JoNova

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



The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

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



Climate Models: 100% right except for rain, drought, storms, humidity and everything else

Yet more observations from the planet show that modelers misunderstand the water based part of the climate – on our water based planet.

Modelers thought that dry ground would decrease afternoon storms and rainfall over those frazzled parched lands (though I don’t remember many headlines predicting “More Drought means Fewer Storms” ). But observations show that storms are more likely to rain over dry soil. Why? Probably the dry soil heats up faster than moist areas thanks to the cooling effect of evaporation, and that in turn creates stronger thermals over dry land. Modelers assumed that wetter soils means more evaporation and thus more rain, but the moisture laden air is evidently coming from further away.

It’s another example of a point where climate modelers assume a positive feedback, yet the evidence suggests the feedback is negative. Once again water appears to be the dominant force with feedbacks (it does cover 70% of the surface). In a natural stable system the net feedbacks are likely to be negative. Positive feedbacks make the system less stable (and more scary and harder to predict.)

Climate change models misjudge drought: “A four-nation team led by Chris Taylor from Britain’s Centre for Ecology and Hydrology looked at images from weather satellites which track the development of storm clouds across the globe.”

“The data trawl covered six continents, looking at surface soil moisture and rainfall patterns on daily and three-hourly time steps, with a resolution of 50 to 100 kilometres, over a decade.

“It’s tempting to assume that moist soils lead to higher evaporation, which in turn stimulates more precipitation,” said Wouter Dorigo of the Vienna University of Technology, a co-author.

“This would imply that there is a positive feedback loop: moist soils lead to even more rain, whereas dry regions tend to remain dry… (But) these data show that convective precipitation is more likely over drier soils.”

 

Graph of observations of soil moisture and storms

Click to enlarge

Compare it to the model predictions:

model predictions of storms and soil moisture

Click to enlarge


Chris Taylor, meteorologist, from Britain’s Centre for Ecology and Hydrology.

————————————-

ABSTRACT

Afternoon rain more likely over drier soils

Nature advance online publication 12 September 2012. doi:10.1038/nature11377

Authors: Christopher M. Taylor, Richard A. M. de Jeu, Françoise Guichard, Phil P. Harris & Wouter A. Dorigo

Land surface properties, such as vegetation cover and soil moisture, influence the partitioning of radiative energy between latent and sensible heat fluxes in daytime hours. During dry periods, soil-water deficit can limit evapotranspiration, leading to warmer and drier conditions in the lower atmosphere. Soil moisture can influence the development of convective storms through such modifications of low-level atmospheric temperature and humidity, which in turn feeds back on soil moisture. Yet there is considerable uncertainty in how soil moisture affects convective storms across the world, owing to a lack of observational evidence and uncertainty in large-scale models. Here we present a global-scale observational analysis of the coupling between soil moisture and precipitation. We show that across all six continents studied, afternoon rain falls preferentially over soils that are relatively dry compared to the surrounding area. The signal emerges most clearly in the observations over semi-arid regions, where surface fluxes are sensitive to soil moisture, and convective events are frequent. Mechanistically, our results are consistent with enhanced afternoon moist convection driven by increased sensible heat flux over drier soils, and/or mesoscale variability in soil moisture. We find no evidence in our analysis of a positive feedback—that is, a preference for rain over wetter soils—at the spatial scale (50–100 kilometres) studied. In contrast, we find that a positive feedback of soil moisture on simulated precipitation does dominate in six state-of-the-art global weather and climate models—a difference that may contribute to excessive simulated droughts in large-scale models.

———————————-

REFERENCE

Christopher M. Taylor, Richard A. M. de Jeu, Françoise Guichard, Phil P. Harris & Wouter A. Dorigo ‘Afternoon rain more likely over drier soils’ will be published in Nature on 12 September 2012. www.nature.com DOI 10.1038/nature11377

Press release: Eurekaalert

H/t to Mark in Perth

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.3/10 (52 votes cast)
Climate Models: 100% right except for rain, drought, storms, humidity and everything else, 9.3 out of 10 based on 52 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/9xck4vd

175 comments to Climate Models: 100% right except for rain, drought, storms, humidity and everything else

  • #
    Peter Parisotto

    At last something I can share on Facebook that won’t be pooh poohed just because it’s come from some “denier” site.

    Sorry, Jo, but wonderful sites like yours are just dismissed out of hand regardless of how much sense they make.

    Something from “Nature” magazine however seems to be instantly trustworthy.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Jaymez

      Peter,

      Jo often references peer reviewed research. And world renown scientists. Just look for the ‘references’ lists at the base of the articles.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Peter Parisotto

        Thanks Jaymez,

        this I realise, but unlike we, who will quite happily delve into the relevant papers, your average warmist is much happier with a name brand that they recognise and believe they can trust. That way they can just read the headline and know it’s “true” ;-)


        Report this

        00

  • #
    Crakar24

    Positive feedbacks make the system less stable (and more scary and harder to predict.)

    Every climate prediction i have seen has been wrong which infers climate is hard to predict the predictions are also getting more and more scary therefore positive feed backs do exist.

    Regards

    Your local IPCC representative


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Winston

      The more erroneous the models are, the more wide of the mark their predictions, the further removed from reality they become, then the more the alarmists seem to close ranks and utterly insist upon their accuracy.

      When, oh when will someone on the alarmist side just admit that they really haven’t got a clue how the complexity of climate responds to man’s influence (or any other external influence for that matter), and then maybe we can return to some sanity? It takes a big man (or woman) to admit failure, I doubt any are up to it. But remember, the last ones to bail out will be the ones left holding the baby! You can bet the pollies will jump first, and then guess whom they will blame.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      shirl

      And IPCC stands for? International Panel of Climate Criminals or Ignorant Prognostication on Climate Crap Who knows?


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Sonny

    All the climate models / predictions are correct you simply need to appreciate what they are predicting.

    It’s pretty basic:

    More positive feedbacks –> higher predicted temperatures –> CO2 is bad –> governments/banksters make money off taxation and trading –> climate scientists make money.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Graeme No.3

    Ring up Stephen Lewniedowsky and he will explain that this paper is a conspiracy theory put out by chain smoking oil company executives, therefore it should be ignored.

    Of course the climate is largely negative feedback. If there were strong positive feedback, it would be so obvious that there would be no debate. For a start we’ve had a 40% increase in CO2 since (1850?) which on the IPCC model should have resulted in a temperature rise of 1.7 ℃ (ignoring effect of urban heat).
    Don’t point this out to the Warmistas or there will be a fresh round of temperature adjustments.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Streetcred

      If the atmosphere and its constituents bits did not comprise a net negative feedback system, we’d've been toast long ago … there probably wouldn’t have been a long ago.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        ExWarmist

        Streetcred is correct.

        Any system dominated by net positive feedback is inherently unstable.

        If the Earth’s climate was dominated by net positive feedback to CO2 concentrations than it would have gone into an irretrievable runaway state early on in it’s planetary evolution.

        The warmists have no effective counter argument on this (or any other) point.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Crakar24

          Lets wait for GA to make comment as i am sure she will have something constructive to say on this matter, i cant wait to read her pearls of wisdom.


          Report this

          00

        • #
          Evgueni Kretchetov

          ExWarmist says
          “Any system dominated by net positive feedback is inherently unstable.

          If the Earth’s climate was dominated by net positive feedback to CO2 concentrations than it would have gone into an irretrievable runaway state early on in it’s planetary evolution.

          The warmists have no effective counter argument on this (or any other) point.”

          I agree. If the system is unstable it will change until it becomes stable. Claims that minute fluctuations of a trace gas, whatever it may be, (and even IF it was capable of warming the climate, which I believe it is not) can DRIVE the climate and make it unstable, when it fluctuated in the past with much greater amplitude, simply does not make sense.

          That is all there is to know to conclude that AGW is not possible.


          Report this

          00

          • #
            Grant (NZ)

            Unstable ==> stable. Isn’t that the opposite of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics? Order ==> chaos.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Evgueni Kretchetov

            “Grant (NZ)
            September 14, 2012 at 4:54 am

            Unstable ==> stable. Isn’t that the opposite of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics? Order ==> chaos.”

            If you were right, we would see Egyptian pyramids flipping around and balancing on the pointy ends! That would be chaos indeed!!

            And why do you think explosives go “BANG!” – because they are inherently unstable and seek to gain stability.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Grant (NZ)

            And why do you think explosives go “BANG!” – because they are inherently unstable and seek to gain stability.

            The 2nd Law specifies “in a closed system”. Explosives can sit there for long periods quite stably. But something introduced from outside the system – an ignition source – leads to the explosion.

            I think you might be mixing your metaphor.

            I suppose it just depends on how large your “closed system” is.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Rob JM

            2nd law actually refers to how thing move from a higher energy state to a lower energy state.
            The lower energy state will always be an equilibrium point (valley) and the net result is negative feedback.
            If something tries to escape the valley their will be resistance (energy losses.)
            Positive feedbacks can only occur through two methods.
            A/ 0th law of thermodynamics, when separates systems are connected they will accelerate towards a new equilibrium.
            B/ Internal canibalisation of other energy source. A system can flip between different energy states with the proviso that the total of all energy in the system is minimised. ie a high sensible low kinetic state could switch to a high kinetic low sensible state (ie engine transferring the energy of combustion to the car movement ) naturally with energy losses.
            This is where AGW goes wrong. An increase in the proportion of one energy type (sensible or heat energy) must cause a reduction of another energy type. Their theory (water vapour positive feedback) represents a gain in another energy type so violates the 2nd law! (via gibbs free energy principles and le chateliers principle)


            Report this

            00

    • #
      ExWarmist

      G#3.

      I believe that I have come across the most apt theme Another Brick in the Wall song for our erstwhile professor Lewandowsky.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        ExWarmist

        Another example – long play – here

        The professor/teacher has lost their true and honest purpose when the become the propagandist whose methods are designed to shut down the human mind.


        Report this

        00

  • #

    The usual response to any scrutiny (let alone criticism) of the results produced by the climate modelling gods is to tell us that, since we are not climastrologers ourselves we are not qualified to comment.
    As a result Steve McIntyres statistical analysis of the Hockey Stick is not good enough because he is just an ordinary comon or garden statistician and not a climate statistician.
    We are then told that about 97% (or was it 997% ?) of all scientists agree with any random wild alarmist prediction, despite the fact that only some tiny proportion of scientists even study anything even vaguely climate related.

    I think we need to get push the idea that even though you need decent qualifications to be taken seriously when you PROPOSE and idea you do not have to have much to be in a position to OPPOSE an idea. All you need to have is one credible criticism.
    eg. I don’t know much about the rules for siting a weather station but I do know that ‘behind the nearest jet airplane’ is not the best place. I know nothing of open heart surgery I will complain to even the most distinguished surgeon if he tries to open me up with a rusty butter knife plucked out of a trash can.

    Similarly you need not have much knowledge at all to be able to see when predictions (such as those above) fail against reality.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Streetcred

      My understanding is that the climate modelling mob are sans qualifications in physics and meteorology or anything of any real relevance.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Gee Aye

        So if I make random unsupported assertions I too can have streetcred?

        Apart from anything else, you do realise that the early release paper cited above is full of models itself? Watch out the models are coming to get yoooo


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Crakar24

          Ah GA always the funny man er sorry woman.

          What you need to realise is the use of said models is different in this study as compared to the studies that have been proven wrong over time.

          The models that you like you know the ones that could not predict record decadal snow in the NTH Hemisphere or the lack of global temp increase for the last 15 years are based purely on theory, theory that is flawed. They basically get a bunch of numbers whos starting point is unknown, guess a whole lot more and then attempt to mimic the global climate system as a mathematical constuct.

          The models used in the above are based on empirical evidence…..sorry empirical means

          1, Relying on or derived from observation or experiment: empirical results that supported the hypothesis.

          2, Verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment: empirical laws.

          3,Guided by practical experience and not theory, especially in medicine.

          So they get all of this empirical data and they plug it into a simple model, i say simple because they are not trying to model the climate system just one part. Look at it this way this study uses a model as a tool whereas you favoured models are everything, they are the data, they are the methedology, they are the results.

          Now run along and take your trollish attitude with you.


          Report this

          00

        • #
          BobC

          Streetcred
          September 13, 2012 at 4:00 pm · Reply
          My understanding is that the climate modelling mob are sans qualifications in physics and meteorology or anything of any real relevance.

          Gee Aye
          September 13, 2012 at 4:31 pm · Reply
          So if I make random unsupported assertions I too can have streetcred?

          Well, let’s see:

          Rajendra K. Pachauri, Chairman of the IPCC since 2002, has a degree in Railroad Engineering. And, he is also a member of the Special Class Railway Apprentices, so he might know a lot about railroads. (He also writes [snip - Mod], but whether this helps him produce IPCC reports is not clear.)

          Gavin Schmidt is a prominent climate modeler at NASA (as well as being an ‘enforcer’ on RealClimate). NASA calls him a ‘climatologist’, but his education is a Bachelor of Arts in mathematics and a PhD in applied mathematics. He doesn’t seem to have any physics or atmospheric science background at all — which doesn’t prevent him from pretending expertise on RC.

          I could go on, but there wouldn’t be room. Here is some further reading on the ‘qualifications’ of the IPCC’s ‘scientists’. It’s not at all hard to find much more along the same line.

          And, as Crakar points out, qualifications are irrelevant since the IPCC’s models are just plain wrong and have demonstrated their lack of predictive skill over and over.

          How much more support do you need?


          Report this

          00

          • #
            BobC

            Question to Mod:

            It’s no secret that Pachauri writes rather steamy ‘romance novels’, so why the snip? Is this an editoral opinion on the literary value of “Return to Almora”?


            Report this

            00

          • #
            BobC

            OK, I can see a point to being sensitive to unnecessary exposure to liability — I’ll try to keep my opinions non-libelous.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Gee Aye

            Great I know this. How does this support this (which I was directly replying to

            My understanding is that the climate modelling mob are sans qualifications in physics and meteorology or anything of any real relevance

            As Mark D understood, but Craker failed to grasp is that this is a stupid statement. It is stupid because it is wrong. The fact that you have cited some people without relevant expertise does not mean that there are none.

            And just to avoid multiple posts… below Exwarmist and streetcred respond to me with some statements unrelated to my post. I’m not going to follow up on non sequiturs.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Crakar24

            But Bob Panchuri owns a company called TERI based in India and therefore is not part of the 21 countries that has to pay for all this so Panchuri has benefitted nicely from all of this.

            Lets not forget Flannery who has no claims to be an expert on this subject also has turned this into a “nice little earner”.

            And of course no list containing the corrupt of the corrupt would be complete without Al Gore.

            All these men are experts in the field of making money from others stupidity but between them they have not a clue of climate science and yet idiots still believe.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Gee Aye

            Craker… is today non sequitur day? No one told me. I’ll join in and discuss Fremantle’s chances tonight if you wish.


            Report this

            00

      • #

        Gee Aye, I am not sure whether you read what I wrote but I get the impression that it applies to you.
        Read it again.

        “So if I make random unsupported assertions I too can have streetcred?”

        The point is that if you assertions are supported by a single fact then your qualifications are irrelevant. And if your facts are wrong then, once again, your qualifications are irrelevant.

        In short it is only the message that matters, not the messenger.

        You are correct that the above paper is based upon some models and so, IF you have any counter evidence then you may be in a position to invalidate some of the models.
        If do not then you have nothing.


        Report this

        00

      • #
        AndyG55

        The original computer modeller were actually in the field called “attribution” or “causal” analysis. Neither of these is by any means a SCIENCE.

        They were essentially computer nerds with very little knowledge of anything except computers.
        They started trying to attribute the slight rise in temperature to “something”, and decided it must be CO2 because they had zero knowledge of things like urban heat effects and where temperature readings were taken.

        They saw a correlation between CO2 and temp in the short window they were investigating.

        Then the UN saw an opening to make some major cash………. and the rest is history.


        Report this

        00

    • #
      Apoxonbothyourhouses

      You are so right but, but, but … Appreciate that the Lewpapers and Michael Boomerang Hockeysticks of this world don’t give a sh*t about what others think. Safely on the gravy train they are going to ride it as long as we taxpayers keep funding them. These are the very non-scientists who have attempted to close down any opposing voices (denying Monckton access to forums etc.) in a way that would have made Spanish inquisitors proud. We proudly think of this in scientific / logical ways whereas for them this is a “religious” cause so can ignore inconvenient facts.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Sonny

    What the [snip] would anyone know about anything unless they have the requisite authority?
    Respect their authority! They are climate scientists, they have authority!


    Report this

    00

    • #
      ExWarmist

      Only the authorities are truly human…

      The rest of us are simply expendable, interchangeable constructs, with the appearance of being human…

      / – psychopathic perspective – it’s useful to consider how we are viewed by the 1% who lust to rule.

      If you don’t think that what I have said is true, consider how often in history, the common man has been slaughtered, starved, and abandoned at the whim of their rulers.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      From whom do they receive this authority? And by whose authority does the said authority have the requisite authority, to bestow such authority?

      Looks a lot like a circular argument to me, which is a logical fallacy.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Crakar24

        From whom do they receive this authority?

        Normally i would say God but this is climate science so maybe i should say themselves?


        Report this

        00

        • #

          Their authority is ultimately derived from the implicit threat of the use of force, since their argument no longer appeals to reason. (Not to the likes of us anyway). Probably why they felt the need to surreptitiously insert themselves into our democracies. Notice how this debate is not being held in non democratic countries. It’s not required since the whip is already firmly in hand. They must be green with envy.


          Report this

          00

      • #
        Sonny

        Who cares where they get their authority or their “expertise”.
        They have it, and we would be wise to respect it and not ask questions.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          ExWarmist

          Sonny says…

          Who cares where they get their authority or their “expertise”.
          They have it, and we would be wise to respect it and not ask questions.

          Are you being sarcastic?

          If not – have you considered the abrogation of responsibility for your own mind that you are endorsing?

          Consider these points.

          [1] Which environment best suits the psychopathic predators/parasites, one in which people are empowered to think for themselves – or one in which they are not empowered to think for themselves?

          [1.a] Whose hands do you think that your trust plays into?

          [2] Can you have human liberty without the empowerment of human freedom of thought and self expression?

          [3] Can you have a moral society without human liberty?

          [4] Would you obey the authorities if they asked you to murder the innocent?

          [5] Do you find it difficult to challenge those in authority?

          [6] Is comfortable enslavement better than uncomfortable freedom?

          [7] Is it possible for those in authority to be hostile to your self interest?

          [8] Is it possible for those in authority to lie, cheat, steal and murder?

          [9] Can you achieve the full realization of your human potential if you do not have individual liberty?

          [10] Do you ever ask questions?


          Report this

          00

          • #
            Sonny

            As a newly converted warmist I can answer all your questions:

            [1] not empowered. But psychopathic predators/ parasites get the money and power. And I am One! I’m a winner!

            [2] who gives a damn about human liberty, empowerment, freedom etc. I have a bigger house than you, I have more influential friends and I get to travel around the world with your tax dollars! Haha

            [3] society is naturally immoral, and we are all free to act immorally to get ahead of the goody two shoes who play fair.

            [4] I am the authorities, and nobody is innocent I would murder to stay top dog. The world is overpopulated anyway. Mankind is a virus.

            [5] No, I like to challenge myself from time to time.

            [6] that’s a question for the slaves and plebs of which I am not one!
            They like to be told what to think.

            [7] ofcourse, there is infighting even among our elitist ranks. It’s a do eat dog world.

            [8] dah! How did you think we got here? Playing nice?

            [9] are you asking my what my personal wealth is? Sorry I’m not following.

            [10] Not unless I first know know the answer or ask it in such a way that the answer will be to my liking.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            ExWarmist

            Sonny,

            Are you being sarcastic? – yes!

            Thumbs up.


            Report this

            00

      • #
        Bob Malloy

        From whom do they receive this authority? And by whose authority does the said authority have the requisite authority, to bestow such authority?

        This is sort of off topic, maybe their authority comes from one of NZ’s newest residents.

        “there goes the neighbourhood”


        Report this

        00

  • #
    Ross James

    This is not what I have read of many variant modelling of climate change responses.

    In many cases there will be an increase in hydrodynamical activity according to many models. This includes events of large downpours and severe storm events transpiring.

    This paper clearly stated this obvious point:

    Some computer models for global warming may be over-estimating the risk of drought, according to a study published on Wednesday by the journal Nature.

    And further:

    “a difference that may contribute to excessive simulated droughts in large-scale models

    That is: When the resolution of the global terrestrial modelling is large in scale there can be bias to dryer drought prone conditions. This is then subject to conditions of the behaviours of upper atmospheric moisture in the afternoon window that develop precipitation in the form of storms as extreme heated air rises to the upper atmosphere. This then accounts and fits some climate models that predicted high ratios of greater downpour intensities but with increasing tendencies to drier conditions between those storm events. Such models PREDICTED accurately the flooding events of Queensland in 2010/2011 taking into dependent on sea born upper air moisture currents hovering over the drier very hot terrestrial land masses.

    It is typical that skeptics take this to mean ALL climate models when quite clearly this is incorrect. Not All climate models predict a lack thereof of increased hydrodynamical extreme events transpiring such as those storms over dryer areas when conditions are right in upper atmospheric moisture.

    We seeing such an event right now in Queensland. We have had one of driest last few months on record at present. I know of course this will lead to dramatic storms eventually [hopefully] that will circumvent a prolonged drought condition we are presently experiencing. This is not necessarily of benefit longer term as times betweens rains and harsh drying heat of Queensland’s Summer play a rather a cruel joke on any vegetation that get accustomed to CONSISTENT rains.

    The models predict also that Queensland’s South East will substantially dry out over the next 50 years but with temperature rise conditions. It depends by how much global temperature averages will rise applied to our region. For example with a global rise of 2 degrees Celsius there is a slight shift to favourable rainfall patterns subject to La Nina entrenched conditions. If the temperature shifted another 1 degree; that is a global increase of 3 degrees Celsius by 2075 then it gets very serious with reliable rainfalls shifting to equatorial regions – Cape York of Queensland and the rainfall dropping to mild catastrophic conditions for South East Queensland. The reason and ANY global graphing of ENSO [ positive and negative] will confirm this to any die hard sceptic. Entrenched La Nina’s that bring rains to Queensland are not cooler. Check any chart. We are well into global warming despite the cooling effect that is temporal on climate on a regional basis. Queensland’s climate is hugely impacted by such events. [BOM]

    http://www.jamstec.go.jp/frsgc/research/d1/iod/2007/observations/emi_recent.jpg
    ______
    Ross J.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      AndyG55

      Ross, hows the Antarctic going !!

      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/10/icesat-data-shows-mass-gains-of-the-antarctic-ice-sheet-exceed-losses/

      And no Ross, in SEQ there will be a gradual decrease in rainfall over the next 20 or so years, probably followed by a 5-7 year drought There will be another deluge/flood in about 38-40 year, with maybe a minor deluge in about 20 year.

      This is the pattern, and ABSOLUTELY NOTHING has happened that would change that pattern.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        AndyG55

        ps.. By the next major flood in SEQ (38-40 year), everyone will have forgotten that this will happen.. and because of the drought that leads up to the deluge, will believe the “climate fools” like Flannery.

        and Brisbane will get flooded again. DOH !!!!!


        Report this

        00

      • #
        Graeme No.3

        minus 60 ℃ to minus 77 ℃; it is Spring you know.

        Watch out, Ross, that ice is just about to melt.


        Report this

        00

    • #
      Sonny

      Well said Ross!
      Let’s catch up at the next tax payer funded junket.
      Do you drink Grange?


      Report this

      00

    • #
      bananabender

      Brisbane’s annual rainfall varies between 250mm and 4000mm.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Mark D.

        Brisbane’s annual rainfall varies between 250mm and 4000mm.

        Yes, but NOW it’s different! Can’t you tell? Just ask Ross! He can tell.

        [I deleted all the comments below this one (7.3.x). Off topic and not productive. Take a hint, I don't like extra work.]ED


        Report this

        00

    • #
      Peter Miller

      Ross

      FYI, the summer rainfall areas of eastern Australia and southern Africa have similar climates. So, when one has a drought, the other one usually has one as well. There are things called natural climate cycles – the bane of the alarmist cause – which we can do nothing about. Here is the opening summary of an interesting study to this effect.

      Note the last but one sentence:

      “Despite a diligent search,no evidence could be found of trends in the data that could be attributed to human activities.”

      Isn’t it amazing what real scientists conclude in their research, as opposed to those ‘climate scientists’ who produce research papers which almost always have pre-determined conclusions – the normal pre-requisite for grant funding, i.e. “Make it scary”.

      Linkages between solar activity, climate predictability and water resource development*
      W J R Alexander, F Bailey, D B Bredenkamp, A van der Merwe and N Willemse
      TECHNICAL PAPER
      JOURNAL OF THE SOUTH AFRICAN INSTITUTION OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
      Vol 49 No 2, June
      2007, Pages 32–44, Paper 659
      This study is based on the numerical analysis of the properties of routinely observed hydro-meteorological data which in South Africa alone is collected at a rate of more than half a million station days per year, with some records approaching 100 continuous years in length. The analysis of this data demonstrates an unequivocal synchronous linkage between these processes in South Africa and elsewhere, and solar activity. This confirms observations and reports by others in many countries during the past 150 years.It is also shown with a high degree of assurance that there is a synchronous linkage between the statistically significant, 21-year periodicity in these processes and the acceleration and deceleration of the sun as it moves through galactic space. Despite a diligent search, no evidence could be found of trends in the data that could be attributed to human activities.Despite a diligent search, no evidence could be found of trends in the data that could be attributed to human activities. It is essential that this information be accommodated in water resource development and operation procedures in the years ahead

      The link is somehow corrupted, but here it is.

      http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=11%20year%20drought%20cycle%20highveld%20south%20africa&source=web&cd=8&cad=rja&sqi=2&ved=0CE8QFjAH&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.scribd.com%2Fdoc%2F16785731%2FLinkages-Between-Solar-Activity-Climate-Predictability-and-Water-Resource-Development&ei=KglDUOTgOsHNhAe5r4CgAw&usg=AFQjCNFJqoB6C_VbJTgHSGrtGtgT4HGdcw

      [I found a PDF version here: http://repository.up.ac.za/bitstream/handle/2263/5326/Alexander_Linkages%282007%29.pdf?sequence=1 ] ED


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Ross James

        No that was Africa. We need to see proxies that indicate climate pertaining to Australia, (such as ICE cores reading [proxies] over a 1,000 year period) to see if there are tell tale signs that Australia in reality maybe getting drier if the climate is warmer.

        Consequential to these readings it begs the question: If the climate of Australia gets warmer as predicted by AGW indicators even further becoming entrenched into a warming climate pattern (beyond cycles of ENSOs) does Australia become drier – i.e. less rainfall.

        I cite the following proxy studies as evidence that this is indeed a compelling indicator:

        A millennial proxy record of ENSO and eastern Australian rainfall from the Law Dome ice core, East Antarctica

        By Tessa R. Vance et al.

        Abstract

        ENSO causes climate extremes across and beyond the Pacific Basin, however evidence of ENSO at high southern latitudes is generally restricted to the South Pacific and West Antarctica. Here we report a statistically significant link between ENSO and sea salt deposition during summer from the Law Dome (LD) ice core in East Antarctica. ENSO-related atmospheric anomalies from the central-western Equatorial Pacific (CWEP) propagate to the South Pacific and the circumpolar high latitudes. These anomalies modulate high latitude zonal winds, with El Niño (La Niña) conditions causing reduced (enhanced) zonal wind speeds and subsequently, reduced (enhanced) summer sea salt deposition at LD. Over the last 1010 years, the LD summer sea salt (LDSSS) record has exhibited two below average (El Niño-like) epochs, 1000-1260 AD and 1920-2009 AD, and a longer above average (La Niña-like) epoch from 1260-1860 AD. Spectral analysis shows the below average epochs are associated with enhanced ENSO-like variability around 2-5 years, while the above average epoch is associated more with variability around 6-7 years. The LDSSS record is also significantly correlated with annual rainfall in eastern mainland Australia. While the correlation displays decadal-scale variability similar to changes in the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation (IPO), the LDSSS record suggests rainfall in the modern instrumental era (1910-2009 AD) is below the long-term average. In addition, recent rainfall declines in some regions of eastern and south-eastern Australia appear to be mirrored by a downward trend in the LDSSS record, suggesting current rainfall regimes are unusual though not unknown over the last millennium.

        http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00003.1

        _______
        Ross J.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Winston

          suggesting current rainfall regimes are unusual though not unknown over the last millennium.

          Are you actually trying to make our case for natural climate change FOR us rather than against us, Ross? Because reading the above abstract, it is rather hard to explain the current circumstances (especially in light of recent increased precipitation and sequence of La Nina’s) as being anything more than possibly mildly unusual, but by no means “unprecedented” as alarmists like to claim. So how does this strengthen your claim for the “anthropocene”, given that CO2 was allegedly flat for the last millenium or more until the 20th century according to your folklore? What alternate explanation could there be: Druids in SUV’s? Aborigines using coal fired power stations? Mayan air conditioning?


          Report this

          00

          • #
            Ross James

            The paper Winston has been NOT read by you. It also suggests that Australia was drier during the little warming period!

            ______
            Ross J.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Winston

            Paper hidden behind a pay wall, so I commented on your highlighted abstract, which does not strengthen your cause. Even if it is slightly drier currently, which is highly questionable IMO, what does that prove, since it is clear that it is highly variable. Again, if it is not CO2, what reason do you have for this variability.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Ross James

            No Winston, Most experienced meteorological studies in climate history pertaining to Australia can easily confirm that Australia indeed has gotten drier over the last century. The ice core proxies also indicate as mentioned earlier that the Medieval Warming Period did affect Australia’s rainfall patterns – greater Global Warmth warmth equals greater dry extents or entrenched droughts for Australia with dramatic rainfall events that sees States under water then back to entrenched prolonged drought patterns.

            With that we need to be careful here. There are of course known climate cycles but the pattern shifts occasionally for Australia and worsens favouring greater droughts then consistent rainfalls. These patterns confirm drier in between times of El Nino and La Nina patterns. The worst outcome is that the fragile Far South Western area (WA) would literally face rainfall annihilation in any entrenched global warming pattern in consideration also of climate cooling variability occasionally but warming resumes unabated to higher levels. It does not reset the global thermometer back decades. But heck – what you skeptics fail to realise is that we are only 15 years into this pattern of higher warming thresholds this century. Indeed it will persist and temperatures will continue to rise affecting our climate cycles of rain for the worst.

            You will agree that compared the little ice age things have changed. We are definitely in a warmer period for Australia since occupation. Temperatures globally are stuck high and will remain so. This has ramifications for Australia’s reliable water supplies in forward planning and Government planning policy.
            _______
            Ross J.


            Report this

            00

        • #
          Peter Miller

          Let’s try this again, I will keep it simple.

          The southern African and Eastern Australian summer rainfall areas are located on the same side (and at the same latitude) of major continents, so not surprisingly they have similar climates.

          Now flash back to the last Ice Age, when the tropical rain forests almost disappeared for obvious reasons. Flash forward 10,000 years and the tropical rain forests now cover a very much larger area. If – let’s repeat that, IF the temperature rises the tropical rain forests will move southwards, which will arguably be good news for Queensland, but possibly not so good for southern Victoria as the Roaring Forties will probably have moved southwards as well.

          Australia is ~70% desert, or semi-desert, so minor changes in rainfall in the relatively wet parts is not really all that statistically significant, as far as the entire continent is concerned.

          While I hear what you say in your comments on the Law Dome ice cores, I have to ask who was accurately measuring rainfall in eastern Australia in the years before 1900, or what was a reliable proxy for that rainfall?


          Report this

          00

        • #
          Truthseeker

          Ross,

          When it comes to models, why don’t you have a read of someone who actually knows what they are talking about and uses real computer models in the very real world application of controlling satellites in orbit.

          Climate models have more variables, are dealing with processes that are not well understood and are funded entirely on the premise that there is a problem to be solved (no problem, no funding, no computer games for the geeks). Confirmation bias speeded up terra-flops of CPU cycles …


          Report this

          00

    • #
      Grant (NZ)

      severe storm events transpiring.

      Botany 101 – it’s the plants that transpire.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Markus Fitzhenry

      Ross James Says;

      “This paper clearly stated this obvious point:

      Some computer models for global warming may be over-estimating the risk of drought, according to a study published on Wednesday by the journal Nature.”

      It actually says:

      “we find that a positive feedback of soil moisture on simulated precipitation does dominate in six state-of-the-art global weather and climate models—a difference that may contribute to excessive simulated droughts in large-scale models.”

      In Ross’s biased mind “six state-of-the-art” becomes some.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      cohenite

      Ross James describes one of the fall back positions of AGW, a predicted increase in extreme weather conditions.

      Extreme weather is NOT happening as the history of ENSO shows.

      In respect of the usual examples trotted out to illustrate more extreme weather today, the 2010 QLD floods and the 2009 fires, which are not because the 1974 and earlier floods exceeded or equalled the 2010 floods while the 1939 fires were the equal of the 2009 ones.

      An interesting description of extreme conditions in the recent Australian past is here. [Thanks to Chris Gilham for the research]

      And a history of the hysterical nonsense promoted by the extreme weather exponents is here.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      BobC

      Ross, your comments on climate models remind me of stock market models — there are always some that accurately predicted the recent past.

      Unfortunately, those are usually the ones that fail to predict the near future.

      The models predict also that Queensland’s South East will substantially dry out over the next 50 years

      I guess in 50 years we’ll find out if you picked the right models.


      Report this

      00

  • #

    Climate models? There isn’t a single one on Earth! Or have you seen one covering, say, the last 10,000 years, or at least stretching from the Roman warm period throuhg the following ‘dark ages’ cold spell and on through the medieval warm period the through the little ice age till now? We need an Xprize for a ClimateModel!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    In respect of the Taylor paper’s findings about evaporation Australia’s premier hydrologist Stewart Franks and his team noted the same thing in their 2009 paper.

    Franks was hailed down by the usual crew from the CSIRO.

    This is the same CSIRO which has been to Planet Under Peril [PUP] conference at great expense to the Australian taxpayer; a report of this junket is here:

    http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2012/09/the-csiro-sold-us-a-pup

    Some gems:

    “Mark Stafford Smith, scientific director of CSIRO’s climate adaption flagship, says it’s no longer enough for individual nations to try to be sustainable.

    Rather a new “planetary stewardship” is needed, he says.

    “Something like a sustainable development council … in the UN system which has the same level of authority as the security council and which can drive a much more integrated approach,” Dr Stafford Smith told reporters via a phone hook-up from London…”

    There was now a need for a “constitutional moment”, like that in the 1940s which saw the establishment of the World Bank and other institutions, including the International Monetary Fund, to drive the new UN council, he said.[12]

    When the conference ended, Dr Stafford-Smith co-drafted with a Dr Lidia Brito the conference’s “Declaration”. As one breathless environment reporter from the New York Times introduced it, humanity’s anti-green obtuseness could hurt the earth as badly as “meteoric collisions”.[13] The key tract from the Smith/Brito manifesto is:

    “Fundamental reorientation and restructuring of national and international institutions is required to overcome barriers to progress and to move to effective Earth-system governance…Current understanding supports the creation of a Sustainable Development Council within the UN system to integrate social, economic and environmental policy at the global level.” [14]

    Who is Dr Stafford-Smith, this Napoleon-scale environmentalist? He spent 30 years studying desert bushes and bugs, as a good CSIRO scientist should.[15]

    But one of the bugs may have infected him with apocalypse fever. In 2009 he published, with CSIRO colleague Julian Cribb, the paperback “Dry Times: Blueprint for a Red Land”, priced at an alarming $49.95.[16] The book concludes,

    “Australians use of the country’s resources, their demand for increasing material standard of living and now their contribution to global climate change [what? 1.5% of global emissions?] have wrought profound changes to this once isolated continent. The great cities of Australia are already experiencing water shortages. … In fact, the dry part of Australia is expanding. The entire continent is now subject to some disturbing trends, which are starting to resemble the desert drivers. The climate is moving into realms hitherto unexperienced: unpredictable and out of local control…” (p145)

    Hardly had the CSIRO book hit the counter, than a vast sheet of floodwater travelled the length of the Eastern States. The rivers turned Lake Eyre into a bonanza for operators of inland sea scenic flights, which continue to this day. The rains replenished the dams of Brisbane and Sydney and even the parched Melbourne dams are now 77% full.

    His co-author Julian Cribb, unabashed, put out another CSIRO paperback ($29.95) in 2010, “The Coming Famine”.[17] As CSIRO’s blurb puts it, “Julian Cribb lays out a vivid picture of an impending planetary crisis – a global food shortage that threatens to hit by mid-century – which, he argues, would dwarf any in our previous experience.” Deserts, floods, famine, whatever. CSIRO loves the dismal.

    Dr Stafford-Smith also claims the scientific community is “thinly-stretched”, which seems a bit whiney after $US68 billion in US federal spending alone on climate research and development from 1989-2009.[18] [19]

    After the conference, CSIRO’s Dr Smith told CSIRO interviewer Glen Paul more about his dreams for a supra-national UN council backed by the authority of the dictatorship-laden UN General Assembly.[20] The council would assemble some sort of “triple helix” as he put it, to combine economic, environmental and social engineering. This would lead to “a suite of universal sustainable development goals”, he said. CSIRO interviewer Paul then signed off, remarking that he too had just got a grant for a US study trip.”

    No wonder they get their modelling wrong.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      No wonder they get their modelling wrong.

      Well, their modeling may be wrong, but look at the effect of the book! Absolute brilliance! Who would have thought that one over-priced book could have so much impact?


      Report this

      00

    • #
      ExWarmist

      CSIRO: The perfect example of Eisenhower’s scientific-technical elite lost to Government funding…

      Link to full speech here


      Report this

      00

      • #
        ExWarmist

        The key quote…

        Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers. The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present — and is gravely to be regarded.

        Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.


        Report this

        00

    • #
      Sonny

      Wow he sounds like a true one world government fan.
      Welcome to the new order of the ages.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Wayne, s. Job

    I have a question. The AGW scientists seem to have gotten every thing about the climate backwards. The question, have they got anything in the models in the right sense?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Lawrie

    The lift out “Agriculture Today” in the Sept 6 edition of the Land a Rural Press (Fairfax) publication runs an environmental piece by their reporter Rebecca Lines-Kelly. It’s a straight lift from a NASA press release and refers to a new study by NASA scientist James Hanse who says that “heatwaves are due to a warming climate”. “We can say with high confidence that extreme anomolies such as those in Texas and Oklahoma in 2011 and Moscow in 2012were a consequence of global warming because their liklihood in the absence of global warming was exceedingly small”.

    No mention of the dust bowl drought and heatwaves from the 30s which also occured as the world was in a warming phase. Humans were not responsible for that one. Also in the article a reference to “European scientists” looking at the relationship between soil moisture and extreme heat have found that precipitation deficits and dry soil increase temperatures in many areas of the world.

    Their findings seem to be at odds with the conclusions of this paper which we are told is based on ten years of observations. PNAS are referenced for the Hansen article. The only thing not mentioned is AGW/CC or CO2 although the inference is clear.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Lawrie

    The lift out “Agriculture Today” in the Sept 6 edition of the Land a Rural Press (Fairfax) publication runs an environmental piece by their reporter Rebecca Lines-Kelly. It’s a straight lift from a NASA press release and refers to a new study by NASA scientist James Hansen who says that “heatwaves are due to a warming climate”. “We can say with high confidence that extreme anomolies such as those in Texas and Oklahoma in 2011 and Moscow in 2012were a consequence of global warming because their liklihood in the absence of global warming was exceedingly small”.

    No mention of the dust bowl drought and heatwaves from the 30s which also occured as the world was in a warming phase. Humans were not responsible for that one. Also in the article a reference to “European scientists” looking at the relationship between soil moisture and extreme heat have found that precipitation deficits and dry soil increase temperatures in many areas of the world.

    Their findings seem to be at odds with the conclusions of this paper which we are told is based on ten years of observations. PNAS are referenced for the Hansen article. The only thing not mentioned is AGW/CC or CO2 although the inference is clear.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Lawrie

    Not sure how two were posted but the last one does refer to Hansen rather than Hanse. Mods could delete No 9.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Sonny

    Question for you:
    If Climate science in the 21st century was described in three words what would they be?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    AndyG55

    Quite simply, the total of ALL feedbacks to increased CO2 is EXACTLY EQUAL TO, BUT OPPOSITE, the effect of the rise in CO2.

    ie

    A rise in CO2 has ABSOLUTELY NO EFFECT on the climate


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      James, the son of one of my colleagues wants to know, “If you add more CO2 to the climate, why doesn’t the climate just get bigger?”

      I can’t answer that. Anybody care to help?


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Crakar24

        Rereke,

        I can give you the scary booga booga version of what is/will happen, apparently if you add something (say CO2) then you lose something in this case oxygen. The peddlers of stupid attempted to claim that the level of oxygen in the atmosphere was decreasing due to the large amounts of CO2 being pumped out.

        Only the true idiot believed this so it is no longer talked about. In reality i have no idea.


        Report this

        00

      • #
        AndyG55

        If you change the concentration of one molecule, you must decrease the concentration of other molecules.
        Next scare will be a 0.002% drop in O2 concentration levels, and we won’t be able to breathe any more. ;-) !!!!


        Report this

        00

  • #
    Myrrh

    It’s another example of a point where climate modelers assume a positive feedback, yet the evidence suggests the feedback is negative. Once again water appears to be the dominant force with feedbacks (it does cover 70% of the surface). In a natural stable system the net feedbacks are likely to be negative. Positive feedbacks make the system less stable (and more scary and harder to predict.)

    Climate modellers didn’t assume a positive positive feedback, the took out the Water Cycle to create it.

    Our temps would be 67°C if the Earth didn’t have water, think deserts.

    This had to be excised from the AGW cartoon fisics world to promote the fib “The Greenhouse Effect”, which is that “greenhouse gases warm the Earth 33°C from what it would be without it”.

    There’s no “likely to be negative” about it – put back the Water Cycle and the imaginary positive feedback disappears.

    This began as a deliberate con created by this sleight of hand, that so many ‘climate scientists’ and supporters of AGW/CAGW believe it is what is wrong with the models here.

    Once again water appears to be the dominant force with feedbacks (it does cover 70% of the surface). In a natural stable system the net feedbacks are likely to be negative.

    You’re arguing about nuances in the deliberately created fictional fisics of an imaginary world. Bringing in real life and elementary meteorology as if this is some kind of new relevation is still keeping us in the grip of this con.

    Let’s first get back to the real Earth..

    ..there is no Greenhouse Effect when we put back the Water Cycle.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Myrrh

      And, putting back the Water Cycle will put rain back into the Carbon Life Cycle.

      All pure clean rain is carbonic acid and in this carbon dioxide shares the same residence time in the atmosphere as water, 8-10 days.

      ——————————————————————————–


      Report this

      00

  • #
    turnrdoutnice

    The climate models are based on 6 bits of incorrect physics. The worst of these is to believe there is any CO2-AGW. This is because above ~10% RH at ambient, water vapour switches off CO2 IR emission and absorption: http://notrickszone.com/2012/08/07/epic-warmist-fail-modtran-doubling-co2-will-do-nothing-to-increase-long-wave-radiation-from-sky/

    I have for too long been forced to face the scientific incompetence of the warmists who claim TOA self-absorption is proof of CO2-AGW. That you do get TOA CO2 IR emission, attenuated by self-absorption, proves it is emitted in the dry upper atmosphere, no evidence of any absorption of surface-emitted IR by CO2.

    This mixing effect has been ignored by the IPCC which has fabricated its so-called science. You can’t argue against real experimental data: it’s the end of the IPCC scam.

    PS it’s a water vapour IR side-band phenomenon which quenches CO2 IR emission and absorption everywhere in the lower atmosphere except the most arid of deserts.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Sonny

      Speaking strictly as an alarmist pig, I can tell you that your argument, although probably true, is entirely useless as a persuasive device. Less than 0.1% of people have the necessary intelligence or educational background to follow it – of that 0.01% are in a position to change their already formed views, and of that 0.000000001% will read this comment.

      You are better off siding with the government, the universities, the media and the legal institutions in supporting action on climate.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        turnrdoutnice

        I have my contacts at the highest levels. The problem is that the IPCC science is a clever construct of false physics, one of which is an incorrect assumption in Meteorology and it’ll take time to debunk it all, as has to be done.

        The public on the other hand look at the disparity between prediction and reality, which is why the warmists are continually changing the argument.

        So,I shall plug away with the above to the politicians and the non-committed scientists.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Sonny

          The public don’t know what IPCC stand for, nor do they care.
          They buy into popular ideas espoused by the main stream media.
          Give up.
          Climate change is real. You can either pull your head out of the sand and do something, or continue denializing. But you will have to explain to your children why they cant go outside.

          ——————————————————————————
          [Sonny, whether you use the term jokingly or sarcastically......I don't think anyone at this site disagrees that climate change is real. What is in dispute is the extent of climate change and how much is attributable to natural variability versus how much if any can be attributed to humans. The term 'denier' and any of its derivatives makes no sense as no one denies climate changes, The term is deliberately derogative and therefore considered a personal attack (ad hominem) which is not tolerated under the rules of this site. This is a final warning. Future use will see you on permanent 'moderation'. - Mod]


          Report this

          00

  • #
    Myrrh

    And, putting back the Water Cycle will put rain back into the Carbon Life Cycle.

    All pure clean rain is carbonic acid and in this carbon dioxide shares the same residence time in the atmosphere as water, 8-10 days.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    In the words of Mark Twain:

    It is better to be approximately correct than precisely wrong.

    Unfortunately, the fact that the climate modelling crowd don’t have even a loose qualitative grasp of their subject doesn’t stop them foisting the models onto society as the “gold standard” of science.

    Precisely wrong, as Yoda once said, they are.

    Cheers,

    Speedy


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    the link to the NYT blog from the Quadrant article includes:

    29 March: NYT Green Blog: David Jolly: Time Is Nigh for Global Action, Manifesto Warns
    As a first step, Future Earth will bring together practitioners in the fields of biogeochemistry, physical climate, the social sciences and humanities, and biodiversity. “You can no longer talk about scientific issues in isolation,” Ms. Larigauderie said. “Food, water, climate – they are all related.”
    “You need the climate people to talk to the anthropologists and psychologists, for example,” she said. “It’s really complex, but if we don’t do it, we aren’t going to be able to translate the knowledge we have into action.”
    http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/29/time-is-nigh-for-global-action-manifesto-warns/

    funny, i thought the psychologists had been in the mix for years.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    It’s not about who’s right and who’s wrong anymore. It’s a battle of wills now. It will be won eventually because the truth will become self evident. It may take a while though, it doesn’t help that so many of our academic institutions are infected with intellectual dross. Meanwhile, every time I put petrol in my car I’ll just have to suck up the knowledge that I’m being rorted in the form of a tax, instituted by a stupid politician for reasons he doesn’t even understand.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bonehead

    Pointmans a [snipped - Mod]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Carbon500

    Real data, based on real observations. Wonderful.
    Here’s a good one from Roy W. Spencer (from his book ‘The Great Global Warming Blunder’ p52)
    ‘Since our satellite instruments are not accurate enough to confidently measure a global energy imbalance smaller than about 2 or 3 watts per square meter, we really do not know what the energy imbalance of the Earth is.’


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Keith H

    Jo. Apologies for being outrageously O/T but this could be so important in so many ways for Australia’s future.

    People ask, “What did Julia Gillard do wrong”.? Let’s hear it straight from Julia herself at her 23/8/12 “ambush” press conference!

    “I assisted with provision of advice re the setting up of the workplace reform association. I had no involvement in the working of the association. I provided advice in relation to its establishment and that was it.”

    The only possible lawful legal advice she could have given was “Bruce, I represent the AWU and unless you have written authorisation from the Branch Executive or a resolution from the National Executive under Rules 51 & 54 of the AWU, you simply cannot set up an association and I can’t assist you”!

    That she chose to ignore those Rules and assist him to set up and incorporate an association enabling him to unlawfully open Bank A/c’s to deposit AWU moneys and put them to his own use makes her an accomplice or accessory from day one!

    The sworn Affidavit of Joint National Secretary of the AWU, Ian Cambridge, sets out in great detail why that sham association should not have been set up!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Svend Ferdinandsen

    Even the modellers have no believe in their models. They use a bunch of models and run them with small differences in starting conditions, and then they believe in the big average.
    They claim the models are made of pure physical and mathematical conditions, so why can’t they come up with a single model that does the job of predicting the global average temperature?
    Taking in concideration that they try to calculate the Global average, and not any local or regional temperature, i wonder why a single model would not do the job.
    Any weather forecast last no longer than a week, so when you talk about years and 100′s of years, the starting conditions should not matter. What should it matter in 100years if you began one day before or later?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Sean

    A great Ch4 documentary from 1990 debunking ‘The Greenhouse Conspiracy’:

    http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.ca/2012/09/uk-documentary-from-1990-greenhouse.html

    Lots of good interviews with scientists from both sides including a AGW alarmist stating that real evidence is no good (and models are better)…


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    pat

    we the people are such suckers:

    13 Sept: Herald Sun: Anna Caldwell: Top-end fit-out for carbon cops’ new offices
    THE Gillard government’s carbon tax cops are preparing to fit out their plush new offices with a suite of shiny energy-efficient appliances that most households could only dream of – right down to a 40-bottle wine cabinet.
    As Australian families facing electricity price hikes due to the carbon tax are told to switch off bar fridges to save money, tender documents show the Department of Climate Change plans to splash out on at least 10 bar fridges when it goes shopping for a host of high-end whitegoods this month.
    The department’s tender list specifies appliances must be stainless steel, glass, fingerprint proof and energy and water efficient.
    They’re looking for 23 fridges, 14 dishwashers, 26 microwaves, two ovens, two cooktops, two wall-mounted rangehoods and a 40-bottle wine cabinet with a glass and stainless-steel front…
    The climate bureaucrats are preparing to move into the new Nishi building in Canberra at the end of this year, with the tenancy boasting an “A-grade, 6 green star, energy efficient” design.
    The building, with a yearly rent of $6.4 million, offers 738 public servants luxury digs over seven floors, with space of 16sq m per person and two kitchenettes on each level.
    A spokesman for Climate Change Minister Greg Combet said the wine cabinet could be reconsidered once quotes were provided, and if it was not considered to be value for money it could be replaced with a regular fridge.
    The spokesman said the bar fridges would be located in meeting rooms for catering purposes, with the wine fridge in the main meeting room for “official functions for visiting delegations and large meetings with stakeholders”…
    http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/national/top-end-fit-out-for-carbon-cops-new-offices/story-fndo317g-1226472924205

    obviously the public are not the “stakeholders”!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Sonny

    You know what we call people like Jo Nova who attack the good work of good scientists, and help destroy the only planet we have and put our children and grand children at risk?

    D E N I E R S !

    (You appear to be baiting the mods with your defiant use of the word.It is better that you drop it and get back to the topic at hand otherwise we will start snipping your comments more deeply) CTS


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Sonny

      You guys just can’t handle that I’ve turned to the dark side.
      I read this amazing science that answered all my questions.
      I now believe in the consensus – man made climate change is real and all that and we need to do something. Who knew the authorities were right all along?!

      Maybe they can put me in the paper as a convert and pay me?


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Crakar24

        I think you have left your computer unlocked.


        Report this

        00

      • #
        Andrew McRae

        Okay Sonny, you set up the joke, but I’m still waiting for the punchline.

        Will we soon discover that “the science” that you read that finally changed your mind was… an Internet survey by The Big Lew`Dowski?

        Maybe you will take a different route, ignore “the science” and just start spouting solutions that all seem to involve wiping out more than half the human population.

        Whatever way you’re going to go, please go that way soon, don’t keep us in cognitive dissonance.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Sonny

          The science that I read that convinced me is, well, kind of top secret.
          I’d need to consult with my ethics adviser and lawyer before I can release it.
          The other problem is ive kind of lost all the data and code. Oops.
          But hey, it’s all peer reviewed and I have the high court on side too. Trust me.

          As for wiping out half the population, I would say that’s being a but too conservative. I prefer to reduce the population to about 7% of its current levels, keeping the population at about 500 million so we are not a cancer on the anymore.

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


          Report this

          00

    • #
      AndyG55

      arghhh…… Sonny has been assimilated.

      Have you registered to study under Lewy at UWA yet ?

      or are you waiting for the Flannery Institute to open. !


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Sonny

    (Snipped out your talking to yourself line) CTS


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    15 Sept: The Economist: Complete Disaster in the Making
    The world’s only global carbon market is in need of a radical overhaul
    The trouble is that the supply of credits has far outstripped demand. The one-billionth CER was issued on September 7th. But the largest greenhouse-gas emitters either did not ratify the Kyoto protocol (America) or were not obliged by it to cut emissions (China and India). That has left Europe as the main source of demand for credits, and the CDM has become a sort of annex to Europe’s cap-and-trade scheme, the Emissions Trading System. But the euro crisis has reduced industrial activity (cutting pollution) and European firms were anyway given overly generous carbon quotas under the cap-and-trade scheme. So carbon prices have collapsed, falling from $20 a tonne in August 2008 to below $5 now (see chart).
    An oversupply of permits to pollute is an endemic problem.
    ***A recent report by Thomson Reuters Point Carbon, an information provider, found that supplies of a different emissions right under the Kyoto protocol, called an “assigned amount unit”, outstripped estimated demand by over a thousand times…
    Joan MacNaughton, the vice-chair of the panel, says there is a strong case for having something that links the many regional and national carbon markets that are cropping up, including in Australia, New Zealand, China and, from next year, California. But for the CDM to provide that link, countries will have to reduce their greenhouse-gas emission targets drastically, thus providing a boost to demand. At the moment there is little sign of that happening.
    ***COMMENT BY TIM REDWOOD: The Economist needs to use its fact checker more effectively. Supply is no-where near 1000 times demand.
    http://www.economist.com/node/21562961

    read all of this Reuters’ story, if you have the stomach for it:

    13 Sept: Reuters Point Carbon: Kyoto’s first commitment period oversupplied by 13 billion tonnes of CO2
    If oversupply passes into post-2020 system, surplus may never recede
    This figure is over three magnitudes higher than the estimated demand of 11.5 million tonnes (Mt).

    Moreover, according to Thomson Reuters Point Carbon’s estimates, if a second commitment period (2013-1020) is agreed with the current proposed set of targets, then a new surplus of Assigned Amount Units (AAUs), the tradable instrument in the Kyoto market, will be created. The new surplus could reach 3.6 Gt CO2. In other words, the caps being proposed by governments are higher than the expected business-as-usual emissions for the period. Since current rules allow for the full carry-over of AAUs, the surplus in the 2013-2020 period would therefore include the spare AAUs inherited from the first commitment period, increasing the total surplus to 16.2 Gt CO2.
    If Australia and New Zealand do not join the second commitment period then the surplus could be as high as 4.1 Gt CO2, or 17.2 Gt CO2 including the carry-over from the first commitment period.
    “The current surplus is due in part to a lack of political ambition, undermined further by economic recession”, said Andreas Arvanitakis, Director, Advisory Services, Thomson Reuters Point Carbon and co-author of the analysis…
    http://www.pointcarbon.com/aboutus/pressroom/pressreleases/1.1986577


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    could be trouble blowing in Macquarie’s winds:

    NOTE FINAL EXCERPT: Australian investment fund Macquarie involved:

    11 Sept: Radio Netherlands: Dutch wind farm in trouble in Mexico
    Dutch pension fund PGGM is the under fire in Mexico because of its plans for a wind farm in the south of the country. Furious local farmers and fishermen are demanding that the project be abandoned.
    The conflict centres on the Marena Renovables project, a wind farm under construction near the Indian village of San Dionisio del Mar on the Mexican west coast. Once completed, the project would be the largest wind farm in Latin America. It is being jointly financed by PGGM and two other foreign investors…
    Misleading
    In 2004, the local Ikoots Indians signed a contract with the investors granting them a thirty-year lease on the land. But local representatives now claim the deal was signed on the basis of incomplete information. Protestors say the developers have unilaterally increased the number of turbines from 40 to 132. They say the noise of the mills will have a negative effect on the livelihoods of local fishers and farmers.
    Reacting to the criticism, PGGM says the negotiations were conducted fairly. The company claims the problems are related to disagreement amongst the locals over the division of money. “We deposited the funds for the local community in a central bank account and can only assume that it was then distributed fairly”, PGGM’s head of infrastructure Henk Huizing, told Dutch daily de Volkskrant. “We can’t verify that that is the case, and nor is it our responsibility”, he added…
    There are already 500 wind turbines scattered around the state and the Mexican government wants to see that number quadruple.
    The atmosphere in the town has deteriorated steadily. Angry locals have sabotaged the construction of an access road, occupied the town hall and forced the mayor to flee. The protestors say they’ve had death threats from community leaders who are determined to see the project go ahead at all costs.
    PGGM and the two other investors, the Mitsubishi Corporation and the Australian investment fund Macquarie admit that the conflict has intensified recently but are confident construction will continue.
    http://www.rnw.nl/english/article/dutch-wind-farm-trouble-mexico

    February: Macquarie: Macquarie Mexican Infrastructure Fund Announces Completion of Financing for 396 MW Wind Energy Project in Oaxaca, Mexico
    The Project expects to begin construction in March 2012. The Project has contracted Vestas WTG Mexico, S.A. de C.V., a subsidiary of Vestas Wind Systems A/S of Denmark, to complete the engineering, procurement, construction and commissioning of the Project, including the supply of 132 units of the Vestas v90-3.0 MW turbines and a 10-year service and maintenance agreement…
    Concurrent with the closing of the financing, Fomento Económico Mexicano, S.A.B. de C.V. (“FEMSA”) and Macquarie Capital, the corporate advisory arm of Macquarie Group, have sold their interests in the Project (comprising 67.5% in total) to Mitsubishi Corporation, a Tokyo-based conglomerate with significant expertise in power development and generation, and PGGM, a leading Dutch pension fund service provider with around EUR 115 billion pension assets under management of 2.5 million people for six pension funds. As a long-term investor, MMIF has maintained its 32.5% interest in the Project and has committed to contribute additional capital to the Project in proportion to its equity participation…
    http://www.macquarie.com/mgl/com/us/about/news/2012/20120224


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    4 Sept: IPE (Investment & Pensions Europe): PGGM to ‘intensify’ talks on controversial wind farm project
    The Dutch asset manager’s statement came in response to reports that members of the indigenous population have blocked preparations for the construction of Marena Renovables, which, once completed, would be the largest wind farm in Latin America…
    According to Dutch news daily De Financiele Telegraaf, angry fishermen fearing for their livelihoods have sabotaged the construction of an access road and a transformer station.
    Recharge, a Norway-based website on sustainable energy, also reported that protesters had started a permanent watch to prevent further road construction…
    The wind farm is scheduled to provide green power to the Mexican bottling company FEMSA and brewery Heineken Mexico from the autumn of 2013.
    http://www.ipe.com/news/pggm-to-intensify-talks-on-controversial-wind-farm-project_47234.php

    Wikipedia: FEMSA
    (FEMSA) is the largest beverage company in Mexico and in Latin America[2][3] and as of September 2011 also the largest independent Coca-Cola bottler in the world…
    In January 2010, Heineken International announced it will acquire the beer operations of FEMSA…
    On December 20, 2007, Cascade Investments LLC, whose main partner is Bill Gates, announced it will invest 390 million dollars in FEMSA..
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FEMSA


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Sonny

    I am now a paid recruiter for the alarmist side.
    Come and join us all ye skeptics and deniers:

    Here are just a few of the benefits you can enjoy as an alarmist:

    1. Better career prospects.
    Alarmists in science and politics earn much better than deniers (almost 1000:1)
    Alarmists are 1000 times more likely to be employed by government and enjoy a high salary, all expenses paid trips and other perks.

    2. Fit into the mainstream.
    Alarmists make friends much easier and are generally considered way more cool, hip and trendy.
    Let’s face it, conspiracy cranks that are all contrarian and get hung up on facts find making friends much harder

    3. Know that you are supporting a noble cause
    What could be more impotent than saving the earth, and thinning out the population?

    4. Peace of mind.
    You will be amazed how relaxed you will be when you realize that the government really are acting in our collective interests and that scientists would never ever lie.

    5. Feelings of superiority
    It’s so much fun to call people names Like “denier” “nutjob” “crank” “contrarian” “conservative wanker” etc. You can re-live the joy of being a childhood bully.

    5. Protect the children, the grandchildren and the poor of developing countries.
    Easy! No brained!

    These and many more benefits await your conversion from skeptic to alarmist.
    I trust you will make the right decision. For the children.

    2.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Crakar24

    You have two 5′s is it a condition of entry that you cannot count?


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Sonny

      Basic numeracy is optional. You will stand out a bit though. Intact being able to point that out could mean you are over qualified, and too skeptical. We will teach you everything you need to know including “climate statistics” which is a specialist field way more advanced than all other kinds of statistics and therefore beyond reproach.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        AndyG55

        Darn, All that time and effort atually learning stuff, like maths, stats, chemistry, engineering.. and I don’t need any of it..

        I coulda left in year 10 and sponged off the taxpayer

        All I need do is say, “I believe CO2 is evil”, forget everything I’ve learnt in the realm of science,……and I have a guaranteed job for ever paid for by you guys.

        Why didn’t they teach me that in high school…….

        ……………… I think they do now, don’t they !!!!

        Y’know Sonny.. I’m really starting to appreciate your point of view.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Sonny

          AndyG55 unfortunately when we were at school CO2 was dressed up as a harmless chemical essential to respiration and photosynthesis. This is because the curriculum was controlled by evil conservative corporations. Thankfully in the past few years schools are now teaching the real science behind CO2 and rightfully depicting it as a pollutant and a poison destroying the earth.

          With this updated knowledge children can now aspire to government jobs as climate scientists and save the world and all that.

          peace!


          Report this

          00

          • #
            Dave

            .
            Sonny,
            You said this:

            when we were at school CO2 was dressed up as a harmless chemical essential to respiration and photosynthesis

            Question 1:
            CO2 is essential to respiration of plants or animals O NEW GURU OF GORE GAIA?

            Question 2:
            If I sign up to the new Sonny found relevations – do I only pay the cheaper wind and solar power electricity reduced CO2 Bill?

            Question 3:
            Do you have more fun are you funnier than GeeAye?


            Report this

            00

          • #
            AndyG55

            btw.. Taylors Promised land Cab Sav.. nice drop at a nice price.

            my C2H5OH level are back to normal !!!

            oh crap.. I just realise there is “carbon” even in my non-fizzy beverage..

            and carbon is evil..

            oh wowwwww is me !!!!


            Report this

            00

          • #
            AndyG55

            Dave.. you really have to get with the programme

            ALL CARBON IS EVIL !!

            You MUST de-carbonise your whole life style.

            You MUST NOT eat anything with the carbon atom in it.. ever !!!
            else you burn in the fires of Flim-Flam !!

            and you must NEVER EVER eat or drink ANYTHING that has CO2 in it or will cause CO2 to be released into the atmosphere.

            Sonny, you are right… !!!!

            We absolutely MUST get CO2 concentration back below 100ppm, or the whole human race will cease to exist !!!


            Report this

            00

          • #
            AndyG55

            Sonny. it seems that the MOST IMPORTANT people for the world’s future will be the INORGANIC CHEMISTS.. those that can produce food with NO carbon.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Dave

            .
            AndyG55,
            I hosed the lawn and concreted it! Locked in the moisture! So this doens’t happen anymore:

            Modelers thought that dry ground would decrease afternoon storms and rainfall over those frazzled parched lands

            No eating Carbon! Suggestions please! Quickly!

            Now the next bit? What next? I’m ready to decarbonise everything!

            Beathing is becoming difficult – I’ve immersed myself in Water……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Sonny

            Fear not inferior carbon based lifeforms.
            You were born into sin, but with your death the earth will be cleansed.
            In the meantime if you would please pay all your money to climate scientists and government officials.


            Report this

            00

  • #
    pat

    LOL…

    5 Sept: Reuters: Dutch province tilts at (real) windmills
    North Holland says wants to cancel 20 pending projects
    The Netherlands has been famous for its windmills for centuries but now one of its most populous provinces has said it wants to ban their modern-day incarnations – wind turbines – on the grounds that they are ugly and noisy.
    The government of North Holland, home to the Netherlands’ largest city, Amsterdam, has authorised a giant wind power project in the north of the province and had been considering applications to construct 20 similar projects.
    But on Wednesday it said it would not give any other wind power projects the go-ahead after the existing project – which will allow the province to fulfill its wind energy target – is complete.
    “Wind turbines had a maximum height of 25 metres or so, 30 years ago,” said Frans Nederstigt, a spokesman for the provincial government.
    “Now they are modern machines of up to 120 metres, with rotors up to 75 metres across – meaning a total height of 180 metres is not exceptional.”…
    Turbines caused noise pollution, he added, saying that sunlight flickering through turbine blades could also be a distracting hazard for drivers.
    The ban on future construction, which will probably be approved by the provincial assembly within a few months, drew criticism from the country’s Green party which argues that the turbines provide a clean renewable source of energy…
    The country has about 2,000 wind turbines generating more than 2 gigawatts. But renewable energy still contributes less than 4 percent of the country’s power needs, well short of the national target of 14 percent by 2020…
    The province would continue to allow offshore wind energy developments, he said, even though turbines at sea cost twice as much as their land-based counterparts.
    http://www.trust.org/alertnet/news/dutch-province-tilts-at-real-windmills

    the Dutch don’t apparently care what the Green Party has to say any more (sound familiar?):

    13 Sept: Radio Netherlands: Victory for the centre in Dutch elections
    The GreenLeft party also lost heavily, taking just 3 seats compared to their current 10…
    http://www.rnw.nl/english/article/victory-centre-dutch-elections


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      Pat,
      yes they are noisy etc. nuisance and extremely costly, but what tipped the balance was the report looking at the emission savings likely, based on existing wind turbines in the Netherlands.

      The report made it clear that the actual reductions in CO2 would be far too low to make any sense putting the wind farms in. With a typical Capacity Rating of 21%, only about 4% of their capacity delivered “emission free” electricity, and if you allowed for the carbon load of their construction then the net return was around 1.8% of capacity.

      original:  http://www.clepair.net/statlineanalyse201208.html or

      C. le Pair & K. de Groot: The impact of wind generated electricity on fossil fuel consumption. http://www.clepair.net/windefficiency.html


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Grant (NZ)

    An OT Question: Does CO2 emitted in the Southern Hemisphere travel to the Northern Hemisphere and vice versa? The reason I as is if we have a carbon sequestration program in the SH and NH emitters buy into it, are they just throwing good money away? Even worse, if we plant trees and they sequester CO2 and give of O2 could we be making our hemisphere oxygen rich? Could we distort things to the extent that plants in the SH are CO2 deprived and the atmosphere O2 rich – then one stray spark and it all ignites? (That last bit is facetious, but you see my point – do we have to sequester in the hemisphere that does the emitting?


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Sonny

      Grant, you are over thinking this.

      When we use the phrase “carbon sequestration” what we really mean is “making money”.
      Currency earned in one hemisphere can be converted to currency in another hemisphere subject to conversion rates specific to each country at that time.

      I just earned another $1000 while typing this comment


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Winston

      Even more alarmingly, if we do too good a job of sequestering CO2 in the southern hemisphere, and our NH comrades don’t follow suit, since CO2 weighs more than O2, could we cause an “imbalance” leading to an axial tilt? That could have disastrous effects on climate leading to unprecedented loss of the GBR, because it is now closer to the equator, increasing sea temps at alarming rates!! Perhaps we could solve this calamatous loss of our precious reef by erecting a giant shadecloth…………….


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      There is limited circulation between the hemisphere, but enough to keep the CO2 levels roughly the same.

      However, the rise in temperature in the southern hemisphere is less than a third of that in the northern hemisphere (approx. 0.19 ℃ v 0.65 ℃ ).

      You are probably wondering how if CO2 causing most of the Global Warming, hence Climate Change the same level of CO2 causes less warming down south. I suggest you invite Ross James or John Brookes to explain.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Sonny

        Simply put, climate statistics are three times more advanced in the northern hemisphere.


        Report this

        00

      • #
        Myrrh

        Not what AIRS concluded. They too thought, because that is the AGWSF meme, that Carbon Dioxide was “well-mixed” in the atmosphere, but instead they found it wasn’t that at all, but lumpy, and, that they would have to go and learn something about wind systems to understand why.

        They still have not released data for lower and upper troposphere used in coming to their conclusion.

        Carbon dioxide is one and half times heavier than Air, lighter than air gases rise, heavier than air gases sink. Fact of life. Real gases spontaneously separate out unless work is being done to change that, such as wind. It is not always windy.., our major wind systems stay in their own hemispheres, there is only very little mixing at the equator.

        AGWSF doesn’t have real gases, they substituted the imaginary ideal gas which is not subject to gravity, (so their ideal gas CO2 can accumulate), has no volume or weight, has no attraction – in their atmosphere they have empty space instead of the heavy voluminous real gas ocean and so their ideal gases spontaneously diffuse under their own molecular momentum rushing at tremendous speeds through empty space bouncing off each other and thoroughly mixing as per their meme.

        They have no sound in their world, they can’t hear this..


        Report this

        00

  • #
    ursus augustus

    “This would imply that there is a positive feedback loop: moist soils lead to even more rain, whereas dry regions tend to remain dry… (But) these data show that convective precipitation is more likely over drier soils.”

    How am I to take “climate scientists” seriously if they actually write such drivel as the above. I mean what kind of person with any understanding of the idea of thermals and evaporation does not get that the thermals take warmed air up and which is then replaced by other (cooler) air coming in from the side?

    And this paper is what? New knowledge?? Is new knowledge just what you get when you stop banging your head against the wall of empty headed arrogance?


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Sonny

      Ursus Augustus,

      You are not supposed to actually READ these kinds of scientific studies.
      They simply have to have official scientific sounding words and sentences and fulfil the basic requirements of “The Man”. The scientist gets paid. The governments get paid. All very very simple.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Neville

    This is O/T, but interesting.
    Another new study shows that ice has increased on the antarctic peninsula over the last 155 years.

    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/pip/2012GL052559.shtml

    So where will this dangerous SLR come from I wonder?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    Graeme No.3 -

    thanks for the added info. not surprised.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Chris

    This explains why Coober Pedy is constantly getting rain. Thanks Nova!!


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Mark D.

      C’mon! now you DON’T believe in what’s published by Nature?

      By the way, are you the same “Chris” that got banned for what you said about Dr. Christy a few weeks ago?


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Chris

        I don’t choose to believe in one paper or another, but I’ll accept the scientific concensus. Corrections often happen. That’s the scientific method for you!

        I am not the Chris you droids are looking for.


        Report this

        00

  • #
    Geoff Sherrington

    Questions remain. On the map of Australia fig 1, there are 2 blue quadrants. Blue means top percentile for unexpected rain over high soil moisture areas. The nortnern quadrant, top of Cape York peninsula, is over one of our highest rainfall areas, almost down to fabulous Tully. So you’d expect high soil moisture. The other is in Sth Aust, to the S-E of Surveyor’s Corner, in cluding N-E Nullarbor, part of Great Victoria Desert. Low soil moisture expected.
    Maybe best to separate the analysis into inherently wet and inherently dry places, in case the mechanisms are different.
    Regarding areas of low soil moisture, inland WA to the NT and SA borders is rather dry soil. Some of the rain that falls there is blown in from the N & N-W on cyclones or long-lasting storm systems. I’ve often wondered where the water comes from to sustain these – traccks from 1906 to 2006 shown, courtesy BoM, who are revising this map because of some possible inaccuracies.
    http://i260.photobucket.com/albums/ii14/sherro_2008/CyclonesBOM.jpg


    Report this

    00