Low tide, not global cooling.
[Photograph taken at Lammermoor Beach, Capricorn coast, recently]
Footer
About Me
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Read morePayPal
Low tide, not global cooling.
[Photograph taken at Lammermoor Beach, Capricorn coast, recently]
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Read more
Nice quote, Johnathan.
Quoting Sir William Thomson: “Accurate and minute measurement seems to the non-scientific imagination, a less lofty and dignified work than looking for something new. But nearly all the greatest discoveries of science have been but the rewards of accurate measurement and patient long-continued labour in the minute sifting of numerical results….”
Have you read Thomas Kuhn’s book ‘The Structure of Scientific Revolutions’? You would like it.
Another Tisdale goof
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2013/10/05/bob-tisdale-pisses-on-leg-claims-its-raining/
and a serious understanding of Australian political discourse
More delusional nonsense from that Newcastle rag.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/just_double_what/
BTW Luke what’s your definition of a climate criminal? Just that you seem to include so many on your list. So what’s the crime?
Neville and Luke,
Thanks for posting your links here.
Another good post from Bob Tisdale. The models can be out by a factor of 4 and they still think it’s okay.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/07/ipcc-still-delusional-about-carbon-dioxide/#more-95307
Judith Curry is correct the IPCC should be sacked and all countries should adapt and fund more R&D. Certainly we would have a much better return on investment.
Jen
“Have you read Thomas Kuhn’s book ‘The Structure of Scientific Revolutions’? You would like it.”
I have Jen, I’m a bit of a sucker for this kind of lit. + it helps in my work.
##————————————————————
Just for Luke
“Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to build bigger and better idiot-proof programs, and the Universe trying to produce bigger and better idiots. So far, the Universe is winning.” —Rich Cook
Johnathan,
As I see it AGW science fits Kuhn’s definition of normal science. In fact, perfectly.
Kuhn showed that every significant scientific development, including those associated with the names Copernicus, Newton, Lavoisier and Einstein, required the rejection, indeed the complete overthrow, of time-honored scientific theory in favor of another incompatible theory.
A second important point that Kuhn makes is that competition between segments of the scientific community is the only historical process that actually precipitates such revolutions.
AGW may be a dead-end: it may not be a time-honoured scientific theory with any merit. But it has a total monopoly and there is no competition.
Hey Luke, I read those Tisdale and Tamino posts and I don’t quite follow the big point that Tamino is making about the IPCC chart. He reckons that setting both the projections and the actual obs to start from 1990 is not correct, yet Tisdale posts that the IPCC originally scaled the projections to start from 1990.
As I read it, that graph was arranged to show how those projections appear if you set them to start from 1990. The range of the projections remains the same, it’s just ‘scaled’ so that it uses the same start point. In other words, the range in say 2015 or however far out it goes remains the same whether you use the full set of model runs or the scaled graphic, but as you come back to the starting point it’s ‘scaled’ in (ie, the range narrows proportionally back to a starting point).
It’s nothing to do with any offset or whatever Tamino says, surely? The idea was just to show how the projections trend out from a selected starting date, whether that were 1990 or 1995.
What Tamino seems to be doing is a sleight of hand post facto to completely change what the original projections indicated.
In any case, isn’t the real issue that the model projections show a steadily increasing trend which the obs don’t match? Sure, if the obs go back up and in 10 years we can see the trend is overall up, the models are vindicated. But the problem right now is that every year that passes with a trend at the bottom of the range of projections is another year in which the models are NOT vindicated.
Another curiosity is this graphic:
http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/earlylate1.jpg
I know this is anything more than an eyeballing look, but how come the 10 years or so around 1940 is fairly flat except for that one big spike in about 1945 and the trend line reflects that with the flattening off starting very early in that period (and actually dropping at the point of the big spike), yet the period from 1998 which shows an almost identical arrangement (just with slightly wider extremes) shows a constantly rising trend? That seems inconsistent.
A very good quick summary of the IPCC 5th report by Richard Lindzen.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/08/lindzen-understanding-the-ipcc-ar5-climate-assessment/#more-95335
Like Lomborg his summary is just plain common sense backed up by simple kindy maths and further supported by political reality.
We know this is the case because none of the warmists can produce any method of useful mitigation that would make a scrap of difference to climate or temp by 2100.
It can easily be shown that they have lost their grip on reality, but like all fanatics they blindly press on and further display their stupidity.
“Another good post from Bob Tisdale.” – who would know? He’s probably about to reblog and say he has stuffed his analysis again. The hallmark of free range feral “witchcraft” faux science so loved by goobers at Watts.
For a great scientist, Lindzen’s scrawlings at disinformation central i.e. wattsbunkdenierspeak is a puff piece full of nonsense – – Lindzen just glosses over half of the recent science. Just more rat dirt Neville. Pathetic that your ability to cut and paste this stuff isn’t backed up with any critical insight. You’ll just quote any old dross. Cut n paste Nev the paper boy.
So for the zillionth time the religious crank can’t answer simple questions about mitigation or why we’re all climate criminals?
He knows of course that the moment he tries to answer he’ll get himself into trouble, so he just abuses everyone and retreats to coward’s castle.
Prof Roger Jones tells Bolt OZ will change the temp by 0.004C by 2100 and Lomborg’s team have about the same result.
Europe is spending a trillion $ every 4 years to reduce warming by just 2 years by the turn of the century.
IOW the same temp in 2100 instead of 2098. Are you really that dumb that you can’t understand the mind boggling stupidity of these actions?
But tell us why we’re climate criminals, I mean I haven’t been called a crim before.
Neville – you’ve had specific cites on where your heroes have goofed and self admitted – it’s just pseudo-science graffiti. Don’t try and wiggle out of it. You’re pinned supporting unpublished silly people and you know it. Try not be spread bogus material eh? Stop misleading the readers.
Oh look skill measurements where there are said to be none. http://poama.bom.gov.au/poama_skill.shtml
Yes. There is a whole website about POAMA and how skilful it is, also many papers published on the same. But what do they tell you? Not much.
1. Do they explain whether POAMA can produce a forecast better than climatology/the long term average with any reliability? No.
2. Do they explain whether POAMA is better than the old statistical method at producing a seasonal forecast? No.
Basic questions.
Luke everything I’ve said in that last comment is correct. I repeat, are you really that dumb? If my Lomborg or Jones quote is wrong, then prove it.
You’ve had too easy a ride on this blog because you’re either too stupid or you haven’t the guts to admit you’re wrong.
How many more years will you hide and refuse to face up to these facts? And I’m still waiting for your C criminal definition.
What’s the crime and give us your version about how I could be forgiven? YUK YUK this should be good?
More idiocy and dishonesty from that Mann drongo.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/08/dr-michael-manns-dishonest-political-messaging/#more-95339
This is the type of delusional fool that has Luke’s support. Anyone rational person would cringe with embarrassment.
Jen – you obviously seem to have a problem with reading. are deliberately trying to obfuscate?
Can POAMA produce a forecast better than climatology YES YES YES YES !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Or perhaps you don’t anything about skill testing?
http://poama.bom.gov.au/poama_workshop/Eunpa_Lim_The_current_capability_of_POAMA_in_predicting_Australian_seasonal_climate.pdf
http://poama.bom.gov.au/poama_skill.shtml
Hand waving is not a quantitative argument and making pronouncements not backed up by analysis is simply rhetorical fluff.
My, he is embarrassing, that Dr. Mann. Like Boiling Oceans Jim, he can claim and distort what he likes and be sure of a respectful nod from the pensive classes.
Outrageous Photoshop aside, it’s amazing that the term “rising sea levels” has become a synonym for land subsidence, whether highly localised or a balancing from land uplift elsewhere due to glacial rebound (you know, that effect which makes “sea levels” drop in Stockholm). It’s also amazing that a two+ century old phenomenon, actual sea level rise, can be conflated with post 1980 climate alarms.
The lesson to be taken from Mann, Flannery, Gore, Pachauri, Hansen: never tell boring people they are suddenly sexy, or they will be all over everything like a cheap suit. Their attention-gluttony has no bounds…Now they have YouTube and Photoshop!
Neville – instead of dealing in dishonest pig slop from disinformation central – the home of those who retract their analyses in subsequent posts – try some real science on Mann’s topic.
PAGES 2k Consortium (2013) Continental-scale temperature variability during the past two millennia
“Past global climate changes had strong regional expression. To elucidate their spatio-temporal pattern, we reconstructed past temperatures for seven continental-scale regions during the past one to two millennia. The most coherent feature in nearly all of the regional temperature reconstructions is a long-term cooling trend, which ended late in the nineteenth century. At multi-decadal to centennial scales, temperature variability shows distinctly different regional patterns, with more similarity within each hemisphere than between them. There were no globally synchronous multi-decadal warm or cold intervals that define a worldwide Medieval Warm Period or Little Ice Age, but all reconstructions show generally cold conditions between ad 1580 and 1880, punctuated in some regions by warm decades during the eighteenth century. The transition to these colder conditions occurred earlier in the Arctic, Europe and Asia than in North America or the Southern Hemisphere regions. Recent warming reversed the long-term cooling; during the period ad 1971–2000, the area-weighted average reconstructed temperature was higher than any other time in nearly 1,400 years.”
Yeah. Luke. I know something about skills testing. The results suggest very little if any skill, and relative to what?
The modern climate scientists publishes a lot of junk, dressed up as science. And they get a tick and pay rise because the paper has been published and doesn’t contradict the consensus but rather adds to it.
But we want here is something in plain english, so those reading this blog can understand.
Can you tell us whether POAMA can reliably produce a forecast that is better than Elle McPherson with a pen and paper working out the long term average?
“The modern climate scientists publishes a lot of junk, dressed up as science.” is code for “I don’t understand”
So you want to do state of the art climate science and dress it up for kiddies eh? You’d like to gloss over the whole area of false skill and what constitutes a valid skill test?
http://poama.bom.gov.au/poama_workshop/Eunpa_Lim_The_current_capability_of_POAMA_in_predicting_Australian_seasonal_climate.pdf
Slides 4 & 5 – the Elle McPherson persistence test? Seems better than Elle to me. How’s a ANN go there?
Slides 8, 9, 10 and 11 – some serious spatial testing – how’s does an ANN go on those ?
http://poama.bom.gov.au/poama_skill/multiweek_raintemp.shtml Let’s check the ROC Relative operating characteristic graphs for various periods – analysis described in the heading – how does an ANN go on those?
Your comment about no skill testing with POAMA is puerile bunk ! More like the modern sceptic never produces any serious data.
They got a pay rise did they – more projection ! So what you’d like is them not to publish so you can claim a conspiracy. Adds to the consensus – how’s that? I didn’t see anything about adding to a consensus – I just saw an analysis for better or worse.
Geezzz Luke what a smokescreen. The IPCC think humans have caused 50% of temp increase since 1950, but we have been gradually warming since the end of the LIA.
There’s zip chance of much human warming before 1960 anyway and the rate of warming as shown since 1860 to 1880 and 1915 to about 1945 is the same as recent warming from 1977 to 1998. Just look at the graphs. Even Phil Jones agrees with this fact.
But answer my questions above without this red herring nonsense. What’s a C crim and how can I redeem myself?
Gradual warming since the LIA is meaningless anthropomorphism – “the Earth is recovering !” – no it doesn’t “recover” – there are either drivers or there are not. Recovery is just vacuous words of no meaning for simpletons.
And you are wrong that there is zip human warming before 1960 – more misunderstanding by you http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Climate_Change_Attribution.png
Again a very recent realclimate post has significant anthropogenic forcing at 1950 http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/10/the-evolution-of-radiative-forcing-bar-charts/
So you not even close to the basics.
How not be a climate crim – well try not yelling fraud continuously. It really is offensive and you wouldn’t say it to someone for real. You say fraud – I’ll say climate crim. But the main way to not be a climate crim is have the decency to get around a variety of sites and do some listening and reading. I do – probably 60% anti and 40% pro. If you did with a reasonable mind I don’t think you’d be as shrill. All you are doing Nev by happily reporting the daily denialosphere output aiming at tearing down any semblance of probity in science. It truly is barbarians at the gate. The mob. The madness of crowds. It’s just shoddy scurrilous stuff. Try some discrimination. Try an alternative position. Compare and contrast.
Hi Luke
Thanks for the link…
http://poama.bom.gov.au/poama_workshop/Eunpa_Lim_The_current_capability_of_POAMA_in_predicting_Australian_seasonal_climate.pdf
So, we can see from the analysis that there is some skill/some capacity to forecast ENSO and Nino.
I don’t dispute this. And well done.
But no attempt to forecast rainfall.
Thanks for the confirmation.
PS Forecasting the probability of above mean rainfall doesn’t count IMO… and anyway not very good even at that befuddle.
More than ENSO and IOD. http://poama.bom.gov.au/poama_skill/multiweek_raintemp.shtml gives you rainfall, max & min temp, all months or specific months and various analytical statistics.
Where’s your ANN equivalent?
And if any forecast system doesn’t do ENSO, IOD etc that it’s probably a crazy magic false skill thing and you’d be cynical as anything about its basis.
Well there will be more skill testing – but you’d have to ask them ! That’s “phone a friend”. They could do terciles.
What does count in your estimation BTW ?? and I’d love to see any serious statistics or better skill from another system.
Your comment about skill no better than Elle is rubbish (persistence). And so you done a major grand stand on no skill issue and it’s simply not true. You are now changing the goal posts. Unfair. And face it – you didn’t know did you and hadn’t even looked. Shoddy Jen. I shouldn’t be doing your homework.
BTW to forecast rainfall they often use a Nino index and don’t downscale directly out of the GCM. You do need to know the details of exactly what. And it needs to be POAMA 2.4 or later not 1.5
And if you are perceptive you’ll notice trends in many of your baseline indicators? DO you have concerns about that? You know a bit of the olde climate change !! 🙂
Somehow I feel we’ve been over this before. Deja vu??
Luke,
I think you’re being waaaaay toooooo over defensive & consequently completely missing the point.
No one has claimed other methods are better. . . . Sheeeeesh!. . . .the point is that so far, very obviously, neither are the outputs from the GCMs.
As I said at the other thread. . . . People like me would very much like it if they were. You could add all the other industries & businesses that have to tackle the vagaries of weather/climate/enviroment 24/7356+1/4.
And you’re right. . . . Definitely Deja vu. . . but clearly from opposing perspectives.
Your ‘simpleton’ & ‘kiddies’ comments are starting to wear extremely thin. It makes you appear as an insufferable snob.
Sorry. . . a bit harsh. . . . I know. . . but it’s getting boring.
Debbie – I’m not being defensive – I’m attacking/prosecuting an argument on a fundamental point. Jen said that BoM has no skill with its GCM. Sorry wrong. And yes also Jen has indeed claimed other methods are better.
Now tell me Debs would normally take Jen’s word for it or do some investigation yourself. This is how hard it is – you get Google and type the words POAMA 2.4 skill assessment
It’s that hard Debs ! It’s supposed to be an evidence based blog discussion. Requires some facts. Given the text based nature of the forum, that either your own words or links to other people’s articles, figures or photos.
Now you might say “well I don’t find the level of skill useful” or “the false alarm rate is too high”, “the lead time isn’t long enough” or “the type of analysis isn’t what I want e.g., I want terciles, quintiles instead of exceeding the median”. All fair enough – but surely you need to base them on something. Some reasonable factual comparison. Not broad sweeping statements and hand waving.
Luke,
I am a farmer. I don’t take anyone’s word as gospel re weather/climate/environment. That would be financial suicide.
I repeat. . . . people like me would love it if predictions became more skilful and therefore more applicable in practice.
The level of improvement simply doesn’t match the hand waving and rhetorical spin.
Luke I’ve always called mitigation of AGW a con and fraudulent nonsense, because that’s just what it is.
Just because you can’t understand simple maths doesn’t prevent the rest of us doing so. You’ve lost all grip on reality so I don’t know why I bother responding.
Just leave you with this little gem. In the last 20 years OZ has increased exports of coal by 80% and Indonesia has gone from zip to close to our exports in the same time. Does that help you understand my argument? Wake up you silly fool.
Neville you’ve simply swallowed the whole denialist meme. It doesn’t make sense without a global deal. Perverse outcomes need to be legislated out e.g. biofuels from clearing rainforest. Who starts. What’s the technology solution. But I tell you what – you get a drying sub-tropics and the cost-benefit seesaw will be massive. You have no idea about risk. How’s your Mandarin as if it bites that’s what you’ll be speaking.
Meanwhile I enjoy the daily destruction of Watts try-ons and arrant rubbish. http://blog.hotwhopper.com/
So much junk to kick into orbit – it’s like shooting fish in a barrel.
“The level of improvement simply doesn’t match the hand waving and rhetorical spin.” Debbie you have never once made a quantitative argument since you’ve been here. You simply wouldn’t know. Face it – all you do is leaf over this stuff – you’re not seriously engaged – it shows.
Meanwhile saying BoM’s POAMA has no skill – Elle level – is simply untrue. Do you support spreading of untruths? Or look for some more precision in discussion? (on this evidence based blog)
Debbie
There is NO evidence that there has been any improvement in the seasonal forecasts. I repeat no evidence for any improvement.
Luke has provided none, but claims he has, by linking to a Powerpoint Presentation that doesn’t even show a rainfall forecsast… it appears to, but its slight-of-hand… it shows some probabilities of exceedance of a mean value.
A whole new system was introduced this year by BOM for forecasting seasonal rainfall, but I can’t find the peer-reviewed paper/or even a report that demonstrates that the new system has more skill than the old. I’ve been looking, and I’ve made phone calls and sent off emails for the same… going back a few months.
They introduced the new system, as far as I can see, because it represents the new paradigm and it is where the investment in time and money has been made over the last decade. But no evidence we have a more skilful or reliable method for rainfall forecasting in the medium to longer term.
And Jen has done nothing but hand wave ! Evidence on this so-called evidence based blog = 0.0
Jen’s now goal post shifting. First there was no evidence of skill. Now the goal posts have moved, given that’s pillar has been smashed.
Sleight of hand – what a try-on. Talk about projection.
I suspect whatever is produced the goal posts will keep moving. Jen’s just into a bit of BoM bashing to fit in with the whole AGW bashing meme. It’s pretty transparent.
And she’s still stuck on probabilities of exceedance PPT blatantly ignoring my twice cited other reference.
Well given Jen knows what the answer is – I look forward to her web site with great predictions of the current drought.
This year the rain stopped round here after autumn and hasn’t resumed. The wetter than average conditions which have been in every monthly outlook from the BoM (since May for 3 months ahead) have not eventuated. It’s all been the opposite. (Tassie’s dry outlook, to be fair, sure didn’t eventuate either, so swings and roundabouts…)
Fortunately BoM just switched to “drier outlook” for our region, so there’s a fifty percent chance they’ll be wrong about that 45-55% percent chance. I’m 97% sure this is the case…and the other 3% is there just for dramatic realism.
The real doozie this year has been the winter/spring temp outlook for Oz. You could have just about reversed it all and been on the money. But I’m sure there’s a great system for proving the outlook system is working well. They always get those system-applauding systems right. The rest, not so much.
And I totally do really mean that…97% guaranteed! (That’s with a 45-55% probability).
Luke we all know who the denier is on this blog. You’ve been denying the evidence against AGW mitigation for years, so why should we bother with you?
I don’t deny some AGW but it’s probably up to 1C by 2100, plus little change for extreme events , SLR little difference than last 100 years etc.
If you’re so sure about mitigation success then give a detailed asessment on the delivery of it. And I mean detailed, plus tell us how long before this contribution has an impact on climate and temp.
IOW how many thousand years do we have to wait before we start to observe a drop in temp and how long before we observe a decline in co2. Bt remember the enormous increase in coal, iron ore and gas exports to come in the next 10, 20, 30+ years.
Starting to see your problem yet and starting to wake up yet?
Jen, you need Univac:
Neville – so let’s take atmospheric CO2 to 750 ppm. Smart thinking Neville. Let’s just go unrestrained.
Every half hour the ABC give the current temperature as per the BoM data and then state it is normal or xc above/below normal.
How do they arrive at that?
Do the BoM have records for every half hour for each capital city going back a century or so or do they generate those averages by computer?
They don’t seem to use temperature data for the last ~ 30 years for calculating averages but I would suspect that it is only within that period that they have half-hourly data to average off.
What would be their next move then, I wonder? ☺
Pathetic Luke, but just as I expected. You’re hopeless and clueless, so hows your mandarin? How do you propose to change the Chinese and Indians from their march to modernity and all the new co2 emissions that will produce.
You’re a fool Luke and you’ve certainly lost a grip on reality big time.
How’s your Mandarin and Hindi? You’ll be speaking it soon enough. Neville – if you had cancer you’d abuse your oncologist. Helpful !
How many ppm do you want to stabilise at? Don’t be all worried about decreases. Pump it in and you’re stuck with it for a long time. You’d just like to let it rip!
Yes SD.
I have been in Sydney since Tuesday and the hand waving over today’s weather here is astounding!
I was right in the heart of the city around 1pm and could only say that it was warm and pleasant with light cloud cover and a warm breeze. . . Had a nice cup of coffee al fresco in the very pleasant weather. 🙂
Now in North Sydney and it’s much the same.
Luke. . . What goal posts? I have no idea what you think you’re arguing at present.
Seriously. . . I think you have missed the point.
Despite your repeated assertions. . . I am definitely interested in any useful & practical improvements in seasonal forecasting. . . and very much engaged re its application in the NRM space. . . and why I am in Sydney this week.
Robert’s comments on the winter/spring outlooks are valid. Even the 7 day forecasts for rainfall, wind & temp have not gone well lately . . There are areas that are about to be drought declared that were told they were going to have an above average season.
In our patch we have ‘imbalanced’ storages which has partly occured because of reliance on forecasting. . . and the list of poor outcomes right accross this ‘forecasting’ space is rather long.
All the way down to the fizzer in Sydney today 🙂
So as a risk management tool. . . . It has a rather long way to go.
“that were told they were going to have an above average season” no they weren’t !
““that were told they were going to have an above average season” no they weren’t !”
You haven’t been paying attention Luke.
The SOI has been on the positive side of the line all year and for the first half BoM were spruiking above average rainfall as we moved into drought.
Oh! The irony! Not to mention the agony.
Like the old aboriginal rainmaker I was apprenticed to as a kid, ya gotta think positive.
It’ll rain one day.
Debbie, we had a hot day forecast today but it was 15-25c and Brisbane 28c but a hottie tomorrow.
Nir Shaviv on the IPCC AR5
“Now, have you noticed something strange? According to the AR4 report, the “likely equilibrium range of sensitivity” was 2.0 to 4.5°C per CO2 doubling. According to the newer AR5 report, it is 1.5 to 4.5°C, i.e., the likely equilibrium sensitivity is now known less accurately. But they write: “This assessment reflects improved understanding”. How ridiculous can you be?”
http://motls.blogspot.com.au/2013/10/nir-shaviv-ipcc-ar5-first-impressions.html
We had 35 today, the forecast chucked in an extra 5 degrees for Davy. BTW, how does Obs Hill manage hotter temps than inland Sydney? Weird.
Anyway, no good rain in the coming fortnight and the bamboo’s cancelled for the year (again). Trying to stay grateful for those great springs from ’07 to ’11. Too good to last. Probably get a bloody flood when it’s too late for shooting.
Whinge, whinge…
(Whinge.)
What do you think they were told Luke?
I listen to the people from BoM via their reports on ABC radio and read their website & forecasts every week. . . Including mid term & long term forecasting. By Autumn. . . There was a high level of confidence that winter & spring would deliver above average rainfall in the eastern states.
Debbie – you are never told “anything” definitively. So how about you stop talking drivel. a 70:30 probability forecast is EXACTLY that. Previous performance would have put 70 years in 100 as going one way and 30 years in 100 going the other. That’s what it is. Play the game for 100 years and that’s the way the numbers fall but not in every year time after time.
You don’t understand this – few people do. That’s why they should withdraw the service and let you flip coins or go by your arthritis. The problem is your R&D corps are enthusiastic http://www.grdc.com.au/~/media/8C04B17EEA1E4FBE9FC61A7E08F09A10.ashx Of coruse Jen would like to take you away from knowledge of climate drivers back to black box forecasts used to play the stock market.
So in any year with such a forecast there are no 100% guarantees of anything. Tell you what – if anyone had something that good (100% sure) they wouldn’t be talking to you. You’d be off in the most lucrative business of all time playing global futures.
Try tuning in and listening to the message. Maybe get yourself on a course ! If you had more nous you’d also be asking about the skill maps that also go along with the forecasts. http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/ahead/rain_ahead.shtml#tabs=Outlook-accuracy
But you never do. You’re not really interested in anything except spoon feeding.
And if you decide after having things explained to you that its not useful – well tell your R&D body to cancel funding the service and don’t use the product. Will spare a whole generation of clever people employed to work their butts of for you wasting their time. Let them go make some money on the free for all libertarian tea party new economy.
Luke, why don’t you stop trying to tell adults how to suck eggs.
Debbie is way ahead of you.
The BoM tells us what they believe and we’re smart enough to know how and why they believe it but we remain sceptical and act accordingly.
When, as a farmer, you’re fed this stuff several times a day and you have to put your money and life’s work on the line on a daily basis, you become either very savvy or you fail.
When you’ve been in a similar position please let us know so we can take notice of your sage advice.
No Luke,
for a start it began as 80% confidence of ABOVE AVERAGE and that does not then default directly to 20% likelihood of drought conditions. . . The 30% or 20% does NOT mean a 20% or 30% chance of the OPPOSITE extreme. It would first default to AVERAGE.. . wouldn’t it?
And industry invests in R&D because we would like this work to improve and become more useful. We all want that. The solution is not to cut off funding. . .what a complete load of nonsense. . . But it is also nonsense to pretend that skill has radically improved. . . in seasonal forecasting. . . it hasn’t.
My point remains there is a long way to go before we could say that forecasting is a useful & practical risk management tool for those of us who live with the vagaries of climate/weather/environment 24/7.
Debbie (and SD) – errr no. Confidence isn’t even the correct word. You’re just clueless. I suggest you (a) ignore all seasonal forecast material from BoM (b) ask your R&D corp to stop investing any funding.
“It would first default to AVERAGE.. . wouldn’t it?” not really ! Clueless. Even your words “default”? shows you has some confected notion as to what is going on
You think skill has not improved as you keep dealing with sample sizes of one. You make no attempt to seriously understand what you are using.
I’d simply give up and flip coins if I was you. You’re wasting your time.
(if 80% are above average – it DOES mean 20% are below average – on a single flip of the coin – nothing defaults to “something”
– i.e. one season you learn nothing – you’d need about 10 years data to be able to declare any system is useless)
– sorry too fast typing – on a single flip of the coin, a seasonal forecast, – it can come up in the 20% the first time. Just because it’s the first outing means NOTHING. Probability doesn’t give a damn.
But as I said Debs – give up – by now it’s clear your lack of understanding of what is being offered and unwillingness to investigate is more likely to be a hindrance to your life than a help.
Personally I wonder if BoM should be letting their material go out without people being trained. But hey everyone would jack up about that too.
Stadium waves…
http://judithcurry.com/2013/10/10/the-stadium-wave/#more-13302
Curry will live or die professionally by this paper. Her co-author also suggests that their analysis shows little effect from CO2. But that’s an off the cuff, they are at pains to note this is an analysis of natural variability driving the system and says nothing about AGW…
Rubbish Luke,
You’re picking at terminology and missing the point.
You now appear to be arguing that nobody understands. . . well whose responsibilty is that?
What makes you think that people like me are incapable of understanding probabilities and incapable of assessing the practical application of this work?
And seriously. . . Your explanation of 80% 20% in climate forecasting is nonsense. . . of course there needs to be some weighting to average. . . and NOTHING is a sample size of one. . . Sheesh! I’m sure even Elle with the pencil knows that.
The whole point of using super computer power is to enable much larger sampling and hopefully higher skill.
The BoM predicted 36c in Brisbane today. After it reached 31.7c at 10.39am and a sea breeze came in, I said ” that’s it, no 36c”, but BoM then revised it to 34c but it is now 30.8c and the max still 31.7c.
They were wrong in Sydney yesterday and it is interesting they always seem to want to over-predict warming and propagandise everyone.
The BoM is a tool that you use but don’t stake your bacon on.
BTW, Luke, could this be LIA rebound:
http://lasp.colorado.edu/lisird/tsi/historical_tsi.html
Sorry, I meant recovery.
BTW, ain’t it mawvlus how them asylum seekers have reduced when everyone said it couldn’t happen.
Wonder what caused it?
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/policy/people-smugglers-targeted-in-joint-crackdown-by-australian-indonesian-authorities/story-fn9hm1gu-1226738304026
I found out one advantage of all that hype over the heat (that wasn’t so hot) in Sydney yesterday SD.
My nephew works part time at Dan Murphy’s to supplement his income while he is studying at Sydney University. When he got home last night he said they sold out of beer…because everyone thought it would be so hot.
So there you go…all that heat publicity increased beer sales!!!!
BTW…I was back in the centre of the city this morning…and it was bloody freezing and squally and pretty ordinary. 🙂
Yesterday was a much more pleasant spring day.
“of course there needs to be some weighting to average.” huh? what drivel
Each forecast at a point in the season is one sample. One throw of the dice.
“The whole point of using super computer power is to enable much larger sampling ” not really
The point is to simulate climate processes more completely and with physics not statistics and at high resolution.
SD – LIA “recovery speak” is anthropomorphic nonsense.
“LIA “recovery speak” is anthropomorphic nonsense.”
Luke, I just love pulling your chain on this. Particularly when you are so obtoose.
To “recover” can mean many things but in this case it just describes a fluctuation from warm in the MWP, to cool in the LIA, back to warm in the CWP.
It’s sibyl, simple. A “recovery” to a previous situation.
Well you got me to flush. There is no mean state to recover to. It’s all just clockwork.
“There is no mean state to recover to. It’s all just clockwork.”
But it’s roller coaster clockwork, and it is trying to recover even if it’s not there yet:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/noaa_gisp2_icecore_anim_hi-def3.gif
SD what bullshit – pure bull – http://hot-topic.co.nz/easterbrooks-wrong-again/
The old GISP ruse.
http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/10/wondering-willis-eschenbachs.html
Hey Neville – you’d never press clip this one. Willis takes on Spencer. And you wonder why we just laugh at these clowns. How about another mindless Willis press clipping Nev. Just parrot us some more drivel. Hahahahahahaha
Spencer roasts Willis – and it’s what I’m been telling you all along Neville. I think I’ve cracked a rib laughing so much.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/10/willisgate-take-2/
“But in Willis’ case, as far as I can remember, he has not revealed anything that we did not already know”
You’d better read it Neville, as it goes to the heart of what I’ve been telling you years about your uncritical spreading of rubbish. Learn the lesson mate !
“as it goes to the heart of what I’ve been telling you years about your uncritical spreading of rubbish.”
No it doesn’t – it goes to the question “the science is settled”
Willis is challenging and discussing the science and has a right to do so.
Spencer isn’t putting him down – he’s just offering HIS view, which is also acceptable.
All you’ve offered is gratuitous putdowns like the first line in my reply.
Plenty of positive discussion about Curry and Wyatt’s stadium wave hypothesis. It seems to have been eagerly taken up by sceptics, giving as it does a strong role to natural variability in recent warming and ‘the pause’. Nothing from Tamino yet, has anyone seen anything from the pro-agw crowd on this paper?
Pure nonsense Luke, but who would have expected anything better from you. Roy and Willis can have a disagreement on the science every day of the week as far as I’m concerned.
I read this days ago and I think Willis is probably correct on this ocassion, but let’s hope there’s more to come and I’m sure there will be. Perhaps Roy can find his sources and link to them, who knows?
But how is your super mitigation fraud and con going Lukey? Starting to wake up yet are you? The tonnages of iron ore, coal and gas etc just prove what lies, hypocrisy and corruption your side has been peddling for decades.
But I suppose you have to give the Greens 10 out of 10 for their consistent barking, delusional madness about fossil fuels for the last 30 years.
Labor yaps on about OZ’s flea-bite FF use at home but loves the revenue it brings via ever increasing exports. What barking mad super HIPPOS they are, right up there will big HIPPO Al.
That’s NOAA data Luke.
The only bullshit in that lot is Mann’s hockey stick.
So you really are in denial about long term natural variation [even in the Holocene] which has been warmer and colder than present.
And what Willis is doing is putting an unsolvable problem out there for the average joe to understand and risking criticism from experts.
The world needs more Willises.
What a bunch of ropa-dopes. Sucked in every day with utter drivel from Tisdale and Wills. And now Spencer has exposed it. Just bunkum for reactionary old codgers. You love it. And all you are doing is increasing Watts traffic profitability and he’s enlisted you to do it – hahahahahahahaha
And SD caught in the open running the old GISP core scam. More parroting of rot.
Neville barking mad himself pushing this noxious anti-science crap. Can’t wait to cut and paste the latest nonsense with no duty of care. and the fraudulent little climate crook tries to lay smoke on Al Gore, Labor and the Greens. Let’s not chase the rabbit – let’s talk about Roy’s exposure of this chicanery. Address the level of reeking fish heads in your own material mate.
Luke your level of delusion is beyond belief. Everything you’ve stated about the mitigation fraud and con is easily exposed by using kindy maths but you’re too stupid to even exhibit any shame.
Please don’t blame us for your stupidity and inability to understand simple logic and reason. Please just go and enrole in a course to help you gain at least a 5 year olds understanding on these matters.
Perhaps we should just give you the world’s past tonnages of FF use and an average of the projections until mid century?
But even then you’d be too dumb to understand. Start by reading Lomborg’s “Cool It”. But most of us understand that OZ’s 5% reduction of 1.2% by 2020 is the biggest con and fraud in living memory.
More on Labor’s fraudulent NBN. Don’t bother reading this Luke, you wouldn’t understand.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/overly_ambitious_actually_means_bat_crazy_impractical/#commentsmore
Even that moron Conroy now admits some of the lunacy. What a clueless mob of dummies they were, but bat crazy is a good description.
OK Luke, tell us in your own words what your interpretation of the natural temperature variation in recent geological history is.
Curious how NOAA GISP agrees with NOAA Vostok and no one other than you denies it is a valid replication of our historical temperatures.
Stop shouting and give us some wise thoughts.
I’ve never thought that Willis was much more than an entertainer, often in a good way. It’s a bit like Judith Curry, essentially a warmist but a brinkswoman who is popular with the “other side”, able to advance her notoriety by not saying much at all (the “stadium wave”?), and sharing her fascination with new jargon and intellectual fashions. These people are interesting, provocative characters. Since nobody knows much about climate (duh), we may as well talk about something, right?
To compare such interesting characters to Boiling Oceans Hansen, Million Degree Gore, and Timmy of the Many Armageddons is hopelessly out of proportion.
Neville, accountability and responsibility just do not rate any more. Wet-bed, watery-eyed and well-intentioned is all the go now.
Western Civilisation has to lie down and be trampled on:
Dear Mr Cameron,
I’m planning to move my family and extended family to Pakistan for my health and I would like to ask you to assist me with this.
We’re planning to simply fly from Britain to Pakistan and we’ll need your help to make a few arrangements.
We plan to skip all of the legal stuff like visas, passports, immigration quotas and laws.
I’m sure they handle those things in the same way you do here. So, would you mind telling your buddy, President Asif Ali Zardari, that I’m on my way over?
Please let him know that I will be expecting the following:
1. Free medical care for my entire family.
2. English-speaking government bureaucrats for all services I might need, whether I use them or not.
3. All Pakistani Government forms must be printed in English.
4. I want my grandkids to be taught Urdu by English speaking (bi-lingual) teachers.
5. Tell their schools they need to include classes on British culture and history.
6. I want my grandkids to see the British flag on one of the flag poles at their school.
7. Please plan to feed my grandkids at school for both breakfast (Bacon & Eggs) and lunch.
8. I will need a local Pakistani driver’s license so I can get easy access to government services.
9. I do plan to get a car and drive in Pakistan, but I don’t plan to purchase car insurance, and I probably won’t make any special effort to learn local traffic laws.
10. In case one of the Pakistani police officers does not get the memo from President Zardari to leave me alone, please be sure that every patrol car has at least one English-speaking officer.
11. I plan to fly the British flag from my housetop, put British Flag decals on my car, and have a gigantic celebration on December 25th. I do not want any complaints or negative comments from the locals.
12. I would also like to have a nice job without paying any taxes, or have any labour or tax laws enforced on any business I may start.
13. Please have President Zardari tell all of the Pakistani people to be extremely nice and never say critical things about me or my family, or about the strain we might place on their economy.
14. I want to receive free food stamps.
15. Naturally, I’ll expect free rent subsidies.
16. I’ll need income tax credits so that although I won’t pay Pakistani taxes, I’ll receive money from the government.
17. Please arrange it so that the Pakistan Government pays me £4,500.00 to help me buy a new car.
18. Oh yes, I almost forgot, please enrol me free into the Pakistan Social Security program so that I’ll get a monthly pension cheque in retirement.
I know this is an easy request because you already do all these things for all of his people who fly to Britain from Pakistan. I am sure that President Zardari won’t mind returning the favour if you ask him nicely.
Thank you so much for your kind help
Just twittery – Spangled – bogus comparison, shonky graphics – and the great comment from Richard Alley
“Whether temperatures have been warmer or colder in the past is largely irrelevant to the impacts of the ongoing warming. If you don’t care about humans and the other species here, global warming may not be all that important; nature has caused warmer and colder times in the past, and life survived. But, those warmer and colder times did not come when there were almost seven billion people living as we do. The best science says that if our warming becomes large, its influences on us will be primarily negative, and the temperature of the Holocene or the Cretaceous has no bearing on that. Furthermore, the existence of warmer and colder times in the past does not remove our fingerprints from the current warming, any more than the existence of natural fires would remove an arsonist’s fingerprints from a can of flammable liquid. If anything, nature has been pushing to cool the climate over the last few decades, but warming has occurred.”
So much for “recovery”
“So much for “recovery””
Yes Luke you are in denial. Those fluctuations above and below current temperatures are [as you finally admit] a FACT!
We all know that our 7 bil are causing warming but if we can’t tell how much of the current warming is due to ACO2 and the recovery is still within those fluctuations then that ACO2 effect cannot be known. It may even be negative. Not likely but quite possible.
I’ve never gone all in with “It’s the sun, stupid” since we know so little about most of the earth (which is hot and active) and other things which may affect climate in a big way. But it’s sobering just to stare at a map like this, even if you take reconstructions with a grain of salt. While more warming or shock cooling from a Laki style eruption would sure pose a prob or two, I’d hate to be living in an under-powered world if we took a step back to late 17th century conditions. China, especially, gets very dry in cold times, and the world relies on Canadian cropping far more than it realises.
http://lasp.colorado.edu/lisird/tsi/historical_tsi.html
In those conditions, Greek and Italian volcanoes didn’t put many smiles on 17th century dials.
Like most bad stuff, it hasn’t happened yet, and coolists tend to be as religious and unreliable as warmists in these matters. But I do wonder if there aren’t better things we might be doing with climate trillions.
The old GISP con where “now” is really 1855 !!!!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
“We all know that our 7 bil are causing warming but if we can’t tell how much of the current warming is due to ACO2 ” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Climate_Change_Attribution.png
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/10/the-ipcc-ar5-attribution-statement/
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAA oooo it hurts – still laughing about Spencer ticking off Willis
” how much of the current warming is due to ACO2″
And Luke directs me to a GCM.
Plus a RC analysis of the AR5 which [because of GCMs] they are more certain mankind is less responsible for warming from GHGs.
Or they are more responsible for less warming.
Or something.
Keep laughing old chap. If you had any brains you’d be crying about those climate trillions Robert mentions but ignorance is bliss.
Yes SD but remember that earlier up thread.. Luke also seems to argue that a 20% strike on ‘below average’ in GCMs for eastern Australia in 2013 winter/spring has nothing to do with average and that it therefore meant there was a 20% chance of the eastern states being ‘drought’ declared.
That must mean (by Luke’s interpretation) that the 80% ‘above average’ prediction must have therefore really meant extensive flooding??????
🙂
I think he needs to get out more…he (and apparently BoM?) doesn’t seem to understand what ‘above average’ and ‘below average’ means out here in the big wide world.
Well I guess there is only science SD…. GCMs themselves don’t make the science – they represent the best physical understanding.
Debbie – jeez – you’re even talking about “average” – off to the back of the class with you – what a drongo – the average of common arithmetic mean is useless with rainfall as wet years tend to give you a somewhat biased view. . For rainfall for any location, the median is different from the average and usually significantly less. That’s why median not mean/or average is used – 50% of the years will be above the median and 50% below. Chance of “drought declared” – nope that’s a 12 month analysis. Triple sheesh !
It’s pretty simple Debs – you develop your predictor – analyse your climate record – it suggests that the years classified by that are a,b,c,d …. da de dah – some of those will probably be one side of the median – some the other. 80% one side and 2 the other side – might mean it’s more likely on a long run of forecasts for (1) that location (2) with that predictor (3) for that lag (4) for the actual time period forecast that will be with the 80% but the maths also says the 20% have to come up too.
This is trivial stuff Debs and no more than that? What’s your problem. Go on a course for heavens sake.
More complicated again is that the predictor might come up with a small sample size of years and that is likely not to be “skillful”. So if you don’t understand that an 80% can still not be skillful. Time for Debs to do some homework and stop rabbiting on.
Having done your homework you might discover that skill shifts around in location and for time of year. But if you don’t think the probabilities and skill of any “system” aren’t useful FOR HEAVENS SAKE DON’T USE THE BLOODY SYSTEM. But don’t use what you don’t understand and then whinge about it.
Debs – you represent every reason why BoM should withdraw all this material form public view if you haven’t gone on a training course and at least got a 70% comprehension score. It’s simply dangerous and you will likely shoot your in the foot.
“GCMs themselves don’t make the science – they represent the best physical understanding.”
Only if you’re of that GCM denominational persuasion. My turn to laugh.
If it was their own money they were putting up they would be much more circumspect in their modelling. Making much more modest assumptions and SPMs.
Climategate showed us how they operate.
“…80% one side and 2 the other side – might mean it’s more likely on a long run of forecasts for (1) that location (2) with that predictor (3) for that lag (4) for the actual time period forecast that will be with the 80% but the maths also says the 20% have to come up too.”
It’s the art of stating the bleeding obvious at the greatest possible length and throwing up walls of garbled words till critics give up through sheer fatigue. Best when delivered in the exasperated tone of a deputy headmistress with a bad hangover.
Luke,
You are once again playing with terminology and semantics rather than dealing with the point.
Are you claiming that BoM doesn’t use the term ‘average’ when reporting?
Seriously?
I understand the maths Luke…as you rightly point out…it’s not that difficult.
The original point however was that by Autumn,the BoM with their super duper GCMs predicted 80:20 of an ‘above average’ rainfall in 2013 winter/spring for the eastern states, however, large swathes of the eastern states are now either drought declared or about to be…and it’s still Spring 2013.
Your original answer implied that the 20% meant a 20% chance of drought….RUBBISH!
If you want to play semantics…it was 80% above mean (not 80% prediction of extensive flooding) and 20% below mean (not 20% prediction of drought).
There was NO prediction of DROUGHT IN THE EASTERN STATES in winter/spring 2013!!!!!!
And BTW…as SD explained earlier…people like me know perfectly well not to rely too heavily on this information…you are correct that it would be a mistake…but not because we don’t understand…it’s because it isn’t a good risk management/decision making tool.
I still believe it will be one day…but there is clearly a very long way to go.
Also Luke…if you do believe that people like me are hopelessly incapable of understanding how this could be currently useful as a risk management/decision making tool…who/what geniuses is it therefore designed for?
GCMs? Can’t do clouds, can’t do
complex – coupled – systems’ –
inter – actions, can’t predict
seasonal whether, can’t even
predict two days out,
jest can’t. C’est tout.
Try rain dances or
chicken entrails
Tsk!
Message for Luke /BOM: If you cant explain it to the tea lady so that she understands it, then you probably dont understand enough yourself. Now off to bed with no supper you foul-mouthed school marm
Robert = oh my science hurts, and “I more comfortable spinning a yarn”
SD – like what – don’t hand wave and mumble.
Debbie = You simply can’t read. Debs think she can have 100% accuracy – Debs silly
Debs verbals when cornered – flooding?? drought??
And you don’t understand – you’re thick as a brick. Good album actually http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9JEPeeohYs Even an old codger like Robbie might like it
“it’s because it isn’t a good risk management/decision making tool.” WELL DON’T USE IT AND WALK AWAY THEN ! WANDER OFF ….. trundle trundle – off you go then – move along
Jeez that was a good album I must say…. rockin’ out to it now…. that flute was most excellent.
but back to giving Debs a serve
“The chances of above-median winter rainfall are 60 to 70% over a broad area of Australia extending from the northwest across to the southeast (see map above). Such odds mean that for every ten years with similar climate patterns to those currently observed, about six or seven years would be expected to be wetter than average over these areas, while about three or four years would be drier.” said the first Outlook
NOW WTF – do my frigging eyes deceive me – MEDIAN ! – and WTF SIX TO SEVEN WETTER THAN MEDIAN (No flooding necessarily) and THREE TO FOUR DRIER THAN MEDIAN (no drought necessaily)
You might want terciles or quartiles or quintiles if you like odd numbers.
Science would be good without users and clients. And managers. And NGOs and Peak Bodies.
Where’s my valium ….. gurgle …..
Tell you what though Ian Anderson is a wild bastard ! 8 mins 30 sec
Science:
1) “For that location”. Not for somewhere else. Like Philadelphia. Got it.
2) “With that predictor”. Not with some other predictor or with chopped liver. Got that.
3) “For that lag”. Not without that, er, lag. Think I’ve got it.
4) “For the actual time period forecast”. So not for 1897 or 2055 or last fortnight. Got it!
I even get that when you have a median some years probably go to one side and some to the other. You get that with medians. Ah, the analytical bent! But here’s where the “science” gets hard: “…that will be with the 80% but the maths also says the 20% have to come up too.” Like Deb, I’ve kind of known forever that you can’t get 100% in this life, and I know that 80+20 equals 100. But I’m a little mystified “the 20% have to come up too.” Maybe he means MIGHT come up? That would make some kind of sense, even if it’s so obvious it’s beyond lame. Oh, all this sciency stuff is hurty for my brain, and now teacher is rousing about homework and sending us to the back of the room for being silly.
Anyway, the BoM finally decided that we’re due for drier conditions. If the same “skill” applies I may yet get some bamboo shoots this spring. Come on BoM…don’t fail to fail me!
So Wobbie – if you were a stinky old casino going fart and you had loaded dice that gave you 80:20 for evens. What do you think you’d get on the first throw?
And the second, and third. What do you reckon you’d see if had 20 throws.
But anyway I’ve gone upmarket now http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7R7q1lSZfs something about the harpsichord.
And yes the choice of predictor is important – my dear old Mum used nesting ants, scud in the west (that’s scud not a Scud!) and her arthritis in a multivariate approach but alas only with one ensemble (a nice frock). Never sure what her predictand was though.
She would have appreciated the unusual time signature of the Stranglers hit though. Could almost waltz to it but probably not. They were such wough boyz too – proto punk.
You’d know where it from wouldn’t you Wobbie that classic for those of us who were there doing the reality on the front lines – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HO7CoVLOYPA But then again I liked Bliss and Lantana too – no accounting for taste eh?
Wistening to the Swanglers seems to have my a speech impediment – or is it all those meds getting over Debs. Twucking Debs …. gawd I’m choked.
Luke,
whoever that Debbie was who said she thinks can have 100% accuracy. . . please tell her ‘good luck with that!’
Why we thought sea level rise was worse than we thought:
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/10/11/shock-news-satellite-sea-level-error-is-100-of-the-trend/
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/10/11/more-on-the-satellite-sea-level-fraud/
When we have such dubious predictive abilities due to our huge, known and unknown, range of uncertainty the IPCC, who cannot get it right, just adds more lipstick:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/12/tail-wagging-the-dog-ipcc-to-rework-ar5-to-be-consistent-with-the-spm/
Messing with the temperature data, here’s a link provided by kuhnkat
on Climate Etc latest thread.
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/09/20/rewriting-history-at-the-ministry-of-truth/
Oh dear!
I missed this ironic little gem from Luke earlier:
“Science would be good without users and clients. And managers. And NGOs and Peak Bodies.”
That would be the same as teachers and lecturers saying that it would be a terrific occupation without students or Doctors, nurses and health workers saying their job would be good without patients or public servants saying their job would be excellent if there was no such thing as the public or service industries saying their job would be great without customers and so on and so on ad infinitum!!!
LUKE!!!!!
If there were no users, clients, managers, NGOs and Peak Bodies…there would be NO ONE to pay for, apply for or use the science!!!!!
SHEESH!!!!
Debbie – no the fossil fuel and mining industry does – they’re not so stupid as farmers.
Beth – Goddard is symptomatic of the denier industry – half these are as good as Tisdlae’s Or Willzy’s – are you sure he hasn’t goofed and needs to post a retraction – liek this arse whopping http://lazarus-on.blogspot.com.au/2012/01/who-is-steven-goddard.html
Sucked in Beth – sucked in by deniers.
By now – given Watts mindlessly parrots the latest fantasies of Timsdale, Willzooks and Goopard – why would anyone quote from disinformation central. Andrew Bolt would even be better (by 0.000000001%).
It’s just unadulterated rot like Nova’s latest inter-galactic cycles crap. Curve fitted twaddle.
But Debs – remember – every morning say ” I will not look at any forecasts from BoM today because I don’t know what I’m looking at. I will use my rabbit’s foot and pet rock”.
Agree, Deb … Closing down the wards, one by one, hospital workers cited
increasing efficiencies, the goal , a hospitals without beds. (
Yes Beth indeed – that’s Newman’s Queensland – the full libertarian tea-party nasty experiment.
What do Luke and Basil Fawlty have in common?
Well, Basil thinks it much easier to run Fawlty Towers when there are no guests ….
As for providing a useful service and making a profit (where the profit depends on the usefulness of the service provided) …. well, that’s for the private sector!!!
Fossil and mining industry does what Luke????
Operate happily without an end user of their product?…or… maybe you mean they EMPLOY their own scientists????
OR????
And sorry…gonna state the bleeding obvious here…I’m absolutely positive that Miners are definitely not as clever as farmers at FARMING just as I’m positive that farmers aren’t as clever as miners when it comes to MINING.
You are starting to spray and dodge Luke.
What is your point?
I don’t have a rabbit’s foot or a pet rock and nor do I flap around on one wing or have a sunburnt neck or bake lammies or have tea parties or go shootin’ or many of the other vague sneering insinuations you are trying to apply in my direction.
I do actually like BoM and the other weather agencies we use…they do provide us with useful information…but their seasonal forecasting is not particularly useful…despite the rhetorical spin that claims otherwise.
I hope it will become more useful.
And Jen is correct you know…to this point…there is no evidence IN REAL TIME…that GCMs are any more skilful in seasonal forecasting than other methods that employ statistics and probability.
They’re definitely more flashy and complicated…but that’s not the point that is being made here.
Don’t be a sucker Debs like sp and swing at everything.
” the rhetorical spin that claims otherwise” more verballing !
“And Jen is correct you know…to this point…there is no evidence IN REAL TIME…that GCMs are any more skilful in seasonal forecasting than other methods that employ statistics and probability.” HAHAHA – Jen loves to throw wild stuff about – never backs it up – it’s all just part of the anti-AGW crusade replete with obligatory BoM bashing. I’ve tabled plenty Debs but you NEVER engage on anything technical. You haven’t the mind for it.
All you get are misquotes, verballing and “but surely”, etc ….
BTW “real time” is weather not seasonal forecasting. Quite different although if you don’t know – well I’m not surprised you don’t know actually.
Big Chief Luke Fawlty-Supercell-Raincloud speak with fork-tongue
No seriously,
What does the fossil and mining industry do?
BTW ‘real time’ is the judge of the skill of the forecasting. I am stunned that you attempt to deny that!
Don’t be a sucker Debs like sp and swing at everything.
“What does the fossil and mining industry do?” make millions on stockpiling ore extra-pit in face of wet seasons
Real-time – is the now to next few hours. (strangely not seasonal forecasting eh?) NEXT !
sp is so chocked on drugs he can hardly speak
Anyway all very boring – it’s an open thread. What do you think of these
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6pXiiQBknHM pro-green nuclear heresy from a big scary Greenie
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDw3ET3zqxk movie trailer
http://theconversation.com/pro-nuclear-greenies-thinking-outside-the-box-with-pandoras-promise-18941
I’m calling BS on that one Luke.
You are splitting hairs and playing semantics.
Real time for seasonal forecasting is the REAL SEASON!
Like duh!
And seriously. . . Are you suggesting farmers should stockpile? As if that doesn’t happen now? ROFL! And you accuse others of being clueless?
That is SOOOoooooo hilarious!
What did I think of your links?
Typical ecotard rubbish based on a sinful carbon footprint and an attitude that anything is better than fossil fuel.
I think nuclear has a big future
sp – I was after an intelligent comment from your mouth not anus.
You really are such a gnat-like imbecile that flits around emitting filler. Try to make an intelligent comment – I know you’re in awe of me and just follow my wake around. Strike out on your own son.
Debs – SIGH !
am I suggesting farmers stockpile – no – are you actually mental – I wasn’t talking about farmers
real time is NOW Debs – don’t try and squirm your way out of blatant stupidity. It’s not semantics – it’s about you being stupid. Anyone knows what a real-time management system is. This is what it looks like http://www.bom.gov.au/australia/meteye/
Seasonal forecasts are not even generated in real-time. Typically they are generated monthly. WHY – coz the whole basis of being able to do a seasonal forecast is that some climate mechanisms like ENSO and IOD has a degree of seasonal persistence. They tend to persist for some time. Without which you’d have little to use.
Debs are you actually an actress paid to come up with silly comments?
‘Seasonal forecasts are not even generated in real time’ 🙂 🙂 🙂
ROFL! LOL!
And who. . . other than you. . . said they were?
That would be a stupid thing to say. . .considering they are called FORECASTS!
BTW that link was a 7 day forecast with current warnings & us farmers use and review those daily. 🙂 🙂
Just in case you didn’t know. . . they’re not generated in real time either because they’re FORECASTS too.
However Luke. . .despite your ducking and weaving and bickering over terminology. . . real time is the judge of the accuracy or the skill of the forecast whether it is 24 hours, weekly, monthly, seasonal, yearly or longer.
What a load of crap.
” real time is the judge of the accuracy or the skill of the forecast”
what a stupid comment – a specific seasonal forecast IS NOT FRIGGING NOT evaluated in real time. Typically a seasonal forecast is over 3 months. It’s gooooooonnnnneeeee before you know how it went. That’s time gone Debs. Elapsed. Over – and months ago.
You’re a grade A twit.
I guess climate change forecasts for 2030 will evaluated in “real time”. Debs how do you stand upright and make it through the day?
No wonder you’re clueless Debs – it’s all just mashed spuds & peas in there isn’t it. A mish mash of who knows what.
Debs logic
“‘Seasonal forecasts are not even generated in real time’ 🙂 🙂 🙂
ROFL! LOL!
And who. . . other than you. . . said they were?”
OK so we have an entity she agrees isn’t generated in real time BUT – BUT it is evaluated in real time. WTF and say what?
Why Debs invents the negative reality time portal inversion.
More lies and idiocy from the totally corrupt IPCC.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/how_dare_the_ipcc_peddle_this_monstrous_scare/#commentsmore
All this has been covered in Lomborg’s “Cool It” and then even there the idiot IPCC accepted that the USA could protect itself from a 1 metre SLR for about 6.5 billion $ by 2100.
And just think if we were silly enough to vote for another Labor/Green coalition in the future we will get the co2 tax again or the delusional ETS.
It would have Zip change on temp and the climate until 2100 and yet they want us to squander 100s of billions $ on this moronic stupidity. When will these enthusiastic fossil fuel exporting Labor idiots ever wake up?
A good video to watch covering the stupid lies and distortions of the IPCC 5th report.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/13/some-notes-on-the-nongovernmental-international-panel-on-climate-change-nipcc/#more-95520
The video will feature Carter, Singer, Bast and Lakely.
Another good post from Jo Nova.
http://joannenova.com.au/2013/10/want-a-real-bet-on-the-climate-the-story-of-the-largest-private-wager-on-the-climate/#more-21611
What quality sources – Bolt, Wattscrook and SupaNova – gawd
Venom and bile for old codgers
Tisdale roasted for non-science yet again ! Neville’s mates here to delude you every day.
But Neville loves to spread the rat dirt, even if its wrong coz who cares!
I wonder if Nevilel will ever ever learn to discriminate. Probably not.
http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/10/bob-tisdales-magical-cherries.html
More idiotic drivel from Luke. Don’t forget everything I’ve noted above about the pollution??? exporting Labor morons is backed up by simple kindy maths.
The Bolter is accurate once again, that’s why you dislike him so much. BTW I’d always accept Carter, Nova etc above your liars from the IPCC.
But a simple maths challenged fool like yourself wouldn’t understand.
Some rubbish copy-pasted from one of Lukes “quality” links:
We contend that it is especially timely for Australia’s environmental experts to cut themselves loose of the anti-nuclear movement, much as have the protagonists and director of this documentary. We must instead lead an evidence-based defence of environmental and human health by supporting the inclusion of nuclear energy in the task of eliminating fossil fuels.
Evidence shows that renewable energy cannot solve our carbon problem on its own. We need a major contribution from nuclear energy if we’re to move away from fossil fuels.
Neville is correct, Luke is challenged by simple logic and math.
In my business I am more interested in how good the headline El Niño La Niña outlooks are for the big seasonal events that can make or break or take you. We are a land of Josephs and Noahs as the more biblical hydrologists sometimes say. But it is easy for a layperson to check the big events yourself with just the SOI. The 1997/98 was an extreme El Niño and was well forecast unlike the 82/83 one. That was when the SOI and ENSO were being rediscovered and climate was seen as boring compared with meteorology. Along comes the 2010/11 La Niña also well forecast (the BOM seasonal outlook for rainfall issued for November-January 2010–11 had a per cent correct score around Australia of 90%). It was also an extreme as measured by the SOI compared with the last century. The average sceptical layperson with an enquiring mind and using kindy logic might well have reached two conclusions:
A Two near record events in the last 15 years – maybe there is room for some uncertainty whether these events are becoming more frequent.
B Given how the 97/98 event ramped up global temperature and the 10/11 cooled it, that must have caused an unusual wiggle in the global temperature trend.
All is now clarified in todays Nature which also suggests global warming is intensifying the El Niño cycle.
“Our data indicate that ENSO activity in the late twentieth century was anomalously high over the past seven centuries, suggestive of a response to continuing global warming. ”
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v3/n9/full/nclimate1936.html
Still playing semantics and picking at terminology while totally missing the point Luke?
What is your point?
So far all you’re doing is whinging that everyone is just toooooooooo stuuuuuupppiiiidddd to understand or appreciate something rather unclear but apparently wrapped up in sciency/tecchie jargon?
Hitherto I have never met anyone who didn’t understand what real time meant. It’s pretty basic.
Bazza the cool and warm phases of the PDO lasted for extreme periods for hundreds of years starting over a thousand years ago. See NOAA reconstruction.
And the previous strongest la nina was in 1917, sort of wrecks your theory about humans having much recent influence on ENSO. Wake up.
More intellectual pollution from the SMH. Ya gotta laugh at these fools, trying to help their donkey Labor mates.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/more_smh_intellectual_pollution_on_carbon_dioxide
Judith Curry points out more of the deceptive spin in the IPCC 5th report.
http://judithcurry.com/2013/10/13/spinning-the-climate-model-observations-comparison-part-iii/
‘near record event’ in 2010/11 seems compatible by kindy logic with the BOM view “In October and December 2010, and February and March 2011, the Southern Oscillation Index values (a measure of a La Niña’s strength) were the highest recorded for each month since records commenced in 1876”.
Well bazza here is NOAAs reco of the PDO for the last 1000 years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PDO1000yr.svg Looks a lot more extreme in the earlier record than it is today.
Therefore the chance of more extreme la ninas and el ninos over 100+ year intervals. Also the ABC Catalyst program reported that hundreds of years ago the east cost of OZ experienced super cyclones that have no modern comparison today.
But if you’re so concerned about this, then tell us how to fix it?
“Those Commonwealth public service employees that can be identified as promoting greenhouse taxes, subsidies and other such measures are estimated at approaching 6,000. The bulk of these, based on staffing levels available for previous years, are in the CSIRO, which has been re-orientated from providing scientific and technological assistance to promoting the global warming scare. Over 3,500 of the 6,400 personnel employed in 2008 appeared to be largely engaged in climate change work. Is any wonder Australian warmists were so prominent in the IPCC reports?”
“The existence of considerable bodies of climate action promoting personnel within the public service and in government financed agencies not only represents waste but means continued pressure to maintain and amplify imposts on enterprise that adversely affect industry competitiveness. A priority must be to cull these bodies and their funding.”
http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2013/10/same-snouts-different-climate-troughs
Thanks for that link SP. Geezzz what a waste of resources costing OZ business now and into the future.
Bazza here’s that report from Catalyst showing the extreme super cyclones off OZ’s east coast over the last 6,000 years.
We could still have such a super cyclone in the future, but they were much more extreme before the IR.
In fact the last S cyclone hit the coast about 1800, or about the start of the IR.
http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/s382613.htm But don’t forget to tell us how to fix this super cyclone problem of the last 6,000 years will you bazza? Should be a real giggle.
Hitherto I have never known anyone who so wilfully misinterprets.
Would you prefer terms like ‘actuals’ and ‘hindcast’ and ‘updated’?
I am not interested in playing semantics. . . it is just intellectual snobbery.
Go play with your friends at deltoid if you want to do that. . . they thrive on it.
The key point remains valid despite your attempt to dodge via splitting hairs re terminology. The CGMs have so far not proved to be any more skilful at seasonal forecasting than other methods that employ statistics and probabilities.
Perhaps. . . as they are UPDATED. . .with ACTUALS. . . and with the benefit of HINDCASTING. . . that may change.
I hope it does. . . especially if we factor in the considerable investment in time and money and technology from the public purse as well as the private sector.
Incredible to think this coral reef paradise has withstood nuclear bombs.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/if_coral_reefs_can_survive_even_this/#commentsmore
Quadrant = extremist libertarian tea party trash. I’m sure all important people read it (not).
It’s tragic to see handy observation sets like ENSO, PDO etc reduced to mechanistic buttons and levers to “explain” climate. It’s really just too fatiguing (and unwelcome to some) to go through the history of Oz climate to show how inconsistent and uncertain these “mechanisms” are. All one can do is beg people to look at past climate and see the contradictions. 1997-8 was a “super” El Nino which was quite benign in Australia, unlike the even more intense ’82-3, which had awful effects. The “weak” El Ninos of 2002-3 and, above all, 1902-3 were associated with horrific conditions. And we’ve had severe drought and heat conditions without any help at all from the Nino (from the mid-1920s all the way to the early forties. Look, ma, no Nino!)
Whether the wet events of 2010-2012 have surpassed or been surpassed by comparable events associated with La Nina such as those of 1917–18, 1955–56 and 1975–76 is surely secondary to knowing that such events have always occurred. And do you want a history of La Ninas which dried out the West and others which drenched it? Just compare 1917 to 1950 La Ninas. Really, just try that!
Like I said, it’s all handy stuff which explains a bit. But heaven help us when these things are used by Lysenkoists trying to convince us to send billions overseas to scoundrels in exchange for manipulating climate back to a “stability” which has never existed on Planet Earth.
If this utterly juvenile, literal and mechanistic approach is “science”, I’ll prefer to hang out in a paddock, talking weather with the cows.
Neville – usual stupidty “These events occur every two to three hundred years and it has been a couple of hundred years since the last one hit this region here around Cairns. So we know that they’re going to occur in the future. We don’t know when they will occur, but we know that one will definitely occur in the relatively near future.””
There is no frequency distribution. You have nothing in terms of a trend – it’s just meaningless.
Debs – at least you’re making attempts at conventional English meanings now.
“The CGMs have so far not proved to be any more skilful at seasonal forecasting than other methods that employ statistics and probabilities.”
How would you know? How long have you been using them now?
BTW it’s not intellectual snobbery – a dog isn’t a cat !
Moo
For literalists who think that the PDO does a neat flip every thirty or so years, bring cooler and wetter conditions to Eastern Oz: don’t be too impressed by weather of the ’50s and ’70s. In between came the much drier period from the late 50s to late 60s which…bugger it. If “experts” don’t already know or want to know this stuff, why should I talk myself dry. Maybe they’re not experts? Maybe an expert first needs to handle contradiction and confront the sheer scale of what he cannot know? Nowadays we have “experts” who know next to nothing about the deep hydrosphere but are sure there is lots of heat hiding itself down there. We have “experts” who report a sluggish two+ century old rise in sea levels which every bugger knows about as a recent calamity. (I can see why old salt SD tears his hair out over that one.)
Time for a fresh pommelo or two then a jog round the ‘boo.
Luke you’re hopeless, but hey what’s new? Even the IPCC concedes that there is zip proof that humans are causing extreme events.
But if we use the example of the most extreme ETS on the planet we can work out the impact that OZ’s 23 million pop can exert on AGW.
Lomborg’s maths experts say that the 500 million pop of the EU will have a delay of only 2 years on temp by 2100.
Now OZ’s 23 million pop is about 1/22 the size of the EU. Divide 2 years by 22 and we can show that OZ’s impact would be a delay in warming of about 1 month by 2100.
And at a cost/waste of 100s of billions of dollars for a 33 day delay. When will you numbskulls ever wake up to yourselves?
Bolt uses Spencer’s warning and offers a proper response to future warming (or cooling) that makes a lot of sense. As usual.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/dont_think_this_warming_pause_is_permanent/#commentsmore
Peer reviewed literature pls Neville not Lomborgs ramblings. Rubbish opinions are two bob a dozen.
The Ipcc has conceded that if the entire world followed Kyoto to the letter it would only delay warming by 2100 by 4 years.
If you doubt Lomborg’s maths you are an even bigger dope than I took you for, but then nothing you say surprises me anymore.
Kyoto was only ever symbolic and was just a giant senseless waste of time and money with zip impact on the climate and temp.
Lomborg has the maths and economic expertise through his team to easily calculate the above numbers accurately.
Only a dill like you wouldn’t understand.
Sigh 🙁 🙁
Yes Luke. . . I can use the lingo & the jargon.. . unless you’re totally clueless ( and I know you aren’t) you have already figured that out.
I am far more interested in dealing with the practical application of science.
Or. . . . to put it in bureaucratic double speak. . . I would prefer to discuss outcomes rather than process and avoid ever changing acronyms and burgeoning rules/regs.
And I have been referring to POAMA & modelling from the fancy new GCMs since their inception. . . BoM & CSIRO & DPI etc have always, always been our first port of call.
“I am far more interested in dealing with the practical application of science.”
maybe not or you’d discuss the science and use. You never do. Tell you what – regale us with a discussion and I won’t say any more on this whole thread. Go for it Debs !
Neville – only a grade A twit would not understand that the long you leave it before curtailing growth the bigger the problem. You really are an idiot – because it’s difficult to get the CO2 level down you’re advocating keeping going and make it even higher? Are you mental?
Debs – you really are full of it – you’ve had POAMA available since May – in that time you’ve made a full evaluation have you. The words just dribble out Debs. But as I said – you have the floor – impress us with your application nous.
I used to be a keen followers of Philip Adams up until about 5 years ago when he drove me crazy with his global warming BS.
So tonight I thought I’d revisit him to see if anything had changed. Unfortunately NO.
Here’s his latest program
He interviews Simran Sethi, Sethi graduated cum laude in 1992 from Smith College with a BA in sociology and gender studies. In 2005, she was awarded an MBA in sustainable business by the Presidio Graduate School, San Francisco.
Here she speaks as an authority on seeds and food production!!
OMG – where are we heading when this garbage is put forward as intelligent conversation.
More “recovery” for Luke.
Put gun away, engage brain:
http://joannenova.com.au/2013/10/melting-glacier-in-alaska-reveals-ancient-remains-of-forest-evidence-of-warm-periods/#more-31192
Since AUTUMN.
Started public SEASONAL forecasting via POAMA in AUTUMN.
Now go back and read what has been said.
Geeezzzz Luke do you understand anything about the con and fraud of mitigation of AGW? There is zip we can do about it unless you believe in a short residency period for co2 ? And you claim you don’t but accept the ice core evidence of hundreds of years to thousands of years.
But as Lomborg’s team of experts has shown it is much better to spend our now borrowed funds on adaptation and more R&D and not waste it flogging your dead horse.
But why should we bother arguing with a dope who doesn’t even understand simple kindy maths?
At least that Flannery nong honestly answered Bolt and said he believed that if we ( the entire world) stopped emitting today it would take hundreds of years or perhaps a thousand years before we would see a drop in temp.
You’re supposed to be so concerned about all this so what do you think and do you agree with Flannery etc? We know you haven’t had the guts to answer so far, although I’ve asked the question about a zillion times. Strange way to show you have so much concern for extra co2 emissions. What a delusional wimp you are. Doesn’t even know what he thinks anymore.
On the question of our increasing FFuel exports should OZ cut back on that and iron ore as well?
It all means much higher co2 emissions, so surely we should stop all exports today and save the planet? You really are a first class fraud and con merchant are you not?
BTW the Bolter has a first class post on that clueless Shorten and his intention of wrecking the OZ economy through his ongoing support of a co2 tax.
Strangely Krudd said they wanted to get rid of the tax but now they’ve changed their minds.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/we_will_have_a_shorten_tax_on_power_prices_in_months/
Yes Neville, if “our” ABC reported in any balanced way the ALP under this new management would be going from toast to carbon pollution.
Move along, move along. No recovery here:
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/10/13/shock-news-arctic-to-collapse-by-2016/
Luke:
“Neville – only a grade A twit would not understand that the long you leave it before curtailing growth the bigger the problem. You really are an idiot – because it’s difficult to get the CO2 level down you’re advocating keeping going and make it even higher? Are you mental?”
No Luke – you are mental.
You sound more like Christine Milne each day – “this urgent problem needs instant action”.
You are nothing more than a cheap salesman – “hurry, buy now before its too late”
Flim flammery – “the critical decade, must act now or there will be big trouble for our great-great-great-great-great-great grandchildren”
What do want – ACTION
When do we want it – NOW
Why do want ACTION NOW – errrr, coz CO2 levels are hard to get down
Good post from Spencer and Christy showing the results of the hopeless climate models compared to UAH satellite and Had 4 temp records . Very good graph.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/10/maybe-that-ipcc-95-certainty-was-correct-after-all/
More wasted billions $ on Labor’s idiotic NBN disaster. Even Conroy is starting to admit he was wrong . Geeeezzzz, but Luke thought it was a great scheme anyway.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/who_blew_those_nbn_billions/
Coal will surpass oil as the key fuel for the global economy by 2020 despite government efforts to reduce carbon emissions
Rising demand in China and India will push coal past oil as the two Asian powerhouses will need to rely on the comparatively cheaper fuel to power their economies. Coal demand in the United States, Europe and the rest of Asia will hold steady.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2458631/Coal-surpass-oil-key-fuel-global-economy-2020-despite-government-efforts-reduce-carbon-emissions.html#ixzz2hl9SWgvf
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2458631/Coal-surpass-oil-key-fuel-global-economy-2020-despite-government-efforts-reduce-carbon-emissions.html#ixzz2hl9EMghC
The pressure should start to build on Shorten and Labor after the govt puts its co2 tax repeal legislation online at 4pm.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/seante_to_vote_on_carbon_tax_repeal_by_years_end/
Neville – you must be thick a brick.
(1) what do ice core lags have to show with respect to AGW – nothing
(2) who cares if CO2 residence time is long – how high do you wish to take it?
Just explain these two simple points.
I’m not sure how one wages a low-carb war against a superpower…but here is China’s share of world coal consumption:
http://static2.businessinsider.com/image/4ce6d469cadcbb190a020000/chart-2.jpg
No big deal unless coal is being consumed globally at a much higher rate. It is. (Doubled since the oil shocks of the mid 1970s.) So how much is China producing? A quadrupling just between 1999 and 2010 (after which it stopped telling).
http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/china-coal-reports-chart-1.jpg
But never mind share of consumption and domestic production. What about tonnage, the real meat of the matter? This shows what a few other nations are burning as well.
http://www.paulchefurka.ca/Coal_Top_5.png
Whoa…China! Don’t forget the usual utterances about “moving towards” a low carbon economy. For some reason, the vegetables of our Western intelligentsia like it when you “move toward”. Just put a solar panel on a shed somewhere in Yunnan. They’ll be sweet.
Australia, while crippling its coal power gen, is turning its coal to massive export dollars. So much nicer than burning it. And if somebody else is burning it, whose fault is that? (Beside Abbott’s, I mean.) And did you really think all those solar panels and wind turbines can be made with power from solar panels and wind turbines? Get real, hippie. (Here your urban middle class hippie makes very weak noises in favour of nukes. That’s just because he has to say something.)
So when your local takeout can’t pay his power bill or re-gas his fridges in a country which ought to be an energy paradise, comfort him with the thought that every tiny little bit counts…even if he and you and I and the Chinese know that’s not so.
Luke I don’t know why I bother, but you seem to think I’ve some how got the power to dictate how high co2 emissions should be.
You’re a real fantasist, but I’ll give you a tip it’s China and India you have to worry about. In fact the non OECD will increase emissions by 73% until 2035 while the OECD will only increase by 6%.
Also the non OECD start from a base of about 18 bn tonnes p.a while the OECD starts from 13 bn tonnes p.a.
Starting to wakey wakey are you? What a spoon fed drongo you are, permanently wet behind the ears.
just posting this here
http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21587782-europes-electricity-providers-face-existential-threat-how-lose-half-trillion-euros
So can’t answer eh Neville.
Geeezzzz Luke I’ve easily answered point 2. I don’t have the power to increase or decrease emissions, but according to Bob Carter OZ’s EEZ already sequesters 10 times what we emit. Easily answered by a factor of 10 you donkey.
The OECD will almost flatline until 2035 while the non OECD is soaring and will continue to soar. But tell me the time period since co2 exceeded 280ppmv according to the ice cores or other core proxies?
The ice cores show a lag of hundreds of years to thousands of years for co2. At the end of the Eemian the temp dropped 3c but co2 continued at 275 ppmv for another 6,000 years.
But do yourself a favour and read sp and Robert’s posts above before you make more of a fool of yourself.
BTW I’m not sure I believe the co2 levels as measured by the ice cores but you do, so tell us how we can make a difference.
Last time I looked OZ only emitted 1.2% of the world’s co2 and a reduction of 5% of that by 2020 achieves SFA anyway.
But we’re now at 400ppmv and you reckon we may reach 750ppmv so I want you to tell us how long before we can expect to return to 280ppmv again. AND HOW DO WE ACHIEVE THIS LEVEL??? Wind farms and Solar are a super expensive, taxpayer funded,unreliable sick joke that have to be backed up with gas, coal, nukes etc.
So is it hundreds of years or many thousands of years and why? But if the Gillard Labor govt couldn’t care less about co2 emissions why should we? Remember Ferguson’s quote.
Just to help Luke, here is a link to Wiki’s take on the Pilbara iron ore deposits.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilbara#Iron_ore
Currently producing 324 million tonnes p.a. and expected to be gone in another 50 or so years.
Starting to wakey, wakey yet ?
Gillard’s resources minister wanted Vic to develop their brown coal deposits and stated it could be another Pilbara, or Hunter valley or the size of Qld deposits.
So at least hundreds of millions of tonnes extra of modified coal exports p.a. So do believe this is okay Luke or are these leftie pollies just more of your climate criminals? Wake up you numbskull.
I’m asking you again Neville – the question is not about the residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere or the impacts of cuts in reducing it – THE QUESTION IS – do you think unrestrained CO2 growth in the atmosphere is a risk. As with contemporary technology once emitted we are stuck with with it for a very long time.
You can bleat on as much as you like about demand – it does not change the fundamentals. How high do you think we should ratchet it up.
ANSWER PLS !
Now we all understand about CO2 lagging temperature in paleo ice core data – not the issue. PLS EXPLAIN in simple terms how this is relevant or a proxy for the current situation? Relevance is what exactly?
Once impacts start to bite and they will – it will so severe to food production that this demand nonsense will disappear into insignificance.
It seems Adam Bandt is calling Tony Abbot a CLIMATE CRIMINAL.
Bandt – a sick little man, with sick idea’s and a sick agenda. Typical of the inner urban green elite – sick!
Maybe Luke and Bandt should join forces and send a strong letter to the Chinese demanding they install two solar panels on that shed in Yunan NOW.
Why not go to China and protest there – a quick way to determine the Chinese definition of Climate Criminal – a bit like how Greenpeace is being taught that definition in Russia.
“Tony Abbott is a climate-change criminal,” an angry Mr Bandt told reporters in Melbourne.
But Mr Bandt said not acting on climate change increased the risk of more frequent bushfires.
“This is about protecting the Australian way of life, making sure that when you go camping at the end of the year over the Christmas holidays you don’t have to worry about bushfires wherever you go,” he said.
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/2013/10/15/16/50/abbott-a-criminal-on-climate-greens
I wonder if it is too late for IPCC Working Group 3 to accept nominations ( eg Nev and Luke) as Group 3 pull together the latest on how to manage emissions. I note the Chair Ottman Edenhofer like the Pope is Jesuit trained and has expertise in game theory – handy stuff for a risk manager responding to vested interests, increasing uncertainty about trajectories for carbon intensity, climate change impacts etc etc. ( Interesting Abbott and Shorten are also Jesuit trained but probably just intuitive on game theory?, Are the Jesuits taking over?). The Jesuits made an extraordinary ( well, mostly) contribution to the emergence and development of our scientific tradition. I am confident Nev is not Jesuit-trained, perhaps not even trained but Luke?
sp
Bandt fergot ter mention that unmanaged state parkland conritibutes
ter fire risk. but what would a city green know? Tsk!
bts
Vote Green to guarantee bushfire free BBQ’s – any where, any time, 100% certainty.
Luke I’m a realist with common sense, you’re a fantasist who can’t answer simple questions that only require an understandiung of simple maths. That’s your problem not mine.
But whether co2 levels get to 550 or 750ppmv by 2100 I’ll leave to others. But extra co2 added to the atmosphere has a logarithmic effect.
Therefore the extra co2 will have a diminishing return as it increases, but if co2 causes some extra warming in the future it should be asked of the Labor party who as I’ve shown couldn’t care less about increasing FF exports to higher and higher levels. By hundreds of millions of tonnes, or can’t you understand this very simple english language?
In fact Labor encourages and promotes extra exports of FF. So go and ask China, India and your mates in the Labor party to tell you the answer.
As I’ve easily shown we produce zip co2 emissions and that makes us irrelevant. But I’ll ask you again, should your Labor party be promoting increased exports of FFs every chance they get? Give us your answer.
Severe early start to winter in Europe and parts of USA as well. Most severe start in Germany for 200 years.
http://joannenova.com.au/2013/10/snow-blizzards-early-winter-in-europe-uk-met-office-says-horror-winter-predictions-are-irresponsible/#comments
Not the time to be relying on wind farms and solar energy. They like us should be building new, cheap coal fired stns immediately and getting rid of their stupid ETS.
Answer the questions Neville. 1. on your ice core silliness and 2. on impacts of more CO2
Everyone on the planet can say their emissions are individually small. And the science knows all about log effects – however unless you wish to rewrite fundamental laws of physics there is much than that. Palaeo best estimate is 3C sensitivity. The more CO2 – the warmer it will get, the more things will change.
You had two questions Neville – pls answer.
Nev mate, give up. Common sense is rare and even rarer in CAGW zealots. Your points are obvious, but Luke would rather waste billions / trillions on a global scale in the hope that we can not only stop emissions growing, but actually reduce them to such an extent that they go back to some utopian 280ppm or such……. Clearly the models massively exaggerate the warming and clearly the science is far from settled. We all agree co2 is a greenhouse gas, but the extent of its influence on climate is far from understood. Insanity is doing things that bring harm ( ie lower living standards) when the pay off is very likely worse.
“THE QUESTION IS – do you think unrestrained CO2 growth in the atmosphere is a risk” yes of course it is a risk, so is crossing the road or driving your car etc etc. But the damage in turning off the use of co2 will bring untold harm throughout the world ( I insure my house and cars…but I sure as hell wouldnt if the premiums were too high……even you don’t really think what we do matters surely!?).
Our emissions are irrelevant…and all the small nations can rightly say the same thing…china and india’s are growing so quickly ours are swamped rapidly….so to think that anything we do short of finding a new energy source actually matters are the words of a fool. Nev has for many years made these points to you as have so many of us here. I rarely comment nowadays because I can only shake my head in awe at the stupidity of clever people ( and yes Luke I do think you are clever…but also very naïve and foolish as well)
“what do ice core lags have to show with respect to AGW ” they show that clearly co2 does not lead temp rise it lags it. Of course that does not mean in this instance that wont be the case, but you can not look at the paleo record as evidence for the warming effect of co2!?….and given the models are so poor in there predictions clearly the science is far from settled and the zealots bleating its worse than we thought, the sky is falling in are just catastrophists…..are they not?
as for the fundamental laws of physics….don’t they suggest double co2 and you get about 1.2 Celsius increase…mmmmm thx a bit warmer sure is better than colder…is it not?
the only way to curb emissions will be through new technology or a massive decline in population…and who knows maybe a new plague is just around the corner, The planet does have a habit of “correcting” itself….maybe humans will do it to ourselves via a nuclear event.
Do you have a cure for co2 emissions that will not lower living standards dramatically causing immense harm and suffering? if you do the insurance premium may well be worth paying. But quite literally only an idiot could think what we and the world are doing will reduce emissions.
And you know what I made these points to you many many years ago and they are just as valid today as they were then.
“Palaeo best estimate is 3C sensitivity. The more CO2 – the warmer it will get, the more things will change.”
What paleo evidence tells us that?
Hey Everyone except Bazza,
Give Luke a break. Remember, while he may be wrong, he has a heart of gold!
Further… I think this is important breaking news…
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/15/usa-court-climate-idUSL1N0I50PO20131015
Keeping with this blogs obsession with Luke. And knowing that Luke is keen for me to post more on nuclear issues… here’s one for Luke…
http://phildobbie.com/aboto/australia/item/90-ziggy-to-build-nuclear-powered-broadband?fb_action_ids=10151922071765027&fb_action_types=og.likes&fb_source=other_multiline&action_object_map=%7B%2210151922071765027%22%3A183457265175812%7D&action_type_map=%7B%2210151922071765027%22%3A%22og.likes%22%7D&action_ref_map=%5B%5D
Oh. that is a long url… maybe try this…
Ziggy Switkowski, the newly appointed head of the Notional Broadband Network, is to use his scientific background to launch the world’s first nuclear powered internet.
The new network will require minor modifications to the existing Telstra network, including placing a small nuclear reactor in each telephone exchange.
From there a new ‘neutrons to the node’ network will operate, delivering broadband at speeds of 10 exahertz per second. The nodes, whose constant glow will reduce the need for localised street lighting, will be located on street corners, with irradiated copper delivering the signal into the home.
Users will need to swap their existing wifi modem for a new one capable of transmitting gamma rays. It will also be able to cook dinners, carry out x-rays to expedite eHealth initiatives and heat the average sized house, even when the modem is turned off.
Ziggy admits the plan is not without obstacles. We need to train contractors used to laying copper wire to get a handle on the fundamentals of nuclear physics. You will also need to wear protective clothing when using the Internet, or walking around the house.
On the positivie side, Telstra has reduced its forecast outlays on redundancies, with many workers choosing to leave of their own accord on learning they will be working with spent nuclear fuel rods.
Nuclear at last! Okay a few teething problems )
When will Jen stop flaunting the Switkowski proposal when its well known that atomic internet speeds will be much higher under a Labor opposition proposal and achieve yottahertz bandwidth using inert boson technology. In fact the Labor proposal will use a number of hybrid Thorium-sonic fusion reactors thus returning power to the grid.
Shame Jen for contorting the facts.
S Drongo
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/01/on-sensitivity-part-i/
https://www.skepticalscience.com/hansen-and-sato-2012-climate-sensitivity.html
Neville is obviously unable to answer (wasn’t on his Bolt or Watts talking sheet) but at least Toby had a crack.
Our emissions are indeed irrelevant if you wish to remove them from the global mix. But that’s a totally sophistic argument – every small nation, county and state can make that response. Everyone can make that excuse. Yes China and India are growing rapidly. Nobody is seriously suggesting 280ppm is some sort of optimum. It’s moreover a question of what you level we can stabilise at. And Neville’s level of intelligence is that if humanity finds itself at a point in history with a certain method of energy generation “oh well that’s it – it will never change” – well he’s back in horse and buggy mentality.
Neville also ever only does one side of the ledger – the assumption is that increasing CO2 will have no deleterious effects. As we witness the sub-tropics changing in front of us. So inn-keeper Neville has one finger on the scales.
Of course temperature precedes CO2 increase in glacial cycles. Only an idiot would think this is evidence of anything. DO you actually seriously think a CO2 molecule is going to wake up in the middle of a glaciation and decide to do something. The lag ruse is one of the most idiotic sceptic memes out there. Solar insolation changes and the planet warms – the biosphere starts up and oceans outgas CO2? So ? Are you that dense? If you want something analogous to our current situation try the PETM.
All of which we’ve been over but Neville doesn’t learn. Like a mindless automaton, he just brings us our daily serving of pig slop disinformation from denier Watts citing Timsdale or Wills’ latest graffitti – which will be likely repealed in their next post – or blown out of the water by the likes of Roy Spencer. As if this “is it” the killer blog argument. What a wank.
A solution – 3rd gen nuclear but better 4th gen nuclear, possibly thorium, and possibly fission/fusion hybrids. And if France can decarbonise its electricity grid in 30 years – don’t say it can’t be done.
Luke your lack of comprehension is appalling, but that’s something you’ll have to fix all by yourself.
I can’t help you. But because of the logarithmic effect of co2 there is little left to be tortured out of the co2 effect bottle. See Bob Carter’s “Taxing Air” book pages 103, 105 figs 16 and 17.
The IPCC thinks that about 50% of the slight , recent warming is due to humans, but I’m sure that’s an exaggeration.
But there is zip left after a doubling of co2 or whatever. Spencer, Lindzen etc are all below 1C until 2100.
You really are a fool but there’s not much we can do to fix your problem. Perhaps start by trying to understand simple maths and then tell us what we can do to fix your CAGW?
BTW good column by Sheridan in today’s OZ exposing more of this mitigation of AGW fraud and con.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/were_on_our_own_with_this_crazy_carbon_tax/#commentsmore
“The lag ruse is one of the most idiotic sceptic memes out there. Solar insolation changes and the planet warms – the biosphere starts up and oceans outgas CO2? So ? Are you that dense?”
No I am not…..but co2 ‘leading’ warming is used by many ignorant people including the infamous Gore.
I only mentioned it because you were demanding an answer!
I have no problems with nuclear at all. But the world doesn’t like them and refuses to consider them? Germany has shut them’ down. France is not building anymore I seem to recall, the Japanese don’t want them either.
And the “GREENIES” wet their pants whenever they are mentioned.
So we do have a potential solution but nobody wants to use it, they would rather play around with “platitudes” like wind, solar and a carbon tax/ emissions scheme. None of which are practical solutions at all.
The sceptics have made these points all along and yet we are tarred with the brush of just being ignorant……when clearly it is the other side that is consistently being foolish and naïve.
Now if you placed a small tax and used that money for research into better nuclear, I for one would be happy to pay. The whole world would benefit from a cheap alternative energy source to fossil fuels.
Do you think the world will go nuclear however?, sadly it appears an alternative is required?
Jen, thx for the giggle re nuclear internet!
it does however show that people saying fibre optic cant be beaten are being very foolish indeed. Technology continues to progress at phenomenal rate.
I heard from a very reliable source recently how Conroy and his NBN were so appallingly run.
He would send the contractors to an area, they would get about 10% done and he would demand they just up and move to the next “desperate for labor” electorate, leaving behind millions of dollars of equipment each time exposed to theft, damage etc. All because he wanted to be seen to be covering areas. Conroy is grossly incompetent.
Governments do not build or run businesses efficiently or effectively. We know this, thats why we privatised them so long ago, But labor in its typical socialist fashion believes it should be building the means of production.
Luke the paleo-climate record doesn’t help your case at all. Lomborg has a graph on page 67 fig 18 that shows a steep climb in temp for 10 million years ( 60m to 50m BP) and a sharp drop in co2 over the same period and continuing to drop for another 5 m years then leveling off for a further 13 m years. Pagani, Zachos, Freeman etc 2005 study.
How does this help your case? Stop clutching at straws and admit you’re wrong and then tell us how to fix your CAGW mitigation problem?
Just a hint 1,000 new nukes can’t achieve zip as Christy’s report to Congress has shown. Best if you start protesting in China and India. Good luck with that. YUK, YUK.
Here is that full quote from Greg Sheridan’s column in today’s OZ. It’s just too good and accurate not to include here.
Bolt’s comment—-
Greg Sheridan fact checks the ABC’s favorite claim about world-wide moves to “put a price on carbon”:
Sheridan column quote starts here—–
The ABC in particular runs a constant propaganda campaign in favour of the idea that the world is moving to put a price on carbon…
But here are some actual facts. The UN Framework Convention on Climate has 195 members. Only 34 of those use anything resembling an emissions trading scheme. Of those, 27 are in the EU scheme…
What about these Chinese schemes we hear so much about on the ABC? There are seven designated pilot projects in China. One – that’s right, one – has begun operation. That is in Shenzhen. So far all the permits are given away for free…
Japan has effectively abandoned plans for an ETS…South Korea has a plan, but it will issue all permits for free in the first period and is looking to redesign its scheme partly to avoid the impact on electricity prices, which Australia’s scheme had. New Zealand has a notional scheme, but the price is a meaningless $1 per tonne.
The US has no carbon tax or ETS and is unlikely ever to have one. The separate Californian scheme … covers only 37 per cent of emissions, compared with the Australian tax that covered 60 per cent of our emissions. More importantly, in California, 90 per cent of permits for electricity are given for free.
The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative covers several northern states in the US. But the price is $2.55 per tonne and it covers only electricity.
Canada does not have an ETS or a carbon tax. The Quebec scheme covers a minority of emissions and because the province is so reliant on hydro-electricity the scheme has little impact…
The European scheme has a price of about $7. Famously, … in its first five years it tended to raise about $500 million a year whereas our carbon tax raised $9 billion a year.
Remember when we had a government that lied to us about being left behind if we didn’t have its carbon tax?
Ms Gillard said Australia had to adapt and innovate.
“I do not believe Australia needs to lead the world on climate change, but I also do not think we can afford to be left behind,’’ she said.
And:
“It’s clear that many countries around the world are taking steps to reduce carbon pollution,” [Climate Change Minister Greg Combet] told ABC radio…
Wayne Swan also said that “every policy to reduce carbon pollution puts an effective price on carbon, even if that price isn’t immediately obvious”.
“Countries around the world are taking action to reduce carbon pollution and an open trading nation like Australia can’t afford to be left behind,” the Treasurer said.
Nev linked to bolt for this article ( but it is behind a pay wall, so you may not get it…I haven’t looked at Bolt, but I do get the oz daily)… it is so good and poignant I thought I would copy it here. It says ntg we haven’t said here before but it makes so abundantly clear that the world is not acting, The ABC and Labor/ greens and the catastrophists are as usual distorting reality all in the name of their “cause”. This is why you are losing Luke and Bazza et al.
“IT is natural that when Tony Abbott told Asia-Pacific leaders he was going to repeal Australia’s carbon tax he found no opposition, and a good deal of support instead. He mentioned it in plenary sessions and bilateral meetings with all the leaders.
In taking this action, Abbott is bringing us into line with Asia-Pacific practice. There is not one significant national carbon tax or emissions trading scheme operating anywhere in the Asia-Pacific.
One of the most disagreeable defects of the Rudd and Gillard governments was the way they so often misrepresented reality, especially international reality. They tried to do this on such a scale that ultimately the public could see through it on many issues, especially boats and climate change.
The politics of climate change the world over is full of rhetoric and devoid of action. If Australians are being asked to pay a tax, even if it’s called an emissions trading scheme, they should compare what other countries are actually doing, not what some politician might once have said.
The ABC in particular runs a constant propaganda campaign in favour of the idea that the world is moving to put a price on carbon. But the information is never specific. Any ABC interviewer with a speck of competence or professional standards should always ask the following: Name the specific scheme? Is it actually in operation? How much of the economy does it cover? What is the price of carbon? How much revenue does it raise?
You can impose no real cost on your economy, but still have a scheme to brag about if you have economy-wide coverage but a tiny price, or a big price but a tiny coverage. Either way you have a good headline scheme to fool the ABC with.
But here are some actual facts. The UN Framework Convention on Climate has 195 members. Only 34 of those use anything resembling an emissions trading scheme. Of those, 27 are in the EU scheme. No one in the Asia-Pacific has an effective scheme.
What about these Chinese schemes we hear so much about on the ABC? There are seven designated pilot projects in China. One – that’s right, one – has begun operation. That is in Shenzhen. So far all the permits are given away for free. It has had no impact at all on carbon emissions.
The Chinese government has indicated it may look at a national scheme for the five-year plan from 2016. This is at most speculative, and there are a million ways it could be completely ineffective, which is almost certainly the result. China is by far the world’s biggest polluter. Its per capita emissions are now comparable with Europe’s. It has some plans to reduce carbon intensity, that is, the amount of carbon per unit of production, but no plans to reduce the absolute size of its emissions.
Japan has effectively abandoned plans for an ETS. No economy-wide carbon tax or ETS is operating today. South Korea has a plan, but it will issue all permits for free in the first period and is looking to redesign its scheme partly to avoid the impact on electricity prices, which Australia’s scheme had. New Zealand has a notional scheme, but the price is a meaningless $1 per tonne.
The US has no carbon tax or ETS and is unlikely ever to have one. The separate Californian scheme is frequently adduced by pro-tax Australian partisans. But this scheme covers only 37 per cent of emissions, compared with the Australian tax that covered 60 per cent of our emissions. More importantly, in California, 90 per cent of permits for electricity are given for free.
The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative covers several northern states in the US. But the price is $2.55 per tonne and it covers only electricity.
Canada does not have an ETS or a carbon tax. The Quebec scheme covers a minority of emissions and because the province is so reliant on hydro-electricity the scheme has little impact.
Some of the biggest carbon emitters in Asia – like Indonesia and India – not only do not have national carbon taxes or ETS schemes, they have massive fuel subsidies to make carbon-based fuels accessible to all their people. A fuel subsidy is the opposite of a carbon tax, it is a carbon subsidy.
The European scheme has a price of about $7. Famously, it covers a substantially smaller proportion of its emissions than our carbon tax did. Equally famously, in its first five years it tended to raise about $500 million a year whereas our carbon tax raised $9 billion a year. So all of Europe combined imposed a cost on itself of one-18th of the cost Australia imposed on itself.
Europe also allows, within its scheme, a certain amount of imports of Certified Emission Reduction Units, basically UN-approved carbon credits created in Third World countries. The price for these shonky bits of paper has now fallen below $1 per tonne.
Labor’s Mark Butler was yesterday repeating the ALP mantra, much recited, too, by the Greens and the ABC, that not a single reputable climate scientist or economist endorses direct action of the kind Abbott and his minister, Greg Hunt, propose. This is untrue. The vast majority of the governments of the world, certainly the US and Canada, are using direct action mechanisms to address greenhouse gas emissions.
The rise of gas as an energy source has been the key driver of reductions in the US, but tighter automobile emissions standards and many other direct action measures have also been important. Australia would be extremely foolish to move substantially faster or further than most of the world. That is what we did in the biggest way with our hugely destructive carbon tax.
To compare ourselves with the world we must be absolutely accurate about what the world is actually, really doing in its physical manifestation today, not what some EU bureaucrat or NGO activist is willing to say in an always unchallenging ABC interview. Even within Europe’s compromised scheme there is a great deal of re-thinking as economic logic trumps climate change piety.
The carbon tax and the ETS are based on a complete misrepresentation of what other countries are doing. Australians have never voted for either an ETS or a carbon tax and, unless the world changes radically, are unlikely to do so in the future.
– See more at: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/columnists/the-great-climate-fiction/story-e6frg76f-1226741257158#sthash.GqDvMNeW.dpuf “
Neville – Lomborg as a source on palaeo who has a graph – pullease. Don’t waste my time boy with uncited rubbish with no discussion of insolation either.
Neville get yourself updated on nuclear. You’re clearly not.
As for greens and nuclear – well that’s thawing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6pXiiQBknHM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7fm8SVLOacQ I saw it the other night. Fairly hard hitting documentary if still not a propaganda piece to a POV.
sorry all, I did not notice Nev had posted most of the article above mine…..pls feel free to delete Jen!
Luke Lomborg source is a proper scientific study. Sorry but you’re the only person here who doesn’t understand simple maths, not us.
Here’s Christy’s address to the house. See second paragraph and also understand his estimate ( he claims ) is an exaggeration. So 1,000 nuke impact on temp is ZIP.
Also note that these nukes are to be built by 2020, when in reality they probably won’t be built by 2100. Wake up to yourself and book your tickets to China and India pronto.
http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/EnviroPhilo/ChristyTestimony09.pdf
France didn’t decarbonise. It ran low on carbon. Pierre Messmer made a bold decision in 1974. Nobody waited for the “hand of the market” and the government ignored the Concerned Scientists Group (yep, France had one of those groups in the 70s). They implemented, rather than hope there would be no more oil shocks. It’s just as well for surrounding nations they decided to get into nukes. And OPEC has had to think twice before causing more oil shocks.
Australia doesn’t need top decarbonise, but it needs to stop wasting coal by failing to modernise and expand coal power gen. And it should think hard about domestic reservation of coal, since The Market has become just another Big Lever with strong leftist appeal. Coal should be cheap for Australians, but we should be looking for ways to transport, store and burn it in much cleaner and more efficient ways. That means regulation, but not regulation which springs from hostility to business and development. When something is abundant and naturally cheap you need to keep it that way, but that doesn’t have to entail lowering standards. Some coal rich land should not be quarried at all. When you are rich you can think like this. So get rich. If you are already rich, get richer. But don’t trash the place.
We should be coal users, not just a coal quarry. If it’s okay to have public roads and public libraries, it’s okay to have public coal. Of course, we’ve got so much of the lovely stuff we should be exporting it too. Share the love, I say.
The 5th IPCC report collapses in a putrid heap, what a mess.
http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/10/09/un-climate-report-goes-bust-even-media-fails-to-promote-top-scientists-including-ipcc-reviewers-condemn-ipcc-report-as-premeditated-murder-of-science-absurd/
But ya gotta laugh, I suppose.
More proof that dangerous SLR is occuring is shown by the evidence to be just more corruption and fraud. What a con.
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/10/13/tuvalu-still-drowning-after-all-these-years/
Ezra Levant confronts David Suzuki one of the greatest con merchants and HIPPOS in Canadian history.
Of course he proved on ABC’s Q&A that he was also one of the most pig ignorant fools of all time. Pity he’s such a public trough feeder as well. Oink, oink.
http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/video/featured/prime-time/867432237001/full-episode-ezra-levant-confronts-david-suzuki/2735775008001
Neville, good one. He was recently at Sydney Uni. I wonder how much he charged and who the female lady body guards were?
Luke, that’s just Gavin-and-Jimmy-blurb.
Historical temps and CO2 levels are well understood from not only ice cores but Ohtzi and situations like this which cannot be denied.
Even by you slick, professional deniers:
http://joannenova.com.au/2013/10/melting-glacier-in-alaska-reveals-ancient-remains-of-forest-evidence-of-warm-periods/
thx Luke, interesting doco by the looks of it and I liked the interview. This quote was priceless when he was describing his initial dismissal of nuclear “If you are a part of a movement you don’t question the tenements” (? ….he means underlying principles but I am not sure what word he actually used?) …sums up environmentalists perfectly and CAGW. too many people are just ignorant and blindly believe what they are told or fits their paradigm. Now I do not put you in that category, clearly you are v well read across the topic and have an informed opinion. But you should acknowledge that so are very many here and they have reached a different conclusion. Clearly the science is not settled and given that currently other than nuclear, adaptation is the only decent policy action. This is why sceptics are “winning” the debate
he is incredibly honest about wind and solar, if only others were so inclined.
more people like him and the climate change “movement” might again gain traction. But for now so much misinformation and exaggeration and so many zealots pushing crazy ideas and getting rich in the process is enough to make you a sceptic…isn’t !
I might add that the ideas he discusses we have discussed here many times over many years.
one of the stand out points I recall re modern reactors was that if france used these modern reactors from day one, all the nuclear waste created would fit in a single basketball court
Toby – well I attended a screening of Pandora’s Promise this week, which is the documentary Lynas visits replete with a visit to Fukushima, Chernobyl and 3 Mile Island. Fukushima is seriously scary. Additionally a vox pop with a highly emotional and irrational Helen Caldicott at a demo.
However one has to ask has Lynas done his homework on CAGW. Would he convert not only on GMOs and nuclear?
Interestingly James Hansen and Kerry Emanuel and both pro-nuclear and Republicans.
And Neville thinks I don’t get it – I well understand how hard the issue of global energy transformation is, what Australia earns from coal, how Chinese and Indian growth mops up any efforts we may take, residence time in the atmosphere. In the end though one can only make a serious effort on the evaluation of risk and the level of science that we have and imperfect as it is.
I have really upset my green friends of late with my high interest in new nuclear.
Pandora’s Promise puts the global level of nuclear waste to be a football field piled 3 metres high.
New generation breeder reactors would reuse all that. In fact it’s valuable fuel just sitting there.
The US are also buying Russian warheads to convert megatons into megawatts.
Should we be waiting for people notoriously wrong about everything to “thaw”? And do we then have to endure the authoritarianism of enviro-purists who haven’t been willing to “thaw”? If nukes are good long-term competition for coal, let’s get out of their way while being careful to regulate the essentials (like geo-stability, duh.)
Time to dismiss green opinion, not court it. Bring back conservation, which is a fancy word for respect and thrift, qualities unknown to our Green Betters.
Toby – may be a bit long but Barry Brook also did a very good talk on nuclear at the Australian Academy of Science.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpfdb35ffWY Barry of course is a big AGW advocate.
And the complete Thorium remix http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9M__yYbsZ4
I’ll say this, I would much rather see taxpayer funds spent on new nukes and not wasted on idiotic, super expensive, unreliable solar and wind energy.
I don’t doubt for a moment that nukes won’t make a scrap of difference to the climate or temp at all but at least it would be far more reliable and cheaper than S&Wind.
But in the interim we should be building more cheap, reliable, coal fired stns in OZ as soon as possible.
Not to do so is just so unbelievably stupid and proves we are not the smart country we’d all like to think we are.
Neville, you’re offering solutions. The warmers don’t want solutions. Middle class and comfortable, they desire to be victims.
They just wannabe oppressed:
http://www.nationalreview.com/education-week/360874/wannabe-oppressed-stanley-kurtz
The Bolter nails the stupidity of the Bandt and Fitzsimmons idiots.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/adam_bandt_says_adam_bandt_is_outrageous/#commentsmore
Could you imagine anyone more stupid than these pair of nongs? I mean they actually believe that we can stop bad outcomes or cause climate to change to suit our desires.
What sort of education do we have that allows people to believe this irrational, fanatical, groupthink nonsense?
They should be ashamed to show their faces in public until they grow a brain and apologise.
Spruiked as the temperature records are broken. All based on the assumption of no significant impacts.
Hottest days increasing, hottest nights increasing, coldest days and nights decreasing.
Persistent rainfall deficits now present in SW WA and south coastal Australia.
Deny deny deny
“Deny deny deny”
That’s more like it.
Nice to see you back to normal.
I was getting worried.
But, as usual, no need to wet the bed. It’s been a lot worse:
And even Governor Arthur Philip noted the effects of the extreme heat of the summer of 1790/91;
“from the numbers [of dead bats] that fell into the brook at Rose Hill [Parramatta], the water was tainted for several days, and it was supposed that more than twenty thousand of them were seen within the space of one mile.”
Ever seen even ONE bird die of heat stress, Luke?
Massive regrowth after a half-decade of high rainfall. Classic grass/undergrowth/ fuel build-up, and classic spring fire conditions for NSW. Springwood ridge an historic fire hotspot. Had to come eventually. Always has come, eventually. Think 1957, 1964-5, 1968, 1969-70, 1972-3, 1974-5 (our biggest, with 3,755,000ha burnt)…and, really, right through the lush 70s. Recent years in NSW since 2002 fires not so bad, but plenty of bad fires 80s and 90s.
Look at that map of rainfall anomaly for NSW/ACT. Increased rainfall in NSW over the last half century and more is good news in some ways (till some new trend changes it all again), but our regrowth after good cycles is that much more abundant.
All credit to firies, Abbott included. Of course there should be much more control burning etc, but tonight is not the night to talk about that.
Our valley is okay, so far. The forest lies north and east, and some of the compartments have had a good controlled burn.
Tempted to say something else, but I don’t think I need to.
Yes Robert, after good rainfall you only need a short period of hot-and-dry to have a tinder box.
We were lucky to get a burn in prior to this reverse monsoon but even that doesn’t guarantee safety.
Pleased you’re OK.
Let’s play anecdote dickheads
http://www.illawarramercury.com.au/story/1246629/flying-foxes-die-in-heat-babies-orphaned/
Bat’s tend not be be birds.
Luke plays typical Luke. Avoids what doesn’t suit him.
Well, what about the dead “perroquettes”? There were thousands of them too.
Have you ever lived through temperatures where a single bird died of heat stress?
“An immense flight of bats, driven before the wind, covered all the trees around the settlement, whence they every moment dropped dead, or in a dying state, unable longer to endure the burning state of the atmosphere. Nor did the perroquettes, [parrots] though tropical birds, bear it better; the ground was strewed with them in the same condition as the bats.”
So Luke do you agree with the Bandt and Fitzsimonds idiots? It’s all Tony’s fault now and into the future is it?
Remember even if we could reduce OZ emissions by 5% by 2100 ( trust me under an ETS we would not) warmist Prof Roger Jones informs Bolt that it would only reduce temps by an undetectable 0.004C, and at a cost of hundreds of bns $.
Lomborg gave Bolt a similar result to Jones as well. But remember we’ll be increasing our exports of FFs by 100s of millions extra tonnes in just a few decades and likewise Indonesia and many other countries.
Forget about those pesky extra 100s of millions tonnes did you? Also don’t forget those billions of tonnes of iron ore in the Pilbara could be gone by 2070. And all those billions are not processed by using pixie dust either. Wake up.
Of course no change to the climate and we’ll still have bushfires, cyclones, floods, droughts, some SLR, etc.
But 5% of zip means a return of zip and a waste of 100s of bns $ for zip. And if the world could build 1,000 new best nukes tomorrow it would still have zip impact on climate or temp by 2100.
But Timmy’s quote (using the ice core record) is probably the best one. “If the entire world stopped emitting co2 today we would not see a change in temp for hundreds of years or perhaps a thousand years.”
But we know that could take many more thousands of years before we might return us to the climate existing before 1750. (BTW I don’t necessarily believe this idiocy but plenty do.)
Whoops sorry wasn’t it a teensy bit cold back then. Oh well we’ll just have to adjust the dial to 1900. What a joke you fools are.
With OZ business leaders ?????? like this what hope have we got?
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/the_planet_wont_be_saved_by_exporting_our_cash/#commentsmore
So if we send billions $ overseas every year to buy corrupt, fake co2 certificates this moronic galoot thinks we can some how save the planet?
Where oh bloody where were these nongs educated? I presume most have completed a tertiary education, yet they still can’t understand simple kindy sums.
Luke (at the 8.31 comment)
Seriously….you are not doing your credibility much good when you berate others for talking about weather events (as opposed to climate) and then go ahead and do it yourself and do it like a hand waving catastrophist…or like those deltoids.
Adam Bandt using the term ‘climate criminal’ in the media is simply atrocious…and it wouldn’t matter who or what he is referring to…it is just simply atrocious.
Some hours of constant drizzle here on the midcoast. Whew. The radar is indicating patches of drizzle around Lithgow and the mountains. Here’s hoping. That Springwood-Winmalee ridge always looks horribly exposed to me. Still, nice country when it’s not ablaze.
SD, the last time we had those NW blasts in high summer around here there were caged budgies dying, and I don’t doubt some wild birds perished, but it was not on a scale as observed by Tench and Dawes in early Sydney. The early 1790s heatwaves at Port Jackson and Rose Hill coincided with the Doji Bara, or Skull Famine, in India, one of the most catastrophic El Nino/monsoon failures in history. Because of the relatively clear undergrowth from aboriginal management the fire risk was not nearly as great as it would be now if the same conditions recurred – as they will one day!
To learn from the past one has to acknowledge that it actually happened. You wouldn’t think that would be a problem in the Age of Information. Amazingly, it is.
SD – gee there is heaps of reports about birds and heatwaves – relevance = 0.0 Give me trend data or sod orf. The TREND for anyone (not you doofus) with an ability to analyse Australian data would know that hot days and nights up and old days and nights down. But you are an denying twit so I guess that would be a surprise.
Debs – credibility – Debs plays “concern troll”. Debs I was just using enough credibility to be one unit in front of you. LOL
Neville you are a dog returning to your vomit. So you suggest that unrestrained global CO2 growth is fine, there is no risk at all, and no collective responsibility to find another way.
And you massive idiot – there is no simple way to return to 280ppm – BUT HOW HIGH DO YOU WANT TO GO?
As for your 1000 Nukes line – you wouldn’t know you stupid dickhead. You can’t do basic science and simply would not know. Remember you’re the guy that tries to sell us Timsdale junk. Worthless trash that gets repealed in the next post. (Any old iron – ask Nev – he’ll do you a right little earner – and throw in a bridge as well). You – the climate crim who uses Bolt and Watts as source. You’re the twit who thinks ice core lags mean something re AGW. You’re a fool.
That’s why Neville you are a climate criminal and need to be put away.
So Neville stop be a lying little fraud and answer these 2 simple questions (1) is there any risk form unrestrained global CO2 growth (2) please explain how ice cores are relevant to AGW
You’ve only been asked 3-4 times.
Another good column from Matt Ridley. So far recent climate change has been good for us. Geeedzzzz but the greenies and urgers want to return us to the wonderful splendors of the LIA. Ya gotta laugh.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/17/the-good-side-of-climate-change/#more-95754
BTW Christine Milne will hold a press conference at 11 am to talk about CC. I bet it’s all about Abbott wrecking the planet’s chances of surviving terrible CAGW.
I wonder if SD ever falls off his perch?
http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/thousands-of-birds-die-in-sweltering-heat/story-e6frg12c-1111118551504
On cue Neviile returns with his daily dose of Wattsup pig slop. As if we’re unable to find disinformation central ourselves. Nev can you give forewarning which posts will be retracted for too many errors. Just so we don’t waste our time reading them.
I think the pressures getting to poor lil Lukey. I ‘ve already answered your questions or haven’t you noticed?
So answer my question of many years past. How do we change the climate back to some wonderful past era?
How long will it take and leave out your new nukes because they’ll have zip impact.
History of extreme weather events since 2AD.
From page 1026
and for Flannery –
“In July 1900, there was a major flood at Hawkesbury/Nepean Valley in New South Wales, Australia. The
water level was recorded at 46 feet (14.08 meters) above the sea level height at Windsor Bridge.”
http://www.breadandbutterscience.com/Weather.pdf
Luke – regards recent high temps I’ll quote a poster from Jonova’s blog:
What happened to logic? This post modern fuzziness where everything is a matter of opinion is just a circus. In the time since I stopped growing in my late teens, I have had nearly two decades of no growing. No, the growth isn’t hiding in my little toe or my large intestine, there simply hasn’t been any that I can measure. True, I’ve had nearly two decades of the highest level of tallness on record, but I have not grown in that time. Come on. It’s not that hard is it?
Turtle of Western Australia
JS, that’s a great historical record of weather events isn’t it? Of course it’s difficult to compare the actual severity of events then vs now, but the evidence does paint a picture of extremes over time. Can we say that a similar set of conditions in the 1800s would have the same effect as we saw yesterday? Not at all, but there is some comparitive sense to be drawn from the physical effects described.
That said, the utter rubbish spouted by Bandt tells you all you need to know about his sense of proportion. And to argue that Abbott is in any way responsible is bizarre. As for Luke’s frothing about futures, well the bottom line is that it matters not a jot in the context of current BAU what Australia does. We can only impact the broader trends when the big players make the extreme reductions.
I still argue that it’s a crime that people have been so misled by the alarmist wailings as to imagine that a round of storms or bushfires is somehow unusual and caused by Australia’s CO2 emissions. It may be warmer, but not by much and it isn’t going to change anytime soon regardless of what Australia does. That some people actually believe it’s the derdy polluders and Tony Abbbott that cause these things is downright sad…
Luke, you haven’t got a clue.
These birds died from lack of water, not from heat.
“We don’t worry about the heat but these birds are dead after flying about for about three days, round and round and round – they look for somewhere to stay, they look for the water.”
When you read an article like that and you make that assumption it says plenty about your scientific comprehension [or lack thereof].
When a bird dies of heat stress it doesn’t fly around for three days, it drops dead in mid-flight.
I have experienced many situations where the last waterhole has overnight gone from sweet muddy water to poisonous clear water and all the fish, birds and any other animal dependant on it for survival has to die because there is nowhere else within travelling distance.
That is a completely different scenario to being killed by the heat as happened at Rose Hill, near the coast, in 1791 where water was not a problem, but temperature was.
Matt Ridley has a new article in the Spectator.
Why climate change is good for the world.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9057151/carry-on-warming/
Geeezzzz you blokes go a bit easy on Lukey, you know he doesn’t like facts and the truth. He’s back to jailing me because I’m a climate crim.
Bugger I don’t think I could take too long in the boob in my present condition, so perhaps I should tread more carefully.
His cult leader Bandt calls Abbott etc climate crims as well so you can see where he gets his ideas and advice from I suppose.
A good post from WUWT with a new study showing the connection between the PDO, SST and tornadoes.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/17/new-study-shows-pacific-decadal-oscillation-sst-cycles-drive-us-tornado-strength/#more-95781
Same ol’ same ol’ down the memory hole deniers of the historical record,
deniers of past Oz worse heat waves, storms, fire and flood … getting rid
of the Medieval Warming Period or The Little Ice Age so they can say like
Hansen, Mann, Gore and Flannery, ‘It’s worse than evah before and wicked
humans are to blame.’ ‘ Capitalist swine, yer contradictions doom you!’ )
H/t Karl Mark
Hope it keeps on drizzlin’ up north, Robert.
b-t-s.
Bandt is spot on – highest period temperatures on record are a major issue. You’re just in denial mode guys. And the trend already has and will continue to build and build and build.
At some point your denial will break your backs.
SD – you wouldn’t know either – by now we know your half-arsed home-on -the-range folksy opinion is worth nothing. Birds and fruit bats dropping in hot weather is not new or unprecedented. Your point is what? Some old anecdote that you think proves something with no forensic backup – you were there in 1790 were you? Sod orf!
http://www.illawarramercury.com.au/story/1246629/flying-foxes-die-in-heat-babies-orphaned/
Analyse the Australian temperature record with no adjustments and the results are broadly the same as BoM reports (Done it!). If you don’t think it’s warming and you don’t think overall very hot days and nights are up and very cold days and nights are down well you’re a denio-bot.
Do the analysis showing BoM are wrong or piss off.
“Bandt is spot on ”
That’s it! – I don’t care how much Jen loves you – you are a prick!
Beth – I see serfs prefer content free tea party tripe instead of information. That’s why serfs remain stupid serfs.
SD – can’t even read
“While budgerigars can survive up to 30 days without water, the manager said younger inexperienced birds may have floundered in the extreme heat.
Adult birds, initially attracted to the shady surroundings of the Overland Roadhouse, appear to have fled when temperatures soared leaving younger animals to perish.
DEC officers said they could not rule out water contamination as a possible cause of death, but believe it is unlikely.
He said dead birds, mainly budgerigars, were everywhere and the smell was terrible.
“They are just flying and then the next minute you see they’re trying to find a shady place,” he said.
“And then what they do is they get right around the corner and they stay there (in the shade), they never come out to eat, they never come out to drink and they’re dying.
“They are dying because of the heat.”
Perhaps we should alter the last sentence to Spangled Drongo actually knows that it wasn’t heat at all. They were just depressed. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA
Blog turns into a dementia ward replete with codger tales.
“While budgerigars can survive up to 30 days without water,” ROFL !!
I can see SD yelling at the avian fauna – don’t be so piss weak – if you’re going to die make it in mid-flight in my presence at noon OR your death will be unconvincing ….. hahahahahahaha
I may be a prick but I’m right – does our banjo tuner want to deny the last year’s temperature data. I suppose you’d now like to also take on CSIRO’s whole bushfire research output?
So we have had an AGW fuelled La Nina leading to large growth in vegetation which has now cured in record AGW heat and has caught fire.
It’s the old denial two-step – when it’s happening it IS STILL NOT HAPPENING. (Surely it can’t be happening)
Time for a diversionary round of pig slop press clippings from Neville or some anecdotes of days or yore.
John Sayers,
I agree. . .If Luke thinks Bandt is spot on. . . then I’m sorry Jen. . . but Bandt’s comment was simply atrocious. . . I would think so no matter who or what he was directing it at.
Yes – the La Nina growth in vegetation has caught fire in SPRING when it should have been burnt off in Winter like we’ve always done in the past UNTIL Bandt and his merry band of Greenies put a stop to it! Ask anyone in the fire service whether they were allowed to burn off and they’ll tell you they were prohibited by the greenies on the local councils.
That’s the facts Luke whether you like it or not.
As for CSIRO’s bushfire research unit – stick it up your jumper – the CSIRO is infested with pricks like you!
Our CSIRO office is nearly empty.
We used to have really good people who lived and worked with our community and understood what was needed.
Where have they all gone, who are they working with and what are they working on?
Where’s the evidence that the la nina was ‘AGW fueled’?
Luke, you non-sceptical, clueless boy. That whole story described a situation where a huge irruption of budgerigars, caused by an unusual good wet season in a normally very dry area, caused many deaths to occur among the young over a period of a few days because the main water source dried up.
When extreme temperature kills a bird it has nothing to do with water shortage, simply extreme heat. And it happens in mid-flight at the specific time of the extreme heat.
If you can’t work out that that article was about only young, juvenile and immature birds dying from lack of water during a heatwave it speaks volumes about your lack of scientific understanding [awa analytic scepticism] of any given situation.
Debbie, as John says the CSIRO is infested with “people” like Luke who no longer understand what is going on around them so they are not worth having around adding to the deficit.
Their only solution is to throw huge amounts of money at any problem which hopefully for them will take years to resolve and the outcome not be known till they are long gone.
These “experts” here are currently trying to solve the suburban Koala problem by spending a fortune on freeway underpasses and other crazy schemes instead of getting rid of feral dingoes on Fraser Is and re-establishing the population on there and similar islands where they will have a permanent future in a great refuge.
Geeezzzzz it’s real worry when it suddenly dawns on you that you’re dealing with a barking mad fool.
He wants to lock up people who don’t agree with his stupid , delusional point of view and thinks that silly Bandt is a hero.
He yaps on for years about doing something about CAGW but gets abusive every time anyone asks him what that something is and how it will help?
Just shows that he has lost his grip on reality, doesn’t even understand kindy maths, just loves the idea of totalitarian groupthink and couldn’t care less about the damage he would cause to jobs and industry here in OZ.
Thx Luke for those further nuclear links, I will look over the weekend. I recall having a few conversations with barry on this blog a few years ago, he is certainly a catastrophist but he is open to some reason re nuclear.
I wish you would stop using the term tea party like they were all bad. They are right that the USA is spending too much money, their debt is a real world wide issue, 17 trillion. what is the point in having a debt ceiling if you keep raising it. 20 c in every dollar they spend is borrowed!!
read this article by one of the best economics analysts in the media. Obama is a typical socialist and unfortunately so are most of the republicans deep down. nobody seems to respect money and debt. the Tea party are making incredibly valid points even if some of their wishes are extreme and crazy.
the point I like best is that “In the context of the perceived `wisdom’ that only crazy extremist Republicans would shutdown the government, Knox detailed that it’s happened 17 times previously since 1976; and 15 of those were by Democrats; and indeed five were Democrats shutting down a Democrat president!”…makes you sound a shrill don’t you think?!
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/business/driveby-analysis-misses-the-whole-us-story/story-fni0d8gi-1226741274631
OK Luke,
just so we’re all clear. . . what ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere do YOU think is acceptable?
It has recently gone over 400 ppm . . .is that acceptable?
How high do YOU think it might go?
At what particular ppm do YOU think it’s a high risk?
And again. . .
Please supply the evidence that the la nina was ‘AGW fueled’ as YOU claim in your 12:33 comment.
SD . . .Yes it’s very disappointing.
I spent (or maybe wasted) 3 hours on Wednesday listening to a presentation by the MDBA. . . one of them seconded from CSIRO.
It was hopelessly inaccurate and hopelessly ignorant of our environment in the MIA.
They were also claiming they need 10 years (10!!!!!!) to fully understand how to manage the ‘constraints’ in the river systems . . .and didn’t like it when it was pointed out that there are PLENTY of reputable people and organisations (some who are ex CSIRO) who already have that information.
Oh! Forgot to add this question for Luke,
If there was such a thing as a ‘climate criminal’ . . . what is/are the crime/s, what are the penalties and what would be the beneficial outcome for the climate?
Just so we’re clear. Tench and Dawes were completely reliable. Tench records in detail how and with what Dawes measured temps. I’ve known his text for decades. (Amazingly, Tim Flannery is Tench’s admiring modern editor.) I have spent extended time around birds and bats in heatwaves but have not witnessed any deaths of the sort described in Tench’s journal, let alone on that scale. Others have witnessed mass wildlife/bird/bat deaths in heatwaves, so it is clear to me that what happened in 1791-2 was not unique. What is special is the severity. I’d add that we are not talking just about high heat but also NW winds at a time of year when such winds do not normally prevail. This has happened recently during climatic episodes like 1982-3 and the early 2000s. There is no relief, even at the ocean’s edge.
As to whether we should take an interest in well reported co-incident conditions in India and Australia during El Nino/monsoon failures, I can only say that a man called Gilbert Walker did precisely that.
http://airmap.unh.edu/graphics/nao_fig_2.jpg
Perhaps Walker, who was a witness to Indian famine in 1899 – remember what was happening in Oz then? – was too concerned with old-man yarns and anecdotes?
A ray of hope for the Brits. Get China and France to build your nukes.
What chance Australia to wake up to reality?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/10384745/Chinese-companies-to-buy-big-stake-in-next-generation-of-British-nuclear-power.html
Could John Sayer’s Matt Ridley link [plus predictions from Lindzen etc] on the benefits of a warmer planet be starting already?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/2013/10/15/tropics-extremely-quiet-in-atlantic-record-drought-in-major-u-s-hurricane-landfalls/
Crocodile tears and mock outrage from the right extremists on Adam Bandt’s short and pertinent statement.
Debs – who knows the exact ppm figure. 2-3C increase in GAT will see major changes and reorganisation of the Earth’s climate as has happened in the past but not with 7 billion humans.
Neville obviously wishes to never stop emitting. Unrestrained growth with no shared responsibility. None. Don’t worry about getting temperatures back down. Worry how high they are going to go and consequences thereof.
Obviously Debs the 2011 La Nina fuelled by records SSTs and 3pm vapour pressure readings. Wetter than wet.
And timely as the great Australian Scott Power researcher has just published in Nature how increases in ENSO and anti-ENSO strength are robust findings of most of the CMIP5 models.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-10-14/nrn-el-nino-study/5020710
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcrKVv2con8
Meet the real face of one the great Australian scientists that you grubs routinely libel.
More computer model gobbledegook:
I’m sorry Luke but! how come Scott Power is giving a lecture in AGW 101 to a conference of meteorologists? Have they all been asleep for the past decade?
How come none of those meteorologists didn’t pull him up when he pulled the swifty that land and sea surface temperatures were increasing when they haven’t been for the past 15 years, or when he said ocean temperatures are increasing when they are not and why didn’t he explain that man’s contribution to CO2 increase in his fancy cherry picked CO2 chart is only 3%?
You see – this is the whole problem in a nutshell – most of the scientists you ask us to respect are idiots!
For those interested in the smelly old past, the most radical swing between El Nino and La Nina would have to be in the years from 1914 to 1918. There you had a situation where a rare “strong” El Nino was immediately replaced by a rare “strong” La Nina. 1915 may well have been the worst combo of drought and heat in a single year for NSW, though “worst” depends on so many factors it’s not easy to say. The double La Nina which ensued brought disastrous floods and cyclones to Qld, and much disease due to the length of wet conditions. This in a decade more notorious for monthly heat records and drought.
ENSO being observations, not mechanisms as some juveniles would wish, one can’t say that “strong” means “worst”. Weak El Ninos in 1902-3 and 2002-3 were vastly more severe for Australians than the “super” of 1997-8. And it wasn’t just the La Nina lever thrown by old Gaia which explains the freakish 1950. 1950…analyse that!
It’s interesting that the only other officially “strong” La Nina was also followed, not preceded, by sharp drought and heat in late 2012. It was certainly worse than I thought…but I wasn’t around in 1914!
One day we’ll know more, when science nudges out dogma and zealotry.
At least Power admits the implications are not known but he is sure they will be bad.
Pity he also doesn’t admit that to date those same models are well over the real world temperatures in 97% of cases:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/10/maybe-that-ipcc-95-certainty-was-correct-after-all/
Anyone who is so sure the warming is at the bottom of unmeasured oceans is a very unreliable adviser to govt and public.
I also wonder if Scott Power is smart enough to realise that all those scary scenarios from his models require positive feedback loops for which no evidence has ever been shown.
The history of the planet shows no runaway warming during hundreds of millions of years when CO2 levels were up to nearly 20 times present levels.
So any reasonable person would conclude that his scary scenarios aren’t very likely to happen.
And contrary to his [and Luke’s] bedwetting, current higher than pre-industrial levels of CO2 are definitely good for our increased population.
Sayers illustrates the best in sceptic pig ignorance. It was a public presentation with a massively over subscribed waiting list you imbecile. Sayers the fool. Can’t even read.
Oh – so that would explain why he got away with so much BS in his talk – did any of the professional meteorologists challenge his BS?…..I thought not.
Challenge what exactly Sayers. Perhaps you could stump up and make an arse of yourself.
SD – That would be the unmeasured heat measured by Argo – barp thanks for playing.
20 times present levels of CO2 – that would be with a 4% weaker Sun – barp – thanks for playing.
Recycled denial – the dogs return to their vomit time after time.
A reasonable person would look for a reasonable analogue – late Pliocene – 2 degrees armer – 12-32 metres increase sea level http://www.bitsofscience.org/2-degrees-climate-warming-pliocene-sea-level-rise-5353/
http://www.skepticalscience.com/What-was-it-like-the-last-time-CO2-levels-were-this-high.html
or try the PETM
barp thankx for playing clown
I already posted my concerns Luke which you evaded as usual.
“How come none of those meteorologists didn’t pull him up when he pulled the swifty that land and sea surface temperatures were increasing when they haven’t been for the past 15 years, or when he said ocean temperatures are increasing when they are not and why didn’t he explain that man’s contribution to CO2 increase in his fancy cherry picked CO2 chart is only 3%?”
Another top post from Bob Tisdale proving that that Nuccitelli is a hopeless fraud.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/18/dana-nuccitelli-cant-come-to-terms-with-the-death-of-the-agw-hypothesis/#more-95808
You can check out all the temps and OHC data etc from oceans, land surface temp etc at the link.
All Luke is left with is evasion. Avoids the point I am making about negative feedbacks and the relentless history of the earth refusing to go into runaway warming even though we have had huge increases in CO2.
But always wets the bed over the PETM even though he hasn’t a clue how it happened and knows it could always happen again. Regardless of what we do.
People like you Lukie, aren’t the solution, you’re the PROBLEM!
But you do at least show where the real problem lies.
Interesting to look again at David Evan’s estimates for warming from OZ’s various reductions of co2. See page 203 of Taxing Air.
David has been a climate modeler employed by the federal govt and is a maths expert as well.
But using the IPCC’s sensitivity for doubling of co2 of 3.3c he finds that a 5% reduction by OZ would only reduce temp by 0.0007c by 2050.
Of course a number of scientists think this sensitivity is far too high and is in fact less than 1c for a doubling of co2. Therefore you could add another zero to the right of the decimal point above or 0.00007c for their best estimate.
But David also shows that if OZ reduced emissions by 100% ( Luke’s preferred option or a retreat to the caves) the temp would only reduce by a still unmeasurable 0.0154 by 2050.
That’s about one hundredth of a degree c temp reduction by 2050 and at a cost of 100s of billions $ for zip. So that’s my answer why we shouldn’t try to reduce emissions but use adaptation and more R&D for our response to any good or bad AGW.
Who knows we may find a new biological method of mopping up excess co2 from the atmosphere and oceans. That’s if we really want to by 2050.
Of course our greening planet is helping now and if we plant more trees etc we may have some further impact.
Sayers – are you actually mental – what a frigging galoot your are – so CO2 trundles along for 800,000 years and then spikes massively – the scale of the graph straight up – it’s natural –
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAAAA
“Why didn’t they pull him up on various issues” – oh gee I’m sorry – I’ll teleport back and ask. Fuck off and stop being stupid. Why don’t you teleport back and tell not 90% of sceptics not to write utter shit. Why didn’t you pull SD up on the rubbish he penned last night which he has like a typical fraudulent sceptics now glossed over. Why do you lot repeat lies over and over.
Thought it was time to link to the actual numbers we’re always talking about. OOPS well we are but Luke isn’t. In fact Luke hates the facts.
http://www.eia.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/iedindex3.cfm?tid=90&pid=44&aid=8&cid=CG6,CG5,&syid=1990&eyid=2010&unit=MMTCD
Since 1990 OZ emissions have increased by 156 million tonnes per annum. China’s emissions have increased by about 6 BILLION tonnes p.a or 38 times higher than our emissions,
Now here is a straight up example of utter bald-face lying by disinformation Neville.
“David (Evans) has been a climate modeler employed by the federal govt ”
NO HE WAS NOT !
So Neville why have you TOTALLY lied to us here this morning? WHY? Now don’t evade – ANSWER !
And here is the utter fraud citing material from straight out of his arse from non-climate modellers – made up crap with no peer reviewed backup. The bloke down the pub told him. Well what a big liar you are mate. An utter fraud. Our pig slop delivering errand boy spreading as many lies as he can.
David Evans is a climate scientist now just like John McLean – hahahahahahahahahahaaaaa
But that’s you Neville – an uneducated hick who has no idea. Someone who reads climate porn from climate crims. Probably has radio welded to talkback reactionary rot and can’t wait to hear what gimps like Bolt have to spew each day.
SD is a bigger fabricating liar as nifty Nev – “earth refusing to go into runaway warming ”
sorry where is that on runaway in the IPCC reports. Stop being such a liar eh?
You little creeps think you can get away with anything don’t you. Just peddle a few lies. Slip in a few porkies and see if they get through.
Luke,
Behind all your ranting and sneering…it’s clear that you are unable to answer the simple and direct questions.
Your comments re what causes a la nina do not explain or provide evidence for your original assertion that it was ‘AGW fuelled’…especially when there have been stronger la nina events throughout our history.
Also….saying ‘who knows?’ re an ideal CO2 ppm is equally evasive and unconstructive.
No one denies that humanity influences the environment…the issue is whether it is just a negative influence and what we could or should do to repair any negative impacts.
l am getting rather tired of the accompanying assertion that humanity and ‘the environment’ are in some kind of intellectual and/ or ideological war with each other.
It’s total BS…humanity is part of the global environment and one of the more successful species on the planet.
Anyway…as it’s an open thread…I was sent this yesterday.
Topher …with his usual sense of humour and a bucket load of common sense.
Thought some of you would appreciate it.
http://us2.forward-to-friend.com/forward?u=d9f51dd317ac24a90c904906c&id=d9761445c1&e=6a89e718ae
Sayers has a lend of us
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/figure-2-3.html
Debbie are you supporting the bald faced lies by your mates here – this is a threshold test for you – call them on it or be part of it?
“when there have been stronger la nina events throughout our history.” not really ! – where’s your cite – don’t just wander onto the “evidence based blog” and sprout nonsense Debs
Topher is a blog clown. I prefer something from an authoritative source myself. Like Neville you probably like your information from proven disinformation sources or comedians.
ROFL! LOL! 🙂 🙂
I’ve said this before Luke,
I think you need to get out some more.
Stick to the point Luke. No one said the IPCC was discussing runaway warming on not. You brought up the PETM as you always do but even that era returned to “normal”. Proving that the world’s climate in strongly based on negative feedbacks.
You need to get it into your tiny mind that climate has always changed and always will.
CO2 [even in huge amounts] has never been shown to be the driver.
Now take your meds and go out and wash the sheets [again].
Luke,
BTW…if you want me to ‘call them’ on ‘bald faced lies’…you will need to be specific about the ‘bald faced lies’.
No offence…but my observation is that usually it’s your PERSONAL INTERPRETATION of comments that contain the ‘bald faced lies’
I’m probably going to regret this question as I’m highly likely to get a sneering lecture but….
I am fascinated by this comment:
” I prefer something from an authoritative source myself.”
Can you please define what you mean by ‘ an authoritative source’?
I strongly suspect that your definition is far narrower than mine.
Awaiting moderation?
I must have mistyped my email address….try again.
And apologies if/when this turns up twice.
Luke,
BTW…if you want me to ‘call them’ on ‘bald faced lies’…you will need to be specific about the ‘bald faced lies’.
No offence…but my observation is that usually it’s your PERSONAL INTERPRETATION of comments that contain the ‘bald faced lies’
I’m probably going to regret this question as I’m highly likely to get a sneering lecture but….
I am fascinated by this comment:
” I prefer something from an authoritative source myself.”
Can you please define what you mean by ‘ an authoritative source’?
I strongly suspect that your definition is far narrower than mine.
Debs does a runner.
SD – well I guess we’ll take your word against all the established science. You’re simply a fool. A fool who deals like Neville in the lies and denial of the sceptic movement. So SD why did you bring up “runaway” then? Sleazy attempt at injecting some lies ? Of course. Stock in trade. It’s not only the PETM – Pliocine is another good example.
Yes on geological time scale climate does change. Most species don’t make it.
Runner?
Rubbish Luke,
You are simply evading my questions by the age old ‘shoot the messenger’ ploy….it is very boring.
ZZZZzzzzzzzzzz
“So SD why did you bring up “runaway” then?”
Because “runaway” is the result of positive feedback that is required to provide your scary scenario outcomes.
And when this has never happened [naturally, or we wouldn’t be here] and there have been much higher CO2 levels in the past [during much cooler as well as warmer conditions] then if you are not a sceptic you have to have a faulty reasoning process. Led astray, no doubt, by an alarmist, irrational, anxiety-ridden philosophy.
Or you have a hidden agenda…
So which is it?
Or are you just somewhere in between:
http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21588069-scientific-research-has-changed-world-now-it-needs-change-itself-how-science-goes-wrong
When applying the fallacy of authority, an interesting read to be had here: “In 2005 John Ioannidis, an epidemiologist from Stanford University, caused a stir with a paper showing why, as a matter of statistical logic, the idea that only one such paper in 20 gives a false-positive result was hugely optimistic. Instead, he argued, “most published research findings are probably false.” http://judithcurry.com/2013/10/18/trust-and-dont-bother-to-verify/ .
Which brings us to the UN-IPCC AR5- 1 chance in 20 of being right ~ “We are 95% certain that human influence has caused most recent warming.”
Geeezzzz I thought I must have committed the crime of the century or help start WW 3 in one of my posts. What a load of BS Luke goes on with to try and fool everybody, AGAIN.
David Evans was employed by the OZ Greenhouse Office as a CARBON modeler not a CLIMATE modeler okay? I knew he was employed as a carbon modeler but because I was in a hurry I wrote CLIMATE instead.
I have no interest in lying or telling small porkies to try and win some small point. I wouldn’t have the slightest interest in doing so.
But I was wrong I used the word climate instead of carbon, OK. If I sometimes get a word wrong in a post I’m happy to admit I was wrong, no problem at all.
But replace that one word and tell me what’s wrong with David’s numbers Luke. You’re just clutching at straws again.
BTW I’m hardly likely to try and deliberately pull a fast one when I also incude the page no as a reference am I?
Neville, Luke knew you had made an honest mistake but he would prefer to call you a bald faced liar than point it out.
As Handjive says, like the IPCC he probably thought he was 95% certain.
Hey Luke this is what a real CON looks like, you duffer.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/why_does_the_abc_hire_dr_karl_and_robyn_williams/#commentsmore
Imagine their ABC hiring these dummies even when they tell these porkies to kids at school? I know this happens as well because I’ve talked to some of the parents after a visit from Dr Karl.
You’ll note that they didn’t just use ONE word ACCIDENTLY out of place either. And then said they were wrong but they continue spreading their lies and misinformation.
Just like Bandt, Connor and Fitzsimonds did yesterday. Luke idiotically cheered on Bandt’s lying and stupidity, but who’s surprised? Par for the course for stupid Luke.
The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818112001658
More extremists exploit the NSW bushfires. But as Bolt proves they’ll tell heaps of lies to try and prove their delusional nonsense.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/more_warmists_exploit_nsw_fires/#commentsmore
You’ll note Fitzsimons doesn’t accidently get just one word wrong but is wrong again and again, point by point, line by line.
But Luke just loves this big picture lying and loudly cheered on his cult hero Bandt for calling Abbott etc climate crinimals who deliberately started fires.
Just shows us the level of disgusting behavior this fool will sink to just to display his stupidity.
Wise words from Willis:
“Now, humans have been dumping large quantities of soot into the atmosphere for quite some time now, ever since we managed to tame fire. And presumably, for all that time that soot has helped to melt the northern hemisphere snows and glaciers, so they didn’t start lingering further and further into summer. So … would it not be truly ironic if pollution, in the form of soot and brown carbon, were all that has been holding off another ice age? And wouldn’t it be a cosmic joke if our efforts to clean up soot and brown carbon pollution were the straw that broke the back of the Holocene, and ushered in the new ice age?”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/18/weekly-area-of-snow-extent/#more-95822
I think that because of the potentially high temp increases to be had from land use change, black/brown cloud emissions, UHI etc, there is nothing much left for ACO2.
Not to mention the recovery from the LIA plus other Nat Var.
Oh yes!
Thanks Neville. . . you have just reminded me that Luke has avoided my question about ‘climate criminals’
He actually used that term before Bandt used it in the MSM. . . so he must know the logistics behind its implementation and what the benefits would be?
A very good report from the NIPCC on the IPCC Summary for Policy Makers.
They check the SPM point by point and find many problems, exaggerations etc with the SPM.
They also find concessions made by the IPCC since their 4th report in 2007.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/19/scientific-critique-of-ipccs-2013-summary-for-policymakers/#more-95880
But basically no problems with SLR, no change with extreme weather events, no claims of more extreme droughts, floods etc.
IOW zip chance of CAGW by 2100. But then why have govts been fooled by the extremists in the science depts and media tarts etc.
Runaway – WRONG – you’re parroting shit SD – stop it. Knowledge of palaeo – zip you’re pig ignorant.
And that’a the whole point Neville – you’re always in a hurry – spreading rat dirt, talking crap, spreading crap. You have NO discrimination – you’re a dickhead. When he’s published something serious get back to us. He’s big on science – well he needs to step up the plate.
Willis wouldn’t know – we’re not taking climate science from massage therapists that even Spencer has denounced are we. HAve you checked back to see if he’s withdrawn his most recent post yet HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAA
You lot are pathetic – what a joke you are. Traders in rat dirt. Peddlers of climate porn.
What a bunch of climate crooks – they’ll say anything. Porkies and disinformation sources are stick in trade.
You just have to laugh at the faux outage about Bandt’s spot on comments.
NIPCC already skewered for published drivel
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2013/10/19/the-icp-report/#more-6787
More of Neville’s climate rat dirt torpedoed.
Good to see Bandt’s pig ignorant statements cop a belting in some of the media.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/the_greens_get_burned/#commentsmore
Even Macca has made some good comments on the ABC this morning about terrible fires in NSW in past eras. But Macca has good judgement and is a decent bloke who cares about his country.
But stupid Luke cheers on the Green’s display of pig ignorance once again. This bloke hasn’t got a clue about the real world at all, but I suppose that’s why he supports Bandt and the Green’s bottom of the garden fairy nonsense.
Debbie I don’t think I’d hold my breath waiting for Luke to explain his support of Bandt’s stupid reference to Abbott etc being climate criminals.
First he’d have to explain why Abbott has added to the risk of dangerous fires etc and he can’t. Luke is a fool and deserves zero respect from anyone here.
Luke the climate criminals are the likes of al gore, flannery, robyn williams, dr Karl and any other pig ignorant bleater about catastrophic climate change. Their mass exaggerations and lies ….whether due to zealot like blindness to anything not fitting their paradigm or monetary gain will have killed far more people than climate change has done or is likely to do for many decades to come.
All of the policy actions as a consequence of their mistruths, has distorted the allocation of resources in very tangible ways that have raised food and power prices, and is leading to the imminent extinction of wild orangutans etc.
you agree ntg being done currently is making any difference, you agree the carbon tax is insanity, you agree the only way to cut emissions currently is nuclear ( but nobody is doing it hence all policy is achieving little at enormous cost)
If you want to throw around wild accusations of climate criminals, it is abundantly obvious that one side IS responsible for actions that are much closer to criminality…..and you Luke are on that side!?
SD’S link to the economist is a very interesting one and well worth a look……might make you a little more humble and reasonable with your climate criminal calls………
As for Bandt, enough said he should be thrown in with those names i mentioned above. I suspect people on this blog have forgotten far more than he has ever known about climate science…or science in general.
Very good post from Jo Nova highlighting the benefits we derive from living in a world of higher co2 emissions.
http://joannenova.com.au/2013/10/co2-emissions-in-last-50-years-made-us-3-5-trillion-wealthier/#more-31294
Everyone is healthier today with higher calorie intake even in the poorest countries. Fewer deaths from cold events and much higher life expectancy etc.
There is a big benefit from higher crop yields etc. This just backs up Ridley’s greening the planet video but with much more detail.
Top post from Judith Curry blog highlighting more con and fraud about AGW.
http://judithcurry.com/2013/10/19/caribbean-water/#more-13444
What a rubbish comment Luke.
You inadvertently use misnomers & make typo, spelling & grammar errors too.
Picking on and then deliberately misinterpreting in that manner is just another way to sneer, spray & dodge.
There have been far greater and far more serious errors made by those I am sure you consider ‘authoritative’. Some of them. . . like the MDBA. . . even have the word ‘authority’ in their title.
The mistakes are not simple misnomers or spelling/grammar/typo errors.
Luke, try and desist from spraying, spitting and spewing long enough to read some logic.
It’s the only way you are going to get any.
Yes Neville, interesting that those people commenting on Macca this am who were at the scene of some of the tragedies were being very realistic about the history of Australian fires.
I bet Jen’s glad she moved.
Even though I am not an old white codger. . .I can distinctly remember areas around Springwood etc going up in smoke before.
There is no possible way that taxing CO2 and attempting to control the climate will mitigate bushfire risk.
That can only be managed on a local scale with a mind to flexibility and variability.
The residents I have seen and heard interviewed are being realistic. . . unlike those who are trying to claim that it’s somehow linked to AGW. . . What nonsense!
Michael McLaren re-visits an interview from six months ago with Roger Underwood, chairman of The Bushfire Front, who discusses how “big green” are hampering our ability to deal with bushfires.
http://www.2gb.com/audioplayer/18901#.UmM7SVBkOSo
If anyone thinks that five+years of spectacular regrowth in NSW won’t eventually lead to dangerous spring conditions like the present ones then that person should not be in the game. The late winter burn-offs required to avert such disasters would be tricky, expensive and invasive in the extreme. Yet if you want intensive settlement in places like Winmalee/Springwood ridge there can be no choice. There is no excuse for repeating the 70s, and that includes the unforgivably ignorant pretence that the 70s never happened.
The Greens are not “strong” on environment. They are not right about anything much at all, and they are great at turning their most preciously held opinions around when it is too late (think livestock, nukes and hydro). But about the bush they are hopelessly wrong, and they always have been. Bandt is merely maintaining his party’s strongest traditions: self-loathing, fetishism, inaction and waste. Listen to these neurotics and you’ll turn the country into mismanaged fire-prone regrowth infested with ferals.
You people are simply frauds – record La Nina leads to record growth helped by additional atmospheric CO2 and cured in record temperatures leads to fire.
What climate criminality.
What deniers – when it’s happening it’s not happening. The ultimate denial end game.
You lot are so intellectually bankrupt you could have it served on a plate under your noses and you’d try to squirm out of it.
The turdesque games will be to now turn this back on the mainstream environmental movement to deflect form the reality. Oh look – a rabbit.
Look at Robert go – what a lot of twaddle – “mismanaged fire-prone regrowth infested with ferals.” well mate you’re the landholders – how did it get in this shit of a mess – YOU and your mates that’s how.
(P.S. Debs you’re not worthy the spell check dearie – go and whip up some scones – do something useful given you never answer any questions having done your media training to keep laying smoke and nit picking)
I see Nova’s back to spreading crap on CO2 fertilisation via a denier like Idso. Pullease. As if it’s science. More Neville rat dirt from disinformation sites. What a shitful science farce. None of that lab optimum growth studies translates to real world yields.
Yes Robert and John
They truly are clueless in the NRM space.
They might be seen by people like Luke as ‘authoritative sources’ but their policies and ideas about managing risks like bushfires, weeds and ferals are just plain unrealistic and downright dangerous…not only for humans but also for our bush lands, our national parks, our wetlands, our grasslands, our agricultural lands and our native fauna & flora.
I have lost almost all respect for environmental politics (as opposed to the real environment…which I would obviously have a great deal of respect for considering I am a farmer).
I actually think ‘ENVIRONMENTALISM’ a total misnomer…it SHOULD be called misanthropy
Just spotted this little gem.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-depth/bushfires/bandt-politicising-blazes-was-disgusting/story-fngw0i02-1226742790365
This has to be one of the single most ignorant and clueless statements I have seen in a while:
” well mate you’re the landholders – how did it get in this shit of a mess – YOU and your mates that’s how.”
Unbelievable and misleading nonsense!!!!
That Christine Milne is a worry.
Luke, did you listen to the interview with the experienced old firey? – thought not, you’d hate to have your bubble burst.
I have lost almost all respect for environmental politics as well Debbie. With buffoons like Luke around it’s clearly doomed.
🙂 🙂 🙂
But but but but John?
Would he fall into Luke’s definition of ‘an authoritative source’?
I strongly suspect ‘experienced’ is not part of Luke’s definition.
What on earth gives the idea to our Supercell that I and certain “mates” are the landholders of vast forest reserves, public lands and National Parks? Or that we willingly discontinued sensible control programs which tended to echo aboriginal bush management? It really is the reaction of an urban neurotic who doesn’t get out much at all, isn’t it?
Those who couldn’t tell you which way the wind is blowing and who’d kill a pot plant in a day are just so filled with certainty about the the bad motives of those traditional movie villains called farmers and business people. Yet so many of these two-bob intellectuals are in positions of power and decision making. In particular, their version of “natural” influences and ENSO is stupendously juvenile. We should’ve just left ’em with their aerosols and CO2. The more toys, the sillier they get.
Bubble people with enough education to make ’em conceited. Just add caffeine.
Yes Luke, ACO2 grows more organic matter and by planting more fire-resistant trees and running cooler burns the fire risk can be reduced considerably. I’ve been doing it for years [so far successfully] and you know it too so stop being such a bed-wetting, hysterical, two-faced hypocrite.
These fires are a relatively small, fixable problem today in the overall world picture but, as with the fake CAGW problem, it has to be honestly addressed.
If you were a problem-solver instead of such a hysterical catastro you could become part of the solution [instead of the problem].
Deny on !
“4:52pm: Standing with Barry O’Farrell as a state of emergency is declared, NSW Rural Fire Service Commissioner Shane Fitzsimmons says NSW is now in “uncharted territory”.
He said you have to go back “decades and decades” to find any fires similar to this, and even then they might not be of the same magnitude.
“The sorts of damage, destruction, loss and devastation that we’ve witnessed in the last 48 hours is typically aligned to what you would see in December of January, when we’ve seen the middle of the summer period and when we’ve seen our worst summer fire conditions.”
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/nsw-bushfires-live-updates-20131020-2vumk.html#ixzz2iFB25X5A
There is no easy solution is there. Not now.
Listen to dickhead Robert spruik on about aborginal bush management. Mate the nationa’s fire regime has chahned top to bottom. We know who controls the land area – YOU and your mates.
Deny on ! Uncharted territory it seems !
“4:52pm: Standing with Barry O’Farrell as a state of emergency is declared, NSW Rural Fire Service Commissioner Shane Fitzsimmons says NSW is now in “uncharted territory”.
He said you have to go back “decades and decades” to find any fires similar to this, and even then they might not be of the same magnitude.
“The sorts of damage, destruction, loss and devastation that we’ve witnessed in the last 48 hours is typically aligned to what you would see in December of January, when we’ve seen the middle of the summer period and when we’ve seen our worst summer fire conditions.”
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/nsw-bushfires-live-updates-20131020-2vumk.html#ixzz2iFB25X5A
There is no easy solution is there? Not now.
Listen to Robert spruik on about aboriginal bush management. Blah blah blah. Mate the nation’s fire regime has changed from top to bottom. We know who controls much of the land area – YOU and your mates.
Don’t blame me for fire management phobia among most of the grazing community at least in northern Australia. Otherwise why does this NEW industry program exist? http://www.landmanager.org.au/case-study-focus-fire-management.
I mean what a joke – SD is now into planting trees. Nationwide fire-resistant tree planting – funny I thought that’s what eucalypts and acacias had adapted to.
But of no – let’s try and fit out the greens with the blame. Couldn’t be us.
I wonder if Jo (ooo oooo I’m a reformed greenie) Nova has featured in the extra fuel from her beloved CO2 fertilisation scamming.
🙂 🙂 🙂
Hmmmmmmm?
Isn’t that called ‘doubling down’ (on stupid) & also creating ‘strawman arguments’?
Whatever it is. . . it makes for much mirth & hilarity.
In my region we have had a quiet decade for fire. Now, abundant rain for several years is doing what it did in the wet and stormy seventies, in particular. That is the period you need to look back to. You can seize on the words “might not be of the same magnitude” or you can take the tip: big rain means big fuel. Try to be less literal-minded and understand.
Spring here is the windiest time and it can typically succeed a dry winter (though further north you can get into the “horse latitudes” where wind is not so dominant generally. SD may know more). The very worst fires will always occur in summer, but summer is typically dominated by nor’easters (though not in 1796 or 1983!), so spring tends to be our classical fire season. In any case, all of us on the land here predicted bad fire after the years of regrowth (though we haven’t copped it yet). One tricky thing about sudden shifts from wet to dry, as now and in the seventies, is that late winter back-burning can be unsuccessful because of moisture, and spring back-burns can be too late for safety. Vastly more resources needed if we are to get back to light-burn aboriginal style regime. (That opinion comes from a Dungutti friend who works for NPs.)
In the fifties, eastern Oz crept back into severe drought after the wet years. In the seventies, the rain kept coming. All of what we are presently experiencing can change about, so understanding depends on not being literal-minded – and Luke is tragically literal-minded, as we know. “We know who controls the land area – YOU and your mates.” That is just tragic stuff. Almost beyond belief really. Just free floating rage with nowhere to go.
I’m fond of you, Luke. But you can be a strain at times.
I think the golden rule is— don’t argue with a fool. Just think, this nong actually thinks we can do something to change the climate, when all the evidence and simple maths says we can’t.
He’s just like Bandt, totally delusional and not worth our time.
Probably one of the best points made by the NIPCC report is no 1.
1. “The rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998-2012; 0.05 deg. C/decade) is smaller than the trend since 1951 (1951-2012; 0.12 deg. C/decade)” (SPM-3).
The IPCC concedes for the first time that a 15 year-long period of insignificant warming has occurred since 1998 despite a 7% rise in carbon dioxide.
The IPCC concedes for the first time that a 15 year-long period of no significant warming occurred since 1998 despite a 7% rise in carbon dioxide (CO2). It also acknowledges that on a longer (more climatic) time scale the rate of global warming has decelerated since 1951, despite an accompanying 80 ppm or 26% increase in carbon dioxide (312 to 392 ppm).
The statement represents a significant revision in IPCC thinking, because their concern about dangerous warming rests upon the assumption that temperature increases will proceed in parallel fashion with CO2 increases, and not just sometimes or in a stepped fashion. NIPCC, in contrast, has documented that temperatures in the geologic time scale, the twentieth century, and the early twenty-first centuries have not changed in parallel with CO2 levels (NIPCC, Chapter 4).
Just think the trend from 1951 to 2012 was about 2.4 times higher than the trend from 1998 to 2012. And yet the recent 15 year interval had much higher levels of co2.
Also the next 15 years will complete a recognised climate interval of 30 years. By 2028 we will understand just what that new temp trend will be.
A very good post on their ABCs Dr Karl from OZ climate madness.
http://australianclimatemadness.com/2013/10/08/dr-karls-klimate-krap/
Didn’t you listen the the experienced fire fighter? The fuel has been building up for years, decades, as the greenies get more and more control and prohibit back burning. This is exactly what he predicted would happen – unlike your stupid video games that predicted nothing!
People need to take an interest in actual climate change, and face its contradictions. Between the mid 20s to 1940 there was just one ENSO “event”. Incredibly, that was the DRY La Nina of 1938-39, the season of the big heat which lit up much of SE Australia, destroying up to 2 million hectares in Vic alone. La Ninas are like snowflakes, all different. And sometimes they show up in drag looking like little brother Nino.
In spite of all the droughts of the era, there were no recognised El Ninos between ’26 and 40! If you check rainfall maps, you’ll see that apart from a couple of average seasons, rainfall in all Oz was fairly dire for that whole period. Go figure. So much for El Nino buttons and La Nina levers, all you gaming kidz.
You could start with the El Nino which inspired Gilbert Walker’s work, that of 1899, when the monsoons failed and the Deccan was plunged into a horror famine which co-incided somewhat with our Fed drought. However, a drive from the killing, a part of Assam which is normally pretty wet got more than its quota: 650 inches of rain over the year while the rest of India parched. The monsoon stalled there (a bit reminscent of the La Nina of 1950 when the eastern Oz nearly floated away and the rest was dry.)
What happened in Oz in 1899? Victoria froze, the inland parched, the coast was drenched…and Cyclone Mahina, our biggest biggie, came to land in the North, causing what is claimed as the highest known storm surge anywhere (bit of a factoid, but it was certainly a high one). You have to go to 1902-‘3’s weak El Nino for a neat pattern of disaster.
Speaking of reverses etc, fans of big turnarounds like 2012 should also check what happened to Northern Australia when El Nino came back after the big wet of ’49-’51. Not as dramatic as the switch into 1916…but what was? That Mackellar chick knew a thing or two about climate change. I’m sure she looked out the window at times. Maybe she cheated and walked round the paddocks.
Stop with the hysteria Luke. Just listen to yourself.
You make a couple of good points then lose it.
The aboriginals converted a huge amount of rainforest into eucalypt forest and open country by burning for the reason that they could not live, sleep or hunt in thick rainforest [the pygmy aboriginals of NQ did but had no choice] and had to keep burning it ever since which has only made a lot of Australia more fire prone and we whites have generally carried on the same practice because we had little choice.
Cool burning and planting rainforest trees can restore the wet forests and reduce fire but it takes a long time.
You greenie types, for the sake of a relatively cheap tree change, have moved into the dry forest in droves and are pushing up our fire insurance premiums because you are hugely increasing the damage and risk from what was otherwise a harmless fire that could have been ignored.
Continued from above…
That doesn’t make current fires any worse than old ones [ they’re probably a pussycat compared with some past fires] and you are just being stupid to even consider comparisons let alone blame them on climate change.
Yair Robert, that McKellar chick paid attention.☺
No wonder our Luke hates Idso et al. The IPCC learn nothing of climate sensitivity in 34 years yet they claim 95% certainty:
“The IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report allocated a range of 2.0 deg. C to 4.5 deg. C for ECS. By now reducing the ECS lower limit to 1.5 deg. C, the IPCC has conceded that less certainty exists than in 2007. Indeed, the climate sensitivity of atmospheric CO2 is now as uncertain as it was in 1979 when a National Academy of Sciences report first established the same range of 1.5 to 4.5 deg. C (Charney et al., 1979). In other words, no refinement has been made in 34 years in determining how much warming is likely to result from a doubling of atmospheric CO2.”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/19/scientific-critique-of-ipccs-2013-summary-for-policymakers/#more-95880
FFS Luke,
get your moral compass out of it’s lead lined coffin and thump it !
We all know there is a better Luke. Let him out.
Wow – that Idso et al paper gives the IPCC a good serve SD.
” as the greenies get more and more control and prohibit back burning.” rubbish – just more bashing
Just remember who you lot have slandered on the way here – at this point a state of the art high resolution weather/climate model is bloody useful. To be useful you need the spatial and temporal resolution, the compute power to get it done and the networks to get results back out.
The remote sensing guys have the best mapping, fuel loads and terrain models.
Yes its not like being in a front line but the intelligence helps. But anti-science guys here would probably prefer seat of the pants and going blind.
Honestly though the Idso stuff – it’s just a big Wattsup whingefest – unpublished bolsh for an audience that’s already rabid and like Neville would uncritically believe anything.
It’s already been taken down for the nonsense that it is http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/10/anthony-watts-and-his-pseudo-science.html
ROFL
Anthony Watts is just the publisher – he didn’t write the paper did he Luke, so don’t go slandering him.
Now if you have a criticism of the paper let’s hear it.
I’d prefer to hear it from you instead of some hamburger hot whopper site run by a lady who claims “I’m a sixties-something woman with an interest in climate science. I have a Bachelor of Agricultural Science (Honours) and an MBA and work as a freelance consultant. ” i.e she’s retired on a pension.
John who can be bothered critiquing sites of disinformation when others better qualified such as our freelance consultant can do so – why waste one’s energy on deniers.
“paper” – ROFL – more like tissue paper
But hey while we’re here you have to laugh – so many sites taking the piss now and exposing now
vvattsupwiththat.com, wottsupwiththatblog.wordpress.com, http://wottsupwiththat.com, whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com and hotwhopper.com
I commend them to you for some re-education on bunk artistes – but hey Neville loves his Wattsup – he brings us a serving every day bless his heart with a “THIS IS IT, THIS IS THE KILLER PAPER” flavour – I just have to work out which ones will publish a retraction a few hours later..
HAHAHAHAHAHAA
But an ag degree might be better on climate than a massage qualification.
Looks like the stadium wave has been eaten by zombies. Neville must have forgotten to tell us.
http://rabett.blogspot.com.au/2013/10/what-bunnies-ask-do-zombies-wanting-to.html
Luke – I asked you for your critique of the paper. That’s pretty simple isn’t it?
I’m still waiting.
Linking to suspicious blogs is not an answer.
Yes I agree – tell Neville to stop it
Yawn – well lets’ pick a couple of our MBA’s sample
2. MWP warming periods – well the massive reanalysis of PAGES-2K reported at http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/04/the-pages-2k-synthesis/ supports the IPCC fully – your “independent survey” mentioned by your mates is pure bunk. Unpublished twaddle. “From an independent survey” they say – what from the bloke down the pub. No cite. Laughable.
6. “solar factors may play a determinative role in short-term climate variability.” sophistic crap -as if previous IPCC reports don’t know about the solar cycle – HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA – then they try to conflate with a wider view on solar forcing over time. No cite. Pathetic.
Has the NIPCC run an exhaustive review process detailing all comments received on it’s scribblings (like the IPCC). No. So they’re giving us an poorly-reviewed opinion piece masquerading as science.
Who can be bothered.
oh dear Luke, haven’t you noticed that every event nowadays is unprecedented or record or “in the last x years” etc etc.
it been bloody hot in NSW, abnormally so, we have had a few years of good rains and there is now an abundance of material ready to burn.
I take it you don’t think co2 improves plant growth and brings benefits that outweigh the detriments in conjunction with a rather pleasant average global warming increase? you also don’t recognise that warmer brings fewer deaths than cooler?
You catastrophists are all the same, must be miserable living in such a pessimistic and gloomy world
Let’s have a further look on page 204 of Bob Carter’s ” Taxing Air”. We know from my reference on page 203 that OZ can’t make a scrap of difference to climate or temp by 2050 even if we stop 100% of our co2 emissions today.
That’s 0.015c or an unmeasureable 15/1000th of a degree C by 2050. And that’s using the full IPCC sensitivity of 3.3C for doubling of co2.
I
But on page 204 we find that if we use the lower sensitivity number of 0.5 to 1c for doubling we ( OZ less 5%) would only reduce warming by 0.00007c or about 1/15,000th of a degree c.
But most importantly this useless 5% reduction would only reduce co2 emissions by 2020 from 412 ppmv to 411.987ppmv. That’s a saving of 0.013ppmv by 2020.
Why can’t somebody get these simple numbers into the MSM? Bob states that the full cost from treasury for that ridiculous reduction of 0.013 ppmv above by 2020 would be 127 billion $.
This is the level of barking madness we have been reduced to in OZ in the 21st century. A saving of ZIP by 2020 and wasting 127 bn $ in the next 7 years to get there.
This is under Labor’s idiot scheme but the Coalition’s direct action is a lot less, but still a disgrace.
But all of the above just proves how idiotic Bandt’s and Luke’s fanaticism really is and why we should fight them every chance we get.
Somebody once said that all science is maths and never has it been more true than the above example of our mindless stupidity.
The Bolter at his best showing the facts about the fires.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/andrew_leigh_is_another_warmist_vulture/#commentsmore
ironic that Lomborg has written about this today!!
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/columnists/since-1900-everything-is-better-even-the-climate/story-fni1hfs5-1226743429396
I only just saw it but gee Luke you need to look in the mirror and think carefully about your
call of shrill or climate criminal.
sure he wants action still , but action that will bring results and be affordable. Nothing happening yet fills that bill does it!?
Luke ?:
“Just remember who you lot have slandered on the way here – at this point a state of the art high resolution weather/climate model is bloody useful. To be useful you need the spatial and temporal resolution, the compute power to get it done and the networks to get results back out.”
Who/what are you claiming has been slandered?
I actually think that Bandt and Milne have gone out of their way to slander others by using the term ‘climate criminal’.
Also…not one person here is denying that the information gleaned from higher computer power can be bloody useful.
That is not the issue or the point of disagreement.
I am still very curious about your claim that you only like what you call ‘authoritative sources’ yet you link to sites like hot whopper, deltoid, rabbet and those sites that play on the WUWT name.
Are they ‘authoritative sources’?
Luke you acknowledge that any action being taken is currently futile, You agree the carbon tax is insanity, and yet you screesh support for bandt and milne and their climate criminal accusations against abbott dropping the carbon tax, being the cause of the bush fires.
You seriously need to get a grip. we are cancelling a policy that achieves no gain at enormous cost and you bleat criminal criminal criminal. Insanity, it is criminal to waste money when there is so much more that could be done with that money.
these letters in the oz today say it better.
GREENS MP Adam Bandt, as one might expect, has been using the bushfire tragedies to promote his global warming fear-mongering and to condemn Tony Abbott. Does he have a point? Can you make a case that it is carbon dioxide that is to blame for the recent fierce and scorching winds? Here’s First Fleet marine officer Watkin Tench writing in 1790. “Port Jackson: Wind NNW. It felt like the blast of a heated oven.” “Rose Hill: an immense flight of bats, driven before the wind, covered all the trees around the settlement, whence they dropped dead or in a dying state, unable longer to endure the burning heat. Nor did the parakeets … bear it any better. The ground was strewed with them in the same condition as the bats.” These hot winds were normal when carbon dioxide was nothing but a curiosity in chemistry laboratories. Bandt is being not only mean-spirited but also ignorant. Warwick Wakefield, Rushcutters Bay, NSW
AUSTRALIA produces 1.5 per cent of human produced carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. If Australia didn’t exist, instead of the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide being 400 parts per million, it would be 398 ppm. How ludicrous then for the Greens MP Adam Bandt and Greens leader Christine Milne to claim that abolishing the carbon tax would result in more severe Australian bushfires. Such fearmongers should have to explain the basis of their claims before the court of public opinion so that the validity of their claims can be properly judged. –
Yes Debs they’re authoritative sources that expose non-authoritative sources.
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/ofarrell-cut-climate-change-watchers-20131020-2vuyr.html (Oh well…..)
Neville of course doesn’t mention that the upper bound of sensitivity is still the same. Plays the old “I’m not important or that big” ruse. Everyone can do that. And then tries to frame an argument about reductions when it’s about curtailing growth of atmospheric CO2. All part of the deniers deception list.
Toby the OZ letter is just rot
A January heatwave is irrelevant – this is the product of super-charged prior La Nina with a record warm year and very warm winter and spring curing of vegetation. Deny all you like.
And let’s use Jo Nova’s advocacy for CO2 fertilsation – maybe we have 25% more litter from CO2 fertilsation.
CO2 fertilised fires!
But I suppose bats instead of rabbits isn’t a bad diversion. “Look a dead bat!” “WOW !”
As for Australia produces 1.5% – well all counties, provinces and states all around the world can say that can’t they.
A stupid argument really and the court of public opinion crowd funded Flannery better than any sceptic effort.
Now I didn’t say that a unilateral carbon tax is a good idea or that Flannery is that great – but I think you’d find a very large number of Australians seriously concerned about climate change. Wouldn’t underestimate the depth of political feeling. They want our government to be scientifically and politically engaged on the issue.
Maybe if I put it like this……. Abbott is to blame for the bush fires because he wants to remove the carbon tax, the fires are his fault, he is a climate criminal, he should get no credit for spending his weekend quietly and without fanfare fighting these horrible fires…and bandt and milne are angels on the side of the righteous whose climate policies will make the world a better more pleasant world with higher living standards………and pigs might fly.
Christ we still have the ridiculous carbon tax, but by planning to remove it he has helped to cause these fires?????………madness. Children and the insane must be moved away from positions of power…….
Its completely arse about, bandt and his ilk will bring lower living standards and are the real climate criminals, wasting billions for ntg.
Luke I know you didn’t say a unilateral carbon price is a good idea …that’s one of my points, you know it is a crap policy and yet you support bandt’s call of climate criminal for removing it!!!???
Luke?
“As for Australia produces 1.5% – well all counties, provinces and states all around the world can say that can’t they.”
That is a thoroughly misleading argument.
A simple Google search can show you that countries such as China and India (plus a plethora of others) can’t say that at all.
And you think Deltoid, Hot whopper etc are authoritative and hence the ‘right’ place to inform opinion?
Seriously?
They are no more or less authoritative than Jonova or WUWT….but definitely way less popular.
I think you need to explain your definition of ‘authoritative sources’
Also Luke…no offence…but the ‘depth of political feeling’ was made abundantly clear in the recent federal election…also please note that the incoming government took very quick action on the Climate Change Commission and has regarded repealing the Carbon Tax as a very high priority.
What do you think has caused that?
Wouldn’t it be possibly, perhaps, a teensy weensy bit related to the ‘depth of political feeling’ by any chance?
If carbon were the issue there would have been great urgency to mitigate bush fire after years of good seasons. It’s never really about carbon, it’s about control.
While it’s hard to say if the recent La Nina was more “super” than 1917 it was super enough. Those promoting climate exceptionalism (shamelessly, like Bandt) would sure have trouble explaining extremes in the 1890s and a certain Brissie flood – but they’ll try! The freakiest wet, regardless of SOI, was what happened in Qld and NSW in 1950 – when it fell, how much fell, and bizarre effects on winter temps. All climate is exceptional, and, to paraphrase Major Renault, Australian climate is like all exceptional climate, only more so.
They’re even trying to bring back the hockeystick by claiming the MWP wasn’t general and synchronous, which is true of the current warming or any long term warming or cooling once you take out modern measuring and averaging. See the stunt?
In the midst of inevitable climate catastrophes these people are crafting a myth of modern climate exceptionalism. It’s a script that requires constant rewrites and adaptation, but it’s a tight script, to which everything must be fitted. They’ll take any and all material. We all know if the Chinese floods of the 1930s were to recur what they would do with that. If the 1851 fires in Vic or the 1871 fires in North America were to recur, we know what they would do with that. If Sydney were to run as dry as in 1888…etc etc etc, right?
Me, I believe in global warming post 1980. I believe that the west of Australia is drier than it was in the first half of the twentieth, the east is wetter. When these trends will be replaced by new trends I do not have a clue. What I do know is that vultures will peck any carcass and that there will be plenty of climate carcasses because Gaia was never, never nice. Not ever.
Luke I’ve given you the facts and the maths and yet you still deny everything. You’re either as stupid and pig ignorant as Bandt and the Greens or you’re a blatant liar.
Personally I can’t understand how anyone wouldn’t or couldn’t understand the simple maths on this issue so I must presume you are a liar spurred on by your religious mania.
No one can justify wasting 127bn $ in the next 7 years for a nil return and anyone doing so should get themselves an education and particularly enrole in a kindy maths course until they wake up.
Robert – you either have trends or you don’t The trends are consistent with AGW. However for you instead of accepting a mainstream analysis of the data that says (1) it’s warmed overall (2) hot days and hot nights are now more frequent than record cold days and cold nights (3) a drying pattern is now a significant trend feature across SW WA and southern Victoria.
Toby I think it’s fair enough from Bandt’s POV that he says AGW may be implicated in making these fires worse. Why is everyone so annoyed?
Neville you are the liar providing us with fraudulent material. Non-referenced material from non-authoritative sources often shown to be flawed. You seem to think unrestrained atmospheric CO2 growth is a good thing and there is no international responsibility to reign it in. You think because this is the most significant problem that nothing should be done.
“religious mania” would be someone who provide daily clippings from activist sites proven to be sources of disinformation. Why do you do it?
Toby I think it’s fair enough from Bandt’s POV that he says AGW may be implicated in making these fires worse. Why is everyone so annoyed?
Because climate criminal is a very nasty term and if anything the way we are attempting to solve “the problem” which we agree has no real benefits but does have a huge cost, is far closer to a criminal act. It is effectively stealing from people and making some rich while lying that it is fixing the climate.
“You seem to think unrestrained atmospheric CO2 growth is a good thing and there is no international responsibility to reign it in.”
exactly – why should we rein it in Luke? It appears to be beneficial.
the RT for bulk atmospheric CO2, the molecule 12CO2, is ~5 years, in good agreement with other cited sources (Segalstad, 1998), while the RT for the trace molecule 14CO2 is ~16 years. Both of these residence times are much shorter than what is claimed by the IPCC. The rising concentration of atmospheric CO2 in the last century is not consistent with supply from anthropogenic sources. Such anthropogenic sources account for less than 5% of the present atmosphere, compared to the major input/output from natural sources (~95%). Hence, anthropogenic CO2 is too small to be a significant or relevant factor in the global warming process, particularly when comparing with the far more potent greenhouse gas water vapor.
http://www.co2science.org/articles/V12/N31/EDIT.php
(6)
CO2 released from anthropogene sources apparently has little influence on the observed changes in atmospheric CO2, and changes in atmospheric CO2 are not tracking changes in human emissions.
“(1) it’s warmed overall (2) hot days and hot nights are now more frequent than record cold days and cold nights (3) a drying pattern is now a significant trend feature across SW WA and southern Victoria.”
I have no trouble accepting these things. Why should climate not change? But why leave out the bit about rainfall increasing in the east after 1950? Doesn’t fit some script? It’s just more climate change. Goes on all the time. If I’m to draw conclusions from the present hot dry spring, then why should I not draw conclusions from the cold spring of 1999 or the cool summer of 1910-11? From the early winter experienced in some parts of the world right now? Because it’s frivolous to do so. It’s a stunt.
It’s why I don’t care about The Pause. I think it’s trivial and silly to concern oneself with a tiny blip in something so vast as climate. I’m a total skeptic, which means I don’t heed those who draw conclusions from the quiet solar cycle 24 and predict new Daltons etc. Coolists might get lucky with their predictions but they are silly nonetheless. It’s frivolous. If we get a Dalton style minimum, then I won’t be surprised if glaciers start eating villages…but who knows what the sun is ABOUT to do? We’ve visited 5% of the oceans and bugger all of that hot plasticky thing called Earth. And we’re in the know about climate?
Nobody knows what the climate is going to do because our climate “science” stands more or less where medical science stood when it was controversial for Semmelweis to tell doctors to wash their hands. And remember, those guys with grubby paws were very distinguished fellows, quite the authorities on this and that. But like all people whose science was settled, they tended to be more political than scientific.
As I said Luke you’re either a liar or a fool. I’ve got zero interest in hiding the facts and the truth, that’s why I’m exposing the total fraud behind your so called mitigation of AGW nonsense.
Here’sa the EIA’s projections for co2 emissions by 2040. And I’ll start by showing emissions in 1990 as well.
OECD 1990 emissions of co2= 11.6 bn tonnes This is the developed industrial countries.
non OECD 1990 emissions of co2= 9.9 bn tonnes. This is China, India, Brazil etc or developing world.
OECD by 2040 emissions of co2 = 13.9 bn tonnes or an increase of 2.3 bn tonnes over 50 years.
non OECD by 2040 emissions = 31.6 bn tonnes or an increase of 21.7 bn tonnes over 50 years.
You’ll note that the OECD will only increase by 2.3 bn tonnes by 2040, but the non OECD will increase by 21.7 bn tonnes by 2040. All tonnages of co2 are per annum.
Here is that link, work it out for yourself and wake up. I hope you have the comprehension to understand how wrong you are? You don’t have any excuse.
http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/ieo/emissions.cfm
Robert , 1.35, very well put! I still love going back to the “bread and butter” site you sent me to years ago re weather events.
Luke will argue that these extreme events are more frequent etc, but we humans are so prone to catastrophism, that things always seem to be unprecedented.
The one that really gets my goat as evidence is the warmest years are all in the last decade…like that is surprising when we haven’t been this warm since the little ice age!
Toby – oh yea sceptics never says harsh things about greens. Really? get over it. Alls just theatre surely.
John – do you really believe looking at a plot of CO2 in the atmosphere over the last few 1000 years that the straight up CO2 spike is natural. DO you think isotopic signatures lie? And why cite disinformation sites as a reference ? Honestly ….
Robert – Rainfall increasing since 1950 – ERRR NOOOOOO !!! http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/index.shtml#tabs=Tracker&tracker=trend-maps&tQ%5Bmap%5D=rain&tQ%5Barea%5D=aus&tQ%5Bseason%5D=0112&tQ%5Bperiod%5D=1950
Neville who cares? that’s unrestrained growth with no global deal, no serious attempt to decarbonise with known nuclear technology. You wake up to yourself. Global mitigation hasn’t worked as it hasn’t been tried. You’re the fraud for suggesting it has. In fact to make a difference you need everything you can get nuclear, efficiency, and mitigation. 2040 emissions will be there only if nothing is done.
But humanity probably doesn’t want to do anything – so enjoy the consequences.
Problem with you Neville is that you don’t even understand what you’re reading.
Here’s another way of looking at the totality of Luke’s mitigation fraud and con.
From 2010 until 2040 the OECD countries will increase emissions of co2 by an average of 0.2% per year.
But the non OECD ( China, India etc ) will increase emissions of co2 by an average of 1.9% per year.
Europe and the USA will flatline but OZ and NZ will increase by just 0.3%. But of course OZ’s pop will be growing rapidly during that period so that 0.3% of ZIP is still remarkable.
But the non OECD growth in co2 emissions will be about 9.5 times the OECDs during that 30 year period.
Robert – BTW I didn’t add eastern Australia since 1950 as it’s poor analysis to start at an arbitrary high point and finish at a low point (notwithstanding the results not being what you thought anyway). I was most precise and cautious in what I quoted.
Sorry here’s that link. http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/ieo/table21.cfm
Well I’ve proved that Luke is a liar and a fraud and he still doesn’t understand the silly fool. Luke even a thousand Nukes by 2020 can’t help you to reduce by enough to change anything much.
And the sensible people here know that’s not going to happen. In fact it probably won’t happen by 2100 you dummy.
And even it does there will be plenty of new FFueled power stns as well, by 2040 and 2100.
Here we have a dunce who can’t understand simple maths, has zip logic and reason, seems to lack all simple comprehension and follows a mad religious cult leader aka Adam Bandt.
The numbers are there whether you understand them or not.
I’ve proved my case and you’ve further displayed your ignorance and stupidity.
Toby @1.03
That’s well said.
If people like Bandt and Milne continue to use such outrageously rude and nasty terminology and then pretend that it’s helping and that it doesn’t do harm and polarise the community then there is no hope of a civil debate or of any realistic organisation of policy.
Despite Luke’s assertion otherwise…the weight of public and political opinion about the carbon tax and ETS as proposed by the last government was abundantly clear in the results from the recent election.
And Luke:
I can’t be bothered to find it…but it wasn’t that long ago that you were claiming that the ‘trend’ was for a drier Eastern Australia…especially in Autumn (if my memory serves me correctly).
& BTW that SMH news article is just that….a news article reporting on someone’s OPINION and it also makes a vague and unsubstantiated claim that the current fires are linked to Climate Change.
Robert the rainfall pattern follows the PDO in eastern OZ. Here’s an anomoly graph from 1900 for E OZ.
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/timeseries.cgi?graph=rranom&area=eaus&season=0112&ave_yr=15
You’ve picked a period just after the start of the cool PDO 1946 to 1976. But look at the much dryer period earlier in the century. Rainfall has picked up since the start of the new cool PDO again.
Once again Luke has proven ZIP when you include the PDO.
“But why leave out the bit about rainfall increasing in the east after 1950?”
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/index.shtml#tabs=Tracker&tracker=timeseries&tQ%5Bgraph%5D=rain&tQ%5Barea%5D=eaus&tQ%5Bseason%5D=0112&tQ%5Bave_yr%5D=0
And for that matter:
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/index.shtml#tabs=Tracker&tracker=timeseries&tQ%5Bgraph%5D=rain&tQ%5Barea%5D=aus&tQ%5Bseason%5D=0112&tQ%5Bave_yr%5D=0
and:
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/index.shtml#tabs=Tracker&tracker=timeseries&tQ%5Bgraph%5D=rranom&tQ%5Barea%5D=aus&tQ%5Bseason%5D=0112&tQ%5Bave_yr%5D=0
Of course, different story in the century previous…and a different story to come. Climate change!
Okay, those links will only open up on temp anomaly on my system. I have no trouble believing in a warming post 1980, so it’s no big deal.
Neville’s link for Eastern Oz is one of the ones I was trying to post. Maybe it’s a Linux thing. I’ll try posting for all Oz again, this time with running average.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/index.shtml#tabs=Tracker&tracker=timeseries&tQgraph=rranom&tQarea=aus&tQseason=0112&tQave_yr=0&tQ%5Bgraph%5D=rranom&tQ%5Barea%5D=aus&tQ%5Bseason%5D=0112&tQ%5Bave_yr%5D=5
Nope. My system won’t do it. Keeps linking to temp anomaly. Davy, I already knew! (Even if you had to fiddle it a little.) Try again via Nev’s link:
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/timeseries.cgi?graph=rranom&area=aus&season=0112&ave_yr=15
Thx Deb,
Luke, I understand people let their emotions run away with their mouths, we all do it. BUT to accuse sceptics of being climate criminals on many occasions is sheer unadulterated bullshit and sums up the exaggeration and catastrophism so rampant with the warming brigade. AND YOU HAVE DONE IT HERE MANY TIMES AS WELL….now granted when u r hot under the collar from others arguments. But in reality it really is those pushing expensive yet useless “solutions” that are actually the closest to being criminals is it not?
I mean you agree pretty much all we are doing is an expensive waste of money (that is making some wealthy)……so when the dr Karls, flannery’s, robyn Williams et al make grossly exaggerated claims about the science and slander all and sundry who are not in their camp….well I think they are much closer to being the criminals…even when they believe in their hearts they are doing the right thing. Zealot like behaviour is exactly what they are showing….oh and lets not forget the likes of the Suzuki’s who preach one thing whilst doing the opposite ( many houses, 5 kids!!) and spruik bullshit science and brainwash students whilst refusing to answer serious questions.
There are scum bags everywhere I know, but these scum bags want to change the way the world does things without there being an alternative ( other than nuclear that they mostly don’t want) which will bring much greater harm to living standards than the mild warming we have so far seen.
Neville – an eastern Australian time series tells you nothing. It’s blurred out all sorts of interesting long term trends.
If you graph April-August rainfall anomalies for south-coastal Australia since 1900, the trend is clearly downwards
If you map Australian cool season rainfall deciles: April 1997 to August 2012 – much of SW WA and Victoria is worst on record
Number of hottest day records since 1900 clearly – coldest day records clearly down. Even more pronounced for nights.
The trends are quite clear and can easily be verified by independent analysis.
“dr Karls, flannery’s, robyn Williams and Suzuki”
Toby – really – you’re just being groomed by the denialiti and getting all flustered by what they say and what Andrew Bolt or Bob Carter said in return. It’s just all rubbish.
Who cares
Do you know – Scott Power, Julie Arblaster, Nathan Bindhoff, Neville Smith, Lisa Alexander ?
I suspect not. These are the serious Australian scientists on WG1 AR5. Never mentioned.
All you are doing is consuming junk TV and junk op-eds buying into AGW media commentators and array of anti-media forces paid to argue the other way..
Do you think our WG1 AR5 scientists are scum bags? If you’re serious that’s who you should be getting your information from (whether you like it or not).
Before 1950 and after 1900, Eastern Oz was a drier place than after 1950. So was the MDB. And – not that there’s much point in aggregating along political geography lines – so was all of Oz. In fact, the first half of the 20thC in Oz as a whole was much drier than the second half.
Neville’s time series tells me nothing – except the very thing it is meant to tell me. And all the various trend series tell me nothing – except the very things they are meant to tell me.
Trends! It’s a bit like judging ice by that satellite record which just happens to start in 1979. All a bit of a fun game till somebody puts an eye out…or points to Antarctic sea ice in the same period. Then we go scurrying to Cookie and Tammie for reassurance. (Er, well, you see, the, er precipitation and, er, winds and er….)
Yes Robert , but you left out impact of the PDO.
Robert PDO does impact on eastern OZ and SE OZ is also impacted by IOD.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PDO.svg But may as well link to PDO.
Luke I am firmly in the camp that the science actually is irrelevant ( not uninteresting)…without an alternative energy source that the world will use and without a world move to reduce emissions, that is exactly what the science is. Whatever is going to happen as a consequence of human activities such as burning fossil fuels, it is going to happen irrespective of anything currently being done. And worse what is currently being done makes us all poorer and less able to cope if / when we start to see any significantly negative effects. And the mild warming we have seen and are predicted to see for a while yet, is actually better than cooling.
And once again this is where we were nearly ten years ago!!, although since then of course the world has not warmed, the oceans have not really warmed, sea level is not rising any faster, hurricane activity has not worsened, the hot spot has still failed to appear, and many scientists continue to peddle crap.
Nev, as we know, the big rains came in the 1950s and 1970s, and PDO is a pretty good explanation. It might also explain those oceanic winds that blew here after 2006 and even through the El Nino of 2009.
The main stunt used to discount your rainfall map (which would also be my map if Linux would allow) is that a “trend” from 1950 will inevitably be down and the map will be brown. (Davy Jones likes his colours!) Those 1970s dropped a bunch of water on us, so the subsequent decades will have to trend down. None of this means we didn’t get more precip after 1950 than before..but good try, warmies!
When we point out that there was more rain about after 1950 we are greeted with trend and treated to lots of nuance because that’s their only comeback. But the facts are that we have had three or four big rain peaks since the mid century (as opposed to none in the fifty years prior), more rain overall and we have not had anything like a year as bad as 1902-3. Even the 1982-3 El Nino, the most intense ever measured, did not send us into the kind of rain deficit as shown on your map for 1902-3. Also, that long period from the mid-1920s must have been the rainfall equivalent of living under Albanian socialism. Clearly, alarmists won’t want us looking at any of this and will make their usual appeals to sophistication and nuance to stop us looking.
As a total skeptic, I wouldn’t say we won’t go back to a drier regime, or that SW WA (as some of the old cockies there expect) will get ridgier and wetter again. It all depends on climate change, about which no man knoweth!
So Luke,
Do ‘Scott Power, Julie Arblaster, Nathan Bindhoff, Neville Smith, Lisa Alexander’ et al agree with the ‘dr Karls, flannery’s, robyn Williams and Suzuki ‘ ?
AND????…why are ‘they never mentioned’?
BTW…as are most of my friends who are scientists…I’m quite sure they are very nice people and have nice families etc.
But now along with my curiosity about your definition of ‘authoritative sources’ I am now curious by what you mean by ‘serious scientists’?
What makes one scientists ‘serious’ and another one ‘not serious’?
And aren’t you just as guilty of posting op eds and unpublished papers as others?
And why are you defending the ‘climate criminal’ meme?
Robert I agree with much of what you’ve just written. But IOD plays its part as well.
http://www.climate.unsw.edu.au/news/news/2009-02-05_dipole.html This is just a quick summary from NSW uni about earlier droughts etc in SE OZ.
Nev, IOD was something I was thinking about just today. I was interested to see how a notoriously hot year like 1915 (hottest for my part of the world) rated. Curiously, it was both ENSO and IOD neutral. 1938 (the dry La Nina) was followed by the baking 1939, which was also both ENSO and IOD neutral (with high cert). Interesting, but I don’t make anything of it.
What was striking was that 1902 and 1982 (CSIRO Marine express in single years) were both El Nino and IOD positive and we know how much rain didn’t fall in those years. However, to show how one should not be too literal about these things, my own region had its highest rainfall (yes, higher than 1950!) in 1963, which was IOD positive and El Nino – with high cert!
I find this NOAA graphic of ENSO handy, especially because it works by degree rather than classification:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei.ext/ext.ts.jpg
Shows how the 1980s and 90s mostly sucked, which is how I remember them. Pity it doesn’t cover my golden years after 2006. Not that I regard ENSO or any other rough observation set as providing an explanation for climate. Just pieces of the puzzle, and not for the literal-minded…
Luke – you are under the allusion that because someone is an academic and is a contributor to the IPCC they must be some kind of serious scientist.
When I briefly worked in Academia most of them were twits, were lazy and were basically indifferent and lacked passion and drive.
Lisa Alexander is a computer climate modeller at UNSW. She studies extreme weather events and creates a data base yet she allows the BS on extreme weather events to saturate the media.
Why doesn’t she get some backbone and go to the media and tell us the truth instead of hiding in her cushy taxpayer funded job?
Maybe scumbags is a bit severe but it’s close!
Good post from Jo Nova on the record ice cover during the satellite record.
http://joannenova.com.au/2013/10/antarctic-sea-ice-still-at-record-high-where-is-springtime-melt/#more-31279
Sorry I should have said Antarctic record above.
Well John she can’t spread denier shit in newspapers as unlike yourself, Dr Alexander has some brains.
And unlike you who couldn’t hack it she’s a top flight researcher.
She couldn’t go to the newspaper as you request because that’s not what her PUBLISHED research says.
e.g. globally significant trends in precipitation extremes.
and increases in heatwaves.
So don’t just be a blog fuckwit – don’t be gutless – ring her up and tell her in person.
“Hi I’m John and I briefly worked in academia – cleaning the loos”. That will impress her.
Nova hasn’t got the nous to know what she’s even writing. What crap. About as stupid as her CO2 fertilisation rot.
http://guardianlv.com/2013/09/antarctic-sea-ice-at-record-high-doesnt-refute-global-warming/
Yeah – analysing existing data on her computer and writing a paper on it – yup she’s a top flight researcher.
No I didn’t clean the loos, I wrote a baccalaureate program, shunted it through the academic senate, instigated the program and represented my University (CSU) at an international conference in Beijing as a Principal Lecturer on the highest scale short of professor.
John I don’t know why you bother with pig ignorant Luke. Well to be fair he’s either P IG or a clueless liar and fraudster or just bowing to the dictates of his mad green religious cult.
WE’ve shown here that there is zip chance of mitigation of his CAGW yet he still raves on about perhaps using a few new nukes.
That can’t work even if we could build a thousand new nukes by 2020 and that’s mission impossible.
But I too would much rather see our funds spent on new nukes than the clueless idiocy of solar and wind. But I know it won’t make zip difference to AGW, but would give us much more reliable energy than S&W. And won’t bugger up the grid.
But perhaps even Labor is starting to wake up? Who knows, but I’ll believe it when I see it. But we do know that silly Luke and his Green gurus wouldn’t wake up if a country outhouse fell on them. Some maths challenged nongs are really that dumb. Unfortunately.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/policy/bill-shorten-puts-majority-of-labor-policies-up-for-review/story-e6frg6xf-1226744103753
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/policy/bill-shorten-puts-majority-of-labor-policies-up-for-review/story-e6frg6xf-1226744103753
A genuine paleo scientist rips into a paleo con artist and fraudster. He says his recent work was a crock of sh–t.
YUK, YUK a great description of Mann’s work. But Luke still thinks he’s great. But wonderful to see these fools exposed by experts in the field.
More nails in the coffin for this easily understood super expensive con trick.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/21/paleoscientist-manns-recent-work-was-a-crock-of-xxxx/#more-96048
The ABC are telling more lies about the NSW fires. But the Bolter gives these liars the facts about historic fires in NSW and OZ.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/the_abcs_unprecedented_fires_occured_11_times_already/#commentsmore
Prof Roger Pielke snr is critical of IPCC 5th report. But he heaps praise on the work of Bob Tisdale.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/21/radiative-forcing-radiative-feedbacks-and-radiative-imbalance-the-2013-wg1-ipcc-report-failed-to-properly-report-on-this-issue/#more-95999
Why is pig ignorance and lying such prized commodities in 21st century OZ? We have the ABC, Fairfax and IPCC heads telling outright lies about the NSW bushfires and yet nobody listens to the fire experts and fire fighters who tell us that the answer is simple.
We must do much earlier and much more fire hazard reduction burning. David Packham who was interviewed by Bolt and Price last night has said that there is a greater fuel load waiting to burn now than at any time since white settlement of OZ.
We must get rid of this excessive fuel load or suffer the consequences. We are putting more lives at risk because these liars and fraudsters have too much say.
This has nothing to do with climate change but has everything to do with missed opportunities to burn excessive fuel loads.
Aborigines regularly burned the bush in OZ year after year for thousands of years and we should also burn these excessive fuel loads when required.
Here’s a good interview by Alan Jones this morning covering this lack of burning over many years.
http://www.2gb.com/audioplayer/19126
More lies from their ABC and an IPCC expert?????? What clueless fools.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/if_the_abc_really_wants_to_stop_bushfires_it_could_donate_half_its_budget/#commentsmore
If you want to stop big bushfires just do more fuel reduction burning. Forget about an ETS or multi billion $ purchase of corrupt co2 credits/certificates, because they don’t work.
Neville , yes it’s unceasing … gotta keep on message …
never evah let factsget in the way. I can hardly stand
ter listen ter the ABC acolytes and other UN progressivists
… drip drip drip, water torchure.
bts.
Well Sayers – are you some sort of dickhead. You’d like her to use an abacus would you? You’re just smearing away on stuff you don’t understand – just another arty farty dickhead.
Just short of a professor – HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA – pigs bum.
And oh horror she wrote a paper did she? Fuckwit of the week award.
Listen to Neville talk crap “Pielke heaps praise on Tisdale” Wreally? Must have missed that bit (Nev has a little wank). But then again Neville wouldn’t know if his pants were on fire. He’ll just quote anything? Perhaps we could get Nev to explain denier Pielke’s post – that would be fun.
AND AND – in the great gutter bottom trawl Nev’s back to quoting right wing freaks like Bolt and Jones. How pathetic. Have some decency. Manufactured outrage from people who should be deported.
Try speaking English Beth.
“Aborigines regularly burned the bush in OZ year after year for thousands of years and we should also burn these excessive fuel loads when required.”
Actually no that’s exactly what you don’t want to do ! MORONIC !
“We are putting more lives at risk because these liars and fraudsters have too much say.” quotes Neville man of action. What a Walter Mitty wanker.
How to cook your neighbourhood – let Neville anywhere near fire management.
Good grief!
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/clear-link-between-climate-change-and-bushfires-un-adviser-warns-tony-abbott-20131022-2vxs5.html
The sentence before the photo says this:
“In an interview with CNN’s Christiane Amanpour on Monday, the head of the UN’s climate change negotiations, Christiana Figueres, said there was a clear link between climate change and bushfires such as those raging in New South Wales.”
And the VERY NEXT SENTENCE says this:
” She noted that the World Meteorological Organisation had not yet established a direct link between the NSW fires and climate change.”
And then very shortly afterwards we have this:
“Ms Figueres described the NSW fires as an ”example of what we may be looking at unless we take actually vigorous action”.
Expatriate all the billions you like, maybe put yourself to the mercy of carbon “market” conniving in Brussels and Strasbourg. I think our Green Betters call it “doing something”. Even if that worked by some miracle…
What happened in October 1951, the year after the freakiest wet of the century, will happen again. (That’s the twentieth century I’m talking about, when MORE rain fell in the second half than in the first. Mind you, there were spring calamities before that, because NSW is made that way.)
Fuel loads in NSW forests will eventually explode in the eventual dry spring. Unless you, er, “do something”.
I know it’s just me, but this is the funniest thread ever on here, possibly any climate related blog. Luke, the one man anti-denialist band, offers some simply brilliant put-downs.
I almost hesitate to post now, but given my name isn’t Neville or Debbie I just *might* get away with it.
What exactly WOULD constitute evidence that climate change might have influenced these NSW fires? Genuine question, what do you think?
Unusual timing? I don’t think that’s the case is it?
Ferocity? Don’t seem more ferocious than others before them. And there seems to be plenty of evidence that there are other factors at play.
Unusual weather? I dunno, wouldn’t have thought temps in the 30s and strong winds are THAT unusual for October.
Wouldn’t we be able to claim a link only IF the event was clearly out of the ordinary?
Deb, its ok for “believers” to spruik untruths, but the likes of bolt carter and jones should be deported…….the fact is the “shock jocks” are merely pointing out the lies and deceit being spruiked by the warmers and making the very obvious point that the science is not settled and the attempts to control co2 are achieving ntg at huge cost ( but yes they also exaggerate and get things wrong, and yes this should be pointed out!). Now many of the shock jocks points Luke actually agrees with ( ie carbon tax is crazy!! seas wont rise 100m or even 1 m, hurricanes are not increasing etc) but he would like them exported and shut up any way.
however he is happy to avoid criticism of the catastrophists and doesn’t think it matters that we don’t get to hear from the “real scientists” because we should go and look for ourselves.
of course much of their science is guided by group think and given our lack of alternative energy sources (other than nuclear which most refuse to consider) even if its true there is ntg practical that can currently be done….making the science actually irrelevant.
clearly the science is not settled, clearly the models mostly ( almost completely!) exaggerate the warming, clearly things are not worse than we thought….but those questioning the dogma should be expelled and those causing great harm with their lies ( catastrophists) as close to a real climate criminal as you could get, should be left alone.
Its about time the “real scientists”…who ever they are stood up and spoke the truth, Luke you can throw around as many names as you like…get em on the ABC and give us the real facts, not the crap peddled as science that is so far from real science, real scientists should be embarrassed.
If Australia ceased to be dominated by drought and fire that would be a dramatic climate change. When you consider the transformation in Lake George and the Murray/Darling between ’24 and ’38 you feel like giving up. But don’t give up. (No, that’s 1824 and 1838 I’m talkin’ ’bout. As for fire, we had the world’s biggest in ’51. I’ll leave people to guess the first two digits.)
Mind you, they couldn’t get creeks at Port Jackson to flow till 1794, thanks to those horrific monsoon failures, so I don’t know what people expected of the 1800s. Fortunately, we had Lizzie Macarthur on the job.
Robert, these facts don’t suit the paradigm…its all worse than we thought and unprecedented!
That does not take away from the fact that it has been unusually warm in sept and oct in parts of oz ( sadly not in Melbourne where I live…its wet and cold!) and the fires have started earlier than probably most expected. However of course we shouldn’t mention that the fire season in NSW runs from oct 1 to march!
I would think we will have a lot more fire before this summer is through and I just hope the loss of life is kept to a minimum and our wonderful CFA and other local fire brigades are given the support they need and deserve…including the very admirable tony abbott
Toby, one reason we survive in this country is our unique volunteer fire service. It’s huge when taken as a whole, and it’s everywhere. Imagine Victoria in high summer without those guys? I could just go and on singing the praises of our own semi-hippie service here in the hills. I perfectly understand why Abbott does what he does, because most firies are like that. What can you say? Aussie firies are tops.
“Aussie firies are tops.” they sure have my admiration!
Yeah Robert,
Aussie fire fighters are true blue.
bts.
Toby – In fact, of 48 major bushfires in NSW between 1926 and 2006, 11 occurred in October or earlier:
North-Western NSW: Bushfires – 01/09/84 deaths – 4
Western Sydney and Central Coast, NSW: 16/10/91 deaths – 2
Hunter Valley, NSW: 01/09/96
Central Coast/Hunter Valley/south coast. 15/08/96
NW NSW : Bush Fire 30/10/01
Sydney, NSW: Bushfires 09/10/02
Northern NSW: Bushfire 27/09/02
Central Coast, QLD/NSW: Bushfires 27/09/02
Cessnock, NSW: Bushfire 19/10/02 deaths – 1
NSW Bushfires 24/09/06
Bushfires: Sydney and South Coast, NSW 24/09/06
Of those fires 6 occurred in September and one in August!
Luke – you obviously have no idea of the pay scales of the lecturing staff at Australian Universities which in turn infers you are not an academic. That leaves either BoM or CSIRO.
We are indeed the lucky country, blessed as we are by two climates. We have the conservative Menzian one of the twentieth century where everything is hunky dory and nothing ever changes. And then we have the reality. Yes, the climate has already changed. Take your pick.
🙂 🙂 🙂
Good questions Graeme
“The climate has already changed.” And in 1790s and 1830s and 1890s and 1950s it HAD already changed. And it will change – already!
In South Australia, you can still see the remnants of settlements abandoned in the late 19th century by those who farmed beyond Goyder’s Line after some good seasons. Then came the droughts again and then came the Fed drought. Apparently, they thought ploughing adjusted climate. No sillier than most, I suppose. I know of people who think they can change climate by sending tax billions to trough-swilling scoundrels in the other hemisphere. We all have our little eccentricities, our funny little beliefs.
Das Kapital.
‘October winds blow.
Your contradictions doom you,
Capitalist swine.’
H/t David Bader
@bazza
the mind boggles.
I still say you are but an alter ego of luke, no two man can come up with the same idiotic utterings.
Good cop bazza – no swearing and foul language- bad cop luke, gutter language and no manners or at best, manners of an alley cat.
Despite evidence to the contrary provided here in abundance, they still tout their BS.
Who is the “denier”
Menzies even?? God Almighty!
not a great fan of A Bolt but he points to some interesting items.
His latest is one where some ‘learned academic’ you know the ones lukey boy likes and approves of, excuses the firebugs by saying if it wasn’t for AGW they couldn’t possibly had caused so much damage!?
Again, the mind boggles!
Wasn’t about learned academic JW – was simply that real scientists putting the serious meat into the IPCC WG1 AR5 are people you never hear about.
Upon mentioning some, Sayers puts in a dreadfully personal attack on one of them being the anti-science freak that he is.
Now you’d have to wonder given how easy maths and physics are why someone would want to spend 7-10 years training, beating their head with this sort of science to (a) just get some money (b) get a cushy job or (c) rule the world. Oops and I forgot to say fuck. Bazza has me on a clanger key performance indicator. Can’t beat the managers.
Then spruiker(I was almost a professor I tell you) Sayers complains that the have the temerity – and they should be horse whipped I say – for actually analysing some data – with mind you – a COMPUTER (OMIGOD!) and then (choke) have the indecency to write a paper. IT”S A DISGRACE ! (Oh yea – fuck)
So JW a reasonable person might ask is this a fair go?
It’s a funny thing about simple propositions.
So we have a on many indicators a record La Nina (I know Robert all those annoying measurements – so tedious)
Then you get the associated growth fertilised by CO2 as Jo Nova proudly informs us. (jeez didn’t think about that they squirm). All those little CO2 molecules being fixed into vegetation.
Then the said fuel load cures in record temperatures and ignites early in the season.
Now – just between you me and the gate post – could a reasonable person in possession of such facts say – hmmmm perhaps AGW gave something to the timing and intensity.
AND – if such trends continued that might occur again in the future – albeit more severe or more frequent.
NAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH !!! bullshit – what crap …..
– there would be fruit bat from 1790s that would disprove that. Trust in Alan Jones – and you can get yourself all worked up and really really really angry at the same time.
Worse or as-bad spring fires in the past in NSW? Check.
Dry, windy spring a typical fire time for NSW? Check.
Worse after good seasons? Check.
Predicted (even by me) with complete certainty? Check.
Heaps of similar past indicators in the way of temps, wind direction at time of year etc? Check.
Major rivers dry or not flowing by multiple testimony, verified over two centuries? Check
Various generations in NSW who didn’t know why they called Lake George a lake? Check.
Vastly extended housing on hazardous Winmalee/Springwood ridge, just as one example? Check.
Neutral ENSO and even La Nina resulting in heat and drought conditions multiple times in the past? Check.
Same with IOD indicators, cert and recon? Check.
ENSO once again distorted and not understood by literal-minded evangelists? Check.
Up to a million hectares burnt right on Sydney fringe in spring fire of 1980 (Waterfall Fire, 5 deaths), after 1970s build-up? Check.
1890s flooding – triple series in my region, worse in Qld up to 1896 and includes the monster 1893 – leading into Fed Drought, with Brissie catchment rainfall deficit at minus 1278 mm by 1903? DOUBLE CHECK.
I could go on, but our aging urban adolescents may start to squirm. You don’t want to bore that lot. They need distraction, then distraction from distraction. They may say they like data, but…
Boring old history. Smelly old past. Without all that stuff-which-actually-happened they could live comfortably in their hipster bubbles, where anything can be a record and trends never end and everything caused by those greedy non-hipsters is WTWT (Worse-Than-We-Thought). Ah, only in a bubble can one truly moralise, evangelise and extrapolate into old age, away from the annoyances of fact.
Anyway, Abbott has his own bubble. It’s called the cabin of a fire truck.
Oh Luke – get over yourself, analysing some already know data is not research! Research is adding to the known data base, she did not add to the known data base. So F**k her 10 years being a professional student/lecturer/tit sucker.
You don’t seem to understand that these people DON’T put real meat into the discussion, they just thrive on it any way they can to pay their bills.
Show me what she has contributed to our knowledge of the climate system? Pulleez, as you would put it.
Oh goodness do comments get any more straw man and stupid than this ” We have the conservative Menzian one of the twentieth century where everything is hunky dory and nothing ever changes. And then we have the reality. Yes, the climate has already changed.”
Thx John for the examples of oct fires.
this blog is riddled with examples of climate changing over the last few hundred years and yet zealots ( that’s all it can be because for an intelligent person to so blindly ignore all that is in front of him….) create straw men to…. well I can only think make themselves feel superior?……well more fool the fool…..
HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAA Sayers proves himself to be the ultimate dickhead of all time. Analysing data is now not research. Oh we’re sorry she didn’t discover the Higgs Boson – but oh whoops that’s all about analysing data too. Fuck off John.
Are you such a pig ignorant twit to not recognise her work.
ALL SCIENTISTS DO NOT ANALYSE DATA !! STOP IT !! Higgs Boson physicists – stop analysing those data.
HAHAHAHAHAHAAA Sayers- what a dick.
Robert – vague ramblings I’m afraid. Spotty selected anecdotes are not an analysis but vague recollections of confirmation bias. (which is rampant in areas of climate analysis)
e.g. and sorry Millennium Drought for Wivenhoe catchment surpassed Federation Drought.
and record heat is record heat ….
so annoying long term trends
Yes Toby,
Bazza has most definitely created a strawman and then vaguely claims that the climate takes sides according to politics.
A very amusing little read.
Luke. . . . There is a VAAaaaaaaaast difference between arguing that AGW . . . COULD. . . have some influence and arguing that it is a major cause or a major contributor.
The art is to say you are interested in measurement and then just blurt the usual leftist conceits about defending “science”. Millennium Drought “surpassed” in some aspect or other, never mind what happened in 1903, what led up to it and came after. Never mind the 1890s Brissie flooding preceding, which was surpassed by…um, hasn’t been surpassed, but we’ll think of something. “Record” heat, rather than being defined by what happened where and the length of record is, well…it’s just record heat, okay! Obey! We like saying “record” and “super”. We even had supercells rising out of the Brissie floods. Can’t get much sciencier than supercells, right? And we totally stay away from “record” annual drought because we totally can’t find anything drier than ’02-’03 for Oz. We select, we see trends, nuances…It’s about making people forget that Australia is all about drought, heat and flood, and that the first half of the 20th century was a long dry spell interrupted by rain and flood. Wait for some bad weather or big fires then start the finger-wagging. The force will be with you.
For the literal-minded, here are are some ENSO gems. While the two “strong” La Ninas, 2011 and 1917, can fight it out over SOI (as I remember, higher in 2011, sustained high for longer in 1917), even the BoM recognises that events in the mid-1970s and mid-1910s, the 1950s events in the east, were on a par in various ways with the recent event. While 2010-11 can lay claim to the most rain in a 2 year period, other La Ninas (some mod, some mod to strong) surpassed both “strongs” over periods of shorter or longer length. In other words: STUNT! What matter is what happens. SOI won’t explain what happened at the end of the thirties or the mainland East in 1950. It just HAPPENED.
Lastly, heavily discount all the above because it is all subject to interpretation and re-classification. It’s sat measurements post 1980 versus ship buckets before. 1896 used to be classified right up there with 1982. (Guess which way recent amendments have gone.) Various bodies have given very different versions of past ENSO, SOI etc, and they are still doing it. What matter is what happens. Adults will understand.
Robert anecdotes give no mechanistic understanding.
2011 La Nina – record SSTs and record eastern Australia vapour pressures as AGW would suggest.
The supercell is a common term for certain types of severe storm. But in the case of Wivenhoe a 1 in 5000 event (like off the meter) storm event over the dam. Documented well on radar with rapid increase in attendant inflows.
I guess for you Robert – even when it’s happening it’s not happening.
AGW points to more extremes on the background of natural variability – some evidence is accumulating to that point.
Intelligent people will understand.
Looks like Bazza has given up on fire thread as have I. People simply interested in ritualised greenie bashing and Jen’s happy to let greens being Nazis stand.
No, Luke. You are using slobby, mock-technical terminology combined with trashy sensationalism. A supercell is a supercell and has nothing to do with some storm event over Wivenhoe dam. You’re fudging, and you know it. (Mind you, supercells did occur around 2010. One in WA, as I recall.) You just like the effect of “super” and “record”. 2011 was a record La Nina in some ways, 1917, the mid-70s and 1950 in others. We all know if these old events were to occur now you would make frantic propaganda with them, just as you are trying to making something out of October fires which, terrible as they are, were inevitable after years of build-up in all the wrong places. (Visit Winmallee and shudder!). Dry, hot, windy Octobers have occurred frequently in NSW, they have always proven dangerous. (Our hottest here on the midcoast was in 1913, our driest October was in 1908.)
Also, get skeptical about ENSO, while using it for what it’s worth. Did you know your own Qld bureaucracy just a few years ago used to rate 1906 as the most intense El Nino, not 1982? Yet if you were in SE Qld in 1905-6 you wouldn’t have even felt it. ENSO is a ROUGH OBSERVATION SET, not a MECHANISM.
AGW can point to all the extremes it likes. History is full of extremes, just as the future is full of them. You work by magnifying the emotion and picking out the exceptional aspects of current extremes, and by dismissing the past and pretending climate can be known and predicted within some junk science bubble. I can tell you more and more detail of the Waterfall spring fires but it will be wasted because it does not fit your script. However, if the same event occurred tomorrow you would give it the deluxe treatment. It’s what you do. And we all know it’s what you do. If Cyclone Mahina or Black Tuesday were fresh events you’d be all over them. And we know it. The most deadly climatic event of last century was flooding in China in the 1930s. If it happened now, you’d be wagging the finger. Instead, it’s to be legislated out of existence as “spotty anecdote”.
What’s alarming is that you are not stupid.
OK how weally biggish and uncommon intense rainfall event thingy with heaps and heaps of water in a short time type formation then. Now such weally biggish and uncommon intense rainfall event thingy with heaps and heaps of water in a short time type formation thingy would need to be driven by unusual drivers (and indeed they were). And to wit observers said – wow that’s a weally biggish and uncommon intense rainfall event thingy with heaps and heaps of water in a short time type formation thingy isn’t it.
So for you again – when its happening – its not happening. I wonder why they call that denial.
So for Robby it will never be happening as it can’t happen. So it’s not happening. “Don’t bother us with your measurements lad – it’s just not happening.”
Fair enuff.
Storm chasers chasing weally biggish and uncommon intense rainfall event thingy with heaps and heaps of water in a short time type formation thingies near Wivenhoe – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fVT01XaDKvE NOTE video incorrectly labelled.
So you’ve worked out that massive and intense storms have unusual drivers? That would then help you to understand a thing or two about Brissie in 2010-11…and in 1893. Having read the hydrology report for the construction of Wivenhoe, I’m pleased when people understand these things. Especially when you consider that the 1841 flood was slightly higher again, and the engineers were very aware of that, since it was based on an exact measurement taken at the PO. Of course, every deluge is different and has its own personality, but what a relief to have engineers and hydrologists ignoring the babblers of the day. I like to ignore the babblers of my day.
But you know some guy called “Robby” who denies that recent Qld storms and floods of 2010-11 even happened? Or something like that? Or did you invent this “Robby” for dramatic effect?
Is this a script thing, in which you needed some bad-guy creationist type? So you came up with “Robby”?
Well Robby “Having read the hydrology report for the construction of Wivenhoe, I’m pleased when people understand these things.”
Yes well all of that knowledge is now gone and replaced by direct advice from Tim Flannery and Al Gore. Greenpeace and WWF dictate dam engineering these days. And they only use IPCC numbers.
What do you reckon Robby? Hydrology is now extinct. You guys know.
Yes don’t want to listen to babblers with all their bloody numbers do we. Real hydrologists like to get out there with their thumb like painters of great masterpieces do. You don’t worry about numbers Robby. That’s lefty bullshit. Fictitious supercells on ideologically incorrect doppler radar is for communists. Real guys do their maths on slide rules or mate – no stuff that too – just bloody go for it mate – go by gut feel if you’re a legend. And if you can do it when pissed so much the better.
You just have your Australian qualitative anecdotes history book, signed by Menzies circa 1950s at your side as you pour that concrete or open those flood gates. Rule of thumb Robby – you have to have a “feel” for it. And always time in the big event to stop for a quick drink and a blokey yarn about the wife and kids too.
And that’s why we should keep the flag the same. Now piss off and get a hair cut Robby.