Consider subscribing here for a monthly e-newsletters about Murray River issues and more… http://www.mythandthemurray.org/subscribe/
October e-news to be emailed soon.
And can anyone guess where I took this photograph… the name of the shallow lake?
Footer
About Me
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Read morePayPal
It looks Estuarine Jen.
That means there would be a lot of places this could be.
It does somewhat remind me of places along the Sunshine Coast in QLD?
But it could be on the coast in SA, NSW, Vic Tas or WA…I have seen shallow lakes similar to your photo in all those States.
More Interesting is what Doug Keenan has to say about AR5 and statistics –
“Temperatures on Earth ’ s surface — i.e. where people live — are widely believed to provide evidence for global warming. Demonstrating that those temperatures actually provide evidence, though, requires doing statistical analysis. All such statistical analyses of the temperatures that have be en done so far are fatally flawed. Astoundingly , those flaws are effectively acknowledged in the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) . The flaws imply that there is no demonstrated observational evidence that global temperatures have significantly increased (i.e. increased more than would be expected from natural climatic variation alone). Despite this, one of the main conclusions of AR5 is that global temperatures have in creased very significantly. That conclusion is based on analysis that AR5 itself acknowledges is fatally flawed. The correct conclusion is that there is no demonstrated observational evidence for global warming.”
from “Statistical Analyses of Surface Temperatures in the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report” by Douglas J. Keenan.
HERE http://www.informath.org/AR5stat.pdf
picked up by WUWT http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/30/statistical-analyses-of-surface-temperatures-in-the-ipcc-fifth-assessment-report/
and Bishop Hill http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2013/10/30/keenan-does-ar5.html
Demonstrated observational evidence? We’re waitin’, AR ‘s 1-2-3-4-
and AR5 … still waitin’ … Hockey stick smoke and mrrors don’t count.
bts
Keenan is much ado about less than nothing – not even a hint of Bayes. Even bland Freddie would see that fitting a straight line to global temperatures since 1880 was simply a concession to all those happy with kindy stats. No problem if seen as a simple summary device for a lay audience. A quadratic would have been an obvious choice except it would have attracted more sophisticated quibblers from STATS101 and above. How many times would that be that Keenan has been rebutted. Of course natural variability can explain everything if you know nothing. That is why religion was invented!
Ah, well that’s sorted then. Everyone’s been set right and we can close the sceptical blogs.
Cool. I had better things to do with my lunch break anyway.
http://www.news.com.au/technology/environment/simple-points-about-climate-change/story-fnjwvztl-1226750488131
Terry McCrann points out the stupidity of the climate change authorities latest report…
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/business/lets-get-rid-of-all-the-useless-wind-farms/story-fni0d8gi-1226750008876
and David Murray sums up why the warmist movement is going backwards…coupled with outrageously biased reports like the CCA …
that bazza has linked to suggesting he supports the exaggerations and distortions?
if we do what they want we will damage living standards in OZ and it will not change the climate. Baz cant even you see that is insanity? ( that really would be acting like climate criminals)
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2013/s3880680.htm
EMMA ALBERICI: The latest IPCC report – the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – was written by 250 authors from 39 countries, subjected to a review involving more than 1,000 experts. What would it take to convince you of the science?
DAVID MURRAY: When I see some evidence of integrity amongst the scientists themselves…
EMMA ALBERICI: Didn’t the Climate Commission achieve that consensus?…
DAVID MURRAY: Yes, but when we have the thing so highly politicised and when we have the head of a Climate Commission making wildly exaggerated statements about sea level, it just doesn’t help.
Toby commented yesterday at 433pm on that forest thread that “ if the world was genuinely trying to act I would, whilst still being sceptical of much of the science, have no problems with us seeking to curb emissions”. So how do you decide what is genuine action?
Oh come on Baz, do you really expect me to answer that? You and I both know the world is throwing around platitudes. And if you don’t know it can only be because you are ignorant and your head is in the sand, and that is not I suspect the case.
You have to know that whilst some 40 countries have some type of policy in place, they are at much lower prices and many of them have given away the carbon credits anyway. Are you really naïve enough to believe the world is acting??!
That article I linked to and quoted in full makes it abundantly clear why acting alone is pure stupidity and is worthy of the accusation of climate criminals.
My point was and remains that if the world is equally damaging their economies then it is a lvl playing field and whilst disputing the C in the CAGW I would concede that action may be justified.
But as you and Luke like to say it is all about risk. and risk is all about understanding the costs and the benefits. Clearly as things stand we know the financial cost of acting alone is large and the pay off is zero for climate. Money spent on efficiency gains is not a waste…but a carbon price is insanity particularly when we are effectively acting alone.
Hence my disgust with your link and quoting of the CCA, who are clearly political activists.
I also responded to your response about west vs developing, and believe that you are attempting to play with statistics to make a point that is obviously wrong. Lies damn lies and statistics…….just use your common sense!
Thx for that link Graeme. Yeah I’m convinced by the 10 points as well………
You tell me oh wise one? I guess when other economies are also paying out say $9billion from 23 million people……not $500m from 300 million people……. or a $1 tax….or a tax that is funded by free credits……
it is about risk as you and luke say….we all agree. when the benefits from the action are basically zero for climate ( whilst making efficiency gains which is good) but the costs large it becomes insanity and platitudes to the goddess Gaia.
and you cant mention the potential negative consequences of Cagw making it worthwhile because their will be no impact on climate given current global action.
Lake Wyeba
Interesting calculation of the CET temp record 1659 to 2012. In 353 years the temp has increased by 0.87 C and would take another 800 years to increase 2 C.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/30/how-long-before-we-reach-the-catastrophic-2c-warming/#more-96543
Yes Bazza. It’s Lake Weyba. The view is from the north west, from Noosaville across to Coolum. The dome shaped hill is ‘Mount Coolum’.
I agree completely re cost v benefits Toby. And I do not understand why there is no reasoned debate in the media about this fact. I have always wondered what the true state of the global action IS, not what it’s claimed to be. So often I read statements by politicians or activists that are at odds with what I’ve read. If that article is accurate, then globally there is little going on.
With that being the case, especially for the big emitters the EU, US, China and India, then there is little value in Australia acting alone. We CANNOT make a bit of difference even if the worst claims of CAGW are true.
In fact we can never make much of a difference relatively speaking. The only value to us would be ensuring that we remain competitive in a global marketplace, thus is there is global action to introduce ETS/taxes etc, we should similarly act. I don’t buy the need to act early to ensure that we will be prepared when this happens. We just aren’t that big an economy. But then, I am no economist.
My point is that this sort of discussion rarely plays out in the media, and we are treated to the Adam Bandt nonsense that sees a link between rising global temps and Australia’s CO2 emissions.
This is also why I asked the question a while back about whether Australia is a net carbon emitter. I would be interested in seeing any real figures that have established whether we are an emitter or a sink when all sources are considered.
I think the debate is completely politicised and lacking an empirical basis, and that is quite misleading to the public generally.
As that news.com.au article shows.
Very well spotted, bazza.
Yes Graeme it has definitely been heavily politicised and most of the people advocating what they do know less on the subject than most of us have forgotten….and you can throw in people like flannery, gore, john connor ( climate institute), hamilton, karoly, bandt milne, bob brown et al
Goodness, when apparently intelligent people like bazza can be so ignorant of the damage the policies he advocates will incur I can only shake my head in amazement at such a lack of common sense. I know Voltaire new it was rare, but seriously who do they really think the climate criminals are?!
and I note bazza has actually no interest in responding in any reasonable way to anything that is said. HE IS A ZEALOT. and the capitals are to annoy him!
I would also be interested to know if we are a net emitter or absorber myself. My gut instinct is that with such a huge land mass surrounded by so much water and with such a relatively small population that we are in all likelihood a net absorber. But even on an emissions per sq km we will be a very minor player.
But geeee our moral gesture has made me feel like a good country…….or rather a country of mugs!
Well Toby and Robert, just have a look at Bob Carter’s “Taxing Air” pages 201 to 202. He states that OZ’s exclusive economic zone ( EEZ) sequests at least 10 times more co2 than we emit.
He further states that if we count our land mass and our Antarctic interests this would double to about 20 times sequestration in proportion to our emissions.
So we can say that bazza and Luke are wrong and our initial emissions of 0.393 bn tonnes p.a. are a flea-bite joke compared to the big emitters. And we cover ourselves at least by a factor of 10 times.
Sorry Toby and Graeme M not Robert above.
Yet another study shows that the earlier Holocene and Medieval WP were much warmer than today.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/more_evidence_of_that_earlier_warming_the_ipcc_ironed_out/#commentsmore
So much for Mann’s discredited HS study, what a fraud and con trick that was. And it must have encouraged the waste of 100s of billions $ for a zero return.
But Luke and bazza still think bristlecone pine proxies are the go and using Tiljander data upside down justifies the lies by some of their peer reviewed scientists. What a con.
Indeed Toby. This is always my beef. I have always said I do not oppose government action on climate change – the advice of the science should be followed because that is where policy should be based. But I would rather that the science is factual and evidence based and shows the range of actual impacts both economically and physically. And that it assesses actual risk. As far as I can tell, Australia would for the foreseeable future be better investing in mitigation rather than superficial policies that I suspect are more about strutting the world stage than achieving real gains.
The other side of the biased level of debate is my other complaint – that young people in particular are being given an unrealistic view of how the physical environment operates. Some of the utter tosh that is openly repeated in the media and parroted in ignorance really annoys the heck out of me.
Jo Nova’s latest post about the bushfires of 1851 is an example, I guarantee you half the kids at school now would never believe you if you told them that had happened. What I hear around the place suggests a view that in the past the climate was a benevolent stable thing. Hells bells, these days any storm gets the catastrophe treatment, just look at the UK St Jude’s Day storm last weekend. Stormageddon or something wasn’t it?
The problem with the green perspective (and I am in no way anti-greenie) is the catastrophist world view. I’ve said this before too, but people of that outlook have a tendency to see things in terms of catstrophe at every turn. they are simply convinced that mankind has a negative impact – it is their personal psychology that blinds them. Confirmation bias is their standard fare. That’s fine, but it has to be balanced by a more pragmatic view.
And that brings us to my last beef. The adversarial two party system that passes for democratic process. This system is guaranteed to avoid balance. We DO need both pragmatism and idealism in evaluating policy. This is much more so the case today than ever before becuase policy issues and responses are now so complex. Yet our system so mitigates against this. The case of excess green tape impacting forest and bushfire management is a prime example…
Wow, I got a trifecta! The rules are that if you use caps, go the ad hominen or quote McCran, I win. Toby of glass half-empty fame, why not set your class an assignment on whether McCran or Bolt is making the strongest contribution to informative balanced journalism by way of their opinion pieces. As reported in The Guardian in Wendy Bacon’s analysis :
“Andrew Bolt is the dominant voice on climate science by a long way, although I wouldn’t personalise it on him because it’s the editors and corporate managers who give him the space in the newspaper,” Wendy Bacon, author of the report, told Guardian Australia.
“There’s an editorial decision to heavily promote him and people like Piers Akerman and Miranda Divine, who are vehemently angry with climate scientists.”
Bacon said it was an “extraordinary” situation for Australia’s largest circulation newspaper publisher to not report the position of 97% of the world’s climate scientists.
Absolutely pathetic mush bazza. But here’s proof that even News Corp goes troppo and prints total BS about CAGW every once in a while.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/fighting_the_global_warming_religion/#commentsmore
But the Bolter once again gives us the facts pointing out the flaws in this ridiculous article. Wendy Bacon is a fantasist writing in a fantasy based rag. Right up there with HS Mann made GW, bristlecone pine proxies and upside down Tiljander.
If you can’t find what you want you just make it up. And it’s peer reviewed of course.
Yes Bazza,
I have noticed that you see yourself as a legend…even making up your own rules to prove it.. . and self proclaiming your own win.
What is it that you think you’ve won…other than guessing where the photo was taken?
That was a good spot on Lake Weyba BTW.
Sorry to spoil your fun re the remainder of your comment…but Toby most definitely has a glass half full attitude re Australia compared to yours.
Yours appears based on negative, impractical and deliberately polarising politics…which IMHO is part of the PROBLEM and not part of any SOLUTION (can’t resist using caps).
Bolt could hold his own here with his grasp of kindy stats. He has insights. In response to the expectation of many 1 in 100 events this century, he makes the brilliant observation they wouldn’t be 1 in a 100 events would they. Encouraging too that Graham M and Toby liked the 10 points on news.com.
97% of Aussie skeptics would like to see a 97% reduction in our carb taxation, based on the 97% of our land mass (and surrounding oceans?) which is carb neg. However, I don’t want to be the one to phone Lee Kuan Yew and tell him that 97% of Singapore is carbon naughty and he’ll have to pay us the whole of a 97% Singapore tax hike to abandon various outback cattle stations to vermin and fire-prone regrowth. You know what an old hardhead he is. He just won’t see it, even when you lay it out in clear Lewandowskian percentages.
bazza
remind us again how that “97%” was arrived at?
from memory there were some shenanigans involved in the process?
Jonathan L, do your own research, it is a very,very good way to learn something, nevertheless here is a summary from The Guardian (Nuccitelli 11/10/13) to get you started on improving your understanding of the evidence underpinning all 4 numbers that matter:
“There’s a 97 percent consensus on human-caused global warming in the peer reviewed climate science literature and among climate experts. There’s a 96 percent consensus in the climate research that humans are responsible for most of the current global warming. The 2013 IPCC report agrees with this position with 95 percent confidence, and states that humans are most likely responsible for 100 percent of the global warming since 1951.”
( I realise I wrote very,very good. I remember it from Homer Simpson who explained he was a big fan of “It pays to increase your word power” in the Readers Digest which would be a good beginners text for those embarking on researching their own stuff. You are such a miserable humourless lot)
Bazza please give us the link that shows the IPCC thinks that humans are resposible for 100% of warming since 1951.
I thought it was 50% but I could be wrong.
Bazza, It can be a 100% consensus, but if it’s wrong it’s wrong. So that kind of appeal is largely without merit. A consensus is good enough to guide policy, but it should always be considered with a certain degree of uncertainty because if there is anything history has taught us, it is that a human consensus on a matter doesn’t necessarily prove anything.
Wendy Bacon hates it when Bolt fact checks the liars and alarmists. Seems these con merchants should have a free rein to spread as much BS as they please. What a joke.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/shock_finding_abc_host_and_academic_discover_im_a_menace/
I thought the 97% concensus rubbish was so badly ‘Cook’ed up that complaints were made to the University board of fraudulent behaviour and the paper was demanded to be withdrawn?? Is that the one Bazza is referring to?? hahahaha that’s SO FUNNY
Col A if that is the paper that bazza is referring to he should wake up to himself. That was the greatest con job of all time and is a standing joke on the blogs.
In comparison to Labor’s 3,000 illegals a month earlier this year. the number for OCT is about 339.
A bit more than 10% under the clueless Labor govt.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/boats_being_stopped/#commentsmore
Isn’t it great to have adults in charge.
@Col
“Is that the one Bazza is referring to?? ”
I don’t know what he is referring to but I certainly had that joke of a paper in mind.
So Bazza, how would you decide if the world was actually acting in a way that then warranted action by Australia? remember it is about risk…which is about costs and benefits. ( note asked without sarcasm, innuendo or attitude)
thx for the info Neville, very interesting indeed. Makes it even more important we act alone to save the world…….
Graeme, many students are fed a lot of rubbish, but most of them don’t care either way and those that do pretty quickly work out who is worth listening to and who is not. Fortunately I am reliably informed I am one of those that is worthy of being listened to. much I am sure to bazza’s disgust. your other sentiments I can only say, I agree!
So baz do you really think it reasonable to impose a $9billion tax ( and designed to be climbing) on 23 million Australians, whilst virtuous Europe raises $500million from 300 million? Do you really think those other few countries attempts to appear virtuous, actually impose a financial and economic penalty on their own economies similar to our own attempt?
Bazza, its not that we are humourless, its just the way you talk down to us mere sceptics makes us constantly on the edge of wanting to thump you.
How about you stop acting in such a condescending way and actually engage in a real exchange!?
believe it or not I do at times get a wry smile out of your humour, but sarcasm is the lowest form of whit and you should try to do better.
I appreciate many of your links are a sarcastic sneer at the links to bolt etc.
But you do yourself and them a disservice if you think the likes of David Murray and Terry McCrann turn you into an immediate winner. Seems to me you lose by default if that really is your stance?
Shades of grey, Nev , awful if I have misled you, but I correctly quoted that blogger – just goes to show. IPCC says “It is extremely likely (95 percent confidence) more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together.” More than half is not 100%. Extremely likely is nudging 100% but I will have to speak to that Nuccitelli guy next time I see him. So you can say for example it is extremely likely that when Neville plays outlier when he says climate sensitivity is one, that he has not got a clue, but you cant be certain. Not to worry, still a bit of wriggle room for you to freak about in.
Time for a tune I think – harpsichord for Robert
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7R7q1lSZfs
Drugs for Debbie
Concept for Toby
Toby,
it’s actually Bazza who apparently lacks a well refined sense of humour. . .Luke beats him hands down on that one.. . in fact he could think about taking lessons from Luke.
Bazza’s sense of humour is ironically very similar to Homer’s in that he only sees the joke when he thinks it is at someone else’s expense. . . and sooks (which is funny) when the favour is returned.
You’re quite correct that sarcasm is the LOWEST (caps for emphasis) form of wit. ANYBODY (again) . . . even ‘extreme rednecks’. . . can do it.
🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂
However. . . I will concede his RICE comment the other day made it off the bottom rung of the humour ladder. . . pity about the remainder of that particular comment though.
Here’s Lomborg’s take on the more than 50% quote. So it might be 51% or 60%, who knows? Or in reality it might be just 15%.
http://www.thegwpf.org/bjorn-lomborg-global-warming-fear/
But OZ sequests at least 10 times our emissions so we have well compensated for our supposed sins.
But what caused the other much warmer periods in the earlier Holocene? It couldn’t be co2 emissions at around 280ppmv.
And what caused the very much warmer Eemian temps and much higher SLs?
I’m 97% sucker for a special price tag of $9.70 or $97.00. That number 97 is just far enough from 100 for realism, but you feel you’re almost getting the lot. Lew really knows his craft.
Speaking of tunes, some early footage of Spangled relaxing on his yacht. He certainly aimed high, did our SD!
Debbie I am stunned that you fell for the blatant rice bait. I was kidding. You had set yourself up for it. And never mistake the pursuit of the dialectic for anything personal.
Speaking of yachts, ‘ Yacht Dance,’one of me favorite songs by XTC …
‘We will skate across the storm as if wheeling sea birds …’
“A clear majority of Australians (57%) say human-induced global warming and climate change played no part in the recent NSW bushfires compared to 37% of Australians that say it did play a part while 6% can’t say according to a special telephone Morgan Poll conducted over the last two nights (October 29/30, 2013).”
http://roymorganresearch.createsend1.com/t/ViewEmail/j/AE27A982A0396070/F270F646DA51FF4A9A8E73400EDACAB4
Nah Luke!
That wasn’t the one I meant…Bazza made a humourous comment re my sprained ankle . . .Rest…Ice…Compression. . .Elevation.
For a moment he stepped up one rung and used a clever and amusing pun rather than the usual sarcasm. . . disappointingly the rest of his comment was still on the bottom rung.
I found your comment amusing too Luke. . .as you may have noticed. . . coz I keep using it.
But as I said. . . you appear to have a more sophisticated sense of humour than your mate.
I found this one amusing today. . .got sent through to me.
I hope Jen doesn’t mind. . .it should be OK because this is an open thread?
Hopefully it copy/pastes OK
Dihydrogen monoxide
BAN DIHYDROGEN MONOXIDE! THE INVISIBLE KILLER
Dihydrogen monoxide is colourless, odourless, tasteless, and kills uncounted thousands of people every year. Most of these deaths are caused by accidental inhalation of DHMO, but the dangers of dihydrogen monoxide do not end there. Prolonged exposure to its solid form causes severe tissue damage. Symptoms of DHMO ingestion can include excessive sweating and urination, and possibly a bloated feeling, nausea, vomiting and body electrolyte imbalance. For those who have become dependent, DHMO withdrawal means death.
Dihydrogen monoxide:
* is also known as hydric acid, and is the major component of acid rain. It may also be called Hydrogen hydroxide.
* contributes to the “greenhouse effect.”
* may cause severe burns.
* contributes to the erosion of our natural landscape.
* accelerates corrosion and rusting of many metals.
* may cause electrical failures and decreased effectiveness of automobile
brakes.
* has been found in excised tumours of terminal cancer patients.
CONTAMINATION IS REACHING EPIDEMIC PROPORTIONS!
Quantities of dihydrogen monoxide have been found in almost every stream,
lake, and reservoir in Australia today. But the pollution is global, and
the contaminant has even been found in Antarctic ice. In the Midwest
alone DHMO has caused millions of dollars of property damage.
Despite the danger, dihydrogen monoxide is often used:
* as an industrial solvent and coolant.
* in nuclear power plants.
* in the production of Styrofoam.
* as a fire retardant.
* in many forms of cruel animal research.
* in the distribution of pesticides. Even after washing, produce remains
contaminated by this chemical.
* as an additive in “junk-foods” and other food products.
Companies dump waste DHMO into rivers and the ocean, and nothing can be
done to stop them because this practice is still legal. The impact on
wildlife is extreme, and we cannot afford to ignore it any longer!
THE HORROR MUST BE STOPPED!
The Australian government has refused to ban the production, distribution, or use of this damaging chemical due to its “importance to the economic health of this nation.”
In fact, the navy and other military organizations are conducting experiments with DHMO, and designing multi-billion dollar devices to control and utilize it during warfare situations. Hundreds of military research facilities receive tons of it through a highly sophisticated underground distribution network. Many store large quantities for later use.
IT’S NOT TOO LATE!
Act NOW to prevent further contamination. Find out more about this dangerous chemical. What you don’t know CAN hurt you and others throughout the world.
No shortage of snow, total sea ice 300,000 sq klm above average, no SLR for 67 years, no warming for 17 years, steady rainfall for the past century, fires no worse in spite of dangerous practice…..
Oh the panic! The panic!
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/10/24/five-of-the-six-snowiest-winters-have-occurred-since-david-viner-declared-the-end-of-snow/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/sea-ice-page/
http://jennifermarohasy.com/2013/01/king-tide-not-so-high/
Yes, but what little SLR has been detected consists of more than 97% dihydrogen monoxide. And you tell us not to worry!
and it hangs around and stays in the ocean for up to 50 years Robert.
And it warms from the bottom upwards like any good kettle.
“The world’s oceans store over 90% of the heat in the climate system”.
Good article from David Stockwell:
https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2013/10/sea-change-climate-science/
Debbie have you seen this Penn and Teller video? An oldie but a goody. Lukey and bazza would be smacking their chops to sign immediately.
Looks like “electricity Bill” is a hog for punishment.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/shortens_first_big_decison_has_probably_finished_him/#commentsmore
He’s just guaranteed that Labor won’t/can’t win the next election. He’s also jumped back in bed with the Greens for another Coalition in opposition to commonsense.
He’s also given Abbott a dream run for the next 3 years and a probable 3 terms of govt for the Coalition.
And as OZ gets to 2023 we’ll all better understand whether co2 is the likely culprit or not.
Well it’s just like McHales Navy – what bunch of outright nutters you are. Feral wankers. Blog mongoloids.
A regression model of “cumulated solar” by the unpublished Stockwell who references his own wank 3 times. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA …… jeez guys
WHAT A TOTAL PILE OF CRAP.
From slops city aka Quadrent Seeker
Then a video that relies on Americans ignorance of basic chemistry as if this means anything. How many are god-fearing types too?
Then the old bottom warming up for oceanographic drongos 101 crap.
It’s appalling – without Bazza or myself adding some intellectual capital the blog has dissolved into dementia and codgerism.
Actually Luke – the bottom warming up theory has a lot of data to support it. It’s been estimated that there are around 1.2 million active volcanoes on the land surface we can’t see as it’s the 70% of land surface covered by oceans.
Recent finds of 100 active volcanoes between Iceland and Svalbard are suggesting that the east Arctic sea ice melt is possibly due to warmer currents emanating from these submarine volcanoes just as they are affecting the antarctic peninsula.
As David Evans suggests in his interview with Topher there has to be something happening which we don’t quite understand because all the current theories for the planet’s increase in temperature for the past 300 years don’t hold water.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xI3doCKhI7Q
But of course you will reply with a derogatory abuse and say ‘No it’s not’, as usual.
Yea good on ya mate.
What would a modeller of a cruddy system like Fullcam know? Full of assumptions.
Disappointed – but really get some source.
He’d know a damn site more that you would Luke, plus he has the academic credentials to back it up – now you? Why don’t you tell us who you are? then maybe we can judge.
Luke doesn’t even understand 5 year old maths and believes in corrupt and fraudulent peer reviewed studies that are a joke throughout the better blogs.
But here’s today’s column by Lomborg giving the facts about bushfires.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/columnists/burnout-is-no-cause-for-alarm/story-fni1hfs5-1226751564513
We could spend countless trillions and we would get just a 0.1c impact by 2100. What a waste of time and money and yet this is what these illiterate maths dummies believe in.
Gore, Bandt, Labor , Greens, IPCC leaders etc are just easily exposed and dopey fraudsters.
Geeezzzz Electricity Bill and Labor have just given us positive proof that they are delusional morons and yet the SMH goes after Abbott.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/hartcher_abbott_has_failed/
According to these dimwits Abbott has failed after a couple of months in power. Boats have slowed to just more than 10% under Labor, he’s sacked silly Flannery etc and will soon sack the clueless CCA.
And Abbott has stepped up to personally fight the NSW fires in his spare time as well. Boy what a failure.
Yes Neville, but when you don’t deal in specifics [like Luke and Bazza] you can rant and waffle about general lefty philosophy till the cows come home.
But it convinces the kids.
‘Intellectual capital’ ?
🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂
ROFL! LOL!
You are very funny Luke.
That one is priceless.
Mann and Lewandowsky have a new paper that falls at the first hurdle. In a warmer world about 7 times the number of people are saved because of fewer deaths from cold spells.
This has been known for at least a decade because of numerous studies that prove this point conclusively.
How can these dills get away with this ridiculous nonsense in so called peer reviewed studies?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/01/mann-and-lewandowsky-go-psychotic-on-skeptics/#more-96600
Goklany, Lomborg etc have given us the facts about this for years yet these fools keep lying and are always supported by the Greens, Labor, Gore, Flannery etc.
Even in warmer countries many more people die during winter than the summer. This happens in the NH and SH and many studies support this fact.
Debbie did you look at Penn and Teller video? Some silly lefties will sign anything. But ya gotta laugh.
Terry McCrann gives us the facts about co2 emissions and rips into the kindy maths challenged numbskulls from the CCA.
Their sacking can’t come soon enough.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/archive/business/climate-changers-all-hot-air/story-e6frg9k6-1226751612863
Good to see Jo Nova exposing these con merchants and fantasists from the CCA as well.
http://joannenova.com.au/2013/11/terry-mccrann-fantasists-try-to-scare-us-with-cultural-cringe/#more-31538
I have now Neville,
Absolutely hilarious. Will have to send it to the people who sent me the other one.
I was cracking up watching some of those people sign the petition to ban DHMO (water) while either holding a bottle of water or in front of the petitioner while she was drinking a bottle of water.
Therein also lies the humour behind Luke’s ‘Intellectual Capital’ comment. People sign up to stuff because it sounds intelligent and important. . . and they don’t ask questions of ‘authoritative sounding sources’ because they don’t want to appear ‘uninformed’ or ‘contrarian’.
The absolute nonsense Bazza & Luke are trying to defend re bushfire risk and CAGW is a classic example.
It’s very amusing to read. . .they quite clearly have no idea what they’re talking about and try to cover that up by ‘appealing to authority’. . And then try to get all soooo superior sounding when the bleeding obvious gets pointed out.
It’s cracking me up.
Why not appeal to authority otherwise you would have to be the suppository of all knowledge and how would that feel? So if clever Hunt gets his stuff from Wikipedia, then maybe I can. Under bushfires in Australia you get: “Global warming increasing the frequency and severity of bushfires and will lead to increased days of extreme fire danger”
Plans for two new santuaries in the Ross sea have been blocked for the third time by Russia and China.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24776865
So much for caring about places like Antarctica in the future. We should be able to understand where more exploitation and development will come from and it’s not western countries we need to worry about.
Well another list of brainless posts. Neville back to cutting and pasting as if we can’t read and having his daily screech. Reminds me of one of those white cockatoos. And being a climate criminal, fraud, screecher and all-round sour puss he’s now advocating unrestrained growth of atmospheric CO2.
Evans video was pure bunkum – what crappola – I enjoyed the bit about SurfaceStations – he forget to mention the result when they only used the good stations. Debs can look that up for her self learning project. Debs doesn’t really that she’s just like on the people in the OH2 video – sucked in by all sorts of similar sceptic shite. Good one Debs.
You’d have to a dumb bum not to understand that more likely fire weather means more fires. A duh !
Anyway I turned off the climate smut video at the point as the porkie meter had exploded. Put Sex in the City on instead.
I see the troops have failed oceanography 101 – having not done Ekman pumping.
Right wing devotees probably don’t know about oceanography.
So bazza explain how OZ reducing our emissions by 5% or 15% or 100% of 1.2% by 2020 will change anything at all?
I ask, have you looked at the maths factually supplied by McCrann? I suppose you just choose to dream on in your fairies at the bottom of your garden world.
If you don’t bother to understand the numbers you are just wasting your time.
BS Bazza. . . total BS.
One should ALWAYS, ALWAYS ask sensible questions and make sure they are fully cognisant of the issue/s BEFORE they interfere in or try to lay claim to public advocacy. . .a blind acceptance of bureaucratic and/or NGO/QANGO authority is just accepting authority from those who are employed to SERVE the public and/or those they represent. . .not the other way around.
NOT ANYWHERE has ANYONE claimed on this site (other than you apparently) that they are or should be the “suppository of all knowledge”. . .what total unadulterated CRAP!
However. . .in the NRM space. . .which includes the management of bush fire risk. . .it might be a good idea to actually ask the people who work in Natural Resource Management and listen to their advice rather than just mindlessly repeating stuff that merely sounds virtuous and/or important from people who wouldn’t have a clue re the practical application of risk management.
So at the risk of being repetitive:
CAGW is NOT(!) a CURRENT(!) major contributor to bush fire danger and therefore claiming so is absolute garbage. The CURRENT risk is there because sensible land management has been & is being PREVENTED by bureaucratic rules and regs that have been implemented over the last 2 decades.
Go take a look and educate yourself Bazza rather than repeating rubbish and looking just as foolish as those people who signed the petition to ban DHMO in the video clip.
Further. . .controlling the future climate (even if that’s possible) WILL DO NOTHING to manage CURRENT(!) bushfire risk….NOTHING!!!
And I’m using caps to emphasise particular words and phrases and also because I think it’s very funny that you think you’ve scored some major intellectual point by criticising me for doing so.
Kindy Economics for Null Nev- Having worked in a few industries, I have seen the advantages for the early adopters and innovators. As Delay reported in The Guardian a while back in relation to the UK.
“ This new low carbon economy is poised to be the mother of all markets and will be as transformative in its impact as the first industrial revolution. It offers a huge commercial opportunity for the UK to again become a global hub of innovation and generate economic benefit for the nation.
Recent research indicates this revolution has begun and some green roots have been planted. ……the overall market for clean technologies last year valued at some £3 trillion.
But what will Britain’s role be in this new industrial revolution. We stand at a crossroads. Will we be among the first movers and leaders? Or will we be the laggards and adopters of these new low carbon technologies? Despite our country’s strong potential, the clock is ticking for us to truly lead the way. Without bold leadership we risk squandering the opportunity to capture our share of this “mother of all markets”.
Bazza you are a fool if you believe that idiotic rubbish from the Guardian. Why do you think Spain is such a basket case ? Because they got in early and made first class idiots of themselves, that’s why.
Why do you think Germany is now building new BROWN coal fired stns after blowing 100s of billions on useless solar and wind?
If you remove the taxpayer subsidies on solar and wind etc the entire mess collapses in a heap. And why do you think a number of countries in the EU have to import electricity from nuclear powered France?
Here’s a good ding-a-ling mate for Luke and bazza. They should bond with Charley boy quite well. He doesn’t have a grip on historical facts either.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/reasons_to_think_prince_charles_is_an_idiot_about_syria/#commentsmore
deb, I actually thought Abbotts gaffe re suppository was well known. So we now have a pair of resident clowns henceforth known as null and void.
And now Bazza is a “suppository of all knowledge” because “Having worked in a few industries” he now thinks that “The Guardian a while back in relation to the UK” would be a completely reliable and trustworthy source to ‘appeal to authority”.
I’m curious Bazza. . .in what ‘few industries’ have you worked and where do you work now that behoves you to believe you can ‘advocate’ stuff like:
“the advantages for the early adopters and innovators.’ And:
“Global warming increasing the frequency and severity of bushfires and will lead to increased days of extreme fire danger”
from some type of ‘authority’?
Let’s not forget to notice that you quoted a wiki source to GLOBAL warming when the “clever Hunt” discussion was about AUSTRALIAN bushfires.
The little anecdote “Having worked in a few industries” doesn’t particularly prove anything much at all. . .and certainly doesn’t give me any confidence in your advice.
I would strongly suspect that nearly everyone who comments here (including Jen) has worked in a few industries. . .and rather a lot of them in the NRM space.
Debs
Bazza has run a fruit shop at Dunedoo, a knock shop in Darwin and an a book store in the Cross. Surely you’ve heard of Bazza’s Books? So he knows so much from reading all the books in the book store. And learnt about human behaviour in his other parts of his career. I met him in Darwin of course.
🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂
Thanks Luke. . . you truly are funny.
I’ve been early in with innovation. I went Addis when the mob were going computers. I was a Betacord man instead of that silly VHS. I ignored the iPod for the Zune, of course. When they pull away all the subsidies from fossil fuels, the real savings of wind will be revealed…but save your hard-earned for Hot Rocks and Geodynamics. Those shares are going so cheap! According to Al Gore, you’ve got millions of degrees down there – and he’d just written a book on the subject when he said that. I’m selling my farm for geothermal. How I will laugh at all the sorry fools who couldn’t see reality when it was printed in black and white in the Guardian.
You just have to see that cutting edge and gash yourself on it real hard.
Luke, where would we be without day release. I don’t know how much room you have got left for tats but I am running out. As it is painful to remove ( my first girlfriend had too may syllable) I am thinking warmonger might be a safer bet than denialist.
Well yes Robert,
I still remain a bit curious about Bazza’s ‘cutting edge’ and early adaption experience.
I suspect he’s confusing the concept with something else entirely that is indeed related to taxpayer “investment” . . .which of course if it had anything to do with something that may encourage “cutting edge” or early adaption and innovation in perhaps mining, agriculture, coal fired power, transport… or…god forbid…oil production (fossil and/or plant) . . . or even more alarming. . . using well known, tried and true local land management solutions to control and mitigate such things as bushfires. . . he would immediately be crying foul and appealing to aiuthority etc because it isn’t to do with the grand and rapidly failing global experiment to control the very,very scary future climate!!!
Here’s a little gem that I’m sure will be right up Bazza’s alley.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/02/science/earth/science-panel-warns-of-risks-to-food-supply-from-climate-change.html?_r=0
This sentence cracked me up completely:
“The new tone reflects a large body of research in recent years that has shown how sensitive crops appear to be to heat waves.”
Well there you go!!! What an amazing new discovery! AND!!! apparently it was from a (probably indecently expensive) large body of recent research.
The big weather prob for food this year has been the recent late and severe frosts in South America, though Oz fruit copped a bad hit also. But one really big food prob for the world would be a significantly colder climate, whether long term or resulting from a Laki-style eruption, in Canada and the Northern EU (which is a huge producer and exporter, even from tiny areas like the Netherlands). The 1930s in Canada were an example of what extreme drought and heat can do, but some cooling there in the 70s had its own shocks.
Coolism is just as juvenile as warmism. It would be crazy to assume that warming will not continue. It would be equally crazy to assume it will continue. Egyptian and Chinese dynasties rose and fell on climate change – definitely! Can we ditch all this soothsaying and just make sure our laces aren’t frayed on game day?
Why has Neville not informed us about memeplexes?
http://judithcurry.com/2013/11/01/cagw-memeplex/#more-13547
Wouldn’t be part of his meme I guess (go on swing at it!).
Wobby will love this one …. even though he’s so far up his meme all we can see are the shoelaces dangling
Right or left, skeptic or warmie…memetics is a fad for tossers. Even if you are a Deep Green who wears scarves in high summer, you don’t deserve to be critiqued in terms of Andy West’s memeplex theory. It’s like Kahneman’s dressed-up commonplaces: a way for snobs to cast empty, pompous aspersions on those who disagree with them.
Warmies aren’t caught in a memeplex. They’re just dills.
Old anecdotal codger meme (pre dementia). Immediate rejection of anything new since 1957. Sees but doesn’t understand.
1957? Bad hedonics. Total misreading of Kahneman. The action was in 1958 – with fins!
As I suspected. Robert has missed 95% of this entire period. Devolution he’d say. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sb5aq5HcS1A A parody within a parody.
Only true time-lords and meme surfers can name them all.
But Robby it is all about paradigms – what do you do when Daleks attack. Answer – run upstairs.
Run upstairs? To protect your action figure collection?
Can’t run forever. When Russell Brand ushers in the Sunsilk Revolution there’ll be nowhere to hide, Supe. It will mean the end of all harsh alkaline shampoos and oily conditioners. 97% of customers report more shine, body and bounce within 97 seconds. You can’t fight the science and the numbers.
Probably some of the most stupid dickheads one wouldn’t like to meet.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFTddFk6zb8 Just trying to work out which one is Luke.
I see Prof Roger Jones is still gagging after the Bolter forced him into giving a temp calculation of 0.004 c for OZ’s 5% of zip reduction until 2100.
Jeez you’re a dour bugger Robert. Obviously not in your meme. Explanation.
http://static1.fjcdn.com/comments/4228629+_9b9255ac9c8bfe774284cabb15f2855e.jpg
Com’on Luke – surely it’s time for you to tell us who you are- you know Debbie grows rice, SD (Jim) is an experienced environmentalist/sailor, whatever, with a long record, Cohenite is a lawyer for the climate skeptics, Robert lives in the Kempsy area and I’m an old rocker who designs recording studios.
we don’t know who you are except that you snipe from the outer and try to cut us down with everything we post. You play the superior role even though we have no idea of your background, your qualifications or your present involvement in the climate movement.
It’s time to front up Mate!
Well John as I’ve told you I don’t have any relevant qualifications. This is is a science and evidence based blog, Jen has always said. There’s a science literature. You guys want to discuss content free and post bogus material. You want an echo chamber where anything puerile rot that Bolt or 2GB puts to air stands with no comment? Is that evidence. I try to bring material here that’s from reasonable sources not from authors regularly proved to be wrong, unpublished and purely political. It’s called duty of care to readers and not being a dick.
Neville tags me directly every day and so we get fraud, criminal, coward etc. Well it can simply be returned in spades.
But fair enough, I’ll shutup and withdraw and you can wind down to your previous low traffic, low discussion level while you enjoy echo chamber music and back slapping. With breakfast, lunch and dinner from Bolt, 2GB, Wattsup and Nova. Good call.
The latest numbers and outlook from the IEA backs up my arguments above. Green energy can’t even keep up, it has dropped from 37% to 33% in the last 20 years. Mostly hydro of course.
http://www.thegwpf.org/iea-global-power-generation-green-energy-decreased-20-years/
“Facts and numbers mean nothing to them at all.” That’s why a goose like you quotes from disinformation sources daily.
Neville’s quality from one of his idols ………. “I displayed my very limited understanding of statistics in this post. This was pointed out to me a great number times by many different people in numerous comments received in the WattsUpWithThat cross post.The errors in that initial portion of the post were so many and so great that they detracted from the bulk of the post, which was about the El Niño-Southern Oscillation. Please disregard this post and the WUWT cross post, and any other cross posts that may exist.”
“The errors in that initial portion of the post were so many and so great’ YUP !
This blog is priceless for examining Watts – http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/11/denier-weirdness-mock-outrage-and.html
Neville’s beloved source. The sheer idiocy of Wattsup comments has to be seen to be believed. It’s a veritable horde of wack jobs.
Even if Watts was wrong it doesn’t matter, It has cost us zip because he does it all out of his own pocket, unlike the peer reviewed rubbish like Mann’s HS and upside down Tiljander etc.
That has cost OZ billions because the clueless Rudd and Gillard govts actually believed their nonsense.
BUt what a hide you’ve got, I mean you can’t even understand simple sums and you actually think we have to do SOMETHING even though everyone can see that we would be wasting our time and money. No ifs no buts.
Go to China and India and make a further fool of yourself there.
Yes Luke,
people (even you) make mistakes.
IMHO. . the stark difference is that those whom you see as ‘authoritative sources’ and inevitably come from the rarified air of academia and/or are employed by the government. . . are spectacularly unable to admit to mistakes and will resort to ‘gutter tactics’ to shift accountability.
When something plainly isn’t working and not achieving good outcomes then it is quite simply insane to keep doing it.
The massive amounts of rules & regs that apply to NRM . . . and the ones discussed here regularly and recently are fire, water, air & land. . . are classic examples.
The exponential increase of centralised & multi layered legislation has progressively stymied and PREVENTED sensible NRM. It’s mostly based on an unworkable interpretation of the ‘Precautionary Principle’ and displays 100% ‘risk averse’ behaviour and 100% process/rules focus. Even Kahneman (sp?) makes that point.
Re ‘memetics’ and from your comment above, I’m not sure you even comprehend what ‘disinformation’ means.
If, as appears, you think it means that if anyone who makes an error processing data . . . especially in relation to such things as climate/weather/environment . ..they should immediately be dismissed as inconsequential and the subject of repeated personal attacks. . then, quite frankly, there would be no one left anywhere to comment or contribute. . .even those whom you claim are ‘authoritative sources’
Even more irritating. . . the ‘meme’ or ‘paradigm’ that ‘environmental/green politics’ uses as it’s ‘public platform’. . shamelessly uses exaggerated emotiinal arguments. . . littered with imprecise and connotative alliteration, nouns, verbs,adjectives, adverbs etc. . . that (as Robert highlights above) comes from the world of advertising.
Bandt’s ‘climate criminal’ stunt is one of the more recent examples.
It’s total rot. . . apart from the fact that there is no such thing. . . the ACTUAL weather/climate/environment couldn’t give a toss about Abbot or Bandt or Milne or Hunt or you or me.
The ACTUAL weather/climate/environment will punish whenever/whosoever no matter whatever emotional ‘meme’ you might wish to apply.
However. . . that doesn’t mean that we should stop working to understand climate/weather/environment. . . we just need to stop the political/policy crap!
Don’t verbal me you mate.
You quote utter crap with no duty of care. You corral arguments. You are risk mad – you’re actually advocating unrestrained growth of atmospheric CO2. Your assessment of any risk is zero.
And because it’s a grand challenge problem and you are mentally challenged your answer is don’t worry about it. What a dick !
There are if and buts – so go off and stamp your feet.
“It has cost us zip” nope it’s cost millions in creating policy confusion in a gullible public and scientist harassment which is now stock in trade for sceptics. It a virtual Denial of Service Attack.
“he does it all out of his own pocket” ROFL !
Just think all your screechy whining achieves 0.00000000 Why don’t you go to CSIRO and BoM and give them a seminar on your knowledge? Tell them they’re frauds while you’re there.
It’s not about an error processing data Debbie.
It’s about “I displayed my very limited understanding of statistics ” – WELL WHY DOES HE KEEP DOING IT THEN !
How about “I displayed my limited knowledge of medicine but I kept treating patients”.
I’ve just deleted 6 comments. Can we lift the tone please.
I’ve been reading ‘The Undiscovered Self’ by Karl Jung. He’s obviously doing some thinking out aloud in the writing… but it an interesting assessment of how difficult it can be to hold independent ideas. Of course Myers Briggs is based on the work of Jung. I’m wondering what Myers Briggs type participants at this blog are?
And shat about getting some discussion around old classics that are easily to find and download from the internet beginning with Jung’s ‘The undiscovered self’?
No disrespect Luke BUT!….
That’s a very poor and inappropriate analogy,
Medical Science is most definitely a rarefied, highly technical, intensely academic and intensely specialized field.
NRM and the implementation of social policy for NRM is not a comparable field. . . not even close.
The better comparison. . .if you wish to make it. . .and IMHO. . . is looking at the legislation, politics and exponentially increasing social policy that uses the health industry and keeping people safe from ‘unmentionable terrors’ as its justification. Much of it has increased the expense of health care for no real benefit to patients and/or medical practitioners and often PREVENTED medical practitioners from doing what they know is right.. . because of possible repercussions from the legislation.
A bit simplistic I know. . .but less so than your analogy.
I’m guessing Debbie is an ENTJ and Luke an ENTJ. John Sayers, I’m guessing, is an INTP. Neville, I’m guessing, is an INTJ.
You’s can do the test here… http://www.humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/jtypes2.asp
No way, Jen. I’m a metric skeptic. Plus, I always do badly in tests, even pinch tests. I got a Maze Master medal from the Royal Easter Show once, but everyone gets one of them.
There is no ‘badly’ on this test. Robert, if you honestly do the test and post your 4 letter ‘type’, I might even reveal my own.
No. Shy.
Myers Briggs is a joke. No scientific basis so will have immediate appeal here. Jen , you are out of your depth – stick to a paddle in Lake Wyeba. Some test – 50% stable on retest – not used in psychology etc etc.Here is what NAS said.”Overall, the review committee concluded that the MBTI has not demonstrated adequate validity although its popularity and use has been steadily increasing. The National Academy of Sciences review committee concluded that: ‘at this time, there is not sufficient, well-designed research to justify the use of the MBTI in career counseling programs’, the very thing that it is most often used for”. –
According to this test Jen I am this one:
INFJ
Introvert iNtuitive Feeling Judging
•You have slight preference of Introversion over Extraversion
•You have strong preference of Intuition over Sensing
•You have moderate preference of Feeling over Thinking
•You have slight preference of Judging over Perceiving
I have been involved in various permutations of personality testing throughout my employment career (as opposed to my family farming business). . .including implementing them. They are extremely useful tools in the workplace. . .and certainly assist good managers to improve productivity in the workplace. . .and also help to minimise fallout from those inevitable workplace
‘personality clashes’.
I have found however. . .as this one has also done with me. . .that females. . .and most especially working mothers. . .nearly always score towards F rather than T.
I would actually agree with your E & T assessment of me. . .but I don’t think this test can adequately reflect my deliberate lifestyle choices which are NOT urban and/or workplace based.
I think if I did this particular test from that workplace paradigm. . . it would likely be as you have surmised.
Thanks Bazza.
I did Myers Briggs for the first time in about 1998, if that was the year I started working for Queensland Cane growers.
Discovering that I was an ‘I’ was profoundly significant for me.
I grew up in a family of ‘Es’ and amongst people who always valued being ‘E’ over being ‘I’. To read about what it was to be an ‘I’ and to identify strongly with those traits as real and not somehow suggesting ‘anti-social’ tendencies was huge.
Hey Debbie,
So you present at the blog as an ENTJ, but really you are an INFJ. It is interesting to dissect and understand what it means to make your decisions based on ‘thinking’ versus ‘feeling’.
Of course if one is very analytical and has strong values there is potential for huge internal personal conflict… and also growth from this.
ENTJ !! more like INTP …. (big I)
Robert – we should tease you and tell you there’s a special category for people who won’t be classified.
(Debbie – I wasn’t talking about NRM)
I agree with that Jen. . .and would even go much further and say that the most important and rewarding personal growth comes from internal personal conflict.
And. . .because I just can’t resist my own personality. . .from an ‘edumacated’ but perhaps ‘out of my depth’, but definitely intuitive personality. . .that if Bazza (as he presents at this blog) took this test…the last one would be :
🙂 🙂 🙂
•You have strong preference of Judging over Perceiving
Is that right Luke?
I disagree but I am entirely open to you explaining what you think you were talking about and also what the discussions here have been about for just about forever??????
Thanks for sharing Luke. So you keep coming back here to collect information. Being a ‘p’ rather that a ‘j’ you manage to stay part of the conversation, baiting, but not completely writing us off?
My Number 3 Niece (she’s Chinese) is actually a corporate psychologist, does this sort of testing all the time. When I get to Sydney we regularly meet over salt-and-pepper squid. No prize for guessing which topics she doesn’t discuss with Uncle Bobby.
Hey Robert
I’m in favour of all topics being open for discussion.
Why avoid discussion?
I see that Bazza rejects Myers Briggs, because he considers it unscientific. Do you also reject it because you consider it unscientific?
Very large sample sizes have been used in its development.
INTJ
Introvert(89%) iNtuitive(12%) Thinking(50%) Judging(33%)
You have strong preference of Introversion over Extraversion (89%)
You have slight preference of Intuition over Sensing (12%)
You have moderate preference of Thinking over Feeling (50%)
You have moderate preference of Judging over Perceiving (33%)
Jen, it’s just me. I am totally without analysis. Always have been. Number 3 Niece knows it’s a waste of time with me (so maybe she is on the ball?).
On the other hand, I think the mind will be THE subject of study in the coming century. For me, Myers Briggs is like alternative energy: we mainstream something which works a tiny little bit in the hope that it will work a lot if we have enough of it.
I’m glad there was a Jung, I’m less glad about psychometric instruments developed from his thought. I’m even kind of glad those instruments exist, but in the hands the literal-minded, the facile and the half-educated – of whom there are many, just waiting to convert some superficial testing into “data” – it’s a bit of a worry! Surely a climate skeptic will see my point there.
Thanks Johnathan. Strong analytical skills, a tendency to assume he/she is right?
Robert, I guess I found Myers Briggs very liberating. While many claim it is wrong to ‘box’ people, to reduce them to just four numbers… when the numbers potentially provide great insight… including insights about real difference…
Myers Briggs suggests that there are those who intuitively believe we should strive to treat all people as ‘equal’, while others intuitively believe that all people are ‘different’ and should be treated as ‘individuals’.
What happens when you are the very different one/the ugly duckling in a family that believes passionately in equality?
Thank goodness for the potential for liberation through Myers Briggs, I say.
Hey Robert,
I can’t say if I am a ‘climate sceptic’ because I have never seen a worthwhile or solid definition of what that actually is. . . but I most definitely see your point.
The conversion into ‘data’ is fraught with danger if people fail to understand that it’s merely a useful tool to help us all gain a better understanding of such things as how the human psyche works or how the climate works or even how our personal budgets or personal family dynamics work. . .and they are definitely NOT the final judge and jury of these things.
It’s interesting that Jung has come into all this. He seems to me to be someone like Orwell or Burke, someone attractive to and quoted by all sides. Everyone from Tea Partyers to New Agers find something there. And I find something there too – just not system. If I tried to do a Myers Briggs I would immediately say something like: “50% Intuition over Sensing on Monday, but only 10% by Tuesday, soaring on Friday, before a flat weekend”. That’s me! And you want I should do the test?
But I’ve known people get to better places in life via routes I could never take. Maybe Myers Briggs is the perfect lens for some. And, no, I’m not saying all “lenses” are equal. At least Myers Briggs has been round the block a few times.
I’ll raise the matter with Number 3 Niece at Chrissie. (No I won’t.)
Robert
Jung hasn’t “come to all of this”.
Most people ignore Jung. Most people ignore Myers Briggs. There is not a lot of Jung in most Myers Briggs tests or analysis of the same.
But if one takes the time to understand the links, and to understand Myers Briggs and Jung there is potential for profound insight.
But like most things in life, to get to the point where you can see how special something is, you need to first put the time into understanding it.
PS Robert,
If I may be so bold… I understand that you enjoy creative writing. Some say its a way of connecting with the subconscious. This was a pre-occupation of Jung’s. Furthermore, there is some discussion in the Myers Briggs literature about how the focus should not be so much on the four letters that you get by way of ‘score’, but on using this to identify those components of that particular type that reside in the subconscious.
Now, as to the value of Jung, that is something we might agree upon, Jen. People may be putting even more value on Jung in the coming century, not so much because he was “right” – who’s right? – but because of the directions in which he was willing to look. While I only took up jotting down stories last year because certain jobs and duties were no longer there, my first vague encounter with Jungian thought came over thirty five years ago. And I would certainly describe that as an important encounter.
It’s not a matter of me agreeing with the great man. I just find myself believing in a personal as well as collective subconscious, though I can’t give you one good reason why I should. Not only that, but I believe a connection of those with my conscious is probably my number one daily task (at which I can obviously fail, eg when I’m cursing drought, sinuses or having too much fun kicking Luke around the shop).
I can’t give a reason for any of this, but I believe it. And old CJ believed it and put it into some kind of framework. (Even I need a bit of a framework.) So I’m into CJ! Make sense?
Serious testing identifies 5 dimensions. Extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism, openness. The rich lode of data provided by the contributors hereabouts would lead me to score them on average: neutral on the first then LLHL.
Robert
“If I tried to do a Myers Briggs I would immediately say something like: “50% Intuition over Sensing on Monday, but only 10% by Tuesday, soaring on Friday, before a flat weekend”. “
With due respect Robert I think you are wrong.
I pay next to no attention to tests because I’m in a lucky position of not having to take them.
But if you did take this one like you supposed to do, clicking on the box that your first instinct tell you to do, you’d be surprised at the results.
These tests are not designed to be pondered about.
Anyone can beat any test if you know what results the testers want.
I think my results is almost spot on, I do have an analytical approach to things and I need it in my work.
I think most people who are happy with their job are the ones who followed their instinct and choose the line of work most suited to them.
Might have to re assess that earlier comment & make that a very strong, approaching 100% J. ????????
Deb, my J just soared to 100%, but I’ve choked it right back, maybe thanks to all my spraying about Jung and connectedness to the subconscious etc. See how quickly life tests you out? (Where are your caps, by the way?)
JW, I’ve decided to dig my heels in and remain a total metric skeptic, but I’m probably wrong because so many good skeptic types are having success with Myers Briggs. If you think my analysis flawed, remember that I don’t even have an analysis.
I love analytical people, by the way. They make all the important stuff I love, from Landcruisers to Linux distros. I make good soup and focaccia, because I don’t have to measure – and that’s about it. I don’t know what you make, JW, but I bet it’s good. You being a good skep and all.
Debbie,
A ‘J’ tends to make up their mind before they have an optimal amount of information, while a ‘P’ tends to keep collecting information but usually eventually makes up their mind… sometimes only to change it again.
In the case of Bazza he has made a decision about Myers Briggs, but perhaps on the basis of prejudice rather than information?
Is it because he fears who he really is, or is it that he fear what we might think of who he really is?
Robert,
But you do measure… you’ve decided that there is a lot of coal in NSW?
INTJ…
Introvert(78%) iNtuitive(38%) Thinking(12%) Judging(56%)
Thanks Graeme. I wonder if there is even one ‘E’ amongst us?
And I’ve now decided (being a J this is not that difficult for me), that I was wrong about Bazza and why he has no respect for Myers Briggs… he gave us the answer up front… he appealed to the authority of “what NAS said.”
Indeed we don’t know whether Bazz is by nature a ‘j’ or a ‘p’ but we do know that he tends to rely on authority rather than personal experience or his own detailed analysis?
Jen,
From my strong ‘iNtuitive’ nature that also has a ‘slight preference’ for Judging over Perception (and was very close to neutral). . . based on the tone of Bazza’s comments ….and hence my 2 comments . . .I would take a bet on option b)
“he fears what we might think of who he really is”
From my experience conducting several different permutations of personality tests. . . it’s ALMOST ALWAYS the ones who score a strong preference for J over P who actively dislike having to do this type of testing and yet weirdly are the first ones to dictate to everyone else how much they know about it.
🙂 🙂 🙂
And Robert….the caps are still there….only wanted to emphasise NOT in my earlier comment.
Robert
” I don’t know what you make, JW, but I bet it’s good.”</b?
It better be Robert. There would be big trouble otherwise.
My company is part of a group engaged in writing financial software.
As it is human mistakes still happen but it's mostly wrong keyboard input by users or some other glitch.
That's why I'm so much opposed to "adjusting" data of any kind. Imagine if the software the banks use would say 'Oh $1010? that's close enough to a $1000' and apply that to multiple amounts?
Not a happy situation.
to prove it that it can happen
not a happy situation at all
OK Jen,
I redid the test and answered as if I was still an employee in the workplace environment (which I haven’t been since 2008) and where these tests are useful tools.
I am indeed a ‘moderate’ Extravert when I’m in a crowd. . .it’s just that my deliberate lifestyle choice meant that I didn’t answer yes to a couple of the ‘social’ questions which I would have answered as ‘yes’ if I was still in a workplace environment as an employee. It also flipped that very slight J & P preference for exactly the same reason as only 2 answers were changed.
ENFP
Extravert(44%) iNtuitive(75%) Feeling(25%) Perceiving(11)%
•You have moderate preference of Extraversion over Introversion (44%)
•You have distinctive preference of Intuition over Sensing (75%)
•You have moderate preference of Feeling over Thinking (25%)
•You have slight preference of Perceiving over Judging (11%)
Linux distros – well why didn’t you say so Robert – straight in mate !
Hey Debbie
Thanks for sharing some more.
I think the ‘type test’ is useful for personal development as well as in the workplace.
My understanding is that we have a basic type, and if we understand that type and are supported in that type we can soar. But many people, because of the surrounding culture, mother’s preference etcetera are not supported in who they really are, and so they learn to compensate and even try and be a different type.
I like the analogy of writing … we are born left or right handed. But can learn to compensate i.e. a left handed person can learn to write with their right hand… but they will never be as good with the right hand as they could with the left.
When I do the tests I come out as INTJ.
On the above test my scores are as follows…
• You have strong preference of Introversion over Extraversion (89%)
• You have distinctive preference of Intuition over Sensing (75%)
• You have moderate preference of Thinking over Feeling (38%)
You have strong preference of Judging over Perceiving (78%)
Note the least well defined is the T/F.
When I read about type and particularly about ‘auxiliary function’ I think I am actually an INFJ.
That would make me the same as you, when your not trying to compensate.
INFJs (as opposed to INTJs) usually look for affirmation, particularly before making a decision.
I like to test my ideas at this blog, to see whether there is agreement or not. And I like to know that there is someone like Luke about who will deliberately put an alternative perspective, play the devil’s advocate. Because there is no point/less point testing an idea to a group likely to want to agree.
My understanding is that Is are less common in the general population than Es? I also understand that Ns are less common than Ss? I think the INFJ type is one of the least common?
Deb, I was having a quiet think about your instability and I perceived intuitively despite the USA NAS summary that in your next life you should stay away from machinery, people and data.
Jen, wouldn’t have a clue if I answered all the questions correctly. You can look at them in so many different lights but it said I was an ISTJ which probably means f* wit and Luke is probably right after all.
Well Bazza,
🙂 🙂 🙂
I’m flattered by your concern . . . but you don’t need to worry. . .I’m fine with all 3 in this life. . . and not even slightly worried about the next life.
Spangled… another Introvert!
According to ‘Myers Briggs’ Introverts:
“I like getting my energy from dealing with the ideas, pictures, memories, and reactions that are inside my head, in my inner world. I often prefer doing things alone or with one or two people I feel comfortable with. I take time to reflect so that I have a clear idea of what I’ll be doing when I decide to act. Ideas are almost solid things for me. Sometimes I like the idea of something better than the real thing.”
versus
Extroverts who…
“I like getting my energy from active involvement in events and having a lot of different activities. I’m excited when I’m around people and I like to energize other people. I like moving into action and making things happen. I generally feel at home in the world. I often understand a problem better when I can talk out loud about it and hear what others have to say.”
Deb, it is not about you – “I’m fine with all 3 in this life”. That is your intuition telling you that – sometimes worth a check.
My trouble Jen is I can agree and identify with both PsOV.
There are times though when I don’t know what to think till I’ve heard what I have to say.☺
I think that the luxury of time you have up your sleeve plays a big part in how you make decisions.
Debbie,
You have put yourself out there by telling us your scores for the various Myers Briggs preferences.
Bazza now appears to be making fun of you and the fact that you are an ‘N’.
I could delete his comments, but I think they tell us much more about him and a somewhat nasty streak, than they do about Myers Briggs and/or your personality type.
Of course nastiness is not limited to anyone type, but Jung would perhaps suggest that by better understanding ourselves, including through understanding preferences, we can be kinder people and more empathetic.
Errrr nope. . . seriously I’m fine.
Maybe you might need to check your tendency to judge?
BTW. . .my comment was for Bazza.
No need to delete Jen. . .It does tell us more.
Came out on the test like you, Debbie, INFJ all mods except F slight %
over thinking.. Suited ter teaching of the Humanitees, well what d’yer know.
Here is a description of an INFJ type http://psychology.about.com/od/trait-theories-personality/a/Infj.htm
I see that Luke Skywalker is there.
And I see Spangled, that if you are indeed an ISTJ, you are with Queen Elizabeth II
http://www.mypersonality.info/personality-types/istj/
Yeah well Jen, we are actually related. But only by marriage. ☺
Well I’m a INTJ. Big deal.
Btw just thought I’d link to ALL OZ energy sources. This from wikipedia is a bit dated and messy but as you can see solar and wind produce SFA power to the grid. About 0.5% of total output. What a criminal waste of time and money.
Coal-fired power[edit]
Electricity generation from renewable sources in Australia, 2010The main source of Australia’s electricity generation is coal. In 2003, coal-fired power plants generated 77.2% of the country’s total electricity production, followed by natural gas (13.8%), hydropower (7.0%), oil (1.0%), biomass (0.6%) and solar and wind combined (0.3%).[13] in 2008–09, a total of 261 terawatt hours of electricity (including off-grid electricity) was generated in Australia. Coal-fired plants also constitute a majority of generating capacity which in 2008-9 was 29,407 MW. The total generating capacity from all sources in 2008-9 was approximately 51 GW with an average capacity utilisation of 52 per cent. In 2008-9 a total of 143.2 TWh of electricity was produced from black coal and 56.9 TWh from brown coal. Over the 10 years from 1998–99 to 2008–09, Australia’s electricity use increased at an average rate of 2.5 per cent a year[14] Depending on the price of coal at the power station, the long run marginal cost of coal based electricity at the power stations in eastern Australia is between 3 and 5 cents per kWh, which is between $30 and $50 per MWh. In Victoria brown coal stations produce electricity for less than $30 per MWh.[15] In 2003, coal-fired plants produced 58.4% of the total capacity, followed by hydropower (19.1%, of which 17% is pumped storage), natural gas (13.5%), liquid/gas fossil fuel-switching plants (5.4%), oil products (2.9%), wind power (0.4%), biomass (0.2%) and solar (0.1%).[16]
Have started canola harvest today. . .good crop. . .no intuition needed. . .working fine with people(contractors) . . .some very big machinery (header, trucks, tractors, auger bins etc) and loads of data (weights, moisture content, volume, GPS & calibration etc). . don’t know if there is such a thing as a ‘next life’ and even my N nature has made no judgement . .but I am most definitely fine with this one. . . despite the fact that it’s not perfect.
Me thinks MB is a bit like astrology – it gives you direction when you have none. Note too that all 16 types are made to appear appealing so in experiments where people were randomly assigned types they were able to identify a bit and not unhappy with their lot. I have to make these observations because I have been diagnosed as an INTP. I note too that many scientists come out as INTJ which is a problem for the more freewheeling INTPs. However not many INTJ would a scientist make.
So Bazza, you really aren’t interested in an exchange at all? 3 more days to come up with a response (to what would show the world was acting in a meaningful way) and you can only throw more snide digs at people. what a charming chap you are.
Do you really think the world is acting?!
I am a ESTJ from a test i did a few years ago, personally I would have said an I, but my friends tell me definitely an “E”.
I think bazza is right , they do “make” all of the categories appear more positive than they probably all are!
Toby, no need to be such a misery. The overall trend in interest in mitigation of greenhouse gases remains positive despite hiccups and I will remain positive, also recognising that countries that transform early may get a competitive advantage and that leadership matters.
Bazza has a point about everyone getting something from each category. I wonder where horrible psychopaths like Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot etc would fit in the maze?
Here’s a good column fron Hugh Morgan in today’s OZ. The Club of Rome report was another provable con and fraud.
The mitigation of CAGW is easily shown to be one of the biggest ponzi scheme frauds in history. But unlike all of the ponzi scheme frauds and cons the Mit of CAGW is transperently obvious to anyone who spends 10 minutes online. Morgan’s column below.
Climate
IPCC this century’s ‘Chicken Little’ by: ANDREW BURRELL
MINING industry veteran Hugh Morgan has further inflamed the climate change debate by claiming that the world’s climate scientists will be remembered in a similar vein to the “Chicken Little” theorists who published the apocalyptic tome The Limits to Growth more than 40 years ago.
The long-time climate change sceptic said the intensity of the debate on global warming made it timely to consider the impact of the 1972 book published by the Club of Rome, which sold 12 million copies and was translated into 37 languages.
The Club of Rome – a group of mostly European scientists and academics – used computer modelling to warn that the world would run out of commodities, including gold, mercury, silver, tin, zinc, petroleum, copper, lead, oil and natural gas, within 30 years.
The book captured the public’s imagination by warning of the “sudden and uncontrollable collapse” of economic life.
SCIENTISTS: ‘Nuclear power needed’ to slow warming
Mr Morgan, the former chief executive of Western Mining Corporation, told The Australian: “The book illustrates the dangers of academics talking about things they know nothing about.
“The IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) will be remembered in the same way as the Club of Rome for its ‘Chicken Little’ approach.”
Mr Morgan’s comments came as former Commonwealth Bank and Future Fund chairman David Murray suggested last week that the world’s climate scientists lacked integrity, prompting an angry response from a leading body representing scientists.
Mr Murray told the ABC’s Lateline program that the “climate problem” had been overstated by IPCC scientists and he would be convinced that man-made climate change was real only “when I see some evidence of integrity amongst the scientists themselves”.
Host Emma Alberici pointed out that the most recent IPCC report was written by 250 authors from 39 countries and was subject to review by more than 1000 experts, but he could not be swayed.
The Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society said on Friday it was disturbed by Mr Murray’s comments.
“The IPCC reports are an outstanding example of international science co-operation, rigour and transparency,” AMOC president Blair Trewin said. “The society regards the remarks of Mr Murray as being a serious slur on the integrity of the many Australian and international authors of the IPCC report.”
The backlash from scientists came as Bill Shorten announced that Labor would propose amendments to the federal government’s carbon tax repeal legislation, saying he believed an emissions trading scheme was the best way to tackle climate change.
“We accept the science of climate change. Tony Abbott doesn’t,” the Opposition Leader said.
Mr Morgan said political leaders should reread The Limits of Growth to understand the dangers of modelling and the risk of believing “academics who think they can see the future”.
He said the Club of Rome’s prediction that most major commodities would run out within a few decades had been proven wrong because of the scientists’ failure to consider technological innovation in the resources industry and their inability to understand how companies made decisions.
“It completely presumed there was a standstill in technology,’ Mr Morgan said.
He cited the shale gas revolution in the US as an example of technological change leading to increased reserves of a key commodity. The move towards deep-sea drilling for oil had also led to new discoveries in areas previously discounted.
Mr Morgan said the Club of Rome’s forecasts had “scared the hell out of everybody” and had encouraged overproduction, which kept commodity prices low for 20 years. “Everybody invested and you had a massive oversupply,” he said.
The latest on the pause in warming and the longer period of no significant warming. This time warmist Nick Stokes has an input as well.
Couldn’t be fairer than that and once again shows the decency of WUWT. Go Anthony.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/03/statistical-significances-how-long-is-the-pause-now-includes-september-data/#more-96706
So I take it Bazza that means you genuinely believe the world is acting in a meaningful way?
When you can show me something other than platitudes, then its time to have a conversation about how Australia can participate, until then from where I sit its just madness and attempts to appear noble that do harm are stupidity personified and show just how crazy humans can be.
Remember it is about costs and benefits and the costs are financially large, whilst the pay off is currently zero? And anybody resorting back to “its all about insurance” a la the climate institute in my book lose by default….far worse than say a link to a Greg Sheridan or McCrann who use reason over fiction.
Morgan’s post is utter rubbish. Trust someone like Neville to spread more disinformation.
http://lesswrong.com/lw/i25/notes_on_the_limits_to_growth_and_surrounding/
“Mr Morgan said the Club of Rome’s forecasts had “scared the hell out of everybody” and had encouraged overproduction, which kept commodity prices low for 20 years.” HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA what rot
What Luke is trying to say Neville is that whether it applies or not it is always right.
Thinks…What does that remind me of?
Are we seeing peak Luke yet?
More ignorance and stupidity shown by Wendy Bacon and their ABC. Prof Don Aitkin calls their interview “astonishingly ignorant.”
And as usual the Bolter is easily able to answer their stupidity and bias.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/wendy_bacon_betrays_journalism_to_damn_a_sceptic/#commentsmore
I don’t know why my post (that included a link to McIntyre’s thoughts on Rosenthal et al) was deleted.
But here is that link again. http://climateaudit.org/2013/11/02/rosenthal-et-al-2013/
Neville
‘And as usual the Bolter is easily able to answer their stupidity and bias.’
It makes no difference Neville, people who follow and like A Bolt and his opinions will do so regardless and those that don’t will believe the other side forever and denigrate him.
Look at Luke, I can’t recall him agreeing with anything posted here, unless it was by someone he likes.
There must have been a post he could agree with, don’t you think?
I’m an INTJ as well Neville – I’m really a number 7.
Bazza (& Toby)
“Note too that all 16 types are made to appear appealing so in experiments where people were randomly assigned types they were able to identify a bit and not unhappy with their lot”
Well…yes of course…because ALL types DO have appeal and unique strengths…and all types DO have unappealing aspects and particular weaknesses.
What would be the point of helping people to work with each other or helping people to develop themselves if this type of work was just used to ‘judge’ people as a ‘bad type’ or as a ‘good type’? Wouldn’t that be counter -productive and a recipe for disaster?
IMHO. . .the true value in this work is that in a workplace or even personally it can help participants to build on and work to strengths and understand and minimise weaknesses. It also helps people to understand weaknesses and encourage the strengths in others and hopefully cease thinking there is something wrong with other people because they don’t do everything the same way.
Of course some people are inclined to use it in exactly the opposite manner (harp on others’ weaknesses and at the same time ignore their own weaknesses and even sometimes claim that their ‘type’ is the only ‘good type’). . .but that isn’t the purpose at all and actually reveals a weakness in a particular personality type (even though that personality type has some excellent strengths)
Give the dominance of INTJs at this blog I thought I should also post something about us…
“INTJs are ambitious, self-confident, deliberate, long-range thinkers. Many INTJs end up in engineering or scientific pursuits, although some find enough challenge within the business world in areas which involve organizing and strategic planning. They dislike messiness and inefficiency, and anything that is muddled or unclear. They value clarity and efficiency, and will put enormous amounts of energy and time into consolidating their insights into structured patterns.
“Other people may have a difficult time understanding an INTJ. They may see them as aloof and reserved. Indeed, the INTJ is not overly demonstrative of their affections, and is likely to not give as much praise or positive support as others may need or desire. That doesn’t mean that he or she doesn’t truly have affection or regard for others, they simply do not typically feel the need to express it. Others may falsely perceive the INTJ as being rigid and set in their ways. Nothing could be further from the truth, because the INTJ is committed to always finding the objective best strategy to implement their ideas. The INTJ is usually quite open to hearing an alternative way of doing something.
“When under a great deal of stress, the INTJ may become obsessed with mindless repetitive, Sensate activities, such as over-drinking. They may also tend to become absorbed with minutia and details that they would not normally consider important to their overall goal…
http://www.personalitypage.com/INTJ.html
I actually found the test hard to decide so I just breezed through it making intuitive decisions – for example do I think with my head or my heart? – I think with both! Is my desk organized or messy – it’s a mess but it’s organized. I could have easily answered with either option in so many of the questions.
But John Sayers, How often is their conflict when one tries to think with both one’s head and also one’s heart? How often is it impossible to make decisions on the basis of logic and values? And then which one takes precedence? You must have answered ‘head’ to end up being labelled an INTJ.
And is the following quote a consequence of thinking with one’s head while lacking adequate knowledge/being essentially ignorant? How does one explain this type of thinking rationally…
“Childbearing should be a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license. All potential parents should be required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing.” – David Brower, first Executive Director of the Sierra Club
There is a level II of MBTI
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MBTI_Step_II
and a whole subject on the shadow and dark side which goes into the negative aspects of MBTI types
http://lblankenship.blogspot.com.au/2013/05/mbti-7-dark-side.html
INTP dark side …. A hacker who unleashes a devastating computer virus.
http://lblankenship.blogspot.com.au/2013/05/mbti-8-shadow-and-online-resources.html
I was thinking more along the lines of what I do when I’m producing a record – I must know where everything is on the tape, what track has what etc which is purely technical and mental but I’m also working with how does it feel, is the balance in the right spot to be able to feel it yet not let it overpower you etc.
My studio designs are a combination between emotion and mental as well.
Put it this way – I’m a Cancer – emotional ……with a Gemini Rising – mental. 🙂
Oh BTW Jen – I found David Brower’s view outrageous.
Thanks Luke,
From the second link I found this useful: http://personalitycafe.com/intj-articles/76896-recognizing-inferior-function-intj.html .
When I’m overexposed to my EP siblings, who like to talk, talk, talk and then keep changing the agreed plan, there is much potential for ‘Eruption of Inferior Extraverted Sensing’.
And it seems to suggest that an INTJ and an INFJ share the same handicaps.
John Sayers,
Thanks for the explanation. And they say that great composers must also know how to embrace both the S and the N? So I guess in your profession, more than most, there must be almost an embracing of ‘opposites’?
And who is David Brower?
““Childbearing should be a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license. All potential parents should be required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing.” – David Brower, first Executive Director of the Sierra Club”
A great composer has to create the work which is purely emotional yet then has to write the score, which is pure head space, methodically scoring each part for each player.
I’m currently drafting the plans for a studio I’ve designed in WA – it’s a beautiful building I’ve designed from the ground up as a pure emotional event, imagining the spaces and walking through them in my mind but now I’m drafting the detailed drawings, which is just a mental methodical slog 🙂
I’m sure Hitler would have embraced that Brower drongo and he would have found plenty of soul mates within the early socialist founders of the Fabian society.
Bernard Shaw etc yapped a lot about such things and always knew what was best for society and what was the correct way for the populace to think and behave.
They were totalitarians to a man and woman or exactly the opposite of libertarians. A lot of these same people were supporters of Hitler’s National socialists in the early years.
Great post from Dr Robert Brown from Duke Uni. He states that the IPCC 5th report is a failure and shouldn’t have been presented in it’s present form.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/04/lets-face-it-the-climate-has-never-been-more-boring/#more-96765
He also states that many of the C models should be thrown in the bin. He also thinks that much of the science is of a political nature and is not real science at all.
While I think Brower perhaps goes too far, do you not think that overpopulation is a major threat to future success of our species? If not, why not?
Graeme,
Bower most DEFINITELY goes too far.. . no perhaps about it!
Overpopulation is a looming challenge rather than a major threat. . . but enforced contraception and making childbearing an illegal and punishable crime is not the answer.
Ask yourself why Australia does not suffer from this problem and also why most of educated, western society no longer has large families.
Therein lies the answer to the looming challenge methinks.
I’m not so sure Debbie. While it is true that education and greater choice for women and contraception and so on are powerful factors mitigating population growth in many industrialised nations, is that a long term likelihood?
The old religions like Christianity and Islam advocate having lots of children, and we see that the sectors of society even in countries like Australia that are breeding most are the lower socio-economic demographic. Islam in particular is I think a growing force to be reckoned with in this sense.
Witness America’s woes economically and what’s happening with its underclass.
While we can be idealistic or overly optimistic, pragmatically speaking we are not in a position to feed, educate, and raise up the living standard of a great many peoples in the world. And in fact we are starting to witness a fall inliving standards for many in the west.
Overpopulation is a major factor I suspect.
Graeme a couple of TED talks by Hans Rosling explode some popular myths
on population growth. This one and one on religions and population figures
using national census figures. Club of Rome, Erlich, Malthus sme ol’ same ol’
apocalypse now, if not next week.
So Graeme,
What alternative solution do you advocate if you think the issues you raised as:” powerful factors mitigating population growth in many industrialised nations” are not (in your view) adequate in the long term?
To this point. . . (IMHO)especially the education of women. . .they have had the most success have they not?
Even in China where they do have legislation about limiting family sizes. . .it does appear that the rising literacy standards in China (particularly for women). . .has returned the better outcomes?
Graeme not many Christians follow any rule that says women should have more children these days. And today many catholic women don’t follow the church’s message on contraception.
Muslims are another problem but I’m sure a better education for their women in first world countries will increasingly have some impact on pregnancies.
Good commonsense argument from the Bolter. We should scrap all useless wind and solar energy subsidies and plan to start a new Nuke program immediately.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/scrap_this_green_energy_target_remove_these_blights/
Even Hansen etc are urging govts to change to new nukes as a way to combat CAGW. Of course it won’t make a scrap of difference by 2100 but at least we’ll have safe, cheaper more reliable baseload power to the grid.
A win win situation and an end to those bloody eyesores ruining the countryside.
I dunno about the matter of population growth. I acknowledge the fact that so often the catastrophist views are proven unwarranted, and I also note the success of the various factors raised in mitigating population growth.
But I do wonder at some things, which I admit to not knowing much about. For example, the growth of the underclass. Or the addiction to growth – how long is it possible to keep ‘growing’? What will be the impact of a wholesale consumptive bent to society? We already see major health problems and a growing restlessness from an ultimately empty pursuit of material wealth. How to house a growing population? High density housing in the UK, Europe, Asia etc has not had a great track record. There are a host of issues that I think we are a bit too quick to put our heads in the sand on.
My point is that while I accept that we probably can eventually cover the earth with people, is that a good thing? Maybe we need to think about how to manage that. Personally, I view people who churn out 5 or 10 kids as pretty irresponsible. Particularly when I see so many desperately poor and under-educated people doing just that.
What odds would the bookies give you on this after being fed the BoM swill?
No warming in Australia since 1979:
http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/screenhunter_18-nov-04-19-00.jpg
http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/screenhunter_18-nov-04-19-00.jpg
From here:
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/11/05/rss-shows-no-warming-in-australia/
What is RSS and why does it show that? Given that it’s well known that temperatures are on the rise and all… Where’s Luke when you need him to bring the voice of reason to bear.
RSS is the other satellite measuring system Graeme. I think it stands for Remote Sensing System.
Like UHA satellite it covers the whole globe – What Steve has done is separate the readings for Australia in the different regions and it shows no warming. The UHA system shows the same.
It infers that the warming presented by BoM over the past past 30 years has been due to station changes in the data base as shown here:
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/nvst.html
Graeme, did you see this one:
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/11/04/julia-fixed-the-climate/
Graeme,
Are you perhaps conflating ‘growth’ with ‘progress’?
Making sure that women around the world are better educated and have decent access to contraception would be an example of ‘progress’ IMHO.
I get your point about underprivileged and under-educated people. . .but wouldn’t ‘progress’ in education and literacy standards actually help to stem the ‘growth’?
I tend to think that the evidence shows that denying privileges to developing nations is going to make population growth worse. . .not better. . .as progressive societies like ours don’t tend to have large families:
I was interested enough to do a quick search.
One of these says in Australia it’s 1.9 children per family and the other says less.
http://www.censusdata.abs.gov.au/census_services/getproduct/census/2011/quickstat/0
http://www.australianhistory.org/australian-facts
And in America:
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_children_are_in_the_average_American_family
Debbie, there are two matters there. The first is the likelihood that sufficient assistance will be provided to developing nations to bring their overall population growth rates down. India for example may be developing but there is a huge proportion of the population that aren’t gaining much in terms of education. As far as contraception goes, I think many developing nations struggle with the religious codes that prevent this happening with effect. That’s where the rise of fundamentalist religions comes in. Islam in particular has much to answer for in that respect.
The other concern would be the extent to which the West is continuing to be ascendant. I like to be optimistic, but I raised above the question of how long we will continue to be. The US is struggling economically and their underclass is I think growing. The UK is not much better thanks to the impacts of both economic policy and rampant immigration from less developed nations.
In the face of what I suspect is an increasing inability for the institutions of the West to find real solutions to knotty problems and the failings of the free market system, combined with the pervading influence of those plundering the masses for profit, an ever increasing global population will bring with it problems beyond the simple matter of feeding the masses.
I agree that improving educational standards, offering greater choices, ensuring access to contraception and limiting the reach of religious fundamentalism would provide a greater buffer, but what are the chances that we will really see this happen?
It’s easy to be falsely optimistic given the successes so far, but population growth really does worry me. And maybe more stringent measures might yet be needed.
And what if CAGW actually turns out to be true?
“And what if CAGW actually turns out to be true?”
Problem solvered, Graeme.
97% will heave a sigh of relief.
The Hockey Team will cease being “worried”.
Trenberth’s “travesty” will come to an end.
The population will double again like it did in the MWP.
What more could you want!
Things like this will crop up everywhere:
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/11/04/record-corn-crop-frightens-new-yorker-about-global-warming/
Graeme?
What ‘more stringent methods’?
What do you think will be more effective?
BoM are at it again:
Yet a quick check of the online data shows that Darwin Airport, that was closed in 1962 shows that the highest daily rainfall in November was 145.3mm on the 2nd in 1885.
Another station , Manbulloo, opened in 1917 and was closed in 2001 shows the record November rainfall was 129mm on 2nd 1992!!
What are these guys on about!!
Good pick-up on that John. I just sent David Jones an email asking him if he agrees with that NASA RSS data on Australia. ☺
Thanks John Sayers.
And I’ll need to update everyone on ‘Bathurst Ag. Station’ in the next little while.
Wettest day here on the midcoast was April 28 1963. 314.5 mm fell in just 24 hours. Amazing to think that in 1902 497.3 mm fell – in the whole year! Thank God there was no climate change back then, or everything would have been worse than they thought.
BTW, the absolute latest for spring rain on my bamboo is the second week of Nov. Otherwise, it’s all over for the year (again!). Interestingly, the forecast is for a good dump on the weekend. Who knows? It may be better than I thought.
Robert – back in the mid 2000s I was living on the northern slopes of Mt Warning – I recorded 24″ (609mm) in 24 hours.
SD – I’ve sent the data in my previous post to Alan Jones. 🙂
Is RSS measuring atmospheric temps at height rather than surface temps? Are they directly comparable? Are those RSS values actual measurements of temps – it appears so. They certainly reflect the results I get using Wolfram Alpha which I imagine is using some direct measurement data rather than anomalies.
It would be interesting to see how that graph of McKitricks would play out for the 12 years since 2000 when it ends. Imagine for example, if the number of stations has been relatively stable since then? Cue the ‘pause’…
John Howard admits he was wrong about CAGW and his response in the 2007 election.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/howard_admits_he_caved_in_on_global_warming_not_from_conviction_but_fear/
This response of not acting on this fanatical maths challenged fear was forced on him by politics, pure and simple.
He always had his doubts about CAGW but probably not AGW. But nobody can be forgiven for not understanding the simple kindy maths applied to the mitigation of CAGW.
It couldn’t work in 2007 and it can’t work now and we should ditch the co2 tax today and stop all taxpayer subsidies on wind and solar.
But we should spend some of those saved billions on new gas and coal power stns and a program to build our first safe Gen 4 Nuclear power stn as well.
Graeme, I’m not sure what the altitude range for either RSS or UAH satellite GAT data is but they have correlated very well with all the surface measurement that has occurred for the same period and the satellite data are actually considered superior for the obvious reasons of no UHI or grid problems.
The Hokey Team and other “adjusters” don’t like them because they can’t get at ’em so easily.
Graeme, I’m not sure what the altitude range for either RSS or UAH satellite GAT data is but they have correlated very well with all the surface measurement that has occurred for the same period and the satellite data are actually considered superior for the obvious reasons of no UHI or grid problems.
The Hokey Team and other “adjusters” don’t like them because they can’t get at ’em so easily.
Hmmm… OK, a very quick and cursory search turned up some evidence that RSS is measuring tropospheric temps and that they align well with surface temps. I freely admit here I know nothing of the issue and am just reporting what I found. Those with better knowledge can correct me if possible.
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/discussion/post/1465403
Also, here are the trends as referenced in that article:
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1979/mean:12/plot/gistemp/from:1979/mean:12/plot/uah/mean:12/plot/rss/mean:12
Two things stand out from this if it’s true. First, the UAH or RSS records for Australia must therefore be considered a fair representation of what’s going on here. Is there a broader discussion somewhere on that?
Second, what does that do to the McKitrick graph of number of stations vs temps? Because if satellite records accurately track surface records (in trend curves), then the number of stations has no bearing on things. That is, the trend curves are valid regardles of source.
I am conscious this is a very sketchy and poorly informed comment on my behalf, but I am wary of taking either Goddard or McKitrick at face value…
If David Jones is worth his salt he will look at the RSS data closely and give his assessment.
BoM should already have a breakdown of the satellite data relative to Australia for the whole duration of the data but obviously it is something they either have never done or don’t want to know about.
Either way, the govt should require them to do it and let us know.
Australia is not the only place where SG has said there has been no warming and I too would like to get a second opinion.
Now if Luke wanted to do something useful…..
The RSS ruse is just another stunt for the gullible. The alignment is not perfect as they are measuring different things.
That’s true Luke hence my question. But there seems to be evidence that the trends match and thus RSS can be taken as a broadly comparable indicator.
See for instance this discussion.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/satellite-measurements-warming-troposphere.htm
No stunt.
They correlate very well:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1979/to:2013/plot/rss/from:1979/to:2013/plot/uah/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1979/to:2013
Well the trends and bumps are reasonable correlated (but not perfectly) but RSS and UAH aren’t Stevenson screen thermometers – TLT is a broad area and the satellite is not measuring near-ground temperature, so it’s is a pretty whingey point. Lots of confounding issues involved including near-ground wind or lack of.
Pity sceptics don’t apply the same logic when they complain about the record contaminated with heat islands. (Should say OK look it doesn’t matter!)
Anyway just making sweeping claims like the RSS beats the land based thermometers is really poor without some checking with various experts.
SD – correlate does not equal match !
And if you want to be fair dinkum produce a spatial map not a whole nation average number ! All you’d have to have is Cape York (for example) behaving differently and your analysis is skewed.
Geez Luke – you’d be an apologist for Goldilocks. You avoided the bullshit records of rainfall in Darwin and then try to brush off the fact that the Australian temperature record does not agree with two satellite temperature records. Oh it’s the wind! the satellites are in Stevenson screens …ha ha ha.
Luke, points taken, but if the argument is advanced, as it seems to be, that satellite trends broadly match surface trends and both are indicative of the effects of CO2 on global temps, then surely it’s not unreasonable to wonder why RSS values for Australia (and regional Australia) show no warming trend over time? And to wonder why the discrepancy with the obviously adjusted BOM records?
Of course it’s the GASTA that’s held up as the serious indicator on all the blogs, but that is exactly that, a global average. What’s interesting to me is what’s happening more regionally. Especially Australia.
How would GASTA look if we excluded the Arctic, for example? I’m sure this has all been covered but I just haven’t seen it, so I am curious. Especially when I see things like Goddard’s RSS graphs or the results of queries in Wolfram Alpha against regional time series for Australian cities.
“And if you want to be fair dinkum produce a spatial map not a whole nation average number ! All you’d have to have is Cape York (for example) behaving differently and your analysis is skewed.”
And just maybe if you don’t fiddle, tamper with or adjust the data, nothing is skewed and nothing is happening.
John – are you some sort of drongo – it was the Darwin temp record not the rainfall. And golly gee are Stevenson screens ventilated? oh look louvres
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Inside_a_single_louvered_stevenson_screen.jpg
Dunno Graeme M – put a regression through these – looks up up to me – http://kenskingdom.wordpress.com/2013/09/11/australias-warmest-12-month-period-on-record-not/
The post is in error too – means to say TLT not TMT
Anyway we’ve done our own Aust land surface analysis with no adjusting – BoM’s comments about the last 12 months being warmest are correct. You may quibble about some of the detail. Sceptics could get organised and do their own analysis – why don’t they?
But back to KK and UAH – the by-line on this late post is “we may yet see a record” – SHEESH !
http://kenskingdom.wordpress.com/2013/10/19/uah-for-september/
Yea on second thought let’s adopt the satellite records if you insist.
SD – WRONG ! done your own analysis have you? “errr no it’s just what I bulleeeve – dat’s why I’m a drongo”
True Luke, the trend is definitely up, and it is clear that the hottest years on record are all recent. So the point seems rather laboured.
It’d be interesting to see what the numbers would be if we had those data since 1900…
But my main question is this: if the satellite data extends from 1979 only, just which data provided the 1960-1990 baseline for establishing the anomalies?
We’ve done since 1889 with the raw terrestrial climate data – it’s up. Max is up. Mins are up. Max temp records now occurring more often than min temp records. So I am satisfied that Australia has warmed over 120 years. Again sceptics should put together a project and do the analysis themselves. Then we could all stop quibbling.
Graeme M – quibbling becomes tedious. Science itself will always do an alternative analysis. This is the most straight forward way to critique.
Just filing this here…
INTJs are not only ‘scientists’ but also ‘writers’ including of fantasy fiction…
http://youngbloodblog.wordpress.com/myersbriggs/
http://editorialass.blogspot.com.au/2010/01/its-tuesday-youre-bored-take-long-quiz.html
Luke, this is a blog. The main fare is quibbling, it’s not science.
Earlier, you argued that satellite temps might sort of match ground temps but there are ‘confounding factors’. I think your point was that satellite temps are not the same as surface temps and so we shouldn’t strictly compare them.
Now, I pointed to a few resources that seem to imply that we can, including our good friends at sks. I’m just curious whether or not we can? What’s your view? I’m willing to concede we can’t and that using RSS/UAH to counterbalance surface temps as Goddard does is invalid.
I also ask whether the graph that Ken’s Kingdom uses is valid if it’s using a 1961-1990 baseline. That baseline can only have come from surface data and if satellite and surface data are not directly comparable then the anomaly values may be quite irrelevant. Surely we can only judge what UAH is doing is by comparing it to itself?
Luke, I don’t “bulleeeve” anything.
But I am interested in seeing other opinions of RSS satellite data for Australia for the period in question.
We already know the UAH data from the global temp maps etc but I’ve yet to see Australia data specifically through the eyes of RSS.
When your BoM mates have done the things they have with raw data over the years, they don’t deserve a free pass on anything.
What I am getting at, probably somewhat poorly, is that the trend in the anomaly that ken uses is probably true because it doesn’t really matter what baseline we use, but the actual values may not be. We can’t say whether UAH is running high historically because we don’t have a proper baseline, do we?
No Liuke it was rainfall
Here, I’ll post it again. I expect an answer thankyou!
ABC: “Rainfall records tumble in dark and stormy night
An electrical storm accompanied the downpour but there were no reports of damage. – ABC
The weather bureau says a storm that hit Darwin last night was record breaking.
The bureau says six sites across the Top End broke 24-hour November rainfall records overnight.
At Darwin Airport, 105 mm of rain was recorded, the most in 73 years.
The highest recorded fall was at Stokes Hill Wharf in the city, with 117mm.
Forecaster Dave Matthews says the downpour left water over the road at several places near Rapid Creek.
An electrical storm accompanied the downpour but there were no reports of damage.”
my comment:
Yet a quick check of the online data shows that Darwin Airport, that was closed in 1962 shows that the highest daily rainfall in November was 145.3mm on the 2nd in 1885.
Another station , Manbulloo, opened in 1917 and was closed in 2001 shows the record November rainfall was 129mm on 2nd 1992!!
John I didn’t see you rainfall comment on the 5th till I rescanned now. Not sure why you inserted that without context into the current temperature discussion and I assumed you were referring to the recent Darwin temperature homogenization discussion. So I apologise but you confused me by lobbing that in at random – so many things to whinge about.
And again John – it simply says six sites broke records – doesn’t say which six. Quotes some Darwin numbers but doesn’t say they themselves were records. Seems like you’re sitting there waiting to go “hahahaha” on every BoM press comment. Jeez.
Why don’t you ring BoM NT up and ask them. It’s just a press grab. Get us some real information instead of just theorising about conspiracies. Golly even the Darwin office is in on it – shhhhh !
And Manbulloo is a cattle station south of Katherine. ~300km from Darwin
SD
“We already know the UAH data from the global temp maps etc but I’ve yet to see Australia data specifically through the eyes of RSS.”
Well go get it then. Don’t let us deter you. Do some analysis and stop whinging.
Graeme M http://www.woodfortrees.org/notes show UAH baseline as now 1981 to 2011.
In recent period terrestrial temperatures can run higher as the graph shows but not through the whole record . However what we can say is that the interannual variability bumps are correlated and the long term trend is correlated. But if you wish to argue which year is absolute hottest in which data set (zooming in on Australia) well I think you’re expecting a lot of precision.
Luke – once again you have ducked and weaved.
I was not posting because of the Darwin Temperature discussion I was posting because I read about Darwin’s record rainfall on my Weatherzone weather page and it was linked to the ABC that reported what the BoM had reported. They were not referring to Darwin only, they were referring to 6 stations across the Top End so I picked Darwin Airport (closed) and Manbulloo (closed) only to find that both had considerably higher rainfall records for November than the ones quoted by the BoM.
Now doesn’t that strike you as bit strange and I don’t mean conspiracy, I mean incompetence!
If we can’t trust the BoM to be accurate with the facts who can we trust?
BTW when the BoM was screaming Record Angry Summer someone did download the the UHA data, did the analysis and found that according to the UHA data it was not a record hot summer just as it’s now been shown with RSS data that Australia has not warmed significantly over the past 30 years.
I repeat – If we can’t trust the BoM to be accurate with the facts who can we trust?
“Well go get it then. Don’t let us deter you.”
I thought I just supplied it, so stop whinging.
More of the same:
http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/screenhunter_41-nov-05-21-47.jpg
SD – oh do sod off – you’re showing me a pixel on the entire planet ! full or aerosol pollution probably – HILARIOUS – are you NUTS ! Go and find the opposite pixel. You’re actually so crap that you’re now posting a frigging pixel’s data !! HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH From Twit-ard !! HAHAHAHAHAHAAA
John Sayers
And as I said I was in the middle of a temp discussion with Graeme M – I have already said I didn’t have your context so hardly ducking and weaving – in any case your case it is such utter drivel.
– it doesn’t strike me as strange until you find what stations were being referred to. You’re just being lazy and smearing – on your BoM bashing crusade. Whiney whingey whinge. “oooo look I’ve found a bigger number – oooo – ooooo -ooooo”
SD – this is how shoddy you are – http://images.remss.com/msu/msu_data_monthly.html
click on trend – you’ve showed a micro path in the whole of South America that has cooled. Next to an area where the algorithm doesn’t work – altitude like Tibet
Making a few of the usual [dumb, lazy] assumptions and short cuts are we old feller?
Better than your cherry pick of a dot on the Earth’s surface while ignoring the 99% – hahahahahahahahaa
Did you even have the decency to look at your silliness? You wanted more on RSS- ya got it !
Peru is neither a planet nor a pixel. It’s a fairly big country, plenty of contrasts. Its climate has been in the news at least three times in the last few years – for national emergencies due to frost, snow and cold. Word is, a quarter of a million alpacas perished in the big cold of last August. I don’t know what the disastrous frosts of last month did there, but they will make a hole in world fruit production thanks to their impact on Chile. Of course, that wouldn’t explain recent low summer temps as measured by remote sensing…but why would I care? When you’ve got poorly fed kids living at over 3000m, it’s what happens on the ground that matters.
Being a complete skep, I have no idea why any of this has occurred. Looking at Peru’s topo, I’m sure it’s had plenty of undeclared and unreported mass climate tragedies over centuries. Now at least they can call these miseries “national disasters” and mobilise a bit. Someone gets to live who might have died a generation ago.
Being that complete skep, I just can’t get interested in global warming or global cooling or pauses. I know that many of those serene and colourfully dressed Andean peoples have NEVER had adequate diet and their serenity is really resignation and debility. The thing about us Western Euro types is, we EXPECT to survive climate change. Some of us even think we make the climate change!
Fascinating ….
C’mon Luke, we’ve been waiting for your plot of the other pixel that shows the reverse story with a multi data graph like the above. Should be a piece of cake for someone like you.
Are you silly SD – the RSS map I cited gives you a million pixels with the opposite story. Stop your nonsense. Typical denier fabrication.
Opposite story? So where did this come from:
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/11/05/australias-hottest-month-was-december-1978/
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/11/05/rss-shows-no-warming-in-australia/
Given this thread may have petered out and given a few of the regulars here are on the land or have been around, I thought I’d ask a question that came up in conversation in my home recently.
Where do birds go to die?
There’s hundreds of them around here, all sorts of birds from big cockies and galahs to sparrows and finches. Do you think I ever see a dead one? No. And it occurs to me that even as a kid, I rarely saw a dead bird.
Sure you see them dead by the side of the road, but I mean natural deaths. There should be hundreds or thousands dying every week around where I live, but even walking the dogs around the neighbourhood or through the bush… no dead birds.
WUWT?
Hey Luke has another cobber who can’t add up simple sums. But these types of donkeys are thick on the ground on the hysterical wing of CAGW.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/if_wendy_bacon_cannot_add_to_100_can_she_understand_warming_science/#commentsmore
But why worry, this is just some professor teaching/ brainwasing students about journalism. One of her strongest beliefs is censorship of any scepticism about her chosen religious cult. But Lukey just loves it.
More proof that Abbott is serious about winding back the influence of this barking mad cult.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/abbott_cuts_emissions_stops_ministers_flying_to_warsaw/#commentsmore
I have often asked that question along with many other people Graeme.
I have heard many answers.
You’re right. . .logic says that due to numbers and longevity we should see more dead birds. . .and birds far,far, faaarrr, outnumber humans in my patch. . .in fact since the drought has broken I don’t think I have ever seen as many birds.
So there are really 2 questions. . .your question. . .and secondly. . .where do such huge numbers come from when the seasons turn around?
We really only ever see dead birds that have died by accident or that have been caught by predators near our house.
The most common answers I have heard to your question are:
They must fly somewhere private/remote/inaccessible to die when they are old or know they are about to die. . .or. . .they are caught/taken away by predators because they are easy prey when they are old. . .or. . . they very quickly decompose with the help of micro organisms and things like ants.
I tend to favour the first 2 answers as they are part of the answer to the second question . . .birds can fly and are highly opportunistic and nomadic (and IMHO extremely clever). . .they can pretty much go wherever they want.
eg/
Just because they disappeared from the MDB during the millennium drought didn’t mean they were never coming back.
Just because there were literally millions of birds and a myriad of species here for the last 3 seasons doesn’t mean it will repeat next season.
Hmmm… interesting. I posed the question to Google and several websites have this answer:
—————————————————————–
Despite the fact that there are numerous flocks of birds, which are often seen while alive, people rarely see pavements littered with the bodies of dead birds. Most birds in the wild only live for a few years, and very few will die from ‘natural’ causes. They are very unlikely to survive to old age for example.
Small birds are a vital link in a food chain, eating insects, other invertebrates and small amphibians, and are in turn predated themselves by other birds and mammals. This is one reason why they have so many young: to compensate for predation, and why they are able to breed at such a young age – usually the year after they’re born if they survive the winter.
Passerines in particular (which include most common garden birds) produce large numbers of offspring, the majority of which do not survive to adulthood. Many young and weak birds will probably subject to predation before dying of disease or old age.
Birds, like many other creatures, will seek secluded, out-of-the-way places when they’re feeling sick – woodpeckers will climb into a hole in a tree, for example. Sick birds will go to ground and because they feel vulnerable they will hide away. Sometimes, rest and seclusion help them to recover, but if they die there, they sometimes won’t be found in their hideouts.
Of course, in nature, things very often work in tandem. Scavengers and predators, such as rats, cats or foxes, can usually seek out these hideouts for prey. Often, these predators will eat the prey themselves or take them back to feed their young, which is why it’s rare to find the remains of dead birds. Due to a bird’s light body mass, those that aren’t found by predators or scavengers will decompose rapidly. Insects will cover any dead body quickly and the bird would soon decay before it is found.
Not sure that’s really answered it for me. For example, if birds tend to crawl under bushes or whatever to die, how come we rarely see that or run into it? In my area, a suburb of Canberra, there are lots of trees and bushes in gardens alright, but a LOT of birds. You’d think you’d occasionally see a sick or dead one. Same for predators – there are next to no obvious predators in my garden. Sure there are cats, but they have managed to nab just a handful of birds over the years. Foxes? Not that many in our suburb. Eagles, hawks? Again, just not that many of them.
The point is, there is a huge number of birds, especially in the situation you describe Debbie. They can’t all be dying in hidden bushes or getting eaten by animals?
The explanation sounds like an explanation that just HAS to be true cos there is no alternative.
It’s probably yet another case of us humans not knowing enough about these things as we think we should/do?
The Ramsar treaty which is based largely on migratory birds has been used to give a lot of areas in the MDB a great deal of political grief & a massive political lever to the SA Ramsar listings due to that wretched ‘Precautionary Principle’.
. . . as in there is a significant gap/absence of scientific evidence so therefore the PP kicks in.
I regularly find clumps of feathers on me walks by one of the great rivers,
the Yarra, where birds abound, water birds and birds of the air. large flock
of white cockatoos, small flock of black cockatoos, owls and hawks. Rarely
do I see the body of the bird though, just feathers. Happen ter be writin’
an illustrated’ Book of Feathers,’ poetry relatin’ ter birds and the human
condition.
And a further observation Graeme. . .
Many species of birds are predators (including hunting other birds) as well as being highly efficient scavengers and omnivores. . . some bird species would actually be considered by us humans as ‘cannibals’ as they will scavenge their own dead.
Graeme, Debbie, Beth, from my experience [and limited understanding] if birds are killed by predators you often see the results [bodies, feathers, etc] except when they are carried off and ripped apart in some remote place as with a falcon, owl etc.
You see this probably more in the bush than in town. We get the Grey and Brown Goshawks and Peregrines which are very fast plus the owls at night killing sleeping birds. The feathers I see are from mainly owls I feel as I find them in the mornings. It’s a healthy sign to see feathers scattered around but maybe even healthier if you don’t, Graeme ☺.
A bird’s body will often be around for months. Feathers, bones, beak, legs and feet take a while to break down or even be eaten by mites. I have a Darter body lying on a stump, been there for ages and virtually preserved. I show it to people because they are rare for this area.
I was sitting on a rock at daylight this morning nursing my Winchester Magnum and waiting for the fox to arrive. Two Scrub Turkeys walked right up to me until they got my scent and then backed off. I thought, this is good, the fox next. Well he was next but he stayed in the bush, barely visible and worked it all out a lot quicker than the turkeys from a lot further away.
Too smart, no fox.
I found the time to do a few googles in my lunch break but didn’t learn anything much. It’s a question that has occurred to lots of people it seems. Someone observed a similar case for rodents, and I guess I could say the same for roos and wallabies. But birds… there are a lot of them and as you observe SD, the hard bits don’t break down all that quickly.
It’s just weird that I have pretty much NEVER EVER come across a sick or dying bird, except from road trauma, and very rarely have I come across a dead bird. The occasional clump of feathers yes.
I’d just have thought that given how many birds there are and the fact that they aren’t long lived, we’d see a lot more evidence of them. Rodents not so much, they live underground, inside structures and so on.
Like, where do all the pigeons die?
Thw world must be VERY good at cleaning up is all I can say! 🙂
An illustrated Book of feathers, Beth C?
Graeme,
Outside of the urban environment. . .the natural environment is EXCEPTIONAL at cleaning up. . .and IMHO and from my own observation. . .birds are amongst the very best.
I should add. . .that the natural environment is also EXCEPTIONAL at making a godawful mess.
I often find it amusing that many clearly have an unrealistic view that ‘nature’ is a benign, frail and ‘human friendly’ entity.
Good question re the pigeons.
There are so many of them in the urban environment.
I strongly suspect that because they do actually make good eating, they don’t hang around very long out in the open. . rats, mice, cats, dogs and predatory birds would probably make fast work of them. . .and there are plenty of those in the urban environment.
Graeme, right now there are thousands of dead mutton birds washed up on the beaches all along the NSW coast. Millions arrive this time every year from an annual circuit of the Pacific right up to the Arctic circle to nest in burrows they dig in the Bass Strait islands area and they have copped some bad weather and obviously been utterly exhausted and starved. I have seen them resting on the ocean in huge flocks at times.
When they die in extremis like this their bodies don’t seem to last too long. There’s nothing left.
They’ve consumed themselves.
Yep, I guess that’s how it is. Everything is consumed, no mucking around.
So, what’s the odds of some AGW wailing and gnashing of teeth if Haiyan is a bad one?
Even if Haiyan is only moderate with no casualties it will be “unprecedented” if it’s not already.
http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=2573
But it would be hard to beat this Aust cyclone:
http://weather.about.com/b/2010/02/18/new-world-record-wind-speed.htm
La Pausa continua:
Professor Curry went much further. ‘The growing divergence between climate model simulations and observations raises the prospect that climate models are inadequate in fundamental ways,’ she said.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2485772/Global-warming-pause-20-years-Arctic-sea-ice-started-recover.html
Some interesting RSS plots here:
ftp://ftp.ssmi.com/msu/graphics/tlt/plots/
Northern Polar seems to be the most marked warming. Southern hemisphere, not so much.
La Rubbish from La Curryista – statistical moonshine – hahahahahahahahahahahaa – it’s crap
http://rabett.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/what-bunnies-ask-do-zombies-wanting-to.html
And Spangled on Goddards’ utter rubbish….
He is trying to prove the absence of a trend of 0.15 degrees in data with a dynamic range of 10 degrees without removing the annual cycle, AND using data which is guaranteed to have an artificial negative trend due to the fact that it is sinusoidal with an up cycle at the start and a down cycle at the end. He is not smart enough to know there are things he does not know.
If you are going to use linear regression on highly autoregressive data, as he has done, you absolutely must remove the seasonal/annual cycle because it totally dominates the trends over such a short time period. And if you won’t so that you are totally obliged to ensure that the signal is at the same peak (or equivalent condition) at the start and end because every statistician worth at least diddly squat knows that the slope of a trend on a sinusoidal signal varies as a function of the phase of the start and end points (try doing a regression of sin (0..2 pi) and comparing it to cos (0..2 pi)).
His method is too naive – I assume his worshippers are likewise (i.e. you!).
More denier crap
Gosh now Luke thinks he knows more than Judith Curry. What a delusional wanker he is, but ya gotta laugh at his silly antics.
BTW Nat Geo has dipped in its toe on melting ice and future SLR.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/national_geographic_shows_100_metres_williams_exaggerated_but_so_did_the_ma/
Only trouble it COULD take 5,000 years and would be about 70 metres, while ABC’s science ????? fool Williams speculated 100 metres increase in just another 87 years.
What wild religous fanaticism is invested in this barking mad cult. Supreme BS artists the lot of them.
“He is not smart enough to know there are things he does not know.”
And how about you?
Do you, for instance, think that 1c warming at a constant trend for the last 350 years following a similar cooling for a similar period might be nothing to worry about?
That there are variations in play there that we don’t understand that are certainly caused by drivers other than ACO2 and that Goddard is trying to tell us precisely of these unknown unknowns and to get a grip.
You sure as hell won’t prove their existence by statistics.
Curry establishes that quite well with her critique of the models.
SD your posts are stats horseshit and a joke. Neviile – Still posting lies I see. You’re a rabid little frother aren’t you. Science frauds the pair of you.
“You sure as hell won’t prove their existence by statistics.” No but you just proved their non-existence.
“that 1c warming at a constant trend for the last 350 years” except where it didn’t ! Deniers turning themselves into pretzels. You guys are really pathetic. Maybe put your Mum on?
Here’s Mum:
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/image34.png
More silliness – the left hand side of your graph before 1772 is bunk. Data are rubbish.
And does CET not = the world. (errr no!)
Put your gran on.
BTW if you do put a regression through it you get
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CET_Full_Temperature_Yearly.png
I assume you used MacPaint
That CET graph doesn’t really help the cause does it? Whatever the average or trend etc is, there is no arguing that the last 30 years is the stand out hot spell… Nowhere else in that record does it seem to have gotten that hot so fast and stayed there.
And that’s even less than I said. Less than 1c.
I hope you save your froth for shaving. Otherwise it’s all for nought.
Graeme,
It’s only “stayed there” because it’s the last of the data.
Even so it has stopped rising for 16 years.
And it has risen faster for longer in the past according to both those graphs and then dropped.
But, tellingly, for the immediately previous equivalent period of three and a half centuries [from the MWP] the world cooled by a similar amount from an equivalent warmth to today’s.
And for three and a half centuries before that it warmed for possibly a similar amount.
That was Natural Variation then, doing exactly what it’s doing today.
Why is it not Nat Var now?
Now don’t be sloppy SD – what is “natural variation”. Do you think the Earth’s climate system would do a walk to another energy level if not from the Sun, greenhouse gases, cosmic ray clouds or volcanic/aerosol pollution cooling. So science dissects all these and dismisses sun and cosmic rays.
That somehow the system would do a random walk to another level. Where’s the energy from?
BTW humans would have started CO2 warming when land clearing and agriculture started. The anthropocene, http://earth.geology.yale.edu/~avf5/teaching/Files_pdf/Ruddiman2003.pdf
Don’t be in denial Luke. The Holocene Max was a lot of Nat Var ago.
The only “other energy level” now, is lower than it was then but similar to many other warm periods.
And you really think we can blame those New Guinea native yam and banana growers of 10,000 years ago:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agriculture_in_Papua_New_Guinea
If you’re honest you’ll admit science hasn’t got a clue about many things.
Yesterday it was knees, today it’s cane toads:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-24826323
http://theconversation.com/everyone-agreed-cane-toads-would-be-a-winner-for-australia-19881
Just filing this here
http://www.globalvoices.org.au/2013/11/global-voices-unfccc-delegates-arrive-in-warsaw/
The best and brightest students at our universities becoming immersed in the culture of AGW.
Is there any potential for critical thinking here?
The problem is with the venues. Hold these events at the Central Kempsey Caravan Park and the need to “further explore” and “develop strategies” etc will dissipate very quickly. “What global warming?” they’ll say.
If there are still a few warmies left after that, there’s always South Kempsey. But we won’t explore that “mechanism for ambitious abatement” of alarmism unless we have to.
Those global voices need to confer to design more mitigation solutions like this:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/09/wood-burning-power-plants-misguided-climate-change-solution/
Prof Philip Lloyd is a IPCC reviewer and easily shows that CAGW theory is wrong. He looks at the evidence and data in the 10 to 12 km height in the troposphere.
Trouble is there is zip warming so far and certainly not the 0.6 C/ decade that is estimated by the climate models.
I’m sure nearly everyone at this blog knows who the true denialists are.They’re the type of fools who’ll yell out denier and climate criminal at anyone trying to point out these simple facts.
Like NO HOT SPOT to support there silly fantasies.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/09/who-are-the-true-denialists/#more-97119
SD some boffin has calculated that if Drax (which is huge) really does convert completely to woodchips it will require 300 acres of American forest…per day! That’s just one guy’s calc, but when you consider the size and importance of Drax and the inefficiency of wood chip it’s fair to say that there’ll be no mucking about over clear felling and chipping (3000 miles from destination, so there’ll also be no romancing about “energy miles”.)
Do I have to belong to the same species as a modern urban environmentalist? Isn’t there some means of divorce or legal alienation?
Robert,
I so need that like button….you have made my day!
🙂 🙂
” Do I have to belong to the same species as a modern urban environmentalist? Isn’t there some means of divorce or legal alienation? ”
Classic.
Yes indeed Robert, until the advent of Drax I, too, was proud to call myself of British descent.
Since then, not so much.
You would have to be a fanatically religious, loony doomer to go down that path.
But it does really show how crazy the Lewandowskys of this world can become if you give them free rein.
We have biofuel for elec gen in Qld and if you are sufficiently religious you can pay extra on your power bill to subsidise this stupidity. To date it is mainly cane waste but many do.
If you turned the cane waste into wall and ceiling board as we once did how much better would it sequester CO2?
Neville being the little climate crim that he is is back to peddling disinformation from cess-pit central.
I just kacked at this shredding of your arrant nonsense http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/11/resurrecting-inhofe-science-denier-at.html .
Dunno if anyone else has posted this one, but pretty interesting. Do watch the video, it’s very cool.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/09/virginia-is-for-warmers-data-says-no/#more-97078
I find it intriguing given the use of hourly measurement data rather than TMax/TMin or anomaly, this is something I’ve posed before. What do we see if we look at raw data? I am intuitively wary of averaging and use of anomalies – I can’t explain why nor am I arguing against the people who know how to do stats stuff. But for my simple view of the world, I’d like to see what actual temps are doing.
Nick Stokes raises a valid question in the comments – how does the raw dataset correct for the properties of the stations themselves? No-one seems to have answered that…
Be interesting to see how that visualisation would work for their Aussie data (assuming there is some?).
GraemeM – free range chloropleth mapping – I was horrified. Continental USA and Alaska in the same analysis. Maybe we could see the world’s Commonwealth countries in pink.
Virginia = the world ?
How about something much more serious than amateur hour with some interesting analysis of all the contiguous continental US states.
http://ccimgs.s3.amazonaws.com/HeatIsOnReport.pdf
Of course Watts would pick Virginia wouldn’t he?
Indeed but the software is pretty cool dont ya think?
That paper you’ve linked to Luke does an average on TMax/TMin data. The SAP HANA analysis runs over the NOAA hourly data. I think it’s interesting to note the paper’s analysis shows Virginia warming at around .5 F/decade since 1970 which gives us 2F since that time, yet the SAP analysis shows nothing much at all in that period. Wouldn’t you like to see a more rigorous analysis of that hourly data set for the various CONUS stations?
GraemeM – I think I’ll take my analysis from scientists not from a drive-by-shooting by a software salesman. I don’t believe they have that much hourly data in an historical context. The datalogger needed to be invented first. How many years of hourly data are there?
I’m flabbergasted that Luke would choose the adjusted data that shows warming. Completely out of character.
But he’s probably just clinging to the consensus while waiting for Nat Var to set in.
Luke, they reckon it’s hourly taken from airports. The post refers to this document (I’ve not read it):
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/noaa/ish-format-document.pdf
which apparently explains the data context. As Nick Stokes observes it’s just the whole dataset with no adjustment for station properties/timespan, but still. Sounds like it’s real data.
This shows their station coverage over time:
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/noaa/station-chart.jpg
Nick Stokes pertinent warnings and questions on the thread are most relevant. The problem with a less than detailed quick flick article so typical of Watts with a “THIS IS IT” style tag. Results are at odds with other studies. And it’s not a question of “adjustments” simply what’s been done or not done.
Geeezzzzz Luke. Seems you’re back to the thermal wind deduction of temp in the troposhere, just a pity they can’t just measure the temp directly. What a con.
Have a look at Bob’s book on page 129 and you can see the measured temp through the atmosphere and the modeled projections.
All of the actual temp data sets show more warming at the surface than the 8 to 10 km level. In the real world the radiosonde data since 1958 and satellite data since 1979 show no evidence at all of a trop hot spot.
His fig 22 is from the Douglas et al study and clearly shows Had 2, IGRA, Raobcore, Ratpac ( Radiosonde data)
Surface data Had rut, Giss, Ghcn is also shown. The surface data shows more warming than the troposhere at 8-10 km.
How wonderful that we have an adult govt in charge again. Go Tony.
http://joannenova.com.au/2013/11/australia-says-no-to-un-wish-list-of-billions-will-not-support-socialism-masquerading-as-environmentalism/#comments
Clueless stupidity Neville. You really have no idea. And Tisdale is an utter fool.
Taken as a whole, the errors in the measured tropospheric data are too great to either prove or disprove the existence of the tropospheric hotspot. Some datasets are consistent (or even in good agreement) with the predicted values for the hotspot, while others are not.
So more sci-fi science from Lukey. Let’s see the datasets that show instrumental evidence of a hot spot.
And tell us why Bob’s link to the Douglas study is wrong. Many datasets there and none show the fabled hot spot at all.
Most of the reports about the strength of Phillipine’s Typhoon are incorrect. Big surprise that they mixed up Kph with Mph.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/typhoon_plus_poverty_equals_destruction/#commentsmore
But because of the poor quality of the houses in this poor country at least 10,000 people have lost their lives. Probably more.
BTW Luke my reference to Bob was to Bob Carter, not Bob Tisdale.
When it comes to sus science, Bob’s your uncle with Luke.
More of Luke’s “Bob’s your uncle” science:
http://notrickszone.com/2013/11/08/renowned-warmist-scientist-peter-lemke-antarctic-sea-ice-more-extensive-thicker-and-more-densely-packed-than-in-1992/
As the years pass and it doesn’t warm, the past just has to get cooler.
Bob’s your uncle:
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/11/11/another-view-of-nasa-temperature-tampering/
I don’t wish to make light of the impact of the typhoon in the Philippines, but the level of reporting reflects the kind of manipulation of public understanding that I’ve referred to before. The coverage is substantial and there is I think some sense that this is about the worst storm ever with the implication it’s all we can expect in this time of global warming.
Yet…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclone_Nargis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typhoon_Nina_(1975)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1970_Bhola_cyclone
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Bangladesh_cyclone
http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/screenhunter_786-sep-20-23-10.jpg
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/11/11/1898-hurricane-killed-all-plant-and-animal-life-on-st-vincent/#comments
http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/123596868
Graeme, when the media of long ago reported equally horrendous typhoons causing the deaths of thousands only in a single column on page 6, they would not have rated climate change as worthy of a mention [unless it was associated with a similar catastrophe and then only for a similar small report].
The magnitude of the importance of CC as bed-wetting [and therefore ad selling, grant extracting and politician influencing] fodder can be gauged by these current reports.
The bigger the beat-up the better for all [until we get the bill].
GraemeM – all useless really – the actual question is the Power Dissipation Index of hurricanes/tropical cyclones and typhoons increasing with time. i.e. are there STRONGER and LONGER lived storms. Other wise simply handwaving by both sides. (BTW AGW theory does not predict more).
http://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2012/11/01/papers-on-hurricanes-and-global-warming/
I don’t think the likes of Goddard deserves serious comment. Let’s keep some science perspective.
While we should all be dismayed by a Cat 4 making landfall in a heavy population with inadequate infrastructure, what is the point of complaining of the very existence of Cat 4s? Like the poor, they have always been with us. Along with Cat 5s! If they ceased to occur, that would indeed by a radical climate change. (Even a huge no-category storm like Sandy can hit the wrong place on the wrong tide…with the wrong mayor.) Some decades will be busier for storms (frequency down, severity much the same in Oz last 30 years) but reportage does not increase storms. They just happen, even without NYT and BBC to fib about their status.
Climate money should be for the unexpected, but, above all, for the expected. Australia’s North West is a true cyclone alley, and the only good news is that the cyclones track a bit more predictably than elsewhere. But they have to come, and you have to watch well into autumn. What kind of “trend” or “energy budget” are we supposed to see in that killer cyclone which just camped in Exmouth Gulf for a fortnight in 1875? Unprecedented duration in one place? Probably not. “Unprecedented” is what happens now…once you sweep away all those untidy precedents.
I must be a bit of a leftoid, since I’m happy to see all kinds of regulation and public expenditure…so some Australian never blows away again! If we had one Mahina (1899) we can have another. Are we thick, or what?
Also Robert, this “unprecedented” cyclonic stuff is a sure sign of global cooling and we could be in for a lot worse.