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



Eight reasons the Australian heatwave is not “climate change”

Eight  reasons why this current heatwave is a boring, overhyped example of weather being used for political purposes.

1. It’s the long term trends that matter — not a few weeks of hot weather

As climate scientists keep telling us (except when they have a heatwave to milk), ”weather is not climate”. It’s the long term trends that matter. One short four week period is not a long term climate trend, but it is an excellent opportunity to create hype and scaremongering in the newspapers. Scientists with little scruple and low standards are making the most of this.

2. The “records” we are breaking are pitifully short

Even if this is the hottest heatwave “ever recorded”, it doesn’t mean much in the long term scheme of things. Natural climate cycles work on scales of 11 years, 60 years, 200 years, 1500 years, and 100,000 years. We have decent temperature records for many locations for only 50 years. We have a scratchy patchy thermometer record for 150 years. Any scientist raving about breaking a 50 year record as if it means something is … embarrassing. There is too much noise in this system and too little data.

3. If a few weeks of extreme heat suggest CO2 is causing a catastrophe, then don’t a few weeks of Siberian record breaking cold suggest the opposite?

Siberians would appreciate some global warming this winter.  Cold weather is killing people in Ireland, Maryland, Chicago, Afghanistan the UK and Russia.

4.  50C temperatures have occurred all over Australia before, and without any influence by CO2.

Correlation is weak evidence, and this correlation is so weak, it’s nearly non-existent. The price of postage stamps correlates with temperatures. Australians have been recording temperatures of over 50C since 1828, right across the country. In 1896 the heat was so bad for weeks that people fled on emergency trains to escape the inland heat. Millions of birds fell from the sky in 1932 due to the savage hot spell. Thanks to Chris Gillham and contributors in comments for the detail in this graph.

(click to enlarge)

5. Heatwaves have happened before many times, and there’s no long term increase

Since 1890 our BOM records show that there have been many clusters of five hot days in Sydney and Melbourne. This summer has been bog-standard and ordinary. Thanks to Geoff Sherrington for the idea and the number crunching on these graphs.

Jan 2013 is not over, but so far:

  • Sydney‘s highest 5-day average in 2013 is 30.5 (ending on 8th Jan).
  • Melbourne‘s highest 5 day average is 32 (ending on 7th Jan). (It’s not even on the chart!)

Heatwaves in January in Sydney and Melbourne, Australia

 6. Global temperatures have been increasing for 300 years

Given that our data is shorter than that, it is entirely predictable that we will set “new records” even though the climate is now cooler than it was 5,000 years ago, 130,000 years ago and for most of the history of life on Earth. Our records are short (point 2) the trends are not unusual (point 7) and we aren’t certain what caused the world to start warming circa 1700, but it wasn’t due to CO2. Not too many air-conditioners or SUV’s in King William III’s time.

7. The world is not warming any faster now that it was 140 years ago

Decadal warming trends peaked at about 0.16C three times in the last 150 years. Right now it’s less (close to zero). In other words, current trends could be entirely natural. The world was warming faster in 1870 than it is now. Shouldn’t all that CO2 be increasing the rate?

Hadley Global Temperature Graph with Phil Jones trends annotated on top.

 

8. People are mixing up cause and effect. Any cause of warming will … cause heatwaves.

Shock us. Just because the world has warmed does not mean it was caused by CO2. If other things were warming the planet, they would cause heatwaves too. (Possible causes include but are not limited too: the solar-magnetic effect, cloud cover changes, or ocean current shifts. Heck it could be aliens with ray guns… the planet will warm.) This is the banal, bleedingly obvious inference any scientist (or graduate of primary school) would make.

What we need is evidence of the cause.  Some climate scientists say their computer simulations of the atmosphere show CO2 is the cause. But their models don’t work, can’t predict anything that matters, and no one can find a single published paper showing the assumptions the models use are correct. (I’ve been asking for three years.)

So arctic ice, extreme weather, heatwaves… are not evidence that CO2 did it. And people implying it is, are … confused, dishonest, over-zealous, and not much of a scientist, take your pick.

Thanks especially to Geoff, with help from Ken, Ian, Ed, Chris, Warwick, Lance and Tony.

More information

Posts on   and .

 

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 8.7/10 (95 votes cast)
Eight reasons the Australian heatwave is not "climate change", 8.7 out of 10 based on 95 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/b4t5bye

283 comments to Eight reasons the Australian heatwave is not “climate change”

  • #
    Dennis

    It is too complicated for mere Earth people, politics aside, cast aside as politics should be.


    Report this

    45

  • #
    Sonny

    Heatwave?

    What heatwave? This summer has been mild compared to many others in my 27 years living in Victoria. The last six summers were so cool and wet, the BOM and CSIRO recently released a scientific report assuring us that global warming and climate change were still happening.

    http://climatecommission.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/CC-The-Science-behind-wet-cool-summer.pdf

    Now we have a few hot days FINALLY, and the climate change scare mongers come out to frighten the daylights out of young children and the naive.

    Meanwhile electricity bills are sky high thanks to useless windfarms that are actually worse for the environment and water bills are through the roof thanks to useless desalination plants.

    Anyway, I say let the scare mongering nonsense continue. People are beginning to see through the thin veneer of “environmentalism” to it’s rotten core.


    Report this

    505

    • #
      Dennis

      NO, it was GW/CC disaster. Of course it was. And now GW/CC floods and tidal waves. And the Cow jumped over the Moon


      Report this

      82

    • #
      Truthseeker

      Sonny,

      I have even longer memories of living in Sydney and this summer is yet another mild and wet one compared to those of my youth. I remember “long, hot summers”, something we have not had in Sydney for about a decade now.


      Report this

      202

      • #
        Sonny

        Truthseeker,

        I suspect this is why most adults who have a functioning brain can see through the alarmist rhetoric. It is sad that so few speak out about the obvious deception.

        It’s really only fringe extremists, or rent seekers with cushy government jobs and grants (like John Brookes) who are still promoting the global warming scam. Of course the media is still complicit because they are so thoroughly controlled by the globalist agenda.

        If you follow the money you will find the majority of alarmists (Like John Brookes) are financially invested in perpetuating the lies.


        Report this

        245

      • #
        Backslider

        You will simply be told “I would much rather listen to peer reviewed scientific views”. Apparently human experience and common sense are meaningless.


        Report this

        113

    • #
      Sonny

      Actually I take all this back.

      John is simply a “unit coordinator” at UWA and has no publications or grants according to the website. So it is very likely he is a climate change activist without financial incentive.

      I did find something else interesting about John.

      http://john-brookes.blogspot.com.au/2011/06/climate-change-fellow-travellers.html?m=1

      “Today, I went to a rally in support of a price on carbon emissions in Australia.  But at the rally, there are all sorts of greenies,  and I don’t agree with lots of what they want.  Some want Australia to be using only renewable energy by 2020.  I just can’t see that happening, and its not consistent with a price on carbon anyway.  You either put a price on carbon and let the market sort it out, or you regulate.  You really shouldn’t do both.


      Anyway, I guess if you want something to happen, you may have to ally with people who’s views you don’t share on other issues.”


      Report this

      142

      • #
        Sonny

        Carefully read the comment in bold.

        This is why John supports every pronouncement of the climate change establishment irrespective of whether it’s supported by facts!

        They are all part of THE TEAM!!!

        He is not really interested in science, but rather how science can be USED for the furtherance of political policies he likes.

        He is a climate change GROUPIE!


        Report this

        203

        • #
          Sonny

          [SNIP]

          [Brooksie comments here with his real name. His employment has nothing to do with this site. Please attack the message not the man. I encourage more people to use real names and I will defend those who do, preferentially snipping the anon v those with a reputation that matters. - Jo]


          Report this

          182

      • #

        So he’s a useful idiot then. Doing others’ bidding in while not sharing the spoils is naive. Not only is he not sharing in the spoils, but pawns are notoriously expendable.


        Report this

        92

    • #
      inedible hyperbowl

      It has been a cool summer in this part of AU.


      Report this

      10

  • #
    Carbon500

    Regarding section 8: absolutely right!
    Perhaps it’s worth adding a reminder about correlation for the ‘warmists’.
    The existence of a statistically significant correlation cannot be taken as evidence of causality in relation to non-experimental data.
    Need more be said?


    Report this

    80

    • #
      AndyG55

      Any facade of a statistically significant correlation between CO2 and temperature has gone well out the window in the last 16 or so years.

      It was only ever a “co-incidence” rather than ever being any sort of correlation.

      They are TOTALLY UNLINKED !!!


      Report this

      40

  • #
    John Brookes

    Sydney has its hottest day since records began. Hobart has its hottest day since records began. Perth has its hottest December night since records began.

    There is a lot more moisture in the atmosphere, and most of it seems to fall on Queensland these days.

    Tasmania and New South Wales have had devastating bushfires this summer.

    Now it might not be CO2 that is causing all this, but there is this theory that CO2 absorbs certain wavelengths of radiation that may cause the surface of the earth to warm. This same theory suggests that the amount of moisture in the atmosphere will increase, exacerbating the warming (and falling on Queensland).

    Its only a theory, but they’ve made some projections based on this theory, and they are doing *much* better than the predictions based on competing theories. Sure they aren’t perfect, but they are close enough to merit some respect.

    Some crazily cautious people are even suggesting we look at reducing our CO2 emissions, because this theory says that things will get worse as CO2 levels rise.

    But I say, “Nuts to them!”. Its all good. Just relax and enjoy a cold beer.


    Report this

    1459

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      Sydney has its hottest day since records began. Hobart has its hottest day since records began. Perth has its hottest December night since records began.

      And?

      Now it might not be CO2 that is causing all this…

      Sane thinking there.

      But I say, “Nuts to them!”. Its all good. Just relax and enjoy a cold beer.

      Now you’ve finally got it , John. Take yourself and family on a long vacation. Your worries are over. Enjoy! :-)


      Report this

      382

      • #
        Ian George

        star comment
        The interesting thing about Sydney’s highest temp was how quickly it all happened. The top temp of 45.8C was reached at 2:55pm.
        Sydney Observatory AWS graph shows the following.

        2:49 – 44.9C
        2:59 – 44.7C

        Therefore the temp rose 0.9C in 6 minutes and dropped 1.0C in 4 minutes. This would be due to the platinum wired electronic thermometer that can pick up changes in temp within seconds.
        In 1939 (45.3C) they would not have been able to pick up any sudden rises and decreases in temp so we are really comparing different recording methods.

        Also, there were more +35C days in Sydney between 1921 – 1950 than between 1981-2010 despite increasing UHI levels.


        Report this

        372

        • #
          AndyG55

          And Obs Hill is considered TOO ANOMOLOUS to even include in the ACORN calculation. !!

          Way too much urban heating effect.


          Report this

          80

          • #
            Ian George

            AndyG55
            Sydney Obs data have been included in the ACORN records.
            http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/acorn/sat/data/acorn.sat.maxT.066062.daily.txt

            Be interesting to check if there has been any ‘adjustments’ for UHI.

            I can’t believe that the people at Sydney Obs would ‘fudge’ the record temp – just pointing out that it seems an odd spike which would not have been picked up (if there was a similar spike) in 1939.
            And I agree with you – if we have been becoming warmer because of extra CO2 and UHI, we should have had many breaks to a record since 1939.


            Report this

            90

        • #
          AndyG55

          Even if the temperature reading was true, all it means is that, even with all this assumed warming, we have only now matched a temperature from 74 years ago.

          Gees maybe there was a cooler patch in between, which all the warning ideas are based on.


          Report this

          110

        • #
          AndyG55

          If you could still get to the “summary” page , there was a maximum recorded on the AWS of 45.3C

          Now where did that extra 0.5C come from.. !!?????


          Report this

          101

        • #
          Geoffrey Cousens

          Does everyone have amnesia?I was visiting Sydney in summer 2001 when the temperature reached 47c.45c is not a record.


          Report this

          10

    • #

      It’s good you understand that “might” “may” etc are not scientific words. :)

      Yes, there are theories about CO2 and warming. There are contradictory theories. Personally, I have found the other theories to be at least as useful as the CO2 one. I find that climate is a concept way above even those “experts with peer-reviewed papers” pay grade. Trying to figure out what causes climate change is biting off more than we can ever possibly chew.

      I am curious about those predictions that turned out better than other theories. To date, I find that CO2 really doesn’t correlate to much of anything. Of course, even if it did, correlation and causality are two very, very different things. It would be very interesting if I could find such data.

      Yes, we do need to sit back and think long and hard before embracing a theory that would effectively return us to the stone age, cause massive wars and millions dying. You see, if we eliminate CO2 emissions by replacing coal with those pinwheels and silicone part-time energy sources, we lose jobs, electricity, etc. There’s just no way around it. This is a sure thing. Given the choice between a sure thing with using poor energy sources and a possible bad outcome with good energy sources, I pick the latter. Now, if we want to talk switching to nuclear……


      Report this

      242

    • #
      Kevin Moore

      John Brookes,

      Is that CO2 you mention the same thing as carbon pollution?

      Julia’s carbon pollution tax is supposed to return the weather/climate back to normal – whatever that is.

      When will the carbon pollution tax begin to show its climate changing effectiveness?


      Report this

      260

    • #

      “Sydney has its hottest day since records began. Hobart has its hottest day since records began. Perth has its hottest December night since records began.”

      The United States recently experienced its greets snow cover ever, Europe and Asia are experiencing one of the coldest winters in history. So, John, why is warm weather an indicator of global warming and cold temperatures are not an indicator of global cooling?

      “There is a lot more moisture in the atmosphere…”

      Wrong again John! http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JAMC-D-12-035.1?af=R& This paper shows that there has been no increase in humidity in the US and contradicts your unsubstantiated claim that humidity is up. Gee wiz, John, maybe it is just a localized event in Australia?! You know, weather?

      “Now it might not be CO2 that is causing all this, but there is this theory that CO2 absorbs certain wavelengths of radiation that may cause the surface of the earth to warm. This same theory suggests that the amount of moisture in the atmosphere will increase, exacerbating the warming (and falling on Queensland).”

      The paper I cited above shows that the moisture is not increasing. Once again, your precious hypothesis is falsified!

      “Its only a theory, but they’ve made some projections based on this theory, and they are doing *much* better than the predictions based on competing theories.”

      You mean a falsified hypothesis? Not only was Hansen wrong, but he failed miserably and can do nothing more than to keep moving the goalpost and hope that nobody notices. In fact, a new paper shows that not only were the models wrong, but that they exaggerated! http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2012GL053650/abstract

      “Sure they aren’t perfect, but they are close enough to merit some respect.”

      Prove it! Oh, in the meantime read the following paper, J. Kirkby et al., Nature, 476, 429-433, © Nature 2011. Also, http://hol.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/10/18/0959683612460781

      You will find that Cosmic rays have a lot more to do with controlling the weather than CO2. CO2 is but a minor player and just one of many factors that influence climate.

      Not only are they (climate models) not perfect, they are absolute failures! No warming for 16 years when all the models forecast that we would see higher temps with less CO2 than there is now in the atmosphere! What a bunch of mindless drivel it is that you spit out, John!

      I await your vacuous response!


      Report this

      543

      • #
        Kevin Moore

        Why can’t the amount of water vapor in the air be greater than 4%? The answer is because temperature sets a limit to how much water vapor can be in the air. Even in tropical air, once the volume of water vapor in the atmosphere approaches 4% it will begin to condense out of the air. The condensing of water vapor prevents the percentage of water vapor in the air from increasing.


        Report this

        92

      • #
        AndyG55

        “Sure they aren’t perfect, but they are close enough to merit some respect.””

        John’s leftist world, were total failure merits respect… but at least they tried !!!


        Report this

        112

      • #
        Geoff Sherrington

        “Sure they ain’t perfect, but they are close enough to merit some respect”. James Hansen.
        ………………………..
        Go straight to the script of Dr Strangelove, where Air Force General Turgidson is in the Pentagon War Room with President Muffley just before a wayward nuclear bomb from an SAC B-52 is likely to trigger the Doomsday Machine and end Life on Earth.

        Turgidson: The duty officer asked General Ripper to confirm the fact the he had issued the go code and he said, “Yes gentlemen, they are on their way in and no one can bring them back. For the sake of our country and our way of life, I suggest you get the rest of SAC in after them, otherwise we will be totally destroyed by red retaliation. My boys will give you the best kind of start, fourteen hundred megatons worth, and you sure as hell won’t stop them now. So let’s get going. There’s no other choice. God willing, we will prevail in peace and freedom from fear and in true health through the purity and essence of our natural fluids. God bless you all.” Then he hung up. We’re still trying to figure out the meaning of that last phrase, sir.

        Muffley: There’s nothing to figure out General Turgidson. This man is obviously a psychotic.

        Turgidson: Well, I’d like to hold off judgment on a thing like that, sir, until all the facts are in.

        Muffley: (anger rising) General Turgidson, when you instituted the human reliability tests, you assured me there was no possibility of such a thing ever occurring.

        Turgidson: Well I don’t think it’s quite fair to condemn a whole program because of a single slip up sir.


        Report this

        50

      • #
        John Brookes

        This paper shows that there has been no increase in humidity in the US and contradicts your unsubstantiated claim that humidity is up. Gee wiz, John, maybe it is just a localized event in Australia?! You know, weather?

        I know its an unfair tactic Eddy, but I went and looked at the paper:

        Trends since 1947 indicate that the warming of temperatures has coincided with increases in dewpoints and a moistening of specific humidity. This moistening is especially pronounced during the summer in the Midwest. For the nation, trends in relative humidity show little change for the period 1947–2010, during which these data are more homogeneous.

        Relative humidity is unchanged, which of course means that with rising temperatures there is more moisture in the atmosphere – at least for the period 1947 – now.


        Report this

        38

        • #

          Nice try, John! You have committed a lie by omission. Here is the rest of the abstract that you quoted out of context:

          Abstract
          U.S. hourly surface observations are examined at 145 stations to identify annual and seasonal changes in temperature, dewpoint, relative humidity, and specific humidity since 1930. Because of numerous systematic instrument changes that have occurred, a homogeneity assessment was performed on temperatures and dewpoints. Dewpoints contained higher breakpoint detection rates associated with instrumentation changes than did temperatures. Temperature trends were tempered by adjusting the data, whereas dewpoints were unaffected. The effects were the same whether the adjustments were based on statistically detected or fixed-year breakpoints. Average long-term trends (1930–2010) indicate that temperature has warmed but that little change has occurred in dewpoint and specific humidity. Warming is strongest in spring. There is evidence of inhomogeneity in the relative humidity record that primarily affects data from prior to 1950. Therefore, long-term decreases in relative humidity, which are strongest in winter, need to be viewed with caution. Trends since 1947 indicate that the warming of temperatures has coincided with increases in dewpoints and a moistening of specific humidity. This moistening is especially pronounced during the summer in the Midwest. For the nation, trends in relative humidity show little change for the period 1947–2010, during which these data are more homogeneous. Moistening has occurred throughout the central United States while other regions have experienced drying. Urban-related warming and drying trends are present in the data, but their effect is minimal. Regional changes in land use and moisture availability are likely influencing trends in atmospheric moisture.

          So, John, since temperatures have risen since the “ice age scare” of the 1970′s but humidity has not you are exposed as the CAGW cherry picking tool that you are!


          Report this

          152

          • #
          • #
            John Brookes

            No Eddy, you don’t get it. If relative humidity remains constant as temperatures rise, then the total amount of water in the atmosphere rises. This is what they say has happened for the last 60 odd years.

            Maybe Cohers would like to step in and help here?


            Report this

            48

          • #

            No Eddy, you don’t get it.

            Actually, I do get it. The paper says there has been no change in trends of relative humidity. If relative humidity was increasing then there would be a change in trends, get it?

            Did you read the following which was marked in bold?

            little change has occurred in dewpoint and specific humidity.

            Specific humidity is the “weight of water vapor expressed as per unit weight of dry air.”

            Can you explain how atmospheric water vapor is increasing while specific humidity is not?

            You are running out of straws to grasp at, John!


            Report this

            70

          • #
            Bulldust

            I would have thought the last line the most significant. Land use changes affecting climate?!?! Wait till the Hockey Team gives them a stiff talking to… such heresy!


            Report this

            10

          • #
            Ace

            Eddy…Saint Brookes of Erehwon was no match for you.

            However slippery and two-faced a lyin’ scutz he played it.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            cohenite

            SH and RH over the US and globally are a contentious issue because if SH and RH are not rising then AGW is dead, again.

            SH can rise but RH fall because of their relationship with temperature; see V. Isaac and W. A. van Wijngaarden 2012.

            Isaac find:

            The averages of these seasonal trends are 0.20 C/decade and 0.07 hPa/decade which correspond to a specific humidity increase of 0.04 g/kg per decade and a relative humidity reduction of 0.5%/decade.

            Eddy’s paper basically finds the same thing as Isaac but with a caution about the reliability about the RH decline.

            As a basic principle described by Clausius-Clapeyron when the temperature of a gas increases its water carrying capacity increases; both RH and SH are actual measurements of water vapor but RH is a % of the potential carrying capacity of the water; if RH is declining as air temperature increases then the amplifying feedback mechanism from water relied on by AGW will be less than predicted.


            Report this

            10

          • #
            John Brookes

            Trends since 1947 indicate that the warming of temperatures has coincided with increases in dewpoints and a moistening of specific humidity


            Report this

            05

          • #
            cohenite

            That’s what I said John; there has been a slight increase in SH but a decline in RH; the amount of water going into the atmosphere is LESS than predicted by AGW.


            Report this

            30

          • #
    • #
      llew Jones

      “this same theory suggests that the amount of moisture in the atmosphere will increase, exacerbating the warming (and falling on Queensland).”

      Interesting in that a while back this same theory suggested to Australia’s Chief Climate Commissioner that human emissions of CO2 were the cause not only of the then current lower than average rainfall but also of a discriminating sort of rain that would not deign to fill our dams. Amazing. Of course he was only echoing the widely held climate alarmist experts prognostications at the time.

      Which sort of forces one to think that those alarmists with short term memories make it up as they go.

      Some time ago Roy Spencer had an article on the constancy of the mass of Global (now there’s a word coined by alarmists to scare us they seem to be have forgotten) precipitation. From memory he did a calculation by summing the annual total world precipitation and wonder of wonders he found it was pretty constant. Flooding here, drought there and much the same elsewhere one year. Then change of locations next year and so on. Look it up it could help you understand the natural vagaries of climate here in Australia and elsewhere.


      Report this

      180

    • #
      Wrong John silver

      Yes John you know it all don’t you? Three warm records you quote and let’s all panic with alarm and destroy our lifestyle, our economy and move our kids back into the Stone Age. Why don’t you go to china, USA, Britain … And see how your warming is going there? I see the UK windmills and solar panels working overtime.


      Report this

      42

    • #

      With the weather if you look hard enough there will be new records coming along all the time. But, creating biases in the way that the weather is assessed will lead to false positives. That is, claimed confirmation instances of human-caused global warming which are nothing of the sort. What is more important, but totally neglected, is a shortage of instances which contradict the predicted trends. On this basis, the unusually cold winters in the Northern Hemisphere are far more important than record temperatures in Australia. They contradict claims that winters will become less severe. Start explaining away these instances with excuses and the global warming hypothesis becomes non-falsifiable.
      Another example you point to is the recent trend of Queensland becoming wetter. Three years ago it was generally believed that the long-term drought would continue. So the Wivenhoe Dam – built to hold back the water in case of extreme rainfall was full of water when the extreme rainfall came, as it does every generation or so.


      Report this

      91

    • #
      Ian

      I think it really is a bridge too far to link increased CO2 levels to climate change to extreme weather. The graphs from HadCRU at the start of this topic don’t show warming despite the undoubted increase in CO2. If increased CO2 was the only cause of climate change (whatever happened to global warming by the way, it seems to have been discarded. I wonder why) then surely there should be some noticeable effect on global temperatures. Interestingly the “extraordinarily” very wet winters in the UK are in fact no new phenomenon having occurred many times in the past. The recent wet winters seem due to a change in the jet stream. Is this change due to increased CO2 or to more moisture in the atmosphere or to something entirely different which has nothing whatsoever to the burning of fossil fuels? To quote Shakespeare “There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy”. You might like to think on that occasionally.


      Report this

      82

    • #
      Truthseeker

      Johnny boy …

      ome crazily cautious crazy people are even suggesting we look at reducing our CO2 emissions, because this theory says that things will get worse as CO2 levels rise.

      There, fixed it for you.


      Report this

      71

    • #
      Sonny

      John, your “analysis” has been DEBUNKED by Eddy Aruda in comment 4.4.

      I have a theory and it goes like this:

      You are not really interested in science but are very interested in writing little propaganda pieces on this sight. Why do I think this? Because whenever you express an opinion which I factually incorrect and shown to be so you simply FAIL TO RESPOND.

      You don’t change your conclusions based on new information you JUST IGNORE IT.

      This is the pattern I’ve notices with all the alarmists on this site.


      Report this

      72

    • #
      handjive

      @John Brookes
      January 28, 2013 at 1:58 am

      Quote:
      “Some crazily cautious people are even suggesting we look at reducing our CO2 emissions, because this theory says that things will get worse as CO2 levels rise.

      But I say, “Nuts to them!”. Its all good. Just relax and enjoy a cold beer.”
      .

      And so we have a fine example of the cognitive dissonance required to declare a war on reality. The reality of climate change.
      .

      Tell us Prof. JB, where do those bubbles of “carbon” (sic) go when you drink that beer?

      Who will think of “things” if you release that carbon (sic), causing emissions to rise?

      Its only a theory, …

      It’s not ‘a theory’, it’s barely a thesis.

      Pity the people you teach.


      Report this

      91

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        The reality of climate change indeed! Yes! These are the author’s credentials to be writing on a blog about climate change.

        Luke Freeman works in Digital Marketing at the Australian Broadcasting Corporation.

        The final realization must have been a real thrill up and down his leg. Oops, sorry, that was Chris Mathews describing his virtual orgasm over Obama one evening on MSNBC. These people get a nice warm feeling from the most remarkable things.

        About John, I’m not sure but from his description of his responsibilities I don’t believe he actually teaches. He’s welcome to correct me if I’m wrong.


        Report this

        41

    • #
      cohenite

      John, have you applied UHI effect to thos capital city rcords? Take Sydney which had its previous record recorded in 1939 at 45.3C; it ‘broke’ this record on 18.1.13 at 45.7C.

      That’s a 0.4C increase over 74 years. Is that the measure of AGW: 0.4C over 70 years?

      In 1939 the population of Sydney was about 1.3 million; in 2013 it is about 4.6 million.

      The measure of the UHI effect on temperature is still problematic in respect of quantifying a rate with Goodridge, McKitrick and Michaels, as analysed by Spencer confirming an UHI effect of about 0.1C per 1/2 million increase in population, although Frank Lansner thinks the rate of increase is more important than the final total.

      The 0.1C per 1/2 million looks conservative so if we stick with that Sydney’s population has increased by about 3.3 million over the record breaking period, which is 6 1/2 millions or about 0.6C.

      On that measure the real temperature in Sydney on the 18th was 45.7C – 0.6C = 45.1C; which is not a record.

      It should also be noted that the UHI effect has an influence on the Diurnal Temperature range [DTR] by decreasing it; the reduced DTR is often wheeled out to prove AGW.

      Back to that tacky drawing board Johnnie boy.


      Report this

      161

      • #
        Geoff Sherrington

        Cohenite,
        That’s one of the surprising things on the graphs I made above. The hottest 5-day heat waves in January seem to be getting cooler over the years despite UHI. They do not seem to be getting hotter from GHG insofar as this method of analysis can indicate. There is too much noise in the daily data, as we know, to justify fitting a regression line. Same applies to Feb (data in prep) in Melbourne & Sydney. Any explanations from anyone to help me?


        Report this

        70

      • #
        AndyG55

        Not only that, but the heat was from the west, and that is where all the development of Sydney has been.. (heck, nearly everything is west of obs hill)

        All that development must have a warming.. or perhaps one should say, a non-cooling effect on the western heat flow.

        Where in 1939 the western heat blew across mostly farmland, it now moves across km’s and km’s of urban air conditioners, ashphalt and concrete, possibly even gaining heat.


        Report this

        80

        • #
          cohenite

          AndyG55; that is right; the air moves over an increasingly wide urban agglomeration and becomes heated beyond its normal, ie unurbanised, temperature.

          Geoff; nothing would surprise me about temperatures anymore; and this uncertainty is a direct product, IMO, of the infestation of AGW techniques to make the data consistent with the narrative.

          Have you looked at DTR over the period?


          Report this

          30

        • #
          Cookster

          AndyG55, I think you are onto something here.

          I live in Sydney. The two hottest days in my lifetime were New Year’s Day 2006 and January 13, 2013.

          In 2006 it was 44.2C at Observatory Hill and 45.3C at Sydney Airport. The recorded temps in the city and airport that day were equal to or slightly higher than the normally hotter western suburbs.

          On January 13 this year it was 45.8C at Observatory Hill and 46.4 at Sydney Airport. Similar to 2006, the recorded temperatures in the normally hotter western suburbs were actually less than Observatory Hill and the airport located on the coast.

          It seems to me as the strong hot north westerly winds blew over the urban agglomeration (about 60 km of concrete, roof tiles, bitumen, car exhausts etc), the air picked up further heat. So it seems if we correct for UHI, 2013 may not have been a record at all despite all that CO2 emitted in the preceding 74 years. I wonder what will get recorded in the official data for climate records that day? Surely they wouldn’t adjust upwards for 2013?


          Report this

          00

          • #
            Ian George

            Maybe you have something. I posted the following above to illustrate something happened on that day.
            The top temp of 45.8C was reached at 2:55pm.
            Sydney Observatory AWS graph shows the following.

            2:49 – 44.9C
            2:59 – 44.7C

            Therefore the temp rose 0.9C in 6 minutes and dropped 1.0C in 4 minutes. This would be due to the platinum wired electronic thermometer that can pick up changes in temp within seconds.
            In 1939 (45.3C) they would not have been able to pick up any sudden rises and decreases in temp so we are really comparing different recording methods.


            Report this

            20

    • #
      Michael Z

      Well, CO2 has 2 tiny absorption bands in IR, not nearly enough to be dominant in atmospheric heating. Now, water has quite large IR absorption halo, that why it’s most important greenhouse gas. But since CO2 has no influence on warming, so it has no influence on water amount in atmosphere. In addition, warming cannot cause water vapor concentration increase indefinitely, since because of hydrogen bonds, water just LOVES to condensate. And when water changes its phase this takes lots of energy, causing COOLING! In other words – nature regulates itself! So yes – relax and enjoy your beer.

      Ah, about that heatwave – Sydney just enjoying cold wave and 2 days (to date) of almost constant rain…


      Report this

      101

    • #
      Sonny

      It’s all well and good to blame CO2 on days when it’s hot during summer but what about days when it’s cold during summer.

      The following is the forecast for Melbourne for the next week

      Tuesday 20
      Wednesday 26
      Thursday 27
      Friday 18
      Saturday 19
      Sunday 21

      I’m sorry but I fail to see how this is an indication of global warming!!!!

      What happened to those glorious HOT SUMMERS by the swimming pool???

      And yet we have lying scumbags who CHERRY PICK “record temperatures” while IGNORING the fact that SUMMER IS NO LONGER HOT ON THE EAST COAST OF AUSTRALIA!!!!

      How much longer can these climate SCUMBAGS DISTORT OUR REALITY?

      I’VE HAD ENOUGH OF ALL THEIR LIES!!!


      Report this

      131

    • #
      connolly

      But I say, “Nuts to them!”. Its all good. Just relax and enjoy a cold beer

      Brooksie at last you get it. Slow but over the line. Well done son.


      Report this

      51

    • #
      Matcha

      Hot weather is more likely to follow drought NOT high moisture! But you already knew that, eh John? Just chose not to mention it here.


      Report this

      21

    • #
      Streetcred

      This same theory suggests that the amount of moisture in the atmosphere will increase, exacerbating the warming (and falling on Queensland).

      No jb our rain here has been more or less the same as it always is, drought, flood, sometimes in between, etc., … this year the monsoon came 4 weeks later.

      The model that you speak of also describes a perpetual motion energy machine, which we all know is impossible. Water vapour, cloud, and subsequent rain is a natural cooling mechanism.


      Report this

      51

    • #
      Backslider

      John Brookes – How about this: Crazily “cautious” (there are other motives at play) people are advocating and succeeding in having governments spend billions of dollars. Do you think that this is a good thing on the strength of what clearly you think is a “maybe”? Don’t you think its better to spend this money where we know its needed?


      Report this

      40

    • #
      John Brookes

      Seven thumbs up! The silent trolls are doing a sterling job today!


      Report this

      419

    • #
      sophocles

      but there is this theory that CO2 absorbs certain wavelengths of radiation that may cause the surface of the earth to warm. This same theory suggests that the amount of moisture in the atmosphere will increase, exacerbating the warming

      Oh dear John, how sad. It’s not a theory, it’s but pseudo-scientific babble.
      Heat moves in one direction and one direction only: from hot to cold. (These are relative terms where cold means less hot than hot which means more hot than cold. Got that? Good.) Heat dissipated from the land or the surface, cannot warm the surface a second time.

      The sun heats the surface. The surface transfers that heat to gases of the atmosphere in direct contact with it. These gases then rise (hot air rises because it is less dense than cooler air). This process is convection, there is very little radiation or absorption through the IR “windows” possessed by CO2—about 0.04%. The convective cooling is carried out nitrogen and oxygen which, between them, make up 99% of the atmosphere. (Xenon makes up another 0.9%). As the hot air rises, it cools. Why? Because as it gains height it is spread across an increasing surface area of a growing sphere whose radius is increasing with the height.

      The heat cannot go backwards from cold to hot. Go study the Laws of Thermodynamics.
      The CO2 (what tiny amount there is) scatters a bit of IR light through the Rayleigh effect. This is not heat and it has no heating effect on air which is almost completely transparent to IR. It does not rewarm the surface, because heat cannot go backwards.

      It was knowing that heat cannot go backwards, Hansen and Co postulated a tropospheric hot spot at the top of the troposphere to support the “down-welling” babble. However, the satellites can’t see a hot spot and thousands of meteorology balloons couldn’t find it either. Without that, the idea of backwards heating is a non-starter. So toss that pseudo-scientific babble out.

      The moisture in the air will only increase above large bodies of water such as the oceans. That’s where it all comes from, not from the dog’s water bowl. It’s coastal in its effects. It’s also only a partial truth. In the tropics, it can’t increase any more as it is already close to the maximum the air can support. This is why the tropics are so steamy, as there is enough H2O vapour in the air to reach about 4% concentration. This raises temperatures to about 38-39 degrees C. But that’s as far as it can go. When relative Ahumidity reaches 1, the water vapour condenses out. This is condition normal, and it’s been this way for 12.000 years or so.
      The temperature of humid air is set by the water vapour’s latent heat and its height.

      Queensland is partly tropical and mostly sub-tropical. That’s why it rains a lot there, always has, always does and always will. It’s entirely unaffected by the CO2. It’s the location, location, location property. It’s located next door to the Coral Sea Tropical Cyclone Factory and it’s partly in the monsoon belt. What an enormous potential for lots of rain.


      Report this

      61

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      John,

      So the weather changes around from year to year or from decade to decade? What of it if things don’t run quite to the same script in 2013 that they did in 1947? Give me one, just one bit of evidence that connects CO2 to any of it. That one little thing blows you and every other alarmist right out of the water every time. Never mind any other argument, give me the detail that counts.

      But you can’t.

      You really should have taken that vacation while you were ahead.


      Report this

      30

      • #
        llew Jones

        If it is a given that there are many variables in play in a local climate then it seems to be naive to imagine that those variables will always act with the same intensities and characteristics on say a given date or month of every year.

        It seems, at least intuitively true, that because of the complex and chaotic nature of climate it is more likely that every weather event on a given day or in a given month over any period of time will never be exactly the same. That understanding makes nonsense of attaching climate change significance to a “record” temperature in a certain location. That also should apply to variation in say rainfall.


        Report this

        00

    • #
      warcroft

      “Tasmania and New South Wales have had devastating bushfires this summer.”

      Which, as was reported, were deliberately lit.
      You going to blame arsonists on Climate Change?
      “But officer, I didnt want to do it! Climate change made me do it!”


      Report this

      30

  • #
    Andrew McRae

    Difficult to add anything to this when Jo has said it all.

    Point 1) How long is a “long term” trend? Well the WMO definition of climate is a 30 years average. No less.

    Point 5) One hot day isn’t a heatwave, but what is a heatwave? The WMO’s definition of a heatwave is 5 days in a row each with maximum temperatures more than 5 degrees above the long term average for that location at that time of year.
    So 3 days in a row with Tmax 6 degrees above normal is not a heatwave. Five February days in a row with Tmax being more than 35 Celsius might be a heatwave for Melbourne but would not count as a heatwave for the Sahara desert.
    In particular note that a heatwave is not defined for a region, it is only defined at the point where a thermometer is sited. You cannot just take a whole region, pick the highest maximums seen anywhere in that region on each of 5 days, and manufacture a heatwave out of nothing. (But this does not stop activist group GetUp! from contriving scary statistics about the whole country that do not match the scientific definition of a heatwave.)

    Or to paraphrase “The Princess Bride“…
    You keep using that word heatwave. I do not think it means what you think it means!


    Report this

    181

    • #
      John F. Hultquist

      The WMO set 30 years as a “normal” period for reporting purposes in 1935 (I think) and being before computers the times ended in a ‘zero’ year and were updated only after ten years. So, for example, about 1951 or ’52 the “normals” would have been shown as from 1921 through 1950. Then sometime in ’61 or ’62 new “normals” would have appeared for 1931 – 1960. The idea was to give folks something to compare their current day or week or month to. It was not intended that “normals” metamorphose into “climate.” Climate was already well defined as patterns primarily based on vegetation boundaries (historical (labor intensive), and now automated sensors). Vegetation integrates climate. For a start, see:
      http://geography.about.com/od/physicalgeography/a/koppen.htm


      Report this

      101

      • #
        Andrew McRae

        Okay, interesting history lesson there.
        Vegetation integrates climate because vegetation is a consequence of climate. The climate defines the possible vegetation, not the other way round. Using vegetation as an indicator of climate is the kind of shortcut one would use if you didn’t have objective weather stations scattered all over the world for the previous 30 years – the data-poor position Koppen was in during 1884. Weather stations integrate climate too, but they are not affected by non-climatic factors like soil nutrients and predation/disease as vegetation is. (Until post-facto upwards temperature revision by climate scientists, so maybe plants do have an advantage there because they don’t lie.)

        So I figure if Koppen (or modern climatologists) used vegetation, that doesn’t mean climate was defined by vegetation, just that plant species were a convenient proxy for temperature and rainfall where no other objective measure is available. I don’t need to know the plants in my area to know it is warm and rainy!

        You say tomayto.
        I say tomarto.
        They’re the same thing.


        Report this

        41

  • #
    Peter Hartley

    Point 2a — The records also have not been correctly adjusted for UHI effects — see McKitrick and Michaels, Spencer, Warwick Hughes, Gust of Hot Air http://gustofhotair.blogspot.com and many others…


    Report this

    80

  • #

    One supposes this type of defining things–a heat wave is 5 days of above average temperatures–is to be expected in a “scientific” world were redefining illness, effectiveness, etc is the norm. Can’t get enough people on medications–invent diseases and for those with symptoms but no lab test, just add a few symptoms or decrease the length of time allowed for the symptoms to disappear (for example, grieving over the loss of a spouse cannot exceed 2 weeks or it becomes a medical illness and requires medication). It’s very easy to rule the world when you’re the one who defines everything. Define heat wave as 5 days and if that does not work, drop it to three days. Define blizzards as proof of climate change and hope no one remembers there have always been blizzards. Remake reality to be the word of experts and nothing else.

    People always said that power corrupted. It does in any field, not just politics. Expect more and more definitions that make the data fit the theory and more and more new ways to define what climate change is in order for the power to be retained. Facts are irrelevant now.


    Report this

    150

    • #
      Ian George

      Sheri
      I believe the 5 days over 5.0C above average is acknowledged as the HW definition, though I have heard of 3 days over 40C.
      If the former is true, there has been no heatwave in Bourke this year as there has not been 5 days over 41.8C.
      If the latter is true, then they have had 2 heatwaves this January.

      In Jan 1896, Bourke had 22 consecutive days of +40.0C – ie one heatwave only – but now two HWs in Jan 2013.
      As you point out above, this is one way to say that the number of HWs are increasing and scare people.


      Report this

      60

    • #
      ghl

      “Misogyny” comes to mind.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    llew Jones

    How relevant is say a maximum temperature record for a specific location, as an indicator of anything more than randomness, when there may be an even higher maximum temperature record, at a different time, in a “nearby” location where other climate factors like moisture etc may be the same?


    Report this

    90

    • #
      John Brookes

      Sure, but if the number of new maximum temperature records consistently exceeds the number of new minimum temperature records, you’d say that it was getting warmer. But no one here argues that its not getting warmer. Some mention that it seems to have “stalled” recently, but most accept that after the “stall” it will just keep going up.


      Report this

      418

      • #
        Bob Malloy

        Gee John, “Sure, but if the number of new maximum temperature records consistently exceeds the number of new minimum temperature records, you’d say that it was getting warmer. “

        If I were to take a walk (or for you ride my bike)every morning that included a hill or two that plateaued over long stretches, of course when i’m at the top of one of these hills i’d be higher than if had been lazy and chose a flat route.

        Since we came out of the Little Ice Age, starting about 1850 (WIKI) temperature has climbed steadily since despite several plateaus during that time, off course it is more likely to experience days of high temperatures in warm periods than it would be in particularly cold intervals: one beginning about 1650, another about 1770, and the last in 1850.

        No one here says it’s not warmer now than the 1880′s, we just question why co2 is to blame for post 1950 warming when it can’t be responsible for the same scale of warming between 1850 and 1950.


        Report this

        32

      • #

        It’s not whether or not it is getting warmer, it’s WHY and for HOW LONG. Stalling out followed by a year or two of warming, ten years of warming, all caused by nature is nothing new or worrisome. Stalling out, a year or two of warming caused partially by humans is not a problem if it stalls out again. Climate is NOT predictable, any more than weather. Unless you use a figure that is thousands of years long and even then the factors and patterns are not that clear.

        The problem is WE CANNOT KNOW HOW CLIMATE WORKS. We are NOT that brilliant and clever. We can grasp small pieces and keep putting the puzzle pieces together. We might even get a few put together right. All the supercomputers in the world do NOT make us smarter–only dumber at light speed. This is the difference between climate change and climate science. Science recognizes what it cannot know. Climate change (AGW) does not.


        Report this

        00

  • #
    Kevin Moore

    What is the difference between a willy willy and a tornado?


    Report this

    40

  • #
    PaulM

    No problems for all of us here in Qld, Ch7 has despatched Kochie & The Sunrise Crew & Their ABC has despatched Ms Carvallio, weez all saved now…….


    Report this

    130

    • #
      Bob Malloy

      And 9 had Karl Stefanovic live from Queensland for the Today show this morning, and Tracy live tonight for a current affair, nothing like a disaster for the media to milk.


      Report this

      70

  • #
    pat

    *** “strangely” warm winters being experiences in “some regions” of the northern hemisphere?

    reminds me of so much of the rain commentary on the MSM in the past couple of days. “now that the ‘good’ weather is back” one media hack said to a resident up north – meaning now that the much-anticipated, much-needed rain had stopped for the timebeing.

    or the media hack who found someone up north to say within hours of the much-anticipted, much-needed rain – “i wish it would stop”.

    or the BBC radio program on a non-CAGW topic last nite, where a guest on the program managed to end the discussion with an anecdote about how peoples moved inland from the coast to protect themselves from pirates hundreds of years ago, so they can do so again due to “terrifying” climate change today:

    26 Jan: Sydney Morning Herald: AFP: Cities affecting weather in faraway places: study
    Heat from large cities alters local streams of high-altitude winds, potentially affecting weather in locations thousands of kilometres away, researchers say.
    The findings could explain a long-running puzzle in climate change – why some regions in the northern hemisphere are ***strangely experiencing warmer winters than computer models have forecast…
    This phenomenon, known as the “urban heat island”, has been known for years, but until now has mainly been thought to affect only city dwellers, especially in summer heatwaves.
    But a team of scientists in the United States, using a computer model of the atmosphere, point to impacts that go much further than expected.
    The high concentration of heat rises into jet-stream winds and widens their flow, transporting heat – as much as 1C – to places far away…
    The effect on global temperatures, though, is negligible, accounting for an average warming worldwide of just 0.01C…
    The study appears in the journal Nature Climate Change.
    http://www.smh.com.au/environment/weather/cities-affecting-weather-in-faraway-places-study-20130128-2dfk9.html


    Report this

    60

    • #
      Ian

      Does this alter the position of the jet stream as well and if so I wonder why.


      Report this

      20

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      After reading the article about cities affecting the weather in faraway places I noticed this link at the bottom of the page. It leads to this statement.

      Like every other responsible uncle on the planet, I have been faced with a dilemma: how to expose my beloved nephews to the Star Wars films.

      I’m trembling at the sheer magnitude of our failure to prioritize. I tell ya, we’re worrying about the wrong things. There are far more important problems to work on than CO2. What’s a trivial little matter like climate change when there’s the problem of which order do you watch the four Star Wars films to figure out? And just think — after that problem is solved it’s to do all over again in a few years with Lord of The Rings and again a little later with The Hobbit and Lord of The Rings. Oh Happy days! At last some real problems to solve.

      Quick, call MattB, John Brookes, Ross James, Nice One and Maxine. I’m sure they’ll want to get right to work on it. :-?


      Report this

      10

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        You Aussies have some really good web sites! I’m going to prowl around more often. Really!


        Report this

        10

        • #
          Crakar24

          Ummmmm Roy there is 6 Star Wars films…..


          Report this

          10

          • #
            Roy Hogue

            Obviously someone has stolen the missing ones. Do you suppose that if we offer a big enough reward out of Jo’s Big-Oil money we could get them returned?


            Report this

            20

          • #
            Crakar24

            Ah now i see the connection, this is a real life parody of AGW theory, first you make 3 films to create the ending, then you make 3 films to depict the start that fit the ending and then you lose the two most important films which obtain all the relevant information so none of it to make sense.

            In an effort to find the two missing films you hire dodgy men in white coats to find the films for you. They cant find the films so in an effort to bide some time they begin to make shit up just to keep everyone interested.

            Cheers


            Report this

            20

          • #
            Roy Hogue

            Crakar,

            Yes, exactly.

            If life hands you a lemon you don’t get all upset you just make lemonade.

            Cheers! :-)


            Report this

            00

  • #
    pat

    oops..opening sented should have read “being experienced”, not “experiences”…


    Report this

    20

  • #
    ExWarmist

    An interesting article over at Andrew Bolt wrt an article in “The Australian” by Michael Asten, professor of geophysics at Monash University.

    I note three recent papers that find evidence for long-term cycles influencing the Earth’s climate.

    Weichao Wu of the Peking University and colleagues studied sea-surface temperature records preserved in deep-sea sediments near Okinawa in the Pacific Ocean, and found evidence for multiple cyclic temperature variations over the past 2700 years.

    The most interesting temperature peaks correspond to medieval, Roman and possibly Minoan warming periods of about 900, 1800 and 2500 years ago.

    The paper is significant in that it concludes that the current rate of global temperature change lies in the same range as that of those historical warming periods.

    This suggests we have evidence that challenges current climate orthodoxy on two grounds, first by suggesting that such warming events were global not local European phenomena, and second that current warming is not unprecedented in the historical record.

    Supports points 7 and 8 above.


    Report this

    150

    • #
      John Brookes

      Very important these long term cycles. If you can just slot the current warming into some sort of long term cycle, then we don’t have to worry about what caused it, because its just a natural cycle…


      Report this

      217

      • #
        ExWarmist

        Well the current warming period (19th/20thC)isn’t caused by human emissions of CO2, as the “fingerprint” of the tropospheric hot spot is missing.

        What’s not understood is what are the specific natural factors that have caused the current warming period.

        To answer that question will require comprehensive, unbiased research.


        Report this

        41

      • #
        Kevin Moore

        John Brookes says -

        Very important these long term cycles. If you can just slot the current warming into some sort of long term cycle, then we don’t have to worry about what caused it, because its just a natural cycle…

        But John “there hasn’t been any warming since 1998. In fact the IPCC suppliers of data even show a slight cooling.”

        Klaus–Ekart Puls, physicist and meteorologist points out that climate change is normal as the planet goes through phases of climate warming “many that even far exceeded the extent we see today. But there hasn’t been any warming since 1998. In fact the IPCC suppliers of data even show a slight cooling.”

        He explains that the IPCC climate change computer models are based on “speculative model projections, so-called scenarios – and not prognoses. Because of climate’s high complexity, reliable prognoses just aren’t possible.”

        Alarmist scientists have come forth to disagree with the findings of this study. And those professors who work for climate change departments at prestigious universities have a personal investment in the continuation of climate change research. Should the public consensus shift to only accept scientific data and not the alarmist perspective, those professors would be out of a job.

        In 2011, the technocratic investment corporation E.L. Rothschild, LLC., headed by Chairman Sir Evelyn de Rothschild and CEO Lynn Forester de Rothschild, purchased 70% voting stock and acquired controlling interest in The Weather Channel. This acquisition afforded the Rothschild banksters the ability to further the propaganda of man-made climate change.
        http://occupycorporatism.com/fake-climate-change-studies-aim-to-influence-public-opinion–through-propaganda/


        Report this

        30

      • #

        Accidental science content here?


        Report this

        10

      • #
        O2

        Seams you are getting it


        Report this

        00

  • #
    Ross

    Slightly OT but this thread from WUWT about the wet UK weather is an interesting read.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/27/expert-predicts-monsoon-britain/#more-78277

    I think it is Maxine that has been going about the change in jetstream patterns. The only problem for Maxine is that this analysis suggests these changes in pattern are nothing unsual in climate history.


    Report this

    90

    • #
      ExWarmist

      Jetstream patterns are correlated with sunspots.

      Periods of low sunspot activity are associated with changes in the winds that tear though the upper atmosphere, bringing unusually cold winters to northern Europe, a new study finds.

      The study, published today in Environmental Research Letters1, analysed 350 years of temperature data recorded in central England since 1659, comparing it to astronomical observations of sunspots. The research team, led by Mike Lockwood, a solar-terrestrial physicist at the University of Reading, UK, found that after allowing for global climate change, European winters tended to be 0.5 °C colder than average during low-solar-activity years.

      This is not OT at all.


      Report this

      20

  • #
    AndyG55

    “opening sented”.. lol

    I assume you mean ” opening sentence”

    ain’t typing fun, especially at 8am in the morning….before your coofee :-)


    Report this

    50

  • #
    OzWizard

    I’m still with Ross McKitrick: “The average of two temperatures is NOT A TEMPERATURE; It’s a STATISTIC.”

    PROOF:

    Boiling Kettle on kitchen bench: 100 deg C
    Iceblock on kitchen table (same room): 0 deg C.

    AVERAGE of two measurements = 50 deg C

    Thermometer on wall near doorway: 25 deg C
    Thermometer on wall near window: 20 deg C

    AVERAGE of four measurements = 36.25 deg C

    Need we go any further?

    There is no such thing as “The temperature of the room”. “It” simply does not exist.

    All we can ever know is The temperatures at specific points (and times) in the room.

    Anything derived from those measured values (by calculation) is one step removed from physical reality. We should always think of it as a ‘mathematical construct’.


    Report this

    212

    • #
      Ian

      OzWizard. You’re wrong in saying “There is no such thing as “The temperature of the room”. “It” simply does not exist.” It does you know but perhaps measuring it is the hard part.


      Report this

      03

      • #
        OzWizard

        Uh Oh! We have a Mathematician in the house.

        Sorry, Ian, but the “it”, which you claim “exists”, is still not a TEMPERATURE (of any THING).

        Mathematically-speaking, you ASSUME that we have a method of measuring the statistical behaviour of EVERY molecule in a room, the average of which (mathematically) has a calculable value.

        But that VALUE (even if you can calculate it, which is doubtful) is not the “temperature” of any THING. There is no “average molecule”, moving at the hypothesised “average velocity”, over an “average mean free path”.

        All of those “average” concepts are just that; statistical constructs (like the “average family” with 1.645 children).

        If “it” does not exist physically, you cannot (by definition) measure “it”.

        Any “measurement” ever made ONLY ever exists in the head of the measurer. Unless you write with a very large pen and a long piece of paper, “2 metres” is NOT two metres long; it is a symbolic represenrtation of the concept. Like “Beauty”, it is “in the eye of the beholder”.

        It is also ‘relative’, in this case, to a legally prescibed standard metre, based on the wave-length of a particular “light frequency”.


        Report this

        21

        • #
          OzWizard

          Not to run foul of the anti-discrimination laws, I omitted any reference to the “parents” in the “average family”; I believe that varies from place to place and, at a rough guess, is about “1.007 females and 0.993 males” today.


          Report this

          20

        • #
          cohenite

          The concept of a global average temperature was discredited in these 2 papers; the first by Essex, McKitrick and Andresen looks athe statistical error of averaging temperature over the globe; they make the comparison with a telephone book where the avraging of each number would ne menaingless.

          The 2nd paper is by Pielke and others. Pielke looks at the physical absurdity of a GAT; based on the fact that AGW is really a measure of excess radiation in the physical system, atmosphere and ocean, of the Earth, the GAT is simply inaccurate in measuring that level of excess radiation, or indeed whether it exists at all. This is based on Steffan Boltzmanns law which says radiation emitted from a body or surface is directly proportional to the temperature to the 4th power of that surface.

          What this means is the average of a large set of temperatures, such as the GAT components, taken to the 4th power will be different from the average of the 4th power of each of a set of data; the difference may be expressed as:

          (A + B)^4 > A^4 + B^4

          So if A=3 and B=2, (A+B)^4= 3125 and A^4+B^4=259.

          Furthermore if A is at the poles and the temperature base is much less than B which is at the equator the disparity will be much greater; and if B has a decrease then the GAT may still be positive while the actual energy balance of the Earth is negative.

          So, the GAT is effectively useless; but try telling that the BOM or the ABC which these days is interchangeable.


          Report this

          52

      • #
        Streetcred

        Agreed, commissioning ac equipment will readily identify this … bloody different all over the room !


        Report this

        30

      • #
        ghl

        All we ever know is the temperature of the thermometer.


        Report this

        10

    • #
      John Brookes

      Yes, and the “mathematical construct” known as average temperature is a pretty useful one. Or you could replace it with another mathematical construct, total heat content.


      Report this

      215

      • #
        Sonny

        Sure it’s useful.

        It’s the meat grinder of science. The thing about climate sausage is nobody knows what’s in it except for the climate science butchers!


        Report this

        60

      • #

        JB wrote:

        Or you could replace it with another mathematical construct, total heat content.

        Go ahead John. Make my day.

        Statistics isn’t maths. Taking averages is statistics. It has no physical meaning.


        Report this

        20

      • #

        Useful for what? What in reality correlates to “average”? Median and mode are somewhat more useful, but use of the actual data without statistical manipulation would be nice. We have to computing strength to graph temperatures year by year at each station, one at a time and look for changes. Changes worldwide are nonsensical. Again, if the poles melt and the equator freezes, you get the same average as now. It’s ridiculous. It might be a good starting point to take 100 years of individual points, compare them year by year and then look at changes overall. Sadly, us being human and all, we tend to freak out if something changes. Any measurement in today’s catastrophe-minded, nothing-should-ever-vary society is probably a bad idea. Best idea: Stop measuring altogether until the chicken little phenomena dies down some.

        Using a large number data points does smooth the average, but we really aren’t looking at the average anyway. We are looking at the anomalies. So we added all the data together, divided by the number of data points and then only looked at anomalies. And?


        Report this

        10

      • #
        ghl

        Which is derived from temperature readings and assumptions so is less accurate.


        Report this

        00

  • #
    AndyG55

    in point #7, one must also take into account that HadCrud adjusted their temps from 1980 onwards, so the slope is probably even less than the .16 shown

    They have also adjusted the temps from 1940 – 1970 downwards meaning the peak in 1939 was probably a lot higher, about where we are at now (as illustrated by the fact that we are only now matching the maximum temps of that period.)

    It would be interesting to see the same graph done using the unadjusted raw temperature readings.. I suspect that the climb from 1900-1940 would be significantly steeper. Followed by a basically symmetrical “V” shape with shallower slopes.


    Report this

    60

  • #
    Scooter

    ‘The science is settled’ is the platitude which lefties prefer to quieten the masses. Yet when I google: “climate previously thought’ I get 172,000,000 hits which suggest that the science is still being questioned, and it seems (from my small sampling) that the significant majority of these ‘deniers’ are believers?. Why are they not taken to task by their peers?


    Report this

    40

  • #
    Norman

    I would not worry about the alarmists. They are a dying breed. You will find that most are in the 14 to 25 year bracket and need a belief system, very like communism/socialism in the 60s to 80′s. The young ones and the heavy weights as they get older are abandoning AGW in droves. Latest AGW loss is Lovelock ex green peace and so on. I don’t think AGW will even be a subject of conversation in 5 years. This means of course that ALL climate sites will die out including this one


    Report this

    81

    • #
      MikeO

      I really hope so but I suspect they will move to something else.


      Report this

      20

      • #
        Peter Miller

        I am confident the next cause of the Ecoloons will be fracking.

        The subject of Global warming is fast becoming discredited and boring. The greenie activist groups need to refill their coffers. If they cannot do it with unfounded scare stories about global warming, or whatever is fashionable to call this non-problem today, then a new scary something will be needed.

        Fracking makes sense, so it is an ideal target for the Ecoloons and they have the added bonus of it involving carbon dioxide emissions.


        Report this

        00

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      This means of course that ALL climate sites will die out including this one

      Well, I don’t want to put words in Joanne’s mouth, but this site is unlikely to die out, just because one particular scam collapses.

      If you go back through the archive you will find other topics that are just as interesting (if not more so) than climate.

      And we need to remember that the politicians have discovered that, “Science tells us that …” is a powerful argument that can be used to impose new and unwarranted taxes on people who don’t know enough about science to realise what is happening.

      Sites like this educate those people, and empowers them to question the politicians. That can never be a bad thing to do — they are supposed to work for you, after all.


      Report this

      111

    • #
      Dennis

      Lots of other communist-socialist agenda and propaganda to pull apart and expose, like UN Agenda 21 that Lord Monckton is apparently including in his presentations. GW/CC is after all a new world order agenda item crafted to deceive and control us.


      Report this

      91

  • #
    Bruce of Newcastle

    I will add a 9th reason – the heatwave, such as it was, was a classic blocking pattern, with a big high in the Tasman Sea.

    From the link:

    When a summer-time high moves over the Tasman Sea, high temperatures and mostly fine conditions are the usual outcome, though there may be some light precipitation in the north and northeast.

    Blocking highs are strong high-pressure systems that remain near stationary for an extended period of time.

    They block the west-to-east progression of weather systems across southern Australia, and often form over the Tasman Sea.

    I happened to see the synoptic chart of 17 January, with a quite intense high pressure system in the Tasman. Exactly as you would expect for a blocking pattern. Unfortunately I cannot find a chart from that date, although BoM mentions it in their write up.

    As I’ve mentioned before such blocking patterns are are also linked to lower solar activity, as is occurring now.


    Report this

    100

    • #
      Streetcred

      Bruce, I noticed this on the BoM synoptic chart each day of the warm temperatures … high in the south blocking the W/E low across the centre of the country and streaming hot dry winds to the SE of Australia.


      Report this

      30

  • #
    MikeO

    The most disturbing thing about all this is that people have to be told summer is not caused by our CO2. Even worse bad weather has always been with us get over it. I remember the 5 days of high temperatures in Sydney in 1959 people went off work in droves but 108 F for the Tuesday (27/01/1959) sounds much hotter!

    The other thing I find even more disturbing is that there is a belief we can control the weather.


    Report this

    140

  • #
    Sonny

    This is what the alarmists sound like to me this summer:

    “heatwave bla bla bla, CO2 bla bla bla, bushfire risk bla bla bla, record temps bla bla bla”

    Meanwhile in the Northern Hemisphere….

    “shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh”


    Report this

    72

  • #
    Tim

    Time to let the heatwave pass and prepare for another propaganda onslaught probably being planned right now re the Queensland floods. Should I say ‘gird your loins’, or will that upset the mods?


    Report this

    40

    • #
      Kevin Moore

      The experts who look after our welfare warn -

      “Don’t stand under a gum tree in wet weather – it might fall on top of you”

      I wish Spike Milligan were still alive.


      Report this

      50

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      I would say that having your loins girded would be markedly preferable to having them ungirded, at least, if your loins are anything like mine.


      Report this

      30

  • #
    connolly

    May I add a ninth reason?
    Freddy Hilmer. Blind Freddy has just posted a typically absymal piece on climate change (sic) and catastrophy.
    http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/4484848.html

    Actually Fred is an expert on catastrophy. After presiding over the virtual destruction of a once robust publisher Fairfax, Fred wrote the definitive text on “What the . . . ” analysis titled without any hint of irony “The Fairfax Experience—What The Management Texts Didn’t Teach Me“. Hilmer is currently presiding over the destruction of academic standards of a once credible University of New South Wales. But after reading V-C Fred’s missive from the baoardroom, what UNSW academic is going to speak or publish against the CAGW swill? What UNSW academic on one of Fred’s fixed term contracts is going to produce a paper against the dominant paradigm. Hilmer is one of the knuckle men in our universities enforcing the warmist paradigm. His ärgument from the fallacy of authority in defence of the dominant warmist paradigm is a tautology and particulalry dangerous.
    Hilmer’s absolute confidence in the consensus brings to mind the example of Lord Kelvin (William Thompson). The first scientist knighted by Queen Victoria for services to science and empire (Thompson an Ulsterman was vehemently opposed to Hone Rule) Lord Kelvin occupied a position in Britain and the empire similar to that of Hanson. You may not have heard of Lord Kelvin because as a defender of two dominant paradigms he suffered two terrible scientific defeats. Firstly. he was a proponent of the Vortex Theory in physics which was destroyed by the Michelson-Morley experiment in the late nineteenth century. Not learning from this, Lord Kelvin a fierce proponent of Newtonian mechanical physics wrote the following: There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now. All that remains is more and more precise measurement. Five years later Einstein wrote his paper on special relativity. And as they say the rest is history. Including Lord Kelvin. Although his name lives on as a unit of measure of temperature – the kelvin. I suggest that there will emerge a unit of measurement for catastrophy in management – the hilmer.


    Report this

    70

    • #
      OzWizard

      Ease up there, Connolly. A little more Einsteinian scepticism might be warranted. Science did not stop with Michelson-Morley or Einstein.

      Morley went on to do much better work with Miller, the latter never conceding that Einstein was correct, any more than Einstein ever claimed to have said the “last word” on what constitutes “empty” space.

      Einstein only ever claimed that his MATHEMATICAL theory was self-consistent, and did not need an aether. He even admitted that PHYSICS demanded one, with electrical and magnetic properties, the ratio of which determined the velocity of light in ‘space’.


      Report this

      30

      • #
        connolly

        Indeed the advance of understanding in physics didn’t stop with the work of Michelson, Morley or Sinstein. My point was that scientific paradigms are often decisively falsified at the height of consensus.


        Report this

        40

      • #
        John Brookes

        Einstein may not be correct, but he is not wrong in the way that the vast majority of his critics think he was. Most of his critics just could not accept that the speed of light was the same for everyone, and so came up with many ingenious ways of “proving” Einstein wrong. A lot like todays climate “skeptics” really.


        Report this

        317

        • #

          Except no one has yet to prove Einstein wrong, there was no consensus and aside from that atomic bomb thing, theoretical physics has very little influence on politic. Climate science has thousands of critics, predictions fail at the same rate psychics’ predictions do and it has HUGE political implications. Other than that, it’s a fine analogy.


          Report this

          10

          • #
            Rereke Whakaaro

            … and aside from that atomic bomb thing

            Well, that “atomic bomb thing” has been a significant elephant in the room of international relations for the last sixty five years.

            But, I agree with your point about the failure rate in both physics and climate “science”.

            The big difference there, though, is that Physics is carving an elephant (“You take a large piece of stone, and cut away all the pieces that don’t look like an elephant.”); whereas climate “science” has found a large rock, and is insisting that if you stand on one leg, at dusk, with the light off to one side, and squint hard enough, you can just make out the shape of a large animal that might possibly be an elephant.


            Report this

            20

    • #
      Streetcred

      At WUWT Dan Collins wrote at 7:48 am on January 26, 2013 :

      I propose a unit of measure for quantifying non-existence, called the Mann. There is a practical application. Following the trend to name physical units after scientists, like “Hertz” for example, astronomers could adopt the “Mann” : a unit of magnitude for the quantum of size and flux of a black hole at the center of a galaxy. A black hole could be described as having magnitude of so many Manns (or just “Mann”) The origin of the derivation of the name would amuse school children for decades, and assure his rightful place in history. The rationale for the name choice shouldn’t require elucidation….


      Report this

      70

      • #
        John Brookes

        How about a unit internal inconsistency, the WUWT?


        Report this

        415

        • #
          Streetcred

          The unit of inconsistency is already named, jb … the sks !

          Dr Bob Tisdale can give you the wrap on their cock ups re el Nino and la Nina.

          Any real statistician (not a Stats 101 for climate science class) can equally do the sks cock ups there too … here’s a hint Uniform priors and the IPCC


          Report this

          30

        • #

          As far as I can tell, John, your definition of internal consistency is whatever is convenient to you at the moment. Well, okay, you do have the faith of any religious follower to believe your god is right. But science is not a god. The only consistency in science is questioning, experimenting, modifying if necessary and testing again. The consistency is in the METHODS. Not all experiments prove what they started out to–though admittedly people don’t like that and demand the “right” answers where there are none. Science is LEARNING, not PREACHING. Learning means being right some times and wrong some times. Again, climate “belief” CANNOT learn because it cannot be wrong and knows everything there is to know. It has “consensus”, a term that does not apply to science. Two different things here and applying your standards of religion to this science sight is causing you to look for something that CANNOT exist on a science site.


          Report this

          20

        • #
          AndyG55

          When you discuss SCIENCE, as WUWT does, yes there are going to be inconsistencies, and arguements.

          On the other hand you have the CAGW propaganda site, SkS, run by a cartoonist, which doesn’t allow discussion of anything.
          Hence the same load-of-rubbish, nonsense story thoughout.
          And because they basically have zero idea what they are talking about, a large amount of internal inconsistency and misinformation.


          Report this

          30

  • #
    handjive

    January 27, 2013

    Abbott rallies the troops in Sydney

    “Just think of how much hotter it would have been the other day but for the carbon tax,” he said to laughter from the party faithful.
    .

    This quote above is from The coalition’s 50-page photo-rich glossy policy document, Our Plan: Real Solutions for all Australians, and his unofficial mini-election campaign kick-off.

    Said Abbott,
    “Isn’t it bizarre that this government thinks that somehow raising the price of electricity is going to clean up our environment?”
    .

    A quick squiz at the document would beg the same question of Abbott’s war on reality:

    point#19:
    • We will establish an Emissions Reduction Fund of $3 billion to allocate money in response to emission reduction tenders to projects designed to reduce carbon emissions.
    .

    Q. How will this crap ERF costing $3B make it any less hotter than a carbon (sic) tax?

    Quite so.
    How bizarre is it to have two opposed political parties pushing the same agenda, pushing different deck chairs chair around the Titanic?
    .

    Stop wasting tax payer money.
    .

    Another reason my vote will be informal.

    None of these climate frauds need any encouragement with their war on reality.

    Either way we get more of the same. Business as usual.


    Report this

    36

    • #
      PaulM

      Let’s just ignore the fact that Abbott has no choice but to reduce emmisions by 5% due to Rudd signing and ratifying Kyoto and therefore binding the nation to the emmisions reductions of the protocol.

      You should think about re-introducing the second half of your screen name to warn people of the worth of your contributions.


      Report this

      50

    • #
      MikeO

      I agree with your point of view somewhat but this is politics. Can the public handle the truth? The truth is they have been mislead by people that either do not the truth or are frauds. Kill the RET, CO2 tax and associated network work sounds fine to me but will it help win government?


      Report this

      40

    • #
      MaxL

      Obviously, eliminating the carbon tax doesn’t interest you.
      Stopping the boat arrivals doesn’t interest you.
      Maintaining free speech for all Australians doesn’t interest you.
      In fact, nothing Julia Gillard says or does interests you, so by all means, throw your vote in the rubbish bin.
      Just don’t complain about the government after the election, because obviously you don’t care enough to have your opinion counted on election day.
      If you’re not interested on election day, what makes you think others are interested in your political opinions after the election?


      Report this

      80

      • #
        Dennis

        Because she will be in the dust bin, recycle bin not.


        Report this

        20

      • #
        Dennis

        Because she will be in the dust bin, recycle bin not.


        Report this

        10

      • #
        handjive

        All valid points MaxL.
        If I may respond.

        Our borders are open and it is a disgrace. GreenLaboUr is a disgrace.
        Granted, a vote for the LNP might help Australia regain control.
        It won’t happen overnight and it won’t be pretty as it is an industry now. Tax-payer funded lawyers are swarming.
        Many more will drown before anything happens.

        Free speech.
        I may not agree with what you say, but, I will defend your right to say it, but, where is the LNP on this?
        There is nothing mentioned in the LNP Real Solutions for ALL Australians brochure about “restoring” free speech.
        Nothing. Nowhere.
        A little lip service in passing is not enough.

        I would ask you, MaxL, do you think Tony Abbott will stop/delete the totalitarian government (tax-payer) attacks & smearing of individuals who happen to disagree with Abbott’s climate UN-IPCC/CSIRO science in the name of free speech?
        Can you imagine Turnbull & Hunt leading that charge on behalf of Plimer and his right to free speech?

        If Abbott changes his climate science policies after if/when elected, is he any lesser a liar than Gillard & the “no carbon (sic) tax” pledge?

        And so, we arrive back to the reason I am prepared to waste my most precious vote.

        The war on reality (climate change) is the foot in the door for even more of what you have highlighted above.

        All policies & objectives of the UN one government.

        Right there is the enemy.
        Right there I draw my line.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          MaxL

          On free speech, I’m not sure if you are aware of the legislation that Nicola Roxon, the current Attorney General is trying to introduce.

          http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/if_labor_wants_to_ban_free_speech_let_it_start_with_gibbons/

          The Shadow Attorney General, George Brandis SC has already gone on record saying that as a result of the Andrew Bolt case it will be his first priority to return the right of free speech, if the LNP win the election.

          Most of the links you provided are Australian Government sites. Labor Government sites, nothing whatsoever to do with the LNP or Abbott. You are painting the Liberal/National Party with the same brush as you are using on Gillard and Labor. You are suggesting that Abbott is deceitful because Gillard tells lies.

          I’m not going to try to convince you to vote for the LNP. Clearly, if you threw your last vote in the bin then I’m not interested in your current political opinions. People like my father, fought and died to give you that right to vote, and your response is; I’m just gunna throw that right back in their faces! Because you can’t distinguish between chalk and cheese.

          Look at it this way, if Gillard heard that you, as an AGW sceptic, wasted your vote, do you think she would be unhappy? No, she would be ecstatic, because you have effectively given her Labor candidate a better chance of winning. So if you want to make Gillard happy then throw your vote away, or better still, vote for the ALP.

          You said, “Granted, a vote for the LNP might help Australia regain control”. Isn’t that better than leaving it in the hands of someone who, with a proven track record, is definitely doing her best to f..k Australia?

          You say, “… my most precious vote”. Can’t be very precious if you just throw it away.


          Report this

          20

          • #
            handjive

            Quote MaxL @January 29, 2013 – #25.3.3.1

            “Most of the links you provided are Australian Government sites.
            Labor Government sites, nothing whatsoever to do with the LNP or Abbott.”

            MaxL, This is an official LNP site:

            The Coalition welcomes the review and update of the climate science contained in the Climate Commission’s report issued today, “The Critical Decade”.

            This is the site of the Climate Commission, the HQ of the climate science the LNP “welcomes”.
            .

            Quote: “You are painting the Liberal/National Party with the same brush as you are using on Gillard and Labor.”

            I just provided the links, though what you state is obvious. Why blame me? Because you don’t like what you see?

            Plimer contradicts the PARTISAN support of this UN-IPCC climate science.

            Abbott owns those web pages against Plimer as much as Gillard or he is a hypocrite.
            Either “the science is crap” or Abbott is no better than Gillard.
            The very nature of the climate fraud makes anyone who agrees with it, or “believes” a hypocrite.
            .

            Quote: “Look at it this way, if Gillard heard that you, as an AGW sceptic, wasted your vote, do you think she would be unhappy? No, she would be ecstatic, because you have effectively given her Labor candidate a better chance of winning. So if you want to make Gillard happy then throw your vote away, or better still, vote for the ALP.”

            And if I vote for either, it would be a vote for the UN Agenda 21, as both parties support the junk science of the UN-IPCC and the implementation of all the UN stands for.
            .

            If you want to vote for the UN-IPCC, good luck to you.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            MaxL

            Handjive, if you think that by voting informal you will stop Agenda 21 or one world government or the carbon tax or boat people etc, etc, then go for it!
            Quite frankly the only person who will know that you have thrown away your vote and the reasons why and what you think doing so will achieve, is yourself. Only in your mind will you be convinced that you have made a statement.

            There are 2 kinds of people who vote informal:
            1) Those who are incapable of correctly filling out a ballot sheet. They may not be able to read or they may be too drunk, stoned or high on drugs. Or they may suffer from dementia and have forgotten why they were given this piece of paper.
            2) Those who don’t care who represents them in Parliament. They may be politically naive or they just don’t understand how democracy works.

            You oppose the carbon tax, so too does Karen Andrews (your Liberal Member for McPherson).
            Ask Dan Byron (the Labor candidate) what is his opinion of the carbon tax.

            Chalk and cheese.

            If you can’t differentiate between the two then do the right thing and throw your vote in the bin. On election day, speak now or forever hold your peace.


            Report this

            00

  • #
    AndyG55

    If its actually toxic emmissions and and particulate matter they are seeking to control, this is probably a good thing.

    Attempting to control CO2 is unnecessary, impractical, expensive, and counter-productive to the Earth’s biosphere and the economy


    Report this

    70

  • #
    PaulM

    Well, that just takes the cake. Having just received both SMS alert, phone alert and a visit from council staff telling me I might want to think about evacuating, I did what was recomended. I went to the Council Website, typed in my address and receive the following response:-

    You have requested data for a property NOT known to be flood affected by the 1974 or 2011 floods.

    N.S.S.

    Spare us from idiocy and the henny penny generation.


    Report this

    60

    • #
      PaulM

      A note for Mayor Pissantly,

      How about instead of jacking up my rates to pay for this type of kneejerk BS, you spend it on addressing the lack of reasonable water pressure in this non flood prone area, Or are 6 years of requests by the residents not enough to get you out of your office.


      Report this

      60

  • #
    Olaf Koenders

    @John Brookes..

    It appears you’ve completely forgotten about the LACK of IR radiative absorbtion that CO2 possesses. Most, if not all of that radiation is absorbed by water vapour already.

    http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_HcLOBbrlvrQ/SyGhV_N26EI/AAAAAAAAAF4/sUigZnuPWWE/s400/atmosphericAbsorption_bands3.jpg

    Which is WHY, John Brookes, you can fry at 50C in a desert during the day and freeze at -10C at night. This doesn’t happen in the tropics at all. The CO2 levels being the same, the entire effect is due to WATER VAPOUR.

    In case you’ve also forgotten, remember how cloudy nights are always warmer than clear ones? As CO2 is 1.5x the weight of air, it’s down near the ground. The water vapour is making the clouds. It doesn’t take an entire IPCC’s worth of overpaid -Snip- (scientists) to have clearly observed and validated this effect many times over your lifetime.

    Got it now..?


    Report this

    142

    • #
      John Brookes

      Gee Olaf, could it be that both CO2 and H2O work in similar ways?


      Report this

      216

      • #
        AndyG55

        “CO2 and H2O work in similar ways”

        I knew were IGNORANT, but ….. really, you have gone too far this time. !! ????????

        Did you even even finish Primary School !!


        Report this

        112

      • #
        Kevin Moore

        “This statement by John Tyndall is the origin of such claims as “the science is settled”

        http://www.spinonthat.com

        In order to single out certain atmospheric gases and demonise them as the culprits responsible for atmospheric warming, it was necessary to attribute certain characteristics to the so called “Greenhouse Gases” with regard to radiant heat which would set them apart from the two most abundant atmospheric gases, Oxygen and Nitrogen.

        In his memoirs entitled “Contributions to Molecular Physics in the Domain of Radiant Heat”, detailing a series of experiments conducted at the Royal Institution, Tyndall fallaciously states with regard to Oxygen and Nitrogen that they are both quote:

        “practically transparent to radiant heat.”

        Thus laying the foundations of AGW fraud.

        This statement by John Tyndall is the origin of such claims as “the science is settled” and the “greenhouse effect is 150 year old established physics.” In terms of radiant heat it is the only factor that would differentiate between the various atmospheric gases.

        After all, Oxygen and Nitrogen constitute 99% of the atmosphere. If these two gases are shown to absorb and re-emit infrared radiation, what would make so called “Greenhouse Gases” like CO2, such a threat to the environment at only 0.0385% of the atmosphere?

        So the basis for the “Greenhouse Effect” is that incoming and out going IR is not absorbed by Oxygen and Nitrogen which instead passes straight through these gases. According to this unsubstantiated hypothesis, only those gases which are termed “Greenhouse Gases” posses the capability to absorb and re-emit infrared radiation.

        The problem for the hypothesis of the “Greenhouse Effect” and of course AGW itself is that the basic premise on which the hypothesis is based is false.

        Firstly, Oxygen and Nitrogen both have higher specific heat capacities than CO2.

        Secondly and above all, Oxygen and Nitrogen, of course do indeed absorb infrared radiation:

        As can be seen in figure 1 below, Nitrogen is clearly absorbing infrared radiation at between 3.8 and 5 micrometers.

        It is a similar case for Oxygen which also has many absorption bands within the range of infrared radiation.

        The evidence I have presented here conclusivly shows that Oxygen and Nitrogen which constitute 99% of the Earths atmosphere, as one would expect, do in-fact absorb infrared radiation.

        The claim that these two gases are transparent to IR is completely fallacious. Which goes along way to explain why the “Greenhouse Effect” hypothesis is one of the longest standing unsubstantiated hypothesis in the history of science.

        The so called “Greenhouse Effect” will always remain an hypothesis for the simple reason that it is based on pseudo science.

        CO2 The Debate Is Not Over.


        Report this

        11

        • #
          Kevin Moore

          The Science Is Settled? – CO2

          http://www.spinonthat.com/CO2_files/O2_N2_IR_absoption.html

          The Science is settled? Proponents of Anthropogenic Global Warming and sceptics alike virtually all have one thing in common. They all claim that no one …


          Report this

          11

        • #
          John Brookes

          I’m confused. There is a graph on the page you reference showing the absorption spectrum of N2. However the values on the vertical axis are about 10,000,000,000 times smaller than the same graph for CO2. Isn’t that saying that N2 hardly absorbs any infra red?

          But to be fair, I’m not familiar with such graphs and what they are supposed to be showing. But a basic weapons-grade mistake like not owning up to N2 being a significant IR absorber is too dumb, even for those conspiring AGW gravy train chasing scientists.


          Report this

          06

      • #
        Sonny

        They do?

        So CO2 also forms clouds does it Mr fancy university man?

        Excuse me while I go take a nice warm bath in liquid CO2.

        And you are an educator? Good god!


        Report this

        72

  • #
    peterfitzroy

    I checked the BOM site for January 2009 Temperatures, which was the last datapoint on the graph and got http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/cdio/weatherData/av?p_display_type=dataDGraph&p_stn_num=066062&p_nccObsCode=122&p_month=01&p_startYear=2009 which does not have 5 consecutive days of any thing near a heatwave.
    So what gives?


    Report this

    51

    • #
      Bruce of Newcastle

      Global Warming!!!……..(oops no global warming, have to try something else)
      Climate Change!!!……..(this is not working, too bland, ok what else can we think of)
      Global Climate Disruption!!!……..(well that worked for a while, but all those chicken little jokes are really annoying)
      Dirty Weather!!!……..(Al Gore means well, but since that Al Jazeera thing, hmmm have to distance ourselves)

      ah got it now:

      Extreme Weather!!!

      That’ll work. What, weather is just ordinary? Well call it extreme guys! Its extreme! Really really extreme! Like so hot it is hotter than almost ever (except last week when it was hotter). Well, if its not hot enough add the heat index to it, it really feels hot doesn’t it.

      Sorry, I’m getting too cynical.


      Report this

      81

    • #
      Geoff Sherrington

      Thank you.

      If Sydney, T max for jan 19-24 incl averages 32 deg C.
      If Melbourne, I think I’ve transcribed Jan wrongly but am checking all others. Will report asap. later tonight.


      Report this

      30

    • #
      Geoff Sherrington

      Nope, Checked all the figures and they are as correct using the BOM online data. Jan 26-31 of 2009 in Sydney averages 37.5. To overcome the definition of a heatwave in Hobart (with low annual weather year) from one in Alice (with a high annual weather year), I decided to avoid average annual or monthly temperatures and simply choose the highest consecutive 5 day average each year in the 150 or so years of data. I reason that the average person living in a place would reasonably regard the highest 5=day average thus calculated as a ‘heat wave’ just as validly as any other method would produce.
      Couple of notes. I used Tmax from the start of a 5 day consecutive period to the end, which is commonly from 9 am on the beginning of day 1 to the end of day 5, which is also the start of day 6. While I call it a 5-day closed end average, it is arguable that it is a 6 day open ended average.
      In a couple of cases, the average would be higher if I used a Jan-Feb overlap period. There are very few of these and I think the longest involves 5 readings from Jan and one from Feb. There are also (rare) cases where Dec 31 could go into the Jan figures. It’s simply ill-defined, so I did what was conservative.
      Finally, the Tmax at central Melbourne and Sydney is not meant as a guide to correlate with past bush fires. It does not do so at all well. These stations were chosen for length of records and quality control.

      The source of records is (for Sydney) http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/cdio/weatherData/av?p_nccObsCode=122&p_display_type=dailyDataFile&p_startYear=&p_c=&p_stn_num=66062

      These notes from an email to a friend might help:
      You will see that there is some regularity of repetition of heat waves so defined, in the sense that they tend to be evenly spread after about 1870. About one every 8-9 years. They do not seem to be getting hotter over the decades, cooler if anything. Remember Urban Heat Island is in these numbers but it does not show, so the cooling is likely to be more pronounced than the eyeball shows. Note that Melbourne heatwaves are much hotter then Sydney, because of the dominance of NNW winds in summer from the hot centre.

      Going further, we have just has large fires where there were large fires before, in 2009 and (from memory) 2003, to the south of the alpine ski areas. This means that one has to question the value of controlled burns. If they work, they have to be repeated every 5 years or so. A few years ago, about 2005, I calculated that the controlled burn program of the Vic Govt would take 192 years to cover the State, it was so miniscule.

      What is worse, the fires seldom start on the first day of a heat wave unless they are lit. The bad ones seem to need several preconditions. 1. A few good preceding years of vegetation growth to build up fuel. 2. An ignition, with perhaps 50% suspected as arson or faulty power lines, the rest mainly lightning. So the weather has to be predisposed to lightning in a bad year. 3. A high wind velocity of hot, dry air, sometimes coincident with high temperatures, but not always by any means. 4. Variable wind direction, so that a fire front can become a fire side of much greater length through a 90 deg change of wind direction. 5. No heavy rain. 6. An amenable tree shape, with leaves shaped by natural growth or previous fires to allow top burning to be strong. 7. A few other factors like the type of trees and oils therein, fire breaks both natural and man-made, access to water drop aircraft, etc.

      Although there might be some link between bad bushfires and a coincident heat wave, many fires do not need the heat wave. A heat wave does not start fires, but it has a correlation because the high temperatures are usually associated with strong winds from a dry inland for a few days and it is the winds that are damaging. It is therefore of little use to spend a lot of money to try to predict heat waves. Ditto for outdoor barbecues.


      Report this

      40

      • #
        Peterfitzroy

        Not possible with your data, Geoff, although my calculation of the rolling average might be up for discussion, but there are only 4 days above 31 for the month


        Report this

        00

  • #

    Those fond of records, people like John above, may like to reflect on Sydney’s hottest January. It occurred in 1896.This is from the BOM’s own records, which still stand. I remember our long Big Heat, back in 1960, but I think I’d take any January over that of 1896. And people were nonetheless coming to Sydney to escape the inland heat! Oh well, at least the city had more water than in 1888, its driest year on record.

    Some talk of Hobart? It had its hottest January as recently as 2003. But it’s hottest month on record was a February – in 1895!

    All of this proves nothing, of course…except that you can prove anything by putting a few factoids in and leaving a few others out.

    Stay dry all! That radar is indicating a lot of rain on the Macleay catchment. We’re a serious river, unlike that piddly Bellinger. It takes a lot to make us flood, but when we do…


    Report this

    51

    • #
      Ian George

      The problem with the 1896 Jan record is that the 19th Jan has missing data so that would preclude it as a record. However, at 29.5C it is still far and above any other year. 1991 was 29.1C but it too has missing data for the 16th.

      Regardless of that these years would still have beaten this year’s average which will be about 27.7C and any other year someone would like to put up.

      About people coming to Sydney – Bourke was being evacuated by train. It had 22 consecutive days of +40C. Now that’s a heatwave.


      Report this

      40

      • #

        Ian, that heatwave of 1895-1896 is our second most lethal natural disaster, and only just shaded by the heat of 1938-1939. Of course, with modern tech and air-con that mortality should not be repeated. But have you noticed the cost of electricity and refrigerant gases lately, especially those gases?

        In an era when toilets no longer flush properly, we should not be surprised. There are actually people who believe in evaporating sea water using power from decaying coal facilities (because alternative energies aren’t alternatives) in order to run water through a cistern without achieving a flush. Is this about protecting a threatened species called vibrio cholerae? What does it say at the top of Jo’s blog? Something about a good civilisation going to waste?


        Report this

        70

    • #
      John Brookes

      It was also before Stephenson screens came into common use, so most likely it actually wasn’t as hot as they thought it was.


      Report this

      211

      • #

        John, you talking about Stevenson screens? So our two most lethal natural disasters, both heatwaves and widely documented, should be discounted because of the lack of Stevenson screens (in some places)?

        Are you even curious about the record high monthly temps from long ago which still stand in BOM’s own records. The record dries from the 1800s which are still valid in BOM’s own records? Do you wonder about 1939 in Sydney, about why that January day was so hot and why the surrounding region was much hotter than the other day? Do you wonder? Or does Sydney record temp only matter now because a thermometer has at last gone a bit higher than on January 14, 1939 (for a minute or so, it seems.) Or were you a climate skeptic till two weeks ago, always going with the Sydney and Hobart numbers?

        John, you’ll be relieved to know that we have not had a natural disaster which has killed so many people as the two heatwaves mentioned above. Yes, a million sheep were burnt in 1851 in Victoria, in what was likely the biggest fire in world history. However, it was world surge champion, Cyclone Mahina, which killed the next biggest number of humans in Oz. But that was in 1899, so it may be of little interest to the New Man at Year Zero.

        Mind you, the fires of 2009 were horrific, and Yasi, unlike Sandy, was a hell of a powerful cyclone. So, John, I guess there are two climate messages here. Firstly, Gaia is not our mummy. Secondly, Gaia never was our mummy.


        Report this

        90

        • #
          John Brookes

          The deaths back then were far higher, because of the lack of forecasting ability and communications technology. It could also have been because conditions were worse, but since the methods of measuring temperatures have changed, it is a bit hard to tell if they were really worse.


          Report this

          04

          • #

            That’s right, John. You don’t know exactly. I don’t know exactly. We don’t know exactly. But Climate Hipsterism demands that we spin the past away, no matter how compelling the evidence. The McTernan/GetUp approach: if reality won’t fit the script, just tear up the reality. Spin. Fudge. Adjust. Ring the Macquarie Dictionary for new definitions if necessary.

            Think about that 1955 Maitland Flood, John, while we are experiencing this present flood. In 1955, to the north and west of Sydney, an inland sea was formed…the size of England and Wales! What if the serial storms and cyclones of the 1970s were to repeat themselves now, especially those of 1974? Ask yourself what the climatariat would make of all that if it occurred right now or soon (which it could). Yasi was a real brute, but what if a Cyclone Mahina – 914 mbar! – were to rake through a populated part of modern Qld, instead of the Qld of 1899? What if Brisbane were to cop not one but three major floods in a month, as it did in 1893? What would the climatariat have to say?

            Well?

            Exactly!


            Report this

            70

      • #
        Ian George

        Or higher than they thought.
        By the way, some stations had Stevenson Shields prior to 1900. SS were rolled out from 1910 fairly quickly.


        Report this

        50

      • #
        AndyG55

        Let’s build a JB size Stevenson screen,

        Put JB inside in a really hot day..

        see if he still thinks it cooler inside, than under a shaded balcony.


        Report this

        41

      • #
        Graeme No.3

        Stephenson screens were in use in all capital cities (with the possible exception of Perth) in 1899. Melbourne had at least one before 1870. Their use was so widespread in most of Australia by 1890 that there installation wasn’t considered newsworthy.

        The date for Perth is uncertain, but it seems to have been installed in 1898 (other dates given are 1891, 1894, 1899). There was a rush of installations in WA once the money from the gold rush started reaching the Treasury.

        So it looks like carbon dioxide hasn’t contributed that much to warming.


        Report this

        10

      • #
        Backslider

        It was also before Stephenson screens came into common use, so most likely it actually wasn’t as hot as they thought it was.

        Ok John Brookes. That takes the cake as the most stupid thing I have seen from you to date. What is a Stevenson screen? Its a little hot box sitting out in the sun, no less. Back in the days we are talking about, they were far more careful how they measured temperature and it was always measured *in the shade*, not some hot little box sitting out in the sun. Were they to have used a Stevenson screen, their recorded temperatures would have been through the roof.

        Tell me. When did you last hear of birds and bats dropping dead out of the sky? When?


        Report this

        30

        • #
          Mattb

          oh so you don’t think stevenson screens work then?


          Report this

          01

          • #
            Backslider

            Common Sense Mattb – have you ever looked at a Stevenson screen?. Have you ever been out in really hot weather? What do you think happens to this box? Do you really think it does not get hotter inside? Sure, a thermometer in direct sunlight will get hotter as it absorbs heat…. which only goes to prove that a Stevenson box also absorbs heat. Some of this heat will be radiated inside the box. That’s just common sense.

            Do an experiment Mattb. Get two Stevenson screens. Sit one out in the hot sun on a nice hot day, then sit the other somewhere nearby in a well shaded and ventilated area away from radiated heat. Please note the difference in temperature readings. You will be getting close to how temperatures were taken “back in the olden days”…. in the shade.


            Report this

            00

      • #
        Olaf Koenders

        Irrelevant John. Like it really matters we have barely 200 years of climatic/weather data? I’ll bet over the last measly 100 million years of Earth’s history there was no such thing as a Stevenson Screen for you to argue about and that all our current records for heat/cold/flood/drought/snow are just as measly.

        As we’re now still climbing out of the Little Ice Age, why not ponder over the paintings of the frozen Thames ice fairs and blissfully wish you were born back then, or the 1300′s, when “witches” were burned at the stake for ruining crops. Could it be that you’re just completely wrong?


        Report this

        30

      • #
        Backslider

        BTW John Boy – take a look at how they do it in the USA (mainly)


        Report this

        00

  • #
    rukidding

    Well we need to stop CC so what do we need to do lets go to the formost authority on the subject.

    Target Atmospheric CO2: Where Should Humanity Aim?

    James Hansen,

    And what does he say?.

    “Stabilizing atmospheric CO2 and climate requires that net CO2 emissions approach zero (10),
    because of the long lifetime of CO2.”

    So there you have it folks to save the earth we have to emitt Nada,Zero,Zilch CO2
    Shouldn’t be to hard instead of Earth day we could try Earth week where we emitt no CO2 that is no CO2.And at the end of the week we can reacess if we want to continue.Because the last time the CO2 level was stable was about 1880 and humans emitted less than 1Gt/Yr then.We now emitt 36Gt/Yr.
    So we can forget emissions reductions and carbon taxes we have been told by the Messiah what has to be done and all the carbon taxes in the world and all the emissions reductions in the world will not achieve that.


    Report this

    11

  • #
    Kevin Moore

    http://occupycorporatism.com/un-climate-talks-focus-on-extreme-weather-co2-and-global-governance/

    The UN World Meteorological Organization (WMO) stated in a recent press statement that they expect the la Nina to come early this year, which is proof that there are unprecedented changes in the weather. WMO claims that the Artic melting of sea ice and recent weather extremes correlate.

    According to the statement: “January-October 2012 has been the ninth warmest such period since records began in 1850. The global land and ocean surface temperature for the period was about 0.45°C (0.81°F) above the corresponding 1961–1990 average of 14.2°C.”

    Predicting more meteorological devastation, the WMO claim that Arctic sea melt “reached its lowest” point which is the data recorded by satellites. WMO will release a report entitled “2001-2010: Decade of Extremes” next month. This document was produced in part by the UN, eco-fascist scientists and international agencies supporting the myth of man-made climate change.

    Weather patterns unusual to norms recorded in history and blamed on global warming are:

    • Heat waves
    • Droughts
    • Floods
    • Snow and extreme cold
    • Super hurricanes and cyclones

    Michael Jarraud, president of the WMO stated: “The extent of Arctic sea ice reached a new record low. The alarming rate of its melt this year highlighted the far-reaching changes taking place on Earth’s oceans and biosphere. Climate change is taking place before our eyes and will continue to do so as a result of the concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, which have risen constantly and again reached new records.”


    Report this

    02

  • #
    JohnT

    …and in Adelaide on this fine Summer’s day, I sit here dressed in fleecy track pants and top as John’s CO2 has obviously not made it to SA.


    Report this

    70

    • #
      John Brookes

      Is it Adelaide’s coldest summer maximum ever?


      Report this

      08

      • #
        Dennis

        Ever? Is a century and a half serious comparison? Earth Cycles span billions of years.


        Report this

        20

        • #
          John Brookes

          I’ll take it that is not the coldest summer day in Adelaide’s temperature record.


          Report this

          04

          • #
            Graeme No.3

            No, it isn’t, but it is quite cool, as it has been for some days.

            Anyway, what possible relevance has the question got to do with the subject? Are you claiming that one or two cold days disproves global warming? At least that is consistent with claiming that a few hot days is a proof of global warming.

            No-one disputes that the “World Temperature” (whatever that is) has gone up in the last 150 years. In fact from what records we have, it has gone up in cycles since at least 1710 (after the Little Ice Age). There have been cooler periods, especially the Dalton minimum when the sun was quiet with few sun-spots, and warmer periods e.g. 1730′s, 1770′s, 1850-1880 (approx.), 1910-1940 (approx.) and 1979-1995 (approx.).

            7 of the warmest summers in England since 1660 occurred in the 1730′s, but no-one would think that the decade was warmer than today, nor that it was caused by CO2. The high summer temperatures in 1899 followed years of drought in central Australia, and the bare earth heated up. Possibly there were blocking highs which prevented or at least weakened the monsoon, much as happened recently. It was just weather, not CLIMATE CHANGE.

            The claim that the level of CO2 determines the temperature is ludicrous, and no-one with any knowledge of the past would think otherwise. There are too many times where higher temperatures than the last 35 years have occurred when the level of CO2 was lower than the current level, and cases also where the temperature was lower despite CO2 being much higher than today. Any effect that CO2 has on temperature has to be minor or non existent, and there is NO evidence that it causes climate change.


            Report this

            10

  • #
    Dennis

    I noticed at ALPBC The Drum a professor has written to ask us why with all the recent weather we take notice of weather forecasts and research and therefore why we must take CC seriously too. Do you guys note the panic in the air from the alarmist camp?


    Report this

    51

  • #
    PaulM

    On the topic of the degradation of science and waste of taxpayers money we have this from the UK.

    UK Science Minister David Willetts praised the heat resistant biscuit as he announced the recipients of £600million of science and technology funding.”

    Damn, £600million for figuring out how to temper chocolate. And to think it only took me 4 blocks of cadbury dark, 6 attempts and around 3 hours of my time.


    Report this

    20

  • #
    John Brookes

    BTW, have any “coldest ever” records been set in Moscow, London etc?


    Report this

    09

    • #

      Europe has seen extremely cold winters for the last six years. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/post/deadly-cold-snap-overwhelms-europe-strands-thousands-in-serbia-bosnia/2012/02/03/gIQAPOkumQ_blog.html

      In neighboring Bulgaria, 16 towns recorded their all-time lowest temperatures since records began a century ago.

      http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-16844059

      You see, John, some places are warmer and some are colder. There has been no warming on a global basis for 16 years! The temps for this interglacial peaked during the holocene maximum during the Bronze age approximately 7,000 BP. The trend line has been down since. In fact, it is almost as warm today as it was during the MWP, which was global! So, John, how could it be warmer for most of the current interglacial than it is now? After all, CO2 levels were much lower until the nineteenth century and have gone up dramatically in the last two centuries. Why haven’t temperatures exceeded those of the earlier holocene interglacial?


      Report this

      132

    • #
      Sonny

      John what’s your point?

      If it’s extremely hot in some places and extremely cold in others it suggest GLOBAL warming is a crock of shit…

      Oh right you are talking about climate change, where any weather can be used as proof and no weather can be used to disprove it…

      I see what you’re getting at!


      Report this

      31

      • #
        John Brookes

        I shall assume that no cold temperature records have been set in this European winter. Because if there had been any, you would have told me.


        Report this

        06

        • #
          Sonny

          Firstly John, records don’t mean shit to me.

          If it’s so cold that people are dying and natural gas is freezing then it’s cold.
          And if it’s cold then it’s not global warming. That’s what my logic tells me.

          Secondly John, the record keepers are crooked because they work for the government which seems to have an interest in hot record keeping but not cold record keeping.

          The media has an interest in hot record reporting but not cold record reporting.

          The game is fixed. I’ve seen it John. I’m not fooled by it.

          So you can quote “records” until you are blue in the face.

          I know that global warming hasn’t been happening in Victoria because of my own experience.

          When summer returns in the form that I can spend time on the beach again I’ll reconsider.


          Report this

          20

          • #
            Sonny

            On a different point:

            Let’s accept for a moment that we have record hot but not record cold.

            Why then are there more deaths where it’s cold, but not record cold, compared to where it’s record hot?

            I’ll tell you why Mr University…

            Cold is FAR MORE DANGEROUS THAN HOT.


            Report this

            20

        • #

          Sorry, John, nearly overlooked your question. Not sure why a brief period of hot or cold is important, but I agree it’s interesting.

          While the real tragedy of this year’s cold wave has been the effect on India, there is something for Euro record buffs. It doesn’t really matter, especially since the record cold action this year is in North America, but three regions of Finland have achieved record lows this winter. Contrary to some claims, the historic cold of early 2012, as well as setting a record in Astrakhan, did manage a few record minima in the Norwegian coastal strip.

          Like I’d care! Australia is wasting coal in ancient facilities while stringing those ridiculous whirlygigs across the countryside. That’s like driving a forty year old Falcon and putting a solar panel on its roof to save power. Can you believe this stuff?

          Like I’d care if a thermometer once crept a bit lower or higher on some particular day. Nature is firing bullets and we’re packing cap guns.


          Report this

          20

        • #
        • #
          Ian George

          JB
          In all the time I have been following weather/climate, I have never heard or come across a category of ‘daily maximum temperature record’ (let alone a ‘daily minimum temperature’). And then, bang! a new record is announced out of the blue.
          The initial record was supposedly set in Dec 1972 using the average of some 700+ weather stations across Australia.
          They haven’t obviously used the ACORN records as there are only about 110 stations that have the data (and that, according to Kenskingdom, averages out at less than 36C).
          If they had looked at Jan 1939 they probably would have found a higher temp but there would have been less stations.


          Report this

          00

  • #
    PaulM

    According to Their ABC, there is no way the events of the last week could have been predicted. Apparently at Their ABC high pressure blocking systems have never, ever, happened before. Shouldn’t really be surprised, after all they do depend on BOM & CSIRO data which predicited a less than 50% chance of above median rainfall over the summer period. Maybe they should go back to reigonal areas instead of metro areas, fruit growers have been expecting a wet summer based on the quantity and quality of flowering & fruit set. Funny how bees and other pollinating insects are a better weather vanes than the BOM & CSIRO. My peach, nectarine and aproicot trees in my yard had the best fruit set in the last 5 years, nectarines the size of cricket balls, peaches the size of my fist and more apricots to dry than I’ll eat in a year. Over 30kg of fruits left at the community centre and the local child care centres. What ever am I going to do if Flannery’s permanent state of drought ever abates.


    Report this

    40

    • #
      Geoff Sherrington

      Errrr Fruit trees. We had it announced yesterday that the very useful pest control chemical Confidor has killed a large part of the bee population that normally hangs around pollinating crops. How come you missed out on the Curse of the Confidor? Or is it another attempt to revert to lemon juice, vinegar and soap as the cure-alls of our distant childhood, and a deliberate slur upon the skill of synthesis chemists?


      Report this

      40

      • #
        PaulM

        Quite Simple,

        1) I don’t live in an intensive agriculture area.
        2) Companion planting to attract pollinating insects and to reduce the need to use pesticides.

        As for your assertion on a deliberate slur, B. APP SC. Horticulture. Grad Dip (Plant Protection) so you’re saying I’m slurring myself.

        Swing & a miss there Geoff, better luck next time.

        Next time try using both hands.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Geoff Sherrington

          PaulM, Some sort of mixup here. I was not having a dig at you. I was being a bit sarcastic about the media gardening set who are much more anti man-made chemical and more pro natural organic cures than even a decade ago. BTW, I’m interested in the mechanism of how companion plantings reduce the need to use pesticides. In our home gardens, the greater the variety of plants, including companion plantings, the greater the variety of pests that were attracted. That’s why I tend towards large scale monoculture with designer pest control chemicals or GM, for serious crop production as in feeding starving people. There are many papers forecasting starvation on a large scale if “organic farming” sensu stricto was adopted globally. Of course, people playing in their own gardens can do what pleases them, but please don’t mention the witchcraft of the Rudolph Steiner Biodynamic fascination.


          Report this

          00

    • #
      Dennis

      Flannery’s accounts do not hold water. lol


      Report this

      20

  • #

    On the subject of record temps, it’s interesting to look at the numbers put out by those Fox-watching tea-partiers at the NOAA.

    Australia’s hottest (official) temp was in 1960. (How well I remember the heat of 1960!). Both poles recorded their highest temps in the seventies. After that, however, it’s back to grandpa’s day.

    Every other continent had its highest recorded maximum between 1881 and 1937. It was present day Israel (1942) which got beaten out by Death Valley (1913) for second place, not Libya (1922) or Oz. At least Oz beat Spain’s 1881 Euro maximum.

    Not only is it worse than we thought – it was worse than we thought!


    Report this

    21

  • #

     

    What heatwave?

    Bow it’s “flooding rains” taking three lives in Queensland and about to hit Sydney tonight with 100 KPH winds.

    What a difference a week makes.

    But it’s nothing to do with carbon dioxide.


    Report this

    50

    • #
      Dennis

      Weather. I am on the mid north coast of NSW about 100km north of Newcastle, right now the wind is strong and the rain heavy. I drove to Port Macquarie today and my 4WD was being pushed sideways by strong wind, the ocean here and Port was white caps and serious waves.


      Report this

      20

    • #
      Nice One

      Warmer atmosphere = higher energy and greater water vapour.

      How exactly do you think this counters AGW?


      Report this

      13

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        Why don’t you give us some empirical evidence to the contrary?

        After all, you are the self appointed expert …


        Report this

        20

        • #
          Nice One

          I’m still waiting for your calcs of attribution!


          Report this

          00

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          And as I have told you before, I have no idea what you are talking about. I think you are seriously loosing the plot. Perhaps you are confusing yourself in the echo chamber of your mind?

          Are you under a little stress at my questioning where the empirical evidence is, that definitively demonstrates the cause and effect relationship between CO2 and temperature?


          Report this

          20

  • #
    Dennis

    Can anyone explain this: Ants. At my place there has been “moss” that stays all summer in small areas but starting last year 2012 the “moss” has extended to about 50% of 1880m2. I have discovered that it is not moss, the Ants lay long grass down and coat with a dark substance or cut grass into clippings, lay down, and coat. I suspect they are thatching a protective cover, why? This property has been in my family’s hands since the 1800s. I have not seen Ants doing this in my lifetime. They even create “moss” around certain areas but pick it up and it is grass based and lightweight and not rooted to the ground. Food? So is this behaviour related to global cooling? I believe that it is.


    Report this

    30

  • #
    Dennis

    Global warming became climate change, greenhouse gases became carbon dioxide focus, what is going on?

    I know, spin.


    Report this

    20

  • #

    It may well have been hotter in the past, and the records would show it if they used the same techniques as we do today to measure temperature.

    In my blog article, inspired/incited by an article on Warwick Hughes’ blog, I begin to address the elephant in the weather station; how our changes in our ability and techniques to measure air temperature let us measure more of the mere whisps of extremes.

    In summary:

    Suffice to say that the temperature readings obtained by changing anything in the way that temperatures are measured; present a discontinuity in the temperature readings. Therefore data before and after the change are not “alike”; they aren’t measuring the same thing. Which invalidates any subsequent processing which assumes that they are the same thing.

    It is impossible, with any validity; to adjust past measurements so that they have a similar response to “air temperature” as does the modern equipment. And the meta-data associated with modern equipment and the collected data are woefully inadequate to adjust their “air temperature response” to be like those of equipment which it replaced.

    The WMO (PDF) tried to tackle the lesser issue of changes to enclosures in 1998; but seems to have left nothing but unanswered questions and deferring the “solution” to somebody else. “Papering-over” the problem hasn’t made it go away. It has simply resulted in it festering, and the alienation of old records; making them irrelevant for comparisons with modern measurement. Certainly to the level of precision that would allow anybody to identify a real signal.

    When I hear that “today was the hottest day on record in X”; I know that the “record” is only based on data that has been sufficiently continuous for at most a couple of decades. Indeed; in most cases a period shorter than what the WMO agrees to as being the period over which “climate” can be “measured”; 30 years.


    Report this

    20

  • #
    klem

    This winter in Canada they have broken lots of cold temperature records all across the country, and winter aint over yet. For some reason the warmists haven’t said a word. That’s odd.


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Dan Clancy

    Don’t you foolish people get it? The all knowing Brookes has spoken. The argument is over!


    Report this

    10

  • #
    pat

    when even Bloomberg is reporting…

    28 Jan: Bloomberg: Adam Ewing: Norway Data Shows Earth’s Global Warming Less Severe Than Feared
    After the planet’s average surface temperature rose through the 1990s, the increase has almost leveled off at the level of 2000, while ocean water temperature has also stabilized, the Research Council of Norway said in a statement on its website. After applying data from the past decade, the results showed temperatures may rise 1.9 degrees Celsius if Co2 levels double by 2050, below the 3 degrees predicted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
    “The Earth’s mean temperature rose sharply during the 1990s,” said Terje Berntsen, a professor at the University of Oslo who worked on the study. “This may have caused us to overestimate climate sensitivity.”…
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-27/norway-data-shows-earth-s-global-warming-less-severe-than-feared.html


    Report this

    21

  • #
    pat

    27 Jan: ThisIsMoney UK: Peter Campbell: Energy fund designed to protect families from price hikes ‘could face Treasury raid’
    A fund designed to protect families from rises in energy prices and guarantee investors’ returns on costly generation projects is open to being raided by the Government, it was claimed on Sunday…
    But a clause has been put into the Energy Bill, which is currently being scrutinised by MPs, which allows the Government to take the money for its own uses instead, according to critics and energy firms…
    The controversial measure was not included in the draft legislation, but has been added into the Bill currently being scrutinised by MPs.
    It relates to a complicated arrangement designed to encourage power firms to build low-carbon electricity generators such as nuclear or wind by offering subsidies…
    http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-2269220/Energy-fund-designed-protect-families-price-hikes-face-Treasury-raid.html


    Report this

    21

  • #
    pat

    28 Jan: UK Daily Mail: Peter Tomlinson: What a waste! Picture from space reveals how new U.S. oil field is burning off enough gas to power Chicago AND Washington – because it’s cheaper than selling it
    This incredible picture from space shows how the U.S. oil industry has boomed to such an extent that a gas field now burns as brightly as a major city.
    The rapid increase in shale oil production means it is now often more economical to ‘flare off’ unwanted gas than to sell it.
    As a result, one field in North Dakota, the state leading the energy revolution, is now burning off enough gas to power all the homes in Chicago and Washington D.C. combined…
    (Photo Caption)
    Wasting energy: This NASA satellite image shows how the gas being burned off at the Bakken oil field in North Dakota is almost as bright as the light emitted from major U.S. cities such as Minneapolis-St Paul and Chicago…
    The trend, which is being replicated in other shale regions such as Texas, has made the U.S. one of the world’s worst offenders for gas flaring after the amount it burns off has tripled in the last five years, according to World Bank estimates…
    Adam Brandt, a Stanford academic who studies greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels, told the FT: ‘The situation in the shale oilfields is similar to the early days of the US oil industry.
    ‘Companies are in a race with their competitors to develop the resource, which means there is little incentive to delay production to reduce flaring.’
    Flaring – which has increased emissions from North Dakota by around 20 per cent – has been a serious concern to investors and campaigners because of waste and damage to the environment.
    Local farmers complain the constant fires are polluting the atmosphere and say they suspect state officials are granting exemptions rather than dealing with the issue…
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2269517/The-picture-space-shows-U-S-oil-field-burning-gas-power-Chicago-AND-Washington-cheaper-selling-it.html


    Report this

    21

    • #
      Geoff Sherrington

      At the Moomba gas fields, one of the first recovery steps is to separate CO2 and release it to the air. I’m starting to wonder if this affects very local temperatures. It does not cause a light at night, though.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    pat

    U.N. panel meets to shape the future of the CDM
    LONDON, Jan 28 (Reuters Point Carbon) – A U.N. panel will this week discuss a range of ideas targeting the survival of its ailing $215 billion carbon offset scheme for developing countries, amid record low offset prices and ballooning over-supply of permits…
    http://www.pointcarbon.com/news/1.2157027?&ref=searchlist


    Report this

    21

  • #
    inedible hyperbowl

    Thank you JB. I have always wondered how the CAGW scam got off the ground. Assuming that there is a number of minds (like JBs) that believe myth ahead of observation and have few deductive reasoning skills, then we can see the origin of the scam.


    Report this

    30

  • #
    Ace

    Looking through the above I have to concede Saint Brookes of Erehwon does have his uses.

    Whether he is in fact the sock-puppet of another commenter putting up dumb-ass “arguments” as straw men for easy destruction or whether he is a real person and dumb-ass in his own right, he certainly gives everyone the facility of taking a good kicking on our behalf.

    However, he is not alone here in missing the bigger and more funadamental question. Why the hell should I or anyone else give a shit about any of this? I am freezing my door-knobs off and spending a vast proportion of my income on electricity bills in the process as a direct result of “Green” politics. I couldnt care in the least what the trends are. Nor could the many millions globally worse off than me. People are not only dying of hypothermia in previously developed countries but starving quite literally to death in other areas as adirect result of “Green” politics.

    Explain why the real needs of the living should be trumped by the notional needs of those who have not and may never be born?


    Report this

    20

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      People are … dying of hypothermia … [and] starving … as a direct result of “Green” politics.

      Astute observation.

      One of the Greens favorite lines is “… but what sort of world will we leave unborn generations to come …”

      Forget the “as yet unborn generations” — we are actually talking about the “neverborn” generations.

      Hmm, good title for a disaster movie – I must give James Cameron a ring, he lives just over the hill from me … ;-)


      Report this

      20

  • #
    Crakar24

    Here in Adelaide the past two weeks are about 6C below average. Since the beginning of Jan there is more evidence to show that we are cooling not warming.


    Report this

    21

  • #
    Albert

    The Esky still keeps the beer cold, there is no warming


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Kevin Moore

    John Brookes, I imagine is not greatly interested in the comments he sees on the screen, but gets his kicks putting forth counter arguements to stir up more comment. Fair enough, in that regard he is doing a good job.


    Report this

    11

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      I agree.

      I see John Brookes in the role of Falstaff. The fool who creates context for the other characters, and keeps them in perspective.

      He gets no grief from me. He does a good Falstaff, and this site would not be the same without him.


      Report this

      21

      • #
        Crakar24

        I think you give him too much credit, i view John as a simpleton nothing more.


        Report this

        11

        • #
          AndyG55

          “i view John as a simpleton nothing more.”

          Methinks that you grossly over-estimate !!


          Report this

          11

          • #
            Ace

            No, not a simpleton, a heckler. Someone who stands at the back or the sidelines and listens for some slip of the tongue they can shout out a de-contextualised retort to that steretypes the other as an “other”. He has done this to me once and I see him trying it on with others all the time. Hence the perpetual one-liners.


            Report this

            11

      • #
        John Brookes

        Rereke, you are an intellectual! I really only ever got familiar with A Midsummer Night’s Dream…


        Report this

        00

  • #
    Credirt

    Hi there,

    I’m a noob, so apologies if re-asking old questions.
    I have a question for John Brookes, if possible:
    lets say all goes well in the ‘war on carbon’. How will we measure that we have beaten climate change? What will the climate be like? If temp starts to decrease, how will we know it hasn’t just ‘stalled’ or that reduced temps are due to man’s corrective interventions?

    Or is it all just about measuring carbon in the atmosphere – if that decreases, then we’re fine


    Report this

    00

    • #
      John Brookes

      I’ve thought about this a bit, and it is a worry. What if China realised that what was good for its climate was bad for the US? Would they do it anyway? Would the US retaliate?


      Report this

      11

      • #

        John, you’ll be relieved to know that very few people are potty enough to believe that world climate can be manipulated. Climate alarmism is about adherence to faction and to a set of beliefs – a very different thing from believing. We see rituals, fetishes, taboos and lavish temple offerings – but we do not see a reduction in CO2, nor any effort made in that direction. Some dispute this?

        Consider. Australia funds its whirlygigs and solar panels by gouging and exporting carbon. The people who buy that carbon are not using it for art installations. When we have to supplement our hopelessly inadequate whirlygigs and solar panels, we burn coal, albeit heavily taxed and very inefficiently in ancient facilities which waste up to 30% over new facilities.

        When we finally have to dismantle the whirlygigs, for example, a partial de-commissioning cost is about 15%, but you’re left with concrete and underground wiring over enormous areas. What do we need to help junk all the junk? We need to burn coal – in old clunkers, because the money that should have been spent on making our coal power gen the best in the world has been spent on…God, what do they spend that money on?

        To reduce CO2 we would need to do the same things people do with their computers and fridges and cars, whenever they have the money. We would need to buy new stuff. The fact that we are going to go on depending on coal, yet we have not renewed our coal power generation as a matter of extreme urgency, shows that nobody cares about the CO2. China builds modern coal facilities because it doesn’t think that wasting expensive coal is a good way bring down the USA – or a good way to achieve anything. What do you think?

        When the climatariat are rioting for new coal and new nukes, you’ll know they care. They won’t – and they don’t.


        Report this

        00

  • #

    And the ninth reason is that the greenhouse conjecture assumes a violation of the maximum entropy conditions of thermodynamics equilibrium, as necessitated by the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

    Standard Physics can easily be invoked to prove that the whole concept of WV and GHG supposedly jacking up the thermal gradient is false, because the thermal gradient would have been there anyway as a corollary of the Second Law of Thermodynamics as explained in just 10 minutes here.


    Report this

    20

  • #

    [...] more doubters: Eight reasons the Australian heatwave is not “climate change” Eight  reasons why this current heatwave is a boring, overhyped example of weather being used for [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Sawyer

    It seems to me that several of the discussion points provided here contradict each other. If heat waves are not an indicator of long term climate change, why bother even dredging up data on them? The graphs provided are merely adding noise to an issue that’s already saturated with it. In an attempt to stretch out her list Jo has only made things more confusing, at least for me. Can someone offer a clear explanation of whether heat waves are an objective measure of global climate trends?

    If mainstream news sources are overhyping this link do a BETTER job at explaining it, rather than making the same mistake in presenting the information.


    Report this

    00

    • #

      Actually, no, it is not possible to fully answer your question, Sawyer. Climate change is not based on science, but rather politics. If it’s convenient for the news media and the climate change people to use heat waves as evidence, then they count it. For years, a claim was made that weather and climate are different. Not so anymore unless it’s to the advantage of the AGW crowd. Technically, I believe the only VALID climate measurement accepted by AGW followers was the average global temperature. When that stopped going up, the heat waves, storms, etc were thrown in as evidence. Even blizzards became evidence of climate change and the “warming” was dropped. Since in 30 years, the science has gone from “ice age coming” to “heat wave coming” to “bad things are still coming” to “every variation in weather is now evidence humans have messed up the planet’s climate”, no, there is no clear definition. Even the definition of climate seems to have undergone revisions as needed.

      If we return to the original “average global temperature” definition, heat waves do not measure climate trends. Warmer summers, colder winters yield exactly the same global mean as somewhat warmer summers and somewhat colder winters. That was the problem with using the mean over hundreds of data points. As I have said before, melting the poles and freezing the equator can yield the same mean as frozen poles and hot equator. When you use a sledgehammer statistic to try and prove a point, it really proves very little. Heat waves are “dredged” up in these discussions because the media and AGW insist on using them as proof of something. As far as science itself, not AGW, is concerned, heat waves mean it’s hot. That’s all. (Mainstream news, at least that I have listened to and read, is not interested in accuracy, so they can present whatever explanation sounds good. Science is bound by accuracy.)

      Currently, all we know is the weather and the climate have both changed since the beginning of the earth. We do not know why, we cannot predict what changes will occur, and while people may find that disconcerting, it is what it is.


      Report this

      10

  • #
  • #
    skeppie

    Why the wonderment that there was an Australian record temperature and no records in Australian states or regions?. We even saw the tail pinned on Simpsons Paradox. It is a bit like wondering why your stock has not gone up when the All Ords has?. ( Technically it is about joint probabilities of events that are correlated but to some extent independent.) Anyway, it seems fairly obvious that if you want a consistent measure over time you would use an area average. It is then fairly easy in principle anyway to compute global area stats and come up with numbers like 10 of the warmest years on record have all occurred since 1997 according to NASA – cold comfort?- I should pause at that.


    Report this

    00

  • #