JoNova

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


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



Climate Scientists who were right 30 years ago?

Stephen Goddard has found a gem of a news article. 1979 : Before The Hockey Team Destroyed Climate Science.

Drs Leona Libby and Louise Pandolfi projected world temperatures in 1979 for the next 70 years and got results that, 30 years later, appear to have been broadly correct if out by 5 – 7 years. Ironically, they used, of all things, … tree ring data (going back 1,800 years). The critical difference was they assumed that the climate changes in natural cycles.

St Petersburg Times, Jan 1 1979

Prediction: Warming trend until year 2000, then very cold.

Climate Predictions 1979
St Petersburg times news 1979

Visit Steven Goddard’s blog to read the full news story.

Their work fits in reasonably well with the Syun Akasofu graph we posted here for the world to see:

Where are those researchers now?

Jimash in comments on Goddard’s site found the bio of Leona Libby, who unfortunately died in 1986, but appears to have notched up a seriously good career as a scientist. “Dr. Libby was the first and only woman member of the group that built the first nuclear reactor.”  He also found one of their tree ring papers in Nature. (According to Jimash, Libby also apparently worked with none other than Leo Szilard and Enrico Fermi. Her second husband won the Nobel Prize in 1960.)

UPDATE:

Mark in comments points us to this graph of Hadcrut temperatures since 2000.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 8.6/10 (8 votes cast)
Climate Scientists who were right 30 years ago?, 8.6 out of 10 based on 8 ratings

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

138 comments to Climate Scientists who were right 30 years ago?

  • #
    Blimey

    Nine of the past ten years have been the warmest on record.

    Where’s the “cold snap” since 2000. At best it could be called a levelling off.

    http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2000/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2000/trend


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    True story… Louisa Pandolfi was Sylvia’s Mother in the Dr Hook classic Sylvia’s mother… Sylvia being Sylvia Pandolfi.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bruce of Newcastle

    Blimey at #1

    Of course it was. Solar cycle 22 was about 9.5 years long (worth +0.4 C anomaly), the PDO was right at peak (worth 0.27 C anomaly) and yes there was some contribution from CO2, about +0.15 C anomaly.

    Solar cycle 23 just completed was about 12.6 years long (worth -0.6 C) and the PDO is dropping again (about -0.05 so far). Swing is therefore -1.05 C and counting.

    Why are you surprised that there is record snow pack in the western US, and people are complaining their gardens won’t grow anymore:

    The winter of 2010-2011 was the third in a row of killing cold.

    No, not a climate scientist who’s writing this, just a gardening journo.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Carl Chapman

    To Blimey:
    The temperature levelled off in 1998 and is now falling. The cold snap is just starting.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Blimey @1
    If this is ‘leveling off at best’, I’d hate to see it cooling any more. The thirties were warmer until Hansen and Jones ‘adjusted’ the data downwards. Bring back the warming, where the benefits far outweigh any negatives.
    And I am just like Bruce of Newcastle.. http://pindanpost.com/2011/05/27/wheres-the-warming/


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    John Brookes

    What is striking is the way the work is reported. Plenty of detail of the science is included. Very refreshing.

    But our understanding has advanced a bit since then.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Jannes Kleintje

    This is proof of the downfall of science since they started this pal review nonsense… Why did we ever allow the scientists to do away with proper and honest observation, decent interpretation of the found data and proper and honest reporting of all aspects of the research?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Graeme

    “Carbon Dioxide and other nutrients” – my goodness CO2 is pollution a nutrient – who would have known that???


    Report this

    00

  • #
    DavidA

    And we’re supposed to trust this? “Global Geochemisty Corp”, obviously this ‘Dr Libby’ was a Big Chem stooge sent back in time to plant a study that future conservative think tanks would use to bolster their case against AGW. It’s obvious to me anyway, but you denialists will probably stick your head in the sand and believe some other nonsense.

    [First warning use of the D word.] ED


    Report this

    12

  • #
    Mark

    #1

    What a pretty graphic. Wonder what happens when I put in 2001 instead of 2000.

    http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001/trend

    Ooohhh, looky there, it’s gone all pointy downwards.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Dave

    Johnny Brooks

    But our understanding has advanced a bit since then.

    Good News for you lot (and MattyBee) in WA with rain today & yesterday! And good outlook for the week ahead. Refer http://rainfall.willyweather.com.au/wa/perth/perth.html.

    But you do live in an arid part of the world http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World_Koppen_Map.png as stated by University of Melbourne in their Koppen Map of Climate Classification.

    And it’s amazing – they use the same method for measuring rainfall now as they did
    when Dr. Libby did her report – but somehow the understanding by some has been
    corrupted.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    I’ve added a couple of appropriate graphs to this post. Look at those Akasofu cycles…
    Thanks Mark for the woods for trees one. :-)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Blimey

    Carl Chapman – “The temperature levelled off in 1998 and is now falling.”

    That used to be the “skeptics” year of choice, but they had to move to 2001 as times moved on, even then you have to carefully cherry pick which data reconstruction you use. Others will still show a warming.

    Mark – “Wonder what happens when I put in 2001 instead of 2000.”

    But even with the HADCRUT decline is less than a tenth of a degree – far from the “cold snap” of 1-2 degrees, or more, expected from the original author.

    Seems the assumption that it’s all natural didn’t work out after all.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Blimey

    Joanne Nova – “I’ve added a couple of appropriate graphs to this post.”

    I love the magical “recovery from little ice age” force. Do the pixies create this one?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Blimey

    I do hope the magical “recovery from little ice age” force does stop soon otherwise we’ll be always on a path to higher temperatures.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark

    He’s off his meds again.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Llew Jones

    Some nice rational pre-warmist/alarmist science such as a 1F to 1.5F increase in global average temperature” aka “all over the earth” producing 70 years of “world agricultural boom”. That shows what a nonsense the IPCC predictions of decimated agricultural production caused by a warming planet are.

    The other interesting effect observed by the ladies was the growth of glaciers in the Alps, Scandinavia, Alaska and New Zealand during the little ice age caused by a 1F to 2F drop in temperature. A bit devastating for the clowns who point to melting glaciers, as sign of AGW, not realising what was the cause for their advance.

    Interesting to see that Dr. Libby was and her assistant were from the University of California Engineering Dept. Not from a Climate Change Dept like today’s alarmists who have to have tales of shock horror and calamity to keep their jobs. Hence the lying, half truths and imaginary “science” we get from many of these science illegitimates.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    do we know which three rings they used?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Blimey

    Tom Harley – “Stuffed the link up, this should work…for Blimey”

    That’s alright, links can be difficult at the best of times.

    Here’s one I found earlier.

    http://images1.dailykos.com/i/user/2722/TMW2011-06-01colorlowres.jpg


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Blimey

    Joanne Nova – “Mark in comments points us to this graph of Hadcrut temperatures since 2000.”

    Correction: The 2000 onwards graph slows slight warming. Mark chose 2001, not 2000. You need to cherry pick anything from 2001 onwards in order to see a decline, even then you have to choose the right data source.

    UAH, for instance, shows it rising.

    http://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:2001/plot/uah/from:2001/trend


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    John Brookes: #7

    What is striking is the way the work is reported. Plenty of detail of the science is included. Very refreshing.

    For once John, I totally agree with you. The late seventies were still in the time when real journalists had to actually go and interview the people involved, in order to understand the story. Now they never get to meet the people involved. They just pick up the press statement from the front desk. Post-normal journalism is just as insipid as post-normal science.

    One thing I notice from the article is that Dr Libby had a wide range of interests: Environmental Studies, Engineering, Engineering Archaeology, Mechanical Aerospace and Nuclear Engineering. As one of the commentators at Steven Goddard’s blog said, “a big hitter”. But no doubt the “real climate scientists” will disparage her as an Applied Scientist and Engineer, and therefore unworthy of consideration.

    But she could well have been intrigued by the cyclic nature of weather, and as an engineer would have naturally thought to apply Fourier Analysis, to identify the underlying frequencies. I doubt that would happen today – too much detail.

    Whether or not she attempted to identify the natural causes of the fundamental frequencies is not mentioned, but that might be an interesting area for some historic research.

    Blimey: #1

    Nine of the past ten years have been the warmest on record.

    That depends on who keeps the records, and how much they have been homogenized and “adjusted”. Dr Libby was working with, and attempting to explain, the raw unadulterated data.

    On a comparative basis, results based on research on real data always trumps research on smoothed or cleansed data.

    p.s. Have you managed to find a paper describing empirical research that demonstrates positive forcing? I am still waiting.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bruce of Newcastle

    And re my post at #3, just for Blimey, here’s one I found earlier.

    And who can forget this golden oldie:

    …within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”.
    “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Dave

    MattyBee

    do we know which three rings they used?

    MattyBee – Tree Ring Data is held by the World Data Center for Paleoclimatology http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/treering.html – but the you aren’t an expert!

    To answer your question – the three rings are:

    You, Blimmey and Johnney


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    “But no doubt the “real climate scientists” will disparage her as an Applied Scientist and Engineer, and therefore unworthy of consideration.”

    I disagree – they would consider her a wonderful scientist, and note that her work is generally consistent with the basis of all climate models, just without a consideration for CO2e induced AGW.

    Do you think climate scientists lampoon Galileo just because some whacko skeptical mob are using (and abusing) his name.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Dave – the quote “samples of THREE rings ranging in age” is from the article. excuse me for ‘avin’ a larf.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    Blimey: #21

    …even then you have to choose the right data source.

    I always think that the nicest thing about standards (and “official” data sources) is that there are so many to choose from.

    Method: … think of the results you want, and then choose the appropriate data source. If your opponents happen to choose a different one and get a contrary result, accuse them of cherry-picking, and then repeat the cycle using yet another data source that just happens to give you the desired result, and so ad infinitum.

    The problem is, that all of the data sources that are used for this game belong to the alarmists – we poor skeptics just have to use what we are given. Quite sad really, since it is a clear demonstration that the records have been fudged.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    MattB: #25

    My comment: “But no doubt the “real climate scientists” will disparage her as an Applied Scientist and Engineer, and therefore unworthy of consideration.” Was actually a reference to a statement made by Blimey in a previous thread, where he typed words to the affect that “Applied Scientists and Engineers cannot do ‘real’ research”.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Damian Allen

    “Blimey”,
    Please quote a reference to even one, just one, Peer Reviewed Scientific Paper, which PROVES, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that human beings and carbon Dioxide (Plant Food), are/is causing global warming.

    PS Computer Models do not constitute either Proof or Evidence.

    Have claimed your $10,000 reward for winning The Punch global warming challenge yet?????
    http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/10k-for-the-first-person-to-prove-weve-caused-climate-change/


    Report this

    00

  • #

    “Nine of the past ten years have been the warmest on record.”

    Anyone who uses that expression “on record” without qualification should immediately be counted out of any discussion.

    I do find it very interesting that the monthly max “records” for my part of Oz were all set between 1910 and 1920, except for August, which had its “record” max in 1946. I’m not surprised that one day in Feb 2004 set a “record” daily max…I remember the day, and it was filthy.

    However, I’m also aware that the time frame for all these “records” is so brief that no true scientist would construct a climate theory around them. In fact, I wouldn’t think much of an average adult who did so.

    Nonetheless, I’d like to predict right now that tomorrow will be the coldest June day of 2011 on record. It will also be the hottest June day of 2011 on record. I’m putting my house on it. Of course, what with Sputnik and all that CO2, there could be new records set the very next day. Things are that crazy with the climate!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Blimey

    Mods: should I answer Damian Allen again as I have in another thread, or will you be marking his post as off topic?

    [No, you should remember that you are here on a skeptical site, that means you have to be exxtraaaa nice and polite.]ED


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Rereke in 28… well it is a stretch to suggest that would be linked to this lady!

    “Three years later, she became a professor at the University of Colorado, researching high-energy physics, astrophysics and cosmology. She later joined her second husband, Nobel laureate Frank Libby, at UCLA, where she became a professor of environmental studies, engineering, engineering archaeology, mechanical aerospace and nuclear engineering.”


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Dave

    DavidA @ 10

    And we’re supposed to trust this? “Global Geochemisty Corp”

    Global Geochemistry Corp were the leaders in chasing the real polluters in the 1980′s and 1990′s. They did a better job then, than the GREENS are doing today – chasing CO2 polluters ?? CO2 is essential to life on earth. Here’s a tiny sample of their work http://articles.latimes.com/1993-06-01/business/fi-42164_1_firms

    Check yuour facts first!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bruce of Newcastle

    MattB at #25

    Matt – the problem with climate modellers is they are being bitten by their assumptions through the laws of statistics. I know this well since I’ve done lots with both (stats and models).

    Because the solar magnetic effects on Earth’s magnetic field were mostly rising during the 20th Century, as CO2 was rising, the modellers assigned the indirect warming due to the magnetic effects erroneously to CO2e. That is what least squares multivariate analysis does – if two variable happen to be covariate and independent, and you leave one out, the stats assign the variance incorrectly to the second variable, ie CO2.

    This is the problem. Sheer bad luck caused the PDO to bottom in 1900 and top out in 2000 AND indirect solar warming rise across the century. You have to know how multiple regression behaves to be able to fully digest this. I’m not volunteering to explain this to Cate Blanchett.

    What needs to be done is for the GCM people to go back and integrate the solar magnetic effects (eg Enghoff et al 2011, Rao 2011), on top of TSI (which they already have), into their assumptions. If they did that they would have a much better chance of recreating the temperature record. They are starting to include the ocean cycles at least, which is an improvement.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Blimey

    Bruce of Newcastle – “What needs to be done is for the GCM people to go back and integrate the solar magnetic effects (eg Enghoff et al 2011, Rao 2011)”

    It will be interesting to see what becomes of this new research.

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/05/an-incremental-step-blown-up/


    Report this

    00

  • #
    manalive

    There’s one variable which Blimey conveniently omits from his/her endeavors at WoodForTrees.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bruce of Newcastle

    Blimey at #35

    I like his Fig 2 which shows beautiful correlation with the most recent short solar cycle 22 followed by a longer period of falling cloud cover. See peaks at 1987 and 1996. As I said the previous solar cycle length correlates with temperature in the next decade, and Enghoff et al says increased solar magnetism compresses the Earth’s magnetic field thereby decreasing cloud nucleation by cosmic rays. The relationship in Fig 2 is exactly this. Beautiful just beautiful, thanks Blimey I’d not seen that graph before, its a keeper.

    “Perhaps there is an 11 year cycle embedded in the evolution”

    He proves my point by falsification of his own hypothesis! Hah, I love it. Scientific foot in mouth disease! It is not an 11 year cycle it is a cycle which varies from about 9-13 years and the two cycles immediately before the decade 2000-2010 were about 9 years in length. Which says the temperature should be rising. And it did.

    I am intrigued that Gavin’s merry crew of carbon pirates feel the need to address this paper. Running scared? Oh this is gorgeous, what complete own goal.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    Matt B:

    At #25 you assert:

    I disagree – they would consider her a wonderful scientist, and note that her work is generally consistent with the basis of all climate models, just without a consideration for CO2e induced AGW.

    No, it is an accurate prediction made long ago but the climate models are more recent and are already seen to be wrong.

    Section 10.7.1 titled ‘Climate Change Commitment to Year 2300 Based on AOGCMs’
    in the Report from WG1 (i.e. the “science” Working Group) of the most recent IPCC Report (AR4) can be read at
    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch10s10-7.html

    It says:

    “The multi-model average warming for all radiative forcing agents held constant at year 2000 (reported earlier for several of the models by Meehl et al., 2005c), is about 0.6°C for the period 2090 to 2099 relative to the 1980 to 1999 reference period. This is roughly the magnitude of warming simulated in the 20th century. Applying the same uncertainty assessment as for the SRES scenarios in Fig. 10.29 (–40 to +60%), the likely uncertainty range is 0.3°C to 0.9°C. Hansen et al. (2005a) calculate the current energy imbalance of the Earth to be 0.85 W m–2, implying that the unrealised global warming is about 0.6°C without any further increase in radiative forcing. The committed warming trend values show a rate of warming averaged over the first two decades of the 21st century of about 0.1°C per decade, due mainly to the slow response of the oceans. About twice as much warming (0.2°C per decade) would be expected if emissions are within the range of the SRES scenarios.”

    So, the IPCC says “The committed warming trend values show a rate of warming averaged over the first two decades of the 21st century of about 0.1°C per decade”.
    n.b. That is “committed warming” that will occur because of effects in the past.
    And the effect of increase to atmospheric CO2 since 2000 is expected to double that rate of warming to “About twice as much warming (0.2°C per decade)”.

    But there has NOT been a rise in global temperature of “0.2°C per decade” or of “0.1°C per decade” for the first of half of “the first two decades of the 21st century”. Indeed, there has been no discernible rise and probably a slight fall.

    So, for the IPCC prediction to be true then the global temperature must rise by a staggering 0.4°C in the next 10 years. This would be more than half the total rise over the previous century, and only a member of the cult of AGW could think this is a reasonable expectation.
    Indeed, if one accepts the lower limit of the “uncertainty assessment” of “-40%” then the required rise in the next 10 years is at least an incredible 0.24°C.

    What happened to the “committed warming”? Answers on a postcard, please.

    Also, I point out that in 2000 I first made a prediction similar to that of Libby and I have often repeated it including on this blog. That prediction is as follows.

    The climate seems to vary in cycles that are overlaid on each other.

    One cycle seems to have a length of ~900 years and gave us
    the Roman Warm Period (RWP)
    then the Dark Age Cool Period (DACP)
    then the Medieval Warm Period (MWP)
    then the Little Ice (LIA)
    then the Present Warm Period (PWP).

    Another cycle seems to have length of ~60 years and gave us
    cooling prior to ~1900
    warming from ~1900 to ~1940
    cooling from ~1940 to ~1970
    warming from ~1970 to ~2000
    cooling from ~2000 to the present.

    If these cycles continue then either
    (a) cooling – or no warming – will continue until ~1930 when global temperature will resume warming towards the maximum levels it had in the RWP and the MWP
    OR
    (b) at some time before 1930 global temperature will start to cool towards the minimum temperatures it had in the DACP and the LIA.

    Richard


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Ian Hill

    Thanks MattB @2 for that piece of trivia about a great song, despite what Tom Reynolds might think in his book of “The 52 most depressing songs you’ve ever heard”.

    I occasionally come across old newspaper articles about Climate when pursuing one of my other interests. Here’s a good one from September 1951, titled “Glaciers, Icebergs Melt As World Gets Warmer”:
    http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/18233023

    No alarmism, just common sense reporting!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bob Malloy

    O/T:

    Carbon Cate’s, Brighton Residence for sale, just a simple little place, nothing fancy.

    http://blog.findaproperty.com/general/cate-blanchetts-home-sale/


    Report this

    00

  • #
    memoryvault

    manalive @ 36

    Even more interesting if you superimpose the trend for the last twelve months.
    CO2 induced CAGW looks decidedly sick.

    http://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:2001/plot/uah/from:2001/trend/plot/esrl-co2/from:2001/trend/normalise/plot/uah/from:2010/trend


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Siliggy

    All these charts are far too subtle:
    Click HERE


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Nick

    But they’re not climate scientists, so how could they possibly be correct? /sarc


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MadJak

    Hey Bob,

    Maybe Carbon Cate has understood us and has decided to sell her modest place and to donate the proceeds to people who will be too scared to turn on their heaters due to the massive effect of the Carbon tax on everything.

    Oh wait, oh, now that I look at it, she doesn’t appear to care about the amount of damage to the environment of kitting that obscene monstrosity out. What a real environmentalist.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Joe Lalonde

    Jo,

    Gathering up statistics on temperatures for a very small time frame and producing graphs from whatever proxy has shown that climate science is very flawed. Oscillations just show how wild science has fallen off the tracks at looking for anything that can be called a pattern.

    Rather than following the history of the planet to understand what is being achieved, science is just creating it’s own science.
    Long term predictions will never hold up due to the changing of this planets distance and the expansion of the solar system.
    Science has just been looking for a pattern rather than looking into the mechanics and measurements.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark

    Blimey has still to learn the difference between HADCRUT3 (land & SST) and UAH (lower troposphere).

    As I stated once before. Apples… oranges.

    Manalive, Silligy and memoryvault.
    Good work, woodfortrees can be a real *itch cain’t it. Hypothesis falsified.

    The troll will be back with:
    “You’re all in the pay of Big Oil and GM. Just you wait, the heat’s gonna come an’ gitcha… any minute now….(cricket and cicada sounds)….it’s comin’, it’s comin’ I tell ya!….jes you wait a bit longer”, (more cricket and cicada sounds).


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    MattB: #32

    I agree it is a stretch, but that was what Blimey said, near enough, and he certainly didn’t indicate an exception for Applied Physics and Nuclear Engineering. You should really have it out with him.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Siliggy

    Mark:
    May 31st, 2011 at 8:40 pm
    …”Good work, woodfortrees can be a real *itch cain’t it. Hypothesis falsified.”
    Charts are far too easy to manipulate.
    Look at the small change from here to here.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark

    Siliggy:

    I never needed convincing of that. True double-edged swords to be sure.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    TrueNews

    Matt B (Off Topic)
    I am genuinely impressed with the variety of your knowledge Matt.
    .

    BTW
    I nearly considered an ETS today.
    I think the brain numbing experience of reading the Garnaut Reveiw clouded my judgement.

    Then the news that the European ETS is going bust finally brought me to my senses.
    .

    PS
    The Garnaut Reveiw did have it’s high points though, especially where:
    . His figures proved to be inaccurate rubbish.
    . He had to provision $1.5 billion for killing off 20,000 jobs.
    (In ‘selective areas’ – Anyone know Paul Howes phone number?)
    . He had to set up a $1 billion “Energy Security’ fund in case the Power Stations went bust.
    . And to top it all he said that $1.5 billion compensation for Pensioners should be clawed back because they had a recent pay rise.
    .


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Blimey

    manalive – “There’s one variable which Blimey conveniently omits from his/her endeavors at WoodForTrees.”

    Why is it you expect to see a direct relationship between temp and CO2 when the climate experts know that other factors are involved (such as aerosols, solar forcing, land use) and it needs to be at equilibrium which would take many years to reach?

    Just another fine example of a strawman argument.

    Don’t feel bad, memoryvault & Siliggy make the same error.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Blimey

    Bruce of Newcastle – “I like his Fig 2 which shows beautiful correlation with the most recent short solar cycle 22 followed by a longer period of falling cloud cover.”

    I guess you got too excited to bother looking any further, otherwise you would have seen Figure 3 where it’s shown the correlation is weak. And you’re probably aware that correlation does not imply causation.

    You were probably too excited to notice that there is no physical explanation of how the particles grow a million times larger (required for cloud formation). This differs from the theory of CO2 since we do understand quite well how CO2 traps heat.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Blimey

    Richard S Courtney – “cycle cycle cycle”

    “One cycle seems to have a length of ~900 years and gave us”

    Any known physical reason for these cycles?

    What cycle do you have for volcanic eruptions? They have a great impact on surface temps so if you are correct, then you’ve got one for those too – right? I bet you’re two steps ahead and will present geological evidence that supports your 900 year cycle!!

    So where do Bruce of Newcastle’s cycles fall into this, or is he wrong and you’re right?

    Another cycle seems to have length of ~60 years and gave us
    cooling prior to ~1900
    warming from ~1900 to ~1940
    cooling from ~1940 to ~1970
    warming from ~1970 to ~2000
    cooling from ~2000 to the present.

    Funniest 60 year cycle I’ve ever seen.

    I wonder what cycle land use falls into.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Blimey

    Mark – “Blimey has still to learn the difference between HADCRUT3 (land & SST) and UAH (lower troposphere).”

    Gee, let me try. Both are indicators of the climate’s temperature produce by different organisations.

    Both show upward trends over multidecadal periods.

    http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1979/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1979/trend/plot/uah/plot/uah/trend


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Blimey

    Rereke Whakaaro – “but that was what Blimey said, near enough”

    Desperate enough to make crap up now are you?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    TrueNews

    O/T again – but this is a scream.
    Dedicated to Jo, Matt and everyone who has ‘Banking’ experience
    A Must Watch if you want our future explained.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_3T-Af57Pg&feature=related


    Report this

    00

  • #
    TrueNews

    @Blimey

    The cycle you are on Girl, lasts 4 days and comes every month.
    Get used to it.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark

    The troll-bot is stuck in a loop. For all the bluster, can’t learn anything, can’t forget anything and can’t falsify the AGW hypothesis. If it’s not falsifiable, it’s not science.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    DavidA

    OK, judging by the thumbs down you guys aren’t with me in thinking Dr Libby was sent back in time from the future?

    Tough crowd.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    John from CA

    Just ran across this link in a WUWT thread comment and thought it might be an interesting addition to this topic but its worth pointing out that the IPCC doesn’t project any AGW impact until about 2040 [CURRY] so the Syun Akasofu graph is curious:

    http://oi56.tinypic.com/2reh021.jpg


    Report this

    00

  • #
    John from CA

    Scenarios: 2010-2030. Part I
    by Judith Curry
    source: http://judithcurry.com/2010/12/23/scenarios-2010-2030-part-i/

    “While the CMIP3 20th century simulations used in the AR4 show some average skill on subcontinental scales (e.g. the U.S.), they show little skill on regional scales, and  none in many regions (notably the southeastern U.S., which is a location that I have investigated closely.)”

    “The IPCC AR4 projected a near term global average temperature increase of 0.2C per decade.  Further, the AR4 showed  an insensitivity of global average surface temperature to emission scenarios prior to about 2060.” [Note: I added the bolding]

    Comments under the article pointed to Scafetta’s paper (http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/climate_change_cause.pdf) which projects natural warming occurring by about 2040. [corrected]ED

    The Point:
    If the IPCC isn’t projecting an AGW impact until 2060, what is all the MSM and Eco-zealot nonsense about?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    John from CA

    oops, correction to my last post:

    …which projects natural warming occurring by about 1940. s/b …which projects natural warming occurring by about 2040.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    Blimey:

    Thankyou for displaying the depth of your stupity at #53.

    Firstly, my post at #38 mentioned well-known apparent climate cycles and you ask:

    Any known physical reason for these cycles?

    What cycle do you have for volcanic eruptions? They have a great impact on surface temps so if you are correct, then you’ve got one for those too – right? I bet you’re two steps ahead and will present geological evidence that supports your 900 year cycle!!

    No. The physical reason for the cycles is not known.
    (Personally, I think the cycles are apparent and result from the chaotic climate system seeking its strange atractors, but that is merely a hypothesis with no more to support it than the AGW hypothesis.)

    That is how science is done:
    (a) an effect is observed.
    (b) a hypothesis to explain the effect is evinced.
    (c) predictions of the hypothesis are compared to observations of the real world.
    (e) if all those predictions are confirmed by the observations then the hypothesis becomes a theory.
    (f) if any one or more of those predictions is refuted by the observations then the hypothesis or theorem must be amended or rejected.

    I know this science thing seems very strange to warmistas, but science has provided great benefits for centuries.

    Of course, there is an alternative to science and it is called pseudoscience. This alternative consists of adopting a hypothesis as being true, ignoring all observations of reality which refute the hypothesis, then seeking anything which seems to confirm the hypothesis. Pseudoscience takes many forms; e.g. astrology, palmistry, AGW climate science, etc..

    Please note that my post at #38 (which you are replying) begins by reporting an important prediction of the AGW hypothesis which is denied by observation of reality.

    Volcanic eruptions are not known to occur in cycles. Their climate effect is transitory cooling and lasts about 3 years each so is not relevant to what I wrote.

    The evidence for the ~900 year cycle comes from studies of geology, proxies and archaelogy conducted around the world. I could cite some but you have already explained that you are unwilling to read references.

    Then you ask:

    So where do Bruce of Newcastle’s cycles fall into this, or is he wrong and you’re right?

    Your question is another demonstration of your reading difficulties. I wrote:

    The climate seems to vary in cycles that are overlaid on each other.

    I then mentioned two cycles. I did NOT say there are ONLY two cycles.
    So, Bruce of Newcastle and I could both be right, one of us may be wrong, or both of us may be wrong. That is how science works: I commend it to you instead of the pseudoscience you believe in.

    Your final point is plain daft. I said:

    Another cycle seems to have length of ~60 years and gave us …

    I then cited the approximate dates of the max. and min. values of succesive cycles. Those values suggest most cycles each of 60 years length and one of 70 years length.

    You queried why one cycle seems to have 70 years length. This results from “~” which means approximately. Successive periods of approximately 60 years and rounded to the nearest 10 years will provide occasional indications of 70 years length. However, your query may not have been stupidity: it could be that your often demonstrated reading difficulties include your ignorance of the meaning of “~”.

    I offer you some kindly advice. An effective troll disrupts debate and that is not achieved by demonstrations of idiocy such as your post at #53.

    Richard
    [typo repaired]ED


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    John from CA:

    At #61 you say:

    The Point:
    If the IPCC isn’t projecting an AGW impact until 2060, what is all the MSM and Eco-zealot nonsense about?

    With respect, that is a misunderstanding. The IPCC says adoption of emission scenarios now will change future AGW but that mitigation to AGW will not be observable until 2060.

    My post at #38 above links to the relevant part of IPCC AR4 which provides prediction of AGW in the near term. As that post explains, the predictions are already seen to be very, very dubious.

    Richard


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    Eyeballing all the past data it is quite obvious that temperatures tend to cycle and pulse impacted by both long-term and short-term effects. What I find amusing is when people put straight lines, or worse still, exponential fits to short-term data and think that it is somehow representative of the long-term state of the system. That’s where the first graph is by far the best representation of the lunacy of the IPCC.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    AndyG55

    I really hope this report is not correct.(similar conclusion to Easterbrook).
    A drop in world temps of the magnitude mentioned would be catastrophic, especially for places like the UK who have taken the robustness out of their energy supply system because of the adoption of inconsistent and unreliable alternative sources.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Damian Allen

    Well, Mr Garnaut has decided that offering more compensation is the key to winning over voters. Someone has to pay for that compensation. You should be very weary of a Government in debt offering you money.
    What Garnaut layed out today was a new revenue stream to deliver Welfare to Low-Income earners and to a means tested Middle Class.
    That can only be funded by more Taxes or a higher rate of Carbon Tax payed by The Wealthy and the Middle Class. Instead of raising GST The Government will just bump up the Carbon Tax just like Britain is doing right now and then claim to be rescuing the environment.
    They are not leading The World in fighting Climate Change they are leading The World in the introduction of a new Consumption Tax.
    This whole thing is one giant Scam.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    Blimey: #55

    Desperate enough to make crap up now are you?

    Not in this instance, no. Although I am used to dealing, on a daily basis, with professionals who are paid to be “economical with the truth”. Unfortunately, science is not supposed to be one of those professions … oh well …

    Now, the crap of which you speak comes from your own keyboard … on the “Worst Cookbook Interview” thread:

    You can pretend it doesn’t exist and instead follow a non-climate scientist like Nova and her 20 page pamphlet which contains little substance.
    If I were making decisions that affect the well-being of this planet, I wouldn’t be taking her advice over that of the climate experts.

    Joanne is an educator in the field of science. She, with the assistance of “her 20 page pamphlet”, makes the science available to those people who have little scientific training so they can make their own decisions on the matter, thus reducing the impact of the appeal to authority implied by, “the advice of the climate experts”. I don’t need to write the crap, the climate scientists do a reasonably good job (if often amateurish).

    And again, from the same thread:

    … you need to differentiate between scientists and climate scientists …

    And we do. The reason for this blog, after all, is to point out all of the logically inconsistent crap (your word, not mine) that the climate scientists espouse.

    And while I have your attention (you just knew this was coming, didn’t you), where is the paper you promised me that describes the experiments establishing that there is a positive feedback between CO2 and water vapor? Your eager fans are waiting to hear.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    John from CA

    Richard S Courtney #64

    Thanks, I check out the links on #38.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tom

    The Blimey troll posted 13 times on this thread between 3.51pm and 11.32pm (AEST) yesterday. I think you’ll find it follows student/unemployed hours, which explains its apparent predilection for religion, fashion, recreational substances, scary videos, AGW, etc.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    So there they go again!

    And under that heading

    Cell phones are now carcinogens like coffee.

    I hope they’re paying these people Bob Hope’s price for their performance because they sure are a bunch of comedians.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    Tom: #70

    Yes the timing would place him/her/it in Eastern Australia, but we shouldn’t read too much into that.

    What is more interesting, is that a quick word analysis of the comments implies that he/she/it may consist of more than one personality. It was a quick analysis though – more to satisfy my personal curiosity than anything else, so I wouldn’t read too much into that either.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    PeterD

    It’s ok, DavidA at #10, I get it.

    Unfortunately a sense of humour isn’t to be taken for granted; abuse of the ‘D’ word and emotionally loaded arguments have dulled our wits. Climate isn’t the only ‘sensitivity’.

    Humour may be interpreted as a dilution of outrage when it comes to the truly abominable political agenda that concern for ‘climate’ is intended to mask.

    I tend to object to ridicule as a debating technique, but in the case of Alarmists (oh heck, I let slip the ‘A’ word) I’ll make an exception.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    Roy Hogue: #71

    What a hoot!

    A respected international panel of scientists says cellphones are possible cancer-causing agents, putting them in the same category as the pesticide DDT, gasoline engine exhaust and coffee.

    Bring back DDT so we can have the entire set … but hey, they didn’t mention smoking and deep vein thrombosis – epic fail.

    And, as a bonus, we have our “respected international panel of scientists” who are anonymous, but obviously out to make a name for themselves.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bruce of Newcastle

    Blimey at #53

    Ah Fig 3, a poorly reproduced grey swatch of vague not very much. With a statement saying:

    “But when you look at the scatter plot, the link is not very visible (if you ignore the fitted lines). The reason for this is that this link is very weak.”

    So what do Harrison and Stephenson say, who wrote the paper?

    “The diffuse radiation changes are, therefore, unambiguously due to cosmic rays. Although the statistically significant nonlinear cosmic ray effect is small, it will have a considerably larger aggregate effect on longer timescale (e.g. centennial) climate variations when day-to-day variability averages out.”

    Hmm, a “considerably larger aggregate effect”?

    OK, also note they are measuring neutron count. Blimey, can you explain to my poor ignorant scientists brain why a compressed terrestrial magnetic field would modulate neutrons?

    I think this is RC’s own goal number two. Soon they will get into the champions league. Blimey, do you want to try your luck again with Fig 4 next…?

    Oh this is so much fun.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Blimey

    Richard S Courtney:

    I agree there are many natural cycles on this planet, but also as I pointed out there are some effects such as volcanoes and the effect of land use which follow no cycle. The problem with ALL cycle theories is that eventually if you go forward or backward in time, the theory falls over.

    Yes I do like the way science works.

    http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm#S2

    That’s why I’m in no hurry to overturn more than 100 years of science for your “cycle” theory. We know the radiaitive property of CO2 can account for the additional warmth experienced today. Why invent come up with a new cycle theory, which doesn’t work, has no physical basis and has the same “correlation is not causation” issue?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    Blimey:

    You assert:

    That’s why I’m in no hurry to overturn more than 100 years of science for your “cycle” theory.

    What “100 years of science”?

    Don’t you really mean 30 years of the pseudoscience that has supplanted much of climate science?

    Richard


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    I see Blimey now quotes Daily Kos. Well at least it’s a comic strip — sort of, anyway.

    Blimey from post 35.

    “What needs to be done is for the GCM people to go back and…”

    What needs to be done is go back to the beginning and take a good look at how all this started. They didn’t ask, “Is there a problem or not?” They always asked, “How bad would the problem be?” That there was a problem was a given from day zero. They asked the wrong question and everything after that has been garbage so smelly that no honest man or woman wants to touch it.

    For two professors with supposedly good science credentials at the college where I used to teach to preach after Al Gore, “No more debate is possible.” Made me ashamed of the institution. That they said this in a public meeting in front of students and other faculty and no one called them on it was all the more shameful.

    Damn you Blimey! There never has been a problem. There isn’t one now. And there’s never going to be a problem. There’s only a solution to nothing, looking for a place to hang its hat where it can do maximum damage.

    And you’ve signed on to it for the same reason that most have done so — for no better reason than so you can feel like a big wheel. But you’re not! You’re just a tiny little man like I am, like the rest of us are. You’re a tiny spec of nothing about which the world cares not one bit; a spec that can be swatted out of existence as easily as you can squash an ant that gets under your shoe.

    You are the worst most arrogant troll I’ve ever seen here. You offend me. You offend good judgment. You offend wisdom by having none. And last but not by any means the least, you are only one more of a long line of such “visitors” we get who come thinking they’ll show the world a thing or two, only to leave again when they discover that we are unbendingly certain of our position and can give you sound evidence and argument to support it. I don’t know who teaches or coaches you or who you follow. But you’re going down the wrong road.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    John from CA

    Richard S Courtney #64 and #38

    I went back and reread the 2 Chapter summaries that relate to their temperature forecasts; 3 and 10.

    AR4: Chapter 10 Executive Summary
    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch10s10-es-1-mean-temperature.html

    They do project (forecast) about 0.3°C / decade increase from 2011-2030. But, they go on to state, “…is consistent with that observed for the past few decades” and “about half of the early 21st-century warming is committed in the sense that it would occur even if atmospheric concentrations were held fixed at year 2000 values”.

    “By mid-century (2046–2065), the choice of scenario becomes more important for the magnitude of multi-model globally averaged SAT warming, with values of +1.3°C, +1.8°C and +1.7°C ….”

    Dr. Curry’s statement, “The IPCC AR4 projected a near term global average temperature increase of 0.2°C per decade. Further, the AR4 showed an insensitivity of global average surface temperature to emission scenarios prior to about 2060.”

    If “early 21st-century warming is committed” (regardless of GHG emissions) until 2046–2060, isn’t that essentially saying “AR4 showed an insensitivity of global average surface temperature to emission scenarios prior to about 2060″? I realize the AR4 report sites increased weather events but they also seem to be contradicting themselves related to the true cause and may have miscalculated natural cycle forcing.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Blimey

    Rereke Whakaaro: “Not in this instance, no.”

    Yes you did.

    Your words

    But no doubt the “real climate scientists” will disparage her as an Applied Scientist and Engineer, and therefore unworthy of consideration.

    My words

    You can pretend it doesn’t exist and instead follow a non-climate scientist like Nova and her 20 page pamphlet which contains little substance.
    If I were making decisions that affect the well-being of this planet, I wouldn’t be taking her advice over that of the climate experts.

    There’s a big difference between the credentials of Dr. Libby and that of Joanne Nova.

    “Joanne is an educator in the field of science”

    And not very good in my opinion. She has yet to “educate” me about what the heck the magical “recovery from little ice age” force is all about.

    [What part of "it started warming before we started building coal powered stations", don't you (who ever you are) get? -- JN]

    From MattB on Dr Libby, “Three years later, she became a professor at the University of Colorado, researching high-energy physics, astrophysics and cosmology. She later joined her second husband, Nobel laureate Frank Libby, at UCLA, where she became a professor of environmental studies, engineering, engineering archaeology, mechanical aerospace and nuclear engineering.”

    Contrast that to Joanne Nova who, since completing her science degree in molecular biology has never written/published a scientific paper, [snip irrelevant ad hom stuff]. If I were making decisions that affect the well-being of this planet, I wouldn’t be taking Nova’s advice over that of the climate experts.

    [See my point about not breaking laws of reason and using ad hom attacks below -- JN]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mike W

    I really hope we can keep “Blimey” here..
    I am still not sure if he is not a creation of some sceptic here for our own amusement…
    Come on people fess up.. :)
    Is “Blimey” real …he dances..he weaves..and oh he does deceive..
    No more demanding just one example blimey and then going down in flames.. LOL
    Ya wont try that little game again will ya Blimey.. :)
    and again
    pay tax on Co2 to make the weather better..even though it wont make the weather better..
    Should i use the term climate instead in my mantra to make sure I eliminate a jack in the box response from a comedic troll.?
    Link
    I was told on a believers site that bringing up reality like this is actually..in this postmodernist/Orwellian world..drum roll…is a Logical fallacy
    Bold for “Blimey” to understand better…
    How funny is that..
    Even if “people” like “Blimey” actually believe the science is 100% perfect..guffaw..guffaw.. how must they twist and turn to actually face the truth that the taxes will do nothing..
    Ignore it i say..attack..disassemble..obfuscate..


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    check the smokestack and garnaut promise to compensate households at the top of this orwellian beauty. more than 80 angry comments so far:

    1 June: Courier Mail: Steven Wardill: Consumers hit with 6.6% power bill increase because we didn’t use enough over summer
    Power prices have now soared by more than 60 per cent since the State Government promised deregulation of the industry in the southeast would put downward pressure on prices…
    Those costs have now been attached to electricity prices for 2011-12, meaning households will pay extra for not using enough power this financial year. “Between 2009 and 2010 the load decreased by 2.13 per cent, reflecting the more benign temperatures during the latter months of 2010,” the QCA said in a statement.
    Energy Minister Stephen Robertson described the outcome as “perverse” but said consumers would benefit in years when they used more power than predicted.
    “As perverse as it sounds there has been a slight upward adjustment to take into account the mild summer,” he said.
    “But next year we could have a very hot summer and the reverse would apply under those circumstances.”…
    The authority also found the Federal Government’s Renewable Energy Target, which will require that 20 per cent of all power be produced from renewable sources by 2020, also contributed to the price increases.
    Queensland Council of Social Service president Karyn Walsh said the increase would push more low-income households further into poverty and targeted government assistance was needed.
    http://www.couriermail.com.au/money/money-matters/power-play-hits-struggling-families/story-fn3hskur-1226066795854


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Blimey

    Bruce of Newcastle – “Hmm, a “considerably larger aggregate effect”?”

    Yeah, wouldn’t it be nice if they could quantify that, even roughly, and perhaps also support that with evidence.

    Seems like just another “IT MUST BE ANYTHING BUT CO2″ argument. The amount of different, contradicting, unsupported guesses as to what causes the warming in this thread alone is laughable!! Oh gee it would be a task but I wonder how many contradicting “IT’S NOT CO2!!!” theories there are in this forum.

    “OK, also note they are measuring neutron count. Blimey, can you explain to my poor ignorant scientists brain why a compressed terrestrial magnetic field would modulate neutrons?”

    No, I’ll gladly defer that to the experts, and when you have a point to make, let me know.

    “I think this is RC’s own goal number two. Soon they will get into the champions league. Blimey, do you want to try your luck again with Fig 4 next…?”

    I already did, perhaps you were too excited again?

    Then to expidite things, how about Figure 5 showing no long term correlation between GCR and global temperature.

    [Well one of us volunteer moderators had to be the one to pull the pin on Blimey. It's me. Until you learn to actually answer a question, you are moderated. Defer no more to the experts, Troll. plead your case with Jo if you'd like] ED

    P.S. for the record I think you are TWinkler and Brendon how close am I?

    P.P.S.

    The casual observer to this forum will seeing numerous personal attacks against me
    instead of people seriously debating the issue.

    Truly what most casual observers will see is that you failed to seriously debate at nearly every turn.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Damian Allen

    “Blimey” [snip] ED………..


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Blimey

    Richard S Courtney – “What “100 years of science”?”

    As spelled out in the link I provided.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Blimey

    Roy Hogue – “only to leave again when they discover that we are unbendingly certain of our position

    Guess what Roy. It’s not you, or anyone of the regulars here that I writing for or trying to convince.

    It’s the casual person that might stumble across this thread in a google search for enlightenment.

    Your statement above is a great example of why people looking for answers on climate change will eventually reject the so called “skeptical” view voiced here and instead see that the science isn’t never 100% sure of something, that there is much more to be learned, but that the climate scientists, those that actually study the climate for a living rather than write political opinion pieces, have very good confidence in the science showing why greenhouse gases warm this planet.

    The casual observer to this forum will seeing numerous personal attacks against me instead of people seriously debating the issue.

    [What "personal" attacks? You are an anonymous non entity. -- JN]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    val majkus

    Alan Jones talking to Prof Carter on 31/5
    http://www.2gb.com/index2.php?option=com_newsmanager&task=view&id=9032
    well worth listening to
    I’ve never heard Prof Carter so angry


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Damian Allen

    “Blimey” is suffering from the Mental Delusion that the Earth can be cooled from a room in Canberra…..


    Report this

    00

  • #
    John from CA

    As an aside, I was commenting on a blog related to Uncertainty, risk, and (in)action and it occurred to me that the (in)action part of the debate is very interesting.

    Let’s throw CO2 out of the equation for the moment, its a by-product of the real problem, and reframe the debate around what if anything can be implemented to save the taxpayer some money and improve the human condition.

    Solar, Wind, and perhaps even geo-thermal are not mature technologies and lack ROEI and return on investment at this point. If they were profitable, industry would be throwing all sorts of money at them and consuming them by the ton.

    The question is what action? It seems logical to conclude, taxing the general masses to implement junk solutions is the most wasteful action possible.

    If viable solutions were presented, there simply isn’t a need for the climate science debate. Isn’t the real problem inefficiency, lack of holistic engineering, and lack of viable solutions to implement? And, isn’t Politics the last place we’re likely to find viable solutions?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Blimey

    Printscreen, scroll, printscreen. Thanks Mod, I’ve got the screenshots. Perfect for my next article. ;)

    [What do you think I care about your next article? But I think I'll leave this up for all those "casual Googlers" to see the real Blimey.]ED


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Blimey

    Nothing like heavy moderation to blank out the arguments I make.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Blimey

    Sorry to those who were expecting a reply, it seems the mods don’t want me to anymore. Which is a shame, I really was looking forward to Circus performer “educating” me on what the “recovery from the little ice age” force was all about and how it’s still active today.

    [This is a great way to get banned, by dominating threads with inanities and repetition. Remind me how much you pay me to be at your 24 hour beck and call to answer your banal questions? -- JN]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bruce of Newcastle

    Blimey at #82

    Ah, yes I was too excited. Re Fig 4 you may wish to look up a few concepts like surface charge and the behaviour of sulfuric acid. You know: ‘iep’, ‘pzc’, I’m sure you are abreast of these concepts. It perhaps is irrelevant that I once was able to enter a sulfur trioxide absorption tower (in a longline suit), whereupon I could not see because of the vast amounts of white vapour produced on contact with atmopheric moisture. But I defer to RC’s ignorance about how particles grow from nuclei a millionfold to a size half the wavelength of light in a short time. Perhaps they might want to talk to someone from the pigment industry who do this with every batch?

    And our esteemed friend Fig 5, which I immediately notice does not actually use their own temperature dataset, even though the label it thus. All those lumps and bumps in that rather unusual version of the world temperature record. Which I might add has undergone remarkable changes over the years. One could almost think they could change the past, or start the graph at an unusual year?

    And I note how carefully RC chooses not to include a trendline in the CLIMAX data, which IS included elsewhere. And they inverted it so including a trend line would be awfully inconvenient since it would rise across the dataset. I think I might have mentioned covariance a post or so ago?

    If find it amazing that you manage somehow claim ‘no correlation between GCR and temperature’ by using a RC post which not only cites a paper which confirms such a correlation AND carefully uses both X and Y scale choices to try and hide this correlation in their own data.

    Own goal three. I won’t claim Fig 4 as it is hard to say 3 circles and a line mean much of anything.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    [Well one of us volunteer moderators had to be the one to pull the pin on Blimey. It's me. Until you learn to actually answer a question, you are moderated. Defer no more to the experts, Troll. plead your case with Jo if you'd like] ED

    :-) !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :-)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Printscreen, scroll, printscreen. Thanks Mod, I’ve got the screenshots. Perfect for my next article.

    Did I say arrogant? I apologize Blimey, I was wrong. But I won’t say what I really think. Only an obscenity I choose not to use could possibly describe you.

    Have fun as your country goes down the drain!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    You reckon

    I think the saddest thing here is that the pro-AGW camp have effectively given proper science a bad through offering “Cash for clunkers”.

    When the leadership at once solid places like C***O were politicised some years ago,
    the “science:” became a joke in the climate space, as th egovt was calling the tune by holding the prospect of non-renewal of tender if they dont come up with the “right” answers. He who pays the piper calls the tune.

    Now we have many scientists who now have close to zero cred, being caught either falsifying data or telling outright lies.

    Science suffers when its not being honest – if you look at the raw data ( Vostock ice cores comes to mind ) you see the reality.

    The root cause of most wars, preventable famines and resultant disease, are politicians. Pure and simple.

    Politicans, once again, have screwed the population over.

    Its time to squarely hold them to account.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tom

    Roy Hogue #90: The young climate zombies think their parents’ fabulous property wealth just “happened” and that unemployment under 5% is just how it’s always been. So they think just another tax is water off a duck’s back for Australia, in spite of the fact that Australia’s everyday cost of living is up to three times higher than elsewhere, going on a brief trip of mine to the US in May. Australian wage and salary earners are being slaughtered by one of the least competitive economies on earth and economic indicators are now showing how close the bubble is to bursting. Government spending is also out of control, rising from $200 billion to $365 billion since 2006-07. And we’re going to give even more to the government in the name of feelgood junk science.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bruce of Newcastle

    OT, sorry, but following Bulldust’s comments I’ve had another comment not published by the Oz, this time to Paul Kelly’s article. I don’t know why, seemed appropriate and polite:

    “And Dr Alan Carlin’s report is the intellectual repudiation of Prof Garnaut’s position. In it he points out that action to abate carbon emissions is unsupported by science and would be economically catastrophic. He should know, he was for 36 years a strategy analyst and research director for the USEPA, and was gagged by the director before resigning in protest. He has a BS in physics and a PhD in economics. His report has now been published as a peer reviewed paper in a science journal (Carlin, A., Int J Env Res & Public Health, Apr 2011). Prof Garnaut should read it.”

    Carlin 2011 for our young friend Blimey’s continuing education.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    thRealUniverse

    Climate “scientists”
    So called climate scientists ‘try to’ study long term trends but not usually include paleoclimate as per experts like Plimmer and Carter. AND theyre NOT often physisicts.see Piers Corbyn- astrophysicist.

    Well on the cold..here it is
    http://www.theage.com.au/national/coldest-may-on-record-for-darwin-20110531-1fe1x.html?rand=1306817455785
    http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/city-has-coldest-may-in-40-years-20110531-1fdxz.html
    AND the NH is still freezing with record snow and its June!
    The warmists are getting natures come-upance ! Yup no warming since 1998.
    Before you warmists say cold = hot..It doesnt, its unphysical.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    incoherent rambler

    This must be a full time job for Blimey. I hope my taxes are not paying for the salary!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    memoryvault

    Roy Hogue @ 78

    Excellent post Roy, but there is just one thing I have to disagree with you about.

    There IS a problem. A very big and very serious problem.

    Notwithstanding the resident idiot’s rantings, the observable fact is that climate is cyclical; we have just been through a warming cycle, and now we are going into a cooler cycle.

    The last cooling cycle from the 1940’s to the 1970’s was a relatively mild one – more a “plateau” than a substantive cooling, with a subsequent limited effect on agriculture and society.

    Further, the world was rebuilding and expanding after WWII. Western countries had surplus agricultural production and an excess and growing capacity in power generation (principally electricity). Above all there was the political will to grow and prosper. There was abundant capital to invest in infrastructure.

    Conversely, observation of past cycles and their attendant causes and proxies (sunspot activity, PDO, AMO etc) tend to suggest this coming cooling phase will be both vicious and lengthy.

    Unlike last time we are entering this potentially dangerous cooling phase with some 40% (and growing) of the western world’s surplus food-producing capacity diverted to the manufacture of biofuels. Ultimately as a result of the eco-Fascists preoccupation with the Green Hoax Effect.

    We are entering it a time when most western nations are suffering critical shortages of reliable base-load power-generation capacity, having squandered some twenty years of investment instead on futile windmills and toy solar panels. Ultimately as a result of the eco-Fascists preoccupation with the Green Hoax Effect.

    We are entering this dangerous period when most of the world’s developed nations are technically bankrupt. There simply is no abundance of capital to invest to reverse these situations, even if the political will to do so existed. But it does not. Politics in most western nations has been reduced to the level of a school-yard popularity contest.

    Above all, there is no time left to address these issues, even if we had the means and the will to do it.

    It really doesn’t matter whether one ascribes humanity’s current situation to planned conspiracy or arrogant incompetence. The end result is going to be death on a scale not even contemplated since perhaps the days of the Plague.

    And that IS a problem.

    History will record today’s “environmentalists” as responsible for one of the greatest mass-genocides of all time.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Memory vault:

    History will record today’s “environmentalists” as responsible for one of the greatest mass-genocides of all time.

    You are probably right but most of those “environmentalists” will be happy about the reduction in population.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    I see Blimey got the best of himself. What is with these idiotlogic trolls?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bruce of Newcastle

    Rambler at #95

    You are right on the money. I’d posted a tip at WUWT with a slight mistake and a correction and Blimey had read it within minutes – and touched on in post #82. Busy guy.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    memoryvault

    Mark D @ 97

    Probably.

    But they’ll be less than happy with the arrival of several million “climate” refugees from Great Britain, Ireland, Northern and Eastern Europe and the Scandinavian states.

    Or with the inevitable WWIII and subsequent conscription which will surely follow.

    You reckon Blimey’s about the right age? Sort of incongruous to picture him in uniform with a gun.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Patrick

    Here is a small test for Garneau, Gillard & Gang, and others who want to vandalise our economy in the name of ‘saving the planet’.

    5% reduction of of Australia’s 1.4% of human emissions of 3% is ?

    And we’ll be paying how much for this?
    What impact will this reduction have on the climate? None measurable.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Patrick

    Here is a small test for Garneau, Gillard & Gang, and others who want to vandalise our economy in the name of ‘saving the planet’.

    5% reduction of of Australia’s 1.4% of human emissions of 3% is ?

    And we’ll be paying how much for this?
    What impact will this reduction have on the climate? None measurable.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Memoryvault @ 100

    You reckon Blimey’s about the right age? Sort of incongruous to picture him in uniform with a gun.

    No I don’t see him with a gun either. C.O. maybe but if he was drafted he would do well to watch his own back, if you know what I mean.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Blimey, I don’t want to moderate your comments. But after 21 comments on this thread you can hardly pretend your views are stifled. You are dominating the thread, contributing little, and keep posting comments that break laws of reason – using argument from authority and ad hom attacks is enough to get you disqualified. We have a logic bar here, if you can’t reach it, don’t bother posting.

    As for your accusations that I haven’t published a peer reviewed scientific paper — 1. Who cares? My publishing record doesn’t make my arguments right or wrong, and 2. By the way, as it happens, from my humble honours project I published two.

    Blimey, stick to polite scientific points, and you may keep posting here. Dominate threads with comments that break laws of reason and you will lose that.

    Actually, I would have turfed you out long ago, but there are so few of the pro-AGW team who can talk politely, I settle for anonymous cowards who throw trash because life is dull without any dissent.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    AndyG55

    “As for your accusations that I haven’t published a peer reviewed scientific paper”

    We must remember that a sizable percentage of the IPCC reports is based on non-peer-reviewed papers and articles… referred to as “grey literature”,… and they refuse to put the effort in to mark what is peer-reviewed and what isn’t, so one must make the assumption that no particular article from the IPCC is peer-reviewed.

    Any AGW supporter who brings up the peer-reviewed issue is on very shaky ground.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    connolly

    Richard @ your trouncing replies to troll boy
    It is an extremely cold and grey day over here as i trudge through Garnaut’s latest ex cathedra epistle to the nation. You not only improved my understanding in your reply to the latest village idiot to troll here but lifted my spirits with one of the finest jobs of bayoneting the intellectually wounded i have read for some time. More power to your elbow.
    This may be a little off topic but the latest reports from the ALP bunker is that the only issue for the hard men (yes Virgina they are still only men) of the Victorian and NSW right is just how to take Julia outside (she will be gone for some time) with as little electoral damage as possible. Its no longer “if” but how, as the Governor General’s son in law prepares to take up a short term lease on the Lodge.
    And it just gets worse for the ALP as Garnaut’s report is a valedictory for the ALP in the steelmaking regions of NSW, SA and Victoria. After blithely ascribing all the current problems of the steel industry to the strong dollar (a line of spin that got Combet a well deserved retort of jeers and heckling when he tried it on steelworkers in Port Kembla)- this is how Gillard’s advisor deals with the concerns and protests of Bluescope and unionists in our region about the immanent destruction of the industry’s international competativeness due to their tax on carbon dioxide:
    When we tally these forces, it is clear that the public utterances and allegiance of BlueScope’s capital and labour champions is a claim for protection against the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, not any soundly based concern arising from the carbon price.”
    It isnt just the appalling quality of the analysis that rankles but the contempt that drips from Garnaut’s pen. The electoral consequences of which the ALP will wear into the next election along with that for their lies and indifference.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    AndyG55

    “epistle to the nation” correction .. “pissle on the nation”


    Report this

    00

  • #
    JPeden

    Joe Lalonde says:

    Rather than following the history of the planet to understand what is being achieved, science is just creating it’s own science.

    Yes, I guess they never noticed the pitfalls of inbreeding.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Llew Jones

    “CARBON DIOXIDE: FRIEND OR FOE?”

    “The supposed explanation that global warming is due to increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide from our burning of fossil fuels turns out to be based upon little more than circumstantial evidence. It is partly a symptom of our rather primitive understanding of how the climate system works.”

    And I predict that the proposed cure for global warming – reducing greenhouse gas emissions – will someday seem as outdated as using leeches to cure human illnesses.”

    Roy Spencer on “The Great Global Warming Blunder”

    Though Blimey is very obviously not intellectually equipped to intelligently discuss the pros and cons of ACC he did provide a stimulus to consider one’s own position (sort of is this skeptic as unaware and as biased as this troll?). Better equipped alarmist scientists are at least able to present more reasonable arguments for their position than he is.

    My rejection of the alarmist position is based not so much on the basis of what are sometimes pretty arcane points of difference on a range of climate change topics but rather on the sort of “commonsense” approach typified in Spencer’s comments above. I noticed recently that when Dyson Freeman was challenged by a UK journalist to argue against a specific alarmist point he refused to do so. Rather it seems his position is that the alarmist position is not defeated by attacking some supposed evidence on a certain point or fragment of the alarmist science. From memory and his other comments Freeman’s approach is similar to Spencer.

    My sense is that their approach, having looked at the science behind the alarmist AGW and ACC position in the broader context of scientific knowledge have made the judgment that the alarmist position is based on a lack of knowledge of the variables involved. Ignoring that missing evidence it seems to me is what most invalidates the alarmist position, particularly in terms of output from the models used.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    Jo: #109

    What ever happened to Eddy Aruda?

    He may have been blunt with the trolls, but at least he kept them occupied while the rest of us got on with business. I, for one, miss his presence here.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Dave

    Lew @ 114

    If your prediction comes true

    And I predict that the proposed cure for global warming – reducing greenhouse gas emissions – will someday seem as outdated as using leeches to cure human illnesses

    – do you think that those responsible (in ignorance) for the AGW etc and CO2 Tax should be held accountable at some point in the future. Or is their ignorance partly driven by greed and hence they are then accountable?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Joe Lalonde

    JPeden #113

    That is a hoot! :-)

    In a way, yes, scientists have inbred to produce “Mini-Me’s”.
    No looking outside the box that they have created for themselves.
    Loosing what was once called “common sense” for backing traditional theories and teachings no matter what technology is created.
    Never to review old science in case their is a mistake made.

    Actually many mistakes made.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    lmwd

    Bruce # 98

    I also submitted a comment to that piece and it didn’t get up. I suggested Kelly read Carter et al’s audit in Quadrant for the sake of his readers…..

    I wasn’t really expecting the comment to make it through (even though polite, it was a little pointed and I did say the science was shaky and call the Gillard Govt’s actions on this issue unethical), but we always have to try to get our message out, as brc once said.

    Jo, as someone who has written pieces for the Australian, do you moderate which comments get through in that publication or is there someone else who does it for you?

    The reason I’m asking is sometimes I don’t care whether the comment gets up, my target audience is actually the writer.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    John from CA:

    Thankyou for your excellent post at #79.
    Its dispute of what I said is an example of real discussion which is in stark contrast to the nonsense we get from Trolls such as Blimey. Its final paragraph asks me and asserts to me:

    If “early 21st-century warming is committed” (regardless of GHG emissions) until 2046–2060, isn’t that essentially saying “AR4 showed an insensitivity of global average surface temperature to emission scenarios prior to about 2060″? I realize the AR4 report sites increased weather events but they also seem to be contradicting themselves related to the true cause and may have miscalculated natural cycle forcing.

    Your question gets to the nub of the issue.
    Before, addressing it I point out that I have published my views on the SRES scenarios and that I scorn them. So, my response is not to defend the SRES scenarios but intends to explain them. (If you email me I will send you a copy of my paper on the SRES scenarios).

    The underlying assumption of the IPCC scenarios is that “committed warming” results from energy being stored in the oceans. This energy gets released to the atmosphere in later decades and induces the “committed warming”. (n.b. my post at #38 explains that this “committed warming” is probably a myth). So, the total warming increases at a higher than linear rate with time as both “committed warming” and ‘instant’ warming increase.

    Therefore, initiation of a mitigation has no discernible effect for some time. The mitigation reduces the relatively small ‘instant’ warming and reduces the energy going into the storage in the oceans but does not alter the “committed warming”.

    Then, as decades pass, the ‘instant’ warming continues to be reduced and – importantly – the reduced input to the store of energy in the oceans reduces the “committed warming” and so the mitigation becomes discernible.

    Thus, the argument is that an emission scenario has an immediate effect on future warming but that this effect will not be discernible for decades to come.
    You may think this is a subtle difference from the “AR4 showed an insensitivity of global average surface temperature to emission scenarios prior to about 2060″ but it is a difference. And it provides a big difference to the postulated warming after the middle of this century.

    Please note two things.

    Firstly, I am not disputing what you say, but I am saying your interpretation of what the IPCC says is not correct.

    Secondly, we are having a ‘Angels On A Pin’ discussion because Chapter 2 of the report by IPCC Working Group III the IPCC in the IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR) says;

    Most generally, it is clear that mitigation scenarios and mitigation policies are strongly related to their baseline scenarios, but no systematic analysis has published on the relationship between mitigation and baseline scenarios.

    This statement is in the middle of the Chapter and is not included in the Chapter’s Conclusions. Failure to list this statement as a conclusion is strange because this statement is an admission that the assessed models do not provide useful predictions of effects of mitigation policies. How could the predictions be useful if the relationship between mitigation and baseline is not known?

    Also, the only valid baseline scenario is an extrapolation from current trends. The effect of an assumed change from current practice cannot be known if there is no known systematic relationship between mitigation and baseline scenario. But each of the scenarios is a claimed effect of changes from current practice. So, the TAR itself says the scenarios are meaningless gobbledygook.

    I hope this clarifies our disagreement. Please fire at me again because I learn from rational disagreement (especially when I am shown to be wrong).

    Richard


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    Llew Jones

    Dave@116.

    That prediction was from Roy Spencer, a very highly credentialed Climate Scientist. I’m of the same opinion but his opinion is worth infinitely more than mine.

    I don’t really know what prompts the stubbornness of Gillard. Perhaps it is simply a willingness to sell out the living standards of the majority of Australians in exchange for the prize of being PM. She comes across as an arrogant aggressive person in parliament and there is no doubt an element of that in her aberrant behaviour with respect to the climate issue.

    Who knows about greed and ignorance? Perhaps the ETS holds out hope of financial profit for some but power from the quixotic belief that your actions can save mankind from a terrifying future are probably just as seductive as financial gain.

    The ballot box is my preferred option.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Patrick

    Did the IPCC even mention this study?
    So just how rigorous was their review of the literature?
    Or was it just another form of highly selective cherry picking?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Beth Cooper

    Testable predictions and she didn’t have to include ‘upside down Tiljander’ :-)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    John from CA

    Richard S Courtney: #119

    Richard,
    Thanks for the detailed reply. I need some time to digest it and will leave a more detailed comment this evening.

    Regards,
    John


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Lex

    Good old days when only the “science” of evolution was corrupted


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Roy Hogue – “only to leave again when they discover that we are unbendingly certain of our position”

    Guess what Roy. It’s not you, or anyone of the regulars here that I writing for or trying to convince.

    It’s the casual person that might stumble across this thread in a google search for enlightenment.

    Blimey and enlightenment juxtaposed in the same post? Really? Will wonders never cease?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark

    Jo and Rereke:

    I recall that in one of his comments a long time ago, Eddie mentioned he was receiving chemo.

    We all know what that probably means just as I’m sure that we all wish him well.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark

    It’s always good to revisit material like this:

    http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=27941

    I mean, just in case there are some who still believe this was ever about “the science”.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Excellent post Roy, but there is just one thing I have to disagree with you about.

    There IS a problem. A very big and very serious problem.

    memoryvault @101,

    Will it help if I clarify my point and say that as I see it, CO2 is not a problem, has never been a problem and doesn’t look like ever being a problem. I assumed that the context would make that self evident but if it didn’t I’ll be glad to restate it.

    No matter how far back I manage to go into the history of AGW I can’t find anyone asking if CO2 is really a problem. It was always a given that it is. Then they start asking how bad will it be? Wrong question asked consequently wrong answer every time. It only goes downhill from there

    Certainly any serious cooling is a big problem and we need to be addressing that possibility. But the people who can actually accomplish something helpful have their heads so far up AGW they can’t see anything else.

    Roy


    Report this

    00

  • #
    thRealUniverse

    Run you warmists!!!!!!! run fast
    Eminent Mexican geophysicist says world on verge of ‘mini ice age’
    Dr. Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera.
    “Our preliminary studies of the last 2000 years show close connection between the variation of the global maxima and minima periods of secular solar activity and warming and mini ice age occurred during this period,” said Dr. Herrera. “Global warming is associated to ‘high’ solar secular activity and global cooling is associated to ‘low’ solar activity.”

    “Such a modulation of the terrestrial temperature may bring unexpected results and consequences to the climatic change in the 21st century that may result in a mini-Ice Age caused by the decrease in solar activity that would begin in 2010 and last about 60 – 80 years,” Herrera added.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Patrick

    In all of the discussion I see little consideration of the following. The paleoclimate data from ice cores etc. leaves little doubt that CO2 increases some 800 years AFTER temperature increases. What happened 800 years ago? The Medieval Warming Period! How much of the 390 ppmv of CO2 is due to that?
    MOreover, we are led to believe that there is ‘momentum’ in the Earth’s climate system which means that the current melting of ice and rising of sea levels is the ongoing ‘signature’ of something which happened in the past (? how long ago?). The response of climate is NOT instantaneous; it is hardly credible that an increase in average global temperature (of approximately one degree over a century) if real, would result in significant melting of ice and rising sea levels. The science is NOT settled.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bush bunny

    Roy @ 71 & Rereke @ 73.

    There’s ‘some’ truth in that mobile phones have caused brain cancers. I know a good friend who has an inoperable tumor, they were paid a handsome compensation from their mobile phone company, with a non disclosure clause attached to it. I think about 10 years ago. If you use a mobile phone for long periods, you will feel the heat coming through it. This is what happened to them. This was the earlier phones mind you. But I was on the phone for 20 minutes one night trying to get my internet connection sorted out, and found that my phone was getting hot against my cheek bone.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bush bunny

    Garnauts report does not exclude agriculture. Have you checked
    out the World Bank forecasting carbon markets are failing, and if they do the world will experience 3 – 4 C increases? If carbon markets fail, this is worrying, for some who have invested in it
    including pension funds. Note UK selling off 8% of theirs?

    QANTAS putting off cabin staff, maybe because the EU are threatening to charge them carbon tax while flying over Europe.
    As from Jan 2012. UNLESS Australia commits to a Carbon TAX.
    $600 million to the UN Climate Change Fund? I got Julie Bishop
    to ask the treasurer this, and mentioned yes we will be contributing to various climate change organizations. (After lambasting the Opposition about this before hand). Didn’t say which ones, but was dismissive of it.

    This is a carbon bubble friends, just like the South Sea Bubble of the 18th Century. Thank the lord, are main importers are China and SE Asia. New Zealand are threatening to introduce
    carbon taxes on agriculture.

    http://tvnz.co.nz/politics-news/agriculture-pay-technology-goff-4183453

    New World Order? Yes there is substance in this I believe.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bush bunny

    Patrick @ 133. Ice cores from where? Antarctica? The glacial period ended approximately 12,000 years ago. Agriculture was able to start in various parts of the world say 10,000 years ago. That’s the beginning of the present warming period, overall that is, but if you go back millions of years, this planet has been mainly in colder periods, hence the Northern Hemisphere, mainly Northern Europe, Asia and America were uninhabited until nearly 10,000 years ago. But take heart Australia maintained humans in a hunter and gatherer economy from about 60,000 years ago. 10000
    years ago, they took more to fishing like they did in Europe.

    The Planet has been mainly in the last 3 million years suffering
    glacial periods. Some areas like Africa didn’t nor did Australia
    to a degree or South America. Palaeoclimates differ depending what part of the globe one is studying. The Gulf Stream has stopped and they are saying it’s because of the Mexico oil spill?
    When the Gulf Stream stops this is a sign the planet in the Northern Hemisphere will cool, not warm.

    Don’t throw your Ugg boots away yet.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bush bunny

    Patrick @ 133. I’m not picking on you, you mentioned the CO2 levels having a 800 year lag? Even Flimflam Flannery admitted
    that it would take 1,000 years for the planet to cool after
    carbon emissions were cut. Can’t you see the contradictions.
    If the planet is cooling naturally without the help of humankind,
    they can say carbon emission cuts (that are not happening in Europe at least) are responsible for the planet cooling?

    And who is going to be alive to prove them wrong? Well I’m sure
    some of us won’t survive another 30 years to 2050. But I’d love
    too just to say “I told you so’ LOL. It’s the young ones now we
    have to educate to adapt to a coming glacial period. And Australia is the place to be.

    If I a mere BA in archaeology and palaeoanthropology, Cert IV and Diploma in Organic Agricultural production (I found the latter harder than my BA by the way as I’m not a Primary production farmer, although did try it years ago at a hobby farm in Northern NSW. (Just as well it was a hobby and tax evasion
    gambit). Understand this, you are not telling me scientist of repute don’t also know, and how can they tell governments that the Earth is cooling and this will be worse than a few CC’s of warming. And if you question why Aborigines didn’t move to the coastal and riverine areas before the last glacial era ended. It was because the sea levels were 150 metres lower in some areas.
    PNG was attached to Northern Australia, and there were no monsoons there were no wetlands, or few rainforests. In Europe the Mediterranean was a swamp, with some deeper lakes. Not so in Africa as the Sahara was full of wild game and lakes. England was attached to France, and Siberia connected to Alaska. Don’t wish the planet getting colder as if an ice age begins in earnest it will place more hardship on people than a few C’s of
    warming will ever do. And it will effect the Northern Hemisphere most. Whose game enough to tell them that yet?

    Sir Mark Oliphant (who was a government scientific adviser, and worked on the Manhattan project) advised that Australia could become an energy supplier via natural gas and solar not only to
    our country but also to most of SE Asia. If we can learn
    to transport solar energy to fuel electricity needs, years into the future, but will need government money obviously, but rather than invest in useless wind turbines then we might get somewhere
    eh? Maybe in only 25 years time. And the government want to tax
    LPG too? Give me patience!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bush bunny

    O/T ALERT TO ALL SUBSCRIBERS TO JOANNE NOVA.

    Dr Tim Ball of Canadian Free Press has been a great climatologist
    and outspoken one against the AGW and IPCC theory. He is being sued by that b…..d Dr Michael Mann (hockey stick ‘Hide the decline’) for libel. He is in trouble. Please read
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/08/help-asked-for-dr-tim-ball-in-legal-battle-with-dr-mann/

    I can’t contribute much, but will if only $25.00. He is a pensioner and is not in the pay as they say supported by ‘Big Oil’

    They’ve picked on him because he isn’t backed by big supporters.
    Surely he has thousands of creditable scientists around the world who can help him.

    http://drtimball.com

    Come on folks support one of our own against the bastards of
    climate change fraud. If we don’t he and others will be afraid to speak the truth!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    G.S. Williams

    Hi, Jo,

    I implore you, DON’T LET JULIE GILLARD CONTINUE WITH YOUR EMISSIONS TAXING SCAM.
    It will be fatal for Australia

    We’ve had it forced on us in NZ and it’s starting to bite. Our latest monthly bill is just over $269.99 (NZD)

    Best regards.

    G.S. Williams


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Jeff L

    Jo,
    See note I just posted over on Steve Goddard’s blog relative to this.
    I have a copy the original LA Time article which includes a graph of their work.
    When you see the graph, it is more profound than the article alone is.
    Lots of comments & analysis that could be made.
    Contact me via email if you would like to discuss further.
    Thanks


    Report this

    00