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



Climate Scientists say extreme summers “must be” due to CO2 “we can’t think of anything else”

Tick off Argument from Ignorance from this weeks Climate Bingo card.

Scientists who can’t predict temperature trends, clouds, rain, or humidity, are telling us that greenhouse gases must have caused the extreme summer last year because, they don’t have a clue what else might have done it. Journalists, editors, and scores of conference goers apparently fell for it.

The Mercury

THE extreme temperatures that ravaged Australia last year cannot be explained by anything other than greenhouse gas, the nation’s biggest annual meeting of climate scientists heard in Hobart yesterday.

Researcher Sophie Lewis told the Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society conference about her hunt for reasons behind the extreme sum­mer, which coincided with Tasmania’s January 2013 summer.

Notice the brazen ambition here — they pretend that they can predict, understand, and model “natural climate variation”:

“It is nearly impossible to explain it from natural climate variation. Greenhouse gases are needed to explain this,’’ the University of Melbourne researcher said.

So figure perhaps, that if they knew all the forces in natural variability they might be able to predict the climate?

Remember, this is 95% certainty talking to you. Basically, they are “not wrong” because no one can predict the climate. (Damn shame coming for them when some skeptic figures it out isn’t it?)

The logical fallacies are provided for public mockery by the The CSIRO, The Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, and ill-informed journalists. If only Bruce  Mounster, science reporter, had been trained in Aristotelian logic and reason. If only the editor of Tthe Mercury, Tasmania had had a proper classical education.

If only someone at the CSIRO or BOM was left who knew how to reason, and could teach Blair Trewin.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.1/10 (113 votes cast)
Climate Scientists say extreme summers "must be" due to CO2 "we can't think of anything else", 9.1 out of 10 based on 113 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/ot9nvyn

342 comments to Climate Scientists say extreme summers “must be” due to CO2 “we can’t think of anything else”

  • #
    Kaboom

    Lack of imagination is not a permissible scientific tool. They might feel less lost sorting letters at the post office.


    Report this

    180

  • #

    Basically, they are “not wrong” because no one can predict the climate. (Damn shame coming for them when some skeptic figures it out isn’t it?)

    The pause in warming has been enough to get a lot of people thinking but how many will figure it out and become skeptics with a vengance if the pause turns to cooling that is more extreme than the warming was made out to be. By deleting the Little Ice Age from history they have opened this possibility. The pause in warming so far should be enough to wake up anyone because it is so obviously not a hockey stick. It is really only people who have chosen not to think that are still going along with this.


    Report this

    320

    • #
      Andrew

      Any time the filthy warmists mention the “hockey stick” refer them to 150-year old science showing that the GHG property of CO2 is logarithmic and ask them why they draw it upside down. (For added head-explodiness, I also slip in that if they’re drawing it concave up rather than the “scientific” concave down, they’re a cult member and anti-science.)


      Report this

      51

  • #
    Kevin Lohse

    It’s Occam’s Razor – wielded by Sweeney Todd.


    Report this

    161

  • #
    Mark D.

    THE extreme temperatures that ravaged Australia last year cannot be explained by anything other than greenhouse gas……

    You must have quite a pool of Co2 hovering over your great continent to account for the hot summer you’ve been having.

    Surely someone could find all that co2? Maybe you could back feed all those windmills, turn them into fans and blow the Co2 away?


    Report this

    261

  • #
    richard

    It’s hard to imagine the stupidity of these people. We know that east Africa had a 100 year drought in the 16th century and we know that the US had 100- 150 year droughts over the last 2000 years and still they keep coming up with co2 as a cause for some not so extreme summers compared to the past.


    Report this

    260

    • #

      I spent the largest part of my youth growing up in a part of Australia like many other parts that was a great big flood plain. When great big flood plains are being created again we will know the weather is back to normal. It will need to go beyond that to be extreme.


      Report this

      120

    • #
      Gos

      To the Chicken Littles,the past can only be generalised unless they change it to accord with present climate models.
      In other words unless the past agrees with the future they won’t contemplate using it.
      History does have a habit of making fools out of pretenders,that’s why they are determined to try and change it,but their big problem is that if you don’t learn by the mistakes of history you are forced to repeat them.


      Report this

      90

  • #
    Peter Miller

    Someone need to explain to these ‘experts’ there is a difference between climate and weather and those few hot days last year were weather, not climate, related.

    Also, if the original, unhomogenised, untortured, original historical temperature data was looked at, then there would be nothing special about last year’s temperatures.

    However, scary innuendo helps keep these ‘experts’ employed. And keeping these ‘experts’ employed ensures the continuation of the scary stories and projections.


    Report this

    200

    • #
      The Griss

      “Also, if the original, unhomogenised, untortured, original historical temperature data was looked at, then there would be nothing special about last year’s temperatures.”

      can I repeat that , in bold.

      Also, if the original, unhomogenised, untortured, original historical temperature data was looked at, then there would be nothing special about last year’s temperatures.


      Report this

      290

    • #
      Frankly Skeptical

      But Peter you have not kept up to date. Mr John Holdren Obama’s science adviser has just said (are you sitting down) climate change (human no doubt) is causing the weather !!


      Report this

      20

  • #
    The Griss

    Then I guess it must be CO2 causing the warm winter in the USA and other parts of the northern hemisphere..

    It is meant to be a global thing, isn’t it ?


    Report this

    240

    • #
      john robertson

      Aye and the Antarctic ice to “shrink”.
      An active imagination could claim the magic gas causes Australia to warm, Antarctic to cool, North America to oscillate…Guam to roll over….
      An honest scientist would say;”I do’t Know” when asked to make predictions of weather, Mandelbrot pointed where they will have to go.
      But maths is hard so the mediocre went to government science instead.


      Report this

      140

    • #
      Gos

      You are right with that,hot in summer it must be global warming,cold in winter climate change,if spring and autumn are normal then it is the result of both climate change and global warming…see the science is settled,now on to the next subject.


      Report this

      60

  • #
    PeterS

    One could make a similar asinine statement and say due to the extreme winters in the US must be due to CO2 because we can’t think of anything else. The term climate scientists should be now termed officially an oxymoron. They are not scientists, they are con artists, and they are not good at it either, which makes them dumb non-professional con artists.


    Report this

    150

  • #
    BilB

    And there was me thinking that this was a science review website, I’ve only now realised that it is just a comedy blog.

    The clue should have been the number of clowns who comment here and the nonsense put forward, but now that the lead act has resorted to lampooning scientists the blogs burlesque intent is beyond doubt.

    My first thoughts on the change in tone were of desperation now that the climatic impacts of Global Warming are visible on a daily basis and the quest to prove the opposite has failed, but now I suspect that there was never any serious intention from the start.


    Report this

    114

    • #
      bullocky

      -
      Don’t be too hard on Philip, he means well!


      Report this

      10

    • #
      Chester

      This is clear to those that aren’t Group Think subscribers to the club here BilB. The irony of Jo’s banner where she reveals she is fighting it by creating her very own Group Think Bonanza is very comical. Throw in her pictureon the banner and it’s clear she’s just another attention-seeking contrarian who side-stepped ever doing any real science herself but sets herself up on the Internet to take cowardly, unwarranted pot-shots at real scientists doing real science.

      Nova is Nasty.


      Report this

      112

      • #
        bullocky

        -
        “Nova is Nasty.”
        -
        That’s the clincher, Ches.
        She wont be able to sleep tonight and it’ll be ALL YOUR FAULT!!!


        Report this

        40

      • #
        bobl

        Hmm, Let’s pit your science against Nova shall we. Now where’s that empirical proof that warming is A – Catastrophic, B – Man-made, C – can be practicably mitigated. C’mon, I’ve called, time to lay down your cards


        Report this

        50

        • #
          ColdinOz

          My Money’s on bobl


          Report this

          20

        • #
          BilB

          Bobl,

          Start here

          http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/11/global-warming-since-1997-underestimated-by-half/

          …but if you have bought into the trash argument that all climate scientists, other than that tiny handful that support your preferred opinion, are scammers then there is no evidence that will satisfy you. You will just ramp up the excuses until the destructive climate has destroyed everything that you have built, then drop out of sight.

          A) Catastrophic? you have got to be kidding. The British Prime minister was on the news declaring that the current climate pummeling was going to severely effect the economy. In Spain and France locals are calling their share of the drama unprecedented. In the US the cold snap, all part of the same Arctic air flushout, is devastating their economy as this drags on for weeks. Meanwhile in the Arctic temperatures are above normal, as would be expected. And this is just the beginning with global temperature just one degree above preindustrial. Furthermore with the accelerating CO2 emissions the rate of heating will continue unabated. Climate systems have immense inertia so once they shift from one state to another there will not be any kind of instant flick back, it is not like taking ones foot off the accelerator of a car.

          B) Man mad? The evidence for that is in the numbers, on the one hand and in the massive change that humans have made to the surface of the earth. Use your google earth to take a look around the globe to see the degree to which we have disfigured the surface of the land. Deforestation is almost complete in most lands, with only a few exceptions. No doubt you want to cling to the solar oscillation obfuscation, and on a previous thread someone tried to say that droughts can last for hundreds of years,…. as cycles. That is all very desperate excuse making.

          C) Can be mitigated? Well concerted global action has retarded the growth of the Ozone holes. There is some proof that changing our emissions can make a global difference. But considering that population growth to 9 billion is locked in and both India and China are hell bent of building cars for the masses, the path ahead is guaranteed to be tough to catastrophic,…and in many ways.

          One of the main advantages for adapting to renewable energy sources is that it prepares us in a timely manner for the energy crunch that will come as oil production declines in the face of strong energy demand from the Asian block. With oil at 100 Euro per barrel, it will not take much of a demand shift, or a production slump to make everyone’s life fairly miserable, possibly indefinitely.
          What have we got stacked up against us?

          Global Warming and Climate Change
          Oil Depletion
          Ocean Acidification
          Deforestation
          Arable Land Loss
          Continued Population Growth
          Glacial retreat and reduced fresh water access
          Fish Stock Depletion
          Sea Level Rise

          And you lot here think that it is a fruitful enterprise to argue vehemently that nothing is changing??

          —–
          Sorry, this was caught in the spam filter for no reason at all that I can see. The auto filter deals with 2000 comments a week. It’s amazing it doesn’t get more false positives. But once a comment is caught, sending a copy only convinces the algorithm that it was right. Sigh. – Jo


          Report this

          02

          • #
            bobl

            First of all, don’t cite RealClimate until the Bore Hole is removed, I won’t even link there. It’s a warmist echo chamber of the highest degree, no science there because there is no debate there.

            A) Catastrophic … Now you argue on weather, weather is not climate. The English Floods are being shown to have much more to do with poor maintenance of drainage than unprecedented rain, on that point the rain in England is NOT unprecedented having been worse 16 times since records began. 2. You Argue that the sharp Cooling in the USA is the product of a global warming that hasn’t happened for 20 years – seriously. Remembering that the USA Deep Freeze has caused the global temperature average to drop markedly in January, you are in effect arguing that Global Warming causes Global Cooling? Rain and snow are normal weather concerns especially in a period that has shown either little change or cooling since 2001, causing few problems except of course if you price heating out of the budget of pensioners who subsequently die from energy poverty. You are missing cause from cause and effect. Meanwhile let’s consider the effect of you getting your way and of cooling the climate just 0.8 degrees to the preindustrial depths of the Little ice age – This period killed half the population of Europe just 0.8 degrees cooler than 1999 !

            But let’s get away from the subjective stuff and become objective, how much extra precipitation (snow/rain for floods and blizzards) can 0.6W of imbalance per square meter cause – well let’s calculate it!

            Now to evaporate water from an average of 15 degrees and raise it 3KM into clouds where it can rain out takes energy, this much
            2260 KJ per Kilogram (Heat of Vaporization)
            3000×9.8 J = 29.4 kJ to raise it to 3kM
            = 2289 kJ per kg (or 2.289 MJ)

            (Not taking into account ice melt that this might need )

            World precipitation averages about a meter per annum (over a surface of 510,072,000 Square km 510,072,000,000,000 Square meters) so a meter cover over each square meter give a cubic meter of rainfall per square meter on average which weighs 1 Tonne.

            To evaporate a Tonne of water and raise it to 3kM costs 2289000 x 1000 J = 2289 MJ we’ll need this later.

            There’s about 8766 hours in a year at 0.6W radiative imbalance so we have 0.6×8766 = 5259 Watt hours (5.2 kW-h) CO2 warming per square meter per annum. A kWh equals 3.6MJ so our 5.2kWh = 18.7 MJ per annum and therefore 0.6W per square meter can evaporate 18.7/2.289 = 8.16kg more water per square meter per year.

            Convert to a ratio
            8.16/1000 = 0.816% more evaporation for rain, snow and superstorms.

            Hmm 0.816 % doesn’t look catastrophic to me. Gotta love math hey!

            Of course if all that was happening then all the 0.6W would be consumed in evaporation and there would be NO WARMING.

            B. Well Let’s see, I’ll take a look at google, and I See that 80% of the earth is unchanged from preindustrial, being ocean, poles, and deserts. The rest is impacted but in minor ways and mostly just in the area of cities. The landscape in the country areas is largely unchanged for 100 years, however I note that we have seen a 6% greening since 2001 related to CO2 fertilization of vegetation and and the only thing that has been hurt is my back from mowing the lawn and weeding the garden more frequently. Man’s increase in CO2 (and Nitrogen fertilisers) has raised food availability by more than 15% – By the way, you didn’t address the question, where is your empirical PROOF than MAN increased the CO2, and that it’s not outgassing by the ocean driven by the warmer temperature that done it ? You do know that the percentage of Mans emissions is below the margin of error for calculating total emission don’t you?

            C.
            Mitigation is impossible
            Take the largest Carbon Tax in the World, Australia

            Aimed to Reduce CO2 by 0.05
            Costs 11 Billion dollars a year
            Australia is 0.013 of World CO2 Emission
            Mans Emission is 0.03 of total emission

            Australia’s effect then is 0.013×0.03 = 0.0003 of world CO2, and we are going to spend 11 Billion a year to make a 5% dent in that or 0.000015 of a difference for 11 Billion a Year. CO2 is about 400PPM so we make a difference of 0.000015 x 400 PPM is 0.006 PPM To reduce a doubling (3 Degrees) we need to do that 400/0.006 66,666 times so offsetting a doubling costs 66,666 x 11 Bn Dollars PER ANNUM or 733 Trillion dollars per annum, this gives a climate sensitivity to Carbon Tax Dollars of (By The IPPC numbers – 3 degrees per doubling) 250 Trillion dollars PER ANNUM per degree of mitigation – This is approximately 1 1/2 of world GDP – Ohh yeah, real practical this “Mitigation”. Of course if I’m right and climate sensitivity is a third of that at 1 degree per doubling then it costs 750 Trillion dollars per degree of mitigation.

            Meanwhile of course while we go on spending the world’s riches on solar power and windmills instead of real social good , people keep dying from hunger (UN Says needs only 30 Bn a year to solve), Cancer, Malaria, Measles, and dysentery – Not to mention the aforementioned pensioners in England and apparently Adelaide who died from the shock of their electricity bills caused by that waste. Not directly of course but after the power bill shock caused them to try to save on their heating bills in winter.

            Fuel Poverty kills

            Next Argument…


            Report this

            40

          • #

            Ah BilB, you really haven’t done your research here where you say this:

            One of the main advantages for adapting to renewable energy sources is that it prepares us in a timely manner for the energy crunch…..

            Might you explain to us how renewable power plants which operate on average at best for one third of the day/year could ever begin to replace power plants which are operational to supply electrical power on a 24/7/365 basis, considering that 60 to 65% of all power being consumed is on that 24/7/365 basis.

            The only energy crunch that there will be is if we continue this mindless headlong rush towards using renewable power, which, despite a ramping up of humungous proportions still only makes up less than 2% of all power being generated on a Worldwide basis, 2%, when that absolute requirement is 60 to 65%.

            Those of you who tout renewables either don’t do any research on the matter, or just plain don’t even bother, just thinking the usual ….. a power plant is just a power plant, no matter what the type.

            Well BilB, they aren’t I’m afraid, and until you actually do your research, and then understand what you’re actually reading, then hype is all you’ve got I’m afraid.

            If it wasn’t for Hydro power, renewables would be shown for the absolute failure that they are. They will never be able to do what is claimed, to replace traditional power plants.

            Tony.


            Report this

            40

            • #
              The Griss

              As we have seen with these AGW absotles, they are very, very reluctant to do any research of their own.

              I guess they are just too scared of finding out the real truth of the matter.

              As soon as you widen your search away from SkS etc, you realise that something smells very, very fishy.. rotten fishy.


              Report this

              30

            • #
              bobl

              Thanks Tony, so many things were wrong so it was difficult to cover everything and keep my post to a manageable size


              Report this

              10

            • #

              BilB–As has been pointed out repeatedly by those who actually research renewables, wind and sun are renewable, mining, materials and sufficient land space are not. The billions of tons of mining annually, the manufacturing plants, etc are extremely resource intensive. The only way sun and wind can help if we could really “farm” them–plant seeds and the turbines spring up. Even if we went with all homes off the grid and on wind and solar (which is not really workable, but at least everyone does not have power outages at the same time), the cost of the components and maintenance in terms of resources would be huge. Add up all the construction materials in 10 wind turbines, add in the acres for mining, manufacturing and transporting, the number of acres per turbine (or solar panel). It makes a coal mine and power plant look small. Oil rigs are far less invasive than turbines, the pump jacks are tiny and unobtrusive. Uranium is mined in situ. There’s no way to use wind and solar without seriously damaging the environment, over and over (the turbines do not last 25 years and they require constant maintenance.) On the other hand, the US has huge reserves of oil, gas and uranium, plus coal. There is no energy crunch. Australia may find they have resources also, assuming they can be utilized. Note: In the US, hydro and geothermal are not counted as renewable in most cases. They are established and do not get subsidies, so they are omitted.

              (Note: If you have any doubt about how damaging renewables can be, farmers in the US are ripping up virgin prairie that they had previously been paid not to farm as a conservation measure, because the demand for corn for ethanol is so high. Areas that lay untouched for years are now fields. Goodbye conservation and thank you greens.


              Report this

              10

        • #
          BilB

          Bobl,

          I’ve taken your challenge and put up a comment, but it has disappeared to I don’t know where. it may turn up some time.

          [There is nothing held in moderation. -Fly]


          Report this

          01

          • #
            BilB

            I’ve tried to put the substance up several times with altered text to avoid the duplicate comment test, but it just disappears into the ether. Do you have an automatic “sucker punch” subroutine to weed out links to RealClimate real science Mod?

            ——
            No. Did they use crass words? ;-) I’ll look in the spam folder. Jo

            Ahhh. Bingo. I’ve released it, and deleted the copies. Realclimate links usually go through just fine. Sorry about the delay. – Jo


            Report this

            11

          • #
            bobl

            And I have responded


            Report this

            10

      • #
        Backslider

        it’s clear she’s just another attention-seeking contrarian who side-stepped ever doing any real science herself but sets herself up on the Internet to take cowardly, unwarranted pot-shots at real scientists doing real science.

        It’s clear that you are just a no hoper who trolls blogs taking cheap pot shots at real scientists who have the gumption to expose would be scientists and their guff.

        Am I wrong Chester the Cat? Ok, then please show to us all where the “real science” is in vapid statements such as “It is nearly impossible to explain it from natural climate variation. Greenhouse gases are needed to explain this”.

        Show to us all the science which has explained natural climate variation, since clearly you must be able to do this before making such a statement.


        Report this

        21

    • #
      Backslider

      Well it’s not only comedy…… LOOK!! It’s Bilbo the Clown!!!!


      Report this

      20

  • #

    Any news from Australia on ‘Ship of fools’ saga and insurance issues?


    Report this

    140

  • #
    John West

    How many scientists would accept: ‘It is nearly impossible to explain it from natural variation. God is needed to explain this.’ Or how about: ‘It is nearly impossible to explain it from natural variation. Witchcraft is needed to explain this.’

    How many scientists would entertain such notions?


    Report this

    230

  • #

    Proof by induction does imply you’ve definitely got a finite and known set of options; which is why it’s rarely used by grown up scientists.

    Pointman


    Report this

    190

    • #
      Vic G Gallus

      The “Oh, we forgot about the deep oceans” kind of makes it obvious that not everything has been considered.


      Report this

      90

      • #
        Philip Shehan

        No, they did not “forget about” the deep oceans. When Trenberth did his original accounting exercise, reliable data from deeper than 700 meters was not available.

        When data from down to 2000 metres became available, much of the “missing heat” was found. That leaves a lot of ocean to go, and other repositories of heat that are not currently accessible to measurement.


        Report this

        016

        • #
          Vic G Gallus

          There is no reliable data. You can’t pretend that the standard deviation from many measurements in different places gives you the error as if it was many measurements in the one place. Each Argos FRoB (is it a float, robot or buoy?) measures only to the nearest 0.1°C. What was the difference after 10 year? (Looks like its gone up to 0.02°C. Adjustments or did I miss read something?)

          Needless to say (one would hope) just because you couldn’t measure it does not mean that it should be ignored. And if the deep is warming now, it was warming at the same rate before 2003 (prove that it wasn’t).


          Report this

          80

        • #
          Mark D.

          When data from down to 2000 metres became available, much of the “missing heat” was found.

          Did you really say that and do you really believe that?

          Do you ever ask yourself: If there was NO data (before it was available) How do we know how much “heat” was there before?

          The fact is no one can claim to know anything about anthropogenic deep ocean “heat content” changes. Anyone that makes that claim is, well you fill in the blank. Anyone with an understanding of statistics should immediately recognize that the 2000 meter data is incredibly sparse and there is virtually NOTHING to compare it to 30 years ago and older. If you have problems with noise in the surface temperatures, how can you even talk about 2000 meter ocean records?


          Report this

          70

        • #
          Reed Coray

          AGW alarmists will never run out of potential hiding places for the missing heat. Robert Allen and Steven Sherwood said although direct temperature readings couldn’t find it in the upper troposphere, an analysis of wind data taken from weather balloons as a proxy for direct temperature measurements has found it in the upper troposphere. Clever stuff that upper tropospheric heat–it can hide from thermometers but not from proxy wind data measurements. Now the heat is hiding in the deep oceans. What’s next–the basements of Al Gore’s many mansions? This would all be slightly comical if the issue stayed within the ivory towers of universities. However, many AGW alarmists are demanding that we significantly change the way we convert stored energy into energy useful for mankind. In particular, they want us to reduce our fossil fuel usage to (insert the date of choice) levels. To make such a change based on our current understanding is insanity; and only a fool doesn’t see the insanity and a charlatan won’t admit it.


          Report this

          70

          • #
            The Griss

            I love the way the missing heat sneaks into the deep oceans, without affecting the temperature of the top and intermediate layers on the way. Magical.
            Yet people are somehow conned into believing it.


            Report this

            70

            • #
              Rereke Whakaaro

              That is easy to explain.

              There is a point in the deep ocean, where geothermal activity in the earth’s crust starts to exert a greater influence on water temperature, than can be explained by solar activity and cyclic currents.

              The question that is yet to be addressed, is in explaining the exact mechanism whereby geothermal activity is impacted by the concentration of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere.

              I already have already submitted my application for a research grant, and expect to receive a huge cheque any day now.


              Report this

              31

        • #
          bullocky

          Philip Shehan:
          …………….”No, they did not “forget about” the deep oceans. When Trenberth did his original accounting exercise, reliable data from deeper than 700 meters was not available.

          When data from down to 2000 metres became available, much of the “missing heat” was found….”
          -
          -
          This is where ‘pal review’ is indispensable!


          Report this

          30

          • #
            The Griss

            “When Trenberth did his original accounting exercise, reliable data from deeper than 700 meters was not available”

            And yet once very sparse measurements became available they managed to say it had increased.

            Increased from when, if there was no previous reliable data ?

            Its all one big con, there for the monumentally gullible.


            Report this

            40

        • #
          ColdinOz

          Data based on a temperature differential that is outside the ability of argo buoys to measure accurately.


          Report this

          10

        • #
          bullocky

          Philip Shehan:”……That leaves a lot of ocean to go, and other repositories of heat that are not currently accessible to measurement.”
          -
          Plenty of scope for more data comparisons that are bogus – Skepticalscience may need extra stall, Philip!


          Report this

          00

    • #
      Philip Shehan

      Pointman.

      All science is based on inductive reasoning. No scientific theory can ever be entirely sure that everything is accounted for in its formulation.

      All scientific theories are approximations to reality. And “model” is an alternative word for “theory”.

      Newton’s laws of mechanics, including planetary motion, were a masterstroke of inductive reasoning which withstood almost every challenge for 300 years.

      As Alexander Pope wrote:

      “Nature and Nature’s laws lay hid in night:
      God said, Let Newton be! and all was light.”

      But in the early twentieth century, the formulation of quantum mechanics and relativity superseded Newton’s picture of the universe.

      And no-one claims that quantum theory and relativity are the end of the story. In fact they cannot be because at the atomic level they are irreconcilable.

      Reconciliation awaits the formulation of the Grand Unified Theory, (GUT) or Theory Of Everything (TOE).

      Inductive reasoning can never “prove” anything. That is why I agree that strictly speaking, science is never “settled“. That is sloppy usage. Theories can however for practical purposes be established to a very high degree of probability (and usefullness). Or as George Box put it:

      “Essentially, all models are wrong, but some are useful.”

      Inductive reasoning contrasts with deductive reasoning used in mathematics and formal logic, where proofs must follow from the axioms.


      Report this

      014

      • #
        Vic G Gallus

        A bit of reading for you.

        As for

        No scientific theory can ever be entirely sure that everything is accounted for in its formulation.

        That’s not the same as ignoring many things then and calling it inductive reasoning. Remember, “no amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.” Berty, I think.


        Report this

        50

      • #
        bullocky

        Philip Shehan:”…..Or as George Box put it:

        “Essentially, all models are wrong, but some are useful.”
        -
        -
        Yes, but he wasn’t a climate scientist looking for research funding, either!


        Report this

        10

      • #
        Backslider

        Reconciliation awaits the formulation of the Grand Unified Theory, (GUT) or Theory Of Everything (TOE).

        No, you have that wrong. It’s the Grand Objective Deduction (GOD).


        Report this

        10

      • #
        bullocky

        -
        Philip Shehan:..”… When Trenberth did his original accounting exercise, reliable data from deeper than 700 meters was not available.

        When data from down to 2000 metres became available, much of the “missing heat” was found.”
        -
        -
        Is this an example of inductive reasoning or Skepticalscience..?


        Report this

        00

  • #
    The Griss

    Why is it that humans seem to invent religions when things happen that they can’t explain.

    Are they scared to admit that they just don’t know.

    ‘Not knowing’ is where science should start.


    Report this

    220

    • #
      Philip Shehan

      Griss:

      That is precisely where science does start. Scientists spend their working lives trying to find answers to the questions they don’t yet have the answers to. That is what the scientific project is all about.


      Report this

      014

      • #
        The Griss

        Oh.. so the science isn’t “settled”.. Do tell. and thanks for the confirmation. :-)

        Climate science is still very much in its infancy, and we should not be wasting billions of dollars on random guesses.

        How stupid will the AGW cult, (of which you are a member) look when the planet start cooling for the next 20-50 years.

        Like moronic idiots, that’s how
        you will look. :-)


        Report this

        70

      • #
        bullocky

        Philip Shehan:
        “That is precisely where science does start”
        -
        So long as it’s not where it finishes.
        -
        As a broad distinction;
        Disciples of religion contrive to prove their ‘theory’ correct.
        Scientists, on the other hand, would (we hope) strive to disprove a given hypothesis.
        -
        Science is dynamic, religion is settled.


        Report this

        30

      • #
        Greg Cavanagh

        Asking intelligent questions might also be useful.

        So; you believe these scientists are 97% certain that they are correct?

        And; it would save the world to destroy the worlds economy back to the 16th century?


        Report this

        30

        • #
          Philip Shehan

          Greg:

          I have never quoted the 97% claim as I do not think the two studies using different methods which arrived at this conclusion sound.

          But the claim was never that scientists are 97% certain that they are correct.

          No. But the premise is a straw man.

          Economists have calculated the reduction in GDP if CO2 reduction would be in the order of less than 1%. pardon me if I do not go searching for the refs and precise numbers.


          Report this

          13

          • #

            Since Philip doesn’t want to search, I’ll put in this link. Since I really don’t understand Australian politics and economics very well, I’m just putting this out for consideration.
            http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/IER_AustraliaCarbonTaxStudy.pdf

            Also, if reducing CO2 would reduce the GDP by less than 1% (in Australia?), why are countries scrapping their emissions goals due to the extreme cost? It seems like in the real world, green is very, very expensive.


            Report this

            30

            • #
              Graeme No.3

              The 1% reduction was calculated by Nicolas Stern.

              I don’t know what Climatologists think of the figure but it received almost universal derision from Economists who were not committed to AGW.


              Report this

              10

              • #
                bullocky

                -
                “The 1% reduction was calculated by Nicolas Stern.

                I don’t know what Climatologists think of the figure but it received almost universal derision from Economists who were not committed to AGW.”

                -
                As with the climate models, the assumptions underpinning the projections need rigorous objective scrutiny.
                The challenge lies within the ambit of the words ‘rigorous’ and ‘objective’. After more than 20 years of increasingly polarised AGW debate( much of which has been conducted away from public view) and a burgeoning portfolio of related investments, whom could be nominated for jury, as having the abiding confidence of the people?
                -


                Report this

                00

              • #

                Graeme No.3: Thank you. I have searched for the origin of that figure to avail in the past.


                Report this

                00

            • #
              Philip Shehan

              Thanks Sheri and Graeme. My apologies for being lazy but time is limited. Have spent lot of time on this blog today and I do have other things to do.

              I just noticed this post while I was in the middle of writing Sheri another one below (looking for a link to put up there)where I was also intending to apologise for not responding to a lot of other comments of yours.

              Yes that should have been gross global product, not gross domestic product.

              Yes Graeme it must have been the Stern figure I was recalling.

              Ross Garnaut did the calculation for Australia. My recollection is that his figure was much less than that given in the table in the link you provide, but that is critical of Garnaut’s evaluation. From a quick look the link does not give garnauts figures but says:

              Professor
              Ross Garnaut of the University of Melbourne was
              commissioned by the then Leader of the Opposition
              (and current Prime Minister), Mr Kevin Rudd, to report
              to Australia’s Federal and State Governments on “the
              possible ameliorating effects of international policy
              reform on climate change, and the costs and benefitsof various international and Australian policy
              interventions on Australian economic activity.”8

              So probably Garnaut was offsetting the costs of at least some of the anticipated purely economic losses from anthropogenic climate change.

              Either way, on the basis of the numbers below, the costs of mitigation even assuming zero costs of doing nothing do not portend the destruction of the worlds economy back to the 16th century.

              COUNTRY/REGION POLICY COMMITMENT GDP LOSS IN 2020

              UNITED STATES -15% ON 2000 LEVELS BY 2020 -2.7%
              JAPAN -37% ON 2000 LEVELS BY 2020 -5.1%
              AUSTRALIA -5% ON 2000 LEVELS BY 2020 -6.3%
              EUROPE -24% ON 2000 LEVELS BY 2020 -4.9%
              CHINA +350% ON 2000 LEVELS BY 2020 -3.7%
              OPEC +105% ON 2000 LEVELS BY 2020 -5.9%
              WORLD +70% ON 2001 LEVELS BY 2020 -3.2%


              Report this

              01

              • #
                Philip Shehan

                PS. I think in the figures the table may represent the total loss of GDP (in Australia’s case) by 2020, not for just 2020, which may bring the average yearly cost closer to 1% GDP per year.


                Report this

                01

          • #
            Philip Shehan

            PPS. It’s kind of coming back to me know and I will have to check (sorry a bit late now), but I think Garnaut’s numbers were that Australia’s long term GDP growth is about 3.5% a year and the 1% (or less) was the reduction in annual GDP growth for a limited period until the economy fully adjsted. So the economy would still grow but only by 2.5% per year for while which may be what the table is indicating until 2020.


            Report this

            01

            • #

              Yes, it would matter if it’s a reduction in the growth of the GDP or the current GDP in the year implimented. 1% is actually quite significant, though it sounds small. The growth rate varies, as do the reported values (there’s those pesky statistics again :) ) so it’s all kind of difficult to follow. Plus, I have trouble getting an actual “plan” with figures, or without, for reducing CO2. Some sources (Garnaut’s too, I believe) not that there will not be any rapid reduction for decades. Some say we can’t–it’s too late. So figuring this out is very difficult. Thanks for your input.


              Report this

              10

          • #
            bullocky

            Philip Shehan;….”But the claim was never that scientists are 97% certain that they are correct.”
            -
            Indeed.
            And the majority of included papers do not factor in the extent of the current warming hiatus and therefore do not reflect the most recent positions of the authors.


            Report this

            00

  • #
    pattoh

    Ever seen a petulant cranky child screaming & stomping it’s foot?


    Report this

    120

  • #
    diogenese2

    “When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, is the truth” Sherlock Holmes from “The sign of the four”.
    The possibility that they have not eliminated is that there is NO cause of the hot period in Oz(which coincides with extremely cold periods elsewhere). Climate being a “complex coupled non linear system incapable of prediction” (IPCC), means it is also incapable of deterministic description. It can only be comprehended as a probability function. Its outcome (weather)may oscillate within the constraints of multiple feedbacks. Any “forcing” can do no more than adjust the parameters of one or more feedbacks. The status of the climate at any time, however dependent on its past, gives no
    clue as to its future. Even though cycles are discernible, they also oscillate within parameters.
    Totally missing from this report is any reflection on the GLOBAL climate metrics but instead attribute cause to atmospheric CO2, which has no known regional influence.
    Weathermen everywhere I suppose, just like here in the UK & the USA with contradictory problems, (mostly failures of prediction!).


    Report this

    150

    • #

      There has to be a cause. Whether or not we can find it is the question.


      Report this

      102

      • #
        diogenese2

        When you toss a coin, is there a cause as to “heads or tails”?
        Watch a tree in autumn and try to predict the next leaf to fall. What causes the gull to choose one fish rather than another? You can know these things will happen, with 97% confidence, but which and when? This we call “randomness” rather than confront that which we cannot know.


        Report this

        90

        • #

          diogense2: It seems you are requiring predictibility to have cause, if I understand your examples. Yes, there is a reason why a coin lands heads or tails (gravity, force of toss, shape of coin). Yes, there is a reason why the gull chooses one fish over another. Being able to predict when the next leaf falls is not necessary to it having a cause. Again, gravity, weight of leaf, and wind would all be forces involved in which leaf falls next. The cause(s) exist even if we are not capable of ennumerating them or understanding them.


          Report this

          51

          • #
            Philip Shehan

            Sheri, my first comment was in response to your observation that we may never know everything in terms of cause or anything else.

            With regard to your second comment, quantum theory (which has been validated by experiment and observation to the most incredible precision) states that even if we knew EXACTLY every “initial condition”, we cannot predict what the actual outcome will be with certainty. (Thus Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle.)

            At the fundemental level, the universe is based on randomness and probability, which led Einstein (something a of a fuddy duddy who never really accepted quantum theory) to say:

            “God does not play dice with the universe”

            To which Niels Bohr responded:

            “Stop telling God what to do with his dice.”


            Report this

            013

            • #
              The Griss

              “states that even if we knew EXACTLY every “initial condition”, we cannot predict what the actual outcome will be with certainty.”

              Like climate science, except they have zero idea of the initial conditions, or of many of the operations within the climate.

              They keep finding new places to hide the “missing heat”, which is winning the hide and seek game, hands down. :-)

              Yet if they make their predictions with a wide enough range, they think they can be 95% certain……

              ……. until they have to adjust their prediction range even wider.

              Next prediction will be downwards.. you watch :-)


              Report this

              50

              • #
                The Griss

                “Next prediction will be downwards.. you watch :-)

                Darn, I forgot, they have just bean and done that. They’ve got wind, you know ;-)


                Report this

                30

              • #
                Philip Shehan

                Actually Griss, the factors causing climate change are understood pretty well.

                http://www.sciencemag.org/content/326/5960/1646/F8.expansion.html


                Report this

                013

              • #
                The Griss

                Really.. you talk about short term errors and then you produce that.

                Its just a hindsight curve fitting exercise.

                You are a pseudo-scientist, so you know that, yet you still bother posting it.

                Is there any level you will not stoop to ?

                What did he predict 10 years ago ?

                What does this guy predict 2, 5, 10 years out


                Report this

                40

              • #
                Vic G Gallus

                Your taking the piss, Philip. Where is the factor for the heat hiding down the back of the couch with all the loose change from your pockets and that key that you’ve been looking for all these years (or just the heat in the deep oceans)?

                Please look at Philip’s graph, Jo.


                Report this

                70

              • #
                The Griss

                You have to laugh how they have picked the anthropogenic forcing, of which they really have no idea, and then pretend to have a causation.

                I bet they just kept trying different values until it was the best fit they could get.

                Quite funny :-)


                Report this

                20

              • #
                bullocky

                Philip Shehan

                February 15, 2014 at 4:59 pm

                “Actually Griss, the factors causing climate change are understood pretty well.”
                -
                It must be the algorithms that are at fault, then!


                Report this

                20

              • #
                Philip Shehan

                The period covered in the graph is 29 years.

                When previously discussing the problems with short term temperature data sets, I was referring to the error margins resulting from a linear regression analysis of the temperature data. Not the same as what is being discussed here, which is the fit of a model to the data sets.

                However, in the former context I think you will find that I have nominated several decades as the minimum time period where one can confidently expect a linear trend of the data to show statistically significant warming, and the linear regression fit for Hadcrut4 temperature data for the 29 years of the model fit is

                Trend: 0.177 ±0.056 °C/decade (2σ)

                which is statistically significant.


                Report this

                09

              • #
                Philip Shehan

                Griss, Vic and bullocky;

                If you don’t like the earlier graph showing how the calculated contributions of anthropogenic forcings are necessary to produce a fit with the observed data, here is a plot of an ensemble of model runs showing the same thing:

                http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-9-5.html


                Report this

                07

              • #
                bullocky

                Philip Shehan:
                -
                “If you don’t like the earlier graph showing how the calculated contributions of anthropogenic forcings are necessary to produce a fit with the observed data, here is a plot of an ensemble of model runs showing the same thing:”
                -
                -

                So that’s what caused the models to fail – how disappointing!


                Report this

                31

              • #
                The Griss

                “calculated contributions of anthropogenic forcings are necessary to produce a fit with the observed data”

                So ignorance of other possible factors leads then to assume the anthropogenic factors made up what they didn’t know about.

                And that is meant to prove the anthropogenic forcing.. seriously?

                Are you really a scientist, or are you a con artist?

                And again, they have not matched the observed data, they have match Jones/Hansen modified data. Not the same thing at all.


                Report this

                40

              • #
                Philip Shehan

                Griss, “The massively corrupted Hadcrut temperature fake series” is in agreement with all the other series:

                http://tinyurl.com/l5ojm6b

                “Also notice how different the temperature series is to the even more fake one that you posted from SkS the other day.”

                No. If you examine the graph you will see that it matches the other graphs in the link above.

                http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/AMTI.png

                The author of the graph is in fact Dr Robert Way who explains the data set:

                http://www.skepticalscience.com/Monckton-Myth-2-Temperature-records-trends-El-Nino.html

                I looked at more than just the traditional Hadley, NASA and NOAA datasets, but also the measurements of the lower troposphere processed by Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) and the University of Alabama-Huntsville (UAH) as well as the 5 major reanalysis datasets which incorporate station data, aircraft data, satellite data, radiosonde data and meteorological weather modeling. In hopes of being able to demonstrate robustness I have compiled data from the 10 different sources, with these, and 2010’s year-end temperature ranking summarized in Table 1.

                http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/SummaryTable.png

                Each temperature dataset has their own individual caveats so it is difficult to assess which is the most reliable, but a purely unscientific way to look at this issue is to put all the datasets on the same baseline and to average them to create the All Method Temperature Index (AMTI). I have put all the Table 1 datasets on the 1990-2000 baseline (so we could include all) and have averaged them to create Figure 1.

                “This one still had some of the 1940′s peak left.”

                As do all the other graphs displayed above.

                “And proves that its all one big fudge with no basis of reality.”

                As I replied to Gos:

                “Once again, the fallback position when confronted with data that is unpalatable to “skeptics” is that it is “fudged”. Is there no end to this warmist conspiracy?”


                Report this

                07

              • #
                Philip Shehan

                Griss,

                “calculated contributions of anthropogenic forcings are necessary to produce a fit with the observed data”

                So ignorance of other possible factors leads then to assume the anthropogenic factors made up what they didn’t know about.

                And that is meant to prove the anthropogenic forcing.. seriously?

                No. Now pay attention and concentrate this time.

                The calculated contribution of the anthropogenic factors is in the same category as the calculated contributions of the various natural factors.

                It’s just that “skeptics” don’t go around asking “warmists”: “How do you know that ENSO/volcanoes/solar cycles/etc contibute to global temperature?”

                To which the answer is:

                “It is nearly impossible to explain it from anthropogenic climate variation. ENSO/volcanoes/solar cycles/etc are needed to explain this’’

                Now try this:

                “calculated contributions of natural forcings are necessary to produce a fit with the observed data”

                So ignorance of other possible factors leads then to assume the natural factors made up what they didn’t know about.

                And that is meant to prove the natural forcings.. seriously?

                Still want to run with that kind of argument?


                Report this

                09

              • #
                The Griss

                Yes.. you really are a com artist. You know we are talking pre-1979 Hadcrut, and it does not match earlier data, not even Hansen’s earlier data.

                All earlier data shows the 1940 peak up level with the 1998 peak, but that would be totally inconvenient for the fairy tale.

                There is absolutely zero proof that there is anything but natural forcing.

                Just because they are too ignorant to know all the maximum forcings and can’t make calculations work because of their ignorance, doesn’t mean they have to invent anthropogenic forcings.

                To do it the other way around and make up anthropogenic forcings to cover their ignorance, then say that what is left is natural really is another massive fabrication.

                The whole thing is one big con..

                And you have fallen for it hook line and sinker. :-)

                Time for you to wake up out of your stupor and start to concentrate on what is real, and admit that you have been conned.

                Will your arrogance and egotistical self-importance allow you to do that? I very much doubt it.

                It will be fun watching your mental disintegration as the temperatures start to drop over the next few years. :-)


                Report this

                50

              • #
                Vic G Gallus

                No. Now pay attention and concentrate this time.

                How about you listen to your own advice. You provided the evidence that without taking everything into consideration (energy balance with the oceans, both near the surface and the deep oceans) there were a enough variable parameters to provide a very good fit to the data of what did happen and that was not a simple curve.

                How does the saying go? Give me four variable parameters and I will give you an elephant. Give me five and I’ll make its trunk wiggle.


                Report this

                40

              • #
                The Griss

                “Now pay attention and concentrate this time”

                A silly comment from a stupid, brain-washed, arrogant fool,

                who’s maths is now limited to doing basic linear trend calculations without any understanding of what he’s actually doing.

                I was teaching year 11, 12 maths/computing a couple of years ago. Your efforts are similar to those of a student you has just learnt to use Excel.


                Report this

                30

              • #
                Greg Cavanagh

                Why isn’t the graph Philip Shehan linked to accelerating?

                It looks linear, yet with population and Chinese coal stations, it should be logarithmic.


                Report this

                10

              • #
                bobl

                Now, Phillip

                Go take a look at your own graph, see the contributing bit from CO2, thats 0.45 degrees over 30 years right? Now what’s that over a century? Hmm, seems like I was right, looks like about 1.3 Degrees per doubling to me, which is totally consistent with my calculations of warming from the LIA ’till now. Can we now agree that warming from CO2 is far from catastrophic, turn off the lights and go home?

                PS this wiggle match is the ultimate cherry pick, I could produce that by subtracting a small constant bias from the other 3 factors and add it back in as a “Anthropogenic signal”. In fact there does appear to be such a bias in the ENSO and maybe the solar graph. This chart means nothing. If anything it shows that ENSO and solar completely dominate the climate.

                How much of that Antropogenic signal is in fact, reduction of SOx, reduction of black carbon, natural reduced cloudiness, other albedo change, UHI or other anthropogenic or natural effect not accounted for in this trivially simplistic model. What’s left is CO2, so here you have a graph that says only, when you take away solar and enso and volcanic factors – Everything that’s left is attributed to mankind…. Yup real sciency.

                All this graph says is that the maximum bound of CO2 warming is LESS than 1.3 degrees per century and probably considerably so. Like Jo said, we don’t know exactly what is bundled into that Anthropogenic bundle and nor do you!


                Report this

                40

              • #
                Philip Shehan

                Griss, The only “earlier data” I have seen was a graph put up by Andy (I think, or maybe it was yourself) which was for the land based US only, not global temperatures and had no accompanying text explanation.

                You do not present any evidence to back your assertion that “All earlier data shows the 1940 peak up level with the 1998 peak”

                You fail to explain why Hansen’s allegedly corrupted data is essentially the same as the other data I presented, contrary to this assertion: “You know we are talking pre-1979 Hadcrut, and it does not match earlier data, not even Hansen’s earlier data.”

                This statement is completely ridiculous and rules you out as being any sort of genuine skeptic. You are a straight out denialist:

                “There is absolutely zero proof that there is anything but natural forcing.”

                Leaving aside the fact that proofs are a matter for deductive reasoning systems such as mathematics and formal logic, not inductive systems such as empirical science, genuine skeptics accept that there is evidence for an anthropogenic contribution. They may dispute the evidence, but they recognise that it exists. In fact all credible skeptics, like Lindzen and Spencer recognise the that anthropogenic forcings contribute to climate, but dispute “warmist” assessment of the magnitude of the contribution.

                ‘“Now pay attention and concentrate this time”

                A silly comment from a stupid, brain-washed, arrogant fool,

                who’s maths is now limited to doing basic linear trend calculations without any understanding of what he’s actually doing.’

                Listen sunshine, you are the one who started the arrogant put downs, and after a while I get tired of letting it slide:

                “You are a pseudo-scientist, so you know that, yet you still bother posting it.

                Is there any level you will not stoop to ?”

                “you are just playing silly buggers”

                “But hey, keep going.
                Its good for a laugh ”

                And finally:

                “Are you really a scientist, or are you a con artist?”

                Those who are polite to me get the same treatment in return.

                I had explained over and over the point that contrary to the premise of your statement, the calculated contribution of the anthropogenic factors is in the same category as the calculated contributions of the various natural factors which is why I asked you to pay attention and concentrate.

                With regard to my mathematical ability and use of linear regression where appropriate , now pay attention and concentrate this time.

                One second thought I won’t go into yet another explanation of the limitations and uses of linear regression, other than to remind you of Occam’s razor; don’t use any more complicated maths than is necessary.

                And in fact this thread I include an example of where linear regression is inadequate to fit the data, but you don’t like it:

                http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/AMTI.png

                Vic: “You provided the evidence that without taking everything into consideration (energy balance with the oceans, both near the surface and the deep oceans) there were a enough variable parameters to provide a very good fit to the data of what did happen and that was not a simple curve.”

                I take it you are referring to the 4 parameter fit here.
                http://www.sciencemag.org/content/326/5960/1646/F8.expansion.html

                Yes Vic , yes I did. So far no argument. But the fit is not perfect (r^2 = 0.76).

                Yes I have heard about the elephant, but that does not mean we should limit any theoretical frame work to an arbitrary number of parameters. It means that we must make sure each additional parameter added is legitimate, and not just there to get the tusks right or make the trunk wiggle.

                In fact some here seem to suggest that we should go on looking for additional refinements until we get the tusks and trunk just right and can dispense with the necessity for the anthropogenic forcing, and this can go on forever because if we haven’t found them yet, we just need to keep looking.

                Thus the anthropogenic contribution can never be “proven”.


                Report this

                07

              • #
                The Griss

                “Those who are polite to me get the same treatment in return.’

                And ? so what !!

                You really think I care about if you want to be polite.

                As long as you bring your crap here, I will tell you want I think of you and your agenda.

                Get used to it, or leave.


                Report this

                41

              • #
                Philip Shehan

                Greg (and bobl): I assume you mean this graph:

                http://www.sciencemag.org/content/326/5960/1646/F8.expansion.html

                And since you may not have read my earlier writings on the uses and limitations of linear regression, I will go through it again.

                Where there is no reason to expect a linear regression and the data is noisy so it cannot be determined what the underlying curve may actually be, linear regression is often used as a default option. So yes for this data a linear fit is the best that can be hoped for:

                http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1980/to:2009/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1980/to:2009/trend

                But looking at the complete set of data the linear fit seems inadequate:

                http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from/to/mean:12/plot/hadcrut4gl/from/to/trend

                and is in fact better fitted by an accelerating curve:

                http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/AMTI.png

                bobl: This is why the linear regression trend line for the 29 years of the graph, while statistically significant, cannot be extrapolated over a century or more:

                Trend: 0.177 ±0.056 °C/decade (2σ)

                Clearly over the last century the temperature has not risen by 1.77 °C. (Or even 1.21 °C if we subtract the error margin to give the lowest statistically significant possible trend) The actual rise is about half of 1.8 °C.

                Neither can the linear trend of temperature vs time be extrapolated into the future, but if on the basis of calculations for data since 1850, 1958 and 1979 the temperature rise vs log of CO2 continues to be linear as dictated by the theory, the temperature rise for doubling of CO2 concentration will be approximately 2 °C.

                And bobl since you have been polite and seem to be new to this thread so may not have seen the arguments I have made on this many times:

                You are making the same wrong assumption that this whole thread is based on – that unlike the natural forcings, solar, ENSO volcanic etc, the contribution of the anthropogenic forcings (and I did earlier note that this includes the anthropogenic factors you mention but that CO2 is the dominant one) is simply and assignment of what is left over after the others have been added up and subtracted from the data.

                THAT IS NOT THE CASE.

                Sorry for shouting but I do seem to be having trouble getting this across.

                The anthropogenic contributions are calculated from the theoretical and empirical understanding of the individual forcing parameters in the same way that contributions from the individual “natural” forcings are.

                It is no more correct to deligitimate the natural forcings by asserting that they are nothing more than what is left over after taking the calculated anthropogenic forcings into account. And this statement would be no more correct:

                “We don’t know exactly what is bundled into that natural bundle and nor do you!”

                THE ANTHROPOGENIC CONTRIBUTIONS ARE NO MORE “THE LEFTOVERS” THAN THE NATURAL CONTRIBUTIONS.

                Yes, shouting. Again. One can but try to point out that this prejudice against the calculation of anthropogenic as opposed to natural forcings and somehow qualitatively different is nothing more than that – a prejudice.

                We DO KNOW quite a lot about what is bundled into BOTH the natural and anthropogenic bundles.’

                Just for starters, we know how the amount of energy per second per square metre of the earths surface varies with CO2 concentration.

                http://knowledgedrift.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/log1-co2.jpg

                This is just one factor that goes into the calculation of the total anthropogenic forcing in the same way that the amount of energy per second per square metre which reaches the earth due to variation in solar output goes into the calculation of the total natural forcing.


                Report this

                04

              • #
                Philip Shehan

                Thanks Griss but I think I will stick around.

                Just don’t get precious and huffy about my alleged arrogance if you address me in that manner and I return serve.


                Report this

                05

              • #
                The Griss

                We know there are many natural forcings,

                we do not know there are anthropogenic ones, as you say, they cannot be proven.

                So they are not in the same category.

                Occam’s razor says that we should assume the simplest explanation, which is that it is all natural, unless we can prove otherwise.

                Nearly every post you make has arrogant back-hand put downs embedded in it, and you, poor thing, are going to have to get use to a bit in return.

                Your limitation to linear trends in a non-linear system shows your mathematical immaturity, and your acceptance of manifestly corrupted temperature data say a lot about you in general.


                Report this

                30

              • #
                Philip Shehan

                Oh, and Griss, it did not escape my attention that you have made no attempt whatsoever to answer the substantive points of my response to your complaints.

                As I have noted before,quoting Anthony Watts, personal abuse is a sign that you lack the confidence that you can win the scientific argument.


                Report this

                06

              • #
                The Griss

                I see no reason to answer anything while you refuse to accept certain truths about data manipulation, and while you continue to link to mis-information from SkS.

                This shows that you have absolutely zero interest in listening to facts from other places.

                You have your own little agenda, and listening and learning is not part of it.


                Report this

                40

              • #
                The Griss

                Until you are prepared to accept the masses of evidence pointing to flagrant manipulation of temperature data pre-1979 I see no point in discussing anything with you.

                You seem to not only condone this blatant misuse of raw data, but to actually relish using it to push your agenda.

                I hope this has only happened since you retired.


                Report this

                30

              • #
                Backslider

                calculated contributions of anthropogenic forcings are necessary to produce a fit with the observed data,

                It has been shown, over and over, that the calculated contributions of can just as easily produce the desired fit.

                This is not science Philip. Please learn the difference between number juggling and science.


                Report this

                30

              • #
                bullocky

                -
                Philip Shehan….”No. Now pay attention and concentrate this time”
                -
                -
                ‘Don’t watch the pea, watch the thimble!”


                Report this

                10

              • #
                The Griss

                “”No. Now pay attention and concentrate this time””

                When you say something worth reading, but its all just so boringly moronic !!

                You are a waste of time and space, you insignificant, mathematically illiterate, old fool.

                You gave up learning ages ago.. good luck in your dotage.

                ps, I have read that they are doing good work on arresting dementia nowadays..
                ..lets just hope they aren’t fudging the data as much as ‘climate science’ has.


                Report this

                30

              • #
                bullocky

                -
                Philip Shehan:
                ….”As I have noted before,quoting Anthony Watts, personal abuse is a sign that you lack the confidence that you can win the scientific argument”
                -
                You may prefer ‘bait and switch’;an analogy that Steve McIntyre uses.


                Report this

                00

            • #
              The Griss

              The fact that they match to the massively corrupted HadCrut temperature fake series.. proves they are wrong.

              And proves that its all one big fudge with no basis of reality.


              Report this

              60

              • #
                The Griss

                Also notice how different the temperature series is to the even more fake one that you posted from SkS the other day.

                This one still had some of the 1940′s peak left.


                Report this

                60

              • #
                The Griss

                When you are prepared to go back to original unadjusted data, and prepared to look at a whole peak to peak trend, then we can talk.

                Otherwise you are just playing silly buggers with cherry picked trends on the upward reach of the temperature cycle,

                …. essentially going from trough to current slight peak.

                Its pointless and really should be below someone with your education standard, if you had any standards.

                But hey, keep going.

                Its good for a laugh :-)


                Report this

                60

            • #

              Yes, Philip, Heisenberg. At the “fundamental level”, there may be only probability, but on a macro level, that does not seem to apply, though I do know that pseudoscience just loves to use quantum mechanics to explain all kinds of macro phenomena. The closest we have come is to seeing quantum on a macro level appears to be spooky action (entanglement) between two diamonds. It remains to be seen, however, if we could ever know all of the input parameters and thus test the theory.


              Report this

              10

              • #
                Philip Shehan

                Actually Sheri, as I wrote, quantum mechanics has been subjected to inumerable experimental tests and passed with flying colours. So it seems that as bizarre as some of the implications of that are, we have to accept it.

                Another quote from Niels Bohr:

                “Anyone who is not shocked by quantum theory has not understood it.”

                As I write below, it also applies at the macro level, but we do not notice it due to the “averaging out” of the microscopic probabilities.


                Report this

                04

              • #
                Philip Shehan

                Sheri, I assume Wyoming is not in the bible belt, so I will run this by you. Human beings evolved in the macroscopic world where things seem pretty predictable.

                A “smart” hominid who sat down to calculate the quantum mechanical probabilities that the sabre tooth tiger coming at him or her would simply disappear in a puff of smoke before sinking the fangs into the back of his or her neck would not have passed genes down to his or her progeny.

                We are all to some degree prisoners of our evolutionary necessary understanding of “common sense” which helps us to deal with nature on the spacial and time scales we experience in a human lifetime. (And quantum mechanics violates that notion in spades.)


                Report this

                05

              • #

                Philip: I would say quantum physics is about as settled as climate change. Physicists argue over string theory, black holes (Steven Hawking questioned his own theories), how many dimensions exist, parallel universes. More and more “particles” are found and given very strange names. There’s dark matter–or is there? Quantum mechanics “works” but considering the new discoveries and the questions that remain, it’s still in its infancy.

                Yes, quantum mechanics violates much of our evolutionary necessary understanding (funny you should mention sabre tooth tigers–I have always maintained that what we now call PTSD is why we didn’t all get eaten by sabre tooth tigers–it’s only a “disorder” because we forget what it was/is good for). I would hope you are not implying that this is the reason why people question it. Perahps some do, but there exist legitimate questions based on problems within the theory itself–or physics blogs would not be so very interesting and lively to read.


                Report this

                40

              • #
                Vic G Gallus

                You have a poor understanding of Quantum Physics (like nearly everything else). For starters, it is not about us not knowing, its about the interaction of very small particles with each other is calculated with an uncertainty of momentum and position of the other particle.

                By the time you get to microscopic size, let alone leaf size, its the same as classical physics. Which leaf falls first in autumn will depended on the relative strength of stems and the wind forces upon them. the only similarity with Quantum Physics is that you’ll tear off the leaf measuring the shear strength.


                Report this

                20

              • #
                Philip Shehan

                Vic, actually, as I have pointed out, my entire research career is based on quantum mechanics, and I do think I have a reasonable grasp of it.

                In fact I also have a postgraduate qualification in the History and Philosophy of science and a large collection of books on the subject including the implications of relativity and quantum mechanics. (Don’t mean to brag but them’s the facts)

                It is about knowing. Knowing about the interaction of small particles, among other things)and not just their position and momentum.

                I was using microscopic in the broadest sense – down to elementary particles, not in the sense of “that which can be wiewed with a microscope.”

                But: “By the time you get to microscopic size, let alone leaf size, its the same as classical physics.”

                Yes and no, but the no is the important part. It effectively reduces to classical physics for practical measurement and observation purposes, but its implications go far, far beyond that.

                A grasp of quantum physics has led to the most radical reassessment of the nature of the universe.

                Again, as Bohr said:

                “Anyone who is not shocked by quantum theory has not understood it.”

                That’s why I like reading about this stuff (and there are some very good docos on youtube if you search under quantum or relativity. (I have my computer hooked up to my wide screen TV so I can watch in comfort.) It really is mind blowing but has withstood test after test.

                Sheri.

                Must disagree. Quantum theory is far from in its infancy. It is almost one hundred years old and as i have remarkede more than once has withstood EVERY observational and experimental test to the most remarkable degree of precision.

                Our whole elctronics industry is inexplicable without it.

                I said I don’t like the word “settled” applied to any scientific theory (a bit of puritanism that comes from my readings in the history and philosophy of science) but Quantum theory is as “settled” in the sense of experimental confirmation as any theory or “law” is or has ever been.

                That does not mean it is complete. I noted before that relativity and quantum theory are yet to be reconciled. But as relativity is a classical theory, – that is pre quantum – it is the one that is going to have to do most of the changing for the reconciliation to occur.

                Specifically, one of the biggest projects in science today is to come up with a theory of “quantum gravity” reconciling general relativity, the theory that governs the structure of the entire space-time continuum encompassing the known universe with the a spacial scale smaller than the smallest elementary particle.


                Report this

                04

              • #

                Philip: Your Philosophy of science is showing.
                You say Quantum Physics is not in it’s infancy. Okay, but how far was it between Newton and Einstein? How long does it take to get that one special individual who sees outside the box and makes the leap?
                Again, definitely not settled or the physicists just like arguing (which is more to the philosophy side, wouldn’t you say?). More than 20 sub-atomic particles have been added since I graduated from college, along with dark energy. Not matured science. The “faster than light particle” may have been instrumental or calculation errors, but it certainly woke everyone up. Now, in Canada, there have been experiments questioning just how much uncertainty there is in measurement of atomic particles. Again, needs verification. And Stephen Hawking’s about face on black holes. This would be equivalent to Michael Mann announcing his tree rings were not a valid way to get that hockey stick. I can’t even fathom such an announcement, can you?


                Report this

                10

              • #
                Philip Shehan

                Sheri, I should hope my [History and]Philosophy of science is showing. It is all about studying the history and nature of scientific knowledge.

                Regarding the “infancy” of quantum physics.

                A century is a long time, and I do not see the connection of the maturity of that discipline and your mention of the time period between Newton and Einstein. (About two centuries).

                The maturity of a scientific theory is determined not by its age but by how comprehensively it explains known phenomena and how well it passes experimental and observational tests and is therfore accepted by the scientific community.

                Newton overthrew Aristotilean mechanics which had been around for two millenia. Kuhn called a such dramatic changes in science “paradigm shift’.

                Newton’s Principia, published in 1687, was so comprehensive an explanation of known phenomena and had such validated predictive value that it was almost immediately accepted and rightly hailed as a work of genius. He was knighted 18 years later. Forty years later Alexander Pope wrote these lines intended for Newton’s epitaph:

                Nature and Nature’s laws lay hid in night:
                God said, “Let Newton be!” and all was light.

                After a couple of centuries it was found that some observations did not quite fit Newton’s laws, and Einstein intitated another paradigm shift – relativity. General relativity was published in 1916. Astronomical observations quickly validated the theory and by the thirties Einstein was a celebrity.

                The quantum revolution, another paradigm shift, began in the mid 1920s. Again it quickly revolutionised physics and as I note has been spectacularly validated by every experimental test since.

                The success of quantum theory in predicting and accounting for the behaviour of the growing zoo of subatomic particles demonstrates its maturity.

                Black holes were discovered because relativity predicted their existance and people went looking for them. I don’t think Hawking has done an about face on black holes, he may have modified his ideas on them, but again this is all in line with relativity.

                In fact unlike black holes, “dark energy” has not been found. People just think it must be there because relativity says so.

                There will always be new discoveries. The only problem they might pose for a mature science is if they violated those scientific principles.


                Report this

                01

              • #

                Philip: Are we talking about a one equation theory or the complete package? I’m confused. If we go with: relativity: (physics) the theory that space and time are relative concepts rather than absolute concepts then it does seem to be holding. Anything beyond that–or in other words, what that means and where we can go with it–is still under study. So yes, the theory is mature but the ramifications of the theory are still very much unknown. Perhaps I am tying together relativity and quantum mechanics far too much. Relavity is just space/time. Quantum mechanics is the actual observations. I’m getting stuck on the mechanics, which is where we are running apart. I am saying that the quantum mechanics is still developing–we really don’t have a clear picture of sub-atomic particles, etc.

                If relativity says dark energy must exist and relativity is a mature science whose predictions can be counted on, then does it not follow that dark energy must exist? Unless mature sciences can be wrong, thus calling into question the conclusion.


                Report this

                10

              • #
                Philip Shehan

                Sheri. (Sorry moderators I know that this is a bit long but Sheri is one of those bright true skeptics whose comments are intelligent and well thought out and who keep me coming back to this blog, in spite of the knee jerk head kickers.)

                ABSOLUTELY mature sciences can be wrong.

                More than that, if they are not capable of being overturned THEY ARE NOT SCIENCE.

                That is why I said that my knowledge of HPS makes me something of a puritan, so I reject that any theory is ever “settled” in the strict sense.

                Just as I object to people using the word (or worse, demanding) “proof” in the inductive, empirical (i.e. based on observation and experiment of how the real world works) reasoning system of science as opposed to the abstract deductive reasoning systems like mathematics and formal logic, where proofs of theorems or logical conclusions must follow from the axioms or premises.

                That is why very mature, soundly based “paradigms” can, like Newton’s mechanics, (and yes relativity and quantum mechanics) can be overturned. They would not be scientific if they could not.

                All scientific theories are hostage to possible future discoveries (or sometimes just a rethink – comments on assumptions below) which may need them to be rethought, modified recognized as less reliable approximations of reality than theories which describe the world better, or discarded entirely.

                Newton’s mechanics are still accurate enough for NASA to send probes to the outer solar system with pinpoint accuracy, but if you don’t use relativity, satellite GPS would not give accurate locations on earth.

                Maturity can never mean certainty.

                Yes, relativity says that dark energy (and dark matter) can be “counted on” but that does not mean they must exist, as the theory may not be complete (or plain wrong).
                Sometimes it’s a matter of perspective and people unknowingly accepting false assumptions.

                When Einstein formulated relativity, he assumed that there must be something preventing the galaxies in the universe coming together under gravitational attraction (which relativity says is not really a Newtonian force, but a property of the warping of space-time by matter. So he put in a fudge factor opposing gravity to keep the galaxies apart, which he called the cosmological constant.

                Later Hubble showed that the universe was expanding (which we currently attribute to the outward momentum of the big bang.) This rendered the cosmological constant unnecessary and Einstein called it his greatest blunder.

                Again, it was assumed that the expansion must be slowing due to gravity, and the big question was whether there was enough matter in the universe to make gravity strong enough so the expansion would slow to a stop, reverse and bring the galaxies together in a big crunch, or matter was insufficient so that while the rate of expansion would decrease forever it would never slow to a halt. This is like a rocket reaching “escape velocity” so that it will never return to earth, as opposed to a rocket which goes up and comes down again.

                But very recently, it was discovered that the universe was expanding at an increasing rate, not slowing at all.

                The discoverers, like everyone else were so wedded to the assumption of a slowing universe, that they thought they must have goofed. So they checked and rechecked their observations and calculations and could find no mistake so they published the result, since confirmed by other groups. They were recently awarded the Nobel prize.

                This surprise was entirely consistant with relativity. It was just that people had assumed expansion must be slowing. And in hindsight we can all wonder why the assumption was so entrenched. I suppose the answer is that ever since Newton, gravity (or curved space-time) has been considered the be all and end all of celestial mechanics. A salutory lesson to us all.

                So there must be something countering gravity, pushing the galaxies apart. This is “dark energy” actually, a rebadging of Einstein’s “blunder” – the cosmological constant by another name.

                But it still strikes me as a fudge factor as nobody has a clue as to what it is. It just has to be there if relativity is correct. Or maybe there is an unwarranted assumption we are making about relativity and we will all slap our foreheads in the future and say, “How obvious. Why didn’t we see it.”

                One more thing: General relativity, (1916) is about the large scale nature of the universe. Special relativity (1905 E = mc2 etc.) is about the equivalence of matter and energy, previously thought to be distinct entities.


                Report this

                02

              • #
                Philip Shehan

                Sheri,
                Just finished watching that doco Everything and Nothing (part 1) I linked the other day.

                It covers all the stuff I was discussing above and much more than I could explain in a few short paragraphs (sorry moderators) plus more and and better. It uses graphics and animations, a big advantage over just reading about this stuff. An excellent presentation. I highly recomend it.

                I know you said you don’t watch youtube but the link is directly to another website, and includes part 2 which deals with the quantum world, but I have not watched that yet.

                Of course I watched it on wide screen TV sprawled on the couch, and sitting for the whole thing in a chair in front of a computer would be unconfortable (for me at least) but perhaps you could view it in stages.

                As I indicated in a post above (on the economic costs of AGW mitigation), I apologise to you (and to others who post genuine thoughtful comments) for not having time to respond to all of your comments and queries. I find your comments very intersting and thoughtful although we disagree on AGW.

                http://documentaries-plus.blogspot.com.au/2011/06/everything-and-nothing-by-jim-al.html


                Report this

                01

              • #

                Thank you for your compliment. I truly would like to understand what you see in the global warming theory that I do not. We really don’t seem that far apart. It won’t ever happen on an open blog–this is a very emotional subject. As I noted, I find a great deal of name-calling and hostility in the physics world, so I suppose “unsettled” science will always bring out the best in us. :)
                I do appreciate your answering when you can.

                The explanation of “dark energy” was helpful. I actually like reading physics, though I will try checking out the YouTube video and your other link.

                I am going to take an online course on the science of climate change starting this week, so perhaps I will get some answers to questions that are still unanswered. I understand the time constraints. If only there were time enough for people just to discuss things…ah, but there I go drifting into fanatasy land.


                Report this

                10

            • #
              Reed Coray

              Philip,

              You wrote: “… quantum theory (which has been validated by experiment and observation to the most incredible precision) states that even if we knew EXACTLY every “initial condition”, we cannot predict what the actual outcome will be with certainty. (Thus Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle.)

              I believe that although your conclusion about knowing the “outcome with certainty” is correct (we can’t know the outcome), your interpretation of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is incorrect. According to “http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Heisenberg+principle” the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is:

              uncertainty principle
              n
              1. (General Physics) the principle that energy and time or position and momentum of a quantum mechanical system, cannot both be accurately measured simultaneously. The product of their uncertainties is always greater than or of the order of h, where h is the Planck constant. Also known as: Heisenberg uncertainty principle or indeterminacy principle

              The principle implies we can’t simultaneously measure to infinite precision and hence can’t simultaneously know to infinite precision the values of all variables of a quantum mechanical system–in particular we can’t simultaneously precisely know the values of canonical variables. Thus, in my opinion your condition: “…even if we knew EXACTLY every ‘initial condition’ itself violates the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.


              Report this

              30

              • #
                Philip Shehan

                Reed, You are correct. That is a neat paradox of yours. Wish I had thought of it.

                More correctly, I should have written that classical theory assumed that in principle, we could know every initial condition exactly, and thus the entire history of the universe – past, present and future – could be calculated, apparently doing away with the illusion of “free will”. Everything was inevitable.

                My interpretation of the uncertainy principle is however correct. I admit that most people do not understand the precise meaning of it, and I did not bother to labour the point as the name gets across the idea quite well.

                The usual example given is that you cannot know both the position and momentum of say, an electron, exactly, although you may know one or the other. And the very act of making the meaurement or observation changes the state. That is, looking at something involves the impact of a photon of light, which collides with the object, changing whatever state it had before the measurement.

                It also applies to macroscopic objects such as billiard balls and planets, but with massive objects composed of gazillions of subatomic particles, the individual uncertainties tend to average out so we think we are measuring things exactly, even though we are not. It is possible however that when hit with the cue ball, the billiard ball (or the earth itself) will take off at a million miles an hour to the centre of the sun. It’s just not very likely. And certainly not in line with Newton’s laws of motion.

                In my own field, the uncertainty principle is related to the width of the peaks from a particular nucleus in a Nuclear Magnetic Resonance spectrum. I spent my PhD candidature measuring what are called the “relaxation times” of nuclei. The faster the relaxation time, the greater the width of the line. That is a precise example of the uncertainty principle. (The relaxation time or linewidth tell you things about the structure and motion of the molecule the nucleus is in.)


                Report this

                05

              • #

                How do we know that we cannot know?


                Report this

                20

              • #
                Philip Shehan

                Sheri, It’s just the way things are. Nature is essentially a set of probability “wave functions” that collapse into reality in an unpredictable manner.

                Google Scrodinger’s cat. There is a very good youtube clip on the famous two slit experiment I will see if I can find..


                Report this

                05

              • #

                I know what Schodinger’s Cat is. (They make cool tshirts with it on them :) ) I also know about Planck’s constant, Bohr, Einstein, Heisenberg, dark energy, quarks (with all the cute names they gave them), super symmetry (unsettled at the moment–means more particles and more cute names), and that gravitons only exist in science fiction, thought physicists are looking for them in the “real” world.

                Again, how can we know that we cannot know? You really don’t expect me to go with “It’s just way things are”? I could say the same for why all climate change is natural–because that’s just way things are. I’m going to need a lot more than that.


                Report this

                40

              • #
                Philip Shehan

                Yes Sheri. Point taken.

                In some ways every theory in mathematics or science eventually comes down to a set of axioms or assumptions that we must assume “just are” or we just go on forever looking for explanations of explanations and causes of causes.

                I think that is what the mathematician Kurt Godel’s incompleteness theorem demonstrates. Nothing is fully explicable within its own framework. Being a mathematician, working in a deductive system, Godel could “prove” this.

                With inductive empirical science, we cannot “prove” things absolutely, but as an example, Newton started off with an assumption that space and time were an absolute framework for his mechanics and its “Laws”.

                Seems obvious enough, and is what evolution would have taught us. We do not experience space or time bending and stretching like a fabric in our everyday lives, except under the influence of hallucinogens. Not that I have any first hand experience of that of course. But Einstein challenged that assumption with relativity which was shown to be correct by various observational and experimental sets of data. (Relativity is still a “classical” or pre-quantum theory though.)

                But “just so” stories are somewhat unsatisfactory.

                Which brings me back to Vic’s statement about “Knowing” as opposed to “Knowing about the interaction of particles” which may go some way to answering your question.

                Vic is on to a subtle point there.

                What do we “know” about a particle if it is not interacting with something?

                According to quantum theory, we cannot “know” anything about the particle because it does not yet exist.

                It is simply a “probability wave” that is “collapsed” into a particle only when it is observed (that is the interaction with the observer, whether a human or a measuring device).

                Like Schrodinger’s cat exists in a superimposed set of probabilities of being alive/dead until someone peeks into the box to check on its health.

                Yet unlike Schrodinger’s cat, this has been demonstrated with photons (light particles) and electrons by the double slit experiment where you actually do get different results depending on when you make the observation and collapse the probability wave into “reality”, in defiance of commmon sense.

                It’s demonstrated in that that youtube video I mentioned earlier. Will see if I can track it down.


                Report this

                06

              • #
                Philip Shehan

                On the Australian TV network SBS1 tonight (Sunday 16 February 9.55 pm eastern daylight savings time) there is a documentary (Or you can can view it on the link below):

                Everything and Nothing by Jim Al-Khalili

                Everything and Nothing is a two-part BBC documentary presented by Professor Jim Al-Khalili, dealing with two of the deepest questions there are – what is everything, and what is nothing? In two epic, surreal and mind-expanding films, Professor Jim Al-Khalili searches for an answer to these questions as he explores the true size and shape of the universe and delves into the amazing science behind apparent nothingness.

                http://documentaries-plus.blogspot.com.au/2011/06/everything-and-nothing-by-jim-al.html


                Report this

                06

              • #
                Philip Shehan

                Another example of complete numbskullery in the don’t like ticks.

                I simply put up a notice giving a link and programming information about aspects of science that some of us have been discussing and people may find interesting, and 4 people (thus far) object.


                Report this

                03

              • #

                Philip–If you have something in writing on Schroedinger’s cat and the Heisenberg principle, that would good. I don’t watch YouTube–I read papers.

                Back to philosophy: How can we know that we cannot know? How can we know the particle wasn’t there until we observed it? We can’t. Why can’t science just admit it has limitations. We cannot ever know if evolution is right. We can never know a particle “wasn’t there” until we observed it–we just know the particle was not in the location until we observed it–to know it wasn’t there. We would have to observe the empty space, which would then bring the particle into existence or simply draw it to the currently observed space. All of this is mathematics–even the particles are “found” to satisfy parts of the theory that are lacking. All of it is totally unobservable forever. Circumstantial evidence is just that. Why can’t scientists just admit they don’t know and will never know? They are a blind man in a house he has never been in. They can never know the color of the walls, what the furniture looks like (they draw a picture based on measurements), they will never know if it even is a room in a house. You say you understand quantum theory, but you are insisting there is a way to “know” about the room you can never see. There could be a spot on the carpet, all four walls could be different colors, there could be a room full of spiders and unless you actually step on one or falls, you’ll never know they were there. You’ll never know they weren’t there. That’s how it works.


                Report this

                10

              • #

                Philip–again, my question of how do we know we can’t know? If right now we are assuming we are in the box and there’e nothing outside of it, then how did Einstein get outside the box (no cute Schoedinger jokes here, please)? If Einstein had not gotten outside the box, then we would have gone on believing that we could not know what the earth is made of at a level below microscopic. Einstein gave the man in the room sight, or partial sight. We have no way of knowing the limits to certainty or the lack of limits to certainty.


                Report this

                10

              • #
                bullocky

                Philip Shehan:…
                -”.Another example of complete numbskullery in the don’t like ticks.

                I simply put up a notice giving a link and programming information about aspects of science that some of us have been discussing and people may find interesting, and 4 people (thus far) object.”
                -
                -
                That’ll be John Cook and the guys from Skepticalscience; they don’t like you pinching their material!


                Report this

                00

            • #
              bobl

              Philip Shehan, I also must point out as others have that the residual bias labelled in your graph as Anthropogenic factors, depends heavily on the data set you select for matching to. For example, apply the same thing to RSS and what do you get?

              A clear factor that is part of that Anthropogenic bucket is measurement error, and/or adjustment bias. For example underestimation of UHI as the Watts et. al. surface station paper shows.

              You would clearly be lucky if there was 0.3 degrees over that 29 years that could be CO2 related based on your own cited data.

              I repeat again, that you have shown by your own data, that global warming is far from catastrophic and that the 8 billion a year wasted on it should clearly be put to useful endeavour.


              Report this

              50

            • #
              bobl

              Shout all you like and it will not change the facts.

              The trivially simplistic model shows that – yes extrapolating, the Anthropogenic factors constitute only about 1.3 degrees per century warming, and this in cherry picking one of the steepest periods of temperature rise in the last 3 centuries.

              The Anthropogenic factors are not specified, some of those factors are not CO2 and therefore the CO2 related rise is something less that that given in the graph.

              Where is everything else, that we know affects climate but they don’t even mention – part of it is in the 35% bit that doesn’t fit. But some are undoubtedly being mistaken for Anthropogenic influences.

              On each of these graphs what is the error range, for example I see no reason why over this period ENSO should have a rather steep cooling climate influence that apparently allows an larger warming anthropogenic influence – mechanism please

              Where exactly is black carbon, cleaner air, reduced cloudiness (all warming sources found in peer reviewed papers) represented in this graph, it is junk because it shows very few of the possible climatic drivers, it’s what is NOT in this graph that is gob-smacking – not what is represented, it tells me nothing, it’s an appeal to authority, nothing more.

              and is in fact better fitted by an accelerating curve:
              Where’s the evidence for that given that both CO2 and the posited primary positive feedback mechanisms both have a logarithmic relationship with temperature, please explain the mechanism whereby warming can be anything but asymptotic to a maximum temperature bound? Remember here that you are truly endorsing the idea that climate sensitivity INCREASES as temperature rises? – Prove it.

              SS is hopeless as a resource, their habit of censoring contrary views means I will never again frequent that site or RealClimate that has similar or worse censorship, warmist echo chambers both. Not to mention that John Cook and his mate Nutticelli know little about the climate, nothing about feedback, and can’t handle simple math.

              Finally the warming from these factors does NOT magically limit itself to surface temperature over land, the starting point for an analysis of this should be a satellite data set.

              PS – No matter how you SHOUT you will be no less right or wrong. The Graph is insufficient to demonstrate any man-made influence on the climate other than someone labelled a line “Anthropogenic Factors” how do we know… models with implied loop gains for climate elements of over 0.95 ?. You, my friend, are fast becoming a shill, despite in our previous conversations calculating yourself a Maximum bound of 1.9 Per doubling for CO2 of which the IPCC says half (0.9 per doubling) is due to CO2 you continue to preach to us like it’s the end of the world or something.


              Report this

              40

            • #
              bobl

              Missed a bit

              Phil, you are out of your depth aren’t you

              Just for starters, we know how the amount of energy per second per square metre of the earths surface varies with CO2 concentration.

              Now tell me Phil,

              What is the energy extracted by the surface atmospheric turbulence (wind) and via the shear force on water which is converted to kinetic energy (Waves and ripples) – please indicate error bounds and compare that with the energy you pointed to above. Hint – Look up the kinetic energy available in water waves and contrast it to the energy impinging on the ocean surface due to CO2?

              then

              What is the total energy extracted from the atmosphere by the posited 6% increase in the rate of photosynthesis activity due to increased CO2 partial pressure averaged over the global surface. Don’t forget bacterial and oceanic phytoplankton that are also CO2 users.

              C’mon Phil, some numbers to back up your rhetoric please

              Then tell me we know enough again?


              Report this

              40

              • #
                Philip Shehan

                Oh, the humiliation. Exposed, condemned.

                I admit it bobl. I ADMIT IT!.

                I do not know the precise details of the calculation of the contribution of anthropogenic forcings to global temperature.

                IT’S WORSE THAN THAT!!

                I don’t know the details of the natural forcings either, unlike everyone else on this blog.

                To begin my education, could you (or the other experts on natural climate forcings on this blog) provide similar details

                eg What is the energy extracted by the surface atmospheric turbulence (wind) and via the shear force on water which is converted to kinetic energy (Waves and ripples) – please indicate error bounds and compare that with the energy you pointed to above.

                With regard to the ENSO contribution?


                Report this

                02

              • #
                bobl

                It’s not me trying to establish that a christmas light worth of energy per square metre is warming the surface catstrophically. Fact is Philip, noone knows how much energy these mechanisms extract from the impinging insolation, so therefore noone can say definitively there is any radiative imbalance at all. You asserted enough was known and I have shown that’s not true because this research hasn’t been done.

                I’m glad you admit that there is insufficient certainty in the radiative balance.


                Report this

                10

              • #
                Philip Shehan

                so therefore noone can say definitively there is any radiative imbalance at all

                Satellites and other methods can measure the amount of incoming and outgoing energy. There is an imbalance. There is less outgoing than incoming.

                http://www.iac.ethz.ch/people/wild/Wildetal_IRS2012_GlobalEnergyBalance.pdf

                A christmas light uses about 0.5 Watts. So taking this as the energy imbalance per square metre (not far off the usually given figure of 0.6) and the area of the earth (5.1 x 10^14 square metres), that’s 2.5 x 10^13 Watts or 250 trillion Watts adding to heat content of the earth day after day, week after week, decade after decade…

                I never use the term “catastrophic” in relation to AGW.


                Report this

                01

              • #
                Philip Shehan

                errata: That should be 25 trillion Watts


                Report this

                00

              • #
                Mark D.

                That I a great cartoon there Philip. That is not satellite “measured” That is modeled estimated and doctored!

                Three sets of confidence ranges from the cartoon:
                340-341 Wm2 incoming TOA
                96-100 (reflected)
                236-242 thermal outgoing TOA

                Take the lowest incoming 340 subtract the highest reflected 100 = 240 then subtract the highest outgoing 242…… Hmmmm you have a problem don’t you? 240-242= -2

                2 Wm2 of negative balance i.e. cooling!

                Could you provide a link to the actual measured outgoing per square meter thermal energy flux? Surely there is a satellite out there that has a 1m x 1m square sensor to do this.


                Report this

                00

              • #
                Mark D.

                25 trillion Watts adding to heat content of the earth day after day, week after week, decade after decade…

                I think your calculation is wrong for two reasons first because the “surface” used is the TOA, second because you are using incomparable terms of watts and “daywatts”

                And before you get busy with that, let me know what you come up with for direct heating from the use of an estimated 125,000 terawatthours of energy (the world usage figure) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_resources_and_consumption


                Report this

                00

            • #
              Geoff Sherrington

              Wrong,Philip. You don’t have to invent stories. About atomic particles,
              “The more precisely the position is determined, the less precisely the momentum is known in this instant, and vice versa.”
              –Heisenberg, uncertainty paper, 1927


              Report this

              20

              • #
                Philip Shehan

                Yes Geoff, that is entirely compatible with my own statement, except instead of the general case, I give an example of an electron where the position or momentum are known as precisely as possible.

                “The usual example given is that you cannot know both the position and momentum of say, an electron, exactly, although you may know one or the other.”


                Report this

                04

            • #
              bullocky

              Philip Shehan:
              -
              … led Einstein (something a of a fuddy duddy who never really accepted quantum theory) to say:

              “God does not play dice with the universe”

              To which Niels Bohr responded:

              “Stop telling God what to do with his dice.”
              -
              -
              Climate Science: – ‘Let us perform some adjustments on those dice’


              Report this

              00

      • #
        Philip Shehan

        Quite right Sheri.


        Report this

        03

    • #
      Gos

      Yeah but what happens to all the pontification if what happened last summer was normal,and the statistics were fudged,is it just so much hot air(sorry)?


      Report this

      80

      • #
        Philip Shehan

        And if my aunt was a man she would be my uncle.

        Once again, the fallback position when confronted with data that is unpalatable to “skeptics” is that it is “fudged”. Is there no end to this warmist conspiracy?


        Report this

        09

        • #
          bullocky

          Philip Shehan:
          “And if my aunt was a man she would be my uncle”
          -
          ‘Certainty’ is one of the weaker areas of climate science.
          -
          (I hope your aunt is not lurking!)


          Report this

          31

        • #

          Getting a bit testy there, aren’t you Philip?

          (By the way, I’d not use aunt/uncle woman/man as examples. Here in the good old USA we can now pick our gender. So here, your aunt could be biologically a woman but declare himself a man.)


          Report this

          50

          • #
            Philip Shehan

            Yes Sheri, yes I am. But it is impossible to discuss anything if people are going to use that “get out of jail free” card whenever they don’t like what the data says. It is the opposite of science.


            Report this

            05

            • #
              Philip Shehan

              By the way, we have the same gender rights here in Australia. In fact I suspect my aunt could be a Shetland pony if she wanted to.


              Report this

              05

            • #

              Okay, but calling it “conspiracy” is not accurate. At least not in the way conspiracy is often used. Think of it more as “job security”. Like contractors that hide mistakes in construction, food manufacturers that hide possible problems with their product.

              It’s not a “get out of jail free” card if there is evidence of tampering. Virtually all adjustments seem to be in the directions that verify current theory. You understand statistics–that’s not really possible in the real world. There’s archived data that shows some of what adjustments were made. It did not help that in the beginning the MWP and LIA were virtually “adjusted” out. We would need to take these one at time and go through the adjustments, assuming we could get the raw data. That would be a time-consuming, though very scientific, endeavor. As it stands, there exist legitimate questions on the integrity of the data. Whether or not reviewing the data would change the “proof” value of the theory will only be known when the raw data appears and everyone shares. In the meantime, we have both sides arguing over data that does not seem to be available.


              Report this

              40

            • #
              bullocky

              -
              Philip Shehan:……” But it is impossible to discuss anything if people are going to use that “get out of jail free” card whenever they don’t like what the data says. It is the opposite of science”
              -
              -
              Science shouldn’t be playing Monopoly!


              Report this

              40

              • #
                The Griss

                Yes, massively adjusting data to purposely create positive trends is very much the opposite of science.

                Hopefully at some stage in the future, they will need a “get out of jail” card.


                Report this

                50

              • #
                The Griss

                I must admit to surprise on Philip’s blasé acceptance of the massive data manipulation.

                Whatever he’s used to, I guess.

                Anything to get the job done.


                Report this

                40

              • #
                Philip Shehan

                Griss, regarding my “blase acceptance of massive data manipulation”;

                “When you are prepared to go back to original unadjusted data, and prepared to look at a whole peak to peak trend, then we can talk.”

                “The fact that they match to the massively corrupted HadCrut temperature fake series.. proves they are wrong.”

                (No, it “proves” nothing of the kind. It strongly indicates, unless you can show that all these data sets are massively corrupted in the same way, that they are not corrupted at all.)

                etc. etc.

                In response to my request that you supply such evidence

                15.1.1.1.18
                Philip Shehan
                February 16, 2014 at 12:47 pm

                you have provided none, zip, nada.

                In which case I will continue to accept the data.


                Report this

                13

              • #
                bullocky

                Philip Shehan:..
                ‘In which case I will continue to accept the data’
                -
                -
                And the models will continue to fail.


                Report this

                00

              • #
                The Griss

                Much evidence has been provided by many over a long time.

                You have just been wilfully blind to it.

                You are an woeful scientist because you have been told there are issues and have not done any due diligence on the data you are pretending to work with.

                This really is pathetic from someone who holds themselves in such (unwarranted) high regard.

                I assume your disregard for science and accuracy has slipped significantly since you retired.


                Report this

                00

              • #
                Philip Shehan

                So that’s a no on providing evidence then Griss.


                Report this

                04

              • #
                The Griss

                You are the fool not doing due diligence.

                Do your own research.

                You weren’t really a scientist were you?

                Not much sign of it now.


                Report this

                20

              • #
                Philip Shehan

                No Griss. In science it is up to the person making the claim to present supporting evidence.

                Say I wish to challenge the validity of widely acccepted and quoted data.

                For instance the NOAA temperature data base which as skeptic Kevin Lohse puts it below:

                NOAA, a suitably august body peer-reviewed up to the nines…

                It is up to me to put forward the evidence to support my case.

                It is not good enough for me to simply assert that NOAA data is utterly corrupted, and tell Kevin that it is up to him to go and do “due diligence” without providing evidence that my claim has any basis.

                For all Kevin knows, I have no basis whatsoever for my complaint, and I am expecting him to waste his time chasing shadows.


                Report this

                05

              • #
                The Griss

                No, it is up to the person using the sat to make sure that data has not been mutilated.

                Any scientist that uses suspect data is absolutely NO scientist at all, and never has been.


                Report this

                20

              • #
                The Griss

                “person using the sat to make sure ”

                person using that data to make sure… strange typo, sorry


                Report this

                10

          • #
            The Griss

            Despite only posting recently, I’ve been watching for quite a while.

            I have seen the required proof posted several times, and I have seen you totally ignore it.

            Unlike you, I don’t get given a whole heap of links, or keep these links handy.

            Its obvious you don’t care if you use corrupted data.

            You can’t even be bothered to check for yourself.

            You just assume that the data which has been in the hands of one of the prime motivators behind the CAGW scam for many years, is still pristine.

            Gees, that’s a bit like asking Al Capone if he’s into boot-leg liquor .

            And its really weak science. Really weak.

            I truly hope you didn’t have the same attitude to data in you past career !

            But.. you keep on keeping on, pseudo-scientist.


            Report this

            20

            • #
              bullocky

              The Griss:. “I have seen the required proof posted several times, and I have seen you (Philip Shehan) totally ignore it.”
              -
              Readers are quite well aware of the warmists’ tactical ensemble. Like the models, they’re doomed to failure.


              Report this

              00

            • #
              The Griss

              Darn, did I put that in the wrong place ?

              I would need a 2m high screen just to keep track of which post follows on from which.

              Must be doing wonders for Jo’s hit count ⧴)


              Report this

              00

            • #
              Philip Shehan

              Griss, As I said the only “proof” I recall seeing is an attempt to pass off US data as a substitute for global data.

              Again Griss, it is not up to me to go looking for data you say you have seen, but lost or misplaced or can’t be bothered looking for.


              Report this

              02

              • #
                Philip Shehan

                Make the two attempts, the second being by Kevin Lohse.


                Report this

                02

              • #
                Kevin Lohse

                I made it quite clear that the data I was referring to was pertinent to the US, supported by the UK CET, possibly one of the only uncorrupted earth-temperature data sources still publicly available. NOAA and CET together indicate a negative temperature movement in a significant sector of the NH which should be taken into account. It would appear that earth-temperature data from the likes of the EU, The former soviet socialist republic and China are not available, which considering the political instability of those regions over the last 50 years is hardly surprising. Your misinterpretation of my post is yet another example of how you distort and diminish information which causes you cognitive dissonance. We should not be surprised by this. The warmist camp has dismissed the LIA as local to the NH despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. You merely follow received wisdom in regards to cooling events on this matter.


                Report this

                40

              • #
                Philip Shehan

                Kevin, To use NOAA temperature data for the contiguous United States, which is 1.6% of the total surface area of the earth, contains no ocean data (70% of the surface area of the earth, is restricted between latitudes 25 and 49 N, and contains no data for the fastest warming area of the earth (the arctic) is, to be charitable, inadvisable.

                You have faith in NOAA data, and in spite of failing Griss’s demands that I practice “due diligence” I see no reason to doubt it for the reasons you state: “NOAA, a suitably august body peer-reviewed up to the nines”.

                (And since NOAA data is in agreement with other land ocean data sets, unless they are all allegedly corrupted in the same way, I can see no reason to reject the others either.)

                While I can see that due diligence practicing “skeptics” would prefer the temperature trend for this this entirely unrepresentative area of the earth over the NOAA land/ocean data for the entire globe because the former indicates a cooling trend (0.16 °C/decade ) and the latter indicates a warming trend (0.09 °C/decade), I see no reason to go along with this.

                Your citing of the CET temperature series as a back up for claims about the continental US does not help your argument, as CET stands for Central England Temperature, an even more geographically restricted data set than the continental US for which you provided no information or link.

                http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/

                And it is from the same crowd who produce the Hadcrut global data sets. It is actually called HadCET on the the website, so the due diligence crowd will tell you it is hopelessly corrupted anyway, which makes it understandable that you avoided drawing attention to the connection.

                See Griss, I can to my own research if I think it is worth it. And while we are on that subject I found this critique of Lindzen’s objections to the allegedly corrupted temperature data.

                http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/03/misrepresentation-from-lindzen/comment-page-1/?wpmp_switcher=mobile

                So do not expect me to waste any more of my time chasing down your phantoms.


                Report this

                01

              • #
                Philip Shehan

                Kevin,

                With regard to your claim that “The warmist camp has dismissed the LIA as local to the NH despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.”

                I refer you to my comment below regarding “Hockey sticks”


                Report this

                02

              • #
                Philip Shehan

                How could I have forgotten this:

                “But this is much, much worse. The data you present is not only restricted to the (contiguous) US but it is only for the three winter months, January -November.”

                http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c01a73d78d297970d-pi.


                Report this

                02

            • #
              The Griss

              Then keep using corrupted data and keep making an abject fool of yourself. Your call. :-)

              I can only assume you took your previous profession with the same uncaring attitude to data.

              Let’s hope nothing important hangs on your work, shall we.


              Report this

              20

        • #
        • #
          The Griss

          Once again, the fallback position of the warmist apostle, when presented with unpalatable truth that the temperature data has been massively fabricated,

          is to lie their butts off.


          Report this

          60

        • #
          The Griss

          “Is there no end to this warmist conspiracy?”

          No, apparently not.

          Way too much income and other funding, and way too many reputation resting on it.


          Report this

          60

        • #
          The Griss

          “Is there no end to this warmist conspiracy?”

          No, apparently not.

          Way too much income and other funding, and way too many reputations resting on it.


          Report this

          30

  • #

    And therein lies the problem. Everyone I know who ardently believes in catastrophic AGW treats ‘man and CO2′ as absolutes, meaning that it is the explanation at fault, and not the theory, when things don’t go according to plan. Look at the history of dodgy explanations, fudged data and the way in which theories are morphed to try to fit the data and you will see that, as always, we have a people problem rather than a science problem.

    This would seem to support the notion that the idea that AGW has become a new religion. However, I think it is more correct to say that it is ‘religious-like behaviour’, by which I mean that it results from a quirk of the human mind that makes us develop a rigid mindset after we have come to a believe something to be true. Just look at the similarities:

    - both have an unwavering belief in the object of their ‘worship’ even though evidence and reason fail to support it;
    - both regard the object of their belief as the one absolute in the universe, and they are unable to doubt that absolute even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary;
    - both believe their position is the moral one and those who do not follow their belief are somehow flawed; and
    - both believe that because their belief is ‘right’ and ‘moral’, any sort of unprincipled, dishonest or unconscionable conduct is perfectly justifiable if its purpose is to defend their belief.


    Report this

    121

    • #
      Vic G Gallus

      You need to appreciate that a real religion is not an attempt to explain the unknown like science. There are many things that you just wouldn’t contemplate researching scientifically (is murder immoral?). A bit like not being able to really figure what the weather will be like in in a week but people need to know.


      Report this

      40

      • #

        Vic,

        Before responding, I will take a moment to modify the second dash-point in my original post. I should have said:

        - both regard the object of their belief as the one absolute in the universe, and the explanation for everything else must be modified to accommodate that one absolute;

        With respect, I do not agree with your statement ‘a real religion is not an attempt to explain the unknown’. My view on religion, which I ask you to consider, is as follows (this is a copy and paste from a topic several weeks ago):

        As to religion, witchdoctors were its early practitioners. In prehistoric times the strongest male became leader of the tribe. There was no means for anyone weaker than the leader to gain tribal power. But one day some clever individual found a way to gain tribal power by exploiting people’s fear of things around them that could not be explained, such as volcanoes, eclipses and so on. This individual realised that if he could be seen as the channel through which the cause of these events could be explained (gods) it would give him immense power in the tribe. His early attempts were probably met with scepticism, but before too long he realised that if he ritualised it with beads and silly hats people would defer to his authority. Bring it forward a few thousand years and you have the explanation as to why priests wear silly hats and engage in such elaborate rituals. And on the subject of garb, notice how many people groom and dress themselves in a way that is meant to create an image that elevates them socially amongst their tribal peers – think of people wearing hats when they don’t need to or wearing ornaments such as chains and ear rings. And, pathetically, people defer to such individuals as possessing socially superior qualities. Pathetic, isn’t it, that in this day and age people still respond psychologically to others who display different sorts of ‘plumage’.


        Report this

        40

        • #
          Vic G Gallus

          The whole sentence was “religion is not an attempt to explain the unknown like science.”

          How did the our early ingenious minds get the rest of the tribe to toss out a good portion of their food so that the ground would bear more food the next season? Was it science or religion?

          More enlightening would be to think about the reason you needed a fasting period like Lent at the end of a long winter. Surely people could comprehend that unusual frosts in spring might be rare but that they do happen. Therefore we shouldn’t consume all of our food, just in case. Everybody can follow the logic but humans being humans, it had to be a custom. This is not off topic either.


          Report this

          50

    • #
      Chester

      “…the history of dodgy explanations…”!

      I know that the standard response to references to Skeptical Science is to predictably (and tellingly) rubbish what they know is a rigorously scientific site (and, by the way, the very site that Jo Nova has used as a model derivatively for her own unoriginal outputs) but there you will find the hundreds of scientifically rebutted claims of sceptics and contrarians alike. The failure of the sceptics to put any scientific dent in the science of climate change makes a mockery of them and is the reason that blogs like this have an audience and a following – it’s the last resort and the one place where they can’t be held to account for the sort of hateful, nasty rants made in this post.


      Report this

      08

      • #
        Vic G Gallus

        rubbish what they know is a rigorously scientific site

        Their article on the runaway greenhouse effect shows that it is propaganda. A verbose description that hides what they admit is the truth, that it is not occurring. It glosses over this by referring to it being very hot on the surface due to its atmosphere of mostly CO2, but neglects to mention that the higher density is the reason.

        It also states that it was very likely that a runaway greenhouse occurred in the early life of Venus when it is not even very likely that there ever was an ocean of water on Venus.


        Report this

        50

      • #
        Geoff Sherrington

        Chester,
        I’d say Steve McIntyre & Ross McKitrick demolishing the acceptance of the hockey stick was a dent in the science of climate change.
        The Wegman report showing the unsuitablility of certain tree types for dendroclimatology.
        Nic Lewis putting in another dent by showing that climate models give unrealistic results and why.
        I could go on to many more examples.

        So called sceptics have indeed contributed to cleaning up some of the silly claims of climate science.
        Climate change is represented as so comprehensive, almost a universal panacea for the needs of Man, that it would be quite unreasonable to expect Global Warming Mark 1 to be free of errors.
        It was not. The latest version is still replete.

        We’ll knock it back to reality, time and again, if the original authors fail to.


        Report this

        20

        • #
          Philip Shehan

          Geoff,

          MIntyre and McKitrick’s criticism of the hockey stick was based on an objection to the use of principle component analysis by Mann et al.

          In response to the hockey stick controversy, the US congress commissioned a thorough investigation of temperature reconstruction by the National Research Council of the National Academies. This comprehensive report weighed in at 160 pages.

          http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11676&page=R1

          With regard to the criticisms of MIntyre and McKitrick the report states:

          As part of their statistical methods, Mann et al. used a type of principal component analysis that tends to bias the shape of the reconstructions. A description of this effect is given in Chapter 9. In practice, this method, though not recommended, does not appear to unduly influence reconstructions of hemispheric mean temperature; reconstructions performed without using principal component analysis are qualitatively similar to the original curves presented by Mann et al.

          Far from demolishing hockey sticks produced by a number of groups using a number of proxies the report broadly accepts their validity (Chapter 11):

          Large-scale surface temperature reconstructions yield a generally consistent picture of temperature trends during the preceding millennium, including relatively warm conditions centered around A.D. 1000 (identified by some as the “Medieval Warm Period”) and a relatively cold period (or “Little Ice Age”) centered around 1700. The existence of a Little Ice Age from roughly 1500 to 1850 is supported by a wide variety of evidence including ice cores, tree rings, borehole temperatures, glacier length records, and historical documents.

          One published paper in particular deals with the methods used by Mann et al:

          Wahl and Amman; Robustness of the Mann, Bradley, Hughes reconstruction of Northern Hemisphere surface temperatures:
          Examination of criticisms based on the nature and processing of proxy climate evidence

          and concludes:

          The results presented here show no evidence for removing the MBH [Mann, Bradley, Hughes] Northern Hemisphere temperature reconstruction from the list of important climate reconstructions of the past six centuries, on the basis of alleged “flaws” in its use of proxy data or underlying methodology. Indeed, our analyses act as an overall indication of the robustness of the MBH reconstruction to a variety of issues raised concerning its methods of assimilating proxy data, and also to two significant simplifications of the MBH method that we have introduced. The shape of a single-bladed “hockey stick”-like evolution of Northern Hemisphere temperature over
          the last 600 years is strongly confirmed within the MBH reconstruction framework (general algorithm and proxy data).

          https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/cv/cv_pubs/wahl/NH-and-Climate-Field-Reconstruction-Papers/Wahl_Ammann_ClimChange2007.pdf


          Report this

          02

          • #
            bullocky

            Philip Shehan

            February 16, 2014 at 10:57 pm ·
            -
            This is from Skepticalscience.
            -
            -

            Were you ashamed to indicate this, or merely afraid that it would pass unnoticed?


            Report this

            10

            • #
              Philip Shehan

              What is from Skeptical science?

              The report to US congress?
              Did not notice any acknowledegement of SkS contribution in the report.

              The paper published in the peer reviewed literature?
              No acknowledgement of SkS in the paper.

              If you are saying that these sources were cited in Skeptical Science, and therefore not credible simply because a blog you don’t like references them, you are simply demonstrating the utterly infantile depths to which this SkS phobia has decended.


              Report this

              03

              • #
                bullocky

                Philip Shehan:…”the utterly infantile depths to which this SkS phobia has decended.”
                -
                -
                Leave this sort of language to Chester, Philip. He’s good at it and it’s beneath you.


                Report this

                00

  • #
    A happy little debunker

    Sophie Lewis’ research was conducted using only Australian data & ‘Climate models’.

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-02-13/measuring-global-warming/5257176.

    Her conclusions were completely appropriate considering the fundametal assumptions made.

    Garbage in – Garbage out!


    Report this

    120

  • #
    Mindert Eiting

    ‘We can’t think of anything else’ sounds to me like an obsession. In the tradition of reason: each scientific theory has to deal with three kinds of fact, those implied or predicted by the theory that prove to be true (confirmation), similar but false (falsification), and those not implied by the theory (indifferent). If a cold snap in the USA, heavy rainfall in the UK, or a heat wave in Australia confirm AGW, these events must have been predicted. Where are those predictions?

    The after-the-fact analyses, always showing the explanatory magic of AGW, are no better than psychoanalysis. AGW does nor predict single weather events. So none of them can confirm or falsify this theory. AGW predicted a hot spot and rising temperatures in the past seventeen years, but in the tradition of bad science they are looking for excuses why these predictions seemingly proved to be false. The invention of more frequent weather extremes (increasing variance) does not follow from the old theory and is not sustained by a shred of evidence.


    Report this

    110

    • #
      Philip Shehan

      “WE can’t think of anything else” is a misunderstanding of Sophie Lewis’ position, and of other scientists who make similar statements.

      Nor is it “an argument from ignorance”.

      Notice the brazen ambition here — they pretend that they can predict, understand, and model “natural climate variation”:

      “It is nearly impossible to explain it from natural climate variation. Greenhouse gases are needed to explain this,’’

      The anthropogenic effect is calculated primarily from our understanding of the physics of greenhouse gases (and also the effects of anthropogenic airborne particulates, the reduction in the ozone layer etc) in the same way that the contributions from “natural forcings” are calculated from our understanding of how they work.

      Consider this model of temperature variation which includes four factors; solar cycles, ENSO (el nino/la nina), volcanic eruptions and anthropogenic effects (principally the greenhouse effect). Clearly you cannot fit the theory perfectly with the observed data using only four factors, but the fit is pretty good (r = 0.87)

      http://www.sciencemag.org/content/326/5960/1646/F8.expansion.html

      If you leave out the calculated ENSO contribution, there will not be a good fit of the model to the observed temperature.

      If you leave out the calculated volcanic contribution, there will not be a good fit of the model to the observed temperature.

      If you leave out the calculated solar contribution, there will not be a good fit of the model to the observed temperature.

      If you leave out the calculated anthropogenic forcing, there will not be a good fit of the model to the observed temperature.

      Each of these forcings, anthropogenic and natural is needed to make the model work.

      or

      “It is nearly impossible to explain it from natural climate variation. Greenhouse gases are needed to explain this,’’

      “So figure perhaps, that if they knew all the forces in natural variability they might be able to predict the climate?”

      So, no, however many refinements you put on this particular four forcing model, it is highly unlikely that it will work without the anthropogenic forcing.


      Report this

      09

      • #
        The Griss

        Well they sure don’t work with anthropogenic forcing.


        Report this

        70

      • #
        The Griss

        The only one of Hansen’s little scenarios that came anywhere near was the one where we all stopped creating CO2 immediately.

        Quite funny really.. he essentially showed that CO2 had no effect on warming. :-)


        Report this

        90

      • #
        BacktoAGW

        While what you say about this very basic multiple linear regression is probably true,the detail shown is too limited for it to be of much use.

        No plot of residuals – basic to see if regression adequately specified.

        No check for predictor multicollinearities (in fact Foster and Rahmstorff (2011) show there are) – this affects statistical significance and any prediction

        Autocorrelated dependent(temperature)and independent (anthropogenic) variables – makes for potential spurious correlation. R-squared of 0.76 is not that high anyway.

        And on and on. In fact, like much climate statistics, looks pretty well a botch.


        Report this

        20

        • #
          Philip Shehan

          BacktoAGW,

          Point taken. While it would be handy to look into the factors you discuss, unfortunately the paper from which the figure is taken (modified) – J. L. Lean, D. H. Rind, Geophys. Res. Lett. 36, L15708 (2009) – and which may contain details is paywalled.

          However I am not really concerned with the details of the fit, rather this is a convenient figure to get across my point that the anthropogenic forcing is not simply the “leftovers” and that you could make the same statement that Lewis made about greenhouse gases and the temperature record and is being pilloried for:

          “It is nearly impossible to explain it from natural climate variation. Greenhouse gases are needed to explain this,’’

          about natural a natural forcings:

          “It is nearly impossible to explain it from greenhouse gases variation. Natural forcings are needed to explain this,’’

          But skeptics never ask why you need natural forcings to explain the temperature record.

          Simply changing this perspective, even if you say the calculated greenhouse gas contribution is inferior in quality to the calculated contributions for natural forcings (and I have seen no evidence presented by the critics here that this is true) demonstrates that this is not a logical fallacy.

          The logical fallacies are provided for public mockery by the The CSIRO, The Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, and ill-informed journalists.

          And actually given that only four forcings are involved, I think r2 = 0.76 is a pretty good fit, judged by eyeballing the amount of match between the calculated and observed temperature lines.


          Report this

          04

          • #
            Kevin Lohse

            Dear Philip. I’ve followed your exquisite efforts at constructing epicycles to support the hypothesis of CO2-led CAGW with great interest. However , I have some bad news for you. That pesky reality has intruded again, I’m afraid.

            http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c01a73d78d297970d-pi.

            NOAA, a suitably august body peer-reviewed up to the nines has just released a graph that shows a cooling within the USA of about 1.5K/century over the past 20 years. This data is backed up by the CET series which also shows cooling over the same period. I’m afraid it’s far,far better than you ever imagined. I now look forward with bated breath to having my flabber ghasted by your next essay as you continue to distort logic and torture data in the ultimately vain hope that black will turn out to be white.
            Thank you for providing such sustained amusement over the weekend.


            Report this

            40

            • #
              Philip Shehan

              Kevin,

              Read and enjoy.

              If you were paying such close attention to my posts, how did you miss my frequent references to statistical significance; the importance of error margins, using an adequate sample size (in this case the timme period of the data set) with regard to linear regression analysis?

              (Statistical significance is a concept eagerly embraced by “skeptics” when Phil Jones agreed that a 15 year warming trend was not statistically significant, but abandoned when you apply the same test to claims that warming has paused, or in the case of the graph you present here, a cooling trend.)

              How did you miss my post showing that even if a warming (or cooling trend) based on a few decades is statistically significant, extrapolating the trend to a century or more gives totally inaccurate results because the assumption that the long term temperature trend is linear is unwarranted?

              How did you miss my reference to the only bit of evidence I have seen purporting to show that the global temperature data sets are corrupted (including the NOAA data set you use here) is a graph of US land based temperature? And here it is not even the entire US. The Alaskans and Hawaiians will be pissed because they are not included in the “contiguous” US.

              But this is much, much worse. The data you present is not only restricted to the (contiguous) US but it is only for the three winter months, January -November.

              Here is the global NOAA temperature trend for the period of the graph you link (1995 to the present):

              Trend: 0.086 ±0.097 °C/decade (2σ)

              So the global trend is superficially a warming trend.

              But it is not statistically significant.

              If extrapolated to a century the trend does indeed match the actual temperature rise this century (0.8 – 0.9 °C).

              But this extrapolation is based on the assumption that the actual temperature rise is linear, so unreliable, in fact almost certainly false.

              Chuckle on.

              Although the amusement you have provided me has not been sustained over the whole weekend, you certainly have provided quality entertainment with this single contribution.


              Report this

              03

              • #
                Kevin Lohse

                Thanks Philip, exactly what I expected, a reprise of debunked pseudo-science, a wonderful example of a circular argument ( How did you miss my post…) blatant cherry-picking of data, and ignoring the fact that CET data agrees with the NOAA data I provided. Throughout your faith-inspired door-stepping of this blog, it is clear that for you, science is only useful when it agrees with your quasi-religious belief in CO2-led CAGW. you ignore the data that shows that over the last 1000 or so years, Global temperature has only just returned to the levels last seen in the MWP, and in the RMP 1000 years before that, There is considerable doubt as to whether even those peaks have been reached in the Modern Warm Period, but you then accuse your opponents of short-terminism.
                I fear , Philip that you are not a credible advocate of an incredible hypothesis.


                Report this

                30

              • #
                Philip Shehan

                But Kevin, as I wrote in response to another post of yours elsewhere: I have no problem with the NOAA data for the contiguous U.S. or the CET (that’s Central England Temperature) data but we are talking about global warming here. And for the whole year, not just winter months.

                So why prefer your cherry picked NOAA US data winter set to my cherry picked (that is picked to be directly comparable to your preferred cherry picked data) GLOBAL NOAA data?

                And see my other post with a link to another NOAA report “NOAA, a suitably august body peer-reviewed up to the nines” which deals with temperature data and concludes concerning the WMP and LIA – oh forget it. It’s posted on this thread.


                Report this

                01

              • #
                Philip Shehan

                Kevin:

                16.2.2.1
                Philip Shehan
                February 16, 2014 at 10:57 pm · Reply


                Report this

                01

            • #
              Philip Shehan

              Kevin , One more thing. As for the claim on your link:

              Huge CO2 emissions no match for natural climate change forces since 1995

              Consider the following (UAH satellite data used as WFT does not have the NOAA database):

              http://tinyurl.com/kxnrcsu


              Report this

              02

              • #
                Heywood

                Brian,

                A little off topic, I have a question.

                Can you read the below statement and comment on its accuracy?

                “CO2 absorbs radiation. More radiation absorbed means more radiation in the atmosphere. That means a warmer planet.”

                Anyone else can be free to hop in.

                Genuine question.


                Report this

                30

              • #
                The Griss

                or you could consider this one.

                Philip, your crass stupidity never ceases to amaze me.

                Laugh after laugh after laugh. :-)

                You are a mathematically and scientifically illiterate, monotonous drone. ! :-)

                They say laughter is good for a person. So I must be getting really healthy.


                Report this

                10

              • #

                Dueling graphs! I love it!

                Heywood: Yes CO2 absorbs radiation.
                Seems likely: More radiation absorbed means more radiation in the atmosphere.
                Only if we pretend like CO2 is the ONLY factor in the equation, which it clearly is not: That means a warmer planet
                Next question.


                Report this

                20

              • #
                MaxL

                Hi Heywood,
                I have a question regarding the statement you quoted.

                What is radiation once it has been absorbed?

                Wrong answer: It’s still radiation.


                Report this

                00

      • #
        bullocky

        Philip Shehan:….
        …………”Each of these forcings, anthropogenic and natural is needed to make the model work.”
        -
        -
        You left out ‘faith’!


        Report this

        00

        • #
          The Griss

          “Each of these forcings, anthropogenic and natural is needed to make the model work.”’

          But the models don’t work, they are woefully pathetic.. like you.

          And reason for that is because they way over-estimate anthropogenic forcings. and are juggled to match a corrupted temperature record.

          Because they try to match Giss and Hadcrut, they have an unrealistic temperature trend built into them, probably 3-4 times reality, so they will always end up projecting temperatures that are massively over-guessed.
          This fact is shown to be true by the woeful performance of 97% or more of the models.


          Report this

          20

  • #
    Manfred

    Neophytic postdoc fellow (Melbourne U.) Sophie Lewis, describes her research at ‘The Conversation’ (where else?) as:

    I am part of the climate extremes research program and am investigating changes in temperature and rainfall extremes in recent times in the Australian region using global climate modelling approaches.

    Her recent GHG/summer extreme temperature causal proclamation mentioned here by Jo is presumably bound up with her modeled view of ‘climate’, which segues faultlessly into ‘weather’, possibly brought on by the unfettered enthusiasms and confirmation biases rife at ‘the nation’s biggest annual meeting of climate scientists’ in the Green heartland of Tasmania.

    So it appears thata her unbridled sycophantic inclinations to impress her elders got the better of her. The MSM may have mindlessly vacuumed up this titbit of catastrophism, but I doubt her more seasoned scientific or political colleagues will appreciate the easily refuted publicity, particularly as there is an inconvenient backdrop with Tasmanian Premier Ms Giddings being under pressure from Labor backbenchers to sever ties with the Greens as Labor attempts to build voter support for power in its own right.

    No, she’s definitely not the spokesman they wanted.


    Report this

    80

    • #

      Can’t predict the climate they say? Can’t predict the weather either, says a new peer reviewed paper by Dr Jennifer Marohasy … especially rainfall.


      Report this

      60

      • #

        Again, the term “biblical”. Can’t climate science function without inserting religion? If they are atheists (and not all are, of course) aren’t they alluding to a fictional work? Couldn’t they then compare the rainfall to a disaster movie just a easily? Oh, wait, Al already used fictional film footage….my bad. I guess one uses whatever one thinks will sell: truth, lies, fiction…….


        Report this

        102

        • #
          Graeme No.3

          Sheri:
          they didn’t predict it (they can’t predict it) so when it arises they say “Holy Moses, what caused that?”

          From there to biblical prophecy is a simple step.


          Report this

          50

        • #
          Safetyguy66

          Pretty soon we are going to run out of superlatives. This year the MSM has worn out Mega and Super pretty much completely. I guess next year we will be having ultra storms and fantastifires. The year after, I guess they will have to make up new words. That’s ok though it will fit right in with the made up pseudo science.


          Report this

          70

    • #
      Bob Malloy

      I am part of the climate extremes research program and am investigating changes in temperature and rainfall extremes in recent times in the Australian region using global climate modelling approaches.

      The emphasis being on, TEMPERATURE AND RAINFALL EXTREMES IN RECENT TIMES, because they can’t refer to an extended time frame lest we “the great unwashed” notice things like HEAT WAVE OF 1896 114 DEGREES AT BOURKE, or The Bruckner Cycle
      and also something like this, God knows we might get some strange demented thought like maybe it’s just part of a natural cycle.


      Report this

      130

  • #
    Manfred

    From ‘Quote of the Week’ Watts Up With That

    ….since everyone from the IPCC to my cat agrees that:

    • There is no link between historical post-Little-Ice-Age warming and extreme weather, and

    • Droughts are more common in colder times than in warmer times, and

    • For the last decade and a half there’s been no statistically significant warming, certainly not enough to cause increased extreme weather.

    We have neither the understanding nor the information necessary to ascribe ANY single weather event to climate change, and we’re a long ways from having either one.


    Report this

    140

  • #
    timothy sorenson

    Is there more C02 on the ‘underside of the globe?’ somce it seems to be collecting downunder
    and affected the cognitive skills of some of these scienctist.

    The single most arrogant statement out there. “Since, I can’t prove it, my intuition must be correct.”
    {Since I am so F*&^&*ing smart, my guess are just as good as fact.}

    Sheez.


    Report this

    110

    • #
      PeterK

      Yeah…since CO2 is heavy it sinks down to the bottom of the earth (globe) (arounb Australia)…but then again, if I were travelling in space and approaching earth, which would be up and which would be down?


      Report this

      40

  • #
    handjive

    Meanwhile, in the northern hemisphere …
    … it’s “worse than we first thought.” The “Settled Science” that is.

    Global Warming, Winter Weather and the Olympics – Five Leading Climate Scientists Weigh in

    There’s a noteworthy letter in today’s edition of the journal Science, titled “Global Warming and This Winter’s Cold Weather,” that aims to cut through the flood of overwrought assertions about recent Northern Hemisphere winter weather in the context of global warming.

    It’s written by five leading climate scientists, all of whom have long been reliable guides to a complicated and consequential body of science —
    John M. Wallace at the University of Washington, Isaac M. Held at the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory,
    David W. J. Thompson at Colorado State University,
    Kevin E. Trenberth at the National Center for Atmospheric Research,
    and John E. Walsh at the University of Alaska, Fairbanks.

    The letter is behind the journal’s subscription wall, so I’m providing excerpts here:
    ” Some have been touting such stretches of extreme cold as evidence that global warming is a hoax, while others have been citing them as evidence that global warming is causing a “global weirding” of the weather. In our view it is neither.

    But tremendous natural variability occurs in the large-scale atmospheric circulation during all seasons, and even in summer the links between Arctic warming and mid-latitude weather are not supported by other observational studies. The lag between decreases in sea ice extent during late summer and changes in the mid-latitude atmospheric circulation during other seasons (when the recent loss of sea ice is much smaller) needs to be reconciled with theory.”
    . . .

    The”science” is more unsettled than a stomach with food poisoning.


    Report this

    100

  • #
    Tim

    CO2 is a lot easier to tax than solar radiation.


    Report this

    120

  • #

    I remember reading scare stories a few years ago about how Scotland’s ski fields would have to close within a few years due to declining snowfall, and, of course, it is nearly impossible to explain this as natural climate variation. Greenhouse gases would explain this.

    Today, the UK Mail reports that Scottish ski resorts have had more snow than Sochi, and, of course, it is nearly impossible to explain this as natural climate variation. Greenhouse gases would explain this.


    Report this

    60

  • #
    ROM

    And here you have it folks, from the appointed scientific assistant to the American President, John Holdren, so it’s scientific and it is official.

    Obama to pitch $1B climate change ‘resilience fund’

    From The Hill, the reporting publication of the American Congress and Senate.

    [ quoted ]
    During a call with reporters on Thursday evening, the assistant to the president on science and technology, John Holdren, said, without any doubt, the severe drought plaguing California and a number of other states across the country is tied to climate change.

    “Weather practically everywhere is being caused by climate change,” Holdren said.


    Report this

    60

    • #
      Bob Malloy

      “John Holdren, said, without any doubt, the severe drought plaguing California and a number of other states across the country is tied to climate change.”

      Maybe “The Grapes of Wrath” should become prescribed reading for these prophets of doom. It used to be history forgot will be history repeated. Now it is history forgot ignored is used against the people by obfuscation.

      Set during the Great Depression, the novel focuses on the Joads, a poor family of tenant farmers driven from their Oklahoma home by drought, economic hardship, and changes in the agricultural industry forcing tenant farmers out of work. Due to their nearly hopeless situation, and in part because they were trapped in the Dust Bowl, the Joads set out for California. Along with thousands of other “Okies”, they sought jobs, land, dignity, and a future.


      Report this

      50

    • #
      Tim

      An answer comes to mind about his statement:
      ‘No shit, Sherlock.’


      Report this

      10

    • #
      Safetyguy66

      “Weather practically everywhere is being caused by climate change,” Holdren said.

      That up there with Barry O’Farrell and “we have to create laws to criminalise these outlaw motorcycle gangs”

      Of the ultimate oxymoron name for a radio show…. “The Religion and Ethics Report” ABC of course.


      Report this

      30

    • #
      PeterK

      Pure and unadulterated insanity….


      Report this

      20

  • #
    LevelGaze

    A bit O/T, but the unquenchable Clive Hamilton FRSA (snigger) has just had a spot on Melbourne local radio (there’s some sort of “sustainabilty” jamboree going on here).

    He didn’t get an entirely free kick, the only two allowed callers were both highly critical of his views on “climate change”, but he dealt with them in the old reliable way by calling them “deniers”, quoting the Cook 97% paper and relying on “authority”.

    The ABC broadcaster, to her credit, gave the impression of not entirely buying the carbon boondoggle. I wonder how long she’ll last at the corporation now? – I believe she has a strong personal following.


    Report this

    110

  • #
    Bruce of Newcastle

    Anyone who has been watching the synoptic maps this summer will have seen a succession of classic blocking highs over the Tasman Sea.

    That is a well known phenomenon, and is probably related to neutral SOI conditions, since when SOI is high the high pressure systems tend to pass over Tasmania, and when SOI is low they pass over Brisbane. In those cases they tend not to get stuck over the Tasman.

    Blocking events are well known for causing hot summers, as in Moscow 2010. That was a jet stream related blocking event. It may be that jet stream sinuosity is contributing to our summer climatic events too – I don’t know since its not easy to get data for this.

    It is noteworthy that jet stream sinuosity may be related to low solar activity. The solar Ap Progression index was around 4 during the 2010 UK winter and Moscow summer. It has been around 5 during our current summer, even though F10.7 is near max.


    Report this

    120

    • #
      ianl8888


      … the synoptic maps

      I’ve noticed that the TV weather reports are increasingly leaving these charts out (ie. not showing them), but substituting flowing arrows for wind flow etc

      I wondered about that. Perhaps the view now is that Mugsville is too dumb to appreciate synoptic charts (all those confusing contours), or perhaps with those charts it’s too easy to figure out that weather is not caused by atmospheric CO2 … or maybe both, just to cover all aspects of the broader audience

      Certainly, “stationary highs” are being reported less frequently (although these phenomena are not less frequent in themselves), so I suspect propaganda. Only a suspicion, mind, not an accusation of conspiratorial ideation :)


      Report this

      100

    • #
      ROM

      As I understand it, the theory runs along the lines that in a cooling world where it is believed, with considerable paleo backing evidence, that the equatorial regions don’t change much in temperature but the polar regions cool dramatically ie Polar amplification at work but with the opposite sign to that beloved by the warmists,

      The temperature gradient between the equatorial regions and the poles then increases.
      This leads to more intense weather systems as energy flows from the equator to the poles intensifies which in turn is believed to intensify the jet streams leading to the jet stream flows becoming more unstable with the consequent increased amplitude of the jet stream meanderings penetrating further south and north with cold Arctic [ Antarctic ] air behind the jet stream fronts penetrating further south [ north]

      As a further consequence of this and conversely the warmer near equatorial air masses in the other part of the jet stream meanderings, penetrate a lot further north [ south ] leading to situations like that in the very recent north american cold outbreak where temperatures in some locations up in Canada were quite a lot warmer than down south of the Canadian / American border.
      the meanderings of the jet streams is in itself a outcome of physics which can readily be seen in the way that rivers and creeks with their flowing waters also have a sometimes very marked meandering course with a high degree of reapeatability in the way that their course swing, meanders both ways with considerable regularity.
      There are a number of hydrological studies done on this natural energy conserving outcome of flowing water in a confined channel and is indicative of the same physical forces that create the great north / south swings and meanderings in the high altitude global jet streams.

      So the mid to high latitudes where the main subtropical jets predominate, experience much wider extremes of temperature and weather conditions during the cooler climatic eras due entirely to the increased and intensified contrasting energy levels in our atmosphere, trying as always, to even out by flowing from the warmer, higher heat content regions to the cooler temperature, lower heat content regions.

      And so due entirely to this constant and highly variable energy flow from warm to cool in the entire atmospheric volume at every level we have weather systems and weather.
      A further consequence of and a major contributing factor by those contrasting air masses of which the meandering jet streams are merely a consequence and an indicator is the creation of the lower atmospheric high pressure and low pressure regions and systems and the way in which they move rapidly of just stagnate in one location for days or even weeks.

      And as those accumulations of energy levels over time vary ever so slightly due to solar variations , the constant changes in solar energy inputs due to the rotation of the planet and it’s inclination to the orbit around the sun ie seasons, as well as the elongation of that orbit plus a hell of a lot of other factors most still unknown that impinge on the solar energy inflows as well as the still not understood changes in out going radiation from the planet we get long term ever changing weather patterns which are called “climate”

      Jet streams are merely the conjunction of two very contrasting air masses at altitude that have a very high and intense temperature gradient across the air mass boundaries.
      They are an atmospheric phenomena that act as an intense energy transfer system across that same intense temperature gradient between those adjacent and contrasting air masses which through the corolios forces of the rotating planet create the very high internal velocities of often some hundreds of KPH within the jet stream structure as often seen in jet stream maps.

      Animation of jet stream analysis


      Report this

      60

    • #
      Manfred

      Down in the South of the South Island of NZ, we’ve experienced a dank, cold, wet excuse of a season that has masqueraded as summer. And to add insult to injury, they make us pay a carbon tax here too.


      Report this

      40

      • #
        Bruce of Newcastle

        Same thing. When you get a blocking high in the Tasman Sea the air flow to NZ is persistently from the south. The other side of the blocking high story is Adelaide, who’ve had temperatures over 40 C persistently through much of summer.

        Here in Newcastle summer has been perfect…gentle sea breezes and 26 C most days. Read it and weep!


        Report this

        60

  • #
    Vic G Gallus

    Scientist choose to be 99%, 95% or 90% confident with a measurement. They then calculate the range of results for infinite measurements that would contain either 99%, 95% or 90% of the results.

    Calculations using these estimates are then made including the error expressed as ± a value to cover the range, or confidence intervals on a plot.

    Can someone please explain to me what point they are trying to make here?


    Report this

    20

    • #
      Bones

      Vic,do try and keep up with the game.The point being made in your link is that there is 99.9% certainty that you have not got the knowledge to understand that these X spirts have no idea what their point is.But as long as they are paid they will CONtinue to baffle themselves with info that you will not understand.SIMPLE,and I’ll tell you that free of charge.


      Report this

      40

  • #

    So far the solar scientists are ahead of the game when it comes to accurate predictions of climate – for example, this prediction from the Russian Academy of Science from 2006, so far at least, is bang on.

    http://en.ria.ru/russia/20060825/53143686.html

    And its not difficult to find another forcing which could explain climate change in the 20th century. The following is a plot of the integral of sunspot count vs global temperature:-

    http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1850/mean:50/normalise/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1850/mean:50/offset:-40/integral/normalise

    The idea of using the integral is to model the impact of solar activity on the Earth as being analogous to a gas burner under a pot of water. Turning up the gas does not cause the water to boil immediately, it just increases the rate of heating. To convert a rate into a total, you need to integrate the rate.


    Report this

    80

    • #
      Bruce of Newcastle

      This post at Hockey Schtick blog may be of interest to you Eric. See the comments. The blogger has a model based on SSN integral. I use the previous solar cycle length myself, but that is probably picking up the same thing. My small model has also been doing very well for the last few years. With solar cycle length there’s the additional advantage of a predictive window out several years, which you can’t get with integrated SSN. Also integrated SSN needs a manually added scaling factor, which tends to obscure effects of other significant variables like the ~60 year cycle and UHIE.


      Report this

      40

  • #

    We talk loudly about extreme Summers. We whisper or look the other way when it comes to extreme Winters.

    Watch this short video from CBS in the U.S.

    Don’t watch it for the strict adherence to the Global Warming meme.

    Don’t watch it for the use of simplistic terms to explain this to the viewers.

    Don’t watch it for where they say that The North Pole Is melting.

    Don’t watch it for the representation of modeling for the viewers scare factor understanding.

    Don’t watch it for the argument from authority where they use the Physics professor.

    Don’t watch it for where he says this year, 2014 is likely to be the hottest year on record, umm, considering that he’s speaking in the U.S. where the year starts off in Winter, and they have no records for the Summer which is yet to come, just records for their Current Winter.

    No, watch this video up until the 2.40 mark of the video, and then, as the graphics come up on the screen, pause the video, and just consider those, umm, extreme weather records shown on the screen, records for Winter Weather Records broken from January 15 to February 12.

    There are almost double the Low Temp records compared to High Temp records, and still this year will be the hottest on record.

    CBS Blames Global Warming For Harsh Winter Weather

    Tony.


    Report this

    100

  • #
    incoherent rambler

    I found this description of racketeering and it made me wonder why the AGW believers are not all in gaol.

    A racket is a service that is fraudulently offered to solve a problem, such as for a problem that does not actually exist, will not be affected, or would not otherwise exist. Conducting a racket is racketeering.[1] Particularly, the potential problem may be caused by the same party that offers to solve it, although that fact may be concealed, with the specific intent to engender continual patronage for this party.

    Does AU have anti-racketeering laws or is it left to gaining financial advantage by deception?


    Report this

    90

  • #
    pat

    unbelievable, especially exploiting victims of flooding, given Green extremism seems to have played a part in worsening the situation:

    2:14 VIDEO: 14 Feb: BBC: Ross Hawkins: Greens calls for clear-out of ‘climate change deniers’
    The Green Party of England and Wales has called for a purge of government advisors and ministers who do not share its views on climate change.
    Any senior advisor refusing to accept “the scientific consensus on climate change” should be sacked, it said.
    Party leader Natalie Bennett said the rule must apply to all senior advisors, including those with no responsibility for environmental issues…
    Pressed on the issue, she agreed that even the chief veterinary officer should be removed if he didn’t sign up to the view on climate change also taken by the Green Party…
    Ms Bennett added: “It’s an insult to flood victims that we have an Environment Secretary (Owen Paterson) who is a denier of the reality of climate change and we also can’t have anyone in the cabinet who is denying the realities that we’re facing with climate change.”
    She said her party took the consensus view shared by many other organisation including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change…
    INSERT:
    Speaking on the BBC’s Any Questions programme in June, the environment secretary said: “The climate’s been going up and down” for centuries and pointed out that the earth’s surface temperature “has not changed in the last 17 years”.
    He added: “The real question, that everyone is trying to address is: Is this influenced by man-made activity in recent years?
    “There is almost certainly bound to be some influence by man-made activity but we have just got to be rational and make sure the measures we take to counter it do not actually cause more damage.”
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26187711


    Report this

    40

    • #
      Bones

      The Green Party of England and Wales has called for a purge of government advisors and ministers who do not share its views on climate change.
      Any senior advisor refusing to accept “the scientific consensus on climate change” should be sacked, it said.

      Thanks Pat,this must be the latest way of saying the science is settled.Reminds me of one of my father’s favorites
      ‘Be reasonable,do it my way”


      Report this

      50

  • #
    pat

    so far, no MSM in UK has reported the conviction:

    14 Feb: Basildon Echo: Jon Austin: Echo nabs £1m fraudster
    A CONMAN exposed by the Echo for selling green investment schemes which did not exist could face jail after being found guilty of fraud.
    Matthew Ames, 38, used famous names, including James Middleton, the brother of the Duchess of Cambridge, Jack Charlton and Sir Rodney Walker, to promote bogus “ethical investments” and persuade people to part with £1.2million.
    Ames, of Goldfinch Lane, Thundersley, was yesterday found guilty of conning investors into parting with about £430,000 to buy bogus carbon credits, which can be traded like shares on green stock exchanges, to investors from Forestry for Life, based at a converted barn in Dunton Road, Laindon…
    A day earlier, he had been found guilty of scamming investors out of £846,000 in a bogus Sri Lankan teak tree plantation scheme, run from the same address…
    ***The Echo went undercover to expose Ames’ firms…
    Football legend Jack Charlton was hired to launch the scheme in Ireland in 2010 and later that year, in October, James Middleton, brother of the Duchess of Cambridge, was photographed with Ames representing Forestry for Life at a carbon conference at London’s Excel Centre.
    Neither Mr Charlton nor Mr Middleton were implicated in any wrongdoing and were not involved in the investigation or trial…
    Sir Rodney Walker, former chairman of World Snooker and current head of the committee organising the UK leg of this year’s Tour de France, was described as chairman of Forestry for Life in its brochure.
    He was never registered as a director, but later became a creditor for the firm during the liquidation and acted as a witness for the prosecution in the trial….
    A City of London Police spokesman said: “Ames recruited professionals with impressive CVs, including former civil servants and businessmen…
    PHOTO CAPTIONS:
    Royal connection: James Middleton (left) and former Environment Secretery Chris Huhne lock hands as Ames looks on.
    Sports veteran: Sir Rodney Walker at Forestry for Life launch when he was its “chairman”
    Life in the fast lane: Ames rented this Lamborghini parked outside his Thundersley home with investors’ cash
    Launch: Jack Charlton hosted the Irish launch of Forestry for Life in 2010
    Well connected: James Middleton talks visitor through Forestry brochure
    http://www.basildonrecorder.co.uk/news/echo/11007546.Echo_nabs___1m_fraudster__Conman_Matthew_Ames/

    13 Feb: CityWireUK: Michelle Abrego: Harlequin chief’s son found guilty of £1.6m fraud
    The son of overseas property company Harlequin’s chairman David Ames has been found guilty of £1.6 million fraud.
    Matthew Ames was found guilty of two counts of fraudulent trading at Isleworth Crown Court which heard how he led investors into bogus carbon credit and teak tree investment schemes…
    The City of London Police, who led a two-year investigation into Matthew Ames, discovered that some of the investors’ individual losses ran as high as £120,000.
    The investigation found that Matthew Ames singled out the Northern Irish for ‘special treatment’ because he identified them as easier to get money from…
    http://www.citywire.co.uk/new-model-adviser/harlequin-chiefs-son-found-guilty-of-1-6m-fraud/a733887?ref=new-model-adviser-latest-news-list

    following is part of UK Financial Times. 2 pages. never mentions carbon credits. makes a case for Ames:

    21 Jan: FT Adviser: FSA leaked investigation into Harlequin founder’s son
    A local newspaper published a story about a fraud investigation into ‘green finance’ firm boss and son of Harlequin founder David Ames after it was leaked to them by the Financial Services Authority, a court has heard…
    Mr Ames is now standing trial at Isleworth Crown Court charged with two counts of fraudulent trading…
    Jurors heard that an article by the Basildon Echo was written about an investigation by the Financial Services Authority into Mr Ames in August 2010, as both firms were run in Essex.
    The article was only published after the Essex newspaper received confirmation from the regulatory body that it was investigating Mr Ames.
    Adam Budworth, defending Mr Ames, said Mr Ames only found out about the FSA’s investigation into his two businesses through the Echo’s article. The story was also later published in the Daily Mail…
    Mr Richards said: “I think the paper already had a story and needed confirmation. The head of department told our press office and our press office confirmed that we were investigating.
    “I believe that the press office would get a call and ask for a comment – if the FSA were investigating – and they would say ‘yes’.”
    Mr Budworth said the FCA later falsely denied Mr Ames was under investigation when he called them days after the story was published.
    Mr Budworth said: “I can’t understand why you’re investigating a company and you just leak or let it be known to the Basildon Echo that you’re carrying out an investigation without going to the company first.
    “Once the story goes into the Basildon Echo you must surely understand that a press article coming out, saying the FSA are investigating this company for breaches of financial regulations, amounts to the death knell for any financial company.”…
    http://www.ftadviser.com/2014/01/21/regulation/regulators/fsa-leaked-investigation-into-harlequin-founder-s-son-w5ehJNYLgzgWbznSxUFVdN/article.html


    Report this

    20

  • #

    Climate change happens. The core fallacy which is rarely questions is the ‘cum hoc’ fallacy that because CO2 is going up and the temperature was going up, CO2 must be causing the temperature change.

    There are two other possiblities. Firstly coincidence. Greater warming has happened before without the CO2 rise, but this has been airbrushed from the Hockey stick.
    Amazingly even the Maunder minimum where skaters were pictured on the Thames has vanished from the record.

    Secondly the reverse, that rising temperatures cause CO2 increases, which makes perfect sense considering that 98% of all CO2 is dissolved in the ocean. Even a slight outgassing would explain everything we have seen.

    Another observation is the exploitation of the 24 hour news phenomenon, especially weather related news. A huge hurricane in the Phillipines, a landslide in Peru and extreme heat in Baghdad are all known within minutes around the world. So it appears that everything is connected because there is so much weather related news, so much that only the biggest events are reported, the most catastrophic. Prior to popular radio less than 100 years ago, no one would have known about these events for months, if ever. So who caused Krakatoa which killed world weather for two years? Lastly humans are living in more extreme places than ever before, thanks to desalination, airconditioning, air transport. Just go to Dubai, the most unsustainable city on the planet.

    So a big hurricane. Climate change therefore CO2 therefore man. I would argue that there is no evidence that man has produced the increase in CO2. In fact you can prove it is not true from the constancy of C14 levels as fossil fuel has no C14.


    Report this

    130

  • #

    If fact, has anyone heard an explanation which links (man made) CO2 concentration with ‘extreme events’?

    CO2 does not affect temperature, so how does it create ‘extreme events’? The ‘science is in’? ‘in’ what?


    Report this

    120

  • #
    Ursus Augustus

    I have always described myself as an AGW skeptic, mainly based on my education as an engineer and all that maths, physics, chemistry, statistics, vibration analysis, fluid mechanics including the Navier Stokes equations and thermodynamics including that of the water cycle. I reasoned thet anthropogenic effects might be say 10 to 50% the cause of the recent warming. More recently I have seen myself as a fairly hardcore skeptic and shifted my guess range to -25% to +25% of the recent warming, in other words considering the possibility that we actually may have a relative cooling due to anthropogenic effects but just can’t sort the wheat from the chaff.

    After reading the extracts from the Hobart loon fest and in the light of the Ship of Fools and Professor Englands recent fantasy novella I think I had better come out as a complete and utter denier. There is no way in the world that any credit whatsoever should be given to the claims of this pack of empty headed, narcissistic pack of intellectual bum sniffers.

    I cannot accept that anyone with a genuine, god given intelligence could come out with such doctrinaire drivel. How on earth these people got their qualifications utterly stuns me. They are so far below the calibre of the people who taught me at university that I just cannot get my head around the financial largesse splashed upon them for producing their puerile confections.


    Report this

    280

  • #
    pat

    ***RESILIENCE remains a CAGW buzzword. Stern says anything he likes, who cares about evidence, & it gets published by the MSM:

    14 Feb: Guardian: Nicholas Stern: Climate change is here now and it could lead to global conflict
    Extreme weather events in the UK and overseas are part of a growing pattern that it would be very unwise for us, or our leaders, to ignore, writes the author of the influential 2006 report on the economics of climate change.
    The record rainfall and storm surges that have brought flooding across the UK are a clear sign that we are already experiencing the impacts of climate change…
    The upward trend in temperature is undeniable, despite the effects of natural variability in the climate which causes the rate of warming to temporarily accelerate or slow for short periods, as we have seen over the past 15 years…
    In fact, the risks are even bigger than I realised when I was working on the review of the economics of climate change for the UK government in 2006…
    We are already seeing low-carbon technologies being deployed across the world, but further progress will require investment and facing up to the real prices of energy, including the very damaging emissions from fossil fuels…
    Fortunately poorer countries, such as China, are showing leadership and beginning to demonstrate to the world how to invest in low-carbon growth.
    The UK must continue to set an example to other countries…
    The government will also have to ensure the country becomes more ***resilient to those impacts of climate change that cannot now be avoided, including by investing greater sums in flood defences…
    A much more sensible way to raise money would be to implement a strong price on greenhouse gas pollution across the economy, which would also help to reduce emissions…
    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/feb/13/storms-floods-climate-change-upon-us-lord-stern

    so funny how Obama had to go to California to avoid the freeze-up in order to make his announcement:

    14 Feb: Christian Science Monitor: Will Obama’s ‘climate resilience fund’ help cope with global warming?
    President Obama’s 2015 budget will include $1 billion to help communities deal with the effects of climate change. He made the announcement Friday on a visit to drought-stricken California
    RECOMMENDED: Think you know the odd effects of global climate change? Take our quiz…
    “Communities across the country are struggling with drought, a longer fire season, increasing summer temperatures, more heat waves, and rains coming in the form of deluges,” Angela Anderson, director of the Climate and Energy Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), said in a statement. “Congress can no longer ignore the consequences of climate change. The president is now putting a plan on the table that Congress needs to fund.”…
    Ms. Anderson at UCS points to one example: Miami Beach is spending more than $200 million to overhaul its drainage system, which has been compromised by sea level rise…
    http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/2014/0214/Will-Obama-s-climate-resilience-fund-help-cope-with-global-warming


    Report this

    20

    • #
      The Griss

      What these people fail to realise is that these events are all due to the globe losing energy as it starts to change temperature direction after a series of very solid solar maximums.

      The sun is going rather rapidly from this maximum to what looks like being a protracted series of very low activity and this is bound to cause these natural strong weather conditions.

      Natural strong weather conditions are how the Earth is trying to rebalance itself after 15-20 years of basically nothing happening.

      Yes, the climate is changing.. something it hasn’t done for 20 or so years.

      In fact the earth has been very stable for basically 50 or more years apart from the first release of energy at the 1998 ElNino.

      The raw data shows this to be the case, slight cooling from around 1940, then slight warming to match the 1940′s temps by about 2000.

      What is in store for the close future? (10-20 years)

      Let’s just say that I hope you all own plenty of blankets.


      Report this

      40

  • #
    pat

    13 Feb: San Francisco Chronicle: Linette Lopez: Another Tesla Caught On Fire While Sitting In A Toronto Garage This Month
    Earlier this month, a Tesla Model S sitting in a Toronto garage ignited and caught on fire. The car was about four months old and was not plugged in to an electric socket, says a source…
    Last year, three vehicles caught fire over the course of six weeks. The company has previously pointed out in a government filing that the lithium ion battery cells “have been observed to catch fire or vent smoke and flame.”…
    This latest fire occurred after the owner came home from a drive and left the car parked in the garage. After a few moments, the owner’s fire detector went off and the fire department was called. Though the fire was intense, the firemen were able to put it out quickly. They also had to remove the other car in the garage, a Lexus, which was parked next to the Tesla…
    Tesla: “…In this particular case, we don’t yet know the precise cause, but have definitively determined that it did not originate in the battery, the charging system, the adapter or the electrical receptacle, as these components were untouched by the fire.”
    Shortly after the fire, seven Tesla employees visited the owner of the vehicle. The company also offered to take care of the damages and inconvenience caused by the fire, but the owner declined…
    http://www.sfgate.com/technology/businessinsider/article/Another-Tesla-Caught-On-Fire-While-Sitting-In-A-5233464.php

    27 May 2013: Forbes: Patrick Michaels: If Tesla Would Stop Selling Cars, We’d All Save Some Money
    Next, let’s congratulate Elon Musk on paying off his half-billion dollar federal loan ahead of time. Finally, thanks to everyone in the country for helping to make this possible, and for continuing to do so.
    The public is still on the hook for Tesla, and will be for the foreseeable future.
    First, there’s the $7500 taxback bonus that every buyer gets and every taxpayer pays. Then there are generous state subsidies ($2500 in California, $4000 in Illinois—the bluer the state, the more the taxpayers get gouged), all paid to people forking out $63K (plus taxes) for the base version, to roughly $100K for the really quick one.
    The latest round of Tesla wonderment came when it reported its first quarterly profit earlier this month. TSLA stock darned near doubled in a week. Musk then borrowed $150 million from Goldman Sachs (shocking!) and floated a cool billion in new stock and long-term debt. That’s how we—the taxpayers—were repaid…
    Tesla didn’t generate a profit by selling sexy cars, but rather by selling sleazy emissions “credits,” mandated by the state of California’s electric vehicle requirements. The competition, like Honda, doesn’t have a mass market plug-in to meet the mandate and therefore must buy the credits from Tesla, the only company that does. The bill for last quarter was $68 million. Absent this shakedown of potential car buyers, Tesla would have lost $57 million, or $11,400 per car. As the company sold 5,000 cars in the quarter, though, $13,600 per car was paid by other manufacturers, who are going to pass at least some of that cost on to buyers of their products…
    How’s this going to work in the future? As long as the competition has to pay greenmail to Tesla, probably just fine. And with California gradually ratcheting up the electric-vehicle mandate, maybe just finer. No wonder the stock price doubled and Goldman shelled out…
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/patrickmichaels/2013/05/27/if-tesla-would-stop-selling-cars-wed-all-save-some-money/


    Report this

    20

  • #

    Obama to link California drought to climate change.

    And the record snows in the rest of North America, Mr President? Of course not. It is easy to evoke primitive fears when it concerns heat and drought but not so easy to do so when it concerns cold and snow.

    Is there any level to which the Left won’t sink to push their sick ideologically driven and ignorance driven environmental agenda?


    Report this

    70

  • #

    I was reading about the violent 350.org group which has as mantra the reduction of CO2 to 350ppm. As if we controlled the planet!

    They repeat a common pseudo science lie “the oceans are growing more acidic because of the CO2 they are absorbing”. Also Polar bears etc.

    For those without chemistry, the world’s oceans are alkali. Acid is below 7, Alkali is above and the oceans are 7.5 to 8.3, so they are alkali. It is a log scale.

    The oceans become less alkali, less reactive and harsh, more neutral with the addition of CO2.

    This shows you how a little science can be used to deceive and the wording shows deliberate intention to deceive. ‘more acid’. Yes, in an extreme semantic sense, in the direction of becoming acid but not in the sense of actually being acid.

    Further, the oceans already have 50x as much CO2 as the air. The oceans weigh 400x as much as the air. Only now are the warmists realising that the oceans are the planet and never suffer from drought or heat waves, whatever the temperature at Marble Bar.


    Report this

    100

    • #
      Andrew

      Yes, the oceans are highly alkali. One for the scientists: If half of all new CO2s went into the atmosphere (to create the expected CAGW) and the other half was absorbed to create “ocean acidification” how long at present emission rates and at what atmospheric point will be ocean reach the level of coral bleachiness / penguin meltiness of pure tap water at 7.0000000 pH?

      I’m guessing from the size of the oceans that by the time this point is reached, our atmosphere would resemble that of Venus, but it would be useful to have the official numbers.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Binny

    I keep telling my daughter, she is the reason for my grey hair. My hair wasn’t grey when she was born, and the longer she has been about the greyer my hair has got.
    Further more, world wide, more then 95% of people with grey hair have children. What more proof do you need?


    Report this

    100

    • #

      Interesting. It may be Jo’s fallacists fallacy. The arguments are cum hoc, but the proposition has merit in many cases. Depends on the children.


      Report this

      50

    • #
      Vic G Gallus

      It was the troll Will J. Browne who once wrote

      We have cause. We have effect, what more do you want?


      Report this

      00

      • #
        bullocky

        -
        I think Will neglected to mention ‘motive’; research funding, establishment prizes, international travel, professional advancement, paid committee and panel appointments, the lucrative speaking circuit …………
        -
        3 out of 3 ain’t bad


        Report this

        10

  • #
    R.J.

    Since I am told smugly that “weather” is not “climate”and that “climate” defines the trends which are the greatest influence on the planet ,surely it is the study and accumulated observations of “weather” that have to come first to establish the data for “climate” determination?
    We have no xtra warming for nearly 18 years now so my question is,” how long a period of observation of no changes is required for it to become the new “climate”
    18 years? 25 years? 35 years?…”…
    What is the criteria being used as the 50 year standard period has not been used for some time now.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Visiting Physicist

    “We can’t think of anything else”

    The problem is not that there is nothing else – but just that they can’t think.

    The “something else” is a combination of natural climate cycles, possibly regulated in some as-yet-unexplained mechanism relating to planetary orbits.

    Carbon dioxide does not add to this natural trend. In fact, like water vapour, it reduces the gradient of the temperature plot in the troposphere, so the whole plot rotates and intersects the surface at a lower supporting temperature.

    What you people don’t understand is that the thermal gradient (lapse rate) is a state of thermodynamic equilibrium. It would be steeper in the absence of radiating gases, but inter-molecular radiation has a temperature levelling effect and thus reduces the gradient.

    This happens on all planets. When Venus cools by 5 degrees during its 4-month-long night it loses a lot of energy in both its surface and the whole troposphere.

    If the Sun did not shine again, it would cool right down in a few centuries. But the Sun does warm it the next Venus day – back up by 5 degrees. However, the vast majority of the energy going into the surface to do this warming is not by radiation, but by “heat creep” which is diffusion of kinetic energy at the molecular level – wait for it – up the temperature plot from cold to hot.

    Sounds crazy, doesn’t it. But there is a valid reason in physics why this is so, as I have explained in my book “Why it’s not carbon dioxide after all” which will be available through Amazon and Barnes & Noble by the end of April, if not sooner.


    Report this

    70

    • #
      Vic G Gallus

      Oops hit tick not reply. I don’t disagree with you but I don’t like how you explained it.

      Very little solar radiation reaches the surface of Venus but it warms up again during the day. High above the surface 50-60km up, the atmosphere is absorbing radiation and getting hotter but still is a few hundred degrees cooler than the surface. Energy from this altitude still flows to the surface because the enthalpy, internal energy (chemical potential energy) and the work done, will flow until its even.

      Compressed gases have a negative work done (volume decrease) and expanded gasses have a positive work done (volume increase). The internal energy needs to be greater in the first case so that enthalpy remains the same ie it gets hotter.


      Report this

      20

    • #
      Bruce of Newcastle

      You’ve left out a bit of chemistry (I’m a chemist :) ) but otherwise yes!

      One aspect is that increased enthalpy will increase evaporation. The water vapour is a greenhouse gas, but the heat is in the enthalpy of evaporation, not in IR, therefore there isn’t much available to be absorbed. Then the water vapour diffuses upwards and condenses as cloud, releasing heat as IR in the stratosphere. But that is now above most of the CO2 in the air column, so it can’t be reabsorbed, it radiates to space.

      That is where the Svensmark mechanism comes in, because as nucleation rates increase cloud cover increases and the average cloud height changes. More cloud increases diffusion of incident solar radiation and higher cloud heights further increase the altitude where the latent heat of condensation is released as IR.

      So physics yes. Chemistry yes too.


      Report this

      70

  • #
    Jaymez

    It is a sad day for science when Dr Sophie Trewin reports at the Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society conference in Hobart “that the extreme temperatures that ravaged Australia last year cannot be explained by anything other than greenhouse gas”, as reported by the Hobart Mercury. http://www.themercury.com.au/news/tasmania/greenhouse-gas-the-only-possible-cause-of-extreme-summers-scientists-told-at-hobart-forum/story-fnj4f7k1-1226825748461

    The facts are the extreme temperatures experienced in some parts of Australia, mainly in the South East, tell us nothing at all about a range of important factors:

    1. GLOBAL climate change. Certainly if we look at the northern Hemisphere for instance they are experiencing record cold winters in many places. Western Australia, the Northern Territory, Queensland and much of NSW experienced typical summers. It was only the addition of the extremes in a small region of Australia and particularly South Australia which effected Australia’s statistical outcome for the summer and the year. http://jennifermarohasy.com/2014/02/temperature-variability-by-state-and-over-recent-years-comment-from-bob-f-j-on-2013-record/

    So not only is there no Australia wide ‘global warming signal’, there is no global signal in what is happening in south east Australia given what is happening in the northern hemisphere.

    2. We don’t know how much, if any, human greenhouse gas emissions impact on any global warming signal we can actually determine, versus natural climate variability. Currently there is no statistically significant increase in global average temperatures since 1998. Since CO2 emissions have risen rapidly since then, it defies the theory that CO2 emissions are inextricably linked to global warming. http://www.thegwpf.org/uk-met-office-global-temperature-standstill-continues/

    3. Because the Australian BOM, the ABC and others insist that some hot weather in the South East of Australia is evidence of GLOBAL warming, I’ll continue to point out the stupidity of that proposition by contrasting that with what is happening elsewhere in the GLOBE!

    “Hell may not freeze over, but experts say Lake Superior could this winter, for the first time this century.” http://www.foxnews.com/weather/2014/02/12/brutal-winter-may-see-lake-superior-freeze-over-for-first-time-in-decades/

    “It’ll approach 100 percent, but it’ll never quite get there,” said Steve Colman, director of University of Minnesota’s Large Lakes Observatory in Duluth, Minn. “And it doesn’t do that very often.”

    Some 94.7 percent of Lake Superior froze over in 1979, effectively a complete icing. Professor Jay Austin, also of the University of Minnesota’s Large Lakes Observatory, said he expects ice coverage to exceed the 20-year-record of 91 percent on the 31,700-square-mile lake before spring.

    Well news for these scientists is that GLERL’s model analysis suggests Lake Superior reached 94.3% ice coverage yesterday, and some lake watchers are forecasting complete coverage in the near future. http://www.glerl.noaa.gov/res/glcfs/glcfs-ice.php?lake=s&type=N&hr=00

    4. Sophie Trewin say she couldn’t find any explanation for the warm weather in Australia other than CO2. Well she can’t be much of a researcher! Popular Technology have updated their list of peer reviewed scientific papers which support skeptic arguments against Anthropogenic Climate Change (ACC), Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) or ACC/AGW Alarm [Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW)]. You can see it here with more than 1,350 listed: http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html#Preface

    You don’t hear it so often nowadays, but it used to be the bluster of climate alarmists that there was not a single serious scientist, or a single scientific paper which does not support the so called ‘consensus’ on climate science; the alleged IPCC ‘settled science’.

    In Australia we had IPCC lead author and member of the Labor Government’s Climate Change Authority, Professor David Karoly tell us on the ABC four corners programme in 2009:

    “Typically there would be one to 2,000 scientific papers published every year in the fields of climate change science contributing to the understanding of climate change science and none of those seriously contradict the conclusions of the IPCC.” http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2009/s2737676.htm It seems Trewin is from the same blinkered school of research as Karoly!

    For those who think the weather in south east Australia is unusual and has something to do with greenhouse gas emissions, I’ll remind you of Dorothea Mackellar’s poem written in 1908. Here is an extract. Clearly nothing has changed in a hundred years!

    I love a sunburnt country, A land of sweeping plains, Of ragged mountain ranges,
    Of droughts and flooding rains.

    Core of my heart, my country! Her pitiless blue sky, When sick at heart, around us,
    We see the cattle die -

    But then the grey clouds gather, And we can bless again The drumming of an army,
    The steady, soaking rain.

    Core of my heart, my country! Land of the Rainbow Gold, For flood and fire and famine,
    She pays us back threefold -
    http://www.kidspot.com.au/kids-activities-and-games/australia-day+54/i-love-a-sunburnt-country+12654.htm


    Report this

    20

  • #
    pat

    15 Feb: SMH: Heath Aston: Carbon tax figures add to pressure to repeal
    Environment Minister Greg Hunt said the ”hit on the economy” from the tax was worse than Labor had predicted when the Gillard government introduced it last year.
    He said the cost to the economy was $7.6 billion once reduced fuel tax credits and charges on the refrigeration and aviation industries were considered…
    ”All Australians can blame Bill Shorten [for] helping to push up electricity bills and the overall cost of living,” he said. ”It’s time for Labor to get out of the way and support the repeal of the carbon tax.”
    Mr Hunt said the $7.6 billion paid by companies had resulted in only a 0.1 per cent fall in emissions. Proof, he said, that ”it doesn’t even work”.
    http://www.smh.com.au/national/carbon-tax-figures-add-to-pressure-to-repeal-20140214-32rdm.html

    the above article is in the top news grouping on this topic but, when u click on the mere “17 results” – which in reality is 4 MSM articles (guess it’s not being published in the regionals?), it’s not there. instead, the following article is included, virtually the same as the one above, but this one has a second writer, a new headline, & Butler & Connor (who has the final word):

    15 Feb: SMH: Heath Aston/Mark Kenny: Environment Minister Greg Hunt launches attack at $6.6b carbon tax payout
    Shadow environment minister Mark Butler said the government had failed to understand the aim of the carbon tax. ”Its purpose is to charge polluters for their excess emissions,” he said.
    ”During the period since the carbon price’s introduction, the economy has continued to grow, contradicting Tony Abbott’s claim that it will have a catastrophic effect on Australia’s economy.”
    Climate Institute chief executive John Connor warned against the government using large figures, which are being passed on in higher prices that are softened by household compensation, to claim damage was being done to Australia.
    “It’s not true to say there is no gain, the government’s own data estimates the carbon laws will reduce pollution by almost 40 million tonnes by July 2014,” he said.
    ”The bigger point is that the laws make big polluters take responsibility for their pollution, repeal will just return them to an entitlement to pollute for free – and access a taxpayer subsidy should they wish to take some action.”…
    http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/environment-minister-greg-hunt-launches-attack-at-66b-carbon-tax-payout-20140214-32rgh.html


    Report this

    20

  • #
    pat

    14 Feb: BusinessSpectator: Reuters: Britain considers ‘pointless’ carbon tax freeze
    The British government is expected to freeze the carbon tax on fossil fuels but at a level unlikely to alleviate high power bills for consumers and energy-intensive companies, analysts said on Thursday…
    But the price, even after a freeze, will still leave British generators paying around three times more for their emissions than their European counterparts.
    “Freezing it for a few years could be a halfway house that doesn’t satisfy anyone,” said Peter Atherton, an analyst at Liberum Capital…
    It was set at 4.94 pounds ($8.19) per tonne in April 2013, rising to 18.08 pounds per tonne in April 2015…
    “That means wholesale power prices would be some 13 percent higher than without the tax,” Trevor Sikoski, an analyst at London based Energy Aspects, estimated…
    UK power generators must pay the British tax on top of their obligation under the EU’s Emissions Trading System to surrender one carbon permit for each tonne of CO2 they emit…
    “I believe we have strong support across government, especially in BIS (Department for Business, Innovation and Skills). Plus we have elements of support in the Treasury and DECC. (Department of Energy and Climate Change),” Terry Scuoler, chief executive of manufacturers’ organisation EEF, said in an interview.
    “I know the Treasury officials’ biggest concern is seeing a loss of revenue if this tax is frozen, but I am hopeful that the Chancellor will be supportive given the critical importance of the issue to UK industry,” he added.
    HM Revenue and Customs documents show the tax is expected to raise more than 1.2 billion pounds during the 2015-16 tax year.
    http://www.businessspectator.com.au/news/2014/2/14/policy-politics/britain-considers-pointless-carbon-tax-freeze


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Geoffrey Williams

    IPCC dimwits; Global warming? Climate change? Rubbish!
    Rain, Sun, wind and storms . . . . it’s all the weather Stupid!!!!
    Geoff W
    Sydney Australia


    Report this

    60

    • #
      Speedy

      Geoff

      To quote (Mark Twain, I think):


      Climate is what you expect, weather is what you get.

      That’s the way it’s always been, but these clowns have hissy fits when it occurs otherwise.

      Cheers,

      Speedy


      Report this

      70

  • #
    pat

    survey by Skull N Bones! LOL. what rubbish, what spin:

    14 Feb: BusinessSpectator: Climate Progress: Ryan Koronowski: Republican rank-and-file back carbon regulation
    A recent survey found that most Republicans want the government to eliminate fossil fuel subsidies, and regulate carbon pollution…
    The new poll by the Yale Project on Climate Change Communication found that 83 per cent of Americans want their country to make an effort to reduce global warming, even if it has economic costs…
    While 57 per cent of Democrats — and just 19 per cent of Republicans — believe climate change should be a high or very high priority for Congress or President Obama, there were areas of something that somewhat resembled partisan agreement. Both groups think CO2 should be regulated as a pollutant (85 per cent of Democrats, 55 per cent of Republicans). Both want to cut all fossil fuel subsidies (67 per cent vs 52 per cent). And big majorities of both groups want more funding and more tax rebates for renewable energy and efficient cars…
    http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2014/2/14/policy-politics/republican-rank-and-file-back-carbon-regulation


    Report this

    10

  • #
    pat

    did you factor this in, Yale? of course, given even this piece about the poll looks for a link with creationists, Yale would probably claim it’s republicans who display such ignorance:

    14 Feb: Discovery: Ian O’Neill: One in Four Americans Don’t Know Earth Orbits the Sun. Yes, Really
    Dear Science Communication Professionals: We have a problem…
    And then, today, the National Science Foundation (NSF) delivered news of a pretty shocking poll result: around one in four Americans (yes, that’s 25 percent) are unaware that the Earth orbits the sun. Let’s repeat that: One in four Americans — that represents one quarter of the population — when asked probably the most basic question in science (except, perhaps, “Is the Earth flat?” Hint: No.), got the answer incorrect…
    But wait! I hear you cry, perhaps the NSF poll was flawed? Perhaps the poll sample was too small? Sadly not. The NSF poll, which is used to gauge U.S. scientific literacy every year, surveyed 2,200 people who were asked 10 questions about physical and biological sciences. On average, the score was 6.5 out of 10 — barely a passing grade. But for me personally, the fact that 26 percent of the respondents were unaware the Earth revolves around the sun shocked me to the core…
    Perhaps I’m expecting too much of the U.S. education system? Perhaps this is just an anomaly; a statistical blip? But then, like the endless deluge of snow that is currently choking the East Coast, another outcome of the same poll appeared on the foggy horizon of scientific illiteracy: The majority of young Americans think astrology is a science…
    But there is a small glimmer of hope. According to the same NSF poll, the vast majority of Americans seem to love science…
    You can read detailed results of the NSF poll here (PDF).
    http://news.discovery.com/space/astronomy/1-in-4-americans-dont-know-earth-orbits-the-sun-yes-really-140214.htm


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Speedy

    OK Jo, now I understand.

    To paraphrase what they’re saying:

    “We don’t know what it is but it must be CO2.”

    The bottom of the logical barrel has been reached and digging has commenced.

    Cheers,

    Speedy


    Report this

    90

  • #
    ROM

    Just to get radical and get some howls of absolute horror from the science profession , I will point out that science is almost the only profession in our capitalist society that actually gets paid and funded BEFORE it has produced any results at all.

    [ Some maybe will provide a few qualifications here as those with experience of the oldest profession may testify, I can't, as well as the star sport persons all collect handsomely before the performance whether such pre performance payments are eventually justified or not,
    Science seems to be in the same class. ]

    So maybe it is time to bring a bit of capitalism into science and apply the same economic rules to science as applies to everybody else, from the biggest corporations to the ordinary laborer.

    After you, that is Science has produced results that are acceptable to your employers, the public at large who currently pay your quite munificent salaries and then provide the funding for you to follow your pet personal projects with some left over for those conferences in those exotic locations, are satisfied in the future with your research and the outcomes of that research and are confident that it will advance the quality of our lives and our society and civilisation, then like everybody else you will get paid according to the quality of your scientific research contribution to society.

    To make it easier we can continue paying a modest salary but funding for projects will only come after the criteria above are met. ie approved and accepted real demonstrable results which leaves most of the modelling crap out of the loop.

    If of course the scientists don’t produce anything of value then there would not be, unlike today, any point in retaining their services. ie they would get fired just as happens in commerce and industry

    And that is no more than what the scientists of the 1700′s, 1800′s and first half of the 20 th century expected.

    And that no doubt would reduce publicly funded science outlays to a fraction of what we, the public now have to pay for truly lousy science in an increasing percentage of cases but would probably produce a much higher quality of science that would be of much greater benefit to both the practical governance of society and to the increased knowledge base of our civilisation.


    Report this

    60

    • #
      Andrew

      I will point out that science is almost the only profession in our capitalist society that actually gets paid and funded BEFORE it has produced any results at all.

      Observing the Gillard govt alone should have given you
      - politician
      - union official
      - labour lawyer (in fact, ANY lawyer)
      - that bloke that runs GetUp
      - any journo left of Bolt
      - the expert panel on asylum seekers
      - wind farm owners
      - Ken Henry

      And that’s just off the top of my head. There’s dozens of parasites who get money before contributing anything (or even while actively making things worse).


      Report this

      50

  • #
    Bones

    Sophie Lewis will be receiving a severe tongue lashing from gangreen queen christine for this report,saying she cant think of anything else.Greenies all know its Tony Abbott’s fault for talking about dropping the carbon tax,once it actually happens the weather gods will go nuts.Another Indo volcano has gone up,does Mother Nature have no respect for what the gangreens are doing for her,probably Tony’s fault again.


    Report this

    60

  • #
    Ian George

    So why was 2011 a cooler than average year? The levels of CO2 were similar.
    Oh, that’s right, a strong La Nina/or it’s only weather.

    Bourke had 17 consecutive days of 40C in Jan 1939. No longer.
    Oh, that’s right, adjustments had to be made.

    We had the hottest day on record (Jan 7th, 2013).
    Oh, that’s right, used only ACORN sites with a new weighting/shading system.

    For the past five years in Australia (2009-2013) we had a mean av temp anomaly of 0.44C.
    For the previous five years (2004-2008) we had a mean av temp anomaly of 0.56C.
    Oh, that’s right, it’s aerosols; umm, maybe heat hiding in the deep depths of the ocean; umm, stronger
    Pacific winds.


    Report this

    50

  • #
    Alice Thermopolis

    IT’S A MIRACLE

    Amount of pseudo-intellectual energy invested by CC in “validating” its in-house “miracles” is directly proportional to the amount expended by the other CC Orthodoxy attempting to validate its equally dodgy theses.

    Amen

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-24330204

    03:32 GMT today:
    Heart and Soul The Power of Miracles, The Power of Miracles – Part Two
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p01ryk5j


    Report this

    00

  • #
    The Griss

    “maybe heat hiding in the deep depths of the ocean”

    The heat obviously has way more intelligence than the climate scientists.

    It is whipping their butts in this game of hide and seek

    They aren’t even getting warm .:-)


    Report this

    30

  • #
    sophocles

    If Oz’s summer has been hot, hot, hot and it `must be caused by CO2′ then could these
    mighty, olympian intellects please explain why New Zealand has had a cooler than usual
    summer, with a normal amount of rain?

    Temperatures in NZ have been commonly in the low twenties, peaking in the middle twenties
    instead of consistently reaching the high twenties, with peaks in the low thirties, as has
    been more usual in the past.

    Their conclusions can only be described as `male bovine excrement.’


    Report this

    40

  • #
    DrJohnGalan

    Human-caused global warming morphed into “climate change” when the warming stopped.

    We were told that the “science” (i.e. the GIGO models) predicted more extreme weather because of more carbon dioxide making the global temperature higher. OK the IPCC has now back-tracked on this, but it is what is still being trotted out by the likes of Julia Slingo and many others.

    As the global temperature (despite manipulation of the data) has not gone higher for well over a decade, as acknowledged by the IPCC, how can the weather extremes be getting worse because of “climate change” which, being translated, is human-caused global warming?


    Report this

    40

  • #
  • #
  • #
    David

    I’ve seen a quote somewhere which reckons that some parts of Antartica have not had rain or snow for two million years…
    Puts everything else into perspective, wouldn’t you say..?


    Report this

    20

  • #

    Darwin tried the exclusionary principle twice. Here’s one of his experiences concerning the Glen Roy tracks in Scotland:

    “Darwin held out with his marine theory for 20 years before the mounting tide of evidence
    forced him to capitulate. In a letter to Jamieson dated 6th September 1861, he stated: I give up the ghost. My paper is one long gigantic blunder …
    What a wonderful record of the old icy lakes do these shores present! It really is a grand
    phenomena. I have been for years anxious to know what was the truth & now I shall rest
    contented, though ashamed of myself. How rash it is in science to argue because any case is not
    one thing, it must be some second thing which happens to be known to the writer.”

    (from the newsletter of the History of the Geological Group of the Geological Society of London–the quote is from there)


    Report this

    20

  • #
    Mike S

    So “extreme temperatures cannot be explained by anything else”, meaning they must so thoroughly understand all the other drivers of climate…

    Oh… wait… just remembered the Third Assessment report and the figure noting the “level of scientific understanding” of various climate forcings:

    High: Greenhouse gasses
    Medium: Stratospheric and tropospheric ozone
    Low: Sulphate
    Very Low: Fossil fuel burning, biomass burning, mineral dust, indirect aerosol effects, aviation-induced (contrails and cirrus), albedo effects from land use, solar.

    No wonder they can’t explain it by any other mechanism – greenhouse gasses are the only things they think they actually understand well enough to explain anything with!


    Report this

    50

  • #
    The Griss

    “greenhouse gasses are the only things they think they actually understand ”

    roflmao !!!


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Danielle

    [ 27] And apparently changes in the jet stream will turn out to be related to climate change “when they gather more data”.


    Report this

    10

  • #
    observa

    What staggers me is the hubris of these types who can’t explain the lack of warming now we’ve only had a reasonable Stevenson Screen rollout in Oz for about 100 years. Then in the next breath they’ll tell you how we’ve got to pay homage to the original inhabitants that have been here for around 40,000 years, with only an oral tradition and no thermometers.

    What is it with the self importance/aggrandisement of the Moi Generation nowadays? It’s like this when you only have access to pitifully short time frame, modern computer stored weather reporting you idiots- http://www.breadandbutterscience.com/Weather.htm
    and before that it’s the Dreamtime and rock paintings in case you’ve forgotten. OTOH if those treemometers and coremometers you plug into those computer models of yours reckon it’s all about CO2 and there’s that lag of 600-800 years with CO2 then go figure with no temp rise now. Ask the aboriginal elders what they reckon the Rainbow Serpent was up to back then? Or was it the other way round chaps?

    If people stop believing in a Christian God to explain the inexplicable these creative types will invent their own Gaia or Rainbow Serpent Dreaming or whatever suits them at the time.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    observa

    After the long dry in the NT, the tribe was looking expectantly to their Witch Doctor to read the signs as to when to leave the last remaining waterhole supply and head off to new hunting grounds when the rains came so the WD said he had to go bush for a bit to read all the signs. So he trekked off to the highway for a couple of days to the outback servo and the only phone box to ring up the BOM for a forecast and was told there was a 30% chance the rains would come in the next fortnight so back he trekked to the tribe and told them the signs told him not yet.

    A week later and the tribe was getting anxious and wanting to know when they were moving so off he trekked to the phone box again and this time the forecast was 80% sure the rains were coming within the week so back he went and told the tribe it was time to pack up and move. So off they went but after a week and no rains their water was getting low and they were asking the WD the hard question so he said he’d go and double check all the signs in case he’d misread them. Off to the phone box double quick and asked for the rain forecast. Any day now came the reply and the WD asked can they be sure about that? Absolutely came the reply, because the aborigines are on the move up in the NT and that’s a sure sign.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    bob parker

    In case nobody else has offered this

    There really isn’t a lot you can add is there??? It sums up their arguement in one sentence.

    “We can’t think of anythging else”


    Report this

    20

  • #
    observa

    If only someone at the CSIRO or BOM was left who knew how to reason, and could teach Blair Trewin.

    Would an ex CSIRO chap do?


    Report this

    10

  • #
    James Bradley

    After reading all these posts and looking at factors, equations and theories, I still say the that the hidden AGW driver is not heat in deep oceans but cash in deep pockets.


    Report this

    40

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    They have no option as long as their paradigm is the standard solar model, based on gravity and a radiating sun.

    If however you use the plasma or electric universe model, the it becomes an electrically positive sun, negative earth, with the energy coming in as an electric current into the earth which can be approximated as a capacitor and resistor in parallel.

    CME is basically a current surge from sun to earth, charges up the capacitor, and creates heat by terrestrial resistance.

    CME passes, system goes back to previous state, capacitor now too highly charged, releases current into circuit as cyclones, and also as heat loss.

    As for heat loss into deep oceans, incident IR onto water at atmosphere/ocean interface has 2 mechanisms, heating that we know about, but not electric charge separation via Pollack’s EZ water mechanism. Let ocean cool, less heat comes out than came in because part of the input heat was routed to the charge separation producing free protons and hydronium ions in the water.

    Google Gerald H. Pollack, EZ water, for more clues.


    Report this

    02

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    I should add that late stage energy surges out of the earth system would occur as initial cyclonic activity, heat waves, followed by volcanic eruptions if the initial solar proton surge was massive and sustained.

    But as a back of envelope example, this and my previous comment will suffice.


    Report this

    02

  • #
    hunter

    CO2 obsession reduces the intelligence of those so afflicted.


    Report this

    10

  • #
    hunter

    Jo, let me fix that quote regarding climate scientists:
    “….they can’t think.”


    Report this

    10