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



Antarctic sea ice trends at record highs. Fears for shrinking southern ocean, right?

While stories of the Arctic record fall in sea-ice have been all over the news, all over the world, it’s almost as if the Southern Hemisphere didn’t exist. Right now, this week apparently, the sea ice is at or near record highs (bearing in mind that we’re still only talking 30 years of satellite records, but then, these are the same satellites lapping over the arctic, and if the records are longer there, I expect it’s only by an hour and a half).

 

h/t Steve Goddard who asks when the National Snow & Ice Data Centre ( NSIDC) will send out the press releases. They appear to be more concerned about the effects of the Antarctic “thinning” trend on penguins this week. Sunshine hours has graphed it in detail.

Cryosphere compares the relentless fall and rise of Antarctic ice here. Millions of square kilometers in staggering, dramatic melts every spring manage to return in staggering dramatic ice formations each and every year.

Antarctic Sea Ice Extent Sept 2012

(Click to enlarge)

I expect that our non-hemispherist unbiased and diligent newspapers will be running with matching ones very soon. Based on news stories like this:

I can see ones like this:

  • Shock Antarctic sea ice growth shrinks Southern Ocean by 1 m Sq kilometers

  • Staggering explosion of sea ice scares penguin

  • The next ice-age approaches? Ominous warnings from Antarctica

  • Sea ice strangles ice-bound continent

  • Record Antarctic Sea Ice threatens whales: Mammals need to breathe says scientist.

  • Antarctic current survives 25m years of climate change. Wiped out by man in 20 years.

  • Antarctic ice will reach Argentina. Round-the-world Yacht Race “abandoned by 2050″

Antarctic sea ice is yet another model failure…

I should add in seriousness, that The Hockey Schtick also discusses Turner et al 2012, which compares model predictions of Antarctic Sea Ice with observations and finds:  “In contrast to the satellite data, which exhibits a slight increase in SIE (sea-ice-extent), the mean SIE of the models over 1979 – 2005 shows a decrease in each month, ” and also  “The negative SIE trends in most of the model runs over 1979 – 2005 are a continuation of an earlier decline, suggesting that the processes responsible for the observed increase over the last 30 years are not being simulated correctly.

Do send those media links in as you find them! ;-)

 

REFERENCES

John Turner, Tom Bracegirdle, Tony Phillips, Gareth J. Marshall, and J. Scott Hosking (2012)  An Initial Assessment of Antarctic Sea Ice Extent in the CMIP5 Models Journal of Climate; e-View  doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00068.1

 

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 8.9/10 (82 votes cast)
Antarctic sea ice trends at record highs. Fears for shrinking southern ocean, right?, 8.9 out of 10 based on 82 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/8ntx5y3

265 comments to Antarctic sea ice trends at record highs. Fears for shrinking southern ocean, right?

  • #

    Ocean currents vary in such a way that when Arctic ice is decreasing Antarctic ice is increasing and vice versa. The lame stream media has been foaming at the mouth reporting on Arctic ice while conveniently omitting the fact that the ice mass was normal until a freak unseasonal storm broke up the ice prematurely. They never mention the record ice mass in Antarctica, either. Yep, there is nothing more pedestrian and boring than the typical and predictable lame stream biased reporting!

    There is a new paper out that is an embarrassment for team warming.

    The Hockey Schtick reports: http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com

    Antarctic sea ice reaches record high while IPCC models predicted the opposite

    A recent paper in the Journal of Climate finds that most climate models erroneously predict that Antarctic sea ice extent decreased over the past 30 years, which “differs markedly from that observed.” As noted in the abstract, Antarctic sea ice has confounded the models by instead increasing over the satellite era. In fact, it is currently at a record extent that is more than 2 standard deviations above the 1979-2000 average. The authors lament, “The negative [Antarctic sea ice] trends in most of the model runs over 1979 – 2005 are a continuation of an earlier decline, suggesting that the processes responsible for the observed increase over the last 30 years are not being simulated correctly.”

    When will the gangsters at La Clima Nostra realize that the game is up? Personally, I think they will live in denial until they notice that their bank accounts are upside down due to the lack of taxpayer-funded grant money.


    Report this

    22

  • #
    Colin Henderson

    I suppose in the next few months we will be hearing about the record Antarctic sea ice melt with no mention that the record melt was due to the record sea ice volume.


    Report this

    11

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      Before then, I expect to see headlines about the tremendous numbers of penguins that are dying because the extended ice (which is glacial, and therefore quite thick*) is too high for them to jump up to get on shore. They therefore have no way to escape the Orca, who are increasing in numbers.

      I do not expect to see any articles about how happy the Orca are.

      *[Having intelligent ice is not news-worthy].


      Report this

      11

      • #
        ExWarmist

        The Poor ORCA’s are growing fat on too many penguins, the fat is increasing heart disease and early death.

        Save the ORCAs.

        It’s all Mankinds fault – we are the guilty ones, we are the powerful ones, we are the significant ones…


        Report this

        01

  • #
    Snotrocket

    Let’s see if I’ve got this right: The MANNerisms of the world want us to believe it’s Global warming. So, lack of Arctic ice can only be a NH aberration: likewise, lots of Antarctic ice, a SH phenomenon. If, therefore, the lack of ice and abundance of ice was averaged globally, what would that show?

    But I suppose if you work out a hockey stick based on NH bristle cones and call it global what’s the problem with doing the same with ice?


    Report this

    11

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      The concept of “Global” warming has always been highly suspect. The weather systems in the two hemispheres tend to rotate in opposite directions (clockwise in the Northern hemisphere, and anti-clockwise in the Southern – I think). At the equator, the rotational directions mesh, a bit like two gears, so there is actually less interchange between the two systems than you might suppose. The equator acts as a buffer.


      Report this

      01

    • #
      Colin Henderson

      The assumption that land surface temperatures are a valid proxy for global atmospheric and sea temperatures has never been validated. If you cut down a forest and replace it with a field, land surface temperatures will increase, if you then replace that field with a concrete and asphalt jungle surface temperatures will increase even more. Mother nature is very good at scrubbing off land surface heat without creating catastrophic climate change, think forest fires, volcanic eruptions etc.


      Report this

      11

  • #
    Steve C

    Please, Miss, can we Northerners have our sea ice back? We won’t kick it into your hemisphere again, promise.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      MadJak

      Steve C,

      No you can’t get your ice back – it’s ours. Consider this as being payback for some of the northern hemisphere residents still communicating in imperial measurements rather than metric.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        It is always amusing to point out that the Republic of the United States is pretty much the last bastion in the support of an imperial measurement system.

        Jus’ sayin’.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          AndyG55

          Hitting someonething with a piece of 4 by 2 isn’t anywhere near as drastic when working in mm’s.


          Report this

          00

        • #
          Another Ian

          Chiefio has a couple of interesting articles on the derivation of “imperial” measurements – a search on “cubit” will lead to a couple


          Report this

          10

        • #
          John F. Hultquist

          Ah, but the metre was based on an incorrect assumption – something like the CO2CAGW thing – and is thus wrong and everything that follows is false.


          Report this

          11

        • #
          Wayne, s. Job

          I am an old bugger and I design and build machinery and I design in inches feet and yards. The visual difference in imperial to metric measure makes it hard to design anything in metric in your head.

          The fact that the measures are related to our world in a real way also makes them more user friendly.

          I noted some years back that America held its 200th yearly conference on metrification, that is a long time to ponder on some thing not particularly useful.


          Report this

          10

          • #
            Graeme No.3

            I thought that they (the USA, or the bits then joined) decided to go metric in 1845.

            Obviously the Federal and various state Public Services are working on the changeover.


            Report this

            00

      • #
        Mark D.

        Just ask a carpenter to divide metric measurements by 3.


        Report this

        10

        • #

          Dear Mr carpenter. Please divide 1 Mile, four furlongs and three feet 7 and a half by three.


          Report this

          00

        • #
          Streetcred

          I worked in construction many years ago, metric made everything sooo much easier ! Funny, still think of length in ‘feet’.


          Report this

          00

          • #
            Crakar24

            Its a bit like trying to explain to an electrician that electrons flow from negative to positive


            Report this

            00

          • #

            Crakar24,

            Hmm! That takes me back to my days as Technical Trades Instructor teaching the electrical trade.

            So, that umm, flow of electrons is from one atom to the next, and at the same time, that atom then sends one of its electrons to the atom next to it, etc etc, all this at 186,000 Miles per second.

            Then, as it’s A.C. all those atoms then send their electrons back to the atom they got them from in the first place, and this happens 50 times every second.

            Confused now.

            Imagine trying to teach it.

            Tony.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            MaxL

            Hi Tony and Cracker,
            I think it’s even harder when you have to teach electronics students about the flow of holes left by the electrons and the terms majority and minority carriers. Electricity sure ain’t simple.


            Report this

            00

          • #

            Max, Max Max,

            don’t start on Hole Flow. Next it’ll be Plus and Minus, and then one and zero.

            Tony.


            Report this

            00

          • #

            TonyfromOz, the electrons don’t move that quickly on average. The electrical field moves at “light speed” for the medium, which in copper wiring is substantially less than in a vacuum.

            An electrons’ drift velocity in a conductor is appropriately measured in millimetres/second (fractions thereof). Fizzycists and materials scientists like to use cm/sec.

            The instantaneous peak velocity of electrons as they “leap” is about half of the speed of light. But then they rest for a “long” time before taking another leap; as though the electrons within an atom were taking a poll to see which one would be next to go for the jump.

            The nett speed, including all the relaxation times, is the drift velocity.


            Report this

            10

          • #

            Thanks Bernd,

            right about now, my students would have been going…..Huh!

            Tony.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Crakar24

            Reminds me of when i was being taught wave guide theory and when you do all the calculations it appears that the energy travells down the wave guide faster than the speed of light, our instructor told us to simply round it down to C………….when asked why he said “dont think too deeply just accept it”.


            Report this

            00

          • #

            Crakar24 & TonyfromOz,

            It’s always wise to point out that the simple laws of nature which we experience at our physical scale, fall apart when you get near the molecular level. We don’t live by those rules so they are difficult to understand, even when abstracted. The abstractions seem like nonsense. But they work better than the intuitive ones, at least near enough, at the molecular, atomic and sub-atomic scale.

            The “Huh!?” wouldn’t surprise me.

            What did surprise me was that I recalled so much of it from Material Science classes in the late 1970′s. I only had to look up a little of the terminology, but the principles had been etched. Maybe I should go back and see if I can score better than the C that I got back then.


            Report this

            00

          • #

            Bernd,

            you bring up a really interesting point where you write:

            What did surprise me was that I recalled so much of it from Material Science classes in the late 1970′s. I only had to look up a little of the terminology, but the principles had been etched.

            The same applies with me, and it makes me shake my head in wonder.

            I learned all my electrical stuff also back in the late 60′s, early 70′s, and like you I averaged overall what amounts to a pass Mark, close to a Credit average but still only an overall Pass.

            When I started doing all this more than four years ago now, I was really worried that now, almost 40 years on, I would need to go back and either brush up on that electrical theory, or even learn it all over again, or, not even write about it all, but as I started, it was all still there. So, other than having to call on that background in the late 80′s early 90′s when I was teaching the Trade, I sort of thought it was all gone, but really, without even thinking about it, as soon as I started, it was all just there. Like I just had to trace down, and then open up the neurone paths leading to where all that information was still stored, something that happened almost automatically.

            It never ceases to amaze me how easily it all came back. Sometimes, it wasn’t there at all, but as soon as I stopped thinking about what I needed to find, and moved to something else, I found that later, blink, a message came through, with a message telling me here’s that information you were looking for.

            You think you learn it for the end of phase exam, and then pfft, not needed any more, but it’s all still in there.

            My problem is trying to then put it in a way that the average person without that electrical background can understand, and sometimes, I tend to (over) simplify it.

            Tony.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Rereke Whakaaro

            That’s still relevant because the electricity companies haven’t needed to make any new electrons in that time.

            Think about it. They push an electron down the wire, and then, one hundredth of a second later, they suck it back again. Then they just do the whole thing over again.

            The rort is that every time they do this, and electron counter ticks over, and they charge you for it, even though they have stolen it back again.

            No wonder the wonderful Labour Gov’mint wants to tax the backsides of them …


            Report this

            00

      • #
        gary turner

        Ahh, but you see, the Imperial units are the more modern metric. They are, after all, binary; quite in step with our computer age. Note:
        You start with a mouthful,
        2 mouthfuls are a tablespoon,
        2 tablespoons are an ounce,
        2 ounces a jack,
        2 jacks a gill
        2 gills a cup,
        2 cups a pint
        2 pints a quart,
        2 quarts a pottle (bottle),
        2 pottles a gallon, and so on to at least a tun. A tun is 256 gallons, which, if water, weighs about a ton.

        What could be more modern? :)


        Report this

        00

      • #
        Dennis

        And driving on the wrong side of the road


        Report this

        00

    • #
      Gnome

      Please- take all the ice you want. What’s so good about ice? Nasty cold stuff, only a warmist could love it.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Steve C

      Wow – I never expected me thin, plaintive treble piping over the equator/fence to stir up so much chat among the neighbours! (Geographical note: is this the first time in history that England and Australia have been referred to as “neighbours?) :-)

      Those units – what makes us Brits do a double take is when the Americans call them “English” units … then go and use -different- units from ours. (1 US gallon =|= 1 English gallon!) I’ve always used SI: I’d sooner divide (eg) 437 by three (145 and a bit) than two and fifteen thirty-seconds (errr …).

      As a lifelong electronics tech and radio amateur (same sort of vintage as TonyfromOz) I find that in real life you work to a couple of digits, and put in a ‘tweak’ if you need better. (The metre is okay by me – it’s right”ish”!) The only time you really worry is when you accidentally let the magic smoke out of the most expensive component …

      Dennis – I believe that historically, everyone used to drive on the left – it left your sword hand, the right for 90% of us, free to deal with the oncoming enemy. IIRC it was Napoleon who decided that France was going to drive on the other side, just to show the Old Enemy, and it sort of spread. Nowadays, of course, we sophisticated modern folk don’t use swords, we use the whole vehicle.

      And ‘our’ ice? I’m sure it’ll come home when it’s had its holiday down south. If it brings its big cousin from Antarctica with it, we’d all better start worrying.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Grant (NZ)

    Another likely headline
    “Kiwi expedition walk from Invercargill to South Pole”

    but that would get construed as

    “Environmentalists highlight Catastrophic AGW by walking from Invercargill to South Pole”.


    Report this

    01

    • #
      John in NZ

      If the ice keeps growing at this rate, how long will it take to reach NZ?


      Report this

      01

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      What an excellent idea.

      Why wait on Sir David Attenborough, Al Gore or Michael Mann etc? This is a Southern Hemisphere problem! So, get the environmentalists lined up behind Flannery, Lewandowsky, Steffen, and either Bob Brown or Chistine Milne at Invercargill and send them south, ASAP.

      The sooner they’re on their way, the quicker that (or some other) problem will be solved.


      Report this

      01

  • #
    Bloke down the pub

    I wish I had Sir David Attenborough’s e-mail address so that next time he spouts off about vanishing Antartic ice I could send him a link to this post.


    Report this

    01

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Just the same old BS…

    JanforGore has it right — it is damn close to the point where it’s too late to stop the warming onslaught; the funny thing about that is all those oil company executives will be caught in that same great death …

    That from: Vanishing Arctic Ice Is the Planet’s White Flag of Surrender

    … and still not even close to being able to provide evidence that CO2 is in any way involved.

    I do note with great interest that the trend of predicting worse, colder weather continues because they can’t show any credible warming to fit their theory or their models.

    But be afraid, very afraid, lest you die like those evil oil company executives. Or you could simply thumb your nose at this stuff. Take your pick.

    I do wish they’d speed up the surrender process so we don’t have to hear their complaints anymore though.


    Report this

    01

  • #

    Where are the warmists who always try to point out the difference between extent and mass volume?
    “ICESAT Data Shows Mass Gains of the Antarctic Ice Sheet Exceed Losses”
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/10/icesat-data-shows-mass-gains-of-the-antarctic-ice-sheet-exceed-losses/


    Report this

    01

  • #
    Skeptikal

    I did a couple of google news searches… “Antarctic sea ice” and “Antarctica sea ice record”.

    I got absolutely nothing! It’s a complete media blackout on the subject.

    I guess having too much ice just isn’t newsworthy.


    Report this

    11

  • #

    Would the obvious difference between the the two poles be that one is in darkness and thus missed the high from our sun? The high TSI also seems to be forgoten by the media.
    http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/total_solar_irradiance_plots/images/tim_level3_tsi_24hour_3month_640x480.png
    Compare the numbers on the above chart to the below chart.
    http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/total_solar_irradiance_plots/tim_tsi_reconstruction_2012.jpeg


    Report this

    00

  • #
    handjive

    * 16 January 2012

    It’s official:

    The Alfred Wegener Institute Antarctic Neumayer-Station III is a meteorological observation station that’s been measuring air temperature and other magnitudes in Antarctica for 30 years, which is the period of time used to define climate for a region.

    The results are clear and indisputable. The AWI writes in its press release:

    At the Neumayer Station it has not gotten warmer over the last 30 years.”

    Note they avoid saying it got cooler.

    If the trend had been the opposite, the results would have been blasted out to the world in the most vivid terms.

    (via notrickszone – P Gosselin)


    Report this

    01

    • #

      No, Handjive, I think that simple statement is well-on…


      Report this

      01

    • #
      sillyfilly

      From the Alfred Wegener Institute:

      At the same time the measurements verify that it has not become warmer at the research station on the Ekström Ice Shelf – in contrast to the Antarctic Peninsula. On the other hand, the hours of sunshine and air pressure at Neumayer Station have increased significantly (see Figs. 2 and 3). “Our weather data show that the part of the Antarctic in which our station is located is more frequently exposed to high-pressure influence. This means we have a cloud-free sky more frequently. And wherever there is no cloud cover in polar regions, heat is radiated unhindered and the lower air layers cool off,” explains Gert König-Langlo.

      He adds, however, that this development is a regional change and the values measured at Neumayer Station III are by no means representative for the global climate changes. “Just in the centre of Antarctica it has not become warmer. On the Antarctic Peninsula, by contrast, the average temperature has risen by up to three degrees Celsius. We also observe a similar warming in the Arctic,” says Gert König-Langlo.

      Via Notrick analysis – sillyfilly


      Report this

      10

    • #
      John Brookes

      If the trend had been the opposite, the results would have been blasted out to the world in the most vivid terms.

      Yes, and if the AGW mob had trumpeted it from the rooftops, you would quite rightly have hit back with, “Its only one station. That is hardly global.”

      And if you look, there are regions everywhere that have gotten colder over the last umpteen years. Its just that they are in the minority (a bit like you guys, really).


      Report this

      10

      • #
        Crakar24

        Lest go through this one more time as it is obvious the slow ones have been left behind.

        We have sats circling the globe, taking measurements of sea ice as that is their purpose when they take measurements of the Arctic ice loss we rejoice and state “told you so” but when these sats take measurements of teh Antarctic sea ice and we find record high sea ice we reject this data with the nonchalant wave of a hand and we refer to teh GRACE satellites as the authoritive data.

        However there is a problem with using GRACE as GRACE does not measure sea ice it measures changes in gravity fields or if you like changes in mass.

        With GRACE they can measure all sorts of things which include movement of the Earths crust and magma flows changes here will be seen as a change in the gravity field. Keeping this in mind lets look at the slow ones statements on this subject.

        They claim that whilst the main continent of Antarctica may be gaining ice it is losing massive amounts of ice in the West Antarctic Peninsular (WAP).

        From Ross,

        Fact 3: Melting is occurring at an alarming rate on the West Antarctica Peninsular as it is exposed to warmer waters and is that is not dissimilar to Arctic Sea ice exposure. Suppose this is global cooling evidence?

        This is just one example of the slow ones statements, however can anyone tell me what the WAP consists of? It consists of a mountain range formed by the collision of two tectonic plates (Think NZ) and we know there are volcanoes the size of Mt Fuji in the area which means large magma flows………………………now what does GRACE measure again?

        I think the slow ones (if they applied logic and reason and not religious dogma) will find that the reason why they think the WAP is the only place losing ice is because of other reasons and not their CO2.

        I know this will be a shock to some of you and very hard to accept but facts trump fiction once again.


        Report this

        10

      • #
        Bob Fernley-Jones

        John,
        Could you please give us your wisdom on this recent fairly typical graph that authoritatively describes global average temperatures and also SST’s?
        http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/1-s2-0-s0921818112001658-gr11.jpg

        Thanking you in anticipation.


        Report this

        01

        • #
          John Brookes

          Thats a weird graph Bob. It still has 1998 as the hottest year. I don’t know how they incorporate sea surface temperatures into global temperatures, but 1998 was a super el nino year, which means higher sea surface temperatures. I guess what we really need is a graph showing the total heat content of the atmosphere and the oceans.

          I shouldn’t really comment on this though, because the graph is from WTFUWT, and they aren’t exactly unbiased when it comes to AGW.


          Report this

          10

          • #
            Bob Fernley-Jones

            John,
            The IPCC has actually preferred the Hadley-CRU (Hadcrut) data to the GISS which it seems that you favour in your comment. (and which suffers periodic “corrective” anti-clockwise rotations). It amuses me that variously, you alarmists in recent times dismiss the 1997/8 El Nino as being not a real part of the climate record AND also dismiss the corrective 1999/2000 La Nina that followed.

            Check out the following annual Hadcrut data, although the 21-year smoothing CANNOT be mathematically based for the last ten years! (ask if you no understand)
            http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif

            What is really funny is that the IPCC was quite keen to utilise the 1998 maximum, for instance when they pictorially revised the iconic Manna graph in AR3 2001 six times, they retained the 1998 maximum and failed to adjust the la Nina (smoothing) correction to the end of calendar year 2000! (Odd that!)

            If you really think that the HadCrut graph is weird, perhaps you could check-out the satellite data which shows much the same trends since 1998.


            Report this

            01

      • #
        Graeme No.3

        John:
        Do you live on the UWA campus i.e. reside, shop, socialise etc.?

        If you got out into the real world, just about anywhere 5km. from the GPO, you would find out how utterly stupid that claim is.

        But then I suppose you use UWA statistics, 5 in favour are a majority once you discard 93 as a conspiracy belief.


        Report this

        01

  • #
    MadJak

    News Headlines,

    Whales drowning due to extended ice preventing them from surfacing.

    It’s all Tony Abbotts fault.

    Helicopter ben says we need to print more US Dollars so they can be used to cover the antarctic ice to make holes for the whales.


    Report this

    01

  • #
    Ross

    Has anyone done a fancy graph combining the sea ice extents for BOTH poles together on a set day for each year, for the last 30 years ??


    Report this

    00

  • #

    I apologize for being off subject, but I thought this may be interesting: A review of “Global Warming: How Gaia Replaced God”, http://pjmedia.com/blog/global-warning-how-gaia-replaced-god/

    and a very fine comment regarding US and global (and I would think European) energy options: http://pjmedia.com/blog/global-warning-how-gaia-replaced-god/#comment-3377777


    Report this

    00

    • #

      See no. 16, intended for here…


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Bob Malloy

      archaeopteryx

      A geat first link, another book on my to buy list.

      From the end of the review, a link back to Lew’s view of skeptics.

      Unequivocal challengers of enviro-correctness are often considered conspiracy theorists or worse in Canada, where Big Government and Big Solutions are not only tolerated, but the norm

      We’re all just a group of conspiracist, and not just in Canada.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Bob Malloy

        Tony might enjoy your second link.


        Report this

        00

      • #

        Thanks for that Bob, and also to first bird.

        How right this Comment is.

        In the U.S. the AVERAGE age of ALL the currently operating coal fired plants is just a tick under 49 years. The expected life span of a coal fired power plant is 50 years (and how the renewables wish they could say that) and in fact there are currently 858 Generators older than that 50 years, some having been in operation now for 90 years.

        To a (much) lesser extent, the same applies here in Australia, and most of those large scale plants have been operating since the mid seventies and earlier, although there are a couple that are relatively newer than that, but not by much.

        However, here, and also in the U.S. no NEW major scale coal fired plants have been constructed for decades now.

        You can have the smartest grid on the Planet, but without a RELIABLE constant supply of power from new plants, that smart grid will be all you will have. Great poles and wires carrying virtually no current.

        The ONLY place currently constructing NEW large scale coal fired power plants is China, and to a lesser extent, India, and to a lesser extent again, Developing Countries, incidentally mostly thanks to the UN’s CDM where money is being diverted to the construction of large scale coal fired power plants.

        So, while China, India and other Developing Countries begin to hum along nicely thank you very much, here in Australia, and especially in the U.S. well, we begin grinding to a halt.

        It’s only going to take ONE large scale coal fired plant to close down here in Australia, and the whole Eastern Sea Board will just grind slowly and inexorably to a full stop.

        That sort of chaos is not worth contemplating.

        Tony.


        Report this

        00

      • #

        Bob, I know you probably look up to the government of Cananda and hope that Australia will do the same. Well, in case you had not noticed, it is already doing so – in that it is selling its resources to the highest bidder – it is a first world country with a third world economy. However, unlike Canada, Australia acknowledges that the burning of fossil fuels is the primary cause of climate change.
        http://lackofenvironment.wordpress.com/2012/06/07/in-search-of-the-lucky-country/


        Report this

        00

      • #

        Bob, I know you probably look up to the government of Canada and hope that Australia will do the same. Well, in case you had not noticed, it is already doing so – in that it is selling its resources to the highest bidder – it is a first world country with a third world economy. However, unlike Canada, Australia acknowledges that the burning of fossil fuels is the primary cause of climate change.
        http://lackofenvironment.wordpress.com/2012/06/07/in-search-of-the-lucky-country/


        Report this

        00

  • #

    It is to be noted in the second chart that there is no increase in ice area…
    Or am I missing something..?
    The first chart shows about 19 million square kilometers..
    The second, less by about 2 million


    Report this

    00

  • #

    The article on “Gaia” and engineer Hails’ discussion are excellent, if you need an
    understanding of climate change. I recommend readers look at these.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Perhaps southern hemispherians should occupy Martin Place with banners reading: WE ARE THE NINETY PERCENT.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    DavidH

    Avast! There be more icebergs in t’ southern briney me mateys. Arr.

    (Homage to International Talk Like a Pirate Day … today)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Sonny

    So what if Ice is increasing in the antarctic!

    Remember, it’s not global warming we are worries about – It’s climate change!
    The climate is changing because there are unusual and extreme weather events and animal extinctions and stuff GLOBALLY. And 97% of scientists agree that the climate is changing predominantly because of YOU!

    I personally take offense that fossil fuel funded disinformation sites like this are delaying action on climate. It’s the future of my family and friends which you are helping to stuff up.

    Yours Sincerely,

    Maniacal Warmist.


    Report this

    10

    • #
      Bob Malloy

      Dear Maniacal Warmist, you’ve taken the wrong meds again.


      Report this

      01

    • #
      turnrdoutnice

      My Dear Sonny, what you must understand is that you have been systematically deceived by climate science and the people who control it on behalf of the Marxist/Fabian politicians like Gillard and Rudd, and the carbon traders, which includes Shell for example.

      There can be no CO2-AGW**. The GHE is essentially fixed for a given solar output by the first ~2000 ppmV of water vapour.

      No-one paid me to work this out. I did it because when I was taught science, we were honest. Climate science has got virtually all the heat generation and heat transfer physics wrong. It is a clever fraud concocted by people who have developed careers out of systematic deception. if I were you, I’d get your money back for having been taught incorrect science.

      **Net UP IR in any wavelength interval from the Earth’s surface in radiative and convective equilibrium with the atmosphere is the vector sum of UP and DOWN fluxes in the opposing emission spectra. The former is grey body, the latter far from it. There’s strong interference of H2O with CO2.

      The neat twist is IR self-absorption, for CO2 nearly complete by ~200 ppmV, water vapour ~1800 ppmV. UP IR turns it off because non thermally activated GHG molecules near the surface that absorb UP photons can’t absorb DOWN photons. So DOWN signal rises near the surface, a major emissivity increase sharply reducing UP band emission.

      This is a powerful control system. There can be no CO2-AGW because very little of its IR can be emitted from the surface. Most GHE is set by the first ~1800 ppmV water vapour, restricting atmospheric GHE to non self-absorbing water side-bands, the 23 W/m^2 absorbed in the atmosphere. The 40 W/m^2 atmospheric window emission is enhanced by increased surface temperature.

      A rider to this is that TOA reduction of CO2 IR is self-absorbed thermal emission from dry, cold upper air so no proof of CO2-AGW.


      Report this

      01

      • #
        Sonny

        Yeh well well,
        I don’t have to listen to you because you aren’t peer reviewed and published in a reputable scientific journal. Ha.. I bet you aren’t even getting paid by the government. No credibility at all Mr. I think I’ll stick with the precautionary principle and trust 99.999997% of climate scientists.

        So neh!


        Report this

        01

  • #
    Phil Ford

    I wish someone would shove those graphs under the noses of the morons at the BBC News Desk. In the past few weeks they’ve been relentlessly promoting the The Great Northern Ice Melt all over the BBC UK news channels, laying all the blame for this ‘record ice loss’ squarely on CAGW – even going so far as to despatch one of their tireless worker drones up to the N. Pole to report from the field.

    If course, not one word – NOT ONE WORD – about record ice extents, meanwhile, down at the South Pole.

    And they somehow have the cheek (or is it wit?) to consider themselves ‘journalists.

    I despair.


    Report this

    01

  • #
    Sonny

    The arctic is melting! It proves climate change!
    Cherry picking from The Antarctica is irrelevant!
    Move over to clean energy!
    Do something !
    Think of the children!

    Yours sincerely,

    Deranged alarmist shill.


    Report this

    01

  • #
    Neville

    Don’t forget about the nonsense of dangerous SLR we’re told will happen because of CAGW.

    The Royal society has a graph of all the models for SLR and it shows antarctica (89% of ice) is negative for the next 300 years while greenland (10%) is positive.

    http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/364/1844/1709/F4.expansion.html

    Evidently that dangerous SLR will come from the melting of the remaining 1%.
    BTW most of the SLR over many years has come from thermal expansion not melting ice.


    Report this

    01

  • #
    Bob Malloy

    Maniacal Warmist/Deranged alarmist shill.
    Multiple personalities as well, maybe stronger meds are in order?


    Report this

    01

    • #
      Bob Malloy

      Sorry if the above post makes no sense, it was meant to be a reply to sonny at 19.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Sonny

        Why would I need meds?
        I stand with the scientific consensus on this issue.
        It’s all the conspiracy nutjobs on this site who need medicating ..

        Antarctic ice is growing…. Yeh like whatever ! Tinfoil hat alert!


        Report this

        10

        • #
          Bob Malloy

          I’ll grant you one thing sonny, while you are in this mood, meds or not, you are giving me more than the prescribed amount of chuckles and smiles for any 24 hour period.


          Report this

          01

          • #
            Sonny

            Bob Malloy,
            I don’t consider risen CO2 levels a laughing matter.
            The climate is changing incase you didn’t notice. And it’s worse than we thought.
            We will need more taxes, more trading schemes and more investment in shiny spinning things. Unless we can raise 600 trillion dollars over the next five years from the productive class and transfer it to guys like me we will go beyond the tipping point.
            Do you want to spend your last moments on earth thinking that you could have done something? That you could have made a difference but didn’t? I didn’t think so.


            Report this

            10

          • #
            Farmer Doug2

            Popping this in here in an effort to get to reply to Sonny at 23.1.1.1.1.
            Sonny
            “Do you want to spend your last moments” wishing you had not starved all those poor people and deprived so many of cheap power?
            Doug


            Report this

            01

          • #
            Sonny

            No way! Food and energy in the wrong hands is dangerous.


            Report this

            01

          • #

            Bob: Having now read all your contributions to this discussion, I can see that there is no point responding to any more of them. Rather than debate whose science is “junk”, I have tried very hard to consider the massive improbability of most climate scientists being (for whatever reason) wrong. However, that was clearly very foolish of me indeed because none of you appears willing or able to have that dialectical discussion.


            Report this

            10

          • #

            Oops: I meant to say “I have tried very hard to get you to consider…”


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Bob Malloy

            Martin, as to the placement of this particular post of yours here, it might not be obvious to you that Sonny to whom I was responding has been in a particularly satirical mood throughout this whole theme, I was only responding in kind.


            Report this

            00

          • #

            If you are trying to tell me, Bob, that Sonny is actually just parodying the views of the majority of climate scientists… I am even more certain that I would be wasting my time. So, here is what may have to be my final words on the subject:

            What saddens me most is the way some people have taken the time to read some of the stuff on my blog (and even quoted from it)… but then, without any justification whatsoever, simply said they think that I am wrong. However, reality is not altered by any of our opinions (i.e. mine, yours, or theirs), which makes it essential that we all consider whether our opinions are consistent with that reality. Because of the way the Earth always eliminates imbalances between incoming and outgoing radiation, the vast majority of climate scientists accept that the current imbalance will eventually result in sea level and temperature rises equivalent to those that occurred when the Earth emerged from the last Ice Age. Saying this is not true does not change the fact that it is.
            http://lackofenvironment.wordpress.com/2012/02/06/climate-science-in-a-nut-fragment/


            Report this

            10

        • #
          turnrdoutnice

          The consensus is based on 6 separate instances of mistakes in basic physics. Three of these are so elementary as to be cringe-making. it’s a con.

          1. present GHE is ~9 K, not 33 K; Hansen’s unprofessionalism, not accounting for lapse rate.

          2. direct thermalisation is impossible because of quantum exclusion.

          3. in reality, thermalisation is indirect, mostly at clouds, with the GHGs acting as an energy transfer medium.

          3. ‘back radiation’ does not exist because it would breach the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

          4. the claim it’s proved by pyrgeometers is a failure to understand that because a pyrometer has a shield behind the detector it measures the Poynting vector, the S-B radiation from a isolated body at the same temperature as the emitter.

          5. the real GHE is GHGs turning off their emission band at the Earth’s surface which rises in temperature to compensate for higher thermal impedance.

          6. the DOWN emissivity at TOA must be zero, and increases down to the cloud level.

          All the above are elementary physics. The IPCC ‘consensus’ has been constructed with the aim of deceiving the World by the ‘GHG blanket ‘ idea.


          Report this

          01

          • #
            Sonny

            Baloney! 97% of scientists … Etc.


            Report this

            10

          • #

            Why has none of the people who have discovered these mistakes been given a Nobel Prize? Let me guess now; you think it is because they dared to question the consensus and have been ignored? Nice idea; shame about the reality: They have not won any prizes because their contrarian ideas have not withstood scrutiny; their research methods were flawed; and/or their conclusions not supported by the data they cherry-picked collected.


            Report this

            10

          • #
            Sonny

            Absolute Toff Martin Lack,
            The Nobel Prize was awarded to Al Gore for a propaganda film. The prize is political nowadays. Science is political. Climate scientists are employed by government who have political and economic agendas. Are you telling me you actually believe that scientific integrity and ethics can withstand the monumental corruptive powers of the state?


            Report this

            01

  • #
    inedible hyperbowl

    Clearly, “the end is nigh”.

    This is sooo like the crescendo of alarmism that occurred with the y2k.
    Last chance to save yourselves people! Spend your money now or else!


    Report this

    01

  • #
  • #

    Almost four years back now, I found this wonderful site for the Antarctica.

    Antarctic Connection

    Now, this is not the Home Page, and you can navigate back to that Home Page with the small tabs in red at the top of the text in the centre main text area, but why I have linked to this page is that if you do go to that Home Page, there’s no real easy to find indicator as to how to actually get to the page I HAVE linked to.

    This linked page has an absolute wealth of information.

    That main text box in the middle area is general in nature, but still interesting, especially the highlighted boxes mid screen as you scroll down, and the small text section at the bottom titled Solar Energy.

    However, the best info is in the right side column. In that right column, the info under Land Of Extremes is also worth noting, but by far the best information is contained in the tabs under the heading Weather Pages.

    So, whenever I hear stories about how the Arctic Ice is frightening so many people, I always try and offset that by linking to this Antarctic site.

    If you do visit the link, bookmark the linked page to your favourites, as this is not a page to have just the one cursory look, as those links and further links will keep your interest for many many visits.

    Tony.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Truthseeker

      Tony, from that page, I think that this is the money quote;

      What is Climate?

      Climate is defined as the average weather for a region over a period of time with the two main features being temperature and precipitation. Climate is influenced by the following factors:

      Latitude & Altitude
      Solar radiation
      Ice and snow cover
      Air mass influences
      Global highs and lows
      Oceanic heat exchange
      Mountain barriers
      Prevailing winds
      Land & sea distribution

      CO2 seems to be missing …


      Report this

      00

  • #
    kramer

    I once read that something like over 90% of the world’s ice is located in the Antarctic.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    handjive

    O/T – for the record.
    The ‘predictions’ 2012:

    September 19, 2012
    Summer forecast: dry and bushfire hot

    Forecasters at the Weather Channel, AFTER the wettest two-year period on record, said Australia will have a hot and dry summer this year as the El Nino phenomenon gets a grip in the central and eastern Pacific.

    In a report made available to The Australian, said the nation could expect a spike in cyclones, a return to heatwaves and an increase in grass fires in what they call the severe weather season, from October to April.

    The BoM:
    The Bureau of Meteorology predicts warmer-than-normal days for eastern Australia and warmer nights for the western half of the continent for the three months to the end of November.

    It predicts a wetter-than-normal three months for southwest Western Australia and southwest Queensland and drier conditions for the remainder. (same link)

    For the record, BoM 2009:

    David Jones, the head of the bureau’s (BoM) National Climate Centre, said there was some risk of a worsening El Nino event this year, but it was more likely to arrive in 2010 or * 2011.

    * See “wettest two year period” above.

    Update, US Climate Prediction Center (CPC) 7 Sept. 2012:

    “The much-feared El Niño will develop weakly this month after mostly neutral conditions in August and persist through February of next year, the CPC predicted in its monthly report.
    It had forecast weak-to-moderate conditions in August.”

    “At this point the most likely outcome is a weaker event,” Michelle L’Heureux, meteorologist and head of the CPC team that assesses the El Niño and La Niña phenomena, told Reuters.

    A strong El Niño, essentially a warming of waters in the equatorial Pacific Ocean, can cause widespread drought in Australia, parts of Africa, Southeast Asia and India, but also bring rains to other parts of the globe.

    *** ( following info from Chiefo, and commentator, Ian W)

    Look at http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst_anom_new.gif and see the cold upwelling from the coast of Peru out into the Pacific.
    It looks more like the return of a La Nina.


    Report this

    00

    • #

      Watch the oceans. They’re the best surface indicator of the weather to come.

      One could look at the sun, but its inevitable influence cannot directly produce forecasts of weather trends without also knowing at least the state of the oceans.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Ross James

      We will see. Yet another alarmist “Coldest” comment.

      As for polar ice – I think there is too much confusion about sea ice extent and actual mass ice loss as applies to both poles.

      As “coldest” skeptics never understand –

      Fact 1: Antarctica is a CONTINENT – hence the apparent difference in responses to warming sea current and albedo responses.
      Fact 2: Grace mass measurements proven to be highly accurate yet foolish skeptics think it is fake. Now where have I heard about fake events? Want to name a few?
      Fact 3: Melting is occurring at an alarming rate on the West Antarctica Peninsular as it is exposed to warmer waters and is that is not dissimilar to Arctic Sea ice exposure. Suppose this is global cooling evidence?
      Fact 4: Fresh evidence is emerging from ice core proxies that Antarctica is not that stubborn in eventually responding to climate temperature shifts in what is known as tipping point responses to 1 degree Celsius rises above and beyond the present regime of global temperature.

      Skeptics never think in terms of climate regime shifts, acceleration of feedbacks, and always forgive higher thresholds of temperatures too easily as being past records. The logical fallacy is thus. Climate Change is never LINEAR. Neither is sea level. Check global minimum temperature fall backs. They trend upward as well. The variability from highs to minimums has never been tighter.

      Yes we know. Heard about it. Know quite well about the growing sea ICE extent. So what does that prove?

      Global warming gone – zip – zero. The “cold” fairy has waved her magic wand and now all that nasty climate stuff has gone away.

      Rest easy Northern Hemisphere folks. You can always migrate if the Northern Hemisphere continents become a dust bowl with hellish heat.

      Sorry but very soon into the next decade the continuing armchair debates about climate change will become your own midnight nightmare when the ghosts of your past take you on a reality tour of your future.

      When we had the LIA it was much colder. As we climb out of the LIA through radiative forcing the threshold of in between health and crop benefits of a warmer climate will give way to a growing disparity of growing poverty and crop failures.

      _______
      Ross J.


      Report this

      10

      • #
        Grant (NZ)

        benefits of a warmer climate will give way to a growing disparity of growing poverty and crop failures

        In my estimation due to bungling Government intervention.


        Report this

        01

      • #
        Crakar24

        Come on Ross, i defended you the other day and now you are making me look like a fool.

        Fact 1: Antarctica is a CONTINENT – hence the apparent difference in responses to warming sea current and albedo responses.

        Ross the sea ice is at record levels this cannot be construed as a “apparent difference in responses to warming please, please stop with the lectures and present facts.

        Fact 2: Grace mass measurements proven to be highly accurate yet foolish skeptics think it is fake. Now where have I heard about fake events? Want to name a few?

        Please name them Ross you cannot look any more foolish than you do now.

        Fact 3: Melting is occurring at an alarming rate on the West Antarctica Peninsular as it is exposed to warmer waters and is that is not dissimilar to Arctic Sea ice exposure. Suppose this is global cooling evidence?

        Funny thing about facts Ross, they always trump religious ramblings

        http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/07/110715-undersea-volcanoes-antarctica-science-tsunamis/

        Now lets go to the map

        http://maps.nationalgeographic.com/maps/map-machine#s=r&c=-59.5343180010956, -43.59375&z=4

        Oh no Ross, volcanoes the size of mount Fuji right where you claim warm water is melting Antarctic ice……..do you think there could be a connection? Do ya think Ross? But no GRACE which was not designed to measure sea ice is telling us there is less (its a fake its a fake says the dir-e denier). I pity fools like you Ross.

        Fact 4: Fresh evidence is emerging from ice core proxies that Antarctica is not that stubborn in eventually responding to climate temperature shifts in what is known as tipping point responses to 1 degree Celsius rises above and beyond the present regime of global temperature.

        Fresh bullshit or not Ross the Antartic is at record high levels whilst the Antartic is at record lows and this is the second time this coincedence has occured in 5 years when are you going to get it through your head that there are things happening beyond our comprehension, beyond the walls of your stupid ideas backed up by stupid models!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

        The rest of your comment is jibberish so i will not respond any further.


        Report this

        01

        • #
          Ross James

          Respectfully Crakar24 you did indeed throw a bit weight with your support. I thought it was also very fair previous commentary to the above.

          Thanks.

          _______
          Ross J.


          Report this

          00

      • #

        Ross,

        in your Fact 3, you say:

        Fact 3: Melting is occurring at an alarming rate on the West Antarctica Peninsular (sic) as it is exposed to warmer waters…

        I particularly note the way that you Alarmists always insert the word alarming somewhere to add your own personal emphasis.

        Earlier on, I left a link at one of my comments to Antartica’s weather.

        One of the headline factoids shown there says the following:

        Coldest Temp: -129°F (-89°C) on July 21, 1983 Location:Vostok Station
        Warmest Temp: +59°F (+15°C) on Jan 5, 1974 Location:Vanda Station
        Mean Temps: Winter: -40 to -94°F (-40 to -70°C) Summer: -5 to -31°F (-15 to -35°C)

        Note specifically how even that maximum Summer Mean never gets close to 0C, so none of that ice will ever melt.

        The Ice that YOU mentioned is Sea Ice Ross, and is part of the normal cyclical melt in that area, and Ross, it’s not alarming, it’s normal.

        Some areas of that Continental Ice that will never melt are nearly 5 Kilometres thick Ross.

        It also says there that:

        Because of the tilt of the earth’s axis relative to its orbit around the sun, the sun does not shine at the South Pole for six months of the year. When the sun does shine, much less solar energy actually reaches the ground at the Pole because the sun’s rays pass through a thicker layer of atmosphere than at the Equator. Also, due to the predominance of ice and snow covering Antarctica, most of the sun’s rays that do reach the ground are reflected back into space.

        Ross, that ice will never melt.

        YOU say alarming, hence scare campaign. Ross, you make the boy who cried wolf look like an angel.

        Tony.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Ross James

          How selective of you. Good cherry pick Tony!

          http://www.earthtimes.org/climate/west-antarctic-ice-shelf-nudge-push-collapse/1977/

          It is not the melting of sea ice over Summer we are presently worrying about. It is all about potential Ice sheet/shelf collapse with Summer melt backs that exposes ancient locked in ice to warmer seas at the WA peninsular edges. This tipping point could dramatically change any linear sea rise projection where models UNDERESTIMATE sea level rises by 2100.

          Let’s also be clear Southern Antarctica. This has gotten cooler through changing wind patterns across the continental bound ice. But this is not the real concern for a least 100 years from now. Yet contra to sea ice regrowth (how many times do we go down this unscientific measurement blind alley). This tells us nothing of ice mass. Melting ice blocks anyone on a hot day. It spreads out.

          Let’s get to the global temperature charts and Tony do yourself a favour – check those annual averaged minimums. We all know you do qualitative calculations on electricity – try your hand with looking at global minimum trends over the last 30 years. A simple awareness of facts. Brisbane had some of the meanest winters on record where you would not survive outside in the 60s. Different today – way different.
          _______
          Ross J.


          Report this

          00

          • #
            Sonny

            Wow did you actually just use the word “tipping point”?
            That’s just awesome


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Crakar24

            Ross,

            Did you look at the links i provided some ways back? The WAP is a mountain range produced by two tectonic plates colliding.

            They have mapped this area and found there are many, many, many volcanoes etc some as big as Mt Fuji. Two points from this evidence the first is that this will be seen by GRACE as changes in the gravity field and second it will warm the waters in the area.

            Now i suspect that you do not agree with this but as yet you have completely ignored it all, could you please offer your opinion on the above evidence and its effects on the WAP (if any in your mind).

            TIA

            Crakar

            PS i am asking because i would like to know why you disregard this evdence as i cannot see any reason why one could but maybe you know why it should be disregarded.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Mark D.

            I’ve not seen any warmist paper in any field that considers geo-thermal heat (and changes thereof).

            Perhaps Ross has something in his paper vault?


            Report this

            00

  • #
    Sonny


    SAY NO TO CLIMATE CHANGE!


    Report this

    01

    • #
      Crakar24

      OK

      There is NO MAN MADE climate change


      Report this

      01

    • #
      AndyG55

      “SAY NO TO CLIMATE CHANGE!”

      Why the **** would anyone bother doing that !!

      NO-thing humans can do will effect NATURAL climate variablity

      NO reduction on CO2 will have even the slightest effect on climate.
      It all been just a total and absolute WASTE OF MONEY.
      Money that could have gone to decent causes, like bring the developing countries forward by providing decent, RELIABLE energy using NATURAL coal fired power.

      NO – you take just one of those pills.. not 5 !!!


      Report this

      01

  • #
    • #
      Crakar24

      Sonny,

      If the radar is sited in the middle of the “doughnut” then i would say you have a problem with your receiver system if it is not then i suggest it is with your post processing of the data.

      I do like the way they approached a crop circle expert to give his views ROFLMBFAO.

      Then of course we make the dodgy connection to HAARP get your tin foil hats ready.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Crakar24

    completely off topic actually way off topic but…………..

    Do we have any scientists out there? The job i am applying for states i need experience on scientific instruments, are accelerometers, strain gauges and low frequency microphines scientific instruments?

    TIA


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Gee Aye

      yes they are but only when used for scientific investigations. It is an annoying expression because it can be read that the instrument itself in some way embodies science. In reality the scientificness of something is determined by it being successfully used to produce data that addresses a scientific question.

      Instruments that can be calibrated against standards and which can be used to produce accurate and precise data from validated studies is another type of instrument that is “scientific”. These are the sorts of things that NATA oversees for instance.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Crakar24

        Thankyou very much for your help GA, if you must know we use them to measure the aero dynamical affects on aircraft when we bolt extra things on that would not normally be there.

        The tests are usually at teh behest of scientists so by what you say they are used in teh correct context.

        Once again thanks for your help

        Crakar


        Report this

        00

      • #
        crakar

        A thumbs down? This is a tough crowd GA.


        Report this

        00

    • #
      Wayne, s. Job

      A ruler and a plumb bob have been used very successfully as scientific instruments.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Mark D.

      Vibrations man, that’s the ruin of many a good things.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    pat

    new fear-mongering!

    19 Sept: AAP: Qld mines’ coal to ‘eclipse UK’ carbon
    COAL from nine mega coal mines in central Queensland will produce more carbon emissions than the whole of the United Kingdom’s coal industry, Greenpeace says.
    A new report by the environmental group says nine mines planned for the Galilee Basin will result in 700 million tonnes of carbon dioxide being pumped into the atmosphere each year.
    Greenpeace chief executive David Ritter says that if the Galilee Basin was a country, it would become the seventh-largest emitter of carbon dioxide pollution from fossil fuels in the world…
    The group says coal mining is contributing to record levels of melting ice in the Arctic and called for a halt to the industry’s huge expansion in Queensland.
    Mr Ritter warned the Galilee mines would exact “a terrible cost” on farms, water supplies and communities, and turn the Great Barrier Reef into a coal superhighway…
    The Queensland government dismissed the Greenpeace report…
    The Queensland Resources Council (QRC) also dismissed the report, calling it a “comic book”…
    http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/breaking-news/qld-mines-coal-to-eclipse-uk-carbon/story-e6frf7kf-1226477120278

    19 Sept: MySunshineCoast: Greenpeace ‘scary monsters’ report has zero credibility
    ‘Not satisfied with their February 2012 prediction that Queensland would be exporting 944 million tonnes of coal by 2020, Greenpeace’s ‘scary monsters’ unit has lifted their fanciful prediction to 1056 million tonnes of coal exports from Queensland ports,’ said Chief Executive of the Queensland Resources Council Michael Roche.
    Mr Roche said that coal exports from Queensland over the 13 years to 2011-12 grew by a compound average growth rate of 4.4 percent, from 94 million tonnes to 165 million tonnes, and that in the past five years, growth had been only 1.5 percent per annum (from 153 million tonnes to 165 million tonnes).
    ‘So after the Queensland coal industry has managed to grow exports by a grand total of 71 million tonnes in the past 13 years, Greenpeace would have people believe that coal exports will grow by a further 891 million tonnes over the next decade…
    http://www.mysunshinecoast.com.au/articles/article-display/greenpeace-scary-monsters-report-has-zero-credibility,27135


    Report this

    00

  • #
    inedible hyperbowl

    From Delingpole

    The ABC is like a comedy pastiche of the BBC: all the outrageous green/left bias, profligacy, arrogance, political correctness and statism which we grumble about in the BBC is magnified a thousandfold in its Australian sibling.

    <SNIP>
    Here are a few of the possible rewards for your donation.

    $10 – Graham Readfearn will nearly choke on a dessicated redback in his organic muesli

    $50 – Ben Cubby may well find himself working under a new environment editor when Gina Rinehart finally takes over the Fairfax media. Can you guess who that environment editor might be? Clue, Ben: I like being called “Sir” – or, informally, “Magister” – by my minions.

    $500 – Stephan Lewandowsky will be reassigned and forced to get a proper job driving trucks in the Pilbara.

    $1000 Planning permission will be granted for a new Eco-Dam Hydropower Development (TM) on the Hawkesbury River, causing waterside properties such as Tim Flannery’s to sink forever beneath the waters. But Tim won’t mind. He’ll always happily take a hit for Mother Gaia. And on his A$180,000 (for a three day week) salary as Australia’s Climate Commissioner, hell, he can afford it too!

    $10,000 Julia Gillard will be strapped to a giant wind turbine in the mouth of Sydney Harbour, there to act as a dreadful warning to all who would mess with the economy of the Lucky Country.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    UPDATE: Here’s a note I meant to put in and have only just added. Links in the post. – Jo

    Antarctic sea ice is yet another model failure…

    I should add in seriousness, that The Hockey Schtick also discusses Turner et al 2012, which compares model predictions of Antarctic Sea Ice with observations and finds: “In contrast to the satellite data, which exhibits a slight increase in SIE (sea-ice-extent), the mean SIE of the models over 1979 – 2005 shows a decrease in each month, ” and also “The negative SIE trends in most of the model runs over 1979 – 2005 are a continuation of an earlier decline, suggesting that the processes responsible for the observed increase over the last 30 years are not being simulated correctly.”

    REFERENCES
    John Turner, Tom Bracegirdle, Tony Phillips, Gareth J. Marshall, and J. Scott Hosking (2012) An Initial Assessment of Antarctic Sea Ice Extent in the CMIP5 Models Journal of Climate; e-View doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00068.1


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Crakar24

      Its worse than we thought……….no hang on……………what do we say when we get it ass backwards?……….silence? I will not be sil………..ooooooooooooh ok.

      The sound of scurrying cockroaches can be heard as Robb Oakshott draws back the curtains and lets the sun shine in.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Sonny

        Yeh well talk to the consensus buddy.
        We got a consensus. What da u got? Just a bunch of second rate science outcasts.
        We’s gonna save the world so get onside with us or continue denying smoking causes cancer.
        It’s just that simple.
        Peace


        Report this

        00

  • #
    old44

    SPIRIT OF TASMANIA ICEBOUND IN PORT PHILIP BAY


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Alarmed

    Scientists have been warning that the Arctic is the most vunerable place to the effects of warming.It is a different environment to the Arctic.Sea ice volume in the Arctic has reduced by 75 percent since 1979,with rapid acceleration over the last ten or so years.Greenland has also had a record melt year and its glaciers are accelerating lubricated by melt water.Feedback effects,loss of reflective ice,the size of Canada and Alaska,thawing permafrost releasing methane caltrates.If this place warms up too much we could be looking at sea level rise much faster than predicted by the IPCC
    The IPCC reports said 2100 would be the year the arctic would go ice free in summer,others said much earlier and were,and still are,being mocked for not getting the year exactly right.Media outlets who reported on warnigs by scientists of an early collpse of Arctic sea ice are jeered for being alarmist scaremongers with an agenda.
    Where is the accountability of the anti AGW brigade for getting the Arctic so boisterously wrong,and then without a hint of shame,claim to be experts on the Antarctic instead?
    Playing look over there won’t cut it. The Arctic approaching and going ice free in summer will convince an awful lot of people to reach their flipping point.Public opinion will be largley convinced of the need to act.
    Promoting the anti AGW message is going to get very difficult, without seeming to anyone rational obtuse.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    It’s funny Jo, that I actually agree with you that the Antarctic should be getting much more publicity than it is, but not for the same reason as you. You see, when you actually do a little bit of research into the effects of decreasing salinity on the thermocline, you will understand that the lack of decline in Antarctic sea ice is actually a consequence of global warming. Atmospheric perturbations result in increased ice mass wastage which in turn reduces salinity in Antarctic waters which results in cooling at the surface. It’s simple physics and doesn’t take a great deal of effort to understand it. At some point in the near future Jo, the balance in Antarctica will shift and it will follow the path that the Arctic has. I’m wondering where you will avert your eyes to when that happens?


    Report this

    00

    • #

      Dearest anonymous-commenter-with-shifty-IP: The GRACE study was superseded by ICESat which showed the Antarctic Ice Sheet mass was stable net, not shrinking.
      It’s also simple physics that the Arctic shrinkage has a lot to do with black carbon deposits. Black being quite different to white in an albedo sense. Just ask NASA “Why Cutting Black Carbon Emissions May Save Arctic Sea Ice” .

      Your condescending attitude appears to be misplaced, as do your concerns.

      Zwally, H. Jay; Li, Jun; Robbins, John; Saba, Jack L.; Yi, Donghui; Brenner, Anita; Bromwich, David Mass, 2012: Gains of the Antarctic Ice Sheet Exceed Losses, Surv Geophys
      McConnell et al. 2007 20th-Century Industrial Black Carbon Emissions Altered Arctic Climate Forcing Science, Vol. 317 no. 5843 pp. 1381-1384 DOI: 10.1126/science.1144856


      Report this

      00

      • #

        Shifty IP? Are you suggesting that moving about in this world e.g. home to work, is shifty?

        That said, thankyou for finally getting around to publishing my comment. I thought for a moment you might be following in Anthony and Steve’s footsteps in censoring anything they don’t agree with. Well done.

        [Who are Anthony and Steve?" The guys who censor debates are called John Cook and Stephan Lewandowsky. - Jo]

        Now, as for the black carbon, I don’t disagree that it has had some effect in the Arctic but surely you aren’tgoing laying the blame solely on that? The overwhelming evidence points to temperature eroding multiyear ice over the past 30 years as being the primary cause. As for the Zwally paper, did you read it? Here is the relevant part of the abstract. Highlighting is mine.

        Imbalances in individual drainage systems (DS) are large (-68% to +103% of input), as are temporal changes (-39% to +44%). The recent 90 Gt/yr loss from three DS (Pine Island, Thwaites-Smith, and Marie-Bryd Coast) of WA exceeds the earlier 61 Gt/yr loss, consistent with reports of accelerating ice flow and dynamic thinning. Similarly, the recent 24 Gt/yr loss from three DS in the Antarctic Peninsula (AP) is consistent with glacier accelerations following breakup of the Larsen B and other ice shelves. In contrast, net increases in the five other DS of WA and AP and three of the 16 DS in East Antarctica (EA) exceed the increased losses.

        Alternate interpretations of the mass changes driven by accumulation variations are given using results from atmospheric-model re-analysis and a parameterization based on 5% change in accumulation per degree of observed surface temperature change. A slow increase in snowfall with climate warming, consistent with model predictions, may be offsetting increased dynamic losses.

        So, the freshwater that is altering salinity levels is increasing in the summer and being dumped as snow in the winter, consistent with global warming. I had forgotten about the Zwally paper. Thanks for the tip.


        Report this

        00

        • #

          Yes, “The overwhelming evidence points to temperature eroding multiyear ice over the past 30 years as being the primary cause.”
          Congratulations. Warm weather melts ice. That tells us nothing about the cause of the warm weather. The models are proven failures (See the post, and here, and here). You have nothing. – Jo


          Report this

          00

          • #

            Is that [snip irrelevant ad hom]

            Tell me something, Jo. What happens to the water holding capacity of air when you warm it up? Now, given that increased CO2 does increase air temperature, yourself and the climatologist Anthony point that out, and given that increased temperature does increase water vapour, and given that water vapour is the primary greenhouse gas, and given that the CO2 increase is the result of human activity, are you suggesting that the warming in the Arctic is natural? Is that really what you are saying? far from having nothing Jo, I have the weight of evidence affirmed by every major scientific institution in the world and the vast majority of actual experts.[snip, OT ad hom]


            Report this

            00

            • #

              YAWN – proving that you don’t know what evidence is, you think the opinions of committees within associations is evidence about the climate. You have nothing. No observations from instruments. PS: I didn’t conclude anything about the cause. It might be man-made soot as well as natural (read my comment again). Having comprehension trouble? PPS: Don’t waste my time pumping out illogical comments that need snipping.- Jo


              Report this

              00

        • #
          Crakar24

          Sorry to butt in here but i feel i must make a correction to something UKISS has said

          So, the freshwater that is altering salinity levels is increasing in the summer and being dumped as snow in the winter, consistent with global warming. I had forgotten about the Zwally paper. Thanks for the tip.

          -

          And yet from the authors of this paper here say
          http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2012/09/antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-record-high.html

          The authors lament, “The negative [Antarctic sea ice] trends in most of the model runs over 1979 – 2005 are a continuation of an earlier decline, suggesting that “the processes responsible for the observed increase over the last 30 years are not being simulated correctly.”

          and

          “Several of the models have less than two thirds of the observed SIE (sea-ice extent).”

          Have a read for yourselves so as you can see i am a little confused when i see a paper describing record sea ice levels in contradiction to the models and yet we still get people telling us this “is all consistent with global warming” how does one reconcile between the two?????????


          Report this

          00

        • #
          Jaymez

          It seems you like to throw in a few red herrings and a little cherry picking to distract from inconvenient facts ‘uknowispeaksense’.

          I’ve been to Antarctica including the Antarctic peninsula and have climbed active volcanic mountains and swum in volcanically warmed sea water. It is no surprise that there is a difference between West and Eastern Antarctica which has nothing to do with salinity, or as suggested at your blog site ‘Penguin poo’!

          “Antarctica consists of two geologically distinct provinces, a Precambrian craton in the eastern hemisphere, and a younger series of mobile belts south of the Pacific Ocean. Unlike its land-based counterpart covering the East Antarctic craton, the base of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) is largely below sea level in the Ross and Weddell embayments. … West Antarctica has been part of the tectonically active mobile belt generally known as the circum-Pacific “ring of fire”, the zone of plate convergence. … Ongoing fracturing, volcanic activity and bordering uplift associated with the development of the rift system combine to modify the predominantly sub-sea level lithospheric cradle of the unique marine-based WAIS. … The geochemistry of the bimodal volcanic rocks indicates impingement of a mantle plume beneath the nearly stationary Antarctic continental lithosphere as the likely cause of both uplift and volcanism.”

          “The Antarctic region includes amongst the world’s best examples of a long-lived continental margin arc (Antarctic Peninsula) from which vast amounts of the Earth´s inner heat are liberated. The heat drives vigorous seawater circulation through the ocean crust.

          According to Smithsonian Institution’s Global Volcanism website, Antarctica has the largest number of active volcanoes in any land region of the world.

          “Thus, while air temperatures in most of Antarctica have been unchanged or slightly cooling (except for the northern part of the Antarctic Peninsula where there is very little land), sea surface temperatures have been increasing around volcanically active areas of the Antarctic Peninsula. This has resulted in the thinning of some ice shelves from below.”

          In February / March 2008, part of the Wilkins ice shelf collapsed and of course, it was blamed on global warming by eager climate warmists!

          “The occurrence of volcanic and fumarolic activity in the area has been well documented. There is also evidence that the El Nino Southern Oscillation results in warm currents that encounter the peninsula which also impacts the sea surface temperature in West Antarctica.”

          How much longer will warmists avert their eyes to the evidence rather than selectively cherry-picking material to suite their meme in the Arctic and ignore what is happening in Antarctica?

          References:
          1. NASA Antarctica Temperature Trends Imagery http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=6502 Provides the image from satellite infrared imaging, showing Antarctic temperature trend for 1982-2004. The image shows trends in “skin temperatures” – temperatures from roughly the top millimeter of the land or sea surface—not air temperatures. Some of the smaller near-shore red spots are due to a change from ice to water, thus creating a skin-temperature increase since the type of “skin” has changed. However, around the tip of the Antarctic Peninsula and just offshore from West Antarctica, the sea surface temperatures show an increase.

          2. The Antarctic Peninsula / West Antarctica Region is distinct from the larger East Antarctica. West Antarctica is volcanically active, whereas East Antarctica is quite stable. The Transantarctic Mountains provide the defining line between the two parts. According to “The Lithospheric Setting of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet” by Dalziel and Lawver (Antarctic Research Series Vol. 77, American Geophysical Union, 2001 [http://pangea.stanford.edu/research/Oceans/GES206/readings/Dalziel%20&%20Lawver%202001.pdf])

          3. The British Antarctic Survey’s volcano page [http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/about_antarctica/geography/rock/volcanoes.php]Shows the heavy incidence of volcanic activity in West Antarctica.

          4. European Science Foundation Standing Committee for Life, Environmental and Earth Sciences (LESC)’Long-term monitoring of deep ocean hydrothermal ecosystems’ http://www.ipgp.fr/rech/lgm/MOMAR/ESF/ESFWSreport.pdf This paper shows how the Mid-Atlantic Ridge connects to the Antarctic Peninsula, and discusses how vast amounts of the Earth´s inner heat are liberated along these ridges.

          5. Tectonic, volcanic, and hydrothermal event sequence on Deception Island (Antarctica)
          J. Rey, L. Somoza and J. Martínez-Frías Geo-Marine Letters, 1995, Volume 15, Number 1, Pages 1-8


          Report this

          00

          • #

            It really is a small world. You are the third person in as many days I have spoken to claiming to have been to Antarctica themselves. Amazing. Isn’t google wonderful? So I’m guessing it must be all those underwater volcanoes all over the world warming all the oceans and they must have all decided to become geologically active at the same time. Another massive coincidence. Thanks for the geology lesson by the way.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Catamon

            [SNIP. Something to offer? no I didn't think so] ED


            Report this

            00

        • #
          Jaymez

          Now that is the sign of the desperate ‘unknowispeaksense’- a conspiracy theory that Climate Skeptics are making up claims about having been to Antarctica. Three responses – you’d better let Lewandowsky know quickly!

          I trust you will post that shattering response on your blogsite.

          And while casting aspersions on my character, I see you didn’t bother addressing any of the scientific evidence stuff – convenient that huh? Maybe your warmist acolytes won’t notice.

          I guess that’s how you roll!

          The funny thing is you smirk at the likelihood someone who is knowledgeable about the real Antarctic environment and what is happening there has actually been there, as against just sat in an office and played with computer models.


          Report this

          00

        • #
          Mark D.

          Uknownonsense says:

          …..A slow increase in snowfall with climate warming, consistent with model predictions, may be offsetting increased dynamic losses.”

          So, the freshwater that is altering salinity levels is increasing in the summer and being dumped as snow in the winter, consistent with global warming.

          So to be clear, you (warmists) are saying that more snow and increasing ice at the poles is because of global warming AND you (warmists) are saying that less ice at the poles is because of global warming.

          I see…….

          Are you ever bothered by the notion that everything is caused by global warming? A skeptical mind would be.


          Report this

          00

  • #

    Great “headlines”! Love the creativity when it comes to showing the foolishness of the climate change bunch!”


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Sceptical Sam

    No. Seriously. This increase in Antarctic ice is a real worry. The globe is about to go pear-shaped with major environmental catastrophes to follow.

    Like a knock-me-down ball that always recovers its original position the Earth will become bottom heavy and either:

    1. sink into the next galaxy; or,

    2. stabilize the seasonal tilt.

    The implications of the first are fascinating as it could mean that the Earth becomes the first inhabited space travelling planet in the history of the world. I mean; the first ever!

    The second is far more serious. Stabilization of the seasonal tilt would have a severe impact on the Winter Session of Parliament in Canberra.

    How?

    Well, because there’d be no winters anymore they couldn’t have a Winter Session. That means less time to enact more legislation and regulation. This would be a good thing and could lead to a great economic boom. Business, for example, would be able to get on with what it does best. Parliamentarians on the other hand would be doing less work and therefore would have their salaries and expenses adjusted down in accordance with the changes in their work value. That’s a good thing too.

    There are many other benefits that flow from this. However, space prevents me from elaborating here; but you can use your imaginations if you choose.

    Follow ups are always appreciated.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Watts and McIntyre. I have highlighted their censorship on my blog. I actually don’t really have a problem with it in Steve’s case other than the hypocrisy of his position. His blog, his rules, his hypocrisy. [snip - unsubstantiated, inflammatory, OT -J]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Crakar24

    A little off topic

    http://iceagenow.info/2012/09/csiro-warns-dramatic-climate-change-effects-australia/

    The article shows a picture of the Sydney opera house up to its back teeth in sea water but in the article they state that this is an exaggeration, the blog asks “so why show the picture?” which is a fair question. Could it be that they are lying? Oh no don’t say it is true UKISS of course will lap this up and stick it on his blog and claim this picture was produced by a climate model so it must be true LOL.

    Too bad sea levels are still dropping, for all those statistically minded here is the data since 2002

    ftp://ftp.aviso.oceanobs.com/pub/oceano/AVISO/indicators/msl/MSL_Serie_EN_Global_IB_RWT_NoGIA_Adjust.txt


    Report this

    00

    • #
      jiminy

      Well I’ll bite.
      That data has a very significant positive trend.
      I take it it’s in meters and your point is that the short term trend (which would then be 2.4 mm/year) is a little less than the 30 year trend of 3.1 mm/yr, same site?

      Regression Statistics
      Multiple R 0.859625719
      R Square 0.738956377
      Adjusted R Square 0.738319686
      Standard Error 0.004018711
      Observations 412

      ANOVA
      df SS MS F Significance F
      Regression 1 0.018744037 0.018744037 1160.618719 1.2212E-121
      Residual 410 0.006621516 1.615E-05
      Total 411 0.025365553

      Coefficients Standard Error t Stat P-value Lower 95% Upper 95% Lower 95.0% Upper 95.0%
      Intercept -4.279100403 0.139801279 -30.60844963 6.0548E-108 -4.553917111 -4.004283696 -4.553917111 -4.004283696
      X Variable 1 0.002372632 6.96443E-05 34.06785462 1.2212E-121 0.002235727 0.002509536 0.002235727 0.002509536


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Crakar24

        Yes thats correct the trend is going negative and yet we have to endure CGI of catastrophe because the realms of fantasy are the only places it would ever occur.

        Thanks for that Jiminy


        Report this

        00

  • #
    Ferdinand

    Is it naive to suggest that we look at total ice. i,e glaciers and Arctic and Antarctic ice. If the Antarctic ice is growing and the Arctic is shrinking and some glaciers are shrinking and other are advancing aren’t we at a sort of equilibrium in keeping with a very slight rise in global temperature ?


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Dear Jo,

    With the greatest of respect, I think you your sarcasm and/or complacency is inappropriate.

    There are two main reasons the Antarctic is not melting as fast as the Arctic:
    1. Antarctica is surrounded by the Great Southern Ocean – which keeps higher latitudes in the southern hemisphere cooler than equivalent locations in the north; even when perihelion (i.e. Earth closest point to the Sun) occurs in the Antipodean summer (as it does at the moment).
    2. Antarctica is being kept colder than it would otherwise be as a result of the hole in the ozone layer (which is only disappearing very slowly after the phase-out of CFC’s over 20 years ago).

    Despite all this, large parts of the Antarctic are warming up (the Peninsula and the West Antarctic Ice Sheet in particular). So, as I said, there is absolutley no excuse for being sarcastic and/or complacent.

    Kind regards,

    Martin Lack.


    Report this

    00

    • #

      Martin, thanks for your well mannered contribution.

      My sarcasm is directed at the media coverage, not at Antarctica, and I have yet to see anyone defend journalists unprofessional bias as “activists” rather than impartial and investigative reporters. Are the citizens not smart enough to make up their own minds given all the facts?

      Plus, even if Antarctica was warming, (and the latest data suggests it isn’t, see Zwally and the latest GRACE reports too) that doesn’t tell us about the cause of the warming. Again, I come back to the evidence that matters re cause and effect — the ocean heat content is not rising fast enough, and any recent rises are in mysteriously deep water, the predicted hot spot in the troposphere is missing, the computer models rely on assumptions about humidity and cloud coverage, yet their predictions are wrong. See AGW is disproved

      Zwally, H. Jay; Li, Jun; Robbins, John; Saba, Jack L.; Yi, Donghui; Brenner, Anita; Bromwich, David Mass, 2012: Gains of the Antarctic Ice Sheet Exceed Losses, Surv Geophys


      Report this

      00

      • #

        Thanks for your similarly-polite response, Jo. However, with regret, I cannot say I am impressed with any of your arguments for remaining sceptical (especially since I think I know where [or rather 'who'] they came from). We live in a post-modern World full of post-normal science. Therefore, cynicism and uncertainty are understandable. However, have you ever stopped to consider who it is that has a track-record of lying and deceit? Who is it that lied about the health risks of smoking cigarettes, breathing asbestos dust, and using CFCs? Were people who campaigned to establish the truth of these matters environmental “alarmists” too? Who do you think invented terms like “junk science” and/or the “nanny state”? Was it scientists? No, it was public relations experts acting on behalf of big businesses who wanted to create fear, uncertainty and doubt; and boy oh boy, have they been successful.
        http://lackofenvironment.wordpress.com/2011/10/04/to-all-who-say-agw-is-junk-science/
        http://lackofenvironment.wordpress.com/2011/09/18/agw-what-would-jesus-do/


        Report this

        00

        • #
          AndyG55

          This guy could give the Lew a run for his money !!!


          Report this

          00

        • #
          Myrrh

          Martin Lack
          However, have you ever stopped to consider who it is that has a track-record of lying and deceit? Who is it that lied about the health risks of smoking cigarettes, breathing asbestos dust, and using CFCs? Were people who campaigned to establish the truth of these matters environmental “alarmists” too? Who do you think invented terms like “junk science” and/or the “nanny state”? Was it scientists? No, it was public relations experts acting on behalf of big businesses who wanted to create fear, uncertainty and doubt; and boy oh boy, have they been successful.

          Have you ever stopped to consider who it is that has a track-record of lying and deceit?

          Lung Cancer:

          http://www.lcolby.com/b-chap3.htm

          In the United States, the male LCDR is 1.4%, the female risk is 0.7%. Hungary, with the highest rate of cigarette consumption of any country, has a male LCDR of 2.4; female 0.5%. Hungary shares the highest rates with its neighbor, Czechoslovakia, where the male rate is 2.4% and the female rate is 0.3%. Prima facie, these figures indicate that a high smoking rate is associated with a high LCDR. Or do they?

          Let’s look at Japan. As we have seen, Japan is practically tied with Hungary for the highest rate of cigarette consumption in the world. It turns out, however, that the male LCDR in Japan is 0.5%. That’s approximately one-fifth the rate in Hungary; approximately one-third the U.S. rate. The LCDR for females in Japan is also astonishingly low, 0.2%.

          And if you’re really willing to think about who is lying, to be scientifically objective, I suggest you read this page from which this extract:

          http://yourdoctorsorders.com/2009/01/the-myth-of-second-hand-smoke/

          In 1992, second hand smoke was labeled a Class A carcinogen: one that causes lung cancer and is responsible for the deaths of 3,000 Americans annually (U.S. EPA, 1993). However, there were no autopsies, no bodies, nor one person that could be claimed as a victim. The EPA did not base their classification on their own independent study but examined over thirty epidemiological studies (i.e., studies that attempt to correlate various risk factors with early death in different populations). Eleven of those studies were done in the United States, and of those eight found a positive risk, three found a negative risk but none of them were statistically significant (that is, none of the U.S. studies could make the statement that there was a causal relationship between second hand smoke and cancer).

          In medical research, a statistical confidence level of 95% means that there is only a five percent chance that a significant finding could be due to chance (i.e., a random result). In their interpretation of the epidemiological studies, the EPA made a critical procedural statistical alteration. They changed the confidence level to 90%. This statistical manipulation made it more likely that their findings would show significant negative health effects of second hand smoke, but also made more likely the potential for erroneous conclusions. Furthermore, the EPA did not take into consideration the factors independently associated with both the development of lung cancer and exposure to second hand smoke, factors that certainly could account for the purported relationship between second hand smoke and early death. Finally, they did not attempt to assure that the subjects were properly identified into the correct experimental group. The EPA left several important questions unanswered such as: Were the exposed cases truly ill with primary lung cancer? Had the subjects been smokers previously? Were they truly exposed to second hand smoke? And, did the subjects accurately report their exposure levels?

          The EPA also classified second hand smoke as a carcinogen based on chemical “similarities” between inhaled mainstream smoke and environmental tobacco smoke. Their logic was that since inhaled tobacco smoke is a carcinogen, environmental tobacco smoke must also be. Inhaled mainstream smoke, however, contains chemicals at concentrations of up to one million times those found in environmental tobacco smoke (which is a combination of exhaled mainstream smoke and sidestream smoke). Further, deep inhalation affects the degree of exposure to those chemicals, as well as the deposition of those chemicals into the respiratory passages of the smoker. One of the frustrating issues is we do not know the chemical, or chemical compounds responsible for the link to lung cancer and/or heart disease.

          My bold.

          There is a 30 year study on secondary smoke from California – this has been ignored, as you have the now countless incidents of fudged temperature data, such as the deliberate science malpractice in creating the Hockey Stick, and now on record from the Climagegate emails other fraudulent science practices against skeptics. Yet you’re defending the ‘science’ coming from these people..

          ..why?

          Asbestos? CFC’s? May be true maybe not. Have you actually examined any of these for yourself, objectively? You certainly haven’t done so on the effects of smoking linked to lung cancer..

          From your whatwouldjesusdo link:

          I know that it will come as unwelcome news to some (influenced by Dr. S. Fred Singer and Chartered Accountant Andrew Montford) to discover that this is in fact exactly what the IPCC was asked to do. The IPCC was not asked to come up with a plan to stall Western development, halt human progress, and facilitate worldwide authoritarian government. It was asked to try and come up with a plan to decouple environmental degradation from worldwide economic development.

          Our biggest problem today remains (as ever it was) that those with a vested interest in the continuance of business as usual continually seek to water-down IPCC reports (so that they are not too challenging); and to downplay, deny or dismiss the scale or immediacy of the problem we face.

          Oh gosh, we’re challenging the IPCC because we’re too stupid to cope with the enormity of the problem they’re dealing with..

          Nope, we’re challenging the IPCC because they were set up to create a non-existant problem for their own owner’s vested interests. The real consensus of scientists was that there was no problem and no connection to man-made could be shown, so they brought in Santer to obliterate their rational considered conclusion and all references to that conclusion and to make up the lie that there was a connection – that AGW was “consensus of scientists” is a LIE.

          A LIE from the start.

          http://larouchepac.com/node/12823

          Anyone with even a smidgin’ of ability to think rationally and objectively here, scientist or not, can see this is a con.

          You’d rather believe what the con artists tell you and the lies they make up to perpetuate their con?

          You’d rather regurgitate the rebuttal memes they’ve provided as you’ve done in this post, than look into it for yourself?

          You don’t know who has the track record of lying and deceit here.


          Report this

          00

    • #
      AndyG55

      a parody.. it must be !!!


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Bob Fernley-Jones

    Wanna grind your teeth?
    I found this in the Melbourne Age which I buy only on Thursdays for its “Green Guide”.
    The commentary is by an anonymous author/origin in the hard copy and includes the words:

    …Those who deny climate change are living in a fantasy world. The science is incontrovertible. The natural world is changing rapidly right now, and if sceptics want to prolong the debate on likely causes so be it. But much time has already been wasted…

    The title is: “Arctic melt heats up climate debate”, and when Boolean searching per Google that exact phrase a moment ago, there were 84 hits!
    How does one complain?


    Report this

    00

    • #
      AndyG55

      Warm currents went up to the Arctic, thinned the ice a bit, then a large storm broke up that ice.
      Now the warm ocean currents in the Arctic are loosing heat to the atmosphere rapidly.
      The southern oceans are also colder than they have been for quite a few years.
      The sun has almost gone to sleep this cycle.
      The heat that was in the system because of a few of decades of high TSI, is leaving the system.

      Many northern hemisphere countries have decimated their electricity supply systems by decommissioning coal and putting in useless wind turbines and solar.


      Report this

      00

      • #

        Can I suggest, Andy, that you read my comment #42 – and follow the links embedded therein.

        Also, you are only half right about TSI cycles: They, along with the vagaries of volcanic eruptions, ocean currents and other forms of atmospheric pollution (other than CO2), are responsible for periodic pauses in an otherwise relentless warming trend. They, as with the relatively cool state of Antarctica, are no justification for either complacency or sarcasm.

        Similarly, there is no justification for describing renewable energy as “useless”: If it is not windy it will probably be sunny, which means that diversity and distribution will deliver reliability. Furthermore, they may be thought of by many as unsightly but, whereas fossil fuels will only ever become more expensive (as both demand and/or scarcity grows), like all new forms of technology, renewable energy will only ever become cheaper (as demand and scale of production grows).

        Also, like it or not, we will eventually run out of fossil fuels, so we will have to find alternative energy sources – including nuclear fission and fusion probably. Furthermore, now that we know we are the main cause of the problem (just as we were with the hole in the ozone layer and Acid Rain), it would be a good idea to invest in the alternatives now. The post-Carbon era is coming; and none of us can prevent it doing so. However, the longer we resist its coming; the more costly the transition will be (in both financial and environmental terms).


        Report this

        00

        • #
          AndyG55

          You truly have become a (Snipped the pointless name calling) CTS


          Report this

          00

        • #
          AndyG55

          A SkepticalScience nonce, obviously !!!


          Report this

          00

        • #
          AndyG55

          neither solar nor wind, nor combined, can EVER hope to deliver reliable baseload electricity, you are TRULY fooling yourself if you think otherwise. !!!

          You ALWAYS need full backup by DECENT, RELIABLE plant food producing power !

          Go and do some learning for F S.


          Report this

          00

        • #
          Wayne, s. Job

          It would seem that recent analysis of available carbon based fuels gives us a grace time of a century or two for alternatives to be developed.

          These alternatives will not be wind or solar. Allowing the world to develope using cheap available means will clean up the environment as shown in the developed world and reduce the birth rate over time to zero growth.

          The wealth in education coupled with enormous growth in scientific and engineering development will solve any problems created by dwindling supplies of any elements.

          It has been noted in history that the prediction that cities would become uninhabitable within twenty years because of the mountains of horse manure did not come to pass, likewise the stone age did not end for a lack of stones.

          Yes you are right we will have power systems in the future not based on carbon, it will be because they are efficient, cheap to run and reliable, and not because of a lack of carbon fuels.


          Report this

          00

  • #
    AndyG55

    “If it is not windy it will probably be sunny, which means that diversity and distribution will deliver reliability.”

    ROFLMAO !!


    Report this

    00

    • #

      Is that what passes for a refutation of a logical argument on this website? Have you got any more one-liners to address the rest of what I said? Your fatuous and facile response makes me wonder if you even understood the point I was trying to make? If not, try this:

      Once you accept the reality that we humans are capable of adversely affecting our environment (something we started to do when we invented deforestation, agriculture, urbanisation, civilisation and industry)… the industrialisation of the outback (to generate renewable energy) may well be a price worth paying to prevent the worst excesses of anthropogenic climate disruption. However, please note that I am not misanthropic, anti-progress, or anti-Western. Furthermore, I may not be all that impressed with globalised Capitalism; but neither am I a socialist.
      See: http://lackofenvironment.wordpress.com/2012/06/25/why-i-am-not-a-socialist/


      Report this

      00

      • #
        AndyG55

        you are only worth one-liners.. Go back to SS where you came from !!


        Report this

        00

      • #
        AndyG55

        Do some research.. It has been shown that wind and solar require TOTAL reliable backup or more, and that by doing so, MORE CO2 is generally released into the atmosphere than just using the coal fired power station in the first place. Add that to the environemental and avian destruction caused by wind turbines. [snip]

        Anyone who advocates wind turbines is an environmental vandal!

        Anyone against solid reliable coal fired power for developing countries, is anti-progress!

        An yes, I know the point you were trying to make, and it is a moronic nonsense.

        [snip]

        And yes YOU have indeed lost your way, but been led astray. The pretense of non-socialism just because you don’t openly support the UN’s one-world agneda is yet another self denial on your behalf.

        Your psuedo-philosophies only work on the weak minded.

        Your AVID rejection of real scientists like Lindzen, shows you are a [snip, tone it down?]

        Darn, you even think The Ork is worth quoting , now there’s scientific Non-entity if ever there was one.

        let me guess.. because I can’t be bothered reading any more of your TRASH web site.. you are a psychologist, like Lewy !!

        yet another scientific and statistical illterate.

        (You need to back off on the attacks and get on the topic of discussion) CTS
        [Edited to remove shouting and tone down insults - Jo]

        00

        • #

          OK Andy, I referred to your comment as fatuous and facile, this may have annoyed you. However, I have at least tried to be polite to you. You, on the other hand, make a whole range of insulting remarks and unfounded assertions; including labeling me as left-wing and scientifically illiterate. Therefore, although you claim to have looked at my blog; you clearly have not read any of it.

          However, let me make it easy for you: I am no one-trick pony; and I do not fit into James Delingpole’s ‘Watermelon’ fantasy. As such, I am not pushing any “agenda” other than sustainability; and I am therefore in favour of anything that can help us de-carbonise our energy generation systems as soon as possible (including nuclear power).

          I am not sure who ‘The Ork’ is and, although I am not a psychologist, I do think you may need consider anger management therapy.


          Report this

          00

          • #
            Mark D.

            I am not pushing any “agenda” other than sustainability; and I am therefore in favour of anything that can help us de-carbonise our energy generation systems as soon as possible

            Well well well, aren’t you in denial?

            Do you really believe “sustainability” isn’t tied to a host of agendas? Do you not see Lysenkoism rampant in the “climate science world”?

            De-carbonization simply means a radical social reformation, a radical population reformation, a radical land use reformation, a radical end to personal freedom, a radical end to democracy.

            Where do you get the right to “Push” this agenda?

            There is so much wrong with your thinking…………….


            Report this

            00

      • #
        Catamon

        Is that what passes for a refutation of a logical argument on this website?

        Largely. Doesn’t take long for a newcomer to get abused. Its something that to be honest i find one of the more mildly amusing aspects of the community here. So much outrage at the slightest hint of ad hominem attacks on skeptics , but so quick to do the same to anyone who rattles their cage.

        That said some are less prattish than others and at times it can be entertaining.


        Report this

        00

  • #
    Ferdinand

    Martin – Since when have cynicism and uncertainty been identified modern ? Scepticism is the key essential of all science. It is because the AGW protagonists have denied scepticism that they are seen to be anti science. It is the AGW alarmists who are the deniers now.


    Report this

    00

    • #

      Hi Ferdinand. Thanks for the sensible question. What I meant is this: Cynicism is a modern disease, which has grown as a consequence of popular distrust of authority figures of all kinds. It has thus given rise to the popular ‘marketplace of ideas’ fallacy that contends that all opinions are equally valid. Uncertainty, on the other hand, is a facet of many aspects of many issues in environmental science (particularly those with a long gestation period). For example, look up ‘post-normal science’ on Wikipedia.

      Those who dispute the reality, reliability or reasonableness of the modern day consensus regarding climate change are not real sceptics. Real scepticism involves weighing all the evidence and remaining open to changing your mind. Fake scepticism, on the oher hand, decides first what the answer cannot be; and then rejects any and/or all evidence that conflicts with that a priori assumption. See: http://lackofenvironment.wordpress.com/2012/07/02/the-philosophical-roots-of-scepticism/ (and the two posts that followed it).


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Myrrh

        Those who dispute the reality, reliability or reasonableness of the modern day consensus regarding climate change are not real sceptics. Real scepticism involves weighing all the evidence and remaining open to changing your mind. Fake scepticism, on the oher hand, decides first what the answer cannot be; and then rejects any and/or all evidence that conflicts with that a priori assumption.

        Where’s the proof of “the reality, reliabiltiy or reasonableness of the modern day consensus regarding climate change”?

        All we see are lies; lies hiding data, lies manipulating data, lies against those pointing out the lies.

        Instead of fetching proof of your claimed reality you expect us to believe without question that the Sun which is 99.9% mass of the Solar System is insignificant in climate change, but a trace gas which is always shown to trail climate change by around around 800 years, is the culprit driving these huge changes into interglacials? Get real.

        You can believe in the magic supermolecule you’ve created which you’ve called carbon dioxide which you say can drive massive changes in and out of our Ice Age several hundred years before it itself begins to change, but we’re taking science here, your religious beliefs about your powerful version of the trace carbon dioxide are not science.

        Real carbon dioxide can’t accumulate in the atmosphere – it can’t defy gravity and it is constantly being brought back to the surface as rain, all pure clean rain is carbonic acid.

        Your basic science is a lie.

        What a strange God you’ve chosen to believe in..

        http://larouchepac.com/node/12823

        http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/schneidercutting19921.jpg


        Report this

        00

        • #

          All we see are lies; lies hiding data, lies manipulating data, lies against those pointing out the lies.(emphasis mine)

          With respect, you are clearly not looking carefully enough. I have already given you plenty of good reason to suspect that it is not the scientists that are lying to you; it is the fossil fuel industry.

          What I find most disappointing is the fact that real climate scientists such as Richard Lindzen can get away with accusing all those who disagree with him (i.e. just about every climate scientist on the planet) of being either stupid, careless or deceitful. And yet he has done so repeatedly; and appears to be blind to the ideological prejudice that has driven him to facilitate the denial of health and/or environmental problems for decades (i.e. first for big tobacco; and then big oil).


          Report this

          00

          • #
            Bob Malloy

            Martin,

            While you may at least give the appearance of being polite, you are in truth nothing of the sort. You criticise Lindzen “real climate scientists such as Richard Lindzen can get away with accusing all those who disagree with him (i.e. just about every climate scientist on the planet) of being either stupid, careless or deceitful.” As if what you claim to be true scientist expressing themselves in the following way “Next time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I’ll be tempted to beat the crap out of him. Very tempted.” – Dr. Ben Santer in a Climategate email are saints, all of us humans are prone to vanity and self delusion to lessor or greater degrees, it is not for you or anyone else to come here and accuse us of not being true sceptics, I believe many regulars to this site started on the other side of the argument, through various reasons we as individuals have examined the topic and changed our minds.

            It would be so much easier to have just stayed ignorant and accepted the status quos, I for one would not have been insulted regularly with threats of having my sins tattooed on my body, the suspension of democracy and calls that the media ban all mention of contrary views to the consensus. Thankfully I appreciate my rights as an individual and my right to think for myself.

            Even worse your link takes us to a blog article written by yourself, this can only be termed preaching from authority as if you are he final arbiter of what is or isn’t science. Excuse me if I don’t genuflect to your sense of superiority.


            Report this

            00

          • #

            Sorry you feel that way, Bob. I am merely using my blog as a place to pull together the evidence to show that you are almost certainly wrong to have decided that is is scientists (rather than big business) that is lying to you.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Bob Malloy

            I am merely using my blog as a place to pull together the evidence to show that you are almost certainly wrong to have decided that is is scientists (rather than big business) that is lying to you.

            Go for it Martin, keep deluding yourself. Jo has done several post outlining the fallacy of business, industry subverting climate science. Who are some of the biggest supporters of green energy and promoting CAGW, the insurance industry, the banking industry, GE, even BP were one of UEA’s original sponsors. This all despite the fact green energy can’t survive without them having their hands deep inside all our wallet’s and purses through subsidies.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Mark D.

            With respect Martin, it is you that isn’t looking deep enough. You think oil is big business? take a look at climate science funding and carbon tax distribution.

            The rest of what you post has been soundly de-bunked here. You need to read more of Jo’s site before you go off half cocked.

            Lastly, the single most telling indicator of your blind faith is your belief that solar and wind will ever be a cost effective replacement. There is SO much evidence to the contrary, only a completely indoctrinated fool could continue towing that line.

            PS you won’t find many here to be anti-nuclear. How does that sit with your notion that we are somehow blinded (bribed) or in cahoots with “Big Oil”?


            Report this

            00

          • #

            Does it make you feel better, Bob, to suggest that I am deluded? I am trying very hard to avoid using such emotive language… However, as I said, our absolutely finite sources of fossil fuels are only ever going to get more expensive; whereas our effectively infinite sources of renewable energy will only ever get cheaper. In the meantime, fossil fuels subsidies are many times more than those given to renewable energy (i.e. with or without the ‘greenwash’ from big oil) – What we have is definitely not a level playing field.


            Report this

            00

          • #

            “The rest of what you post has been soundly de-bunked here. You need to read more of Jo’s site before you go off half cocked.”
            Nothing has been “soundly debunked” on this website, ever! This is because Jo is almost always just parroting the misleading opinions of people like David Archibald, Bob Carter, Judith Curry, Richard Lindzen, Pat Michaels, Ian Plimer and Roy Spencer. What else can she do? She is not a climate scientist (and neither is David, Bob or Ian)! – No offence meant to anyone; I am simply stating facts!

            I was not accusing anyone on this website of being anti-nuclear (I was just falsifying another simplistic notion you may have about all those who accept that fossil fuels will run out one day). I have also not accused anyone on this website of being “bribed by” or “in cahoots with” big oil. I am just trying, very gently, to suggest that… You need to reflect on the campaign of denial waged by the tobacco industry; and ponder whether it is significant that the fossil fuel industry are using the same PR and advertising firms to deny that burning fossil fuels is causing climate change. It’s not rocket science!
            Tobacco: http://academicsenate.ucdavis.edu/forums/SoundScienceAJPH.pdf
            Big Oil: http://www.euronet.nl/users/e_wesker/ew@shell/API-prop.html


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Myrrh

            Big oil is lying to you..

            That’s how this started, Callendar and Keeling on the anti-coal campaign, but it was later picked up by big oil with the weight of the military/industrial complex able to take out competitors. That’s how CRU got funded, big oil and nuclear when they got Maggie on board, still funding them.

            This isn’t about any danger of ‘global warming’ which morphed in ‘climate change’ which morphed into ‘more extreme weather’, it’s the big industrialists in the oil industry and the bankers playing the population as suckers, using the Greenie useful idiots for their emotional energy to get and keep the whole thing going, Maggie got them on board.

            They’ve been funding AGW for a long time and they’re not without skill in manipulation, the simple classic of accusing their opponents of their own motives and faults is where the Greenies got caught in their net, because, as you’re doing, the green behind the ears never bothered to check if the memes they were regurgitating had any basis in reality. The Greenies are funded by Big Oil.

            Here, to get you started: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100020304/climategate-peak-oil-the-cru-and-the-oman-connection/

            And for interest how the carbon dioxide fake fisics got started, scramble for funding:

            http://www.kickthemallout.com/article.php/Video-Revelle_Admits_CO2_Theory_Wrong

            From which:

            These two research papers became the bedrock of the science of global warming, even though they offered no proof that carbon dioxide was in fact a greenhouse gas. In addition they failed to explain how this trace gas, only a tiny fraction of the atmosphere, could have any significant impact on temperatures.

            Do, please, take time to appreciate what’s being said here, because nothing’s changed – there’s still no empirical science given by those claiming AGW and The Greenhouse Effect is real.

            If you want to make a difference here, you try to find it.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Bob Malloy

            Martin; please excuse my bluntness with the use of the word delude, but is it not just a more honest way of reversing your own words where you say, “that you (meaning me) are almost certainly wrong to have decided that is is scientists (rather than big business) that is lying to you.”

            Also while every one here acknowledges current fuel sources are finite, it is also known that we will not exhaust them in our lifetime nor our children’s or grandchildren’s lifetime, so we have no need to rush into alternative energies that are neither reliable or cost efficient. On who is better subsidised, green energy or fossil fuel this may shine a bit of light on the subject. http://joannenova.com.au/2012/09/government-burn-70-billion-a-year-subsidizing-renewables-and-wild-claims-of-fossil-fuel-subsidies-debunked/. Though I expect you will not even read it as it was written by Joanne, and she is doing her very best to pull the wool over all our eyes and isn’t a climatologist, a field that is new to science and although Phil Jones, Michael E Mann may include the term in their C.V’s neither of them matriculated in any course with climate in the title.

            From The Above Link:

            When activists protest about “fossil fuel” subsidies, it is a case of extreme-wordsmithing. Like chinese-whispers, the truth gets turned 180 degrees. It takes a string of half truths stacked in a series to come up with something which is so completely counter to reality it is meaningless.

            The reality is that governments around the world are paying billions each year to prop up an industry that is inefficient, uncompetitive and unproductive. It’s money that is desperately needed in health or in real medical and scientific research.

            “More than US$70 billion of support is provided by governments to renewable energy production and consumption worldwide.”


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Winston

            Sorry Martin, you are wrong, in so many ways it is hard to know where to start.
            1. Cynicism is not a “disease”-modern or otherwise. It is a natural response to semi-educated people spouting off half-cocked on the flimsiest of evidence because, like most people in modern life, they lack discipline, principles and self-awareness. Secondly, vested interests of all kinds (Governments, NGOs, Big Business, Investment Bankers, Lobby Groups, Think Tanks) from all quarters have poisoned the information well so thoroughly that only the most well made arguments can be allowed to stand, all others need be rejected until they can be considered empirically sound- climate science has yet to attain that level of certainty in spite of its overtures to the contrary. This is not the fault of the skeptical questioner, but it certainly is the fault of those who are dishonest enough to espouse certainty when their is none, or attempt to manipulate data for political, financial or ideological gain. Climategate emails were especially damning and highlighted a culture of bullying, ostracising dissenters and attempting to hijack peer review.
            2. Authority means little if it is in bed with these vested interests, particularly when money, in the order of hundreds of trillions of dollars, is available for the unscrupulous. GE, for example is purely interested in renewables (wind turbines) because it makes them billions of dollars from this “investment” even though the technology is poor, it is actually unable to ever provide base-load power of any significance without supplementation, is environmentally damaging, aesthetically horrific and is worse still a net CO2 producer. It will, in 10-15 years time, IMO be regarded as one of the poorest investments in infrastructure in human history, all thanks to people such as yourself.
            3. As a medical practitioner, I can be honest with you about the failings of my specific exemplar profession often in not abiding by principles of scientific method, particularly in some specified areas. For example, the Healthy food pyramid was egregiously altered by the American Surgeon General because of the influence of the grain lobby in the most arbitrary and non-scientific fashion, and it is IMO one of the prime instigators (though by no means the only one) of our current obesity epidemic. The evidence for second hand smoking as a health hazard is also quite sketchy, though in that case smoking is such a disgusting habit with no intrinsic merit that I am fine with the somewhat loose application of the truth to remove what is an offensive pollutant with no redeeming qualities. People won’t starve, or freeze to death or be unable to maintain appropriate hygiene if this is made socially unacceptable. I could give you many more examples of settled medical science which are erroneous or lack evidentiary support. But I digress…..
            4. If politicians believe CO2 is the cause of CAGW, why are we pulling away from the only viable base-load sustainable power sources- Hydro and Thorium Nuclear, the latter of which is 20 years away even if we start now and is not even up for public discussion in this country ATM? It is because the idea politically is to MAINTAIN fossil fuels at or preferably above the present levels to tax them as an additional revenue stream for inefficient governments, and as a means to redistribute wealth at their whim and concentrate their power. They cannot lose that revenue stream once established without bankruptcy, so the net effect will be to DELAY the transition away from fossil fuels that you appear to desire.
            5. Unless and until there is a viable means of storing large amounts of power, solar and wind are not by any reckoning truly viable alternatives that you seek (and they are not renewable or sustainable anyway in the strictest sense), so the money currently diverted into these blind alleys would be better spent on practical solutions that actually work 24/7. Perhaps if such a solution was on the table, many of the skeptics here would be on board in spite of our misgivings about AGW, if only from an environmental basis- but the proviso would be that it would have to be relatively cheap and practically applicable to produce large scale power without drastically compromising the lives and prosperity of our global populace.
            6. The precautionary principle cuts both ways- there is a perfect storm coming, where a global loss of human life will exceed the toll from both World Wars combined, as a result of CAGW hysteria/Biofuels/Energy Poverty, because with solar physicists telling us that the sun is headed for a likely Dalton (or even possibly Maunder minimum- read about the big freeze in Ireland in the 1600′s to get a taste) there will likely be a fairly abrupt global cooling for which our energy deficient, agriculturally vulnerable world is completely unprepared. Are you prepared to wear the consequences of that eventuality where options for adaptation would be limited, when the AGW future is a far easier adaptation in a high CO2 environment?
            I could continue but I’ve barely scratched the surface of where your thought processes are at best incomplete, and at worst totally out of sync with reality. Suffice it to say that given the lack of compelling evidence presented by alarmists to the standard I personally deem necessary to undertake the drastic, expensive and geopolitically dangerous methods to which you ascribe, I feel it is a most egregious insult to myself, my fellow skeptics and particularly our generous blog hostess Jo for you to espouse such aspersions against our character without any evidentiary support whatsoever, then pretend you are being “polite”. People blinded by ideology and belief are the most dangerous kind of individual, those whose sense of moral righteousness allows them to countenance the destruction of the livelihoods of their fellow citizens, and endanger the health and wellbeing of all through hubris and a misguided sense of their own infallibility. Skeptics are not guilty of these sins, rather we aim to present valid reasons why the current paradigm is flawed and requires closer and more objective scrutiny, may well be polar opposite to the real dangers confronting us, and to highlight the possible ramifications of hasty, ill-conceived and ill-founded actions which place the futures of our grandchildren in every bit as much, if not more, danger than the alleged “dangers” we are told by our betters that we need to protect or mitigate against.


            Report this

            10

          • #
            Mark D.

            Winston!

            Very good sir! I think you blokes say HEAR HEAR….with that volley, Martin should be on the ropes.

            I agree fully on all your points and with regard to tobacco-cancer have you ever looked into mycotoxins (particularly aflatoxin)? There are known fungi that grow on the leaves during the curing process and produce. These very possibly are the real carcinogens in tobacco smoke.

            The food pyramid comment also caught me as I’ve been saying that for 12 years or more. The other reason for obesity IMHO is High Fructose Corn Syrup. Perhaps on a slow day we can discuss.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Winston

            Mark,
            Agreed- HFCS is a toxin, pure and simple- adulteration of food sources such as HFCS was what I was alluding to in the bracketed comment- “though by no means the only one” -in point 3, but wasn’t principal among the points I wished to make.

            I could write 40x as much in refutation to Martin and I doubt he would listen to it, because he is too wedded to the ideas behind CAGW, the “original sin” guilt at man’s evil carbon footprint plays too heavily into his world view. It suits him to believe we are narrow minded, that we are “pro-fossil fuel” (I’m not “pro” anything except evidence, pragmatism and evolutionary change as opposed to precipitous transformative approaches to exaggerated problems), or haven’t examined the evidence with his “depth” of understanding and objectivity. It would be too big a stretch for him to suggest that many here actually have no vested interests, are quite skilled at data analysis, and have better understanding of much of the physics and applied science than he does, and have merely formed a different opinion to him. That doesn’t make us right and him wrong necessarily, merely suggests that the basis of the consensus science is flawed or unconvincing to our point of view, with such “evidence” as Mann’s Hockey Stick (attempting to erase natural climate change of the LIA and MWP with shoddy and some would say fraudulent manipulation of data- standing in contradistinction to hundreds of papers peer reviewed with the exact opposite findings), Gergis’ paper (attempting to mimic the Hockey stick with SH proxies which were merely a distortion by use of dwindling cherry-picked proxy selection to funnel the desired result), the Shakun paper (ditto with the dwindling proxies), Kemp et al Sea level study (stupid in concept and sloppy in methodology), etc etc. So GIVE US BELIEVABLE AND RIGOUROUSLY VETTED EVIDENCE FIRST, then give us a legitimate comprehensive plan to transition from fossil fuels THAT MAKES SENSE, taking all issues into account without being cavalier to the welfare of humanity, and without playing into the hands of economic or political vandals. Then you might have something we can discuss. Until then, the onus of proof and the responsibility falls squarely upon Martin and his kind not to use imprecise terms dressed up as science (“Climate Change”, “Back radiation”), transparently expose findings to the court of public scrutiny without fear or favour, avoid data manipulation and honestly express doubts/limits and be prepared to admit fault when modelled data fails to produce the correct predicted outcomes. Unfortunately these points of refutation just falls on deaf ears, and they change the subject onto the next train of thought to reinforce the doctrine.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Bob Malloy

            Winston @ 45.1.1.1.9

            That post deserves a gold star, a simple thumbs up does not suffice.


            Report this

            10

          • #

            Winston 4.5.1.1.1.9.
            I am currently unemployed but, even so, I have much better things to do with my time than respond to such a gish-gallop of contrarian ideas. Apologies for all the time you wasted putting it together. However, please also note my response to Roy Hogue 46.1.2 (below).


            Report this

            01

  • #
    AndyG55

    (SNIPPED another full comment you posted that is completely off topic and merit less because you make personal attacks on Martin that is unacceptable.Attack what he post here if you think he is wrong but NOT him personally) CTS


    Report this

    00

    • #

      Andy, I was just trying to deal with the knee-jerk reaction I get from people like you who assume I must be a socialist. If you choose to believe that I am willfully stating things that are not true; that is not my problem. At least I do not accuse you of doing the same; all I have done is politely suggest that you may be mistaken (and/or uncritically repeating the propaganda of others).


      Report this

      00

      • #
        AndyG55

        Environmental politics.. Arts again.. a NON-SCIENTIFIC background, and darn it shows on your web site.

        Unable to understand the science yourself, you do as your “consensus” tells you to.

        There are SOOOO many things wrong on your site, you really appear to need to go back to primary school to get an education that actually does something other than waffle.


        Report this

        00

        • #

          Andy, cherry-picking data (or just not reading things properly) is clearly a very deeply-ingrained problem for you: Yes, I have most-recently obtained an MA in Environmental Politics. However, you seem to have overlooked (or chosen to ignore) the BSc(Hons) in Geology and the MSc in Hydrogeology and 25 years of professional work experience that preceded it. This includes at least 10 years spent using probabilistic computer models (of the same kind as climate models – albeit much smaller) to predict the results of groundwater flow and contaminant transport. What, amongst all your undoubted experience, helps you to second guess the validity of what most climate scientists agree is happening?


          Report this

          00

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        Martin Lack,

        Now that I’ve read all you’ve said you’ve succeeded only in convincing me that you’re a fool. You’ve trotted out the bottom of the barrel and tried to pass it off as sound argument for your cause. And then there’s your web site…

        But there’s one thing missing — actual evidence that CO2 is causing a problem. In fact there’s no evidence that there even is a problem.

        You’ll be gone again in a few days like so many others who’ve come raging in here to show us the error of our ways.

        In the meantime no one cares what your opinion is. Show us the actual empirical evidence to support the climate change scare. Can you do it? I wonder…


        Report this

        00

        • #

          With regret, Roy, I make a point of not getting into debates with people who will not even accept that the climate is changing. This is because, if that is your position, I would have to convince you that it is, that CO2 is the primary cause, that it will be bad, that it will be significant, and that it is worth trying to fix. Forgive me therefore, if I cannot be bothered to climb such a mountain.
          http://lackofenvironment.wordpress.com/2012/07/18/pythagoras-and-plate-spinning-for-fake-sceptics/

          N.B. You will no doubt interpret this as unconditional surrender (because “I” have no evidence). However, if you truly believe that then, this validates my decision to make what is a tactical retreat (because you have clearly already rejected all the evidence there is).


          Report this

          00

          • #
            Roy Hogue

            Martin Lack,

            I don’t deny that climate has changed. I just don’t choose to call a natural phenomenon a problem because I don’t believe CO2 has been responsible for it.

            There’s a big difference and you should get your “facts” straight. There is no evidence that CO2 is responsible for anything to do with the climate.


            Report this

            00

  • #
    michael hart

    If I was looking for hot disaster, I’d go for something along the lines of “The melt season has started earlier”.

    If that proved false, the third derivative often proves reliable: “The rate of increase of maximum sea ice is now falling”.

    Alternatively, just go for straightforward disaster, and hope no one cares about the details:
    “The sides of the ice are now too steep for the baby penguins to get out of the water. They will all die”.


    Report this

    10

  • #
    AndyG55

    As for de-carbonising our penergy supply systems, this is a TOTAL NONSENSE !! We should be doing JUST THE OPPOSITE !!!

    CO2 is HIGHLY BENEFICIAL for plant life and therefore for biodiversity and sustainablity, also for human food sources etc
    (so long as we don’t use vast quantities to make biofuel. DOH !!!!)
    Coal burning for power provides more world-wide sustainability than any other power source.

    We CANNOT EVER allow the CO2 level to drop back down to the dangerously low, subsistence level, of below 280ppm.
    We need to try to maintain the level at well over 400ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere, somewhere up near 1000ppm would be even better. Its time for nature to THRIVE !!!!

    There is plentiful supply of coal throughout the world, known reserves are at a higher percentage of use than they have ever been. And when other organic fuels are added to the mix, there is plenty for all uses for a long, long time.

    Coal is the ONLY fuel that can easily be used to provide solid reliable base load electricity to developing countries. We should be doing so.

    Given the environmental destruction wrought by wind turbines, I’m amazed ANYONE can countenance their use, but self-named environmentalists love them.. go figure !!

    Solar has its small place, hot water heating fior example, but until (if ever) a decent battery storage is devised, are again, pointless as base load supply.

    Yes, I’m pretty sure that of the known power sources, thorium based nuclear will be the power source of the future. .


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Clockwork

    this week apparently, the sea ice is at or near record highs

    No it’s not.

    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.antarctic.png


    Report this

    00

  • #
    James

    Update: One month on. Arctic ice still well below previous record for this time of year, Antarctic sea ice fallen back to near normal.

    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/

    More science on the differences:

    http://nsidc.org/icelights/2012/01/11/sea-ice-down-under-antarctic-ice-and-climate/
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/11/121111153813.htm


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Mark D.

      James, please explain how 3 degrees of warming would be enough to raise the pole temperatures from say -50 to enough to melt ice?

      Or do you believe the warmist predictions are wrong?


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Mattb

        ??? strange question Mark D. It is pretty obvious there is less ice in summer than in winter, it is harly controversial to suggest that if it is warmer there will be less ice. It is about 0C at the pole in summer.


        Report this

        00

        • #

          Say Mattb,

          it seems really odd that you would say this:

          It is about 0C at the pole in summer.

          Perhaps you really do need to check your facts before running off with flat out outright lies like this.

          Below is the link to the Antarctic Weather site.

          It shows the mean Summer temperatures across Antarctica as being between Minus 15C and Minus 35C. The current temperature at The Pole as you can see there at the top right is Minus 37C.

          I was just wondering where you got the Summer temperature at the pole as being 0C.

          There’s no contradicting what you say here, and there’s not even a hint of taking it out of context.

          Perhaps you might then enlighten us as to how ice melts at temperatures below Zero C.

          This link might help with your retraction and apology.

          Antarctic Weather

          Tony.


          Report this

          12

          • #
            Mattb

            James’ post mentioned arctic and antarctic sea ice. I honstly have not heard anyone talking about an impending ice-free antarctic so I took Mark D’s reponse, which was about “raise the pole temperatures from say -50 to enough to melt ice” to particularly imply the Arctic, as that is the only pole in play in terms of being ice free.

            Of course a rise of 3C will not melt ice at the Antarctic pole, unless it was some sort of record hot day there (where I am led to believe the warmest recorded temp is approx -5C).


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Mattb

            But Tony, I apologise if reading the thread in full and in context led you to believe I was saying that it gets to 0C at the south pole. That would be completely incorrect. Thank you for not even allowing the thought to cross your mind that I was assuming Mark D was referring to Arctic. I take solace in the fact that if I did mean Antarctic, so did Mark D, so two’s company at least.


            Report this

            00

        • #
          James

          The edges of Antarctica, where the glaciers flow into the ocean are warm enough for melting.

          In december last year
          Mawson reached 6.6 degrees
          Davis reached 8.2 degrees
          Casey reached 5.4 degres


          Report this

          00

          • #
            Mattb

            Let’s face it, if they were colder then they wouldn’t be the edges:)


            Report this

            00

          • #
            James

            Good point Mattb.

            Suggesting the ice can’t melt in Antarctica it bloody ridiculous given the first graph in this post shows that it does.

            And the animation of yearly melt/freeze must be an elaborate hoax http://youtu.be/CBD8hWbiFMI

            It does give us insight into the mind of the “skeptic” here.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Mark D.

            Oh goody both of you here so I can use one stone (so to speak).

            Nobody is denying ice melt, the challenge is to define normal.

            I asked how 3 degrees could do all this. Of course there hasn’t been 3 degrees of CO2 warming since 1979 has there?

            The Ice “record” warmists keep pointing to is based upon 1979 to 2000 mean. Tell me how much warming CO2 has caused since 1979? Who decided that 1979-2000 is “normal”?

            You keep going on about the mind of skeptics, I’ll keep going on about the mind of warmist propaganda artists that keep trying to scare people instead of proving that any of this is CAUSED by humans or CO2……….


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Mattb

            Mark D – what does your post have to do with whether 3C of warming will melt ice? You’ve questioned if there has been 3C since 1979, you question what is “normal”, and minds of prpaganda artists… but the reality is you said why will warming melt ice…


            Report this

            00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Mattb re-read what I really posted. If you need someone to spoon feed you this I’ll see if I can get Eddy…..

    PS what is three degrees warmer than -50


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Mattb

      Ahh so you WERE talking about the antarctic pole? wow. why are you trying to pretend there are people saying that ice at -47C will melt?

      How about you look at the point where the ice meets the ocean, and you tell me what will happen when it is 3C warmer. Hint – the top graph shows you what happens when it gets warmer and then cooler every year.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      James

      @Mark D. Your question was “James, please explain how 3 degrees of warming would be enough to raise the pole temperatures from say -50 to enough to melt ice?”

      This is a strawman argument since it doesn’t need to in order for melt from Antarctica to matter.

      No one is expecting -50° -> -47° to melt ice. They are expecting a change form -1° -> 2° to melt ice. They’re expecting changes from 5° to 8° to melt more ice than it currently does.

      Who decided that 1979-2000 is “normal”?

      No one does. 1979 is the beginning of satellite records. Different baselines will show different amounts of change. What’s your point?


      Report this

      02

  • #
    James

    New science on Antarctica says More Solid Measure of Melting in Polar Ice Sheets: Planet’s Two Largest Ice Sheets Losing Ice Fast.

    So despite a few days where Antarctic sea ice was setting a new record, the thing that matters to sea level rise, land-based ice appears to be melting.


    Report this

    01

    • #

      From your link…

      Since 1998, scientists have published at least 29 different estimates of how much ice sheets have contributed to sea-level rise, ranging from 1.9 mm (0.075 inches) a year to 0.2 mm (0.0079 inches) drop per year. The new, combined estimate is that ice sheets have since 1992 contributed on average 0.59 mm (0.023 inches) to sea-level rise per year, with an uncertainty of 0.2 mm per year. Overall sea levels have risen by about 3.3 mm per year during that time period, much of which is due to expansion of warmer ocean waters

      Grab a ruler, tell me what 0.59mm per year looks like. Alarming eh?


      Report this

      00

  • #
  • #