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



Sun dumps 500 times as many Hiroshima bombs of energy as “climate change”

Announcing the all new Solar-Insolation Hiroshima Bomb App, thanks to Dale Kent.

Since 1998, Global Warming has been occurring at 4 Hiroshima Bombs per second, not that we can measure that rate to a statistically significant value*, or that it means anything at all. Every second the sun pours 2700 Hiroshima bombs of energy on the Earth at the top of the atmosphere. 

As well as missing the big-picture, Cook and Nuccitelli show us they don’t have a good grip on cause and effect. The world may have been warming, but that does not  mean that CO2 caused it. Though they would very much like you to think that.

But if you want to scare people out of their money and impress fools, the Skeptical Science widget is just the thing. As SkS say on their page: “ Put a widget on your blog to let people know that climate change is important to you. ” To which  JoNova adds, “The Sks widget performs a valuable service, advertising the bloggers who don’t understand big numbers or trends, and who struggle with statistical significance. If someone wants to show they think-with-the-herd, and not with their brain, the SkepticalScience widget is perfect. I thank the team at SkS for helping us to identify the gullible fashion-victims of science.

Thanks to Dale Kent for the numbers and the widget for rational folk who are not easily fooled by Big-Scary-Meaningless-Numbers.

 

Alarmists:

Reality:


Just to help people get a grip on just how different those numbers are, I’ve graphed it below, so everyone can see how significant the four extra “bombs are”.

Warning, the thin black line representing the extra heat accumulated since 1998 is so small, subject to error bars, it may disappear, just like your money.

Are you a journalist thinking of using the John Cook Widget and PR? Here is a comment from Jo Nova you can use:

“Cook’s Hiroshima bomb units are a parody of science, not to mention gratuitously inconsiderate towards the bomb victims. An atomic-bomb delivers all the energy in one spot, while the sun spreads it out. Science becomes mindless if you mash up things like volume and area. A million square miles is not like two square feet. McDonalds sells a Hiroshima Bomb worth of Big-Macs every 8.6 days. It’s like a bomb in the same sense that black is like white, 1 is like 2, being alive is like being dead. Things can be equated-to-inanity. Cook has achieved that.

Plus there has been no significant warming in the last sixteen years, so technically the rate is almost as likely to be zero bombs a second, not four. And in any case, the models predicted a lot more than four-bombs-a-second  –-  a more useful App would show how many bombs-a-second the climate models missed reality by. Have you asked Cook if he can do one of those?” — Jo Nova

That quote is adapted from a previous post: Climate scientists move to atom-bomb number system, give up on exponentials. There, the figure was 1950 H-e (Hiroshima equivalents) of solar energy arriving, but that applies to the surface of the Earth, so includes losses due to albedo (where light is reflected of the planet and clouds), and 2700H-e applies at the top of the atmosphere before the losses. The pie chart above compares 4 bombs to 1950. The black line would be even skinnier with 4 compared to 2700 figure. I’m being as generous as I can…

How accurate is “4 bombs” a second?

1. Ask yourself if we can measure the temperature of the global oceans with all their churning currents to 0.01 degrees C. (Ask yourself if we can measure a lake to one hundredth of a degree.) Exactly.

2. Ponder that CO2 levels were rising relentlessly from 2003-2011**, yet there is no sign of warming in the oceans or the atmosphere during this 8 year period. Some will scoff that 8 years is too short to be meaningful. These are the same people that make Apps measured in seconds. There are a lot of seconds in 8 years, and energy can  neither be created nor destroyed, so where did all those extra bombs go? If the energy was hidden in the noise, that tells you all you need to know about how accurate the measurements are. Perhaps it’s 4±4 bombs? Perhaps it’s 4±10? If the measurements are accurate, and some other factor was causing the energy to head out to space, why did none of the climate models predict this flatness? Could it be they don’t understand the climate and the forces more powerful than CO2 remain a mystery to them? It could.

3. Remember that the 4-bombs-a-second crowd are 95% certain, based on these numbers, that you must obey them and pay them (or their “cause”) a lot of your money. If you ask questions about the numbers, you’re called a denier. If you don’t pay, they’ll put you in jail.

UPDATE: I added the caveats below, but made the font too small, and evidently people didn’t read them. So I’ve boosted them back up, added some bold, because they matter. Please read them all. :- )

———————–

*Significance. See here for more info on Statistical Significance of Ocean Heat. See also IPCC excuses.

** Why pick 2003-2011? Measurements before 2003 are highly inaccurate (see “ARGO” and links directly above). Over the next 8 years 9 x 1011 seconds worth of Hiroshima-bombs is missing from the global energy measurements. It will be called cherry picking by those who don’t understand cause and effect, but it matters, in terms of global energy budgets. Repeat after me: energy shalt not be created nor destroyed. The missing joules will not be found in graphs back to 1880, they can’t vanish from 2005 and appear in 1950. Nor can they appear in 2014 either.

***Just to make it blindingly obvious - I’m not suggesting a real imbalance (if it exists) would not be important. It would matter if there was a persistent long term artificial energy imbalance like the black line in the big pie. But 1. Our measurements are not accurate enough to detect it. 2. There is no evidence that it is unnatural, or caused by CO2. The models are proven failures.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.0/10 (17 votes cast)
Sun dumps 500 times as many Hiroshima bombs of energy as "climate change", 9.0 out of 10 based on 17 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/oz2s7ne

637 comments to Sun dumps 500 times as many Hiroshima bombs of energy as “climate change”

  • #
    AndyG55

    Isn’t the 4 HB/sec joke based on a Trenberthian flat non-rotating Earth balance of 0.6w/m^2 +/-17

    ie.. its based on a meaningless calculation with massive margin of error, done by meaningless error-prone catastrophists.


    Report this

    332

  • #
    Maverick

    If the left-eco-nuts truly believe that this silly “scientific” analogy is not offensive to the Japanese or victims of WWII then publish thee widgets:

    The Palestine Widget: – Since 1998, Global Warming has been occurring at 1,938,462 Hamas rockets per second

    The Nelson Mandella Widget: – Since 1998, Global Warming has been occurring at 12.6 billion Nelson Mandealla car bombs per second

    Yeah, sure!


    Report this

    181

  • #
    Debbie

    Love the warning :-) .
    These people are really starting to grasp at straws in order to scare us.
    It’s also highly amusing that Cook is supposedly a ‘science communicator’.
    I think ‘scare mongerer’ is a better job description :-)


    Report this

    170

    • #
      Tim

      ‘PR communicator’ is more like it, Debbie. Again, this is ‘science’ produced for PR purposes. The conclusions must invoke fear and/or panic in order to attract the MSM journos looking for a quick headline-grabber.

      No more than publicity disguised as science, in the knowledge that the ill-informed will take the bait. Then it’s left to serious critics to try and get the toothpaste back into the tube.


      Report this

      90

  • #
    Peter Miller

    We live with a variable star, we call the Sun; its change in energy output during the average cycle is about the same (one part in 650, versus one part in 500) as SKS’ Hiroshima bomb figure.

    http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&ved=0CDgQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fearthobservatory.nasa.gov%2FStudy%2FVariableSun%2F&ei=1VGxUvDzO_TB0gWx84CABA&usg=AFQjCNEHECTqyz2N5wyLrGGyt4XFAxxxIQ

    We are all very aware of how much the Sun’s variable energy output affects our climate, aren’t we? Freezing cold at one end of the cycle, boiling hot at the other!!!

    Anyhow, SKS is all about scaring the punters and never letting facts or reality get in the way.


    Report this

    110

  • #
    pat

    just saw this:

    18 Dec: WhitsundayTimes: Owen Jacques: Environmental Defenders Office suffers potentially-fatal cut
    THOSE wanting to challenge mining or gas developments risk losing a crucial ally as the Federal Government’s latest round of funding cuts gut the income of the Environmental Defenders Office in each state, with most likely to now shut their doors…
    Queensland’s state office in Brisbane is currently working alongside environmental activists to challenge an enormous coal mine slated for the Galilee Basin in Central Queensland after farmers and activists feared it could disrupt water bores and add to global warming.
    In New South Wales, its work led to the Land and Environment Court rejecting a contentious mine at Bulga, north-west of Newcastle…
    ***A spokesman for Attorney-General Senator George Brandis said while activists had a right to challenge these activities, it was “not appropriate” for that to be paid for by taxpayers…
    http://www.whitsundaytimes.com.au/news/environmental-defenders-office-suffers-potentially/2119027/

    knew i’d find this…no space for a single word from the Govt:

    18 Dec: ABC: Funding cut to Environmental Defender’s Offices described as ‘barbaric’
    Australian Greens Senator Larissa Waters, a former EDO lawyer, described the cuts as “outrageous”.
    “The cuts could cripple many EDOs completely, which is exactly what the Abbott Government wants so that there’s nothing to stand in the way of its mining magnate and big business buddies abusing our environment for private profit,” she said.
    Environmental groups have rushed to decry the saving, describing it as an attack on environmentalism.
    “This is not a matter of government budget savings,” Kelly O’Shanassy, chief executive of Environment Victoria, said…
    “The EDOs act as nature’s lawyers. They provide legal defence for the many Australians concerned about what’s happening to our environment.”…
    Cuts are ‘acts of barbarism’
    Peter Burdon is a senior lecturer at the Adelaide University Law School and was until recently on the management committee of the EDO in South Australia.
    In an opinion piece for ABC Environment, he described the cuts as “acts of barbarism”.
    But he expressed a hope that the action will galvanise the public into supporting the EDO.
    “The Federal Government has sorely misjudged the depth of respect and passion that people feel towards the EDO,” he wrote.
    Mr Sydes agreed, nominating the recent re-incarnation of the Climate Commission as a crowd-funded organisation as an example of a potential revenue stream for the centre.
    “We enjoy really good strong public support… there will be a way through,” he said.
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-12-18/funding-cut-to-environmental-defenders-offices/5164934

    AAP/Fairfax give a Govt response at the very end:

    18 Dec: Fairfax/Brisbane Times: AAP: Nick Perry: Fed govt slammed for green legal-aid cuts
    Australian Greens senator Larissa Waters, herself a former EDO lawyer in Brisbane for nearly a decade, said the decision was part of a wider push by the Abbott government to erode environmental protections…
    Mr Smith (EDO NSW executive director Jeff Smith) said this decision was particularly concerning given the government was unwinding climate action and the Great Barrier Reef was facing unprecedented threats…
    Attorney-General George Brandis said the government believed legal financial assistance should be directed to disadvantaged Australians who are most in need of legal assistance
    “Rather than using public money on advocacy and lobbying activities,” he said in a statement to AAP.
    “It is vital that vulnerable Australians receive the help they need with their legal problems.”
    http://news.brisbanetimes.com.au/breaking-news-national/fed-govt-slammed-for-green-legalaid-cuts-20131218-2zkvv.html


    Report this

    30

    • #
      AndyG55

      “The cuts could cripple many EDOs completely”

      Let GreenPieces and WWFools fund it….

      instead of them spending all their funds propagandising the IPCC and climate change.


      Report this

      202

      • #

        I would suppose that if all the liberal politicians and actors and Greenpeace members where to fork over 90% of their earnings, we could go a long way in saving the planet. What’s that you say? They aren’t doing it???? What!!!! They care so much. Maybe they just haven’t gotten around to writing the check yet? Yes, that must be it. They will soon–I know they will!


        Report this

        120

        • #
          Grant (NZ)

          An interesting thing about “celebrity” philanthropists is that the set up charities to raise money for their cause. They may contribute something to the cause, but their main contribution is their celebrity/renown which is leveraged to extract money from their fans (who have made them rich by buying their albums, viewing their movies etc). I just can’t help be skeptical about how committed to the cause these philanthropists really are.


          Report this

          100

          • #

            Yes–the billionaire that wants to pillage the West with a 1000 wind turbine facility to be built in Wyoming to keep the lights on in California when the wind is blowing has a charity. It makes him look like he cares while he’s busy wiping out eagles and sage grouse to make millions more. People are so gullible they think that someone’s name or association with a charity makes them nice people. Not always.


            Report this

            120

    • #
      AndyG55

      “But he expressed a hope that the action will galvanise the public into supporting the EDO”

      Perhaps the hapless Green supports can waste even more of their dole on donations….
      .. although the Climate Commission has probably cleared a lot of them out. :-)


      Report this

      142

    • #
      Andrew McRae

      Environmental groups have rushed to decry the saving, describing it as an attack on environmentalism.
      “This is not a matter of government budget savings,” Kelly O’Shanassy, chief executive of Environment Victoria, said.
      “If the Federal Government can give $10 billion to wealthy mining corporations every year in fossil fuel subsidies, they can spare some change for the Environment Defenders Offices.

      That’s not quite true, but it’s in the correct order of magnitude.
      The Australian National Audit Office 2010 report on “The Fuel Tax Credits Scheme” found the Mining industry was claiming “only” about 1.7 billion per year in fuel subsidies. Although the figure has increased since then it has not gone up by a factor of 6x in 3 years, as even the Paid-To-Pollute group estimates the sector’s tax grab at $2 billion per year. Strange that the Labor loons were foisting a Mining Resource Rent Tax and a Carbon Tax on that sector whilst agreeing to increase the total fuel subsidies to mining from 1.4B/y to 1.7B/y between 2088 and 2010.
      An Australian Conservation Foundation study found the total claims and incentives across all industries combined was $12 billion per year in 2011. What’s the projected federal budget for 2015/16 again…a $14 billion deficit?

      Quantitatively the EDO are a bit off the mark, but qualitatively it’s a good point. If the Liberal-in-name-only Party was serious about getting the government budget back into surplus there’s some very easy savings of 12 billion dollars a year to be made in removing all fuel subsidies. Maybe that’s a dose of Austrian medicine too big to swallow.


      Report this

      55

      • #
        Andrew

        Annual fuel subsidies (and I’m rounding here) are $0.00


        Report this

        72

        • #
          Andrew McRae

          I guess you didn’t read the government report linked above. The fuel tax credits are claimed on Business Activity Statements, that’s why there is a comprehensive record of them and their yearly totals back to 2006.
          It’s a scheme collecting excise tax from a broad base of fuel users and then giving tax revenue back to certain businesses when other users of fuel aren’t eligible to receive such reimbursements. This lowers the cost of their operations compared to other fuel customers, which functions like a subsidy to that business or sector. There is no net input of money from the government to the business, but that’s true of classic protectionist subsidies too, so there is no meaningful distinction between the effect of the Fuel Tax Credit scheme and a subsidy.


          Report this

          54

      • #
        bobl

        I think the governments aim here is to have more industry, more jobs and a higher standard of living rather than crippling industry, killing jobs and lowering the standard of living. Any energy taxes are evil and regressive and if the Coalition knew what was good for the nation they’d be lowering the fuel excise state government tax grab to zero for all users and replacing it with increased commonwealth grants from other income streams. Same for stamp duties, another artificial brake on business.

        Australia has poor growth for a reason, even while the accelerator is pressed it’s got its foot firmly planted on the brake.


        Report this

        30

        • #
          Andrew McRae

          “if the Coalition knew what was good for the nation…”

          Heheh, uh yeah, that’s in doubt at the moment. (Bank Levy, TPP, Indonesia, Direct Action, etc)

          “…they’d be lowering the fuel excise state government tax grab to zero for all users”

          Agreed, but at that point you’ve decided getting the government budget back to surplus is not the most urgent priority.
          I guess that’s fair enough since tax receipts can only ever come from a productive economy.


          Report this

          40

          • #
            bobl

            I agree on the TPP, tell ya, I’ll be looking for the sleights of hand by the Americans and making sure I have my say before its ratified.None too confident that our government will represent us properly on it – especially on PBS, and copyright (particularly demands in the TPP to outlaw parallel imports) the TPP is just another attempt from the RIAA and MPIA to take away our rights and legalise geolocking.

            As for the rest, there are ways to get revenue without the adverse economic effects of energy restriction, for example repatriation taxes (taxing money leaving Australia) or maybe a small 0.1% transaction tax. The banks do it, don’t see why the government shouldn’t take some of the banks action! I don’t like taxes hidden in the corners of the economy, I’d rather they took more income tax than hide their taxes in fuel, housing, licenses to work, drive, or to take a dump.


            Report this

            30

    • #
      Andrew McRae

      Speaking of the Great Barrier reef, the WWF wackos, Greenpeace goons, and other assorted coral crazies are all going troppo over the proposed port expansions near Gladstone.
      The nutjobbies have hit the social media sites drumming up support for a petition. Try glancing through a few comments on this propaganda post on Imgur without boiling your blood. As a particularly good example:

      Nope. This is the real deal. If only the majority of the australian voting population weren’t selfish, racist bogans then we’d be good.

      Just a few bluffs I’ve seen bandied about….

      Propaganda: That this project will result in a repeat of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill.
      Fact: The Gulf of Mexico spill resulted from a leak in a high pressure oil well head, but no oil drilling is proposed for the great barrier reef area.

      Propaganda: Activist-linked Facebook photo caption says “Dredging 40km off the Great Barrier Reef occurring NOW just to make money for coal mining.”
      Fact: The photo is actually a photo of dredging near Dubai during the making of the Palm Islands estate.

      Propaganda: Tony Abbott is to blame for permitting this to go ahead.
      Fact: According to even National Geographic, plenty of new port expansions have been approved over the last few years, which means they occurred under Labor. Furthermore “As asked, Australia did commission a review panel to look into concerns over the management of the Gladstone Port early this year. But, the so-called ‘independent’ panel experts all had conflicts of interests with the current Gladstone port development projects“. In other words the Labor government had no qualms about the biased membership of the review panel either.

      Propaganda: The development will result in car tires being dumped on the reef as shown in this stock photo of a tire on top of coral.
      Fact: Ships don’t run on wheels!

      Okay, coral whisperers, the GBR is precious, I get it. But if you have such a good understanding of the ecological threats then why do you have to make false and exaggerated claims to argue your case?


      Report this

      140

  • #

    You just gotta love Joanne’s image there, the Incoming Solar Energy, and that tiny black line.

    People just have no concept when something is expressed like this.

    I get the same every time I link to the CO2 Concentration pie chart. I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve been told that it is categorically wrong, an incorrect construct.

    The thin black line showing CO2 has been widened so that it actually shows on this pie chart as on this scale, It would not show at all.

    Atmospheric Gas Content Pie Chart

    Tony.


    Report this

    200

    • #

      Thanks Tony. The amount of Argon surprised me and now I wonder if we should be more in fear of global welding.


      Report this

      150

      • #
        Yonniestone

        Funny thing is that I use inert gases everyday for welding including the dreaded CO2 which affects the welds spray transfer, depending on the percentage of CO2 mixed with argon.

        Not once has this CO2 ever cased extreme weather in the workshop, melted everything in refrigerators, killed off nearby polar bears or created a black hole.


        Report this

        140

        • #

          They did it that way to keep the Greenhouse Gases together, Water Vapor, CO2 and Methane etc.

          Tony.


          Report this

          40

        • #
          Roy Hogue

          CO2 causes black holes now? That’s a new one to me. Yonnie, are you absolutely sure? ;-)


          Report this

          30

          • #
            Grant (NZ)

            Curious term “black hole”. I have a hole in my sock. The sock is black. What colour is the hole? If it was black then surely I couldn’t detect it. Surely a hole has no colour at all because it is an absence of anything.

            Just musing.


            Report this

            50

            • #
              Kevin Lohse

              I believe that it’s called a black hole because the gravitational force is so strong that no light can leave it. Therefore, the singularity looks black to the human eye.


              Report this

              00

              • #
                Roy Hogue

                OK, now I get it. Climate science must be just the reverse of a black hole. A black hole lets out no light. Climate science lets in no light.

                So climate science is just a black hole turned inside out. I’d never have guessed it.


                Report this

                20

              • #
                crakar24

                A white hole?

                By the way it has been quite hot here in the back blocks of nowhere (Adelaide) i think one of those bombs might have gone off over head.


                Report this

                10

              • #
                Roy Hogue

                I don’t know about bombs, Crakar. But I suspect it’s just a little weather variation that exploded over Adelaide. They — those (evil?) weather variations — seem to do that from time to time.

                Myself, I really wish the same month would be the same every year. It would make planning what to put on every day so-o-o-o-o much easier. Every December just like every other December would be a real convenience. No guessing about rain or clouds because you’d know in advance. And just think what a benefit it would be to the solar industry. They might actually be able to predict what you could expect to get every year from X square feet sitting on your roof.

                Maybe the crybabies have a point, climate and weather shouldn’t ever change. Stop the CO2 now!

                Darn! The men with the net are back again. Gotta run…


                Report this

                00

              • #
                Roy Hogue

                A white hole?

                I leave the type of hole to you to figure out. I’m sure you’re more than capable. ;-)


                Report this

                00

          • #
            Yonniestone

            Well why not Roy, I mean the bed wetters are going to claim it sooner or later, thought I’d get in first. :)


            Report this

            20

            • #
              Roy Hogue

              OK then! You own it. CO2 causes black holes. ;-)


              Report this

              10

              • #
                Bones

                Are you sure you’re allowed to use black in this discussion.The white or coloured holes may be peeved


                Report this

                10

              • #
                MemoryVault

                Oi!!

                What about us bi-sexual, transgender, cross-dressing gay holes?
                We have rights too.


                Report this

                10

              • #
                Bones

                MV, did you really intend to give out that info of yourself or were you not thinking,you may have a lot more left type friends now!


                Report this

                10

              • #
                MemoryVault

                Bones,

                Believe it or not, in my younger days, after I got out of National Service and was fit and healthy and strong, I was gifted a T-shirt by the Perth Gay Community that read:

                “BODYGUARD TO THE BENT”

                front and back.

                I used to get invited to all the gay parties, which was great, since a lot of straight girls at that time thought it was cool to hang out with the gay crowd, and I was often the only straight guy there.


                Report this

                50

              • #
                Yonniestone

                MV years ago I worked the door of a Gay nightclub in Melbourne, it was the most stressful job I ever had.

                If there was any trouble it was my ass on the line and I didn’t want any cock up’s. ;)


                Report this

                20

            • #
              MemoryVault

              it was my ass on the line and I didn’t want any cock up’s.

              I can relate to that. I wouldn’t want any, either.

              Fortunately, back in the 70′s, in Perth anyway, the Gay Crowd were exactly that – gay in the original meaning. And when I got out of Nashos, as the song goes, all my friends were getting married.
              I was at a loose end.

              I’d just got out, rescued a guy getting kicked to death in the Perth Concert Hall carpark, and dragged him back to the Concert Hall Tavern (Perth’s main Gay Bar at the time, although I didn’t know it). Everything flowed from there. I got free free food and drinks at public venues and private functions, simply for being there and ensuring they got to their cars and away safely.

              Everybody knew I was straight and not to be toyed with. I had a lot of fun.


              Report this

              40

            • #
              Truthseeker

              MV,

              So you were the only “straight” guy at a gay party … of course we believe you …

              Not that there is anything wrong with that ….


              Report this

              10

            • #
              Roy Hogue

              I’m beginning to regret having encouraged this whole thing about black holes and what it led to.

              I seem to have knack for doing this to Jo’s blog and I’m wondering if someday I won’t get email chewing me out. ;-)


              Report this

              10

              • #
                Yonniestone

                Diabolical Hogue, simply diabolical.

                I’ve wondered the same thing with my school boy humor but I think we’re pretty tame compared to what gets deleted.


                Report this

                20

              • #
                Bones

                You should’nt regret anything like this Roy,MV is remembering his youth,others are having a giggle( one must retain a sense of humour) and I’ll be off looking for a hole ,black brown or white (I dont care)to put AGW in.


                Report this

                20

              • #
                Roy Hogue

                Bones,

                When you find that hole let me know and I’ll come help. We’ll have a party over the burial site.

                I always had a sense of humor. But you don’t realize the importance of it until the going gets really hard. Keeping my sense of humor is all that got me through heart surgery and the agonizing months of recovery that followed while I slowly got back my strength after a freight train rolled over me. One nurse told me they only have one other procedure that’s worse — I didn’t ask what it is. It’s been about 11 years now and that lesson about humor has stuck with me. It’s an essential thing for your basic sanity — more so when dealing with AGW.


                Report this

                00

        • #
          Safetyguy66

          So this is all your fault Yonnie you CO2 proliferator!


          Report this

          20

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        …global welding.

        This gets today’s gold star for best humor. No doubt about it. :-)

        My wife heard me laughing clear out in the living room.


        Report this

        40

    • #
      AndyG55

      Actually Tony, from a purely mathematic construct, it does have a slight error.

      Water vapour and Argon should be interchanged.
      Correct practice would have decreasing amounts around the graph.


      Report this

      10

    • #
      Snotrocket

      Saw the Pie Chart. Realise now why you wouldn’t be able to show how much of that thin black (CO2) line is actually man-made. That said, I still like the swimming pool metaphor.

      Happy Christmas Tony – and Jo!!!


      Report this

      00

  • #
    bullocky

    Perhaps an equally useful widget would show just how many Hiroshima bomb equivalents have been accumulated by Earth since the nadir of Little Ice Age temperatures around the year 1600.

    SkS may not like it, but context is important.


    Report this

    130

  • #
    pat

    the Mr. Sydes in the abc EDO story is Brendan Sydes, Chief Executive Officer and lawyer at the EDO Victoria. he and Burdon (also in the ABC piece) would seem to be right at home here:

    Griffith Uni: Australian Wild Law Alliance: Wild Law 2011
    The Australian Wild Law Alliance (AWLA) is a national network which carries out research, education, promotional and activist work that enables the understanding, theoretical development and practical application of Earth jurisprudence and wild law in Australia
    Contacts:
    Dr Peter Burdon
    University of Adelaide and AWLA SA
    peter.d.burdon@adelaide.edu.au
    Brendan Sydes
    EDO Victoria and AWLA Vic
    brendan.sydes@edo.org.au
    http://www.griffith.edu.au/conference/wild-law-2011/australian-wild-law-alliance


    Report this

    20

  • #
    papertiger

    Oh man. I want that on a t-shirt.


    Report this

    40

  • #
    papertiger

    On the back of a jacket.


    Report this

    40

  • #
    Repeat after me: energy shalt not be created nor destroyed. The missing joules will not be found in graphs back to 1880, they can’t vanish from 2005 and appear in 1950. Nor can they appear in 2014 either.

    Well of course they can. GISS, NOAA and HADCRU have been taking joules from the 1920s 30s 40s and 50s and adding them to the joules of the 2000s and 2010s quite openly and unashamedly.
    So, energy can be transported in time. One just needs the right fudgustments applied to the raw records.


    Report this

    190

  • #
    Retired now

    Climate alarmists? Climate catastrophists more like. They are getting more and more extreme. The greater the extreme the more the general population will start to see through them, like the teenagers you reported on yesterday.


    Report this

    142

    • #
      AndyG55

      They keep making stupid invented claims that even a chihuahua ought to be able see are basically a load of Cowtan.

      Yet, all the resident chihuahua does is sit there and yap, the poor brainless little thing !!


      Report this

      11

  • #
    ROM

    So many Hiroshima bombs a second is totally meaningless to just about everybody as nobody outside of those who personally and directly experienced the first two atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima with a yield of between 13 and 18 thousand tonnes of TNT and the Nagasaki bomb with a yield of some 23,000 tones of TNT can appreciate the forces released.
    Anybody including the half wit zealots that run SkS and come up with this so called example really don’t have a clue as to what four Hiroshima bombs a second actually mean.
    In a world where over reaching hyper superlatives are thrown around with gay abandon by any small time outfit that believes it will impress anybody of average to above average intelligence with their knowledge and bravura in tackling the unbelievers is just pissing into the wind of increasing public indifference as the public sensibilities are assaulted daily by such out of reality, over hyped examples and the public sensibilities are becoming immune and cynical about anybody or any small time outfit that goes down this path.

    And they make themselves look pretty idiotic into the bargain as it falls apart around them as their claims are dismantled by anybody with a modicum of intelligence and knowledge of the forces involved.
    Just as we are now seeing here..

    The first nuclear device called Trinity was detonated in the New Mexico desert after a delay from 4 am to a new test time of 5.30 am on the 16th July 1945.
    It was witnessed by some dozens of scientists who had worked for 3 years and a lot longer for some back into the 1930 ‘s on what was to become known today as “nuclear weapons technology”
    [ my source; a battered paper back edition of the nuclear physicist Robert Jungk's "Brighter than a Thousand Suns" ]

    As for four Hiroshima bombs a second why not use the Russian Big Ivan / Tsar Bomba as an example as it would be just as meaningless as using the Hiroshima bomb as a supposed calibration tool for CO2/ global warming.

    The Tsar Bomba, a term the Russians now use as well, the first American code name for this Russian nuclear test was “Big Ivan” as the Americans through the top secret Russian cipher decoding Verona project knew the test was very imminent and in fact are reputed to have had an air sampling mission flown into the region around Nova Zemlya within hours of the test happening.

    The Tsar Bomba was a amalgamation of four of the largest Soviet hydrogen bombs, each with a theoretical yield of around 25 mega tonnes ie 25 million tonnes of TNT so the theoretical yield of the Tsar Bomba was 100 mega tonnes.
    However the Russians decided that they could have a few problems with this size blast so replaced the uranium jacket blanket around the bombs with lead which reduced the yield by about half back to 50 mega tonnes

    Now 50 mega tonnes; ie ; 50 million tonnes of TNT all set off at once is about 3125 times the power of the Hiroshima bomb

    From Wiki we see that the 50mega tonne Tsar Bomba was powerful enough to [ quote ]

    All buildings in the village of Severny (both wooden and brick), located 55 kilometres (34 mi) from ground zero within the Sukhoy Nos test range, were destroyed. In districts hundreds of kilometers from ground zero wooden houses were destroyed, stone ones lost their roofs, windows and doors; and radio communications were interrupted for almost one hour. One participant in the test saw a bright flash through dark goggles and felt the effects of a thermal pulse even at a distance of 270 kilometres (170 mi). The heat from the explosion could have caused third-degree burns 100 km (62 mi) away from ground zero. A shock wave was observed in the air at Dikson settlement 700 kilometres (430 mi) away; windowpanes were partially broken to distances of 900 kilometres (560 mi).[10] Atmospheric focusing caused blast damage at even greater distances, breaking windows in Norway and Finland.

    It frightened the hell out if Nikita Krushchev’ Politburo and the Russian military and probably the Americans as well and no nuclear detonation of this size has ever been repeated since the Tsar Bomba detonation on Oct 30th 1961

    So to screw a few figures around to match 4 Hiroshima bombs a second you would need to detonate one Tsar Bomba every 13 minutes or every 780 seconds.

    But to match the energy flow from the Sun as posted by Jo above, you would have to detonate a Tsar Bomba every 1.15 seconds.

    And thems the figures and they show just how ridiculous using something such as the Hiroshima bomb an example can be changed to show just how puny the SkS example is compared to the energy that, not in bomb bursts but constantly arrives from the Sun every second of every day on this planet.


    Report this

    150

    • #
      johninoxley

      Thankyou ROM, I was in Hiroshima and Nagasaki recently. Left me with a feeling that will probably never leave me. I’m not a religious person, but I’m quite sure I felt the souls of all those that perished. Sks has no idea the hurt those families incurred.


      Report this

      93

      • #
        ROM

        johninoxley
        December 18, 2013 at 9:20 pm

        I appreciate your feelings but I come from another era, a not very pleasant one. I was born in july of 1938.

        The total losses of human life in WW2 which was started by Germany and her allies and Japan can only be estimated but is believed to be between 70 to 90 millions out of a then global population of around 3 billion.

        Of the aggressors Germany suffered an estimated military and civilian losses of about 4.2 million
        Her victims suffered an estimated military and civilian death toll of perhaps 30 million but some experts place it closer to 40 millions.

        Japan had an estimated military and civilian death toll of 2.35 million

        Japan and this is without the harsh occupation by Japan of the Korean Peninsula in 1910 through to 1945 plus the savage Manchurian occupation in October 1931 with it’s unknown death toll from harsh Japanese depredations against the Manchurian civilian population, destroyed the lives of some 10 million Chinese after it’s invasion of China,
        Folowed by the deaths of some 35,000 Australians and 12,000 NZ who died fighting the Japanese.

        Plus the records do not tell of the number of deaths under the Japanese occupation of SE Asian states such as Indonesia, the Philippines particularly and Burma and other SE Asian areas.
        As an example, it is estimated that over 100,000 Asian slave labourers died building some of the Burma railroad and that is apart from the POW’s who died there .
        I knew some of those soldiers and those POW’s who came back after the war

        The Japanese were amongst the cruelest invaderes and conquerers of modern times with a probable estimated death toll from their depredations against non japanese peoples in those years between the invasion of China in 1931 to 1945 of perhaps as many as 12 to 15 million souls.

        Those and all those innocent souls the japanese willfully destroyed for no reason except their own belief in their own total superiority to all other races are who I think of when the later generations start to get all tearful about the use of the atomic bomb on the Japanese.


        Report this

        160

        • #
          Mark D.

          Well said ROM.

          Were it not for the bombs I probably wouldn’t be here. My father was on a troop transport headed to the Philippines when they were dropped. Morale on that ship was not very high and for good reason-until then.

          I don’t think it was John’s intent to revise history and we need to reflect on the losses of life during war so that we are careful not to let history repeat.


          Report this

          60

          • #
            ROM

            Thanks Mark
            And I also do not think in anyway that John intended to revise history and I thought for some time before before posting due to John’s heartfelt comment.
            But the truth is that the Japanese have milked Hiroshima and western guilt emotions for all they are worth ever since the end of WW2.

            They still refuse to apologise or compensate the very few “comfort women’ left , those tens of thousands or women, the number will never be known, from other Asian nations that were forced in a horrible prostitution to sexually service the japanese army forces.
            They still refuse to apologise to the Chinese for the immense suffering and the more than 10 million dead not including those who died of disease and starvation due to japanese deliberate destruction of immense areas of rice harvests during their period of occupation of a very weak and vulnerable China of those times.
            The allied War Crime Tribunals across Asia and China tried many more but still sentenced some 800 japanese war criminals to death following the end of the war.

            The Japanese play up Hiroshima to the hilt while carefully failing to mention just what they did to deliberately destroy so many innocent lives across so many other nations.


            Report this

            80

      • #

        I also have stood at the epicentre in Nagasaki (1977, and it was indeed moving. I have also read numerous books on the war and the utter depravity of the forces of evil that swept the world. That the atom bomb stopped it in its tracks (temporarily, as it turned out) was a blessing to the estimated 2,000,000 that would have died in an invasion of Japan.

        Something else to consider from page 767 in “The Second World War”, by Antony Beevor (a thoroughly good read, BTW):

        Stalin had achieved everything he wanted at Potsdam, even though he had been forced to cancel the invasion of Western Europe out of fear of the atom bomb.


        Report this

        50

    • #
  • #
    King Geo

    It’s the Sun that controls planet Earth’s climate – it is as simple as that – it has been like that for ~ 4.5 billion years – only those with an IQ that doesn’t register believe otherwise. Yes that means that most “Warmist’s” are dumb, very dumb, but that excludes those “Warmists” who are making a good living out of “CAGW Alarmism” – they have a reasonably high IQ, just like us “AGW skeptics”, but they are in reality “despicable scoundrels” who have close to zero integrity.


    Report this

    130

    • #
      Will J. Browne

      “It’s the Sun that controls planet Earth’s climate – it is as simple as that – it has been like that for ~ 4.5 billion years – only those with an IQ that doesn’t register believe otherwise.”
      The heat absorbed by Co2 and other greenhouse gasses comes from the Sun. The Sun heats the Earth and some of this heat is radiated back into the atmosphere. Greenhouse gasses including water vapour and CO2 absorb some of this heat. More greenhouse gasses means more heat gets absorbed resulting in a warmer atmosphere – Climate Change in other words.


      Report this

      228

      • #
        Graeme No.3

        Think!
        If that is the case why has the Earth not warmed for 17 years? And please don’t claim “the missing heat” is hiding somewhere where it cannot be measured.

        Then as your knowledge of global warming increases, perhaps you could explain why the Earth went into an Ice Age at 3000ppm CO2 (Ordovician), 350ppm (Carboniferous), and cooled significantly at over 2000 ppm (late Jurassic).


        Report this

        150

        • #
          Will J. Browne

          Your assertion that the Earth has not warmed in the last 17 years is just plain wrong (even the writer of this blog accepts that the world is warming.) A detailed explanation of why you’re wrong can be found here.
          http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14527-climate-myths-global-warming-stopped-in-1998.html#.UrHOMbGvncs.
          Ice Ages are most likely caused by wobbles in the Earth’s orbit. I’m not quite sure why you think this is relevant. Your logic seems to be that changes in the Earth’s orbit can cause climate change; therefore, changes in the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere can’t. That doesn’t seem logical to me. Anyway, if you read up more about the Carboniferous Period it might help you understand the relationship between the concentration of Carbon in the atmosphere and the climate.


          Report this

          327

          • #
            Rereke Whakaaro

            New Scientist is hardly a credible source


            Report this

            130

            • #
              Will J. Brownne

              I think you’re right. They don’t have anything about the “Big Government” or “Mainstream Media” issues and they seem to be unashamedly pro-science.


              Report this

              317

              • #
                Rereke Whakaaro

                … they seem to be unashamedly pro-science.

                Hardly, they unashamedly print whatever press releases they are given.

                They have even been known to print articles from Moi.


                Report this

                90

              • #
                PhilJourdan

                You mixed up your clauses. Let me assist you:

                They don’t have anything about the science “Big Government” or “Mainstream Media” issues and they seem to be unashamedly pro-science “Big Government” or “Mainstream Media” issues.


                Report this

                50

          • #
            Graeme No.3

            I hardly think that New Scientist is a convincing source, but even so from that
            “According to the dataset of the UK Met Office Hadley Centre (see figure), 1998 was the warmest year by far since records began, but since 2003 there has been slight cooling”.
            this despite rising CO2 levels.
            And that is assuming that the dataset reflects reality not the “adjusted according to what it should be” state.
            At which point I assume you will claim that the Arctic is warming “faster than ever” (whatever that means) and all you have to do is insert some made up figures and “proof” is here.
            From your same source “In fact, the planet as a whole has warmed since 1998, sometimes even in the years when surface temperatures have fallen”.
            In other words the planet is warming regardless of any evidence. A statement of belief not a scientific one.
            The Ice Ages I was referring to were tens of millions of years long, not the Milankovitch cycles. As for what I missed about the Carboniferous Period, perhaps you could supply some reference (other than New Scientist or Skeptical Science). What I was pointing out was that there were icy periods in the Earth’s history at 3000ppm and 350 ppm of CO2. There are many variations which disprove that CO2 has a major effect on climate, but somehow they get ignored.
            If you want to concentrate on more recent times, 9000 years ago the Sahara was green with permanent water (see Tassili frescoes). The estimates are that during the Holocene Climatic Optimum the Earth was 2 ℃ warmer than now. Later it dried out and temperatures were much lower. We have references from Roman times of vines (and olives) being grown further north in Italy than previous times, indicting renewed warming. After the Romans came the Dark Ages when the Bosphorus froze so people could walk from Europe to Asia. Then more warming with the Medieval Warm Period when the Vikings went to Greenland (and Newfoundland). The tree line in Canada was over a 100 kilometres further north than today, and farms were at higher altitudes in England and Norway than today. Then there was the Little Ice Age which wiped out the Greenland settlements (and those high country farms) and the Baltic froze solid enough for a Swedish army to march across the sea into Denmark. Since then things have warmed up somewhat (the 1730’s were noted for warm summers in England, and the Mt. Blanc glaciers were reported to have melted by 2 musket shots exposing fields littered with stones). There was also rapid glacial melting in Europe in the 1850’s and 1860’s. Glacial advances in the 1880’s to 1900’s followed by more melting, esp. in 1920-1940, when the actual temperature readings were close to today’s.
            The point being that all these changes occurred despite (according to Global Warming theory) a constant CO2 level about 280ppm.
            Now you come along and say “CO2 has risen so the end of the world is coming”. I don’t think so. You can believe whatever you like, even if you make a fool of yourself.


            Report this

            191

            • #
              Will J. Brownne

              This post is more long-winded than your last one but ypu’re still saying the same thing: that there are forces other than greenhouse gases that affect the climate. So what?


              Report this

              223

              • #
                Graeme No.3

                So if we have had a 2 ℃ rise and at least a 1 ℃ drop in temperature in the past at a “constant” carbon dioxide level, why should a 0.6 ℃ (or less) change be due to CO2?


                Report this

                140

              • #
                Greg Cavanagh

                So what?

                That there are other forces that can drop the world into an ice age is importante.

                That the world came out of an ice age for no apparent reason is also important.

                You’re refusing to accept that there are other natural forces acting on the world’s temperatures, and blindly focusing only on CO2. Your “so what” is unashamedly naive.

                And focusing on a very nebulous item such as a global average temperature is also unashamedly naive. An average over such a diverse and wide area, on a rotating sphere with water and atmosphere, is largely meaningless. A curiosity only.


                Report this

                50

              • #
                AndyG55

                A TINY amount of warming (if it even exist outside the Giss/HadCrud adjusted record). SO WHAT !!

                This warming puts the world about half way between the LIA temps and the MWP local optimum.

                BRING ON THE WARMING, and let the world prosper.

                Grapes (and hence wine) in northern England.. what could be wrong with that.. cool climate white wines are NICE :-)

                And maybe Russia can use its northern port again, like in the 1930′s

                Let’s all hope that we aren’t headed the other direction again.. cooling would be DISASTEROUS !!!!


                Report this

                71

              • #
                AndyG55

                “MWP local optimum”

                badly phased.. I was thinking mathematically, not geographically.


                Report this

                10

              • #
                AndyG55

                “I was thinking mathematically, not geographically’

                Poor Will, probably has no idea what I mean :-)


                Report this

                20

              • #
                PhilJourdan

                Ah! This comment explains it. You have trouble with the English language. I will assist again:

                ypu’re you’re still saying


                Report this

                00

          • #
            PhilJourdan

            Then why, using science mind you, the temperature over the last 17 years is showing a statistically 0 slope?

            That is not opinion, that is science.


            Report this

            140

          • #
            handjive

            @Will J. Browne
            December 19, 2013 at 2:51 am -
            Quote:”Anyway, if you read up more about the Carboniferous Period it might help you understand the relationship between the concentration of Carbon in the atmosphere and the climate.”

            Finally!
            Some one on Jonova’s blog that understands the UN-IPCC climate science.
            In my effort to “understand the relationship between the concentration of Carbon(sic) in the atmosphere and the climate“, I took your advice and found this graph.

            Can you explain-
            (1) the relationship between the concentration of Carbon(sic) in the atmosphere and the climate during the late ordovician period when carbon(sic) was 4000ppm and it was an ice age and …
            (2) How is this relevant to the late carboniferous period when carbon levels are the same as now, but it is an ice age?
            Did the carbon(sic) cause the ice ages?

            I was hoping you would provide a link as an example. Maybe you still can?
            Is the graph wrong?

            So, after taking your advice, Will, it seems I am more confused than when I first started.

            Please help me Will.


            Report this

            180

            • #
              Will J. Browne

              Of course it’s from a source. What do you think the quotation marks were meant to signify?

              [That you are willing to plagiarize? When copying from another source it is customary, good manners, and required here at Joanne Nova, to provide a credit or reference to the source. No apology for your other grievous transgression? You are well on your way to the shortest lived poster yet. Go ahead punk, make my day.] ED


              Report this

              112

              • #
                Will J. Browne

                If somebody intended on plagiarising something they would not put it in quotation marks. If you were plagiarising something you would try and pass it off as your own writing. Putting it in quotation marks is a clear indication that it is from a source and is not your own writing. Omitting a source is not plagiarism; it is an oversight. If you would be so good as to apologise for your unfounded and scurrilous, public allegation of plagiarism, I would be happy to apologise for inadvertently omitting the source on my quotation. BTW, Your silly “Make my day” threat was unbecoming to the editor of a respected…ha ha! what am I saying?

                [Pay attention there is a test. What I asked you to apologise for is your attempt to circumvent the moderation system by changing your screen name. You so far have refused to do so and, I might say, with a bit of attitude. You seem to forget that there are rules and we ultimately decide if your behavior is acceptable. So far it isn't and I have bets with the other moderators that you will continue to be unruly. Therefore I'll ask you how many times do you think we'll put up with your bad behavior before you are permanently blocked?

                You had an opportunity to correct your "oversight" instead of your snide comment but you didn't. My comment was phrased clearly as a question not an allegation. I also note you still have not referenced or linked to the source either. This meaning you are shy about telling us, or what?

                Right you are about one thing, I should appologise for not crediting Dirty Harry for the use of his quote.]ED

                [Will, we want commenters who disagree with us (politely), the mods are not asking much, and you do need to respond. - Jo]


                Report this

                03

              • #
                Will J. Browne

                I didn’t attempt to circumvent any moderation policy. I don’t have to log on to this site to make a comment so, as far as I know, I’m free to use any name I want. Just for the record, I didn’t change my name, I just used a different email address. As I was replying to a comment that was a in turn a reply to something I said (and a rather snide one at that) it should have been obvious it’s the same user. If this is a breach of the rules I apologise. Now, can you point me to the section of your website that lists the rules that have to be complied with when posting comments – I haven’t been able to find it. I have also done a quick search on internet etiquette to see if I have breach any common rules on etiquette and I haven’t been able to find anything relevant.

                [At the top of any page there are tabs labeled "Home" and at the other end "About" Hover the cursor over "About" and the second selection is "Rules and Legal". here for your convenience: http://joannenova.com.au/rules-legal/ . Not every rule is committed to print and common sense prevails. You may find it hard to believe but we get a few really bad trolls and troublemakers. Some of these trolls try every trick to get around the moderators and filters by changing identities. Using only one name and email is as much a courtesy as a rule. Your posts will get published faster because all first time new names or e-mail addresses get caught for moderation. If you register and log in you'll find it easier and won't have to re-type your screen name. We don't mind anonymity either just choose one identity and stick with it. Additionally, WordPress will assign you the same gravatar (image) so others will recognize the person they are reading. If you don't want to register please be careful to type your name the same way each time. Likewise, using only one (working) e-mail address will help keep your identity straight and get post through faster.] ED


                Report this

                04

          • #
            handjive

            @Will J. Browne
            December 19, 2013 at 2:51 am
            Quote: “Your assertion that the Earth has not warmed in the last 17 years is just plain wrong (even the writer of this blog accepts that the world is warming.)”

            So, here we have a blog (Jonova) with a post specifically about a smart phone application developed to explain the ‘missing heat of man made global warming‘, described by some as a ‘pause in warming‘, and here comes Will with a link from 2008 saying there is no pause, in an attempt to justify the application to ‘explain the pause’.

            If we are not at peak stupid yet, surely Will is the signpost that we are close?


            Report this

            200

          • #
            Robert JM

            Will, the global temp is regulated by the amount of cloud cover, which declined by 5% in the mid 90s. This corresponds to the only warming period seen since satellite observations began and accounts for 0.3 deg C of the observed 0.4deg C increase. This leaves only 0.1 deg (ie noise) to attributed to CO2 instead of the predicted 0.6deg C. In addition the amount of energy being lost to space increased as the earth warmed up, the signature of Shortwave forcing due to natural cloud changes and the opposite of greenhouse gasses trapping more heat.

            In addition the current excuse for lack of warming that the heat is hiding in the deep oceans actually disproves CAGW.
            CAGW can only occur if the heat goes into the atmosphere where its effect is amplified by water vapour positive feedback in the upper troposphere (also falsified).
            If the energy goes into the deep ocean instead then this process cannot happen and increased CO2 cannot cause significant warming.

            No explain to me how the world is warming when the the ice cores show that the world has cooled 3 degrees in the last 3000 years?
            While your at it explain how CO2 controls temp when the 50% decline in CO2 20 Million years ago didn’t result in an Ice age until 2 million years ago? Why did CO2 wait 18million years before affecting temp?


            Report this

            40

          • #
            cohenite

            Damn, I was enjoying the comments until the inevitable troll stuck their snout up.

            CO2 ‘heating’ has a logarithmic effect; the more CO2 which is added the less ‘heating’ effect each new CO2 molecule has; see this expressed as a forcing or as a temperature response.

            The link which the troll uses to ‘prove’ temp hasn’t paused for the last 20 odd years is to a stupid article which supports this contention by saying the heat has been stored in the oceans. No it hasn’t.


            Report this

            20

    • #
      Grant (NZ)

      close to zero integrity

      Oh no no no!. They have integrity. It is just well suppressed.


      Report this

      40

  • #
    Keith L

    Not dramatic enough. Instead of atomic bombs the correct unit for this kind of scare mongering should be ‘orphanage fires’.
    One A-bomb is equivalent to about 1.0e9 Orphanage Fires.
    Other standard units include ‘Fluffy Wuffy Bunny Wabbit Conflagrations’ and ‘Lonely Child Dolls House Incinerations’.


    Report this

    101

  • #
    Adam

    I wonder what the earth would look like without all those “Hiroshima bombs of heat”. Probably like a giant popsicle.


    Report this

    100

  • #
    MaxL

    Only 2 billion A-bombs since 1998, eh!
    I guess that would explain why the “global temperature” hasn’t increased since umm … 1998.

    2 billion A-bombs and Trenberth still can’t find ‘em.
    Still, it must be hard to find his (special) 2 out of 1386 billion others.


    Report this

    90

  • #
    Dale Kent

    star comment
    Thanks for putting the widget up Jo.

    Hopefully it can be put to use helping to treat the craziness out there. :)

    Dale

    Thank this man here! – Jo


    Report this

    130

  • #
    PhilJourdan

    Jo, Your title is off by 36%. I did a quick calculation and the real rate is 678 times as much.

    And to think that man (and Earth!) is surviving such cataclysm. ;-)

    But as I have said before, the Cook crock has done one thing helpful. Kind of laid bare the scares of the 50s and 60s. At our height, we were only talking about a few THOUSAND Hiroshimas with MAD. The earth absorbs that much in a few minutes.


    Report this

    50

    • #

      Phil, you are so right, but I decided that since H-bomb A-bomb (see Rereke below) analogies were pathetic so it wasn’t worth the two extra digits and detail. If people just remember “500 times bigger” that will be accurate enough for me. It’s not like anyone is launching rockets with this app, though I suppose people were lauching National policies…


      Report this

      101

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        Jo,

        A correction – it is not H-bomb, but A-bomb.

        The atomic bombs, dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were toys, compared to the modern hydrogen bomb.

        Cook is using the A-Bomb as a “standard”, which is probably valid, since it was the first atomic device used in anger.

        But nowhere does Cook mention atomic bombs (or A-bombs).

        Instead, he talks in terms of Hiroshima-bombs. In doing this, he is relying on many of his readers thinking that, “H-bomb”, is an abbreviation of Hiroshima-bomb.

        That allows him to talk in terms of the number of Hiroshima-bombs in his comparative approach, but imply the same destructive force as the modern hydrogen bomb, which is several orders of magnitude higher.

        It is a propaganda trick of semantics, that has been used on numerous occasions.


        Report this

        160

      • #
        PhilJourdan

        Round numbers are always catchier. ;-)


        Report this

        10

  • #
    Will J. Browne

    “Cook and Nuccitelli show us they don’t have a good grip on cause and effect. The world may have been warming, but that does not mean that CO2 caused it.” Basic science tells us that an increase in C02 will result in warming (cause). The world has been warming (effect). Can you explain where I’m going wrong here?


    Report this

    117

    • #
      Mark D.

      Can you explain where I’m going wrong here?

      You are wrong first by assuming “basic science” is sufficient to explain a complex chaotic system like our massive atmosphere. Second, the modeling as provided by leading climate scientists and built upon faith in co2 effects, has failed miserably to match observations.

      After those two sink into your thinking you’ll be well on your way to recognizing where you are going wrong.


      Report this

      141

      • #
        Will J. Browne

        An increase in greenhouse gasses will result in a warmer atmosphere.
        The amount of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere has increased.
        It’s got warmer.

        Which of these statements are you saying is wrong?


        Report this

        224

        • #
          Graeme No.3

          Both statements.
          The link between GHG concentrations and temperature isn’t that obvious, e.g. an ice age at 3000ppm CO2. Also the Earth undoubtedly got warmer around 1850-1885 and 1920-1940 without much increase in CO2.
          Secondly, the Earth hasn’t got significantly warmer for 17 years (Dr. Phil Jones Hadley Institute) despite a big increase in CO2 concentration.


          Report this

          170

        • #
          Mark D.

          Which of these statements are you saying is wrong?

          Well:

          An increase in greenhouse gasses will result in a warmer atmosphere.

          The statement is an assumption based upon an unproven theory. Some argue that the hypothesis isn’t even good enough to be called a theory. In any case the word WILL is not scientific.

          The amount of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere has increased.

          See above. Or in other words SO WHAT?

          It’s got warmer.

          Where I went to school it would have been: “It’s gotten warmer”. If you had a science background, you’d know that correlation does not prove causation. That is IF it really has got warmer. Your theory pivots on an effect outside of natural variation. Empirical evidence suggests that it was warmer recently and prior to human fossil fuel use and that it was already warming since the last ice age. For your theory to have merit, you’d need to demonstrate that any warming was outside of natural variation, then demonstrate that it is caused by changes in atmospheric chemistry. Your claim that “It’s got warmer” (even if true) is not sufficient evidence to support the hypothesis you ascribe to it.

          I score that as wrong, wrong and wrong.


          Report this

          182

        • #
          tom0mason

          Please provide proof that this planet can be accurately modeled by mean of the ‘greenhouse’ analogy.
          This is a fraudulent theory of little to no use when applied to climate. It is designed to capture the imagination of the scientifically deficient.


          Report this

          110

        • #
          Annie

          Reverse the uptick…hit by mistake…it should have been down.


          Report this

          10

        • #
          Peter Miller

          Well, there are:

          1. The impact of natural climate cycles which we can not yet accurately quantify.

          2. The impact of agriculture, including the resulting change of albedo.

          3. The impact of irrigation.

          4. Varations in cosmic rays hitting the Earth’s upper atmosphere and their impact on cloud formation there.

          5. Over-estimations of the forcing and feedback effects of CO2.

          6. The use of linear trend lines to illustrate complex, often chaotic weather and climate.

          7. The obvious cherry picking and data manipulation of some temperature data sets, most notably GISS,

          8. The ‘elephant in the room’, the Sun. We all know about its 11 year cycles, but are there other ones which we have not yet recognised? It would be very surprising if the variable star, we call our Sun, did not have a complex network of longer term cycles.

          9. And, of course, what caused the MWP, the Roman and the Minoan warm periods, and let’s not forget the 3,000 year long Holocene Optimum – all warmer periods than today.

          10. Why was the last interglacial period, the Eemian, much warmer than today?

          Because the subject of climate is so complex and people unfortunately like single issue subjects, this has resulted in CO2 being blamed for imminent Thermagddon, when in reality its influence on our climate is minimal.


          Report this

          40

    • #
      Gee Aye

      What is this Cobalt dimer of which you write?


      Report this

      12

    • #
      James

      Where you are going wrong is the bit that says “Basic science tells us that an increase in C02 will result in warming (cause). The world has been warming (effect)”.

      Real observations tell us that that global warming (cause) does result in an increase in CO2 (effect).

      It appears that the cult of climatology is still sticking to the same scientific concensus that once taught that the earth was flat.


      Report this

      40

  • #
    Numberwang

    The title of Jo’s earlier post, “Climate scientists move to atom-bomb number system, give up on exponentials” says it all – the deliberate dumbing-down to fool the ignorant masses.


    Report this

    80

  • #
    Michael the Realist

    Every second the sun pours 2700 Hiroshima bombs of energy on the Earth at the top of the atmosphere.

    Again this misses the big picture. It is not how much the sun is putting out, but whether it has changed, that is important. Earth gains virtually all of its energy from the sun in the form of radiation, and it also loses virtually all of that energy from the top of the atmosphere in the form of radiation. Whether Earth is gaining total energy or losing total energy depends on the balance of what it gains to what it loses and why.

    There is dishonesty by omission in the discussion above. What is omitted is that the suns energy has slightly fallen since the 50′s. Over that time period ENSO has been neutral overall and there have been some big cooling volcanos. So by natural variation temperatures should have cooled slightly, instead global temps have increased by a massive 0.6 deg c. This is consistent with AGW, it is consistent with measurements at the TOA of a drop in energy loss in the radiation bands affected by CO2. It is consistent with measurements at the surface of an increase in radiation from the same frequencies and it is consistent with a cooling of the stratosphere. Actual data and observations tell us that energy has increased with the only reasonable explanation that is supported by all the science is enhanced greenhouse gas forcing by extra CO2 from human emissions.

    Last year the US had its hottest year on record (during a cooling la nina affected year), this year Australia has been breaking heat records left, right and centre while ENSO is neutral, the 2001 to 2010 decade was the hottest on the instrumental record and extreme weather is occuring all over the world. This is all while by natural factors it should have cooled. What would it take for you guys to accept actual data and evidence and put people first instead of money and ideology.


    Report this

    336

    • #
      Mark D.

      ENSO is not a source of heat or cool globally. You keep bringing it into your conversations but all it demonstrates is how poor our ability to measure the “global temperature” and it is a big straw that you grasp.

      Co2 is NOT the “only reasonable explanation” and you are in denial if you believe that it is.

      Your reliance on a poor measurement for the purpose of changing the world politically and upsetting civilization is the problem. Your belief in a grand conspiracy that we hold an ideology and for money is laughable.

      So you should change your name to: Michael the Denialist-Conspiracy-Believer.


      Report this

      190

      • #
        Michael the Realist

        ENSO is not a source of heat or cool globally.

        I know that, but it does affect global temperatures by moving energy around the system, but overall it will even out. The point is that over the 50 years when you look at the data the overall affect of WNSO is neutral. When you look at individual time periods you can see that el nino (that is a period of atmospheric warming globally) was strong during the 1991 to 2000 decade with one of the highest on record being your cherry picked year of 1998. The 2001 to 2010 decade was slightly more la nina but was hotter than the previous decade, so thereby ruling out a significant major natural cycle. Do you disagree with this assessment and if yes, why?

        Co2 is NOT the “only reasonable explanation”

        Please provide an alternative explanation with corroborating science and data.

        I do not believe in a grand conspiracy, I accept the science, as accepted by every internationally recognised scientific organisation in the world and the vast majority of the peer reviewed science.

        Your argument by use of a big number (solar coming in) while ignoring energy coming out is dishonest and shows how you are trying to influence a gullible public that will not delve deeper or ask the right questions but will accept your simplistic manipulation of science by omission. The same argument commonly used with CO2 by the way, when you talk about the amount emitted by nature while ignoring that absorbed.


        Report this

        125

        • #
          PhilJourdan

          Please provide an alternative explanation with corroborating science and data.

          Science 101 – It is called the Null Hypothesis. If you do not even know that much, why are you wasting your time here?


          Report this

          140

          • #
            Michael the Realist

            That is not an explanation, it is a copout. Provide some science, the climate is not magic. Things happen for a reason, they can measure a substanitial amount of the significant factors. We have increased CO2, science and measurements say that will cause warming and change the climate. All have been measured and occurring as is consistent with greenhouse forced warming. Is there any other reason. These have been checked, and are shown to provide a net cooling. Everything matches and is consistent and fits the science, point proved. A copout weak assed excuse like its the null hypothesis is not science. It has been investigated every way and sunday, so unless you can come up with a plausable alternative then it has been proved that greenhouse warming from mans emissions is a likely representation of reality.


            Report this

            014

            • #
              AndyG55

              Everything is consistent with NATURAL VARIATION.

              Like the MWP, RWP, LIA etc etc..

              We are well within the bounds of this NATURAL VARIATION. !!


              Report this

              90

            • #
              tom0mason

              So Michael the Surrealist there is an answer?
              I agree you have an answer, but IMO you do not come close to finding the truth.


              Report this

              60

            • #
              PhilJourdan

              It is not a copout. It is called science. basic science. And if you are not aware of that, you have no clue what science is about.

              Science is not magic. Until YOU prove that something is not natural, it is natural. No matter how much you want to express your incredulity over natural events. One in a million does not mean it never happens. And this is not even long odds. It is actually quite common for temperatures to rise and fall. And it is natural. Indeed, it happens every year.

              Prove that it does not. Then you have a case.

              And I thought you had tucked tail and run. Another broken promise. You alarmist just cannot be trusted to keep your word.


              Report this

              60

            • #
              PhilJourdan

              BTW – Until YOU disprove the null hypothesis, no one, not even God, has to prove anything else. THAT is science 101. And if YOU have disproven it, show everyone! Even Trenberth admits it has NOT been disproven.


              Report this

              40

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          Please provide an alternative explanation with corroborating science and data.

          Or to restate what Phil has said: Natural random variation. Neither you, nor any “internationally recognised scientific organisation in the world”, has presented any evidence that proves that it cannot result from natural random variation.


          Report this

          140

          • #
            Michael the Realist

            Natural random variation.

            Again the old ‘climate is magic, it is something we don’t understand defense’. Which one, they have been measured, it is not ‘natural variation’. Copout with zero science, plenty of proof has been shown.


            Report this

            014

            • #
              AndyG55

              [snip insult] the copout is blaming CO2 by creating a coincidence of temperature and CO2 during a short period of 15 years or so.

              There is zero science backing any link between CO2 and temperature. NONE, NADA.. ZIP !!!

              You are just too brainwashed to realise it. [snip]


              Report this

              91

            • #
              Rereke Whakaaro

              Michael,

              I suggest you look up the definition of “Null Hypothesis”, because you obviously don’t know what that is.

              And that shows that you have zero understanding of the science involved. Or any science for that matter.


              Report this

              151

            • #
              tom0mason

              Michael,
              Not the same old “I have an answer therefore I must be right” argument?
              You have what you discern as the answer but it is not the truth.


              Report this

              60

              • #
                PhilJourdan

                I find it strange that Michael thinks because he has “AN Answer” that it must be correct. He claimed he was a teacher. I suppose he never had a student give him an answer on a test that was wrong?

                Guess Michael is learning about wrong answers.


                Report this

                40

            • #
              PhilJourdan

              You seem to be the only one that thinks it is magic and must therefore disobey the basic rules of science.

              Again, prove it. Prove what Mann, Trenbert, Schmidt, Jones, Briffa, et. al. admit they have not and so far cannot disprove.


              Report this

              40

        • #
          Greg Cavanagh

          Not every “internationally recognised scientific organisation in the world” agree as you suppose they do.

          Thy may broadly agree in principle, but they’ll disagree in the detail.

          And all of this doesn’t make them correct anyway. There are many top scientists and thinkers who disagree and show their working. You’re broad statement is false from the very start.


          Report this

          40

        • #
          AndyG55

          “every internationally recognised scientific organisation”

          At one stage, every recognised scientific body thought the world was FLAT..

          Like Trenberth et al do.

          Your argument is AGAIN.. a meaningless piece of propaganda BS !!


          Report this

          51

          • #
            Michael the Realist

            Apart from the fact that when people thought the world was flat was pre scientific method and pre international scientific organisations, it is not a valid argument.

            Every scientific organisation now believes the world is round, do we reject that assertion because every scientific organisation thinks that? Off course not, we look at the evidence and determine on what basis that consensus has been reached.


            Report this

            02

            • #

              #22.1.1.4.1–No one ever said we should reject climate change because there is a consensus. Per your assertion, we have looked at the evidence and the evidence is very, very lacking. We looked at how the consensus was reached and found that also very, very lacking (but a wonderful learning experience in “how to lie with statistics).


              Report this

              10

        • #
          Tim

          We’ll show you ours, if you show us yours.
          There has been none of your references. Show and tell MTR


          Report this

          10

          • #
            Michael the Realist

            I have provided references to all of my statements before. What happens now is they go straight to moderation and then get rejected as repetition. So be aware, 90%+ of the claims I make come from data from the major scientific organisations (NASA. NOAA, WMO etc) or from the peer reviewed science.

            [Michael, all comments with lots of links will automatically get moderated. I only know of a few of your posts that were not set free and that was because the material appeared to be mass duplication of previous material. If you want to have better results, try including say three links or less per post.] ED


            Report this

            02

            • #
              Graeme No.3

              That is because you keep repeating the same old BS.

              Stuff coming from NASA only satisfies the gullible.


              Report this

              00

            • #

              Michael: #22.1.1.5.1 You don’t seem to comprehend that many of the posters here read all the information you keep posting. You’re presenting anything new. We know what is peer-reviewed and what is not. What you don’t get is that we have not elevated science to the level of a god and believe it to infallible. We don’t care how many people agree and we don’t care how many peer-reviews are attached to the information. We can what the actual data says. We know about all the different graphs of temperatures over the last 100 years, last 30 years, etc. So what is the point of your posting them again? We KNOW this stuff–we just do not agree with your assessment that this constitutes proof of a coming disaster nor does it represent good scientific method. Again, you’re not posting anything we have not read and analyzed, at least not to date.


              Report this

              10

        • #
          Mark D.

          Michael Says about ENSO:

          I know that, but it does affect global temperatures by moving energy around the system,

          ENSO moves nothing around the system. ENSO is the RESULT of energy moving around the system.


          Report this

          20

          • #
            crakar24

            Yes thats right and also it does not effect global remps as all it does is move it around it may cause changes in regional temps but overall it does nothing?


            Report this

            30

    • #
      Peter Miller

      You are quoting the highly manipulated GISS figures, thankfully we have the satellite figures to help keep the climate scientists honest.

      This is the first time I have heard of the Sun’s emissions declining over the past 60 years, other than for its normal 11 year cycles.


      Report this

      80

      • #
        Michael the Realist

        You are quoting the highly manipulated GISS figures, thankfully we have the satellite figures

        Ah the conspiracy theory. Thankfully all the data sets show the same trend.
        http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_November_2013_v5.6.png

        Please notice in the satelite graph how the 13 month average line is mostly below the 81 to 2010 avge before 1998 and virtually always above the 81 to 2010 trend after 1998. The trend is obvious, even though satelites have been shown to have a cooling bias and have had to be adjusted several times due to the complicated calculations involved. So do your best, pick a data set and see how long your weak conspiracy theories survive.

        This is the first time I have heard of the Sun’s emissions declining over the past 60 years

        This is well known, and I have pointed it out many times.
        http://science1.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2009/01apr_deepsolarminimum/


        Report this

        120

        • #
          Peter Miller

          I refer you to the link in Post No. 11 here.

          As examples of blatant data manipulation to support the cause, this should be obvious to all but the blinkered, bolts-in-the-side-of-the-head alarmist.

          As for conspiracy theories, what on Earth do you think climate alarmism is all about?

          Apart from jobs for the boys, of course.


          Report this

          100

          • #
            Michael the Realist

            So only I have shown any evidence and science but you think your views are obvious? How about explaining some science and providing some data. You guys have so little it is ridiculous. Its just all excuses.


            Report this

            016

            • #
              AndyG55

              You are the one with the POOR EXCUSE for science.

              You rely totally on the meaningless propaganda pushed at you on your little propaganda BS CD!

              How about you actually go and spend some proper time getting a proper education.

              Maybe after 10-15 years study, redoing high school first, you may actually come out with some basic understanding.


              Report this

              81

            • #
              PhilJourdan

              Strawman. You ignore the evidence you do not like. No one else is ignoring it. But evidence is not proof. They are the building blocks to proof, but so far, you have not finished digging the foundation, and you want to proclaim your skyscraper complete.


              Report this

              50

        • #
          AndyG55

          “The trend is obvious”

          yes it is..

          Basically FLAT from 1979-1997, then a release of ENSO kinetic energy, then basically FLAT from 2001-now

          This is exactly what you would expect in a world UNAFFECTED by atmospheric CO2 concentration.

          (and unaffected by pre 1979 Giss and hadCrut cooling.

          The whole global warming scam was built around those pre-1979 adjustments, and now the instigators and hanger-oners are having to find places where there is no data to try to re-manufacture any trend at all.

          Sorry Michael.. BUT ITS OVER !!!!!!!!!


          Report this

          131

          • #
            Michael the Realist

            Basically FLAT from 1979-1997, then a release of ENSO kinetic energy, then basically FLAT from 2001-now

            So you are blaming ENSO? Except that it is overall neutral, so why has temps not come down. It is basically what you would expect from a world warming from enhanced greenhouse gas forcing. It goes up and then as natrural cooling factors kick in you get a flat period, not cooling because GH forcing is still occurring, and then it goes up again, and then flat, etc. That it has gone up 0.6 deg c in 60 years even though solar is slightly cooling and ENSO is flat is the proof. WHY HAS IT GONE UP???

            Basic logic sunshine, try some.


            Report this

            015

            • #
              AndyG55

              Solar has only been cooling this cycle. Before that there were several very strong cycles.

              You truly have ZERO idea do you, yapper.


              Report this

              81

            • #
              Heywood

              “Basic logic sunshine, try some.”

              Still the same arrogant and condescending fcukwit I see.


              Report this

              71

            • #
              AndyG55

              M the idiot wouldn’t know basic logic if it bit him in the posterior.

              The guy is an ill-educated twerp.. the sort I used to come across teaching low IQ 14-16 year olds.


              Report this

              51

            • #
              tom0mason

              You have the word order incorrect again Michael -

              not:
              “Basic logic sunshine, try some.”
              but:
              Try some basic logic, its sunshine.

              That is to say it is the sun that varies our climate!


              Report this

              20

            • #
              tom0mason

              Michael,
              As you like to quote from Dr. Roy Spencer I will likewise -
              http://drtimball.com/2013/dangers-of-analogies-earths-atmosphere-is-not-like-a-greenhouse/

              And ask -
              Which part of the first graph do you not understand.


              Report this

              30

              • #
                Michael the Realist

                I do not quote from Spencer, I point out that the satelite data he controls exhibits the same trends as all the other global data sets.

                Your article is a load of half truths and misinformation. CO2 is not demonised by the IPCC. It is molecule of 2 oxygen molecules electrically bonded to a carbon molecule which have certain known and measurable properties. One of those properties is that it reacts to certain frequencies in the IR band by absorbing and then reemitting in all directions. This has the effect of slowing down the loss of radiation emitted by the earths surface. The effect is that it keeps the earth warmer than it would have been, which is good for us, but in excess it enhances the greehouse effect and causes warming that in most respects is likely to be bad for us. It is a question of balance. It is you guys that apply religious significance to CO2 with statements such as ‘CO2 is essential for life..’ etc (most elements are), etc.

                Also scientists understand that the greenhouse effect does not work the same as a normal garden greenhouse. That works by preventing heat escaping by convection. You guys use arguments that are pathetic and insulting to the scientific community.

                What you don’t understand about the graph is that CO2 is not the only factor involved in climate and that the atmosphere is not the only place the additional energy goes to. Your argument is simplistic and one dimensional and basically science by graphics, which is not science at all.


                Report this

                02

              • #

                Wow, Michael. Who knew saying CO2 is essential for life was religion, not science. You really must post a link to the encyclopedia you’re using to describe science. Oh, wait, it’s SKS. My bad.

                If scientists understand that the greenhouse effect does not work the same as a normal garden greenhouse, then why do they call this a greenhouse effect and say it “traps energy”? Are they too stupid to be able to find an accurate term? Seriously, if the term is inaccurate they should not use it ANYWHERE, including the press. How stupid would your doctor look if he starting using terms like “boo-boo” and “ouch” as diagnoses? I’d run from a doctor like that. And I run from scientists and others who are that ill informed.

                Here, some real science from a guy with a degree in theoretical physics (he took a physics course, Michael, a lot of them): http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/06/realclimate-saturated-confusion.html to help you understand how the CO2 “thing” works. He has a link to an update explaining why the effect of CO2 is logarithmic, which is also very good.


                Report this

                20

              • #
                Backslider

                One of those properties is that it reacts to certain frequencies in the IR band by absorbing and then reemitting in all directions. This has the effect of slowing down the loss of radiation emitted by the earths surface. The effect is that it keeps the earth warmer than it would have been, which is good for us, but in excess it enhances the greehouse effect and causes warming that in most respects is likely to be bad for us.

                This is where all of your arguments fall down Michael. You see, as you admit, CO2 absorbs only very narrow bands of IR. There is only so much of this IR to go around and CO2 is completely saturated at around 200ppm. Thus, adding more CO2 to the atmosphere does nothing. Study it Michael, you will find that I am perfectly correct.


                Report this

                10

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          Well, the IPCC, the organisation charged with maintaining the Gold Standard of climate science, has said that it would require ten years of no appreciable temperature increases, to indicate a cessation of warming that was significant.

          And yet I look that the graph you reference, and in particular, that part of the curve between 2003 and 2013, and note that it has no appreciable trend, and is statistically flat, at 0.19oK.

          How do you explain that away?


          Report this

          90

          • #
            Michael the Realist

            The generally accepted definition of climate is at least 30 years. Also the atmosphere is only where 5% of the warming goes, you are ignoring the melting cryosphere, the warming oceans and natural cooling factors. It has not gone up because we have had a predominantly la nina affected decade where warming has been transferring to the deeper oceans and the sun has slightly cooled off. But even then temps have not fallen but have produced back to back record hot la nina affected years. Once the cycle shifts you will get another shift change of temps, just like has happened throughout the instrumental record. The long term trend. Its not rocket science it is simple logic, and you are only presenting weak excuses while ignoring all of the other factors.


            Report this

            113

            • #
              AndyG55

              “definition of climate is at least 30 years” (its a Trenberth definition.. ie a nonsense anyway.)

              Yep and that 30 years since the introduction of real atmospheric temperature measurements via satellite is nearly up.

              They will no longer be able to rely on the trend-creating manipulations of the surface station data pre-1979.

              Now watch them try to extend that period. ;-) They KNOW that the next 4-5 year will bury them completely.

              And even though it will be cooling significantly by 2019, you brainwashed morons will STILL hanging onto your religion.


              Report this

              41

            • #
              tom0mason

              The only the IPCC agree that “The generally accepted definition of climate is at least 30 years.”
              And the IPCC’s so good for nothing.

              Others know that at least 100 years is the better figure.

              Maybe Michael can find out who I refer to. But I doubt it as it is not on the script.


              Report this

              40

              • #
                Michael the Realist

                Others know that at least 100 years is the better figure.

                I totally agree. The 100 year trend shows warming of nearly 1 degree c, with many ups and down due to natural variations and other factors, but the trend is very definately and obviously up.

                so by your own definition you should now agree with me.


                Report this

                03

              • #

                Yes, anomaly above and below the average of the average of observed temperatures over 100 years shows an increase in many of the graphs on warmest sights and others. What is not “self-evident” is that this means humans caused it and that it constitutes something to be afraid of or concerned about.


                Report this

                11

              • #
                Truthseeker

                Michael the Surrealist,

                Taking the starting point back 100 years and you have a problem for your dogma. The bulk of that warming occurred in the first 50 years where industrialisation and man-made CO2 was negligible. I guess that means that the climate changed without humans being involved. Now that is against your dogma …

                Zealotry blocks rational thought. You are just another zealot.


                Report this

                10

              • #
                Michael the Realist

                Not at all non truth seeker. What global temperature graph are you looking at? As far as I am aware 3/4 of the warming of the last 100 years has occurred in the last 60.

                Also industrialisation has been occurring for several 100 years.


                Report this

                02

              • #
                Michael the Realist

                Oh Sheri. The graphs are actual global data sets, trying to dismiss them with ‘warmest sights’ propoganda rubbish is meaningless. The globe has warmed, natural factors have been investigated and discounted. The warming fits the science along with all other fingerprints and observations.

                Without an alternative source you have nothing to debate with accept your religious zealatry that prevents you from accepting the obvious.


                Report this

                02

              • #

                Where did I dismiss them? I did not say there was not warming. I just said it wasn’t all caused by humans–probably very little.

                Michael the “I’m not a zeolot but you are”, king of the mountain for global warming and holder of the the only truth on the planet, all while being completely clueless about science works and telling everyong their degrees are not better than his course. Again, what an ego. So sad……..

                You can’t debate a zeolot is right–you just need to check the mirror to find the zealot.


                Report this

                10

              • #
                Michael the Realist

                Using the term ‘warmist sites’ is dismissive. Pick a global data set from any international scientific organisation (including satelites), the trends are all the same.

                So then you agree there is warming, you have admitted you do not know why, I have shown you the fingerprints of AGW that are occurring, I have shown you how ENSO is neutral, solar is slightly fallen, huge volcanos caused cooling while the world warmed 0.6 deg c (not counting all the other areas of increasing energy like the oceans and melting cryosphere). I have shown you how skeptic scientists expected it to cool to the same temps as the 50′s several years ago due to natual factors. and much more.

                So on what basis do you say ’caused by humans – probably very little’? This is a belief not based in science. You do not know but cannot accept the logical answer and so will accept anything including nothing as a better answer.

                Your need to dishonestly put words in my mouth belie how little you have, as is normal the personal attack is king. I never said I am the only holder of truth on the planet, I say that I accept what the science, the majority of the scientists and scientific organisations are telling us. It is skeptics here that believe they know better than the experts and that they are all wrong accept themselves.

                I also NEVER said ANYBODIES degrees are better than my course. As a true skeptic I sought out further information to be as accurately informed as possible. I invited everyone here to join me but nobody did.

                So you base your nasty ego comment on a complete fabrication, as is typical with the majority of the arguments against AGW, such as the name change one. Totally fabricated action which is then used to deride the science. This is how you guys MAKE your own truth. When called out on it the crickets start chirping.

                Where is that mirror…


                Report this

                02

              • #

                Same old same old. Yawn……..


                Report this

                00

        • #
          Mark D.

          Ha Ha Michael you slippery eel, the link you provide does not say what you claim.

          A 12-year low in solar “irradiance”: Careful measurements by several NASA spacecraft show that the sun’s brightness has dropped by 0.02% at visible wavelengths and 6% at extreme UV wavelengths since the solar minimum of 1996.

          Solar wind and radio emissions are the 60 year low. Do you want to claim that solar wind and radio heat the earth in any appreciable amount? Paper please?

          Then there is also this little gem for which I thank you:

          All these lows have sparked a debate about whether the ongoing minimum is “weird”, “extreme” or just an overdue “market correction” following a string of unusually intense solar maxima.

          Inquiring minds want to know: what effect a “string of unusually intense solar maxima” would have on the earths temperature?

          Tell me Michael.


          Report this

          121

    • #
      Bernard

      Typical Alarmist rubbish,funny how your “Massive 0.6c” so called rise in the mythical ‘Global Temperature’has caused massive snow storms In America,snow In Egypt and Jerusalem, and record breaking Low Temperatures all around the World.
      It seems Thailand Is also having problems with the cold,see here.
      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2525366/Thai-government-declares-disaster-zones-people-caught-low-winter-temperatures.html


      Report this

      90

      • #
        Michael the Realist

        You do not understand the basics of the climate bernard. Firstly 0.6 deg c in 60 years when natural factors are cooling is big. There is only 6 deg c from an interglacial to an ice age with km of snow over Montreal. Globally small amounts are significant.

        But this is GLOBAL WARMING, not regional warming. Global warming warms the different components that create weather (land fastest, then atmosphere, most slowly ocean) differently and adds total energy to the system, which causes regional climate change. For instance, there have been quite a few peer reviewed articles on how the Arctic is warming twice as fast as the rest of the globe, this has destabilised and weakened the Arctic jetstream, which relies on the temp difference from one side to the other. This has been one area of destabilisation in the northern hemisphere.

        So the old, ‘its cold in [insert place here] so climate change doesn’t exist’ argument displays a very simplistic understanding of climate. In fact the really weird weather is consistent with AGW and what they have been warning about since the 80′s.


        Report this

        026

        • #

          “Natural factors were cooling the Earth”, (according to Michael).

          I’d say “give us your evidence Michael”… but we’ve been through this before, and we know it comes back to bowing before your Gods of climate reports.


          Report this

          211

          • #
            AndyG55

            natural factors (ie the rather quiet Sun) ARE starting to cool the Earth…

            .
            Unfortunately ! :-(
            .
            .
            .

            I’m thinking that in 20 or so years, the world will be praying for some of this “global warming”..
            (and I don’t just mean by data adjustment like most of the last lot of warming.)


            Report this

            72

            • #
              AndyG55

              Notice in that link that Will keeps posting, even they ADMIT that we are most likely heading into a cooling period.

              They know what’s coming and are starting to cover their assets !!! :-)

              (but of course they then say it will warm again some time in the distant future.


              Report this

              92

          • #
            Michael the Realist

            I’d say “give us your evidence Michael”

            Have done many times, and nobody can answer it. I will try again.
            [Not remotely true. We've answered your comments, but you make the same point many times, not just on this site, not just in one thread, but sometimes in the same comment. See below. - Jo]

            **The greenhouse effect comes from over 100 years of accepted proven science.
            [Yep, and I agree and perhaps when I've told you the 40th time you'll remember that "feedbacks are the issue" here, not the GHG effect, which all major skeptics agree with. But perhaps you want to hijack the threads with non-points that distract from real ones? - Jo]

            **CO2 is a greenhouse gas with known measurable radiative properties and its concentration in the atmosphere, as well as all the other gases and their properties are also known.
            [That non-point was so boring and irrelevant, you had to say it twice? ]

            **It is measured by satellite that the energy entering the planet is more than leaving, by the first law of thermodynamics this means that energy within the planet is increasing.
            [Congrats, you have mastered Year 8 science - Jo]

            **By the laws of physics this can take on many forms and change forms but cannot diminish. It is a planet, there are many places it can go, the atmosphere is but 5%, including land, oceans and melting ice. Use some common sense and logic ppppllleeeaaasseee!
            [Same point again. I think I'll add "laws of physics" to the moderation filter. Feedbacks MTR. Can you say the word "feedbacks"? Try really hard. Then look at observations vs models and how 98% of them use the "laws of physics" and get the climate 100% wrong. See Hand von storch 2013 (Again)]

            **Measurements from satellite tells us that over time the fall in energy is coming from the same radiation bands as that utilised by CO2.
            [Yawn. We know CO2 is a GHG - you have found 5 ways to repeat the same point - straight from Al Gores 2006 playbook. This does not tell us about attribution. How much warming is due to CO2? You treat this as a "yes-No" question while we discuss the numbers. - Jo]

            **Measurements from the surface show an increase in energy from the same bands.
            [5 times to repeat the same point....]

            **The lower stratosphere has cooled consistent with less upwelling radiation as measured by the previous 2 statements.
            [Do lets talk about the lower strat (again) just like last time I'll remind you how the strat hasn't cooled since 1996, then you will ignore me. - Jo]

            **CO2 as a greenhouse gas absorbs and reradiates the CO2 coming up from the surface in all directions, thereby slowing down the loss of radiation, consistent with all off the above.
            [6 times the same point.]

            **We have increased CO2 since industrialisation by 40%.
            [Co2 has risen. I'll say (again) that correlation is not causation, and you will change the topic since you don't understand logical fallacies. - Jo]

            **In the last 100 or so years temperatures have increased by about 0.8 deg c (depending on global data set, some more, some less but all around the same ballpark).
            [And I'll repeat the line above (again) -- it's the same logical fallacy - Jo]

            **In the last 60 years temps have increased by about 0.6 deg c.
            [.... and again... - Jo]

            —————————–
            Over that time…
            —Sea levels have risen twice as fast than the previous average
            —Minimum ice extent in the Arctic has fallen about 50%
            —Globally ice volume has fallen
            —Almost all glaciers are receding
            —Ocean warming has continued to the present
            —Ocean PH has fallen 30%, with evidence from around the world of species migration and corals and crustaceans under stress
            —Hot day records are beating cold ones by 3 to 1
            —Hot night records are beating cold ones by 5 to 1
            —Extreme precipitation events by observation are up by 7% per degree
            —2001 to 2010 was the hottest decade globally, on land, ocean, every continent and in both hemispheres in the instrumental record.
            —2010 was the wettest year since records began
            —Europes heat wave in 2003 and Russias one in 2010 were determined to be so outside natural variation statistically that they would not have occurred without the influence of AGW.
            —2012 was US hottest year
            —2013 Australia has broken hottest 12 months twice, hottest day, hottest month, warmest winter etc. Bushfires have started unusually early and ferociously.
            —2010 to 2013 have been among the worst for extreme weather events ever
            —China has already this year had 5 billion dollar weather disasters.
            —2012 was the US second worst for extreme weather
            —Typhoon haiyan fastest winds to ever hit landfall
            —On average there is now 5 times as many record breaking hot months than could be expected without AGW

            [Yawn. All causes of warming cause most of the above. No attribution value (as I've said before x 10). Climate "is 30 years" says MTR, except when he feels like quoting single seasons, or bad days. - Jo]

            ————————————-
            On top of all of the above actual observational evidence, we know over the last 60 years that ENSO has been neutral, solar is falling and we have had some large volcanos. All other possible natural sources for the increase put forward have been discounted on the data, such as cosmic rays. This is where the vast majority of the science is at, for those honest and with an open mind. There is not much room for counter argument there, and I have answered virtually all of your excuses, but if you can come up with another source then give it a whirl.

            I will try an analogy, though always risky…Say you are a patient with cancer given 6 months to live. Does that mean the expert guarantees you will die in 6 months? Off course not, that is a best guess based on years of experience from a professional but it could be anywhere from 2 months to 2 years (I have seen both). This is because there are other factors that can influence the outcome, the patients state of mind, level of health, support from loved ones, medicines tried (even experimental), alternative medicines taken, lifestyle etc etc. Very few will die at exactly 6 months, but 95% will die within 2 years (I guess, I could be wrong, it is an analogy). So you misrepresent models repeatedly as it is the only argument you really have while ignoring all the actual real science, data and evidence and ignoring that a model is only a projection under certain scenarios, and like the patient above, have many unknown variables, such as solar, ENSO, PDO, volcanos, actual CO2 emitted and other aerosols, land use changes etc etc. They are fairly good but an average over time and we will sometimes come in higher or lower but we know for 95% we are going to increase heating to the detriment of the human race in the long run. Due to the conservative nature of the IPCC most predictions have come in worse than expected, which even if sensitivity is lower the climates response to changing global temps look to be higher.

            So do you actually have any actual science or a scientifically accepted theory with data as strong as that above to point to another source other than the avalanche of science and evidence pointing to AGW.

            [because he has no actual attribution evidence, he posts another repeat of the irrelevant doctor analogy. If your doctor refused to disclose data, made mystery adjustments before reporting results, and hid from FOI's, you'd go to a different doctor. - Jo]


            Report this

            114

            • #
              AndyG55

              Someone change the stupid record, FFS .

              Or shoot the parrot.

              It continues to regurgitate meaningless cut and paste twaddle.


              Report this

              61

            • #
              AndyG55

              Every one of these propaganda mis-statements has been dealt with before on this forum and thoroughly trashed as the JUNK that it is

              You really mark yourself as a total fool and a moron by continually YAPPING this meaningless list.

              A squawking brainless parrot. That’s all you are, and all you have to offer.


              Report this

              61

            • #
              Truthseeker

              Michael the Surrealist,

              You say …

              **The greenhouse effect comes from over 100 years of accepted proven science.

              There is no proven science relating the greenhouse gas fraud. None. No verifiable observations, no repeatable experiments (that have not been completely debunked), nothing at all that proves that any gas can have the effect that is claimed by the greenhouse gas fraud.

              Greenhouses themselves (the real ones used to grow plants) disprove the greenhouse gas fraud. This excellent analysis shows this for you.

              There is no “runaway greenhouse” effect on Venus either. Venus is hotter simply because it is closer to the sun as shown by this use of verifiable observational data.

              We can also use molecular chemistry to falsify the greenhouse gas fraud.

              Finally we can just disprove the whole notion using proven physics, but that will definitely be beyond you …

              Also, to make the greenhouse gas fraud work, they have to use a flat Earth model. Try using a spherical Earth with a day/night cycle and it all comes crashing down …

              Everything you say after that is rubbish because your basic premise is wrong.

              You got your intellectual butt smacked the last time you tried to go down this road. I am happy to do it all over again because you seem to enjoy it.


              Report this

              80

              • #
                Truthseeker

                This is a more direct link for the “proven physics” paper that I linked to above.


                Report this

                20

              • #
                AndyG55

                It is interesting to know that he wants to base his ideas on 100 year old non-science.

                Alchemy, anyone ??? Pure gold from lead !!!

                Crimate science hasn’t progressed much has it.


                Report this

                81

              • #
                AndyG55

                “but that will definitely be beyond you …’

                junior high school science is beyond this putz.

                he has proven that time and time again.

                He harps on the “basics” because that’s what he is trying to learn.


                Report this

                61

              • #
                AndyG55

                [SNIP. I can see why you are annoyed, this is not constructive. I'll email you...-Jo]


                Report this

                41

              • #

                Science that has not been disprroven for over 100 years under continual testing and attack. That makes it one of the strongest theories out there and well accepted as representing reality. There are so many cranks and 1% of science theorists in here its difficult to put together a competing argument. Most of the time you guys are contradicting each other, as well as Jo, but all completely in agreement agianst the common enemy, actual proven physics and science that does not fit your confirmation bias. That being, anything to do with AGW must be wrong because it affects my way of life and makes me accept that I am leaving a worse life for my children than I was left.

                Truthseeker your claims on conduction and convection have been killed repeatedly, neither works in space and so are not the way that the planet loses or gains energy. Your argument is dead right there, as well as everything based on it. Mercury has frozen parts even though it is basically within the outer sphere of the sun, why? because it does not have greenhouse gases and hence cannot hold energy. Your claims on venus are wrong.


                Report this

                03

              • #

                Models are reality….Models are reality….Models are reality….Michael is the God of climate science….Omniscient, omnipresent (sadly). Thou shalt not contradict him and his sacred texts. However, in the meantime, you may point out his parrot-like behaviour and local fallicies until you pay for your insolence in the coming ice age….no wait, warm period. Again, so much concern for others children. So disingenuous……


                Report this

                20

              • #
                Michael the Realist

                How dishonest of you Sheri. You know I never argue the models. I base my conversations here on the known science, physics, actual historical instrumental data and observations.

                Do you agree agree with truthmakeruppers science?

                Then you go on about me being God after saying I don’t have unique ideas, are they not contradictory. I either create my own physics (like you guys) or I accept the known science( as I do). So the god complexes are all on your side.

                Why is my concern for future generationsdisengenious? The personal attacks really distract from your message, it seems unneccesary and makes no sense.


                Report this

                03

              • #

                ALL climate scientist in every organization argue models. Are you saying you disagree with Mann, Trenbreth, the IPCC/

                I believe I answered your question.

                Your concern for future generation is disengenious for the same reason you say skeptics are not concerned about future generations.

                How can you accept physics when you have no clue as to how it works? And tell people with PhDs in physics that they know nothing? Lack of reality, I would say.


                Report this

                20

              • #
                AndyG55

                We’ll Thruthseeker, seems the surrealist wasn’t capable of understanding the physics in your links (if he even attempted to read it)

                That was to be expected. Junior high physics is about his limit.

                Michael, maybe come back in 20 years of so years when you have some moderate amount of basic education.


                Report this

                20

              • #
                Michael the Realist

                so sheri you agree you cannot argue reality and so are manufacturing my arguments for your own benefit. So sad, not much left to say, you have no real scientific arguments, your posts are just sounding desperate.

                Andy g55 truthmakeruppers main argument is that all you need is conduction and convection to destroy the greenhouse effect theory. Do you agree with him? Do you agree there are no greenhouse gases? Do you agree that Venus has no greenhouse effect? Do you believe that conduction and convection work in the vacuum of space? Do you think that the suns energy is transported to earth by conduction and convection and that radiatiin like UV or infra red have no bearing on the planetary climate.

                Really I would like to understand, please explain how the planet gains energy and loses energy under truthmakeruppers theories and does this mean that you also do not agree with Jo, and most scientists, sceptic and otherwise that agree with the greenhouse effect? Is there any consistent science on this site?


                Report this

                03

              • #

                Seriously, deperate postings? Try annoyed and tired of trying to communicate with a parrot. How we talk science when you have no understanding of it????

                Since I am not familiar with Andyg55′s theory in whole, I cannot answer that question. Let’s see: Venus atmosphere consists primarily of CO2 (NASA). CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Take it from there.
                I answered the next question in my previous post.
                Physics says no, convection and conduction do no work in space. I have no evidence to the contrary. Should any be found, I will modify my position.
                I believe my answer to the previous question answers this one too.

                I have answered you question on the greenhouse effect repeatedly. And no, there is no “consensus” here because this is science site dealing with a complex system that no one fully understands. Disagreement and different theories are welcome.


                Report this

                20

              • #
                AndyG55

                If you understood the physics.. you would also agree with what the REAL PHYSICISTS that TS has pointed to have PROVEN to be the case.

                But you very obviously DON’T remotely understand even the most basic physics. You continue to argue from a position of GROSS IGNORANCE.

                —————–

                “Do you think that the suns energy is transported to earth by conduction and convection and that radiatiin like UV or infra red have no bearing on the planetary climate.”

                Do you think that once radiant energy is in the atmosphere there is no effect from conduction and convection ???

                Gees, You really do have to go back and do some basic physics, moron ! Seems starting back in primary school might be a good start.

                Your little 10 week course is not sufficient, sorry.


                Report this

                20

              • #
                AndyG55

                And why are you trying to hide away on threads many days old, yet avoid discussion on any current threads?

                Does it take that long for you to get an answer back from your mates at SkS telling you what to write?

                Are you perhaps hoping your wilted ego will get the satisfaction of having the last say?


                Report this

                20

              • #

                So Sheri and Andy, as expected you have come out in support of a colleague (truthmakerupper), when you have no understanding of his science, and in most cases do not agree with his science. As proved you support anybody who does not agree with AGW, regardless of how hairbrained the ideas, simply because they don’t agree with AGW. A further case that any alternative even nothing makes more sense to you people than the majority accepted science that fits with the data, the observations and can fully explain what we have seen over the last 60 years. So Andy, so you could not answer my questions? They were to find how much you agreed with what truthmakerupper was saying, not what I believe in, which is well known. You proved that you came into his defense without even reading what his argument was, and you have the cheek to say that I AM ARGUING FROM COMPLETE IGNORANCE (mirror anyone).

                I am on this old thread because I am subscribed to it and have merely replied to other peoples new postings, I did not start the new discussions. I do not have much time for checking out the latest science misinformation on this blog as I am currently travelling and on hostel wifi, so only respond when a comment apears on a subscribed thread. Tell your colleagues to leave them alone.

                Sheri, your arguments are increasingly non scientific, probably because you cannot answer my actual arguments based on actual data and observations and so need to make up what my argument is or degenerate into a personal attack. Further down after telling me how I should spend my money you went on a rant about how you can spend your money, even though I never asked. For your info I do not care how you spend your money as long as your actions do not affect the lives and civil liberties of others. The laws and taxes are often geared to protect others such as when it is illegal for a factory to dump chemical waste in a river used for swimming and drinking, or when a person wants to physically harm others etc etc. AGW is no different. our actions are already harming people and will cause even greater harm to our kids and future generations, taxes and laws should reflect this to encourage more informed behaviour that prevents harm to others.


                Report this

                02

              • #

                Michael: Where did I come out in support of Truthseeker? Exact quote please. Exact one.

                Out upping your carbon footprint again, I see.

                Michael: Sorry. You wouldn’t know science if it injected itself into your head. As for your objection to my commenting on your money use, perhaps if you didn’t post things on a “Fab” blog for the entire world to read, it would be your “personal” issue. Once on the net, it’s fair game. And I am using my money to save the planet–from people such as yourself filddling while Rome burns. Have nice flight–try not to raise the CO2 level too much.

                Show me ONE physical thing AGW has done that has NOT happened in the past. You can’t but you will try. Maybe I could answer for you:
                “More Extreme weather” WRONG.
                “Increase in global average temperature” WRONG
                “Faster increase than in the past” Unprovable
                “Sea level rising twice as fast” WRONG

                Etc., Etc, Etc. All happened before, none can be shown to have happened more so now than any time whatsoever in the past. There, saved you typing.


                Report this

                10

              • #

                Sheri

                There you go again making up your own argument that you can then prove wrong. Show me where climate science has EVER claimed that the climate has not changed before. It is a fools question and argument. You have debunked yourself. The question is not, and never was, if climate has ever changed before, the question is WHY is it changing, and WHAT are the consequences and CAN we do something about it. That is one of the most foolish and silly arguments that climate skeptics make up.

                Read my ‘why i am right’ page on my blog, it goes through that specific question and the 4.5 billion years worth of planetary history where things have been hotter, colder (even frozen), without an atmosphere, one without oxygen etc etc. Such an unscientific and baseless argument that annoys me to have to keep correcting it, and you say I do not know science? Surely its an embarrassing argument to try to make. The old the climate changes naturally so we cannot change it, oh please. Fires started 4.5 billion years ago so we cannot light one with a match?


                Report this

                02

              • #

                Now I got that of my chest. Read slowly.
                In 60 years temps have increased 0.6deg c
                The Arctic has decreased in summer extent by 50%
                Nearly all glaciers are receding
                The sea levels are rising
                The oceans are warming
                The oceans ph is falling
                Hot day records broken over cold ones are 3 to 1 and 5 to 1 at night
                Extreme precipitation events are up 7%+

                THIS IS ALL CONSISTENT with the science of AGW which says that as CO2 increases there will be more warming due to the enhanced greenhouse effect.
                SCIENCE confirms this is happening with less energy being lost to space in the bands related to CO2.
                Also confirmed by an increase in radiation being directed back to earth in the bands related to CO2.
                Also confirmed by a cooling lower stratosphere as is consistent with AGW

                Is there a natural reason for all this occurring?
                Solar energy has reduced, solar cycles are as low as 100 years ago.
                Major ocean cycles are also in cooling cycles and cycles related to pulling warm water deeper.
                Cosmic rays have been investigated and are also travelling in opposite direction to that needed to contribute to warming.

                So the logical, scientifically valid, nearly universally accepted by the experts reason is AGW, the consequences seem to be on the most part bad for us, and we can do something about it. You refuse to accept it merely because you do not like the answer, not very scientific or logical. You prefer ‘something not found yet’ over a scientifically valid and consistent answer backed up by the data and the observations. At this point in time it is the theory that reflects reality, it will be improved upon, sure, even changed, but at this current point in time it reflect reality. It cannot be rejected merely because you don’t want it to be true. You must have an alternative or proof that it does not reflect reality. None is avaiable.

                Please WAKE UP.


                Report this

                02

              • #

                Michael: Please do not misrepresent my argument. I don’t think I said “climate changed before”.
                Agreed, the question is “why is it changing”? When we get an answer to that, we’ll can then react to the changes appropriately.
                “Nearly universally accepted by experts” is lying with statistics. Kind of like “4 out of 5 dentists recommend”. No one actually surveyed ALL climate scientists from ALL countries. Therefore, it’s a bogus statistic.
                I have read your writing fast, slow and over and over again ad nauseum. Your conclusions do not follow from your premise.


                Report this

                10

              • #

                Sheri you said ‘Show me ONE physical thing AGW has done that has NOT happened in the past.’

                That comment itself is implying that because natural events have occurred before man cannot cause them. There is no other way to interpret or no other purpose for that statement. On that basis alone your whole argument is illogical and unscientific.

                So what part of energy balance measurements from satelites showing energy reduced from the bands affected by CO2 don’t you understand? What part of the fact that CO2 has increased and so has temperature even though natural factors have been flat don’t you understand? What part of melting ice, falling ph and the many other consistent observations that match predictions don’t you understand?

                Your inability to logically process a scientific argument shows the depth of your confirmation bias. The science says it should happen, measurements say it is happening, observations match what should happen, trust me girl, it is happening. Then for all the carry on here about natural factors you guys completely ignore natural factors in all your arguments. The 60 year record high el nino year that you use to say where the worl started. The back to back la ninas of 2011 and 12. The warming of the ceans and melting of ice where are other places energy can go rather than the atmosphere. The falling solar energy. The science that has shown that cosmic rays are going in the opposite direction. The massive volcano and lots of little ones during the perios of the last 60 years. THERE IS NO KNOWN NATURAL FACTOR THAT COMES CLOSE TO EXLAINING WHAT HAS OCCURRED.

                But can you guys even contemplate that the science might be right. Not in a pink fit.

                Validly conducted surveys are quite accurate, they do not need to survey EVERY climate scientist. An election survey often surveys only 1000 people to determine the outcome of an election and in AUstralia was virtually spot on. So that 1000 represented 10 million people. You should know that. I have seen 3 peer reveiwed surveys that put the figure at 97%. It is all excuses and misdirection.


                Report this

                02

            • #
              Tim

              Presuming then, that according to your hypotheses, Armageddon is approaching and you have identified the problem – what exactly are your solutions? (Excluding taxpayers of course, as they are the unwitting pawns in this game and have not been given a vote on the issue via referendums.)


              Report this

              30

              • #

                If I remember right, and I could be wrong, I believe M’s solution involved spending all his money on world travel because his prodigy will live a nasty world ruined by people who didn’t listen to his cut and paste mantras. They won’t need an inheritance in that nasty world. So he rationalized spending all his money on himself. Again, i am paraphrasing from memory and it’s been a month or so since we learned M has his own wonderful blog documenting his travels. I’m sure M will chime in if I am “misrepresenting” him.


                Report this

                50

            • #
              PhilJourdan

              Have done many times, and nobody can answer it. I will try again.

              That is your problem. Evidence does not ask for nor require an “answer”. You are demanding acceptance of a false meme based upon your superstition.

              I really hope you are not a science teacher. I pity the kids.


              Report this

              80

            • #

              Michael’s doctor’s analogy is meaningless.
              Firstly, if you look at lung cancer, there are a huge numbers of people who contract lung cancer each year. Details ofor the UK here. We also know that survival rates are low. From millions of past cases doctors can track the progress and may the unfortunate predictions.
              In the case of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming, it has never happened before. We are reliant on tracking from computer simulations, that have a track record of running too hot. Further, we do not know if any impacts of human-caused warming will be adverse or beneficial. Short-term predictions of things getting worse (e.g. increasing tropical cyclones, accelerating sea level rise and particularly accelerating rates of temperature rise) have a very poor track record. We do know that lung cancer is catastrophic, both for the individuals and the numbers dying.
              Then there is treatment for the conditions. With lung cancer there are a number of drugs and therapies to at least prolong life, along with pain killers. All are tried and tested, with professionals able to proscribe treatment. To counter “Climate Change” there are no effective treatments on the horizon. It is a global problem, that we should “treat” by switching off lights, using the bus instead of a car. In Australia or the UK, national policies are applied in countries with less than 3% of global emissions and low growth. The switch to renewables is hugely expensive, and endangers our energy security. The policies are are the equivalent of snake oil.
              The final point is moral one. All doctors that I know have a strong moral sense. They diagnose the extent of the problem, the progression of the disease, and the response of the patient due treatment. The “climate community” reminds me of the worst sort of door-to-door salesman. Selling you an over-priced piece of tat that does not work, for a problem that you do not have. You then discover this item have caused major structural problems to your home. And then to claim they have the moral high ground.


              Report this

              20

            • #
              Michael the Realist

              So Jo you virtually agree with everything I say and then avoid the obvious conclusion, the warming that has occurred is due to enhanced greenhouse effect due to increased CO2 from mans emissions. You have been unable to come up with accepted data and science of any alternative explanation. You also wonder why I keep repeating the basic scienctifically accepted facts because apparently all real skeptics accept them, but then ignore that the majority of posts are from people who do not accept those basic facts.

              The long winded repetition of the basic science and data and observations build up the overwhelmng evidence that the GHG effect is real and is having the expected effects. Again your critisism of the stratosphere cooling sticks to the ‘atmosphere is the only place energy goes and there are no natural factors’ meme that is prevalent here coupled with the cherry picked period and ignoring of the long term trend.

              So since all the basics are agreed upon, can you please provide accepted alternative science and data to explain observations and the 0.6 deg c warming over the last 60 years while ENSO has been overall flat, solar has been flat and there have been some large cooling volcanos. On a planetary scale that 06 deg c of warming represents a very large amount of energy.


              Report this

              04

              • #
                Truthseeker

                Micheal,

                Again you run away from the discussion over the greenhouse gas fraud. I gave you science in comment 22.3.1.1.3 and you have not responded to it. You just keep parroting the same dogma over and over again. There is no such thing as a greenhouse gas. CO2 is necessary for the growth and health of plant life and does not drive any part of the climate mechanism.

                You talk about layers in the atmosphere and ignore the fact that conduction and convection are the main causes of energy flows between them (and in the oceans to).

                The “0.6 deg c warming over the last 60 years” is because we at the tail end of climbing out of a minor ice age. Nothing you have said is in any way scientific. You are a zealot repeating the mantra. Dogma is the antithesis of science and you are the antithesis of rational.


                Report this

                00

              • #
                Graeme No.3

                Truthseeker:

                A quote for you; “If nothing else works, a total pig-headed unwillingness to look facts in the face will see us through”.

                It was in Blackadder goes Forth and is obviously what Michael the R relies on.


                Report this

                10

              • #
                Michael the Realist

                nontruthseeker, go to comment from me at 22.3.1.1.2

                Jo agrees with the greenhouse effect and greenhouse gases. She says all real skeptics do. You are on the wrong site with your religious fervor for a molecule.

                CO2 is a gas, it has properties, these properties are measurable by existing equipment and part of standard, basic physics. Yes, like many elements and molecules, it is used in the planetary system in beneficial ways, again, like most molecules and elements there are ways in which its effects are not beneficial. Your argument is non scientific.

                You also prove you do not understand the process that the planet uses to gain and lose energy. Conduction and convection do not work in space, and there is a lot of space between us and the sun. Go and learn some real science and then come and have a discussion, you lack any real knowledge for a rational discussion.


                Report this

                02

              • #
                Truthseeker

                Michael the Surrealist,

                Let me enlighten you on something. Jo does not speak for all skeptics and using argument from authority is a fallacy that you cannot seem to get away from. That is definitely unscientific. As to your comment you referred to, it is a lot of repetition, no actual verifiable data and nothing scientific. Even Jo pulled it apart without breaking a sweat.

                I gave you actual scientific analysis. It includes verifiable data, proven physics, repeatable processes and confirmable conclusions. Nothing you have said has any of these basic requirements for a scientific discussion.

                The whole CAGW premise starts with CO2 being its own heat engine. That basic premise is easily disproven, which is what I have done a number of different ways. Therefore everything based on that (which includes your CAGW fraud) is wrong. You are wrong and you are too much of a zealot to understand this.


                Report this

                10

              • #

                Truthmakerupper, let me enlighten you on something, you do not read with understanding but on seeing what you want to see. Reread Jo’s response, she agreed with the majority of the science, as does most skeptic and real scientists. What she did was discount the observational evidence that corroborates it while offering no alternative. So how you come to your conclusion I have no idea.

                It seems like you have the ego of the sun, you apparently know more than real and skeptic scientists and are able to overturn the laws of physics without breaking a sweat. Please tell me your real name, you must be stephen hawkings. What peer reveiwed papers have you written? Have you finished the one overturning the easily disproven greenhouse effect? As nobody in over 100 years have been able to do that, there must be a noble prize in it for you.

                The critisism of argument from authority is hugely hypocritical. Recent blog posts here have been about astronauts and banking experts having being lauded as knowing the truth on the greenhouse effect and AGW. The difference is that my authority are actual scientific organisations, scientists and the science, rather than people to be believed because they say what you want to hear and so become skeptic rock stars. No wonder you have so many non scientists, bloggers and the like.

                You really do make it very difficult to be taken seriously. You are not proving me wrong, you are trying to prove virtually everybody is wrong.


                Report this

                02

              • #

                Whoa! Make this date on a calendar–Michael had an original thought. Well, actually he cleverly used a new name for Truthseeker (yes, in response to him being called “surrealist”). I believe that may be the first truly original thought we’ve seen. Perhaps there is hope–NOPE. Wait, he still thinks any theory is better than no theory…….

                Note: When you define anyone who disagrees with you as “non-scientist” and those who do as “scientists”, it shows your complete lack of understanding of science. By this definition, no one should have listened to the discoverer of the H. Pylori bacteria. Every single medical group (yes, I’m exaggerating there on purpose, folks) KNEW ulcers were caused by too much acid and too much stress. Only an idiot would listen to someone outside mainstream medicine, right? So you’re obviously in favor of still treating ulcers as stress and acid induced, right?


                Report this

                00

              • #
                Michael the Realist

                Accept Sheri that you missed the part where real scientists prove their theories through rigorous testing and putting it out to the peer review process for the wider scientific community to test and critisise.

                So do you agree with truthmakerupper that greenhouse gases don’t exist? Or is this another case of supporting anybody and everybody that does not accept agw, even if they do not understand that conduction and convection do not work in space?


                Report this

                02

              • #

                Accept Michael that you have no degree in science, understand nothing of what you preach and are pretty much clueless. Unlike you, I actually did take classes and get a degree in science. So seriously, how do still claim I missed the classes? You have no idea how stupid this makes you look, do you?

                I believe CO2 can cause warming of the atmosphere. I do not think we have a full understanding of the process. Of course, I realize that you, God Michael, understand every single last tiny piece of it, so it’s pointless to have any kind of discussion with the God of climate science. You know everything. I bow to your superior knowledge. You are GOD. I will mention this to everyone I meet so they don’t accidently miss your diety.


                Report this

                00

        • #

          It’s “Everything on the planet proves climate change is AGW”. Proof you are NOT using science. You just don’t understand science at all. AGW is not a tautology, but you insist on treating it as such.


          Report this

          90

          • #
            Graeme No.3

            Sheri;
            Michael thinks everything proves man made warming (except anything before 1975). So glacial advances are “proof” of global warming as much as glaciers retreating. Arctic ice “proves” there is warming, regardless of its extent. Lots of snow and ice falling in Europe, China, North (and South) America in the last few years is “proof” of global warming.
            Nothing you can say, no evidence you bring up, will ever deflect Michael from his belief. He will just keep repeating himself ad nauseam. Best not to respond to his vaporings as he only swamps you with illogical garbage, and when you get tired of trying to debate he will think he has “won the argument”.

            Remember Churchill “a fanatic never changes his mind, nor the subject”.


            Report this

            140

            • #

              I think Michael is certain he won the argument whether I “give up” and stop responding or if no one answers. If people leave, they couldn’t beat his “facts”. If they don’t respond, it’s because he’s so brilliant no one could argue with him. I suspect he will keep posting irregardless and declare himself the winner, no matter what. Is that not what climate science believers do–everything proves them right? Anyway, I’m not giving long answers but rather some brief responses. That way, if anyone reads this and is not familiar with the infamous Michael, they will at least see people responding and see there is another side. I have no intention of wasting much time with the guy–he’s not here to learn but rather to parrot. I am in full agreement with Churchill on this matter.


              Report this

              110

              • #
                AndyG55

                One or two short sentences is all the time its worth spending on this waste of space.

                A chihuahua bred with a parrot, and recorded on a cracked record.


                Report this

                62

              • #

                I suspect that this is a new Michael the Surrealist, because the last one promised to leave and not come back, because he was so scared of what we might do.

                Surely he wouldn’t go back on his word now!

                Just couldn’t help himself, which, umm, sort of proves that his claim at being so scared of what we might do was just a, er, scare campaign.

                Michael, please keep your promise. Bugger off!

                Tony.


                Report this

                90

              • #
                AndyG55

                Maybe they have a cloning machine over at SkS.. that spits out dummies !!


                Report this

                81

              • #
                Mark D.

                Surely he wouldn’t go back on his word now!

                To be sure, I don’t mind that he is back, he does more for the cause of skepticism than warmism.

                That said, Tony, have you know a Progressive Leftist that held true to his/her word? Their world view is based upon “ends justifying means”. They don’t have a “Word” because they lack the moral foundation required to build their Word upon.


                Report this

                51

          • #
            Michael the Realist

            It’s “Everything on the planet proves climate change is AGW”.

            Well basically it is science and not everything on the planet. Science says CO2 is a greenhouse gas, they cause warming, it has warmed, this perturbs the climate, which is based on temperature and pressure differences within the system and the amount of energy. Observations show that we have warmed, that the climate is perturbed and that change is occurring. As predicted and as expected, within natural variations. We check those natural variations and they are not the cause, there trends are actually the opposite. The only reason you have a problem with this is your confirmation bias. You do not have another cause but are not willing to accept the cause that is consistent with the science.


            Report this

            113

            • #
              AndyG55

              “Science says CO2 is a greenhouse gas”

              Science say NO SUCH THING. !!!

              A hypothesis was formed and the last 20 or so years have PROVEN that hypothesis MANIFESTLY INCORRECT !!

              AGAIN you show your very limited understanding of ANYTHING related to science. ie you are a scientific MORON !!


              Report this

              61

            • #
              James

              Science that is the Concensus of Climatology maybe – real observations show that global warming causes an increase in CO2.


              Report this

              20

            • #
              Backslider

              Well basically it is science and not everything on the planet. Science says CO2 is a greenhouse gas, they cause warming, it has warmed

              Science also says that water vapor is a greenhouse gas, far more powerful than CO2. Why are you not jumping up and down about all the human emissions of water vapor which are many billions of more tons than our emissions of CO2?


              Report this

              00

        • #
          AndyG55

          “In fact the really weird weather is consistent with”

          IN FACT, the NORMAL CLIMATE VARIABILITY that the Earth is experiencing and has .. like forever…

          is TOTALLY CONSISTENT with there being ABSOLUTELY NO EFFECT from raised CO2 levels.

          If you warn about NORMAL weather events.. gees… they might just happen !!!

          The world HAS NOT been experiencing weird weather events.. it has been experiencing NATURAL weather variability.. its all HAPPENED BEFORE !


          Report this

          141

          • #
            AndyG55

            ps… if anything.. the last several years have actually been quite benign weather-wise.

            That’s what the real data shows us to be THE FACT !!!!


            Report this

            91

          • #
            Safetyguy66

            Yeah US BOM on the radio this morning opened with the statement “November was the hottest global November on record”

            To my amazement the ABC interviewer pressed a question (I thought he would have been satisfied with the first load of tripe) “so how does that fit into overall records”

            US BOM “Well anything outside the norm (wtf is “the norm”???) we call an anomaly, in this case November is the 6th largest anomaly we have recorded”

            So in actual fact, once you apply the anti BS modifier to warmist numbers its actually NOT the hottest November on record, its the 6th hottest. The off the cuff attempts at deception are just pathetic. Also I imagine the ABC interviewer will be sent off for attitude readjustment for asking that question just when the alarmism story was going so well.

            The other thing the US BOM guy said which was interesting was “November stood out in the data because it comes after several years of a combination of lower than “normal” temperature years”. So at least we got that little admission as a consolation prize.

            ABC Radio National 0800 news FYI


            Report this

            100

            • #
              AndyG55

              Something very odd happening with the temps in Russia. The whole of Russia has a large positive November anomaly, which is effecting the global value.

              (Note, this means its actually above freezing in some places)

              The rest of the world was a basically zero +/- a tiny amount.

              Trouble is, being Russia, there is no easy way to check what is going on.

              It should be noted, however, that all there heating is carried from central boilers through unlagged steam pipes.

              Strange !!!!


              Report this

              00

          • #
            Michael the Realist

            Last year, was the hottest US summer on record and the second worst for extreme weather. This year Australia has broken nearly every heat record and continuing. It is likely to be our hottest year on record. Is it natural variation? Well the sun has been flat for 60 years and last year was a cooling la nina affected year and this year ENSO is neutral.

            So yes natural variation is normal, the climate and the temperatures are not.


            Report this

            113

            • #
              AndyG55

              “Well the sun has been flat for 60 years ‘

              roflmao !!

              as soccer fans often sing about a bad decision”

              “WHAT A LOAD OF RUBBISH”


              Report this

              81

            • #
              Greg Cavanagh

              A metric like number of; record highs, wettest, coldest, dryest ect. Is guarenteed to confuse the unwary.

              Australia is a young country, and there are many places. It should surprise noone that many new records are recorded often. Most towns are less then 100 years old, and the number of places continue to increase.

              I could talk about snow that fell in the Eudlo, never happened in living memory. But so what, it was a localised event. Unusual sure.

              If you identify the number of “extreames” to be exited over (I listed a couple at top). And consider the number of towns covering Australia, and consider that rare events are 1 in 100 year events. You should be getting at least 100 or more of these rare events happening at any given moment throughout Australia.

              It is a meaningless metric.


              Report this

              90

              • #
                Mark D.

                Greg, a very good point worth repeating and is true for much of the US away from the coasts. Most of the Central, Midwest and Western areas in the US and Canada were very sparsely populated prior to 100 years ago and certainly 150.

                Tornadoes, which are very common in these areas, would have been mostly unseen and since there were few towns or developments, hardly any reports of damage.

                Michael should know this but even if we point it out it wouldn’t stop him from spreading this propaganda. Michael is a whirling Dervish at spewing propaganda.


                Report this

                50

              • #
                Michael the Realist

                Excuse after excuse. The facts are that temperatures are up globally and extreme weather is up globally, especially extreme precipitation events (rain, hail, snow, floods), heat waves and droughts. There are no natural variations to account for this. 1 in 100 year and longer events are happening more frequently. You guys treat everybody who is qualified, trained, publishing and researching in these areas as total idiots that don’t think about these things, while everybody that agrees with your limited views are gods.

                ENSO is neutral, the sun is flat but Australia is hotter than it has been on the record, why? Conversely the globe is hotter than it has ever been, the 2001 to 2010 decade was the hottest decade on the record on every continent, and this has likely not occurred for several thousand years, why? You guys cannot answer these questions but aroogantly assume it cannot be what the science is telling us, because it is against your confirmation bias you cannot accept it.


                Report this

                04

              • #
                PhilJourdan

                @MtR – Those are lies. Extreme weather is not up. The ace for the year now ending is less than 67% of normal. A record low number of tornadoes occurred in the US (the tornado capital of the world). An almost record low number of fires and acres burned. A record low number of acres flooded. And of course temperatures for 2013 are lower than in 1998.

                Those are facts. I fail to see why you feel you must lie. But I guess once you have lost all self respect, lying comes easy for you.


                Report this

                30

            • #
              PhilJourdan

              No it was not. Not even close.


              Report this

              40

            • #
              Backslider

              Last year, was the hottest US summer on record and the second worst for extreme weather. This year Australia has broken nearly every heat record and continuing. It is likely to be our hottest year on record.

              And what about all the COLD records Michael (many more than warm)…. or don’t they count??


              Report this

              10

        • #
          Bernard

          Sir,I must concur,that you do not understand the basics of ‘Climastrology’.
          It Is all about sucking In people like yourself Into ‘Belief’that there Is some disaster lurking around the corner.
          If the World has Increased In temperature by 0.6c In 60 years did anybody notice?
          No! because 0.6c degrees Is negligible to all known living things on this planet that regualry go through temperature changes of at least +/- 10c per day.
          Think about It.


          Report this

          60

          • #
            Michael the Realist

            If the World has Increased In temperature by 0.6c In 60 years did anybody notice?

            Yes, actual scientists and people with open eyes looking at the world around us.
            —Sea levels have risen twice as fast than the previous average
            —Minimum ice extent in the Arctic has fallen about 50%
            —Globally ice volume has fallen
            —Almost all glaciers are receding
            —Ocean warming has continued to the present
            —Ocean PH has fallen 30%, with evidence from around the world of species migration and corals and crustaceans under stress
            —Hot day records are beating cold ones by 3 to 1
            —Hot night records are beating cold ones by 5 to 1
            —Extreme precipitation events by observation are up by 7% per degree
            —2001 to 2010 was the hottest decade globally, on land, ocean, every continent and in both hemispheres in the instrumental record.
            —2010 was the wettest year since records began
            —Europes heat wave in 2003 and Russias one in 2010 were determined to be so outside natural variation statistically that they would not have occurred without the influence of AGW.
            —2012 was US hottest year
            —2013 Australia has broken hottest 12 months twice, hottest day, hottest month, warmest winter etc. Bushfires have started unusually early and ferociously.
            —2010 to 2013 have been among the worst for extreme weather events ever
            —China has already this year had 5 billion dollar weather disasters.
            —2012 was the US second worst for extreme weather
            —Typhoon haiyan fastest winds to ever hit landfall
            —On average there is now 5 times as many record breaking hot months than could be expected without AGW

            and much more. Open your eyes.


            Report this

            114

        • #
          AndyG55

          “You do not understand the basics of the climate”

          Coming from you, that is really quite funny. Thanks for the laugh, bozo !!


          Report this

          42

        • #
          tom0mason

          To save you all going round the houses again, you can find answers to all Michael’s foolishness here.
          http://manicbeancounter.com/tag/michael-the-realist/

          I will save you the torment of try to get him to actually think.


          Report this

          90

          • #
            Michael the Realist

            Wow, I am so important I get my own website page dedicated to answering, well basically nothing. I did not find any actual answer to my main question, only mobs of weak excuses. The earth in 60 years has warmed by 0.6 deg c and you guys do not have an alternative expalnation other than that confirmed by the science, greenhouse warming caused by mans emissions.

            lol


            Report this

            012

            • #
              AndyG55

              “answering, well basically nothing”

              Which is exactly what you post.. a load of propaganda BS !


              Report this

              81

            • #
              AndyG55

              And your explanation for the warming, a lot more than current (since you consider 0.6C a lot), during the MWP, RWP… was that CO2… too many horses or something.. !

              and the cooling of the LIA.

              and the warming after the last major ice age???

              Anyway, let’s all just HOPE that the current tiny amount of warming continues, to bring us up to a more prosperous OPTIMUM world environment.

              Warmth and CO2 ….. the perfect combination for biosphere diversity and abundance, and for human existence.

              Maximums regulated, as they always have been, by the oceans and the atmospheric gradient.
              .
              .

              Unfortunately, ‘Sol’ looks like she has other ideas. The cooling is beginning. :-(


              Report this

              81

            • #
              tom0mason

              Your crass stupidity merits no special analysis, as you parrot the same old lines. No what manicbeancounter has done is to pick apart your arguments, so there is no more reason to it all again.
              You are not unique in this but you are a particularly obtuse individual, resistant to change and continually parroting the same dogma.


              Report this

              70

            • #
              PhilJourdan

              WOW! You are so narcissistic, your ego knows no bounds!


              Report this

              50

            • #

              The reason I took apart Michael the Realist’s “arguments”, with all his dancing around, was to achieve better understanding of weaknesses in the “mainstream” dogmas.
              First up was the spreading of 25 years of warming over 5 decades. A simple trick that somebody with high school statistics could think up. It shows the paucity of the arguments that it is endlessly repeated.
              http://manicbeancounter.com/2013/08/26/showing-warming-when-it-has-stopped/
              More importantly are fundamentals that climate science ignores, but any strong academic discipline does not. This includes
              - Positive v Normative. “What is” v “what ought to be.”
              - Trivial v non-trivial. Michael’s “basic physics” makes no distinctions.
              - Underdetermination thesis. Phenomena, like the last storm, can be explained by any number of incompatible hypotheses – or be random, events in chaotic systems. Climatologists (and Michael) cling to the explanations that suit their fancy.
              - Quality of the science.
              - Legal Process in reverse. In law direct evidence is given highest place, followed by circumstantial evidence. Hearsay is dismissed. In climatology the alleged opinions of scientists is most important (see the Hiroshima Bombs); the weak speculations via computer models is next; then some weak circumstantial evidence (e.g. C20th warming) is sometimes included, but not so folks will look too closely.

              I have learnt from the engagement. I am sorry that Michael has not. For me they are far more important areas of interest. Micheal just contaminates the blog comments with his dogma and inability to understand. Ed Miliband, leader of the British Labour Party is blaming rising energy prices on the profits of big business. I have demonstrated that it is due to rising overhead costs, largely as a result of the Climate Change Act of 2008. This was passed whilst Ed Miliband was Secretary of State for the Environment and Climate Change. Ed would destroy a competitive industry, further impoverish the poorest and (likely) cause power cuts in Britain just because he cannot recognise his own dogma and inability to understand.

              Michael should just be ignored, or blocked.


              Report this

              70

            • #
              James

              I’d like to know just what is the ideal temperature for the globe so that we can aim for that – it just seems that the climatology cult are bleeting about an increase in temperature from say the last mini ice age in about 1643 and maybe the globe still hasn’t reached the ideal from that period.


              Report this

              20

              • #
                AndyG55

                Well said James.

                My reckoning is that we are currently about 1/3 to 2/3 between the LIA and the MWP
                (Both of which were due to NATURAL VARIABILITY).

                So what is the “optimum” temperature.????

                well, certainly not the LIA !!

                The MWP was certainly a very prosperous time, especially in higher latitudes… so that seems a quite sensible temperature point to aim at. Another 1 to 1.5C extra required

                but then again, the RWP may have been even better.. grapes (and hence wine) in northern England.. Greenland habitable. passage around the north of Russia possible… So maybe that is where we should aim. That’s probably about 1.5 to 2C above now

                The Mayan warm period before that……housed a whole major civilisation where none is possible now.

                Who knows for sure though.

                Anyway, it isn’t likely to happen, so let’s just hope the coming dip is not too deep.


                Report this

                21

              • #
                Backslider

                Greenland habitable.

                Oh,don’t mention the Vikings to Michael… he thinks it never happened and that the warm period was colder than today and just “regional”. Never mind that it latest for a very long time and that Viking artifacts are now in permafrost……


                Report this

                11

            • #
              Backslider

              The earth in 60 years has warmed by 0.6 deg c and you guys do not have an alternative expalnation other than that confirmed by the science, greenhouse warming caused by mans emissions.

              So why is it now only the past 60 years Michael? You previously have asserted that our emissions of CO2 since The Industrial Revolution pulled the earth’s climate out of The Little Ice Age.

              I am STILL waiting for your science which shows this…..


              Report this

              11

          • #
            Greg Cavanagh

            Wow, I read the entire Manic article. Fascinating.


            Report this

            31

        • #
          AndyG55

          “Arctic is warming twice as fast as the rest of the globe”

          and yet this year had one of the SHORTEST period above freezing point on record.

          Again…………………………. you post BS and LIES .

          Try telling THE TRUTH for once, you slimy piece of **** !!!


          Report this

          81

          • #
            Backslider

            Arctic is warming twice as fast as the rest of the globe

            This is an outright lie. The Arctic is not warming at all. Cold as it ever was. The Antarctic is breaking all records for cold and sea ice extent.


            Report this

            11

      • #
        AndyG55

        And even with all these cold records and snow, you can almost BET it will be the hottest November.. like… for effer !!!!


        Report this

        122

        • #
          Michael the Realist

          Lets look at how the year ends up, in a neutral ENSO year and with the coolest solar cycle in 100 years. I wonder if temps will be back to 1956 levels like John Mcclean predicted several years ago…


          Report this

          112

          • #
            AndyG55

            Moron !!!!!.. do you really think the ocean dissipate the energy from the last several high solar maximums overnight.!

            Gees you really are a Z CLASS FOOL. !!!!!!


            Report this

            71

          • #
            PhilJourdan

            A year is not climate. Don’t you know that yet?


            Report this

            40

          • #
            AndyG55

            “and with the coolest solar cycle in 100 years”

            Following after a series of solar MAXIMUMS. http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/lrsp-2008-3Color.pdf

            That’s why the Earth is starting to cool.
            The build up of heat from the series of solar maxima in the latter part of the 20th century is slowly leaving the system.

            Remember, temperatures last year were finally back up to the those of the late 1930′s, so it could still be a couple more years for the downturn to take full effect.

            Sure, its taking a few years longer than McLean suggested. But do you really expect climate oscillations to be absolutely regular ??? If so.. you are even more of a moron than even I thought you were.
            (is that even possible ?????)


            Report this

            00

    • #
      wayne, s. Job

      Michael,
      I have lived many decades, almost into my 8th, I have seen many things and done many things. In my youth I was aware of eugenics, piltdown man and phlogiston, sadly AGW is right up there as the sham of the 20th century. It would seem that the weather gods of old are fickle and laughing at your idols, beware that they take no punitive action.

      It is with a heavy heart that I feel in breaking your belief system, as the coming decades will prove the sham, sorry Mr Realist but you are unfortunately a surrealist.

      Try looking at what old Sol is up to, he may change your mind about a warming future.


      Report this

      50

      • #

        Short of being stuck by lightening, and maybe not even that, Michael will not change his mind. His belief appears to be an integrated part of his lifestyle, justifying how he lives his life. It’s not about science–it’s about his whole existence. He’s not going to let go. The only value in his postings is he allows more people to post rebuttals and readers learn new things about why Michael is so wrong and so is AGW. He does serve a purpose here–to bring out all arguments that question and/or disprove AGW. Plus, he’s a prime example of someone who is clueless about science. He is really is helpful to the skeptic movement.


        Report this

        40

    • #
      Backslider

      Michael. All of your rants re. ENSO being neutral, cooling volcanoes (which you picked up from ME) etc. are all YOUR OWN interpretations. For weeks now you have been carrying this, yet not ONCE have you provided anything to back up your own assertions. Show us just ONE paper which talks about it in the way that you do…. just one.


      Report this

      01

    • #
      Backslider

      Also Michael, how does it fit in with your meme the fact that it SNOWED in Thredbo in early December, quite heavily, or the fact that vast tracts of canola crops were wiped out by FROST in November…. or the fact that is snowed heavily right across the Middle East..?…. or that THOUSANDS of COLD record temperatures are falling yearly?


      Report this

      00

  • #

    I’ve written on this–people are so gullible if you use the right, scary numbers. Any rational individual who hears this goes and checks out how much energy is dumped on the earth daily from the sun, what happens to that energy, etc. Not so rational people just parrot the statement as if it has meaning. Always ask anyone quoting numbers for the bigger picture–if they have any idea what that is….This applies to all the silly comparisons the media and con artists (which are equal in many cases) give for virtually everything nowadays.


    Report this

    100

    • #
      Michael the Realist

      I agree Sheri. Using “Every second the sun pours 2700 Hiroshima bombs of energy on the Earth at the top of the atmosphere. ” while ignoring the fact that the suns energy towards earth has, if anything, fallen slightly over 60 years, and secondly that an equal amount is lost from the TOA as well, is misleading. The 4 hiroshima bombs ps has meaning because it is the amount of energy within the earth increasing.


      Report this

      121

      • #

        I will ask you again something you have failed to answer in the past:
        If a tiny increase is catastrophic, do you go to the ER when your temperature is 100 F? It’s going up, it could get to 106F and there’s no way to know what could happen if you stay home and don’t attack the increase immediately? If not, why not?


        Report this

        100

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          Is that the sound of Crickets, I hear?


          Report this

          80

        • #
          Michael the Realist

          Your analogy is pathetic. Things have been going up for 60 years, as shown earlier. The patient is showing significant and serious symptoms…(see below). The better analogy is that your patients temperature is 105.5, they are sweating profusely, vomiting regularly, and have lost consciousness. At what point do you stop saying, ‘he will get better in a minute…’

          –Sea levels have risen twice as fast than the previous average
          —Minimum ice extent in the Arctic has fallen about 50%
          —Globally ice volume has fallen
          —Almost all glaciers are receding
          —Ocean warming has continued to the present
          —Ocean PH has fallen 30%, with evidence from around the world of species migration and corals and crustaceans under stress
          —Hot day records are beating cold ones by 3 to 1
          —Hot night records are beating cold ones by 5 to 1
          —Extreme precipitation events by observation are up by 7% per degree
          —2001 to 2010 was the hottest decade globally, on land, ocean, every continent and in both hemispheres in the instrumental record.
          —2010 was the wettest year since records began
          —Europes heat wave in 2003 and Russias one in 2010 were determined to be so outside natural variation statistically that they would not have occurred without the influence of AGW.
          —2012 was US hottest year
          —2013 Australia has broken hottest 12 months twice, hottest day, hottest month, warmest winter etc. Bushfires have started unusually early and ferociously.
          —2010 to 2013 have been among the worst for extreme weather events ever
          —China has already this year had 5 billion dollar weather disasters.
          —2012 was the US second worst for extreme weather
          —Typhoon haiyan fastest winds to ever hit landfall
          —On average there is now 5 times as many record breaking hot months than could be expected without AGW


          Report this

          122

          • #
            Annie

            Done it again…knocked the wrong tick. I meant to give you a thumbs down.


            Report this

            70

          • #
            AndyG55

            And yet another load of concocted propaganda BS !!


            Report this

            61

          • #
            Greg Cavanagh

            Michael; have you ever looked deeper into any of these subjects you list to see if they are indeed, correct?


            Report this

            50

            • #
              Michael the Realist

              They are all correct, but if I link bomb it will not get printed, anything I put a link in goes straight to the editors to check first. They are all correct and it is all publically available information and the statistics have generally come from peer reviewed science. So check NASA, NOAA, WMO and the peer reviewed science, as they are the sources for most of my information.


              Report this

              012

          • #
            AndyG55

            Gees Michael, is this really the only cut and paste they provided you with on your 6 day brain-washing course ?

            I hope you didn’t actually have to pay to attend…………… did you ? if so, how much?

            If you did actually get conned into paying.. you got seriously RIPPED OFF !!

            (nothing unusual with the AGW scammers)


            Report this

            101

            • #
              Michael the Realist

              lol, the personal attack defense. FYI, completed the 10 week course and awaiting results, though I am pretty sure I got a distinction. I did pay so that my results will be verifiable and usable. Only $50. So the science is fairly conclusive as I have outlined, the data and the observations are consistent and natural variations have been checked and discounted. So CAN YOU answer what has caused the increase in temps over 60 years, or not?


              Report this

              112

              • #
                Z

                Sorry didnt realise that you were a fully trained professional.
                I am so sorry for all the things we said. We thought we were right but didnt have the training that you have received.
                Michael the Realist
                December 19, 2013 at 11:01 pm · Reply
                lol, the personal attack defense. FYI, completed the 10 week course and awaiting results, though I am pretty sure I got a distinction. I did pay so that my results will be verifiable and usable. Only $50. So the science is fairly conclusive as I have outlined, the data and the observations are consistent and natural variations have been checked and discounted. So CAN YOU answer what has caused the increase in temps over 60 years, or not?
                Hahahahahaahaha


                Report this

                41

              • #

                Wow! Can we all use our “paid for” classes to provewe’re right???? Who knew that paying for something made it the truth? Oh, Al Gore for one. I guess Michael of for the other.

                Question: If my paid for class on climatology disagrees with yours, are we both right since we took a course and paid for it?


                Report this

                81

              • #
                Rereke Whakaaro

                Actually, this is pretty significant, and very worrying.

                Albert Einstein went to a Polytechnic University. That implies that he did not have to pay for his courses. Which in turn means that he actually had no qualification according to Michael. This probably means that the Theory of Relativity is incorrect, or even if it is correct, it probably doesn’t mean anything important.

                Oh well, there goes Nuclear Energy, the Big Bang hypothesis, and dark matter, and black holes. It will also stuff up any future attempts to go to the moon (I presume that the Chinese got there just in time, before the news finally broke).

                I am glad Michael told us that. The course was obviously worth what he paid for it.


                Report this

                21

              • #
                AndyG55

                roflmao.. wow a 10 week course…. seriously..

                I’m laughing so hard I could almost cry.

                You poor little ineffectual wannabee !

                $50… yep.. you got ripped off … and also wasted your time !

                still roflmao !!!!!

                Sorry little boy, but if you want to play qualifications, you haven’t even stepped out of the taxi!!


                Report this

                11

              • #
                AndyG55

                That’s your major problem, you have never actually learnt enough to know when you are be sold a load of CARP !!

                You pay $50 to learn a load of propaganda BS, and don’t even realise that that is what it is.

                THICK AS A DOZEN PLANKS

                still rofmlao. :-) :-)

                Thanks.. your JOKE has really day !! :-)


                Report this

                11

              • #
                AndyG55

                correction. typo cos I was laughing so much.

                “your JOKE has really made my day


                Report this

                01

              • #
                AndyG55

                I suggest you find out how much it costs to do just one REAL subject in reputable degree at a reputable university (Usually 13 weeks)

                Find out what a REAL education cost, not some propaganda joke. !!
                .
                .
                .

                still …….. roflmao. sorry, but this is B****Y HILARIOUS !! ;-)


                Report this

                10

              • #
                AndyG55

                3 questions that it would be interesting to know the answers to.

                How many hours a week in your little course?

                What were the instructors qualifications?

                Who was subsidising the course?


                Report this

                10

          • #
            tom0mason

            As you are such a master of science please explain what is wrong with Dr. Spencer’s first graph -
            http://drtimball.com/2013/dangers-of-analogies-earths-atmosphere-is-not-like-a-greenhouse/

            and is this just reporting natural variation? Just as this is -

            http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/13/over-2000-cold-and-snow-records-set-in-the-usa-this-past-week/

            If it is then you agree that natural variation can run to extremes


            Report this

            40

            • #
              tom0mason

              Big oops.
              “…is wrong with Dr. Spencer’s first graph -”
              should of course be
              …is wrong with Dr. Tim Ball’s first graph -

              Apologies to both for my confusion…


              Report this

              10

      • #
        AndyG55

        “suns energy towards earth has, if anything, fallen slightly over 60 years”

        This is TOTAL BS !!!!!!!!!


        Report this

        10

  • #
    Joe Lalonde

    Jo,

    The fools that we call “Climate scientists” failed to include that these rays go through miles and miles of atmospheric gases that are rotated on this planet. And the major gas is Nitrogen which in itself is far from being in it’s normal astronomically cold state.


    Report this

    20

    • #
      Michael the Realist

      The fools that we call “Climate scientists”

      Oh, the old ‘the experts miss the obvious’ defense, and I guess only you know everything.

      The experts are fully aware that the rays go through atmosphere and what the components of the atmosphere are doing. It is insulting to think that the thousands of scientists globally that are working on this problem do not understand the basics.


      Report this

      122

      • #

        It’s not the basics they have problems with.


        Report this

        100

        • #
          Michael the Realist

          It’s not the basics they have problems with.

          True, its the massive amounts of simplistic misinformation and twisting of the basics that has made there job of communicating what has been happening to the public a lot harder.


          Report this

          124

          • #

            Really? I thought it was the arrogance of proclaiming themselves infallible and then failing that was the problem.


            Report this

            140

            • #
              Michael the Realist

              Really? I thought it was the arrogance of proclaiming themselves infallible

              Your considering yourself infallible. Without any science or alternative explanation for the observations you are dead set sure that we will be alright and do nothing. The consequences if you are wrong are huge, and will affect many many future generations.

              When do you stop your arrogance, admit you have no wnswers and that in the absense of those answers you should accept the possibility that the science is wrong and take precautions for the sake of future generations.


              Report this

              012

              • #
                Greg Cavanagh

                If Sheri is wrong, then you must be right?

                What was that about arrogance again?


                Report this

                50

              • #
                Greg Cavanagh

                Let me restate this, so save any confusion.

                You are so knowlageable that you KNOW Sheri is wrong?


                Report this

                50

              • #
                Michael the Realist

                I don’t know Sheri is wrong. I know that she has no answers. I have asked her for an alternative and her response is that it is something we don’t know about yet. So with the science of 100 years on the greenhouse effect backing AGW, the observations and data are consistent and natural variations have been ruled out, that it seems illogical to ignore the evidence because of a ‘feeling’ (or a belief) that it must be anything but AGW. That is basically what most of the arguments here translate to.

                So there is to much evidence on the science side to ignore, even if there is a slight possibility that they may be wrong. If a hurricane is heading towards you with near certainty but there is a minuscule possibility that it may veer away, you still batten down the hatches and prepare for the worst.


                Report this

                09

              • #

                I have explained to Michael ad nauseum that saying “We do not know, but the current theory is proven wrong” is perfectly scientific, but since he possesses NO scientific understanding, he still just keep complaining.

                AND not answering why he doesn’t go to the ER when his temperature hits 100F and is rising. It’s a disaster in the making, Michael, coming for you and you better run to the hospital before it hits 106F.
                DON’T WAIT. You might die. But you don’t run there, so why should I believe you when you tell me to run in the same situation? Answer: I shouldn’t and I don’t.


                Report this

                80

              • #
                Backslider

                in the absense of those answers

                And you say that you are a teacher..? More like an uneducated fool.


                Report this

                00

          • #
            Rereke Whakaaro

            … its the massive amounts of simplistic misinformation and twisting of the basics that has made there [sic] job of communicating what has been happening to the public a lot harder.

            I think you make a good point there Michael.

            The issue is in communicating what has been happening, to the public.

            The public need to be told about the massive amounts of simplistic misinformation that they are being given.

            And they need to know about the twisting of the basics that has been made.

            The main-stream media has a lot to answer for, wouldn’t you agree?

            Of course, they tend to only publish what they are told by the climate scientists, so I guess the blame must ultimately rest with them.


            Report this

            160

          • #
            AndyG55

            “True, its the massive amounts of simplistic misinformation and twisting of the basics ”

            Then why the heck do you keep doing it !!!!!


            Report this

            133

          • #
            Backslider

            has made there job

            And you say that you are a teacher? You write like a bogan.


            Report this

            00

      • #
        James

        The fools that we call “Climate scientists”

        Now they’re called climate scientists. Before that they were bare bums in the showers crying over localised sea level rise before the physics kicked in and then they went on to global warming until the observations kicked in now they’re climate scientists – it just seems that any knuckle serated arsehole can attach that monika and get an earn out of it. I wish Chopper was still alive, I bet he’d know how to relieve them of their ill gotten gains.


        Report this

        81

        • #
          Michael the Realist

          Oh the old, ‘all the climate scientists are rolling in there money with houses in the hamptons and a leer jet in the garage’ defense. Of wait…thats not the climate scientists, thats the fossil fuel barons all over the world. Silly argument, most scientists are out there slogging away, taking measurements, and just doing their jobs. Shame on you.


          Report this

          09

      • #
        tom0mason

        Their hubris gets in the way of understanding.


        Report this

        90

  • #

    [...] to a tweet from Barry Woods, I’ve become aware of a post by Jo Nova that attemtps to put the Hiroshima comparison into context. Jo Nova attempts to do this by comparing the rate at which we’re accruing energy (which is [...]


    Report this

    21

    • #

      I followed the link above, and found Dana making the strawman argument I predicted someone would make:

      Dana Nuccitelli says: December 18, 2013 at 3:45 pm

      Jo Nova’s argument is the same as the ‘trace gas’ myth; that CO2 can’t be causing global warming because it’s only 0.04% of the atmosphere. It just makes a comparison to another large but irrelevant metric to make the number seems small and thus intuitively insignificant. Basically it’s an appeal to the gut, not to the brain.

      If you don’t like the Hiro analogy, there’s always kitten sneezes :-)
      http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/dec/17/climate-change-agu2013-pictures

      My Reply:
      Jo Nova says:
      December 18, 2013 at 4:18 pm

      Dana, Mr andthentheresphysics, I knew someone would construct that strawman. Read my whole post. See *** at the bottom. (Sorry if I made that too small). The “large irrelevant metric” is the 4-Hiroshima-bomb (can we get more publicity) App. We merely satirized your PR-grab with reality.

      As for an appeal to the gut? You mean like milking an event that caused mass death to dredge up some alarm for your pet cause. Now who would do that? Oh wait…


      Report this

      291

      • #
        Scott

        I thought the App was the number of brain cells the warmists lose every second they continue to belive in magic and ignore facts.

        Dana and Michael the realist are prime examples of the app in practice and working quite well.


        Report this

        110

        • #
          Safetyguy66

          Oh you mean this widget is just a metaphor???

          I thought it was one of the famous climate models.

          Damn Im stupid…. I cant believe I fell for the logical fallacy of analogy AGAIN!!


          Report this

          70

  • #
    Richard111

    The Hiroshima bomb concept is certainly an attention grabber. As several comments above point out it’s the sun what does it.
    Warmists claim, correctly, that the atmosphere is transparent to radiation and if it wasn’t for the ‘greenhouse’ gasses we would all freeze! Really?!
    If you are a warmist then you don’t believe in thermal conduction and convection from the sun warmed surface. The atmosphere without ‘greenhouse’ gasses would be unable to cool and get hotter and hotter and life would not have evolved.


    Report this

    40

    • #
      Michael the Realist

      If you are a warmist then you don’t believe in thermal conduction and convection

      Silly and simplistic argument. Of course conduction and convection occurs and is understood. But conduction and convection does not happen in the vacuum of space. So energy enters the system through radiation (from the sun) and leaves it through radiation (mostly ir radiated from the surface). So conduction and convection moves the energy around the system but only the radiation determines how much the net energy is lost or built up. Didn’t you not know that their are 3 ways of heat transfer and only one works in space?

      So this is how the greenhouse effect works, energy comes in and leaves the system through radiation, but the greenhouse gases determine how fast the radiation leaves, as the increase in CO2 slows down the loss of energy, while the amount coming in from the sun continues unaltered then the total energy in the system builds up. That is a rough summary of what is happening, there are plenty of good websites that go into a lot more detail that you can read. Let me know if you want me to point you to one.


      Report this

      011

      • #
        Backslider

        So conduction and convection moves the energy around the system but only the radiation determines how much the net energy is lost or built up. Didn’t you not know that their are 3 ways of heat transfer and only one works in space?

        So this is how the greenhouse effect works, energy comes in and leaves the system through radiation, but the greenhouse gases determine how fast the radiation leaves, as the increase in CO2 slows down the loss of energy, while the amount coming in from the sun continues unaltered then the total energy in the system builds up.

        Would you like me to show you the insignificance of your ignorance?


        Report this

        10

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    It would appear that the sun dumps more energy on a climate scientist’s roof every day than he can comprehend. The difference between the alarmists and reality is roughly a factor of 1,000 in favor of reality.

    Where do they get their data? Well… …don’t answer that. I’m afraid I can guess and it isn’t exactly reliable.

    The funny thing to me is that with either set of numbers and considering the age of the planet, if that heat didn’t all go back into space the surface would certainly be a giant lava pool by now. And yet for the millions of years we have any real evidence about, the place has stayed hospitable to life. Amazing!


    Report this

    70

    • #
      Michael the Realist

      And yet for the millions of years we have any real evidence about, the place has stayed hospitable to life. Amazing!

      I am glad you are so easily amazed. Firstly the planet has been going for over 4 billion years, and for the vast majority of that time has not been habitable for 7 billion humans. Secondly the factor of 1000 to 1 ignores the other side of the coin, as you acknowledge later on. The planet does indeed lose roughly the same amount as it gains, which is why the figure quoted by Jo is basically meaningless. she does not use the net figure. Basically what the enhanced greenhouse forcing is doing is reducing the loss of energy, hence the gaining of 4 hiroshima bombs per second. THIS IS A NET FIGURE. The total energy in the system is increasing. Do you get it? This is similar to the CO2 issue, you guys normally only quote how much CO2 is emitted by natural processes while ignoring how much is absorbed (slightly more than emitted). Therefore the slow increase is due to the accumulation of CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels. Your science always only presents half of the facts.


      Report this

      07

      • #
        tom0mason

        So ice cores are wrong in that they indicate CO2 levels were so much higher in past times but not when it was warmer?

        Is that your argument Michael?


        Report this

        30

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        Yes, Michael, I get it. You and your friends have an agenda that hasn’t anything to do with the effects of CO2 in the atmosphere and you’re going to shove it either (1) down our throats or (2) up our backsides until we knuckle under or (3) we throw the bunch of you into the nearest black hole.

        I vote for the third option. Be sure to wave as you cross the event horizon. We’ll be watching for it. You could actually serve a useful purpose that way by allowing a controlled experiment about the black hole. And that my dear realist, that controlled experiment, is a hole lot more than you’ve got to show for your constant stirring up trouble about something that’s not happening.

        The pun in that last sentence is intended since that little bit of humor is the only thing that makes it worth talking to you.


        Report this

        40

      • #
        Backslider

        Therefore the slow increase is due to the accumulation of CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels.

        What nonsense! The amount of CO2 in that atmosphere is governed by Henry’s Law. Did you ever see that comic strip about Id? What do they call the people who live in Id? I’m quite sure you are from there.


        Report this

        00

  • #
    Cynthia

    OMG! The sun has been frying the earth for billions of years! Most of the ice is melted, and there are things growing on it! You can’t even see the stars during the daytime anymore!


    Report this

    120

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      You can’t even see the stars during the daytime anymore!

      Yes, well the stars are holes in the firmament where all of the extra heat coming from the sun is supposed to escape. But because of carbon dioxide, those holes are getting blocked up, so less heat from the sun can escape, and that is why the globe is getting warmer.

      Hey, that makes about the same amount of sense as some of the rubbish that Michael manages to regurgitate. At least my effort was creative … or not.


      Report this

      130

    • #
      Greg Cavanagh

      I see you stole Michael’s avatar.


      Report this

      10

  • #
    pat

    18 Dec: Guardian: Lenore Taylor: Renewable energy: Tony Abbott signals he could wind back or scrap targets
    PM says while Coalition supports ‘sensible use’ of renewable energy, scheme is ‘causing pretty significant price pressure’
    Announcing modest government assistance for Holden, the prime minister also revealed he would chair a new taskforce to find ways to make industry more competitive, with reducing the cost of energy a primary aim.
    Asked whether that could involve scaling back the RET, which was set up by the Howard government and requires energy retailers and large customers to source a proportion of their energy from renewable sources, Abbott said: “We support sensible use of renewable energy, and as you know it was former Howard government which initially gave us the RET and at the time it was important because we made very little use of renewable energy.”
    But times had changed, he said.
    “We have to accept that in the changed circumstances of today, the renewable energy target is causing pretty significant price pressure in the system and we ought to be an affordable energy superpower … cheap energy ought to be one of our comparative advantages … what we will be looking at is what we need to do to get power prices down significantly,” he said…
    Newman has previously called for the RET to be scrapped because he believes the scientific evidence for global warming and the economic case for renewable energy no longer stack up.
    The former chairman of the ABC and the Australian Securities Exchange said persisting with government subsidies for renewable energy represented a “crime against the people” because higher energy costs hit poorer households the hardest and there was no longer any logical reason to have them.
    Newman acknowledged Coalition policy was to retain the current target to generate 20% of renewable energy by 2020, at least until the review was held, but told Guardian Australia in his opinion “the whole science on which this is based is somewhat in tatters”…
    Abbott said in a radio interview he understood why people were anxious about windfarms that were “sprouting like mushrooms all over the fields of our country”…
    “I absolutely understand why people are anxious about these things that are sprouting like mushrooms all over the fields of our country. I absolutely understand the concerns that people have.
    “And I also understand the difficulty because while renewable power is a very good idea at one level, you’ve gotta have backups because when the wind doesn’t blow and the sun doesn’t shine, the power doesn’t flow. So this is an obvious problem with renewable energy in the absence of much more sophisticated battery technology than we have right now.”
    According to the Australian Energy Market Commission, the RET makes up less than 1% of the average household electricity bill.
    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/dec/18/renewable-energy-tony-abbott-signals-he-could-wind-back-or-scrap-targets


    Report this

    10

    • #
      Michael the Realist

      Yes, they talked about this on ‘the drum’ tonight. Basically the RET actually puts downward pressure on prices because of oversupply, and that higher prices were more to do with infrastructure. THerefore prices are not expected to come down at all. Also on the wekend they were saying how funding has dried up for some renewable projects and most would not be progressed, such as the wave farm for energy to power garden island project.

      So considering the government says it accepts the science of climate change and wants to increase jobs and is facing a budget emergency, its actions are shutting down one of the fastest growing industries on the planet, for no appreciable benefit to the public (accept loss of jobs), to the detriment of the future climate and they are going to worsen the bottom line by getting rid of a tax, giving the money back to their rich mates and then charging the public for an ineffective direct action policy. Is this the most corrupt, secretive, illogical and dishonest government we have ever had?

      Also even if it needs gas backup when the wind does not blow and the sun does not shine (and there are ways around most of these) the savings in emissions from when it does is huge and far outweigh a coal fired power station burning 24/7. Gee can’t you guys even get that concept? Globally renewable energy supplied 19% of final energy consumption in 2011. We are behind the eight ball and getting further. It is likely that Abott and the libs will turn us into a developing country with their turning the clock back thinking to the 80′s.


      Report this

      08

      • #
        tom0mason

        Straw-man argument as there is no need “… savings in emissions from when it does is huge and far outweigh a coal fired power station burning 24/7.”

        No saving is required.


        Report this

        20

      • #

        Michael The Realist, you say here:

        Globally renewable energy supplied 19% of final energy consumption in 2011.

        When it comes to the generation of electrical power, you really do know very little (very very little)

        Of your precious 19% from Renewables, a tick over 17% of that total is from Hydro.

        Wind is around 1.5% and Solar is around 0.1%.

        Without Hydro, you have almost nothing.

        You refer to renewable power as:

        …..one of the fastest growing industries on the planet

        An absolute flat out lie right there Michael.

        Wind Power and Solar Power are useless, and will NEVER replace large scale traditional sources of power production ANYWHERE.

        Michael you mention that you are now a Professor of Climatology after your 10 week course.

        Perhaps you should pay another $50 and take the 10 week advanced course course in electrical power generation, because you clearly know almost nothing about that subject.

        Tony.


        Report this

        40

        • #
          AndyG55

          “Professor of Climatology after your 10 week course”

          roflmao.. did he seriously say that.. the guy is TOTALLY DELUSIONAL !!

          Although, that is about as far as climatology has progressed.


          Report this

          40

        • #
          Michael the Realist

          Michael you mention that you are now a Professor of Climatology after your 10 week course.

          Please point out where I said that. Again proof of your continual quoting of your own opinions, half truths and flat out lies as if they were absolute facts. Proof of how gullible you people are is andyG55 rolling on the floor again over an absolute lie, taken in again because he fails to actually research what he is told.


          Report this

          03

      • #

        It’s likely Abbot will prevent you (?–I thought you were from Canada or America, but apparently not. Must have insomnia, huh?) from becoming a third world country. That’s what wind and solar do–return to the idyllic days of the past when power was part-time, people lived without electricity and lived at a subsistence level. It’s fine with me if you want to live that way, but I refuse to be dragged back to the 1800′s to make everyone believe I’m saving the planet when I am not. Oh, wait, you are for technology but against actual 24/7 energy. Logically impossible. But that’s never stopped you before.

        All evidence (except the propaganda from wind companies) shows wind is more damaging environmentally than oil or NG. It saves no CO2 emissions and requires huge amounts of energy in manufacturing, building and maintaining. It kill raptors and bats in very large numbers. I’m with Tony–take another class, this time on power generation. Live next to a wind plant for 5 or 10 years. I mean right next to it. Go off grid and run your house on wind and solar. I would note that I really could not care less about anyone who is enamored with wind who ties into the grid. Your opinion means nothing to me if you are tied to a power line or in any way benefit from one.


        Report this

        00

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        Yes, they talked about this on ‘the drum’ tonight.

        And of course talking about it makes it true. Right?


        Report this

        10

      • #
        James

        You believe The Drum………..


        Report this

        10

      • #

        Just received a Christmas card with the total lie of “Manufactured with 100% renewable energy” on the back. Lying on a Christmas card. It just doesn’t get lower than that.

        (For those of you who may wonder why this is a lie, the manufacturer uses EXACTLY the same energy as everyone else. They just pay a fee and get to count the electricity as “renewable”. If it truly was 100% renewable, they would have gone out of business by now–what with the wind not blowing and the sun not shining for long periods. It re-enforces the lie that renewables can actually do anything except make the builders rich and the consumers poor.)


        Report this

        30

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          Actually Sheri, I consider all of the energy I use, to be renewable. Electrical energy may be converted into kinetic energy and heat, when I use it, but because of the conservation of energy, I have faith that the energy I have just used will one day be reincarnated into a form where somebody else can use it, making it totally renewable.

          What I am trying to figure out, is why the Government is trying to tax me for conserving this energy?


          Report this

          10

          • #

            I’ll agree with your belief in energy reincarnation. The question of why the government taxes you for conserving energy is far tougher. Why does the power company tell us to conserve and then raise all the “fees” on our bills to make up for lost revenue? I suspect we will solve string theory and space travel before we come close to understanding that thing we call “bureaucracy”.


            Report this

            00

            • #
              Roy Hogue

              May I kill two birds with one stone here?

              First, the electrons themselves are never destroyed (some rule about conservation of something or other). So in a very real sense, the actual electricity (electrons) is “renewable” without regard to how the push is given to those electrons to get them to move down the wire. ;-)

              Second, the fees are raised so you get the pleasure of being ripped off by anyone and everyone who can get enough power to do it (not electrical). Since the beginning of humans, the strong man has exacted tribute from the weak man. And before humans the strong animal exacted tribute from the weak animal. It was just done with different coin — and still is. If you don’t believe me come take a look at the list of things riding on my back that you’ll see on my last juice bill, water bill or anything the government can tax in order to spend on some oh so worthy cause that doesn’t begin to deserve it. It’s a nightmare.

              And just wait another 12 days to see all the favors the great Obama has bestowed upon us all. :-(


              Report this

              00

              • #
                Rereke Whakaaro

                Actually Roy, it is worse than that. The real scam is in alternating current.

                The power companies sell you an electron, and then immediately steal it back again, so they can sell it to somebody else, and they do this fifty times a second (or 60 in the U.S). It is a scandal of scandalous proportions.


                Report this

                10

              • #
                AndyG55

                Its called RENT, RW..

                They allow us to rent that electron for a fraction of a second.

                It all adds up, y’know !


                Report this

                00

              • #
                MaxL

                Yeah, now if only we could teach the electrons to do synchronized wiggling, we wouldn’t need power companies.


                Report this

                00

              • #
                Roy Hogue

                Rereke,

                It’s nice to keep a sense of humor about electricity. But it’s becoming a real problem these days as we depend more and more on being able to flip a switch or push a button and get everything from light to our favorite TV shows. Almost no one bothers to write letters any more. Internet and wireless phones have taken over and the U.S. Postal Service is going broke unless it learns to compete or becomes much smaller.

                We now depend so much on electricity that the possibility of long term outages is frightening. Our very lives may depend on electricity not being interrupted for more than a few hours because hospitals and other critical services can’t be self sustaining for more than short periods of hours or a couple of days at most. Try being on life support when the power isn’t going to be back on any time soon. For that matter, try getting food on your table or gas in your car.

                Yet fools who can’t get it through their heads that they’re in the same boat with the rest of us still want to shut down civilization by restricting production of electricity to their approved renewable green sources.


                Report this

                00

              • #

                Part of the reason people don’t fear loss of electricity is the availability of backup generators. Right now, those run on fossil fuels. I have read that diesel generators are England’s backup for windless times. Plus, there’s generally electricity just a few miles away in another area. If only we could demonstrate what a long-term outage meant. I have a friend who lives with wind and solar only–no power line comes in. We have discussed “hosting” month long electricity-free camps, preferably in December when it’s -30F. Having your cabin at 20F and trying to cook on a wood stove can be very enlightening. So can frozen water lines (assuming we even went with running water…..) and frozen sewer lines. There would be no TV, no internet (though you actually can get internet and satellite TV on wind and solar as long as your batteries stay charged) and the fun of having your wind battery controller burn out or the batteries freeze. We think it would be a very popular camp! It’s 25 miles from the nearest town and 10 or more from anyone with line electricity. Still, we could get out in an emergency. Unlike what happens if there are widespread outages.

                At one time there was questions on why the government was having “zombie attack” drills. This came from an internet forum (m4carbine) earlier this year: “Why ‘zombies’? Because calling it ‘training to stop a rioting, starving, panicking desperate mob after a complete governmental financial collapse apocalypse’ is just too wordy”. It apples to a massive loss of electricity, too, I would think.


                Report this

                00

              • #

                Cursed spell-check! It should read “applies” to a massive loss.


                Report this

                00

              • #
                Roy Hogue

                Sheri,

                Apples might be a fortuitous mistake. They can be eaten and will keep for quite long time without refrigeration compared with many other foods. You just might be onto something there. Of course in your part of the country you’d need a way to keep them from freezing during the winter.


                Report this

                00

      • #
        Backslider

        Globally renewable energy supplied 19% of final energy consumption in 2011.

        Most of which was HYDRO… which has been with us since the year dot.


        Report this

        00

  • #
    pat

    this pathetic little Arup piece is designated “In Depth” on google news page!

    19 Dec: SMH: Tom Arup: Renewable energy target faces cut by Abbott
    The Coalition has vowed to review the target next year. Some large companies, such as Origin Energy, have lobbied for the scheme to be reduced because falling energy demand means the target will likely be overshot and instead mean 27 per cent of Australian electricity will come from renewable sources by decade’s end.
    Mr Abbott said Australia had a comparative advantage in cheap energy that had to be maintained…
    ”I mean, this country ought to be an affordable energy superpower.”
    The independent Climate Change Authority reviewed the target last year, recommending against a reduction because it would hurt investor confidence in clean energy projects.
    http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/renewable-energy-target-faces-cut-by-abbott-20131218-2zlgs.html

    19 Dec: BusinessSpectator: AAP & Staff Reporter: RET puts pressure on energy prices: PM
    Mr Abbott on Wednesday announced a taskforce into the manufacturing sector which would, among other things, examine ways to significantly drive down power prices to ease the cost of production…
    Industry Minister Ian Macfarlane also commented that with coal fired power stations operating well below capacity there was a need to review a scheme that would induce further additional supply into the electricity market.
    “To be adding large quantities of generation into that situation has to be questioned,” he said.
    “The (RET) review process will go through those things.”
    He said it made no sense that coal-fired power companies were producing energy at costs cheaper than five years ago, but manufacturers were still paying double…
    He said Australia should be an affordable energy superpower, with a small domestic market and comparatively cheap and abundant energy supply.
    But “almost everything” in the past few years, starting with the carbon tax, had conspired to drive up local prices, he added.
    http://www.businessspectator.com.au/news/2013/12/19/policy-politics/ret-puts-pressure-energy-prices-pm


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Safetyguy66

    Very on topic.

    A friend of mine and I had the random thought a couple of years ago to go take a look at Hiroshima and Nagasaki on Google Street View. I thoroughly recommend it, its a very educational experience, not for the least reason that we had been led to believe for pretty much all our lives that once a place gets “nuked” its uninhabitable for like 1000 years. Well go look for yourself and see how fast man and nature return to “normal”.

    Very off topic.

    We also devised a game that day called “find the vehicle”. Basically one person names a vehicle in an agreed level of detail (such as make, model, colour etc) then the other one goes to Google Street View and tries to find one of the those vehicles, then you swap. The winner is the one that finds 3 vehicles in the lowest time. Its fun and amusing because while your looking for vehicles, you also see some amazing sights around the the world via Street View…The only rule we had was your not allowed to used cars in dealerships…. the most difficult “thing” we tried to find was a “bobcat”, which while not technically a vehicle, was fun to try and locate because you basically have to find some roadworks to even have a chance.

    Yes I need a life :p


    Report this

    30

  • #
    handjive

    Australia January, 2013
    - It’s So Hot in Australia That They Added New Colors to the Weather Map
    - Heat and Threat of Wildfires Blaze on in Australia
    - Australia’s ‘Angry Summer’ Of 2012 To 2013 Linked To Climate Change In New Study

    Australia December 2013
    - Heatwave expected to hit one-third of Australia over Christmas
    .
    Therefore, TWO THIRDS of Australia IS NOT expecting a heatwave.

    In 10 months Australia has gone from total heatwave to one third heatwave.


    Report this

    90

    • #
      Safetyguy66

      1/3 of Australia “hot” at Xmas. FREAK OUT!!

      The thing I am enjoying most about living in Tassie is, Xmas is more likely to be 25°c than 35°c which I have been used to all my life.

      Its summer… but I don’t suppose any of the warmists have noticed.


      Report this

      40

    • #
      Safetyguy66

      - Australia’s ‘Angry Summer’ Of 2012 To 2013 Linked To Climate Change In New Study

      “For the study, Sophie C. Lewis and David Karoly used climate observations and dozens of simulations from nine state-of-the-art computer models to compare summer temperatures in the historical record and in the near future, with and without the influence of manmade greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide.”

      My attempt at a Jo translation…

      “Used climate observations, but they arnt saying in this article which ones or over what period. “Dozens of simulations” from “9 computer models”, which no doubt all contained the basic premise that as you add carbon the temperature rises, leaving only the question of which amount of carbon input will create the most alarming result to publish. “With and without manmade greenhouse gasses”, because there is no point to including non manmade gasses as they are “natural” and therefore good and have either no effect or a positive effect.

      Seriously, that quote alone is like…. “We think something is happening with something and stuff may get bad if other stuff happens, which is very likely”

      Yawn….


      Report this

      31

    • #
      Michael the Realist

      This year is likely to be Australias hottest year on record, during a neutral ENSO year and a cool sun. Explanation please?

      “In the past 12-month period a large number of mean temperature records have fallen across Australia including:

      Australia’s warmest month on record (January)
      Australia’s warmest September on record
      Australia’s largest positive monthly anomaly on record (September)
      Australia’s warmest summer on record (December 2012 to February 2013)
      Australia’s warmest January to September period on record
      Australia’s warmest 12-month period on record (broken twice, for the periods ending August and September)
      Indeed, Australia’s warmest period on record for all periods 1 to 18 months long ending September 2013

      Two significant daily maximum temperature records were also set this year:

      Australia’s hottest summer day on record (7 January)
      Australia’s warmest winter day on record (31 August) ”
      http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/updates/articles/a005-sep-2013-warmest-on-record.shtml


      Report this

      112

      • #
        AndyG55

        “Australia’s hottest summer day on record (7 January)”

        The actual value recorded by the AWS at Observatory Hill was 45.3C which is EXACTLY the same as in 1939.

        That’s 74 years of warming for you… NADA, ZIP, NOTHING !!!!!!!

        (I have emailed BOM as to where the extra 0.5C came from, but have not received a satisfactory answer
        They said something about an ‘in person’ reading, but the AWS is meant to be the final value)

        And let’s not forget that the BOM record is highly corrupted and very very short.

        If any weight can be placed on pre-BOM readings, then the mid 1800′s had some periods that were SIGNIFICANTLY HOTTER

        Again.. your little list is a meaningless load of PROPAGANDA BS !!!!


        Report this

        81

        • #
          AndyG55

          I was thinking “Sydney’s hottest day”

          but the same applies.. the climate record is woefully short to say what is natural and what is not.

          But you KNOW that don’t you.. you little propaganda monkey !!


          Report this

          51

        • #
          Michael the Realist

          And let’s not forget that the BOM record is highly corrupted and very very short.

          Ah the old conspiracy defense, totally lacking in science and credibility.

          but the same applies.. the climate record is woefully short to say what is natural and what is not.

          No it is not. We have these new fangled measuring instruments and satelites that keep track of things like what the sun is doing, what ocean cycles are in force etc. The climate based on natural factors should have cooled over the last 60 years, ENSO is also currently neutral, there ARE NO NATURAL FACTORS that can explain why this year is so hot for us.


          Report this

          07

          • #
            AndyG55

            Again with the wanton lies and propaganda. Get over it !!!

            This year is no hotter than last year.. and certainly no hotter than some years in the mid 1800’5, probably no hotter than late 1930′s temps.

            We are somewhere about HALF way between LIA and MWP..

            ie we are actually BELOW the mid-range of NATURAL VARIABLITY for the Holocene !!!

            And yes, the temperature record is woefully short..
            you are way too ignorant to realise it, because YOU don’t work in the field of climate analysis. You have NO IDEA, none what-so-ever.

            And one NATURAL factor over the last 60 years has been a series of quite strong solar peaks.. which of course causes a cooling trend, doesn’t it…. moron. !!

            Again you illustrate that you know NOTHING except what your puerile little 10 weak course brain-washed you with.

            I really hope they took heaps of money off you for that course.. because you deserve to be CONNED !!!


            Report this

            10

          • #
            AndyG55

            “Ah the old conspiracy defense, totally lacking in science and credibility”

            No, its is actual PROVABLE FACT. It is the BOM record that lacks credibility.

            “The climate based on natural factors should have cooled over the last 60 years”

            And, of course, you again ignore the series of very strong solar maximums.

            http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/lrsp-2008-3Color.pdf
            (Just read the conclusion, its all you have a vague chance of understanding.)
            (look , I’ll even cut paste it for you.. you do you what cut/paste means I think)

            quoted

            One of the main features of long-term solar activity is that it contains an essential chaotic/
            stochastic component, which leads to irregular variations and makes solar-activity predictions
            impossible for a scale exceeding one solar cycle.

            • The sun spends about 70% of its time at moderate magnetic activity levels, about 15 – 20%
            of its time in a grand minimum and about 10 – 15% in a grand maximum. Modern solar
            activity corresponds to a grand maximum.

            • Grand minima are a typical but rare phenomena in solar behavior. Their occurrence appears
            not periodically, but rather as the result of a chaotic process within clusters separated by
            2000 – 2500 years. Grand minima tend to be of two distinct types: short (Maunder-like) and
            longer (Sporer-like).

            The modern level of solar activity (after the 1940s) is very high, corresponding to a grand
            maximum.
            Grand maxima are also rare and irregularly occurring events, though the exact
            rate of their occurrence is still a subject of debates.

            end quote..

            I hope that isn’t too difficult for your feeble brain-washed mind to comprehend.


            Report this

            20

          • #
            Backslider

            Ah the old conspiracy defense, totally lacking in science and credibility.

            No Michael, no conspiracy at all. Its a known fact that ACORN data is “adjusted”. Do you DENY that???


            Report this

            10

      • #
        Heywood

        For someone who said they weren’t posting here anymore you sure have a lot to say. … oh wait. .. just the same cut and paste AAD rhetoric.

        *yawn*


        Report this

        71

        • #
          AndyG55

          He’s not actually saying anything…….

          Just regurgitating.


          Report this

          40

        • #

          Michael,

          think about this for a minute, although I have no idea why I’m even bothering.

          All you have is a scare campaign that you and those on your side of the debate are doing all but nothing to stop.

          Just proliferating your scare campaign.

          So then, compare that with what you yourself said.

          You said that you were worried about what we would do to you once your real information was put out there.

          You said you were scared, subliminally intoning that somehow we would do harm to you or your family, again, slagging off at us and getting the point out there that we as people who opposed your religious beliefs would stoop to actual harm against you and yours.

          Tell me Michael, did any of those things actually eventuate?

          Or was that you just initiating another scare campaign.

          Did your scare campaign actually come to fruition?

          You have nothing, in any respect. You proliferate lies, not from knowledge but from a set belief structure force fed to you by those who tell you what to say ….. here at this site.

          Michael. You made a solemn promise that you were leaving this site.

          Please hold to that promise.

          You have literally nothing to say here, only the lies you spout because you don’t even bother to actually check for the truth that is ACTUALLY out there for our side of this debate. You don’t actually want debate, because you don’t believe the truth that we have to say.

          Now, please keep your promise.

          Tony.


          Report this

          81

        • #
          Michael the Realist

          Actually Tony I only promised not to quote on that post ever again, I don’t think I said site.

          Yes, to your credit nothing bad has happened, I have had bad experiences in the past where some things did.

          As to debate and facts, I am the only one putting forward facts and trying to initiate a scientific debate, most other posters rely on personal attacks or non scientific simplistic arguments that do not answer my questions. There is no propaganda here, most of what I post is publically available information from the major scientific organisations (NOAA, NASA, WMO etc) concerned about the climate or the peer reviewed science (and not blog opinion sites).

          So I have said a lot, posted a lot of facts and gotten very little of the same in return.


          Report this

          08

          • #

            See Michael, there you go again, where you say this:

            Yes, to your credit nothing bad has happened,

            You’re still slagging off at us, still giving the false impression that we are going to do harm to you, as if anyone here, or anywhere, is actually going to waste energy on something like that.

            You OWE us an apology and a retraction Michael.

            And Michael, please don’t even begin to think that what you’re doing could even be referred to as debate. All you are doing is proselytising.

            You say here:

            I am the only one putting forward facts

            You’re the ONLY one. You’re joking surely.

            You venture into areas where you know nothing, claiming expertise, and when we point out FACTS, the TRUTH, you totally ignore that, because your religion dictates that what YOU think you know, (or more correctly, what you have been told to say) is the ONLY part of the story. Just think about about that Michael. That is most definitely NOT debate. You’re not even willing to even consider in the slightest what we say.

            You then say this:

            So I have said a lot, posted a lot of facts and gotten very little of the same in return.

            We have gone to great length, and great pains to post unvarnished FACTS, which you totally ignore.

            Then you slag off at us invoking the scare campaign that we are going to somehow harm you.

            Michael, you OWE us an apology, and I propose that until that apology is printed here at this site, that you not comment here any more.

            You claim that you did a 10 week course and are now an expert on the Climate.

            Michael, do you even realise how stupid that actually sounds.

            I was at school for 75 weeks of trade training just to get to the Base Camp. Then, across the next 23 years I did a further 50 weeks of trade centred courses. I spent 5 years teaching the electrical trade to new guys.

            All that, 25 years in the electrical trade, and Michael, I’m still learning about electrical power.

            10 weeks Michael. 10 weeks. Do you even realise how stupid that sounds

            Now, apologise or leave. It’s that simple.

            Tony.


            Report this

            60

          • #
            Dave

            Michael the Realist,

            You said:

            “Actually Tony I only promised not to quote on that post ever again, I don’t think I said site.”

            But you’re wrong Michael, a blatant lie:

            “So to finish, if this post is printed in full I will not post again. The risks to my family are to high, so you have won.”

            And straight after that comment was your supposed last one:

            “So will post one more time…”

            Honour your word, Michael.


            Report this

            20

      • #
        llew Jones

        The explanation in AGW terms is that what happens with temperature in Australia or any one place or region is irrelevant. The reason is that the warmist scientists have chosen global warming as the parameter that is the only temperature indicator of AGW.

        Maybe it has never occurred to you to check other countries and regions of the earth at the times Australia is claimed to be experiencing record high temperatures. You will discover that some have been experiencing record low temperatures. Now when that is all averaged out even the AGW scientists have discovered not much has been happening on the global warming front for about a decade and a half and hence have been having fun trying to discover where all that extra global temperature raising heat has disappeared to.

        Shock….horror of course it could not have just disappeared back into space…..could it?

        I mean the science is settled…isn’t it?


        Report this

        50

        • #
          AndyG55

          “where all that extra global temperature raising heat ”

          do you mean that 0.6w/m^2 +/-17.

          Any engineer or mathematician would just burst out laughing ! :-)

          ITS A JOKE !!!!!!


          Report this

          61

        • #
          AndyG55

          I actually find it quite BIZARRE that they would publish that little diagram as it was. Its a FARCE !!!!!

          It is obviously aimed at mathematical pygmies. (yes Michael, that’s YOU ) !!


          Report this

          61

        • #
          Michael the Realist

          The reason is that the warmist scientists have chosen global warming as the parameter that is the only temperature indicator of AGW.

          Nope, that is what you guys are doing with your ‘no warming for a decade and a half’ argument. All you are doing is focussing on one parameter out of context and ignoring where the other 95% of the increasing energy is going.

          Scientists have explained that oceans are increasing in heat at the lower levels and that we have had a predominantly la nina decade. Also they have explained that the sun is going through one of its lowest solar cycles for a hundred years and has slightly cooled over the last 60. They have also explained that the cryosphere is melting faster than expected and that takes a lot of energy. They have also explained that despite all this the 2001-2010 decade was the hottest on the instrumental record, on EVERY CONTINENT, over both the ocean and the land and on both hemispheres. Finally they have also explained that the Arctic is heating twice as fast as the rest of the globe and this has changed the temp difference on either side of the Arctic jetstream and that this is making the jetstream weaker and loopier contributing to the crazy NH weather.

          Then you have the arrogance to say scientists only look at one thing!!! Look around sunshine they are trying to explain until they are blue in the face, but you focus on one cherry picked parameter that starts at the highest el nino year of 60 years and ignores the long term trend. WOW.


          Report this

          011

          • #
            Backslider

            Scientists have explained that oceans are increasing in heat at the lower levels

            Show to us the DATA Michael. Where exactly are the MEASUREMENTS (real science) for this?


            Report this

            30

          • #
            MemoryVault

            .
            Ah – the Master Baiter is back preaching the scientific FACT (no dissension allowed) that the colder atmosphere is warming the already warmer oceans. And from the bottom up, to boot!!

            Don’t get in the way of progress, folks. Next the Master Baiter is going to explain to us how we can cook the Christmas roast in the freezer compartment of our fridge, by turning the thermostat down.

            And he’ll no doubt be able to misquote 97% of climate scientists who disagree with him.


            Report this

            50

      • #
        Safetyguy66

        Ok well if the relationship is as causal and linear as your suggesting then explain this…

        http://www.bom.gov.au/lam/climate/levelthree/c20thc/temp1.htm

        Almost 100 years more GHG in the atmosphere and that record stands. If its all about “long terms trends” as warmists seem to think then the longest heatwave in Australia would be a pretty good record to prove the point in terms of “cherry picking” data as you yourself are doing. But ooops, its 1923 and even the most rabid tree hugger could not attribute that to increased CO2 and if you do wish to, then you can explain why it hasn’t happened since please.


        Report this

        40

        • #
          Michael the Realist

          You focus on one region over one to two years and then accuse me of cherry picking!!! Can you please tell me what ENSO was doing, what the sun was doing, what the volcanic or geological system was doing etc etc. I have never claimed climate has not occurred before, or that extremes have not occurred before. What I say is that when natural factors over the last 60 years are flat to slightly cooling but temps have increased by 0.6 deg c and that the 2001 to 2010 decade was the hottest on the instrumental record and that most IPCC predictions are underestimated, that a normal, reasonable, logical human being would look at the science, examine the observations and think that we should take action to protect future generations. What is happening now, the observations occurring are global in nature.


          Report this

          09

          • #
            tom0mason

            In the last 17 years or so temperatures have not increased but CO2 levels continue to rise. Which part of this disjunction don’t you recognize.

            The IPCC see it (they like the word hiatus), CRU, Hadley, etc. all see it but you can not.
            Obviously you know of a special kind of ‘science’ that can dismiss finding true cause and effect, or even measurements.


            Report this

            40

          • #
            Safetyguy66

            BAHAHAHAHA so you list a bunch of factors you are CERTAIN would have an effect on this result, yet further up the page you state that the only possible factor worth considering as a causation is CO2.

            Your a joke mate…


            Report this

            20

          • #
            Backslider

            What I say is that when natural factors over the last 60 years are flat to slightly cooling

            When you say?? Why should we listen to what YOU say? What you have to say in this regard is patently FALSE. Natural factors over the past 60 years have NOT been “flat to slightly cooling”. That is an outright LIE and is something which YOU have fabricated. You have NEVER presented one scrap of scientific literature which makes this assertion.


            Report this

            00

      • #
        PhilJourdan

        In the last 4.5 billion years?

        Prove it.


        Report this

        30

      • #
        tom0mason

        And currently the NH has some of the coldest weather in recent times.
        The US alone has broken or equaled 2,000 cold records this year.


        Report this

        30

      • #
        tom0mason

        So nothing is getting cold. Well good you can explain a little global effect happening now -

        Tropics Go Wintery! … Northern Thailand Declared Cold Disaster Zone … Snow In Vietnam … In Turkey “Animals Literally Freeze Where They Stand”! –

        See more at: http://notrickszone.com/2013/12/19/tropics-go-wintery-northern-thailand-declared-cold-disaster-zone-in-turkey-animals-literally-freeze-where-they-stand-middle-east-shivers


        Report this

        10

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        Explanation please.

        You don’t know? You’re the newly minted climate scientist. You should be telling us, not asking us. :-(


        Report this

        10

    • #
      AndyG55

      And let’s not forget.. they have redefined “heat-wave” so that it now happens much more often.


      Report this

      71

      • #
        AndyG55

        Thing is… the general populace is now starting to wake up to their propaganda BS !

        Not long now and Australia will be augmenting the electricity system with proper coal or gas fired power stations instead of wasting money on so-called renewables.

        Once SA have a total electricity collapse, quite probably some time this summer .. people, and even politicians, will start to wake up to REALITY


        Report this

        41

        • #
          Bones

          Does the global temp currently used include the latest lowest temp from Antarctica


          Report this

          10

        • #
          Safetyguy66

          ABC News this morning, weather report. “Adelaide experiences its hottest day in over 80 years”.

          Ergo. It was as hot or hotter 80+ years ago with 80+ years less GHG…. yeah Im seeing the nature of the relationship now. Its called “non existent”

          But you have to love the way the media, particularly ABC cant announce anything without putting it in the context of a record.

          “Its the 4th hottest Tuesday since the week before last” its laughable.


          Report this

          20

          • #
            AndyG55

            YES it does seem that Australian temperatures are FINALLY getting back up to those of 70-80 years ago.

            That’s the good thing about “record” temperatures.. its really hard for BOM to “disappear” them.


            Report this

            10

          • #
            Bones

            The 4th hottest tuesday since the week before last?I shall have to redo maths,I cant figure that one out.


            Report this

            00

  • #
    janama

    Unbelievable that people are still writing these kind of articles.

    another “It’s worse than we thought” story


    Report this

    60

    • #
      Safetyguy66

      Yeah that does it, Im selling my VTR100SP1 and buying a push bike before its too late…


      Report this

      10

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      It might really be worse than we thought but for a quite different reason than you imply.

      Here’s a guy in a panic because the world isn’t exactly following some script he read. He’s thinking, life as I know it is over. He’s giving up on his children’s future.

      Mt. Rainier was still there for him to climb. What’s the real problem? No one is dying of the heat. What’s the real problem? Yet not only his but his children’s lives are over? We seem to have a lot of people in this state judging by things I see in my newspaper, on TV and elsewhere. And the real problem is that he was told the world was going to end so many times that he finally believed it.

      Yes, I think it just may be worse than we think.


      Report this

      10

      • #
        Safetyguy66

        Roy if people do start dying of heat it will likely be because renewables have put electricity out of the reach of so many people, particularly the most vulnerable such as the elderly and infirmed that cant afford to run their air conditioners any more.


        Report this

        10

        • #
          Roy Hogue

          I can’t afford to run anything much right now. The blasted juice bill is higher than a kite. Well, I can pay it. But the inflation in electricity per kWh since “deregulation” that was supposed to make more energy available and ease the summertime power crunches has instead, reduced the supply and made the summer months worse. And of course the price goes up along with anything they do. The Immortal Bard should have said, “First kill all the dogooders.”

          I need saving from the nuts who’re saving me from myself.


          Report this

          10

  • #
    PeterS

    It’s time to put scaremongers like the Greens in jail as they are a menace to society, similar to terrorists, and in some cases worse since they already have wasted billions, which could have been put to live saving uses.


    Report this

    40

    • #
      Greg Cavanagh

      Terrorists do it quickly, greens do it slowly. Same result.

      I think the law is incapable of helping with this situation. It needs a victim, and it needs a complaint to the police. So far, the victims die quietly alone, and nobody has complained to the police.


      Report this

      20

  • #
    Albert

    The Hiroshima bomb was a pup but not for those who were there, humans have tested a bomb 1,500 times larger than the WW2 bombs, I think they call it progress


    Report this

    30

    • #
      Greg Cavanagh

      You would expect a blip in the global temperature record if this is true.

      1,500 Hiroshima bombs devided by 4 per second. That’s an overload of the system for an equivilant 375 seconds. I so wish the atmosphere was transparent so that all this extra radiation could escape into space…


      Report this

      30

  • #
    Joe Lalonde

    Jo,

    If scientists “know the basics”, then why the hell have they not incorporated them into their mathematical models?

    The goof they made was to ignore everything but temperature data and add in some guessing adjustments for all the different levels of activities occurring in the atmosphere and on the planet.


    Report this

    50

    • #
      PeterS

      More likely the so global warming “scientists” already decided they wanted to show global warming by fiddling with the models to produce the results they were looking for. This form of corrupt science is in fact easily detected, and has been by a few legitimate scientists. What really is odd is how so many other legitimate scientists are still silent on this. It will have to take some more time and perhaps some more cooling before the game is up and the global warming “scientists” are finally put to shame (preferably put behind bars but I know that won’t happen).


      Report this

      61

      • #
        Safetyguy66

        I think your right Peter and thats the fundamental difference between the members of the AGW consensus and ordinary scientists.

        Your ordinary everyday scientist is interested in forming a hypothesis, then testing it for validity, then accepting the results of the observational evidence to either refute or prove their hypothesis or to open a new line of inquiry if the results do neither of the former or latter.

        http://youtu.be/7hYaPnkGTLM

        However in climate science we have a situation where a “goal hypothesis” has been “agreed to” (the consensus) then a curios process unrelated to science has been conducted whereby data is confected or created to support the original proposition as closely as possible. Any data that emerges outside of the fit boundaries is rejected and any data that appears to suggest outcomes beyond, but in the same desired direction as the goal is publicised quickly and loudly. Models are regarded as superior to observational evidence…. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/16/people-underestimate-the-power-of-models-observational-evidence-is-not-very-useful/

        ….and even though many reputable scientists may question both the process and the logic, they can be disregarded because the search is not for the scientific truth it is only for scraps to attach to and support the goal. Few KPI’s are established and those that are espoused are quickly (and usually retrospectively) re-jigged when they are not met. The list of utterly failed and often wildly inaccurate predictions is dismissed as “noise” and those that point out these failings are “cherry pickers” and “crackpots”. Which of course completely misses the point that in order to be able to “cherrypick” contra evidence, that contra evidence must exist. Consequently I regard the dog whistling behavior of warmists using words like “cherry picking” as solid evidence the counter claimant must have hit the mark pretty accurately.

        The vast majority of us would have spectacularly failed high school science by employing these methods. But in the modern world of humans controlling the climate of a planet, anything goes it seems.

        Science Teacher “So Johnny, your hypothesis does not seem to be supported by the results of your experiments”
        Johnny “No Sir you are just cherry picking the data that doesnt fit”
        Science Teacher “But Johnny you nearly burnt the classroom down while investigating how fast salt dissolves in water”
        Johnny “Maybe so Sir but if your going to continue to deny the validity of my results I will complain to the UN”

        Result = FAIL!

        Its about that ridiculous in today’s pseudo scientific world.

        One of the basic theorems that keeps me grounded in this debate is the Kadashev Scale http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Kardashev_scale.html

        If you can understand the Kadashev Scale and still think that a species who has half its population burning dung for warmth is manipulating a planet’s climate, then you don’t understand the Kadashev Scale. Id like to think that one day we may be technically competent and powerful enough to bend this planet to our whims, but we are no where near it at this stage. I have always and continue to regard AGW disciples as being rather narcissistic in their belief we are already there. Its a bit like suggesting the ants nest near the mailbox of your house is affecting the performance of the Fujitsu reverse cycle in your rumpus room.


        Report this

        41

        • #
          PeterS

          I agree with all what you said but please don’t use any of Richard Dawkins’ talks when discussing scientific research and understanding. He is a fool simply because he believes the Universe came from nothing but he defines “nothing” to be “something”. Furthermore, he believes in man-made global warming and the rest of the BS. He stated: “Yes. You could say that the human species is a threat to the human species. I recommend Al Gore’s film on global warming. See it and weep. Not just for the human species. Weep for what we could have had in 2000, but for the vote-rigging in Jeb Bush’s Florida.” So he once recommended Al Gore’s works!! Recently the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science stated the IPCC is surer than ever about human-caused climate change. So, please leave him out of serious discussions about science. He’s just as much a deceptive idealist as the “climate scientists”.


          Report this

          50

          • #
            Safetyguy66

            Well one thing I will say in defence of Dawkins as I am a pretty big fan is. He has never really put his cards on the table on AGW. He has made some minor statements and while his website certainly purports to represent his views…. finding written comments from him that accurately pin down his position on CC is not easy. I think so far he is still an agnostic who occasionally espouses support to remain aligned with the majority scientific community. I suspect form following him for a long time that he also has concerns about the evidence. One thing is for certain if he had ever come out strongly in support of AGW theory green groups the world over would have the quotes on T shirts.

            They do try to have a balanced debate at RD’s sites…. but on the whole the population of followers is overwhelmingly warmists, that much I agree with.

            http://www.richarddawkins.net/news_articles/2013/11/5/researcher-helps-sow-climate-change-doubt


            Report this

            00

        • #
          Joe Lalonde

          Safetyguy66 and PeterS,

          In the past, we regarded our scientists with our faith that they are correct in their pursuit of knowledge to enhance societies knowledge. They are given grants and awards for their efforts and have a monopoly on publishing. The same scientists went beyond their boundaries of education into politics. After all, it is the governments that give them grants and consultation fees. It is the media that pushes their theories as facts.
          Many “green technology” poorly researched and highly subsidized were pushed into the markets as advancing society…all that generated was massive debt to the public.


          Report this

          30

          • #
            PeterS

            I concur. The global warming mania has sucked in enough scientists to place a big stain on the cr3edibility of scientific research. You would think though that the vast majority of scientists who are at least skeptical would speak out en mass to shut down those who are willing to sacrifice the reputation of science for the sake of funding. But alas they are all only human. There’s also a lot of truth in the saying “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing”, and a lot of good scientists are too silent on the matter. Given time truth will prevail as always but look at the damage that’s already done, both in terms of credibility and the lost opportunity cost to the world. The real problem is with respect to climate science, science has failed to keep to its own standards and rules and instead as you said went beyond their boundaries of education into politics. The climate science we see most often peddled around today is actually nothing but politics (ie, a lot of cover-ups, lies and power driven ideologies).


            Report this

            00

  • #
    bobl

    Will J, Handjive, Michael …..

    And all this damage is done by an imbalance amounting to a christmas light in a column of air 1m x 1m x3km high, do this experiment take a column of air 1x1x3000m insulated transparent container open at the top so it can convect. Put a solitary christmas light at the top shining down. Put it outside in the Killowatt hours of energy streaming down each day and leave it for 10 years. Measure the temperature each day the beginning and end. You reckon the effect of the christmas light is gonna be detectable ….

    I might explain also that the tiny, tiny imbalance is easily explained via other forms of energy being extracted, for example, kinetic, electrical, Electromagnetic, Chemical, especially photosythesis and Nitrogen fixing, and other solid bacterial byproducts, even building vitamin D from Cholesterol in mammals consumes energy, entropy creation through weathering, sound, breaking down the paint on your house, extracting the clorine from your swimming pool or any one of thousands and thousands of little losses, and you reckon that little Christmas light can’t be found.

    One little christmas light…

    HaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHa, gasp (passes out)


    Report this

    60

    • #
      Michael the Realist

      Your kitchen science is pathetic. Not worthy of a more serious response.


      Report this

      110

      • #
        AndyG55

        Your worthless little list of lies , half-truths and concocted deception is a is PATHETIC.

        It is not worthy of any response except to tell you that it is PATHETIC load of PROPAGANDA BS !!


        Report this

        81

      • #
        Scott

        Michael your toilet science is worse


        Report this

        71

      • #
        bobl

        Does this mean you’re not going to do the experiment? awwww!


        Report this

        31

        • #
          MemoryVault

          Does this mean you’re not going to do the experiment? awwww!

          And a good job too!!

          Shame on you Bobl for suggesting such a potentially dangerous experiment without a warning about the potential hazards.

          I mean, over dry land, fair enough. But if your column was over water then very quickly the combination of the Christmas light and the trapped energy in the CO2 molecules would start to heat the water beneath it (from the bottom up) until the water was boiling from the ocean floor. This would start a positive feedback effect which would continue until all the earth’s oceans were sucked dry** as steam, up the one metre square vortex, bringing about the end of all life as we know it on Planet Earth.

          .
          ** – This is known scientifically as the Clinton-Lewinsky Effect. Also known to stain clothing.


          Report this

          60

          • #
            bobl

            MV, I just cracked up, there’s just such a mess, coffee all over the tablet, floor, the dogs lapping it up right now. The winner of the Christmas crackupathon is……

            MV.

            PS. THANKS I needed that!


            Report this

            30

            • #
              Roy Hogue

              And you can’t blame me for this one. ;-)


              Report this

              10

              • #
                bobl

                NO certainly not, two accidents from the same post. Have to say though MV’s posting was pure satire, while yours was funny, MV had me rolling ariund laughing for a good 10 minutes, even now when I read that post I still crack up and I know the punch line. I think it the vision of all the earths ocean being sucked up a 1×1 tube courtesy of one little cristmas light…. magic.

                MV, do you do parties?


                Report this

                10

              • #
                Bones

                With the use of the right science Roy,you can be blamed for anything.bobl will get a bib from santa to keep his play area clean and an MV party will be a gay and merry gathering


                Report this

                00

              • #
                Roy Hogue

                With the use of the right science Roy,you can be blamed for anything.

                Yes, I see. Science is even more of a problem than I thought. I’m beginning to want my own black hole to retreat into. It’s now become a matter of safety.


                Report this

                00

          • #
            Roy Hogue

            MV,

            You get today’s best humor gold star. Beautiful, just beautiful. :-)


            Report this

            10

      • #
        tom0mason

        You mean you can’t.
        You have no script, and because you have no original thought, you have nothing!

        Most of the great scientist in history worked from kitchen science, but then again they had the advantage of reason, logic, judgment, knowledge, and good fundamental grasp of the basics. Some of them even admitted as much, and said as much by citing a reference to “Dwarfs standing on the shoulders of giants (Latin: nanos gigantum humeris insidentes)”

        “Climate scientist” are IMO just dwarfs.


        Report this

        40

      • #
        PhilJourdan

        Pot, meet kettle.


        Report this

        10

      • #
        tom0mason

        You can’t reply. It’s not in your script.


        Report this

        20

      • #
        tom0mason

        Translation -
        That’s not on the script so Michael the Weirdest can’t answer.


        Report this

        30

      • #
        Backslider

        Your kitchen science is pathetic.

        This is always Michael’s response whenever he is presented with a real but simple scientific experiment. He detests real science.


        Report this

        00

  • #
    Neville

    I just wish I had the education and understanding to unravel Willis Eschenbach’s latest post at WUWT.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/18/the-fatal-lure-of-assumed-linearity/#more-99534

    I think I understand some of it, but would anyone here care to have a go? And please in reasonably plain english for we lay people. Just a short summary will do.
    I’m sure Jo and David could make it into an interesting post.


    Report this

    10

    • #
      bobl

      I can translate, since this is math I’ve been prattling on about on WUWT and with Monckton for a year now.

      Given a warming by CO2 the net warming is supposed to be amplified by 3 to give a Net gain of 3.3 odd. Willis is computing the satelitte record for warming against CO2 rise using the warming and CO2 rise to compute the actual gain over theoretical CO2 only warming. Willis uses a forcing argument, CO2 is supposed to generate a forcing of 3.7 Watts/m

      A gain (Lambda) of 1 means that just the forcing acts, and there is no Nett feedback, a gain of less than 1 means the feedback is negative and the amplified forcing is less than 3.7 W/m, and a gain greater than 1 means there is positive feedback and the temperature change requires a forcing greater than 3.7 Watts per meter the CO2 forcing had to be increased by feedback to get to the measured temperature. A gain of negative – forcing is inversely correlated to temp that is a forcing results in a reduced temperature, and at a gain of zero where the supposed the extra forcing of 3.7 watts results in no temperature change.

      What Willis shows is that the feedback (Gain) in the climate varies substantially by latitude and in the tropics falls to zero, (IE temperature is independent of forcing), and that it is very different over land and water.

      The major point here is that the gain (Lambda) is some inverse function of temperature, as the temperature rises the gain falls, until at about 30 degrees, it reaches a tipping point, there it doesn’t matter how much extra energy you put in, the temperature does not rise, due to a non linear negative feedback. Gain is not constant as the models show, more over it’s not linear (which means you can’t average it to a constant either).

      The equatorial non linearity is really interesting, over the ocean when the surface is 30 degrees, the humidity at height rises to a point where the water must condense, so temperature over 30 degrees in the tropics reaches a tipping point that rapidly causes clouds to form. The clouds/vapor thickens to the point at which they reflect the incoming energy to the point at which the evaporation can no longer sustain the clouds, the system saturates, because the incoming energy is limited to a particular threshold value (that at which increasing surface temperature causes cloud). Over the ocean in the tropics that happens at about 30 degrees. Toward the poles it’s likely this happens at lower surface temperatures because the temperature in the troposphere is lower and therefore the dew point is reached at lower humidity levels.

      The upshot is that in an earth atmosphere of 101.3 kPa, at 93 milliom, million miles from the sun, there is a hard limit to climate warming at about 30 degrees over water (75 % of the surface is water). This limits warming on earth, as the average temperature rises, the climate sensitivity falls, at 30 degrees over water, climate sensitivity is zero and warming stops.

      As I said on WUWT


      Report this

      30

  • #
    pat

    the “free market”, CAGW-style, is teetering:

    18 Dec: Reuters: Barbara Lewis: EU regulators launch in-depth probe of German industry subsidies
    (Additional reporting by Madeline Chambers in Berlin and Jan C. Schwartz in Hamburg; Editing by Dale Hudson)
    Around 2,000 German heavy energy users, including chemical and steel firms such as BASF (BASFn.DE) and ThyssenKrupp (TKAG.DE), have been exempt from a surcharge ordinary consumers have to pay.
    The Commission is examining whether the exemptions of around 5 billion euros ($6.9 billion) per year were unfair and should be paid back.
    In a statement, the European Union executive said discounts might be justified on some occasions to prevent energy-intensive firms leaving Europe, but it still had concerns that aspects of Germany’s law distorted competition…
    German Chancellor Angela Merkel, speaking on Wednesday before the Commission’s announcement, said Germany was seeking to remain a strong centre for industry and she did not see how the discounts could be unfair.
    “This is about companies and when it’s about companies, it’s about jobs,” Merkel said in the German parliament.
    “As long as there are countries in Europe where electricity is cheaper for industry than it is in Germany, I cannot see how we are distorting competition.”
    The enquiry has prompted criticism from heavy industry and the renewable sector…
    The renewables sector and green politicians also say the many months of investigation needed for an in-depth enquiry will shatter confidence…
    The utilities sector, which has said renewables subsidies distort the market and mean gas-fired plants cannot compete, said an investigation was necessary but any change should not be abrupt…
    http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/12/18/uk-eu-stateaid-germany-idUKBRE9BH0HB20131218


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Dave

    Even if these GREEN Wackos are correct,

    The destruction of the planet by their renewable useless endeavours are becoming real today.
    The same stupid SkS Hiroshima Bomb analogy, can be applied to each renewable energy source.

    Just one example is the Windmill bird shredders and bat popping contraptions, that Tony from Oz has already explained, as far as electricity production, they are useless.

    CONCRETE: over 250,000 of these monsters are already erected, and currently the average concrete usage is 500 cubic meters, older ones less and the bigger new ones more. So we have 1/4 billion cubic meters of concrete. This needs 12.5 million 10 cm concrete trucks to deliver, and if you put these end to end they would circle the circumference of the earth over three times. About 12.5 million tonnes of CO2 are emitted by the manufacture of this concrete.

    And in Australia, the average Windmill Farm generates $150,000/year in electricity & guaranteed $550,000 in subsidies.

    This is the GREEN GRAVY Train in operation. Grab the money, pollute the landscape, and give nothing back, apart from promising to shred birds and pop bats.

    The GANG GREEN GAIA’s are Criminals.


    Report this

    71

  • #
    pat

    reuters’ article on this subject is dated 18 Dec, while B’Berg is 19 Dec. however, i am sure Merkel failed to stop the probe. who knows what shenanigans are to come.

    our Govt needs to inform the public about the CAGW fraud, the cronyism, the exploitation of the developing nations, etc. our Govt must look out for Australia, period:

    19 Dec: Bloomberg: Stefan Nicola/Gaspard Sebag: Merkel Rejects EU Probe of Germany’s Green Discounts
    Chancellor Angela Merkel warned the European Union against undermining German industry, saying its review of aid to companies for energy bills may put jobs at risk.
    Merkel, in the first speech of her third term, defended her government’s practice of granting discounts on a clean-energy fee to companies that use a lot of energy. She and her new economy and energy minister, Sigmar Gabriel, will “communicate very clearly” to the European Commission that Germany needs competitive industry, Merkel said.
    “I can’t accept that we’re contributing to a distortion of competition as long as there are European countries where power for industry is cheaper than in Germany,” Merkel told lower-house lawmakers in Berlin today. “Germany would like to remain a strong place for industry.” …
    The commission said today that it opened an in-depth review into the rebates amid concerns they may be illegal. While the current guidelines don’t foresee the possibility to grant such aid, subsidies to offset high energy prices may “sometimes be justified” by the need to keep EU companies competitive, said EU Competition Commissioner Joaquin Almunia.
    “In the absence of an international agreement on climate change, the charges for financing renewables can be difficult to bear for some undertakings facing competition from third countries with lower environmental standards,” Almunia told reporters in Brussels…
    Germany, where every fourth job depends on foreign sales, will focus on protecting its exporting companies in negotiations with the commission, said Michael Fuchs, the economy spokesman for Merkel’s Christian Democratic Union…
    If a company isn’t exposed to international competition, then it shouldn’t qualify. Perhaps we will need to change the law. Certainly, we will need to make sacrifices.”…
    Scrapping the reductions would mean that many companies and thousands of jobs would be “immediately lost,” said Ulrich Grillo, the head of Germany’s BDI industry federation that represents about 100,000 companies including Volkswagen AG and Siemens AG…
    Merkel’s government plans to change the EEG clean-energy law next year to reduce costs of its unprecedented switch to renewables from nuclear energy and at the same time address EU concerns. The government seeks to present draft new legislation at the end of April for a parliamentary vote before the summer recess…

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-12-18/germany-protects-exporters-as-eu-probes-green-discounts.html


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Dave

    Someone here keeps mentioning about records?

    But forgot to mention over 2000 cold and snow records set in the USA this past week!


    Report this

    40

  • #
    pat

    ALL THIS AND MUCH MUCH MORE AT THE LINK. COMPLETE SURRENDER? NOT QUITE, BUT CLOSE:

    19 Dec: Bloomberg: Alessandro Vitelli/Mathew Carr: EU Emission Slump Tests Broker Survival Skills: Carbon & Climate
    As Europe’s recession recedes, trading via brokers in the $74 billion carbon emissions market is plunging amid a record glut in the commodity Richard Sandor once predicted to reach the highest volume in the world.
    Brokers’ share of the market slumped to an all-time low of 10 percent this year, from 30 percent in 2012, according to CME Group Inc. As middlemen from ICAP Plc (IAP) to GFI Group Inc. (GFIG) lost ground to regulated bourses, fees dropped to as low as 0.5 euro-cent (0.69 U.S. cent) a metric ton from 20 cents a decade ago, said Andy Ager, the head of carbon at Vertis Environmental Finance Plc in Budapest.
    The cost of emitting one ton of carbon dioxide in Europe fell 83 percent since 2008 as the financial crisis cooled industrial demand, aggravating a glut already fueled by policy makers’ handing out more allowances than polluters needed…
    The decline prompted about half of London’s more than 30 brokers to leave the market in the past five years, said Louis Redshaw, the former head of carbon and coal at Barclays Plc. (BARC)

    ***“Brokers aren’t charities,” said Steve Drummond, the former head of CantorCO2e, a carbon brokerage bought by BGC Partners Inc. in 2011. “People need to make a living. To make a living you need turnover.”…

    Sandor, who helped invent interest-rate futures more than 30 years ago and was the founder of Climate Exchange Plc in London before selling it to Intercontinental Exchange Inc., said in December 2009 that carbon dioxide will become the world’s largest traded commodity as governments curtail emissions of greenhouse gases that scientists say cause global warming. Crude oil is currently the biggest traded commodity.

    Brokers handled 114 million metric tons of EU emission permits in November, 61 percent less than the same month last year, according to data from the London Energy Brokers’ Association, an industry lobby group. Their market share was 14 percent, from 27 percent a year earlier, LEBA and exchange data show. Exchanges handled 689 million tons last month, 11 percent less than the 776 million tons in the same month last year, bourse data show…

    ICAP, the biggest interdealer broker, says carbon trading will only improve with tighter regulation. The system would lure more traders and investors if there was a central authority regulating the supply of permits, said Paul Newman, the managing director of ICAP Energy in London. Currently, the EU sets supply years in advance and makes no attempt to adjust it according to economic activity…

    Central Bank
    “This is a well-recognized feature of foreign-exchange markets, for example, and it’s an important way in which order and stability are preserved,” Newman said by e-mail in October…

    “The idea that we should have a central bank to manage allowances was not supported” in a consultation carried out by the European Commission, Jos Delbeke, director-general for climate at the commission, said Dec. 10 at a Center for European Policy Studies seminar in Brussels.

    At least 10 banks and brokers including JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM), Tradition Financial Services and UBS AG (UBSN) closed or reduced their emissions trading businesses since 2008, according to a report last month by the Institute for Public Policy Research in London. GFI, the New York-based interdealer broker, closed its carbon desk in London this year, transferring the business to other teams, according to two people with direct knowledge of the matter…

    The number of brokerages serving the carbon market may shrink to two or three in a year, from more than six today, said John Molloy, head of environmental products at Tradition Financial Services in London…

    “If the EU were to pass an ambitious 2030 framework for climate and energy policy, that would change the playing field completely,” said TFS’s Molloy. “Tighter emission targets in Europe will undoubtedly lead to higher pricing for carbon and likely garner a strong uptake in trading activities and subsequent involvement for the brokers.” …

    ***Emissions-trading jobs have all but disappeared, according to Peter Henry, head of front office research at Commodity Search Partners in New York…
    “I haven’t worked on a carbon emissions mandate since 2009,” Henry said by phone on Nov. 8. “We’re keen for a bit of buoyancy to return to these markets.”…

    As a more permanent fix, the regulator may propose next month a market stability reserve to ensure supply and demand don’t swamp each other in the future, Delbeke said…

    ***“With the collapse in prices, the emissions market has become a virtual tax,” said Mark Meyrick, the head of carbon trading at Eneco Energy Trade BV in Rotterdam and a trader low prices include that trading and broking desks are closing.”
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-12-19/eu-emission-slump-tests-broker-survival-skills-carbon-climate.html


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    Most companies still releasing unsustainable amounts of CO2—study
    SAO PAULO, Dec 18 (Reuters) – The majority of large global corporations that have reported their annual greenhouse gas emissions for several years now are still releasing more carbon dioxide than they should, a new study published on Wednesday showed…
    http://www.pointcarbon.com/news/reutersnews/1.3452943?&ref=searchlist

    should have excerpted this para from the B’Berg carbon trading article:

    - Envoys aim to adopt the package in 2015 and bring it into force from 2020, replacing the Kyoto Protocol. There’s no guarantee that deal will include carbon trading, according to Anja Kollmuss, an emissions trading specialist at Carbon Market Watch, a Brussels environmental lobby group. -


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    ***saw the ridiculous, empty 20-lane motorway on bbc sports today. bbc spoke of a green energy future for myanmar!

    13 Dec: AFP: Myanmar’s SEA Games host city baffles and delights
    Reforms have swept Myanmar since 2011 with the release of hundreds of political prisoners — including 44 on Wednesday, ahead of the SEA Games opening — the promise of elections, and the opening up of the nation’s straightjacketed economy…
    “The Games are not just a sporting event for our country,” presidential spokesman Ye Htut told AFP.
    “It’s our chance to present Myanmar to the international community. We want to show we can hold an event like this in the new Myanmar.”
    But to critics, Naypyidaw remains a monument to the worst excesses of Myanmar’s vicious former junta, which in 2005 uprooted government buildings from Yangon to the new capital. Yet the city they created remains sparsely populated.
    ***A 20-lane motorway — eerily devoid of traffic — arcs around the vast, gated parliament complex, while a handful of empty shopping malls and gem shops cater to a presumably wealthy, but strangely absent, elite.

    ***The surrounding countryside remains poor, in a low income nation of more than 50 million people where, according to the World Bank, a quarter of all children are malnourished and three quarters of the population has no access to electricity…

    Myanmar’s authorities have kept the cost of the games close to their chest.
    Both the president’s spokesman and a senior official in the sports ministry told AFP they did not know how much the event cost to stage.
    The future of the vast purpose-built sports complexes also remains unclear, although officials say they plan a new sports academy in the city to drive sporting excellence.
    http://au.sports.yahoo.com/news/article/-/20293901/myanmars-sea-games-host-city-baffles-and-delights/

    to the rescue?

    ***more like a Renewable Nightmare:

    7 Dec: Mizzima: Gordon Brown: ***Renewable Dream
    Can wind, sun and hot springs solve Myanmar’s electricity crisis?
    Wind and solar “farms” offer more reliable and less costly alternatives, said London-based BMI.
    “The country is heavily reliant on hydropower for electricity generation – 70 percent in 2010 – and this reliance has grown in recent years. However, the country experiences several dry periods throughout the year. This resulted in lower utilisation rates for hydropower capacity, exacerbating the existing energy shortage.
    “Meanwhile, the share of gas used in power generation has fallen from 62 percent to 31 percent, primarily due to the fact that gas supplies are being targeted for lucrative exports to Thailand and China.
    “By developing wind energy, the government could reduce its reliance on hydropower, as well as free up more natural gas for exports.”…
    Provisional agreements have been signed with Thai and Chinese firms to develop or assess potential to develop both wind and solar power projects in several areas of the country.
    Green Earth Power of Thailand signed a deal with the Ministry of Electric Power to build a 50 megawatt (MW) project at Minbu 300 kilometres north of Yangon…
    Meanwhile the US firm ACO Investment Group of New York signed a deal with the ministry for a 250 MW solar project also in central Myanmar, at Nabu-aing near Mingyan…
    Earlier reports had said Green Earth was planning a much bigger project of 210 MW at a cost of US$275 million.
    No reason for the reduction in size of the Green Power project was given by the newspaper. However, financial difficulties this year have prevented construction of several planned new power plants, the Minister of Electric Power Khin Maung Soe told The New Light of Myanmar in a separate report last week.
    “Distributed solar energy generation has the potential to be more cost-effective and robust than other forms of distributed generation, particularly diesel generation, BMI said…
    The minister admitted that Myanmar is currently suffering an electricity capacity shortfall of more than 5,000 MW, the worst gap in supply and demand since the country began opening up two years ago.
    Electricity demand is 8,929 megawatts but capacity this year is only about 3,600 MW, the minister said…
    Another Thai company, Gunkul Engineering, and the China Three Gorges Corporation, are separately conducting feasibility studies for wind power plants in several regions of Myanmar.
    Only about 25 percent of Myanmar’s population of around 55 million has access to mains electricity and this is often limited to a few hours per day.
    At present, China Three Gorges (CTG) is conducting surveys in Chin and Rakhine states as well as Ayeyarwady and Yangon regions, while Gunkul Engineering is assessing the feasibility of wind power in Mon, Kayin, Shan and Kayah states and Tanintharyi Region…
    “According to Khin Maung Win [deputy director general of Electric Power under the Ministry of Electric Power], Gunkul and CTG are planning to build wind power plants with a total capacity of 2,930MW and 1,102MW respectively,” said BMI in its assessment of Myanmar’s energy problems…
    Separately, the Singapore firm Emerging Markets Energy Limited has undertaken a project to search for underground geothermal energy in several areas of the Myanmar.
    http://www.mizzima.com/opinion/features/item/10714-renewable-dream


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Delory

    Do they make any mention of the fact that 300GW of installed wind turbines are directly taking energy OUT of the climate system, and hence also cause ‘climate change’?


    Report this

    60

    • #
      AndyG55

      And solar fields also “trap” energy that would normally be removed by NATURAL convective activity.

      As well, as melting the wax in birds’ wings and also blinding them. ….. Endorsed as “OK” by Greenpeace and WWF, of course.


      Report this

      30

  • #
    pat

    just noticed this para got garbled at the end of the Bloomberg carbon trading collapse piece:

    INSTEAD OF THIS:

    “With the collapse in prices, the emissions market has become a virtual tax,” said Mark Meyrick, the head of carbon trading at Eneco Energy Trade BV in Rotterdam and a trader low prices include that trading and broking desks are closing.”

    IT SHOULD BE:

    “With the collapse in prices, the carbon market has become a virtual tax,” Meyrick said. “People don’t trade taxes. The side effects of low prices include that trading and broking desks are closing.”


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Joe Lalonde

    Jo,

    The mess that our scientists are failing to understand is that you must INCLUDE all things in science to have a viable understanding of the planet.
    The system running on our planet is massively complex and changes every second. The system NEVER exactly replicates itself as in oscillation studies.
    Water loss to space is the heating of our land masses and storing and releasing that stored heat where ocean water reflects much of it back out. None of these systems are equal on this planet.

    This is another reason why when you try to reapply back a climate model to an actual globe, it fails as the globe cannot be averaged due to many processes going on at the same time.
    You can individually study a process, but then DON’T make it the ONLY process going on. They are interactive processes and any one process fails, we are extinct…


    Report this

    10

    • #
      Michael the Realist

      Water loss to space is the heating of our land masses and storing and releasing that stored heat where ocean water reflects much of it back out.

      Can you please provide some actual science, data and references to explain and verify this process.

      Models are merely projections of certain scenarios, the science does not rely on them. Actual science of the greenhouse effect can be measured and replicated, measurements at the TOA do measure a drop in energy at the bands affected by CO2, measurements at the surface do measure an increase in those same bands. Whe you look at the last 60 years you find that by natural variation we should have slightly cooled, but that is not what has happened. We have actually increased by 0.6 deg c. The cryosphere is melting faster than expected, sea levels are rising faster than expected and the oceans are warming. As expected weather has started getting more extreme, especially in precipitation events (hail, snow, rain), heat waves and droughts. The only explanation is that of enhanced greenhouse forcing, which is what the science has said since the 80′s and is confirmed by the measurements I mentioned above. Models are used because you cannot experiment with the climate system, the only way they can try and get a handle on where we are going with what we are doing is through models.


      Report this

      09

      • #
        bobl

        Codswallop,
        There are many explanations, CO2 is one of many theories, and there’s always the good ole Null hypothesis you conveniently forget. If you can’t prove your CO2 warming then the Null hypothesis can be defaulted to. You just can’t say it’s not anything else so it must be CO2, scientifically you can only say, it’s not anything else so it must be natural variation. Statistically warming is well within the previous range of temperture in the current interglacial period, thus within natural variation. Contrary to popular belief you can’t exclude natural variation, and nor should you be able to unless you can do better. CO2 warming does no better than natural variation at explaining late 20th century warming, in fact the current period is inversely correlated to CO2 and the null hypothesis has won the day.


        Report this

        50

        • #

          bobl–Michael has proven he is not capable of understanding science. I explained the exclusionary principle and how it tripped up Darwin, how many climate change papers fall back on the “we can’t find anything else” (i.e. exclusionary principle) and how very, very wrong that has turned out to be. He does not care. He doesn’t care about how science works and doesn’t work. He refuses to acknowledge reality, in spite of his screen name. I’m all for keeping with repeating reality in response, but I don’t see that it will take with M. He’s heard it all and refused to acknowledge any flaws in his superior perception and absolute truth. You can’t fix a religious zealot.


          Report this

          60

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      The climate is a chaotic system — the largest one in the world, in fact.

      A computer has not yet been built that can do the fractal calculations required to model such a system in real time.

      Everything that Michael spouts, is either outputs from models that look at simple subsets of the climate system, or unproven hypotheses that attempt to conceptualise one aspect of the climate system, or another.

      No doubt entertaining, in an after dinner discussion, but not something that is anywhere near robust enough, to bet a country’s economy on.

      The issue is that many politicians and academics and fellow travellers do not realise how little they know.

      It is the real physicists, and chemists, and hydrologists, and others in related fields, who just happen to have sufficient in-depth knowledge, in their own specialities, to realise how little is really understood about the climate, and the way it changes.

      But these physicists and chemists and hydrologists, et al, are the very people, who get shouted down by the Michael’s of this world, because, to the Michael’s, they are not ordained, and blessed, “climate scientists”.

      When the physicists and chemists and hydrologists, et al, try to point out flaws in the “climate science” approach, the Michael’s of this world demand evidence of the flaws. In effect, they ask for the proof of a negative, in order to protect their own misguided position. This is not only illogical, it is also devious and unprofessional, and actually demonstrates that the Michael’s of this world are scientifically illiterate.

      There is no point in debating with the Michael’s of this world, because there is no common ground, from which a debate can start.


      Report this

      30

      • #
        Joe Lalonde

        Rereke Whakaaro,

        It is actually not chaotic.
        The theory of it being chaotic is the lack of understanding of the whole process as many.
        There are trillions of measurements and calculations that could be done just from the planets surface to the outer atmosphere and every point is unique.
        Add in planetary tilting, rotation, gases and their different structure and differences, solar ray penetration, gravity, centrifugal force, water and water vapour, distance movement from the sun, rotational slowdown, orbital slowdown, etc, etc…The many combined into one biosphere.

        It is facts that seem to be tossed aside to keep their theatrical models alive by using bad mathematics.


        Report this

        20

        • #
          AndyG55

          got me.. I initially read that word as “theoretical”..

          Well done :-)


          Report this

          10

        • #
          tom0mason

          Joe Lalonde
          Wrong it is manifestly chaotic. From your criticism you appear to believe that all the processes that make-up climate are known, or can be, and all it take is to mathematically concoct a method whereby the answer can be gained. This sounds very foolish and presumes that we know not only all the process involved but also how these interact. We don’t even know accurately the TSI impacting on to the planet (see above 22.2.1.4.3)

          Think about it for a moment. If there are say four processes, 1,2,3, and 4. 1 and 2 interact with 4 but never 3 directly. 3 and 4 react together and reduces 2′s effect on any other. 1 and 4 when interacting together cause 1′s effect to lessen on 2 but only if 2,3,4 have particular ratios. etc., etc, etc,…
          Now scale that up to the climate with millions (trillions?) of interacting and independent processes going on (some of which we may not even have found yet), and with all those feedbacks(both immediate negative and positive, and delayed). You think we will ever truly find a formula for that?

          Then what – BANG! goes another Krakatoa and you start all over again. Or are you presuming we will be able to predict that too?


          Report this

          00

          • #
            Rereke Whakaaro

            Tomomason,

            Thank you for that explanation.

            Joe Lalonde,

            I take an engineers perspective on these things (when I am not worrying about propaganda), and a lot of the atmospheric variation is what an electronic engineer would term white noise.

            Now, white noise, in an electronic system, can be analysed into a number of frequencies, plus all of their harmonics, and more white noise. And you can then analyse that secondary white noise and the same thing happens, and theoretically does so forever.

            And that only applies to a discrete system at one point in time. At another point in time, the white noise will be dependent on a different range of frequencies.

            Add to that the occasional pops, and screeches, which are purely random, and non-repetitive, and you have a system that cannot be analysed at all, in real time, using even the most sophisticated measuring equipment and computing power.

            Apart from a general hat-tip towards the seasons, and time of day, climate is never repeatable, over any time scale. That is why I say it is chaotic, and therefore non-deterministic, no matter how powerful the analytical engines might be.


            Report this

            00

            • #
              Joe Lalonde

              tom0mason & Rereke Whakaaro,

              It would be a fool to rely totally on mathematics such as we current have with the current scientists.

              You have ignorance in the system that do NOT want to further their knowledge that there are vastly more to our complex planet than just a simple mathematical model.

              Yes, everything is constantly changing but we can record ALL events and not just whatever the whim of scientists. This would give a better understanding to project the future.
              You need a vastly greater knowledge of many areas from past to future and our scientists REALLY ignore the past to push CO2…

              If our planet is 4.5 billion years old(and I concur with this) then why is C02 proxies not even close to that old?


              Report this

              00

        • #
          Backslider

          The many combined into one biosphere.

          But you know, they find they must instead use a bioflatland without night or day.


          Report this

          00

  • #

    MIchael’s back, MIchael’s back, MIchael’s back. If you set that to a little tune in your head, it can cheer up and make your day happy and bouncy. MIchael’s back, MIchael’s back, MIchael’s back. Far more useful than actually reading what he writes. All old material, as it is.

    Love your attitude, ED!!


    Report this

    20

  • #
    Michael the Realist

    Jo, that must be embarrassing for you. Neither you nor any of your readers can answer my question and come up with an alternative reason for the warming that is backed up by science and data.

    Tell me, what would you consider proof? Do you understand that science of the natural world isn’t that simplistic? Do you understand that I showed above that even your scientists expected it to cool by now due to natural variations. Do you understand that all the above is consistent with what would happen with a world influenced by enhanced greenhouse forcing and that there is no other explanation. You have no answer for all the data presented above, data that is by observation alone. The only evidence available is that CO2 did it, there is no other explanation, and you know it.


    Report this

    115