SD or Deb. Both will blast off on some other tangent. How good is the sarcasm of SD compared with the humour of Deb.?

  1131. Luke says

    Pikey might also read up on what lungfish take to breed http://apscience.org.au/projects/APSF_99_2/apsf_99_2.htm

    and why we might let some old codger from way south of the border keep well away from our fish conservation issues – what appalling drongoism – what ecological stupidity

    “No state government agency has been able to calculate how many lungfish, now listed as a vulnerable species, inhabit the Wivenhoe, Somerset or North Pine dams, nor can they tell how many there are in the Brisbane River.

    However, the Department of Primary Industries and Seqwater have confirmed there were no longer lungfish at Enoggera Reservoir.”

    “However, Seqwater was able to confirm that no lungfish eggs had been found at either the Wivenhoe or North Pine Dam since 2009.

    That added weight to fears by two prominent lungfish experts that the population in the Brisbane River catchment is in decline.”

    “Dr Kemp said that was why she was initially excited to learn some lungfish eggs had been found at Logan’s Inlet at Wivenhoe Dam.
    However those eggs did not fertilise and no other lungfish eggs have been found in either Wivenhoe or North Pine dam, Seqwater confirmed last night.
    “Surveys were completed during the 2009 breeding season [August to November] to determine if lungfish were spawning in Wivenhoe and North Pine Dams, where they were known to occur,” Seqwater said in a statement.
    “These surveys involved measuring the numbers of eggs in the shallow of the lakes and monitoring their survival over the breeding season. Although numerous eggs were discovered, no surviving juveniles were found.”

    “It concluded that the varying water temperatures in dams meant they were not suited to lungfish breeding.

    Meanwhile sources confirmed that 36 lungfish were found dead near the bottom of the Wivenhoe Dam spillway after stormwater was released a fortnight ago”

    “In 2009, 80 lungfish died when Seqwater opened the gates at North Pine Dam.
    Meanwhile Dr Kemp said she feared for the future of the species.

    “No-one is prepared to look after them. No-one is prepared to help them,” she said.
    “They can just live in the reservoir until they die of old age and nobody in the government, or the government agencies seems to be able to do anything to help them.”

    Read more: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/lungfish-research-grant-denied-as-population-flounders-20101028-175lt.html#ixzz25rHjYqDm

  1133. Debbie says

    So Luke?
    You don’t like the idea of water storage and water management I gather?
    They are just all bad in your opinion?
    Lucky your attitude wasn’t around when we built the Snowy Scheme eh?
    Bazza,
    I really can’t be bothered with you.
    But, have you ever heard of management, compliance, R&M, machinery costs,interest repayments, govt statutory charges and wages? Just to name a few?
    Are you also implying that I don’t pay my share or that I don’t pay enough?
    How much do you think I should be paying Bazza?

  1134. spangled drongo says

    Luke, the Wolfdene nimbys had all been beaten at the time of the ’89 election. Not all the properties had been resumed but the deal was done. I was trying to buy Albert River frontage at the time and had a ringside seat on what was happening. The overkill by Rudd in this manoevre stuffed the Beattie/Bligh water plans at the beginning of a long drought and contributed to a lot of the current debt and anti-labor sentiment through their bumbling and costly efforts for twenty years to rectify it.

    Maybe when the waste, wasted opportunity, bad planning and general govt bungling is happening in your backyard it is harder to see the funny side, bazza.

    But it is easier to understand how such incredibly stupid things can happen when Labor aficionados don’t even know what level of accountability govts are supposed to be held to.

  1137. Luke says

    Debs – don’t verbal me – poorly designed structures with no consideration of fish ecology (e.g. Pikey types) – no idea on habitat and environmental flows – and you get poor outcomes on vulnerable species. And that’s just what we know about. But if you can’t eat it, shoot it, root it or sell it does anyone care?

  1138. bazza says

    So I was right – recover costs has been redefined to mean some cost recovery on the headworks. We well know by now how Debs head works after lecturing Gav on loss of head across the Tasman. It takes a dorahead.

  1139. spangled drongo says

    Well luke, what a reliable source. You don’t know what you are talking about. The Aus is a much better source but it doesn’t tell about those old established CP/Nats around Beaudesert with the big holdings that were being resumed for a dam just as it was becoming prime subdivision land. Some of those big landholding families [I won’t mention names] had held that land since the 1840s and were some of the biggest landholders in Australia. Asset rich and cash poor, they were badly in need of some overdue funds and Joh was depriving them of this for the good of the state.

    Not the side of things that your lot want to portray.

    Labor should have read the signs a whole heluva lot better but all they could see was a chance to grab a near impossible dream of Kev Lingard’s seat of Beaudesert but like I said they still couldn’t do it but had to scrap the dam anyway because of their election promise [they used to honour them in those days] and the silvertails cleaned up.

    Oh, the irony!

    Someone should write a book.

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/greg-hunt-rudd-recipe-no-good-in-a-crisis/story-e6frg6zo-1111112770784

  1140. spangled drongo says

    “I suppose you were one of the white shoe brigade?”

    Yeah, that’s me Luke.

    You really pay attention, eh!

    That’s why I convert subdiv land into rainforest, exclude livestock and data log native wildlife.

    I’m makin’ a fortune!

  1141. Luke says

    Wow ! Is that right. I’m seriously impressed. So how about a guest post in the comments. You have my undivided attention. Actually this is about the most interesting thing I’ve heard in the few years on here.

  1143. Debbie says

    Luke,
    Verballing you?
    You’re kidding right?
    So what ‘sort’ of dam do you think is acceptable?
    I have no idea what you think ‘Pikey’s sort’ is, but are there any that are built either in Australaia or overseas that are acceptable in your opinion?
    Do you think what the World Bank and countries like Chiona are doing with dams has merit?
    They do supply clean energy as well as other multiple benefits.
    It looks to me that you are simply ‘anti dam’ and that’s the end of the story.
    Bazza,
    For you to be right about whatever you think you’re right about, someone would have had to be wrong.
    I’m asssumning it’s me and it has something to do with percentages…..but I’ m afraid you don’t make any of that clear.
    Your question was:
    “So why would the Government need to invest if costs can be recovered?”
    I’m not sure what you now think you’re right about?
    Or what it has to do with my comment about water and gravity?

  1144. Robert says

    There are good arguments for some subsidies and controls in a naughty world where nobody – or climate – plays fair. Though big business always finds ways to be “on board” with big government initiatives, I can see where governments sometimes need to take situations by the scruff of the neck. Not being a “user-pays” or “market” purist, I’m not bothered by prudent investment of my taxes in subsidies and infrastructure. I wouldn’t even care about the NBN if Labor could run a chook raffle. (They can’t.) If government investment is not prudent, there goes my money! If it’s prudent, maybe someone will score a real job, a “job” job. Who knows? I’ll punt.

    Commies are the all-time champions of agricultural stupidity. The “organic” movement is pretty dumb, turning commonsense into rigid dogma (dispensed by ponytails). The European subsidy system has been like all things Euro: highly sophisticated till the money runs out.

    Having said that, this is the craziness we surely have to avoid at all costs:
    http://www.learnstuff.com/big-bad-corn/

    This is an obscene love quadrangle between big agriculture, big government, junk food and environmentalism. If any US administration ever puts an end to this, it’ll have at least one claim to greatness.

  1145. Luke says

    So Debs would like her dams to kill native wildlife regularly and send endangered species extinct.

    Pikey’s sort – well wouldn’t to generalise or be specific would we – but perhaps southern-centric ecological ignorami

  1146. Luke says

    Oh Debs – as for “clean energy” – the methane emissions from South American dams are massive. Don’t you know? Other dams most likely large as well. For 100s of years.

  1147. Debbie says

    Luke?
    So…you don’t have an answer to my question?
    You just think I want to kill native wildlife regularly and send endangered species extinct?
    That is a supremely stupid comment BTW….and example of verballing if I ever saw one….I seriously suspect you need to get out and about a little more….come and have a look at what is happening out here….I’ll even offer you a place to stay.
    As far as I can see…..you don’t like dams and/or irrigated agriculture under any circumstances?
    So because there is rotting vegetation in dams it therefore is no longer a source of clean energy?
    You’re kidding right?
    What about the ‘secondary’ unclean factors involved in the production of wind power and solar power?
    Can I ask the questions again Luke?….
    Is there any sort of dam construction going on in the world that you think is OK?
    So far…from your comments….I’m guessing the answer is no?
    And I’m unclear about your ‘southern centric’ comment?
    Isn’t the southern MDB where most of the investmant in Infrastructure and logistics was made?
    Are you saying that it was a bad investment or that it should have been made somewhere else… or what….I’m entirely unsure what it is that you find so baaaaaad?
    So far…re this topic….it is just full on negative, negative, negative , negative from you.
    Go take another look at those investments in water storage and water management and hydro energy being made around the rest of the world….some financed by the World Bank.
    Do you disagree with all of that?
    What do you think they should be doing?

  1148. gavin says

    Robert; you could be listening to a talk on RN about the importance of hemp to sailing nations in past eras but I noted the comment about the ban on marijuana being rooted in trade and competition with other fibers.

    You do well to dip into philosophy for reasons obscure in day to day events however it also serves us well to know our limits in alternative courses and one of these must be habit. The US uses more than its handy resources in energy consumption and I bet they can’t go ever back to wood a a renewable Curtailing expectation it seems is not on either because it has been a can do economy for so long.

    I am not hanging on for a US led surge where we go next. In fact I’m far more comfortable reminiscing in the competition in technology we inherit from Europe. For instance the UK and the Dutch are probably still head to head and both are against the Germans despite using their current engineering skills in all things mighty. Wind farm are going to survive because of this.

    China on the other hand could well usurp the lot of us doing just solar because it can work up to 50% of the time in direct energy supply leaving batteries to do the rest and useful too with out needing a grid.

    But Robert, it was one of your links where I found a lead to a proposed new coal fired power station that had no CO2 emission because that CO2 could be captured then used to flush out more oil from a well.

    We are simply on lookers here and it is because we are not that flexible.

  1149. spangled drongo says

    One other thing I forgot to mention about dams being built in future suburbs is that catchments usually have subdivision minima of ~20ha which still allows permanent farming in the suburbs a la Numinbah Valley.

    Great for the ecology, bad for property speculators.

    Any way you look at it desal plants are a multi-lose option in countries like Australia where you have good catchments close to future large population centres but it needs long term, courageous, inteligent planning to achieve them.

    When you have people like Kevin Rudd, Peter Garrett et al catering to inner-city greenies and opportunists that, sadly is a commodity that’s been missing in recent years.

  1150. Johnathan Wilkes says

    SD
    “courageous, planning” Please refer to Sir HA. permanent secretary’s comment about politicians being “courageous”.

    I see gav is still dreaming.
    ‘just solar because it can work up to 50% of the time in direct energy supply leaving batteries to do the rest ”
    If it were only so?
    Hilarious!

  1151. Luke says

    Stop verballing me Debs.

    My point is not inherently anti-dam but moreover dams have serious impacts on river system ecology. Any basic knowledge of water temperatures, habitat and flows will tell you that.

    In terms of central Queensland we have endangered fauna – lungfish, bum breathing turtles – that despite Pike’s uninformed bleating are not thriving in other system including dams. (it’s not as simple as fish like water so more is good). The dams are both and obstruction to movement and a hazard from currents and pounding – very clever engineering and consideration of spawning conditions needs to be applied in their design and operation. It isn’t as the evidence shows.

    Southern-centric – is about assuming that southern-centric ecology/agriculture necessarily applies to northern Australia.

    In your circumstances the lower MDB is so impacted that by now who knows what you had in the first place to lose. All over red rover.

    In terms of “clean energy” – major methane sources the size of coal fired power stations do not make the systems “clean”. The huge magnitude of methane emissions from submerged logs and ongoing in-wash of vegetative matter is just starting to be revealed. Some modest googling will find that for you. e.g. http://www.internationalrivers.org/campaigns/reservoir-emissions

    There has been a very small amount of Australian work http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011AGUFM.B13F0636S

  1152. spangled drongo says

    I bet Luke can even tell us the difference between methane emissions of a world with and without dams.

    [If he could find the right computer program]

    Personally, I’d take a guess and say it would about the same.

  1153. Luke says

    Well simply stupid SD – simply stupid. If South Americam major dam emissions rival coal fired power stations go figure. Somehow it’s the philistine pig ignorance here that amazes. It’s not computers- it’s called “measurement”.

    Here’s the logic – let’s divide a major problem in 10000000 little pieces. So if one piece is smaller than the whole – there’s no problem. Yep you had to hear it here on Jen’s.

    Thanks for discussing your non-existent reveg program BTW.

  1154. John Sayers says

    SD – an interesting comment was made this morning on Macca’s Australia All Over.

    “Why do we insist on back-burning at this time of the year when all the bird population is sitting on eggs in their nests?”

  1155. spangled drongo says

    You are not only a bed-wetter Lukie but a dumb one to boot.

    D’ya think the Permian extinction was caused by dams?

    Maybe the dams will save us from the next one.

    Thought a that?

    Yes John, always a risk. I am watching Thornbills making nests in burnt foliage and you wonder if they can succeed. It’s amazing how resourceful they are. It gives you hope for all of us, even Luke.

    If you dont do a cool burn over smaller areas every so often you end up with a much more catastrophic hot one over much bigger areas eventually.

    A bit like the Permian Extinction Principle.

    It’s a win/win.

  1156. debbie says

    I’m not sure why you think I’m verballing you Luke?
    If I knew I would consider stopping…I’m just trying to engage on what Bazza seems to consider a same level (I think?)
    So….in your opinion then….we’ve lost everything worthwhile in the southern MDB and we should just give up?
    here:
    All over red rover.
    I don’t disagree that dams have impacts Luke….of course they do….but according to you they are overwhelmingly negative and we just shouldn’t have and shouldn’t be building them?????
    Is that what you’re trying to say????
    Seriously….I do not understand your point at all.
    Do you think the world bank and countries like China are doing the wrong thing?
    You have completely confused me as far as what your opinion actually is….unless I conclude that it’s negative, negative, negative….even though you keep saying it isn’t??????
    Your methane argument is bordering on a grasp at negative straws too Luke.
    The methane produced from dams is not demonstrably different from methane production from leaving things ‘natural’. The natural floodplains and swamps and wetlands etc chug out methane just as efficiently do they not? Actually in years like this one…..far, far more methane is chugging out of the swamps, lowlands, floodplains etc than is chugging out of the significant water storages.
    In fact if the MDBA gets its way….there will be far more methane chugging out all over the MDB.
    Methane comes from numerous other forms of energy and food production cycles in our world Luke.
    However….once the dams are fully established….the methane production from rotting vegetation along water courses will actually go down…because Luke…..it can be managed…..if it is something that needs to be managed.

  1157. debbie says

    ARRRRGH!
    Don’t even get me started on managing fire risk!
    But….just for a laugh….
    Tim Flannery obviously believes that managing bush fire risk (in Sydney at least) is best done by tackling climate change via a carbon tax.
    That same risk management strategy will also help stop people getting cranky in traffic jams in Western Sydney.

  1158. spangled drongo says

    Cool burns keep a lot of the small-fry from frying but not all. Huge, well cooked native snails are a treat for the Scrub Turkeys whereas live ones feed the Noisy Pittas.

    Raptors thrive on a cool burn. I guess life is all about siezing opportunities. I might have mentioned having a large influx of Owls looking for sooty critters on sooty ground in the black of night.

    Opportunities aren’t necessarily fruit from the sideboard.

  1160. Debbie says

    SD,
    I’ll bet his bottom does too!
    Of course. . . along with yours and mine and just about every other carbon based life form on this planet.

  1162. John Sayers says

    SD – if only we could delay the cold burns to October instead of September we’d save countless young birds.

    My Maggies are on the nest yet last mid September was when they flew in with the new guys.

    Couldn’t we just wait a month?

  1163. debbie says

    Luke,
    Despite your assertions that I don’t care about these things,
    I have done a little bit of extra checking up on lung fish:

    It seems that your link and your Dr kemp may have suffered from some of the same problems that we have had in our neck of the woods with Prof Kingston and his inability to find birds in the MDB?
    Lungfish can and do alter their breeding patterns due to such things as drought conditions in a very similar manner to frogs.
    I also notice the timeframe of the study you linked.
    Australian lungfish are also not on the endangered list…..and dams do not necessarily negatively impact them.
    If there were no dead lung fish or dead turtles/tortoises found at the bottom of water falls, rapids and spillways….that would be when we should really be worrying.
    I have also discovered that there is a remarkable resurgence of Lungfish in QLD….just like the frogs and the Murray Cod and the birds in the MDB.
    I wonder why that could be?
    They wouldn’t perhaps know something that we don’t know would they?

  1164. spangled drongo says

    John, I think most birds breed from Sept through to March/April. Not all, I know, eg Black Cockatoos breed in June. Like you say, Maggies breed early and they only seem to breed once so it probably affects them more. Our Maggies have just started nesting and they were smart enough to use a big gum that was way above any fire damage.

    Usually in scrub country it is only necessary to burn every few years whereas in savannah it is necessary to burn more often but that doesn’t affect birds so much.

    In scrub it may be better to burn in August if it’s dry enough. I know I would prefer to.

  1165. Johnathan Wilkes says

    Just spent five minutes of my time reading the original question Dr Lewandowsky used for his “survey” to come to the conclusion that all sceptics are conspiracy nutters.

    It’s worth reading them, how can anyone call himself a scientist, who concocts questions like that?
    I couldn’t answer half of them for lack of a clue even, specially the last few, like: “Out of a 100 people how many do you think you earn more than them?”.

    How would I know?
    Or the one about Area 51, I wasn’t there I don’t know!
    Totally crazy.
    You can find it if you go to WUWT

    And these are the people, Luke an buzzboy take seriously!

  1166. cohenite says

    The NZ temperature law case Judgement is in:

    http://img.scoop.co.nz/media/pdfs/1209/NZ_Climate_Science_v_NIWA.pdf

    I will have a longer post about it either at OLO or Jo’s but by any standards the Judgement is extraordinary. The Judgement allows unfettered discretion for government scientific institutions [Crown Research Institutions, CRI] in their preparation of temperature networks by adjusting raw data. This discretion extends to subjective aspects of temperature adjustment where the institution can choose what method to adjust temperature data regardless of other methods and criteria; and in matters of fact where the institution has used or not used, or some combination of both, a method of adjustment of temperature data the institution is the preferred authority for concluding the fact of what it has done.

    In short BOM, CSIRO and the other consensus authoritative scientific sources are seemingly beyond reproach judicially. And since they dominate peer review the only recourse for sceptics is through the ballot box and the general media.

  1168. Johnathan Wilkes says

    cohenite,
    ” by any standards the Judgement is extraordinary”

    It pains me to say this but the judge was right.

    Not being a lawyer I wouldn’t know if it is extraordinary or not, but if I had been the judge I’d probably ruled the same way.

    The way I read it, it was more about him saying, ” leave the judiciary out of this”.

    I don’t agree with temp. adjustments and most of the machinations the warmists get up to at all, as a matter of fact I vehemently disagree with them and stated so many times, but someone has to be responsible for the job and it is the government appointed body.

    How they do their job is an other matter and, painful as it may be, the public at large can only criticise and point out errors, and if those errors are beyond the pale and can be proven, then approach the responsible authorities with a complain.

    Or use the internet as we now do to point out the glaring errors, ridicule them, impress the politicians, far more effective.

    The government appoints the chief scientist and employs the people at the CSIRO and other bodies.
    Therefore it’s up to us to persuade politicians to get rid of them, hardly likely because the politicians themselves are usually in the dark in scientific matters and it comes down to whom to believe, and most importantly, to prove willful deception or gross negligence, a definite conundrum.

    Can’t see any other way, otherwise we wind up with a mess and sacking everyone we don’t agree with.
    The public “service” is full of incompetents, but who is to decide which one to let go?
    Probably most of them I say at least the pen pusher variety.

  1169. cohenite says

    Hi Jonathan:

    ” leave the judiciary out of this”.

    I think the Judge in this matter went WAY beyond just saying leave the Judiciary out of it; he gave a blank chque to NIWA and every other government scientific body, the consensus, in the world.

  1171. spangled drongo says

    Incredible how teflon-coated govt employed and funded climate scientists get such an easy pass on accountability.

    Just like all the “investigations” into climategate that only looked at half the story and interviewed people on only one side of the equation.

    Are those mills grinding slowly or are there some teeth missing?

  1172. Mack says

    Spanglers and Cohers,
    There is no mention of this anywhere in the mainstream papers, TV , or just about everywhere else here. It is a non- event. Zilch Nada Nothing, A Norwegian blue, Spangled. However, I reckon this no news is good news, The AGW “controversy” has now sunken into the msm. The msm. here is even a bigger part of the establishment than over there Cohers and we all know we waste our time at the ballot box. The good news maybe is that the NZ Climate Science Coalition might not have to face too much punitive damages as we are pretty soft on our crims , (they could apply for legal aid. 🙂 ) There was no hope of a favourable decision from this Venning bloke in any case. A well paid govt. man. The msm has ensured there is not even a teacup let alone a storm.

  1173. Polyaulax says

    cohenite, the ballot box won’t tell you whether NIWA’s methods are valid. Ballots can only embolden determined political parties to ignore expert advice and the presence of confounding issues. They won’t stop the sea from rising.

    A party hostile to the scientific orthodoxy has a hard row to hoe…as a loose analogy look at the Qld LNP’s problems with presenting its cosy little audit of the state finances as authoritative. Can you imagine a LNP federal government adopting the findings of a politically correct ‘scientific audit’ of the international scientific consensus on climate change in order to reject the science and abandon every inconvenient policy response, international understanding and obligation?

    Actually,you probably can,and do so! Steady on, tiger…

    Sceptics can challenge via research, peer-review and publication…that avenue has always available to sceptics. If they wish to take it. The courts are are not the venue…but what Judge Venning found was that NIWAS explanations of its approach was coherent and supported.

    The judge also rejected two of the NZCSET’s witnesses as not expert. The judgement also rejected the accusatory constructs of plaintiff NZCSET as not supported,and actually often contradicted, by a reading of the evidence. Read for instance paras 102,103 and 104 of the judgement.

    The NZCSET accused NIWA of breaching its duty by failing to pursue excellence as per its charter…unfortunately the plaintiff could not demonstrate its own ‘excellence’.

    The judge rejected the NZCSET’s claim that NIWA was mistaken in believing its techniques were consistent with recognised scientific opinion.

    The judge also noted the lengths to which NIWA had gone to answer–successfully and sincerely in his full reading of communications– the NZCS Coalitions past public allegations and present submissions. Read paras 117 to 139.

    The only way to come back from that pasting is to do some REAL science.

  1174. Mack says

    Nah Polyaulax, Judge Venning just covered the ass of a corrupt scientist Salinger who has spent most of his life fiddling data to suit his AGW ideology. A “scientist” who trotted around the country with a couple of lefty sidekicks (one a journalist) pushing AGW for forestry investments. A “scientist” who barged into parliament with a bunch of placard waving activists ( Lucy Lawless included) demanding PM Key go to Copenhagen. A scientist who is conveniently out of the country at the moment.

  1175. polyaulax says

    Why would the judge ‘cover the ass’ of Salinger,Mack? Went to the same school? Use the same taylor? Cousins [NZers are so inbred]?

    Are they both part of the secret team who,under cover of darkness,are stealthily removing New Zealand’s glaciers and selling them as bagged ice-because the NZCSC”s claim that NZ climate has been essentially stable for 150 years is so rooted in reality?

  1176. Robert says

    I agree that ballots can’t stop the seas from rising. The seas started rising around the Napoleonic Wars, and since then there have been elections all over the shop. I guess you can stop a PS from bloating through the ballot box. That might work.

  1178. cohenite says

    Poly; you are making a basic mistake in referring to the Judge’s rejection of the Trust’s expert witnesses. Expert testimony is in the context of the dispute before the court; it is not related to the formal qualifications as courts have long recognised experience as a probative equal to formal academic qualifications; experience and expertise in the related field will always be recognised by the courts.

    The Trust’s witnesses failed for reasons put forward in paragraphs 49-54; that is, they had neither the experience or qualifications to be considered as relevant experts.

    That is fair enough, but as I said in my first post the Judge did not use that as the determining argument for his decision; Venning J. said that as a matter of principle the NIWA was the final arbiter for deciding scientific issues of both a subjective and factual nature.

    It would not matter if the Trust had Lindzen, McShane and Wyner, Beenstock and McKitrick on tap the NIWA would still be preferred.

    Do you disagree with that?

    As for recourse to peer review, you must be joking; that avenue is stitched up.

    With this decision tying up the Judicial loose ends, consensus and authority, are now impenetrable.

    That is not science.

  1181. bazza says

    Authority in science is always tentative – a work in progress. Procedures for making more efficient use of climate data evolve and responsible organisations arbitrate on the best way. Paranoia is the only rational explanaton for claiming those responsible are on the take. It is also deeply insulting .
    Cohenite should get advice from Spangled D on sceptics success with peer review. Has Cohenite tried to publish his claims on the Australian network. Spangled put me on to a link with some 900 peer reviewed papers claimed to be sceptical of AGW. And dont argue you cant get funding. For example nine of the top 10 authors were Exxon funded. There are a few minor qualifiers such as many of the papers were not actually about AGW and many of the authors asked to be removed from the list.
    Me thinks you will have to find another outlet for you paranoia from the well worn list of favourite sceptic hoaxes. Anyway, Polyaulax will stitch you up, no problem.

  1182. Johnathan Wilkes says

    Mack,
    “I feel the force of the establishment strong in this one obi Cohenite.”

    That is what I tried to say too Mack.
    It’s one thing suing a gov. department for personal loss and still risking to lose
    but quite an other to prove that a department is failing in following best scientific practices in general.

    A judge is seldom, if ever the best arbiter of that, and he has to err on the side of the government who appointed the very scientists. After all, why didn’t they appoint the ones suing?

    How many scientists were dismissed from these bodies in the past for incompetence?

    Again I emphasise, I don’t agree with the verdict or the methods used by these scientists, but these are the simple pragmatic facts.

  1183. Mack says

    NIWA covers Salingers ass…Venning covers NIWA’s ass….the msm covers Venning’s ass…the govt. covers and pays for all their asses. Extreme controversy calls for extreme ass-covering.

  1184. gavin says

    Feeling smug but I won’t gloat. You guys just have to realize your arguments re UHI etc won’t float in a professional world.

  1185. gavin says

    and if you had shut up and listened to what I was saying that your UHI case never existed, then focused on the real facts, discontinuities were the greater threat to data integrity, you may have kept your shirt on.

  1186. Robert says

    The dismissal of history and obliteration of the past are essential tools of the new authoritarians. They will fight hard on these points. Sometimes their adjustments will be laughably crude (’98 model hockey stick), sometimes more refined (later model hockey sticks), sometimes downright intricate (caressing those old temps)…but consciousness of the past has to go. If you want to make these people stroppy, make reference to history. They hate it.

  1187. cohenite says

    “Authority in science is always tentative – a work in progress.”

    Right. That’s why we’re told the science is settled in respect of AGW. That’s why Venning J. would not entertain any compromise to the authority of NIWA and by implication any other government funded scientific body.

    This decision is a ratification of that principle and the primacy of authority as a legitimising criteria of AGW ‘science’.

  1188. Polyaulax says

    The judgement does not finish at para 54,cohenite. Nor with simply a deference to NIWAs ‘encumbency’.

    Read the whole thing. The judge notes that Bob Carter has ignored a qualifier and thus made a false claim at para 131. Carter’s claims about two stations are noted as tested and rejected at para 132. Allegations of acting unreasonably are dismissed with detailed argument. Read paras 140-144 for NIWAs response to NZCSC’s criticisms of 7SS,and NIWAs response to NZCSs reply.

    It is not correct to represent the judgement as entirely deferrential or as ass-covering. Venning has dug down into the plaintiffs claims and into NIWAs counters,contrary to some aggrieved spin from NZCSC..

    If a Lindzen, or McShanee and Wyner -or Carter- had presented substance it would have been noted,but it wasn’t a question of stature,it was a question of quality of calculations and argument. NZCSET failed that test.

  1189. cohenite says

    Polyaulax. I did read the whole ‘thing’.

    Carter’s ‘error’ went to the need for an adjustment NOT the method of adjusting. Show me a section where Venning J. adresses this point:

    Series Trend (°C/century)
    Unadjusted 0.23
    NIWA method 0.91
    Rhoades & Salinger method 0.34

    About the still undescribed and unrevealed method NIWA to adjust the temperature Venning J. was, as I have said, content to defer to NIWA as the final authority as to the appropriateness of whetever methodology they used to adjust: at paragraph 157 Venning J. says this:

    “I accept that NIWA could have recalculated the temperature adjustments in a different way yet still have arrived at a similar result which would strengthen the robustness and validity of the previous results.”

    Nowhere in the Judgement is it clear what method they used OR how they used what method they choose.

    The rest of the Judgement was just window dressing for that point.

  1190. Polyaulax says

    That’s RS93 as applied by the NZCSC. You know NIWA contended they misapplied it…and NIWA also recalculated 7SS using Mullan et al 2010 to demonstrate the results independently of RS93.

  1192. gavin says

    Mack; re MSM and the Venning judgment, after wading through five pages of associated links, significantly wuwt is missing too and I wonder why.

  1193. Luke says

    “The methane produced from dams is not demonstrably different from methane production from leaving things ‘natural’. ” WTF

    “Lungfish can and do alter their breeding patterns due to such things as drought conditions in a very similar manner to frogs.” Yuh – they don’t breed – then when it’s time to breed provide unsuitable habitat and pound them to death. We’re talking specialists not generalists.

    Good lord ! So much for 3 degrees. What a moron. Must have been home ec.

  1194. Luke says

    “I have also discovered that there is a remarkable resurgence of Lungfish in QLD” – no cite – pulled out of thin air – and remarkable that populations have surged in such a little time. Golly they must grow rapidly – haahahahahahahaha

  1195. spangled drongo says

    “In the absence of fraud, corruption or bad faith NIWA should not be subject to judicial review.”

    Venning, as with the climategate enquiries, was always going to accept the “science”.

    How are the ordinary people of the world ever going to get a judicial assesment of what goes on by “adjusters”?

    It’s interesting to read gav and bazza’s comments on what they consider to be justice and the right way.

  1196. Robert says

    So funny.

    The Prime Minister puts on a green hat to warn of Australian coal burnt domestically – to our detriment!

    Next, the Prime Minister puts on a hard hat to assure us that the vast amounts of Australian coal burnt overseas (75%?) will continue to be burnt – to our benefit!

    While it would, by their own logic, be a good thing to wipe out carbon-belching Whyalla, any talk of Whyalla wipe-outs will be ridiculed in song and dance by a senior minister.

    Our Green Betters live comfortably with these contradictions. Our climate princesses are serenely indifferent to real GHGs emitted in real time. Which is very, very odd. Twilight Zone stuff…possibly leading to Big Brother stuff?

    Sorry, tag team, don’t let me interrupt the important discussion. Any new acronyms this morning? Any new gang-reviewed lit?

  1197. Neville says

    Well I’m back after a bitter fight with my telstra line. I could write a book about it.

    Anyway the Bolter, Jo, Lucia, Bishop hill, Watts and now Steve McIntyre have all nailed the delusional Lewandowsky idiot.

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/lewandowskys_real_finding_warmist_professors_more_likely_to_believe_in_fake/

    How do these people get funded? About as silly as Gav trying to to be the only person on earth who doesn’t believe in the UHIE.

    I prefer to read about UHI from Spencer etc, who’ve actually looked at the most accurate ? record on the planet.
    Sorry but Gav’s veranda just doesn’t cut it for me at all.

  1198. Neville says

    UHIE can even change the rainfall patterns in a city. See Wiki below and it states that some UHI can be 5C higher than surrounding areas.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_heat_island

    Just to give Gav a clue about UHIE at night. After sunset stand near an exposed brick wall on the west side of a building and feel the incredible heat transfer from the wall.
    Then stand a few metres away from the wall and feel the difference. It’s much cooler.

    Buildings, concrete, tarmac etc all retain heat during the day and release it at night. Tens of thousands of buildings, roads’ concrete structures etc retain a lot of heat during the day and release a lot of heat during the night.
    This has been understood since early 1800s even though some people here apparently don’t understand it.

  1199. cohenite says

    Polyaulx says:

    “That’s RS93 as applied by the NZCSC. You know NIWA contended they misapplied it…and NIWA also recalculated 7SS using Mullan et al 2010 to demonstrate the results independently of RS93.”

    That is what NIWA SAYS it did; Wratt [at paragraph 149] says:

    “Some of the temperature adjustments calculated to account for site changes at the individual seven stations were different in the Mullan et al Review report from those resulting from the analyses of Salinger and his colleagues in 1992 and the subsequent annual updates. This led to some generally small changes in the 100-year temperature trends calculated for individual stations. However the 7SS temperature series obtained by combining the results for the seven stations was very similar to the series from the Salinger-based [7SS]. The overall long-term trend calculated from the revised [7SS] from 1909 to 2009 of 0.91±0.29 °C per century was the same to the second decimal place as that from the Salinger-based [7SS].”

    So there were some “generally small changes” between Mullan and RS93 but the trends were still essentially identical. Well the difference between the trend Trust found applying RS93, 0.34C per century, and what NIWA foundwith both RS93 and Mullan, 0.91C per century, is generally pretty small, 0.57C per century, but it’s still big enough to hang AGW theory on and all the policies which flow from it.

    This Judgement was an endorsement of the status quo and a refusal to let any view outside the official government scientific view; it is miles away from Venning J> saying the courts should get involved; the court has been massively involved, and it has taken NIWA’s word on everything, no matter how patently absurd.

    “Generall small changes”; a new oxymoron from the AGW lie factory!

  1200. cohenite says

    I said:

    “it is miles away from Venning J> saying the courts should get involved; the court has been massively involved,”

    That should read:

    “it is miles away from Venning, J. saying the courts should NOT get involved; the court has been massively involved”

  1201. Debbie says

    But Luke?
    As I have mentioned before.
    I have friends and business associates who are scientists and work in such fields as micro biology, biology and wetland ecology. Several of them work for govt depts like CSIRO and DPI. They are a much more reliable source than a MSM PR opinion piece written in the middle of a millenium drought. They are also really nice people with nice families and they really care about their work.
    But I also did check about that ‘endangered’ claim of yours. Lungfish are NOT listed as endangered.
    They are also remarkably adaptive creatures aren’t they? I was quite fascinated by them.
    They are extra ordinarily suited to our highly ephemeral weather/climate patterns.
    Maybe you should check about the remarkable resurgence?
    Seems they must have been growing somewhere other than where Dr Kemp was looking?
    Regardless however,
    I am still curious about your ‘opinion’ of the facts I posted about what the rest of the world is doing about significant water storage, water management and hydro electric programs. Seems that the world bank and countries like China think they are an excellent investment?
    And Luke?
    Wonderful tree frogs?
    Are you claiming that natural wetlands, swamps, floodplains, lowlands etc don’t produce methane?

  1202. gavin says

    coh; your are just scratching through the dirt now to find a shred of justification for your old position.

    Nev, my garage door can be like a Vulcan Sunray in the afternoon but it hardly changes inside versus outside temp noon to midnight. Its mostly brick all round however I do keep certain foods and brews in the far corner because it is virtually underground. You forgot too, I have done thousands of air temp measurements in urban and industrial environments where my reputation depended on it.

    As I said to Deb, be careful on wiki

  1203. cohenite says

    Further to Polyaulx’s claim that Venning J. and NIWA have vindicated their methodology through the ‘checking’ of RS93 by the application of Mullan 2010; I see David Stockwell has a good post on this very point here:

    http://landshape.org/enm/opinions-on-the-new-zealand-agw-judgement/

    The whole quote is worth showing:

    “Goon (8) Says:
    September 8th, 2012 at 3:45 pm

    Justifying the unjustifiable. Don’t believe me…. then here is where the raw data lives.

    http://cliflo.niwa.co.nz/

    Register and have a look for yourself. Nothing even remotely approaching a 1 degree/century trend in the raw data from longer term climate sites. The only way NIWA can come up with this is by applying an extremely dodgy ‘adjustment’ to make all pre-1950′s temperatures colder and everything after warmer and hey presto, woe is me, there’s a trend. The arguement being tested in the court wasn’t anything to do with AGW, rather it was just that the methodology applied by NIWA to calculate the ‘sky is falling faster than the rest of the world’ trend is a complete crock. A trend which is then used by the same scientists to justify ever more research and lapped up by politicians keen to get their hands into your wallet.

    In terms of climate change, I’m agnostic about the whole thing…..climate changes naturallly all the time and human activities no doubt contribute as well but what pisses me off is the dodgyness put up by NIWA as science. It wouldn’t stand up in any other discipline but spin disguised as science seems to be de riguer for climate science.

    # Ross12 (186) Says:
    September 8th, 2012 at 4:16 pm

    Goon
    You are correct in my view. This case was nothing to with AGW as such. It was to do with how the temperature data was collected and how it was analysed. The judge was very wrong not to allow Bob Dedekind’s evidence ( because he was supposed not an expert) — the statistical analysis for the data would be using methods similar to a number of different fields. So Dedekinds stats expertise should have been allowed.

    Here is a summary of his position :

    “… In fact, NIWA had to do some pretty nifty footwork to avoid some difficult questions.

    For instance, where was the evidence that RS93 had ever been used on the 7SS from 1853-2009? Absent. We were asked to believe Dr Wratt’s assertion that it had (in 1992), but ALL evidence had apparently disappeared. Not only that, but the adjustments coincidentally all matched the thesis adjustments, which all ended in 1975. And no new adjustments were made between 1975 and 1992. Hmm.

    Another question: Why, when NIWA performed their Review at taxpayers’ expense in 2010, did they NOT use RS93? They kept referring to it whenever the 7SS adjustment method was discussed, and it was a prime opportunity to re-do their missing work, yet instead they used an unpublished, untested method from a student’s thesis written in 1981.

    Please understand this: the method used in the NIWA Review in 2010 has no international peer-reviewed scientific standing. None. It is mentioned nowhere, outside of Salinger’s thesis. NIWA have never yet provided a journal or text-book reference to their technique.

    Yet a few people were able to do (at zero cost to the taxpayer) what NIWA should have done in the first place – produce a sensible 7SS using the same peer-reviewed technique NIWA kept referencing repeatedly, viz: RS93. In fact, one of NIWA’s complaints during the court case was that we applied the RS93 method “too rigorously”! In other words, when we did the job properly using an internationally-accepted method, we got a different result to NIWA’s, and they didn’t like it. In fact, the actual trend over the last 100 years is only a third of NIWA’s trend.

    Their only response to date has been a desperate effort to try to show that the RS93 method as published is “unstable”. Why then did they trumpet it all this time? And why did they never challenge it in the literature between 1993 and 2010?

    NIWA got away with it in the end, but only because the judge decided that he shouldn’t intervene in a scientific dispute, and our credentials (not the work we did) were not impressive enough. ”

    For the AGW supporters to suggest ( as Prof Renwick from Victoria said) this a vindication of the science is utter nonsense. The judge says he is not going to make decisions about the science.
    Some how I don’t think we have heard the end of this.”

    What NIWA did is deplorable and this is a bad Judgement.

  1204. Debbie says

    Gavin,
    wiki is just easy to link.
    I was trying to help you out.
    Denying UHI will not help you prove a scientific case for CAGW or AGW.
    Also Gavin,
    The court case in NZ had nothing to do with WUWT or UHI or your garage in Canberra.
    Neither did it have anything to do with ‘science’.
    It was about legal stuff and whether a particular govt dept had followed due process.
    It was not about whether ‘climate science’ from any perspective is scientifically valid.

  1205. cohenite says

    “The court case in NZ had nothing to do with WUWT or UHI or your garage in Canberra.
    Neither did it have anything to do with ‘science’.”

    Debbie, the flow on has enormous ramifications for AGW and the science; a manifest chink in the AGW armour in respect of the iconoclastic temperature record would create a domino effect. This bad Judgement has given new life to a completely flawed scientific process. It is such a pity that the Trust had to do it on the cheap and basically that is what this Judge has pinged them for.

  1206. bazza says

    Deb, I’ll show you facts on irrigation that you omitted. The World Bank has done lots of other analyses of irrigation development . Farmers around the world generally pay 20 percent or less of real cost of irrigation water. There are serious environmental and equity concerns to be managed. If water is supplied below cost, the inevitable factual consequences are:
    1) It gets used inefficiently
    2) There are environmental problems
    3) Extra profits from providing water below cost get transferred straight into land values.
    4) More resources are attracted to subsisdised industries rather than more competitive ones.
    Above are facts – not judgements on the worth of investments in particular schemes built by various governments for various reasons. Some have been desperate political attempts to drought proof hoping farmers might forsake high value crops and grow more fodder on the off chance of a drought, some were propping up depressed regions or industries etc etc. Nor are they judgements on the contributions farmers make. They compete with other possible investments including other agriculture, education and formula 1 – bread and circuses to be sure.
    How will Deb respond. attack? ad hom ? sidetrack?, obfuscate?, verbal?, who knows or cares.

  1208. spangled drongo says

    Good summation. When small, SUBJECTIVE alterations are done to the raw data, over a long period, that considerably change the world’s understanding of climate and create policies that will cost us trillions, it is amazing how “experts” can fail to see that due diligence needs to be applied to these alterations.

    These subjective alterations of ~0.5c over a century are statistically almost nothing in the background noise yet they are so jealously defended and claimed with ever-increasing clamor to be such a positive signal by those same “expert’s” CAGW.

    Now, of course those “experts” will claim that the “settled” science was settled in court but why do those “experts” hide from due diligence on those alterations?

  1209. John Sayers says

    Debbie – you are so right about China and Hydro power. The massive 3 gorges dam is only a small part of it. They now have 198 GW of hydro power which is more than the hydro power of the US and Canada combined.

    What really annoys me is when the warmists claim that China is leading the world in renewable energy yet fail to mention that it is all in Hydro power, NOT wind and solar.

    The most obvious site for hydro power in Australia is right where I live – the Clarence river.

  1210. Debbie says

    So Bazza?
    Are they good investments or not?
    Where do you think water is being used inneficiently in the MDB and by whom?
    What is the problem with increasing land values? Isn’t that basically a good thing? That would include the value of your land if you happen to own any wouldn’t it?
    Same applies in Urban areas doesn’t it?
    When it is developed it is more valuable. These projects certainly provide the means and infrastructure to develop, but who pays for the development and therefore the ability to leverage on increased value and further cost efficiencies/development?
    Which are the subsidised and less competetive ag industries in Australia or in other places?
    What would be the ‘incentive’ to forsake higher value crops to grow fodder crops?
    You also seem to be continually hinting/ arguing that farmers/agricultural industries are paying less than their share of these multi purpose multi benefit projects.
    How much do you think they should be paying Bazza? In comparison to what? Over what timeframe?
    And Bazza, while agriculture, along with all human development does always impact the natural environment in some manner, you seem to be of the mindset that it is invariably a negative impact?
    And Bazza,
    It isn’t me who launches personal ad hom attacks. That is not my MO.
    I would suggest that is a slight case of you projecting.

  1211. Robert says

    Deb, I suggest you stop growing rice “around the world” and do your thing here in Oz, where water and land use is vastly more efficient. Gotta have rice? Have Deb’s.

    Of course, we could just be a quarry, where the useful carbon gets burnt offshore and we make our emissions by abandoning a lot of crappy regrowth to fire. But don’t call it fire. Call it re-carbonising decarbonised land. Confused? Just ask the friendly guy in white shoes!

  1212. gavin says

    coh; did you loose a shirt?

    Folks, I’m all sympathy for those on a Telstra line, any one who doubts climate science at any point but not those who club to divert it

  1213. Debbie says

    Or maybe Bazza we could look at it this way?
    Despite the ‘inevitable factual consequences’ you have posted above, the World Bank and countries like China are nonetheless investing heavily in this area.
    Why is that do you suppose?
    Did you read the figs I posted earlier in the thread? They are easily accessible if you would like to look them up.
    I also pointed out that in comparison, Australia has fallen behind the rest of the world re this type of investment.

  1214. spangled drongo says

    I wonder if bazza would have any idea of the true cost of irrigated water in Aus over the long term?

    Any more than Luke would have a clue of the total production, in the world’s river, wetland and ocean catchments, of methane?

    But boy, don’t they love wagging their collective finger and giving us lessons.

    But re irrigation, if the farmers are using it, paying for it and producing great resources from it then it is a wealth creating asset. The fact that it is a long-term one and can be paid for incrementally is an added bonus.

    But the Sillies here dont get that. They don’t get reality.

    John, I forgot to mention that the fire wardens in these days of out-of-control OHS regs try to keep burning-off to the shortest possible time so often it is done at not the most environmentally suitable time.

  1216. Luke says

    Debs

    “In addition to the listing of the Australian Lungfish as a nationally threatened species under the EPBC Act, the species is protected from fishing under the Queensland Fisheries Act 1994. Under the Queensland Act, a permit is required to collect this species for eligible purposes such as educational display, aquaculture and research. The Australian Lungfish is also listed on Appendix II of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) and strict conditions apply to its export under the EPBC Act.”

    Also methane emissions from dams vastly exceed any previous emissions from an area inundated.

  1217. Luke says

    So Baz – I waited and waited for a comment from Debs about an attempt to mitigate any damage – but as usual you get nothing but cover defence and denial. We’ll just have to solve it for her as usual.

    I like SD though – reduced to doing an Alan Jones snow job on net vs flux. Ya gotta hand it to them for putting it on.

  1219. Luke says

    Bolt’s article is both stupid and incorrect by omission. http://www.environment.gov.au/parks/nrs/getting-involved/case-studies/henbury.html

    It’s also a biodiversity project of some significance in an arid environment. I didn’t know that that Bos indicus or Bos taurus was a threatened species in Australia.

    Just think of the improvements in biodiversity conservation if we had more intelligent investment such as this. Completely lost on Neville of course.

  1221. Debbie says

    Luke,
    my question was a simple question.
    No answer?
    Are significant dam projects a good investment or not in your opinion?
    The world bank and countries like China obviously think they are DESPITE Bazza’s ‘inevitable factual consequences’.
    Do you think they are wrong?
    We could continue to argue about lungfish and methane if you insist, but they are not relevant to the unanswered question.

  1223. Debbie says

    Not that I think anything will be gained from being so incredibly pedantic about such things but ….
    Straight from the Commonwealth Govt Site:
    “The Australian Lungfish has been listed as a vulnerable species under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (the EPBC Act).”
    So Luke….in case you are unaware…..that is not the same as being listed as endangered.
    You can find more here:
    http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/publications/lungfish.html#why-is-the-australian-lungfish-threatened

  1224. Debbie says

    And this one Luke…
    http://www.lakescientist.com/learn-about-lakes/lakes-climate-change/lakes-and-greenhouse-gases.html
    “Greenhouse gas emissions from freshwater lakes and reservoirs and their contribution to the increase of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are at the heart of a worldwide debate concerning the electricity generating sector9. Hydropower represents about 20% of the world’s electricity generation capacity and on average emits 35 to 70 times less greenhouse gases per unit power generated than thermal power plants10. When reservoirs are first built for power generation, soils, plants, and trees are flooded. The decay of this plant and soil material can contribute to large emissions of CO2 and CH4 during the first few years after reservoir construction11. Studies show that 3-10 times more greenhouse gases are produced by newly formed reservoirs than from natural lakes of the same size in the first 2-5 years after a reservoir is constructed12.

    So Luke? Where’s the 100 year evidence?

    Lakes contribute about 10% of total natural methane emissions, and they produce more methane than the oceans6. Many lakes and other freshwaters produce methane during warm summer conditions or when oxygen levels underwater drop. Most methane is produced in lake sediments when oxygen is no longer present due to different communities of bacteria that grow in environments without oxygen. In some lakes, bubbles can be seen rising from sediments; these bubbles are often methane produced by bacteria in oxygen deprived sediments6. Shallow areas around the shores of warm lakes are hot spots for methane production. Overall, lakes are important sites for carbon dioxide and methane production and release.

    but concludes:

    ‘While lakes and reservoirs used to generate hydroelectric power can release greenhouse gases, they typically release far smaller amounts than traditional fossil fuel based power plants. Hydroelectric is not a perfectly “green” energy source, but it is often much more environmentally friendly than alternative choices and can be part of an alternative energy solutions plan.’

    And it also postulates this too:
    Lakes and reservoirs are often built or used to generate power. In fact, so much water is retained behind dams that global sea level rise has been reduced by about 0.02 inches (0.55 mm) per year over the past 50 years8

    But nevertheless….I’m still more interested in the answer to the original question.
    In the big picture and on balance….are they a good investment or not in your opinion?

  1225. spangled drongo says

    “Nev; I don’t care what any scientist thinks unless they themselves have truly measured it.”

    You’re priceless, gav!

    How’s that CAGW working out for you? Now that’s really been scientifically measured.

  1226. Neville says

    Geez if silly Luke was running the country we’d all make a living taking in one anothers washing. Every old dollar re invested time and time again for zero return and productivity straight down the toilet.
    Of course every new dollar borrowed by govt and guaranteed zero change to the climate and temp.

    What a clueless bozo, just fits his green party credentials to a T. Great to see after the NSW council elections on sat that the people have had a gutful of the idiot Labor and Green parties.

    Yuk Yuk, I thought so Gav. Trouble is this has been measured consistently since 1800 by heaps of scientists and they all agree about UHIE, sometimes many degrees C difference to surrounding countryside.

    Admit it Gav your completely wrong about this well documented fact, known about for 200+ years.
    You should chuck those thermometers of yours down the tip, because they’re useless.

  1228. cohenite says

    “our Green Betters are the favourite vegetable of investment bankers and property spivs.”

    Put’s a new spin on meat and 3 veg, doesn’t it?

    I reckon luke would be a cucumber, gav is obviously an old, mouldy turnip and bazza is a bit of a chilli I would imagine.

  1230. Neville says

    Cohenite I hope you have the time to look at Spencer’s article above on UHI and spurious USA temp record and tell us what you think?
    If this is the best temp record on the planet, gawd help the rest.

  1231. bazza says

    Deb, ( the 10:50 am Deb) there was a study ( Paterson J 1987) which showed that less than a fifth of land then irrigated would have been economic to develop.
    Now if water is supplied well below cost ( that is cost including headworks) it will be used inefficiently. (If the price doubled you would use less and spend more on other inputs so resources are allocated more efficiently overall). So you think it OK for the extra profit from the low cost water is capitalised in irrigators land values because other land owners get subsidised by development too. Too bad for the taxpayers without land and too bad if the water right is tied to the land and water trading is constrained. Of course a number of schemes have been profitable from a society CBA perspective, but perform poorly on an equity basis.
    You are offering what are called second best solutions. You need market failure to justify subsidies. But at least you are saying I think there is a subsidy. And it would be more so than the subsidies to dryland agriculture. A graingrower could use your self-serving logic to support a fertiliser subsidy.
    The point about forsaking high value crops for fodder crops was that schemes have been justified on possible benefits in drought times to livestock producers not in the irrigation area. Spreading the equity, but of course it does not happen.

    But that was history. Sunk costs – but they can be acknowledged.Enough now for a water authority to recover enough to stay in business and ignore the original investment.

  1232. Luke says

    What moronic knuckle dragging whinger Neville is. If everyone did their bit there would be a measurable impact. Neville’s morally bankrupt philosophical position of incrementalist rejection – never start with small steps. It’s a wonder he learnt to walk. Pissy argument Neville – lifeboat dilemma personified.

    Debs – you’re such a treasure. We’d have to invent you if you didn’t exist. Elseya albagula and Elusor macrurus (Endangered (IUCN 2.3). In fact Mary River Turtle is Australia’s second most endangered freshwater turtle species. Also Elusor macrurus makes it to List of Nature Conservation Act endangered fauna of Queensland

    Nearby we also have Rheodytes leukops listed as vulnerable.

    So we have a region of high aquatic fauna endangered/threatened endemism and like a typical raging irrigator Debs can’t bring herself to contemplate their might be some concern/support or suggest improved mitigation measures – what a disgrace.

  1233. Luke says

    Methane release below a tropical hydroelectric dam
    Alexandre Kemenes,1 Bruce Rider Forsberg,1 and John Michael Melack2
    Received 25 January 2007; revised 31 March 2007; accepted 17 April 2007; published 23 June 2007.
    [1] Tropical reservoirs upstream from hydroelectric dams
    are known to release significant amounts of methane to the
    atmosphere. Here we demonstrate that methane emissions
    downstream from hydroelectric dams can also be large.
    Emissions of CH4 downstream of Balbina reservoir in the
    central Amazon basin (Brazil) were calculated from regular
    measurements of degassing in the outflow of the turbines
    and downstream diffusive losses. Annual emissions from
    the reservoir surface and downstream from the dam were 34
    and 39 Gg C, respectively. The downstream emission alone
    represented the equivalent of 3% of all methane released
    from central Amazon floodplain. Citation: Kemenes, A.,
    B. R. Forsberg, and J. M. Melack (2007), Methane release below a
    tropical hydroelectric dam, Geophys. Res. Lett., 34, L12809,
    doi:10.1029/2007GL029479.

    One dam !

  1234. Debbie says

    So Bazza and Luke?
    I guess you must disagree with the World Bank and countries like China?
    You think investment in multi purpose water storage systems is a baaaad and dangerous idea?
    Bazza, you seem to believe that farmers like me operate from self serving logic and that we have somehow ripped off the taxpayer and we don’t pay our share?
    It’s all I conclude from what you write and what you link.
    So I guess you’ll just have to agree to disagree with what the rest of the world is doing and I guess I’ll just have to live with the fact that Bazza thinks people like me are just self serving.

  1235. Neviller says

    Trouble for you Luke is I’m using provable simple maths and you’re using delusional, fraudulent climate models.

    I repeat a big fat zero to the climate and temp for all those billions $ flushed down the toilet and easily verified using simple kindy maths.

    What is it you don’t understand about these simple facts and this simple oh so obvious truth?

  1236. spangled drongo says

    Methane! Methane! WOOOO! WOOOO! Bleat! Bleat!

    So the rotting of the uncleared catchment produces methane.

    Where do you think these organics end up normally?

    As they have in the past forever?

    How much methane comes from the ocean?

    How many times a night do you change beds?

  1237. Neville says

    Just remember where all this delusional hogwash started from, the Gore and Hansen con meeting to congress in 1988.

    Hansen’s best scenario C was assuming huge reductions in co2, but even this is way higher than the actual temp record today. Co2 emissions have soared over this quarter of a century, what a clueless con.

    This is a good graph from Christy covering the 3 scenarios , just to prove how wrong these fraudsters were. What a con, but lapped up by the Luke, Gav and bazza sheeple.

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/Fig2.2-summer-fixed.gif

  1239. Robert says

    Today I was talking to the local vegetation guys (you never see a Parks or Forestry guy out here any more) about the various forgotten or degraded schemes in our area. Some of these, like the blackbutt and flooded gum plantations, would have been good with continued interest and maintenance. But everything gets money and attention for a while…then the money and attention shifts to something else. To another “scheme” with a higher fashion rating.

    You get changes in personnel and policy, along with sheer indifference once the money has been flushed through. Then stuff just sits there. After a while, you don’t even get any more brochures and “reports”.

    We also have some Bob Carr National Parks, but nobody was ever interested in them. Sign-makers like them, I suppose.

    Can you imagine Henbury Station once the gloss comes off? Someone will decide on some “rationalisation”, then corners will be cut, then everyone will be just bored with the whole thing. The designated money will be gobbled up in some remote city. New money will be flowing into something else. Any brochure or report writers out there? Get in quick, before the lethargy sets in.

    The crazy thing is that there is plenty of high-grade wilderness on Henbury – superb stuff, up to 70%! (Should that be preserved and conserved with tax breaks or subsidies? Sounds like a great idea to me.) Now Henbury has just been made unproductive of everything except money-fiddles.

    Don’t worry, climate princesses! We’ll just keep selling the world’s biggest export tonnage of coal to Japan, China, Korea and Taiwan. So long as our princesses don’t see it burning…it isn’t burning!

    Small steps, as they say. Very small, in fact.

  1240. Neville says

    Robert AGW mitigation is the greatest con and fraud of the last 100+ years. So easily verifiable and understood.
    In fact the mitigation of AGW fraud makes Bernie Madoff’s ponzi scheme look like amateur hour and yet he’ll spend the rest of his life behind bars for being a con man, liar and thief.

    But the hypocisy rolls on with heaps of our CSIRO scientists traveling overseas and even presenting contradictory papers at the same conference. See end of this article about the latest con and fraud story of dangerous SLR.

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/drowning_in_scaremongering/

  1243. spangled drongo says

    Neville, yes I was reading that earlier. Out-of-control-CAGW-bedwetting. Breathtaking. You really wonder what world they live in.

    Oh, that’s right! gav, bazza and luke’s.

    Gee gav, waves like that have breaking on coastlines for a while now. Like a few billion years. Doesn’t matter whether they are small islands or big continents.

    But you can bet yourself and wet yourself that they will get bigger with CAGW.

  1244. spangled drongo says

    BTW gav d’you know how long they have had those wave-rider buoys around for, how often they break loose, get swept up in trawl nets, hooked up by yacht keels, small ships etc?

    They are a hazard to shipping and go missing a lot.

  1246. Luke says

    Neville – only two words “con and fraud”. My words wanker and turd.
    Neville – Nova is just a boring whinger. She’s so boring – it’s a daily bitchfest. How about an intelligent post from her for once.

    But getting back to it – so dam methane is 4% of global emissions. It’s friggin huge. So Debs timber logs take 100s of years to decay and each year floods bring in new debris with settles in the bottom anoxic zone and produces methane. Offtake for hydro at the lower levels of the dam outgasses the methane quite effectively.

    But poor Debs – she’ll apologise for the taxpayer subsidised environmental screwups of irrigation till the cows come home. Can’t bring herself to discuss any mitigation options.

    Robert – you know Jack about the central Aussie Cattle industry = what an inappropriate environment for grazing – one of the great homes of flogging the landscape. The native fauna are more interesting. I wonder how they survived before cowboys turned up.

  1248. Luke says

    “So the rotting of the uncleared catchment produces methane.

    Where do you think these organics end up normally?”

    SD – are you some sort of dickwit drongo – majority aerobic decay vs anoxic. Too hard isn’t it. Let’s see – once produces lots of CO2 and another produces lots of methane. A duh.

  1249. Neville says

    Well Gav,where do we start. I remember 50 and more years ago film of storm surges hitting the NSW coast overnight in the old movietone newsreels.

    These surges removed some huge areas of beach front and even undercut cliffs. Some houses were filmed perched precariously on those very cliffs.

    This is what nature does and it will happen again and again. The lesson is that if you want to live in those areas it’s a case of buyer beware.

    I remember my dad telling me the same stories about storm surges from much further back than half a century. Wait a while and it’s sure to happen again, just part of dangerous nature at work.

    You’re wrong about UHI and we don’t have to discount temp trends or whatever you claim.
    The slight warming of 0.7C over the last 100+ years isn’t unusual or unprecedented at all.

    Spencer just about covers most of that trend adjusting for UHI and we’re still warming because of the recovery from the LIA, plus over much of the last century the sun’s solar radiation was much stronger as well.

    Look back over the last hundred thousand years or more of temp records from Antarctic and Greenland ice cores and temp fluctuated greatly during glaciations and the holocene interglacial.
    An extreme example is the 10C rise in temp in just 10 years at the end of the younger dryas 11,500 years BP.
    Found in Greenland and Venezuela at the same time.

  1250. spangled drongo says

    Luke, your knowledge of that country is sadly lacking too. Why do you think people like Kidman, Packer, RM Williams plus some of the wealthiest Australians still have huge holdings out there? They don’t do it for a tax dodge. It’s big boy’s country and very productive if you have the resillience. This window dressing won’t do anything for that ecology, it’s full of ferals and that won’t change. If anything it will be worse, like any national parks in that area [the dingo will be a hallowed animal so the rest of the ferals will be untouchable].

    Like the whole carbon credit system this is expensive lunacy.

  1252. spangled drongo says

    You’ve been known to ride this hobbyhorse yourself:

    “According to calculations done by the Rice University scientists, the warmer oceans resulted in more methane hydrate being stored. At warmer temperatures, bacteria decompose organic materials faster, resulting in more methane in a shorter period of time. They estimate that, just before the PETM, there was as much methane hydrate stored as there is today, in a smaller band than exists today.”

  1253. gavin says

    Strike one Nev, warming by ice core for our region, in our time by our people

    Strike two 3C and on the run

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19348427http://theconversation.edu.au/antarctic-ice-core-sheds-light-on-rising-temperatures-9044

    Strike three, No UHI in those pics hey

    Strike four and we are home, July was 4th highest on record, ncdc/noaa

    Nev, If you bother to look, there are plenty of sites claiming UHI is negligible and this is best illustrated by comparing NASA images of global temperature anomalies and our night light emissions

    http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0208/earthlights02_dmsp_big.jpg

    Conclusion, the most pronounced atmospheric warming and our night lights are not in the same zones.

  1255. Luke says

    SD – Yes and it’s still land degradation central ! Sorry the research is in – “big boys” country simply show you’re in love with a myth of the noble stockman. Noble stockman and no A horizon and getting close to B every day.

    Why don’t you stop being arrogant and do some research on methane in dams and natural forests. There’s a substantial literature. Pulling ideas out of your bum isn’t science.

    “we’re still warming because of the recovery from the LIA,” – just so much bullshit Neville. “Recovering” – what does that mean. The Earth has caught a cold? It’s getting back to a Neville desired state.

  1256. kuhnkat says

    Gavin,

    so those studies that NASA did which showed that cities have temperatures up to 10c+ higher than their surrounding area are total fantasy???

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  1258. Debbie says

    Luke,
    Still no answer to the basic question?
    Just more negative?
    Now I have caused untold environmental damage and I refuse to discuss mitigation options?
    What would be the point of that?
    No matter what we do or what we have done in your mind we are baaaaaaaad people and we don’t care about the environment.
    You just find more and more negative to spew up.
    Your attitude towards agriculture in Australia is completely unbalanced and informed only by screeching about mistakes that have already been mitigated and supporting that stupid precautionary principle that is being used to stop further development and/or the ability to upgrade and mitigate.
    I better not wash my dishes this morning because there is a statistical probability that I MIGHT break a glass.

  1260. Neville says

    Gezzz Gav everything you talk about has happened before in the earlier holocene. The antarctic penisula has reduced and then increased levels of ice over many thousands of years.

    One of the studies you referred to even admits that the recent peninsula warming started 600 years ago.
    Another study I’ve seen shows more warming much further back and elephant seal nurseries today are much further north than they were in the earlier holocene.

    These nurseries can’t exist there today because it’s just too bloody cold. Cohenite is corrrect as Christy found that DTR has narrowed because of UHI.

    Wake up, you are conning yourself, the earlier holocene was warmer than today. SLR was extremely rapid and eastern OZ for example was at least 1.5 metres higher SL than today 4,000 years ago.

    Luke you’re either lacking in all logic and reason or you’re clutching at straws again. Shooting the messenger can’t help you when the messenger just repeats the fact that the LIA was one of the 2 coldest periods of our holocene.

    If it’s slightly warmer today ( than the LIA) that change or recovery is obviously natural or we would have descended into an even colder period or by some miracle that LIA temp would have remained the same for the last 150+ years.

    You see I believe in NATURAL CC, but you are clinging to this mad warmist cult. But that’s your problem not mine.

    But you blokes are such phonies you don’t dare tell us how to reduce temp on the planet. Simple maths tells us that you must reduce soaring non OECD co2 emissions just for starters. Reducing OZ co2 emissions by 5% by 2020 is the biggest sicko joke in your arsenal.

    Of course most of the Oz reductions will be through purchasing fraudulent carbon certificates that even now can’t withstand proper auditing. Even in the EU.
    All those billions $ wasted decade after decade for a zero change to climate and temp. Don’t forget that your GURU Flannery’s quote on reducing CO2 emissions makes your case even more hopelessly desperate.

  1262. bazza says

    Deb, wrong. No evidence for your claim of what I think “ You think investment in multi purpose water storage systems is a baaaad and dangerous idea?” You mention numerous World Bank investments. You are saying because there have been some good investments, then all are. You even use a China analogy of a current scheme to apply to past local schemes. So many own goals – you will be running out of balls. In any case World Bank investments are in underdeveloped countries . In Africa where I have worked on food security, investments are designed to improve food security, fight poverty, improve the lot of women, earn foreign exchange etc etc. and to increase incomes above a dollar a day. Not a good analogy. My point you avoided was mainly about the equity aspects of past investments and their legacies impacting on solutions to current challenges.

    Generalising a little to probably include all who hang about here more than I do, Deb, do you think the frequency and quality of your increasingly random and illogical responses suggests an addiction to blogging?. If you answer yes to these two you need help (and dopamine and avoiding transfer to a worse addiction). 1)Getting a short lived high when you see your stuff on the screen, and having to go again? 2)Getting uneasy if you don’t blog?

  1263. Debbie says

    No Bazza,
    I asked an extra ordinarily easy question that only needed a yes or no answer from you.
    Instead you choose to use this space to make extra ordinary ad hom personal attacks and pseudo psycho analysis and amazing obfuscation.
    The question was simple Bazza,
    It was not an invitation to you to make perfectly ridiculous assumptions about me.
    Addiction to blogging?
    Geeze, how random and illogical can one possibly get?
    Out of respect for the person who runs this blog and respect for the good manners of MOST of the people who contribute here I will leave it there.
    The temptation is huge however and my patience is definitely being tested.

  1264. Robert says

    Ever been stuck in a pub with a pompous, conceited drunk who slurs on about how other people are drinking the wrong stuff and in the wrong ways at the wrong times? He, on the other hand, has it all under control.

  1265. Luke says

    “Now I have caused untold environmental damage and I refuse to discuss mitigation options?”

    did I say “untold”

    “Your attitude towards agriculture in Australia is completely unbalanced and informed only by screeching about mistakes that have already been mitigated and supporting that stupid precautionary principle that is being used to stop further development and/or the ability to upgrade and mitigate.” – not really in both terms of “unbalanced” , “precautionary principle”, and “stopping development”. An example would be getting some Gulf of Carpentaria Rivers development perhaps – but how would we do it and what lessons might we invoke from science and our experience.

    You just seem unable to discuss mitigation options for environmental side effects of agricultural development. Pity as you were my captive irrigator.

    Like you were unable/unwilling to discuss use of forecasting.

    None of these attempts were to trap you – moreover to get some more serious exchange other than denial that nothing is happening (almost with everything).

  1266. Luke says

    Debs

    So on dam methane – and it was a threshold test – nobody mentioned that engineering ideas to tap the methane and use it as a power source have been considered.

    Nothing on spillway design, fish lifts, or environmental flows. Species studies. Captive breeding.

    So little interest in any mitigation technology. So like most of you guys you’d rather eat broken glass than discuss solutions.

  1267. sp says

    Typical Luke – demanding solutions to non-existent problems via ever greater, but meaningless, details.

    A smokescreen for stupidity.

  1268. Debbie says

    Luke,
    on numerous occasions, the last being Sept 9 @ 11:28, I have commented that these things can be managed.
    I have never, ever claimed we should just do the same as we have always done.
    You and Bazza have just accused that along with increasingly ridiculous claims about my literacy, my education level, the colour of my neck, my ability to care, my motivations, my ‘denialism’, my addictions(???), etc etc etc.
    Mistakes have been made and they need to be fixed, which I would have thought we would all do as we upgrade and also develop new areas. . . wouldn’t you?
    Your ‘side’ has tried to advance a spurious & ridiculous debate that is framed as ‘environment vs agriculture’.
    It is complete rubbish and I find your negative ranting highly counter productive and totally unimpressive.
    Your continued sooking re ‘forecasting’ is more of the same rubbish.
    When you finally asked that question in something close to a sincere manner, I answered it.
    You then went off into another typically negative rant.
    I can only assume either
    a) you meant to ask a different question or
    b) you didn’t understand my answer.

    So Luke?
    Are multi purpose and multi benefit water storage and water management schemes a good investment or not in your opinion?
    That of course means that we should build them with the extra knowledge we now posses about being environmentally responsible? . . . LIKE DUH!!!!

  1270. Debbie says

    BTW,
    Not that it will make any difference, but I think you would find, IF YOU EVER BOTHERED TO ASK, that irrigators are totally on board with spillway design etc.
    Not on board with current plan re environmental flows because it has not worked (gotta do a lot of stuff re upgrading to make that a possibilty) or methane capture.
    We have had several methane projects mooted here, 2 that I have been personally involved in.
    They fell over because the only way they could be economically viable was to have them heavily subsidised.
    It still remains a good idea IMHO but so far it is not practical.
    I have the same opinion re wind. We have been using windmills forever to keep water troughs and house supply dams replenished.
    However,
    when we want to do some serious water pumping, they can’t cut it.

  1271. Neville says

    Interesting to read that the human population during the last interglacial was perhaps 1 million people and by 8,000BC this had increased to about 5 million .

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population

    Just proves that the high methane reading from Vostok before the start of the holocene was entirely NATURAL. Aint nature grand?

  1273. spangled drongo says

    Luke, just returned from listing native flora to read your usual wide-of-the-mark reply. I don’t equate with your Noble Stockman summary. You should drop in some time and see how way off you are. When National Parks and Wildlife Service can’t achieve what you are driveling on about when starting from a perfect position 100 years in advance, what chance has this corrupt policy got however much money you throw at the problem.

    But I suspect you know that already and can’t help making things up as you go along.

    However it’s just more proof that you, bazza and gav have no idea what constitutes sound public expenditure.

    Neville, good on Michael Smith for bringing this up. It’s frightening to speculate what the actual cost of this Labor catastrophe will be and they need to be held accountable over it every inch of the way.

  1274. spangled drongo says

    ‘“Recovering” – what does that mean.’

    Y’know when your temperature drops and you seriously need to warm up, your body won’t function and you’re hypothermic.

    If you ever get to that state you need to recover to survive.

    RECOVERING MEANS GETTING BACK TO NORMAL.

    It’s no co-incidence that the world’s population has grown exponentially since RECOVERING from the LIA.

  1275. Luke says

    “Y’know when your temperature drops and you seriously need to warm up, your body won’t function and you’re hypothermic.” yes I thought what you’d say. Good grief.

    So how would you rate the range condition in Central Australia? We’re not talking NPWS – the company are managing it which shows what an uninformed twit you are.

    Obviously a rangeland ignoramus.

  1276. Luke says

    Debs at 12:58 – well done. I knew you cared. Wouldn’t it be good to see Debs say “let’s mitigate that problem by ….” instead of “don’t say that !”

  1277. spangled drongo says

    Don’t be a flea-brain Lukwitz. You’re missing the point [what’s new!]. NPWS, starting from a much more advanced position, can’t keep their Bilbies alive at Currawinya, Koalas or any of their natives alive in NPs and highly rated, natural refuges like Fraser Is are a feral nursery yet you think some sort of standard can be achieved in Feral-land out there with amateurs running the show.

    Even when NPWS fenced Currawinya with an incredibly expensive perimeter barrier and spent years of concentrated effort they couldn’t eradicate the ferals and this is much bigger and much more difficult country to manage. There’s no talk of doing even what they did at Currawinya so they have got no chance.

    But I do admire your well informed, know-it-all logic.

    Maybe you are saying that it worth all those millions simply to destock the place and let the ferals take free reign?

    Man, that’s a great solution!

    Proving once again what a grasp of economics you lot have.

  1280. Dave Shorter says

    Anyone else here noticed what a busy beaver Minister for the Envronment Tony Burke Is ?
    Today he disabled The Abel Tasman.Ditto the Murray Darling,the Victorian Alps,the Redgum forests,the Coral Sea….is there any renewable resource this bloke won’t lock up ? In between all that he’s saved The Koala,The River,The Reef and is furiously working on The Planet! Has there ever been a minster sacrifice so much production for so little environmental gain ?

  1282. Luke says

    SD = wrong = got it wrong = dead wrong. Company managing the property. SD = wrong. SD = doesn’t know what he’s talking about. ” With cattle removed, the company will actively manage fire, water, weeds and feral animals to encourage natural revegetation.”

    “Seriously luke, are you concerned to make Australia more agriculturally productive or less?” not an any cost – no. So with a choice of destroying marginal rangelands vs other alternatives – other alternatives. But of course any intelligent agriculturalist wouldn’t see marginal lands as “productive”. Good excuses for getting drought relief though Debs.

    And Debs – you get the record for obfuscation and long content free essays but I’m not over it.

  1283. spangled drongo says

    Content-free argument Luke.

    No point, no substance, no detail. Just hand-waving. Show me how it’s gonna happen.

    I just showed you how it’s never happened yet and they are gonna get paid millions for it.

    While providing a feral-haven for the neighbours to live with.

    The best way to manage fire, water, weeds and ferals out there is to run livestock. At the right capacity.

  1284. cohenite says

    “The best way to manage fire, water, weeds and ferals out there is to run livestock. At the right capacity.”

    And the right capacity for the greenies and AGW devotees is nil. They really are a cargo cult which thinks the lattes can continue independent of agriculture and that their egotistic moral sensibility based on saving mother nature can be similtaneously indulged while closing down food production.

    Witless.

  1285. Luke says

    What a dopey pair of wankers. Rangeland destruction apologists. And how awful for them that the symbolic RM Williams company are doing this brilliant task. Progressive unlike our knuckle draggers.

    Yes folks the beef industry has simply run out of land – it’s almost extinct. We’ll have to import beef – there’ll be none left. You guys are the reason there’s earthquakes. Enough wankers to get in sync and setup an harmonic wave.

  1286. Robert says

    Don’t worry, climate princesses, we’ll just fund your latest round of carbon savings by hauling another half-billion tonnes of coal offshore. Maybe those Japanese, Chinese etc will relent and not actually burn it. Malcolm tells us they’re going kind of lo-carb – at least symbolically.

    Now the symbolic (damn, forgot to say “iconic”) R. M. Williams has lent its name to a green non-project. (Can we work “Kidman” in there somewhere, brochure people?) A long tradition of producing in harsh and adverse conditions will be continued by not producing within a privileged and faddish government-enforced program. Gough has made it to the centre at last. “Rangeland ecology” is just the ultimate in sexiness, don’t you think? Kind of rugged, kind of caring and sciency. Lovin’ it, er, cobbers.)

    This brings certainty to communities and to industry! Business is on board!

  1287. gavin says

    coh; following your UHI / DTR compression and I still say it’s enhanced AGW

    “The main conclusion of Kalnay and Cai (2003) was that 0.35°C mean surface warming per century in the eastern part of the US and half of the observed decrease in diurnal temperature range was due to land-use changes (both urbanization and agriculture).” from “Changes in climate due to land cover changes Physical Climatology”

    Australia gets a guernsey too. Queenslanders have a good look at the maps and diagrams.

    http://coolessay.org/docs/index-6834.html

  1288. gavin says

    “Urban heat islands result from factors that differentiate the urban from the non-urbanized landscape, and include releases from heating-ventilation-air conditioning systems, energy emissions from industrial processes and motorized vehicles, the amount of available moisture for evapotranspiration and the differential heat properties of urban building materials versus natural surfaces. The urban heat islands (UHI) have implications for the transport of air pollutants, heating and cooling costs and the confounding of long-term temperature records”

    Dear folks; “the confounding of long-term temperature records” bit is the least of our problems because near surface hot gas emissions quickly become atmosphere and the greenhouse gas variety quickly become part of the global atmospheric change.

    Its an extreme head in sand approach to want to null all the measurements.

  1289. spangled drongo says

    Luke, stop trying to live in a childish, perfect, green world. It ain’t gonna happen no matter how many taxpayer dollars you throw at it.

    You cant fence out ferals, fire, weeds, disease. And you can’t fence that country very well anyway, but you can waste huge amounts trying.

    It’s been a problem since settlement and it’s silly to kid ourselves we can change it. It’s our feral future and we’re stuck with it.

    But if we farm it well it is sustainable and very productive.

    It is a win/win whereas this scheme is a lose/lose.

  1290. spangled drongo says

    A discussion on the ABC this am claimed that the argument on fluoridation of water was like climate change ie the experts against the objectors and science in question.

    It was not mentioned however that the experts here [dentists] have no barrow to push. They are advocating something that will do them out of income.

    Interesting how the experts are much more believable when there is no conflict of interest.

  1291. Luke says

    You pair are morons – no idea nor experience in changed fire regimes. No idea how to minimise ferals. Certainly no rangeland experience. I am stunned at your ignorance.

    And it is being done Cohenite – imagine gimps like Cohenite unapproving myxo and calcivirus programs. Banning weed research. “We’re stuck with it” is his catch cry.

    Who’s talking about fencing SD?

    Robert thinks rangelands don’t have an ecology. So here we have the pinnacle of pig ignorance. Amazing stuff.

  1292. Debbie says

    Yes Dave,
    I have noticed big time.
    He’s trying to have the water act amended and trying to do it with no consultation.
    As per one of the media releases:
    “The proposed amendments that we’ve seen don’t enshrine the promises made to us. We’ve been told that an upward adjustment would only be on the basis of no social and economic impacts and only with new projects and money. That is not reflected in the amendments. Again, the amendments focus solely on environmental implications and do not even aim for, let alone achieve, social and economic balance.
    “There’s little doubt that the Water Act has serious problems. If the Government wants to change it, let’s change all of the broken bits and take the time required to do it properly.

    These people are truly delusional.
    They think they are working for some ‘higher level purpose’ or some type pf ‘grand challenge’or even some type of ‘grand experiment’.
    It leads people like Luke to sprout complete and utter crap like this:
    ‘But of course any intelligent agriculturalist wouldn’t see marginal lands as “productive”. Good excuses for getting drought relief though Debs.’
    And they think they said something that makes sense?
    Marginal lands Luke?
    Intelligent agriculturalists?
    You truly have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about and as Cohenite and Robert pointed out you are definitely anti production and even more anti development.

    AS IF PUTTING YET ANOTHER LAYER OF BUREAUCRACY IN LAND & WATER MANAGEMENT WILL SOLVE ANYTHING!!!!!
    That is the very last (many expletives!) thing we need!
    We already have enough bi polar policy interference!!
    AND AMAZINGLY….while all this is going on….look at the pollies go here when they talk about landcare week and look at them all falling over themselves to ‘appreciate’ farmers.
    It really doesn’t get more ‘bi polar’ than this.
    http://www.openaustralia.org/debates/?id=2012-09-10.186.2&s=Murray+Darling+Basin+speaker%3A10743#g187.1
    So when it’s about rhetoric and PR it’s all cosy & pretty…..BUT LOOK AT THE POLICIES!!!!
    How do they back up the pretty rhetoric?

  1294. Debbie says

    Sorry,
    Meant to add,
    on our ABC this morning we had these people sooking because they had hardly any RSVP’s for the forum.(National Food Plan).
    As one of our locals said:
    but I think it a bit rich that Govt and Canberra-based public servants make no attempt to link food security with water security throughout the Basin Plan process and then want to bag us for being disinterested in their endeavours

  1295. Neville says

    Real science done by citizen scientists in one single day, but could not be replicated by REAL ??? scientists?
    Anyway they’ve proved that there has been little change in temp over that area for the last 500 years.
    If McIntyre isn’t a genuine hero, then I’ve never seen one. This Starbuck’s test was a wonderful idea.
    Genuine, honest people doing good science with a minimum of fuss. What a comparison to the other side.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/11/new-isotope-based-temperature-reconstruction-using-mcintyres-starbucks-hypothesis-tree-core-samples/#more-70829

  1296. Robert says

    A rangeland ecologist is someone who tells you certain weeds are bad, regrowth is not natural even when native, the “pristine” has never existed, don’t overstock, prepare for drought, prepare for flood, don’t erode, shoot ferals, leave masses of wilderness untouched (Henbury )? A good grazier tells you all of the above….then does it.

    Princesses, when empty projects get hooked on remote funding but have no economic imperatives to satisfy…well, I won’t bore you with tales of the 80s and white shoes. I suppose we all have to learn the hard way. In the meantime…

    Business is most certainly on board!

  1297. cohenite says

    “And it is being done Cohenite – imagine gimps like Cohenite unapproving myxo and calcivirus programs. Banning weed research. “We’re stuck with it” is his catch cry.”

    How does that follow; I’m for the rabbit because I think AGW is BS?!

    This is typical, the conflation of real environmental issues with AGW to prove AGW;ie there’s a rabbit pest problem therefore AGW is real, and you’re against AGW therefore you must think rabbits are good.

    I’m beginning to think youre an introduced pest luke.

  1298. toby says

    Amazing, fancy supporting a 6 million dollar invetsment that returns 20 million in 1 year thx to crazy green/ environmental policy. If we werent the embarrassment of the world for poor policy, we surely must be seen as such now. Why is common sense so rare amongst apparrently intelligent people?!

  1299. Robert says

    While we certainly have to lose the sexy terminology that makes these urban finger-waggers all moist, people with scientific know-how on animals, soil, plants etc have always been a part of our stupendous agrarian achievement. Going back to Ruse and Elizabeth Macarthur, we’ve always been progressive. Our wheat, wool and grazing industries all bear the mark of intensive science. (Try to find a merino in Spain. I looked, but no luck.)

    Right now, we need fewer wet-dreams like Cubbie Station and more Israeli thrift and science. But we have to produce. And to those who, like Deb, are already producing – thanks! To those who, like SD, are conserving – thanks!

    The rest can go to buggery.

  1300. Neville says

    Bob Tisdale’s free tutorial on ENSO is available and you can purchase his book of 500+ pages for $8.
    Even I can understand most of it so it should be a breeze for nearly everyone. He certainly makes the case for ENSO being behind most of the recent warming.

    BTW he only needs to use publicly available data and measurement to prove his case, not dubious climate models.

    http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/preview-of-who-turned-on-the-heat-v2.pdf

  1301. spangled drongo says

    Luke, I’ve been in Rural FBs, land management and feral reduction all my life. Stop postulating. You don’t have anything, anywhere to support your crap claims. Better people than you have been trying to solve our feral, fire and biodegradation problems for more than a century and the good farmers are doing it better than govt and producing a fantastic resource for the nation at the same time.

    Look at our prime example of govt land management: Fraser Is, where a beautiful ecology, good industry and prime wildlife refuge was reduced in a few years to an out-of-control feral nursery.

    And that was right on our doorstep, right under our noses. Imagine what will go on unobserved way out there.

    BTW, fencing just happens to be your best ally but even that won’t work as shown by Currawinya.

    We’re not “stuck with” anything, but having motivated, clever people on the ground is always going to produce the best results.

    Not a green ideology paying rentseekers huge sums for carbon indulgences.

  1302. spangled drongo says

    Just as a POI, we once shot 10,000 brumbies along the SA border and you could not see the difference in the numbers.

    The property was running 10,000 head of cattle and about 30,000 brumbies, plus many thousands of camels, donkeys, dingoes, dogs, cats, rabits etc.

    Cattle were doing the least of the damage.

  1304. el gordo says

    ‘Not a green ideology paying rentseekers huge sums for carbon indulgences.’

    Hear hear…

    I’m putting my faith in Tony Abbott’s Green Army.

  1305. toby says

    I have mentioned this before , so sorry for those being bored. My brother in law ran commonwealth hill a huge sheep and cattle station ( it was before being divided into 3 properties the largest sheep station in the world) , the dog fence runs along one side of it. I asked my brotherin law how his industry was impacting on the environment. he said easy to see, and he took me to the dog fence. His side whilst still harsh terrain had grasses and trees and at the time lots of wild flowers like the magnificant sturt desert pea, on the otherside of teh fence which was not managed at all, it was basically a desert, lifeless. Clearly the property was being managed in a way that improved the environment and landscape. Our current mob would apparently like this property turned into an unproductive carbon sink. why is so much about CAGW, collective insanity?

  1306. spangled drongo says

    That’s so true Toby, I once worked on a sheep and cattle place west of Stonehenge with a boundary fence of dog netting over 200k long and an electric fence outside that of similar length. Inside the fence was always in good order environmentally becaust it reduced the ferals considerably but outside was degraded and poor with the full gamut of ferals running wild.

    These days it is all in ruins and over run with ferals but it is still mustered by helicopter and produces beef. Now Julia at a stroke has probably made it worth a fortune and it won’t produce anything but will still be over run with ferals. It is thick Mulga scrub, rich, productive, hard-to-work country and feral elimination is nigh impossible.

  1310. spangled drongo says

    “Fence line contrasts pose a classic problem – why was the fence put where it is in the first place.?”

    Probably becaust the human population increased.

    Wanna make a voluntary decision to help remedy that?

  1311. toby says

    Baz, granted that is a valid question and is a possible explanation, however since the dog fence runs in a relatively straight line along that property I suspect it is more to do with land management than geology etc. personally i was amazed, because i had genuinely expected the land not being managed would look healthier and “prisitine”….

  1312. spangled drongo says

    bazza, if you were a shepherd tending your flock and suddenly, after years of peaceful shepherding, your flock was one night torn to pieces maybe you too would build a predator proof fence if you could afford it.

    Or you could get the flock outa there.

  1313. Johnathan Wilkes says

    “Fence line contrasts pose a classic problem – why was the fence put where it is in the first place.?”

    I suppose it may have to do with the subdivision-come lease boundaries as well, but I’m only guessing here, not being privy to the vast “wisdom” of buzzyboy.

  1314. bazza says

    Spangled has 9 posts up today already – bit like chain smoking as far as addiction goes. He proved 3 times he had no idea what I was talking about in terms of fence line contrasts. As if they were put in thier place randomly. Toby was at least polite for once. That other guy could not help himself and had a cheap shot as well as providing a bit of the bleeding obvious.

  1315. cohenite says

    SD is right; the environment is always better off when responsible productive landuse controls the landscape. Leon Ashby has a good series of videos on this point:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qgqn56_TKKA&feature=channel_page

    The reverence for nature and the hatred of humanity really is at the core of AGW and the drive to cut back agriculture in this country. That this drive often produces the opposite result, land degradation, should surprise noone as nothing AGW has produced has been worthwhile to either the environment or humanity.

    AGW really is the ego manifestation of completely imcompetent people.

  1316. Debbie says

    Was that an attempt at a riddle Bazza?
    You know:
    Like:
    Why did the chicken cross the road?
    If you think you know the clever or amusing answer to your riddle….please illuminate us….I for one am entirely fascinated why Bazza would pose such a ‘classic problem’ as a riddle.

  1319. Robert says

    I’ll just skip the riddling over the “classic problem” – which sounds like lame dialogue from a bad kung fu movie – and say thanks to SD and toby for sharing their eyewitness observations of cattle-country fence lines. I do value that sort of info greatly.

  1321. Johnathan Wilkes says

    “had no idea what I was talking about in terms of fence line contrasts”

    Did you buzzy? had any idea I mean?
    If you ask an inane question don’t be surprised when you get ridiculed.
    The OTHER guy!

    On our old farm there was section with deep gullies, practically inaccessible, needless to say we never fenced it, or more precisely we fenced it off from the rest of the land to keep stock safe.

  1322. spangled drongo says

    cohers, Luke, bazza and gav need to view those Ashby links. Not that it would change their minds or ideology but these are the sorts of land use changes that have happened for centuries, world wide, making ever greater productivity.

  1323. bazza says

    Spangled, so careless, I have posted no views on land use change for you to assume I need to change my mind. In case it isnt obvious except perhaps to Debbie, it is easy to be misled and make wrong attributions to the causes of fence line contrasts.

  1324. Luke says

    Sheer nonsense FB. (1) shoot, trap remove ferals (2) introduce proper fire regime (3) remove exotic soil losing livestock (see 40 years work CSIRO in Central Australia) on marginal land (4) increase carbon sink (5) undertake research and monitoring. All done by a company experienced in the area. Now what is wrong with that. The nation is not short of grazing country.

    You are unable to contemplate any other than a single minded paradigm.

    And we could then talk about superior land management techniques by Heytesbury in the higher NT. Better pasture utilisation combined also with biodiversity outcomes.

    You’re not even interested in exploration of such initiatives. I find your attitude galling. But that the small minded myopic view that persists here.

  1325. Luke says

    So tell us SD – what quantitative methods do you recommend for assessing the health of a grazed woodland pasture. What’s your favourite. You tell me first given you’re an expert and I’ll tell you mine.

  1326. Robert says

    “While Henbury has previously operated as a cattle station, 70 per cent of the huge property remains largely in its natural condition…” (From Fed dept’s own Henbury site)

    Gorgeous stuff it is. And it contains reserves with links to NPs. Naughty graziers forgot to degrade, and they’ve had since 1875 to wreck the place!

    With green intellectuals, supermarket duopoly, climate shills, centralised and centralising bureaucracies, GetUp tag teams, GIM, Goldman Sachs, and Timmy…rural Australia has never been in better hands. Never has there been such a potential for growth in the production of full colour, high gloss brochures. If the coal price falls, or the dollar goes down, we’ll just get those Asians to buy and burn more of the black stuff. You can’t emit too much CO2 in the great cause of…er….well…reducing CO2 emissions.

    Look, just do as you’re told, rubes!

  1327. cohenite says

    SD, I read the Sullivan appraisal of the NIWA case; he has a head of steam up and is speculative about some appeal options; what we know or can say is:

    1 NIWA did not release the BOM ‘review’ of it methodology
    2 NIWA did not explain what alternative methodology to Rhoades and Salinger [RS93] methodology they used
    3 NIWA did not show its belated application of RS93 workings to the court.

    But the court did accept NIWA’s explanation that it did all this!

  1328. gavin says

    “Sea surface temperatures in cooler climate stages bear more similarity with atmospheric CO2 forcing”

    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2012/2012JD017725.shtml

    “The climate forcing greenhouse gas, the atmospheric CO2 (pCO2) and the response signals like sea surface temperature (SST) and carbon isotope composition of total organic carbon (δ13CTOC) proxies are strongly correlated (∼1 or −1) without significant observable time lag (less than 1 kyr). Various substages of MIS 11 are recognizable in the SST data alone based on normalized similarity measures”

    Just stirring the pot.

  1329. gavin says

    “Atmospheric CO2 drove climate change during longest interglacial ” August 8, 2012

    “Known as the marine isotope stage 11 (MIS 11), the interglacial period centered around 400,000 years ago was the longest and possibly the warmest interglacial in the past 0.5 million years. Because the orbital configurations, atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, climate, and faunal characteristics during MIS 11 closely resemble those of the past 5,000 years, paleoclimatologists use MIS 11 as a geological analogue of the present and the near future”

    http://phys.org/news/2012-08-atmospheric-co2-drove-climate-longest.html

    don’t you luv it !

  1330. toby says

    What do people here think about the “abel tasman”, ive read the science and it seems to suggest we should let them go ahead and fish with their super trawler, I cant get my head around it however. Although given how long the planning process has apparently taken, it does seem like yet another sovereign risk issue and likely to prevent future investment?

  1332. spangled drongo says

    bazza, I assumed your riddle-type question was addressed to me as well as toby and mine being a perimeter fence, your query seem rather pointless. You should have addressed it to toby if that’s who it was exclusively for. WRT your hurt feelings on land use I apologise if they differ from Luke and gav but up till now they have seemed to be similar.

    toby, I think the govts handling of the Abel Tasman is apalling. This last minute decision is pure politics and sends a message to anyone wanting to do big business in this country that this govt has no qualms with sending you broke even before you start no matter how up front and rule abiding you try to be.

    Why lead somebody on like this? You can’t believe them. You can’t trust them. Who would do business with them?

  1333. Dave Shorter says

    Hi Deb,
    Can you refresh my memory.I think Tony Burke has prior form for saying one thing then doing the opposite.Didn’t he say no more buybacks about two weeks before announcing another round of buybacks in your part of the world ?
    You often speak of bi polar policies.There seem to be two sides to Tony Burke’s character.First the glory seeker doing photo ops in aquiariums or with Koalas announcing that he has “saved” something.Then the untrustwothy character,leading producers to believe they can do things before suddenly tieing them up in green and red tape and disparaging and denigrating them in the media.

    To my mind The Abel Tasman “super trawler” is like replacing two 16″ pumps with one 24″ pump. It doesn’t mean you can exceed your allocation.

  1334. John Sayers says

    Yes SD – the Abel Tasman affair is appalling. the bulk of the ship is processing and refrigeration. One ship can take 18K tonnes but process it immediately instead of a fleet of small ships going forward and back to port.

    As they say – it’s not the size, it’s what you do with it.

  1337. spangled drongo says

    Luke, I’m sure you can talk theory till the cows come home.

    That’s not what I’m on about.

  1338. debbie says

    Yes Dave,
    that is exactly what happened. He said in front of over 10,000 people that there would be no more ‘non strategic’ buybacks & then within 2 weeks announced another buyback tender. . . No strategy, although he claimed he had ‘consulted’. Strangely, no one owned up to being ‘consulted’ with.
    His own senior bureaucrats who did 2 years of work and research are very ticked off with him re the Abel Tasman.

    Luke,
    short comment for you.
    Absolute and unadulterated, quantitative and quantifiable nonsense.
    You have no idea what you’re talking about.
    Stick to your AGW models.

  1339. Dave Shorter says

    Well that sounds about right Debbie.
    It’s ok to lie to a few thousand producers to satisfiy a few hundred misguided river “saving” activists.

  1340. Robert says

    SD, I’ve been growing moso bamboo for over twenty years and I know almost nothing about it. I can grow it, and that’s all. Certain local experts, who have a lot of trouble growing it, have sometimes told me how it’s done. Not once have I been asked how it’s done, even when people are standing and looking at what’s now turning into a forest of moso.

    I’m not implying I’m smarter than anybody. I just kept at it because I love the stuff and feel it has a future. (Eastern Oz is one of its few really suitable biomes, and it’s the most commercially useful bamboo, as well as being a champion carbon gobbler etc.) There are actual experts, scientific and practical, but they tend to be in China and have lots more bamboo than me.

    It’s amazing that people think you can read and spout a few theories and very difficult things will just happen.

  1341. Debbie says

    BTW Dave,
    birds of a feather flock together.
    Julia said in front of the whole nation:
    ‘There will be no carbon tax . . .

  1342. gavin says

    Good folks; this time tomorrow, we will flying up north to Skace country and It’s my first look see.

    Toby; after a few calls about the trawler yesterday; I’m not sure where its going but I tried to make a case for its local ownership, local science etc based on our great responsibility in global food supply as we have such a vast coastline. If we can’t do sustainable fishing for bait fish, nobody can.

    Passing the buck is just squeamish since many of us eat sea farm fish regularly. Tassal can’t feed Woollies salmon on toffee apples

    http://www.tassal.com.au/news.html

  1343. Luke says

    SD’s tripe – How piss weak – it’s not apparent that SD has never measured anything on surface condition in a rangeland. Face it matey – for all your “knock about bloke , done it all” stuff – you haven’t ever measured anything to do with soils or surface or vegetation condition in these systems. You’re just ducked my very simple question and done a big runner. What a pussy.

    So given you haven’t – you wouldn’t even know what you’re looking at. Credibility zilch.

    Debs for all your 3 degrees and lengthy waffling essays I have yet to ever see a single science lead comment from you – but you’re full of opinions that any science I table must have issues. Were the 3 degrees in home ec. Come on – you can tell us.

  1345. spangled drongo says

    Yes Robert, the wisdom of experts who can see the future through a mixture of the past and their own ideology ☺. 99% of survival happens without anything but normal input. We are mostly bystanders and when we try to help we often become part of the problem.

    Our feral future in every way. The phenomenal changes to Australia and the world since the industrial rev and while the ride is frightening and getting more so, the hand on the tiller does not need to jerk us around.

  1346. spangled drongo says

    And Robert, observe how some people just talk while others also do.

    Luke, I’ve had professors and PhDs evaluate some of my carbon sequestration projects on large areas recently and after asking them how to improve my system I was advised,”you’re doing just fine, I couldn’t suggest anything”.

    How about telling us what you are doing to help?

  1347. toby says

    Thankyou all for your thoughts re A Tasman. I fully agree it is a govt stuff up creating soveriegn risk and real issues for future investment.

    So long as it does fish sustainably in principle I shouldnt have a problem, but Im not sure they can be trusted, and think it is naive to think there will be few side effects.and gavins point about trying to feed the poor in africa certainly hits the right notes…..but is it genuine or is just fluff to seem socially responsible?

    I dont however like the idea of some foreign owned vessel ( dont think it counts now registering it in brisbane)
    It seems valid to ask why they want to fish here now, rather than in their home waters. And the easy obvious answer ( but by no means correct) is they have overfished their own waters.

    we certainly underfish our waters and should be fishing a lot more. But it should in my mind be australian businesss, creating wealth and employment in oz. Ports like Eden are now almost devoid of fishing trawlers, thx to government regulation, and yet we will let in some huge foreign ship.

    Is this just the start of super trawlers if this one is allowed?

    I havent reached an opinion just kicking the can around, i appreciate all your thoughts.

  1348. Debbie says

    More nonsense Luke?
    We get our soils & water tested all the time.
    I have issues with the way the projective computer models are being used Luke. I often have issues with the way you use them too. They often don’t either prove what you claim or disprove what others claim.
    They’re also being used to justify a pre determined policy/strategy that is impractical and unrealistic.
    Heard more of the same nonsense last night in a meeting with senior bureaucrats from Ludwigs dept.
    And no, nothing to do with Home Ec, not that I think there is anything wrong with people who do have training in Home Economics. Do know a couple of people who work in that field and they don’t particularly lack intelligence or literacy or a grasp if reality.
    I’m still unsure why you are so upset by the fact that I possess a tertiary education.?
    Why do you want to know?
    No one here even knows your name or your occupation.
    If you would like to inform all of us who you are and what you do and what qualifications you have, then perhaps if people are interested I will let them know what my education is. As I have said a few times, you are welcome to engage via my other name tags if the education bits upset you.

  1349. spangled drongo says

    One experience with the lukes recently was while walking through the bush with a budding PhD studying flora and fauna I was being pressed to engage in an endangered species survey. The BPhd was telling me of their experience in doing a thesis on how exotic Senicio madagascariensis kills the native Senicio. That really sparked my interest and on asking how it happened I was told they had completely forgotten that part.

    Somehow I then lost interest in their project.

    But then I’m a dumb sceptic who wouldn’t know, eh Luke?

  1350. Luke says

    “We get our soils & water tested all the time.’ wow is that right Debs – well I never.

    SD – exposed and now laying smoke. No idea have you – can’t string a sentence together. No idea on assessing range condition but you know everything. Join Debs in home ec class.

  1351. Luke says

    “I’m still unsure why you are so upset by the fact that I possess a tertiary education.?” I’m not – Bazza and I just want you to use it.

  1352. Luke says

    OK let’s try another way – SD – what factors do you think you would measure to assess rangeland condition.

  1354. Neville says

    Gav here’s a video backing Lomborg’s claims about UHIE. It shows research from Colombia UNI on huge reductions in temp on roofs in big cities by growing green plants.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yB8xcSwrvhY

    The scientist has measured temps of 185c on the roof of a building but this can be reduced by 80c to 100c by growing green plants. Very impressive.

    BTW Gav, ever hear of the Oke formula for UHI?

  1357. debbie says

    On the topic of the trawler fiasco in Tasmania from Walter Starck.
    http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2012/09/of-fish-and-foul-logic

    Did I mention that senior members of Ag and Fisheries are completely ticked off with Burke?
    They commissioned research and worked on this project for over 2 years and it had all been OK’d.
    Because Getup, Green Peace etc ran a camaign and used their media contacts…..all those people who knew this had a green light and had already invested in this project (which includes the tax payers BTW) have just had the rug pulled out from under their feet.

    SO…whether you agree with greenpeace and getup or not….HOW TRUSTWORTHY IS THIS MAN?
    It also echoes of the terrible mess that was made in Northern OZ because of a knee jerk reaction to a media report.

    And Dave….this was in the Fin Review today:

    Burke obviously thinks he can swap and change anything he likes.
    This is after he was adamant that there is no way the Water Act has any deficiencies and no way it could possibly be amended.

    Burke taps Coalition for flexibility on water
    PUBLISHED: 6 hours 56 MINUTES AGO | UPDATE: 6 hours 29 MINUTES AGO PUBLISHED: 13 Sep 2012PRINT EDITION: 13 Sep 2012
    Share Links:email
    •
    •
    •
    print-font+font
    Gift Article:100
    Sophie Morris
    Water Minister Tony Burke is seeking Coalition support for legislation that could lead to a further reduction in the volume of water for the environment of the Murray-Darling Rivers, to as low as 2250 gigalitres.
    The Water Amendment Bill, to be introduced to Parliament today, outlines an adjustment mechanism, allowing the 2750 GL of surface water that will be set aside for the environment to be either reduced or increased as high as 3200 GL.
    There could also be a shift up or down in the volume of groundwater recovered for the environment. The legislation will test parliamentary support for the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, which Mr Burke will table within weeks. But the Coalition will refer the bill to a committee, citing fears that it provides no protection for irrigation communities if the environmental water target is lifted. The volume of environmental water has already been reduced significantly since protests in irrigation districts following the authority’s initial proposals in 2010, that 3000 to 4000 GL be returned to the environment.
    Under the new bill, it could be cut even further if more efficient practices meant this would have no environmental cost. The National Farmers’ Federation complained that the bill gives the power to vary the water volumes to the Murray-Darling Basin Authority, rather than to Parliament or the minister. But MDBA chair Craig Knowles said: “The adjustment mechanism is nothing more or less than common sense to allow practical and sensible management of the basin to occur.”
    Mr Burke is trying to overcome resistance from state governments to the Basin Plan. South Australia wants more water for the environment, but Victoria and NSW argue their irrigation communities are already giving up too much.

    So Luke?
    You just want to refer to the fact that I have an education in a piss poor attempt at trying to be a cyber bully????????
    Get a life for heavens sake and discuss the actual issues that we are discussing here.
    It may shock you to know that people other than bureaucrats can tick boxes and monitor the health and value of land.
    Just because you haven’t got access to a bureacratic report or some type of Ag Dept report on these things DOES NOT MEAN IT DOESN’T HAPPEN!!!!

  1359. Luke says

    “Get a life for heavens sake and discuss the actual issues that we are discussing here.’ and that can be you to Debs.

    “It may shock you to know that people other than bureaucrats can tick boxes and monitor the health and value of land.” really – you wouldn’t think so from your reactions … seems “data free” – Toyota windshield method

  1360. kuhnkat says

    Seems like when the Scientists actually LOOK for UHI it is quite obvious and significant!!!

    http://www.c3headlines.com/2012/09/turkish-scientists-confirm-uhi-effect-is-overstating-global-warming-4-degree-uhi-impact-documented.html

    Phil “I lost all the data” Jones apparently just didn’t look very hard.

    Oh look, here it is in South Korea!!
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/29/uhi-in-south-korea-responsible-for-over-half-of-the-warming/

    (Phil should have looked in North Korea instead of China. His result may have been believable there!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA)

    Hey, it’s in Melbourne also!!
    http://www.earthsci.unimelb.edu.au/~jon/WWW/uhi-melb.html

    Mexico City didn’t want to be left out!!
    http://www.urban-climate.org/UHI_Canopy.pdf

    Tampa
    http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/etd/1784/

    Even kids can find it in Phoenix!!
    http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2008/02/measureing-the.html

    Little Lukey, hope you are saving up for plastic surgery and a new identity. In a few years it will be extremely embarassing to be known as someone stupid enough to have believed in Gorebull Warming!!!

  1361. Robert says

    My idea of an expert is someone with vast knowledge and experience. Such a person will always be extremely cautious because he’s seen nature tear up the rule book time and time again.

    I’ve stood with bamboo specialists and they’ve told me what they do to grow moso – which they can’t grow. They say they’ve done this and that by way of prep, as if certain things are assumed and unchallengeable. They plant in hard sun, on north slopes, on creek flats; they clear lantana away, put up non-specific animal barriers, dose with a stimulus package of high nitro (I’m actually “organic”!)…and every move is doom to moso. They don’t have to meet the later challenges of wind and possum attack because the grove never gets to that stage.

    The problem is not that a rangeland expert, or any other kind of land expert, is undesirable. Such people are highly desirable. Note, however, my above definition of expert. I would love to involve an expert in what I do, to the point of fantasising about a Chinese takeover. Why not? We need to stop growing whisky-grass and bladey-grass and crap regrowth in retired dairy country – and get a real timber industry happening again!

    But we have a bratty generation who think complex things – like economy, climate and agriculture – work by buttons and levers, as in a computer game. Their bush cred comes from calling you “matey” and their technical cred comes from never having to face or pay for consequences. If their ideas don’t work, it’s the reality which is having trouble catching up to the theory. Silly reality!

    The brats think they should be able to boss people like Deb and the Ashby family – from their consoles. I need advice from Chinese. Deb may profit from hearing some Israelis, for all I know. And I’m sure there are some terrific rangeland people in Oz and the US. But a degree, a ponytail and some green politics won’t cut it.

  1362. Luke says

    “The brats think they should be able to boss people like Deb and the Ashby family – from their consoles. ”

    or maybe years of field work and thousands of logged data points ….. hmmmm

    and some have pony tails and some have crew cuts

    irrelevant and you wouldn’t know Robert

  1363. spangled drongo says

    Debs, remember that old saying: Them as can, do; them as can’t, instruct.

    Luke, I don’t pretend to be an academic but you do.

    How about just answering my last Q:

    How about telling us what you are doing to help?

    You come here and lecture with your unconvincing authority but you never put any cards on the table.

    You grease your way around things like a slippery eel but never deliver, only try and mark everyone’s card.

    C’mon, come good, give us some facts about what you have done to save us from ourselves.

    [What’re the odds we don’t get an answer or at best a Julia special.]

  1364. kuhnkat says

    Here is a good one. Steven McIntyre’s posts on Jones et al 1990. Kinda brings out the incompetence or criminality or something!!

    http://climateaudit.org/2010/11/03/phil-jones-and-the-china-network-part-1/

    It also includes links to the other major Warmist UHI papers.

    http://www.newsnet5.com/dpp/weather/weather_news/big-cities-can-be-16-degrees-warmer-than-the-surrounding-countryside%2C-says-nasa
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0034425709003174

    Kinda brings into question the whole bit of record breaking temps in the US this summer!!

  1365. spangled drongo says

    “Go Clive !”

    Ah, yes! The enemy of your enemy is your friend.

    Amazing but convenient. How the lukey left can praise Palmer and ridicule Reinhart.

  1366. Robert says

    I want my next lecture from a crewcut. Those ponytails…ew!

    Field work? Fine! Logged data points? Great! A modest but desirable fraction of expertise. Very worthwhile.

    Anyway, Luke, I didn’t know that your offer to educate SD was based on your years of rangeland fieldwork. You must have made countless observations and had many interesting encounters while you were out and about on the range. That kind of in situ experience makes you worth attending to. I know almost nothing on the subject. I’ll certainly read what you have to say, just as I’m always attentive when Deb speaks on irrigation farming.

  1367. bazza says

    Not wrong on bamboo, Robert mate – it’s a magic product – not just a grass – you can eat it – sleep on it – make a house – listen to its music and watch its flags flutter in the gentlest of breezes. But I discovered too late that it is a bit tedious to preserve it once cut for furniture – maybe Ok commercially but I will save that for a retirement dream.

  1368. Robert says

    Bazza, if you have a living five-year culm of a suitable species, cut it fresh and find a way to bake it at a very low temp – around 100C – for not more than twenty minutes, or until it sweats its sugary resins. I’m yet to find a better way to treat moso, though I haven’t tried all ways. The result is hard and creamy-coloured, with a nice gloss. Young poles won’t have the substance, old poles will go brittle, but living poles between four and six years should respond well.

    Needless to say, I’m not sure!

  1369. bazza says

    Robert, my oven is 600mm but I did work in the bakers shop next door when I was a boy and he had a paddle I used to use, must have been all of 3 yards. The baker has closed ( could not compete with the scale of Regal bread – sovereign risk?) but the oven remains. Maybe I can make an offer.

  1370. Debbie says

    OK Luke,
    let’s look at it this way.
    You explain why you have expertise that people like me should listen to.
    You explain what you think can be done in practical terms.
    Despite your incessant insistence otherwise, there is no shortage of data.
    That is not a problem.

  1371. spangled drongo says

    I’ve got some Moso on my floor and it is beautiful, hard, soft and durable. Didn’t think about eating the shoots. I used to always carry a couple of bamboo poles on deck to get me out of a fix, as spare spars.

  1372. bazza says

    One of the great conundrums, if you have not got the expertise to check the evidence on its merits, how would you assess the expertise of the expert supplying the evidence.

  1373. Robert says

    Bazza, a baker’s oven had not occurred to me, but it may be ideal. I guess you’d have to watch the critical mass of bamboo so that it sweats in a dry environment rather than steams. Also, one would have to get the fresh-cut poles to the oven quickly, without any natural drying. The drying should come later. I’d experiment before buying, but the idea is inspirational. Cost would be moderate if one did lots in continuity. Not much temp or time involved.

    Of course, with a good enough oven one might be able to make charcoal. I make my bamboo charcoal by wrapping dry five-year pieces in foil and forming very tight funnels at the ends. These parcels get placed on very hot coals in my slow-combustion heater – no flames. But with a good enough oven, who knows?

    Interesting.

  1374. spangled drongo says

    I’ve rowed a 12 meter yacht with bamboo poles with a square of plywood lashed on each end and done 4 knots. Saved my life. Well, the boat’s, anyway.

    Handy stuff, bamboo.

  1376. spangled drongo says

    Well bazza, simple really.

    If the experts leveled and told you exactly what aspects they looked at and how they did their assesments, you could compare your own experiences.

    If the experts honestly took accurate measurements that you were not able to do, you would respect their findings.

    OTOH, if they made assumptions and fed them into a computer you would not respect their findings quite so much.

  1377. Robert says

    SD, you hear a lot about eating quality of shoots. Moso shoots aren’t the pinnacle, one hears, but they’re practical to harvest and process, hence their commercial value.

    My own opinion of my own shoots? Delicious! I’ll soon be gorging on fresh stuff, but they freeze well. Not only are they a wild-grown food but moso, specifically, is about the richest source of chlorogenic acid, taken seriously in diabetes treatment.

    Knowing how to select and prep bamboo shoots is important, needless to say; but, once prepped, I enjoy mine like the finest artichokes or asparagus. The rare winter shoots remind me a little of water chestnut, but the main production comes from the spring monsters. With some rain, they’ll be appearing within a fortnight.

  1378. spangled drongo says

    As a f’rinstance bazza, when we get fed endless “science” on SLR and I have been watching, and fascinated by, the ocean for over 70 years and I see not only no evidence of SLR but SLs actually lower at the Highest Astronomical Tide of the year at 66 year old benchmarks, I asses the expertise of those “experts” as pretty low.

    I realise that SLR can be tricky to measure but if it has only fallen at my benchmark in 66 years, it ain’t doin’ much damage anywhere else.

  1379. gavin says

    Toby; my decision on the trawler is based on personal experience with Tasmania’s fishing fleets and processors over a long period of time. I saw a great deal of change just in Bass Strait. My home town once had a thriving industry on it’s little estuary that was home to lot’s of boats that were small enough to clear the bar at high tide. We even had a regatta every year where the whole fleet raced to another old port and back on one tide. A spotter plane helped with the betting.

    A lot of people will have a view one way or another but I recall huge shoals of fish ditched up the beach by the out going tide and just behind our cold stores after a mysterious fish kill in the shallows. Small fish were almost waist deep around several old dinghies lying hundreds of yards apart. Big fish lay in rows further back and a few dead sharks made up the seaward scene towards our sewer outfall. What a waste it was.

    Another opinion today

    “http://www.smh.com.au/environment/animals/scientist-blasts-trawler-decision-as-staggering-and-dangerous-20120912-25ss9.html”

  1381. spangled drongo says

    I should have added bazza, that as SLR is absolutely fundamental to global warming no matter what or who’s causing it, it then becomes a load of old shoes as far as I’m concerned.

  1382. bazza says

    Spangled, research gets done to go beyond the obvious limitations of a slice of experience. In my experience, there are a few problems just relying on experience . For starters, confirmation bias and the less you know the easier it is to develop a coherent view, experience does not give you a big enough sample to measure stuff against, intuition that integrates experience rather poorly often trumps a more rational approach. It gets worse. If you dont have an understanding of what has given rise to your experience, you wont have the tools to integrate your little bit into a wider perspective.

  1384. Debbie says

    One definition of an expert: 🙂
    A drip under pressure.
    Of course there are plenty of others and I’m sure Bazza’s highly eloquent explanation of his ‘experience’ does fit some of the others as well.
    I’m astounded that from Bazza’s own experience, he thinks he can lecture SD about his.
    Especially since Bazza has exhibited a highly suspicious nature that leads him to suspect the motives of what I would believe are highly more experienced scientists/statisticians/economists/biologists/marine biologists/agriculturalists etc than himself. But I can only assume that Bazza thinks he knows far more about these things that Jen & Ole Humlum or Walter Starck or McIntyre etc etc etc who do actually put up their experience and qualifications.
    Of course Bazza doesn’t ever ever offer his own qualifications/employment or experience with any solid evidence.
    But nevertheless, we’re lectured ‘from my experience. . . .’

  1385. spangled drongo says

    bazza, just as you can’t talk to SLR to stop it from drowning you, you can’t talk it into rising when it is falling.

    It’s an unassailable fact.

    SL is one of those things you can’t equivocate about if you have enough evidence.

    But evidence is something you seem to be able to equivocate about if you have enough varnish.

    The varnish is in the assumptions and the GCMs.

    But the assumptions and the GCMs are not evidence.

    This is what you need to understand.

  1386. Johnathan Wilkes says

    bazza
    I don’t want to be confrontational or make a nasty remark, let’s make a temporary truce.

    What I would like to ask you is this, reading your last comment I interpret it as such:

    SD ignore what you see because you don’t understand what gave rise to your experience.

    Is this right or I’m just too stupid to understand what you mean?

    I thought his own eyes gave rise to his experience, ie. the sea level gauge he was looking at did not register any sea level rise in 66 years.

    I’m being serious.

  1388. Luke says

    Ah Wilksey is up for a serious discussion. Johnathon – the analyses of sea level rise show it is not uniform spatially or temporally – especially decadally. Big decadal signals. Some areas of the world and Queensland coast have little sea level rise. So how do we regard a datum point?

  1389. bazza says

    “I realise that SLR can be tricky to measure but if it has only fallen at my benchmark in 66 years, it ain’t doin’ much damage anywhere else.” Of course he can extrapolate to the world from one place if he wants, no need to worry about ENSO or if the earth is moving to or if highest astronmical tide is the way to do it or probably a host of other things that are relevant to interpreting experience.
    All I aim to do is inject a little evidence, I dont need to make assumptions all the time, and if someone has better evidence then show me rather than attack me. And if you are happy with the SD analysis of global sea level rise, then tell him, and tell me why you show such solidarity on a wide range of subjects if you are even a bit sceptical. Must be one of you that can stick to the facts for a while.

  1390. Johnathan Wilkes says

    OK Luke, then tell me what is actually meant by “sea level rises will inundate pacific Islands”?
    Are all island going under water or just some.
    Are the coastal municipal councils right to restrict development because of SLR, or just some of them?
    Which ones?

    And yes Luke I’m actually always serious when it comes to science, what I ridicule is pseudoscience and scare mongering.

  1391. Luke says

    Well let’s go back to the science. So we should table here the best and latest analyses. Some islands may be sinking – this issue is complex. But what does the best current analysis of the measurements say – spatially and temporally. The policy position on land planning needs to be informed by solid science.

    If people wish to sign a contract that they themselves will personally take the risk and that acknowledgement of that risk is attached to the land title in future sales – let them build on the eroding beach at Byron !

  1392. debbie says

    Luke,
    If you are referring to Bazza,
    He most definitely said ‘from my experience…….
    BUT….offers no evidence of his ‘experience’ whatsoever.
    Doesn’t matter whether he’s commenting or writing an editorial lead….it was a case of supreme and obviously unconcious irony.
    Also rather short on evidence actually…even though he says he wants to inject a little evidence.
    The only actual empirical data of anything that he has offered lately is how many times SD had commented at this site on a particular day….and his latest pet pseudo psychological theory that ‘certain’ people are addicted to blogging, based on that ‘observation’.
    And I notice that you have completely ducked out of any other similar type questions.
    Very big on lecturing about other’s lack of knowledge and experience, yet you offer nothing whatsoever…..absolutely nothing….about your experience and/or qualifications except continuing to rabbit on about data and sneering at others comments….which are way more genuine comments than yours by all appearances.
    SD has been entirely forthcoming on where and how he has gained experience in a field that he is obviously very passionate about…..and so have I….and so does Jen…. and quite a few others who have commented here.
    There is no shortage of available data on soils and water and vegetation Luke…..none.
    What is it that you really want to see happen or what you think should be getting done?
    A carbon tax &/or an ETS via global governance?
    The precautionary principle that can be enacted in Australia with no regard to Australia’s constitution or even Australia’s highly ephemeral climate/environment?
    Because that’s all that is on offer at the moment.
    That is what all your precious data is being used to justify.

  1393. John Sayers says

    Luke – the eroding beach at Byron is caused by coastal currents, it’s NOT due to sea level rise.

  1394. bazza says

    Bazza wrote ” In my experience, there are a few problems just relying on experience “. Did Bazza mean it, was he just playing with the word, does it actually matter? Then follows the evidence , standard points actually the same as in introductory texts in various fields of research on the limitations of learning from experience. Which anybody actually intested could have researched themselves instead of going attack dog. Anyway I am now forced to once again unleash the turkey analogy as in ‘Black Swan” about the turkey that had 100 happy days fed ad lib and assumed based on his experience that day 101 would be the same, until his head was on the chopping block, and he became all to aware of the advantage of a system view.

  1395. debbie says

    Absolutely correct John Sayers,
    If people want to live right on the coast and not expect that ocean currents, tides and storms will erode it….they are basically delusional.
    Areas of Byron Bay have suffered massive erosion for millenium as well as in our own lifetime.
    Here goes Luke….some more personal experience….when I was in Primary School years 4 & 5….I lived right on the coast at Byron Bay. We could run out our back door, down our gently sloping but large back yard straight onto the beach. We had to do a fun leap off the sandy cliff edge at the bottom of our back yard. Lots of fun for kids.
    It was a beautiful location…. parts of the old whaling jetty (long gone) was right near our place.
    We used to go fishing there as kids.
    On 2 occasions while I lived there for 2 years, there were massive king tides that destroyed part of the old whaling jetty and also eroded decent chunks of our back yard. On several other occasions some truly spectacular storms created even more erosion and damage….along with some of the biggest waves I have ever seen in my life.
    By the time I was in my 2nd year of university (in Sydney), I watched that house where we had lived fall into the ocean on the national news…..it had occured in the space of 9 years.
    When we left Byron Bay, that back yard was still not a small or narrow back yard.
    That house wasn’t the only house or structure that had dropped in over time either before or since.

  1397. John Sayers says

    Deb – I lived on the beach front at South Golden Beach through the 90s – on at least 2 occasions king tides would take all the sand away and there’d be a 3m drop from the dunes to the beach yet within 6 months the sand was back to normal.

    As a child we had a beach house at Milford in Auckland NZ. Storms were forever eroding away the beachfront walls yet ours was the only one that withstood the constant barrage. The concrete wall my father had built was 6 foot across at the base and was full of railway tracks 🙂 The wall still exists today and last time I checked the sand/sea level was exactly the same as it was in the 50s when I grew up there.

  1398. Robert says

    Restricting beach development has nothing to do with sea levels and everything to do with conservation and the natural instability of coastlines. SLs started going up globally late 18th century, no big deal lately. (Nothing doing for vast Kiribati, but send money anyway.)

    I’m amazed by the green-minded people who drive cars on beaches and have wet dreams about ocean frontages. (You probably heard our local joke: An environmentalist is someone who already bought his beach house.)

    Get back from the bloody dunes, hippy moneybags! Get way back!

  1399. Johnathan Wilkes says

    “there are a few problems just relying on experience”

    Depends, if one lived through the same conditions over and over again, one is entitled to say, “yes, in my experience this and this happened and given the same circumstances it’s likely to happen again”. Droughts and floods happen regularly, beach erosion is nothing new, hot and cold spells are as common these days as they were in the past, but when this is pointed out, it’s ignored. We get the reply: “Oh but it’s different this time!”

    Sorry the facts say different, models are not facts.

    To be specific about SL, nobody would say it never changes, it was higher and lower and it will be higher and lower again.
    What we are saying here is that the “experience” contradicts the forecast. The SL is supposed to have risen for many years due to CC AGW, and continue to rise even this minute.

    But SD’s experience tells otherwise, also when I pointed out to Luke some time ago that my parents’ beach front property is exactly as far if not further from the beach at Chelsea as it was many decades ago, he answered with the same vague caveat that it doesn’t happen everywhere.
    I even accept that Chelsea being in a sheltered bay.
    OK just where does it happen?

    As to the turkey analogy, I’m afraid it’s a bit of a turkey. (sorry about that).

    Given an intelligent turkey who lived at least a few multiples of 100 days, he/she would have noticed friends disappearing on the 101st day and would have put 2 and 2 together, so in this case the opposite of “experience”, that of LACK of experience applies.

  1400. debbie says

    Yes of course John,
    These things can be managed with some human ingenuity and smart technology and you have just explained an excellent example of that.
    It doesn’t appear that ‘managing and/or monitoring’ sea level (with a policy connected to a carbon tax or an ETS) has any practical hope of managing what the tides, the currents and storm activity do.
    Not that there is anything wrong with monitoring SL….as tricky as that can be.
    All monitoring can and does help us make sense of the world around us.

  1401. bazza says

    By looking for disconfirming evidence, monitoring can help you make nonsense of what you knew and help you adapt.

  1402. cohenite says

    I see luke’s beloved CSIRO has just attended the Planet Under Peril [PUP] conference at great expense to the Australian taxpayer; a report of this junket is here:

    http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2012/09/the-csiro-sold-us-a-pup

    Some gems:

    “Mark Stafford Smith, scientific director of CSIRO’s climate adaption flagship, says it’s no longer enough for individual nations to try to be sustainable.

    Rather a new “planetary stewardship” is needed, he says.

    “Something like a sustainable development council … in the UN system which has the same level of authority as the security council and which can drive a much more integrated approach,” Dr Stafford Smith told reporters via a phone hook-up from London…”

    There was now a need for a “constitutional moment”, like that in the 1940s which saw the establishment of the World Bank and other institutions, including the International Monetary Fund, to drive the new UN council, he said.[12]

    When the conference ended, Dr Stafford-Smith co-drafted with a Dr Lidia Brito the conference’s “Declaration”. As one breathless environment reporter from the New York Times introduced it, humanity’s anti-green obtuseness could hurt the earth as badly as “meteoric collisions”.[13] The key tract from the Smith/Brito manifesto is:

    “Fundamental reorientation and restructuring of national and international institutions is required to overcome barriers to progress and to move to effective Earth-system governance…Current understanding supports the creation of a Sustainable Development Council within the UN system to integrate social, economic and environmental policy at the global level.” [14]

    Who is Dr Stafford-Smith, this Napoleon-scale environmentalist? He spent 30 years studying desert bushes and bugs, as a good CSIRO scientist should.[15]

    But one of the bugs may have infected him with apocalypse fever. In 2009 he published, with CSIRO colleague Julian Cribb, the paperback “Dry Times: Blueprint for a Red Land”, priced at an alarming $49.95.[16] The book concludes,

    “Australians use of the country’s resources, their demand for increasing material standard of living and now their contribution to global climate change [what? 1.5% of global emissions?] have wrought profound changes to this once isolated continent. The great cities of Australia are already experiencing water shortages. … In fact, the dry part of Australia is expanding. The entire continent is now subject to some disturbing trends, which are starting to resemble the desert drivers. The climate is moving into realms hitherto unexperienced: unpredictable and out of local control…” (p145)

    Hardly had the CSIRO book hit the counter, than a vast sheet of floodwater travelled the length of the Eastern States. The rivers turned Lake Eyre into a bonanza for operators of inland sea scenic flights, which continue to this day. The rains replenished the dams of Brisbane and Sydney and even the parched Melbourne dams are now 77% full.

    His co-author Julian Cribb, unabashed, put out another CSIRO paperback ($29.95) in 2010, “The Coming Famine”.[17] As CSIRO’s blurb puts it, “Julian Cribb lays out a vivid picture of an impending planetary crisis – a global food shortage that threatens to hit by mid-century – which, he argues, would dwarf any in our previous experience.” Deserts, floods, famine, whatever. CSIRO loves the dismal.

    Dr Stafford-Smith also claims the scientific community is “thinly-stretched”, which seems a bit whiney after $US68 billion in US federal spending alone on climate research and development from 1989-2009.[18] [19]

    After the conference, CSIRO’s Dr Smith told CSIRO interviewer Glen Paul more about his dreams for a supra-national UN council backed by the authority of the dictatorship-laden UN General Assembly.[20] The council would assemble some sort of “triple helix” as he put it, to combine economic, environmental and social engineering. This would lead to “a suite of universal sustainable development goals”, he said. CSIRO interviewer Paul then signed off, remarking that he too had just got a grant for a US study trip.”

    This is barking mad; not only should the ABC be dismantled but so to should the CSIRO and BOM; they’re nuts, at the very least working against the best interests of Australia. These ratbags should be taken to court.

  1403. toby says

    the best places to check for sea level change are in stable areas. Australia is very stable, our land mass is not rebounding from heavy ice. SD’S observations are interesting and whilst few would think/ agree there has been no sea level rise, his observations certainly make a mockery of “rapid sea level rise”.
    Fort Denison also indicates nothing to worry about…to my eyes anyway?

    http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/stations/65.php

    we have kicked around sea level rises on this blog for years ( isle of dead springs to mind…..), the evidence certainly does not to me indicate rapid increases or indeed based on some of our longest records much rise at all.

  1404. toby says

    Confirmation bias is just as likely with scientists as with anybody else i would think and potentially greater if income/ employment depends on the findings. We all have bias and we all filter through this bias.

  1405. bazza says

    Toby you believe “Confirmation bias is just as likely with scientists as with anybody else i would think and potentially greater if income/ employment depends on the findings.” Do you have any evidence within CSIRO as in names, publications.?

  1406. toby says

    I certainly try to recognise bias in myself and try to consider alternative perspectives. I for one started out a warmer, but am now far from convinced that co2 is likely to cause CAGW….AGW yes, but not enough to suggest we should be trying to create a new type of economic system a new world order, global governance and “big brother”. Cohenite has linked above to exactly what concerns me so much.

    A dollar badly spent is a waste for whatever the reason and should be prevented if at all possible. Sure people get things wrong some times ( I bet fortescue is wishing he hadn’t over capitalised!) so mistakes will be made, but obvious mistakes should be avoided…..that is why CBA’s are so important!…and Stern’s does not count, another example of crap “science and economics” mixed together to push an agenda.

  1407. Debbie says

    Also hot off the press: Page 9 of ‘Towards a National Food Plan for Australia’: Summary Paper

    The Govt’s total investment in Science research and Innovation was estimated at $9.08 Billion in 2010-11, up from $ 4.97 billion in 2002-03
    If you want to read the whole document it can be found here:
    http://daff.gov.au/nationalfoodplan/process-to-develop/green-paper
    Strangely…when you go into the detail… only approx $250 million went into research into food security and land & water management.
    Wanna guess where a big chunk of the rest of it went went?
    Not that there is any lack of available data BTW….just no funding.
    Our CSIRO office here is nearly empty….it used to be full of excellent people….all of them working on R&D for agricultural industries….in fields like micro biology, wetland ecology,improved land management practices, improved yields, crop breeding, livestock and animal husbandry etc etc etc… most of them have gone OS….wanna guess why?

  1408. toby says

    baz, do you have any evidence to suggest SD’s observations are distorted by confirmation bias….you brought it up as your argument….i just used it.

  1409. cohenite says

    “Do you have any evidence within CSIRO as in names, publications.?”

    I just gave you one, pinhead.

  1410. toby says

    thx Cohenite…and so did Deb…..i did actually type your link into a response but thought i might have “over posted” and become addicted to blogging . now i am going away for a few hours to try to overcome my addiction….

  1412. John Sayers says

    I had an exchange with a fellow facebook participant today. Here’s what he said:

    “the only ones who strike me as being hysterical are the deniers. Everyone else seems to me to be heeding eminently sensible warnings about the dangers of overpopulation, over-industrialisation and over-exploitation of natural resources. Protecting access to that “Huge Money” is the real mission of climate change deniers. As long as we continue to turn a blind eye to runaway industrialisation, wholesale destruction of natural habitats and unchecked poulation growth, we will continue careening towards destruction. This is not a “Chicken Little” scenario – this is a broad consensus of the most reputable and experienced scientists in their field, warning us that we are in grave danger. And the bottom line is common sense – if someone says the sky is falling, isn’t it the wiser course to at least look up and check?”

    It really sums up the confusion within our society about what climate change really is.

    I replied:

    “all that is another agenda mate – climate science says that a doubling of CO2 will cause the planet to increase in temperature by 1.2C No one denies this! what the Hansen’s and Al Gores of the world are claiming is that there are positive feedbacks that will cause the temp increase to be from 3 – 5C because computer models claim it will – yet any measurement of the actual empirical evidence shows the computer models are wrong. That’s all climate science is about – your statements are another story all together about population, industrialisation etc – NOTHING to do with climate change.

    If anyone’s in denial it’s YOU! you want to project your lefty guilt emotions on me because I accept the actual science, not the emotional BS you attach to it.”

  1414. bazza says

    Cohenite says ” This is barking mad; not only should the ABC be dismantled but so to should the CSIRO and BOM; they’re nuts, at the very least working against the best interests of Australia.These ratbags should be taken to court.” Which ones, what charges.
    ??

  1415. cohenite says

    “Which ones, what charges.
    ??”

    I’m still in shock, can’t say; what do you suggest; or do you agree with the general tenor and ambitions of the CSIRO PUP statements?

  1416. sp says

    A Cool-Headed Climate Conversation With Aerospace Legend Burt Rutan

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/09/09/a-cool-headed-climate-conversation-with-aerospace-legend-burt-rutan/

    “Then, what really drew me into the subject, was when I found that I couldn’t obtain the raw data that I was looking for. I was shocked to find that there were actually climate scientists who wouldn’t share the raw data, but would only share their conclusions in summary graphs that were used to prove their various theories about planet warming. In fact I began to smell something really bad, and the worse that smell got, the deeper I looked. ……

    Tragically, policymakers have thrown horrendous amounts of taxpayer money needed for other purposes at solving an unsubstantiated emergency. It is scandalous that so many climate scientists who fully knew that Al Gore had no basis for his irresponsible claims stood mute. Meanwhile, that alarmism has generated billions of dollars more to finance a rapidly growing climate science industry with budgets that have risen by a factor of 40 since the early 1990s. I consider this failure to speak up just as unethical as the behavior of those who put out the false catastrophic claims.”

    Says it all really – a billion dollar climate scam based on non-available or manipulated data.

  1417. Luke says

    SD – I thought you would have given me a critique of the complex BOTANAL, or Tongway’s classic Functional Landscape Analysis, perhaps something noveau like Ludwig’s leaky landscapes (not your sort Debs),even run of the mill like DAFF’s GLM ABCD or perhaps bureaucratic like a Delbessie Land Condition Assessment process. Or WA’s WARMS or SA’s leasehold assessments

    Or even lamented the Feds latest takeover in AusPlots http://www.tern.org.au/AusPlots-pg17871.html

    But alas no …. sigh

    So many transects to do – such little time.

  1418. gavin says

    Toby, only this week I checked with recently published climate researchers re their methods of calibrating their findings against alternative series i.e. “zeroing” and error banding data v data compared with my own experience in instrument v instrument.

    Each researcher noted particular difficulty in getting enough depth with their data mining. Also each say it is usually painfully slow in any field of climate research because it is highly complex by it’s very nature. I had specific questions re the relationship of warming and sea level rise, the trend towards larger weather paterns and the impact of UHI on remote weather stations. Yes it was UHI that has been done over and over.

    My tip is both the others are only just being addressed now but with every hunch, I’m often close to the mark. You can’t get much with your old UHI tack.

  1421. Debbie says

    ‘. . .during this short window. We only had 36 hours before the passage would close up again’ . . .

  1423. Luke says

    You dopey deniers – and yes the Vikings were trading with Chinese. Not. And the Chinese discovered Newfoundland. Not an ice breaker in the NW Passage – a sailing boat. Cohenite soils his pants.

  1425. bazza says

    It gets worse, Cohenite is all pith and wind. Still no resonse to my challenge of yesterday .”Cohenite says ‘This is barking mad; not only should the ABC be dismantled but so to should the CSIRO and BOM; they’re nuts, at the very least working against the best interests of Australia.These ratbags should be taken to court.’ Which ones, what charges.”??
    time he manned up.

  1427. bazza says

    Neville has informed us that Pat Michaels had a good paper on sea level rise. Compared with what – the published literature? Nevillles evidence for “good” I take it to mean it agrees with Nevilles beliefs. Michaels cautions “This especially applies to interpretation of acceleration in GMSL using only the 20-year record from satellite altimetry and to evaluations of short records of mean sea level from individual gauges.” And no mention of ENSO. Not to mention tricky interpreting that satellite stuff on sea level if the sky is falling down. Was that chicken little – good name for Cohers, come to think of it. He cant shut up or put up on his crazy allegations.

  1429. cohenite says

    bazza intones:

    “time he manned up.”

    bazza wants me to name people, organisations who should be sued, taken to court, what charges etc

    You’ll be the first to know bazza.

    In the meantime, I asked you whether you endorsed what the CSIRO reps at the PUP junket agreed to and said; well, do you?

  1430. Debbie says

    Yes I have noticed that about Bazza,
    he seems to think he is the only one who can ask questions and the only one who doesn’t have to answer any. 🙂
    He is also the only one who can judge by experience.

  1431. spangled drongo says

    Luke, as the late, lamented John Daly would say, “still waiting for greenhouse”, I can only add, “still waiting for your answer” to my twice posted question above.

    And re your link to the Northwest Passage by sailboat, that was done by Amundsen over a century ago in a wooden boat with none of the fantastic electronic and satellite guiding assistance that these fellers had. When you know exactly what’s ahead and have full-time communications there is absolutely no comparison, not to mention huge nuclear powered ice breakers running around the seas up there.

    Probably Frobisher or Davis could have done it over 400 years ago with that sort of hand holding. They didn’t even have charts, let alone engines.

    Because this lot appeared to motor, not sail, through most of it.

    Not criticising their efforts mind you, just keeping you up to speed on reality which is always necessary.

  1432. bazza says

    Debbie, why do you keep wanting to know contributors qualifications and experience. It would help avoiding taking on the evidence I suppose. Still as Jo Nova said in one of her attacks on scientists ( she makes Cohers look a bit lame ) “Argument by authority is the disguise of the witchdoctor – Trust me, I am the chosen one”.

  1435. spangled drongo says

    Debbie [et moi] are interested in you flukes telling us a little of your background.

    You can have a degree of authority if you can back it up with experience and preferably other than just academic qualification.

    It’s fascinatng how you run from this disclosure.

  1436. spangled drongo says

    “Pray tell SD – how long did Amundsen take? Did he whip straight through?”

    He took a while, Luke, simply because he had no idea of what was ahead, where all the blind alleys were, where the ice packs or the shoals were and no way to find out except by trial and error. He also had to provision from natural resources on the way. He also had the haunting terror of the many who, with similar limited resources, had suffered terrible deaths from putting a foot wrong.

    Most mariners today wouldn’t attempt to find their way down Moreton Bay faced with that lack of certainty.

    To even pose the question shows your incredible ignorance and arrogance.

  1437. bazza says

    spangled, my humility trumps my credentials. I would be like the jackeroo ( was it Bazza Mackenzies brother) applying for a job at the palace. The Queen asked to see his testimonials – he got the word mixed up with one he was more familiar with and displayed something else.Needless to say, he got the job. So if I showed you mine, in all modesty I would similarly be concerned about misinterpretation from the resident analysts .

  1439. Debbie says

    Actually Bazza,
    I’m not that interested.
    Just pointing out that your comments lay claim to some type of vague, unsubstantiated, moral high ground and that you are actually the one here who is always trying to psycho analyse and draw ridiculous conclusions about the motivations of others.
    It is highly ironic and becoming entirely predictable.
    Especially because you go all prickly and defensive when similar shots get fired at you.
    You can share your quals or not. . .I don’t care either way.
    It was a bit rich however when you summarily dismissed SD’s experience and then passed judgement from your experience.
    To prove what in particular Bazza? What do you find so poor about others’ experience? Why would your experience(with no supporting evidence) be a more reliable benchmark than someone else’s?
    Despite Luke’s comment, others (myself included) do indeed supply evidence. Some of it comes from hands on experience.

  1440. bazza says

    It could be a bit early to get too excited about Neville’s 9:32 am link to the failings of the climate models story. I will see if I can add a bit to Nevs introductory comment where ‘good’ had I dont know what meaning “good article by Jo Nova. I suppose if we don’t laugh at these fools we’d have to cry” .
    One author’s summary “This would imply that there is a positive feedback loop: moist soils lead to even more rain, whereas dry regions tend to remain dry… (But) these data show that convective precipitation is more likely over drier soils.”
    Positive feedback bedevilled early cloudseeding experiments using a simple seeded/unseeded cross over design. Switch to area B and stop seeding area A, there is some persistence effect on A increasing rainfall compared to area B. And there is a bit of persistence evident for example in monthly rainfall particularly from ENSO. So a drier than average September increases the chances of a drier than average October in an El Niño.

    The importance of the climate models story obviously depends on the contribution ( studies show often not much) convective rain makes compared with frontal and orographic, and also whether the study was biased to easier to study smaller convective systems. Rain obviously depends on three things. Uplift, moisture, and nuclei – condensation or freezing types. There is usually no shortage of uplift, try landing a light plane on a hot day. Moisture from local evaporation would appear to be minor compared with what is in the atmosphere and what comes in. (Being a sceptic, and not being a scientist or even a climate scientist, I will suspend excitement and judgements until the experts have a go).

  1442. Luke says

    Dumb Toby – No I asked the question as it took a very long while, even parking the ship, with lots of problems. The point. These recent guys just sailed straight through.

  1443. Luke says

    “who doesn’t agree with co2 causing a marginal warming” heaps actually -i.e. feedback is negative, background radiation doesn’t exist/ can’t warm anything. Or it’s the sun/ENSO/IPO.

    A whole category Toby

  1444. Debbie says

    But Luke?
    SD did explain the reasons & what made the difference.
    These guys knew they only had a 36 hour window before it started to freeze up again.
    So once again your conclusion and your hypothesis is not backed up by your own evidence. It neither proves or disproves what you claimed. But it was an interesting read and an interesting story.
    They were able to sail straight through because of improved technology and some great team work & a bit of old fashioned good luck.

  1445. spangled drongo says

    “spangled, my humility trumps my credentials.”

    Your humility being what it is, it doesn’t necessarily say much about your credentials.

    And if you are merely humble about your “testimonials” don’t feel lonely. Nobody’s perfect.

    OTOH, if you are genuine, revealing personal, reasonably verifyable involvements and experiences give people an insight into your character and authority.

  1446. bazza says

    spangled, I am as one with Jo as she said “Still as Jo Nova said in one of her attacks on scientists ( she makes Cohers look a bit lame ) “Argument by authority is the disguise of the witchdoctor – Trust me, I am the chosen one”.
    and in addition as I pointed out above I have no scientific qualifications – I just pick up stuff as I go along through excessive curiosity , and healthy scepticism. No wonder I dont show you my quals – you would laugh. If that is not enough I am a bit wary of those with experts in a narrow field assuming it gives them a wider authority. Bit like asking rock stars anything. So the facts should be enough. I have never seen a scientific journal writing up a lot of stuff about authors – all you get is an address – why should this place be different.

  1447. toby says

    no luke, those are straw men as usual.
    very few sceptics dispute co2 is a greenhouse gas and causes some warming…..i dont think there has been one sceptic on this blog who says co2 is not a greenhouse gas and will cause some warming? and i dont even think anybody has disputed there has been no warming…just the amount of warming.
    i also dont think any have said humans dont have any impact.

    the evidence is clearly laid out in the the burtrutan link, even you should wake up?! i have no doubt you will be able to refute some of it, but there is so much doubt youd have to be crazy advocating the sort of action the world is taking, adaptation IF required is the only sensible course of action givn current technology. This was obvious when we first started debating this topic years ago, and it is more obvious today.

  1448. toby says

    Sorry this “…..i dont think there has been one sceptic on this blog who says co2 is not a greenhouse gas and will cause some warming?” shoudl read as i dont think there has been 1 sceptic on this blog who says co2 is not a greenhouse and gas will cause no warming”

  1449. Debbie says

    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature11377.html
    This is the link to the paper.
    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/research-questions-worse-drought-warnings/story-e6frg6so-1226473150757
    Story re the release of this paper in The Australian.
    http://joannenova.com.au/2012/09/climate-models-100-right-except-for-rain-drought-storms-humidity-and-everything-else/#more-23927
    Link to the Jonova article.
    and also spotted this one about a new volcanic eruption.
    Wonder how this ‘natural’ event will affect
    a) Energy balance of the atmosphere
    b) The modelling of C02 forcings?
    http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iJcb9UoxptFI6cddnXDx2LzJRxgg?docId=CNG.ede8b68f8ead1787242696cf2c220fed.191

  1450. Neville says

    When you consider the trillions of $ that will be wasted on this CAGW fraud until 2100 it’s hard to have any patience with the promoters of the con. Like the IPCC.

    Pielke jr has just received an answer to questions he asked the IPCC about some of the errors he discovered in their last report.
    They are either too dumb to understand the errors or don’t care about the errors at all. Of course the poor taxpayers from some of the more stupid, clueless countries will have to shoulder the $ burden of trying to fix these non problems for decades into the future.

    http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com.au/2012/09/ipcc-sinks-to-new-low.html

  1451. spangled drongo says

    “Argument by authority is the disguise of the witchdoctor – Trust me, I am the chosen one”.

    That’s right bazza, but that mainly applies to the unknown witchdoctor. If you know the witchdoctor, then you know much better whether to believe or not.

    It’s all about establishing some degree of credibility and it has nothing to do with qualifications.

    Title doesn’t equal credibility.

    I’m the most unqualified person in the world but I hope I am somewhat credible.

  1452. Luke says

    Alas Toby we’ve had many posts on the greenhouse effect doesn’t work/exist form a physics viewpoint including Cohenite. Nasif Nahle a memorable exchange. And after all the attacks on the temperature record why would you believe there’s been a warming?

    Good lord – Debs has done some science cites …. there may be hope

  1455. spangled drongo says

    “SD – except on rangeland condition survey techniques.”

    You might be surprised Luke. I retired at age 33 and it wasn’t due to good seasons.

    Just because I don’t want to engage in a technichical discussion with you doesn’t mean I don’t know about rangelands and how to manage them.

    Now back to that question you won’t answer. I’m sure it is not too difficult for someone of your qualifications.

  1456. debbie says

    Yes Luke,
    Isn’t the first time and won’t be the last.
    Unlike your cites however, they are not accompanied by claims that these links either prove or disprove something when they quite clearly don’t do either.
    They’re put up because people have expressed interest and also for discussion.
    SD has shown much more credibility re an understanding of land management than you have Luke.
    You have just put up the TERN link and made references to other work….when you have already been told there is no shortage of data….what is lacking is practical and sensible management skills.
    As per one of my other links re the latest “Towards a National Food Plan for Australia” it has become evident that some of our best in these fields of research have left Australia from lack of funding and support and the closure of some excellent water and land management programs that were yielding excellent results and run by scientists who actually got their hands dirty and understood the practical application of research….yet the funding of investment in Science, Research and Innovation has nearly doubled since 2004.
    Where has all the extra funding gone?
    Quite clearly CSIRO got lots of it….but not in these type of areas….the funding has been cut from them.
    Instead we get stuff like this:
    http://www.mdba.gov.au/bpkid/bpkid-view.php?key=amhINa1JowA86zWPTYL8DxRDBnMNdtuApfbi2d8fHjU
    Check out the ‘terms of reference’ that guided this report and many other similar reports from CSIRO these days.

  1457. spangled drongo says

    Debbie, interesting your obs re the lack of CSIRO in the bush. Years ago they would drop by and offer scientific advice when you were lamb marking, muelsing, inoculating etc and you could tell also that they were learning because they mainly had just theoretical experience. I remember one scientist being fascinated by jackaroos using their teeth to remove “testimonials”.

    But when you do 1200 before breakfast the fascination tends to wear off and your appetite suffers.

    Qualifications vary with experience.

  1458. debbie says

    Lamb marking is not one of my favourite jobs SD.
    Seen people use their teeth….am not planning to try it myself!
    We use rings these days but it is still a long and dirty dusty day when lamb marking happens.

  1459. Luke says

    How exactly has SD showed more knowledge of land management Debs. Could not string a sentence together on assessing rangeland condition. Which is the CORE of his argument. Like you on the topic – could not string a sentence together. Clueless in fact. Caught with pants down in the open. Now doing a mock job of pretending to be diffident. pathetic – all we have is blokey prairie oyster stories.

    No shortage of rangeland data hey Debs – good grief. More stupidity.

  1460. spangled drongo says

    Luke, how about you string a sentence together and answer my question or tell us why you won’t.

    Maybe you’re a bit short on actual rangeland management practice yourself.

    Convince us Lukie.

  1463. Debbie says

    Luke,
    how did ‘land management’ morph into ‘rangeland conditions’?
    Assessing ‘condition’ is neither hard or a missing skill.
    There is nothing wrong with collecting data but it wasn’t the pont of the discussion.

  1465. Debbie says

    Yes SD,
    It really doesn’t matter how you dress it up with ‘data’ or how many irrelevant cites are posted. BS is still going to remain BS!

  1466. Neville says

    SD thanks for that info on increasing ice in antarctica over the last 33 years.

    But we know that the land that holds 89% of the planet’s ice will be increasing for the next 300 years.
    Here are all of the models graphs from the Royal Society for Greenland ( 10% ice) and Antarctica (89% ice) until 2300. Rest of the world 1%.

    http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/364/1844/1709/F4.large.jpg

    Of course what they never, ever explain is the fact that most of the small SLR to 2100 will be from thermal expansion and not melting ice.

  1467. Luke says

    Well Debs – this is it – stop bulldusting and give us a couple of paragraphs then. Now don’t obfuscate coz this should be a snack for you. SD is incapable and spent too much time sinking piss at the BBQ and munching prairie oysters to learn anything but lucky you’re here to help. Lotsa blokey nonsense from SD – all hat no cattle.

    Gee Debs it’s really difficult isn’t it – might land management affect the condition of rangelands…. nah couldn’t be – yes those degrees were in fine arts weren’t they. The proverbial farmer’s daughter. Now off you go an make some lammies for your CWA meeting.

    Debs has said it here – no need for “data” – she’s only interested in the “social CWA” aspects of the “science” – doesn’t concern herself with details. As long as she considered things are broadly useful well that’s fine.

    Of course Antarctic sea ice is growing. What better proof of southern warming do you need than that.

  1468. Luke says

    Meanwhile Cohenite might be interested as the sole surviving sceptic with a glimmer of intelligence.

    http://www.csiro.au/en/Portals/Multimedia/CSIROpod/South-east-climate-changing.aspx

    http://www.seaci.org/publications/synthesis.html

    You’ll be happy – all that anti-AGW hysteria means there won’t be a phase III. Pity some of the most innovative climate research ever to be undertaken on SEA rainfall mechanisms. Missed by Jen – missed by Nova. Never discussed. (And certainly missed by galoots like Bolt),.

  1469. Neville says

    Luke I think we all understand that there is less winter rainfall across SE and southern OZ and has been for many years.
    But we know from De Deckker and NOAA and CSIRO ( recent report on ABC country hour) that southern OZ is much drier today than it was 1000 years ago.

    Also De Deckker’s graph shows a general drying out of southern OZ for the past 5,000 years at least.
    The extreme high rainfall period a thousand years ago shown by all of the above studies also has similar dry periods to now throughout the last 5,000 years of De Deckker’s study.

    Of course I’d like to see any proof that all these recent changes were due to increased human emissions of co2.
    Also good to see the VIC coalition govt will be funding further CSIRO studies. Also good to see the CSIRO suggest the best reponse to reducing winter rain is adaptation.

    If you want to decrease co2 emissions Luke jump on a plane and demo in India and China or demand more R&D money for new energy generation at home and the rest of the OECD.

  1470. Debbie says

    Luke?
    how did ‘ there is nothing wrong with collecting data’ morph into ‘ Deb said it here – no need for data’?
    If you’re really that obsessed with my education, here is my suggestion:
    You show me yours and then I will show you mine.
    What are you asking for Luke? My CV?
    Do you think I am applying for a job?
    At least my education & my experience has taught me to understand that scientific research has to have a useful purpose.
    At least my education & experience has taught me when a scientific theory or hypothesis is ‘settled’.
    At least my education & experience has taught me that projective statistical modelling is merely a useful tool, nothing more, nothing less & NOT exclusively a tool of ‘climate science’.
    Nor is it a solid base to inform far reaching social policy and social transformation.
    And lastly, at least my education & experience has taught me to respect a modicum of good manners.
    You go ahead and draw outrageous conclusions Luke.
    Along with everyone else you are entitled to your opinions of others.
    They don’t do anything to create respect or prove whatever it is you think you are proving.

  1471. Robert says

    Even before I discovered that lightning fast google thingy (along with that amazing cut-and-paste thingy) I found it quite effortless to track down papers and studies on just about anything. “Techniques” for agriculture, “mechanisms” for climate…there are reams of the stuff all over the net. (Quite a bit of it is tinged with gang-review warmism, but academics need to eat.) If I choose not to read or to be skeptical, that will be my loss, perhaps. But I don’t get how it’s all supposed to be revelatory, this linking to things that are impossible to miss when you do any search.

    What I’d love to hear is our commenters’ actual rangeland experience. Apart from some shooting out west and an unforgettable canoeing expedition down the Darling in ’79, I know so little of all that. SD’s comments have been fascinating. Anyone else had any real experience of our great inland? Even if you’re a touch beery and blokey? I’ll bet it really tears up the rule book, that Kidman country. Every time.

    Deb, you should know that girls with three degrees aren’t supposed to be involved in broadscale rice production. It’s okay to hang about uni and study post-modernism or magical realism and so on for a few more years, but, really…rice growing! And rather than contradicting our angry boys and stirring up their mummy issues etc, you really should be down at the CWA doing the lamington thing. Everyone need to know her place.

    By the way, has anybody found our mythical beast yet? You know, the warmist with an actual interest in reducing actual CO2 emissions in real time? Or is he like the Yowie?

  1472. Debbie says

    Good point Robert,
    I generally ignore sexist comments (or we can now use the new sexier terminology misogynist) but considering it was actually Luke who first brought it up in this thread, his last comment was hypocritical in the extreme.
    FYI Luke, I am not ‘a farmer’s daughter’ typical or otherwise.
    My late father was a CEO of numerous different companies accross a gamut of food production/processing indusrtries including dairy, meat and grains.
    I am a farmer’s daughter in law and the wife of a 4th generation irrigation farmer who is also very well educated.
    I am also a farmer myself, I work alongside my husband and get my hands just as dirty as he does and I am a fully recognised partner in our decision making processes and our systems.
    None of our tertiary degrees have anything to do with home ec, the CWA or fine arts, not that I think there is anything wrong with those type of degrees.
    I think education is very important but I don’t think it is a replacement for practical management skills or some sort of vague ticket to a ‘higher purpose’ or a reason to look down your nose at people who have been successful without an education.
    Intelligence does not necessarily equate with a tertiary education.
    Neither does ‘common sense’.

  1473. Luke says

    Debs – you weren’t supposed to swing at that – I’m not interested who you are – only what you have to say on science and the environment. I quite like lammies actually and the CWA do a good job.

    I would have thought that we could have had a discussion about rangeland condition – a complex mix of pasture plants, soil surface condition, soil erosion, fire, woody plants, stock, herbivory, weeds, ferals, native animals, climate, markets, government and people. Getting good trend data on these issues is problematic.

    Neville – at some point you have to get into mechanisms. Drawing graphs of rainfall doesn’t cut it. Dissecting the problem is needed not lumped. Don’t you find the analysis of southern rainfall change most interesting?

    This part of Post’s commentary is the essential aspect

    “Now what’s happened is that that cell’s actually expanding, it’s growing towards the poles at the rate of about half a degree a decade, that’s about 50 kilometres a decade, and what we’re seeing is that as it moves further south across south-eastern Australia it’s pushing the storm tracks further south. Most of that cool season rainfall we use to see was from cold fronts sweeping across the continent that everybody is familiar with from the weather maps. What’s happening is those are being pushed further south and they’re tending to miss the southern part of Australia, and that is happening in south-eastern Australia, and it’s already happened, I think most people know, in south-western Western Australia, where Perth of course has had declined rainfall since about 1975. We’re starting to see those effects now in the south east of the country also.”

    This is my original point made on this blog many years ago. While it’s not proof the modellers can reproduce this change without greenhouse forcing. Frankly that’s remarkable.

    So before our rush to conflate all this with carbon taxes we might actually ponder this great bit of science – done I believe objectively and in good faith.

  1475. Robert says

    Most of SE Australia was in water deficit for the first half of the twentieth century, after the Fed drought. The fifties and, especially the seventies, reversed that trend.

    Is there a neg PDO now which will reverse the trend from 1980 till around 2007? I really don’t know. There are El Nino conditions prevailing right now, I’m down on rain, the august/sept westerlies have been strong and constant for the first time in years. Is this a bump in a wetter trend, or the end of a wetter trend? I don’t know.

    And guess who else don’t know.

  1476. Debbie says

    I repeat,
    How did ‘land management principles’ morph into ‘assessing rangeland conditions’?
    How did ‘there is nothing wrong with collecting data’ morph into ‘Deb said it here – no need for data’ ???
    How are any of your consistently outrageous conclusions (the last clearly misogynist) an indication that you want a discussion about science?
    Whether you are prepared to recognise it or not, your ‘science’ has been hijacked by politics and used for purposes which they were not intended.
    You also use them to make claims that they do not support.

  1477. cohenite says

    “we might actually ponder this great bit of science – done I believe objectively and in good faith.”

    What great bit of science? Are you talking about the Walker again luke?

  1478. Luke says

    Cohenite – huh? try reading the start of the SEACI report and report back

    Robert – try reading the start of the SEACI report and report back

    Debs – zzzz more noise and yea maybe on the politics – but surely our job here is to get the facts first – (BTW if I said shaddup you stupid bitch/slut (which I’ve not) – that would be misogynist and so like Tony Abbott I’ve been misrepresented – but sexist would be OK – and lamingtons would be gross stereotyping but that was only to get your attention – in fact I’ve been the one suggesting Gillard and Bligh (regardless of whether you passionately hate their politics or not) have been subject to gross misogyny by vile scumbags, but lets not revisit that – and fancy not even saying thanks for all those billions in aid we got you for all those years)

  1479. Neville says

    Whooppeee Luke at last we can agree. Scientists can’t say this change in winter rainfall over SE OZ is the result of more human co2 emissions. They can speculate but that’s all, that isn’t proof. Perhaps it’s also political wishful groupthink as well.

    But we can be 100% sure that reducing OZ human emissions ( 5% reduction by 2020) will not increase rainfall over the same area, even after a thousand years.
    To claim that it can is delusional nonsense and a clueless understanding of simple maths. You simply can’t remove the new huge emitters China, India and the non OECD from the equation.

    We are left with my point years ago that we can only adapt to any future climate change plus more R&D . The last barking madness we should fall for is the introduction of a co2 tax.

  1480. debbie says

    I repeat,
    How did ‘land management principles’ morph into ‘assessing rangeland conditions’?
    How did ‘there is nothing wrong with collecting data’ morph into ‘Deb said it here – no need for data’ ???
    How are any of your consistently outrageous conclusions (the last clearly SEXIST, as if that makes any difference!) an indication that you want a discussion about science?
    You tried to present those comments as facts Luke.
    My conclusion from your comments is that you rarely have any interest in getting the facts right.
    I also take issue with an earlier comment that anti AGW hysteria has caused no phase III on SEACI.
    I think the ‘political agenda’ that has claimed incessantly that ‘the science is settled’ could be just as much to blame.
    If the ‘science is settled’ why do we need more research Luke?
    I don’t agree with that BTW….but your claim is equally ridiculous.
    Along with the ridiculous claim made in this report :
    http://www.smh.com.au/environment/water-issues/snowy-cuts-threaten-rivers-delicate-health-say-greens-20120914-25xl7.html
    It seems Jen’s oft repeated comment about the PR re science being all about ‘good vs evil’ is alive and well?

  1481. Robert says

    Luke, try observing. It shouldn’t create any conflicts with learning. There’s even a connection.

    I won’t do the homework you set me, but I doubt you’ll take up observation. The passage you quoted was wrong in the main. Where it was not wrong, it was speculative and/or manipulative. Really, I think you’d buy a dead echidna for undies if the label was written in sufficiently convincing academese.

    Deb, thanks for the rice. Tastes better than the coal we have to raffle off to afford our tosser enviro-establishment.

  1482. cohenite says

    “Cohenite – huh? try reading the start of the SEACI report and report back”

    How did I know what you’re talking about? Give me a link and I’ll refresh my memory.

  1485. Luke says

    Robert

    Try observing – errr yep. That’s what scientists so a lot of. And for what we can’t see with our own eyes we need instruments. Try observing the stars without a telescope. So you think I’m somehow against observations and data? However you can see but not observe. If you have no insight into processes your knowledge isn’t that great. And without statistics you may observe what’s not really happening.

    To make any progress on something complex like SEA climate – you need lots of observations, dissective analysis, hypotheses, climate mechanisms and finally models and a feedback loop. If you think you will gain serious insight otherwise I’m impressed. You can have a stack of observations and no knowledge. If you think the passage was speculative or manipulative I am amazed. What would you like to do – divine some tea leaves. In fact if you feel like this why would even believe in ENSO, IOD etc same style of science.

    What you’re really saying Robert is that I’m told old to take on any more knowledge in this area and it’s simply easier for me to dismiss this on partisan political grounds. Well fair enough but expect to get little back but sarcasm as a response. What seems to be missing is a “shit is that right or how do they figure that” type of response. Not even curious?

    It’s simply easy to talk folksy anecdotes and dismiss the system as corrupt. Avoids any intellectual application.

    Debs demands …..

    “It really doesn’t matter how you dress it up with ‘data’ or how many irrelevant cites are posted. BS is still going to remain BS!” ….. maybe set me off on data

    and in looking for that quote I found another Debs gem “There is no shortage of available data on soils and water and vegetation Luke…..none.” – fascinating when pedologists lament the paucity of soils mapping and lack of functional parameters on soil water I would have said the exact opposite. And many jurisdictions still doing ecosystem mapping for vegetation.

    On “How did ‘land management principles’ morph into ‘assessing rangeland conditions’?” well geez given we were discussing Henbury and its condition and management – I would have thought managing that land and objectively assessing its condition might be germane to the argument.

    Worry about you Debs – I do.

  1486. Debbie says

    Luke,
    There is nothing wrong with collecting more data nor in modelling data.
    The skill to collect and map data is not lacking either.
    Neither is there a shortage of available data.
    What is lacking is sensible policy and good management practices when such things as National Parks are run by govt departments.
    That was the point of the discussion.

  1487. Luke says

    Alas Debs there IS a big shortage of useful soils, vegetation mapping and rangeland condition data.

    Henbury was NOT being run by a govt dept.

  1488. Robert says

    We certainly need more measurement and observation of something as stupendously complex as climate. However, to assemble stupendously inadequate data and use it as a basis for stupendously flimsy models will attract the ridicule normally reserved for things like the Norman-Evert foot massage or the Assange disco-dance. Everybody is always too old for such absurdity.

    Give it up, sir!

  1490. Luke says

    Robert declares

    “However, to assemble stupendously inadequate data and use it as a basis for stupendously flimsy models will attract the ridicule normally ”

    What says opinionated codger like yourself? A dickwit who can’t even be bothered to read what’s been written. What a clown.

    Interestingly the section in discussion was NOT about models. Demonstrated pig ignorance.

  1491. cohenite says

    luke, SEACI, 2010, Figure 2, rainfall MDB, 110 years:

    Average 1896-1905
    5115 GL (42% less)

    Average 1997-2009
    4,454 GL (50% less)

    The recovery from the Centennial drought was not until 1916; the period of comparison is therefore selective and since the MDB has enjoyed large inflows of water since 2010 the end comparison is also out of date.

    Give me a better challenge luke.

  1492. Robert says

    Amazingly, Luke will, in another mood, soon be preaching good deportment and civility. (He was young and naive when he wrote the above tirades.)

    Our local Dally-Watkins branch is certainly closed till further notice. Meanwhile the intractable climate, like me, will go on being disobedient. It’s terribly old and contrary – a codger, so to speak.

  1493. debbie says

    So where has all the extra funding gone Luke? And for what particular purpose?
    Did you not read my earlier posts re “The National Food Plan”?
    I have already lamented the loss of good people in CSIRO and DPI etc.
    It is worrying, especially since many of them have gone OS to continue their work where they are appreciated.
    Did I also not mention that Ludwig’s dept is totally ticked off with Burke?
    Are you now trying to furiously agree with me?

  1494. Luke says

    Stupid response Cohenite. You can do much better than that. What as that about analysis.

    Debs – Where has the funding gone – just leaked away slowly, no succession planning, no risk assessment on capability, govts of all persuasions running down ag depts for decades. CSIRO getting out of traditional rural to chase higher value add. Now including Newman despite having agriculture as one of his 4 “pillars” has just ripped the guts out of DAFF.

  1495. Debbie says

    DAFF? I thought was a Fed Dept? Is DAFF an acronym for a QLD dept?
    You will need to explain that one Luke.
    I have already pointed out the problem with CSIRO Luke. Catch up.
    Leaked away to what in paricular?
    Did you bother to read the CSIRO report comissioned by the MDBA I linked earlier?
    There is no shortage of funding Luke, their funding has gone up, not down. What are they spending it on? What purpose?
    What benefit?

  1496. Robert says

    “Debs – Where has the funding gone – just leaked away slowly, no succession planning, no risk assessment on capability, govts of all persuasions running down ag depts for decades. CSIRO getting out of traditional rural to chase higher value add”

    He’s right. He’s actually right. Our Manifest Destiny (I’m serious) is to feed the rest of the world with high-grade tucker grown by the world’s smartest and thriftiest cockies. We have the land and the people, but supporting public institutions have been trashed (while remaining bloated, somehow) and science has gone chasing after…

    I won’t say it! Don’t want to spoil this new bromance between me and the Lukester.

  1498. cohenite says

    “Stupid response Cohenite. You can do much better than that. What as that about analysis.”

    Your link postulates that the SE Australian climate is changing and uses the example of the MDB rainfall to show that. I pointed out some specific defects with that example, so how about a specific response?

  1499. Minister for Truth says

    “What an incredible embarrassment to OZ and what a waste of time and money”

    Spot on again Neville.

    We must have the finest collection of the most incompetent and delusional GW scientists in the world. Flannery plus Lewandowsky et al, what a fine example of professorial dills they are.

    The sooner the Govt turns off the funding tap to all these prats the better.

    Put the money into something useful like cancer research ….or finding a way of getting rid of cane toads etc etc. There would be no shortage of more beneficial usages of the funds.

  1500. Luke says

    Cohenite – this is the same denialist shell game that you guys have played for years. The usual – quote whole of MDB region stats. The effect is specific – southern, regional, seasonal, and against a backdrop of existing variability (and perhaps even a turbocharged La Nina) – the trend now statistically dissected – has an operational synoptic mechanism – then lastly one comes to attribution via modelling. It’s quite a nice bit of modern science. I thought at least you might say “jeez is that so”.

    Debs – the well known and ye olde Qld DPI (Dept Primary Industries) became absorbed into the mega Dept of DEEDI under Bligh (Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation) – now broken up and split back to DPI-ish Dept of Agriculture, Fisheries, Forestry (Qld DAFF) under the LNP – and now summarily gutted.

    Australian soil science is in a parlous state.

  1501. Luke says

    “We must have the finest collection of the most incompetent and delusional GW scientists in the world”

    What a insult. What a turd.

    In fact it’s the opposite. But of course galoots like you never read their work preferring to engage in mindless sideshows like Lewandowsky – really who gives a flying fuck about this stuff. Get back to the science.

  1502. Luke says

    “Our Manifest Destiny (I’m serious) is to feed the rest of the world with high-grade tucker grown by the world’s smartest and thriftiest cockies. We have the land and the people, but supporting public institutions have been trashed (while remaining bloated, somehow) and science has gone chasing after…”

    yep I’d agree

    – but need to keep the resource base in good knick and hopefully keep a nice swag of the native biodiversity on the way.

  1504. spangled drongo says

    Well, well, looks like the Antarctic Peninsula had a lot less ice 150 years ago. Hard to believe that we aren’t 100% across this ice:

    GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, doi:10.1029/2012GL052559

    Increased ice loading in the Antarctic Peninsula since the 1850s and its effect on Glacial Isostatic Adjustment

    Grace A. Alexandra Nield et al.

    Antarctic Peninsula (AP) ice core records indicate significant accumulation increase since 1855, and any resultant ice mass increase has the potential to contribute substantially to present-day Glacial Isostatic Adjustment (GIA). We derive empirical orthogonal functions from climate model output to infer typical spatial patterns of accumulation over the AP and, by combining with ice core records, estimate annual accumulation for the period 1855-2010. In response to this accumulation history, high resolution ice-sheet modeling predicts ice thickness increases of up to 45 m, with the greatest thickening in the northern and western AP. Whilst this thickening is predicted to affect GRACE estimates by no more than 6.2 Gt/yr, it may contribute up to -7 mm/yr to the present-day GIA uplift rate, depending on the chosen Earth model, with a strong east-west gradient across the AP. Its consideration is therefore critical to the interpretation of observed GPS velocities in the AP.

    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/pip/2012GL052559.shtml

  1505. debbie says

    Thanks Luke,
    Knew there was a DAFF in fed govt, didn’t know QLD had changed their acronym.
    Are you sure it has been gutted or has the new Govt just done what it promised and restored some balance?
    You have to admit that administrative and corporate PS balance was getting out of whack.
    Far too many ‘busy jobs’ happening up there in the PS and not balanced correctly against actual service jobs.
    I do feel for people who have lost their jobs, they were not doing anything wrong per se, but the balance was out wasn’t it? That is my basic understanding of the situation.
    The ‘job descriptions’ in a lot of cases had already been completed and/or had been contracted out.
    But….never nice to lose your job….doesn’t matter what the reason was.

    re this comment:
    but need to keep the resource base in good knick and hopefully keep a nice swag of the native biodiversity on the way.
    I don’t disagree but I would have to say that most of your comments re agriculture in Australia basically assume that these two areas are mutually exclusive…ie…farming and production will destroy and/or seriously endanger native flora and fauna.
    Unfortunately for us all, the environmental movement has ‘demonised’ agriculture in Australia.
    Environmental policies have become irrational and counter productive in many cases.
    The SMH post I put up yesterday is an example of the silly rhetoric which claims it can only be one or the other…..which is ridiculous.
    It is a big part of the reason why the funding and the good guys have gone missing from the bush isn’t it Luke?

    In actual fact….most of Australian Agricultural practices have become increasingly more responsible and will continue to do so.
    Latest published figs
    Grazing 55.8%
    Conservation and Natural Environments 36.7%
    Cropping 3.5%
    Forestry 1.8%
    Water 1.6%
    Intensive uses 0.4%

    Also,
    40% of our food is grown in irrigation areas on less than 3% of arable land.
    Wouldn’t more of that type of practice lessen the need to interfere with wider areas of land?
    We also shouldn’t forget that native flora and fauna flourish in irrigation areas….despite the fact that much of the environmental movement claims the exact opposite.
    Much of what we have done in Australia is positive and worth strengthening….but of course it isn’t perfect.
    Mistakes have been made and they do need to be fixed.
    A whopper mistake is the nightmare that has developed down the bottom of the system with the lakes and the barrages.
    The involvement of international treaties and the ACF and the ‘environmental movement’ etc have made that nightmare worse…and in the process created a huge negative misconception about irrigation in the MDB.

  1507. spangled drongo says

    Today in Antarctica was the coldest temperature ever recorded on earth:

    -119f. [~-84c]

    But it did warm up to -117f.

  1508. spangled drongo says

    “Australian soil science is in a parlous state”

    You can spray that again. When you wackos think that farming useless bits of paper is going to help soil quality at Henbury.

    And how will it work anyway?

    Under Kyoto Protocol emission accounting rules, carbon sequestration occurring in conservation areas is not counted as part of a nations emission inventory. So if Henbury Station is now part of the national reserve system, it presumably cannot be used to generate carbon credits.

    But that won’t stop our luvvie left from wasting our money on it.

    Peter Reith said today that conservative govts need to reduce bureaucracy to stop these people from dreaming more useless, expensive projects if they are ever going to rein in our out-of-control debt.

  1509. Larry Fields says

    Here’s a summary and link to my latest article at Hubpages. I’d like to thank the commentators here, who have helped shape my views on the subject of wind power.

    Turbines that Break Wind

    Is wind power is a solution–or even a partial solution–to our long term energy problems? This article examines the question from several perspectives: base load vs peak load, grid stability, economics, energy storage, Rare Earth metals, and environmental trade-offs.

    Read all about it here.
    http://tinyurl.com/8g6v8nt

  1511. Robert says

    I wish you guys would stop describing wind power as wasteful, inefficient, expensive and destructive fetishism. For God’s sake, we’re trying to make it LESS appealing to our Green Betters.

  1512. gavin says

    While we were having breakfast over looking the marina, I couldn’t help but notice a big white fan whirlinng on a yacht cabin.I assumed it was a 12v gen running at wind speed and it could charge the whole electrical system. all rather handy on a long stay at sea. Not all wind power is bad. In .fact one of the smallest yachts at the saling club was an old huon pine tub with a long pedigree in pure wind racing dating back to the 1960’s, in many ways still a quite sustainable form of transport.

    Capping the day though was a joy ride there and back on a genuine steam train pulled by a genuine 2ft gauge tank engine that belched soot all over us for the whole journey. Guess what? No Carbon Tax!Do we keep these reminders of bygone eras when a kid on his skate board zipped along the road beside the track and beat us over the next level crossing? No, but it was only by a whisker and I reckon he showed a great deal of disrespect. I happen to like all steam power.

    Guys; we flew over a big chunk of outback or rangeland on the way up and I reckon it’s not worth two bob an acre for the most of it and we are still cluttering up the tiny fraction of good soil by building all over it. The one exception is all the sandstone country under Sydney.

    Cheers

  1513. Debbie says

    But Lewandowsky was peer reviewed and published.
    Doesn’t that make him a ‘serious’ scientist?
    He was also ‘funded’ by the tax payer.
    No problem getting MSM air play either.
    I agree it is a mindless sideshow but look at what it was attempting to advance and which hypothesis it was supporting.
    What useful purpose does this type of research achieve? Why does tax payer money get spent on ‘mindless sideshows’?

  1514. Luke says

    Myopic rice wonderworld Debs

    “40% of our food is grown in irrigation areas on less than 3% of arable land.
    Wouldn’t more of that type of practice lessen the need to interfere with wider areas of land?
    We also shouldn’t forget that native flora and fauna flourish in irrigation areas….despite the fact that much of the environmental movement claims the exact opposite.40% of our food is grown in irrigation areas on less than 3% of arable land.
    Wouldn’t more of that type of practice lessen the need to interfere with wider areas of land?
    We also shouldn’t forget that native flora and fauna flourish in irrigation areas….despite the fact that much of the environmental movement claims the exact opposite.”

    Forgetting the effect D9s with chains have operating horizon to horizon essentially for pastoralism. Foregetting that most rain-fed cropping areas are now cleared and locked in. Runoff from rain-fed agriculture (sugar, broad acre crops, horticulture) onto the Great Barrier Reef. And we could talk about extensive nitrogen leaching in irrigated cane. (just for starters) hmmmmm

    “It is a big part of the reason why the funding and the good guys have gone missing from the bush isn’t it Luke?” – maybe not – simply drift to the cities by youth, better jobs and more jobs in non-primary sectors (saving mining), and research chasing higher value add. Why don’t students sign up for ag science at universities – it’s simply unappealing compared to other choices.

    There’s a bit more to Aussie “agriculture” than rice growing.

    SD opines – “When you wackos think that farming useless bits of paper is going to help soil quality at Henbury.”

    Well yuh shows how much you’re even remotely clued in. Don’t worry about the quality – worry about soil loss – see degradation in all Australian rangelands. And it doesn’t have to be Kyoto compliant to trade in the future. And it’s not only about carbon – it’s about biodiversity. You’re a nong.

  1515. Minister for Truth says

    “But Lewandowsky was peer reviewed and published.
    Doesn’t that make him a ‘serious’ scientist?
    He was also ‘funded’ by the tax payer.
    No problem getting MSM air play either.
    I agree it is a mindless sideshow but look at what it was attempting to advance and which hypothesis it was supporting.
    What useful purpose does this type of research achieve? Why does tax payer money get spent on ‘mindless sideshows’”

    Spot on debbie

    It is the obvious retort to the previous ravings of the resident know-all, who himself has become metaphor for what ails Australian science…

    We have too many professorial prats, and so called intellectuals, doing pseudo science and analysis…using money that would be far better spent on more useful and needy things, for and on behalf of their funders.

    The list of needs is endless,incluing soil science,..but instead we have to tolerate the nonsense and waste being peddled by the Lewandowskys and Flannerys,et al……yet another, and seemingly endless list.

    PS If the Lewandowsky paper was supposedly peer reviewed. It would be nice to know who the reviewers were, but the chances of knowing that would be zero…its all part of the game is it not?

  1516. Robert says

    Pollution exists, entropy happens…Man, let’s just get into a mood and waste some money till our Green Betters feel better about things.

    Still not feeling better? Fling some more of that money, at something or other. Make them feel better. Waste good grazing land, strangle irrigation…You can wreck any industry you like when mineral prices and demand are at all-time highs, but it’s best to wreck a rural industry. No Whyalla wipeouts, please. Not yet. (In your explanation, work in those two sacramental words “Barrier Reef”. Works like a charm, always has. Been selling Sunday papers for fifty years.)

    Money running low? Gouge some coal! Price of coal down? Just gouge more coal, silly! Need a desal or some more wind turbines? Get some coal burning!

    Timmy’s Geothermia needs some dollars for….well, we’re never sure what Timmy does with our dollars, but just give him some. Maybe they need some diesel gens to run their fans or bar fridges out in hot rocks country. Timmy makes our Green Betters feel kinda soothed for a bit. Money! That’s what coal is for!

    Lew wants to do a study of people who like coal power? And it’ll be peer-reviewed? Lovin’ it. Dig some bloody coal and give him the money.

    And if any of these knuckle draggers (so aptly derided by Lew’s study-thing) want improvements to our domestic coal power so we burn 30% less…well, just dig some of that coal, sell it someone or other…and give Lew some more money till the bloody Tea Partiers shut up.

    Entropy fans think you have to break eggs to make an omelette. Our Green Betters have shown you can have no omelette…and still break all the eggs!

  1517. debbie says

    Well gee whiz Luke,
    Thanks for playing!
    You just proved my point in glorious technicolour!
    All about the negative and arguing that ‘environmentalism’ and ‘Agriculture’ are mutually exclusive.
    All about ‘demonising’ agriculture in Australia.
    Check the Ag figures I posted Luke,
    Your ‘horizon to horizon’ comment is complete & absolute garbage. You have NO EVIDENCE to back that up…it is just a screeching emotional environmental PR comment.
    Higher value?
    Maybe you should really ponder that.
    As Minister also has just pointed out:
    The ‘more appealing’ choices wouldn’t possibly have anything to do with the amount of funding that is available for what you called ‘mindless sideshows’ would it? WELL WOULD IT?????
    Why wouldn’t young people flock to an easy, well paid option like that?
    Ag Science and other forms of Agricultural careers require much more rigour and discipline and practice in PRACTICAL APPLIED SCIENCES….not useless surveys and endlessly produced and ‘piggy backed’ computer graphs and models.
    So do careers in medicine and geology and engineering etc. (and subsets like soils science)
    And as you have pointed out….the funding has been stripped from encouraging such careers….and as I pointed out….it’s not because of a lack of funding in science ….that has actually gone up….read my earlier post on this issue!!!!!! We have lost many of our best in these fields.
    Environmental sciences and one branch of climate science (NOT ALL OF CLIMATE SCIENCE) have heaps and heaps of increased funding. For what ultimate purpose????
    Your GBR screeching is SOOOOOooooo last century. The GBR has NOT been irreparably damaged nor is it in imminent danger from modern agricultural practices. You once again have NO CURRENT EVIDENCE to substantiate that comment.
    And of course Aussie agriculture is about more than rice….even irrigated agriculture is about more than rice…..rice isn’t even our major crop!
    I don’t think SD is the being the NONG here!
    However, rice growing in the Riverina…predominately in the MIA… (when we are not in exceptional circumstances) feeds approx 23 million people every single day….that’s not a bad return hey? The land footprint and water use is tiny re the calorific return.
    Do the maths Luke….average 950,000 tonnes….1kg feeds 4 people/day according to UN figures.
    Our humble operation in rice feeds conservatively 20,000 people a day.
    Re land clearing….maybe you should ponder why arable land was over cleared Luke?
    It was not because of farmers….they were forced to clear land by Govt policy!
    First of all they were punished for not clearing land….now they’re punished for clearing it….GO FIGURE?????
    Hubby and I….along with thousands of others like us….have revegetated AT OUR OWN EXPENSE….because we all knew that the govt of the day was WRONG!!!!
    We have personally planted over 100,000 native trees in our lifetime.
    Your comment to SD clearly indicates that you have very, very little idea about the earlier discussion re sensible management practices or what has negatively influenced the ability to conduct sensible management practices.
    SD is IMHO (and my humble personal experience) entirely correct that the POLICY FOCUS is on farming paper…..not sensible and achievable land management practices.

  1518. bazza says

    Turnbull at the gates is the big story of the day – tony to the abattoir – no country for misogynsists. Serves him right , he of the square-gaiting as Barnaby observed. Afterall it was Abbot gave the oxygen to the CO2 denialists with his comment that climate change was crap. And coming from a lawyer – puts him on a level with Cohenite for burden of proof and backing up his allegations. Meanwhile Julia has bounced. Where will it end.?

  1520. debbie says

    http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/opinion/political-news/labor-cautious-about-polls-coalition-dismissive-20120917-26155.html

    This is apparently Bazza’s idea of a ‘big story of the day’?
    And Bazza always laments that it isn’t about politics it is about science.
    And now Bazza is playing the mosogynist/sexist card as well?
    As a female…..do you realise how much females dislike seeing that card played in such a disgraceful, politically motivated manner?
    Whichever PR person is responsible for this….and I’ll bet it wasn’t a female…..they should be immediately sacked…. IMH(female)O.

  1521. Johnathan Wilkes says

    True colours showing, I see.

    I’m not particularly a fan of Mr Abbott either but please! There is no contest between him and Mr Turnbull unless they are going for the labor leadership of course.

    As to the cuts to the PS in Q and NSW, long overdue and much needed, they should not have been employed in the first place.

    Read it somewhere that there about 10 thousand public servants employed by the federal health department?
    Can’t believe the numbers myself, but even a thousand would be too many.
    What do they do?
    The states have all the responsibility and they carry out the practical delivery of the service.

  1522. Johnathan Wilkes says

    “10 thousand public servants employed by the federal health department?”

    Just looked up the stats. The numbers are plausible. Unbelievable but true.

  1524. cohenite says

    bazza says:

    “Turnbull at the gates is the big story of the day – tony to the abattoir – no country for misogynsists. Serves him right , he of the square-gaiting as Barnaby observed. Afterall it was Abbot gave the oxygen to the CO2 denialists with his comment that climate change was crap. And coming from a lawyer – puts him on a level with Cohenite for burden of proof and backing up his allegations. Meanwhile Julia has bounced. Where will it end.?”

    bazza is a little stirrer, nothing else; Goldman Sachs Turnbull! Give me a break; Abbott’s problem is that he is being too soft with the left-wing msm; the same msm which is telling us that the Muslim revolt on Saturday is our fault!

    Anyway bazza wouldn’t know his backside from a hole in the ground; Abbott isn’t a lawyer, unlike Gillard.

    And speaking of temperature here is an analysis of the recent New Zealand NIWA case:

    http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=14122

  1525. debbie says

    Yep…my apologies
    Now that I’ve checked my rice sums…
    on those figs that I gave it is 10.5 million people per day from the MIA based on tonnages….still a pretty good figure though eh?….sorry… I just repeated the last calorific figs I had heard from SunRice…..which are way more complicated than my simple conservative conversion figs and iclude ‘value add’ equations which I didn’t account for in my earlier post.
    Never claimed that I don’t make mistakes sometimes.
    Also…my own personal figs were wrong…we’ll be just shy of 27,500 people per day this year as our tonnage this year will likely be around 2,500 tonnes from approx 240 ha.
    So that’s 2.5 million kilos X 4 then divided by 365….check it if you like Bazza. But that is just a clear and simple way to calculate straight calorific value…nothing tricky… and no ‘value add’ stuff.
    but if you’re actually interested or want to know more Bazza….go here:
    http://www.rga.org.au/
    or here:
    http://www.sunrice.com.au/
    And play around with figs to your heart’s content.

  1526. Luke says

    Debs – “You have NO EVIDENCE to back that up” oh yea – hahahahahahaha – go for a drive Debs ! You really must be joking. Tell me you are joking and satellites lie.

    GBR is being damaged – evidence is now in – in droves. COTS link with nutrients. And coral cover decline paper coming very soon. Watch PNAS. Only deniers would say anything else. Like in most things of the front porch Debs you’re uninformed.

  1527. bazza says

    Deb,I dont need to do more sums but if you want to get back on the horse and have a go at more sums, you could throw in emissions as well. If you did a little research you would discover that globally rice emits a bit under a tonne of CO2eq/ tonne of rice and it is several times higher than wheat and maize on this measure.

  1528. Debbie says

    Instead of the poor attempt at cyber bullying Luke,
    try explaining what
    a) you think should be done as far as applied action is concerned and
    b) the evidence of ‘in droves’ as a sensible comparative analysis. IE. In droves compared to what and in droves caused by what in paricular?

  1529. cohenite says

    “If you did a little research you would discover that globally rice emits a bit under a tonne of CO2eq/ tonne of rice and it is several times higher than wheat and maize on this measure.”

    Who cares if rice emits more CO2 than other crops.

  1530. bazza says

    Deb, why didn’t you tell us the 23 million was from the industry website. quote “This year SunRice’s harvest of more than 900,000 tonnes will feed at least 23 million people around the world every day, for the next year.” That is also wrong on your numbers. Why didn’t you admit it and advise them. My experience in the Phillipines confirms 1kg for 4 people as in the UN figure.. The math is actaully very simple compared to some of the stuff you so quickly pass judgement on. No giggling matter.

  1531. Robert says

    Green cops are like traffic and parking cops. Send them out to find something naughty, and they will always come back with plenty.

    There will always be things wrong with the GBR, some of them correctible. A Team GBR will find more things, it won’t mean things are worse. Who knows? In a rich country, with funds directed into genuine conservation, we might do some good. Better, thriftier, lower-impact agricultural techniques, from some new William Farrer? Why not? Who can argue? When scientists and regulators have involvement and a natural sympathy with growers and graziers, good thing can happen.

    But we all know in what direction the funds and sympathies are pouring. It’s the age of the GetUp Green Left, the triumph of the urban post-grads and huffy, finger-wagging intellectuals.

    The worst kind of capitalists have never had a better bunch of buddies.

  1532. Debbie says

    I did Bazza,
    re read my comment re the 23 million.
    Also your CO2 Comment.
    We do in fact also grow wheat and maize Bazza.
    As I have commented before, rice is not our only crop.
    Are you now implying that you should dictate how much of each we grow according to their CO2 emmissions?
    Have you done the calorie conversion/ha of wheat and maize?

  1533. bazza says

    Deb, again “This year SunRice’s harvest of more than 900,000 tonnes will feed at least 23 million people around the world every day, for the next year.” So 0.9m/23m is 25kg per annum a bit less than your 4 people for a day on a kg. Indonesia average is 150 kg annually. So where are these 23million people you could feed? they would be struggling.
    This does not need any attempts to befuddle using calorific intake and also you forgot to tell us what numbers were paddy and what milled.Do your own research on wheat and maize but check it before you unleash. What is the chance that one day you will need to account for your CO2 emissions. You could be a conscientious objector I suppose.

    I take it you are not inflicted with the math gene!

  1535. Johnathan Wilkes says

    “I take it you are not inflicted with the math gene!”

    Neither are you I’m afraid!
    Calculate again!

    900 000 tons we are talking about here

  1536. toby says

    0.9m/23m x 1000 for kg= 39kg pa
    on debs new number of 10.5m 0.9m/10.5m x 1000= 85.7kg which if 250g is “subsistence” would cover 343 days of the year.
    sunrices data certainly does seem optimistic.
    And i cant imagine people living very well on just that much rice.
    The point is however they feed a lot of people.

  1538. Robert says

    I’d never contemplated the true scale of rice production in Oz, I’ve simply been aware of the industry as modern and successful, with fewer subsidies, better yields and less water take-up than elsewhere. I’m pleased that this thread has drawn my attention to it. Often happens when a negative spin is attempted.

    Well done, Deb. Hope those wild rice people at Deniliquin are still powering. So gutsy.

  1539. Johnathan Wilkes says

    toby said:
    “And i cant imagine people living very well on just that much rice.
    The point is however they feed a lot of people.”

    I haven’t visited that site and don’t know what they mean, to but I think we make a fundamental mistake here, as to how they calculate rice consumption.

    I doubt it very much that the 250 gr is meant as the total meal for the day.
    (although Mao proved that one can not only survive but march on a handful of rice)
    I think it’s more likely that it’s meant as a serve with other stuff like meat and vegies.

    We eat rice but we never cook even half a kilo of rice for the 3 of us at any time more like about 200 grams.

  1540. bazza says

    Toby says “The point is however they feed a lot of people”. That point is not contested. The point is innocents getting lead astray by industry stuff – you recall the 23million has been oft quoted here. As if it was needed to justify an industry which has come through a horror period in good shape by nearly all accounts (except the emissions one as the Annual Report advised) . Thanks for correcting my of 0.9/23 in my head to give 25, an inverse of 40. I am trying to shake the maths gene. It is sometimes a bad habit to check numbers. Truth matters tho.

  1541. Debbie says

    I agree Toby,
    250gms would not be an OZ diet.
    The point is still valid re UN figs however.
    Bazza, don’t you want to acknowledge my 100,000 + trees anymore?
    They impressed you a few days ago.
    You really are a one trick pony aren’t you?
    Why should I be held accountable for my CO2 emmissions in the manner you are advancing here?
    Already accountable via electricity bills etc along with everyone else am I not?

  1542. toby says

    “The point is innocents getting lead astray by industry stuff”, sadly very true, and sadly “statistics/ research/science” are also used by industry to lead us astray, and by lobby groups and media and government et al…..

    WOW Deb, thats a lot of trees and a lot of time and money! Good onya!

  1543. cohenite says

    Neville; I have been following Bob’s appraisal of the role of ENSO in climate; ENSO is THE solar proxy; it is a product of oscillations of oceanic upwelling, or vice versa. ENSO asymmetry is the dominant climate factor of the 20thC and this dovetails nicely with solar accumulation over the same period.

    The dues ex machina of AGW, backradiation has, despite luke’s infatuation with Philipona, never looked promising simply because IR at that wavelength cannot penetrate the ocean surface. ENSO has no such inherent deficiency.

  1544. Luke says

    So Debs – we’ll put your personal opinion – “coz you think so” against a 40 year detailed research program. Interesting northern reefs off Cape York – good condition – no land use impacts – southern reefs 50% decline in coral cover over 30 years. Go figure. But I’m sure you’ve intuitively derived that from the Riverina.

  1545. Luke says

    Cohenite – Tisdale’s stuff is simply amateurish. Just have a quick look at the recent literature. It shows.

  1546. Luke says

    ” It’s the age of the GetUp Green Left, the triumph of the urban post-grads and huffy, finger-wagging intellectuals.” says someone who reads no science. Gawd.

  1549. Luke says

    El Gordo – well you see science separates the chaff and the drongos. Who says warming is the threat. Helps to background your subject old mate.

    I could have “trust a dago to bring a knife to a gun fight”. But Sean Connery got machine gunned shortly after ….. hmmmm

  1550. Luke says

    It’s agricultural runoff x COTS (with turbo boost on COTS from extra DIN and DIP) x bleaching episodes x tropical cyclones x warming SSTs x decreasing pH – perfect storm?

    Just like Debs gets in the Riverina.

  1552. Robert says

    Reefs are wild fluctuators, protean changers, even within short periods. They’re on a permanent firing line. They are not passing from a pristine pre-European stasis to a state of degradation from human activities and CAGW. Yes, I know nobody was saying that…but some are hoping we’ll think it.

  1553. Debbie says

    So Luke?
    Are all those agriculturalists so impossibly evil in QLD and the Riverina it’s time to shut them down?
    What else can we possibly do?
    They’re just a complete disaster and a danger to the atmosphere, the rivers and the GBR.
    The damage stretches from horizon to horizon and is happening in droves.

  1554. Luke says

    Well if you’re anyone Cohers and want to talk reef you would know COTS is Crown of Thorns Starfish, DIN is dissolved inorganic nitrogen, DIP is dissolved inorganic phosphorus.

    As opposed to DON, DOP, DIC, DOC, FRP, TSS, PN, PP and CDM. Not to mention PS IIs. As I said don’t worry about warming but McLean as a source after that GRL debacle. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA pullease. But yuh we’ll take some ENSO in there too.

    For El Gordo & Cohenite – inside sceptic HQ – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dgoDvnebHRw

  1557. cohenite says

    luke; ok, you dismiss McLean’s conclusions about the connection between SOI and SSTs on the GBR; what’s your source for saying SSTs have increased on the GBR?

  1558. Debbie says

    But it’s a ‘perfect storm’ Luke along with horizon to horizon damage and it is also in droves.
    The hyperbole has gone ballistic along with the turbo charged acronyms.
    And sorry?
    What exactly is it that you think everyone is denying?
    What exactly is it that you think needs to be done?

  1559. Luke says

    I’m not banging on about SSTs – most the issue is COTS, tropical cyclone damage then bleaching last

    But http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/outlook-for-the-reef/great-barrier-reef-outlook-report/outlook-online?sq_content_src=%2BdXJsPWh0dHAlM0ElMkYlMkZ3d3ctcmMuZ2JybXBhLmdvdi5hdSUyRm91dGxvb2slMkZncmVhdF9iYXJyaWVyX3JlZWZfb3V0bG9va19yZXBvcnQlMkZvdXRsb29rX3JlcG9ydCUyRmV2aWRlbmNlJTJGZXZpZGVuY2VfdGVtcGxhdGUyMiZhbGw9MQ%3D%3D

    In terms of the reef it’s the middle section near the coast that has warmer temps and more impact from agriculture. Most of Cape York reefs are essentially untouched by terrestrial impacts. e.g. above Bathurst Bay http://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0272771412000856-gr1.jpg

    And southern reefs are a long way off-shore from runoff impacts.

  1560. Luke says

    Debbie – everyone isn’t denying but you are by your questioning and unhelpful attitude. I’ve yet to see you wade in with any mitigation suggestions on anything – nothing on fishways or fish lifts, enviro flows. And in terms of reef coastal agriculture might you have weighed in minimum tillage, crop and soil testing, precision agriculture, and a range of riparian, wetland grazing management options.

    Nuh – all we get is a crossed arms defensive posture. Of course it’s not the market leaders that needs to be brought to best practice – it’s the low end of the spectrum.

    In terms of tree clearing monitoring looks like they’ve been measuring clearing for some time. Want to argue with the data? http://www.derm.qld.gov.au/slats/previous_reports.html

    http://www.edo.org.au/edonsw/site/factsh/fs05_3.php

    With a cooperative environment with industry, conservation groups and the community surely big improvements can be made and many of those simply better business by more efficient use of resources.

    You will now fire off a range of demands

    “Luke where have I said …..” zzzzzzzzz

  1563. Debbie says

    Everyone isn’t denying but you are. . . . ?
    What exactly am I therefore denying?
    Had the other part of the converstation before Luke.
    Farmers are on board with most of that stuff but some not possible without new infrastructure and very heavy subsides.
    You don’t ask those questions. And you don’t answer similar on majority of occasions.
    Also not arguing with the data Luke. Read the last report. The story is that clearing has been markedly reduced and is measureable in CO2 reductions for QLD.
    Also note these reports are only focused on clearing, nothing on revegetation programs and good land management programs. QLD has those too you know. It is not all negative, there is not damage in droves from horizon to horizon and your ‘perfect storm’ hyperbole is also highly ‘alarmist’.
    I could quote an earlier comment from you without the expletives. . . Sky falling in, children dying etc?
    I pointed out earlier that there ISN’T a dearth of data.
    What is sadly missing is investment in APPLIED practices and APPLIED sciences.
    SD’s ‘paper farming’ image describes the current situation in Ag quite cleverly.

  1564. Luke says

    Predictable sheer nonsense from Debs. Get a map and check out levels of native vegetation cover in eastern Australia and what remains. Revegetation programs are a piddle in the ocean of past clearing.

    “Farmers are on board with most of that stuff” ROFL ! based on what? coz you think so – how laughable

    “that there ISN’T a dearth of data.’ -what coz you just think so.

    Meanwhile all not happy in rice dictatorship land http://qcl.farmonline.com.au/blogs/agribuzz-with-david-leyonhjelm/the-rice-and-fall-of-socialism/2624260.aspx?storypage=0

    “not possible without new infrastructure and very heavy subsides.” – yep just like Bazza said about the head works. Now you want us to pay for the upgrade to your second rate management practices.

  1565. Debbie says

    So Luke?
    It is quite clear to me that despite the odd comment to the contrary, you obviously think Agriculture is inherintly bad, you dislike rice and anything that is Agriculturally productive is ‘mutually exclusive’ re the environment.
    You continually advance the ‘agriculture vs environment’ mantra and negative PR.
    I can see you’re hopelessly rusted in & clearly not interested in my thoughts on the matter.
    I guess we are not going to get anywhere are we?
    You are now taking this conversation in circles and I have completely lost interest in what you have to say, mainly because of your negative and counter productive arguments/attitude.
    I apologise if that sounds harsh but I see no point in going in circles with no end goal in mind.
    When/if you’re inclined to offer something encouraging/positive, I may reconsider.

  1566. cohenite says

    luke, re: SSTs, you have linked to a glossy which simply says they have increased with a high level of confidence.

    McLean links to NOAA data and produces this record of GBR SSTs:

    http://mclean.ch/climate/GBR_sea_temperature.htm

    I mean after the NIWA debacle where all the Trust experts, good people though they may be, were dismissed by the judge allowing the NIWA experts to make pronouncements I don’t think that will wash here.

    As a point of interest given that the NZ case turned on the dismissal of the Trust experts, if you were bringing a similar action against another similar body to NIWA what experts proficient in both statistics and climate with the right letters after their names would you use so as to not have their expertise dismissed?

  1567. Robert says

    Farmers, with their own money, might do something about fresh plumes, silt plumes, run-offs etc. Some might find it easier to go out of business. But then a bloody good cyclone or bleaching from other causes could mangle some reef – something which is part of being a reef – and farmers would be blamed for the climatic changes which caused the weather or water fluctuations.

    As long as we pay the opinion-draped elites to find fault, fault will be found. There is no shortage of kinda-educated people wanting the role of indignant prophets and saviours. Beats a real job. At this point, someone will want to inform us of the years of scientific research and monitoring of the GBR – like we hadn’t noticed, or haven’t mastered the lightning-fast google thingy to keep up.

    Stop tipping billions into Environmentalism, and tip those billions into Conservation. Conservation involves exploiting without wasting resources. Refuse to live in an energy-poor nation with massive stores of coal, uranium, thorium etc. Accept a measure of entropy to achieve all the infrastructure and productive capacity of which we are capable. Don’t harm or disturb without reason, but be prepared to do so with good reason.

    Accept entropy. We have to dig and sell “all-time record” amounts of coal to fund our countless “green initiatives”, so I assume nobody is serious about the CO2 thing. Or am I missing something? How much damage do we do, how much do we waste, through the pretense that our species, like any species, can advance without a measure of entropy?

    And is there a way we can replace these two-bob intellectuals – our National Treasures like Manne and Flannery – with more statues of Kidman, Farrer and Liz Macarthur? Just so we remember where all this wealth and well-being comes from.

  1568. Neville says

    Interesting post from Warick Hughes about SL fall on eastern OZ coastline since about 5,600 years BP, or 50% of the holocene.

    http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=1750#comments

    Many different studies all show the same fall. But the holocene optimum must have been a lot warmer than today to quickly increase SLR by over 100 metres after the last glaciation.

  1569. bazza says

    Cohenites link on GBR temps “The SST rises with the onset of El Nino events and falls with the onset of La Nina events.” ?? Nonsense.

  1571. bazza says

    Cohenite – my first quote from McLean was: “The SST rises with the onset of El Nino events and falls with the onset of La Nina events.”
    The next link has “We can however see cooling during abrupt shifts towards El Nino conditions (1982, 1991, 1997, 2006, 2008 and 2011) and the warming during shifts towards La Nina conditions (1983, 1988, 1990, 1998, 2005, 2009 and 2010).”
    So NONSENSE!

  1575. Luke says

    Multiple lines of evidence Cohenite from an experienced scientist vis a vis some programmer/architect who knows that got his first GRL paper destroyed.

    Robert – more dribble – nobody is denying natural influences – and the natural and the anthropogenic influences have now been teased apart. So instead of learning something like a dog returning to his vomit you don’t read more widely or consider – moreover content to recite the old propaganda wars. Serious players have moved past your position into mitigation and remediation. Which Debs loves to avoid.

    So ponder this – fertiliser N costs money – do you want it in the paddock growing cane or in the lagoon causing a COTS epidemic? What’s good for business – agriculture, tourism, export reputation and also the environment?

    Too hard to have a constructive conversation isn’t it?

  1576. bazza says

    The basis of understanding of the extent to which ENSO was a driver of natural variability for a wide range of climate measures was established over half a century ago after the IGY 1958/59 about the time Sir Gilbert Walker of Southern Oscillation fame died and Bjerknes recognised the connection between what the climate scientists knew about, the SO, and what the oceanographers knew about El Niño/La Niña. And nobody ever said ENSO was the only driver. But if you understand it and dont giggle , it does make it easier statistically to pick up others.

  1578. Debbie says

    Googled up today’s top MSM science stories.
    This is the top 6.
    Sort of confirms where all the extra funding and all the PR money is going at present.
    One has to ask the obvious questions….where’s the return on this? What is it we hope to achieve with all of this endless reporting? What is the goal?
    Or to paraphrase:
    Ponder this:
    Consultants , staffing and reporting all costs money, do you want it all spent on collecting and collating ever more data and funding ever more ‘piggy back’ reports or would you rather see it spent on projects that are good for business?
    It is costing lots of money…..way more than any funding that gets put into what are apparently ‘piddling’ efforts related to mitigation or applied management practices or are now considered ‘second rate management practices’.
    Ponder this:
    Piddle in the ocean compared to whom and what exactly?
    ‘Second rate management practices’ compared to whom or what exactly?

    In the scheme of things at the moment it seems to be perfectly OK to spend money and all PR effort on certain types type of projects that are merely data collection and collation (and let’s not forget the spattering of well funded mindless sideshows conducted by the Lewandowsky’s of the world) and expect everyone to pay for them….but anything related to mitigation and upgrade to support Agriculture or other types of development that actually do produce and create ROI, are simply not worth our time and effort and people should not be expected to pay for those.

    The only top MSM ‘science’ story today that it not related to environmental and climate change and endangerment is one about a breakthrough in Japan re dental health….nothing else from OZ in science.

    http://www.abc.net.au/rural/telegraph/content/2012/s3592578.htm
    http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/arctic-summer-ice-to-disappear-within-four-years-expert-says-20120918-26324.html
    http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/environment/climate-change/world-temperatures-above-average-for-330th-straight-month-20120918-2631t.html
    http://phys.org/news/2012-09-red-ecosystems-highlights-global.html
    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/yimcatholic/2012/09/source-of-global-climate-change-found.html
    http://www.smh.com.au/world/why-brush-your-teeth-if-you-can-cling-wrap-them-20120917-261ul.html

  1579. Robert says

    “the natural and the anthropogenic influences have now been teased apart.”

    Poorly understood influences treated as drivers, mechanisms, buttons, levers, knobs, switches…About as scientific as the console on the Starship Enterprise. Tragic that you believe this nonsense, and that you would read beyond the first lines of any publication claiming to accept and understand such blatant trash.

    ENSO, PDO etc are handy ways of pulling together some handy observations. They explain a little, help a little, can be built upon. As buttons on your child’s climate console, they are made risible.

    To put it in your preferred manner: mechanisms x drivers x buttons x levers x knobs x acronyms x gang review = perfect storm of superficiality.

  1580. cohenite says

    “Multiple lines of evidence Cohenite from an experienced scientist vis a vis some programmer/architect who knows that got his first GRL paper destroyed.”

    I seem to remember this thread within a thread being about whether GBR SSTs were going up; I linked to McLean who I knew had done some work on this which was based on primary sources, NOAA, and found they were not going up and the next thing I know I’m getting plastered with “Multiple lines of evidence”.

    They’re either going up or not; some data would be good.

  1581. Luke says

    Robert – Do you reckon the isotopic signature of fertiliser N looks like naturally occurring N. Might give a clue to origin. Stupid pillock.

    “Piddle in the ocean compared to whom and what exactly?” – might the answer be a cup of Sun Rice or a donut

    “Second rate management practices’ compared to whom or what exactly?” that would be the difference between a duck Debs

    “but anything related to mitigation and upgrade to support Agriculture or other types of development that actually do produce and create ROI, are simply not worth our time and effort and people should not be expected to pay for those.” meaning having made a big frigging mess let’s just walk away and leave it with taxpayer like the head works and drought relief

  1583. Luke says

    Cohenite – hot off the press and let’s not concern ourselves with sceptic hackers.

    Conservation Objectives and Sea-Surface Temperature Anomalies in the Great Barrier Reef

    NATALIE C. BAN,*, ROBERT L. PRESSEY, SCARLA WEEKS
    Article first published online: 19 JUL 2012

    DOI: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2012.01894.x

    Conservation Biology

    “Where trends in SST were significant, temperatures
    increased on average 0.008 ◦C/year or 0.08 ◦C/decade
    (ordinary least squares linear trend) …….. In areas
    where there was slight cooling, trends were not statistically
    significant. Changes in seasonal trends were also
    evident, but varied by region. In some regions SST increased
    during summer. In other regions, timing of the
    highest summer SSTs changed, and the highest temperatures
    occurred later in the season”

    The area analysed is within the GBR park red line area as per these maps http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/zoning-permits-and-plans/zoning/zoning-maps

  1585. Johnathan Wilkes says

    “0.008 ◦C/year or 0.08”

    says it all really!

    Good sci-ency measurement that, worthy of gavin’s precision instruments.

    Not questioning these numbers but swallowing it without thinking you are making yourself a laughing stock Luke.
    Think man, 8 hundredth of a degree C? how do you measure it?

  1586. Robert says

    “Robert – Do you reckon the isotopic signature of fertiliser N looks like naturally occurring N. Might give a clue to origin. Stupid pillock. ”

    As a “wild” grower I’m none too involved with fertilisers – not even organic. But isotope analysis is hardly new to us hicks in the hills, or to anybody else these days, I should imagine. I think you’ll also find quite a few conservation-minded people on this blog who would love to see more public monies flowing to riparian research, tillage/fertiliser improvements etc etc. But Big Climate is like Big Fertiliser, it wants all the say and all the money. (At least Big Fertiliser knows it’s selling fertiliser.)

    But never mind us stupid pillocks. On with the Kardashian science!

  1587. gavin says

    Folks; after deliberatly planning to meet Neil Hewett of Cooper Creek Wilderness, under the massive Thornton Peak and just off the winding Cape Tribulation Rd, I must
    say both of us are so glad we did. It was absolutley worthwhile and a memorable introduction to ancient remnants of once extensive North Qld rainforest.

    “Neil was a fount of scientific and historical information, I wish I could remember more of it, but he has published so some reading could be in order”.

  1589. debbie says

    Also….if something is ‘a piddle’ or ‘second rate’ I would have thought there was a ‘first rate’ or a bigger puddle to compare it to?
    What’s our ideals or our benchmarks here? What are we supposed to be achieving or mitigating or controlling… and….. for what price?????
    What’s the strategy?
    What’s the expected result?
    What is all this amazing data collection/collation aimed at achieving?
    What does it all mean?

  1590. gavin says

    As I’m so new to the far north, every comment counts. Neil wants a few more paying visitors in his area. The shops down Macrossan st Port Douglas are recovering this season and realestate is selling again including an assortment north of the Daintree R.

    Most mention the GFC taking a toll way back. Some still refer to Cyclone Yasi as the impediment to tourism. However our host refers to the declining reef fish for his recent woes. Why are they declining? “Over fishing” and “nothing else” he says after four trips out there this year. This guy claims many years of diving experience here and off the north of NZ. Reef tour opperators now have to move bigger fish from the pacific side closer for the day trippers.

    Neil easily demonstrated another growing problem by pointing out the damage done by ferral pigs down all his dry stream beds. Apparantly vast numbers can also hide in protected areas. One good rain and it all goes out to sea. From only a brief experience, it is too easy to imagine the volume of soil washed out towards our precious reef.

  1591. toby says

    http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/csiro-study-projects-climate-change-effects-across-australia/story-e6freuy9-1226476054411

    Climate change is likely to start to transform some of Australia’s natural landscapes by 2030,” said lead researcher Dr Michael Dunlop, from the CSIRO’s Ecosystem Sciences division.

    “By 2070, the ecological impacts are likely to be very significant and widespread.

    “Many of the environments our plants and animals currently exist in will disappear from the continent. Our grandchildren are likely to experience landscapes that are very different to the ones we have known.”

    Wary of past criticism, the CSIRO says it is confident in the accuracy of the complex computer models it used………just like they were confident it wouldnt rain again….well enough to fill our dams.

  1593. Luke says

    J Wilkes – it’s a statistically significant result from thousands of data points over space and time not a single thermometer. In fact if it was greater than that – we wouldn’t be talking here.

  1594. Luke says

    Debbie – answer read the Reef Plan strategy documents and associated science publications and industry /peak body reports – then get back to us. No point in having discussions with illiterates who aren’t even minimally briefed..

  1596. Johnathan Wilkes says

    Luke, I’m all for accuracy and data integrity, it’s my business.

    I’m not arguing about the findings of the researchers, had not the time to read it yet.
    What I’m saying is, and I hope you agree with me here, that relying on a temp increase of that magnitude, or should I say lack of magnitude is questionable at least.

    We just do not have a reliable starting point for starters, and the error limits of our instruments are
    a lot higher than these “increases”.

    Shouting this sort of finding from the roof tops is detrimental to your own cause.
    And remember I have no horse running in this race!

  1597. Luke says

    Nothing worse than opining without having read the paper JW – I was simply responding to Cohers point in a very general sense about studies showing an increase. So nobody is “relying” on a temperature increase of that magnitude. Moreover that’s from a very wide area – what do the details about specific areas and times of year show? Frankly if it were more than reported as an “average” – then the whole reef would have been nuked !

    My 2012 cite is a complex analysis.

    For example: Occurrence of anomalously high temperature (>1 ◦C above mean weekly temperature) patches in the Great Barrier Reef 1985–2009: (a) percentage occurrence of patches across all weeks in the time series and (b) distribution of temperature refugia defined as pixels containing <5% and <7% high-temperature patches

    Interannual and seasonal trends (graphs, fitted seasonal curves for the complete time series) in sea-surface temperature (SST) (◦C) for the Great Barrier Reef 1985–2009: (a) average increase or decrease in temperature per year (ordinary least squares [OLS]); (b) interannual increases or decreases in SST (Mann–Kendall; range –1 [always decreasing] to +1 [always increasing]; (c) p values of SSTs in (a). Circles in (b) show three locations where SST is changing significantly and where altered seasonal trends are shown in the graphs.

    How long to have a bleaching event?

    So your base generalisation about an average is indicative of the usual sceptic level of analysis – find something to sook about while ignoring the complex nature of the wider analysis. Really poor mate. Really poor.

    Who's "shouting it from the rooftops" – more pumping up the volume and talking dribble yourself.

  1598. Debbie says

    Big fat fail Luke,
    JW asked a perfectly reasonable question and all we get is more hyperbole and more of the same addiction to doomsday type prophecy.
    You are the one who keeps claiming the world is in some type of imminent danger. You have nothing to prove your incessant hyperbole. No one here claims that human activity has no impact.
    Your latest cites do not prove anything new or more alarming. They are just more sophisticated means of observation.
    I would have thought that if you’re so convinced that everything is in such dire straights you would have some sensible mitigation plans. But nope. Just more and more and more cites that you claim prove your hyperbole. They don’t.
    You’re clearly not interested in discussing the sensible use of all this evidence. Whenever you are asked such questions you go straight into ‘put down’ mode.
    I hope Jen returns soon.
    I think I’ll go fishing too until she returns.

  1599. toby says

    “Frankly if it were more than reported as an “average” – then the whole reef would have been nuked !” get a grip man!! what a shrill!

  1600. Neville says

    The mitigation of CAGW is a total fraud and con, even Luke, Gav and Bazza know this but are a tad cute to admit this fact backed up by simple maths. Whether they have the guts to admit it or not kindy maths and simple observation proves the case.

    Just more proof of the con has surfaced in Qld to add to the rest of OZ. All the billions $ wasted on roof top solar panels is a total waste of time and money and can’t change co2 emissions at all.

    In fact solar energy causes base load power stations to cycle up and down and wrecks the efficiency those stations are capable of when operated properly.

    This is not a surprise to anyone apart from the silly delusional few who are cluelessly grafted onto this barking mad cult.

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/solar_powered_stupidity/#commentsmore

  1602. Luke says

    Cripes you are a hillbilly Debs – thick as a plank. Now “the world is in imminent danger” is it. But I guess 50% reduction in coral cover in 30 years is OK by you. Destruction of endangered species is OK. Wall to wall (as documented by satellite) tree clearing is fine.

    JW has been well answered. If you weren’t such a frivolous twit and you would simply see I have responded to a line on GBR SSTs by Cohers. Go back and read exactly what I said on GBR threats.

    This was the best from Debs – “You’re clearly not interested in discussing the sensible use of all this evidence. ” I sprayed coffee all over my keyboard – (from certified organic sources of course) – holy doley girlie – THAT IS YOU !! But you don’t have the intellectual capability to discuss anything “only being interested in the general social aspects of anything”. Lammies and tea with Auntie Debs.

    Toby what do think the answer would be if the trend was 1.0C per decade. Do you ever in your prime stupidity ever think at all or did you go to school with Debs in home ec class.

    Antarctic ice increasing – yes as predicted. AGW at work.

  1603. Robert says

    Billions can always be found for more nonsense. The only catch is that thermal coal is selling for just 90 dollars a tonne now. (This time last year it was around the $130 dollar mark). It will be snapped up fast and burnt fast at that price – but we’ll need to dig and export quicker.

    The net result will be cheaper coal for Asia, but don’t worry. We’ll still waste our own coal by burning it in clunkers, and domestic electricity prices will continue to soar. This is what happens when “the serious players” move on from old fuddy-duddy positions to “remediation and mitigation”. This is what happens when “industry is on board” and “business has clarity”. This is what happens when the terminally clever people are allowed the run of the kitchen. This is what happens when spin swamps fact.

    By the way, there’s all this talk of Antarctic ice levels soaring over the running average from ’79. (I’d like to talk of an “all-time record”, but I have trouble keeping a straight face.) This little mentioned fact about the place where 90% of the ice hangs out has, of course, been explained away as a result of – you guessed it!

    But let me ask this question. If Antarctic ice was well below that running average, would the same people explain the decrease as a result of CAGW? I think they would. In fact, I am in no doubt whatsoever about that. Antarctic ice (which is most of the world’s ice) is very high? CAGW. Antarctic ice below average? CAGW. Historic North American Heatwave 2012? CAGW. Historic Central Europe Coldwave 2012? CAGW.

    Your cat got sick? CAGW. (Just joking. Tony Abbott did that to your cat.)

  1604. debbie says

    Yep Toby,
    ‘Shrill’ is an excellent way to describe current diatribes.
    We have just been delivered more of the same.

  1605. cohenite says

    luke, your Ban paper is odd; it finds SST ‘patches’ in gridded areas of various descriptions around the GBR; it’s like chicken pox with these small warm areas which in turn have smaller parts within them which are anomalously warm smaller areas.

    Ban offers no mechanism for this odd pattern of temperature trends; I have linked to McLean before and I’ll do it again; McLean notes the same temperature distribution and overall increase but at least he suggests a mechanism:

    http://joannenova.com.au/2012/08/john-mclean-enso-drives-sea-surface-temperatures-on-the-great-barrier-reef/#comments

  1606. John Sayers says

    Luke – back in 1997 our friend Ove wrote this:

    “In conclusion, we submit that Great Barrier Reef waters are likely to show
    temperature increases of the same magnitude and in the same time frame as any
    increases in air temperature, whether or not such increases are exacerbated global
    climate change. Of most concern are increases in temperature extremes, even over
    short periods of time (days) and the return time of such extremes. Field observations
    of coral bleaching and mortality events to date clearly show that the nature and
    potential scale impact of temperature excursions outside the ‘normal’ range can be
    severe. Laboratory studies clearly show the high degree of thermal sensitivity of
    corals and the precarious nature of the relationship between corals and zooxanthellae
    at high temperatures. Taken together, this evidence gives sufficient reason for
    concern about the likelihood of large-scale changes to the Great Barrier Reef
    ecosystem in the future related to temperature and synergistic stresses. In the
    immediate term, reef managers must work at reducing anthropogenic stresses which
    could compound existing levels of stress in coral during summer. In the short and
    medium term, researchers and reef managers must work at acquiring and presenting
    evidence of climate change and its risk to the Great Barrier Reef ecosystem to those
    who are able to make a positive contribution to ameliorating such impacts, through
    national and international forums.”

    Funnily enough the temperature hasn’t increased since 1997 yet he’s still out there preaching gloom and doom.

    when are you going to stop listening to this guy?

  1608. Neville says

    Geezzz what a joker you are Luke. Remember all the fuss over the Steig study and how the LOSS OF ICE was proof of AGW?

    Well now we know that warming and cooling of that area has taken place all through the holocene and has zero to do with AGW.

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/08/23/antarctic_peninsula_ice_core/ In other words the temp has gone up and down for the entire holocene and for 98% of that time it certainly had zilch to do with AGW or CAGW.

  1609. Debbie says

    OK Luke,
    This is NOT from your idea of a hillbilly home ec trained tea drinker:
    You seem to think people’s personal credibility has something to do with it….even though you are currently in the process of murdering any you might have had at this blog….and then don’t even offer any personal expertise or knowledge in the first place.
    Will this help? (probably not).
    This is from a PhD Biologist who works for DPI and a good friend of mine.
    We often have quite heated discussions about some aspects of the ‘usefulness’ of much of the currently funded work….but nevertheles this is a clever, experienced and talented person who has a truly lovely family and who is very, very bright and right up with all the current research:

    ‘It really is quite depressing, and it’s fairly symptomatic of the current government and what it is funding. We’re ‘committed to fighting climate change’, but we’re building coal terminals as fast as we possibly can. And with the carbon tax it will soon be cheaper for Chinese citizens to buy electricity generated from Australian coal than it will be for Australians to do so. And it’s OUR coal …….
    Its all rather sad, really.’

  1610. Neville says

    Here’s another zombie story we can successly drive a stake through. I got this link from KKat over at the Watts blog.

    The fact is Muller wasn’t even a sceptic thirty years ago as he admits in this interview in 2008.

    Quote—–
    Do you consider yourself an environmentalist?
    Oh yes. [Laughs.] In fact, back in the early ’80s, I resigned from the Sierra Club over the issue of global warming. At that time, they were opposing nuclear power. What I wrote them in my letter of resignation was that, if you oppose nuclear power, the U.S. will become much more heavily dependent on fossil fuels, and that this is a pollutant to the atmosphere that is very likely to lead to global warming.

    Note fossil fuels are a pollutant and will very likely lead to global warming. All the BS by the ABC and heaps of headlines here and all over the world are a demonstrable con and fraud.

    This bloke was never a sceptic even 30 years ago, because he was a TRUE believer in the early 80’s.
    But even today these fraudsters trot out this fool who they claim only recently changed his view from sceptic to believer.

  1612. bazza says

    Debbie, did your mate of the “clever, experienced and talented person who has a truly lovely family and who is very, very bright and right up with all the current research”, go to the solution stage. Woulld he like to ban coal exports – would he like to see a global solution where emissions are taxed where they are emitted. All the truly lovely families of the world would like to tap into his expertise as he is obviously not just a humble biol post doc.

  1613. Neville says

    Geezz poor old bazza with zero understanding of simple kindy maths. What Debbie’s friend said is perfectly true and that’s why the mitigation of AGW is a con and fraud.

    Remember the simple sums, in 1990 world human emissions of co2 were 21.6 bn tonnes. 11.6 bn tonnes OECD and 10 bn non OECD, but by 2010 that had increased to 31.8 bn tonnes, OECD 13 bn tonnes and non OECD 18.8 bn tonnes.

    As of 2012 the non OECD emissions would probably be the same ( or more) than the total human emissions in 1990. All emissions quoted are per annum.

    Yes they are using our cheap coal, iron ore and gas while we waste billions of dollars on super expensive, useless solar and wind.
    Of course our electricity bills are going through the roof while we have cheap coal, uranium and thorium to use whenever we choose.

  1614. Robert says

    Plans for a carbon neutral war with the rest of the world to enforce carbon neutrality through global taxation have hit a snag or two.

    However, it’s clear we can’t continue to shame ourselves so blatantly by further reliance on coal. Therefore, I suggest “coal” be represented by an acronym. Acronyms are less blunt and confronting than common English words, and can really beef up your cred. Each word represented should have its own niceness quotient. “Transitional” indicates willingness to change and recognition of the fluidity of life. “Energy”, as we know from soft drink marketers, has a very assertive but non-sexist edge. “Resource” is cornucopian without being exploitative.

    So, let’s talk about our TERs, our Transitional Energy Resources. That way, instead of saying that we have to burn coal because the other stuff sucks and we need the money, we can commit to a sustainable future through TERs.

    I mean, it’s the twenty-first century, for god’s sake. The serious players have moved on from reality.

  1615. Debbie says

    Bazza,
    If I thought you were even remotely or genuinely interested I would answer your question.
    Obviously however, very, very obviously you were only looking for an opportunity to put someone (whom you don’t even know is a HE let alone anything else) DOWN DOWN DOWN DOWN!
    You also quite obviously mised the point that THERE IS NO CURRENT SOLUTION only “MINDLESS SIDESHOWS” (to use Luke’s imagery)
    Can I let you into another little secret?
    I am much more likely to listen to this person (who DOES have personal credibility and experience) and also someone like Jen…. than consider paying attention to your sarcastic ZOOOOOPERIOR judgemental comments….acompanied by ZERO credibility….ZERO!!!!! NADA!!!! NONE!!!!ZIPPO!!!!!
    Along with everyone else….you are entitled to your opinion Bazza.
    But….accompanying it with the ‘poor shots’ do nothing at all for me….it has become so predictably boring I don’t even laugh anymore.

  1616. Neville says

    I should have added to my response to bazza’s idiocy that on his AGW terms we can give a 100% gold guarantee that there will be zero reduction in temp and zero benifit to the climate because of our multi billion $ stupidity.

  1617. Luke says

    “Ban offers no mechanism for this odd pattern of temperature trends” it’s called spatial reality of the complex lagoon environment – as well as north-south and temporal effects – and relevant to the location of coral itself not some broad average. McLean’s analysis is generalist paff – but at least thanks to you for an intelligent comment.

    John Sayers – read the Ban et al paper (looks like Cohers can help you source) and also get up to date with reef science – it’s agricultural runoff x tropical cyclones and COTS (first order threats) x bleaching second order impact.

    Bleaching is a weekly type phenomenon not an annual average – also ENSO related.

    Ove is a researcher among many on reef issues. Look for the reef science consensus statements for some balance.

    Robert – you had Antarctic sea ice explained to you a few weeks back. Forgotten already.

  1619. bazza says

    Apologies Ded for an assumption re your mates gender, which is of course as irrelevant to the point as all the other unsolicited information – you certainly have a keen eye for irrelevant detail. I am actually very interested in how people make decisions about important issues and how they transition from sceptics to denialists able to ignore uncertainty and risk. Science only progresses where there is uncertainty worth pursuing. and where evidence that can be assessed independent of the qualities however admirable of the person providing the evidence. You would not want to know about the families of some scientists I have come across but you cant generalise.

  1620. cohenite says

    “it’s called spatial reality of the complex lagoon environment – as well as north-south and temporal effects – and relevant to the location of coral itself not some broad average.”

    That doesn’t sound like AGW.

    “if you had high res satellite imaging why not use it?”

    I thought the NOAA data which McLean used was that; anyway McLean finds the same odd patterns.

    As for the role of cyclones, they apparently cool the reefs:

    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2011GL049722.shtml

    Maybe the SST increases are due to the decline in cyclone activity; but didn’t AGW predict an increase in cyclone activity?

  1621. toby says

    those good old COTS, I didnt think there was a reef left after the huge scare in the 80’s and 90’s……… more shrillness? more seek and ye shall find?

  1622. Robert says

    “Robert – you had Antarctic sea ice explained to you a few weeks back. Forgotten already.”

    Had it explained many times, by numerous “serious players”. Of all the tripe that’s been presented as “hard science” and “complex analysis” in the service of CAGW, I guess the Antarctic explain-away is the real stand-out. Forgotten? It’s deathless!

    Don’t worry, Luke. Nobody knows much at all about future climate. You’re no sillier than David Archibald, with his Ice Age rumblings. Well, maybe a bit sillier.

  1623. Neville says

    Luke’s endless prattle about the GBR is a total beat up. Dr Peter Ridd has studied the reef for 25 years and still thinks human changes to the reef are minimal.

    In fact he states in this interview that the GBR is in pristine condition, as good as the day Captain Cook sailed along it.

    Any small impact from humans only lasts for short periods and is overwhelmed by natural inputs and he gives the size of those impacts for comparison.

    Luke is a classic bull merchant and will run with his bull and throw countless links to try and bamboozle and muddy the waters.
    Ridd knows what he’s talking about but Luke doesn’t. As Ridd says the GBR is as good as any reef system in the world.

    http://nqr.farmonline.com.au/news/state/agribusiness-and-general/general/barrier-reef-still-pristine-despite-concerns-scientist/1532999.aspx?storypage=1

  1624. Debbie says

    OK Bazza,
    here’s a simple exercise for you if you are really interested in my sceptical view of current political funding. I will tactfully ignore the D name tag as it is entirely unproductive and if you actually knew the individual you attempted to attach it to you would feel like a total dill. Said individual finds some of basic AGW research entirely credible (SOME).
    Jonova estimated that the recent Lewandowsky mindless sideshow is the recipient of $1.7 million in taxpayer funding (presumably not all spent on that one report).
    Let’s be conservative and cut that by half (which on the recent effort would be no great loss IMHO).
    Let’s divert that funding into revegetating some of that horizon to horizon damage in QLD.
    $850.000 for planting.
    Let’s be conservative again and assume it costs $10/tree (of course it can be done for less).
    That would result in 85,000 trees being planted would it not? That is actually a measureable environmental/CO2 outcome.
    Here’s another one prompted by Gavin’s comment re his visit to Neil.
    What would it cost to get rid of those feral pigs and reduce fishing compared to the cost of all those Ove reports that the tax payer is funding for no measureable outcome (unless you want to count endless PR?)
    They are just simple examples of ‘solution orientated’ thinking.

  1625. bazza says

    Deb, you need to make a wee bit more sense or you will blow your cover. I appreciate it can be confusing being a warmist and pretending to be a denialist. But quoting Jonova estimating that the recent Lewandowsky mindless sideshow is the recipient of $1.7 million in taxpayer funding is stretching credibility.

  1626. Neville says

    Debbie you’re wasting your time trying to talk to these people, you may as well be writing arabic for all the good it does.

    Gav, Luke and bazza can’t even understand simple sums or simple logic and reason. So what hope have they got trying to argue any case, no matter how concessional you try to be in return?

  1627. Dave Shorter says

    Bazza the burden imposer.
    “like to see a global solution where emissions are taxed where they are emitted.”
    Solution to what Baz? What does it solve?

  1628. toby says

    love this quote from your link Nev,
    “Some say nutrient and pesticide increases, crown of thorn starfish and ocean acidification will kill it within 30 years, but none of those threats can be substantiated, particularly global warming,

    “Then there are upwellings of nutrient-rich water from the Pacific that flood over the reef containing 100 times the N and P of the river discharges.”

    “There is algae growing amongst the corals on the reef that act like legumes and produce more than 20 times the amount of N of a river flow. ” counters much of what luke is bleating about.

    Deb, yes a lot of good could be done with that funding ……..

  1629. Debbie says

    Chuckle,
    so you’re not really interested at all Bazza?
    Just want to keep attaching those name tags?
    Got warmist and denialist in the same sentence that time and completely ignored the simple point.
    That’s actually deliciously ironic.
    So just for the sake of the discussion.
    You are fine with whatever the funding Lewandowsky and other mindless sideshows receives apparently and don’t think it could be more wisely spent doing something like errrr planting trees or errrr getting rid of feral pigs or . . . . .?
    Or maybe you’re just ticked off because I quoted Jonova?
    Was there something wrong with the estimate?
    I had already conservatively halved it. Wasn’t enough?

  1630. John Sayers says

    Luke – I wasn’t referring to bleaching specifically – I was noting that Ove has been claiming doom and gloom for the GBR for 15 years yet only yesterday they were all out there shrilling more doom and gloom.

    Haven’t you had enough of this? I sure have.

  1631. Debbie says

    Here you go Bazza,
    Here was where the estimates were & listed at the bottom:
    http://joannenova.com.au/2012/09/lewandowsky-gets-1-7m-of-taxpayer-funds-to-demonize-people-who-disagree-with-him/#more-23878
    I just halved it for the sake of the example….do you think it should be even less still?
    It’s only a ‘piddle in the ocean’ compared to the amount of tax payer money that is being spent on ‘mindless sideshows’ anyway.
    Just imagine if we had spent all that money on planting trees over the same time period?
    How much could we have mitigated CO2 emissions and that ‘horizon to horizon’ damage and the ‘in droves’ GBR runoff & some other good environmental outcomes?
    Or maybe spent on getting rid of invasive feral pests, including feral pigs in QLD and those bloody carp and redfin in the lower MDB?
    Or maybe upgrading outdated spillways on water storages with fish ladders etc?
    Or numerous other sensible & practical schemes that have measureable outcomes and have been touched on in this thread?
    BTW Bazza,
    What cover am I in danger of blowing?
    And when does credibility matter?
    One post you’re lecturing me it doesn’t matter and the very next post you’re lecturing me that it does matter!
    Talk about bloody confusing!!!!!

  1633. bazza says

    Deb, you have bullied me into fessing up. It had to come out that you are actually a warmist masquerading as a denialist to give them a worse name. You blew your cover suggesting I do some bizarre sums for your pleasure. Not even a denialist would do anything that crazy. There are of course other scammers with their shills operating here pretending to be denialists and trying to make denialists look obsessed and even stupid. You would never guess who.

  1634. Luke says

    Cohenite – in a complex lagoon with reefs, islands currents, river outflows would you expect AGW to do a nice even warmover – sheesh ! Cyclones tend to smash reefs Cohers – get off the SST obsession.

    Ridd is running the same old maverick arguments with old papers and old data. What tosh. We’ve heard the broken record before. A 2009 out of date op ed drone piece.

    Just running the old IPA propaganda polka. It’s utter crap Toby – put up the papers.

    Anyway deniers – just be patient – a major paper on GBR reef coral decline will be with you quite soon wiping the floor with dismissive creeps such as yourselves. I look forward to symbolically ramming it down your rhetorical red necks.

  1635. gavin says

    We watched a scrub turkey working both sides of the Mossman Gorge trail yesterday and couldn’t help wondering how much forest litter one bird can turn over in a day.Such a dynamo has to be seen to be believed. After a hundred photos, not one was still enough to clearly see it’s head.

    The key word in this region is just biodiversity. Although the gorge entrance has quite recently been tarted up with its multi million visitor center, most only want the wilderness experience at the back and I have not seen such a diverse ange of first time tourists ceammed in one area since the old Lake Pedder campaign days. imo the World Heritage listing does it and that,s not an accident. Yes; degraded rainforest as it is remains perhaps the major draw card.

    The reef on the other hand is such a vast thing there is no Pacific swell on the coast for thousands of km. Everyone should wonder what happens if that is lost in any way

  1636. Neville says

    Luke Dr Peter Ridd is corrrect and you know it, so stop your silly hissy fit nonsense.

    BTW this so called new study, is it another study funded by Greenpeace or WWF or…. and is Ove playing the starring role? What a joke you are and Btw how does the coral north of OZ survive in much higher temps?

  1638. Neville says

    And remember the alarmism of prominent warmist Ove Hoegh-Guldberg?

    In 1998, he warned that the reef was under pressure from global warming, and much had turned white.
    He later admitted the reef had made a “surprising” recovery.

    In 1999 he claimed global warming would cause mass bleaching of the reef every two years from 2010.

    He yesterday admitted it hadn’t.

    In 2006, he warned high temperatures meant “between 30 and 40 per cent of coral on Queensland’s Great Barrier Reef could die within a month”.

    He later admitted this bleaching had a “minimal impact”.

    All that alarmism, relentlessly pushed by this desperately dishonest government, is now blown out of the water by the latest research by Townsville’s Australian Institute of Marine Science:

    Monitoring data collected annually from fixed sites at 47 reefs across 1300 km of the GBR indicate that overall regional coral cover was stable (averaging 29% and ranging from 23% to 33% cover across years) with no net decline between 1995 and 2009….

    Crown-of-thorns starfish (Acanthaster planci) outbreaks and storm damage were responsible for more coral loss during this period than either bleaching or disease despite two mass bleaching events and an increase in the incidence of coral disease.

    While the limited data for the GBR prior to the 1980’s suggests that coral cover was higher than in our survey, we found no evidence of consistent, system-wide decline in coral cover since 1995. Instead, fluctuations in coral cover at subregional scales (10–100 km), driven mostly by changes in fast-growing Acroporidae, occurred as a result of localized disturbance events and subsequent recovery.

    You have been deceived again and again and again.

  1639. Neville says

    And remember the alarmism of prominent warmist Ove Hoegh-Guldberg?

    In 1998, he warned that the reef was under pressure from global warming, and much had turned white.
    He later admitted the reef had made a “surprising” recovery.

    In 1999 he claimed global warming would cause mass bleaching of the reef every two years from 2010.

    He yesterday admitted it hadn’t.

    In 2006, he warned high temperatures meant “between 30 and 40 per cent of coral on Queensland’s Great Barrier Reef could die within a month”.

    He later admitted this bleaching had a “minimal impact”.

    All that alarmism, relentlessly pushed by this desperately dishonest government, is now blown out of the water by the latest research by Townsville’s Australian Institute of Marine Science:

    Monitoring data collected annually from fixed sites at 47 reefs across 1300 km of the GBR indicate that overall regional coral cover was stable (averaging 29% and ranging from 23% to 33% cover across years) with no net decline between 1995 and 2009….

    Crown-of-thorns starfish (Acanthaster planci) outbreaks and storm damage were responsible for more coral loss during this period than either bleaching or disease despite two mass bleaching events and an increase in the incidence of coral disease.

    While the limited data for the GBR prior to the 1980’s suggests that coral cover was higher than in our survey, we found no evidence of consistent, system-wide decline in coral cover since 1995. Instead, fluctuations in coral cover at subregional scales (10–100 km), driven mostly by changes in fast-growing Acroporidae, occurred as a result of localized disturbance events and subsequent recovery.

    You have been deceived again and again and again.

  1640. Debbie says

    Well I guess one could wonder Gavin, but it doesn’t look like it is getting lost in any way at the moment.
    If I were you I would enjoy the privilege of being there and relax.
    There is plenty of protection in place and the reef gets treated way better than most other reefs if not all reefs.
    No need to spoil your holiday by stressing out.

  1641. toby says

    I have been hearing since i arrived in oz 40 years ago that the reef was doomed.
    Baz suggests many here are foxing and just trying to make sceptics look silly.
    seems like the “warmists” here are guilty of the same thing….making CAGW look like the shrill scream of doomsdayers.
    the hypocrisy is astounding!

    many on this blog actively appear to be doing something to look after the environment, i wonder what the warmers are really doing?

    and the good old ABC was pushing record low ice in the arctic, but conveniently forgets ice as a whole has increased! we know baz and luke think the record sea ice is because of CAGW……

  1643. Robert says

    Scrub turkeys are coming right up to my house lately. One advantage of moso over other bamboos is that the shoots are too big for the scrub turkeys to gobble.

    The clearer weather – and who knows what else – has led to the snakiest spring I can remember. Big red-bellies will at least get out of the way, but pythons just won’t budge. I think I’ve got one living in my bike pannier on the deck. Don’t really want to check.

    Last year it was goannas swarming, this year it’s snakes. They can help themselves to some possums and bandicoots, as far as I’m concerned. The red-bellies eat the young of the browns – to which I say “bon appetit!”.

  1644. Debbie says

    Not wrong about those snakes!
    Not even that warm here yet and we already have seen several browns and blacks.
    The water birds including cormorants/shags not disimilar to Jen’s picture at this thread are building up in numbers too.
    But talking about snakes, still plenty of those figurative ones in the grass around too. Hissing falsehoods and spooking people.

  1645. bazza says

    Some kind reader is likely to be a fan of Minchins mate and Turnbulls nemesis, one Corey Bernard , he of the extremist and denialist views on climate change not to mention cross-species activities. Is this some confirmation of the Lewandowsky survey showing denialists have trouble confining their irrational denialism to single issues. Do we see denialists having similar troubles here. ?
    Bernardi needless to say is our link to tea party tactics. Perhaps he could be lent to Romney – might deflect a bit of the Mitt hitting the fan.

  1646. Debbie says

    No Toby,
    that was just Bazza’s pathetic attempt to avoid a simple question. It looks like he felt a rather insane need to write ‘denialists’ as many times as possible as well.
    Maybe that ‘guess who’ person is a blog addict of some sort? Maybe it’s Bazza under another pseudonymn? Who cares (other than Bazza) ?
    He pretends he’s interested in ‘solutions’ but seems rather vague about the ‘problems’ that we have to solve and it also appears that anyone who comments contrary to the BIG SCARY but unclear problem (and only ONE solution) have highly suspect credibility.
    It doesn’t even make ‘hypocrit’ status IMHO.
    Meanwhile,
    I would like to ask Luke what he thinks he will be ramming down rhetorical redneck throats?
    Another doomsday paper for everyone to argue over?
    More data collection/collation?
    What’s new?

  1647. kuhnkat says

    Little Lukey:

    “Wall to wall (as documented by satellite) tree clearing is fine.”

    Got any more blatant LIES for us MORON!!

    That PROJECTED loss of coral and species is pretty out there also. When you pull your head out long enough we will be expecting some pretty solid documentation for you delusions!!

    Oh, and exactly what do you think the sink is that is absorbing most of the CO2 we continue to emit???

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHQ

  1648. Robert says

    The sea level rise so carelessly set in motion by the likes of Napoleon Bonaparte and William Pitt the Younger can be stopped by re-electing Barack Obama.

    It’s time for serious players to get back to hard science and complex analysis!

  1649. debbie says

    Well yes KK, I keep noticing that too.
    Luke keeps making huge alarming claims using phrases like ‘wall to wall’ and ‘horizon to horizon’ or ‘damage in droves’ or ‘piddle in the ocean’ or ‘pumelled to death’ etc and then offers links that he says proves his alarming hyperbole.
    Great recent example is his wall to wall clearing claims then he links this to prove his point:
    http://www.derm.qld.gov.au/slats/previous_reports.html
    Problem is….when I dutifully read these particular reports done by the Dept of Climate Change in QLD (or whatever they’re called now?) they conclude (in the latest one)that land clearing is markedly reduced… up to over 60% in many places and that they can measure it as a reduction in CO2 emissions for QLD.
    Go figure?
    So where was the proof for the ‘horizon to horizon’ and ‘wall to wall’ clearing that is causing damage in droves etc?
    And don’t forget that any attempt at revegetation in QLD is just a ‘piddle in the ocean’.
    But then of course it must be OK to spend mind boggling amounts of tax payer money on what Luke rightly calls ‘mindless sideshows’ and what SD amusingly called ‘paper farming’ rather than spending it on turning that piddle into at least a puddle but more likely a lake?
    Go figure?

  1650. Neville says

    Bazza as I’ve said many times before I’ve always believed in CC, that is NATURAL CC. I think everyone here except you ,Luke and Gav also believe in NATURAL CC, you’d have to be pretty dense not to, just look at the last few hundred thousand years ( or longer) for example.

    I also certainly believe there should be a small additional warming for a doubling of co2, but I think it would be no more than 1c.

    Simple maths tells us there is zero we in OZ can do to change the temp or climate, but if you are so concerned take off to China and India and demonstrate about soaring co2 emissions from the non OECD.
    So who are the real deniers on this blog, because it can’t be those that believe the climate has always changed, but without the help of humans?

  1651. toby says

    The biggest threat to coral reefs from my own diving experience is anchor chains and dynamite.
    on the GBR boats must now anchor to buoys. when you dive in the carribean many of the reefs are in very poor shape because tourist boats drop anchors and as they drift the cables move and destroy massive amounts of coral. the other problem is a cheap and easy way to fish is to throw out dynamite. Locals told me that is also a major source of damage. I was certainly shocked by the poor state of many reefs in the carribean where it looks like a storm has killed off everything over huge areas….massive areas of white, dead coral and few large fish. The outer reef is in excellent condition in oz. I cant vouch for the inner reefs, they arent( IMHO) worth diving because of poor visibilty.

  1652. bazza says

    Neville says “I also certainly believe there should be a small additional warming for a doubling of co2, but I think it would be no more than 1c.”. Nev, have you any support for 1c compared with the 3C value that has been around since the 1970s and that ongoing research keeps converging to. I hope you are not merely exploiting the lower range of the band of uncertainty? And of course the 3C is confirmed by not only numerous anlayses but several independent lines of inquiry from paleo to volcanoes to recent climate to models etc.

  1654. toby says

    The physics as u would know shows a doubling of co2 will cause around 1c increase, only with positive feedback effects does this grow into 3-6c. Neville kicks a goal and baz still thinks its at the other end!

  1656. Hasbeen says

    toby, I have to wonder what you are talking about. What is an inner reef?

    I can assure you there is some excellent diving, in very clear water as close in as much of the Whitsundays, & all the way down to the Beverleys.

    On the other hand, 35 miles out, the water at Hook & Line reefs is usually quite murky.

    I can’t let you get away with this claim about anchor chains having any effect. To start with, an area about that of Victoria would require quite a few boats anchored to have much effect, but that is not the main point.

    Have you any experience operating boats, particularly in coral reefs? I used to have up to 3 tourist boats out there daily, & a couple that lived there.

    Let me assure you the skippers of day trip boats will go to a great deal of effort to anchor on sand. The last thing they want is their chain involved with coral nigger heads, when it comes time to up anchor. Those anchoring over night, will be even more careful, as they may have to get out in the dark, & any problem retrieving their anchor could be disastrous.

    Even private boaties learn damn quick that anchors & coral just do not mix successfully, & avoid mixing them.

    I didn’t know weather to cry or laugh when we heard the greenie pleasing garbage promoting no anchoring in the reef. It either was promoted by a fool, with no savvy, or a typically cynical politician, trying to gather some greeny points from inner city greenies who knew no better.

    All it has done is add an additional cost to some operators expenses, while reducing their flexibility. It will have had a mildly negative effect on some tourists experience, all for a bit of grandstanding by a few dills.

  1657. Luke says

    Toss off Neville – Ridd is a fringe dweller ignored by the reef science community. IPA and AEF roll him out now and again for a spit – and what would you know dopey draws. Not like you’ve ever researched the topic is it.

    Kockhead Kat – satellite mapping doesn’t lie you stupid denialist farce. What a blow-in US wanker. On ya bike sport.

  1658. Luke says

    “So where was the proof for the ‘horizon to horizon’ and ‘wall to wall’ clearing that is causing damage in droves etc?’ it’s called the reports I cited you silly woman. Thick Debs. Back to home ec dearie.

  1659. cohenite says

    gav spots luke in his natural habitat:

    “We watched a scrub turkey working both sides of the Mossman Gorge trail yesterday and couldn’t help wondering how much forest litter one bird can turn over in a day.Such a dynamo has to be seen to be believed. After a hundred photos, not one was still enough to clearly see it’s head.”

  1660. debbie says

    I read some of them Luke,
    Especially the later ones.
    Didn’t you read my post?
    Concluded that clearing is reduced, in some places over 60% and they are counted as reductions in CO2 emissions for QLD….who’s being thick here?
    NO PROOF OF ‘WALL TO WALL’ AND ‘HORIZON TO HORIZON’ CLEARING THAT IS CAUSING DAMAGE IN DROVES !!!!
    NONE,NADA, ZIPPO, ZERO!!!!!
    Wanna try again?????
    BTW….I absolutely agree that if we have satellite mapping we should use it.
    We use it extensively in our business….it’s awesome.
    But it is just a tool Luke….a very good techie tool with quicker time frames and huge reduction in labour costs….but despite you’re absolute faith….it doesn’t always tell the truth.
    Like all technology….it still depends on the inputs and also depends on what purpose you are using it for.

  1661. toby says

    Hey Hasbeen, been a while! in the carribean unfortunately the skippers do I was reliably informed….and saw my own dive boat, just drop anchor with 50-100 m cables that as the boat drifts sway around and destroy wide areas at a time. I was horrified at how poor the reefs were i was taken to ( but i was not liveaboard so was always in areas that would have been frequently used by tourists just an hour or two from port) and it was the skippers who told me why they had the problem.

    No i have not been a skipper so i defer to your experience in oz and their actions….but it was several skippers who told me why we had to dive at specific sites with registered anchorage/ buoys. They may also have been sucked in by propaganda?

    as for inner and outer reef, hasnt the GBR always been differentiated this way? I can only go from my own experience but i have been on small dive boats diving “inner reefs” from cairns and port douglas and even in the whitsundays at and near Daydream Island and been very dissappointed with visibility and range of corals etc, whilst on the outer reef diving on live aboard boats everything was breathtakingly amazing and appeared pristine. That said i did a snorkel off teh western side of hamilton and was pleasantly surprised…and of course white haven beach you can see for “miles” under water.

    maybe the boats I could afford to go on when i dived early on, and therefore only went relatvely short distances didnt have access to some of the excellent spots you obviously know about. I am sure the season would impact as well in terms of run off?

    sounds like i should go diving with you!

  1662. Luke says

    Ah so now we’ve moved to wall to wall clearing but it’s not doing anything. So tell us Debs – what happens to most of the biota that used to be in the cleared area? Oh That’s right they’re now dead aren’t they. Silly woman.

    Debs you wouldn’t know anything about satellite monitoring – you have demonstrated you haven’t the IQ for it. However, clearing stands out like dogs balls Debs – it’s ain’t even hard.

    You’re even to silly to cite properly – what reports done by Dept of Climate Change (Debs waffle filler rubbish blah blah – just say anything) – at least provide a reference. sheeesh !

  1663. cohenite says

    “what happens to most of the biota that used to be in the cleared area? Oh That’s right they’re now dead aren’t they. ”

    The bush turkeys are still doing well.

    This is a moral position; nature doesn’t care what and even if any life occurs. The holistic approach to nature is just anthromorphising of nature.

    The only credible criteria for appraising what humans are doing to nature is what benefits or harms humans; or are you going to go all Peter Singer on us luke?

  1665. Neville says

    Bazza as a few of the gang observed the extra temp above initial co2 warming can only come from positive feedbacks.
    I’m sure Lindzen, Spencer, Christy etc are correct and the feedback is negative. You can please yourself what you choose to believe.

  1666. Debbie says

    It was your reference Luke.
    Co-op between DERM &DCC (think acronyms have since changed)
    I even re posted it Luke.
    It even points out the inherint problems with satellite mapping. Even admits it misses both clearing & woody veg.
    Maybe you should read your own cites before you post them here?
    Go back & read it. You linked it then I relinked it.
    Then come back with your foot out of your mouth!
    It most certainly DOES NOT substantiate your claims.

  1667. Debbie says

    BTW Luke?
    For all your sooking about land management & the GBR, would you care to explain where in the world is land and/or coral reefs managed / cared for better than we do in Australia?
    Is there better more responsible practices elsewhere?
    Not claiming we’re perfect, but a bit of balance needs to be applied here.

  1668. Luke says

    Debs – compares to severely damages reefs elsewhere so we’re better off so let’s not worry.

    DOES HALF THE CORAL COVER WORRY YOU !!! HELLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. EARTH TO DING-BAT DEBS !!! ARE YOU RECEIVING …zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

    Just cite the bloody reference Debs and stop pissing about. Dept of Climate Change ??

    “The bush turkeys are doing well”…… well truck me – what a city lawyer. Good lord. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    Cohers guide to biodiversity 100m down the road from Hexham. Gawd.

  1669. bazza says

    Nev, you have your beliefs – I will go with the evidence. You have to be joking on your trio – Lindzen does self-rebuttal. As he wrote about his 2009 paper flogging low sensitivity “some stupid mistakes…It was just embarrassing.”. He had another go last year in a Korean journal nobody has ever heard of, but no one else has been able to reproduce his results. He does get some repect for having a go and publishing. I wish you were right on 1C. If you want to have your wish for low sensitivity, then you will have big problems explaining some of the large historic changes in temperature. You have already used up a chunk of a 1C warming and still a long way from doubling CO2 – I thought you were the wizard on the simple sums?

  1670. Hasbeen says

    Hi again toby. Yes now I understand. Up round Cairns, & other areas where the reef comes very close in, you’d have that feeling. Sure Daydream, the Mole group, & Long Is are also effected by the flow out of the mangrove areas on the mainland.

    We would consider the Whitsundays inner reef, but are quite good. To us the outer reef was 40+ miles off shore. In much of these areas with reasonable conditions you can survey the bottom clearly 50 to 80 feet down, & select your spot to anchor.

    In other areas, where you are anchoring is 150+ ft, & there is very little coral in these depths.

    I used to spend some time out on the very outer reefs, with over night tourist fishing trips. At one time I was one of the few skippers with the necessary ticket for this in the area.

    I had some favourite enclosed lagoon anchorages, where you could watch the turrum 60 ft down, taking the head & backbone of 5Kg sweet lip at a gulp as we filleted the catch after anchoring for the night. This was usually before 3.30PM as you needed good light to con your way in.

    It was sights like this, or watching the coral as we went through very narrow entrances that really got the tourists.

    Harbours & Marine at the time had available for purchase hundreds of areal photographs of hundreds of miles of reefs. These were so good you could plan your anchorages from them, even in areas you had never seen before.

  1671. Debbie says

    Luke,
    It is not my problem if you don’t read your own links.
    Go back and find it yourself, I read it and I actually reposted it.
    I don’t need to read it again but maybe you should read it for the first time?
    And then you can come back and explain where it says that there is wall to wall or horizon to horizon clearing that is causing damage in droves?????
    I read no such claim at all.
    Where’s your evidence that half the coral cover has been destroyed? HELLOOOOOOOOOOO?
    It was actually Gavin who talked about the bush turkeys doing well Luke.
    Cohenite just repeated it!
    WAKEY WAKEY LUKE!!!!!

  1672. Bill Burrows says

    G’day bloggers. I decide to drop by and I find the same subject matter, banter & characters contributing, as at my last visit sometime back. Groundhog day or what? Nevertheless you have pressed my buttons so I’ll jump in to if I may. Apologies for the longish thread.
    (1) The GBR – As it turns out I have just returned from 2 weeks cruising the reef from Yeppoon to Airlie Beach via Port Clinton/Island Head creek, the Percy’s, Swain Reefs and coastal islands and fringing reefs in between. I have been lucky enough to visit the Swains annually since 2002. If fishing is a good indicator it all remains in good heart in my book or I’m becoming a better fisherman in my dotage. And yes the reefs are “better” the further you go off shore, but one suspects this has always been the case. [PS Hasbeen – Google Maps are very good for reef travel these days, along with GPS of course].
    People are prone to bag agriculture with stories of high sediment loads arising from our major catchments e.g. from the Burdekin & Fitzroy rivers. Of course this has to be so, especially where cultivation has been practiced adjacent to stream banks. But detailed studies have also revealed a long & consistent history of sediment input from these streams stretching back for thousands of years before the introduction of European farming practices. So a GeoScience Australia study ( Bostock, Helen, Ryan, David, Brooke, Brendan, Skene, Darren, Hancock, Gary and Pietsch, Tim (2006) Holocene evolution and modern sediment accumulation on a tropical macro-tidal coast – Keppel Bay, central Queensland, Australia. Coastal CRC: Indooroopilly.) has the Fitzroy River depositing, on average, 136,000 tonnes of sediment into Keppel Bay each year for the past 7000 years.

    Incidentally Keppel Bay is murky, but the most widespread and consistent turbidity along the Queensland coast bears no relationship to major river systems or farm run-off. It is found in Broadsound off the coast from Marlborough and St Lawrence. Check it out via the Terra & Aqua satellites and their daily imagery available on NASA’s MODIS web site. [Now is a good time of the year to look, as cloud cover is light and we are well removed from any period of rainfall run-off]. The turbidity is due to tidal runs (the greatest range on the east Australian coast). This influence never seems to be acknowledged in discussions of turbidity in coastal waters.

    (2) ‘Wall to wall’ clearing – I have no problem with recognising this occurrence, especially in brigalow scrub country. At the time it was practised it was seen as contributing to the agricultural potential of Queensland which it did in spades – increasing the State’s production of high protein wheat by 1-2 M t per yr and finishing an extra million head of cattle each year on the high quality pastures that replaced the scrub. The reason for the wall to wall clearing was simply that the landholders did not initially know how to control brigalow regrowth, so they figured that they would never clear it all successfully. It is very pertinent that the first person appointed OIC of the Brigalow Research Station was Dr Bob Johnson. His instructions were to develop control measures for brigalow regrowth. Subsequently he rose to the position of Government Botanist in Queensland. A great guy and great botanist who never disowned his past and always appreciated that agriculture was an important component of land use in this State.

    Now here is a trick question for you. When did the peak above-ground biomass occur in Queensland’s forests and woodlands following the commencement of widespread cropping, and grazing by domestic livestock? Answer: To-day – as you read this! [Luke might be able to provide a link to Global Change Biology (2002) 8: 769-784 where you will discover that the mean above ground biomass increment recorded at 57 monitoring sites representative of 27 M ha of Queensland’s eucalypt woodlands averaged c. 0.53 tC/ha/yr over a mean 14 year timeframe. [Note: the measurement period covered a largely dry phase (1980s/90s) in Qld’s history]. It is reasonable to extrapolate this figure, to Qlds 74M ha of ‘intact’ forest/woodlands. So it equates to 0.53* 74M = 39Mt C/yr. Also this period witnessed the highest tree clearing rate in Qld’s history. Say it peaked at c. 500, 000 ha/yr. Give a generous estimate of above ground biomass of 100t/ha cleared on average = 50 Mt biomass ‘removed’ (assuming all burnt). Or 25 Mt C (50% C in biomass).
    Hey presto – the amount of carbon being added to Qld’s woody biomass above ground each year on average (c. 39 Mt) exceeded the amount removed at times of peak clearing (c. 25 Mt). i.e. statewide gains would always have exceeded statewide losses, whatever the timeframe!! Now with clearing largely banned the increment would continue to well exceed any remaining clearing losses. And of course the growth in the last couple of La Nina years would have been extraordinary to boot. [Incidentally a detailed study of stable soil carbon isotope signatures over the Burdekin/Belyando catchment verifies the fact that this growth in intact woodland biomass (carbon store) has occurred over the last 100 years or so, but the vegetation was comparatively stable for the millennium prior to that i.e. the growth in the woodlands pre dates CO2 rises, but post dates the introduction of domestic livestock].

  1673. gavin says

    In this world full of opinion, I find it so easy to check for facts after asking around both locals and visitors for their impressions. I usually follow up with a camera.

    I’m thinking now the far north is cluttered with old themes and half promises. We see degraded land, forests and beaches by comparison with modern tourist activities. Sandy beaches contain fine soil, regrowth around logged forests have no layered structure or closed canopy and ferral species abound. Include white man, pigs, probably dogs and cats, starlings, street plantations, garden rubish and wild sugar cane.

    btw; beaches become quite thin at high tide and that’s typical of rising SL elsewhere down our east coast.

    on our way back from Cairns I will try to repeat some fly over shots of the inshore Ils reefs etc that indicate change. Reflected light is all we need to track anything quickly. That must include infrastructure too. Harbours, roads, carparks, power lines all make a picture.

  1674. Dave Shorter says

    “Back to home ec dearie”,”thick Debs”,”you silly woman”
    What’s going on Luke,have you joined the dreaded “misgoynists”?

  1675. Debbie says

    Thank you Bill,
    What a relief to see some common sense and balanced perspective.
    While not perfect, of course with better understanding & better technology, land & water management practices have improved and no doubt will continue to do so.
    The ‘alarmism’ we hear about the GBR is very similar to what we hear down here in the MDB. The “Might River Murray” has not been killed off by salt, nutrient overloads, over extraction, algae, agriculture, grazing etc etc etc….
    Our largely ephemeral system here is in full blown spectacular technicolour at the moment not disimilar to what has happened at Lake Eyre.
    And just like pretty much elsewhere in Australia, we are learning to live in harmony with our environment as well as use our expertise & new technologies to become more productive and more efficient.
    Thankfully, even our urban populations are learning to be more responsible with land and water use.
    But it’s not perfect…..but neither is it ‘second rate’ (because to be second there would have to be a first)…nor is the work done by people on the ground a ‘piddle in the ocean’ and apparently the GBR is still in rather good nick despite us all being told for as long as I can remember that it was on the verge of extinction!
    Did anyone notice that Gavin just called himself a feral animal?
    Unless he’s not a ‘white man’ ????

  1676. Dave Shorter says

    ….And Luke,regarding land clearing.
    If it’s okay for you to eat,drink and wear stuff produced on cleared land,who shoulld we not be feeding?

  1677. Luke says

    Bill – nice try but nobody is going to give you a free kick for business as usual – principles are now well determined and despite your elegant science on the thickening issue it’s a waste of time as a carbon sink. It’s called the principle of additionality. Reward and recognition will only be for new additional activities directly undertaken not perceived accounting swifties. Similarly you don’t get credits for plantation forestry cycles.

    David Shorter – pertinent observations of ongoing drongoism aren’t misogyny. David is you want to be a Neanderthal and have a vacant landscape dedicated to an oversupply of beef and contribute to loss of native species and land degradation well your values are different to many. Bill would know that lots of clearing is not well done. So an enlightned view might be have well done clearing leaving good represented biodiversity areas of regional ecosystems and interlinked vegetation corridors and riparian vegetation. Industry and government have fluffed the chance to do best practice throughout the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s. Don’t have to graze everywhere – where we do should be done well with minimum regrowth – probably 75% clearing not effective long term (Grazlan anyone and let it leak onto the reef?) and how many cleared areas ends up as a sea of sticks. Similarly we don’t have to graze marginal lands of central Australia.

    Why support poor practice? And smart players in industry know this well. See Hetyesbury for example as an exemplar.

  1678. Luke says

    “The ‘alarmism’ we hear about the GBR is very similar to what we hear down here in the MDB. ”

    Debs has thick ears – no dearie the science is in – stop being stupid and start reading. 50% decline in coral cover on your watch. Little boating trip codger tales aren’t broad scale surveys end to end on the system.

  1679. Luke says

    I’m sure Bill would also like to write the cheque for what goes up in smoke in the big fire years that follow the big wets.

  1680. cohenite says

    The climate sensitivity figure from 2XCO2 was enunciated by Hansen in 1984:

    http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ha07600n.html

    The calculations are pretty standard and may be shown simply for the benefit of luke and bazza:

    Sin=(1-a)FoHr^2

    Where Sin is the average incoming solar radiation, a is albedo, Fo is the total solar radiative flux [w/m2] and Hr^2 is the cross-section of Earth.

    Energy radiated by Earth is:

    Sout=cQ4Hr^2T^4

    Where e is emissivity, Q the Stephan-Boltzman constant, 4Hr^2 the total area of Earth and T the temperature in K.

    At equilibrium Sin=Sout.

    Deriving we achieve:

    (1-a)Fo=eQ4T^4

    The average albedo is 0.297, solar irradiance 1366W/m2; assuming a blackbody e=1 so we have:

    (1-0.297)1366=5.67×10^-8(4)T^4

    Which gives T=255K; so the above becomes 255-273=-18C

    With e=0.612 the equation becomes:

    (1-0.297)1366=0.612(5.67×10^-8)4T^4

    Which gives T=288K – 273=15C

    The difference between the 2 temperatures [blackbody and real, that is with a greenhouse atmosphere] is 15-(-18)=33C; the greenhouse temperature.

    So with Earth reflecting 0.297 and emitting 0.612 =0.909 the amount of energy that Earth absorbs is:

    (1-0.909)1366=124W/m2. 124W/m2 has produced 33C. The sensitivity is therefore:

    33/124=0.27K/W/m2

    The radiative forcing for CO2 is:

    (5.35)In(C/Co)W/m2 [from Table 3 http://folk.uio.no/gunnarmy/paper/myhre_grl98.pdf }

    2XCO2=(5.35)In(2)=3.7W/m2 [the official IPCC forcing]

    So, the temperature increase from 2XCO2 is:

    (0.27)(3.7)=1C

    That figure may be reduced or increased by feedbacks; it is now beyond doubt that clouds are a negative feedback and therefore reduce that 1C markedly.

  1681. debbie says

    Like I said,
    Thanks for some balance and perspective Bill.
    Unlike the resident doom and gloom merchant here.
    Please illuminate on this one Luke:
    ‘no dearie the science is in – stop being stupid and start reading. 50% decline in coral cover on your watch.’
    Where is this 50% decline Luke? Is it 50% of GBR total cover which you claimed earlier?
    On my watch? Seriously?
    Are you claiming that any measureable change and/or damage to the GBR is ALL the fault of our generation?
    What exactly are you claiming Luke?
    What exactly do you think should be done?
    It appears to me that as usual you are just wanting to claim total and unmitigated disaster.
    What goes up in smoke after the big wets?
    The hyperbole is getting totally unbalanced here.
    Are you claiming that a big wet & runoff into the ocean is NOT A NATURAL OCCURENCE at all? That somehow it is Bill’s fault & therefore he should write the cheque?
    Seriously?
    What would you suggest he writes the cheque for Luke? What would you spend Bill’s money on Luke?
    Maybe you agree with Bob Brown when he claimed on National TV after the floods in QLD that the coal mining companies should pay for the damages from the flood because it was clearly all their fault????
    How about operating from a balanced perspective Luke?

  1682. Robert says

    Could somebody help stop re-vegetation and the explosion of native species in my region? I’d especially like some stern action on possums and bower-birds…just so the fruit bats and rosellas can clean me out for a change.

    Maybe if we had forced organics and compulsory localist marketing we could keep more land cleared. This intensive agriculture and forestry has led to wall to wall, end to end, horizon to horizon, north to south re-growth. Not to mention that it’s turbo-charged. And as for the re-growth since the wet years have returned…Do me a favour! Bring back the compost and dung heaps now!

    How certain people manage to ignore it all in their quantifications of “carbon”, well, that’s a bit of a mystery. A bit like like all that ice in Antarctica, really. We have super-lame explanations, to be dished out very sharply in angry headmistress tone, but, really, it’s best not discussed at all. We don’t want such knowledge in the hands of non-serious players – those codgers who hang around outside in all weathers, and forget their daily doses of climate rage via UNEP, RC, SS…and the Tammy who isn’t Debbie Reynolds or Sandra Dee.

  1683. Luke says

    Well Debs – if you claim the big credit for the big sequestration (woodland thickening) you might also have to pay for the big emission (fire) (too hard for home ec or do you only count the money you put in the bank not what you withdraw?)

    And Debs I know you’re a guru when it comes to plant growth. But there’s this funny old thing called evapotranspiration which seems to make biomass. So big wets make big grass and big tree leaf growth which strangely ends up in big mobs of dry grass and leaf litter. And this thing called fire Debs – burns it. Big wets get followed eventually by big fire seasons. Isn’t that amazing Debs. Now get the mind out of the rice paddy and look over the fence.

    What would we spend the cheque on – probably buying Bill a better boat to go fishing

    The 50% decline is on this funny thing called “the GBR”. It’s actually in what we call “the ocean” Debs

    and it interesting that the declines are worst next to agriculture closer to shore. Isn’t that remarkable. As I said Debs – wait a short and soon a major paper on these extensive surveys will be with you to deny.

  1685. Luke says

    What do I want Debs – for you to fess up that there are issues. And we need to sort them out. Didn’t say I want to shut agriculture down. Didn’t say it was armageddon. Didn’t say that at all. If you like to eat you’re involved in agriculture.

    Smart use of science and technology for a triple bottom line outcome.

    Make good money from a quality product, keep the underlying resource base intact, and preserve a fair chunk of the natural biodiversity we’re blessed with.

    But that implies we don’t farm/graze everywhere, have multiple uses, positively fix up side effects from our production systems, and strike a balance.

    What’s wrong with that?

  1686. bazza says

    Well, cohenite has delivered the physics lecture and then concluded with no evidence that “it is now beyond doubt that clouds are a negative feedback and therefore reduce that 1C markedly.”

  1687. toby says

    Baz, it better start warming rapidly soon to see your 3-6 c increase!
    http://www.climate4you.com/ Fig.4. take your pick of the available sat data…not much been happening for a while despite a rapid increase in co2?!
    and of the warming seen how much is due to co2? of the 0.8c last century maybe 0.4-0.6 is possible to blame on co2…i assume you would agree landuse changes etc have had some impact?!…and of course solar is responsible for some as well. ( NASA SAYS IT WAS!)
    most people would extraploate the real data to around a 1c increase by 2100. However Baz Luke et al think over the next 90 years additional co2 is going to cause another 2-5c increase? it better start soon!!
    how inconvenient the real data is?!

    you would also be aware co2 warms on a logarthmic basis such that additional units of co2 have less of a warming effect.

    why would you hang your hat on positive feedback effects ( PETM, maybe?) when clearly negative effects dominate? clouds are “poorly ” understood even by IPCC measures and are likely to cause negative feedback effects.

    the real world evidence appears to point to the 1 c increase as more likely than the scary doomsday scenarios that warmers seem to keep pushing. It is indeed you warmers who deny teh evidence and instead focus on micro “evidence” as proof, when the macro is staring you in the face.

    Bill it is groundhog day here and most of us are suckers for returning to churn over the same stuff that never seems to convince the “other side”.
    as baz would like to put it, we are addicts, without recognising he of course is equally guilty.
    at least the world seem sto have woken up, even if our resident warmers have not….

  1689. toby says

    also worth pointing out, baz asked for evidence for 1c increase , he was given it and then picks on clouds and possible cooling so that he can ignore the inconvenient physics that a doubling of co2 causes approx 1 c increase….do you dispute this?

    Baz is big on evidence, but he ignores everybody elses, and occassionally provides something to support his own alarmism. and has the cheek to call sceptics deniers……..

    Cohenite, you also forgot the obvious fact if positive feedback effects dominate climate we would be in a constant state of chaos. clearly that is not the case!

  1691. kuhnkat says

    Little Lukey whines,

    “What do I want Debs – for you to fess up that there are issues. And we need to sort them out.”

    Like you fess up that most of the garbage you post is, uh, garbage??

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  1692. cohenite says

    kuhnkat; I saw what Jinan did; and he is right because the assumption of a blackbody is necessary for the conventional sensitivity of 1C and 33C ‘greenhouse effect’

    Jinan quite correctly shows that real life non-blackbody, greybody, figures give much lower figures.

    it is a travesty for 2 reasons;

    Firstly, even if you use the assumptions of AGW you get much lower sensitivity and greenhouse effects then the models predict, as I show.

    But when you use real world amounts, as Jinan does, AGW isn’t even on the field, luke’s or anyone elses.

  1693. gavin says

    Still festering round your 3% with that old black v greybody physics coh?

    Cherry picked papers and reviews in support of sceptics views don’t count in climate science or anywhere else. It’s a bad trick, not to offer well trod paths to any problem under discussion.

    Back to our GBR, any new study should start with a global view that takes input from everyone on the scene. Opinion seems widly scattered.

  1694. Neville says

    Bazza you’re hopeless, but I hope Cohenite can teach you to think and use your brains occasionly.

    Probably my best response to your ignorance is once again to refer to Christy’s graph of Hansens AB&C scenarios from 1988.

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/Fig2.2-summer-fixed.gif

    Co2 emissions have soared ( thanks to non OECD) since he and Gore’s deceptive delivery to Congress, but the actual measured temp increase is below even the C scenario.

    If that period of 24 years doesn’t prove my case I don’t know what will. But then again you don’t seem to understand facts and the truth very well at all.

  1695. cohenite says

    “Still festering round your 3% with that old black v greybody physics coh? ”

    The only grey part of your body, gav is on your old noggin; it’s a black body between your ears.

  1697. bazza says

    Nev, i should be able to assume you have checked out the evidence a bit first on how well Hansen did. A bit over 3 is the best fit for climate sensitivity, not the over 4 Hansen used. do you want us to believe that because a 1988 model was a bit off the pace, all models since are worse or better. Scientists actually learn from their errors, not search for more outlandish explanations as coornered denialists do. Check it out and let me know without insulting my intelligence yet again ( not just by your ad homs but by the rubbish you serve up without even bothering to do your own research)

  1698. cohenite says

    “A bit over 3 is the best fit for climate sensitivity”

    I just showed it’s not.

    “all models since are worse or better.”

    Just worse.

    “Scientists actually learn from their errors, not search for more outlandish explanations as coornered denialists do.”

    Fixed it for you:

    “Scientists actually learn from their errors, not search for more outlandish explanations as coornered ALARMISTS do”.

  1699. Bill Burrows says

    Hey Luke – I wasn’t “trying” anything. I was just visiting the site and thought it might be germane to inject some quantitative info into the current banter, which I happened to have gathered in my past life and published with the help of some bloody good scientists. For your edification I have long given up on the sham that was the Kyoto Accord. Time to move on, it will die of its own volition at the end of this year in any event. And as for perceived “accounting swifties” you know as well as I do that Kyoto takes the cake (try Article 3.7, “the Australia Clause” for starters).

    When I first contributed to Australia’s first GHG budget (it was 1994 I think) one of the major issues globally was “the missing C sink” (don’t hold me to it but I think the missing value was 1-2 Pg C annually). Subsequently I became a project leader within the CRC for Greenhouse Accounting. And you know what – we were never focussed on what the bureaucrats & pollies said could or could not be included in inventories. Our drive was to understand from a scientific perspective the net balance of carbon fluxes, particularly in the Land Use Change & Forestry sector. Our focus was on what the atmosphere “saw”, since if there was a GH effect due to CO2 it would be the net concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere producing the effect – not what some gaggle of humanity decided what could or could not be counted.

    Anyway, the data I presented (11:01 pm, 20/9) was with the latter in mind. Of course I’m biased but I consider the data to be particularly interesting. So I repeat the conclusions again – even at a time of maximum tree clearing in Queensland, the State’s forests and woodlands remained a net carbon sink. Hooray for the atmosphere integrating C fluxes above these woody communities. Hooray for Australia too!

    But wait there’s more. Since the ‘intact’ (uncleared woodlands) were increasing their C store or biomass it is highly likely that the structure and composition of the woodlands was also changing. And you know what, that is exactly what stable soil C isotope signatures so elegantly reveal for the Burdekin-Belyando catchment. In fact my first C13/C12 ratio sampling was in poplar (‘Bimble’)box woodland on “Burtle”, one of the Surbiton blocks north of Alpha – smack bang in the middle of the Galilee basin coal measures. The signatures show that 50-100 years ago this site was as grass dominant as a Mitchell grass downs at Longreach! I sat on the side of the road with Senator Robert Hill when he was Federal Environment Minister and he found this as fascinating as I did. [But when he got back to Canberra his bureaucrats washed that ‘nonsense’ out of his head because it did not gel with the government’s political stance on Kyoto.] As we learn time & time again – politics uses science, but only when it suits.

    When I was a kid in the early 1950’s I kept finches which, like most of my contemporaries, we trapped in the local bush or exchanged with other bird fanciers. [I would not countenance this practice to-day and certainly not with my grandkids, even if it was permitted]. One of the prize specimens to have back in my time was a “black throat”. These finches were then common west of Emerald where they flourished on the Aristida-Bothriochloa pastures of the so called Desert Uplands. Lo & behold one of their last redoubts is “Glen Innes” just a few kms down the track from “Burtle”. And you could guess it – the turkey who wants to mine “Glen Innes” for coal is the infamous Clive Palmer. Conservationists are appalled. We must protect the remnant Bimble Box woodland they say, and the endangered black throated finches within it. But the strong evidence from the C13/C12 studies is that this woodland was very open when the black throats were common in the first half of last century. The black throat population has declined as the woodland thickened.

    Not surprising of course for this granivorous bird species. In fact the scenario is well described by Donald Franklin (1999) Biological Conservation 90: 53-68. He found a marked decline in grassland birds in Burdekin-Belyando catchment savannas occurred before widespread tree clearing took place. It corresponded with the period of documented tree thickening for the same area. And a 2009 IBRA report equates some recovery in grassland bird populations in this region with ‘recent’ widespread tree clearing!

    All fascinating stuff. Now did I hear a recent ABC item noting that a CSIRO study suggests global warming will lead to changes in woodland biodiversity? When are today’s conservation biologists going to stop pretending that today’s native flora and fauna arrays are not remnants of what was here in 1788, but rather what has resulted after 200 years of imposed management by Europeans? We are attempting to ‘preserve’ Australia has it now is, not as what it was. Which is the true conservation?

  1700. Debbie says

    Been out using that satellite technology I don’t know anything about today.
    Means we don’t ‘over fertilise’ for one thing.
    Also saves fuel as it precisely steers the tractor and prevents us from overworking ground.
    But of course it’s all second rate and very poor practice.
    What a pleasure to read another post by Bill.
    Thak you again Bill for inserting some balanced & well informed commentary.
    ‘Politics uses science. . .’
    Yep!
    Also Cohenite, I think you corrected Bazza’s sentence very appropriately.

  1701. Robert says

    Yes, Bill, interesting posts. The earliest Europeans moved with relative ease through the Sydney bush. Tracks and “burnt biomass” were all over the place, under a much heavier canopy. Different world.

    The fire strategies for our new conservation regime will have to a lot craftier, but achieving regeneration, re-vegetation etc without an increase in biomass is one of those deep paradoxes we’ll just have to leave to our Green Betters.

  1702. Neville says

    Bazza just go back and read AB&C again and then tell us why this isn’t an epic fail for Hansen and Gore.
    Don’t forget A is for moderate emissions growth, not soaring emissions as is the actual case.
    What is it you don’t understand about simple english? Remember 1990 non OECD emissions were 10bn tonnes co2 per annum and by 2010 this had increased to 18.8 bn tonnes co2 p.a. for the non OECD.
    Cohenite might be able to penetrate your cranium, but I think I’ll give you up as a lost cause.

  1703. Dave Shorter says

    Luke,
    Your sexist attacks on Deb say more about you than her.Impertinent observations add nothing.
    Would you be as rude if you posted under your real name ?
    Neanderthal or not Luke, a vacant landscape will not create an over supply of beef.
    Care to give a list of species that have been ” lost” in the last 10 years ?
    I hope everything you eat,drink and wear comes from “well done clearing”Luke as I noticed you avoided the question I actually asked.

  1704. Neville says

    At times you have to laugh at some of the delusional, fabricating fools parading themselves before us.
    Steve McIntyre shows what a fool Lewandowsky is and provides a video of the dummy himself.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/21/mcintyre-takes-down-lewandowskys-fabricated-statistical-claims/#more-71370

    He could have nominated real whacko scientists like “GAIA Timmy Flannery” or “boiling oceans Hansen” but no this dipstick chooses an unknown dumbo letter writer to the OZ to try and confound us.

    A tip to Lewandowsky you can go to the letters page of the OZ or Age or SMH or HSun etc any day of the week and you’ll find delusional numbskulls, but most of us wouldn’t quote them or take them seriously.
    But it’s a good thing that McIntyre has tracked down this clueless fabricator and helped to expose him to proper scrutiny.

  1705. debbie says

    Thank you Dave, 🙂
    I usually ignore sexist comments but considering Luke was the first to play the ‘misgoynist’ card at this thread I can only conclude he is being a hypocrit.
    Robert has already pinged him once for this but he is doing it again.
    Dave is correct Luke.
    It says more about you than anything else and is doing nothing for your credibility as a commenter here.
    It is getting tedious Luke and I suspect if Jen wasn’t fishing she would be rather disgusted with your ‘misgoynist’/ sexists remarks.
    Try answering genuine questions and dealing with main points Luke instead of weak attempts at character assasination.
    And please try and cease your rude and, at times, sexist/ ‘misgoynist’ attempts at cyber bullying.

  1706. Luke says

    Oh come on Dave Shorter. Debs has become a prime obfuscator and her home ec class serves up gish gallop for din dins. Anyway Dave – I love Debs – she’s good value.

    As for species “lost” well we wouldn’t know now would we given the parlous state of current ecology. But just think Dave – as the D9 and chains smash through woodlands – do you think some habitat may be lost ? And that land then raked, burnt and converted to pasture.. Are we net exporters of beef? You know just intuitively….

    Who’s talking about a vacant landscape _ I’m talking about multiple use – I guess you think a landscape with a few Bos indicus is a waste.

    Millions of birds have been killed by land clearing. But being small and dead are no longer with us to annoy us. Many serious ecologists think we close to another extinction event from fire, cats, toads and clearing. I guess you’d like a few species to go extinct on your watch to convince you to act.

    Bill – yes apologies for any impertinence – it’s the style here. Of course the Aussie clause was a fiddle. Just add that to children overboard. And yes agree with your science – great stuff. However in terms of moving on – current carbon sequestration schemes now have the very important test of “Additionality”. Would the benefit have accrued anyway if nothing was done. is it a new benefit or something that was ongoing. If not new action – doesn’t count.

  1707. Luke says

    Well Debs – if you’d be genuine and not a silly obfuscator I’ll stop sledging. And you get to ask all the question in your gish gallop gattling gun style do you. You’ve ducked any questions I’ve put to you in good faith. You serially ignore any cited evidence and uncritically laud any bulldust that has a slight partisan whiff from other contributors. And not immune from a good serve of verballing as well. You continue to “quote” me as “it’s doomsday” – “it’s the end of the world”.

    All I’ve asked for is incremental improvement in agricultural practice and some tolerance for multiple use. Look at the hysterical reaction here to Henbury.

    I can imagine you’ve learnt the trade being on peak bodies and stonewalling any perceived opposition with a Phalanx close in weapon system. Effective at slowing down debate but that’s about it. You’d get further exploring the values and concepts of the opposition.

    Cyber bullying – yes please stop bullying me.

  1709. Robert says

    Good care has been taken of Henbury. Improvements to management (by those who know what they are bloody doing) and continued preservation of its vast wilderness area (70%) will scarcely be argued about.

    However, Henbury is to be made completely unproductive as part of a gigantic financial fiddle. (I could have said “Henbury is an example of smart players moving on to the emerging low carbon economy” – but I prefer English.)

    I hope this clears up any misunderstandings about suspected “hysteria”.

    Now, people, thermal coal is at $90.10. That’s pretty cheap. How much would our Green Betters like us to send offshore to keep funding their green initiatives. A modest half-billion? When the price is so hot? I can assure our Green Betters that they have the ear of industry, and that big business is very much on board. It’s always been easier to shift money around and grab a handful as it passes. Production is for sweaty losers.

  1710. Debbie says

    Rubbish Luke,
    You have not been promoting a sensible dialogue.
    Your hyperbole is going into overdrive.
    When you ask sensible questions with something approaching good manners I do my best to answer.
    Most of the time however you go into full attack mode and there is clearly no point.
    Despite your stupid sledging, people like me (regardless of gender) do have a right to comment on these issues.
    We are often also the people you would need ‘on side’ to help implement SENSIBLE policy!
    The politicising of ‘environmentalism’ has chosen to make enemies of the people who actually know more about ‘the environment’ than most.
    The ‘assumptions’ made are completely unrealistic and counter productive.
    Also in my green tractor at the moment using that satellite technology that I don’t know anything about. Same time using this clever tablet tecnology.
    Satellite is in fact an extremely useful tool for us.

  1711. Neville says

    John I agree that’s a really good piece of delusion from Lew but the best video of all is Timmy’s GAIA brain future for we simpletons.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeNDSeknn_c

    It should make Luke, Gav and bazza so proud to see this tool of the century discuss the future of us ants and who will breed and who will do other tasks.

    Boiling oceans Hansen was OK I suppose but he can’t measure up to our Timmy. Of course this is the tool chosen by the Gillard Labor govt to be our chief climate commissioner.

    His views are the same as all the barking mad totalitarians like Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Castro etc etc.

  1712. Luke says

    Try making a sensible comment Debs and stop being the industry rep for a change.

    Do you ask Neville to stop going into full attack mode and screaming fraud 50 times per day. No – you’re being totally hypocritical. Do you tell KuknKat to settle down. No.

    You are the promoter of hyperbole – you’re the one go to catastrophism and verballing me. You typical response to any proposition is to obfuscate by asking 100 silly questions. Gish gallop.

    Take Neville’s latest bit of extreme filth above – Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Castro etc etc. – proud of that are we Debs ?

  1714. Luke says

    So logically given Neville’s outrage to Tim’s aspirational philosophical discursive in the youtube. Obviously Neville prefers independent war like states. No cooperation. Maximum selfish individualism at the expense of others. Keeping the rich rich and poor poor. Having mega-corporations dictate our future. Pillaging the third world to supply goods to the first world.

    But weeny heads like Neville will go off into tantrums about communism and so on …. It’s Flannery having a bit of a wanky philosophise – who cares – is it policy yet? Think you won’t get a say?

    But I guess ya wheel something out when the sky hasn’t fallen in and Gillard’s vote is clawing back after have seen the full Tory – Libertarian wet dream rolled out in Qld.

  1715. Neville says

    Luke I couldn’t care less what anyone here thinks of my posts and the link to totalitarianism, but I’ll just let the facts answer any criticism.

    Totalitarian regimes don’t allow for freedom of speech or religion or non govt science, so yes I’m very proud to point out these obvious flaws.

    I try not to swear when I post a comment but I do try and use humour at times and perhaps I do hit hard on occasions.

    I do respect women and yes I think you are obsessed with Debbie’s point of view and her reponse to whatever topic you’re discussing.
    Just go back and check who swears the most and how you seem to unfairly go after Debbie just because she has a different approach or point of view.

  1717. Debbie says

    When the sky hasn’t fallen in? 🙂 🙂 🙂
    ROFL! That’s hilarious.
    That was worth opening up the tablet.
    Meanwhile, I am still out here rolling rice ground as part of a full summer cropping program, using that satellite technology that I know nothing about because despite all the dire predictions re irrigated agriculture the sky has indeed not fallen in and the rivers are brimming with good health, the 100,000+ trees that we have planted are having new babies and offering safe habitat to teeming wildlife, the soil is in excellent condition etc etc etc. . . .
    It’s called co existence Luke.
    We are doing quite a good job in Australia.
    Not perfect of course but definitely not second rate.
    The same applies to our GBR our forests and our rangelands.
    We will do our bit to feed millions of people this coming year and we will continue to do so while we think it is worthwhile.
    We will also continue to enjoy our co existence in this harsh and largely ephemeral environment.
    We are however sick of the ‘environmental movement’ that thrives on preaching negative and is NEVER satisfied unless it is screeching about some imminent disaster somewhere.

  1718. cohenite says

    “Tim’s aspirational philosophical discursive ”

    Flannery is barking mad, he is a loon; he is emblematic of the green/alp alliance;

    “There is no outside”

    Certifiable. Scary.

  1719. Debbie says

    And Luke,
    despite you being told several times, I am NOT part of some secret tea drinking group that practices denialist rituals with Neville or some Tories or any one else.
    I am basically apolitical and I judge political parties on their POLICIES.
    Because I am a PRODUCER & a business owner I also judge on results and sensible fiscal management.
    So even though the sky is not falling in, I am still horrified at the disgraceful waste of tax payer money on programs and processes that achieve NOTHING that we could call a tangible or beneficial result.
    What you claim you seek is NOT being achieved by continual exponential production, collection & collation of data that gets deliberately misused by politics. It is aptly named by SD as largely ‘paper farming’.
    You also use much of this data to make claims it does not support.
    I don’t have to agree with everything Neville or anyone else says to disagree with you & vice versa.
    There is absolutely nothing wrong with Neville’s maths however.

  1720. Dave Shorter says

    It’s ok for people like you to eat, drink and wear stuff grown on land cleared by D9s and chains tho’, isn’t it Luke? ….So what sort of people should we not be feeding ?

  1722. Debbie says

    Also should point out that by the end of current term QLD will probably discover that the sky has not fallen in as well.
    It is a paricularly stupid argument Luke.
    In our very fortunate country, the sky should definitely not fall in.
    It is no excuse for profligate wasteful behaviour however.
    Starting to get the impression that there is an attitude something like. . . So what? Who cares? THEY (and insert whoever you like here) can afford it!
    The sky won’t fall in. We can waste money & time on non results! We can afford it!

  1724. Luke says

    “Totalitarian regimes don’t allow for freedom of speech or religion or non govt science, so yes I’m very proud to point out these obvious flaws.” What rabid dross! do rant on- You’re an offensive loon. Get help with Shorter. Get medicated. Dave’s latest is simply wacky.

    Boring Debs – simply boring.

  1726. debbie says

    No luke,
    I fundamentally disagree with you.
    As far as I’m concerned it is stuff like this that is rabid dross.

    http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/national/nearly-1000-new-cotton-rice-farms-upstream-see-precious-water-resources-wasted/story-fndo471r-1226475233270

    I find the map covered in splashes of blood particularly offensive.
    This is the type of nonsense mantra that has caused a rift between ‘environmentalism’ and agriculture.
    It is absolute and complete nonsense….particularly in our country and even more particularly in our ephemeral natural wetland ecology in the MDB

    You may not like Neville’s disagrement with CAGW but there is nothing fundamentally incorrect about the actual quote you cut and pasted.
    Unless you believe that totalatarian states DO allow for freedom of speech etc?
    There is also no question that Flannery’s philosophical wank was definitely about a form of totalatarianism.

  1727. Neville says

    I know I shouldn’t bother responding to Luke, particularly when his response is so ignorant and pathetic.

    I simply state that all of the above dictators definitely did not believe in freedom of speech, or of religion, or freedom to read the books of your choice, or movies of choice, or freedom of assembly, freedom to pursue the scientific method, freedom to pursue a normal private family life etc,etc.

    If you persisted the above dictators would kill you or banish you to remote prisons where you could be tortured or raped or mutilated before you died.
    Books have been written covering all of the above atrocities and much more. Unfortunately this is what happens when you surrender to groupthink and totalitarianism.

    Flannery’s stupid nonsensical dreaming is just an intro to the above, but hopefully he wouldn’t have been an active participant in the extremes of the dictatorships above.
    I hope none of us would want to participate in these vile regimes that are all part of the previous centuries hatreds that cost the lives of countless millions of innocent people.

  1728. el gordo says

    Tim Lambert has been below decks for a few months (a reported illness) so I took the opportunity to board the good ship Deltoid and seek amusement.

    The skeleton crew screamed for a mod, but nothing much happened and I was soon joined by others of like mind and we had them checked.

    Then Tim showed up and cut us mercilessly as if we never existed, leaving the locals abusing people that aren’t there.

    Barking mad!

  1731. Dave Shorter says

    Luke,
    Are you concerned about the birds crushed by your own resource use footprint or only other peoples resouce use footprint ?

  1732. Neville says

    After reading Christy’s testimony to Congress you have to wonder what scientists have been debating for the last couple of decades.

    Christy shows that extreme weather events have not increased because of AGW and in most cases the reverse is true and easy to find.

    Even if it was the case there is zero chance of OECD countries mitigating AGW because of the unstopable development occuring in the non OECD.

    We could build 1000 nuclear power stations by 2020 and the change to climate and temp would be very slight.

    He states that most warming is in the Tmin range and that to observe AGW effects the warming would have to be from Tmax.

    He backs up all his arguments with graphs etc comparing real observation to the projections of climate models.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/21/dr-john-christys-testimony-before-congress/#more-71379

    Full testimony can be found at the link.

  1733. John Sayers says

    This is what the majority think about climate change:

    “Everyone else seems to me to be heeding eminently sensible warnings about the dangers of overpopulation, over-industrialisation and over-exploitation of natural resources. Protecting access to that “Huge Money” is the real mission of climate change deniers. ”

    How can we convince these people otherwise.

  1734. Robert says

    The world is almost empty of people. However, there are far too many people who are not free. The human mind, whether single or collective, supported by faith and left in freedom will find or make resources where none are apparent. By “resources” I’m not talking about slavish fads or fetishes. I’m talking about serious power, as when steam replaced wind, or diesel replaced steam. Did you buy a physical paper today? Why not? Did newsprint finally run out? Those recent and massive mill wind-ups and bankruptcies – were they caused by a lack of pulp? Or has something else come along, something enormously powerful (and disconcerting, like all new and powerful things)? Is it something you are using right at this moment, of which you had no idea a couple of decades ago?

    It’s in our mind’s very nature to achieve this; when left free, it has to achieve this. It’s already achieved this, and will achieve it again. Faith, freedom and ideas are in short supply, nothing else. Nothing else whatsoever.

  1736. Neville says

    Looks like Jo Nova has been hacked again, the second time in the past few weeks.

    http://twitter.com/JoanneNova

    Just shows what type of scum and cowards we are dealing with in this so called AGW debate. At least it also shows that Jo is making progress and has these fraudsters worried.

    Let’s hope they can track them down and they get full exposure.

  1739. gavin says

    Back in the study, but it will be a while before I can absorb all the pictorial and other info from our trip up far north. One thing is certain, our wet tropics are very dry. The largest waterfall in Oz (from primary school days) is nothing like those old post cards however the weekend scenic trains from Cairns to Kuranda could be the longest ever.

    We can also say there is not much timber left anywhere and a feature of roads through cane fields is dust.

    There is conflicting opinion re the Barrier Reef and the Coral Sea fishery. Young people who can expect to inherit the place and should vote soon haven’t got a clue either way.

    I quite curious about the apparent condition of irrigation areas flown over between Townsville and Gunnedah. There was only one distinctly green belt and it looked like flood irrigation associated with a past event. The Burdekin ? we followed it south, seemed very dry.

    Following Yassi and it’s aftermath via public opinion is difficult. There are lots of negatives for people everywhere in QLD but tourists can pick their time and do. ABC ran a fair bulletin on the port dredging issue but any sea turbulence muddies the waters all round. There is still a lot of science to do. Common problem is the climate.

    http://www.qldreconstruction.org.au/u/lib/cms/Part%201_1-8_WEB.pdf

  1741. Johnathan Wilkes says

    “One thing is certain, our wet tropics are very dry.”

    I thought the wet season is from about Jan to March?

  1743. cohenite says

    “One thing is certain, our wet tropics are very dry.”

    “I thought the wet season is from about Jan to March?”

    Yes Johnathan – it doesn’t rain between may and october”

    gav is a treasure; what a pity he still votes.

  1744. spangled drongo says

    “The largest waterfall in Oz (from primary school days) is nothing like those old post cards”

    This is why gav:

    http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=barron+river+dam&view=detail&id=B7282301E6A7C14C5AF86A8E0087DF3164A49C00&qpvt=barron+river+dam&FORM=IDFRIR

    Instead of letting it all rush out to sea the locals did something to help themselves. Bastards!

    I think you are getting too old and forgetful to be travelling.

    I am too. Just returned from birding the New England ranges so I have to write down things I see like Chestnut Rumped Heathwrens, Southern Whitefaces, Banded Lapwings etc.

  1746. Bill Burrows says

    Gavin – I’m glad to see someone acknowledging the fact that “sea turbulence muddies the waters all (a)round”. Here is an image taken yesterday afternoon from NASA’s Aqua satellite http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/imagery/subsets/?subset=Australia3.2012267.aqua.500m . Drill down to the SE corner of the Qld coastline depicted. Note the turbidity in Gladstone Harbour which is in the midst of a major dredging program for the 3-4 large LNG plants being constructed on the western side of Curtis Island. {People who don’t know the Central Queensland coast may need an atlas to confirm the position of sites they are looking at}.

    This dredging is being associated with all manner of Armageddon for local marine life and the GBR. Then look on the north western side of Curtis Island [separated from the mainland by a slim channel (The Narrows) which acts as an umbilical cord between Gladstone Harbour and the Fitzroy River estuary]. Lo & behold the turbidity in this estuary and the “pristine” Keppel Bay which it forms part of is visually (and in measured NTU units) worse than in the actively dredged Gladstone Harbour! Yet certain groups (guess who) say we should not dredge the south of Keppel Bay as the ensuing turbidity will impact dolphins and the GBR, as it is alleged to do in Gladstone – but apparently does not, so far, in Keppel Bay despite its greater turbidity? Finally, look at the mother of all coastal Turbidity displayed further north in Broadsound and adjacent waters of the Shoalwater Bay Army Training Area. No industrial area or major river within a couple of hundred kms . {PS Don’t tell anyone, but this is one of the best fishing spots on the East Coast}.

  1747. gavin says

    Bill: Too busy outside now but we should discuss what we see via your NASA link.

    Muddy = sully or murky when I get back as I doubt that sat image shows anything of the sort.

  1748. Bill Burrows says

    Gavin – Matthew Flinders visited Keppel Bay in August 1802. Here is an Extract from his Journal “A Voyage to Terra Australis Vol.II” (1814) – “Keppel Bay was discovered and named by Captain Cook, who sailed past it in 1770. A ship going in will be much deceived by the colour of the water; for the shores of the bay being soft and muddy, the water running out by the deep channels with the latter part of the ebb, is thick——————“ [Seems ‘murky’ is an appropriate term to me – the OED defines murky as dark, gloomy, thick, dirty].

    And I think we can both agree that the Fitzroy River is murky. Note on the satellite image that it winds itself into the southern end of Keppel Bay. The colour of the river presents a continuum with the colour of the Bay where they converge. That is, the satellite imagery very well depicts the murkiness or turbidity of the Bay in its ‘pristine’ state and seemingly in close agreement with that viewed and described by Flinders in 1802.

    If I may modestly proclaim it my knowledge of the waters between Broadsound and Gladstone Harbour is rather good. {I have just returned from 2 weeks traversing the area north of Yeppoon on a fishing cum sight seeing trip. I did a similar traverse last year}. In May I joined a Gladstone Port Authority tour of its Western Basin development (the location of the LNG plants) which was being actively dredged on the day. In my humble opinion the satellite images depict the turbidity in all these waters – its intensity and extent – very well indeed.

    To reiterate my point – active dredging in Gladstone Harbour is producing less turbidity than is naturally apparent in the pristine environments of Keppel Bay and Broadsound. This is backed up by monitoring data (water samples for the Bay and Harbour) collected by the Dept of Environment & Heritage Protection. I believe the satellite imagery photographed yesterday afternoon supports these conclusions. One therefore has good reasons to question whether the turbidity impacts of dredging will be any more damaging to marine organisms and the GBR than turbidity currently generated by natural processes in adjacent locales.

  1749. Neville says

    Bill that’s partly what Dr peter Ridd said when comparing human turbidity to natural turbidity.

    Different part of the coastline but natural turbidity is far greater than a bit of murky water from human leftovers.

  1750. Ian Thomson says

    D9s and chains , Luke.–
    Black and white footage. “Run, Skippy, run ”
    “Here’s the Leyland Brothers ” As it happened Alby Mangels got there first , put a hot blonde on the dozer and saved the planet.
    All while wrestling a dangerous reptile. Luke , take a drive outside the City mate.

    Watch out for Deb though, she may just gobble you up.

  1751. Luke says

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMfToF3dAKA

    Love the comments :

    wow…thats very interesting….never heard or seen that before…good stuff!
    metelbod 6 months ago

    I’ve heard of this but never seen it till now thanks for posting
    MrJunkit101 7 months ago

    the greenies would be shitting kittens if they see this hahahaha ooooo climate change,,,hahaha ,,

    nooki1102 7 months ago

    That is awesome.
    snikuls2 1 year ago

    Listen to dopey Neville spout waffle – “Different part of the coastline but natural turbidity is far greater than a bit of murky water from human leftovers.” Pity the science is in the bag to say it’s 5x-10x pre-European.

    But Neville loves to suck on disinformation and maverick dross.
    WTF are “human leftovers” – you don’t even know what you’re talking about you stupid clown. Just dribbling on to appease deniers.

  1752. gavin says

    Bill: Unfortunately Broadsound and Gladstone Harbour were out of range of our plane on Saturday arvo but I did get reasonable images of coastline, islands and reefs closer to Cairns for comparison.

    I noticed that pale green “drift” both ways over the area but I can’t say if it was mud, sand or coral at all sources. In any case it was probably only tides that carried it off the bottom, so let’s call it fine white silt for the sake of simplicity.

    More interesting; I observed very thin beach lines at high tide in most places sandy. A good place to observe SL rise would be that small rock in the Double Island group. I bet there is no ledge left when the tide is in.

    http://www.ozcoasts.gov.au/geom_geol/case_studies/fitzroy_final_report.jsp

  1753. debbie says

    Ummm Gavin?
    That’s how the tides work.
    I doubt that a high tide mark in September 2012 has anything to do with SLR.
    Also, as was pointed out to you earlier, you are visiting that area just before the wet season, so of course it’s dry at the moment….it is nearly every September.
    Why don’t you just enjoy the privilege of being there rather than trying to read signs of gloom into everything?

  1754. gavin says

    Deb; for what it’s worth, I love my country and all it’s people regardless. Looking at Bills sat link we can see almost nothing of human concern and it’s a great picture overall. Btw our ABC has some beaut programs past few days re agriculture and progress towards an informed future.

    My main problem this morning was replying via desktop while holding our sleepy old tabby with one arm cause it’s payback time. That’s still way better than managing correspondence via a stupid laptop and its temperamental wireless link up north though.

  1755. Neville says

    Interesting post from Bob Tisdale about the latest el nino build up. Will it be neutral in a few months or will it be a weak el nino? Or could it become stronger?
    Who knows, but the alarmists will be cheering for a strong el nino to hopefully boost global temps that then allows them to use this natural phenomena to claim it’s just more AGW.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/24/tisdale-asks-hey-whered-the-el-nino-go/#more-71444
    Just listened to some clown from the greens (I think) in Qld berating the govt for their doubts about AGW.
    He implied that the govt must agree with the science and then start to do SOMETHING about it. The something he wanted would be to waste more billions $ down the plug hole for a zero return on the taxpayers money I suppose.
    One thing you can bet money on is it will have mean zero change for the climate or temp. or bushfires, or drought, or floods, or GBR, or mozzies, or SLR, or SST etc, etc.

    The ABC reporter of course didn’t have the brains or inclination to challenge this numbskull and just allowed him full rein for his stupid rant.

  1757. Luke says

    “Who knows, but the alarmists will be cheering for a strong el nino to hopefully boost global temps that then allows them to use this natural phenomena to claim it’s just more AGW.”

    just like moron deniers used La Nina to say it’s cooling

  1759. cohenite says

    The climate commission has been getting stuck into the QLD government; this morning the alarmist, Hughes, was rabitting on about declining agricultural activity in QLD due to AGW:

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-09-25/global-warming-threatens-qld-economy-report/4278764?section=business

    More power to the Newman government; it’s a pity that Baillieu government, led by one term ted, did not have the same ticker and resolve to deal with the alarmists and their scams and egoes:

    http://bunyipitude.blogspot.com.au/2012/09/one-term-ted-our-supine-premier.html

  1760. debbie says

    Wow,
    lots of vitriol and negative from Luke…especially name calling with that “D” word.
    I’m still trying to figure out what Bazza & Luke thinks ‘utterly stupid deniers’ are ‘denying’?
    I don’t think anyone is denying the influence of La Ninas and El Ninos….that truly would be utterly stupid.
    It’s 5X & 10X pre European?
    The ‘science is in the bag’?
    Is that specifically turbidity or the GBR?
    And is it all a scary story?

  1762. Luke says

    Well I’m glad Nova is back up. All those rabid ranters, wack jobs and Tea Party devotees need a good home.

  1763. Dave Shorter says

    Glad you are still here to give us the benefit of your enlightenment Luke. I thought you might have been so distressed about the land that was cleared and the birds that were crushed to produce what you eat, drink and wear that you did something rash.

  1764. Luke says

    Shorter – you’re an apologist for inaction. Typical of your ilk who seeks no balance – I spit on your morally bankrupt position. We all have impacts on our environment – I assume you’d like to clear the whole continent.

    We export vast amounts of beef – we’re not struggling for our last feed – and there is really no call for over-exploitation of semi-arid lands beyond capacity. And Australia has an endless appetite for land clearing. When is enough enough Shorter?

    Enlightened beef producers have set the exemplar benchmarks on better management of native vegetation resources. But it seems you’re also an apologist for poor practice.

    Why go and see the outback – just sit on the banks of the Fitzroy or Burdekin and watch it wash past !

  1765. spangled drongo says

    “Australia has an endless appetite for land clearing.”

    Out of the mouths of “experts” comes the usual dross.

    Where a great deal of the land clearing that occurred since white settlement there has been advanced regrowth particularly in dairy farm areas, state forests, even “pristine” NPs that were logged over a century ago and now have almost mature regrowth.

    Aboriginals for the last 50,000 years cleared the land with continuous burning so as to better accommodate their lifestyle and make it easier for them to survive.

    Aboriginal action possibly reduced the food supply but made it more easily accessible. White action enormously increased the food supply and accessibility to the point where we all live much easier lives.

    Don’t kid yourself that you can assess the bottom line in the environment manual as a result of all that’s happened except to say that human habitat displaces other habitat.

  1766. Dave Shorter says

    Well Luke you are making false assumptions about what I think.
    I am pleased to see you acknowledge your own impact because most of the time you carry on like someone who thinks his sh.. doesn’t stink.

  1767. cohenite says

    10% of Australia is reserved for parks and exempt from agriculture; add aboriginal claims and you have an area larger than NSW and Victoria.

    “When is enough enough luke?”

  1771. Debbie says

    Wow!
    Look at Luke spitting vitriol and negative.
    Lots of name calling, especially that ‘D’ word.
    I’m still wondering what Luke thinks all these ‘ moron deniers’ are denying?
    They’re certainly not denying the influences of el ninos and la ninas because that would be ‘utterly stupid’ wouldn’t it?
    Also wondering why he is still insisting that there is soooo much poor practice and that anyone who asks perfectly reasonable questions are accused of being tea party devotees and wack jobs?
    No one is pretending we have a perfect past.
    No one is pretending that some things can’t be done better.
    But Luke doesn’t seem to want to look past the past.
    That attitude is the gatekeeper of inaction. That ‘precautionary principle’ coupled with treaties like Kyoto and Ramsar means it is easy to halt action & sensible productive activity in Australia.

  1772. el gordo says

    ‘The only place anthropogenic global warming definitely exists is in climate models. They must be FORCED by greenhouse gases in order to make the simulated oceans and atmosphere warm. The instrument temperature record shows the oceans and surface temperatures have warmed, but those records cannot be used to prove manmade global warming exists.

    ‘On the other hand, as I have been showing for more that 3 ½ years, the instrument temperature record can be used to show that most if not all of the warming was caused by natural variables, and as a result, the observational data can be used to invalidate the climate models. If you’re not familiar with my work, refer to my recent post titled A Blog Memo to Kevin Trenberth – NCAR.’

    Bob Tisdale (guest post at Watts)

  1774. John Sayers says

    Hey Luke – maybe it’s time to reveal who you are.

    I’ve done it… I’m a recording studio designer – johnlsayers.com

    So what do you do??

  1775. Larry Fields says

    It’s shameless self-promotion time again. My latest Hubpages article is not recommended for prudes.

    Safe Sex Puzzle

    Summary: This article explores the mathematics of low-cost safe sex for swingers. Although the general solution is unknown, the solution for the case involving three men and three women is described in detail.

    Read all about it here.
    http://tinyurl.com/9po7gb9

  1780. Dave Shorter says

    And Luke,
    As I wipe your spit off my morally bankrupt position….
    Are you answering my question about who we should not be feeding by saying “we export vast amounts of beef-we’re not struggling for our last feed”?
    Does that mean it’s foriegners that we should not be feeding?

  1781. spangled drongo says

    “Boys; consider this if you can as times are a changing.”

    Don’t celebrate too soon. Destroying sustainable Australian industries is just a mad greenie pastime but it will catch up with us big time.

    As I mentioned up thread we just import the same product that gets manufactured overseas with much less regard for the consequences, generates more polution and CO2, and we lose the jobs and the wealth from areas that badly need both.

    This is mad and mindless waste.

  1782. Luke says

    We’re not talking about forests Drongo – do try to keep up.

    Davey boy moves the goal posts. Typical. Apologism for inaction and poor practice.

    What journal is Tisdale pusblished in? Oh that’s right – none…. more amateur crap.

  1783. Bill Burrows says

    Gavin – Thanks for the OzCoasts link. My data sources hinge around the defunct Coastal CRC. Your 2012 publication reference brings me up to speed, even though both sources have similar origins.

    Luke – You know as well as I do that most stream run-off & sediment load originates within 200m of stream banks. So we should take care when ascribing most stream sediment to grazing. Yes the Fitzroy River is brown, but call up Emerald, Queensland on Google Earth and follow the Fitzroy & its tributaries to Rockhampton. There is a lot of cultivation adjacent to the stream banks. Of course all land holders need to do their best to retain the soil on their land. And we would both agree I hope that farmers and graziers are a lot better at doing this today, than they were 30-50 years ago. Still Gavin’s link also highlights that there were significant sediment loads in the Fitzroy well before the arrival of Europeans and this baseline would still underpin today’s sediment loads too I suggest. Also gels with Matthew Flinders’ 1802 Keppel Bay observations.

    As an aside the best lucerne (alfalfa) fields I ever saw in my career were in Kansas in the early 1970’s. Perfectly flat ground with remarkably healthy plants in stands intermittenly scattered over the farming landscape. Turns out these lucerne paddocks were all established on old farm dams that had all silted up from erosion of the adjacent cropping land. Lucerne is deep rooted and flourished on these well drained & highly fertile erosion sediments. When a dam silted up the farmer would plant his lucerne and build another dam nearby. Plenty of soil on the prairies courtesy of the last ice age!

  1784. Dave Shorter says

    Clearly Luke,
    It was okay for some land to be cleared and some birds crushed to feed and clothe someone as
    worthy as you.I would hate to see you go hungry or worse still naked.That would just be too awful.
    Are we short of birds and native veg Luke? If so where are we short ? Certainly not around here.
    Apparently there are a billion malnourished people in the world.Would you like to tell them that birds and native veg that we are not short of are more important than food that they are short of?

  1785. spangled drongo says

    “Australia has an endless appetite for land clearing.”

    Lukwitz rabbits on about D9s and clearing scrub and when I query him he comes up with the withering retort:

    “We’re not talking about forests Drongo – do try to keep up.”

    ‘E focussed, this boy!

    About as bright as Will Steffen on tonight’s news saying that the Gold Coast was in danger of SLR, not IF but WHEN armageddon arrives.

    No physical evidence of any SLR in the last half century or longer but that doesn’t matter.

    What a prize pair!

  1786. spangled drongo says

    “What journal is Tisdale pusblished in?”

    And how’s your masterpiece going on that melting Antarctic sea ice due to the warm SO?

    But I bet you could get peer reviewed.

  1788. spangled drongo says

    I hear on the news this am that the management of Great Keppel Is is thinking of introducing dingoes to eradicate 200 feral goats on the island.

    That is like injecting yourself with typhoid to cure a cold.

    Jen, if you or anyone read this and know anyone there, please advise them of this absolute lunacy.

  1789. Luke says

    Spangled it’s called savanna an temperate woodland clearing – do try to get up to speed minimally if you’re going to pretend to comment. And people tell me to go for a drive – sheesh !

    When you put your SLR study of tide gauges up we’ll have a look.

    Dave Shorter – where might we be short of native vegetation. Clearly we’re dealing with a Neanderthal (although at least they didn’t clearfell their environment) – mmmmm might that be the regional ecosystem maps of endangered and threatened systems and the species they contain . mmmmm …. Yes export of beef to USA, Japan, Korea – obviously those poor starving populations virtually at deaths door without us. It’s just about money mate. Nothing wrong with that but let’s not bung it on eh. And as consumers might like to not have meat produced by cruel production systems – what’s wrong with best practice land use and conservation as a mixed goal. Why are you apologising for worst practice? Anything to support worst practice eh Davey – is that your recommendation?

    Bill – on grazing and the reef – try http://eprints-dev.jcu.edu.au/1528/ Nature paper showing 5-10x sediment loads post-European in the Burdekin. Or an entire chronology of land use change from grazing recorded in the reef corals. http://rtobin.phy.tufts.edu/Wagoner%20AJP%202010.pdf and Water quality as regional driver of coral biodiversity and macroalgal cover on the Great Barrier Reef http://www.esajournals.org/doi/abs/10.1890/08-2023.1

    http://www.clw.csiro.au/publications/waterforahealthycountry/2009/wfhc-GBR-grazing-land-MLA.pdf shows the complexity of recovery and need to reduce runoff to reduce further gully incision.

  1791. Debbie says

    Luke there is absolutely nothing wrong with best practice land use and conservation as a mixed goal and NO ONE is pretending that mistakes have not been made.
    What you seem to be missing is that the implementation of policy regarding these issues is VERY POOR and being run by CLUELESS & IRRATIONAL people who are influenced by OVERLY EMOTIONAL environmental politics that are ANTI PRODUCTION and ANTI DEVELOPMENT.
    Bureaucracy has a very poor history re regulation of land use. It is too cumbersome and too inflexible and too focused on rules and regs.
    The natural environment is usually way in front. New issues and challenges develop before regulators can figure out how to solve 10 issues ago!
    SD’s example above re dingoes is typical.
    Centralising land, water & fire management is not proving to be successful. The inaction and procrastination causes more harm.
    Conflicting data collection and collation with limited terms of reference is also creating wastage and inaction.

  1793. spangled drongo says

    “Spangled it’s called savanna an temperate woodland clearing –”

    Cut the semantics, Luke. The fact is it can be made a lot more productive as described in that link of cohenites without affecting its ecology.

    And tide gauges in my NOTW are flat out going back 10 years so they are a waste of time but based on very positive obs going back over 60 years, SLs in SEQ have not risen in that time.

    They have, if anything, gone down.

    And as I have been known to say, if they haven’t risen in SEQ in over 60 years, they aren’t doing too much damage in the rest of the world.

    I am continually amazed that you catastros and doomers don’t take [and have never taken, at any time in your supposedly concerned lives] sea level observations at the highest astronomical tide of the year and continued to monitor them yearly.

    What do you think that tends to indicate?

  1794. spangled drongo says

    I just rang Great Keppel Holiday Village to ask them about the news report and the bloke there had not heard of the proposal. He too, thought it was a crazy solution and was going to investigate. Hopefully it is just some beat-up to try to equate GK with Fraser and is not a serious proposal.

  1795. Neville says

    In this Quantum show reference (ABC) they state that SLs have been up and down like a rollercoaster for thousands of years BP.

    http://www.abc.net.au/quantum/stories/s112352.htm#transcript

    4000 years ago SL was up to 2 metres higher on the east coast of OZ and the same trend can be found on the WA coast as well.

    It has never been stable but they do throw in the PC rider at the end that AGW in future may make it worse.

    This rollercoaster change in SL can be found around the planet.

  1796. gavin says

    SD; I won’t have time to do a decent survey of D9 use in QLD BUT two things are obvious, there are lots of jobs for drivers and your average farmer can buy a used big Cat for about one mil. I suspect the most common use of earth machinery apart from mining in QLD today is road construction and urban development but I am familiar with the idea of flattening a piece of country to get the crop harvesters in. Btw; images of coast line from a fair distance including Fitzroy Isl serve me well.

    Luke; what I assumed was the Burdekin R is just a wide yellow ribbon stretching south for ages, all sand, virtually no water and the tiny flow from reach to reach seemed clear enough to drink. So I guess the next big wash out will collect plenty of bottom based on the rush and turbulence.

    Deb; although it was my first flight this far north we had lots of forward planning by those who had worked in Port Douglass for about a year. Almost everything was known in advance right up to our twilight dinner on the harbor.

    Bill; its really good to discuss the big picture with locals. Our encounter with Neil Hewett left a lasting impression. Neil at his best –

    http://www.cairns.com.au/article/2011/12/30/198711_local-news.html

    The argument for development over nature, bush clearing, swamp draining, dredging and breakwaters can only be justified on our demand in food production. All else has been ignored, a marina with hundreds of stationary yachts or a cat load of reef tourists (400) is not as wonderful as Thornton Peak from any angle when we learn it’s probably the last raft of natural treasures in the region.

    The coast, land and sea south to Cairns is missing birds. Armed with two pocket zooms I’m so disappointed by the number of opportunities to shoot something from the original habitat. By the number of calls, canopy birds are few and far between. Harriers follow the cane harvest and seem common enough but sea birds don’t exist by comparison.

  1797. Luke says

    This is frigging amazing – “Cut the semantics, Luke. The fact is it can be made a lot more productive as described in that link of cohenites without affecting its ecology.”

    SD you were banging on about closed forests previous. I am not talking about closed forests that you might find in higher rainfall coastal areas. We’re talking broadscale clearing for grazing.

    Yes one is not stupid – land is cleared to increase grass production. As well as recreational clearing to get away from the wife and kids (like recreational cultivation) – Debs bait.

    But pray tell – and this is THE most amazing comment I have heard in years – the ECOLOGY IS UNAFFECTED – yes indeed – every time I walk through a spear grass sward I’m amazed by all the birds nesting there in thin air, the native vegetation that’s still there (even though it’s been stick raked and burnt), the reptiles, the insects etc. IN FACT – THE CLEARED SYSTEM IDENTICAL TO THE UNCLEARED ONE !!! WTF !

    Tell us SD – are you actually mental.

  1799. spangled drongo says

    Cohers, Leon Ashby’s. Where he trapped moisture and nutrients. There have been many examples of this. Turning stony, dry, half-dead, open woodland into shaded, productive grassland.

    “every time I walk through a spear grass sward I’m amazed by all the birds nesting there in thin air,”

    Typical scientific Luke obs. It’s not that simple, Simon. Things don’t remain static, the environment never does and I will admit that some have gone overboard but plenty have improved both aspects of production and environment.

    Which is more than can be said of most govt land management.

  1800. Debbie says

    Rubbish Luke,
    you have deliberately misinterpreted SD’s comment.
    He clearly did not mean that human activity has no influence on the surrounding area and unless you have a serious comprehension problem you must know that.
    Go back to your saner comment earlier & restart.
    Think about co existence and using best practice and having SHARED GOALS.
    Your attitude and position is not doing anything to foster SHARED GOALS.
    Your position has resulted in POLARISING major stakeholders and the outcomes are not good! Major hostility and no action.
    Use a little objectivity and ask yourself why the people who can help are becoming increasingly hostile.
    Is there a pattern developing here perhaps?

  1801. Neville says

    Ya gotta laugh. Just thought I’d throw this crap into the mix, just in case Luke, Gav and bazza forget to watch their hero HIPPO Al in November.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/25/dear-al-watch-the-skies/#comments

    This is the HIPPO that tells the rest of us to reduce our carbon footprint then shows us how by owning several homes (some literally on the sea shore) lives a super opulent lifestyle and flys around in an old, dirty and excessively large but private jet.

    Pity he doesn’t demonstrate in China and India if he really believes the rubbish he preaches. But I’m convinced he either hasn’t a clue or doesn’t believe his own nonsensical urging.

  1802. Hasbeen says

    Do come off it Gaven, one can only get away with so much bull shit, before even academics start to smell something.

    A mate of mine can tell you about sea birds today, just as I could a few years back. He runs those big cats, you denigrate so much, as I did. Fortunately someone does, it is nice for all those employees to be able to eat.

    When I had a pretend submarine coral viewing thing, & a large pontoon out at the reef, I could afford to miss one day, but never 2.

    After one day the bird shit would take about 15 minutes to hose off, with a 2″ fire hose, driven by a 6 cylinder diesel. Tourists would be getting restless at the smell, [from long range], & the waste of their time. However if I missed 2 days, the clean up would take far too long to do when the boat arrived.

    I had to fly a crew member out by sea plane, to arrive at least an hour before the tourists to get things cleaned up. That cost the net on about 35 passengers. It was cheaper to install accommodation, & have staff permanently out there, although few people could Handel the isolation of 5 days at a time out there for very long. Funnily it was those who expressed a desire to commune with nature who lasted the shortest time before wanting off.

    Funnily enough I discovered if I could find a skipper & a lady, who had just got together, I could send them out there & get a couple of months with a happy crew.

    It is of course easy to not see sea birds. You just have to avoid places & things that offer them a roosting spot.

    On the natural attractions bit, most can get their fill in a few hours. Thousands spend days visiting each of the resorts that cover 0.005% of the Whitsunday Islands, with perhaps one visit to one special beach.

    Very few of those who have spent 4 hours driving around Fraser Island in a bus ever want to go back again. It even happened to me.

    After 500 beautiful isolated anchorages through the Pacific islands, & the reef, anchorage number 501 did not really do much for me, & I like the bush.

  1803. cohenite says

    Thanks SD; I’d like to put Leon and luke in a room together so they could sort out these disparate viewpoints. I’m sure it would be an eye-opener for luke.

  1804. Dave Shorter says

    Oh my humble apologies Luke.
    When you implied country is being cleared horizon to horizon to grow grass I naturaly assumed that you were lying and exagerating.Past form and all that.But no,you have a map to prove it!
    And yes Luke,I know it’s about the money.I can’t afford to grow stuff for extremely poor people.However Luke when eminences like you lock renewable resources out of sustainable production,who do you think misses out ? Affluent or poor?

  1807. spangled drongo says

    Here is something that bureaucrats actually admit too yet they are still accepting that AGW and SLR is happening.

    “Over recent decades many Australian beaches have been stable or even accreting because the sediment supply has been sufficient. It is expected that sea-level rise will change this dynamic, and an important question is when stable or accreting beaches will flip to receding beaches in the face of rising sea levels? … It is possible that, with climate change, some beaches could recede hundreds of metres over the course of this century.…

    “The switch from generally accreting beaches to a receding coastline is a key threshold for coastal management and is not well understood.”

    Elsewhere they add that they don’t actually understand how and why accreting beaches would do the ‘flipping’.

    “The switch from generally accreting beaches to a receding coastline is a key threshold for coastal management and is not well understood.”

    IOW it is “not well understood” that we factually have falling sea levels c/w less erosion when the consensual science is telling us we have dangerous SLR.

    We can’t believe our lying eyes!

  1808. gavin says

    Hasbeen; your word “denigrate” re my cat loads of reef tourists does not apply since I actually favor some designated routes and diving spots for plane loads of visitors via Cairns attracted by our world heritage listings for the greater tropical region. I can’t see many of them stumping off to see the local barra farm.

    Also; following your so much bird droppings in one place we could wonder about two issues, why not go into the phosphate biz as birds will roost more on man made platforms as the reef islands shrink.

    Btw I spent a couple of days chatting to agents or operators where I could re reef health after various impacts and found the crown of thorns breakouts are being controlled by volunteers. For larger vessels a marine biologist goes out on each trip so there is constant feedback. I just hope it’s all documented and I agree people can be fickle with longer tasks. Best yarn was a couple of German pharmacy ladies waiting for Neil with a guy who had been in oz earlier. He came for five weeks but stayed twenty years, before going home.

  1810. spangled drongo says

    Julia’s brilliant reasoning exposed to the Economic Club of New York:

    “Australia’s economy today is less reliant on our natural resources and our mining boom than you might believe,” her speech announced.

    “In the next four years, we expect three times as many new jobs to be created in healthcare, social assistance, education and training as will be created in mining.”

    How can the MSM not pick up on the obvious flawed logic? The rank stupidity?

    Imagine if Tony Abbott said that, what the reaction would be?

  1812. Debbie says

    Yep,
    It’s got a lot to do with the money.
    Even Luke uses that argument to berate Dave a few comments ago.
    People are also merely filling their job descriptions for the money too.

  1814. Neville says

    Geezzzz Spangled we’ve all understood that Hansen has manipulated data for years, but surely this bloke must be stopped sooner rather than later?

    Now he’s going back to 1880 to try and make the past cooler and the present warmer. This a corruption and fraud of the first order and so far the MSM sit back and say nothing.

  1816. spangled drongo says

    Neville, what makes it even harder to bear for the average Jo is when judges as in the NIWA case in NZ are happy to accept these “expert” manipulations simply on the authority of the manipulators.

    IOW, in spite of anyone with half a brain being able to work out that there is a conflict of interest here, the judge thinks there is no one better able to adjust than the manipulators.

    It certainly pays for the big sucklers of the public breast to hang together.

    The consensus spreads well beyond the science.

  1817. Graeme M says

    Re the GISS manipulations, I think that Mosher’s comment is enlightening. He observes that we don’t really know the temperatures of the past – rather we make estimations in which we apply a variety of techniques to the original data try to establish relatively consistent representations. So as better techniques are developed or more sites are added the estimation changes. In this case, it led to a lower warming trend, so it’s not as if it’s always a ‘bad’ outcome.

    I am sceptical regarding CAGW or even AGW for that matter, but sometimes I cringe at the automatic presumptions of some (or even many) sceptics.

    That said, I did rather like the thoughts of another commenter who wondered at the results if we looked at raw temp data from stable rural sites. I can’t imagine this hasn’t been done, but regardless of the problems with raw data would not raw data from stable stations show a trend if indeed we see significant warming over time?

    I notice that if I use Wolfram Alpha to interogate temp records for the past 30 years in all sorts of locations, I get either a cooling trend or a stable trend. rarely do I see a warming trend, especially in Australia. WUWT?

  1818. spangled drongo says

    Graeme M, if there were real warming occurring world wide, I’ve always thought that the true indicator would be those long-term records that are kept at light houses around the world’s coastlines.

    We are always being told by the concerned that the heat is hidden in the oceans so OK, that should show up as back ground warming on the coasts.

    However, if you check these long-term records, the signal isn’t there.

  1820. Graeme M says

    SD I think that warming is generally a local phenomonen in that there is wide variability overall. The global ‘average’ is an interesting construct in itself and subject to adjustment as techniques improve or change. I understand that if we remove the Arctic warming from the data we’d see a rather less impressive trend globally.

    Now of course it’s argued that Arctic warming is a principle prediction of AGW but that in itself is not a proof. And contrary to Luke’s claims, I have read (not directly myself) that earlier IPCC projections clearly suggested similar rates of warming for both poles. It seems to have changed over the past decade or two to where we have today’s claims that the Arctic is the major indicator. I have no idea if this is true though the reference is easily found.

    In this respect, my scepticism is borne of the ongoing modification of predictions to suit reality. Now Luke argues that it was never claimed in the peer reviewed literature some of what sceptics claim are failed predictions. But as we all know, the ‘populist’ claims offered by the mainstream concensus have been diligently fed to a credulous public and it is the failure of THOSE claims that leave AGW a hotly contested issue. Had the claims not been so strident, or the reality a closer match, I think we’d see less scepticism.

    I am also rather disturbed by the perception of the science by the lay public. A column by a uni student in the local Caberra Times is a case in point – this young lady earnestly noted the effects of CAGW as being manifest, including such events as tsunamis, earthquakes, and heavy rainfall as prime examples. Scepticism may upset the true believers, but that sort of idiocy upsets me. WUWT?

  1821. cohenite says

    A couple of things; the main reason GISS is an outlier is its adjustments of Arctic temperature:

    http://notrickszone.com/2012/03/01/data-tamperin-giss-caught-red-handed-manipulaing-data-to-produce-arctic-climate-history-revision/

    Secondly, the idea of a global average temperature, GAT, to measure AGW is hopelessly flawed for reasons discussed here:

    http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/r-321.pdf

    Basically, variations in temperature trend at regional levels do not necessarily reflect the radiative flux and therefore how much energy and therefore heat is in the system.

  1823. Neville says

    John the interesting point about those graphs is that this slight warming of tropics and SH has occured mostly during the warm phase of the PDO.

    This ussually means more and sometimes stronger el ninos yet the warming does seem to be relatively minor for the last 30+ years in that large area of the planet.

  1825. Graeme M says

    Yes, they do rather like that term ‘capacity’ don’t they? There are some interesting figures coming out of Europe in regard to windfarm capacity vs actual output. And I am sure everyone here has been following the situation in Germany. Maybe it’s misrepresented in what I read, but they seem to have dug themselves a hole with the abandonement of nuclear and the investment in renewables. Couple that with their obligations within the EU and well…

    That said I saw the other day some commentary indicating the carbon market might be approaching a turnaround in Europe. I guess it couldn’t get much worse.

  1828. Graeme M says

    Thanks for the link, that’s a great site. Might spend some time watching that one.

    Meanwhile I see Arctic ice is rebounding from its ‘record’ low – wonder where it will end in the winter? And Antarctic still rising. I read a few interesting comments at WUWT and CE regarding the cause with some intriguing thoughts regarding Russian river outflows and of course black soot. I’ve always said that if the Arctic continued its warming/melting I’d reconsider my scepticism and indeed I am doing that. But still… Hmmm… I’ll see what NEXT northern summer brings 🙂

    I just can’t bring myself to be as dismal as the crowd over at Nevens!

  1829. cohenite says

    David Stockwell has a new paper up for viewing dealing with how the BOM temperature adjustment’s are intrinsically biased:

    http://vixra.org/pdf/1209.0088v2.pdf

    From the paper:

    “To demonstrate aliasing on historical data, we selected a surface station
    whose trend deviates from the continental mean temperature trend, but
    does not show any obvious inhomogeneity. Deniliquin was not chosen to be
    representative. Many stations will display the average trend. Deniliquin was
    chosen to show the coercion of the trend of any station that deviates from
    the average global warming trend into the warming trend, irrespective of its
    trend or quality.”

    David shows that no matter whether the site raw trend is greater or less than the comparison trend used for homogenisation, the adjustment will convert the site trend to the comparison trend; since most sites in Australia have a trend cooler than the comparison trend they are warmed by the adjustment.

  1830. gavin says

    coh; there is no point in this Stockwell paper other than BoM was treating a typical zero error associated with a change of instrument. To turn this into some intrigue by highlighting the changed location is just devious in the extreme as the only problem for hindsight looking forecasters is to determine which thermometer had that error.

    Besides .8C difference between max-min types should be expected even up to the late 70’s so don’t come back with UHI as the cause or any other skeptic dribble.

  1831. cohenite says

    “BoM was treating a typical zero error associated with a change of instrument.”

    If there was a “zero error” why was the site ‘adjusted’?

  1833. gavin says

    coh; I guess you missed Stockwell’s tiny concession to bom’ data science, “There are potentially valid reasons to adjust raw data” following this musing “Homogenization seems to be favored in ocial me-
    teorological networks, ostensively to repair micro-site shifts and temporal inhomogeneities due to changes in observing practices, instrumentation, or reporting”

    For me though “Homogenization” is a fudge word best used to described past making or some other industrial fluid process. Zero error is a precise condition in all measurement that only requires a simple fix once recognized. However a minimum of three side by side thermometer records would be required in this case to determine the odd one out, not to be confused with the three readings in my 2nd link.

    A quick selection on systematic errors and false zeros

    http://aphysicsteacher.blogspot.com.au/2009/12/zero-error.html

    http://www.weatherforschools.me.uk/html/maxmin.html

    http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2012/07

  1835. kuhnkat says

    gavin,

    even a denier like me realizes the necessity to adjust data due to very real hardware and siting reasons. The issue is totally the algorhythms which do NOT take into account individual site issues smearing a warming across ALL sites!!

    Gavin, have you ever explained to a reasonable degree the NASA study that showed up to 10+C difference between inhabited areas and their surrounds?? Until the record accounts for this large difference in temps the official records are USELESS and nothing but warmist porn.

  1836. kuhnkat says

    gavin,

    since this warming is seen at ALL inhabited sites the practice of AVERAGING so called rural and urban sites simply averages the UHI peak!!!

    Again, the official record is nothing but warmist porn.

  1838. Geoff Sherrington says

    If you have not seen it, there is a daily news service that sends email summaries in about a dozen selectable categories at
    http://wind.carboncapturereport.org/ They are usually a day or two old, so current events.

    Jen, it’s a good source for breaking news and opening threads.

    The following intersting graph is an example of the material, as some above are talking about wind power reliability. Peter Lang is the guy I prefer to believe.

    http://www.geoffstuff.com/Irregular%20windJ.jpg

  1840. Robert says

    Wifi threatened by CO2? At last, An inner-urban climate disaster! From Erskineville to Abbotsford, no connection will be safe.

    What a pity that 100% of the hipster population are already on-side with CAGW. Still, I suppose they can always say that they were on to the idea before it went all mainstream and commercial.

  1842. Robert says

    Don’t know why the scamps have to do all this data tickling. Creaky old records tell us a bit; improved but still problematic modern records tell us more. What do they want from a bunch of temp readings, some sats and some Argo buoys? They hope that something fantastically superficial (climate data) will explain something fantastically complex (climate)?

    Me, I’m up for some global warming – starting in the nineteenth century, interrupted by the Arctic temp plunge of the sixties and the generally chilly seventies. And who can doubt that there’s been more up than down with sea levels since Jane Austen’s day?

    Big deal.

  1843. spangled drongo says

    “Of course you could pile ALL available evidence together from all sources and conclude it’s probably warmed.”

    Ya mean recovered from the LIA?

    Why don’t you guys give up and admit it’s barely nat var?

  1844. Neville says

    Glaciers in Montana retreated up to six times faster in the 1930s to 40s than over the last 40 years.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/27/surprise-glaciers-in-montana-retreated-up-to-6-times-faster-during-the-1930s-and-1940s-than-today/#more-71568

    Also the glaciers advanced to almost record levels during the period known as the LIA. So why are we surprised to see a slight warming during the last 100+ years?

    This has rightly been called the RECOVERY from the LIA as everyone knows except the Luke donkey.

  1847. John Sayers says

    I can’t believe there is so much choice in the car industry. They all look the same, have the same technology, and they have reduced themselves to pandering to your emotions.

  1848. Luke says

    Yes warming with no solar driver. Yuh sure. Physics is wrong – yuh sure. Just keep deluding yourself that unpublished ratbags know better.

    Recovery is bullshit – the whole concept is anthropomorphic and stupid. There are climate forcings that drive climate. The planet does not “recover” – how pathetic and unscientific. oooo it caught a cold and got all better. There is no better – only physics.

    The PDO warming thing is just more stupidity by clowns who wouldn’t know.

  1849. spangled drongo says

    ‘The planet does not “recover” –’

    Nah! It just keeps going in one direction forever–positive feedback!

    If it only happened your way, Luke, we would all have been wiped out long ago.

    Yours is the logic of the statist intellectual, bureaucrat, regulator and big govt supporter in conflict with aspirers to small govt and free market.

  1851. Luke says

    SD – so given the environmental record of US chemical companies I would say that’s Tea Party crap.

    “It just keeps going in one direction forever–positive feedback!” and even more stupid comment. You guys. “we would all have been wiped out long ago.” hmmmmm such as the PETM perhaps….. gurgle

    “small govt and free market” sort of like the wild west? Despite your buffoonery you’d be shocked to learn that many scientists work towards win-win projects that try to seek a balance. With a minimum of compliance red tape and streamlined processes. Of course the class commercial outfits already do their own monitoring and enviro-works as they want to sell a product from an accredited production system that can’t be fingered by finicky (and they are finicky) consumers.

  1852. Robert says

    “…many scientists work towards win-win projects”. Just so. We’re worried about the counter-productive guys.

    “Of course the class commercial outfits already do their own monitoring and enviro-works.” Every institution and company in the world that’s big enough and rich enough will flash its enviro-credentials, no matter what they are selling. And they have the well paid auditors to prove their credentials and well paid advertisers to tell you all about it.

    Virgin will take your booking now for recreational space travel, yet who’s greener than Sir Richard? I’m sure there’s a carbon credit component in the spacefare. But guess who’s raffling the carbon credits? Branson has worked out that nobody cares about real emissions in real time, and that environmentalism is just another commercial flavour, like tutti frutti. He’s right: nobody cares about actual GHG emissions. Nobody.

    If you have the resources for effective spin, all sorts of efficiency improvements and tax write-downs become “green initiatives” to placate the professional finger-waggers and lure those finicky consumers. Fair enough. I’ve written a bit of publicity, and I’d probably do the same thing. But it’s mostly just spin, to avoid confrontation and move your product. It’s cheaper to have Ross Garnaut on your corporate board than to deal with hundreds of millions of tons of metalliferous waste.

    Did you know Philip Morris International funds the teaching of sustainable agriculture techniques in Africa? Needless to say, the world’s biggest tobacco company has planted 22 million trees. (No doubt they’re also in favour of motherhood and correct tooth-brushing.)

    Now, can we get away from the fetishism and colossal waste of “being green” and get back to Conservation?

  1853. Luke says

    So Robert are you going to buy that sideboard if you knew full well that it was exterminating orangutan habitat? Do you ever as a consumer discriminate? When do you say no – or is it never?

    So really how much fetishism is there? You’re probably also in favour of wasting money by not making new buildings energy efficient. The blog loves returning to the “can’t do it” meme.

    Cut it all down. Dig it all up. Never stop eh Robert? Why conserve anything? What for?

  1854. Debbie says

    Luke,
    That e water link is essentially a re package of something that irrigators have been doing for years…especially the intensive horticulture irrigators but also irrigators that grow broad acre crops on beds and under lateral sprays and pivots.
    The broad acre vegetable growers have been using something similar for a long time also.
    What’s happening here is the same technology (although remarkably watered down) is now being marketted to ‘environmental water managers’.
    It is nothing new and this one looks like it doesn’t even have the accompanying ‘precise watering’ technology that is usually part of it and is focused on ‘saving’ water rather than just trashing it in artificial flooding (which is what the environmental water managers are planning to do)
    Amusingly, they are using ‘river red gums’ as their justification.
    Problems with our river red gums are not specifically related to water….far more to do with ‘management’ practices.
    River red gums are remarkably resilient and can manage our ephemeral environment far better than most veg.
    They have bounced back and multiplied amazingly in the last 2 + years. However, some areas are now in danger of drowning because they were ‘over watered’ by CEWH. (Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder)
    The biggest ‘risk’ we’re all facing from the poor management of river red gums is the fire risk as they are not managed correctly for fire anymore. Those things absolutely love to burn and they will even ignite ahead of oncoming fires. They need to be thinned out and proper fire breaks need to be mantained. They also need to be kept out of flood drainage areas as they are an absolute nuisance in those areas. Some of the fuel load that they create on the ground also needs to be better managed. In the national park areas, the red gum stands are being over run by feral animals and noxious weeds.
    People should also be taught not to let them grow too close to their access roads or their buildings.
    As beautiful as they are, they also bloody dangerous in fire weather.
    They also have a propensity to suddenly and silently drop large limbs and have actually destroyed things such as cars & caravans and killed people when they do that.
    I note with amusement that you are still operating under your usual MO and have deliberately misinterpreted Robert’s comment.
    How can you conclude that he means ‘dig it all up’ etc and ‘conserve nothing at all’ ?
    That is clearly NOT what he said….you make yourself look like you have a serious comprehension problem when you draw those ridiculous and outrageous conclusions.

  1855. spangled drongo says

    “hmmmmm such as the PETM perhaps….. gurgle”

    That’s funny, I thought that the earth “recovered” from the PETM a while back.

    And your Julia groupthink on bureaucratic regulation just elaborates my point. Instead of keeping out of the way and regulating minimally, you lefties stifle wealth generation and end up like the new lefties in France, applying a crippling tax rate on the real wealth producers who then leave the country to its dismal fate.

    You have absolutely no idea about wealth creation and good govt.

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/open_our_borders_to_frances_new_refugees/

  1856. Debbie says

    And PS Luke:
    FYI:
    We have lost most of these people:
    ‘you’d be shocked to learn that many scientists work towards win-win projects that try to seek a balance. With a minimum of compliance red tape and streamlined processes.’
    You are being just a tad disingenious here or perhaps you are simply misinformed.
    Scientists are generally ’employees’ who basically fulfil their job descriptions to the best of their ability. If we want to know what they’re working on…we need to look at their ‘terms of reference’.
    As mentioned earlier in this thread, our regional CSIRO and DPI buildings are almost empty.
    The good ones who knew how to work with Agriculture have either been co opted over seas or they have moved into the centralised system and now work on projects that largely ‘demonise’ agriculture.
    It is hugely and sadly ironic that the Feds are now talking about rebuilding that sector through the ‘National Food Plan’ when it was the same people and departments who trashed them in the first place.

  1857. spangled drongo says

    “So Robert are you going to buy that sideboard if you knew full well that it was exterminating orangutan habitat?”

    Luke carries on with all the trite, misguided waffle of the concerned groupthink that were almost certainly responsible.

    That sideboard was almost certainly built from rainforest timber cleared to plant palm oil to meet renewable energy demands from another crazy, green lefty govt.

    The delusions just keep on coming but note how the unintended consequences are spun.

  1858. Luke says

    “That’s funny, I thought that the earth “recovered” from the PETM a while back.” Well numb nutz as a rock the Earth might “recover” from anything other than a major planetary collision or red sun. The small problem is that YOU, your redneck mates and a gaqziilion species wouldn’t. I guess there may be some benefits on second thoughts.

    “Scientists are generally ‘employees’ who basically fulfil their job descriptions to the best of their ability. ” gee that’s amazing

    “That sideboard was almost certainly built from rainforest timber cleared to plant palm oil to meet renewable energy demands from another crazy, green lefty govt.” oh piss off – you mean simple demand for palm oil as a product or JUST rampant flog the logs.

    How do you know when SD is talking crap – his lips are moving.

  1860. Luke says

    Debs agree – govts has progressively rooted CSIRO agriculture divisions, and State Depts of Ag and DPI’s. Newman has just burnt Qld DPI to the ground just to “help the decline”.

  1861. Neville says

    More proof that the CSIRO and Bom were wrong about the drought and future rainfall.

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/about_that_rain_that_wouldnt_fill_a_dam/

    Because of these fools and the previous labor govt in Vic we are saddled with a useless desal plant at a cost of 6 billion $ and ongoing cost of about 700 million $ per annum, whether we use the damn thing or not.

    Meanwhile the Mitchell river has flooded a number of times during the construction of the idiot desal plant, washing away bridges etc.

    A new dam holding at least 3 times the water of the desal output pa and built with a one up cost of about 5 billion was always the sensible economic path we should have followed.

  1862. Robert says

    It should be clear that we are mostly conservationists who come to this blog. We object to Green plunder, not efficient buildings. I’m sorry for the people who are canoodled by clever branding and who want a little superiority and piety with their consumerism, but it’s grow-up time. We can’t afford to keep presuming on debt and history’s biggest mining boom to fund green waste and massive green financial fiddles – then claim it’s all about efficiency or orangutans.

    Even if we send the farms and small businesses broke with regulation and costs, we will be left with a need to conserve what’s left behind. Better to keep the farms and small businesses and, yes, even support them with useful subsidies, especially as regards genuine conservation. And let’s support everybody with cheap, abundant energy and water. No retreat from that position, no “can’t do it” memes. I like ancient history – nice intellectual space to visit, but I wouldn’t want to live there.

    Corporations are okay but they are over-rated. Have you noticed that Coca Cola are a lot better at marketing and packaging than, say, making soft drink or designing straw dispensers? And don’t be surprised if our “iconic” R. M. Williams is eventually found to be better at manipulating than doing. It’s a lot easier to brand yourself “R. M”. or “Kidman” than to do what the guys themselves had to do.

    Luke, it’s surprising how those who condemn corporate capitalism are its biggest patsies. We are seeing it right now with Big Green. We need large enterprises to do what small people can’t do. If it weren’t for corporations developing, for example, synthetic fibres, we’d still be skinning koalas (two million “natural and organic” pelts in one year during the 1920s). But we need small businesses and farms to do the bulk of producing. A kid driving dad’s tractor after school is real efficiency. Governments and corporations can’t replicate that, and will always trend toward fudging and PR to create the impression of efficiency. They have the resources to waste on the brochures and public posturing. Of course they’re Green. They’ll be anything you want. It’s what they do. Are you buying?

  1863. Debbie says

    You’re only partly agreeing Luke.
    Where did all the funding get redirected to?
    If they’re still in OZ what are the scientists now doing as far as their ‘job descriptions’ are concerned?
    What Newman is doing is very different to what I was highlighting. He actually IS reducing the over spending at the ‘top end’ and the double handling due to centralisation. The QLD PS is being ‘transformed’ in favour of ‘principles’ in policy. 🙂
    Welcome to the real world.

  1864. Luke says

    Wonderful how denialist goobers like Neviile can’t think for themselves.

    We now have science by press quip. But coots like Bolt and Neville don’t check their source. Why – coz they’re dishonest and/or stupid.

    “But not all experts agree. Murray-Darling Basin Authority chief Rob Freeman told a water summit in Melbourne last week he believed the extreme climate patterns that have dried out south-east Australia would not prove to be permanent.
    ”Some commentators say this is the new future. I think that is an extreme position and probably a position that’s not helpful to take,” he said, expressing confidence that wetter times would return.

    Projections for the water coming to Melbourne in the north-south pipeline are based on the assumption that Victoria will return to rainfall levels of last century.

    Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/national/its-not-drought-its-climate-change-say-scientists-20090829-f3cd.html#ixzz27oOZp665

    The sub-tropical ridge work still stands – pity morons like Neville can’t read ….

  1865. Luke says

    “The QLD PS is being ‘transformed’ in favour of ‘principles’ in policy. ”

    hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha – good ones Debs

    http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/crime-and-misconduct-commission-looking-into-appointment-of-arts-minister-ros-bates-son-ben-gommers-to-public-role/story-e6freon6-1226480979811

    and

    http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/national/mp-ros-bates-son-ben-gommers-scored-top-role-despite-premier-campbell-newman-ordering-immediate-jobs-freeze/story-fndo1yus-1226482121154

    Not bad – 23 and Toys R Us salesman to top salary bracket and car park. Appointment on merit I’m sure. Others tend to get there at 40-50 years of age.

    Yes indeed Debs – welcome to the real world.

  1867. spangled drongo says

    Lukwitz chooses to deny that when you can “flog the logs” AWA get carbon creds for murdering the habitat, his fav lefty-green pollicies really take off.

    He doesn’t wish to know that he is being conned. And as a professional suckler he is the least affected anyway.

    He also thinks that the Wildlife Conservancy are going to exclude small mamal-eating ferals by putting up a barb-wire fence. But you can already see how he loves La La Land.

    Lukie-luv, I’ve been involved in WC properties and sadly, the incentives and volunteer labour are just not there to have any worthwhile effect. They get lots of taxpayer grants but volunteers have to be there all the time. But maybe you’ll step into the breach and lend a hand?

    “Now you wouldn’t get AEF or climate sceptic goons doing something useful would you?”

    Well, I’m a member of AEF and I do that sort of work on a daily basis, at my own expense, on a property that I paid for.

    So now it’s time to stop ducking and weaving and answer my long-unanswered-question”

    What have you done and/or plan to do, in this regard?

  1868. Debbie says

    Gee whiz Luke,
    I wonder why I bother sometimes.
    Not only have you deliberately misinterpreted again, you are now adding an apparent memory loss to your comprehension problem.
    Rob Freeman says wetter times will return? HAHAHAHA!
    ROB FREEMAN? ? ? Oh that is toooooooo much!
    Also cast your mind back to official govt figs I posted a few days ago. Funding of science and research has significantly increased under current govt. WHERE DID THE FUNDING GO? Who got it for what purpose?

  1869. spangled drongo says

    Lukwitz talks out his cloaca once again. Seeney is absolutely right. The CMC should investigate if they think fit but not be used as the political tool that Labor used them for at the last election trying to discredit Newman which backfired so badly on them.

    Seeney’s trying to do you lefties a favour.

    To prevent all that blood in your shoes.

  1870. Neville says

    Interesting to watch Steffen on the Bolt report again, what a load of exaggeration and waffling on about nothing. It’s all gunna be terrible in the future….. just you wait.
    At least he did concede that our recent big drought was not caused by humans, a bit different than Flannery and the Wong nong and all of the labor idiots and most journalists.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqWDE7bWbAw

    Of couse our Lukey fool still thinks that humans played a part in the 1940’s drought , which means he’s even 70 to 80 years out of date with Flannery and the Labor dingbats.
    You could make a case that he’s about a 100 years out of whack with Steffen.

    Just shows what a clueless denier and serial exaggerator we have on this blog. He doesn’t exhibit any shame or remorse for his lone ranger fantasies and silly delusions at all.

    Day in day out he’s forever yapping from the fringe, but just never, ever seems to learn. Just no shame at all.

  1871. gavin says

    Guys; those big highs over the continent and intense lows through the Bight are perhaps the most notable feature of post ww2 climate change and should attract more study based on pressure charts published in the dailies

  1873. Debbie says

    And PS?
    no further comment on that e water link and river red gums?
    As SD has just highlighted, it’s amazing how you manage to derail any discussion about sensible, practical & realistic management practices.
    And I’m still completely gobsmacked by that Rob Freeman quote.
    You seriously need to rewind approx 3 years and look at what he was saying then. Even only 12 months ago!
    He is NOW trying to pretend something else entirely?
    And if you’re agreeing with him Luke, you have also just negated most of what you have claimed about the climate in the MDB over many many threads here in the past.

  1874. Neville says

    Good interview with Marc Morano stating the facts and numbers on the solar power scams.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTnV4jtLsL4&feature=youtu.be

    All funded by govt and yet they still go bankrupt, and they still keep funding this unbelievable fraud.
    Just remove taxpayer’s borrowed funds and all these schemes wouldn’t last a week.

    All those billions wasted down the gutter and zero change to the climate and temp.

  1875. Luke says

    The usual series of mindless replies. SD wanks while AWC does !

    Morano what a class denier. Neville loves sucking on the dross. Move to the US you tool.

    Debbie you’re not intelligent enough to understand what’s been said on MDB climate. Remember dear you aren’t interested in details. The point is that Timbal is a single POV doing a press clipping (Hardly policy) and what he said on STRi is right and will play out.

  1876. spangled drongo says

    “Nev/SD; Bolt and WUWT links don’t make up for personal observations”

    In regard to what, gav, UHI?

    Haven’t you been paying attention? Personal obs which I have bored you with on numerous occasions are exactly what have led me to be very sceptical of CAGW.

    Apart from the absorbed energy of human infrastructure just placing a thermometer on either side of your house and comparing the difference through the day should be enough to convince you.

  1877. spangled drongo says

    Done any voluntatry work for AWC Luckwitz?

    Been to any of their properties and assessed their efforts compared to the previous owners?

    Until you can stand up to a bit of scrutiny you should put a sock in it.

    You are a windbag!

  1878. Debbie says

    Absolute rubbish Luke,
    your last comment was BS & deliberate avoidance from start to finish.
    Answer the questions re funding & look up what Rob Freeman & also you have claimed about climate in the MDB.
    Neither of those FACTS have a single thing to do with my IQ but your last comment sure makes me seriously question yours.

  1879. kuhnkat says

    Lillte Lukey whines:

    “Yes warming with no solar driver. Yuh sure. Physics is wrong – yuh sure. Just keep deluding yourself that unpublished ratbags know better.”

    Hey, you got one right for once Little Lukey!! The Physics is wrong!! Except you don’t know HOW WRONG or WHY wrong or who and where wrong!!!

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  1880. Luke says

    Well what have you done SD – zip ! I asked you weeks ago and just drifted off. You’re just full of crap. Some eccentric with a “block” – pullease !

    Debbie what meds are you on today. Time for lamingtons I think. (1) a few newspaper snips from a couple of scientists is not a policy statement (2) science did not/does not say it will never rain again (3) there is a drying trend in LOWER MDB from the STRi trend in autumn months underlying. Therefore Bolt’s clip is simply shitful trash.

    Kookers – your bleat is noted.

  1883. Debbie says

    Rubbish again Luke,
    YOU quoted Rob Freeman, NOT ME! Go back a few comments & push restart.
    He has been here many times over the past 3 years and FINALLY from your quote, he is perhaps STARTING to realise that the people who live and work here might actually know what they’re talking about. He insisted that what we’re experiencing right now was unlikely to happen ever again and we would all have to adjust to a ‘future with less water’.
    There is no ‘drying trend’ Luke. The catchment is about the wettest, for the longest period it has ever been.
    It is behaving as normal because in this part of the world there is no such thing as a ‘ long term average’ year.
    We won’t be getting NBN anytime soon either. ADSL never even made it here. I’m still in my green tractor however using that satellite technology that I don’t know anything about and using my tablet as I go. 🙂
    Just as well too. Very windy & very dusty here today. The tractor can see better than I can, because it’s fitted with that stuff that I don’t know anything about.
    Because despite your repetetive & predictable comments Luke, we do use best available practice & technology out here in what you obviously consider hicksville and we do co exist with our ephemeral environment.
    No one, including BoM was prepared for that whopper drought & if it wasn’t for the water storage & irrigation networks that were set up last century (and in desperate need of upgrade & modernisation) the rivers would have been bone dry and there would have been mass evacuations of inland Australia, particularly from SA.

  1884. Luke says

    Debbie – you must be dense – unable to read Anglais. Dense

    In August 2009 he was quoted as saying “But not all experts agree. Murray-Darling Basin Authority chief Rob Freeman told a water summit in Melbourne last week he believed the extreme climate patterns that have dried out south-east Australia would not prove to be permanent.

    2009 Debs – 2009.

    And there is a drying trend – trend is long term statistical derivation Debs not 1 or 2 datum points. The trend is in specific months. Have you read the research. Don’t tell me you have as you could not string a sentence together on it. Like with forecasting story all over again.

  1885. Hasbeen says

    Hay Jennifer, how much fish can one girl need?

    With Jo hacked to silence, & you off gallivanting around the fishing grounds, we are left here deprived of leadership & help. We are suffering deprivation of the very worst kind.

    In fact I get the impression that Luke & co are emboldened, & gaining some momentum, if not common sense. The posters have been holding their ground manfully, [including Debbie of course], but there is only one Jeniffer.

    All is forgiven, [I know this has no meaning, but it sounds good], so come back & lead us out of this wilderness we find ourselves inhabiting. We need you!

  1887. spangled drongo says

    “Well what have you done SD – zip ! I asked you weeks ago and just drifted off. You’re just full of crap. Some eccentric with a “block” – pullease !”

    Enough of the lies, Luke. You asked me for a debate on rangeland management not on what I have done. I have already told you some of that but I’ll make a deal. I’ll show you mine if you show me yours, OK?

    I’ll tell you what I have done towards reducing emissions through land management if you do likewise. Agreed?

  1891. Debbie says

    Read the research & discussed the stats with the researchers.
    Catch up Luke. Look at current stuff to test the veracity of the statistical derivations.
    Drying trend from stats was for Autumn.
    We have just had the 3 wettest Autumns on record.
    I respectfully suggest you don’t hang your hat on anything from RF. The MBDA have ‘terms of reference’ derived from the Water Act 2007. Have you read & understood those? He is filling his job description, nothing more, nothing less.
    They were hamstrung from the get go.

  1897. Johnathan Wilkes says

    don’t worry cohenite, she is on and off line, been like that for the last couple of days.
    Despite what luke said, her site has some very sensible posts.

  1902. Neville says

    Green power is adding to greece’s woes. Because of the renewable energy fraud the Greek grid almost failed in June and now they have to tax this idiocy and sell up what they can.

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/28/us-greece-interview-idUSBRE88R0UQ20120928

    Fraudulent subsidies have been dropped or reduced to try and fix up this barking mad green mess.
    Yet we have dumb bums on this blog who want Aussies to suffer the same fate and the wreckage of our economy.

    Once again just proves how accurate Morano was in that interview I posted yesterday. In fact he was spot on.
    After years of demanding Luke give us the answer for the mitigation of AGW his wimpy reponse was “it’s hard to achieve” and then he offered the opinion that Nuclear power was an option.

    But because his maths are so hopelessly flawed I had to remind him that Christy had already done the calculations of a start up of 1000 new nuclear power stations and it still wouldn’t make a scrap of difference to the climate or temp by 2100.

    But Christy knows this stupid experiment will never take place for a long time so it’s a really a wanky pipe dream.
    So can Luke tell us 20 fabulously wealthy countries who would agree to build 50 nuclear power stations to try and offset AGW? (50x 20= 1000 just for Luke, Gav and bazza)

    But as I’ve explained above it can’t help mitigate AGW at all so why bother? Also how many countless trillions $ would it cost to build that number and quickly?

  1904. Luke says

    Neville’s DICKWIT logic – AGW is mitigation is difficult and expensive. Therefore ergo eureka – the problem doesn’t exist. The exquisite nature of the intellectually corrupt deniers logic.

    We’ll just add that to “the earth’s recovery” as a supreme example of blog drongoism.

    And was down at the shops yesterday – golly there were people on the ground crying – the economy was wrecked they were wailing as they carried their trolley’s full of lovely consumer items to their new cars. “It’s just so bad” they caterwauled. Droves of people in tears at the cash registers. Coffee Club and Maccas filled with people sobbing.

  1905. Debbie says

    Luke,
    in REALITY and when we pay attention to real time data and when we examine what is happening in Europe, the ‘grand & noble ideological experiment’ is NOT delivering.
    Just because Australia is still managing to be OK and the ‘sky is not falling in’ is NOT a good excuse to keep flogging a dead horse.
    This reliance on ‘long term statistical derivations’ when we clearly still don’t know enough about the climate has led to mind boggling stupid decisions like dumping water onto floods and holding water for the environment when it clearly doesn’t need it & failure to properly manage fire risk & the inappropriate hijacking of research & the trashing of sensible research into Agriculture & etcetera.
    As I have said many times, there will be no one happier than us farmers when we can accurately predict weather & climate trends. We’re clearly NOT in that space yet.

  1906. Neville says

    Luke you can lie all you like but it still won’t help you.

    Because you’re so stupid I’ll just say this….

    I believe in perhaps 1c of warming for a doubling of co2. Therefore I concede AGW ( but not CAGW) does exist, in fact I’ve always said so you donkey.

    But mitigation of AGW can’t work because the non OECD are emitting co2 much faster than the OECD can reduce emissions. Oz of course is the biggest coal exporter in the world so why not ask Julia to stop our exports? Good luck with your negotiations with this severe bi-polar Labor govt BTW.
    What is it you can’t understand about these simple numbers?

    I’ll say it again the application of any provable method of mitigation of AGW is fraudulent nonsense.
    What’s more you must know it’s true or you’d give an example that could fix your problem. The slight increase in temp since the end of the LIA is often referred to as a recovery whether you like the term or not.

  1907. Johnathan Wilkes says

    “referred to as a recovery whether you like the term or not.”

    You are right Neville, Luke seems to take some expressions quite literally when it suits him.

  1908. spangled drongo says

    Neville, Jo’s site works for me. The comments there have grown from about a dozen yesterday to about 40 today so people are obviously accessing it. I found at one stage this am it was slow coming up.

    Luke is sodumb he thinks because all the public breast sucklers are sitting drinking lattes and chatting or spending while the battlers are looking for work, nothing bad can possibly be happening.

    That because the self funded retirees [savers] are fast loosing their life savings and being taxed more to pay these sucklers wages, the country’s in the very best of hands.

    The nut jobs from the PM down all think this is the way to go. Will France’s 75% tax on the wealthy be next?

    It must have been a shock for him to be relegated to economy class air travel for his next junket to help Wayney crack a “surplus”.

    Thought about that deal yet Lukie Luv? I’m still waiting!

  1909. Luke says

    Neville – when it starts to bite the mitigation cost will seem trivial and the problem then unstoppable. Your scales are only loaded on one side. Your entire problem.

    “in REALITY and when we pay attention to real time data and when we examine what is happening in Europe, the ‘grand & noble ideological experiment’ is NOT delivering.’

    So turgid Debs – real time data in a 50-100 year problem. A wiggle a woggle. A biggle a boggle.

    “As I have said many times, there will be no one happier than us farmers when we can accurately predict weather & climate trends.” more silliness – chaos says you can’t with climate – only predict the envelope.

    Aaahh ahhh choo – the Earth caught a cold – now it’s “recovering” aahhh ahhhh choo

    JW – I thought we were men and women of science not anthropomorphic analogy loving simpletons.

  1910. Luke says

    “public breast sucklers are sitting drinking lattes and chatting ” well I guess it’s better than tax dodging fraudulent small business persons capitalising gains and socialising their losses. Gee some may even have been employed on an advertised job offer, been selected and worked long and hard at what they were paid to do. Is this illegal?

    When you experience your beloved family person getting shit treatment in your overloaded hospital ward you may reflect on all these bludgers. When your files have been lost coz admin has been sacked – don’t whinge you brainless little turd.

    “economy air travel” – sorry when has anyone except the CEO gone any other way – assuming you’re not subject to a complete ban and are actually allowed to go anywhere or survived the 50 approval forms to finally find the shithouse outsourced private enterprise fund milking booking system has lost the application.

    But I wouldn’t know about all that anymore.

  1912. Debbie says

    Luke,
    For anything to be of any use it has to operate in the here & now. If it doesn’t recognise the here & now then STUPID RULES AND STUPID DECISIONS are made. Dismissing the here & now as just a wiggle wobble is just merely unproductive and entirely unaccountable behaviour.
    Attempts to ‘predict the envelope’ and inform social policy on those ‘envelope predictions’ are NOT DELIVERING good outcomes. The decision makers are also hiding behind those same ‘predictive envelopes’ under the unaccountable pretense of a ‘grand moral challenge’.
    You also need to cut the semantics. Statistical derivations and predictive envelopes or statistical inferences ir whatever other terminology you care to use are merely computer generated, statistical, projective modelling. Those models are merely useful tools and they have been inappropriately hijacked by a political agenda. The ‘politics’ is refusing to update them correctly and they are fast approaching ‘useless’ status.
    You are correct however that chaos rules. The climate is no more interested in conforming to your precious trends than it is for anyone else.
    You are also correct that our short history in OZ is not long enough to ‘trend’ anything much.
    By all means keep trying, but we need the ‘agenda’ to cease dismissing the here & now!

  1913. spangled drongo says

    “But I wouldn’t know about all that anymore.”

    Say it’s not so!

    Oh, frabjous day!

    Was it Wanger or Campbell?

  1915. Debbie says

    Luke has still failed to answer/comment on the question of funding in science & research. It has significantly increased yet areas like Agricultural research and medical research and even field environmental/wetland ecology research have been ‘progressively rooted’ (to use Luke’s terminology). So where did all that funding get redirected and for what purpose? Where did all that new funding go and for what purpose?

  1916. Neville says

    Sorry Luke but you’re wrong again. My scales are loaded for both sides, adaptation and more R&D and then hopefully application of some new science and technology.
    You’re the fool who wants to waste money by the truck load on rubbish that can’t make a scrap of difference to AGW at all.

    But you’re correct that climate is chaotic and nobody fully understands what the future holds for the next 100 or 1000 years.

    Don’t forget Julia’s top expert ? Timmy Flannery claims all countries could stop emitting today and we might not see a change in climate or temp for perhaps a 1000 years. That’s perhaps zero change until 3012.
    Makes your delusional panic station approach in 2012 look like something out of Grimm’s fairytales.

  1917. Johnathan Wilkes says

    Luke said,
    “I thought we were men and women of science not anthropomorphic analogy loving simpletons.”

    OK Luke would you prefer instead if we said: “After the passing of the LIA the temperature increased naturally”?

    What’s the difference between “recovered to its previous state” or increased to the level it was before?

    You are picking nits Luke, and honestly is there a need for such rudeness?
    It undermines your arguments.

  1918. spangled drongo says

    Debs, our Luke makes the Artful Dodger look like a boy. He can’t even manage a simple Yes or No.

    Reminds me of that add:

    “Will you wait for me, my darling?”

    “Er, probably not.”

    Not into committment, our Lukie.

  1920. Neville says

    Spangled according to NOAA 11 of the highest 15 sea ice extents were set in Antarctica in 2012 and the other 4 in 2006.

    But not a peep out of the MSM about it and not a peep about the well known bi-polar seesaw phenomina that seems to come into play when comparing the two poles.

    Amazingly we’re berated with nonsense about Arctic ice extent all the time but the only time we hear about Antarctica is rubbish about human caused ice loss to the peninsula.

  1921. Debbie says

    Just a reminder Luke:
    Oficial Govt figs are as follows:
    ‘The Australian Government’s total investment in science, research and innovation was estimated at $9.08 Billion in 2010-11, up from $4.97 billion in 2002-03.’
    From “National Food Plan” Green Paper 2012, published by the Australian Government with foreward by Senator the Hon. Joe Ludwig. Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. Senator for QLD.
    You and I have tentatively agred that it hasn’t gone into Agricultural research among others…in fact those type of areas have been stripped of funding (or progressively rooted to use your terminology) and we have lost some of our very best scientists and researchers in these fields to OS.
    So where has that previous funding been redirected to and where has all the extra funding gone?
    And even more importantly….for what purpose….or what ‘mixed goals’? (to use your terminology).

  1922. Neville says

    Hey Luke , Gav and bazza here’s a good investment for you to put your hard earned dollars into, only you’ll miss out on Gore’s wonderful recent investment history. NOT.

    Seems the world’s biggest HIPPO has now given up on green investment opportunities altogether because he and his clueless followers have been so badly burnt over the last few years.

    http://www.wnd.com/2012/09/al-gore-bails-from-green-energy-investment/

    It couldn’t happen to a better bunch of delusional halfwits. These green investments are probably the number one lousy investment of the decade, even after the poor taxpayer poured in countless billions $ to try and keep them afloat.

    But don’t let us deter you Lukey’ just put your money where your big mouth is. BTW HIPPO Al started one of his sermons to congress a few years ago by stating that “the planet had a fever.” Ya gotta laugh.

  1923. gavin says

    According to the spine bones of yours truly the whole Southern Ocean is full of ice today hence we are both contemplating moving back north asap cept youngsters on both the ball are now warning of rising SL about there too. So, who or what do you believe? btw on the ball means being paid to know important stuff.

    It seems Jo Nova is up on new skids but beware, her hackers may persist or even clobber would be regular visitors. I won’t be in the habit although free speech should remain part of our democracy.

    One exception, Jonesy. Who would want to be Liberal?

  1924. Debbie says

    Gavin,
    Inappropriate and ‘run off at the mouth’ behaviour by journalists and other media personalities is not limited to their political membership and/or political persuasion….plenty of them have behaved inappropriately from all political platforms as you must know.
    AJ has made a truly inappropriate comment….but he’s not alone and he’s also not indicative of anything other than ill advised and silly commentary/behaviour.
    I understand from what has already been reported that he has already publicly apologised and that the Liberal party membership was no more impresed than anyone else was.
    The real question I think is…. who would want to be Jonesy today?

  1925. Luke says

    Debs

    “So where has that previous funding been redirected to and where has all the extra funding gone?” it’s not only Aust Govt – don’t forget the states

    away from ag R&D – cities, hospitals, schools, police, inefficient expensive outsourced previous govt operations (see ripoff and dollars for mates), and assuming chemical, machinery and seed companies will do the ag R&D

    Neville Arctic ice is in free-fall – Antarctic ice not in same category and likely to a warming and freshening southern ocean. http://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/09/20/poles-apart/ Go figure

  1926. Luke says

    Johnathon W ““After the passing of the LIA the temperature increased naturally””

    hmmmmm If we are being scientific I would have said the Earth responds to its energy balance. Which derives from a variety of factors. If there is less insolation it becomes colder. More insolation and it warms. Whether the cooling be solar output or volcanism. But this doesn’t presuppose a “normal” or preferred state except for what we’d like.

    “Recovery” is simply bad science and anthropomorphic.

    The Copenhagen Diagnosis says:

    “A “recovery” of climate is not a scientific concept, since the climate does not respond like a pendulum that swings back after it was pushed in one direction. Rather, the climate responds like a pot of water on the stove: it can only get warmer if you add heat, according to the most fundamental law of physics, conservation of energy. The Earth’s heat budget (its radiation balance) is well understood.”

  1927. gavin says

    No Debs, no party needs a mouth like that and I think you are wrong in trying to shove him off as journo or anything else typical media. The far right should also shun such dirt. Character assassination is a job for fools.

    Public personal damage here won’t go unnoticed either. As I said last post, Jo is a target for what ever reason and by association so are her followers. Tone it down boys!

  1929. Johnathan Wilkes says

    Ahh forget I said anything Luke!

    Not worth bothering, I only commented on the semantics you took so seriously, not the science.

    And Gavin
    “Character assassination is a job for fools”

    I hope you mention it to your labor mates too re. TA’s alleged behavior 30 odd years ago?
    They have gone for it boots and all, aided by the compliant media.

  1930. Neville says

    Geezzz Gav let’s use logic and reason for a change. Jones said the wrong thing and everyone has condemned him, all the media and both sides of politics.

    But a few weeks ago TA was accused of an act that was a complete work of fiction, or haven’t you understood this yet?

    Yet TA was roundly condemned by most of the media and was abused in parliament and by labor hypocrites even though they knew the story was a fabrication. Even the Swan idiot called him a thug who likes to go the biffo.

    Even labor supporters have admitted the TA yarn was a fairytale and everyone that attended that evening can’t remember the incident at all.

    Most importantly it would have been in all the uni papers at the time and everyone and his dog would have been yapping about it within an hour of any punches being delivered.

    Alas the woman in question has heaps of form, particulary against TA. So just to sum up, Jones says the wrong thing and is condemned by all sides within hours of the audio becoming available.
    But TA is roundly condemned and abused by Labor and a lot of the media (fairfax and the ABC) for an action that didn’t take place. In fact the story was a fairytale and TA hasn’t received an apology to this day.

  1931. cohenite says

    Jones should have not stooped to the same level as Gillard and the ALP minions.

    Small potatoes magnified into a scandal by a louche and arrogantly stupid MSM.

    Gillard still has a case to answer. Einfeld was jailed for lying under oath. Any public document prepared by a lawyer has the status of an oath. Gillard prepared an application for association knowing that the declared intention of the association was false. How is she different from Einfeld?

  1932. John Sayers says

    Jones thought he was addressing a private function. The organizers of the event are to blame. You hire Jones to be outrageous, and he is.

    They blew it by allowing it to be recorded by a journo.

  1933. John Sayers says

    unfortunately he has blown it for Tony Abbott and the Liberal party.

    I’ve never witnessed so much hatred of Jones in the social media as I experienced today and it all fell back onto Tony Abbott.

  1935. John Sayers says

    Yes Cohenite, you don’t know where to start with the Soma induced society today.

    Look what one missing ABC Radio producer has produced in a week.

  1936. Debbie says

    C’mon Luke,
    I am fully aware that the States have stripped funding too.
    A little more levity would be appreciated.
    The science & research funding has nearly doubled in that timeframe. I know the answer & so do you.
    Who/what agenda has received the lion’s share & for what purpose?
    Be honest please Luke.
    Gavin,
    The Jonesy debacle is a red herring and will be stale news by next week. I don’t really know why, but he has a loyal following and if anything his popularity will go up not down.
    I agree that character assassination is reprehensible, but it is nonetheless rampart in all colours and flavours of politics and to pretend otherwise is approaching delusional behaviour.

  1941. cohenite says

    “Look what one missing ABC Radio producer has produced in a week.”

    Plenty of energy there, I agree; the point though? I have my opinion about that particular tragedy, what is yours since you raised it?

  1942. John Sayers says

    I suppose my point is that there are rapes and murders going on day in day out yet that particular occurrence created a major event.

    As a facebook friend posted “If I ever go missing I hope I work for a media company”

  1945. cohenite says

    John; very true; but, a fat lot of good it did the poor woman in the end. You cannot control the bastardry of humanity except by creating a controlled society and that is the worst form of bastardry.

    gav; I have no idea what your point it; elaborate please.

  1947. Luke says

    Debs – the decline in ag R&D funding has been going for decades. Staff decline. Lack of core competencies. You tell me where the $ have gone.

    Ah SD – maaattee – coz it’s utter crap that’s why. You’re such a sucker – you do no homework. For your delectation.

    “2: Easterbrook claims that the GISP2 core is “a good proxy for global temperatures”.
    This is nonsense. The Greenland record is regional in nature, and therefore shows much more variability than the global record. Easterbrook’s justification, that glaciers around the world retreat and grow in sync with Greenland is also not supported by the evidence3.
    3: He’s still using shonky Greenland graphs, and claiming that most of the last 10,000 years were warmer than now.
    His graphs of the Greenland temperature record and interpretation of it were shown to be in error 18 months ago.”

    http://sciblogs.co.nz/hot-topic/tag/don-easterbrook/

    http://hot-topic.co.nz/easterbrooks-wrong-again/

    You great big sucker SD – mate I have to wonder. Stop whoring around disinformation sites.

  1948. gavin says

    coh; my point was that graph just plucked out of thousands in the paleo climate argument is not by it’s self a substitute for global temperatures. Simply we don’t get atmospheric temperature from deep ice.

    A couple of takes on “Easterbrook climate 2012” after Google

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/don-easterbrook-heartland-distortion-of-reality.html

    Easterbrooks Part 2 on Shakun et al after “Part 1 discussed problems related to the lack of direct dating of the Antarctic ice cores and the difficulty of accurately measuring CO2 in ice cores. In Part 2, we will look at the validity of the authors’ claims that (1) climate changes in Antarctica were out of phase with global climatic changes and Southern Hemisphere climatic changes have a ‘see-saw’ relationship with the Northern Hemisphere”

    http://climateobserver.blogspot.com.au/2012/04/part-2-of-professor-don-easterbrooks.html

    Of course none of this has anything to do with the world today going on to support nine bill people. Based on Easterbrook; can we still fly into Cairns? or for that matter, Hobart?

  1949. Debbie says

    Luke,
    The question was very simple.
    ? We know it has been declining in key areas. However funding for science & research has significantly increased over that time frame.
    Who/what got the redirected and the new funding and for what purpose?

  1950. spangled drongo says

    The “Artful Dodger” at work again.

    Like all true catastros he dodges the ball and plays the man.

    Are you really saying:

    That the GISP core is wrong?

    That it is not reproduced in Vostok and many other proxies?

    That both cores don’t show the LIA as being a cold anomaly?

    That it is not one of the coldest periods in the history of civilisation?

    That we have not begun to “recover” from this anomaly?

    The suggestion that “recovery” is pendulum-like is totally ridiculous and unscientific. Just ask any doctor.

    Recover = regain, return to normal state, return to previous position etc.

    And following your previous post of how well the energy budget is “understood”, could you please quantify just how much of the measured “warming” can be attributed to man and how much to nat var?

  1951. Neville says

    Debbie this article by Bolt this morning on Newman’s savage ? cuts to Qld PS just about exposes all the con and fraud of labor’s lies.

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/perhaps_queenslanders_know_the_cash_is_gone/#commentsmore

    Judith Sloan gives the true numbers employed in Qld health and the cuts Newman proposes aren’t even half of normal retirements.

    Good to see that the public has woken up to the lies and fraud peddled by Labor. But this all gives us a a good idea of the waste and extravagance that Labor always brings to govt.
    In a word they are a disaster.

  1952. Luke says

    Poor old SD – out of your depth mate. Slums around dodgy disinformation sites. Gets done.

    Debs well you tell me and report back.

  1953. Luke says

    Any lazy bit of partisan Bolt slops – perhaps we can put him and Jones in a chaff bag? nah? waste of a bag.

  1954. Neville says

    Spangled don’t worry about the Luke donkey, he doesn’t even understand simple kindy maths.

    BTW I should have added that blow out in jobs for Qld health in the last decade was 65% for nurses, but managerial and clerical staff 103%.

    Just says it all about the con merchants and fraudsters that run Labor, the nurse’s increase is nearly 40% behind the seat warmers.
    Three cheers for Campbell Newman, let’s hope he goes in even harder. Leave the nurses alone but sack more of the seat warmers.

  1955. Neville says

    Luke we know you can’t handle simple logic and reason or simple maths or the truth, but why be in such a hurry to show us every time you open your big gob.

    BTW it’s great to see Newman doing so well in the latest polling. Shows that the majority of Aussies aren’t as stupid and maths challenged as you are. Read Sloan again you donkey, it’s just so easy to understand.

  1957. Luke says

    Yep good thinking Neville – when your files get lost and your procedure booking is screwed – we’ll all just laugh. Reality is all of this sort of analysis is crap. But half-wits you and SD believe anything you’re told. http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollytics/2012/07/02/introducing-the-qld-treasurer.

    Forbes would have to be one of the great jokes for the climate sceptics – I reckon they should put him up front any inquiry. Even a twit like yourself should be able to see off a pathetic article like that. Watts is obviously lowering his standards to rock bottom. The “Alan Jones” of scepticism. Need more chaff bags. He haw. He haw. He haw.

  1959. Debbie says

    Luke?
    Does that mean you don’t know or you are refusing to answer?
    Looks like SD has nailed it. “Artful Dodger”.
    I posed the question as relevant for discussion… you partly engaged and then ducked away.
    It’s not a particularly difficult question. You have agreed (tentatively) that much funding has been stripped from areas like Agriculture, R&D, Health etc in supporting science , research & innovation.
    The figs say that funding for science, research and innovation has significantly increased.
    A 4.1 Billion $ increase in FACT.
    So money has been removed from certain areas and the money available has also been increased.
    It didn’t disappear into thin air Luke. 🙂
    (I think there is an amusing pun available in that last sentence)
    You have often commented that it is about money.
    You have often commented about ‘the serious scientists’.
    SO WHERE IS IT ALL BEING SPENT?
    FOR WHAT PURPOSE? or ‘mixed goals’ (to use your terminology.)
    What practical and useful scientifically based outcomes have we achieved from this increased funding?

  1961. Luke says

    Well why don’t you inform us Debs. Make your point. I’m not dodging. Why don’t you illustrate your answer instead of playing games like you normally do. Debs how does it feel to spend your life in my jet wash and never lead a discussion? Just make sure your answer includes state funding too lest we get half the story.

  1962. spangled drongo says

    Artful lukwitz doesn’t answer, just waves.

    Swimming or drowning Lukie?

    Why not answer specific questions?

    They may be dumb but that only makes it easier for ya.

    “Still waiting for greenhouse!”

    Still waiting for answers.

    Maybe you need more time to “recover?”

  1963. spangled drongo says

    Nev, ya gotta make allowances for our dodger. Campbell sacked him and he can’t really be expected to have a balanced outlook although a niece of mine was similarly sacked but she was very philosophical about it knowing that she was a mostly non-contributing, highly paid, academic that we could not afford and did not need.

    It’s been the big growth industry of the lefty govts in Aus and elsewhere this century and even those academic bureaucrats realise what a drain on the public breast they are.

    Lukie excepted, of course.

    We have to realise,though, that we are probably all he has left to give his day any purpose.

    That and figuring out how to spend his handsome “package”.

    Ya feel sorry for him.

  1966. Luke says

    But the problem for SD is that all he has are blokie anecdotes – certainly no science. Pls don’t go near a Qld public hospital in the next few years.

  1967. Debbie says

    Rubbish Luke…..absolute avoidance.
    Did you look up the link as a starting point?
    Can’t you answer Luke?
    Of course the same problem is occuring at State level….who said otherwise?
    I also remember some time back at this blog, Tony from Oz posted a link that had specific figures for govt funding….no time to find it though….rather a lot went to that ‘global governance’ research but Ole had the biggest slice of all.
    Also
    SD has posted plenty of Science….he also gives us the benefit of his personal experience.
    Seems you don’t want to go anywhere near that….you have been asked many times.
    What is wrong with personal anecdotes Luke? They can and should be used ‘alongside’ the scientific data shouldn’t they?
    It is known as ‘primary source evidence’.
    It may be worthwhile also asking the doctors and the nurses in the QLD hospitals how to better spend health funding…rather than the top heavy corporate & administrative sectors.
    It’s amazing how they have grown exponentially alongside a decrease in hospital beds and nursing staff.
    The pressure that gets put on public health is also caused by a rather bi polar system where people feel justified in going to the emergency department to basically get a panadol!
    Some parents also see emergency depts as a cheap babysitting alternative.
    Try talking to the people who work in those depts….they can tell you what needs to happen.

  1968. Luke says

    Debs – your comment on hospitals in uninformed and shitful. Try getting some up close personal experience. Grown”exponentially” – are you sort of clown? “Some parents also see emergency depts as a cheap babysitting alternative.” what an utterly fucked comment – why would you want to actually spend time in a loud noisy stressed banked up emergency dept? Ever been in one lately? Have you ever been in one lately.

    What link Debbie – am I a mind reader – put up cites with your links or simply piss off. If you remember a link go and find it. Don’t expect me to do your research for you. If I’ve missed I’m sorry – I simply don’t bother reading most of the horseshit that you write. I skip it. Long boring essays about nothing that justifies your own moronic position to six decimals places (which we simply don’t give a hoot about) and then asking 50 out of context questions about whatever comes into your vacuous mind.

  1969. cohenite says

    “why do I have to comment on Stockwell?”

    Because we all value your measured contribution.

  1970. Luke says

    Debs all SD and Neville do is do the daily loop around the disinformation sites – Watts, Nova and Bolt as if we are unable to read ourselves and then parrot it back uncritically. Ark ark ark Polly wanna cracker. It’s mindless. They can’t think for themselves.

  1971. Debbie says

    Gee whiz Luke,
    Go to my comment at 9.18.
    And do please try to be civil…..being rude does not disguise your dodging it just amplifies it.
    I have had cause to be in emergency depts many times Luke….I am a mother, a daughter of elderly parents an employer of farm workers and a wife of a farmer…has to happen when you fulfil those roles and work out here sometimes.
    I also have relations, friends & business colleagues who work as nurses, doctors, surgeons etc in various health depts around the country.
    The admin/corp/PS sectors of health have indeed grown exponentially in NSW at least…sounds like QLD could be even worse?
    I have also seen mothers drop their not very sick children off in emergency on Fri and Sat nights….and completely tick off the very busy staff.
    Have also seen people who really don’t need anything more than a panadol, jam up emergency depts.
    Haven’t you?

  1972. Luke says

    Why be civil – you guys have never been civil.

    You cited a web site with graphics at 9:18. You would normally connect this with an inferential sentence or otherwise expect mind reading.

    What are you trying say – that perhaps the rice research money got spent on a telescope? Do you know that? Maybe the rice research money was spent on health and the telescope was “new funding”. Do you know? I don’t.

    I made a simple point some time ago that traditional agricultural science has been in decline. Soil science would be an example. The problem is acknowledged – whether anything serious can or will be done about such things remains to be seen. And from your attitude I’m changing my sympathies fast. Let’s take a non-inclusive stuff the bush attitude. You’re out-voted anyway.

    I doubt you’ve ever been in an emergency dept out of your nice little country centre in recent times.

    I have personal experience – as a carer for young and old in recent years. It ain’t pretty. And nobody looked like they wanted to be there. They are noisy, busy, overloaded and full of sick people. So you might not be the only one with some experience of life Debbie.

    Look up the word exponentially in a dictionary. And apply any increase to population and demands on legislation/policy/process.

    Where we are getting to in this country is a feeling of polarisation and disharmony. There are a large number of people now on both sides that fervently disagree with the approach on economy, industrial relations, education, health and the environment. I think if you don’t bring most people with you and have inclusivity and participation expect trouble.

    So we have had an opportunity on here to explore different viewpoints. Hence Jen’s blog is (was) different.

    Nobody wants to do that? So perhaps it’s best left as a back slapping echo chamber of red neck values and anti-environmental sledging.

  1973. Debbie says

    Luke,
    Rice research is funded by rice growers and we know what it gets spent on….doesn’t cost the tax payer a cent. Vesting is funded by the growers as well…..also doesn’t cost the tax payer a cent.
    The Dept of Ag (now DPI) stopped research in rice many, many years ago.
    You are correct that soils science has been another big loser along with animal husbandry and many others.
    You seem to know from where the funding has been stripped….but pretend you don’t know where it went?
    The question was not difficult Luke….but you seem to prefer to pretend you don’t know the answer rather than discuss the ‘implications’ or ‘differeing viewpoints’ that have seen tax payer funding for science, research and innovation go to something else entirely and for a different purpose which has seen the ‘demonising’ of the very same people/producers/regions that science and R&D once supported. We have lost many, many excellent people to OS because of this.
    I agree there is a feeling of polarisation and disharmony….but you don’t seem to have an understanding of the causes nor do you seem to have any practical suggestions about how to stop it getting even worse and help inlcusivity and participation.
    Inclusivity and participation in WHAT in particular Luke? What are the shared goals…or to use your term…mixed goals….that would allow everyone to feel included?
    This was sent to me today.
    http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2012/10/environmentalism-s-bum-steers
    Maybe Starck has outlined what is causing much of the problem?
    Also Luke…..I did not say you lacked life experience….it is actually you that keeps accusing others of that….or just summarily dismissing the experience of others.
    You are correct that most of my visits to emergency are in small hospitals but 3 of them in recent times have been in Brisbane (my son was badly injured on a work site there in May) and Melbourne (I had a very severe case of food poisoning) and Sydney (My Father in law was airlifted there late last year).
    All of them do an amazing job and work very hard. Yes they are noisy and frantic. But as well as seriously sick people who are desperately in need of urgent help, they are also full of people who should just go to their GP or to their local pharmacist. These same people also chuck loud & rude hissy fits when they have to wait for the truly urgent cases to be handled….which is what emergency depts SHOULD be doing!
    My son would have lost his leg if he was just put in a waiting line.
    My Father in Law would probably have died if he had to wait for his turn.
    The health system is bi polar and it has been caused by the politics of health care…..not the workers. They do know what needs to be done….but they rarely get asked and no one wants to listen to their answers anyway.
    Same s…t different day.
    Same thing happening in the MDB….there is nothing ‘inclusive’ about it.

  1974. Luke says

    So that would be your RIRDC Rice Program matching dollar for dollar of our Federal money to produce rice that’s more expensive than Thai rice at Coles (sort of growers paying it all but not really?).

    I’m told that govts don’t fund ag R&D as much anymore as farmers get most of the benefits and only put in 30% of the dollars. Yes your myopic industry mileage may vary.

    Actually I don’t know where the money went? Do you? or do you think you do. What would you like to say “oh it went on unimportant science stuff”?

    On health. Well actually Debs sometimes they don’t do a good job at all. Overloaded, overcrowded and over-worked with often inexperienced staff getting experience (and now spending more time not doing medical but doing your paperwork – thanks LNP). Try spending lots of time in big city emergency wards. And yes triage does prioritise – you’re dead anyway, you can wait, you STF, and you’re next.

    They do know what needs to be done eh? Well one can only hope.

    “Inclusivity and participation in WHAT in particular” oh that would be in the triple bottom line of economy, environment and society.

  1975. Hasbeen says

    Hay Luke, if you reckon Ag R&D is not such a good investment, with farmers only putting in 30%, how much does the AGW industry put into anything but their own pockets.

    When you think about it, it’s time to stop wasting all that money, & put it into something productive.

  1976. Robert says

    “Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra’s decision last year to buy up rice at a 40% premium over the global price was motivated by a desire to help Thailand’s rice farmers…The policy has already cost the government about 260 billion baht ($8.4 billion) and another 400 billion baht has been approved for the next 12 months.”
    – from Sunday’s WSJ

    Perhaps we might send billions of dollars as aid to Thailand, to fund their subsidies under some program with words like “transition”, “justice” and “sustainable’ in the title. Brochures will be needed!

    Then we could shut down our own rice industry, and try to pay for it all by upping our coal exports to a billion tonnes annually. (The thermal stuff’s cheap right now, under 90 bucks last Thursday. Grab some!) That way we’ll have lots of fire-prone regrowth in the MDB, lots of indirectly expensive rice that isn’t directly expensive (till Duopoly says otherwise), swarms of white programmy people in Thailand and Canberra…and lots of hurriedly burnt Aussie carbon smokin’ up Asia!

    Our Green Betters love this kind of lose/lose/lose solution. It’s what they do! (And I think I just left out a “lose” or two.)

  1977. Luke says

    Hasbeen – so that would also include the basic hydrology climatology upon which storages are built and managed (you silly clown). Obviously trends and analyses of climate data have no interest to you. e.g. why bother with La Nina – only causes massive floods. Let’s not examine climatology trends – it will be OK.

    Did I say ag R&D was a bad investment – stop verballing me.

    But Hasbeen – Debs might benefit from the R&D but I don’t – you see it’s cheaper for me not to buy the Aussie brand. Which I confess being loyal to Debs I still do on the value add lines. So be nice to the loyal customers.

    Robert – as a consumer price is a big mover. And all about efficiency eh? And who are you to deny a developing nation export dollars? Could always go the Pakistani rice if you dislike the Thai.

    Perhaps we could train and market Alan Jones shock jock clones for export. Then Iran wouldn’t need nuclear weapons.

    But anyway couldn’t help but notice

    “RIRDC Rice plan 2012-2017
    RD&E Capacity
    The success of the rice industry R&D program lies with its commitment to
    breeding water use efficient Australian rice varieties, implementing on farm
    practice change and effective local extension provided by NSW Department of
    Primary Industries. The collaborative agreement that now exists between NSW
    Department of Primary Industries, RIRDC and SunRice to support two plant
    breeders, a molecular breeder and a cereal chemist secures the Yanco
    Agricultural Institute breeding program’s success over the life of the 2012-2017
    R&D plan. On farm rice research capacity is stretched. The industry has limited
    access to agronomy, crop protection and physiology specialists.

    Furthermore, since the 2007-11 plan was prepared, the role of the private
    (‘retail’) agronomist has continued to expand to fill the space being
    progressively vacated by public sector extension provided by NSW Department
    of Primary Industries.”

  1978. Debbie says

    Did you read Starck’s article Luke?
    It is rather long, but well worth a read nonetheless.
    3 of my picks…which will also make this a rather long post….my apologies.

    “The Principle that negates itself

    The Precautionary Principle is another revered member of the eco-herd. As originally formulated, the concept was that in circumstances where there is an apparent risk of severe or irreversible environmental damage, preventative measures should not be withheld because of a lack of scientific certainty. Environmentalism has twisted this reasonable approach to uncertainty into an imperative demanding protection against any hypothetical risk with the burden of proof for no harm demanded from anyone who objects. However, as every student of Logic 101 learns, proof of a negative is not possible. In practice this means that even the most dubious hypothetical concern must be acted upon and no acceptable objection is possible.

    The muddled logic of the environmentalist formulation of the precautionary principal actually forbids doing anything. This includes precautionary measures themselves, as everything entails a possibility of risk. That this vacuous and pernicious bit of intellectual swill has even been written in the enabling legislation of government bodies charged with environmental management, speaks loudly of the corrosive influence of environmentalism on rational thinking.

    And:

    Stakeholder, the bum steer

    Stakeholder is another term which has been domesticated to serve as a milk cow for environmentalism. Before the rise of environmentalism a stakeholder was someone with something invested or with something to lose. Environmentalists expanded this to include themselves on the basis of their “concern” providing them a proprietary interest. With nothing invested and no experience or special knowledge they are now deemed to be “stakeholders” with equal standing to those whose property and way of life are at stake.

    And:

    The mother of all environmental threats has, of course, been Anthropogenic Global Warming (a.k.a. Climate Change). AGW has become the most revered of all the sacred cows. To doubt it is equivalent to denying the holocaust. Accepting it and giving up the sin of fossil fuel consumption promises to save the world, punish unbelievers and bring about a fair, harmonious, balanced, sustainable restoration of Eden.

    The perfect track record of failure for all such dreams of utopia is not even a consideration. As always, this time is different. The facts that every prediction of the climate “experts” has also failed and climate, if anything, is cooling must not be permitted to sway one’s faith. This is a necessary test of faith to be passed before becoming worthy of Gaia’s beneficence.

    BTW Luke:
    Having high yield and sustainable agriculture comes at a price. If you want ‘cheap’ then by all means buy your rice or other agricultural products from duopolies and that ‘cheap’ platform.
    You have every right to do that and I would not want to take that away from you. If you’re going to do that however, I respectfully suggest you need to be careful about lecturing Australian farmers about their farming practices…if you’re not willing to support OZ ag products that meet community expectations and standards.
    However, if you want responsible and sustainable accompanied by ‘best practice’ then it will of necessity cost more. OZ farmers are world leaders in these fields and they are also some of the LEAST subsidised world wide. What benefits do you think they are gaining as opposed to other agriculture in the developed world? You do need to supply a ‘comparison’ of some sort Luke. Who does it better than Australia?….Where is Tax payer Agricultural investment in R&D less in the developed world?
    And ERs?
    I disagree…..they mostly do an awesome job in very difficult circumstances….but their job is made far,far more difficult by people who abuse the system and go to emergency for ‘non emergencies’. That is a ‘political/policy’ problem and it does appear that it got nearly totally out of hand in QLD.

    And Luke…..from your usual tone and attitude here….you are not demonstrationg a belief in ‘triple bottom line’. You don’t seem to understand that ‘triple bottom line’ means that there has to be ‘trade offs’ and that impacts from human activity can be ‘beneficial impacts’ and environment and ecology can be ‘enhanced’.
    My area is actually an example of that.
    As well as Agricultural productivity, we have ecological and environmental productivity. It’s called ‘co existence’ and ‘learning as you go’ and it does achieve ‘triple bottom line’ benefits….but of course it is not perfect.
    And finally the simple answer to the very simple question is that mind boggling amounts of tax payer funding for science and research has gone towards ‘piggy backed’ environmental and ‘climate change’ reports, creating new depts in Universities to ‘research’ same and then inform ‘social policy’ based on ‘predictive envelopes’ as well as far too many of those ‘mindless sideshows’ (that you aptly named) like Lewandowsky and some of the others that Jen has highlighted here recently. Let’s not forget Flannery et al waving around that climate report and claiming things like cranky people in traffic jams etc. There is also mind boggling amounts of tax payer money being spent on the PR for these ‘piggy backed’ reports…because apparently, it is ‘the greatest moral challenge of our time’.
    And the purpose? It seems to me, when we follow the money that it is all designed for ONE purpose…..to justify demonising CO2 perhaps? To justify taxing the air perhaps?

  1979. Robert says

    There I was arguing against efficiency and exports in developing countries, like some redneck shock-jock – and I didn’t even know it. And was I even aware that price is a big mover for consumers? And if I “dislike” Thai rice, well, there’s always Pakistan. They grow rice too, I bet. I’m learning so much here. Thank god for our Green Betters who not only tell us what to think, but what we said when we thought we said something completely different.

    I promise not to get nervous if a Monsoon failure sends the price of rice up 150%, as it did in 2008. (One can always blame the CAGW thingy for that, though we’re not sure how it could have caused those dynasty-ending Monsoon droughts of the18th century. We’ll think of something.) As for the likelihood of a rice cartel in SE Asia, the ADB has told those Asians that would be naughty – so it won’t happen.

    So relax about cartels, subsidies, dollar/rupee fluctations, Monsoon failures, food security and global spread of crucial crops. Buy Pakistani on your next visit to the Duopoly as a vote against Deb and hubby. Think scientifically!

  1980. John Sayers says

    Oh com’on – I can’t take anymore of this shit.

    Luke – let us know who you are…

    you know who I am..

  1982. Robert says

    SD, the true Dustbowl era is a no-go for the alarmists, as is the big Arctic chill of the sixties which was followed by an era of cooler, damper weather in the contiguous US.

    Of course, since no era is without its “extremes”, one can expect repeats of historic climate disasters. Across tropical Asia, but centred on India, the drought of 1876 – 1878 was one of history’s great killers. Estimates are about 30 million dead from famine in a fairly compressed period. Dams, GM, synthetic fertilisers, fast transport and deliverable surpluses from non-affected regions, (called “food miles” by our Green Betters) won’t stop deaths, but may well stop mass deaths where political stability exists. Of course, survival means “population”, so our Green Betters may prefer the mass deaths.

    What we need is a science of climate. Instead, we get…well, you know the rest.

  1983. el gordo says

    Channeling Bishop Hill…

    ‘This morning we have an amusing example of the green approach to truth and accuracy. Fiona Armstrong, the Australian green, retweeted the Climate and Health Alliance, an organisation of which she is a board member, as follows:

    “Climate change and the carbon intensive global economy r already responsible for five million deaths each year” http://bit.ly/SwJtfz

    ‘The link is to a press release by Caha, signed by Armstrong herself. If you follow the link you find two statements on the numbers of global deaths.

    “A failure to act on climate change is costing the global economy $1.2 trillion annually and is responsible for 400,000 deaths each year,”

    and

    “The DARA 2012 Climate Vulnerability Monitor report entitled “Cold Calculus for a Hot Planet” said a continued pattern of the world’s current carbon intensive energy use would cause 6 million deaths a year by 2030, with 700,000 of these attributable to climate change”

    ‘Take an exaggeration and exaggerate it a whole lot more.’

  1985. Robert says

    Interesting finding from UN’s FAOSTAT, (dredged up from amongst all the usual put-downs and tut-tutting of Oz irrigation on the net):

    “The average world yield for rice was 4.3 tonnes per hectare, in 2010.

    Australian rice farms were the most productive in 2010, with a nationwide average of 10.8 tonnes per hectare.”

  1988. spangled drongo says

    Yes gav, another bed-wetter from Dr Death on the GBR.

    50% GONE!

    But we haven’t noticed because it’s mostly down to cyclones, natural temperature fluctuations and Crown of Thorns over the last half century.

    IOW, mostly natural causes [but they did mention careless anchoring].

  1990. spangled drongo says

    gav, when we have a huge bureaucracy of PhDs in Townsville “managing” the health of the reef from their air conditioned offices, being paid handsomely to live and work in paradise, d’ya think they’re gonna tell us anything that would jeopardise that?

    SAVE THE REEF! SAVE THE REEF!

    Did you read the bit where they reckon they have “no conflict of interest?”

    http://bairdmaritime.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=7624:jcu-remains-silent-on-reefgate-allegations&catid=99:walter-starcks-blog&Itemid=123

    It is necessary, of course, to have the GBR monitored but Campbell could really have a close look at this lot.

  1991. gavin says

    SD; regardless of your science bods in Townsville, I was up there interviewing dozens of tourist industry people every day and witnessed broad concern. They have to avoid the bad bits.

    An alternative way to assess the loss of dynamic marine activity is to fly over it. Clearly the thing is pretty dead overall.

  1992. spangled drongo says

    And how far out did you go?

    After a few big wets, bad cyclones and CoT infestations [all natural] it is as would be expected.

    I realise, however, that these natural depredations only account for ~ 99% of the damage.

    Our current SOL should be curtailed to stop that catastrophic 1%.

    Plus more red and green regs.

  1993. Luke says

    SO this study is definitive. Damage and recovery. Or damage and no-recovery. It’s the end of the philosophical road for naysayers like Ridd and Starck. The numbers are in. And the role of water quality in recovery is clear.

    It’s also the end for blog deniers and non-scientists. Unless of course you love your denial red-neck and Alan Jones style.

    Shame on you lot for disparaging this massive bit of research. And what rat-bags you are for your years of denial that this is happening and indulgence for bunk artists and nay-sayers.

    Shame on the reef deniers. Shame. We expect an apology.

    http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/09/25/1208909109.abstract

    Based on the world’s most extensive time series data on reef condition (2,258 surveys of 214 reefs over 1985–2012), we show a major decline in coral cover from 28.0% to 13.8% (0.53% y−1), a loss of 50.7% of initial coral cover.

    So for SD engaging in filthy slurs on our best reef scientists – 2258 surveys, 214 reefs – twenty seven years. Read it and weep.

  1994. spangled drongo says

    Never mind “read it and weep”, read it and bloody understand would be a lot better.

    You peanut!

    At least I’ve read the whole paper which is more than you appear to.

    Do you deny that this damage is mainly due to natural process?

    Apologise! Apologise! Wooo! Wooo!

  1996. spangled drongo says

    Doncha luv the lefties’ faux outrage.

    They, like Lukie, lead the world in insult and offense but because their dud PM just happens to be female they can flash the fem-card and go into outrage over any well-earned denigration of said fem dud PM.

    Now, when any criticism finds one of the multitude of chinks in any part of their decaying armour they flash outrage like a blue ringed octopus.

    Maybe it’s all part of what they mean by ACO2 and climate sensitivity?

  1998. Luke says

    I haven’t stopped laughing.

    The COTS fertiliser N link is in (DIN to dongers). You would note how the relatively pristine waters off Cape York untouched by agricultural and additional grazing runoff have allowed reef damage to recover.

    The reef is fine has boasted this bolshy blog for years. FINE you said ! No decline you said ! And you all agreed. Well now you’re WRONG !

    Just like wrong on land clearing and almost everything else Bazza and I have told you.

    Which is why you’re just deniers. Looks like we’ll have to find a chaff bag for SD.

    Cohenite your response is so shit I’m ashamed of you. You’re not even across your brief. We haven’t even got to the climate and CO2 bit yet. Look Cohers if you’re going to do this denial gig well you need to get me to brief you on what it is you’re denying. Going off half-cocked all over the place isn’t very good for the troops.

  2001. Johnathan Wilkes says

    “Do you deny that this damage is mainly due to natural process?”

    SD
    I haven’t had the chance to read the paper yet, but listened to one of the authors this morning, once on a commercial radio and once on the ABC, both very pro AGW, but the scientist was very cagey about apportioning blame squarely on AGW.
    Yes he implied it but did not commit, and true he categorically stated that the main culprits were natural causes.

    Not a lot of joy there for Luke and I can’t see why he is grinning as if he’d won the lottery?

    And also Luke you got 2000 by using a shotgun! But it’s yours nevernonetheless, enjoy!

  2003. Dave Shorter says

    Anyone here know anything about English Blackbirds?
    A pair of them have arrived recently and are living in our garden.Do they build up to big numbers and become a pest? Indian Mynas arrived on our farm about 18 months ago and I try to shoot them as they are detrimental to the natives I believe.A lot more shots fired than birds killed unfortunately.
    Should I shoot the Blackbirds or let them be? What would you do Spangled Drongo?

  2004. spangled drongo says

    Dave, I haven’t experienced Blackbirds but I believe they have a lovely song. Are they bully birds that attack others? If they only attack other bully birds like Mickeys, Butcherbirds, Currawongs or Indian Mynahs it probably doesn’t hurt to leave them be but if they attack small, rarer birds I would be inclined to eradicate them.

  2005. spangled drongo says

    One thing Dr Death has worked to death here is the good ol’ reliable [to reproduce your favourite ideology] modelling machine. They haven’t a clue when the GBR coral decline began [how about prior to 1962 when Dr Robert Endean first noticed CoT Starfish, a mere half century ago]

    And when they start claiming that cyclone intensity has increased with warming when it plainly hasn’t, when increasing SSTs are causing bleaching yet are not warm enough to produce more intense cyclones [which they should if they are seriously warm] and there is more cyclone damage today than 50-100 y ago [which there is not] plus it is well known many cyclones left the Coral Sea after 1976 and went to the Arafura Sea [and are still doing so] you begin to wonder how much of a con this whole paper is.

    AAPOI, for the last 36 years, in summer, when a trough forms across the top of Australia and a tropical low forms at each end of this trough, one in the Coral and one in the Arafura Sea, a tug-of-war ensues and the winner is almost always the Arafura. 36 y ago it was the other way round.

    Luke, you are just a bag of wind as usual and this paper is their life savings of dross and do-little bundled up to look like a serious effort instead of it actually being just the by-catch of an indolent life in paradise.

    http://www.scienceinpublic.com.au/wp-content/uploads/Full-PNAS-paper-for-publication.pdf

  2006. Mack says

    Dave,
    Don’t shot them. They’re English . A place with lots of rain. Like the thrush they forage for worms on grassy lawns and will always come out just after you’ve mowen the lawns. Like the thrush they might give you a lovely song in the evening. They probably won’t survive the next Aussie drought when your worms become concreted in . My tuppence worth Spanglers. 🙂

  2007. spangled drongo says

    Mack, do you get that English Thrush?

    That’s the one that sings his song twice over,

    So that he can recapture,

    That first fine careless rapture [according to Robert Browning]

  2008. spangled drongo says

    Never been there meself but I like the pome:

    Robert Browning
    Home Thoughts, from Abroad

    O, TO be in England
    Now that April ‘s there,
    And whoever wakes in England
    Sees, some morning, unaware,
    That the lowest boughs and the brushwood sheaf
    Round the elm-tree bole are in tiny leaf,
    While the chaffinch sings on the orchard bough
    In England—now!
    And after April, when May follows,
    And the whitethroat builds, and all the swallows!
    Hark, where my blossom’d pear-tree in the hedge
    Leans to the field and scatters on the clover
    Blossoms and dewdrops—at the bent spray’s edge—
    That ‘s the wise thrush; he sings each song twice over,
    Lest you should think he never could recapture
    The first fine careless rapture!
    And though the fields look rough with hoary dew,
    All will be gay when noontide wakes anew
    The buttercups, the little children’s dower
    —Far brighter than this gaudy melon-flower!

    Interesting that the Aborigines also considered the Aus Grey Shrike Thrush as being wise.

  2009. gavin says

    Dave; having grown up with blackbirds, skylarks, and gold finches, I have to say these are the pick of the imports.

    Blackbirds are typical cottage garden songsters and quickly become accustomed to sharing the near landscape with your whole family. Their young are unfortunately very vulnerable to domestic cats while learning to fly and spending too much time on the ground under bushes. Parents call with the same sharp short pip pip in the presence of cats and snakes, so I always check. However they quickly go into decoy mode and will continue campaigning for ages.

    It’s unusual to have more than a couple of pairs in the vicinity.

  2010. Mack says

    Yes Spanglers, We’ve got that thrush here, it hops about on the lawn same as the blackbird then stops and cocks it’s head to one side as if listening, then lunges at the grass with beak to zap the nearest bug or worm. The thrushs seem more dependent on worms. You get both these birds bouncing around on the lawns in the early morning and evening especially in spring. The only “pest factor” about these birds is that they make a mess at borders of gardens flicking bark, dirt , leaf litter all over the place in their quest for food but not sufficiently enough to get the shotgun out. 😉 I’m afraid to disappoint you Spanglers but we’ve got the better songbirds this side of the ditch . 🙂 I’ve got a few Tui hanging about in my garden, worth coming for a visit?

  2011. Robert says

    Around here, one way to thin out the bird population is to clean your windows. Someone of the female persuasion urged me to do so, around this time last year. While the Wonga pigeons were busy gorging on wild tobacco and the bower birds and koels had eaten me out and departed, the bar-shouldered doves started hitting the window next morning. After an actual fatality, I covered the window then let it get dirty again. (Housework is over-rated anyway.)

  2012. spangled drongo says

    Good thinking, Robert. We get some beaut birds killing themselves hitting windows. Like Noisy Pittas, Russet-tailed Thrushes and Fantailed Cuckoos.

    Mack, that’s interesting and thanks for the offer. The Thrush must be related to the Blackbird because the botanical names are Turdus Philomelos and Turdus Merula.

    They sound a bit messy like you say.

  2013. Dave Shorter says

    SD,Mack,Gavin,Robert,thankyou for your insights.
    The Blackbirds seem fairly benign.I usually see them in the places where I often see Bowerbirds,under an orange tree and on the lawn nearby.If they alert us to snakes they can stay as long as they like.It is snake central here!We always check for snakes if the Lousy Jacks make a racket.

  2014. Debbie says

    Snake city here too Dave,
    The cormorants or darters (we call them Shags), & remarkably similar to the photo Jen put up here, are catching the smaller ones. So are the Kookaburras. Hope they catch heaps! Especially the browns. I’m not sure I have often seen this many snakes (or birds) as I am seeing this season!
    Read the PNAS paper.
    Must be something about the ‘eye of the beholder’ ?
    Can’t see where it proves what Luke claims.
    Seems to be some classic statistical ‘conflation’ to get to that 50% fig?

  2018. Neville says

    More of that UHIE that Gav doesn’t understand. This time in China.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/02/a-new-paper-showing-how-uhi-and-energy-consumption-are-linked-to-long-term-temperature-change-in-china/#more-71816

    Gav’s answer is everyone should hang a thermometer off the veranda and take their own measurements. But then what if Jack or Jill down the street find a very different reading? Then what do we do, sounds like a very accurate method after a night on the slops. NOT.

  2019. Luke says

    Well Debs given your ongoing problems with understanding English let me paraphrase.

    ONE – the trend over a long time is DOWN – at odds with the drivel espoused here by amatuers

    TWO – why? mainly what is regarded as “natural” causes – but how “natural”?

    THREE – but recovery is the issue. COTS is related to DIN (fertiliser N) release increasing larval survival

    FOUR – Where water quality is poor the recovery is poor – see relatively untouched areas of Cape York doing much better.

    FIVE the decline is ongoing, calcification rates are down.

    SIX – Kerry Emmanuel would tell us the PDI for all cyclones all basins is up (this is NOT cyclone numbers). Detailed published studies (vis a vis architects/IT persons and clowns) show a warming reef system which complex regionality. The future burden here is obvious.

    All of which was, has been and will be denied by deniers who eschew science and think they know better.

    What can be done? Improve water quality entering the lagoon should be a win-win. The larger later problem of AGW remains extremely difficult and without global action little will change.

    Debs – try reading and understanding first not just saying whatever randomly pops into your mind.

  2021. Debbie says

    Luke,
    As usual what you ‘claim’ it says is NOT what it says.
    1) You say the trend over a long time is DOWN…..there is no quantification of a ‘long time’, the timeframe of this study is in fact data from: 1985–2012.
    Is that a ‘long time’ Luke?
    2) Mainly regarded as natural causes….that is true….but you say it questions how natural? It doesn’t. This is what it says about the GBR:
    Local anthropogenic disturbances (e.g., destructive
    fishing, industrial and urban pollution, tourism overuse, anchor damage, vessel groundings, oil spills) have had minor adverse
    effects on the GBR to date. Fishing, although intense near
    the coast and urban centers, is banned in 33% of the GBR and is
    regulated elsewhere (11). Nonetheless, the GBR has been subject
    to severe disturbances, including COTS outbreaks, mass coral
    bleaching and declining growth rates of coral due to increasing
    seawater temperatures, terrestrial runoff, tropical cyclones, and
    coral diseases (2, 3, 12–14).
    Note 2 things here…this report clearly states that anthropegenic disturbances have had MINOR IMPACT and it also very clearly states that the overwhelming severe disturbances are NATURAL occurrences.
    3) Yes COTS is a problem…no question… but you imply this report states that the major reason is related to DIN….it doesn’t say that at all….this is what it says:
    The runoff of soils, fertilizers, and
    pesticides from agricultural and coastal development has significantly
    affected inshore coral reefs (12, 15–17), and has likely
    increased COTS outbreak frequencies
    Obviously it is a ‘likely’ factor but nowhere does it state that it is all due to human nutrients and doesn’t even give a solid quantifiable % breakdown.
    4) Yes…water quality from terrestial runoff….especially from major flooding… causes problems. But no one has ever ever denied this Luke. This section of the report is just repeating what we already knew….the runoff issue at Cape York is very different is it not?
    5) That is not quantified in this report…only hypothesised….and the timeframe is not robust enough anyway.
    6) where is the obvious ‘future burden’? Can’t see anything that says that with quantifiable evidence.
    I congratulate you on pointing out that something should be done about water quality….that is definitely a no brainer….but Luke?…isn’t that already happening to a rather large extent? And there is no actual specific statement about a practical management plan re mitigating water quality in this report anyway….it also doesn’t quantify the % of water quality that we can actually manage or mitigate.
    Further…you claimed earlier that this report proved that ‘everything’ that Starck and Ridd have said about the reef is ‘wrong’. …No it doesn’t….I think they would agree with much of the findings in this report….most of the recognisable & quantifiable damage in the GBR is due to ‘natural phenomenon’…which is exactly what Starck and Ridd have been saying.
    And this one?????
    The larger later problem of AGW remains extremely difficult and without global action little will change. ????????
    The report says this:
    Regional policies cannot protect coral reefs from global-scale
    risks due to climate change-associated heat stress and intensifying
    tropical storms. Efforts are therefore shifting toward management
    of local and regional anthropogenic pressures to strengthen
    reef resilience.
    Maybe you should look up the ‘terms of reference’ and the auspices under which the grant for this study was gained?
    It does outline its strategy here:
    The objectives of this study were threefold: (i) to investigate
    spatial patterns and temporal dynamics of coral cover for the whole
    GBR; (ii) to identify the main causes of coral mortality by combining
    field estimates of coral cover with observed and modeled
    environmental data; and (iii) to assess the capacity of reefs to recover
    in the absence of various disturbances and to estimate future
    coral cover, given that levels of disturbance remain similar to those
    of 1985–2012.
    Why is AGW in there do you suppose?

  2022. Debbie says

    Note also when we go to MSM reporting of this paper…. as usual….the politics is misusing this report. Burke is making claims about alarmism…Katter is out to put a bounty on COTS (maybe that could work?) The PR claims are all about alarmism and ‘a day of reckoning’ etc etc etc…
    That is really unforgivable IMHO…the good work of good people gets deliberately misinterpreted and then deliberately misused over and over and over again.

  2023. Luke says

    DIN – is dissolved inorganic nitrogen – source fertiliser nitrogen (not human nutrients – small issue). Jeez Debs try to keep up.
    When you have personally read the latest science on COTS report back. Until then stop hand waving.

    The Cape York streams are close to pristine (save the Normanby) and so water quality and the reef are in good condition.

    50% loss of cover in close to 30 years Debs – and Debs isn’t concerned. Good lord.

    “something should be done about water quality….that is definitely a no brainer” not really – Jen would argue it’s bunk and so would many other nay-sayers.

    Why is AGW in there – well duh – it’s a driving force perhaps.

    The pressures on the reef are multiple. Recovery is the key to restoring natural damage. If water quality, temperature and CO2 acidification trends are all against this well go figure.

    Ridd and Starck’s view that nothing much is happening on the reef. Appears not be the case. Why have we been mislead with non-objective opinion? Who benefits? Who – the Aussie enviro-denial industry who will find an escape route and an apology for everything.

  2024. spangled drongo says

    “SST of the GBR is warming over the last 25 years.”

    Yeah, by 0.2c.

    How accurately can they measure this tiny amount of warming over an incredibly complex system like the GBR?

    Generally south-bound water is warmer and north-bound colder but shallow water heats up and deeper water cools. How could anyone ever monitor these accurately without having thousands of fixed thermometers.

    Simples! Use a satellite!

    But that only measures the surface which is not where a lot of the coral is.

    And how accurate is a satellite at defining temperature changes over small areas of reef, cut-off points at the edges of shallow coral where it then plunges into deep, much cooler water?

    And if they can only find an average warming of 0.2c over 25 years with all the known bias of their modelling systems, well colour me sceptical and include me out.

    They don’t ever bother to consider that any warming may be more beneficial than cooling in a naturally changing climate.

    All this proves is that, apart from a small amount of damage from civilisation which is being addressed, there is nothing much happening.

  2025. gavin says

    Deb; don’t be such a hard case. The one obvious impact in our tropical north apart from deforestation, urbane development, tourism etc is sugar cane. As that industry strives for economic perfection it probably has the greater footprint and there is nothing pristine near it.

    I gave a little urban policy to the very fresh minders of the remnant bush re our chlorine in their water supply for the new eco tour / training facility. There are things we must do to protect the greater human population.

    Sunscreen out on the reef is another consideration for the marine biologists. But the impact of up to .9C increase on some parts of the reef over very recent times will end up the major concern for all kind.

  2027. Robert says

    “The Cape York streams are close to pristine (save the Normanby) and so water quality and the reef are in good condition.”

    Close to pristine? But what about CO2 acidification and warming? You know, all that GLOBAL stuff. (Don’t bother with “reporting back”. I’m so used to the fudges and dodges I could write them myself.)

  2028. Debbie says

    As I said,
    It has more to do with the ‘eyes of the beholder’ apparently.
    Where can you prove this outrageous statement Luke?
    50% loss of cover in close to 30 years Debs – and Debs isn’t concerned. Good lord.
    What do you want me to be ‘concerned’ about?
    I’m all for improving water quality….all for a practical way to control those COTS.
    The 50% however is NOT ALL DUE to human activity is it?
    Yet if I read back over your claims before this report came out and also your recent paraphrasing….that is what you claim it has proved.
    If it is being caused by natural phenomonen….should we be interfering with that? Do we have any way of managing it anyway?What on earth do you think you’re proving by that completely outrageous statement?
    I might also add that the 50% figure is due to some classic conflation of statistics & modelling.
    Where did Jen say it was all bunk Luke?
    What she and others have clearly said was that the previous claims were ‘over stated’ and she & others have also pointed out that work has been done and is being done to mitigate the ‘human bit’ of these issues.
    Is it enough? Maybe it is and maybe it isn’t…..but it is definitely better than before and this report does very clearly state this:
    Local anthropogenic disturbances (e.g., destructive
    fishing, industrial and urban pollution, tourism overuse, anchor damage, vessel groundings, oil spills) have had minor adverse
    effects on the GBR to date. Fishing, although intense near
    the coast and urban centers, is banned in 33% of the GBR and is
    regulated elsewhere (11). Nonetheless, the GBR has been subject
    to severe disturbances, including COTS outbreaks, mass coral
    bleaching and declining growth rates of coral due to increasing
    seawater temperatures, terrestrial runoff, tropical cyclones, and
    coral diseases (2, 3, 12–14).

    LUKE PAY ATTENTION!!!!!!
    IT VERY CLEARLY STATES:
    MINOR ADVERSE AFFECTS ON THE GBR TO DATE.
    REPEAT!!!!!!!!
    MINOR ADVERSE AFFECTS ON THE GBR TO DATE.

    Also Luke….as with your bunk claim re Jen…..Starck and Ridd HAVE NOT CLAIMED that nothing much is happening on the reef…..because that would be STUPID!!!!!
    The reef is an ever changing living organisim….there is plenty of stuff happening there all the time.
    BUT THE RESULTS ARE IN once again:
    ‘Local anthropogenic disturbances (e.g., destructive
    fishing, industrial and urban pollution, tourism overuse, anchor damage, vessel groundings, oil spills) have had minor adverse
    effects on the GBR to date.’
    Starck & Ridd say exactly the same.

  2029. Luke says

    That was the pristine streams Robert. The streams.

    Debs screams – “IT VERY CLEARLY STATES:
    MINOR ADVERSE AFFECTS ON THE GBR TO DATE.
    REPEAT!!!!!!!!
    MINOR ADVERSE AFFECTS ON THE GBR TO DATE.”

    For those factors you silly woman. Read the paper more expansively or get a job cutting video for 60 Minutes.

    ‘Starck and Ridd HAVE NOT CLAIMED that nothing much is happening on the reef…..because that would be STUPID!!!!!” yep – funny now eh ! Hilarious ….. your mates?

    “In conclusion, coral cover on the GBR is consistently declining,
    and without intervention, it will likely fall to 5–10%
    within the next 10 y.”

    That Dear Debs is “uh-oh !!”

    50% decline in coral cover Debs – you’re a moron ! So steeped in your own denialist soup to be useless.

  2030. Debbie says

    Gavin,
    I am not trying to be a hard case….I am just quoting what the report ACTUALLY says.
    I suggest you maybe should read it and you may find that it says NOTHING about sugar cane or sunscreen….
    Here are some more quite clear statements in this report:

    The effects of three main forms of acute disturbances, namely,
    observed COTS densities, modeled maximum wind speeds of 34
    tropical cyclones, and mass coral bleaching in 1998 and 2002,
    were estimated by adding them to the temporal logistic model.

    The disturbance data for COTS or cyclones show periodic and
    random fluctuations but no systematic long-term variation over
    the 27-y observation period, and given that GBR coral cover was
    likely higher than 28% before 1985 (2), the decline in coral cover
    may have started long before then.

    To date, the GBR has lost fewer corals to
    bleaching and diseases than many other regions in the world (13,
    24), but bleaching mortality will almost certainly increase in the
    GBR, given the upward trend in temperatures .

    River runoff ofModels have shown that the frequency of COTS outbreaks on the
    GBR has likely increased from one in 50–80 y before European
    agricultural nutrient runoff, to the currently observed frequency
    of one in ∼15 y (5).

    Cyclone intensities are increasing with warming ocean
    temperatures, although projected increases are greater for the
    Northern Hemisphere than for the Southern Hemisphere

    These are some of the ‘assumptions’ that have been ‘modelled’.
    Notice the language becomes remarkably less definitive?
    I don’t have a problem with that BTW….models are merely useful tools….and people who use them know that.
    I do have a problem with people claiming that these models are entirely accurate and definitive beyond question….because that would be deliberately MISUSING them wouldn’t it?

  2034. Debbie says

    Luke,
    You can blather on for as long as you like….that is what the report clearly states….show me where it says different?
    Starck and Ridd and Jen etc have also clearly not claimed what you say they have claimed….show me where you think they have.
    They have definitely pointed out some ‘gross exaggeration’ that has occurred re the GBR.
    And here:
    “In conclusion, coral cover on the GBR is consistently declining,
    and without intervention, it will likely fall to 5–10%
    within the next 10 y.”

    What intervention Luke?
    Other than improving run off water quality (which is already happening) and doing something specific about COTS (which I also understand is starting to happen?…though neither mentioned in this report)….where else should we be intervening?
    Where does this report suggest we can intervene?
    Can we stop cyclones from forming as a for instance?
    Maybe Gavin thinks we should stop wearing sun screen?

  2035. spangled drongo says

    Thanks John, an excerpt from that link:

    “In reality the reef is in near-pristine natural condition.

    The human population of the region is small. Almost the entirety of the adjacent coast remains undeveloped. The port expansion at Gladstone about which the UN bureaucrats expressed great concern is over 20 kilometres downwind and across the prevailing ocean current from the nearest reef. Extensive experience of such dredging in GBR waters and elsewhere indicates there is no reason to expect any harm to the reef.

    No degradation in water quality has been actually detected, and use of agrichemicals in the catchment area has declined in recent years.

    Occurrences of coral bleaching have been associated with El Niño events, not climate change. There is no indication that the frequency or intensity of such events have increased nor have floods or tropical cyclones.

    Surface water temperatures show no significant trend over the past 60 years. Over the past decade there has been a slight cooling.”

    It’s obvious that Walter Starck is more interested in facts than perpetuating tenure.

  2037. John Sayers says

    i liked this bit SD

    “The UNESCO World Heritage Committee is only another pack of overpaid bureaucrats jetting around the world enjoying themselves on expense accounts Craig Thomson (New South Wales Independent MP) might envy.

    Promoting hypothetical problems to maintain the rort is their first priority. The World Heritage mob is comprised of members from Mexico, Thailand, Cambodia, South Africa, Colombia, Senegal and United Arab Emirates. Senegal has no coral reefs and all of the others have badly abused ones. None of the committee members have any real expertise about reefs. They would all be well advised to go home and tend to their own problems. “

  2038. Luke says

    Debs – are you unable to read. Cripes you’re thick ! Bazza often wondered whether it was an act or real.

    “Surface water temperatures show no significant trend over the past 60 years. Over the past decade there has been a slight cooling.”” Pity our unpublished Stack is wrong !

    Pity deniers are keen on perpetrating nonsense.

    Gladstone is a distraction in this discussion.

    And development of the coast more SD nonsense. The issue is agricultural runoff from major rivers which form vast interlinked plumes in the lagoon. Are you bereft of any knowledge on this subject?

  2039. spangled drongo says

    “The issue is agricultural runoff from major rivers which form vast interlinked plumes in the lagoon.”

    There is always runoff from rain. Walk around those creeks and rivers and you will see platypus activity in all of them, very close to sugar cane and other plantations and agriculture. Even some obviously badly planned ag with no trees on the creek-bank.

    Water that will support platypus won’t kill coral.

    Get out from under the blankets and look around.

  2041. Debbie says

    Luke,
    you’re blustering & blathering and making claims this report does not support.
    Starck does not pretend that he has all the answers. He has pointed out the many ‘over stated’ claims re the GBR, along with Jen & many others.
    I do not suffer from a comprehension problem Luke, but your earlier ‘paraphrasing’ sure puts a question mark over your ability to comprehend what this report is claiming. It does NOT support your claims & it does NOT prove that Jen & others are WRONG. Quite the opposite in fact. They have all said that the majority of changes & damage in the GBR is from NATURAL phenomenon like cyclones & floods. This report says remarkably similar. And Luke whether you want to accept it or not, this report clearly states that human activity has had MINOR adverse affects on the GBR to date.
    Do you think they are getting worse? This report makes no such claim.
    BTW, I notice you have nothing to offer re intervention other than what is already in progress?
    What is it that you think people are denying? No one is claiming everything is perfect.

  2044. spangled drongo says

    Spot on John. Even Lukie’s hero, Kerry Emanuel, was telling Lindzen to pull his head in because of all the funding he would cost them.

    Once upon a time, in a more personal and caring world, public servants used to worry about saving money and extracting the max public benefit from their limited budgets.

    Now they are just obsessed with pretending to be politically correct while robbing us blind.

  2046. Neville says

    What a bummer this latest report on the GBR is for poor Lukey. But take heart Luke they try these BS reports on all over the planet on all sorts of facets of CAGW.

    Like unprecedented Greenland warming that NASA tried to con us into. But have a look at this famous quote fron Steven Schneider to tell a few porkies to make things appear to be worse than they really are.
    And geeezzz didn’t they lap it and have exaggerated all aspects of so called CAGW. See quote at end of article, says it all really.

    http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2012/07/24/illiteracy-at-nasa/

  2047. Luke says

    NO DEBBIE IT SAYS CERTAIN FACTORS HAVE HAD A LOW IMPACT – SPECIFICALLY : “Local anthropogenic disturbances (e.g., destructive
    fishing, industrial and urban pollution, tourism overuse,
    anchor damage, vessel groundings, oil spills) have had minor adverse
    effects on the GBR to date.”

    YOU WILL NOTE THAT AG RUNOFF AND COTS IS NOT IN THAT LIST

    HELLO DEBS ! Can you read English ?

    Debs we have been told by the on-blog denier industry that the reef is fine. 50% decline in coral cover in less than 30 years is NOT fine unless you’re thick as Bazza thinks you are

    WHAT causes COTS outbreaks. Have you read the latest science yet or been busy talking out of your arse (again) ?

    Where are the reefs are in good or better condition. Those not near ag runoff.

    You are just another obfuscating denier.

    Neville – anything beyond his grade level is BS. Poor simple Nev. Probably and Easterbrook devotee. What a sap. Neville spends his life sucking on reports that lie to him every day. Not smart enough to think for himself our Nev needs to be told.

  2048. gavin says

    At what point do you guys give over? Nah; just crank up the anti AGW repetition cause MSM continues to carry the real climate science. Cant find anyone refuting this reef report yet, can you?

    btw Deb; the sunscreen v reef bleaching is well covered elsewhere and if you had checked out our dive organizers you would find a reference. What is more to the point is how they find this latest bulletin.

  2049. Debbie says

    Sorry Luke?
    What am I denying?
    Ag runoff and COTS is not on that list.
    SO? ????
    Why isn’t it on that list Luke?
    The report doesn’t make any clear, definitive, quantifiable statements about Ag runoff and COTS does it?
    Are you claiming that the 50% decline is due to Ag runoff and COTS? Show me where it claims that.
    Where did you read it? In the ‘ likely’ bit?
    What’s the ‘intervention’ plan Luke?
    Where does this report prove your earlier claims?
    You are just blustering and blathering with NO CREDIBLE EVIDENCE from this particular report.

  2050. Robert says

    To show some genuine concern for the rivers of our region and the Pacific ocean floor, reefs etc, I suggest we start by taking a stern approach toward the founding chairman of Lihir Gold, who has also served as an Ok Tedi director. If there’s been a bigger and more willful polluter than that guy, I’d like to know who.

    I suggest that Ross Garnaut would be the ideal person to take on this arch-trasher of our ocean and region.

  2051. Debbie says

    Gavin,
    Well covered elswhere?
    Where elswhere?
    Sunscreen certainly isn’t mentioned in this particular report.
    Neither is sugar cane.
    Also Gavin. You need to quantify your anti AGW comment. What does that actually mean?
    You along with Luke are trying to claim stuff that this report DOES NOT SUPPORT!
    So has most of the MSM PR regurgitation.
    Have you read it Gavin?
    Please tell me where it mentions sunscreen and sugar cane.

  2052. Luke says

    BECAUSE THE SENTENCE CLEARLY DOES NOT REFER TO THE ISSUE. THE MINOR ISSUES ARE DISPENSED WITH EARLY IN THE ARGUMENT LEAVING OTHER ISSUES.

    As I said Debs when you have got up to speed with modern reef science and are able to actually make an intelligent useful comment it might be worth …… – no it still wouldn’t – you’re just thick. Too thick for words. So thick to be dense. Like lead. If you want to discuss this work in isolation from a universe of supporting research I don’t think you’re cut off for any science discussion. As you’ve said before you’d rather confine yourself to the “broader social implications” like baking lammies perhaps?

    Your role here on blog is not to argue intelligently but assume the role of serial obscurantist. Take a simple issue and thick Debs will ask 100 STUPID questions.

    There is a considerable decline in coral cover. Water quality is implicated in recovery of damage to coral. If the decline continues – the result will be obvious. AGW provides potential to increase that trend. The numbers are in. The deniers and naysayers are spent and the positive win-win policy response awaits. You won’t be part of that positive discussion methinks.

  2053. spangled drongo says

    In spite of the bleating by our warmists, this paper makes flawed claims that the bulk of the damage [natually caused] by cyclones and bleaching is happening and will continue to happen because of GW.

    With a measured reduction in cyclones plus questionable warming this is mostly just assumption.

    Further contradicted by the fact that the warmer northern areas are the most pristine and we know there are also pristine coral reefs closer to the equator in even warmer waters.

    With flawed logic like this how could their modelling [on which this whole paper is based] have anything but more and magnified errors.

  2054. gavin says

    Deb; If we hadn’t posted a link to this reef report, you guys wouldn’t know what to criticize. Now, how do you reckon I found it? Not on Bolt, jo or wuwt!

    Sunscreen and cane are entirely from my own thinking after visiting the area and chatting to the locals who obviously are the most informed. Sunscreen was mentioned by boat operators. Can’t recall who first said cane growers were eager to comply with new restrictions or the “Reef Rescue Cane Industry Working Group” but you can look up “Mossman” and other sugar mill areas yourself.

    Cane yield v reef yield is a real issue.

  2056. Debbie says

    Rubbish Luke,
    Absolute rubbish.
    It does not say those are MINOR issues to be dispensed with early. It says very very clearly that human impact is MINOR in the GBR to date.
    Which part of that are you refusing to comprehend?

  2057. Robert says

    Those reefs still in fine fettle because they are out of reach of human disturbance will have to be talked down a little now, won’t they? They’re a bad fit with CAGW (It’s-Worse-Than-We-Thought) theory, so our Green Betters might have to gradually build in a little climate damage there. They’ll think of something, being so “up to speed with modern reef science”. For the time being, they can just say “it’s complex”.

    Alarmism requires a delicate balance. You have to watch both ends of an argument when you make stuff up. You have to say “The science is settled” for tax purposes, and then say “So much is still unknown” for funding purposes.

    But maybe people won’t notice. You know how thick people are, outside our Green elites.

  2058. spangled drongo says

    “SD; where exactly are these warmer waters?”

    How about a bit closer to the equator gav.

  2059. Debbie says

    Gavin,
    I am not criticizing this report. I am criticising the deliberately misinterpreted claims being made about this report.
    You previously posted there is plenty of evidence re sunscreen elsewhere.
    Now you claim it is entirely from your own thinking????

  2063. KuhnKat says

    Little Lukey has no supporting observations so reverts to norm and uses ad hom!!!

    “There is a considerable decline in coral cover. Water quality is implicated in recovery of damage to coral. If the decline continues – the result will be obvious. AGW provides potential to increase that trend. The numbers are in.”

    Yes the numbers are in Little Lukey. The studies show that the Great Barrier Reef, as others, varies in size and is currently much larger than in the past. You are so ignorant you simply ignore that NATURAL causes can ALSO cause water issue and your use of weasel words like implicated show that even YOU don’t trust your own papers!!!

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  2064. kuhnkat says

    Debbie,

    “It does not say those are MINOR issues to be dispensed with early. It says very very clearly that human impact is MINOR in the GBR to date.
    Which part of that are you refusing to comprehend?”

    Any part that disagrees with his preconceived idiocy!!!

  2066. Luke says

    Well Kookers as our resident feral uninformed Yank that puts you also in the THICK AS category. You have just has a little single neuron thoughtie and chucked it in – try not being a silly speculating loon and get minimally up to speed.

    “Local anthropogenic disturbances (e.g., destructive
    fishing, industrial and urban pollution, tourism overuse,
    anchor damage, vessel groundings, oil spills) have had minor adverse
    effects on the GBR to date.” IS THE SENTENCE WITH THE WORD “MINOR” …. now try not be a pathetic clown and read the rest of the paragraph. It may surprise a stupid denier bot like you that these are considered minor local issues. In Australia Kookers we have this language called English. And what we do is called “reading”. Most of us go to school to learn how to read. If you don’t like you the world may seem a difficult and complex place.

    Time for a batch of lammies Auntie Debs. I think this issue might be a bit hard for you.

  2067. Debbie says

    That does appear to be the case KK.
    As I said earlier ‘the eye of the beholder’.
    Gavin,
    too pedantic?
    I have only pointed out what this paper actually says. I have not crticised the paper itself other than the rather obvious stat conflate.
    I now need to point out that it DOES NOT claim that these issues are putting tourism at risk. No evidence or discussion about that at all.
    I think maybe you are being overly obtuse?
    Luke has claimed this paper proves people like Jen were wrong. It does no such thing. It actually points out very clearly that most damage is from natural occurrences and that in comparison to the rest of the world the GBR is in better condition. That is remarkably similar to what Jen et al have been saying all along.

  2068. spangled drongo says

    Satellite temps are overall correct on a broad scale but if you have ever seriously cruised tropical waters you will know that SSTs correlate with wind and storms. In the trade winds they are quite cool depending on strength when breaking waves and white caps create much evaporation to what can feel like freezing conditions whereas in the doldrums SSTs get very warm.

    Hot spots are almost always due to lack of trade winds.

    Coral thrives on the equator in very warm water with up to 100% coverage. It also thrives in the outer limits at Elizabeth Reef in much colder conditions.

    But stop bed-wetting, it can only improve from your POV when it starts regrowing in Jervis Bay.

  2069. Luke says

    Rot Debbie – none of our friends have reported a 50% decline in coral cover and lack of recovery in areas of poor water quality. So just more bunk Debbie.

  2071. Neville says

    Gore buys new 9 million $ mansion in california. This is the fraudster who told congress that he wasn’t in it for the money GEZZZZ and the rest of us should try and control our carbon footprint.
    But he always says that and the idiot MSM promote his agenda for him, all the way to his bank.

    http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2010/05/03/stunning-pictures-al-gores-new-9-million-mansion-media-totally-ignore

    Of course the MSM worship this con man and even our local yokels suck up to him whenever he visits OZ to promote his deception.

  2072. spangled drongo says

    Yes Neville, and if our resident hypocrite sillies had a brain they would at least critisise the “unsustainability” of this hypocrisy.

    Instead, they just aspire to it.

  2073. Luke says

    That thar would be one of them thar dumb hick videos for ning nongs like Neville and Kookers.
    Ya haw !

    What we do is we get some dumb hick to preee-sent on some memes and crap and them thar dumb hicks buy it ! And hey dudes buy my book – yee hah ! (BTW I’m not published coz I can’t)

    Yaa haw !

  2074. Neville says

    Geezzz Luke, Bob has only used the actual observations of SST and compared them to the models.
    We know you believe in models and couldn’t care less about what real observations are showing us, so more fool you.

  2075. spangled drongo says

    Filed under the more we learn the less we know. Ever encountered that problem? No?

    It’s called scepticism. A good system. Been around a long time and responsible for our survival probably more than any other single human quality.

    “If nature exhibits such strong natural variability of tropical Pacific SSTs on centennial time scales, then assumptions that the observed trend over the past century to a century and a half is a response to radiative forcing are tenuous.”

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/03/new-paper-predicts-sst-temperature-based-on-pacific-centennial-oscillation/

  2076. cohenite says

    The Karnauskas et al paper on centennial length natural variability in SST and therefore OHC should be of special interest to luke since the paper uses an EOF statistical isolation of different time scale climate factors; just like his old favourite Parker did:

    http://www2.gi.alaska.edu/~bhatt/CJC/Parkeretal_2007.pdf

    The difference this time is that nature dominates and AGW is nowhere to be seen.

  2077. Luke says

    Cohers – Let me get this right – you’re advocating GCM output? But it’s all very interesting isn’t it. Loved your grande tour over post at Jo’s – alas she’d only gong me for being rude if I commented.

    Neville – Bob’s technique is that he only tells you what he wants to. Others differ. So read widely.

  2078. Luke says

    BTW Cohers – all Parker et al did is say there is a centennial trend. And others effects are secondary. Just simple ordination of the complex data patterns. Why is another matter. EOF is standard tool in trade for much climate work – nothing that magic about it.

  2080. John Sayers says

    Don’t bother Luke – debunking Lindzen and Choi and Spencer and Braswell has already been tried 😉

  2081. spangled drongo says

    “No she wouldn’t.”

    Lovely boy isn’t game to go over and get his arse kicked at Jo’s.

    He feels much more in his comfort zone bullying our Debbie.

    Ol’ Georgie Porgie Pudding and Pie at his best.

  2083. debbie says

    Luke admonishes KK
    ‘now try not be a pathetic clown and read the rest of the paragraph.’
    Can I respectfully suggest that Luke goes back to my comments on Oct 3 at 11.22 and 1.54 respectively and he will find that paragraph (with next sentence) has already been pasted & commented on here. He also commented.
    Luke has also failed to ask and/or answer the very direct questions about intervention and management principles.
    What Luke claims is being said and what is actually said are not the same.
    Luke is attempting to apply straight out wishful thinking and a total reliance on the projected (and heavily piggy backed) ‘likely’ to claim this paper proves such things as ‘it’s all because of Agricultural runoff’ ‘I can’t wait to jam this paper down your denialist throats’ (or something similar I can’t be bothered going back to find the exact quote), ‘it proves all the naysayers (though never saying exactly what they’re naysaying) wrong’ , ‘Jen & Starck et al said it was all bunk’, etc etc etc etc.
    The latest sook is:
    ‘Rot Debbie – none of our friends have reported a 50% decline in coral cover and lack of recovery in areas of poor water quality. So just more bunk Debbie.’
    Maybe Luke would care to explain what they DID say that has been disproven rather than what he claims they HAVEN’T said….which of course doesn’t prove or disprove anything at all.
    It appears to me that Starck has Luke’s style perfectly described here:
    However, as every student of Logic 101 learns, proof of a negative is not possible. In practice this means that even the most dubious hypothetical concern must be acted upon and no acceptable objection is possible.
    The muddled logic of the environmentalist formulation of the precautionary principal actually forbids doing anything. This includes precautionary measures themselves, as everything entails a possibility of risk. That this vacuous and pernicious bit of intellectual swill has even been written in the enabling legislation of government bodies charged with environmental management, speaks loudly of the corrosive influence of environmentalism on rational thinking.
    All that happens is Luke ducks away (with much rude and dismissive hand waving) as soon as some reasonable and direct questions are asked.

    For one tiny sentence Luke talked about something manageable (water quality) but then when he was asked more on this theme and asked to comment on what had already been done in this field….off he goes again with hand waving, name calling and alarmism.
    Luke does not appear interested in discussing ‘issues concerning the natural environment’. Luke appears to want to derail a sensible discussion about these issues and just call people nasty names like ‘denialists’.

  2084. Luke says

    Bullshit Debbie and reams of it too. The reef deniers having been assuring us the reef is fine for years. A 50% of coral cover that does not recover where water quality is poor and that encourages COTS survival is not fine. Stop opining and read the frigging literature. As usual we have hand-waving Debs who has done no homework and is talking rot. So how about going away and either (a) making some lammies or (b) reading what you should be to make any sort of useful comment.

  2085. Luke says

    “debunking Lindzen and Choi and Spencer and Braswell has already been tried”

    well yes and successful except for deniers opinions but are we surprised?

    Cohenite – well given you and Jo have cracked it – when do we expect the GRL or J Climate or even Nature paper? Now if it’s rejected publish the reviewers comments? You’ve got every Aussie sceptic at your proposal to assist. You owe it to the Aussie public (now that Alan Jones has come a gutser) to carry the fight !

  2086. spangled drongo says

    The satelltes are the most reliable for SSTs as I said before but those GBRMPA sensors vary in depth so much they mean nothing.

    The main message is that the temps wriggle around a little and it is easy to cherry pick a start to give yourself a slight warming [0.2c over 25 years fer chrissake!] but merely confirms what I said upthread.

    Meantime, some previous discussion:

    http://jennifermarohasy.com/2009/01/sea-surface-temperatures-along-the-great-barrier-reef/

  2087. Luke says

    Two seconds work for Starck Debs

    “How does GBRMPA reconcile these findings with its claim of declining water quality? Where is the evidence for declining water quality that these researchers were unable to find? Agricultural use of fertiliser and herbicides has been decreasing for some years. What is the evidence for an increasing impact? How does agri-chemical run-off in the rivers – that is within Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) safe guidelines – become a threat to the reef when diluted a further million-fold in the ocean?”

    Now be lazy and ask me where he’s wrong.

  2090. John Sayers says

    When I lived on the beach the water temperature varied dependent on which way the wind was blowing – if from the north the water would be cool, from the south, warm. This was a distinct temperature variance, like 1 – 2 degrees, sometimes more. How anyone can haggle about .2c never ceases to amaze me.

  2091. spangled drongo says

    “Now be lazy and ask me where he’s wrong.”

    Pick me! Pick me!

    Because he’s a denier? A sceptic? A white man? Writes for Quadrant? Food and farming saves lives? Food and farming cuts down trees? F/F stands for food and farming?

  2092. spangled drongo says

    “Of course SD you could read something much more definitive and current.”

    Read that already Luke, but no decent temp graph as you would expect.

    You got a better one?

  2093. spangled drongo says

    That’s exactly right John, northerly wind, northerly flowing[cold] current, southerly wind, southerly flowing [warm] current.

    And John, when you swim in shallow lagoons surrounded by SL coral it is like a warm bath.

    Shallow, clear water heats up like crazy.

    If the wind blows over that trapped water you get convection and evaporation which cool but if it is still, it’s hot.

  2094. Debbie says

    Luke,
    If you won’t actually discuss what the paper actually says….you’re not interested in discussing it at all.
    The overwhelming cause of damage in the GBR is natural causes. That is the findings. That is also remarkably similar to what Starck, Jen et al say. They have not ever said that ‘nothing’ is happening there….that is a figment of your imagination.
    The 50% figure is a figure obtained by statistical conflate that makes it appear that 50% of the WHOLE GBR has declined (which is not correct) and some ‘piggy backing’ from evidence at other reefs… and this report also uses rather vague language that allows no accountability for that figure. It is not set in concrete and not presented as a definitive or reliable figure.
    It concludes with those alarming modelled figures and the ‘without intervention’ comment.
    I’m happy to hear about management principles that could be used to help improve the human impact on water quality and I also think it is feasible to focus on eradicating COTS…SURELY !!!…that is possible?
    But how on earth can we intervene in floods or diminish cyclones Luke?
    If we suggested some proven good management ideas about mitigating floods….you’d immediately go off into screeching about lung fish, turtles & methane etc
    What is your solution Luke? It’s very clear whom you want to blame…even though this report doesn’t blame in that manner…..but what is your plan to solve it? All you seem to want to do is ring alarm bells.
    Also….the cause of the bleaching is rather unclear don’t you think?
    As others have also pointed out here…SST is a hotly debated isue and if it has gone either up or down it has not been by much and there is no direct evidence that humans can ‘intervene’ successfully anyway…..although I do remember one report about using shade cloth????? Not very practical however.
    Should we try to intervene in natural phenomenon that we don’t really know enough about anyway? Is preventing land run off actually what should happen? It has been happening for millenium and the GBR is still there. Maybe that is supposed to happen? How do we stop wind shear and the damage from cyclone activity?
    Aren’t those the type of questions that we should be asking?
    As Starck says…’proof of a negative is not possible’
    Continual negative ranting just creates total inaction Luke. It actually makes people part of the problem when they behave in that manner.
    IMHO, If you truly want action then the discussion has to turn towards positive workable solutions to clearly defined problems with clearly defined goals.
    Jen & Starck etc try to move the discussion in those directions….they don’t ever pretend they have all the answers or that they are right and everyone else is wrong….that is also a figment of your imagination.

  2096. dave shorter says

    “All you seem to want to do is ring alarm bells.” Spot on Deb.
    Saving the reef is not the end for Luke,it’s the means. Black armband environmentalism can be very rewarding.Look how powerful and influential people like Peter Garrett and Bob Brown became by creating and exploiting environmental fears.People like Luke are not interested in solutions,only problems.

  2097. Luke says

    Factless tripe Dave Shorter and peurile. We’re discussing a paper not green politicians so stop your stupid arm waving. And in terms of solutions I’ve discussed plenty – obviously you were on day leave that day. In fact Dave if you want to talk about practical action there is plenty to talk about and lots to do. Obviously you’d rather deny it and apologise for worst practice.

    Lets see what Debs agrees on:

    (1) paper say 50% decline in cover and increasing since 2006
    (2) Tropical cyclones, coral predation by
    crown-of-thorns starfish (COTS), and coral bleaching accounted for
    48%, 42%,and 10%of the respective estimated losses,amounting to
    3.38% y−1 mortality rate.
    (3) The runoff of soils, fertilizers, and
    pesticides from agricultural and coastal development has significantly
    affected inshore coral reefs (12, 15–17), and has likely
    increased COTS outbreak frequencies
    (4) Importantly, the relatively pristine northern
    region showed no overall decline. The estimated rate of increase
    in coral cover in the absence of cyclones, COTS, and bleaching was
    2.85%y−1, demonstrating substantial capacity for recovery of reefs.
    In the absence of COTS, coral cover would increase at 0.89% y−1,
    despite ongoing losses due to cyclones and bleaching. Thus, reducing
    COTS populations, by improving water quality and developing alternative
    control measures, could prevent further coral decline and improve
    the outlook for the Great Barrier Reef.
    (5) Figure 1 shows that in-shore reefs in the central section affected by poorer water quality from river plumes are faring worse than northern or southern sections.

    DEBBIE – Do you agree that this is what the paper says – yes or no?

    Stop your silly muck about shade cloth and focus on this paper.
    Jen was once in the employ of cane growers and I remember the arguments were that their practices had no impact and the tactic is always to disparage the research. Well chickens and the data have now come home to roost.

    There is plenty of action on reef – but alas getting the top class producers and early adopters more up to better practice will not change the lower tail of the distribution.

  2098. spangled drongo says

    Wonder why this is?

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/04/big-jump-observed-in-scientific-research-fraud/

    The fact that the northern section of the GBR was “pristine” when most of the damage was due to natural causes and the greatest part of that was due to storms, says a couple of things. 1/ it was in the mild sector of most if not all of the cyclonic damage and 2/ warm water is not a problem.

    These people like so much of “science” today have good reasons to not be perfectly honest and hype the truth.

  2099. Debbie says

    Poor memory Luke,
    none of them have ever said ‘no impact’.
    They correctly questioned the ‘over stated’ claims about impact.
    This paper does NOT disprove that.
    Your argument and your claims are negative.
    It is not possible to disprove something that wasn’t said in the first place.
    What is the reason for mentioning employers Luke?
    That is also a negative argument and is overused to discredit the good work of good people.
    When you’re prepared to discuss positive ‘triple bottom line’ outcomes and management principles you may find that people will be willing to engage.
    BTW except for point 1 I agree that is what the paper actually says.
    That 50% figure is a conflate and not definitive of the entire reef.
    Point 3 is what the paper says but there is no information about current mitigation practices, nor does it give a definitive % breakdown of human caused damage as opposed to natural.

  2100. spangled drongo says

    A little background refresher on the history of collecting land and sea temperatures on which much of the AGW hypothesis is based [reproduced comment from Geoff Sherrington]:

    From: Phil Jones
    To: Geoff Sherrington
    Sent: Monday, March 27, 2006 8:57 PM
    Subject: Re: Early global temperature data
    Geoff,
    First, I’m attaching a paper. This shows that it is necessary to adjust the marine data (SSTs) for the change from buckets to engine intakes. If models are forced by SSTs (which is one way climate models can be run) then they estimate land temperatures which are too cool if the original bucket temps are used. The estimated land temps are much closer to those measured if the adjusted SSTs are used. This doesn’t address in any way your questions, but I thought I’d send it to you.
    Back to Australia: there is a serious problem with Australian temperatures before the early 1900s because of the screens used. Unlike NZ, the various Australian states didn’t switch over to Stevenson screens very early and when the change occurred it was different in different states.

    If SSTs from either buckets or intakes (which themselves differ) agree with land temps in New Zealand, but only in some parts of Australia, then how was the multivariate conflict resolved? It could ONLY be resolved by the arbitrary adjustment of data to make it seem more in line. This is not science. This is rigging, as formal Inquiries have found.

  2101. Luke says

    You are such a denier Debs. You couldn’t bring yourself to go through the logic. You should know when you’re done my dear. Caught in the open talking utter shit.

    Of course the reef denial industry has been saying no anthropogenic impact ! Get real. Years of it. Years of it.

    “That 50% figure is a conflate and not definitive of the entire reef.” – it’s a very serious sample. What a utterly rubbish comment. You expect every square inch to be surveyed? Do you quality check every grain of your rice. The sample coverage in the paper is massive.

    “Point 3 is what the paper says but there is no information about current mitigation practices, nor does it give a definitive % breakdown of human caused damage as opposed to natural.” – perhaps but there is heaps of literature to this end which you’re ignorant of. THE POINT – reefs near agriculture are doing worse. The numbers on ag runoff are lab measured, isotope proven and in the bag baby.

    Get updated and stop being lazy.

  2102. el gordo says

    ‘THE POINT – reefs near agriculture are doing worse. The numbers on ag runoff are lab measured, isotope proven and in the bag baby.’

    Point taken … the young crown of thorns luv the nutrients and blossom.

    Solving the problem should be easier than the cane toad debacle.

  2103. Debbie says

    Let’s see the real, definitive & accountable CURRENT ag runoff numbers then Luke,
    And it does need to be CURRENT and represented as a % of the whole….otherwise it is meaningless as a management tool.
    Then we need to see a sensible management plan that can be responsibly implemented with a positive ‘triple bottom line’ approach and which recognises what we CAN and SHOULD be mitigating….not more negative screeching about the rest that can’t be managed or which Govt clearly has no plan to manage.
    Otherwise we all fall straight back into that ‘precautionary trap’ do we not? That is a plan for inaction.
    The reef denial industry? Who are they Luke?
    Jen and Starck and Ridd etc have certainly NOT been saying ‘no impact’…that is clearly wishful thinking on your part….and you’re still on that stupid negative gambit of trying to make people who comment here disprove something that wasn’t said in the first place.
    Jen etc have repeatedly and correctly questioned the ‘exaggerated claims’ about runoff from agriculture. They have repeatedly tried to steer the discussion of the figures towards ‘sensible’ and ‘accountable’.
    Please inform us who these ‘reef deniers’ are and explain exactly what it is you claim they are denying….and if you don’t know who they are and what exactly they are denying…then please cease the name calling.
    This is relevant:
    http://www.abc.net.au/local/stories/2012/10/05/3604526.htm

  2104. Luke says

    I quoted Starck above. Read it ! Don’t talk utter nonsense Debbie/

    You are a serial obfuscator Debs – I am not doing your research anymore when you been quoted heaps of cites. You can’t read – that’s your problem. You are unable to read this single paper. You wouldn’t answer me above and kept waffling on with your usual shit.

    When you have decided to not be so vacuous and done your minimal background reading report back.

    Here’s a start http://data.aims.gov.au/staffcv/jsf/external/view.xhtml?partyId=100000064

    http://www.reefplan.qld.gov.au/measuring-success/report-cards/first-report-card.aspx

    And speaking of natural – funny that pesticides don’t occur in nature naturally eh? They are exotic !

  2106. Debbie says

    No Luke,
    There is no point in answering a question that claims something that wasn’t said.
    Which question in particular are you claiming I haven’t answered?
    Also Luke, as an addition, where oh where has anyone claimed that pesticides are natural?
    What % of the current problem is attributable to pesticides?
    And BTW Luke, you are the serial obfuscator. Far more direct questions are dodged by you than anyone else here.
    When you’re ready to discuss with a genuine, positive ‘triple bottom line’ approach, you may discover how to ask sensible questions. Maybe that’s when you can report back?
    Your approach is predominately negative and circular.
    May I remind you that you claimed earlier that ‘it is all due to agricultural runoff’ and that this paricular paper was proof of that and also that it was worthy of jjamming down people’s denialist throats. I am still unclear who these ‘denialists’ are and what exactly you think they are denying.

  2107. Johnathan Wilkes says

    Luke

    “And speaking of natural – funny that pesticides don’t occur in nature naturally eh? They are exotic !”

    uhhmm actually they do. Not going to research it for you “look it up” as you said to Debbie.
    And we make good use them too BTW.

    El gordo, just you wait for the ad hom attacks.

  2108. Debbie says

    BTW there was NO question attached to Starck’s quote unless you thought your final sentence was actually a question?

  2109. Luke says

    Piss off Debbie. Go and make some scones or have you just emerged from being a standin in “Mental”?

    JW – pray tell where PSII herbicides exist in nature?

  2110. Robert says

    Since I’m currently mucking around with different ways to leach the natural cyanide from bamboo shoots, I’ve had my mind on natural pesticides, which are, of course, everywhere in nature. As for herbicides, plants fire negative allelochemicals at other plants as well as at herbivores. The mechanisms are different, that’s all.

    I realise it’s got little to do anything, but who says ditzy things like: “…pesticides don’t occur in nature naturally…”, then, when contradicted, says “…pray tell where PSII herbicides exist in nature?”

    Weird!

    Sorry to be stating the obvious to Deb, JW, SD etc. Anyway, back to the cyanide. Do I have any volunteer tasters?

  2111. Neville says

    Murry Salby’s latest talk to the Sydney institute is now available on youtube with the power point presentation. Very interesting.

  2113. spangled drongo says

    On the ABC’s The World Today, the interviewer proclaimed, “as cyclones and coral bleaching are due to global warming and there is nothing we can do about that” he was not corrected by the scientists so he went on to concentrate on CoTs and the problems there.

    When cyclone activity is completely normal or below and bleaching is natural, that alone shows how honest and factual these “experts” are.

    That is further borne out by their own data showing the distant reefs to be in pristine condition.

    But when they don’t exclude that from their findings and spread the same percentage of cyclone and bleaching damage over the whole GBR it shows them up for the alarmists they are.

    Their solution is simply to shut down all mining, secondary and primary industry in NQ. But that rotten Campbell won’t cooperate.

  2114. spangled drongo says

    Thanks for the Salby link EG.

    Salby’s brilliant point on the limited obs of ocean temps and that it would only need 0.0005c of ocean cooling to produce 1.0c of atmo warming.

    With a heat sink like that we could have natural variation much greater than our present warming and the change in ocean temps would not be detectable.

    Even Luke couldn’t measure it.

    And the Abyssal Circulation of the ocean is on time scales of 1,000 to 2,000 years.

    This GW is gonna take some time.

  2115. Debbie says

    Good grief Luke,
    take the olive branch for once in your life.
    Your ‘misgoynist’ remarks are not doing anything for your credibility. 🙂
    Scones and/or lammies are entirely irrelevant and home ec is not something I do ( not that I think there is anything demeaning about home ec or scones & lammies).
    Maybe you might like to report back when you’re genuinely interested in discussing positive ‘triple bottom line’ approaches and asking questions related to same?
    It’s OK by me Robert to state the obvious.
    Of course there are natural based herbicides. I don’t think that was Luke meant, but he certainly left himself wide open to that one.
    The ‘assumption’ he made and the resultant question he asked was the problem. Way too negative & alarmist.

  2116. Luke says

    Well only a silly person knowing that we are talking about the contemporary Australian reef scene would not know what classes of compounds we are talking about i.e. PS IIs photosystem II herbicides. We’re not talking daisy natural pyrethrums ! Which strangely seem to degrade rapidly. If I was being tediously specific I should have done a Debs and put lots of verbiage around a point but I thought for the few intelligent contributors here would have known the obvious.,

    How about we don’t take the Olive Branch route just yet Debs – I was not being misgoynist – indeed a male would have received something stronger given your penchant for relentless tedious obfuscation. I believe my outbursts would be more sexism, frustration, sledging and rudeness.

    But dear dear Debs – as luck would have it – a special issue of the Marine Pollution Bulletin http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/0025326X/65/4-9 with 29 major papers on reef catchment water quality. Golly gee Debs – think they may know just a few things?

  2117. Robert says

    I can’t work out who here is not in favour of higher conservation values re the reef and plumes, chemicals, exotics etc. Stop the billions being frittered on CAGW lunacy and we’ll have millions for the reef. And by all means arrest or prosecute Garnaut, if at all possible. That guy makes the cane cockies look like organic and Fair Trade fairy floss.

  2119. spangled drongo says

    What’s a misgoynist?

    Is that someone who is allergic to diuron? Which, by the way is suspended completely in the sugar industry in the wet season.

    The AVPMA have been reviewing it for the past 10 years.

    Robert,

    I had an old mate who used to take strychnine every night to keep himself going.

    But I’ll pass on the cyanide if that’s OK.

  2120. John Sayers says

    yes SD – I heard the ABC radio say the GBR was in trouble because of climate change.

    It’s endemic in their mantra.

    so where are the Lukes refuting it?? NOWHERE!

  2121. Johnathan Wilkes says

    SD, OT

    “I had an old mate who used to take strychnine every night to keep himself going.”
    Just a bit of trivia, Arsenic works the other way, not much used in this way anymore.

    Luke, I knew what you meant about the pesticide, but mate, you started it by picking on any expression with more than one meaning.

  2122. Debbie says

    Well said Robert & John Sayers,
    Need a like button.
    Luke?
    Did you purchase these 29 papers?
    If so, would you care to copy what you believe is relevant?
    I sincerely hope it has something vaguely related to ‘triple bottom line’ but from reading the blurbs I sadly suspect that is not the case.

  2123. Luke says

    Well Debs that’s about it from you then. You’ve just condemned the whole generation of reef research over many organisations. And you seem to know what they’re on about without reading.

    What’s relevant – most of it. You’d like a simple little “social science” explanation would you?

    You want core evidence. But you don’t want it. You just want to ask endless loops of circular questions without end. Hours of field work and measurement still not enough for Debs. She’d like to ask you a series of mindless questions.

    Really Debs – What a flake. All opinion. No facts. No information. Not even over the basics. But you’re so sure of yourself. hmmmmmmm

  2124. Luke says

    JW Touche and nicely sledged ! But “recovery” from the LIA is simply bad science and anthropomorphic.

  2125. el gordo says

    ‘ANTARCTIC sea ice has expanded to cover the largest area recorded since satellite mapping began more than three decades ago, in stark contrast to this year’s record melt on the northern pole.

    ‘The expansion continues a trend of increasing Antarctic sea ice cover of about 1 per cent a decade and is at odds with predictions of climate change models that continue to forecast a long-term decline.’

    Graham Lloyd in the Oz

  2126. Debbie says

    So Luke,
    no interest in discussing positive ‘ triple bottom line’ outcomes?
    Only interested in dodging & sledging?
    Only interested in ringing alarm bells.
    Only interested in deliberately misinterpreting comments?
    That’s a real shame.

  2128. Debbie says

    WTF?????
    Since when did CO2 become a pollutant for eucalypt trees?????
    Even more amazing is this is offered as scientific ‘educational’ material.

    ‘But scientists in Australia say those leaves have been absorbing too much carbon dioxide. As that happens, toxin levels in the leaves have risen and their nutritional value has decreased.Koalas are picky eaters. There are 700 different types of gum tree, but the koala eats the leaves from only 25 of them. Those trees make up their forest habitat.

    But as carbon dioxide pollution poisons the eucalyptus,, koalas are forced to look for food in other places. This has led koalas to venture out of the trees to search for something to eat. The relatively defenseless koala is then vulnerable to cars and dog attacks.

    “What currently may be good koala habitats will become very marginal habitats,” Dr. Dan Lunney of the New South Wales Department of Environment and Climate Change told the Daily Telegraph. “This means koalas have to change trees more often to get to the leaves they need.”

  2129. Neville says

    Well John perhaps the koalas should take their protest to China, India etc as well. But then again they may not understand simple maths any better than Luke , Gav and bazza.

  2130. spangled drongo says

    Interesting link John. All wildlife are choosy in what they eat if they have plenty of choice and take a bit here and a bit there but this article doesn’t explain how, when you put Koalas on a predator free island where the food source is not that brilliant, the numbers grow into plague proportions.

    To suggest that the large numbers of Koalas that have disappeared in very recent years is due to increased CO2 is simply out of touch with the real world.

    Another item for “the more we learn the less we know” file.

    Who knew? GCMs don’t work but when they run hot, add aerosols, run cool, subtract. [Mind you, I’ve never seen one run cool yet]:

    “The size and concentration of aerosol particles is also of great importance for the number of cloud drops, which in turn influences the reflection characteristics of clouds. Hence, aerosol particles tend to have a cooling influence on the atmosphere. However, the precise processes and feedback mechanisms have not yet been fully understood, so that the interaction between aerosol particles, their suitability as cloud condensation nuclei, and the sunlight reflected off the earth’s surface represented one of the greatest uncertainties in the calculation of climatic activity.”

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/05/yet-another-fix-needed-for-climate-models-this-time-due-to-aerosols/

  2132. Johnathan Wilkes says

    “”CO2 polluting eucalypt trees”

    I must refresh my understanding of photosynthesis.
    Or the “scientist” has to.

    I though blaming every ill in today’s world on CO2 was a only, joke but this is beyond that.

  2133. Robert says

    Firstly, nobody cares about real emissions of CO2 in real time. Absolutely nobody. And nobody knows what the climate will be like in ten years. Absolutely nobody.

    Got that off my chest!

    Now, about koalas. I’ve been mistakenly designated as owning a special koala habitat. I think this is due to bureaucratic error because I’ve reported chlamydia further back in the forest where there are koala communities. Never mind.

    Here’s the prob. Resources will be needed for these animals, especially to protect them from feral dog attack, which is a huge problem here. But where do resources go?

    The mass neurosis called Environmentalism is gobbling the resources needed for Conservation. And for most other things. Australia’s most authoritative figure in Environmentalism is a willful pollluter on an unimaginable scale. How is that possible? Because Environmentalism is a great big TAKE.

  2134. Luke says

    So Debbie only interested in playing silly buggers.
    Not really interested in science
    Have lots of opinions but no facts
    Confronted with facts quickly develop more opinions
    Practiced in the obscurantist arts
    Disingenuous?
    Cognitive dissonance disorder?

    Guys – not commenting on koalas specifically, but elevated CO2 does change plant chemistry and production of alkaloids. interesting that is some areas like SEQ koalas are having a hard time – less trees, more houses, dogs and cars yet place like Kangaroo Island have had pest like numbers.

  2135. Debbie says

    Luke,
    As always, I am interested in the responsible implementation of good policy.
    As always, I am thoroughly appalled that the good work of good people has been hijacked and used inappropriately and with no attention to balance and practical common sense.
    As always I am interested in taking action on matters that can be sensibly mitigated.
    I have not and do not dismiss science.
    There is no point in answering a question that claims something that was not said.
    If you want to discuss issues that concern the natural environment then how about you start asking some sensible questions?

  2136. Luke says

    Debbie – I would have thought the least you would do is note the significant decline in reef cover over almost 3 decades. Note that recovery is the important factor in rectifying natural or anthropogenic damage but that recovery is hampered by areas of poor water quality. And one one significant natural factors, COTS is being increased due to Dissolved Inorganic Nitrogen (DIN) from fertiliser N. Keep that N in your paddock and the cane and out of the waterways !

    ” The aforementioned coral δ15N records provide an isotopic link between anthropogenic sources of nitrogen, runoff from cleared coastal lands, and degraded nearshore GBR communities, demonstrating the feasibility of using coral δ15N to assess baseline targets for water quality monitoring and remediation programs in Australia and worldwide.” http://espace.library.uq.edu.au/view/UQ:158696

    The same in Indonesia http://www3.geosc.psu.edu/courses/Geosc518/4_Sample_Prep/Chapter_4/4_7_Nitrogen/4_7_3_Organic_Matter/4_7_3_4_Sediments/4_7_3_4_1_Recent_Sediments/Papers/Corals%20Marion%20et%20al%202005.pdf

    http://www.reefplan.qld.gov.au/resources/assets/reef-consensus.pdf

    You might at least acknowledge that, the enormous amount of work to document that, and the good work of many people engaged in mitigation attempts, especially on-farm.

    Fessing up is the start. I haven’t heard any serious stakeholder suggest we shut down agriculture in reef catchments.

    If you weren’t so died in the wool you would google the contrarian reef commentators over the last decade and you would have to be the world’s greatest mug to not understand their message of inactivism. You might quibble on exact words but these people don’t editorialise to deliver a benign soft vague impression. Given the science and now available, this process was shameful, and pro-active industry forces have acknowledged the issue and moved to mitigation and best practice. Haven’t heard any of them advocating different methods.

    But you’re not happy with all this and wish to defend the contrarian message. Come on ! Get real ! And you’re the one sooking on triple bottom line?

  2138. Debbie says

    I can’t find any genuine questions in there Luke,
    just more accusations and false claims about what you think I think and what you say I say. Anytime you get close to asking a question you immediately assume you can answer it anyway & predict what people will say.
    As I keep patiently trying to point out to you: there is no point in engaging over claims about something that wasn’t said in the first place.
    When you’re interested in asking genuine questions I will do my best to answer.
    BTW Robert, I need that like button again!

  2140. KuhnKat says

    Little Lukey the evolutionist is apparently only PRETENDING to believe in evolution!!!

    The historic record shows that the oceans were much warmer in the past when the corals developed and, for them to be here now, had to survivie those periods of stratospheric CO2 and bathwater shallow seas!! Come on MORON, tell me how species actually evolve for a set of conditions and then somehow FAIL to survive in conditions similar to what they evolved for!! As recently as the last glacial interregnum both the polar bears and corals survived even warmier conditions that we have now!!!

    Come on, tell me how they LOSE their ability to adapt!!!

    You leftards are a JOKE arguing against your own beliefs to try and promote an AGENDA!!!

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

  2143. Debbie says

    Was that your idea of a genuine question Luke?
    Let me help you.
    In your opinion, how can we use this latest paper re the GBR to help inform sensible management policies?
    The paper highlights COTS as a major issue and also points out that COTS outbreaks occur after major land runoff.
    What can/should be done about this issue?

  2145. spangled drongo says

    “But as carbon dioxide pollution poisons the eucalyptus,, koalas are forced to look for food in other places.”

    It was made out by the writer of that story that this was a scientific claim but no-one but the writer ever claimed it.

    So it looks like I owe Dr Dan an apology.

    Just more irresponsible, stupid AGW journalism that seems to be included in school curricula.

    Which makes it even more irresponsible and stupid.

  2146. Luke says

    Lordy me Debs – you’re the farmer. Reduce fertiliser N reaching the waterway by only using what fertiliser that soil and petiole tests suggest is needed, minimum tillage, sub-soil constraint mapping using a variant of http://www.geonics.com/html/em38.html then precision agricultural fertiliser application by independent nozzle GPS guided system, fertiliser type perhaps, legume rotations. Or a mixture of all. There’s another raft of issues with herbicides from precision application, and spray shields. Anything that improves grazing land cover and keeping animals away from waterways with off-stream watering.

    Of course if you don’t believe there’s an issue and the reef denial industry is right, just keep applying 300 kg N/ha and don’t be concerned, even though your isotopic record of fertiliser use is nicely recorded in reef cores.

    So what would you do Debs if there is a significant tail of non-adopters of new practices ?

    Kookers – WTF?? Amazing if you listen to Kookers – nothing ever goes extinct? Ecosystems never become impoverished. Jeez I hate Kooker species sepo Yanks over here telling us about our own country. When your best reefs look even look like our worst – then come-a-knockin. Until then peez orf (mate) ! (indeed it’s a pity that selection pressure against Kooker Kats isn’t stronger)

  2147. Debbie says

    Luke?
    The only return question is a negative one?
    ‘So what would you do Debs if there is a significant tail of non-adopters of new practices ?’
    That question ‘assumes’ that this ‘tail’ is the main problem and needs to be attacked.
    Firstly we would need to know the % of this significant tail of non adopters of new practices, secondly it would be handy to know the % extent of damage being caused by the so called ‘tail enders’ and thirdly I’m disappointed that you’re unable to ask a positive return question.
    I note that you are naming and blaming ag runoff as the key issue here.
    Also noting that you can’t help yourself and had to throw this one in:
    ‘Of course if you don’t believe there’s an issue and the reef denial industry is right, just keep applying 300 kg N/ha and don’t be concerned, even though your isotopic record of fertiliser use is nicely recorded in reef cores.’
    I have no objection to better practices Luke but I understand that much has already been done in that area along those lines? I am no expert on farming practices for sugar cane, but my understanding is that like us down here in the MDB, many improvements have been made and people are learning as they go?. I would also imagine that more could be done.
    The paper does not specifically name ag runoff as the key current issue….it talks about runoff in general and does point out that some of it is from the past & is likely from past practices.
    As a further thought….
    What about actually zeroing in on COTS specifically? If they are directly responsible for such a high mortality rate….wouldn’t it be sensible to intervene directly? It appears it’s not the runoff that’s specifically damaging the coral….but the runoff from flood events that sparks outbreaks of COTS.
    Considering that it isn’t just runoff from ag but also normal disturbances and also from the growing urbanisation of these areas…is just focusing on agricultural practices going to achieve a good outcome re COTS?
    Just asking.

  2149. gavin says

    Luke; next we will have Deb in league with Andrews, Holmgren, Mollison, Yeomans or even Odum.

    Been thinking about a comment that tidal disturbance plays a role in reef health because the sudden cloudiness at Port Douglas has to be seen to be believed. The coast as a whole has a huge role when considering the washout. Perceptible change as a measurement is thus difficult.

    Something for Deb.

    http://learnonline.canberra.edu.au/pluginfile.php/623557/mod_resource/content/1/what%20is%20synthetic%20research.pdf

  2150. spangled drongo says

    gav, I think you’d be a lot happier and live a lot longer if you stayed in Canberra and kept all your synthetic activities down there.

  2151. Luke says

    What is this Debs – 50,000 obfuscating questions from you and I don’t get to ask very practical one back?

    http://www.reefplan.qld.gov.au/about/regions/burdekin/burdekin-first-report-card.aspx is an example of the distribution of management practice effectiveness. So there’s a pretty good handle on the tail ! Each major region has its own report card.

    Urbanisation and STP flux is a tiddler and data are available for above the reef coast urban area catchments.

    Intervening directly – well tourism operators do. But it’s a very big area – need lots of divers. Think of the modern WH&S issues with that !

    I’m not naming ag runoff as the key issue of damage moreover the key issue of RECOVERY and COTS. Even if damage was say to a cyclone – if water quality is good the reef will recover. The issues that you have not grasped are multiple-stressors and RECOVERY !

  2153. Neville says

    New German study shows that the IPCC predictions on temp at all levels in the atmosphere are wrong . This just adds to Christy’s latest work with a similar graph of Hansen’s 3 scenarios.

    http://notrickszone.com/2012/10/05/german-meteorologist-on-temperature-models-so-far-they-are-wrong-for-all-atmospheric-layers/

    What an unbelievable con and fraud, if this was a just another ponzi scheme the corruption would have been discovered by a whistleblower and the MSM would have swooped.

    Let’s face it the mitigation of AGW is easily disproved by simple maths and yet OZ continues to waste billions $ on this idiocy for a zero return.
    Plus provable zero change to the climate and temp.

  2154. debbie says

    Good grief Luke,
    Obviously you are only interested in taking us all around in non productive circles and adding more and more of the difficult and alarm?
    My question was clear and simple and your answer was entirely about ag damage
    Yet now you’re claiming that:
    ‘I’m not naming ag runoff as the key issue of damage ‘
    A short stroll back through your comments at this thread reveals that is exactly what you have been doing.
    Comment from Oct 3rd @ 4.04 pm is a typical example:
    “the issue is agricultural runoff from major rivers’
    I notice from your link above that ‘unnaceptable practice’ which I assume is what you mean by ‘tail end’ (?) is a very tiny percentage of the whole. The rest ranges from acceptable/common to cutting edge and the percentages look reasonable although of course it is not perfect. Grazing is also cited by your links and Gavin’s as a minor contributor to this problem.
    I also notice that much improvement and good work is being done in this field.
    That would be a largely positive result I would have thought?
    You then throw this one in:
    The issues that you have not grasped are multiple-stressors and RECOVERY !
    The question we were dealing with was specific to COTS….That comment was alarmist and entirely irrelevant to the specific question and also irrelevant to your original answer.
    I’m also a litle nonplussed by your flippant dismissal of direct intervention with a ‘too difficult too big’ type answer…and I assume you meant OH&S?
    Also note that when others have tried to talk about RECOVERY your answer is variations of:
    “Recovery” is simply bad science and anthropomorphic.
    It seems to me that you’re really only interested in ringing alarm bells and scoring points.
    I am disappointed….but of course that’s my problem….not yours.
    What is still clear is that this paper does not support your ‘over stated’ claims…neither does it prove that people like Jen were wrong and neither is it worthy of jamming down ‘redneck and denialist’ throats.
    I’m still entirely unclear what you claim people are ‘denying’ other than the C bit in CAGW?

  2155. spangled drongo says

    Neville,

    What most people [particularly most politicians] don’t want to know is that the C in CAGW is the amplification mechanism.

    This AM consists of models, science ideology and those people who feel the world owes them a living.

    Enormous amount of unnecessary extra baggage for the minority [the real producers] to carry.

  2156. debbie says

    http://www.canberratimes.com.au/environment/conservation/crowned-predator-reigns-on-reef-20121005-274mm.html
    Relevant article re COTS and GBR
    Note in particular:
    ”Our current theory is these large scale outbreaks are a response to nutrient run-off from the land, fertiliser mainly, especially after big floods,” says Jon Brodie, a James Cook University marine biologist’
    So the natural even of big floods is important is it not? Of course there is runoff from these events and of course farmers would prefer the fertiliser and chemical that they paid for was not washed off their land….but unless there are major flood mitigation works, big floods will wash topsoil into the rivers which are also of course drains.
    And:
    In 2008, almost 10 years after the government was first presented with this evidence, the $200 million Reef Rescue program, with the task of reducing nutrient runoff by 35 per cent within five years, started.

    A spokeswoman for the Environment Department says while estimates on water quality will not be released until the end of the year, close to 3000 land managers were involved in the program, which was on track to meet its targets.

    This article also talks about direct intervention by divers and putting a ‘bounty’ on COTS.

    So there is work being done….and maybe more resources should be directed there rather than the funding associated with what SD explains above as the Amplication Mechanism.(AM) ????

    As Sweatman concludes:
    ”If we could reduce the frequency and intensity of the crown-of-thorns outbreaks that’s the one lever we might have to give the reef a break”

  2157. cohenite says

    “”If we could reduce the frequency and intensity of the crown-of-thorns outbreaks that’s the one lever we might have to give the reef a break”

    Exactly; why isn’t luke and his chums out on the reef now, in their togs, flippers and googles picking up the wretched star-fish, instead of being here scaring the locals.

  2159. Bob Tisdale says

    Luke says: “That thar would be one of them thar dumb hick videos for ning nongs like Neville and Kookers”.

    Obviously, Luke, you personally are incapable of finding fault in what this “dumb hick” has presented.

    Here’s another link to the video:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CM7IUkvT_Zg

    Give it a shot. Prove me wrong. Here’s a link to the source I used for the HADISST:
    http://climexp.knmi.nl/selectfield_obs.cgi?someone@somewhere
    And here’s a link to the CMIP3 multi-model model TOS outputs:
    http://climexp.knmi.nl/selectfield_co2.cgi?id=someone@somewhere

    You’ll discover I present what the models and data show, and if that contradicts your personal assumptions about anthropogenic global warming, maybe your assumptions are ill founded.

    BTW, I never had the urge to watch “Dukes of Hazzard”. Do you enjoy the show? Or was your comment a lame attempt at ethnic humor? If so, it was as miserable as the scientific competence you, Luke, present here at this blog.

    Have a nice day.

  2160. Debbie says

    Yes Cohenite,
    And you will notice that Sweatman is one of the scientists/authors of this paper.
    One of my consistent complaints….and very noticeable here….the good work of good people gets hijacked and used inappropriately.
    The first rush of media….Burke… and of course also Luke….. did exactly that!
    Seems that Sweatman would rather focus on what CAN be done rather than screeching alarmism and name calling etc?

  2161. Neville says

    But Debbie you’ll find that Luke never, ever wants to offer an opinion about what can be done. He’ll howl all day every day but doesn’t like to offer a fix or mitigation for the problem as he sees it.

    Or crudely put he doesn’t give a stuff about mitigation or solutions, he just likes to whinge.

    BTW perhaps a good time to look again at that SLR ( deceleration) tidal gauge measurement article from Watson in the OZ a few moinths ago.

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/sea-level-rises-are-slowing-tidal-gauge-records-show/story-fn59niix-1226099350056

  2162. Luke says

    Debs your rant of 9:09 is about the most stupid I’ve seen from you. I chewed my arm off in disbelief. And suffered internal hemorrhaging at the sheer silliness.

    Are you a bot – Bazza wondered that you might be a bot? Only a argue-bot could be so mind numbingly and stupidly tedious.

    Tisdale get published or sod off. I’m not going to bother with any of your unpublished rat-dirt.

  2165. Luke says

    John S – don’t bother with unpublished time wasters. That basically means most who use Wattsup as a vehicle. Instead of a writing a book – get published or remain irrelevant. BTW I did answer last time.

  2166. spangled drongo says

    Luke, so you only reply to published scientists?

    What are you doing here then?

    I don’t think you are capable of discussing this with Bob.

    You pathetic bag of wind!

  2167. spangled drongo says

    We know well the climate gatekeepers of “Peer Review”.

    Coincidentally, Brendan O’Neill described the game being played here in an Australian column last weekend, “Peer review a way of silencing troublemakers”:

    “Under the guise of promoting “correct science” and slamming “bad science”, the priestly peer-review lobby is actually enforcing an ideological world view, using the tags “peer reviewed” and “non peer-reviewed” to distinguish between those who are politically on side and those who remain stubbornly heretical… The extraordinary thing about the liberal intelligentsia’s wide-eyed faith in peer review is that this academic process is actually massively open to corruption.”

  2168. Luke says

    SD plays the baiting game. Piss off you grub. Form has it and Tamino has shown this – one will invest a vast amount of time in these guys for no result. A waste of time. So if these guys want to be considered seriously – don’t write a book – get published. There is no excuse to not get published – unless of course you haven’t got anything.

    Get some serious peer review. And if you are rejected at peer review and you think it’s all an grand conspiracy – blog the reviewers comments. Won’t happen – so la de dah.

    So then we might look at any paper.

    No peer review = cop out. Wuss out.

  2169. spangled drongo says

    You are a pompous prick Luke.

    Play the ball, not the man.

    But you aren’t up to it.

  2170. Bob Tisdale says

    Luke replies: “Tisdale get published or sod off. I’m not going to bother with any of your unpublished rat-dirt.”

    This is the answer I expected from someone of your ilk, Luke. Your reliance on ethnic slurs and insults highlights your inabilities and the feebleness of your arguments. Everyone reading this thread understands that but you, Luke.

    The errors in the Trenberth and Fasullo paper that I brought to light should have been caught in peer review, not in a blog post…
    http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2012/09/20/a-blog-memo-to-kevin-trenberth-ncar/
    …or in a video:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CM7IUkvT_Zg

    Please advise those reading this thread what value peer review provided in this case, Luke.

  2171. Luke says

    Plenty of time to do videos and write books – but unable to peer review publish eh ? There’s a big international multi-institutional conspiracy and we’re being shown the way. In fact it’s so corrupt that science and technology hasn’t progressed in the last 100 years. It’s all magic and illusion.

    Bob do you think the veracity of your argument is well judged by our on-board clowns? Mate you must be desperate if you want their approval and not that of real scientists who peer review publish. So desperate. Is this how you think science should be done – ask SD, Neviile and Debs approval? Whoo hoo.

    Get published and report back. I think we might be waiting quite some time.

    SD – “play the man” – that’s what you creeps have been doing for years – read your own comments. Hypocrite !

  2172. Bob Tisdale says

    Luke says: “Plenty of time to do videos and write books – but unable to peer review publish eh ?…”

    I see you’re still incapable of responding to the basic request on which I ended my last reply. It was: Please advise those reading this thread what value peer review provided in this case, Luke.

    It provided none. Using the links I provided in that comment, anyone can disprove the claims made by Trenberth and Fasullo. Only a fool would believe something that blatantly obvious would need to be peer reviewed. Well, I guess I’m replying to one such fool in you, Luke.

    There’s no need for me to waste any more time with you.

    Adios.

  2173. Luke says

    I did like this bit of verballing from Tisdale too. ” Your reliance on ethnic slurs” when is being a hick an ethnicity? Perhaps you yourself Bob have certain views on ethic groups. As for insults – well Bob – I’m insulted regularly by our friends here. Please give me your support in the future.

  2174. Luke says

    Well Bob – you may be a fool if bolstering your fragile ego is achieved by wasting time with me -indeed you could have done a few paragraphs for that paper by now.

    Try peer review Bob – you’ll find it’s not a soft review and backslap you’ll get from attacking papers in blogs. You write a comment back to the journal on the paper. That’s how it works.

  2175. gavin says

    Bob; by appealing here, you are realty singing in the wind. I just ran a quick search on “Trenberth and Fasullo” then focused on John who is extremely well published and linked on climate research. On very few occasions do we find him on blogs and that is most significant as he must only be a team worker.

    All this extra blog fuss fails to derail the AGW consensus and we do get sceptics in hot water after fuggy papers come to light.

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/Journal-editor-resigns-over-fundamentally-flawed-paper-Roy-Spencer.html

    My conclusion Bob; teamwork is essential in climate science.

  2178. spangled drongo says

    Bob, sadly you are wasting your time with our resident artful dodger.

    Plain honest talking is completely foreign to him.

    Signing petitions to cyber-bully Alan Jones’ advertisers is more his thing.

  2179. Bob Tisdale says

    Gavin: With your teamwork comments, I don’t believe you comprehend the topic of discussion. Here it is in a nutshell: The only way to confirm the existence of anthropogenic global warming is with climate models, but as I showed in the above linked post and video, using the dataset referred to by Trenberth and Fasullo (2012) HADISST, the sea surface temperatures for 75% of the surface area of the global oceans have not warmed in 20 years, yet the climate models say they should have warmed more than 0.3 deg C IF they were warmed by greenhouse gases. Anyone with a little common sense might conclude that greenhouse gases do not warm the global oceans if they haven’t warmed in 20 years, which is a time period manmade greenhouse gas emissions have continued to rise. But there are a lot of people around without common sense.

  2180. Bob Tisdale says

    spangled drongo: Thanks. I’ll try not to continue to waste my time replying to his nonsense. But as you are aware, ignoring the artful dodgers of this debate is easier said than done.

    Regards

  2182. Debbie says

    Gavin,
    I hope I won’t regret this.
    But can you please define what you mean by ‘ we will return to the land’?
    BTW Gavin. Accountability is not just about environmental accountability.
    Humilty and the ability to admit mistakes is a big part of successful teamwork and accountability.

  2183. gavin says

    Bob; given the only blog I track is this one, my brief encounter with your Trenberth and Fasullo argument points to a difference in heat budgets and models and so I’m not qualified to go further. I am however aware from our reef interests here, NASA and others are looking at rising sst’s. The lack of direct links CO2 etc don’t bother me in any way.

    Deb; the greatest change in land use is reduced forest cover. Runoff everywhere is thus greatly affected without considering the added agri chemicals.

    SD; I like those graphs. Even so .3>.7 C is wild and we seem to be hitting a ceiling as we go. Right now I’m looking forward to cleaning up some more big old wood chisels found this week end. Fixing mushrooms is my science.

  2184. Minister for Truth says

    I see that the resident know all is still at it, and is now having go at Bob Tisdale about getting published, and submit to Peer Review, and with usual ignorant claim, that it is only by Peer review that we have advanced.

    Well as usual, he doesnt do his own homework. But then he has certainly understood very little of the papers he has cited over the last 7 years of blathering and harassment on this blog…

    Read this brain storm…its one of many about the history and role of Peer Review.

    http://michaelnielsen.org/blog/three-myths-about-scientific-peer-review/

    Of course we wont also mention the work undertaken by John McLean that revealed just how the IPCC corrupted the Peer Review process anyway.

    What was that about a cosey little IPCC cabal of self referencing and self selecting group of academic alarmists …who were also putting papers together at the last minute ..and wasnt it our geniuses at Melbourne University that were in the thick of it.

    In any case Luke Walker (Qld Public Servant ?) why isnt possible to read and assimilate Bob Tisdales (Private Citizen) important contribution on its own merits.

    Indeed wasnt Einsteins, and that of many others important works, undertaken whilst being private citizens.

    If the academics had any semblance of common sense they would work with Bob T..but I guess they are too far up themselves with their own self importance.

    Most Public Servants I know, and have known, would have no problem taking any contribution at its face value, in the knowledge that we advance by the contribution from many spheres and sources…but then I guess the standards in the Qld PS and academia in general this country are different.

    Must go now, I have debbies problem in that I have to earn my own dollars so that I can pay tax, so that we keep all these useless free loaders employed.

  2185. Neville says

    Bob I think you fully understand Luke by now. When he can’t answer a challenge he just steps up the ad homs and abuse.

    This is how all pig ignorant fools react when they know they’ve lost an argument. Why anyone bothers after his level of swearing, abuse and stupidity is hard to say.
    Perhaps they just feel sorry for him?

  2186. Debbie says

    Luke,
    simple wise statement for you.
    Two wrongs don’t make a right.
    You have been given countless opportunities to engage on practical application yet you always defer to ‘attack the messenger’.
    Just because you perceive others do it, doesn’t make it any more acceptable.
    ‘reef deniers! . . . Denied.
    What on earth do you think that means?

  2187. Luke says

    Minister – what does the public service have to do with the price of eggs. You will actually note I’m not supporting government positions. If I was I’m doing a poor job of it for either side. And even in your hypothesis you’re playing the man not the ball. Maybe I’m an ethnic group and you’ve just offended me. You don’t have to be a “public servant” to publish in a journal. But I think it’s beholden on serious critics of papers who themselves want to engage at a robust level of scientific discourse and publicly attack others to get published. So what do we have – institutional scientists subject to the highest level of probity requirements and some blog dude gets the same level of cred taking a shot. So on one side someone has to crawl over broken glass and barbed wire to get written up and published and something else can just trot along and expect the same level of attention? Come on ! Lets apply the same level of rigour to brain surgery (I have a few ideas – so can I have a wack at it?) or nuclear power (I’m sure my reactor won’t leak).

    why would you quote McLean as an expert after his lamentable first outing in GRL – the first GRL paper was shot down spectacularly by a PUBLISHED comment – McLean rebuttal was refused publication (oooo was it a conspiracy?). And interestingly enough just on broadly similar areas to Bob’s interests.

    Neville stop baiting. You’ve had plenty of solid science from me as has Debs and you get rot in return. Do you guys get to ask all the questions? Think you’re born to rule do you? Debs doesn’t answer any questions.

    Debs 500 wrongs might get you bolshy though. Note elsewhere on the intertubes where Tisdale is now ranting that I’m insulting ethic groups – i.e. “Southerners”. Must get out my Confederate flag. Watts has the temerity to comment – after the sort of commentary he lets loose on his “blog” golly see – pot calling kettle black – and after enduring his nonsense in two presentations excuse my mirth.

    Interesting thing about Tisdale actually- a few years ago I was engaging him here and he said he’d get back to me. Didn’t happen. And now well I can’t be bothered myself.

  2188. Debbie says

    Luke!
    If you’re going to use analogies you need to follow the logic of comparison.
    Since when did brain surgery and nuclear science rely on hypothetical projective models of somehing as chaotic as weather/climate?
    I will also add that when their modelling and calcuation has proven to be innacurate they are accountable.
    The assumption here is that the models are accurately predicting weather/climate trends. They’re clearly not accurate as the real time data has fallen outside even the lower projective limits. They are also not accountable even though they are being used to create wide reaching social policy.
    Can brain surgeons and nuclear scientists say, ‘oh that’s just a wiggle, it’s not relevant?’
    There is no comparison.
    They are pure sciences, you are arguing about statistics that use scientific data.
    Not the same thing. Not even close!

  2189. Luke says

    When did nuclear science really on hypothetical models of “chaotic” behaviour.

    Now Debs sure you want to ask such a question? mmmm

    You are not in a position to evaluate the models. You have never studied such material. And don’t me you read some blog posts.

    Anyway I said sorry to Bob over at http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2012/10/07/southerners-are-not-dumb-hicks-a-new-low-for-proponents-of-anthropogenic-global-warming

    Well it’s waiting moderation. Neville’s a snitch. A dobber in fact. How un-Australian.

  2190. Neville says

    Luke can you explain how I’m a snitch and dobber? All I did was link Bob’s video on this blog, nothing more.
    But I did advise Bob some months ago that you were putting the boot in about one of his previous posts on WUWT.
    This time I didn’t contact Bob at all, so what are you prattling on about?

  2194. cohenite says

    Bob is good value; he made a good critique of the Foster et al comment on McLean et al and the issue of whether natural variability dominates any AGW caused trend:

    http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com.au/2009/08/multiple-wrongs-dont-make-right.html

    As for peer review, generally, in climate science, it is hopelessly corrupted; the emails show that.

    Specifically in the context of the McLean right of reply to the Foster comment it is also hopelessly corrupt; it is standard for the authors of a published paper to have a right of reply to a comment published on their paper; McLean was refused and analyse why here:

    http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/agu_censorship.pdf

  2195. Debbie says

    Absolutely positive Luke,
    would you like to answer it?
    You took it upon yourself to make the comparison. I think it isn’t a supportable analogy and explained why.
    Can brain sugeons and/or nuclear scientists dismiss evidence as irrelevant wiggles?
    Your assertion about my ability to evaluate models is irrelevant and incorrect.
    Business people know how to use projective modelling Luke. Also know how to evaluate them. Just because these ones are about ‘climate’ doesn’t make them any different as far as use & evaluation is concerned. They are still ‘projective models’.
    That’s what’s wrong with your analogy.
    You aren’t defending ‘science’.

  2196. Luke says

    A great big sooky whinge Cohenite – bad paper. It’s indefensible. GRl or JGR is not a debating society with equal time. Gross flaws mean it’s gooooooooonnne.

    And fancy a mob like SPPI writing a big whingefest like that as some sort of defense. Lordy me.

    For those who don’t publish or get slapped around (and who hasn’t) – well get over it. Do you think there are never papers that are rejected or severely criticized.

  2197. Minister for Truth says

    As usual and yet again the intellectual genius from Qld diverts attention by blowing up more smoke screens. To explain:

    1. The reference to Mclean by me was to his well-known paper that looked at the matrix of who published what, and who cited what, in regard to IPCC referred documents. It revealed just what cosy little group of self-referencing self-selecting group they are. It was a straight forward piece of desk work by Mclean that any numerate and articulate person could undertake, including public servants. It wasn’t hard. But oh so revealing.

    I was not interested on what other papers McLean has to his name, as they would be completely irrelevant to this matter. Even a mid ranking pube should be able to comprehend this difference.

    2. The reference to the public service was also to draw the distinction between Bob T as a private citizen under taking his analysis at his own expense, and your own environment as far as it is known… namely one of standing on the side lines hurling rubbish and derision, whilst luxuriating in the comfort of a PS job, with no apparent value add. The rest of us enage in blogging et al at the expense/detriment of other income generating pursuits.

    3. The use of the article referenced by me (Michael Nielsen) was to put into perspective this nonsense about the sanctity of peer review, and your own knee jerk reaction every time you are cornered, and like some screeching Dalek from Dr Who…start parroting ”publish or be exterminated”.

    Importantly the article deals with three main myths of PR being:

    Myth 1: Scientists have always used PR.
    Demonstrably not true by a long shot. Indeed, and for example, only one of near 300 papers by Einstein was PR’d.

    Myth 2: PR is reliable.
    It’s not. The examples of its failures are legion, including specific tests of papers being altered in planned way to see if the reviewers could detect obvious errors, which they failed.

    Myth 3: PR is the way we determine what is right and what is wrong in science.
    Not necessarily true…”it is given a falsely exaggerated role”.

    If scientists were true to their profession and the pursuit of knowledge they would be finding a way to cooperate and be more inclusive of privateers with a good track record like Bob T

  2198. Debbie says

    Just read that BT link.
    I’m impressed that say you have apologised Luke. You have just redeemed some credibility in my eyes if you have indeed apologised.
    It isn’t up yet.
    Maybe you might consider copying it here seeing as this is where you gaffed by insult?
    It really isn’t a good look you know.
    So I do hope your apology was sincere?

  2200. spangled drongo says

    Yeah Luke, can’t see that apology. As deb says, put it up here for us all to see.

    Meanwhile your defence of the Gatekeepers is as usual a matter of record.

    Having the gall to maintain that this is acceptable conduct explains why there is so much genuine scientific scepticism of the hockey team, the IPCC and AGW.

    The sooner there is exposure of this corrupted “peer review” the better for science in general.

    The longer this rorting goes on without proper investigation the less chance science has of ever being credible.

    And as an avid supporter and defender, your own credibility is the most questionable of all.

  2201. Debbie says

    Just a reminder Luke:
    here’s your attempt at analogy:
    Lets apply the same level of rigour to brain surgery (I have a few ideas – so can I have a wack at it?) or nuclear power (I’m sure my reactor won’t leak).
    Please answer my questions….you asked if I wanted them answered….the answer is yes please.
    But make sure you understand the questions….I’m very tired of you misquoting and/or claiming that something was said that was clearly not said.

  2202. Larry Fields says

    I’ve updated my article at Hubpages about the Global Warming scare, with a few extra photos from Wikipedia and from Steven Goddard. This hub is a good one for newbies, because it pulls no punches, it covers many of the bases, and it has a low density of arcane terminology.

    Who’s afraid of the Flying CO2 Monster?

    Summary: Man-Made Global Warming is hyped as an issue for which “the science is settled,” to use the immortal words of Al Gore. However there’s been zero measurable global warming since 1998. And pre-1998 attribution is problematic.

    LINK
    http://tinyurl.com/42q736v

  2203. spangled drongo says

    A story in yesterday’s British Telegraph:

    Debunking climate propaganda earns you a ‘fail’

    Two weeks ago I described one of this year’s A-level General Studies papers which asked candidates to discuss various “source materials” on climate change. Drawn from propaganda documents wholly biased in favour of climate alarmism, these contained a plethora of scientific errors. I suggested that, if any clued-up students tore these “sources” apart as they deserved, they might have been given a “fail”.

    Sure enough, an email from the mother of just such a student confirmed my fears. Her son is “an excellent scientist” who got “straight As” on his other science papers, but he is also “very knowledgeable about climate change and very sceptical about man-made global warming”. His questioning of the sources earned an “E”, the lowest possible score. His mother then paid £60 for his paper to be re-marked. It was judged to be “articulate, well-structured” and clearly well-informed, but again he was marked down with “E” for fail.

    This young man’s experience speaks volumes about the way the official global-warming religion has so corrupted our education system that it has parted company with proper scientific principles. In his efforts to reform our dysfunctional exam system, Michael Gove should ask for this bizarre episode to be investigated.

  2204. Luke says

    Ah crap MfTruth – nothing is perfect – peer review ain’t. Humans being are fallible – have egos – fight scrap and get stuff wrong. But peer review is heaps better than winging it.

    Another example of “soft” review. http://n3xus6.blogspot.com.au/2007/02/dd.html

    OMIGOD ! just cherry pick the answer

    COhenite “Bob has shown how AGW is MIA over the last couple of decades” – well this is simply Nobel prize stuff – surely Bob, Wattsy, Jo, Stockers and yourself can help get the guy published. This could change the world and you’re dicking around. I’m really serious – stop pissing about and get it done !

  2205. Luke says

    SD – do you think that the average scientist sometimes get a rough time in publication and “right” people just go straight through ? Pullease ! get real.

    Neville get a 25% apology for being OK this time but not last.

    Cohers – is that you quoting modelling as evidence?

    SD – so you want the Bob post…. needs to be read in context of his thread and comments.

    “Well well – now Tisdale’s into verballing – he could get a job on an Australian state police force. What’s this dross about Southerners and “ethnicity”. When is being a dumb hick an ethnicity. Southerners ? well yes people from South Australia not being of convict stock and better breeding who pronounce plants and dance as plarnts and darnce, do talk funny and eats crows I believe. I was love people like Watts (whose tedious seminars I have had the misfortune to endure on 2 occasions although I restrained myself unlike other audience members) making pronouncements about blog behaviour when his own den is a sea of insults. And he seems to indulge a range of anonymous cowardly comments himself (but maybe it’s my sensitive ethnicity acting up again). But give him his due unlike our Bob he’s getting published.

    But I guess I’ve been dobbed in by our lil’ Aussie snitch Neville. Who has broken the Aussie rule that you don’t dob on your mates (jeez I just thought maybe he’s not my mate – wow!) even if they’ve been sledging. But Neville can’t help it as he needs to be told what to think.

    However if Bob feels that I have somehow insulted his intelligence or his country-men (thank heavens I didn’t say sepos, or ning nong or galoot – if I’d has a few beers I might have you know) or implies an ethnicity insult – (is the Tea Party an ethnicity BTW) well I’m sorry. But Anthony did tell me once when I was personally briefed about death threats to climate scientists I know to “harden up”. But let’s not be judged by standards of others – I’m sorry Bob.

    Anyway Bob would like me to check his homework. But really who can be bothered. So much sceptic nonsense – such little time. Now if the said work had run the gauntlet of publication – well it could well be worth a look. Of course Bob may have some points too but of course it’s always what you’ve left out. But I think it’s beholden on serious critics of papers who themselves want to engage at a robust level of scientific discourse and publicly attack others to get published. So what do we have – institutional scientists subject to the highest level of probity requirements and some blog dude gets the same level of cred taking a shot. So on one side someone has to crawl over broken glass and barbed wire to get written up and published (ask Anthony) and something else can just trot along and expect the same level of attention? Come on ! Lets apply the same level of rigour to brain surgery (I have a few ideas – so can I have a wack at it?) or nuclear power (I’m sure my cardboard reactor won’t leak).”:

  2206. Mack says

    ” Nobel prize stuff” We’ve been through all that stuff with Nasif Nahle haven’t we Lukebaby. Also all that “peer review” and “get published” and all and every lousy excuse your pathetic little mind can conjure up.
    Don’t get upset with our village idiot Bob, you’re just dealing with public servant with infinite glide time and a munted brain.

  2207. Tony says

    There’s a great word for people like you “Luke” … a twat.

    Let’s see some of your ‘pal-reviewed’ published science verbiage. Nah, thought not, you’re the type that ‘shoots people in the back and slinks away into the dark’ … I use that metaphorically. At least “Bob”, “Wattsy”, “Jo”, “Stockers”, and others proudly put their names to their scientific opinions … you don’t, why ? Afraid of being ridiculed for the twat that you are ?

    What don’t you understand about the basics … warming releases CO2, and don’t give me that bullshit about forcings and feedbacks, it’s crap.

  2208. spangled drongo says

    Alibi Luke.

    Never short of excuses and a good story.

    You need to purge your mind of your dumb ideology and just think about fundamentals.

    Now, repeat after me:

    Atmospheric downwelling radiation flowing from a cold region to a hot one violates the 2nd LoT.

    Reducing net radiation flux from the warmer surface and thereby making its heat-loss less, is not warming.

    See how much simpler your life could be?

  2213. Polyaulax says

    Aw,Luke,that’s an Alan Jones apology…I’m shocked.

    Bob T claims “…satellite-era sea surface temperature data so contradicts the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming that there’s no way my work would pass through the gauntlet of peer-review.”

    Fancy that. Got no ticker.

  2214. Robert says

    Peer review is looking and sounding too much like a Vatican Index. Bob is free to publish, others are free to attack his work. If they have the ticker.

  2215. Bob Tisdale says

    Luke says: “But I guess I’ve been dobbed in by our lil’ Aussie snitch Neville. Who has broken the Aussie rule that you don’t dob on your mates (jeez I just thought maybe he’s not my mate – wow!) even if they’ve been sledging. But Neville can’t help it as he needs to be told what to think.”

    This reveals just how pathetic you’ve become, Luke. You know I visit Jennifer’s blog regularly. You’re well aware of that. Instead, you choose to try to pass the blame for your own ridiculous remarks on to someone else. Yup. Pathetic was the right word.

  2216. Debbie says

    That’s Luke’s idea of an apology?
    Damn! Here’s me thinking that he was actually genuinely contrite for going too far.
    I’m very pleased I don’t see the world through Luke’s eyes.
    And Robert is entirely correct Polyaux.
    In case you haven’t figured it out, a book is also ‘published’ and open to ‘review’.

  2218. Bob Tisdale says

    Polyaulax “Bob T claims ‘…satellite-era sea surface temperature data so contradicts the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming that there’s no way my work would pass through the gauntlet of peer-review.’”
    “Fancy that. Got no ticker.”

    Just great, another anthropogenic global warming proponent who can’t accept reality. When the data used by Trenberth and Fasullo (2012) indicate that the sea surface temperatures of 75% of the surface area of the global oceans haven’t warmed in agreement at all in the past 20 years, they elect to hide behind the skirts of peer review instead of admitting to themselves the hypothesis of manmade global warming is flawed. Here’s a link to the graph being discussed:
    http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/figure-41.png

    The graph is from the blog post here:
    http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2012/09/20/a-blog-memo-to-kevin-trenberth-ncar/

    As I wrote to Luke above, Give it a shot. Prove me wrong. Here’s a link to the source I used for the HADISST:
    http://climexp.knmi.nl/selectfield_obs.cgi?someone@somewhere
    And here’s a link to the CMIP3 multi-model model TOS outputs:
    http://climexp.knmi.nl/selectfield_co2.cgi?id=someone@somewhere

    You’ll discover I present what the models and data show, and if that contradicts your personal assumptions about anthropogenic global warming, maybe your assumptions are ill founded.

    It takes 2 minutes to confirm that graph. Do you have the ticker to confirm it? If not, those visiting this thread will understand you complain out of fear—fear that you’ll discover what you’ve been taught about anthropogenic global warming is wrong.

    This has nothing to do with peer review; this is a discussion of data.

  2219. Polyaulax says

    Overreach,Bob. A disagreement between observation and model in part of the ocean/atmosphere system doesn’t ‘disprove the hypothesis of AGW’. You know that.

    Has Trenberth been in touch?

  2220. cohenite says

    “No ticker” says poly.

    “Give it a shot. Prove me wrong.” says Bob.

    Let’s see who’s got ticker.

  2221. Luke says

    Poly – yes an AJ apology but I was only sorry if he thought I was actually offending him on his description. Come on this guy is a seasoned campaigner, editorialising (I’m not) and on a mission – now he’s verballed me and pumped up the volume. UNIMPRESSED. Otherwise as Anthony Watts blog said even about death threats – harden up. I’m just following the examples.

    Debbie a book might be open to review – or not. Shows how off the planet you are my dear.

    And if you note Poly’s comment above – it’s what Bob doesn’t tell you is the issue. Bob’s also addicted as most sceptics are to uniformitarianism – they expect everything to be the same everywhere. Strange that I read published scientists have reported interesting warming trends all over the place. Bob has cherry-picked some factoid and now wants attention and for me to spend a vast amount of time checking his homework. And he’s compared SSTs to a multi-model mean by the looks – ye gads !

  2223. gavin says

    Front page CT today is the headline word “Trolls” used in relation to Gillard on Facebook, AJ etc.

    Can someone who is not abusive here, explain how trolls became part of MSM?

    Bob; you can’t get published after running so long with Watts.

    Deb; books don’t sell unless they are sensational.

    Guys; MSM is full of our weakened Arctic.

    coh; reckon you will be around long enough to see it all go the other way?

  2226. spangled drongo says

    “Scientists largely attribute the increase in Antarctic sea ice extent to stronger circumpolar winds, which blow the sea ice outward, increasing extent.”

    Amazing how winds can be responsible for increases in the Antarctic but not for decreases in the Arctic.

    And if SLs are going nowhere gav, what does that tell you?

  2227. Debbie says

    It’s what Bob (or whoever you want to insert here) DOESN’T tell you that’s the issue?
    Seriously?
    What, pray tell, would that issue be Luke?
    And Luke,
    the multi model mean? You must be joking?
    You claim you are defending science. It doesn’t appear to be the case at all.

  2228. sp says

    More venom from the spittle flecked snout of the sick puppy Luke.

    When are you going to publish Luke?

    What do you do for a job? Public servant in some institue in far north QLD – need to protect your job in case you have to find a real one and do real work?

    Cmon Luke – tell us how you earn a crust

  2230. spangled drongo says

    What’s your point gav?

    Are you saying that because too many people choose to live on a crowded island it will sink?

    And if they leave it will enjoy post-populus rebound?

    Do you know what coral atolls do?

    Do you know what SLs are doing in the Maldives?

    Are you interested in facts or just ideology?

    But that picture strongly makes one of my previous points that these “floating” islands are suffering from a deck space problem, not a freeboard problem and the inhabitants are cashing in on your guilt and our money.

    And you, with your guilt and ideology, are feeding the problem, not the solution.

  2233. Minister for Truth says

    ‘ Ah crap MfTruth – nothing is perfect – peer review ain’t. Humans being are fallible – have egos – fight scrap and get stuff wrong. But peer review is heaps better than winging it.”

    1. Einstein did alright without it. 299 papers without crappy Peer Review by some one who is recognised as being one the greatest minds.

    2. There are much better ways of undertaking PR using modern technology, and all with a greater degree of openess and transparency…..without resorting to ” winging it” as you so ridiculously describe it. All it requires is a wil,l and some pressure from people like Auditor Generals doing their jobs properly in their over sight of the proper use of tax payer funds, and academics lifting their standards.

    3. Bob Tisdale is absolutely correct when he says that he is just showing data already available… so that doesnt require PR. If it was, then anything different would… according to your glib comprehension of things have to go through PR …bollocks

    I feel sorry for the Qld tax payer

  2238. Luke says

    and how typical is Einstein ? mmmm – let’s just rebut that with McLean and Archibald’s “contributions” as why PR is essential

    And Auditor-Generals are now are going to audit science papers are they. WOW ! That will be fun. Academics lifting standards – yep which is why you have peer review. Jeez !

    Bob’s findings fly in the face of a number of papers that find the opposite in fact. Now why is that? Are you interested. of course not. Here’s just one http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/people/gjohnson/gcj_3w.pdf

    You really are a clown McTruth – I just despair

  2239. debbie says

    Bollocks!
    Perfect description of the screw ball logic being offered as PR!
    In the MDBP an alarming amount of PR was/is being done by the authors of the original work.
    In particular, the socio economic modelling was almost entirely PR’d in that manner.
    As if that would be objective or transparent?
    Absolute Bollocks!
    Well said Minister.
    And Gavin….people buy books because they’re interested. People also write books because they’re interested and believe they have something worthwhile to offer the public at large.
    Bestsellers are not simply sensational….. Plenty of non fiction material are bestsellers and don’t go anywhere near ‘sensationalism”… and I don’t believe Bob’s book is attempting to attract via ‘sensationalism’….I would have to say however that those written from the ‘alarmism’ viewpoint, certainly go for ‘sensationalist’….wouldn’t you?
    Books are open to review just as any other ‘publication’ is open to review.
    The notion that ‘peer review’ in academia is somehow ‘pure’ and ‘above reproach’ is not borne out by evidence…even Luke has enough sense to admit that….only for a moment when he talked about ‘fallible’.
    I will also add that life changing ‘publications’…and Einstein is one good example of that….are not simply the realm of ‘academia’.
    Same goes for new technologies and discoveries.
    Not knocking ‘academia’ BTW….just pointing out that it is only one small part of an important whole and not necessarily the important part much of the time.
    There are plenty of people who have academic quals (and very good quals at that) who no longer reside in the rarified world of academia….and their opinions are just as valid and often backed up by the school of hard knocks….otherwise known as ‘real life’ or ‘practical’ experience.
    We have lost many of the ‘good guys’ in Agricultural research partly because of an over reliance on ‘academia’.

  2240. bazza says

    Ironical indeed that ENSO destroys Tisdales story. He starts his comparison of actual and modelled in early 1980s when there was an extreme El Niño ( as it was recognised when it was just about over.) His comparison conveniently ends with the recent extreme La Niña episode. Of course the trend would be and is flattened. The comparison is actual v models concerned more with climate and where the ENSO signal is not necessarily modelled. Proof of the con is good agreement in the Arctic between model and actual because less ENSO influence and poor in the South Pacific where ENSO dwells. Too many graphs beloved of denialist ideologues exploit endpoints.
    Now send in the clowns!

  2241. Debbie says

    Ummmmm Bazza?
    Did you actually read Bob’s work and look at the comparisons?
    You’re throwing up ENSO as an excuse?
    That’s like saying….hmmm….let’s model something and just completely ignore reality.
    What you’re attempting to do here is just more of the same ‘pretty stupid’ stuff that’s been discussed before.
    Changing datum points obviously changes the results in any modelling….including Tisdale’s….that’s actually the point ……LIKE DUH!!!!!!

  2242. bazza says

    Deb, that is totally devoid of meaning. Even Nev gets Tisdales simplistic claim. Tisdale is claiming “I’ve searched sea surface temperature records for more than 4 years, and I can find no evidence of an anthropogenic greenhouse gas component’. (like an argonaut?). get this – the trend in the models is an AGW one. If you fixed up the endpoint con you would discover that the actual trend is not much different to the modelled trend. What bit don’t you get?

  2243. spangled drongo says

    gavin, spare us the he said, she said stuff c/w GCMs and go outside and look.

    Failing that, like Bob’s 140 y old photo of The Cove at La Jolla, the 170 y old mark at Port Arthur, the photos and reality of Fort Denison which haven’t changed in its lifetime and what is more your thing, just talking to people who have lived in the one seafront area all their lives.

    When you have seen a king tide completely cover the level lawn of a bayside suburban house over 60 years ago and those same king tides don’t do that today you know that SLR is over rated.

    As far as coral atolls are concerned you need to read Darwin. He told us over 170 y ago that they rise and fall with the ocean and have currently risen over 100 meters this interglacial to keep pace with any SLR.

  2244. Johnathan Wilkes says

    “Now send in the clowns!”

    Forget it, you are here already!

    And I say it again, bazzyboy is Luke’s alter ego when he needs a rest from the battering.

    The bad cop-not so bad cop theme!

  2245. Luke says

    Debbie – giga-bollocks – PR is not perfect. But like democracy what else have you got. Just because someone writes a book means what ? Could be brilliant or crap. Science is about contesting ideas at times. Ducking the peer review should be your first alarm bell. As for “in-house” “soft” PR on your MDB issues – well get some balance in the team and get international buy-in. If you are a stakeholder insist on diverse and quality PR.

    SD when you have more than two datum points report back.

    Send in the clowns http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1fVQGESUTo&feature=related

  2248. Polyaulax says

    Spangled, Sea level has risen at La Jolla. Check the PSMSL data,station ID 256. The record at Scripps Pier shows a rising trend over the ninety years of record. The rate has eased off in the last decade because the cool phase of the PDO is in residence along with a dominance of La Ninas over that time. It’s the same PDO/La Nina set up that’s stopped SST warming trend in the NE Pacific….and revs up Bob T into thunderous proclamations.

    Sea level trend at the Goldy is barely significant over the last twenty years. Longer records from Brisbane and south show a rising trend. Satellite confirms that the coast of far SE Qld and far N NSW ain’t moving much.

    Your king tide anecdote might have been a result of an optimising coincidence of warm E coast eddy,low pressure,onshore wind and tide. Do you have more details?

    Port Arthur reconstructions show a rise of 1.0 +/- 0.3mm/annum since 1841,according to Hunter et al 2003.

    Barrier reef corals kept up with fast sea level rise not by building on itself but by climbing the local hills as they submerged.

  2249. Minister for Truth says

    Are all the people in the Qld PS as thick and pig ignorant as you.?

    The A/G would audit the processes, controls and the ethical standards etc

    Of course he wouldnt be evaluating the science dumbo

    There are many improvements to PR that a can be made to make it more efficient and transparent and many are in train …but too slow, and in the main the new aproaches dont apply to GW science publishers.

    Give it away Walker, you are an embarrassment to your employers, and the country.

  2250. spangled drongo says

    I have many data points luke. And they’re all stuff that I and others have witnessed over many decades.

    When you can come up with evidence that is more than just statistics and assumption let me know.

    When you have been involved in construction in flood-prone estuaries, The Gold Coast Broadwater, Moreton Bay etc for long periods and you discuss this with local coastal scientists only to find that their physical data is flat out extending back 10 years, and they only want to accept the crap that CSIRO are putting out, you are inclined to think the world has gone mad.

    Hard evidence, except for the fact that these cities have not been washed away and still are the same height above MSL, is very hard to find and plays into the hands of you stupid catastros.

    Like Bob, I would be delighted if you could prove me wrong and I challenge you to show me any physical evidence of SLR in this area [which is also your area] in the last 60-70 years.

    Are you up to that or are you as usual full of crap?

  2251. Debbie says

    No Bazza,
    Your comment was basically…..if we…. IGNORE ….ENSO, then the AGW modelling works.
    Sorry Bazza….we can’t ignore ENSO….that would be ignoring reality would it not?
    That’s one of Bob’s points.
    The models can only have an AGW ‘trend’ if they ignore such things as ENSO and then fail to update their modelling with real time data.
    It’s common practice in modelling…..they’re great for ‘what if’ scenarios.
    As always….the real judge of any modelled hypothesis or theory is time and updated’real time’ data….which is also one of Bob’s points.
    And Bazza….no one says modelling isn’t an interesting cerebral exercise…. but really apart from being a useful tool to help us better understand the world around us…..that’s all it is.
    It is NOT meant to be used as a magic crystal ball….neither should it be used as the ONLY basis for informing social policy….especially when it flatly and arrogantly ignores reality and ‘real time data’ in favour of ‘terms of reference’.
    And Bazza….NEWS FLASH!!!!….it also isn’t science….it’s computer generated, statistical projective modelling…..that uses scientific data…..it’s very useful….very high tech….and very interesting….but it is NOT science.
    Luke,
    All I can say again is what Minister said to you….BOLLOCKS!
    People aren’t ducking Peer Review! What an absolutely absurd thing to say.
    Academic Peer Review (which is actually what we’re really talking about here) is not the same as democracy and neither is it necessarily ‘all we’ve got’.
    Absolute BOLLOCKS!

  2252. Robert says

    Here’s some very slight comfort for those frustrated by sluggish sea levels around famous atolls.

    In spite of the Maldives having to cancel climate doomsday because of the sheer weight of private investment, new infrastructure and luxury developments, the Huvafen Fushi can offer you, for a bit over $1500 a night, a submerged experience in the world’s first underwater spa. The wine cellar is also below sea level.

    Unfortunately, it’s not another climate change enactment. With so many luxury hotels and resorts competing for international dollars, the Huvafen Fushi has been built on a very low and slender island – which has always been that way – so its clients can really feel the ocean about them.

    In many of the world’s other atolls, however, alarmism is strong. Any government acquisitions of land can still be framed as “evacuation measures”, and people moving to where there are actual jobs can still be defined as “climate refugees”. And – one never knows – should the Asian economies tank there may be fewer billionaires to take up the hyper-chic accommodation in the Maldives. In that case, the Maldives might get right back into the white-imperialist guilt business.

    Morner’s tree won’t have been pulled down in vain!

  2253. Luke says

    “People aren’t ducking Peer Review! What an absolutely absurd thing to say.’ Debs – well how do you explain E&E then? Jeez I’m funny…. hahahaahaha

    Morner’s tree – Robert did you fall for that one? (and I am impressed you are doing your deniers homework very well – unlike Debs – thank heavens we’ve diverted her from reef eh? I was bloody close to a misogynistic double bloody ethnicity scone baking act mate)

    “Now what evidence is left? Moerner after 4 years finally admitting faking a documentary by setting up a tree near the shore by hand. Tree with still green leaves: gone. Its roots remains: probably gone. Australians: gone. Moerner: gone. Witnesses: probably unavailable or increasingly untrustworthy. Documentation: faked by Moerner – else: nothing.”

    http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=118

  2254. spangled drongo says

    Poly, that Moreton Bay house was 2nd from the end at Cleveland Point. This area is never subject to rain water flood or storm or cyclone surge and fronts a broad opening of the bay so tide is not restricted.

    I understand the current owners are trying to get approval for home units there.

    My grandfather owned the flats and shop at the Woody Point jetty in the 30s and 40s and the only lawn he could grow was a coarse, salt resistant type of bull couch for similar reasons. The king tides got up into the yard. If you go there now there is a multi-storey block of units there with a basement carpark.

    Still waiting for SLR.

    WRT to Darwin’s theory on atolls I think you will find that those reefs didn’t just decide to grow when the mountain was being inundated. They were there from day one of SLR and climbed upwards with the total SLR.

    That’s why there are distant reefs on the GBR fringing very deep water AWA shallow water reefs.

  2255. Luke says

    Minsy asks:

    “Are all the people in the Qld PS as thick and pig ignorant as you.?” That’s the spirit – get that blood up. Answer – no many in management were much worse.

    “The A/G would audit the processes, controls and the ethical standards etc” Well given Campbell’s out for the CMC and giving the big review to Code of Conduct, RTI and FOI well good luck. Brown paper bags anyone? hahahahahahahaha

    “Of course he wouldn’t be evaluating the science dumbo” But he/she would know how – hahahahahahahaa

    “There are many improvements to PR that a can be made to make it more efficient and transparent and many are in train ” Yes having no staff is very transparent – you can see the air gaps. hahahahahahahaha

    Here’s an example http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/no-ads-one-candidate-in-major-public-service-job-20121008-279go.html hahahahahahahahaha – good one hey? hahahahaha

    “Give it away Walker, you are an embarrassment to your employers, and the country.” Very true and well I have – they sacked us all – hahahahahahahahahaha

  2256. Luke says

    Of course SD you probably should quote what the expected and measured sea level rise is for the area you speaks of. Perhaps you might just have bad luck and be in one of them thar dead zones. A cite perhaps?

  2257. Debbie says

    Luke,
    You can blather and bluster as much as you like….but your definition of ‘peer review’ must be very, very narrow….in fact I don’t believe you actually understand what it is….you are merely attempting to defend the processes used in the rarified world of ‘academic peer review’….which doesn’t resemble democracy much at all….and is NOT the only form of peer review….nor for that matter…. even the most important one.
    Your tendency to draw inappropriate analogies/ comparisons such as trying to compare climate computer modelling to brain surgery/nuclear science and now attempting to compare the processes involved in academic peer review to democracy are at least momentarily amusing if nothing else.
    I note that Bazza likes to do that too with an added ‘literary’ flair.
    At least it’s better than your usual habit of claiming that people have said/written something they did not say/write and/or answering your own questions with attendant assumptions and insults.

    And yes…you’re absolutely most definitely a legend in your own mind…. I can clearly see that….which leads you to make comments such as: 🙂
    well how do you explain E&E then? Jeez I’m funny…. hahahaahaha
    and:
    I was bloody close to a misogynistic double bloody ethnicity scone baking act mate.
    Entirely irrelevant of course…and no evidence….but if it helps you to feel better….you go right ahead.

    BTW….if you have lost your job….I am sorry….that’s not a nice thing to happen to anyone…but you should be fine because according to you …’the sky isn’t falling in’….so I’m sure there’s a new job waiting for you.

  2258. spangled drongo says

    “A cite perhaps?”

    If you have an official tide gauge measurement for Moreton Bay for the last half century or more, please produce it.

    All the coastal scientists I ask want to quote is CSIRO crap because they don’t seem to have anything more reliable like old tide gauge data.

  2259. bazza says

    Deb, would you have ago at explaining “Proof of the con is good agreement in the Arctic between model and actual because less ENSO influence and poor in the South Pacific where ENSO dwells. ” as in nevs link at 11:42am

  2260. Debbie says

    And BTW Luke,
    I have duly noted that all your talk about ‘peer review’ is very likely just a diversionary tactic to avoid answering Bob’s question….which was very simple….AND he gave you ALL THE RELEVANT DATA for you to ‘PEER REVIEW….. by all accounts it should be a snap for you…you knocked one up for Jen in just a few short hours…..and she didn’t even ask you for one….Jen actually got hers ‘peer reviewed’ through what you would apparently deem acceptable academic channels.
    This time you’ve been given the green light….and it sounds like you may even have the time on your hands?
    So go for it Luke….there’s nothing stopping you.

  2262. Polyaulax says

    Spangled, effects like low air pressure and wind force will respectively ‘pull’ and push water levels higher in Moreton Bay as they would anywhere. And enhance a high tide if they’re operating. You can also get funneling effects in estuaries and bays,even quite open ones. I realise that Cleveland is largely immune from ocean swell effect,so is only presented with the more manageable influences on potential tide height and is a more defendable site for that when adapting to long term rise. Places built on sands fronting the open ocean are less defendable,such as Old Bar and Lake Cathie

    I remember the last king tide in my area was suppressed by high air pressure and offshore wind pushing the Tasman away,and it fell a good 10cm short of predicted [neutral conditions]. Predicted tides are rarely exactly borne out. But like all models,they’re useful! Realistically there are good odds of avoiding a convergence of threatening factors,but if they all line up on ntop a rising SL signal,look out.

    There has been SLR in Moreton Bay according to the tide gauges,but annual variability exceeds the trend because of all those weather factors,the nature of the east Australian Current and ENSO of course.

  2264. bazza says

    Having done a wee bit of peer review and been PRed ( national and international level journals) I have found it works OK despite odd exceptions you can dig up if you are trying to build a conspiracy theory. I doubt more than about one other contributor here has experience of PR but of course others will fearlessly comment to their peers here. PR is the first step in making research worthy of attention. It shows the research is most likely original, has a recognisable context and is at least of interest if not significant. Of course some PR is a bit perfunctory, some exploits old boy/girl connections etc etc. But key point is PR is only the first step. Step two is getting research into an arena where it can be repeated to check it or rebutted to bury it.

    It is clearly nonsense to argue science got by without PR a hundred years ago so why not now. Think about the volume in terms of number of disciplines and numbers of papers written. Of course there are some alternatives developing but PR will continue to do a pretty good job for a while yet. PR has a key role in science being self correcting – compare that to this blog.

  2265. spangled drongo says

    Poly, WRT that Fort Denison tide chart:

    Christmas king tide Dec. 1914 was 2.110m

    Mid year king tide June 1915 was 2.170m

    Mid year king tide May 2010 was 2.171m

    Christmas king tide Dec 2010 was1.987m

    Where is the SLR?

    I know you can play larry dooley with stats but SLR is about RISE! inundation. This isn’t happening. There is not one more pebble or grain of sand immersed now than there was ~ a century ago.

  2266. spangled drongo says

    Thanks for that Poly. They claim about 30mm for the century. That’s pretty close to nothing but why doesn’t that show on the monthly tides?

    Wrt pressure you usually get a low barometer during the Christmas king tide anyway and that doesn’t depress it. Christmas KTs are usually [but not always] the Highest Astronomical Tides of the year for that reason.

  2267. Polyaulax says

    Spangled,I’ve already noted that SLR in your area is much lower than the global mean,probably a function of net ENSO effects and possibly even isostatic change. You’d have to check a SEAFRAME report for such observations. There are places around the ocean basins that are seeing twenty years of falling mean sea level while other areas -NE USA for instance- are getting fast rises.

    SLR is small but persistent. Tidal variation is large,and transient values are affected by powerful forces like wind direction,air pressure, water temperature,large currents and eddies. So tides are variablility on variability. Every king tide as a prediction is different,then what occurs is down to the days other influences as listed.

    Get a tide prediction chart,note the predicted heights,then compare the real time observations with those predictions. Some are close,some not so,few are spot on.

  2268. Debbie says

    But Bazza,
    You have already answered your own question….it was basically a rhetorical question…why do you need my help?
    I was pointing out what I see as a flaw in your ‘modelling’ logic….so you are not asking me what I would think is a relevant question.
    If you want to ‘PEER REVIEW’ Bob’s work….I’m sure he won’t mind….he’s already offered the job to Luke and Polyaux, I guess you can have a go too if you want….it looks like an open invitation to me.
    The point (in my hoky redeneck terminology)
    If ‘real time’ data does not match the ‘projective modelling’….then it isn’t ‘real time’ that’s faulty.
    It is likely the fault lies in the ‘assumptions’ in the ‘projective modelling’.
    It appears the ‘what if’ scenario in the models and the resultant ‘statistical inferences’ re SST didn’t play out in reality.
    And Polyaux,
    I agree with you….’like all models they’re useful’.

  2269. Polyaulax says

    If you had a low barometer [upward influence] it may have been counteracted by an offshore wind pushing water away… these things can change the predicted value by a little quite a lot,or push the estimated peak time forward or back as well. Down the coast the E Australian current sends warm eddying pools southward. They are effectively broad mounds of water hundreds of kms wide sometimes. They can be pushing water toward the coast,parallel with the coast,or away from the coast depending on a tide gauges position relative to the centre of the eddy. Or causing upwelling. Between the eddies the SL is lower,so if your tide peak coincides with one of these ‘slack’ zones between eddies,then the estimate may not be reached.

    There are many confounding factors to extracting a baseline mean sea level trend.

  2270. spangled drongo says

    Poly, interesting studying that PSMSL for the Brisbane Bar and Southport but with their interrupted data showing no SLR, my multiple benchmarks give me much better data going back for a range of 49 to 70 years and I can assure you that in that neck of the water there is NO SLR over that period.

    My obs actually say the reverse.

    I note your ref to the EA Current and ENSO which is quite true but they fluctuate either side of centre.

  2271. spangled drongo says

    Poly, having been a keen off-shore sailor for many years I appreciate your obs on BP, tides, and the southerly [and northerly] set awa gyres. It would be interesting to know just how high those mounds can get when they produce currents of up to 4 knots.

    La Nina years generally seem to produce higher mounds and greater speeds.

    I know that when the El Nino of the big climate shift came in 1976, new tactics for coastal off-shore racing had to be adopted.

  2272. Debbie says

    Bazza,
    thankyou for providing a ‘wee bit’ of personal credibility for a change.
    I basically agree with your well explained assessment of PR except for one important point.
    When models are PRd it is the ‘methodology’ that is reviewed. The ‘science’ and the ‘assumptions’ are not what is being checked.
    The only time ‘models’ can be dumped is if their ‘methodology’ can be proved to be faulty. That’s why the Gergis et al paper was withdrawn among others.
    Remember Bazza, these are computer generated, statistical projective models that use scientific data. . . They are not science.
    Science PR is different.
    And they are useful when they’re used appropriately.

  2273. Luke says

    “Remember Bazza, these are computer generated, statistical projective models that use scientific data.” or maybe not at all. Jeez Debs, “computer generated, statistical projective models”

    Actually they’re written by humans not computers, and may not be statistical at all. Or even projective. And yes they are science. Most science uses descriptive equations. What do you think is in models – fairy floss? I think you have absolutely no idea at all of the variety of purposes simulation is now used for in engineering, chemistry and biochemistry. To start with.

    Gergis et al was a statistical analysis.

    And models are dumped all the time. It’s what modellers do.

    I also reckon you’ve made NO ATTEMPT at all to see how model validation is done. None. Frankly you’re just talking crap.

  2274. Polyaulax says

    SD,I reckon there would have been a small rise over the century at your place,the longer records within 1000km show slight rises. A few cm in a century. Not detectable in the noise of daily and seasonal weather without long records. You can see from global color-coded satellite maps that sea level rise is massively uneven with 20 years of that level of data because the major oscillations/pseudo-periodic cycles are so ‘powerful’.

    Take a spread of king tides–isolated extremes– and you’d never be able to realistically model the real trend,because of all the influences and their particular weights on those days of your very few observations. Too little data.

    Looking at the Qld gauges,the big La Nina years really stand out,plus a few outliers that may be cyclone influenced.

  2275. spangled drongo says

    Poly, if a couple of inches a century is all that is happening on the east coast of Australia then, seeing as how vigorously SL seeks equilibrium, there isn’t much catastrophe occurring world wide and that goes for this century as well.

    Those SL variations in the colour coded maps are very temporary situations. I’ve never mastered the art of keeping the water up one end of the bath for very long.

    I think we can certainly claim; “Catastrophe Postponed”, maybe even “Catastrophe Averted”!

  2276. Robert says

    I regard the lack of predicted SL rise in Maldives, Kiribati, Tuvalu etc to be a deliberate distraction from Morner’s Tree. We need a John McTernan to get the SL debate back to the key issue…of Morner’s Tree.

  2277. Debbie says

    BOLLOCKS Luke,
    take up the challenge and ‘PEER REVIEW’ Bob Tidsdale’s work and cease trying to use diversionary tactics and your pathetic attempts to cyber bully me.
    As I pointed out earlier, you knocked one up you when you weren’t asked. Here’s your chance, you have been given a total green light plus the data he used.
    Put up or shut up.

  2278. bazza says

    Debbie re your claim “When models are PRd it is the ‘methodology’ that is reviewed. The ‘science’ and the ‘assumptions’ are not what is being checked.” What clown is responsible for telling you that. He/she should be drawn and quartered. I have had models PRd and I have PRd models and I never ever got the idea that the science and the assumptions were not being checked. Pls explain!
    Now can we assume that the good agreement between actual SST and modelled SST in the Arctic is evidence that the models are OK given the models are coupled ocean atmosphere models that do not assume climate sensitivity. There is therfore an underlying AGW signal. Therefore Tisdales claim is easily dismissed once again. My Peer review ends. ( Tis does have the opportunity to reply here but he is paranoid to think a journal would give him the right).
    Debbie, could you at least respond to the Arctic point.
    .

  2279. Polyaulax says

    Well, we can’t just assume the future is a mirror of the past SD. There are reasons why some areas see faster rises than others,reasons that are persistent but can’t be presumed to be set for ever,Lots of non-linear stuff will come in—e.g.the ‘Great Pacific Climate shift’, — just how cyclical are the cycles?: we don’t know some of them well at all. As time passes the lumpy global satellite image will get less lumpy,for instance as the PDO goes warm again.

    SEAFRAME reference SL data–the best surface obs set up— is now almost twenty years worth,still noisy…but it’s notable how all stations around Australia show a rising trend after 19 years,however much each rate varies. None have stayed flat or gone negative.

  2280. Luke says

    Temper Debs – you never respond to my requests. So don’t try to bully me girlie. I don’t have to waste a vast amount of time checking Tisdale’s stuff for your cynical pleasure. Whatever I do you’ll just keep asking inane stupid questions anyway endlessley so take a running jump. “Cyber-bullying” indeed sheesh !

    On SL – a significant point is that the impact is not uniform http://www.oceanclimatechange.org.au/content/images/uploads/2012_sea_level_fig3.jpg

  2281. debbie says

    No Bazza,
    Take it up with Tisdale whose point you are attempting to ignore. He doesn’t need me to defend him just as Jen didn’t need me to defend her when you and Luke decided to ‘peer review’ her paper.
    Give it your best shot.
    He’s the man you need to engage with re your Arctic point.
    I’m sure he’ll happily engage with you at his blog.

  2282. Robert says

    Unsettled science, lots of non-linear stuff, shifts and cycles poorly understood, SL impacts not uniform? I’ll report you guys to John McTernan…for misogyny or something.

  2283. bazza says

    Deb, you gave every indication you were here to play rather than tease, eg “The point (in my hoky redeneck terminology) If ‘real time’ data does not match the ‘projective modelling’….then it isn’t ‘real time’ that’s faulty.” I gave you a clear example in the Arctic where the data matched the model and I provided the rationale – the model is driven by CO2.
    There will never be a better opportunity for you to bounce back and justify your position. This is a very straightforward situation you have put yourself in. If you are genuinely concerned with the truth and if you have any credibility, ego, integrity, you will feel that you must respond. Deb, this is your time.

  2284. spangled drongo says

    So you should Robert. Particularly people who claim that parts of the ocean can go on rising indefinitely at 12 times the rate of another part of the ocean.

    They obviously just gyre and gimble in the wabe.

  2285. Polyaulax says

    SD, who has claimed that ‘parts of the ocean can go on rising indefinitely at 12 times the rate’ of others?

  2286. bazza says

    Deb, it is clear from your comments here and there ( to Luke at 5:11 pm ) you respect peer review. As you state our host Jen Marohasy actually got hers ‘peer reviewed’ through what you would apparently deem acceptable academic channels’. That is why it is crucial to be alert to those who abuse the process. As Wiki says of Jen Marohasy “She is sceptical of anthropogenic global warming and has published in the climate science peer-reviewed literature…………..( a bit of a stretch for a second co-author in a second shelf journal having been rejected by JC). And a bit of a stir “On the ABC program, Ockhams Razor Dr Marohasy said I agree with Prof Flannery we need to reduce atmospheric CO2 levels.” Where does that leave you?
    Also abstracted from Wiki – Dr Marohasy has made other attempts to build her cred apart from publishing in little known climate journals. Her role in the joint science program with IPA and UQ funded by Western Australian philanthropist, Dr Bryant Macfie (he funded her rainfall forecasting effort which has yet to benefit anybody except Jen) has been killed. There were objections to her involvement from the Australian Federation of Scientists and Technologists . So obviously scientists do take PR seriously and so do I.

  2287. Debbie says

    Bazza,
    sorry to disappoint you.
    This is not my time, it is yours.
    If you object to Jen or Tisdale or Humlum or anyone else, you are of course entitled to your OPINION.
    However, if you object to their methods, then take it up with them.
    Bob has pretty much given an open invitation.
    Up to you of course.
    As for your direct question to me:
    Upping our coal exports and the current carbon tax is not achieving that goal.
    And I certainly don’t believe that is ‘the greatest moral challenge of our time’ or that Tim Flannery has done you any favours by making comments about cranky people in traffic jams in western Sydney etc.
    I have seen no evidence for the C bit in CAGW. The A bit is not well supported by evidence either. Case still open on the GW.

  2288. gavin says

    Poly; we are a pigheaded lot here, and only diehards survive the bitter twists.

    SD is cock sure there is no SLR and I’m cock sure there is, also from personal obs. Seeking truth on coastlines is something we both do. SD measures on the vertical while I measure on the horizontal. Our common problem is all land floats like thick scum on a well stewed brew. Poke it and it wobbles.

    Short cuts in system calibration were order of the day when roaming industrial technology. Wobbling the gear is the more dangerous method but it can provide considerable assurance in robustness as opposed to accuracy. Range and square first (parallelogram/feedback). Zero points come later.

    CO2 measurement was one of the most dodgy. Its essential to hold one’s breath during tests and there are no reliable records of early scientists doing that. There are no reliable records of methods in early weather records or tide marks given other impacts.

    Backward data analysis will always be blurred by assumptions and method. Faith comes with familiarity.

  2290. spangled drongo says

    Poly, that was in ref to your coluored map of SLR. I have been looking at similar [and ofter for much longer periods] over recent years and they never seem to show falling SLs anywhere only rises and in areas where there is virtually no SLR. When surface water gets blown around by storms, trades, roaring forties etc, in order to increase in some areas, it has to decrease in others.

    Unless, of course, in gavs world where SLR goes sideways before it goes up.

    This can happen though gav. I was camped on a claypan once and I woke to find a strong wind blowing and a sheet of water heading my way but it is like the saying about pushing stuff uphill, it requires lots of continuous energy.

    It’s only a very temporary state of affairs.

    So gav, tell us where you have measured your SLR over a long period of time.

  2291. Luke says

    Perhaps Debs – Bazza and I are learning. Our previous attempts at peer review or to engage you met with your now classic pig ignorant (thanks MFTruthy) belligerent disingenuous response leading to the Pavolvian reflex where “frankly my dear we don’t give a damn”. We’re only simple creatures that learn from being stimulated / mutilated.

    BY the way – why did Jen blog her paper then? For us to say “oh that’s nice” – polite applause and/or outburst of backslapping. Or to have some debate and discussion. The telling thing is that NOBODY engaged except Bazza and I. NOBODY and surprising not even Cohenite could string a coherent sentence together. Now this is remarkable actually. Outstanding in fact. Points to the blog as clueless when it needed to stand on its own feet.

    Even Jen just retorted with a dismissive “you’re just jealous and don’t know about neural nets” response. When our comments had zero to do with neural nets. We don’t have a problem with neural nets, big computers, little computers or tea leaf divining – long as it’s repeatable process.

  2292. Mack says

    Sorry to hear about your loss of work Lukebaby, but you know there’s only crocodile tears from me. ( However, just quietly between you and me, I think Jennifer should be very appreciative of having a troll such as yourself) 😉

  2293. Debbie says

    Luke,
    I am over your excuses and diversionary tactics.
    You along with everyone else are entitled to your OPINION!
    Which part of ‘put up or shut up’ did you not get?
    It’s entirely up to you whether you decide to choose to take up Tisdale’s challenge or not.
    Just like Jen….he put up his work for discussion.
    He has also made it very easy for you by offering you the relevant data.
    I could offer MY OPINION why you have chosen not to engage….but that would be all it is.
    Your ‘peer review’ argument is hollow and is looking more and more like an excuse (IMO)
    But you’re of course entitled to just say you’re not going to engage with him.
    My disappointment in your decision is my problem not yours.
    You don’t have to do what I say or agree with my OPINION any more than I do yours.
    But PLEEAAASE stop making excuses that are merely opinion and not based on evidence.
    It is getting tedious.
    You and Bazza are objecting to people and making dubious moral/value judgements based on your OPINION of their lifestyle choices, employment choices and even the ‘branch’ of science they have graduated from.
    That is laughable to a large extent because you have very carefully not offered your own.
    So attacking others’ personal credibility when you have not offered your own is really not convincing me of anything at all….other than forming a not very good OPINION of your behaviour at this blog.
    Sorry if that sounds harsh….but I am really over it.
    I would like to discuss issues concerning the natural environment, including the implementation of good policy that recognises shared goals.

  2294. Debbie says

    BTW Bazza,
    Not sure why I’m bothering as your question was basically rhetorical and you answered it to your own satisfaction and based on your own opinion, but please look at Bob’s data and maps of SST.
    One map shows the ‘modelled’ SSTs and one map shows the ‘Actual’.
    He concludes that there is virtually zero correlation between the two.
    You are correct however that the Arctic comes the closest but it doesn’t correlate well with the ‘modelled’ either….which indicates to me that the CO2 ‘forcing’ in the modelling is not matching real time data….which is essentially one of Bob’s main points.
    The theory we are discussing here is GLOBAL….not Arctic.
    However….if you can see something amiss with his methodology or his use of data then I am all ears.
    I still suggest however that you need to take it up with Bob as it is his work, not mine that you are objecting to.

  2295. cohenite says

    “BY the way – why did Jen blog her paper then? For us to say “oh that’s nice” – polite applause and/or outburst of backslapping. Or to have some debate and discussion. The telling thing is that NOBODY engaged except Bazza and I. NOBODY and surprising not even Cohenite could string a coherent sentence together. Now this is remarkable actually. Outstanding in fact. Points to the blog as clueless when it needed to stand on its own feet.”

    That is not correct; the thread on Jennifer’s neural Network paper is here:

    http://jennifermarohasy.com/2012/05/forecasting-rainfall-neural-networks-versus-general-circulation-models/?cp=all

    My questions to you and bazza went unanswered; to wit:

    Comment from: cohenite June 7th, 2012 at 3:00 pm

    “the extraordinary high correlation between two apparently different ways of doinng the same thing.”

    The point of my %s was to indicate that the correlation you thought was present was not in fact present. What is it about the Neural Network, to be precise Time Delay Recurrent Neural Network, having a lower RMSE than POAMA that you don’t understand?

    Why and how is SPOTA 20% better, and compared with what?

    The validation period is independent of the training period; but there has to be a certain time overlap to minimise “overtraining”; read the Method portion of the paper.

    Will you answer why you think the NN was “swamped” by seasonality?

  2297. spangled drongo says

    Sorry Poly, that coloured map of SLR wasn’t your link it was Luke’s. Should have realised ☻.

  2298. gavin says

    SD; MY sl obs are always up the beach at tide max and often line for line against the sudden dune incline.

    Most dunes and bars have been round for some thousands of years as evidenced by middens. Middens are constantly exposed by creeping SL. A more general proof is the disappearing beach anywhere along our older sea bed pictured from above. The easiest tide line to watch is way up an estuary on a sandy flat.

  2299. gavin says

    We can also follow the spread of wild Pacific Oyster in lesser inlets with regard to more limited stream flow.

  2300. bazza says

    Cohers, in relation to the A&M paper in that Journal I cant recall, the answer is anomalies. As the A&M paper states: “It is not standard practice for climate scientists to provide RMSE values for output from their GCMs or output as time series graphs”. It would also have been standard practice to show a hindcast forecast. For example , over the extraordinary wet La Nina midsummer 2010-11 the Bureau of Meteorology operational seasonal climate model was 90% correct. If a better forecast including for flood risk was the genuine aim rather than shameless self-aggrandisement, that was the benchmark.

    ps Deb needs a hand on the Arctic!

  2301. Luke says

    Debs – la la lah – I’m not listening. Your signal to noise level is worth it. Too much investment in you for no yield. Sorry.

    Cohenite – it’s what you don’t understand – the comparison against POAMA is bogus. It’s not what BoM do in practice; it’s the author’s attempt at downscaling not BoM’s, and anyway the real world has moved on to a new level – another POAMA version PLUS hybrid overlaying of statistical indicators (a what works best hybrid).

    So the editorialising of the paper as PC beats BoM supercomputer is a giggle for anyone who knows anything. i.e. it’s a straw man comparison. Having said that application of neural nets isn’t new but is interesting. Hope the authors keep going taking feedback on board.

    And you don’t get any prizes for predicting the annual signal. Tell us something we don’t know.

    SPOTA was assessed to be “better” by the authors on a limited test so ask them. But be careful SPOTA is a long range system purely for the rangeland grazing zone. WHY – coz you want to make mid-winter animal selling decisions for the next summer. Not what you’d use for seasonal forecasting on crops – maybe SOI Phase for that. Intended use of any forecast is very important ….

    SPOTA picks up ENSO and IPO (Bob Tisdale would cheer) but tries some climate change proofing by using gradient indices across SST zones. And cross validation has been done I’m told.

  2303. Minister for Truth says

    If indeed you have lost your cosey little job in the Qld PS then clearly the right decisions have been made, and there is a god after all.

    Now get out there is try earning a real dollar, and see what its like for a change

    …I bet your frenetic level of blogging and blathering at all hours of the day a night drops away… and when you do post, lets hope they encompass a more betetr understanding of the realities and practicalities.

    … and not that of some pin head support group ensconced in a sheltered workshop.

  2304. Luke says

    Earning a real dollar? Pullease – if one is interdependently wealthy it’s simply not necessary. But thanks for the good wishes.

  2305. Luke says

    And really what sort of an stupid wanker would call himself/herself/itself “Minister for Truth”. You’d have to the greatest clown.

  2306. bazza says

    Debs comment (8/6/12) sums up my position on the A&M paper.
    “Climate science has been hijacked and the projective work in particular has been used inappropriately”

  2307. Polyaulax says

    Debbie, Bob T hasn’t done anything more than point out what is already known about model ensembles v. real time observations. Individual model runs get the seasonality right and generate other natural variation but predicting ENSO,which is pseudo-periodic, is a crap shoot. It may take more computer power than anyone can muster to simulate the planet surface,cloud distribution and ocean ‘texture’ to the tiniest scale… The real planet doesn’t even know exactly when they will start and end! Ensembling takes all the detail out of individual model runs and smooth them into a generalisation. Because the models are forced by increasing CO2,they say temps will rise,but generalise the regional pattern. Scientists acknowledge that they are not good regionally. Though there are clearly some larger patterns that match: the Southern Ocean zone is predicted to warm more slowly, Indian Ocean compares OK,the NE Pacific is slower to warm. So the comparison cannot be claimed to show an utter mismatch of tendencies. Another factor to incorporate is that we know that the last decade has seen a drop off in the rate of warming in the E Pacific because of a coincidence of more La Ninas,a cool phase PDO and perhaps the low solar cycle,so one would expect the trend of ensemble to appear to overestimate the decadal trend over thirty years v. observation.

    If Bob thinks that this comparison somehow proves that AGW theory is wrong,or that model projections have been falsified he is overreaching. Those sort of claims need corroboration from a lot more indicators than just sea surface temperature. AGW claims identify a suite of changes within the whole ocean/atmosphere system. He needs to talk detailed mechanisms,not simply compare charts. This is why he has nothing to present to peer-review: his charts ask questions,but they don’t give fundamental explanations or propose new mechanisms. He thinks that all warming can be explained by ENSO simply because these huge short term signals correlate with periods of GT rise and fall. Of course they correlate: GW is not going to magically reorder global weather mechanisms which are a result of current ocean basin physiography,continental distribution,and atmospheric wind patterns on a spinning spherical planet at a known distance from its slightly variable star. GW just adds energy,to be distributed by and through these established physical mechanisms.

    He’s also claimed that the “models assume greenhouse gases warm the surface and subsurface temperatures of the global oceans.” They don’t. Oceans are warmed ‘classically’ via LW and turbulent mixing, while extra GHGs slow the rate of energy loss through the atmosphere,raising tropospheric temps. The only way for energy to leave the oceans is via the atmosphere to space,so they will retain more of that classically derived heating,slowly raising their mean temperature.

    And an ensemble of climate models unforced by CO2 v. observations needs to be considered for context.

  2308. bazza says

    sorry to hear about the job, Luke. Hope you dont have to hock your boat. Maybe sd could lease it and he could measure global sea level rise from more than one location. As SLR accelerates he could be a pirate on the high seas – all he needs is a parrot. He could call it after some of the residents here, those with the more limited and predictable repertoires. Keep smiling.

  2309. Minister for Truth says

    Because it annoys ignorant little creeps who have nothing better to do with their lives than inhabit blogs 24/7 for 7+ years, peddling their b/s and misinformation.

    …make one wonder as to how a turd of any sort could become legitamately independantly wealthy… but no matter.

  2310. spangled drongo says

    gav, you can’t be serious? Beaches, sandbanks and sand dunes as benchmarks? Even bazza, who rarely understands anything before he comments on it, would object.

    But check those Fort Denison tides for the last 100 years and you will see that king tides in Sydney are lower now than they were then.

    If there has been no SLR in Sydney for the last 100 years there is not much to panic about in the rest of the world.

  2311. Robert says

    If Bob proposes a “new mechanism” and it passes gang review, we’ll be able to add it to the climate console. It can have its own acronym appellation – like all those other very rough sets of observations we call “climate mechanisms”.

    Shall we make Bob’s new mechanism a lever or a button? A knob? What colour should it be, to distinguish it on our climate console? Depends on whether your a trekkie or Star Wars type, I suppose.

  2312. Another Ian says

    Has Luke reserved his seat and will he give us a report on this event?

    “Trenberth still hyping extreme weather events and climate change

    Posted on October 9, 2012 by Anthony Watts

    Despite the recent editorial in Nature saying that there’s no current connection between the two, NCAR’s Dr. Kenneth Trenberth is going to pitch connections between extreme weather and climate change anyway at an upcoming seminar at the University of New South Wales in Australia. From their website:

    Kevin Trenberth public lecture: Extreme weather and its links to climate change

    The ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science is sponsoring a free public lecture at UNSW from 6:30pm, Tuesday, October 16, by internationally recognised climate scientist Dr Kevin Trenberth.”

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/09/trenberth-still-hyping-extreme-weather-events-and-climate-change/

  2313. Polyaulax says

    SD, you are relentless. Really,you cannot claim no sea level trend over a century by providing an anecdote about a few king tides. I directed you to PSMSL, you looked at ALL the data and agreed there was a trend in the Fort Denison data,as it would be clearly potty to deny it. There are only a handful of predicted tides over 2.0m each year: you will not get a reliable trend estimate of a small background effect from so little data.

  2314. Mack says

    Luke to Minister of Truth…. “thanks for the good wishes” then 2 mins. later….”stupid wanker”
    Are you paying your psychiatrist Luke, or is he paying you?

  2315. Luke says

    Minsy – Wealth – it’s called “Daddy” – hahahahahahahahahaha

    Mack – you are right – my psychiatrist says I’m a borderline psychopath so I need to stay clear of the courts or I’ll be inside again. But honestly Mack would you have Minister for Truth as your tag. You’d have to be right up yourself.

  2316. Johnathan Wilkes says

    In defense of Luke, he said: “interdependently wealthy” not to be confused with “independently”.

  2317. Luke says

    Polyaulax – thanks but far too intelligent for here. Illustrates why Bob’s attack is a non-question and why any amount of time spent is wasted. Also why it would creamed on peer review. Anyway Debs won’t listen. You’ll only get another 100 questions.

    But anyway – I’m somewhat troubled by the use if multi-model averaging? Do you think this really adds anything especially is the sign of responses is different. And comparisons to means worry me too when presumably there’s a confidence interval of the response from the ensembles.

    But your explanation well illustrates the bigger problem – it takes almost nothing for amateurs to construct bogus arguments and weeks to address them seriously. Says something about the level of communication needed for this science. Although given the political and philosophical predisposition of sceptics will any amount of communication improve matters.

  2318. spangled drongo says

    I think you’ll find that the real bogus arguments come when you can push them through GCMs.

    If scientists stuck to data quantified by measurement, not assumption, communication and consensus would be a different story.

  2319. spangled drongo says

    And because we won’t cop this GCM wisdom you can’t hack a prole stroll by your peers.

    BTW Poly, you didn’t get back to me on why those Fort Denison king tides are lower now if there has been SLR over the lat 100 years.

  2320. spangled drongo says

    And a lot of the unquantifyable garbage that is spouted by “scientists” of the warming persuasion doesn’t even hafta come from GCMs.

    Just personal, dumb ideology:

    “The recent frequency and intensity of mass coral bleaching are of major concern, and are directly attributable to rising atmospheric greenhouse gases.”

    Whose problem d’ya think this is, Flukie?

  2321. Polyaulax says

    Model data is constrained by 150 years of physics,measurement and observation…and -you’ve heard this before- we don’t have another planet to use as a control for projections. Projections made from observational data starting in the 1980s,and forced by the estimated annual growth in CO2 levels with solar set to best guidance [which we all know is vague] are pretty damn good,even as they do not know ENSO phase predominance and net cloudiness in three dimensions,and so can’t exactly simulate patterns. It is a bogus argument to imply they should get patterns exact.

    Communication and consensus are fraught even when the data and mechanisms are very well understood by the scientific community. An example is ACO2. Some folks are set against certain facts because they are unpalatable,or cannot accept others because they have made a commitment to quaint ideas

  2322. Johnathan Wilkes says

    SD,
    SLR is SLR, all the polemic and ducking and weaving will not alter this simple fact.

    Everything poly said could and may be absolutely true, but it will have to sit on TOP of an elevated sea level. Every single bump and trough of it.

    You cannot say that it has risen in some places but not in others, it could take 5 years or twenty but eventually it will have to spread to every connected sea surface and this is what we cannot see at the moment.

    gav is just gav. seashores are destroyed and rebuilt on regular bases, blaming it on sea level rise is silly.

  2323. Polyaulax says

    SD,my reply on king tides vanished. You’ve seen the massed data from Fort Denison and can see a trend. Half a dozen tides over 2.0m per annum is not a lot of data. Two king tides a year is even less. Not enough data just from KTs to say anything about the all tide trend. Since every high and every low is influenced in exact timing and realised height by the weather of the day, the noise is high and the data points too few.

  2324. spangled drongo says

    Thanks Poly. I think that a similar situation applies over a fair bit of the East Coast. Sadly, most of the other old sites have had their tide gauges moved or rebuilt fairly often but luckily Fort Denison so far has been spared.

  2325. Polyaulax says

    SD,I read that the highest tide recorded in Sydney was 1974s 2.4m. Huge storm which permanently changed some shorelines in Pitt Water.

    June 2012 reached 2.2m,which was 20 cm higher than predicted. Both events coincided with East Coast lows.

    A recent local king tide came up 15cm short of predicted,again because of weather factors.So there are examples of the great variability around the predicted.

  2326. spangled drongo says

    Agreed Poly but amazingly consistent throughout the historical record don’t you think?

    We had some big ones in SEQ in 1974 too. During that era NSW coast copped a lot of cyclonic surge which they haven’t had any of since ’76. Particularly as far south as Sydney.

  2327. Minister for Truth says

    “Minsy – Wealth – it’s called “Daddy” –””

    So the source of your income,as now claimed, and when not hiding under a rock or the stair well in some Qld PS orifice… is…

    dearest Daddy.

    Well bugger me who would have thought that.

    Its been obvious for yonks that you have never earned a real dollar in your life … nor done anything useful.

  2328. Robert says

    Ah, 1974! Those seventies! What a turn-around from those thirties!

    It would help if somebody sciency – not a flaccid intuitive like me, but someone really sciency – could point us to the era of lesser climatic extremes. If it’s an era of less frequent extremes, or milder extremes, or narrower extremes…or if any qualification at all is given to the word “extreme”, that’s fine! I just want to know when this era was, so I can compare it with the present.

    Needless to say, being terribly sciency, my respondent would not exploit the fact that there is much closer and more frequent reportage of present climate extremes. No, I would obviously need a very clear and convincing definition of “extreme” and solid proof that there has been a provable increase.

    The drought and heat of 2003 in Western Europe was certainly extreme. Now, I just need to know how that differed from the heat and drought of 1540, when the Seine at Paris and the Rhine below Cologne were dry, and no rain fell on Rome nine months. Talk about a mess.

    The climatic conditions which produced the separate Great Michigan, Great Peshtigo and Great Chicago Fires, as well as others, on the same day in in 1871 – in mid-autumn! – were truly extraordinary. But how might they have differed from the early autumn of 1666 which produced the Great Fire of London? All very well to talk of wooden buildings, but the Thames was a mere trickle – at bloody Oxford! Since sea level rise and global warming are nineteenth century phenomena, no doubt we humans were already ruffling Gaia by 1871. But 1666?

    And don’t get me started on historic storms! My confusion is great.

    So please, enlighten us flaky intuitives about these new “extremes”! Above all, when was the era of lesser extremes? When were things more even. If one talks of increase, it implies a time when something was less. Or is history cancelled for the New Man in Year Zero?

  2329. Debbie says

    Gee whiz Polyaux,
    I was actually interested in your explanations and applauding much of what you said and then you ruined it all by putting up that ‘quaint ideas’ link.
    What a silly Polyaux!
    That’s inappropriate, totally irrelevant and not representative of the people discussing the issues here.

  2330. bazza says

    One breach of Debs extraordinary standards and Deb unleashes the confounds. How dare she decree what is representative here. What arrogance.

    Instead Polyaulax ought to be congratulated for bringing a cool voice of reason to bear. His link on quaint ideas on hellfire and the bible etc. informing USA Congress voting patterns was very relevant to resident ideologues. As Broun preached “as your congressman I hold the Holy Bible as being the major directions to me of how I vote in Washington”. Reminded me of a play on Dante’s inferno – denialists could be admonished to abandon hype all who enter here.
    I hope Poly, you hang in and don’t end up frustrated and cynical about the motives of the half dozen denialists that account for most of the traffic here but are unable to enter into genuine civil dialogue. They will start to hit you with all the standard stories like no warming since 97, it’s the sun, it’s a conspiracy etc etc. In my innocence used to think I would learn here about how sceptics reason, and all I am left with is knowing why denialists don’t!
    I am sure Dante would have had a role for their ilk in “The Inferno”. But all I found was the fate of fortune tellers. Poetic justice they get ( as in Wikipedia) is to go forward with their heads on backward, unable to see what is ahead, because they tried, through forbidden means ( obviously denying evidence), to look ahead to the future in life. I suppose they would have been modelers that cant get published.
    But the worst analogy for all those that do abandon hope and come on board is the Stanford prison warder experiment. Volunteers (once nice students as you would hope at Stanford) were randomly assigned roles and clothed as either guards with batons or prisoners. After a few days those playing prisoners even helped guards belt up other prisoners and the experiment had to be stopped.
    So hope you are lucky enough so nothing here rubs off on you. May the odds be with you.

  2332. cohenite says

    bazza quotes with approval:

    ““It is not standard practice for climate scientists to provide RMSE values for output from their GCMs or output as time series graphs”.”

    Amazing and wrong; the RMSE is the diffewrence between the predictive capacity of the moadelling compared with the actual observations; it is what a hindcast is; and hindcasting is why we don’t need another planet to verify or reject the modelling; we can just apply the model to the known past; this has been done repeatedly and the modelling falls short every time.

    Anyway Venus and Mars and their greenhouse effect are controls for AGW pronouncments, hence Hansen’s witless Venus Syndrome:

    http://climatechangepsychology.blogspot.com.au/2008/12/james-hansens-agu-presentation-venus.html

    bazza alaso says:

    “For example , over the extraordinary wet La Nina midsummer 2010-11 the Bureau of Meteorology operational seasonal climate model was 90% correct.”

    No it wasn’t:

    http://joannenova.com.au/2010/12/could-the-australian-bom-get-it-more-wrong/

    luke says:

    “the comparison against POAMA is bogus. It’s not what BoM do in practice; it’s the author’s attempt at downscaling not BoM’s,”

    BOM makes regional predictions all the time; they mostly fail; any attempt to improve that situation should be regarded as progress; why isn’t it; because the underpining mechanism is not AGW.

  2333. gavin says

    Regarding my sea level on the horizontal, Pacific Oysters now line the high water mark in many places. Australia and New Zealand have feral populations going back to the 1950’s and individual shell fish prefer attachment to sedentary rock leaving us tell tale deposits of lime where they settled.

    Given they depend on tides for regular nourishment and they don’t like waves, each estuary habitat is not only a classic max min tide gauge but a darn good smoother of tide extremes. No modeling needed.

    A pictorial is available here and it’s close to what I record with mussels etc round the piers, breakwaters and beaches.

    http://www.imas.utas.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/68452/NHTFeralPacificOystersReport.pdf

  2334. Luke says

    Cohenite – ah twaddle- the comparison was their made up concoction; and not how POAMA is used anyway – so we have a bogus straw-man setup to fail comparison – that’s Point 1. Point 2 – the science has moved on from their model of choice anyway. AGW is irrelevant to the point so get off the high horse. It’s not so much the paper – it’s the bulldust pretentious press release, Only works on the converted mate.

    Whether BoM have any forecast skill is another discussion and irrelevant to the paper. And don’t be such a shonk and pick a single forecast. And you lot are too silly anyway to know what you’re looking at. Did you get a SPOTA subscription BTW?

  2335. spangled drongo says

    gav, you just don’t get it. Anything that grows in the tide zone cannot give you a measurement of slow moving change in sea levels.

    They, like your atolls, just rise and fall with SLs.

    The only indicator a layman like you and I have is to compare the highest astronomical tide of one year with that of the next over a lifetime or thereabouts of observations against an immovable object.

    These HATs will still vary but if you do it in areas of minimal external influence [a natural stilling pond] you can get a pretty good idea of what is really happening.

  2336. bazza says

    Cohenites comments are full of what are careless errors or his usual tangled web. I suffer fools, but draw the line at tools. For starters it was the A&M paper that said RMS was not standard and then the authors arrogantly went ahead and used it. The BOM forecast I quoted was 90% accurate was mid summer. Very sloppy Cohers to link to a spring one. What a schlock jock. Even more bazaar he thinks seasonal forecast success is linked to AGW in models driven by current SST.

  2337. Debbie says

    Bazza?
    So you thought it was perfectly reasonable for Polyaux to link that one?
    Seriously?
    BTW Polyaux, apart from that, I was fine with your approach.
    Much more reasonable than the usual suspects.
    I would respectfully suggest to Bazza that he may like to rethink exactly what he is attempting to defend.
    Don’t much care about your opinion about my standards Bazza, but your defence of that particular link sure makes me question yours.
    Try engaging on the issues instead of defending opinionated rubbish.
    Try on Cohenite’s last post rather than that truly pathetic opinionated effort, for all our sakes.

  2338. Polyaulax says

    BOMs probabilistic forecasting is pretty good if you understand what it actually is, and they provide careful explanatories about how to use them. It’s important to read these. Prob forecasts are about odds,not amounts. Prob forecasts are made by comparing the set up of present seasonal indicators with past years seasonal set up [climatology] and eventuations. They are not forecasting by running a GCM. They are history based.

    How do the probs work? If they suggest an area has a 60% [80%] chance of exceeding the median,and it fails to,then it has to be remembered that it had a 40% [20%] chance of not exceeding the median,not that it had no chance. If it’s even stevens,it means that in times past with similar atmo/ocean set ups no odds towards drier or wetter,or hotter or colder can be seen. Doesn’t mean anything more than that.

    That example from Jo Nova/W Hughes shows that most of the country was just as likely to see above average as below average rainfall. It received above average. The fact that it was way above average is irrelevant. There are weekly forecasts made every day to handle general amounts and more precise locations. The probabilistic was not a forecast that said,as Jo claimed, that “..[BOM said] spring 2010 would be ‘average’.” It said,in reality, history does not tell us whether rainfall will be above,below or bang on average for a large part of the country. No firm guidance. On its own terms the forecast was ‘correct’,but if people are going to see it as a quantitive projection,they will be disappointed.

    Let’s be realistic, forecast users are not going to abandon the other forecast products just because they consult probabilistic ones. They are to be used in conjunction with the full suite,providing some general predictive power months ahead.

    The only somewhat dud prediction was SW WA where precedent was much more favorable [60%] to above median rainfall. Still it had a 40% of being below median,and,once again, the actual amount below is not part of a prob forecast.

    Likewise ,the temperature forecast showed no firm historic guidance about above or below for almost 3/4 of the continent. Could equally likely go either way. They were more certain about the north exceeding the mean,and while some of it did,most was a little below.

    Jo finishes up misleadingly conflating seasonal prob forecasting with global climate projections, promoting the totally secretive P. Corbyn and generally thumping the table… but before that cites Vizard et al 2005 on prob forecasting from mid 1997 to mid 2005,the first eight years of the program. The ‘low skill’ finding is not so surprising given only eight years are available to assess and Australia’s climate is highly variable,though of course the historic data to generate them was already in place. The authors find that new predictors would help to improve the forecasts. We don’t know how/if things have changed with the product since Vizard,and Jo didn’t find out or care to explore other papers on prob forecast assessment.

    I’ll suggest that probabilistic forecasting will become less useful with climate change in parts of the world…such as the north,now that the Arctic Ocean is losing so much summer ice cover,and the jet stream jumps around more. We do not have clear climatology for that.

  2339. Robert says

    “…now that the Arctic Ocean is losing so much summer ice cover…”

    That’s what they said in 1958-59. And then…the climate changed!

  2340. Debbie says

    Very true re prob forecasts Polyaux,
    They are useful but we are equally respectful of their fallibilty and would not be silly enough to bet the farm on them.
    Big reason why farmers like me are highly sceptical of the ‘science is settled’ mantra.
    Big reason why we’re equally sceptical of claims about ‘trends’.

  2342. Luke says

    And my ethnicity has been offended by one of Tisdale’s commentators who is disparaging our Aussie convict heritage. Shit I’m so offended I could just spit.

  2345. Debbie says

    Pardon Luke?
    Poly mentioned problems re seasonal forecasting and I was basically agreeing with him.
    Why is that a problem for you?
    BTW….you are so enamoured of your ‘predictive’ capabilities you even keep ‘predicting’ others’ responses….and then wonder why they don’t answer any of your questions…..you don’t seem to understand there is no point if you’ve already answered it or predicted it for yourself.
    And just wondering why the ‘settled science’ and people like you try to dismiss issues re seasonal weather as just ‘wiggle wobbles’ and then seem to want to claim seasonal events like cyclones etc as ‘settled science’?
    Looks like the ‘settled science’ wants to have it both ways.
    And Luke,
    I’m one of them thar rail fair dinkum preedoocers who have to make decisions based on the ‘here and now’….seems you’re failing to understand how important that might be to them thar rail fair dinkum preedooocers?
    here’s a piece written by an ex CSIRO member who now works in Canberra….
    Sorry about the length of the post but thought it relevant.

    By The Canberra Times
    We need a better water plan Australian governments are dismantling the irrigation sector and this will cost us dearly in the years to come, JULIAN CRIBB writesDRYING IT UP: Urban water users are draining the Murray Darling Basin; this is just one area in which water management must be improved. Photo: LOUIE DOUVIS
    If Australia’s security agencies got wind of a terrorist plot to destroy crucial national infrastructure, eliminate companies and thousands of jobs, cost the Australian public billions of dollars and undermine the health of the community, our governments would – presumably – mobilise our national resources and defence forces to prevent it.
    The trouble is the perpetrators in this scenario are Australian governments themselves: federal and state, and of both political complexions. And the scenario is real. As the world grapples with its third food price crisis in four years, our governments and their bureaucracies are steadily dismantling one of Australia’s most productive and important industries: the irrigation sector that supplies most of our daily needs for milk, fruit, vegetables, cotton, rice, meat and other foods essential to a healthy diet and living standard.
    Irrigation channels that have fed Australians for a century are being bulldozed and farmers’ water supplies turned off or sold off for non-food uses. Water prices are soaring. Food industries are contracting, local food companies being sold offshore or shut down, about 100 regional towns are dying and many farmers are quitting agriculture for good. A growing flood of overseas food – grown cheaply in Asia, often using water horribly polluted with industrial poisons, heavy metals and pesticides – now lines the shelves and freezers of our shops and supermarkets.
    Not content with this, federal and state governments have also methodically demolished Australia’s irrigation science efforts: the irrigation futures and e-water cooperative research centres, the national program for sustainable irrigation, the CSIRO irrigation division and Land & Water Australia have all been wound up, while state irrigation research and extension has been decimated. This will ensure that Australians lack the knowledge we need to grow more food with less water as the climate changes.
    It may be that our governments and bureaucracies do not know it takes over 1000 tonnes of water a year to feed an Australian. Or maybe they simply do not care if Australian food prices go through the roof and scarcities erupt as we increase our dependence on imports while the world food supply becomes less secure. But it is hard to find any rational explanation for why this vital sector is being cut down.
    In the Olympics of shortsighted decision-making, jeopardising the backbone of the nation’s future food security has to be a gold-medal contender. We now rely on overseas suppliers for 30per cent of our fruit, 20per cent of our vegetables, three-quarters of our fish – and there is growing economic pressure to shift the dairy industry to China or New Zealand.
    Irrigation is worth $9 billion to $11 billion a year at the farm gate and maybe five times that in the shops; along the food chain it helps keep half a million Australians in work. It manages two million hectares and about two-thirds of our available freshwater. It is highly efficient in what it does: turn water into good food and fibre; in the last drought it cut its water use by 43per cent, while cities cut theirs by just 1per cent.
    However, because it consists of a gaggle of regional industries and jurisdictions prone to argue among themselves, it lacks political influence, a national vision, and has no effective voice. This makes it easy meat for government razor gangs, populist politicians and self-seeking bureaucracies.The northern Victorian federal member for Murray, Sharman Stone, is one who is deeply concerned as spur lines off the main irrigation channels are shut down and channels ploughed in, while local dairy and fruit manufacturers downsize. ”This so-called ‘foodbowl modernisation project’ was set up to justify piping farm water to Melbourne during the drought.” Stone says. ”The project was so ill-conceived that a damning state ombudsman’s report saw the agency dismantled and the chief executive resign. The project lives on however, now managed by the similarly inept state-owned Goulburn Murray Water Authority, which is on track to ‘reduce the infrastructure footprint … by 50 per cent’. This will halve the local irrigation system by 2015.”At federal level, Stone adds, the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder is also targeting food producer’s water in the Murray Darling Basin, in what she describes as ”a non-scientific raid aimed at pleasing urban green voters”. Similarly, in Queensland and NSW, farmers in key food-bowl regions like the Liverpool Plains and Darling Downs are up in arms over state governments apparently determined to hand their water resources to coal seam gas, coal and other resource companies in search of a quick profit – potentially trading off centuries of reliable food production for a few years of cheap energy.
    Australians need to understand that the real victims of this process are not so much farmers, who can sell their water and land and walk away – though most do not want to. The real victims are the 22 million-plus Australian consumers who will face increasingly erratic and high food prices, sudden shortages and a growing assault on their health due to the offshoring of our food supply. And, of course, the taxpayers who will inevitably be asked to pay billions of dollars to rebuild and restore food production when the penny finally drops, the public gets angry and governments are forced to backtrack.
    The Bruntland definition of sustainability is handing the country to your kids in the same condition as, or better condition than, you received it. In the case of food production, and especially irrigated food production, this will not happen in Australia under current policies. We will pass on, at best, a brow-beaten, downsized, deskilled and demoralised system at a time global food crises are multiplying and prices soaring.Australia has enough water for all its food and export needs, to protect and sustain its native landscapes and to embark on new industries in aquaculture, algae culture and irrigation potentially worth $30-40billion. But to do that we need good science, technology and education to redouble water use efficiency and policies which foster sustainable water development and investment.
    We should be building low-loss distribution systems (that do not require half the present network to be shut down). We should be recycling up to 100per cent of our urban water. No Australian city or frivolous user should be allowed to touch food’s supply of water. We should bank water by recharging our aquifers nationwide, plan mosaic irrigation in the north and seek to double productivity in the southern irrigation industry – instead of crushing it. We should share best practice and innovative water management the length and breadth of the land. We should build a $1 billion export sector in sustainable water know-how and technology.
    The Australians of the 19th and 20th centuries built our modern irrigation sector to sustain the nation in its growth. In a world where food supplies will become increasingly scarce, expensive and unreliable as it surges towards 10billion ravenous global consumers, the impact of our own neglect of this will be borne by our children and grandchildren. What sort of parents, indeed what sort of Australians, does that make us? Julian Cribb is a Canberra-based science and agriculture writer, and author of The Coming Famine (CSIRO Publishing, 2010).

  2346. kuhnkat says

    Interdependently wealthy??

    So Little Lukey is another one living in the parents basement???

    No wonder he has so much time to read and misinterpret all those papers!!

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  2347. spangled drongo says

    Yeah KK, these are the guys that will inherit the earth soon.

    Not meek, just maladroit.

  2348. cohenite says

    bazza splits hairs to a fractal infinity; MID summer 2011:

    http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=931

    RMSE is the standard method for comparing model predictions with reality; one of the ‘problems’ with AGW ‘science’ is that it has tried to employ exotic and frankly preposterous methods for proving the models are good at showing climate; there are many examples of this beginning with Sherwood and Steig and so on through the hall of infamy.

    Climate is not difficult; you establish a base and then determine how much the current conditions are straying.; Brown’s cows stuff really; anything else is an obfuscation; that is why Jennifer’s NN paper showed up the fancy modelling; her paper just found the base pattern and worked from there; no ideological assumptions about AGW were necessary.

    bazza, poly and luke, the 3 stooges, can’t change that fact.

  2349. Robert says

    Those curious as to what was the real stimulus to our economy after 2008 (besides debt) might reflect on the price of iron ore. Up to about 2003 it had dawdled at around the $12-$13 mark. That price had tripled by Kevin ’07. Then, while we were installing sub-standard fluff in ceilings etc to save us from economic ruin, the price of our iron ore went skyrocketing – to levels above $170 in 2010-2011! The story of thermal coal is different, but, it goes without saying, that held a good price during those years. The real story there is quantity – of carbon!

    Yep, that’s how we afforded all the bloody nonsense, from Timmy’s “relatively straightforward” geothermal technology to Wayne Swan’s triumphant smirks. We could afford to borrow to buy any old crap…and we did. The world’s biggest exporter of coal got even bigger, Australia funded its pretend emissions reductions with record non-pretend emissions elsewhere. (Not that I’m sensitive about emissions, but I’m sure the hipsters among us will see the irony, irony being the only local product they truly approve of.)

    The prices of iron ore and coal are now at 2009 levels, and trending down. No Whyalla wipeout yet, and I’m one of the uneducated who can’t see into the future. But remember when you were broke and found some change under the car seat?

    Cows munching grass and irrigation ditches may not seem a big deal, and such things are not without their liabilities and subsidies (but less in Oz, less again in NZ). Taken one by one, they’re certainly not impressive. But, before you let them slide, be bloody sure you can do without them. They could be the change under the car seat that gets you enough petrol to make it home. They also represent food, which has been shown in peer-reviewed analyses to be the most nourishing and digestible of all commodities.

    But let me know if humans stop eating food and I’ll certainly review my opinions.

  2351. Luke says

    Crap Cohenite – it was a bullshit comparison that they concocted. Give it away – like Debs you don’t even know what you’re talking about. Way out of your depth.

  2352. spangled drongo says

    “you don’t even know what you’re talking about. Way out of your depth.”

    So when are you going to publish?

  2353. debbie says

    …..And ….
    So when are you going to start listening to the message instead of attacking the messengers?
    Just as a litle hint Luke….BT did not make that comment you are pretending to be outraged over….that would have been one of the commenters.
    You need to start dealing with the message Luke…..your attempts at dismissal via character assassination are not impressing anyone….and not proving anything.

  2354. bazza says

    Cohenite says I split hairs. I quoted a mid summer stat- Cohers in his haste tried to rebutt with a spring example. His apology was that I was splitting hairs! I suppose it comes easy in a profession where you resort to whatever it takes to win – and truth is the casualty.

  2355. Debbie says

    🙂 🙂 🙂

    ROFL!!!!!!

    – and truth is the casualty.
    Good one Bazza!!!!!!
    That’s absolutely hilarious.

  2356. Luke says

    “You need to start dealing with the message Luke” hmmmmm – we’ll add that to Bazza’s splitting hairs example. LOLZ.

    “So when are you going to start listening to the message instead of attacking the messengers?”

    hmmmm – the message eh?

    You see what you do Debs is write Bazza and I off as hopeless and you show some leadership and editorialize a theme and develop it. I know we’ve educated you well to this point. But following in our impressive wake needs to stop and you need to leave the nest and become a big girl.

  2357. spangled drongo says

    Just been doing a bang tail muster of my Brush Turkeys. Got 4 mounds at present as this ToY the males are having a mine’s-bigger-than-yours’ comp to attract the femmes to lay.

    They are huge incubators and we suffer from AGW as a result. A for Avian:

    http://dougbeckers.com/the-compost-heap-bird-australian-brush-turkey

    While I was doing this a big tree fell over and I was prompted to wonder; if Tony Abbott speaks and no-one hears him, is he still a misogynist?

  2359. Johnathan Wilkes says

    I said before, Luke and bazzy are the same person.
    Check the spelling mistakes, mannerisms etc.

    Every now and then they/he takes good care and time to write grammatically correct carefully spelled essays, but then suddenly a quick reply reveals all.

  2360. bazza says

    Beware, we have been hacked. Children are impersonating Deb,Cohenite. Disregard stuff appearing under those names until advised all clear.

  2362. Debbie says

    Did you read the article from the Canberra times Luke?
    There is a message in there that you could comment on.
    Written by a Aussie bloke with good quals and experience.

  2363. bazza says

    Good luck to Julian Cribb in the Canberra Times but he is an economics-free feelance consultant.

  2364. Debbie says

    So? ?
    He was also a scientist at CSIRO.
    Can you POSSIBLY consider commenting on the message for once rather than the messenger please Bazza?
    BTW he has also been ‘published’ via CSIRO.

  2365. Mack says

    Q1 eh Luke, Somewhere up on the top floors, ie cloud cookoo land,? Fascinating. I think the Ministry of Truth said you’ve been hammering away here for 7 years. Where to from here Luke, what is to become of you? Another 7yrs.? There was a time when you had Hunter and the rest of us thinking you were a group,your dedication to the cause is astounding. RSI of the typing fingers yet? There is one thing you can now tell us Luke.. where were you employed? Way back you said something like the Queensland Alliance or something. Common Luke it’s an ex-parrot now.

  2368. debbie says

    Actually Luke,
    I’m not writing you off as hopeless ….It’s clear you are passionate….and you do clearly have a sense of humour.(not quite so sure about Bazza’s sense of humour though)
    Just would like to see you actually engage on the ‘issues’ and the ‘messages’ a little more and lay off using the anonymous questioning of other people’s motives when they aren’t hiding completely behind anonymity.
    Most commenters here are at least prepared to explain their experience, business and/or employment.
    Of course you don’t have to reveal your identity or employment/business credentials if you don’t want to, but that isn’t a good reason to sledge others for their lifestyle/employment/education/business choices.
    Latest comment from Bazza re Julian Cribb is an excellent example.

  2369. Johnathan Wilkes says

    gav
    according to your link

    “t takes about 1500 liters of water to produce 1 kg of wheat, but it takes 10 times more to produce 1kg of beef!”

    Just do a basic math on 100Kg of wheat and 50 Kg of meat /person/year.

    1500 liters = 1.5 ton

  2370. Debbie says

    Umm Gavin?
    There was nothing in that link that disproved anything in the CT article.
    And who is not very clever?
    You have nonetheless linked an interesting fact sheet on water security/food security world wide.
    Most people don’t know that it takes far more water to produce a kilo of animal protein like beef than it does to produce a kilo of grain (not just wheat BTW).
    Most people also don’t know how much of the world’s food supply is dependant on irrigated agriculture.
    But nothing in there about the amount of water that’s needed to feed an Australian for a year.

  2371. Luke says

    Mack – well Hunter talked himself into me being a group. Maybe he/she/it was right. Does it matter. Is Hunter a group? Debs must be as she’s here a lot. Is Debs a bloke. Could Luke be a chick with a dick and not want any publicity? Does Bazza wear womens’ clothes – do I know? Do I care? Well depends on Bazza’s size I guess.

    Anonymity? Who’s SD, Mack, hunter, kuknkat, Debs, Gavin, SD, El Gordo, Minsy for Truthies, Poly etc. And who the f is Neville.?

    Do I blog all day – well not really – doing many things at once. Sort of like having a cup of tea. And aren’t Android phones great for a quick blog down the shops, court, psychiatrist, hair dressers, knock shop, dance class.

    But cheers to Dadsy for leaving me well setup. What a top chappie .

  2372. bazza says

    there is a difference between a sledge and a reality check. Consultants work for a living and Public Relations is just that. The irrigation lobby is very effective but it wont advance on nostalgia as an altrnative to economic reality. I doubt Julian was ever a scientist – he has done a lot of journalism for CSIRO and has been very effective. But we always have to look out for a bit of the Mandy Rice Davies.

  2375. Mack says

    “But cheers to Dadsy for leaving me well setup. What a top chappie.” This last line explains pretty well everything about you Luke.

  2376. Debbie says

    A: NO!
    Of course not Gavin…..goodness me what a silly question!
    Beef and rice are both produced successfully in Australia…we have done both.
    We also produce wheat and canola and corn and oats and sheep/wool and barley and hay and silage….and all of them USE WATER!!!! Either by rain (sometimes) but mostly by irrigation.
    Our neighbours and others in the area produce cotton and sunflowers and soy beans and citrus and stone fruit and grapes and a plethoria of other fruit and vegetables….about the only thing that is not produced in the MIA is tropical fruits like bananas and mangoes….but we also have avovado and a plethoria of nut growers here.
    Since when was this a trade off about what we can/can’t produce in terms of food and fibre?
    Where is that even contemplated in the article?
    And Bazza,
    this statement of yours is actually NOT correct.
    ‘The irrigation lobby is very effective but it wont advance on nostalgia as an altrnative to economic reality.’
    In fact the irrigation lobby has been historically ineffective and economics has very little to do with why that has happened.
    In fact the irigated agriculture sector has been ‘demonised’ by the much more effective environmental lobby organisations.
    We were never your enemy and we are all still reeling in shock that we have been framed as such.
    But….good guys from places such as CSIRO are FINALLY starting to point that out.

  2377. spangled drongo says

    gav, producing food on farms is often about utilising assets that would otherwise be lost to evaporation, fire, drought etc.

    Often grazing cattle improve pastures that may otherwise grow lank, dry out, burn or blow away awa produce very nutritious food. This is a win/win.

    Likewise creeks which would naturally dry out until the next rain, water livestock. Their reduction rate may be no different.

    Channel country which produces huge quantities of the best meat in the world, if not utilised for this production, still dries out until the next flood whether is is stocked or not.

    This is where the correct level of stocking is important but claiming it requires 3ML to raise each cow is assumed nonsense.

  2379. Debbie says

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZNTER1fE8c
    Here you go Gavin.
    This was produced this year as part of the centennial celebrations of the MIA.
    This has some of those ‘Deb n co’ people in it.
    It gives a rather good indication of what gets produced by irrigation.
    Might help Luke understand how much technology does get used to achieve efficiencies too.
    We even use that satellite technology that I’m not supposed to know anything about.
    You will notice that beef and rice are produced along with lots and lots of other stuff.

  2380. Polyaulax says

    cohenite,in reply to your post @9.12am,11/10 and your link to another Warwick Hughes ‘analysis’ of BOM probabilistic forecasts:

    It’s clear from Warwick’s comments that he has not read or not understood the explanatory notes and does not entirely understand odds based forecasting. Perhaps the color coding of the percentage probs is confusing him. He seems to think,looking at his comment about chances of exceeding median minimum for autumn 2011,that deep blue means really cool,and deep red means really hot. It is about confidence,not the actual temperature figures. As it was,the whole continent prediction of not exceeding the median for the areas indicated was largely spatially correct…and that’s what its about. A bit of spatial guidance about where it could be a little or a lot drier, not quantitive guidance.

    Perhaps BOM should not use colors,just keep it all white and provide the clearly numbered confidence contours.

    When a probability comes in a 75% likelihood of warmer or colder than median,it is not telling you by how much:it is not a quantitative forecasting method. 75% just says the historic climatology is confident that it will exceed or will fail to be median in that general area defined by the contour. 45-55% confidence zones,color coded grey, means that historical climatology provides no real guidance in that area;IOW it could go either way with equal likelihood.

    Likewise misunderstanding is obvious with the rainfall outlooks for that period: Hughes claims: “likewise the huge dry prediction over the south east never happened..” It was not a dry ‘prediction’ it was a 60/40 call: the probs indicated a large area was 60% likely not to exceed the median,and also by definition 40% likely to exceed it,which was what eventuated. Climatology did not suggest it had a 60% likelihood of being really dry,or super dry, or “huge dry”, just that it would ‘fail to reach the median’ at 60% odds.

    You can argue that prob forecasts are of limited use,with large areas in the 45-55 uncertainty [no indications] zone, but you cannot argue against them if you don’t know how they work. BOM carefully points out their limitations. Hughes also claims without evidence that they are expensive products. Personally,I doubt it: they are statistical models that just harness and cross reference a data base that is generated for many other applications.

  2381. Robert says

    SD, I’ll back my new bamboo shoots against your turkey mounds for CO2 output. I’ve thrown away the vinegar bottle and am finally having success with natural ferment of the shoots. These are real pickles, the pickles they eat in heaven…but don’t put the lid on tight, or you’ll learn how much CO2 is pumped out in the real world. No wonder humans can only generate a tiny fraction of that fraction of the atmosphere. Forget flashy combustion – that gas pumps like crazy, anywhere where there’s organisms.

    Ban the organism!

  2382. Polyaulax says

    SD,re snow in SA, they predict the cold pool will bring snow to NSW northern tablelands Friday morning…quite an event for almost mid-October, but daily maxima will be not be record lows. The warm up will be quick,SA back to the high 20s and early 30s by Sunday and Monday, NE NSW has been in the low 30s already. The Tablelands will be back to average or above quickly too.

  2383. Luke says

    Polyaulax, precisely but lost on these guys. Yes the forecast products have been statistical.

    BoM are now up to POAMA II with 2x skill.

    BoM are not necessarily looking at downscaling the rainfall out of the GCM – moreover they are using POAMA to forecast a bunch of indices – Nino regions, EMI, DMI, 140 Blocking etc.
    Then forecasting rainfall from those indices.

    Importantly they’re also considering hybrid systems of POAMA and normal indicators which mix various predictands optimally by region based on best fit. And that varys at time of year.

    They’re considered covariance among the indicators. New indicators we haven’t considered – El Nino Modoki, 140 Blocking

    Also important comparisons with persistence and climatology. AND sometimes climatology is the best !! (no skill)

    http://www.cawcr.gov.au/publications/technicalreports/CTR_031.pdf

    http://www.clw.csiro.au/conferences/wirada-symposium/documents/presentations/Wed/Session6b/1100_Hendon.pdf

    http://www.cawcr.gov.au/publications/technicalreports/CTR_031.pdf

  2384. spangled drongo says

    Robert, good to hear you’re enjoying ’em.

    I wrote a bit of doggerel about those turkeys:

    The wattled turk does all the work,

    The hens say, “see you later,

    We’ll be back when all this tack

    Works like an incubator.”

    Misogynistic?

    Poly, that average SA October weather, when facing into that Southern Ocean, brings back chilly memories. Brrrrrr.

  2385. bazza says

    Deb ” But bazza….we were never your enemy”. Deb, I dont have enemies and I am not delusional. My interest is in the facts.

  2387. Robert says

    Snow on eastern high country in mid-spring is not uncommon, neither is heat, before and after. Some things are unprecedented, but I don’t know what. I’m sure things are worse than we thought, somewhere or other, somehow or other.

    Springswill continue to surprise Eastern Oz with heat, cold, dry storms, wet storms, Big Dusts, downpours, drought, hail, snow. It’s what they do!

    Our Green Betters will keep saying that nuances and complexities are lost on us. It’s what they do!

  2388. Debbie says

    So Bazza?
    Anything wrong with facts and/or the opinions in the article?
    So far you have just commented on the author.

  2389. cohenite says

    “Personally,I doubt it: they are statistical models that just harness and cross reference a data base that is generated for many other applications.”

    The probability predictions are used to generate policy based on AGW.

    “you cannot argue against them if you don’t know how they work.”

    They don’t work; BOM factors in a dominant AGW component; do you deny that? Of course not, you are not a hypocrite; AGW science has declared that natural variability and cycles do not create trend, only AGW does; the effect is that predictions will be in accordance with the assumed effects of AGW.

    What you say about probability distributions being meaningless is essentially true, that allocating a % probability to a deviation from the mean can never have forecasting reliability; the reason for this is the median is an average over a climatically relevant period; by definition any one period subsequent to the period which was used to generate the median will have a greater chance of being different, above or below, from the median then the median itself.

    BOM has attempted to resolve this by incorporating general AGW effects; we have seen this; hotter hots and greater storms and wets; more extreme weather in other words. This is not happening and the BOM is not being honest about it. As a result realistic forecasting is being compromised.

  2390. Robert says

    SD, I think your text is safe, since you didn’t use the word “she”.

    Cold tonight. The spring on the mid-coast won’t make up its mind. The 2009 El Nino was weird: we had a sappy European-type spring, with coastal zephyrs, till the Big Dust. When the delayed rains came, they came without storms. This El Nino, which might stay or might go, has a completely different personality (as they all do). Nor-westers, then southerlies, and very little rain. When you parch moso bamboo it can hold on till November then it makes a ridiculous growth lunge, not too dignified

    There’s something very annoying about drought on a species that expects to grow from the ground to a hundred feet within seven weeks. Moso handles the uncertainty better than the moso grower. I’m annoyed. Don’t cross me, warmies!

  2391. Luke says

    “They don’t work; BOM factors in a dominant AGW component”

    Cohers – are you actually mental? The is the dumbest of dumb shit I have ever seen you write.
    You don’t even know what they’re using you numb nuts.

    “What you say about probability distributions being meaningless is essentially true, that allocating a % probability to a deviation from the mean can never have forecasting reliability; the reason for this is the median is an average over a climatically relevant period; by definition any one period subsequent to the period which was used to generate the median will have a greater chance of being different, above or below, from the median then the median itself.”

    hmmmm let’s consider this paragraph – hmmmm – it’s utter stupid mindless drivel. Clueless imbecilic rot.

    and then

    “BOM has attempted to resolve this by incorporating general AGW effects; we have seen this; hotter hots and greater storms and wets; more extreme weather in other words. ”

    fark ! a mish mash of stupidity, gibberish, projection, and general crap

  2392. gavin says

    Poly @ 9.01 pm gave us a great rundown on lone wolf campaigning. WH classic non team work just falls apart!

    Deb; this week we have a handful of odd sized mandarins for supper. These are presumably late season seconds trucked to our w/e farmers market from Leeton. Last week I also picked up lumpy beetroot and 1/2 sized avocados from one of two vendors who stay over for our Sunday T & T.

    We often chat about folks and their luck in the MIA. Deb, you and hubby can join the club and flog 2 or 5 kg bags of local rice including that organic shown on our ABC.

    http://www.abc.net.au/rural/nsw/content/2012/06/s3527643.htm

  2393. Polyaulax says

    Cohenite, BOM seasonal climate forecasts have nothing to do with generating ‘policy based on AGW’. They are a spin off product from having a lot of accumulated data that would have been gathered anyway. ‘Realistic forecasting’ is not being compromised.

    They are for primary producers in some areas to get a heads up on possible general conditions for the next three months,and they are BASED ON HISTORICAL OBSERVATION! Precedent,not projection. If these forecasts go really bad consistently-as in, everything gets 50/50/ no guidance- you will know that the last century’s patterns are not providing much guidance for expected patterns within seasons any more!

  2394. Luke says

    Cohenite’s comments indicate the depths of the ignorant stupidity that “sceptics” have to BoM. If Cohenite understanding is how’s he’s written up above, one can only despair. Level of understanding is about zero. No wonder serious scientists just laugh at amateur sceptics. Off the meter drongoism.

  2395. kuhnkat says

    So post up some pickies of your home abode why doncha Little Lukey!!! Or do you have too many comic books and posters on the walls along with those Al “an inconvenient moron” Gore movie posters??

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  2396. spangled drongo says

    No Luke, you are the one with stupid, hubristic comments.

    To suggest that the BoM make forcasts from millions of archived climate averages and information without factoring their well known, firm and positive belief of AGW, you are in the realms of La La Land.

    They may not be as bad as the UK Met, but they are well under the influence of this bias.

  2398. Luke says

    KuknKat good point. But don’t you think trailer park hick home like yours would be more interesting.

  2400. Johnathan Wilkes says

    poly,

    “you will know that the last century’s patterns are not providing much guidance for expected patterns within seasons any more!”

    This is only valid if you can prove that last century’s patterns were any reliable guidance for last century’s own following weather patterns.

  2401. Debbie says

    Sorry Luke,
    It appears to me that your definition of ‘serious scientists’ is so narrow that is is virtually meaningless.
    I remember Jen writing at one stage that there is a misguided idea operating that if scientists are employed by the govt and receive their funding from the govt then they are ‘pure and incorruptable’ and any other scientists have questionable motives.
    I would like to thank Polyaux for mostly operating an even handed approach and pointing out that this work is not actually ‘settled’ and is largely based on probability statistical analysis…..which is far from a ‘crystal ball’.(pity about that dreadful link however…and then Bazza’s attempt to defend it).
    Polyaux has also had enough sense to recognise and explain why much of this work has a limited use in the ‘real time’ world of climate/weather chaos….especially in seasons like the southern Australian Spring.
    Trying to use ‘projective analysis’ based on weather/climate as a tool to inform far reaching social policy is SIMPLY NOT GOING TO BE SUCCESSFUL because at this stage the work is NOT RELIABLE ENOUGH. And the ‘serious staticians’ know that.
    And Luke…..despite your screeching….. IMHO you have sledged scientists and scientifically literate people far more than anyone else here…..because you are mostly attempting to defend the discipline of data collection and statistical analysis…..not science.
    Unfortunately for all of us….you have also found yourself in the position where you have to (by association) defend AGW celebs and ‘mindless sideshows’, because this work has been hijacked and used inappropriately by the politics…..and yes…..all sides of politics are doing it….but I have to say that IMHO, the ‘environmental politics’ are by far the guiltiest.
    I don’t specifically blame the ‘scientists’ or even the ‘statiticians’ and/or ‘modellers’ . They are mostly just decent people who are just filling their job descriptions…..and of course like every other employed person…..they would prefer to keep their jobs. (No need for an understanding of brain surgery or nuclear science to understand that).
    But statistics & projective modelling, even though it is getting ever more high tech, are not useful as the ‘be all and end all’ basis and neither is it wise to use them as an ‘alarmist’ & ’emotional’ tool.
    We can and should use them as a way to assist us to better understand the world around us.
    But….if they’re not updated correctly and they deliberately ignore real time data in favour of trying to jusify ‘saving’ all that hard work…..or silly attempts to ‘save face’…..then their ability to be useful goes plummeting very, very quickly.
    And Gavin,
    I see you’re now claiming that people in the MIA are lucky?
    Lucky compared to what in particular?
    They too, are mostly decent ordinary people who have made their own lifestyle choices & have suffered their own ups & downs…. just as I’m sure you have.
    It all seems to be based on unrealistic trade offs according to you?
    You still haven’t explained why you think that CT article is a ‘wind up’….or explained why you think that water/Aussie fig was wrong?
    If those mandarins were seedless…..there is a good chance they came from one of my immediate neighbours….very high tech operation & highly market orientated.
    We’re in the process of sowing our Summer crops right now….have been help up by some rain events this morning….but that’s life!

  2402. cohenite says

    luke, drivel and boring insults; do better.

    poly says:

    “BOM seasonal climate forecasts have nothing to do with generating ‘policy based on AGW’.”

    On 12 September 2002 the BOM became a prescribed agency under the Financial Management and Accountability Act. Under the Public Service Act, the Director of Meteorology has the powers and responsibilities of an agency head, and under current administrative arrangements reports to the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities i.e. The Hon. Tony Burke MP Australian Labor Party.

    So the BOM answers to government and relies for its funding from government. To say policy and science do not mix at BOM is very naive.

    And:

    “BASED ON HISTORICAL OBSERVATION”

    BOM is NOT adjusting historical temperatures? Is that what you are saying?

    I’d like to play longer with you fools but I have some work to do.

  2403. bazza says

    All who venture here should be insulted that two of the leading denialists don’t bother to understand some of the basics before they unleash their attacks. Their mates like Deb have trusted them and never query even their more extravagant pronouncements. They too will feel they have been taken for a ride by Cohenite and Spangled. Cohenite, self styled leading denialist and pseudo sceptic should be ashamed. What a fixation he has – unable to see the fundamental differences between weather forecasts, seasonal outlooks and climate change scenarios. He is a poser and a loser. Now he obfuscates to save face. He better find some clear evidence of his extraordinary attack “So the BOM answers to government and relies for its funding from government. To say policy and science do not mix at BOM is very naive”. To say they do requires a delusional ideologue .

  2404. Robert says

    “you will know that the last century’s patterns are not providing much guidance for expected patterns within seasons any more!”

    We get the subliminal message re CAGW – once again! We get it, Poly, okay? It’s a lot nicer than Luke’s shrieking, I’ll grant you that.

    Mind you, the nineteenth century didn’t help much with twentieth century patterns in Eastern Oz. Nobody predicted the drenching of the 1890s, followed by the Fed drought, followed by a half-century of rain deficit, followed by uber-wet 1950, followed by late 50s to 60s droughts, followed by wet, stormy seventies and global cooling scare, followed by that super bad El Nino of ’82-’83, followed by droughty and hot decades interrupted by the Big Wet of the late 80s, followed by actual climate change around 2007 and five cooler, wetter years, etc etc etc

    Nobody knew! I don’t mind leaving temple offerings to be told the Nile will probably rise etc, especially since we now get handy things like maps, satellites, radar and so on. No probs with that.

    But, please, don’t sell me unwanted kittens, vinyl cladding, or future climate – whether it be new Dalton, new Maunder or CAGW. Not buying!

  2405. bazza says

    Deb, you asked for my comments on the facts of Julian Cribbs article. With my country roots, I know where it is coming from – straight out of the 1960s when rural fundamentalism was king and black jack McEwan ruled the Country Party. I though I could hear violins. So it is mainly a factfree zone – propaganda if you will. I thought rural Australia was going forward aware of its small place in the world and embracing concepts like sustainability etc etc. But if that is how it has to lobby in these precarious days then good luck.

  2406. debbie says

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/winters-last-icy-blast-on-the-way/story-e6frg6n6-1226493939227
    Here you go Gavin….it’s not just happening out your window.
    I agree Robert…..NOBODY KNEW!!!!
    Poly has at least had the sense to point out it is the ‘best guess’ based on ‘the best probability formulas’ based on available historical data….etc…..
    He also points out that its success rate and therefore its use is not much better than 50%….which interestingly… isn’t greatly different to what Hughes pointed out….Polyaux just ‘views’ the veracity of the work in a different manner and perhaps… understandably… wants to point out that it isn’t that simple.
    I don’t think Bazza gets it….but we have a political PR agenda trying to sell us a pup…or ‘unwanted kittens…….’
    The ‘serious’ people as Luke likes to call them….actually do know that their work is being inappropriately used by the current political PR machine…but we also musn’t forget that they would prefer to keep their jobs just like any other employed person and they will not want to ‘rock the boat’
    I certainly wouldn’t want to rock it too much if I had a personal life to live and a family to feed and support….and under the current volatile economic climate!
    Secure ‘middle management’ type jobs are not very easy to find at the moment….much safer to stay put if you can.

  2407. cohenite says

    “the fundamental differences between weather forecasts, seasonal outlooks and climate change scenarios.”

    What is the difference bazza, and do BOM predictions have any success at any of them; read Lorentz and consider whether climate is a chaotic system or not because if it IS chaotic, then all attempts to model it will be doomed to have near zero predictive skill beyond a short time horizon. It is that short time horizon which BOM should be concerned with.

    “To say policy and science do not mix at BOM is very naive”. To say they do requires a delusional ideologue”

    No, Art Raiche thinks so and he was chief scientist at CSIRO. Right now I think the BOM, CSIRO and ABC should be the first ports of call when the new Abbott government is looking to streamline government expenditure; sorry if you lose your job. What is your job bazza?

  2408. Luke says

    “This is only valid if you can prove that last century’s patterns were any reliable guidance for last century’s own following weather patterns.”

    JW – well you may have remembered about me talking about skill testing and significance testing that any predictor might make of a predictand for years. i.e. the entire point

    But of course you didn’t.

    LEPS, ROCS, cross validation, Kolmogorov–Smirnov, Kruskal–Wallis etc

    And even you have odds of say 60:40 doesn’t mean it’s skillful or has any significant difference to the “all years” group

    Debs of course would be only interested in “the social policy” aspects and Cohers would rant interminably about AGW influence.

    And you wonder why I get upset.

  2409. spangled drongo says

    bazza’s evidence-based rebuttals of criticism of pro-warming forcasters is, as usual, done in the breach rather than the observance. Wot science! or should that be, Wot science?

    Apparently, according to all knowing Labor pundits, last week’s argy bargy was down to JG and TA, having both been moulded by student politics where things always get out of hand under extreme pressure, are merely reverting to their roots.

    And Wayney et al’s acceptance of foul misogynist joke insults just doesn’t compare with anyone’s acceptance of foul misogynist non-joke insults.

    D’ya think the elephant here might be that we simply have a desperate fem PM c/w a few fem offsiders who, with the willing aid of the MSM, can simply flash the fem card of last resort?

  2410. Luke says

    Cohenite – stop wiggling. You’re been caught talking utter crap. Give it away. You’re a twit.

  2411. Luke says

    “What is your job bazza?” – his apartment is bigger than mine – HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA – good one.

    Cohenite – here’s some help – perhaps before any modelling of AGW-ish stuff you might get the entire rainfall record together and cleaned up. Now this could take you a while.

    Then you might talk to a few cockies and they might say “hey I really need to know if early summer will be wetter or drier than normal and I need to know this early winter.

    Now being clever you tie this down a tad asking what normal is, and about wetter and drier.

    Then perhaps you might come up with some index of something i.e. the SST of Sydney harbour or the pressure differential between Muckadilla and Oodnadatta as a predictor – and maybe you might try to predict Australia’s rainfall from that.

    And then that might require you to assess your scheme and communicate the ongoing forecasts.

    How do you think ya might have a go mate?

    And look Mum – no hands, no AGW and not even a GCM to be seen.

    Of course in the middle of all this you might find a bloody big trend in one of your indicators at centennial to decadal scale. And then you might ring up some smart aleck from CSIRO who’d tell you that’s the expansion of the Hadley cell from AGW at work and your forecast is inherently flawed as “last century may not be a guide to the next”. To which you might say “truck ! is that right”…..

    Cohenite – the sceptic who keeps on giving. Major essays with Nova and doesn’t understand tiddly winks seasonal forecasting. Too busy mindlessly putting the boot in to ever listen ….

  2412. Johnathan Wilkes says

    Luke,
    What are you talking about?
    First, I don’t read every and all comments here.

    Secondly If you read what poly said you may come to the same conclusion as I did, namely, that before the AGW reared its ugly head we could depend on past weather patterns to predict future ones.

    Now we can’t.
    If I misunderstood his post’s meaning, I’m sorry.

  2413. Mack says

    Do I hear the bleating of our chardonny socialist from Q1. Time for some more tucker from the Raptus Plaza Luke.

  2414. cohenite says

    “And then you might ring up some smart aleck from CSIRO who’d tell you that’s the expansion of the Hadley cell from AGW at work and your forecast is inherently flawed as “last century may not be a guide to the next”.

    I have all the smart alecks here thank you; you have been bloviating about the weakening of the Walker and now Hadley due to AGW for some time:

    http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2011JCLI4101.1?journalCode=clim

    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2010GL043321.shtml

    And the modelling also shows the Hadley going down too:

    http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2009JCLI2794.1

    But yet, as I showed you before, the observations differ:

    http://www.citeulike.org/user/rpallan/article/11100546

    I ask this question again; do the modelled forecasts, at any time span, seasonal or otherwise, include AGW?

  2415. gavin says

    Deb; when I climbed up to our trig there were only tiny glimpses of snow in the region. Given we had several cm of rain overnight but none since dawn, I was surprised the local range lost an early widespread snow cover so quickly. Must be that dreaded AGW again

  2416. Luke says

    Mack – if you’re too stupid to contribute shove off. Hey when did you last contribute? hmmmmm

    JW – ” we could depend on past weather patterns to predict future ones.” well that’s an assumption isn’t it. But if you’re building a dam back in the day that’s all you had. It’s a debatable point whether 120 years data are enough to assess natural variability. All this is difficult and could be an interesting discussion.

    Cohenite – “I ask this question again; do the modelled forecasts, at any time span, seasonal or otherwise, include AGW?”

    What you don’t know? YOU DON’T KNOW !! Well if the said forecast is built on historical data that would depend on whether you think AGW was at work in those data already, how much and how?

    But generally for statistical systems you’d say “formally no AGW”

    POAMA being a GCM would have things GCM have in them including ability to include CO2 forcing. But that would depend on how they ran the said GCM for seasonal forecasting and what they had switched on.

    You’d realise there’s a number of forecast systems at play. And you’d be doing some homework before ranting.

    Before you started shooting, a smart guy might phone a friend – e.g. call D Jones and ask him.

    And the Hadley cell thing has some meat in it http://www.greenhouse2011.com/UserFiles/Presentation/presentationUrl_35.pdf but let’s not get diverted.

  2418. Robert says

    Hey, there’s this thing called climate change. The climate actually changes. Then there’s this thing called atmospheric circulation, which goes in huge cells, kind of. Well, this atmospheric circulation also changes. And it could be related to the climate change thingy. No, really! There’s a connection between atmospheric circulation change and climate change! Everything is changing, instead of…well…changing. Now we won’t be able to predict stuff like we never did. Instead, we’ll be predicting it like we never will do.

    I could ask D. Jones for more info, but he’s busy scratching one of SD’s compost mounds.

  2419. Debbie says

    Bazza,
    While I heartily commend you for at least attempting to lay off the smug personal attacks,
    you have not managed to get off that soap box of yours enough or take your blinkers off enough to actually engage on these issues.
    You have tried to dismiss someone else’s well documented personal experience from your own not so well documented personal experience which (IMHO) is rather shonky. It appears to be driven by your ‘political’ ideology and nothing else at all….which I find rather disappointing to say the least.
    You seriously need to follow your own advice on this matter….seriously.
    Engage on the stated issues and watch out for personal bias.
    I’m sorry to say you have dug a very deep hole for yourself and I am going to try an be as dispassionate as I can although the temptation to really go for it is very high at the moment.

    Firstly….this is not a ‘propaganda’ piece it is a perfectly legitimate ‘opinion piece’ written by a very experienced, competent and scientifically literate person.
    Julian actually used to work in the CSIRO at Griffith NSW. He has a deep understanding of irrigated agriculture and has his head accross all the relevant figures and data.
    This piece is actually the last piece he will be writing as he has (very unfortunately) moved OS to take up a position where his experience is appreciated because he is very, very concerned about future food and water security and wants to use his knowledge and expertise to help other nations benefit from what we have learned in Australia….it was therefore purely his personal opinion piece and had nothing whatsoever to do with propaganda or the 60’s or any of the other stuff you have implied….no violins….nothing.
    That’s why it’s really not a good idea to mount personal attacks Bazza. …eventually that behaviour will come back to bite you as our politicians on the Labor party have started to discover today with their very ill advised ‘misogony’ rubbish.
    Secondly….I respectfully suggest you go here:
    daff.gov.au/nationalfoodplan
    and look up the actual figures related to Agriculture in Australia and then I respectfully suggest you rethink your comment about the ‘size’ of Agriculture. While you are correct that it is not ‘king’ as you put it, because that position in terms of GDP clearly belongs to the mining sector….you may possibly be a little surprised that it still holds a rather ‘royal position’ in terms of GDP and other multi layered benefits like employment etc.

    Thirdly….if you actually manage to read what Julian has to say….you will find that issues like sustainability are very very much part of the agenda. Just because (as he points out) irrigated agriculture has been very poor at representing itself, does not mean that much good work has been done and continues to be done by this sector….in the face of decreasing govt support at all levels and all flavours of govt. his main point (IMHO) is asking why we are ‘throwing out the baby with the bathwater’ (which is an amusing pun and cliche re this topic I know)

    Fourthly…I would also point out that Julian’s piece was not devoid of facts.
    What would you call these?…..

    It may be that our governments and bureaucracies do not know it takes over 1000 tonnes of water a year to feed an Australian.

    We now rely on overseas suppliers for 30per cent of our fruit, 20per cent of our vegetables, three-quarters of our fish – and there is growing economic pressure to shift the dairy industry to China or New Zealand.
    Irrigation is worth $9 billion to $11 billion a year at the farm gate and maybe five times that in the shops; along the food chain it helps keep half a million Australians in work. It manages two million hectares and about two-thirds of our available freshwater. It is highly efficient in what it does: turn water into good food and fibre; in the last drought it cut its water use by 43per cent, while cities cut theirs by just 1per cent.
    Australia has enough water for all its food and export needs, to protect and sustain its native landscapes and to embark on new industries in aquaculture, algae culture and irrigation potentially worth $30-40billion. But to do that we need good science, technology and education to redouble water use efficiency and policies which foster sustainable water development and investment.
    We should be building low-loss distribution systems (that do not require half the present network to be shut down). We should be recycling up to 100per cent of our urban water. No Australian city or frivolous user should be allowed to touch food’s supply of water. We should bank water by recharging our aquifers nationwide, plan mosaic irrigation in the north and seek to double productivity in the southern irrigation industry – instead of crushing it. We should share best practice and innovative water management the length and breadth of the land. We should build a $1 billion export sector in sustainable water know-how and technology.

    federal and state governments have also methodically demolished Australia’s irrigation science efforts: the irrigation futures and e-water cooperative research centres, the national program for sustainable irrigation, the CSIRO irrigation division and Land & Water Australia have all been wound up, while state irrigation research and extension has been decimated. This will ensure that Australians lack the knowledge we need to grow more food with less water as the climate changes.

    These facts and also the personal comments are all verifiable Bazza…..and if you would truly like to discuss ‘the facts’….then I will be happy to oblige…but otherwise you go right ahead and continue to stand on that increasingly shaky soapbox of yours with the blinkers on….or maybe to mix my metaphors…..you continue to dig what appears to be that politically based hole for yourself.

  2420. bazza says

    Deb, pity about Julian going o’s if your facts are correct. If the irrigation industry was better at funding research they might have kept him here. R&D in irrigation suffered from fragmented approaches to most issues given the commodity focus. Two decades ago water was cheap and there was no interest in using it efficiently. I know because many farmers told me so. All the agencies funding R&D rely on a big industry input once they woke up to where all the benefits were going and were simply inflating land values and making it harder for young innovators to have a go. Given the dominance of leveraged funding, R&D agencies pulled out.

  2422. Debbie says

    Bazza,
    When you’re ready to discuss ‘the facts’….I will be happy to oblige.
    The CSIRO is a Govt funded organisation Bazza….Julian worked for the Govt Bazza….he is now going to be working for another Govt Bazza. He actually didn’t work for the irrigation industry Bazza and his piece was not a propaganda piece for the irrigation industry Bazza.
    He was most definitely questioning Government policy re water.
    Is that clear enough for you?
    Your claims about leveraging etc are soooooooo last century and you’re still dodging the actual facts and figures that were indeed in this article.
    Did you look up that Govt Green Paper Bazza?
    Would you like to define your comment here with facts Bazza….preferably from the 21st Century?
    ‘So it is mainly a factfree zone – propaganda if you will. I thought rural Australia was going forward aware of its small place in the world and embracing concepts like sustainability etc etc. But if that is how it has to lobby in these precarious days then good luck.’
    Here’s why it’s not a good idea to mount personal attacks when playing with politics Bazza:
    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/tony-abbott-joke-backfires-on-labor/story-fn59niix-1226494015756
    As I said….when you are seriously interested in engaging on the facts and the current evidence….rather than name calling and repeating stuff that you’ve been ‘told’ I will be happy to oblige Bazza.

  2424. bazza says

    Luke, perhaps you are a bit harsh on Cohenite ( he is shamed – what will JoNova think of him). If you check, his absurd statement about BOM forecasts in general was “BOM factors in a dominant AGW component;” it was one of those late night ones – he was clearly tied , on his Pat Malone and perhaps even a wee bit emotional. He has form in the snakes hissed department. What he really meant was why doesn’t BOM factor out AGW!

    For example, BOM uses various reference periods such as the WMO standard 1961-90. For their trend maps it is 1970-2011. So in some places the trend is up close to 1C over that period. The AGW trend inflates the average. So when Cohenite sees a forecast of a couple of degrees above average, he has to mentally adjust and recognise that the forecast is actually for a few degrees above the trend free average ( subliminal conditioning?). This would of course make you angry if you didn’t believe in the reality of AGW and even worse if you have to pay the Carbon Tax.

    You have tried to explain to him that the forecasts as in my understanding are based on current observations and driven forward by a statistical model for seasonal forecasts, or a model of the physics for weather and climate.

    Perhaps he could bully Tony A to purge all seasonal forecasts of the dominant AGW component that Cohenite can help them identify. SD could supervise.

  2425. Johnathan Wilkes says

    Luke
    “JW – ” we could depend on past weather patterns to predict future ones.” well that’s an assumption isn’t it.”

    What we have here is a failure to communicate. (TM. Cool hand Luke)
    Maybe I should be a little bit more verbose and spell out everything.

    It wasn’t me stating that we “could” predict the weather before, it was my deduction from poly’s post.

    I thought he implied that while predictions were possible before the AGW took hold they are no longer so.

    Actually I sort of agree with you that if anyone can predict medium to long term weather at a 60% strike rate, he/she is doing very well indeed.

    I said before, I have a few objections to the whole CC issue:

    1, the temperature changes we are talking about are less than the error margin of our instruments.
    2, they are too small to matter even if happening.
    3, the reason for said happening “CO2” does not seem to cooperate ie. it’s rising without the corresponding temp. rise.
    4, the temperature records are adjusted for no valid reason as far as I can see, other than to suit the agenda. Surely, over a 120 (minimum), years’ worth of data we can dispense with the dubious and keep the good?

    5, Most important! Too many people making a motza from this and that is the surest sign of a scam.
    6, It all happened before! We just don’t remember it or like the MWP try to ignore it.
    (to a newborn every joke is a new one!)

  2426. Luke says

    Debbie – have you asked sp, KuknKat and Mack to lay off the smug personal attacks? And even Bob’s mates said we’re all convicts. I’m crying and very upset.

    Tell you what Baz – I’m thinking of going over to the sceptic side and giving them a hand. Let’s face it – the look is nasty, male over 60, right wing, anti-enviro, maverick, dour and not that much fun (see Jo is going to ding her reputation by hanging around with the AEF – like she needs to keep classy and not slum it). But seriously – the look isn’t cool. Maybe they need more tits and arse or something. Or rampant gayness. Like would you want to go to a party full of sceptics? Going on and on about conspiracies, attacking public servants, inquiries and all that. So I think we need to purge their ranks – get rid of the old fuddy-duddy cold war warrior creeps (off to the nursing home with them), some nice bright colours, smiling and not snarling, lots of tits and arse, get some bright presentable young people in there. And some modern music – all the classical funeral dirge stuff has to go.

    There are some real issues and golly they’re not helping us get through are they? Problem is though there’s not much material to work with. I thought Cohenite was pretty good until he shat in his nest with the “AGW in the forecasting” goof. You could be right – may have been late night drama – you can get really strung out trying on a nice frock and spill wine all over it – I can dig it. How can you get tannins out of silk underwear – this is the real issue.

  2427. Luke says

    JW – if it’s weather prediction you’re after – give seasonal forecasts the wide berth – it’s probability of rainfall over the median or being in a tercile class for a month or months. Nothing more than that. No weather type stuff. Why does it even work? Simply because anomalies like ENSO persist for months.

    On instrument errors – yep but you have a massive population of samples. Not one measurement at one site. I think there is safety in numbers – and corroborating evidence – same wiggle pattern in satellite data, ocean data sets, species phenology, distribution change and behaviour. Other indicators beside temperature. hmmmmm? With all that do you think it has not warmed?

    Have a look at any individual GCM run – that’s NOT mean or multimodel mean GCM run and see how the outputs wiggle around. It ain’t linear stuff. Don’t expect linear.

    Low sun, PDO wrong phase, aerosols wrong – all this can take a dent in the trajectory.

    The scientists doing the serious climate research are far from rich. And the science is far from easy. You wouldn’t be doing it just to cream some $$

  2428. Johnathan Wilkes says

    My God Luke!

    You are jumping to conclusions.

    “nasty, male over 60” doubt if Debbie is anywhere near that (if half?) I’m certainly not!
    “right wing” ????
    “anti-enviro” If you mean I want to have access to the bush and build dams in suitable places YES!
    ” maverick” probably?
    “attacking public servants” We have far too many and they are anything but servants to the public!
    “lots of tits and arse” for it!
    “some modern music – all the classical funeral dirge stuff has to go.”

    Sorry! I love ballet and classical music but my fav. music is brass bands and old military marches.
    Current fav. is Turkish Janissary vocal and instrumental.

  2429. Johnathan Wilkes says

    PS Luke, when I speak of people making a motza I meant the vocal proponents and instigators like AG and TF the politicians, the windmill and solar panel merchants, the carbon credit schemers etc. not the scientist.

  2430. Robert says

    We’re going to have our own skeptic gays? Should brighten things up, but I prefer the Dusty Springfield collectors to the Streisand freaks. We’ll even take some nerds with action figure and Batman comic collections. We’ll even take you, Luke – on probation. Obviously you don’t need to worry about crumpet. (Conservative chicks are probably the reason you want to jump the fence.)

    But, Luke, please don’t send us any of those plummy-voiced hipsters. They are dead set warmies forever. Let them stay where they are.

    Hipsters. No pasaran.

  2432. Debbie says

    OK Luke,
    sp, KuknKat and Mack,
    Luke asked me to ask you to lay off the smug personal attacks.

    Apparently he is not able to do that for himself so he asked me to do it.

    But because I’m doing it for him….I am now adding a qualifying statement….which is probably an entirely under 60 (not by half JW but most definitely under), female, an environmental steward, apolitcal and actually good friends with and even related to public servants …thing of me to do.

    If I was asked who was the serial offender of smug personal attacking….you 3 are way behind Luke and Bazza….and usually only do it when Luke goes too far.

    So in answer to your question Luke….
    Yes I have asked them for you. 🙂 🙂 🙂
    But you may have better success if you ask yourself…and maybe you could even consider leading by example?

  2434. el gordo says

    ‘Nuh! Sceptics are sub-human.’

    More a sub-group of humanity, whereas the Denialati is just a splinter.

  2436. cohenite says

    bazza’s kind words will sustain me; he says placatingly:

    “For example, BOM uses various reference periods such as the WMO standard 1961-90. For their trend maps it is 1970-2011. So in some places the trend is up close to 1C over that period. The AGW trend inflates the average.”

    At the risk of sounding repetitive, base period taint on trend is omething even luke was forced to pay attention to some time ago:

    http://jennifermarohasy.com/2008/08/cooling-the-human-climate-signal-a-note-from-cohenite/

    AGW is a textbook example of methodology creating the problem and the result.

  2437. el gordo says

    Enjoyed reading the McLean paper again.

    Everyone recognises the great climate shift of 1976, but can anyone tell me when the earlier ‘shifts’ happened?

  2440. el gordo says

    In comments from that Watts link I made a prediction which came true. Amazing! Post normal science is wonderful and I’m only a kitchen table scientist.

    el gordo says:
    July 5, 2010 at 12:58 am

    A positive Indian Ocean Dipole and a cool PDO means big floods in the land of Oz.

  2441. Luke says

    “I’m only a kitchen table scientist.” Yuh ! sample size of one. Do more ! Any exceptions or just pick what suits?

    Watts is just a disinformation refuelling station.

  2442. Debbie says

    Good job el gordo! 🙂
    See? Anyone can have a stab at this!
    Us farmers have been stabbing at it since time immemorial. The success rate is about 60:40 too!
    We even have those them thar records over 4 generations too! Got decadal and centenial thingy stuff too.
    Now it’s a big attractor of tax payer money!
    You at your kitchen table and me on my farm should have woken up to that!
    Nah!
    🙂
    Prefer doing what I’m doing.
    Should have listened to your prediction though. . . . We got a whopper flood here. . . It was in Autumn too!
    Go figure?

  2443. Luke says

    “See? Anyone can have a stab at this!” Yuh ! stabbed in the eye more like it – and you only report what you get right. It’s called conformation bias Debbie. You ain’t got any 60:40 stats – you’re little better than throwing a coin. Prove otherwise.

  2444. Debbie says

    I’m just a sample size of one.
    Not my job to predict the weather/climate but us sample sizes of one with confirmation bias and all those other terribly ordinary human foibles are actually very interested in the weather/climate. It gets discussed and talked about and observed and compared almost every single day in the hokey farming world.
    We know that Meteorologists, while certainly getting better, have a very long way to go before they can claim they have this beast tamed.
    We laugh at ‘the science is settled’ & ‘ it’s the greatest moral challenge of our time’ rhetoric.
    It would be great for us them thar preeedooocers if ‘the science’ would concentrate more on getting that seasonal forecasting working with better confidence levels.
    Instead they seem to be totally obsessed with finding a human signal amongst all that ‘noise’.
    That wouldn’t possibly be a form of ‘confirmation bias’ would it?
    Just asking.

  2445. Luke says

    “Instead they seem to be totally obsessed with finding a human signal amongst all that ‘noise’.”

    Gee – so BoM don’t have obs, weather, aviation, defence weather, cyclones, oceans, tsunamis, UV, space weather etc – get real Debs ! get real.

    “It would be great for us them thar preeedooocers if ‘the science’ would concentrate more on getting that seasonal forecasting working with better confidence levels.” so when asked previously how you would use a forecast – all we got from Debs was “errr ummmm errr social policy broad implications no detail waffle blah ….” bulldust !

    Amazing bulldust – we don’t get a teensy squeak out of you on discussions about this – we just get 50 pages of Debbie speak (why why why to the 32nd power) Full of it. You’re not interested Debbie – you just want to obfuscate and grizzle.

    And won’t get better doing straw man comparisons with neural nets and confounding the seasonal cycle in the analysis will it…

    Just asking? full of it Debs …. you and Cohers

  2446. spangled drongo says

    Juat look at the artful dodger go!

    The outraged, indignant dodger in defence of a dodgy science.

    Interesting that he denies the only thing that shows the human signal. The GCM.

    You don’t need to be anything but honest to report the raw data of weather which, without modelling and adjustment, is well within the bounds on natural variation.

    It is simply the models and the use of their results to claim the human signal that has stuffed the credibility of climate science.

  2448. spangled drongo says

    Intetresting obs by Joachim Seifert:

    “The state of the art in climate-forcing mechanism analysis is that presently available General Circulation Models (GCMs) underperform substantially in terms of predictive power, showing significant mismatches and model deficiencies in model-data comparisons. This may not surprise when macro-forcing mechanisms were substituted by coupled micro- and nano-forcings and feedbacks. It is evaluated in the literature that all GCMs perform well for the first 500 years backwards from the present, but then lack skill for the previous 9,500 Holocene years. This is critical for climate models, as they have also to show their validity on time frames of more than 1,000 years.”

    IOW, they are only good for telling us what we already know.

  2450. Debbie says

    Luke?
    It would be great for us them thar preeedooocers if ‘the science’ would concentrate more on getting that seasonal forecasting working with better confidence levels.” so when asked previously how you would use a forecast – all we got from Debs was “errr ummmm errr social policy broad implications no detail waffle blah ….” bulldust !
    Which part of ‘what’s the point of trying to answer a question that you have already answered’ don’t you get?
    When you FINALLY asked that question with something approaching an open mind….I answered something like:
    IF (and I did use capitals) it delivers on its early promise….I would imagine we would use it in a similar fashion to the way we use BoM and other weather forecast sites like YR.
    You see Luke…..we do use this stuff ….but like Poly said….we need to understand that it is just based on probabiltiy stats….and basically we all know it would be bordering on delusional to bet the farm on them.
    You’re missing the point because you are trying to defend something else entirely.
    Maybe a better question from ‘the establishment’ would be……
    What do you need from forecasting to make it a more useful tool in your business?
    That one’s quite easy to answer….but you probably wouldn’t like the answer.

  2453. Robert says

    The yucko EU is a perfect recipient for the yucko Nobel prize.

    Heard about how Nobel regretted that his useful inventions had been turned to evil purposes by other people? Yeah, right.

    Alfred Nobel increased his interest in weaponry as he got older. Like a true Euro-leftist and self-loather, he wanted to combine a Paris lifestyle (for him) with a Pyongyang political system (for others). How better to do that than with lots of Bofors guns? In total, he established 90 armaments factories and never regretted a single one.

    While preaching pacificism, he acquired Bofors only a couple of years before he died and steered it more towards weapons manufacture.

    At the same time, he was writing creepy, sicko drama. Why not? He was Scandinavian, after all.

  2454. bazza says

    Cohenite stated about BOM forecasts in general “BOM factors in a dominant AGW component;” We await evidence, not obfuscation on what is the AGW trend etc.

  2455. Debbie says

    Luke,
    Let me try and help you:
    My point was very simply that people who are daily affected by weather/climate would actually like to see depts like BoM etc do more of their good work on creating better confidence with seasonal forecasting….that would be very, very useful.
    Instead….it appears….perhaps overly through AGW PR….that the obsession is all about finding a negatively impacting human signal in all that chaotic climate noise as well as studying only the negative human impacts on environment ….and most of the R&D funding looks to be feeding that obsession as well.
    Nowhere have I ever said that work on seasonal forecasting is not happening. So your reply to me was rather meaningless as I didn’t claim that in the first place….and therefore the rebuttal question was essentially invalid.
    AGW and/or CC appears to be an over riding obsession however…..apparently to the detriment of other excellent and likely much more beneficial/useful/practical/technical/applicable R&D work….Ag being one of them but certainly not the only one.
    Just as a teensy weensy example from one of today’s science stories.
    Look at this one:
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-10-11/hills-and-valleys-found-under-antarctic-ice/4308332
    It starts and concludes along this theme:
    ‘The information along with aerial measurements will be used to measure ice thickness and volume, which scientists say will be an important guide to track how the Antarctic environment is responding to climate change.’
    My question is: why can’t this be exciting as a great new breakthrough in discovering more about the world we live in?
    Why can’t it be judged on its own merit and the plethoria of new information we may gain from this new technology?
    Why does it have to be focused primarily on Climate Change?

  2456. Luke says

    SD – you’re not even on the page. What a Dumbo.

    Beddie not Debbie – I passed out with nacrolepsy in the middle of your answer.

    KuknKat – correct !

  2458. spangled drongo says

    Neville, We always have to wait for Labor mates to fall out before we ever find the truth.

    Cohers, people like Sir Charles Todd are now having their data adjusted. They were clearly incompetent.

  2459. debbie says

    So Luke,
    Not only didn’t you care how we’d use this stuff….you also didn’t care whether there could be a better way to use it or a perhaps better focus on making it useful?
    So what are you defending Luke?
    Bazza,
    You might be waiting for Cohenite….
    I’m still waiting for you to provide evidence on this comment….not obfuscation about what propaganda is:
    With my country roots, I know where it is coming from – straight out of the 1960s when rural fundamentalism was king and black jack McEwan ruled the Country Party. I though I could hear violins. So it is mainly a factfree zone – propaganda if you will. I thought rural Australia was going forward aware of its small place in the world and embracing concepts like sustainability etc etc. But if that is how it has to lobby in these precarious days then good luck.

  2461. Luke says

    OK Debs – taking you at your word. So ya wanna maybe use the stuff eh? So – some no tricks questions.

    Can you tell us what sort of decisions you’d use seasonal forecasting for.

    Is it only rainfall you’re interested in. temperature, frost, date of last frost?

    For what period of forecast from how far in advance do you need? May be a number of answers here for different uses.

    How would you like the forecast information represented – e.g. probabilities being above median, in terciles, probability of certain amounts – you tell us

    And how would you like the uncertainty of advice represented.

    What % correct needs to be achieved to be “useful”. Or is that decision dependent?

    There are no “ah ha gotcha” bits to these questions. But a “no answer” tells us you’re not interested.

  2462. el gordo says

    ‘For what period of forecast from how far in advance do you need?’

    I’m happy with a decade.

  2463. spangled drongo says

    Luke, POAMA is a model made from numerous other models and coupled with numerous other models which every day produces an 8 month forcast.

    It is programmed with data from the warming end of the 20th C — not the last 15 years.

    If that’s not cherry picking AGW, and set up to produce warm forcasts, what is?

  2464. Luke says

    El Gordo – after all that has been written here think what you just wrote. If it was 60:40 and you did 100 possible El Nino events – 60 would have occurred as Los Ninos and 40 would have not ! 40 is a lot !

    You can’t nail BoM for bad forecasting of this type on an single event – moreover you need a number of years where they fail. A single event means little.

    A weak El Nino event is still an event. Anyway check some other sources http://www.longpaddock.qld.gov.au/seasonalclimateoutlook/qccceclimatestatement/index.php and get yourself a SPOTA subscription

  2465. Luke says

    SD what you’ve just written is nonsense.

    “It is programmed with data from the warming end of the 20th C — not the last 15 years.” HUH ?!

    I don’t think you have a clue. Seriously why don’t you ring up D Jones and ask him what’s done.

    If it’s a GCM and you’re running in forecast mode you’d initialise on the LATEST atmospheric and oceanic observations (and lordy nobody can help what they are) and run forward.

    Even Cohenite is just gibbering here. And you wonder why we satirise you lot. I think Debbie thinks GCMs are like her farm spreadsheet. ARGHHHHHHHHHHHH !!!!!!!!!!!

    As I understand it BoM are trying to get one model for weather, seasonal forecasting and climate change as an aspirational goal. But you can initialise and run that model in different ways.

    What the last few exchanges on the blog have shown – poor basic understanding of probabilities, uncertainty as to what models are, confounding seasonal forecasting with AGW, and a huge willingness to fill in gaps with supposition based on AGW-hatred so everything BoM does must be crap.

    I’m just reading Thinking Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman – http://www.amazon.com/Thinking-Fast-Slow-Daniel-Kahneman/dp/0374275637

    Amazon says:

    “Daniel Kahneman, recipient of the Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences for his seminal work in psychology that challenged the rational model of judgment and decision making, is one of our most important thinkers. His ideas have had a profound and widely regarded impact on many fields—including economics, medicine, and politics—but until now, he has never brought together his many years of research and thinking in one book.

    In the highly anticipated Thinking, Fast and Slow, Kahneman takes us on a groundbreaking tour of the mind and explains the two systems that drive the way we think. System 1 is fast, intuitive, and emotional; System 2 is slower, more deliberative, and more logical. Kahneman exposes the extraordinary capabilities—and also the faults and biases—of fast thinking, and reveals the pervasive influence of intuitive impressions on our thoughts and behavior. The impact of loss aversion and overconfidence on corporate strategies, the difficulties of predicting what will make us happy in the future, the challenges of properly framing risks at work and at home, the profound effect of cognitive biases on everything from playing the stock market to planning the next vacation—each of these can be understood only by knowing how the two systems work together to shape our judgments and decisions.

    Engaging the reader in a lively conversation about how we think, Kahneman reveals where we can and cannot trust our intuitions and how we can tap into the benefits of slow thinking. He offers practical and enlightening insights into how choices are made in both our business and our personal lives—and how we can use different techniques to guard against the mental glitches that often get us into trouble. Thinking, Fast and Slow will transform the way you think about thinking.”

    There are some big reasons here where your expert “having a go” needs serious questioning !

  2467. Debbie says

    Well done Luke!
    I am now taking you at your word.
    1)For us….if there was better confidence levels for seasonal rainfall forecasting and/or catchment forecasting conditions it would make it easier for NSW Office of Water to make reliable allocations in the planting windows….that means we could use it to help make decisions about acreages of summer cropping….but it would only be a part of the decision….other non weather related factors are also important.
    2) All of it….but if they’re only ‘best guesses’ then all we can do is make a best guess too. Sheep weather alerts are very helpful for example….but they are of course only issued almost at the death knock….but still very, very useful nonetheless….we usually get them in enough time to get our freshly shorn sheep some extra food and shelter.
    3) there are a number of different answers for different uses….but for this area specifically….answer to number one is the over rider….enough confidence ahead of the planting windows….so before August.
    4) As simply and clearly as possible Luke….I know that’s dificult for BoM etc….but that’s the answer. Sometimes it would be better to just say something like…not enough data to confidently predict so we just simply don’t know. Farmers by their nature have to be ‘the glass is half full’ types, otherwise they couldn’t really do what they do. They are happier if you tell them the truth (ie We don’t know) rather than pretend that you can offer them something they can work with when you can’t….don’t take offense….just saying.
    5) I think I just sort of answered that….if you are uncertain….just say so….if you are certain…just say so…..most of the demographic is not really all that interested in the rest….but have no problem with the fact that others are. It’s OK…farmers are all in favour of this stuff getting more useful….but don’t expect farmers to be delighted when you don’t really have anything to help them make decisions….and then pretend you do and that farmers are ungrateful etc….They’re not ungrateful…they have important decisions to make and if you can’t help them make these decisions then leave them alone!
    6) yes it’s decision dependant….but if the forecast confidence is high….it makes part of the decision a more confident decision.

    There was also an indication in those questions about long term forecasting?
    Farmers always look at those with great interest and will discuss them at great length….but would not bet the farm on them….mainly because we could be just as succesful on that probability gamble by just tossing a coin….those particular forecasts change like the wind.

    And after all that….I hope you didn’t miss the point of my earlier posts?
    And….Luke….in a cerebral sense re your comment to el gordo….I almost agree with you.
    However…..a single event to those of us who get directly hit by it, actually means a lot.
    I’m sure when those in Toowoomba etc who got hit by those flash floods would vehemently disagree with your point and were furious with some of the outrageous comments made by people like Bob Brown.
    We werent all that fussed by some of the rabid dross that was spruiked by the same sort of suspects when we got seriously whalloped here in Autumn….(Not from the River).

  2468. Robert says

    As a senile intuitive, I have to admit I have no idea how BOM manages to botch its forecasts. I don’t know why David Jones is our chief climatologist, I don’t know why Robbie Deans is coach of Australia, I don’t know why they give Nobels for fairy floss. I also don’t know what the climate will be like in ten years – though I have that in common with the rest of the human race.

    I DO know where I won’t be spending $13.

  2470. bazza says

    Luke, there is a gem in Kahnemans book along the lines that the less a person knows the easier it is for them to develop a coherent story of what is going on. Have you ever noticed any examples of that hereabouts. ( watch the trap – if you dont actually know it will be easy for you to say – yes.)
    Spangled – what are you on about re POAMA “It is programmed with data from the warming end of the 20th C — not the last 15 years.” Where did you get that from? POAMA models physics which does not change much, plus initial conditions which are just that.
    Debbie – if you are serious about better funding for seasonal forecasts, how many times have you lobbied for same since they were first issued over 20 years ago? That shows whether you are fair dinkum or not. I have often written in various places in support of better seasonal forecasts.

    PS Cohenite is probably watching replays of Rake looking for inspiration on how to get out of impossible situations.

  2471. Debbie says

    So Bazza,
    Because you ‘know so much’ you have therefore deemed from your higher level of thinking that I’m not serious?
    Seriously?

  2472. Robert says

    Kahneman may be okay (just), but I note that he’s being enlisted by the worst kinds of snobs for their self-congratulatory put-downs. It’s a bit more up-market than quoting Lewandovsky, I suppose.

    Lately, I had to put up with a peculiar discourse on Dante from someone who been dipping into Wiki for info on the Inferno. Since I’ve been reading medieval Italian for the last forty years or more, I found that rather painful, but I didn’t need to consult Kahneman to know that “the less a person knows the easier it is for them to develop a coherent story of what is going on”.

    A dope’s a dope, right?

  2473. Mack says

    Cohers, this could be helpful, Maybe Luke is right, maybe they now don’t factor AGW into their figures. BOM maybe cleaning up its act, much in the same way stuff from a lot of scientists (including NASA ) seems to have cleaned up. It all spells finito for AGW whichever way you look at it. Now Bazza, if BOM would just clear all its AGW crap of its website this would clear my mind a little more in your favour. But nah, Bazza, pigs would fly first eh.

  2474. Luke says

    So Mack you think the national meteorological agency should have no objective information on climate change – a climate subject which perhaps I’m wrong – seems to have generated some considerable debate in society. And what % of their site is climate change Mack (speaking of Kahneman)

    Bazza – Looks like Debs has done a runner. You get my boat for Sunday (Again).

    JW- “yes but does it have pictures Luke?” yes indeed – lots of tits and arse. I bought it for the pictures not the story (Sorry Debs – just keeping up my corrupt image for the lads).

    Robert “as a senile intuitive” – yuh ! yuh … we’re sorry we call you a silly old codger then.

    Bazza – the $13 and free shipping was a bait for them to get up me on book miles. How can US and UK Book Repository deliver promptly for free while Amazon charge a shitload and even own the Book Respository? But let’s not get distracted. Just going to chow down on some imported US dates from Raptis Plaza actually.

  2476. Luke says

    Whoops sorry Debs – I missed – thought it was just another long tiresome rant. Bazza you don’t get the boat sorry. So given sheep mortality alerts are weather forecasts might leave that one – I think I got from you a seasonal forecast for planting windows and maybe something also working with water allocations. But no specific times or periods.

    The “honestly we don’t know” is really expressed in the probabilities. 50:50 is 50:50. I see in BoM’s new hybrid schemes they’re offering “climatology” when they “don’t know”. i.e. not sufficient skill

    But that’s all I got – I didn’t get any information on how to express the forecast or information that you’d use to evaluate it’s certainty. Personally I’d like to think tercile class (wettest, middle, driest) would be better than % exceeding the median – but further discussion would mean you’d have to have a sensible discussion on here where is pretty hard given the signal to noise ratio.

    And I remind you – I asked to all this back on Jen’s neural net thread. And on other occasions.

    And see there were no tricks – and we didn’t go nah nah nah naa gotcha.

  2477. Robert says

    I’m so old I remember when people quoted Jonathan Livingstone Seagull to give substance to their utterances. Really! Ten years on it was Zen and the Art. A new decade brought the Celestine Prophecies into prominence.

    You may think that quoting Thinking Fast and Slow won’t expose you to future ridicule; but that’s what tossers thought back in 1973, when they pulled out their copies of JLS to show they were deep thinkers and deeply read.

    Bazza and Luke, this old codger is doing you whippersnappers a favour. No more “as Kahneman puts it” or “Kahneman said it so well”. For your own sakes, I’m begging!

  2478. bazza says

    Debbie, I wrote if you were serious you would lobby.
    Mack of the “maybe they now don’t factor AGW into their figures”. Maybe you just make stuff up. Tell me when BOM stopped or started then. ?
    Maybe you are wrong about AGW. ? Maybe this, maybe that.

  2479. kuhnkat says

    Debbie,

    If Little Lukey asked for a suspension of insults himself, he might be obligated to actually return the favour IF we went along with it. I am old and decrepit and the memory is going, BUT, I am clear that Little Lukey was quite rude and insulting to me and many others before I started returning the favour!! That is his typical modus and he continues to insult and bad mouth people he does not know in reaction to Climate Comments that he cannot easily answer. When he chooses to stop I will. Until then it will simply depend on how I’m feeling that day!!

  2480. Luke says

    KuknKat pls don’t stop on my account. I get off on it. And you encourage me. (BTW you do answer climate science questions?? – all I see of you elsewhere is sledging). I can help you with sledging if you like – you could be much better with some training. Mate Aussies insult each other as a way of life – check out our politicians. If you offer a better class of comment you may get a better class of answer.

    The one thing I don’t do is wish anyone physical harm or personal loss of income. Even if they deserve a good snotting. (Well perhaps not 100% perfect in extremis – see Japanese whaling).

    Robert – we’re quoting a formal analytical study on decision making. Not a self help book or a novel.

  2481. Luke says

    I’ll add this – Bazza is correct in what happens to people online – as a style one gets feistier as time goes on. Now there could be a number of reasons for this. One might be how you’re treated. Learned behaviour. To which Debbie would say “no excuse”. And Gavin is wonderful in this regard.

  2483. Robert says

    “Robert – we’re quoting a formal analytical study on decision making. Not a self help book or a novel.”

    Luke, every pretentious tosser is quoting Kahneman to poo-poo the other guy. He’s mainstream mainstream! He’s Celebrity Big Brother Survivor for TED rejects.

    For your own sake, bail out now!

  2484. Mack says

    “Maybe you are wrong about AGW. ? Maybe this, maybe that” says Bazza,
    Maybe you should read this from the Yale Forum on Climate Change and the Media…..
    Mack says:
    September 13, 2012 at 5:55 am
    Svante Arrhenius, Tyndall, and others took what might happen inside a glass tube and simply extrapolated that directly to the earths atmosphere. Sort of colouring book level science but not whats happening in the real world.
    Here’s a small thing to think about..why did Arrhenius call it “carbonic acid” (weakly acidulated water?) Is that just an archaic term? Maybe he realised the extreme difficulty of producing, transporting (through glass tubes) and storing of CO2 without it coming in contact with or displacing air and its attendant water vapour. Any plumber will tell you that water and air gets into everything. Don’t forget the equation of acid and marble chips gives CO2 + water. So when Tyndall looks inside his glass tubes what is he “seeing” in reality? Is it what the teacher ,drawing little circles of carbon and oxygen on the blackboard, says it is ie carbon dioxide? Or is it “carbonic acid” “carbonic acid gas”?
    Speaking of teachers not living in the real world, some have drawn little pictures of the sun and earth on the blackboard and geometrically figured out that the TOA gets an average of 340w/sq.m instead of the reality of the measured 1360 odd w/sq.m.
    My perspective on the AGW issue is here..(warning, there’s a lot of reading, but it’s not my fault )
    http://adoptanegotiator.org/2011/11/18/a-skeptics-approach-to-climate-activism/
    I’m in the comments to the young Sth African who seems to have an open mind about the whole thing.

    Reply
    Brian Dodge says:
    September 14, 2012 at 2:52 am
    Solar irradiance is about 1366w/m^2, on a square meter perpendicular to the solar radiation at the radius of earth’s orbit. The earth intercepts sunlight over a circle whose area is 1.275e14m^2, or about 1.74e17 watts. The spherical surface area of the earth is ~5.1e14m^2; dividing 1.74e17 watts by 5.1e14m^2 gives about 341watts/m^2, the average insolation accounting for diurnal and latitudinal projected angular changes of the surface of the earth with respect to the incoming solar radiation. That’s the reality in which teachers and everyone else lives.

    Mack says:
    September 14, 2012 at 8:52 am
    Wrong Brian Dodge 1366w/sq.m is the “solar constant” or the average yearly solar irradiation at the TOA. It has been measured since 1902 (at the Smithsonian Institute) and sattelite readings now keep it up to date and accurate. Your tutors have been telling you that this figure of about 340w/sq.m.which you, Trenberth, NASA,(ie Jimmy Hansen) et al have geometrically arrived at attenuates down to about 161w/sq.m. at the earths surface. You are just going to have to read Nasif Nahle to be convinced of this but the real irradiance at the surface of this earth is about near enough to that 340w/sq.m. figure you people arrived at for the TOA. This is the real world where a sq.m metal plate (inches thick ) in equatorial regions gets hot enough to fry eggs on.(think of the equivalent electrical wattage) and you are telling me that some of this is due to “backradiation” from the atmosphere. It’s the sun stupid.

    Mack says:
    September 14, 2012 at 11:06 pm
    Scrub the last word out of that posting Brian.

  2485. Mack says

    Q1, Android phone, computer, Kahneman, dates , parrot….we’re beginning to build a picture Luke.

  2486. Robert says

    Gawd. SD, how are your wallabies? Mine are all swampies and ravenous with the drought. I’ve just found dozens of fat new shoots ravaged.

    Observation: since the wild dogs have been busy, I’ve noticed fewer roos and grey wallabies. It’s the smaller, more evasive swampies that are in large numbers, the very ones that eat bamboo. Maybe it’s not the dogs, but I’d rather a balanced population of macropods.

    Some good news from the grove: electric blue wrens are picking on the fringes. I can’t tell which species, maybe they’re just common Blues seen in good light, but wow. Too blue!

  2487. Luke says

    Mack – Good grief. Nasif Nahle eh …. Tell us when he’s published. hahahahahaha

    You’re clueless Mack – you don’t even know how GCMs do energy balance. All your little illustrations above are wrong …

  2488. Debbie says

    So Bazza?
    Now you’re implying that it’s my fault (and others like me) that the BoM don’t do enough research on seasonal forecasts because we didn’t lobby enough?
    Whom would we be competeing with as we lobby?
    There has been a quite significant increase in R&D funding….but not into that area hey Bazza?
    That sort of answers Luke’s earlier question too:
    And what % of their site is climate change Mack (speaking of Kahneman)
    I think the better question though is : what % of the FUNDING is connected to climate change?

    Luke,
    Driest, wettest etc is probably an easier and perhaps more meaningful way to express it but that’s not the actual issue….it’s confidence levels… full stop.
    I have no problem with more work being done on seasonal forecasting so those confidence levels can be increased….but at the moment….in my world….relying on ‘trends’ that are informed with models that have ‘forcings’ in them have done an almighty job of messing with water management.
    Because of the 1:100 year event in 2006/07…..and the mantra about having to keep the lower ‘end of system flows’ up in Summer/Autumn to combat ‘climate change’….there is no confidence level in our planting windows.
    So even this year with a sodden catchment and rivers all flowing healthily and sweetly and a record 3 year concurrent run of wet Autumns….no shortages anywhere at all….we are still on 64% allocation because these models are still predicting that it ‘might’ be dry next Autumn.
    We will likely have 100% by Dec 1st (if last 2 years are anything to go by) but of course that’s way past our decision making time. All we can do with our water allocation after that is sell it to someone else if there happens to be a buyer or watch it technically spill after June 2013. (apart from a 30% carryover ability…which has some fairly interesting rules & regs attached to it as well)
    Our other option is to take a huge risk that everything will be OK….which probably works in years like this one….but will be an absolute nightmare even in an ‘average’ year (whatever that actually is).
    Just to be clear….these allocation decisions are being informed by BoM weather/climate modelling.
    Will stop…don’t want to get accused of writing another essay.

  2489. bazza says

    Mack, I had a look at that link. One comment says “Mack is a denier troll and an idiot, well known on climate blogs. It’s likely that he will never make the trip to the truth that Alex did, as he lacks the prerequisites.” Are you some kind of nutter.? You wont be alone here. tell me which bit of the BOM site you would like to get rid of. Almost all the climate change stuff is analysis of observations.

  2492. bazza says

    Cohenite stated about BOM forecasts in general “BOM factors in a dominant AGW component;” We await evidence, not obfuscation on what is the AGW trend etc.

    Still waiting for your evidence. Maybe Mack can help you. Kiwis denialists on AGW must have a good idea eventually.

  2493. Luke says

    Bazza how about we don’t do that and spend a few days on why Cohenite doesn’t know shit about what he’s spruiking.

  2495. Mack says

    “Almost all the climate change stuff is analysis of observations” says Bazza, yeah you said it Baz, but just reword it backwards..all the analysis of observations is climate change stuff.

    ” All your little illustrations(above) are wrong”
    Not 1/2 as wrong as this little illustration here Luke, with the incoming solar radiation of 342w/sq.m . when it should be about 1360w/sq.m.

    http://www.ipcc.ch/graphics/ar4-wg1/jpg/faq-1-1-fig-1.jpg

  2496. Debbie says

    OH?
    It was a question?
    My apologies.
    The answer is YES Bazza….and still doing so Bazza.
    You also said you lobbied….how did that go for you Bazza?
    Can I guess you got the same bland/unconcerned answers that I got…along with the many others who have tried?
    You do understand don’t you that it is not just farmers who have to deal with and take risks with weather/climate all the time don’t you?
    I guess we’re the obvious ones but think mining and construction and transport and logistics and many many others.
    All of those businesses/producers would like to see more research into seasonal weather forecasting.
    Now that I’ve answered your question Bazza…. and I apologise I actually missed it…can you please answer mine?
    Whom/what would we be competing with for this funding when we lobby?
    Also a supplementary one
    Whom/what should we be lobbying?….coz it doesn’t seem to be working well with State and federal Govt.

  2497. bazza says

    Deb, just keep hammering away like you do here, dont let go. Think blue heeler. Target your industry groups, farmer lobbies, local memeber, Barnaby, Tony Windsor etc etc. Push the idea that managing climate variability might just be the best way you can adapt to climate change ( you dont have to say whether you think it is natural or AGW). But dont let on you are a denialist – they will think you are some kind of nutter!

  2500. Luke says

    Hot dang there Mack – mate I think you might be onto something there. I’d rush and publish that sucker before someone steals your idea. Who would have thought that the entire radiation balance is wrong and the whole AGW science is stuffed. Mack you are a frigging genius mate. Brilliant stuff !

  2501. Johnathan Wilkes says

    Hate agree with you Luke but when I read it on that blog, I couldn’t believe my eyes either.

    They give sceptics a bad name.
    I wish it were true, solar power would be just about viable

  2504. Mack says

    So the diagram is “purely symbolic” Yeah, and I sure do wish it was Lukeladdy. Trouble is though, all the IPCC AGW crap hangs on it. Trenberth,the IPCC, everybody. This is your “backradiation” “recycling” diagram. Don’t tell me Trenberth is a nobody in your AGW camp. He’s one of the lead IPCC authors. He’s coming to Aus. I think I do hear. Get yourself down to the Raptis for a latte Luke you sound like you’re on too many uppers again.

  2506. Luke says

    So how this affect the price of eggs Mackie boy? If so you can explain….. It doesn’t…. tell us how a radiation model is implemented in a GCM and whether it uses that diagram. Mack have you realised that you are a total numb nuts. Mate give science away. Bazza hasn’t seen this bit of idiocracy yet. I recommend origami. I have a wonderful teacher.

  2507. Mack says

    “affect the price of eggs” Sure, it could be up with the carbon tax? “Mate give science away” Nah Luke, I’ll keep science and you keep your “science” .You know…”Science of Doom”
    Are you going to lend Debbie the boat. You might warn her it’s a floating gin palace.

  2508. Debbie says

    Luke,
    seriously?
    You were actually one of the people who taught us that ‘scientists like to argue’
    I like Walter Starck’s take better though.
    ‘Academic pissing contest’.
    No one is trashing Science per se Luke.
    Actually, if I had to judge, I would have to say that you have sledged more scientists than anyone else here.
    What is it that you’re actually defending Luke?
    I think Bazza needs to come clean too and offer his definition of ‘denialist’.
    He is overly fond of using the word.
    Sometimes he can get an extra ordinary number of ‘denialist’ into one post.

  2509. Luke says

    Meaning you don’t know.

    Mack just between you and me. The radiation code science might be a tad more sophisticated than that diagram. Wouldn’t want to you to make a complete idiot of yourself. Now off you trundle and have a widdle read how GCMs really work and see how of a willy wanker you are. Off you go now – quietly does it ….

  2511. sp says

    when are YOU going to publish Luke? hahahahahaha

    Should be easy for you – you know everything about everything and are never wrong.

    Your published work should be well received as it would likely be based on extracts from Skeptikal Scince and Wiki – very sciencey and accessible to the great unwashed mass of true AGW believers.

    When will you tell us how you earn a living – cmon, just a hint, dont want anything that reveals your trues identity (a know it all moron with very bad manners and a sptittle flecked mouth) – is it gubmint? private industry? Do you have a job at all?

  2513. Mack says

    Yep, I’m quietly off now Lukebaby to leave you to play with your make-believe Hi Tran computer models and “radiation code science”. Don’t forget to put away the toys before mum comes back.

  2515. Luke says

    sp – in terms of insults you’re not very good – do you think I’m actually offended. All your answers have been provided above. Redundant, no current external employer, living nicely on poor old Dadsey’s inherited wealth at altitude with attitude in Q1, Post Code 4217

    Mack – so you well know you’re talking rot before don’t you. So don’t try it on matey. We know you’re not that stupid. Funny those toy codes are good enough to make heat seeking missiles work eh?

    Cohers – well none. Good to see some attempt at structured coding though. I assume the sceptics are pouring over it looking for the killer error. Jo’s probably writing the blog post now. Why don’t you guys go to work and do your own analysis? Seriously an alternative analysis would be much better than tedious checking.

  2517. Robert says

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-10-12/henbury-station-carbon-farm-project-restructure/4310344

    Connoisseurs of spin should read the above. My guess is that Emirates have told Qantas that the aviation world is not wide enough for wankers. However that may be, the wriggle-words are deliciously laid on. We have: “completely restructure”, “leadership needed refreshing”, “We hope to be able to roll out a model that incorporates beef production” etc.

    However, this is not spin: “The value of those carbon credits … are next to nothing,” he said.

    Qantas is not even mentioned in the ABC article, and nobody is saying what happens to the $9 million paid in by the government for the Henbury deal. As for the PM, the publicity moment has passed, so I dare say [insert third person feminine nominative singular pronoun to avoid sexism] has “moved on” from this green initiative, as from so many others.

    Can you hear the laughter echoing from old R. M.’s tomb?

  2519. cohenite says

    “where’s the subroutine codes?”

    Nowhere; it’s a set of utilities only. The main algorithms for recognizing breaks and adjusting do not seem to be there.

  2520. debbie says

    Luke?
    Debs – He’s just balancing Neville’s daily use of fraud.

    I completely & fundamemtally disagree.
    Neville is quite definitely clear why he uses ‘fraud’ and clearly explains it with what he calls ‘kindy maths’.
    It’s a very strong word I agree….but he uses it in a very tight context.
    You may or may not like his use of the word fraud….but no question about his definition.
    On the other hand , Bazza throws the word ‘denialist’ around as often as he can in as many different ‘contexts’ as he can, yet there is no clear definition or example of what he means by ‘denialist’.
    No clear definition about what it is that he is specifically accusing people of ‘denying’.
    You use it quite often with no defintion as well…but not as often as Bazza.
    In the last few posts, Bazza has sort of linked it to ‘nutter’? If that’s what he means then he needs to put that in context with the issues discussed here as well.

    So I would suggest to you and Bazza, if you want to keep using that word….please define it in context with the discussions at this blog….as Neville has clearly done with his use of ‘fraud’.
    If you can’t define it then I see it as a hollow and deliberately offensive insult with very poor connotative comparisons.

  2521. Robert says

    Do we even need to worry about the intricacies of something that is not real? By getting drawn into the discussion of the “science” we give CAGW an imaginary life.

    Also, since nobody – absolutely nobody – is the slightest bit concerned with real GHG emissions in real time, why take seriously any calculations of “carbon” that are clearly concerned only with shifting money and skimming it as it shifts? The Henbury scam is tiny compared to what is going on across the world’s financial institutions, who have at last found a way to deal in a commodity that is less than thin air. As the more naive among our Green Betters love to assure us: Business is on board, and moving forward with the New Carbon Economy!

    Before one worries about the quality, speed etc of one’s thinking, maybe one should make a little room in the brain for some pedestrian commonsense. Baby steps.

  2522. Neville says

    Thanks for your comments Debbie, but how does anyone penetrate the hopeless assessments of these people.

    I have never denied AGW and believe that there could be a 1C temp increase for a doubling of co2. But I do doubt CAGW.
    I know that the mitigation of AGW is indeed a fraud. Just look at human emissions of co2 from 1990 to 2010.
    In 1990 21.6 bn tonnes and in 2010 31.8 bn tonnes. Most of the increased emissions have come from China, India and the non OECD and probably equal 1990 levels ( total co2 emissions) this year.
    What could be more of a con than these simple numbers?

  2523. debbie says

    Outstanding Robert!

    Before one worries about the quality, speed etc of one’s thinking, maybe one should make a little room in the brain for some pedestrian commonsense. Baby steps.

    That is soooooo well put!

    “higher order” thinking is not actually ‘higher order’ thinking if it systematically trashes the thinking and foundations of what allowed one the capability to think along those lines in the first place.

    That’s actually called ‘self destructive’ thinking or also ‘self implosion’ and one branch of that is known as ‘misanthropy’.

    In the context of the majority of this discussion I also think Binny nailed it sometime back:
    I apologise to Binny if I haven’t remembered it completely correctly, but it will be very close.

    “it could only be people who drive to work in their climate controlled cars from their climate controlled homes to their climate controlled offices who would be alarmed by the concept of climate change”

    If Luke’s telling the truth….here’s his place of abode:
    http://www.postcodes-australia.com/postcodes/4217

    Apart from a few token efforts….very little ‘natural environment’ happening there.

  2524. kuhnkat says

    Little Lukey drawls,

    “Mack just between you and me. The radiation code science might be a tad more sophisticated than that diagram.”

    Yup, Little Lukey the GeeeeCeeeMmmms as you call them do have more comlex algoreythms. Unfortunately they do NOT represent what is actually happening in the atmosphere and oceans. They are simply too coarse gridded to represent numerous features of the atmosphere especially. Then there are the “minor” issues with the FACT that the algoreythms are only REPRESENTATIVE of the actual physics. You DO understand that the algoreythms are a “best we can do right now” guesstimate?? Sadly, the error bars that this slop SHOULD cause to be placed on the output compared to the actual earth system are so large it is laughable. Without the aerosols to “tune” the runs the outputs wouldn’t even be laughable.

    Without the Politicians hanging onto this garbage and funding it for their agenda, Gavin Schmidt and most of the rest would be lucky to have a job with FB or Google doing interfaces!!!

  2525. kuhnkat says

    Debbie,

    “If Luke’s telling the truth….here’s his place of abode:
    http://www.postcodes-australia.com/postcodes/4217”

    Probably doesn’t surf. The way the Alarmist Mind works he would be afraid the rising tide showed a trend that would have to become a tsunami and he wouldn’t stick around to find out!!

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAA

  2527. bazza says

    Great day on the bay Luke. I was waiting for that guy to provision and Otis kept singing ”Now, I’m just gonna sit at the dock of the bay, Watching the tide roll away, Oooo-wee, sittin’ on the dock of the bay,Wastin’ time”.
    I found your old wooden school ruler and I took a sea level reading while I waited – will double Spangled’s sample – there is no denying that.
    Wonder if BOM can sue if people sprout stuff that defames. If we knew a half good lawyer we could check. Just waiting for the sun to get over the yard arm – where is it? I will soon be out of range – why haven’t you got a sat phone?

  2528. bazza says

    Great day on the bay Luke. I was waiting for that guy to provision and I thought I could hear Otis singing ”Now, I’m just gonna sit at the dock of the bay, Watching the tide roll away, Oooo-wee, sittin’ on the dock of the bay,Wastin’ time”.
    I found your old wooden school ruler and I took a sea level reading while I waited – will double Spangled’s sample. Wonder if BOM can sue if people sprout stuff that defames. If we knew a half good lawyer we could check. Just waiting for the sun to get over the yard arm – where is it? I will soon be out of range – why haven’t you got a sat phone?

  2529. debbie says

    Dear lord,
    Why did that one have to duplicate?
    I’m shattered that you gave him that boat Luke….he clearly lost the bet…..you even said so yourself….and he did the runner big time……
    Now let me see….I’m sure Cohenite can explain it better because it’s legislative, legal stuff…..but who can sue BoM?
    And if they can’t….why not?
    So why on earth would BoM want the ability to sue?

  2531. cohenite says

    BOM can’t sue for Defamation; who can sue BOM; the recent NZ case is described here:

    http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=14122

    A similar case could be brought in Australia, IF BOM was found not to have followed its own adjustment criteria for temperature data, or IF that adjustment procedure was shown to create a bias, or IF court accepted non-BOM experts could not replicate BOM’s adjustment results.

  2533. Neville says

    The newspaper Mail Online link at the WUWT link above makes interesting reading.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released–chart-prove-it.html#ixzz29E78OR9H

    Phil Jones once said that he would be worried about a 15 year flat trend in temp but now has changed his mind and thinks the trend should be longer.
    Meanwhile Judith Curry thinks the climate models are seriously flawed.

    But at least Jones now considers that he is less sure about future ocean temps and seems to be longing for another big el nino to help their case.

    But clouds must be another variable that are poorly understood by climate scientists and aren’t mentioned in the article or the link.

    We should abandon the fraud of AGW mitigation today and spend scarce funds on adaptation R&D and new technology to meet any future serious changes to our climate.

  2535. spangled drongo says

    How many litres per hour bazza? Or did you sail? Maybe solar electric?

    And being the scientist you are I know you would have accurately marked off that SL on the side of the boat for future ref.

    Good analysis cohers, but the more cryptic and user-un-friendly the CSIRO and BoM can make their adjustments, the more inscrutable they become and the more they [as Dr Karl did on landline today] can accuse sceptics of ignorance.

    There needs to be an independent climate audit office set up to check it all and report back.

  2538. toby says

    thx for that link neville “So let’s be clear. Yes: global warming is real, and some of it at least has been caused by the CO2 emitted by fossil fuels. But the evidence is beginning to suggest that it may be happening much slower than the catastrophists have claimed – a conclusion with enormous policy implications.”This sentence seems to sum up most of our opinions….except of course for the resident doom mongers

    so which is it better to be? a “denialist” ( who almost certainly agrees with the above sentence based on real actual science) or a “catostrophist”, convinced the end of the world is nigh?

    who is doing more damage to science and living standards?…and indeed who are the real denialists?

  2539. Debbie says

    Cohenite,
    the link re BoM has very interesting disclaimers at the end.
    Are you saying that BoM can only be sued if their stated methodology is proven to not be followed?
    Or can they also be sued if their actual methodoly and attendant assumptions is proved faulty?
    Also
    Considering Bazza brought it up, why can’t BoM sue for defamation or other?
    It appears your link is relevant to their legislative obligations re the Water Act 2007?
    That makes me doubly interested.

  2540. cohenite says

    Under the Uniform Defamation Law, introduced in 2006, corporations with 10 or more employees cannot sue. However, individuals or groups of individuals employed by or associated with that corporation – such as company directors, CEOs or managers – can still sue if they are identified by the publication.

    The word ‘sue’ in this context is not correct; as the NZ case showed organisations like BOM can have a Judicial Review of their ‘product’, in this case, temperature record.

  2541. Robert says

    One tactic of climate alarmists is to constantly steer us to the latest published “findings” while insisting that research more than a few years old is out of date. They are hoping, I suppose, that we will miss the obvious conclusion that “science” which goes out of date so quickly must be based on speculation and inadequate data, and motivated by careerism. It’s a form of programmed obsolescence. I can only assume that the exciting (warmist) link I was supposed to hit today will be old fedora in five years…so why not get in early and ignore it right now?

    In fact, publish-or-perish is bringing on a new medievalism, with dogmatic purity and hierarchical status eclipsing inquiry and reason. Got to do something about that.

  2542. el gordo says

    ‘Yet in 2009, when the plateau was already becoming apparent and being discussed by scientists, Phil Jones told a colleague in one of the Climategate emails: ‘Bottom line: the “no upward trend” has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.’

    From the David Rose article.

    If Phil thinks 15 years is okay, I’m happy with that.

    Luke…show me your best prediction (sic) for 2027 and I’ll show you mine.

  2543. Johnathan Wilkes says

    Robert
    “so why not get in early and ignore it right now?”

    Love it, so true.

    I personally have no quarrel with scientist changing the goalposts when the fact change, after all that’s what true science should be about, if only they didn’t proclaim it so stridently that the “science” was settled.

    As to P Jones, poor bloke he is not a shyster, he actually believes what he says.
    A true conman would quote a so many years ahead in the future, that he couldn’t get caught out.

  2544. bazza says

    Deb wanted to know my idea of a denialist. The two fwits above would be a good start recycling stuff out of context denying the the true story to fabricate stuff that fits preconceived ideas. Sceptics they are not. Ignorant yes and probably proud of it.
    “Phil Jones’s comments last year have become a touchstone for climate “sceptics”
    2010 sets new temperature records
    Climate warming since 1995 is now statistically significant, according to Phil Jones, the UK scientist targeted in the “ClimateGate” affair” . from BBC 2011.

  2546. Debbie says

    Not good enough Bazza,
    that reads like you’re claiming that a ‘denialist’ is someone who questions datum points in the modelling.
    Why would that mean they are nutters or fwits or any of the other synonyms you put with ‘denialist’?
    Anyone with half a brain knows that shifting datum points (and in these stat models that is calendar points) will change the results.
    Anything can be ‘statstically significant’ Bazza.
    Even the choice of ‘red’ for underwear can be shown to be statistically significant if we choose to focus on that.
    You are using the word in many different posts and contexts.
    Please define the word in context of discussions here.
    Denialist has rather unpleasant connotations if it is just used indiscriminately.
    You need to explain what denialists are specifically denying or what they are in denial about. Otherwise it looks like you’re just trying to insult by name calling.
    What is it you are defending?

  2547. toby says

    most of us here know who the denialists actually are.

    i love the way they refer to “noise” all the time when that is exactly what they are relying on while the actual temperature ignores them. as does the sea level and the hot spot, and ocean temperature and cyclone activity and and and …….as nasty as the word is it does seem to fit squarely on their shoulders!

  2548. Johnathan Wilkes says

    Name-calling?
    That’s what bazzyboy ever does. Very well then, when in Rome, I guess, you puffed up, entrail reading, pseudo-scientific cretin.

    How am I doing you indoctrinated, faith-driven, drivel-spouting, alarmist clown?
    Can I join your gang now?

  2549. Debbie says

    JW,
    Not a bad effort at name calling!
    Of course anyone can do it. . . but that was pretty good.
    On reread of Bazza’s post it appears that he thinks there is a ‘true story’.
    Ever heard of the term ‘oxymoron’ Bazza?

  2551. Johnathan Wilkes says

    Well Debbie, I got really annoyed by him calling me “fwit”, I strongly resent that.

    My post wasn’t directed at him, was not abusive I even praised his hero Phil Jones as a man of conviction.
    I’ve never, if my memory serves me right, been abusive to either him or Luke, not in my nature.

    Not that I don’t know a few choice words, my stint in the army has widened my repertoire of vulgar expressions considerably, and I have been know to use them to good effect when the rare occasion called for it.

    Can’t see why on blog like this of all places swearing should be so common?
    The way I see from the posts of others, most here are very well read on the various subjects, where the info comes from is immaterial.
    I read both sides, because what they leave out tells more than what they include, this way one gets the whole story.

    Seems to me that Luke and bazza are somehow involved with the BOM or some other branch of the PS, judging by their strident defense of it. As if the BOM were the only pristine unpolluted fountain of wisdom and knowledge.

    I bet they made just as many mistakes and poor prediction as any other body.

  2552. debbie says

    ‘I bet they made just as many mistakes and poor predictions as any other body.’
    Indeed they did Jonathon.
    And indeed they do. 🙂
    They also possess an absolutely amazing talent for offering academic ‘excuses’.

  2554. Polyaulax says

    Anthony Watts musta forgot that July saw US high temp records outnumber lows by 7 to 1,Neville. Nor did he remember similar shapes in spring. Is that what selective analysis looks like? Open your other eye.

  2555. Polyaulax says

    …and Jo Nova has deliberately misrepresented sea level history and the papers she cites.,Nev. No discussion to reconcile the differing scenarios for different parts of the continent. The Sloss et al 2007 paper has one [1] data point to cover the last 1500 years.

    Sea level has not been ‘falling for the last 7000 years’ It ‘s been stable for 1500 years and rising for the last 150. And since global coastal infrastructure was not built during the Holocene high stand,Jo’s opinion matters even less.

  2556. Johnathan Wilkes says

    ” high temp records outnumber lows by 7 to 1″

    This is a genuine question, Poly.
    Is there a valid reason why the two numbers have to be close, let alone even?
    Are the causes for high temp the same as for low temp.?

    I ask because I don’t know, but have the feeling that it’s not necessarily so.

  2557. Debbie says

    So Polyaux,
    Considering October is USA Autumn and July is USA Summer and Spring is well…Spring….is there anything actually alarming in any of this stuff?
    Isn’t it the creeping up of the low temperatures where most of the AGW signal supposedly lies?
    It’s all very interesting BTW but does any of it mean we have to urgently step in and try and mitigate it?
    And we are all aware that selecting different data points will create different results….there truly is no need to point that out….but I guess there’s no reason why you can’t point it out again.
    I don’t believe Jo Nova was pretending otherwise.
    You do have an interesting comment about global coastal infrastructure BTW….but…. will mitigating CO2 emissions do anything to keep it safer?

  2559. Neville says

    Poly I’m sure the high and low records will chop and change as time goes by, but that’s exactly Watt’s point.
    It seems that dangerous SLR isn’t a problem either for at least 300 years according to all of your models.

    http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/364/1844/1709/F4.expansion.html

    BTW a number of the better studied glaciers advanced to near record distance during the LIA.
    It’s no surprise that these glaciers have retreated back to more normal size during the last 200+ years of slight warming. So any slight rise in SL would be expected.

    Whether you like it or not SLR hasn’t been doing much for at least 7,000 years. BTW tell us how you would mitigate AGW.
    I understand you believe that this is supposed to be the greatest moral challenge of our lives?

  2560. Robert says

    In 2012 North America experienced one of its worst known heatwaves. Also this year, Eastern Europe experienced one of its worst known coldwaves.

    America’s worst known heatwave, that of 1936, was preceded by a lethal winter. If you lived in the centre of the US and even southern Canada, you saw all that climate can do. It was worse than misogyny! After the killing cold, there was melt and major flooding where there wasn’t drought; then came the Big Heat and ta-ta to any soil microbes that survived 1934’s Dustbowl. Helping Keynesians to keep the Depression great, brutal cold returned. (There were even moves to rename the place “Melbourne”.)

    The 1970s were are remembered for the Global Cooling scare. Yet the Central England Temperature notes 1976 as the hottest summer for more than 350 years. When that drought and heat ended, England and Wales experienced a legendary Big Wet.

    Climate does not change. Climate IS change. Please let me know when you’ve got it figured out. On second thoughts, don’t.

  2561. Polyaulax says

    cohenite, the Lewis et al 2012 paper you cite makes this call–for Eastern Australia alone — in the abstract:

    “We demonstrate that the Holocene sea-level highstand of +1.0 -1.5m was reached ~7000 cal yr BP and fell to its present position after 2000 BP”

    BP by convention is 1950. The evidence to Lewis et al suggests,an undulating highstand until pre- Roman times ,then a roll-off. generally falling for 5000 years,falling to modern near stasis around the Roman era [look at their fish traps] That certainly does not amount to Jo’s Australian sea-levels falling for 7,000 years,does it? Oh, she’s from WA, that explains it.

    None of that contradicts my statement. “stable for 1500 years” then rising which is based a reading of some of the authors cited in the paper.

    We ALL love the LIA,and know that SL has been on the rise since its demise,eh? And we do see a small acceleration in the last 50 years data. The Port Arthur recon work sees a 17cm rise over 150 years from 1841.

  2563. Polyaulax says

    Neville, I see AGW as a practical challenge, and tangentially a moral one. How do we exert a bit more control over the acts of corporations, and their activities in the name of that sub-group, their shareholders? A sub group that makes decisions for everyone about how to tune the economic machine…they’ve got it burning a bit [for the] rich at the moment. Don’t want to run out of fuel before the trip is over. We have to have an economy for all, otherwise the poor will get too numerous and start to take things,and refuse to co-operate,like with Rome…and our kids won’t talk to us. The moral side is inter-generational and inter-economic equity,which cannot be dismissed lightly now that we truly profoundly consume very large amounts of global primary productivity and limited raw materials. Because of the current perceived and real lack of inter-economic equity,global co-operation between nations is limited. Suits some corporations but not their customers.

    If SL returns to a Holocene highstand equivalent levels in 100-200 years,it may do so at a faster rate than infrastructure would typically replaced through simple wear and material age. With AGW effects threatening infrastructure,I don’t want to see future corporations suing governments for failing to make the decisions that the previous incarnations of those corporations opposed. ‘We bought the infrastructure you privatised and now AGW, through SL rise, has compromised its value and our returns. The public must pay.’

    Ratios of highs to lows should balance out to a Gaussian if climate is stable,though it will take a lot of data through many natural oscillations and pseudo-periodic cycles to get comfortable. In the long term we are supposedly drifting very slowly on a cooling line at 1% of the current rate of warming. So we’d see ratios of more lows to fewer highs very gradually assert themselves from a baseline set a thousand or two years ago. Instead we have seen a quite dramatic move in the opposite direction recently,and natural lagging thermometers like glaciers are retreating just about everywhere you find [found] them. Retreating to close to Holocene Optimum glacial ‘lowstands’ so far.

  2564. Robert says

    Ah, sea levels! What on earth were they up to in the nineteenth century? Clearly, it wasn’t just Mr Darcy asking Miss Bennett for the next cotillion.

  2566. el gordo says

    ‘I see AGW as a practical challenge, and tangentially a moral one.’

    Nothing to do with the science or free market economics?

  2567. Polyaulax says

    Robert: “climate IS change” Yes,indeed. The question is how fast a change is manageable,particularly when you factor in a return of great weather events like those you noted? It is probably no coincidence that settled, high technology societies did not develop until the Holocene when climate change stopped happening fast and slowed to a sedate drift at a warm peak. The weather was wild enough without having to face a 1:100 year weather event riding on 50cm higher SL. If we get into another climate sprint [1m SL rise in a century],then a pre-Holocene tribal group would be fine,a lumbering modern society not so much unless we can iron some of the expectation,and sense of entitlement out of some of us,and devise a legal system that coped with such change.

    I’m not ‘unimpressed’ by Lewis et al,cohenite. It’s Jo’s handling that rankles. Bob Carter probably won’t help: he insists that you cannot plan for non-linear rise and must consider linear rise only. Just like that,with a wave of the hand. Has anybody seen any past record that can be extrapolated linearly for a century?

  2568. Neville says

    Poly I don’t know if I should laugh or cry. You really don’t believe that mish mash of silly nonsense, surely you don’t?

    So once again tell us how to fix the problem and please don’t forget the simple maths involved and the new source of soaring co2 emissions.

    Just a hint, the USA is heading back to 1990 levels of co2 emissions while in China, India etc emissions are soaring and they have at least 1.5 bn more people to drag out of severe poverty.
    There is only one way to start to fix your problem and that is through adaptation, more R&D and new technology. But it will take centuries of the application of this new technology to even begin to make the slightest change.

    But the very last thing we should try is the intro of a co2 tax because it can’t work and China , India etc will never agree to a similar tax that would make a scrap of difference to the climate or temp.
    But don’t forget where China, India etc purchase the coal, gas and iron ore to increase their emissions of co2. Starting to wake up are we?

  2570. Robert says

    Poly, I don’t have to factor in a return of great weather events. They have never gone away. Happily, we’re in a nice, sedate patch of the Holocene right now, except it’s never all that nice on this particular planet.

    If climate gets rougher, there is nothing you can do about it at the climate’s end. On the other hand, you can do enormous damage to humans and the natural world by clinging to rigid puritanical dogmas such as “sustainability”. Thank God nobody “sustained” mast timbers, koala skins and whale oil.

    You’ll have noted by now that this is a site visited heavily by climate skeptics, so I don’t think I need to elaborate on why I think you can’t manipulate or “stabilise” the climate. I think that disconcerting, messy thing called freedom will allow us cope then thrive in the midst of any change – but I’m sure you’re as interested in absorbing my political philosophy as I am in absorbing yours. I’m also in no doubt that you would interpret the word “freedom” very differently to how I would interpret it.

    Most of what you are saying consists of “if”, and the implication that “if” bad things happen we need to institute a globally centralised economy and polity, an even bigger version of Big Lever systems tried last century – to such stupendous and tragic cost. The “inter-generational and inter-economic equity” which sounds so good coming from an earnest Menshevik will be a plague in the hands of the whoever gets control of that political and economic “centre”. Rest assured, somebody will want control, and that somebody will make the Coca Cola company and Gazprom look positively benign.

    In the meantime, Poly, you may not like the Big Money, but the Big Money absolutely loves you.
    Wouldn’t surprise me if the directors of Goldman Sachs have your photo on their desks.

  2571. cohenite says

    “Bob Carter probably won’t help: he insists that you cannot plan for non-linear rise and must consider linear rise only.”

    No he doesn’t; quite the opposite in fact; and the point is that sea level rise and fall must be considered at a local level.

    “It’s Jo’s handling that rankles.

    What does that mean?

  2572. Polyaulax says

    Nev,looks good from Antarctica,though there are caveats as expressed in the conclusions. Will it cancel out Greenland,where warming is fast? If so it leaves committed thermic expansion and the rest of the world’s ice until Greenland goes critical later. However Gregory and Huybrechts has to be seen in the light of subsequent GRACEwork on mass balance showing current losses from Antarctica. Maybe some models need revisiting? With all this in mind, I don’t see any room for Bob Carter’s linear-only blandishments via Cohenite.

    What’s the new source of soaring CO2 emissions? Chindia? That’s not new, a lot of it’s a new location for US/European manufacturing to direct their emissions from. And I do believe that China has introduced a carbon permit system. They are not interested in exhausting their own coal and being heavily dependent on others as a long term picture. Their current coal use is extremely costly in terms of mine safety,public health and clogged infrastructure.

    The US has jumped into a new FF boom to reduce their dependency on bloody foreigners,but it won’t last long. The easy abundant times have gone.

    Robert ,there’s some baffling stuff there. What was sustainable about whale oil [resource collapsed, over exploited] and Koala skins [combination of local resource collapse and political outcry at the last culls from which the population in Queensland never recovered],again? Sustainability may be a dogma when co-opted by opportunism with the opposite intentions, but would you agree that a paddock has a stocking limit-or are farmers rigid puritans? Are we going to ‘sustain’ our way through every natural resource we can overexploit? Probably.

    I think we could have a chance of limiting GHG output therefore limiting anthropogenic warming,but am in complete agreement about ‘manipulation’ and ‘stabilising’ climate. Not words I would use there. If we don’t limit GHG output ourselves, limits will be imposed later anyway by extraction bottlenecks,resource exhaustion and AGW mediated weather damage slowing economies and ramping up resource wars currently fought ,just,by other means.

    ‘Freedom’…sigh. I just pointed out that a certain kind of freedom hinders the freedom of others when resource use decisions are made ‘for’ us by corporations that most of us don’t own. Those guys are playing pre-20th century socioeconomic ideologies…more like something from the middle ages or earlier. And they’ve been conveniently centralising and globalising [and socialising the losses] when needs dictate. Big Leverage indeed.

  2573. gavin says

    Rob; your expression of freedom would seem to avoid notions of mutual cooperation and compliance to some standards.

    A conversation I had today with a local poly adviser on the subject of waste collection v recycling foe each household became one of energy conservation v rainwater collection charges. How free are we?

    This eastern oz SL debate can be broken into sl vert v shore line horz given so many live on old sea bed and esturine wetlands. As I said a day or two back, its oysters on top of the pile v erosion of our habitat.

    From my wild pacific oyster colony obs SL is going up but from the science of margin shell fish colony migration over the previous seven or eight mill, we can see rates of change round 1M/200y for the rough bits. Inundation is on the cards regardless of trigger ID.

    The question is; how flexible are we in our current demands as climate shift sets the land ice on a slither?

  2574. Robert says

    Poly, people used potent technologies to replace things which were messy, hard and cruel. The history of Hudson’s Bay and Siberia, amazing but awful, makes one an admirer of Elizabeth Macarthur and the people who invented synthetic fibres. It is staggering what people used to do to keep their bodies warm. And they’d still do it. You stop exploitation by providing something better. I agree it’s a pity that people wait too long to implement that “something better”: witness the fact that coal and uranium (and thorium) rich Australia burns its coal in aging clunkers and has no nukes!

    Those who favour feeble, wasteful and fetishistic “solutions” are the puritans. A farmer deciding on stock-levels is… a farmer deciding on stock levels!

    You talk about “anthropogenic warming” as a given with somebody who clearly does not accept it is happening. Too coy! You talk of resource exhaustion as if it we were interested in doing things as they were done a century ago, and as if people in the future will want to do things as we do them now. Mind you, I’m not saying we should waste resources. It breaks my heart to think of the money shuffling and utter waste behind “alternative” energy. I grow “organic” bamboo, not because I believe in organics – in fact, I think it’s bunk – but because I don’t need the chemicals, and I think my bamboo can work out its own stimulus plan without masses of synthetic nitrogen at shooting time. On the other hand, I’m thinking of upping fertility with a better designed chemical application program. But why should I waste chemicals, which I value, and money, which I also value?

    Poly, picture a society depressed through one of capitalism’s frequent economic collapses, as in ’08. Imagine the self-seeking, complacency and bungling that goes into one of those collapses. Now, imagine that the depression and collapse are permanent, sanctified by law and public philosophy. Imagine it never bloody ends. That’s the political paradise intellectuals are constantly proposing. Each time, they think it will be different.

    I think corporate capitalism is over-rated. However, I think the corporate state is terrifying. You may not think that’s where you’re heading us. Earnest intellectuals seldom do.

  2575. gavin says

    Rob; there is a vast difference between “freedom” and “creativity”.

    MSM was awash yesterday with the record breaking high dive story. We all learned something about the extreme danger of living on the edge but gained a lot about individuals testing both old and new skills simultaneously.

    On Sunday we discussed again the fate of folk living in Christchurch with their radically changed asset market then ended up being reminded of the person who did that famous NZ bridge bungee jump FEET FIRST.

    Ignorance is not bliss.

    Btw sd; I have 9 tomatoes growing in big pots close to the house however she indoors wants another NZ trip in Feb so I could miss peak production from my pure home made compost. Chasing the sun but avoiding the heat is too much to expect from the grandkids.

    Ps I failed to get my digital thermometer from Aldi last week so it all depends wilt again.

  2576. Debbie says

    Polyaux,
    I will at least pay you for being a little more honest than our usual suspects here.
    However,
    What you have had to say is just downright creepy.
    It is on par with that woeful US link you put up earlier….just from the other similarly creepy and ugly extreme.
    I’m sorry….but for me it is now strike 3.
    You were on here some time back attempting to defend ‘the establishment’ when they mindlessly and stupidly dumped precious water on the back of a flooded system because of their ‘rules’ and ‘ideology’…..and absolutley nothing to do with ‘saving precious resources or attention to sustainablility’.
    That’s called clinging to an ideology and a set of ideological rules at the expense of reality (or in layman’s terms BLOODY STUPID!) Further annoying because as usual….and under your ideological view of the world….no one or no dept was held accountable for this mindless stupidity….and of course the vulnerable people had to pay.
    Strike one!
    You were here a few days ago trying to explain why we couldn’t rely on or understand climate/weather projections and then put up that woeful link as an expalanation why people didn’t ‘understand’….it was absolutely woeful and so far removed from reality that I had to laugh out loud at the sheer idiocy and delicious irony…..Bazza in his inimitable style just dug himself a deeper hole and made me laugh out loud again.
    Strike two!
    AND NOW?
    You have quite clearly explained that none of this was ever about the ‘science’ and was always about an age old political ideology with a new ‘vehicle’ to ride called ‘the climate/environment’.
    I can’t be bothered to point out to you on how many levels your supposed ‘higher level thinking’ is in fact a form of ‘self implosion’….but I will suggest that you do as you suggested to Neville and OPEN YOUR OTHER EYE!
    However….here is your policy statement clearly spelled out for you.
    http://greens.org.au/policies/human-rights-democracy/global-governance
    Notice in particular the ‘vehicle’ that this political agenda is using.
    And Polyaux….
    Your attempt to pretend we must drive a wedge between ‘shareholders’ and ‘customers’ is yet another form of self implosive thinking.
    Who on earth do you think the overwhelming majority of those shareholders are? MARTIANS?
    Robert puts it very well:
    In the meantime, Poly, you may not like the Big Money, but the Big Money absolutely loves you.
    Wouldn’t surprise me if the directors of Goldman Sachs have your photo on their desks.

    I know I am speaking to deaf ears…but Poly…if policy and legislation systematically hamstrings and shuts down small family businesses and innovative entrepreneurs….who do you think they would therefore be creating legislative advantage for?….. MARTIANS?????

    I apologise if I sound rude….but your philosophy is just downright creepy, completely removed from reality and systematically trashing the thinking that allowed you the freedom to examine different philosophies and approaches in the first place.

  2577. Polyaulax says

    You want to revisit the Murrumbidgee floods and your attempt to implicate Snowy Hydro and NOW,Debbie? Why? It doesn’t reflect well on your intentions or your analytical skills.

    I remember that you had a preconception of SH having a FU attitude to downstreamers which was contradicted when we examined the publicly available data. The data proved that SH’s action did not exacerbate flooding,and in fact the gauges told us that the Murrumbidgee floods peaked at various gauges without influence from the Tumut catchment from Blowering Dam and upstream: NOW minimised upper Tumut and transfer water,and the peaks were natural from uncontrolled catchment. Tumut water did not arrive synchronously with Murrumbidgee water at Gundagai anyway. Blowerings overtopping could be explained by unregulatable stream input.

    And that went double for the preceding floods,where none of the flooding in Tumut had a skerrick of SH zone water in it: it was all from the Goobarragandra and Gilmore Creek. The flooding in Tumut was higher in those earlier floods.

    The amounts of water transferred from Eucumbene during the Murray and Murrumbidgee floods were trivial. All the mountain storages gained and retained significant quantities of water during that period of high rainfall. Eucumbene is up 25% since those times BTW.

    Who’s ‘clinging to an ideology’ here? The data did not support your suspicions. Sorry.

  2578. Polyaulax says

    Re ‘no one was held accountable’ over your flood fantasy. Minister sought and received advice from SH and NOW in response to allegations like yours. That’s accountability,even if the answer was not the one you wanted. You can go to the data portal if you like and access the streamflows for those dates. Even without specific in confidence SH water transfer data for a few days we can reconstruct the period from public data.

    Re ‘strike two’,I explained why I think W Hughes doesn’t understand squat about prob forecasting. Advice: read the explanatory notes and spare your self the wailing and gnashing.

    The link was an aside,and certainly no explanation about why people in general don’t understand BOM probs. It was just a reminder that a significant element of US science-based policy-shaping is hostage to medievalists. Don’t know why you are so touchy about that link.

  2579. Debbie says

    Chuckle 🙂
    I rest my case Polyaux.
    It was never about whether those releases exacerbated the flooding….that was your incredibly irrelevant and stupid argument….it was about the wisdom/reasons/rules for releasing that water in those circumstances in the first place.
    Why on earth was SHL ‘FORCED’ to pay back water to the environment when it was abundantly clear that ‘the Environment’ did not need it?
    And I would suggest to you that ‘trivial’ is a highly, highly subjective term.
    It implies that it didn’t matter that precious community water storages for future use were just simply trashed because the rules said it had to be done that way.
    You clearly do not have any understanding about who ended up paying for that ‘trivial’ amount of water Polyaux…or how they were made to pay for it…..and you are obviously completely willing to just write it off as ‘trivial’.
    Your accusations about my ‘suspicions’ are deliciously ironic to say the least.
    It is yet another case of someone attempting to argue against something that wasn’t said in the first place.
    It’s not possible to do that Polyaux…..and I am not even slightly interested in playing.
    And yes Eucumbene is up by 25% now….but that argument is totally irrelevant Polyaux…totally.
    Lucky that this mindless stupidity was at least halted on the Murrumbidgee side hey Polyaux?
    You might also consider why there were quite a number of rule changes after this incident?
    So the data does actually support my ‘position’ Polyaux….but it certainly doesn’t support your accusation re ‘my suspicions’…..because they were not ‘my suspicions’ in the first place.

  2580. cohenite says

    Poly, you keep saying this:

    “Bob Carter’s linear-only blandishments via Cohenite”

    This not true; the Carter paper deals with the comparison between local and global sea level factors:

    “In particular, it is vital to recognize the distinction between changes in eustatic sea-level, which correspond to changes in a notional world-wide average, and changes in local relative sea-level (LRSL),”

    How is that linear?

  2581. cohenite says

    Poly, you keep saying this:

    “Bob Carter’s linear-only blandishments via Cohenite”

    This not true; the Carter paper deals with the comparison between local and global sea level factors:

    “In particular, it is vital to recognize the distinction between changes in eustatic sea-level, which correspond to changes in a notional world-wide average, and changes in local relative sea-level (LRSL),”

    How is that linear?

  2582. Debbie says

    Polyaux,
    more mindless, double speak, bureaucratic, mumbo jumbo that is completely ignoring reality?
    Please stop! PLEASE!
    The Inquiry found that everybody followed the rules……which was completely correct…but so silly…..and didn’t do anything about accountability. ……and it also found correctly that SHL and NOW etc could not have done much to mitigate the dramatic flooding…..which is completely correct but equally silly…because it was never about whether SHL and NOW etc exacerbated the flooding….that is just conflating typical MSM sensationalism and politics with what was REALLY happening.
    The inquiry completely dodged anything at all to do with accountability for 2 key OBVIOUS reasons:

    1) It was the RULES/REGS (repeat the RULES/REGS) that was the problem in the first place….the authorities were repeatedly warned many months before that the rules/regs were not adequately recognising what was rapidly developing in REALITY. It was NO SECRET that there was a gaping unrealistic hole in the rules/regs….NO SECRET….they were warned and pleaded with repeatedly.
    So the inquiry finding that no one was accountable because they all followed the rules was a classic example of dodging the ACTUAL issue.

    2) Those stupid rules have now been changed….so OBVIOUSLY….there was a problem with the rules/regs….NOT whether people diligently follwed them!!!!

    So please don’t tell me it was about whether those releases exacerbated the flooding or not….that’s rubbish….that was just the politics and the MSM sensationalism.

    But….seriously Polyaux…..as an aside…..tipping extra water onto the back of dramatic floods?
    While you can prove with the data that any extra damage from doing this is neglible or ‘trivial’ as you state….it is also true that it did not achieve any beneficial outcomes either…. is it not?
    So to do it….was profligate…..and stupid….and that’s the REALITY.

  2583. Polyaulax says

    You’d better go back and airbrush those threads then,Deb. In that flood event,the trivial amount of water was a few tens of gigalitres [so not subjective,but QUANTIFIABLE] more valuable meeting peak power demand,while several thousand went through Wagga Wagga during the event, from unregulated stream origin and a spilling Burrinjuck. NOW was able to catch some of that trivial stuff in the remaining capacity at Blowering,minimising SH contribution. The story was a beat-up to which you subscribed. I read a bit where you admit it might be a bit counter-productive to argue over the amount SHL contributed to the flood level,then in your very next sentence start banging on about the ‘incredible waste’….please reconcile these divergent positions with a number.

    Meanwhile, here’s a number for you: The flood filled the Hume,a lot of Dartmouth,Blowering, Burrinjuck,all of Canberra’s domestic supply,raised Jindabyne to near full,increased significantly Tantangara and Eucumbene. That’s probably around 7,000 gigalitres.

  2584. Debbie says

    yes Polyaux,
    The FLOOD filled the storages. Like DUH!!!!
    What on earth does that have to do with ANYTHING that is being discussed?
    And Polyaux….instead of ‘claiming’ those two sentences are divergent and need a number….can you please pull your head out of your computer and accept the REALITY of what happened and why it happened for a change?
    The payback figure was essentially an entire year’s worth of RAR from SHL…..that SHL was FORCED to release when it would have been far more sensible to leave it whaere it was until the water was ACTUALLY needed.
    AND POLYAUX….the rules have now been somewhat changed to make sure that STUPIDITY does not occur again.
    But keep blustering and blathering about your ‘trivial’ numbers if it makes you feel righteous.
    It isn’t doing anything at all for me.

  2585. el gordo says

    ‘It isn’t doing anything at all for me.’

    Poly is good for counterpoint and gives Luke a break… welcome old son.

  2586. Polyaulax says

    You raised this issue with these words,Deb:

    “You were on here some time back attempting to defend ‘the establishment’ when they mindlessly and stupidly dumped precious water on the back of a flooded system…”

    I disagreed with that framing, mentioned some of your historical positions ,so you move the goalposts and attempt to rewrite your history. Now it’s all about the greater failing of the then operating license conditions,which indeed have been one of your concerns. One of them.

    The DUH! filling of the storages, part of which is enhanced by the SMHS infrastructure, during the flood rather puts into perspective claims of waste by SH during the flood. Yes/No?.

    You screamed about the ‘waste’,Deb,during the flood. The numbers don’t support you. You screamed about dumping water on the back of a flood. No such thing happened. You forget that SHL,in routinely directing water from Tantangara into Eucumbene during the flood actually reduced the Murrumbidgee flood all the way down from Adaminaby. You also can’t figure that power generation is a beneficial outcome of water release,it seems. You expected SHL to forgo peak following generation in anticipation of an exceptional flood event? You reject broader catchment value of the RAR once its past your pumps.

    Apparently for you paying back water under the RAR was dumping water into a flooded system? When was the ‘system flooded’/running high in that water year? Not until September. So the RAR ,SHL sending 100 or so Gigs/month down to Blowering for storage by NOW, was not some ‘stupid’ ‘dumping’ for a good part of the water year until spring floods. Blowering was only 35% full at the start of the SHL water years [May 1]. The vaguely questionable bit of RARing [with 20/20 hindsight] was a couple of months until they pulled back in the December flood. Say 250GL…and what would the average pre-storage natural flow of the Tumut be for those few months? And SHL had started negotiating a change to the conditions of operations in recognition of the limitations exposed by the rapidly changing water stocks.

    And apparently,I’m the one blustering righteously….

  2589. Debbie says

    Polyaux,
    I have only just returned from other far important tasks and I am laughing my head off.
    Let me say it simply for you.
    This particular example is actually a very good example why your stated philosophy above is a problem.
    I absolutely agree that nobody in the establishment did anything ‘wrong’. They followed the rules to the letter.
    Under their ‘terms of reference’ the inquiry’s findings were completely above board.
    My problem with your ‘position’ is that nobody …but nobody in the ‘establishment’…..in the face of continued warning and continued pleading ….while definitely not doing anything wrong….didn’t do what was ‘right’ or ’eminently sensible’ either.
    The problem was nobody ‘did’ anything either right or wrong until it was made public….and the issue had become even more urgent….which of course then required unnecessary sensationalism and plenty of counterproductive political arguing.
    You see Polyaux….I have learned that Walter Starck is absolutely correct about these type of issues.
    It is not possible to disprove a negative.
    There is no point in trying to argue about something that wasn’t claimed in the first place.
    Back then….I was very naive and often fell into that stupid trap many times….but I have absolutely no interest in playing that pointless and time wasting game again…NONE!
    We never said that anyone did anything wrong as far as the rules/regs were concerned….what we said was that following rules that saw us dumping water in the name of ‘the environment’ when ‘the environment’ clearly did not need it…was STUPID!
    IT DIDN’T HELP THE ENVIRONMENT SO THEREFORE IT HAD NO POSITIVE OUTCOME OR RESULT ACCORDING TO ITS OWN STATED LOFTY GOALS!
    IT WAS DONE ON TOP OF 2 MINOR FLOODS AND THEN A MAJOR FLOOD!
    THE DOWNSTREAM STORAGES WERE ALREADY FULL!
    THE ONLY STORAGE SYSTEM THAT HAD ANY STORAGE ROOM LEFT WAS EUCUMBENE!
    And Polyaux, I have all the figures and all the beautifully produced PP presentations and I have read all the flowery and ‘concerned’ academic/numerical arguments and I attended nearly all of the meetings when we were all trying to do something about this….a VERY LONG time before it became public.
    (There you go Bazza….I really do work at lobbying)
    One of the VIPs at SHL even said that if he had refused to release this water….even though it was patently obvious it was not ‘needed’ anywhere at all….including by SHL to generate power….he could have been prosecuted and jailed.
    (But no fear…they still did at least generate power with it and used the spot derivative market and thankfully at least THEY at least created a positive outcome)
    So it wasn’t as if people didn’t know there was a problem….the problem was that nobody had the cohunes to do anything about it…until it became a sensational ‘flood related’ story in the MSM.
    You go ahead and continue to try and present those wasted STORAGE GLs….which incidentally were far greater that 250GL….as ‘trivial’ in the big picture of the flooding events….you go ahead and present the different data points and the different timeframes to make it look as ‘trivial’ as possible….but unless you genuinely don’t understand (but I suspect you do)….. ‘trivial’ is not the way that the people who paid dearly for this saw it….they were still paying for the ‘accounting’ of this water right up until the end of last watering season….especially on the ‘Murray’ side of the system….which incidentally is not my side of the system….a teensy little bit of common sense finally prevailed on the ‘Bidgee side
    When you’re ready to actually discuss the REALITY and what ACTUALLY HAPPENED before and after this issue was made public…. rather than your unrealistic ‘trivial’ figures….and making me try to disprove something totally irrelevant….I’m very happy to oblige.
    Otherwise Polyaux, I’m far more interested in you answering Cohenite’s question re the linear approach….which is where this thread was supposedly going until I inadvertently diverted it.
    My apologies to everyone else BTW.

  2590. Polyaulax says

    I’m ready to discuss what actually happened anytime ,Debbie. You need to put your figures on the table,and your justification for regarding water as ‘wasted’. Tell me which part of the RAR was wasted and which was not,whatever the split. You need to reconcile your figures with the Tumut’s flow pre-Snowy scheme,which is one of the bases for calculating the RAR for the Murrumbidgee valley.

    Give me some idea of how much water could have been retained in Eucumbene,and its sources: from Tantangara,the Tooma and from Island Bend, during the ‘wastage’ period as you see it.

    Some thoughts on the Bob Carter piece: it’s out of date and it’s heavy on rhetorical claims. Oceans are not cooling. His view of sea level rise is at complete odds with all the detailed reconstruction work Cohenite has cited,as exemplified by this potted history of SLR:

    “Based on geological studies,it appears that slow sea-level rise has been taking place monotonically over about the last 8ky.”

    Bob has disappeared the Holocene highstand and all undulations ,falls and rises since. Probably because he wants to justify his claim that we can look at eustatic SLR as business as usual and linear. There was sufficient literature available at his time of writing to disprove his claim.

  2591. Debbie says

    No Polyaux,
    The onus of proof is not on me.
    I have all the numbers….all of them…..do you?
    I can’t see why I need to dredge through my records to engage in a ‘how much is too much’ pointless discussion with you…because I would have to look them up to get the precise figs….and can see no reason to bother.
    Because you now seem to think it’s about how much is too much or….. conversely…if you can prove that it didn’t matter that a bit of water got wasted….then it doesn’t really matter.

    Well I don’t know Poly…How much is too much?….is 100GL too much?
    That’s 100,000ML which is rather a lot of water you know.
    That represents a lot of enterprises like mine which has a yearly WAL of 3200ML….which of course we have had very little access to in the last 10 years.
    That also represents rather a lot of ‘environmental watering’ that could have been done when the environment actually might have needed it don’t you think?
    So maybe I can argue that 100GL of wastage is too much?
    Would you like to do the math on what could have been done with your incorrect and tightly cornered 250GL and what that represents in terms of agricultural enterprises and the watering of wetlands?
    Is that too much wastage? I guess it depends on what it could have been used for if it wasn’t wasted.
    But here….I think you might be starting to get it…maybe?
    You need to reconcile your figures with the Tumut’s flow pre-Snowy scheme,which is one of the bases for calculating the RAR for the Murrumbidgee valley.
    That’s right Poly…it was those impractical rules that disregarded the developing REALITY that was the problem.
    But….like I said…..the onus of proof about how much is too much is not on me…..I think a profligate waste of storage water is a profligate waste of storage water…full stop.
    You can try and advance an argument about relative volumes if you like…..but it isn’t convincing me of anything worthwhile in relation to this issue.

  2592. Robert says

    Re the releases, I’ve always grasped Jen’s point, and now Deb’s. Instead of erecting walls of words, indignantly rebutting what’s not in dispute, it would be easier to say “whoops” – and make sure it doesn’t happen again.

  2597. Neville says

    Thanks very much Bob, will have a look as soon as I have the time.I hope others here will view as well.

    BTW Poly when are you going to tell us how to mitigate AGW and give us a timeline. Remember Flannery’s quote of zero change in temp for hundreds of years or perhaps a thousand years.
    Of course that’s if the entire world stopped emitting co2 today and we all know that’s not an option.
    So how many thousand years do we wait before we see a change in temp and how many trillions $ will it cost for that zero return on investment?

  2598. Debbie says

    Well yes it was Polyaux because the actual issue was your assertion that we would all be better off with a type of global dictatorship that uses its ability to control climate/weather/environment via some sort of ‘one size fits all’ centralised rules that would be designed by ‘concerned’ and ‘benevolent’ people and statistical projections that make ‘best guess’ decisions about future climate/environment.
    However it was a good example of why that doesn’t pan out very well in reality.
    The ‘establishment’ followed their unrealistic ‘environmental’ based rules and paid no attention to what was happening in the ‘here & now’ or the ‘ real environment’.
    The academic excuses and the argument that it didn’t matter that a ‘bit’ of water got wasted is poor form.
    IMHO ‘wastage’ is a repetetive feature of the political philosophy that you support.
    It’s particularly ironic because the much touted ‘justification’ is to manage resources for ‘sustainable’ purposes.
    And I am very interested in the answer to Neville’s oft asked question.
    If AGW is ‘a practical challenge’ then let’s hear the ‘practical’ solution with attendant CBA.

  2599. cohenite says

    Poly says this:

    ““Based on geological studies,it appears that slow sea-level rise has been taking place monotonically over about the last 8ky.”

    Bob has disappeared the Holocene highstand and all undulations ,falls and rises since. Probably because he wants to justify his claim that we can look at eustatic SLR as business as usual and linear. There was sufficient literature available at his time of writing to disprove his claim.”

    Firstly, Bob does not espouse a linear approach to sea level; on page 9 he says:

    “Because much sea-level change is periodic on a decadal scale, linear regression though
    eustatic data is an unreliable technique with which to establish long-term sea-level trends for
    use in environmental management. It is obvious, therefore, that the accurate portrayal of any
    long-term ocean-heating (steric) sea-level rise, putatively due to human influence, is only
    possible after short-term periodic sea-level behaviour has been identified and the records
    adjusted to account for it.”

    It’s true the Lewis paper notes a decline from the Holocene high where Carter says it has increased. But Lewis does not consider Isostatic factors which Carter bases his paper on; still it is fair to say there is a debate about whether sea level has risen or fallen since the Holocene, but that aside either position is contradictory to AGW; that is the point.

  2600. Polyaulax says

    I didn’t assert we’d all be better off with a kind of “global dictatorship”. Thanks. Some mature co-operation would be good-we’ve been able to achieve that to a considerable degree with other agreements that facilitate trade and legal security for individuals and companies. You want a CBA? How well do you know Stern, Garnaut, Nordhaus and other work?

    The alleged ‘waste’ here is one allowed by a conservative operation model operated between partners with differing core functions. What’s your long term assessment of that model,Deb? How well has it balanced competing demands and changing demands over the last 40 years?

    ” The ‘establishment’ – NOW and publicly owned SHL- followed unrealistic ‘environmental’ based rules….” Well, they had a water accounting model based on knowledge of Tumut River base flow which involved the understandable reasoning that in generating power without overly hindering downstream uses they should ‘honour’ that base contribution to Murrumbidgee averages. A pretty old-fashioned idea drawn up decades ago.

    It was all working pretty well,providing flow from storage in drought years that would have seen a nearly dry Murrumbidgee without the SMHS or Blowering. A massive-record breaking turnaround in rainfall late in 2010,nearly halfway into the SHL water year,saw the paradigm swiftly change from ‘RAR=essential flow’ to a couple of months where it was “RAR=better cut back and banked in Eucumbene”…and you’ve been screaming about it ever since,even though it did not add to flooding. It was ‘profligacy’. I do understand irrigators had been severely constrained by the ten year drought. So had the environment over half a century as more and more water was extracted

    While that RAR was being ‘squandered’,the river system became so awash with water from all sub-catchments that it really did not matter. Eucumbene was gaining anyway-over 300GL banked during that time. Tantangara banked 90GL. Blowering filled- 1000GL banked, a good proportion of that figure was RAR from 1 May onwards to full in November.In November-when nobody could predict the record deluge to follow-,the ‘wasted’ water was available for environmental flows as far down the Murrumbidgee as it could persist. It might have seemed a good time to get water down further. We all know what a lossy system the river below Wagga is,and how little had been past the irrigation areas for so long.

    If RAR was run at 100 GL/month during the two ‘wasted’ months,what proportion of 200 was waste,Deb? If half,then 100 GL could have been banked in Eucumbene,about 2.5% of Euc. capacity.

  2601. Robert says

    They released the waters. They should not have. Don’t do it again.

    Is this bungling and subsequent spin a foretaste of our “inter-economic equity, global co-operation” etc etc. So we end up with the ultimate “sub group”, and a system far more oppressive and clumsy than the corporate capitalism it strives to replace or counterbalance, whereby benevolent theories of remote elites crystallise as mad bureaucratic requirement – over which nobody has control.

    What to do when this Green Byzantium goes wrong (on day one, given the Green “initiatives” we’ve seen so far)? Just build another wall of words till those middle classes shut up? Or look for a strong guy who can shut ’em up?

  2602. Debbie says

    Polyaux,
    They did an awesome job of managing very difficult circumstances in the drought.
    It certainly wasn’t perfect but I don’t really know what else could have been done.
    I do not hold with what lots of people (particularly South Australians) say about how the system was managed during the drought.
    Despite all odds….all the regulated rivers had water in them to the bottom (except for the Lachlan for a short period of time)….and critical human needs, towns and cities, S&D and a fair proportion of HS was kept available.
    I am however completely over the ‘mantra’ that says it all happened because of ‘over extraction’ and because water was wasted by farmers…..that could not be further from the truth. We had no water to waste as you would probably be aware….in fact many of us were put into negative allocations in November 2006…..we had to pay that back too.
    That is not the issue that you and I are disagreeing about.
    My problem was and still is that the authorities who did indeed do a magnificent job of managing water as best as they could during the drought, could not bring themselves to adequately adjust to the dramatic turnaround of circumstances.
    They followed rules designed to ‘pay back’ water that was used when we hit DISV, giving ‘the environment’ priority when it was becoming abundantly clear that ‘the environment’ did not need it.
    That behaviour negatively impacted on the ability to ‘account’ for water in the following season, especially on the Murray side of the system.
    It has also led to a change of rules that are denying reasonable access to WALs even when the system is full to overflowing.
    We still have a ‘system’ that is managing for a dry catchment and jamming up the storages with water accounting that only suits the ‘projective modelling’….not reality.
    Our natural ephemeral environment is not interested in being managed by a ‘one size fits all’ set of rules.
    The ‘environment’ that actually suffered the most during the drought was not the natural ephemeral environment….it was the ‘human environment’.
    Which environment has also recovered quickly and in a most spectacular manner since the drought broke?
    And it didn’t have anything to do with any of that water that was supposedly being payed back to it did it?
    That’s the reality.
    It showed that our storage and irrigation systems are not capable of doing something they weren’t designed for. It can and did result in wasting community storage capacities for no benefit to the environment.

  2603. Debbie says

    For some humour 🙂
    Just finished sorting some mail and found this delightful quote:
    ‘Why does everybody pick on the economists? They’ve correctly predicted thirteen of the past five recessions!’
    I laughed because it is so similar to the debate that rages here.
    Same S**T different day perhaps?
    or
    Same book different page?

  2604. Johnathan Wilkes says

    “Same book different page?”

    Looks like it Debbie.

    They are perfectly willing and eager to debate some obscure point in a paper about a 0.0000001 C temperature or 0.1mm of SL rise but when one asks a genuine logical question then either there is silence or obfuscation.

    Par for the course I guess. The whole debate being about not much in the first place.

  2605. Neville says

    Debbie and JW my argument is that nobody wants to look at the only question that matters. Can we as humans do anything to mitigate AGW and there is only one answer, a definite no.

    Perhaps with new technology and engineering we may find a solution but it will probably ( with a lot of luck) take many decades before we reach that point.

    Then I think GAIA brain Timmy may be right and it could take many centuries and perhaps a thousand years before we achieve any slight reduction in temp, if we’re very lucky.

    But simple maths tells us there is zero chance of mitigation of AGW by introducing a co2 tax and anyone who believes that it is a solution just hasn’t got a clue.

  2606. toby says

    Neville, you , I and many have been saying that for years, and still the real deniers keep on with their “noise”.

  2607. gavin says

    Nev; have you been doing the rounds during October?

    http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/7/4/045401/article

    JW; for all of us I have to ask Poly my fav personal Q.

    Poly; Do you reckon we are suffering from AGW, slr etc and how do you know either way??

    I’ve stated often enough how seeing NZ glacial retreats and Pacific Oysters colonizing deep indents have confirmed my view. Growing up near Bass Strait has also allowed me to watch many weather events and tides up cliffs, rivers and sand dunes where middens line the coast.

  2608. Polyaulax says

    Interesting paper,Gav. It should be obvious to Neville what Flannery was talking about with commitment due to inertia in various components,and also that burning and releasing 200 or 500 or 1000 GT more carbon will make a difference to where the system tops out. Burn all remain available FF as quickly as possible like A1 and Greenland goes. So a difference between a meter or so and six is given shape in that paper. Even if one rejects it as a rejecter of AGW, you should be able to see the coherence of the methodology.

    We will be adapting and mitigating as a matter of course,and TAR and AR4 implied that if not straight out noted it: I never did understand it when some presented it as a choice between actions. The lower and slower the rise,the more manageable the task.

    I really haven’t noticed any changes in shorelines that I could definitely sheet home to SLR. I grew up on rocky shores with a significant tidal range and lots of weather. However the long term tide gauges all show rises,so I have no trouble accepting that it is happening. Some of the extensive sandy NSW foreshores may be showing changes that a long term resident might be able to say lead in one direction. This is where retreat will be fastest, but once again natural variation ,phases of ENSO bring big changes irregularly. Mineral sand mining took place for years up from Sydney into Qld,and this did profound damage to vegetation,changing whole communities and exposing others to salt-wind dieback… another element to confound clear observation. Some older surveying work shows that some blocks have been partly turned into beach in Sydneys north.

    I have noticed some changes in Bundjalung NP. Woody Bay shoreline has been pushed back and quite elderly forest is being burnt off by salt,there is no margin between coast banksia scrub and forest and a lot of mature trees have toppled onto the strand. Ten Mile Beach is definitely skinny and has been for a while. But there are rock walls on the Clarence mouth a few kilometres to the south that may be impairing northerly sand drift. There are a lot of beaches,but by no means all, up my way that have shrunk over the last decade,never quite recovering. Old Bar is famously retreating. Kingscliff Beach,the Belongil area. Ballina beaches have had some bad storm erosion, though again river mouth training walls are a big factor.

    The glacier evidence is unmistakable,and the global nature of retreat is obvious from individual photo studies, national monitoring and satellite assessments. Exceptions are in a distinct minority,usually in places where an enhanced precipitation outweighs a warming signal. Change in Europe has been extraordinary, and incredibly thoroughly observed.

  2609. Robert says

    Relax, gav, you won’t meet a soul who cares about real emissions of GHGs in real time. Not one single soul who cares. That’s why people write things like: “And I do believe that China has introduced a carbon permit system.” It doesn’t bother them that it’s the equivalent of someone firing pea-shooters at an advancing army – or, to be more exact, promising to fire pea-shooters at an advancing army. It’s just the effect of the words that counts.

    What matters is a script, with many emotive factoids and much detail which leads nowhere but creates an impression of urgency. But it’s an urgency to do nothing material to the supposed crisis. Australia burns coal in clunkers, and it will continue to do so as the clunkers age further; Australia exports half a billion tonnes of coal annually – or much more – to help pay for green fetishism; and Australia has no nukes. All of that is a matter of indifference, though one hears the odd faint noise consenting to nukes. (Just noise.)

    So relax about the CAGW. Keep on benefiting massively from fossil fuels every hour of your life, just like the rest of us, and just like you’ve always done. CAGW is a game. They don’t mean it.

    It’s about instituting political and economic controls of a sort they like. That’s not a game – and aren’t our Green Betters snuggling up to some very strange corporate bedfellows to achieve their anti-corporate goals!

    Don’t relax about the political stuff, gav, because it’s hardcore creepy.

  2610. Robert says

    By the by, isn’t it time we banned vehicles from beaches? And lately I’ve heard that the excessive regulations against taking pipis have been waived and commercial fishermen are now allowed to comb beaches again. There was a crazy period when I – and even my aboriginal neighbours – couldn’t remove a pocketful, now it’s a bloody massacre.

    What next? Rutile mining at Hat Head? For all the tree-hugging and enviro-gab, we don’t seem to care what we gouge in NSW. I love coal and mining and I love it when other people get filthy rich – but don’t we need a list of things and places that are not for gouging?

    Conservation, anybody?

  2611. el gordo says

    ‘Conservation, anybody?’

    Yes indeed, Robert.

    The environmental movement has been distracted by the weather and needs to get back to its roots.

  2612. gavin says

    Thanks Pol & Rob, each reply highlights our different response to the same signals.

    Rob; Somebody has to know where our actions may lead and it is part of our nature to occasionally deal with greedy pigs. Your term “Green Betters” could apply to me cause this week I campaigned on two fronts, ACT organic and green household waste disposal, also the fed – state agreement on timber industry reconstruction after Gunns.

    Diehards v activists is my cup of tea given my broad experience in recycling skills, soils and hardware.
    Engineering seems to be the winner every time a community hits the wall.

    Btw retreating Ardlethan mine staff killed my last Tassie mining contract in 1986 so personal restructuring was on the cards from then on. CSIRO cashmere blood lines from the same area had also let me down but wild woolly goats do well on blackberries. Reclaiming steep hillsides and deep gullies is about as difficult as sand dunes with out their natural cover.

    Diverse but mutually dependent canopy on the margins is one of our greatest losses re SLR. Watch this impact carefully in all East Coast areas not protected by islands or reefs

  2613. Neville says

    Gav and Poly, you still can’t supply one real solution to fix or mitigate the problem of CAGW (the C is your assessment not mine) so you have given yourselves a fail even before you enter the debate.

    We all know why you retreat from this most important part of the AGW debate, it’s because you can’t answer it.
    Simple maths proves there is nothing you can achieve by further reducing the small increase in OECD emissions and the non OECD won’t budge on their soaring emissions agenda.

    So that’s why the mitigation of AGW is a total con and fraud, just look at the numbers.
    1990 total human emissions were 21.6 bn tonnes p.a co2.
    2010 total non OECD emissions were 18.8 bn tonnes p.a co2.
    2012 total non OECD emissions are probably close to total human emissions just 22 years ago in 1990.

    Of course the monster exports of coal , gas and iron ore every year from OZ just proves the Gillard govt are giant hypocrites and also proves they couldn’t care less about human co2 emissions at all. Or they suffer a type of collective bi-polar disorder.
    Just another part of this total con and fraud that you people run away from and won’t even attempt to answer.

    Think about this, humans have taken all of their entire history to emit 21.6 bn tonnes of co2 p.a by 1990, but just the non OECD have probably emitted that tonnage p.a in just the last 22 years.
    A bit of food for thought for anyone trying to rationally assess the mitigation of CAGW.

  2615. gavin says

    Nev; “con and fraud” or “you people run away” is hardly an open invitation to have a debate.

    In my private life there are campaigns along these lines, “Tasmania can grow a lot of wood” and “the Chinese have no standards” based on personal experience with attitudes and products. Each supposition must have a back door though to allow a change in my perception as fresh events unfold.

    By dabbling in recycling and reclaiming assets, we can have an insight to the enormous task of regaining sustainability. Interconnected is my buz word.

    Don’t fret, several of my cobbers run mil $ biz doing just that, another retired early, all based on demand for 2nd hand goods at the cheaper end of domestic purchases. In this way there is some control over flashy imports from China. IMO public education is our greater need. Replanting is just one skill required.

    BTW, I expect the Chinese will be flat out reclaiming their coast and not ours however their overflow will always push our way along with the Indians and a few others nearer north.

  2617. spangled drongo says

    The longest term tide gauge in Australia seems to be Fort Denison and according to the tides there over the last ~100 years, there is no SLR. You can’t get simpler than that.

    The problem with most of the old ports is that the gauges have all been moved, often quite regularly and while the data may be right, without a continuous record it can be corrupted.

    As has happened with past temperatures.

    But here’s a go gav, enlarge these pics of FD and you will see that in 1930 the high tide mark is on exactly the same course of bricks [stones] as it is today.

    You will also see the same mark another 80 years earlier:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Denison#History

    Still waiting for SLR!

  2618. debbie says

    Gavin,
    I agree that there is a problem with open debate but pretending that it comes from a ‘particular side’ is not helping either.
    It was actually the ‘environmental movement’ which first framed the debate in this manner.
    They have used an anthropomorphic angle (and much personification in their rhetoric) and claimed that one side wears white hats and the other side wears black hats.
    They have set it up like a religious war….Man vs Mother Nature.
    If people try to question what is said then that automatically means they are ‘enemies of mother nature’ and ‘enemies of science’.
    There is very little about it that is actually rational or focused on achieving worthwhile practical results….very unfortunately.
    You seem to be confusing what we are all learning about being responsible and about being less wasteful with the ‘global governance’ platform.
    As Robert has pointed out many times, everyone here is in favour of conservation.
    As evidenced from my disagreement with Polyaux….the ‘global governance platform’ is obsessed on one hand with claiming that there is a ‘significant’ AGW signal in all the natural variability and will argue over such minute percentages like 0.0001 deg C and claim it’s alarming and it’s all because of our ‘over consumption’ ….yet….. on the other hand when it’s pointed out to them that they are guilty of wasting money and resources, they will vehemently argue to pass it off as ‘satistically insignificant’….with a large dose of smug, self professed academic superiority as well.
    Unfortunately it is not about good science informing good policy with a mind to conservation for the benefit of Australia’s people and Australia’s environment….ie….shared practical goals.
    There would be no argument from me if it was.
    But I think from at least part of your comment you have recognised that the ‘global governance’ platform seems to somehow involve ‘selling off’ our resources.
    Neville’s oft repeated question is a very sensible question.
    There is no plan on the table that would actually work and deliver multiple benefits to Australia.
    The so called mitigation plan that sees us taxing CO2 is merely a hollow ‘political outcome’ not a ‘practical or achievable outcome’.
    Creating wide reaching social policy based on ‘statistical extrapoloations’ that change like the wind is not proving to be a successful social or environmental experiment.
    It simply isn’t achieving positive results.
    Collecting ever more data and creating more and more contradictory statistical extrapolations will not change that.
    That does not mean I oppose the collection of data or research (quite the contrary in fact)….but I do strongly object to the way it has and is being misused.
    It has left ‘rational’ and ‘open debate’ behind a very long time ago.

  2619. Neville says

    Gav I’m sorry if the terms con and fraud upset you, but this is the most obvious con and fraud in history.
    Whenever the lastest ponzi scheme is exposed everyone wonders how people could be so gullible.
    But ponzi schemes often survive for years because of secrecy, lies and deception. In the end the ponzi scheme collapses because the swines running the fraud can’t get enough new investors to keep paying the earlier investors their expected dividend on time.

    But the mitigation of AGW fraud has been fully exposed for years and yet it never suffers that full exposure and ultimate messy conclusion in the MSM.
    I’ve explained the huge increase in non OECD co2 emissions since 1990 to many people and most people just give me a blank look.

    Most don’t believe me until I show them the numbers and even then they keep asking how the govt can get way with introducing a co2 tax when we know it can’t make a scrap of difference to the climate or temp.
    Of course we’ve had Wong, Rudd, Gillard, Combet, Swann etc, etc feeding us the lies for years that “we are tackling CC” or “taking action on CC” and “this is the greatest moral challenge of our times” BS.
    Simple maths proves that this is indeed the greatest con and fraud in history and it’s just a pity the majority haven’t woken up yet.

  2620. Polyaulax says

    SD,Fort Denison does show a rise in MEAN sea level. You have claimed that king tide ‘trends’–for which you have produced no numbers– prove that there is no SLR detected there. You know damn well that MEAN sea level is the measure that is studied,as sufficient data is collected to determine trends to fine detail. There aren’t enough king tides recorded to determine a statistically significant trend given weather noise affects every tide. All we’ve noted is that the highest king tide at FD was 1974’s 2.4m,which happened when a king tide coincided with an east coast low in a La Nina year.

    Look at the base numbers: in a 100 year tide record,you have two highs and two lows a day,x 365d==1460,x100y=146000 data points. For king tides [2.00m and over at FD] the tide chart shows 2012-2013 is predicted to have 15 events. Let’s assume that is an average number of KTs,so x100 you have 1500 data points to detect an annual trend measured in millimetres> over 100 years. That’s not going to happen to any confidence given any one tide can vary 10% from the predicted value depending on weather factors.

  2621. spangled drongo says

    Poly, all tides and SLs are influenced by many things but be realistic. If you are going to be affected by SLR then it will come from the highest tides, not MSL. MSL is just some theoretical point.

    If those highest tides aren’t any higher now than they were 100 y ago, you ain’t got a prollem and you ain’t got SLR.

  2622. cohenite says

    Poly has raised Fort Denison; the Carter paper which poly scurriously dismisses says this about Fort Denison:

    “4. Consider the average change in the two best long-record tide gauges from “southern”
    Australia, which are Fremantle (since 1897) and Fort Denison (Sydney Harbour; since 1914).
    The long-term average from these two sites is a rise of 1.2 mm/yr (Fig. 4). This yields an
    estimated rise by 2100 of 11.3 cm.”

    And bear in mind the recent Watson paper showed no acceleration in sea level rise and in fact a deceleration.

    Every aspect of AGW is crap; speaking of which where is luke?

  2625. Polyaulax says

    Nev, you gave us a ‘fail’ because you’ve made up your mind that mitigation is useless. But the paper that Gavin linked to [it’s open access] gives you the reality that mitigation is worthwhile. It’s the difference between Greenland staying and Greenland going. One or two meters are coming,but if we reject the science and burn all FF we can, then six meters will be the outcome.

    Now of course at the time frames these scenarios will be realised,the rate of ramping of consequences may spare old codgers much trouble…but you might agree that it would be good to keep thousand of square kilometers of very productive low level agricultural land for the future world of your grandchildren. And leave cities defendable by levee construction,rather than force their abandonment.

    The carbon pricing scheme will help drive down energy wastage,but of course it is a relatively weak measure due to the bipartisan aversion to tough decisions,and their commitment to their respective owner/donors special short-termist interests. It as a political signal to other countries as much as anything. Government authority is not what it used to be, now that they are financially rated like defacto corporations. That’s one of the prices of giving away currency control, and selling community possessions to powerful corporations. If governments really understand the implications of AGW, they will have to act in a much more unified way,and not let themselves be played by transnationals,who have power without equivalent responsibility.

  2626. gavin says

    SD; SL measurement from single tide events must be tied to a standard pressure.

    Deb; although neither you nor Nev back your rhetoric with facts, yours takes far longer to read

  2627. Polyaulax says

    SD,if you are going to be affected by SLR it will come in coastal erosion from severe storms,where storm surge on a high tide is enhanced by a higher base MSL. Rising SLR means less severe storms can cause more severe damage than they could formerly effect. Getting a perfect convergence of surge and king tide is very difficult,given you get only four tight clusters of king tides a year. High tides [1.8m at Fort D] are more common.

    Cohenite, Watson’s paper was not very well done. Worse still it was utterly misrepresented by News Ltd, who mystifyingly chose a complete nobody to make most of the ‘informed’ comment and barely quoted Watson at all. Acceleration is present in the data,Watson failed to detect it.

  2628. spangled drongo says

    Sorry Poly, coastal erosion without SLR is the same as any previous coastal erosion and, as you pointed out, is often due to river walls preventing sand by-pass. With unrestricted sand flow the erosion quickly repairs itself.

    SLR combined with storms, cyclones, floods etc will naturally be worse and often go hand in hand but SLR is something that accrues and is long term. The others are only transitory.

  2629. Robert says

    In a nutshell: of course CAGW is real, one or two meters is coming, but it’s six if you argue!

    However, this is not about establishing a corporate global state. As Julia would say, it’s about mums and dads and kids and grand-kids.

    Profoundly creepy stuff. Reject it hard.

  2630. Polyaulax says

    SD, short term variables [barometric,wind strength, wind, seasonally dominant wind direction,current phases,water warmth, ENSO phases,tides,storm surges,waves] produce large transient ranges over eustatic SL change signals,and will always be in operation. MSL change on a rocky shore may mean little for long periods…MSLR on a flat sandy coast will push shorelines back in irregular steps with irregular powerful storm events that are enhanced by amplifying combinations of those natural variables. Tweed Shire council reports assess coastal retreat of their beaches at 5 to 20 cm/annum,the greatest value usually in the southern parts,after all the factors are weighed. There are various models for this,backing the current planned retreat strategies… these will be vanished by conservative state governments for a while. They are gambling they will get away with it for a political cycle.

  2631. Polyaulax says

    Robert, it’s not one outcome regardless of scenarios. Sorry.

    We already live in a global corporate state. Sorry.

  2633. Robert says

    Polyaulax, we get the message. Big Brother has to be replaced by Bigger Brother. Trust the same species of intellectual who brought us last century’s lethal social and political experiments. This time it’ll be different!

    I have no idea why Arctic temps plunged in the sixties, and why Arctic ice increased so dramatically after the big melt of the late fifties. I still don’t know why Arctic ice decreased so dramatically after 1979. Even after hearing the elaborate warmist spin, I don’t know why the Antarctic ice levels are currently so high. (The Antarctic is where about 90% of the ice hangs out, as you may know.)

    I don’t know why Fort Denison mean sea levels have been up and down (in fairly trivial degrees) over the last century and more. I don’t know why the mean level at Fort Denison did that plunge in the mid-1920s.

    I know whom I don’t want in control of my destiny. I’ll live with the crappiness of capitalism. I won’t live with the murderous benevolence of your global socialist “model”.

  2634. gavin says

    SD; “any previous coastal erosion” is hardly the issue but SLR inundation is. Consider only the coastal area that was sea bed not so long ago and do some planning for what is sacrificial after extensive glacial retreat.

    No big icecaps yet so there is time. Waiting for more evidence is not only selfish but fool hardy based on our collective hindsight for just a few thousand years.

    New chums should know I started here with a knowledge of earlier coast lines as found in Bass Strait and nothing has changed my tune on SL v sand dunes at the margin. The simple fact is sl 1.5 m up is not that remote.

  2637. spangled drongo says

    Back in the ’50s, ’60s and ’70s the Gold Coast went through times of severe coastal erosion with houses and even high rise appartments in danger of falling into the sea. Many houses did and many was the pleasant midnight hour I spent sand bagging them up. Some of those homes have since changed hands for up to $70 million. I should send a bill.

    Today, that erosion has recovered and it is ironic that in NSW where lowland coastal development was not allowed there is more coastal erosion than in Qld where it has been overdone.

    However, coastal erosion and the SLR we are discussing are two completely separate issues which Poly and Gav don’t seem to grasp.

    Cyclonic coastal erosion is something we have always had. SLR, if it is happening at all, is miniscule and probably only natural variation.

  2638. debbie says

    I apologise for stating what looks to me to be the bleeding obvious but the reason that we have shoreline cliffs, rocky ocean outcrops, little tropical islands, sea caves, hongs, rocky beaches, coral reefs, pebbly beaches, sandy beaches etc etc etc is because the ocean erodes the coastline….and it always has.
    It’s different in different places because of some very, very ,very basic reasons such as tidal behaviour,ocean currents, storm/weather patterns and the actual natural physical geology/geography of the coastline.
    Coastlines at river mouths have been changing and shifting since time immemorial. That actually includes many glaciers.
    It is actually humans who like to settle in the temperate river mouth areas areas who want them to stay put….the ocean is not even slightly interested in keeping them stable….which is why humans have invested in infrastructure in these areas to try & keep them stable.
    While I’m sure that it’s possible to ‘model’ a possible AGW signal in all of this….the AGW signal is not the problem as far as erosion on coastlines and shifting river mouths is concerned.
    The problem is that humans like to settle on coastal fringes and the coast is (and has always been) unstable….that’s just its nature…..that’s how it works.
    A poopteenth of a cm SLR that’s possibly due to AGW is NOT why coastlines, especially around river mouths, suffer from erosion and movement and change!!!!!
    Seriously….anyone who has lived on the coast….knows that it is forever in a state of flux and that the ocean can be a highly unpredictable and destructive beast.

  2639. Neville says

    David Karoly says Australia is responsible for 0.45% of co2 in the atmosphere. So 0.45% of 730 bn tonnes equals 3.3 bn tonnes.

    Last time I looked OZ emissions of co2 were about 1.1% of 32 bn tonnes = 0.35bn tonnes. of human emissions p.a.

    He seems to wrong by about a factor of ten. Perhaps I’m wrong, can anyone help?

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/

  2641. Debbie says

    BTW, if this agenda of attempting to prove SLR is linked to AGW is not a case of attempting to ‘capitalise gains and socialise losses’ re human coastal infrastructure, then I have never seen one.

  2642. cohenite says

    Neville; you’re basically right.

    Karoly, a very arrogant man, is a fool. Or a liar; although there is also a very strong probability he is both.

  2643. John Sayers says

    Alan Jones made an error in an interview with Karoly regarding the amount of CO2 produced by man’s activities and he’s dragged before The Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) who demand Jones undertake training on “factual accuracy and significant viewpoints” yet Karoly doesn’t even get a mention in the ABC for this load of scientific BS.

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-10-18/alan-jones-ordered-to-do-journalism-training/4320534

  2644. spangled drongo says

    Cohers, John and Neville, check my maths on this but if CO2 is 390 ppm and the portion that humans are responsible for is 3% of that and the portion that Australia is responsible for is 1.5% of that, then the equation is:

    Aust. contribution = 0.00039 x 0.03 x 0.015 = 0.0000001 or 0.00001%

    Is that correct?

    Alan Jones had one zero too many which is an easy slip and quite forgivable. Karoly claimed Australia was responsible for 0.45% which is exaggerated 45,000 times.

    In a scientist that is not forgivable.

  2645. Minister for Truth says

    My god what a load of pretentious crap by the ACMA.

    What gives them the right to insist that people undergo truth retraining, and why isnt that similar to what the gulags were set up for.

    And why stop at journallsts and radio announcers particularly if the have been liberal with the truth

    What about our completely disfunctional bunch of parliamentarians.

    If they are worried about lie and mistruth why isnt Gillard be sent off to the ACMA Gulag, and undergo training in Ethics and Constitutional law

    Australia is run by some of weirdest nincompoops that ever existed, but then most of the people on the ACMA are labor hacks anyway

  2646. spangled drongo says

    Whoops, just rechecked AJ’s atatement and he said the same as my equation: 0.00001%.

    Well, for my money he is right!

    Yes MfT, the hypocrisy of the ACMA, when their incestuous other half spout endless inaccuracies on AGW daily.

  2647. Debbie says

    Loads of it!
    Yep, same principle with gulags.
    Yet we have Polyaux preaching above that a ‘benevolent dictatorship’ based on ‘the greater good’ is not an oxymoron.
    And it’s all to do with statstics and statistical extrapolations re human impact on the atmosphere that can ascertain a ‘significant statistical %’. . . And it’s all so complicated because of changing community expectations. . . Yet we have to be alarmed because we can’t impact things like uncooperative weather and the behaviour of the ocean and they have the audacity to keep changing and show almost zero interest in conforming to human invented means, medians, long term averages and statistical trends.

  2648. John Sayers says

    Alan commented on his statement this morning – he admitted he got it wrong but also pointed out that he has consistently got it right many many times on his program. SD, as I understand it the 0.00001% is of the total atmosphere, not the proportion of CO2.

    Jones found out about the error 4 days later and corrected his statement on air.

    Media Watch is involved as usual:

    Alan Jones: Nature produces nearly all of the carbon dioxide in the air. Human beings produce point 001 percent of the carbon dioxide in the air…

    — 2GB Sydney, The Alan Jones Breakfast Show, 15th March, 2011

    That’s one of Australia’s highest rating radio hosts with a very odd figure. The fact is that almost 30% of the carbon dioxide in the air is there because of human activity in the past two hundred years – and that’s thirty thousand times more than Alan Jones’s point 001%

    their source? http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/1107_englandco2.pdf

    The real idiot in this is Karoly who made the complaint in the first place!

  2649. cohenite says

    SD, that’s right, and that’s only if you don’t accept Salby’s thesis that the increase in CO2 is natural; in which case Australia’s contribution is a % of nothing.

    And John makes a good point; Jones was hurled over the coals for getting it basically right; now this arrogant fool Karoly proves once again he is either a fool or a liar.

    Someone should send Jones an email.

  2650. spangled drongo says

    One side of the argument [the warmers of course] now claim that 30% of the CO2 in the air is man made but the old science always said 3%.

    Is this just another recent “adjustment”?

    I thought the GFC was limiting ACO2 not increasing it tenfold.

  2651. spangled drongo says

    Cohers, I just rang ACMA to try to speak to someone about it but they were busy and say they will ring me back. Their email address is:

    broadcasting@acma.gov.au

    If anyone with all the facts would like to set them straight.

  2652. debbie says

    30% of the CO2 in the atmosphere is man made?
    Is that a historical figure with a calendar start point or starting from a particular era?
    How much of that is Australia responsible for?

  2653. Neville says

    There is little doubt that Karoly is dead wrong , but will he suffer the same fate as Jones who only made an innocent error? As soon as he was told he corrected the error and apologised for it.

    I think Cohenite is correct, Karoly is either a fool or a liar. But what about a really serious lie from our own govt?

    We’ve been told repeatedly for years that “we are tacklin CC and taking action on CC’. Yet this a total lie and con because 20+ years of co2 emissions prove that emissions have increased by 10.2 bn tonnes. 1990 to 2010)
    These co2 emissions will increase for decades into the future so we have no hopel of changing the temp or climate at all.
    The Gillard govt are either liars or fools just like Karoly.

  2655. Neville says

    Debbie and SD I think you’ll find that they mean the extra co2 added to the atmosphere since 1750.

    Pre industrial was say 0.0275% and now 0.0395%. Call that 0.03% and now 0.04% and subtract = 0.01% extra in about 250 years. That’s about a third more co2 added in that time.

  2656. spangled drongo says

    Sure Neville, but you would have to be some sort of idiot to credit that total increase to mankind’s emissions. All the experts claim it is between about 2.7% and 3.6% and as Prof Murry Salby says it is probably the warming causing the CO2, not CO2 causing the warming.

    In light of these unknowable uncertainties, for ACMA to be allowing Karoly to influence their decision on Jones is nothing short of high-handed regulation gone mad.

    What do you think I should tell ACMA if they have the courage to ring me back?

  2658. debbie says

    This is Karoly’s answer to part of my earlier question:
    University of Melbourne climate change scientist David Karoly said Australians were in fact responsible for .45 per cent of total carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

  2659. Polyaulax says

    Debbie,stop verballing me : I never mentioned or advocated a ‘benevolent dictatorship’…an ‘intelligent Westminster-style government’ would be fine. I just want democratically elected governments to represent their electors not their private funders,stop following the polls and start leading,and stop letting transnational giants push them around. And ignore Ruperts bullshit machine.

    “‘Warmers’ now claim…”? “the old science always said 3%”? BS,SD. A century ago we knew without controversy that industrial centres produced locally very high CO2 measurements,but had no way of assessing the all atmopheric dispersal of that output. The science has been certain of the origin of the CO2 rise for decades and Keeling locked in the measurement process in the late 1950s. It has not been a matter that anyone thought to dispute until fake sceptics thought they had an angle. The difference between 280ppm and 390ppm [closer to 40%] is ours,Salby being utterly wrong. We can account for our production quite accurately. We know that natural sinks are mopping up half of our annual production,the other half stays airborne because plants and ocean cannot draw it down as quickly as we produce it. It is impossible to account for the increase in CO2 by appealing to warmer oceans outgassing,or volcanic activity. The isotopic signatures are wrong,and the maths does not produce enough.

    If you want someone to patiently explain how it works,visit Ferdinand Engelbeen’s site. He loathes the idea of high sensitivity,but can’t bring himself to lie about the carbon cycle.

    Why do you care anyway,you’ve already convinced yourselves that there is no feedback,or that feedback is negative,or it’s the sun and cosmic rays and it’s a world government plot to boot.

  2660. spangled drongo says

    Debbie, If Australia’s contribution is 1.5% of 3% then it is .03 x .015 which is 0.045%.

    Interesting comment by Michael Hammer on Wattsie’s post about the rapid Arctic refreeze.

    More negative feedback it seems, Poly:

    “Michael Hammer says:
    October 18, 2012 at 11:41 pm
    Did I read the start of this post correctly “As we know when water loses its ice cover, it allows a lot of heat to radiate into space as LWIR”. The implications of this statement are PROFOUND. Water has an emissivity of around 1 in the thermal IR range (same as LWIR). The statement implies that ice radiates far less LWIR than does water which mans its emissivity in the LWIR much lower than 1. But the entire claim of positive feedback in the arctic is based on the supposition that ice is very reflective in the visible hence absorbs little of the incoming solar energy but has a LWIR emissivity of close to 1. Thus with ice, little energy absorption plus high emission hence cooling. Without ice same emission but more absorption hence warming.

    But if ice is a poor emitter of LWIR then the case for positive feedback collapses. The presence of ice reduces both absorption and emission. In fact, since the amount of solar energy at the poles is quite low and effectively zero for 6 months of the year whereas LWIR emission occurs year round a better case could be made for it being negative feedback.

    There is considerable evidence to suggest that ice is a poor LWIR emitter and I have argued that in the past. Here may be further evidence. I THINK THIS IS IMPORTANT FOLKS.”

  2661. Robert says

    Sorry we can’t purify the press and get rid of special interests for you, Poly. Rupert or the ABC? What a sucky choice! Thank God for the internet, and a few basic freedoms.

    And they are a pain, those naughty corporations, Goldman Sachs, GE and GIM in particular. Some capitalists do deserve a major comeuppance – but can you picture “Heavy Metal” Garnaut sweating it out in Bomana Prison?

    Still, they’re not all manipulators. Some produce responsibly, though most are better at being big than at producing. Imagine one big corporation (Mother Russia), or a big fat national socialist government directing private corporations (Germany 30s, China now). Good to be an Aussie with a few choices.

    At least we can avert a situation where Lysenkoist intellectuals advise “intelligent” busy-body governments on the latest ways to impoverish humans (and wreck the natural world as a by-product). Harsh, they’ll admit, but it’s best to keep obstreperous humans a bit desperate, or they might vote for the “unintelligent” guy. Then it’s back to shopping malls and Fox!

  2663. toby says

    i just read the comments at the watts site re mwp roman and minoan warmperiods.

    thank god we get a more intelligent bunch of warmers here. still blind to the obvious, focusing on noise while the real data keeps hitting them in the face, but not thick/ stupid at least.

  2664. Robert says

    Toby, evidence of the MWP period in China is very interesting. Very interesting also are the well documented dynastic/social problems which occurred during the LIA in China, as is the physical evidence of cooling there.

    The MWP, if you look at old English records, was not an even affair, any more than the present warming is consistent or even. However, it’s pretty clear that if things do cool significantly we’ll need lots of new and efficient coal facilities and nukes. And maybe thorium shouldn’t be left in the ground. Cool is not cool when you are there.

    Nobody has a clue what future climate will be like, but cheap, abundant energy and proven infrastructure are great ways to deal with most of what nature hurls at us. That’s if you’re one of these trendy pro-humanity types that have popped up since the European Enlightenment. If fetish and dogma are still your thing – go Green!

  2665. Debbie says

    Polyaux,
    I am not verballing you.
    Your posts are another way of describing the Greens policy of ‘global governance’ which is designed on a ‘deliberative global democracy’ which bases its justification on global environmental/climate change concerns.
    That is basically a belief in a ‘benevolent dictatorship’ or if you prefer Tim Flannery’s idea of a ‘super global organism’ .
    I have linked that policy twice at this thread.
    This idea is also being researched in academia throughout the world, including at ANU. All of it funded by tax payers.
    As an academic theory it sounds compelling. It is not translating successfully in practice.

  2666. John Sayers says

    In regard to the Jones affair it was 2GB that proposed the fact checking program NOT the ACMA – I heard it’s head in an interview with the ABC – The ABC were trying to get him to condemn Jones but he refused. The ABC was saying that Jones was a serial offender yet the Head of ACMA denied it saying he’s only made 2 errors in 10 years which was very good considering the amount of hours he broadcasts every day.

  2667. kuhnkat says

    Neville,

    “Pre industrial was say 0.0275% and now 0.0395%. Call that 0.03% and now 0.04% and subtract = 0.01% extra in about 250 years. That’s about a third more co2 added in that time.”

    OOOOPS!!! Why do y’all continue to ignore hard data taken by PHD’s and Nobel Chemists that PROVE there is no such thing as a Pre industrialization level of less than 300 PPM?!??!! This is one of the saddest parts of the alarmist repertoire. The way they attack honest scientists doing excellent work before Climate Change was even being discussed!!!

    Oh, and please THINK and do some MATH before complaining that those measurements have a 3% error!!!! What is 3% of 400PPM?!?!?!?! If they had a 10% error they would be good enough to disprove the 275PPM myth.

    Beck has conclusively shown that the basis for beginning the Mona Loa curve was a CHERRY PICK of rather extreme extent.

  2668. kuhnkat says

    Polyexlax,

    you apparently are a believer in AUTHORITY!!

    If an authority comes by and tells you that you have a communicable disease and need to pay him 20% of your salary for the rest of your life for treatment, are you going to BELIEVE him or CHECK!!!

    The Englebeen circus is based on ESTIMATES of CO2 flux in the atmosphere. We ASSUME we have a somewhat reasonable estimate on how much CO2 is put into the atmosphere by humans. I am not actually averse to accepting THAT assumption.

    The problem comes in the REST of the numbers. What is the size of the sink?? Oh, well then, yasee, uhm, then again, weel drat, no one really KNOWS what size the sink is or how much it changes due to temp, rising CO2, or bears dumping in the woods.

    OK, what about natural CO2 emissions. Gee whiz, dang it!! Again no one really KNOWS within any kind of reasonable parameters how much CO2 is NATURALLY put into the atmosphere!! The EXPERTS CLAIM they can estimate this stuff. Well, the guy at the fair can guess your weight also. SO WHAT!!!

    The reality is that human emissions are mostly absorbed close to their emission points and do not contribute to global averages!! This is what Salby is trying to get across to you!!! Unfortunately y’all are so in love with your Fariy Tale you refuse to LISTEN to someone who has spent years evaluating data and, to be true to his SCIENCE, had to CHANGE HIS MIND about believing in Gorebull Warming!!!

    I know, you can tell people they were scammed, you can sometomes PROVE it to them, but, either they STILL won’t believe you or they will hate you for it or both!!!

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  2669. Neville says

    KK I’m not actually arguing whether co2 levels pre industrial or post are right or wrong, I’m just stating what is accepted by Spencer, Christy, Lindzen etc,etc.

    Beck you can believe or not believe, but I’m just stating the accepted numbers by sceptics to explain why they might say there is a 30% increase for the last 250 years.

    BTW USA co2 levels will remain at 2005 levels until 2035 according to the EIA. Meanwhile China, India etc are currently increasing by more than a bn tonnes p.a every year.
    What a super fraud and con we’ve been fed for decades.

    http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Energy-Resources/2012/06/26/EIA-US-CO2-emissions-remain-static/UPI-72061340709222/

  2670. debbie says

    Well yes of course that’s right KK,
    There is no such thing as a pre industrialisation level of less than 300ppm.
    That is an assumption in the modelling but there is no recorded proof of that because pre 1750 there was no reliable technology to measure and record it.
    There were in all likelihood periods of time, pre industrial, that were greater than 300ppm.
    The planet seemed to have (and still has) a way to adjust and adapt… that obviously doesn’t require radical and/or urgent human interference…but there is nothing wrong with learning more about it.
    Or….why is it so?

  2671. Polyaulax says

    kuhnkat, we ASSUME nothing when we have OBSERVED CO2 distribution through a precision standardised observation system, whether you are partial to accepting whatever…

    It’s way passed silly to pretend things about basic observations and known properties of gasses. It is really butt-stupid wrong to claim that ‘human emissions..do not contribute to global averages’ simply because they do not affect the size and ‘shape’ of the annual flux seen in the observations. Salby is having a lend of himself. There are many layers of error in Salby’s presentation,that is an examination of one.

    ‘…no one really KNOWS within any reasonable parameters…’ Bullshit,stop mistaking your own hopes for reality.

    It is disingenuous to claim that ‘guesses’ are being made. Estimates with well-controlled bounds are made,in combination with precise measurements. ‘Guesses’ reveals you as either ill-informed,or attempting to mislead.

    Your last semi-coherent paragraph actually describes your own ridiculous dance of ignorance.

  2672. Polyaulax says

    Debbie,you’re willing to accept proxy derived evidence when it suits you [MWP was warmer,etc] but well constrained proxy recons of global CO2 are just ‘assumptions’. You need consistency.

  2673. Debbie says

    A precision standardised observation system?
    Estimates with well controlled bounds. . . ? ?
    Changing the semantics doesn’t change the point Polyaux.
    We all know it’s very high tech and fascinating.

  2674. Robert says

    Proxies are rough fare, seldom worth spinning and twisting into fine statistics. Enough proxies will give you a very rough idea. Don’t need to know the weather on opening day of the Flavians’ fine new Colosseum, but it’s nifty to know that grape-wine was being grown in Britain at the time. It’s handy to know the range of citrus reticulata in medieval China, especially if stalagmite analysis supports what one knows from elsewhere.

    It’s a scandal what bullying junk science – and the publish-or-perish mentality – has done with proxies. But don’t blame the poor bloody bristle-cones.

  2675. Johnathan Wilkes says

    estimate
    verb
    1. calculate roughly, value, guess, judge, reckon, assess, evaluate, gauge, number, appraise

  2676. Debbie says

    What I. . . NEED. . . Polyaux. . . is for you to cease obfuscating and assuming you can lecture from an anonymous and supposedly morally righteous position.
    I agreed with KK that there is no such thing as a pre industrialisation level of less than 300ppm and I even qualified the comment.
    Arguing semantics doesn’t change that. It was not a comment about the MWP or any other human invented timescale other than mentioning pre industrialised is accepted as pre 1750.
    I have been no more or no less consistent than you.
    Our disagreement lies in the use (or misuse) of all such information. I have no problem with the collection of scientific data or attempts to represent it in different ways.
    The lack of humility however is confounding and highly counter productive.

  2677. Robert says

    By the way, my last post wasn’t intended to exploit the factoids about wine in Britain. When you are removed from any event or situation, it’s easy to make facile pronouncements. Do we know the scale of those grape plantings in Northern Britain? Were they just decorative, a sentimental sop for Roman soldiery? What was the Gulf Stream doing at the time? How much of English medieval wine growing is attributable to special monastic need and expertise?

    Those fossilised pines that fell into Finnish lakes do tell a fascinating tale of medieval warming – near Finnish lakes! A proxy is just the girl or guy you actually took to the dance, rather than the one you wanted to take to the dance. You should be nice to your proxy…but you don’t have to marry your proxy.

  2678. Debbie says

    Yes JW,
    So to paraphrase Polyaux they are making a stat generated best guestimate.
    Polyaux tried to argue semantics to make it sound more academically intelligent or palatable or important, but estimate is just another word for ‘best guess’ which meant his comment was a classic example of tautology, obfuscation and circumlocution. 🙂
    (which is a really intelligent sounding way to say: mostly BS)

  2679. Polyaulax says

    Debbie,what you…NEED..is to stop making unsupported assertions, and to stop playing victim,and to stop pretending to be ‘humble’. You are as arrogant as any rejectionist I’ve come across…so,a little self-awareness please. Why do you think there is ‘no such thing as a pre-industrialisation level of less than 300ppm’? Give us a reference,because you are definitely on your own with that claim. We have 800,000 years of Antarctic data that show levels of 180 to 300ppm were the norm for that period. Why is supplying reliable information or not toeing the line here ‘morally righteous’?

    There is no guessing in measuring atmo CO2 concentrations,which are measured to the hundredths of ppm . As you know the whole purpose of Keelings work was to eliminate guesstimation,local contamination:put measuring stations in parts of the world remote from industrial sources,with good air movement. Extrapolation from the very many high qual stations is based on knowledge of gas mixing. There’s 160 or so collection points over all latitudes. They agree very closely with levels and rates of growth. I don’t know why you feel bullied by that.

    Robert,Romans brought the wine grape to Britain because the locals did not grow it…just as the Brits brought it to Oz. It’s been grown in the UK ever since. It’s not a climate proxy,it’s a cultural one.

  2680. Robert says

    “Robert,Romans brought the wine grape to Britain because the locals did not grow it”
    And somebody said otherwise? Poly, you often argue vigorously against propositions that are never made.

    “It’s not a climate proxy,it’s a cultural one.”
    The grape is a plant. I don’t know what a cultural proxy is, but the geographical extent of a plant can serve as a very weak climate proxy. If it’s an agricultural spreading, rather than a natural one, the proxy is that much weaker. However, practical Romans did not like to waste energy on elaborate experiments. (In fact, they weren’t big on experimenting.) They had some luck growing grapes in England’s north; it’s likely the first century climate helped, especially considering they lacked modern options on varietals. Since I’ve just pointed out that drawing strong conclusions from such flimsy info is foolish, I wonder where our disagreement lies here. It is only mildly interesting that wine was produced even in England’s north during the Roman Warming. Other indicators are much stronger.

    As for the medieval period, it’s a wonder that a wine industry thrived in England while the Plantagenets had such huge slabs of wine-rich France to source. But thrive it did.

  2681. spangled drongo says

    Debbie, wasn’t someone gonna ban circumlocution but the Israelis protested?

    BTW, I saw one of your bull birds [Australasian Bitterns] at Wivenhoe through the week where I was camping and sailing with the wooden boaters.

    And Poly knows that the CO2 concentrations in ice cores may not be correct and he also knows that the LIA was the coldest period in the last 8,000 years.

  2683. debbie says

    They have just begun to appear here in numbers SD.
    They are a very shy bird, but they absolutely love rice crops and we can hear their very distinctive call….more often than we ever get to see them up close.
    Got way too many ducks though!
    They love rice crops too….but unfortunately (unlike the bull birds) they also like to eat it.
    We don’t hurt them….but we do have to spend a lot of time and effort chasing them away from the crops.
    Yes….Polyaux is just playing semantics. It is a much loved game in academia.
    Nothing he has said so far (although I’m sure he thinks it sounds very academic) disproves KK’s comment about pre industrialised CO2 ppm.
    Best guestimating CO2 levels in ice core samples from Antarctica, while very clever, is not the same as the technology we have today that can indeed measure CO2 ppm very accurately. We also know that the Antarctic is not necessarily a good indicator of other parts of the globe (and it’s being very much ignored at the moment because it won’t cooperate with AGW theory)
    I actually don’t have a problem with all the collection of data and experimenting with ways to present it.
    Polyaux doesn’t appear to grasp that the problem and point of disagreement doesn’t have much to do with the science.

  2684. spangled drongo says

    Debbie, I think I’d be tempted to shoot a duck or two if they were eating my rice knowing how much they can eat and when there is [for them] this oversupply of food thus an oversupply of ducks, a little “restoration of balance” doesn’t do any harm.

    Getting back to nat var, interesting that the warmers are in complete denial of “hide the decline”:

    http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/10/20/visualizing-how-ushcn-hides-the-decline-in-us-temperatures/

  2685. el gordo says

    I’ve been discussing Spencer’s poly fit with warmists and I’m losing the battle…is there anyone who can give me a paragraph of simple language to explain his sine wave? Does it have integrity?

  2687. cohenite says

    Poly, you are harder to pin down then luke; your latest shot at Salby via a superficially appealing analysis by Mr Marsupial at sks shows this.

    Tha mass balance argument used there can be summarised thus:

    Atmospheric increase = human emissions + natural sources – natural sinks

    thus

    Atmospheric increase – human emissions = natural sources – natural sinks

    Plug in known numbers:

    1.5[~] = 8 + NS – ns

    1.5[~] – 8 = NS – ns.

    NS and ns are assumptions.

  2688. spangled drongo says

    gav’s quiet today. Could he possibly be manning Zed’s polling booth, d’ya think?

    But even so he should’ve knocked off by now.

    Counting Zed’s votes maybe?

  2691. Polyaulax says

    Spencer fits the polynomial to feed the chooks,and says as much himself :’entertainment purposes’,probably his,the old cynic. It follows the shape of the data,a bit like a child could draw the same fit with some Burmester curves and a texta. No postdictive or predictive value when the full time period is looked at.

    Cohenite, the carbon cycle fluxes are relatively stable large exchanges in the fast carbon cycle:ocean emissions of CO2 are balanced by ocean drawdown, likewise with plant and microbial exchange to the atmosphere from land plants and soil activity. The saw tooth annual pattern is from seasonal peaks of growth and decay. Without adding CO2 sourced rapidly [mined] from the slow carbon cycle [all carbon sequestered in deep ocean sediments,carboniferous rocks and soils] there’d be little change in atmospheric levels from century to century. When you add 9 GT carbon/annum from the slow to the fast cycle as we do by digging up carboniferous stuff and burning it, the natural fast carbon flux has to account for its arrival and redistributes it into sea,land and atmosphere. The seas take a little over half, hence its measured drop in average pH, and the atmosphere the rest,feeding some back into enhanced plant growth. That’s why the sawtooth pattern is now superimposed on a rising trend of atmo CO2. We are banking 3GT every year in the sky,on top of the bigger natural flux capital. Like topping up your lump sum every year,while engaging in large balanced regular debit and credit.

    NS and ns are known much better than you pretend [the saw tooth amplitude is quantifiable,for example]],and we can identify FF carbon isotopically,and can easily measure changing isotopic ratios in air. Why are we seeing the most rapid rise in atmo CO2 in millions of years,just when we happen to be mining and burning stupendous chunks [numbers very well quantified for 250 years] of the slow carbon cycle?

  2692. Polyaulax says

    Spencer fits the polynomial to feed the chooks,and says as much himself :’entertainment purposes’,probably his,the old cynic. It follows the shape of the data,a bit like a child could draw the same fit with some Burmester curves and a texta. No postdictive or predictive value when the full time period is looked at.

    Cohenite, the carbon cycle fluxes are relatively stable large exchanges in the fast carbon cycle:ocean emissions of CO2 are balanced by ocean drawdown, likewise with plant and microbial exchange to the atmosphere from land plants and soil activity. The saw tooth annual pattern is from seasonal peaks of growth and decay. Without adding CO2 sourced rapidly [mined] from the slow carbon cycle [all carbon sequestered in deep ocean sediments,carboniferous rocks and soils] there’d be little change in atmospheric levels from century to century. When you add 9 GT carbon/annum from the slow to the fast cycle as we do by digging up carboniferous stuff and burning it, the natural fast carbon flux has to account for its arrival and redistributes it into sea,land and atmosphere. The seas take a little over half, hence its measured drop in average pH, and the atmosphere the rest,feeding some back into enhanced plant growth. That’s why the sawtooth pattern is now superimposed on a rising trend of atmo CO2. We are banking 3GT every year in the sky,on top of the bigger natural flux capital. Like topping up your lump sum every year,while engaging in large balanced regular debit and credit.

    NS and ns are known much better than you pretend [the saw tooth amplitude is quantifiable,for example]],and we can identify FF carbon isotopically,and can easily measure changing isotopic ratios in air. Why are we seeing the most rapid rise in atmo CO2 in millions of years,just when we happen to be mining and burning stupendous chunks [numbers very well quantified for 250 years] of the slow carbon cycle?

  2698. Robert says

    Well, if CO2 can do so much, let’s get out of this Holocene! It’s all very well to talk of Minoan, Roman and Medieval Warmings, but, as for those huge, hot Holocene Optima after the last Glacial ended, they make our present warming bump look like a tick’s nipple. And all the smart-asses could say was: “Look, ma, no CO2!”

    If those pre-history types had a photosynthesis deficit from land-clearing and lots of fossil fuel consumption they’d be in real trouble. Well, not really. But it would be a good idea to increase our energy efficiency with new nukes, new coal etc and shrink our land use with intensive ag. As for the population thing, those middle classes, even though you can’t persuade them to die early, just won’t breed like impoverished peasants, or like people who can’t afford lights and heat at night.

    How do our Green Betters manage to get even the green stuff so horribly wrong?

  2699. Polyaulax says

    But you asked me ‘when do you expect it will warm’ and I gave you a direct answer….hmmm.

    I certainly don’t pay attention to idiots like Watts,SD…. he is what is known as a ‘poor interlocutor’. You need Andrew Lacis’ recent paper [2010?] to understand how CO2 is a regulator without being the most powerful or most transiently powerful GHG. Something to do with its phase characteristics and mixability,compared with H2O’s…they do complement each other here

    Here is one of Salby’s errors,also one of the most common nonsenses, corrected elegantly. Really worth reading.

  2702. Polyaulax says

    SD, the link I put in [“here”] to John Neilson-Gammon’s post on misleading graphs very much applies to that last one of yours. The choice of scaling of the left and right axes is critical to making your link so misleading. As well,the CET cannot be used as a global proxy,as it is one site and has a very strong maritime influence which affects the trend. The other fact about the CET is that the first 120 years has huge margins of error because of the early thermometry,combination of sites and that a lot is inferred:some data was even recorded indoors,IIRC. The link provides references,which are essential reading, to the papers describing the compilation process.

  2703. gavin says

    SD; can you do better than wuwt with your replies to poly? That graph is pure conjecture and it’s attempt to link several anti AGW scenarios is nothing but childish.

    Also; Beck comes in on the back of ignorance re pre-industrial CO2. Like temperature, none of those old measurements can be collaborated with the modern.

    btw SD; I spent most of yesterday buffing old hand tools cause we voted electronically before polling day. Ours along with many others form the basis of final predictions under the Hare Clark system.

    http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/hareclark-system-gives-act-true-peoples-house-20121019-27wrf.html

  2704. Neville says

    Well Poly we now understand you are a full bore fanatic about CAGW, so tell us what we should do about it?
    I’ve pointed out that you can’t do zip to change the climate or temp,
    but concede that you and yours can certainly waste countless billions $ forever for a zero return on our money.

    So we know that there is nothing you can do to mitigate AGW, so what’s your bottom line? What should we be doing? REMEMBER before you give it a go, SIMPLE MATHS.

  2705. spangled drongo says

    Poly, do you deny that the CET is not representative of NH temps over that perriod?

    Have you compared it with all the other old data?

    In that period temps have gone up ~ 1c over 350 years [statistically nothing].

    How can you claim that relates to CO2 emissions? That graph shows how foolish that claim is.

    Gav, I use Wattsy because he links to blindingly relevant and obvious facts that you blokes just don’t get. Many of them are scientific papers.

    And then you ask why?

    I rest my case.

    And the Hare Clark system won’t save you from the Greens. Being a community of public breast sucklers you are always gonna be out of touch with reality and Fraser was a fool to have changed the old system under which, periodically, you had to face it.

  2706. debbie says

    Gavin:
    ‘Like temperature, none of those old measurements can be collaborated with the modern.’
    That’s remarkably similar to what KK said which then caused Polyaux to go into attack mode.

    I’m fascinated with the throw away comments on Watts:
    I certainly don’t pay attention to idiots like Watts,SD…. he is what is known as a ‘poor interlocutor’

    By whom I wonder?

    I’m sure Cohenite can explain it better that I can….but isn’t ‘interlocutor’ a legal term and connected to intervening in legal proceedings if it can be proved some harm is being done?
    Isn’t it actually to do with protecting people during legal proceedings?

    So why would Polyaux use a legal term to describe Watts?
    Shouldn’t it be about Watts’ ability to interpret and represent data?

    Considering Watts is well educated, experienced and highly literate in stat analysis….why would Polyaux call him an idiot? Is there something amiss with Watts’ IQ?

    I don’t think Polyaux is grasping the point of disagreement at all.

    He doesn’t seem to understand that when we interpret data via stat analysis with ‘postdictive or predictive value’ that sees us ‘switching on and switching off’ certain variables…. it is merely an attempt to take ‘snapshots in time’ and also attempt to statistically represent possible scenarios if we assume all variables stay the same in relation to each other.
    They should not be used to come up with ‘one size fits all’ rules because they are actually not good enough or sucessfully ‘postdictive or predictive’ enough.
    Or in simple terms….they are not magic crystal balls.
    Or perhaps…..the science is NOT settled….and neither are the stats.
    They are merely a way to represent data…..and if they are not correctly updated they lose their intended purpose and will fast become useless or in many cases counter productive.
    I have no problem with the fact that we are getting better and better at collecting, collating and interpreting data. It’s all very high tech and very interesting.
    But Polyaux appears to believe there is only one “right” way to do that or only one possible way to ‘interpret’ the data and that they are excellent tools to inform social policy.
    Which has very little to do with science.

  2707. Robert says

    CET’s far from brilliant. In fact, it’s as rough as guts. However, it’s enough to indicate just how big a fib is being told about CO2. The Holocene has never flat-lined, quite the contrary. The climate is as stable now as it’s ever been. Which is to say, the climate is not stable at all.

    Higher CO2 levels are symptomatic, among other things, of much land-clearing post 1850. We’re missing too much photosynthesising biomass, and missing it quite suddenly. (Try getting oxygen some other way.) Our Green Betters feel rather sluggish on this, because it’s a very big problem that is nonetheless solvable. “Solvable” is so unsexy, and such a bore when all you want to do is make a jet trail to Rio or Cancun for some climate justice and a bonk on the beach.

    Sure they like the idea of a non-productive Henbury (70% gorgeous wilderness right now) or terrorising the bloke who wants to cut a tree from his fence – but taking conservation seriously is rather strenuous. If we practiced real conservation – and paid the huge price to do it – what would be left for international banksters, trough-swillers and gang-reviewers? You really think that direct national action on biomass is going to be popular with Goldman Sachs? With GIM? With the UN?

    Oh, no, children…these issues are far too complex! Let’s discuss over a strawberry daiquiri in, say, Port Douglas. You’re buying.

  2708. cohenite says

    Poly has switched to research mode and found his way to the NASA, give the kids a thrill page, with some colourful images about CO2 fluxes.

    His last paragraph sums up his position though; which parapharased says the CO2 concentration has gone up at just the same time humanity is using fossil fuels, so it must be our fault.

    A good examination of whether human CO2, ACO2, is causing ALL the increase in CO2 levels is here:

    Rorsch A, Courtney RS & Thoenes D, ‘The Interaction of Climate Change and the Carbon Dioxide Cycle’ E&E v16no2 (2005)

    Before looking at what they say Willis has done a typical thorough expose of the alledged measurement defects of current and past CO2 levels here:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/04/under-the-volcano-over-the-volcano/

    As you can see Willis thinks CO2 is being measured accurately, so for purposes of a mass balance analysis, as I said before, we have 2 of the necessary equations; the rate of increase in CO2 and the Co2 concentration; a 1/3, the ACO2 emissions, is slightly less accurate while the final 2, the natural and human sinks are not quantified with any accuracy.

    In that context the Rorsch paper says this:

    “the annual pulse of anthropogenic CO2 into the atmosphere should relate to the annual increase of CO2 in the atmosphere if one is directly causal of the other, but their variations greatly differ from year to year.”

    And:

    “At present the yearly increase of the anthropogenic emissions is approximately 0.1 GtC/year (see Figure 1). The natural fluctuation of the excess consumption (i.e. consumption processes 1 and 3 minus production processes 2 and 4) is at least 6 ppmv (which corresponds to 12 GtC) in 4 months (see Figure 2). This is more than 100 times the yearly increase of human production, which strongly suggests that the dynamics of the natural processes here listed 1-5 can cope easily with the human production of CO2. A serious disruption of the system may be expected when the rate of increase of the anthropogenic emissions becomes larger than the natural variations of CO2. But the above data indicates this is not possible.”

    Finally:

    “The three models used in these exercises each emulate different physical processes and each agrees with the observed recent rise of atmospheric CO2 concentration. They each demonstrate that the observed recent rise of atmospheric CO2 concentration may be solely a consequence of the anthropogenic emission or may be solely a result of, for example, desorption from the oceans induced by the temperature rise that preceded it. Furthermore, extrapolation using these models gives very different predictions of future atmospheric CO2 concentration whatever the cause of the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration.

    Put another way, the above considerations indicate that any one of three natural mechanisms in the carbon cycle alone can be used to account for the observed rise. The study provides six such models with three of them assuming a significant anthropogenic contribution to the cause and the other three assuming no significant anthropogenic contribution to the cause. Each of the models matches the available empirical data without use of any ‘fiddle-factor’ such as the ‘5-year smoothing’ the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) uses to get its model to agree with the empirical data.”

    The issue of whether ACO2 is causing ALL or indeed ANY of the increase in CO2 remains problematic and declarations like poly’s about ‘now’ being the worst ever so it must be us don’t help.

  2709. kuhnkat says

    Polly wanna cracker,

    you can identify isotopes of different elements. Unless you have your crystal ball working you cannot tell where thoseelements came from based on their being an isotope,One of numerous mythologies you alarmists keep spreading.

    As far as Saly’s errors, in you dreams!! What in the silly presentation based on faked data shows an error by Dr. Salby??

    The fact is still and will be for probably decades that YOU and the IPCCC and the rest of us have no idea what the actual flux is within any usable range. you also cannot show ANY correlation between man made emissions and the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere which is waht Salby is trying to get actoss to you dufi.

    When you can answer those two issues I am willing to listen.

    Now, instead of arguing about how many angels fit on the end of point of a faked data temperature graph, let’s get down to some basics. Most people agree now that the temp. response to a doubling of CO2 is 1.5c OR LESS!!! 1.5c per 100 years is NOTHING!! 2c per 100 years is NOT an issue we need to address. This leave you and the rest of the DUFI with the problem of explaining how the models should be believed and how we get to 3c or more per 100 years. Your sides answer has been that there are positive feedbacks. Rather than argue all the rediculous BS y’all have put out there on unsupported radiative transfer hallucinations and aerosol magic mushrooms, let’s get right to the IPCC and modellers FINGERPRINT of Gorebull Warming.

    The Fingerprint in AR4 is the Hotspot, elevated Tropopause, and cooling Stratosphere.

    One aside here, PLEASE argue that the fingerprint is the same for ANY warming so I can laugh at you and tell you that the FINGERPRINT tells us there has been NO WARMING AT ALL and the temperature series have been faked!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

    Seriously, NASA has recently told us that they are extending the operational lives of their satellite missions due to less drag because the atmosphere has shrunk!!! Don’t sound like any warming raising the trop or ANY level of the atmosphere to me.

    Second, the stratosphere has been flat for as long as temps haven’t risen, over 16 years!!!

    THERE IS NO HOTSPOT!!!!

    That leads us to one of two conclusions. 1) the models are not really useful to project climate in the atmosphere. 2) there has been no warming.

    OK, it is your turn to try and come up with a plausible excuse to salvage the Climate Scam!!!

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA

  2710. kuhnkat says

    Polyethlene,

    “kuhnkat, we ASSUME nothing when we have OBSERVED CO2 distribution through a precision standardised observation system, whether you are partial to accepting whatever…”

    Funny, I would swear that we STILL don’t have a large network of CO2 measuring stations at the same places we are measuring temperature. Maybe you would like to PROVE to us that the measurements you think so much of actually go back more than about 30 years and they are actually high quality and representative of the earth’s atmosphere and not the manipulations of a small group of Utopians??

    I mean, really, Keeling started out not being able to correctly measure CO2 and y’all want to slam Beck and Nobel Chemists???

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  2711. spangled drongo says

    KK, ya gotta wonder about that measurement point at Mauna Loa. The worlds biggest active volcano with presumably much local venting of CO2.

    I spent a day and a night sailing past it in 1980 in a Pan AM Clipper Series yacht race and there were continuous streams of lava pouring into the ocean.

    Most impressive but it hastabe a suspect measuring place.

    http://www.google.com.au/imgres?q=mauna+loa&hl=en&sa=X&biw=1291&bih=656&tbm=isch&prmd=imvns&tbnid=gbZZnzgl_0AeTM:&imgrefurl=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Aa_channel_flow_from_Mauna_Loa.jpg&docid=iifCmZ4EczKkiM&imgurl=http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6e/Aa_channel_flow_from_Mauna_Loa.jpg&w=800&h=500&ei=YkCDUKWZBO2SiAeVkoCoDA&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=668&vpy=236&dur=10093&hovh=177&hovw=284&tx=251&ty=126&sig=113542314368312087462&page=1&tbnh=103&tbnw=165&start=0&ndsp=18&ved=1t:429,r:9,s:0,i:165

  2712. Polyaulax says

    Kuhnkataleptic, you are so paranoid I really wonder how you get through your day. Maybe by laughing maniacally with two fingers hammering. If the temperature series has been faked you have to explain how the melting of the global cryosphere has been faked. Idiot. If Salby was trying to show you cannot correlate human emissions with atmospheric trends then you have to despair…it is really long past questionable,except by fools and liars. And it seems you really need the gentle but thoroughly informative Earth Observatory feature that I directed Cohenite to,as do the authors of his E&E link. One RS Courtney contributes,big red flag….as it is that junk paper demonstrates that Salby cannot be right

    Why do we need to measure CO2 concentration and temperature in a “large number of places”. You can argue for that,can you? As it happens a good number of the gas measuring points DO record meteorology,but really this is simply convenient when you’ve got chunky expensive bits of science real estate in remote places.

    Yes,the high qual observations go back 20,30,40 and fifty years in some cases. Before that,techniques relied much more on individual operator skill,and observation points were not fixed,they were just temporary. Beck’s paper gathers a mass of records,some very short,with no quality control,and many made in places entirely unsuitable to determine baseline mixing ratios….and never intended for such a purpose. That historical mess demonstrates why Keeling really had to build solid consistent methodology and technology from first observation principles.

  2713. Polyaulax says

    SD,Mauna Loa was built with full knowledge of volcanic CO2 being occasionally present. Visit their site and you can see how they deal with it.

  2714. Robert says

    Volcanogenic CO2 is a theme the script writers killed quick. When you consider that most of the vulcanism is submarine, and that much atmospheric CO2 MAY be isotopically indistinguishable from much volcanic CO2…

    Well, you can see why the spinners only like volcanoes for purposes of explaining away some cooling here and there.

  2715. cohenite says

    “And it seems you really need the gentle but thoroughly informative Earth Observatory feature that I directed Cohenite to,as do the authors of his E&E link. One RS Courtney contributes,big red flag….as it is that junk paper demonstrates that Salby cannot be right”

    I gave you the link to the paper, selected quotes from it, and all you can do is have a shot at Courtney.

    Great work poly!

    I repeat, of all the aspects of the AGW debate, the issue of what source, nature or anthropogenic, is responsible for the increase in CO2, is the ONLY problematic issue.

    Salby, a man of impeccable credentials, has raised some cogent points; the main exponent of ACO2 being the culprit, Ferdinand Engelbeen, is a smart guy and well researched; I’m not going to criticise either of them personally, so I don’t think you should either.

    The most comprehensive analysis on the ACO2@CO2 issue on the blogs is here:

    http://joannenova.com.au/2011/08/blockbuster-planetary-temperature-controls-co2-levels-not-humans/

    FE’s position is described simply at comment 626:

    “Nature is a NET SINK for CO2 for the past at least 50 years. That means that the net contribution of nature to the increase is zero, nada, nothing.”

    On the face of it this is a remarkable conclusion since in a warming world with a warming ocean the ocean should be a NET SOURCE for CO2. FE explains the contradiction at comment 644:

    “Again have a look at the above graph by Tom Quirk: In every year over the past 50 years, human sources exceed the increase in the atmosphere. The difference between the two is what is absorbed by nature. Thus nature was a net sink over the past 50 years. If nature was a net source, the increase in the atmosphere would be higher than the human emisions, which is not observed. It is that simple.”

    FE’s point is based on the idea that if ACO2 exceeds the increase in CO2 then all of the increase must be due to ACO2. This has happened with ACO2 about 8GT PA and CO2 increase about 4GTPA.

    For this to happen CO2 sinks must be expanding to absorb 1/2 the ACO2. But this ignores 2 things:

    1 Sinks may be expanding at a greater rate than ACO2 in which case natural CO2 will be contributing.
    2 The above is confirmed by this paper:

    http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/knorr2009_co2_sequestration.pdf

    This paper shows that the % of ACO2 in the atmosphere has stayed the same despite increases in ACO2 and CO2 so ACO2 cannot be responsible for the entire increase in CO2 levels.

    This can be demonstrated quite easily, the principle is a constant in an increasing total: say ACO2 is 20% of CO2 which is 100, so ACO2 is 20; when CO2 is 200 ACO2′s 20% will be 40 so other CO2 has contributed 60; at 300, ACO2 is 60, other is 140 and so on; natural CO2 must be contributing to the increase in total CO2 and sinks must be expanding more than the 4GTPA.

    There are other arguments against what FE is proposing but I’ll leave that to later.

  2717. Polyaulax says

    Come on ,Robert, put some references behind that accusation. Where are the geologists lining up to argue volcanic CO2 fluxes are hundreds of times greater than USGS estimates? Is the USGS in on the plot ,too? If the figures were so baseless,why would anyone hesitate to demonstrate why and recalculate them? What are we living in? East Germany 1965? How do the global carbon plotters keep thousands of science workers from global observation programs in line? All the ecologists,the geologists,the meteorologists,the climatologists,the oceanographers,their support staff and families…it’s shocking.

  2718. Robert says

    “What are we living in? East Germany 1965?”
    Polyaulax, keep your kinky fantasies to yourself.

    Re volcanism: data is low. They’re mostly way under the water, you see. Also, while most people know a tiny bit more about what’s underneath us than, say, “Million Degree” Gore, nobody knows a heap. So I know a bit more than the average cocker spaniel – who knows a bit more than Al Gore.

    Science tends to be (A) settled for warming purposes, and (B) unsettled for funding purposes, and volcanism has fallen foul of (A).

    Deforestation and photosynthesis we know a lot more about. Loss of biomass explains the presence of a lot of CO2, and things more important than that. Anthropogenic signatures be buggered. We PROBABLY need to increase biomass greatly. If we do, we need to commercialise it, not fetishise it as our Green Better do. Gaia is just a cranky bitch, but we need to keep hair on her scalp.

  2719. cohenite says

    “Gaia is just a cranky bitch, but we need to keep hair on her scalp.”

    Very good; and I won’t mention Brazil.

  2721. Polyaulax says

    Cohenite, Rorsch et al…bullshit from E&E,the House of Bullshit…

    First para cited: ‘annual pulse should be related to annual increase..if one is directly causal of the other’. No reasoning has been given for this assertion. Whatever…they are not relatedanyway,therefore no causation. The pulse is seasonal shrinking and growing of biological activity,dominated by NH land veg. The increase from year to year is ACO2. Two signals,the natural dictates the amplitude,the anthro provides the trend,because natural permanent sinks cannot keep up with our ‘desequestration’ efforts. The tap’s been turned up but the sinkhole has not been enlarged…you must be familiar with that useful analogy.

    Second para is mere assertion: the annual amplitude involves exchange of a larger quantity than the annual anthro contribution. This apparently ‘strongly suggests’ that the small addition should be ‘handled’ by the larger flux….they try to sound serious,but it’s just handwaving crap. As I said with a banking analogy–one widely used—you have a million in an account,draw it out every spring and put it back the next. Big exchange,but balances out. Then you add 10000 every year which you don’t extract. So 10 ks keep adding up,while you keep cycling the million back and forth …whaddya get?

    What we add,mined from geologically isolated ‘slow cycle’ carbon reserves, is shared around into the fast carbon cycle components,which continue to behave as they do anyway: the pulse of life. Carbon/Co2 levels rise while we overwhelm the long term,slow cycle drawdown mechanisms. These mechanisms continue to function,though with uncertainty about their future capacities maintaining their partitioning powers, but chemical weathering and resequestration are not rapid enough to keep up. Therefore CO2 rises in the atmo, adds bulk to vegetation [which lives from a few months to hundreds or thousands of years depending on species] and enters the ocean. Global SST rise driving outgassing cannot explain the atmo rise trend.

    But the amplitude of the seasonal natural pulse does not vary greatly,though inter-annually influenced by ENSO..

    Third para cited is meaningless assertion without the material it refers to. Why bother including their claims without their legwork?

  2722. Polyaulax says

    Robert,I reckon you’d have been fine in E Germ…you hold your beliefs despite evidence not because of it.

    We tried to commercialise reafforestation here,but the short-termers blew it for many. At least the minimally maintained plantings are still sequestering and will be fine resources.

  2723. cohenite says

    poly, if you want to swear go to the Cat.

    Now, you start off badly by saying:

    “No reasoning has been given for this assertion. Whatever…they are not relatedanyway,therefore no causation”

    Of course they are related; there is a host of research which shows more biological activity as a response to extra CO2 not just on land but in the sea with alleged increase in such things as Cyanobacteria which comprise about 48% of the living mass; this increase will create a bigger pulse and therefore should have a direct connection, if ACO2 is causing the increase in CO2, with the ‘trend’ as you cause it.

    And how is the 2nd paragraph “mere assertion”! It’s based on uncontroversial ‘official’ figures! Do you deny the natural fluctuation is “more than 100 times the yearly increase of human production”? And this is the point the fluctuations in the natural system exceed the anthropogenic contribution by orders of magnitude. As Courtney notes:

    “Simply, it is possible that the anthropogenic emission of each year disrupts the system and the system response time is very long. Please note that this has nothing to do with CO2 residence time: it is an effect of the possible response time of the total system of the carbon cycle.

    Howver, this possibility is improbable because the annual flow of carbon into the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels is less than 0.02% of the carbon flowing around the carbon cycle. And it is not obvious that so small an addition to the carbon cycle is certain to disrupt the system because no other activity in nature is so constant that it only varies by less than +/- 0.02% per year.”

    I thought you had some sense; you’re just a mouther of slogans.

  2724. debbie says

    Polyaux?
    ‘How do the global carbon plotters keep thousands of science workers from global observation programs in line? All the ecologists,the geologists,the meteorologists,the climatologists,the oceanographers,their support staff and families…it’s shocking.’

    You are not implying that people believe in conspiracy theories and secret govt plots are you?

    May I respectfully suggest you re read what Cohenite posted; particularly here:
    ‘Salby, a man of impeccable credentials, has raised some cogent points; the main exponent of ACO2 being the culprit, Ferdinand Engelbeen, is a smart guy and well researched; I’m not going to criticise either of them personally, so I don’t think you should either.’

    And re assess your approach?

    Because you are the main culprit for dismissing people as idiots or cunning or possessing questionable motives when these people have perfectly credible quals and clearly outline their methodology and meticulously follow it…

    When I read KKs post and your reply and ignored the personal comments/insults and the arguing of semantics you have essentially ‘furiously agreed’ with him.

    So why are you furious Polyaux? What’s your problem really?

  2725. spangled drongo says

    Cohers, thanks for that link on Mauna Loa. I hadn’t read it before.

    More good stuff from Wattsy.

  2727. Polyaulax says

    Debbie,whether or not rhetorically, much mention is made of the ‘scam’. If people want to resort to such speculation in the face of the clear impossibility,I know they’re more comfortable thinking ‘conspiracy’. ‘Furiously agree’ with KK? Er, no,there is no sign of that in my responses. He thinks CO2 and T should be measured together to get a better idea of…well, something! CO2 distribution? CO2 influence on local temperature? If those, it’s nonsense. Combining those measuring units is irrelevant to gathering meaningful data. CO2 doesn’t have a local temperature effect,it acts at system scale. And that’s just one example of my disagreement….I’m not furious,I’m gobsmacked. Salby may be a lovely bloke,but he is simply wrong,and no lack of well qualified people have tried to get through to him.

    Cohers,you’re not getting it…. why should the annual pulse be related to the annual increase whatever the causal factors? In this case we have two separate functions: one is literally the earth breathing in and out, the other is addition to the natural flux by an accelerating human fossil fuel use.

    The earth would be producing the seasonal pulse regardless of whether longer term trends are up down or static,because that pulse is a sign of a constant process related to seasonal insolation change and the preponderance of land surface in the NH. And if all land masses were clustered along the equator,the seasonal signal would be suppressed if not eliminated. The factors that cause a seasonal signal are not related to persistent [i.e.,non-seasonal] introduction of CO2 from another source,at least at quantities that are not lethal to life.

    The factors that cause long term rises and falls of the trend relate to increase or decrease in insolation as a persistent change,or burning huge amounts of coal for a sustained period. The key to moving trends long term is persistence.

    My comment on their second para was badly worded. Yes,annual amplitude involves greater quantities than annual anthro addition. The assertion is that this means somehow axiomatically that the second quantity should be easily ‘handled’ by the first process…that IS an illogical nonsense. The second quantity is cumulative as the rising trend shows,which demonstrates the fallacy of the thinking,and that no reasoning has been given for the assertion.

    Once again, think of the accounting analogy.

  2728. Debbie says

    Without the semantics and personal insults….KK’s main point and main question:

    Maybe you would like to PROVE to us that the measurements you think so much of actually go back more than about 30 years and they are actually high quality and representative of the earth’s atmosphere

    Without the semantics and insults Polyaux’s answer:

    Yes,the high qual observations go back 20,30,40 and fifty years in some cases. Before that,techniques relied much more on individual operator skill,and observation points were not fixed,they were just temporary.

    So Polyaux….KKs orginal point was that there is not sufficient reliable data available much past 30 years and any that was available was not collected in a reliable manner or with the idea that rises in global ACO2 emissions and Global temperature rises needed to be correlated.

    Also….when words like ‘scam’ get used here….they apply to the ‘politics’ not the ‘science’….but I’m sure you didn’t actually need me to explain that.
    I have linked you to the policy that you appear to adhere to….so it can’t be a ‘conspiracy’ or it wouldn’t be sitting on their public website.

    You are likely a lovely bloke too Polyaux but that doesn’t mean you’re simply right either.
    There isn’t simply a right or wrong….there are just different ways to interpret and present information….using different but perfectly legitimate methodology.

    And Polyaux….the natural climate/environment is not interested in having a yearly ‘accounting’ balance.
    It’s quite clear from historical records and geological data etc that it doesn’t recognise ‘balance’ in the same manner re your analogy.
    It’s also not interested in maintaining/following a trend in a stat model.
    ‘Accounting’ and “stat trends’ are human inventions…..and we can and do use them to try and get a better understanding of the world around us.
    They are not capable of dictating and creating an accountable balance in this instance…because the climate/environment is not human or human invented.
    They can certainly ‘account’ for the purposes of taxing however!

  2729. cohenite says

    poly, really:

    “one is literally the earth breathing in and out, the other is addition to the natural flux by an accelerating human fossil fuel use.”

    The “earth breathing in and out”, “literally”; you are Tim aren’t you, admit it.

    Anyway, are you saying human CO2 is distinct from natural CO2 for purposes of the Earth’s ‘respiration’? This is really surreal.

  2732. Robert says

    My God these people must know lots about oceans – unless they’re guessing like crazy. Sedimentary rock dwarfs all else as storage, but those cold ocean depths are by far the biggest active carbon sinks, convecting, diffusing, and influenced by god-knows-what above and below them.

    It’s funny how people reduce vast natural processes to a kind of Star Wars console, with “drivers” and “forcings” based on the latest tiny glimpses of knowledge.

    Now the carbon account balance! Sorry. I mean the CAB (topped up with FF deposits).

  2734. Johnathan Wilkes says

    “one is literally the earth breathing in and out”

    Push them hard enough with facts, and the devpout Gaia worshiper and inner, closet (or not so closet) totalitarian comes out.

  2735. Debbie says

    I NEED to know how to do that BOLD thing at this blog JW!. 🙂
    MUCH more effective than using CAPS!

  2736. Johnathan Wilkes says

    enclose the words or sentences in “” “/b>” tags without the quotation marks.
    I had to include them because otherwise they would not show.

    like Albert

    now I type the tags without the quotation marks

  2738. Johnathan Wilkes says

    B…..r, type “” before the word and “” at the end without the quotation marks or google html tags. Most of them won’t work on this blog though!

  2739. Johnathan Wilkes says

    No I did not make a mistake this silly bog engine will not print out “”””
    see if this works you should get the idea by now anyway.

    At this rate I’ll post #3000

  2741. Johnathan Wilkes says

    Ps you must make sure you put in the closing “” otherwise all the following post will be bold, aka “spilled the bold”

  2742. Johnathan Wilkes says

    Give up! So simple but can’t print it out.
    Jennifer help! clear up if you have the time.
    Thanks

  2747. Johnathan Wilkes says

    Debbie, type the lesser than symbol then the letter b (upper or lower makes no difference) then the greater than symbol and then the word you want bolding pollowed by the lesser than symbol followed by forward slash followed by the letter b again and followed by the greater than symbol again

  2749. Johnathan Wilkes says

    word to be emboldened

    see if this gets through if so just follow type the same without the spaces between the characters.

    If not, I’m sorry.

  2750. Johnathan Wilkes says

    No go Debbie, sorry. If I type the html tags they will work and not show , naturally they are not supposed to, they even work with spaces between them! Who would have thunk?

  2752. gavin says

    Do we have to remind a few quacks here that there is a full blown Aussie CO2 monitoring station at Cape Grim?

    http://www.theage.com.au/environment/greenhouse-gases-on-rise-after-lull-20120313-1uyhi.html

    I get so annoyed by that wuwt tripe repeated over and over cause it shows how many contributions arn’t original thinking.

    Home grown and up to date

    http://www.marine.csiro.au/marq/edd_search.Browse_Citation?txtSession=8385&brief=Y

    That should take us here

    http://cdiac.ornl.gov/

  2753. Polyaulax says

    JW, you haven’t provided a single fact,let alone pushed hard with any,and now I’m apparently a closet totalitarian for using a harmless but apt analogy.

    Englebeen has the patience of a saint.

  2754. Johnathan Wilkes says

    Poly,

    Just to let you know , I told Luke some time ago that while I read many papers and visit websites relating to climate, I will not engage in a battle of who can present the most number of links.

    Most of us who are genuinely interested have read them and there is no point in an a “my scientist is better than yours” fight.

    I have an open mind, you on the other hand proved by your posts that you will not except any argument contrary to yours.
    And yes, you show a tendency of favouring totalitarian solutions, if in doubt, read your own posts.

    I have read some of your posts on other blogs, the way you think, your politics, shines through, no matter what the subject.

  2756. Debbie says

    I get so annoyed by that wuwt tripe repeated over and over cause it shows how many contributions arn’t original thinking.

    Seriously Gavin?
    Is that like ‘higher order thinking’ or ‘higher level principles’ ?

    Just because an idea or thinking isn’t original does not mean that there is something wrong about that idea! if they’re still around it often means that they have stood the test of time and they are based on sound principles that actually deliver good outcomes.
    A lot of the thinking that people think are original are very often old and failed ideas dressed up in new clothes.
    The ‘global governance’ policy of the Greens is one such example.
    If your original idea or your ‘higher order thinking’ is systematically undermining the principles and the thinking that allowed you the priviliges and lifestyle you have today…..I would call that originally stupid thinking!
    It’s also known as regressive which you may be aware is the antonymn of progressive.

  2758. Neville says

    The Bolter’s column today should be a good one. But for those who can’t/won’t pay to read online he has one of the best video summaries of AGW OZ alarmism that you could find to watch in just a few minutes.
    Bob Carter at the end is fair but accurate in a just a minute or so. Please watch if you have the time. But not Gav, Luke, bazza or Poly because this is short on delusional fantasy.

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/column_why_jones_is_humiliated_but_flannery_spared/

    BTW that ad with Blancette etc was probably the most dreadful piece of delusional nonsense ever presented to an Aussie audience.
    IOW we reduce our whopping 1.1% of co2 emissions by 5% by 2020 and we’ve fixed CAGW, YIPPPEEEE.

  2763. Johnathan Wilkes says

    No, well we will have to run out of bold or wait for Jennifer to reset it.
    at least we get to comment 3000 sooner than expected.

  2764. Johnathan Wilkes says

    Debbie,
    type something and bold it but this time close the tag like you did in your previous post, that may reset the page.

  2765. Polyaulax says

    Oh,JW, that was a disappointing reply. You’ve accused me of being a totalitarian who’s more interested in number of links than the content of them. That’s just a FU,and another avoidance of discussing content.

    No point in a “My scientist is better than yours” fight? Science is at heart the competition of ideas….Salby is mistaken at best,simple as that. When a competent scientist pushes rubbish and constructs misleading graphics,one has to wonder the motivation,because assembling work is a series of deliberate acts. Can’t hide from that. Neilson-Gammon’s post takes a non-partisan look at misleading by scaling choice,you may have noticed.

  2766. Debbie says

    CRAP! SORRY FOLKS.
    hope that works?

    My sincere apologies Jen and others.:-)
    I had no idea that could happen!
    Serves me right for trying to be clever with the special effects.
    I guess you’re right JW….it will take the thread to 3,000 sooner

  2767. Debbie says

    Nope….closed it.
    I’m pretty sure I did before too.
    But perhaps I did do something to the setting without realising it?
    Sorry if it was me.

  2768. Johnathan Wilkes says

    Never mind Debbie, these blog engines are very temperamental at the best of times.
    at least it’s easier to read for older readers or is it?

  2769. Debbie says

    Polyaux,
    The point of disagreement is “not” about the competency of scientists nor is it about science.
    Otherwise you would not see the need call scientifically qualified people names and question their motives.
    But you’re right:
    ” “    “assembling work is a series of deliberate acts.” “”
    What you’re missing is what Jen has highlighted here on many occaisions.
    There is a misconception operating that advances the idea that the ‘source’ of the work or the ’employment’ of the scientist somehow dictates the ‘purity’ of the work.
    In a lot of cases that means “work for govt is pure: work for anyone else is corrupted”.
    That’s illogical.

  2770. Johnathan Wilkes says

    Poly,

    No point in a “My scientist is better than yours” fight? Science is at heart the competition of ideas….Salby is mistaken at best,simple as that. When a competent scientist pushes rubbish and constructs misleading graphics,one has to wonder the motivation,because assembling work is a series of deliberate acts. Can’t hide from that. Neilson-Gammon’s post takes a non-partisan look at misleading by scaling choice,you may have noticed.

    Here you go attacking the man, tell me why is he mistaken?
    This is what I mean, when I refuse to provide links, what’s the point?
    You just either ignore it or rubbish it, one cannot fight faith.

  2771. Polyaulax says

    Debbie: “when words like ‘scam’ are used here they apply to the politics and not the science” I’m failing to see that distinction honored consistently here,as in Robert’s comment of 21/10 @ 12.22pm. You seem to be supervising;have a word with him.

    “I’ve linked you to the policy you appear to adhere to”…so that’s me in a box now is it? I don’t so much consider the politics as the arguments: fears of ‘global governance’ have to be contextualised by the reality that we already use global governance systems. Isn’t there anything remotely reassuring about the functioning of at least some of these existing arrangements?

    You’ve also claimed that I agree with KK, another link that goes nowhere when you look at it. KK’s claim [that pre-Keeling nothing reliable can be divined about CO2 globally] only ‘works’ if you uncritically elevate Beck and ignore what the real world of science does: combine observation with reconstruction and carbon accounting..which,BTW, works because countries keep records. KK’s assertion of data fakery is ill-informed.

  2772. Debbie says

    Polyaux,
    After apparently messing up the bolding capacity of the blog engine I am loathe to swap and change pages while commenting.
    Please copy/paste the particular comment of Robert’s that you believe is using ‘scam’ to describe science….I can’t see where he has done that.
    I’m not supervising anything Polyaux….in fact I seem to have done a real shocker while attempting to fiddle with the special effects….I am just exercising my perfectly legitimate right to comment at this blog….as are you.
    I, along with JW apparently, do not appreciate being told what I NEED or being told I can’t comment because I won’t play silly “My Daddy is bigger than your Daddy’ games nor am I tempted to argue academic semantics. If you don’t like feeling like you’re being put in a box….then maybe you could look to your own behaviour and you may see a pattern developing.
    I am a ‘results orientated’ person Polyaux.
    I judge by stated desired outcomes and goals and whether they are achieved.
    I take comments at face value and do not have the time to play that academic game of arguing semantics nor feel that it achieves anything worthwhile…..I havebeen there & done that…..and found it an unproductive use of my time and energy.
    Walter Starck calls that an ‘academic pissing contest’ and I believe that is an amusing and apt description.

  2773. Robert says

    Deb, I really liked it when you used caps and added smileys. Plus, it annoyed those stuck-up lefties. This bold thing is just not you.

    Poly, as we know from our time in the grand old GDR, nobody needs to falsify when they can smooth, adjust and contextualise. One learned that before leaving the cradle, and shortly after one’s first steroid.

    Heil Honecker!

  2774. Polyaulax says

    Cohenite ,21/10@ 11.32am. You lay out Engelbeen’s comments about natural sinks being a net sink for ACO2 over at least the last 50 years. Yes. The reasoning is that our annual output has exceeded the annual increase measured in the air. Two rising trends at different rates. It follows that the land-ocean is taking a share of that ACO2 originating as emission to the atmosphere,producing that lower airCO2 rise than ACO2 output.

    You introduce Knorr 2009,who finds that partitioning ratio between atmosphere and land-ocean has remained essentially unchanged over that period. {Actually finds airborne fraction has increased close to but not significantly different from zero} IIRC it’s about 45/55 air/land-ocean. There is the ratio figure that shows the share remains essentially the same…. but the individual numbers shared are both rising.

    You posit that ‘sinks may be expanding at a greater rate than ACO2’ and that Knorr supports this idea. No, the conclusions above clearly show that the land-ocean sinks are ‘expanding’, but at a rate less than the rate that ACO2 output is increasing,because atmoCO2 total keeps rising. If L-O sinks were expanding at a greater rate than ACO2,airborne fraction would be declining and partitioning ratio would be changing.

    Courtney red-flags because he is/was a coal lobbyist,has no climatology or meteorology background and no publications in a legitimate journal.

  2776. Debbie says

    BTW Polyaux,
    Global economic systems that are designed to help administer such things as trade and the sharing of information are systems that do have merit.
    The current ‘global governance’ policy that is being commented on here is claiming it can control and administer and account for the amount of ‘literally breathing in and out’ that the globe does.
    The ‘globe’ is not a human invention Polyaux and it doesn’t appear to be interested in relinquishing control or being accountable to a global governance system based on its breathing behaviour.
    I can see why the ‘theory’ is compelling….but it is not translating well into practice….ie…it appears to be causing more harm than good.

  2778. Johnathan Wilkes says

    Neville,
    but why not a royal commission?

    I don’t think it will happen, I have my doubts about and inquiry even.
    Too many skeletons everywhere.

  2781. Polyaulax says

    I’m not arguing semantics,Deb. Oh, and Kuhncats assertion of data fakery–to be found in his two comments underscored quaintly with HAHAHAs– is another example the ‘scam’ meme being applied to the science. And Robert’s at it again: associative naughtiness! ‘as we know from our time in the grand old GDR,nobody needs to falsify,when they can smooth,adjust,and contextualise’ Oh when will this cynicism ever end ?….

    GDR joke for Robert: ‘Q. Why do the Volkspolizei always travel in threes? One who can read,one who can write,and the other to keep an eye on the two intellectuals’.

  2782. Mark A says

    Debbie, I think the problem maybe that you put your smily inside the closing bold tag?
    Just guessing here.
    [quote]

    Thanks JW    [/quote]

  2784. Johnathan Wilkes says

    “For the sea ice zone around Antarctica we need to develop alternative techniques ”

    I have am worried about, what those “alternative techniques” will reveal in the future.

    Not contributing to SL/R? The bleeding thing is collecting ice mass no end!

  2785. spangled drongo says

    JW, the real blind spot is in the eye of stupid govts who can’t see that they are being blindsided by scientists busting to spend our money to stuff our economy.

    Who started this bad joke?

  2786. Robert says

    Behind all the fuss and complexity of alarmist reasoning, there is a terrifying simplicity. They truly see such things as economy and the physical world as governed and governable by simplistic mechanisms – the latest scraps of knowledge or theory will determine which mechanisms. Even a conservative notion such as “the market” becomes another knob or lever they can add to their console.

    We think it’s a hoot, all the talk of carbon budgets, partitioning ratios, alternative techniques and so on. But for these people it’s a kind of core reality, from which they can govern the wider reality.

    Really, I don’t dislike Luke, Bazza or Poly. But, gawd, we don’t want to end up as characters in their PlayStation world.

  2788. Debbie says

    Thanks Mark A
    I do sincerely apologise everyone.
    it does appear as if I have inadvertently given the bold command a hissy fit!
    Polyaux,
    you claimed     Robert had used or implied scam re the science, not KK.
    I don’t believe KK is claiming science per se is a scam either.
    He certainly questions the veracity of the historical data and you agreed that it is only reliable for a maximum of 50 years.

  2789. Johnathan Wilkes says

    Robert

    We think it’s a hoot, all the talk of carbon budgets, partitioning ratios, alternative techniques and so on. But for these people it’s a kind of core reality, from which they can govern the wider reality.

    Really, I don’t dislike Luke, Bazza or Poly. But, gawd, we don’t want to end up as characters in their PlayStation world.

    Well said Robert, they actually believe their own spin.
    Why, I read about them wanting to seed the oceans with iron, spreading aerosols in the atmosphere etc..

    We know diddly squat about the complex nature of our climate and atmosphere but these people, well meaning they may be, are ready to interfere, based on the outcome of some computer modelling.

    I feel absolutely no animosity towards them either, why should I?
    But that will not prevent me from criticizing them when they deserve it.

    ‘——————————
    Debbie if we are lucky the next page will not be infected, usually it’s not carried over, but not always unfortunately.
    Fingers crossed!

  2790. cohenite says

    poly says:

    “You posit that ‘sinks may be expanding at a greater rate than ACO2′ and that Knorr supports this idea. No, the conclusions above clearly show that the land-ocean sinks are ‘expanding’, but at a rate less than the rate that ACO2 output is increasing,because atmoCO2 total keeps rising. If L-O sinks were expanding at a greater rate than ACO2,airborne fraction would be declining and partitioning ratio would be changing.”

    Knorr is upported by Goor et al:

    http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/10/9045/2010/acpd-10-9045-2010.html

    Your conclusion, again, is based on nature being a net sink; Knoor shows that is not necessarily the case; the fact that CO2 concentration is increasing does not prove nature is a net sink; I gave one reason why based on Knoor; I’ll repeat it; the principle is a constant in an increasing total: say ACO2 is 20% of CO2 which is 100, so ACO2 is 20; when CO2 is 200 ACO2′s 20% will be 40 so other CO2 has contributed 60; at 300, ACO2 is 60, other is 140 and so on; natural CO2 must be contributing to the increase in total CO2 and sinks must be expanding more than the increase in ACO2. This shows that BOTH ACO2 and CO2 emissions can be increasing.

    Consider this; if natural CO2 was not capable of exceeding natural sinks how could CO2 levels ever increase, as they did between 15000 and 12000 years ago when they went from below 200 ppm to 270 ppm and enabled modern agriculture to begin?

  2791. Polyaulax says

    JW, you may know diddly squat,but don’t pretend that the sum of climate knowledge is defined by your own.

    Cohers,I have never claimed that natural sinks have not been overwhelmed in the geological past by any process….but what process was seen during the last great shift in atmo CO2 levels? Not an overwhelming rise from mined FFs,but a slow outgassing of warming water triggered by orbital insolation-change induced warming. The 180 to 270ppm climb from the depths of the last glacial max was a result of ocean outgassing and the revival of the green cycle through warming, happening at a much slower rate than what we observe through an entirely different process,Anthro FF burning. We have boosted levels almost 40% [280>390] in a 150 years. That pre-Holocene rise of about 50% [180>270] took 12,000 years! That 1.5ppm/annum versus 1ppm/135 years. This is another example of why scaling factors have to be noted carefully whenever someone plonks a graphic of two or more process in front of you.

    Knoor says nothing about hypotheticals. He specifically cannot support your suggestion/posit in regards to our present case because he has found partition ratio unchanged in our present case..

    If not FFs then we have to find the source[s] and mechanism of this incredibly rapid change in atmo CO2 and the extra CO2 entering the ocean on a net basis as demonstrated by pH shift.

    Oceanic warming alone is not large enough to allow so much outgassing so fast,human land surface change neither. Volcanic outgassing cannot be the source according to the USGS and the global monitoring systems in place. If suboceanic sources were over a hundred times estimates we’d know it by now,reference Gerlach’s discussion of how much extra ocean floor spreading zone we’d need to produce such amounts. We’d also have seen much more evidence of volcanic pumice rafting,and discolouration given how well travelled and observed the ocean surface. As well,volcanic events have not even perturbed the recent record in CO2 [not so with SO2] except for the INVERSE effect seen after Pinatubo.

    Simply,if we reject FFs as a source we still have to find where to put all that unarguable CO2 release while accounting for the rise by other means.

  2792. Johnathan Wilkes says

    Poly, you are a physic now are you?

    You don’t know what I know or don’t know.
    You on the other hand reveal your lack of knowledge by endlessly reciting and quoting others you happen to agree with.

    That’s all you do, well apart from name calling, in that you are seem to be all alike for some reason.

    As to our combined knowledge of climate, we may know a lot as such but it’s miniscule compared to what we need to know to competently make predictions, let alone try to influence it.
    If you happen to disagree it only shows your ignorance, only a fool thinks he knows everything.

    Computer models and guessing are no substitute for knowledge.

  2793. cohenite says

    “Simply,if we reject FFs as a source we still have to find where to put all that unarguable CO2 release while accounting for the rise by other means”

    FF is not being rejected but I am saying it is not the only source. And where to put it is only an issue if you think CO2 is harmful; just remember what you said poly, the lungs of the Earth require CO2 for the in-breath; FFs are part of the ventilation process.

  2794. Polyaulax says

    JW,you are the unknowable unknownity.

    I’m interested in what authors really say, and therefore interested in what others wish the authors were saying,what is clearly not tenable,and what still others can build from previous work.. I’m not criticising Knoor for offering nothing on Cohenite’s hypothetical,K’s posing and answering a different question.

    ‘We’ all seem to be alike because you cannot just make what you please of climate knowledge. It’s not at all miniscule, or all controversial. Common explanations keep coming up,common summations of knowledge and confidence,because the push back from rejectionists is repetitive. So round we go playing whack-a-mole

  2795. Johnathan Wilkes says

    Poly

    Common explanations keep coming up,common summations of knowledge and confidence,because the push back from rejectionists is repetitive. So round we go playing whack-a-mole

    You simply repeating yourself and proving my point by rejecting any argument coming from the other side.

    The common knowledge is increasing as it should, after all we are pouring a sh..t load of money into it.
    But still far from being enough to justify the cockiness some display, and definitely not enough to go ahead and try to change the climate.

    I’m not so much of an “unknowable unknownity” previously stated my quals. and current activity.
    Far from retired, very busy indeed, but once things are sorted, being a “boss” I can grab some time to blog.

  2796. Debbie says

    Huh?
    How come the page didn’t reset after 50 posts?
    SURELY that wasn’t something I did? ? ?
    I swear I am not going to try to fiddle with special effects again!
    If it was me, I promise I won’t do it again Jen. Humble apologies.
    Polyaux,
    you are not paying attention.
    NOWHERE has anyone claimed that burning FF is not a factor. What a ridiculous accusation on your part.
    Please stop pretending that people have claimed what they have not claimed.
    It is extremely tedious.

  2797. el gordo says

    ‘The Met Office now confirms on its climate blog that no significant warming has occurred recently: ‘We agree with Mr Rose that there has only been a very small amount of warming in the 21st Century.’

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2220722/Global-warming-The-Mail-Sunday-answers-world-warming-not.html#ixzz2A1XT30Wz
    Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

    We have stopped global warming, its official. If Abbott needs an excuse to dismantle the Klimatariat and get rid of the tax on a harmless trace gas, now is the time.

  2799. Robert says

    Maybe if we took our minds off the present and really did accept the likelihood of big Arctic melts as recently as the early 20s and late 50s – also possible big spikes in atmospheric CO2 around 1820 and 1940 – then we can stop bed-wetting and wait for better knowledge. Does it matter if the present Arctic decline is bigger than, say, 1922? We know ice increased after a big Arctic temp plunge in the 60s. We know Antarctic (Mr 90%) Ice is higher than the average of the last few decades. There’s lots of bloody ice, and even if there weren’t – what do we actually know?

    Look, those old CO2 measurements weren’t “quality”, and maybe shouldn’t be fitted to somebody’s climate artwork after elegant smoothing etc. But they weren’t just based on jars of Paris smog. There’s a lot we don’t know – sorry about stating the obvious. The person referred to as Australia’s most respected environmental and economic “advisor” should probably be referred to as Port Moresby’s most famous “defendant”. We can do lots for Conservation with the zillions we are about to give to legal skimmers and barely legal rogues, most of whom are offshore.

    If the above text seems a little unsophisticated, let me know and I’ll convert what I can to acronyms.

  2800. Neviolle says

    Robert I agree with what you’ve said above but you’ve missed out the most important part of the argument.
    Unless you can convince China, India etc you’ve achieved nothing about stopping or reducing co2 emissions and thus trying to start to mitigate AGW. But zero chance BTW. All BS of course.

    Remember also GAIA brain Timmy also states that we can’t change the temp for hundreds of years or perhaps a thousand years, even if all countries stop emitting today.
    That rather ramps up the theory of co2 emissions causing AGW and so far I have not noticed Karoly or Steffen or Hansen or the clueless Gillard govt complaining that Flannery was wrong.

    Also I’ve never heard a noise from Luke,Bazza, Gav or Poly condemning Flannery and of course they can’t answer my question of how to mitigate AGW.
    We know and they know that it’s all academic and there is zero chance of changing the temp or climate for a very long time if we just rely on OECD countries reducing emissions back to 1990 levels.
    We also know the Gillard govt couldn’t care less about co2 emissions increasing as a consequence of our exports.
    They only care about tiny emissions of co2 produced at home in OZ.

  2802. Robert says

    Now, Deb, just remember most of us like the caps and the smileys you do. Don’t worry about what the opposition say. Do what they hate. I’m sure there’s something in The Art of War about that – but all the tossers who went about quoting Sun Tzu ten years ago now go about quoting Kahneman.

  2803. Debbie says

    🙂
    OK.
    Nev,
    Luke at least brings himself to dismiss TF as an ‘AGW celeb’ and has conceded that much of the political PR is a ‘mindless sideshow’.
    But you’re right that they tend to fondly ignore his outrageous comments along with Brown’s & Milne’s etc.
    It seems the current govt only cares about ‘accounting’ for CO2, not anything else.
    The PR calls it ‘ carbon pollution’ which is really a misnoma.
    I’m very pleased the bold has reset.
    Not going there again coz I don’t even know how I managed to give it a hissy fit in the first instance.
    Jen, you may already know but the MDBP is going back into political overdrive.
    SA is still being bi polar and claiming their issue is primarily ‘environmental’.

  2804. Neville says

    Perhaps Poly etc would like the extreme NATURAL changing climate of the last 1000 years. You drowned for hundreds of years or suffered severe mega droughts for centuries.

    See NOAA’s reconstruction of the PDO and just think of the super cyclones plus endless flooding and then mega droughts that occured during that wonderful natural CC.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:PDO1000yr.svg&page=1

    Can Poly etc give us a guarantee this extreme climate will not come back even if we all go and live in caves?

  2805. el gordo says

    ‘They only care about tiny emissions of co2 produced at home in OZ.’

    A warm glow of well being for those with faith, but as this harmless trace gas is not a pollutant nor increasing temperatures, I think AGW is a scam yet to be fully exposed.

  2806. kuhnkat says

    Polyglot,

    “Englebeen has the patience of a saint.”

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA

    When you are a scammer you DO cultivate patience!!!

  2807. kuhnkat says

    Polyamory,

    “KK’s claim [that pre-Keeling nothing reliable can be divined about CO2 globally] only ‘works’ if you uncritically elevate Beck and ignore what the real world of science does: combine observation with reconstruction and carbon accounting..which,BTW, works because countries keep records. KK’s assertion of data fakery is ill-informed.”

    One man’s data fakery is another man’s scientific process!!

    What?? Elevate the claims of a solid scientist doing a good job of compiling fundamental observations from confirmed solid scientists shown to have been some of the best of their era before CO2 was even an issue?!?! Why, what kind of MORON am I for ASSuming that Beck could POSSIBLY have gotten anything right?!?!?!

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    As opposed to Keeling who has passed down NO information as to WHY he selected the historic data he did.

    Yeah Poly, you really got some solid arguments there. By the way, have you computed the error bars for the data Beck selected as good quality to see why I think even that old poorer quality data shows that you Alarmists are full of BS?!?!?!?! Have you looked into the papers on CO2 concentrations based on wind speed that was also used to validate the Beck selected data??

    Didn’t think so.

    From your man Finglebert, Finaglebean or whatever:

    http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/co2_measurements.html

    What he explains is that they are NOT trying to get an AVERAGE or MEAN number for the atmospheric CO2 level. They are trying to find some mythical base level that might exist in some mythical world with no biology or chemistry happening. Why that is important I am still trying to figure out since the mean or average CO2 for the earth for a year could be 500PPM and the SELECT stations would never see it anymore than the Anthro influenced temperature stations see the cool temps outside their locale!!! Why is that important and why might it be a problem for you Alarmists if we actually found out the CO2 was much higher??

    WEEEEEEEEEEEEeelllllll, y’all have convinced yourselves that CO2 was at only 280 or so before the industrial period. If we found out that the current average CO2 level was 560 it would kinda trash the models and their projections. Observations are already running lower then the models’ mean based on the background CO2 level. IF CO2 was 50% more than they report they wouldn’t even be close!!!

    Oh yeah, and if we saw that the average levels were much higher it would also crap on the idea that humans are the sole source of CO2 increase!!

    Aw shucks. I guess you highly edjumuhcated types really know it all huh??

  2808. Johnathan Wilkes says

    Hi Debbie, the new page reset itself as expected or Jennifer has done it for us.

    I wouldn’t be too frightened about using formatting, it’s simple and effective, but one must remember to close the tags.

    I particularly like the blockquote (not a misspell) tag if you want to quote more than a sentence, like in the previous post of KK it’s hard to tell where the quote ends and the comment begins.

    The only ones I’d use on blogs that don’t actually provide the formatting feature as native, is the bold, (effective), the blockquote, (very useful) and the italic, (so so in my opinion).

    KK

    WEEEEEEEEEEEEeelllllll, y’all have convinced yourselves that CO2 was at only 280 or so before the industrial period. If we found out that the current average CO2 level was 560 it would kinda trash the models and their projections. Observations are already running lower then the models’ mean based on the background CO2 level. IF CO2 was 50% more than they report they wouldn’t even be close!!!

    Oh yeah, and if we saw that the average levels were much higher it would also crap on the idea that humans are the sole source of CO2 increase!!

    Quite so!

    One of my many objections to this craze about CO2 is that it’s presented as a danger above a certain level without actually proving what level was reached in the past and if so, was it detrimental to life in general and climate in particular?

    I read about some new research almost every day, one proving one thing, only to be knocked on the head the next day by
    someone using the same data?

    What gives?

  2809. Debbie says

    Exactly Jonathon Wilkes!
    Jennifer has made the same point on several occaisions.
    How can we have so many different results from the same data?
    This was a particularly contentious issue when Jen last put up a Climate4you update.
    After several days of repeatedly asking Bazza if there was anything wrong with the data or the methodology that Humlum uses (and after many nasty personal comments some of which Jen decided to delete) Bazza finally, FINALLY (bold) answered the question:
    Here:

    “Deb, check out the quadratic, check out how many times he mentions the recent run of La Ninas, check out if he has form as unbiased commentator. Check out Norwegian dependency on oil revenue. Dont worry about the data – it comes from reliable sources. His SLR extrap. was seen by you and Jen as OTT – it only takes one. His collection of graphs simply panders to cherry pickers and seduces the innocent.”

    So apparently….someone like Humlum (who has perfectly respectable credentials) can be discounted not because of the data but because of his methodology, what he focused on (or didn’t focus on maybe?) his apparently questionable motives and apparently because we all agreed that using 3 years worth of moving averages to extrapolate SLR didn’t really mean anything.
    When Jen pointed out that the IPPC and CSIRO et al also do similarly meaningless extrapolations it set Luke and Bazza right off!
    There was actually nothing wrong with Humlum’s methodology BTW….Bazza & Luke just didn’t like the WAY(bold) the data was presented.
    Humlum also clearly stated that only time (or real time data) can prove or disprove any extrapolations….
    So it seems that the argument is more about the stat methodology rather than the actual scientific data itself?
    None of this behaviour has proven to be a good basis for informing policy….it has just put what Walter Starck calls an “Academic Pissing Contest’ on public display… and IMHO… it has fueled an age old ideological political debate….with a shiny new high tech vehicle to drive it.
    The basic assumption that we can control the weather by controlling human CO2 emissions is really pretty silly.
    Yet still we have endlessly produced contradictory stat runs that are intent on proving one case or another via ‘data’?
    I guesstimate because there are so many of them….probability dictates that at least one of the projective models will prove correct for a ‘snapshot in time’….but seriously….so what?
    They’re all arguing over something that will likely happen despite all of us…not because of us….and the argument is over a poompteenth of a degree of a yearly ‘mean’ rise in temp that is far, far less than the mins and maxs that we experience out here every single day in semi arid land.

    What gives indeed?

  2810. Polyaulax says

    Kuhnkatamite,”What kind of moron” are you? More than the just the regular kind… I can’t imagine why anyone would post a link then misrepresent its content so obviously.

    Your take on what Engelbeen claims researchers are trying to find is baffling.

    “What he explains is that they are NOT trying to get an AVERAGE or MEAN number for the atmospheric CO2 level” according to you.

    Actually FE explains why they ARE trying to get that,and how older methods and sites were inappropriate for getting a reliable picture of global scale CO2mixing and levels.

    “They are trying to find some mythical base level that might exist in some mythical world with no biology or chemistry happening” you claim.

    Engelbeen says nothing that could support your delusion. They want to find the actual background level in well-mixed air distant from local point sources natural or human,in order to detect annual change in a global CO2 level in toto. Stations on islands ,or coastlines with prevailing wind from the ocean and/or above the inversion layer.

    Doing it that way reduces cost. Industrial areas,cities,forests often have higher,and certainly more variable,levels of CO2. They sit below the inversion layer,often have topographically enhanced accumulation,pulsesof activity like peak-hour traffic and peak demand power use…and are in no way fully representative the atmosphere regionally,continentally or globally. CO2 and other gas measurements are routine in industrial areas for many purposes,but they are not useful for cost-effectively gathering information on global averages. Given that CO2 is well mixed vertically through the atmosphere, information about trends in that mixing are what is wanted and good siting of stations is critical to doing it cheaply.

  2811. Polyaulax says

    Kuhnkaka:

    “If we found out that the current average level was 560 it would kind trash the models and their projections”

    Well,you won’t find that out because Keeling has made it possible to clear up any confusing local signals. Keeling’s standardisation of methods puts to the sword any global extrapolations that Beck attempted. Beck could never account for the massive fast rises and falls that his cobbled together data showed. For instance he reckoned that global CO2 jumped 110ppm [310 to 420ppm] in the 20 years to 1945,average 5.5ppm/annum. Keeling calculated that would have required releasing over 230 gigatonnes of carbon to the atmosphere. Someone might have noticed…

    Keeling addressed Beck’s claims years ago and methodically rebutted them.

  2812. Johnathan Wilkes says

    Poly,

    Doing it that way reduces cost. Industrial areas,cities,forests often have higher,and certainly more variable,levels of CO2. They sit below the inversion layer,often have topographically enhanced accumulation,pulsesof activity like peak-hour traffic and peak demand power use…and are in no way fully representative the atmosphere regionally,continentally or globally. CO2 and other gas measurements are routine in industrial areas for many purposes,but they are not useful for cost-effectively gathering information on global averages. Given that CO2 is well mixed vertically through the atmosphere, information about trends in that mixing are what is wanted and good siting of stations is critical to doing it cheaply.

    The mind simply boggles!

    Here we are wasting countless Billions on climate research “scientists” and skimping on data collection?

    Collecting data from as many and as varied places as possible should be the first priority.

    Without reliable data the whole research is just a shambles and a complete, utter waste of money.

    Worse still is that our betters in gov. make decisions based on conclusions drawn from CHEAP data by some characters with questionable interests ? (Note I said SOME not all)

  2815. Neville says

    Interesting info from Humlum’s site, showing SLR to 2100 dropping rapidly over the last 13 years. He’s use data from UNI Colorado Boulder., centre for Astrodynamics research.
    In 1999 SLR estimate to 2100 was 40cm but by 2012 this had reduced to 17cm. Looks really grim by 2100 for Gav, Poly, Luke and Bazza BS. But gives us a good laugh.

    Estimated average global sea level change until year 2100, according to sea level change values provided by the Colorado Center for Astrodynamics Research at University of Colorado at Boulder (see figure above). The estimated average global sea level change is calculated using a simple extrapolation of the most recent observed annual sea level change (thin line; diagram above, please see also note below). The thick line represents the simple running 3 year average of this estimate. Time is shown along the x-axis as calendar years. Last diagram update: 18 September 2012, with a prognosis (red graph) of about 17 cm average global sea level rise until 2100.

    Click here to download the entire data series since 1992.

    Click here to read about details of calibration.

    Click here to read about data smoothing.

    Note: Using the 3 year average shown in the diagram above, based on observed sea level changes, around 1999 the total sea level change from then until year 2100 would have been estimated to about 40 cm, in 2005 to about 30 cm (year 2005-2100), and in 2010 to about 22 cm (year 2010-2100). On July 14, 2012, the prognosis would be about 16 cm sea level increase until 2100. It is interesting that this simple empirical forecast has shown a steady trend towards lower values since about 2002.

  2816. Polyaulax says

    ElGordo, article debunked in the comments below it. And O’Sullivan points out himself,though for supposedly self-serving purposes,that A Watts won’t let him near his blog…’cos he’s too nutty even for Anthony.

  2818. cohenite says

    In respect of CO2 being well mixed and therefore Beck’s research being wrong, Harold Pierce notes:

    “The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere as determined at Mauna Loa is valid only for highly-purified, bone dry air which is comprised only of nitrogen, oxygen, the inert gases, and carbon dioxide and which does not occur anywhere in the atmosphere. In real air, there is always water vapor and the concentrations of the gases are lowered in portion to that volume fraction of water vapor.

    The use of the concentration of CO2 based upon the data from Mauna Loa is an absolute fatal flaw for all climate model calculations. For fluid dynamic calculations, mass per unit volume should be used.

    At STP (273 K and 1 atmosphere pressure), one cubic meter of dry air presently has about 390 mls (390 ppmv) or 17.4 mmoles. If this dry air is heated to ca. 333 K (60 deg C), which slightly higher than max temp every recorded in the desert in Pakistan, the concentration of CO2 is still 390 ppmv but its mass is 14.3 mmoles. If the dry air is cooled 183 K (-90 deg C, lowest temp ever recorded in Antarctica), the concentration of CO2 is still 390 ppmv but its mass is 26 mmoles.

    The mass of atmospheric gases in any unit volume of the atmosphere depends upon temperature, pressure and absolute humidity. Weather maps show there is no uniform distribution of temperature, pressure and rel humidity in space and time. Thus there is no unifrom distribution of the greenhouse gases in real air.

    The reason the climate scientists say the greenhouse gases are well-mixed is due to the methods of atmospheric gas analysis. In general a sample of local air is filtered to remove particles, dried to remove water, scrubbed to volitile organic compounds, oxides of sulfur and nitrogen, and CFC’s. This procedure produces the highly-purified bone dry air mentioned above.

    The composition of the atmosphere of local air from remote locations is fairly uniform thu out the world except for minor variations in the concentration of CO2. However, in locals where there is lots of human activities the concentration of CO2 can vary greatly in space and time suchas during rush hour in major cities or in winter in temperate zones.

    All the guys who do atmo. gas analyses know what I have stated above is the absolute truth. But they keep their mouths shut so the climate scientists can make the claim that the greenhouse gases are well-mixed and to avoid vilification. We all know what happened to Ernst Beck after he published he review of atmospheric CO2 gas analyses.”

  2821. Robert says

    “Keeling calculated that would have required releasing over 230 gigatonnes of carbon to the atmosphere. Someone might have noticed…”

    The CO2 bump of the early 40s may not have occurred. Or it may have occurred. But how does that depend on observing someone or something releasing a certain weight of “carbon” into the atmosphere? As God said to Job, where were you when I made the world? Maybe Gaia takes irregular breaths. Maybe the hag doesn’t check her “carbon account” like she should. Maybe we know very little about oceans and most of what’s under them and what’s under our feet.

    Ditch this lousy climate script, Mr De Mille! It’s too tight for all the action.

  2822. Neville says

    Sorry Gav you’ve lost me, what are you on about? Have a look at Humlum’s reference above to Uni of Colorado recent projections of 17cm SLR by 2100.
    Down from 40-cm in 1999, just 13 years ago.

  2823. el gordo says

    ‘ElGordo, article debunked in the comments below it.’

    So I see, Harrison knows his physics Colliding atoms and energy conversion is an interesting angle, but its not enough to sway me that the small percentage we pump into the atmosphere will make the slightest bit of difference to temperature.

  2824. Johnathan Wilkes says

    Robert,

    “Maybe we know very little about oceans and most of what’s under them and what’s under our feet.”

    No, no, no Robert, I tried to point out our incomplete knowledge to Poly but he wouldn’t have bar of it, he reckons we know quite enough already.

  2825. Polyaulax says

    Cohenite, Pierce’s remarks contains factual content and nonsense conclusions. Use the link to the ESRL Global Monitoring Division interactive map to look at the network ,check the trends and compare the sites. You will see how similar the data are and why they represent background levels,not local factors. Background levels at sea level at Cape Grim are very close to those at 3400m at Mauna Loa,3500m in Colorado, 4500m in Mexico,3800m in China or 30m in Bermuda. Amplitude of seasonal pulse is larger in the NH and small around the Antarctic. CO2’s well mixed.

    Not that it matters,but there IS water vapor present at Mauna Loan altitudes and latitudes. Maybe his point is that water is removed from the air during the measuring process…but that’s the standardised process used globally at all altitudes. The reasons for measuring dry mole fraction are given here,from the horse’s mouth Remember,the measurement process is standardised,one of the reasons being to allow for different water vapor content at all the different measurement points. Pierce’s contention that doing this somehow ruins the info as model input is rubbish.

    His penultimate para inadvertently justifies why Keeling designed the measurement methods as he did,and the description ‘well-mixed’ is referring to CO2 averaged throughout the troposphere and stratosphere. Water is not nearly as well mixed,as any IR water vapor sat vision will tell you. Certainly local concentration of GHGs at the surface and near surface varies considerably because of concentrated points of human industry,agriculture and varied vegetation. Over seas,70% of the surface, it varies less. Again,Keeling was trying to detect long term changes in the air fraction of CO2 which are small movements compared with seasonal change and point source change. So he had to screen out the noise to find background changes.

  2826. Johnathan Wilkes says

    Poly,

    On one hand I can agree with the approach Keeling took, but on the other hand I’d rather take a more inclusive, broader data collection path.

    The first is looking at it purely academically the second is the more practical one, at least to me anyway.
    Excluding sites where the actual CO2 is generated or actually used up or absorbed by sinks, like forests etc. may give a biased results. At least there should be a question mark here?

  2827. Debbie says

    Screen out the noise?
    Gee whiz Polyaux.
    I was going to ask you a basic & very practical question about water.
    But after that I have decided I would be wasting my time.
    You’re obviously not interested in what is actually happening, only in trying to ‘tease out’ that highly uncooperative ACO2 signal.
    Why?
    What can we actually do about it even if we could find it?

  2828. cohenite says

    poly, you are doing Pierce an injustice; his point is accurate:

    “The mass of atmospheric gases in any unit volume of the atmosphere depends upon temperature, pressure and absolute humidity. Weather maps show there is no uniform distribution of temperature, pressure and rel humidity in space and time. Thus there is no unifrom distribution of the greenhouse gases in real air.”

    Given this the method used to extract apure CO2 level in air from the different locations is flawed because it standardises “temperature, pressure and absolute humidity” and therefore produces a standardised CO2 concentration.

    I don’t think you have grasped this point.

  2829. gavin says

    Poly; it bothers coh still won’t get the dry air principle.

    Deb; we have been dancing round the Mauna Loa or Beck thing since coh arrived at the blog. While it is possible to blindly accept our science betters on questions of baseline atmospheric monitoring, as opposed to pseudo science via blogsphere, imo it is just plane silly to hit poly with “You’re obviously not interested in what is actually happening”

    Any argument that depends only on Mauna Loa CO2 is bound to be a rhetoric only one. Avoiding argument with our own atmospheric research is a sure cop out from the big picture.

  2831. g says

    “the method used to extract apure CO2 level in air from the different locations is flawed because it standardises “temperature, pressure and absolute humidity” and (imo) it produces a “standardised CO2 concentration” so the baseline CO2 and trend will be the same for all stations given atmospheric mixing.

  2833. gavin says

    “the method used to extract apure CO2 level in air from the different locations is flawed because it standardises “temperature, pressure and absolute humidity” and (imo) it produces a “standardised CO2 concentration” so the baseline CO2 and trend will be the same for all stations given atmospheric mixing.

  2836. Debbie says

    Common Gavin,
    you also ‘denied’ UHI & then called it ‘enhanced AGW’.
    As Poly keeps admonishing everyone.
    You NEED (bold) to be consistent.

  2837. gavin says

    Deb; an increasing amount social media comment is only “book selling” my obs. Media Watch calls it “paid advertising”.

    Anyone not disclosing becomes a crook like LA.

    The first stage of social recovery is regaining the common ground by dumping those false gods.

  2838. Debbie says

    Sorry?
    I Have no idea what you mean Gavin?
    Who/what is LA?
    Lance Armstrong?
    If that’s correct, what does that have to do with this discussion?

  2839. gavin says

    Read, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide, then say what is wrong with this

    “Clouds are micro droplets of water and will contain atmospheric gases, the amount of which will depend on pressure and temperature and on the number of droplets per unit volume. Clouds are always moving and can transport atmospheric gases and in particular CO2 in the liquid phase. Depending on the conditions the clouds encounter, they can release the atmospheric gases and in particular CO2 and water as vapor into the atmosphere or transport the gases to the ground in rain drops. This another reason why there is no uniform distribution of the mass of the atmospheric gases in space and time”. H P Jr

  2840. Polyaulax says

    Cohers, his info is right,but he does not seem to understand what is being investigated. As I said to start.

    The method is about detecting long term net change. They are trying to measure how much total CO2 is growing,not its well known short term and spatial variability across land surfaces and between seasons. Local fluxing is not the point, it’s what is staying in the whole atmosphere,and the concentratings and dilutings at local levels smooth out as you get over oceans and deserts and higher into the air column. Then you can put local non-seasonal fluxing into context,as well as watch how the airborne sink is functioning. Without benchmarks and clear air sites,local fluxing would hide total system long term change.

    If for example the terrestrial sink or the oceanic sink loses efficacy,you will detect it trend change in accurate background airborne measurements. It’s also a way to monitor the amplitude of the seasonal flux. And ultimately,if you want to measure changes in net forcing you have to determine changes in net global quantities of forcing agents,which is why they measure the suite of GHGs and aerosols.

  2841. Polyaulax says

    “Clouds….can transport CO2 in the liquid phase” What planetary atmosphere is HP Jr talking about?

  2842. Polyaulax says

    Debbie: “What can we actually do about [that highly uncooperative ACO2 signal]even if we could find it”

    Take off your blinkers. We have found it. We found it long,long ago. Only Harold P jr seems to want to pretend we haven’t/can’t quantify it, while spouting garbage about ‘CO2 in liquid form’ when he probably means CO2 as carbonic acid in water droplets. Here’s a map of CO2 global distribution between 1.2km and 5.5km upfor a dayback in 2009. Click on the tutorial,make yourself at home,have a look around.

    Do about it? We can change the signal quite easily by burning less coal and more gas,as current US CO2 production trends demonstrate. Get off coal before we’re thrown off anyway. Don’t let the coal lobby scare you,it won’t be as bad as they say.

  2843. Robert says

    Using the tax levers and regulation buttons on their console they can quite easily change the “signal”? Hmmm…

    So as not to scare us – like some big, mean lobby – they only want to stop coal for the moment, and presumably just our domestic consumption of coal? Hmmm…

    For now, they’re eerily quiet on petroleum. Gas will be allowed, as a “transition” to whirlygigs and solar – and maybe Timmy’s hot rocks? (Timmy’s friend Al thinks you get millions of degrees down there.) To afford all the alternative energy hardware, we’ll need to export half-to-a billion tonnes of coal each year, much of which will be burnt to make the junk (because the junk is such junk you can’t manufacture much with it). Hmmm…

    I wonder if something else might be going on here.

    Let me think. Pioneered by Lehman Bros…implemented by Goldman Sachs…universally embraced by stock-jobbers, spivs, skimmers, hedgers, touts, trough-swillers, brochure makers…

    Damn! I remember something just like this long, long ago – way back in 2008. I’ve got a sharp memory for an old codger, don’t you think?

  2844. Neville says

    So Poly your answer is to change from coal to gas, then what? Next explain the difference this would make to co2 emissions and how long before we might expect a reduction?

    Then explain how this could be achieved without the non OECD countries involvement. Remember they are increasing emissions by over a bn tonnes pa, so how can we make any difference?
    The EIA have stated that the USA will probably have very little growth in emissions until 2035, but overall emissions from non OECD will continue to soar.

  2845. Debbie says

    Polyaux,
    that was rather disingenious of you.
    By ‘Uncooperative ACO2 signal’….I meant the signal that PROVES it is doing us harm.
    The one that’s supposedly causing runaway global warming and alarming SLR.
    The one that causes our AGW celebs to say things like….people in Western Sydney will get hot and even crankier in traffic jams.
    Also Polyaux….considering Australia is not planning to reduce its coal exports….how does Australia help mitigate this GLOBAL problem by swithching from coal to gas?
    What does that achieve in terms of global CO2 emissions?
    What would be the result?

  2846. Neville says

    Everyone should have a look at this graph from the EIA showing co2 emissions to 2035. Then Poly should explain how WE could make a difference.
    You’ll note that OECD emissions will only increase by 6% in that time about the same as the non OECD increases by now every year. Let that sink in, it couldn’t be easier to understand.
    Starting to wake up are we?

    http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/ieo/emissions.cfm

  2848. Larry Fields says

    It’s shameless self-promotion time again. This is my latest mathematical article at Hubpages.

    Summary: For relatively prime Pythagorean Triples, the largest of the three numbers must always be odd. Why? This article also mentions Mamikon’s Theorem, which yields a simple proof of the Pythagorean Theorem.

    http://tinyurl.com/9zzx7je

  2849. Debbie says

    Also some classic irony here:

    ‘Don’t let the coal lobby scare you,it won’t be as bad as they say.’
    (sorry JW….not game to use bold again).

    Hmmmmmm?:-)
    Maybe I could reword this for Polyaux?

    Don’t let the AGW lobby scare you, it won’t be as bad as they say.

    Also Polyaux?
    Who or what is going to throw us off coal anyway?
    Does someone/something have the power to just ‘throw’ Australia off coal anyway?

    You wouldn’t be trying to SCARE (bold) people by making unsupported comments like that by any chance?

  2850. cohenite says

    poly cheap shot:

    ““Clouds….can transport CO2 in the liquid phase” What planetary atmosphere is HP Jr talking about?”

    Earth:

    “Carbon dioxide is soluble in water, in which it reversibly converts to H2CO3 (carbonic acid).”

    And you have changed the goalposts in your reply to my comment on what Pierce is saying when you say this:

    “The method is about detecting long term net change.”

    No, what Pierce is talking about is how well CO2 is mixed; the method he describes produces a false positive for well mixed; CO2 may be increasing but it may also be doing that in a way which contradicts the notion of it being well mixed.

  2851. Neville says

    Poly, Gav have you looked at the EIA graph on co2 emissions to 2035 yet? Don’t be FRIGHTENED of a few facts and the truth Poly.

    Oh and simple kindy sums. Amazing Poly thinks that Oz can reduce 1.1% of global human co2 emissions by 5% by 2020 and it will make a difference.

    But I’ll concede it will certainly make a big difference to our economy and standard of living for sure. ALL BAD.

  2852. gavin says

    coh, the changed state of CO2 in water is a red herring. Your author has no authority to use such an argument.

    Nev; I don’t get paid for any of this and it distracts from all my other interests

  2853. Debbie says

    Gavin,
    What are you claiming is right or wrong about your HP jr statement that you copy/pasted from wiki?
    At face value, it appears to support what KK and Cohenite are saying.
    Especially the concluding sentence.
    Also Polyaux, your link for March 2009?
    Did you happen to note terminology such as ‘our best guess’ and ‘estimated’ in the models?
    Wouldn’t prevailing weather conditions (which we are frequently lectured is NOT climate) be the main reason why in MARCH 2009 there was cloud/atmospheric concentrations of all sorts of trace elements/gasses in the NH? Including C02?
    It is now late OCTOBER and the sun/atmosphere ratio is changing in the SH. Already we are hearing alarming reports from Antarctic. It’s overwhelmingly seasonal weather isn’t it? The Sun is now shining longer in the SH not the NH.
    One can reasonably assume that concentrations of trace gasses/elements will alter as they have no doubt always done as seasons come and go.
    It’s all very interesting BTW. But do we know enough to draw alarming conclusions?
    . Is it ‘settled’?
    Who is accountable if the hypothesis is being ‘overstated’?

  2855. Polyaulax says

    Cohenite,I have not ‘changed the goal posts’. Nor have I moved them.

    Pierce’s objection is absurd. “Thus there is no uniform distribution of greenhouse gases in real air” So what? No one said there was a uniform ‘distribution’. But we know that we can measure mixing ratios [the number of molecules of a substance in a fixed number of air molecules]. We know CO2 is a homogeneous,well mixed gas because these measurements tell us that its mixing ratio is similar anywhere you measure it.

    He is obviously a motivated rejecter of detection methods that have been accepted and routine for 50 years because he doesn’t want to accept some of the results. Is it the GHE and net forcing changes quantification that he wants to challenge by misdirection? Is HPjr saying:”We cannot make statements about global and regional forcings or changes in atmospheric quantities because humidity,pressure and temperature vary?” Is that it? That’s nonsense.

    “CO2 may be increasing {actually it is doing so} but it may also be doing that in a way which contradicts the notion of it being well mixed “{huh?}

    What? Is air now different? CO2 has acquired different properties? It’s now non-homogenous? Not mixing? Plant life is dropping dead?

    To JW,you want a ‘broader detection path’. Have a look at NOAA ESRL links.

  2856. gavin says

    Deb; HP jr has produced a clumsy para in a clumsy argument and as such should never be published along side real science. There are no supporting statements, references etc that say cloud transport of CO2 is any different to atmospheric, given it’s near universal mixing ratio anywhere. His liquid thingy won’t wash either in atmospheric conditions.

    Who is HP jr anyway? Only a blogger who turns up in weird sceptic discussion links.

    Now go do some CO2 homework if you can on what is wrong.

  2857. cohenite says

    poly says:

    “What? Is air now different? CO2 has acquired different properties? It’s now non-homogenous? Not mixing? Plant life is dropping dead?”

    I wouldn’t be surprised; AGW is deadly and capable of anything. Anyway as I understand him, Pierce has answered this bit of hyperbowl [h/t Ms Gillard]:

    “At STP (273 K and 1 atmosphere pressure), one cubic meter of dry air presently has about 390 mls (390 ppmv) or 17.4 mmoles. If this dry air is heated to ca. 333 K (60 deg C), which slightly higher than max temp every recorded in the desert in Pakistan, the concentration of CO2 is still 390 ppmv but its mass is 14.3 mmoles. If the dry air is cooled 183 K (-90 deg C, lowest temp ever recorded in Antarctica), the concentration of CO2 is still 390 ppmv but its mass is 26 mmoles.

    The mass of atmospheric gases in any unit volume of the atmosphere depends upon temperature, pressure and absolute humidity. Weather maps show there is no uniform distribution of temperature, pressure and rel humidity in space and time. Thus there is no unifrom distribution of the greenhouse gases in real air.

    The reason the climate scientists say the greenhouse gases are well-mixed is due to the methods of atmospheric gas analysis. In general a sample of local air is filtered to remove particles, dried to remove water, scrubbed to volitile organic compounds, oxides of sulfur and nitrogen, and CFC’s. This procedure produces the highly-purified bone dry air mentioned above.

    The composition of the atmosphere of local air from remote locations is fairly uniform thu out the world except for minor variations in the concentration of CO2. However, in locals where there is lots of human activities the concentration of CO2 can vary greatly in space and time suchas during rush hour in major cities or in winter in temperate zones.”

    As Pierce notes conditions vary enormously; human activity contributes to this through UHI which also obviously causes variation in the gas content of the air, at least regionally; and globally in terms of preventing uniform mixing. I really think this is uncontroversial.

    AND AGW is based on CO2 being a well mixed, that is, evenly distributed gas.

  2858. Robert says

    Such a pity, all this heavy scripting. The POSSIBLE 1820s CO2 increase is like the MWP – don’t mention, or kill quick. The POSSIBLE 1940 bump is starting to look like the 30s heat + drought (with China awash) – don’t mention, or kill quick. The accepted CO2 graph is looking like a nice simple piece of straight string with an elegant up-sweep at one end, perfect for “Million Degree” Gore’s next Oscar-bait production. (Is this a hockey stick I see before me?)

    Feel free to call me an unreferenced, unqualified whatever, warmies. But it’s getting so hard to believe anything you say. Everything has to conform to your infernal script. If you tell me it’s Wednesday, I’m going to have to check my watch and calendar. It’s not because you fib, but because you think your script is fundamental truth, and every fact and event has to be fitted to it.

    You are the new fundamentalists.

  2859. Neville says

    OK Gav we all know that you can’t answer my questions. But Luke, Poly and Bazza have all thrown in the towel, so I suppose you’re in similar company when you’re confronted by the facts and simple sums.

  2861. Debbie says

    Yes Robert,
    it is extremely annoying that we need to ‘check’ everything we’re being told.
    It’s particularly annoying that the good work of good people gets inappropriately used and abused by both ‘sides’ of this ‘mindless sideshow’.
    Scare mongering is scare mongering no matter who is doing it and for whatever ’cause’, right, left, green, brown, up or down.
    Gavin,
    who is Gavin anyway? Only a wierd blogger who turns up at blog sites?
    What a strange comment on your part.
    Who made Gavin the judge, the jury and the setter of homework?
    Someone in ‘authority’?

  2862. Polyaulax says

    Pierce jr: on the one hand: ..”there is no uniform distribution of GHGs in real air” then on the other hand…” the composition of the atmosphere of local air is fairly uniform throughout the world except for minor variations in the concentration of CO2″ Contradictory, much? And is a sample of local air with the water removed still not local air? The other gases in the sample are there in amounts that show any local variation. HP is frankly potty and handwaving. A key to AGW –remember,energy can only leave the planet radiatively–is high in the atmosphere at the equilibrium radiation level,well away from surface flux variations. Up there,5 or 6km, CO2 is very smoothly distributed.

    debbie, ‘best guess’ does not mean pin the tail on the donkey. Don’t just look for words like ‘guess’ and apply a literal meaning from another context. We have accurate measurements of CO2 from the entire atmospheric column,taken daily and weekly. The ‘best guessing’ is in applying a transport model to its motion with the global circulation. Then the modelled–estimated– distribution is compared with the mass of observations that arrive over the year. –real information about distribution– to see how good the model is. It takes a lot of data and of course time to process,so Carbon Tracker is always behind. CT is aimed at getting regional carbon fluxes figured.

    To the reasons for the net regional distributions :The NH has most of global land surface. This is where the most CO2 is emitted,naturally and anthropogenically,and sunk. This is where the greatest seasonal flux is seen,the saw tooth pattern in the trace. That saw tooth is of a much smaller amplitude in the SH and gets less progressing south.

    The ACO2 remaining in the air is causing the rising trend year to year,seen in the trace regardless of latitude,and regardless of the amplitude of the pulse. The rate is comparable everywhere as CO2 spreads across hemispheres to closely equilibrate across the atmosphere.

    With background global dry air fractions for gases we know the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, 390 moles per every million moles of air. This figure is nearly the same everywhere because of CO2 basic mixing properties. From place to place [and always inter-seasonally] in the circulation short term it might vary by 20+ppm between SH and NH around that current growing annual average. It’s better mixed than water because water precipitates out as it is temperature controlled. There can be almost no water in big parts of the atmosphere such as over deserts and extremely cold regions. Also the higher you go the drier it gets and CO2 distribution is not affected. So the relative ‘radiative work share’ between H2O and CO2 is not equal everywhere horizontally or vertically.

  2864. Debbie says

    Polyaux,
    that’s why it’s pointless to argue semantics.
    Of course best guess doesn’t mean pin the tail on the donkey.
    WHO SAID IT DID?
    Ummmmmm. . . Wasn’t it Polyaux who got offended when it was used earlier in the thread?
    Wasn’t it Polyaux who took it literally?
    I don’t need to be lectured about semantics Polyaux. 🙂
    You are literally arguing with yourself on this matter.
    It is very, very amusing if nothing else.

  2866. Johnathan Wilkes says

    Poly
    “To JW,you want a ‘broader detection path’. Have a look at NOAA ESRL links.”

    Yes?
    I’m well aware of the site, but am I supposed to look at or for?

  2867. gavin says

    “new fundamentalists” No Rob, anything but. I’m just a retired tech with a habit of checking many sources for clues and short cuts.

    JW; can you apply your intelligence to Pierce jr?

  2868. Debbie says

    On whose or what ‘authority’ Gavin?
    Apparently, according to your earlier post, some people have ‘no authority’ to comment which I would imagine would require them to apply their intelligence?
    What are you trying to say? You ‘reckon they can’t do it’.
    Do what?
    Take a shortcut?
    It reads like you’ve got it all figured out.
    So please do explain.

  2869. toby says

    same old noise going on, meanwhile temp hasnt gone up in any real way for 16 years, and if you consider the pinatubo volcano’s cooling effect of approx 0.5 c we can really go back over 20 years….and all this despite co2 rising rapidly.
    pretty tenuos link at best.
    nev as usual points out the bleeding obvious and the warmists just ignore or gloss over it like their “huge moral” problem isnt causing far more damage than harm.
    COLLECTIVE INSANITY

  2870. Neville says

    More fraud and con tricks from the IPCC.

    http://climateaudit.org/2012/10/22/ipcc-check-kites-gergis/#more-17121

    They are now using the withdrawn Gergis, Karoly paper in a draft of AR5 report. Do these people have any shame at all?
    What’s next a rehash of the Himilayan glaciers disappearing by 2035 BS? Yet our resident true believing fundamentalists will probably lap up this fraudulent rubbish, as easily as they deny soaring non OECD co2 emissions.

  2871. cohenite says

    It is true that CO2 is more evenly mixed in the upper atmosphere but this is ambiguous:

    “So the relative ‘radiative work share’ between H2O and CO2 is not equal everywhere horizontally or vertically.”

    No it is not; H2O is far more dominant everywhere, especially at the TOA:

    http://scienceofdoom.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/ramanathan-coakley-1978-role-of-co2.png

    The chart by Ramanathan shows that TOA emissivity is dominated by H2O which 2.5 times the radiative effect CO2 has.

  2872. Robert says

    Toby, mention of Pinatubo makes me wonder how we would handle the one global climate catastrophe which is all but inevitable within a relatively short timespan. It is not two centuries since the explosion of Tambora, which dwarfs Krakatoa and Pinatubo. In the summer of 1816, temps in Spain, for example, did not rise above 15C.

    I don’t know if the Kuwae eruption has some kind of rating, but it spewed maybe six times as much particulate matter as Pinatubo. That wasn’t too good for the Ming Dynasty. Constantinople – though it probably would have fallen anyway – collapsed in the very year of the eruption, after insane weather and much scary phenomena. So ended the Middle Ages in 1453 – not with a whimper!

    While we are constantly being harped to about CAGW or The Coming Ice Age, a very great eruption will certainly occur at some time, since you don’t go long without one. If it equals Tambora in force, the effects will in some ways be worse than in 1816-17. Think aviation, just for starters.

    And if it exceeded Tambora in force? We’ve been conditioned to think that CAGW etc are sensible topics and that super-volcanoes are the stuff of bad Piers Brosnan disaster flicks. It’s the other way around, guys.

    It would be unfortunate if we had just finished dismantling all our coal facilities, and were getting ready to throw the switch on a solar future, just when some volcanic lump of misogyny in the Pacific decided to go the big spew.

  2873. gavin says

    Deb; I have one word for some of these arguments, “shallow” particularly from the usual guys.

    Instead of demanding where I.m coming from or what am I gonna do, please put your own science or technical prowess up front first.

    Having spent many years grounding or truthing assumptions and other people’s ideas I really don’t need to play ball here. Those tiny picks don’t impress either coh.

    Anybody who is so good as to tell me how it is should write their own bloody climate science paper and get published in a suitablely recognized Journal and stop their blog bashing those that do. Go back to data sources yourselves and get it straight before calling fraud.

  2874. Debbie says

    So what happened to the retired tech who is just just checking facts and looking for shortcuts?

  2875. Johnathan Wilkes says

    gav,

    Instead of demanding where I.m coming from or what am I gonna do, please put your own science or technical prowess up front first.

    Gav as far as I can gather Neville is simply asking what mitigating action would you enact?

    Nothing to do with science as such.
    Bear in mind our tax on CO2 while we sell coal to anyone wanting it by the shipload?

    So far no coherent answer.
    Maybe you will be the first one to step up to the plate and tell us?

    PS to my previous post
    “but am I supposed to look at or for?” should read as “but what am I supposed to look at or for?”

  2877. gavin says

    Response, selling our underground resources offshore is the easy bit and filling the hole not too hard but fixing the greenhouse mess almost impossible if no one does anything. By mining short term riches we should have an advantage now in changing our energy production to other sources.

    Gut feeling; Beware if Asian countries switch first. Passive solar everywhere is the very least we can do. Running down greenhouse science the worst.

  2878. Polyaulax says

    Indeed,Cohenite….which shows just how very useful that colorless,odorless gas in insignificant quantities is,eh? More evenly mixed and immune to the temperature restrictions of H2O,CO2 is the matrix that keeps the whole show in the air. Take it away, the atmosphere is less opaque to direct outradiation and the system cools sufficiently due to water evaporating energy away and everything radiating out less hindered in the IR. A new equilibrium is sought. Eventually the ocean shrinks as the system temperature falls, it freezes, atmosphere dries further,the extra ice and expanded snow cover directly radiates away more incoming sunlight. There ain’t nothin’ old Sol can do about it,Earth is resisting his offers.

    Then the ice-sheets radical shifting of forces on the plates gives Robert the super eruptions he dreams of! Hopefully enough slow carbon gets thrown out as CO2, gets water back into a more benevolent tripartition,and if the nasty aerosols can fall out fast enough, system unfreezes enough for the next march of evolution.

  2879. Robert says

    Poly, the causes of major eruptions are still uncertain and the events themselves unpredictable.

    Unfortunately, super-eruptions are not the stuff of dreams. They are not Poly-world scenarios, confected at the Poly-world console. They really happen – in a place called the world.

    Decade volcanoes are getting some monitoring, lives have already been saved. But if we get a situation like 1783, when a 6 VEI eruption was extended over a period of eight months, the toxicity and climatic effects (a Pinatubo every few days) could be worse than a 7 VEI like Tambora, though the eruption is much less violent.

    Freak heat and static high pressure during the Laki eruption in Iceland just happened to send the poison cloud on to the European continent, where thousands died from the toxic air. That was just the start. Then came true climate disruption, navigation suspended, bizarre fogs, global dimming and cooling, failed monsoons etc. The nearby Grímsvötn volcano kept erupting till 1785, so the misery kept coming. That super crappy El Nino pattern just after the French Revolution (apparent in Tench’s reliable Sydney records for 1791-2) didn’t help the recovery.

    A Peruvian volcano in 1600 had remote effects maybe worse than the local (which were terrible). The acid spike in the atmosphere was worse than Krakatoa. The dimming etc exacerbated Russia’s already cold weather, and a third or more of the population perished in the Great Famine.

    No. You don’t dream of events like Laki or Huaynaputina. Every century of so they really happen. This is not Poly-world.

    Let’s just hope we’ve got smart ideas, efficient new coal power stations and some nukes humming reliably next time Gaia spits the dummy. No sense wetting the bed over it: it’s just one of those things that happen. But Australia should be cultivating its energy advantage anyway – and making sure she’s rich and strong enough to help the rest of the region. Doesn’t pay to muck about with whirlygigs and solar panels when you’re up against nature, even when she’s being mildly benevolent. But when the worst happens…

    Don’t bring a butter knife to a gunfight!

  2880. Polyaulax says

    Damn,Robert,I thought you’d enjoy that ‘what if’…

    I certainly wasn’t suggesting that was the only way to get majorly threatening vulcanism to revisit. It’s impossible indeed to really say that we’re due, but I agree it’s a clear and present danger…and solar panels are not going to like it at 6 VEI or 5,4 on the right latitude. Hudson volcano,and that recent one Chaiten [?] certainly sent aerosols around our way from Chile, to visible effect. I wonder if there is anything written on the modest dimming they brought locally?

    Strategically,moth-balled coal plants could be fired up if our glorious turbine army of the future has its collective bearings ground to shreds…but if it’s that bad…

  2881. Debbie says

    Polyaux,
    we all agree that CO2 is beneficial and necessary. No one is suggesting otherwise.
    Your ‘what if’ scenario does not address the point of disagreement and is irrelevant.
    It is the ACO2 signal and its effect that is under discussion.Particularly re the C bit in CAGW.
    In essence, we are being repeatedly informed that C02 is harmful and dangerous.
    You have just explained why, in essence, it isn’t.

  2882. Neville says

    Geeeezzzz Gav is that the best you can do? You’re completely divorced from reality, because we could all use solar and wind in OZ and still need other power sources when the wind doesn’t blow or when it’s cloudy and at night.
    Also tell us where the money is coming from? You see Wayne and the clueless Gillard govt have driven us so deep into debt that it will take many terms of a coalition govt just to restore a modest surplus.

    But again it still wouldn’t change the temp or climate by a jot, thanks to soaring non OECD emissions. Have a look at the EIA graph until 2035. Simple graph , simple maths, what don’t you understand?
    If you think that they will drop coal, oil or gas and stop using iron ore (huge co2 emitted when processing) etc then you’re even more delusional than I thought.

    BTW the co2 tax is becoming the disaster we all thought it would be.

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/not_the_carbon_tax_we_were_promised/#commentsmore

  2884. gavin says

    Nev – “we could all use solar and wind in OZ and still need other power sources” cause current demand is unsustainable.

    Btw; I don’t do blot any more than watts so you are putting me off our debate. Come back with original thought.

  2885. Neville says

    Well boo hoo to you too Gav. I’m off for a day or so, but I may have a chance to look in later.

    But I’m just trying to register a few facts from the real world to try and ground you people with a small dose of logic and reason.

    So come back Gav with some answers, if you can?

  2886. toby says

    Robert, lets hope we dont have a supervolcano like this one!!

    http://toba.arch.ox.ac.uk/

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090702170128.htm

    lots of things mankind can really worry about ( not much that could be done!!)

    poly is correct to ask has anybody considered how much cooling may have ocurred due to icelandic and south american volcanoes. maybe thats where all the missing heat is!? if it is not significant however, since most seem to acknowledge pinatubo prob caused 0.c cooling, it does seem reasonable to to suggest no real warming for over 20 years!!?

  2887. Debbie says

    An original thought about what in particular Gavin?
    There is nothing wrong with Neville’s question.
    Just because he has asked it a zillion times does not make it a less important question.
    Dismissing it because it isn’t original (or beneath you somehow) is just admitting that you either don’t have an answer or don’t want to answer.
    It’s a very clear and realistic question.
    Will you attempt to answer it if I reword it and therefore make it ‘original’?
    The ‘political consensus’ is that humans are causing catastrophic global warming or alarming climate change:
    The question is quite simple really:
    The stated desired ‘moral’ outcome is to reduce and/or control the average global temp rise. It has been called the ‘greatest moral challenge of our time’.
    However, if the rise in global ACO2 is far greater than anything that a CO2 tax in Australia can mitigate, especially if we are not concurrently reducing our coal exports, are we achieving any of the stated desired ‘moral’ outcomes?
    Neville has also supplied you a link that demonstrates those ACO2 increases and from where they will emanate.
    With numbers….please outline what the current Australian carbon tax will achieve in terms of its stated ‘moral’ outcomes.
    So Gavin,
    your claim here:
    fixing the greenhouse mess almost impossible if no one does anything.
    What is the ‘anything’ that you believe will solve the problem?

  2888. gavin says

    Deb; nobody expects an Aus carbon tax as it is to do much to stop AGW, or at least any more than it will reduce our dependence on fossil fuel. So those numbers are just a sceptics game. Now credit the “warmers” for not being fooled.

    Leaving your argument in this numbers game won’t achieve anything cause it’s eventually not about us. Harping on is simply time wasting.

  2889. toby says

    “nobody expects an Aus carbon tax as it is to do much to stop AGW, or at least any more than it will reduce our dependence on fossil fuel. So those numbers are just a sceptics game. Now credit the “warmers” for not being fooled.” stupid is as stupid does, as forest gump would say….or stupid is as stupid says……..
    dont bother deb, you are wasting your time and encouraging as well.

  2890. Debbie says

    So Gavin,
    What therefore is the ‘anything’ that we need to do?
    And if it isn’t about us, who/what is it about?

  2891. sp says

    Polyaulax October 24th, 2012 at 10:12 am:

    “Cohenite,I have not ‘changed the goal posts’. Nor have I moved them.”

    I guess there is subtle difference between “changing” goal posts and “moving” them.

    Polyaulax – what is the difference?

  2892. Robert says

    Toby, Toba was big! They say you only get that every million years or so, which is why we’re here now, I suppose.

    I greatly dislike neat explanations for big, big things, and I don’t see how even a VEI 7 can have a rolling effect for decades. I’d call it plain bad luck that the likely worst eruption of the entire historic period, that of Mount Rinjani, not far from Oz, occurred in 1258. People can usually find such coincidences – comets are popular in this regard – but it’s certain that the climate was mostly downhill from that date. Some boffins refer to it as the LIA eruption. Needless to say, nobody knows a hell of a lot, except that Rinjani was huge and hurt a lot. My guess is that climate changes for a complex of reasons not understood by anyone. As I said before, I understand slightly more than a cocker spaniel, which understands a bit more than Al Gore.

    The 2010 Iceland eruption was only VEI 4, but conditions made it a real pest. A repeat of Grímsvötn/Laki, with everything working to maximise its effect, would have huge global consequences for agriculture, health, political stability, aviation etc.

    But – apart from ditching frivolous Green fetishism – what can you do? Of all global climate emergencies, a new Laki scenario seems the most likely to happen and hurt; yet the Decade Volcano programme’s UN funding fell through, last I heard. Their poverty-stricken website sucks – and I’d hate to see their brochures!

  2893. gavin says

    Deb; for Rob’s sake, we could soon be lifting the lid on forces under Antarctica. You can say I’m optimistic, some life will survive. Humans depending on this and that can fight each other for the remainder.

    “frivolous Green fetishism” etc, same camp as Jones and Abbot perhaps? Foul!
    Far right rhetoric like that never impressed.

  2895. toby says

    oh goodness me the insanity/ senility gets worse “we could soon be lifting the lid on forces under Antarctica. You can say I’m optimistic, some life will survive. Humans depending on this and that can fight each other for the remainder.”

    typical green stupidity and gross exageration.

    yes hanrahan, you are “optimistic” in the most pessimistic way possible!! r u for real?

    I am not sure who pointed me to this site http://www.breadandbutterscience.com/ it may well have been Rob.

    it gives an amazing potrayal of just how variable our climate/ weather can be and makes all hanrahans look like the catastrophist misanthropists that they are.

  2897. Polyaulax says

    Just a joke,sp… I know Cohenite meant ‘moving’ the goalposts when he typed ‘changing’.. I mean,if the goal stays in the same place,while the posts are ‘changed’,it ruins the meaning of the metaphor,no? Still,you get a nice clean pair of posts… 😉

    Robert, Rinjani the LIA eruption? That’s interesting. Surely not enough by itself?

  2898. Robert says

    “Robert, Rinjani the LIA eruption? That’s interesting. Surely not enough by itself?”

    Nope, not nearly enough. Sounds ridiculous to me, but some people call it that. In fact, the LIA is a very loose term. The weather started turning foul before the time of Edward II and the “Accursed Kings” in France, leading into a pretty crap 14th century as regards climate, war etc; the MWP was certainly over.

    However, my understanding is that the LIA was the period before and after that horrible dip around 1600. That’s when the Bosporus froze and Swedish armies could invade Denmark by walking across ice. It’s a mystery how people survived the combination of Huaynaputina and the climate of 1600. I guess many did not survive. The Ming Dynasty wasn’t sunbaking either.

    While I understand how horrific famines, cold etc can be connected with major eruptions, I don’t see how even a sustained volcano like Laki can “trigger” extended global cooling. I know that claim has been made, but I don’t get it at all. Then again, I haven’t got a clue how or why climate changes.

  2901. Polyaulax says

    Robert,I think the thing with Laki,and all the ‘cooler’ eruptions is high altitude injection of aerosols and SO2. Laki went on for eight months at high volume and in particular sustained a high output of SO2 and aerosols which must have reached the high atmosphere and dimmed part of the planet. I’m not exactly sure of the timing [seems like an early June start] but I read it straddled1783-1784,so that it did most of its stuff after the summer equinox,and amplified natural seasonal cooling dramatically. Then again I read that summer was hazy and hot in England but hazy and cool in the US. Perhaps the jet stream was interrupted bringing in low latitude heat under the high aerosol fog in the UK.

    I just looked at the CET annual mean figures from 1772. 1782 was anomalously cold,1783 only a little [maybe the hot summer countered the winter]. Then 1784,85,86 were very cold [the high altitude SO2 and dust falling out slowly],and the whole decade was on the low side. I don’t know what happened in 1798,but 1799 was very cold . This is suggesting that there was significant vulcanism at times in those decades as well as the effect of the Dalton Minimum. Pre and post Tambora was just as bad. The other stand out cold period is 1835-40 and a Nicaraguan volcano has been fingered for that.

    This is an interesting paper that documents eruptions in the first half of the 1800s,their temperature effects and their effect on sunspot observing days.

  2902. gavin says

    Poly: the story of Krakatoa and it’s impact in our region has changed very little during my time. I came across it first in some kids book way back and was impressed by the numbers lost and the greater distance of it’s bang and wave records.

    From the history in msm, we don’t need science to show us the world and it’s climate copped a beating. It is also easy to imaging difference between ours and the NH climate change as other volcanoes erupted through time. These terrestrial driven changes would appear be short lived however making backwards climate investigation difficult.

    This outline is good enough without too much conjecture.

    http://www.bom.gov.au/tsunami/history/1883.shtml

  2903. spangled drongo says

    Cohers, those goal posts may not be real but they sure can be changed at any time.

    I find it fascinating how, when Hadcrut3 won’t show the desired effect, it morphs into Hadcrut4.

    “Only the future is certain, the past may change at any time.”

    http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=4237

    La legenda continua…

  2906. kuhnkat says

    Debbie,

    if you haven’t already run across it this paper is quite interesting. It agrees with G&T but shows me wrong. The flawed Halpern paper was rejected, but, eventually published without correcting the flaws!! Gotta love that Climate Gatekeeping!!

    Scrutinizing the atmospheric greenhouse effect and its climatic impact Kramm Dlugi

    http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?paperID=9233

    It was mentioned on this interesting thread:

    http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/02/11/stephen-wilde-greenhouse-confusion-resolved/

    and for Little Lukey and Polywog:

    http://scienceofdoom.com/2012/01/05/kramm-dlugi-on-dodging-the-greenhouse-bullet/

  2907. spangled drongo says

    KK, interesting link to Tallbloke and Stephen Wilde’s discussion on why the GHE doesn’t warm the planet.

    In the Channel Country in central Aust, isolated waterholes surrounded by hot red deserts are freezing cold in the middle of summer even in relentless temperatures well in excess of 40c [100f+]. These waterholes never warm up and they are small potatoes compared with oceans.

    “The radiative Greenhouse Effect is a flea on the back of an oceanic elephant and the influence of CO2 but a microbe on the back of the flea and the influence of anthropogenic CO2 but a molecule on the back of the microbe.”

    Says it all, really.

  2908. Johnathan Wilkes says

    SD

    anyone coming from a farming background knows how cold dam water can be even in the middle or end of summer, apart from the top 2 or 3 inches. Some substantial depth, taken for granted of course but nothing compared to the sea.

  2909. Polyaulax says

    JW, some farm dams and waterholes are going to be hard to heat because they can be small and relatively deep, sitting in sheltered gullies without much wind, and without mixing they stratify. Large bodies of water get overturned by wind action,and of course if they get to sea size they’ll have currents and upwellings driven by wind trends and elevation differences. If your dam is any where on the tablelands, nights are always cooler than on the coast,and you know how frosty it gets. The stratified water just radiates to space at night so the heating restricted to the surface layer has to start from scratch the next day.

  2911. el gordo says

    ‘The retreat from El Niño thresholds over the past several weeks is considered highly unusual, as September–October is typically the time when developing El Niño (or La Niña) events consolidate and mature. While some chance of El Niño remains, climate models surveyed by the Bureau of Meteorology suggest sea surface temperatures in the tropical Pacific Ocean are likely to be warmer than average, but stay within the neutral range for the rest of 2012 and early 2013.’

    BoM

    Highly unusual sounds pretty ominous, must be gorebull worming.

  2912. Polyaulax says

    KK,you have read SOD’s piece on Kramm and Dlugi? Essentially he thinks their paper is fluff, his tone is sarcastic. For instance,he “thanks” them point by point for the irrelevant material they introduce. His first look at K & D is worth reading. He notes the problem that the paper presents for those from the “reject the GHE because it violates the 2nd law” camp.

  2913. spangled drongo says

    “Large bodies of water get overturned by wind action,”

    You could have that wrong, Poly?

    I think you’ll find that wind only mixes the surface water which is possibly made even cooler by evaporation. Ever been swimming in a strong wind? Freezing!

  2914. Johnathan Wilkes says

    Poly

    Large bodies of water get overturned by wind action, and of course if they get to sea size they’ll have currents and upwellings driven by wind trends and elevation differences.

    I think you might have to rethink the wind overturning a large amount of water?

    Unless you mean shallow waters of wast expanse but hardly an ocean?

  2915. cohenite says

    “Large bodies of water get overturned by wind action,and of course if they get to sea size they’ll have currents and upwellings driven by wind trends and elevation differences.”

    That is the AGW solution to the obvious fact that backradiation cannot proviude or transfer heat from the atmosphere radiatively to the ocean; it is problematic:

    http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/wind-water

  2916. Polyaulax says

    Yes,you’re right,I should not have used ‘overturned’ so generally, it’s clearly wrong. Large shallow lakes can be mixed by strong prevailing winds. And also certainly, wind driven waves do a lot of mixing of the upper ocean layer that is not available to small bodies of water. Ocean overturning, which involves huge volumes but is impossibly slow because of vast volumes,is driven by a whole bag of forces including wind as a co-instigator of currents. Temperature differential and salinity changes do the deeper currents but they must communicate functionally with surface current work in places.

    SD perhaps a strong wind might drive evaporation to lower the skin layer temperature,but heat flows from the warm water a few molecules below? What feels immediately cold is the evaporative cooling effect on human skin sensation.

    ‘The AGW solution’? I thought general climate theory supported the heating of the oceans by solar radiation, wind/current/etc thermohaline overturning helping to move that heat into the ocean. Why would AGW disagree with that? Those mechanisms will always be at work. The major thing that is enhanced in EGHE is the opacity of the atmosphere to IR. Moving the average net radiative layer higher so the layers closest to the surface warm. Then perhaps an enhanced downwelling IR factor will affect the skin layer thermal gradient,reducing heat conduction and enhancing the classical heating effects.

  2917. Debbie says

    Polyaux,
    It’s all very interesting and very high tech.
    However, the theory is not playing out in reality.
    No one is arguing that things don’t change or that the weather/climate isn’t fascintaing or interesting.
    The ACO2 ‘global’ signal is the point of disagreement.
    While it’s possible to statistically represent it as a ‘presence’, in reality it does not appear to be a ‘catastrophic’ or ‘harmful’ presence.
    Trying to explain away the impacts of far greater influences is not really achieving anything worthwhile.
    Even the ‘correlation’ attempts are only appearing in models.
    Real time data is not supporting either postdictive or predictive modelling that contains ACO2 forcings to any ‘alarming’ degree.
    Making rules & regs designed on this modelling is not proving to be a worthwhile experiment.
    But, the theory is nonetheless compelling and it’s all academically interesting.

  2918. spangled drongo says

    Poly, I was making the point that the freezing, evaporative sensation felt on the skin is exactly what is happening to the water surface.

    How this simple negative feedback enormously overwhelms any radiation effect in even the hottest of weather.

  2919. cohenite says

    “‘The AGW solution’? I thought general climate theory supported the heating of the oceans by solar radiation, wind/current/etc thermohaline overturning helping to move that heat into the ocean. Why would AGW disagree with that? ”

    Because it is additional heat.

    SOD has a good post on whether backradiation, the AGW mechanism, heats the ocean:

    http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/10/06/does-back-radiation-heat-the-ocean-part-one/

    Read all 4 parts; the comments are instructive; I like Tallbloke’s comment:

    “The Sun heats the ocean, the ocean heats the atmosphere, the atmosphere traps some of the heat for a while, bounces it back off the ocean surface, then loses it to space.

    If instead you want to say that the increased co2 level slows the rate of cooling of the ocean, you need to demonstrate that nothing else has changed to offset it. At the moment this is the big hidden assumption in your reasoning. The empirical evidence, imperfect though it may be, shows that humidity was falling for most of the latter C20th.”

  2921. spangled drongo says

    I wouldn’t worry too much about Grist, John.

    It might be jargon free but it is also fact and evidence free.

    “There was a young girl from Aberystwyth

    Who took grain to the mill to get Grist with…

    You probably know the rest.

  2922. John Sayers says

    The miller’s son Jack
    Laid her flat on her back
    And united the organs they pissed with. 🙂

  2923. Debbie says

    Yes SD,
    I would also back that up with what happens to the large shallow areas of water here at the moment as everyone (us included) are filling up their rice bays.
    No wind and sunny, water is warm. Sunny and windy, even a hot westerly, water is cooler.
    Cloudy, no wind, water will hold heat, as soon as a wind blows, water will cool even with the clouds.
    Also correct by observation out here that deeper water, such as dams, the river and large channels, only heats on the very top. It can be ffffreeeezing underneath, even on a balmy, sunny, Summer day with no wind.
    Oceans are of course affected by other factors and are even more open to the vagaries of wind and weather than the vast open spaces here.

  2925. Robert says

    There are no models of climate. The climate is too vast, too variable, too unknown. Everything impinging on climate is also too vast, too variable, too unknown. You can learn a bit about climate, but you can’t model it. Things called “climate models” may exist, but they are not models of climate. People say they are useful, but I don’t see how. Maybe, if you print them out, you can use the paper to wrap fish guts and prawn heads. But why not use just any paper?

  2926. el gordo says

    ‘Things called “climate models” may exist, but they are not models of climate.’

    Top marks squire….

  2927. Johnathan Wilkes says

    gav,
    Guys; thanks for discovering latent heat and evaporative cooling

    very droll gav, would have been a useful comment if it were relevant to what we were discussing!
    On second thought, not even then.

    Sheeesh

  2928. spangled drongo says

    Debbie, I well remember taking the station governess for a swim in a Diamantina waterhole on a scorching day and in spite of her trim bikini my ardour was well and truly cooled by that freezing water.

    Blue, I was.

  2931. kuhnkat says

    rolyPoly,

    “KK,you have read SOD’s piece on Kramm and Dlugi? Essentially he thinks their paper is fluff, his tone is sarcastic. For instance,he “thanks” them point by point for the irrelevant material they introduce.”

    Really?? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

    Let me just remind you that hte Halpern was similarly dismissive of G&T and contained significant errors that prevented its immediate publication. It is still a shameful piece.

    Thanks for letting us know that you prefer listening to apologists who distort and get the science WRONG even after being corrected by their betters.

    For instance on the Moon paper old SOD went to great lengths to show it had an error. The error did NOT destroy the basis of the paper that GHG’s actually moderate temps and don’t just warm. Oh, and it was shown to be WRONG!!! Talk about FUBAR!!! Additionally SOD is fond of making the sweeping generalization that the 390 surface OLR and the TOA 240 IR PROVES Gorebull Warming. PLEASE!!! Do you REALLY want to be associated with this kind of ignorance?!?!?! The fact that the 390 number is determined without the correct computations is simply additional fecal matter on his head.

    Why do people like you cling to morons who are so deep into the anal orifices of their activist leaders they couldn’t breathe on their own??

    The complaints about the papers are superficial and unhelpful, but, choose what you will.

  2937. Neville says

    The new Briffa study completely wrecks the hockey stick fraud. Surprise, surprise.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/28/manns-hockey-stick-disappears-and-crus-briffa-helps-make-the-mwp-live-again-by-pointing-out-bias-in-ther-data/#more-73211

    All the biased data and manipulation that has driven this imaginary , delusional nonsense for years should now come to an end.

    Of course this was generously and endlessly promoted by Gore, Hansen and the clueless IPCC and siezed on by fanatics all over the globe.

    The graph at 5c says it all, there is nothing unusual or unprecedented about late 20th century warming at all.

  2938. spangled drongo says

    In spite of all of the above our brilliant Climate Commission have said that our infrastructure cannot cope with climate change and that CC will cause 9 billion a year damage.

    Maybe they are just saying that we have not yet invented weather proof paint.

  2941. cohenite says

    Same old same old; what a corrupt mess AGW is; it is appropriate that this corrupt government should have been elected on the back of AGW and Gillard’s lie. Of course she has lied so often and so much AGW has probably been superseded as the emblematic lie of her government.

  2942. Polyaulax says

    ‘Corrupt mess’? Extrapolating much? Melvin and Briffa have a regional paper, different technique and suddenly the hockey stick ‘fraud’–derived from multi-proxy,multi-location study– is completely wrecked? That assertion does not make sense simply on an apples to oranges basis. MB find local warmth periods comparable to 20th century. So have other papers from Northern Europe.

    Mann made his methodological choices at the time of MBH99 out of curiosity and in the expectation that he would have to justify them,revisit them and revise them. Or even abandon them if the body of subsequent work moved the field onwards as expectable. I don’t think he is attached to them for practical reasons,but understandably will defend them for what they really are against malicious attempts to reorder reality. That some of his colleagues have been drawn into defending Mann,and scientific freedom,is unsurprising…it would have been surprising and disappointing if they hadn’t.

    Anti-Mann bullying and hysteria has invented a story around the paper that anti-Mann obsession will not surrender. That is more interesting, and indefensible, than the paper itself.

    IPCC palaeo discussion contains a lot more than just MBH99. Always did,always will. I look forward to IPCC AR5s expanded discussion of palaeolimnological and palaeoglaciological evidence for modern warmth exceeding that of the MWP. Though I am fond of trees.

  2943. el gordo says

    ‘Soil carbon storage, much beloved of Opposition climate spokesman Greg Hunt and others, is (almost) a complete furphy.’

    John Quiggin (blog)

  2944. cohenite says

    Corrupt mess works for me poly; don’t defend the indefensible.

    As for Briffa’s study being just a regional one which therefore does not touch Mann’s abomination; Watts replies to Joel Shore, another old AGW hack:

    “You really are a myopic sorts aren’t you? By your logic then we should ignore Yamal, and the infamous YAD061 sample becuase it is too local. That seemed fine for these scientists purposes before.

    The truth is that Mann’s hockey stick is a fabrication, he’s “embellished” it, just like he did his Noble Prize claims, and there are other papers that confirm that the MWP is as warm or warmer than today, such as

    Christiansen of the Danish Meteorological Institute and F C Ljungqvist of Stockholm University.
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/17/new-paper-confirms-the-climate-was-warmer-1000-years-ago/

    Esper et al in the Journal of Global and Planetary Change
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/18/yet-another-paper-demonstrates-warmer-temperatures-1000-years-ago-and-even-2000-years-ago/

    But you’ll poo poo those too. because that’s what you do as a defender of the faith….a faith that is now dying a slow sure death. Go ahead spin furiously, because nobody but the faithful believes in the embellished dendro claims of the team anymore.- Anthony”

    As for Mann, he is an egotist; ask Steyn.

  2945. Johnathan Wilkes says

    cohenite,

    But you’ll poo poo those too. because that’s what you do as a defender of the faith….a faith that is now dying a slow sure death. Go ahead spin furiously, because nobody but the faithful believes in the embellished dendro claims of the team anymore.- Anthony”

    I pointed this very thing out to Poly before, makes no difference what or whom we quote if it’s not supporting their view, than it’s no good as far as they’re concerned.

    Look at how they handle Dr. Judith Curry, hardly a sceptic, once a favored scientist of the brigade, now being shunned.

    Reminds me of the trolls on Bolt’s blog, only visit once in a blue moon but rest assured the same trolls are there spewing the same rubbish, disregarding facts or reason.

  2946. Debbie says

    Polyaux?

    ‘Onwards as expectable’?

    Onwards to what Polyaux?

    AND?

    “I don’t think he is attached to them for practical reasons,but understandably will defend them for WHAT THEY REALLY ARE (bold) against malicious attempts to reorder reality.”

    What are they really Polyaux?

    Apparently, by what you have written here, they’re not practical?????????(Mann’s theories/modelling?)

    Is that what you meant?

  2947. cohenite says

    JW, poly is reasonably well informed but revealed his emotional level of support for AGW when he went on about the lungs of the planet.

    The gaia concept, as espoused by Lovelock and traduced by nincompoops like Flannery informs AGW and provides the ‘spiritualism’ of the whole shebang.

    It really ticks me off when nominally intelligent people argue basically from this vantage; if they want to be religious about something then good and well but don’t corrupt science to vindicate it.

    AGW and its proofs are exactly the same as those tried out by ID. It is amazing that this defining characteristic of AGW doesn’t get more currency.

  2953. cohenite says

    I see Kirby, J. has opined about Gillard’s culpability:

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/former_justice_kirby_in_gillards_position_a_citizen_should_have_called_poli/#commentsmore

    The current status of the law is here:

    http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lrc.nsf/pages/r93chp2

    Apart from anything else Gillard’s moral compass, or complete lack thereof, must be called into question; it is arguable that her actions with Wilson show no moral comprehension at all; certainly her affairs with married men shows her disdain for other women, particularly married women who she has compared to prostitutes, and her involvement in the knifing of Rudd, even though he probabaly deserved it, shows an alarming capacity for deceit and her many lies and connivances show a person devoid of a moral perspective.

    Yet here she is, our PM.

  2954. kuhnkat says

    Polypolyp,

    “Eventually the ocean shrinks as the system temperature falls, it freezes, atmosphere dries further,the extra ice and expanded snow cover directly radiates away more incoming sunlight”

    And you have verified this by computing how fast the oceans radiate based on their temperature and how fast they can CONDUCT energy from 10’s of meters down to the surface?? You have not been fooled by your gullible belief that they radiate at 390 till they freeze?? Yasee, as the DLR decreases the surface evaporation is reduced and the actual radiation of the surface drops. As the ocean cools it takes less energy input to maintain a particular temp (t^4 remember??). Sheesh, ya really need to do this yourself and not depend on the usual morons supporting their Climate Scam.

    The earth system really is amazing at the number of ways it feeds back changes to stay somewhat stable!!

  2955. kuhnkat says

    Polyplop,

    “His penultimate para inadvertently justifies why Keeling designed the measurement methods as he did,and the description ‘well-mixed’ is referring to CO2 averaged throughout the troposphere and stratosphere.”

    And when did he start getting measurements of the upper troposphere and stratosphere?? (snicker)

  2956. kuhnkat says

    Polylop,

    “Strategically,moth-balled coal plants could be fired up if our glorious turbine army of the future has its collective bearings ground to shreds…but if it’s that bad…”

    Except your coal mines will have been purchased or be on long term contract to supply coal to China and others. Whacha gonna do? Say sorry bud, we need it, SOD off?? China could stomp on you right now and by the time this happens their military will be large enough for it to not be that big of a deal!! The US might not even be in a position to help if we don’t elect Mitzi and get some of our own mess cleaned up!!

  2957. kuhnkat says

    Sandy has landed and the Superstorm, as advertised by NOAA and other alarmists, has already dropped off to tropical storm wind levels!! The ocean surges on top of the tides, similar to Katrina, are substantial, but, nothing to exceed what has been recorded by previous Hurricanes in the 20th Century. The fun part is the mixing of 2 or more storm systems could drop several feet of snow in West Virginnie!! It is already snowing there.

    http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/index.shtml

    A Texas research teams FB page:

    https://www.facebook.com/pages/Texas-Tech-Hurricane-Research-Team/136276000981

  2958. cohenite says

    This has been stuck in moderation, I presume because of the links, which I have disabled:

    I see Kirby, J. has opined about Gillard’s culpability:

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/former_justice_kirby_in_gillards_position_a_citizen_should_have_called_poli/#commentsmore

    The current status of the law is here:

    http:www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lrc.nsf/pages/r93chp2 [// removed]

    Apart from anything else Gillard’s moral compass, or complete lack thereof, must be called into question; it is arguable that her actions with Wilson show no moral comprehension at all; certainly her affairs with married men shows her disdain for other women, particularly married women who she has compared to prostitutes, and her involvement in the knifing of Rudd, even though he probabaly deserved it, shows an alarming capacity for deceit and her many lies and connivances show a person devoid of a moral perspective.

    Yet here she is, our PM.

  2959. spangled drongo says

    Yes cohers, but who is gonna hilight the fact? Our darling MSM, particularly our ABC are so convinced that Left is Lovely and can do no wrong. Julia’s hand must be held at all times.

    Poor bloody Campbell needs only a hint of indiscretion to be pilloried in headlines. Most of the MSM become part of the govt when the left is in power and the opposition when the LNP are.

    When you add to that the PC in the MSM that the lefty girls are all saints and the righty blokes are all misogynists, there is no chance.

    Our pathetically corrupt MSM.

  2964. spangled drongo says

    Neville, You gotta realise 3 cm of SLR over the last 100 years can make a huge difference when a non-hurricane makes landfall.

    Specially when compared to those 84 other hurricanes that hit NY, some killing hundreds with two and a half time the wind strength:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_New_York_hurricanes

    You gotta be able to unnerstan what this is telling us.

  2965. Debbie says

    Wouldn’t have something to do with ‘socialising losses’ re coastal infrastructue by any chance?

  2967. Mark A says

    Debbie

    “Wouldn’t have something to do with ‘socialising losses’ re coastal infrastructue by any chance?”

    It always intrigues me why some people are so antagonistic against farmers receiving “assistance”.
    Which they either have to pay back anyway, or pay for it by future taxes.

    It’s not exactly that the rest of society is blameless in this respect, look at the massive subsidies dished out to other sections of the sectors, like manufacturing and the various benefits handed out to every deserving and not so deserving, not to mention every Johnny come lately.
    Did I say don’t mention it?

    Basically what we are doing is washing each others underwear, but some of us do all the washing and pay for the powder and washing machine to do it too!

    Re. benefits, I simply cannot believe that all on new start are unable to do any kind of work, but that’s me I suppose a redneck right wing whatever.

  2968. Debbie says

    🙂
    Good one Mark A!

    But NOT going to bold it!

    ‘Basically what we are doing is washing each others underwear, but some of us do all the washing and pay for the powder and washing machine to do it too!’

  2969. cohenite says

    SD, that story on the BBC is so unsurprising; the circumstances are mirrored in Australia.

    There is no need for a publically funded broadcaster in a functioning democracy with an established internet; the evidence of bias and traducing of the principle of impartiality is overwhelming.

  2970. gavin says

    Guys; apart from this blog only being a watt/bolt no intelligence needed station. I am discussed by coh’s latest level of garbage rummaging to make a point.

    What kind of people are you in an ungoverned state???

    Washing each other’s underwear goes with suck, suck regardless of whoz side you’r on.

    The big issue this week is that some of that US Sandy impacted coastline will become uninhabitable in the short term as my “big systems” work round the fringes. Socializing the cost of any one storm is not the answer.

  2971. Neville says

    The NBN is in a complete mess, but why isn’t that surprising?

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/the_nbn_business_model_crumbles/

    This just proves what a clueless shambles this Gillard govt has become. If the NBN is added to the budget bottom line we will need decades to clean up this Rudd /Gillard disaster.

    But once again why wasn’t any sort of viable business plan submitted for the best industry groups assessment before these idiots proceeded with this massive white elephant?

  2973. Robert says

    Let’s be a touch relieved that Sandy’s wind speed was nowhere near as strong as that of the 1815 and 1821 hurricanes. Mind you, there’s a lot more infrastructure and humanity in the track of Sandy. Low lying Manhattan will always be vulnerable to surges, Cat 2 and 3 storms will always do plenty of damage to NY. Of course, cyclones and extreme weather events may simply stop occurring there, but that would require a profound…

    Climate change!

  2975. cohenite says

    gav says:

    “I am discussed by coh’s latest level of garbage rummaging to make a point.”

    I guess that is better than being concussed.

  2976. sp says

    More from Lewandowsky:

    “We are living with climate change.

    It is happening now.

    Debating the extent to which Frankenstorm Sandy was put on steroids by climate change is a distraction.

    Nearly all weather events now have a contribution from climate change and it is up to us to manage and reduce that risk with mitigative action”

    http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/4343312.html

    SHAMELESS!!!

    “

  2977. Johnathan Wilkes says

    gav
    “I am discussed by coh’s latest level of garbage

    You are too full of yourself gav. nobody is discussing you here.
    Maybe make a comment when you post, but you are definitely not on our mind.

  2978. toby says

    i expect he means disgusted. you know the feeling most of us had when gillard pulled her sexist misogynistic attack on Abbott, or when she lied about no carbon tax, or her fraud with the AWU slush fund, or the white elephant that IS the NBN. Or basically any other policy this government has put together ( irrespective of if they were good ideas or not, everything they touch turns bad…..like the MRRT which just creates structural budget problems), Gillard deserves our disgust. She has taken politics to a place most of didnt think could get any worse.

  2980. toby says

    JW, i guessed that….I just thought Gavin might like to have pointed out to him what we all think is disgusting…and why, as opposed to what he thinks is disgusting, which is based on slander and smear. Love or hate abbott, he clearly is a much more humane and caring human being than most in the labour party and he does have a moral compass and understand right from wrong. the fact the ABC and people like Gavin cant see the problem with setting up slush funds and pre/ post dating legal documents, shows what appalling values many peoples beliefs are based on. Oh the hypocrisy of the left.

  2981. Robert says

    A cat 2 of large area and on a full moon is what you don’t want for a low lying coastal city. However, while nothing in the US matches the [sarc on] unprecedented [sarc off] Galveston hurricane of 1900, the higher Atlantic coastline has copped plenty.

    New York 1821 was a horror, but it would be wise to remember the force of Great New England Hurricane of 1938. Wind gusts were phenomenal, and the surge altered some bits of coastal geography. Yet the region’s seen worse: the Great Colonial Hurricane of 1635, whose 20 foot surge should be hard to top. Let’s hope so.

    That Gaia, she’s a real misogynist. We should refuse her any future modelling jobs.

  2982. Johnathan Wilkes says

    Very true Robert,

    we have short memories, and when the ones in control make selective choices to present to the masses
    it’s a worry.
    No wonder so many believe the rubbish, how many do you think go outside their normal information sources ie. the MSM?

  2983. Hasbeen says

    Don’t you just love the BOM. Talking about Sandy as if it was a “ferocious” hurricane.

    The thing only got to category 2, & it’s wind speeds were well below cyclone speeds before it crossed the coast.

    I have sat through bigger, [area] & much stronger cyclones with little damage anywhere. How is this so?

    It appears that some factor of the gentle east coast US continental shelf, the coastal topography, or some other factor allows/causes their hurricanes to generate these hugely destructive storm surges, when the sane cyclone in Queensland would produce very little surge.

    I have tried to research this, but can find only generalities on the subject.

    Can anyone tell me why this apparent difference in surge height occurs.? I really would like to understand what I see.

  2987. Robert says

    Let’s never forget Cyclone Mahina, as proudly Australian as zinc cream on a Milk Arrowroot. Cat 5 and 914 mbar. Whether the surge was 43 feet or the possible 48 feet, those porpoises found 50 feet up a cliff would indicate it was as seriously high as a surge can be. Mahina’s peak was no doubt boosted greatly by topography, but that cranky old hag Gaia has not been able to repeat the dose, not in 113 years of unleashing her fury on Australia’s tropic coasts.

    You see, showing typical denialist ignorance, Mahina occurred in 1899.

  2994. Johnathan Wilkes says

    Don’t make do this!
    Everyone is waiting for the chance to post the 3000th post.

    If you hang back I’ll promise I will do it! I do it, I will.
    Keep posting that is!

  2995. Mark A says

    The government wants to:

    “secure $1.77 billion in extra funding over 10 years to restore the ailing basin’s environment to health. ”

    Anyone can enlighten me on how the basin is ailing?

    The river has more permanent water than it ever had, we artificially flood areas of land that may have had a flood once in a blue moon in the “natural” state before we came along.

    And all this to satisfy a fetish of greeny dreamers by denying irrigators of their livelihood and the nation of income export and internal.
    How stupid is that?

  3000. Johnathan Wilkes says

    Good on you cohenite,
    i was distracted by betting on the dogs, and as usual missing by that much “”

    re. Jonova’s thread the claim was always questionable, but I don’t think the die hards will give in easily

  3003. Debbie says

    The MDB is brimming and glowing with health.
    The mind boggling amount of time, tax payers’ money and MSM political spin had nothing to do with the spectacular turn around in the MDB.
    It has been a classic example of our natural ephemeral environment doing what it does. . . or as Dorothea Mackellar penned. . . ‘a land of drought and flooding rain.’
    We still have ‘the establishment’ managing for a dry catchment and inhibiting production.
    They’re claiming that everything is ‘too full’ to allocate.

  3008. Debbie says

    “AGW is disproven”

    Says who coh??

    Are you sure you want to try and play ‘arguing semantics’ with a lawyer Gavin?
    Are you sure you can adequately define ‘disproven’ within the intended context?
    🙂

    Just asking

  3012. Another Ian says

    ? Upcoming winter warnings ?

    The Scotch thistles have only just flowered

    Ditto the Mexican poppies

    And the kangaroos still have winter coats

  3013. gavin says

    Deb; I suspected the word “disproven” was not of coh’s creation and he was merely repeating watts or bolt as some others do.

    Well, the truth’s out and I forgot to tack jo onto my no go list for those others to see. Simply there is too much fuss here over the usual mouth pieces for knockers inc and their handful of unpublished climate science gurus. It’s the same bitter group who refuse to willing acknowledge just about all social enterprise and always given away by their collective use of individually disparaging rhetoric. It’s the same tripe over decades too.

    Now, how do they fix the US power grid after Sandy? Restore everything to as it was before the storm?

    Where do all the sand bags go next time?

  3014. Robert says

    “Now, how do they fix the US power grid after Sandy?”
    They hire engineers, electricians…people like that.

    “Where do all the sand bags go next time?”
    Same place they put them in 1821 and 1893, I suppose.

  3015. Larry Fields says

    It’s shameless self promotion time again. Here’s my latest mathematical article at Hubpages.

    A Surprising Fact about Prime Numbers

    Summary: This article shows that the difference between the squares of any two prime numbers greater than 3 is always divisible by 6.

    LINK
    http://tinyurl.com/b44ch4p

  3016. Neville says

    Geezzzz Gav, what are you yapping on about? Yes they fix the power grid and have the sandbags ready for next time, DUH.

    What is it about facts that makes you cringe? Who knows next time they may face a really strong NATURAL cat 3+ hurricane and much greater storm surges that were experienced centuries ago.

    But in the meantime they should adapt and use the latest technology available to help them when the next big NATURAL storm inevitably strikes again.

    As long as they don’t completely waste scarce borrowed funds on delusional nonsense like a co2 tax and instead use adaptation and new technology they will always have the best outcome.

    Of course our climate commission continues with their porkies and exaggerated rubbish.

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/climate_commission_caught_hyping_superstorm_sandy/#commentsmore

    Just proves that they can’t read simple history records, can’t read very simple graphs and don’t even undestand simple kindy maths. What a disgrace.

  3017. Debbie says

    Gavin,
    As always, they will muddle through and clean up the mess.
    Sandy was not a man made abberation. It wasn’t caused by anything other than what normally causes hurricanes, storms, cyclones etc.
    We’re all getting better at cleaning up and protecting ourselves but it is not possible to keep everything and everyone completely safe from storms etc, it never has been.
    I would also respectfully suggest you check the references that were used in the article that Cohenite linked.
    You may discover that your comment about a handful of unpublished climate science gurus may be incorrect.
    What is it specifically that you think people are ‘knocking’ Gavin?

  3018. Neville says

    Ya gotta laugh at our hopeless warmists. Joe Bastardi shows NOAA’s records for some really big and NATURAL hurricanes that occured during the 1950s.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/02/next-time-somebody-tries-to-tell-you-hurricane-sandy-was-an-unprecedented-east-coast-hurricane-show-them-this/#more-73652

    Rather proves that our climate commission should be wound up once Abbot gets elected. Let’s get rid of the lies and half truths that infest our labor govt and their stupid fellow travelers.
    Btw if there was a correlation to co2 emissions it seems that lower co2 levels are an indicator for more severe and numerous hurricanes. Just kidding. Although Pielke Jnr is correct, the USA is indeed suffering a drought of hurricane activity.

  3020. davefromweewaa says

    Hi Debbie,
    I heard Barnaby refer to enough water to feed and clothe 5,000,000 people in the senate the other day.As in that’s how much has been and will be taken out of production in the MDB with the latest announcement.Do you know how that was calculated ?
    Barnaby also refered to poor people going without as a consequence.I think consequences for poor consumers and dubious to non existant environmental benefits is the best line of attack against green grandstanding.What do you think ?
    Dave Shorter

  3021. Robert says

    Centuries ago, New York was a very low lying coastal city subject to occasional hurricanes. Now, New York is a very low lying coastal city subject to occasional hurricanes. The good news is that the worst known hurricane of the northern states wasn’t centred on New York. Well, it was good news in 1635, when it happened.

    Of course, it wasn’t good news for those further to the north, where the Great Colonial Hurricane did its worst. The Salem Puritans probably blamed witches. And what’s changed much?

  3022. Neville says

    Robert if Gav or Luke etc had lived at the time of witch burnings I’m sure they would have enthusiastically joined in.

    I can remember Dad telling me a long time ago that “we’ve always had these bloody urgers.” Dad hated them and I must admit I’ve taken up his baton whenever I hear silly manipulators and nongs sprouting silly nonsense.

  3024. debbie says

    So why aren’t Luke, Bazza and others berating these people for trying to use ‘just weather’ as evidence either for or against CAGW theory?
    Either way….it’s ‘just weather’ or just a ‘wiggle wobble’ isn’t it?
    It was only newsworthy because it landed in a highly urbanised strip of the coast….and of course will be expensive to clean up.
    But that has always been the case….and it has always been a well known risk that the ocean can bring in some wild and destructive weather to the coast.
    Anyone who has ever lived on the coast (or near any large body of water) knows this is an ever present risk.
    Wild weather and large bodies of water have always been a highly disruptive partnership.

  3025. John Sayers says

    Just listened to the Andrew Ollie Lecture given this year by Mark Colvin from PM. He kept referring to him and his audience being from the position of reality and fact as opposed to all the bloggers etc.

    It was a typical ABC love fest. Mark Scott even had the audacity to congratulate Richard Glover for winning his Drive Show ratings without resorting to putting down women!!

    They just don’t get it!!

  3026. kuhnkat says

    Gavin,

    “Now, how do they fix the US power grid after Sandy? Restore everything to as it was before the storm?”

    Other than harden it against EMP’s of the natural and unnatural kind why would we need to fix the US power grid?? It was one small section of the east coast of the US that has the problem!!

    I agree that cities which are below or close to the water level should think a little harder about putting their utilities and other things BELOW that line unless they are waterproofing them!!

  3027. kuhnkat says

    Debbie,

    “It was only newsworthy because it landed in a highly urbanised strip of the coast….and of course will be expensive to clean up.”

    Actually it was only newsworthy due to the amount of damage done due to the lack of reasonable preparation!! The fun part is the finger pointing. The AGW loons blame it on Gorebull Warming even though we have records of WORSE events before a significant rise in man made CO2. The government blames the power companies and anyone else they can for the lack of preparation, and the people blame the gubmint!!!

    Oh wait, we are supposed to be a Republican form of gubmint, NOT a socialism or some type of authoritarian structure!! Unfortunately we have become a socialist nation with virtually everyone ignoring their PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY for themselves and their areas and expect the gubmint to save them. The gubmint is a bunch of corrupt morons who claim that even though they REGULATE everything of any significance, except possibly the Internet, they don’t have enough power and demand more if they are to to the job!!!

    Yup, nothing but tossers!!

  3029. Neville says

    Just had a look at the climate commission’s site and noticed the video on the side that has a message from big HIPPO Al Gore.

    He thanks the people of OZ for leading on CC because we introduced a co2 tax and he says we have “inspired the world.”
    This site is a disgrace because they allow this idiot to claim that our cyclones, bush fires etc are all the result of AGW.
    He states that Flannery is a good friend so you know where he’s coming from I suppose.
    If you have the stomach for delusional BS have a look at his stupid video.

    http://climatecommission.gov.au/report/queensland-climate-impacts-opportunities/

    Pity they didn’t put up these facts front and centre on their homepage. But it would rather wreck their idiotic message.

    http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/ieo/emissions.cfm

  3030. Debbie says

    Yep KK,
    But I would also add that it appears while wanting more LEGISLATIVE power and also wanting to be paid for the privilege of having more power to do the job, they are in no way prepared to accept responsibility or to be accountable for actually delivering or supplying.
    So the argument is that we all have to give more power in order to ‘keep us safe’ from whatever/whichever potential problem but that power does not include the RESPONSIBILITY to deliver the so called protections.
    I wish I could run my business like that.
    Make an undertaking to deliver the product and/or service, get paid up front and then still get paid if I don’t deliver it!
    Farming would be an absolute snap easy job if we got paid whether we delivered or not.
    Service industries also would love that sort of arrangement I bet.
    The current CO2 tax is supposed to deliver us protection from (???????) .

  3031. kuhnkat says

    Debbie,

    US Farm Subsidies are some of the largest in the world!!! You should consider having a farm here!! Some people spend more time deciding what NOT to plant and how much not to plant than what we would consider useful work!! 8>)

  3032. Johnathan Wilkes says

    kuhnkat

    I don’t blame them and I don’t blame the Europeans either.
    At least they realise what food security means, same with manufacturing.

    Don’t say we must manufacture everything or grow everything
    but unless a nation lived through a lasting conflict or war limiting incoming supplies,
    their leaders and citizens don’t realise how vulnerable they actually are.
    I think it’s not a high price to pay.

    Yep I know many will disagree with me, but there you go, they disagree with me on other stuff too so what’s the difference?

  3033. Debbie says

    KK,
    ‘Some people spend more time deciding what NOT to plant and how much not to plant than what we would consider useful work!!’
    Good point….it can and does happen in heavily subsidised areas.
    JW also has a good point about WHY it happens….but I would imagine that it has been over burdened by administration and extra legislation by the usual suspects?
    It is even starting to happen in OZ via ‘carbon farming’….so equally unproductive re food and fibre production.
    The RM Williams property (Henbury?) is a case in point.
    In general however, the food producing areas in OZ are actually required to PRODUCE something and DELIVER it in order to get paid.
    Assisstance comes in the form of EC (exceptional circumstances) ..although that is also being changed at present (by the usual suspects).
    They were originally designed like a type of insurance program where farmers are offered assisstance during periods like the recent severe drought and even more recent dramatic flooding.
    Subsides like the ones that operate in America and Europe, do not operate here.
    I have no problem with the reasons behind that happening….but I am not that impressed with the way it is administrated and implemented.

  3034. Johnathan Wilkes says

    Debbie

    “but I am not that impressed with the way it is administrated and implemented.”

    Agreed, but once government gets involved there is no help, it will get over burdened by bureaucracy.
    Look at aboriginal affairs!

    Someone worked out, that just giving every aboriginal person about $50 000 a year and abolish all the bureaucracy, ministry, all and sundry, we’d still save about 40%!

    Only a measly 10% actually goes to the recipients it was intended to, the rest is eaten up by middlemen .

  3035. Robert says

    From the OECD:

    “Support levels vary enormously among OECD countries. Over the 2008-10 period, New Zealand had the lowest level of support to farm receipts (PSE%), at just 1% of farm income, followed by Australia (3%), and Chile (4%). The United States (9%), Israel and Mexico (12%), and Canada (16%) were also below the OECD average.

    “The European Union has reduced its level of support to 22% of farm income, but remains above the OECD average. At the other end of the scale, support to farmers remains relatively high in Korea (47%), Iceland (48%), Japan (49%), Switzerland (56%) and Norway (60%).”

    It’s a naughty world, isn’t it? Still, with its massive oil and gas revenues, Norway can afford all kinds of nonsense. Needless to say, its stringent “emissions” policies come at the cost of a great deal of money and…

    emissions!

  3036. Neville says

    A new study of past climate over the last 500 million years has an interesting assessment of slight recent warming. That is the last 160 years after the end of the LIA and should make Luke’s day.
    Here is the conclusion of the paper.

    Conclusions

    The available instrumental data of the last 160 years allow us to see that there occurred climatic fluctuations with a prevailing warming trend in the most recent past. However, when this period is examined in the light of the evidence provided by palaeoclimate reconstructions, it appears to be a part of more systematic fluctuations; specifically, it is a warming period after the 200-year ‘Little Ice Age’ cold period, during a 12,000-year interglacial, which is located in the third major icehouse period of the Phanerozoic Eon. The variability implied by these multi-scale fluctuations, typical for Earth’s climate, can be investigated by combining the empirical climacograms of different palaeoclimatic recon- structions of temperature. By superimposing the different climacograms, we obtain an impressive overview of the variability for time scales spanning almost nine orders of magnitude—from 1 month to 50 million years.

    Two prominent features of this overview are (a) an overall climacogram slope of -0.08, supporting the presence of HK dynamics with Hurst coefficient of at least 0.92 and (b) strong evidence of the presence of orbital forcing (Milankovitch cycles) at time scales between 10 and 100 thousand years. While orbital forcing favours predictability at the scales it acts, the overview of climate variability at all scales clearly suggests a big picture of enhanced change and enhanced unpredictability of Earth’s climate, which could be also the cause of our diffi- culties to formulate a purely deterministic, solid orbital theory (either obliquity or precession dominated). Endeavours to describe the climatic variability in deterministic terms are equally misleading as those to describe it using classical statistics. Connecting deterministic controls, such as the Milankovitch cycles, with the Hurst–Kolmogorov stochastic dynamics seems to provide a promising path for understanding and modelling climate.

    I’ve been saying this here for years, that we have been in a warming period since 1850 and this could be an obvious natural variation and might only be partly due to increases in co2 emissions.
    I’ve called it a recovery from the LIA, but call it what you will it really doesn’t matter. Just good to see this new paper stating the obvious.

  3037. Debbie says

    Uh Oh!
    Luke
    (and to a lesser extent Bazza & Gavin),
    Robert has posted the figs I have suggested you to look up many, many times.
    Only 3%?
    Not only that….OZ farmers are way in front re ‘practices’ as well….if you would care to look up those stats.
    Sort of puts a bit of perspective on the wild rantings of the political rhetoric don’t you think?
    Whose snouts are greedily feeding from those troughs therefore?
    How expensive in terms of GDP was/is EC compared to the total social security budget?
    Who’s actually ‘over consuming’ and ‘wasting resources’?
    In fact….who appears to be ‘socialising losses’?
    Australian Agriculture?
    Hmmmmmm……don’t think so.
    Maybe you have mixed up the concepts of ‘long term investment’ and ‘socialising losses’?
    Might need a little extra lesson on CBAs perhaps???????

  3039. Robert says

    Checking water usage and subsidies for rice world-wide will have you despairing of finding any “sustainable” or “free market” fairylands. Hasn’t Thailand been especially naughty of late! Still, with India and Vietnam dumping their huge stockpiles…

    But there’s one country that wastes less water than all the others, and whose subsidies don’t go far beyond some drought relief and marketing controls. Unfortunately, this country doesn’t appeal to hipster shoppers who like to express their global awareness by what they put in their supermarket trolleys. I won’t even mention the country’s name. (Hint: its opposition leader is a misogynist who constantly refers to women as “she”.)

  3042. Johnathan Wilkes says

    Debbie
    ” about WHY it happens”

    Debbie I lived in Switzerland for many years, my mother is Swiss, and if you go outside the big cities you’d notice why they support their farmers to the extent they do. The arable area is very small, comparatively speaking.
    Any conflict in their vicinity and they are cut off from outside trade!

    They are or I should say were fiercely, independent. Times change.
    Being an armed and army trained nation, so far they proved to be a prickly target not really worth taking on, the rewards are not there.

    We are stupid Debbie ruled by stupid and we take it like the sheep we are. And both side of politics are the same, out to screw us and rule us, one is just a bit more circumspect getting there that’s all. Sick of it all.

  3044. Debbie says

    No argument from me JW.
    History teaches us that we should protect our access to essentials.
    Things like food, water, shelter and energy.
    I am rather bemused that all this nouveau ‘higher level’ thinking and ‘higher level’ principles is systematically endangering future access to those essentials.
    I’m not sure how we could possibly have a ‘super global organism’ (or whatever) if secure access to those essentials have been trashed?
    I don’t believe that is ‘higher level’ thinking. I have a different name for it.
    Hmmmm. . . .
    ‘That man’? That’s an interesting and entirely clumsy way to avoid using pronouns. I guess it then becomes ‘those men’ or ‘those women’ instead of ‘them’???
    Good way to take up extra space & time in the MSM? 🙂
    Can’t see any other reason for it.

  3045. gavin says

    JW; are you OK? and, can we help?

    Talking about sheep,bet my inbox fills today with protest after ABC 4 Corners last night. Also Ludwig should get a beating from everyone including MSM.

    Deb; it seems in the absence of targets, you just wander around nodding at familiar posts and not trying hard at discovering reasons for broader views.

    Ever wondered what the PS is actually working towards? Getting agreements on any measures via the UN etc is a long and difficult process. Have I mentioned mutual recognition as a worth while concept before?

  3046. Debbie says

    Good grief Gavin,
    I don’t think anyone thinks the PS is entirely redundant. I most certainly do appreciate the good, basic, ‘frontline’ services and think that is a sensible use of tax payer funding and always has been.
    But? ?
    Broader views? ? ?
    Mutual recognition ? ? ?
    Seriously? ?
    In what way do these ‘concepts’ supercede the sensible, responsible & secure access to essential products and services? How are they ‘higher order’ or ‘higher level’?

  3048. Johnathan Wilkes says

    gav, give me one good reason why I should read your garbage let alone answer.

    For your info , not that it’s any of your business, I’m fed up by being frustrated by council red tape on a building permit that should normally be a simple matter of right issue.

    And we have to vote for these morons!

  3051. Neville says

    Bob Tisdale looks at the SST in the area covering the path of Sandy over the last 70 years.
    It hasn’t warmed over that entire period.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/05/an-inconvenient-truth-sea-surface-temperature-anomalies-along-sandys-track-havent-warmed-in-70-years/#comment-1137128

    Rather buggers up the arguments from all the barking mad brigade. But will they admit their error and apologise? Of course not.
    Once again a total fraud and con trick.

  3054. Hasbeen says

    Here’s a little guessing game all can play.

    HOW LONG do you think it will take for the warmists to find some “required” correction for those old sea surface temperature records, in the area traveled by Sandy, & many other US hurricanes?

    Can’t have this same embarrassment of the warmists, next time they want to blame a natural phenomena on global warming, now can we?

    I’ll give it 5 months, & then done very quietly.

  3055. cohenite says

    “I’ll give it 5 months, & then done very quietly.”

    Less, now that the Sun-king has won.

  3056. spangled drongo says

    “I’ll give it 5 months, & then done very quietly.”

    Seeing as the warmists are, like a large portion of Obama supporters, on govt gravy and accutely aware that it is always better to receive than to give, they couldn’t do anything else.

    But ain’t it amazin’ how the receivers always get the breaks just when you thought it was safe to hope?

  3058. Johnathan Wilkes says

    SD
    “But ain’t it amazin’ how the receivers always get the breaks just when you thought it was safe to hope?”

    Now that the scales are tilted to the side of the receivers, I can’t see an easy way back.
    How do you suppose a conservative, and I use the term very loosely here in OZ can get elected when as Romney rightly commented,
    my interpretation, 47% of the population are living at the expense of the other 35% the missing 18% are the public “servants” who merely recycle government ie. our money. They pay no effective tax as such, they might as well be paid their wages less tax and do away with the formalities of filling in a tax return.

    It they promise not to change the status quo, and when elected, turn around and cut back on government largesse, they’ll be turfed out next time. If they promise to keep it all then what’s the point holding an election?

    I despair because I’m still young enough be hurt.

  3059. gavin says

    Tiresome lot, hey.

    “just when you thought it was safe to hope” but now it’s time to gloat!

    Obama is a middle down bottom up man, so he got back safely.

    “we have had England and the rest of the liars in the Climate Commission claiming Sandy was made worse because of much warmer SSTs” somebody gave you permission to use “liars” coh?

    Warmer sst’s do give rise to hurricanes, unless I’m wrong about atmospheric vortex physics, see the following

    “Hurricane sea cooling is almost entirely due to heat removal from above and not to cold water from below”.

    http://vortexengine.ca/Isabel/Michaud_AS18_Presentation_R7.pdf

    background, typical M T Montgomery

    http://met.nps.edu/~mtmontgo/papers/nolanmontgo02.pdf

    “AIR–SEA EXCHANGE IN HURRICANES” The 2000-05 experiment

    http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/BAMS-88-3-357

  3060. Robert says

    Hurricane Sandy achieved wind speed of 175 km/h. The Great New England Hurricane of 1938 achieved wind speed of 260 km/h. More disturbing is the finding by the Hurricane lab people of NOAA that the 1635 hurricane, guessed to be as low as 930 mbar, was able to produce a 20 foot storm surge. Think about that, and about the 1821 hurricane, cat 4 with a surge of 13 feet – right in Manhattan!

    Instead of voting for a stable climate which has never existed, or hoping to manipulate climate through the tax system or putting more money into the hands of GIM and Goldman Sachs, it might be a good idea for large and wealthy cities near sea level to invest in very high levels of preparedness. Remember also that in a real emergency all kinds of big picture stuff goes wrong. Think local but act local. You’re a rich town, NY.

    I’m not saying that King Charles I wasn’t flirting dangerously with Catholicism, or that there weren’t all kinds of witches running around New England in 1635. Nor am I denying that sin was causing SSTs to rise back in the mid 17th Century. I’m just saying that, when confronted with a 20 foot storm surge, you’re better off having a practical plan.

    Gaia was a bitch in 1635, and she’s still a bitch.

  3062. spangled drongo says

    Worse than tiresome, gav. Especially when you gloat so foolishly. When you can’t even see that you need the givers to pick up your broken pieces and start putting them back together.

    How long, d’you reckon, can you leave the bull in the china shop? It is very tiresome trying to make serious repairs when it is still on the premises.

    Robert, pity Hansen didn’t learn about “the storms of my grandfathers.”

  3064. Johnathan Wilkes says

    Just read A Bolt’s column in the paper.
    We are not of the same political mindset, he and I, but he comes to the same conclusion about the givers and takers and how a politician can deal with it.

    Not an easy task, given the numbers.

  3065. gavin says

    I don’t read Bolt Nev and it seems JDUB won’t have him for a polly minder either.

    Did anyone squiz those hurricane studies?

  3068. Robert says

    Yes, gav, you hipster, it’s true there are no sat photos of the Galveston Hurricane of 1900, so I guess it doesn’t have the Now Generation edge of Hurricane Elena. But if boring, olden day storms ever start to draw the interest of the swingin’ set, you can read all about the deadliest natural disaster in U.S. history on many sites like these:
    http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/galveston.htm
    https://ceprofs.civil.tamu.edu/llowery/personal/songs/hurricane/thestorm/1900strm.htm#path

    By using that ultra-modern and lightning-fast google thingy I’m sure you can find lots more info. Some say Galveston was “unprecedented”! How about that! I know you like unprecedented stuff, gav. (I dare say Galveston had pre-European precedents – but why spoil a good climate scare with boring old precedents? They’re such a downer.)

  3069. spangled drongo says

    Thanks for those links, Robert. You don’t mean to tell us that back in red-neck times there might have been many more bad storms simply because we didn’t have the tech to detect them?

    Wash yo’ mouf out!

    But I can remember even a decade BAGW [before AGW] when no sooner had you tried to prevent one lot of homes from being washed out to sea than another cyclone was on your doorstep.

    And so-on, up to six times a “summer”.

    Could this be because AGW, as Lindzen has predicted, has improved our weather and reduced our storms enormously or does the AGW cycle only come around every 60 years or so?

  3071. spangled drongo says

    The AGE must have had a relapse to allow this article. Maybe they feel a lot more reassured, magnanimous and inclined to “balance” when “f##k white people” have been vindicated:

    “The wilful misuse of science by lobby groups to support their agendas has now become an epidemic. The view that more frequent or extreme climate events are occurring, as advanced by many commentators, directly contradicts the considered advice of scores of climate experts, including all those who wrote the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the Non-governmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC).”

    Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/cometh-the-storm-cometh-the-climate-lies-20121107-28ytj.html#ixzz2BafizeV1

  3072. Robert says

    Let’s hope that communities take disaster preparation in hand, rather than depending on charismatic politicians, agencies, bureaus, ministries, czars etc. When you ask a huge corporation or government body about its plans, it can always overwhelm you with abstract nouns to describe its virtues. Just don’t ask it for silly details like:

    Have you made placements of bottled water?
    Have you arranged to block subways?
    Have you plenty of generator power?

    Behind all the self-importance and pseudo-efficiency are guys like Bush, Obama, Clinton and Bloomberg. Would you trust them to water your pot plant or feed your goldfish over the weekend?

    Rudi Giuliani might remember the bottled water and generators…but he doesn’t hang with Jay-Z or Bruce Springsteen. Who’d elect him?

  3076. el gordo says

    Kininmouth and Carter….

    ‘That formal government advisory bodies such as the Climate Commission are supported in their flagrant disregard for scientific principles and facts by senior CSIRO and university research managers is cause for severe national concern.

    ‘A Climate Commission that had the safety and welfare of Australians at its heart would be advising Parliament to expend resources on community infrastructure that mitigates the hazards associated with climate extremes. It would resile from opportunistic attempts to link human tragedies such as Sandy with speculative anthropogenic global warming.’

    Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/cometh-the-storm-cometh-the-climate-lies-20121107-28ytj.html#ixzz2BcSbGvHD

  3078. cohenite says

    That Carter and Kininmonth article is interesting because it shows where bazza disappeared to; his comments:

    •

    Like the frog when you put it in boiling water it will jump out but if you warm him up slowly he won’t know the difference. That’s where the world is at present. The last 10 years has seen some really extreme weather events that I have not seen in my 55 years. But the deniers will keep on banging on as if its not happening……heads in the sand.

    Commenter Bazza Location Date and time November 08, 2012, 11:53AM
    •

    The Chair of the Climate Commission’s Science Advisory Panel Professor Matthew England states, “The evidence suggests that climate change exacerbated the severity of Hurricane Sandy.”
    “The shifts in climate towards higher temperatures and more moisture in the air are becoming the “new normal” which is influencing the nature and intensity of weather patterns around the world.”
    “Storm surges had a particularly devastating impact on areas of the USA coast. A warmer world is a world with higher sea levels that make storm surges much worse.”
    Professor Steffen said that “The experience in the USA demonstrates that often our infrastructure is simply not equipped to deal with an overheated climate and more intense extreme weather events”
    I think he knows what he is talking about.

    Commenter Bazza Location Date and time November 08, 2012, 12:13PM

    What a bunch of bs! “I think he knows what he is talking about.” You’re a goose bazza.

  3079. Robert says

    Whichever bazza it is, he’s missed a lot of Australian weather action if he’s only fifty-five. He got to witness Yasi, a real brute, only last year, and some recent terrors like George and Ingrid.

    He would be old enough to remember the FIVE Category 4 and 5 Australian cyclones during the violent 70s (the decade it’s rude to mention, the one that gave the world Typhoon Tip).

    He would have missed Innisfail 1918, a Cat 5 which spared just twelve houses in a sizable town. He would also have missed Cyclone Mahina in 1899. Mind you, that monster is one Cat 5 you’d be glad to miss.

    Some said Mahina was, er, unprecedented. It was certainly worse than they thought!

    Anyway, it’s time to put my head back in the sand.

  3081. gavin says

    Hey, several posts without watts or bolt!

    Thinking debate may be improving, I followed several and read same old anti AGW commentary with the usual rhetoric then moved on to that William Kininmonth and Bob Carter letter. It’s full of asumptions too considering they don’t have much data prior to NASA. Not one item from published climate literature to support your latest posts.

    Rob; is your sand in a bucket at home, down on the beach, or outback in the desert? You need a container to keep it stable these days.

  3082. Robert says

    Gav, I forgot to add that many people think the Mahina in 1899 is our most lethal natural disaster, with a bit over 410 dead. In fact, the deadliest natural event was probably the Vic heatwave of 1939. The five million acre fires of Black Friday, among the worst in world history, killed 71, but the heat of that summer killed more, with an accepted toll of 438. Some temps in Melbourne exceeded 45C.

    Amazingly, gav, Black Friday was WITH precedent! Because Australia’s rural population was sparse in 1851, only twelve died on Black Thursday, 6 February 1851, but one quarter of Vic just burnt up – five million HECTARES and a million sheep! A temp reading in Melbourne, unofficial of course, was 47.2C.

    And all that before climate change!

  3083. gavin says

    Robert; although I respect your posts and comments in general but “all that before climate change” is both in the industrial era and part of another scenario, broard acre landscape change. Also Melbourne was a “funny” place to live considering the seasons. Those hot summer north winds brought hay fever and bad bushfires on a fairly regular basis.

    You may not recall my many posts on the theme, wild fire runs in dry crops at the speed of the wind and dry grass is the wick to the bush, all based on my own observations as a keen smoke watcher. Recently young Prof Brian Cox in one of his shows gave a fig around 3M/sec for wild fire on the run in typical agricultural country anywhere affected by drought.

    Now; being really smug Rob, I must remind you that our SD constantly says such high city temps are only UHI.

  3084. Debbie says

    What’s a ‘keen smoke watcher’? 🙂
    Is that the same as a pyromaniac?
    Our SD says no such thing Gavin.
    You are definitely the one who ‘denied’ UHI and then renamed it ‘enhanced AGW’.
    Nowhere has anyone claimed that high city temps are ‘ONLY UHI’.
    That is complete nonsense!
    Sorry….bit harsh….but that habit of accusing people of saying something they didn’t say is starting to become entirely tedious.

  3085. gavin says

    Deb; smoke watching became second nature while team working to reduce toxic emissions in cities and around industry on the fringe.

    Bushfire control goes hand in hand with with the other hazard management routines including those involving arson and lightening strikes around our infrastructure.

    It’s about observations and reading between the lines when pressed by devious minds.

  3086. spangled drongo says

    “It’s about observations and reading between the lines when pressed by devious minds.”

    Interesting description gav.

    Observing that during a heatwave, when you possibly have a city temperature that is cooler than the smoke-filled, fire-ravaged, surrounding countryside, it disproves UHI.

    VEERRY dubious evidence, that.

    How about those other thousands of days when this doesn’t happen?

  3087. Debbie says

    Yep SD,
    I suspect it might have something to do with WHAT (bold) you are attempting to prove.
    I agree that bush fire management is very important Gavin.
    Have you seen some of the bi polar, centralised rules that prevent sensible hazard risk?
    Have you seen some of the incredibly stupid and mindless ignorance that sees people jamming up their escape routes and allowing thick stands of eucalypts to grow right up to their back doors?
    Attempting to point the finger at grass/crop fires and then ignoring the bleeding obvious around urban and semi urban infrastructure is not good hazard management. It is asking for trouble. Big trouble.
    Simple things like fire breaks, clear access and backburning of undergrowth can do plenty to mitigate those risks.
    The only real cost is political capital.

  3088. gavin says

    SD. during those heat waves, it was bloody hot everywhere around Melbourne. I could be monitoring smoke and temperature around industry on the western side, around Dandenong on the east, in the city and out in the hills where we lived under Mt Dandenong.

    Yes, I usually carried a selection of thermometers in my box of tricks and was constantly referring to ambient around various infrastructure, labs, hospitals, breweries, paper mills and chemical plants. However an important indicator of seasons in the making was the plight of asthmatics, poor sods who might be suffering well before the fire season.

    These fires greatly affected me, 1962, 65, 68 Dandenongs and more, 1967 Hobart, and the 69 Lara fire that I saw start in the You Yangs as a tiny smoke spiral one bright sunny day in Altona, it killed 17 on the Melbourne-Geelong highway not long after in similar circumstances to the many fatalities down roadsides in flat country south of Hobart.

    Grass and blackberries also fueled the more recent Canberra fires that I witnessed.

  3089. Robert says

    http://mhj.sagepub.com/content/10/1-2/75

    The El Nino which caused those extraordinary weather events in Sydney in the early 1790s is actually known as the Great El Niño of 1789–93. It didn’t just kill birds mid-air and dry the Tank Stream. It seems to have had global consequences. From Science Daily, who haven’t quite abolished history yet:

    “Then, the so-called East India drought hit in 1790-1796. This one appears to have been felt worldwide, spreading civil unrest and socioeconomic turmoil. For instance, in Mexico, water levels at Lake Pátzcuaro fell so much they gave rise to ownership disputes over the land that emerged. In Europe, drought led to crop failures that preceded the French Revolution. Famines hit India.”

    Of course, the worst was still to come for Asia in 1876-1878, with maybe 30 million dying from monsoon failures. Just as well they didn’t have to deal with climate change!

  3091. Graeme M says

    Gavin, I read with interest the various blogs and so on, plus mainstream media etc. And the one common thread, disregarding for a moment the detail of the science, is the overwhelming tendency to paint historical weather extremes as somehow separate or even irrelevant, whilst arguing that present day examples present evidence for anthropogenic climate change.

    While I wouldn’t disagree that we most likely do have some effect on ‘climate’, there is a very worrying tendency to paint a wholly innacurate picture of what climate really is. Surely even you can see that?

    Hurricane Sandy is an example. Exactly what evidence is there that Sandy was particularly influenced by climate change, when there is ample evidence that it was not in any way unusual? We cannot even be sure that it is the largest hurricane in the past 500 years. The primary reason it has any sort of profile is of course that it struck New York.

    Can you confidently state that no hurricane in the past 500 years was not as large? What about hurricanes pre radar and satellite era that did not come ashore?

    I think it is quite possible to draw conclusions about what AGW may mean in terms of weather extremes, but the problem is that it is clear that extreme weather events have always happened. And thus it is easy to assign some weight to the effects of AGW in an extreme event notwithstanding that in fact that event is not unusual in the longer term history of extremes. In other words, the extreme variability of weather can provide the confirmatory evidence whether or not there was any effect.

    The prediction in terms of hurricanes as I understand it is for fewer hurricanes but greater intensity. Thus, a powerful hurricane (which it actually was not) after a longish period of no hurricanes making landfall could be seen as evidence of AGW. And yet the event in itself is not extraordinary.

    So, how do you honestly claim Sandy to present any kind of evidence one way or the other? And what do you say to the mischievousness of suggesting that it IS evidence for AGW?

  3092. Robert says

    Yep, Graeme, Sandy was big, but as big as Typhoon Tip in area? I really don’t know. Of course, Tip was stupendously intense as well. (Thank you once again, 1970s!)

    What Sandy has proven conclusively is a) an Atlantic hurricane in 2012 can have a large area, and b) in a true emergency, you are better off having a Giuliani than an alarmist turkey like Bloomberg running your city.

  3093. gavin says

    GM, I don’t make many if any claims about one event being evidence for this or that. I have just nominated a string of bushfires in different places and over decades that can still cause me to ponder about our relationship with the natural world.

    Further back I gave links to modern hurricane studies that involved a string of large storms off shore mostly but I can only relate to them via NASA images, not MSM. I will say though, what we call hurricanes here are an aberration in world wide weather. Also fire storms that I have seen are an aberration in our bushfire fire behavior and you should know I seek vantage points to watch their progress, even those made as part of routine forestry operations.

    My posts in general are about finding the norm, not the max or min as trends are far more important to forecasters. How often do I need to use the word ambient in regard to atmospheric measurements such as temperature, humidity, due point, frost and so on to confirm an entrenched methodology? Light and sound, Ph, stream flow even gravity all have to be treated in the same way before tackling such questions as radio traffic density and efective signal to noise ratios.

    Instrument design grows with the need.

  3094. el gordo says

    …’the overwhelming tendency to paint historical weather extremes as somehow separate or even irrelevant, whilst arguing that present day examples present evidence for anthropogenic climate change.’

    The propaganda has been sophisticated and unrelenting.

  3095. Graeme M says

    Indeed Gavin, but I guess I am highlighting the question of whether the concept of a ‘norm’ is really the right one? In terms of policy I can see why we need to have some sense of a norm and what trends are evident.

    But weather is inherently chaotic and trying to determine a trend from even a series of events is unlikely to offer a great deal of insight. My concern is that we see a concerted effort in the media to paint the proper norm as one of benificence – that is, weather should normally be quite benign and unusual or extreme events are out of the ordinary. And yet with weather, the ordinary must by definition include the extremes. Ordinary in this sense is NOT ‘sameness’.

    Once you recast the popular notion of climate to represent a state without extremes, it is easy indeed to suggest extremes prove change.

    You argue the case for trends, but can we make reasonable assumptions about trends with only very short term data at our disposal? Proxies may very well offer us some insight and I have to confess to ignorance in this respect, but I would be surprised if proxies offer us anything like the accuracy of an instrumental record. Otherwise we could just stop developing instruments tomorrow.

    Can we really infer something useful from a detailed instrumental record of a very short period when the very nature of weather and climate is to embrace the extremes, the outliers?

    All of that said, my personal beef as I say is the misrepresetantion of events to the public. And Sandy is a prime example of the art. So I repeat my question to you. Is it reasonable to use Sandy as an example of the dangers of climate change as our very own climate commissioner suggested just a week ago? Your opinion on that?

  3098. spangled drongo says

    Sorry, by rehash I mean rethink, IOW the team is wrong and there is no greenhouse effect.

  3099. Johnathan Wilkes says

    Graeme M,

    “Is it reasonable to use Sandy as an example of the dangers of climate change as our very own climate commissioner suggested just a week ago? Your opinion on that?”

    Good question Graeme.

    I have no problem with proven scientific research pointing to some warming, cooling, no change, climatic whatever but I am a bit apprehensive when they ignore the very same past climatic experience.

    Good luck with gav’s reply!

  3100. gavin says

    GM; “Can we really infer something useful from a detailed instrumental record…”

    I say yes but first, lets know how much you really understand about what’s possible before going on to “my personal beef as I say is the misrepresentation of events to the public” and “Is it reasonable to use Sandy as an example”.

    Mate; I spent a great deal of my time trying to keep up with technical developments after WW2. Being a metal worker before playing with scientific instruments and industrial automation systems full time I had to prove a long term interest in areo/space type research and extremes in physics. In the 1960’s my tutors came from, railways, navy ships and aircraft instruments. In the 70’s some of us were lucky enough to have a guy who designed, built then maintained unique weapons guidance systems for our defense forces then a short career in transitioning global electronic manufacturing for the digital age. Not so much a teacher but an expert in solid state electronic development. Even so I had to sprint often enough after being left behind. Some times it’s enough to have faith in other folk and observe.

    Ebay has a message todaycabout communication problems down the east coast in the US. People were caught in the middle of their online transactions without a word in response. How foolish is that”. I had a few packages off to the US by air on the eve of 9/11. That took months to settle and we still have communications then. The true measure of Sandy will go on for a while yet. Observation must be on going too.

    Tomorrow I hope to catch up with youngsters working through the digital age, project design and management, system building for future data mining. I’m curious about our mutual obligations too but know just enough not to expect any forecasts. How much do we need to be wise before the event?

    My advice to them remains constant. Keep 20% of client budget up sleeve for contingencies and obtain a complete set of propriety spares before commissioning.

  3101. gavin says

    I should add, what older folk think about AGW and many other things doesn’t really count, as it’s the young doing their turn that matters.

  3102. Graeme M says

    OK… so clearly you don’t want to offer your personal opinion on the case for sandy as evidence for AGW as has been put forward by several climate science luminaries, our climate commissioner and any number of articles in the MSM. This is clear from your rambling responses that are remarkably thin on content.

    Now. “lets know how much you really understand about what’s possible before going on to”

    The simple answer is ‘nothing at all’. I am a very average Joe Blow with no science background to speak of. What I do have is an ability to see larger patterns and a certain understanding of human nature. While my view of AGW is sceptical, I don’t discount the very real possibility that the scientific ‘concensus’ is spot on.

    Where my alarm bells sound is when I see such a concentrated effort to sell AGW – especially when that effort involves a massive re-education of the public perception around what is climate, weather and acceptable or normal risk.

    Science should not be advocacy in my view. Perhaps I am wrong there. But increasingly I interpret climate science as advocacy by those with an inherent sense that the modern world is a fallen paradise.

    So my simple contribution here now is not to argue the merits of observation (my comment on which you so clearly misinterpreted) but to pose the question to someone who has hitherto offered good arguments for his point of view. Can you in all good conscience agree with the alarmist position that Sandy was exacerbated by AGW and that we have indeed entered a new era of climate extremes? Are you willing to actually answer that question and explain your reasoning?

  3103. Neville says

    GM if you’re looking for an argument using logic and reason I don’t think you’ll get much satisfaction from Gav.

    You’ll get a lot of the historical contents of Gav’s tool box and quickie measurements and observations here, there and everywhere decades ago, but very little that is relevant to the con and fraud of AGW mitigation. Yes it is a real con and fraud, easily explained using simple maths.

    If you want to understand Sandy and its place in history then I think Pielke jnr is as good a source as anyone.

    BTW the Bolter has some real fair dinkum BS for the Combet idiot to absorb and it all comes from Combet’s side of politics.

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/the_real_bulls_is_what_combet_is_standing_on/#commentsmore

  3105. Graeme M says

    Heh, yes I read that lakoff stuff at Judith Curry’s. I have to admit to struggling with the concepts but I suspect it’s a semantical game that leads to a very slippery slope of reasoning.

    As to Gav, well… I’m not trying to be a smartarse. But the whole Hurricane Sandy as evidence for AGW thing does make my blood boil. I understand that Gav isn’t necessarily making that argument but he is suggesting that those who disagree are misinformed.

    I just won

  3106. Graeme M says

    whoops, blasted dog just jumped into my lap!

    I meant to finish that comment with

    “I just wondered what Gav’s view re the Hurricane Sandy thing really is and what he thinks of the efforts to paint it as evidence for AGW. “

  3107. Robert says

    The big stunt is to use terms like “record”, “ever”, “unprecedented” etc, which are referential to past events and conditions, but at the same time to blur and minimise history, till those terms become a kind of emotional code, wilfully disconnected from a factual base. Like all stunts, it will work for a while.

    Nobody ever says there is an era when climate was stable – the trick is to imply it without saying it. What existed once is to be seen as normal and natural, what is happening now is mechanistic, dominated by “drivers”, “forcings” and “triggers”. Even a loose but useful set of observations like PDO or ENSO is perceived as a kind of Big Lever or master mechanism. No wonder it’s the left who love all this climate crud!

    In reality, if you even take a cursory look at climate in history, everything old is new again.

  3109. kuhnkat says

    Gav opines,

    “I should add, what older folk think about AGW and many other things doesn’t really count, as it’s the young doing their turn that matters.”

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  3110. spangled drongo says

    Good one Neville.

    If Alan Jones said this, ACMA would have him in for re-education.

    BTW, I just heard our first Brush Cuckoo of spring this am. He’s running about a month late.

    Global cooling, gav?

  3112. Neville says

    I agree SD that tiny error was just minor by the super busy and very accurate Jones. He also understood straight away that he had made a mistake and apologised to his audience.

    Karoly’s mistakes are mind bogling when you consider he’s supposed to be one of our top climate scientists.

    BTW the Bolter seems to be hinting at a new development in the Gillard/Wilson slush fund scandal.

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/awu_scandal_labor_starts_to_fret/#commentsmore

  3113. Graeme M says

    Talking of AB did you read his transcript of Abbot’s interview with Lisa Wilkinson? It read like a Brian Clark/John Dawe skit. I like Abbot but honestly think they are squandering their high ground. They’ve allowed Labor to frame the AbbotAbbotAbbot public debate and now have nothing useful to offer but the same tired rhetoric. Sad but there it is. just watch Labor claw back the lead.

    And Hurricane Sandy is just the tonic for the climate change catastrophists I reckon.

  3115. Debbie says

    Karoly is clearly an ‘advocate’ first and any other qual comes after that.
    His claim with NO EVIDENCE that people in Mildura just ‘know’ that it is getting drier/hotter is proof that attention to ‘science’ is taking a back seat to ‘advocacy’.

  3116. spangled drongo says

    Those MDB wastrels should orta know by now, Deb. More than the rest of Aus, they have been browbeaten by the best green hypocrites this govt can afford.

    And they can afford the most expensive there is.

  3118. gavin says

    GM; there have been occasions when I contact a contributor off the blog to say what I am thinking behind what I write and I recently offered SD a shoot out in RL with old but trusty thermometers by the hip. I even told one or two why I hang about and it’s not because I’m otherwise idle. Btw; I’m just as concerned as others here about process.

    Extracting agreements across the board is quite difficult and so I have to bleed every one slowly by pricking and prodding their blind side. After failing English Expression repeatedly I realized I could not campaign directly in the right fields to assist with making change. One of our remedial class mates at tech night school was a layout artist for a major newspaper. She and one or two others hijacked the instructor’s agenda and turned it into politics re socially structured poverty after reading the first Henderson Report as a class subject for all to devour.

    I used that mottle mob of adult students to fast track my environment addenda after working for several pulp & paper manufacturers. Sowing seeds with a guy from the teachers union on town hall steps got us snapped by two men in grey suits who then melted as quickly as they appeared. UNESCO listings for our remaining wilderness areas then became a race against the powerful, but gee I was motivated to go on.

    Working in Canberra after failing in the bush was a more or less a final step in the learning curve for me. Intruding into other folks lives in my quest for alternative policy and process, also the impact of campaign fatalities, broken relationships or shattered careers has forced an ongoing tactical review. We should not meddle with other people’s assets or opportunities by dragging them into our arguments unnecessarily.

    The fact is I have asked people involved with policy and it’s implementation to watch these debates and so hone their rhetoric for a wider audience.

    Footnote; Re Heros -My town hall steps collegue gave me the chance to interview Dr R Jones from Hobart as the potential “new party” candidate with a chance. A hasty flight and a long chat while his bewildered family went to bed for an early rise Monday morning got us this remarkable man on a hand shake. Dick and Hobart friends did the rest, named and framed their party UTG.

    http://www.rjml.org.au/

    Cobbling liberal reform and the late 60’s Australia Party Vic was as simple, the other guy went to AP HQ and I primed the only constituent I knew from Don Chipp’s electorate, my sister in law to do that interview. We were rolling then.

    On the other hand a public servant can’t be openly political and that’s my problem today in retirement, I know they each fear a sacking if an acquaintance like me says anything that could embarrass their department or minister. Only a minister should know in advance what their department is leading to.
    Saying nothing becomes a habit even for the retired. I had a job helping those, helping those. If Canberra is 1/3 NBN, nobody knows that and my job telling you the world IS going AGW it probably fell off a truck

  3119. Neville says

    I’m sorry Gav but I’m not sure what you’re writing or what you’re trying to say. Little wonder you can’t understand a wordsmith like Bolt who just cuts to the chase and provides facts, logic and reason to reinforce his arguments.

    But I’ll admit so many on the left just don’t make any sense, particularly now that they are always trying to show how much they care.
    You know all that seeming rather than doing. Of course it’s all total BS just like the clueless Gillard govt trying to convince everyone that they are the ones who care about AGW and reducing co2 emissions. But that’s only reducing our tiny emissions in OZ for a guanteed zero change to climate and temp.

    Then in the next instance they are trying to increase co2 emissions by exporting as much coal, gas and iron ore etc to anyone who wants it.
    If they didn’t the country would be broke and we’ll never ever be able to pay back our debt and perhaps one day get back to a genuine surplus.
    But unfortunately creating a real surplus will require a change of govt and then a duration of at least three terms or ten years. That’s all a very big ask.

  3120. Neville says

    Nic Lewis is trying to understand the full code used by some of the alarmist scientists to prove AGW.

    So far he’s identified some serious errors but he still requires access to the proper software to check the code, or write the code into R.

    A lot of this info has already been used in other studies and will be used in IPCC’s AR5 report as well.

    These people like Steve and Nic are true heroes.

    http://climateaudit.org/2012/11/08/statistical-errors-in-the-forest-2006-climate-sensitivity-study/#comments

  3121. Johnathan Wilkes says

    I want my five minutes back!

    Two for reading it in the first place and an other three for trying to figure out what it means?
    Gave up at that point.

  3122. Graeme M says

    I do follow (sort of) what Gav’s saying tho it doesn’t answer my question, an interesting thing in itself. But it offers me an insight I hadn’t picked up from my sketchy browsing of this blog. I do read the comments here but often just by skimming and sometimes I go several days between visits.

    That leads me to pose a question to the few regulars left here.

    If you were the government, what would you do about the threat of climate change?

    My answer is simple – whatever I could within reason. As a government, I would be irresponsible in the extreme if I ignored the agreed science. Government must base policy on a broad foundation of interests, issues, impacts and outcomes and with climate change it is clear that the experts in the field are confident that we are facing substantial risk.

    Why would I ignore the advice of experts?

    Personally of course I am a skeptic but I don’t find our government at fault for wanting to tackle climate change. I do however find fault with the climate change ‘industry’ which ranges from profiteering to evangelism. Some interesting bedfellows in that mix indeed.

    And my personal hobbyhorse is the misrepresentation of history and the events of the present to paint an inaccurate picture of weather, climate and man’s influence.

    But back to the question. Honestly, what action would you take as Australia’s government bearing in mind the scope of your responsibility?

  3123. Neville says

    Well GM here’s the facts and forecast to 2035 for human co2 emissions. So tell us why you would want to introduce a co2 tax?

    http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/ieo/emissions.cfm

    Adaptation is the answer and we must spend our scarce borrowed money on R&D and new technology.
    Then when the next drought, flood, bushfire etc strikes you have put the country in the best position to respond.

    Why waste billions on a co2 tax that can’t the climate or temp by a whisker. Just look at the graph and simple maths from the EIA. A 6% increase from the OECD and a whopping 73% from the non OECD until 2035. Couldn’t be easier to understand.

  3124. Graeme M says

    That’s a fair point Nev, and I don’t disagree. The CO2 tax I don’t personally agree with, I’d rather we took a more pragmatic stance and took up taxes/ETS policies once the big ‘polluders’ have led the way. That said, my reading of the broader political climate suggests that in time governments will implement a variety of policies/schemes/strategies to reduce emissions, increase reliance on renewables, and encourage innovation within industry. We may be in early days yet but that is highly likely I’d suggest. If only for the reason that the young people coming through will be as Gav suggests more open to that kind of more socially responsible government.

    My question though is more general than that and all I am really highlighting is that as a government it would be irresponsible to ignore the advice of experts so in that sense I don’t disagree with government developing policy to respond to that risk. I do have doubts about some of the policy responses but not with the intent.

    I wondered who here actually thinks that government should ignore the advice (the consensus)? And if so why?

  3125. Robert says

    If CAGW was real, and connected with the emission, by humans, of minor GHGs (water vapour being the only major one), then there would be no choice but to risk war and social disintegration by implementing rationing and restrictions on a massive scale.

    It goes without saying that all exports of coal, gas and mineral ores will have to cease NOW. Agriculture will have to be intensive, unsentimental and super-efficient, so land can revert to biomass. This biomass will have to be protected from fire by an enormously expensive and intrusive policing. Unless a scientific miracle occurs and better ways are found to store and transfer energy, all wasteful and fetishistic “alternatives” will be banned immediately. Solar hot water and legitimate off-grid needs will be looked at for exemption. Coal and gas will only be allowed as a express transition to nukes, which will be a primary focus. The Franklin-Gordon project might go ahead.

    Such things as severe power restrictions, the centralisation and limitation of transport, will become a part of life. Because the current proposals for emissions reduction are obviously just ludicrous socialist flummery, no money at all will flow offshore to the UN, GIM, Goldman Sachs etc. We will ally ourselves, as in time of war, only with like minded nations, and hope for peace. Trough swillers like Gore and Flannery will be prosecuted, where possible; arch-polluters like Garnaut will cop it. In time of national and global emergency, such profiteers and profligates can’t be tolerated.

    Off course, I’m talking nonsense. I’m assuming that people really believe in a climate emergency. It is clear that NOBODY believes. That is why CO2 emissions are soaring, and Australian coal and gas exports are soaring, and waste and debt have continued unabated after the GFC.

    Earth Hour and Rio and Cancun? Opportunities to party while feeling sanctified. A Borgia pope would understand.

  3126. Robert says

    By the way, since Germany dismantled its nukes and converted back to coal (the brown!) we will have to regard that as an act of war. Also, it’s clear that China and India are hostile powers…

    Of course, I’m kidding. But our Green Betters want it both ways. On the one hand, they want to be extreme in preaching global emergency and catastrophe. On the other hand they propose vaporous “solutions” that are just an intricate game of money and politics, socialist flavoured, corporate friendly, involving massive waste and high debt. Talk like it’s Armageddon, party like it’s 2007.

    Remember conservation? Where did that go?

  3127. Johnathan Wilkes says

    Graeme M

    My question though is more general than that and all I am really highlighting is that as a government it would be irresponsible to ignore the advice of experts so in that sense I don’t disagree with government developing policy to respond to that risk. I do have doubts about some of the policy responses but not with the intent.

    I wondered who here actually thinks that government should ignore the advice (the consensus)? And if so why?

    When you ask that question Graeme, I think you are starting out from a different position from the rest of us.

    First you say you are a sceptic and I have no reason to doubt it, but then you refer to “the consensus”

    Reading what you write I’m sure you know that science does not work on consensus.

    Yes the government must take advice from experts, very few if any in gov. are experts on anything really, but it comes down to what the government wants to achieve?

    If you start out with the desire to introduce a new tax you will ask the experts most likely to give the advice you want.
    I’m cynical enough to believe the politicians will say anything to garner votes, I’d be very surprised indeed if more than a few politicians were actually convinced of dangerous AGW, but as long as lot of voters do they go along with it.

    Why do you think T Abbott is silent on the warming itself?
    He may be a lot of things but stupid he ain’t.

    There are just as many good scientist on the sceptic’s side as on the other, and their argument is just as strong, unfortunately not as loud and widely disseminated due to media bias and other vested interests.

    Point is, government should listen to both sides and not pick one or the other, but when you start off from an ideological point of view it is not going to happen.

    We should strive for renewable energy sources by all means but do it logically and without destroying our economy or standard of living.

    Giving those rich enough to be able to afford solar panels a subsidy to buy them and to TOP it up with the buy-back scheme is not the right way to go.

    We could reduce the emissions from power stations by using only black coal for instance and there are many other practical solutions.
    Wind mills will never produce enough and reliable power. Solar is questionable on the grounds of the max available solar power/sqM.
    If we are willing to live with and prepared to pay for covering the area required so be it.

    But then don’t complain if we can’t afford to use it due to cost.
    My solution would be to go nuclear!

  3128. spangled drongo says

    “I wondered who here actually thinks that government should ignore the advice (the consensus)? And if so why?”

    Graeme, do you mean accepting the “scientific consensus” on catastrophic, man made global warming and that we should be prepared to do all in our power to become carbon neutral as quickly as possible?

    Is that what you mean?

    Please confirm because there are many shades and nuances around this.

  3129. spangled drongo says

    Interesting story on today’s ABC Landline on RM Williams’ Henbury Station which our clever fed govt recently contributed nearly 10 million of our hard-earned for the purposes of a carbon sink and have just discovered won’t work in this country.

    Qantas were supposed to use it to salve another 10 mill’s worth of carbon conscience money.

    Now surrounding graziers are calling it for what it is and the whole dodgy scheme is in doubt.

    Tony Abbott needs to ask Greg Combet how he considers this compares with his ideas of BS:

    http://www.abc.net.au/landline/content/2012/s3630155.htm

    What we are all waiting for [apart from greenhouse, that is] is for the first govt carbon investment scheme to honestly stack up so that we can go to bed at night happy, knowing that our invested super is in the very best of hands.

  3130. Neville says

    GM please tell me you understand simple maths and understand a simple graph? If you do then it’s not only irresponsible to introduce a co2 tax but it’s also a complete waste of time and money.
    BTW when pressed by Bolt even Flannery admitted that if the entire world stopped emitting co2 today we wouldn’t see a change in temp for hundreds of years or perhaps a thousand years.
    Guess what the entire world isn’t going to stop emitting co2 for a very long time, so we can presume that the 1000 years of Tim’s would blow out to a much longer period of time.

    But lets look at all the models as used by everyone for SLR for the next 300 years, or until 2300.

    http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/364/1844/1709/F4.expansion.html

    Here we see 99% of the planet’s ice locked up in Antarctica (89%) and Greenland (10%). So where is dangerous SLR coming from do you think?
    Don’t forget all the models show Antarctica is negative for SLR for the next 300 years.

    When you can see and understand this evidence above why would anyone then want to follow the scientists over a cliff? And certainly all for a guaranteed zero change in the climate and temp. Just ask Flannery who is the Gillard govt’s Chief climate commissioner.
    All we need is simple maths and simple logic and reason to understand why we shouldn’t waste our time and borrowed money on this stupidity.

    Then again the main urgers about dangerous SLR are Flannery + CSIRO and Gore + Hansen etc and both of them have just bought properties right on the sea shore. Why would they do this do you think?

  3131. Neville says

    JW going nuclear is not an answer for the mitigation of AGW. See Christy’s answer to a lot of the warmist’s alarmism. He covers a lot of the extremist’s nonsense.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/11/christy-attention-brought-by-climate-change-views-almost-a-drug/

    His 1000 nuclear power stations wouldn’t reduce the temp at all unless the non OECD stopped using fossil fuels.
    But then only by 0.15C at a cost of trillions $. Do you know of any group of say 50 very wealthy countries who could each build 20 new stations?
    If they could borrow the funds and started today it would take many decades into the future to even begin to make a difference. But nothing like a reduction of 0.15C so why do it?

  3132. Johnathan Wilkes says

    Neville

    I suppose I should’ve prefaced it with, “if we MUST do something” for the sake of doing it, then go nuke.
    I personally see no reason to do anything drastic, other than watch and prepare in case.

    I would go that way not because of AGW or CO2 mitigation but because it’s a sensible way, for the time being at least, to produce electricity for a lot of nations, that are short of fossil fuels.
    For us maybe not so much, I’m happy with coal, specially if we build modern, clean power plants..

  3133. Neville says

    BTW here’s the temp and rainfall from the Mildura P.O. 1887 to 1946. Mean max 24.5c and mean min 10.4c and average rainfall 268mm p.a.

    http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/averages/tables/cw_076077.shtml

    Here’s the mean max temp from the airport— 23.8c and mean min 10.3c. Also average rainfall of 292 mm p.a.

    So how can Karoly claim that Mildura is warmer and drier today than it was in the earlier record? Absolutely clueless.

    http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/averages/tables/cw_076031.shtml

    Remember this bloke is one of our top climate scientists and is a lead author for the IPCC reports. Just incredible.

  3134. Robert says

    Nev, I think we’re talking about a hypothetical, not about the real-world desirability of nukes. IF CAGW were real, then there would be no choice but to radically re-fashion the whole world. We would have to implement all kinds of desperate measures, including absurdly expensive nuclear energy programs. We would have to act immediately and unilaterally, while pressuring and, if necessary, forcing other nations. There would be no choice. But none of this will or should happen, because CAGW is one steaming heap of [Combet expletive].

    Alarmists insist that very recent emissions are the cause of very recent global climate disruption and warming. Since those emissions are continuing to soar, except in lo-carb boutiques like Tasmania, it would be reasonable to assume that only the most immediate and radical action to deal with the situation is acceptable. Instead, they propose merely shifting money through the same international usurers, trough-swillers and spivs who brought us the GFC. Australia is to fund this exercise in self-harm with coal exports, while good coal is burnt to manufacture toy technologies that are supposed to supplant coal.

    These people talk a very strong game when it comes to raising the alarm. As far as the solution goes, they are very relaxed indeed. It seems that the buying and selling of indulgences in exchange for various levels of salvation is solidly back in style. Why did we both with that whole European Enlightenment thing?

  3135. Debbie says

    Graeme,
    The ‘consensus’ is basically a misanthropic argument pretending it is altruist.
    It is also fraught with political advocacy that has no real interest in looking at long term & practical/responsible investment in solid infrastructure.
    Short term, fast buck & theoretical ‘modelled’ solutions that can only really take ‘snapshots in time’ are the order of the day.
    While possibly seen as a worthwhile and even well meaning experiment, it is translating very poorly in practice & not solving the ‘stated’ problems or achieving the desired outcomes.
    People like Gore & Flannery & even Dick Smith are arguing that no one else should be allowed access to the very things that have made them successful members of human society.

  3136. Graeme M says

    Consensus… I follow quite well the tired sceptic argument regarding consensus. Of course consesnsus in itself is not truth as such. But very clearly it represents the generally agreed position of the scientific community. And by and large, the agreed position IS the science. Very little of science is fully settled, there are always new wrinkles or finer details to address.

    When it comes to climate change the science is clear and relatively simple. You all know how the GHE works and what an increase in CO2 is understood to do. Now, you can argue that there are alternatives but for now it is pretty much accepted within mainstream science. It it were not, we would certainly hear more dissent. I don’t disagree that a very big part of the consensus is the pressure of conformity – science certainly looks to me like an extremely conservative profession.

    Nonetheless it is also clear what advice government will be given. And it is that advice, that science, upon which policy must rest. I agree with the views of most of you regarding such things as the CO2 tax, but I don’t disagree with the ethics of seeking suitable policy. Robert’s hyperbolistic comments above ignore the very real matter of competing priorities, impacts and expectations of the community, business and worldwide political interests. We cannot completely alter the entire direction of civilisation overnight.

    I cant speak for those involved but I suspect it is true that the more outlandish predictions are regarded with a very large grain of salt. But the fact that the scientific community, the experts, predict broad social and material impacts means that various measures must be sought to reduce those impacts.

    The question of the extent to which the process of assembling policy has been highjacked is a separate one. Or so it seems to me.

  3137. Graeme M says

    SD asked “do you mean accepting the “scientific consensus” on catastrophic, man made global warming and that we should be prepared to do all in our power to become carbon neutral as quickly as possible?”

    Largely yes. I understand the consensus view to mean that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere must lead to a rise in average global temperatures. The catastrophic impact contained within CAGW is probably open to debate even within mainstream science and I suspect that the lack of confirmatory evidence to date has led to some mitigation of the fears/expectations. But I think that scientists and environmental advocates agree that AGW is true, is increasingly likely to affect future climate, and the social and material impact will be large.

    In other wards, increased CO2 > higher global average temps > changes in weather and climate patterns > unknown impacts but likely to include those which are detrimental > mitigation strategies are needed.

  3139. spangled drongo says

    Thanks Graeme. I think the consensus could be right but there is uncertainty. AGW, if it exists, is certainly very slight and because of the mass of the oceans, cannot be quantified. What is nat var and what is AGW [particularly when UHI is taken into account] is probably around 50 – 50 but unlikely no worse. And I can’t help but believe that feedbacks from clouds, humidity, evaporation etc are definitely negative thus ruling out CAGW.

    The fact that there is no discernable, physical SLR over the last half century also supports that.

    The possiblity of AGW, to me, is worth keeping in mind when we are considering our best energy options but it isn’t worth bankrupting the country over.

    Neville, for Karoly to make that statement based on this study shows him for what he is:

    http://abcnewswatch.blogspot.com.au/2012/11/mildura-fire-risk-not-hot-off-press-not.html

  3140. el gordo says

    ‘…the experts, predict broad social and material impacts means that various measures must be sought to reduce those impacts.’

    Global cooling is coming and will have serious impact on the food supply.

  3141. Johnathan Wilkes says

    Graeme, Greame, Greame?
    The one from the land of the maple leaf (canuck) by any chance?

  3142. spangled drongo says

    Yes EG, that is the other side of the coin and historically has a better chance than AGW.

    Graeme and we need to be aware that any warming may not only NOT be a bad thing, it may be all that saves our bacon, population numbers being what they are.

    You can’t help but think that we are really putting our weights up by indulging in these notions and inviting the opposite catastrophe.

  3143. Robert says

    Graeme, the hyperbole is theirs – and possibly yours. The retreat to a moderate, gradualist position on responses implies a moderate problem. If the problem is as postulated, a degrading of our economic base and standard of living is justified. Far more severe measures than that would be justified – and needed.

    The tepidness and indirection of all proposed solutions, along with the colossal waste of money and resources, makes very clear that those who preach alarm are not alarmed. These people are selling the idea that an increase in human generated GHGs, especially since the early eighties, has already brought about radical and deleterious changes to climate. You are probably aware what my typical “tired” skeptical attitude to that is, but the people who make the claims are not unaware that these “polluting” GHGs are increasing rapidly. By their own reasoning, there can be no time to lose. Yet they are more than willing to lose not only time but bags and bags of other people’s money.

    Graeme, I do appreciate your civility, but I think you have very civilly reiterated and skilfully reinforced most of the alarmist claims most skeptic here have long ago rejected. You have simply reduced some of the urgency and pushed back the dates, while placing very radical positions in a discreet and moderate light. If the effect of this moderation was that Australia improved the efficiency of its coal power (30% possible), made use of its own uranium and thorium, came up with practical plans for increased biomass (I grow bamboo) etc etc – you might make a friend of this conservationist!

  3144. Debbie says

    Scientific community, the experts? Say what? Experts in what in paricular?
    My observation is. . . NOT MUCH(bold) other than their own extremely narrow fields of theoretical study.
    Those people you are calling experts are merely well educated employees filling their job descriptions.
    They are very well educated in their field but they are NOT (bold) qualified to inform social policy. They categorically have NO (bold) expertise in social policy or what makes a society tick. . . NONE(bold)
    Sorry Graeme, but not buying that one. . . too much water already gone under the bridge (my apologies for mixing metaphors).

  3146. Graeme M says

    Robert, I agree that we haven’t seen as active a response as you’d imagine if the fear really were that we face inevitable catastrophe. I guess I was making the point that the government is confronted by a knotty problem. How much change can reasonably be made to help stave off disaster in the face of competing business and strategic priorities, bearing in mind the limitations of a system in which you can be voted out of power within a few years if your choices are too onerous, and with the obvious complexities of the international political landscape?

    That said, I am definitely a sceptic. My own position is that I doubt the GHE as postulated even applies. Rather, I lean towards the ideas put forward by people like Nicolai & Zeller (see Tallbloke’s Workshop) or Harry Huffman, largely through the application of Occam’s razor. The idea that the atmospheric temperature profile is largely set by the pressure profile and that the GHE operates to manage the disposition of heat throughout the atmosphere seems a simpler proposition. But is that right? Dunno.

    I was simply suggesting that it’s not reasonable to suggest we shouldn’t respond to the advice of experts. And I wondered if others here agree or disagree with that position.

    JW no, I’m not Canadian. I’m an Aussie through and through and I vote Liberal but come from a staunchly pro Labour family background.

  3147. Graeme M says

    With respect Debbie, I have to disagree. it isn’t just a small subset of ‘well educated employees’ saying that climate change is likely. It is mainstream science. And it is mainstream science that informs a whole lot of technical innovation and development, progress in industry and the development of government policy.

    The sceptical view has gained traction, but not enough to change mainstream science. Until then, governments must act on what is accepted as the effects of AGW. And as I opined earlier, Hurricane Sandy is an absolute windfall (sorry!) for the alarmist position…

  3149. Neville says

    Graeme I’ve given you my answer reinforced by simple maths. The mitigation of AGW is a total fraud and I can’t help you if you don’t understand the increase in co2 emissions over the last 22 years. Particularly soaring record emissions from the non OECD.

    In 1990 total human emissions of co2 p.a. totalled 21.6 bn tonnes, 11.6 from the OECD and 10 bn tonnes from the non OECD.
    By 2010 the OECD had increased to just 13 bn tonnes p.a. and the non OECD increased to 18.8 bn tonnes p.a or a combined total of 31.8 bn tonnes p.a.

    If 2011 and 2012 increased by the same tonnage as 2010 in the non OECD then we have probably equalled the total human 1990 emissions of 21.6 bn tonnes p.a in just 22 years.
    But from that’s just from the non OECD, while the OECD will nearly flatline now until 2035.

    What is it you don’t understand about these simple numbers? We could ( OECD) literally live in caves forever and it wouldn’t reduce co2 emissions back to 350ppmv.
    The mitigation of AGW has to be the most easily understood con and fraud in history, so what is it you don’t understand?

  3150. gavin says

    Btw folks; I was nodding off late last night during posting (apologies all) and I missed the one online auction I was “watching” then.

    I want to raise the issue of PS job security after a long morning lecturing the multicultural crowd passing my spot on the virtues that spring from our notion of mateship in terms of product testing, fair trade and mou’s etc gov to gov on a fair go for exporters and importers.

    My classic lesson for imported labour seeking quality trade tool replacement is look for any items marked with manufacturer name or logos, alloy type and Catalogue Numbers typical with international purchasing, guaranteed quality and supply. These demos usually draw a small audience including retirees, PS / IT contractors, students at our defense college, their wives and so on.

    One regular asked today if we knew of any cheap land out west where he could retreat with several containers while renting out his Canberra house cause he feared they, anyone in hired IT would be the first to go based on a strong rumor our red head PM was quite rapidly stuffing up the country. I refused to accept his reasoning re imposed hermit lifestyle after further budget cuts and I have very little sympathy for nerds stuck in ruts. My 20% project contingency advice did not fit either with his so called industry standard of 50% (over first estimate I presume).

    Caught up with my lot briefly on Saturday, all 3 in IT but only one PS. Each have moved AROUND a lot keeping up with technology change and business opportunity. Loyalty must be a thing of the past because they can say what is most unsettling at work and the world at large. Their mutual bond seems strengthened by ongoing tech industry turmoil. One other present, a teacher at our local super school said there is evidence that infants today are developing different learning pasterns to their forebears because of IT.

    Did I mention our NBN? Two other points and these only dawned yesterday. One; I could say Obama was helped by Sandy. Two; after glancing through the latest real estate supplement I noticed what could be a trend. new housing complexes and other dwellings featuring night time flood lit landscapes. It’s a great way to measure designed power consumption max and a chance to legislate for sustainable energy only buying for that proportion of consumer expectation

  3152. John Sayers says

    Yet Barry Cassidy and Philip Corey on Insiders didn’t seem to know what Julia had to answer for in the AWU slush fund affair.

  3153. Neville says

    Interesting to look at the maths relating to co2 emissions from 1990 to 2010. In 1990 the USA emitted 5 bn tonnes pa and China emitted 2.3 bn tonnes pa.

    But by 2010 the USA had added just 0.6 bn tonnes pa to 5.6 bn tonnes while China had increased by a further 6 bn tonnes pa to 8.3 bn tonnes. China has therefore out emitted the number 2 emitter the USA by a factor of 10 in just 20 years.

    http://www.eia.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/iedindex3.cfm?tid=90&pid=44&aid=8&cid=CG6,CG5,&syid=1990&eyid=2010&unit=MMTCD

    BTW Graeme please see my response to you at the bottom of previous page. They say all science relies on maths, so why is it that nobody here wants to add up these very simple sums or understand very simple graphs?

  3154. Neville says

    Bolt exposes the idiocy of leftwing journalists.

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/how_did_journalism_courses_become_schools_for_the_left/#commentsmore

    Little wonder we have such confusion when we try to “debate” ( YUK YUK) AGW, or co2 emissions, or SLR, or cyclones/hurricanes/tornadoes etc, or temps, or rainfall, or bushfires, or river health, or UHIE, etc or even just the simple temp and rainfall record of just one site like Mildura.

    Even OZ’s best scientist and lead author Karoly can’t even read a simple chart and then underestand simple numbers. Unbelievable but true.

  3156. Johnathan Wilkes says

    Debbie
    “And over the barrages!”

    What? No bold? for shame.

    Greame,
    “JW no, I’m not Canadian. I’m an Aussie through and through and I vote Liberal but come from a staunchly pro Labour family background.”

    No significance as to where you are from or for whom you vote Graeme, It’s just that your expressions and writing style reminded me of an other poster on an other forum also called Greame, who definitely claimed Canadian origins, that’s all.

    And BTW I agree with Debbie about “experts” any kind of expert by definition is someone with, most likely, limited knowledge in all and great knowledge in a narrow field of his/her expertise.

    They should be kept as far away from formulating social policy as possible.

  3158. Graeme M says

    Whoa JW! Keep the experts away from formulating policy??? Who are you going to seek your advice from then? Generalists? The bloke in the pub? Abdul the taxi driver???

  3159. Johnathan Wilkes says

    I don’t think you get it Graeme.

    Either you’re not listening or your convictions/ideology prevents you from reading what we said.

    First, as I said before, there are more experts around with different views about the same subject.
    Just look at any court case.

    Why is the government only taking into account one set of experts’ advice, advice I may add, suits the government’s agenda?

    Secondly formulating policy is the job of elected representatives not technocrats.

    How can a “climate scientist” see all the implications of his advice on the whole of community the economy, social structure?
    He may for instance advocate the instant and permanent shut down of all coal fired power stations, because he firmly believes, that is the only solution?

    PS sarcasm is a fine art. You do not possess it.

  3160. spangled drongo says

    “Keep the experts away from formulating policy???”

    That’s right Graeme.

    This is the cause of bad policy that is not only horrendously expensive but pointless and futile.

    Use their advice, by all means, but in conjunction with the broader picture.

    The evidence of this is everywhere in the developed world this century which has led to economic paralysis there but no sound solutions.

  3161. Graeme M says

    Hmmm… lucky I am not in government formulating policy eh? Governments may indeed make bad policy, and that may indeed be the case everywhere right now.

    But the governments we have are the governments we have. Do you have an alternative that doesn’t involve a complete social revolution? I think we can agree that for the next 20 years at least we will have a Lib or Labor government in Australia.

    So, what are they going to do to form policy? Seek input from experts in a variety of fields, surely? Politicians and public servants may have their failings but on the whole they aren’t complete ninnies.

    So of course they will take on board the views of climate scientists from prestigious universities and think tanks and organisations. And the views of a range of other experts. And community opinions. And opinions of lobbyists. And Big Business. etc.

    But at the end of the day, if the agreed science tells them that climate change is likely and will be costly, what the Hell do you expect them to do? Ignore it in favour of Andrew Bolt or Anthony Watts??? Or a few tame sceptic scientists of doubtful pedigree?

  3162. cohenite says

    “Or a few tame sceptic scientists of doubtful pedigree?”

    The tame scientists are those queueing up for government handouts to peddle the lie of AGW. In respect of sceptic scientists consider this list from Jo Nova:

    1.Hansen J., A. Lacis, D. Rind, G. Russell, P. Stone, I. Fung, R. Ruedy and J. Lerner, (1984) Climate sensitivity: Analysis of feedback mechanisms. In Climate Processes and Climate Sensitivity, AGU Geophysical Monograph 29, Maurice Ewing Vol. 5. J.E. Hansen and T. Takahashi, Eds. American Geophysical Union, pp. 130-163 [Abstract]
    2.Anderegg, William R. L., James W. Prall,Jacob Haroldand Stephen H. Schneider(2010). Expert credibility in climate change, PNAS, 10.1073 [PDF]
    3.IPCC, Assessment Report 4, 2007, Working Group 1, The Physical Science Basis, Chapter 10 Box 10.2 p798 [PDF]
    4.IPCC, Assessment Report 4, 2007, Working Group 1, The Physical Science Basis, Chapter 8. Fig 8.14, p631 [PDF] see also Page 632.
    5.Andrews, T. and Forster, P.M. (2008) CO2 forcing induces semi-direct effects with consequences for climate feedback interpretations , GeoPhys Res Letter, 35. [abstract]
    6.Svensmark, H., Bondo, T. and Svensmark, J. 2009. Cosmic ray decreases affect atmospheric aerosols and clouds. Geophysical Research Letters 36: 10.1029/2009GL038429.
    7.Kirkby, J. et al. (2011) Role of sulphuric acid, ammonia and galactic cosmic rays in atmospheric aerosol nucleation, Nature 476, 429-433 (2011). [Article]
    8.Pielke Sr., R.A., (2003): Heat storage within the Earth system. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 84, 331-335.
    9.Chapter 1 of the: Annual Report on the State of the Ocean and the Ocean Observing System for Climate. OCO, NOAA. [HTML]
    10.Loehle, C., (2009) “Cooling of the global ocean since 2003,” Energy and Environment, Vol. 20, 101–104.
    11.Douglass, D.H. and Knox, S.R. (2009) “Ocean heat content and Earth’s radiation imbalance,” Physics Letters A, Vol. 373, pp3296–3300.
    12.Pielke, R. A.., (2008)“A broader view of the role of humans in the climate system,” Physics Today Vol. 61, no. 11, 2008, pp. 54-55.
    13.von Schuckmann, K., F. Gaillard and P.-Y. Le Traon [2009] Global hydrographic variability patterns during 2003-2008. J. Geophys. Res., 114, C09007, doi:10.1029/2008JC005237 [Abstract] [discussion] [other PDF]
    14.Knox, R. S. and D. H. Douglass [2010] Recent energy balance of Earth International Journal of Geosciences, 2010, vol. 1, no. 3 (November) – In press Published Online 2010 [PDF]
    15.Lindzen, R. S., and Y.-S. Choi (2009), On the determination of climate feedbacks from ERBE data, Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L16705 [abstract, PDF]
    16.Lindzen, R. & Yong-Sang Choi, Y, (2011) On the Observational Determination of Climate Sensitivity and Its Implications, Asia-Pacific J. Atmos. Sci., 47(4), 377-390, 2011 [PDF]
    17.Wielicki, Bruce A, Takmeng Wong, Richard P Allan, Anthony Slingo, Heffery T Kiehl, Brian J Soden, C T Gordon, Alvin J Miller, Shi-Keng Yang, David A Randall, Franklin Robertson, Joel Susskind, Herbert Jacobowitz [2002] Evidence for Large Decadal Variability in the Tropical Mean Radiative Energy Budget, Science, Vol 295 no. 5556 pp 841-844, [Abstract] [Discussion]
    18.Chen, J., B.E. Carlson, and A.D. Del Genio, (2002): Evidence for strengthening of the tropical general circulation in the 1990s. Science, 295, 838-841.
    19.Cess, R.D. and P.M. Udelhofen, (2003): Climate change during 1985–1999: Cloud interactions determined from satellite measurements. Geophys. Res. Ltrs., 30, No. 1, 1019, doi:10.1029/2002GL016128.
    20.Hatzidimitriou, D., I. Vardavas, K. G. Pavlakis, N. Hatzianastassiou, C. Matsoukas, and E. Drakakis (2004) On the decadal increase in the tropical mean outgoing longwave radiation for the period 1984–2000. Atmos. Chem. Phys., 4, 1419–1425.
    21.Clement, A.C. and B. Soden (2005) The sensitivity of the tropical-mean radiation budget. J. Clim., 18, 3189-3203.
    22.IPCC, Assessment Report 4, (2007), Working Group 1, The Physical Science Basis, Chapter 8. Fig 8.14 [PDF] Page 631
    23.NOAA Satellite and Information Service, Integrated Global Radiosonde Archive, Data Coverage. June 8th 2010. [Link]
    24.Karl et al (2006), Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) 2006 Report, Chapter 1, 1958-1999. Synthesis and Assessment Report 1.1, 2006, CCSP, Chapter 1, p 25, based on Santer et al. 2000; [PDF]
    25.Karl et al (2006) Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) 2006 Report, Chapter 5, part E of Figure 5.7 in section 5.5 on page 116 [PDF]
    26.Douglass, D.H., J.R. Christy, B.D. Pearson, and S.F. Singer. (2007). A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions. International Journal of Climatology, Volume 28, Issue 13, pp. 1693-1701, December 2007. [Abstract] [PDF]
    27.Santer, B. D., P. W. Thorne, L. Haimberger, K. E Taylor, T. M Wigley,. L. Lanzante, J. R. Solomon, M. Free, P. J Gleckler, P. D. Jones, T. R Karl, S. A. Klein, C. Mears, D. Nychka, G. A. Schmidt, S. C. Sherwood and F. J. Wentz (2008), Consistency of modelled and observed temperature trends in the tropical troposphere. International Journal of Climatology, 28: 1703–1722. doi: 10.1002/joc.1756 [Abstract] [PDF]
    28.McKitrick, R., S. McIntyre, and C. Herman, (2010), Panel and multivariate methods for tests of trend equivalence in climate data series. Atmospheric Science Letters, 11: 270–277. doi: 10.1002/asl.290 [PDF]
    29.McKitrick, R., McIntyre, S., and Herman, C. (2011) Corrigendum to Panel and multivariate methods for tests of trend equivalence in climate data series, Atmospheric Science Letters, Vol. 11, Issue 4, 270–277. [Abstract]
    30.Christy J.R., Herman, B., Pielke, Sr., R, 3, Klotzbach, P., McNide, R.T., Hnilo J.J., Spencer R.W., Chase, T. and Douglass, D: (2010) What Do Observational Datasets Say about Modeled Tropospheric Temperature Trends since 1979? Remote Sensing 2010, 2, 2148-2169; doi:10.3390/rs2092148 [PDF]
    31.Fu, Q, Manabe, S., and Johanson, C. (2011) On the warming in the tropical upper troposphere: Models vs observations, Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 38, L15704, doi:10.1029/2011GL048101, 2011 [PDF] [Discussion]
    32.McKitrick, R. and Vogelsang, T. J. (2011), Multivariate trend comparisons between autocorrelated climate series with general trend regressors, Department of Economics, University of Guelph. [ PDF]
    33.Stockwell, David R. B. and Cox, A. (2009), Structural break models of climatic regime-shifts: claims and forecasts, Cornell University Library, arXiv10907.1650 [PDF]
    34. Miskolczi, Ferenc M. and Mlynczak, M. (2004) The greenhouse effect and the spectral decomposition of the clear-sky terrestrial adiation. Idojaras Quarterly Journal of the Hungarian Meteorological Service Vol. 108, No. 4, October–December 2004, pp. 209–251 [PDF]
    35.Miskolczi, Ferenc M. (2007) Greenhouse effect in semi-transparent planetary atmospheres. Idojaras Quarterly Journal of the Hungarian Meteorological Service Vol. 111, No. 1, January–March 2007, pp. 1–40 [PDF]
    36. Miskolczi, Ferenc M. (2010), The Stable Stationary Value of the Earth’s Global Average Atmospheric Planck-Weighted Greenhouse-Gas Optical Thickness. Energy & Environment Vol. 21, No. 4, 2010 pp 243-263 [PDF and Discussion]
    37. Paltridge, G., Arking, A., Pook, M., 2009. Trends in middle- and upper-level tropospheric humidity from NCEP reanalysis data. Theoretical and Applied Climatology, Volume 98, Numbers 3-4, pp. 351-35). [PDF]
    38. IPCC, Assessment Report 4, 2007, Working Group 1, The Physical Science Basis, Chapter 8. [PDF] Page 610 8.3.1.1.2 “The balance of radiation at the top of the atmosphere”
    39. IPCC, Assessment Report 4, 2007, Working Group 1, The Physical Science Basis, Chapter 8. [PDF] Page 636 8.6.3.2 “Clouds”
    40. Zhang, M.H., Lin, W.Y., Klein, S.A., Bacmeister, J.T., Bony, S., Cederwall, R.T., Del Genio, A.D., Hack, J.J., Loeb, N.G., Lohmann, U., Minnis, P., Musat, I., Pincus, R., Stier, P., Suarez, M.J., Webb, M.J., Wu, J.B., Xie, S.C., Yao, M.-S. and Yang, J.H. 2005. Comparing clouds and their seasonal variations in 10 atmospheric general circulation models with satellite measurements. Journal of Geophysical Research 110: D15S02,
    41. Randall, D., Khairoutdinov, M., Arakawa, A. and Grabowski, W. 2003. Breaking the cloud parameterization deadlock. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 84: 1547-1564.
    42. Allan, R [2011] Combining satellite data and models to estimate cloud radiative effects at the surface and in the atmosphere. University of Reading [Abstract] [Discussion]
    43. Croke, M.S., Cess, R.D. and Hameed, S. 1999. Regional cloud cover change associated with global climate change: Case studies for three regions of the United States. Journal of Climate 12: 2128-2134
    44. Herman, J.R., Larko, D., Celarier, E. and Ziemke, J. 2001. Changes in the Earth’s UV reflectivity from the surface, clouds, and aerosols. Journal of Geophysical Research 106: 5353-5368
    45. Spencer, R.W., Braswell, W.D., Christy, J.R., Hnilo, J. (2007). Cloud and radiation budget changes associated with tropical intraseasonal oscillations. Geophysical Research Letters, 34, L15707, doi:10.1029/2007/GL029698. [PDF]
    46. IPCC, Assessment Report 4, 2007, Working Group 1, The Physical Science Basis, Chapter 8. (see 8.6.3.2) [PDF]
    47. Kirkby, J. et al. (2011) Role of sulphuric acid, ammonia and galactic cosmic rays in atmospheric aerosol nucleation, Nature 476, 429-433 (2011). | Article
    48. Svensmark, H. 1998. Influence of cosmic rays on earth’s climate. Physical Review Letters 81: 5027-5030. [Discussion CO2Science]
    49. Svensmark, H. and Friis-Christensen, E.: Variation of cosmic ray flux and global cloud coverage – a missing link in solar-climate relationships, J. Atmos. Sol. Terr. Phys., 59, 1225–1232, 1997.
    50. Mauas, P., Flamenco, E., Buccino, A. (2008) “Solar Forcing of the Stream Flow of a Continental Scale South American River”, Instituto de Astronomı´a y Fı´sica del Espacio, Buenos Aires, Argentina, Physical Review Letters 101 [http://www.iafe.uba.ar/httpdocs/reprint_parana.pdf])
    51. Alexander, W., Bailey, F., Bredenkamp, B., van der Merwe, A., and Willemse, N. (2007) Journal of the South African Institution of Civil Engineering, Vol. 49 No 2 [PDF]
    52. Shaviv, N.J. (2008) Using the oceans as a calorimeter to quantify the solar radiative forcing. Journal of Geophysical Research 113: 10.1029/2007JA012989. [CO2 Science discussion]
    53. Herschel, W. 1801, in Philosphical Transactions of the Royal Society, London, 265 and 354. (See here, and here)
    54. Spencer, R., and W.D. Braswell. (2008). Potential biases in feedback diagnosis from observations data: a simple model demonstration. Journal of Climate, 21, 5624-5628.
    55. Spencer, R.W., and W.D. Braswell, (2010), On the diagnosis of radiative feedback in the presence of unknown radiative forcing, J. Geophys. Res, 115, D16109
    56. Spencer, R. W.; Braswell, W.D. (2011) On the Misdiagnosis of Climate Feedbacks from Variations in Earth’s Radiant Energy Balance, Remote Sens. 2011, 3, 1603-1613. [PDF]
    57. Pielke Sr., R.A., 2003: Heat storage within the Earth system. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 84, 331-335.
    58. Chapter 1 of the: Annual Report on the State of the Ocean and the Ocean Observing System for Climate. OCO, NOAA. [HTML]
    59. C. Loehle, “Cooling of the global ocean since 2003,” Energy and Environment, Vol. 20, 2009, 101–104.
    60. D. H. Douglass and R. S. Knox, “Ocean heat content and Earth’s radiation imbalance,” Physics Letters A, Vol. 373, 2009, 3296–3300.
    61. R. Pielke Sr., “A broader view of the role of humans in the climate system,” Physics Today Vol. 61, no. 11, 2008, pp. 54-55.
    62. von Schuckmann, K., F. Gaillard and P.-Y. Le Traon [2009] Global hydrographic variability patterns during 2003-2008. J. Geophys. Res., 114, C09007, doi:10.1029/2008JC005237 [Abstract] [discussion] [other PDF]
    63.Anagnostopoulos, G. G., D. Koutsoyiannis, A. Christofides, A. Efstratiadis, and N. Mamassis, (2010). A comparison of local and aggregated climate model outputs with observed data’, Hydrological Sciences Journal, 55: 7, 1094 — 1110 [PDF]
    64. Koutsoyiannis, D., Efstratiadis, A., Mamassis, N. & Christofides, A.
    (2008) On the credibility of climate predictions. Hydrol. Sci. J.
    53(4), 671–684. changes [PDF]
    65. Real Climate: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/08/hypothesis-testing-and-long-term-memory/langswitch_lang/th/
    66. Idso, S.B. 1998. CO2-induced global warming: a skeptic’s view of potential climate change. Climate Research 10: 69-82. [abstract] [Discussion]
    67. Idso SB (1982) A surface air temperature response function for earth’s atmosphere. Boundary-Layer Meteorol 22:227–232
    68. Quirk, T. (2009). The Australian temperature anomaly, 1910 – 2000. Energy & Environment, 20 (1-2), 97 – 100. [PDF]
    69. Stockwell, David R. B. and Anthony Cox, [2009], Structural break models of climatic regime-shifts: claims and forecasts, Cornell University Library, arXiv10907.1650 [2009] [PDF] [Discussion]
    70. McKitrick, R. and Vogelsang, T. J. (2011), Multivariate trend comparisons between autocorrelated climate series with general trend regressors, Department of Economics, University of Guelph. [Discussion paper PDF]
    71. Douglass, D.H., and J.R. Christy (2008): Limits on CO2 Climate Forcing from Recent Temperature Data of Earth. Energy and Environment, Vol 20, No 1. [Abstract] [Discussion]
    72.Loehle, C. and J.H. McCulloch. 2008. Correction to: A 2000-year global temperature reconstruction based on non-tree ring proxies. Energy and Environment, 19, 93-100. [Discussion WCR]
    73.Ljungqvist, Fredrik Charpentier, 2010, A New Reconstruction Of Temperature Variability In The Extra-Tropical Northern Hemisphere During The Last Two Millennia , Geografiska Annaler: Series A, Physical Geography, Volume 92, Number 3, pp. 339-351(13) [abstract]
    74. Zu, L., et al (2012) An ikaite record of late Holocene climate at the Antarctic Peninsula, Earth and Planetary Sciences Letters, Volumes 325–326, 1 April 2012, Pages 108–115
    75.Huang, S., H. N. Pollack, and P. Y. Shen (1997), Late Quaternary temperature changes seen in world‐wide continental heat flow measurements, Geophys. Res. Lett., 24(15), 1947–1950. [Abstract, PDF] Discussion
    76.IPCC, Assessment Report 4, 2007, Working Group 1 Understanding and Attributing Climate Change, Chapter 9. section 9.4 [IPCC site] Page 684
    77. Mann, M.E., Bradley, R.S. and Hughes, M.K. (1998) Global scale temperature patterns and climate forcing over the past six centuries. Nature 392: 779-787
    78. McIntyre, S., and R. McKitrick, 2003. Corrections to the Mann et. al. (1998) Proxy database and Northern Hemispheric average temperature series. Energy & Environment,14, 751-771 [PDF].
    79.McIntyre, S., and R. McKitrick, 2005. Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance. Geophysical Research Letters, 32, doi:10.1029/2004GL021750. [discussion]
    80.McShane, Blakely B. and Abraham J. Wyner [2010] A Statistical Analysis of Multiple Temperature Proxies: Are Reconstructions of Surface Temperatures Over the Last 1000 Years Reliable? The Annals of Applied Statistics 2011, Vol. 5, No. 1, 5–44 [PDF]

    Jo’s link here:

    http://joannenova.com.au/2012/10/man-made-global-warming-disproved/

  3163. Neviller says

    Graeme you may claim to be a sceptic but you certainly don’t write like one. I suppose we should listen to a scientist like Karoly or Hansen or an activist like Gore or Flannery or Suzuki etc?

    I know you can’t answer my questions about simple maths, simple graphs and simple logic and reason because it proves there is zero we can achieve by attempts at AGW mitigation.

    Anyway here’s more facts and an interesting drop in temp after Sandy. Oh yes it’s from WUWT and one of the best researchers Mr Bob Tisdale.

    BTW sceptic Graeme can you name some of those tame scientists of doubtful pedigree?

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/11/inverse-hockey-stick-hurricane-sandy-cools-the-ocean/#more-74112

  3164. Graeme M says

    Geez you blokes are a bit quick on the trigger finger. Look, the gist of my posts has been fairly straight forward. I am trying to ascertain what you actually think government should do – that is, what would YOU do if you were in government, and by that I mean what would you really seriously do given the actual context of being in government.

    Trotting out all the usual stuff doesn’t mean anything to me in that sense – I’ve read it all and I’m across most of the arguments as best i can be with my limited background.

    The point is that while there is a fairly solid sceptical case in my view, there is NOT a solid sceptical case accepted within mainstream science, or at least within the mainstream science that is willing to put its name to anything.

    As far as I can tell mainstream science is fairly confident that AGW is a fact. All that isn’t known is the extent of the impacts, but there is a body of opinion that it’ll be bad. So. Governments aren’t in the business of following down every for and against argument for everything they have to legislate upon. What they will do instead is go with the generally agreed position by the relevant experts.

    All I am saying is that how can you find governments at fault for acting on the advice of the experts?

    As to the experts, well… I am sceptical and I think they are wrong. For most of the reasons that you all do. So don’t be going trying to show me where I’m wrong! 🙂

    All I was trying to do was find out whether you actually THINK about how policy is formulated and how government works or whether its simple kneejerk reactionism.

    So far, no-one has offered their view on just how THEY would deal with the threat of AGW if they were in government, bearing in mind the actual context of the politics and the people involved. And I don’t think reading JoNova or Anthony Watts cuts it as responsible and diligent policy research.

  3165. spangled drongo says

    Graeme, if your were genuinely sceptical you should at least accept Bjorn Lomborgs argument that it is better to wait until 1/ we see that we actually have a problem and 2/ by which time we are more likely to have the ability and technology to solve it.

    If, in the meantime, we introduce realistic policies [like modern nuclear reactors and/or other economically sound renewables], the problem may solve itself without a hiccup.

  3166. Polyaulax says

    SSTs fall [temporarily] along the path of cyclones? Who knew,Nev? Actually,that’s been known for generations,from way back when SSTs were recorded by ships. What might be interesting about SSTs in that slice of ocean post Sandy is just how much energy was harvested,and what it says about Sandy’s great width.

    Bob Tisdale, a ‘best researcher’? Climate qualifications? Zip. Statistical quals? Zip. Papers published in any field? Zip….Bob is just another blogger downloading data ,plotting it,mashing it and making claims and extrapolations. Most of them without actual support.

  3167. cohenite says

    Dumb post poly.

    Sandy’s path:

    http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/figure-2.jpg

    SST history along Sandy’s path:

    http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/figure-3.png

    I don’t care who shows these FACTS, the fact is Sandy was not exceptional, unusual and did not involve high SSTs or any indication of AGW; which makes LIARS of the Climate Commission and Matthew England in particular for saying Sandy was so strong because of AGW warmed SSTs.

    It was a LIE. AGW is a lie and I am fed up with the waste and distraction caused by AGW believers.

  3168. Robert says

    “The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.

    “Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.

    “It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system – ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.”

    This was the warning Eisenhower gave after the more frequently and eagerly quoted warning about the military-industrial complex.

    Graeme, boffins tend to self-promotion, impracticality, cultism…and the daffy, Big Lever solutions you at least try to vote against when you vote for the Libs. Of course, technocrats should be heard (not obeyed) within a strict frame of reference. Outside that frame, they should be considered suspect, maybe more so than Abdul the taxi guy. As a trade-off, their researches should have freedom…far more freedom than they have at present. Expensive? Not as expensive as the delicately calibrated “consensus” we now see in the field of climate, where science is settled for political purposes and unsettled for funding purposes.

    Then there’s the matter of cohenite’s list of rogue scientists. Our Green Betters have no trouble treating these people with skepticism as to their competence and motives.

    Skepticism: It’s easy when you really try!

  3169. Graeme M says

    Robert I agree totally, and SD I would think Lomborg’s approach seems on the face of it a more sensible one. I was merely trying to highlight the fact that governments must act on the best advice. And that advice isn’t coming from the Jo Novas of this world.

    Unfortunately, my personal take is that the best advice is being highjacked by an agenda and I see that in so much of the reporting in the MSM. Sandy is no exception. I reckon it is actually criminal how that has been used to implicate AGW, but there you go.

  3170. Debbie says

    Mainstream science?
    Again. . . . Say what?
    It appears that Graeme’s definition of ‘mainstream science’ are scientists EMPLOYED (bold) by the govt or by govt funded institutions.
    There are just as many, if not more, scientists who are either EMPLOYED by other than govt or scientists who also run their own ‘mainstream’ businesses.. . . ie. . . their education is science but their EXPERIENCE is much wider. My industry (agriculture/farming) is peopled by many highly educated, science trained individuals.
    Business people are also highly aware of the pitfalls associated with basing management decisions on ‘modelling’ and stats. They are useful tools, not magic crystal balls. The so called ‘mainstream science’ deny this basic fact & are flatly refusing to usefully update their data and stats.
    It leads to rather stupid resource management decisions that are reflective of out of date modelling NOT(bold) reality.

  3171. Graeme M says

    Debbie, I didn’t define mainstream science. Nor did I define scientists. What I said in a nutshell is that the agreed science as it is understood by the scientific ‘community’ (however you wish to define that) is that the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere as a result of anthropogenic emissions is affecting the world’s climate. The physics for how this happens is widely understood, widely agreed, and forms the foundation for a whole body of knowledge around the behaviour of atmospheric systems. And it is used everyday by pretty much any scientist or organisation that has to evaluate weather, climate or the atmosphere.

    Do you agree or disagree with that statement?

  3172. Polyaulax says

    Dumber post cohenite. Sandy was a record breaking storm.

    Tisdale has cherry picked his SST period to run from the 1940s peak to the current warming of the last 30 years,and gets no trend [the 0.02C decade ‘cooling trend’ has no statistical significance]. The longer data set shows that a statistically significant warming exists for that tranche of sea surface data. The northern end of that tranche WAS warmer than at any time in the modern record,and Tisdale’s deliniation time and of lat. and long. cannot show that.

    Fact is Sandy was a very large [total width of storm force windfield and storm surge] storm,and a very powerful one for its time of year,and it involved high SSTs,and record SSTs at the northern end of it path,plus greater potential atmospheric moisture because of tropospheric warming. The high tide it coincided with was natural,the sea level rise which further potentiated its surge was GW induced.

  3174. Neville says

    Well Graeme then why are we still exporting coal, gas and iron ore in such huge tonnages? Why does the Gillard govt through Martin Ferguson encourage the Vic govt to process the Latrobe valley brown coal and export it overseas?

    Ferguson states that the deposits are so large that Vic’s brown coal could be another Pilbara and boy that’s huge.
    So it’s okay to discourage aussies using brown coal but it’s just dandy to even process it and create an entire new coal export market?

    BTW I’ve told you exactly what we should do the moment you asked the question. It’s pretty much what Lomborg would do except I wouldn’t have a token co2 tax just to finance more R&D. But I could live with his $2 a tonne as long as it was strictly used on R&D and then hopefully lead to new technology.
    But if you think that reducing OZ emissions by 5% by 2020 is going to achieve anything then I know you’re mistaken.

    But again why should we have this stupid new co2 tax when this govt proves they couldn’t care less about increasing co2 emissions created by our exports overseas?

  3175. Debbie says

    Well then Graeme,
    I would need to know your definition of ‘ scientific community’ as it would be essential to understand that before I could possibly agree or disagree with your statement.
    You won’t find anyone here that would say that anthropogenic behaviour has NO (bold) influence. So, with respect, that part of your comment is somewhat redundant.
    That is NOT (bold) the point of disagreement.

  3176. spangled drongo says

    If Sandy was downgraded from a big hurricane to a big tropical storm prior to reaching land how does that make it “GW induced”.

    Are you saying that Lindzen is right and that GW can only reduce the severity of hurricanes?

  3177. Robert says

    Sandy was, indeed, very wide and very late. I’m sure it broke all kinds of “records”.

    If the Great Colonial Hurricane of 1635 or the Long Island Express of 1938 etc etc (I really could go on!) had occurred in 2012 I’m sure all kinds of records would have fallen. And am I in the slightest doubt that it would have been viewed by Our Green Betters as confirmation of CAGW? Is anyone in doubt? We know these people don’t waste a good bit of bad weather. Re-use and recycle!

    What if there were a re-run of the 1954 hurricane season, with its eleven named hurricanes and storms (plus one unnamed), including the second Alice on December 30! Talk about late in the season. Talk about extreme. Happy Christmas, warmies. No pudding for skeptics!

  3178. spangled drongo says

    In the test cricket at the Gabba between Australia and South Africa the bowlers can’t get anyone out.

    Usually this time of year in sub tropical humidity wickets tumble as the ball moves around unpredictably but this match has been played in very cool weather more like an English summer.

  3180. cohenite says

    Dumb and dumber poly; SD has captured the base absurdity of AGW believers claiming Sandy, which is AGW must be making storms reduce in size!

    Tisdale hasn’t cherrypicked anything; there was no 1940’s peak in SST; the peak in the 72 year range was 1950 [extratropics]; in fact Tisdale has answered your very grizzle which was raised by the more gracious Nick Stokes in the comments; Bob says:

    “Nick Stokes says: “How does this fit with the map you showed of SST anomalies for October? They look pretty high near where Sandy approached the shore.”

    HADISST updates lag by a few months, but it just so happens I prepared graphs with the HADISST since Jan 1870 and Reynolds OI.v2 data since Nov 1981, and with a horizontal line to show the Reynolds values for October 2012. I used the same base years for anomalies: 1971-2000. The Reynolds shows a lot more variability but the October 2012 values get us in the ballpark of the HADISST data. Here’s the graph for the full path of Sandy:
    http://i50.tinypic.com/2629yz9.jpg

    And here’s the one for the extratropics:
    http://i48.tinypic.com/2im0tx3.jpg”

    Along with McIntyre, Watts, Nova, Marohasy, Stockwell, Ken Stewart and his merry band, the world owes a debt to people like Tisdale who, with no government funding, no arrogance, no deceit, have just looked at the facts and revealed what a scummy lie AGW is.

  3181. cohenite says

    First attempt in moderation; try this:

    Dumb and dumber poly; SD has captured the base absurdity of AGW believers claiming Sandy, which is AGW must be making storms reduce in size!

    Tisdale hasn’t cherrypicked anything; there was no 1940’s peak in SST; the peak in the 72 year range was 1950 [extratropics]; in fact Tisdale has answered your very grizzle which was raised by the more gracious Nick Stokes in the comments; Bob says:

    “Nick Stokes says: “How does this fit with the map you showed of SST anomalies for October? They look pretty high near where Sandy approached the shore.”

    HADISST updates lag by a few months, but it just so happens I prepared graphs with the HADISST since Jan 1870 and Reynolds OI.v2 data since Nov 1981, and with a horizontal line to show the Reynolds values for October 2012. I used the same base years for anomalies: 1971-2000. The Reynolds shows a lot more variability but the October 2012 values get us in the ballpark of the HADISST data. Here’s the graph for the full path of Sandy:
    http:i50.tinypic.com/2629yz9.jpg

    And here’s the one for the extratropics:
    http:i48.tinypic.com/2im0tx3.jpg”[// removed]

    Along with McIntyre, Watts, Nova, Marohasy, Stockwell, Ken Stewart and his merry band, the world owes a debt to people like Tisdale who, with no government funding, no arrogance, no deceit, have just looked at the facts and revealed what a scummy lie AGW is.

  3182. Debbie says

    “…downloading data ,plotting it,mashing it and making claims and extrapolations.” 🙂
    Chuckle
    And how would that be a crime, something that should be dismissed OR… ANY DIFFERENT to what anyone else is doing????
    Polyaux seems to think only ‘certain’ people have the right to download data and make claims and extrapolations…or the right to pick start /stop calendar points.
    He doesn’t seem to understand that it isn’t ONLY people who are EMPLOYED to download data that are more than capable of doing it and also more than capable of recognising the inherint pitfalls and discrepancies in the work of others.

  3183. Johnathan Wilkes says

    Debbie,
    “Polyaux seems to think only ‘certain’ people have the right to download data and make claims and extrapolations”

    Why do you think the Bible was written in Latin only, for such a long time, and only the clergy could read it and interpret it?

    As a matter of fact interpreting the scriptures even today, although it’s available in English and more then that, in modern English, laymen are still discouraged to interpret it for themselves.

    Just a thought and a comparison one cannot avoid to make with an other faith, don’t you think?

  3184. Polyaulax says

    Oh, listen to you and your waffle,cohenite. You are so eagerly deceived. “..the world owes a debt to people like..” Claptrap. Blog contrarianism is entertaining but of little worth. The peak decade in the 72 year range for that tranche is largely within the 1940s.

    Extratropical 24-40degN is also sleight of hand. It’s the warm water at 30+degN that Tisdale avoids. As well, his longitudinal definition is nonsensical as you can see Sandy’s eye track on the eastern margin of his carefully chosen area. That way he omits warm waters to the east and north-east from his figuring that feed moisture into the circulation which was extremely broad. Fact is over Sandy’s path SSTs were anomalously warm particulary for the last few days of the storm’s progress.

    Tisdale bleats “there is no evidence for an anthropogenic warming signal in the satellite era sea surface temperature data” with dogmatic fervor,as if by staring dumbly at anomaly chart some physical three-dimensional ocean /atmosphere process will be revealed. He reckons it’s all ENSO: according to Bob,strong El Ninos have stepped up the heat,while La Ninas have [mysteriously] failed to dial it back. LOL. Does he expect ENSO to disappear? Does he expect circulation to utterly change,so as to reveal the hand of man? ENSO is providing convenient alignments for Tisdale to hang his rejectionism on. Meanwhile he ignores detailed GH mechanisms and. He confuses the delivery service for the message.

  3185. toby says

    Graeme, it would I think have been very hard to ignore CAGW altogether given the constant stream of “science” that is pushed by the main stream ( definition; the science being pushed by most scientific organisations, the ABC, Age, CSIRO, IPCC, Uni’s etc). I am reliably told howard and costello both believed CAGW to be rubbish but felt compelled to take action because their advisors/ experts were all so convinced. It would take a brave man/ woman who just ignored them. And at the time I doubt any one would have been reelected on a climate change is bullshit model…… now however pointing out that platitudes that come at great cost but do nothing, might actually be a winner?

    we have moved on from the cold war as a means of fear and controlling to CAGW,

    now to the second part of the question, what would i do about CAGW?
    personally nothing excpet provide Research and Development credits to find an alternative energy source ( the only viable solution if indeed a problem does exist)…but if i was in charge i would have to be seen to do something I guess….so i would employ a competent economist to do some real cost benefit analysis of a variety of actions. I would not employ people like Stern and Garnaut WHO START WITH PRECONCEIVED IDEAS AND create embarrassingly awful propaganda reports.

    And I would not subject our economy to a 9b a year tax that raises more revenue from 22m than europe’s tax has done from 300m over 8 years!! ( and nor i am sure would you!!)

    it is very easy for those of us on the side lines to say just do nothing it is mostly bullshit. but if we were actually elected to positions of power, i suspect it would be very hard to do nothing at all! Although i would like to believe that is what i would do!!

  3186. Graeme M says

    Exactly Toby. If you are elected to power there is *some* expectation that you’ll steer the nation in a sensible direction, and there are a lot of competing tensions that help to keep the ship on a reasonable course. Now it is possible (just) that there is some underlying conspiracy, but generally speaking I can’t imagine that being too overt. But who knows. The real question is how can we expect our government to ignore the experts? Debbie’s complaint about the experts ignores the very real matter of the experts being, well… the experts.

    Anyway, I think we’ve done that one to death. I am more intrigued by Poly’s views. Now, let’s assume all that’s claimed is true. It was the largest storm in the modern record, unusually late in the season, formed in waters warmer than usual, and it created a record (just) storm surge.

    But so what? How is there the unmistakable signature of AGW in that?

    Have we clear evidence that no Atlantic storm of the past 500 years was not as big?
    Is being late in the season unique, highly unusual, unusual or just infrequent?
    Do we have clear evidence that the waters have not been as warm in the past 500 years? Or the past 100 years?
    Are we confident that warmer waters would result in a larger storm? Sandy was after all not especially intense. And I am not sure theoretical modelling is evidence.
    The record storm surge is partly due to the confluence of events – high tide, full moon, direct hit on New York, the local geography. Where is AGW in that?

    What exactly is it that stamps Sandy indelibly as a product of AGW and not a coincidental fit to a preconception?

  3187. Robert says

    Climate bed-wetters should be grateful they don’t live in the decade taste forgot. Charles Bronson may have been at his artistic peak, and the orange shag pile didn’t show the Coolibah Claret spills…but you didn’t want to be in the way Super Typhoons Tip, Nora and June. June in ’75 had three bloody eyewalls! Same decade produced six major cyclones for Oz. Mind you, Yasi and Mahina, with more than a century between them, were real brutes for Qld.

    Tip in ’79 was the monster of them all, but, fortunately, it slowed a lot before it gave Japan a mangling. What a conscientious theologian couldn’t do with another Tip! Keep the faith, warmies.

  3188. cohenite says

    “Meanwhile he ignores detailed GH mechanisms and.

    OK, what are those mechanisms, details please.

    And what does this mean:

    “He confuses the delivery service for the message.”

  3189. Debbie says

    Debbie isn’t complaining Graeme,
    Debbie clearly asked for your definition.
    Do you have one?
    If you want people to agree or disagree with you, please define your interpretation of experts and the scientific community.
    I suspect it differs to mine.
    It is just as important as your last question.
    What exactly is it that stamps Sandy. . . . etcetera.
    Coz some people who claim to be ‘experts’ are claiming that Sandy is a product of AGW are they not?

  3191. Johnathan Wilkes says

    “You didn’t even look at Tisdale’s post graphing the SST temp history at 30+degN!

    What? and destroy a good vibe? Not on your nellie.

  3192. Graeme M says

    I don’t offer a definition Debbie. Nor did I ask anyone to agree or disagree with me.

    You on the other hand are being disagreeable just for the sake of it.

  3193. Polyaulax says

    I DID look at the graphic. That graphic shows 24N -40N as warm as it has ever been, If you narrow it to 30N-40N it’s warmer: the warmest anomalies were well north of 24 to 30N. IOW inclusion of 24-30N obscures the anomalous warmth over the last days of the track. And if you honestly look at the breadth of Sandy [and show some understanding of mechanisms] rather than concentrating on the eye you’ll see that the eastern delineation that Tisdale carefully chooses excludes more anomalously warm feeder water. Storm force winds on landfall spanned a distance of 1500 kilometers…fed by oceanic warmth outside the narrow delineation by Tisdale,plus the energy of the continental trough blocked by ridging enhanced by Arctic relative warmth.

  3194. cohenite says

    poly, you are nuts; Sandy wasn’t even a catergory 1 cyclone at landfall so how can it be the biggest cyclone of any description or are you saying a strom is bigger than a cyclone? Are we making up terminology now, turning it on its head?

    And this:

    “That graphic shows 24N -40N as warm as it has ever been,”

    Can someone else look at this:

    http://i48.tinypic.com/2im0tx3.jpg

    What I can see is that SST was warmer in 1950; can someone else confirm that?

    And this:

    “If you narrow it to 30N-40N it’s warmer: the warmest anomalies were well north of 24 to 30N. IOW inclusion of 24-30N obscures the anomalous warmth over the last days of the track.”

    Where is your data or graph; if 24-30N is when added to 30-40N it makes 30-40N cooler than how much cooler was 24-30N then normal?

  3195. Johnathan Wilkes says

    I’m looking at it now and looked at it before I made my last comment re. poly and your link.

    Sticking to your conviction or believing your lying eyes comes to mind.
    But never mind, who cares anymore? It’s all down to politics and spin.

  3196. Robert says

    When using expressions like “record” and “ever” – if one must! – it would be great if people specified the period of record or implication of such a loose term as “ever”. For example, the planet may have had, in recent months, its MOST ice “ever” – by the same measure that Arctic ice has been as low as it’s “ever” been. Two amazing, contradictory and simultaneous “records”. Of course, if you let other measures and info intrude, it’s a different story.

    Also, could someone flash me the Atlantic SSTs for 1635? That’s AD. If you happen to have the figures for BC that would be handy too.

  3197. spangled drongo says

    Poly, you should know that when you get even a mild cyclone combined with a king tide [as happened with Sandy] there is a big sea surge.

    And that’s what does the damage.

    At the peak of the ’74 Gold Coast floods the Nerang River was running UPSTREAM.

    IOW the surge was greater than the record flood levels.

    The fact that Cat 1 Hurricane Sandy was downgraded to a storm when it struck the mainland says it all.

    It was a pussycat.

  3198. Graeme M says

    Thats the thing of it SD and what annoys the heck out of me – even people at work come out with the superstorm Sandy/AGW rubbish. If it hadn’t been for NATURAL events like the high tide, the full moon and the sheer luck involved in it striking where it did, what would its effect have been?

    The bottom line is that a combination of quite natural factors led to it causing considerable damage. I cannot see for the life of me how the effects of AGW can be identified in a Cat 1 storm that was not even a hurricane as such when it came ashore.

    What it DOES illustrate is that as time passes and urban areas on coastlines and river deltas grow, the likelihood that weather events will cause damage is also growing. Rather than explaining every major event as AGW caused (with the obvious implication that reducing AGW will reduce the likelihood of damage to property and life), we would do well to observe that the norm for weather is to experience extremes.

    Presumably the ‘experts’ are aware of this but certainly that is NOT the public view today and worse that view is steadily being manipulated by the alarmist worldview.

  3199. toby says

    I have to make a speech next week, and came across these lovely quotes;

    Mark twain; How empty is theory in presence of fact!

    The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it.

    The trouble with political jokes is that very often they get elected.

    all of which seem quite appropriate in our modern world!

  3200. spangled drongo says

    Spoken like a true sceptic Graeme. The manipulating and convenient labelling that occurs from the very top to be gleefully spread by MSM is what’s killing the truth.

    And here is ever more evidence of convenient labelling.

    Perfectly described as bi-polar disorder of the convinced/confused/confirmed warmers.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/12/bipolar-disorder-as-in-the-arctic-the-antarctic-sea-ice-extent-is-affected-by-wind-unless-of-course-its-climate-change/#more-74165

  3202. Debbie says

    No Graeme,
    not disagreeable for the sake of it.
    I just needed your definition of ‘experts’ & ‘ the scientific community’ before I could decide to whether I agreed or disagreed.
    Many ‘experts’ who advise govt and inform social policy are claiming that Sandy is a product of AGW.

  3203. Graeme M says

    Debbie, I wasn’t trying to get all clever with anyone. I was raising a simple point – that if you were in government and you were advised by those who are paid to be experts that X is the case, then I think you’d have to act on that advice and accept that X is the case.

    I’m not sure that in the case of AGW there are THAT many shades of meaning around what I meant by experts. I didn’t mean Jo Nova, Anthony Watts, Roger Pielke, the Heartland Institute or whomever. I meant the people and organisations that publish papers, teach students, undertake research and advise government and industry. In Australia that will largely be the CSIRO and probably the Dept of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency and I am pretty sure their views are not out of kilter with the rest of their peers worldwide.

    Maybe I don’t really understand how it all works, but surely it is the CSIRO and DoCCaEE that advises our government? And if so, that’s the kind of people I refer to as ‘experts’.

  3204. Neville says

    Graeme I’m not a sceptic about humans having an influence on the climate. I think Lindzen, Spencer, Christy, Curry, Carter etc have the correct point of view that there is about perhaps 1c of warming to be expected from a doubling of co2 or 560ppmv. That’s called a negative feedback.

    But I’m very certain that there is nothing that we can do about it. China. India etc just don’t want to know and unfortunately that’s where a doubling will come from not from the nearly flatlining OECD countries.

    Therefore the case for mitigating AGW is a 100% fraud and con, unless we wake up tomorrow and find that some scientist has perfected cold fusion or whatever. Not likely.
    Our best response is to adapt and spend more dollars on R&D and start to use our common sense and brains for a change.

    Lomborg is correct, so what is the attraction of wanting to waste billions $ every year for decades into the future for a zero return?

  3205. Graeme M says

    Nev, I can’t really answer that. I am not a policy maker nor do I have sufficient grasp of the economics of the possible policy responses. I agree that IF there is likely to be an impact then perhaps managing that impact is a more sensible strategy particularly given our rather minor role in CO2 production.

    But the science as it is accepted suggests a primary radiative forcing of what, 1.2C from a doubling of CO2 and then the positive feedbacks are predicted to be in the range of 2-4C I think from memory. So the expectation, or fear, is that once we get up to around 560 we’ll be in big trouble. So the argument being advanced is that whatever steps we can take now to reduce the CO2 output and perhaps avoid that scenario are surely worthwhile.

    Sure FlimFlam reckons that heating already in the pipeline can’t be really redressed for many years to come, but we already see policy being developed around how to handle that. It’s not that which requires the changes in energy production – rather it’s the longer term scenario of 560 or more.

    You can bet your bottom dollar that the eco freaks and the more alarmist scientists WOULD actually undertake massive scale social and industrial revolution if they could. But governments don’t have that luxury. rather, they have to steer a course that will hopefully meet shorter term goals (like some sort of social stability or even just getting re-elected) whilst attending to the longer term.

    Their expectation is that the doubling of CO2 is still a little way off so we can potentially avoid that if we impose policies and strategies that will take effect over the coming decades.

    Now, what we ARE seeing are few of the predicted impacts that the alarmists have been pushing and that unequivocal message of ‘settled science’ and looming catastrophe is actually a major strategic blunder on their part. Judith Curry’s latest post touches on that matter.

    The problem in terms of an AGW response is that governments are doing EXACTLY what you all accuse them of doing – playing the short game and ignoring the longer term. In other words, the growing public distrust of the alarmist position is helping governments to moderate their policy responses. This has been exacerbated by the problems in Europe (and the GFC etc) which has grabbed a lot of the focus as well.

    So, where that leaves us is here. A limited and perhaps unwise policy response that will mean one of two things. Substantial savings and a pause for more meaningful evaluation IF AGW turns out to be a crock (my guess), or a woefully inadequate response should AGW actually happen as expected over the next 50 years (Jim Hansen’s guess).

    It remains to be seen if Sandy ends up being the best or worst thing that could have happened at this point…

  3206. Robert says

    I’ve long been an admirer of Calvin Coolidge, and wish he’d been around later, instead of Hoover and then FDR. His idea was that you listen politely to everyone, and then say NO to most things. Eventually people and institutions settle in to a realistic, useful rut, instead of hoping to impose their grand ideas for the improvement of the human lot (Ref: 20th Century).

    The whole advantage of an elected civilian government is balance, inertia, boredom and skepticism. The most plausible and qualified people never get to run things, because they are too convincing. The CSIRO needs to be kept firmly in its place, just like the BOM, and the Australian Army. A reasonable elected government gives them a bit, and at times may give them a lot – but that decision must rest with the elected government, with its mediocre and political mindset.

    The question must then be asked: what if you have a sly, amoral dunce running the country? That person will be more inclined to cave in to such lobbies as the arts luvvies, the technocrats and so on, in order to get cred and political reinforcement. That’s just the plain bad luck of democracy, but you are better off tolerating the waste and folly for a while till you can get to a ballot box – even if the waste runs into the billions. The government I’ll be inclined to vote for is one that is wary and skeptical of all technocracy and claimed expertise, and can see the human-nature component which distorts such things – and makes them especially dangerous.

    So, to echo Eisenhower, a man who saw a bit in his life and career, I’d say that government needs to be intensely skeptical of all technocracy, especially of one which is fad-ridden, has an Armageddon theme behind it and is based on very recent and raw science. I’d rather risk Armageddon than risk giving power to preachers of Armageddon.

  3207. Debbie says

    Thankyou for your answer Graeme and I apologise if I appeared to be disagreeable.
    From my direct experience, organisations such as CSIRO have been denuded of the experts who understood the importance of and had much experience in the ‘frontline’ and ‘practical’ application of science. Many of those people have lost their funding over the past 2 decades and an alarming number of them are working overseas where their expertise is appreciated.
    Interestingly federal funding of ‘science and innovation’ has increased by nearly double in that same time frame…so it has obviously been channeled elsewhere.
    The recent Green and White papers released by the Fed Govt clearly indicate that some essential links to ‘productivity’ have been lost. That also includes environmental and ecological productivity.
    Decisions in resource management have been based on incomplete and theoretical assumptions…they look compelling but they are NOT(bold) translating well into practice.
    Bureaucracies are often the most likely to waste resources …not conserve them. They have to follow the ‘rules’ even when those rules have no basis in the current reality.
    Of course we need basic rules and regs….but they need to be linked to clear productive outcomes and they also need to be flexible and adaptive if they are dealing with such uncooperative beasts like the weather/climate. The climate/weather is not interested in following rules or computer generated trends. We don’t know enough to claim that the models are crystal balls and then make decisions based on those assumptions.
    So we can’t ‘control’ the weather/climate by modelling….but we can use modelling to learn more and better cope with its vagaries and extremes and we can use use technology responsibly to help us do that…as long as there are clearly defined desired outcomes that have a sound basis in practical application (as opposed to a political application).
    BTW….modelling is essentially stats….it is not ‘SCIENCE’ nor is it the practical application of science/technology/innovation.
    The climate modelling uses climate data…which is just data collection and analysis. Scientists are not necessarily the best people to perform those functions….and stat analysis can only really ever take a series of ‘snapshots’ and then extrapolate….or make ‘best guesses’.
    It is all very high tech and very interesting….but not exhibiting good ‘practical application’ results.

  3208. Graeme M says

    Debbie, I think you are bemoaning a loss of practical expertise and its replacement with theoretical analysis. I can’t say too much about that in the context of resource management which is clearly where your own experience lies.

    But are you so sure that notion can be transferred to an assessment of ‘climate science’? AGW rests on well understood proven physical processes. And a lot of analysis, evaluation and modelling.

    So, let’s do an experiment in terms of experts and their knowledge. I assume you are sceptical of either AGW or the government response. Which specific things do you disagree with?

    Is there a Greenhouse Effect?
    Is CO2 a forcing?
    Are the feedbacks nett positive, negative or neutral?
    If CO2 continues to accumulate in the atmosphere, will it warm?
    If so, how much?
    Will we see unpredictable weather outcomes from that – ie will climate change?
    For better or worse?
    Who should be advising government about this?
    Should government act on that advice?
    If yes, what policies should government be developing in response?

    In answering those questions, which ‘experts’ are you relying upon? And how do you know that those experts are the ones you should trust? What is your basis for evaluation?

  3210. spangled drongo says

    Graeme, another question which is important is: seeing climate is always changing how do we separate nat var from human induced?

    Wouldn’t it be ironic if nat var was warming us and ACO2 was cooling us.

  3212. Debbie says

    Graeme,
    based on your earlier comments and my last comments, I don’t believe those are the key questions.
    If you’re asking me if I think ‘climate modelling’ is a good basis to inform social policy, my answer is no.
    If you’re asking me if I think that future Climate Change is the ‘greatest moral challenge of our time’, my answer is no.
    You are correct that it relates to my experience with resource management. Reliance on stat computer generated predictive modelling has led to some stupendously wasteful management decisions in the MDB since 2006/07. No good outcomes for the human environment, the natural environment or the Australian tax payer.
    As you have also pointed out, it has also led to AGW celebs and accepted ‘experts’ laying dubious claim to weather events like Sandy.
    More specifically, but without great detail however… on your wider questions my answers in order:
    1) Yes…but it is a misnoma, because the atmosphere does not behave the same as a greenhouse and therefore the results are different to the perception of ‘greenhouse’. Water vapour is the key ‘greenhouse’ roof in our atmosphere and is quite different to a roof on a ‘greenhouse’.I also don’t think the human influence is a global influence. It clearly does have local influence however.
    2) I would reword that question to…is CO2 a key driver in climate change? My answer to that question is it doesn’t appear to be the case….real time data is not supporting either the predictive or postdictive modelling that uses CO2 forcings as a key driver of global change….the correlations are tenuous and differ remarkably with different calendar start/stop datum points.
    3) I think the jury is still probably out on those feedback questions. It is actually at the core of the disagreement in the physics and the other ‘sciences’.
    4) That one too has many contradictory answers depending on the modelling methodology and which other variables are switched on or off…from 1 degree upwards from a doubling…to the question of lag and some modelling that shows CO2 may possibly predicate cooling….but that is a very brief answer to a rather complicated question.
    5) I think that is also the wrong question….of course climate will change….it always has….but can we stop it from changing or control how it changes? Should we be meddling in something like that?What are the costs? What exactly are we trying to achieve by meddling in it?
    Your last 3 questions are politically based….and I believe I have already answered them.
    I think SD’s question above is also valid.
    Natural variation is highly likely to drown out any attempts on our part to mitigate climate/weather behaviour….we would probably do better to focus on learning lessons from extreme weather events that can help us to cope better the next time they come around….as they invariably do.
    I sincerely hope that we will get better at ‘predicting’ seasonal variations….but we are far from that place yet.
    A large percentage of humanity has chosen the urban coastal fringes as their ‘natural habitat’ and they are therefore at risk from the heavy influences of that positioning. I don’t believe mitigating CO2 emissions will do much to reduce that particular risk….and from a couple of your earlier comments I suspect you don’t either.

  3213. Neville says

    Graeme have a look at NOAA’s reconstruction of the PDO from 993 to 1996, or about a thousand years.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PDO1000yr.svg

    The first 300 years would have seen extreme mega droughts in western USA and Canada and very high rainfall in eastern Australia. Flooding must have been extensive and very severe cyclones over that period.
    Then another period of 150+ years of the reverse, rainfall in USA west coast and very bad droughts over eastern OZ.
    The last cool phase shown is the 1950s and 1970s wet period for OZ.

    But the NATURAL climate shown here is much more extreme than anything we have experienced over the last 100 years.
    So will we ever be able to say oh yes this extreme climate we’ve had is very unusual and must be caused by humans emitting more co2? Of cause not.

    And will we ever change the climate for the better by spending trillions $ over the next 100 years. Of course not?

  3215. John Sayers says

    Neville – re the Solar Dawn Project – the Newman government removes a $75 mil subsidy which accounts for 6.5% of the total budget and the whole project falls over. These renewable schemes are a joke.

  3216. Neville says

    John you’ve gotta laugh. Newman pulls out funding of 6.5% and it’s all over but the Gillard govt pulls out of funding Mildura’s second solar project and we get the same result.

    The Vic govt is now asking why? What a super con and fraud and farce. Solar and wind wouldn’t last 5 minutes without taxpayer funding and of course can’t change temp or climate by a whisker.
    This whole mess is a delusional, barking mad sick joke that criminaly wastes billions of dollars every year for a 100% guaranteed zero return on our investment.(?) Ya gotta laugh or just crawl into a heap and cry. Why are we so stupid and disregard simple maths and simple logic and reason?

  3217. Neville says

    Just to add to the above. If AGW is the “greatest moral challenge of our lives”, then why does the Gillard govt want the Vic govt to turn the latrobe valley into another Pilbara?

    We have monster reserves of brown coal that can’t be easily exported yet the Gillard govt now wants the Vic govt to allow the processing of that brown coal into black coal so it can then be exported. DUH!!!!
    Gillard and her govt are bi-polar hypocrites and should be held to account for their lies and blatant stupidity.

  3218. John Sayers says

    Neville – we did a story on the solar tower idea, i.e as in Mildura, back in 1986 when I was working on Beyond 2000. 36 years later it still hasn’t eventuated.

  3220. Graeme M says

    While we are meandering around on this thread, I thought I’d post a question I’ve not really found an answer to. So if there’s

    anyone with a strong physics background that can explain I’d be grateful. I first started wondering about this back when Nasif

    Nahle was posting here. I must warn you up front that I am not sure I can frame the question clearly enough but here goes.

    One of the basics of the radiative greenhouse theory is that of the energy budget. This tells us how much heat per square

    metre we have going in and out. Now I don’t recall the exact numbers, but I think it’s argued that there is about 1365 w/m2 at

    the TOA which is then divided by 4 to provide a representative number for each square metre of the earth’s surface. Now I can

    understand the reasoning for that, but then the same equation seems to be applied to a theoretical blackbody. This idea seems

    to be used to derive the difference between a blackbody earth and an earth with an atmosphere (and hey presto, GHE).

    Where I come unstuck is the notion that you’d divide the amount of incoming solar radiation by 4 for a blackbody. Now, the 4

    number is used for a rotating body. If we were just calculating for a non-rotating blackbody sphere, we’d divide by 2. That

    is, the sphere intercepts the amount of radiation equivalent to a disk of same diameter, but that amount is then smeared over

    a hemisphere, and the area of a hemisphere is 2x that of a disk.

    However to me that’s just a matter of geometry. It isn’t dealing with the actual physics of energy absorption/heat

    transfer. So clearly there is something about the latter that I don’t understand.

    So, here’s my problem.

    As I understand it, a perfect blackbody absorbs all incident radiation and has no albedo. The critical point to me though is

    whether that occurs at the molecular level, or at a smaller or larger scale.

    Imagine the surface of our blackbody sphere. At a point on the equator with light shining from the sun directly at that point,

    how much radiation can an individual totally absorbent molecule absorb? How much is available for it to absorb? I won’t go

    into the detail of how a molecule actually heats and re-radiates, partly cos it is a bit too micro-detail for this question

    and partly because I don’t actually understand that bit.

    My guess is that it absorbs as much of the available energy as it needs to ‘heat’ up and reach thermal equilibrium. Presuming

    that my guess is right, let us now consider another molecule at a point very close to the pole. What will be the effect on

    that molecule, providing that the full disk of the sun is visible to the molecule?

    Bear in mind that molecule is part of a blackbody with no atmosphere, so there is no atmospheric absorption or scattering and

    the body has no albedo. Does our molecule absorb more or less radiation than the one at the equator, and does it heat more or

    less?

    The question is, does it reach thermal equilibrium more quickly, more slowly, or at the same rate? Put another way, is

    there more or less radiation available to our pole based molecule when compared to our equator based molecule?

    Anyone?

  3221. Neville says

    Graeme there are many sites that have physicists posting and responding all the time. Like Watts or Curry or McIntyre or Spencer etc.

    Perhaps Cohenite might be able to help if he has the time? Just don’t bother asking the weather is climate brigade.

  3222. Graeme M says

    Heh, haven’t been game to try any of those yet. Might try the Physics Forums. I posed a question there a while back about what is air pressure. That got quite a variety of answers and eventually it got too hard to follow. I’m just not THAT smart.

  3223. kuhnkat says

    Graeme M,

    “But the science as it is accepted suggests a primary radiative forcing of what, 1.2C from a doubling of CO2 and then the positive feedbacks are predicted to be in the range of 2-4C I think from memory.”

    This is a THEORETICAL consideration. By now most intelligent people should understand that in reality THEORETICAL considerations can be completely overwhelmed or undermined by other real physics. Since all the studies based on what empirical evidence can be found is at most 1.5c and there is NO evidence for positive feedbacks, and some recent empirical work showing NEGATIVE feedbacks, you really need to let go of your binkie.

    Oh, you need to show us that who accepted it matters and they matter because they have supported the theoretical work with empirical work. Sorry bud, that is how it works, NOT arm waving pleas to save the whales and earth etc.

  3224. Graeme M says

    “you really need to let go of your binkie”

    Gosh. OK, if you say so!

    You could try reading comprehension classes maybe? I am not arguing that those numbers are right, I am just reflecting what I have read and understood was the accepted position. Sure there is some controversy about that, but what do you reckon I’d be taught at any high school or university in the land?

    As to showing you that whoever accepted those numbers matters, well… no I don’t. If that is what climate scientists think it is and that’s what they use in their papers and in their research, then it is what it is. If they think it’s something different, well then it’s something different. I’m not trying to convince you of anything.

    Trigger happy much?

  3225. Robert says

    It’s worth remembering that many people referred to as “climate scientists” believe that climate can be modelled. This is akin to presenting oneself at the start of a Formula 1 race with the Dinky Toy of a Morris Minor – and expecting to compete.

    Think about how very rough but useful sets observations, like ENSO and PDO, have become simplistic levers or “drivers” in the mechanistic view of climate now blatantly promoted by gang-reviewed “science”. You only have to have your own acronym and you’re a climate player.

    It’s not science. It’s the bloody death of science.

  3226. Graeme M says

    Just a point of clarification. In my earlier comments I was really just posing a question about how governments should respond to advice from experts. I wasn’t and am not trying to argue whether the experts really are expert, or are the right experts. I am not trying to argue any particular case at all.

    That said, my own view is definitely sceptical and with some of the new revelations coming to light you do have to wonder at what’s going to happen next. Check out 28gate at WUWT and others, also read a couple of the recent posts on Tallblokes site.

    And the whole Superstorm Sandy thing – deliberate misrepresentation to sell an agenda.

    No wonder some are sceptical eh?

  3228. Debbie says

    Graeme,
    you are seemingly somewhat ‘conflicted’ about the ‘science’?
    I am intrigued by your comment above re what climate scientists say it is (or isn’t) then that’s what it is (or isn’t).
    I don’t know if you have noticed, but the actual climate/weather doesn’t appear to agree with that comment.
    It isn’t doing what the climate science and the AGW celebs say it should be doing. Even that ‘fleeting fancy by 2012’ (ie snow in Australia)

  3229. Graeme M says

    Debbie, I must have a poorer grasp of English that I thought.

    Look, when it comes to science, there is a body of knowledge generally acknowledged as being what we think we know. Some bits are better ‘known’ than others, but that is what we call science. And consensus, regardless of the usual sceptic rhetoric, is consensus. In other words, it is what scientists can agree on. And that is what we teach, what we use in all sorts of research & development, it’s what the public accept as being the science. This isn’t some new thinking here. It’s how it is. That doesn’t mean that science isn’t always being revised or even discarded because of course, it is.

    Now when it comes to what we call climate science, like it or not, the generally agreed science is what it is. I am not a scientist, I don’t mix with scientists and I don’t read broadly of the literature. As far as I know, the agreed view of climate scientists, when it comes to AGW, is that it exists. That increasing CO2 in the atmosphere will increase the radiative forcing which will cause the average surface temperature to increase. I am not arguing whether that is right or wrong, I am just observing that that is what mainstream science thinks. If you disagree, show me the evidence. And that does NOT mean the various sceptical talking points.

    Am I conflicted? Yes. I am not sceptical because I wish simply to be a contrarian. I am sceptical because the consensus view, the agreed hypothesis regarding AGW, seems unlikely to me. After doing a LOT of reading, I know two things.

    One, there is an awful lot of manipulation, deceit, and extreme activism within the ranks of the scientific community, though I admit to not being certain just who this ‘community’ is. This raises substantial suspicion in my mind.

    Two, climate science is not just a shallow and vaguely practiced discipline. A lot of very diligent and clever work has been done to develop the ideas and concepts that currently underpin the science. I cannot hope to understand it well enough to truly be confident my scepticism is well founded.

    So, I am left uncertain. My gut tells me it’s a crock, but my mind tells me it’s not possible for me to know enough to say that with confidence. So I leave it to others and read avidly of the blogs and the discussion and I watch the signs.

    So far, I think AGW as a concept is taking a battering. And I think within the science itself we are seeing a major shift… The next few years will be very interesting indeed.

  3230. gavin says

    Back in snappy mode again while seeking info for a sea change. Hundreds of coastline photos over several days with latest lumix super zoom compact digital. More evidence of a distinct SL max line creeping up and across our seaside landscape.

    This line is constantly punched in by wave action on every high tide. On a sandy sea floor there is an abrupt surface change where every full tide reaches frontal dunes. On rocky headlands most clifs are under cut at the same level. This horizontal line from a distance is virtually continious round every bay.

    Close up the most acute angle is actually a fine curve with it’s radius devined by the strata hardness from point to point. The upper most tides have formed vast but scarred near horizontal rock platforms, some hundreds of meters across. These wave action boundaries skirt nearby islands too.

    Back in the larger river estuaries, we see different markers much less affected by tides. Wooden piles carry clusters of oysters that define the uppermost tidal movement, Concrete piers likewise can’t hide the stains that only occur in the active zone.

    Tidal lakes further inland give the game away with their distinctive pink salty margins in otherwise fertile grass lands. These are damped tidal fringes with stable to rising water level

  3231. gavin says

    GM re your Q above, you really have to be nimble with calcs to follow radiation physics properly.

    Having burnt out my calculator decades back, I got by with the engineering for radio communications and instrument analysis of signals just using short cuts based on fundamentals.

    Any one including Nassif who starts to fiddle with blackbody and unity misses the point. Anyone who thinks they know how radiation plays through the atmosphere molecule by molecule is likely to be useless in the practice of communication.

    For instance there are suttle short cuts around transducers, medium to medium that engineers take for granted like black body physics. Atenuation aluminium rod to atmosphere and vice verca? Never. A miss match at critical frequency can burn hence the diapole must be present regardless of its shape.

    Can you imagine a series of dipoles tickling each other as we go from earth surface to space? What are the concequencies of miss match gas to gas including H2O? Antennas, filters, resonance etc all stuff in IEEE is essential for feet on ground radiation physics.

  3232. Debbie says

    Hmmm?
    Perhaps the real issue is therefore the politics?
    Perhaps ‘the science’ is being used inappropriately?

  3233. gavin says

    Now, can I go home? Big struggle yesterday to get Wi Fi up on the laptop just to stay with you guys. Patient lady in the Phillipines worked through the news and 7.30 to get me “enabled”. NextG, 3G, 4G? Bring on the NBN!

  3234. spangled drongo says

    Gav, I wouldn’t recommend a sea change.

    A bloke as nervous as you should stick to the hills. If you can’t set your mind at rest by observing a 160 year old structure like Fort Denison that has measured a 3 cm SLR in the last 100 years or the 170 year old MSL mark and tide lines at Port Arthur and prefer to believe your own interpretation of recent satellite photos you would end up wetting the bed with anxiety every night.

    Not a good way to spend your old age.

  3235. Neville says

    SD I think Gav should take a bex and a good lie down.

    BTW Terry McCrann has a good article today on Combet and Gillard the two biggest BS merchants and liars.

    China is doing sweet FA about co2 emissions and he makes some very good pointa.

    We will cut real co2 emissions by only 50,000 tonnes pa.
    Most of our cuts will come from the purchase of super expensive certificates from Europe, about 66%.
    I’ve explained years ago that Europe’s co2 trading is rort with corruption and has been closed before to try and clean up their unholy mess.

    So our our real cuts will be swamped by India and China by a factor of 90 or a ratio of 90 to 1.

    Does anyone still believe in our co2 tax mess? But why is the Gillard govt lying once again to the Aussie electorate? What is wrong with the ABC and Fairfax media?

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/the_bull_of_greg_combet/#commentsmore

  3237. Graeme M says

    At the end of the day, SLR is somewhat dependent on local circumstances. Rather than all the blather about rebound this and GRACE that and so on, what would be interesting is direct on the ground impacts. What is actually happening locally? It would be interesting to be able to collate real life measurements against local structures over say the past 100 years for as many coastal points as possible. This would offer some sense of both the impact and the local rate of change and be some kind of mechanism for evaluating the theoretical numbers.

  3238. cohenite says

    Graeme says:

    “That increasing CO2 in the atmosphere will increase the radiative forcing which will cause the average surface temperature to increase. I am not arguing whether that is right or wrong, I am just observing that that is what mainstream science thinks. If you disagree, show me the evidence. And that does NOT mean the various sceptical talking points.”

    Graeme is the sort who hits the ‘consensus science’ with a feather and wants perfection from the sceptics.

    I have given him a plethora of papers which disprove AGW and the so-called heating properties of increasing CO2; he has ignored him; so perhaps back to basics, Beers Law which is explained here:

    http://jennifermarohasy.com/2009/03/radical-new-hypothesis-on-the-effect-of-greenhouse-gases/?cp=11

    Graphically the effect on CO2 ‘warming’ can be shown as this:

    http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/co2_modtrans_img1.png

  3240. spangled drongo says

    Yes Nev, the looney left and MSM just cannot spot the elephant. They rant on about Abbott’s claim re the carbon tax, that he overstates it whereas really they just won’t examine it in any detail.

    And gav not only can’t see the wood for the trees, he can’t see the message for the messenger.

    But don’t feel lonely gav, all my lefty green neighbours do likewise. I listen to and watch the ABC in order to get the dregs but my lefty green mates won’t even read a message from any messenger who hasn’t been “peer reviewed”.

  3241. Graeme M says

    Cohenite, you don’t need to belt me around with papers etc. The paragraph of mine that you quote above is taken out of context and then misunderstood.

    All I was saying is that as I understand it, mainstream science – the ‘consensus’ if you will – agrees that the GHE is real and that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere will increase the primary forcing and cause the surface temperature to rise. I was NOT making any statement about what I personally think of AGW.

    Look, I’m sorry I asked the question. I really only hoped to get a sense of whether anyone here had seriously considered what a government should do in the face of expert advice about a matter.

    Arguing with me about who are the experts or whether they are right or trying to prove that I am saying something about the science is to miss the point entirely and I’m starting to wonder if you are all being deliberately obtuse or if I cannot write sensibly.

    So let’s just pretend I never raised the question and go back to debating sea level rise or something…

  3242. gavin says

    GM; despite our need for the easy life, I still working hard by standing on the sand with fellow visitors including some who know a thing or two about seas and tides. Two independent local guides teaching surfing with two loads of year ten first timers from Canberra must know something about likely conditions today.

    Long waves forming late on high tide cater for any pure starters. Little onshore wind and a fine day make it all excelent viewing as it so happens we get the highest and lowest tide in one day. Just below the boards resting up the dune is a big flat covered in the latest debris. Larger pieces of driftwood mark the most recent wave extremity.

    Round behind the frontal dune this high tide is also clearly defined right back to a road bridge over the creek. Here the flat is quickly guttered by the extra volume of sea water retreating. This tide has picked up logs that will wait on rocks outside for their next lift, over against the clifs. The line holds everywhere and is very easy to find.

  3243. toby says

    Graeme, for what its worth i thought what you wrote was very clear.

    and also a worthy point.

    some seem to want to argue for the sake of it?…i suspect too much skim reading?

  3244. spangled drongo says

    Graeme, I actually wrote up a reply to your q on what govts should do but something came up and it didn’t happen. It was to the effect that in these days of rampant duck shoving and bankruptcy a govt should make promises to do all the PC corrections and if it wins power should put them on hold until the Bjorn Lomborg eventuality comes into play.

    If the election is AGW-free as in the US then saying nothing but having those same policies is better still.

  3245. kuhnkat says

    So Graeme,

    you think that we should accept what the self proclaimed experts on Flying Saucers tell us also?? How about those witch doctors and Voodoo Practitioners?? You want to tell us what they believe so we can better understand magic?? You live in a fantasy world of made up Argument from made up Authority!!

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    Let go of it. You WILL feel more adult almost immediately after that first shock of feeling exposed and helpless!!

  3246. kuhnkat says

    Graeme says,

    “All I was saying is that as I understand it, mainstream science – the ‘consensus’ if you will – agrees that the GHE is real and that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere will increase the primary forcing and cause the surface temperature to rise. ”

    Actually they only agree with their own echo chamber. Your statement in its structure shows a bias towards accepting it at a real level. Really Graeme, LET GO!!!!

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  3247. kuhnkat says

    Graeme backs off with,

    “So let’s just pretend I never raised the question and go back to debating sea level rise or something…”

    DEBATING???

    I think we are getting to the basic issue. Graeme is not able to make rational evaluations of the information and come to realistic conclusions so must DEBATE where some ephemeral valuation is put on the presentation and arguments that do not necessarily have anything to do with reality, facts, and empirical observations.

    Graeme, you are debating and it is irritating to us who are actually looking at data and evaluating it in relation to reality and not some extremely poor models and modelled data.

    After years of having the Consensus View rammed down our throats it is the last thing we want to hear as it is made up BS!!! Do try and LET GO!!!

  3248. spangled drongo says

    “Tidal lakes further inland give the game away with their distinctive pink salty margins in otherwise fertile grass lands. These are damped tidal fringes with stable to rising water level”

    Gav, got any solid, measurable data on that or is it just something you feel in your water?

  3249. toby says

    No KK, he asked a perfectly reasonable question in my opinion and you appear to want to be dogmatic/ argumentative for the sake of it. from the way i read Graeme’s posts he thinks cagw IS HIGHLY LIKELY TO BE COMPLETE CRAP. he just has a little empathy for those who actually have to make decisions and wondered what others would do in their position.
    You think it is crap, i think it is crap, most of us here think it is crap. BUT WE DO NOT KNOW FOR SURE THAT IT IS CRAP!
    MOST POLITICIANS are not bright enough to think critically for themselves to work out what we have done. If all your highly paid “experts” told you we must act the world is soon to end…would you really do ntg?….remember you ( the polllie not you KK) are too stupid to think critically for yourself…and probably dont have time with everything else on your plate. you probably only listen to the ABC, read the canberra times,have the utmost respect for the UN, world bank, IPCC ETC, and get your science from grabs from national geographic and the prior “sources” mentioned.

    “you” also probably believe humans need to be controlled and govt needs to be more and more in control of everything we as a globe do…all for the “sake of mankind” and climate change gives you a perfect route to this path…so self interest in a way prevents you from even questioning what is for us so abundantly clear.

  3251. gavin says

    SD; since my last post, I’ve been back to the fringe for more photos. This time due to the particular low tide it was the end of the long reef between beaches at Browlee. This lot now exposed is the subject of my coastlines and steps survey as it seems all erosion is roughly in the tidal zone of a climate era.

    Btw; I met a couple of would be surfers briefly on my platform today. The lady is a lecturer in Oceanography at a Uni in NZ. I quickly explained my interest SL etc and sugested they go out to reef edge to view uncovered kelp etc in this marine interface below the tidal zone. I guess they went in and stayed down a while cause they dissappeared from sight. Safe enough too in a flat sea.

    My salt intrusion theme is too soon to be repeated yet, however another casual beach contact here says a new book on NSW coastline errosion is imminent. Spectacular rock falls over my percieved SL max indentations is another new photo subject. This requires better footwork than my abrupt slope change on sand work.

    did you know oysters are strictly tidal zone? Clusters on vertical objects in esturies such as piles and bridge piers define that zone somewhat more precicely than you would expect. I guess that is also being written up elsewhere too. It’s been quite worthwhile to see the underside of our normal tidal zone everywhere both in front and behind the shore line.

  3253. spangled drongo says

    Gav, how you can point to piles with oysters attached which might be 50 years old marking the tide range and deny this 170 year old benchmark on solid rock which also shows the tide range, doesn’t make sense.

    http://www.john-daly.com/

    If you want somewhat accurate 50 yo benchmarks you have to use highest astronomical tides of each year that are free from other influences such as big wind, floods, extreme barometric pressure etc. on a known mark and that will still only give you a rough idea of what’s happening.

    You can go around Sydney Harbour and many other places and see examples of these old piles indicating tide range but that on its own is too vague to tell you anything.

    Highest astronomical tides are always well over normal tide range and HATs are what really tell you about SLR. Those twice-a-year periods of high water. Not those 1 in 50 year storm surges.

    1 in 50 year storm surges are weather. King tides steadily increasing for 50 years is climate.

    The recent king tides at Fort Denison seem to me to be lower than they were a hundred years ago even if statistically they claim a 3 cm SLR in that time.

  3254. debbie says

    Yes…fair comment Toby,
    Graeme has every right to express his opinion as do all of us….which of course includes KK.
    However….climate science still struggles to adequately predict seasonal variations at this point. Throwing in CO2 ‘forcings’ has not improved that ability.Pretending there are ‘trends’ associated with CO2 ‘forcings’ is also not playing out in reality…so KK has a fair point too.
    There is no question that climate changes….but that is not a ‘new’ phenomenon.
    BTW Gavin….coastlines have been eroding and estuaries have been moving since time immemorial….that is not a ‘new’ or alarming phenomenon either….and emerging evidence is not suggesting anything particularly alarming about ‘global’ SLR.
    It is the humans who have chosen these areas as their ‘habitat’ that want it to stay stable…they have always, always been inherently and ‘naturally’ unstable.
    That’s why there are cliffs, beaches, rocky outcrops etc….it all happened because the ocean erodes the coastline… and river mouths and estuaries move around…like DUH!
    Isn’t it amazing that oysters like using something as ‘unnatural’ as pylons? Wouldn’t perhaps have something to do with their greater ‘stability’ would it?

  3255. cohenite says

    Which is Graeme: do you believe the consensus or not about AGW?

    The primary issue about AGW is not whether the GHE is valid for the Earth’s atmosphere, the ostensible heating properties of CO2 or feedbacks from water; the issue is whether human emissions of CO2 are the cause of the increase in atmospheric CO2; if they are not then the AGW edifice is dead to begin with.

  3257. Graeme M says

    Do I believe the consensus? No I am sceptical. But I have read deeply enough to know that not being a scientist means I cannot make a fully informed decision. So I go with a largely emotional reaction – it doesn’t ‘feel’ right to me.

    I think I probably disagree with your statement about anthropogenic CO2 as I think on balance the case is proven, but would not be surprised if it turns out not to be so. I think I agree with the general view that the crux of the matter is the extent to which increasing CO2 increases the temperature. And secondarily, to what extent an increased average temperature will change climates for the worse.

    I said earlier that my own position, which I hold with maybe a 60% confidence, is that the GHE does not act in the way science currently holds. I am inclined to go with the argument that the atmospheric pressure profile controls the temperature profile with greenhouse gases managing the distribution of heat within the atmosphere. This seems a simpler explanation and more in keeping with observation. But again, that is largely an emotional or intuitive assessment.

    I would be very surprised if there is any regular commenter here who is well enough educated in the physics to be able to argue from a position of knowledge. We all have a reasonable idea at the macro level but I doubt anyone could hold a 5 minute conversation with a climate scientist at the micro level. They ARE the experts for a reason.

    That is not to argue that they should be believed, just that scientists are trained in the science, have done the research, analysis and evaluation, and are across the science better than we are. But of course, and here we all agree, they may be wrong.

    But the critical word there is *may*.

  3258. gavin says

    SD; “how you can point to piles with oysters attached which might be 50 years old marking the tide range and deny this 170 year old benchmark on solid rock which also shows the tide range, doesn’t make sense”

    Simple, I ignore what others are doing or saying till I reckon my own handle on the issue is firm enough to be considered on it’s merrits. Old instrument tech habbit, get facts then work around them.

    Port Arther, Fort Dennison etc were out of reach when I started but the original John Daly theme got me interested. Any solid land form will do once we can see accumulated tidal evidence for what it’s worth.

    BTW, Catalyst last night reinforces my work but none of you will bother to see.

  3262. spangled drongo says

    Catalyst was its usual cherry-picking, non-scientific, short-term-overview self, quoting all the BoM adjustments.

    Nobody who has spent any time in the real world [particularly Australia] could stand listening to foolish people saying that because their house hadn’t had a flood for 30 years why should it flood now? etc. And using it to make the AGW case.

    It’s a hair-shirt penance to listen to that unscientific garbage in a so called science show.

    Gav, please don’t extend the agony by quoting them as proof of anything.

  3263. toby says

    more environmental stupidity http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/health-science/coral-sea-fisheries-greens-blue-over-burkes-visionary-reserves/story-e6frg8y6-1226517706615

    we already massively underutilise our great fish stocks and now they are locking up even more.

    if we arent careful we will get even closer to europe’s stupid socialist model where govt is responsible for over 50% of an economies GDP, and everything relies on govt debt. truly we are crazy to be doing so much to remove one of our huge comparative advantages.

  3264. Graeme M says

    Hmmm… Catalyst is not meant to be more than an overview though. They made some solid claims of evidential data. Do you dispute the data SD? On what basis?

    I am just this moment arguing with a friend who did see Catalyst (sadly I was watching Beauty and the Geek). He has summarised the claims as a rise in average land temps (about 1.5C), average sea temps (around 2C), increases in rainfall, SLR rise of 17cm and a few other things like migration of fish species southwards.

    What do you think of those? And Gav’s suggestion that SLR is evident in tidal patterns and coastal effects?

  3265. spangled drongo says

    Graeme, if you are happy to accept BoMs adjusted and truncated temperatures where they throw out all the 19th c records and embrace satellite SLR you are not the sceptic you claim to be.

    SLR is the one visible measure of AGW that we all can observe as long as we have good benchmarks going back half a century or more.

    We have those benchmarks yet Catalyst, BoM, CSIRO etc choose to ignore them.

    There is a big tide today [about 8 cm below HAT] at one of my old benchmarks which I am off to observe now so I’ll let you know if we are warming [and sinking] later.

  3266. cohenite says

    The Catalyst program, aided and abetted by Braganza, the BOM spruiker, was a travesty; Braganza has form; he authored and promoted the BOM 2011 report with outrageous misrepresentations and lies as noted at the Climate Sceptics Blog [I’ll put up the link seperately since the site is starting to reject links].

    If they can’t get these basic facts right then the only conclusion is that are either incompetent, indifferent or liars.

    When Sandy was the choice du jour of the alarmists associates of Braganza, England and the Climate Commission, came out and asserted Sandy was bad [it wasn’t even a category 1 cyclone at landfall] because of rapidly increasing SSTs; Tisdale simply proved this was a lie by referring to official SSTs; these people are reckless and desperate and will say anything.

    So, to the Catalyst propoganda; Chris Gilham notes:

    “Having watched the broadcast, I’ll condemn it. Dr Jonica Newby seemed preoccupied with wine throughout the program, which might explain her poor research skills.

    It included all the bottles she’d drunk to illustrate a claim that the last 330 months in a row, since February 1985, have all had above average temperatures, with a one in 100,000 chance it would have happened in the absence of human influence?

    The most recent BoM official mean WA temp for the past 12 months based on observations from all available years of record at all stations with records beyond 30 years:

    Sep 2011 – 19.6C / -.1C above average
    Oct 2011 – 23.4C / 0.2C above average
    Nov 2011 – 25.3C / 0.6C below average
    Dec 2011 – 27.9C / 0.1C below average
    Jan 2012 – 27.8C / 0.9C below average
    Feb 2012 – 27.9C / 0.2C below average
    Mar 2012 – 25.4C – 1.2C below average
    Apr 2012 – 23.2C / long-term average
    May 2012 – 18.8C – 0.1C below average
    Jun 2012 – 15.8C / 0.1C below average
    Jul 2012 – 14.3C / 0.7C below average
    Aug 2012 – 17.7C – 1.1C above average

    Averaged in the western half of Australia, the year was .25C below the long term mean. Exactly what “average temperature” does this 330 months relate to?”

    In other words the program lied.

    I put it to Graeme that if AGW was real why is it that every aspect of it as described by all its so called experts involves lies, exaggerations, misrepresentations, failure to provide transparency, and complete hostility to any reasonable critique of AGW science; for Graeme’s information he should read this:

    http://www.green-agenda.com/

  3267. Graeme M says

    Don’t know that I am ‘happy’ to accept BOM’s records. I’ve read a few of the complaints levelled at BOM and how the adjustments seem less than kosher, but at the end of the day I guess I haven’t delved deeply enough to be confident one way or the other. Same with SLR. I think the sceptical case for both temp and SLR records looks strong but I’ve also read very strong arguments against those.

    It just comes back to what I feel is likely to be right, not a definitive assessment.

    My question was really more about my response to my mate. He is a greenie and a real catastrophist and I get to spend a lot of email time with him deconstructing his arguments. In this case – Catalyst – he emailed me first to say “Aha! See! Gotcha!”.

    I emailed him back and suggested that temperature records appear to have been adjusted to show that result and it’s argued that those adjustments may not be appropriate. I noted that my own clumsy consideration of actual Max/Mins using Wolfram Alpha doesn’t reflect the degree of rise they are claiming. I also said that sea level rise is not the issue, rather it’s the rate of that rise and current data does not seem to support an acceleration of that rise. And as for changes in fish species ranges etc, I asked whether other factors had been considered such as pressures from fishing, local predators, introduced species, environmental matters like local turbidity or composition, and whether we had accurate records of prior species ranges across several major ocean/climate cycles like PDO etc.

    He spluttered a bit and we agreed to disagree. He signed off with “and as always, we can continue to wonder about the vagaries, and seek alternative explanations, or seek data over a longer timescale, and hope that, as time passes as we do so, the window to take actual action doesn’t or hasn’t dropped shut on our hands. sadly, we’ll only know if we should have done so if the impacts go big. i’d call that ‘wait and see’ a sub optimal risk management strategy, and i know that many corporations are factoring in climate change impacts into their future planning scenarios – because they don’t have to live by the three or four year focus that pollies do”

  3268. gavin says

    While having brunch down by the River Cruise jetty on the Clyde I noticed a the deck on cat mored a few meters away is in line with the horizon. The sea is up to tide max and the other boat jetty is hardly clear of the water.

    Lady next door, just a fisherman’s wife in their fish and chip shop reluctantly admits those piers under jetty and shed are a hundred years old. New tops, yes and the tide is just average. I say full house and took photos table top to horizon to prove it

  3271. spangled drongo says

    “a fisherman’s wife in their fish and chip shop reluctantly admits those piers under jetty and shed are a hundred years old.”

    Wow! gav, how scientific is that! And did she place a mid-tide mark on any of them 100 years ago? and is that mid-tide mark still in the middle of the tide range?

    BTW, there was a big tide in Moreton Bay just before lunch today so I visited the site of an old house at Cleveland Point that I used to live in in 1946 [66 years ago] where, as I have bored you with before, the king tides used to cover the grass and they had to put a levy bank around the well to prevent it from being flooded with seawater.

    Cleveland Point is a low lying, very flat finger that sticks out into the bay in a north-easterly direction and was seriously considered as the first port of Brisbane because of the shallowness of the river bar.

    The house is now gone but the vacant land still has all the old landscaping intact including the well. Would you believe that beside the well, hiding in the oleanders that were there when I was a kid were two Bush Stone Curlews, a rare sight these days but a sign of how undisturbed this old place is.

    Today’s tide was 2.60 metres, about 10 cm below the highest astronomical tide which will probably occur around January but it was a very good indicator of exactly what was happening regarding the current state of SLR. There was also a strong northerly blowing which was causing fair size seas to break across the carpark and helicopter pad on the tip of the point near the lighthouse as well as providing a certain amount of local sea surge. There is a big fetch of deep water north of the point possibly stretching 50 k to the shipping channel so this wind would have increased sea levels somewhat. Possibly up to HAT level.

    Anyway the upshot of it all was that this tide was around one foot below the lawn levels at the old homesite.

    I ran into the next door neighbour and asked him if he was part of the original family who lived there when I was a kid [I mentioned the girl who was my age and who I later had a couple of dates with as a teenager] but this guy had bought the house from that family’s estate 30 years ago and knew very little of them except their family name. I asked him about king tide flooding and he recalled that when he first came there the K/Ts used to cover the grass but they hadn’t done it for years.

    This all ties in very well with my 50 year old benchmarks on the Gold Coast and 70 year old marks on the Redcliffe peninsula which show a similar non-rise and an actual fall in levels over those periods.

  3272. cohenite says

    Well said SD; a very nice story, and instructive too. Unlike gav’s anecdotes which are increasingly reading like a geriatic version of Hunter S. Thompson.

  3273. el gordo says

    ‘I think I agree with the general view that the crux of the matter is the extent to which increasing CO2 increases the temperature.’

    Graeme there is a school of thought which suggests CO2 follows temperature.

  3274. el gordo says

    Reading through the transcript of last night’s Catalyst I see it as blatant propaganda, or perhaps they are just careless with the troof. But we should be able to check and see if what they say has legs.

    NARRATION
    This is the glorious old West Australian port town of Fremantle. And it’s home to one of Australia’s oldest continuous tide gauge records.

    Dr Jonica Newby
    So this is the original Fremantle port’s tidal gauge from 1897. Beautiful piece of machinery, isn’t it?

    And this is the latest tidal gauge. And, between them, what they chart is on average a 1.5mm rise per year since 1900.

  3275. Graeme M says

    Indeed el gordo, there is. And it may be that is the case. I was observing that the central issue with AGW is the extent to which CO2 causes temps to increase. If it lags temps then that resolves the issue very nicely. But if in today’s context it does not, then the rate and extent of any temp increase and the relationship to increasing CO2 is the real concern.

    SD, yes good story. And it is that sort of thing I alluded to earlier. given that it is the practical consequences of SLR that really counts, not necessarily the theoretical analysis. Now it would be good to get that sort of observational evidence. And not just long sited tidal gauges, but actual long standing structures and their relationship to sea level at multiple locations worldwide. Now, I am sure I can’t judge a rise of a few mil, but if we are seeing 2-3 mm per year, then the sea level at my home town should have risen by 15-16cm since I was born.

    Of course that isn’t a lot either, but you’d imagine that if in times past king tides and very high tides would encroach onto the esplanade then you’d imagine with 16cm of extra height that would become more commonplace today and I believe that is not the case.

    So, what do we actually see at coastal locations? Gavin’s observations above do point to rise at Batemans Bay, but even so it doesn’t sound especially significant. Now, sceptics do not disagree that sea level has been rising generally in the past several hundred years, but at what rate? Has that noticeably increased? What is the trend? If all we observe is generally the same rise as for the past, then yes, it’s an issue that needs to be considered. But it isn’t a major disaster in the offing.

    My personal view is that we can observe only very little sea level rise on the east coast over the past 100 years.

  3277. gavin says

    SD; glad to see you interested. Can’t see coh following this though.

    Yesterday I photographed many tidemarks in good circumstances

    Tidemark “a line (of seaweed or differently coloured sand etc) on the shore showing the level of high or low tide” wiki

    Batemans Bay today- Max 1.8m @ 10.35 am & Min .1m @ 5.15 pm

    yesterday – Max 1.8m @ 9.45 am & Min .1m @ 4.20 pm

    http://www.tides4fishing.com/au/new-south-wales/batemans-bay

    A repeat investigation of Browlee Isl (on foot) late yesterday proved our big dead seal had been moved off rocks and onto sand along with a large burnt butt of fire wood on the same max tideline of fresh seaweed. Immediately below another seaweed tideline was forming around tide min with gentle ripples pushing this finer debris up the beach. Tide min has revealed another abrupt slope change from the horizontal, in this case a similar rock shelf to another mentioned earlier.

    My wave cut platform shots are very similar to this.

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/58828131@N07/6248093752/

    Sand dunes and pebble beaches are our only protection around these battle grounds. Tidal zone = active zone for all wave driven erosion and the under cutting line is as clear as crystal, no bench mark needed.

    Btw those wave glimpses on Catalyst must put the fear of God into ghosts lingering at the old Penitentiary and that old tide mark is quite obsolete today. Also, how many times have I mentioned a new hot spot and violent storm generator just west of Bass Strait?

  3278. Graeme M says

    Cohenite, I’ve never seen that website before although I recall having seen the URL. Very interesting too. I checked the data for where I come from (Urangan Qld) and it only has coverage since about 1980. That generally suggests a drop in SLR until about 2005 when there has been a steep rise, but not to a point higher than the earliest point in the record. That accords with personal observation which tends to emphasise my point above about what anecdotal evidence might illustrate.

  3280. Neville says

    I’m sure dangerous SLR is a total nonsense and the IPCC seems to agree. When this BS started back in the 1980s SLR was estimated to be a metre or more by 2100.

    Ever since each IPCC report has reduced that number and it’s about 30cm in the 2007 report.
    Now Humlum is saying it will be about 17cm, so where will this stop? Of course all the models show there is zero chance of dangerous SLR for the next 300 years.

    Just watched this video of Lomborg dispeling a lot the myths about the problems of CAGW. He covers a lot of the practical info on why Kyoto or whatever just won’t work.

    In his book he states that Kyoto followed to the letter will only delay SLR by 5 years by 2100. The same with temp, but that 5 years delay will cost countless trillions $.
    We should put a much smaller pool of our now borrowed money into R&D because it is the only way we can make a real change.

    In the video he gives the example of saving one life from malarial infection through co2 reductions at enormous cost, but then states we could save 36,000 lives now just by using the info at hand at a much lower cost. Geeezzzz who woulda thought that was possible? Certainly not big HIPPO Al.

  3281. spangled drongo says

    Cohers, thanks for that link on tide gauges. Lots of info there.

    Gav, that 170 year old tide mark will never be obsolete. It’s a very important piece of the jigsaw that you shouldn’t ignore.

    Inconvenient as it may be.

    Graeme, those warm climate fish that turn up around Tasmania are simply due to the East Aust Current which has been taking them down south on and off probably for ever. It runs at up to 4 knots, generally but not always consistent for most of the year. Before the days of GPS we could only locate it with a thermometer [it being warmer than the local seawater] but you couldn’t win a coastal race if you couldn’t find it, either to stay in it or dodge it depending which way you were heading.

  3282. Debbie says

    Graeme,
    Your friend’s comment:
    He signed off with “and as always, we can continue to wonder about the vagaries, and seek alternative explanations, or seek data over a longer timescale, and hope that, as time passes as we do so, the window to take actual action doesn’t or hasn’t dropped shut on our hands. sadly, we’ll only know if we should have done so if the impacts go big. i’d call that ‘wait and see’ a sub optimal risk management strategy, and i know that many corporations are factoring in climate change impacts into their future planning scenarios – because they don’t have to live by the three or four year focus that pollies do”

    Did you perhaps notice the contradiction in this statement?
    What is your friend’s definition of an ‘optimal’ risk management strategy?
    Just saying that we ‘SHOULD” do something about it and the only way to do so is to use $trillions of tax payer money to tax or cap and trade CO2 emissions is certainly not proving to be an ‘optimal’ solution.
    As Neville points out above….there are many very bright and passionate people like Lomborg who are looking for and offering ‘common sense’ or practical solutions to these issues. These are things that we CAN (bold) do and these are ways that we CAN(bold) measure desired outcomes. As your friend also points out, businesses and corporations are able to factor in this risk in their business models and many of them do so without trying to force an unworkable ‘socialised’ solution on to the rest of society….of course because there is that ‘public and/or political agenda’, with attached funding…the usual has also been happening.
    I’m still bemused by people claiming that erosion on coastlines is a product of human induced SLR…there is no evidence to support that damage to coastal infrastructure is a feature of AGW. It looks way more like an excuse to ‘socialise losses’ to coastal infrastructure.
    Human’s overwhelmingly like to choose urban coastal fringes as their ‘natural habitat’.
    No one who has done elementary geography and/or spent a few years living near the coast would try and claim that coastlines, estuaries and river mouths are inherently ‘stable’.
    I spent a few years of my childhood at Byron Bay (eastern most point on our coastline). The house we lived in was in a beautiful location, but it later fell into the ocean in the late 70’s because it that area was vulnerable to damage from king tides.
    It was (with hindsight) a very unwise decision to develop that particular part of the coastline…not because of anything other than the natural tendency of the ocean to erode the coastline.
    Some of the rhetoric emanating from SA is blatantly ignoring the ‘bleeding obvious’ about coastal behaviour and the inherent risks associated with building on coastlines and estuaries.
    Other communites like Noosa Heads willingly invest in works to keep their patch ‘stable’ in terms of the positioning of their infrastructure.They have identified the risks and work at managing them with practical/technical/measureable outcomes in place.

  3283. John Sayers says

    SD _ It’s the current Nemo swims down in the movie. 😉

    did anyone catch Julia’s Tim present the cup to Jamie Whincup in the V8 supercars today 🙂

    they are letting him out.

  3284. el gordo says

    Dr Rajendra K Pachauri talks to Bonnie James

    ‘The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will not be attending the upcoming United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP18/CMP8) in Doha, chairman Dr Rajendra K Pachauri has said.

    “For the first time in the 18 years of COP, the IPCC will not be attending, because we have not been invited,” he told Gulf Times in Doha.’

    What does this mean for the IPCC?

  3285. Graeme M says

    Debbie I largely agree with your thoughts in particular regarding SLR. Certainly for Australia I don’t think there is any evidence that SLR is occurring at an alarming rate, nor is there evidence for an acceleration in that rate. The predictions of Flannery et al I think are way off the scale in the wrong direction (in fact by and large most of what that guy comes out with is off the scale – he is a prime example of what I call the ‘catastrophist’ personality type, just like my mate. By contrast my rather greenie wife reckons I am ridiculously optimistic).

    In terms of policy response I am not so sure, but mostly because I don’t understand exactly how the carbon tax, or an ETS, works. Are these effective options? I don’t know, but I suspect they could be if we had unilateral agreement worldwide to pursue those policies. But I admit ignorance. My only comment is as I said earlier – I’d rather we went later rather than earlier for the simple facts that going early confers no economic advantage (most likely the opposite) and that Australia will have no effect of rising temps if it is indeed CO2 that is doing it.

    On a different tack, the first discussion on Climate Dialogue (http://www.climatedialogue.org/) is excellent, especially the expert comments section. Have a good read and see what you think. I see it as quite an interesting thing that all three experts, whilst agreeing that AGW is a factor, also acknowledge the role of natural variability and the lack of certainty around much of the science. And that the melting summer ice isn’t leading to a tipping point.

    My own view is that ‘something’ is happening in the Arctic and it is rather coincidental that it reflects the predictions of AGW theory when it comes to the Arctic. The next few years will be telling on that point I guess.

  3286. spangled drongo says

    “My own view is that ‘something’ is happening in the Arctic and it is rather coincidental that it reflects the predictions of AGW theory when it comes to the Arctic.”

    Graeme, I always thought that the AGW predictions for polar warming applied to both poles.

    Also, our sea ice data on the Arctic is of pretty short duration. I always think that if early Arctic explorers reached the latitudes they did, in old clunkers that could sail “nary an inch to windward” indicated that the area was fairly ice-free even then. It’s one thing to make a passage through the arctic in a nuclear powered icebreaker. It’s something else in a wooden sailing vessel where on average, half of the ocean is denied you because you can’t go to windward.

    With only 33 years of data there may not be anything happening in the Arctic that hasn’t happened regularly before.

    And particularly during the last warm period about 800-1,000 y ago.

  3289. cohenite says

    “Graeme, I always thought that the AGW predictions for polar warming applied to both poles.”

    Indeed, remember the infamous Steig 2009 paper which purported to establish Antarctic warming:

    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v457/n7228/abs/nature07669.html

    This paper, as well as any of the dreadful papers produced to support AGW, typifies the defects and outright chicanery of the AGW ‘science’.

    Of course Steig was one of the anonymous reviewers of the subsequent O’Donnell paper which rebutted his paper; see here:

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100075232/realclimategate-hits-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-peer-review/

  3290. Graeme M says

    Not having read in detail the various IPCC reports I can only go off what’s been repoprted on various blogs etc. I think early findings suggested warming of both poles but this was later changed to suggest that warming would be noticeable first at the north pole. Now, those of us less kind than others might find that this change reflects the uncomfortable reality that observation did not match reality and I think it’s a major shortcoming of AGW that every major prediction later turns out to be wrong and has to be changed. The believers of course see nothing wrong in this, it’s just the ‘evolution’ of the science.

    Me, I reckon if you have to keep changing the goalposts to suit your theory, then maybe, just maybe, you’ve got it wrong.

    That said, my point wasn’t to argue one way or the other. Rather, I observe that something IS happening. Is it unusual? I do not know. I understand there have been earlier warm periods but as Walt Meier points out the best evidence to hand shows these were more regional and today’s warming is across the whole of the Arctic.

    Is he right? I suspect not as the records are very poor and he himself admits much of his claim rests on proxy data. Regardless we DO see wide-scale warming and thinning of the ice and the ice is NOT recovering on the whole. All three scientists who discussed this at Climate Dialogue do agree that natural variability is part of this, but they also believe AGW has SOME role. They just aren’t sure how much (Neven of course interpreted that as confirming his most dire hand wringing predictions).

    Nonetheless it is unfortunate as I noted earlier that the something happening in the Arctic coincides with the one major AGW prediction that has so far held up. And I for one, tho sceptical, do not discount that just maybe it does indicate something about AGW.

    Remember, my version of sceptical is not to reject AGW out of hand just because I don’t like it. I doubt it is happening, but I am not confident I am right. I just don’t know. So I give the experts in the field, the Drs Meier, Curry, Lindsay, Stroeve etc some credibility and read with interest their views.

    And so my main point was to note the fact that their agreed position is to scale back the role of AGW, note the role of natural variability, accept the uncertainty of the historical data, and deny any tipping point will be reached any time soon, if at all. Now THAT is an interesting development, is it not?

  3291. Neville says

    Interesting to note that NZ’s top science museum is still displaying Mann’s fraudulent HS graph.

    http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2012/11/land-of-the-long-white-hockey-stick

    Just rechecked my copy of Lomborg’s “Cool It” to look at Gore and Hansen’s estimate for SLR until 2100.
    The rise due to Greenland melt estimate from the IPCC until 2100 (using all the models I’ve linked to here) is just 3.5cm.
    But Gore and Hansen’s estimate is 609cm or 174 times more than the IPCC best estimate. Yet these two idiots are feted by govts around the world, nearly every scientific institution on the planet ( even our CSIRO) and can win academy awards and even win the Nobel prize.

    But Alan Jones after years of broadcasting makes a tiny mistake of the position of a decimal point and he is hung drawn and quartered.
    He corrected his mistake as soon as he could yet he was lampooned just because he made this one innocent, tiny error.
    For those interested see page 82 of “Cool It.”

  3292. Robert says

    Anyone curious about the Arctic could check what happened to temps there after the melt scare of the late 1950s. Then they might contemplate the amount of ice through the 1970s after the plunging temps of the 1960s.

    But it’s a bit like SLR being a 19th century phenomenon, isn’t it? Kills the whole script.

  3293. Neville says

    Perhaps I should give a link to Gillard’s Chief climate commisioner our own GAIA brain Timmy Flannery. Afterall he’s feted all over the globe as well and has received heaps of gongs from Universities around the world as well as endless promotion from THEIR ABC.

    He even has his own ABC show observing the Murray river etc.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeNDSeknn_c

    If I’m going to mention the two incredible yanks above I should at least include our brilliant Timmy. sarc, sarc

  3294. John Sayers says

    AGW theory states that the Poles shouod be equally affected by rising CO2 yet the evidence does not support this and whilst the Arctic is melting the Antarctic is expanding.

    There must be another factor involved.

    The Gakkel Ridge, which is in the Arctic Ocean between Greenland and Siberia is 1800km long and in 1999 it was shown to have active volcanoes as well as hydrothermal vents spewing hot spring water that can reach 750 degrees Fahrenheit (400C).

    Whilst the Antarctic has volcanic activity in the peninsular the rest is unaffected by volcanoes or thermal vents such as found in the Gakkel Ridge.

    Perhaps this is the different factor.

    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/06/080626-arctic-volcano.html

  3295. spangled drongo says

    I had previously thought that the Gillard/AWU slush fund story was a bit of a non-performer until I heard Julie Bishop’s claim that three files in three separate locations, capable of proving Gillard’s innocence or otherwise, have gone missing.

    Is that one hell of a coincidence or what?

    What’s going on here? That makes this story suddenly riveting stuff.

    But don’t bank on our ABC mentioning it.

    Instead they dish the dirt on Julie’s lawyer past.

  3297. Debbie says

    Thanks for the link Graeme,
    Interesting? Well yes.
    Is it a good platform to start insisting on social policy? IMHO? No!
    Did you notice because of slightly different focus points, the experts do not really agree?
    They’re all still arguing (and they love it BTW) over the strength and/or existence of a discernable and/or worrying ACO2 signal in the behaviour of the Arctic.
    Also Graeme….of course something is happening in the Arctic…something is also happening in the Antarctic and everywhere else on the planet….and it is different and highly variable.
    Climate Change in and of itself is not a new concept.
    I am personally over attempts to conflate that basic fact with a GOBAL ACO2 signal in the modelling.
    The theory is compelling for obvious reasons…not least that there is no question that humans do influence their environment on a LOCAL (bold) scale….largely (in the developed world) those influences have been positive in terms of human comfort and and enhanced environmental productivity…despite the fact that there have been a few whopper mistakes that need to be fixed.
    Climate scientists are simply NOT(bold) expert enough to predict and/or adequately explain seasonal and/or cycle variations.
    I hope they continue to improve….but the current argument is not doing anything to help that happen (IMHO).
    We need to get over the narrow obsession and learn more about the real drivers of climate change, seasonal variability and they way they relate to each other.
    As always…my objection is that climate science has been hijacked and used inappropriately by the politics and also by statiticians and computer number crunchers (who are not scientists).
    The good work of good people is being discredited and severely questioned because their work is being used inappropriately and for questionable reasons.
    If nothing else….my experience in the MDB debate has taught me this basic conundrum.
    There would be no one happier than communites who are highly vulnerable to climate/weather extremes like agricultural communities and coastal communities if climate science was allowed to focus on getting better and more reliable and more useful in predicting the relationships between the variables.
    Most of the current studies have been very severely limited by their ‘terms of reference’. It is all about ‘precautionary’ rather than ‘possibility’.The majority of these people are required to fill their ‘job descriptions’….which makes them no different to any other employee and/or paid consultant.They are therefore just as fallible and just as vulnerable to losing their job and/or funding sources as everyone else.
    They are not holders of crystal balls and harbingers of superior policy principles and their ‘science’ is far from ‘settled’ enough to inform wide reaching social policy on a global scale.
    But they are nonetheless largely good people who are doing their best to fulfil their job descriptions.

  3298. spangled drongo says

    Debbie, interesting and concerning story on Landline today on the 100 year anniversary of the MIA, the MDB proposals and the costs to the irrigators.

  3299. Johnathan Wilkes says

    Debbie,
    “But they are nonetheless largely good people who are doing their best to fulfil their job descriptions.”

    Very charitable of you Debbie, I’m a tad more cynical, having experience of working with some, although I agree, overall they are just like anybody. That is why they can be selfish, self serving and territorial, protecting their turf.

    As far as I’m concerned the “science” is settled.
    No, not in the way most think.
    I noticed that there is only tinkering around the edges trying to prove the CO2 causing, leading or lagging behind temperature.
    Not a lot of new stuff and what’s new is mostly contrived crap.

    Frankly I’m more interested in how ordinary people like me react this all, what concerns us, how the government policy affects us etc….

    I would even put up with, not except it mind you, the “carbon tax” were it not for the fact that one can buy himself out of it by buying credits without doing any reductions. That is just so wrong on so many fronts that it defies logic how sane people can propose let alone except it.

    One would think we left behind the medieval customs, but no, it only proves we are as gullible as ever.
    We may advanced technologically but in spirit we are as superstitious and easily influenced as ever.

    Sad indictment.

  3300. Debbie says

    Yes SD….it’s about as bi polar as you can possibly get.
    I posted a video that was produced for the 100year celebrations somewhere back on this very long thread.
    It led Gavin to make a comment about ‘lucky’.
    Can you believe that?
    My very belated comment is ‘lucky schmucky!!!’…He must have missed the blood sweat and tears that went in to creating the MIA…and also missed the fact that the opportunity was open to everyone in his generation…or that the entire eastern seaboard has benefitted from the development of the MIA and other ‘purpose built’ irrigation communities…including the ever increasing number of bureaucracies and semi privatised depts that are ostensibly needed to ‘manage’ them….all demanding and justifying their ever increasing ‘cost recovery’ share.
    & Yes JW I do agree…my point was that while they may be ‘experts’ in their narrow fields, they are still just as fallible and just as vulnerable as everybody else….right down to their family relationships, their finances and even the way they wear their underpants.
    As Luke pointed out sometime time ago…academics also love to argue.
    Walter Starck also often points out this fact…and has called it ‘an academic pissing contest’.
    Most of them are ’employees’ and despite their academic expertise they are mostly required to do the bidding of their employers…just like any other employee.
    I too have been working with a lot of these people and I have found it isn’t actually the ‘scientists’ who are the problem (IMHO). I have met some bureaucrats and statiticians and modellers and policy advisors and sadly some politicians who frighten the daylights out of me because they are clearly not understanding what we need from them and are indeed way more concerned about protecting their turf and also protecting their precious ‘modelling’, even when it bears no resemblance to reality or the ‘here and now’.
    But to be fair to others….unless they have been directly affected by the ‘results’ of the poor implementation of contradictory policy…they would have no reason to suspect that people who hold some of these positions do not have the right experience nor deserve the respect and/or trust that they claim they deserve to inform social policy.
    They really only know how to follow rules and ‘terms of reference’.
    Which is a further sad indictment I guess.

  3301. el gordo says

    Agree with Johnathan on human gullibility, but in regards to CO2 its obvious that mass delusion has come about because of sophisticated propaganda.

    CO2 is a harmless trace gas and doesn’t deserve the odious reputation it’s acquired.

  3302. el gordo says

    Propaganda from the high priests is how mass delusion is orchestrated.

    http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

    Enlightened self interest and ignorance snared the pollies and jurnos into confirmation bias and groupthink. The ordinary people are confused and need to be debriefed on gorebull worming.

  3305. gavin says

    What a winging whining lot! Been reading your previous post from a page back. Group speak applies to all, except Deb who seems to be working from her heart for most of it. However deb; our number cruncher stats man is a scientist.

    Another PS guy we meet regularly is a poor down trodden career groomed IT specialist who needs much sympathy cause his only other avenue for excitement is home grown photography.

    Another PS, lass only 24 yo could be 2IC in some climate change group after dropping her trade after a common apprenticeship, but yesterday mum didn’t know the position details . She does however organize conferences all over like someone else we know who travels a lot. Think about kids with PS parents. An awful number of such families split up. We work too in that sense.

    A couple may also work in different cities, though there is a preference for foot loose and free during emergencies, in my time your tooth brush and a change could follow assuming your partner was home when the agent called. Agents too become that special breed known as “facilitators” and are at hand for Ministers.

    Last night I had a brief discussion about my SL campaign with a former chef who now makes decisions re project v enviro in a small PS team after transitioning to policy and legal frame works. I guess at least one of his prof/tutors was an even greater sceptic than any here and with good science too cause policy under a new regime forbids undercurrents re SLR planning region by region.

  3307. Debbie says

    No Gavin,
    Number crunchers are number crunchers.
    That is a different discipline to science.
    Just because they crunch scientific data does not make them scientists.
    However, some scientists are also number crunchers.
    SD,
    Gotta agree 🙂
    Oh the irony!

  3308. Neville says

    Here’s Humlum’s summary of the Uni of Colorado at Boulder’s estimate of SLR since 1999.
    1999= 40cm at year2100
    2005=30cm 2100
    2010=22cm 2100
    2012=16cm. 2100 july 2012.
    So you can see how the estimate has halved since approx 2002. That’s what I call a big deceleration.
    But don’t worry Gav you just keep busy with your estimates, I’m sure you’ll prevail. NOT.

    Estimated average global sea level change until year 2100, according to sea level change values provided by the Colorado Center for Astrodynamics Research at University of Colorado at Boulder (see figure above). The estimated average global sea level change is calculated using a simple extrapolation of the most recent observed annual sea level change (thin line; diagram above, please see also note below). The thick line represents the simple running 3 year average of this estimate. Time is shown along the x-axis as calendar years. Last diagram update: 18 September 2012, with a prognosis (red graph) of about 17 cm average global sea level rise until 2100.

    Click here to download the entire data series since 1992.

    Click here to read about details of calibration.

    Click here to read about data smoothing.

    Note: Using the 3 year average shown in the diagram above, based on observed sea level changes, around 1999 the total sea level change from then until year 2100 would have been estimated to about 40 cm, in 2005 to about 30 cm (year 2005-2100), and in 2010 to about 22 cm (year 2010-2100). On July 14, 2012, the prognosis would be about 16 cm sea level increase until 2100. It is interesting that this simple empirical forecast has shown a steady trend towards lower values since about 2002.

    Click here to jump back to list of contents.

  3310. Robert says

    It can’t be repeated often enough that Sea Level Rise is a 19th century phenomenon.

    For highly technical types, and number crunching stats guys, 19 is the number between 18 and 20, and two short of 21.

  3312. gavin says

    An official SLR calculator is here

    http://www.sealevelrise.info/

    From this link “Sea-level rise will be experienced mainly as an increase in the frequency or likelihood of flooding events, rather than simply as a steady increase in an otherwise constant level. The figure shows the rate of increase of frequency of flooding events for Australia for a 0.5 m rise in mean sea level, which will almost certainly be attained during this century. On average, Australia will experience a roughly 300-fold increase in flooding events, meaning that infrastructure that is presently flooded once in 100 years will be flooded several times per year after a sea-level rise of 0.5 m”

  3313. Robert says

    One delicious explanation for the SLR that started back around 1820 is the nascent Industrial Revolution. You see this idea floating around sites like Skeptical Science, though they’re careful not to elaborate.

    Some mills and foundries in one corner of Europe triggering climate change and making the seas rise while Napoleon was still on Saint Helena?

    You can see why the warmies like to just slip it in there without too much elaboration. The script demands post-1980 SLR but the old gauges won’t co-operate. So our Green Betters just say something that sounds a bit plausible and vaguely sciency to cover that extra century and a half!

    I guess it’s the McTernan approach: say something ridiculous often enough and loud enough for long enough…and some doofus will take it on board, regardless of evidence. Why even bother to blame the Industrial Revolution? If one can believe Jane Austen, there were a lot of misogynists around in the early 1800s.

    The misogynists did it!

  3314. gavin says

    Rot, Rob. “say something ridiculous often enough and loud enough for long enough” and that’s exactly what the good folks here are doing.

    After Nev ‘s latest ice age links, I did a round up of glacier news re SLR, and it’s simple ongoing truth about where we are headed. Again, no bench marks needed, just fools re quoting the opposite to observation.

    So, this ice age over the horizon myth is only linked to scams inc.

  3315. Robert says

    “So, this ice age over the horizon myth is only linked to scams inc.”

    Exactly. Nobody knows what the climate will be like in five, ten, fifty etc years – for the very obvious reason that our science is pitifully raw and inadequate. The fact that many pretend to know is one of the great disgraces of our era. Publish-or-Perish and the ludicrous aspiration to “model” climate, economy etc are shaming our civilisation.

    We are actually facing an intellectual catastrophe, not a physical one.

  3316. gavin says

    Rob; “our science is pitifully raw and inadequate” hmmm, can’t agree but people tasked with sorting it are often quite young. That should be encouraging.

  3317. Debbie says

    Sorry Gavin,
    Gullible was something I was once.
    Not any more!
    Not saying these people don’t have something to offer but they seriously need to yank their heads out of their computers and collect their own evidence or, at the very least, double check their sources and therefore the veracity of the numbers they are crunching.
    Way too much ‘piggy backing’ happening and also rather lazy and unscientific.

  3318. Neville says

    I’m sorry Gav but the USA EPA report in the 1980’s and the IPCC ongoing reports don’t agree with you.

    The trend of the estimates for SLR to 2100 is down, down, down . The EPA of USA actually had a SLR estimate in the 1980’s of several metres to 2100.

    Since then as explained by Humlum on his oceans page every IPPC report has shown that decelerating trend in their estimates of SLR. That’s from your bible don’t forget.
    Now the UNI of Colorado has reduced that back to just 16cm to 17cm until 2100. Of course Lomborg covered all these ongoing lower trends in ” Cool It” as well.

    If you have to fall back on nonsense like supposed greater storm surges etc because of this decelerating trend in SLR then that’s your problem not mine.
    I repeat the trend in the estimates for SLR has been heading down for at least 25 years and that’s from YOUR IPCC.

  3319. Neville says

    Gav here is Prof Ole Humlum’s climate for you where you can see the UNI Colorado trends and graphs on the Ocean link at left.

    http://climate4you.com/

    Have a look at the trend graph since 1995 at the bottom and you can read the info at the bottom of page that I copied to here yesterday.
    But just to pin you down so we all understand, do you believe the lowering trend from the IPCC or not? Yes or no.

  3321. spangled drongo says

    Gav is conned by govt alarmists who spout the following methodology for predicting SLR:

    “By combining two uncertainties (the frequency of present storm surges and the uncertainty of future sea-level rise) into a single likelihood, a statistically robust prediction is generated.”

    This “statistically robust” prediction reckons we are about to experience a 300-fold increase in flooding events.

    IOW our 1 in 100 year records in our coastal cities [which are most of our main cities] are going to happen now 3 times a year.

    Tim Flannery should be locked up.

    When empirical measurements show negative to very little SLR [at the least a deceleration], this is outright, lying hysteria to propagate green ideology.

    But gav thinks that no benchmarks are needed and we should all embrace Timmy’s ideology.

    Do you really support this “science” gav?

    Please give us a simple yes/no answer.

  3322. Neville says

    Gav the trend is down for SLR and has been for decades. But just to have it on the record, you don’t believe the IPCC reducing trend for SLR since the their first report?

  3323. Neville says

    BTW Gav that graph you linked just proves my point, the trend is down. Just lay a straight edge on the blue line and you can easily see a drop off in the trend.

  3324. Neville says

    But ya gotta laugh at Gore and Hansen and their SLR estimate to 2100. In his book Lomborg points out that to get to their 6 metres of SLR by 2100 we would need to see a rise of 120 mm per year, every year until 2100.

    Geeez gav when’s it gonna start, better be soon or that looney estimate will have to have an accelerating megatrend for sure for the next 88 years.

  3325. cohenite says

    There are now FOUR sources of information about Gillard which have gone missing:

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/awu_scandal_fourth_file_goes_missing_from_court_archives/

    1 Slater and Gordon file missing in Victoria

    2 WA state archives file missing

    3 QLD Federal court file missing

    4 NSW Federal Court file missing.

    You do not have a legal system without secure storage of records and evidence; FOUR seperate sources holding evidence and information about Gillard have been compromised. Think about it.

  3327. ianl8888 says

    @cohenite

    Raises a million questions, of course, but none will have answers as yet

    Has the appearance of Organised Crime to me

    michaelsmithnews.com may have some information on this

  3329. ianl8888 says

    @Robert

    Yes, it all just may be complete coincidence with nothing sinister at all, just incompetence at some bureaucratic level or other within the various Court/Registry filing systems – four times in different cities across the country within the last 12 months …

    Certainly, deliberately removing evidence from a Court filing system is an actual crime. So perhaps the now missing evidence was inadvertently replaced back in the wrong box … four times across the country in the last 12 months

    As I noted, michaelsmithnews.com may have some more information here

  3330. Neville says

    Hold on Robert, let’s use a little logic and reason here. So the files go missing and about one particular case and at entirely different locations and states?

    If that happened by chance it would be almost impossible. what would be the chances? It must be organised.

    BTW Gav I’ve shown that there is a declining trend for SLR for decades, but we also have a flat trend for temp as well for at least 16 years.
    Therefore two of the iconic trends for CAGW don’t look very good for the alarmists it seems.

  3331. Neville says

    Been out working and just had a silly thought about Robyn “100 metres Williams” . He claimed to Bolt that it’s possible we could see a rise of 100 m in SL by 2100.
    Just the sort of steady sensible, rational. logical bloke you’d expect to be running the ABC science show. NOT.

    But he’d better get his skates on because the trend is in decline so he’ll need well over a metre a year from now until 2100.
    Geezzz only a metre or more a year, anyone else here expect that to happen anytime soon.
    Certainly not the IPCC or Uni of Colorado.

    But ya gotta laugh I suppose.

  3333. Neville says

    Debbie we live in a strange world where the temp trend has been flat for 16 years and the SL trend is in decline and yet we get this silly report from the world bank.

    I’d just say that if they believe this stuff these people should take there protest to China and India because they are now the biggest emitters of co2 into the future not the flatlining OECD.

  3337. Neville says

    Here’s that part of the Williams interview with Bolt in 2007.

    This prediction is not merely an anti-climax, but a lovely surprise. After all, didn’t the ABC’s top science presenter, Robyn Williams, once warn that the seas could rise by not one metre, but 100?

    Here he is on his own Science Show in 2007, at the height of warming hysteria:

    Andrew Bolt: I ask you, Robyn, 100m in the next century . . . do you really think that?

    Robyn Williams: It is possible, yes

    Seems like Robyn has a lot of catching up to do, he’s already missing much more than 5 metres of SLR since that interview in 2007.

    BTW John I can’t believe the nonsense in that new Dutch book. Trust Hansen to receive the first english addition, a barking mad book for a barking mad SL expert.

  3338. spangled drongo says

    Throughout the centuries the Dutch have fought a battle like no other country against SLR. Farmers controlled the water level on their land, a quarter of which is below SL, using mills and dykes in an attempt to keep their feet dry. In the last century, the sea level rose by 17 cm and no-one understands possible future SLR better than the Dutchies.

    Pity Hansen didn’t help out by keeping his hand in the dyke instead of pleasuring himself with this BS.

  3340. Johnathan Wilkes says

    “What is it about predicting doom that gets people in, I wonder?”

    Ask any psychiatrist, they tell you, it’s a proven fact, most people are secretly fascinated by and attracted to disasters and doom and gloom.
    Mostly in the hope of course that they themselves won’t be affected.

  3341. Minister for Truth says

    Cohers says that:

    “1 Slater and Gordon file missing in Victoria

    2 WA state archives file missing

    3 QLD Federal court file missing

    4 NSW Federal Court file missing.

    You do not have a legal system without secure storage of records and evidence; FOUR seperate sources holding evidence and information about Gillard have been compromised. Think about it.
    ”

    Its no wonder then, that Giilard, without flicker of an eye lid can say quite brazenly that “there is no evidence of any wrong doing being alledged.”

    Of course not, there is now no evidence…. that has been seen to.

    What sort of country have we become when we have:

    1. PM who on the balance of evidence that remains available, is a crook.

    2. A Speaker appointed who was morally and intellectually bereft.

    3. Independants MPs who are out control, and not reflecting their constituents, nor the nation.

    4. Hoards of advisers and media hacks of no particular talent, who will be appointed to plum jobs within the PS before the election is announced, and into positions they cannot do and are not qualified for.

    (And we are that stupid we also import the very worst of these refugees from previous UK Labor failures)

    5. MPs voting for legislation based upon what union so called “leaders” say. When they havnt got their sticky fingers in their members tills.

    6. Elected leaders removed by palace coups.

    7. Ministers who by any standard are incompetent,and barely literate.

    8. …and when they are eventually gone they will continue to suck on the public teat through generous allowances that were orginally designed to ensure that we get the best to represent us..

    9. Debt increasing with every passing week.

    10. Productivity in decline.

    etc

    What an absolutely shameful mess.

  3344. Minister for Truth says

    Spangles

    I think it is a bit of each

    We are finding out a lot more, but standards in the various PS’s/Govts have been going down for quite awhile, and community cynicism/distrust has been rising in line with this decline.

    I dont think the competence levels within any PS has risen anywhere,State or Federal for at least a decade.

    But that is a diffferent matter to the general incompetence of this Labor Federal govt

    Whats causing the decline in standards ?

    Putting so called CEO’s on contract would be good starting point as would be the way they hire minions.

    Complete compromising of the impartialityof the PS would be another, along with hiring of hoards so ministerial advisers, ie mates from the local pub, who have minimal quals and experience for the jobs they are supposed to do …but in the next few months they will be parachuted into secure positions knowing stuff all about it. You watch what happens.

    But it does go further . Most Professional Institutions have also been captured by the lefty activists, so that democratic process are by- passed, and that again the unsuitable and unworthy are shoe horned in, and the fee paying members are duped. Not many professional bodies in Australia would hold elections that did not comply with the 7 main principles of what passes for democratic elections in organisations.

    We are losing our democracy bit by bit and I blame academics and activists, and a compliant Govt media ie ABC…The fact that the ABC has been almost silent on the Gillard affair is quite shameful in its own right.Its GW bias has been legendary, as has been shown on this blog over a long time

    Most people out there earning quid are just not aware of this bias and manipulation… and dont have the time anyway to get involved…which is another weakness.

    Memberships levels in professional bodies are quite low being < 10% (where it is voluntary)

    Thats my view FWIW

  3347. gavin says

    “A new NASA-funded study by the National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colo., finds climate model projections that show a greater rise in global temperature are likely to prove more accurate than those showing a lesser rise” from all over the net and you guys haven’t seen it yet?

  3348. Robert says

    Climate model projections? Whew, you had me worried for a while, Gav. I thought you were talking actual science and the real world – not old episodes of the Jetsons.

  3350. Neville says

    SD I agree and the one bloke I’d never ever trust is Gore’s dingbat prophet Hansen.

    BTW here is UNI Colorado SL page showing the effect of the recent pothole in satellite SL fall caused by ENSO.

    http://sealevel.colorado.edu/

    Gav should run a straight edge over this graph, because the trend is definitely down. But there is a fair bit of doubt about satellite measurements of SL.
    This still shows 3.2 mm year but the physical gauges show much less.

    But they still say the trend may rise again but it seems to be locked in firmly with ENSO. See correlation in second graph. Amazing that the big La nina year helped drop SL by a 1/4 of an inch in just 12 months.

    So if we have more la ninas because of our now cool PDO SLs may be arrested perhaps for a while? Who knows?

  3351. spangled drongo says

    A bit like that CANUTE site hey gav?

    “By combining two uncertainties (the frequency of present storm surges and the uncertainty of future sea-level rise) into a single likelihood, a statistically robust prediction is generated.”

    IOW they “generate” one load of robustness from two loads of crap.

    Is that what you call sustainability? Recycling and condensing?

    Or is that just a garbage compressor?

    http://canute2.sealevelrise.info/slr/About%20%20Canute

  3352. Debbie says

    Gavin,
    that is an example of the ‘piggy backing’ I mentioned earlier.
    That is purely ‘number crunching’.

  3355. gavin says

    OK, now guys, on what basis do you decide who’s study is worthwhile?

    Btw; I don’t need any blog bait, yes or no as we go.

    Last week on high tides all shores disappeared, nothing unusual and mostly flat seas but our fisher wife reminded me there are “swells” involved when their jetty boards go under. That’s normal too, no dispute but what odds, a big one?

    After our 2003 bushfires, I made submissions re observations on fire behavior based on wind and fine fuel in rampant natural furnaces with combustion rates similar to a gas storage explosion. As the heavens were on fire (combustion in the sky) after our late lunch I had to move partner and her mum very quickly.

    Local researchers have concluded it was a tornado and that satisfies me because I missed the transition from a chain of big fires around the horizon am to the inferno pm. Another family member minding children at home but right in it’s path was one of the first to describe the fire storm as a tornado by it’s terrifying noise. There was a considerable element of shock around that community, I guess many will never forget it.

    http://www.canberratimes.com.au/environment/researchers-confirm-first-fire-tornado-during-2003-bushfires-20121119-29liv.html

    Some of our young will be dealing with the latest climate predictions from the world bank. These personal experiences will help. Putting satisfying science around it could take ages.

  3356. Robert says

    “Some of our young will be dealing with the latest climate predictions from the world bank.”

    Gav, predictions based on solid science are PROBABLY wrong. Predictions based on climate models HAVE to be wrong. And the “World Bank” is like every other institution with a name that’s straight out of a Superman comic: full of crypto-Marxists, trough-swillers and devoted spenders of other people’s money.

    So “our young” may as well relax, have fun, go surfing – and fund it all by working at a real job.

  3357. spangled drongo says

    Neville, it is so obvious that these govt run “scientists” and the MSM just love CAGW for the riches it bestows on them. It’s the new green economy where the liars, thieves and betrayers thrive and we send our countries broke with massive govt employment and fiscal cliffs, print more worthless money, greentape free enterprise production out of existence etc.

    Any right wing govt that attempts to be elected just cannot introduce policies to rectify these increasing deficits so the problems increase and become ever more unfixable.

    I think that’s all part of the agenda too.

    And the young are so engrossed in virtual reality they won’t notice until it’s way too late.

    If we can’t keep extracting more treasure from below we are stuffed.

    Robert,

    +1

  3358. Neville says

    SD you are spot on. But using even GAIA Tim’s prediction we won’t change the climate or temp for thousands of years. Even if you believe in CAGW like Tim, Gore, Hansen etc “the entire world” will not stop emitting co2 today.
    Just ask China, India and the non OECD. Therefore his prediction is blown away. And the OECD is just about flatlining, zero chance of mitigation from that sector.

    I repeat again the mitigation of AGW is the greatest con, fraud and ponzi scheme for at least 100 years.
    Simple maths proves the case. Trillions of dollars to be wasted and flushed down the toilet until 2100 for a guaranteed zero return.

    http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/ieo/emissions.cfm

  3359. Debbie says

    Gavin,
    Seriously?
    You don’t appear to have a great understanding of the variables that created those fires in your area in 2003.
    Have you not ever noticed that even in controlled burns, whirly winds are created by fires?
    The fire most likely did that….not the weather or the climate.
    The extremely hot, dry, windy, droughty prevailing weather conditions and the failure of several different authorities to keep tinder away from private property were the 2 main reasons that areas of the ACT were so seriously damaged.
    Successful management of fire risk is not ‘rocket science’ or ‘climate science’ for that matter!

  3360. cohenite says

    gav says:

    “OK, now guys, on what basis do you decide who’s study is worthwhile?”

    I’ve told you gav, the definitive study on SLR is this:

    http://www.jcronline.org/doi/abs/10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-10-00157.1

    They did a follow up reply to the usual crap from Rahmstorf and associated ratbags and that follow-up is here:

    http://www.jcronline.org/doi/full/10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-11A-00008.1

    You will note the Professors refer to an Australian study by Watson which is here:

    http://www.jcronline.org/doi/pdf/10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-10-00141.1

    AGW predictions about SLR are, like all AGW predictions, junk.

  3361. Debbie says

    🙂 🙂
    BTW????
    Since when did the world bank become an ‘expert’ on climate predictions?
    I thought they were financial ‘number crunchers’ not climate ‘number crunchers’?
    Some of their financial predictions have been way off target.
    Just asking.

  3362. spangled drongo says

    Debbie, gav is a bit slow on the uptake. He probably hasn’t been around too long.

    Gav, mini tornadoes occur in Australia in hot weather all the time but you need to live in a dust bowl or burnt out country to be aware of how many there actually are.

    If you are at sea you come across them too but not anywhere near as often.

    It is one of nature’s ways of cooling and probably form the basis of thermals used by raptors, pelicans, hang gliders etc to gain altitude quickly.

    They are everywhere and critical to the negative feedback of cooling by convection.

    They are so incredibly efficient that they cause hail to form and suspend it at great heights until gravity overwhelms the updraught.

    Sorry to disappoint you if you think they are a recent product of CAGW.

    They have been around for ever.

  3363. Neville says

    That first paper Cohenite linked to had this conclusion.

    CONCLUSIONS

    Our analyses do not indicate acceleration in sea level in U.S. tide gauge records during the 20th century. Instead, for each time period we consider, the records show small decelerations that are consistent with a number of earlier studies of worldwide-gauge records. The decelerations that we obtain are opposite in sign and one to two orders of magnitude less than the +0.07 to +0.28 mm/y2 accelerations that are required to reach sea levels predicted for 2100 by Vermeer and Rahmsdorf (2009), Jevrejeva, Moore, and Grinsted (2010), and Grinsted, Moore, and Jevrejeva (2010). Bindoff et al. (2007) note an increase in worldwide temperature from 1906 to 2005 of 0.74°C. It is essential that investigations continue to address why this worldwide-temperature increase has not produced acceleration of global sea level over the past 100 years, and indeed why global sea level has possibly decelerated for at least the last 80 years.

    If we have seen a deceleration of global sea level for at least 80 years then the whole theory of AGW should be reviewed pronto. It just wouldn’t add up.
    Of course any govt introducing co2 taxes should be booted out on their rear ends.

  3364. Graeme M says

    Interesting about the fire tornado. I’ll have to read the article at some stage but the fire itself was in some ways not natural due to the land management practices – in particular open grassland and relatively heavy fuel loads plus of course the pine forests. I understood that those pine forests act like incendiary devices in fires and that collectively that created the explosive power as the fire encroached on the Canberra suburbs.

    I haven’t followed all the ins and outs of the fires but I also understood that there was a lot of poor management by authorities in response to the fire which after all began some time before the events of that Saturday.

    In many ways, Canberras firestorm was like Sandy – a confluence of events that made a relatively normal situation become seriously bad. And while it was definitely hot and dry at the time, I don’t think you could argue that it was unusually so. Dry conditions and fires are a standard part of the Australian context.

    On a different matter, I have been following the Arctic Ice convo on Climate Dialogue. I think it’s safe to say that the experts offering their views there are indeed experts. What stands out for me is the number of variables they’ll admit to and indeed the uncertainty. What certainty there is seems driven more by a personal sense of what is happening than concrete evidence. Lots of subjective pharsing in particular.

    While I think that something is going on as I noted before, it does seem that attribution for the cause of the something is pretty unclear. The post by Frank in recent public comments is an especially insightful one.

    So. Worldwide temps are increasing generally, but far more slowly than was anticipated. Conclusion? Natural variability swamps the AGW signal on decadal time scales, but the signal is unmistakeably there. Oh yeah?

    SLR rate is not increasing and physical evidence indicates that it may even be decreasing in places. Conclusion? Natural variability swamps the AGW signal on decadal time scales, but the signal is unmistakeably there. Oh yeah?

    Arctic ice is indeed dwindling. However Antarctic ice is not. And it seems the various reasons for the Arctic ice melt are still not clear as the decline lately seems in excess of the rate one would expect from a pure CO2 signal. Conclusion? Natural variability swamps the AGW signal on decadal time scales, but the signal is unmistakeably there. Oh yeah?

    And it goes on. What is one to think?

  3366. Debbie says

    Exactly SD….EXACTLY!
    You really need to get out more Gavin.
    We get those things out here all the time and have done so for as long as I can remember.
    Sometimes they can be quite destructive if they for instance king hit an old shed or an empty tank or an open horse float etc.
    I particularly hate them when they decide to go through my yard when I have a line full of wet washing….because they always have dust and dirt in them….and they’re often strong enough to rip the washing striaght of the line.
    They are particularly noticeable when we do controlled burning or when we are burning off paddocks…but that is likely also because they can be easily seen due to the soot….but it seems that the fires themselves create them as well.
    SD is also correct that the birds use them….the hawks out here are particularly good at using them.
    While completing a University degree in Canberra I lived on a property at Gundaroo and we got them very frequently there as well.

  3367. Graeme M says

    In Gav’s defence I think the suggestion is that this fire gave rise to a real tornado as opposed to the typical fire ‘whirl’. Now I have no idea what the difference may be but these researchers are suggesting there is one.

    Debbie, you live out the Hay Plains way somewhere don’t you? I recall travelling across there some years ago at the height of the drought and seeing what looked exactly like tornadoes, quite a few of them. They had all the aspect of tornadoes – thunderstorm formations with the funnel cloud and a debris cloud where they touched the ground. I was rather surprised to see those. No idea of the size though as it was hard to tell the scale due to distance.

    Of course I’ve experienced plenty of dust devils/willy willies over the years too, some of those can get quite large. That most recent I saw out around Lameroo a few weeks ago. We used to get plenty during the hot years in my childhood in Queensland – often across the local schoolyard on a baking hot summer’s day during the drought in the late 60s/early 70s.

    I also experienced a strange funnel shaped formation nearby travelling the Pacific Highway in the late evening about 2-3 years ago. We were in the middle of a substantial weather event that caused considerable local flooding – plenty of lightning and wind and this bizarre enormous formation dimly seen through the dark and rain. Scary.

    However the researchers seem to be suggesting this was something other than those more typical formations.

  3368. gavin says

    Deb; very few people have seen a fire storm like the 2003 event, and certainly not our previous fire researchers. When I saw flame in cloud during daylight it took me a long time to adjust to the fact, so I contacted researchers directly to find how we fitted in with world wide wild fire studies.

    Oh, I forgot to mention the associated dust storm that fueled that thing. Even bare paddocks burnt as the dry soil was whipped up. Mixed up with pine plantations, was vast amounts of rough pasture, and some of it was inaccessible in practical terms through the previous season. I suggested heavy grazing in following up remedies.

    GM; the SH wall of wind has been a common topic for some time, almost all others associated with climate change

  3369. spangled drongo says

    Debbie, you’re bringing back memories. Sheets of iron spiralling skywards as the shed loses its roof [again]. At least no cows, vehicles or houses like the US.

    That fire tornado in the photo is only a baby. I have seen one at Longreach in Sept ’55 that began with the lightning from a “dry” thunder storm and locked into a rain cloud where we were getting rained on heavily yet the bushfire was going ballistic. I remember the boss saying as we watched the fire and the rain, “why isn’t the rain putting out the fire”?

    That was because in the centre the rain wasn’t coming down because of the willy-willy suspending the rain and there was air-borne fire as well.

    Anyway gav, you asked for SLR links and cohers gave you the best there is.

    Wanna say something? If only “thanks”.

  3371. Minister for Truth says

    That academic knucklehead Flannery was being interviewed on their ABC and he made the claim that Kakadu is now almost devoid of the smaller animals and ipso facto it was because of carbon induced global warming

    Bulldust

    If there is is a decline in the populations of the smaller animals and marsupials in the Kakadu it is mainly because the cane toads have got them.

  3372. Johnathan Wilkes says

    Debbie,

    Since when did the world bank become an ‘expert’ on climate predictions?

    Funny you should mention it, as I was driving this morning and listening to Jon Faine on the ABC, *

    I was yelling out loud the very same question, when he, in a gushing voice announced the World Bank’s current news release.

    I keep saying “the mind boggles!”
    It surely does.

    *
    There are only two talk-back stations in Melbourne in the morning, Neil Mitchell on 3AW and the ABC.
    While my standards may be lower than a snakes belly, I still can’t bring myself to listen to that sanctimonious twit on 3AW

  3373. Robert says

    1851: 6 February ‘Black Thursday’. One quarter of the colony of Victoria incinerated. One million sheep dead. One of history’s worst fires, some say the worst.

    And all before climate change!

  3375. Debbie says

    Gavin (and Graeme),
    I disagree re those 2003 fires and how those ‘experts’ have been reported.
    There has certainly been firestorms and those fire tornadoes before.
    There have also been what we dub ‘whirly winds’ that have wreaked damage similar to tornadoes completely seperate from fires.
    The difference is that this time they have had an opportunity to study them rather than just historical anecdotal evidence.
    The other difference is that it happened in the ACT and damaged parts of our national capital.
    That damage was more a feature of the ‘management’ of the surrounding areas.
    It wasn’t just the pine plantations. Gums are even more likely to cause that type of fire storm than pines.
    Ask the aboriginal elders and also ask the generational farmers.
    Under the right conditions (and 2003 was certainly that) those things just love to burn.
    I don’t live on the Hay plains Graeme. I am a MIA resident. I live near Leeton/Griffith.
    However, the Hay plains are not far from here. The landscape there is quite different to here.

  3376. cohenite says

    Wello, folks, it looks as thought the lukes, bazzas and polys of the world have skulked back to their lairs and all we have left is gav.

    I declare AGW the loser!

  3377. Graeme M says

    I shan’t argue re firestorms cos I don’t know nuthin about them. But I would be surprised if there hasn’t been such effects in major fires in the past. Certainly some of the big firestorms in Australia have been pretty ferocious.

    I agree re the management thing. Plus there just wasn’t the information broadcast to the general community leading up to the event. As I recall even on Saturday morning I had not really heard anything to suggest how dangerous things were becoming. I think most were really taken by surprise.

  3378. el gordo says

    ‘I declare AGW the loser!’

    Not so fast, elsewhere there is still mopping up to do ….die hard watermelon blogs are delightful places to hang out. There is robustness and humour in good measure.

  3379. Minister for Truth says

    “Wello, folks, it looks as thought the lukes, bazzas and polys of the world have skulked back to their lairs and all we have left is gav.”

    Only because their minders in Shonkademia Central have called them off to stop the credibility of the alarmist academics falling any further.

    Just read Maurice Newmans piece in todays paper to get an appreciation of tthe harm these cretins have done. Along with the antics of this incompetent Gillard Govt our standards of living are bound to fall over the coming years…is his prediction

  3380. Johnathan Wilkes says

    MoT,

    “our standards of living are bound to fall over the coming years”

    Isn’t that the truth!?

    This falling of standard of living has intrigued me for some time, because our standard of living is relative, if you think about it.
    One might think that we live a lot better than our parents did, and maybe it’s true in an abstract sense but only if we make no comparisons.

    In absolute terms? I don’t think so.

    One must remember that before the early to mid sixties, (possibly earlier?) the norm was a one income family and two or more children and still most could afford to buy a house and also a car when they became more widely available.

    Compare that with today. Very few families can exist and afford those “luxuries”, on one income.

    How come?
    Weren’t we promised that the working day will be 4 hours and that we’d only be working three days?

    Many of us work six days 12 hours now, just to make ends meet.

    And please don’t tell me we now want more than we did back then, we wanted what was available then and could afford it on one income. We still want what is available now but it takes more than one income to do so and to the detriment of having children to boot.

    What happened?

  3382. Graeme M says

    This is more of Postma’s stuff hosted on a site set up primarily by members of the ‘Slayers’ group, so that rather undermines any claim for legitimacy. Sure, I have some sympathy for their argument but it sure hasn’t gotten any traction in the mainstream. Still, I will have a good read of that article and see if I can get my head around their case.

  3383. el gordo says

    Graeme there maybe flaws (no doubt Gavin will point them out) and I was surprised by the statement: ‘carbon dioxide clearly has a cooling function, not a warming one.’

    Here’s me saying CO2 has nil effect on climate, now this holds me up to ridicule.

  3385. gavin says

    elg; I’m too sleepy to get into arguments about CO2/ AGW. but your link has no calculus (no math > no physics) for anyone to follow where as Smith et al does it beautifully. My observation re internet climate change discussion, most is unauthorized twaddle.

    http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/23048/what-exactly-is-the-difference-between-radiation-and-convection

    Alternatively, blogs are peddling books that won’t see light of day at any respectable uni, imo coh’s SL definitive is another.

    While I”m here, Deb dear has no idea re 2003 fire storm weather change or impact on cross boarder bushfires, some deliberately lit along Two Sticks Road just hours before as control lines. Btw Deb all forests on our western slopes were pines and they burnt like crops, unstoppable on a windy day. Another point in my subs, crop fires can travel at the speed of the wind on a bad day.

    Researchers had only just described ember attacks as the main threat. I reckoned our fire was much more than that and the usual hot day atmospheric plume from any fire was essentially blown over by the prevailing wind about midday. The culmination at 2 pm was a dust storm on fire that filled the sky as it hit the western suburbs. Out there was now a hurricane, not some willie nilly.

    http://www.esa.act.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/act-sbmp-version-two-supporting-info-1.pdf

  3386. Robert says

    For connoisseurs of extreme fire events:

    “Soon a two-thousand degree Fahrenheit surge of flames overtook the small community. The extreme heat agitated the atmosphere into a flurry of superheated tornadoes and hurricane-force winds. A scorching hail of embers, white hot sand, and debris peppered the town. Rooftops were blown off of houses, and chimneys crumbled….Superheated winds and tornadoes pulled the heated air upward into the sky, allowing cooler air from Canada and the Western United States to rush in to fill the vacuum.”

    Amazingly, the Peshtigo fire is often forgotten, because the Great Chicago Fire, 250 miles away, was happening right at the same time – and other major fires as well. The extraordinary things about Peshtigo – by far North Americas’ worst – are the time of year (mid autumn) and its sheer speed. The town itself took just ninety minutes to turn to ash and rubble, though a huge area of Wisconsin was burnt. People boiled in the river and died instantly from inhaling super-heated air. Fortunately, the blaze was so intense it forced its own wind change, which helped end it.

    Did I mention it happened in 1871?

  3387. Robert says

    Checking the claim that people boiled in the river at Peshtigo: While some may have boiled in wells and other water storages, the river deaths occurred from bombardment, and not just by the collapsing bridge. It seems the firestorm lifted the debris from the town and just hurled it back down! These poor people were effectively clubbed to death by their own buildings.

    But Peshtigo happened 140 years ago. This is the age of science. We now know if we give enough temple offerings to Goldman Sachs and GIM, they will intercede on our behalf and Goddess Gaia will spare us.

  3390. Neville says

    Very good post from Matt Ridley exposing some of the frauds of CAGW.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/21/apocalypse-maybe/#more-74648

    He has an excellent bar graph showing the decline in SLR and a link to the WUWT post covering it.
    A very good read and many links to follow up on. BTW I think this decline in SLR should be a method of exposing one of the more iconic claims of CAGW.

    BTW we are now in a cool phase of the PDO and probably more la ninas, very interesting times indeed.

  3391. spangled drongo says

    “but your link has no calculus (no math > no physics) for anyone to follow”

    What does that remind you of gav?

    Neville,

    Matt [rational optimist] Ridley is always a refreshing breath of sanity in the CAGW debate.

    He nails it.

  3392. Debbie says

    Gavin,
    Just so you know….I was actually in the ACT during those fires.
    No one is saying those 2003 fires were not destructive.
    And yes, there were pine plantations involved….and they went up too….big time.
    You are however missing the point.
    Every fire has unique aspects….and the 2003 fires in the ACT had some of those.
    But it was essentially a bush fire that got completely out of control and created havoc.
    Housing and private property was too close to bushland….especially the eucalypts and the huge fuel load that was underneath them….it had also built up momentum from the National Parks areas.
    The whirly wind/ hurricane effect was not unique to those fires and/or the concept of CAGW.
    It was horrible and destructive….but (IMHO) the lesson should be about managing risk from fires….not an attempt to blame it on CAGW.
    Victoria needs to learn the same lesson from the 2009 fires that were actually far more destructive than the 2003 ACT fires…but damage to private property was caused by a very similar combinations of factors.

  3394. spangled drongo says

    Gav, don’t machine-gun the messengers. That’s not how the debate is carried out.

    If you’ve got a problem with any little thing Ridley [or anyony else quoted here] says, let’s hear it.

  3395. Debbie says

    Gavin,
    same applies to the docos and books that are peddled via blogs for environmental movements.
    Also applies to adverts by same.
    They’re very short on evidence and very high on emotion.
    All ‘sides’ can lay claim to statistical evidence to support them.
    It’s way more to do with politics than the practical application of science.
    The environment and/or SL or even the climate/weather are spectacularly uninterested in following ANYONE’S or ANY ORGANISATION’S projective models and trends…which is actually the point.
    No one can be absolutely right or wrong because we really don’t know how the relationships between all the variables work.
    Stat modelling is a useful tool. It is not a crystal ball. It is also not unique to climate science. In other areas such as economic/financial projections it has also proved NOT to be a good exclusive basis to inform social policy.

  3397. Neville says

    Poor old fact free Gav, so tell us where I’m wrong. Your SL romancing is all about having fact free personal romps all over the place.
    At least I’ve referenced Humlum, Uni Colorado, Watson, Ridley and IPCC etc and their ever changing lower estimates over decades for SLR.

    Where is the IPCC wrong with the four reports from 1990 to 2007? They started high and lowered it with every report.
    The 2007 AR4 report had a mid point range of 30 cm by 2100 and that has now reduced over the last 5 years.
    Are all these people above just mindless whackos or are you just trying to defend the indefensible?

  3398. gavin says

    Nev; is your decelerating SL, a scalar or vector quantity?

    Deb, where were you mid afternoon Jan 18th 2003, and what areas of eucalyptus did you see on fire?

  3399. Johnathan Wilkes says

    gav

    ” is your decelerating SL, a scalar or vector quantity”

    Bingo!
    You gav, haven’t got a clue!
    You trying so hard to sound clever and learned, and all you are is a try-hard smart…

  3400. cohenite says

    “is your decelerating SL, a scalar or vector quantity?”

    That’s very funny gav; offhand I’d say a decelerating SL would be a decreasing and wet quantity.

  3401. spangled drongo says

    Wow! didja watch the ABC 7.30 report with our Leigh interviewing Nick Styant-Brown on the Slater and Gordon-Wilson-Gillard slush fund?

    Styant-Brown gave her straight, documented evidence, free from personal opinion, which made it hard for Leigh to infer bias or malice. But her face spoke volumes.

    People have been contacting the ABC over their tardiness in reporting the amazing coincidence of the missing files etc but now Styant-Brown has spoken some shattering truths.

    Gonna be interesting to watch coming events and hard for Julia to dodge the fallout.

  3402. cohenite says

    Yes; it is now clear Gillard doesn’t only lie about CO2; she is a multi-faceted liar; no wonder this country is a mess.

  3403. gavin says

    Reckon Nev can answer with decel definition.

    Btw “SL deceleration” is old hat now so please try to keep up with latest SL info that is not someone’s rehash of old tide gauge records. With out their calibration /maintenance details, nobody can zero even a decade of tide data.

    Australian v CSIRO in Phil Watson – Howard Brady saga

    http://www.crikey.com.au/2011/07/27/csiro-says-sea-level-claims-from-oz-expert-are-dead-in-the-water/

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/media/message-and-the-messenger-victims-of-debate/story-e6frg996-1226110445473

  3405. Debbie says

    Gavin,
    while I agree in principle about casting stones, it has been my observation that most of the stones have been cast in the form of personal attacks.
    One of the worst I have seen is the ‘misogynist’ attack.
    Also, the other side of the coin if people are behaving decently is to accept responsibility for your mistakes, learn from them and also do your best to fix the damage.
    It doesn’t matter if you’re a 3 year old child or you hold the most important position in Australia: bad behaviour is bad behaviour: full stop!

  3406. Robert says

    I agree with the New Testament exhortation not to stone women to death over some nookie, especially if they were young and naive.

    Now, back to the subject of white-collar fraud, white-collar theft, and very dubious professional practice by a partner in a law firm…

  3407. gavin says

    Deb; they don’t last in politics if not able to wear the concrete armor. Nice people have to be hardened because we still live in a wild country where good spin bowlers are hard to find.

    Deb, I suspect you did not see Canberra under fire or the build up a season earlier when arson was the likely cause. Most authorities had a blind side to tinder box conditions where back burning was out of the question after any ignition.

    Did you know besides their CO2 emissions, bushfires are a major source of CO?

  3408. Debbie says

    You suspect wrong Gavin.

    And Gavin,
    You were the one who decided to bring up religious parables….not anyone else…including me.

    You are now doing what Polyaux did earlier in this thread and literally arguing with yourself on this one!!!!

  3409. cohenite says

    Speaking of Canberra does gav endorse Gillard’s version of what she did and knew at Slater and Gordon?

  3410. Minister for Truth says

    What is more interesting is the increasing amount damage being done to Gillards reputation, caused mainly be her own poor judgement, and even poorer ethics.

    Lieing to the pubic about there being no carbon tax, is now underpinned by highly probably fraud, if not professional incompetence, as a practicing lawyer, all wrapped around/involving a cosy cotery of colleagues and crooks, also involved in both the ALP, and the Unions. Appointment being made to high office ir Federal Court, in order shut people up etc.

    What does this say about the ALP’s preselection standards, and the publics gullibility.

    This govt has done more harm to our democracy than any previous govt, Labour or Liberal, and will go down in the history books as the most incompetent of all them.

    Election Please… and Now

  3411. Neville says

    Geezzz Gav fancy linking to the delusional crikey idiots, you’re really scratching the bottom of the bird cage.
    CSIRO modeling has been shown to be wrong before, so I wouldn’t trust them at all on SLR.

    I still say the IPCC has adjusted down every report on SLR estimate since 1990 and the Uni of Colorado estimate is now about 17cm.

    We know you believe in modeling, but I’m very doubtful and would prefer direct measurement and past history against trying to predict the future rate of SLR.

    Meantime everyone who would like to build on the coast should be asked to sign a buyer beware clause before commencement. Let them take their own risk.

    Of course if the PDO remains in cool phase for another decade or so…………….

  3414. gavin says

    Good one SD; your link leads straight back to Church & White and SL reconstruction CSIRO way. Quite happy with that btw. However your graph hardly matches my photography as it comes from in part crudely averaging a handful of tide station records year by year.

    Big tides, storm cells and lots of other natural variation are not given for a reasonable assessment of running means etc used to make sense SL deviation from trend on it’s way up.

  3415. el gordo says

    On the stillborn El Nino…

    ‘…a “highly unusual” phenomenon with no known precedent, the WMO said in a statement.’

  3416. el gordo says

    ‘This govt has done more harm to our democracy than any previous govt, Labour or Liberal, and will go down in the history books as the most incompetent of all them.’

    Agree…and I was amused to discover Slater & Gordon have a room named after her, apparently because of her achievements.

    guffaw

  3417. spangled drongo says

    Gav, you can talk yourself into anything. That graph shows less than 2″ SLR in the last 100 years and nothing in the last 60 which ties in with what I am recording at old benchmarks.

    Church and White? Don’t think so.

    “Btw “SL deceleration” is old hat now so please try to keep up with latest SL info that is not someone’s rehash of old tide gauge records.”

    Don’t hand-wave the real thing away. Crap modelling will quickly go out of fashion but empirical measurement is fundamental to the truth.

    Old tide gauge records are the absolute best we can do.

    Trying to measure SLR on a pear-shaped-geoid-with-flat-spots from an altitude-fluctuating satellite is just a dubious exercise in statistics that is full of assumptions as could be seen when Envisat diverged from all the others until their operators reconciled their assumptions.

    Then when you use that “data” to base your predictions on you might as well think of a number and double it.

    It’s Robyn [100 meters] Williams science.

  3419. Johnathan Wilkes says

    gav
    “Every headland has a wave shelf just below the tidal zone, every sandy beach has a dune cliff just above the tidal zone”

    You would fit in a certain church quite nicely, you speak in tongues!

    WTF are you implying/saying/meaning here?

  3420. spangled drongo says

    “Every headland has a wave shelf just below the tidal zone, every sandy beach has a dune cliff just above the tidal zone”

    Don’t waffle gav, you’re worse than C&W.

    http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_hist_few_hundred.html

    The tide range at that Port Arthur mark is less than a metre so it’s saying that nothing much has happened there in 170 years which agrees with Sydney. But C&W can make it conform to satellite measurements.

  3421. Debbie says

    Gavin,
    What is your point?
    It’s quite clear that the models re OZ SLR are not matching with real time data.
    You appear to be trying to use normal/natural coastal behaviour to try and prove something else entirely.
    The wave shelves, the sand dunes, the cliffs, the moving estuaries, the rocky outcrops, the caves, the blowholes etc etc etc are all entirely natural features of coastlines and are there because the ocean erodes the coastline and it always has.
    Some places erode faster than others due to the geology/topography of the land.
    It rarely works the other way. . . coastline encroaching on the ocean. . . volcanic areas being a notable exception.
    Coastlines are always in a state of flux, it’s one of the reasons that us humans find them attractive as a habitat.

  3422. Neville says

    Gav what caused the higher SLs and higher temps of the previous Eemian IG and our early holocene? Human population was SFA and zero use of fossil fuels, so the higher temps and higher SLs had to be part of the natural system.
    So what is it you don’t understand about these facts?

    Why don’t all the models show dangerous SLR for the next 300 years? In fact quite the reverse. Greenland is positive but Antarctica or 89% of planet’s ice is negative according to all the models.
    Don’t forget SLs on east coast of OZ were at least 1.5 metres higher 4,000 years ago and had been at this higher level for thousands of years. So what was the cause?

    But why was the early emerging holocene so warm with higher SLs ( than today) after the glacial and where did that higher natural warming come from do you think?

    Why does NOAA’s reconstruction of the PDO show such extreme climate for hundreds of years for both cool and warm phase? Why haven’t we experienced those extremes for the period say 1750 to 2012 for example?
    This period covers all of the IR history.

  3423. Debbie says

    Exactly,
    Other than in the projective modelling which has so far failed to accurately predict and has been continuously lowering predicted estimates. . . .
    In what way is the SL behaviour proven to be ‘unnatural’ ?
    And other than infrastructure works like for example what Noosa does, how would we stabilise ‘natural’ movement and ‘natural’ erosion to protect our heavily populated coastal areas?
    There is no question that they will be subject to erosion, that is a given.
    Even if SL goes down, coastlines will still be changed by the ocean and oceanic tides/weather.

  3424. Neville says

    Bolt asks Swan the right questions. If Blewitt is indeed a crook then why was he a personal friend of Gillard and why did he receive free legal help.

    Ditto her other closer crook friend indeed her then boyfriend who she helped by setting up a slush fund etc? Strange woman indeed. BTW why have this preference for married men with kids? Just add up the numbers and affairs.

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/awu_strange_company_and_swans_strange_defence/#commentsmore

    She has since turned on another personal Greek friend who she called a greek bull s…t artist and now refuses to even answer his emails.

    But how did this clueless fool ever become PM of OZ. You could pick any average aussie woman off the street and they would do a better job.
    They certainly couldn’t be as hopeless as Gillard.

  3425. gavin says

    Guys; lets take advantage of an excellent photo essay so I can explain some wisdom re headlands SL etc. beginning with a familiar wave cut shelf below a famous cliff at Fossil Bluff NW Tasmania.

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/58828131@N07/5625252503/in/photostream/

    This shot depicts the shelf in the tidal zone and beach head beside the crumbling bluff. To the far left and east of the river mouth is and old crumbling breakwater sheltering a small harbor, another platform cliff face and so on right along the coast in either direction.

    But this is Bass Strait where SL has been slightly both higher and much lower in recent geological times. I say there are few wave cut benches around the + 1.2 or something m high SL and I was told by our landlord a self taught field naturalist, the higher sea level was merely the overshoot from a rapid rise.

    On the property about six miles inland were several mudstone fossil deposits that escaped notoriety until we had shell specimens examined by the museum in Hobart. They were a different age to Fossil Bluff but also much older than our historic SL variations.

    Where the sea was millions of years ago is of little importance to current life forms but it is worth guessing what caused each major prehistoric climate/SL upset. Any good physics should show us the prime culprit is the composition of our atmosphere including those times when continents split or plates collide, thus allowing for more or less volcanic muck up there.

    http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/transit.html

  3427. gavin says

    eg; this classic shot towards Tamar R Heads shows current tide max (based on several similar tides), lines of seaweed just below rock wall edge to golf links. Tide min is blunt end of exposed reefs in the general coastal shelf pattern. Opposite view preceding photo with basalt massif Table Cape where near level top = former land height before sea bed fell along Bass Strait failed rift

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/58828131@N07/5625709432/in/photostream/

    http://www.ret.gov.au/resources/Documents/acreage_releases/2006/CDcontents/HTML/Geo/areas/bass/bass_3.html

  3429. spangled drongo says

    Gav, sorry but that doesn’t tell us anything about current SLR and where it is heading. Even something as simple as this tells us that seas, while they rise and fall somewhat, are remarkably steady and stable over centuries.

    When cities like London have been used continuously as ports for a couple of millenia without any remarkable SLR problems through periods of well documented climate change both warmer and cooler than we now have, says it all:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1066712/Uncovered-lost-beach-Romans-got-toehold-Britain.html

  3430. cohenite says

    “Any good physics should show us the prime culprit is the composition of our atmosphere”

    No; SL is determined by how much water is stored as ice.

  3431. Neville says

    It’s a pity only Steven Goddard is showing this quote from Hansen. If it’s true then there should be a full inquiry and court action to sort out this mess.

    http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/11/18/nasa-rewriting-us-history/

    How can a team of activists be allowed to change and distort the so called highest quality and most accurate temp record on the planet?

    But we all have to suffer the consequences for their lies and criminality. If that quote is correct then why hasn’t this become the biggest story in modern journalism?

  3432. Neville says

    Sorry it is definitely a genuine quote and here it is from Hansen through NASA giss in 1999.

    http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_07/ How can the so called best temp record on the planet be so at odds with fairly awful, dubious data from around the globe but then changed to suit leftwing activists?

    So why has the record been changed in just the last decade. This should be the story of the century but we hear not barely a whimper.

  3433. Johnathan Wilkes says

    Neville

    I work with records all day, that is why I was so incensed about manipulating past temperature records.

    If one must do it OK, but for God’s sake keep the original intact!
    What if you get it wrong and no original?
    How can you make amends? The way it looks now, nobody really knows anymore what really happened in the past.
    It’s criminal what they are doing, that what it is.

    gav showed us some nice pictures, but what were these these pictures meant to prove?

  3434. Neville says

    I agree with you JW, but thanks again to John Daly for keeping the earlier record.

    BTW Humlum has a Greenland temp record for the last 8,000. Much warmer than today, in fact we are definitely at the cooler end of the holocene.

    http://climate4you.com/ I find it hard to directly link to the graph but it can be found at left under climate history.
    But it makes you wonder what the fuss is about.

  3435. Debbie says

    Dunno Gavin,
    maybe the atmosphere thinks the ocean is the prime culprit?
    There are a myriad of ‘physics’ involved in the very complex relationships between the oceans and the atmosphere.
    With respect, your statement above is rather simplistic and is really only a statement of faith, not a settled scientific fact.
    So far, neither the ocean or the atmosphere appears to be taking too much notice of ACO2 on a GLOBAL(bold) scale in relation to the SL modelling.

  3436. spangled drongo says

    The agony of ABC Insiders [both their own and the viewer’s] when they are trying to reassure each other that the PM has nothing to answer for [we..ell, maybe one or two little things] with this large muddy elephant sitting in their laps.

  3437. Ian Thomson says

    el gordo, et al,

    ‘This govt has done more harm to our democracy than any previous govt, Labour or Liberal, and will go down in the history books as the most incompetent of all them.’

    I hope you are only talking Federally. The last TWO brands in NSW, ( Newcastle Sydney Wollongong ),
    Take the absolute top prize for that. AND with no objections from any local time wasting party liners.
    Water, water , Govt departments , roads, bridges, you name it. Nest egg building traitors.

  3438. el gordo says

    Federally.

    In NSW the people gave O’Farrell a mandate and on the Central Tablelands where I live the combined votes of farmers, graziers, small business and miners went towards the Nats in large number.

  3439. Minister for Truth says

    Yes Ian T, I was only referring to the Federal arena …and thats bad enough.

    Having spent another evening with friends at dinner it would be no surprise at what the dominant topic of conversation was, namely the despair at what this incompetent Gillard Labor Govt is doing to our country, it was palpable.

    The good stuff was the discussion as to what we should be doing to lift us up again and become more efficient, productive and fair and risk takers.

    Frequent comment to effect that we should quit the ridiculous UN treaties, and more so the ones dealing with migration and refugees. How is it that many of the refugees ( illegal immigrants) are from failed and oppressive islamic states in the ME and North Africa, but they pass through the more enlightened Malaysia and Indonesia which are also Islamic states, to get here. Further where do these people get the money from to pay for the air fares in the first place….any bets on various well funded Islamic charity’s anyone.

    They are blatantly country shopping, and we are being played for suckers…all in the cause of exanding the ummah. We are basically importing our own future fifth columnists, who are out breeding us as in Europe ..and quite deliberately so.( “We will use thle bellys of our women to become dominant, Islam will and must prevail”)

    …..and then there was the mining industry and how these clowns have screwed the whole game.

    see Maurice Newmans excellent piece of a few weeks ago

    …another area was the need to get a review of how universities operate with minimal apparent external scrutiny, and compliance with standards common place in business, and how inefficient research funding systems are. No problem with having researchers properly funded for longer periods providing there was proper accountability

    …then we ran out red.

  3441. spangled drongo says

    Climate is not determined by atmosphere.

    It is our water mass on earth that gives us our bullet-proof climate and ice is a big part of that.

    The mass of water on earth compared with atmosphere is at least 50:1

    It just sucks up any temperature extremes and spits out normality.

  3442. spangled drongo says

    That link of yours gav is the usual alarmist/modelling wish list detritus.

    Absolutely real-world-evidence-free.

    When are you going to produce some facts?

    When are you going to look out the window?

  3443. Neville says

    Well Gav good to see that study mentions the IPCC latest estimate for SLR with a mid range of 30cm to 2100 in AR4 report.
    UNI Colorado and Humlum now state 17cm.

    Interesting they mention the much higher temps and SLs and much faster SLR in the earlier holocene and previous eemian IG.

    But I’ll let Cohenite answer your statement.

  3445. cohenite says

    “But I’ll let Cohenite answer your statement.”

    What statement Nev? gav doesn’t make statements. Still, I see he has provided a link which is remotely relevant; the abstract says:

    “This tenfold increase in the rate of rise can be attributed to climate change through the melting of land ice and the thermal expansion of ocean water”

    Land ice is not melting; the bulk of land ice is in fact increasing with the Antarctic land ice increasing; the historically normal Arctic melt does not effect SL.

    The thermal content of the oceans is not increasing either;

    http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/heat_content55-07.png

    OHC has basically not increased since 2003 when ARGO was introduced and measurment before then was highly flawed.

    SST has also decreased since 2003 but that has not stopped AGW advocates lying about it most recently with cyclone Sandy.

    Gav should do some research on Milankovitch Cycles and Glaciation and entertain us with some facts for a change.

  3446. el gordo says

    Gav’s link to Adams et al.

    ‘According to the marine records, the Eemian interglacial ended with a rapid cooling event about 110,000 years ago (e.g., Imbrie et al., 1984; Martinson et al., 1987), which also shows up in ice cores and pollen records from across Eurasia. From a relatively high resolution core in the North Atlantic. Adkins et al. (1997) suggested that the final cooling event took less than 400 years, and it might have been much more rapid.

    ‘Following the end of the Eemian, a large number of other sudden changes and short-term warm and cold alternations have been recognized; apparently many or all of these occurred on a global or at least a regional scale.’

    Are we there yet?

  3447. el gordo says

    Methinkso….

    Abstract from Sancetta et al.

    ‘In North Atlantic deep-sea core V23-82, changing surface water conditions are revealed by changing composition of fauna and flora. Sedimentation rate seems to vary little so that approximate dating of climatic events within the X zone of Ericson is possible.

    ‘These include an interglacial temperature maximum at 124,000 YBP; start of the post-Eemian cooling at about 116,000 YBP; and peak cool conditions at about 110,000 YBP, followed by warming.Drop in summer and winter temperatures about two-thirds of the way towards full glacial values and a significant drop of salinity is suggested by quantitative paleoenvironmental analysis of the 110,000 YBP cold episode.

    ‘If the Eemian is taken as the analog of the present interglacial, a point in time 116,000 YBP becomes the historical model for today’s ocean, and the North Atlantic is now approaching a time of severe cooling.’

  3448. gavin says

    Not done yet coh

    http://www.dnrec.delaware.gov/coastal/Documents/SLR%20Advisory%20Committee/PublicInvolvementWorkshops/WhatCausesSeastoRise.pdf

    eg I spoke to a young couple from South America who have based their studies in Canberra about their experiences of AGW or otherwise and they both went to retreating glaciers and impacts on wildlife for their evidence. I should add, without hesitation. See Ecuadore glaciers images Google.

    From another country far south we have this report

    http://thevarsity.ca/2012/09/17/south-american-glaciers-melting-fast/

  3449. Ian Thomson says

    El gordo, that is what really hurts. The Nats had huge support and threw it all over the great divide.

  3450. Neville says

    Geezzzz Gav you evidently have not noticed but the trend for SLR is declining. IT IS A DECLINING TREND.

    At the moment the trend to 2100 is only 17cm, way down on the trends in the last 4 IPCC reports 1990 to 2007.

    Humlum is quoting UNI Colorado latest estimates which admittedly could change in the future. But for the last 25 years the trend is down.

    Guess what Gav I could ask any number of young people like yours above and if they’ve been bitten by the your alarmist bug they’ll believe the same silly nonsense.

    Many closely recorded Glaciers have advanced and retreated for thousands of years and these are documented.
    So why would things be different today?

    Just posting some of the info AGAIN from Humlum’s Ocean page. Please see that even satellite measurements have seen a decline in SLR from once 4mm year to about 2mm year.
    Read the last few paragraphs below and read the last paragraph for IPCC report’s reducing trends.

    The 12-month global sea level change display significant variations, apparently with an approximate 4 year period. These variations are seen to be superimposed on a general falling trend. Overall, since initiation of these satellite measurements, the 12-month sea level rise has decreased from about 4 mm/yr to about 2 mm/yr (using the 3 yr average).

    The annual global sea level change shown in the diagram above can be used for estimating the resulting global sea level change at year 2100, compared to now, if the most recent sea level change rate is taken as being representative for the remaining time until year 2100. Clearly this is not realistic, but the result of such an exercise might still have some interest for comparison with computer-generated sea level forecasts, and is shown in the diagram below.

    Estimated average global sea level change until year 2100, according to sea level change values provided by the Colorado Center for Astrodynamics Research at University of Colorado at Boulder (see figure above). The estimated average global sea level change is calculated using a simple extrapolation of the most recent observed annual sea level change (thin line; diagram above, please see also note below). The thick line represents the simple running 3 year average of this estimate. Time is shown along the x-axis as calendar years. Last diagram update: 18 September 2012, with a prognosis (red graph) of about 17 cm average global sea level rise until 2100.

    Click here to download the entire data series since 1992.

    Click here to read about details of calibration.

    Click here to read about data smoothing.

    Note: Using the 3 year average shown in the diagram above, based on observed sea level changes, around 1999 the total sea level change from then until year 2100 would have been estimated to about 40 cm, in 2005 to about 30 cm (year 2005-2100), and in 2010 to about 22 cm (year 2010-2100). On July 14, 2012, the prognosis would be about 16 cm sea level increase until 2100. It is interesting that this simple empirical forecast has shown a steady trend towards lower values since about 2002.

    Click here to jump back to list of contents.

  3451. spangled drongo says

    D’ya think gav that with all this glacial melt and the SLs going nowhere that we may not be across all that is happening?

    That the historical obs and measurements may not be quite right?

    Or the noise might be bigger than the signal?

    “The melting of the ice sheets of Greenland and West Antarctica is about twice as slow as previously thought. The study, conducted by TU Delft, SRON and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. The scientists published their findings in the September issue of Nature Geoscience.

    We have concluded that the Greenland and West Antarctica ice caps are melting at approximately half the speed originally predicted.’ The average rise in sea levels as a result of the melting ice caps is also lower.”

    Maybe those ice caps are still gaining like they were before GRACE came along to tell us otherwise.

  3453. spangled drongo says

    Yes Neville, but not just Flim Flam. Eastley and the ABC are also tarred with that brush so how can you expect a rational question.

    When the three of them know that more than half the country don’t subscribe to their ideology and the economics of it will never add up in the real world, they blithly waffle on, ignoring the elephant.

    Someone was saying at Jo’s that the Climate Commission is being used to brain-wash and train other department heads so fed PS will need a big flush-out ASAP.

    Not to mention our ABC. Did you see Robyn’s science show only published 4 comments.

  3455. el gordo says

    Ian there is a need for governments to begin infrastructure building, not freeways in congested cities but Chinese built very fast trains under the Great Divide to open up the west ….criss crossing the whole country.

    I’m not confident today’s politicians have the bottle for the job.

    Gav I don’t believe CO2 causes global warming, so a little glacial melt doesn’t alarm me.

  3456. Neville says

    Interesting study by Aussie scientist AA Boretti on the remarkable deceleration in SLR over the last 10 years. He uses Jason and Topex satellite data.

    http://www.nipccreport.org/articles/2012/aug/8aug2012a1.html

    Here is his quote at the end of the article.

    Commenting on these findings, Boretti writes that the huge deceleration of SLR over the last 10 years “is clearly the opposite of what is being predicted by the models,” and that “the SLR’s reduction is even more pronounced during the last 5 years.” To illustrate the importance of his findings, he notes that “in order for the prediction of a 100-cm increase in sea level by 2100 to be correct, the SLR must be almost 11 mm/year every year for the next 89 years,” but he notes that “since the SLR is dropping, the predictions become increasingly unlikely,” especially in view of the facts that (1) “not once in the past 20 years has the SLR of 11 mm/year ever been achieved,” and that (2) “the average SLR of 3.1640 mm/year is only 20% of the SLR needed for the prediction of a one meter rise to be correct.”

    Clearly, the more-rabid-than-the-IPCC-crowd has it all wrong when it comes to both sea level and climate, for as Boretti concludes, “the oceans are truly the best indicator of climate,” and what they suggest is not compatible with what those alarmed about climate change continually claim.

    The paragraph above is a gem, just as I claimed a few days ago. “The oceans are the best indicator of climate.”

  3457. Johnathan Wilkes says

    Scientist!
    Quote from the Catallaxy files,

    It is neither necessary nor sufficient to have a degree in a science discipline to be a scientist. Some of the greatest scientists in history had no formal academic qualifications. Some of the great fraudsters in history had an armful of degrees. A degree is merely an indicator.

    To be a scientist requires just that a person proposes testable hypotheses and applies the scientific method. Not that their hypotheses are necessarily right, just that they apply the scientific method with rigour and care, and that their tests are repeatable, and that their conclusions are based on logic. It also requires that a scientist be open-minded, and be willing to reject previously strongly held views when presented with irrefutable evidence to the contrary. Finally, a scientist (should) normally attack only another person’s method and conclusions, not their person.

    The Oxford English Dictionary defines the scientific method thus:

    a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses

    I always though this to be true, although formal qualifications are a great help, no denying.

  3460. Neville says

    Gav sceptics are only 2% ? So does that include UNi Colorado, IPCC on SLR, Humlum and Boretti on satellite data?
    All show a decline in SLR over many years and now until 2100. Your first link seems to confirm that SL goes up and down over thousands of years , I can’t link to the second and the last is a govt mickey mouse yarn for kids that’s almost impossible to read.

    If you believe these fantasies then protest in India and China because there is no chance that OECD countries reductions in emissions of co2 can help your cause.

    Remember that simple graph and simple maths? OECD 6% co2 increase by 2035 and non OECD a whopping 73% increase in co2 emissions by 2035.
    When will you wake up?

  3461. Neville says

    It seems that some of the dendro groups and former pals are turning on their one time hero Michael Mann.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/25/dendros-stick-it-to-the-mann/#comments

    Poor Mann must look back at the time when his BS hockey stick was a pin up emblem for Gore , the IPCC and many scientific institutions around the globe.
    We owe McIntyre and McKitrick etc a big round of applause for their exposure of this con trick. Now the rest are starting to wake up and hopefully catch up.

  3462. gavin says

    Nev; I can go on quietly because I’m arguing on firm ground. Hay tackles IPCC model projections as reported here

    http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/346332/title/Sea_level_rise_overflowing_estimates

    and here

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/11/121101153549.htm

    a guy fumbles @wuwt, I find someone who knows his math here, see a Fourier analysis, then try to shake it

    http://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/11/09/sea-level-and-la-nina/

    took me under five min to debunk decel

  3463. spangled drongo says

    Gav, your first link is essentially saying that GRACE is wrong and shouldn’t be measuring any reduction in ice caps. They should still be growing.

    Your second link isn’t working and your third is, as Neville says, reconstructed and satellite measurements [mostly harmless] which is pretty much child propaganda.

    BTW, did you object to the ABC’s standards in the science show?

  3464. Neville says

    Gav that first story is pure bunk. The earlier holocene was much warmer with much higher SLs than today. Not the Eemian interglacial as stated in this yarn.
    Anyhow just more complex modeling used to try and forecast SLR by 2100. I’ll stick to the latest deceleration shown by IPCC reports, UNI of Colorado and Boretti etc.

    If Tamino thinks he’s onto something then let him pursue it. But SLR is decelerating whether you like it or not.
    I’m still asking you the obvious question, if you believe the above tell us what we should be doing about it. Like how can we change things for the better and give us your time line?
    I’ve asked this question for years but you can’t even attempt an answer. Why not?

  3465. gavin says

    2nd link – ScienceDaily (Nov. 1, 2012) — “Sea levels are rising faster than expected from global warming, and University of Colorado geologist Bill Hay has a good idea why. The last official IPCC report in 2007 projected a global sea level rise between 0.2 and 0.5 meters by the year 2100. But current sea-level rise measurements meet or exceed the high end of that range and suggest a rise of one meter or more by the end of the century”.

    Simple; SL rise is thermal expansion and glacial melt, both related to global temp. Can’t have one without the others, so rate of SL rise is related to glacier retreat and thermal expansion of all oceans.
    Glacier retreat is all round and growing, decel is impossible, no model needed.

    Re Science Show, did I miss something there?

  3466. Neville says

    Gav your point is supposition and modeling for future reference. Actual MEASUREMENTS don’t support your silly arguments.
    SLR is decelerating and it has been for years. But you’re the believer, so please answer my question. I mean you’ve been asked for ages so what’s your problem?
    After all the maths and graph are easy to understand.

  3467. Neville says

    Gav you’re quoting from a bloke who doesn’t even understand the basics of our holocene temp and SL history. Here is the quote from his speech.

    The last time Earth’s climate was as balmy as today was about 120,000 years ago, when the planet was 2–3° Celsius warmer and sea levels were 4–6 meters higher. Much of the Greenland ice sheet was melted then. “Those sea level change rates are very, very large, and that was under natural conditions, not the human perturbation that’s going on now,” says Hay.

    And Greenland isn’t the only concern — Antarctica contains a vast amount of ice that, if emptied entirely into the ocean, would cause 80 meters of sea level rise. For years scientists suspected the Antarctic ice was frozen to the ground, but evidence now suggests there is liquid water under many regions, lubricating the ice base like a skating rink. The only things stopping that ice from sliding into the sea are ice shelves, which act like corks in a bottle, Hay says. As these ice shelves break up — as some are already doing — “it’s like taking the cork out of the bottle.”

    Are you serious about this bloke? The holocene optimum was the last time the planet was much warmer than today and SLs were much higher.
    Not the emmian 120,000 years ago, when it was much warmer as well.
    Did you read this nonsense before you posted it? So tell us do you agree with his comment or not .
    Was there much higher temps in the holocene optimum with much higher sea levels? Yes or No?

  3468. spangled drongo says

    Gav, Bill Hay’s “evidence” is just more of his assumptions to add to the models.

    “In climate change, every feedback seems to go positive”

    Oh dear!

    Garbage in, Gospel out.

    But it doesn’t debunk anything.

    If you want to seriously debunk deceleration you can’t do it from either people’s assumptions or satellite measurements, you have to use factual observations and empirical measurements.

    Of course, if you still refuse to believe what’s actually happening in the real world there’s not much else we can do for you.

  3469. spangled drongo says

    “Glacier retreat is all round and growing, decel is impossible, no model needed.”

    There is some glacier retreat but there is no SLR or at least no acceleration in SLR.

    For that to happen it only needs the ice caps to remain stable and according to your earlier link that is what is happening.

    Prior to GRACE when the height of the ice caps were measured it was acknowledged that the ice caps were increasing.

    What this is telling us is that we should ignore computerised measurements and stick with simple indicators like observed SLR.

    For you to deny reality, look at computer screens and keep muttering “decel is impossible” is a bit deranged.

  3471. Robert says

    It’s just a factoid, but quite a few major glaciers are advancing. Means nothing, of course, just like the retreat of many more glaciers.

    If our Green Betters get their way and man is finally able to manipulate climate by sacrifices and temple offerings to GIM and Goldman Sachs, they’ll be able to restore Europe’s glaciers to the pre-warming levels of 1700.

    Mind you, around 1700 people watched glacier advance with horror – and yearned for the good old pre-cooling days. Can’t win sometimes, can you?

  3472. cohenite says

    gav quotes someone:

    ““Sea levels are rising faster than expected from global warming, and University of Colorado geologist Bill Hay has a good idea why. The last official IPCC report in 2007 projected a global sea level rise between 0.2 and 0.5 meters by the year 2100. But current sea-level rise measurements meet or exceed the high end of that range and suggest a rise of one meter or more by the end of the century”.

    That is a lie; refer to Houston and Dean’s and Watson’s papers. Houston and Dean found sea level rises which:

    “are opposite in sign and one to two orders of magnitude less than the +0.07 to +0.28 mm/y2 accelerations that are required to reach sea levels predicted for 2100 by Vermeer and Rahmsdorf (2009), Jevrejeva, Moore, and Grinsted (2010), and Grinsted, Moore, and Jevrejeva (2010).”

    You’re a crank gav.

  3473. debbie says

    I think our CAGW panic merchnts and SLR panic merchants need to revisit the serenity prayer.
    They can even make it to Mother Gaia if they want:
    Mother Gaia grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change
    Courage to change the things I can,
    And the wisdom to know the difference.

  3474. gavin says

    coh, you forgot to mention Tamino knocks Houston & Dean a over h. Too easy to fiddle when only using 50 or so records when others can find 500.

    Need to look deeper little mate.

  3477. cohenite says

    gav says:

    “coh, you forgot to mention Tamino knocks Houston & Dean a over h. Too easy to fiddle when only using 50 or so records when others can find 500.”

    ?

    50? 500? Tamino?

    Clarification, links?

  3478. Johnathan Wilkes says

    gav you know they selected 24 sites only to prove their assumptions, don’t you?

    I downloaded the data provided on site and will test it myself as soon as I can grab a moment, hope this data is the complete one and not only the 24 they used, if so then no point really.

    Gavin, with your often claimed intimate knowledge of all things technical it would be a breeze for you to do the same and see it for yourself.
    Give it a go Gav, it might give an insight you seem to be missing at the moment.

  3479. gavin says

    Tamino stuff was on DailySc or ScepticalSc

    Having managed a few floats, pitfalls are sinking float, slime scum, gunk on dopey rope or rusty chain, spinning top windup, max/min records, tide records out of sync, no peered calibration or zero after discontinuities.

    Remind u of old weather stations?

    VIP cert of health reqd before taking data seriously.

  3482. gavin says

    Cato inc stink Michaels?

    SD; you are scraping the barrel bottom for support.

    As I wrote over and over, glaciers in, SL up, no beaches on high tide, decel fiddle by the idle.

  3483. spangled drongo says

    Go back to Port Arthur and Fort Denison and check the real world.

    You are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

    And anyone who has just realised that beaches tend to disappear at highest tides hasn’t learned anything about sea levels.

    Beaches are only the shape they are because of constant inundation.

  3484. Debbie says

    No beaches at high tide?
    3 questions:
    1) Have you any proof that is a global phenomenon?
    2) Did you know that in certain areas that has always been the norm? eg WA & UK?
    3) Do you understand that tidal behaviour shapes coastlines not CAGW?

    If the tide doesn’t cover the whole beach that actually means that in previous eras, the tides were higher than now not lower.

  3485. Neville says

    A very good must read from Walter Starck at Quadrant magazine online.

    http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2012/11/speak-loudly-and-carry-a-busted-hockey-stick

    I’d better repeat my criticism of Gav’s expert on SLR above. This fool really thinks that our present warming is the same as the much warmer eemian interglacial.

    He deliberately states this in his speech, yet any blogger knows this is absurd and we only have to return just 6,000 years to the holocene optimum to find much warmer temps and higher SLs than now. (But the Hol optimum was not as high temps and SLs as the eemian I might add.)
    NOT 120,000 years, but a tiny fraction of those years. I honestly think Gav hasn’t got a clue and his expert must be a first class fool as well.

  3487. Debbie says

    Yes, good piece by Tony from OZ,
    He always pays attention to what actually works in practice.
    Wish there were more like him…we certainly need more people like Tony who can point out the ‘bleeding obvious’….and operate from common sense.
    People like Mr Tim Flannery who believe they operate from some type of ‘higher order thinking’ and have ‘higher level principles’ need to spend some more time with people like Tony from OZ.
    I don’t think there is anything ‘higher order’ or ‘higher level’ if the thinking and behaviour is sytematically trashing the systems that allowed people like Mr Flannery the time and the werewithal to think about other ‘stuff’ in the first place!
    Just like my last sentence….I would call that circular thinking….and the circles are ‘ever decreasing’!

  3488. Johnathan Wilkes says

    “Gav hasn’t got a clue and his expert must be a first class fool as well.”

    birds of a feather?

    Gav wants to believe so much he can’t help himself seeks out info reinforcing his own views.
    Reminds me of Terry Lane of ABC fame.

    Strange for someone who spent his working life looking at measured facts?

  3489. cohenite says

    Classic gav:

    “Having managed a few floats, pitfalls are sinking float, slime scum, gunk on dopey rope or rusty chain, spinning top windup, max/min records, tide records out of sync, no peered calibration or zero after discontinuities.”

    “gunk on dopey rope or rusty chain,”

    Poetic gibberish of a high quality.

  3490. Neville says

    Geezzz Cohenite you’re a lot smarter than me, here was I thinking Gav was just playing silly buggers and tasking the p–s.
    It can be so difficult to tell at times.

  3491. gavin says

    For Deb; this UK errosion site illustrates my high tide no beach observation ie, no SL recession, decel or anything else to do with sceptic Bs.

    http://www.bgs.ac.uk/landslides/happisburgh.html

    “Beaches are only the shape they are because of constant inundation” and this proves my point SD, not yours.

    And coh fell for it Nev. Before electronics, an old tide gauge never was a SL meter because they can’t be referenced to a common data point.

    Hind sight analysis must include some process that ties in all data to a notion of SL mean however hard to achieve. Zero was the catch, not the chain or the rope as either could be referenced by float marks up the cell wall or a nearby pile with oysters clinging to the active tide zone.

    Far more useful, the installers original notes re setting up max/min deviation as a scale

  3492. spangled drongo says

    ‘“Beaches are only the shape they are because of constant inundation” and this proves my point SD, not yours.’

    Sorry gav old chap, this just proves what a sap you are. That’s not SLR, that’s erosion. You need to know that you can have one without the other in that sort of sandy country. That sort of situation exists all around out coastlines. The whole of the Gold Coast was being washed away in the ’60s and ’70s with sea-front high-rise buildings teetering on the brink until Bruce Small built the boulder wall and then buried it under huge quantities of sand which then became a series of buffering dunes which, 40 years later have proved a most successful mitigation. You need sacrificial areas of sand that will come and go with the seasons and a built-in back stop for extremes.

    But never mind, plenty of SLR in Doha, not to mention permafrost panic to keep you happy:

    http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/11/28/doha-lies-rising-faster-than-expected/

  3493. spangled drongo says

    “Hind sight analysis must include some process that ties in all data to a notion of SL mean however hard to achieve.”

    Or you can just do something simple like this. It’s worked well for the last 170 years:

    http://www.john-daly.com/photomrk.htm

    It’s very reassuring to know that a 170 year old mark is still pretty much in the same place as it was then in relation to SLs.

    Reassuring to know that the old convict buildings won’t go under for a while.

  3494. Johnathan Wilkes says

    gav

    “And coh fell for it Nev. Before electronics, an old tide gauge never was a SL meter because they can’t be referenced to a common data point. “

    As the good captain Mannering used to say:
    “now you are in the realm of phantasy”

    What rubbish, “can’t be referenced to a common data point.” what has electronics got to do with common data points?

    Surveyors managed all right, throughout the ages.

  3495. gavin says

    JW; “Surveyors managed all right, throughout the ages”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geodetic_datum

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geodetic_datum#Vertical_datum

    one handed, keeping sleeping tabby off keys, a lot of aus physics calcs were still ref Greenwich in my instrument building days but I could call prof at Melb uni for updates based on their studies, flattened earth, G, etc.

    Mean SL was reqd for altimeters made locally by others at Essendon, that’s how I knew about pending agreements for our data point assumptions. “Flat Earthers” may actually live on a flat spot.

    Electronics enabled satellites, radar and various refinements to data acquisition, processing for the space travel age. Standards etc should remain under constant revision, but not by information wreckers.

    http://www.gmat.unsw.edu.au/snap/gps/clynch_pdfs/Datumintr.pdf

    http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/10975/

  3496. Johnathan Wilkes says

    gav

    You are waffling again.
    Your example of altimeters is a bad one. Just so happens I’m a holder of a private pilot’s license and know how they work.

    You have to know your elevation and preferably the area barometric pressure, to set it correctly in the first place , and it works entirely on air pressure difference.

    Who do you think established the elevation of airports (1650 ft at Kyneton where I learned to fly.) and towns well before electronics?
    Surveyors did that with optical instruments.

    To make it clear, I have nothing against electronics it was one of my subjects, I don’t know why you introduced it in the first place? Nothing to do with the subject discussed.

  3497. Debbie says

    Gavin,
    do you know the difference between decelerating trend and recession?
    You seem to be muddling the 2 concepts when you write and link re SLR.
    The earlier models re trends are being updated & new info now indicates that the previously published SLR trend has decelerated. That does not mean that SL is receding or anything else other than the previous modelling is now being updated and the ‘trend’ in the modelling is different. It is just stat modelling. It is entirely correct to update it. Just because it is high tech does not mean that it has all the answers or that it is a crystal ball.
    Trying to shore up the older information by using entirely natural coastal behaviour is not advancing our understanding.
    No one has claimed that erosion is not happening.
    Quite the contrary in fact.
    Coastal infrastructure is always at risk from erosion and always has been. That is not a new or arlarming phenomenon.
    A carbon tax and/or global governance of emissions will not change that.
    And Gavin?
    What is an ‘information wrecker’?

  3498. Neville says

    Gav perhaps I should write these facts and post them for you every 24 hours. The USA EPA, IPCC, Uni of Colorado, Humlum etc, etc all show a decelerating trend for SLR for dacades.

    The USA EPA estimated SLR of several metres by 2100 in the 1980s. Since then every IPCC report has shown a decelerating trend from the first report in 1990 to the fourth report in 2007.

    The fourth report had a mid point rise of 30-cm by 2100 but now the UNI of Colorado has a mid point rise of just 17cm.
    Note that’s a drop of about 43% in just 5 years or 13 cm or about 6 inches. I suggest if you want to argue with anyone then go and argue with Uni Colorado or the IPCC.

    But they’ll need someting more than silly photos of beaches and erosion and silly estimates calculated on the back of an envelope.

  3499. gavin says

    “Your example of altimeters is a bad one”. I agree, cause you can’t use one to find SL OR SLM.

    JW, as you did not read my links, end of discussion.

    Deb; re my above links, experts have to agree on fixed horizontal and vertical datum points for all navigation, surveying, instrument and system calibration because few locations are on the perfect circle.

    Systems of mapping don’t exactly overlap even in Aus. Cartographers must specify limitations. Classic case Apple v Google.

    Erosion rate is essential for understanding coastline formations relative to SL. In many places, recent past inland coastline formations have been completely undermined where soft sedentary rock underlays volcanics etc

  3500. spangled drongo says

    Gav, good links BUT once again they prove my point, not yours.

    A pear-shaped geoid with flat spots [the earth] means that remote sensing systems need to be checked and continually monitored and adjusted to give highly accurate data.

    When we are talking fractions of a millimeter per year SLR it really baffles belief that a RSS can detect this and of course this is NOT what happens in the real world. RSS detection is simply an exercise in statistics and assumption.

    In the real world of observations SLs rise and fall by much larger amounts and they can only truly be assesed over minima of a half century or greater.

    Correcting “datums” gets you closer to the mark but I have experienced errors, in GPSs fitted with the latest datum corrections, of 100 meters and more.

    Sadly the practice of recording and accepting virtual reality as factual, takes the alarmists even further from the real world.

  3501. spangled drongo says

    This erosion in Norfolk looks fixable but nothing permanent ever seems to be done.

    By the look of the coastline there would be undersea stores of sand that could be pumped ashore to build buffering dunes.

    They must feel that it is not worth the cost in a sparsely populated area. A bit sad compared to what the Dutch have done just across the pond.

    Gav needs to check the land of the tulips if he is fair dinkum about real world SLR.

  3503. Johnathan Wilkes says

    Sadly the practice of recording and accepting virtual reality as factual, takes the alarmists >b>even further from the real world.

    Is that possible?

    gav
    whether I read and or comment on your links or not is neither here nor there, as it happens I looked at them and it’s fairly standard stuff I’m familiar with.

    My comment related to your obsession with modern electronic data gathering techniques, which you seem to regard as infallible.
    They are not! (for your info I built an electronic altimeter from a kit in the early nineties, they still had to be calibrated same as the others)

    As to “end of discussion”?

    Please, since when do you discuss anything? You present your little thought bubbles as irrefutable facts and no amount of contrary facts will dissuade you from your cast in stone ideas.

    Discussion? One can have a more meaningful discussion with a doorknob.

  3505. spangled drongo says

    “I built an electronic altimeter from a kit in the early nineties,”

    JW, what was the sensor for height above SL, do you remember? Is it a chip with an aneroid barometer in it? I wonder how big that chip is and whether you can buy them separately?

  3506. Johnathan Wilkes says

    I actually still have it as it’s not certified for registered aircraft so never got built in.

    Looking at it right now, as I have my day off from the office.
    It’s an Altronics Altimeter from Silicon Chip design
    The whole thing is only 1.5*3*4.2 in in size.
    Model No.K2530 the sensor is SenSym 120 SCX 15ANC I assume it’s a simple piezo sensor.

    Works very well even now, I used to carry it with me when hiking to check elevations as it’s accurate to within 5 feet.
    Or should I say it having a digital readout it displays in 2 feet intervals, setting it lower and it flickers.

    These days the GPS is more convenient.

    Many people make the mistake that a digital instrument is more accurate, not the case at all, just easier to read!

  3507. Debbie says

    JW,
    So true:
    “Many people make the mistake that a digital instrument is more accurate, not the case at all, just easier to read!”

    They are often much easier to use.

    They can also be more easily messed up!

    Like all measuring instruments…they need to be callibrated.

    Gavin,
    You still haven’t explained what an ‘information wrecker’ is.

  3508. Johnathan Wilkes says

    Put in new battery, adjusted the bar. pressure to the current 1009 and shows an elevation of 30 feet which is spot on.

    Yes Debbie they are easier to use and the better ones are very accurate indeed, but you pay for them too, for using first quality components.
    I was thinking of the garden variety you can buy in hardware stores etc..

  3509. spangled drongo says

    Thanks JW. I remember thinking how wonderful the latest digital knot meters were which showed speeds in hundredths of a knot, likewise digital calipers after a lifetime of using vernier calipers but these days my old analogues are more accurate and dependable. The touch on those old vernier screw gauges for measuring the diameter of a human hair is just wonderful.

    Multi-meters too.

    And the batteries don’t go flat.

  3511. Debbie says

    Fair enough JW,
    We actually use fairly shmicky stuff in ag, especially the GPS & instruments re chemical application.
    My point is that it is still subject to human error via callibration just like the older stuff was.

  3512. Johnathan Wilkes says

    “Multimeters too.
    And the batteries don’t go flat.”

    How true!
    I’m lucky or unlucky to be educated at a time when analog was still dominant but digital was fast catching up.
    Many regard analog Multimeters as useless and obsolete, obsolete they may become but useless?

    Learn to use them properly, meaning, know the source impedance, select the highest possible range still giving useful readings and you can’t go wrong.
    I assume of course that one is using a decent instrument in the first place with a reasonably high internal resistance, not a moving iron monstrosity.

    Think on it, these were the instruments that helped create the modern equivalents we have now.
    I still have in my workshop, and use occasionally, an old analog Phillips Type 564 Dual beam storage oscilloscope, its only drawback is its bulk, but I have plenty of space so it doesn’t matter.

    As to digital radio and communications? Fine, I’m happy with them, they are great when working, but if my life depended on it, I’d still keep, as I do, a shortwave analog transceiver handy. I can talk to mates in the states or Europe using a few watts of power not depending on satellites or landlines.

    Imagine a satellite failure or sabotage, where would your digital communication be then?

    This is not to deride modern science and equipment, that would be hypocritical as I’m running an IT business, I’m using them and am happy to use them, but they are no substitute for brains and knowledge, just tools, that’s all they are.

  3514. spangled drongo says

    JW, my father used to use a slide rule and I always wonder what became of it. I still use his old theodolite for dam building and accurate surveying. GPS is better for a quick and dirty but the accuracy of that theodolite is impressive.

    Those trig points where early surveyors parameterized the whole country to make subdivisions at say, Longreach, reconcile with Brisbane to the nearest fraction of an inch always impress me.

    They worked so hard to get their relative levels right to prevent flooding too.

    This is why I find it hard to accept these modern virtual-reality-measurements.

  3515. Johnathan Wilkes says

    Of course you are right Debbie.

    This is why the obsessive reliance on instruments located on satellite platforms with constantly changing orbits, even if slightly, irks me.
    They need for ever to compensate and adjust, in the end not knowing what’s what.
    AND we are talking about millimeters, for Gods sake! Hello! anyone home?

  3516. gavin says

    Deb + JW; both on ignore list.

    SD; vernier screw gauges & human hair, really? Chatting to a guy on hols down the coast who claims they have a big flock of sheep all producing wool under 12 microns and their dozen or so bales go straight to just one manufacturer in Italy. His other claim after more questions was they graded and cleared a much larger flock using a hand held digital fleece meter. He followed with paddock cameras, home grown gate program operating from lounge room 24/7 to ensure clean sheep, no dirt in wool and so on. I guess it’s been a while since evaluating our first digital surveillance gear.

    Having read my links, I curious about your faith in Port Denison etc from here on. There was a note that gives 19 years min for tide>SL calibration. My guess is today’s experts depend on sat ref to line up historic data from one site to another and it’s a pains taking biz even with computers. But the benefit is a much longer time series and this shows the SL hockey stick.

    Btw SD; my attitude rigorous analysis and certification after verifying any instrument or system in it’s operating mode was, all follow up tasks went with others who needed the assurance. Also contrary to JW, electronics were never my cup of tea, nor was programming anything behind the control panels.

  3517. Jonathan Wilkes says

    “JW on ignore list.”

    I wonder which Saint I should give thanks for, not being very religious?

    He followed with paddock cameras, home grown gate program operating from lounge room 24/7 to ensure clean sheep, no dirt in wool and so on.

    Can’t help myself Gav (also I have time on my hands today), despite being ignored, pray tell how did he mange to keep his sheep clean by watching them through a camera?
    When we had the farm dad would’ve given his eye tooth to achieve that.
    And we also managed to correctly measure the fiber thickness.

    Also contrary to JW, electronics were never my cup of tea, nor was programming anything behind the control panels.

    There you go again, when and where did I say you were into electronics, although I wouldn’t be surprised if you did claim it in the past?

    I said you are depending too much on electronic measurements as if they were infallible while disregarding and dismissing physical on the ground observations as useless.

    And may I play a petulant child Gav?
    If you recall I put you on my imaginary ignore list some time ago.
    I call it imaginary because on other forum platforms an ignored persons posts will not be visible to the ignoree!
    If there is such a word?

  3518. spangled drongo says

    gav, you mean you consider yourself a scientific instrumentalist and you’ve never measured the diameter of your hair with a vernier screw gauge?

    Your education is sadly lacking.

    It’s much easier than measuring the diameter of wool fiber. You need at least 3 hands to do that because you have to stretch it but a good wool classer does it by eye.

    My faith in Fort Denison is because it is a long-term “local” tide gauge. As is Port Arthur. As are my own benchmarks and they all say that there is nothing happening that even you have to worry about.

    Alarmists have tried to discredit Port Arthur, claiming that it has experienced post-glacial rebound and SLs have risen accordingly but I have always wondered how naked aboriginals lived there 30,000 y ago if it was covered in ice.

    But please enlighten me as to where you can see the SL hockey stick in that Fort Denison link I gave you.

  3520. Johnathan Wilkes says

    I definitely have too much time on my hands today.
    Watching ABC news reporting, this year being the “hottest”, ice melting, droughts and pestilence.

    This report was prepared for the Doha (spl?) festivities.

    The mind boggles!
    If anything I though this year was quite cool, but what would I know?

    I only walk outside and experience real weather as it happens, as opposed to climate models!
    I’m sure someone here will give us a reason why I’m so wrong?

  3521. Neville says

    I hope everyone here has 5 mins to watch this video from THEIR ABC about the dicovery of American whaler boats under a car park in Bunbury WA.
    I’d be interested in what everyone thinks of the position of this find in just 150 years?

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-12-28/story-4/3750362

    It seems that the land/sand has re claimed a fair bit of sea here in the past 150 odd years. In this area of coast at Bunbury anyway.

  3522. spangled drongo says

    And that other old chestnut, ocean acidification.

    Here an under-sea volcano turns the ocean more acidic than battery acid but still we survive:

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/34480413#34480413

    They’ll be coming to get us both pretty soon I expect, JW.

    We’re going through a terrible heatwave up here in Qld at present. Today our temps ranged from 18c to 28c.

    Unprecedented.

  3523. spangled drongo says

    That’s an interesting observation Neville but that same thing is happening around our way where in the last 36 years with no cyclones the beaches have grown enormously.

    When those cyclones make their cyclical return and some erosion is experienced again, the screams of CAGW will be deafening.

    The buried, wrecked schooner “Coolangatta” was exposed about 45 years ago and I souvenired a bit of it but it has been buried again by the shifting sands.

    Interestingly that ship was named after a Coolangatta on the south coast of NSW and from which, our Coolangatta got its name.

  3524. cohenite says

    Fort Denison is an excellent example of how AGW alarmists are dealing with sea level as part of the general hysteria; PMSL shows the lie to that and here is a nice graph:

    http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/sydney_ft-dennis_slr.png

    The best record in Australia is however at Port Arthur which goes back to 1841 and this paper shows no exceptional rise, even when isostatic factors based on modelling, are included:

    http://eprints.utas.edu.au/8366/

  3528. cohenite says

    Hi Neville; the Bunbury one? We should send gav down there to reconnoitre; he would be the right vintage; and he could report back with a poem; The Ancient Mariner strikes sand at Bunbury, or some such thing.

  3529. cohenite says

    Thanks gav; you are obviously stepping into luke’s shoes; putting up references which defeat the purpose; from your Fort Denison link, which I will book-mark:

    “The Fort Denison data clearly shows a period of reduced sea level rise over the period
    1986-2007 of 0.4 mm/year as opposed to 0.9 mm/year over the length of the dataset.
    This is assumed to be associated with long period cycles rather than a slowing of sea
    level rise. For the majority of gauges presented in this report, this would imply that the
    measured rate of sea level rise over approximately 20 years is less than what would be
    measured over longer periods.”

  3530. Ian Thomson says

    Hi Gavin,
    All that electronic assistance in growing superfine wool is just that, – assistance.
    It will help him select his 12 micron flock and then monitor, every single day , the amount of feed rationed (to each sheep).
    Otherwise , this is a very labour intensive business.
    Go away for the weekend, the neighbour gives them too much and the 12 microns is a memory for the season. Gives them too little or something is blocked and the fibre has a tender break.

    Love see what he’s done though, sounds like good stuff.

    There was a story on ABC Country News recently about a Vic high country farmer, who has a high tech electric dog fence system monitored from the house.
    Every now and then, one of those non ectronic dogs figures out how to beat it and has to be hunted down and shot before it teaches any others

  3531. Tony Price says

    Sea level at Fort Denison hasn’t risen since 1999 after the 1998 El Niño. However Sydney isn’t representative of MSL around Oz. No station is – they’re all different. See my “Sea Levels in Australia” page for Sydney
    http://mostlyharmless-room-101.blogspot.co.uk/p/sea-levels-in-australia.html#sydney
    … and 23 other stations linked from a map.

    It’s ironic that MSL at Hobart is dropping, and has been since the start of the record in 1967.
    http://mostlyharmless-room-101.blogspot.co.uk/p/sea-levels-in-australia.html#hobart
    The CSIRO somehow ignored that one, despite the fact that Google Street View shows that they can see the site of the gauge from their windows.

  3532. gavin says

    Trust coh to find a decade that goes below trend, which btw is .9 not .5

    what you guys failed to realize through previous discussions. anybody’s trend based on historic tidal records from historic tide gauges is nothing more than a guess without authorization because survey info and bench marks are so scant. True SL does not exist yet and that fact opened the door to quacks.

    http://www.bom.gov.au/oceanography/projects/abslmp/abslmp.shtml

    Where I have pointed to the emerging scientific datum points as part of ongoing research in Aus you sluggers fall over wuwt and associated blogs that have no value in the end. Given lumpy earth, patchy weather and turbulent oceans, my SL based on watching average tides round various coastlines and inlets with a focus on the horizontal tide marks where separation should be greatest wins every day. Evidence is written every day for short term considerations. Long term views require only a simple knowledge of headlands, rock formations and their erosion in the tidal zone. Let’s not forget G.

    “What do we mean by sea level?”

    “Sea level, or ‘mean sea level’ as it is sometimes known, is the average height of the ocean’s surface between high and low tide.
    Scientists refer to it as the equipotential surface of the world’s oceans, which means that its level is affected by the strength of gravity (or, more technically, ‘gravitational acceleration’) around the Earth.
    Variations in the gravitational acceleration are themselves caused by variations in the internal density of the Earth.
    Changes in tides and wave conditions over time are averaged out to determine a ‘still water level’ that can be used to identify whether the sea level has changed and also the height of the land above sea level. In the UK, height above sea level is measured from the ‘Ordnance Datum’, which is the mean sea level at the tide gauge bolt Newlyn Pier, Cornwall.”

    http://www.bgs.ac.uk/discoveringGeology/climateChange/general/coastal.html

  3533. Ian Thomson says

    ” In the UK, height above sea level is measured from the ‘Ordnance Datum’, which is the mean sea level at the tide gauge bolt Newlyn Pier, Cornwall.” ”

    A wise, now deceased, mate was from this patch. He knew a lot about sea levels and was a keen student of Cornish history including offshore ruins.
    His old school song apparently contained the words- ” When King Arthur ruled o’er Lyonesse ”

    King Arthur shouldn’t have driven that farting horse and Merlin must’ve turned out taxable amounts of carbon just making potions. Top that off with some mysterious Lady, living on a lake with popup islands, thereby interfering with Gaia.
    The CSIRO would tell you that it cost them their whole country.
    Be a new verse for the old school song, very much in tune with the nonsense used to frighten today’s kids, about AGW and SLR

  3534. gavin says

    Tony; it seems I have a bad habit of listening to guys we meet on the beach who I suspect know a lot more about electronics that I ever did. This time though my partner did most of the heavy work hearing him out while I shot the beach and outflow from a very high tide up the creek. A pissing contest unessary since I have totally retired. He was only killing time I feel in retrospect till that out going gutter rush ebbed and turned with back more school salmon over the bar. Interestingly, he did not give his name as we shook hands before he waded in.

    For your info, my only interest in wool stems from a brief engagement with Dawson’s of Scotland Australian cashmere project and it was their lecture that alerted me to the super fine quality control issues and spinning difficulties below 12 micron.

    This guy helping his brother in law had set up QA in the paddock where all sheep could be watched while grazing to determine their needs and state of pastures, with feed being re organised at the flick of a switch. We can’t recall how he moved those sheep. Hope that helps

  3535. cohenite says

    “lumpy earth, patchy weather and turbulent oceans,”

    There you go; gav’ll knock up some poetry for ya for every occasion.

  3536. Neville says

    Could this new study be just another rehash of the west Antarctic peninsula BS nonsense ala Steig etc. The west Antarctic ice sheet has NATURALLY increased and then decreased over the entire holocene interglacial.

    http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2012/s3644301.htm If the seas are supposed to be rising at a faster rate then where is the evidence?

    Currently SLR is 17cm by 2100. So why can’t UNI of Colorado measure this increase in melt?

  3539. spangled drongo says

    Gav reckons that true SL doesn’t exist but he is not so sure about GAT.

    Walter Starck says:

    “The average temperature for the Earth, or any region or even any specific place is very difficult to determine with any accuracy. At any given time surface air temperatures around the world range over about 100°C.”

    What are the real chances of us getting global average temperatures anywhere near right?

    What d’you think are the chances of Antarctic Ice Cap melt like they are braying at Doha when this year they were at record temps of – 84c.

    The coldest recorded on earth:

    http://www.wunderground.com/history/station/89606/2012/9/16/DailyHistory.html?req_city=NA&req_state=NA&req_statename=NA

  3540. Tony Price says

    gav says he thinks
    “what you guys failed to realize through previous discussions. anybody’s trend based on historic tidal records from historic tide gauges is nothing more than a guess without authorization because survey info and bench marks are so scant. True SL does not exist yet and that fact opened the door to quacks.”
    Survey and bench marks are so scant? You point us to ABSLMP on the BOM site – a little digging would reveal that tide gauges are levelled periodically using typically 10-20 bench marks per station. ABSLMP stations use CGPS – Continuous GPS stations sited near the gauges, which stations have several of their own benchmarks tied into the gauge benchmark chain.

    “Precise levelling support for the Australian Baseline Sea Level Monitoring Project is provided by relevant state agencies and Geosciences Australia. The purpose of levelling sea level monitoring gauges is to establish whether they are moving vertically with respect to the land. An array of coastal benchmarks must be surveyed periodically to allow stable benchmarks to be identified and used as a reference for the tide gauge. Further information about geodetic support for the Australian Baseline Sea Level
    Monitoring Project is available from Geosciences Australia.”

    “Given lumpy earth, patchy weather and turbulent oceans, my SL based on watching average tides round various coastlines and inlets with a focus on the horizontal tide marks where separation should be greatest wins every day”.
    You mean irregular and infrequent eyeballing at a few sites wins out over continuous measurements to the nearest mm at carefully levelled and maintained gauges? You take my breath away gav, you really do. Do you measure temperature with a wetted finger?

  3542. gavin says

    Tony, when do you suppose all these checks and balances for the Australian Baseline Sea Level
    Monitoring Project actually fell into place?

    I can measure temperature on an old CSIRO instrument hanging out the back. Last time I looked just before getting lunch. it was 33.5 C after taking into account it’s well known zero problem. BoM for Canberra Airport gives us 33.6 C at 12.30 Howzat?

  3543. spangled drongo says

    Hopefully gav, these checks and balances are done as a work in progress but the point is, your thermo out the back is never gonna tell you anything except weather whereas, if you pay attention to those tide gauges, you will know better than any other indicator, the state of global warming.

    As I have berated you with for a long time, my benchmarks that go back as far as 70 years, all agree with the tide gauges and they prove that global warming is a pussycat.

  3546. spangled drongo says

    Neville, when they’re dancing with GRACE they’re never quite game to whiz her off.

    Always love talk, never down with the pants.

    Always SLR, never SLF.

    Well, only for the Indian Ocean.

  3547. gavin says

    Three takes on polar sheet ice loss. 11mm over two decades + thermal expansion at about five times the ice loss and you guys haven’t got a leg to stand on, decel indeed.

    http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/antarctic-ice-sheets-shrinking-study-finds-20121130-2ajmf.html

    http://edition.cnn.com/2012/11/29/world/europe/climate-ice-sheets/index.html

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/nov/29/greenland-antarctica-4-trillion-tonnes-ice

    Why quacks wish to undermine climate science everywhere needs to be fleshed out and who still wants to be the bunny messenger at this stage needs proper tracking. Quote that if you will.

  3548. spangled drongo says

    More dances with GRACE eh gav?

    You need to change the record.

    It’s still only producing half the SLR that we were supposed to be getting last century.

    With that -84c it must’ve frozen again.

    Phew! That was close.

  3552. Robert says

    It’s funny how we’re supposed to overlook enormities and fuss over any factoid that fits the alarmist script. Sea Level Rise is a 19th century phenomenon which has extended into recent times. That’s clear from the very graphs that warmists wave in our faces. Yet we’re expected to ignore the 19th century! Just as we’re expected only to notice “extreme weather” when it’s close to the present. (Vic fires 1851? Cyclone Mahina Qld 1899? 1790s El Ninos? Half a century of rain deficit till 1950? How do we not notice? And that’s just a sampling of some local Oz stuff.)

    Antarctica, where 90% of all the ice hangs out, is running well over average for sea ice – which means the world is probably oversupplied with sea ice, right now. (see Neville above). We’re not supposed to notice that? Are we young and naive?

    Lastly, how do you stabilise climate when a stable climate has never existed? It’s always been this bad – or worse, actually. What better times are these people referring to when they talk of climate disruption and dirty weather?

    Our real problem is the McTernanising of science and intellectual leadership. Spin, factoids and appearances aren’t just important, they’ve become the ONLY things. The Nobel was actually awarded to Gore and Pachauri in 2007. Really. It happened. I’m not making it up. That’s like giving an Academy Award to Steven Seagal.

    By the way, here’s the woman who was nominated for the Nobel Peace prize in 2007 and did not get it.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irena_Sendler
    She died in 2008.

  3553. Johnathan Wilkes says

    Steven Seagal

    have to admit I had to look it up.
    Now I can put name to the face I saw in the flicks.

  3554. cohenite says

    Nice post Robert; that Gore got the gong while worthies like your lady got nothing really shows something is rotten.

  3555. debbie says

    Well said Robert,
    The CAGW debate seems to have precious little to do with science…especially the practical & applied sciences.
    It has had much more to do with political spin, factoids and appearances….with a heavy reliance on ‘piggy backed’ statistics and ‘sensational’ reporting that looks like ‘infotainment’ based on exaggerated ‘worst case’ scenarios.
    What a great lady Irena was….she did well to reach her 98th year when we consider how much hardship she must have endured in her youth….I agree she is the ilk that deserve recognition for such things as Nobel Peace Prizes.
    Here is a link to the failed ‘disallowance motion’ in fed parliament re the MDBP.
    A related and equally unrealistic policy that relies on spin, factoids and appearances.
    http://www.openaustralia.org/debates/?id=2012-11-29.123.2&s=Murray+Darling+Basin+speaker%3A10743#g123.3
    Also here is a link to David Boyd’s blog re the MDBP….especially the nonsense that has developed around the lower lakes and the barrages:
    http://davidboydsblog.blogspot.com/2012/11/whats-in-word.html
    There still are sensible people like Jen who are willing to speak up for common sense and base their understanding on real evidence and workable solutions…. not the nonsense alarmist political spin.

  3556. Johnathan Wilkes says

    From the link

    To summarise my day at the Lower Lakes, I can only say I come home greatly enthused by the beauty of the area, enthused by the history and its preservation, and the wonderful water body; yet aghast at the waste of fresh water when it is so obvious that even better environmental outcomes could be achieved with the judicial use of healthy, oxygenated seawater with a concomitant reduction on the demand for upstream fresh water.
    When you consider this in the context of the Murray Darling Basin Plan it is simply outrageous that the issue of better management (and upgrading) of the Barrages has not even been properly debated. It is not overstating the “final” position of the Plan to say that it has the supply of fresh water to the Lower Lakes as its prime objective.
    There is absolutely no reason why the objectives for the environment and recreation, with irrigation needs and Adelaide water needs covered from upstream fresh water extractions, can’t be achieved with downstream seawater.

    I wonder if I am some sort of a weirdo to see the logic behind his reasoning when all the political power and local, parochial interests go the other way?

    Strange? Or just normal human behavior?

  3557. Neville says

    If this doesn’t show the type of extremists we’re dealing with then I don’t know what does.

    http://icecap.us/images/uploads/GL_CMIP5_rcp45_tas_38.jpg This is a graph from Christy’s last appearance before congress in USA.

    38 models are shown and the thick black line is the mean of all models. But look at the UAH satellite data and the RSS satellite data for the last 30+ years well below the mean line .

    Also some of the other main data sets are below the mean as well. Yet we are told repeatedly that everything is getting worse and AR 5 will scare the pants off us. What a pack of liars and con artists these corrupt swines are, but I guess some will still believe their lies and line up willingly to buy their snake oil.

  3558. Neville says

    These series of graphs come from GISP2 Greenland ice core data.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DWB5yid3PA

    This is probably the clearest way to look at our modern warming and check against warming and cooling periods over the Holocene and further back into the last glacial.

    Some graphs are shown from Vostok at antarctica for comparison as well. Just proves what a lot of nonsense we’ve been told over the past 30 years.
    Our slight warming over the last 100 years of 0.7c is not unusual or unpredcedented in any way.
    Especially when our slight warming comes at the end of the LIA, one of the coldest periods of the holocene.

  3560. Johnathan Wilkes says

    Debbie linked to this,

    To summarise my day at the Lower Lakes, I can only say I come home greatly enthused by the beauty of the area, enthused by the history and its preservation, and the wonderful water body; yet aghast at the waste of fresh water when it is so obvious that even better environmental outcomes could be achieved with the judicial use of healthy, oxygenated seawater with a concomitant reduction on the demand for upstream fresh water.
    When you consider this in the context of the Murray Darling Basin Plan it is simply outrageous that the issue of better management (and upgrading) of the Barrages has not even been properly debated. It is not overstating the “final” position of the Plan to say that it has the supply of fresh water to the Lower Lakes as its prime objective.
    There is absolutely no reason why the objectives for the environment and recreation, with irrigation needs and Adelaide water needs covered from upstream fresh water extractions, can’t be achieved with downstream seawater.

    I posted on this earlier and it’s disappeared in the ether.

    I agree with David’s sentiment, why is it that people can so parochial that they cant see the damage they are inflicting on the rest of the community for no valid reasons?

  3561. Debbie says

    I still do not understand how the top and the bottom of the southern MDB (Eucumbene & the barrages at the Lower Lakes) were cordoned off as political ‘ no go’ zones.
    It defies common sense and the resultant MDBP can only lead to the creation of more problems not the creation of sensible solutions.
    We all ended up arguing over a number based on a mythical long term average.
    Obviously it was mostly about a political outcome not a practical workable outcome.
    On Dec 9th at 9am EST on 7 TWO there will be an interesting doco called ‘Muddied Waters’ that will highlight some of the silly nonsense and the myths that have developed around the Murray River, especially around the Lower Lakes & the Coorong.
    Several South Australians are involved.

  3564. spangled drongo says

    I have many influential neighbours who are self professed greens. I love it when I meet them at the supermarket and they are filling up plastic bags with groceries and holding forth on the ecology. We both feel embarrassed when I produce my converted flour bag and I have to reassure them that plastic bags are the most energy efficient means of carrying groceries. ☻

  3565. cohenites says

    “I have many influential neighbours who are self professed greens.”

    That sounds entertaining; my neighbours wear T-shirts saying they hate greens, although one has moved in recently with poodles and a French bulldog; I’ll have to watch him.

  3567. Debbie says

    🙂 🙂 🙂
    Chuckle.
    Dopey green advisors.
    I’m not sure about dopey, I think clueless is more apt.
    They really don’t understand our ephemeral wetland environment and they also don’t understand that we have mostly enhanced the native habitat via irrigation.
    Those gorgeous shy Australasian Bitterns being just one example of 1000s.
    The cormorants (quite similar to the picture at this thread) being another.
    Right at the moment I can hear and see no less than 50 different bird species and at night we hear those bitterns amidst a cacophony of frogs, crickets etc.
    Without the water they wouldn’t be here.
    Neither would we.

  3568. Minister for Truth says

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/11/fourteen_is_the_new_fifteen.html

    Is there no end to what these sneaky buggers will do to advance their cause.

    The previous average for the temp for the earth has been taken to be 288K or 15C.

    But in the last few years Hansen and his shonky mates have lowered it to 14C. It doent really ater what average as a base the use as long as it is not arbitrarily altered becase when it then gets used to compare measurements from the global data bases of temp and it is found that that is 14.67 C …then the poor dears have a problem in that 14.76C compared with 15c is pretty well near dam it

    … but 14.67 cf 14C is more consistent with the mantra, is it increasing boy and girls and we told you so

    Am I reading this right surely they wouldnt lie to this extent

  3570. spangled drongo says

    Good to hear you’ve got all those bird species, Debbie.

    I visited a “wetland” on the Gold Coast yesterday which used to be the old Surfers Paradise International Motor Racing Circuit and which has now been redeveloped into “Emerald Lakes” residential estate. Prior to that it was farmland and prior to that it was dry savannah but now it is great wader habitat with native birds and bats the like of which I have never seen before.

    It’s a pity that these dopey green advisors don’t take note of what can be done alongside “land for humans”.

    And it didn’t cost the public a razoo!

  3571. Neville says

    SD thanks for that link, let’s hope Gav takes note. BTW I’d like to ask Gav once again, how can we mitigate your CAGW?
    Luke, bazza ,poly etc won’t give an answer because they know full well they can’t. But come on Gav give it a go, I promise we won’t bite. Well not much.

    Gav like his mates will BS all day long about dangerous CAGW and how terrible it will be. But ask them the only question that matters and they all go to water and run for cover.

    But Luke will sometimes yell abuse or mention it’s difficult or perhaps look at nuclear. This comes after years of asking. Nuclear can’t make a scrap of difference even if we tried to build 1000 nuclear power stations.

    But come on Gav give it a go, but remember we’ll subject your answer to simple maths and simple logic and reason.

  3573. gavin says

    Anyone who cans the latest UN climate report any time this week is definitely off my watch list for the rest of the year.

    Absorb first and reconsider if you can.

  3574. Neville says

    So Gav are we all to draw conclusions from this report or not? Let’s have your conclusions and link to it and tell us what it all means instead of howling silly delusional nonsense.

    If you can’t provide an opinion and draw sensible conclusions from this report then tell us why?

    But remember simple maths and simple logic and reason. You have to pass this test.

  3575. Neville says

    Just listened to your ABC Gav on AM and telling us about a new report from CSIRO. Seems they may be waking up at long last.

    Seems they finally understand it’s all about China and the non OECD. Even the idiot ABC allowed this on air, but only about 2 decades too late.

    I will link to this AM report when it’s up.

  3576. gavin says

    “the polar ice sheets have contributed, on average, 0.59 ± 0.20 millimeter year−1 to the rate of global sea-level rise” http://www.sciencemag.org

    SD; about 60mm/100y SLR from major glaciers is not the end of the AGW story

    “Forty-seven glaciologists have arrived at a community consensus over all the data on what the past century’s warming has done to the great ice sheets: a current annual loss of 344 billion tons of glacial ice, accounting for 20% of current sea level rise. Greenland’s share—about 263 billion tons—is roughly what most researchers expected, but Antarctica’s represents the first agreement on a rate that had ranged from a far larger loss to an actual gain. The new analysis, published on page 1183 of this week’s issue of Science, also makes it clear that losses from Greenland and West Antarctica have been accelerating, showing that some ice sheets are disconcertingly sensitive to warming”

    http://www.sciencemag.org/content/338/6111/1138.summary

  3577. Neville says

    Gav west antarctica yarn is old hat . Many studies have shown that this happened for thousands of years. Sometimes more ice sometimes less and all NATURAL CC.
    Greenland was much warmer during the Hol Opt for thousands of years with much higher SLs and just as warm 80 years ago, so what? All NATURAL CC.

  3579. spangled drongo says

    So gav, if the land ice melt only accounts for 20% of SLR and that’s gonna give us 2 inches of SLR by 2100 at present rates, where’s the other 8 inches gonna come from?

    Sea ice melt?

    Do ya think they might be injecting their own agenda into the narrative?

    If they included some of Neville’s historical points above into the story and showed themselves to be a little more scientifically sceptical, they would have a lot more cred.

    “Anyone who cans the latest UN climate report any time this week is definitely off my watch list for the rest of the year.”

    If you mean the blurb that Ban ki Moon spouted as a build-up to try and save Doha, for which he got rebuked by 125 concerned climate scientists:

    http://opinion.financialpost.com/2012/11/29/open-climate-letter-to-un-secretary-general-current-scientific-knowledge-does-not-substantiate-ban-ki-moon-assertions-on-weather-and-climate-say-125-scientists/

    People who rely on their opponents for balance are bound to fall off the cliff.

  3580. Robert says

    A foolproof way for banks to get richer. Count only the withdrawals, never the deposits. If all the banks do it, it’s “community consensus”. Works for ice!

    Too much ice in eastern Antarctica and the continent overall? Talk about the west. Historic Big Cold in Eastern Europe, 2012? Just don’t talk about it. People will forget it ever happened. Talk about Sandy and the N. American heatwave. Alternative energies too expensive? Cripple the efficient energy sources with taxes and regulation, subsidise the alternatives outrageously…then mumble something about how “renewables” are getting cheaper all the time.

    We are spun. We are McTernanised.

  3581. Neville says

    Julie Bishop explains the law and how it applies to the clueless Gillard idiot.

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/awu_scandal_the_laws_that_were_broken/#commentsmore

    Interesting to note that even the dopey boyfriend isn’t sure whether he gave her S5,000 or not. He concedes it could be right.

    Important to remember that the total sum involved in this con/.scam/theft/fraud isn’t 400,000 $ but $1,000,000.
    Yet not one of the three seems to know where it disappeared and who got what. If you believe that you’ll believe anything.

  3582. Debbie says

    Gavin,
    no one is claiming that the climate and/or SL is not in a constant state of flux.
    You appear to be arguing with yourself at the moment.
    Unless you can prove that human activity is having an alarming/overwhelming influence on global climate and/or SL then you are only agreeing with everyone else here that the overwhelming causes for any change are natural causes and not something that humans can control by centralised govt tax/trading initiatives.
    Emerging real time data even via IPCC and CSIRO is definitely indicating that ACO2 is NOT(bold) the driver that was originally hypothesised.
    Despite the predictions of AGW celebs like Tim Flannery that claimed such things as the storage dams would never fill regularly again and snow would be a ‘fleeting fancy by 2012’ in OZ, the NATURAL (bold) cycles of weather/climate/ocean currents/storm patterns etc appear to be totally uninterested in co operating with those predictions.
    I have no objection to research that is helping us all to understand the world around us.
    I severely object to the inappropriate political hijackjng of the research and the ‘knee jerk’ reactions that are based on emotion and false assumptions.
    Even more astounding is the fact that we have ample evidence that behaviour in Europe is proving to be financially ruinous & ‘self implosive’.
    Why would we want to copy it?

  3583. spangled drongo says

    Good summary in OLO cohers.

    It is interesting that the Gillard sympathisers don’t want to discuss details, just blame politics in general or Tony Abbott.

    Imagine what the screams would be if Abbott had done this even though not PM.

    Surely the police enquiry that is investigating Blewitt will ask questions and take statements from Gillard?

    What is the situation with grilling a PM?

  3584. spangled drongo says

    And gav, guess wot? 100% of those 125 scientists [not 97% of 87] supported those sceptical claims.

  3586. Neville says

    Just to add to the huge swings in temp during the Holocene. Here is Alley’s GISP 2 graph from wikipedia.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Greenland_Gisp2_Temperature.svg

    The swings are enormous and much larger and abrupt than our modern WP. So what caused these huge fluctuations in temp over those many thousands of years of the holocene?

    Definitely not co2. The 8,200 BP event has a very abrupt and vertical rise.

  3588. spangled drongo says

    Doncha love it when the great panjandrums of climate science [think RC, hockey team, closed mind etc] are forced to admit they don’t know any more about clouds than Jodi Foster:

    “It’s cloud illusions, I recall, I really don’t know clouds…. at all.”

    “Or take satellites. They may snap only two pictures a day of a cloud.”

    “Someone once likened this to someone completely unfamiliar with the rules of soccer getting snapshots twice a game,” Feingold said. “And after the fact trying to figure out what the rules of the game are.”

    But that never stops them from making catastrophic predictions and splurging our hard-earned to solve the so-called known problems.

  3591. ianl8888 says

    @cohenite

    I’ll take you at your word here on the Gillard-AWU affair. Perhaps you will comment on this post

    As I currently understand it:

    1) despite the circumstantial evidence of a prima facie case for mis-representation of intent when registering the AWU-WRA Association, the actual letter Gillard wrote to the WA Commissioner convincing him of the Association’s bona fides, is now missing from the WA CAC file registry. I also understand a legally certified copy is missing from the Federal Court file registry in Sydney as well; similarly for the S&G “unopen” file. No forensic evidence now seems to exist as to the exact contents of this letter. Unless a copy still exists in unfriendly hands (I doubt this now), end-of-the-line for this aspect

    2) the police apparently regard the PoA (even if back-dated, witnessed in absentia, or both) as a very minor aspect and not worth pursuing. End-of-the-line for this aspect

    3) The AWU (Paul Howes), Thiess and the WA Building Construction Association have not, and will not, lay a complaint with the police. The various reasons for this are self-evident, with the latter two seemingly valuing industrial peace more highly than loss of funds through probable fraud. This is apparently why Bruce Wilson remains un-interrogated and uncharged. End-of-the-line for this aspect

    4) Gillard’s personal bank account details for the early-mid 1990’s seem unobtainable. Her “passage of time” defence here works, I think. A pity, since any pattern of cash deposits may, or may not, have been interesting

    5) The only remaining questions centre on Blewitt’s recent sworn statements to the Victorian police. I suppose something might come of that … perhaps

    Quo vadis ?

  3592. spangled drongo says

    If Gillard had an ounce of fairdinkumness she would also volunteer a sworn statement to the police.

    Australia’s chief climate buffoon strikes again [with a little help from his friends]:

    http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2012/s3645922.htm

    One would think the very least our on-the-ball-ABC would ask is something like; “if the global climate hasn’t warmed for 15 years and is only 0.7c warmer after 150 years of industrial dev, how can it get 6c warmer by 2100?” or something to that effect.

    To warm the world 6.0c we have to warm the ocean close to 6.0c and the world’s oceans require the equivalent of 4,000 times the energy needed to warm the world’s atmosphere by the same amount.

    And that just ain’t gonna happen. For one thing, melting ice caps don’t warm the ocean.

  3593. Mark A says

    @ianl8888

    I’m afraid you are right.

    This is one of those situations where everyone knows the truth but no way to prove it.
    Too many to to lose too much, so the tracks are covered.

    @cohenite
    “What is the situation with grilling a PM?”

    The same as any other citizen such as gav.

    That’s very funny cohenite, the way I read it, you can ask any questions from either of them and get the same evasion, obfuscation.

  3594. cohenite says

    ianl8888:

    1 Gillard has admitted to writing the letter:

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/investigations/proof-pm-told-firm-what-she-wont-tell-parliament/story-fng5kxvh-1226526159739

    But you are right, all copies of the letter are missing from the Registry and Slater and Gordon’s file; that should be sufficient to establish a Royal Commission.

    But for purposes of prosecuting Gillard, the substance of any charge would be the established fact that Gillard drafted an application for association where she knew the declared purpose was different from its actual purpose; S.170 captures that.

    The other point is that the actual purpose stated by Gillard, of a “slush fund” was also not the real purpose; the association was used for personal expenditure by Wilson and Blewitt; the issue is did Gillard know that? The case for her knowledge of that is made here:

    http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=14428&page=0

    I would call this very strong circumstantial evidence.

    2 I don’t know what the police attitude about the POA is; the POA did not need to be witnessed for use in Victoria where the property was purchased but it did in WA; in any event Gillard has signed the POA as a witness to Blewitt’s signature; if she was not present when Blewitt signed then 83A of the Vict Crimes Act may apply.Val Majkus notes:

    ” Falsification of documents

    (1) A person must not make a false document with the intention that he or she,
    or another person, shall use it to induce another person to accept it as
    genuine, and by reason of so accepting it to do or not to do some act to that
    other person’s, or to another person’s prejudice.

    6) For the purpose of this section, a document is false if it purports-
    (g) to have been made or altered on a date on which, or at a place at
    which, or otherwise in circumstances in which, it was not in fact made
    or altered;
    (8) For the purposes of this section, an act or omission is to a person’s
    prejudice if, and only if, it is one that, if it occurs-

    (a) will result-
    (ii) to obtain a financial advantage from the first-mentioned person
    otherwise than by way of remuneration; or

    and an interesting case
    http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/HCA/1992/5.html?stem=0&synonyms=0&query='83A'%20NEAR%20'Crimes%20Act”

    para 8 In these circumstances, the answer to the question whether the applicant was guilty of the offence of having forged the guarantee turns upon the answer to a question which can be posed in abstract terms. That question is whether a person who adds his or her signature to a valid and effective instrument of guarantee which has been executed by the guarantor out of his or her presence is guilty of forging the guarantee if the effect of his or her signature is that the instrument of guarantee then asserts that the guarantor had executed it in his or her presence. In my view, in a case such as the present where the signature or presence of an attesting witness was not necessary for validity, that question should be answered in the negative. It is true that it can be argued that the addition of the witness’ signature in such a case is to alter the guarantee so that it purports to be what it is not, namely, a guarantee executed in the presence of an attesting witness. However, in a context where the presumption of innocence militates against conviction of a serious crime on the basis of ambiguities and subtleties, See, e.g., Tuck and Sons v. Priester (1887) 19 QBD 629, at p 638; Scott v. Cawsey [1907] HCA 80; (1907) 5 CLR 132, at pp 144-145, 154-157; R. v. Adams [1935] HCA 62; (1935) 53 CLR 563, at pp 567-568; Beckwith v. The Queen [1976] HCA 55; (1976) 135 CLR 569, at p 576; Waugh v. Kippen [1986] HCA 12; (1986) 160 CLR 156, at p 164; Murphy v. Farmer [1988] HCA 31; (1988) 165 CLR 19, at pp 28-29, the preferable view seems to me to be that the addition of the signature by the witness in such a case does not produce the consequence that the document relevantly purports to be what it is not. In such a case, the document purports to be what it is, namely, a valid and binding guarantee. By the addition of the signature, the witness does not impart a false character to the document but merely causes “an instrument which purports to be what it really is”, see Ex parte Charles Windsor (1865) 10 Cox CC, at p 123, to contain a false statement. As has been seen, that is not sufficient to constitute the offence of forgery of the relevant instrument. It could, of course, constitute other criminal conduct, see, e.g., Crimes Act 1958 (Vict.), s. 83A (introduced in 1988), and give rise to civil liability for any consequential loss sustained by others.”

    The point is, if the POA was not valid then neither was the house purchase.

    3 Agreed; which is why a Royal Commission into the collusion between the Unions and certain businesses needs to take place.

    4 Her bank accounts may not be available but her tax records should be; forensic analysis of her fiancial past to an ATO standard would turn her excuses inside out.

    5 Blewitt as a witness is peripheral; the partners at Slater and Gordon are where any case will turn.

  3595. ianl8888 says

    @cohenite

    Thanks for the reply

    1) a Royal Commission or Judicial Inquiry may happen if the ALP lose the next election, but I doubt it either way (the Q’ld Heiner affair has dragged on 20 years with the then Goss Cabinet admitting they shredded critical evidence that they KNEW was required in a pending court case). This is an admitted breach of criminal law by an entire Cabinet, yet even Newman’s “new” inquiry excludes old (ie. shredded) evidence. NOT A HOPE, that’s how power works

    2) the only real issue with the PoA is the central one of Gillard’s word against Blewitt’s … no contest. Status quo remains, as the police regard this as a non-event. I’d add that the only two questions that cause Gillard’s body language to go “wobbly” are those relating to witnessing the PoA and the faint possibility of a rogue copy of her letter to the WA Commissioner

    3) WHO is going to challenge S&G ? Not the ALP, not the police, not the AWU, not Cambridge now, certainly never Murphy, not the current owner of the house. No one left. Gillard’s tax returns are safe for the same reason

    I don’t doubt the strength of the circumstantial evidence. I think there is more “redacted” material in the exit interview transcript held by Nick S-Brown, but it seems unlikely he will release it if it opens S&G to legal action. For all I know, he may yet have a copy of the Gillard letter to the WA Commissioner

    But I can see only dead-ends now. Maybe wrong, but in my life I’ve seen far too much of the steam-roller of power to be optimistic. As Stalin said: “You can’t fake power” – and we don’t have it

  3597. cohenite says

    Gillard will be a test for the legal system; I don’t think there is any lack of charge potential against her; Smith deals with the POA intrincacies here:

    http://www.michaelsmithnews.com/2012/11/leos-asking-all-the-right-questions-about-the-power-of-attorney.html

    The obstacle will her station and interconnectedness with other prominent citizens some of whom must be choking on their bile; as regards station State premiers have gone so why shouldn’t a PM?

  3598. Neville says

    Here is Bolt at his best lampooning all the delusional numbskulls at Fairfax. Just skip forward a few minutes to get to all the CAGW nonsense from Fairfax journos.

    I must admit I can’t believe the stupidity of these people. What infantile looney rubbish some of these idiots write.

    http://www.2gb.com/audioplayer/6239

  3599. toby says

    for bazza and any one else deluded into supporting the NBN
    from the oz…..still think its money well spent?

    National Broadband Network rollout proving to be a costly failure

    by: Paul Fletcher
    From:The Australian
    December 04, 201212:00AM

    IN April 2009, the Rudd-Gillard government announced its plans to build the National Broadband Network.

    The fibre-optic network is supposed to pass 12.2 million premises around Australia by 2021.

    More than three years later, as at June 30, 2012, it had passed just 38,914 – less than one third of 1 per cent towards the finish line.

    Yet NBN Co’s corporate plan, issued in December 2010, promised to pass 317,000 premises by June 30, 2012. Another comparison: in 1994, Telstra announced it would build a national hybrid fibre coax network. By June 1997, three years on, the network passed 2.1 million homes.

    NBN is doing equally badly on the number of services being delivered. There were 3867 fibre services in operation as at June 30, 2012; the corporate plan promised 137,000.

    More recent disclosures at estimates hearings in October show little improvement. One component of the fibre rollout, brownfields, had risen from 29,000 in June to 32,295 and fibre services in operation were at 6400.

    Broadband Minister Stephen Conroy and NBN Co have tried every trick in the book to disguise the poor performance. They abandoned the original corporate plan and issued a new one in August this year. The goal of 317,000 premises passed by June this year was changed to 39,000.

    The goals for later years also dropped sharply. Originally the network was to pass 1.27 million premises by June 30 next year; that has fallen to 341,000.

    Next, they made comparisons as difficult as possible. The original corporate plan gave target numbers for five different categories of premises: three types of fibre, wireless and satellite. The new plan, and the 2011-12 annual report released recently, now gives numbers for two types of fibre and a merged number for wireless and satellite.

    Third, they tried to shift attention away from hard numbers by introducing a new statistic: premises where there is construction commenced or completed. NBN Co’s March 2012 media release promised that by 2015 “construction of the fibre optic component of the network will be under way or completed in areas containing 3.5 million premises”.

    This statistic – which is not used by private sector telecommunications companies such as Telstra and Optus – is meaningless. They count a home as having construction commenced from the moment a contract instruction is issued to the contractor.

    But several further steps are required, including the Telstra commencement notice and the final contract instruction. On average, it will be 12 months before the work is completed. A fourth trick is to quote total subscriber numbers across fibre, wireless and satellite.

    At the October estimates hearing, NBN Co said it had 24,000 customers. But of these, 17,000 were on satellite – and more than half of them were customers of an existing government program, dating back to Howard government days, to subsidise satellite broadband in rural and remote areas.

    The rollout is chewing up taxpayers’ money at an alarming rate. By June 30 this year, $2.832 billion of taxpayers’ money had been put into NBN as equity; of that more than $900 million had vapourised in three years of accumulated losses. (In 2011-12 alone, NBN Co lost $520m.)

    Total equity contributions – entirely taxpayer funded – are projected to reach $30.4bn by 2021. This is almost $3bn more than the Rudd-Gillard government had previously disclosed.

    NBN Co is splashing around money with abandon. It pays extremely generous salaries. Average remuneration cost per head was $172,000 in 2011-12, more than 50 per cent higher than the comparable figure at Telstra.

    Yet it has barely any customers and barely any revenue. It earned less than $2m from providing telecommunications services in 2011-12.

    As we have seen with the home insulation program, the school halls program and many others, the Rudd-Gillard government is hopeless at program delivery and financial management.

    We are seeing the same pattern with the NBN. Anyone who wants to see Australia’s broadband infrastructure upgraded in an efficient, cost-effective manner should be very alarmed.

  3600. spangled drongo says

    gav needs to grasp this if he is ever going to understand the complexities of ice-melt and SLR.

    GRASP dances with GRACE and DORIS.

    The only certainty is the degree of uncertainty. TRF underlies all the measurement of the earth. Lot of great links and messages if gav can ignore the messenger:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/03/why-ice-loss-and-sea-level-measurements-via-satellite-and-the-new-shepard-et-al-paper-are-highly-uncertain-at-the-moment/#more-75186

    http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/new-ice-surveys-finds-slower-ice-sheet-melting

  3601. Ian Thomson says

    Hi,
    Someone posted that ‘Muddied Waters” was to air soon on TV , on 7 mate. Can’t find the post.
    Help ?

  3602. Neville says

    Ian here’s that post from Debbie.

    Comment from: Debbie December 2nd, 2012 at 8:00 am

    I still do not understand how the top and the bottom of the southern MDB (Eucumbene & the barrages at the Lower Lakes) were cordoned off as political ‘ no go’ zones.
    It defies common sense and the resultant MDBP can only lead to the creation of more problems not the creation of sensible solutions.
    We all ended up arguing over a number based on a mythical long term average.
    Obviously it was mostly about a political outcome not a practical workable outcome.
    On Dec 9th at 9am EST on 7 TWO there will be an interesting doco called ‘Muddied Waters’ that will highlight some of the silly nonsense and the myths that have developed around the Murray River, especially around the Lower Lakes & the Coorong.
    Several South Australians are involved.

  3603. gavin says

    “We just see a progressive acceleration of glaciers which is causing more and more ice loss. And we think that that picture is consistent with oceanic warming in that area of Antarctica.”

    http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2012/11/30/3644829.htm

    “But the ice sheets aren’t the only ice that’s vanishing. Melting glaciers in Alaska, the Canadian Arctic, South America’s Patagonia and elsewhere are also raising sea levels. “The next step is to take this comprehensive approach to ice in the rest of the world,” says W. Tad Pfeffer, a glaciologist at the University of Colorado Boulder. No one is studying those other regions as intensely as the polar ice sheets, he says, but they are “a huge contributor with a huge lack of information.”

    http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/346733/description/Shrinking_polar_ice_caused_one-fifth_of_sea_level_rise

  3605. debbie says

    Here you go Ian,
    This is the information email re the documentary ‘Muddied Waters’:

    Hi there,

    thought you would be interested in watching this doco- Muddied Waters. It will be showing on channel 7 TWO (that’s Prime2) 9.30 on Sunday Dec 9.

    Please pass this on so that people can get the full story about the Murray Darling Basin.

    click on the link below to find out more about the doco.

    http://www.documentaryaustralia.com.au/films/details/1607/muddied-waters

    “Water is King, and he is Knight who uses it successfully to make two blades grow where nature produced none.” J.S Sherman 1894
    ***********************************

  3606. gavin says

    SD; “what’s causing the other 80%?” indeed!

    It was early yesterday that I wrote an aggressive post aimed at deniers inc that ended with, where did you get your glacier loss >20%SLR from? Fortunately for die-hard regulars it disappeared into the atmosphere but I then had to reconsider the latest ice loss/SL papers and your interpretation.

    There could be some confusion as there is a hockey stick situation in recent decades for both land ICE loss and SLR underlying all recent data. In some places we are discussing less than 1mm/y SLR, in others 3mm/y. I dug this link from from discussion in your link Shepherd @ wuwt btw

    http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/porrit31.jpg

    On TRF, from “Recent Ocean Modelling Articles”; “Physical processes that impact the evolution of global mean sea level in ocean climate models”

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1463500312000637

    Go back to lumpy earth and variable G, THEN track glacier mass loss, determine SL sign, track SL, review heat budget, track global Temp, find causes?

  3607. Robert says

    It’s okay, gav. There’s plenty of ice about, if you like the stuff. There may not be as much as in the ’70s…but you don’t want ’70s ice levels any more than you want orange shag-pile, Bogart Flairs or Blaxploitation movies.

    Move on from the 70s, warmies! Climate changes.

  3609. spangled drongo says

    “Move on from the 70s, warmies! Climate changes.”

    Just so, Robert, but from all that unquantifiable gobbledegook I’m sure they don’t really know which way.

    Think gift horse, looking in mouth.

  3610. el gordo says

    So what’s happening with the weather?

    The freezing winters in the NH is caused by a wayward jet stream and ‘blocking’, while in Oz its blowing hot and cold. Is this the same mechanism in the SH?

    The public want to know, in simple language, the cause of these extremes.

  3611. spangled drongo says

    Even Ol’ Travesty himself still admits that the uncertainties in OHC data remain too large.

    “According to Trenberth, scientists need to significantly reduce the uncertainties in the ocean heat content data before they can suspend the search for the missing heat. “The discrepancies among [upper-ocean heat content data sets] remain huge. We MUST do better,” he told Appell.”

    That recent ARGO data has been adjusted upwards, says it all.

    Nothing is happening and that is a travesty.

  3612. spangled drongo says

    A few obs on stats and modelling from David Springer at JC’s:

    Three statisticians go hunting. When they see a rabbit, the first one shoots, missing it by a foot on the left.
    The second one shoots and misses it by a foot on the right.
    The third one shouts: “We’ve hit it!…

    The mean weight of all statiscians in the world is 3 lbs.*******

    Being in love means never having to say you’re sorry. Being in statistics means never having to say you’re certain.

    Data sets are like people. Torture them enough and they’ll tell you whatever you want them to say.

    Celebrating your birthday is good for your health. Statistics prove the more of them you celebrate the longer you are likely to live.

    Shoe size is highly correlated with income and education level.

    A statistician is a person who draws a mathematically precise line from an unwarranted assumption to a forgone conclusion.

    The great majority of people have more than the average number of legs.

    Scientists use statistics as a drunk uses a lampost; for support rather than illumination.

  3613. Robert says

    EG, whenever there’s extreme cold, ice, snow it’s due to “blocking”, regardless of hemisphere. If you get enough “blocking” it can lead to “masking” of CAGW.

    Of course, it’s really best if you can get the love media not to talk about cold. (I only happened to learn about the NH when I saw a pic of someone in Alaska or Canada opening his door from the inside and finding only a few inches of gap at the top. The rest was a new wall of snow.)

    That “record” sea ice recovery after the “record” melt is coming with a cost to Europe. It’s too bloody COLD. (Sorry, I meant too bloody BLOCKED). Re my inverted commas on the word “record”: I find it hilarious that supposedly scientific people draw climate conclusions from satellite data that started in 1979. I mean, if the data stretched back to 1979 BC it would still be pretty flimsy.

    Early 2012 brought a truly historic cold to Eastern and Northern Europe over a huge area. But, sssh, you can’t be trusted with such knowledge. You may not understand about “blocking” and “masking” like the grown-ups do. On the other hand, the summer heat in the US is safe for us children to read about.

  3614. Johnathan Wilkes says

    Robert

    “But, sssh, you can’t be trusted with such knowledge. You may not understand about “blocking” and “masking” like the grown-ups do. On the other hand, the summer heat in the US is safe for us children to read about.”

    Robert, the Bunyip has a video that explains the mindset of these people, not exactly related to warmists but about people with the same mentality.
    Rather longish but well worth watching, unless you know it already.

    http://bunyipitude.blogspot.com.au/

  3615. el gordo says

    Thanx Robert

    Its a Scandinavian High and it appears to overwhelm the AGW signal.

    ‘The Big Freeze that heralded the start of December is set to continue, with sleet, snow and hail covering much of the country all week.

    ‘The cold snap will persist, with temperatures dropping to a lower-than-average -8C in Scotland and four inches of snow expected tomorrow, and another four inches likely later in the week.

    ‘High pressure in Scandinavia can indicate one of the most well-known snow setups, in which the pressure front moves from Siberia into Scandinavia, and then ridges westwards, giving the British Isles a chilly easterly airflow.

    ‘Continental air from Russia is very cold and dry, but as this air passes over the North Sea, it warms up and picks up moisture.’

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2243251/UK-weather-Britain-wakes-inches-snow-parts-delays-airports-theres-icy-weather-way.html#ixzz2EAPzcFjy
    Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

  3618. gavin says

    SD; given I don’t read Bolt, let’s catch my way on this coldest ever Dec ACT morning

    This week was full of wild winds so the carport, walkways and yards filled up with litter, mostly from eucalyptus street trees that have shed canopy suddenly after a couple of hot days. Cleaned up twice but this time our recycle depot is on fire again. Previous fire there was on the 16th Nov, spontaneous combustion both times in trashed mulch.

    Grass fire alert this season says they can out run us, 100M/5.5 sec. Got my old 4 stroke going over the verge till it finally kicked the dust for the last time. Had to walk one of my good 4’s through M high white oats next door, on a higher setting though. Thinking we may need to hold everything till after the w/e, I watered down my five bins ready for another load of tinder dry neighborhood organics.

    Re assembly of five vintage Bailey type hand planes filled the week in between.

    Took a little time out to hear the RN interviews this morning with guys co-ordinating new public photo coastal benchmarks/high tide survey, but been too busy since to follow up

    http://witnesskingtides.org/

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-12-06/king-tides-give-sneak-peek-at-sea-rise-future/4413150

  3619. spangled drongo says

    Gav, grass-fire could always outrun me on a galloping horse. Just like Bannerman of the Dandenong. Top speed of the old Bedford was 60 mph across the downs fire plough tracks and sometimes that was barely enough.

    I’ve modified some of those wooden handplanes to make masts and spars. Even rail caps. You shape the underside and the blades to whatever you’re making. Works better than power tools and more versatile.

    Witness King Tides stopped writing to me when I asked if they had any data. I sent them my observations and after some correspondence it was obvious that it was all just propaganda and no facts. Good idea if they told the truth and stuck at it for another 50 years or so without drawing conclusions.

    Kiribati beating the drum at Doha.

    With nothing from glaciers and next to nothing from Ice Caps, where’s it gonna come from?

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/feb/08/glaciers-mountains?intcmp=122

    As I have said, they’ve got a deck space problem, not a freeboard problem.

  3622. spangled drongo says

    Looks like BkM didn’t pay much attention to those 125 scientists who called him out on his b/s.

    Also the Global Climate Fund with its shrinking billions in kitty has barely enough to pay staff let alone corrupt officials in the “sinking fund”.

    What a racket!

    http://www.radioaustralia.net.au/international/radio/program/pacific-beat/extreme-weather-the-new-normal-ban-kimoon/1056734

    Another great larf is the ACO2 catastros are gonna decide if they’ll let non-members of the new Kyoto invest in their worthless carbon market.

    I mean, we can’t have non-believers profiteering from our useless indulgences, hey, can we?

  3623. Neville says

    More bi-polar delusion from the Gillard idiot.

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/gillard_opposes_the_power_prices_rises_she_wants/

    She’s as mad as a hatter, just look at the evidence. That’s everyone except Gav, he doesn’t like to read facts or evidence.

    First we’re told mitigating CAGW is the greatest moral challenge of our time.

    Next we’re told we must have a co2 tax to reduce emissions so “we can tackle CC and take action on CC.” Nearly every member of her barking mad govt has stated the above.

    Next we’re told by Garnaut and Gillard etc that forcing up our electricity prices is a good thing and will HELP to focus OZ on a clean energy future. Like I said she’s barking mad.

    Meantime while forcing OZ to pay heaps more for power her idiot govt is trying to increase exports of coal, iron ore and gas etc to anyone who’ll buy. All that extra emitted co2 evidently doesn’t count according to this bi-polar donkey.

    Ferguson her resources minister even wants Victoria to process their huge brown coal deposits so they too can export black coal.
    He claims this could be so large that the Latrobe valley could become another Pilbara. But all that extra co2 doesn’t matter either according to these two brained dummies.

    I could go on . Now this loon of a govt wants to actually reduce electricity prices because they can start to feel the political heat.

    Of course China, India etc power on regardless and our tiny reduction in co2 will not make a scrap of difference to co2 levels or the climate or the temp.
    All our wasted billions $ could be flushed down the drain forever and the difference to climate and temp would be exactly the same. Just ask GAIA brain Flannery.

  3625. Ian Thomson says

    Thanks Debbie and Neville,
    It has now been announced in the local paper as well.
    Be interesting to see if it rates enough to get a prime time run.

  3626. el gordo says

    Karoly is a fraudster.

    ‘According to David Karoly, an atmospheric scientist at Melbourne University and a lead author with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, global projections may not give a true picture of how we will experience global warming.

    “The problem we have is that, even if our best estimate is 4 degrees of warming this century, that is a global average and most of the globe is water,” he says. “Four degrees on average means probably 3 degrees over the oceans, and 5 or 6 degrees on average over the land.”

    Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/environment/climate-change/five-degrees-hotter-20121207-2b19g.html#ixzz2EQKpDN5P

  3627. John Sayers says

    Yes El Gordo – that article by The Fairfax Environment journalists is a disgrace. It was also published in the SMH.

  3629. Neville says

    EG thanks for that info from notrickszone. Here’s an earlier post from that site in june 2012.

    http://notrickszone.com/2012/06/18/data-show-sea-level-rise-has-slowed-down-over-the-last-7-years/
    At least they have used good sources, kinda beats a silly fool running around taking silly photos of coastline trying to disprove the real world measurements from tidal gauges and satellites.
    I repeat SLR until 2100 now shows a rise of just 17cm or 6.8 inches. This is well down on the metres estimated in the 1980s by USA IPA and then IPCC first report of 67mm and their 2001 report of 48.5cm and 2007 of 38.5cm. These quotes are all mid points.

  3631. Debbie says

    The documentary ‘Muddied Waters’ was really good.
    A fabulous cross section of people and it was based on practical outcomes.
    When the politics are taken out of the equation, it is easy to see that a balance is achievable.
    The people from SA did a wonderful job of pointing out the estuarine history of the Coorong and the Lower Lakes and the futility of the ‘just add more water’ mantra.
    A particularly clear and simple explanation of the ecological damage that has been created by those hopelessly outdated barrages and the SE drainage works.
    The fact that sea water intrudes even when the river is in major flood was clearly explained with evidence from the telemetry sites.
    The idiocy of trying to put extra water on the back of natural flooding was also highlighted in a clear and sensible manner.

  3632. Ian Thomson says

    Yes Debbie, it was very well done.
    I had been wondering, as I went to the concept meeting in Deni and old mate was a little into AGW.
    However, in this case , AGW just makes a stronger anti barrage case.
    Even I did not know that the Snowy nonsense was part of that insane Water Act and I thought I was onto all the machinations.

    I have to wonder what Sydney would be hearing if Louise had been elected instead of the Member we have when we don’t have a member. Bet they would know we exist.

  3633. spangled drongo says

    Sorry I missed that Deb. It sounds like a little bit of sanity for a change. I’ll have to get the replay which will come up in a couple of days.

  3634. Debbie says

    Ian,
    one day when you have some time to kill, the SHL licence is worth a read.
    They basically have the right to ‘rape & pillage’ downstream.
    I think the ability to produce hydro power is awesome and eminently sensible, but it needs some serious upgrading and a clearer focus on the ‘multiple benefits’ that could be achieved.
    The system (like those barrages at the bottom) has gone past its ‘use by’ date and because it wasn’t designed to do so, it is incapable of delivering sensible ‘environmental’ outcomes.
    The rules and regs are lacking the necessary flexibility that could prevent the waste of water. The insanity of 2009/10/11/12 that has seen water wasted out to sea via Hume & Blowering is a case in point.
    The SHL program/licence is somewhat disconnected from the reality of downstream impacts.
    The Coorong and Lower Lakes have also been cordoned off politically and disconnected from the reality of upstream.
    I think the documentary did a very good job of pointing out that disconnect problem in a clear and simple manner.
    It was also quite apolitical as it didn’t take ‘sides’, it just pointed out the issues and the practical constraints.

  3635. gavin says

    EG & Nev; by your constant use of malicious rhetoric and reference to traitorous blog gossip you hope to deceive and disarm a broader public about the perils of rapid climate change. Notrickszone klaus is not supported anywhere, msm or science in your SL “decel” campaign. A quick look at sources would have shown there is no “de” SL acceleration even for hard line sceptic chatter on a decade or two.
    a
    http://kaltesonne.de/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/meer1.gif

    http://kaltesonne.de/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/meer4.gif

    There is also no framework for a debate on SL change rates other than a hand full of very independent tide gauge records that come without overview or authorization. Notricks is at best an opinion forum like our OlO and other would be anti enviro journo grievance clubs.

    Melt water studies are going on everywhere and most importantly for us, right out in the Pacific

    “Drowning of coral reef associated with melting of glaciers”

    http://www.mbari.org/volcanism/Hawaii/HR-CoralReefs.htm

    Get with the science on modern SLR

  3637. el gordo says

    Gavin those charts prove SL rise has stopped.

    ‘…you hope to deceive and disarm a broader public about the perils of rapid climate change.’

    That’s a bit silly, my aim is to debrief a brainwashed public and I have weather and climate change on my side.

  3638. gavin says

    “those charts prove SL rise has stopped”

    EG; SL rise has not stopped. Either the charts are wrong or you can’t read them, which is it?

    “my aim is to debrief a brainwashed public” and so you give us no credit what so ever.

    “I have weather and climate change on my side” I say that’s a bit silly as SLr is still on the go and the climate becomes more and more harmful to life as we knew it. On our side of the Pacific Rim, that’s about bushfires, typhoons and floods. You can’t say what the benefits if any, are.

  3641. spangled drongo says

    “EG; SL rise has not stopped. Either the charts are wrong or you can’t read them, which is it?”

    Just look out the window gav.

    SLs on the east coast have not risen AT ALL this century and in fact are lower than they were decades ago.

    Not just deceleration, that’s just a polite way of puting it, FALLING SLs. Just check the Pacific tide gauges.

    Here’s Kiribati:

    http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/stations/1371.php

  3642. Davefromweewaa says

    Hi Debbie,
    I thought Muddied Waters was very good.I hope it gains enough traction to get a run at a more widely viewed time and place.Shame it didn’t go further north than Bourke but that would have needed more than 57 minutes.
    The point was made by a number of people that local knowledge from the productive farming sector has either not been sought or been ignored.There is no suprise in this.Unfortunately production (and therefore producers) are seen as the cause of the alleged problems.I’m afraid that the anti production people believe they hold the moral high ground.The only way to get better outcomes is for pro production people to displace anti production people on that moral high ground.
    Achieving that will involve reducing some high profile reputations in my opinion.
    Dave Shorter

  3643. Debbie says

    Gavin,
    what do you believe is causing the changes (either up or down) in SL?
    The graphs & charts only prove it is not static.
    What are ‘the perils of rapid climate change’?
    What do you think the ‘broader public’ needs to be ‘armed’ about?
    How would you ‘arm’ the broader public?

  3644. Neville says

    Debbie you’re asking our Gav what he really means, or what his point is and that’s his big problem. He can’t say what he means or offer a solution for his claims.

    The facts are that we have a declining trend for SLR until 2100 and it’s now about 17 cm or 6.8 inches. This is lower than earlier trends by USA IPA and IPCC reports whether Gav understands this or not.

    Of course this could change either up or down but the IPCC’s models show that there is zero chance of dangerous SLR for the next 300 years from Greenland or Antarctica.

    It’s interesting to note that when the Vinther, Jones, Briffa etc temp study for Greenland was released in 2006 it showed that the highest temps were the 1930s and 1940s and highest year 1941.
    Since 2006 temps have increased slightly but there would be few people who understand or know about this Greenland temp record. But why hasn’t the MSM shown the graphs or mentioned this study.?

    Of course Alley’s holocene temp record for G/land shows that 1950 ( near highest for the last 100 years) was a very cool period for the last 10,000+ years. But LIA was one of the coldest periods.

  3645. Neville says

    Here’s Richard Alley’s graph for Greenland temp over the holocene ending in 1950. Explain how the temps were so much higher during that long period shown by GISP2.
    We can definitely say it wasn’t co2 forcing, so what was it?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Greenland_Gisp2_Temperature.svg

    Also here is that study of Greenland temps by Vinther, Jones, Briffa etc.

    http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/greenland/vintheretal2006.pdf

    This shows in 2006 that 1930s and 1940s were the warmest period and 1941 the warmest year. If you trust the temp record since 2006 they claim Gland temps are now equal to the 30s and 40s.

  3647. cohenite says

    gav says:

    “traitorous blog gossip”

    That’s a new one.

    I see serial alarmist Matthew England has declared that the IPCC predictions about temperature have been vindicated:

    http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2012/s3650773.htm

    I simply have to pause at the outrageous disingenuity of this position which of course was run without quibble by our abc.

  3649. Ian Thomson says

    Easy one Neville,
    All the ice melted because of global warming and the plane was left sitting on a rock 250 feet downhill from where it landed.
    All that stuff about tunneling and hole boring was done in a Hollywood studio, ( rumoured to be the one used for the Moon landing ).
    The whole thing was financed by Big Oil and pedophile skeptics, to deceive and disarm the great unwashed about the perils of climate change.

    Seriously though, it is a fascinating story. Working down that hole would be unimaginable.

  3651. spangled drongo says

    Neville, that’s a great post of Jo’s. The last 50-60 years agree perfectly with my own observations from benchmarks. As I have been known to state.

    Check it out gav.

  3654. Robert says

    On second thoughts, why send money to an anonymous person in Texas with a zero feedback rating on eBay?

    Let’s just tip more billions into Third World guilt abatement. With the early ski seasons in Europe and the US, all the dodgy political types and UN trough swillers will be able to go straight from Doha to Aspen or Gstaad.

    Snow’s great everywhere! It’s just a matter of whether you want to spend other people’s dollars or other people’s euros.

  3655. Neville says

    Robert you shouldn’t link to such absurdities. Luke, Gav, bazza and Poly would be tempted to take up the offer.
    As we’ve seen they’ll just about believe in any nonsense and rubbish involved with the CAGW mitigation CON.
    I mean that zero feedback rating would probably be a plus to these loons because thay don’t even understand simple kindy maths or very simple co2 graphs.

  3658. gavin says

    SD; if you expect me to look into jn, wuwt, morner or monckton ever again, you are most definitely off my xmas list.

    What an oddball water divining very once aponatime kite flyer you found there. Give me a climate scientist or oceanographer please!

    SD; can you say what your current best SLR estimate is in –mm/y given glaciers are still melting as they have been for a decade or two?

  3659. spangled drongo says

    Gav, ever had to find water in the desert? Where you have to sink a well more than 100 feet with a pick and shovel?

    When you assess the most likely place, your chances are still pretty slim because the shaft is little more than a metre across [1.2 m is about as small as you can go and still swing a pick] so when a diviner then tells you exactly where to dig and you “get lucky” after 6 months of sweat and blisters, you aren’t about to dismiss his talents out of hand.

    I speak from personal experience yet I am still agnostic.

    “The results from the remaining 6 were said to be better than chance, resulting in the experimenters’ conclusion that some dowsers “in particular tasks, showed an extraordinarily high rate of success, which can scarcely if at all be explained as due to chance … a real core of dowser-phenomena can be regarded as empirically proven”

    OTOH, divining may be just a subconscious occurrence that “is consistent with” confirmation bias.

    What does that remind you of?

    But most of all, as good as these messengers are in spite of your bias, always remember to address the message, not shoot the messenger.

    And you also need to try and follow the full story on what glaciers are doing and supplement that with real world obs [IOW, tide gauges such as Moerner– the producer of hundreds of peer-reviewed papers– provides]

    As I said up-thread, my obs show that SLs are certainly no higher than I observed them to be 66 years ago and may well be lower.

  3660. Neville says

    Gav I’ve shown you this before but I’ll link again. Just in case you’re trying to insist we’re heading for dangerous SLR by 2100. This covers our backside until 2300.

    http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/364/1844/1709/F4.expansion.html

    That’s 99% of the planet’s ice taken care of for the next 300 years, the other 1% you can find for yourself.
    You believe in models so you’ve got all the models here to study, covering Greenland and antarctica.

  3661. debbie says

    Gavin,
    SD was much too kind in this instance.
    You seriously need to look outside you closed box and pay attention to the message, not make a poor (and largely second hand) attempt at ‘shooting the messenger’.
    You don’t usually do that here….I am somewhat disappointed in your attempt to do so this time.
    I’m sure others would think some of your hobbies and interests are rather ‘oddball’….but that doesn’t mean that you are unable to perform other tasks efficiently and/or use sound methodology.
    How about you examine the paper and make a genuine attempt to comprehend the methodology behind the conclusions?
    If you find something wrong there….I’m sure we’re all prepared to listen.

  3662. Robert says

    Hate to keep repeating this, but once more for gav. SLR is a nineteenth century phenomenon that extended into the next century. That’s 19th. That’s a 1 plus a 9.

    NINETEENTH CENTURY.

    Got it?

    The world’s oldest tide gauges all show an increase in the rate of sea level rise from the 18th century. It’s also interesting that the post 1820 acceleration is the whip tail of a long term rise which just goes back and back. I’m assuming this link will be acceptable, since it’s got CSIRO pasted all over it.
    http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_hist_few_hundred.html

    As with “extreme” and “dirty” weather, we’re supposed to use the past as a vague reference without actually examining the past. The New Man at Year Zero is not to consult history, though he may use words like “record”, “ever” and “unprecedented” as mystical charms or talismanic utterances.

  3663. Neville says

    Interesting new study shows an increase in the Greenland ice sheet since the end of the LIA.

    http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00373.1

    Here is the abstract from the study, 1840 to 1996. That’s a 12% or 86 Gt per year increase. That’s 30% higher than the 1600 to 2009 period suggesting an accelerating trend in ice accumulation.

    Rather stuffs up a lot of theories. How much more ice do these ratbags want?

    Abstract

    Ice core data are combined with RACMO2 regional climate model (RCM) output (1958-2010) to develop a reconstruction of the Greenland ice sheet net snow accumulation rate (Ât(G)) spanning years 1600-2009. Regression parameters from RCM output regressed on 86 ice cores are used with available cores in a given year resulting in the reconstructed values. Each core site’s residual variance is used to inversely weight the cores’ respective contributions. The interannual amplitude of the reconstructed accumulation rate is damped by the regressions and is thus calibrated to match that of the RCM data. Uncertainty and significance of changes is measured using statistical models.

    We find a 12% or 86 Gt y-1 increase in ice sheet accumulation rate from the end of the Little Ice Age in ~1840 to the last decade of the reconstruction. This 1840-1996 trend is 30% higher than that of 1600-2009, suggesting an accelerating accumulation rate. The correlation of Ât(G) with the average surface air temperature in the Northern Hemisphere(SATNHt) remains positive through time, while the correlation of Ât(G) with local near-surface air temperatures or North Atlantic sea surface temperatures is inconsistent, suggesting a hemispheric-scale climate connection. We find an annual sensitivity of Ât(G) to SATNHt of 6.8% K-1 or 51 Gt K-1.

    The reconstuction, Ât(G), correlates consistently highly with the North Atlantic Oscillation index. Yet, at the 11-year time scale, the sign of this correlation flips four times in the 1870-2005 period.

    Corresponding author address: box.11@osu.edu

    © 2012 American Meteorological Society Privacy Policy and Disclaimer
    Headquarters: 45 Beacon Street Boston, MA 02108-3693
    DC Office: 1120 G Street, NW, Suite 800 Washington DC, 20005-3826
    amsinfo@ametsoc.org Phone: 617-227-2425 Fax: 617-742-8718
    Allen Press, Inc. assists in the online publication of AMS journals

  3664. spangled drongo says

    CSIRO now claims 13.5 cm SLR for the last 171 years at Ross’ mark at Port Arthur but a few years back they weren’t too sure:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/467007.stm

    John Daly points out their error:

    “CSIRO Policy on the `Isle of the Dead’ revealed to BBC (13 Oct 99)

    One of the two co-authors of the unpublished internal CSIRO Report on the `Isle of the Dead’ near Port Arthur, Tasmania, Dr David Pugh, has made the CSIRO policy on the 1841 benchmark public by stating to the BBC that it was a high water mark struck in 1841, not a mean sea level mark.

    If that were true, it would mean there has been NO sea level rise in the last 160 years, none at all, because the benchmark now sits at the approximate high tide level anyway
    (in a location with a very small tidal range of only 60-70 cms).

    But Pugh has not told the `Beeb’ the whole story, as the benchmark was never intended as a high tide mark at all, but a mean sea level mark, meaning there may have been a sea level fall – Here is what the man responsible for the mark, renowned Antarctic explorer and ocean scientist, Captain Sir James Clark Ross wrote in 1847

    “My principal object in visiting Port Arthur was … to establish a permanent mark at the zero point, or general mean level of the sea as determined by the tidal observations which Mr. Lempriere had conducted with perseverance and exactness for some time: … The point chosen for this purpose was the perpendicular cliff of the small islet off Point Puer (the Isle of the Dead), which, being near to the tide register, rendered the operation more simple and exact; the governor, whom I had accompanied on an official visit to the settlement, gave directions to afford Mr. Lempriere every assistance of labourers he required, to have the mark cut deeply in the rock in the exact spot which his tidal observations indicated as the mean level of the ocean.”

    How much clearer does Ross have to be? It would be an outrageous slur on the good name of such a great man to dismiss his account so lightly, just in order to prop up modern politically-inspired theories about sea level rise. Besides, a local high tide mark would have been scientifically pointless.”

    So gav, no SLR but most likely SL fall over that period.

  3665. Neville says

    That’s very interesting SD and fits in with my link above. That 2012 study shows more ice accumulation on Greenland since the end of the LIA.

  3666. gavin says

    SD. “that’s a great post of Jo’s” and “my obs show that SLs are certainly no higher than I observed them to be 66 years ago and may well be lower” are consistent with not having having a sign or figure for a SLR debate

    Nev; from your link I found these. Can I leave you to work it out?

    http://www.bristol.ac.uk/geography/people/tony-j-payne/pub/4465193

    http://ebooks.cambridge.org/chapter.jsf?bid=CBO9780511535659&cid=CBO9780511535659A085

    Rob; good one, now what do you see for present SLR –mm/y?

    Deb; I had divining lessons way back after our neighbor stuffed up with a well site just 1M from our septic tank. A pro bore driller eventually struck water very deep under the hill on the road side. Given drilling is a sure way to find what ever, what is your experience with fencing wire or forked stick?

    Anyone. when did the polar glaciers stop melting?

  3667. Neville says

    I’m sorry Gav you’ve lost me, when did I send you those links? One is from a book published in 2004.

  3668. Johnathan Wilkes says

    SD

    “My principal object in visiting Port Arthur was … to establish a permanent mark at the zero point, or general mean level of the sea as determined by the tidal observations which Mr. Lempriere had conducted with perseverance and exactness for some time: … The point chosen for this purpose was the perpendicular cliff of the small islet off Point Puer (the Isle of the Dead), which, being near to the tide register, rendered the operation more simple and exact; the governor, whom I had accompanied on an official visit to the settlement, gave directions to afford Mr. Lempriere every assistance of labourers he required, to have the mark cut deeply in the rock in the exact spot which his tidal observations indicated as the mean level of the ocean.”

    How much clearer does Ross have to be? It would be an outrageous slur on the good name of such a great man to dismiss his account so lightly, just in order to prop up modern politically-inspired theories about sea level rise. Besides, a local high tide mark would have been scientifically pointless.”

    So gav, no SLR but most likely SL fall over that period.

    A genuine marvel of a quote and of course of great merit.

    What’s gav’s answer?
    Some drivel about his septic tank and his neighbor’s well in replying to Debbie.

    Where did she say anything about diviners and wells? I can’t find a connection but being busy I may have missed it.

    Come back Jennifer, you are greatly missed.

    Luke! please come back too, but please leave your alter ego behind?

  3669. Robert says

    “…now what do you see for present SLR –mm/y?”

    Gav, I don’t know. You don’t know. Nobody knows.

    I hope Saint George win the 2050 Grand Final. But I don’t know who will win it. Neither do you. Neither does anybody.

    Re polar glaciers: they not only stopped melting in the 17th century but they grew alarmingly. Then they retreated a bit in subsequent centuries – thank God. As recently as the 1970s they were getting oversize. Then they did that melting thing again. They’re glaciers. They come. They go. The Pacific North West is of interest:

    “Beginning in 1950 and continuing through the early 1980′s, however, many of the major glaciers advanced in response to relatively cooler temperatures of the mid-century. The Carbon, Cowlitz, Emmons, and Nisqually Glaciers advanced during the late 1970′s and early 1980′s as a result of high snowfalls during the 1960′s and 1970′s. Since the early-1980′s and through 1992, however, many glaciers have been thinning and retreating and some advances have slowed, perhaps in response to drier conditions that have prevailed at Mount Rainier since 1977.”
    Mount Rainier National Park Info.

    Let’s just hope that the eruption of a Decade Volcano like Rainier doesn’t coincide with any global cooling from other causes. That’s when we’ll wish we had lots of shiny, new, efficient coal power plants.

  3670. Debbie says

    JW,
    Debbie didn’t.
    For some reason Gav thinks that behaving like an odball excuses his poor behaviour in ‘shooting the messenger’.
    It doesn’t.
    Just to be clear Gavin; I have no experience and no particular opinion on water divining.
    You have avoided the point entirely and I am even more disappointed in your behaviour.
    Shooting the messenger is poor behaviour at any time and for any reason.
    If you have no opinion or no comment on the paper, just say so.
    Is there something amiss with the methodology or indeed the academic qualifications?
    His hobbies and interests outside of those related to SL have nothing to do with it.
    You have outside interests along with everyone else. Some people may believe some of your hobbies are ‘odball’ too.
    So what?

  3671. spangled drongo says

    Yes JW, we really miss John Daly. He was a great thorn in the side of the alarmists.

    “Anyone. when did the polar glaciers stop melting?”

    Well gav, in Antarctica, which has 90% of the world’s ice, the mean annual temperature of the interior is −57°C so there is an ice bank that you can bank on and it will be more inclined to increase than decrease when even in summer the temps usually don’t rise above zero and a few weeks ago they were running at the mid minus 80s.

    I can’t see much melting even if we get the predicted warming [which isn’t happening].

  3673. gavin says

    SD; Climate Depot and MM are off my list too.

    Shooting time this month, next king tide above your old marks with a reliable wittiness on the day and a picture posted in public of all showing the difference

  3675. spangled drongo says

    Yes gav, we know that ice sheets are sensitive to ocean warming as Lukie loves to spout, but with record levels of sea ice and no SLR, maybe the oceans are just not that warm.

    Don’t make assumptions, look out the window.

    NO SLR!

    “The researchers want more and longer time series of oceanographic observations in order to improve the models and achieve a better understanding.”

    “Only then will we be able to say something about how the ice masses of the Antarctic and Greenland will change in the future.”

    Wouldn’t it be wonderful if they adopted their own rules but when did lack of knowledge, evidence and understanding ever stop them from spouting rubbish in the past.

    Garbage in,

    Gospel out

    How does that

    Come about?

  3676. Debbie says

    Gavin,
    Of course ice melts into water and water freezes into ice.
    Of course things change.
    There is always change.
    The ’causes’ of those changes are the point of disagreement.
    The CAGW argument claims that a significant portion of change is dangerous and is caused by human activity and particularly ACO2.
    The predictive models claim they have ‘teased out’ a correlation and a trend and the attached political agenda has hijacked them and claimed they are infallible crystal balls and we can control the change by creating a ‘carbon market’.
    Trouble is, the actual changes to temp and SL have fallen well below the predicted ranges and that ACO2 signal does not appear to possess the hypothesised power.
    It appears that the weather/climate and SL is not interested in conforming to the modelled trends and the ‘real’ environment possesses adaptive properties that we don’t fully understand and therefore CANNOT succesfully model.
    Whether you like/dislike the sources of information or the conclusions drawn from stat methodology is irrelevant.
    If the real time empirical evidence is not conforming to the modelled trends, then the models must be wrong and in serious need of correction and updating.
    Ignoring real time data does not make it go away.
    Shooting the messengers who are providing the updated data doesn’t make it go away either.
    Modelling is a very useful tool but it quickly loses that usefulness if it is not correctly updated.
    They don’t seem to have the relationship between all the variables correct.

  3681. Neville says

    Interesting to print out the Alley GISP 2 graph and draw a line across the page at the 1950 temp point.
    From the 8.2 thousand year cold event to the 1950 point there are only 4 small intervals that are cooler than 1950.

    That would only cover about 1200 years at most of the 10,000 years or perhaps 12%. Therefore 88% of that holocene period would be warmer than 1950 in GISP 2. So much for unprecedented or unusual warming in Greenland. Total nonsense.

    Print out the graph and try the test for yourself. We in fact have much cooler conditions in Greenland today than for 8,800 years of the holocene.

    That graph again. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Greenland_Gisp2_Temperature.svg

  3684. Neville says

    Remember Greenland temps were highest in the 1930s and 1940s with highest year being 1941.

    http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/greenland/vintheretal2006.pdf This was in 2006 and possibly warmed closer to 1940s since. Briffa and Jones were part of this study.

    Next temps today are much lower in Greenland than the earlier holocene.

    Remember Greenland cooled after 1950 and didn’t warm to near that level again until the late 1990s.

  3685. gavin says

    Deb; re hobbies and SL, no models needed cause I work with the real thing, including hand tools, instruments, atmosphere, radiation, electricity, water, sludge, tides, soils, creatures and land forms.

    SD may appreciate, today I reassembled an old but minty bench plane hopefully for the last time. This odd No5 had me and others fooled since a market acquaintance shoved it my way as a boxed post war famous English make and hardly used. It slowly dawned that the thing has never worked from factory hence it’s apparent GC. After many jobs on it, mostly clean up I noticed the blade fell out while set at cutting depth. I eventually decided no fudge would fix the problem and so spent two days this week carefully re shaping the yoke that sits astride the brass thumb wheel. Finally I was forced to change the scrappy pivot pin to a neat fitting roll type and this combination produced the precision cutting depth that wood workers dream about.

    Moving on, the water divining rod is likewise a yoke but it pivots round your out turned thrums when held by its ends. Sensitivity to underground water is adjusted by the tension between thumb grip and weight of the Y form held near horizontal while pointing away. From experience this device can’t be calibrated in any way that could conform to repeat survey requirements. In fact results are often bewildering for the uninitiated. Uneven footsteps create chaos as the struggle to stabilize intensifies. A good reader must find his own balance with mother nature. A good driller works in a pattern.

    Nev; you can wait cause cause I can barely read, even see with 4 x daily paste in after several sessions at emergency chasing red eye syndrome most likely self inflicted given my workshop hours lately

  3686. Debbie says

    So Gavin?
    What was ‘not real’ in Morner’s work?
    Does your work with ‘the real thing’ prove anything particularly alarming re ACO2?
    So far, all you have done is pointed out that things change.
    No one disagrees with that.
    The only constant in the natural environment is in fact change.
    You also fired a shot at the messenger for no apparently good reason.
    What about the evidence in Morner’s research?

  3687. Neville says

    More peer reviewed work in this study from Norway.

    http://www.co2science.org/articles/V15/N47/C3.php

    This shows that present temps are lower than temps were during the earlier holocene. Just another study to back up the Greenland temp series I linked to above.

    Even if temps continue to rise it will just return us part way to the much higher levels that have been seen during the holocene. That’s in Norway and Greenland and probably most of the NH.

  3688. Neville says

    Just looked at those graphs again for northern and southern Norway. The last small interval of the LIA looks to be as cold as any period of that holocene graph.

    Yet we’re supposed to be worried about this slight warming to very low levels after this minor ice age? Amazing.

  3689. cohenite says

    Neville; good link on the WAP; there are many others:

    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/2007GL032529.shtml

    http://geology.gsapubs.org/content/38/7/635.abstract

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/08/120822131212.htm

    You gotta love the last one reviewed at Science Daily; they say:

    “For this study we looked in detail at the last 15,000 years — from the time when the Earth emerged from the last ice age and entered into the current warm period. What we see in the ice core temperature record is that the Antarctic Peninsula warmed by about 6°C as it emerged from the last ice age. By 11,000 years ago the temperature had risen to about 1.3°C warmer than today’s average and other research indicates that the Antarctic Peninsula ice sheet was shrinking at this time and some of the surrounding ice shelves retreated. The local climate then cooled in two stages, reaching a minimum about 600 years ago. The ice shelves on the northern Antarctic Peninsula expanded during this cooling. Approximately 600 years ago the local temperature started to warm again, followed by a more rapid warming in the last 50-100 years that coincides with present-day disintegration of ice shelves and glacier retreat.”

    The full paper is here:

    ftp://ftp.nerc-bas.ac.uk/pub/photo/PR-2012-09-Mulvaney/documents/nature11391_proof1.pdf

  3691. Neville says

    Even more fraud and con tricks out of Europe involving Deutsche bank and trading in co2 certificates.

    http://notrickszone.com/2012/12/12/500-german-authorities-raid-deutsche-bank-amid-alleged-tax-evasion-scam-surrounding-co2-certificate-trading/

    This is the path that the clueless Gillard govt has chosen to follow. We will be trading in dodgy fraudulent co2 credits to reduce our emissions by 5% by 2020.
    Of course this con trick trade will costs billions $ and won’t change the climate or temp by a whisker.
    And you don’t know whether the scraps of paper or certificates purchased will be genuine or not.

  3692. Robert says

    Pastels are back! Notice how, on this website, everything is a baby-bland colour, to imply modesty and low footprint – except the money buttons, which are a slightly stronger green.
    http://www.terrapass.com/

    These people say they “create jobs in communities”. What is that supposed to mean? After the money has been skimmed, some will probably be left over for a crap green project somewhere. But how do you create jobs out of communities? Employ someone on the moon? They are pastel words, meant to soothe you automatically, as your fingers are led to those green buttons.

    It’s not all pastel. In case you thought they were wimps, TerraPass projects have “destroyed (sic) 4.2 million tons of CO2e.” It’s a bit like when Coca Cola did those Mother commercials. When the luvvie stuff isn’t working, show ’em your violent side.

    Somebody obviously gives money to these people, but who?

  3694. gavin says

    “Approximately 600 years ago the local temperature started to warm again, followed by a more rapid warming in the last 50-100 years that coincides with present-day disintegration of ice shelves and glacier retreat” seems to say it all coh.

    Since I can’t read the pine print, posts or links, lets leave it at that for now

  3695. Robert says

    SD, one day they’ll be able to produce CNN journalism without input from any form of intelligent life. They’re already close.

    Re bamboo: This year was a wipeout for moso, but I did finally get the hang of natural pickling of the shoots. Yum. Once you’ve tried that mellow lactose tang you’ll never go back to vinegar.

  3698. Johnathan Wilkes says

    SD

    Looks Like there is nothing new under the sun but we can still find a few things under the sea.
    So much for the “we know it all, the science is settled.” The hubris of these people is absolutely astonishing.

    Leat said the survey team was somewhat surprised by the find.

    “We knew there were other volcanoes in the area, but we didn’t go trying to find volcanoes,” Leat told OurAmazingPlanet. “We just went because there was a big blank area on the map and we had no idea what was there; we just wanted to fill in the seafloor.”

    And they sensor A Bolt for uttering an opinion.
    The complainants seem to be closely connected to the warming industry.

    http://catallaxyfiles.com/2012/12/13/the-betrayal-of-dan-conway/#comments

  3701. Debbie says

    Enhanced greenhouse effect?
    That’s highly ironic given discussions earlier in this thread.
    Hot Cities?
    🙂 🙂 🙂
    Chuckle.

  3702. Neville says

    Gav that study also says this—

    “This cooling was part of a millennial-scale climate excursion
    with opposing anomalies on the eastern and western sides of the
    Antarctic Peninsula. Although warming of the northeastern
    Antarctic Peninsula began around 600 years ago, the high rate of
    warming over the past century is unusual (but not unprecedented)
    in the context of natural climate variability over the past two
    millennia. ”
    Unusual but not unprecedented. It’s happened before NATURALLY.

    Greenland is more of a problem because during most of the holocene the temps were much higher than today. I estimate at about 88% of the time temps were much higher.

    So where did that NATURAL warming come from and why is it cooler today? Remember this is from an international study financed for years by many countries.

    Also why do you ignore ALL the models graphs showing Antarctica is negative for SLR until 2300?

  3703. Neville says

    Also this 2009 study shows that NATURAL peninsula warming is not unusual or unprecedentd.

    It warmed NATURALLY to present levels or more at least 3 times over the last 5,600 years. So where did that extra NATURAL warming come from?
    At least we know it was natural warming.

    But the real kicker is the NATURAL warming they found from 1042 to 1312 slap bang in the Med WP.
    They make a point that there was a reduction in ice over the SH at that time.

    http://geology.gsapubs.org/content/38/7/635.abstract Thanks again Cohers for the links.

  3706. Neville says

    Sorry Gav I can’t follow your logic. Graph seems to show much higher recent snow levels and much higher temps in the earlier holocene.
    What am I missing? Just asking.

  3707. gavin says

    Nev; a chance to look through my eyes at a typical coastal pic taken by a local SL researcher. Note undercut rock top aligns with horizon, inshore islands and beach front tide line. The wave active zone can be measured in perspective with other stable markers, and thus we obtain aprox SL mean without max min tides.

    http://rses.anu.edu.au/people/dr-nerilie-abram

    As I went to high school on the bus, earlier coastlines relative to recent SL peaks were clearly visible and one although often plowed ran across a long paddock as a humped step on a former beach between long lava flows. All the geology teachers knew where to direct their students attention for best effect re past ice ages. These shorelines give us much info on the duration of different SL eras. The last short one was a jump of about half a meter.

  3709. Debbie says

    Gavin,
    I fail to see where you disagree with Neville?
    To me it looks like you’re furiously agreeing with him.
    Would you care to pinpoint where you think the disagreement lies?
    Also noticed you haven’t explained what you thought was ‘not real’ in Morner’s research?

  3710. gavin says

    Deb; I’m late for the workbench appointment between eye sessions but in a nutshell, Sl decel in our time is nonsense.

  3711. Johnathan Wilkes says

    qav

    Nev; a chance to look through my eyes at a typical coastal pic taken by a local SL researcher. Note undercut rock top aligns with horizon, inshore islands and beach front tide line. The wave active zone can be measured in perspective with other stable markers, and thus we obtain aprox SL mean without max min tides.

    Utter tosh to put it mildly.
    Depends on the position of the camera taking the picture.

    This is a situation where a picture tells a thousand lies. And even assuming it is true what on earth does it prove?

  3712. Johnathan Wilkes says

    Just to clarify,
    Two points are always in line!
    The horizon is a distraction and nothing to do with anything.
    But even if the rock and the shoreline are at the same level? So what??

  3713. Debbie says

    SL decel?
    Where does Neville claim SL decel?
    I think you have got it mixed up Gavin.
    The claims about SLR (not decel) and the claims re causes are what is being questioned.
    I also agree with JW that pictures can be distorted, not just by position but also by light, especially in relation to ocean horizons.
    They would have to back up quantifiable, empirical evidence.
    Have you got that evidence?

  3714. Neville says

    Gav I’m sorry you’re having eye problems, you’ve certainly got my sympathy.

    But I’ll try to get a good history of SLs around OZ for the holocene. There’s no debate the earlier holocene was warmer with much higher SLs around OZ of 1.5m or 5 foot about 4,000 years ago.
    Catalyst ABC had a program a few years ago where this was mentioned and UNI of NSW has done some work on early holocene SLs.

    The Eemian SLs about 125,000 years BP were much higher again , probably around 4m higher than today.
    BTW I think my assessment of that graph is fairly sound but I’m prepared to have anyone else show me where I’m wrong.

  3717. Neville says

    This is a quote from a paper covering the holocene SLs off Australia’s east coast.

    We used the subtidal data to develop a transfer function

    capable of inferring past water depths of sediment samples

    from their foraminiferal content. The results indicated

    a robust performance of the transfer function (r2

    jack 5

    0.90). We produced ten sea-level index points, which revealed

    an upward trend of Holocene relative sea level from 28.86 6

    4.5 m AHD at 9.3–8.6 cal kyr BP to a mid-Holocene high

    stand of +1.72 6 3.9 m AHD at 6.9–6.4 cal kyr BP. Sea

    level subsequently fell from the highstand to the present-day.

    The sea-level reconstructions are consistent with geophysical

    models and previous published data.

    The above is part of the abstract.

    Here is the study. http://www.sas.upenn.edu/earth/bph/Res2007/Horton%20et%20al%20JFR.pdf

  3718. gavin says

    Deb; JW; come down the front now.

    Nev; appreciate your comments and I get the impression your last link went to Magnetic Isl where submarine studies hit on sediment/ SLR relationship based on steps in sea bed cover ad that’s what I had in mind with the Abram pic.

    BTW wave cut shelf’s anywhere are pretty flat and it docent take much effort to get a human figure on the scene for a better perspective re slope and distance between outstanding natural tide marks. Our undercut rock sits on the lowest tide line at that point. Tiny limpet like barnacles can be found along upper extremities in the tidal wash and most likely just above the current impact apex ie underside of undercut cliff.

    The latest noaa info confirms no SLr decel but your hsch blogspot discussion has no credible background or author, I my be blind too, why bother?

  3719. spangled drongo says

    This is the sort of bed wetting the ABC has been indulging in for the last couple of days.

    The “inundation” is just the usual king tide heights less the reduction of recent years.

    My Chevron Is benchmark was the usual 8 inch [200mm] lower than it was 49.9 years ago even with a strong swell and surge running.

    Today was the biggest tide according to the tables and tomorrow will be slightly lower. I will have more info tomorrow.

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-12-13/coastal-regions-put-on-high-tide-alert/4425364

    I provide this info so gav can have a good night’s rest, free from alarm and wet sheets.

    [A wet sheet and a flowing sea and a wind that follows fast. That sort of thing]

  3720. Robert says

    King tides are now to be associated with SLR and CAGW – by sly implication only, of course. Are there any adults left in journalism and academia? Any at all?

    Hello, adults! Are you there?

  3722. spangled drongo says

    Yes Robert, a severe weather warning is issued for a delightful event like a king tide.

    A sly implication indeed.

  3723. spangled drongo says

    Gav, you are a bit late with your witnessing of king tides. You need to have been doing it all your life and then you might have some idea of what’s going on in the real world.

    And just looking at other peoples photographs is, sadly, not data.

    Robert, to elaborate on above, there are some roads that always get covered with seawater in king tides and these areas should be broadcast so people don’t drive through them, ruin their vehicles awa create other problems but that problem doesn’t seem to rate a mention.

  3724. Neville says

    Table 1. Trends and Seasonal Fit for Components of Sea Level Rise and Total Sea Level as

    Measured by Altimeter
    Trend
    (mm/year)
    Steric (Argo) 0.2 ± 0.8
    Mass (GRACE, Paulson GIA) 1.0 ± 0.2
    Steric + mass (Paulson GIA) 1.2 ± 0.9
    Total sea level (Jason-1 and Jason-2) 1.6 ± 0.8
    Determined with a least squares fit of a sine, cosine, trend, and constant over January 2005 to
    December 2011. The error bounds represent the 95% confidence interval obtained from the least
    squares fit.

    Gav the above is from the latest 2012 report from NOAA covering 2005 to 2012. Total SL is 1.6mm year or 16cm in 100 years.
    This is the same as Ole Humlum and Uni Colorado and it is a declining trend.
    Photos and press reports are rather silly when compared to these declining SL reports.

    Here is that NOAA study again, please read pages 7 and 8 again.

    http://ibis.grdl.noaa.gov/SAT/SeaLevelRise/documents/NOAA_NESDIS_Sea_Level_Rise_Budget_Report_2012.pdf

  3725. spangled drongo says

    I have been getting reports from my many waterfront dwelling mates who have lived in the same waterfronts for 30-40 years and they all report that this HAT [highest astronomical tide] was at least 200 mm lower that those of years ago.

    Those Gold Coast waterfront estates going back to the ’50s almost all had sea walls built to the king tide datum of the time. The biggest tides years ago topped those walls by about 10 cm but this HAT was at least 10 cm below the tops of the walls.

    At my 66 year old benchmark at Cleveland Point the HAT was also around 200 mm below flooding over the grass.

    The new IPCC draft report on SLR says that “SL changes integrate many aspects of Climate Change” so I suppose one can extrapolate that if the only “change” is down, there is not much beyond nat var happening with CC.

    See the trouble I go to for you gav, to help you sleep better?

  3726. Johnathan Wilkes says

    I think you are wasting your effort on gav, SD.

    What I find strange and slightly amusing that his kind call us rigid in our position and ignorant of science, when in fact it’s the opposite.

    I’m easily persuaded by facts, but annoyed when BS is thrown at me.
    Annoyed because they think of me as a fool. Don’t know about the rest of the sceptics but I resemble that.

  3727. gavin says

    JW; resemble what?

    SD, no data! what about dates, pressure, temp etc?

    Nev; what noaa graph has the last word on SL decel?

    For the record, I have always related SLR to recent SL max and its well defined old coastline about 1M above present SL but not model predictions cause we don’t need them given RL steps in the landscape and sea bed.

    Btw, who read Nerile’s CV? my discussion re her seascape was in part, an attempt to draw attention to her background in current scientific method.

  3728. Johnathan Wilkes says

    I am busy at the moment so I might be a bit late in catching up with what I’m interested in, but this caught my eyes.
    http://www.ceda.com.au/news-articles/2012/12/10/sa_water_mdbp

    “Throughout this (negotiation) process the South Australian Government has been unwavering that we need a plan; we need a plan that’s based on the best available science and a plan that returns a minimum amount of water to develop a healthy river system,” Mr Caica said.

    “It is absolutely crystal clear that the Murray River water resources have been over-allocated and this is the cornerstone issue to be addressed through the Murray-Darling Basin Plan,” he said.

    Upstream states took 93 per cent of the Murray-Darling surface water, leaving South Australia with just seven per cent in total – with only one per cent for Adelaide, Mr Caica said.

    They have more water now, and more importantly “guaranteed” water than they ever had historically, I mean in the good old days before the dams upstream. So what gives? Did we get it wrong and there should be no dams?
    Do they want to go back to the days of the Darling and Murray systems running? being dry?

    I despair.
    Is this for the climate?
    We will wake up some day, but this water allocation thing bothers me. Why do we build dams and towns and anticipate prosperity if we don’t appreciate the outcome?

  3729. Johnathan Wilkes says

    gav
    “JW; resemble what?”
    gav, if you don’t get it, there is no hope for you.
    You are hidebound.

  3730. spangled drongo says

    “For the record, I have always related SLR to recent SL max and its well defined old coastline about 1M above present SL”

    So gav, you haven’t got any benchmarks, just a rough appraisal of the general landscape?

    Quelle drive-by science!

    You could at least use Google Earth.

    And you’ve got the hide to ask me about data?

    But just to set your mind at rest the barometer was a couple of hectopascals above normal, the date was yesterday and I don’t know that the temperature would have had much bearing on the outcome.

  3731. Neville says

    Gav I’m saying it’s a declining trend not NOAA. Humlum shows the declining trend as well. Compared to more recent estimates by IPCC etc over the last 25 years it is definitely a declining trend.
    At the moment it’s about 16cm per 100 years. It may go up or decline further, who knows.

  3732. Graeme M says

    SD what you report about King tides is exactly my own anecdotal experience and something I’ve mentioned before. At the end of the day, actual SLR as reported by satellites etc notwithstanding, it is the on-ground effect that counts. And really, what actual effect is being noted around Australia? If we do see a rise of something like 2-3mm/yr, then over the course of 100 years we should have seen as much as 30cm.

    I for one haven’t seen anything like that at my home town of Hervey Bay. Now, it *may* have happened, but as far as I can see, nothing is different either from photos or from anecdotal comment. Certainly, King tides appear to be less significant now than when I was a boy 50 years ago.

    How much SLR is required before there is a significant impact?

  3733. spangled drongo says

    Yes Graeme, because of the ever increasing hysteria of SLR by the “concerned”, I have paid ever more attention to benchmarks to check if there is any sign of it and the closer I look at the less evidence I see. Or to put it better, the more evidence I see of no SLR.

    In fact I have become more convinced that our longest and oldest benchmark, Port Arthur in Tas, is more likely showing as John Daly suggested, a SL fall of around 30 cm in 170 years.

    CSIRO claim by a tortuous route that it shows 13.5 cm SLR but either way it is nothing to bed-wet over let alone claim it confirms CAGW.

    The only thing it confirms is that we live in a remarkably stable climate and we don’t need to squander trillions of our “savings” on ideological sacrifices.

  3734. Ian Thomson says

    J.W.
    That’s where you are on the money.
    Touched on by Muddied Waters , seldom mentioned anywhere else-
    Most of the allocated water is stored, potentially disastrous, flood water. Stored in dams built by people who had vision and stored for a non-rainy day. – ( Thereby saving most of North Vic and South NSW, from periodic inundation. )

    The major exception to this is the old, mostly disused, station pumping licenses along the rivers.
    Many of these licenses were fully activated , mostly by corporate ag during the 1980s and 90s.
    One such corp. actually recently sold a heap of this water to the Feds .

  3735. el gordo says

    NASA’s latest prediction on our stars behaviour.

    ‘The current predicted and observed size makes this the smallest sunspot cycle since Cycle 14 which had a maximum of 64.2 in February of 1906.’

  3737. Johnathan Wilkes says

    Neville,

    Don’t want to sound unkind but I’m not sure whether sacrificing maidens wasn’t a better idea than wasting all the money and sacrificing our standard of living?
    Only one suffered for all, now we all do for the few!
    After all the result is about the same.

    Problem of course is where do you find true “maidens” under 12 these days?

  3738. Johnathan Wilkes says

    Oops!

    Problem of course is where do you find true “maidens” under 12 these days?
    this should of course read as “OVER”

  3739. Debbie says

    Yes JW & Ian,
    that 93% fig is a total mjsrepresentation and is related to the depth of the drought.
    Without the storage systems & irrigation networks SA would have had NOTHING AT ALL (bold) on several different occasions between 2002 & 2009 let alone numerous other times prior to the last drought.
    Those old disused licences, sometimes called ‘sleeper licences’ were activated when water was separated from land and the usual suspects did not legislate correctly (or didn’t have the intestinal fortitude to deal properly with the issue).
    And despite the incessant rhetoric, it has sweet FA to do with the climate.
    Most of the AGW argument re the MDB is bi polar.
    It totally ignores WHY(bold) the storages were built in the first place.

  3740. Johnathan Wilkes says

    Ian Thomson December 16th, 2012 at 11:43 am

    “Touched on by Muddied Waters ”
    I’m really sorry I missed that and there is not a lot of chance of a repeat either.
    Not in the league of troubled housewifes or something obviously.

  3741. sp says

    A question for JW, Robert, El Gordo, Cohers and those who seem to know a lot more detail than I do. And it is not a trick question – I am seeking advice / information.

    The following was mentioned to me by a friend who is in converation (debate) with another:

    A person (like Gavin) provided anecotal evidence of warming in Alaska based on the opinion who had lived there for 50 years and who claimed Alaska is warming and about 6 weeks of “extra” good weather due to early spring / late fall. When cahllenged on this another (person) claimed the following:

    – Over last 60 years Alaska has warmed 3 F / 1.6 C (higher than world average)
    – The whole point (of global warming) is that it is unevenly spread
    – Most of this warming occured in the 70’s (and this is partially confirmed by an dramatic increase of temp in large lakes in the north of England, which a rarely previous average since)

    This link was provided: http://climate.gi.alaska.edu/ClimTrends … hange.html

    I dont know enough, but think one of the problems with this is the lack of thermometers in Candada, and much of the “warming’ is a result of “smoothing” or “infilling” of temperature from “urban” areas into the very wild areas of northern Canada which are basically in the Artic circle.

    I note the paper states: “The period 1949 to 1975 was substantially colder than the period from 1977 to 2011, however since 1977 little additional warming has occurred in Alaska with the exception of Barrow and a few other locations. The stepwise shift appearing in the temperature data in 1976 corresponds to a phase shift of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation from a negative phase to a positive phase.”

    What is the simple response to this?

  3747. Neville says

    Just read this article from Wikipedia about the Holecene Optimum and found this quote.

    Alaska was much warmer during the Hol opt. Summer temps 2 to C NATURALLY warmer than today and much less ice in the ARCTIC THAN TODAY.

    Of 140 sites across the western Arctic, there is clear evidence for warmer-than-present conditions at 120 sites. At 16 sites where quantitative estimates have been obtained, local HTM temperatures were on average 1.6±0.8 °C higher than present. Northwestern North America had peak warmth first, from 11,000 to 9,000 years ago, while the Laurentide ice sheet still chilled the continent. Northeastern North America experienced peak warming 4,000 years later. Along the Arctic Coastal Plain in Alaska, there are indications of summer temperatures 2–3 °C warmer than present.[5] Research indicates that the Arctic had substantially less sea ice during this period compared to present.[6]

    AND THIS QUOTE.

    West African sediments additionally record the “African Humid Period”, an interval between 16,000 and 6,000 years ago when Africa was much wetter due to a strengthening of the African monsoon by changes in summer radiation resulting from long-term variations in the Earth’s orbit around the sun. During this period, the “Green Sahara” was dotted with numerous lakes containing typical African lake crocodile and hippopotamus fauna. A curious discovery from the marine sediments is that the transitions into and out of this wet period occurred within decades, not millennia as previously thought. ago,

    Just proves once again how quickly huge NATURAL swings in climate and temp can occur. Transitions in and out of this wet period occured within DECADES.

    Here is the Wiki article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_climatic_optimum

  3750. el gordo says

    They think they have found the missing link between earthly climate and our star.

    ‘A paper published today in the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics by Dr. Willie Soon finds the “Most convincing evidence for a sun-climate connection during the Holocene.” Professor Soon finds “The Equator-to-Pole Temperature Gradient [EPTG] is linked to Total Solar Irradiance [TSI],” noting, “This newly discovered relationship between TSI and the EPTG represents the ‘missing link’ that was implicit in the empirical relationship that Soon (2009) recently demonstrated to exist between multi-decadal TSI and Arctic and North Atlantic climatic change.”

    Channelling the Hockey Stitch (sic)

  3751. gavin says

    Guys; Let’s keep in perspective.

    Can you have a good look at Rob Paingting’s recent post “Past 150,000 Years of Sea Level History Suggests High Rates of Future Sea Level Rise” re RSL & GMSL charts as presented,

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/Past-150000-Years-of-Sea-Level-History-Suggests-High-Rates-of-Future-Sea-Level-Rise.html

    SD; since I can’t get Google Earth running yet, my key point is at Doctor’s Rocks NW Tas and the terrain either side for a few km should show minor coastline variations above and below present SL. An industrial estate close to Somerset on the Cam river is now covering a lesser step and dune line. To the West small creeks meander across old seabed that reaches well inland

  3752. spangled drongo says

    I meant Google E as a joke gav.

    You can’t measure record SLs in a drive-by or from photographs. You gotta be paying attention your whole life.

    I have been involved with the Doltoids in discussing it for the last couple of days so I apologise for the lack of comment.

  3754. spangled drongo says

    Thanks Debbie, my speed is way down at the moment. I’ll have to wait for some improvement.

  3755. Johnathan Wilkes says

    Many thanks Debbie will watch it tonight, had a quick look at some of the shorts, and am amazed by the common sense and clarity of thought of the people speaking.

    Why can’t we have those in parliament?
    Of course we know why.

    SD I really wish gav would relax his rules and look at some of the blogs he avoids.

    He could see what his heroes are up to.
    That post on WUWT about the The University of Tennessee professors’ finding is astounding.

    The audacity of them predicting 2 years weather 40 years hence, based on two years in the fifties is gob-stopping stuff.

    Why not the next two years then?

    Have a look gav, it won’t straighten your hair or make you break out in spots.

  3757. spangled drongo says

    Thanks EG. I should ban myself. We think gav is silly for shooting the messenger, over there they are gun crazy.

    Tim needs gun laws.

  3758. cohenite says

    Well done SD; humourless ratbags aren’t they?

    Best of the season to you and the rest of the troupers here.

  3760. Ian Thomson says

    Hi Gavin,
    I grew up on a farm bounded on one side by the Pacific Ocean.
    It was hilly country which ended ,mostly abruptly, with high terraces about a mile from the sea.
    These terraces had layers of shells through them. The intervening flats, between the terraces and the sandy beach, were lightly vegetated, shell scattered, sandy soil.
    I was taught at an early age that the whole place was moving West, at the rate of a foot per century.
    This was geology which anyone could see.

    My point is that looking at individual spots on coastlines is not a reliable way to judge the sea level alone.
    Just as many Pacific atolls are having the lens pumped from under them, to support today’s lifestyle and tourists and parts of the world pop up and down through vulcanism and such.

    However , there would be much more unpleasant ways to spend ones time than watching the tide come and go.
    If there is anywhere left where it is permitted , one might just score a fresh mussel or two into the bargain

  3761. Debbie says

    Yes Ian,
    I too spent much of my childhood living on the coast.
    Byron Bay (Australia’s most eastern point) and South Coogee (Sydney).
    Then, as now, king tides and storm surges were spectacular events and they did always cause damage to human coastal infrastructure. In fact, the house I lived in at BB no longer exists as it fell into the ocean during massive king tides and storms in the ’70s.
    Gavin doesn’t appear to understand that it is perfectly normal that coastlines erode. ‘Twas ever thus. Any of us who have spent time living on the coast have seen plenty of evidence that these so called ‘unprecendented and alarming events’ have happened before.
    Taxing ACO2 emissions will not stop these things from happening.
    Instead of trying to either
    a) Frighten everyone or . . . IMHO even sillier
    b) Pretend we can control such things as weather and SL,
    We would all be far smarter to learn the real lessons that our highly variable and largely ephemeral climate has taught us and work towards mitigating the damage that its natural extremes can cause to our infrastructure.
    It is only humans that desire permanent, static habitat. The natural environment is not interested in balance or human invented stat trends. Those models can only successfully take ‘snapshots in time’. They are not crystal balls and should only be used as part of our decision making processes, not the dictators of decisions.
    It is essentially a failed experiment and the attendant political agenda with attached ‘precautionary principle’ has effectively road blocked any successful progress and/or sensible mitigation of obvious mistakes.

  3762. spangled drongo says

    That’s interesting Ian. When I worked around Longreach I did a bit of building with the local sandstone. They were called sandstone floaters, developed from sedimentary sand when it was a great inland sea. They still had the wave ripples on their surfaces like you see on tidal flats and they had many shells embedded in them but they made great stone building slabs. I would find them in reasonable quantity just lying on the surface of the black soil in the mitchell grass. Some of the old homesteads are built out of them. Didn’t find any with dinosaur foot prints in ’em, worse luck.

    Soon and Morner with something to say that gav would be relieved to hear:

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/dec/17/sea-level-rise-data-based-on-shoddy-science/

    The alarmist’s serenity prayer that I left for the Doltards:

    God grant me the BIAS to ignore the facts I hate, the BLINDNESS to embrace the ones I love and the BAD MANNERS to abuse those who wish to show me the difference.

  3763. spangled drongo says

    “It is only humans that desire permanent, static habitat. The natural environment is not interested in balance or human invented stat trends.”

    Spot on, Debs. Adaptation is what we are meant to do.

  3764. Debbie says

    Thanks Spangled,
    BTW, good work at Deltoid.
    I can’t be bothered commenting there.
    The name calling and what Walter Starck calls ‘academic pissing contests’ is in absolute overdrive there.
    Those people are only interesting in sreeching alarmism from the outer limits of the modelling.
    They are not interested in discussing common sense adaptation policy, only interested in trying to prove they are undeniably right, even when real time data and the most recent evidence neither supports or disproves their ‘theories’.
    They have no more idea than anyone else.

  3765. spangled drongo says

    Debbie, I feel the urge to occasionally visit and say something when they have a thread that denies the real world that I have just been witnessing.

    I know it’s a foolish indulgence.

    Like you, I end up thinking, why did I do that?

  3770. gavin says

    Several of my carefully thought through posts have not posted and the last one was a struggle with poor vision. If any one else says the system is faulty, them I may hang on. Otherwise, I have other things to do including further bushfire prep.

  3773. cohenite says

    Guys, the missing posts may have something to do with Jennifer being spammed recently; the problem appears to have been rectified so hang in there.

  3774. gavin says

    Thanks Nev; we are not alone hey

    SD; half IPCC or not, we got SLR

    Ian; briefly this time, I don’t relate to atolls. In all sl posts I reference tide marks to seabed on the continental shelf, No 1, Bass Strait, 2 D’Entrecasteaux Channel, 3 Bays, Inlets and Estuaries sheltered by headlands or islands on the Pacific side. The gentle slopes give horizontal measure.

    Tide zones are oyster habitat. Clusters around piles give MSL between top and bottom, other stains relate to max/min of the tide extremes.

    Rapid erosion areas have wave cut rock shelfs that are as long as the tide extremes can rotate the wave action. Some shelfs have lots of pillars that host the tide zone creatures. Their presence is another telltale. No tide gauge needed.

  3775. Ian Thomson says

    s.d.
    Walking between the woolshed and shearers huts near Whitecliffs NSW and one of the shearers picked up a piece of stone with a distinct pawprint in it . The stone was about 2 matchboxes in size.
    He popped in his pocket and I have not seen him since.
    Love to have checked out what it was though

  3776. spangled drongo says

    “No tide gauge needed.”

    So gav, what is your breakdown of what’s really happening? Some specifics for a change.

    The amount of SLR over what period?

    And just be aware that the effect of wind on even static water like a lake or lagoon etc can cause it to move several kilometers.

    Constant wind and sea action is not SLR.

  3780. Debbie says

    Gavin?
    Did you finally get Neville’s point?
    That’s what ‘decelerating trend’ means.
    No one said that we DON’T have any SLR.
    NO ONE here has claimed that SL is static.

  3781. Pikey says

    I just checked to see if you Guys were still pontificating and rationalising over many issues and see the stayers are still at it.
    Keep it up and Happy Christmas to all.
    You and many others are making a difference in the fight to have truth revealed.
    Here is my Christmas poem on a familiar topic.

    OLD MAN MURRAY.

    From the dream time to the hype time, from the mountains to the sea,
    I’ve carried all the run-off, when heavens tears flow free.
    My veins eroded mountains, arteries built the fertile plains.
    I know the pain of drought, the cure of flooding rains.
    I’ve watched the black man hunt and fish and burn my banks with fire.
    The pain of floods that changed my course, then dying in droughts ire.
    Drought left my body bloodless, topsoil in dust storms scattered.
    This is the state in which I lived; life ephemeral, hope shattered.
    Men of vision changed my life, with transfusions at old Barren Jack,
    Bonegilla, Eildon and Wyangala; gave me strength, put me on track,
    With new heart at Eucumbene, to blossom in old age.
    But politicians say I’m dying and must let my blood flow to assuage,
    A sacrificial offering to the insatiable Green God. He who would
    See my body drained of the very lifeblood that could,
    Keep it virile, productive. Oh; what short-sighted fools are they.
    Truth where is thy victory? Where did wisdom go astray?
    Old man Murray he know sometin,’ Politicians they know nothin.’

    Pikey.

    HAPPY CHRISTMAS & A GREAT NEW YEAR.

  3782. spangled drongo says

    Thanks Pikey and likewise to you. Beautiful weather we’re having. A bit warm and a bit dry and a lot of bushfire fuel after the big wet but a few interesting birds and wildlife and this morning we even got a koala for Christmas.

  3783. Mark A says

    Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year everyone.

    Since I travel a lot on business, we enjoy staying home for a holiday, hope you will be active here during the break.
    Cheers

  3784. Mark A says

    spangled drongo

    Thanks EG. I should ban myself.

    Never thought of you as a masochist.
    The comments on that site are either sycophantic or pure malice and ad hom

  3785. el gordo says

    Spangles has a good grasp of the subject matter and the Deltoidian ad homs prove they don’t have a clue, like Tim Ball said.

    There is climate change happening in Russia.

    ‘Russia is enduring its harshest winter in over 70 years, with temperatures plunging as low as -50 degrees Celsius. Dozens of people have already died, and almost 150 have been hospitalized.

    ‘The country has not witnessed such a long cold spell since 1938, meteorologists said, with temperatures 10 to 15 degrees lower than the seasonal norm all over Russia.’

  3786. Mark A says

    el gordo

    One of my many uncles is an MD in Murmansk, he could tell you stories about winter temperatures.
    He is very old now of course so his opinion is just hearsay and babbling of an old man.

    So are the opinions of the many unfortunate Germans and the French efore them who experienced the bitter reality of winters in Russia. If they could only speak?

    Ce la vie!

  3787. gavin says

    Nev: still solid in your repeating authors mentioned by skeptic blogs so where is the “science” now?

    “Satellite altimetry is calibrated to tide gauge data and has been repeatedly “adjusted” over the years, including recently adjusted data collected up to 18 years ago”

    http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com.au/2010/05/sea-level-expert-recent-sea-level.html

    SD; I can’t read this tonight so let’s have your review

    Manual on Sea Level
    Measurement and Interpretation
    Volume IV: An Update to 2006

    http://www.psmsl.org/train_and_info/training/manuals/manual_14_final_21_09_06.pdf

  3789. Graeme M says

    Yeah SD, nice work at Deltoid. Of course your obs for one place are somewhat limited in relevance to the rest of the world, but it’s still a fair point. What I like best is the utter inability to actually tackle that fact in a rational way – nothing but frothing abuse for it. My wife who has no interest in this stuff read the thread after I left it on display on my computer. She assumed it was one of my skeptic blogs and asked me why I read them because “everyone is just insulting each other and being rude”…

    The only person who seemed willing to discuss your findings claims its damming in Queensland. Now I can’t comment scientifically, but that DOES sound like a crock to me. Over 70 years???? He seemed serious though.

  3790. spangled drongo says

    Yes Graeme, they make some comments wrt local vs global that are quite relevant but I can never see how a constant or lowering SL in one part of the open world’s oceans that is occurring over a period of ~70 years can be “consistent with” constant SLR in the rest of the world.

    And I have to wonder at coloured maps that show SLs rising at the rate of 10mm/y close by SLs falling by the same amount, consistently, for up to two decades.

    I don’t doubt that this happens at even greater rates but when the weather pattern that is driving it stops or reverses, [this even happens with trade winds quite regularly and bigger weather patterns are of shorter duration] equilibrium re-establishes the levels.

    What I am measuring is max tide level. The only SL that really counts.

    The, eg, three quarter tide level or half tide level or quarter tide level could have risen world wide but so what?

    They will have almost no effect on anything if the max tide level is the same or lower.

    To me that is the real world of SLs.

  3791. spangled drongo says

    I forgot your last point about damming water. Yes, that doesn’t make sense at all. At the point of time when the flood fills the dam, it also overflows [witness Wivenhoe Jan 2011] and dumps huge quantities of water into the nearby ocean causing local SLR until equilibrium returns so if anything, the exact opposite is true.

  3792. Graeme M says

    Agreed. I know nothing about SLR beyond my own observations at local coastlines, and on the whole I have seen no evidence of anything happening. I know little about statistics either so can’t comment on the various graphs etc that are presented up. But surely, it is what actually happens in the real world that counts because it is those effects that will be the problem. Not the lines on the graph.

    Damming. Can lower sea level rise locally, over 70 years? How? That just doesn’t pass the smell test but I am willing to be educated.

  3793. Debbie says

    Well said Graeme,,
    Of course it can’t pass the smell test.
    Of course what happens in the real world on the actual coastlines and especially areas that are heavily populated is what matters most.
    Water follows the basic rules of gravity…it will always find equilibrium.
    Someone assumed a dam in QLD can alter the SL of the Pacific Ocean in SEQ????? 🙂
    That must be one interesting graph!
    Did they link the research?
    A dam can only hold back a specific quantity of water on a waterway….the only place it can influence water levels is immediately above and below that obstruction.
    The laws of gravity and such things as tides and storm patterns influence the rest.
    As spangled also pointed out, once that dam is full and/or the system is in flood….it has NO influence on downstream.
    All it may be able to do is slow down the inevitable….if there was some airspace available to do it.

  3794. spangled drongo says

    Yes Mark A, it is a masochistic experience. At first you think you have a chance of making your point and then you realise they have their fingers in their ears while they are blowing raspberries.

    But that helps you to realise that even though you may be wrong, you can’t possibly be as wrong as they are.

  3795. Johnathan Wilkes says

    “Damming. Can lower sea level rise locally, over 70 years? How?”

    Good question.
    At best it would delay the water reaching the sea, but frankly, big as some dams may be, they hold miniscule amounts of water compared to the oceans.
    Silly argument.

  3796. spangled drongo says

    JW, what has much more effect on SLs but still miniscule is the storm water run-off caused by the urbanisation and general development of the world from civilisation.

    We are paving over the world at an ever increasing rate and storm water run-off increase is exponential.

    This would more than make up for any ocean “deprivation” of water due to storage.

    Also it could cause further SLR [relative to land levels] due to land “deprivation” of water thereby causing land to dry out, shrink and subside, similar to what is happening from over-extraction of ground aquifers.

  3797. spangled drongo says

    And it’s not as if the dam water is “consumed” anyway. It is reticulated through our houses and into our sewage systems, treatment works, settlement ponds etc and back into the natural flow to acquifers, streams, oceans etc.

    Judging from the variety of waders to be found along these systems, it is a very successful proceedure.

  3798. el gordo says

    ‘But that helps you to realise that even though you may be wrong, you can’t possibly be as wrong as they are.’

    That is comforting, but there is also an education to be had in this debate.

    The matter of ‘mass delusion’ (groupthink) can be remedied with short sharp answers, delivered with a sense of humour. Good practice for when the time comes to debrief the masses.

  3799. Graeme M says

    ‘s funny, but I wonder if the Deltoids ever consider that their utter arrogant contempt of anyone that isn’t pissing in their pockets is not especially appealing? Just went for a look and they are almost foaming at the mouth over poor old Chameleon.

    Doesn’t encourage me to want to even read their stuff. At least the skeptic blogs, even if not always very scientific, entertain a variety of ideas and hypotheses. The Deltoids actually WANT CAGW etc to be true so they can keep on wringing their hands over it.

    As for SLR, it’s still one of those things that intrigues me. All the graphs I’ve seen suggest that sea level has risen relatively steadily for the past 100 years. The biggest acceleration seems to have been earlier in the 20th century, more recently it has clearly slowed. That just does not fit the alarmist scenario and I can’t see how it keeps getting spun as such a danger. If physically we just have not seen any worrying impact to date since Australia was settled, then what can we expect in the next 50 years?

    To keep arguing that the real nasty stuff is always just around the corner is to be something of a scaremonger in my view. If we aren’t seeing something in the real world that reflects the stats/models, then what are we to make of these predictions? 100 years of 3 mm/yr rise must give us at least 20 cm of rise yet where is it?

  3800. gavin says

    With all the chatter here it seems nobody followed my link. Any estimates SL. SLR. decel etc from individuals, Marine Boards, even national authorities based on a mere 200y of tide gauge data is probably BS in the extreem unless referenced to the modern Datum outlined below. There are many reasons, the first to be acknowledge ahead of crust movement is G

    An Extract, 4. Datum Control & Leveling

    “4.4.5 Geocentric Co-ordinates and Vertical Land
    Movements of Tide Gauge Benchmarks
    From 2001 to the end of 2005, the International GNSS
    Service (IGS) set up a pilot project called TIGA, which
    is processing and analysing CGPS data from over 100
    tide gauges around the world in a consistent global
    reference frame. The web site (http://adsc.gfz-potsdam.de/tiga/index_TIGA.html) should be consulted for
    information about the stations and the results that
    are being obtained. The GPS global sea level monitoring network will be a fully integrated component of
    the International GNSS Service – International Earth
    Rotation Service (IGS/IERS) International Terrestrial
    Reference Frame (ITRF). The products from this network are the co-ordinates and velocities of the benchmarks at tide gauge stations. The Permanent Service
    for Mean Sea Level (PSMSL) archiving system has been
    designed to bank the vertical crustal velocities derived
    from selected IGS solutions, along with explanatory
    information, including the names of experts who can
    be contacted by users of the system”

    http://www.psmsl.org/train_and_info/training/manuals/manual_14_final_21_09_06.pdf

  3802. spangled drongo says

    Gav, if you think a remote system circling something this shape can measure SLs to within 0.1 mm/year, ya gotta be a non-rational optimist.

    http://www.esri.com/news/arcuser/0703/geoid1of3.html

    Me, I prefer to measure what’s at my backdoor.

    And you should study that 171 year old Ross/Lempriere mark at PA.

    Even the bed-wetters agree that shows only 13.5 cms of SLR over 171 years whereas it probably shows a fall.

    But either way it’s SFA

    And I don’t think the world will end today.

  3804. Johnathan Wilkes says

    sd

    Gav, if you think a remote system circling something this shape can measure SLs to within 0.1 mm/year, ya gotta be a non-rational optimist.

    I simply cannot understand gav’s faith in the accuracy of satellite mounted instruments and their measurements.

    He of all people should be aware of the pitfalls, after all he keeps telling us of his exploits in instrument usage, calibrations etc. so he should know that even the best earthbound instruments can’t be 100% accurate.

    And no, the earth will not end today, tomorrow maybe? But certainly not today, mortgage payment is due today.

  3806. Graeme M says

    I’ve seen that data before. It’s establishing a benchmark for vertical movement of the tide gauge itself isn’t it? Is this important beyond trying to set a level playing field? I can’t see that it is especially noteworthy. Have I missed something?

  3807. gavin says

    SD; assuming satellite circles round our flat earth is dangerous even for you. I said, consider G no1 then other things.When was Port Arthur ever in the list of modern tide datums ?

    JW; ultimately instrument accuracy is a fudge as is perfection. Only by an MOU do we agree on what each perceive. Science and convention must go hand in hand thus grounding our imagination.

    From “Overview of Gloss”

    “The Global Sea-Level Observing System (GLOSS) was
    established by the Intergovernmental Oceanographic
    Commission (IOC) in 1985 to provide such a service.
    GLOSS provides oversight and coordination for global
    and regional sea-level networks in support of, and with
    direction from, the oceanographic and climate research
    communities. GLOSS remains under the auspices
    of the IOC and is one of the observing components
    under the World Meteorological Organization (WMO)/
    IOC Joint Technical Commission for Oceanography
    and Marine Meteorology (JCOMM). GLOSS relies on
    the participation of tide gauge operators to maintain
    tide gauge stations to a research quality standard. At
    present nearly 70 nations participate in the GLOSS
    programme”

    Re accuracy and sample rates

    2.4 “OPERATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHY”

    The floods in the UK and Netherlands of 1953 might
    be said to have marked the start of ‘operational
    oceanography’ in Europe. In the following years,
    expanded tide gauge networks were established and
    real-time telemetry was developed, such that information on surge levels across the continental shelf
    could be used in combination with tide-surge numerical models to provide flood warnings several days
    ahead. Nowadays, many countries have similar flood
    forecast schemes [Flather, 2000; Alvarez Fanjul et
    al., 2000; Woodworth and Horsburgh, 2011]. Nearreal time sea-level data can also be assimilated into
    other types of ocean models, providing information
    on ecosystems and water quality. The requirements
    in these applications are lower for accuracy (perhaps
    several cm is adequate, i.e. comparable to or better
    than surge model precision), frequency of 1 hour or
    more frequent, and latency of typically within 1 hour
    (i.e. a shorter time than surge development). It is a
    regrettable fact that many major population centres
    in developing countries still do not possess effective
    warning; a list of the main schemes in each region is
    included in Table 7.1 of Woodworth and Horsburgh
    [2011].
    A more extreme example of operational oceanography concerns tsunami monitoring. Following an alert
    of a possible tsunami based on seismic information,
    tide gauge data can be used to verify the existence
    of a real tsunami, or to cancel the alert in the event
    of no tsunami. The tide gauge data are necessarily
    of lower relevance to warnings in their own vicinity,
    rather than to locations further along the tsunami’s
    path. Requirements in this example are less for
    accuracy and datum control rather than frequency
    (e.g. 20 second sampling) and especially latency.
    The latter has stimulated research into new methods
    for transmitting tide gauge information to centres
    as fast as possible (e.g. Holgate et al., [2008]) and
    the implementation of automatic tsunami detection
    algorithms [Pérez et al., 2009].

    Was it Nev who asked for my views on mitigation?

    Apart from engineering of coastline defenses, port structures etc all front line councils need to consider sewer and water treatment locations for both plants and ponds.

  3809. spangled drongo says

    “When was Port Arthur ever in the list of modern tide datums ?”

    Answer a simple question gav. When it is arguably the best and longest benchmark we have, why shouldn’t it be?

    Could it be that it is a fundamental [and too-inconvenient] truth?

    Too much evidence for Church and White and the CSIRO.

  3810. Johnathan Wilkes says

    Sorry gav.
    I deal with reality and facts.
    Our clients and their clients in turn would be more than upset if the applications we write and maintain would fudge or just approximate data.

  3812. Debbie says

    For some reason it looks like it was my turn to have trouble getting a post up?
    This didn’t appear yesterday (in moderation?)
    Putting it up again although Spangled has basically covered most of what I said here.
    Good point also about the comparative volumes dams vs the ocean.

    Well said Graeme,
    Of course it can’t pass the smell test.
    Of course what happens in the real world on the actual coastlines and especially areas that are heavily populated is what matters most.
    Water follows the basic rules of gravity…it will always find equilibrium.
    Someone assumed a dam in QLD can alter the SL of the Pacific Ocean in SEQ?????
    That must be one interesting graph!
    Did they link the research?
    A dam can only hold back a specific quantity of water on a waterway….the only place it can influence water levels is immediately above and below that obstruction.
    The laws of gravity and such things as tides and storm patterns influence the rest.
    As spangled also pointed out, once that dam is full and/or the system is in flood….it has NO influence on what happens downstream.
    All it may be able to do is slow down the inevitable… and only if there was some airspace available to do it.

  3813. Johnathan Wilkes says

    Double check your nick and your email address you post under before submit.
    It’s registered in Jennifer’s database and if it does not match the post goes into moderation.
    All is well if a moderator is available, the delay is only a half hour most, but if not, as is the case at the moment, the post is toast.

  3815. Johnathan Wilkes says

    gav

    Not saying anything re. the relevance of the wiki page, but you got me intrigued regarding “biological water”.
    What is it?
    Spent nearly 5 minutes googling and no results, as the lady said, please explain!

  3816. Johnathan Wilkes says

    I just had a brainwave, “biological water”. may be all the water locked up in living things.
    itsok gav don’t bother.

  3817. spangled drongo says

    Gav, do you really think anyone has any accurate knowledge of how much water is in the ground?

    Where I live there are huge aquifers completely separate from the artesian or sub-artesian basins that have never been quantified.

    However what I do know is that in paved-over suburbia, stormwater runoff is a very high percentage whereas in rainforests and natural vegetation it is a very low percentage. In my dam in the rainforest, if it rains 2 inches, my dam rises ~2 inches. In suburbia or on some farms it could rise 2 meters or more.

    So the areas where most people live are probably being drained of ground water and that is somewhat made up for by dams.

    If you have any specific point to make then make it but I suspect your agenda is similar to this:

    http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2012/12/government-by-ngo

    Govt by eco-racketeering, sending us broke but still stuffing the ecology.

  3820. Johnathan Wilkes says

    gav
    as Maxwell Smart used to say ” I asked you not to bother” I worked it out myself two seconds after I posted the first reply. So I’m slow, so what, big deal.

  3821. spangled drongo says

    Oh gawd, I blew it . I nevva thorta that. The reason my ~70 year benchmark was reading lower is that there were not enough people in swimming.

    Too many swimming pools these days. And speaking of which, that’s another thing. They also cause falling SLs, like dams.

    And then there are those missing Grey Nurse sharks too. Oh well!

    But hold on, there are more whales. They gotta be good for some SLR!

  3824. Johnathan Wilkes says

    gav
    “Only those sober; ever wondered about bio water max?”

    Shamefully admit of being a teetotaler, so yes I’m sober. The reason I didn’t cotton on the “biological water” straight away because I never heard of it before.

    Then when I realised how insignificant amount it was, it clicked. We can all expire gav and it won’t make the proverbial difference.

    Incidentally I also play the clarinet in the local Salvo band, does that count in my favour or against gav?

  3827. spasngled drongo says

    Still waiting for geeenhouse [and for gav to make a lucid point]

    But I love the SS link where the warmers shoot themselves in the foot.

    Give up on the drive-bys and make your own points or at least comment on them with reason for doing so.

  3828. spangled drongo says

    Are you trying to claim, for instance, that there is a major bio-mass change in the world that is affecting SLs?

    And by bio-mass I mean all living things.

  3829. Graeme M says

    el gordo, that is a remarkable post by O’Sullivan. I have to suspect the poor guy has really lost it in his efforts to proves the Slayers are right. That paper does nothing to support the argument against AGW other than to not specifically describe the physical process as the ‘greenhouse effect’. But it does a fair job of describing exactly what the notion suggests. And it comes up with numbers close to modern numbers.

    AGW may not be happening as the warmists believe, but this paper in no way invalidates the ‘greenhouse effect’ concept. What the post DOES do is to make O’Sullivan look more foolish than usual. I trust no other blog will touch it with a barge pole.

  3830. Debbie says

    Thanks JW,
    good chance I didn’t correctly type my email.
    SD,
    Same applies in my area.
    Many different aquifers, some fresh and some brackish.
    Also underground water from leakages from the rivers and streams.
    I don’t see how Gav’s wiki reference changes or adds to anything you, Graeme or I wrote re the releationship to dams in places like SEQ and SL.
    Dams, weirs etc only temporarily change the speed & direction of in stream water to suit human requirements.
    It still always runs downhill and it still always follows the laws of gravity.
    Any changes to SL would only be extremely local and very tiny. The effect globally would be zippo.
    If the argument is that dams are preventing SLR then maybe we should have more of them?
    Why don’t whales and fish count?
    They also use and displace water don’t they?

  3832. el gordo says

    ‘I trust no other blog will touch it with a barge pole.’

    Watts never touches his stuff, which is a fair indication he’s on the nose.

  3833. spangled drongo says

    eg, as an agnostic, I wouldn’t write JO’S off too soon. There is so much that can’t be quantified by simple experiments and there is so much fudging going on to confuse us, that all it simply seems to be saying is; hang sceptical.

    When you nearly expire at 40c in a humid climate but can toil happily at 50c in a dry climate, RH is the big elephant.

    But if you are in the public gaze today you probably have to be at least a lukewarmer or you would never get free of the spittle.

    The beagle shows us some of the wonders of Christmas:

    http://fenbeagleblog.wordpress.com/2012/12/22/we-see-things/

  3835. Graeme M says

    “Any changes to SL would only be extremely local and very tiny. The effect globally would be zippo.” I am with you Debbie. I haven’t read any relevant research, but surely the effect of damming, if at all measurable, would be local only and for a limited period. Sure, initially damming a large river might have an effect (tho I doubt it), but over time as SD observes wouldn’t sea level regain its equilibrium? By that I mean that actual sea level may remain lower there than elsewhere, but RATES of rise should reflect any broader trend, especially over 50-100 years. It is after all global SLR we are worried about.

  3836. spangled drongo says

    One thing we can be sure of, the “plundering” of the earths unknowable commons by all creatures great and small will see much retribution wreaked upon us by our budget-keeper betters, aka the high moral greens and we will have to atone.

    ♪ We know you won’t be missed so we’ll put you on the list. ♪

  3838. Johnathan Wilkes says

    Globular warmening is here, for the second time this year we had to turn on the AC!

    sd you are an innocent! don’t you know, anything coming from the approved sources is good otherwise all evil!

  3840. John Sayers says

    Otherwise:

    JOSEPHINE KELLY From: The Australian December 22, 2012 12:00AM

    FARMERS are the new threatened species in the Murray-Darling Basin. Dry-land farmers such as Louise Burge and Ian Lobban, who have been the subjects of recent articles in The Australian, as well as farmers who are irrigators. Environment Minister Tony Burke ensured their threatened status when he presented the Murray-Darling Basin plan in parliament on November 22.

    Farmers are not part of the environment protected by the Water Act, nor a species protected by the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, the commonwealth’s environmental leviathan.

    The Water Act was misconceived by the Howard government under environment minister Malcolm Turnbull, in response to one of the severest droughts since white settlement. The 2007 election was looming. Green votes and South Australian seats were thought to be crucial. Water allocation for the environment is paramount under the Water Act. Social and economic effects come a poor second. The two million people in the basin do not rate.

    Environmental activists and vested interests in South Australia demanded that more water flow to the end of the river system, to save the Lower Lakes, Alexandrina and Albert, and the Coorong, where the Murray mouth is located. There was no rigorous analysis of whether that demand was justified. Decision-makers did not consider the impact on the environment of the construction of more than 7km of barrages, built in the 1930s, that destroyed the Murray estuary and created artificial freshwater lakes, or of the extensive drainage works in southeastern SA, which particularly affect the Coorong.

    It was the desire to protect this recently created, manmade freshwater environment that drove the demand for 4000 gigalitres to flow to the end of the Murray.

    The campaign for more water for SA was executed very effectively across a long period. The essential message was accepted unquestioningly: the environmental degradation in the Lower Lakes and the Coorong was caused by “greedy irrigators” upstream on the Murray-Darling. The drought fuelled the propaganda campaign as campaigners took advantage of the global anxiety about anthropogenic climate change. Photographs showing low water levels in the Lower Lakes did not show the 7km of barrages keeping out the Southern Ocean, which otherwise would have flowed in and raised the water level.

    Burke continued the propaganda when he appeared on the ABC’s Insiders on November 25. He cited the example of a species disappearing from the Coorong during the last drought and not returning, despite rain, to illustrate the environmental degradation that had occurred. Did anyone consider that the alleged loss of species might have been the result of the destruction of the estuary by the barrages or the drainage works affecting the Coorong, carried out years ago in the interests of settlers, rather than the result of “greedy upstream irrigators”? I don’t think so.

    The “more water for the Lower Lakes and the Coorong” campaign had a crucial legal underpinning. In 1985, 140,500ha of the Lower Lakes and the Coorong were listed as wetlands of international significance under the UN Ramsar Convention, which allows the listing of artificially created wetlands. That is one of the international conventions on which the Water Act depends for its constitutional validity, relying on the High Court’s decision in the 1983 Tasmanian dam case, which expanded the commonwealth’s power to legislate based on international treaties it entered into.

    Another is the Convention on Biological Diversity, which gives the federal government the power to protect threatened species. – but s Sadly, the government has not protected the threatened human species: farmers and those who depend on them in the basin communities.

    Burke’s last conjuring trick to finalise the plan was a deal to placate SA Premier Jay Weatherill and avoid the state’s threatened High Court challenge. On October 26, Julia Gillard, Burke and Weatherill announced a new policy at a joint press conference in Goolwa, near the Lower Lakes and the Coorong. The Prime Minister was quite direct about its purpose: “This plan is one that we’ve worked with the Premier of South Australia on. It will see 450 gigalitres of water being preserved for South Australia.”

    The cost will be another $1.77 billion to return environmental water from on-farm efficiencies and by relaxing key operating constraints, artificial barriers to water flow, including dam releases and maximum flow restrictions. As a result, the plan returns a total of 3200GL of water to the environment at a cost of nearly $12bn. The Goolwa policy will not take effect until 2014 – after the next election – and the funding extends across 10 years, with only $55 million falling within the 2014-16 forward estimates period. The present government will spend nothing.

    The problem for Burge, Lobban and hundreds of other farmers on the Victorian and NSW banks of the Murray below the Hume Weir is that there is no water delivery plan. Relaxing operating constraints will subject their properties to new floods. Productive land will be lost, access to land may be difficult and essential farm activities prevented or hindered at crucial times. There is also no provision for compensation in the legislation and no funding. Legally, it will be a costly mess.

    Burke’s plan reduces water for irrigators in the basin. It will flood farms along the Murray in NSW and Victoria when artificial barriers to water flow are relaxed. His plan will benefit South Australians by increasing water flows into a freshwater body artificially created and maintained by the single most important artificial barrier to water flow in the Murray-Darling system – the barrages that remain steadfastly shut against flows from the Southern Ocean.

    The basic premise of the plan is nonsense.

    Josephine Kelly is a Sydney barrister.

  3841. Johnathan Wilkes says

    paging Moso bamboo grower. (sorry I forgot your nick)

    My wife Pamela wants to try a Philippine recipe that calls for bamboo shots.
    I inadvertently mentioned that bamboo shoots contain cyanide as you said in your post.

    Is it safe to use when tinned? Stupid question I know otherwise half the population would have been dead already but to put her mind to rest.

    Thanks

  3842. Graeme M says

    Thanks SD, I’ve never visited Deltoid before but I’m having a ball. I know nuthin’ about SLR but it’s not stopping me amusing myself.

    Signed
    Bolt for PM…

  3843. Johnathan Wilkes says

    Graeme M
    “Bolt for PM…”

    Sorry Graeme can’t think of a more unsuitable man for politics and thank God he knows it too.
    And in case he doesn’t Sally does!

    Same goes for M Turnbull, why he ever bothered? I have few ideas but not publicly.

  3844. spangled drongo says

    John, sadly this country’s in for a rude shock if it doesn’t treat it’s food producers a lot better.

    JW, this weather pattern that blows a cool easterly gradient onto SE Qld and N NSW which then becomes a northerly that warms the southern capitals is a common Christmastime event. Up till now you have been getting a much cooler summer than we have.

    We don’t have the looxury of ac.

    Hopefully a cool change and a bit of rain is on the way.

  3845. Johnathan Wilkes says

    sd you a cricket fan?

    Not much to look forward to this summer, hope I’m proved wrong.
    Thanks for cricket being cricket anything can happen.

    I’m not complaining about the heat, had far worse and survived when working for Newman mining at Mt Newman and Pt Hedland.

  3846. spangled drongo says

    Graeme and John, good to see you both pointing out some honest facts to the doltoids. Seeing as BJ put in an appearance I made another comment there.

    Always follow the cricket JW. Used to play a bit out in the bush but never very well. I was just talking to an 89 year old team mate on the phone in Longreach a couple of days ago. We played our last game in Stonehenge in 1959. He reckons he’s not old yet but he could be next year.

  3847. Graeme M says

    Don’t worry JW, Bolt won’t be PM anytime soon. That’s just a tease to spark the doltoids up a bit. It’s always good to help their preconceived notions along.

    SD, that post and thread is a beauty. As I say, I can’t argue from the science nor have I even the most basic stats knowledge. But if they want to display a couple of graphs that scream out to me DECELERATION and then argue it shows acceleration, well… you can’t help but have a go can you.

  3848. gavin says

    Deb; re your Q accounting marine life in the SL budget, consider your average jelly fish v a cuttle fish bone, both left high and dry by the outgoing tide. In the sea they don’t count and on the beach they don’t count either but our jolly JW will find that hard to swallow. What comes out of the ocean and stays out isn’t much at all.

    SD, I hope you weren’t serious about that snatch from wuwt re asteroids and atmospheric earth. When I found the source embedded in an article about more general green house risk we find only a comment attributed to your NEAT guy. No scientific paper necessary to get blogsphere rolling again.

    While you guys have time to cultivate stories, I have been growing things in compost and checking out the goods from regulars at our market. Today a small mixed bag of citrus from Leyton way who can discuss changing irrigation costs associated with MDB transition. I suggested he seek support from Buller Ent re Lion Inc and their farm gate prices.

  3849. el gordo says

    ‘…you can’t help but have a go can you.’

    No… and not seeing the gatekeeper I slipped in and uttered a few words. If I don’t get thrown out on my ear I’ll return tomorrow with something more intelligent to say.

  3851. Ian Thomson says

    John Sayers,
    So true about the water, but will the truth ever out itself ?

    Gavin,
    I seem to get under 3% of all the water on Earth is fresh water and less than 3% of this is in permanent ice caps . I also seem to get Greenland’s one getting thicker in the last 1,000 years and the 9 feet of snow south of there last week would seem to indicate things are continuing that way.
    when Lake Agassiz was in existence , as the Laurentian Ice sheet melted, it contained more water than all the current lakes on Earth put together.
    ( That is a lot more than the 3% of fresh water. )
    This still only raised sea level by up to 3 metres and maybe a lot less, when it burst loose. Hardly the stuff of Algore horror shows and impossible now.

  3852. Debbie says

    We don’t grow oranges for market Gavin,
    we are broad acre irrigators. We grow wheat, corn, canola, barley, oats, rice, fodder crops, soy beans, navy beans, sunflowers and the like.
    We have our own personal orchard with a variety of citrus and stone fruits plus we of course grow our own vegs.
    There are plenty of horticulturalists here in the MIA. Perhaps you should direct your enquiries there?
    Thanks for attempting to answer the question about what counts. However it was definitely about fish and whales not jellyfish.

  3853. spangled drongo says

    So, you DO read WUWT gav. And there I was trying to relieve you of the pain. You old sneak.

    Gav’s more into jellyfish, Debbie. Too slipery to get an answer out of.

  3854. Debbie says

    Graeme and SD,
    I just went and looked at your posts at Deltoid.
    Well done.
    They don’t seem to understand that their graphs do not prove what they say they prove.
    Chameleon pointed out that the original post actually outlines that these graphs are open to interpretation depending on the calendar points.
    They certainly don’t like you 2 asking them where the ‘real’ proof is.
    I also noticed that the new post there is attempting to defend Robyn Williams and the Science Show for their very poor analogy with paedophilia.
    Janama has taken them to task on that one. Whoever Janama is, they can trade insults for insults rather well.
    It does make for amusing reading.
    As EG said earlier, they are a rather humourless crowd there.
    There is even one commenter who is blaming ‘denialists’ for his lousy weather over the holiday period.
    Lost the plot maybe ???????

  3855. gavin says

    My last post was in fact my last post on the old P4. We had a bolt of lightening which crackled with the flash. The boom from the cloud came a bit later. I did post what I had written, then disconnected the power. My next posts will come from “her indoors” who can see the little screen.

    Deb:- I know you are not fruit pickers at Buller Enterprises. Another guy from Young sold me 9kg of overripe Romas. That too kept me away from the blog.

  3857. Graeme M says

    Debbie, I’d never have imagined they’d be that funny! I think there is a better crowd at places like Judith Curry’s and even Tamino’s. The Deltoids that we are arguing with are just downright bizarre. Lionel and his holiday weather takes the cake 🙂 And they keep posting up graphs that show exactly the opposite of what they claim they show. What the? I’m not pretending to know better about climate but Geez… I’m not sure they know anything.

  3858. el gordo says

    ‘I’m not sure they know anything.’

    They don’t know much, while Jen’s mob are up to speed and its a lot more fun that just arguing with Gavin.

    On another level you are guerilla fighters, out to embarrass ignorant twits and undermine their resolve, then return here for R & R.

    Its going to be a long protracted war and you’ll need to be thick skinned, but what fun.

  3860. John Sayers says

    Thanks SD and Debbie – I’ll be out of it today as I’m flying back to OZ from Dubai. 14 hours straight!
    They really aren’t worth talking to as they are set in their ways and ignore any facts you put to them – I’ve tried many times.

  3861. spangled drongo says

    You’re certainly not wrong there, John. If I had more sense I’d keep away too. You did a great job.

    Have a good flight.

  3862. Neville says

    I’ve just popped in to wish everyone a good Christmas and a happy 2013. 2012 has been a good year for sceptics, that is the people who accept some warming over the last 100+ years but don’t see any recent evidence for any unusual SLR or temp increase or more extreme weather events etc over the last few decades.

    I’ve been too busy to engage here but I’ve now read all the recent posts here and at Deltoid, Jo Nova’s, Watts etc. BTW I think people like Matt Ridley etc could provide the extra weight and punching power to blow a hole in the extremist’s agenda next year.
    But he has a lot of mates to help him as well if they are only allowed to pubish in the MSM.
    Anyway all the best for 2013.

  3863. john sayers says

    Merry Xmas everyone hopefully ill catch a glimpse of santa on this flight.

    Special merry xmas to Jen – hope you have a rewarding 2013!

  3866. Graeme M says

    Yes, Merry Christmas all. I’ve enjoyed reading all your contributions this year, even the now absent Luke. I close out the year less skeptical than I started and certainly more knowledgeable.

    Sadly all my extra knowledge just emphasises to me how little I really know. C’est la vie huh?

    Look forward to more discussion over the next year.

  3868. gavin says

    lost it for a few hours during the electrical storms, had to connect a larger screen too cause my office help has retired. Going to be difficul to slam you diehards with a 15 inch but will see.

    happy hols all, stay cool and dry

    Cheers

  3869. Neville says

    Bolt’s opinion of the warmist totalitarian who wants the death penalty for sceptics but not for the Norsman maniac who killed over seventy innocent ( mostly youngsters) people.

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/kill_the_sceptics/#commentsmore

    Wonderful logic and reason , don’t kill one vile mass killer but instead kill many sceptics just because they hold a different opinion.
    Have a good Xmas and a safe and prosperous New Year.

  3873. gavin says

    Who mentioned the war?

    I see no heros here, just self apointed mischief makers clubbing with the enemies of Gaia.

    Eg. that “cooling” trend for Alaska is blog nonsense based on comments about obscure docs.

    An alternative source is the oft cited paper “The Impacts and Implications of An Intensifying Fire Regime On Alaskan Boreal Forest Composition and Albedo” When you mention cooling and ice, I look for wildfire activity on important low areas.

    Gaia won’t miss the impact of mankind anywhere.

  3874. Debbie says

    That’s right Gav,
    mankind and human activity impacts the environment.
    Thank you captain obvious!
    Did it ever occur to you that from cave man days to the modern era it is entirely natural behaviour for humans to do that?
    Has it also occured to you that the more permanent impacts occur where humans congregate in large numbers and build permanent habitat in places like ummmm perhaps Canberra?
    Humanity is part of the environment too Gavin.
    Most of the time we all actually manage to muddle through OK.
    But we’re far from perfect.
    You might feel better if you accept that the word ‘impact’ is not a negative word. There are just as many (if not more) examples of postive & beneficial human impacts.
    Cheer up Gavin and enjoy Christmas & New Year with your family and friends.
    Even the weather in our part of the world has decided to be pleasant for Xmas.

  3875. spangled drongo says

    Yes gav, species come and species go. How you must miss the Jurassic when you were a struggling mammal at the bottom of the food chain.

    Oh for them good ol’ days!

    BTW, what’s your method for threading fish hooks into your shirts so they can be easily removed for washing and ironing?

  3876. el gordo says

    Gavin this makes more sense…

    The First Decade of the New Century: A Cooling Trend for Most of Alaska

    G. Wendler*, L. Chen and B. Moore

    Alaska Climate Research Center, Geophysical Institute, University of Alaska, Fairbanks, AK 99775, USA

    ‘Abstract: During the first decade of the 21st century most of Alaska experienced a cooling shift, modifying the long-term warming trend, which has been about twice the global change up to this time. All of Alaska cooled with the exception of Northern Regions.

    ‘This trend was caused by a change in sign of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), which became dominantly negative, weakening the Aleutian Low. This weakening results in less relatively warm air being advected from the Northern Pacific. This transport is especially important in winter when the solar radiation is weak.

    ‘It is during this period that the strongest cooling was observed. In addition, the cooling was especially pronounced in Western Alaska, closest to the area of the center of the Aleutian Low. The changes seen in the reanalyzed data were confirmed from surface observations, both in the decrease of the North-South atmospheric pressure gradient, as well as the decrease in the mean wind speeds for stations located in the Bering Sea area.’

  3877. Robert says

    Been away from the computer, but a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to all. My sister is proud to have the only lit up nativity display here in Potts Point. Very gaudy. You can see it if you look up from Macleay Street. (Sydney hipsters. Yuck.)

    But I send my best wishes even to climate alarmists and hipsters…everyone except that sour old hag Gaia. She can go to buggery.

    Thanks for the blog, Jen.

  3878. gavin says

    A Century of Climate Change for Fairbanks, Alaska

    Gerd Wendler, Martha Shulski – Abstract

    “Climatological observations are available for Fairbanks, Interior Alaska, for up to 100 years. This is a unique data set for Alaska, insofar as it is of relatively high quality and without major breaks. Applying the best linear fit, we conclude that the mean annual temperature rose from -3.6?C to -2.2?C over the century, an increase of 1.4?C (compared to 0.8?C worldwide). This comparison clearly demonstrates the well-known amplification or temperature change for the polar regions. The observed temperature increase is neither uniform over the time period nor uniform throughout the course of a year. The winter, spring, and summer seasons showed a temperature increase, while autumn showed a slight decrease in temperature. For many activities, the frequencies of extremes are more important than the average values. For example, the frequency of very low temperatures (below -40?C, or -40?F) has decreased substantially, while the frequency of very high temperatures (above 26.7?C, or 80?F) increased only slightly. Finally, the length of the growing season increased substantially (by 45%) as a result of an earlier start in spring and a later first frost in autumn. Precipitation decreased for Fairbanks. This is a somewhat counter-intuitive result, as warmer air can hold more water vapor. The date of the establishment of the permanent snow cover in autumn showed little change; however, the melting of the snow cover now occurs earlier in the spring, a finding in agreement with the seasonal temperature trends. The records for wind, atmospheric pressure, humidity, and cloudiness are shorter, more broken, or of lower quality. The observed increase in cloudiness and the decreasing trend for atmospheric pressure in winter are related to more advection and warmer temperatures during this season.”

    SD; fish hooks go best into your hatband

    http://arctic.synergiesprairies.ca/arctic/index.php/arctic/article/view/149

  3879. Debbie says

    And all the best for the festive season to you Robert and all and sundry who take the time to comment here.
    A special thanks to Jen.
    I don’t know who mother gaia really is. I sometimes think she must be a quasi religious figment of the imagination.
    Personally, I love and respect my surrounding environment, but I am fully aware that it is not a god nor is it either my special friend or enemy. It just is. Many of us are continuing to learn how best to work with it and enhance its productive capabilities.
    At the moment, in my patch, it has decided to deliver near perfect weather for xmas. Just gorgeous.

  3880. spangled drongo says

    Somehow gav, I imagined you were more into fish hooks in eye lids and eye brows than hat bands.

    Y’know, to get them out you push them all the way through.

  3882. Mark A says

    I don’t know about others but to me, any argument preceded or followed by the word “Gaia” loses most if not all of its value.

  3883. Mark A says

    Being on holiday I’m just catching up with WUWT

    Sailing On The Moon Wind
    by Willis Eschenbach

    Excellent and thought provoking piece, provided one’s mind is still receptive.
    Having worked on a few fishing vessels in my foolish younger days before I realised there must be an easier way to make a living, his observation resonated well with me.

    Is it SD or el gordo the sailing man? You probably can relate to it. Maybe nothing in it but my own observation, now that I think back confirm it.

    This phenomena can also be observed on land actually.
    Of course we may all be wrong but I don’t believe so.

  3884. spangled drongo says

    Dunno about Moon Winds Mark A. But trying to make passage in the doldrums can be maddening so anything that comes your way is more than welcome.

    There is nothing more magnificent than getting a 3-5 knot breeze by the light of the silvery, though, provided it is for’ard of the beam and your speed can amplify it into a 10 knotter.

    I’ve had some of the best sailing of my life in those conditions. You never want it to end.

  3885. Debbie says

    Gotta agree with you on the gaia point Mark A.
    Arguing as if gaia cares or wants someone to speak on behalf of really doesn’t make a great deal of sense.
    Especially considering the argument is almost always from a misanthropist viewpoint.

  3886. gavin says

    Gaia is more than just a usefull concept from Lovelock. For me its a quick outline of who depends on what in that thin layer of all things living on planet Earth. The intervoven cyclrs of life have a present, a past and a future. To continue, no one form should not dominate all others, Recycling requires extra energy and that must be shared too. This natural order requires a past and a future . There is no exclusive long term combination.

    Lad came to sort my laptop mail setup, hope to post pics again but he can’t fix those tiny keys. Three foul strokes and I should be out so keep watching.

    Back to Gaia, bump the system an the whole will take a step somewhere. no religion needed, Given hindsight we may see the foul

  3887. Johnathan Wilkes says

    speaking in tongues again gav?
    Never mind.
    “Recycling requires extra energy”

    gav most of the times recycling takes more energy and resources than creating a new item.
    Everyone who is in the recycling business knows that, why does it escapes you?

  3889. gavin says

    Who says I’m not aware of recycling issues

    JW. who are you, in saying I’m not aware of recycling issues?

    Today, I failed to cold bend a large Sidchrome ring spanner back to it’s original shape, one of forty odd to be polished up for resale. Tonight I will grade them again. Earlier, I split a variety of domestic hardware between our salvage and dump bins with an emphasis on plastics for recycling. Every week I dismantle a number of appliances with total return of materials in mind including all those tiny tamper proof screws.

    At the industrial level, I did similar operations with hand held communications, rechargeable batteries etc.

    At the macro level, it could be our entire production that had to be recycled in bad times. In the end, it was the processing plant, equipment, labs, cables, scavageings, waste dumps , while several acquaintences, million $ guys handeled house lots or workshops from various townships, farms and busineses.

    Its this background that helps me lobby the pollies in good times

  3891. Johnathan Wilkes says

    Gavin, you have the bad habit of never addressing the issues raised, or answering a direct question.
    You just go on your merry way waffling on and on.

    I simply stated that some recycling cost more and takes more energy and resources than creating a new item, therefore not actually saving the resources or the environment.

    You answer? Getting stroppy and carrying on about something completely unrelated.

    Your personal recycling habits gave nothing to do with anything. I take it you are retired and your time is free to spend it any way you like.

    Guarantee you, if you were on a $150/hour retainer you wouldn’t spend your working hours trying to unbend crooked spanners. Maybe after hours you might.

  3892. gavin says

    Over my shoulder says it’s all true and s good post JW

    My point was, jf we make it, we use it then recycle it. Alternativly, every customer needs to return a product at the end of its life, directly or indirectly regardless of source. That may require a fair amount of human energy as opposed to the throw away society we have today. Our trash has a cost that isn’t factored in.

    With some delight I watched a younger recycling cobber recieve your average analogue tv from a bunch of usual pollies in front of the national media. but all he had to do was wrap it with others on a pallet to be taken elsewhere by a covered semi trailer.

    There is no such deal however for my useless old P4 with it’s dead power supply but we can hope it goes out the back door at the same depot with some other scavenger.

    I am retired

  3893. Neville says

    Well Gav at least Lovelock admitted he got it wrong. I think it’s becoming clear that the feedbacks are indeed negative and we will probably see about 1c temp increase for a doubling of co2 by 2100.

    If the C/F PDO lasts for another decade or three we will see temp flatlining for a while yet, but who knows.

    But we do know there is nothing we can do about it because co2 increases are beyond our control and firmly in the China and the India non OECD camp.

    We know the Gillard govt couldn’t care less about exported co2 emissions so why should we concern ourselves about the piffling emissions emitted here in OZ?
    Our tiny emissions reduction here in Oz by 2020 will be mostly found from corrupt certificates
    costing us billions $ sent overseas for a guaranteed zero return.

    Zero change in the climate or temp and our savings (?) in emissions replaced by China etc in a matter of months.
    You have to ask are our govt and their idiot supporters really so barking mad that they can’t understand simple kindy maths?
    How can the MSM not understand this stupidity and why don’t more journos speak out?

  3894. spangled drongo says

    Gav, JW is right about the economics but you are right about the net commons re recycling.

    Also there is the great satisfaction of just fixing things if you have that inclination.

  3895. Debbie says

    Gavin,
    I congratulate you on your socially responsible behaviour re recycling.
    Did you happen to notice that you actually did what Mark A pointed out earlier?
    Other people who don’t invoke gaia also recycle.
    I would also suggest that other people and other cultures have been recycling far longer than you and that they don’t do it because they want to stop SLR.
    Just because people question the politics surrounding ACO2 & CAGW does not mean they don’t care about the environment or that they are any less socially responsible than you.
    JW is also correct that some forms of recycling actually use more resources and energy than just replacement.
    It’s really a much better idea to pay attention to what makes sense and what works rather than blindly adhering to a political ideology.
    Neville’s oft made point about mitigating CO2 emissions in OZ is a good example and Jen’s oft made point about the barrages is another.
    People invoke gaia to try and justify political ideology that has no basis in practical reality. It just won’t work no matter how morally or politically correct it may sound.

  3896. spangled drongo says

    Got up early and sanded and varnished the boat in readiness to take the grandkids sailing in the holidays.

    Kids today are so divorced from the real world, completely hypnotised by all their electronic toys that are tomorrow’s junk.

    They don’t really want to go sailing but I throw ’em in and when we get going and the real world starts to sink in, the smiles start to appear and the program for the future starts to get printed.

  3897. cohenite says

    gav never disappoints; some authentic green/AGW gibberish:

    “Gaia is more than just a usefull concept from Lovelock. For me its a quick outline of who depends on what in that thin layer of all things living on planet Earth. The intervoven cyclrs of life have a present, a past and a future. To continue, no one form should not dominate all others, Recycling requires extra energy and that must be shared too. This natural order requires a past and a future . There is no exclusive long term combination.”

    A bit of a worry though when gav says this:

    “To continue, no one form should not dominate all others,”

    That sounds as though gav is disavowing Darwinism and the survival of the fittest; but then that is the Disney view of nature, kind and nurturing, which the greenies subscribe to.

  3898. Debbie says

    I guess it’s very easy to subscribe to that view of nature if you live in the highly protected urban environment of Australia?

  3899. gavin says

    Re Darwin’s view v Lovelock, each species can evolve towards a nich location on/in Gaia with our Gaia collectve adjusting climate and environment for external impacts IMO of course

  3900. Graeme M says

    I hope everyone had a great Christmas break, I know I did. I haven’t done much blog following so am way behind on all the various blogs I follow, but that’s the way of it I guess.

    Spangled Drongo, I had to drop a short windup on the Deltoid thread. I’m sure it’ll elicit some frothing, but in all honesty I haven’t the time to follow through. All I can say is, they’ve spent a lot of time trying to confuse with science. A LOT of facts, but little actual evidence. I am not saying they are wrong, but no-one comes back with any actual physical evidence of anything happening.

    And those graphs of Brisbane and Gold Coast tide heights actually appear to back your claims, but then what would I know huh?

    Mind you, some of their commenters like Bernard and Lotharsson do seem like pretty smart guys! 🙂

  3901. Mark A says

    gavin
    “with our Gaia collectve adjusting climate and environment for external impacts IMO of course”

    Could you clarify this statement?
    What do you actually mean by “adjusting climate”? and “for external impacts”?

  3902. el gordo says

    ‘but no-one comes back with any actual physical evidence of anything happening.’

    SLR is not going anywhere and they can’t prove otherwise. Taking this further, the atmospheric temperature of the globe appears stable and CO2 doesn’t cause warming… nevertheless the warminista will soon be out banging drums with ‘2012 was the hottest ever in the continental US.’

    Anthony Watts is planning a rebuttal… hopefully.

  3903. spangled drongo says

    Yes Graeme, you have it in a nutshell. They are bright people and a lot smarter than I am but they are such pompous ideologues that, even though they have made no personal obs, they believe in only what they choose to believe in, regardless of what continues to happen around them.

    Plus they love to insult anyone who intros them to the bleedin’ obvious. It makes you despair for the future and you realise this old world is in for a rough ride.

    As I said in one of my comments there, the only pos feedback that will lead to a runaway tipping point is their out-of-control ideology.

    If I was witnessing SLR I would say so. But their trouble is they only want selective evidence.

    Now that Bernard J has come back with nothing of substance I’ll have to stop commenting. ☺

  3904. Graeme M says

    It IS intriguing. They may very well be right, but I’d like them to illustrate why more physically than by constant reference to all sorts of mechanisms that seem to be largely statistical. The interesting thing is that they have tacitly agreed that your obs must be relevant because of the length they have gone to in order to illustrate why there is no observable change at your benchmark. Bernard J’s tide gauge data to me looks pretty much flat in trend, but could be sold either way depending on which bit you look at. That implies to me considerable noise around at best a very small change overall. And the only concrete real world example they can toss back is Hurricane Sandy.

    I am on hols so may persevere some more. I may be quite wrong, but it’s fun to try to nail them down. Funnily enough earlier they emphatically proved I am a dummy by showing global temp anomaly as trending around 0.01-0.02 per year, which over 100 years gives us just 1-2 C of warming. Right where sceptics claim…

    http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/rates.jpg

  3905. Neville says

    I’m sorry but these dopes don’t seem very bright to me. If they can’t accept the facts and want to make up nonsense about CAGW then that just leaves me shaking my head.

    This morning on AM ABC a home owner talked about the reasons he wanted to go off grid and finished with these comments.

    “MICHAEL GUNTER: I’m trying to look at the big picture and the small picture as well…

    WILL OCKENDEN: For Michael Gunter, the cost doesn’t really matter. For him, it’s political and environmental. And he hopes he’ll find a tenant that can share the same view.

    MICHAEL GUNTER: There are no land lords and tenants on a dead planet and the situation, as I read the climate science, is just getting so extreme that even if it is only one person out of all the households in Melbourne, I think we’ve got to start somewhere so I’m going off grid.

    DAVID MARK: That’s Melbourne home owner Michael Gunter, ending Will Ockenden’s report.”

    To me that’s about as dumb and extreme as you can get. How you can try to make a case that the climate science proves that we’re heading for a dead planet is beyond comprehens
    ion.
    To me the opposite is the case, we live in the cooler end of the holocene, just look again at Alley’s GISP 2 graph.
    The temp hasn’t risen for 16 years, SLR isn’t a problem ( 1.5M higher 4,000 years ago) there is no evidence that extreme weather events are worse today than earlier times etc.

    I’m afraid these people are fantasists and loons who believe in delusional nonsense.

  3906. el gordo says

    They are reasonably bright, but have been severely brainwashed.

    I know intelligent professional people who have been conned into thinking CO2 causes global warming, we have a huge problem to sort out and we made need your help Graeme.

  3907. spangled drongo says

    “Funnily enough earlier they emphatically proved I am a dummy by showing global temp anomaly as trending around 0.01-0.02 per year, which over 100 years gives us just 1-2 C of warming. Right where sceptics claim…”

    Graeme, I made that point to them too, that they insult first and agree second. But won’t admit they agree.

    Neville, farmers were all off-grid once and they sure don’t want to go back there even with some [but not much] improvement in off-grid systems.

    Reality [as in horrendous cost increase and/or poor energy supply] will catch up very quickly.

  3908. spangled drongo says

    Neville, I should have added that you still a back-up generator that will emit about the same as your on-grid emissions.

    Not to mention on-going big battery probs.

    Smart, hey?

  3909. el gordo says

    ‘…they insult first and agree second. But won’t admit they agree.’

    The degree of their brainwashed state can be measured by the abuse aimed at us. The places where I hang out are left wing political blogs, where you find watermelons in abundance.

    The life of a professional troll is not easy, your adversaries will never give in to reason, but there are gains to be made until the weather turns finally in our favour.

  3911. Mark A says

    Spent half an hour reading Deltoid on the SL thread.

    I’d like my half hour back. Someone here opined that the regular warmists on that blog are bright and smart
    people.
    They must have demonstrated their brightness on an other thread, because on the one I read all they did was
    to denigrate, the opposition, no facts.

    Not a site I’m likely to visit again even on holidays.
    Unless one likes to engage in fruitless argument, why bother?
    Just my opinion of course

  3912. Debbie says

    I went and had a look too.
    You guys are doing a great job there.
    I was sorely tempted to comment a couple of times but I’m agreeing with Mark A a little bit here.
    It does seem to be a fruitless argument. I remember EG commenting some time back that they are a rather humourless crowd there.
    After reading what’s been going on I would have to agree.
    I don’t really think that they are particularly smart Graeme. Their focus is so incredibly narrow. I don’t think that’s a smart way to look at the world.
    Possessing a higher education or being very skilled in one area doesn’t necessarily mean that you are smart.
    I don’t know about you, but I have certainly met some highly educated idiots. They see themselves as experts about topics they have no training or experience in.
    They also seem to have a huge and unreasonable fear of making errors of judgement and would prefer to get in a ditch rather than just admit they made a mistake.
    I find the smarter academics are the ones who have that education as well as solid practical experience.
    I also remember Luke commenting some time back that academics like to argue (or maybe he said scientists?).
    I think that looks true of the crowd at Deltoid too. It looks to me as if they make stuff up to argue with a lot of the time. They have certainly been doing that to you 2 as well as someone called GSW and someone called Chameleon. The 4 of you have been trying to make fairly simple observations but they read all sorts of other sinister stuff into it.
    It is actually rather amusing to read but I guess it must be incredibly annoying for you?
    I also think it looks very much like what Walter Starck calls an ‘academic pissing contest’.
    And BTW Gavin?
    Please do tell what you actually meant by that comment of yours?
    I’m as fascinated as Mark A.

  3913. Graeme M says

    I dunno, they do seem pretty smart and educated, but rather stuck on one point of view. So they do indulge in some pretty serious axe grinding.

    One thing that does stand out is that at blogs like Desmoid, they really have a double standard. Happy to insult and denigrate anyone that disagrees, but crying foul when someone insults them back.

  3916. Debbie says

    We must disagree what the definition of ‘smart’ is Graeme.
    I suspect that most of those commenters at Deltoid have a decent IQ and decent academic quals.
    To me, that doesn’t mean they’re smart or clever.
    They’re missing some of the essential ingredients for ‘smart’ from my reading of that SL thread.
    They’re certainly missing a sense of humour and a sense of balance.
    I don’t think they have got much of a grasp on reality either . . .based on the way they reply to you and spangled.
    For what it’s worth:
    Your comments and questions read way smarter than theirs.

  3917. spangled drongo says

    Thanks Deb, yes, if you don’t live in the real world you really aren’t too clever.

    Neville, I posted your link on GRACE and SLR over there in the interests of education.

  3919. gavin says

    Must be missing some fun at Deltoid.

    SD; I reckon that yacht of yours is a bit under a third of Wild Oats 11, if you can coat it in under a day, btw I wish, never to see another toy just after purchase with the tag, grandpop can fix aniything.

    Mark A; I recall a CSIRO researcher claiming on ABC radio, a “MOU”- my term, existed for marine life in dumping salt to the ocean floor long before I knew Lovelock had published Gaia. The other guy said our SH ocean salinity remained constant regardless of continued runoff and abrupt climate change.

    That seemed a fascinating discovery at the time, and had as much influence on my thinking as “Chaos Theory”.

    Part of my work then was measurements in turbulent environments ie. man made streams of water and gas, also furnaces, digestors and reactors. Getting a “fix” on conditions frequently required imagination beyond the physics and engineering. We had many control loops with only one or two mathematical terms in response to typical impacts such level changes. Three terms were a luxury and a nightmere given likely step changes in product demand.

    Anticipating trouble and making response settings in advance of unforseen events is an exciting game. Automation in any event remains a art form even with modern digital techniques employed. Human takeover will be a rocky ride after Gaia.

    Deb; stay fluid.

  3922. Neville says

    Geeezzzz Gav what is it you don’t understand about the declining trend in SLR .
    Have a look at Humlum’s trends since the first IPCC report. I also mentioned the trend of several metres from the USA EPA in the 1980s.

    I’ve never said there isn’t SLR just that the trend is declining. Rather stuffs up any CAGW contribution to the trend, there isn’t one.

    If the 100 metres Williams loon and the Gore Hansen trends are to come true they’d better be praying for much more melting etc from all sources and in a heck of a hurry.

    Gore and Hansen only need a few inches more increase every year but Williams needs more than a metre evey year from now until 2100 if he is to meet his estimation. You see there’s only 87 years until 2100.

  3924. Debbie says

    Double geeeez from me Gavin.
    The point being made is that the TREND (bold) is decelerating.
    The TREND Gavin, the TREND.
    The hypothesis was that an increase in ACO2 was causing an alarming and worrying correlating TREND in SLR.
    Emerging real time data is not supporting that hypothesis. While ACO2 is clearly rising in the atmosphere the theorised alarming TREND in SLR is not materialising.
    No one has claimed that SL itself is decelerating.
    No one is claiming that SL has a recognised equilibrium or balance.
    You links neither prove or disprove Neville’s comments.
    Who knows?
    You might be right but there is no real time data that proves you are correct beyond all reasonable doubt.
    What is very clear is taxing CO2 emissions in Australia will have no statistically significant result on that ‘might’.
    That is a demonstrably pointless exercise.
    I have also started to suspect it is a bald faced attempt to do what Luke often complains about in Agriculture:
    Socialising losses and capitalising gains re coastal urban infrastructure.
    It certainly won’t signifigantly reduce global ACO2 nor cool the weather/climate.

  3925. Robert says

    Nev, it’s infuriating when people use the words “ever” and “unprecedented” in the hope that most people will not check the history. The past is now a reference point for contemporary spin – it is otherwise unexamined and effectively abolished.

    Spend a minute contemplating the events in Victoria Feb 6 1851? Not one second will they spend. Black Thursday and the natural conditions which enabled it would kill their cheesy climate catastrophe script. We’ve actually reached a point where the fictions generated by ludicrous modelling (all climate modelling being ludicrous) are more real than Australia’s, and possibly the world’s, greatest known inferno. The follies of irresponsible development in a low-lying and hurricane prone Manhattan are ignored in favour of blaming farming and industrialisation – for a storm that was lame compared to those of 1938 and 1821!

    The script! Always the script!

  3926. Neville says

    Debbie and Robert I think we agree that SLR isn’t a problem and is certainly not unprecedented or unusual at all.

    Roger Pielke has a post on trying to mitigate SLR by severe reductions in co2 emissions.

    http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com.au/2012/10/how-much-sea-level-rise-would-be.html#comment-form

    He finds that the effect on SLR by 2100 would be small ( about 3 inches) and after that SLR would continue as before.
    He wisely states that we should use adaptation as a preparation for extreme events and I have to agree it makes the most sense.

  3927. Mark A says

    Neville,

    He wisely states that we should use adaptation as a preparation for extreme events and I have to agree it makes the most sense.

    Neville if we didn’t have the political blindness/greed none of this would be happening.

    We’d be going on as humanity ever did and adopt, change, move. Not saying it would be painless, but a lot less painful and this time we could handle the change a lot better than in the prehistoric and early historic times, when climatic change caused the destruction of whole civilisations.

    I say this because I firmly believe that we cannot change the climate, and by the facts presented so far I’m not convinced at all that we caused as much harm as it’s claimed. Read somewhere that if we burned all the available fossil fuels we still could not elevate the CO2 levels high enough, provided one actually could prove that CO2 is indeed as dangerous as claimed.

    I’m almost sure that the more rational warmists, specially the opportunistic politicians know in their heart of hearts, that all this is bunkum, but at the moment it’s very convenient. After all, political wisdom tells that one must keep the population in a constant fear of some sort of disaster and offer salvation from it to retain control.

    Don’t deny that many actually believe in it. Can’t be helped, there are other religions attracting millions, without a shred of evidence supporting their faith, but that what faith is!

  3928. Neville says

    I’m not sure whether this NOAA SL world map has been shown here before.

    http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends.shtml

    The arrows for SLR are UP and SL fall are DOWN. Australia has just two gauges on NE and E coast. NZ has two gauges and one gauge for Papua New Guinea. ( a fall)

    Our gauges show a rise of 0 to 3mm a year, with mid point of 1.5mm a year. About 0 to 1 foot per century or 6 inches mid point per century.

    You can drag the map up or down to find any country or continent. It’s amazing how gauges can sometimes be quite close and yet one shows a rise and another a fall. All on the same coastline.
    In some cases the fall in SL must be due to the land rising as is the case in Sweden etc.

  3929. spangled drongo says

    Interesting link Neville. It is also interesting how they are all prognosticating SLR when people like Morner aren’t convinced.

    I just worked out from a website that says world’s sea surface fluctuates by +/- 24 centimeters due to trade winds etc, that the ocean at 361,000,000 sq klms is therefore considerably flatter than a billiard table. In fact it would have a surface variation of the equivalent of 1/20th the thickness of a human hair over the length of a full size billiard table.

    If the world’s oceans have that sort of equilibrium and I have seen no rise, only a fall, in SLs in ~70 years in Moreton Bay then I cannot see SLR happening anywhere really.

  3930. gavin says

    Nev; “just that the trend is declining” Your statement is not supported by the Colorado team, nor by any other. If you insist on a reference to earlier IPCC statements, then leave me off the hook as I don’t work with other models. See – bang on trend

    http://sealevel.colorado.edu/files/2012_rel4/sl_ns_global.png

    Deb: find your own arguments and sources

    http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends.shtml

    “OSLO, Dec 23 (Reuters) – West Antarctica is warming almost twice as fast as previously believed, adding to worries of a thaw that would add to sea level rise from San Francisco to Shanghai, a study showed on Sunday”

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/23/west-antarctica-warming-climate-change_n_2356287.html

  3931. gavin says

    SD; I reckon you guys have run into the SLR back on trend issue at Deltoid too

    http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/707627main_pia16294-673.jpg

    Back in November

    “The newest data clearly indicate that the drop in 2010-11 was only temporary.””In 2011, we detected a lot of water that was temporarily stored over land, causing severe flooding in some regions,” said JPL co-author Felix Landerer. “In 2012, we have seen much of this water find its way back into the ocean.”

    http://nanopatentsandinnovations.blogspot.com.au/2012/11/sea-level-rise-continues-strong-upward.html

    Can you all please keep up?

  3932. Neville says

    Gav the SH is gaining ice,it’s now the highest for the satellite record. The antarctic peninsula is an old story and has NATURALLY gained and lost ice many times for thousands of years.

    If the PDO continues in cool phase we could see more la ninas and probably a drop in SLR trend. Who knows?

    I repeat the IPCC earlier SLR estimates for earlier reports have been adjusted down for decades, just read the earlier estimates. Humlum has the estimates from those earlier reports.

    The NOAA world map shows a mid trend that doesn’t show much increase until 2100. The estimate for OZ is 0 to 3mm with a mid trend of 1.5mm or 6 inches.
    That’s less than the 8 inches for the previous 100 years. Even the disputed satellite trend only has a mid point trend of 160 mm or 6.4 inches in 100 years.

    BTW I don’t think we are the ones who need to keep up.

  3933. Neville says

    BTW Gav if you’re so alarmed by this fraudulent nonsense tell us how to prevent it happening?
    Tell us how we can make a difference and reduce future SLR for the coming centuries.
    It’d be good for a laugh.

    But remember the simple maths numbers. But we all know you won’t try, just like all the other people pushing the alarmist button.

  3936. Another Ian says

    In case this hasn’t shown up before.

    ”
    Gail Combs says:
    December 21, 2012 at 6:22 pm
    spangled drongo says: @ December 21, 2012 at 3:53 pm
    ….. the warmists’ serenity prayer:

    God grant me the BIAS to reject the facts I hate, the BLINDNESS to embrace the ones I love and the BAD MANNERS to address those who try to show me the difference.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Isn’t that

    God grant me the BIAS to reject the facts I hate, the BLINDNESS to embrace the ones I love and the BAD MANNERS to /address/ curse those who try to show me the difference.”

    (/address/ was a strike through in the original)

    From comments at

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/21/friday-holiday-funny-the-twelve-days-of-climategate/

  3937. Neville says

    More deception and hiding declines from the IPCC masters.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/30/ar5-chapter-11-hiding-the-decline-part-ii/#more-76591

    Well Gav you’re wrong on just about everything, but please tell us how to fix your problem? If you’re convinced we’ll suffer a whopping 30 cm of SLR in 100 years compared to 20 cm over the last century, just give us your answer to fix it.

    If you can’t find a way to save us from that extra 4 inches then admit it. But why would we bother?
    Time to put up or shut up, but remember the dreaded China, India etc soaring co2 emissions.

  3938. Robert says

    If Arctic temps, after the melt scare of the late fifties, plunged as recently as the sixties, leading to a whole lot of ice-increase as recently as the 1970s, and if SLR is a post Napoleonic Wars phenomenon which has limped along into the present century…

    What are we buggerising on about?

    Despite fetish-worshipping Scientism and the primitive mindset which has led to faith in the insulting nonsense called models, there’s no prob – except that Gaia is as big a bitch as she’s ever been.

  3939. Debbie says

    She certainly can be Robert.
    That’s what’s so humourously ironic about much of the claims made by our self appointed gaia worshipping green betters.
    At the moment she is doing that to her worshippers.
    Flatly refusing to co operate. 🙂
    About normal and definitely amusing.
    As a collective, we do know more about the weather/climate/ SL than ever before.
    But pretending it’s ‘settled’ and that it’s propensity to change is largely our fault and therefore we must pay to ‘control’ these changes or even stop them is bordering on nonsense.
    As we have done from our cave man days we need to learn to adapt more efficiently and responsibly.

  3941. Robert says

    Deb, I’m starting to wonder if the hocus pocus isn’t sending practical climate knowledge backwards. Think Sandy, where a mere storm at landfall, though very large in area, caught the world’s most highly developed city unprepared. They didn’t even have bottled water!

    Think “living rivers” and “environmental flows” where black sludge is sent downstream and waters are released needlessly into floods or not released in advance of floods.

    Think weather forecasting, where the forecast is adjusted continually till, by the time the day arrives, it is nothing like the previous forecasts. Here we are lucky if they get it right one day out. Admittedly, the sat, radar and loose observation sets like ENSO and PDO are handy…but one wonders about the people twiddling the dials. (See Warwick Hughes’ blog, if anyone thinks I exaggerate.)

    I took a train back to the bush from Sydney last Saturday. It was late, of course. What struck me was that the announced delay was always less than the actual delay, through the course of many hours. For all of the trip we were running about an hour and ten minutes late, but the announcements had us fifty-five minutes late. When I arrived, we were still an hour and ten minutes late, as we had been all through the trip. Climate alarmism came to mind. I’ll leave you to ponder why.

    We are told that things are unprecedented when there are precedents all over the shop. We are told there will be no more snow, then we are not supposed to notice when the Northern Hemisphere is white and there is even snow in the middle of summer here in Oz?

    Are Scientism and Climate “Science” becoming obstacles to genuine science and simple commonsense?

  3943. Avatar photojennifer says

    Hey Everyone,
    Wonderful to check-in every so often and read the latest from you all.
    I’ve started a new thread – just today:
    http://jennifermarohasy.com/2012/12/still-fishing/
    And will probably close this one in the next day or two. I’ve had a few problems with hackers over the last month, so probably best not to leave really long threads open indefinitely.
    Jen xo

  3944. Johnathan Wilkes says

    another wasted time, why oh why do I bother?

    Those folks at deltoid would not see reason if it bit them on the backside.
    This bloke Cameleon and Bolt for PM are really asking for punishment and lapping it up.
    Why?
    The poster called “wow” is the most obnoxious stupid idiot I ever had the misfortune tor read or listen to.
    No content just meaningless dribble.

    Bolt for PM quoted a recent article I happened to read myself and it’s a very reasonable one too, well worth looking it up, but there was no way any of it sank in over there.
    Apparently an alleged 6 inch sea level rise did it all, never mind the exceptionally high tide!

    My fav. saying in these circumstances,the mind boggles!

    anyway had to give up reading the page half way through, one can only stomach so much.

  3945. Graeme M says

    Chameleon is a woman who claims a science background and to have visited Deltoid for the first time. She’s copped a fair hiding for simply asking questions. Bolt for PM is me, and I am just asking questions too. My latest question is simple. Regardless of sea level rise, was the actual sea level at the time of Sandy higher than at any other time on record, when measured against the land? That is, was the high tide higher than any other high tide? If not, then how can you claim SLR ‘dunnit’?

    No-one seems to get that question, so maybe I’m just missing the point and I’m the dummy?

    Wow is an unmitigated git 🙂

  3947. Graeme M says

    Gavin, you are doing what the deltoids are doing. I must be much dumber than I thought, because what I am saying seems obvious. I am NOT arguing anything at all about whether the surge was a record or not. I appreciate how big the surge was and how it formed and how it ‘swamped’ sea level.

    But it is claimed on deltoid that it is the increase in sea level that made the storm surge worse than it would otherwise have been. OK, so what WOULD it have been without sea level rise? The only way that I can see to consider that question is to look at the actual physical height of the sea at the time of sandy’s landfall, IF Sandy had not been present.

    In other words, at that time, what was the predicted tide height? Given it seems to have struck at or near high tide, what was that height? Well, it was predicted to be 4.7 feet. So, is that height higher, lower, or the same as a high tide at that time in the past?

    When I plot the data, it turns out that the same high tide on 29 October 1995 (as far back as the data goes in the website I used) was predicted to be 4.7 feet.

    So, if the physical sea level relative to land at those two points in time is the same, how can one argue that the sea was higher and exacerbated the storm surge?

    I am not trying to be tricky, I just don’t see what is wrong with my thinking.

  3948. Debbie says

    Silly me!
    I went back and had another look too.
    I don’t think anything is wrong with your thinking Graeme.
    You did indeed ask perfectly reasonable questions.
    I note one of the commenters have launched a personal attack on Humlum.
    I congratulate you for your persistence Graeme but I don’t think I will go back there anytime soon. They look to be a hopeless cause. That Wow dude is an absolute classic! He ducks and weaves around all your questions and supplies only bitter, negative insults.

  3949. cohenite says

    “I am not trying to be tricky, I just don’t see what is wrong with my thinking.”

    Nothing wrong with your thinking Graeme; you’ve just struck gav in non-thinking mode.

    SLR played no part in Sandy; but like the vultures they are the AGW believers will claim any disaster to bolster their fairy tale.

    Re Deltoid; don’t forget you bolster the litle man’s numbers which will make it easier for him to get advertising.

    I used to be tempted to go to Deltoid but the fetid nature of the atmosphere there makes it unproductive, and as I say, only gives a financial leg-up to them.

  3950. Debbie says

    In that case I am not returning!
    Sorry Graeme,
    but if I am helping that site financially by reading it, I refuse them that privilege regardless how funny it is to watch them sqirm away from your questions.
    I would much prefer to give that privilege to this blog and others which allow for contrary but reasoned views.
    I thought Luke & Bazza could be overly judgemental and rude but following that thread at deltoid puts them in a different category.
    That Wow dude is off the planet.

  3951. Graeme M says

    Yeah, I think I’ll have to give it a miss. As I say, I’m happy to be shown I am wrong but they just avoid the question entirely. Wow is downright weird. I keep thinking I must miss the point somewhere, but if the height of a tide is not the sea level at that particular time, then I have no idea what a ‘sea level is…

  3952. Debbie says

    It must be whatever they say it is and definitely not anything you say it is or spangled said it was.
    But I have no more clue than you have about what on earth IT (bold) is or was or is predicted or whatever.
    Even trying to explain the behaviour has caused me to write a conflated sentence!
    Anyway, after reading cohenite’s comment, it is probably best to leave them to their own devices. I’m a bit horrified that my visits there help to finance such negative and argumentative (academic pissing contest) rubbish.

  3954. Graeme M says

    Gav, I am not arguing that SLR did NOT have a role in Sandy’s impact. I simply asked a question at deltoid – show me the evidence. No-one could, or would. They just said that because sea level had risen, it must have. So I said, tell me what the tide height was at that moment. Because as far as I can see, the tide height would have been the major factor, not the SLR. If the actual physical sea level at that time were Sandy NOT to have occurred was the same as at say 1970, then SLR did not have any effect. And I still stand by that claim.

    But note – I am NOT saying SLR is not occurring, or that SLR at that location hasn’t occurred. And of course if we look at say the period since say 1812, then clearly sea level has risen and so Sandy had a greater impact than it would have had in 1812. But that thread was about SLR accelerating in recent times, so if the sea level was largely no different to what it might have been in 1970, then where is the argument for the enhanced impact?

    At the end of the day, for SLR to have increased Sandy’s impact, the sea level at the time of the surge had to have been at a height that was outside the range of historical sea levels (in this case, historical being say the past what, 40 years or so?). This is because we cannot pick and choose when a hurricane will strike, so when planning for its effect, we would look at the tidal range for the region and consider that the highest normal tide would be the worst impact.

    It would only be if the sea level, ie tide height, at the time the hurricane struck were outside of that ‘normal’ range that we could argue for an effect from SLR. Or so it seems to me. Just saying, here’s an average on a graph doesn’t tell me anything about what the ACTUAL sea level was at the time of Sandy. If it had been dead low tide, it would have been at a lower level than the mean sea level for that location, unless the SLR had exceeded the range from lowest low water to mean sea level.

    So, I asked if the predicted tide height at the time of Sandy was any different. And did that set them off. And so now, I have no idea if my take has any credibility. It makes sense to me, but clearly not them…

  3955. gavin says

    GM; after reading reading your reply again, I need to ask if you have considered the driving force and the duration of Sandy?

    Through the period Sandy was building prior to hitting the US coastline, it’s impact would be felt over a number of tides and the surge would extend to land long before the eye crossed the coast. Also, seawater would be dumped in surounding areas as heavy rain lifting stream flows dramaticly. Shorelines being inundated from both directions must raise the float gauges right through.

    Most important though, is the energy factor. As this weather event spreads through the atmosphere, it takes charge of surface conditions till all that energy is dissapated. Hot water was key to this storm and this is best viewed by storm extent from above

  3956. cohenite says

    SST did not play a part in Sandy:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/05/an-inconvenient-truth-sea-surface-temperature-anomalies-along-sandys-track-havent-warmed-in-70-years/#comment-1137128

    The Sandy surge was not historically exceptional:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/01/hurricane-sandys-unprecedented-storm-surge/

    And sea levels were not a factor:

    http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2012/07/01/part-2-of-on-sallenger-et-al-2012-hotspot-of-accelerated-sea-level-rise-on-the-atlantic-coast-of-north-america/

    Thank you Bob!

  3957. Graeme M says

    Gav, remember I am not trying to disprove the effects of SLR in terms of Sandy, rather I was after evidence that SLR DID make Sandy worse. Now, you have said

    “Through the period Sandy was building prior to hitting the US coastline, it’s impact would be felt over a number of tides and the surge would extend to land long before the eye crossed the coast. Also, seawater would be dumped in surounding areas as heavy rain lifting stream flows dramaticly. Shorelines being inundated from both directions must raise the float gauges right through.”

    I’m still not sure what point you are making. Any time there is a large storm there is a storm surge. That means a higher sea level at the relevant coastline than would otherwise be the case for that time and place.

    All I am saying is that had the storm NOT struck, what would the sea level have been? Let’s take several days either side of the storm’s arrival. What would the normal tidal range be for that period? There is a maximum high water and a minimum low water for that period.

    Were those numbers outside of the normal range of tides for that time? I don’t know, I was just asking the question. But if the maximum tide height for that coastline in 1970 (discounting other storm surges – ie a ‘normal’ tide) was 1.5 metres, and the maximum tide height in the period sandy struck was within a few cm of that, then how could you argue SLR played a part?

    Now, it is PROBABLY true that the tide height WAS above the historic numbers, so SLR may very well have had an impact. I was merely posing the question. And I would still like to know.

  3958. Graeme M says

    By the way, when I say ‘tide height’ I mean the actual physical height of the sea at high tide, relative to the land. Because surely that is the determining factor, not a graph of mean sea levels?

    I thought tide gauge data would show us that, but apparently that is measured against mean lower low water.

    But in effect, what I am posing is the same issue SD raises. Regardless of tide gauge data or statistical means etc, what height is max tide reaching at a given coastline over time. If it hasn’t increased in 70 years, then what real effect has AGW driven SLR had?

  3959. Graeme M says

    By the way, when I say ‘tide height’ I mean the actual physical height of the sea at high tide, relative to the land. Because surely that is the determining factor, not a graph of mean sea levels?

    I thought tide gauge data would show us that, but apparently that is measured against mean lower low water.

    But in effect, what I am posing is the same issue SD raises. Regardless of tide gauge data or statistical means etc, what height is max tide reaching at a given coastline over time. If it hasn’t increased in 70 years, then what real effect has AGW driven SLR had?

  3960. Graeme M says

    I know Jen wants to close this thread off, so I shall make any new comments in the new thread.

Trackbacks