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



Australia’s Angry Hot Summer was hot angry hype– satellites show it was average

Lewis and Karoly 2013:  climate change is “likely” to blame for the hottest angry summer.

Did your air-conditioner make Australia the hottest angry summer ever? Could be. If we apply mystery-black-box-techniques to data from a few sparse thermometers averaged over thousands of square kilometers we can find a “record”. If we compare that “record” to  models that are known to be wrong, voila — then the coal fired power stations heated more than just your home, they heated the whole country.

On the other hand, if we use thousands of measurements from satellites that criss cross the nation day and night covering every corner of the land, we didn’t have a hot angry summer, we had a normal one. The Lewis and Karoly study is moot. If we caused a normal summer, is that so bad?

The not-angry-summer is visible with no statistical analysis.

According to UAH satellite measurements summer in early 2013 was not a record. Not even close.

Satellite records only go back to 1979, but to answer the question “was this the hottest ever summer” we only need records back as far as 2010.

The peer reviewed, comprehensive, Lewis and Karoly paper does not contain the words “satellite”,  or “UAH”. Lewis and Karoly apparently do not know about the UAH satellite program yet, otherwise they surely would have emailed John Christy or Roy Spencer (as we did) to ask for the data. We can only hope that they get enough government support, more funding, and better education in future so that they may discover what unpaid volunteers figured out on the Internet for free 3 months ago. Frankly it is shameful that the Australian Research Council (ARC) Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science is not connected to the world wide web and has not trained staff to use “google”.

How good are those surface records?

The AWAP records from ground based thermometers are based on a method that still has not been made public. What we do know is that there were 700-800 sites (strange how the actual number so hard to state). As far as we can tell, less than half of those were operating in the 1930s and 1940s when we had our last major heat waves, and hardly any were measuring the temperatures of the hottest bits central Australia (see the black dots on the map). There are gaps of 1,000km between thermometers. Lewis and Karoly compare the latest heat wave to the average for 1910-1940, yet in 1910 there are only 16 thermometers covering 7.6 million square kilometers. Half a million square kilometers per thermometer?

There were not many long term sites (in black dots) in the centre of Australia in 1930.

Abstract

[1] Anthropogenic contributions to the record hot 2013 Australian summer are investigated using a suite of climate model experiments. This was the hottest Australian summer in the observational record. Australian area-average summer temperatures for simulations with natural forcings only were compared to simulations with anthropogenic and natural forcings for the period 1976–2005 and the RCP8.5 high emission simulation (2006–2020) from nine CMIP5 models. Using fraction of attributable risk to compare the likelihood of extreme Australian summer temperatures between the experiments, it was very likely (>90% confidence) there was at least a 2.5 times increase in the odds of extreme heat due to human influences using simulations to 2005, and a five-fold increase in this risk using simulations for 2006–2020. The human contribution to the increased odds of Australian summer extremes like 2013 was substantial, while natural climate variations alone, including El Niño Southern Oscillation, are unlikely to explain the record temperature.

If the satellites showed that the last Australian summer was hot, would Sophie Lewis and David Karoly have left them off the paper?

REFERENCE

Lewis, S., and Karoly, D. (2013) Anthropogenic contributions to Australia’s record summer temperatures of 2013 , Geophysical Research Letters (GRL), DOI: 10.1002/grl.50673  [Abstract]

The graph data comes thanks to John Christy, Director, Earth System Science Center, Distinguished Professor, Atmospheric Science University of Alabama in Huntsville, Alabama State Climatologist and Roy Spencer. It was graphed by Ken Stewart at KensKingdom, and inspired by Tom Quirk at Quadrant.

  See my tweets @JoanneNova and share ideas with Facebook

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.2/10 (74 votes cast)
Australia's Angry Hot Summer was hot angry hype-- satellites show it was average, 9.2 out of 10 based on 74 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/oa3ec6b

211 comments to Australia’s Angry Hot Summer was hot angry hype– satellites show it was average

  • #
    turnedoutnice

    Briffa has corrected his part of the record, financed by UK Government: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/28/hey-ya-mal-mcintyre-was-right-cru-abandons-yamal-superstick/

    So, will your climate fraudsters head for recovery and honourable retirement, or will they go down with the ship like Hansen?

    Hope they know how to swim. It’s time these unprofessional scum got shafted – there are plenty of honest people out there.


    Report this

    482

    • #
      Streetcred

      “Briffa has [quietly] corrected his part of the record … “


      Report this

      40

    • #
      Tim

      The formula:
      Produce a specious, experimental theory on the profitable subject of CAGW.
      Ensure the conclusions are simple enough for the average punter to understand.
      Release it globally to the MSM on a fear-based, call-to-urgent-action theme.
      The sceptical truthers will eventually then find the flaws. (This will be expected.)
      Quietly retract/amend the theory through small, specific media after a period.

      The horse has bolted, the grant money’s in and the populace propagandised. Job done.


      Report this

      50

  • #
    thingodonta

    No mention of the sun of course. Solar activity peaked in the late 20th century, we have a few decades heat lag, and now we are in a warm afternoon. Big deal, cool night coming, as solar activity is waning again. C02 has very little effect.

    More detail:

    In the late 20th century solar activity peaked (some say around 1985, others a little earlier), after rising for >100 years from the mid 1800s. The Australian Academy of Science is aware of this, but state that this solar increase only caused around 10% of observed warming since ~1850 since the output increase from the sun was only small, and does not account for very late 20th century warming, since solar activity declined from around the mid 20th century, whilst the temperatures kept rising for a few more decades.

    However, they take no account of heat lag affects, such as: every day peak temperatures occur a few hours AFTER the solar max around noon, and every summer peak temperatures occur about 6 weeks AFTER the solar max. on the summer solstice, when incoming rays are strongest. This is provable, observable, and there is no argument. There is a significant heat lag. The same applied to solar activity on multi-decadal scales from ~1850, means there will be a heat lag of a few decades after maximum solar output; one paper by Usoskin gives around 20 years from a review of solar activity over the last 1000 years or so. Applying this, we should get a peak of temperature after the maximum solar output in 1985 around 2005, which is pretty much what we see.

    On top of this, we have to integrate the PDO -Pacific Decadal oscillation, which dominates world temperatures. It was in a warm phase from around 1975-2005, and has now turned negative again, like it did in the mid 20th century from around 1945-1975. The correlation of the PDO with world temperatures trends is excellent, although it does not produce the long term warming, which is largely from the sun. As it is now in a cool phase, temperatures will begin declining again, more so because the sun is also now in decline. C02 has little overall effect.

    All this is ignored of course. The Australian Academy of Science states that it does not even know why the temperatures rose from ~1910-1940, even though solar activity increased during this time. They take no account of this increased solar activity on clouds (e.g. a sunny day burns off low level/morning clouds and makes it even warmer-increasing the effect of solar output), and no account of heat lag effects in the oceans, delaying the max effect of solar activity around 1985 until into the early 21st century. They just blame all the warming on C02.

    When the temperatures fall in the next few decades, and show c02 has had very little effect, someone please point out to these eminent scientists that every day, max. temperatures normally occur well after noon when solar rays are at the strongest, and this extends out to multi-decadal time scales with the oceans and the sun, its so simple even a child could understand it.


    Report this

    331

  • #
    onomicDennis

    Warragamba Dam in Sydney is now overflowing, no doubt Tim Flannery who lives downstream will be worrying about minor flooding of his two waterfront properties.


    Report this

    170

    • #
      AndyG55

      If an east-coast low take a big dump, of rain, in the Warragamba catchment, and there is enough water to blow the fuse plug on the new slipway, Flannery will get exactly what he deserves.
      He’ll be a couple of meters under water and I’ll just LAUGH !!


      Report this

      120

  • #

    Great post Jo. Short and to the point.


    Report this

    120

  • #
    AndyG55

    Willis has a post up on WUWT about the ACORN data.

    One wonders how trustworthy that data is, given the issues he found with a quick check, that should have been done by BOM


    Report this

    90

  • #
    AndyG55

    And you also have to remember that the Australian data has been manifestly “adjusted” in line with GUSS and HadCrud, by one of Phil Jones’ protégés.

    Any BOM average daily, monthly or whatever, from pre-1979 is basically meaningless for comparison.

    The only mostly reliable data set is the post-1979 satellite data.


    Report this

    140

    • #

      Yes, I question the data behind the supposed runaway hockey stick warming of the 20th century. Let’s see, we have the oceans pretty much ignored, the ubran heat effect, we have the inexplicable retirement of rural temperature stations, and a host of adjustments and manipulations that always favor the warmist position. Looking at the heat wave that has at this moment has hit the western U.S. I had this Real Science comment:

      And speaking of hot…
      Yesterday it hit 125°f in Death Valley.
      That is hot, but it is still a far cry from the 134f (56.7c) world record set also in Death Valley in 1913. Even 129 would be far off the record, but 129 was forecast by some and it didn’t happen. The 134°F record was set in 1913, and now after a 100 years of “data” showing runaway hockey stick warming we should be seeing that 134 record passed virtually every hot summer day.
      But no.
      Here we are in a “historic” heat wave that Drudge has been spending days headlining like it’s the apocalypse, and we’re still 9 degrees short of the record! This doesn’t add up as far as the hockey stick warming theory. The 1913 record still stands, like the American flag still stood after the battle of New Orleans or whatever.
      And another thing. What about that gd sea level! If things had been getting more boiling for a hundred years and the glacial and polar ice had been melting like an ice cube on a sizzling Mexican hot plate the sea would have risen substantially, and the Malibu celebrity mansions would been long submerged. But the beach front estates look out upon a beach that’s just exactly as it was 40 years ago. Insane is the rubbish that the fear mongering Chicken Littles keep spewing out.


      Report this

      80

  • #
    tckev

    But Jo you have not understood –

    This is not just a normal, this is an unprecedented extreme normal completely out of the bounds of normality normal and requires, no demands, the UTMOST HYPE that all MSM outlets can give it.

    /sarcoff


    Report this

    180

    • #

      Gasp! It’s worse than we thought. Clearly:

      1. We must expand the size of government by an order of magnitude.
      2. We must increase taxes on anything that moves, breaths, or uses the slightest amount of energy from any source.
      3. We must cancel the industrial and technological revolutions and return to a pre-stone-age style of living.
      4. We must not complain as we are freezing or starving to death or dying of things once easy to cure. After all, the earth must be preserved at all costs.
      5. To guarantee that 1 to 4 happens we must be placed under the total dictatorial control of the UN and must ask permission before we do anything – including asking permission to do anything.

      The unthinkable alternative is to defund the UN and all the so called green initiatives at any level of government. Then do absolutely nothing but get on with living our lives as free individuals. But this alternative is much too extreme and is, therefor, as unacceptable as our extremely normal climate.

      We must absolutely avoid all extremes otherwise we might be risking an unmentionable catastrophe: living life as free and self responsible human beings freely exchanging value for value. This is the most extreme form of Capitalism who’s primary fault is that is actually works and supports the flourishing lives of real humans and leaves the parasites and wannabe dictators among us powerless. I ask you: is that fair?


      Report this

      190

    • #

      It’s extremely normal, another “extreme weather event,” proof of global warming climate change.


      Report this

      20

  • #
    Other_Andy

    They state: “This was the hottest Australian summer in the observational record.”

    The graph on the top show it isn’t.

    What am I missing?


    Report this

    111

    • #
      John Brookes

      They were talking about surface temperatures, measured at the surface. The graph is from the satellite record, and presumably shows the lower troposphere temperatures, which is not the same thing as the surface temperature.

      So it is unsurprising that a graph of one thing does not support a statement about another thing.


      Report this

      729

      • #
        Eddy Aruda

        John,

        Do you ever tire of embarrassing yourself? How many times must I admonish you to think before you push the Post Comment button?

        Allow me to aid you in your unquenchable pursuit of the truth. Please read the following term paper and if you want to do some real research then study the references at the bottom of the following term paper: http://www.geo.utexas.edu/courses/387h/PAPERS/Term%20paper-Sun.pdf

        The NOAA polar-orbiting satellites have unique advantages for the LST [land surface temperature] dataset development because of a long observation period, global coverage, easy data access, an abundance of excellent research, and operational efforts to promote a retrieval process of the highest quality possible. NOAA’s AVHRR uses thermal infrared channels to measure the radiative emission of the SURFACE.

        The all caps of surface was mine.

        Happy reading, John!


        Report this

        326

        • #
          Nice One

          Fail Eddy. UAH is not NOAA LST.


          Report this

          512

          • #
            cohenite

            Is there a point to your comment that UAH is not NOAA LST?


            Report this

            74

          • #
            Eddy Aruda

            Fail Eddy. UAH is not NOAA LST.

            A straw man as I never wrote that. The paper and the quote were about how satellites measure temperatures. You may have known that had you linked to the paper. I suppose that trolls don’t want to read anything that might challenge their CAGW delusion?


            Report this

            74

            • #
              Nice One

              Joanne’s graph is of UAH. Sorry if that confused you.


              Report this

              42

            • #
              Eddy Aruda

              Not so smart one writes

              UAH is a set of ATMOSPHERIC TEMPERATURES.

              UAH provide data on three broad levels of the ATMOSPHERE.

              Indeed.

              From your link

              UAH provide data on three broad levels of the atmosphere.
              The Lower troposphere – TLT (originally called T2LT).
              The mid troposphere – TMT
              The lower stratosphere – TLS[3]

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troposphere
              The lowest part of the troposphere, where friction with the Earth’s surface influences air flow, is the planetary boundary layer.

              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_temperature_measurements
              The temperature of the atmosphere at various altitudes as well as sea and land surface temperatures can be inferred from satellite measurements.

              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Microwave_Sounding_Unit
              Level-2 geophysical data from AMSU include:
              Temperature profile from 3 mbar (45 km) to the surface

              http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/
              As of September 2012, the Advanced Microwave Sounding Unit (AMSU-A) flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite has been removed from the processing due to spurious warming and replaced by the average of the NOAA-15 and NOAA-18 AMSUs.

              UAH uses data from satellites to determine both land surface temperatures and sea surface temperatures. it is a lot more accurate than thermometers taken at the surface because the coverage is global and not subject to the kinds of adjustments made by the likes of Hansen which always show the past as cooler and the recent years as warmer.

              Put simply, the satellites use measurements of the atmosphere to determine the temperature of both land and sea SURFACE temps.

              I await your inane and vapid response.


              Report this

              59

              • #
                Nice One

                You omitted this part:

                The average depth of the troposphere is approximately 17 km (11 mi) in the middle latitudes. It is deeper in the tropics, up to 20 km (12 mi), and shallower near the polar regions, at 7 km (4.3 mi) in summer, and indistinct in winter.

                The troposphere includes much more than just the boundary layer.

                UAH uses data from satellites to determine both land surface temperatures and sea surface temperatures.

                And the ATMOSPHERE. You forgot the part where you demonstrate how the UAH data used here is ONLY surface data.

                You also need to correct Joanne’s understanding. Here she says that UAH represents the atmosphere when trying to tell us the hotspot isn’t there (or not as strong as models predict).

                As for your reference to AMSU, I noticed you also failed to mention the failure of the near-surface channel in 2011.

                http://ghrc.nsstc.nasa.gov/amsutemps/amsutemps.pl?r=001

                Whoops! Says a lot about you.


                Report this

                93

              • #

                Nice One, it appears in your comment that you don’t realize there are different bands of satellite data referred to as UAH in different posts, but that would be too basic an error even for you, so I’ll assume instead that you just didn’t explain yourself well enough. You can try again. But you do realize it’s a losing game arguing that the UAH record would underestimate the warming last summer? (Is that what you are trying to do?). The UAH channel in this post matched the BOM data well in most summers (just not the last one) so it’s the right channel. Plus the troposphere is supposed to show even more warming (trendwise) that the surface. According to the models the trends in the mid or upper troposphere satellite data would be over-estimating the surface warming not underestimating.


                Report this

                99

              • #
                Eddy Aruda

                Not so smart one, you really are an embarrassment to trolls around the world. You find yourself in a hole and you keep digging! The satellites give us an accurate reading of the surface temperature. The fact that they also measure other parts of the atmosphere is irrelevant. You then introduced a red herring about “Jo’s understanding” and, with poetic justice, Jo took you to the woodshed and gave you an intellectual spanking that you, as a troll who wastes valuable oxygen that somebody else could be breathing, so righteously deserved.

                Keep digging!


                Report this

                510

              • #
                Nice One

                @Eddy, your whole post is nothing but insults; says more about you than it does about me. But that’s also typical of someone with no answers.

                @Jo.

                Nice One, it appears in your comment that you don’t realize there are different bands of satellite data referred to as UAH in different posts, but that would be too basic an error even for you, so I’ll assume instead that you just didn’t explain yourself well enough.

                I’ll have to assume you didn’t read my post very carefully. I am aware of the different channels because in my previous post I pointed out that the AMSU channel for the NEAR SURFACE failed in 2011. You and Eddy have failed to prove that the UAH data YOU are using is taken from satellites channels that ONLY measure the NEAR SURFACE temperatures.

                But you do realize it’s a losing game arguing that the UAH record would underestimate the warming last summer? (Is that what you are trying to do?)

                Lucky then I am not trying to make that point, because for that to be relevant we’d need to be comparing Global Trends, not just 3 months over less than 2% of the planet’s surface.

                My argument is that what you are showing IS NOT SURFACE TEMPERATURES so of course it will be different to what the BOM found.

                The UAH channel in this post matched the BOM data well in most summers (just not the last one) so it’s the right channel.

                The UAH record of TROPOSHPERIC TEMPERATURES will also TREND very closely with SURFACE temps. Your graph here is showing ANOMALIES and you would expect that TROPOSHPERIC TEMPERATURES will have similar ANOMALIES to SURFACE TEMPS.

                Now, as to what you are using; seeing as you’re incapable of supporting your argument, I’ll do the dirty work for you. As I pointed out earlier, UAH has three ATMOSPHERIC datasets, the lowest elevation set is called “The Lower troposphere – TLT (originally called T2LT).” T2LT, now why does that ring a bell?

                Because it’s the set of data used by Ken Stewart (and hence your post too Jo), specifically the file: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt

                Note the T2LT in the URL? The data is for the LOWER TROPOSPHERE, not surface, not near surface, not the same as the surface measurements made by the BOM.

                You are NOT showing SURFACE TEMPERATURES. Game. Set. Match. Thankyou ballboys, thankyou linesmen, thankyou Jo and Eddy for showing off your ignorance. It’s been FUN!


                Report this

                124

              • #

                This comment by nice one, maybe minus the foolish triumphalism, seems to me to require an answer if not an adjustment to the blog’s claims. Jo’s and certainly not Eddy’s comments earlier do not address the issue of the vlidity of comparing surface thermometers with air column measurements by sattelites.


                Report this

                31

              • #
                Nice One

                Jo and Eddy’s replies stopped since my last post. Embarrasment? Reluctance to acknowledge they, and Ken are wrong?

                Even other climate “skeptics” say the file Joanne uses is for the lower troposphere.

                CO2Science

                In contrast to the GHCN and Jones et al. temperature data sets that represent temperatures at about 2 meters above the earth’s surface, the MSU data set represent the temperatures of a layer of the atmosphere that extends from the surface to approximately 8 kilometers (5 miles) above the surface.

                Roger Pieke also mentions this file specifically and that it represents the Lower Troposphere.

                The satellite-based instruments measure the temperature of the atmosphere from the surface up to an altitude of about eight kilometers above sea level.


                Report this

                60

              • #

                Nice One, you won’t believe this, but the world doesn’t revolve around you. You raise a non-point on an old thread and expect us to keep checking?

                Everyone uses UAH t2lt to compare trends with surface data sets — skeptical science, Real Climate, Foster & Rahmstorf. The anomaly trends are very similar. Try to imagine how Australia could set record surface temperatures but not warm the air above it? Then remember the point I keep making over and over about how your 90%-certain-models insist that tropospheric trends will be larger than the surface ones. See this graph, and if you still think these data sets aren’t supposed to be comparable, explain the game set and match stuff to Foster and Rahmsdorf. OK.

                It’s quite fair to use UAH to represent temperature changes over Australia — indeed, it’s not just fair, but it’s better than using inexplicable adjustments on non-randomly spaced thermometers in moveable locations which have to be averaged over larger and larger areas as the records drop off until you are left with just 16 thermometers across 7 million sq kilometers in 1910.

                As the for the comment you made above that, in your excitement you contradict yourself. First up you explain why the UAH set won’t match the BOM:
                My argument is that what you are showing IS NOT SURFACE TEMPERATURES so of course it will be different to what the BOM found.
                Then right after that you say the trends and anomalies will be very similar:
                The UAH record of TROPOSHPERIC TEMPERATURES will also TREND very closely with SURFACE temps. Your graph here is showing ANOMALIES and you would expect that TROPOSHPERIC TEMPERATURES will have similar ANOMALIES to SURFACE TEMPS.

                No wonder we don’t hang off your every comment, nor get too excited when you win tennis with yourself.


                Report this

                48

              • #
                Nice One

                Jo, you said:

                “The UAH channel in this post matched the BOM data well in most summers (just not the last one) so it’s the right channel.”

                Now, after I have gone to lengths to clarify that the temps you are using are for the entire lower troposphere, Jo says:

                My argument is that what you are showing IS NOT SURFACE TEMPERATURES so of course it will be different to what the BOM found.

                So you should correct your post and stop misleading people. Your post should say that the lower troposphere for the past summer was not much higher than average, but that shouldn’t be confused with surface temps.

                I hope you are no longer confused.


                Report this

                83

              • #

                I was never confused. The BOM is misleading people, not me. Your statement that lower tropospheric temperatures are not surface temperatures and “of course” will be different, is wrong almost every year. Most of the time the anomaly and the trends are very much the same.

                Karoly et al are misinforming the public by not mentioning the uncertainties in their system, by not releasing the full methods and data, and by pretending that the satellites are not worth even considering. It seems they lie by omission, pretending that the “hottest summer” was an indisputable fact when it’s more likely that the summer was average and their complex black box system based on inadequate measurements is exaggerating the temperature.

                PS: nice the way you yell at me all the time. You still haven’t got that therapy I keep suggesting?

                PPS: please try to write sentences that make sense, you quote yourself above but attribute it to me. Are you being dishonest, or just inept?


                Report this

                57

              • #
                Nice One

                Your statement that lower tropospheric temperatures are not surface temperatures and “of course” will be different, is wrong almost every year. Most of the time the anomaly and the trends are very much the same.

                Wrong.

                http://woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:2012/plot/uah/from:2012

                The anomalies may be similar, but they do not necessarily match, nor do they rise to new records at the same time.

                If you think the BOM have lied by not explaining every little detail, then you are worse than them for deliberately misleading your readers. Poor Eddy thought the UAH data was surface temps (so did you by the looks of things).

                Hopefully YELLING AT YOU helps get the message across.

                PS: The SURFACE TEMPS in Australia set a NEW RECORD FOR SUMMER, even though the LOWER TROPOSPHERE did not.

                PPS: Learn to blockquote and construct a CLEAR message.


                Report this

                82

          • #
            Peter C

            Nice One and Gee Aye

            I agree with you.

            I looked up the Roy Spencer Web Site today and I was not at all sure what the UAH global temperatures show. Apparently some sort of Microwave emmission of O2. No doubt this is supported by a paper and I did see a reference for Roy.

            Jo might respond with a blog about atmospheric vs surface temperatures.

            Will be quite a bit of work but I hope she does. There must be someone who has altready studied these things


            Report this

            10

      • #
        Backslider

        Welcome back John….. how was the skiing?


        Report this

        62

      • #
        Backslider

        So tell me John, was your air conditioner overworked this past summer…. more than any other? I know that your aircon is a great measure of global warming :-)


        Report this

        30

      • #
        GreensInCharge

        Forgive my unfamiliarity with such matters, but how does the satellite see the temperature when some of the IR is being blocked by the CO2 ?


        Report this

        12

        • #
          Backslider

          some of the IR is being blocked by the CO2

          Well gee whiz… and just how much then do you think is “blocked” by water vapor?

          Try Google with “AVHRR”…. you might learn something (even though we all know you are trolling).


          Report this

          51

        • #
          Duster

          Another way to think of it is that to the contrary, the CO2 absorption potential is saturated. It can’t stop any more LIR than it does at the moment, and when it remits that radiation, it only can stimulate a lower energy-state molecule capable of absorbing that specific wavelength. If no such molecule is in the way, the photon continues on its merry way. And, all of this photon movement between molecules has to take place at the speed of light. Light departing the earth’s surface takes about 1.667 1/10^4 seconds to reach the stratopause 50,000 meters above the surface. That is, if that photon doesn’t encounter an unexcited molecule within 1.667 1/10,000s of a second – or less, it’s gone, off to visit the outer reaches of the universe. So, a satellite could and does see all the departing radiation that heads its way, and that radiation is directly proportional to the body emitting it. Outgoing radiation, contrary to the more excitable types that are worried about CAGW, is not “blocked” by CO2, merely, very slightly delayed.


          Report this

          10

          • #
            Backslider

            CO2 absorption potential is saturated

            This is a good one for the warmists – if its saturated, then adding more CO2 will do what?


            Report this

            10

        • #
          Geoffrey Cousens

          Is this an attempt at a joke?You need help.


          Report this

          00

    • #
      Coastal Col

      Other_Andy What am I missing?

      Let’s start with an appology from the “peer Reviewers” for ever letting such rubish be printed!
      Followed by a public statement from Lewis and Karoly admitting their work was bogus.
      Followed by a retraction of said bogus works.
      Followed by their letters of resignation.
      Followed by a front page spread in all the news papers.
      Followed by an exposay form 4corners and then real temperatures discussed accurately in Quantum.
      And finally we can all stand on the back porch and watch the little pink elephants fly into the setting sun!!


      Report this

      31

  • #
    Rick Bradford

    The other nice part of the Briffa climbdown was the witty suggestion that Steve McIntyre in 2009 and 2011 had plagiarised Briffa et al 2013 …..


    Report this

    220

  • #
    Chester

    Measuring surface temperature with in situ thermometers versus satellites. I wonder which would have the lower uncertainties?

    Jo publishes the satellite data but ignores the more accurate data, which doesn’t suit her cherry picking purposes.

    http://tamino.wordpress.com/2013/06/28/candy-from-a-baby/

    But, of course, when relying on the temps for picking a decade long trend in recent global temps it’s very reliable!

    You’re a very black kettle, Jo. Why are you trying to deceive people?


    Report this

    464

    • #

      The more accurate data? What more accurate data? I’ve already compared the satellites to the BOM records in a post three months ago (which I linked to above). Go see it there.

      As I explained and in links in the post, the BOM have not released their methods — it’s a mysterious black box. They have hardly any data from 100 years ago. They have very little data from central Australia, even today. The finding that it was the hottest summer depends entirely on the way they grid and weight the data. Why did they pick the AWAP data? Only a year ago the all new wonderous ACORN data was finally released but they are not using that? Not cherry picking data sets?

      Why do the satellite data not count at all? UAH global is accepted as accurate, why not UAH Australia?

      We have been asking the BOM for the methods and details since January. They are not available. No peer review possible yet.


      Report this

      665

    • #
      Andrew McRae

      Gotta hand it to the Chester,
      We can’t argue against an insubstantial argument.

      Tamino relies on the BoM, and the BoM violates Pournelle’s Second Law:
      “You can prove anything if you can keep your algorithms secret.”

      Also, just exactly how can there be a growing difference in trend between surface and LT temperatures when the origin of LT temperatures is hot air rising from the surface? That one needs some serious `splainin’.


      Report this

      110

    • #
      agwnonsense

      Wasn’t Chester a dog in a cartoon? It would explain a few things.<:)


      Report this

      31

  • #
    Chester

    Gotta protect the family business eh, Jo.


    Report this

    255

  • #
    Geoff Sherrington

    If you go to
    http://e.bom.gov.au/link/id/zzzz511c1e9ea3591734Pzzzz4ee7f0fe97f87717/page.html
    you will find a map by BoM that has a caption “Some places had average maximum temperatures in summer 2012–13 more than 3 °C above normal.”
    When you look at the colour code, you realise that ‘some places’ is two tiny spots, roughly coincident with Innamincka and Glengyle airport, both near the border join where SA juts into Qld.
    What we are not told is:
    1. Which of the 4 or more available BoM temperature versions was used?
    2. How long did the hot time above normal plus 3 degrees last? A few minutes, a few days, or what?
    3. What actual temperature was measured on each relevant day, to allow the contours to be drawn?
    4. What was the radius of the search shape run over the data to generate the contours?
    5. What is the name and number of the stations within the two tiny bullseyes? Are their data available to the public?
    6. What function was used to account for the distance weighting when moving from one site to another? Was it inverse square, linear, what?
    7. From whence was the weighting function derived?
    8. IMPORTANTLY, what error is associated with each of the temperatures stated to be 3 degrees or more above normal; and what errors bound the curve that shows the ‘normal’ response?
    ………………..

    It is understood that the article might be written to be readable by “the man on the Fulham bus”, but this is too simple for even school children. Let’s have some tight science, rather than vague press release styles, please.


    Report this

    330

    • #
      Stephen Harper

      Geoff. You have made some very astute observations and asked questions that, if answered, would destroy the liars’ thesis. Thus they will not answer.
      Incidentally, that would be the “reasonable man on the Clapham omnibus”.


      Report this

      80

    • #
      Ted O'Brien.

      Geoff. This is hardly science, just personal observation.

      I spent my life working outdoors. On a hot day with wind blowing, you can get hit with a “blast” of seemingly much hotter air.

      Also, on a cold night, there are substantial variations in temperature from place to place, especially with even small changes in altitude.

      I would expect, if I had a thermometer which records intantly changes in temperature, that air temperatures are far from homogenous, even with a wind blowing.


      Report this

      00

  • #

    Excellent Jo. A pity Karoly and Lewis didn’t explain why the 2012 winter was the coldest since 1983, or why 2012 had the 36th warmest mean on record- according to ACORN. Or why there has been no warming in Australia for 18 years. Or why BOM selectively switches between ACORN and AWAP depending on which gives the scariest results.


    Report this

    390

  • #

    Either they’re ignorant of the existence of a better data set or are just being deceptive. My money’s on the latter.

    “But the deeper truth is that when it came down to them, it was never really about the science. For such little men it was always about ego tripping, power and above all money. The political activists saw them for what they really were and simply pimped them out on the mean streets of power.”

    http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2013/06/28/know-your-enemy-the-alarmist-scientist/

    Pointman


    Report this

    220

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      Pointman,

      I suspect that an even deeper truth is that the grunt work involved in preparing these reports will be done by unidentifiable clerical staff, who are just following a process without any real understanding of why they are doing what they do.

      The results will then be reviewed by the scientists who will ensure that “the expected results” are arrived at.

      Should “the expected results” be shown to be in error, at any time in the future, the blame can be deflected onto “the process”, or onto “clerical errors”, rather than questioning the science itself.

      In such ways, all of the people are protected, and the myth continues.


      Report this

      90

  • #
    Peter Miller

    We have to remember that satellite records, like the geological record, cannot be homogenised/fixed/manipulated etc. by those either with alarmist leading tendencies, or by those who have employment concerns once the global warming/climate change scare is deservedly dumped into the dustbin of history.

    Australia’s BOM deservedly has a lamentable reputation for record keeping and data manipulation. In the BOM’s opinion, something was obviously needed to rekindle the public’s interest in the climate scare, hence “Australia’s angry hot summer.”

    Real scientists would have obviously checked the satellite record first before coming out with such an emotion charged headline – the fact the BOM did not, speaks volumes about its competency and dedication to truth and accuracy.

    Purely in the interest of being unnecessarily controversial and provocative, the question perhaps needs to be asked: Does the BOM employ an abnormally large number of the ancestors of those sent to Australia at ‘His, or Her, Britannic Majesty’s Pleasure’?


    Report this

    181

  • #
    manalive

    It’s hardly surprising that they find “human influences” when they must assume what they are to reach conclusion that they find “human influences” — I’m getting dizzy.


    Report this

    50

  • #
    Another Ian

    Jo,

    Check out Willis’s latest at WUWT


    Report this

    20

  • #
    lmwd

    Thank you Jo.
    I was going to ask about this on the last thread as I read it in The Australian today. Someone should let Graham Lloyd know so that he can do a follow up piece.

    This is the problem. We have science by media release with big doomsday headlines, but when it turns out to be a result of shonky methods (bless Steve McIntyre) there are no big front page headlines, rarely a retraction and certainly not the apology from the scientists in question that we are owed. What do they care? They got the outcome they wanted. It’s a mass-brainwashing exercise.

    What does everyone think of this ABC science watch-dog too BTW?

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/media/science-watchdog-to-keep-eye-on-abc/story-e6frg996-1226671649449

    Carter seems to be endorsing it but I have my reservations as some have talked about dangerous counter views (I read that as us dangerous skeptics). I’m wondering if it is just another way of shutting down anyone who dares to critique the ‘consensus view’ (based on that appallingly flawed piece of research giving us the 97% if scientists agree stat BS) even if that (artificial) consensus is driven by Govt funding (who stand to gain through taxes) and science based on shonky methodology and a corrupted peer review system.

    Snouts in troughs is all I can say.


    Report this

    110

    • #
      John Brookes

      This is the problem. We have science by media release with big doomsday headlines, but when it turns out to be a result of shonky methods (bless Steve McIntyre) there are no big front page headlines, rarely a retraction and certainly not the apology from the scientists in question that we are owed. What do they care? They got the outcome they wanted. It’s a mass-brainwashing exercise.

      The obvious reason is that it is the criticism that is wrong, not the original article, and therefore no retraction is necessary. Sometimes the obvious answer is correct…


      Report this

      243

      • #
        Eddy Aruda

        The obvious reason is that it is the criticism that is wrong, not the original article, and therefore no retraction is necessary. Sometimes the obvious answer is correct…

        Really?

        Allow me to give you another example of how F#&ked up the charlatanologists cliimatologists really are. Do you remember when the propaganda artists at Realclimate blasted Steve McIntyre for his criticism of Keith “one tree” Briffa’s Yamal paper?

        Well, it turns out McIntyre was right and the ass covering folks at the CRU have a new rendition, Briffa, et al 2013. It is eerily similar to what McIntyre has been saying all along.

        Read it and weep, John! http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/28/hey-ya-mal-mcintyre-was-right-cru-abandons-yamal-superstick/#more-88959


        Report this

        301

      • #
        Neville

        And sometimes, _M_I_S_T_E_R_ Brooks, certain post-facto comments designed to mislead and obfuscate with more than slightly ad hominem overtones are the REAL things that are “wrong”. Since the “media release with big doomsday headlines” was clearly – objectively – incorrect, then the criticism is justified. Your brand of troll-ism is quite well-known here; I suggest you quietly retire from this debate and go have a friendly coffee with one of the 97% who (apparently) concur with your (apparently) religiously-inclined ideology.


        Report this

        181

      • #
        AndyG55

        Looks like Brookes is even further behind the science than he was before..

        and gees, is that saying something !!!

        Regression, back to primary school for you soon, Brooksy..
        start from scratch, an empty mind. !


        Report this

        100

      • #
        Otter

        It has been obvious for a long time, brooksie, that temperatures have NOT been rising.

        btw, how goes you god’s lawsuit against Dr Ball?


        Report this

        50

      • #
        Duster

        Nothing like argument from ignorance is there? It keeps the pristine mind – ah – pristine, and disguises the flavor of old socks. The current (2013) rendition of the dendro-curve used by CRU is a PRECISE match to McIntyre’s 2009 curve. In fact, McIntyre’s is now very, very slightly warmer. Were it not for the precision of the match, there would be no time-travel humour concerning Steve’s 2009 plagiarism of CRU 2013. The criticism was not therefor wrong. RA and CRU were in the wrong.

        http://climateaudit.org/2013/06/28/cru-abandons-yamal-superstick/#more-18040


        Report this

        10

  • #
    MadJak

    Spoiler alert,

    It’s just so much less attention grabbing when you report on things that actually happen rather than what you hope is happening.

    How on earth could one justify a $200,000,000/year department of climate change if the media were only reporting on actual events?


    Report this

    190

  • #
    Joe Lalonde

    Jo,

    Funny how the ocean surface salt changes have NEVER been in consideration…
    The equatorial regions are experiencing increased salt levels which would effect evaporation patterns and generate a dryer area while the further latitudes are experiencing fresher water which is showing to have greatly increased the current precipitation.
    Previously blamed on global warming but if that were the case…in experimenting with evaporating water from a pot, it would take a vast amount of water loss to increase salt levels.

    So, it must be pressure differences that we are not measuring. We measure pressure and adjust for altitude but that is not actually checking the differences and adjusting for heat and cold density differences.

    Just my opinion… :-)


    Report this

    20

  • #
    Carbon500

    ‘A suite of climate model experiments’?
    How can playing about with a set of calculations (i.e. a climate ‘model’) be termed an experiment?
    The brave new BS world of modern meteorology!
    Clearly the Russian scientist who said that CAGW was something dreamed up by people who worked in offices and who should get out more was correct.


    Report this

    130

  • #
    pat

    apologies for o/t, but i’m at wimbledon (in my mind, but on my couch) and i just can’t resist pointing out what climate SCIENCE sceptics are up against!

    29 June: Canberra Times: Sarah Whyte: ‘Cool’ Kevin brings out the fans
    Braving the wintry weather, locals flocked to see Rudd as if he were a Messiah…
    http://www.canberratimes.com.au/opinion/political-news/cool-kevin-brings-out-the-fans-20130629-2p3p9.html

    Jonathan, who writes almost exclusively about Labor (see his journalisted entry) for the conservative Tele, likes the “messiah” reference so much, he gives it two mentions:

    29 June: UK Telegraph: Jonathan Pearlman: Rudd comeback gives Australia’s ruling Labor party a popularity boost
    Kevin Rudd’s spectacular “Messiah-like” comeback as Australian prime minister has given the ruling Labor party a dramatic boost and highlighted the extent of Julia Gillard’s unpopularity, especially amongst the nation’s men
    Young mothers thrust their babies in his arms, cars honked their horns and teenagers posed with him for photographs on their smartphones and insisted he was “cool”. The town “flocked to see Rudd as if he were a Messiah”, reported the local media…
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/10149934/Rudd-comeback-gives-Australias-ruling-Labor-party-a-popularity-boost.html

    u will find “kevin the messiah” in a number of stories from way back:

    August 2010; /Australian: Pariah to messiah: Kevin Rudd’s back
    by Matthew Franklin and Sean Parnell
    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/pariah-to-messiah-kevin-rudds-back/story-fn59niix-1225901861659


    Report this

    30

  • #
    Fox from Melbourne

    Will here we go again. The BOM tried this back in January and Jo put them in there place back then just as she is doing now. Must have short memory’s at the BOM. I think this shows that they just do get it. In winter when it’s cold we want the weather to be hotter. We long for the return of the warm weather. We’re not afraid of the warmth we’re longing for it. So this new scare campaign where you just make stuff up and tell people its true or has happened needs to tweaked a bit. If not the next think the BOM will be tell us is that the weather is going to get really cold sometime in the middle of Summer. Just when we’ll all be looking forward for it to. Wow they must be geniuses at the BOM mustn’t they. If only they had to disclose how the come up with these prediction and disclose the same stuff that the Super funds have to. You know the past performance should draw attention (unambiguously and without reservation) to the fact that the past performance is not indicative of future performance. The same rule that ASIC make your Super Fund use I believe that rule or regulation is RG 234.87. All of the Climate Change Science is about past performance of the Climate and projecting it forward into the the near future. If a Fund manager did this and didn’t disclose ASIC would have them for breakfast. Why now the BOM one wonders ?


    Report this

    50

  • #
    wayne, s. Job

    The phantasy world of AGW /climate change/weird weather/angry summer has parallels in two other major scientific branches. The world of particle physics and quantum mechanics that has invented more imaginary friends than Lewis Carroll could ever poke a stick at.

    Then there are those wonderful imaginary people that pretend they understand the cosmos that of recent times have had to invent imaginary dark energy and dark matter to make the universe work.

    If your theory does not match the observations, adding imaginary friends to your equations does not solve the problem.

    Going back to square one and having a good think about it, is about the only advice I could give to all these scientists. P.S. Listen also to all those that dissent and have opposing theories.


    Report this

    90

  • #
    John Brookes

    The phantasy world of AGW /climate change/weird weather/angry summer has parallels in two other major scientific branches. The world of particle physics and quantum mechanics that has invented more imaginary friends than Lewis Carroll could ever poke a stick at.

    I read a book about the development of quantum physics recently. What a spectacular achievement it was. I was struck by the caution displayed as each new piece of the puzzle was suggested and tested. There is still debate today about the interpretation of quantum physics, but the formalism and the results are accepted and remarkably accurate.

    While Einstein is well known for his philosophical reservations (“God does not play dice”), his explanation of the photo-electric effect was one of the key steps in the development of quantum physics.


    Report this

    614

    • #
      Joe V.

      Marvelling at what is isn’t the same a worshiping what is known about it.


      Report this

      70

    • #
      Streetcred

      What a spectacular achievement it was

      That would be a spectacular achievement for you Brooksie … imagine, reading quantum physics, was it a fictional title by any chance, y’know something by Dan Brown maybe ?


      Report this

      60

    • #
      Backslider

      Lewis and Karoly (melodic chorus): “Professor Flannery! We have proved that it really was the hottest, angriest summer ever!!”

      Tim Flannery: “Well Gaia be praised! How did you do it??”

      Lewis and Karoly: “We use Climate Models and wonderful data from the BOM.”

      Tim Flannery: “But, but…. how ever did you show that it really was the hottest. I mean, what about 1895–1896 and 1909–1910 and 1911–1912 and 1913–1914 and 1920–1921 and and…..?

      Lewis and Karoly: “Oh, that was easy. We used adjusted data which shows that all of those were of no significance!”

      Tim Flannery: “Well done girls and boys! May Gaia bless you both abundantly…. here is a little something to give your hydroponics a real kick as my little reward.”

      Lewis and Karoly: “Oh thank your Professor Flannery! We’ll be sure to return the favor with a little bud.”

      Tim Flannery: “Hmmmm. But what if those rascally sceptics start saying nasty things?”

      Lewandowsky. “Don’t worry Timbo. I’ll just release another paper proving that they are all raving lunatics!”

      Tim Flannery: “Good stuff Lewey!”

      Lewandowsky: “Shit, I spilled my coffee! Janitor!!! Come and clean up this mess right away!”

      Brooksie: “Right away Professor Lewandosky, right away.”


      Report this

      40

    • #
      Peter Champness

      I might read that book John. Can you give title and author?


      Report this

      10

  • #
    Chris Schoneveld

    Could someone tell me where to find the satellite data that have the continent of Austraiia singled out. I have only seen graphs that are subdivided in latitudinal bands.


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Bruce

    You say, “The Lewis and Karoly study is moot.”

    Rubbish.

    It is wrong.

    Nothing new from him.


    Report this

    40

  • #
    Joe V.

    How is Lewis and Karoly different from Lewis Carroll ?
    Is one pretending not to be nonsense perhaps ?


    Report this

    30

  • #
    Jack F

    Confirms what Salby showed in the Australian after the Climate Commission’s scare mongering report “The Angry Summer”.

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opinion/last-summer-was-not-actually-angrier-than-other-summers/story-e6frgd0x-1226611988057


    Report this

    92

    • #
      John Brookes

      Salby? He has no credibility…


      Report this

      210

      • #
        Streetcred

        … and which warmista do you suggest have any threads of credibility, jb ? Salby is immensely credible, I suggest that you take the time to view his most recent address in Germany.


        Report this

        50

      • #
        Heywood

        Murry Salby? You mean the professor who has published multiple papers on atmospheric dynamics and climate has no credibility.

        It must be true, the university janitor said so.

        Nice Argumentum Ad Hominem…

        Care to cite some examples of why he isn’t credible? Or is it just because SkS says so?….


        Report this

        41

        • #
          crakar24

          Heywood,

          Isint it obvious? Lets look at the sordid past of one Murry Salby as he poses as a professor at the Maquarie University

          Professor Murry Salby – Teaching
          Atmospheric dynamics, the global circulation, organization of convection, atmosphere-ocean interaction, climate dynamics, radiative transfer and global energetics, aviation weather, space-time analysis of multivariate data, satellite observation, waves and instability, photochemistry of ozone.

          Professor Murry Salby – Research
          Atmospheric Dynamics : Planetary waves, transport of radiatively-active constitutents, global circulations, their influence on polar ozone, the organization of convection, and on the general circulation. Relationship to annular modes of climate change associated with the Arctic and Antarctic oscillations. Influence on precipitation systems and on the climatological distribution of precipitation. Feedback between the stratosphere and troposphere and its involvement in observed changes of climate.

          Variations of Climate: Changes of global temperature, ozone, and of precipitation associated with Australian drought. Relationship of such changes to contemporaneous changes of the Hadley and Brewer-Dobson circulations, cyclogenesis, and changes of the storm track. Relationship to changes of convection and sea surface temperature. Influence on climate of solar changes. Interannual changes of Arctic ozone and of the Antarctic ozone hole.

          Computer simulation of observed changes, in Mechanistic and Global Climate Models.

          Convective Processes : Organization of tropical convection, its interaction with the global circulation and oceans, and remote influence on the distribution of precipitation.

          Roles of cloud and precipitation in the global energy budget.

          The diurnal cycle and its involvement in signatures of climate change.

          Satellite Monitoring of Climate : Mapping of asynoptic measurements from multiple platforms, retrieval of the global circulation from tracer observations, retrieval of global precipitation from global cloud imagery.

          Professor Murry Salby – Publications

          Selected Articles
          Salby, M, 1981: Rossby normal modes in nonuniform background configurations. Part I: Simple fields. J. Atm. Sci. , 38 , 1803–1826.

          Salby, M, 1981: Rossby normal modes in nonuniform background configurations. Part II: Equinox and solstice conditions. J. Atmos. Sci. , 38 ,1827–1840.

          Salby, M, 1982: Sampling theory for asynoptic satellite observations.
          Part I: Spectra, resolution, and aliasing. J. Atm. Sci. , 39 , 2577–2600.

          Salby, M, 1982: Sampling theory for asynoptic satellite observations.
          Part II: Fast Fourier synoptic mapping. J. Atm. Sci. , 39 , 2601–2614.

          Salby, M, Hartmann, D., Bailey, P., and J. Gille, 1984: Evidence for equatorial Kelvin waves in Nimbus-7 LIMS. J. Atm. Sci. , 41 , 220–235.

          Salby, M, 1984: Survey of planetary-scale traveling waves: The state of theory and observations. Rev. Geophys. Space Phys. , 22 , 209–236. (Invited review).

          Salby, M, and R. Garcia, 1987: Transient response to localized episodic heating in the tropics. Part I: Excitation and short-time near-field behavior.

          J. Atm. Sci. , 44 , 458–498. Garcia, R., and M. Salby, 1987: Transient response to localized episodic heating in the tropics. Part II: Far-field behavior. J. Atmos. Sci. , 44 , 499–530.

          Salby, M, 1989: Climate monitoring from space: Asynoptic sampling considerations. J. Climate , 2 , 1091-1105, (Invited).

          Salby, M, P. Callaghan, and S. Solomon, and R. Garcia, 1990: Chemical fluctuations associated with vertically propagating equatorial Kelvin waves.

          J. Geophys. Res. , 95 , 20491 – 20505. Salby, M, H. Hendon, K. Woodberry, and K. Tanaka, 1991: Analysis of global cloud imagery from multiple satellites. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc. , 4 ,

          467–479 (cover). Salby, M, and P. Callaghan, 1993: Fluctuations in total ozone and their relationship to stratospheric air motions. J. Geophys. Res. , 98 , 2716–2727.

          Salby, M and M. Juckes, 1994: An algorithm for retrieving the circulation from satellite measurements of tracer behavior. J. Geophys. Res.,99, 1403-1417.

          Salby, M, and Hendon, H., 1994: Intraseasonal behavior of clouds, temperature, and motion in the tropics. J. Atmos. Sci , 51 , 2207-2224.

          Hendon, H. and M Salby, 1994: The life cycle of the Madden-Julian Oscillation. J. Atmos. Sci. , 51 , 2225-2237.

          Bergman, J. and M Salby, 1994: Equatorial waves derived from fluctuations in observed convection. J. Atmos. Sci., 51, 3791-3806.

          Salby, M and P. Callaghan, 1997: Sampling error in climate properties derived from satellite measurements: Consequences of undersampled diurnal variability. J. Climate , 10 18-36 .

          Fusco, A. and M Salby, 1999: Interannual variations of total ozone and their relationship to variations of planetary wave activity. J. Climate,12, 1619-1629.

          Salby, M. and P. Callaghan, 2000: Connection between the solar cycle and the QBO: The missing link. J. Climate 13 , 2652-2662.

          Francis, G. and M Salby, 2001: Radiative influence of Antarctica on the polar night vortex. J. Atmos. Sci. , 58 , 1300-1309.

          Gettelman, A., Salby, M., and F. Sassi, 2002: Distribution and influence of convection in the tropical tropopause region. J. Geophys. Res. , 107 , ACL6 (DOI 10.1029/2001JD001048).

          Salby, M. and P. Callaghan, 2002: Interannual changes of the stratospheric circulation: Relationship to Ozone and tropospheric structure. J. Climate, 15 , 3673-3685.

          Salby, M., F. Sassi, P. Callaghan, W. Read, and H. Pumphrey, 2003: Fluctuations of cloud, humidity, and thermal structure near the tropical tropopause. J. Climate , 15 , 3428-3446.

          Salby, M. and P. Callaghan, 2004: Control of the tropical tropopause and vertical transport across it. J. Climate, 17, 965-985.

          Salby, M. and P. Callaghan, 2005: Interaction between the Brewer-Dobson circulation and the Hadley circulation. J. Climate , 18 , 4303-4316.

          Salby, M. and P. Callaghan, 2006: Influence of the Brewer-Dobson circulation on stratosphere-troposphere exchange. J. Geophys. Res. 111 , D21106, doi:10.1029/2006JD007051.

          Salby, M. L., and P. F. Callaghan, 2006: Evidence of the solar cycle in the tropical troposphere. J. Geophys. Res. 111 , D21113, doi:10.1029/2006JD007133.

          Salby, M. and P. Callaghan, 2007: On the Wintertime Increase of Arctic Ozone: Relationship to Changes of the Polar-Night Vortex. J. Geophys. Res. 112 , D06116, doi:10.1029/2006JD007948.

          Salby, M., 2008: Involvement of the Brewer-Dobson circulation in changes of Northern Hemisphere ozone. Dynamics of Atmospheres and Oceans (Invited/In Press)

          Books Salby, M, 1992: The Atmosphere. In Climate Systems Modeling , K. Trenberth Ed. Sponsored jointly by UCAR and the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), Cambridge University Press 53–115.

          Salby, M, 1996: Fundamentals of Atmospheric Physics . International Geophysics Series, Academic Press, 628 pp. 2nd Printing (2005)

          Salby, M, 2002: Planetary Waves. in Encyclopedia of Physical Science and Technology , P. Crutzen Ed. Academic Press, 12 , 357-371.

          Salby, M, 2003: Fundamental Forces and Governing Equations, Chapter 2, in Handbook of Weather, Water, and Climate: Dynamics , Cliimate, Physical Meteorology, Weather Systems, and Measurements , T. Potter and B. Colman, eds. (Wiley-Interscience, Hoboken NJ, 2003), 7-20.

          Salby, M, 2009: Fundamentals of Atmospheric Physics . International Geophysics Series, Academic Press, 2nd Edition (In Preparation)

          What would make you think this man has any idea and therefore credibility when it comes to AGW?


          Report this

          84

    • #
  • #
    Peter Crawford

    I have never been to Australia but always got the impression it was fairly hot. In the Nic Roeg film ‘Walkabout’ Jenny Agutter faints due to the heat and in the film ‘Picnic At Hanging Rock’ there are all sorts of nefarious heat based shenanigans. Obviously Professor David Karoly knows better than I and that Australia is normally quite chilly .

    Or he is a bare-faced liar ?


    Report this

    80

    • #
      MemoryVault

      .
      Your impression is correct, Peter. There was nothing the slightest bit unusual here in OZ last summer.

      By comparison, THIS was a heatwave.

      .
      When viewing the graph at the link, note that for much of the time (around 150 days),
      the daily MINIMUM temperature did not fall below 37.5 deg C (100 deg F).

      No air-conditioning back then, either.

      .
      Lewis and Karol are bare-faced liars who should be facing prosecution for fraud.


      Report this

      181

      • #
        Backslider

        Lewis and Karol are bare-faced liars who should be facing prosecution for fraud.

        Agreed. These people are on the public purse. I am sure that there is a law against falsely causing public alarm.


        Report this

        70

      • #
        Backslider

        This paper was “peer reviewed”. Who exactly are these peers?…. They also are due for a grilling.


        Report this

        60

      • #
        Winston

        O/T without apology,
        Tony Abbott on the Bolt Report this morning has very specifically stated that a carbon tax, whether floating or fixed, was a bad tax and it was the intention of the coalition to remove it if elected at the next election. So, Tony Abbott at least has flagged his intention to remove both a CT and an ETS, because he says both have, or are capable of, crippling business and development.

        So, I think this gives those suggesting we vote informal at the next election pause to reconsider since this is a sticking point for many, and rightly so I would add until this development today, that the Libs would supposedly progress to an ETS which would potentially be worse even than the Carbon Tax. I think Tony sees the writing on the wall that the whole carbon scare campaign is dying a well deserved death.


        Report this

        131

        • #
          Manfred

          …to remove both a CT and an ETS, because he says both have, or are capable of, crippling business and development

          How much better were he to say:

          “…because it is a tax whose purpose is scientifically and politically spurious, and above all, economically unsustainable.”


          Report this

          60

        • #
          llew Jones

          Despite the secret ALP supporters like Memory Vault, Pat et al who suggest we sceptics vote informal or for an Independent, it should be obvious to those who have scrutinised Abbott on his belief in ACC that he is at least the next best thing to an anthropogenic climate change sceptic”.

          His “it’s crap” comment and comments made in Queensland a year or so ago about “coal will still be used for power generation in 90 years time” are fair indications that unlike Rudd he is not a UN sycophant nor again unlike Rudd does he appear to be clueless about the destructive nature of the warmist’s solutions.

          Here is a little more confirmation that Abbott, despite dead weights, like Turnbull and Hunt is the far better option for sceptics who take the economy destroying nature of climate alarmism’s solutions seriously:

          Address to Victorian Federal Campaign Rally, Melbourne, Victoria

          Posted on Saturday, 29 June 2013

          “My friends, we have the right team and we have the right plan and the right plan starts with scrapping the carbon tax. We don’t rename it, we don’t re-badge it, we just scrap it. We scrap it because you do not help the environment by hammering the economy. In particular you do not help the great state of Victoria by pricing out of existence the brown coal mines and the brown coal power stations of the Latrobe Valley, that great legacy of Sir John Monash. You do not price out of existence that which has been the industrial foundation of this great state.
”

          http://www.tonyabbott.com.au/News/tabid/94/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/9257/Address-to-Victorian-Federal-Campaign-Rally-Melbourne-Victoria.aspx


          Report this

          50

          • #
            Backslider

            Despite the secret ALP supporters like Memory Vault, Pat et al who suggest we sceptics vote informal or for an Independent

            I suppose that these people go around polling booths handing out “How to waste your vote” cards…..


            Report this

            10

        • #
          MemoryVault

          .
          Actually, Winston,

          I just watched the same program, and I just saw and heard Andrew Bolt specifically use the term “Emissions Trading Scheme” and “ETS”, no less then four times, trying to get Abbott to say it was “off the cards”, and four times I heard Abbott change the wording to “a floating tax”. Greg Hunt played exactly the same word game on Friday. When politicians play word games there is always a reason.

          Second, Tony Abbott is on record as saying not to believe what he says unless it is in writing. In writing, from the CURRENT Liberal Party Environment Policy, we have this:

          The Coalition will work with a range of industry groups including the Clean Energy Council, the
          Energy Efficiency Council, the Green Buildings Council and the Property Council to develop
          complementary energy efficiency measures.

          According to the Clean Energy Council, a combination of clean energy measures and a CO2
          abatement price of $15 per tonne
          could yield an annual CO2 emissions reduction of 20-30
          million tonnes by 2020.

          Liberal Party Environment Policy link at THEIR website.

          Third, your observations, correct or otherwise, are based entirely on the premise that Tony Abbott will be the next Liberal Prime Minister. On the same Andrew Bolt program that we both just watched, Michael Costa carefully explained for all those with ears to hear, that the coming election will be based entirely on personalities, and not on policy. A “presidential-style” election campaign, was the term he used.

          Precisely what I wrote on Friday.

          Given that in the personality stakes KRudd at least has one, and Abbott has all the personal magnetism of a used kitchen sponge (contrast Abbott’s performance against Costello’s on today’s show), coupled with the dramatic change in the polls, and I think it’s fairly obvious poor old Tony can expect his redundancy papers any time now.

          Besides, Frank Lowy started putting up the Presidential Campaign posters in his shopping centres last week, and guess what?
          Abbott isn’t on them.

          .
          Vote 4 Themm


          Report this

          35

          • #
            MemoryVault

            Despite the secret ALP supporters like Memory Vault . . .

            My, Llew, I have come a long way since Laurie Oakes, in a major editorial, seriously declared me the secret head in Australia of both the League of Rights AND the KU KLUX KLAN.

            Actually Llew, I’ve got a quarter of a century of runs on the board, actively opposing not just ALL the existing political parties, but the entire concept of political parties itself. So, your little ad hom spack attack is neither here nor there in the grander scheme of things.

            .
            However, I do appreciate the gravity of where Australia is now, so I’m going to make you a little deal, alright? I have just spent a large amount of my own time, money, and effort, setting up the Vote 4 Themm websites, blogs and Facebook accounts.

            If (and it’s a big if), the Liberal Party wises up to itself and launches a “Campbell Newman” style plan to parachute Peter Costello in as the next Liberal PM, I will take down all the Vote 4 Themm stuff, and replace it with support for Costello and the Libs.

            .
            I offer this not out of any love for either Costello, or the Libs – in fact I’m almost at gagging point writing this. However, this country faces precarious times, and it would be nice to know there was at least one adult in the room amongst the other 149 incompetent, politically-correct, CAGW worshiping, useless bum-warmers who will be occupying all the other seats on BOTH sides of parliament.


            Report this

            60

          • #
            Winston

            MV,
            Kevin Rudd has a narcissistic personality disorder, which is not by any definition a substitue for a “personality”. And he is living proof that Keating was wrong when he said “a souffle doesn’t rise twice”.

            As to you word game comments, if that is so Tony has said enough to be held to account, having just seen what Julia has copped for playing fast and loose with the truth. Like it or not, Abbott is the only one making any effort to be even remotely skeptical, and as such is our ONLY option, even if everything you contend is true. If so, we will deal with him when the time comes, because a tanking economy that he inherits doesn’t give him the whip hand regardless of his mandate. My only interest is to see this anti human tax regime die a deserved death, and eventually with the hope that those perpetuating it are held to the fullest account that the law allows, up to and including jail time.


            Report this

            90

            • #
              Beth

              Refer to 30.1.5

              It’s a good thing that the people have this medium
              for honest communication (for now).


              Report this

              20

            • #
              Geoffrey Cousens

              One bright spark suggested the Auz. constitution holds the answer to this nonsense;its illegal for a govt.to deliberately set out to inflict damage[harm]to the economy.


              Report this

              10

        • #
          llew Jones

          I think there were two things that really sunk Gillard.

          The first was the small business reaction to the carbon tax and the associated large financial penalty on businesses that emitted more than 25,000 tonne of CO2 per year. The latter “polluters” not only were forced to retrench staff but also reduce the orders to their small business suppliers also resulting in job losses. That had a flow on effect on employees who could see the effect of that tax on their power and gas bills.

          The second was men and enough women who were not man haters and who saw Gillard as a radical feminist man hater. That cost her votes.

          My missus who generally is apolitical would immediately switch the TV off whenever Gillard came on with the comment not that FAB again. She couldn’t stand Gillard.

          Incidentally that same lovely lady shares the same hatred for Rudd. This time on the basis that she sees him as a smarmy loose mouthed man who doesn’t engender trust.

          (Strangely she likes Abbott, without knowing much about his policies and despite the fact that he is an RC – we both were proddydog children in the good old days when one could cheerfully chant at passing catholic school children, “catholic dogs sit on logs eating maggots out of frogs”).

          It is a pity Abbott is saddled with Turnbull however he will still need to nail Rudd as a lefty who will be just as effective in nobbling Australian industry with financial penalties via a variant tax on “Carbon Pollution”, as Gillard and the Greens were with their carbon tax. In other words ensure the voters know that nothing will change on this front with Rudd as elected PM. Abbott’s 29/06 speech reference to Yallourn is a good basis to start with.

          To convince voters that Rudd is economically incompetent is Abbott’s other task as a replacement for the self destructive ideology of the man hater Rudd recently got sacked.


          Report this

          30

      • #
        Ian Hill

        When viewing the graph at the link, note that for much of the time (around 150 days),
        the daily MINIMUM temperature did not fall below 37.5 deg C (100 deg F).

        That’s not correct Memory Vault. The graph shows maximum temperature only.

        See http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/cdio/weatherData/av?p_nccObsCode=123&p_display_type=dailyDataFile&p_startYear=1924&p_c=-3284643&p_stn_num=004020

        This shows the minimum temperature was invariably in the mid to high 20s for the entire duration.


        Report this

        20

      • #
        Beth

        “should be facing prosecution for fraud”

        Why? They’re just doing what they’re paid to,
        by the Australian Research Council, the BOM,
        the CSIRO, and let’s not forget the Department of Climate Change.
        No, as long as we continue to pay for the preposterous,
        that’s what we’ll get.


        Report this

        20

  • #
    Heywood

    Just watching Karoly on the Today Show claiming 50 degree temperatures are 5 times more likely and it is definitely because of our increased GHG emissions.

    It was sickening fire and brimstone stuff.

    A nice soft interview with no hard questions as usual.

    When asked if we can do anything about it, he responded that we must introduce much tougher controls on emissions, and that the carbon tax is already working.

    All in all, he was reading from the typical alarmist song sheet.


    Report this

    130

    • #
      The Black Adder

      Yes Heywood… I unfortunately saw that too.
      Karoly is a disgrace to science.
      These Charlatans need to be held to account.
      And the dumb blonde interviewing him didn’t have a clue!

      Proof positive that MSM are still allowing the Green Lie to propagate!
      It’s a bloody disgrace and thank god for sites like this, otherwise we’d all be lemmings!


      Report this

      70

  • #
    handjive

    UPDATE: Climate Ignoramuses unite!
    .
    1476+ (Inspirational) Australians who DENY that global warming has stopped for over 15 years whilst 400ppm tipping point for co2.

    Open Letter- Urgent: Fossil Fuel Divestments

    “Dear Mr Clyne, Ms Kelly, Mr Narev and Mr Smith,

    We write to urge you to adopt a critical change to your banks’ investment policies.

    Specifically we are asking you to demonstrate courage and leadership by adopting the following two policy changes:

    1. Place an immediate prohibition on loans to new fossil fuel extraction projects and the infrastructure required to enable them, and

    2. Sell down all stakes held either directly or through third parties in companies engaged in fossil fuel extraction.”
    .
    MUSLIM, Uniting, Catholic and Hindu religious leaders are to write to the Federal Government and Opposition, urging quick climate change action to help avert a devastating 4C rise in global temperatures.
    .
    The Cargo Cult of Carbon, better known as “settled climate science.”

    (World English Dictionary
    cargo cult
    — n
    a religious movement of the SW Pacific, characterized by expectation of the return of spirits in ships or aircraft carrying goods that will provide for the needs of the followers)= [The missing heat that is hiding in the oceans will come back eventually]


    Report this

    50

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      The scam is in its terminal stages. Journalism like that, is just the death rattle at the back of the throat.


      Report this

      80

      • #
        Manfred

        RW, Cheyne Stokes respiration is another nice metaphor for the terminal state you refer to:

        Cheyne–Stokes respiration is an abnormal pattern of breathing characterized by progressively deeper and sometimes faster breathing, followed by a gradual decrease that results in a temporary stop in breathing…


        Report this

        20

  • #

    If there are any Facebook stars reading, can you email me? I could use some advice. joanne AT joannenova.com.au


    Report this

    32

  • #
    Julias Valet

    Fancy using a 3 month mean to rebut a heat wave paper. Laughable analysis. No end to the level of sophistry you will indulge in to obfuscate an argument. Put up some weekly or daily data.


    Report this

    214

    • #
      MemoryVault

      Put up some weekly or daily data

      You’ve really got to wonder about the trolls that come here, expecting their every whim to be catered for.

      Sorry Julias, that’s not the way polite debate is exercised. If you really believe “some daily or weekly data” will support an outcome different to the one offered by Jo, then it is up to YOU to go and find it, link to it, and make your counter-claims for it.

      I have little doubt that if Jo had, indeed, used a different graphic, you would have demanded some kind of running mean. Let’s face it, you crowd aren’t interested in the debate, only in obfuscation.


      Report this

      141

      • #
        Julias Valet

        Memory fault – you the self-employed border patrol guard here is suggesting polite debate !$ good lord – how novel – Jo is goading Karoly into using the google. Well Jo’s got the inside line to sceptic central on the bat-phone for rapid access to the error-prone re-worked modelled “who knows what it really measures” satellite data sets and so she is making the charge not moi.

        It’s up to YOU to prove the point having opened the batting – like it’s not like any of you clowns are actually published is it? Produce sophistry as analysis – prepared to be strafed. But shonk analysis is fairly typical of what you get here. Elegant sophistry followed by a chorus of off topic cheersquad graffiti masking as comment. I suppose she needs to indulge all the off-topic comment or there would be no comment at all. So prosecute your argument and stop obfuscating yourself.

        Producing a 3 month statistic to critique an event is certainly novel (choke). Especially in a season of such mixed extremes – heat, flood, tempest and now drought.

        Nobody has even asked what the boundaries for the analysis contain – any ocean in the grid box perhaps. What a set on fake sceptics you are – nary a question. Simply oh yes – 3 bags full, tug forelock.


        Report this

        112

        • #
          cohenite

          Are you still here whinging?

          The reason for the 3 month period has been explained to you; your inability to understand that is your problem.

          In respect of other time spans, how about a day courtesy of Chris Gilham’s elegant analysis of the claim by the usual AGW alarmists that January 7, 2013 was the hottest day ever. Nope.


          Report this

          31

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      Well, I am guessing that the comment about weekly or daily data is what passes for sarcasm within your social milieu?

      So please enlighten us. What rolling period would you use as a baseline in deciding if it was a heat wave, or just a few days with warmer than average temperature for the time of year?


      Report this

      90

      • #
        Julias Valet

        Well I thought ongoing off-topic commentary from yourself being permanently camped out here was the comic relief. It’s not like you lot ever seriously discuss anything or ask a relevant question is it.

        At least put up the weekly data ! or rolling weekly – are heat waves monthly or 3 monthly – err nope !


        Report this

        18

    • #
      AndyG55

      Is that Julias, the valet.. from down at the local hotel ?

      (“Valet” is far more PC than “Bouncer”)


      Report this

      51

    • #
      cohenite

      Fancy using a 3 month mean to rebut a heat wave paper.

      You’re an idiot; the alleged heat wave in question was a 3 month heatwave, as in “Angry Summer”, so a 3 month mean is entirely appropriate.


      Report this

      51

      • #
        Julias Valet

        Don’t be so ridiculous – it wasn’t a 3 month heatwave. How vacuous. http://www.ssmi.com/msu/msu_data_monthly.html Compare Jan 2013 anomaly to other months before and after for Australia. Jan 2013 is a standout.

        Anyway we still don’t know what the analysis grid box was? Let’s not reveal any methods for heavens sake. How much ocean is in it?

        More poorly considered fake sceptic waffle.


        Report this

        19

        • #

          The UAH data is for Australia LAND- Tasmania included, but not ocean. Take it up with John Christy. And UAH annual data for Australia reflects Acorn data 1979-2012 fairly well. There are seasonal differences usually due to rainfall and vegetation variation. The large difference between the two in the last summer is difficult to explain by these factors as it was not an unusually dry or droughted summer.
          No it wasn’t a 3 month heatwave, but that’s what the abstract refers to: ” the record hot 2013 Australian summer “. Please do some reading and thinking before you make a complete fool of yourself next time.


          Report this

          100

          • #
            Julias Valet

            Pretentious to the extreme KS. An abstract isn’t an analysis and the post is pure sophistry. Of course you lot could publish a journal rebuttal with all your idle time but you never do.

            —————
            It’s tough living with the religion of global warming isn’t it? Try to let go of the anger ;-) – Jo


            Report this

            33

        • #
          cohenite

          it wasn’t a 3 month heatwave

          Yes it was, it was the “Angry Summer”. Summers are 3 months.

          Otherwise, what Ken said.


          Report this

          50

  • #
    James McCown

    I am currently debating several people about global warming on the talk.origins newsgroup.

    Only I and one other person are espousing the skeptical viewpoint. The rest are committed warmists.

    A couple of the warmists are claiming that about 10% of the longwave radiation being released by the earth is absorbed by the 0.04% of the atmosphere that is CO2, and that even a slight increase in the CO2 will cause big warming.

    Does anyone have a source for how much of that radiation is absorbed by CO2? I find it difficult to believe that such a tiny percentage of CO2 could absorb such a large percentage of radiation.

    Any of you who are so inclined, please feel free to join our discussion there. I am an economist by trade, so I have a good knowledge of statistics but not so good in the natural sciences.


    Report this

    50

    • #
      Backslider

      I don’t have those figures, however it’s important to remember that any radiation that CO2 absorbs is not just absorbed, with the CO2 sitting there as a hot little molecule (which I think is what a lot of people believe). CO2 radiates. That includes out into space, for which reason some scientists argue that CO2 in fact has a cooling effect.


      Report this

      50

      • #
        Julias Valet

        I guess you could wander into the backward one clear night with a pyrgeometer and see what’s there. Like scientists who’ve been studying radiation budgets for a few decades have been doing. Too novel?


        Report this

        16

        • #
          cohenite

          I guess you could wander into the backward one clear night with a pyrgeometer and see what’s there…Too novel?

          Pyrgeometers have manifest defects. In order to calculate the incoming LW irradiance at the detector, the temperature of the pyrgeometer body must be known. The downward longwave radiation is then calculated using the following formula :-

          LW = Uemf/S + ( 5.67*10-8 * Tb4 )

          where Uemf is the output voltage from the thermopile, S is the calibration constant of the instrument, and Tb is the pyrgeometer body temperature, measured by the thermistor, in degrees Kelvin. For an upward facing pyrgeometer, the thermopile output voltage will in most instances be negative. This is because the upwelling irradiance from the pyrgeometer is likely to be greater then the incoming irradiance from the sky because the pyrgeometer is hotter than the night sky.

          The distinction between positive voltage = heat coming in and negative voltage = heat going out which pyrgeometers nominally operate on doesn’t work because the pyrgeometer is generating its own heat. In other words, the instrument usually guesses at how much the sky is radiating by observing its own losses!

          THAT is why, for one thing, an IR satellite telescope has to be super-cooled: otherwise it will detect no external target at all and will merely make incoherent images of the detector’s own output. The same kind of voltage-flow logic is probably at work in IR-thermometers, too. In effect, an IR thermometer responds to colder objects by reporting the radiation that it DOESN’T see.

          Thanks for coming Julias; you’re still an idiot.


          Report this

          41

          • #
            Julias Valet

            Pity calibration against a net radiometer says you’re an imbecile. And pity energy balances add up. Fancy generating a balanced result with bum instruments. Clown.


            Report this

            03

            • #
              cohenite

              And pity energy balances add up.

              No, they don’t; that is what AGW is predicated on; an energy IMbalance.

              Pity calibration against a net radiometer says you’re an imbecile.

              Actually, that’s not how pyrgeometers are calibrated; see Philopona.

              However, calibrating against a theoretical blackbody which Philipona declares as the standard for measuring LWd, brings its own problems. For instance, Gaussian quadrature is a means of approximating values within a domain or area in the instance of LWd which is defined by the cosine values; however this method of approximation is not suitable for functions which have singularities, or in the case of LWd, values which have quantum uncertainty, which is what a pyrgeometer is ostensibly measuring.

              The point is a pyrgeometer cannot measure radiation probability fronts which means it cannot measure the effect of radiation coming from the surface which may be causing radiation from the sky to collapse. Poynting’s Theorem describes this effect; go away and research it; this is a good place to start.

              Clowns are funny; you’re not.


              Report this

              21

              • #
                Julias Valet

                Well if energy balances don’t add up you’d better tell the 100s of scientists doing surface energy balance research where they’re wrong.

                “what AGW is predicated on; an energy IMbalance.” what utter rubbish ….
                [Julias, you are missing cohenites point. Those 100s of scientists do claim there is an imbalance and it's caused by CO2. Plus your entire argument here seems to rest as usual on outsourcing your brain "argument from authority". - Jo]

                Your next [snip snarky bluster].[Snip more] “radiation probability fronts” – “quantum uncertainty” [snip non-sequiteur where I think JV wants to ask Cohenite what these mean.] In reality the WISG has well compared multiple pyrgeometers against an ASR, an AERI and theoretical calcs from LBLRTM and MODTRAN to agree within 2 W m2. You could also use an indoors NREL pyrgeometer blackbody calibration system.

                I look forward to your published refutation [snip]

                ———————————
                JV — As an anonymous commenter who hasn’t proved his point yet, or provided us with his main working email (or name, who knows?) you don’t get to fill threads with “the world according to JV”. You may post good questions and evidence, but not snarky snide bluster. We don’t want to edit you. So edit yourself, or you’ll be uninvited. Thanks. – Jo


                Report this

                03

              • #
                cohenite

                Well jules, your faith in the certainty of measurement of LWd is touching but symptomatic of AGW devotees, as is your aggressive condescension.

                Apart from what I’ve already discussed another problem with measurement of LWd is that LWd is assumed to only come from the Zenith to the measurement. It doesn’t; pure vertical isotropy doesn’t occur; and since pyrgeometers are designed on the assumption that LWR is isotropic, and read true only for such there is a substantial problem of more radiation effect missed.

                Even the WMO, at section 7.4.3, admits to pressing problems with measuring LWd, but that doesn’t stop jules, like all AGW advocates from being arrogant, certain and dismissive.

                Incidentally jules, what are your qualifications?


                Report this

                20

              • #
                Julias Valet

                [Snip. JV. You are free to explain why he's wrong, but argument from authority with condescending insults is not an argument. - Jo]

                [Another personal attack - can't play the ball, so play the man -Fly]


                Report this

                01

    • #
      John Brookes

      Obviously you can tell them that a slight increase will not cause big warming. Most people who think about it expect you’d have to double the level of CO2 to raise the temperature by 2 – 3 degrees.

      You don’t even have to resort to dodgy “skeptical” arguments to win that one.


      Report this

      27

    • #
      Duster

      The argument IS statistical. Steve McIntyre argues statistics and sampling methodology, not physics, and would very likely not have had a bad thing to say about Briffa’s Yamal study were it not for the statistical and sampling issues that are self-evident, and the same is true of the Mann et al. hockey stick battle in the late ’90s, or antarctic warming in the later 2000s. Sceptics such as Condon, McIntyre, Pielke and Watts are arguing logic and statistical mathematics, not science per se. Others such as Bob Tisdale dispute the adequacy of the general climate model, since there are major known natural phenomena that are discounted by AGW to achieve the theoretical warming their theory assumes. Scepticism of AWG is not composed if an homogenous group of fellow travelers and has probably deeper rifts within than there are between “Luke Warmists” and AGW faithful.


      Report this

      01

    • #
      cohenite

      James this is graph of the radiation spectrum of incoming and outgoing radiation on the Earth; you get an idea of the relative absorption strengths of CO2 and the other GHGs.

      A specific comparison of the relative absorption strengths between the 2 main GHGs, CO2 and H2O is here. Ramananthan has calculated based on TOA measurements that H2O absorbs about 2.5 times more than CO2 [25% compared with 9%].

      Good luck debating the Moonbats.


      Report this

      10

    • #
      Geoffrey Cousens

      They[who have their story straight]have realized co2 does nothing and resort to a complicated and conflicting rave about co2 creating”more” water vapor,the only influential “ghg”.Over 6o uni’s.teach almost as many[mostly conflicting]theories about the co2 and its mission from hell.


      Report this

      10

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    … even a slight increase in the CO2 will cause big warming.

    Ask them to explain how. Ask them to show you the math. Ask them to explain how you can get more energy out of a system than you put in. Ask them where all of the extra energy comes from.

    Ask them why it matters, when CO2 levels have been much higher in the past, than they are today, and yet life must have continued, or we would not be here today.

    I suggest that the folks on talk.origins are regurgitating political spin, reinforced by groupthink. In other words, propaganda.


    Report this

    50

    • #
      Julias Valet

      What silliness – why don’t you tell us what the solar forcing was at the time. The earth might be here but most of the species aren’t. Any discussion of the PETM – or course not. And you talk about propaganda.


      Report this

      011

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        The earth might be here but most of the species aren’t.

        Quite true, life adapts, it evolves, and species that cannot adapt to the changes in nature, eventually die out.

        Of course, there are those people who do not subscribe the the theory of evolution, so they will have a different view. Are you a creationist, by any chance?

        I notice you did not comment on my implied question regarding the energy budget. Do you have anything to impart on that point?


        Report this

        50

        • #
          crakar24

          RW,

          If they are creationists then whats the problem? Could not God simply come down here and recreate it all again?


          Report this

          52

          • #
            Rereke Whakaaro

            What an excellent point!

            Why bother with all the angst?

            Mankind can simply stuff everything up, and wait for God to press the reset button.


            Report this

            60

        • #
          Julias Valet

          A creationist – well I didn’t want to be too insulting and accuse you of such a thing. But mentally I already ticked flat earth, redneck and libertarian boxes too just in case. As for energy budget I must remember I’m cold next time I’m snuggled up in a blanket.

          —-
          If you just want to hate us, why stop there — how ’bout rascist smoking big oil shill. It’s not like facts, manners or goodwill are important right? – Jo


          Report this

          26

          • #
            Heywood

            Julias… Sounds like a warmist lefty greenie poofter er. homosexual name to me.

            Oh.. Sorry Jo. Good for the goose and all.


            Report this

            30

          • #
            Julias Valet

            Well Jo – good manners start at home. Read down to see a selection of your colleagues behaviour.

            “Sounds like a warmist lefty greenie poofter er. homosexual name to me.” hmmmm could have added fag too or do you like it up the arse – why hold back?

            “This is the fault of you and your criminally insane brethren.I am not amused,you loathsome,little fraud.” yes right ….

            and this would be about typical would it not? No issue with that? Well that’s hypocritical.

            Face it – you’ve got a bunch of dudes camped out here acting as a cheer squad. Your border patrol guards effectively mop up any blow-ins; for heavens sake don’t debate anything, rest in the completeness of your new found (given you’ve now all grown up and out of the greens) rightist mates. Worries me deeply that you could flip states like that you know. Maybe you might flip back?


            Report this

            16

            • #

              Shucks for a second I was ready to say “Fair point”. Then I discovered the first quote was a dig in response to you (I think you get the credit for lowering the tone). And the second quote was someone talking about older folk who’ve died in part thanks to your favourite energy policies. I think he has every reason to be angry. We care about poor people. Do you? I wouldn’t have called you a fraud, who knows? But if you say you care for future generations and you don’t give a toss about current ones, perhaps it fits?

              Face it, we’ve got the independent minds and you have the followers. As for debate, when are you going to start? I’ve been looking for evidence for 5 years. If you have found the observations showing long term positive feedback for water vapor in the upper troposphere, or the missing joules of energy in the deep abyss, do tell. The IPCC will be thrilled.


              Report this

              61

              • #
                Geoffrey Cousens

                Jo;I was referring to Brooks.


                Report this

                21

              • #
                Julias Valet

                Oh I don’t think anyone here is that concerned about poor people. Name two ! Crocodile tears.

                You don’t have independent minds – you’ve got a cheer squad. If you had independent minds you’d see some evidence of it. Jo you’ve just signed onto another cause ex-greens with another different tribe and are busy accumulating anything that can support your position. While ignoring anything unsuitable.


                Report this

                14

              • #

                So you concede you don’t give a rats about the people killed by poor energy policy? Figures.

                Name two whats?

                Mr-I-follow-the-experts-Valet, you wouldn’t know an independent mind if it fell on you.


                Report this

                21

              • #
                Julias Valet

                “So you concede you don’t give a rats about the people killed by poor energy policy” and you don’t really either Jo. It’s just wedge tactics. Can you name two who died “Mr and Mrs Smith, 21 Futherington-Smythe Lane, Coventry” perhaps ??

                But hey your verballing skills are good I notice – suitable for NSW police or Sixty Minutes interviewing in another life? Have you stopped beating David yet?

                Jo – you’ve simply signed onto another cause after an existential crisis with the greens. Do you ever do a positive post? Enough negativity to fuel a Tony Abbott carbon-free fuel source for 100 years.

                AGW might be a risk or it might not – not sure you’re going to help me find out though.

                [You are hiding behind an anonymous email address and are now resorting to personal attacks and abuse -Fly]


                Report this

                23

              • #

                I work unfunded to try to stop the government from exploiting science to cheat money and independence from the poor (and the middle class). Proof? See 1150 posts.

                Name two people affected — Janet and Matt Thompson and their four kids.

                So the anonymous character assassin thinks that I’m negative. Shucks.


                Report this

                31

              • #
                Backslider

                AGW might be a risk or it might not – not sure you’re going to help me find out though.

                You drop in here insulting all and sundry and now you wish to pretend that you actually want to learn something?

                Bullshit.


                Report this

                20

              • #
                Julias Valet

                At the result of being accused of trolling – Jo had verballed me – she’s pinning me (and I might in classic style) to something I didn’t say about my caring or uncaring for the fate of freezing pensioners. And jeepers you guys are dour – to the “starving of Africa” meme – the cynic’s joke is to name two. Jo couldn’t in context of the discussion and diverted to the Thompsons. Now while they might be nice people and all that, I thought it utter b/s to hook them in just because they have expressed sceptic views. Small country towns don’t like stinky feedlots and new flash business from yanks – leave climate out of it. Now if it was a whinge and not fair dinkum by the town folk complainants well it’s still irrelevant to climate issues and especially old people dying of fuel starvation in the cold.

                Can’t name two and didn’t even smile at my Mr and Mrs Smith – how sour :-( Oh well…

                Of course if one was really fair dinkum about unjust mortality and not anti-left anti-enviro crusading one might have some posts about all those killed in warfare all sides in recent years but that would against the tea party meme would it not.

                So don’t agree with people – fit them up with a dash of verballing.

                It’s not a personal attack on Cohenite – he has form – and the form is bulldusting e.g. a selection for 10 worst AGW papers posts with no justification. I cannot argue with some nonsensical pseudo physics babble. You have censored my retort which said pyrgeometers have been validated against 2 well known independent instruments and 2 modelling techniques. You don’t find that interesting? And by the World Radiation Center who may know more about the matter than someone who’s done a geography course at uni. Yes I know about appeals to authority – but gee even Roy Spencer isn’t a slayer.

                Unreal email address – well at the tone on here – who would trust you guys. Not Jo personally or your good self but jeepers check the threatening tones in many posts.

                People who disagree with you are not necessarily trolls.

                Sledging is not an insult – if I had called you a trucking hunt and threatened you it would be.

                And yes there’s a fine line between vigorous comment and trolling.

                And I’m not from SkS or anywhere – it’s just my personal opinion. And I’m not out to shut you down or threaten your livelihood – but I can’t say that of all your fellow travellers. The rampant tribalism is just as sinister as the alleged science corruption and lefty greeniness that you find so abhorrent.

                I am interested why Jo unusually posts anything that’s simply very interesting in climate science. Is there nothing redeemable? Is it all utter crap. How depressing. It’s not like there are no very interesting things going on in the southern hemisphere – and for whatever reason and that they are most relevant to Australia.

                e.g. http://www.nature.com/srep/2013/130620/srep02039/full/srep02039.html some amusing local work of late from your CSIRO

                I’ll go now ….


                Report this

                12

            • #
              Heywood

              “Well Jo – good manners start at home. Read down to see a selection of your colleagues behaviour. ”

              Go back and have a read of your posts.

              You say you want debate, but you barrel in here with abuse and the usual catastrophist demands for data which have nothing to do with the point being made.

              You don’t want debate, you are just here from SkS to cause a ruckus. You are lucky that Jo is a reasonable host because if I had done exactly what you have done over at (un)SkepticalScience, I would have found myself in permanent moderation.


              Report this

              33

          • #
            Rereke Whakaaro

            But mentally I already ticked flat earth, redneck and libertarian boxes too just in case.

            Sorry, you only get 33% correct on that one, which is short of a pass-mark.

            And still, you cannot explain how the unsubstantiated hypothesis of Anthropogenic Climate Change manages to get more energy coming out of the system than is put in. I am beginning to suspect that you don’t know.


            Report this

            10

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    Sigh … my #36 is in reply to James McCown @35.


    Report this

    10

  • #
    peter

    Why can’t someone get the message to the general public about the true figures on the weather. Most people I talk to believe everything the media and the government tell them. Is there any way of making the media accountable for the information they relay to the public. If the information is not correct can’t it be proven incorrect by some form of true figures. There must be some way of telling the truth and making people beieve it. There seems to be no problem convincing everyone we need to be saved.


    Report this

    20

  • #
    Drapeotomania

    Brookes doesnt understand anything posted here..doesnt understand anything to do with real climate science..and now starts talking about reading books on quantum physics..something else he cannot not understand.
    Beyond paraody as usual.
    And brookes thinks his opinion of salby counts..because Brookes supposedly struggled with one book on physics.????????
    Are you off the grid yet John and have you stopped driving cars.?
    Thought not..pathetic hypocrite :)


    Report this

    61

    • #
      Julias Valet

      Salby? has he published something we should read? Who’s he?


      Report this

      16

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        Refer to comment #29.1.2.1, on this post.


        Report this

        40

        • #
          Julias Valet

          Alas his greatest work remains a mere Youtube. Unpublished and unread.


          Report this

          05

          • #
            Heywood

            So you have written and published papers refuting what Salby says yes?

            Journal rebuttal perhaps?

            No?

            Why not?

            “Of course you lot could publish a journal rebuttal with all your idle time but you never do.”


            Report this

            10

          • #
            Rereke Whakaaro

            Oh, and since when was it decided by the Great Pumpkin that scientific material could not be published on electronic media? And when was the decision made that it had to be transcribed in the written word?

            It may come as quite a shock to you to learn that you can exchange mathematical formula via twitter – you just need the correct font set. Fourier Analysis on your iPhone … well not quite, but we are getting there.


            Report this

            00

    • #
      John Brookes

      But at least I don’t suffer from drapeotomania, which clearly is some sort of disorder that causes the sufferers to dish out random abuse to people they don’t know…


      Report this

      28

  • #
    • #
      Julias Valet

      And why would changes in circulation patterns not result from changing the Earth’s energy balance. Seems to work for many quasi periodic phenomena.


      Report this

      14

    • #
      John Brookes

      Any time we get really hot weather in Australia, there is likely to be an unusual weather pattern. When we get a new record (like last summer), it could be because of a particularly perverse weather pattern, or it could be because it really is hotter, or it could be a bit of both.

      If you get consistently hot weather over a decade or so, then it becomes less likely to be caused by unusual weather, and more likely to be caused by overall warming.


      Report this

      36

      • #
        Geoffrey Cousens

        I take it you failed to comprehend the succinct article and cheerily coloured graph,the subject of this page.Oh,thats right,not your “job”,you think your an entertainer.Thirty thousand people have died in Britain this year from fuel poverty,[your agenda?]up 5k from the last 10 year average.This is the fault of you and your criminally insane brethren.I am not amused,you loathsome,little fraud.


        Report this

        63

  • #
  • #
    john

    12 summers warmer than 1979 and 14 summers colder than 1979……WHERE IS THE WARMING?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Don Gaddes

    So desperate are the ‘Warmists’ that they have come up with an ‘embrace all scenarios’ theory, that ‘It’s all about the disappearing Arctic Ice interfering with the ‘Jet Stream’ (ABC TV, Catalyst,July 3 2013.)Thus, causing record Heatwaves, Blizzards, Cyclones, Wild Fires and every other form of mayhem, all at the same time!
    The protagonists claim a .8 degree rise in average temperature, when there has been no rise since 1940.(No rise for 15 years according to the IPCC, who lied to us for all of that time and more.)
    These new ‘revelations’ and the ‘temperature con’ perpetuated by the Australian Bureau of Meteorology and the Australian Climate Commission, has (presumably) kicked ENSO to the curb – so ending the Forty Year Fantasy of El Nino.
    The real reason for simultaneous ‘Dry’ and ‘Wet/Normal’ conditions around the Planet, is the Hierarchy of ‘Dry’ Cycles that circle the globe at a rate of thirty degrees longitude/month, (with the Westward Solar Orbit of the Earth’s Magnetic Field.) As these ‘Dry’ Cycles pass over surface temperature stations, the lack of precipitation raises temperatures, only to have them cool again as the ‘Dry’ Cycle passes and the interim ‘Wet’/Normal period takes over. These Wet/Dry periods work out to be of equal duration over time. It is also noted that they affect the Arctic and Antarctic simultaneously, (being Longitudonal in travel and effect.)
    The effect on Jet Stream Cloud of these Solar induced ‘Dry’ Cycles may be easily observed via satellite Cloud Mapping. There appears to be a fragmentation and diffusion of the Jet Stream, caused by a yet to be determined Solar Source. (see the Svensmark Hypothesis.)

    These ‘Dry’ Cycles were identified and exactly predicted by Alex.S.Gaddes in his work ‘Tomorrow’s Weather’(1990.) An updated version of this work (including ‘Dry’ Cycle forecasts to 2055,) is available as a free pdf from dongaddes93@gmail.com


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] to the south of Australia, and that’s what we saw. These are blatant LIES – see - http://joannenova.com.au/2013/06/australias-angry-hot-summer-was-hot-angry-hype-satellites-show-it-w… and – [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Don Gaddes

    Australia has just gone through a One Solar/Earth Year ‘Dry’ Cycle from Early January 2012 to Early January 2013 (East Coast) This ‘Dry’ Cycle ended over China (110 degrees East of Prime) in mid February 2013.(thirty degrees longitude/month, with the Westward Solar Orbit of the Earth’s Magnetic Field.)
    The entire Globe is now under the influence of an interim Two Solar/Earth Year ‘Wet’/Normal Period, before entering a severe Five Year Dry Period, starting over China in mid February 2014, and reaching Australia in Early January 2015.(Australia is one of the last countries affected in the orbit of these Cycles.)
    This One Year ‘Dry’ Cycle occurred in 1994, 1976 etc (ad infinitum)and will occur again in 2030, (along with the accompanying ‘Wet’/Normal Period and subsequent severe Dry Period.)
    The raised surface temperatures accompanying these ‘Dry’ Cycle are normal consequences of the lack of precipitation. It will be noted that under the influence of Cyclone Oswald from Jan 19 -29,(and subsequently,) temperatures reduced as rainfall increased.
    There was virtually no rainfall over Eastern Australia from September 2012 to 14 January 2013, and no Cyclones since October 2011.

    I have no doubt The Australian Bureau of Meteorology ‘cooked the books’ to highlight the rise in temperature and brand it as unprecedented, to support AGW. It is easy to achieve elevated temperature readings when only those temperature stations in the path of Northerly Winds off the Central Australian Deserts are featured. Of course the Australian Climate Commission leaped gleefully on the bandwagon.

    These ‘Dry’ Cycles were identified as Solar and Orbital in origin, and their occurrence and duration was defined by Alex S. Gaddes in his work ‘Tomorrow’s Weather’ (1990.) An updated version of this work (including ‘Dry’ Cycle forecasts to 2055,) is available as a free pdf from dongaddes93@gmail.com


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] Jo Nova makes a sound assessment of the state of climate science over at the Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science : The peer reviewed, comprehensive, Lewis and Karoly paper does not contain the words “satellite”,  or “UAH”. Lewis and Karoly apparently do not know about the UAH satellite program yet, otherwise they surely would have emailed John Christy or Roy Spencer (as we did) to ask for the data. We can only hope that they get enough government support, more funding, and better education in future so that they may discover what unpaid volunteers figured out on the Internet for free 3 months ago. Frankly it is shameful that the Australian Research Council (ARC) Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science is not connected to the world wide web and has not trained staff to use “google”. [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] data shows we didn’t have a hot angry summer. Man-made emissions were probably not to blame for the hot angry summer we didn’t have. And now apparently we also haven’t quite had the [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Con Michael

    Whenever i engage alarmists in debate,I always ask them what would prove them wrong.Thus far,the only answer that I have received is “nothing”.I wonder if any proponent of CAGW theory can answer this question?


    Report this

    10