JoNova

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



The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

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



Antarctic consensus “flips”. Warmer water means *more* sea ice!

In a move of Olympian audacity, Seth Borenstein keeps a straight face and shamelessly shifts to pretending that more Antarctic sea-ice fits their climate change theory. Yet again climate models fail to predict things in advance, they only do the post modern type of prediction — the bury-my-bewilderment type, after the fact. Once more, nothing can disprove the theory of man-made climate catastrophe.

The oceans are warming, but that now means less sea ice in the Arctic, and more sea-ice in the Antarctic. Of course!

Shifts in wind patterns and the giant ozone hole over the Antarctic this time of year — both related to human activity — are probably behind the increase in ice, experts say. This subtle growth in winter sea ice since scientists began measuring it in 1979 was initially surprising, they say, but makes sense the more it is studied.

The only point of science is to predict things. But when alarmist predictions turn out to be wrong, Borenstein and co don’t adjust the theory, they pretend post hoc that the new results “fitted” all along, and radiate collective amnesia about the hundreds of times they “experts” predicted the opposite.

Antarctic sea ice hit record highs in late September. Skeptics pointed out that out, and asked why alarmists didn’t mention it, and news outlets ignored it. It’s taken the PR team three long weeks to come up with the big idea that really, this doesn’t show the models are wrong for the 40th time. In PR it helps to pretend your scientists are not surprised.

“Antarctic sea ice hasn’t seen these big reductions we’ve seen in the Arctic. This is not a surprise to us,” said climate scientist Mark Serreze, director of the NSIDC.

No surprise? But look at what they used to say:

The IPCC Experts in AR4 prediction (thanks to Bishop Hill)

“In 20th- and 21st-century simulations, antarctic sea ice cover is projected to decrease more slowly than in the Arctic (Figures 10.13c,d and 10.14),”

In other words, they didn’t predict the outcome, and they didn’t get the cause right either, but as long as they can pretend it’s man-made they can keep telling us off in the press, and asking for larger grants.

See also IPCC #15.4.4where they discuss the impact of decreasing sea ice, but not of the possibility it might increase.

Many predictions are about the ice shelves, not the sea-ice specifically, but we have to ask what conditions could warm both the seas and the ice shelves, and yet create record levels of sea ice? How did these predictions pan out?

USGS (2010):

Ice shelves are retreating in the southern section of the Antarctic Peninsula due to climate change. This could result in glacier retreat and sea-level rise if warming continues

Could sea ice increase, and ice shelves melt?

British Antarctic Survey:

A thaw of Antarctic ice is outpacing predictions by the U.N. climate panel and could in the worst case drive up world sea levels by 2 meters (6 ft) by 2100, a leading expert said on Wednesday.

Byrd Polar Research Center at Ohio State University:

Most models predict that both precipitation and temperature will increase over Antarctica with a warming of the planet.

Al Gore, Jan 2012

What happens to the rest of the world as that frozen water is released, at ever increasing rates, as a result of the rising temperatures caused by climate change?

[In 1988] Scientists expected that as climate change accelerated, Antarctica would be one of the fastest warming areas of the planet. This prediction has proven true

Latest ICEsat estimates thanks to Zwally et al:

“During 2003 to 2008, the mass gain of the Antarctic ice sheet from snow accumulation exceeded the mass loss from ice discharge by 49 Gt/yr”

Latest GRACE satellite data shows Antarctica is gaining ice mass also.

Watch how they dishonestly shift gear, never admitting they were completely wrong, instead they “transmute” the cause. They said Antarctic sea ice would decrease, instead it hit record highs, but now, it’s still “man-made”, it’s just the evil CFC’s again:

Climate change has created essentially a wall of wind that keeps cool weather bottled up in Antarctica, NASA’s Abdalati says.

And the wind works in combination with the ozone hole, the huge gap in Earth’s protective ozone layer that usually appears over the South Pole. It’s bigger than North America.

It’s caused by man-made pollutants chlorine and bromine, which are different from the fossil fuel emissions that cause global warming. The hole makes Antarctica even cooler this time of year because the ozone layer usually absorbs solar radiation, working like a blanket to keep the Earth warm.

In 2007 “experts” suggested that the winds helped to melt the ice:

Some researchers are suggesting that the strengthening of the westerlies may be playing a role in the collapse of ice shelves along the Antarctic Peninsula.

Steve Goddard comments: It is the new kind of ice which is created by heat, rather than cold.

Which scientist predicted that the Antarctic would cool?

It was Henrik Svensmark. His theory points out that the Antarctic is unlike any other place on Earth. It’s so blindingly white, that it’s the only place where an increase in cloud cover lowers the albedo (which means the region absorbs more energy, and reflects less). That means when the rest of the world warms due to lowered cloud cover, the Antarctic will cool, and vice versa. I don’t know if cloud cover explains what is happening at the moment, perhaps Svensmark’s theory doesn’t help here either, but at least he made a prediction that can be checked.

What happens to sea levels?

And again, in the real world, they can’t just mess with one factor and keep everything else the same — if global “pollution” means more Antarctic sea ice now, what does that mean for all the sea level disasters we’re told to expect?

REFERENCES:

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

 

ADMIN NOTE: Tonight Australian time the site will be down for 10 minutes for maintenance. Cheers Jo.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 8.9/10 (79 votes cast)
Antarctic consensus "flips". Warmer water means *more* sea ice! , 8.9 out of 10 based on 79 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/8lm22ff

238 comments to Antarctic consensus “flips”. Warmer water means *more* sea ice!

  • #
    Truthseeker

    The only thing that the climate models can safely predict is more government grants.


    Report this

    471

  • #
    Geoff Sherrington

    Can someone who has been close to the South Pole plese tell me if it is cooler or warmer under cloud cover there? Much as I’d love to do the trip, I can’t. However, I’m suspicious of assumptions and I suspect that people assume that cloud cover makes it cooler, just as in the tropics. I don’t know the measured albedos and their effects for bare ice, light cloud, low cloud, high cloud, winter, summer, light, dark and the combinations thereof. The answer has consequences for Steig’s warming paper and the rebuttal paper by Ryan O’Donnell at al.


    Report this

    90

    • #
      Ian Hill

      I’ve been to the South Pole, Geoff, in January 2005. We were only there for three hours and it was very cold under a clear blue sky. On the way back to our base camp at Patriot Hills (80 deg S) we camped over at Thiel Mountains (85 deg S). That is where the fun started. The clouds rolled in and an “overnight” stop turned into two “nights” – it never got dark of course but everyone still talked that way! It was a complete whiteout and the Thiel Mountains about 10km away completely disappeared. I recorded in my journal that it was like being inside a ping pong ball.

      I also wrote “Although we are camped at latitude 85 S it is not at all cold. I can walk around with no gloves and not feel it. It is almost calm.”

      It was also snowing lightly. I experienced precipitation in Antarctica.

      We were told that food rationing would begin the next day – two weeks supply was carried. However the clouds cleared and we got out of there, but I’d do it again!


      Report this

      170

      • #
        Grant (NZ)

        I can walk around with no gloves and not feel it.

        So have you regained any sensation in your hands in the intervening 7 years? :-)


        Report this

        70

        • #
          Ian Hill

          “It” being the cold, not the absence of any feeling! :)

          It seemed colder yesterday morning while running during the cold snap which hit eastern Australia. My hands were so cold it was hard to open the front door with the key.

          It’s all relative of course. You dress sensibly and in layers. Absolutely no cotton clothing. The temperature at the South Pole was about -30C and I’d guess at the Thiel Mountains whiteout about -5C, perhaps as high as zero celsius. We had difficulty photographing the snowflakes as they landed on our clothing because they soon melted. In those circumstances you can do without gloves for several minutes.

          Incidentally, these sorts of “tourist” trips are still being offered, but there’s no such thing as a budget rate. Much of the expense, about the same as a decent car costs, is to cover the high fuel transportation costs to the remote locations.


          Report this

          10

    • #
      Senex Bibax

      I don’t know about the Antarctic, but here in Canada a sunny winter day is always colder than a cloudy one. This is especially true for winter nights. There are several reasons, including:
      - clouds reduce the heat lost from the surface by radiation
      - clear days are associated with high pressure systems which tend to direct cold, dry air south from the Arctic

      It doesn’t take a scientist to see that the primary influences on climate in any location on earth are prevailing winds, topography and ocean currents. Why else would Labrador and Britain (same latitude, opposite sides of the Atlantic) have such different climates?


      Report this

      60

  • #
    Bulldust

    Back from a lovely cruise around Italy and the Dalmation Coast… anywho, there is a name for these types of people. They are the OWNID’s (Often Wrong, Never In Doubt). They are generally alpha types who will talk over the people who know better, and never accept any responsibility for the countless errors of judgement/science they make. They simply move on to the next alarmist prediction. Flannery is a classic example. For some reason many people still believe that Professor or Doctor in front of someone’s name means that they are experts in whatever field they choose to pontificate, regardless if it vaguely relates to their field of study or not.


    Report this

    321

    • #
      SteveB

      They are generally alpha types… Flannery is a classic example

      Sorry Bulldust but Flannery is not a classic example, he may be excellent at alarmist statements, pontificating, and has no doubt made many poor errors of judgement, but all else I have seen of him indicates he is actually a sad, tiresome old beta male.


      Report this

      170

  • #
    RexAlan

    I know quite a few OWNID’s and would just like to add that they are very slow learners in most things, especially anything to do with social interaction.


    Report this

    91

    • #
      Streetcred

      Amazing, I worked with one recently … just like that ! PhD and insisted on being called Dr, trading off authority, and was as naive as they come. ‘Caused some major financial losses to a couple of good projects.


      Report this

      101

  • #
    memoryvault

    .
    If this is the best that NASA “scientists” can come up with these days, it’s no wonder they now have to hitch rides to the International Space Station with the Russians.

    There is no “ozone layer” as such, except as part of a mathematical construct to calculate a value for Dobson Units. Ozone exists from the very edge of the atmosphere all the way down to sea level. Ozone doesn’t “protect” us from anything, except maybe a bit of sunburn if we are careless.

    Ozone is principally formed by UV light from the sun reacting with oxygen (O2) in the atmosphere. The reason there is a measurable, temporary depletion in the Antarctic at the end of the SH winter is because it is the end of the SH winter, with consequently little or no sunlight in the Antarctic. It is a perfectly natural phenomenon, reaching its maximum in September, and it lasts about six weeks.

    Ozone normally exists in the atmosphere at a concentration of about 60 parts per BILLION.

    Anybody who could seriously entertain the notion that the very temporary depletion of a substance that only makes up 60 billionths of the atmosphere anyway, could somehow have a major effect on the climate of a sizeable chunk of the earth’s surface, needs to be locked up somewhere where they can be looked after and kept away from sharp objects.


    Report this

    502

    • #
      Grant (NZ)

      Gary Larson (The Far Side) documented the bozone layer.


      Report this

      40

    • #
      johninoxley

      ‘kept away from sharp objects’ How about, since they seme to be slow learners, they start off with ‘don’t run with sissors’. We can make it more complicated later.


      Report this

      20

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      I am not sure how they managed to get past the pier-review* process, but there are some papers that describe how the “ozone hole” is caused by wind patterns at certain times of the year, and something called “centrifugal migration?” I will try to find the sources.

      This was back in the days when you couldn’t use any form of CFC propellent because it was causing the “hole”. No CFC’s today, and we still have a “hole” (wattabugger). Now it’s chlorine and bromine wot dun it m’lud. How many air-mile credits do you actually need, these days, to get a PhD in the soft sciences?

      * pier-review vt Sitting on a long jetty, having a few beers, and flicking through a document, checking the punctuation.


      Report this

      221

      • #
        Andrew McRae

        Heheh. ah, you could have gone one of several ways with that gag.

        Here’s another way.

        Pier review, eh? Reminds me of that time good ol’ Kev and his mates found an incorrect editor at Remote Sensing. Caught that Wolfgang chap giving a free kick to the deniers! The bloody cheek! Yep, one little phone call made sure that nasty little realist took a long walk off a short pier review….


        Report this

        40

      • #
        Bruce J

        Pier review – the result of checking the length of a short jetty by taking a long walk.


        Report this

        20

    • #
      memoryvault

      .
      I don’t mind getting a thumbs down.
      What galls me is the gutless cowards who do it and never explain why.


      Report this

      76

    • #
      Bite Back

      Not to mention that ozone is an unstable compound with a short half life so there would be none at all if the sun wasn’t continuously manufacturing it.


      Report this

      80

      • #
        elva

        I recall reading a library book in 1976 (while waiting for my car service) about Antarctic exploration. It was written by a radio operator who was stationed in Antarctica during the 1957 International Geophysical Year. In it he tells of a discovery he made. That is, during winter there was a definite decrease in the size of the ozone layer over Antarctica. This would decrease later on.

        He knew this because of his radio understanding and used this knowledge to help with his communications to the outside world. No one had noticed this before especially as it was well before satellites.


        Report this

        50

    • #
      System

      If ozone depletion is caused by humans and there is more industry and more humans in the northern hemisphere, can someone please tell me why the hole in the SOUTH is BIGGER than the hole in the NORTH?

      Is ozone magnetic and attracted only to the north pole? Or is ozone so light that it floats up to the north pole?

      (Try “conehead” shaped earth: flatter southern crust so angle of incidence of sunlight is generally smaller so less ozone produced so wider depletion layer than pointier north. Same reason why hole size changes seasonally. Do the math…)


      Report this

      40

      • #
        System

        More to the point, how do ozone eating chemicals, produduced by human industry which is mostly in the northern hemisphere, gravitate away from the northern hemisphere all the way down to the south pole?

        Wouldn’t you think the Northern hole would be bigger?


        Report this

        40

    • #
      ian hilliar

      Dobson predicted and proved the existence of the ozone layer ater studying contrails in WW2. He also discovered the “Ozone Hole” in 1956, long before CFCs were widely used. 22 optical instruments were sent out from Oxford in 1956 to measure ozone in the atmosphere at different points around the world. In his article “Forty years of Ozone at Oxford, A History” published in Applied optics, vol.7,No.3, March 1968 he states ” One of the more interesting results on atmospheric ozone which came out of the IGY was the discovery of the peculiar annual variation of ozone at Halley Bay..{Antarctica}…The annual variation of ozone at Spitzbergen was fairly well knon at the time, so assuming a six month difference, we knew what to expect. However, when the monthly telegrams from Halley bay began to arrive and were plotted against the Spitzbergen curve, the values of september and october 1956 were about 150 units lower than was expected. We naturally thought that Evans had made some large mistake or that…the instrument had develped some fault. In November the ozone values suddenly jumped up to those expected from the Spitzbergen results. It was not until a year later, when the same type of annual variation was repeated, that we realised that the early results were indeed correct and that Halley bay showed most interesting difference from the other parts of the world. It was clear that the winter vortex over the South Pole was maintained late into the spring and that this kept the ozone values low. When it suddenly broke up in November both the ozone values and the stratospheric temperatures suddenly rose.” So much for the Montreal Protocol. Simple, really ,a natural phenomenon, related to 3 main variables. No ozone produced as no sunlight in Antarctia over long winter, circumpolar vortex prevents infilling, and the colder the stratosphere the bigger the temporary ozone defecit. Which is why the ozone “hole” will continue to be bigger ,during each 3month spring time appearence, while Antarctica grows colder.


      Report this

      110

  • #
    Sonny

    Melbourne suffers through coldest October day in 40 years.
    I’m sure the models can also somehow blame global warming for this one.

    http://m.smh.com.au/environment/weather/snow-falls-on-coldest-october-day-in-40-years-20121011-27f8j.html

    The only people who still believe this man made global warming bs are either clinically insane or in on the scam (or both)


    Report this

    172

  • #
    Philip Bradley

    It was Henrik Svensmark. His theory points out that the Antarctic is unlike any other place on Earth. It’s so blindingly white, that it’s the only place where an increase in cloud cover lowers the albedo (which means the region absorbs more energy, and reflects less). That means when the rest of the world warms due to lowered cloud cover, the Antarctic will cool, and vice versa.

    Svensmark is right. This also explains why Antarctic ice shelves (as opposed to sea ice) are retreating. These ice shelves originate as glaciers on land and incorporate rock debris and dust (unlike Antarctic sea ice). Decreased clouds result in increased insolation which melts the ice surface. Embedded material accumulates on the surface and progressively decreasing the ice’s albedo, causing accelerating melt. The same thing has happened to Arctic sea ice with embedded black carbon, which is absent in the Antarctic sea ice.


    Report this

    60

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      Embedded material accumulates on the surface and progressively decreasing the ice’s albedo, causing accelerating melt.

      OMG – We have discovered a positive feedback loop. Quick – everybody panic!


      Report this

      70

    • #
      memoryvault

      .
      Oh noes

      Rocks cause global warming.

      .
      And it’s worse than we first thought.


      Report this

      60

      • #
        Philip Bradley

        Rocks cause the start and end of ice age glacial periods. Cover the rocks with snow/ice and it gets colder. Expose the rocks to sunshine and it gets warmer.

        Albedo rules the climate.


        Report this

        50

        • #
          memoryvault

          .
          So

          Are we in a period of covering, or exposure?
          And why?

          And how does CO2 figure into it?


          Report this

          10

          • #
            Philip Bradley

            A very good question.

            We are in a period where winter snow and ice are increasing, but, post spring equinox, snow and ice are decreasing. So the net effect is colder winters, but warmer summers. You see this in the UAH troposphere temperatures in recent years.

            On a pure albedo basis that means the climate is warming and will continue to do so. A positive feedback at work.

            But this was the signature of the Little Ice Age.

            As for CO2, it decreases albedo thru increased plant growth. Another positive feedback.

            FWIIW, I think at some point, the increasing winter snowfall and sea ice will persist long enough into the spring to tip us into albedo cooling. Aided by a volcano or some other event.

            When it does, watch out.


            Report this

            10

          • #
            KinkyKeith

            Wow Phillip.

            I certainly will ‘watch out”

            kk


            Report this

            10

          • #
            KinkyKeith

            Don’t ask questions MV , it will confuse him.

            It’s all layed out very carefully in his mind and if he has to answer a question he may lose it all.

            kk


            Report this

            31

      • #
        Mark D.

        It’s not that a bed of rocks causes warming.

        It’s a head of rocks that believes in it.


        Report this

        91

      • #
        old44

        No wonder the Great Stony Desert is so hot.


        Report this

        00

    • #
      KinkyKeith

      That’s very interesting Phillip; is there anything else?

      kk


      Report this

      10

    • #
      Grant (NZ)

      Svensmark should have visited where I live. It is unlike anywhere else on earth too. So is every other place I have been to.


      Report this

      10

  • #
    Shevva

    I have come up with a ‘conspiracy’ theory that because their intellect does not measure up to their ego they must lie, cheat and steal to make up the short fall. Their ego says their right so the data must be wrong, I have a new change of name for the aerosol variable in the models it’s called the ego factor to keep their egos inflated they simply adjust the aerosol variable, job done.

    They are now simply moving their ego variable to cover all eventuality’s hot, cold, wet, dry climate change did it and as such their inflated ego about their intellect is correct.


    Report this

    81

  • #
    Bob Malloy

    A question fo all you South Australians? are you presently having unseasonaly warm weather, or is Al Gore visiting. One or the other must be responsible for the snow at Mount Lofty.


    Report this

    30

    • #
      Ian Hill

      A bit of both Bob. It’s been warm but being October any sort of weather can happen here, and of course the start to the cricket season invariably brings bad weather. I was running on a trail near Mt Lofty yesterday and knew the change was coming, but no-one said anything about snow. But then again, we have had snow in December, 1959 was the year from memory.


      Report this

      20

  • #
    Dave

    .
    Dr. Waleed Abdalati says above:

    Climate change has created essentially a wall of wind that keeps cool weather bottled up in Antarctica, NASA’s Abdalati says.

    A Wall of Wind keeps Antartica cool? This is the first time I’ve seen this fact.

    Questions:
    1. A Wall of Wind in a circle round the Antartic is how far out?
    2. A Wall of Wind – does it rotate clockwise, anticlockwise or stationary.
    3. Climate Change created a Wall of Wind – how?
    4. Are there other Walls of Wind.
    5. How come the Wall of Wind is only in the Southern Hemisphere?
    6. Is Wall of Wind directly related to the magnetnic South Pole only?
    7. Is “an essential” Wall of Wind different from a non- essential Wall of Wind?
    8. Did the Wall of Wind extend into SA today?
    9. War of the Worlds was fiction – is Dr. Waleed Abdalati writing a novel?


    Report this

    140

  • #
    Shub

    Jo,
    Some of the quotes you offer relate to Antarctic continental ice. Antarctic sea ice is increasing. It is difficult to say what the ice shelf is doing because there is so much of it, and very little data.


    Report this

    20

    • #

      Shub, I thought I’d divvied up the IPCC sea ice quotes from the other four (which I assumed were about “shelves”). Yes, different issues, but as I said….

      “we have to ask what conditions could warm both the seas and the ice shelves, and yet create record levels of sea ice?

      Team-warmista are not leaving themselves very much room to move.


      Report this

      50

      • #
        Nice One

        Ice Shelves and Sea Ice are formed in very different ways. Perhaps you should read up about it first. The answers to your questions are available, if you are truely interested. I suspect you are not. Just like you don’t really care if CO2Science performs gridded analysis of the MWP or if Argo data below 700 meters shows the oceans are warming. You continue to posting “doubt” rather than education.

        [Perhaps you should provide some references, if you know all of the answers. Also questioning is indistinguishable from education - other Mods have asked you to lift your game - you are on thin ice /Fly]


        Report this

        00

        • #

          Mr/Mrs anony-nice, we do hope you can be trained to write logical useful and polite comments. There is an extreme shortage of AGW fans who can do that, and we’d like more on this site. We continue to let you post in the hope that you can improve even though you fail basic tests in nearly every comment. Notice the flaws above:
          1. Strawman (I didn’t say they were formed the same way. I specifically split the predictions and noted they were different). Your comment adds nothing but bluster implying I don’t know that. Looks like a “point-scoring” attempt, rather than an effort to inform or learn.
          2. Unless you are God, you don’t know what anyone’s motivations are. Your declarations on that are baseless and inflammatory, not to mention unscientific, rancorous and bad-mannered. They are also wrong.
          3. Your inability to stick to topic wastes our time – my reply on the preposterous alarmist claims that atmospheric CO2 is heating the deep oceans below 700m (but not the water above) are posted elsewhere as are my links to MWP peer reviewed research with 120 proxies which you keep ignoring.

          So you can see, for us, training commenters like you to think and [snipping] irrational, off topic, unscientific comments is time-consuming, and so-far not worth the contribution you make.

          I fear we cannot keep offering you tutorials. If you are concerned about the planet, and informed about the science, no doubt you will make some effort to be polite and scientific so you can keep posting here… or are you just a bully who enjoys “point scoring”?


          Report this

          40

          • #
            Nice One

            Mr/Mrs anony-nice, we do hope you can be trained to write logical useful and polite comments.

            Likewise I hope you can too.

            There is an extreme shortage of AGW fans who can do that, and we’d like more on this site.

            Is that why you edit, delete and ban them?

            [ I don't. You just say I do. Jo]

            1. Strawman (I didn’t say they were formed the same way. I specifically split the predictions and noted they were different).

            And you seem astonished that Ice Sheets can Melt whilst Sea Ice is forming?

            [Strawman? Tick. So you generate another dishonest statement. I was surprized the continent AND the ocean could warm while sea ice cools. - Jo]

            2. Unless you are God, you don’t know what anyone’s motivations are. Your declarations on that are baseless and inflammatory, not to mention unscientific, rancorous and bad-mannered. They are also wrong.

            I didn’t say what your motives were. I said you posted “doubt” instead of education.

            You question “Could sea ice increase, and ice shelves melt?” without bothering to investigate first yourself.

            Had you done so you would have found the Antarctic Penisular Ice Shelves are further north than much of the yearly sea ice.

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHvrjX7AP-8

            3. Your inability to stick to topic wastes our time

            You’ll find most of your posters are having trouble, yet you seem to single out only those that ask difficult questions.

            [Bluster. Jo]

            – my reply on the preposterous alarmist claims that atmospheric CO2 is heating the deep oceans below 700m (but not the water above) are posted elsewhere.

            Where exactly?

            [Look in the INDEX under Oceans for missing heat. - Jo]

            I’d like to read why you throw out data that you can’t understand – heat is quite capable of travelling downwards – that doesn’t mean the upper layer is colder than the warmer layer (although even this too can happen), just that the anomaly for lower depths can be greater than for upper depths. But in any case, looking at the data, both the 700m dataset and 2000m datasets show warming.

            http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/

            [Heat 1km under is more likely to come from below, not 10km above the surface. -- I don't throw out data, I just come to obvious conclusions. Jo]

            as are my links to MWP peer reviewed research with 120 proxies which you keep ignoring.

            “Keep” ignoring? Jeepers it was only yesterday you replied, but without addressing the question. It seems you’re afraid to look beyond the first paragraph. I’ve answered your post and I do hope you respond to the question rather than ignore it once more.

            [A polite person who demanded an answer and threw insults would apologize before they raised another point. - Jo]

            If you are concerned about the planet, and informed about the science, no doubt you will make some effort to be polite and scientific so you can keep posting here

            I enjoy science, and I am happy to help educate you and your readers too. I am interested in the truth, whether that ultimately leads to a low sensitivity or not. I will accept the scientific data, not throw it away because I can’t understand it. There are many topics about nuclear physics I can’t understand. I don’t simply call nuclear physiscists wrong because I don’t like the data they come up with.


            Report this

            02

  • #
    RexAlan

    Don’t think he is writing a novel Tom, but I’m sure there is a good story line there somewhere.


    Report this

    10

  • #
    wayne, s. Job

    Getting now to be an old bustard in about 1976 at 1800 ft 50 km from Melbourne I had a white Christmas, snow on the ground on Christmas day. Bloody cold. I tend to believe that our climate cycles like a sine wave and the AGW people with the current down ward trend are trying to convince people that it is easier to push a rope than to drag it.

    The next decade will cause some heartburn among the true believers,the sun it would seem refuses to awaken, tho’ in AGW theory the sun has little relevance to our climate, I believe it is starting to worry them.

    The warm waters of the oceans caused by a few decades of rampant solar cycles have meandered north and south, the Antarctic has dealt with the warm easily, the Arctic has been surrounded being some what land locked has had a harder time and lost a bit of ice.

    This northern winter will put paid to what heat is left in the water around the Arctic and then we are back to square one. Except for old Sol who is on sabbatical, this fact may cause some a minor problem and the stupidity of the research and articles may be more intense. Thus an increase in newspeak. Global warming means less ice or more ice droughts and floods heat waves unusual cold even CO2 is now gaining intelligence and has learned how to find the cracks in ice, travel to the end of the crack and cause the ice to break.[WUWT] These people are idiots with no shame.


    Report this

    80

  • #
    Nice One

    Fail again Nova.

    Figure 10.13d shows model uncertainty allows for some years at this point in time to be greater than more recent years.

    Also the following two are not mutually exclusive because the Antarctic Peninsula is just a fraction of Antractica.

    Climate change has created essentially a wall of wind that keeps cool weather bottled up in Antarctica

    Some researchers are suggesting that the strengthening of the westerlies may be playing a role in the collapse of ice shelves along the Antarctic Peninsula.

    Here’s a map to help you with geography. The Antarctic Peninsula reaches further northward than any other part of Antarctica, so yeah, the weather there might be a little bit different from the rest.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Antarctica_map_indicating_Antarctic_Peninsula.JPG

    Oh, but I agree, Gore’s an embarrasment. But then so is anyone relying on politicians or web blog sites for their “science”.


    Report this

    327

    • #
      memoryvault

      .
      Give it a rest N.O.

      It’s cold down in the Antarctic, and if anything, it’s getting colder.
      You are flogging a dead horse with a piece of wet string and simply making a fool of yourself.


      Report this

      162

    • #
      Shevva

      Wrong again stupid one, sorry just following your first line of your comment. (Angry and ofensive)

      Please explain to us this wall of wind?


      Report this

      52

    • #
      Sonny

      “Oh, but I agree, Gore’s an embarrasment. But then so is anyone relying on politicians or web blog sites for their “science”.”

      So you don’t trust “politicians” to give us our “science”, yet you trust “climate scientists” who are employed and paid by those politicians…
      IPCC, NASA, CSIRO, BOM are all government agencies.
      Melbourne University, UWA Research projects are made possible by grants from the ARC, a government agency run by “politicians”.

      Well, it appears that you are deluded buddy.


      Report this

      171

    • #
      ExWarmist

      @Nice One

      Just so that we are clear that it is science that we are talking about.

      Just what are the empirical, measurable, falsification criteria (i.e. events) that would falsify the hypothesis that human emissions of GHGs (principally CO2) will cause catastrophic global warming if they were to occur.

      Thanks

      ExWarmist


      Report this

      101

      • #
        Mark

        Hey ExWarmist!

        Now that’s really beyond the pale. Fancy asking one of these zealots to falsify their hypothesis.
        Haven’t you learned by now that everything proves it. Things get warmer/colder/wetter/drier, whatever: Everything that happens proves AGW/ACC, got it!

        /sarc off

        Not long back I was perusing a ‘climate change’ discussion on a car forum. One of the zealots finally got fed up with having all his discussion points shoved back down his throat and stated that nothing the ‘denier’ said would change his mind.

        He never had a clue how stupid that made him look.


        Report this

        80

        • #
          Bite Back

          Just an observation here — these people want climate change to be true, facts be damned. I’ve noticed many challenges to provide actual evidence and they never come back with an answer. They slink away with their tails between their legs when they find out someone stands up to them with a question they can’t answer.

          It’s how they feel good about themselves I suspect. It’s almost like an infection. And when that feel-good isn’t there anymore they’re gone.

          The only exception is John Brookes. He certainly wants it to be true also. But he’s apparently in a perpetual contest to see how often he can make a fool of himself. I think he’s an educated man with a good theoretical grip on physics but the feel-good infection has him. He’s the puzzling one, not the others who come around and then disappear again. I have no idea why he keeps coming back for more.


          Report this

          10

      • #
        ExWarmist

        Hi Mark,

        I note that someone gave me a thumbs down without having the gumption to actually answer my question.

        To the person that gave me a thumbs down – do you even know why it matters that a hypothesis be falsifiable, that it be testable?

        How do you separate faith from scientific knowledge?


        Report this

        100

  • #
    inedible hyperbowl

    Simple and obvious, global warming makes it colder!
    Has anybody stepped out of the aircon and noticed that it is cold? My theory is that the colder weather has (further) reduced the blood flow to brains of a GW sciolists scientists. I am sure the problem will go away when we have a hot day.


    Report this

    90

  • #
    handjive

    Sharp minds here might be able to make something of this:

    29 June 2005
    American Geophysical Union
    NASA
    Joint Release

    Warmer Air May Cause Increased Antarctic Sea Ice Cover

    “Most people have heard of climate change and how rising air temperatures are melting glaciers and sea ice in the Arctic,” said Dylan C. Powell, lead author of the paper and a doctoral candidate at the University of Maryland Baltimore County.

    “However, findings from our simulations suggest a counterintuitive phenomenon.

    Some of the melt in the Arctic may be balanced by increases in sea ice volume in the Antarctic.”

    .

    Public release date: 15-Feb-2007, Ohio State University

    Antarctic temperatures disagree with climate model predictions

    “COLUMBUS , Ohio – A new report on climate over the world’s southernmost continent shows that temperatures during the late 20th century did not climb as had been predicted by many global climate models.

    This comes soon after the latest report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that strongly supports the conclusion that the Earth’s climate as a whole is warming, largely due to human activity.

    It also follows a similar finding from last summer by the same research group that showed no increase in precipitation over Antarctica in the last 50 years.

    Most models predict that both precipitation and temperature will increase over Antarctica with a warming of the planet.

    The best we can say right now is that the climate models are somewhat inconsistent with the evidence that we have for the last 50 years from continental Antarctica .

    “We’re looking for a small signal that represents the impact of human activity and it is hard to find it at the moment,” he said.”


    Report this

    50

  • #
    John Brookes

    But don’t worry, the arctic sea ice is recovering, as per the “skeptic” consensus.


    Report this

    423

    • #
      memoryvault

      .
      No John,

      The Arctic sea ice is “recovering” because the NH is going into winter.
      Consensus has nothing to to do with it.

      This is what Nature does, all by itself, without – in fact despite – the approval or intervention of humans.


      Report this

      241

      • #
        RoHa

        “This is what Nature does, all by itself, without – in fact despite – the approval or intervention of humans.”

        And that’s what’s wrong with nature. It should consult me first.


        Report this

        40

    • #
      Philip Bradley

      Since 2007 we have seen record Arctic sea ice formation, measured by extent.

      Were the record summer melt to stop and the record ice formation to continue, I’ll suggest we will be in serious trouble.

      And in case you think, this speculation on my part, I have sound physical reasons to think this will occur.


      Report this

      82

    • #
      Otter

      Ever heard of empircal evidence, man-beater brooksie?


      Report this

      51

    • #
      AndyG55

      Its recovered nicely from the cyclone, hasn’t it. :-)

      rapidly approaching post-1998 “normal”.


      Report this

      52

    • #
      Streetcred

      There goes John again, denying Nature !


      Report this

      50

      • #
        Debbie

        Yep…good one!
        Denying nature!
        JB…seriously….nature does not give a rat’s about human consensus….haven’t you noticed?
        Doesn’t matter if it’s warmist, sceptic, denialist, right, left, green, brown or whatever other ‘consensus/political’ name you would care to use.
        Good example is the 3 wettest concurrent Autumns in SE Australia are 2010/11/12 when the ‘consensus’ is still claiming there is a drying ‘trend’in SE Australia….particularly during Autumn….and we’ll be facing a ‘future with less water’ by 2012.
        The arctic/antarctic example is another excellent example of that long list.
        That ‘sheer novelty’ by 2012 stuff is also falling in buckets in October 2012….all over southern Australia….all the way down to 700mtrs.
        If ‘mother nature’ was actually a personality….which of course she isn’t…I would have to say she has a very wicked sense of humour :-)
        It seems that our misanthropic fraternity are somewhat ‘projecting’ onto their idea of ‘mother nature’ and she really doesn’t give a rat’s….and has no intention of being part of anyone’s consensus….and was never their friend.


        Report this

        51

    • #
      turnedoutnice

      Here are the DMI data: http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php

      Not far off full recovery as the open sea left after the winds pushed ice to warmer areas lose heat to space.


      Report this

      10

  • #
    AndyG55

    Coal Winning in Europe and Asia.

    And down here we are STUPID enough to have a CO2 tax. Time for REALITY !!!

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/11/newsbytes-europes-golden-age-of-coal-the-folly-of-green-energy-policy/#more-72266


    Report this

    50

  • #
    Bite Back

    Does anyone actually know what’s going on?

    Lots of theories.

    Damned few facts.


    Report this

    30

    • #
      • #
        Bite Back

        James,

        I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and simply say you miss the point. We know that ice extent changes. Nobody worth listening to says otherwise. What we don’t know is how — or even if — CO2 can be causing any problem, melting ice or otherwise. So try something a little harder and find some actual empirical evidence that says CO2 is doing it (emphasis on definition 3). Find the missing link.

        Actually it’s not just a little harder, it’s a lot harder. Otherwise, given the incentive you have to prove your point, someone would have done it long ago.

        If you want a starting point I recall that The Skeptic’s Handbook examines the whole case you have for CO2 and refutes it easily. Why not try your hand at proving The Skeptic’s Handbook wrong?


        Report this

        40

  • #
    pat

    a summer holiday, paid for by taxpayers no doubt, with a predetermined outcome. that sounds good:

    12 Oct: Brisbane Times: Reuters: Australian scientists in joint Antarctic ice survey
    Scientists have produced the first three dimensional map of the surface beneath Antarctic sea ice, helping them better understand the impact of climate change on Antarctica…
    “The ice thickness is regarded amongst climate scientists as the holy grail of determining changes in the system,” Antarctic marine glaciologist Jan Lieser told Reuters.
    “If we can determine the change in the thickness of the sea ice we can estimate the rate of change that is due to global warming.”…
    Lieser, who is aboard an Australian icebreaker in Antarctic waters, is part of the Sea Ice Physics and Ecosystem Experiment project, involving scientists from Australia, Belgium, Canada, France, Germany, Japan, New Zealand and the United States…
    http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/environment/climate-change/australian-scientists-in-joint-antarctic-ice-survey-20121012-27ggh.html


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Manfred

    Sinclair, K.E., Bertler, N.A.N. and van Ommen, T.D. 2012. Twentieth-century surface temperature trends in the Western Ross Sea, Antarctica: Evidence from a high-resolution ice core. Journal of Climate 25: 3629-3636.

    Conclusion: “no significant trends between 1882 and 2006.”

    “additional data are required to determine the full extent of the recent cooling.”

    No evidence of “global” warming trend here.


    Report this

    40

  • #
    Streetcred

    Sorry O/T but couldn’t find the general comments thread.

    From Tallbloke: Chunder down under – How GHCN V3.2 manufactures warming in the outback

    We are now in a position to conclude that the GHCN v3.2 warming adjustments applied to the GHCN v2 records in and around Alice Springs have manufactured approximately 2C of nonexistent warming since 1880. Spread over an area of 1.5 sq km this adds only about 0.02C of non-existent warming to the global land surface air temperature series, but it adds about 0.2C of nonexistent warming to the series in the Southern Hemisphere, where there’s a lot less land.

    And although I haven’t checked in detail it appears as if the GHCN v3.2 algorithms may have manufactured a lot of nonexistent warming over much of South Africa and South America too.

    So while we ponder the question of whether UHI impacts, poor station quality, land use changes etc. might have introduced spurious warming into the surface temperature record, Team AGW is busily manufacturing it. And getting away with it too.


    Report this

    60

  • #
    Anton

    I would describe these people as having a certain type of personality (because right or wrong they are always certain).


    Report this

    30

  • #
    Bruce of Newcastle

    I would draw Dr Borenstein’s attention to the inverse correlation of the AMO to the global sea ice anomaly (see red curve).

    When the AMO was at bottom in 1979 global sea ice was maxed. Now the AMO is at peak and global sea ice is minimum.

    Unfortunately because this sea ice dataset only dates from the start of the satellite era you can only see a downward trend. This is false, the trend is cyclic since the AMO is a sea surface temperature based index. It is also clearly cyclical (see Knight etal 2005 GRL, Fig 1 coauthored by Michael E Mann).

    The AMO has a clear effect on Arctic ice because the Arctic Ocean is connected geographically to the Atlantic. The PDO on the other hand is now firmly in cool mode and is a bigger influence on the Antarctic.

    Now if the sea surface temperature is at a cyclic peak in the north Atlantic and Arctic sea ice is at a minimum (warmer water = less ice), does it not suggest that as the cycle turns so will the global sea ice anomaly? Maybe the IPCC and Dr Borenstein might like to address this in AR5. I won’t hold my breath in anticipation.

    The real world is mugging these charlatans, one data point at a time.


    Report this

    60

  • #
    Gee Aye

    Jo,

    I honestly can’t see even in some sort of climate related context that this is true

    The only point of science is to predict things.

    It is a point of science but surely not the only. Some science is just about understanding things better.


    Report this

    41

    • #
      Philip Bradley

      The only point of science is to predict things.

      I’d agree with that statement. It’s succinct and easily understood.


      Report this

      10

    • #
      AndyG55

      “Some science is just about understanding things better.”

      So that better predictions can be made.

      Climate science has one heck of a long way to go, because the batting average is pretty darn woeful at the moment……. except with hindsight of course ;-)

      Far, far, far from settled. !


      Report this

      30

      • #
        Gee Aye

        Hmm ok point taken; all knowledge can be said to contribute to a predictive goal. I think I read Jo’s words as being about science the pursuit – ie the carrying out of scientific activity which can have all sorts of goals.


        Report this

        21

        • #
          Andrew McRae

          Don’t give up so easily Gee Aye. The “point” of science (the Why) is not the same as the scientific method (the How of science).
          What about forensic scientists and the good folk of CSI Miami?
          The multidisciplinary application of science to forensics is all about determining what happened in the past, no predictions needed.
          The lab may predict (spatially) where further evidence will be found, but the point of it all is still to determine what happened in the past.

          I’m just old enough now that I feel entitled to tell a random story only loosely connected with the present.

          One of the earliest documented instances of forensic science (and forensic entomology specifically) for solving a crime happened in ancient China.

          One day a man was found in a rice field brutally hacked to death by a weapon that was obviously a long blade of some sort. In a rice-growing village where nearly every able-bodied person has a long knife for farm labour, figuring out which villager was the murderer was not going to be easy. Some bright spark must have had a lend of the chief’s ear, because the next thing that happened was all the farmers who had been anywhere near the crime scene were rounded up and told to stand in a line under the hot sun with their own scythes lying on the grass in front of them.

          Hours passed.

          Eventually a group of flies began to accumulate on just one of the many blades! No doubt they were attracted to very faintest smell of blood and rotting flesh, and so the man standing in front of it was the guilty one.
          Convicted by applying an understanding of nature to gain proxy evidence of past events, no predictions needed.

          You could even say…
          …that the Ancient Chinese CSI did a great of job of answering…
          (puts on sunglasses)
          Hu dunnit!
          YYYEEAAAHhhhhh!


          Report this

          20

          • #
            Philip Bradley

            The theory that using a knife to cut someone predicts that blood is left on the knife despite washing, would seem to be confirmed by this anecdote.


            Report this

            02

          • #
            michael hart

            …but on appeal the villager demonstrated that they were actually fruit flies that were attracted to his blade, and he was the only villager who farmed water melons.


            Report this

            10

        • #
          John Brookes

          Naah. You were right originally GI, science is not done just to make predictions. People do science for all sorts of reasons, but I suspect the main one is simple curiosity.


          Report this

          02

  • #
    pat

    if u don’t have time to listen to all of this, begin around 15 mins to hear the enron/BP et al involvement in CAGW. until we realise we’re being scammed by a non-partisan crowd of crony capitalists, facilitated by unprinciipled pollies of all stripes, backed by a corrupted MSM, we won’t be able to defeat this nonsense:

    11 Oct: UK Tele: Radio Free Delingpole XXII: Fighting Windmills
    …in this week’s episode the special guest is Chris Horner, fellow of the Competitive Enterprise Institute and author of The Liberal War on Transparency.
    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100184632/radio-free-delingpole-xxii-fighting-windmills/


    Report this

    40

    • #
      Sonny

      We will not realise we are being scammed. We have never done so I’m the past.
      Tell a big lie often enough and people believe it. Tell them it’s hot when it’s cold they will believe it. Tell them warm causes ice they will believe it.

      We are under the spell of manmade deception.


      Report this

      40

  • #
    Sonny

    So none of our resident alarmist government paid trolls can offer any explanation for the
    “wall of wind”?


    Report this

    60

  • #
    sillyfilly

    Of course we could do with a bit of scientific reality rather that the disingenuous nature of the commentary.


    Report this

    218

    • #
      Heywood

      By “scientific reality” you mean a peer reviewed paper from a scientist yes?

      Whoops, no, an opinion piece from the online blogs of the Washington Post.


      Report this

      90

    • #
      Gee Aye

      Scientific reality??? Is that different from reality? I think not. Adding the word scientific to something is a very lazy way to argue.

      Doesn’t this blog discouraged comments which just link to another site without making a point.


      Report this

      51

    • #
      rukidding

      Lets see silly the sea ice is increasing because.

      “Its climate is more governed by wind and ocean currents.”

      OR

      “This cold air propagates down to the surface by influencing the atmospheric circulation in the Antarctic, and that keeps the sea ice extensive.”

      OR

      “The Southern Ocean consists of a layer of cold water near the surface and a layer of warmer water below. Water from the warmer layer rises up to the surface, melting sea ice. However, as air temperatures warm, the amount of rain and snowfall also increases. This freshens the surface waters, leading to a surface layer less dense than the saltier, warmer water below. The layers become more stratified and mix less. Less heat is transported upwards from the deeper, warmer layer. Hence less sea ice is melted.”

      AND

      “In short, the behavior of Antarctic sea ice is complex”

      AND THE ARCTIC SEA ICE IS NOT.

      So which is it silly

      The wind and currents
      The cold air
      Or the hot sea water that causes other sea water to be cold and expand the sea ice.
      Oh that right its AGW so it is all of the above. :-)


      Report this

      90

      • #
        Winston

        Silly,
        One only has to read John Cook’s highly outrageous circumlocutory explanation in the article you linked to( See below), to see that he is tapdancing and contorting an absolute treat trying to defend the indefensible. Rather than trying to suggest warming is causing more cooling, and that deeper ocean waters are really warmer than the surface waters, wouldn’t it be more reasonable and simple (as in the KISS principle)to suggest that cooling oceans (likely due to dropping solar insolation and fluctuations in solar electromagnetic effects) are conducive to an increase in sea ice, provided ocean currents allow.

        Compare Cook’s statement below with Bob Tisdale’s graphic depiction of Southern Ocean Temperatures below it and explain how that is consistent with a “warming ocean” which is “counter-intuitively” (should read- illogically) causing more Antarctic sea ice.

        “The Southern Ocean consists of a layer of cold water near the surface and a layer of warmer water below. Water from the warmer layer rises up to the surface, melting sea ice. However, as air temperatures warm, the amount of rain and snowfall also increases. This freshens the surface waters, leading to a surface layer less dense than the saltier, warmer water below. The layers become more stratified and mix less. Less heat is transported upwards from the deeper, warmer layer. Hence less sea ice is melted.”

        http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/13-southern.png

        I think the only scientific reality on display is either “virtual” or “alternate”. “Wall of wind” indeed! There is no justification for saying the oceans are mixing less or are more stratified or are falling victim to some analogous oceanic inversion layer.


        Report this

        91

  • #
    Sonny

    “adding the word scientific to something is a very lazy way to argue”
    Gee Aye

    “Scientifically the change is nowhere near as substantial as what we see in the Arctic,” says NASA chief scientist Waleed


    Report this

    110

    • #
      Sonny

      Gee Aye,
      I it’s good enough for NASA…


      Report this

      30

    • #
      Gee Aye

      yup… what the NASA guy said is a nonsense in one regard, but it is understood by the public to mean, “with the backing of the data”, or something similar.

      I still don’t understand “scientific reality”.


      Report this

      01

      • #
        Andrew McRae

        Some people believe there are “real” phenomena that will always remain beyond the ability of science to ever study and know.
        Some people believe that the scientific method is only one of many paths to knowledge.
        The prefix “scientifically” ought to be redundant in a NASA context, but it clarifies the epistemological framework in use.

        You can’t apply reductionism to natural language: you assume “scientific reality” = “scientific” + “reality”, with no extra synergy. But the phrase may have a conventional meaning not entirely derivable from the words. ie When the penny drops for you, you’ll find it easy as pie.

        Reality is all that there is, was, and can ever be.
        Our understanding of reality is imperfect and is best advanced scientifically.
        Scientists’ best sketch of the universe is the scientific reality, and that’s okay because the map is not the territory.


        Report this

        10

  • #
    pat

    ABC is sooooooo hilarious.

    when it suits the CAGW agenda, here is Eleanor Hall absolutely gushing over “prominent”, “most revered elder statesman”, George Shultz, who worked for Nixon & Reagan, was an adviser to Dubya, was a senior member of the Vulcans (which included Dick Cheney & Paul Wolfowitz), is known as father of the Bush doctrine for his advocacy of “Preventive War”, chairman of JPMorgan Chase’s International Advisory Council, etc.

    Hall clings to the Republicans are anti-science, anti-CAGW-science, even after Shultz exposes that myth. Hall brings up Rick Perry who isn’t even the Republican candidate, and ignores the fact Obama has avoided any mention of CAGW in his campaign:

    9 Oct: ABC The World Today: Eleanor Hall: US Republican elder statesman supports carbon tax
    US Republican president Ronald Reagan’s former secretary of state, George Shultz, joins The World Today to explain why he supports a carbon tax…
    ELEANOR HALL: He’s one of the US Republican Party’s most revered elder statesmen. He worked for presidents Eisenhower and Nixon and was president Ronald Reagan’s secretary of state for seven years…
    George Shultz, is your advocacy of a carbon tax driven more by national security concerns or by concern about climate change?
    GEORGE SHULTZ: When you think about energy, I think you have to regard it as a three-legged stool. There are national security issues that are important, there are economic issues that are important, and there are environmental issues that are important…
    ELEANOR HALL: This stance from such a prominent Republican as you is hardly likely to be popular in your party, particularly in an election year. I mean the Republican presidential candidate is trying to win an election on a pro-energy, low tax platform and here you are advocating a carbon tax.
    GEORGE SHULTZ: Well if it’s revenue neutral, it’s not taking money out of the economy. So I think that it will have wider and wider appeal. I might say that all of the important environmental actions taken in the United States over the last 50 years have been taken by Republicans.
    But not in a partisan way, they’ve been done in a sort of bi-partisan or non-partisan spirit. The Environmental Protection Agency was signed into law by Richard Nixon, the Montreal Protocol was developed by Ronald Reagan. The cap and trade system that dealt with acid rain was done by the first president Bush.
    So this myth is around that the Republicans never do anything about these problems, it’s wrong – they’re the only people who really do something about the problem. A lot of people talk about them but nobody rolls up their sleeves and does something.
    ELEANOR HALL: Republicans are increasingly at the moment though looking like an anti-science party, there are some very prominent Republicans like governor Rick Perry who dismiss the science on climate change.
    What do you say to those within the party who say that global warming is not happening?
    GEORGE SHULTZ: Well I think the certain myths that are created out of this comment that somebody may make that Republicans are anti-science, that’s ridiculous.
    ELEANOR HALL: What do you say to someone like governor Rick Perry then, when he says I don’t believe the science on climate change, we don’t have to worry about it.
    GEORGE SHULTZ: Well it’s, I don’t say anything, I say well you’re entitled to your opinion but you’re not entitled to your facts, take a look at the facts, take a trip up to Alaska and see what’s happening.
    ELEANOR HALL: You do seem to have annoyed some within your party who – I’ve seen the term ‘country club Republican’ – but you’re clearly not pursuing this as an academic exercise, you want this carbon tax up and running.
    What are you doing to try to achieve that within the party?…
    ELEANOR HALL: Thankyou so much for joining us George Shultz.
    GEORGE SHULTZ: OK, thankyou.
    ELEANOR HALL: That’s the former US secretary of state George Shultz, who is a Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution. I spoke to him there last week where I was a guest of the Institution as one of its Hoover Media Fellows. And you can listen to a longer version of that interview on our website.
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-10-09/us-republican-elder-statesman-supports-carbon-tax/4303444

    George P. Shultz
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_P._Shultz


    Report this

    00

  • #
    memoryvault

    .
    So Hobby Horse would like a bit of scientific reality? Okay

    1957 was the International Geophysical Year, and events included a major scientific expedition to Antarctica. One of the participants was Professor Gordon Dobson, perhaps the most preeminent meteorologist of the time.

    .
    Dobson (amongst others) had a theory that there were air currents in the upper atmosphere that had a major influence on global weather patterns. He devoted a goodly part of his working life to proving their existence and mapping them. Today we call them the “jet-stream” currents.

    .
    Since it is impossible to “tag” a parcel of air and “see where it goes”, Dobson had to come up with some other means. Dobson, like all good scientists of the time, knew that ozone was produced in the atmosphere where down-welling UV radiation from the sun met upwelling oxygen from the earth’s surface.

    .
    He also knew that more ozone was produced at the equator, the least ozone was produced at the poles, and theoretically at least, there would be little or no ozone at the poles at the end of their winter, due to the near total absence of sunlight. But he knew this wasn’t true as significant ozone HAD been detected at Antarctica at the end of winter.

    .
    So Dobson invented the Dobson Spectrophotometer to measure ozone concentration. He also invented the Dobson Unit (DU), which is is the unit of measurement of that concentration. Both are still in use today. The apparatus measures the amount of ozone in a column of air one metre square and extending out to the edge of the atmosphere.

    .
    It is then assumed that all that ozone in the measured column is compressed down to a “layer” at sea level at standard temperature and pressure. The resultant thickness of this theorised “layer” is then measured in Dobson Units. Please note that this is the only time and place that ozone exists as a “layer”, which is why there aren’t, and never were, any “holes” in it, to affect weather, or anything else.

    .
    Dobson had many of his spectrophotometers built and travelled the world installing them in different locations so he could compare measured ozone changes over periods of time, and thereby calculate the paths of his theorised upper air currents.

    .
    Which brings us back to Antarctica. Dobson’s hypothesis was that the air currents arose in the tropics, and spiralled their way round the earth and towards the poles, dropping lower as they cooled. So in 1957 he led a team to Antarctica to measure the ozone as it recovered from its depleted state following winter.

    .
    Please note Dobson wasn’t the slightest bit interested in the LEVEL of depletion – which was natural. He was interested in mapping the shape of the recovery which allowed him to establish where and how his high air currents – rich in ozone – interacted with the cold, dense – ozone depleted – air over Antarctica. Please also note that the cold, dense air existed because it was the end of winter, NOT because of the “absence of ozone”, which is how the climastrologists are now trying to spin it (see hobby horse’s link).

    .
    For his efforts in proving the existence of, and mapping the jet stream currents, Dobson was given the “International Geophysical man of the year Award”. Sexist I know, but that’s what it was called. In 1963 he published a book about it all, “Exploring the Atmosphere”, which was one of my Physics textbooks in high school.

    .
    And so things remained until the 1980’s when DuPont Chemical’s profit line required the creation of the Great Ozone Hole Scam, which is another story. Nonetheless, the scam required that the perfectly natural, seasonal nature of ozone depletion at the poles be expunged from history, and unfortunately poor old Professor Dobson and his work largely got “disappeared” along with it.

    .
    Today if you try and research the good professor you will find a tale of an eccentric man who travelled the world measuring ozone for no better reason than Hilary climbed Everest – because it was there. You will also find it stated that “Exploring the Atmosphere” was published in 1968, not 1963 as stated above, which is yet another interesting story.

    .
    As an aside, the Great Ozone Hole Scam was created with the stroke of a pen by NASA.

    When Dobson invented his apparatus and measurement unit, he arbitrarily set 200 DU’s as “normal”. Below that was “depleted” and above that was “enriched”. Remember, he wasn’t interested in how much there was per se, but rather in the rate and amount of variation over time and location. He was merely using it as a tracking device, not trying to quantify it. It was this arbitrary scale Dobson used when he mapped out Antarctica’s ozone recovery.

    Soon after NASA started measuring ozone by satellite (with a Dobson Spectrophotometer no less), someone there summarily changed “normal” from 200 DU’s to 220 DU’s, and voila, with the stroke of a pen, the “ozone hole” over Antarctica suddenly got much bigger.

    Simple, really.

    .
    Apologies for such a long post.


    Report this

    180

    • #
      sillyfilly

      Less than simple really:

      Science 10 October 2003:
      Vol. 302 no. 5643 pp. 273-275
      DOI: 10.1126/science.1087440

      Simulation of Recent Southern Hemisphere Climate Change

      1. Nathan P. Gillett1,*,
      2. David W. J. Thompson2

      Science 3 May 2002:
      Vol. 296 no. 5569 pp. 895-899
      DOI: 10.1126/science.1069270

      Interpretation of Recent Southern Hemisphere Climate Change

      1. David W. J. Thompson1,*,
      2. Susan Solomon2

      GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 36, L08502, 5 PP., 2009
      doi:10.1029/2009GL037524

      Non‐annular atmospheric circulation change induced by stratospheric ozone depletion and its role in the recent increase of Antarctic sea ice extent

      Increasing Antarctic Sea Ice under Warming Atmospheric and Oceanic Conditions
      JINLUN ZHANG
      Polar Science Center, Applied Physics Laboratory, College of Ocean and Fishery Sciences, University of Washington,
      Seattle, Washington
      (Manuscript received 10 January 2006, in final form 18 September 2006)
      ABSTRACT
      Estimates of sea ice extent based on satellite observations show an increasing Antarctic sea ice cover from 1979 to 2004 even though in situ observations show a prevailing warming trend in both the atmosphere and the ocean. This riddle is explored here using a global multicategory thickness and enthalpy distribution sea ice model coupled to an ocean model.


      Report this

      010

      • #
        memoryvault

        .
        More computer models I see, hobby horse.

        As I posted earlier in the thread (#5):

        * – Ozone exists at an average concentration of 60 parts per BILLION.
        * – The so-called Antarctic “ozone hole” only exists for around six weeks of the year.

        Anybody who truly believes that the very temporary depletion of something that only represents 60 billionths of the atmosphere anyway, can somehow affect major weather patterns (and change major global wind patterns, apparently), is in serious need of close supervision.

        .
        I might add that the notion of significant ozone depletion by man-made chemicals was vigorously debunked a few years ago. There’s plenty of scientific, peer-reviewed literature available on the subject.


        Report this

        151

        • #
          sillyfilly

          re:

          I might add that the notion of significant ozone depletion by man-made chemicals was vigorously debunked a few years ago. There’s plenty of scientific, peer-reviewed literature available on the subject.

          Well put them up!

          In the meantime here’s a quick review of the Montral Protocol and the Ozone hole:

          11 September 2012, 6.25am AEST
          Explainer: what is the Antarctic ozone hole and how is it made?

          Also here from NASA:

          “Ozone is Earth’s natural sunscreen, shielding life from excessive amounts of ultraviolet radiation. But Earth’s ozone layer has been damaged by well-intentioned chemicals—chlorofluorocarbons, used for refrigerants and aerosol spray-cans—that have the unintended consequence of destroying ozone molecules.

          In the late 1980s, governments around the world woke up to the destruction of the ozone layer and negotiated the Montreal Protocol, an international treaty to phase out ozone-depleting chemicals.”

          Cheers


          Report this

          011

          • #
            Winston

            Just in time for Dupont’s patents to run out on CFC’s, and the owner of the patent for the ready made replacement?? Give you 3 guesses- Hint- it starts with a “D” and ends with a “t”!


            Report this

            70

          • #
            memoryvault

            Well put them up!

            At what point, hobby horse, did you get the notion I was your research assistant?

            Montral (sic) Protocol and the Ozone hole

            (I can’t believe you cited an article from The Conversation – next you’ll be quoting Alan Jones on etiquette).

            CFC’s were invented and patented by DuPont Chemicals. They licenced many companies to manufacture the stuff. By the 1980′s the patents on CFC’s had run out, and companies no longer had to pay DuPont for the right to manufacture them.

            .
            Also by the 1980′s control of DuPont Chemicals had passed from the DuPont family to the Bronfman family. They made their money bootlegging whiskey from Canada into the USA during Prohibition. This was so profitable they financed the Prohibition Movement to keep it going. Edgar Bronfman Senior was the Patriarch of the family in the 1980′s, and controlled 62% of DuPont stock.

            .
            Edgar arranged for DuPont scientists to write much of the “peer-reviewed” literature claiming CFC’s damaged the ozone layer. Edgar also instructed them to develop alternatives. Edgar also directly financed others, like Rowland and Molina, to write similar papers.

            .
            Armed with this “scientific evidence” Bronfman paid for it to be disseminated to “environmental groups”. Where no suitable groups existed, he put up the money to form them. Bronfman also footed the entire airfares and accommodation bill for attendees at the Montreal Conference, which gave us the Montreal Protocol.

            .
            All up, Edgar Bronfman outlayed US $250 million to secure for DuPont Chemicals a world-wide monopoly on refrigerant gases, worth an estimated US $16 billion a year at the time.

            Also here from NASA:

            Shortwave UV light is blocked by Nitrogen. Of the rest – UV-A, UV-B and UV-C, UV-C (the deadly one) is blocked by oxygen (which is how ozone is made), UV-B (which gives you a tan and without which you’d get Rickets) is partially blocked by ozone. UA-A makes it to earth but we’ve learned to live with it.

            .
            The claim that ozone “protects” us from anything is a furphy, manufactured to give us something to fear from ozone depletion.

            .
            The claim that ozone depletion over Antarctica for six weeks of the year somehow threatens the lives of seven billion people, over six billion of whom live in the northern hemisphere, is part of the same furphy.

            .
            The claim that CFC molecules, which are five times denser than air, somehow “rise up” 30 kilometres into the atmosphere and destroy ozone is a furphy created by Rowland and Molina, financed by Bronfman.

            .
            The “CFC’s are destroying the (non-existent) ozone layer” scam died when it was shown (in a peer-reviewed, published paper no less), that mathematically, given the quantities of CFC’s and ozone involved, the reaction would have to proceed at a rate significantly faster than the speed of light.

            .
            I appreciate that this is probably only a minor point for climastrologists and their cult followers, such as yourself, but for the rest of the scientific community and everybody else with half a functioning brain, it more or less put paid to the matter.

            .
            And then, of course, there’s the minor point that the alleged “hole” hasn’t varied one whit – outside of its normal three year cycle – despite the fact that CFC’s were phased out nearly twenty years ago.


            Report this

            160

          • #
            Angry

            To “sillyfilly of Gosford” I see you are STILL attempting to scare everybody with this global warming FRAUD.

            How are you CHILDREN feeling?

            God help them!

            Your unfounded FEARS are going to make your children SUICIDAL & MANIC DEPRESSIVE.
            That will be on your conscience.
            You are guilty of CHILD ABUSE and a DANGER to your children!

            It won’t be too long before we read about your family in the newspaper, just like this one…..

            Baby shot over global warming fears:-

            http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,20797,26793969-952,00.html?from=public_rss


            Report this

            01

    • #
      System

      Memoryvault, excellent background. The parallels of CFCs/Ozone and the AGW scams are extraordinary – use the environment to destroy your favorite evil company or industry.

      As I posted at #5.6, if CFCs are supposed to cause ozone depletion, and CFCs are mostly produced in the northern hemiphere where most industry is, why isn’t there a BIGGER “hole” over the NORTH pole?


      Report this

      60

      • #
        memoryvault

        why isn’t there a BIGGER “hole” over the NORTH pole?

        Dunno System –

        Maybe the “wall of wind” locks the ozone out, but lets the CFC’s in – sort of an osmotic wall of wind.

        Or maybe there’s an “anti wall of wind”, or a “wall of anti wind” around the north pole that has the reverse effect.

        Maybe hobby horse could tell us.


        Report this

        50

        • #
          John Brookes

          Maybe because the hole is generated in colder air?

          But it is interesting what a complete scam the environmental movement is.

          DDT, acid rain, CFC’s and the ozone layer, CO2. All totally safe, and beneficial, yet demonised by the evil environmentalists.


          Report this

          12

    • #
      Truthseeker

      Memoryvault,

      Never, ever, ever apologise for a post of such quality and useful contextual information. Just because a post is short, does not mean it is better. I offer stupid nag’s efforts as proof of this theory.


      Report this

      80

    • #
      John Brookes

      Here’s a map. It doesn’t really fit the description above. The highest concentrations are not at the equator.

      Ozone

      [ED to the rescue] ED


      Report this

      23

  • #
    John Williams

    Yes, yes, when the calamity predictions don’t materialize, just reach into the magic bag and find a prediction that fits the narrative. No matter what happens, someone can find a research paper to match the current observations thereby.

    Yet, we were told the IPCC embodies the best and brightest minds in science and we should only heed the U.N.’s gold standard reports by the world’s 2500 top scientists; the “consensus”. Of course, after the fact sillyfilly just happens to find “proof” the OP is incorrect. Why, scientists knew all along the Antarctic would gain ice.

    Recall the flip flopping on the missing hot spot. QED

    An unlimited supply of degrees of freedom. Unfalsifiable hypotheses are great aren’t they?


    Report this

    20

  • #
    pat

    sorry to be O/T but i cannot believe malcolm turnbull was saying this today, given the CFMEU saga and the fact it’s been known for days that mercedes had cancelled their ads prior to jones making his offensive comment. courier mail & herald sun both have this AAP piece, no doubt others will also carry it shortly. i’ve posted the Courier Mail because it already has more than 50 comments, quite a few sounding like turnbull’s fan club:

    12 Oct: Courier Mail: AAP: Jones campaign ‘inspiring, horrifying’, says Malcolm Turnbull
    “Alan Jones has understood just how effective a mobilising medium like social media can be when people have the technology that gives them the capacity to express themselves, unmediated, unedited, in all of its rawness, often in all of its vulgarity and cruelty,” Mr Turnbull told the National Radio Conference in Sydney on Friday.
    “The phenomenon is that thousands of people that hitherto had no voice …. they were treated with contempt by the mainstream media, now they have their own megaphone…
    ***Mr Turnbull said advertisers had sent a powerful message by reacting to supporters of the online campaign even though these people were not “rusted-on fans” of Mr Jones.
    “They were saying in effect to Mercedes-Benz, ‘We do not listen to Alan Jones but we are so fed up with his abusive discourse that if you continue to pay his salary, we will stop buying your cars’,” Mr Turnbull said.
    Earlier this morning Deputy Opposition Leader Julie Bishop denied growing speculation that Tony Abbott’s leadership was under threat from Malcolm Turnbull.
    “Tony Abbott is our leader and he has the full support of the coalition to continue as our leader,” she said.
    http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/technology/jones-campaign-inspiring-horrifying-says-malcolm-turnbull/comments-fn7cejkh-1226494256334

    explain again how turnbull is allowed to get away with this kind of a stunt.


    Report this

    20

  • #
    RoHa

    Epicycles upon epicycles.

    I’m going to stick my neck out and make a falsifiable prediction.

    The AGW gang are going to keep tinkering with the theory, changing it bit by bit to fit the various disconformations. They will start adding in the solar variability, change the bit about clouds, reduce the sensitivity, and so on, until it actually fits reality.

    Then they will say “See! We were right all along!”

    (Note: I reserve the right to re-interpret this prediction if such re-interpretation becomes necessary to make it fit what actually happens.)


    Report this

    42

  • #
    RoHa

    Disconfirmations.

    (An edit function would be nice for those of who are pnore to topys.


    Report this

    20

  • #
    Jeremy

    The only point of science is to predict things.

    NO. Ms Nova, NO.

    Science is a method of investigation of the universe. At no point in it’s history has science ever been a method of predicting anything. Some scientists use their knowledge to try to make predictions and sometimes they are correct. That is prognostication, however, not science. Scientists get away with this because the world generally considers them well informed on the workings of the nature of the universe. This does not change the fact that it is tremendously perilous to call this activity science when it is not.


    Report this

    19

    • #
    • #

      Er, no. Back to school for you.

      Science

      Observe

      Form a hypothesis as to why and how what is observed happens

      The hypothesis predicts what will happen in other similar cases

      Observe the results

      If they are what the hypothesis predicted, observe other cases

      When hypothesis is is seen to be wrong, modify hypothesis

      Repeat from beginning.

      Note how PREDICTION is central to how science works.

      [snip]

      41

      • #
        Jeremy

        That’s not prediction. It’s not. I’m not sure what dictionary you’re working from. In science you form hypotheses from what is known. Your “predictions” to test your hypotheses are not predictions, they’re testable experiments by which your hypotheses can be falsified. That’s hardly a forecast. The “prediction” or forecast of what will happen in 10 years time is not something that will falsify anything, its NOT science.

        Ms Nova stated that the *ONLY* point of science is to predict or forecast things. This is completely incorrect. In fact you stated as much yourself by illustrating other parts of the scientific method. The point of science is to investigate the universe, NOT create future forecasts of what will happen. Why make hypotheses, why modify them, why test them if the only point of science is to predict? Answer: ITS NOT.

        Understand who you’re talking to, I’ve been a longtime dissenter to CAGW, and I’ve gotten a graduate science degree in physics. I think I know what the “only point of science” is, and I can tell you that it is not to prognosticate the future.

        Also, please take back your childish ad hominem.


        Report this

        13

        • #
          KinkyKeith

          Yes Jeremy we ” Understand who we’re talking to” : a Spacer.

          And a rude, petulant one at that: “NO. Ms Nova, NO.”

          Perhaps your mummy needs to put you over her knee and give you a good spanking.

          Oops; on second thoughts that’s not very PC at the moment and she would end up in jail or goal as we say

          over here.

          kk


          Report this

          40

        • #

          It’s like talking to a monkey.

          Once you understand something you can make predictions about the future state of it. These can be used to do useful things like avoiding being eaten by saber tooth tigers and other animals and many other things. Sorry mate, but prediction is the point of understanding something.
          Engineers can predict that a bridge will not fall or an aircraft will take off by understanding physical processes well enough to make those predictions.


          Report this

          40

    • #
      Jaymez

      It would have been useful for you to state what you think the purpose of science is, if not prediction. And what the hell you think the IPCC have been doing and what they claim to have on their side!


      Report this

      50

  • #
    Catamon

    And again, in the real world, they can’t just mess with one factor and keep everything else the same — if global “pollution” means more Antarctic sea ice now, what does that mean for all the sea level disasters we’re told to expect?

    Seriously? Sea Ice / Sea Levels??


    Report this

    25

    • #
      Bruce of Newcastle

      Catamon – You’d best have a word with Dr Mann then, since he apparently hasn’t heard of Archimedes Principle. He should take time out from flogging his book to read some science sometime.


      Report this

      51

      • #
        Catamon

        Bruce, really not sure what your on about. My ? regarding the OP is if the statement about sea ice is actually meant to be serious. I suspect that part the OP was meant to refer to Ice Shelves?? Or maybe just nonsensical carried away hyperbole since the posts main theme is sea ice.


        Report this

        13

        • #
          Bruce of Newcastle

          Sorry Catamon, when I saw you say “Sea Ice / Sea Levels??” I thought you were referring to the Archimedes principle, ie more Antarctic sea ice does not actually change sea level significantly. Nor does less Arctic sea ice.

          The GRACE data is suggesting not very much is happening either in Greenland (-240Gt/a) or Antarctica (+49Gt/a, see Jo’s post). Greenland is net melting, but at that rate it’d take thousands of years to make much of a real difference. And that is if it doesn’t slow down or even stop when the AMO flips to cold cycle.


          Report this

          30

    • #
      Bruce of Newcastle

      I will apologise, I misremembered an article I read last week. Dr Mann mentions west Antarctica and Greenland in that article. Although he didn’t mention Jay Zwally’s paper finding Antarctic terrestrial ice sheet is gaining 49 km^3/yr (see Jo’s post above). Which means all those islands Dr Mann is worried about could well be rising not sinking.


      Report this

      40

    • #

      Yes, Catamon, fair point. I should have said “sea-ice and specifically ice-shelves” — I’m still finding it hard to figure out how sea-ice could increase in a warming ocean AND we could get a catastrophic melting of the ice shelves at the same time, as if there was somehow a warming continent surrounded by a wall of cold wind on top of warmer water. That was my point about “messing” with one factor. Everything is connected.

      When I googled past media on the Antarctic there were few mentions of sea ice, but many mentions of “sea-level rises”.

      Sea-ice records — combined with satelite obs of the continent make those sea level rises look awfully hard to achieve.


      Report this

      40

  • #
    Bulldust

    ***NEWS FLASH***

    Expect the warmists to get all excited because a province in China is trialing an ETS scheme:

    http://www.smh.com.au/business/carbon-economy/chinas-carbon-trading-debut-defies-doubters-20121012-27hti.html

    No doubt this pilot is something China is using to mollify their detractors at climate love-ins. It buys them time to carry on growing their energy consumption (and therefore emissions) in leaps and bounds all the while saying they are doing something. They aren’t stupid.


    Report this

    50

    • #
      Streetcred

      Bull … I think that this scheme is an anti-pollution scheme and not specifically CO2 abatement. It was previously discussed at WUWT I think.


      Report this

      30

  • #
    bananabender

    Jo. A bit off topic but have you considered crowdfunding to help offset some of your costs?

    eg http://www.pozible.com/

    ———————————————————
    Anyone who is willing and able is welcome to help defray costs and cover Jo’s not insignificant time and effort by clicking on the ‘Tip Jar’ at the top right of the page where you can leave a token of your support via pay pal or credit card which would be greatly appreciated by Jo. – Mod


    Report this

    20

    • #
      bananabender

      The Tip Jar is fine. However crowdfunding can often raise a serious amount of money. Shane Dowling at Kangaroo Court of Australia has raised $500 in one day (with goal of $60k). Considering Jo’s blog is vastly more popular I expect a very substantial amount of money could be raised.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    inedible hyperbowl

    OT. Re the trolls in this post.

    Two usual causes of irrationality,
    a) stupidity
    b) malevolence
    c) both and b.

    Which of these 3 would you guys choose (mini survey)?

    My vote is with a)


    Report this

    50

    • #
      memoryvault

      .
      d) – Unshakeable faith-based acceptance of the religious dogma of their chosen cult, which claims to be capable of ushering in a new Utopia for all human-kind.

      It has:

      God – Gaia
      Heaven – a carbon free world
      Satan – carbon dioxide
      Holy Scripture – the IPCC Report
      Messiah – the Goracle
      Prophets – The Hockey Stick Team
      Wise Men – Climate Scientists
      Miracles – Atmosphere heats oceans, heating causes cold etc
      Visible Icons – Wind Turbines
      Multi-denominational Churches – Greenpeace, WWF, GetUP etc
      Tithes – The cost of the RET factored into our power bills
      Indulgences – Carbon Trading Certificates, and, of course
      Hell/Damnation – CAGW – the penalty for disbelief.

      Add in the absolute necessity to to ignore / ridicule / silence / re-educate / eliminate / kill all unbelievers / infidels / heathens / heretics / deniers and the similarity is complete.


      Report this

      90

      • #
        ExWarmist

        You left out the Time of Innocence/Garden of Paradise/Eden motif.

        Which is either prior to the discovery of agriculture, or the Industrial revolution – depending on how hard core you are.

        During the “innocence” phase – man was at one with nature, and had not eaten the forbidden fruit from the tree of knowledge.


        Report this

        30

      • #
        Andrew McRae

        Pilgrimages – Copenhagen, Durban, Rio, ….


        Report this

        10

    • #
      John Brookes

      Because we are right, and you are wrong ;-)


      Report this

      05

      • #
        Bruce of Newcastle

        Which is why you never refer to the data John…?

        Why is it when sceptics want to discuss the science CAGW people do a ManBearChicken?


        Report this

        40

        • #
          Andrew McRae

          A bit like Rob Painting from SkS did a manbearchicken the other day when I had the audacity to cite evidence from calcification experiments that showed a 0.3pH drop would have little effect on most corals surveyed. No response to that, despite voluminous responses to various other commentary.

          To be fair, I have not yet looked at most of the sources he referred to, which is really quite lazy of me since he made about 11 claims and only a handful even had any sources cited.
          The “absence of evidence is evidence of absence” fallacy used in point #3 of corals comment 29 is just par for the course with these people. I do not think there is any proxy with a temporal resolution good enough to make the hypothesis falsifiable by historic studies.
          Actually it is worse than that, it’s a total red herring. Whether modern [CO2] increase rate is unprecedented in history is completely irrelevant to the OA argument. The effect higher CO2 will have on corals is directly observable under repeatable lab conditions, so there is no need to speculate about what will happen, it can be tested today.
          Since that point was not essential to his argument, it was only grandstanding and hyperbole.


          Report this

          10

          • #
            Mark

            Why would you be surprised Andrew?

            He’s obviously operating under the same MO as this joker.

            People underestimate the power of models. Observational evidence is not very useful. Our approach is not entirely empirical.”
            UKMet’s principle research scientist John Mitchell:


            Report this

            00

      • #
        KinkyKeith

        John

        I’m super curious.

        What are you doing here?

        KK


        Report this

        10

    • #
  • #

    Seth’s statement is so far away from being real science that it makes the snake oil salesmen of old look honest in comparison…

    Can’t wait for the election day of reckoning to come around in Australia…


    Report this

    61

  • #
    theRealUniverse

    These [snipped] think they are gods. Always right. They will continue the scam until theres total world domination of the elite class, and we are all taxed to death and die of starvation. Let them rot in hell.


    Report this

    51

  • #
    pat

    take a look at the pic accompanying this:

    11 Oct: Herald Sun: Ken McGregor: China is Australia’s climate change scapegoat, finds report:
    The Climate Bridge report, which was commissioned by the Climate Institute think tank, says China has become a frontrunner in emissions reductions and Australia needs to start following in its footsteps…
    Climate Bridge chief executive Alex Wyatt said China’s pilot emissions trading schemes will cover nearly twice the emissions of Australia’s scheme in 2014…
    The Climate Institute is a think tank which targets environmental policy…
    http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/national/china-is-australias-climate-change-scapegoat-finds-report/story-fndo48ca-1226493555467

    OgilvyEarth & The Climate Institute
    OgilvyEarth has been a proud Major Climate Partner of The Climate Institute (TCI) since March 2010, supporting TCI’s vision for Australia to lead the world in clean technology use and innovation. Part of our contribution to this partnership is supporting the TCI team with strategic communications planning and media outreach.
    This year, OgilvyEarth has had the pleasure of being involved in the promotion of a number of world first initiatives led by TCI, including the launch of the Climate Advocacy Fund – a joint initiative with Australian Ethical Investment. The Fund works on the ‘power in numbers’ principle to influence Australia’s biggest companies to better manage climate change risk through constructive engagement and the provision of Australia’s first climate change shareholder resolutions. The Fund gives shareholders the opportunity to positively shape corporate behaviour in relation to sustainability. Media interest in the Fund has been positive, with stories reported by The AFR, The Age, SMH, Business Spectator and ABC News…
    More recently, TCI in conjunction with Vivid Economics launched a pioneering research report that compares Australia’s efforts in driving carbon pricing within the electricity sector against its major trading partners China, US, UK, Japan and South Korea.
    The report, titled “Putting a Price Tag on Pollution: Driving Competitiveness in the Clean Energy Economy”, revealed for the first time that Australia is lagging significantly behind its major trading partners in putting a price on carbon, therefore dispelling the myth Australia is at risk of leading the world and ‘acting too soon’ in making businesses responsible for pollution.
    To maximise media coverage of the report, an interactive media release (IMR) was used in place of a traditional media release. The IMR featured the announcement of the report, links to an executive summary and the full report, an infographic, video interviews with two key spokespersons, and links to TCI social media platforms.
    Media coverage of the report has been phenomenal with over 170 pieces of coverage appearing on the day of launch, including local stories in the AFR, SMH, ABC News and The Economist. The report has also attracted international coverage in the UK, US and China. The IMR drove a great response online, both from the media and international government staff and policy makers. Numerous bloggers posted links to the IMR and infographic, there were over 1260 views of the infographic on Flickr and over 345 views of the YouTube videos…
    Dr Martin Parkinson, Secretary of the Department of Climate Change: “Vivid and the Climate Institute are to be congratulated for attempting to quantify the implicit carbon price imposed by policies to reduce emissions”
    Heather Ridout, CEO Australian Industry Group: “I think it really does attack that idea that Australia was going to go it alone, that was a straw man and it’s been shown to be one.”
    Professor Ross Garnaut: “The Climate Institute analysis was a very good first step that probably underplayed how far Australia was behind China and the US.”…
    http://www.ogilvyimpact.com.au/case-studies/ogilvyearth-works-with-the-climate-institute-to-launch-world-first-initiatives/
    from about our global network:

    We’re proud to be part of the world’s leading communications companies. Through our network we’re able to draw on the strength of Ogilvy Public Relations in Australia and around the globe, the STW Group—Australia’s largest communications services group— and WPP, one of the world’s largest communications services groups.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    so many carbon cowboys and girls…and these are just some of the Vivid Team, but the rest follow the same pattern, with an ANU and a Uni of Tasmania among those i glanced at:

    Vivid Economics – Our Team
    Robin Smale – Director
    His commercial clients include firms in the following sectors: oil and gas, power, water, waste, chemicals, paper, glass, rail, aviation, shipping, technology and food. His public clients include national governments, government agencies and regulators, as well as private equity, banks, infrastructure funds, strategic advisory and legal services firms…
    He holds an M.Sc. in Natural Resource and Environmental Economics from University College London, and a first class degree in Chemistry from the University of Oxford…
    Cameron Hepburn – Director
    He has over a decade’s experience working on environmental and climate change issues, with particular interests in the theory and implementation of emissions trading, the economics and ethics of cost-benefit analysis, and the economics of apparently irrational individual behaviour…
    He currently holds Research Fellowships at the London School of Economics (Grantham Research Institute) and at Oxford University (New College and the Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment). He is also a member of the UK Defra Academic Panel, an Associate Editor of the Oxford Review of Economic Policy, and is a co-founder and director of Climate Bridge Ltd.
    He holds a D.Phil. and an M.Phil. in Economics from the University of Oxford (as a Rhodes Scholar), and first class degrees in Law and Engineering from the University of Melbourne…
    Sam Fankhauser – Director
    Prof Samuel Fankhauser is an expert in environmental economics and the economics of climate change…
    He is acting co-director of the Grantham Research Institute at the London School of Economics. He also serves as Chief Economist to Globe International, the international legislator organisation and is a member of the UK Committee on Climate Change.
    He holds a Ph.D. in Economics from University College London and an M.Sc in Economics from the London School of Economics…
    Simon Dietz – Principal
    He is currently acting as Co-Director of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics (LSE), where he is also Senior Lecturer in Environmental Policy. He built his reputation as an economic advisor to the Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change…
    He holds a Ph.D. and an M.Sc. (with distinction) from the LSE, a starred first class degree in Environmental Science from the University of East Anglia, and also attended the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH) in Zurich…
    http://www.vivideconomics.com/index.php/meet-our-team/robin-smale


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    12 Oct: Toowoomba Chronicle: Rose Hamilton-Barr: Major job losses Tarong Power Station job cuts
    A local councillor said the closure would cost the South Burnett about $10 million each year.
    There will be up to 64 voluntary redundancies from the power station, a Stanwell Corporation Limited senior management team member told staff yesterday.
    Tarong Power Station site manager Dennis Franklin said the decision would also affect the operations and workforce of the adjacent Meandu Mine. A further 40 jobs will be lost from that mine.
    The announcement has angered South Burnett councillor Barry Green who said any downgrading in operations would have a detrimental effect on the community, both economically and socially.
    “It’s not just the loss of these jobs,” he said. “In Nanango, motels and pubs depend on the big shutdowns (overhauls) they have.”…
    Cr Green said he was also concerned about the major loss of income to the region. “The wage bill per week out of the community will be about $200,000,” he said.
    “(That is) $10 million per year not turned around in the South Burnett region.”
    The Electrical Trades Union also slammed the decision to cut jobs, warning of upward pressure on electricity prices and an increasing likelihood of blackouts…
    ETU state secretary Peter Simpson said the scale of the job losses would come as a shock to many workers.
    “Taking 64 mostly skilled workers (engineering, maintenance and production) out of this community will undoubtedly lead to hardship. Our blokes on the ground out there are already getting calls from members saying if they lose their job they will be gone from the area,” Mr Simpson said.
    “Most of these workers have families that use the local schools, hospitals and shops and this is a huge blow for the South Burnett. There is a strong feeling that (this move) is the company clearing the decks ready for a possible privatisation.”…
    http://www.thechronicle.com.au/news/major-job-losses-tarong-power-station-job-cuts/1579319/

    11 Oct: Energy Matters: Two Coal Fired Power Generation Units To Be Taken Offline
    A Queensland government owned corporation, Stanwell has a generation capacity of more than 4000 megawatts (MW), which has been operating on average at 60 per cent capacity.
    Aside from the 1400 MW Tarong Power Station, Stanwell’s other coal fired assets including the 1460 MW Stanwell Power Station near Rockhampton and the 443 MW Tarong North Power Station.
    Aside from the 1400 MW Tarong Power Station, Stanwell’s other coal fired assets including the 1460 MW Stanwell Power Station near Rockhampton and the 443 MW Tarong North Power Station.
    At full output, annual greenhouse emissions from Tarong Power Station and Tarong North Power Station are in the region off 13 million tonnes, with the 1980′s era Tarong facility being the biggest contributor.
    The reduction in demand for coal-fired electricity is a result of consumers becoming more energy efficient and Queensland’s love affair with home solar power.
    Queensland isn’t the only state seeing a drop in mains electricity consumption thanks in part to solar panel uptake…
    Solar power hasn’t just contributed to seeing a reduction in coal based electricity demand, but has also pushed down the price of wholesale electricity. Unfortunately, that benefit has not flowed on to end consumers who have instead been slugged with continuing and major electricity price rises in recent years.
    http://www.energymatters.com.au/index.php?main_page=news_article&article_id=3421

    from Reuters Point Carbon: Australia’s Stanwell Corp. has announced it will shut down two units at the coal-fired Tarong power station for at least two years, cutting its CO2 emissions by 3.16 million tonnes and carbon costs by A$75 million ($77 mln) per year.

    ABC is barely interested:

    ABC: Tarong Power Station jobs axed
    By Frances Adcock
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-10-12/tarong-power-station-jobs-axed/4309520?section=qld


    Report this

    10

    • #
      Dave

      .
      This is Ross James, MattyB, JB, Catamon, and Sillyfilly dream come true.

      This reduction of CO2 emmissions is required to stop CAGW that is driving snow and sleet into SA, VIC and NSW at this very moment. With the solar panel and turbine installations that have been achieved in QLD today – there will be no blackouts or energy shortage when the wind doesn’t blow or the sun doesn’t shine. Sarc/off

      AWU can now come (Mr. Howes) and save the world with Mr. Flim Flam, Mr. Combet, Mr. Ross Garnaut, Mr. Swan, Ms. Gillard et al because NO JOBS HAVE BEEN LOST as a result of this beautiful solution to the biggest con trick in history.

      All these people will be re-employed by WHO?

      Basta*ds – all of them!


      Report this

      50

    • #
      memoryvault

      .
      In an extremely perverse sort of way, this is good news. Tony from OZ has been reproducing graphs for ages showing, for Eastern Australia, that supply hits the hard wall of demand in mid 2015. After that rolling blackouts and brownouts become an unavoidable fact of life. This decision just moves that day closer to the present, perhaps even to the present itself.

      The average Aussie doesn’t take notice until things go belly-up. Once the lights go out, and the telly goes off, and the laptop, and the Xbox, and the stereo, and the kettle, and the fridge, and the hot water, expect Aussies to suddenly take a far keener interest in the virtues of “green energy”.

      Then, and only then, will we see realistic moves back to sanity.
      Anything that brings that day a little closer is fine in my book, regardless of temporary inconveniences.


      Report this

      60

  • #
    Anton

    Jo, you might like to include explicitly in your ‘vicious circle’ diagram showing how truth is the casualty the fact that most companies manufacturing green-energy products, and therefore in receipt of subsidies from taxpayers, include senior bankers on their boards.


    Report this

    10

    • #
      memoryvault

      .
      An “adviser” from Goldman-Sachs sits on every regional board of Greenpeace.

      ————————————————–
      [Evidence? - Mod]


      Report this

      40

  • #
    pat

    Ruby & Caddie at at ABC Rural Alice Springs, and no other MSM are reporting this so far. doubt if it will be on 7.30 report or similar:

    12 Oct: ABC: Ruby Jones/Caddie Brain: Outback carbon farming venture faces shake-up
    An ambitious $13 million “learning by doing” carbon trading venture at a former cattle station in the Northern Territory is going back to school.
    RM Williams Agricultural Holdings says it is going to completely restructure its carbon conservation project model at the 5,000 square kilometre Henbury Station in central Australia.
    The Federal Government last year contributed $9 million to the $13 million price the company paid to buy the property, about 125 kilometres south of Alice Springs.
    The aim at the time of the purchase was to de-stock the land and return it to its natural state to earn carbon credits…
    But the Henbury Conservation Project’s chief executive David Pearse left RM Williams Agricultural Holdings earlier this month.
    Chief operating officer Rory Richards says the board felt leadership “needed refreshing”.
    The company has now partnered in the project with C-Quest Capital.
    While the property was completely de-stocked to put the carbon farm plan in place, Mr Richards says future models should include livestock.
    “We hope to be able to roll out a model that incorporates beef production,” he said.
    He added that the company is not planning to be a part of any similar carbon farming projects in the future…
    “Over the past two years, we have drifted apart, we have disengaged from some of the communities, such as the Northern Territory Cattlemen’s Association,” he said.
    The original purchase of Henbury Station drew criticism from both the cattle industry and Indigenous traditional owners.
    The Central Land Council said it had been supporting efforts by traditional owners to buy the cattle property since 1974 so they could run it themselves.
    The Northern Territory Cattlemen’s Association said the de-stocking of Henbury for a conservation and carbon farming project was a worrying precedent in displacing food production from the land.
    Association chief executive Luke Bowen told the ABC last year that non-Kyoto Agreement carbon credits earned from the project would be worth very little on the international market.
    “The value of those carbon credits … are next to nothing,” he said.
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-10-12/henbury-station-carbon-farm-project-restructure/4310344?section=business

    3 Oct: ABC Rural: Carl Curtain: Henbury Conservation Project in limbo
    The controversial Henbury Conservation Project in Central Australia is now on shaky ground, with the head of RM Williams Agricultural Holdings leaving the company.
    Sources have told ABC Rural that chief executive David Pearse and head of environmental business Rebecca Pearse are no longer working in their roles while an internal review of the company’s operations is carried out.
    It’s a major blow to the joint carbon abatement project between RM Williams Agricultural Holdings and the Federal Government, which contributed $9 million to the purchase of the property in 2011.
    Northern Territory cattle producers have previously spoken out against locking up the cattle station for conservation purposes, about 130 kilometres south of Alice Springs, fearing an increased fire risk and feral animal breeding.
    Success of the project still relies on the rangelands carbon credits methodology that’s been submitted by RM Williams Agricultural Holdings for approval under the Carbon Farming Initiative…
    In a statement to ABC Rural today, a spokesperson says Qantas is aware Mr Pearse has left the company. However, he says it’s an internal matter for R.M. Williams Agricultural Holdings. He says the executive officer’s departure will have no impact on the agreement to buy carbon credits from Henbury Station…
    http://www.abc.net.au/rural/news/content/201210/s3602045.htm


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Dave

    .
    Pat

    This is all going to turn pear shaped:

    Sources have told ABC Rural that chief executive David Pearse and head of environmental business Rebecca Pearse are no longer working in their roles while an internal review of the company’s operations is carried out.

    Wonder why? Because they know it’s a combet con job!


    Report this

    10

  • #
    pat

    11 March 2011: Stock Journal: Greener pastures beckon for RM Williams
    THERE is plenty of talk at the moment about why Australia’s iconic bootmaker RM Williams is getting, well, too big for its boots.
    The group is owned by Rupert Murdoch’s former right-hand man, Ken Cowley, who took control of the company in 2003 and has lofty ambitions to buy up large tracts of rural land around Australia, including La Belle station in the Northern Territory for more than $70 million, reports The Australian Financial Review…
    Part of the company’s rural land push is clearly about carbon credit. The word is that Caltex Australia was looking to chip in about $400 million for RM Williams Agricultural Holdings in order to gain some of the carbon credits.
    And it isn’t the only one to have shown interest; carbon finance business C-Quest Capital has already chipped in an equity investment.
    http://sj.farmonline.com.au/news/nationalrural/agribusiness-and-general/finance/greener-pastures-beckon-for-rm-williams/1773449.aspx
    Ken Newcombe CEO of C-Quest, a DC company started in 2008, was managing director, goldman sachs 2007-2008, and a Senior Manager at the World Bank from 1982-2005 (23 years), which included 5 years at World Bank – United Nations: Global Environment Facility. C-Quest
    http://www.linkedin.com/pub/ken-newcombe/11/34a/755

    20 April 2009: c-questcapitalwebsite: C-Quest opens in Perth
    By Giles Parkinson
    The Australian
    THE Washington-based carbon investment firm C-Quest Capital has opened an office in Perth as it looks to broaden its activities in Asia and keeps a weather eye on developments in the Australian market. C-Quest was co-founded last year by Ken Newcombe, who is credited with establishing the world’s first carbon fund while at the World Bank in the 1990s. He established a carbon fund business at Goldman Sachs before leaving to help establish the new venture.
    C-Quest has hired Caroline van Tilborg, a former colleague of Newcombe’s at the World Bank and UK-based Climate Change Capital, and Liz Day, who had worked with the Baker McKenzie climate change team. While the slumping carbon price has made life difficult for many carbon investors and carbon funds, C-Quest’s solid backing from wealthy US investors has enabled it to remain active…
    Its 20-strong team in the US includes a trading desk that is involved in the over-the-counter market and it is looking at Australian opportunities, depending on the future of the CPRS and the strength of voluntary trading schemes. C-Quest is also looking to raise up to $US300 million in a specialist carbon fund.
    http://www.cqcllc.net/news_2009_04_20.html


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    1 June 2009: c-questcapitalwebsite: These boots are made for hawkin’
    By Giles Parkinson
    The Australian
    THE move by RM Williams into farm ownership is notable not just for the clothing icon buying land that its boots are designed to walk on—it has brought a new category of investor into Australian land-holdings.
    Washington-based carbon trader C-Quest Capital is emerging as a “significant shareholder” in RM Williams Agricultural Holdings, its first equity investment in the country and the first time an international carbon trader has bought into an Australian rural property group…
    RMWAH will be led by David Pearse, the former chairman of Primary Holdings, which folded its assets into the newly created company.
    http://www.cqcllc.net/news_2009_06_01.html

    in the first Ruby Jones/Caddie Brain ABC article i posted, we are told: “The company has now partnered in the project with C-Quest Capital”. sorry, ABC, i’m sure u know that was 3 years ago:

    Excerpt Issue 67 – Oct/Nov 2009 of Outback magazine
    The RMWAH board is comprised of Ken as chair; former chairman of Primary Holdings International David Pearse – who has also held senior executive roles with Cargill and Deutsche Bank – as managing director; CEO of R.M.Williams Hamish Turner as executive director; and former Unilever director Chris Jemmett as non-executive director…
    The company is further supported by an advisory group containing the likes of former Australian Of The Year Tim Flannery (see Issue 52), former Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade Mark Vaile, and carbon-industry pioneer Ken Newcombe, among others…
    http://www.outbackmag.com.au/stories/article-view?520


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    final rm williams’ link:

    27 May 2009: Media Release: Announcement – R.M.Williams Agricultural Holdings
    Australian Carbon Emission Reduction Initiatives & Biofuels
    RMWAH has formed an exclusive partnership (within Australia) with one of the world’s leading carbon value adding and
    trading companies, C-Quest Capital (CQC). CQC has also made a substantial equity investment in RMWAH. The CQC
    team is headed by Ken Newcombe, and includes carbon structuring and trading professionals considered to be amongst the
    world’s best.
    Ken Newcombe has over 30 years of experience in developing financially viable sustainable energy and plantation projects
    around the world. Mr Newcombe is responsible for building CQC’s positions in selected carbon assets for compliance and
    voluntary market emissions reductions world-wide. Prior to launching QCC in October 2008, Mr Newcombe was the
    Managing Director of Goldman Sachs’ Fixed Income, Currency and Commodities Division in New York, where he was
    responsible for carbon origination and sales in the US and Latin America. Before joining the private sector, Mr Newcombe
    led the development of the Prototype Carbon Fund, a public-private partnership of the World Bank, which pioneered the
    global carbon market, and built the World Bank’s Carbon Finance Business to USD1 billion under management…
    http://www.rmwilliamsag.com.au/pdf/RMWAH-Media-Release-Final.pdf


    Report this

    10

  • #
    pat

    oops meant to say there’s lots more, including about ken cowley, in the media release i just posted.


    Report this

    10

  • #
    soxpistol

    “Shifts in wind patterns…. – ….related to human activity…” Seth Boringstein

    Seriously???

    Us nasty humans.

    Better ask my Oma to ease up on the sauerkraut.


    Report this

    40

  • #
    Annie

    A very interesting post again.

    I was intrigued by the concept of a ‘wall of wind’! If this wall is keeping the cold air in the Antarctic, where has all the unusual cold weather in southern Australia come from?

    My family in Victoria have needed far more heating than usual over the last few months.


    Report this

    50

    • #
      Winston

      The wall of wind is like a blanket, which is semipermeable, it selectively let’s through “cold molecules” which then migrate northward due to the effects of upwelling warm deep ocean layers in the Southern Ocean and the Coriolis Effect, interacting with increasingly acidic (due to GHGs) and lower salinity (due to increased precipitation) subtropical waters, admixing with saltier subtropical waters from the Southern Pacific which then contributes to increased Climate Disruption on the Eastern Seaboard of Australia, with increased droughts and floods, and heat waves and cold snaps. It’s the signature of a warming world. Simple physics really.


      Report this

      50

    • #
      llew Jones

      My family in Victoria has hardly turned off our several gas room heaters since late autumn. We are doing our little bit for global warming but it doesn’t seem to be having much effect. In fact it seems to be getting colder.

      The climate lads at the weather bureau melbourne promised us a dry spring. That doesn’t seem to be working either.


      Report this

      20

  • #
    Mark

    We now seem to be on the verge of economic and social collapse worldwide

    Yes, indeed Oliver. Sort of ties in very neatly with this.

    Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsiblity to bring that about?”
    Maurice Strong, founder of the UN Environment Programme.

    I’d say that Western governments bankrupting themselves with pipedream ‘renewable’ energy fulfills Strong’s dream admirably.


    Report this

    40

  • #
    jorgekafkazar

    Climate change has created essentially a wall of wind that keeps cool weather bottled up in Antarctica, NASA’s Abdalati says.

    That is the stupidist statement I’ve ever heard. Imagine all those poor little CO2 molecules having to hold hands to create a “wall of wind!” Anyone who would believe that warmth creates ice has the IQ of a bucket of lard.


    Report this

    30

    • #
      John Brookes

      Dumb lard, or intelligent lard?


      Report this

      04

      • #
        Sonny

        John earlier I extended an offer for one of you global warming cheerleaders to explain this “wall of wind” concept. No takers so far. You know why? You all know it’s a crock [snip]. No research of any kind has been conducted on this wall of wind let alone proving that humans are to blame.

        You and your [snip - inflammatory] experts cannot concede the very obvious link between TEMPERATURE and ICE FORMATION. this is because you cannot admit that the Southern Hemisphere is COOLING despite all the manipulated data indicating warming.

        Anything to keep your little scam going longer Brooksie?


        Report this

        60

  • #
    Askwhyisitso?

    The hole makes Antarctica even cooler this time of year because the ozone layer usually absorbs solar radiation, working like a blanket to keep the Earth warm.

    Did someone really say that? So we have banned CFCs to make sure the Ozone layer does not deplete because Ozone keeps the planet warm. I’ve solved it! It’s not C02 causing global warming its Ozone. Yahoo!


    Report this

    20

  • #
    Bob Fernley-Jones

    Here’s a good laugh from our ABC’s so-called ”The Science Show” of 13 November 2010.
    Here is the introduction:

    Researchers predict serious consequences for large Antarctic penguin colonies as the climate changes. In just a few decades, ice needed for nesting and feeding will be unavailable. Joellen Russell explains the changes in train as winds and ocean currents move, as air temperatures swing, at times hotter, at other times colder and as ocean chemistry changes from an equilibrium position which has allowed life to flourish.

    http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/scienceshow/antarctic-penguin-colonies-threatened-by-changing/2988314

    OH, and did I not see something recently that satellites can detect Antarctic penguin colonies and that they are expanding?


    Report this

    30

    • #

      WTF

      Thanks Bob.

      I saw a doco in 1993/4 by David Attenborough, Life In The Freezer, and in one ep, they dealt with the huge Emperor Penguin Colonies. They lay their eggs directly onto the ice in the Winter and they are then incubated on the feet of, usually the male, while he squats his tummy over the egg, insulated from the ice by his feet. He usually just stands like this for weeks while the egg hatches, in the blinding wind and ice blown up by the winds, surviving on his own stored body fat. Whole colonies of ‘hubbies’ huddle together in huge bunches, all cradling eggs on their feet. These penguins actually go into the Interior to do this.

      Mum then struggles out miles and miles to the edge of Antarctic, dives off the edge, and goes fishing, sometimes for weeks and weeks on end. Then she swims back, and goes back across the ice to feed hubby and Junior now.

      All this in the depths of Antarctic Winter.

      The temperature is consistently around Minus 70C. Antarctic Winters are consistently this cold.

      If it gets to the stage where those large penguin colonies are threatened, then it’ll be too damned late for all of us humans.

      One degree higher will not make the slightest difference whatsoever when the average is Minus 70C. Colder Winters are worse and the penguin death rate is considerably higher in those colder Winters.

      Now, here in this new program, the ABC are talking low single digit rises in temperature, which if the truth be told, would probably be beneficial for those penguin colonies.

      Even at the height of Summer, the mean Antarctic temperature is still (well) below zero.

      These idiots feed into the suckers who are now conditioned to believe this absolute pap that the ABC is pushing for all its worth.

      If you can still get hold of this old doco, it’s well worth watching. It was actually repeated before the turn of the Century, and I watched it all again, it was so good. If you can get it, that one ep about the Emperor Penguins was worth watching the whole series.

      Tony.


      Report this

      60

      • #
        Bob Fernley-Jones

        Hi Tony,
        Yes, I have seen that doco and was awed at the way that the Emperor Penguins go to all that amazing procreation trouble presumably to find a place where there are no predator threats.

        The so-called ABC “Science Show” programme I linked to, amongst much other head-shaking stuff, also conjectured that the small Adelie Penguins were similarly threatened by future loss of sea-ice. Whilst they are said to feed substantially on krill down south, I’m far from convinced that the krill depend on floating sea-ice. My reading also gives that the Adelies are very different to the Emperors; that they only go that far south in the spring and rock-scramble and breed about 50 Km inland in and near Antarctica in nests utilizing small pebbles which they squabble over for possession. As the austral winter closes-in they then migrate to warmer climes and have reportedly been found as far north as Tasmania! (where presumably they adapt to a different diet!)

        BTW, I can’t bear to listen to “The Science Show”, but what I do is, I go to the website HOME page sometimes and if there is something that might be interesting, I’ll take a look at the transcript.
        http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/scienceshow/

        Back in August for the second time, I made a formal complaint to the ABC of extreme bias when “The Science Show” reported 29 scary stories on climate change over the previous year, without any investigative journalism into authoritative contrary information. My complaint was rejected by the ABC, but for different reasons that I had tried the year before. I’ve referred it to the ACMA; the allegedly independent appeal authority….. Ho hum!….. watch this space in some months to come.


        Report this

        00

  • #
    Ross J.

    Someone is LYING – but whom?

    Warning Disinformation on the Goggle “Road Map” ahead.

    GRACE satellite data shows Antarctica is gaining ice mass
    hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/…/grace-satellite-data-shows-antarctica.h…20 Sep 2012 – Gravitational data from the GRACE satellites also show that the vast majority of Antarctica is gaining, not losing, mass. Trend plots from the …

    Is Antarctica losing or gaining ice?
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice.htmby M Bevis – 2009 – Cited by 19 – Related articles
    Satellites measure Antarctica is gaining sea ice but losing land ice at an … In glaciology and particularly with respect to Antarctic ice, not all things are created equal. … In Antarctica, the most important ice mass is the land ice sitting on the West …. The authors (Bevis et al, 2009) also point out that GRACE should make …

    There ‘could’ be more Antarctic melt worries | Watts Up With That?
    wattsupwiththat.com/…/there-could-be-more-antarctic-melt-worries/20 Sep 2012 – Gravitational data from the GRACE satellites also show that the vast majority of Antarctica is gaining, not losing, mass. Trend plots from the …??????

    The Skeptics Are Thrashing The Alarmists In The Global Warming …
    http://www.forbes.com/…/the-skeptics-are-thrashing-the-alarmists-in-the-gl…4 Oct 2012 – Global Warming Alarmists Seek More Power, Not Emissions … a doubt causing global warming based on overwhelming scientific data. … Models long ago predicted that East Antarctica would gain mass as … GRACE satellite results show both east and west Antarctica losing mass. ??????… Most Read on Forbes …

    Poles Apart | Open Mind
    tamino.wordpress.com/2012/09/20/poles-apart/20 Sep 2012 – If it was getting colder, they might have a point, but it’s not getting colder. … It is known for a fact that the Antarctic ice sheets are loosing mass at a greater rate. ….. Its also the most politically dangerous emotion one can yield to. …… Gravity data collected from space using NASA’s Grace satellite show that …????????

    Poles apart on one this Jo – Suggest NASA Web Site is correct on Grace results but what kind of correct????. Easily found.

    _______
    Ross J.


    Report this

    03

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Until just a few years ago I would have dismissed you as another conspiracy nut. Now…


    Report this

    20

  • #

    Sir Karl Popper, the philosopher of science looked at theories that could explain every possible situation. For instance

    In so far as a scientific statement speaks about reality, it must be falsifiable: and in so far as it is not falsifiable, it does not speak about reality.

    In Popper’s terms, the climate science collective has long for a long time failed to speak in scientific terms. Also

    It is easy to obtain confirmations, or verifications, for nearly every theory—if we look for confirmations. Confirmations should count only if they are the result of risky predictions… A theory which is not refutable by any conceivable event is non-scientific. Irrefutability is not a virtue of a theory (as people often think) but a vice. Every genuine test of a theory is an attempt to falsify it, or refute it.


    Report this

    30

    • #
      Ross J.

      Manicbeancounter (one who counts beans in a manic state)

      Doubt is your only weapon. It is disingenuous of you to develop an argument based on doubt fingering of science. It sets up a foundation that is based on a straw man argument.

      Undermine science and you win the argument every time.

      But at what cost to your logical rational well-being?

      _______
      Ross J.


      Report this

      11

  • #
  • #
    Ted O'Brien

    So the hole in the ozone layer is causing global warming. Eh, what?

    I never found the time and resources to research it, but have always been almost as sceptical of this “hole” as I am of the AGW push.

    This “hole” was announced in the early 1980s from memory.

    The satellite which “discovered” it had been sent up about four years previously.

    Prior to that time the available data was scant, from a few balloons sent up from a very small number of sites. So where is the data which shows that this “hole” is new? What data was collected by those balloons?

    So what was the result of this “discovery”? We were instructed that this new(??) “hole in the ozone layer” was caused by refrigerant gases. We must stop using them or we and our crops will all die of UV exposure.

    Then what? Laws were passed prohibiting the use of these chemicals. We were forced to use new chemicals, which, supposedly, are a bit less damaging to the ozone layer.

    The old chemicals had been in use for a very long time. I would expect that a little research would show that the patents on their manufacture had expired, placing their manufacture in the free market. The new chemicals, however, would be subject to patent, making them vastly more profitable for the manufacturers to produce.

    I ask again, where is the data which proved that that “hole” was new? I don’t believe there was any.


    Report this

    10

    • #
      Ted O'Brien

      Further to my comment above.

      I have now read “memoryvault”‘s comments at #31, which confirm my suspicion. Many thanks to “memoryvault”.

      This was not my first such observation. After seeing the case of the herbicide 2.4.5-T I had already observed that the greatest lurk in business comes in three grades.

      1. Persuade a government to mandate the use of your product,
      2. Persuade a government to prohibit the use of your competitor’s product, and
      3. Persuade a government to prohibit the use of your less profitable product, thereby mandating the use of your more profitable product.

      2.4.5-T was a cheap and effective herbicide. Its use was banned after its patents expired. Many accusations were made that it was harmful to animals and humans, but there was no evidence to support these claims. After its banning we had to use much more expensive, patented products to do the same job.

      2.4.5-T also came under fire from the tree huggers, because it was used effectively to kill trees and woody weeds.


      Report this

      10

  • #

    [...] sense, warmer water more ice. That must be why the experts predicted the opposite, as catalogued by Jo Nova … The IPCC Experts in AR4 prediction (thanks to Bishop [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    stevea526

    Jo,

    I take AGW proponent’s comments with a pound of salt. Their theory of AGW, especially CAGW, may be terribly flawed, but their thoughts on Antarctic sea ice seem to make some sense. That is, I recently read that southern ocean currents have been changing, bringing “warmer” waters around Antarctica, especially where the ice extended out over water. This would have a tendency to melt this water-borne ice, from below, at a faster than “normal” clip. If this glacial ice were entering the waters faster than the warmer currents could melt it into water, then we would see an increase in sea ice, even though the waters were warmer. It would be a temporary condition, but it makes sense. BIG NOTE: This is all common sense speculation. I do not have data to support any of this. If you have data to support or discount, we would appreciate it. Thanks!


    Report this

    00