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



Ocean heat content around Indonesia shows Medieval Warm Period and 2C warmth in holocene

Rosenthal et al have put out quite a humdinger of a paper. They’ve reconstructed the temperature of the water flowing out of the Pacific to the Indian Ocean over the last 10,000 years and as deep as 900m. The Indonesian Throughflow  is pretty significant in global ocean currents. There’s narrow routes for Pacific upper waters to squeeze through to the Indian Ocean through the Makassar and Lombok Straits, and via the Lifamatola Passage through the Banda Sea, and water comes in from both the North and South Pacific.

An important point in global ocean currents where the Pacific flows through to the Indian Ocean.

Points to note (assuming the study is right):

  1. Temperatures started rising around 1700AD –  long before our carbon emissions.
  2. That temperatures were much warmer (0.65C)  in 1100AD than they were in 1950.
  3. 8,000 years ago water was 1.5 to 2 degrees warmer — isn’t that meant to be a global catastrophe? Apparently coral reefs, fish, and turtles survived.

 

Figure 4.  Holocene changes in Pacific Ocean heat content. (A) Reconstructed anomalies in Pacific OHC in the 0- to 700-m depth interval for the early Holocene, mid-Holocene, MWP, and LIA periods. Reconstructed anomalies are calculated relative to the reference period of 1965 to 1970 CE (15). (B) Reconstructed rates of OHC change during the main
transition periods. Reconstructed anomalies and rates are compared with modern observations for the 2000 to 2010 and 1955 to 2010 CE periods, respectively (5). The middle line at each box represents an average estimate for 50% of the Pacific
volume between 0 and 700 m, whereas the top and bottom quartiles of the box represent 62.5 and 37.5% of the total volume in this depth interval, respectively. The bottom whiskers represent 25% of the volume; the top whisker denotes 75%. The  modern value is based on the entire Pacific volume for 0 to 700 m.

The error bars on the OHC rate of change seem completely unrealistic given the assumptions.

The waters come from the high latitude areas of the Pacific.

“At intermediate depths, the Banda Sea gets contributions from the South Pacific through the northwestward-flowing New Guinea Coastal Undercurrent (NGCUC). Studies suggest that the NGCUC carries a substantial contribution from the Antarctic Intermediate Water, spreading into the Banda Sea through the Lifamatola andMakassar passages (10). ”

…Thus, the hydrography of intermediate water in this region is linked to and influenced by surface conditions in the high latitudes of the Pacific Ocean …

The authors conclude the temperature swings were large and global (though I notice they are measuring sediments in Indonesia to assess temperatures of “North Pacific” and “Antarctic Intermediate Waters” (AAIW), which does not sound obvious – but these are zones of water, and for example, AAIW is the name of a band of water stretching up from Antarctica as far as 20N. 

“We show that water masses linked to North Pacific and Antarctic intermediate waters were warmer
by 2.1 T 0.4°C and 1.5 T 0.4°C, respectively, during the middle Holocene Thermal Maximum
than over the past century. Both water masses were ~0.9°C warmer during the Medieval Warm
period than during the Little Ice Age and ~0.65° warmer than in recent decades.

“The inferred similarity in temperature anomalies at both hemispheres is consistent with recent evidence from Antarctica (30), thereby supporting the idea that HTM [holocene], MWP [Medieval Warm Period], and LIA [Little Ice Age] were global events.Furthermore, the similar expressions in both hemispheres indicate a strong link to global radiative perturbations rather than a regional response to changes in ocean circulation. “

Antarctic Intermediate Waters are the band in dark pink centre top. You get the idea. (Not near Antarctica).

They figured out the past water temperature by looking at ocean sediments and magnesium-to-calcium ratios of benthic foraminifera.

We studied well-dated sediment cores (table S1) in the Makassar Strait. Shallow cores (450 to 600 m) are used to reconstruct the hydrographic history of the lower thermocline, which currently is strongly influenced by NPIW. Deeper cores (650 to 900m) from the Bali Basin on the western edge of the Flores Sea are arguably under greater influence of Southern Hemisphere (SH) water masses.

We use Mg/Ca measurements in the benthic foraminifer Hyalinea balthica for reconstructing intermediate water temperatures (IWTs). This species is ideally suited to track small temperature changes due to its high Mg/Ca-temperature sensitivity [Mg/Ca = (0.488 T 0.03)·IWT] (13, 14). The error on IWT estimates is ±0.7°C for raw data and ±0.35°C [one standard error of the estimate (SEE)] for composite records.

The temperature trends from Figure S8a show temperatures have been falling for 7,500 years when they peaked in the Holocene. In Figure S8b we see how temperatures fell from 1100AD to 1700AD then rose from 1700AD to 1950.

 

 

Caveats

Theirs, for Figure 4

“With no additional IWT records, it is difficult to assess the global extent of the trends we have reconstructed. Instead, we evaluate the possible implications for Pacific OHC at four discrete periods during the Holocene. We consider three sensitivity cases, whereby the observed IWT trends in Indonesia are applied to 25, 50, and 75% of the Pacific volume between 0 and 700 m (15) (Fig. 4).”

Mine, in general:

It’s an important region, but it’s only one place. As well, other studies suggest ocean currents can shift, which could make a large difference to temperatures. See this study for example. This paper also references the dubious Marcott study, which has lots and lots of problems. Marcott admitted their modern data was not “robust” or “representative” but issued press releases with a misleadingly different message.

Comparing modern rates of warming?

I find it remarkable that they can also say: “The modern rate of Pacific OHC change is, however, the highest in the past 10,000 years (Fig. 4 and table S3)”. When I look at Figure 4 or Table S3, the years are grouped in the same clusters as the graphs in Fig S8. So they compare the 55 year modern era with data clustered over 350 years, 600 years, and 5,500 years. If there was a 5o year period of more rapid warming say, 4,000 years ago, what are the chances it will show up in a grouped average spread over 5,000 years? None. In figure 2 (shown below), there are rapid spikes that appear larger and faster during the Holocene than at the end of the graph. I must be missing something. Surely there is more to it than this?

Fig. 2. Comparison between Holocene reconstructions …of intermediate-water temperatures.
(C) changes in IWT at 500 m, and (D) changes in IWT at 600 to 900 m. All anomalies are calculated relative to the temperature at 1850 to 1880 CE. Shaded bands represent T1 SD. Note the different temperature scales. [Fig A and B relate to surface waters studied  in Marcott, (are they serious?).].

Otherwise, what we see in Figure 2 is that ocean heat content was probably higher for most of the last 10,000 years, but we are panicking now due to a 0.06C rise since 1950.

Michael Mann has commented on the Huffpost on this. Naturally he likes this last point about “rates” but finds the point about the ocean heat content being higher during Medieval times as being “enigmatic”. He doesn’t think we can compare the current temperature to the one from medieval times because core tops are notoriously bad estimates of “current” conditions.

“Modern” conditions are typically defined by the “tops” of the sediment core obtained by drilling down below the ocean bottom. But sediment core tops are notoriously bad estimates of “current” climate conditions because of various factors, including the limited temporal resolution owing to slow sediment deposition rates, and processes that mix and smear information at the top of the core. Core tops for these reasons tend not to record the most recent climate changes. Thus, the researchers’ data do not explicitly resolve the large recent increases in temperature (and heat content). But if the warming of the past half century is not resolved by their data, then the assumption that those data can be registered against a common modern baseline (the authors use a reference period of 1965-1970) too is suspect. That registration is critical to their conclusion that modern heat content has not exceeded the bounds of the past two millennia.

I wonder why the core tops would be good at estimating “rates of change” of the modern era if they are not good at absolute temperatures. I also wonder how older sediments become “unsmeared” if newer ones are smeared? Mann’s skepticism here seems part-time.

Mann does make a reasonable point that ENSO conditions would affect the results and if La Nina’s were more common that would make the IndoPacific warmer, while the Eastern Pacific would be cooler.

My opinion? Obviously this is only one region, not a global test. I would like a lot more surveys of IWT ocean sediments. But given that we know that many proxies  show that the world was as warm or warmer during medieval times and boreholes around the world agree that the big swings were global, I feel pretty comfortable concluding that with all the other proxies (like Ljundqvist and Christiansen) this is more evidence the Medieval Warm Period was global, may have been warmer than today. There is a lot of heat content wrapped up in a body of “intermediate water” with these large temperature changes, even if it does not represent most of the Pacific). I’m also happy to conclude what we already know — that the holocene was definitely warmer than today, but it tells us nothing about rates of ocean heat content change on short timespans. Argo data uses 3,000 buoys but is only ten years old. This is one site but 10,000 years long. Neither give us the certainty we need on ocean heat changes.

But we know the climate models don’t explain why it was as warm 1000 years ago, or cooler 300 years ago. They can’t tell us why it started warming around 1700 because they don’t understand the climate.

REFERENCES

Yair Rosenthal1,*, Braddock K. Linsley2, Delia W. Oppo3 (2013) Pacific Ocean Heat Content During the Past 10,000 Years, Science 1 November,Vol. 342 no. 6158 pp. 617-621  DOI: 10.1126/science.1240837 [Sciencemag.org ]

Christiansen, B. and Ljungqvist F. C.  (2012). The extra-tropical Northern Hemisphere temperature in the last two millennia: reconstructions of low-frequency variability. Climate of the Past, 8(2):765–786, 2012. [abstract] [PDF] [NASA copy] [Discussion on CA noted a lack of complete archives and code]

Ljungqvist, F. C., Krusic, P. J., Brattström, G., and Sundqvist, H. S (2012).: Northern Hemisphere temperature patterns in the last 12 centuries, Clim. Past, 8, 227-249, doi:10.5194/cp-8-227-2012, 2012. [abstract] [PDF] or try this [PDF] [CO2science discussion]

 

Indonesia Map Credit: ehacker

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 8.7/10 (45 votes cast)
Ocean heat content around Indonesia shows Medieval Warm Period and 2C warmth in holocene, 8.7 out of 10 based on 45 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/n8gwesb

116 comments to Ocean heat content around Indonesia shows Medieval Warm Period and 2C warmth in holocene

  • #
    Curt

    Signal Processing 101 says that uncertainty in a measurement means much larger uncertainty in estimations in the rate of change in that measurement. This is true whether the uncertainty comes from limited resolution, measurement noise, or limited fidelity of the measurement to the underlying quantity.


    Report this

    40

  • #

    This study appears hugely problematic in claiming that the oceans were a lot warmer than at present, as Joanne points out. The magnitude of the difference in stored ocean heat is phenomenal compared with any recent changes. But like the deeply flawed Marcott study it does suggest a long-term cooling trend over the last few millennia, and does corroborate many other studies that show an MWP. That creates a problem for those that claim we are experiencing non-trivial anthropogenic global warming with little or no natural variation.


    Report this

    40

  • #
    pattoh

    “8,000 years ago water was 1.5 to 2 degrees warmer ”

    With respect to the temp v solubility product of CO2; is their a resultant perceptible peak in (out gassed) CO2 in ice core data?

    Is it generally consistent with the ~ 600 – 800 – 1000y lag cycle?

    i.e. parallel to the argued MWP & the current atmosphereic CO2


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Bruce

    See however: http://climateaudit.org/2013/11/02/rosenthal-et-al-2013/

    The boys and girls in the paleoclimate game appear to be universally incompetent, as any report of interest has the bark ripped off it by McIntyre.


    Report this

    70

    • #
      Jaymez

      Sorry Bruce I must have been writing my post while you posted this – snap! Well not exactly snap. McIntyre was not really getting stuck into the paper – he was getting stuck into those who were using the paper to claim that current rise in OHC was at an unprecedented rate – which is also what Rosenthal et al said softly just so they could bow at the alter of CAGW.


      Report this

      50

  • #
    Jaymez

    Steve McIntyre does a very detailed slap down of Michael Mann’s sloppy attempt to jump on board the claims of rapid rate of ocean heat content in the modern era here: http://climateaudit.org/2013/11/02/rosenthal-et-al-2013/

    McIntyre shows there is no basis in the paper or the data to support the claim that the rate of rise in ocean heat content is “15 times faster” than in previous warming cycles over the past 10,000 years (though the term “15 times faster” is not actually made in the peer reviewed article): it has been made in the Columbia, Huffington Post and Rutgers press releases and was repeated by Michael Mann.

    McIntyre basically says that looking at the reconstructed data over the 10,000 years there is absolutely no way the authors and certainly not Mann, would be in a position to say the current up-tick in OHC is unprecedented. McIntyre replotted the data for the last 2000 years against the actual temperature data for the modern era and on that he says categorically:

    “…the data in the article offers little support for the assertion that the modern rate of increase is 15 times greater than any previous increase – or, indeed, for the weaker proposition that the modern increase is unprecedented. Moreover, it stands against claims that modern temperatures are themselves unprecedented, not only within the Holocene, but within the last two millennia.”

    McIntyre does not have a problem with the overall conclusions of Rosenthal et al regarding the extent and timing of the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age compared to modern day temperatures but goes to some length to explain some issues with Rosenthal et al’s data analysis. He warns against trying to draw too specific conclusions from the data. Trying to compare the slope of a warming period over a few recent decades against reconstructed data from thousands of years ago would seem a futile exercise given the known inaccuracies and error bands which can be seen on the graphs plotted. McIntyre writes of one of the data tables shown at his blog:

    “While the calculations in this table seem peculiar – ranging from apparent arithmetic errors to questionable extrapolation from temperature change to ocean heat content, one should not presume that a corrected version of this table necessarily makes sense: the entire enterprise of attempting to compare changes in ocean heat content based on proxy data on Intermediate Water seems both ill-conceived and forced.”


    Report this

    80

  • #
    AndyG55

    Its really only mathematically sound to compare equal periods of time.

    The last little bit is 55 or so years.

    And they can’t resolve older proxy data to that sort of time period.


    Report this

    20

  • #
    Yonniestone

    Even though it’s only one place it’s another arrow in the skeptical quiver.
    What is it with Warmists when they claim one (short) time period is more critical than another then completely reverse their tact?.
    I have a few sayings about being “all over the place” but I think “enough rope” will suffice.


    Report this

    50

  • #
    AndyG55

    All I can say is, thank goodness for the CSWTFP. !


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Laterite

    It’s not really a point because of the sampling of the ocean’s water that flows through the straits. Clever study.


    Report this

    20

  • #
    ColdinOz

    Since the Indonesian throughflow comes from the Pacific Warm Pool which is an intrinsic component of the ENSO process, perhaps a reasonable question would be; are the findings of this study a reflection of the ratio of ElNino events to LaNina events, through any given time period.


    Report this

    40

    • #
      JohnM

      Under “neutral” or La Nina conditions warm surface water will pour south through the SE archipelago. I’m surprised that the paper didn’t mention this. Sea level in the Philippines goes up with La Nina and down with El Nino. During El Nino events I’d expect cooler water in that region. (Don’t get hung up on “events” – they are just artificial thresholds – the bigger question is whether there’s a sustained propensity toward El Nino or La Nina states because short-term conditions won’t do a lot to the temperature proxies but sustained conditions certainly might.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Dan Pangburn

    At http://danpangburn.blogspot.com/ see an eye-opening graph and a simple equation that, with only one external forcing, calculates the average global temperature anomaly trend since 1610 and, with 90% accuracy, calculates measured average global temperature anomalies since 1895. See why the LIA and Global Warming both ended. CO2 change had no significant influence.


    Report this

    10

  • #
    handjive

    Do the oceans control the climate, or does cO2?

    What role does enso have?
    .
    Ms .Jo’s post paper linked above abstract begins:
    “Observed increases in ocean heat content (OHC) and temperature are robust indicators of global warming during the past several decades.”

    This just released paper claims proof of anthropogenic cO2 forcings over natural on enso:
    Inferred changes in El Niño–Southern Oscillation variance over the past six centuries
    (via a wuwt post: Claim: El Nino events get more extreme as globe warms)

    Yet another paper published in Nature Oct 2013 claims proof man made catastrophic global warming controls enso:
    Robust twenty-first-century projections of El Niño and related precipitation variability
    “What we found was those two effects are intensified in the future, because global warming interferes with the impact El Nino has,” Dr Power said, citing peer-reviewed research …”

    Hmm. Let’s see what realclimate has to say: El Niño and Global Warming – May 2006
    “How could a change in the background state affect ENSO?
    There are a number of different theories which go in different directions, but part of the difficulty is that we cannot put our finger on one mechanism and say ‘this is the one!’.”

    Nope. No proof man made cO2 controls enso back in the good ole days when the science was settled.

    That realclimate link is worth a read & revision with reference to ocean circulation; Hadley & Walker, and le nino piling water up in the west pacific. So many questions.

    For example, In comments, rc post author Raymond Pierrehumbert responds to comment #7:
    “This argument shows that a permanent El Nino would have a different effect on global temperature than a transient one, since all that newly exposed warm water would eventually cool off.
    The subsurface water, by the way, is colder than the surface water.”

    Q: How does Trenberth’s missing heat, now found in the deep cold ocean, get past that colder subsurface water?

    I digress.


    Report this

    30

    • #
      AndyG55

      “and le nino piling water up in the west pacific”

      If it is “piled up” it must have increased potential energy?

      And when it releases, it must release that potential energy?

      (sorry if that makes no sense, just a random thought)


      Report this

      10

      • #
        handjive

        Andy, partially “my words”. Here is the quote:

        “The background conditions are essential for the existence of ENSO. The prevailing surface winds over the tropical Pacific blow from east-to-west (easterlies), and tend drive a surface current, pushing (advecting) the warm surface water westward. The winds are known as ‘trade winds’ and have played an important role in the world history in terms of the ship routes for sailing vessels. The western tropical Pacific is known as the ‘warm pool’ with the highest sea surface temperature (SST) in the world (on average).
        The trade winds ‘pile’ up water masses in the west, resulting in a slightly higher sea level in the west. The higher sea level near the western ocean boundary creates a west-east pressure difference in the ocean, that results in the equatorial undercurrent flowing from west to east below the surface.”

        As ColdinOz asks at comment #10 about the enso effect, seems there might be an influence if the quote above is correct.


        Report this

        10

        • #
          AndyG55

          I’m trying to get some idea of the amount of energy that must be stored in those slightly higher sea levels in the western Pacific, with a slightly higher temperature.

          I suspect a really staggering amount of energy.

          No wonder we get a troposphere temperature jump and bounce when it releases !


          Report this

          10

    • #
      handjive

      A good link is found in the comments section at the wuwt link from steve b which shows the complete failure in trying to link enso with man made climate change/global warming.

      Another example was from Governor Macquarie who in an El Niño related drought in 1814 had to import food to avoid what he called:

      “…the heavy calamity of very great scarcity, both of animal feed and of grain, if not in an actual famine.”

      http://www.abc.net.au/science/slab/elnino/story.htm

      The thought of famine in Australia seems quaint, from a 20th century perspective.
      Famine is what occurs in other countries during droughts, not here.
      And severe famines have certainly occurred in various parts of the world, during El Niño events. Perhaps the most notorious was the El Niño of 1877.
      This event resulted in the deaths of over nine million people in China and eight million in India.
      But this disaster led to the first scientific attempts to understand and predict drought and famine. Henry Blanford, then the head of the India Meteorological Department noticed that atmospheric pressures were higher than usual over India during the drought.
      He advised meteorologists in other parts of the British Empire of this fact and asked them about atmospheric pressures in their colonies……”

      1877 seems pretty extreme to me. What was the CO2 levels then?


      Report this

      10

  • #
    agwnonsense

    A very good documentary – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lmjaNO5DD_Q -2 parts.I found it very educational on ENSO and Ocean Temperatures in general,Cheers <:o)


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Bulldust

    Totally O/T … Hugh Morgan (correctly IMHO) compares IPCC to Club of Rome:

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/policy/ipcc-this-centurys-chicken-little/story-e6frg6xf-1226752383735#

    Paywalled – need Google search (the usual). That’s the advantage some older folks have, they have seen these scary campaigns before and recognise them for what they are.


    Report this

    20

    • #
      scaper...

      Yep, Hugh has nailed them.

      A prediction, over the next year or so many will come out and renounce this pagan religion.

      Not that Hugh was ever a believer in the rubbish but there will be a concerted campaign.


      Report this

      20

      • #
        MemoryVault

        .
        Huge Organ was active in the “Greenhouse Mafia” that so upset the Greenie luvvies over a decade ago, especially Clive Hamilton.
        He was also involved in the formation of the Lavoisier Group back in 2000.

        There’s nothing new about his climate skepticism.


        Report this

        20

      • #
        scaper...

        And speaking of miners…I see that the GVK/Hancock Coal project has got the final nod from Greg Hunt.

        That is a resource life of 8 billion tonnes of coal. Now, that is some serious CO2 emissions. How many warmists have to hold their breaths to off set that?


        Report this

        30

  • #
    Geoff Sherrington

    Keep in mind the possibility that errors in the measurement of OHC are currently so large that maybe nothing of any detailed value can be derived from the data.
    The coloured confidence intervals derived from standard deviations are not the total error. There is another error component, this being bias. Many of us are perhaps familiar with the widespread rejection of instrumental data before the advent of the Argo floats, a rejection that was caused by bias shown by the older instruments compared with the new.
    It cannot be assumed that Argo has eliminated its own bias; nor that a newer generation of instruments will not reject Argo because of bias. That remains to be tested.
    In any event, the volume sampling density of Argo, the small % of their deployment time actually spent on recording temperatures (as opposed to getting ready to measure temperatures), the few years of actual measurement since the start about year 2000 and the inability to cover shallow sections of oceans all combine to prevent a correct use of present data for many purposes because of true errors. (Or so I propose, hoping to be shown wrong by those more closely involved.)
    The error problems of floats applies as well to proxy data because proxies are often calibrated against instrumental float data.
    See Willis et al 2008 for a commentary on the state of the art of Argo for 2003-06 as known in 2008. From their abstract,
    http://au.search.yahoo.com/search?p=willis+2008+Argo+ocean+temperature&fr=sfp&fr2=&iscqry=
    “These systematic data errors are significantly larger than sampling errors in recent years and are the
    dominant sources of error in recent estimates of globally integrated upper-ocean heat content variability. The
    bias in the XBT data is found to be consistent with errors in the fall-rate equations, suggesting a physical
    explanation for that bias. With biased profiles discarded, no significant warming or cooling is observed in
    upper-ocean heat content between 2003 and 2006.”
    Then Levitus at al comes along in 2012 and people accept that data, that show a monotonic increase from 2003-2006. How did they correct the Willis trend? Yep, by readjustment. Willis already had abundant cherry picking, by rejecting float records that showed cooling.
    This science became a circus years ago. I have no respect for it.


    Report this

    90

    • #
      Brian G Valentine

      This science became a circus years ago. I have no respect for it.

      Small wonder. We’ve seen it before, though, in the application of “dialectical materialism” to explain anything and everything.


      Report this

      20

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    I see no mention of the geotectonic activity of the large intercontinental plate boundary under these seas?


    Report this

    30

    • #
      janama

      I agree Brian – in fact it’s an area of ocean heat and CO2 production that is never included.
      Recent surveys have determned there are 1.2 million active volcanoes in the area of land we can’t see, i.e. under the 70% of the planet covered by oceans.
      They’ve recently discovered a chain of 100 active volcanoes between Iceland and Svalbard, they are everywhere, spewing out CO2 and hot water yet they are never included in the calculations of ocean heat and CO2 levels.


      Report this

      30

  • #
    Dave

    O/T

    This came out today in the Brisbane Times at lunchtime.

    These 4 scientists, Tom Wigley; James Hansen, a former top NASA scientist; Ken Caldeira, of the Carnegie Institution; Kerry Emanuel, of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology have all called for nuclear energy to be fast tracked.

    Hansen, who’s now at Columbia University, says it’s not enough for environmentalists to simply oppose fossil fuels and promote renewable energy.

    “They’re cheating themselves if they keep believing this fiction that all we need” is renewable energy such as wind and solar, Hansen said.

    They are still welded on to the GANG GREEN GREEDY GAIA Lovers Group, but at least they now are covering their asres in advocating nuclear, and stating wind and solar is totally useless. Many more will follow. Maybe they have been reading this site?


    Report this

    21

  • #
    Dave

    O/T again

    Also coldest start to November in 40 years?

    It’s getting bloody freezing in Queensland also, blankets went on last two nights. But this is weather :)

    “Parts of southern New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory endured their coldest November night in over forty years, with the region set to chill again tonight. The ACT saw some of the coldest temperatures, with Canberra Airport dipping to -1.5 degrees, its coldest November night since 1970. Tuggeranong fell to a chilly 1.2 degrees, its coldest November night in a decade. In NSW, Goulburn Airport dipped to -3.1 degrees and Thredbo -6.1 degrees, the coldest November night since 2006. The unseasonably cold night was caused by a variety of factors. Firstly, a gusty cold front moved across the region yesterday, leaving behind a pool of cold air. Overnight, a high pressure system moved in, causing winds to ease as well as clear skies, allowing the mercury to plummet. This high will continue to bring similar conditions tonight, allowing for the region to shiver through another cold night. Canberra is expected to see it dip to zero tonight, and if this occurs, will be the coldest pair of November nights on record. Thredbo is expected to reach minus five, which would be its coldest pair of November nights since 2006. – Weatherzone © Weatherzone 2013″

    No reports by the CAGW led ABC at all on this fact.


    Report this

    51

    • #
      AndyG55

      Yep, the weather is certainly a bit bouncy at the moment. :-)

      Odd that the Canberra press gallery haven’t picked up on the fact that its not very warm up there at the moment. ;-)


      Report this

      40

    • #
      Andrew McRae

      ABC: “A plague on both houses: Swarms of bogong moths invade Parliament

      Linda Broome, who works for the New South Wales Office of Environment and Heritage and has been monitoring the moth for 27 years, says warm weather and strong winds have brought the moths to Canberra much earlier than usual. …
      The moths breed in the plains of southern Queensland, western New South Wales and Victoria and migrate south to cooler alpine areas – via Canberra.

      eh? Soooo…. The moths prefer a cooler temperature and migrate south during summer? And they are in Canberra now due to warmer-than-usual conditions in Qld?
      AND… Not a single mention of climate change!
      Such a wasted opportunity for scaremongering.

      Even the ABC are suffering climate fatigue.


      Report this

      30

      • #
        ianl8888

        The Bogong moth is a cool climate insect. Each year it migrates in mass between Mt Canoblas (Orange, NSW), where it winters, to the Bogong High Plains (Snowies, Vic side) where it summers.

        This is pretty well a N-S (& S-N) migration path. During the migration period, a wind change from either the east or west will blow a lot of the insects off course. Sydney is intermittently inundated (ie. a W wind). Occasionally, Canberra is swamped (ie. an E wind)

        “Climate change” is not a player. And the ABC is not a player, either


        Report this

        20

    • #
      Backslider

      Overnight, a high pressure system moved in, causing winds to ease as well as clear skies, allowing the mercury to plummet.

      Well dang! Where was all that CO2 to keep things warm? Isn’t it supposed to be like a blanket?? Michael! Michael!!!!

      Oh. According to the Meteorogical Institute of Engineers Researching and Developing Alarm (MIERDA) this is a clear sign of CO2 forcing causing cold Antarctic air to be displaced toward the equator – also known as Climate and Atmospheric Greenhouse Absquatulation (CAGA)


      Report this

      30

  • #
    Sunray

    Thank you Jo and friends for the edification, again.


    Report this

    10

  • #
    blackadderthe4th

    AGU ice core data, that debunks a global MWP and confirms the ‘Hockey Stick’.

    ‘Helen Mossley-Thompson…the senior scientist at the Byrd Polar Research Centre…got PHD and masters at Ohio State…[the decay of fossil fuel co2 in the atmosphere has a long tail that 33% of emissions today will still be in the atmosphere 100 years from now and 1000 years from now 19% of the emissions will be with us…for 30 years we at Ohio State…have drilled ice cores from all around the world…we have had a presence in the Polar regions, in Greenland, Antarctic…and the highest mountains in Tibet, Andes, Alaska, Russian Arctic and New Guinea. One of the reasons for this is that there is no single best ice core, single best place to drill an ice core, because it depends what question you are asking…because ice cores carries with them a local to regional signature…from these three ice cores in the South American Andes…you see a nice signature of the LIA cool period you see a modest MWP or WMA… in the South American record…but here is the composite from four ice cores from the Tibetan plateau and you see no LIA and NO MWP (MWA)…the source for the moisture for the glaciers in the Andes…is the Atlantic, particular in the North Atlantic basin we have a stronger signature…the one feature that stands out most strongly is the isotopic enrichment of the 20th century {thus proving AGW}…that reconstructions made of many tree ring, some coral records, some high resolution lake sediments and ice cores...and you will have to conclude…don’t look significantly different from the Northern hemisphere…but both carry the signature of the 20th century warming, in practically the last 50 years! {again re-enforcing AGW!}]

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yfyrkZezfk


    Report this

    122

    • #
      Brian G Valentine

      Thumbs down.


      Report this

      32

    • #
      Backslider

      the decay of fossil fuel co2 in the atmosphere has a long tail that 33% of emissions today will still be in the atmosphere 100 years from now and 1000 years from now 19% of the emissions will be with us

      Interesting. So how do they discriminate “fossil fuel CO2″ from “ordinary” CO2? Is “fossil fuel CO2″ so powerful that it defies Henry’s Law?


      Report this

      40

    • #
      Backslider

      from these three ice cores in the South American Andes…you see a nice signature of the LIA cool period you see a modest MWP or WMA… in the South American record…but here is the composite from four ice cores from the Tibetan plateau and you see no LIA and NO MWP (MWA)

      So in one set of ice cores they detect the MWP and LIA, but in another they do not?

      So what does that tell you? Clearly it indicates that some places with very extreme cold, such as the Tibetan Plateau were not affected a great deal, however the evidence for both periods is still overwhelming. You cannot make a conclusion based on just one bunch of researchers and only two sets of data.


      Report this

      40

    • #
      blackadderthe4th

      ‘So how do they discriminate “fossil fuel CO2″ from “ordinary” CO2?’ simple, they have an isotope signature, which can be detected and the difference resolved!


      Report this

      19

      • #
        Backslider

        they have an isotope signature, which can be detected and the difference resolved

        Is that so? Then perhaps you can explain exactly how it is detected, what exactly is the “signature” and also how it manages to defy Henry’s Law and behaves differently to other CO2? (no links please, just your own explanation).


        Report this

        50

        • #
          blackadderthe4th

          ‘Then perhaps you can explain exactly how it is detected’ they can go down to atomic level and count the electrons, that is how the signature is revealed, simple is it not?


          Report this

          09

          • #
            Backslider

            So you are saying that scientists can tell that the CO2 is pumped out of the exhaust of my Harley, not some forest fire in the back of woop woop, or some peat marsh in Hoidyhoy……. I don’t think so sonny.


            Report this

            40

          • #
            Dave

            BA4,

            So you go to the atomic level and count the electrons, is this right so far BA4?

            So tell us more about the isotope signature that is based on electron number for CO2 isotopes BA4.

            Just give me the number of electrons in say two different CO2 isotopes BA4.


            Report this

            30

            • #
              • #
                Dave

                err what Geeaye

                BA4 says that the isotopes of CO2 are based on electron numbers, don’t tell me you agree with this?


                Report this

                10

              • #
                Gee Aye

                I think I might have spoiled your fun – note that my teacher comment to Heywood below is my response to BA’s statement about electrons, so I’ve already answered your question but not explicitly.


                Report this

                02

            • #
              AndyG55

              One day one of these climate gekes may actually realise that the oxygen isotope change over the past 50-100 years is most probably a product of the industrial process, and very little to do with AGW.


              Report this

              30

            • #
              Heywood

              “So you go to the atomic level and count the electrons, is this right so far BA4?”

              Come on Dave, everyone knows, including BA4, that Carbon-12 has twelve electrons, Carbon-13 has thirteen electrons and Carbon-14 has fourteen electrons.

              This is the ‘isotopic signature’ that BA4 is talking about.

              Der!

              /sarc off


              Report this

              30

              • #
                AndyG55

                Quite bizarre really.

                His wilful display of basic ignorance.

                But hey, it BA4, what else can we expect.


                Report this

                10

              • #
                AndyG55

                The teacher in me wants to help him.

                But I gave up teaching low IQ 15 year olds, many years ago.

                And the global temperature hasn’t risen since.

                Actually, looking back, the correlation is staggering.

                I left high school maths and science teaching and the global temp stopped rising..

                Must be more than a coincidence !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :-)


                Report this

                10

        • #
          Gee Aye

          geez how tedius. This is basic science and however BA4 answers wont change it.


          Report this

          01

          • #
            Gee Aye

            and tedious too


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Backslider

            This is basic science

            Is it really? Then I invite you to explain it.


            Report this

            30

            • #
              Graeme No.3

              Well, once you accept that the Andes are near the Atlantic it is fairly easy.

              So, unless you are one of those nitpickers who think the winds from the west and believe generations of scientists who demonstrate them as influence by the Pacific Ocean, then you might think that Blackbladder has a point.

              Clearly, to quote Spike Milligan, he doesn’t know his Madras from his Elba.


              Report this

              50

            • #
              Gee Aye

              I invite you to learn how to learn. Asking random pieces of vegetation to copy and paste information you can get easily yourself is not a pathway to knowledge. I suspect you wandered off that path a long time ago.


              Report this

              05

              • #
                Backslider

                So Gee, I take it that you are the same as BA….. you simply do not know.


                Report this

                30

              • #
                Gee Aye

                whether I know or not is immaterial. If you actually don’t know, this is a poor way to find out. If you actually know but think that whether I or BA or Heywood or Barak Obama knows means anything with regards to how and whether the percentage of atmospheric carbon or CO2 derived from human sources can be estimated, is one of the poorest lines of argument ever presented on this forum.


                Report this

                04

              • #
                AndyG55

                And that would be one of the poorest excuses I have seen on this forum.


                Report this

                20

          • #
            Heywood

            Maybe so, but he only answered half the question.


            Report this

            20

            • #
              Gee Aye

              hmmm well I’m gad that BA4 is not a science teacher.


              Report this

              41

              • #
                Heywood

                Aren’t we all.

                There is already a science teacher who posts on this forum whom I would be very concerned if he was teaching my kids. BA4 would probably just cycle his boyfriend’s YouTube videos ad nauseum to the class until they were thorougly indoctrinated.


                Report this

                50

              • #
                blackadderthe4th

                ‘until they were thorougly indoctrinated.’ to be more accurate ‘correctly informed’!


                Report this

                07

              • #
                Dave

                Hey, BA4,

                When are you putting your brand new theory on YouTube

                Blackadder The 1st at recognising the signature of CO2 isotopes by counting electrons?

                Ha ahaaah haaaah hahahwwahaha haaawh.


                Report this

                30

              • #
                Rereke Whakaaro

                Indoctrination is consistently lying to an individual or group of individuals, usually through education, or the media, or business management (or union) meetings – is often called ‘consultation’, or ‘orientation’, or programmed learning. Some businesses in Europe and the US even have company songs, that always seem to have a marching tempo.

                Being ‘correctly informed’ is a euphemism for psychological reprogramming – brainwashing – where a persons world view is systematically dismantled, and then rebuilt around a system of triggers and responses, to suite the world view of whomever is doing it. The younger the subject, the easier the reprogramming is. A lot of placard wavers at protest rallies, are the same group of people – “No Nukes” this week – “Gay Rights” the next – “Save the Gerbil” – whatever. They form the basis of rent-a-mob, and they are ‘correctly informed’ that the world can be a better place for gerbils, if they can protest long and hard enough.

                The awful Ten-ten videos, of people being blown up, was a product of the makers being ‘correctly informed’ about climate catastrophe, and a need to weed out the naysayers.


                Report this

                30

              • #
                AndyG55

                BA4 say “to be more accurate ‘correctly informed’”

                Certainly hasn’t worked for you, has it !!


                Report this

                10

      • #
        cohenite

        So how do they discriminate “fossil fuel CO2″ from “ordinary” CO2?’ simple, they have an isotope signature, which can be detected and the difference resolved!

        Garbage. A BobC notes:

        Actually, isotopic analysis is unable to distinguish between CO2 from fossil fuels and volcanos. To attribute a given fraction of the C12-enriched CO2 to fossil fuel burning, one has to estimate the number of volcanos and amounts of CO2 they emit. This is not a known number — since 1991, the estimated number of undersea volcanos has gone from 10,000 to > 3 million. Precision isotopic analysis of anthropogenic atmospheric CO2 fraction is impossible in this environment of uncertainty and rapidly changing estimates.

        Given that the isotopic estimates of anthropogenic fraction are in stark opposition to the many empirical studies (as opposed to theoretical models) of the carbon cycle, I would not put very much credence in the isotopic conclusions.


        Report this

        82

        • #
          Brett

          I think he may have been mixing his sources. The paper i found measured 18o isotopes.
          I couldn’t see whether it was man made oxygen though.
          I couldn’t find any data on Coral records or tree rings in the ice core samples either.


          Report this

          30

          • #
            MemoryVault

            I think he may have been mixing mangling his sources.

            There. Fixed it for you, Brett.


            Report this

            10

          • #
            AndyG55

            18O is presumed to be a marker for climatic temperature, (with a negative correlation)

            That may be ok for past records, but it cannot be used for temperature trends in the last 100 or so years. The industrial process heavily depletes 18O, dependent on the rate of combustion, so the massive growth in industry over the last 100 or so years is bound to show up in ice cores as a depleted 18O signal.

            The issue is that rabid warmists then think they can use this signal to show warming over the last 50 or so years.

            Are they ignorant, or are they intentionally trying to fool people.?? Or both.??


            Report this

            20

        • #
          Dave

          BD,

          All of the Climate scientists explain the 13C/12C ratio decline by the increase in fossil fuels being burnt. They do not allow for the following:

          1. The volcanic activity (your details above)
          2. The massive increase in C4 plants (crops etc) in agriculture that actively collect the heavier 13 CO2 compared to C3 plants. It is estimated some 40% of carbon sequestration is performed by C4 plants (yet only represent 3% of the plant species). This group of C4 plants take massive amounts of 13CO2 from the atmosphere (twice the amount as in C3).
          3. The bushfires (mainly in forestry areas) emit CO2 from C3 plants also reduce the 13C/12C ratio.
          4. The 13C the is sequestered by C4 plants mainly go to the human food chain, (cattle fed on corn etc) and end up at the end of sewerage effluent and often disposed of (ocean or land) so the content in the atmosphere is further reduce of 13C CO2.

          The use of the 13C/12c ratio decline by CAGW warmists is totally wrong.


          Report this

          41

      • #
        Safetyguy66

        Who knew there were so many places to drill ice. According to the rhetoric it should all be gone by now shouldnt it ?


        Report this

        30

    • #
      Brett

      Do you mean Ellen Mosley-Thompson – Ice Core Paleoclimatology Group Member -Research Scientist?
      Here is a related paper from Byrd Polar Research Center.

      “in the South American record”
      Huascaran – Tropical “In the tropical Andes 18O enrichment begins earlier, around A.D. 1750, at the Huascarán site, which is closer to the equator, whereas 18O enrichment begins around A.D. 1830 on Quelccaya further to the south. Interestingly, the 18O history from Sajama, the southernmost core site, located in a very dry region, shows little trend over the 400-yr period.”
      Tibetan Plateau – NOT Tropical

      “thus proving AGW”
      From the same paper – “Although the factors driving the current 18O enrichment (warming) may be debated” “confirms that it is unusual from a 2,000-yr perspective.” “The evidence presented here indicates that rising air temperature (not reduced precipitation) is the primary driver of glacier retreat in the tropics and subtropics.” “However, the Huascaran record is much longer, extending back into the last glacial stage and indicating that conditions were warmer (18O-enriched) from 11 to 6 ka (the early Holocene) than in the late Holocene (23). In fact, the Huascaran 18O record suggests that temperatures in the tropical Pacific were 1.5 to 2.0°C warmer between11 and 8 ka (14,23), contemporaneous with the warmest period of the Holocene in this region.” “The latter half of the Holocene experienced widespread cooling, although some regions were cool and dry, whereas others were cool and wet. In the areas receiving abundant precipitation, mountain glaciers expanded (34, 35). Mounting evidence from diverse archives suggests the occurrence of an abrupt ‘‘cold snap’’ just before the onset of the prolonged cooler late Holocene that lasted nearly 5 ka.” “These observations strongly suggest that the mid-Holocene transition from early to late Holocene conditions was abrupt and widespread, particularly in mid- to low latitudes, and it affected human activities over a wide geographical area.”

      - So how did we do this? 20th Century warming does NOT reinforce AGW. By that assumption, standing next to a gay person makes you gay. Does 21st century stalling reinforce anything?


      Report this

      30

    • #
      Heywood

      So BA4th,

      “AGU ice core data, that debunks a global MWP… “

      I assume you have posted this as a rebuttal to the main post, which is about a paper that was published on the 1st November 2013.

      In that time, you and your boyfriend Richard have managed to read the paper, review the data, re-crunch the numbers and develop a response.

      That’s what happened wasn’t it? You aren’t just plugging tired old YouTube propoganda again are you?


      Report this

      30

      • #
        blackadderthe4th

        ‘which is about a paper that was published on the 1st November 2013.’ it matters not! Because we can assume that the ice cores are older than that! Therefore there is no evidence of a global MWP!


        Report this

        05

  • #
    Brett

    O/T
    Seems they’ve dropped the ball with keeping the kids interested / (Insert ‘alternative conception’ here). What do young people really know about climate change?


    Report this

    10

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      Ya gods and little fishes.

      When the next generation comes to power, we will be governed by a complete pack of morons … so no change really …


      Report this

      50

      • #
        Graeme No.3

        I read the article to say that young people aren’t at all interested in “climate science”. Can’t be bothered with scares.

        A sign of common sense?


        Report this

        30

        • #
          Andrew McRae

          What if they aren’t interested because they think the science is settled and it is time to move on to action such as deploying renewables?
          I’ve occasionally seen comments in other forums where the “Gen Y” and “Millenials” believe the Baby Boomers are stupidly holding back all these changes and nothing can be done until the baby boomers die.
          Just offhand I can find Reddit/Australia comments such as this and several comments under posts like this one. Probably more can be found on newspaper comments and letters to editors etc.
          An entire generation of sleeper cells, basically.


          Report this

          10

          • #
            Karl W. Braun

            The majority of young people today appear to be uninterested because they are much more interested in matters they feel are more relevant to their day to day personal lives.


            Report this

            10

  • #
    Mark D.

    8,000 years ago water was 1.5 to 2 degrees warmer —

    Whoa, the last Ice age supposedly ended 13,000 years ago so it was warmer 8,000 years ago? Well, what caused that warmth? Besides that what has been pushing temperatures down since then?

    It seems to me those “climate scientists” have got some explaining to do………


    Report this

    60

  • #

    [...] Rosenthal et al have put out quite a humdinger of a paper. They’ve reconstructed the temperature of the water flowing out of the Pacific to the Indian Ocean over the last 10,000 years and as deep as 900m. The Indonesian Throughflow is pretty significant in global ocean currents. There’s narrow routes for Pacific upper waters to squeeze through to the Indian Ocean through the Makassar and Lombok Straits, and via the Lifamatola Passage through the Banda Sea, and water comes in from both the North and South Pacific.  [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tim

    “Difficult to assess” “possible implications” “they don’t understand the climate.”

    We simple folk have been waiting for some 30 years for answers. We are still waiting.


    Report this

    50

  • #
    Neville

    Great post from Dr Robert Brown from Duke University. He states that the IPCC 5th report is a failure and shouldn’t have been presented in it’s present form.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/04/lets-face-it-the-climate-has-never-been-more-boring/#more-96765
    He also states that many of the C models should be thrown in the bin. He also thinks that much of the science is of a political nature and is not real science at all.
    Spot on Dr Brown.And we’re still wasting tens of billions $ flogging this CAGW dead horse.


    Report this

    51

  • #
    philjourdan

    Of course nothing but temperature could affect a bristlecone pine! That is why Mann refuses to believe any other evidence! Even if he had to graft an instrumental onto his dendro and upside down Tiljander.

    A shame they do not have malpractice in science. His premiums would bankrupt the quack.


    Report this

    30

  • #
    pat

    5 Nov: Bloomberg: Alex Morales: Kyoto Veterans Say Global Warming Goal Slipping Away
    The only three living diplomats who have led the United Nations global warming talks said there’s little chance the next climate treaty will prevent the world from overheating…

    ***“There is nothing that can be agreed in 2015 that would be consistent with the 2 degrees,” said Yvo de Boer, who was UNFCCC executive secretary in 2009, when attempts to reach a deal at a summit in Copenhagen crumbled with a rift between industrialized and developing nations. “The only way that a 2015 agreement can achieve a 2-degree goal is to shut down the whole global economy.”…
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-11-04/kyoto-veterans-say-global-warming-goal-slipping-away.html

    read more if u want quotes from christiana, al, WWF etc. don’t expect any quote whatsoever from anyone who thinks shutting down the whole global economy over exaggerated CAGW is insane.


    Report this

    20

    • #

      Thanks pat.

      You have to really wonder about The Kyoto Protocol. They just keep moving the goalposts.

      Note here that the emphasis is now on the Plus 2 Degrees thing. Drama drama drama! Can we ever make it.

      The ORIGINAL Kyoto protocol called fir reductions of Greenhouse Gas emissions to a level 5% lower than what they were in 1990, and while the UNFCCC specifically named 24 of those gases, CO2 was the main gas and was taken as the base gas, with all others calculated in multipliers of CO2.

      Now, not one Country has ever remotely approached reducing their CO2 emissions to the stated target, and even now, with the two degrees C as the emphasis, Countries will hope to reduce their emissions to a level 5% lower than what they are now.

      That bears absolutely no relationship with the original target, 5% lower than 1990 levels.

      So, with Dear Leader Kevin signing us up to Kyoto at Bali in front of flashing camera bulbs, and his quote of the greatest moral challenge of our time, did dear Kevvie actually DO anything to at least try and get close to that number of 5% lower than 1990 levels.

      Well yes, he actually did.

      Knowing full well that 5% lower than 1990 was totally unobtainable, he had the rules changed so Australia’s NEW level would be 8% HIGHER than 1990 levels.

      So then, how close do we actually get to that?

      Currently, Australia’s emissions of CO2 only from the burning of fossil fuels stand at 51% higher than the 1990 level.

      51% higher.

      Now perhaps you can see why the concentration is on that Plus 2 degrees C, because when it comes to CO2 emissions, those targets will never be reached, no matter how many times they move the goalposts.

      Tony.


      Report this

      40

      • #
        Graeme No.3

        Tony:
        Kevin did not set our emission level at an 8% increase. This was done at the original conference setting up Kyoto, where the Australian contingent lead by William Kininmonth argued that reducing land clearing was the equivalent of cutting emissions. I believe Australia’s location far away from most customers was another card. He certainly did his duty by Australia.

        You may have noticed that Kininmonth, a retired but very experienced meteorologist regularly writes to newspapers etc. as a strong sceptic. Many meteorologists are sceptical e.g. Anthony Watt, and polls of them always show a vast majority against AGW. The only poll with any encouragement for the warmists was in (or around) 1990 when they got 16%, with roughly another 30% unsure. Since then supporters (+undecided) have dwindled to below 3% (I won’t make the obvious claim).


        Report this

        10

  • #
    pat

    more detail for TonyfromOz at the link:

    4 Nov: Bloomberg: Julia Mengewein: Merkel Facing Power Dilemma as Coal Plants Open: Energy Markets
    Germany, Europe’s biggest power market, is poised to open its first new coal-fired plants in eight years, just as prices slump because of a glut of electricity.
    GDF Suez SA, Trianel GmbH and Steag GmbH will bring three new plants online by December, enough to supply more than 4.4 million homes. The nation is already producing so much electricity that exports will surpass last year’s record in 2013, according to the Fraunhofer Institute for Solar Energy Systems in Muenster, Germany. Power prices may slide 12 percent by 2016, according to UBS AG in Zurich…
    Even as the $757-billion energy shift boosts renewable power output to 35 percent of total supply by 2020, from 23 percent now, Merkel will be more reliant than ever on fossil fuels to drive Europe’s biggest economy on cloudy and still days.

    “Merkel’s government has put itself in a dilemma,” said Danny Graefe, who has traded power and natural gas for four years at AVU AG fuer Versorgungs-Unternehmen in Gevelsberg, Germany. “On the one hand it is promoting green energy, on the other hand, we see all those hard coal plants coming online now. I don’t see anything bullish in the power market.” …
    The three new plants mark the start of Germany’s (GRGDPPGQ) biggest new-build program since its power market was liberalized in 1998. The units will boost the nation’s hard-coal capacity by 8.5 percent, and the total generation ability by 1.2 percent, according to data compiled by Bloomberg…
    The profit from burning coal next year compared with the loss from using gas rose to 27.35 euros a megawatt-hour on Oct. 11, the most in at least four years.

    “Coal and lignite will continue to play an important role when it comes to complementing the fluctuation of renewable energy,” Hildegard Mueller, head of BDEW, the Germany utility lobby, said. “If you want the energy transition to succeed you won’t be able to renounce coal from the German energy mix for the foreseeable future.”
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-11-04/merkel-facing-power-dilemma-as-coal-plants-open-energy-markets.html

    moral of the story: Australia should be building new coal-fired power stations.


    Report this

    20

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      Pat:
      it’s complicated. The variability of wind and solar has forced the shutdown of backup plants i.e. gas and pumped storage facilities which normally operate when there is a high demand (and price), and for pumped storage also when electricity is cheap so they can ‘recharge’. One $500 million 18 month old gas plant has been shut down and its move to Turkey is slated.

      With wind and solar dumping electricity onto the grid in excess at times, it forces the price down. It also disrupts the grid even though Germany has extensive connections with its neighbours. The neighbours were enthusiastic at first as they got cheap electricity (Germany had to drop the price to get rid of it), but as the volumes increased with thousands of wind turbines coming on stream, their own grids became unstable. So Poland and the Czech Republic are/have installed phase shifting transformers on lines from Germany, so they can deny access to their grid when they wish. Less obvious is Norway’s reluctance to take more, so at times Danish and north Germany wind farms have to pay for their power to be taken (i.e. sell at a negative price). The subsidies based on the power output reduce their losses.

      When the wind & solar doesn’t work, Germany faces an electricity shortage, so the German government has been paying out large sums for big users to shut down, and for older and much less efficient plants to keep going. So the effect of “renewables” has been to raise the price to the public and small business, and to INCREASE CO2 emissions.


      Report this

      10

    • #
      Joe V.

      … variability of wind and solar has forced the shutdown of backup plants i.e. gas and pumped storage facilities which normally operate when there is a high demand (and price), and for pumped storage also when electricity is cheap so they can ‘recharge’. One $500 million 18 month old gas plant has been shut down and its move to Turkey is slated.

      In a further demonstration of how distortions created by renewable are making fast startup backups unviable:- A report by the UKs Royal Academy of Engineering into Britains looming deficit in generating capacity, excludes all planned new plants except one that is already under construction, because there is diminishing confidence that it will ever be economically worth building and operating them.
      Electricity Capacity Margin Report, In Appendix 4. The Table of Capavity projections is on Page 30.


      Report this

      10

  • #
    pat

    ???

    4 Nov: Bloomberg: Sandrine Rastello: World Bank Sees Ways to Slow Arctic Melt in Kitchen, Coal Mines
    Replacing cook stoves, curbing crop fires and capturing methane when extracting fossil fuels would help slow ice melting from the Arctic to the Himalayas and decrease risks of flooding, the World Bank said…
    “Efforts to reduce black carbon and methane cannot replace long-term mitigation of CO2, which requires a global transition to a low-carbon, highly energy-efficient economy,” Rachel Kyte, the World Bank’s vice president for sustainable development, wrote in a foreword to the report. “By addressing short-lived climate pollutants, however, we will be reaping some significant climate benefits while at the same time meeting human development needs now.” …
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-11-03/world-bank-sees-ways-to-slow-arctic-melt-in-kitchen-coal-mines.html


    Report this

    10

    • #
      AndyG55

      “World Bank’s vice president for sustainable development”

      who’s job ABSOLUTELY and COMPLETELY depends on pushing the anti-CO2 meme. !


      Report this

      30

    • #
      ianl8888

      … capturing methane when extracting fossil fuels

      So fracking coal seams (and only coal seams) for the methane is a no-no but mining the seams while capturing the released methane is ok

      The illogic still manages to astound me :)


      Report this

      20

  • #
    pat

    4 Nov: DailyCaller: Michael Bastasch: Senate GOP: Did White House cook UN global warming report?
    Senate Republicans are questioning the Obama administration about reports that U.S. officials tried to suppress the 15-year global warming hiatus in the United Nations’ climate report.
    The Associated Press reported in September that the Obama administration, along with several European nations, lobbied the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to omit or downplay data showing that global warming stopped in 1998.
    In response, Republican senators have sent a letter to Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Gina McCarthy, questioning her knowledge of these international lobbying efforts…
    Republicans say the facts about global warming undermine a key point in favor of President Obama’s global warming plan.
    “When governments actually weigh in and request alterations to a scientific analysis, like in the IPCC report, the message is clear that the IPCC process produces a political document, not a purely scientific one,” wrote the Republicans…
    However, scientists are increasingly arguing that the downward trend in sunspot activity indicates that the world could be headed into a cooling period.
    “Attention in the public debate seems to be moving away from the 15-17 year ‘pause’ to the cooling since 2002,” writes Dr. Judith Curry, the chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Institute of Technology.
    Recently, the BBC reported that Northern Europe could plunge into another “Little Ice Age” — a period of colder temperatures across Europe during the 1600s.
    “The last 400 years we’ve been thawing out of the Little Ice Age, if you like,” said Don Easterbrook, professor emeritus of geology at Western Washington University.
    “So the warming we saw, which lasted only from 1978 to 1998, is something that is predictable and expectable,” he added. “When the ocean changed temperatures, global cooling is almost a slam dunk. You can expect to find about 25 to 30 years yet ahead of us before it starts to warm up again. It might even be more than that.”
    http://dailycaller.com/2013/11/04/senate-gop-did-white-house-cook-un-global-warming-report/


    Report this

    10

  • #
    • #

      At long last! Now we’re really getting somewhere.

      I’m overjoyed that our Governments are spending our money on such worthwhile projects as this, a project of the Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA).

      And cheap too, at only $US126 Million, or $AUD135 Million.

      So then, let’s see now, for a replacement for Bayswater, 2640MW, we’ll need 2640 of these at, umm $135 Million, that’s err, $356 Billion.

      Hey, cheap at half the price.

      Now, while this is still in the formative stage, no doubt the price may come down, and it may actually be scaled up, and they say here to maybe 10MW, so now we’ll only need 264 of them, and let’s say that price stays exactly the same, (yeah, dream on!) then that’s only $36 Billion.

      Let’s hope they can scale it up soon, because the absolute largest scale wave power station currently in operation is, umm 2.5MW.

      Don’t you just love the way our money is pi$$ed away on useless things like this while real power stations are run into the ground without any replacement even coming up as a thought bubble.

      Greens will have paroxysms of ecstasy when they hear about this wonder from down under.

      Give me strength.

      Thanks warcroft, but yes, I’m afraid this is another fantasy project that will NEVER be scaled up for anything but the most boutique of power supplies.

      Tony.


      Report this

      30

    • #
      MemoryVault

      .
      It’s their second go at it.
      Their first attempt sank in less than a month.

      http://www.illawarramercury.com.au/story/628562/port-kembla-wave-generator-on-sea-floor/

      There is nothing new about generating power via tidal and/or wave energy.
      The theory is sound (a helluva lot sounder than solar and wind).
      However, as any boat owner will tell you, sea water is an extremely harsh environment.
      Corrosion and/or marine growth and/or maintenance costs usually kill off these projects fairly quickly.


      Report this

      30

    • #
      Dave

      Warcroft,

      Oceanlinx Limited had MK3PC, launched in February 2010 and sank in May 2010, but this one was floating 170-ton steel 2.5 MW plant that is now scrap metal.

      The one in your link above, is 20 mt x 20 mt wide and about 17 mt high structure made ​​of 2,000 tonnes of concrete will sit in about 10 mt water depth on the seabed. This will be a reef very shortly.

      Also Energetech Australia Pty. Ltd (now called Oceanlinx) had launched one at Port Kembla in 2006 here, which is 36 mt long, 35 mt wide, and had a mass of 485 tonnes. The steel construction was anchored 200 mt from the breakwater off Port Kembla on the seabed and is also a storm proof, against one in a hundred year storm. But here it is last year after sinking in 2009, waiting to go to the great steel recycling plant. Here’s another beautiful photo of GREEN innovation.

      This company does launch and sink only with Tax payer money. Green parasites.


      Report this

      30

    • #
  • #
    MemoryVault

    This company does launch and sink only with Tax payer money. Green parasites.

    Dave, you’re just jealous (like me) ‘cos you haven’t figured how to get the grubbermint to give you $135 million so you can go play engineer with your boyhood pet projects.

    I’ve got a fantastical idea for a near-perpetual motion machine based on massive elastic bands (organic rubber, naturally). I just need $60 million to build a prototype.


    Report this

    40

    • #
      Dave

      MV,

      Got me in a nut shell. But they’re still GREEN PARASITIC pharguewits.

      But I’m afraid your near-perpetual motion machine is not quite up to it. The NEAR part worries me :)


      Report this

      10

  • #
    Considerate Thinker

    Joanne

    It really is time for us to not just message each other, but to pass on to the wider movers and shakers the significant messages. I was greatly moved by Robert Gordon Brown statement to other scientists about the failure of the models and emerging truths. In my own small way this will be my personal effort.

    Dear friend for your information.

    Guest post by Dr. Robert G. Brown, Physics Department of Duke University USA

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/04/lets-face-it-the-climate-has-never-been-more-boring/

    After observing many of his replies to others on the internet – his matter of fact replies have never been seriously challenged, his logic and grasp of climate science is well regarded. I have a great deal of respect for this Physics Professor. I endorse his statements and value his opinions.

    That said; there are many great changes taking place at this time and I can understand his warning to scientists who must know due to the overwhelming data and the now statistically significant halt/hiatus over the past 17 years of no temperature rise – that the rather dangerous political game of climate deception is over and when this information gradually seeps out as it will. That the absolute and staggering amounts that have been wasted and so much unnecessary angst and ill will generated, the reaction will be one of disgust.

    Not to mention the enormous impost on energy costs that have been created and will need to be paid for by ordinary families who trusted those scientists.

    There are heroes and lesser mortals in this story and hopefully lessons to be learnt.

    I would not usually take the step of passing on this information, except that it is well past time to bring it to notice. Please read, check for yourself and then forward to any person in authority or political office holder who has the moral integrity to stop this rot.

    Sincerely..


    Report this

    50

  • #
    janama

    BoM are at it again:

    Rainfall records tumble in dark and stormy night
    Tuesday November 5, 2013 – 16:50 EDT
    ABC image
    An electrical storm accompanied the downpour but there were no reports of damage. – ABC
    The weather bureau says a storm that hit Darwin last night was record breaking.

    The bureau says six sites across the Top End broke 24-hour November rainfall records overnight.

    At Darwin Airport, 105 mm of rain was recorded, the most in 73 years.

    The highest recorded fall was at Stokes Hill Wharf in the city, with 117mm.

    Forecaster Dave Matthews says the downpour left water over the road at several places near Rapid Creek.

    An electrical storm accompanied the downpour but there were no reports of damage.

    Yes a quick check of the online data shows that Darwin Airport, that was closed in 1962 shows that the highest daily rainfall in November was 145.3mm on the 2nd in 1885.
    Another station , Manbulloo, opened in 1917 and was closed in 2001 shows the record November rainfall was 129mm on 2nd 1992!!

    What are these guys on about!!


    Report this

    20

  • #
    phlogiston

    Ancient truth destroys modern lie.

    It is better to light a candle than to curse the darkness.


    Report this

    00