FOIA is a recognised shorthand for Freedom of Information Act. Legislation by this name has existed in the USA since 1966, Australia since 1982 and the UK legislation was introduced in 2000. It was climate scientists at the Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia, conspiring to evade the UK FOIA that probably inspired Climategate, with Mr FOIA, as the “hacker” calls himself, releasing over 220,000 documents and emails beginning in November 2009. In a recent email he explained: “The circus was about to arrive in Copenhagen. Later on it could be too late.”
By providing public access to emails and documents from leading climate scientists, Mr FOIA exposed how tricks, adjustments, and corrections, were routinely applied to climate data to support the propaganda of the largely government-funded global warming industry.
I recently scrutinized documents from a successful FOI request by John Abbot to the Australian Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, DCCEE. As far as I can make out from the documents the entire Australian Climate Change Science Program can be likened to what Mr FOIA describes as “a massive hole-digging-and-filling-up endeavor” for which the climate scientists are generously remunerated by the Australian taxpayer. Let me explain in more detail:
Modern history suggests that democracy aligns, and progresses, with the expansion of civil liberties including access by the ordinary citizen to government information. But in the Climategate emails, it is clear that leading UK climate scientists held the FOIA in contempt, considering it a waste of time and recommending that data and information be deleted rather than released. The problem extends beyond the CRU to western democracies more generally where ballooning bureaucracies are increasingly reluctant to share information with their public. Yet without meaningful public oversight of public expenditure there is reason to fear that government bureaucracies will become self-serving and oppressive which is the antithesis of the egalitarian democratic ideal.
In Australia, for example, public expenditure on global warming has continued to increase, but there is no evidence that there has been any corresponding improvement in climate science, for example, through improved seasonal rainfall forecasts.
In March 2010, John Abbot – a PhD scientist who is also a qualified solicitor – made a Freedom of Information request to the DCCEE asking for documents concerning the Australian Climate Change Science Program, ACCSP, including how monies were allocated between specific projects and the outcomes from these projects. The request was initially denied, claiming various exemptions as detailed in recent peer reviewed articles in Public Law Review (Volume 24, pages 10-16) and Environmental Law and Management (Volume 24, Issue 3, pages 114-118).
Following a protracted appeal process through the Information Commissioner that included scrutiny of the manner of application of the public interest test and bogus claims of intellectual property rights, the original decision was reversed and the documents were eventually released.
These documents detailed funding for 160 government climate scientists, almost all of these employed by the CSIRO and Bureau of Meteorology, BOM. It appeared that there were significant accounting discrepancies suggesting the overpayment of CSIRO and BOM of about $10 million. The DCCEE has declined to comment on the discrepancy, in particular the provision of funding for salaries apparently far in excess of what could be reasonably justified and supplementary to core agency funding.
Professor Abbot’s FOI request was made at a time when there was much public discussion and debate about the merits of the newly-elected Australian federal government introducing significant economic reform by way of a wide ranging carbon tax to address issues of anthropogenic global warming. The BOM and CSIRO were cited in support of government policy developed by the DCCEE and underpinned by the assumption that the Millennium drought (2001-2009) was linked to climate change.
The BoM and the CSIRO had directed much of their research efforts towards understanding rainfall patterns and generating rainfall projections by using General Circulation Models, GCMs. These are the same models that are relied on to provide evidence for global warming associated with greenhouse gas emissions. The models require very large capital expenditures for supercomputers (tens of millions of dollars) and are also very expensive to run to perform calculations. A reasonable question from a public interest perspective is therefore – do these models perform well at forecasting rainfall? After investing millions of dollars, has this actually improved rainfall forecasts in a practical way? There is no evidence, however, in any of the documents released under FOIA that the DCCEE has any interest in the real world application of this climate research.
***
This comment was first published at Jo Nova and also On Line Opinion.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Thanks for this post, Jennifer. Also at Jo Nova’s
I can’t help with opening the FOI Pandora’s Box of funding within DCCEE. I’ve found a myriad of ways to penetrate the (Federal) Bureau of Mineralogy and the various State Depts of Mining, Planning etc, but these mostly depend on personal contacts
For further inspiration, I suggest you read the on-going efforts of one Irish engineer, a Pat Swords of Dublin. He has single-handedly (with great persistence and acumen) speared EU and Irish Govt blatant hypocrisy with an EU Court ruling and an Irish High Court case now adjourned until April 11. IMO, his story has a great deal of interest for Australians wanting to penetrate the bureaucracy
His on-going story is positively amazing and exhilarating. You can find his posted tranches on Bishop Hill
Absolutely Jen! :
“A reasonable question from a public interest perspective is therefore – do these models perform well at forecasting rainfall? After investing millions of dollars, has this actually improved rainfall forecasts in a practical way? There is no evidence, however, in any of the documents released under FOIA that the DCCEE has any interest in the real world application of this climate research.”
There would be no one happier than the many different professions/occupations that have to work outside and therefore with the vagaries of seasons all the time if BoM and CSIRO work on this area with more accuracy.
My profession (agriculture) is of course only one of them.
Add Mining, fishing, building (all aspects from digging the foundations to putting on the roof), transport (road, rail, ocean, water and air), installation industries (like electricity, phone lines and TV antennas etc) and the list goes on and on!
It’s certainly worrying that the information John Abbot has (finally) received shows a great deal of expenditure and little evidence that these public bodies are focusing on what many of us would expect them to be focusing on.
If they could improve their seasonal forecasting abilities, many of us would think it was worth every cent!
What amazes me is that there are 160 climate scientists. What do they do all day as I don’t see any scientific papers of anything meaningful emerging from their offices?
Their salaries are another story.
Oh – good to see you on JoNova Jen. Well done.
Jen “and underpinned by the assumption that the Millennium drought (2001-2009) was linked to climate change.” your evidence being what?
Jen “. The models require very large capital expenditures for supercomputers (tens of millions of dollars) and are also very expensive to run to perform calculations.”
Are these computers used solely for climate forecasting?
Are the computers used for any other purposes which you ought report? e.g. NCI
So how would you suggest modern weather forecasting and tropical cyclone modelling be achieved ?
Remember you have yet to prove you have any superior forecasting technology despite your straw man comparison in your previous forecasting paper?
John Sayers – “What do they do all day as I don’t see any scientific papers of anything meaningful emerging from their offices?” a dreadful pig ignorant comment from a fool given the quality research undertaken for example by SEACI and IOCI – NEVER editorialised here? And why might that be do you think?
Luke,
Most of the Water Act 2007 and the subsequent MDBP is underpinned by the assumption tha t the Millenium drought (2001-09) was linked to climate change.
Proof being?
Luke’s pivot, a pathetic attempt to avoid the issue, is truly entertaining. But can Luke sing, as well?
Jennifer, great post.
Stick to your guns and laugh at the trolls.
Troll = anyone not toeing the sceptic party line.
Luke
1. The drought and climate change
David Jones, BOM, is on the public record telling us that the drought was all about climate change, and that drought will become the new norm… picking up on this Tim Flannery said Brisbane would run out of water if it didn’t invest in desal. Ha! The engineeers believed them and kept Wivenhoe dam too full of water and flooded the city at terrible, terrible cost.
There is also a lot in the published peer-reviewed literature explaining how the drought was a consequence of climate change.
But if you have forgotten all of the papers you sent us and provided links to, and you have forgotten everything David Jones and you were telling us through the drought… I find that interesting.
So, the drought you are saying now, had nothing to do with AGW! Well, at last we agree!!!
2. Rainfall forecasting
Sometime ago I sent you our paper in the Journal of Atmospheric Sciences.
(Abbot J., and J. Marohasy, 2011. Application of artificial neural networks to rainfall forecasting in Queensland, Australia. Advances in Atmospheric Sciences, Volume 29, Number 4, Pages 717-730. doi: 10.1007/s00376-012-1259-9)
The paper provides a direct comparison between output from the Bureau’s POAMA and our NN. We win.
That is not to say our hindcasts are very good. But we have come a long way since that paper.
John Sayers,
There are many more than 160 scientists! The 160 are just the ones employed with the extra money from the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency.
The projects they are working on are detailed in the FOIA documents, as I say in the above note… and quoting Mr FOIA…
“a massive hole-digging-and-filling-up endeavor”.
I’m going to cut and paste a post by Geoff Sherrington over at JoAnne’s site as it pertains to this thread as well as my previous posts on the selection of sites to make up the Australian temperature record.
Interviews with David Jones and Flannery are personal opinion not papers nor policy nor a research program. Do engineers making hydrological calculations hang off their every word? If you know engineers I doubt it.
The papers making an AGW connection with the Millennium Drought still stand. None of those papers said the drought was without end. Why are those papers wrong?
How do you know that there was no AGW influence on the drought in southern Australia and that the influence is still not there. Just coz you think so? Hardly science Jen.
Your comparison of your forecast with POAMA is 100% straw man bluff. (1) old model version to start with (2) it’s not how BoM use that system to forecast. They don’t downscale rainfall out of the system. It’s pretty neat to make your own bogus target and then exceed it isn’t it.
Unanswered – but I think it might be tad difficult to do a good job on weather forecasting without high performance computing. I assume you’ll also want to lecture the genetic engineers for doing gene sequencing with HPC. A tad myopic don’t you think? Perhaps they should sequence on their laptops.
luke, you asked the pertinent question:
“Are these computers used solely for climate forecasting?
Are the computers used for any other purposes which you ought report?”
Can you please direct me to the the national government computer department, or are they all strung out in various departments with various needs and applications.
I tell you what, being overseas the Government Live streaming of Parliament could do with access to a government Cray computer.
“The engineeers believed them and kept Wivenhoe dam too full of water and flooded the city at terrible, terrible cost.”
What amazing sceptic bunkum. This is now one of the great sceptic memes. Evidence being what ? You can’t make these outrageous quotes without some solid substantiation.
Did they have a manual that allowed them to drop the supply level below FSL?
What is your calculation of the impact of a lowered dam level based on what?
Did not the US Corp of Army Engineers find the engineers had acted reasonably and that alternative options may have indeed been worse.
The CMC found the engineers had no case to answer.
Well John there is no “national government computer department”. Well maybe the spooks have one? We hope so. But Jen could probably do cryptographic analysis on a laptop.
BoM have HPC in Melbourne and there is National Computing Infrastructure HPC at ANU in collaboration with other universities, CSIRO, the Bureau of Meteorology, Geoscience Australia and the Australian government.
Jen can you point to the sceptic forecast that predicted when the drought would end and that desal and waste water treatment would not be needed?
Presumably that forecast would have been made 2 years in advance so no expensive engineering works would be needed. It must have been published somewhere – but I confess I must have missed it. Can you direct me to it? Probably done on a laptop too? What’s the URL again?
Thanks Luke – you answered my question.
http://nf.nci.org.au/hpc_information/partners.php
I thought there must be one such setup.
“Jen can you point to the sceptic forecast that predicted when the drought would end and that desal and waste water treatment would not be needed?”
We’ve always recovered from droughts be it the 1895 – 1903 drought, 8 years, or the 1939 – 1945 drought, 6 years.
Where is the science that shows we would not recover as we always have?
Well John – or even longer perhaps? Don’t give me hindsight John. 20-20 hindsight is a wonderful thing for arm-chair critics.
Sceptics being all knowing and wise would know well in advance what year the drought would have ended wouldn’t they. Pity if you did run out of water in a major city – I’m sure the populace would understand (not!).
I’m still having problems finding that sceptics prediction article when the SEQ Millennium drought would end – like a couple of years before. Must be there somewhere. Jen probably calculated it on her laptop.
Sceptics have no idea about multi-year drought duration. In fact the IPO multi-decadal influence has been elucidated by the climate science mainstream – Power and Folland – not sceptics.
And John in 2010 that evil CSIRO – always spinning and beating up climate change strangely called the SEQ drought due to NATURAL VARIABILITY http://www.csiro.au/Portals/Media/SEQ-Drought.aspx But what’s this – Jen is telling us that the “system” such as the Urban Water Alliance would have been briefing that it was climate change and it would never rain again. And those dumb engineers would have believed that of course. Funny that Jen didn’t mention the CSIRO findings ? But that doesn’t fit the assumed and projected meme does it?
Here’s a list of HPC systems https://wiki.csiro.au/display/ASC/Facilities – but hey most people do weather forecasting on their laptops. Piece of piss in fact.
Don’t forget that Luke also thinks that AGW caused the 1940s drought as well. This was when A co2 levels were not much different than the 280 ppmv in 1800. BTW Luke years before the recent drought ended I stated that the wet 1950s and 70s ocurred when the PDO was in a cool phase and that this would change and return us to those higher rainfall levels.
Australia is a much wetter place than the first half of the 20th century and this has much to do with the big cool phase PDO from 1946 to 1976.
Southern Australia as a whole has received more rainfall as has south Australia.
Also as you know southern OZ has been drying out for at least 5000 years, so tell us how we can change this trend?
Then there’s also the IOD. But tell us Luke do you think humans also have an influence on phases of the PDO as well?
BTW Luke here is the anomaly graph for southern OZ since 1900. The line doesn’t reach the average line for the first 48 years.
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/timeseries.cgi?graph=rranom&area=saus&season=0112&ave_yr=15
Also here’s South OZ, note that massive super drought of 17 years from the early 1920s to the late 1930s. So what caused this much drier period Luke and this super drought?
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/timeseries.cgi?graph=rranom&area=sa&season=0112&ave_yr=15
Good post from Ira Glickstein at WUWT. Just how accurate was Hansen’s 1988 forecast?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/20/how-well-did-hansen-1988-do/#more-82273
Neville represents the very best in sceptic fraudulent meming. Self confessed no science not a scientist reduced to slopping around Bolter, Wattsy and other disinformation sites.
Strange that Neville believes BoM rainfall graphs but not temperature graphs. Maybe they’ve been “adjusted” – have you checked?
Neville couldn’t conceive of an interaction between natural variability and AGW – you either have one or the other. And like Robert plays the fraudulent find a record game. Must an record anecdote somewhere….
Real science is a bit more than that Neville.
Underlying drying trend still exists in southern Australia – that’s underlying and trend doofus. Not a point or two.
Highly likely for AGW involvement in the 1940s drought.
Highly likely that AGW turbocharged the 2011 La Nina event.
And yes AGW has highly likely bumped the PDO too – have told you before. And more recently http://www.cesm.ucar.edu/events/ws.2012/Presentations/CVC2/meehl.pdf
Poor Neville reduced to playing with Cohenite’s crayon set having a little draw on some graphs he downloaded (uncritically) from BoM. The yellow crayon of course is used up from drawing straight lines in arbitrary places. The ye olde ruse of going down the up escalator.
“Also as you know southern OZ has been drying out for at least 5000 years, so tell us how we can change this trend?” No it hasn’t on your logic – nothing is changing you’re telling us and look at all the water out there – how did it rain ? …. Neville loves to quote unpublished palaeo work seen on TV
Luke,
The proof re the Water Act 2007 and the subsequent MDBP using the underlying assumption that the millenium was linked to ‘climate change’…is in the Water Act 2007 and the subsequent MDBP!
LIKE DUH!
Try reading them.
Several of us met with executive from the MDBA last week and they’re still shackled by those same assumptions in the Water Act 2007.
Also Luke,
Re the problem with the management of Wivenhoe:
The operating rules were changed (of necessity) in the middle of the drought.The managers did an awesome job of conserving water in extremely trying and difficult circumstances.
Typically, they will probably never be suitably recognised and appreciated for that.
HOWEVER,
When the catchment became wet and the drought had obviously broken the ‘manual’ (as you call it) was (very unfortunately) not re adjusted to suit the prevailing conditions…..it was still using rules designed to manage an ongoing drought and resting on a ‘belief’ that ongoing drought was the new norm….despite overwhelming physical catchment evidence to the contrary.
The managers did indeed follow ‘the manual’ the ‘rules’ and the’modelling’ so under the ‘terms of reference’, the inquiries found that no one did anything wrong because everyone followed the rules and the ‘manual’.
I agree that 20/20 hindsight can now be used… (and probably overused in a politically inappropriate manner) ….but I think you may be ignoring the fact that many, many people were requesting that the ‘manual’ , the ‘rules’ and the ‘modelling’needed to be re adjusted to suit the prevailing catchment conditions quite some time before the eventual crisis hit.
You can’t win with people who can process and calculate but who cannot think. Luke is a fine fellow, very bright, but…let me put it this way (ancedote alert!):
People who think look at the INCREASE in Arctic ice after the late 50s, feel very curious about that, and use it to balance off opinion on the steep decline of Arctic Ice post-1979, the incline after 1817 etc etc. To a climate dogmatist, it is one more “anecdote” to be disappeared, like the Antarctic Ice INCREASE and the MWP and the possible (not that it matters) levelling of temps in recent years.
As for that mouldy old CET and all that documentary and paleo stuff in China, Japan…hombre, is that ever “anecdotal”! The major cold events in the NH in recent years? Unlike the heat events of 2003 and 2012, they’re “fraudulently found” records (or something like that). Rainfall figures? Wait…we haven’t found a way to fiddle them yet, but we’ve got some promising “trends”, and they’re worse than we thought…or worse than we pretended to think…or…or…you know what we mean!
What goes against dogma is “anecdote” and “cherry picking”. Any counter argument is a “straw man”. Undergrad debating terms in the service of rank political dogma and green superstition. Anybody else tired of those expressions?
Now, keep your temper, Luke. We don’t want to both end up in the sin bin again. Your comments might be no loss but mine are gold.
Geezzz Luke how you wriggle and duck and dive. So NOAAs wrong with their PDO reco are they and De Deckker is wrong as well?
I said it has been drying out in Sthn OZ for at least 5000 years but we’ve had a wetter period for most of the last 60 years. So what.
De Deckker states that we are nearing the end of a current dry period across Sthn OZ that’s lasted for about 1000 years. Who knows within a hundred years we’ll probably know whether he was right or wrong.
Also I was the one who predicted years ago that we would have much higher rainfall after the change to a cool PDO. Or do you deny that as well?
Crean calls for Labor leadership spill. What a hoot.
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/opinion/political-news/government-withdraws-media-reform-bills-20130321-2ghb2.html
Belongs at the previous thread but thought I would post it here as well.
Climate…Now with turbo charging!
Old Gill, still got it. Can still outsell the rest of the retail division…Just needs some more good wow words….There’s turbo…What else? I know! Let’s take some ideas from the labels of energy drinks!
Climate…Now with guarana + taurine! Açaí and creatine boosted!
Debs – “The operating rules were changed (of necessity) in the middle of the drought” were they? Sure?
The manual is pretty old! Just more memes Debs
De Deckker isn’t published on that. His student left.
Robert – anecdotes are not mechanisms. you have number sbut know not how they work?
And a classic from Neville ” I was the one who predicted years ago that we would have much higher rainfall after the change to a cool PDO.” hahahahahaha – Neville I was the one that predicted winter would be cold. Tell us something we don’t know. Pity the PDO isn’t predictbale eh?
It’s as good as BoM predicts a number of cyclones this year ? Really? Tell me something I don’t know …. like exactly when and where…. hahahahahaha
Gillard calls an election for leader at 4.30pm.
Luke you’re hopeless, so why did Flannery and David Jones etc talk about such a change that wouldn’t allow dams to fill again.
Your credibility is zero.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/labor-burning-up-the-history-books/story-e6frg6n6-1226602486788
Oh dear! It looks like it’s getting very messy?
Luke!
How ‘old’ is Wivenhoe dam?
What’s your definition of ‘pretty old’?
Of course they needed to change some of the operation procedures. They would have still been operating under rules designed to manage over wet catchments if they hadn’t.
You do know how and why Wivenhoe was built don’t you?
Luke, you sciency guy, you. I need you to explain away some more anecdotes, show me how they work from “mechanisms” on your Trekkie climate console (now with trending knobs for touch control!).
Those La Nina events of 1950 and 1955…did they get the same turbo charge as 2011? Or did they do it all with an old carburettor left over from the Redex Trials? Since the 40s drought had a likely tickle along from us anthropes, maybe something of that to explain the storming seventies and Typhoon Tip?
No need to ask about rain before 1950. (There’s an apparent dry TREND that may confuse novitiates and the uninitiated. Best left in the hands of the illuminated of the climate priesthood.) As for the 1902-3 season…can we squeeze in some anthro there? Big Paraffin? Kero lighting? Or just let it fade away like an old sepia photo?
I know. Best to leave it to our priests to tell us what’s TREND and what’s anecdote. We just need to remember it’s worse than we thought (“it” being a rarefied scientific term for “stuff we’re causing”). Got it. If skeptics say anything, anything at all, you say TREND, and they fall to silence. Since the TREND is largely a mystery in priestly hands, easily altered in monastic secrecy, what can the poor slobs say?
Debs – Joh era …. built 1970s-1980s
And many would be concerned about the drought strategy of dropping levels below full water supply – a return to a dry regime would see people demanding as to why the water was “wasted” and let go. It’s a hard gig managing that system. Would you like to do it?
Neville – door stop interviews aren’t policy – the end. If that all you have it’s weak as. In Melbourne at the time grand old trees were dying in parks and the drought looked like it would never end. Personal circumstances and some indulgence is always possible. But that’s far from a policy decision. FOr example would you assume a bureacracy was all of the one view. Pretty naive really.
Robert – models of processes combined with swags of obs are the stock tools in trade as to examining all manner of things meteorological as well as using advanced statistics. For example if that science had not been done you would know nothing of the atmospheric, sea surface and sub-surface mechanisms of ENSO for example. Drawing little graphs on paper and rattling off weather statistics reveals nothing of mechanistic processes at play. The fact the models of weather demonstrate some useful skill should make you ponder that our meterologist friends have understood some level of the physics at play.
As an example read my Powerpoint by Gerry Meehal above or sample some of the research at http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/staff/meehl/pubs.htm you maye find it somewhat more complex than the trivialisations and blokey anecodotes offered here.
Robert you could do a dangerous thought experiment and ask yourself how you would determine an emerging AGW signal moving in a sea of interannual and decadal variability? How might one approach such as issue?
Luke, my problem with Lysenko is not a problem with agronomy, or even Soviet agronomy. (Yes, I know you don’t like the analogy.)
I’m enormously grateful to the likes of Gilbert Walker, and God doesn’t send many Goyders into our midst, more’s the pity. I appreciate the unfair pressure that Lamb had to work under (politics and insurers) and Henry Hunt and successors in Oz (politics and farmers). But nothing justifies the Lysenkoism that has led to the stupendous and aimless waste of money and resources such as we are currently witnessing across the developed world. Big Green has done to our handy but raw and obviously unsettled “climate science” what other external influences could not.
But in this comment of yours I see some real progress:
“Underlying drying trend still exists in southern Australia – that’s underlying and trend doofus.”
Why, you’re the new Dorothea Mackellar! We could have told you that for free, but you’re making real progress. (I won’t call you a doofus, but now you know why we like those big concrete things called dams.)
As for “an AGW signal”…if I could not find it, I would not pretend it was there anyway. Strangely, nay, bizarrely, that makes me more scientific than you.
Luke!
Outstanding job of missing the point! NOWHERE did I say it was easy. IT ISN’T!
That’s part of the problem! It isn’t possible to have a magic ‘one size fits all’ set of rules in our highly variable catchments. LIKE DUH!
AGAIN!
The point remains that the actual physical state of the catchment was not taken into account BECAUSE of the prevailing rules & modelling re perceived TRENDS.
I can remember many of us here discussing nearly a decade ago the need to build more dams and having luke et al telling us the dams wont fill. remember how we discussed how much water you can collect in 1 bucket, 2 buckets or more…….oh but it wont rain we kept being told…….must be embarrassing to be so wrong so often.
almost as embarrassing as a theory that is unfalsifiable because whatever happens the theory still stands…..we will look back in 10-20 years time and shake our heads in wonder at the stupidity of mankind believing that we can control the climate and that the food of life was turned into a pollutant!! insanity
asking us to predict exactly when the drought would break is a lovely straw man to avoid the stupidity of all those who were and still are against building dams. Even during that drought victoria suffered from a number of floods..including many where they are currently building our desalination plant. ( and no it is not a suitable site for a dam, but having work stop on many occassions due to flooding is kinda ironic, dont you think?)
with all the money being spent on climate, does it seem unreasonable to see an improvement in their forecasts?!
‘Pity the PDO isn’t predictbale eh?’
I assumed it was roughly every 30 years.
Its not generally known that I predicted the end of the drought months before it happened. It was a scoop for Deltoid, but those watermelons didn’t appreciate the gravity of my projection.
Much amusement…
‘Moreover, the ideation of a conspiracy may also serve as a “fantasy theme” that permits groups to develop and share a symbolic reality. Such fantasy themes (e.g., the denier as “Galileo” who opposes a corrupt iron-fisted establishment) operate as bonding agents that build group cohesion by creating a shared social reality. Fantasy themes are known to play a major role in climate denial’ (McKewon, 2012a,b).
Lewandowsky et al
‘Yet another paper finds observations are the opposite of climate model predictions of the effects of alleged anthropogenic global warming.
“Current theory predicts that the Northern Hemisphere summer monsoon circulation should weaken under anthropogenic global warming,” however, observations over the past 30 years instead show a “substantial intensification” due to “natural long-term climate swings” such as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation and ENSO.
‘The paper finds that natural climate oscillations have accounted for more than 9 times the effect of greenhouse gases on monsoon rainfall over the past 30 years.
“These natural swings in the climate system must be understood in order to make realistic predictions of monsoon rainfall and of other climate features in the coming decades,”requiring “a knowledge of natural long-term climate swings, about which little is known so far.”
The Hockey Schtick
“As for “an AGW signal”…if I could not find it, ” well without science or mechanistic investigation how would you? I mean you’d deny anything.
El Gordo “YOU ASSUMED” it was every 30 years did you … hmmmmm
Try adding a cite to your quotes El Gordo – Jen says this is an evidence based blog
“Its not generally known that I predicted the end of the drought months before it happened” hahahahahahahaha – yes mate – it was called a La Nina and a biggie – tell us something we don’t know
“the need to build more dams and having luke et al telling us the dams wont fill.” – Toby spins bullshit – I said dams aren’t going to fill in a drought are they? and you were advocating that in the drought. Tell us something we don’t know Toby. “Hey guys I’m in a record drought and I wish I had more water” wooo hoooo – brilliant.
Debbie you have an outstanding knack of missing the point – “it’s not easy” was a statement not a retort. It’s not just all about you Debs.
And amazing shit from Debs – it just drivels out of their mouths ‘The point remains that the actual physical state of the catchment was not taken into account BECAUSE of the prevailing rules & modelling re perceived TRENDS” gee Debs I reckon hydrologists have never heard of antecedent conditions. I bet they have never thought of that? Are you really that stupid?
Debs Wivenhoe has a bloody massive flood compartment – 1.45 million megalitres ON TOP of 1.15 million megalitres of water supply (FSL or full supply level). 100% is NOT full. . It’s designed for a 1 in 100,000 event. BUT it only regulates 50% of the catchment. Other tributaries come in downstream of the dam into the Brisbane River.
The engineers had a manual based on all this from the Joh era, did a bloody good job in an amazing event. The current decision to lower the dam below FSL is not without critics. That water in a drought could be worth billions. in a flood – nothing !
And one could dam everything in sight but that costs money – which has an opportunity cost e.g. freeways and also a very large SEQ NIMBY syndrome. Damn the dams and not here thanks is the vibe.
I find it absolutely extraordinary the level of utter manevolent sceptic bunkum penned about engineers holding onto water due to climate change predictions. It’s laughable. 100% was designed to be full for water supply and 130% extra for flood mitigation. Total spillway height gives 230% full
So sceptics file your decadal forecasts here now. come on – put up ! Don’t be shy now.
BOM’s record with droughts is dreadful:
http://landshape.org/enm/files/2010/10/Critique-of-DECR-EE.pdf
http://landshape.org/images/StockwellCSP.ppt.pdf
Wivenhoe is a classic case of policy based on AGW ideology failing in reality:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-depth/queensland-floods/the-great-avoidable-flood-an-inquirys-challenge/story-fn7iwx3v-1225992644199
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/engineer-bores-a-hole-in-dam-untruths/story-fn59niix-1226023744956
Actually Luke, it did rain during the drought, the mitchell flooded nearly every year of the drought!!…and we were told even when it does rain it wouldnt fill the dams. amazing what a selective memory you have…still you need it to remain so rusted on to such a flimsy theory.
and if it wasnt for the greens and environmentalists ( and crap pollies of all sides who dont like building cheap sensible infrastructure) we would have built dams before the next drought when we knew our population was rising….. and we would be building them now for the next drought that will come….its called climate change!!
i seem to recall conversations going something like this,
i say “if we put out 2 buckets of water how much rain can we collect”
fool says “it isnt raining and if it does it wont settle and wont fill the dams”
i say”yes but when it does rain how much can we collect if put out two buckets”
fool says”it wont rain or fill them”
i say
“but if we put out two buckets and they are half full when it does rain, we now have a bucket of water”
fool says…..but but but……..
i couldnt believe the stupidity then and i still cant
“So sceptics file your decadal forecasts here now. come on – put up ! Don’t be shy now”
climate changes, we all believe that, it might be hotter it might be colder, it might be wetter it might be drier…it might be all of the above
one things for sure, all those doom and gloom predictions from warmers that were given with so much certainty have turned out to be ………….
Toby – Mitchell eh? well that’s handy if you were in Brisbane. Good grief man.
Yes put out two buckets – but buckets cost gold bricks and squash where people who hate buckets live – and half the water evaporates. Good call Toby – leave it to the hydrologists matey.
And Tobes if it’s not raining not a good time to put the buckets eh ? hahahahahahahahahaha
I can’t believe your simple little pea brain.
“all those doom and gloom predictions from warmers that were given with so much certainty have turned out to be” I think you’ll need to put up a science report citation that says we’ll be ruined by 2013 (or be full of it!)?
More drivel Toby – it just runs out of your tea party mouths.
Cohenite is digging around coming up with opinionated pre-history references. hahahahahahaha get updated.
“So sceptics file your decadal forecasts here now. come on – put up ! Don’t be shy now.”
I have not got a clue what the next decade’s weather or rainfall will be. This is something I have in common with Luke and with the entire population of the planet. If you hear me making such predictions, kindly refer to me as either “God” or “the patient”.
God your thick for someone so clearly intelligent!
not sure how to say it in a “kindy” way, ive tried primary school speak and you cant understand that
only some 25b wasted by 2025 for something we dont need and never did….lots of good things could have been done with that money, but no lets listen to catastrophists and believe it wont rain again and when it does it wont fill the dams. THIS WAS BEING SAID WHILE THE MITCHELL WAS FLOODING……i am sure anologies are complicated for you and abstract..but could you put out a dam when it did start raining…or would you build it before hand….ie put out the bucket before the event…….
More delusional nonsense at Luke’s Skeptical science easily exposed by Bob Tisdale.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/21/on-dana1981s-meaningless-enso-exercise-at-skepticalscience/#more-82460
Cohenite gets a thank you from Bob near the end of his post.
Toby Can I help it if your analogy doesn’t work?
Who exactly was listening to the catastrophists? More bullshit drilling out of your mouth Toby. Just drivels out. Building water infrastructure is a 6-10 year decision. and a very expensive one.
SEQ is a big place – being able to move water around as needed surely is an intelligent thing to do. Unlike your specious bullshit a major new dam has been built – Wyaralong Dam has been built and luckily filled on break of the drought. Russ Hinze Dam wall has been raised.
Regionally Paradise Dam started 2005 on the Burnett (but hang THEY don’t build new dams – how can this be??) 2006 regional Plan identifies Nathan Dam as a good option for CQ. 2007 business plan…. but hang on THEY don’t consider new infrastructure – how can this be?
And despite full dams you can have contaminated water – today’s paper http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/urgent-meetings-over-water-sediment-threat-20130321-2gj5z.html was wonderful when they had the desalination operational as they just plugged it in and worded around the issue.
Only stupid deniers think there will never be another drought. Only stupid deniers would not look at flexibility in options and supply.
And one of those options would be to use synoptic forecasts in regulating Wivenhoe full supply level (the 100%) – but that’s tradeoff and involves everything that you dimwits despise (1) modelling (2) mathematics (3) not using crayons (4) civil engineering (5) optimisation of an array of options (6) BoM actually having a synoptic forecast of gee whiz it’s going to piss down in 3-5 days time – which might need some mathematics, physics and the odd supercomputer – (but hang on BoM are corrupt and make shit up, how come you’re willing to trust this bit of science – hypocrites you are)
So Toby thinks a whole community of practice involved in the water industry is unaware of these issues and is not hard at work trying to deliver the best result for the best dollar against a barrage of competing interests. No they’re all greenies intent on world government. Crap.
You’re just a whinging clown Toby. A bleating anti-science activist. Trying to fit out “A single” consideration” climate change on a very complex issue. As I said the uninformed ill-considered bunkum just drivels out.
Just so Lukey doesn’t forget earth hour I thought I’d send him the Lomborg link again showing him how much good it will do.
A very good quick read to prove how delusional and scary the warmists of this world really are.
http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/earth-hour-s-counterproductive-symbolism-by-bj-rn-lomborg
Grubby luke, very grubby.
The Holmes Report still stands. Holmes said in 2012:
“There are several things that may have motivated the three engineers to present the false flood report, including a wish to protect their professional reputations from the damage that would be caused by a disregard of the manual, or the maintenance of (dam operator) SEQWater’s immunity under the (relevant legislation).” [page 508]
A consequent US Army Engineers’ report said:
“The flood engineers should be commended for producing this extensive, well organised and very readable document in six weeks, while the region was recovering from the flood event.”
As Hedley Thomas notes:
“The US engineers omitted the official adverse findings of the inquiry, airbrushed out of existence despite being published in more than 100 pages of the final report.”
Thomas also says:
“Context and a chronology of key events is important in the fiasco over the management of a dam that was storing too much water at the onset of a particularly intense La Nina-driven wet season. It was a wet season that weather forecasters had been increasingly warning would be likely to produce serious flooding. When the rain came on top of a dam above full supply level, the dam’s engineers had to release massive volumes quickly to protect Wivenhoe’s structural integrity.”
And:
“The contradictions in these documents are plentiful and they could not be more stark. They make a mockery of the taxpayer-funded processes and fuel the concerns of flood victims and their lawyers. With potentially billions of dollars at stake, only a prolonged court case before a senior judge may resolve the issues.”
And of course that is what is happening with Maurice Blackburn acting on behalf of thousands of litigants; that litigation would inevitably involve not only the operating issues but the wider issue of AGW predictions and science.
Is that pre-historical enough for you?
Has Tisdale ever published anything on ENSO? Maybe I missed it. (personal essays don’t count)
Laughable Cohenite – you lot are now arguing about ENSO definition. Good lord.
Even more laughable Cohenite – lots of vested interests. Would that be the mob that chucked some modelling out there and then withdrew it as indicative. hahahahahahahahahahahasaa
The engineers have been completely cleared matey. Witchhunting parasitic grubs of your trade are unhappy.
“Building water infrastructure is a 6-10 year decision. and a very expensive one.”…and what is building a desalaination plant? at 4 times the upfront cost and many multiples of that over its life time…….Only if you really believed it would not rain again would this be a sensible option…….now what role would the catastrophists have in that “great” and clearly foolish decision ( you can say with hindsight foolish…but many of us were pointing it out and you cant honestly say we didnt)
more crap..”Only stupid deniers think there will never be another drought. Only stupid deniers would not look at flexibility in options and supply.”…….NO WE DO NOT SAY THERE WILL NOT BE ANOTHER DROUGHT!!! TYPICAL STRAW MAN FROM A LOSING ARGUMENT.
we also believe more options should have been looked at before jumping on a hugely expensive and potentially useless piece of infrastructure…..but many were not.
and your continual referall to the tea party, reflects so badly on you you should be embarrassed
“Witchhunting parasitic grubs of your trade are unhappy.”
You idiot, I don’t work for Maurice Blackburn.
The Holmes Report which found negligence is extant and suitable fodder for a legal challenge; how has anything subsequent to that report negated it.
Anyway, outstanding work, utilising tried and tested ALP/Green tactics; 600 page report by Supreme Court Judge concluding there’s an elephant in the room; ALP/Green/luke response: no there’s not.
Hi Everyone
An excellent collection of essays and a great book ‘Who turned on the heat’ by Bob Tisdale can be found here… http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com
The book which can be downloaded as a pdf file, after providing a small donation, gives insight into the natural cycles that result in changes in the sea surface temperature of the Pacific ocean.
These changes affect Australian and world climate.
The book includes a lot of detail, but it is written to be understood and seem to deliberately avoid unnecessary scientific jargon.
Only stupid deniers think there will never be another drought?
You MUST be joking?
That would be as spectacularly stupid as thinking that dams won’t fill again wouldn’t it?
Similarly:
Only stupid deniers would not look at flexibility in options and supply.
GOOD GRIEF!
Toby probably nailed it. 🙂
Selective memory.
Luke’s lack of simple comprehension and understanding is frightening. Luke everyone here except you understands and believes in NATURAL climate change.
Australia will always suffer drought and flooding rains and that’s why we understand that adaptation plus more R&D is the only sensible way to move forward.
That’s why we should build dams to hopefully have enough water during a period of severe drought.
You’re becoming an infantile pain in the backside and total waste of time.
“Only stupid deniers think there will never be another drought?” well you behave like it.
I see Toby has no answer – he thinks an entire community of practice on water supply infrastructure are a bunch of dumb hicks
sorry did you have a point to make between stupid comments?!
hard to get past the frequent stupid comments and straw men to try and work out what you are really saying
Neville – dams cost big bucks and dislodge the locals. They also provide water security. But there are tradeoffs and conflicts. But they are being built.
Having infrastructrure that can inter-operate surely is also sensible. i.e. water grid and moving water around SEQ
If the desal plant was working the cuurent problems with sediment control at Mt Crosby could be worked around. Had been done once before to good effect.
Neville – this statement would have been one of your most pig igornat philistine comments ever “Luke everyone here except you understands and believes in NATURAL climate change.”
REALLY ! …. how amazing and stupid a comment. Pretty well contradicts everything I have written here.
“That’s why we should build dams to hopefully have enough water during a period of severe drought.”
Yes and for that level of security and given your inflexibility – YOU CAN PAY FOR IT ! Obviously you have never examined risk versus cost have you?
you don’t believe in R&D – all scientists are corrupt is your meme.
Toby do you have an retort to my destruction of your stupid illogical position. You make accusations and can’t back them up with any facts. At least Cohenite gives me a run for it.
Don’t worry Toby Luke has a severe comprehension problem. Hey Luke your and Gillard Lemming party’s NBN is going well. NOT.
http://www.afr.com/p/technology/turnbull_calls_for_analysis_of_nbn_EM9UPNHWUDtPA6H9b3bFyI
What an unbelievable waste of time and money. We should close all contracts and change future connections to fibre to the node and satellite for remote users.
dont worry son, when you win a point i will give it to you…if anybody else here thinks luke has “won” our little discussion, maybe you can explain the error in my comments…….
seems to me all my comments have shown how foolish, and naive your comments are and how riddled with straw men, to boost your own ego by being able to obfuscate the points being made
run along little boy……
for now i suggest you go back to debating school and maybe do some philosophy to learn about logic…….
try not to smash your computer……..
yes Neville, the NBN as we discussed a while ago is another lemon hanging around the necks of australians, brought on by the same stupidity of thought as a carbon tax…or a 10% levy on cypriut savings or a mining tax that raises no money, or an absolute belief in co2’s significant and/ or catastrophic effects.
no doubt these people also support labor and the greens attack on the free press, but support funding groups like getup and crikey ( that would not exist with govt funding) and believe it is right that the country is run by unions despite only about 16% of voters being members……..
Generally I think the problem is there are far too many “climate scientists” doing “planet saving research” at BoM / CSIRO / Etc, and not enough scientists doing scientific research using the scientific method (theory – experiment – publish results – 3rd party replicates and supports results = theory proven).
It is impossible to replicate the supposed research done by Gaia loving “climate scientists” -the raw data has disappeared and the full method / algorithms are never released.
This is not science – this is crass politics and propaganda.
The word “sustainable” has been used / abused over years, but the public have grown tired of hearing it. The green elite have found a new buzz word – “resiliance” – already abused and being used to get snouts in the funding trough.
I have noted also that it takes (say) 4 years to do a degree in engineering and (say) 6 years experience before one can be called a “competent engineer”, similar can be said for chemistry, medicine, etc.
But the new generation of green elites do a 3-4 year degree in “sustainability”, and then seem automatically qualified and experienced enough to advise every other discipline how to improve on what they do.
Sustainability experts know more about physics, chemistry, engineering and economics than the practicioners of “real science”.
I would like to see these “sustainability” courses relegated to the arts faculty (where they belong) – they are not SCIENCE.
How before we see “Resiliance Science” courses being offered?
‘I would like to see these “sustainability” courses relegated to the arts faculty (where they belong) – they are not SCIENCE.’
I second the motion.
Abbott will dismantle the Klimatariat and get rid of the tax, but a lot of mass delusion will remain.
“Generally I think the problem is there are far too many “climate scientists” doing “planet saving research” at BoM / CSIRO / Etc, and not enough scientists doing scientific research using the scientific method (theory – experiment – publish results – 3rd party replicates and supports results = theory proven”
Well tell us how many sp sauce. ….. sound of crickets “I think” thinks sp –
“But the new generation of green elites do a 3-4 year degree in “sustainability”, and then seem automatically qualified and experienced enough to advise every other discipline how to improve on what they do.” – really? well of course the facts are otherwise but dream on your fact free zone
Tamino drops kicks McIntyre (doing a Neville by injecting random thoughts) http://tamino.wordpress.com/2013/03/22/global-temperature-change-the-big-picture/#more-6456 hahahahahahahahahaha
Luke – one day you will learn that contradiction is not refutation. And do try to be civil for once dear boy.
I for one have had enough of the mandatory “sustainability officer” in organisations, including local government.
Happy not to have them and spend the tax dollars on something useful.
They remind me of you – always telling others what they should do and how others should spend their own money – but will never risk their own money by investing in (say) solar – oh no – they only spend other peoples money on things like that.
What do you THINK the planets temperature will be in 10 years Luke? And how much do you think the carbon tax impacted the outcome?
Why not introduce some useful facts into this fact free zone
And just how RESILIANT are your models Luke?
Luke – do you think the scientific method (theory – experiment – publish results – 3rd party replicates and supports results = theory proven) has been properly applied to “climate science”?
If so, can you direct me to the original datasets and algorithms – something similar to the ones that UEA “lost” would be good.
Do you use the scientific method in your work? Do you provide data and methods for independent replication of your work? or do you just put your fingers in your ears and go lalalala when challenged.
I think its lalalala
Well you behave like it?
Like what Luke? Like there will never be another drought and/or flood. . . . IN AUSTRALIA? The land ‘of drought and flooding rains’ ? ??????????????!!!!!!!!
Surely you jest?
Also Luke? Don’t you think an ‘overpayment of approx $10 million’ is just a tad conerning? What is the return on this investment? In what ways have cimate forecasting and hindcasting improved due to the added spending? Have sensible policy initiatives been generated by this extra funding of climate science?
As Jen highlights here:
Where is the real world application of all this extra climate research?
Climate Change Disruption
‘Britain is facing severe disruption today as the country is hit by heavy snow, flooding and blizzards – with snow set to continue for up to 48 hours.
‘Emergency services have seen a massive surge in weather-related call-outs, as officials issue a string of warnings urging the public to drive carefully.’
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2297343/Communities-flooded-following-heavy-rainfall-Environment-Agency-issues-80-flood-alerts-warns-flooding-today.html#ixzz2OG0cQfsf
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Its natural variability and Piers Corbyn reckons he sees the beginning of a mini ice age. Not sure about that, but I’m overjoyed gorebull worming has stopped.
No thanx to jooya.
So there you have it – no substantiation on numbers from sp – simply “he thinks” so it must be right eh?
And he wants to talk about the scientific method – HA !
So let’s do the checklist on substantiation of claims and bulldust so far:
(1) engineers/management held onto water in Wivenhoe coz they were worried about climate change and drought – NONE
(2) engineers/management don’t know about La Nina or climate history – only sceptics do – NONE
(3) dams never get built anymore – NONE
(4) sceptics knew when the drought would end – NONE (being in the La Nina season doesn’t count as we all knew that)
(5) establishment climate scientists don’t know about natural variability – NONE (and hypocritically the same natural variability phenomena and eluciated mechanisms so beloved by sceptics comes from the climate science mainstream – so WHY do they trust it)
(6) there are too many namby pamby greenie scientists WE THINK !! WE THINK !! but no numbers – just lob in an assertion and try to bluff that you know something – NONE
Let’s do the hypocrisy score
(1) we don’t trust climate models/BoM/CSIRO – unless it’s a model result we like or the weather forecast – CHECK for massive hypocrisy
(2) southern Australia is drying but we go to great lengths to grunge around BoM rainfall graphics to say there is no trend – can’t have it both ways – CHECK for massive hypocrisy
(3) you only need a laptop to do anything significant in climate modelling but you do seem to need them in weather forecasting – CHECK for massive hypocrisy
(4) do a rainfall trend graph for the whole MDB or Australia when there are clear regional trends – CHECK for massive duplicity
Let’s do the speculative bunkum score.
(1) laptop climate forecasting beats GCM – especially if you use the wrong version and test against the way the GCMs aren’t used to forecast anyway (i.e not direct downscaling but predicting ENSO Nino region anomalies and other indicators and then use a statistical method). Straw man award of the year.
(2) believing that ENSO builds heat at a centennial scale – the Jack’s Beanstalk award for getting heaps from very little (and believing in peddled bags of beans – also see unpublished essays)
(3) believing the PDO is regular – just WOW !
(4) thinking you have to have natural variability OR AGW – but not both and some interaction (dense)
(5) thinking you can understand the climate system without any mechanistic knowledge of processes but using infotainment statistics instead – and using spot records while ignoring trends
Guys and you wonder why I laugh
erratum “need supercomputers in weather forecasting”
About 140 local govs in WA each with an SO
About 100 other Gov agencies with SO
About 100 QANGOA with SO
Say 200 @ $100 000 p/a = $20M p/a for ZERO benefit, and thats just WA.
Nationally the number would be about $200M for ZERO benefit
These SO’s spend their time filling hundreds of black balloons with C02 decked around the workplace to show how much damage we are doing to the planet, and lecture on reducing YOUR carbon footprint.
$200M that could be better spent.
But it seems we need Sustainability Officers to cool the planet because CO2 is dangerously warming it. And this is supported by “climate science” of course.
Now Luke – answer the questions please.
We wonder why you laugh? 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂
Seriously???????
Good one Luke!
Very good post by John Christy in the WSJ in 2007. In it he gives the reduction in temp if we were able to build 1000 nuclear stations by 2020.
The grand reduction would be 0.2 F by 2100. But no country or countries have the resources or time to build anything like that number anyhow so it’s a pipe dream. Also returning zilch return on investment as well as zip change in climate or temp.
Very good read covering some of the nonsense we read here from silly alarmists.
Could some claims be backed with references?
Jen ,you claim that you can point to papers that say the recent drought was ‘consequence’ of climate change. Could you list some? Can you tell me what data was deleted at the direction of ‘Climategate’ scientists? And when it happened? What is the performance of seasonal rainfall forecasts? Do we have some objective data we can look at? Tell us more about the apparent funding discrepancy. Is it real or opinion? Whose judgement is it that scientists were over-remunerated? Can we have the details? You ask that some of our climate funding be directed to seasonal rainfall forecasting. Is BOM funding for that purpose inadequate? Can you show us the basis of why you think this funding is not directed at anything real world?
The amazing climate cowards are now pretending that AGW believers were not pushing the idea of exceptional /long term drought in Australia.
Nothing ever changes.
What a hoot.
Jennifer, keep up your very good work. Let the fools keep digging.
More proof that Lewandowsky and Cook are probably the dumbest things on 4 legs.
http://joannenova.com.au/2013/03/ipcc-lead-author-calls-lewandowsky-deluded/#more-27768
These richard craniums are called deluded by IPCC lead author from the MET. Once again why are these numbskulls funded by the poor bloody taxpayer.
In their very garbled and indirect way, the alarmists are trying to say: “Whoops!”. We should leave them with some face, and see how they progress. (My, it’s so good to be the patroniser, instead of the patronised!)
Here’s an idea. Let’s see how they handle the inevitable climate disasters of the coming year.
An example: It’s getting on to mid-autumn. The North West of the continent, which cops the most cyclones, gets its most severe ones late in the season. I suggest that if there is some more bad storm activity up there (about which I have no inkling), we watch and see how the alarmists handle a really big one, like Alby back in the 70s. My guess is that they won’t be able to control themselves, and they will rush to endow it with exceptionalism while the disaster is still warm. But if we see a movement toward recognising the normalcy and historicity of such events, we’ll know that we at least have the foundations for a future “climate science”. But one of their biggest and best loved stunts is to imply that recent events are proof of “trends” while old events, however enormous, are “anecdotal” or “cherry picked”. It’s hard for them to resist.
But, like I say, there’s a tone of uncertainty and even remorse in amongst the indignation and chest-beating. A good sign. We’re going to get major floods and droughts as sure as this land is called Australia. The post 1950 “trend” to more rainfall in the east will go the way of all “trends” (nobody knows when); a wet decade like the 70s will tempt us to forget what we must not forget. In sum, Dorothea Mackellar has the last word, something guaranteed to infuriate the sophisticates, but if you read between the lines of what Poly and Luke are saying…even they get it.
sp having been done like a dinner moves onto local govt.
Poly stop asking hard pertinent questions.
sp, thank you for “moving on to local government”. I had no idea of the extent and cost of the black balloon brigade in WA. I knew that, under the New Lysenkoism, institutions are forced to pay “officers” who do little more than dogmatise, stifle and wag the finger. Awful to see it added up like that.
And in world of need, it’s all for nothing. For zilch. Brrr.
Somewhere in the usual pile of used toilet paper from the Resident Dipstick above (trying to find the exact quote is like wading through sewage, I’m not really up to it), there is a comment to the effect that Tammy baby (Tamino, Grant Foster) has shishkabobbed Steve McIntyre over his analysis of the recently published Marcott et al paper
Only if: “Tamino’s position seems to be that Marcott et al should be evaluated only as a sort-of activist sermon. And that pointing out even grotesque errors in an activist sermon is allying oneself with forces of heresy”
Marcott himself has opined that the recent part of his hockeystick (the blade) is not robust. The alkenone proxies used do not have a high enough resolution to justify the “schtick” and in any case Marcott et al re-dated the proxies from accepted literature (by up to a millenium) with no explanation, or even acknowledgment
C’mon, Dipstick, that piece of toilet paper is just too used now
Well ianl8888 – it’s not that you’re not up it – moreover you don’t have any rebuttals might be more on the money? Poor form mate.
Robert tosses off – now it’s the “New Lysenkoism” – hahahahahahaha – you’ve never had it so good. The drivel just runs out of you …. substantiation 0.0
Luke comments:
‘Robert tosses off – now it’s the “New Lysenkoism”’
sp has commented:
‘About 140 local govs in WA each with an SO
About 100 other Gov agencies with SO
About 100 QANGOA with SO’
Yep, I’d call it Lysenkoism.
Luke comments:
‘you’ve never had it so good.’
As far as climate goes, he’s right. In my region it’s been as good as it gets since 2006. Just one short heatwave and drought, a couple of floods, two very chilly winters in 2007-8, summer of 2011-12 far too cool for tourism…but I’m happy with the mild and more humid conditions, and the dominant oceanic winds. This too shall pass!
As to the Lysenkoist implications of his comment, I think he’s hoping we won’t notice the needless costs and debts associated with the destructive “greening” of our society and economy. But everybody notices, probably even Luke. (By the way, because funds have been very low lately but I don’t take anything from the government, I really notice those power bills. How I notice them!)
Luke also comments:
‘hahahahahahaha’
and:
‘The drivel just runs out of you’
When Lukie can get his alarmist mates to validate the unvalidatable he is only too relieved to dump these dodgy validations on all of us.
Here’s some more in the same vein, Lukie:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/22/the-pr-is-in-the-may-haves-have-it-at-nsf/#more-82589
Hey Luke, maybe your mate Whinnying Jimmy would like to chain himself to a UK power plant?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2297296/British-gas-reserves-run-dry-36-HOURS-freezing-householders-turn-heating-up.html
luke says:
“Poly stop asking hard pertinent questions.”
Poly’s ‘question’:
“Jen ,you claim that you can point to papers that say the recent drought was ‘consequence’ of climate change. Could you list some?” etc, etc.
Answered above; repeated: DECR:
http://www.daff.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/721285/csiro-bom-report-future-droughts.pdf
Critiqued:
http://landshape.org/enm/files/2010/10/Critique-of-DECR-EE.pdf
http://landshape.org/images/StockwellCSP.ppt.pdf
And here we have a partial list of every fool who has predicted no more rain, from Flannels to Jones to Karoly etc; fools and/or liars all:
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/the_warmists_straw_man_we_never_said_it_wouldnt_rain/
“Hard, pertinent questions”; oh, yes.
From the DECR:
“Most of the global and Australian
warming since the mid-20th century is very likely
due to increases in greenhouse gases3. About 50
per cent of the rainfall decrease in southwestern
Australia since the late 1960s is likely to be due to
increases in greenhouse gases4. The autumn
rainfall decline in southeastern Australia since the
late 1950s may be partly due to increases in
greenhouse gases5.”
Such is Australian science.
sd, world gas supply is in the hands of Russia’s chaotic mega-monopoly Gazprom, as well as Qatar, various Arabs and Iran. What can go wrong? As long as Britain can float in boats full of American wood chip they should be able to keep their whirlygigs whirling symbolically, to meets those “EU targets”.
It’s not like the EU doesn’t have experts and intellectuals to fix just about anything. The IMF’s Christine Lagarde, who doesn’t pay income tax, has worked out that you can just dip into private bank accounts to chase the tax that Europeans don’t pay. She wanted 40% but some Tea Party fifth column in the IMF forced her to settle for less. I dunno…something about stability…
Yep, let’s get some Euro experts out here fast, to help us deal with our coal addiction. Maybe we’ll be able to make wood chips with the blessing of our Green Betters. They don’t care what they waste or wreck, those GetUppy Greens, just so the infernal middle classes and mall-shopping aspirationals are punished.
Yes Spangled One, the UK power industry is certainly in dire straits. … and the reasons are pretty obvious
It is a consequence of being beholden to an incompetent political and scientific elites, all under the thrall of idiot greenoidal NGOs such as WWF, Greenpeace and IPCC et al.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2290444/Madness-How-pay-billions-electricity-bills-Britains-biggest-power-station-switch-coal-wood-chips–wont-help-planet-jot.html
Can it possibly be more collectively stupid than to take up 4600 square miles of trees in the USA, chop them down, wood chip them and then ship it to the UK Drax power station in Yorkshire so that it can be converted from coal to imported biomass …when Drax is surrounded by coal…the same stuff that powered the industrial revolution.
But to acknowledge that converting to bio mass, courtesy mainly of USA forests, will not reduce the cCo2 one jot, nor lower the globally temperature, has to be the height of collective stupidity.
And then to realise that China and India, (who have been huge beneficiaries of the industrial revolution that mainly came from the much the same area in the UK ), have now taken over our manufacturing industries, and are planning to build over 800 -900 coal fired power stations…. and they look at the Europeans and the west in general and say WTF???..they are really dumb.
How did these idiocies come to pass are the questions that should be asked …no point in asking the Climate Commissioner and his mates, they are part of the problem…as is the flotsam and jetsam left of the Gillard govt….nor the cabal so called scientists that make up the GW mantra in this country. What a joke it all is.
Yes Robert and Minister. Let’s hope we can sack those expert Lukes in time before we end up the same way.
What a sophist Cohenite is – so typical of the anti-science faux sceptic activists.
The DECR report is a long term view. The fundamentals reported is still the current state of the knowledge. And as usual the howls of laughter when it rained. Well of course it rained. But one swallow doesn’t make a summer. And the fundamentals of AGW driven drying trends are still there with changes in Hadley cells, widening of the sub-tropics and changes in the sub-tropical ridge.
As usual the penchant for faux sceptics is to grab their nearest datum point to make a blunt argument. No analysis of pattern. no understanding of mechanisms. And any pretentious attempts to do so are never published in anything near a decent mainstream journal. What pretension and hyperbole.
The arguments on current AGW influence on Australian mechanistically are quite regionally specific. The longer term views in my opinion are less certain.
Yep Flannery stuffed it. David Jones comments were unfortunate but Cohenite of course has the luxury of wallowing in lounge chair plotting against everyone he dislikes where a very few people are in real world were in tough positions during a monster drought. Droughts which seems to only touch us once or twice in a lifetime. Cohenite doesn’t have to advise or make decisions on anything. When you have a whole nation of farmers after you for advice, some suicidal, and every water manager and agribusiness demanding to know when the drought will end – and the years of drought go by seemingly on without end – the century old oaks outside dying for lack of water – well perhaps one get a tad indulgent.
So sceptics knows drought will end eh? Well gee whiz that’s just so clever. Tell us something we don’t know. Tell us the duration of multi-year droughts so we can perfectly plan. Tell us 2 years before when droughts will end. Not in August before Xmas.
Instead of drivelling dross, someone responsible has to make calculations serious of runoff, supply, rainfall patterns and allocate resources. That process is very much a long term multi-criteria multi-attribute decision process. A door stop TV interview has little influence on the long term. Sceptics of course are non contributing nihilists who don’t have to make these decisions. If you do – stop bullshitting grab a gun and stand post on the wall.
If you had half a brain (well an integration of all sceptics here cumulatively might still come up short) you would quickly work out the issue for water managers is about allocation and risk. Dams aren’t free. Opportunity cost exists. Forecasts aren’t 100% either and never will be. Pre-emptive dam water releases if it floods the water is worth nothing; but if pre-emptively released and no downpour they are worth billions. Not considered by our arm chair codgers here.
So our faux sceptics think the establishment has no knowledge of ENSO and IPO – well duckies they are the ones who did the original research so wake up for heavens sake. Specific long term changes derived by our best science that I mentioned above can only be explained by greenhouse forcing at at work and over decades not a few years.
You can either factor that material into long term planning or pull numbers out of your bums ( a ready source it seems).
So rainfall = f (ENSO + PDO + IOD + SAM + SWACI + STRi + aerosols + solar + land surafce change forcing + AGW forcing on circulation patterns and temperature + chaotic error term) is THE SYSTEMS problem.
Above your grade level I suspect. More than one than one variable and your little brains explode.
Time for a factoid from Robert and shrill accusation of fraud from Neville. For heavens sake don’t ever start thinking.
Luke, cut the crap. Old Joh and the early battlers new how to drought-proof this country affordably a lot better than your lot ever will.
Kevin Rudd stuffed most of the good dam work-in-progress and Beattie, Bligh and Garrett quickly followed suit.
And Newman showed Bligh how it is done when it comes to using Wivenhoe the way it was intended.
It’s not rocket science but it needs someone to be on watch unlike what happened in Jan 2011.
“Yep Flannery stuffed it. David Jones comments were unfortunate”
I’ll second that ! Fancy a quote like that from Luke.
More drivel just torrents from spanglers – if the country was drought proof how come there are still drought impacts? What a ponce you are.
Infinite money for infinite dams. Let’s dam everything. I know let’s dam the Lockyer – who needs food production. And it’s a big flood source !
“the way it was intended” – what with Joh’s manual. hahahahahahahahahaaaaaaa
Wait for the reaction when the water level is dropped and a drought sequence ensues. “Who let that water go – hang’em high”. The fact that Wivenhoe has a 130% extra flood compartment is lost on twits.
But you will have predicted that on your laptop won’t you?
And John – their influence on policy because of them zippo. Otherwise don’t be shy guys – put up the evidence. I note you’ve all ducked for cover and can’t answer Poly on anything.
Well, Luke managed to write 630 words and said absolutely nothing!
Must be a new record.
Although he seems to be content free these days in general anyway, something must have rattled him?
I thought cohenite answered Poly’s question, just because you don’t like the answer, too bad.
More on the NBN stupidity, what a hopeless mess.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-03-22/nbn-rollout-could-be-delayed-by-10-years3a-expert/4589520
This is what you get when a clueless Labor govt starts up our biggest infrastructure project after the Rudd and Conroy twits draw up the plans on the back of an envelope.
Granted Gillard is a stupid fool but Rudd is just as culpable as her for their present predicament.
Another non contribution from Wikes – must be tedious being carried around in our wake mate with no come backs.
Cohenite’s feeble sophistic attempt was a non-starter but given your inability to understand anything above Grade 2 I’m not surprised.
Neville randomly posts off topic as if we can’t read our own newspapers. Get on topic Neville or drop off. Go over to Bolters and rant with your other tea party clowns.
Trendoid time! (Factoids are so last season.)
“And the fundamentals of AGW driven drying trends are still there with changes in Hadley cells, widening of the sub-tropics and changes in the sub-tropical ridge.”
The changes of atmospheric pressure and reduction of winter storminess in south west WA post-1976 constitute one of the main trends (oh, that word!) that have been given the Readers Digest treatment by alarmists. It’s all those widening flat areas between tropical ridges…where we are all going to be left dry and stranded, wishing we had left richer temple offerings when we had the chance. South West WA is now the main canary in the cage – since Eastern Oz refused to sing in recent times.
Of course, if we knew a hundred times more about all this stuff, and its relation to (an iced-up) Antarctica, the circumpolar current, SOI and every other bloody thing…we’d be merely ignorant.
But we have our mystic philosophers:
“So rainfall = f (ENSO + PDO + IOD + SAM + SWACI + STRi + aerosols + solar + land surafce change forcing + AGW forcing on circulation patterns and temperature + chaotic error term)”
I mean, it’s an equation, for god’s sake. What are puny cherry picked anecdotes and factoids against such a mighty fortress of calculation? Is it real, you ask? Bah…reality is overrated. Reality is a tea partying skeptic.
Behold the equation and adore, serfs!
Reminds me of Luke:
Today their motto seems to be: If it creates real energy, jobs and revenues – pillory, ban, delay and regulate it out of existence. If it can be labeled “renewable” – mandate it, subsidize it, waive endangered species laws, and ignore the policies’ impacts on wildlife and on people’s health and well-being. Instead of ensuring that resource development activities are conducted properly, don’t permit them at all.
http://www.masterresource.org/2013/03/eco-imperialism-meets-vulture-environmentalism/#more-24837
Luke you dumbo, you know better than I that Joh didn’t finish what he set out to accomplish [as no man ever does who has a long term view] but those Labor geese that followed sure as hell didn’t help.
And low maintenance dams don’t need infinite money yet they serve many, many more purposes than dumb rust-bucket desal.
As I have said many times, imagine the Gold Coast without the Hinze dam. It would be a subdivision stretching to the border yet now we have 1/ farming and food production close to the city, 2/ great recreation area close to the city, 3/ Large environmental habitat close to the city, 4/ flood mitigation and 5/ an enormous supply of cheap, pristine, mountain water!
Anyone with half a brain knows we are a country of drought and flooding rain and multiple dams where ever feasible are how you take out the extremes in the most economical and beneficial way.
“So rainfall = f (ENSO + PDO + IOD + SAM + SWACI + STRi + aerosols + solar + land surafce change forcing + AGW forcing on circulation patterns and temperature + chaotic error term)”
Indeed, a mighty equation, I have sacrificed a chicken to Gaia to protect it – buk buk
Take a short drive up to Binna Burra and feast your eyes on the Numinbah Valley to see what I’m saying. Gold Coast sky-scrapers in the background with the dam and the beautiful valley in the foreground, free of development, quarries, factories etc. Pretty much how it was a century ago but working its butt off for humanity.
It would be hard to plan that part of a city any better.
And the red-neck dairy farmers worked that out 50 years ago.
‘…and changes in the sub-tropical ridge.’
Surely not associated with AGW. Is it behaving unnaturally?
Its generally agreed that L has an impact on seasonal rainfall, but you’ll have to convince me that ‘the fundamentals of AGW driven drying trends are still there.’
True, I posted against my better judgement, but it’s hard
to reply with something meaningful to utter garbage, other than to declare it as such.
For a long time I defended you (remember?) as someone bright and up to date with
all the science stuff, albeit a bit rough when it comes to social interaction.
Alas, you proved time and time again that you are at best working in the public service
and have access to material we don’t or have some friends in the BOM, or as I suspect
you are a clever troll, sweeping the net for links.
None of that is relevant I’m afraid but you can’t admit defeat.
So be it.
Spot on Johnathan Wilkes my sentiments exactly.
But in reality he is typical of the arrogance and mentality of the climatariat he defends so blindly… and who are also dependant upon the public purse.
Isnt it ironic how we get screwed by the very people who are on our pay rolls…and we end up with idiotic situations like the Drax power station example,,, courtesy of these class of over educated geniuse.s
J Wikes – I imagine is a bit of a goober- reduced to attempted insults and not very good ones at that, instead of arguing a point. So let’s get this right JW – you want to have a science argument but really you don’t. You just want to slag material you know nothing about, are too lazy to find out about, are too lazy to read, and/or too stupid to understand. Everything I have told you is public domain. Why are you here then JW ? to have a liitle backslap and cuddle with your wanker antiscience blog friends?
Nary a science argument between you. How pathetic. Cohenite only one here with any ability at all. Robert’s the anecdote golden oldie king with olde codger tales galore. Neville the press clipper and fraud screamer, and sp sauce is the drive by-shooter.
What a mob.
El Gordo asks “Surely not associated with AGW. Is it behaving unnaturally?” hahahahahaha – asleep for about 3 years
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/joc.3492/abstract
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00035.1?journalCode=clim
http://www.nature.com/srep/2012/121003/srep00702/full/srep00702.html
Whatever is happening is very interesting but you lot are never interested in very interesting local research are you? Of course Wikes could find these himself if he tried for oh about a whole 10 minutes but hey …?
Here is an interesting video featuring Prof Nir Shaviv explaing how cosmic rays have an impact on our climate. He claims correlation is strong with temp records.
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog
If you scroll down to the video and start at about 18 minutes he explains how a strong or weak sun can change cosmic ray flux and produce more or less white clouds,
Therefore either producing a warmer or cooler climate cycle.
He claims that this correlates a lot better than co2 levels and that the rate of warming will be lower than the IPCC estimates for the rest of this century.
Cohenite a tease and something very interesting for you
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50361/abstract
http://cawcr.vm.csiro.au/staff/jma/Decadal.trends.Meehl.JClim.2013.pdf just think Cohers – it only has to start accelerating again and a whole cohort of sceptics will be swept away. Pray hard !
Just so people get the distinction between what’s trend and what’s codgerist cherry picked anecdcote:
Remember Luke’s “century old oaks outside”? If they survive…Cherry-picked anecdotes. If they die of thirst…Trend!
And when you’ve got people desperate to know, begging you to tell them when the drought will end…and your dog, Chequers, looks up at you with pleading eyes…oh, what’s a compassionate climate scientist to do? You tell ’em the trend is lookin’ bad and git off the land. If it happens to bucket rain, you explain that it’s even worse than we thought. Extremes, doncha know.
Nary a science argument between you. How pathetic. Cohenite only one here with any ability at all. Robert’s the anecdote golden oldie king with olde codger tales galore. Neville the press clipper and fraud screamer, and sp sauce is the drive by-shooter.
And Luke is the monkey holding the organ grinders cup
Never mind Luke, we know you are the bees…
Thanks JW – it’s true I am pretty good – highly intelligent, good looking and well heeled. Face it – the blog was extinct without me. You’ve never had such fun. Even got hunter back. I thought he was dead. But anyway time to go – Bazza was right – apart from Cohenite it’s all pretty boring really. You guys aren’t much competition although probably nice people if we just talked about gardening and the weather. (even Neville) Do you like Begonias perchance?
Although Cohenite is pretty good though – I do like his style. He tries hard for the cause. And I do lots of literature searches to keep him updated.
Anyway apres Abbott getting in to govt – can’t be long now before Neville can retire from ranting and screaming fraud. CSIRO and most of the places you dislike will be gutted. Mass unemployment – they’ll be on the streets on their arses the dirty lefty greenie commies that they are. Jen will be running the BoM with her laptop doing the forecasting. There’ll be wall to wall dams and rioting in the streets. Internet will be crap. Liberal mates in business will all get a big out-sourced feed for double the current price. Probably set the place back 50 years.
But hey who cares if you’re an accountant or hairdresser.
Toodle pip … might see yas in a few months after Bora Bora.
You may be right about a lot of things Luke but you are dead wrong about T Abbott.
He is not what many of the conservatives are hoping for, but he is not JG.
And that alone should count for something. If it makes feel better,
I don’t want him nor M Turnbull either.
Also your memory is too short or you just don’t care what others say or quote at you.
I said it before, the brightest person with the best argument can’t get through
to a closed mind. So? Why do you think I should waste my time trying?
And before your appropriate rejoinder, no, I’m by no means the brightest, let alone a bright mind.
But I do possess one thing you do not, Common sense
Sayonara, bored Luke. Whatever happens, you and bored bazza will always have Cancun.
And to remember you, we’ll have:
“f (ENSO + PDO + IOD + SAM + SWACI + STRi + aerosols + solar + land surafce change forcing + AGW forcing on circulation patterns and temperature + chaotic error term)”
Even Jerry Lewis couldn’t do it like you. Eddie Murphy…not even close.
luke says:
“The DECR report is a long term view.”
No, it’s not; it purports to validate its short, medium and long-term predictions by correlating the modelling with past observations, hindcasting. In respect of drought and rainfall the model simulations failed as against the past data:
http://landshape.org/enm/files/2010/10/Critique-of-DECR-EE.pdf
From Stockwell:
“In particular, the simulations indicate that the measure of hydrological drought increased significantly last century, while the observations indicate a significant decrease.”
How wrong can you be; the modelling used to predict the future was the opposite of what happened in the past.
you can follow the progress here:
http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=918&Itemid=1
Wow ..and about time as well.
The email string makes fascinating reading, as do the claims of fraud.
Karoly does the usual trick of trying to hide behind peer review when he himself has been caught out several times, and not the least of which was the way IPCC papers were predominantly those belonging to a self referencing group…with Karollary as a IPCC honcho in there up to his arm pits.
The authers are quite correct in saying that scientific integrity in this country has collapsed.Those involved in creating this state if affairs should be sued
But I guess that with the appalling nonsense going on Canberra the Gillardistas will be fighting for their own lives…. doing the right thing for the country wont get a look in.
The scientific and political elites in this country are the worst we have ever had.
John, extraordinary exchange; Karoly’s best papers on attribution are hopeless; the main ‘fingerprint’ of AGW, the THS has never been found; there is no stratosphere cooling; ocean warming is not consistent with AGW; attempts by Marcott to reestablish the Hockeystick have failed and there is a concerted attempt to make the 800 year CO2/temp lag disappear.
Karoly really should be held to account; fancy hiding behind the wretched Academy of Science 2010 report:
http://joannenova.com.au/2010/08/head-of-australian-science-academy-issues-decree-from-pagan-chieftans-of-science/
The ALP brought McTernan Oz to crank up the politics of fear and class warfare. British labour methods for Australia – makes perfect sense! I wonder if Oz will end up in a similar position to the UK? Christopher Booker writes:
So we are doomed to see Britain’s lights going out, all because the feather-headed lunatics in charge of our energy policy still believe that they’ve got to do something to save the planet from that CO2-induced global warming which this weekend has been covering much of the country up to a foot deep in snow. Meanwhile, the Indians are planning to build 455 new coal-fired power stations which will add more CO2 to the atmosphere of the planet every week than Britain emits in a year.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/windpower/9949571/Its-payback-time-for-our-insane-energy-policy.html
Ex SA Premier Mike Rann was originally from UK, and I believe knew Tony Blair from school days. Hence the link to McTernan.
In his usual, “let’s throw money around” style, Rann engaged McTernan as a, “Thinker in Residence” in SA. McTernan did a 6 month all expenses paid holiday in SA doing a review of the Public Service and he produced a report at the end.
You can find it at:
http://www.thinkers.sa.gov.au/Thinkers/McTernan/report.aspx
Most thinking people would consider it to be extremely light weight. One can read it and the Govts response, and draw your own conclusions. He did the grand tour talking to CEOs etc, scooping up a lot of ideas, as consultants do that were already in train, or on the drawing board, and did a report as though he was being highly original and wise. Bollocks.
From there McTernan was introduced to Gillard, and became part of the Gillardistas in Canberra.
Gillard returned the favour by making Rann the High Commissioner in UK…and so on it goes.
Rann has left SA with a huge debt and Gillard will leave the whole country with an even bigger one.
luke, thank you; I’ve only just had time to look at the Meehl “hiatus” paper in which a “hiatus” decade is defined thus:
“in other decades there is no warming trend (hiatus decades).”
But the 2000-2010 was a COOLING decade:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:2000/to:2010/trend
It also feature SST decline; OHC decline to 700 meters and a negative TOA balance; yet, as usual Meehl says the bottom ocean was accumulating heat; that is problematic;
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/1031292.html
Some facts; sea surface temperature has FALLEN since 2003 according to HADSST2 global sea surface temperature anomalies; anyone can go to Wood For Trees and graph the data; that decline is at a spanking -0.00844082 per year.
The amount of OHC measured in the top 700 metres has also DECLINED since 2003; Josh Willis from NASA calculates a net loss of -0.12 (±0.35) x 10/22Joules per year; Craig Loehle, senior scientist at the Illinois-based National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, calculates the loss is at -0.35 (±0.2) x 10/22Joules per year. That is based on OBSERVATIONS from the ARGO floats. NOAA also shows a decline since 2003 which has been accentuated since their January 2010 adjustment:
http://i48.tinypic.com/14e6wjn.gif
Hansen’s argument [see link to Unleashed above] is that the rate of transfer of ocean heat from the surface and 700 meter level is slower than the models predicted but this is irrelevant to OHC. It is irrelevant for a number of reasons:
Firstly, there is no heat signature in the upper layers of the ocean; is anyone seriously saying that heat can pass through the top layers as it moves to the depths without leaving a signature? That is ridiculous!
Secondly, Hansen’s co-author Karin a von Shuckmann’s paper on OHC concludes that OHC is increasing particularly at depths of 2000 meters. Apart from the first problem her paper is contradicted by Cazaneve 2008 and Ablain 2009 who find a decline in the rate of increase of the steric component of sea level rise since 2003; that is sea level increase based on heat expansion. If there is miraculous heating at ocean depth which is not showing up at the surface then it is exceeded by the cooling at the surface which leads to the 3rd point.
As Knox and Douglass note, “at least 90% of the variable heat content of Earth resides in the upper ocean”, and according to Hansen 2005 upper ocean heat is thought to comprise 80% of the total OHC. If the surface is not warming it doesn’t matter if the depths are.
What Hansen is saying is that due to aerosols [and probably solar] the ocean is not receiving the full heat from CO2 forcing; that remains to be seen and would require that the GCMs be WRONG about aerosols as well as ocean heat flux.
In respect of Figure 19 from Hansen; this does NOT show a “+ve net energy budget” for the Earth; the only thing it shows is declining OHC; the rest is conjecture and if Hansen is not correct about the aerosols, bad conjecture.
Luke… from the Timbal & Drosdowsky abstract
‘Finally, it was observed that the intensification of the STR was not monotonic during the 20th century but happened mostly during two extended periods: from 1900 to the 1940s, culminating at the time of the 1935–1945 dry decade, and from 1970 to 2010 culminating with the 1997–2009 rainfall deficit in SEA. That multidecadal behaviour is reminiscent of the global warming of the planet.’
I’ll pay that, as the global warming in question is obviously natural.
NH temperatures show a 60 year cycle.
http://www.dh7fb.de/nao/djf2.gif
Very soon the penny is going to drop … AGW has no part to play.
From the Wenju Cal abstract…..
‘a poleward shift of climatological April-May rainfall can explain most of the southeastern Australia rainfall decline, a small portion of the southern Africa rainfall trend, but not the autumn drying over southern Chile.’
So if its not universal, what do you imagine is happening?
El Gordo – you must be both blind and thick – the STRi trend is up up up on a centennial scale. Try http://www.ccrc.unsw.edu.au/PDF/Timbal_UNSW2009.pdf see slide 5 and the last slide at least.
Cohenite – you are not even on the pace here http://www.cesm.ucar.edu/events/ws.2012/Presentations/CVC2/meehl.pdf read the last slide if nothing else.
Some other bedtime reading for you. Current AGW theory isn’t right – story is much more complex and worse than we think. Frankly you should be much more worried and if you’re going to be a sceptic you need to be more sophisticated.
http://www.cesm.ucar.edu/events/ws.2012/Presentations/CVC2/meehl.pdf
http://cawcr.vm.csiro.au/staff/jma/arblaster_future_sam_2011.pdf
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00035.1?journalCode=clim
http://www.nature.com/srep/2012/121003/srep00702/full/srep00702.html
Solomon, A., L. Goddard, A. Kumar, J. Carton, C. Deser, I. Fukumori, A.M. Greene, G. Hegerl, B. Kirtman, Y. Kushnir, M. Newman, D. Smith, D. Vimont, T. Delworth, G.A. Meehl, and T. Stockdale, 2011:Distinguishing the roles of natural and anthropogenically forced decadal climate variability: Implications for prediction.Bull. Amer. Meteorol. Soc., 92, 141-156.
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/cdeser/Docs/solomon.natural_v_forced_variability.bams11.pdf
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/people/amy.solomon/pubs/DPWG_submitted2BAMS_6Nov09.pdf
I almost dropped the iPad over the side on the way out reading Sayers’ latest bit of drivel. GOOD LORD ! what a wank. It’s hardly even English.
Here we go….
“I heard you on the ABC news last night using the unscientific, but
suitably alarming, latest political buzz word ” catastrophic” in relation
to weather, fires and global warming. Could you please provide evidence
to support your claim that these predicted catastrophic weather events
are based on anthropogenic rather than natural causes. I refer you to
Professor Salby’s work, which indicates that it is natural variation that
is driving climate change. SALBY’S WORK NEVER PUBLISHED – WE’RE WAITING …. hahahahahaa
Please provide evidence for AGW that is not based on the IPCC models, as
they did not factor in solar activity. UTTER CRAP !As you are probably aware NASA
has had a paradigm shift and are now focussing on solar activity as a
major factor. NO THEY HAVE ALWAYS BEEN INTO SOLAR ! NASA reports that they were politically bullied into
promoting anthropogenic causes. HO HO HO HO – Yes Judy your OPINION
Our CSIRO is under investigation for workplace bullying also, (WITH ABOUT ANOTHER 1000 ORGANISATIONS ALLEGEDLY) and has
been discredited as an objective scientific institution. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA – I DON’T THINK SO – WHAT SAYS JUDY? GEE THAT’S AUTHORITATIVE
If global warming is occurring you are doing a great disservice to the
Australian people by leading them to think they can change the climate,
rather than adapt to it. OPINES JUDY – BUT WHY DOES SHE WANT ADAPTATION – CLIMATE CHANGE ISN’T HAPPENING ACCORDING TO HER
I notice that you are funded by the current labour government. (LABOR !! spelling) As one of
the many who have provided that money, I think that I, and the rest of
the australian (Australian pls Judy) public are entitled to see the evidence. CAN WE HELP IT IF SHE HASN’T READ IT ??
I have copied in my local newspaper and my local MP and shadow MP. OOOOO – THE BIG BOYS HAVE BEEN ALERTED – WOOO HOOO I have
also BCC’d other scientists who will be interested to read your response. SO SHE SLEAZILY ADMITS TO BCCing HER SCEPTIC MATES – WHAT STANDARDS – WHY NOT CC !!
And what is the PhD in?? https://twitter.com/JudyMarymary “PhD in psychology and epidemiology. I have experience in research design and basic stats” WELL THAT’S HELPFUL – BASIC STATS EH? WOW !
IS THAT A GALAH ? https://si0.twimg.com/profile_images/2834552743/f6c5a31cbe8b75a4da59c610711505d2.png
Sayers – you really have let the team down on that one.
OK Luke!
While you’re in googling mode, google Cook and Lewandowsky.
Cook runs SkS which you have linked upthread.
Hmmmmm?
Yep keep chasing AGW celebs trivia Debs. Meanwhile back at the science.
But Luke?
You linked SkS didn’t you?
What’s the difference?
I agree that Cook is an AGW wannabe celeb. So why are you linking to his site?
Firstly, Mr luke
“If global warming is occurring you are doing a great disservice to the
Australian people by leading them to think they can change the climate,
rather than adapt to it.”
” OPINES JUDY – BUT WHY DOES SHE WANT ADAPTATION – CLIMATE CHANGE ISN’T HAPPENING ACCORDING TO HER”
Obviously reading and comprehension is not, or hasnt been a priority in the Qld public service.
Judy says, that “If global waming is occuring”…see the word If!!!
Secondly, I would have thought that a trained epidemiologist would have more than enough maths and stats to assess anything in GW …certainly more than anything you have demonstrated herein.
“Meanwhile back at the science.’: what you mean that system involving an ugly mix of shonkademics on the public teat producing work that is evaluated in secret by societies that have been taken over by activists, or publishers who have to make profits, and/or involving participants in the IPCC who produce papers at the last minute of dubious validit,y so that they can prop up a point of significant weakness…and thereby con the public yet again.
…it seems the tax payer gets dudded every which way with these people
Is that another Qld goose on the loose I see.
Go Judy
‘you must be both blind and thick – the STRi trend is up up up on a centennial scale.’
OK, I’m being lazy… I’ll check it out.
In the meantime, lets look at the 60 year cycle.
‘Freezing Britain’s unusually harsh winter could have cost thousands of pensioners their lives.
‘This month is on track to be the coldest March for 50 years – and as the bitter Arctic conditions caused blackouts and traffic chaos yesterday, experts warned of an ‘horrendous’ death toll among the elderly.
‘About 2,000 extra deaths were registered in just the first two weeks of March compared with the average for the same period over the past five years.
‘Meanwhile, power cuts and travel disruption will continue to blight Britain today, as more snow falls across the country on another bitterly cold day.’
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2298246/UKs-coldest-spring-1963-claims-5-000-lives-Pensioners-worst-affected–experts-say-final-toll-horrendous.html#ixzz2OS0Fa8E6
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
“Current AGW theory isn’t right – story is much more complex and worse than we think.”
Okay, that goes in the Hall of Fame with:
“f (ENSO + PDO + IOD + SAM + SWACI + STRi + aerosols + solar + land surafce change forcing + AGW forcing on circulation patterns and temperature + chaotic error term)”
Luke I had a good look at the Timbal link and its old hat.
All I can gauge from this discussion on the STRi is that it intensifies as temperatures increase. Coincidence, I think not?
You’re such a klutz luke; I hate it when you recycle; from your comment above:
“Cohenite – you are not even on the pace here http://www.cesm.ucar.edu/events/ws.2012/Presentations/CVC2/meehl.pdf read the last slide if nothing else.”
Some other bedtime reading for you. Current AGW theory isn’t right – story is much more complex and worse than we think.”
From the Meehl power-point:
“Internally generated decadal variability (IPO) and externally forced patterns in the Pacific are not independent A combination of response to anthropogenic forcing and transition of IPO from negative to positive likely produced large notable 1970s climate shift”
This parallel universe stuff from Meehl was being thrown out by him in 2008:
http://www.image.ucar.edu/idag/Papers/Meehlmid70s.JClim.pdf
This is crap; the GPCS of 1976 is well correlated with natural oceanic events; [ http://arxiv.org/pdf/0907.1650v3.pdf ] it is an impossibility for CO2 to have caused it:
http://joannenova.com.au/2012/05/has-co2-warmed-the-planet-at-all-in-the-last-50-years-its-harder-to-tell-than-you-think/
McKitrick, and Stockwell before him, and a number of others show this; they show it in 2 ways; firstly the step-change 76/77 is abrupt but well correlated with physical events [see Stockwell 2009]; can CO2 forcing produce such a step? No! Because Beers Law shows its heating effect is logarithmic, something Meehl ignores; secondly, as I link to above there, has been another STEP around 1998 causing temperature to drop over the decade from 2000-2010; that is, temperature goes DOWN. How does Meehl explain that? Does CO2 cause steps up and down in temperature?!
Farcical.
And from the Meehl and Karoly schmozzle:
“Tropical upper tropospheric
warming is found to be more relevant than polar
stratospheric cooling to the intermodel variation in the
SAM trends in CO2‐only simulations.”
NEITHER are happening!!!
Crap.
So Minister for NONsense – Judy has impressed you mightily eh? hahahahahahahahahahaa jeez mate …. desperate.
““Meanwhile back at the science.’: what you mean that system involving an ugly mix of shonkademics on the public teat producing work that is evaluated in secret by societies that have been taken over by activists, or publishers who have to make profits, and/or involving participants in the IPCC who produce papers at the last minute of dubious validit,y so that they can prop up a point of significant weakness…and thereby con the public yet again.”
AH NO ACTUALLY. What rabidity. Get immunised for heavens sake. How would you know Minsey – having a good old blog wank around the denier sites I guess. But your standard is being impressed by Judy. Yes …. Judy opines on her twitter site ” I have decided not to listen to ABC radio until it stops reporting boring drivel re non-existent climate change.” SO WHY IS SHE SAYING “IF”. Dickhead.
Robert – easily amused eh? Why is that funny? What amuses you? You find a century of climate science unravelling the various periodic oscillations at play with our climate funny? You find an interaction between decadal behaviour and AGW humourous. It’s fairly common among simple folk to laugh at anything they don’t understand. Reading off weather anecdotes is much safer ground don’t you think? Learning anything new for old codgers is always difficult.
“Crap” Cohenite – get published – E&E doesn’t count, personal essays don’t count – they’re just rants. I guess there is that one embarrassing GRL incident (which we won’t go into again).
Cohenite you guys have no mechanistic view of science. You guys are simply pig ignorant crayon drawers. You have utterly nothing to debate with. You have no idea how anything works at all. Look you are actually going to have to get someone other than arts graduates, engineers and geologists on the team.
“The mid-1970s shift that occurred over roughly a decade
was an example of internally generated and externally
forced signals adding together to produce a large change
in Pacific climate and a big increase in globally averaged
temperatures”
Get your refutation published ASAP and report back. P.S. You’ll need some better than statistical baloney. This stuff is game changing and you’re just left in the wake.
“Get your refutation published ASAP and report back”
http://cbe.anu.edu.au/research/papers/pdf/wp495.pdf
http://people.duke.edu/~ns2002/pdf/soon_legate.pdf
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2002GL015191/abstract
http://www.pas.rochester.edu/~douglass/papers/Douglass_Knox_pla373aug31.pdf
https://pantherfile.uwm.edu/kswanson/www/publications/2008GL037022_all.pdf
Dozens of them here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/05/spotting-the-solar-regime-shifts-driving-earths-climate/#more-21407
Luke, mind the sin bin. You’re on fire lately. Don’t spoil it by getting all snarly. You are one gem off a triple Hall of Famer. That “mechanistic view” sounds promising. What about a brightly lit climate console with windy titles and individual colourings for all those “mechanisms” and “forcings”? You can leave some dummy buttons for future advances: you know, more “game changers” and stuff that makes stuff “worse than we think”.
Prehistoric and out of date Cohenite. Get on the pace.
If you are not using a state of the art GCM nobody serious is going to take you seriously these days. No mechanistic understanding = no progress.
Robert if you don’t know why you’re not progressing. You can observe but not see.
“Prehistoric and out of date Cohenite. Get on the pace.”
Luke, you and I are on the same page. You reliably reject what’s a few years old. I just get in early.
And you’re right with your new equation: “No mechanistic understanding = no progress.” There’s a reason why cavemen didn’t drive Chevvies, and I think you’re on to it. This also explains so much about the predictive failures of raw and unsettled science in any era. Publish-or-Perish is guaranteed to keep us stupider than we need to be. (Publish-or-Perish…Now that’s something that’s much worse than we thought!)
Lastly, I think your science-as-dance-craze theory is your third Hall of Famer for this thread.
“If you are not using a state of the art GCM nobody serious is going to take you seriously these days.”
Legend!
Nobody serious is going to take you seriously.
SERIOUSLY???????
ROFL!
Well your job Robert as wise elder and cynic is to tell us how you would study analyse complex patterns of climate behaviour with multiple forcings without modelling? Would you use crayons? Some other than a glib answer pls.
Publish or perish and it’s worse than we thought – well no actually – Robert I know you never do but visit http://publications.agu.org/journals/ – now tell us Robert how many of the articles published here fall into your category? You should know as you’re very opinionated on the matter – give us a survey. Or might you be full of bulldust.
And these http://journals.ametsoc.org/
and these http://www.springer.com/earth+sciences+and+geography/geophysics/journal/382
Come on Robert – stump up ! So you have 2 very straight forward questions Robert. No tricks involved – I’m sure you know the answers.
And this very spectacular non-calling of AGW involvement of the SEQ drought by CSIRO http://www.csiro.au/Portals/Media/SEQ-Drought.aspx Given your big conspiracy theory and note that was written before the big wets how do you explain this sudden rush to call it by the numbers. Cai thinks differently for other areas. Why did he let this big political one go? Might he actually be using “evidence”. Heaven forbid.
Well Debs your bleating indicates that nobody does take you seriously.
“No mechanistic understanding”.. says the teat sucking refugee from the Qld PS.
I reckon he is talking out of his arse, as usual, and it is he who doesnt have clue, nor any practical basis for assessing whats in front of him, and just like his ilk in the academia has never risked his own dollar on anything more than a ham sandwhich for lunch.
http://mechanism.ucsd.edu/
http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanistic_paradigm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanism_(philosophy)
http://kiwibahai.wordpress.com/tag/mechanistic-world-view/
If Judy can bring these GW charlatans and frauds to account she would have done everyone a great service.
Thats the mechanistic view I like.
In the meantime just keep on going the way you are, because with every passing post you are a wonderful metaphor as to what sort of people we have in global warming science.
LUKE?????
Without modelling? SURELY you jest again?
And considering you are now talking ‘big conspiracy theory’ does that mean you are now agreeing with AGW celebs like Lewandowsky?
I hope not? It wasn’t that long ago that you dubbed him a ‘sideshow’.
Maybe you’re having trouble missing the point that was made by Jen?
The criticism is about focus and government spending Luke.
NO ONE (except you) has said that science is bad, that anyone is ‘anti science’ or that we shouldn’t use stats and modelling.
Come on, Luke. If I did the homework you set me I’d be reading all that welcome-to-the-new-normal tripe on SkS, and the appalling Tammy who isn’t Debbie Reynolds or Sandra Dee. I think you now avoid linking to all that trash out of embarrassment, but I’m sure you still gorge on all the phony rebuttals and panics there.
Gawd, I know how to find articles (in quite a few languages), and I know how to hold my nose slightly while reading them. Just as chemistry crawled out of alchemy, a science of climate will crawl out of all this well disguised political hooey you love to quote and reference.
In the meantime, just this: Climate models are not possibly wrong, or sometimes wrong. Climate models HAVE to be wrong. It has to do with complexity and flux as opposed to information and means.
Here’s an equation for you! The great intellectual failing in any era or field: BEST AVAILABLE = ADEQUATE.
There is nothing more damaging to intellectual progress than the above presumption. Understanding and scholarship begin where that monstrosity is squashed. So squash it, along with the barbarity of Publish-or-Perish.
Minsey – a poor ill-focussed attempt at abuse is not a scientific retort. Mate I’ve been verballed by experts. You’re not one of them. So a tax dodging redneck turd such as yourself seems to be a bit short on the old neurones when it comes to making a rebuttal. Clearly you have no idea do you. What a waste of sceptic space. THey’ll be making you march up the back at demos if you keep this up. Shouldn’t you be over at some tea party site having a froth? Look given you’re so pathetic at debate – put your Mum on.
“GW charlatans and frauds ” – well get some of your tax dodged entitlement wealth and sue them – get going – don’t just rant.
Judy eh? – yea mate – good luck – take her along to any hearings as an expert witness. Please do – a great asset to you. hahahahahahahahahahaa
OK Debs – enough – I now get to ask the questions – you’ve had 50 years worth of Gish Galloping – front up on how you will undertake climate science without modelling. Give it ya best shot Debs – a couple of high level paragraphs will do. No questions now given you’re all knowing.
“The criticism is about focus and government spending Luke.” yuh – well analysis is about zero. Lots of bolsh. All hat no cattle. Jen’s assertions are simply wild and handwaving. Poly asked for some substantiation and all we have are crickets chirping.
Robert does the big duck and lays smoke. Did a runner.
“Publish or perish” cries luke; the last refuge of the scoundrel; after Climategate it is an amazing regression; that bird has flown luke, it’s time is over; what time is, you ask luke; just for you:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-tjHlFPTwVk
For luke the truth is writted on a piece of paper; I encourage everyone to watch the link to a short critique of peer review and indicate which of the 2 scientists talking is luke.
Luke, nobody is going to do hours of reading and assessing on the recommendation of someone who writes:
“So rainfall = f (ENSO + PDO + IOD + SAM + SWACI + STRi + aerosols + solar + land surafce change forcing + AGW forcing on circulation patterns and temperature + chaotic error term)”
Luke, watching you do your sciency thing is a bit like watching Disco Stu or Borat taking to the dance floor. The intention is there, the enthusiasm is enormous, but…
I would have thought that even an obnoxious cretin like you would have realised I wasnt engaging in a scientific retort, but a logical and ethical one.
I know these are unfamiliar terms to you and your crowd… but there it is.
But then given the standards in GW, which you so ably portray, it doesnt surprise me one bit that it went past you.
So tell me wonder boy, just what is mechanistic view of science, that you wank on about ..or was it just more bluster and b/s from you.Which of the many variants is it.?Dont report back I can anticipate an inadequate answer in keeping with your modus operandi
Perhaps you might like to talk that intellectual giant Lewandowsky he could help you …guffaw… and what an embarrasmment to academia he is.. you and he would get along just fine I am sure.
If he is no use, ask Flannery could help after all he is the boss of THE Climate Change Authority ..meaning he and Steffen/Karollary et al know everything including the nuances of the scientific method…..more guffaws.
Have to go now. Need to earn a quid so that someone herein pays some tax to keep you academic layabouts going .. good ham sandwhiches dont come cheap these days.
Just nothing back. Waffle. Not even the scantest hint of a response.
“I wasnt engaging in a scientific retort, but a logical and ethical one” gawd !
I think Luke and Christine Milne have a lot in common – they both insist global warming is accellerating, despite evidence to the contrary, and both have a tenuous relationship with the truth.
Looking for a job with the Greens after the big clean-out post-election Luke?
I’m sure you and Christine would make fine bedfellows ……… ugh ……… sorry for creating thah image folks!
So what’s wrong with my equation Robert? Try to say something.
“they both insist global warming is accellerating” errr nope !
obviously sp has been asleep for the last 20 or so comments. One wonders about the intelligence level. Really I do. Your mind must just be gibberish. Surely even Robert and Debs get this?
Eccles says:
“So what’s wrong with my equation Robert? Try to say something.”
It’s a great eqn, wot you thought of all by yourself! Eccles’ eqn:
“So rainfall = f (ENSO + PDO + IOD + SAM + SWACI + STRi + aerosols + solar + land surafce change forcing + AGW forcing on circulation patterns and temperature + chaotic error term)”
The only thing it lacks is VALUES for the integers; but then AGW uses values wot it makes up for itself.
So Christine Milne is wrong Luke? Christine must be telling porkies to the punters?
And the (Greens) Carbon Tax was not needed after all. Thanks Luke – needed confirmation on that.
Must be if Luke says so!
So there you have it folks.
Raises the issue of an undefined “mechanistic view of science” as what is needed, and is provided with some references to help him clarify what it is, and, what does he come back with.
Nothing ….what a merchant of humbug you are…
But then what do you care…heh .. you have met your quota for the week.
PS: I apologise for not meeting your high expectations for verbaling as you call it…there are, and have been, a lot more people more skilled than I in sorting you out…but keep going old son, you are doing good job.
Every post from you is a winner in the over all scheme.
Minsey – more waffle. Shouldn’t you be increasing our GNP and not here?
sp – “is Christine Milne wrong” on many things yes indeed.
OK Minsey – perhaps a bit trigger happy. If you were genuine – I’m simply saying that there are interacting factors at play. We may observe temperature and rainfall but not know what causes the numbers we see. e.g. modern meteorology and knowledge of fronts, cyclones and anti-cyclones. Quasi periodic phenomena like ENSO – and certainly science has now revealed much about ENSO works (the lazt tax bludgers have). IMO you aren’t going to get too far if you cannot tease apart the factors at play and put them back together in a modelling framework to test your hypotheses. Otherwise tell me how you would undertake the science. Give an example.
“IMO you aren’t going to get too far if you cannot tease apart the factors at play and put them back together in a modelling framework to test your hypotheses.”
The concept of modelling is fine; it is the assumptions which constrain the modelling which are the problem; ie feedbacks are positive; clouds are feedback; water vapour is increasing, solar is not the major player etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1931_China_floods
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1887_Yellow_River_flood
Rainfall equals anecdote + anecdote + anecdote + anecdote + anecdote + anecdote + anecdote…
Fans of extreme anecdotalism should check out the floods that followed on the heels of the Dust Bowl. There’s something about those 1930s…
http://www.crh.noaa.gov/lmk/?n=flood_37
http://www.kcet.org/socal/departures/landofsunshine/la-river/the-destructions-begins.html
Not only will drought return to Eastern Oz and break records all over the shop, there’s no guarantee – because there is, as yet, no science of climatic prediction – that another run of the early fifties is not around the corner. From 1949 to 1956, there were 16 floods on the Hunter River, the 1955 flood being the highest and most destructive known in the region. And don’t be surprised at a withering drought and major fire event coming smack bang in the middle of all the wet action, or just after. That’s why we’re called Australia. Luke and his mates hate this kind of thing. Their brand of creationism demands that the past be viewed, if at all, as a faded sepia photo. Anything we need to know about the past has to come past their pulpits.
Luke’s equation? Yeah, that’ll help if we get a rainfall total in Qld and NSW like 1950’s. Of course, we’re not due for that sort of multi-centennial event. But sometimes a multi-centennial event neglects to read its instructions.
So Robert do you have anything to offer anyone managing such things like a farm or water catchment. Or is your advice that stuff just happens.
So you like to go back pre-satellite era and pre-numerical weather model where tropical cyclones were untracked and the barometer just plummeted over a few hours and you got blown to bits and swept away. That’s progress.
I just realised I’m talking to a twit. An antediluvian knuckle dragger. Understanding those phenomena beyond the “oo ah” and “that’s a biggie” is THE issue.
So 50 years progress is undestanding ENSO which is reponsible for 50% of our rainfall variation is meaningless for our Robert . 20 years solid into the IOD just all so passe for our Robert.
So folks for our Robby stuff just happens. If you want to manage something you just take pot luck. Want to build a dam – well dunno really – we’ll just have a bit of go at it – no point in any calcs. Just stuff happens.
The equation was symbolic Robert ….. sigh ….
“Yeah, that’ll help if we get a rainfall total in Qld and NSW like 1950′s”
Well yes indeed – knowledge of ENSO and the PDO gives exactly such information.
ENSO and Walker? Those fishery guys who sniffed out PDO, Mantua et al? Improving those rough observation sets called PDO and ENSO? Finding more, much more of the same? All great stuff. What about all that minerality, plasticity, movement, magnetism, heat, pressure, vulcanism, ferment and unknown fresh water oceans under our feet? It’s called Most of the Earth, and what we don’t know about that and its relation to climate – and everything else – would fill the boot of a Hummer or two.
Better management based on better science? What could be more Australian? We’ve usually done that, starting – miraculously! – with an officer’s wife from the crappy Second Fleet and a First Fleet lag called Ruse. Amazing forbears. We’re not the Lucky Country. We’re the know-and-do country. How did Goyder and Kidman know so much about climate, and do so much with the knowledge?
Now, let’s get the green goo off our brains and go again. We need to understand that Luke’s equation is indeed symbolic…of the necrotic dogma that is direction trillions away from urgently needed knowledge.
Joolya continues to dismantle the Klimatariat in preparation for the election.
‘As part of today’s changes, the Department of Climate Change will be merged with the Industry Department and will become the Department of Industry, Innovation, Climate Change, Science, Research and Tertiary Education.’
ABC News
I’m still looking for the “Robert” who doesn’t like sat and radar tracking, doesn’t like progress in understanding ENSO, and who thinks dams should be built just anywhere, without calcs. Was he definitely on this site?
Let me know if you find the rube and I’ll give “Robert” a good solid spray. (Like I’m obliged to give my mate Luke when I really have no choice.)
‘knowledge of ENSO and the PDO gives exactly such information.’
Its certainly a good indication and with ENSO set to remain in neutral mode for the rest of the year, so it looks like a ‘good season’ ahead.
We talked earlier about the STRi but nothing about the influence of the jet stream, which is behaving badly at the moment.
Does this have anything to do with AGW? Just askin’…
But really Robert you’re fundamentally anti-science. You don’t want to know anything. Same as Debs. Never any engagement or pickup. Just endless quips.
Well El Gordo – science is hard on the trail. The issue becomes if you run a model run with GHG forced and one with. The STRi trend appears in the GHG forced run what do you think. Now this isn’t hard wired in – the imponderable result of complex calculations. The results of course are nuanced by conservative modellers not wanting to over-cliam the space.
erratum “one without”
El Gordo – http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/pip/2012GL051000.shtml north
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/339/6119/563.abstract south
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/01/130131144339.htm
Anti-science? Funny, Luke. I recently went into some detail about how “weak” El Nino signals are associated with some of our worst drought and heat events, notably 2002-3 and the blockbuster 1902-3 – the latter is only matched by 1982-3, but that had a blockbuster signal. The much mentioned super El Nino of 1997-8 was quite benign in Oz. I think I also mentioned that 1938-9, one of our worst extended heat periods, with low rainfall in the SE, is a marked La Nina according to the BOM.
I could go on…but the glaze is already coming over your eyes, isn’t it? (Oh no, life before Lady Gaga!) Because of how and where I live, I’ve followed for years such indicators as Date Line Cloud, Central Pacific SSTs, Trade Winds etc etc. It’s interesting, it’s handy, it’s also a scholarly triumph. When there was a fundamental change after 2006 (I know you hate this bit) I was struck by how the new wind regime seemed to date from a declared shift in the PDO.
Mechanisms? Nope. They are rough observation sets, and they are great things in their limited way. But once they get added to the kiddies climate console you’ll have all kinds of people predicting stuff just on the basis of SOI. Or SOI + PDO + whatever stuff Jerry Lewis has in his test tube, God help us. Compare 1997-8 to 2002-3, or 1902-3. Or to 1938-9. The kiddie console is anti-science, because it tries to align handy but rough calculations with vast reality. But the research which it seeks to exploit is a marvel of persistent scholarship and observation. We should be pouring billions more into such endeavours. (Maybe some of the billions spent on alternative energy which we know sucks even before we roll it out?)
Pity about Labor taking our spare dough to the pub. Next time they get a shot let’s hope it’s with a Martin Ferguson, and not with this infernal Posh Left. GetUp Greens. Spew.
I knew you had it in you Robert – you are redeemed ! Why didn’t you say so ! You’re reinstated.
And good call the weak El Nino droughts – perhaps an sub-tropical ridge latitude or STR intensity thing?
And yes droughty La Ninas too. Most dry La Niña seasons associated with the failure of the Australian monsoon or the Queensland ‘easterly dip’. I left monsoon status out of my function too – norty !
Neville will scoff but here is hope http://energyfromthorium.com/2012/08/05/thorium-energy-cheaper-than-coal/
Agree on Getup too.
luke, you are a treasure; the Francis paper you link to says this:
“Slower progression of upper-level waves would cause associated weather patterns in mid-latitudes to be more persistent, which may lead to an increased probability of extreme weather events that result from prolonged conditions, such as drought, flooding, cold spells, and heat waves.”
Anything and everything is caused by AGW.
But Jetstreams work counterintuitively and we don’t need AGW to explain some of the extremes of temperature.As Julian Braggins notes in a cooling world there is a lower temperature gradient between the equator and the poles; this reduces the power of the climate systems that move the heat polewards.
This in turn allows the circumpolar jet streams to expand equatorwards. This lengthens their path and wavelength and reduces their velocity. Then they are more susceptible to blocking by continental high pressure systems.
This explains why during the Maunder and Dalton minimums there did not seem to be a great reduction in average temperatures. There were however great frosts, capable of freezing rivers to a depth of eighteen inches, splitting oak trees three feet in diameter, causing the failure of winter crops, and then summer heat and drought causing the failure of spring plantings, with resultant famines
Sea level’s and SST’s over the last few years have gone down, not the rate of increase, actual levels down. How could that happen if the world is warming?
This is one of the reasons I’ve given up bothering about this whole business of AGW or whatever the current flavour is.
I visited and still do, to an extent, both sceptical and committed warmist sites, and the more one reads the more confusion, unless committed one way or other.
I do have what it takes to sort out the chaff, and to make up my own mind but not having access to some of the basic data, there is always some doubt remaining.
Also, it has become far too politically driven to be taken seriously as pure “science”.
It will work itself out eventually and then we can go back to the real science.
As to supercomputers and forecasting, I can’t see any improvement yet. Others may disagree.
Telling me to a one degree precision what the temp. will be the next day in the middle of summer is useless.
Tell me what the spring rains will be like and then you are cooking with gas.
Satellites and other techno stuff sure helps but it’s nothing more than having a real person sitting
and watching the local weather every few tens of miles, except it’s more practical, but it’s still only observation
and data gathering.
I admire you blokes for being able and having the passion for spending so much time exploring.
I agree with Robert’s comment:
Anti science? Very funny Luke!
BTW your question at 8.30 would make sense if I had ever claimed that we should do climate science without modelling or if I had ever claimed I was all ‘all knowing’.
How many times do I need to write there would be no one happier than people in my profession if climate science and associated seasonal weather forecasting went ahead in leaps and bounds?
Unfortunately, as Jen’s post highlights, it appears the focus and the spending is rather off track.
JW – well has weather forecasting improved overall in recent decades. Skill tests say yes. Why – supercomputers.
“These documents detailed funding for 160 government climate scientists, almost all of these employed by the CSIRO and Bureau of Meteorology, BOM. It appeared that there were significant accounting discrepancies suggesting the overpayment of CSIRO and BOM of about $10 million. The DCCEE has declined to comment on the discrepancy, in particular the provision of funding for salaries apparently far in excess of what could be reasonably justified and supplementary to core agency funding.”
Debs – note the nuancing “It appeared”, “suggesting”, “apparently”.
Meaning we don’t really know. Shoddy Debs. Frankly given Commonwealth audit processes “I AM SCEPTICAL”
Meaning we don’t really know?
You’re sceptical? 🙂
That’s just a tad ironic!
Where were the supercomputers when Flannery was telling everyone the rains will never fill the dams again? Why did they remain silent if they know so much?
John,
My point re. supercomputers was, and I admit I may not have emphasised it clearly,
that while some aspect of forecasting indeed have improved greatly, these
aspect are not the ones that are overly important in the general scheme of things.
I know it’s trivial but I heard someone complain on radio today that there is too much
time spent on reciting what the weather was like today?
Who cares?
We lived it, we know already!
The same goes for the “improvement” how we predict the likely weather in a few weeks’ time but not
longer term where it would help us significantly in economic terms.
Stubbornness and hubris is preventing them, admitting the truth, that despite all the
expenditure we are no more wise than we were a few decades ago.
Short term maybe? Short term forecast is not good enough.
Sacrifice some maidens I say.
Won’t improve forecast but it would be spectacular.
Was watching a silly movie last night and one of the doubters of the efficacy of the sacrifices’
was asked “where do you think the rains come from, clouds?”
Following on from cohenite’s comment….
‘the circumpolar jet streams to expand equatorwards. This lengthens their path and wavelength and reduces their velocity. Then they are more susceptible to blocking by continental high pressure systems.’
This appears to be happening now, in both hemispheres. It isn’t caused by AGW, but there is an outside chance it maybe related to ozone depletion…. which seems to be natural.
‘This explains why during the Maunder and Dalton minimums there did not seem to be a great reduction in average temperatures.’
In the depth of the LIA average temps fell no more than a couple of degrees in Europe, yet the impact was devastating. Cool wet summers and freezing winters are going to be more common over the next couple of decades.
Has there been any modelling done on this prospect?
I know its heretical to even think it, but our star appears to be directly responsible for our earthly weather.
“I know its heretical to even think it, but our star appears to be directly responsible for our earthly weather.”
Bite your tongue!
“It isn’t caused by AGW” – well for the southern hemisphere that is exactly NOT what the science says
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/01/130131144339.htm
Johnathan, my post was directed at Luke who told us research has now given us an understanding of ENSO. Well has it if they can’t predict that the rains will fill the dams?
Luke the southern hemisphere is normal, it hasn’t warmed, all the global warming is in fact northern hemisphere warming particularly in the arctic. Antarctica is cooling, it’s gaining more snow than it’s shedding, it’s ice extent is expanding.
You give a universal problem to a localized problem. So why is the Arctic warming?
‘well for the southern hemisphere that is exactly NOT what the science says’
You can appreciate my dilemma, I’m sceptical of what the science says. The physical reality indicates we are heading for a Dalton.
‘Britain’s freezing weather could continue until mid-April, with no sign of summer in sight and the temperatures set to dip to -3C over the coming days.’
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2298739/UK-weather-snow-travel-Forecasters-warn-wait-mid-April-bask-Spring-like-climes.html#ixzz2OaY0Mttc
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
“The physical reality indicates we’re heading for a Dalton.” WEALLY ! based on your arthritis ?
I would have thought you’d tell me it was “local” effect. and so quick to forget all those 2011 and 2012 heatwaves – don’t think you’re being a tad indulgent El Gordo?
http://sydney.edu.au/arts/history/postgrad_research/projects.shtml
No wonder academia is going to downhill.
What a waste of money…not much of any real value although some woud be OK… not many
…but then I reckon I would have half a chance of getting Phd in “Macrame and Barb Wire Knitting as Means of Curing the Recursive Fury of Sceptic Ideation”…….guffaw
So why is the Arctic warming?
NASA and Shindell have the answer:
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/shindell_06/
They say:
“We compared the climate model results to surface temperatures during the Little Ice Age. Since little thermometer data exists from that time, we relied upon indirect temperature information from tree rings, ice cores, corals, and historical records. Global average temperature changes are small in both the climate model and the data. Both also show that surface temperature changes associated with solar output changes exhibit alternating warm oceans and cold continents at Northern Hemisphere mid-latitudes (Figure 3). In the model, these occur primarily through a slowdown in the speed of westerly winds at the Earth’s surface. Greater heating by the Sun in the tropics relative to high latitudes causes an equator-to-pole flow of air, which is turned towards the east by the Earth’s rotation.
So a reduction in the amount of sunlight reaching the planet leads to a weaker equator-to-pole heating difference, and therefore slower winds. The effect on surface temperatures is particularly large in winter. Because the oceans are relatively warm during the winter due to their large heat storage, the diminished flow creates a cold-land/warm-ocean pattern (Figure 3) by reducing the transport of warm oceanic air to the continents, and vice-versa.
Changes in this wind flow have only a small impact on global temperatures as the warm and cold regions average out, but they have large regional effects. They also increase the frequency of extreme events, so that the modeled reduction in winds would lead to many more extremely cold days over Europe and eastern North America (which may stand out in the historical record).”
That is exactly what is happening in the Arctic and Northern Hemisphere today.
Yet on the abc this morning some scientist was confirming it had never happened before and must be due to AGW.
There’s your mechanism luke; the sun and liars are all you need to explain the current climate.
“Johnathan, my post was directed at Luke who told us research has now given us an understanding of ENSO. Well has it if they can’t predict that the rains will fill the dams?”
So understanding now = 10 out of 10 eh?
Well John aren’t just the right old twit. I told you ENSO provided knowledge on about 50% of the variation. I’ve told you for years that seasonal forecasts are only about 7 out of 10 things at best (unless it’s Jen’s laptop!). I told you that PDO/IPO is not predictable from year to year. And I told you that many forecasts predicted a big 2011 wet (no special points). Now are you being devious Johnny? Or don’t listen. Attention deficit?
“Luke the southern hemisphere is normal, THAT WHY ALL THESE ABNORMAL CIRCULATION PATTERNS ARE ABOUT !! it hasn’t warmed, all the global warming is in fact northern hemisphere warming particularly in the arctic. “NO ITS NOT
“Antarctica is cooling,” NO ITS NOT !
Central West Antarctica regionally is warming very rapidly. http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n2/full/ngeo1671.html
Radiosondes – “We speculate that the winter and spring mid-tropospheric warming may, in part, be driven by tropical ocean warming, analogous to proposed mechanisms for the co-located surface warming. The spring and summer lower stratospheric cooling is entirely consistent with the temperature response to ozone depletion.” http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2012JD017885/abstract
Synthesis of Antarctic temperatures http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI4236.1
“it’s gaining more snow than it’s shedding, it’s ice extent is expanding. ” AND THE EXPANSION IN SEA ICE IS SMALL % TREND WISE COMPARED TO THE AMAZING ARCTIC DECLINE. Climate models have not predicted rapid decline compared to the Arctic.
Did not your beloved Judith Curry say: http://blog.chron.com/sciguy/2012/09/does-the-expanding-antarctic-sea-ice-disprove-global-warming/
“It’s sort of a paradox. The paradox of why the Antarctic isn’t melting and the Arctic is has gotten a lot of attention, and it’s become one of the skeptics’ arguments. The climate models have generally matched the observations, so scientists have said that’s what the climate models predict, and people haven’t been too bothered by it. But trying to understand exactly what has been going on has not been intuitive. It’s not like there’s been a big debate in the climate community, or a lot of worry about this, because observations have agreed with the models. But that didn’t really explain anything. So in this paper we’ve tried to dig in and find out what really has been going on. http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/08/09/1003336107.abstract?sid=c5ec4bec-97f8-44ab-bad2-2a0131913164
What did you find?
The answer is tied up in a combination of natural variability and global warming. But the most important part of the story is it’s not so much the direct heating from above, but how the precipitation modulates the heating both from below and above. The explanation we’ve found doesn’t translate into a simple sound bite.
So give me a non-sound bite answer.
Sea ice can melt from both above and below, either heating from the ocean below or the atmosphere above. In the case of the Arctic most of the melting is driven from the warmer atmosphere above. In the Antarctic most of the melting has been driven from the ocean below. What our study has identified is that there’s been increased precipitation over the last few decades that has freshened the upper ocean, which makes it more stable so the heat below doesn’t make it up to the sea ice to melt it.
Freshens the upper ocean?
It decreases the saltiness. When you have a fresh layer on top that’s less dense it acts as a barrier to prevent the mixing of warmer water from below. It insulates the ice to some extent. We’ve also seen a big role of natural variability, over the past 30 years or so the dominant climate signal has been from the Antarctic Oscillation rather than from global warming. The net effect of all this has been an increase in precipitation, mostly snow. This diminishes the melting both from below and above. It stops the melting from above because snow has a higher albedo and reflects more sunlight.
At some point does this result in a net loss of ice rather than gains?
What happens in the 21st century projections is that the global warming signal begins to dominate. We still have the freshening of the upper ocean, but the upper ocean is getting warmer because of a warmer atmosphere. And the precipitation starts to fall more as rain than snow. Rain falling on ice speeds the melting from above.”
AND IT’S ALSO LOSING NETT MASS – A. Shepherd et al. A reconciled estimate of ice-sheet mass balance. Science, Vol. 338, November 30, 2012, p. 1183. doi:10.1126/science.1228102. And the Antarctic ice sheet overall is now losing more mass than it’s gaining, even though ice in East Antarctica grew slightly during the last decade.
Glacial edge erosion is increasing in many sectors. And if you had read the material on Antarctica in posts above and for years you would know that the ozone forcing, SAM and circumpolar vortex have been major drivers in this effectively walling off the interior..
But hey previously you lot have argued the error bars on GRACE are too large to say anything definitive. Now you want to accept them? Sheesh !
Speaking of things Antarctic
The increase in temperature and in carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration in the Antarctic
during the last deglaciation (20,000 to 10,000 years ago) happened simultaneously. These
are the conclusions of the analysis of five Antarctic ice cores by a European team led by
French researchers from CNRS, CEA, and Universités Versailles Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines
and Joseph Fourier – Grenoble. These findings contradict previous work, which showed
that CO2 increases lagged behind rises in Antarctic temperature. These results therefore
suggest that CO2 may be a possible cause for warming. They are published in the journal
Science dated March 1. http://www2.cnrs.fr/sites/en/fichier/cp_co2_temperature_anglais.pdf
I think the ‘tad indulgent’ belongs to the AGW celebs!
Whatever they based their loud, highly publicised predictions on appears to be as equally tenuos as someone’s arthritis.
luke says:
“These findings contradict previous work, which showed
that CO2 increases lagged behind rises in Antarctic temperature.”
I wondered when he would get around to this paper:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/339/6123/1060
Parrenin’s paper continues Shakum’s work which purported to show that CO2 levels moved first and temperature followed. Shakum is a terrible paper and has been demolished by Eschenbach:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/07/shakun-redux-master-tricksed-us-i-told-you-he-was-tricksy/
Shakum basically cherry-picked his data discontinuing his CO2 proxies about 6000 years ago when they showed an increase at the time temperature began its decline to the present. Willis had previously done a proxy by proxy analysis of Shakum’s data and found nothing to justify Shakum’s conclusion that CO2 preceded temperature when in fact most of the proxies ahowed temperature and CO2 going in opposite directions. This is confirmed by Lansner’s analysis:
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/CO2,Temperaturesandiceages-f.pdf
It is confirmed by what has happened during the 20thC:
http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Bastardi-CO2Temp.gif
And what has happening this century:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:2000/offset:-347/scale:0.008/trend/plot/rss/from:2000/trend
There is now a concerted attempt to rewrite history in respect of the temperature/CO2 lag which parallels Mann’s hockeystick.
As for Antarctic ice levels, a paper written under the auspices of NASA but which is no longer available at the NASA website:
Mass Gains of the Antarctic Ice Sheet Exceed Losses
Zwally, H. Jay; Li, Jun; Robbins, John; Saba, Jack L.; Yi, Donghui; Brenner, Anita; Bromwich, David
Abstract:
During 2003 to 2008, the mass gain of the Antarctic ice sheet from snow accumulation exceeded the mass loss from ice discharge by 49 Gt/yr (2.5% of input), as derived from ICESat laser measurements of elevation change. The net gain (86 Gt/yr) over the West Antarctic (WA) and East Antarctic ice sheets (WA and EA) is essentially unchanged from revised results for 1992 to 2001 from ERS radar altimetry.
Imbalances in individual drainage systems (DS) are large (-68% to +103% of input), as are temporal changes (-39% to +44%). The recent 90 Gt/yr loss from three DS (Pine Island, Thwaites-Smith, and Marie-Bryd Coast) of WA exceeds the earlier 61 Gt/yr loss, consistent with reports of accelerating ice flow and dynamic thinning. Similarly, the recent 24 Gt/yr loss from three DS in the Antarctic Peninsula (AP) is consistent with glacier accelerations following breakup of the Larsen B and other ice shelves. In contrast, net increases in the five other DS of WA and AP and three of the 16 DS in East Antarctica (EA) exceed the increased losses.
Alternate interpretations of the mass changes driven by accumulation variations are given using results from atmospheric-model re-analysis and a parameterization based on 5% change in accumulation per degree of observed surface temperature change. A slow increase in snowfall with climate warming, consistent with model predictions, may be offsetting increased dynamic losses.”
Fancy that, a paper which contradicts NASA’s findings, in fact is the opposite of NASA’s findings is no longer welcome at NASA!
Big melts and openings in Arctic waters post Napoleonic Wars and around WW1. Big refreeze late 19 century, and another one 1960-70s. There’s some sat records of the last, though no official record till 1979, of course. None of this was neat. The 19th century was up and down before the Arctic was really choked. The frustrated Nares expedition of 1875-6 encountered many ice-locked Greenlanders whose grandparents scooted about freely in their boats.
It’s no longer polite to talk of the MWP, or the GUS farm at the Western Settlement. Maybe a cunning creator put the evidence there shortly before the 1990s and the dawn of hipster history.
“Shakum is a terrible paper and has been demolished by Eschenbach:” if we only had a dollar for every time Cohenite uses this ruse.
“rewrite history ” – nonsense – betetr techniques are better techniques. Illustrates the rigidity of the faux sceptic brain. “rewite history” indeed.
Now he’s quoting out of date 2008 stuff too. Good grief.
Shakum has specific defects luke; don’t go the crazed weasel on this one; I haven’t read the Parrenin paper in full so will reserve my opinion; but recently, after Shakum there was this effort:
http://www.antarctica.gov.au/media/news/2012/new-research-closes-the-gap-between-warming-and-rising-carbon-dioxide
Joel Pedro from the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems CRC, in Hobart, who led the study, said:
““The ice cores reveal a near-synchronous temperature and carbon dioxide increase. If there was a lag at all then it was likely no more than 400 years,”
” near-synchronous”
Only now 400 years.
Eric Steig was impressed [don’t these names keep appearing]
Steig, who examined Pedro’s PhD thesis, said almost all previous work had provided uncertainties on the time lag between temperature and carbon dioxide in the order of many hundreds to even thousands of years. “I cannot emphasize enough how important this result is,” he said. “The authors collapse these values to something so short that it has major implications for our understanding of the carbon cycle and climate change.”
Wowza.
Luke, the Antarctic continent is twice the size of Australia, just because there may be warming in one area doesn’t necessarily suggest the whole continent is warming.
Like I said – there has been no warming in the southern hemisphere.
http://www.climate4you.com/images/MSU%20UAH%20TropicsAndExtratropicsMonthlyTempSince1979%20With37monthRunningAverage.gif
John – get some science and sense into ya – UAH doesn’t cover the poles – and the trend line in UAH is up. The 1979-2011 trend is up ! http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-blogs/climatechange/global-satellite-temperature-d/69263
Why don’t you read what you post? That site says:
“The areas with the greatest warming relative to normal were over North America, Greenland and southeastern Europe. The far southern hemisphere experienced more widespread below-normal temperatures.”
Isn’t that what I just said and showed?
‘…don’t think you’re being a tad indulgent El Gordo?’
No, cool wet summers and freezing winters over a decade is a clear indication that regional warming has stopped in the UK.
And I reckon northern hemisphere winters have been getting cooler since the end of last century, so for the denialati a mini ice age remains the null hypothesis.
BTW – 0.2C warming over 3 decades is hardly worth worrying about!
“The 1979-2011 trend is up !”
Noone denies that; good cogent reasons it as well; look at the McKitrick paper I linked to earlier; but this:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1979/offset:-347/scale:0.008/mean:12/plot/rss/from:1979/mean:12
How does that show AGW is the cause?
John Sayers
I suppose I should’ve used the “/sarc” tag? Never mind.
Jeez John – ““The areas with the greatest warming relative to normal were over North America, Greenland and southeastern Europe. The far southern hemisphere experienced more widespread below-normal temperatures.”” THAT WAS FOR A SINGLE MONTH ! WAKEY WAKEY Bottom figure /world map pullease
Cohenite “How does that show AGW is the cause?” I didn’t say it did
again from the lower map :
“Clearly, the greatest warming has taken place across the northern latitudes. The long term decadal trend is +0.133 C.”
0.13C/decade relates to 1.3 per century which is what has been predicted.
As I said – most of the warming is in the northern hemisphere – we’ve hardy changed!!
‘I didn’t say it did’
LOL
In other nooze… China’s climate is driven by a star.
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com.au/2013/03/new-paper-finds-sun-controlled-climate.html
March 2013 may turn out to be Europe’s coldest in 100 years.
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog
But anyway John Sayers – all sledging aside – I need to consult with you on a matter of importance
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itISFDcP7JU
oh yeah?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WoW_oXuKd_k
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/windpower/9949571/Its-payback-time-for-our-insane-energy-policy.html
The criminally incompetent scientific and political elites in both countries will be the downfall of us all.
Easter this year in the UK is looking like it will be the coldest in 100 years, and snow fall records are their highest…all the while UK energy stocks are now at their lowest level ever …probably less than 48 hours worth.
Meanwhile China and India are building coal fired power stations at a frenetic pace powered partly by coal we dig up and sell them …whilst all the while we are making it prohibitively expensive to do the same… meaning our own manufacturing industry… as in the UK, is shifting to China and India and on it goes.
Like I said the academic and political elites in this country are worst we have ever had, and the role of the many and various greeny NGO’s is outrageous.
“The criminally incompetent scientific and political elites in both countries will be the downfall of us all.”
“criminally incompetent scientific and political elites’
“criminally incompetent scientific and political elites”
well we know who the pollies are – care to list the Aussie scientific elites by whose criminal incompetence is causing all this (quite amazing when you’ve never had it so good)
So let’s get specific.
UK coldest – well that might come after US being very hot just a little while ago. Surely a “regional thingy” as you all say.
I thought manufacturing was leaving simply as Chinese and Indians will work for very low pay. Kind of basic isn’t it? But I guess some scientific elite must have set the pay rate.
Why is electricty going up – try privatisation and gold plating the infrastructure. As well as buying the aircons that the Chinese so nicely made for us.
But I guess that would be your scientific elite doing that.
Of course one set of countries having a price on carbon and others not, woudnt have anything to do with either.
Pricing our power out of the game, but selling the means for cheap power to our compeitors wouldnt have anything do with it either.
One group of countries being hamstrung by UN and EU moronic protocols and others not, wouldnt have anything to do with it… oh no never
One group of countries being under the the thrall of idiot greenoidal NGOs and others not, wouldnt have anything to do with it.
Go back to your cubby hole you dope…relax the public purse will look after you, as it always has, so you can indulge you unreal world delusions
Interesting letters between Nurse and Lawson but what’s the bet that the RS chicken out on this:
http://www.thegwpf.org/global-warming-policy-foundation-accepts-royal-society-offer-meeting/
“This is all insane in so many ways that one scarcely knows where to begin, except to point out that, even if our rulers somehow managed to subsidise firms into spending £100 billion on all those wind farms they dream of, they will still need enough new gas-fired power stations to provide back-up for all the times when the wind isn’t blowing, at the very time when the carbon tax will soon make it uneconomical for anyone to build them.”
From the article cited.
‘UK coldest – well that might come after US being very hot just a little while ago. Surely a “regional thingy” as you all say.’
Its ok, they have figured it out. AGW melted the Arctic ice which changed the jet stream in the northern hemisphere, creating unusually hot and cold weather.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/mar/25/frozen-spring-arctic-sea-ice-loss
…and the jet stream in the southern hemisphere is also misbehaving.
The Labor miracle:
http://www.indexmundi.com/commodities/?commodity=coal-australian&months=240
http://www.indexmundi.com/commodities/?commodity=iron-ore&months=240
Please note that all that coal is being burnt into the Chinese, Taiwanese, Japanese and Korean atmospheres – not ours! That would never be allowed by our Green Betters.
I won’t bore the bewildered with the level of government debt acquisition in recent years. Gav’s googling skills will help you there. Of course, with all the dough coming in, we’ve got super-fluffy Chinese insulation into some ceilings; something or other is being suh-stayned and there’s all this ej-uh-cay-shun about bullying and suh-stayning stuff; and within twenty years even Tony Windsor will be able to learn that Mona Swallows is following him on Twitter – at dazzling turn-of-the-century speeds.
Never had it so good. Labor and the Greens, I mean.
So Minsey is just have a big sooky tea party whinge you can’t even substantiate your argument! Good lord. What a waste of space.
If you bothered to read beyond your limited PS teat sucking mind set,you will learn from the articles presented that there is a serious energy problem in the UK that has its origins in what and how the shonkademics have mis represented the GW non crisis, to distort the economics and trade between those nations that are carbon taxed and those that are not.
Jobs and industries have been lost and people are paying hugely increased power costs all because the shonkademics including economists have been less than ethical and competent,and done so whilst in bed withe various NGO’s.
Of course there wont be one alarmist coming out with a breathless statement covering the number of deaths caused by the cold in Europe, related to energy shortages and high prices.
Oh no they wont do that… its not part of the mantra is it
….hypocrites
From the article:
Nothing better illustrates the insanity of the shambles our politicians have led us into than the fact that, just when we are closing down our coal-fired power stations in the hope of saving the planet, the Chinese are building 363 more of them, the Indians a further 455 and even the Germans another 20 – adding far more CO² to the world’s atmosphere every week than Britain puts out in a year.
The disaster we face is only made harder to bear by the realisation that experts were predicting it a decade ago, yet so lost were our politicians in their bubble of green make-believe that they were unable to listen.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2299607/What-planet-living-As-freezing-Britain-faces-grave-energy-crisis-ministers-unveil-green-gimmicks-eco-taxes-What-folly-says-CHRISTOPHER-BOOKER.html
‘Where ever you be let your wind blow free, for woe it was the death of me.’
CLIMATE commissioner Tim Flannery has dismissed concerns about possible health effects from wind farm noise, saying illness may be caused by stress or residents being “sick with envy” at not getting payment for turbines on their properties.
Speaking at a nurses’ forum yesterday about the relationship between climate change and health, Professor Flannery fended off a question from a regional Victorian nurse who said she supported wind energy but was seeing many patients with health problems attributed to a nearby wind farm.
Pia Akerman in the Oz
Luke its the jet stream causing the problem, not AGW.
‘The UK could face biting winds and flurries of snow for another month, as the cold conditions show no signs of relenting in time for the Easter weekend – and are predicted to stick around for much of April.
‘And the root of the delay in the Spring weather is a jet stream, a high altitude belt of wind, which normally brings milder weather.
‘The jet stream has been pushed to an unusually southerly location, and is currently flowing around the north of Africa.’
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2299812/UK-Weather-Forecast-Big-freeze-end-April-jet-stream-dips-Africa.html#ixzz2OmAwu2t7
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
The Economist recants, it now appears climate change is fairly insensitive to CO2.
http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21574461-climate-may-be-heating-up-less-response-greenhouse-gas-emissions
El Gordo – and why would you dimiss changing global circulation patterns? Just because you “don’t think so”. Sigh. AGW is much more than simply warming.
Can someone point me to an era of unchanging global circulation patterns? Less changing patterns? More slowly changing patterns?
Any time period will do. Trend or cherry pick.
Ball Park?
Anybody?
Luke says: AGW is much more than simply warming.
Que?
Ok – drop the A and we have “Global warming is much more than simple warming”.
Global warming is much more than warming.
Still Que?
What much more? Climate Weirding?
New Discovery: NASA Study Proves Carbon Dioxide Cools Atmosphere:
As NASA’s SABER team at Langley admits:
“This is a new frontier in the sun-Earth connection,” says associate principal investigator Martin Mlynczak, “and the data we’re collecting are unprecedented.”
Some diehard climate alarmists will still say that in the lower atmosphere the action of carbon dioxide is reversed, but there is no actual proof of this at all. PSI suggests it is time for the SABER team to have a word with James Hansen.
http://principia-scientific.org/supportnews/latest-news/163-new-discovery-nasa-study-proves-carbon-dioxide-cools-atmosphere.html
Robert does the ya can never know nuttin’ about nuttin’ defence coz something always happens somewhere in the universe. Probably the reasons Australopithecines became extinct.
sp illustrates why he’s just a slagger. Doesn’t understand anything ecept being led around the bull pen by his nose ring.
I just cracked a rib laughing
“NASA’s Langley Research Center has collated data proving that “greenhouse gases” actually block up to 95 percent of harmful solar rays from reaching our planet, thus reducing the heating impact of the sun. The data was collected by Sounding of the Atmosphere using Broadband Emission Radiometry, (or SABER). SABER monitors infrared emissions from Earth’s upper atmosphere, in particular from carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitric oxide (NO), two substances thought to be playing a key role in the energy balance of air above our planet’s surface.”
where do you get this junk sp – no references – no cites – a purely STUPID beyond STUPID above all STUPID misinterpretation of a good result. Are you actually that mental? Seriously? are you? This stuff is written by wack jobs.
You’re too silly to even know what you’re reading http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/sunearth/news/saber-solarstorm.html
My question:
“Can someone point me to an era of unchanging global circulation patterns? Less changing patterns? More slowly changing patterns?
Any time period will do. Trend or cherry pick.
Ball Park?
Anybody?”
Luke’s response:
“Robert does the ya can never know nuttin’ about nuttin’ defence coz something always happens somewhere in the universe. Probably the reasons Australopithecines became extinct.”
I’m taking that as a no. With the usual Luke flourishes.
OK Luke – what more is there about global warming than warming?
Sorry to butt in in support of Luke but he is right.
Theoretically there are other weather related aspects of global warming then
just simply going up a 10th of a C in temperature.
The question is of course, and so far no definitive answer given, how much of
a temperature change is needed to dramatically affect the weather?
Any temp change, sustained over any period, will BE a change of weather and bring other changes. Since very little is known about climate – obviously! – why try to dogmatise about the nature or extent of such things? If there is something you do not know…why then, you do not know it. It’s bad luck. Keep trying.
Just make sure you have a nice new coal power station, maybe like the 700C pilot plant they’re playing with in Gelsenkirchen Germany, trying to get over that 50% efficiency mark for a hard coal plant. How good would that be!
An energy and money rich Oz will have the dough to play with nukes and thorium. We’ll maybe have enough dough to cart away all those stupid whirlygigs, though the bases and wiring may be just too hard and expensive to junk.
If the weather gets warmer overall, like it’s done a few other times in the Holocene, we’ll keep cool. If there’s a dirty basaltic eruption like Laki, or some kind of deep solar minimum – or both at once! – we’ll stay toasty. For fun, we’ll blow up old wind turbines on New Cracker Night.
‘AGW is much more than simply warming.’
That’s classic.
Actually the Chinese are already building those “next generation”
supercritical high efficiency power plants.
I’m not at all worried about the climate changing because we had a piddling amount of
warming, that’s most likely natural anyway,
I merely remarked that Luke had a point, unproven as it is.
Sorry if I sounded snippy, JW. Reading a post by Luke with three STUPIDs, a “mental” and “whack jobs” can have that effect on me. You are of course, quite right, and Luke, like the proverbial stopped clock, was right once today. (Although the clock does it twice.)
I think the severe spring in Europe has the alarmists scrambling and consequently more aggressive than ever. Don’t know why. When Arctic ice thinned dramatically in 1817, it came after the Year Without a Summer, which followed Tambora. Then it got horribly wet. Temps soared in 1818, one of the hottest, longest and driest summers in the record. Then it all got too cold again!
If warmies were smart, instead of pretending none of this ever happened, they could say the same stuff is happening now…and look, ma, no Tambora!
That’ll work for a while. Not for long, but time enough for the shrewd ones to tippy-toe to the exits.
‘Then it got horribly wet. Temps soared in 1818, one of the hottest, longest and driest summers in the record. Then it all got too cold again!’
That’s the jet stream going awry, which may have been caused by the inactivity of the sun … Dalton Minimum. Tambora would have reduced temperatures even further, so we see this sharp drop in average temps.
The warmists need to convince us that this temperature plateau is only temporary and AGW will overcome natural variability.
The evidence suggests carbon dioxide is innocent of the charges laid against it and we might expect two decades of cooling.
Assuming that is the case, then there is no need for alarm.
‘The Association of British Travel Agents said 1.7million Britons will get away from the continuing cold by holidaying abroad this Easter.’
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2300268/The-great-Easter-getaway-begins-2million-jet-avoid-freezing-weather.html#ixzz2OpI3J5RZ
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
‘The Association of British Travel Agents said 1.7million Britons will get away from the continuing cold by holidaying abroad this Easter.’
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2300268/The-great-Easter-getaway-begins-2million-jet-avoid-freezing-weather.html#ixzz2OpI3J5RZ
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
oops…
This s a great Article summing up the subject.
http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21574461-climate-may-be-heating-up-less-response-greenhouse-gas-emissions
Myles Allen speaking on behalf of the Oxford Model School… just need a little more time, we know the heats there.
“I think it’s interesting because so many people think that recent years have been unexpectedly cool. In fact, what we found was that a few years around the turn of the millennium were slightly warmer than forecast, and that temperatures have now reverted to what we were predicting back in the 1990s.”
“Of course, we should expect fluctuations around the overall warming trend in global mean temperatures (and even more so in British weather!), but the success of these early forecasts suggests the basic understanding of human-induced climate change on which they were based is supported by subsequent observations.”
Source: Guardian
For those poor individuals who can’t fly away to warmer climes it can be quite depressing. Not to worry, help is at hand.
The Seasonal Affective Disorder (SAD) Association is being inundated by desperate people who are not coping too well and are losing faith in global warming.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/03/26/winter-depression-charity-inundated-with-calls_n_2955047.html
“The evidence suggests carbon dioxide is innocent of the charges laid against it and we might expect two decades of cooling.” If we had a dollar for every El Gordo prediction.
Cold weather in Europe – oh look “an event” Gee willies. Guys AGW is a long issue measured in decades and your’re discussing the weather – wow !
The global warming aspect of AGW is simply one general aspect of the issue. If increasing atmospheric CO2 changes the global energy balance one would expect quite complex behaviour of the planet’s climate system as that new energy is redistributed. Changes in circulation patterns are definitely likely. As all of that interacts with natural variability and maybe even nudges ENSO, PDO, AMO, IOD – why would you even be surprised?
Robert indulge me – if AGW was changing the Earth’s energy balance – do you think things might move around a tad? And how do you think you would research such a problem (for you – you’ll have to briefly bite your lip and assume it is actually happening – hurts doesn’t it). The answer is that this is a complex problem. Might need some science and not anecdotes? yes? No don’t even think about it – you’ll go blind.
Of course some of this is very old hat – cold air outbreaks in a greenhouse world – an example of counter-intuitive behaviour researched some time ago.
https://ams.confex.com/ams/87ANNUAL/techprogram/paper_117372.htm
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/joc.1301/abstract
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011AGUFM.A31K..04V
“If AGW was changing the Earth’s energy balance – do you think things might move around a tad?”
If anything was changing the Earth’s energy balance things would move round a tad. In fact, since the Earth’s energy balance is always changing things are always moving round a tad. This is obvious to most people. I’d be happy to see billions more spent on the study of such matters – but not one cent on the confection of more flimsy dogma via Publish-or-Perish, which would be better called Publish-Then-Perish, since you yourself are dismissive of work that is more than a few years old.
“And how do you think you would research such a problem?” If it was AGW? First I would not assume it on flimsy and largely emotional grounds (envy. collectivism etc). If confirmed, I would research it far more vigorously and act far more vigorously than our Green Betters. Remember, Luke, alarmists adhere to belief, but they do not believe. They adhere to faction and dogma, but they do not believe. This is apparent from the completely frivolous and impotent “solutions” which seem to satisfy them.
In spite of all the green cant and expensive fiddling, coal use is soaring globally and is currently overtaking oil. Along with hydro in Africa and Asia, I think that’s a great thing for the world’s economic balance and a great thing for Oz. I would want to see billions poured into improvements in efficiency and also into developing viable competitors to coal. Note the word “viable”. Efficiency, thrift and competition are essential to conservation, just as waste and impotence are necessary to the mass neurosis called Environmentalism.
Lastly, Luke, an anecdote is anything which runs counter to your dogma. You do not like references to past climate because you are like the obscurantists of the church who would not let a bible be translated let alone read by common folk. The past is “science” when you can use it as a vague reference point to for your script. Otherwise, it is “ancecdote” – preferably “cherry-picked”. Yet warmists are more than happy to “anecdotise” recent events, and they do it shamelessly and irrationally.
Stop posturing as a defender of science. Climate alarmism is a scientific as a cow in a paddock.
By the way, you are sharp with me, Luke, and I am sharp back. Please don’t take it personally. I like you and esteem you. But if I see your head in the climate ruck, I’ll kick it. But have a happy Easter.
Dodged Robert. You’d do well in politics to never answer a question.
Did I say I was against efficiency. Don’t be assumptive and verbal me now.
Things that matter – hmmm so you don’t water supply, resource planning, coping with drought matter?
Meanwhile back at the science – http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50382/abstract
ROFL
“The answer is that this is a complex problem.”
Are you talking about the known or unknown, unknowns here Luke?
That paper refers to more uncertainties but couples them with “certainties” of sparse, historic SST data.
“In the last decade about 30% of the warming has occurred below 700 m”.
I find it amazing they can claim that the oceans are warming when the atmo is cooling.
Maybe they mean the oceans are cooling slower?
That, I can understand.
When you link to so much uncertainty I wonder what point you actually make and what you have to ROFL about?
More importantly how is it possible to heat the ocean + 700 m down via co2 in the air
que?
.
luke links to Trenberth, who has found his missing heat: seminal quote:
“The warming below 700 m remains even when the Argo observing system is withdrawn although the trends are reduced. Sensitivity experiments illustrate that surface wind variability is largely responsible for the changing ocean heat vertical distribution.”
Yeah, that would be right; when the most sensitive measuring device, ARGO, is removed the heat disappears.
And that is a hell of a wind which transfer heat straight to the depths so quickly it has no impact on SST or OHC to 700 meters both of which are falling since 2003.
In respect of that transfer of heat Hansen had a problem with it and the EEB:
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/1031292.html
And here:
http://landshape.org/enm/rejoinder-to-geoff-davies-at-abc-unleashed/
As to the EEB; as Robert wittily said it changes all the time;
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009JD012105/abstract
Gee, how does that ‘balance’ with Hansen’s concern about aerosol measurement.
Still making it up; and I notice Trenberth’s paper where he admitted not knowing where the missing energy was has disappeared. What creeps.
Yep cohers, as Wunsch says:
“Today’s climate models will likely prove of little interest in 100 years. But adequately sampled, carefully calibrated, quality controlled, and archived data for key elements of the climate system will be useful indefinitely.”
http://www.pnas.org/content/110/12/4435.full
A pity our scientists at BoM, CSIRO, DCEE etc. didn’t think likewise.
Good article by Wunsch.
Happy Easter deniers, faux sceptics, right wing creeps and tea party devotees. Hope you’re not engaging in any pagan fertility rites with feral bunnies.
“More importantly how is it possible to heat the ocean + 700 m down via co2 in the air” hmmmm I wonder if its been going on for a while like – mmmm 100 or more years – does the ocean have any gyres or subduction. Must be absolute zero down there. ROFL.
Oceanographic drongos ! Are you guys that silly. Really?
In fact all this old news – it’s only being going on 45 years – wakey wakey
DETECTION OF ANTHROPOGENIC CLIMATE CHANGE IN THE WORLD’S OCEANS
Large-scale increases in the heat content of the world’s oceans have been observed to occur over the last 45 years. The horizontal and temporal character of these changes has been closely replicated by the state-of-the-art Parallel Climate Model (PCM) forced by observed and estimated anthropogenic gases. Application of optimal detection methodology shows that the model-produced signals are indistinguishable from the observations at the 0.05 confidence level. Further, the chances of either the anthropogenic or observed signals being produced by the PCM as a result of natural, internal forcing alone are less than 5%. This suggests that the observed ocean heat-content changes are consistent with those expected from anthropogenic forcing, which broadens the basis for claims that an anthropogenic signal has been detected in the global climate system. Additionally, the requirement that modeled ocean heat uptakes match observations puts a strong, new constraint on anthropogenically forced climate models. It is unknown if the current generation of climate models, other than the PCM, meet this constraint.
Science 13 April 2001:
Vol. 292 no. 5515 pp. 270-274
DOI:10.1126/science.1058304
“Today’s climate models will likely prove of little interest in 100 years” well hookey do Spanglers – dat’s coz they will make be better ones. Gee I wonder if any progress has been made – a duh ?!
In fact this quoting out of context is one of most pathetic aspects of turd-esque faux sceptic behaviour – he was making the case for long term observations beyond the political horizon – of course just what denialist creeps and tea party lovers would love to do – starve the science of data. http://www.pnas.org/content/110/12/4435.full
Too much Easter choccies guys – you’re tripping
Anyway time for some up-to-date material http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SE2y3YUdksQ and wait for the dubstep. J Sayers will dig it.
Of course they were on Letterman too http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0KL4bBiDCI0 – and not just once.
http://www.geo.utexas.edu/courses/387h/PAPERS/barnett.pdf
“I find it amazing they can claim that the oceans are warming when the atmo is cooling.”
pigs bum it is – http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/plot/rss/trend
unless you’re some crayon drawing faux sceptic of course
luke, hyperventilating in anticipation of Sunday’s sugar hit says:
“Must be absolute zero down there.”
http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2013/02/25/3696395.htm
“the state-of-the-art Parallel Climate Model (PCM)”
2001 version, pre-ARGO; that’s funny.
Another Luke problem is that he knows Easter like he knows oceanography.
You don’t wish people a “Happy Easter” until Sunday just as you don’t open your Easter eggs till then too.
You got your big sugar hit today like the spoilt kids who haven’t been taught to wait.
“pigs bum it is –”
Yaawwnn!
http://i.imgur.com/s19MOMd.jpg
But I’ll even cherry pick a bit for you and throw in the CO2 to show the correlation:
http://www.climate4you.com/images/GISP2%20TemperatureSince10700%20BP%20with%20CO2%20from%20EPICA%20DomeC.gif
And Luke, just remind us again about that improved weather forecasting…
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2013/3/29/met-office-or-bookies-office.html
Spanglers your GISP graph is being used fraudulently by you. What an old shonky honky tonks you are. http://hot-topic.co.nz/easterbrooks-wrong-again/ You’ve left the end of the graph off you shonk. Just more and more denier lies When will it end. Bullshit beyond belief. http://sciblogs.co.nz/hot-topic/tag/don-easterbrook/ Have another Easter egg.
Cohenite ducks and weaves and hope I don’t notice. It’s not about the model doofus – it’s record of heat sunk to depth over 45 years. You guys are just so fill of shit. And thanks for bringing up the Antarctic – let’s talk about the warming bottom water – http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2010GL046265/abstract gee how did the heat get down there. Oh diddums.
Spangled – seasonal forecasts are not weather forecasts. Truck me – this is like shooting fish in a barrel. Appalling standards. Put your Mum on.
The Meredith paper noting Antarctic deep water warming needs to be read in conjunction with the cooling at the surface and down to 700 meters. Upwelling variation is arguably what caused the 1976 CPCS:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0907.1650v3.pdf
See especially, Guilderson, T. P. & D. P. Schrag (1998), Mantua, N., S. Hare, Y. Zhang, J. Wallace, & R. Francis (1997), and McPhaden, M. J. & D. Zhang (2004).
That fits nicely; there is no deep water heat accumulation just variation in upwelling.
Why don’t you ask your chums, luke, to correlate SST, OHC to 700 meters against deep water heating to find the inverse relationship?
Luke, Don’t be so typically obtoose. I did expect even you to understand that my graph ended where yours started. And that still represents historical, long term, cooling.
And if you weather experts are now only up to three day reliability with all your computery, you should hang a little more sceptical.
Not that anybody knows – they’ll publish anyway! – but the current bet is that 90% of the earth’s volcanic action is underwater. Most of the known great trenches are in the Pacific, full of wriggly tectonic plates – not that you get to see ’em!
Recently, one mega-bore movie maker has at least taken the trouble to visit the bottom of the deepest trench, but, because the Marianas is the size of 120 Grand Canyons, he couldn’t do much. (I get about ten minutes into Titanic and about five into Avatar before I give up, but I reckon anybody who uses his own dough to check out the Challenger Deep is a bit of a hero.)
Of course, then there’s all that plasticky stuff under the watery stuff…under which is all that other stuff known as “most of the planet”.
If it all seems a bit daunting just chant the words “settled science” and you will retreat into a comfortable zombie-like state impervious to curiosity and uncertainty. If symptoms persist, just publish something.
Cohers, your paper on the ’76-’79 regime-shift puts it well. That shift was so pronounced that it materially affected the results of yachts racing under the International Offshore Rule and by being aware of what this shift entailed weather-wise and optimizing a yacht’s rating to take advantage of this shift, it was possible to clean up big-time at international events. After being berated by the designer for optimising in this way, the boat I was sailing in a world series in Hawaii went through the whole series without dropping a point. Won every race, line honours and handicap.
Naturally there are many factors involved but the rest of the fleet was set up for the traditionally stronger winds and I remember telling the designer back in 1979, “they ain’t gonna happen”.
SD, regardless of attempts to silence you with the charge of anecdotalism, I find your observations fascinating. It’s a pity more people in close touch with bush, land and ocean aren’t encouraged to detail their observations on actual climate change. In South Eastern Oz, of course, it has much to do with dominant winds and humidity, though you can expect a bloody good flood in the middle of drier phase dominated by westerlies, or a savage drought in a sappier phase with southerlies and nor’easters dominating (Dawes, Tench, Mackellar, Goyder, Kidman et al 1788-2013).
Around these parts, and much of eastern NSW, floods were forgotten between 1989 and the turn of the century. (It took till 2007 for a truly contrary pattern to set in.) I once talked to a Hunter hydrologist who told me they had the opposite problem right through the 70s: people, even hydrologists in his region, had stopped thinking about drought. Flood mitigation was the one big thing before 1980.
Those “anecdotal” fifty years of rain deficit after the Fed Drought…you’d think all that might qualify as “trend”. I do hope some expert predictors of eternal drought were rowing their boats to work in 1950. But we mustn’t be filling our heads with anecdotes of ocean racing – not now that we have our kiddie console of trends and mechanisms and forcings, good for at least five years with all parts replaceable.
Anyway, SD, so glad you those big wins in Hawaii. Even if you are a Queenslander.
Thanks Robert. The cyclone shift that also occurred “overnight” since then in our NOTW [NNSW-SEQ] would make most people realise that this wasn’t due to ACO2 or a progressive change. It was a defined step/shift.