JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


Handbooks

The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



Archives

Questions real journalists ought to be asking about Yasi

When “experts” say that cyclones and extreme storms will be more common in a warmer world, and are “linked”, “connected”, “expected”, or “definitely” due to man-made CO2 emissions, journalists could try asking some real questions.


1. If storms are getting worse thanks to man-made CO2 emissions, why has there been no increase globally as man-made CO2 emissions rose over the last 40 years?

Last 4-decades of Global Tropical Storm and Hurricane frequency -- 12-month running sums. The top time series is the number of TCs that reach at least tropical storm strength (maximum lifetime wind speed exceeds 34-knots). The bottom time series is the number of hurricane strength (64-knots+) TCs..

Source: Global Tropical Cyclone Activity Dr. Ryan N. Maue


2. So if you admit the global trend doesn’t change, but suggest that the local or regional trends will change, which parts of the world will get fewer cyclones?

If global averages are still “average”, things have to get better somewhere else right?


3. So if climate simulations project that Queensland will experience more cyclones, and be one of the areas that get worse, but the Crompton and McAneney (2008) paper shows that in that region the number of cyclones has been falling.

(Follow up: So the global trend is the same, and the regional trend in Queensland is falling, yet we should expect that  “it will get worse”?)


The average annual weather-related normalised damage over the 40-year period is AUD$820 million with a standard deviation of AUD$960 million. The recent past has been relatively benign in terms of loss activity, with annual damage over the most recent 5 years averaging AUD$420 million, close to half the average annual loss over the entire period of the Disaster List.

Extra information: Roger, Pielke Jnr.


4. It’s not just Queensland that isn’t showing any increase in cyclones, it’s all of Australia, according to the Bureau of Meteorology records. Does this suggest that there are less Australian cyclones in a warming world?

The trend for non-severe cyclones is decreasing, and the trend for severe cyclones is flat.

Graph showing the number of severe and non-severe tropical cyclones from 1970 - 2005.

Source: Bureau of Meteorology Tropical Cyclone Trends


5. Do you think we’d see less cyclones if we reduced CO2 in the atmosphere? How far would we have to reduce it?

In 1918 the twin cyclones,” The Mackay”, and “the Innisfail”, hit in one season. In January, in Mackay there were waves 2 -3m high breaking in the main street. Over 1 meter of rain fell in two days, and 30 people were killed. In Innisfail only 12 houses were left standing and between 37 and 100 people were killed. It was also the year of the dreaded Spanish Flu which killed more than 12,000 Australians. [Clearly, global warming was at work, right? ]

Back then CO2 levels were about 302ppm and 78% of human emissions of CO2 were yet to be released.

So we could go back to horses and carts, reduce the population by two thirds, and still get cyclones like the Mackay and the Innisfail, not to mention the most deadly epidemic of the twentieth century?


6. Is there any evidence (and simulations on computers are merely theoretical calculations, not evidence)  that extra CO2 causes more cyclones?

Can you name the evidence?

If the El Nino/ La Nina cycles correlate with the decadel variations in cyclone activity and the overall trend is falling or flat, while levels of CO2 dramatically rise, doesn’t that suggest that CO2 emissions have very little to do cyclone activity in Queensland?


In North Queensland the records suggest that increasing CO2 could help reduce cyclones. (And if that sounds preposterous, ask yourself why people keep suggesting the opposite, which, on the data, appears to be even less likely.)


7. You say the long term trend is up, but Jon Nott’s paper showed that  in the last 5,000 years there were many super cyclones in Queensland that were larger than Yasi during times when man made emissions were obviously insignificant.

If they were caused by “something else”, can we name the factor or factors that were at work then, and have changed now?

If we are not sure what caused them, how can we be sure that those same unknown factors don’t explain the current pattern?

Source: High frequency of ‘super-cyclones’ along the Great Barrier Reef over the past 5,000 years

Jonathan Nott1 & Matthew Hayne2

See also the Catalyst interview, and ABC radio interview with Nott.


8. How fast were the winds at the centre?

Ken Stewart analyzed records of wind speeds close to the eye of cyclone Yasi, and was unable to find evidence to support the claims of 290km/hr winds. The eye of the cyclone passed over the gauge at Willis Island  (though was put out of action). The top speed recorded there was 185km/hr. Ken estimates that a reasonable maximum speed inferred from this could have been 230km/hr at Mission Beach and wonders why the Yasi is still recorded as a Category 5, and listed as peaking at 290km/hr. How did the BOM estimate wind speeds of 290 km/hr, and are they still confident of those estimates?

The last word (and it’s from Ken Stewart):

Yasi was indeed an enormous system in area covered by cloud, the largest we’ve seen in the satellite era.  The zone of maximum destruction (and winds) extended from roughly Silkwood to Cardwell, a distance of about 60km.  The storm was roughly the same strength as Cyclone Larry but took longer to pass.  Remarkably, it was still classed as a cyclone at Julia Creek, the furthest inland a cyclone has been recorded.

Contrary to many alarming reports, it was not the deepest cyclone (<926hPa, Mourilyan Mill, 1918) nor the highest storm surge (Bathurst Bay >10m, 1899 or Mission Beach 3.6m 1918) nor the the most rain (907mm in 24 hours at Crohamhurst, 1893) nor the deadliest (307 known fatalities, Bathurst Bay, 1899).

Which is no consolation for the residents of Cardwell, Tully, and Mission Beach.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 10.0/10 (2 votes cast)
Questions real journalists ought to be asking about Yasi, 10.0 out of 10 based on 2 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/4bae4xp

94 comments to Questions real journalists ought to be asking about Yasi

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    Ms Nova:

    Your questions with explanatory data form an excellent analysis. And the questions are answered by the explanatory data.

    Thankyou. It needed saying.

    Richard

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    I suppose that there just aren’t enough good journalist left after they get assigned to important stuff like what actor is in bed with what other actor and of course the sports trivia.

    We are doomed unless some method is created to inspire a new generation of true journalists. In the meantime the internet (with all it’s warts) is all we have.

    Jo, excellent points too.

    00

  • #
    Jaymez

    I felt ill when I heard the disappointed in the voice of journalists as they discovered Cairns remained relatively unscathed by Yasi and elsewhere the damage was nothing like what they had been expecting. It still didn’t stop them talking up the damage that was there. ‘The worst ever’ gets people’s attention and gets people talking. The media are unlikely to want to stop that. “Questions real journalists ought to be asking about Yasi” goes some way to providing balance and perspective in relation to the cyclone activity. But don’t expect the media to pick up on the idea.

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    The trouble with historical analysis, that points out how things were the same “then” as they are “now”, is that a lot of people “just don’t get it”.

    History is no longer considered relevant in education, and is seen as being boring by the “now” generation.

    The post-modernists are perfectly happy to deny or modify history if it suits their current agenda (as we have seen).

    The result is that a significant number of people, if they bother to notice this at all, will say:

    “So what? I am worried about what will happen in the future, not what might have happened years ago. I can’t change that, I can only affect what is happening now, and we must do something to stop [panic du jour]“!

    We no longer live in an age of reason.

    00

  • #

    Ah, I think I see the problem. These questions apply logic and rely upon facts and data. You have failed to make “the capital mistake”:

    “It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.” (Sherlock Holmes (1892), A Scandal in Bohemia)

    Thus, you cannot twist your facts to suit your theories.

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    What’s the chances of getting this excellent analysis up on the ABC? Yeah I know… I am giggling too.

    Slight typo in section 5: [fixed thanks] ED

    00

  • #
    Jimbo

    This is just a wonderful post.

    As an aside, the latest US government figures have just been released at for the contiguous the US the cooling trend since 1998 has been over 17 deg. C per century!

    http://thetruthpeddler.wordpress.com/2011/02/08/official-government-data-confirms-that-us-is-cooling-at-a-rate-of-over-17-deg-ccentury-since-1998/

    00

  • #
    pat

    i still don’t understand how BOM released the following to the media at 5pm, 1 Feb, more than 24 hours before Yasi hit the Coast, yet BOM says it is a CAT3 cyclone. the pollies and the media continued to call it a Cat5 and it is still described as that now. was it ever a Cat5?

    BOM: Dangerous cyclone still heading for Queensland tropical coast
    Issued at 5pm, Tuesday 01 Feb 2011
    Media release
    The cyclone is expected to slowly intensify overnight as it moves westwards over the Coral Sea.
    SEVERE TROPICAL CYCLONE YASI, CATEGORY 3 is moving in a west-southwesterly direction towards the North Queensland coast…
    http://www.bom.gov.au/announcements/media_releases/qld/20110201.shtml

    00

  • #
    Llew Jones

    Rereke Whakaaro @ 4

    Like your healthy cynicism with respect to the “educated” class but fortunately the man in the street isn’t by nature post modernist (sort of doesn’t work in so many ways like repairs around the home driving the car, shopping lists etc) so unlike that other impractical class he is naturally bright.

    That’s why he’s rumbled to the goal changing scam of “scientific” AGW later ACC then ACD…. and if the weather is hot or cold or dry or wet or perfect, rather than attribute it to human activity is more likely to remember, amongst things like reading, his boyhood experiences and stories of older relatives and associates experiences of similar weather.

    It does seem to me that if we accept that the educated class, because of their education and the resultant propensity to take all sorts of nonsense seriously, is probably a fair bit behind the eight ball when it comes to putting two and two together, particularly when they try thinking about science, then it is important to go that step further when showing them the history of weather to also give them a corresponding history of atmospheric CO2 concentrations. For the man in the street who, as noted, is naturally bright, that is the clincher. With the dulled down, educated class would it help? Who knows? Probably worth a try.

    00

  • #
    Ken Stewart

    Jaymez @ 3: Me too. But I also felt a bit “cheated” (just kidding)after I had done all the preparations, fuelled the generator, hosted a family friend who had been advised to evacuate from low lying South Mackay, and was all ready for the gale force winds… which didn’t come. We kept the windows open to let in the breeze! (It did blow a little on Wednesday night, but nothing like Anthony 3 days before which took out the power for 24hours.) Better safe than sorry, but it was definitely over-hyped. It was a nasty cyclone in the Innisfail-Townsville area, but was never going to destroy half of North Queensland.
    Pat @8: It was definitely a Cat 4 at 231km/hr at 4.00pm on Wednesday 2nd. Cyclones develop and change quite quickly. This was remarkable in staying on course and strength so long.
    Well done Jo!

    00

  • #
    Dave N

    Has there ever been any accompanying data from any alarmist report in the media that cyclones, flooding, whatever are becoming more “extreme”?

    I don’t think I’ve seen any. It’s hardly surprising why, I was just curious as to whether some alarmist had tried.

    00

  • #
    Fenbeagle

    Again the Peer review system comes in for controversy. ‘The end of the pier’ BBC (Beagle Blog Cartoons)

    http://fenbeagleblog.wordpress.com/

    00

  • #
    BobC

    Llew Jones: @9
    February 9th, 2011 at 7:14 am

    It does seem to me that if we accept that the educated class, because of their education and the resultant propensity to take all sorts of nonsense seriously, is probably a fair bit behind the eight ball when it comes to putting two and two together, particularly when they try thinking about science …

    A couple of quotes from George Orwell come to mind:

    “There are some ideas so absurd that only an intellectual could believe them.”

    “Sometimes the first duty of intelligent men is the restatement of the obvious.”

    00

  • #
    Llew Jones

    Paul Krugman (economist) of NYT who is America’s answer to our Garnaut also dipped his toe in the water as a climate change expert:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/07/opinion/07krugman.html?_r=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

    It published mine and a few other skeptic’s responses. So despite it being a left wing paper read mainly by left wingers, unlike our MSM, it prints contrary views:

    46.
    Llew Jones
    Australia
    February 7th, 2011
    10:57 am

    Think you are bit out of your depth in climate science. No serious climate researcher believes global warming can cause colder weather. Because one important principle of global warming theory is LESS extra tropical cyclone activity. End of story according to climate science.

    As far as the Brisbane and Victorian floods are concerned the catastrophic AGW minded public servants here advised the governments of Queensland and Victoria that there would be continuing drier conditions and there was no purpose in building more dams as there would be no rain to fill them. AGW you see. Therefore both governments began building desalination plants. Queensland has scrapped theirs because their dams are overflowing and have enough water to last five to seven years even if it does not rain in that time. Victoria’s which will cost 6 Billion dollars to maybe twice that is now a partially constructed white elephant which is unlikely to be ever used. Much of its piping got washed away in the unexpected floods.

    Victoria, with a growing population, got by on Dam water only during the 15 year “drought” or dry years. We Victorians are hoping the new government will mothball the desal plant and build at least one decent sized dam in the east of the state which has at least one great catchment area.

    Queensland had greater floods in 1820/1825 when the atmospheric CO2 concentration was at about 284 ppm. That is virtually at the pre-IR level of 280ppm. The daddy of them all, in terms of river height, was the Brisbane Flood of 1893 when CO2 was at 295 ppm. Bit hard to blame AGW for those severe weather manifestations.

    Droughts and floods have been part of our history since European settlement and no doubt El Nino and La Nina via the PDO were still the main culprits long before that. Unless of course an economist has insights, into what causes these severe and recurring weather events typical of Australia, that poor old meteorologists, with their multi million dollar computers don’t have.

    Incidentally our BOM did not accurately predict either event. In Victoria the BOM prediction was 60% drier and 40% average rains. There, in fact, was significant flooding in much of rural Victoria. Apparently our BOM was still in the AGW caused drought mode.

    A final note. Farmers say the subsoil moisture, thanks to La Nina, will guarantee two to three years of high agricultural output.

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    Llew Jones: #9

    … the educated class, because of their education and the resultant propensity to take all sorts of nonsense seriously, is probably a fair bit behind the eight ball when it comes to putting two and two together, particularly when they try thinking about science.

    You are absolutely right.

    When I made my comment about “not getting history”, I was actually thinking about the Twittering classes, but expressed it in terms that were too general. My bad.

    The educated classes, of course, are somewhat different animals. They place great store in specialisation. In fact you have to be a specialist in some field or other to become accepted. The first question they tend to ask is, “What do you do?” The answer to that question marks your place in society and defines the opinions you are allowed to express. It would appear that nobody is qualified to have an opinion outside of their specialisation.

    That is probably why they do not see an Appeal to Authority as being a logical error.

    (If you want to have some fun, try telling people that you are a Proctologist, and then ask them if they really want to know, “what you do”. :-) )

    00

  • #
    Ross

    There is a conference on Extreme Weather Events going on in Wellington , NZ at the moment. Its a pity they will not be exposed to this sort of brilliant questioning.
    The PR spin before it opened included what now seems to be embedded in the “religion” — AGW predicts these types of extreme events will be more common in the future as the globe warms up etc etc.

    00

  • #
    wes george

    The narrative Jo’s questions weave wouldn’t even occur to a “real” journalist today. It’s simply the wrong narrative, therefore false, by definition.

    When inconvenient facts—such as the hard evidence that global accumulated cyclone energy shows no trend—present themselves to our journos, they simply chant the consensus narrative even louder in an attempt to create their own reality, which is beholden to no higher source.

    The basic logic of narrative creation is the foundation of Warmist reality. The Earth is warming and bad weather is increasing not because the evidence necessarily supports these claims but because that’s what everyone they trust and respect repeats endlessly. Repetition creates their reality. It’s a form of intellectual mob rule. Anyone who dares question the consensus narrative gets tossed out of the club.

    As result the Consensus more emphatically defines reality than does observational evidence for the in-crowd, especially journalists, academics and those in the creative industries. They get away with this most of the time because the “nature” they deal with is mostly political and therefore very flexible indeed.

    Obama is wise and cool. George Bush is an ignorant cowboy. Conservatives are violent. Bob Brown is a moral hero. These are all narratives built upon the circular reasoning of narrative and consensus. And who’s to say they aren’t true? Most people believe Obama is wise and cool because they were told so by sources they trust, therefore Obama IS wise and cool. It’s not an empirical thing one can measure. If most people believe it, then it’s true, by definition.

    The problem arises when our journos, academics and other narrative spinners get involved with the nature of nature. Or anything, really, that can be measured empirically, like say government budgets and economic policy results. Or climate science. In these more empirical realms our cognitively challenged narrative spinners still apply the same post-modern notions on what makes things real in the political sphere to actual hard facts that can be measured.

    So we’re swamped by logical nonsense from our media. Statements like—“Most expert opinion confirm the existence of AGW, therefore we must act now.” AGW is real not because they closely examined the evidence for it and found it convincing but because a consensus exists that AGW is real. Actually, it’s worse than that. All that need to exist is the narrative that a consensus exists, ipso facto AGW must be real too!

    By this logic the Earth was once flat because a consensus of experts once believed it to be so. Later the Earth became spherical because now the consensus holds that to be true. The empirical observation that the Earth really is spherical is not part of the cognitive equation.

    In 2008, the narrative consensus was that children in the Northern Hemisphere would grow up never knowing snow because of AGW. Today snowstorms are evidence for AGW. This presents no cognitive dissonance for the AGW true believer…The decline of snow was the signal of AGW then, now AGW manifests itself in blizzards. Both are true because consensus and narrative made them real.

    00

  • #
    Jim Barker

    Sort of on topic, a letter to Congress from more scientific individuals posted at WUWT.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/08/rebuttal-to-the-climate-rapid-response-team/#more-33529

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    What would John and Bryan say? Maybe this…

    If the ABC was Relevant Pt 25.
    (The Merchant of Doom.)

    Bryan: Senator Christine Milne, welcome to the program.

    John: Cheers Bryan.

    Bryan: Senator Milne, what is your reaction to the Gillard government’s proposed flood levy?

    John: Disappointed Bryan. Bitterly disappointed.

    Bryan: You mean at a government’s cynical and opportunistic tax grab to prop up a wasteful and popularist agenda?

    John: Quite the opposite Bryan. The Flood Levy is a sorry saga of lost opportunities.

    Bryan: Including the opportunity to trim wasteful government spending and deliver value to the Australian taxpayer?

    John: No Bryan. Delivering value to the Australian taxpayer is not Greens policy.

    Bryan: Pardon?

    John: Delivering value to the Australian taxpayer is not Greens policy.

    Bryan: Why not?

    John: Because delivering value to the Australian taxpayer is almost as bad giving people money Bryan.

    Bryan: What’s wrong with that?

    John: [Exasperated.] Because if you give people money, Bryan, next thing you know, they’ll be spending it – on things!

    Bryan: But don’t people need things?

    John: Allow us to be the judge of that Bryan.

    Bryan: What’s wrong with “things”?

    John: The Environment, Bryan. The Environment. “Things” require other things to make them. And even other things to package, deliver and distribute those things. Whereas government spending is almost environmentally neutral.

    Bryan: How come? Don’t governments spend money on things as well?

    John: Sometimes Bryan. But we get it right most of the time.

    Bryan: Then what does government spend money on?

    John: Invest, Bryan. Invest. Governments invest. In policies, initiatives, forums, programs, enquiries, reports and commissions. None of which produce any thing.

    Bryan: That’s terribly unproductive.

    John: Thank you Bryan.

    Bryan: ???

    John: But the very last programs that this government should be slashing are the greenhouse initiatives.

    Bryan: Why?

    John: Because it was global warming that caused the floods in the first place Bryan.

    Bryan: So no global warming, no floods?

    John: The floods were caused by global warming.

    Bryan: How? What’s the connection?

    John: Scientists believe that man-made greenhouse emissions are causing significant and harmful warming of the planet. Higher temperatures increase the rate of evaporation. More evaporation means a more humid atmosphere. More humidity means more rainfall. More rainfall means more flooding. QED Bryan.

    Bryan: But doesn’t global warming cause drought? Tim Flannery, the BOM and the CSIRO et al all say so…

    John: And they are absolutely right Bryan. Which is why governments have invested in desalination plants instead of water catchment dams.

    Bryan: So global warming causes both drought and flood?

    John: Yes Bryan. It’s worse than we thought.

    Bryan: How does it do that Senator?

    John: Scientists believe that man-made greenhouse emissions are causing significant and harmful warming of the planet. Higher temperatures increase the rate of evaporation. More evaporation means a drier landscape. A drier landscape means drought. QED Bryan.

    Bryan: So global warming causes both floods and drought?

    John: I’ve already told you so Bryan.

    Bryan: So there’s no chance that the rain can occur during a drought?

    John: Of course not Bryan – it wouldn’t be a drought then, would it?

    Bryan: But what happens when it’s not flooding or droughting Senator?

    John: If man continues to recklessly emit dangerous levels of greenhouse gases, then floods and droughts will become commonplace. And what we now know as “average” climate will a novel and exciting event. And this novelty will itself generate a fresh hazard.

    Bryan: A fresh hazard?

    John: Yes Bryan. It’s called DNC.

    Bryan: DNC?

    John: Dangerously Normal Climate. Which is a direct result of global warming.

    Bryan: How can normal climate be considered dangerous?

    John: Consider this scenario Bryan. In the course of a perfectly commonplace drought, a dangerously normal shower of rain occurs. Since it’s not a flooding rain, you neglect to dress appropriately. You go outside, get wet, catch a cold, and die. This is typical of the tragedy that could be repeated millions of times each year in the eastern states alone.

    Bryan: That sounds serious.

    John: It is Bryan. Which is why we must take urgent action now.

    Bryan: So what is being done to combat DNC?

    John: Even as we speak, Bryan, top scientists at Our CSIRO are preparing a robust and definitive report, clearly demonstrating the potential for conclusive links that could connect man-made CO2 emissions to Dangerously Normal Climate.

    Bryan: And when did the CSIRO first become aware of this new and deadly threat to our very existence?

    John: Just as soon as I tell them Bryan. Lend us a phone?

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    This DNC stuff sounds frightening indeed!

    00

  • #
    wes george

    ROTFL

    You rock, Speedy!

    00

  • #
    pat

    Ken Stewart -
    thanx for the info. however, was it ever a Cat5?

    00

  • #
    Bruce of Newcastle

    Jim Barker #18

    Further to the cyclone issue and the WUWT posting this quote is very powerful. I have taken some liberty in formatting:

    Do the 678 scientific studies referenced in the CO2 Science document, or the thousands of studies cited in the NIPCC report, provide real-world evidence (as opposed to theoretical climate model predictions) for

    Global warming-induced increases in the worldwide number and severity of floods? No.
    In the global number and severity of droughts? No.
    In the number and severity of hurricanes and other storms? No.

    The scientists who signed the statement are a prestigious group indeed, and make the Hockey Team’s effort look like a letter from a bunch of hicks.

    I suggest this letter to the US House of Representatives and Senate is the perfect answer to journalists who wish to pay credence to Bob Brown’s opinion about Yasi and the floods.

    00

  • #
    Ian Hill

    Loved it Speedy.

    Adelaide is experiencing DNC right now. No floods, heatwaves, bushfires, drought or tornadoes.

    OK, now that I’ve opened my big mouth, what’s going to happen to us? :)

    00

  • #
    Carl Chapman

    Since global warming causes the poles to heat more than the tropics, there’s less of a temperature gradient, and less cyclones. I’m not saying the trivial 20th century warming was caused mostly by CO2, just that there was a slight warming, mostly natural variation plus a tiny CO2 component. If temperatures are now falling due to the Sun’s low activity, we can in fact expect more cyclones and wild storms. The transition to cold times such as the Dalton minimum was initially unsettled weather, then cold dry miserable weather.

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    Ian @ 24

    Thanks to CO2 induced DNC, you will die alone and poorly dressed. Soon.

    Have a nice day!

    Speedy

    00

  • #
    Ken Stewart

    Pat @22:

    We don’t know, but probably not.

    00

  • #
    macha

    So how do these questions be asked of the likes of Garnaut, Wong, and/or the numerous “green journos” out in MSM?

    Nice summary Jo!.
    An excellent reparte to Speedy too!!

    00

  • #
    Warren

    Estimates of sustained and maximum gust wind speeds are made using the Advanced Dvorak Technique,which is a long standing well tested inference-based method.Various weather agencies put Yasi at Cat 4 on the Saffir-Simpson scale,and marginal Cat5 on the scale used by BOM which uses a different time period for establishing sustained winds. The US JTWC put out its last advisory for Yasi a few hours before landfall for sustained winds at 135knots or 250km/hr, with gusts to 165knots or 305km/hr,and BOM ‘s preliminary assessment mentioned that central pressure was still at 930hPa at landfall from surface measurements at Mission Beach and Tully. They estimated max gusts to 285 km/hr.

    00

  • #
    pat

    thanx to Ken Stewart and Warren.

    00

  • #
    rukidding

    Yes I was having a look at the cyclone activity for Australia and the last decade has been quite to normal 2010 being the quietest for the decade.Contrary to what the alarmist are saying.But the normal joe never sees that.

    00

  • #
    co2isnotevil

    Jimbo, re #7

    To go from delta degrees F to delta degrees C, you divide by 1.8, not multiply, nonetheless, -5.3C/century is a lot, but not unusual for the change in year to year averages, especially with cherry picked endpoints. For example, if you add a few years prior to 1999, it was warming, which would push the start of the ‘trend’ line down. This is the same trick the warmists use to show warming that isn’t happening. Relative to a changing climate, nothing short of changes to 500 to 1000 year averages really has much significance.

    00

  • #

    LOL Speedy – you’re a genius! That made my morning :)

    On a more serious note – what are we going to do about Greg Combet et al, who are using the recent flood, fire and cyclone events as “proof” that we need rapid action (tax) to stop it..?

    So Australia is going to increase CO2 by 20% in 10 years, that’s 20% of stuff-all on a global % emissions scale, and that’s notwithstanding the vast and ever increasing uncertainty of whether CO2 is a substantial factor in the global climate or whether we can even measure temperature to any degree of accuracy.

    00

  • #

    22 cyclones forecast for Northern Australia this season…where are they?…

    00

  • #
    janama

    Harley – I heard a rep of the BoM say it was 13 cyclones at the start of summer.

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    As for Jo getting this up on the ABC, apparently she would do better if she put it in rhyme:

    http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/43762.html

    Yes folks… that’s the level of the debate at The Drum these days. I posted a response just now… be interesting to see if it gets modded to the ABC Borehole…

    00

  • #
    wes george

    Social Scientist Sees Bias Within
    By JOHN TIERNEY, NYT
    February 7, 2011

    SAN ANTONIO — Some of the world’s pre-eminent experts on bias discovered an unexpected form of it at their annual meeting.

    Discrimination is always high on the agenda at the Society for Personality and Social Psychology’s conference, where psychologists discuss their research on racial prejudice, homophobia, sexism, stereotype threat and unconscious bias against minorities. But the most talked-about speech at this year’s meeting, which ended Jan. 30, involved a new “outgroup.”

    It was identified by Jonathan Haidt, a social psychologist at the University of Virginia who studies the intuitive foundations of morality and ideology. He polled his audience at the San Antonio Convention Center, starting by asking how many considered themselves politically liberal. A sea of hands appeared, and Dr. Haidt estimated that liberals made up 80 percent of the 1,000 psychologists in the ballroom. When he asked for centrists and libertarians, he spotted fewer than three dozen hands. And then, when he asked for conservatives, he counted a grand total of three.

    “This is a statistically impossible lack of diversity,” Dr. Haidt concluded, noting polls showing that 40 percent of Americans are conservative and 20 percent are liberal. In his speech and in an interview, Dr. Haidt argued that social psychologists are a “tribal-moral community” united by “sacred values” that hinder research and damage their credibility — and blind them to the hostile climate they’ve created for non-liberals.

    “Anywhere in the world that social psychologists see women or minorities underrepresented by a factor of two or three, our minds jump to discrimination as the explanation,” said Dr. Haidt, who called himself a longtime liberal turned centrist. “But when we find out that conservatives are underrepresented among us by a factor of more than 100, suddenly everyone finds it quite easy to generate alternate explanations.”

    Dr. Haidt told the audience that he had been corresponding with a couple of non-liberal graduate students in social psychology whose experiences reminded him of closeted gay students in the 1980s. He quoted — anonymously — from their e-mails describing how they hid their feelings when colleagues made political small talk and jokes predicated on the assumption that everyone was a liberal.

    “I consider myself very middle-of-the-road politically: a social liberal but fiscal conservative. Nonetheless, I avoid the topic of politics around work,” one student wrote. “Given what I’ve read of the literature, I am certain any research I conducted in political psychology would provide contrary findings and, therefore, go unpublished. Although I think I could make a substantial contribution to the knowledge base, and would be excited to do so, I will not.”

    The politics of the professoriate has been studied by the economists Christopher Cardiff and Daniel Klein and the sociologists Neil Gross and Solon Simmons. They’ve independently found that Democrats typically outnumber Republicans at elite universities by at least six to one among the general faculty, and by higher ratios in the humanities and social sciences. In a 2007 study of both elite and non-elite universities, Dr. Gross and Dr. Simmons reported that nearly 80 percent of psychology professors are Democrats, outnumbering Republicans by nearly 12 to 1.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/08/science/08tier.html?_r=3&ref=science

    The bias is about at the same ratio in our mass media, CSIRO, and arts as well. Australia, US, Britain, Canada, NZ, we all suffer from the same rot in our intelligentsia.

    Until such time as discrimination against any world-view beyond Leftist orthodoxy is quashed we can expect that our democracy will be less than fully functional, crippled as it is by a parochial, monchrome view of reality and therefore unable to intelligently create policy which is in the best interest of our nation as a whole. As things are now we can expect to be governed by the half-blind for at least the next generation, assuming we survive as a nation so long.

    00

  • #
    janama

    Here’s my reply to Judy – Bulldust:

    I accept a sunburnt country
    A land of sweeping pains
    Of climate change believers
    in droughts and flooding rains,
    Of exquisite coral reefs
    In oceans that are cooling
    yet cyclones continue to rage away
    with fires caused by grinding.

    I accept her industry haters,
    I accept her lefty’s beefs
    either spouting wilful ignorance
    or lying through their teeth.
    I accept her weak politicians,
    heads firmly in the sand –
    ‘the greatest moral challenge’
    has finally been canned.

    I’ve accepted what will happen,
    And wonder where it ends
    There are scenes of great destruction,
    untold damage, death of friends.
    I love her far horizons
    it’s the country of the free,
    her beauty and her terror makes
    the wide-brown land for me.

    00

  • #
    Llew Jones

    BobC @ 13

    Bob,

    Haven’t got much trouble with Intellectuals, except they are about as scarce as hen’s teeth. Also, I suggest, they are never specialists but rather generalists.

    On the other hand (i)ntellectuals (most commonly a “public intellectual” otherwise known as a propagandist) are generally identified for us by those who wouldn’t know what an Intellectual was if they fell over one. It is from this group, who have been told they are Intellectuals, come those who have the most to say about the certainty and future terrors of ACC.

    I think we’re on the same wavelength.

    00

  • #
    Ken Stewart

    Warren, can you link/post the details of JTWC advisory and latest BOM info? I only have BOM info from before landfall. I only kept the 4.33 advice which gives their estimated gusts as 205kph, and AMSU’s at 231.

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    Nice one J man … now to see if either of us get published.

    00

  • #
    Llew Jones

    Rereke Whakaaro @15

    I perhaps was taking a too literal reading of your post but thank you for stimulating my thinking about “education”.

    You raise an important point about an educated class that tends to put all its faith in specialisation.

    If I had trouble with that part of my anatomy I think I too would tend to put my faith in the skill of a P (specialist). However I’m quite partial to a bit of “self” diagnosis for all sorts of ailments real and imagined, from a range of opinion on the net.

    Now that sort of eclecticism, when it comes to climate science, is missing from those who imagine they put their faith in specialists but seem to be unaware that specialists in this field do not speak with one voice.

    The inconsistency of course is obvious as they also put their trust in non-specialists like Garnaut, Stern and others who, as far as climate science is concerned, show by their comments that they wouldn’t know their a… from their elbow.

    00

  • #

    [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Rachel Eldred, vexnews. vexnews said: Questions real journalists ought to be asking about Yasi http://j.mp/eNBFhm [...]

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    Charlie@33 Combet must know he is peddling rubbish which will cause great harm to the Australian economy, he has after all bought a house by the sea which, given his claims about sea level increase, makes him at the very least a dreadful hypocrite; his recent press release is critiqued here:

    http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com/2011/01/youre-so-wrong-wrong-greg-youre-so.html

    00

  • #
    Sean

    Jo,

    was directed to come here for a CREDIBLE view of the dis-connect between Climate Change and Yasi … your proposition is compelling for many.

    I don’t buy it, and totally reject it.

    Why? I’ll tell you …. because YOUR emphasis here is narrowly focused to the point that the MISLEADING Questions you are suggesting are IRRATIONAL.

    All you talk about is CO2 …. and make leading suggestions that IF CO2 was a driver and it has INCRESASED … but your Graphs suggest TC’s numbers have DECREASED that that suggests BOTH AGW and Climate Chnage are MYTHS.

    YOU are wrong … because you are making the most common fallacy of all. — ONLY placing before people the issue of CO2 as affecting the Climate.

    In your analysis aboove YOU have utterly ignored the continuing MAJOR DRIVER of Cliamte and Weather events, and that is the SUN .. and other influences.

    IT IS DUPLICITOUS OR JUST PLAIN IGNORANT TO SHOW A GRAPH — DRAW PEOPLE’S ATTENTION TO IT WHEN IGNORING ANY ALL CHANGES OVER TIME OF THE PRIMARY DRIVER OF TROPICAL CYCLONES.

    IOW your entire piece here is FUNDAMENTALLY FLAWED AND VALUELESS.

    Until that is …. you go some REAL research yourself and notice such simple things as extended time frame of the Maundral Minimum thru the 2000′s and THEN apply this KNOWN DRIVER across the rest of the GRAPHS TIME FRAMES ….

    and THEN ponder GOSH, what else is there about the SUN’s activity that goes UP and DOWN …. besides recorded Sunspots. Look up August and sunspots on a search and INFORM yourself and the readers here as to what year that was, and that that was a never before recorded ZERO NUMBER

    So, doh, of course the NUMBERS of CYCLONES & HURRICANES DECREASED around the world. Because the SUN has the power to over-ride ALL OTHER INFLUENCES ON CLIMATE AND WEATHER .. including CO2 … on a daily and yearly basis … Like DOH

    If you claim to be rational and intelligent then you should be able to work this out in about 1 second flat !

    2-3 years ago the SKEPTICS like you were crying out the THE WORLD IS NOW COOLING ………….. therefore AGW and Climate Change MUST be wrong BECAUSE CO2 have continued to increase.

    Well dear heart the SUN switched itself BACK ONTO HIGH in 2009 … now go look at the figures and you will notice that 2010 is THE HIGHEST RECORDED TEMPS EVER

    THAT THE CORAL SEA ITSELF WAS AT IT’S HIGHEST EVER RECORDED TEMP WHEN YASI FORMED IN JAN 2011 ……..

    PLEASE DO THE WORLD A FAVOUR …. LEAVE SCIENCE AND MATHS TO THE SCIENTISTS AND THE MATHEMATICIANS …. AND GO WRITE A COOK BOOK.

    SUNSPOT ACTIVITY IS ONLY ONE ASPECT OF THE SUN’s PRIMARY INFLUENCE

    YOU HAVE NOT PROVED A THING …. CO2 IS ONLY ONE OTHER DRIVER, and compared to the Sun it is miniscule, but that does NOT mean it does not have an effect.

    FOOLS like you and your readers were saying the same thing about the Ozone holes …. surely miniscule increases couldn’t destroy the HUGE ATMOSPHERE …. well EDUCATE YOURSELF ABOUT THE REPORT CARD ON THAT SCORE.

    THE SCIENCE WAS 100% CORRECT …. GO FISH

    YOU ARE NOT EQUIPPED TO WRITE ON THIS SUBJECT.

    EVER.

    [Just because I approved this comment, doesn't mean I want to encourage yelling, name-calling, argument from authority, rampant arrogance and non-sequiteurs. (Though comments like this make good target practice). Please lift your standards, write shorter comments, use direct quotes, and refrain from logical errors. If you manage to find your manners, you might get off the "moderated list". Thanks, JN]

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    And a great interview with David Evans on 2GB today about the latest wretched Garnaut report:

    http://www.2gb.com/index2.php?option=com_newsmanager&task=view&id=7990

    00

  • #
    wes george

    We should be very precise with our indictments of the educated classes and intellectuals. We are living in revolutionary times…be careful not to put your neck across a block.

    After all, many here are wielding hefty intellects, even if they view themselves as outsiders to the educated classes.

    Speedy’s multi-part parody “If The ABC was Relevant” is nothing less than a work of art. It should be compiled, spit polished and presented whole online. Get a wordpress site, Speedy! No doubt, Speedy is working in the so-called “creative industries.”

    Bulldust’s footnote in history is assured as the coiner of the term “climategate.” And that’s just the tip of the calving ice sheet as far as his contributions are concerned on an international level. World class. Janama’s research on Aussie weather stations is deep and specialized, (no comment on Janama’s poetry;-) Complex technological society is based upon specialist arcane knowledge. People like Janama delve into the obscurities for those us who dare not.

    Llew’s latest comment at the NYT is a stunningly lucid and concise chronicle of how bad weather and inane politics have mixed in recent months. It’s a far more insightful analysis than 99% of our professional journalists have provided. Rereke’s insights always raise interesting points. I could go on and on. George, Courtney, BobC, Steve Smith, Ken, brc, pointman, Ian Mott, Lionell, Roy, Tel, Eddie, Louis, David Uk, Valentine,,,,,, et al…

    Fact is, that Jo’s little blog has attracted a literal intelligentsia of like mind and spirit. Obviously, you don’t have to work at a university to be an intellectual. Jo, Watts, Jeff Id, CA, Lucia, etc, etc, represent a new animation of the quest to provide real information to the public. And we, those who are willing, are assisting this effort with our comments.

    Early last century in the arts the boundary between the viewer and the painting, the stage and the audience, the music and the listener began to break down, dissolve into an amorphous mix of talent, insight and experience. Yeah, it remained elitist and arcane and in that sense failed, at least until new mediums (radio/TV/film) and genres (rock-n-roll) brought the madness of modern art into everyone’s sitting room… In the 21st century the same institutional collapse is occurring in journalism, politics, and our academies of culture and science, abetted by the medium of the Internet. No longer can the powers that be monopolize the distribution of information and therefore control our very thoughts. Just ask Obama with his tea party woes or Mubarak, with his riots. It’s the same phenomena as CRU with climategate. They can’t suppress the dissent any longer because we the people are empowered by new technologies which allows us to work things out for ourselves.

    Something really interesting is happening here. And that’s how change always starts, with some small but interesting phenomena that slips in under the radar of the self-possessed mainstream culture.

    Keep up the good work, folks. Stay curious, brave and active and open minded. We got more than just a nation to save. There’s a whole planet out there on the path to ruin.

    Gill Scott Heron was half right, the revolution will not be televised. It will be blogged and twittered. And it will put you in the driver’s seat.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BS3QOtbW4m0

    00

  • #
    Sean

    You do not need REAL Journalists to ask the RIGHT questions

    You all need this ………….

    Climate Science from Climate Scientists
    http://www.realclimate.org/

    The title says it all.

    [Scientists who think hiding data, declines and awkward comments are not scientists. -- JN]

    00

  • #
    rukidding

    But will we have any power in 2020 Mr Combet.

    http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2011/02/reality-check.html

    00

  • #
    incoherent rambler

    wes george@45 and @37.

    even if they view themselves as outsiders to the educated classes

    It would probably gall you to know, that the left wing intelligentsia regard the unintelligent masses as devoid of independent thought, devoid of knowledge acquisition from experience and observation. The unwashed masses line up to listen to the intelligentsia so that they will know what is the correct thing to believe. Further, they only vote conservative because they have been tricked by clever campaigning.

    The above was put to me at a recent dinner party by a University lawyer, nodding heads appeared around the table.

    My response?

    I guess I had a Tony Abbot 20 second pause.

    00

  • #
    Warren

    Ken @ 40,in case you haven’t yet tracked them yourself,the archived JTWC material is here,and BOMs early view of Yasi

    00

  • #
    Joe Lalonde

    Jo,

    A good question would be “Why are the storms getting more intense”?
    Our atmosphere is changing.The pressure is less on the surface and has been exerting out more.
    Wind energy comes from the atmosphere due to the planets rotation and the less pressure, the more intense the wind energy in the storm. Less pressure means that the friction that would normally be in play is less.

    00

  • #
    David

    Jo – how very DARE you publish data which shows trends back as far as 1970..!
    EVERYONE KNOWS that the climate only started in 1980 – at which time it was in perfect equilibrium. Anything which happened before that (cyclones in the 1890′s – floods in 1844 – the very idea) is purely conjecture.
    You really should be singing from the correct hymn sheet, you know….

    00

  • #
    BobC

    Llew Jones: @39

    Haven’t got much trouble with Intellectuals, except they are about as scarce as hen’s teeth. Also, I suggest, they are never specialists but rather generalists.

    On the other hand (i)ntellectuals (most commonly a “public intellectual” otherwise known as a propagandist) are generally identified for us by those who wouldn’t know what an Intellectual was if they fell over one.

    I like that. According to your classification, then, Freeman Dyson would be a real Intellectual, and Paul Krugman a “public intellectual” (i.e., a propagandist).

    wes george @45: I think we are denigrating the “public intellectuals” in Llew’s classification, not people who actually believe in the power of logical thought and the scientific method.

    Very interesting analysis, wes: I’ve been waiting for the information revolution to change the world for 25 years — ever since I realized that the space-based array antennas I was working on at NIST could be used to create a non-jammable, point to point, world-wide communications system. (This was when access to copy machines was tightly controlled in the USSR.) The antennas didn’t work out (we never could predict where “dead directions” would appear and thus avoid the need for hand tuning new structures) but other technologies were used to create the same, unstoppable communication net — maybe now we are starting to see the results.

    00

  • #
    BobC

    incoherent rambler: @ 47

    It would probably gall you to know, that the left wing intelligentsia regard the unintelligent masses as devoid of independent thought, devoid of knowledge acquisition from experience and observation.

    The “intelligentsia” have to be so disconnected from reality to believe this, that that probably explains all their other pathologies.

    I wouldn’t believe this, except I have witnessed it myself:
    I once worked at a high-tech business started by academics. Our electronic, badge-controlled door lock started to malfunction — sometimes unlocking in the middle of the night, and we would find the building unlocked in the morning. A number of the engineers in the company took a crack at fixing it, but we all failed.
    One morning I came in to find two mechanics taking the lock apart. I stopped to relate to them my anecdotal experiences with the door. We had a spirited conversation for about 15 minutes, while the mechanics tested a number of hypotheses they came up with. They were able to verify that the real problem was that the door frame wasn’t attached to the building with sufficient rigidity and would shift (perhaps with temperature changes, or wind), confusing the sensors in the lock as to whether the door was open or closed. They fixed it and the problem.

    When I was walking to my office, I met the president of the company (PhD) who asked me in some astonishment, “How can you talk to people like that?” Apparently, the fact that they had solved a problem none of his highly-paid engineers could solve didn’t shake his belief that they were unintelligent automatons.

    We would all be better served if people like those mechanics were running the CRU.

    00

  • #
    Sean

    (last reply here)

    For info & discussion on Freeman Dyson go here:
    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/02/the-starship-vs-spaceship-earth/

    To SEE and HEAR Climate Scientists admit they’re not certain how much global warming is influencing recent extreme weather event disasters & ACKNOWLDGE they do not WHY or What is causing the trend of less Tropical Cyclones as yet go here:
    http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2011/s3134677.htm

    But PLEASE do not switch off when you also hear them say UNEQUIVOCALLY what they DO KNOW, and that the effects of GHG’s like CO2 is not mythical unfounded Climate Science but in fact basic PHYSICS

    —————————–

    Greenland of 1770s gives clues to chill winters
    The icy winters suffered by Europe and North America for the last two years contrast with unusually mild weather in the Arctic, in a pattern first noted by a Danish missionary in Greenland in the 1770s.

    Some scientists suggest climate change may be intensifying a natural oscillation. Other [in fact MOST Climate Scientists] say that verdict would be premature and the pattern appears to be the same old natural one.
    “The overall warming of the Earth’s northern half could result in cold winters,” said a study led by Vladimir Petoukhov of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany.

    That see-saw pattern is now known as the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO). In a so-called negative phase, it disrupts westerly winds across the Atlantic and sends warmer air towards the Arctic while parts of Europe and North America freeze.

    “It’s a natural variation. That’s the explanation for the very strong winter last year and this year,” he said.

    The past two winters hit record NAO values in an index dating back more than a century, but that just be chance, said James Hansen at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

    “Whether these last two years were a fluke or not will not be known until more years have passed. High latitude atmospheric dynamics is very chaotic, so I wouldn’t bet on anything,” he told Reuters.

    STILL — The area of Arctic sea ice in January 2011 was at its smallest since satellite records began, at 13.55 million sq km (5.23 mln sq miles), 1.27 million sq km less than the 1979-2000 average, the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center said.
    From:
    http://in.reuters.com/article/2011/02/08/idINIndia-54736520110208

    ——————————

    A rapids in the Greenland ice sheet during the 2010 melt season illustrates the intensity of the record melt there. New research shows that 2010 set new records for the melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet
    From:
    http://www2.ccny.cuny.edu/advancement/news/New-Record-Melt-for-Greenland-Ice-Sheet.cfm

    NOTE:
    Unforced variations or internal variability are usually just called
    weather.

    Why can’t ALL THREE unrelated DRIVERS of Climate & Weather all be valid, and be true all at the same time?

    ie Genuine REAL Global Warming & CC trends PLUS Natural variations PLUS a varying Sunspot activity?

    Because 2010 set a new all time record for global temperatures!
    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/01/2010-updates-to-model-data-comparisons/
    ———————-
    Dec. 21, 2006:
    Evidence is mounting: the next solar cycle is going to be a big one.
    Solar cycle 24, due to peak in 2010 or 2011 “looks like its going to
    be one of the most intense cycles since record-keeping began almost
    400 years ago,” says solar physicist David Hathaway of the Marshall
    Space Flight Center.
    http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2006/21dec_cycle24/

    Sept. 2008
    For the first time in almost a century, the Sun has a spotless record.
    There were no observed sunspots in August. None. Zero. Zip.
    Can’t get a record any lower than that. That’s the first time this has happened since 1913.
    http://www.sciencebuzz.org/blog/sunspot-activity-reaches-record-low

    Feb. 2011 – NASA – Marshall Space Flight Centre
    The Sunspot Cycle
    In 1610, shortly after viewing the sun with his new telescope, Galileo Galilei (or was it Thomas Harriot?) made the first European
    observations of Sunspots. Continuous daily observations were started
    at the Zurich Observatory in 1849 and earlier observations have been
    used to extend the records back to 1610. The sunspot number is
    calculated by first counting the number of sunspot groups and then the number of individual sunspots.

    The Maunder Minimum
    Early records of sunspots indicate that the Sun went through a period
    of inactivity in the late 17th century. Very few sunspots were seen on
    the Sun from about 1645 to 1715 (38 kb JPEG image). Although the
    observations were not as extensive as in later years, the Sun was in
    fact well observed during this time and this lack of sunspots is well
    documented. This period of solar inactivity also corresponds to a
    climatic period called the “Little Ice Age” when rivers that are
    normally ice-free froze and snow fields remained year-round at lower
    altitudes.

    Although sunspots themselves produce only minor effects on solar
    emissions, the magnetic activity that accompanies the sunspots can
    produce dramatic changes in the ultraviolet and soft x-ray emission
    levels. These changes over the solar cycle have important consequences for the Earth’s upper atmosphere.
    Read More: http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/SunspotCycle.shtml

    2006 ABC Radio Australia
    SALLY SARA: And what about the issue of climate change? Can we expect
    drier times ahead because of the changing climate?
    HAYDON WALKER: No, I don’t think so. I mean, like with the global
    warming and so forth, all these conditions have happened before the
    Industrial Revolution. If you go back into the 12th, 14th, 15th
    centuries, all these catastrophes of weather and so forth have
    happened before the Industrial Revolution.

    It’s disgusting what goes into our oceans, it’s disgusting what goes
    into our waterways and what we put into the atmosphere, but I don’t
    think that the global warming is affecting the weather like the
    “experts”, so to speak, are saying.
    from http://www.abc.net.au/landline/content/2006/s1729787.htm

    Walker’s Weather Forecasting Website
    http://www.worldweather.com.au/History.htm
    A brief summary of how the Forecasting is done
    VERY IMPORTANT INFO HERE
    http://swampnews.squarespace.com/expert-opinion/2006/11/4/indigo-jones-and-lennox-walker-on-weather-forecasting.html

    Why is it not possible that BOTH high/low Sunspot activity and AGW Climate Change influences be affecting the weather and temperatures AT THE SAME TIME?

    Walker forecast both of the Qld Cyclones to occur in early Feb 2011, but he did NOT predict the Intensity of Yasi …. nor paid any attention to the new RECORD High temperature of the Coral Sea as Yasi formed near Fiji.

    ———————————

    For Science go here:
    http://www.ipcc.ch/
    http://www.realclimate.org

    For Opinions go here:
    http://www.google.com.au/search?aq=f&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=climate+skeptic+blog

    Journalist Reporter overheard doing a phone interview:
    “Please slow down, professor.
    You’ve been researching this topic for a lifetime.
    I’ve been researching it since lunchtime.”

    *twinkle*

    I hope that helps someone.

    Too much information to read and absorb? That could be a clear sign of lacking the personal skills and capacity to be a competent Climate Scientist.

    =================================================================================================================

    (Sean,have you forgotten this? )

    Please lift your standards, write shorter comments, use direct quotes, and refrain from logical errors. If you manage to find your manners, you might get off the “moderated list”. Thanks, JN

    (You have veered way off topic and post many links that covers a wide range of topics.

    Please adhere to what JN asked you to do) CTS

    00

  • #
    co2isnotevil

    Joe, #49

    What evidence is there that storms are getting more intense? I think what confuses many is the fact that with modern satellite imagery, we can see and measure them all now. It wasn’t that long ago that a major hurricane could come and go and nobody would notice, except perhaps for the sudden disappearance of a ship or two.

    00

  • #
    Brian H

    Fenbeagle;
    I know you want to promote your site, but it’s more polite and competent to link to the specific item/article/post you’re referring to rather than make us go rummaging around looking for it. The link you should have (were you polite) posted is:
    http://fenbeagleblog.wordpress.com/2011/02/08/at-the-end-of-the-pier/

    00

  • #
    BobC

    Sean @ 55

    For Science go here:
    http://www.ipcc.ch/
    http://www.realclimate.org

    You don’t say…

    Nobody here is unaware of the reputation and rules at realclimate — they are a propaganda site that censors any real discussion of the issues.

    In fact, many of us here have been banned at RC for bringing up inconvenient facts and analyses that fail to bow sufficiently to the “big brains” that run the site (on the government’s pay).

    (And, the IPCC is a political organization, not a scientific one.)

    Too much information to read and absorb?

    That more likely applies to you w.r.t. this website.

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Speaking of “journalists”, I noticed this today. Keith Olberman, recently fired from MSNBC, is moving to Al Gore’s Current TV operation.

    I can hardly wait!

    00

  • #
    Llew Jones

    BobC @ 53

    Bob,

    Yes, for me, Freeman Dyson fits the big I mold and Paul Krugman the annoying small i common garden variety type.

    We have plenty of the latter and few of the former over here.

    I’m no economist so I’m not sure if small i Krugman is merely an unreconstructed Keynesian or not but he certainly is no climate scientist. My suspicion is that NYT gets him on the cheap or he has convinced the editor that he is the real deal generalist. Lefties love him and swoon on his every pronouncement on any topic in the universe, which are many, so I guess that’s enough for the editor.

    Love your story about the tradesmen problem solvers. On contemplation I’m sure my man in the street is some sort of engineering tradesman/technician who has never darkened a university door.

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Dangerously Normal Climate? Say what? Did I read that correctly? Is a new acronym, DNC, entering the lexicon? If so, that one’s already taken — Democratic National Committee. And you know how upset they get if you mess with them. ;-)

    So how about changing it to DANGNC instead? That way the alarmists can say, “That Dang Normal Climate is getting in the way of carbon emissions regulation and legislation!” And John will still be able to tell the CSIRO about this new and terrible hazard, DANGNC.

    00

  • #
    BobC

    Sean: @55

    But PLEASE do not switch off when you also hear them say UNEQUIVOCALLY what they DO KNOW, and that the effects of GHG’s like CO2 is not mythical unfounded Climate Science but in fact basic PHYSICS

    Do you mean effects like the tropospheric “hot spot”, which can only be “found” by ignoring thousands of themometer measurements, and “estimating” temperature from wind shear? Now that’s a “creative” use of PHYSICS — who would have thought that we still can’t build themometers that work? Note that Thorne et al didn’t bother to test this hypothesis either — the whole point was to replace actual temperature measurements in order to get the “right” answer, not verify their calculations.

    If you are claiming that the effect of GHG’s does not need to be empirically verified, then you should try to justify that. If the effect were so obvious, why has the Climate Science community changed their predictions so ofter?

    Remember, in 2000 scientists at the CRU were claiming that the UK would see nearly no snowfall in the future? Now they claim that heavy snow winters are expected (After blowing the last three winters in a row). This is not the signature of something so well-known that no empirical tests need be passed.

    The world doesn’t operate on “Post-Normal Science” — theories still have to be verified, and the AGW hypothesis isn’t measuring up.

    It will be time to take AGW seriously when Climate Science can demonstratably predict future climate better than just drawing a trend line, or fitting the (recent) past by playing with arbitrary adjustable parameters.

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Re Sean @ 55

    Is it just me or does Sean sound like Chicken Little. His anxiety and fear of the sky falling is palpable in his writing (actually more like wailing). I really feel bad for his kind and I don’t believe he could be helped unless he gets into therapy SOON!

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Mark D. @63,

    About Sean @55: please don’t hold your breath until he gets into therapy. I’d hate to see you turn the color of your avatar.

    00

  • #
    cementafriend

    @BobC:February 10th, 2011 at 1:06 am- Is not the problem that young graduates and specialists do not understand the technology they are using and through lack of experience can not solve problems. I recall some young graduates from supposedly reputable Universities in Australia doing some measurements for flow which I felt from experience was not correct. I did some calculations using basics equations to get a sensible answer which was in line with the plant specifications. It turned out the computer program that the graduates was wrong because it had the wrong conversion factor from US units to SI units. For engineers the slide rule was useful to quickly calculate results but it was necessary to understand the theory and have a knowledge of the order of magnitude of the result.
    Anyone using a computer in engineering or even a tradesman needs to be taught that computer programs have limitations (it is necessary to know in what circumstances it is applicable) and that “garbage in is garbage out”
    It has been shown in peer reviewed articles in journals that none of the climate models using data prior to 1998 could predict the actual measured climate data over the last 12 years and further the models give ridiculous answers to ridiculous input which are not happening and will not happen.

    00

  • #

    Sean,in reply to your post # 45.

    Quoting you:

    PLEASE DO THE WORLD A FAVOUR …. LEAVE SCIENCE AND MATHS TO THE SCIENTISTS AND THE MATHEMATICIANS …. AND GO WRITE A COOK BOOK.

    It is obvious that you failed to see who was the source for question #1: Source: Global Tropical Cyclone Activity Dr. Ryan N. Maue

    Question #3 was referencing from a science paper published by scientists: but the Crompton and McAneney (2008) paper

    She then added additional information with ANOTHER scientist: Extra information: Roger, Pielke Jnr.

    DOCTOR Ryan N. Maue

    DOCTOR Roger, Pielke Jnr

    DOCTOR McAneney

    Plus these other 3,

    Jonathan Nott1 & Matthew Hayne2

    Crompton

    Six scientists as sources for her blog entry.Was that enough scientists for you Sean?

    Then to show how poor a reader you are.I manage to see these as well: Source: Bureau of Meteorology Tropical Cyclone Trends,Source: High frequency of ‘super-cyclones’ along the Great Barrier Reef over the past 5,000 years and even an interview from yet ANOTHER scientist!

    What I see here is that Jo posted a good blog entry,using actual scientists and meteorological institutions as her sources to make a case.

    Maybe you should retract your stupid dig you made against Jo Nova,huh?

    By the way while you blabbed all over the map in your post,you failed make any sort of a coherent counterpoint to what Jo posted.

    Questions real journalists ought to be asking about Yasi

    Pathetic.

    00

  • #

    Sean came back with another flood of off topic curlicues at post #55.

    Your post style make it clear that you are not here to discuss much of anything.Just “lecture” us.

    You also exposed yourself at being clueless about these two groups you claim is all about science:

    For Science go here:
    http://www.ipcc.ch/
    http://www.realclimate.org

    Sure Sean,sure.It is plain that have not learned about how little published science was in the last IPCC report.Here is but one of many sources showing,that the IPCC used a lot of “grey” literature and even less credible sources in their last published report.Some of them have been exposed to show how little regard the IPCC has for credible sources.

    UN’s Climate Bible Gets 21 ‘F’s on Report Card

    Selected short quote:

    5,587 references in the IPCC report were not peer-reviewed. Among these documents are press releases, newspaper and magazine articles, discussion papers, MA and PhD theses, working papers, and advocacy literature published by environmental groups.

    Other sources showed whopping errors made by the IPCC.More than 25% of the sources were NOT “peer reviewed” in the IPCC 2007 report.

    Impressed Sean?

    Realclimate is a joke.They commonly censor civil skeptical replies.It is so well known since many skeptics have been shout out.Not only that their tortured apology entries trying to explain away one inconvenient fact after another is quite revealing.That is why they commonly shut out skeptics who expose their stupid claims.

    You tried peddling these two irrational sources on us thinking we have not seen them or read them before.You are only about 21 and 10 years too late.Try something better such as why should we go back to reading their stupid drivel………..,again.

    Just another third rate AGW believer is what you are passing through here.Sean you can not even attempt a credible debate with anyone here.

    That is sad.

    00

  • #
    Macha

    All I can say to those like Sean @45 is to read this paper by Craig and Sherwood Idso.

    http://www.co2science.org/education/reports/prudentpath/prudentpath.php

    not a lot of modelling, just plain numbers, counting and observations.

    Nice one guys!. Hopefully it gets to Combet and Garnaut quickly!

    00

  • #
    wes george

    Lifted From:

    http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2011/02/blindness-in-academia

    –Prof John Quiggins, economist, proudly proclaims parochial and bias a trademark of modern Australian economics:

    To the best of my knowledge there is not a single economist in Australia with any professional credibility who denies the reality of global warming or the need for a global policy response.

    Houston, we have a consensus! The Debate is Over. Time to Tax Is Now!

    * * *

    “Anywhere in the world that social psychologists see women or minorities underrepresented by a factor of two or three, our minds jump to discrimination as the explanation,” said Dr. Haidt, who called himself a longtime liberal turned centrist. “But when we find out that conservatives are underrepresented among us (academic social scientists) by a factor of more than 100, suddenly everyone finds it quite easy to generate alternate explanations.”

    http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/259354/more-political-bias-academia-veronique-de-rugy

    This is how civilizations commit suicide, wrote Arnold Toynbee in his Study of History.

    Toynbee thought that civilizations are powered by “creative minorities” who respond with innovative solutions to the challenges of the age, thus perpetuating the civilization.

    Yet at some point in every civilization’s life, the creativity minority decays into Thomas Sowell’s “anointed class” who insist on nostalgically applying the same old once-creative solutions of the past inappropriately to new challenges, rather than innovate anew. By becoming insular and hidebound to old prejudices, our academic, media and political elites have lost the ability to adopt new ideas, to think outside the box.

    Professor Quiggins’ pride in the intellectual homogeneity of our academic elites represents a creative class in the final state of decline. No longer capable of innovation, our academic anointed ones have impose a rather strict orthodoxy, by coercion when necessary, based upon a nostalgia for former glory days. Not only are our blinkered elites offering only stale, impertinent memes, they have failed to even identify the real challenges our civilization will face this century.

    Now I am not saying that we are doomed, that our civilization will collapse. That won’t happen because new creativity minorities are rising up to fill the vacuum left by our academic/media elites, thanks to new paradigms in information distribution that have broken the elite’s monopoly on knowledge.

    What I am saying is that our mass media and universities, by allowing themselves to atrophy into glee clubs have committed institutional suicide.

    00

  • #
    BobC

    Good grief!

    I was following some of Sean’s links for fun, and found this site that is recruiting trolls to go to skeptic sites and “set us straight”.

    They have some helpful hints on how to convert us:

    Theres [sic] any number of angles you might want to take but pointing out that the vast majority of climate scientists are sure that man made climate change is happening is not a bad one. Or how the fossil fuel companies are funding “think-tanks” whose job it is is to try and undermine the science of climate change. Or ..(I could go on forever).

    (How many people can they find that are that clueless?)

    The term “cannon fodder” seems appropriate (if I’m allowed to use the newly politically incorrect “combat rhetoric”).

    This could backfire: I think there is a fair chance that some of the “Lambs to the slaughter” (the ones with some capability of independent thought, anyway) might end up being converted — by us.

    I’m vowing to be more polite to trolls in the future (at first, anyway) and point them to the parts of Jo’s blog that explain their errors.

    00

  • #
    BobC

    Sean: @48
    February 9th, 2011 at 6:10 pm

    You do not need REAL Journalists to ask the RIGHT questions

    You all need this ………….

    Climate Science from Climate Scientists
    http://www.realclimate.org/

    The title says it all.

    (Go on … drink the kool aid. It’s good for you. Thinking is so much work. Just relax and let us do the thinking for you … relax…..relax…….)

    Sean, I doubt you have read any of the other posts on this blog, but you should try this one.

    Notice how not one of those “real climate scientists” at RealClimate could bring themselves to have a simple discussion with skeptics (even organized by one of their own admirers). Whatever could they be afraid of?

    And what are you afraid of? Drop the “drive-by” comment technique and have a real discussion on one or two points, if you dare.

    00

  • #
    Ken Stewart

    Thanks Warren!
    My assessment is based on interpreting “maximum wind speed” as meaning gusts. If it means mean wind speed, then the gust speed should be about 255kph.

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    Bob C @ 71

    I followed that link to Sean’s rent-a-troll site. Did you notice that the options for curing us crusty sceptics do not include providing physical evidence that global warming is signficant, man-made and harmful? Why would that be so difficult?

    Cheers,

    Speedy

    00

  • #

    BobC

    I’m vowing to be more polite to trolls in the future (at first, anyway) and point them to the parts of Jo’s blog that explain their errors.

    Always a good strategy. My response to trolls are mostly directed at lurkers. :)

    00

  • #
    Ivan

    Is Yasi even “exceptional” in the scheme of things?
    Looking back to March 1864, we can see:

    17-18 Mar – Rockhampton
    “A hurricane has broken over Rockhampton such as European knowledge is, in most instances, unacquainted with.”
    http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/13091739?
    17-18 Mar – Gladstone
    “On Thursday evening last we had an un-usual storm of wind and rain; it lasted all night, until noon on Friday, when it rose to a perfect hurricane, twisting off tops of trees, and whirling them up in the air like a flight of birds; it was worse from three to five p.m., but continued until about eight p.m., and then gradually abated.”
    http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/3169397?

    18 Mar – Maryborough
    “The last flood, which commenced on Friday week, was accompanied with a terrific storm of wind and rain, the like of which has not been known within the memory of any resident.”
    http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/3169393?

    18 Mar – Brisbane
    “Very seldom indeed is the neighborhood of Brisbane visited by a gale of wind of so lengthy a duration and of so violent a character as that which commenced on Thursday night last, and terminated on Saturday.”
    http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/3169230?

    18 Mar – Ipswich
    “The present flood has been equalled only upon one occasion within the memory of not more than one or two of the inhabitants of Queensland. It has reached some six feet higher than the flood of last year, and five feet lower than that of 1841. The damage occasioned has been immense, but it will be long before we ascertain how much it is.”
    http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/3169291?

    18 Mar – Toowoomba
    “A terrific storm passed ovor Toowoomba last night. The rain was fearful. Hundreds of trees were uprooted, and fences were swept away. The floods were higher by four feet than any yet known.”
    http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/3169303?

    18-19 Mar – Clarence River
    “On Friday and Saturday (18th and 19th March) the wind from the south was something awful. On Friday night part of our roof was blown off, and our beds and blankets, and everything else, wet through.”
    http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/13089055?

    So – here’s a storm that belted the coastline from (at least) Rockhampton to the Clarence river. Would that qualify as “exceptional”, I wonder?

    And as for “more frequent, more violent” storms – a few months later:
    4-5 Oct – Calcutta
    “FEARFUL CYCLONE IN CALCUTTA.
    There has been a hurricane of unusual violence in Calcutta, causing immense damage. Houses have been overthrown, crushing the inmates to death; trees torn up in every direction; carriages blown away..”
    http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/31843504?

    So – what was the argument again?

    00

  • #
    wes george

    Thanks for the great source links, Ivan. Evidence is Knowledge is Power.

    * * *
    Waffle, you’re so right. The first to get mad, loses. See Tony’s 20 seconds of silence. He’s been totally slimmed by lying scumbag yellow journalism, but because they freaked him out, they score a coup, which was all they ever came for…

    Disgusting.

    * * *

    Hah, BobC…

    Thanks for the link!
    http://www.campaigncc.org/node/384

    I’ve signed up to be a climate change troll. HO. HO. HO! And a bottle of Rum.

    I remember the good old days of the climate wars, when sites like Jenifer Marohasy’s and Watts’ were thick with outraged alarmists and online back-up support was thin.

    Nowadays one has to travel into dens of delusion like Climate Progress to find the huddled and cowering faithful. But the censors zap your best comments, so no trial of ideas is possible. The debate really is over, because there is no one left to argue with…like the Taliban, the Warmistas fade into the hills when the sceptical SAS show up in town.

    It’s all asymmetrical rhetoric now….A lone, bedraggled warmist, like Sean, staggers out to lob an IRD (Improvised Rhetorical Device) and then limps for the hills with his hands over his ears singing LA, LA, LA, LA..I can’t hear you! LA, LA, LA.

    Paaa-thetic!.

    Sometimes reading Jo’s blog is like watching Uma Thurman in ‘Kill Bill’, as Jo slaughters dozens of mushy climate change myths with the sharp edge of reason and evidence in a single post.

    It inspires one to sally forth out on the Intertubes in search of climate Idiotarians and do something nice for Mother Earth armed with little more than one’s wit and Occam’s Razor. Ah, nothing like the buzz of a warm modem in the morning to get one’s brain cells firing…

    (Warning: ridiculously gratuitous violence below.)

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdjuS17DGlA

    00

  • #
    BobC

    wes george @ 77:

    Love your metaphor:

    A lone, bedraggled warmist, like Sean, staggers out to lob an IRD (Improvised Rhetorical Device) and then limps for the hills with his hands over his ears singing LA, LA, LA, LA..I can’t hear you! LA, LA, LA.

    What is truly amazing is that these people, Sean and apparently many others think that all they have to do is point out that there are government websites that will tell us what to think, and the problem will be solved.

    (Gosh, if only I had known that the government would tell me what to believe, I could have saved so much trouble trying to think for myself! ;-) )

    First: No wonder they avoid debates (and lose them when they don’t avoid them).

    Second: They won’t (or can’t) think for themselves, so argument from authority is the only argument they acknowledge. Appeals to logic and facts are useless. Their only choice is which “authority” to believe — and they sure aren’t going to accept any of us as an authority.

    Third: It’s kind of chilling to think that there are all these people out there that seem to have stepped out of the pages of 1984 — except they need no coercion to follow Big Brother and wholeheartedly engage in “double-think”.

    I’m heartened by your evidence that their numbers are declining (or, maybe they are just lying low). If these people are driven by the desire for social conformity, they maybe a “tipping point” will be reached where the conforming thing is to be skeptical of AGW.

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    BobC @71,

    Good grief!

    I was following some of Sean’s links for fun, and found this site that is recruiting trolls to go to skeptic sites and “set us straight”.

    They have some helpful hints on how to convert us: …

    Suspicions confirmed! Could this be why the quality of argument is always so low?

    More seriously and tragically: I can’t imagine a better way to waste someone’s potential than to recruit them to this kind of politically driven foolishness. And can you imagine how quickly they would cry, “Foul!” if we did the same thing?

    Well they already cry foul so I guess it wouldn’t matter. But the waste of human potential is just staggering. It’s not limited to our particular interest either. Why are so many so willing to be a pawn in someone’s chess game?

    Don’t anyone answer that, I know the reasons. But when I think about it my heart cries over the tragedy of it.

    00

  • #
    Percival Snodgrass

    Climate Science Corruption: Practiced And Perpetuated By Scientific SocietiesV (REALCLIMATE)

    http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/28741

    Climatologist slams RealClimate.org for ‘erroneously communicating the reality of the how climate system is actually behaving’ – Rebuts Myths On Sea Level, Oceans and Arctic Ice | Climate Realists

    http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=3661

    More Hypocrisy: RealClimate and Funding Issues — Geoffrey Allan Plauché

    http://www.veritasnoctis.net/blog/2007/05/30/more-hypocrisy-realclimate-and-funding-issues/

    00

  • #
    Albert

    The Australian Bureau of Meteorology website below shows cyclones were more frequent in the past.

    http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/silo/cyclones.cgi?region=aus&syear=2006&eyear=2006&loc=0

    00

  • #
    wes george

    Sorry to have to post this whole email written to Prof Glenn Reynolds at his Instapundit blog, but he didn’t supply a direct link.

    http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/

    The author of the email is an academic at a US university. Exactly the same kind of coercive prejudice exists in Australian universities and it’s just as bad in our mass media, especially our taxpayer-supported ABC.

    It’s time to realize that we are as a nation slowly allowing our civil liberties to erode away. When it is no longer safe to freely speak of your political beliefs in order to work unmolested at our universities, at our ABC, or the CSIRO or the BoM or in our civil service, then none of us should feel our right to free thought and speech is secure anymore…

    BIAS IN ACADEMIA: AN EMAIL:

    I email you from time to time, either with links to my blog, or with comments about your posts. Every time, I say “don’t use my real name”. This is solely because I am an academic, and I positively fear my colleagues learning my real political preferences.

    In Megan Mcardle’s story (that you link) she has the following passage:

    “…Haidt notes that his correspondence with conservative students (anonymously) “reminded him of closeted gay students in the 1980s”: He quoted — anonymously — from their e-mails describing how they hid their feelings when colleagues made political small talk and jokes predicated on the assumption that everyone was a liberal. “I consider myself very middle-of-the-road politically: a social liberal but fiscal conservative. Nonetheless, I avoid the topic of politics around work,” one student wrote.”

    I have used this comparison myself, it is apt, and it doesn’t just apply to students. You hide yourself in plain sight. You make comments that are carefully crafted to allow you to make small talk, and which will allow your colleagues to think you’re in agreement with them, but which nevertheless satisfy your own sense of integrity. You never lie. You just make comments and allow them to draw their own conclusions. A classic example is the way I’ll make comments about politics, saying things like “I don’t trust politicians, period.” My liberal colleagues will nod and agree. We’re all in agreement, they believe. It gets easy after a while. You make comments about Marxist ideology that are really rather neutral, such as how you see similarities between Marx’s views, and something else. You leave it unstated that in fact you think this is appalling, while they nod and smile at the continuing relevance of Marxism in today’s society. Everyone is happy. I don’t feel quite so happy when someone says something about “stupid fucking conservatives” (I’m quoting exact words here), but I just nod, and say “ugh-huh”.

    I’ve just been watching the first series of Mad Men, and I’m struck by the gay guy Salvatore Romano, and how similar his behavior is to me, only I’m hiding my politics, not my sexuality. There are also the classic moments, whereby fellow believers in academia carefully try to work out if you are one of “us”. I remember one guy who heard me comment on how some architecture reminded me of something I read in The Fountainhead, which was enough to alert him. Later we went out for a drink. I remember the nervous moment (for both of us) where he finally came out and asked me, “so what are your political / economic beliefs?” I chickened out, tempered, and said, “well, perhaps more to the center than most academics” and countered, “what are yours?” Reassured, he was willing to admit to conservative leanings. Then I was willing to admit it too. Then at last we could talk about our true feelings, with it clearly and openly stated that (of course) none of this was ever, ever, ever, to go beyond our own private conversations. (I also learned to never ever, in future, mention Rand within hearing of any academics, in case I accidently revealed myself again.) In another case, the vital clue was our shared interest in science fiction, and over the weeks there followed careful probing concerning which authors we liked, until we eventually discretely revealed ourselves. Now he lends me books saying “don’t let any of your colleagues see you with this.”

    When (if) I get tenure, I toy with the idea of coming out of the closet. I don’t think I will though. Perhaps my job will be more secure, but I have to live and work with these people for years to come. I prefer to work in a friendly environment. I don’t want to be the token conservative, and I don’t want to be the one who speaks at meetings while everyone else rolls their eyes and exchanges meaningful glances.

    Needless to say, don’t under any circumstances use my real name if you choose to refer to my email. Thanks!

    OK, so this academic ain’t no Freedom Fighter. But as a skeptical mate of mine who works in a vaguely climate-related bureaucracy in Canberra once told me when I pushed him to make his views known at work. “Look pal,” he said “I got a wife and kids and whooping big mortgage, I’d sooner click on a gay porn site on my work computer than CA or Watts, much less confide my skepticism to co-workers…”

    Welcome to ’1984.’

    00

  • #
    Ken Stewart

    On ABC news tonight, report from JCU, at

    http://www-public.jcu.edu.au/news/JCUPRD1_071493

    “The CTS team leader in the field, Dr Geoff Boughton, said that the analysis of damage to simple structures throughout the region indicated that the wind speeds on the ground in Tropical Cyclone Yasi were less than those expected in a Category 5 event.

    Using techniques developed and refined in previous cyclones, the CTS team has formed a preliminary view that the maximum wind speed in Cyclone Yasi was about the same as that in Tropical Cyclone Larry.

    “We estimate that the gust wind speeds in some of the most affected areas were about 220 km/h” Dr Boughton said.”

    In fact that’s at the low end of my estimate! And Warren above and a couple on my site almost convinced me I was wrong!

    00

  • #
    elsie

    During the 60s and early 70s there were frequent cyclones in the Coral Sea. So much so that USA sent a cyclone tracking plane to Cairns. It was a 4 turbo prop engine Lockheed Electra with double strength hydraulic controls. There was one cyclone like Yasi that thankfully tracked due south not affecting land. But it was so strong someone on board said the plane nearly tipped 180 degrees. However, only a bare minimum of small ‘fizzer’ cyclones ensued. So about mid 80s the trial was deemed not worth pursuing. I think they moved the plane to Darwin or back to USA, I forget which.

    00

  • #
    Bob Malloy

    Now were being compared to peadophiles

    From Real Climategate:

    When Michael Buerk the presenter of the BBC radio program the ‘Moral Maze’ said in his intro to a debate about Multiculturalism in the UK:

    “not long ago to question multiculturalism….

    ….risked being branded racists and pushed into the loathesome corner with paedophiles and climate change deniers

    I ask am I also oversensative, or is this close to libel.

    00

  • #
    not so sure

    Actually, climate projections indicate that hurricane frequency will decrease with increased global warming, will be less likely to make landfall but are likely to be more intense.

    00

  • #

    Not so sure at post #86.

    Are you sure about that?

    I recall the very opposite was claimed by various AGW believing scientists and their supporters.

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    not so sure @86,

    Unfortunately — and in spite of attempts to make it out to be some other way — what has actually happened so far is absolutely nothing out of the ordinary.

    00

  • #
    Albert

    It seems the only causal effect of cyclones is tax, more tax less cyclones,
    It’s not la nina, it’s la taxa!

    00

  • #
    Albert

    The following link will give you a better understanding of the floods at Toowoomba and Grantham.
    We know of these events as flash flooding, but in other parts of the World they already have a name, they are more correctly described as a Cloudburst and this description fits perfectly. You will see from the Wikipedia record they are rare and catastrophic.

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

    The following example from the Wiki site reads exactly like what happened to Toowoomba and Grantham

    India in July, 1970 — Cloudburst in the upper catchment area led to a 15 metre rise in the Alaknanda river in Uttarakhand. Entire river basin, from Hanumanchatti near the holy pilgrimage town of Badrinath to Haridwar was affected; An entire village was swept away.

    Several years ago in the north Queensland mountains a 5 metre high wall of water rushed down a mountain creek and claimed the life of a foreign tourist. Toowoomba and Grantham are not the first of this phenomena in Australia, they are just the first filmed.

    00

  • #
    val majkus

    More on Yasi
    the Dangers of Hype by Ken Stewart
    http://kenskingdom.wordpress.com/2011/02/14/the-danger-of-hype/
    In other words Yasi was a strong Cat 3 or very low Cat 4, not Cat 5. There is no evidence for winds of 290km/hr . The danger from Cyclone Yasi was exaggerated and over-hyped.

    What’s the big deal? you may ask. Lives were saved.

    True. Hyping the danger was a good short term tactic and worked. However, this is not a good long term strategy in our fight to defend ourselves from nature’s extremes.

    The people of North Queensland may well say, “Well if that was 290 km/hr winds, the damage was bad, but not too bad. We’ll be right next time.”

    But the damage from a cyclone with real 290 km/hr winds will be well over a thousand times worse than that caused by Yasi.

    and check out what Warwick Hughes has to say http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=811&cpage=1#comment-25770

    00

  • #
    Brian H

    It’s all PNS, Political NewSpeak Science.
    Anent which, Mencken:

    The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

    00

  • #
    Brian H

    #85;
    You’re being oversensitive and a bit thick. He was mocking the BBC’s penchant for condemning, smearing, and misrepresenting issues and groups. The ironic implication was thus that “deniers” have been arrogantly maligned by the Beeb.

    I know British sarcasm is a bit rough-and-tumble for some, but that’s the way they like it!

    00

  • #