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



What the CSIRO State of the Climate report forgot to tell you

The CSIRO decided to leave out some information about the state of our climate in their  State of the Climate Report CSIRO.

CSIRO published these “Fast Facts” in bold. I’m publishing the things they didn’t say, but could have, in points in between.

Fast Facts from the CSIRO and BOM

“Australia’s climate has warmed by 0.9°C since 1910, and the frequency of extreme weather has changed, with more extreme heat and fewer cool extremes.”
The CSIRO-BOM team could have said:
  1. Scientifically, extreme weather measures are lousy indicators. They’re noisy and not very meaningful. They are however useful for getting newspaper headlines. It depends on what your aim is…
  2. Australia’s had extreme hot days for as long as we’ve been measuring the temperature. Charles Sturt recorded 53C in 1828 which seems fairly extreme. Thomas Mitchell did it too in 1845 and are many others (see the map below, check Trove, ask the BOM — no don’t ask the BOM). The records prior to 1910 seem to have gone down the memory hole, but if the BOM and CSIRO were trying to give Australians a true sense of the state of our climate perhaps Australians might like to know that extreme heat occurred even when CO2 levels were ideal.
  3. Before we hit the national Panic Button about the effect a hot day has on our airconditioners, ponder what other Australians went through. The January 1896 heat wave killed hundreds, and temperatures of close to, or over, 50C, were recorded right across the country in Mullewa, Carnarvon, Southern Cross, Wilcannia, Ungarie, Quirindi, Camden, Brewarrina, Cunnamulla and Mildura. No phones, no cars, no helicopters. No refrigerators.
  4. It’s misleading to say that the recent “extreme” records are meaningful. The cause and effect connection between man-made CO2 emissions and Australian “extreme” hot days is extremely tenuous. CO2 is a greenhouse gas every day of the year, so if extremes are rising in some places and on some days, but global trends are not, a normal scientist wouldn’t make much of the connection. But the CSIRO-BOM do, though in a special kind of caveat-speak where a null result is reframed:
 ”Some recent instances of extreme summer temperatures experienced around the world, including record-breaking summer temperatures in Australia over 2012–2013, are very unlikely to have been caused by natural variability alone.”
Admire how a conclusion so weak a skeptic could agree somehow “seems” to endorse the general theme of fear and angst about CO2. It’s all in the wording. The corollary to the conclusion above is equally true: some of these hot summer records are very likely to have been caused by natural and unnatural variability together. Since any unnatural effect greater than flat-zero makes the above statement technically correct, the precise message it conveys is close to nothing. As I keep saying: all forms of warming, cause warming. It doesn’t mean that CO2 caused it.

The hottest temperatures here were recorded in the 1800′s.

“Rainfall averaged across Australia has slightly increased since 1900, with the largest increases in the northwest since 1970.  Rainfall has declined since 1970 in the southwest, dominated by reduced winter rainfall. Autumn and early winter rainfall has mostly been below average in the southeast since 1990.”
  1. In a nation with the most unpredictable rainfall in the world, it would be amazing if some regions did not show some change over short periods like 100 years.
  2. In South West WA, the rainfall decline correlated better with man-made land clearance than CO2. Rainfall declined the most in areas where the most native flora was cleared. It didn’t change much in zones where humans left the scrub alone. Apparently Australians don’t need to know that planting trees might increase the rainfall. (Which side of politics wants to plant 20 million trees, again?)
“Extreme fire weather has increased, and the fire season has lengthened, across large parts of Australia since the 1970s.”
  • Fires are caused by heat, humidity, winds, fuel loads, rainfall patterns and delinquent teenagers. In the last 100 years we are sure things have got hotter, and there are definitely more delinquent teenagers. But we can’t predict wind, fuel, or humidity, or for that matter, temperature in 2100. This apparently doesn’t stop us from accurately predicting “fire-weather”.
  • This short recent trend (since the 1970s) may not include the worst fire seasons we know of like those that occurred in 1939 or even in 1851. Real scientists would not draw any serious conclusions from a marker as vague as a “fire season”, nor over such a short period of time.
“Global mean temperature has risen by 0.85°C from 1880 to 2012.”
  • Temperatures started rising in the 1700s — long before CO2 did. Even though 85% of man-made CO2 was emitted after World War II, the rate of warming is no different to the era before that. The trend in the 1870s was the same as the peak trend in the 1980s. Even Phil Jones (Director of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia) agrees both rates peaked at 0.16 C per decade.
  • Hadley Global Temperature Graph with trends according to Phil Jones trends annotated on top. Red trend lines there to show roughly where these trends occur.

“The amount of heat stored in the global oceans has increased, and global mean sea level has risen by 225 mm from 1880 to 2012.”
  1. The oceans appear to have warmed by two hundredths of a degree in the last 10 years. (If you believe that we can measure the 1.4 billion cubic kilometers of ocean to a hundredth of a degree, I have a giant working solar plant to sell you.)
  2. The heat stored in all the oceans is pretty hard to measure, and based on the best measurements we have, we are fairly, possibly, or a little bit sure the heat has  increased. Though the increase was a lot less than we predicted, and quadrillions of joules of energy is missing, these may not matter because the real error bars are so large that the ones on the observations totally overlap the ones on the predictions, ergo, we are still possibly right (or at least Not Wrong Yet). In 40 years we’ll know, in the meantime call it “settled”.
  3. The seas started rising in the early 1800′s about the same time Napoleon launched the moon mission. (Sorry, we mean that horses, carts, and wind-driven-boats caused pollution. Scratch that. Punters don’t need to know that.)
“Annual average global atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations reached 395 parts per million (ppm) in 2013 and concentrations of the other major greenhouse gases are at their highest levels for at least 800,000 years.”
  • For most of the history of life on Earth CO2 levels were higher than they are today, sometimes 10 times higher. It was a lot hotter, except when it was a lot colder. For 500 million years nobody taxed carbon. Somehow life flourished and coral reefs existed.
  • Sometimes asteroids dropped in — and then, boy, did that climate change. But that’s not the point, no one can tax an asteroid.^

 

“Australian temperatures are projected to continue to increase, with more extremely hot days and fewer extremely cool days.”

The best models in the warmest decades, peak CO2 emissions, and still no glory for modelers.

 Information about the graph. [See all posts on Climate models].
“Average rainfall in southern Australia is projected to decrease, and heavy rainfall is projected to increase over most parts of Australia.”
  • See the point about models above. The models don’t work. It would be cheaper and just as scientifically valid to throw darts.
“Sea-level rise and ocean acidification are projected to continue.”

If the BOM and CSIRO had wanted Australians to be informed and calm about the risks of Ocean Acidification, they would have said things like this:

  • The oceans are not acidic, and not close to being acidic with a pH of more than 8 which is alkaline. However natural unpolluted clean rainfall has a shockingly acidic pH of about 5.  [Source CSIRO] Life on Earth seems to cope. Some natural undersea vents have a pH as acidic as 2.8. That’s acidic.
  • The ocean changes pH naturally. In the Southern Ocean pH shifts by 0.3-0.5 units every summer and winter. Quite a lot of marine life are okay with this.
  • Some parts of the ocean vary even more every day than the most pessimistic models predict the ocean will change in the next 100 years.
  • It’s tricky to know what the pH of the world’s oceans are today (because of this natural variability) but it’s even harder to know that the pH was in 1750 since the pH scale and meters and what not, was only invented 150 years later. Instead our scientists estimate what the pH might have been then with models. Did we mention we are uncertain about the accuracy?
  • Sea level rise has decelerated lately, which suggests that more CO2 does not make the sea rise faster. A lot of heat is missing from climate models, but if the “missing heat” is hiding in the oceans — sea levels would be rising faster.
  • Australian and New Zealand sea levels were rising faster in the 1930s and 1940s than they have in the last 40 years.  (Isn’t that a bit relevant?)
  •  Sea levels all over the world started rising before 1800 when CO2 was still at “perfect” levels. Something was warming the planet back then.  If climate modelers knew what it was, their models might work.

More information

Posts on , , , .

 

Our bank account is looking very low. All contributions would be gratefully received. Thanks

   *    *   *

* Remember how the BOM had to change the whole color scheme on the national weather map just to forecast a  potential “50C” in 2013? They had to issue a whole press release, where they also didn’t mention the previous 50C+ days in our national archives. Spot the pattern.

^This does not preclude the possibility that we might “need” a large bureaucracy and soon, to protect us from falling space rocks. Pace NASA, and DOD. Awaiting events in Syria/Ukraine…

 

REFERENCES

Berner et al, GEOCARB III: A revised model of atmospheric CO2  over Phanerozoic Time, American Journal of Science, Vol. 301, February, 2001, P. 182–204. (GEOCARB III)

Scotese C.R.,  Golonka, J., and Ross, M.I. (1994) Phanerozoic Paleogeographic and Paleoclimatic Modeling Maps, in A. F. Embry, B. Beauchamp, and D.J. Glass (editors), Pangea, Global Environments and resources, Canadian Society of Petroleum Geologists, Memoir 17, p. 1-47.

Scotese, Worsley, T. R., Moore, T. L., and Fraticelli, C. M. (1994) Phanerozoic CO2 levels and global temperatures inferred from changing paleogeography, in Klein, George D., (editor), Pangea; paleoclimate, tectonics, and sedimentation during accretion, zenith and breakup of a supercontinent. Special Paper Geological Society of America 288, p. 57-73, Boulder, CO.

Scotese C.C., Upchurch, G.R., and Otto-Bliesner, B.L. (1999) Terrestrial vegetation and its effects on climate during the latest Cretaceous, E. Berrera and C. Johnson, (eds), The Evolution of Cretaceous Ocean/Climate Systems, Geol. Soc. Amer. Spec. Paper, v. 332, pp. 407-426.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.6/10 (99 votes cast)
What the CSIRO State of the Climate report forgot to tell you, 9.6 out of 10 based on 99 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/oj6qkch

222 comments to What the CSIRO State of the Climate report forgot to tell you

  • #
    Mervyn

    I lost my respect for the CSIRO when I discovered its chairman was not a scientist. The CSIRO is Australia’s national science agency …. its about science …. and they make its chairman a man from banking. To me that says everything I need to know about the CSIRO and why it appears to be so politicised.


    Report this

    490

    • #
      Raven

      You may be right Mervyn.
      Perhaps we should have taken the lead from the IPCC and appointed a railway engineer.
      After all, they have the precise qualifications needed for driving the AGW gravy train.


      Report this

      90

    • #
      Philip Shehan

      The chairman of the board is a management position, in charge of the “business” aspects of the organisation.

      The Chief Executive is a scientist, with an odd pedigree for those who wish to portray the CSIRO as some pinko lefty organisation.

      Dr Clark began her career as a mine geologist and subsequently worked in mineral exploration, mine geology, R&D management, venture capital and technical strategy areas with Western Mining Corporation. She then became Vice President Technology with BHP Billiton, followed by Vice President, Health, Safety, Environment, Community and Sustainability.

      Dr Clark is currently Chair of the Mining for Development Advisory Board for AusAid. She is on the Prime Minister’s Science, Industry and Engineering Council, a member of the Manufacturing Leaders’ Group, National Precincts Board, Advisory Board of the Bank of Merrill Lynch in Australia and Word Economic Forum’s Global Agenda Council on Measuring Sustainability.

      Dr Clark is a Fellow of the Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering and a Fellow of the Australian Institute of Company Directors.

      Dr Clark is a geochemist with a BSc (Hons) and PhD from Queen’s University Canada and began her career as a mine and exploration geologist.

      http://www.csiro.au/Portals/About-CSIRO/Who-we-are/Executive/MeganClark.aspx


      Report this

      01

      • #
        bullocky

        Philip Shehan;
        “The Chief Executive is a scientist, with an odd pedigree for those who wish to portray the CSIRO as some pinko lefty organisation.”
        -
        There’s that correlation/cause thingy again!


        Report this

        00

  • #
    PhilJourdan

    Oz may indeed be the outlier if their claims are correct. But there is a lot of doubt in their claims because of their dishonesty in the temperature record and the adjustments.

    But even with the same dishonesty in the USA, extreme colds are just as frequent as they were 100 years ago. And extreme heats are almost as frequent. IN other words, it is normal. It seems that the planet is indeed 2 planets in one. The Northern Hemisphere which is not seeing any change in patters, except to less extreme weather, and the Southern Hemisphere which appears to be setting all sorts of hysterical records.

    When the inmates are running the BOM, I guess that is to be expected. Their funding is tied to hysteria, not facts.


    Report this

    300

    • #
      Boris

      It is quite evident that we are at the commencement of the 206 year cycle of cooling, that may well be the harbinger of the next ice age which is well and truly overdue. The CSIRO and BOM should hang their collective heads in shame as to the sham / scam which they have published. If there was ever a truism for “statistics don’t lie” and “there’s statistics and then there are damn statistics” this report is it. Shame on CSIRO (you should change your name by the way). You would think it is now part of idiot Flannery’s Climate Council.


      Report this

      20

      • #
        The Griss

        Yep, if the global temps head where all reasonable data and science says it will, the CSIRO climate dept is going to really end up looking like a pack of monumental fools.

        I wonder if they realise this yet? Certainly doesn’t seem so.

        Perhaps they think it will not happen all that quickly, and they can retire on their government pensions and avoid the coming shame and dishonour.


        Report this

        20

  • #
    LevelGaze

    “The records prior to 1910 seem to have gone down the memory hole.”

    Indeed they have! And that reminds me of the recent lack of activity from our old friend Memory Vault, who was pretty good at this stuff (if a touch touchy at times).

    I was getting quite fond of him, and I’m beginning to miss him now.

    Anyone got any news? Someone who knew him personally? I got the impression he was located in WA.


    Report this

    130

  • #
    Bloke down the pub

    ‘Sometimes asteroids dropped in — and then, boy, did that climate change. But that’s not the point, no one can tax an asteroid.’

    Just wait until someone says they’re going to start mining one and then see if they can tax an asteroid.


    Report this

    160

  • #
    peter

    The media never question the CSIRO or the BOM.


    Report this

    190

    • #
      DT

      And they never identify the department from which information came from preferring to deceive and give the impression, for example, that the BOM is the source and not their climate change people


      Report this

      30

  • #

    BOM seem to start rainfall records at 1900 but there were lots of places that were recording rainfall before that. From records in my area (SE Qld)it appears that the Federation drought started in 1900 and that 1902 (also in BOM records for Qld and for all of Australia) had a record low rainfall. Starting from a low base will show an increase even if the majority of years after that had slightly higher rainfall. However, in 1890′s there were some very high rainfall years particularly 1893 when there were floods in Brisbane greater than 1974 or 2011. If one includes the rainfall in the 1890′s. It is difficult to detect any increase over the 120 years. for rainfall it may well be that there are close to 60 years cycles then it is necessary to have at least 180 years to get some statistical evidence.
    Jo shows cycles for temperature from 1850. It would be interesting to compare rainfall and temperature records over a similar length of time. It seems that there was a low temperature spike around 1893.
    Good post Jo.


    Report this

    140

    • #
      I wonder what this button does

      People are so easily misled when it comes to “averages”,they just have no relevance to the reality of what the climatic/weather systems are doing.
      If you are only using a predetermined period or a set starting point you really in all honesty can’t say that your outcomes are historical in any way.


      Report this

      50

      • #
        Joe V.

        Averages do tend to hide more than they show.
        People have similar trouble with percentages, often not appreciating they aren’t real quantities. It’s even worse when they start averaging them.


        Report this

        10

        • #
          Allen Ford

          Worse still when they cite percentage changes, in isolation from the raw numbers. The medical literature, particularly drug trials, are replete with this sort of abuse of statistics. For example, the claim is made that statin drugs lower the mortality from heart attacks by 50%, never mentioning that in real terms, the decline is from 2% in the control group to 1% in the test group. Big deal! In other words, the decline is 1% not 50. Also, you must treat 100 patients with the drug, with all of its other risks, to achieve one less death. Not so impressive after all.


          Report this

          30

  • #
    Shyguy

    Just want to mention that the “Co2 and temperature for half a billion years” chart above seems to be a bit out of date.

    The chart it links to on geocraft has the normal temperature of earth as 25 degrees and the bottom of the chart as 10 degrees.

    —-
    Thanks Shyguy, that is mysterious. I’ve updated to the current one. Appreciate the feedback. -Jo


    Report this

    40

  • #
    Tim

    Are these reports from their Corporate and Political Propaganda Studies Division?


    Report this

    40

  • #
    King Geo

    BOM & CSIRO are “Warmist” to the core. Good point Jo about the impact of “forest clearing” on rainfall figures not only in our SW but in a larger area covering a line from ~ Geraldton to Esperance. The majority of forest was removed for agricultural purposes during the late 1800′s and after. Interestingly some of the highest rainfall now occurs on the Darling Ranges – a combination of elevation and National Park forest. But our dams are so low – why? Because the powers that be won’t allow clearing of trees in the catchment areas surrounding the dams – so after heavy rains very little water can reach the dams via runoff. Very strange isn’t it – clear 95% of the forest away from the dams for agriculture yet not allow clearing of forest in dam catchment areas to enhance our precious water storage.

    Of course you will never read/hear about BOM or CSIRO addressing the impact the massive forest removal (>90%) from that SW region stretching from ~ Geraldton to Esperance has had. BOM & CSIRO instead focus on “alarmist media releases” claiming that the citizens of our fine state are causing “dramatic climate change” via our carbon emissions – they preach us to reduce our “carbon footprint” no matter what the cost. That fact them CO2 has risen ~ 10% in the past 15 years without any discernible GW doesn’t seem to matter.


    Report this

    171

  • #
    Eddy Aruda

    So, we are a few tenths of a degree warmer than we were a little over 120 years ago? Big deal!

    I have come to the conclusion that scientists have an instinct for survival that applies to both their personal and financial wellbeing.

    Considering the amount of “research” out there that is pure BS I believe that every claim made by any scientific organization is suspect at best. I have observed that temperature data sets are always adjusted to reflect confirmation bias. The “adjustments” always show the past as being cooler and the recent years as being warmer. One only has to examine the data from rural sites with no significant population or infrastructure growth, and it becomes blatantly obvious that scientists are willing to compromise themselves in order to keep sucking on the taxpayers’ teat.

    Why is it that the greens see the evil “big oil” bogeyman as sponsoring every skeptic but fail to consider the possibility that climate scientists might be in the pay of “big green?” Why is it that although every prediction made by the warmist climate scientists has been proven false these fools keep on buying into this scam? How can anyone of reasonable intelligence that is able to comprehend the scientific method buy into a theory that cannot be falsified?

    Perhaps we humans are not as evolved as we think we are? Oh well, I suppose the human race will have to adopt a fake it to you make it approach to progress!

    It always gets down to the money. Without money there would be none of the creature comforts we take for granted such as running water, electricity and an abundant supply of food. Take them away, and the veneer of civilization would disappear immediately. Who would be the most savage of all if that were to happen? Why the misanthropic greens. of course!

    Just my opinion.


    Report this

    270

  • #
    Brian S

    “Even when CO2 levels were ideal”???

    When might that have been? We still have a long, long way to go before the CO2 level gets UP to where it might be considered to be ideal.


    Report this

    140

    • #
      The Griss

      A real greenhouse uses around 1000ppm iirc. And don’t the plants LUV it :-)


      Report this

      141

    • #
      Backslider

      I’m still gonna get me that T-shirt:

      The Biosphere LOVES CO2

      Can’t wait to be approached by alarmist “green” drongos while I am wearing it.


      Report this

      30

      • #
        Philip Shehan

        Which part of the biosphere?

        In climate change, as in everything, there are winners and losers. As atmospheric carbon dioxide levels and temperature rise globally, scientists increasingly want to know which organisms will thrive and which will perish in the environment of tomorrow.

        http://phys.org/news/2013-07-atmospheric-co2-ocean-foodchain.html

        And again, this has very little to do with the effect of CO2 on temperature.


        Report this

        01

        • #
          bullocky

          ” As atmospheric carbon dioxide levels and temperature rise globally…..’
          -
          When the ‘pause’ ends, that is.
          -
          ‘In climate change, as in everything, there are winners and losers’
          -
          Be a winner, insure with Munich Re!


          Report this

          10

          • #
            Philip Shehan

            Which “pause”?

            The 1979-1996 or the 1997-2014?

            http://tinyurl.com/kxlcjc8


            Report this

            03

            • #
              bullocky

              Philip Shehan
              ‘Which “pause”?’
              -
              The one you’re currently enjoying!
              ‘ As atmospheric carbon dioxide levels and temperature rise globally…..’ ?


              Report this

              20

              • #
                Philip Shehan

                “the last 17 years show a warming trend of 0.10 ±0.20 °C/decade (2σ), which is in fact warmer than that for the preceeding 18 year period (0.03 ±0.20 °C/decade (2σ))”


                Report this

                03

              • #
                bullocky

                ‘….the last 17 years show negligible warming….’


                Report this

                10

              • #
                Philip Shehan

                By what standard do you declare warming of 0.10 ±0.20 °C/decade “negligable”?

                Why do you not declare warming of 0.03 ±0.20 °C/decade for the preceding 18 years “negligable”?


                Report this

                01

              • #
                bullocky

                Philip Shehan;
                ‘By what standard do you declare warming of 0.10 ±0.20 °C/decade “negligable”?’
                -
                By what standard do you declare warming of 0.10 ±0.20 °C/decade?


                Report this

                00

              • #
                Philip Shehan

                bullocky, 0.10 ±0.20 °C/decade is the figure for UAH temperature data from 1997 t0 2014 inclusive.

                What is your figure for the temperature trend for the last 17 years?


                Report this

                01

              • #
                bullocky

                Philip Shehan;
                “Why do you not declare warming of 0.03 ±0.20 °C/decade for the preceding 18 years “negligable”?
                -
                and,
                “What is your figure for the temperature trend for the last 17 years?”
                -
                Do I detect a trend for less warming?


                Report this

                00

              • #
                Philip Shehan

                bullocky,
                How could you (or anyone else) detect a trend for less warming with a trend from 1979 to 1996 inclusive of 0.03 ±0.20 °C/decade, followed by a trend from 1997 to the present (inclusive) of 0.10 ±0.20 °C/decade, and a trend from 1995 to the present (inclusive) of 0.14 ±0.21 °C/decade?


                Report this

                01

              • #
                bullocky

                Sorry Philip. I’ll repost it:
                -
                Philip Shehan;
                (from)
                “Why do you not declare warming of 0.03 ±0.20 °C/decade for the preceding 18 years “negligable”?
                -
                to
                “What is your figure for the temperature trend for the last 17 years?”
                -
                Do I detect a trend for less warming?
                -
                (sarc)


                Report this

                00

              • #
                PhilJourdan

                @PhilS – When the uncertainty is greater than the variance, you do not have a trend. Statistics 101.

                Try learning it (and learn how to spell your name).


                Report this

                20

              • #
                bullocky

                Yes, PhilJ.
                Or, as I have tried to explain it to Philip S. elsewhere: where the error is greater than the trend, the trend has no statistical significance.
                -
                I think he’s deliberately trying to waste my time!!!


                Report this

                10

  • #
    Peter Miller

    We have to remember:

    1. All temperature records used in the CSIRO have been adjusted/manipulated/tortured to reflect a colder past than the original records reported, and

    2. As far as the world’s plant life is concerned, rising CO2 levels are very welcome. During the last age circa 20,000 years ago, CO2 levels fell to around 180ppm, or ~30ppm above the level at which most plant life struggles to survive. So the CO2 famine is over, but plant life is mostly still on a diet and (if it could) is looking forward to the days of plenty.


    Report this

    170

  • #
    Don B

    The sea level rise and Alaskan glacier retreat since the end of the Little Ice Age is not accelerating.

    “The conclusion states very clearly “Dates for the initiation of emergence is estimated to have begun 1770±20 AD, the same period that Glacier Bay and other regional glaciers began retreating from their Little Ice Age maximums”. They go on to say “The GPS data show peak uplift rates of 30 mm/ yr in Glacier Bay, and also delineated a second center of rapid uplift east of Yakutat with peak rates of 32 mm/yr. These studies documented rapid and continuous total sea level changes of up to 5.7 m, and constrained the age of the ongoing uplift to less than 250 yrs”. This is quite significant, as it suggests that the rate of retreat over the last couple of centuries has not accelerated.”

    http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2011/12/08/the-truth-about-alaskan-glaciers/


    Report this

    80

  • #

    [...] The CSIRO decided to leave out some information about the state of our climate in their State of the Climate Report CSIRO. CSIRO published these “Fast Facts” in bold. I’m publishing the things they didn’t say, but could have, in points in between.  [...]


    Report this

    10

  • #
    john robertson

    Lets see bureaucrats massaging the message?
    Check.
    Retirements due to “health reasons” come to mind.
    The rot spreads from the top, unless your new govt fires or promotes sideways the upper layer of these parasites, there will be little change.
    Here in Canada our equivalent, Head of Environment Canada, gifted about $65 million to a Climate Change think Tank, when called to explain, he tendered his resignation from govt, guess who now heads this Think Tank?
    Apparently such theft is all legal when done within the bureaus.
    But whats left for weather activists?
    Hi there taxpayers, we would like you to be very alarmed, the weather continues to be within natural bounds, nothing unusual in 150 years of monitoring it.
    Please be very frightened and send us more of your dollars.
    Doesn’t sell, does it.


    Report this

    130

  • #

    CSIRO FAST FACTS is an anagram of FASCIST FACTORS – you couldn’t make it up!!


    Report this

    200

  • #
    Gregg

    “no one can tax an asteroid”

    … this is an unscientific statement, Jo – you’d have to try to prove a negative. Perhaps it would be better written, “no one has yet figured out how to tax an asteroid”. I’m sure someone’s working on it – do a google search on grant applications, and something’ll probably come up.


    Report this

    30

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    I suppose it would be inappropriate for me to repeat, “There they go again.” So I won’t say it. ;-) But those words of Ronald Reagan remain as apropos today as they were when he first said them.

    Ain’t life grand? :-(


    Report this

    40

    • #
      janama

      My favorite Reagan line is:

      The problem with Liberals isn’t that are ignorant, it’s that they know so much that isn’t so.

      Ronald Reagan 1964.


      Report this

      170

  • #
    Jaymez

    It is a shame that those who most need to read this excellent post, The ABC, The bureaucrats, the Academics who have been ramming global warming down the throats of our children even though not a single child in high school has actually experienced it, will not do so.

    The climate alarmists are so blind that I note they don’t even notice when they kick an ‘own goal’ as they did with this latest scare about a possible smallpox epidemic.

    “scientists believe the disease could be in suspended animation in bodies that are surfacing as a result of the warming climate” that is, “bodies infected with the disease, which are defrosting in Siberia”.

    So the scientists are unknowingly finally admitting publicly that not all that long ago the world was actually warmer than it is now. For the last couple of decades most of the climate change scare mongers have tried to convince us that the climate is warmer now than it has been in the earth’s recent history.

    Clearly if these corpses are at risk of melting, then at one stage the Earth was even warmer than it is now, when smallpox was rampant and then the earth cooled and froze the corpses. We know this is true of course. During the Medieval Warm Period the Earth was warmer than it is now and then we had the Little Ice Age.

    The problem is, most climate alarmists like to pretend the MWP didn’t happen. Prof Michael Mann’s infamous Hockey Stick graph, used extensively in Al Gore’s movie ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ and by the UN IPCC’s Climate Assessment Reports 3 and 4, made the MWP conveniently disappear.

    You see if it was warmer back then than it is today, and they didn’t have human green house gas emissions to blame it on, then it must have been caused by NATURAL climate variation and they should be able to properly explain that. If they are unable to do so, then they can’t say the warming which has happened on and off since the bottom of the Little Ice Age (as wonderfully depicted in the ‘Trend Repeats’ graph above) isn’t entirely natural, and has nothing or very little to do with human greenhouse gas emissions.


    Report this

    141

  • #
    sophocles

    Every age of Mankind seems to have to have its own Witch Hunt. It’s almost as though there is a psychological requirement there be a grown-ups Monster Under the Bed for which Other People can be blamed.

    The Church of Climatology is at the forefront of the current witch hunt, leading the way back into darkness.

    We’re having the current Millenial Warming. It happens every thousand years. In 500 years time there will be another Little Ice Age. The last millenial warming was the Medieval Warming, before that was the Roman Warming and before that the Minoan Warming. It’s a `Cosmic Clock.’ Get used to it.

    I like it warm. As long as it lasts my remaining life time, as it will, I will indeed be happy.

    There is nothing new under the sun.


    Report this

    70

  • #
    warcroft

    .
    Better not get too warm or the Mongolians will start invading again.
    http://io9.com/did-good-weather-lead-to-the-greatest-land-empire-of-al-1540489359

    “The transition from extreme drought to extreme moisture right then strongly suggests that climate played a role in human events,” added co-author Amy Hessl. “It wasn’t the only thing, but it must have created the ideal conditions for a charismatic leader to emerge out of the chaos, develop an army and concentrate power. Where it’s arid, unusual moisture creates unusual plant productivity, and that translates into horsepower. Genghis was literally able to ride that wave.”


    Report this

    10

  • #
    GregM

    Australia has warmed 0.3 degC since 1940 (which is the correct comparison, peak-to-peak).
    This is, of course, no worries. Not at all.


    Report this

    60

  • #

    Jo,

    Might I disagree with something you said?

    Scientifically, extreme weather measures are lousy indicators. They’re noisy and not very meaningful.

    You are right about individual instances. But if carbon emissions are making climate more extreme, then this is testable. There are now over 1200 months of temperature data, and over 37000 daily maximum and minimums. This for a lot of locations. If climate is getting more extreme then there will an increasing deviation in any month of the year from the average of that month. Also an increasing variability in average temperature in any month of the year between one year and the next. In fact this should be a more reliable indicator of adverse climate change than long term averages because of siting issues and accuracy of thermometers.


    Report this

    20

    • #

      Kevin,
      a good point to discuss.
      i) Given that there are 60 year cycles in the PDO, we have only got 1.5 cycles in the last 100 years. It’s not enough to compare extremes at the high and low points of the cycle. It’s too short for what is a noisy dataset. How many heatwaves do we get each year? By using “extreme indicators” they are analyzing only a few incidents a year. Even the graph page 8 looks at only 5 – 30 days a year. This method “drops out” a lot of the data and accentuates tiny differences. We have satellite records with good data for only the last half of one cycle.
      ii) ACORN only has 16 stations in 1910 to generate “area averages”. There are a dozen different answers to “how hot was Australia in 1910″. How hot was Australia in 1896?
      iii) Trends in extremes from the low point on the PDO cycle to the high point of the PDO cycle are inherently misleading.
      iv) There is no cause and effect connection directly from extra CO2 to “extremes”. If the global averages are not responding, the cause and effect link is gone.

      PS: Thanks for the help with chocolate!


      Report this

      60

      • #

        Jo,

        What you say I agree with. There is no clear evidence of worsening extreme trends. The IPCC AR5 agrees with this. As you have shown in the article, it is only by looking at the data in very particular ways, accentuating the most recent phenomena, and ignoring natural cycles, that claims of a “worsening” climate can be maintained.
        Yet despite this people are taken in by these claims. A most recent example in Britain was the extreme storms in Cornwall, along with flooding elsewhere. They were severe, and naturally caused. It was due to a combination of extreme high tides and the jet stream being unusually far south. Yet many – including Prime Minister David Cameron – “linked” it to climate change.
        My approach to the issue is different, and complements your own. If there is a problem with catastrophic climate change, mitigation by the odd country will not make any difference. So adaptation to extreme weather and changing conditions is the only way forward. That means looking at the data in many different ways, as clinically as possible, to decipher the anomalies and trends from the apparent randomness. This could be the natural anomalies (1000 year, 60 year, or 11 year cycles) or anthropogenic. It does not matter which. What matters is to get the best possible understanding. As Australia has always had extreme climate, this understanding can only help in dealing with existing issues, such as long drought followed by floods, as well. Given the “overwhelming evidence” for climate change, as a semi-Popperian, I will rejoice when my beliefs are falsified by the evidence. The reason is that by challenging the hypotheses I will have forced better understanding of the nature of the problems.


        Report this

        10

  • #

    Jo says

    Our bank account is looking very low. All contributions would be gratefully received. Thanks

    Please all respond with a donation by following the link. I have.


    Report this

    60

  • #

    Not worth mentioning even in the local papers. Renmark, SA had it lowest minimum temperature of 0.8°C for October, in 1996 prior to 2013. (Not updated on BOM site)

    This was broken twice in Oct 2013.

    Interestingly, the station commenced in 1889 but only data since 1957 is shown. I know that a Stevenson Screen was being used in Renmark in 1929.


    Report this

    40

  • #
    pat

    call it fixing the facts, fixing the data, or simply fixing the fix. it’s rampant:

    11 Mar: HITC Business UK: Forex manipulation: How it worked
    By CNBC’s Catherine Boyle
    The ‘fix’
    Every day, a handful of the world’s biggest banks agree a currency “fix” – an agreed price at which that currency traded during the day. At the center of the probe seems to be traders eager to make a quick profit by buying up currencies just before they knew clients were going to buy large amounts of the same currency at the daily “fix”. This way the traders could sell on at a profit when the price rose at the “fix.”…
    http://hereisthecity.com/en-gb/2014/03/11/forex-manipulation-how-it-worked/

    11 Mar: UK Telegraph: Louise Armitstead: Mark Carney: FX allegations more serious than Libor scandal
    Paul Fisher, director of markets at the Bank, categorically denied claims that the Old Lady was warned about foreign exchange rate fixing in 2006 – but agreed he could “see why people might think that from the minutes”.
    Last week minutes released from a Foreign Exchange Joint Standing Committee (JSC) meeting in 2006 showed that the Bank was told about “evidence of attempts to move the market around popular fixing times by players that had no particular interest in that fix”.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/mark-carney/10691048/Mark-Carney-FX-allegations-more-serious-than-Libor-scandal.html

    12 March: Bloomberg: Lloyds Trader Said to Tip Off BP to $500 Million FX Deal
    By Gavin Finch, Ambereen Choudhury and Liam Vaughan
    BP has about 200 traders at its office in London’s Canary Wharf. The trading unit made $2 billion for the oil company in 2004, the last time the firm broke out trading profits.
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-03-11/lloyds-trader-said-to-tip-off-bp-to-500-million-fx-deal.html


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    8 Mar: Economist: In a fix, Mr Bond
    New concerns surround the way the world gold price is set
    COMMODITY prices are not just for buyers and sellers of the physical stuff. They are also the basis of derivative markets—futures contracts, options, and combinations of these and other financial instruments—which can be far larger. A twitch in the “benchmark” price can mean big shifts in the value of derivatives, and profits for the prescient…
    Some participants are getting jittery. Deutsche Bank is withdrawing from the gold- (and silver-) fixing processes, putting its seat up for sale…
    People who are involved in the gold market defend it robustly. Ross Norman, the chief executive of Sharps Pixley, a bullion broker, says that the methodology of the fix is “open, efficient and transparent” and known to regulators. He agrees that more visibility might help, but decries suggestions that the market could be rigged…
    http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21598676-new-concerns-surround-way-world-gold-price-set-fix-mr-bond

    11 Mar: UK Independent: Bank of England’s (Market Director) Paul Fisher: ‘It’s not our job to go hunting for market wrongdoing’
    He (Mark Carney) said: “There appear to be “individuals who have lost sight of what a market is – and that’s unacceptable.”…
    More than 20 foreign exchange traders have so far been suspended or fired over the allegations of collusion between dealers over client orders and manipulating the “fixes” of currency rates…
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/bank-of-englands-paul-fisher-its-not-our-job-to-go-hunting-for-market-wrongdoing-9184595.html

    BBC Business has been discussing “fixing the fix” but can’t see anywhere they are willing to document the phrase:

    11 March: BBC: Bank of England Governor Carney questioned over ‘rate fixing’
    VIDEO STATES: “This content doesn’t seem to be working. Please Try again later”
    Bank of England Governor Mark Carney is quizzed by MPs over claims some of the bank’s officials knew about alleged foreign exchange rate fixing.
    His appearance before the Treasury Select Committee comes a week after it emerged that some officials were aware of rigging attempts as early as 2006.
    The bank said there was no evidence its staff had colluded to rig the market.
    MPs are also questioning Mr Carney over other financial issues, including the possibility of a currency union
    http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-26526271

    11 Mar: Reuters: Jamie McGeever: TIMELINE-The FX “fixing” scandal
    Below is a timeline on the scandal that has engulfed the largely unregulated $5.3 trillion-a-day foreign exchange market, the world’s biggest financial market and which is now subject to a global investigation…
    http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/11/forex-fixing-idUSL6N0M71KO20140311


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    CERs hit new low ahead of EU’s March 2015 deadline
    LONDON, March 11 (Reuters) – Front-year prices for United Nations-issued carbon credits hit a record low this week as sellers continued to offload units amid withering demand and ahead of a March 2015 deadline.
    https://www.pointcarbon.com/news/reutersnews/1.4458218

    EU carbon prices slip ahead of backloading start
    LONDON, March 11 (Reuters) – European carbon eased on softer power prices on Tuesday, but some support emerged ahead of the start of the EU’s backloading programme
    https://www.pointcarbon.com/news/reutersnews/1.4458561


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Ursus Augustus

    As posted at WattsUp re the Shindell “paper”, “what is good for a goose is good for propaganda”. I think that pretty well sums up the BOM’s wholesale scaremongering service.

    Science communications was developed in order to better communicate science to the general public who pay for most of it. As often happens the marketing/spin/advertising/lobby people hijack the agenda so that science research becomes the supplier of cheap imported home brand propaganda for every vested eco self interest you can think of.


    Report this

    50

  • #
    pat

    whatever caused this, it’s a scenario that could become common if we continue with unworkable CAGW policies:

    12 March: ABC: Darwin blackout shuts down all schools and public service, cuts power to homes and businesses…
    Power and Water Corporation is apologising to tens of thousands of Darwin residents without power.
    It says the Darwin-wide “code black” has been caused by a tripped circuit at Hudson Creek.
    A spokeswoman says a safety switch also shut down the Channel Island station.
    It has left all of Darwin without power for the past six hours…
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-03-12/blackout-closes-all-darwin-schools/5314480


    Report this

    31

    • #
      handjive

      Alternative headline:

      Darwin celebrates Earth Hour every hour!


      Report this

      50

    • #

      …..and a city just grinds to a halt!

      Read the article closely, and see how the extent of something like this has hugely wide effects.

      All those cold storage rooms warming up in the Darwin heat, and virtually every one of them required by LAW to have their coldroom temperature set well below 0 degrees C, so all that food in cold storage now must be thrown out.

      Coles, Woolies, butchers, restaurants.

      Traffic chaos. Schools. The Business sector. Jobs.

      Off in a second, and many many hours to slowly, and incrementally come back on line.

      Cascading failure.

      One plant goes down, and because the remaining plants are now overloaded, they too trip off line.

      Tony.


      Report this

      70

      • #
        The Griss

        Now think of this, most probably in Adelaide on a really hot day next year.

        And if Sydney goes, It will take one heck of a lot longer to establish the grid.

        Way to much random feed-in to allow easy synchronisation.


        Report this

        20

      • #

        I can see all those rooftop solar power owners very rapidly coming to understand what the term islanding really means now.

        Cue Billy Bloggs Solar Panel Company as the boss pokes his head out of the door of his office, saying “just take the phone off the hook.”

        Tony.


        Report this

        60

    • #
      Gary Waters

      ” Power and Water Corporation is apologising to tens of thousands of Darwin residents without power. ”

      I don’t know if this had anything to do with it, but as my old mum used to say , you should never mix power and water.


      Report this

      10

  • #
    The Griss

    The second graph, on trends, is quite interesting.

    Its using Hadley data, which we know has been specifically “adjusted” to increase the trend from 1970 to 2000.
    In reality, the unadjusted data would probably have this trend somewhere around 0.1 ± a bit, considerably less than the two previous trends.

    This is despite increased CO2 and despite a series of very strong solar periods and despite UHI effects.

    Either the extra CO2 was actually helping to slow the natural warming cyclic, or some significant forcing factor had gone missing.


    Report this

    71

    • #
      Philip Shehan

      By “second graph” do you mean The trend repeats graph?

      If the Hadley data from 1979 has been adjusted, why do all the data sets match, including the statellite data from 1979?

      http://tinyurl.com/l5ojm6b

      The arrows may indeed show a cyclical natural forcing, but the fact remains that the last arrow begins from a higher temperature than the preceeding levels, consistant wiith Hansen’s original 1981 paper which stated that the anthropogenic signal would become detectable above the “natural” variation due to non anthropogenic factors in the 1980s.

      The overall trend is that reflected in the temperature data sets shown in the above link.

      The third graph, that of models against data, does not show global lower tropospheric or surface data that is usually presented. It is from a higher altitude, the mid troposhere, and is restricted to a narrow band of the earth around the equator, 20S – 20 N.

      Are the model runs for these restrictions or for global lower troposphere/surface?


      Report this

      02

      • #
        bullocky

        Philip Shehan;
        “If the Hadley data from 1979 has been adjusted, why do all the data sets match, including the statellite data from 1979?”
        -
        Surely you’re not suggesting………….


        Report this

        10

        • #
          Philip Shehan

          Yes I am. I am suggesting that all the data sets are reliable. The alternative is that all the different groups, including Christy and Spencer, corrupted their data sets and yet came up with the same temperature record.


          Report this

          02

          • #
            bullocky

            Philip Shehan; ‘ …including Christy and Spencer…’
            -
            Yes, I understand your eagerness to identify with the ongoing scientific integrity of Christy and Spencer. However, I’m sure you’ll join me in wishing Jim Hansen well in his continuing role as an environmentalist!


            Report this

            10

  • #

    Thanks Jo for a very good refutation of the Alarmism promoted by the CSIRO and its supporters. Unfortunately those same people will probably never read the refutation. They are the ones who most need to read it too. The CSIRO, ABC, Academics and CAGW Employees have been ramming global-warming down our throats for twenty years, although there has been none for 17 years. The Climate Alarmists are so myopic that they don’t even notice their own mistakes.


    Report this

    111

    • #
      Philip Shehan

      “although there has been none for 17 years.”

      Actually, Christy and Spencer’s satellite data for the last 17 years show a warming trend of 0.10 ±0.20 °C/decade (2σ), which is in fact warmer than that for the preceeding 18 year period (0.03 ±0.20 °C/decade (2σ))

      And the last 15 years shows a warming trend 0.14 ±0.21 °C/decade – the same as for the last 35 years 0.14 ±0.07 °C/decade (2σ)

      Of course only the 35 year trend shows a clear, statistically significant trend, which is a warming trend.

      The error margins for the short sets accomodate very large warming trends and cooling trends, and yes a pause in between, but as such do not tell us anything useful about what is actually going on.

      http://tinyurl.com/n2nvs4d


      Report this

      03

      • #
        bullocky

        Philip Shehan;
        “And the last 15 years shows a warming trend 0.14 ±0.21 °C/decade – the same as for the last 35 years 0.14 ±0.07 °C/decade (2σ)

        Of course only the 35 year trend shows a clear, statistically significant trend, which is a warming trend.”

        -
        It’s just such a pity about the most recent 17 years (approx.) of negligible warming.


        Report this

        20

        • #
          Philip Shehan

          for the last 17 years show a warming trend of 0.10 ±0.20 °C/decade (2σ), which is in fact warmer than that for the preceeding 18 year period (0.03 ±0.20 °C/decade (2σ))


          Report this

          03

  • #
    pat

    ***for the counter-intuitive & paradoxical “a lot of science” explanations, read the rest:

    11 March: Guardian: Graham Readfearn: What’s going on with global warming and Antarctica’s growing sea ice?
    As every good climate science denialist knows, the fact that there’s a bit more sea ice in Antarctica is proof enough that global warming is probably a load of old Adélie penguin poo.
    So when a ship carrying climate scientists on an expedition got stuck in that sea ice over Christmas it was time to sharpen the blogging knives with those stones of irony…
    Often when it’s pointed out that Arctic sea ice is rapidly melting, the climate change contrarianites (or if we’d like to take the short route to eliciting a Nazi analogy, we can use the term ‘deniers’) will step bravely forth with data from Antarctica…
    So what’s going on down there (Antarctica)?…
    The Tasmania-based Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Cooperative Research Centre has just released a new “position analysis” of the brain-achingly complex issue of southern hemisphere sea ice.
    ***It’s got a lot of science in it…
    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2014/mar/11/climate-change-antarctic-sea-ice-expedition


    Report this

    20

    • #

      Read-fear’n is soon likely to argue that it takes a lot of ice to store that missing heat. ;-)

      Has anybody else noticed that the desperate’s arguments grow superfluously syllabic? (e.g. “contrarianites”)

      Read-fear’n apparently needs others to do his thinking for him. While he fills his mind with “facts”, he fails to construct physically-consistent couplings between the facts which would lead to an understanding. He seems to lack an understanding of the basics of physics after the 18th century; conservation of mass, conservation of energy and, of necessity, increasing entropy.

      P.S. The Bellingshausen Sea would be the one above the rift in 3 tectonic plates, with submarine volcanic activity typical of plate subduction. (also a PDF – different publication)

      Just search the web for the keywords “Bellinghausen” and “tectonic” if you need loads more material.


      Report this

      40

      • #

        Also, rifts eroded by glacial erosion. From Nature (extract of abstract):

        Inland thinning of West Antarctic Ice Sheet steered along subglacial rifts
        …Here we report the discovery of a subglacial basin under Ferrigno Ice Stream up to 1.5 kilometres deep that connects the ice-sheet interior to the Bellingshausen Sea margin, and whose existence profoundly affects ice loss. …
        We show that dynamic thinning from both the Bellingshausen and Amundsen Sea region is being steered back to the ice-sheet interior along rift basins. We conclude that rift basins that cut across the WAIS margin can rapidly transmit coastally perturbed change inland, thereby promoting ice-sheet instability.


        Report this

        20

      • #
  • #
    handjive

    Key Performance Indicator (KPI)
    The CSIRO and Bureau of Meteorology’s latest State of the Climate report is a snapshot of how Australia’s weather has changed over the last two years.

    This State of the Climate Report 2014 is also a report on the carbon(sic) tax.

    Australia has had a carbon(sic) tax for 2.5 years now.
    The CSIRO campaigned for a carbon(sic) tax to fight global warming.
    The BoM advocated for a carbon(sic) tax to fight global warming.(Quotes UN-IPCC)
    The IPCC (and CSIRO) relied heavily on the Mann paper in coming to their global warming conclusions.

    JULIA Gillard has invoked a CSIRO/BoM/UN-IPCC doomsday-like scenario of metre-high sea level rises and a 2000km southward shift of Australia’s climactic zones as she battles an opposition scare campaign over her proposed carbon tax.
    The last dark deed of the Howard Government was the passage of the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act in October 2007. That act is the auditing basis of the carbon tax.

    In 2007, Tim Flannery said the drought was a new climate and rain in the north of Australia would not continue as Asia cleaned up it’s “pollution”.

    But the 2014 SotC report says wetter up north and droughts down south. ‘Wetter droughts’ is how they describe it.
    And Asia still has “pollution”.

    All other reasons have failed as current carbon(sic) trading shows.
    Carbon (sic) levels are the highest ever.
    . . .
    Unless a carbon(sic) tax advocate can post anything positive or observed from the tax, it is a comprehensive ‘scientific’ failure.


    Report this

    50

    • #
      Heeby jeebies

      It is not a report on the carbon tax. CO2 levels have fallen but it is a long term tax.
      [CO2 levels have not fallen. You write so carelessly, you generate mental "litter" in threads. - Jo]

      It is meant to fairly painlessly transition our economy to a renawable one. It does this by redressing the imbalance of subsidised fossil fuels whose cost does not take into account the externalities of its damge to the evironment, particulate pollution and increasing CO2 in the atmosphere that has changed the atmospheric composition of greenhouse gases, caused warming and is makig climatic changes, largely bad for us.

      [Yes. Another vague generic advert of idealized conditions and good intentions. As usual, no verified relevant facts to back up the advert and aimed at a junior high school level of discussion. We've already discussed on other threads why the scientific assumptions are wrong, the economic assumptions and discount rates are ridiculous, why it costs 50 times as much to do something even if the IPCC are right, and the evidence suggests they overestimate the warming by 7 fold. Your arguments don't evolve in response to my posts or the commenters reply. They just repeat ad nauseum. - Jo]

      In that respect it was working, our proportion of renewables was increasing and CO2 was falling, as one of the worlds highest per capita emitter we needed to start pulling our weight to redress this imbalance and the imbalance of our total historical emsissions that put us about 12th in the world.

      [It was working? World CO2 hit 400ppm. Australian electricity use started leveling off in 2008 the year the Labor government started "work" slowing our economy with unnecessary rules, regulations and imposts and long before the CO2 tax. - Jo]

      So it was a policy success and is where most of the world is heading, we are now going back scientifically and policy wise to the 80′s with the consequent loss of brain cells in the degeneration of the scientific debate.

      [How many degrees did Australians reduce world temperature by and at what price? - Jo]

      [I will not keep approving comments of this low inane advertorial status. MTR sock puppet, you are headed for the permanent filter. - Jo]


      Report this

      03

    • #
      Michael the Realist

      [SNIP endless inane repetition. You posted exactly the same paragraph in another comment a few minutes, and it was pointless there too. The adverts need to improve Heeby-MTR. Try writing one proper, researched comment a day and we'll approve it. You need to actually read my posts and the commenters here, and start catching up. TEach us something new, and we'll thank you. Bore us with junior high science, unsubstantiated, careless, generic comments that never grow, change or get better, and it will appear you are only hear to frustrate and anger commenters through inane repetition. The fallacies and extreme lack of manners are against blog policy. After 1278 comments there is no sign of even the slightest improvement. - Jo]


      Report this

      02

  • #
    Keith L

    “For 500 million years nobody taxed carbon. Somehow life flourished and coral reefs existed.”

    Well it was just lucky! But luck eventually runs out so I am sure the planet heaved a sigh of relief when the Gillard life form finally evolved and produced the carbon tax.


    Report this

    112

    • #
      PeterK

      Keith L: That’s actually wrong. Back in the 50′s, my folks had central heating in our house that used coal. The coal was delivered in 50lb knapsacks, carried one by one by the delivery man who then dumped the contents down a small chute into our basement coal bin. I don’t know what the price per pound / ton was back then but I do remember my mother complaining that they should not be charged 3% tax on something that was essential to our being able to live without freezing.


      Report this

      30

      • #
        PhilJourdan

        We lived in a place in the 60s. But the delivery was made by a dump truck with a chute. They aligned the chute with the coal door to the basement. I am sure our delivery man was more appreciative than yours. ;-)


        Report this

        00

    • #
      Skitz

      “EVOLVED” might be pushing the envelope a bit…..


      Report this

      40

  • #
    STJOHNOFGRAFTON

    Seawater is protected, naturally, from rapid changes to pH by the carbonate/bicarbonate buffer system. This buffer system is mega vast. The Chicken Littles of the popular science press at CSIROBOM should inhale smelling salts (ammonium carbonate solution) before they speculate on rapidly acidifying oceans.


    Report this

    81

    • #

      You also need to remember that pH is a function of temperature. Seawater increases by 0.01 pH with each degree of warming. This doesn’t seem much but its on par with how much the pH would decrease with an extra 10 billion tons of carbon dioxide dissolved in the oceans, ignoring the buffering.

      The scare (of pH dropping significantly, not below 7) assumes that it doesn’t hide at the bottom of the oceans like heat does.


      Report this

      30

      • #
        Carbon500

        In reply to Vic G Gallus: Absolutely right on the nail. I have figures from a pH meter manufacturer which giving values for a basic solution (component details not given).
        They are pH 13.80 at 0 degrees C,12.83 at 25 degrees, and 12.15 at 50 degrees. I’ve even come across an account which states that seawater can be temporarily used as a buffer in the laboratory. There are variations in shallow waters, and even the IPCC give a range for the open ocean. That of course doesn’t include the effect of ocean life.
        I for one am heartily sick of the ‘ocean acidification’ nonsense.


        Report this

        40

  • #
    Safetyguy66

    This one is for Heeby Jeebies


    ”Some recent instances of extreme summer temperatures experienced around the world, including record-breaking summer temperatures in Australia over 2012–2013, are very unlikely to have been caused by natural variability alone.”

    That’s the CSIRO’s own report. As I was explaining to you in the other thread, there is not a single scientist or commentator in this debate (apart from your good self) who maintains that either 0% or 100% of the warming of the past century is either AGW or not AGW. Every contributor to this topic has a view on the contribution of AGW and the contribution of NV.

    So now we even have a thread devoted to the topic you can continue your presentation on how you know for certain what percentage of warming is happening as a result of AGW and what percentage is as a result of NV. Have a good read of the CSIRO quote, because it makes very clear the fact that they accept some of the warming is NV and not AGW. Im just curious why you claim to know what the exact breakdown is and how you reached that conclusion.


    Report this

    100

  • #
    Andrew Griffiths

    There seems to be an incremental creep in the BOM average temperature pronouncements,back in the 90′s the number was 0.76 degree C warming over whatever goalpost was fashionable,since 1850 or 1910,now it is 0.9 C since 1910. What is so special about 1910,that is just a year about when the BOM came into existence. Are all the colonial and state records before that of no significance, these numbers seem like they are the result of slicing,dicing and trimming to come up with something sensational for our fawning media at the ABC and Fairfax to get excited about!


    Report this

    30

    • #
      The Griss

      Around 1910 there were an incredible amount of high temperatures registered.

      These cannot be allowed to stand if the sycophants at BOM climate dept want to continue the warming hoax.

      They absolutely must be adjusted down below current temperatures.


      Report this

      51

      • #
        The Griss

        ps.. If you look at post #12.2, I have provided some of the massive adjustments that they have found it necessary to make.

        Both history, and most probably the cooler future, are very much against the BOM/CSIRO warmist CO2 catastrophe fantasy.


        Report this

        41

  • #
    manalive

    The total land area of Australia is about 1.5% of the total surface area of the globe.
    The alleged Climate Change™ indicators mentioned in the report are utterly irrelevant.


    Report this

    60

    • #
      Heeby jeebies

      It is a state of the climate report for Australia, then the US has their own and then the WMO does a global one. Also the BOM report compares national figures and trends to global ones and the figures are consistent.


      Report this

      07

      • #
        PhilJourdan

        LOL – What do you know about the US? You do not even know who controls which house or which house is the upper one. Simple facts that even imbeciles learn before pontificating their ignorance.


        Report this

        10

  • #
    Geoffrey Cousens

    It irks me that the once proud and well respected CSIRO has become such a grubby and loathsome lie machine.


    Report this

    82

    • #
      Heeby jeebies

      So Geoffrey can attack our prime scientific organisations using very nasty and attacking langauge, with no proof or grounds and is posted immediately. [Read the post Heeby. Read. The. Post. says Jo]

      I can support and point out that our governemnt now does not accept the science and has shut down organisations, tried to wind back all the controls and support the previous governemnt has put in towards climate change, but our prime scientific organisation does not change its science to fit, and that is not an appropriate argument?

      [You can't even define "science" heeby, You can't substantiate anything says Jo]

      Shame on you, your bias is glowing. [Jo smiles. According to you? Thanks! Don't ever call me reasonable by your standards OK. That would be an insult.]

      You regularly attack our scientists and our scientific organisations and say they are working for grants and influenced by governments to say what they want, and you have never been able to put forward any concrete evidence for that. [Yup. Mr I-can-say-anything who never bothers to substantiate, and just dumps grossly exaggerated assertions of a mindless nature all over this blog then whines that he's censored. - Jo]

      Here is proof that is not the case.

      [Yes, here exactly is "proof" in your words, that you can't substantiate a thing - vis a vis - MTR "prooves" climate sensitivity is 3.3C and all of CSIRO and BOM are flawless, perfect operators with his request for an impossible proof-of-a-negative about motivations which are unknowable, coupled with denial that I discuss empirical evidence (see The Evidence' x 56th time), and an accusation of hypocrisy, again not backed up. Watch MTRs triple stacked fallacy here in all its glory: - Jo]

      You have also never been able to show what is in it for the government or individual ministers and prime ministers who have supported the science, but still you attack them. Then you don’t post my comments saying it is a non point? Most of your argument against politicians and scientists is about motivations and money. Please stop being so drastically hypocritical. You don’t agree them prove your point honestly.

      [Calling an object, "... a grubby and loathsome lie machine" is hardly, "very nasty and attacking language". You need to wind back the hyperbole -Fly]

      [Geoffrey didn't "attack" in a "nasty" way. Using rhetoric and manipulating language to create a false reality is childish. Grow up.] ED


      Report this

      06

      • #
        Andrew Griffiths

        By their fruits ye shall know them,Book of St Matthew 7:20, the CSIRO is not the organisation that enjoyed so much public respect in the 1950′s,mostly due to the introduction of the myxomatosis virus that helped bring the rabbit plague under control. It is now a politicised bureaucracy with scientists who have finely tuned antennae towards attracting funding that fits in with the dominant themes in our modern society. By the way there was plenty of politics in the myxo story,someone should write this up one day, but hurry up most of the key players have passed on.


        Report this

        30

  • #
    Joe V.

    Hasn’t it given new meaning to the expression “since records began ” ?
    ‘ Since records began what ? ‘ I now think every time I hear it. Began being adjusted ?


    Report this

    30

  • #
    Ceetee

    I struggle with the phrase “since records began ”. It’s like the great big get out of jail free card. Since it seems to me that the weight of scientific knowledge and certainty is predicated on reliable data and proven theories I’m buggered if I can come to terms with the shrill proclamations of those whose evidence is based on that which is “since records began ”. Is data pre “since records began ” the black hole of climate science?.


    Report this

    10

    • #
      Heeby jeebies

      Not at all. But if you look at the BOM report, near the beginning if I recall, there is a timeline of significant achievements in easurements, some quite recent. So ‘since records began’ are the most accurate records we have of that particular measurement, before that proxies are required and the error margins increase, this needs to be taken into account when using those measurements.

      So as time progresses the information we have available increases and the data is more and more accurate. So go back and look at an IPCC report, all the data is taken into account, paleoclimatic records are taken into account but weighting needs to be given to the uncertainties of that information and patchy information. For instance we might have good proxies for temperatures a thousand years ago but we do not have full information on what else was happening to the climate and so our determinations of causes are tempered by a lack of information. But when looking at the last 60 years we have more accurate information on atmospheric temperatures, ENSO, solar, ocean temps, sea levels, cosmic rays, ice volume mass, sea ice extent etc etc. This allows us to better attribute the changes to individual components and see what is likely due to our increasing emissions.


      Report this

      07

      • #
        Jaymez

        I understand what you are saying HJ, but if only it were that straight forward. In most of BOM’s reports where they claim ‘since records began’ they are referring either to their generic 1910 date when using the ACORN data set, or if they are referring to local records, then they may refer to the start date of the local record they are using.

        Dr Jennifer Marohasy asks some pretty good questions about the ACORN data to which she really only received a generic response. BOM have never released their detailed adjustment and homogenisation details. http://jennifermarohasy.com/questions-for-the-australian-bureau-of-meteorology/

        With Adelaide’s recent temperature records, BOM had one of the best, most accurate temperature records to go back to in Australia from the West Terrace station which has been collected since 1839. http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/averages/tables/cw_023000.shtml But they closed that station down in 1980 and now only report Adelaide temperatures from Kent Town which was opened in 1977. One assumes they used the two year ‘hand over’ period to determine a reporting differential between the two sites so that the West Terrace records could be ‘adjusted’ to be zipped into the coagulated ‘Adelaide’ temperature record. But we can’t check the calculations, and they don’t take the records back to 1839.

        In the recent report by the unofficial Australian Climate Council, it highlighted some 2013-14 summer records as provided by BOM. One such record highlighted was that Canberra had 20 days above 35.0C for the firsts time since records began. This was based on Canberra Airport station number 70351 which has only been open since 2008. But the records show that in 1939 the Acton station recorded 23 days above 35.0C. So who knows how BOM was arriving at their claim of a new record?http://abcnewswatch.blogspot.com.au/2014/03/lies-of-climate-commissioncouncil-part.html


        Report this

        50

      • #
        Backslider

        So ‘since records began’ are the most accurate records we have of that particular measurement, before that proxies are required and the error margins increase, this needs to be taken into account when using those measurements.

        What utter codswallop! Scientific instruments, such as thermometers, have been supremely accurate since the 18th century.


        Report this

        30

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          … thermometers, have been supremely accurate since the 18th century.

          Well at least accurate to 0.1 of a degree, which is more precision than most people can physically detect, unaided.

          When we get people having attacks of vapours over the fact that the temperature yesterday was one one-hundredth of a degree warmer than the same day last year, then we are in a very sad state indeed.

          Adapt, people – it is the new way …


          Report this

          50

          • #
            Graeme No.3

            I admire your faith, but having had something to do with thermometers I would challenge your accuracy claim.

            Firstly, all thermometers have imperfections. If the bore ( tube) varies in diameter along its length then it will read incorrectly for a range of readings. e.g. a batch of 10 thermometers was calibrated; they were all accurate at 0℃ and 100℃. Hardly surprising as those points are ‘fixed’ and the scale laid out between those two points. However only 3 read 25.0 ℃ and another 4 were within 0.2 ℃, but the other 3 were out by 0.5 to 1.6 ℃.

            Of course that was the common / industrial cheap ones, but with a government Department involved there will always be some order clerk buying what looks like a cheaper item. Calibrated thermometers are carefully selected and tested and cost considerably more (10-11 times). If all the old time temperatures were taken with calibrated thermometers then the readings would be more accurate. Even then, your comment on the accuracy to which they can be read is quite valid. Take 4 people using the same thermometer at the same temperature to 0.1℃ and you are likely to get 3 answers minimum.

            Anyway I think you will find that many readings were to ±0.5℃. Certainly the early readings made for NOAA across the USA were only that accurate. Pat Franks wrote a deal on this and considered that the error range was ±0.7 ℉.

            In any case you aren’t supposed to take readings to 1 significant figure and report an error to 3 figures. That’s BULL.


            Report this

            20

            • #
              The Griss

              I knew a guy who’s grandfather actually did these measurements, somewhere out the central west of NSW.

              He recalled his grandpa used to use the supplied thermometer in its screen for all official measurements, but he was a fastidious gent with some reasonable science training, and had bought a properly calibrated scientific one.

              Once every 3 or 4 months he would distil some water (yes, he had distillation equipment ;-) ) and check the calibration of this special thermometer at its end points. He would then use that checked thermometer against the supplied government one for a week or so and compare measurements.

              You have here this type of tale to realise just how “anal” these old scientists were about their equipment and measurement :-)

              That’s why I get so p’d off when the current crop of scientific la-la’s go and massively adjust the recorded data.. Its a b****y insult !


              Report this

              20

      • #
        ianhilliar

        Australian records began when the first fleet arrived and founded the colony at Port Jackson [Sydney Harbour] in 1788. As it was a Naval operation, they were equipped with the best thermometers the British admiralty could supply. Read Watkin Tench’s “1788″ which covers the first 2 years of the Sydney Colony. read a bit of our “modern ‘ history” , just to get a sense of proportion


        Report this

        30

      • #
        Safetyguy66

        “So ‘since records began’ are the most accurate records we have of that particular measurement, before that proxies are required and the error margins increase”

        Yup nothing more needs to be said really.

        Maybe you do get it after all.


        Report this

        10

  • #
    Heeby jeebies

    [MTR, seems I need to pay attention to your comments. So forgive me for intruding inline with my points, but I figured you would prefer I really read your words carefully, right? - Jo]

    Scientifically, extreme weather measures are lousy indicators. They’re noisy and not very meaningful. They are however useful for getting newspaper headlines. It depends on what your aim is…

    That is one of the most unscientific, misleading and and incorrect statements I have ever read from a blog saying it is based on science.
    [I view MTR as an advert now. This is a typical beginning. He makes a wildly ambitious statement. Can he back it up -- will it really live up to the "most unscientific misleading and incorrect".... we wait - Jo]

    It is a climate, climate is, according to the WMO, trend in weather over at least 30 years.

    [Not a good beginning. Almost bot-like sentence construction telling us something obvious and irrelevant. - Jo]

    So trends weather in a chaotic system with many variables are about the only way you can see what is going on with the climate and is inherent in its definition.

    [Hm. More bot-like construction. Must be typing fast. Other than the grammar, I think this what I'd call world-book-encyclopedia-level-science. -Jo]

    So an increase in temperature of 0.9deg c in 100 years is entirely valid and meaningful.

    [Right. But isn't Michael supposed to be attacking my statement about "extreme weather" - here he is agreeing with my point - they should use global averages not regional short trend extremes. - Jo]

    It needs to be correlated with the science, it needs to be investigated taking into account natural factors and cycles, but is entirely meaningful when those factors are taken into account. Something missing from posters arguents that regularly ignore everything but a cherry picked portion of a single measurement.

    ["Correlated with the science?" Can we measure that and get an r-squared? When you say "it", which "it" do you mean? Wait.... "posters" arguments? I thought you were discussing my most misleading and unscientific and incorrect statement. When did this become about them instead, and which argument was cherry picked? Which single measurement? - Jo]

    What is meaningless are individual weather events, such as those pointed out in points 2 and 3 above.

    [When the BOM issues press releases about changing the color scheme on their maps is that "weather" or "climate"? When they tell us it's unprecedentedly hot and our national archives show it isn't unprecedented, is that cherry-picking, ignorance, or dishonesty? - Jo]

    That is weather, not evidence of climatic trends. Not one climate scientists has ever said that climate does not change or that extreme weather has never occurred before, this is a fake argument and false logic, …

    [Glad to see you can spot some fake arguments and false logic. Bravo. But who said them? I didn't. - Jo]

    ….the question is whether there is a trend in the weather,
    [Wait, I thought we were asking about trends in the climate, not the weather? - Jo]

    … what is causing it, what are the consequences for us and can we do anything about it (if those consequences are bad).

    [Congrats. That is the question I've been asking since 2007. (Except for the strawman part at the start). - Jo]

    The answer is increasingly that it is our fault, the consequences are bad, and we can do something to mitigate it if it were not for all the anti science zealots fueled by faulty science from those with their hands in the fossil fuel money pot, promoting delay.

    [Hang on. AFter all these irrelevant paragraphs your main argument is that you Heeby-sock-puppet for MTR say it is all our fault, and it will be bad. Furthermore, the world is warming because of anti-science-zealots (is that an aerosol?) Further-further-more apparently the AS-zealots are fueled by money pots -- (are they like the pots at the end of the rainbow?) It's an interesting theory HJ, what evidence have you got? - Jo]

    Very warm months increasing from 2% to 7% in the last 30 years compared to the 30 years before it is significant.
    Extreme heat records outnumbering cold ones 3 to 1 in the day and 5 to 1 at night is consistent with global figures.

    [It's good to see you know how to cut and paste and you even got these from the right document. Since I criticized their use, how does repeating them constitute an argument? - Jo]

    It is a state of the climate report so rainfall trends are relevent and they mention it is an area of ongoing research, natural variability plays a role as well as ozone depletion and global warming.

    [What's relevant is that they can't predict rainfall, or natural variability and they shouldn't be issuing things like fire forecasts, until they can. -jo]

    Wa’s rainfall has seen a dramatic 80% decrease in streamflows to our dams over 100 years.
    [Think about your sentence. How does rain see something? How is streamflow the same thing as rain? How about you read the part of my post where I discuss rainfall in WA? _ jo]

    So your point number one is correct in its last sentence, you are minimising the trends in climate that are definately relevent because of the aim of your site. To promote delay.

    [Ad-score: MTR overall, I'm disappointed. You promised I made the "most unscientific, misleading and and incorrect statements" and yet again, failed to deliver a single sentence which had an argument. I'd score this advert-comment 8/10 for keywords, 4/10 for skim-reading impression, but 0/10 for relevant, coherent, points. Better luck next time. What's really scaring me though, as I finally pay close attention to what you actually say, is whether your last 1275 comments have been this pointless. - Jo]


    Report this

    49

    • #
      Heeby jeebies

      That was very nasty Jo, more honest would be to print my post in its entirety and then have your say as a seperate post underneath. By breaking up my paragraphs and atttacking every little sentence, mainly with irrelevencies, you have completely ruined the flow of my argument. Well done, mission accomplished, but not worthy of a site interested in honest debate. Also all the words are mine, no copy and paste, but I did read the report and use the correct figures, since that is what we are critisising. So all this MTR and bot like speak is just avoiding an honest argument and just meaningless personal attack to hide that you do not have a point against mine.

      So honest question. Are the trends examined from the historical records relevent or not? Do you accept that your individual weather events in 2 and 3 are irrelevent when we are talking about trends? How do you expect us to determine what is happening with climate without using trends?

      Try to leave my post intact please, it is disrespectful and rude to pull it apart and attack it like that. To me it says you are really worried about my comments.

      ———————-
      Worried? Yes, I’m worried you are boring and frustrating normal readers who want actual sentences, real arguments and new points. And in reply you have nothing to say about your grand declaration which was backed up by no reasons? I’m so scared of you Ive published 1276 comments. This is 1277. Still you have no rational point? Manners and respect is what you get when you stop being condescending with inane simplistic arguments. We are way beyond the point where would I allow you to clutter up twice the thread space. -jo


      Report this

      210

      • #
        Heeby jeebies

        You still did not answer my questions. The report uses trends in extreme weather. Many previous studies, have used statistical analysis to determine the likelihood of particular events occuring. These are 2 ways to determine what extreme wether is doing. How else shall we do it? Extreme weather by its very nature is not very common so clear trends will take awhile, nevertheless clear trends are emerging over time frames significant. Extreme weather events at disparate times does not diminish that. So please explain why point 2 and 3 are relevent in a discussion of extreme weather trends. You say I have no argument and then cannot answer common sense questions about 2 of your points.

        Ho about some honest argument instead of personal attacks, many people here say boring and repetitive things ad nauseum, they do not get your personal treatment like this.

        Exactly: Lets have some honest debate. First, you can either back up your statement “That is one of the most unscientific, misleading and and incorrect statements I have ever read from a blog saying it is based on science.” or retract it. What will it be? Can MTR be honest? Can he be reasonable? No sign of it yet. No more comments from you or answers from me til this is resolved. You have not acknowledged that I totally took apart your arguments and there was not one single point about extreme weather that applied to my quote and fulfilled your criticism. Your earlier comment is an advert for your religion. We’re bored of your inanity. – Jo


        Report this

        06

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        That was very nasty Jo, more honest would be to print my post in its entirety and then have your say as a seperate post underneath.

        Oh no, I beg to differ.

        What Jo did, was not only entertaining, it was very illustrative of the propaganda techniques being used by the “Wharmist Wannabees”. She has you sussed, mate!

        You have been demoted from being a Regular Loser, to being a Sore Loser! Next stop, Total?


        Report this

        90

      • #
        Heywood

        “Try to leave my post intact please, it is disrespectful and rude to pull it apart and attack it like that”

        Do you know where you can post a comment and have it remain unedited and intact? On your own blog.

        What is disrespectful and rude is to lie and decieve to get around your ban and continue posting your propaganda and condescending crap on someone elses blog.


        Report this

        50

    • #
      Heeby jeebies

      Also moderating every single comment I make tells me you think my arguments are reasonable and logical and are worried they could influence your readers against your position.

      —–
      You would think that.
      Read my reply again a few more times. – Jo


      Report this

      110

    • #
      Winston

      HJ,

      You make such sweeping statements that you can hardly complain when somebody breaks down what you say into digestible portions to analyse the substance of what you contend. Jo has merely broken down your points individually and responded to them as you have asserted them. It merely illustrates that you do a heck of a lot of posts where you make personal opinion assertions masquerading as fact without much in the way of evidentiary support. Being on the side of the mainstream, and having faith in their contentions purely because they are in the establishment does not make them correct, especially if what they state is not logical, or if it relies on “evidence” which is not wholly and completely transparent, internally consistent or statistically significant. Anyone can construct a compelling case for a contention, no matter how ludicrous, if they systematically ignore evidence that runs contrary to their hypothesis. That doesn’t necessarily make them incorrect, but when such inconvenient facts are ignored it then erodes trust in the honesty and objectivity of the proponents.

      What data we do have as far as world climate is concerned is fatally tainted, with the sole exception of satellite data since 1979 through GISS, HadCrut, RSS, etc, but importantly this data only remains credible while each remains independent of one another. If ever the time comes when all fall under the one governing body, then they no longer can be relied upon. Since the BOM has chosen to adjust historical temperature data, or omit data before a certain time, regardless of whether this is justifiable or not (and certainly if the data is not presented side by side with exact reasons as to why the data has been adjusted), then that data has been corrupted and cannot be relied upon. Global average temperature is a construct formed through far too many assumptions, averages and data selection problems to be relied upon, and certainly I would argue against any assertion that the sum of assumptions tends toward net zero, and that the more assumptions and averages and alterations one makes should somehow cancel each other out, and that is even assuming climate scientists were objective, which clearly they are not.

      Furthermore, the pervasive use of imprecise nomenclature by climatologists and advocates like yourself, such as the term “Climate Change” instead of the somewhat less nebulous term “Global Warming”, is particularly disappointing, being the stock in trade of the pseudo-scientist with a faulty paradigm to sell. Clearly, the use of such vague terminology embraces any and all possible outcomes in climate, from hotter to wetter to colder to drier to milder and so on. This conveniently removes the obstacle of falsifiability, giving no criteria by which a hypothesis can be disproved. This is further exacerbated by the curious stance adopted by climatologists and their acolytes in reversing the onus of proof in scientific discourse, in suggesting that opponents are obliged to disprove the CAGW hypothesis they are proposing and in invoking a dubious precautionary principle to justify “action” on climate change (even though global energy poverty would have more disastrous real consequences should global temperatures decline with dwindling solar activity predicted in the next 30 years than any perceived theoretical issue derived from a warmer world, where more likely the effects are net positive). Alarmists such as yourself are also curiously lacking in detailed propositions as to what this “action” might realistically entail, since altering global weather in any material way is beyond the current technological capability of mankind, and reductions in emissions are most likely unachievable (as Kyoto demonstrates) with even with the most draconian of measures, as China and India develop exponentially toward pervasive industrialisation.

      Arguments failing the standards and rules of logic, such as arguments of authority (belief based on the prevailing “expert” opinion, even though many well-known experts such as Judith Curry, Roy Spencer, John Christy and Richard Lindzen continue to dissent from the alarmist view) and arguments from ignorance (i.e. “we can’t explain the warming any other way so it must be CO2, and it must be anthropogenic”) have been used repeatedly, but as a consequence they fail to inspire confidence among the more discerning critics. These sorts of argument suggest that alarmists such as yourself have very little hard evidence to support their contentions beyond faith and belief.

      False attributions of “consensus” (as if that matters- the dominance of a meme speaks nothing for its validity, merely the zealotry and bullying of its proponents) and certainty have been made since the beginning of the CAGW meme in the mid-1980’s, using such misrepresentations as the statement of “97% of scientists agree” which is made repeatedly in the press and by alarmists such as yourself (yes HJ/MTR that means you) in defense of their cause. This bogus claim has been debunked ad infinitum, yet you still cling to it like a security blanket or a child’s teddy bear. Give it up already, it makes you look ridiculous.

      So your point number one is correct in its last sentence, you are minimising the trends in climate that are definately relevent because of the aim of your site. To promote delay.

      And just to address this one final point, your intention is to promote unthinking haste where it is completely unnecessary (17 years of standstill in global temperature and counting- it may continue to rise, or it may even fall- you have no clear compelling evidence that your brethren know one way or the other), to propel ourselves headlong into investment into renewable energy “solutions” that don’t work, are not “fit for purpose” and do nothing to mitigate against CO2 in any meaningful way anyway. Sounds very similar to high pressure American sales tactics, “ring now, don’t think about it, if you call in the next 15 mins you will receive…..” . So, HJ, you need more than belief and dogged determination to be convincing, and the credibility of the evidence you cling to so desperately is looking increasingly shaky by the day.


      Report this

      130

      • #
        Michael P

        The 97% statement was made in reference to the Doran report which according to him produced this magical figure. He overlooks the fact that the Doran survey is a joke, The “97%” is only 75 out of 77 subjectively cherry picked “specialists” or 2.4% of the 3146 who participated in the survey out of 10,257 Earth Scientists who were sent an invitation. Firstly, bolding that number to pretend it’s too small a sample is wrong because the size a sample needs to be for statistics to work is independent of the population size. Secondly, the criteria by which those 77 were identified, namely they are experts on this topic in particular and publish on it mostly, are valid. Thirdly, no matter how non-selective you are with these scientists, those who do not accept ACC are still a small minority. The Aldregg report which he also references in past posts is even worse.

        A recent paper published in the PNAS, “Expert credibility in climate change” is being used as propaganda to claim that 97% of all climate scientists agree with the IPCC and the need for government action on climate change. An analysis of this paper does not support these conclusions.

        Note: All Google Scholar numerical result totals will change over time and sometimes every time you search.

        PNAS reviewers and author’s William R. L. Anderegg, James W. Prall, Jacob Harold and Stephen H. Schneider are apparently Google Scholar illiterate since searching for just the word “climate” with an author’s name will bring results from non-peer-reviewed sources such as books, magazines, newspapers, patents, citations, duplicate listings and all sorts of other erroneous results. Such as 16,000 from the Guardian, 52,000 from Newsweek and 115,000 from the New York Times. There is no “peer-reviewed journal only” search option in Google Scholar.

        Cherry Picking:

        It is clear the authors cherry picked away skeptics using subjective criteria,

        “we imposed a 20 climate-publications minimum to be considered a climate researcher.”

        So if a scientist published only 19 or less papers on the climate he is not considered an “expert”. They did this intentionally as they noted,

        “researchers with fewer than 20 climate publications comprise ≈80% the UE group.”

        Volume of publications does not indicate scientific truth nor does it denote expertise. It cannot be ignored that skeptics extensively publish peer-reviewed papers so they have to use this propaganda to subjectively define “experts”. An objective criteria for determining if an author has done climate research would be if an author has or has not published a paper on the climate. Expertise is simply an opinion and who is considered an expert will change based on who you talk to.

        http://www.populartechnology.net/2010/08/google-scholar-illiteracy-in-pnas.html


        Report this

        80

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        Nicely said.


        Report this

        30

  • #
    Peter Styles

    Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO confirmed that the drought would never end because of climate change caused by Global warming, after a joint study for three years and confirmed by the computer models. This was reported in The Age 30/8/2009.David Jones BOM head of climate analysis said the extreme dry was permanent Sydney Mourning Herald 8/1/2008.Why do most people doubt the facts.?


    Report this

    41

    • #
      Heeby jeebies

      Please post a link to the BOM and CSIRO report that said the drought would never end. Newspaper articles are rarely a good and reliable source of information, comments are normally taken out of context, By reporters and by people quoting from the newspapers, and do not necessariy reflect the state of the science at BOM or the CSIRO. So proof please.

      [If the newspapers misquoted the BOM or CSIRO, then it is up to the BOM and CSIRO to address that, and demand a retraction. The fact that they have not, is very interesting in its own way, but is not material here. If a reader took the statement in the media at face value, that is hardly their problem, and it is totally unreasonable for you to demand that they provide proof of the facts as reported. Lift your game, we have had enough of this nonsense. -Fly]

      [Meanwhile this article at WUWT had plenty of BOM and CSIRO examples of what you think didn't happen! http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/07/australians-just-arent-going-to-know-what-rainfall-is/ -Mod]


      Report this

      16

  • #
    edwina

    A common refrain that was heard in the late 90s and early 2000s was the prediction snow, in all areas of the globe, would lessen and decrease to almost nothing by around 2010. We have seen the exact opposite especially in the N.H. Now it is said that global warming has caused this UN-predicted climate change. This double double prediction/s proves the so called climate ‘scientists’ and the modelling are so far outside reality that it should be mocked by 97% of scientists.


    Report this

    60

  • #

    Killing off thermometers which return unfavourable data helps raise temps too


    Report this

    30

  • #
    Rob

    Wow…with all these rising sea levels I’d love to see a map plotting the predicted level of land that wil be underwater against the homes and office locations of the Scientists doing the irrefutable predicting. I’m sure we will see as staggering flight to higher ground to protect their businesses and personal assets……I’d love to see this!


    Report this

    50

  • #
    hunter

    Your bureaucrats and govt. funded media are in push-back mode, defending their culture of misleading people and demanding more tax payer resources.


    Report this

    30

  • #
    old44

    Interesting to note that the graph shows the last time the CO2 content and/or global temperatures were as low as the present period was before the advent of the dinosaur age.
    Has anyone asked Tim Flannery why we should be panicking?


    Report this

    21

  • #
    Peter Styles

    David Jones the Bureau of Meteorology’s leading climatologist claims the frequency of heatwaves in Victoria is increasing. “The atmosphere is overloaded with carbon dioxide and its warming our world” he claims in the HeraldSun 8/1/2012 .To support his claim about heatwaves in Victoria he said Adelaide on New Years day 2012 was the hottest since 1900 at 41.6C /1.5C cooler than 1900.This proves carbon dioxide is not responsible for warming ,because in 1900 CO2 concentration in the atmosphere was 300ppm .It has increased 33%to 390ppm in 2012 and was 1.5C cooler .His predicted scorcher for 2012 did not eventuate.


    Report this

    31

  • #
    Heeby Exasperated

    Feel free to answer how any one of your arguments is not from the denier oft repeated playbook …

    [Wait? Have you got a copy? I'll buy it. Or is that another mythical phrase used to advertise your religion and soothe your worried mind? A part of your ritual daily holy-denier chant perhaps. - Jo]

    …and has any scientific relevence to the report from the CSIRO. It is obvious why I am not posted, I ask questions and display logic and reasoning that you cannot answer.

    [True, you use a kind of logic that the West left behind 2300 years ago, one based on mystical calls to authorities in temples, which I can't see any point in pandering too. I ask you questions you can't answer, like whether you are being mistaken, dishonest, or just incompetent, see your comment here and my reply. Still waiting Heeby-MTR-Michael. And that was only one comment I'm trying to hold you to account for. 1283 to go? BTW You are one of the most "not-posted-people" on this site. - Jo]

    Instead you lie about what I have or have not provided and then rely on censorship and personal attacks. At some stage you probably had a promising mind and carreer, but then something happened for you to choose fame or greed over humanity and science. Now all you have are tiresome, repeated and ludicrous non scientific arguments which must be boring for you. Then you turn every argument made against you around full circle rather than answering an actual logical question.

    [It's possible you asked a logical question - the problem is that when I give you a logical answer, you don't recognise it. (2,300 years to go?). Thus I fear we are stuck in an endless loop. And do please name ONE lie, be exact and quote or retract that. I will accept apologies gracefully. - Jo]

    Look at one of your posts above, such as the one about CO2 not being the same since the dinosaurs so why are we worrying. This obviously comes from your gelologic time graph. How about explaining how that is a relevent argument to our current situation and how your poster is correct. Or how about explaining why you do not see that in the 120 year record every upward trend finishes higher than the last, which is the relevent point to the graph. That we have natural fluctuations and cycles in a long term record is an intellectual given, its the obvious underlying warming trend displayed that you ignore.

    [Heeby, this last paragraph is "not even wrong". You don't bother quoting me, so I don't know what you are on about, and you possibly don't either. Please quote direct. Please stop namecalling. Please don't waste our time with poorly researched not-even-wrong questions. Seriously, do you have memory problems? I'm not trying to be mean, but since I've discussed the long underlying trend since 1680 with you before many times, I cannot fathom for one second why you think I ignore the long term 300 year trend when is it one of my top ten arguments. -- Jo]


    Report this

    07

    • #
      Heeby Exasperated

      Again the extent of your hypocrisy knows no bounds. Your arguments are non arguments that you and all other deniers have repeated many times. Apart from that, you accused me of quoting from a playbook. I quote the science, and you have arguments that are meaningless scientifically, the phrase is more likely to apply to you, but you use it and then critisise it.

      Oh mystical calls to authority arguments, how reasonable of you and again how meaningless. You were critisising their report, they are Australias premium scientific organisation and the report was written by professionals in the field. So firstly I am answering YOUR CRITISISM of them without grounds and ask you to focus on the report in your critisism and on science behind the report rather than vague attacks from the general denier playbook while you put down qualified people with your opinion. How about a real argument and answer for a change, is that possible?

      For most of the history of life on Earth CO2 levels were higher than they are today, sometimes 10 times higher. It was a lot hotter, except when it was a lot colder. For 500 million years nobody taxed carbon. Somehow life flourished and coral reefs existed.

      Ok, 1 question. You post a graph from geologic time (your quote above). Incorporated in a graph of this time are the following problems.

      Planet Earth is 4 billion years old and has been through many large upheavels, including being a snowball, a ball of fire, having no atmosphere and one based on mainly greenhouse gases and we have a common star that gets hotter over time. There has been many global extinction events, life has not flourished in a static comforatble existence for the vast majority of that time. So sure if we stuff things up now, life will come back, flora and fauna will adapt or evolve or species that were around inn similar climates will return. That does not help us, the critical question that worries people that actually care about humanity is how inhospitable we are making the planet for us, how will it affect us. Will the changes be slow enough for us to adapt to, should we mitigate to slow down the pace of those changes, the majority of which seem to be going faster than predicted.

      Specifically focus your answer on the following, you have predictably based your science on a graph out of context, no science or analysis to it. Just here is a graph, it shows CO2 does not foloow temp therefore climate change is a joke. You call that science?
      1. It has huge uncertainty ranges from the proxies it relies upon, so can only be used as a guide.
      2. You make no attempt to understand the causes for the swings in a graph like this, for instance when solar proxies are included CO2 and temperature line up.
      3. Geologic time includes things like continent movements, large geological upheavals, planetary orbital changes, ocean circulation changes, atmospheric composition changes as well as sun etc, and not including the more normal ocean and natural short term cycles. Most not applicable to the time scales and changes we are talking about.

      Spo how is this graph relevent to the report from the CSIRO and what scientifically do you think it proves and some peer reveiwed research to back up your opinion.

      So one main question to start with, please do not fill up your answer with irrelevencies like playbooks (you started it), 2300 years, namecalling, personal attacks etc. Just answer the question.

      My reply. – Jo


      Report this

      04

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        … here is a graph, it shows CO2 does not follow temperature … therefore climate change is a joke …

        “No amount of experimentation [or observation] can ever prove that I am right. But a single experiment [or contrary observation] can prove me wrong”, Albert Einstein.

        1. Even as a guide, if a graph, or an observed trend, runs counter to the prevailing hypothesis, then the hypothesis is falsified.
        2. The falsification of a hypothesis does not, de facto, require the substitution of an alternative hypothesis.
        3. To stand, a hypothesis must account for each and every variable, in every circumstance, at every location, at every scale, and at all points in time.

        These are basic principles of science. If you do not accept these principles, then you are not doing science.


        Report this

        40

        • #
          JenJ

          Complete garbage.

          If I hypothesise that the Earth’s orbit around the Sun causes the seasons, so that when one hemisphere is closer to the Sun, it will be hotter, you can prove me wrong if there’s a hailstorm in the middle of summer?

          Is my hypothesis wrong because I failed to “account for each and ever variable”, such as the fact that weather is variable and can deliver a cold day in the middle of summer?

          No.
          Of course not.
          Because you wouldn’t know science if it bit you on the nose. It’s just endless nonsensical assertions from Rereke, all of which demonstrate a complete and utter lack of knowledge, humility and science training.

          And yet, Rereke’s contributions here pretty muich represent the peak in quality of what gets posted…wonderful, isn’t it?


          Report this

          12

          • #
            Rereke Whakaaro

            I presume that the comment #86 from JenJ, was in response to my comment #61.

            Your example is flawed because it makes several assumptions, and relies on English semantics and the presumed common view of what “season” means. In temperate zones, you can discern four seasons, in Southeast Asia there are only two, and in equatorial Africa, there is no discernable change in the season.

            Howwever, a scientist would hypothisise that the mean temperature for the months of June, July, and August will be warmer than the mean temperature for the months of December, January, and February, above a longitude of 45 degrees North.

            Notice how my definition is a lot more precise than yours, and notice how the falsification factor – the sign of the comparative mean temperatures – is a yes or no condition.

            So JenJ, in spite of your pontifications, it seems as though you know less about the way that science works than I do.

            As I said before, these are basic principles of science. If you do not accept these principles, then you are not doing science.

            I suggest you read the philosophy of Karl Popper, so it is not you who gets bitten on the nose, by your own arrogance.


            Report this

            10

          • #
            the Griss

            “JenJ

            March 21, 2014 at 6:09 am · Reply

            Complete garbage.”

            Great heading. ! !! :-)

            Very apt.


            Report this

            01

          • #
            the Griss

            “hailstorm in the middle of summer”

            oh well… like that’s never happened before.. :-)

            jenJ .. you are obviously a child who has very little experience of what the Australian or any other climate can dish out… NATURALLY !!


            Report this

            01

          • #
            the Griss

            “Because you wouldn’t know science if it bit you on the nose”

            Well it obviously hasn’t bit you anywhere. !


            Report this

            01

      • #
        Heywood

        More deception )Heeby Exasperated)to gain access to commenting on this site?

        What. A. Loser.

        I really do think your obsession with this blog is a mental issue. Seek help ASAP.


        Report this

        21

        • #
          Heeby Exasperated

          1. It does not run counter to the prevailing consensus. CO2 is a greenhouse gas that does slow down the loss of energy to space. The graph on its own says very little, when solar proxies are added in it confirms the hypothesis as the CO2 and temp are related to each other. Other than that it shows that there are many other factors, as outlined in the post, that affect the planet on short term and geologic time scales. You are still practising science by eye ball graph, use some thinking.
          2. Read 1.
          3. Ludicrous, it is a planet with many variables, cycles and other factors. What the temp graph of the last 120 years shows us is that the temp bounces all over the place due to these many other factors but that their is an obvious underlying warming trend as seen by the peaks going higher at the end of each warming period, and the lower point finishing higher. That is the take home message from that graph.

          You are trying to apply basic principles under extreme bias, ignoring actual logic, reasoning, observational data, analysis, context and science.

          Jo, this is your post, and an argument you made on your post so it is on topic, are you willing to answer the question?


          Report this

          06

          • #
            Graeme No.3

            Heeby the Exasperating:

            You poor thing, is no-one taking you seriously? Why not get some sandwich boards and patrol the street proclaiming that “The END is NIGH”. That way, if you don’t froth too much at the mouth, you might meet someone who agrees with the illogical ramblings of a non functioning mind.

            Please seek help for your mental problems.


            Report this

            20

            • #
              Heeby Exasperated

              Graeme No whatever. I have met someone that agrees with my logical reasonings. In fact it is where I get my logic, science, observational data and reasoning from. Namely virtually every scientific organisation, climate scientist and the peer reviewed science in the world. I am not the one on the outer scientifically.

              “The scientific community has convened conferences, published reports, spoken out at forums and proclaimed, through statements by virtually every national scientific academy and relevant major scientific organization — including the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) — that climate change puts the well-being of people of all nations at risk.”
              http://whatweknow.aaas.org/get-the-facts/

              [REPLY _ Another meaningless fallacy. Argument from Authority proves nothing in science. You have no evidence to back your faith or you would provide that instead of repeating fallacies ad nauseum. - Jo]


              Report this

              02

          • #

            Ludicrous is to say that the reason that the correlation is not so good is that there many other variables and cycles, but that we can be certain the overall warming is due to CO2 and not any other natural cycle with periods of centuries.

            The best proxies in this debate are the ones that show an oscillation of a couple of degrees of the mean temperatures, with a period that is almost a millennium long, one that we are approaching the maximum of. This was known before recent modelling was done so warming was predicted from empirical knowledge of the atmosphere, not modelling of the how the atmosphere works which were still miles off from correctly predicting a cessation of warming.

            Don’t mention again that CO2 is a greenhouse gas as if nobody else knows. It makes you look like an idiot (everybody reading this blog knows that CO2 absorbs LWIR).


            Report this

            20

            • #
              Heeby Exasperated

              You have not answered the question. Care to stay on topic. I have a specific query about a specific argument in the post. if you cannot answer it then don’t pollute the discussion.


              Report this

              02

          • #
            MaxL

            I have a couple of questions for Heeby.

            You mention that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
            1. Could you explain what it is about CO2 (and other greenhouse gasses) that distinguishes them from other gasses?
            For example, how do they absorb radiated energy?
            How do they hold onto, trap, or maintain that energy?
            How do they later release or re-emit that energy?

            Question 2 will depend on how you answer the above.


            Report this

            10

            • #
              Heeby Exasperated

              Perhaps MaxL you and Vic want to get together and discuss greenhouse gases. It would be nice if your side had a consistent scientific view on greenhouse gases and warming. My question is still unanswered.


              Report this

              02

              • #
                MaxL

                Err No Heeby.
                My question was about *your* explanation. I’m sure Vic could give an explanation, but I’m asking for *your* explanation.

                I’ll repeat the question:
                1. Could *you* explain what it is about CO2 (and other greenhouse gasses) that distinguishes them from other gasses?
                For example, how do they absorb radiated energy?
                How do they hold onto, trap, or maintain that energy?
                How do they later release or re-emit that energy?

                If you have a complaint about Jo’s post and the graphs used, maybe if Jo has the time and the inclination she might address your complaint. I have no intention of answering on her behalf.


                Report this

                10

              • #
                Heeby Exasperated

                I have no intention of responding to silly anti science post on something that is not in dispute by Jo and some of her more science aware posters. Sort it out with Vic, that is a silly and answered question in science. Every atom absorbs and reemits energy, that is where light comes from, and where spectroscopy comes from. Cheesh. It is embarrassing to respond to such nonsense, read a science book.

                I am awaiting responses to my specific on topic question related to an argument on the post itself. You are trying a well worn time wasting distraction technique because you know I am right. The majority of the arguments are nonsense scientifically in regard to the science of AGW and the CSIRO report.


                Report this

                01

              • #
                the Griss

                “The majority of the arguments are nonsense scientifically”

                Then stop posting them.!


                Report this

                20

              • #
                bullocky

                Heeby …..
                “The majority of the arguments are nonsense scientifically in regard to the science of AGW and the CSIRO report.”
                -
                You may care to argue this claim with the CSIRO!


                Report this

                20

              • #

                I have no intention of responding to silly anti science post on something that is not in dispute by Jo and some of her more science aware posters. Sort it out with Vic, that is a silly and answered question in science. Every atom absorbs and reemits energy, that is where light comes from, and where spectroscopy comes from. Cheesh. It is embarrassing to respond to such nonsense, read a science book.

                I don’t know about MaxL but I have used spectrophotometers in research and taught university students how to use them. I’m not an expert but you clearly have just quoted stuff from Wikipedia that you have no understanding of.

                MaxL and I have nothing to sort out. We understand the physics and are not in disagreement that ‘CO2 is a greenhouse gas’ is not a scientific fact because the ‘greenhouse’ bit is a poor description of what actually occurs.

                You really have absolutely no idea of what is going on, do you Heeby?


                Report this

                40

              • #
                MaxL

                So Heeby, you don’t know why a gas might have the adjective “greenhouse” attached to it.
                If you did know, you’d have given an answer in fewer words than you used to hide your ignorance.

                As with your previous use of the phrase the ‘First Law of Thermodynamics’, when questioned about it, you showed that you have no idea what that means. I’ve noticed that you no longer use that phrase, so now, please stop using the adjective “greenhouse”.

                You merely parrot words because they sound so sciencey, but you have no concept of what you’re talking about.


                Report this

                30

              • #
                MaxL

                You know something Heeby, even if you’d said “Hmm, I’m not really 100% sure about greenhouse gasses”, I’d have thought to myself, “Now here’s a man of honesty and integrity.
                Your answer in #66 shows that you are dishonest and have no integrity.

                I hope that casual readers of this site and especially those who are trying to understand the climate, will skip over every “Michael the Realist, MTR, Heebie jeebies or Heeby Exasperated” comment.


                Report this

                30

              • #
                Heeby Exasperated

                especially those who are trying to understand the climate, will skip over every “Michael the Realist, MTR, Heebie jeebies or Heeby Exasperated” comment.

                Nice bit of manipulation here. You cannot answer my basic on topic question honestly and you know that Jo can’t, so when distration did not work you decided to move to the second page of the playbook, personal attack. I have explained how the greenhouse effects and CO2′s role in it before, and I don’t remember ever using the first law as an argument except to point out when a poster has used it incorrectly. I am being on topic by asking a question specifically about Jo’s post to ascertain if even one of her arguments have merit in her unprovoked attack (and most others on this blog) on the CSIRO and BOM, who despite an anti science gov have bravely stuck to the science and despite probable repercussions.

                Again (anyone?)


                Report this

                05

              • #
                Heywood

                Still here? Haven’t seen that shrink yet? Better get it done before your obsession with this blog gets out of control…

                …wait…


                Report this

                10

              • #
                Heeby Exasperated

                Lets remind you of the actual question being avoided.(accidentally posted high up)
                Ok, 1 question. You post a graph from geologic time (your quote above). Incorporated in a graph of this time are the following problems.

                Planet Earth is 4 billion years old and has been through many large upheavels, including being a snowball, a ball of fire, having no atmosphere and one based on mainly greenhouse gases and we have a common star that gets hotter over time. There has been many global extinction events, life has not flourished in a static comforatble existence for the vast majority of that time. So sure if we stuff things up now, life will come back, flora and fauna will adapt or evolve or species that were around inn similar climates will return. That does not help us, the critical question that worries people that actually care about humanity is how inhospitable we are making the planet for us, how will it affect us. Will the changes be slow enough for us to adapt to, should we mitigate to slow down the pace of those changes, the majority of which seem to be going faster than predicted.

                Specifically focus your answer on the following, you have predictably based your science on a graph out of context, no science or analysis to it. Just here is a graph, it shows CO2 does not foloow temp therefore climate change is a joke. You call that science?
                1. It has huge uncertainty ranges from the proxies it relies upon, so can only be used as a guide.
                2. You make no attempt to understand the causes for the swings in a graph like this, for instance when solar proxies are included CO2 and temperature line up.
                3. Geologic time includes things like continent movements, large geological upheavals, planetary orbital changes, ocean circulation changes, atmospheric composition changes as well as sun etc, and not including the more normal ocean and natural short term cycles. Most not applicable to the time scales and changes we are talking about.

                So how is this graph relevent to the report from the CSIRO and what scientifically do you think it proves and some peer reveiwed research to back up you.


                Report this

                05

              • #
                Mark D.

                How did I miss this whole thread? Heeby is about to pop and I missed it!


                Report this

                00

          • #

            Heeby sock puppet for Michael The Realist who has posted nearly 1300 comments with the same inane arguments that never evolve, and never acknowledge that our responses to yours are logical and conclusively correct.

            I have listed my evidence x 57 times. You ignore.
            I have told you what 10 times? That there is a long term warming trend that started long before 120 years ago (read THIS post above), and I cite it all the time with sea level rise, paleostudies, boreholes, glacier movements and ice cores.
            I have pointed out how the decadal warming trend in the 1870s was the same as the decadal warming trend in the 1980s. Yet 85% of human emissions came after 1945. It made no difference to the long underlying trend you rant about. You’ve never had an answer. I quote Phil Jones. You namecall with insults.

            You are either delusional (at best) or deceitful. I will be generous and assume delusional, possibly obsessive. I’m sorry we can’t help you — it doesn’t matter what we say, you will waste our time repeating your demands and ignoring our responses. It doesn’t matter how logical we are, you don’t recognise logic. The conversation is pointless.

            I hope you find some peace and solace. Best wishes.


            Report this

            50

            • #
              the Griss

              Really Jo,

              I have no idea WHY you tolerate this TWERP.

              I must admit though, he does do immeasurable damage to the CAGW cause by his continued postings.

              The GIFT that keeps on giving :-)

              The fact that he doesn’t even realise the damage he does to his cause is really rather amusing… :-)


              Report this

              01

        • #
          Heeby Exasperated

          Maybe Heywood. But my obsession is due to having children and grankids (2 now :-)

          and I think this is the most crucial issue of our time that will affect their future. I have to try and get the hardest core to see reason, that is where the most delay is coming from. I am trying to do it with as much logic, reason, science and observational data as I can. So I will keep going as long as I can…

          My post below was to Rereke, but it seems to have gone to the end, that might be because I lost internet when I first tried to post it. Sorry.


          Report this

          05

          • #
            the Griss

            “Maybe Heywood. But my obsession is due to having children and grankids”

            Then why the heck aren’t you spending your time with them !!

            Instead of wasting your time and everyone else’s time posting meaningless garbage.

            You ARE NOT doing any good at all here. In fact you are almost certainly creating even more skeptics

            because those passers-by reading your crap will realise just how woefully scientifically illiterate most climate catastrophists are.

            You are not in anyway a good advertisement for sanity and rationality.

            A RAVING LOONY , in fact.


            Report this

            31

            • #
              Truthseeker

              The Griss, you have touched on the important point here …

              In fact you are almost certainly creating even more skeptics

              Heeby (whatever you are going to call yourself today) is in fact a useful idiot.

              The more it talks, the more that the stupdity of the catastrophist argument gets a powerful light shone on it for all to see.


              Report this

              40

              • #
                the Griss

                People can see EXTREMISM when it is shoved in their faces.

                And there are MANY extremists in the alarmist camp.


                Report this

                20

              • #
                Heeby Exasperated

                [SNIP another Repeat. Heeby Sock Puppet (MTR) repeatedly violates rules of the blog. He fails the basic bar of logic, constantly posting fallacies (argument from authority). He does not provide his main email. He posts under many names. He refuses to answer our questions. He abuses English and can't substantiate the words he uses. He cut and pastes comments. The quality of his comments is low see http://joannenova.com.au/2014/03/what-the-csiro-state-of-the-climate-report-forgot-to-tell-you/#comment-1401861 - Jo]


                Report this

                02

              • #
                Heywood

                Another double up post? Think further polluting this blog with double-up posts will help your cause? Nobody cares so you say it twice?

                “I hope that the casual passerby will notice that I have asked a simple serious on-topic question”

                How many people casually passing by read nearly two week old posts?

                As for why nobody is answering your ‘simple serious on-topic question’, it is due to your continuing obsession with this blog, the fact that you lied and decieved to keep posting here, and your condescending and arrogant tone. You have destroyed any goodwill with the posters here. Nobody can be bothered seriously engaging with you because history shows that you will accept no explanation, evidence, theories or references unless it supports your argument.

                Put simply, you no longer (if you ever did) participate in science discussion, you engage in annoying activism and everyone has had a gut full of your posts.

                Nobody here has any respect for you, you blew that long ago. Time to move on methinks.


                Report this

                10

              • #
                Rereke Whakaaro

                Amen to that …!


                Report this

                00

      • #

        Heeby sock-puppet — you avoid answering our questions then deceptively post under different names and emails demanding we answer yours. They you call me a hypocrite.

        I’ve simply asked you to be accountable for ONE comment. You post long repetitive comments with ambitious declarations that you fail utterly to back up. You declared ” one of the most unscientific, misleading and and incorrect statements I have ever read from a blog saying it is based on science.”

        I categorically unpacked your baseless drivel word by word. Then as far as I was concerned there was silence. No reply at all. So you ran off to get help, and come back under another identity. To show you are here for an honest conversation you need to admit you were careless, your comment contains nothing to back up that statement and you apologize for wasting our time and agree to lift your standards.

        No more comments from you under any sock puppet name until you clean up a tiny bit of the litter you dump. – Jo


        Report this

        20

      • #

        In reply to this comment.

        Oh mystical calls to authority arguments, how reasonable of you and again how meaningless

        You are in denial of Aristotelian logic and reason. This is the reason you cannot comment any longer here. I’ve asked you to stop posting fallacies repeatedly, but you refuse to improve. It’s a breach of blog guidelines. It is profoundly unscientific. There is nothing more I can do to help you.

        Spo how is this graph relevent to the report from the CSIRO and what scientifically do you think it proves and some peer reveiwed research to back up your opinion.

        1. Read my post again. My point is obvious in context.
        2. It’s not “proof” of anything and I didn’t say it was. Science doesn’t work by proof, only by disproof. See Popper. Read about the scientific method.
        3. I don’t make any big scientific claims about that graph. I used the graph as one of many examples that show how the CSIRO and BOM are not impartial. They cherry pick. It is a bland, indisputable fact that CO2 was higher for most of the history of life on Earth, and it is well accepted that temperatures were higher too. You have provided exactly nothing to contradict that. My post is accurate and the points are valid.
        4. My modest claims about the graph fit the uncertainties (which are marked on the graph). I think this graph should be discussed in public, the CSIRO and BOM appear to think it should be hidden.
        5. This State of The Climate report contains repeat references to projections about severity of effects from CO2. The BOM and CSIRO don’t mention the main flaws of the models, nor how badly the models do, nor the long term history. They use the word “uncertainty” just one time (in relation to rainfall). Their report is biased and unbalanced.
        6. We don’t know the causes of the swings in the graph except that we know high temperatures cause more CO2 to be released (Henry’s Law), so there MUST definitively be a correlation, but it’s backwards to the one you want. We also know life on Earth evolved competitively to suck down all that beautiful valuable CO2, hence there is a long term downward trend in CO2. (See the story of C3 C4 plants eh?)

        So one main question to start with, please do not fill up your answer with irrelevencies like playbooks (you started it), 2300 years, namecalling, personal attacks etc. Just answer the question.

        1. On “playbooks” – you started it.
        2. 2300 years = Aristotle. You argue from the stone age. Learn what Argument from Authority is. Don’t EVER make it again.
        3. Namecalling is when heeby calls us deniers. You have not backed that up because you still can’t name a single scientific observation we deny.

        Heeby, I’ve wasted too much time cleaning your mistakes. You’ve supplied nothing but fallacies, namecalling, and baseless bluster. I’ve tried – publishing nearly 1300 comments, and sending personal emails to help you. There are no signs, not even a glimmer, of any improvement. No manners, no good will, no grace, no effort to be honest and acknowledge the mistakes errors, non-points and fallacies. You simply are unable to write cogent sentences with any kind of meaningful argument. Its over. – Jo


        Report this

        40

        • #
          Heywood

          ” You simply are unable to write cogent sentences with any kind of meaningful argument. Its over. – Jo”

          I guess we can now call him ‘Heeby Expired’…

          I thought I just heard someones head explode from the direction of Perth. What will Mr Fab do with his spare time now??


          Report this

          00

    • #
      PhilJourdan

      HJ? HE? MTR? A man of many names – no wonder you have no clue – you have to spend all your time keeping up with your split personalities!


      Report this

      20

  • #
    bullocky

    Heeby …..
    “The majority of the arguments are nonsense scientifically in regard to the science of AGW and the CSIRO report.”
    -
    Whilst this claim maybe true, you should have posted it separately!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Heeby Exasperated

    Lets remind you of the actual question being avoided.
    Ok, 1 question. You post a graph from geologic time (your quote above). Incorporated in a graph of this time are the following problems.

    Planet Earth is 4 billion years old and has been through many large upheavels, including being a snowball, a ball of fire, having no atmosphere and one based on mainly greenhouse gases and we have a common star that gets hotter over time. There has been many global extinction events, life has not flourished in a static comforatble existence for the vast majority of that time. So sure if we stuff things up now, life will come back, flora and fauna will adapt or evolve or species that were around inn similar climates will return. That does not help us, the critical question that worries people that actually care about humanity is how inhospitable we are making the planet for us, how will it affect us. Will the changes be slow enough for us to adapt to, should we mitigate to slow down the pace of those changes, the majority of which seem to be going faster than predicted.

    Specifically focus your answer on the following, you have predictably based your science on a graph out of context, no science or analysis to it. Just here is a graph, it shows CO2 does not foloow temp therefore climate change is a joke. You call that science?
    1. It has huge uncertainty ranges from the proxies it relies upon, so can only be used as a guide.
    2. You make no attempt to understand the causes for the swings in a graph like this, for instance when solar proxies are included CO2 and temperature line up.
    3. Geologic time includes things like continent movements, large geological upheavals, planetary orbital changes, ocean circulation changes, atmospheric composition changes as well as sun etc, and not including the more normal ocean and natural short term cycles. Most not applicable to the time scales and changes we are talking about.

    So how is this graph relevent to the report from the CSIRO and what scientifically do you think it proves and some peer reveiwed research to back up you.


    Report this

    01

  • #
    Heeby Exasperated

    [SNIP Repeat. Heeby Sock Puppet (MTR) repeatedly violates rules of the blog. He fails the basic bar of logic, constantly posting fallacies (argument from authority). He does not provide his main email. He posts under many names. He refuses to answer our questions. He abuses English and can't substantiate the words he uses. He cut and pastes comments. The quality of his comments is low see http://joannenova.com.au/2014/03/what-the-csiro-state-of-the-climate-report-forgot-to-tell-you/#comment-1401861 - Jo]

    POST NOTE: Heeby writes and claims he did provide his main email. He took over 24 hours to respond to emails. But, hey, it could be he writes 20 comments online and doesn’t check his email once during those hours. I’ve deleted the phrase, it’s irrelevant now. I allowed 1000 comments even after I assumed his email was false. It’s not the reason he can no longer comment. See above. – Jo


    Report this

    11

  • #
    Peter Styles

    Heebie Jeebies or exasperated-Michael the realist-MTR, who rant on about the might and right of the CSIRO and BOM will go into denial when they read “A questionable interpretation”. “The release of Australian data from the CSIRO and the weather bureau in support of human-induced global warming shows they are inappropriately using regional Australian weather as evidence of global temperature changes. No mention here that world wide satellite measurements show that global warming has stopped ,despite rising atmospheric carbon dioxide. Making reference to warming over the last 100 years shows little beyond demonstrating the obvious trend of warming after the horrors of the “Little Ice Age”. As for proof that extreme weather events are on the increase, or that human emissions cause any noticeable warming beyond natural change ,the confirming evidence is lacking. Perhaps the term sceptic should apply more to those largely government-supported scientists who select data to suit their preconceived views on climate change. In my view ,this is less about science and more about politics.” Colin M Barton (ex-principal research scientist, CSIRO).This article appeared in the Herald Sun 16/3/2012.


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Heeby Exasperated

    I hope that the casual passerby will notice that I have asked a simple serious on-topic question regarding an argument on the original post. If you scroll to the first time I asked the question it will be plain that the readers of this blog have spent all of their time with nonsense and distractions and now pointless personal attacks, but have been unable to answer the question.

    Please read the question and my reasons for asking it and make your own mind up on who is truly skeptical and who are religious extremists that just accept what they are told by their opinion blog gods without questioning the logic behind the mostly vacuous arguments. Similar questions could be posed at virtually every argument above. Proof is in the pudding…

    ["If you scroll to the first time I asked the question ..." Would that be the comment where Jo responded by saying she, "will not keep approving comments of this low inane advertorial status"? -Fly]


    Report this

    03

  • #
    the Griss

    The casual passer-by will have no hope of figuring out what you are RANTING ON about.

    Nor will they care.

    I repeat.. go and spent some time with your children and grandchildren.

    before its all too late.

    YOU ARE WASTING YOUR TIME AND EVERYONE ELSE’S TIME

    Even you must have something worthwhile you could be doing.


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Heywood

    “It would be nice if your side had a consistent scientific view on greenhouse gases and warming”

    ..and another thing, the quote above is a classic example of why nobody bothers with you. You imply that the whole issue is “Us vs Them” and fail to acknowledge that those sceptical of CAGW have many varying opinions on all the facets of the hypotheses. What do you expect? All sceptics to have a conference and vote on what their ‘official’ stance on greenhouse gases and warming is? This blog is for discussing the many and various opinions, mainly from the sceptical point of view. Some will have valid points worthy of exploring whilst other opinions border on ridiculous. If you don’t like the fact that Jo allows this discussion, suck it up. To claim that this blog is causing delay to mitigation action that you consider appropriate is just ridiculous, as is your constant appeals to emotion with your “what about the children” fallacious argument.

    Like most annoying activists, you see those who don’t 100% align with your own opinion as being 100% against it. I have been telling you this for months, but you still don’t seem to comprehend.


    Report this

    10