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



Weekend Unthreaded

:-)

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 7.6/10 (31 votes cast)
Weekend Unthreaded, 7.6 out of 10 based on 31 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/obnc3bu

304 comments to Weekend Unthreaded

  • #
    Bulldust

    Woot O/T galore … two more Arjen flops and Holland will be in the WC final!


    Report this

    31

    • #
      Tim

      I can’t fathom why grown men kicking a ball around are more important than the real news. Maybe I’m missing something here.Has there been many hieroglyphs of revered sports teams found in ancient artefacts?


      Report this

      120

      • #
        Hasbeen

        Come on now, some of those blokes should have won an Oscar for their performances when acting like they were tripped. It is not just kicking a ball.


        Report this

        50

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    That is why the standard of discourse on this site has gone south – everybody is watching the [Snip] World [Snip] Cup.


    Report this

    142

    • #
      Yonniestone

      Personally I don’t like sports that use perfectly round balls as it represents people who can’t handle the random bounces of reality in life and are desperately trying to control such outcomes.

      Sports where balls can suddenly hit you in the face have a certain honesty about them, don’t you agree?


      Report this

      171

      • #
        the Griss

        Ever faced a quick bowler in cricket? A cricket ball REALLY hurts !!

        Luckily, I was usually on the delivering end. :-)


        Report this

        100

        • #

          For years I was a hockey goalie in A grade. We didn’t use all that protective gear they have now, except pads and a cricket box. Now that hurt. Later, I moved to the wing when I had enough hurt, practiced a short corner hit, and turned the goalie’s box inside out. He retired from the tournament!


          Report this

          40

          • #
            Josh Croker

            I broke an opposing player’s knee a few years ago taking a 16 yard hit. As a fullback I’ve copped plenty of my own as well including a knee reconstruction. Still love turning up each week for the mighty Y though.


            Report this

            00

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        Sports where balls can suddenly hit you in the face have a certain honesty about them, don’t you agree?

        Not to mention the broken noses and other injuries.

        I have wondered all my adult life why anyone wants to play football (American). The rate of serious injuries is far more than should be acceptable to anyone with common sense. Yet every kid dreams of being the football hero. It’s another thing that must be controlled by something in the water. Or maybe it’s CO2? Then there’s hockey…

        If anyone has an explanation for this affliction with violent sports I’d sure like to hear it.


        Report this

        50

        • #
          Matty

          Isn’t American football a big girl’s game with all that padding & helmets ?


          Report this

          71

          • #
            Geoff Sherrington

            I get concerned when top medical services & gear are tied up by sponsored game players who seem to think that society loves to hear of the health/sports carnage.


            Report this

            50

          • #
            PeterK

            Long time ago when I didn’t understand football (Canadian & American), someone explained to me how football is played. I was told that it was a very simple game. All you needed to know was that:

            1. 12 men go into a huddle (circle) and talk for a minute or so.
            2. 12 men line up again 12 other men.
            3. the ball is passed from a guy called the centre to a guy called the quarter back
            4. then all of the 24 men on both teams fall down
            5. all the men get up
            6. repeat steps 1-5


            Report this

            101

          • #
            Mortis

            The pads are to give a hit, not to protect against one. A few rugby footballers came to the NFL thinking the same thing years back – none of them made it.


            Report this

            40

          • #
            Peter Miller

            Two points:

            1. Rugby, which is a real man’s game, morphed into American football presumably because rugby was considered too rough.

            2. In America’s two favourite sports, basketball and American football, it helps if you are a genetic freak, which is why they encourage you to eat meat full of growth hormones, which are banned in most of the rest of the world.


            Report this

            41

        • #
          Rod Stuart

          It’s in the genes Roy.
          I recall a guided tour of the Colosseum in Rome. The tour guide was a rather artsy type of University student, but nevertheless conducted a very interesting tour.
          With considerable gravitas, this lad continually portrayed the similarities that exist with the Roman psyche and that of the 21st century.
          The Colosseum was the venue which allowed ordinary folk the opportunity to see animals and people from other lands that otherwise would have been impossible. The blood sports embodied much of what 21st century folk enjoy at the movies or on TV, and of course at the sports arena. Of course the lad also introduced the concept that the entertainment, the food, the camaraderie, was provided by the establishment because it amplifies the ability to control the masses by keeping them occupied with something other than their own misery.
          At the time, I rather considered the lad a bit of a flake. However, since that time, it occurred to me that this same technique has been employed by the few to control the many in the Aztec, Mayan, Inca, and Egyptian civilisations as well.
          Some of us would think that is not only the reason that sports are whole heartedly supported by the establishment, and that there is some sort of attraction for violence built into the human condition.


          Report this

          120

        • #
          Robert

          I have wondered all my adult life why anyone wants to play football (American). The rate of serious injuries is far more than should be acceptable to anyone with common sense. Yet every kid dreams of being the football hero.

          Fortune and fame. That’s pretty much it. If one becomes a professional ball player here in the US, especially if they are with a successful team, they get the fame. Even if they aren’t all that successful professional ball players here in the US receive obscene financial compensation. Supposedly due to the rate of serious injuries where they must have all that money to care for themselves if the injury prevents them from playing again, not to mention that once they are done playing most of them have nothing productive to offer society.

          It is the modern version of the Colosseum and they are the gladiators of today. Personally I stopped watching once they replaced the half-time show where one could watch the cheerleaders with the old washed up ball players yapping away about the game. The cheerleaders are the only interesting thing about the game IMO.


          Report this

          10

      • #
        Yonniestone

        Err maybe I should have worded that last line a bit better looking back :(

        I was being a bit facetious with using a humorous analogy to describe a human condition, reminds me of once engaging a neo feminist where she claimed everything that “men” created was somehow “phallic” in relation to it’s existence, I pointed out that nature does this with plants, animals etc.. without the influence of men and also provides many “receptacle” shapes also.

        Adding that men have created many “receptacle” shaped things she retorted it’s only acceptable if nature does this and then ignored my claims of humans being a part of nature.
        It was a good introduction to insanity exhibited by apparently educated people and put me in good stead for the emerging CAGW crowd.


        Report this

        70

        • #
          Roy Hogue

          …claimed everything that “men” created was somehow “phallic”…

          Yonni,

          You’ve put your finger pretty close to my suspicion about it — it’s a hormone problem, an excess of testosterone. ;-)

          I could be wrong of course. But that’s what it looks like to me.


          Report this

          40

          • #
            Rereke Whakaaro

            Roy,

            Have you never been told that the whole discussion about testosterone, is totally wrong.

            If a “discussion” involves one party having testosterone, that party must be totally wrong, q.e.d.


            Report this

            30

            • #
              Roy Hogue

              So “they” say. I’m at the point where I just call things as they appear to be and let “they” complain if they want to. ;-)


              Report this

              30

        • #
          jorgekafkazar

          She could be a nominee for the Penis Envy Poster Child.


          Report this

          20

  • #
  • #
    pat

    i’ve been posting links such as the following & the latest attempts by Labor/Greens to stall the repeal of the carbon tax, etc., on the “Award Winning Skeptic…” thread:

    4 July: UK Daily Mail: Darren Boyle: BBC slammed by listeners and criticised by its own compliance unit after Radio 4 Today programme gave ‘undue prominence’ to climate change sceptic
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2680370/BBC-slammed-listeners-criticised-compliance-unit-Radio-4-Today-programme-gave-undue-prominence-climate-change-sceptic.html#ixzz36YxdO6tu

    VIDEO: 2 July: CNS News: Apollo Astronaut: Climate Alarmism Is the ‘Biggest Fraud in the Field of Science’
    http://cnsnews.com/mrctv-blog/craig-bannister/apollo-astronaut-climate-alarmism-biggest-fraud-field-science

    and yes, i’m exhausted from watching Wimbledon & the World Cup, so there. lol.


    Report this

    100

  • #
    pat

    3 July: Washington Times: Ben Wolfgang: Obama pleas to China, India to forgo use of coal falls on deaf ears
    Far East shuns renewables for cheap energy
    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jul/3/obama-pleas-to-china-india-to-forgo-use-of-coal-fa/

    AN EXTRAORDINARY ATTACK ON MAURICE NEWMAN, PROBABLY 10,000 WORDS:

    4 July: SMH: Tim Elliott: Maurice Newman, the million-dollar smiler
    http://www.smh.com.au/national/people/maurice-newman-the-milliondollar-smiler-20140630-3b2qs.html


    Report this

    40

    • #
      Mikky

      I think we should not get too excited about developing countries appearing to have deaf ears to Obama’s pleas.

      Given that they stand to get billions from gullible countries with money to give away,
      it stands to reason that they will hold out for the best deal they can get.


      Report this

      70

  • #

    Anglican Church has just demanded Abbott keep the carbon tax – unanimous support for forcing poor people to pay inflated electricity prices.

    http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/respect-climate-science-anglicans-urge-tony-abbott-to-change-tack-on-climate-change-policies-20140704-zsvyn.html


    Report this

    160

    • #
      bobl

      Interesting read, loved this bit

      He said he could not say that all bishops shared his views on the ‘‘cavalier attitude of the federal government to environmental protection’’, but the majority did privately

      Translation, some of the blokes over a sacrificial wine said they agreed with me, but I really have no idea what everyone thinks.

      One thing is for sure, more than 58% of their parishioners think it’s crap.


      Report this

      181

      • #
        Annie

        Too right their parishioners do! I’m fed up with bishops presuming to speak AGW garbage supposedly on my behalf.


        Report this

        140

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        Translation, some of the blokes over a sacrificial wine said they agreed with me, but I really have no idea what everyone thinks.

        The real translation is probably closer to, “We don’t know a useful thing about the subject but someone with the appearance of authority says it so it must be true.”

        Critical thinking is not the strong suit of the Anglican Church or for that matter, any other church when it comes to discerning the difference between fact and fiction in current affairs.


        Report this

        150

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          Lack of critical thinking, is a prerequisite for, if not actually the definition of, religious belief.


          Report this

          70

          • #
            OriginalSteve

            While not being anglican, rather Christian, I disagree.

            I think people can have their beliefs, in fact I encourage freedom of thought, but an inability to prove God doesnt exist doesnt mean He doesnt exist.

            I find the intricacy of life a solid example of clear intelligent thought and design processes within a very complex matrix of interdependency.


            Report this

            21

            • #
              Roy Hogue

              Steve,

              It looks like you and I could have some long discussions on the subject of God. I see the same things myself and wonder about them. And all I can do is admit that I don’t know the answer, does some creator who we should call God exist or not? And like you, I never challenge anyone’s point of view. They could be right and I be wrong.

              The universe in which we have a very small, insignificant little home in an obscure corner of one galaxy exhibits such complex behavior that it’s hard to imagine that from its beginning it was not intended to produce life and eventually, to produce you and me.

              We will probably never know the answer while in this life any more than a computer simulation of the universe (if it were possible) could tell it was a digital simulation.

              Unfortunately this isn’t the right forum for a longer discussion.


              Report this

              10

              • #
                OriginalSteve

                Well heres the thing – I did ( subconciously ) take a scientificf approach to these things in the early days of my faith.

                It was a simple scenario – I asked God for soemthing that only He and I knew about ( becasue I had discussed with him n pratyer ).

                Anyway, it happened – not just once, but many many times. There were quite a few times ehen my back was against teh wall, and God came through.

                As a friend said, there is no such thing as coincidence. Then later I figured if you accepted the biblcial view of God, that he was in control of all things in this world, then coincidence becomes a moot word in the english language.

                I think these days people assume we have the answers to everything and can scientifically work out anythingw e want.

                I also think that as I am convinced God is the God of the Bible, it also makes many trendy “lifestyle” choices rather tenuous, and paints things like abortion and euthanasia in a whole new light. Likewise it puts other non-christian religions in a nw light i.e. time wasters.

                I’m not being nasty here, just it is what it is.

                I also think many people dont want God to exist, because it means all the “free choice’ that this old world tells them they have – they have it, but there will be consequences for the wrong path, and it will come, guaranteed.

                I also understand many people dont want to hear this, but such is life…..


                Report this

                10

              • #
                Roy Hogue

                Steve,

                It’s good to hear your experience, your testimony. Thanks.

                I became a Christian by choice on the strength of, not the words but the way a small group of people actually lived their lives. They were very influential.

                Since then I have had numerous doubts and have had to give up on the organized “church” for reasons too lengthy to recite. But I choose to live as a Christian as well as I can and go forward with the commitment I made on that day when I realized I should become a believer. There is no way I can say I know that God exists but there is no way I can say I know He doesn’t exist either.

                And now, given that some do not agree with either of us and that this discussion isn’t really appropriate for this blog, I think we shouldn’t keep it going.


                Report this

                00

            • #
              Annie

              OriginalSteve: I think calling other religions ‘time wasters’ is a bit harsh. The natural instinct of most people is religious and they can hardly be blamed if a. they haven’t encountered Christianity or b. if they have encountered Christianity and have been scandalised by some perverted form of it or the bad behaviour of many so-called Christians. I’m very upset by the sort of behaviour that is deeply contrary to real Christianity.


              Report this

              00

              • #
                Roy Hogue

                Just to be on record about what you said.

                Both Christianity and individual “Christians” have used their religion to justify everything from bad manners to hatred and murder. None of that is justified and not all who call themselves Christian actually are.

                Other religions are not mine to judge nor are other Christians. However, I do get to judge the behavior of others, even when they do something and use the tenets of their belief as justification. The events of 09/11/2001 are an example. The Crusades are another example and from the evidence, we are still fighting the inevitable result of that unjustified invasion of the Muslim world to this day.

                For the Christian, the whole point of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus is that we are forgiven if we get something wrong. There is no other point in being a Christian.


                Report this

                00

    • #
      Peter Miller

      The Anglican church is in its death throes,

      So, when you read this type of BS, it is no surprise that it is spiralling down into oblivion.


      Report this

      161

      • #
        James Bradley

        It is merely appealing to the populist lefty vote hoping to snag a few faintly curious, greeny, socialist types that would normally be atheistic, satanistic, homeopathic, psychopathic or just anything as long as they get a few new bums on seats.


        Report this

        120

    • #
      Matty

      Why isn’t the Catholic church doing likewise ?
      Does it know somethig its offspring perhaps doesn’t ?


      Report this

      41

      • #
        handjive

        May 10, 2014
        “Yesterday Pope Francis called on the UN to look for a fair redistribution of wealth in an effort to help the world’s poor.
        Today, according to an article on SpyGhana.com, the UN is looking to the Catholic Church to help push Sustainable Development (Agenda 21)”

        27 JUN 2013
        An open letter from Australian religious leaders

        “Many religious groups – Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans, Uniting Church, Baptists, Salvation Army, Hindus, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Sikhs, Jains, Baha’i – have statements upholding humanity’s responsibility to protect the environment on which life depends.
        We now urge Catholics as an essential part of their faith commitment to respond with sound judgments and resolute action to the reality of climate change.” Indeed, Pope Francis referred to his environmental concerns in his post-election press conference.”
        . . .
        Sustainability is the ‘golden calf‘ of western religion.
        (though, Moses’s ‘Punishment of the guilty’ sounds like a Doomsday Global Warmer retribution)


        Report this

        70

        • #
          Ron Cook

          Mmmm! The “golden calf”, = “sustainability”.

          Spot on me thinks.

          Ron
          R-COO- K+


          Report this

          20

        • #
          Matty

          “We now urge Catholics as an essential part of their faith commitment to respond with sound judgments and resolute action to the reality of climate change.”

          … and isn’t that what Jo and skeptics of free mind everywhere are doing, responding to the reality of climate change, which is as a device of human construction, to leverage wealth involuntarily from the producers, to the bankers, to the bureaurocats and to the appointed authories, the leaches of society throughout the ages, in nomine paupers of course , only now it’s reinforced by the name of the planet, of the wildlife , of the plants, of the unborn and all with their self-appointed representatives to benefit in the meantime in the here & now ?


          Report this

          30

          • #
            Matty

            Correction: that was pauperes, of course, with apologies to LM, whose guidance on the subject btw. His Holiness seems to be yet sadly lacking


            Report this

            20

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          Buddhism is a philosophy, dammit! It is not a religion. Judaism is an ethnic grouping as are Sikhs, I understand.

          Who gets off, writing this stuff?


          Report this

          30

          • #
            Bulldust

            What is Climatology classed as? And why don’t the major religions see it as a threat?


            Report this

            30

          • #
            Robert

            When someone speaks of Jews they are, correctly or incorrectly depending on who one asks, referring to an ethnic group while Judaism is the religion and philosophy of that group. A Buddhist or a Taoist is a follower of the respective philosophy so yes Buddhism or Taoism is a philosophy. But Judaism is not an ethnic group. Consider that many have converted to Judaism who, ethnically speaking, are not a part of what one would classify as that ethnic group. Likewise someone who is Jewish may not be a follower of Judaism.


            Report this

            30

        • #
          OriginalSteve

          The marxist pope….


          Report this

          20

      • #
        Gordon Cheyne

        The catholic church has its hands full, covering up paedophilia.


        Report this

        410

    • #
      Ron Cook

      St..f the Anglican Church.

      I don’t mind admitting that I’m a christian, a scientist and a Skeptic. The Anglican Church and the Uniting Church preach a social (read left wing) gospel (as I’m now finding amongst other ‘protestant churches’, including my own, too). I’m really worried about this.

      Ron
      R-COO- K+


      Report this

      140

      • #
      • #
        James McCown

        Ron:

        You noticed! The leftwing nonsense is one of several reasons why I left the Methodist church long ago. The leadership of many of the protestant denominations are very very far to the left. They don’t represent the views of their membership well at all.

        If the USA were run like the leaders of the Methodist church desire it to be, it would be some nightmare hellhole like North Korea.

        Of course, our Dear Leader Barack Hussein 0bama wants just that, but there are too many people resisting his stupidity.


        Report this

        90

      • #

        When you are no longer worried about this, ‘ts time to start worrying!


        Report this

        20

    • #
      Angry

      “Anglican Church”……

      It’s not very compassionate or Christian to want to drive humans into POVERTY!!


      Report this

      30

      • #
        Annie

        No…on the one hand there is much good work being done by all the churches and on the other hand are church leaders of a distinctly leftist persuasion who espouse and pontificate on socialism which would make the lives of the poor even poorer. I don’t notice too many of the latter giving up their fine wine and housing!

        BTW I am a Christian of the Anglican variety.


        Report this

        00

    • #
      shortie of greenbank

      Reminds me of an article a few years back that had the leader of Oxfam saying they should tax international freight…. this would of course keep the poor countries requiring the help of groups like oxfam. Perpetuating their usefulness like any ‘competant’ bureaucrat would.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    James McCown

    Some of you may have seen Katharine Hayhoe, climate alarmist at Texas Tech University, was awarded the AGU’s Climate Communication Award with a $25,000 cash prize:

    https://twitter.com/MichaelEMann/status/484517573296259072

    Katharine blocked me on twitter when I got into a brief exchange with her about the recent lack of warming. I wasn’t rude or anything like that. All I did was ask her if the temperature trend is statistically significant? Is that how this woman “communicates”?

    Another interesting thing about Katharine. She is an associate professor in the Department of Political Science . How appropriate for someone who has a political agenda that they claim is based on ‘science’.

    http://www.depts.ttu.edu/politicalscience/Faculty/Hayhoe_Katharine.php

    Texas Tech has a Department of Geosciences, which offers Masters and PhD programs in atmospheric science. Why isn’t she in that department?

    http://www.geosciences.ttu.edu/


    Report this

    180

  • #
    KeeffromLondon

    Cool, The Ramones @ the Rainbow (#7.1) A great show and I was there! Thanks for the memory, James.


    Report this

    50

  • #
    mike

    You know, I try not to take myself too seriously, but I, nevertheless, like to think of myself as a serious student of the Deltoid blog, with a special interest in its recent, sad decline–a euphemism for “you know what” Here’s the “trawl” from my most recent inquiries into the subject.

    Deltoid’s fate, I would suggest, is to our contemporary world what Shelley’s “Ozymandias” was to the Victorian age. That is, Deltoid’s fate is a cautionary tale of the-pride-that-goeth-before-a-fall, and the complete folly of entrusting one’s eco-scams to a bunch of geek-ball, ivory-tower guys obsessed with snaggin’ a carbon-piggie tenure-trough.

    Yes, the Deltoid blog is still with us, technically, but let’s be honest, the blog’s bogus vitality is, figuratively, nothing more than the jitters of a corpse. So you’d think the hive would give Deltoid a dignified, decent burial–right? But no! So why not? Well, drawing on the resources of my tin-foil, conspiracy-theory, “ideation”-ready thinking-cap, I’ve found the answer to that question to be that Deltoid has been preserved in its current, carrion-blog form so that its remains can be further studied.

    That is, Deltoid is now the blog-site equivalent of one of those cadavers that researchers leave out in the open in order to study the details of their decomposition over time. Or, if one objects to the “species-bias” of the above metaphor, Deltoid is like road-kill, left at the side of the “information super-highway”, as a resource for future, time-series data-collection.

    And while I may be criticized for being hyper-speculative, it just might be Prof Lewandowsky who has scored the contract for this study of Deltoid’s descent. I mean, like the Professor is a smart guy, and all, and this would be a perfect bug-out, Plan “B”….


    Report this

    110

  • #
    Al in Cranbrook

    Volcanos crank out a helluva lot more CO2 than recently thought…

    http://www.livescience.com/40451-volcanic-co2-levels-are-staggering.html


    Report this

    60

    • #
      Andrew McRae

      The most recent estimate, releasedthis February, [..] it’s just shy of 600 million tons.

      Which is 1.6% of the world’s 36Gt annual industrial output.
      That also means in 2012 Australian industry alone put out almost as much CO2 as the world’s volcanoes combined.

      So volcano CO2 output isn’t staggering at all. It helps to keep the various sources in perspective.


      Report this

      42

    • #
      tom0mason

      Volcano CO2 output isn’t all that staggering at all when you look at the CO2 all of nature puts out. Everything humans do amounts to about 20-30 billion metric tonnes/year, and nature 200-300 billion metric tonnes/year.

      Of course the figures vary depending on who you wish to believe.
      The IPCC believe they can put a figure on that. However accepting them relies on you believing what the IPCC say, or at least how they select and interpret the research.
      Or try reading http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/01/increasing-atmospheric-co2-manmade…or-natural/


      Report this

      50

    • #
      Angry

      Don’t tell the IPCC COMMUNISTS because they will want to TAX THE Volcanoes…..


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Andrew McRae

    Aw geez, if only I’d waited another 21 minutes.
    Seems mastering Palmerstry now requires a course in optobrickology.
    I’m predicting Senator Lazarus’ strategy for running the new ETS through parliament will be to step Left and fake Right.


    Report this

    40

  • #
    Richard Ilfeld

    I’m trying to find a reason to be an optimist. Here it is. The argument will probably be resolved by reality in the next 900 days. Then we can all have a beer and discuss what happened. All over the world, folks of nominally the same religion but different sects are killing one another. This argument, and this point seems more theological than scientific, except for the fact already mentioned; that with a little patience we’ll see what nature does.

    I live about two miles downwind from a coal fired power plant, and have for about 30 years. When we first moved in, we’d have to clean ash from the cars a couple of times a year; after half a dozen major projects we don’t notice the plant, ever, have reliable electricity, and some of hte lower rates in the US.

    I think that neither of the two sides in the argument referenced is among those who arbitrarily, in the name of “science” want to close this plant and change our way of life.

    I think I’m grateful that, even with the harsh words, we are still the Baptists and the Methodists, not the Sunis and the Shiites. (not sure what the aus reference would be).

    I’m jsut happy that there is enough transparency here to evaluate the arguments for myself, which is, I believe, the critical takeaway.


    Report this

    130

  • #

    Now would be a good time to ask warmers to explain ice albedo feedback.
    Antarctic sea ice area having grown to be more than the ice covered area of Greenland above average.


    Report this

    110

    • #
      R. Gates

      Of course there is very little sunlight that would be penetrating the darkness of the southern ocean around Antarctica right now, so more ice in the winter has less of an effect in term of ice-albedo feedback than less ice during the summer does. The entire Arctic/Antarctic sea ice discussion is a fascinating topic, especially in regards to the fact that both ice decline in Arctic and the counter-intuitive ice growth in Antarctic can be related to more net energy in the climate system. Unfortunately, when one begins a truly scientific explanation of these differences and their common relationship to more net energy in the system, the shouting begins by those who have more political interest than scientific interest in the topic.


      Report this

      94

      • #

        Of course there is very little sunlight that would be penetrating the darkness of the southern ocean around Antarctica right now, so more ice in the winter has less of an effect in term of ice-albedo feedback than less ice during the summer does.

        Good point! My question is a few months early. However considering that it was above average all through the southern hemisphere summer, what was the global albedo effect when the situation was reversed?


        Report this

        61

      • #
        Bob_FJ

        R. Gates,

        Have you ever sat on the shore of a large lake or the sea when the sun gets progressively lower in the sky?
        Did you notice any reflections?
        If so, what might your analysis be with respect to high latitudes such as in the Arctic?


        Report this

        30

        • #

          BRDF measurement, at each wavelength would put a large hole through all radiative CAGW GHG bull dust! Not cheap to do, but a lot cheaper than what has been spent on bull dust! For a non transmissive surface emissivity equals (1- BRDF) at each wavelength.


          Report this

          00

      • #
        Peter Miller

        Of course, I) changing salinity levels, ii) changes in ocean currents, iii) sharply increased soot levels, and iv) deep ocean hydrothermal activity have nothing to do with the Arctic Ocean ice extent.

        As these do not apply in the Antarctic, we can safely assume the record ice extent there is all down to man made global warming.

        The logic of climate alarmists/jihadists is simply beyond belief.


        Report this

        30

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        … the shouting begins by those who have more political interest than scientific interest in the topic.

        It is good find somebody who is so honest.


        Report this

        20

  • #

    Model Madness.
    Been watching this Arctic prediction go wrong for some time. It is now fairly obvious that the two charts contradict each other about what will happen at the end of August.
    http://origin.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/people/wwang/cfsv2fcst/imagesInd3/sieMon.gif


    Report this

    50

    • #
      R. Gates

      Sliggy,

      If you want in-depth discussion on all things related to sea ice and the Arctic, you might try:

      http://neven1.typepad.com/

      Focusing on one model prediction is a bit of a pointless dead end as there are so many different models, all discussed in one manner or another at the link above.


      Report this

      14

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        … there are so many different [climate] models [to choose from]

        So there is always one that can be used to justify whatever political message you want to convey.


        Report this

        80

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    I see the world didn’t change enough to notice while I had my TV off except for an evening celebration of Independence Day, capped off by a big traditional fireworks display.

    Have you ever noticed how today’s news looks a lot like yesterday’s news…yesterday’s news looks a lot like last week’s news…last week’s looks like last month’s… … …?

    Only the little details change in what our major sources of information about what’s going on will report. Yet monumental events have been happening and they don’t get attention.


    Report this

    60

    • #
      CC Squid

      You mean you watch broadcast news? I will record it to watch the weather and the HOT news presenter. Our local stations have one male and he reports sports.


      Report this

      20

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        CC,

        My wife turns on the news to see what’s going on in the other camp. That drags me along a lot of the time. Actually though, even Fox News Channel, which broadcasts more useful stuff looks too much like yesterday…etc… …


        Report this

        30

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        CC Squid

        I do hope you are not recording the Naked News website? To do so, would be a severe copyright infringement. :-)


        Report this

        20

    • #
      Yonniestone

      Roy your not supposed to notice anything else happening around you, it’s like the Leggo movie where you sing “everything is awesome” all day and follow the “plan, Obama will be upset ;)


      Report this

      60

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        If Obama is upset maybe I’m getting something right after all. ;-)


        Report this

        80

        • #
          Yonniestone

          What’s the majority’s view on Obama over there Roy?, the MSM here only gives reports like this http://www.news.com.au/world/north-america/barack-obama-voted-the-most-unpopular-us-president-since-wwii-according-to-quinnipiac-university-survey/story-fnh81jut-1226976520618
          I was quite offended to have them claim “we love him” they certainly don’t speak for me!


          Report this

          50

          • #

            Obama care is starting to bite – that makes him unpopular with job seekers – esp college grads.

            http://classicalvalues.com/2014/07/solid-polystyrene-prices-fall-one-cent/

            Note that the gain in part time jobs predominates. That conforms to the 30 hour a week rule – part time jobs are not covered.


            Report this

            60

          • #
            Roy Hogue

            Some swear by him, others swear at him. But the accurate picture is that according to reliable (and repeatable) polling his approval rating is down in the gutter somewhere.

            That doesn’t phase him however. He just moves on to another distraction, lies as a matter of policy and stonewalls all attempts to obtain information about the executive branch even though it’s legally public information they must release upon request.

            Behind the scenes he continues to implement his stranglehold on the country so he can prevent the United States from ever oppressing anyone again. He’s doing exactly what Dinesh D’Sousa identified as his agenda in the book, THE ROOTS OF OBAMA’S RAGE.

            He takes his responsibility as president about as seriously as a three year old would, playing at being president, enjoying having been made into a celebrity by his adoring MSM and living it up at taxpayer expense. If you were president or PM (of any country) would you skip your daily security briefing? Obama does.

            By now you’re probably sorry you asked but that is the state of affairs. Unfortunately for Obama his once adoring press corps is starting to rip into him and so are supporters in his own party. If he isn’t careful he’s going to come unglued soon and the gaming of America by this joker will be over. There are only so many lies you can tell to aliby your way out of a scandal.


            Report this

            50

          • #

            He is not as bad as “Shrub”, because he can actually “speak”!


            Report this

            02

      • #
        Anthony

        the Leggo movie

        That was an unexpected delight.


        Report this

        10

    • #
      Angry

      Check out Alex Jones for something more interesting…

      http://www.infowars.com/


      Report this

      20

  • #
    Frankly Skeptical

    Just in case you missed it from Bob Tisdale half way down the post:

    http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2014/06/30/preliminary-june-2014-sea-surface-temperature-sst-update/

    “Sea surface temperature records indicate El Niño and La Niña events are responsible for the warming of global sea surface temperature anomalies over the past 30 years, not manmade greenhouse gases. I’ve searched sea surface temperature records for more than 4 years and ocean heat content records for more than 3 years, and I can find no evidence of an anthropogenic greenhouse gas signal in either dataset. That is, the warming of the global oceans has been caused by naturally occurring, sunlight-fueled, coupled ocean-atmosphere processes, not anthropogenic greenhouse gases.”


    Report this

    160

    • #
      R. Gates

      I wonder if Bob realizes that to accurately account for ENSO behavior which is based on anomalies in SST’s, not actual temperatures, the index to spot the anomalies has been continually revised upward for many decades to ACCOUNT FOR CONTINUAL WARMING IN THE PACIFIC. See:

      http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ONI_change.shtml

      The appearance of an EL Nino is based on SST anomalies. For Bob to suggest that the El Nino’s cause the warming, he would have to account for the underlying and continual warming out of which the El Nino’s are gauged. This is related very closely to the continual accumulation of energy in the oceans measured as ocean heat content. Bob won’t acknowledge the oceans are warming separate from El Nino’s, and he can’t, or his entire house of cards would collapse.


      Report this

      117

      • #
        ianl8888


        … the oceans are warming separate from El Nino’s

        Jason and the Argos say not

        I’ve pointed this out to you on Curry’s website whenever you’ve pushed this assertion. You’ve evaded this point every time


        Report this

        121

        • #
          R. Gates

          Ian,

          You may have “pointed” something out, but it certainly has not been the facts. ARGO shows robust and steady warming of the ocean for the past 10 years now, quite separate from ENSO activity. This meme propagated by Tisdale that all warming is El Nino related is just plain and simply not true. There is not one expert on ocean heat content who would agree will Tisdale. His contentions are of course well-received by the “anything but CO2″ crowd, but they are patently false. Gains in ocean heat content is one of the most consistent things we are seeing over many decades and they’ve got nothing to do with El Nino’s, as long-term gains (or losses) in ocean heat content can only be driven by an external forcing to the climate and El Nino’s are not an external forcing. You don’t create energy by moving it around.

          ————————
          If only ARGO was statistically significant…
          http://joannenova.com.au/2013/05/ocean-temperatures-is-that-warming-statistically-significant/
          And even if it was, there still wasn’t enough warming to match the models.
          Jo


          Report this

          09

          • #
            R. Gates

            It is a convenient escape mechanism to suggest that the past 10 years of ARGO data is not reliable or that we don’t know the oceans are warming to any degree of reliability or the uncertainty is too high to draw any conclusions about ocean heat content with any confidence, etc. etc. etc.

            And while it is absolutely true that we can always use better data, more floats, especially floats going deeper (they just tested some going down over 5000m), the data over the past 10 years has far lower uncertainty bounds, and most importantly, is backed up both other co-confirmatory data that tells us with a high degree of certainty that the oceans are indeed warming. The thermal expansion of the ocean is a portion of the sea level rise we’ve been seeing for many decades, thus, just based on that we know the oceans are gaining energy, as the other portion of this rise is actual mass being added from Greenland and Antarctic glacial melt. So, unless the laws of physics are somehow different or have changed, warmer ocean water does in fact expand, and thus Jason and Grace data corroborates the ARGO data that tells us the oceans are warming. Moreover, our very best data over the past 10 years (during the so-called “hiatus” tells us that whatever is causing the oceans to warm did not stop during the “hiatus”. Since we’ve had a wimpy solar cycle, we sure know the sun has not been adding extra energy to the ocean. Another external forcing must be acting over this period. A great candidate would of course be the rising GH gases of CO2, methane, and N2O.


            Report this

            113

            • #
              Peter Miller

              Wow!

              BS in its purest form.

              You forgot to add the bit about how all the heat is hiding in the ocean depths with no mechanism to explain how it got there.


              Report this

              130

              • #
                Peter Miller

                The Arctic Ocean is fed by several mighty rivers, which significantly reduce its salinity. In addition, because of the position of the continents, it is a partially closed system. Fresh water has a lower density than sea water and therefore has a tendency to lie on top.

                If the Arctic Ocean had the salinity of the rest of the world’s oceans, its ice cap would be significantly smaller.

                In the Antarctic, there are no mighty rivers and the amount of glacial melt and precipitation there would not make the slightest difference to ocean salinity, especially as the Antarctic is such an open system to the elements.

                The Conversation is a climate alarmist/jihadist publication where typically fairy tale theories are published as being near fact for the gullible faithful.

                The Antarctic ice cap’s extent is currently reporting record after record.

                Perhaps, what is most disgusting is the fact the lame excuses for the embarrassing extent of the Antarctic ice cap are never applied by climate alarmists/jihadists to the Arctic. The Arctic is a very much more complex system than the Antarctic, but the faithful believe that the recent decline in its late summer extent is all down to CO2 and nothing else.


                Report this

                31

            • #
              James McCown

              And Mr Gates would have us believe that the melt of the freshwater glaciers on Antarctica have been increasing at the same time that Antarctic sea ice has increased to an all-time high. Even though freshwater ice melts at a higher temperature than salt water ice does!


              Report this

              50

              • #
                R. Gates

                James,

                The two dynamics – sea ice formation and continental glacial mass melt in Antarctica are related, but not in a way that you might think (if you think about it at all). The seasonal fluctuation of sea ice around the continent of Antarctica is based on wind, water temperature, salinity, and warm water upwelling. Over the past few decades both increased precipitation and greater continental glacial melt has “freshened” the water around Antarctica. This fresh water “cap” has prevented the normal upwelling and release of heat from deeper southern ocean water. Thus, the deeper ocean water has been warming around the continent, at it is this water that actually melts the continental glacial ice. Thus, there is a bit of a positive-feedback loop involved whereby the deeper ocean is warming, melting more glacial ice which freshens the surface and keeps the heat from escaping.

                Now you being one of the faithful around here, I don’t expect you to believe any of this, but for those who might be interested in the science behind all this, I suggest:

                http://theconversation.com/why-is-antarctic-sea-ice-growing-19605

                or

                http://www.sciencealert.com.au/features/20132910-24954.html


                Report this

                06

              • #
                James McCown

                And is this latest post of yours supposed to make any sense whatsoever, Mr Gates? What is the salinity of this ‘freshened’ water around Antarctica? The continent is surrounded by the oceanic masses consisting of the water of the southern Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian oceans.

                And how can the deeper ocean water release its heat and warm the freshwater ice of the glaciers on the continent if it is held back by this awful freshwater “cap”?

                This is BS if I’ve ever heard it.


                Report this

                71

            • #
              CC Squid

              I finally know where to put you. Have you read the latest reports on sea level rise?


              Report this

              31

            • #
              Frankly Skeptical

              Bob Tisdale has spent years studying SST and Gates quotes two articles from the left-wing Conversation both with tongue-in-cheek fanciful theories and propaganda. Yet he believes in solar-influence for the “pause” but not before it. How convenient. Your theories are so convoluted you’ve tied yourself in a bundle of knots.


              Report this

              51

            • #

              For any pimply kid stumbling upon this comment.

              If you measure one person’s height to the nearest millimetre a few thousand times, even if each measurement differs by 10 mm due to that person breathing or moving around randomly, the mean recorded to the nearest millimetre is meaningful. If each measurement is made to the nearest centimetre then a mean recorded to the nearest millimetre is not meaningful.

              The ARGOS floats measure temperature around the world at different times to the nearest 0.1°C. A trend of 0.02°C is not meaningful.

              Its like measuring the height to the nearest cm of a sample of a few thousand people over a few years, then claiming that the population of Melbourne is increasing at 2mm per year.

              and we need to increase door heights or there will be a spate of serious head injuries in 100 years.


              Report this

              41

    • #
      the Griss

      Yep, the small amount of warming up until 2000 (approx)occurred in steps, NOT as any linear trend.

      The full cycle of 1998 El Nino added about 0.25C to the GAT. It was an ocean cooling event as a precursor to a change in solar intensity. Pity ARGO wasn’t around then to register this.

      The intervening La Ninas are either level or show a slight decline in the GAT (like since 2001).

      There was a much weaker El Nino in 2010 which only had a transient effect on the GAT, because the solar energy wasn’t really there to drive it.

      Now solar intensity is down a bit, El Ninos will be less frequent and probably provide only a transient, rather than a set up in the GAT.

      I wish CO2 did have some effect on global temperatures. But it doesn’t.

      Over the next few decades, the world is going to be wishing for a bit of extra warming.

      Warming + increased CO2 = GOOD !!! :-)

      Cooling = BAD :-(


      Report this

      184

  • #
    scaper...

    Well, it looks like the carbon tax will be repealed in a few weeks time. Could have been this week but the scumbag senators went on strike and it is held up in the committee!

    I can’t recall such a venomous opposition as this lot, it seems they want to punish Australians because they got kicked out of government.

    The Royal Commission into Unions will extract revenge as the slime that is Labor are the unions. I look forward to their comeuppance with glee.


    Report this

    291

    • #
      the Griss

      big PLUS ONE on that, !


      Report this

      132

    • #
      James Bradley

      High five.


      Report this

      131

      • #
        scaper...

        SLAP.

        According to Abetz who was on Insiders apparently, the repeal bills will be the first item on the agenda for the new senate. So we might see the end of the tax next week.

        I will be celebrating by lighting up the house…with Champaign in hand, obviously.


        Report this

        112

        • #
          Ron Cook

          YEH! Me TOO.


          Report this

          60

        • #
          bobl

          Let’s have a plant food booster party.


          Report this

          100

          • #
            the Griss

            Getting a replacement car soon, I hope. Something with some grunt, so if I ever want to, I can pull stuff.

            Want to spend less than 10k if I can.

            Don’t want an SUV type thing, more a manual sedan. Saw a nice V8 Commodore today, sort of took my fancy. :-)


            Report this

            50

            • #
              James Bradley

              Like the way you think Griss. I just pulled my old 5 litre WB ute out of the shed and had it registered a few months ago. Got it certified for a supercharger, but cos I still go cutting wood with it I think I’ll just stroke it out to a 355ci – put a 2.78 diff in and that’s a marriage made in heaven.


              Report this

              60

              • #
                Yonniestone

                Holden VZ SS ute 5.7 LS1 here, the old iron block V8′s have a great aftermarket parts industry and cheap too, I once helped a guy clear his block to fit a 355 stroker crank in, when built the thing ran like a raped ape!

                On the other side guys are using LS motors in older cars as they’re lighter (all alloy motor), EFI reliability , better performance even stock, you can get a perfectly good LS motor and transmission for 2k maybe less and conversion parts (mounts etc), in Victoria pre 1975 cars don’t require strict ADR’s so it’s something to ponder.


                Report this

                30

              • #
                James Bradley

                Yeah yonnie, thought about that originally, but I would prefer to buy the whole car and take all the conversion gear out – don’t have the space.


                Report this

                20

              • #
                Yonniestone

                I love the iron blocks for instant low end torque, if your towing/hauling things a good 2 barrel carby like a Holley 500 will give better low down fueling and torque, also easy to tune, you can use it even on strokers and big blocks unless your going to the strip ;)


                Report this

                20

            • #

              Kabota makes nice ones some, under 10K. They pull well, but slowly!
              That way you are less likely to break something!


              Report this

              10

            • #
              Rereke Whakaaro

              I have always fancied a Russian T5 tank. Useful for scrub clearance and hauling logs out of the bush, and you never have trouble in creating a parking space at the Mall.


              Report this

              40

    • #
      Angry

      Can’t come soon enough !!

      GLOBAL WARMING IS THE GREATEST FRAUD IN THE HISTORY OF CIVILIZATION !

      CARBON DIOXIDE IS PLANT FOOD AND NOT POLLUTION !!

      AXE THE TAX !!!!!!!!


      Report this

      61

  • #
    pat

    something to be greatly concerned about!

    5 July: Daily Record: Climate change could make red hair a thing of the past if Scotland gets sunnier
    A DNA expert has has made the bold claim that ginger hair gene could die out if Scotland climate improves.
    Dr Alistair Moffat, boss of genetic testing company ScotlandsDNA, said: “We think red hair in Scotland, Ireland and the north of England is adaptation to the climate. We do not get enough sun and have to get all the vitamin D we can.
    “If it was to get less cloudy and there was more sun, there would be fewer people carrying the gene.”
    (LOL) Another scientist, who asked not to be named because of the theoretical nature of the work, said: “I think the gene is slowly dying out. Climate change could see a decline in the number of people with red hair in Scotland.”
    Canadian comic Shawn Hitchins, who led a ginger pride march in Edinburgh last year, said: “It seems like everyone is coming up with new ways to eradicate the gingers.”
    http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/climate-change-could-make-red-3814089


    Report this

    70

    • #
      scaper...

      Now global warming mutates our genes? “Rediculous” is an apt descriptor in this case.

      How does it explain so many red heads in sunny Qld, then?


      Report this

      80

    • #
      Debbie

      OMG!
      Redheads will need to be classed as a ‘threatened species’ !
      :-)


      Report this

      70

    • #
      PeterK

      These genes are slowly dying out, but not from the stupid reasons stated.


      Report this

      40

    • #
      Ron Cook

      Huh!

      My red hair came from my Irish roots (no Scottish at all) somewhat to the south of Scotland. Where do these people get these weird ideas from?

      Ron
      R-COOK- K+


      Report this

      30

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        I thought Irish roots were potatoes? How do potatoes give you read hair? I have been eating potatoes all my life and I don’t have read hair … or any hair for that matter.


        Report this

        30

    • #
      Tim

      This, I guess, has nothing to do with the fact that red-haired people only make up around 1% of the world’s population and with accelerated global interbreeding, will probably become a threatened species – notwithstanding the global warming or the Loch Ness Monster threats.


      Report this

      30

    • #
      Anthony

      I was always under the impression the red gene was the less dominant, so if you had a mix marriage, so to speak, the odds where in the favour of the parent without the red gene.


      Report this

      30

      • #
        dp

        My blonde granddaughter just gave birth to twins. The father has red hair and the twins have red hair. My wife has red hair. Red hair is safe.


        Report this

        30

        • #
          CC Squid

          I really don’t think this is a problem. Last week my barista’s hair was blond, this week it is red. I attribute it to the first two sunny days in a row this year at 7000 ft. In Colorado.


          Report this

          30

    • #
      Spotted Reptile

      As far as I can recall, not having the article to hand, the red hair gene did not originate with the Scots or Irish or even the Vikings. It was a Celtic trait which came somewhere from Middle Europe and then followed the migrating bands which ended up in the north of Europe and thence to the British Isles.

      As for the gene ‘disappearing’ I think it would take many many centuries of breeding with other dominant hair types to stamp it out. We haven’t got rid of the blond gene yet despite all the black-haired people in the world.


      Report this

      20

      • #
        scaper...

        I am of Russian blood, have olive skin and red hair that bleaches to blonde in the summer sun.

        I suspect my bloodline goes back to the Romans.


        Report this

        20

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          With that colouring, I would guess that your bloodline was more likely to have originated in Uzbekistan, or Tukmenistan, if your family was originally from Russia.


          Report this

          10

    • #
      Angry

      Oh Dear not another one of those things where everything is caused by the fraud of global warming !

      Check this list out….

      A complete list of things caused by global warming:-

      http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm


      Report this

      20

    • #
      tom0mason

      Red hair (and green eyes) is common in the indiginous peoples of Afganistan , and the Berber people of NW Africa often have red hair. There are plenty of others in the gene pool.


      Report this

      30

  • #
    pat

    5 July: UK Daily Mail: David Rose: Global warming computer models confounded as Antarctic sea ice hits new record high with 2.1million square miles more than is usual for time of year
    Ice is covering 16million sq km, more than 2.1 million more than is usual for time of year
    UN computer models on which scientists base projections say Antarctic ice should be in decline, not increasing
    Some scientists have suggested the Antarctic ice increase may itself be caused by global warming. But Professor Judith Curry, head of climate science at the Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta, said the arguments were not convincing.
    She added: ‘We do not have a quantitative, predictive understanding of the rise in Antarctic sea ice extent.’ She said it was becoming increasingly apparent that long-term cycles in ocean temperatures were responsible for a significant proportion of the ice decline in the Arctic – a process that may be starting to reverse…
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2681829/Global-warming-latest-Amount-Antarctic-sea-ice-hits-new-record-high.html


    Report this

    80

    • #
      Carbon500

      On Antarctic ice and the David Rose article: according to meteorologist William James Burroughs in his book ‘Climate Change’ (pub.2001,see page 55), Antarctic pack ice has an amplitude of some fifteen million square kilometres, from a maximum extent of about eighteen million square kilometres to around three million square kilometres in late summer. From year to year the extent of the ice cover can fluctuate by several million square kilometres.
      This puts it all the warmist hand wringing nicely into perspective, doesn’t it?


      Report this

      30

  • #
    pat

    .pdf: (100 pages) UK Govt: Ministry of Defense: Strategic Trends Programme – Global Strategic Trends – Out to 2045
    Climate change is the principal driver of change in the Arctic and Antarctic, with increasing temperatures and precipitation.
    As Arctic and Antarctic sea ice retreats, many areas that are currently inaccessible could become open to commercial exploitation,
    particularly of oil and gas…
    In the 2045 timeframe, coal and hydrocarbons are likely to remain the most important sources of energy, with renewable and nuclear energy likely
    to make an increasing contribution…
    https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/324188/8667_GST_textpages_v1_2w.pdf

    how Lean spun it:

    4 July: UK Telegraph: Geoffrey Lean: Food experts warn it could be farewell to the land of plenty
    Britain’s production of its own food has dropped nearly 20 per cent in the past two decades. How can we stem the decline?
    Two days ago, a Ministry of Defence study of “global strategic trends” raised the spectre of global demand outstripping supply over the next 30 years…
    Eating less red meat, also good for health, would also help…
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/agriculture/food/10946215/Food-experts-warn-it-could-be-farewell-to-the-land-of-plenty.html

    how India read it:

    2 July: Hindustan Times: Prasun Sonwalkar: India a global military power by 2045: UK study
    A global scenario projected by Britain’s ministry of defence says that by 2045 India is likely to have the ability to project conventional military power globally with the third largest defence expenditure pegged at 654 billion US dollars.
    Titled ‘Global Strategic Trends – Out to 2045’, the publication by the ministry’s Development, Concepts and Doctrine Centre sets out what the world might look like 30 years from now…
    http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/india-a-global-military-power-by-2045-says-uk-study/article1-1235945.aspx


    Report this

    30

  • #
    pat

    Bish in the Daily Mail:

    6 July UK Daily Mail: It’s politics, not science, driving climate mania: Why are environmentalists and scientists so reluctant to discuss long-term increases in southern hemisphere sea ice?
    by Andrew Mountford, Climate Change Author
    UN computer predictions subject of ridicule: not got it right for 18 years
    Across the globe, there are about 1m sq km more sea ice than 35 years ago
    Authorities are now guessing global temperatures based on nearby weather stations
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2681812/Its-politics-not-science-driving-climate-change-mania-UN-predictions-subject-ridicule-stunning-failure.html


    Report this

    60

  • #

    I am currently reading (again) Max Hastings’ “Catastrophe:Europe Goes to War 1914″. Hastings notes in the beginning of the book that a student ventured to argue with Brigidier General Henry Wilson, in 1910, “that only inconceivable stupidity on the part of statesmen could lead to a general conflagration.”

    Wilson’s derisive reply: “Haw! Haw! Haw! Inconceivable stupidity is what you’re going to get!”

    And look what we got!

    Now, I’m beginning to wonder if the cycle is beginning again.

    The New Zealand Health and Climate Council is calling for urgent action from doctors on what it says is the biggest health issue facing New Zealanders at the moment – climate change.


    Report this

    150

  • #
    handjive

    Article created on Thursday, July 3, 2014
    Timeline of Human origins revised

    Many traits unique to humans were long thought to have originated in the genus Homo between 2.4 and 1.8 million years ago in Africa.

    Although scientists have recognized these characteristics for decades, they are reconsidering the true evolutionary factors that drove them.

    The team’s research takes an innovative approach to integrating palaeoclimate data, new fossils and understandings of the genus Homo, archaeological remains and biological studies of a wide range of mammals (including humans).

    New climate framework

    Potts developed a new climate framework for East African human evolution that depicts most of the era from 2.5 million to 1.5 million years ago as a time of strong climate instability and shifting intensity of annual wet and dry seasons.

    This framework, which is based on Earth’s astronomical cycles, provides the basis for some of the paper’s key findings, and it suggests that multiple coexisting species of Homo that overlapped geographically emerged in highly changing environments.

    Unstable climate conditions favoured the evolution of the roots of human flexibility in our ancestors,” said Potts, curator of anthropology and director of the Human Origins Program at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History.
    “The narrative of human evolution that arises from our analyses stresses the importance of adaptability to changing environments, rather than adaptation to any one environment, in the early success of the genus Homo.”
    (my emphasis)
    . . .
    Is it necessary to link a graph of known carbon(sic) levels over time?
    I guess so:
    http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/paleo-climate/berner-scotese-newer-2014.gif


    Report this

    30

  • #
    Another Ian

    Jo,

    FYI if not already posted check the graphs at – (I know it’s W.E.)

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/05/the-revenge-of-the-climate-reparations/#more-112572


    Report this

    40

  • #
    gnomish

    ultracrepidarian is a great word- thanks for that.
    while on that topic, willis is sour grapesing over not being on the list for the preview edition of the ND hypothesis papers.
    that locked him out of a position of information supremacy. he didn’t get to be ‘go.to guy’, which he considers a social snub and a threat to his leadership. it puts him in a position of having to ask somebody else, which violates his vision of the natural order. he was quite explicit that it was a kind of attack from which he had no defense. he said it made him a beggar.
    willis is used to thinking of himself as the smartest tool in the shed.
    occasionally, though, he is made aware that there is a whole world outside his shed, which perspective doesn’t magnify his importance, and his desperate quest for relevance shows as a desperate quest; not as relevance. (the mascara-moustache effect)
    and every day just can’t be ‘willis day’.
    willis’ thousand word walls of text composed of gishly galloping ad hom have, in my case, shifted wuwt down the list of bookmarks.


    Report this

    50

  • #
    Davet916

    I just bumped into ‘Carl Sagan’s Baloney Detection Kit’ while looking at something totally unrelated. I’ve never found a reference to it in all my reading about global warming. There are 9 points that he covers in his book. Here are a few and a link.

    But the kit, Sagan argues, isn’t merely a tool of science — rather, it contains invaluable tools of healthy skepticism that apply just as elegantly, and just as necessarily, to everyday life. By adopting the kit, we can all shield ourselves against clueless guile and deliberate manipulation. Sagan shares nine of these tools:

    1.Wherever possible there must be independent confirmation of the “facts.”
    2.Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view.
    3.Arguments from authority carry little weight — “authorities” have made mistakes in the past. They will do so again in the future. Perhaps a better way to say it is that in science there are no authorities; at most, there are experts.
    4.Spin more than one hypothesis. If there’s something to be explained, think of all the different ways in which it could be explained. Then think of tests by which you might systematically disprove each of the alternatives. What survives, the hypothesis that resists disproof in this Darwinian selection among “multiple working hypotheses,” has a much better chance of being the right answer than if you had simply run with the first idea that caught your fancy.
    5.Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it’s yours. It’s only a way station in the pursuit of knowledge. Ask yourself why you like the idea. Compare it fairly with the alternatives. See if you can find reasons for rejecting it. If you don’t, others will.
    6.Quantify. If whatever it is you’re explaining has some measure, some numerical quantity attached to it, you’ll be much better able to discriminate among competing hypotheses. What is vague and qualitative is open to many explanations. Of course there are truths to be sought in the many qualitative issues we are obliged to confront, but finding them is more challenging.
    7.If there’s a chain of argument, every link in the chain must work (including the premise) — not just most of them.

    http://www.brainpickings.org/index.php/2014/01/03/baloney-detection-kit-carl-sagan/

    I think the book is worth reading.

    Dave t
    Sacramento, CA, usa


    Report this

    80

  • #
    Philip Shehan

    Lord Monckton has verified the WFT and the trend calculator:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/03/rss-shows-no-global-warming-for-17-years-10-months/

    WFT

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1996.7/to:2014.5/mean:1/plot/rss/from:1996.7/to:2014.5/trend

    The trend calculator matches these graphs and also agrees with Monckton’s calculation of the trend.

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/trend.php

    Trend: -0.01 °C/century

    However Monckton is cherry picking his data set (RSS) and the time period for his assertion.

    The UAH data:

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1996.7/to:2014.5/mean:1/plot/uah/from:1996.7/to:2014.5/trend

    Trend: 0.91 °C/century

    And different time frames:

    http://tinyurl.com/kxlcjc8

    Monckton ignores the error margins in this part of the discussion, as his argument fails the statistical significance test by a very large margin:

    Trend: -0.01 ±1.93 °C/century (2σ)

    But he rediscovers statistical significance later when it suits his argument:

    “On the RSS satellite data, there has been no global warming statistically distinguishable from zero for more than 26 years. None of the models predicted that, in effect, there would be no global warming for a quarter of a century.”

    Even with the restriction ‘on the RSS data’ this not correct according to the trend calculator. The trend from for RSS from mid 1988 is

    Trend: 1.26 ±1.13 °C/century (2σ)

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1988.5/to:2014.5/mean:1/plot/rss/from:1988.5/to:2014.5/trend

    More problematic is his rendering of warming not being significant at the 95% level as “in effect … no global warming for a quarter of a century.”

    You cannot render “not statistically significant” as “statistically not significant”.

    This is all the more disturbing given that Monckton has entirely ignored statistical significance when claiming “no global warming” on the basis of data which within the limits of statistical significance puts the trend at between cooling of 1.94 and warming of 1.92 °C/century (2σ).


    Report this

    129

    • #
      Bob_FJ

      For any readers passing-by,

      May I mention that Philip Shehan refers to (THE) “the trend calculator” three times in his comment # 27.
      What he cites is, apparently from past performance, a tool on the ‘SkepticalScience’ website which, in my most polite terms, I would describe as UNIQUE.


      Report this

      241

      • #
        Philip Shehan

        Bob, UNIQUE?

        As in one of a kind?

        As in your implication being that it is dodgy, unreliable, the product of a scam artist?

        Yet it yields EXACTLY the same results as Monckton’s algorithm.

        Surely you cannot be impuning his Lordship?

        True, Monckton does not calculate error margins, but his post indicates thet he does not understand them or only uses them when they suit his argument and ignores them when they do not.

        The error margin issue has been examined in considerable detail.

        http://joannenova.com.au/2014/06/weekend-unthreaded-39/#comment-1493093

        I was using the term “the” trend calculaotor as I could not remember the authors name. It is Kevin Cowtan.

        http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/qj.2297/abstract


        Report this

        023

        • #
          Bob_FJ

          For any readers passing-by,

          Concerning Philip Shehan’s waffle in his # 27.1.1, the GREAT UNIQUENESS is not about trend, but the error margins produced by the unique SkepticalScience tool, such as in his quotes in # 27:

          “Trend: -0.01 ±1.93 °C/century (2σ)”
          “Trend: 1.26 ±1.13 °C/century (2σ)”


          Report this

          210

          • #
            the Griss

            Bob, you do realise that if he could get SkS to widen the trend analysis out to 3 or 4 standard deviations about the central point.,

            …he could get nearly 100% probability of having a range wide enough to cover every possible slope from manic warming to devastating cooling.

            Fantastic, hey :-)


            Report this

            180

          • #
            the Griss

            And of course, it is only the leading dip and the 2010 ElNino that cause the largish sd of the cooling trend since 2001.

            Without those two peaks ther is actually quite a narrow deviation of slight downward trend.

            (‘Event’ understanding does not seem to be his strong suit, he’s a ‘push button and hope’ kind of monkey).

            With all his “knowledge”, I’m sure that Dr Brian will actually see that to be the case, (in about 2 weeks, now I have pointed it out to him)…

            .. and he is only using his mastipulation of the data as a propaganda exercise for those even weaker in maths than he pretends to be.


            Report this

            180

            • #

              I hope people have picked up on there possibly being the opposite trend in the raw data in the SH. Homogenisation has made the SH look way to close to the NH to be reality. I think this is where the 60 oscillation is coming from.


              Report this

              00

              • #
                Bob_FJ

                Vic,

                That looks very interesting but the two links you have provided are identical and presumably should be different. Neither am I sure about the data-base etcetera.


                Report this

                00

              • #

                Apologies. Here is the raw data for Darwin, smoothed. The other plot is the global mean anomaly from HadCRUT4, moving linear regression over 12 months and smoothed. The fit is to the unsmoothed data.

                GISS doesn’t give out the raw data without suspect data removed so its a bit of work collecting raw data from the SH that is not missing large slabs of data. Jennifer Marohassy found the raw data for Aus towns show a negative trend until mid last century. I’m short on time so it might be a while before I put it all together.


                Report this

                00

          • #
            Philip Shehan

            Bob, A bit of goal post shifting going on here.

            I have been told for years that Cowtan’s trend calculator must be rubbish because it appears on Skeptical Science. No distinction was made between the trend and the error margins.

            Of course now that “skeptic” guru Monckton has completely validated the trend values, “skeptics” now say ‘Oh we never had any problem with the headline trend, it’s only with the error margins that Cowtan has shown his incompetence and bias. Of course they never showed why they were wrong or offered alternative calculations and still don’t.

            GIMMEE A BREAK!

            The only one of you who ever posed an alternative calculation of error margins was Vic Gallus.

            He put a good case which I submitted to SKS for comment and it was discussed at length in the thread I provided.

            In the end the case for an Ordinary Least Squares analysis which requires that the data be independent and which did not take into account the fact that temperatures for a given month are affected by temperatures for the preceeding month(s) was not sufficiently convincing, and an autocorrelation function was required.

            I pointed out to Vic that there was an upside for him in this, as he was risking being kicked to death by “skeptics” for using the OLS SDs, as my ‘maybe a pause, maybe not’ based on autocorrelated SDs became statistically significant warming with OLS.

            Similarly, I noted that the autocorrelation SD’s formed the basis of “skeptics” sudden discovery and fervent embracing of statistical significance (subsequently forgotten when claiming a pause) when Motl and Lindzen said that there had been ‘no statistically significant warming for 15 years’ and Jones “admitted” that this was true ‘but only just’.

            On the basis of OLS Lindzen and Motl could not have made the claim and Jones could have claimed that the warming was statistically significant, had anyone asked.

            Monckton solves these problems by only appealing to statistical significance when it suits his case, but ignores it when it does not.


            Report this

            121

            • #
              Philip Shehan

              I might add that where Monckton decides that statistical significance backs his case and is worth mentioning, he appears to be using error margins that are even larger than Cowtan’s algorithm gives.

              OLS gives error margins typically less than half these values.

              “On the RSS satellite data, there has been no global warming statistically distinguishable from zero for more than 26 years.”

              Cowtan’s algorithm gives marginally significant warming, the 95% margins being above zero::

              Trend: 1.26 ±1.13 °C/century (2σ)

              This doe not bode well for Moncktons error margins backing Griss’s claims regarding very short data sets including those from 2001, with or without “the leading dip and the 2010 ElNino”.

              Cowtan’s values from 2001:

              Trend: -0.060 ±0.252 °C/decade (2σ)

              This error margin is somewhat more than “largish”

              From 2001 to before the leading dip and 2010 el nino (2007):

              Trend: -0.053 ±0.594 °C/decade (2σ)

              I think the technical term for the error margins here is HUMUNGOUS!


              Report this

              122

              • #
                the Griss

                lol, Dr Brain again shows his total lack of understanding, and monkey-minded use of the SkS linear trend app.

                Hook line and sinker…. Well done.. :-)


                Report this

                80

            • #

              You assume sceptics are a monolith. Or that over time evidence may not change their minds. That the whole point of scepticism. Evidence and data driven.

              I’m perfectly OK with the error bars of the data that you subscribe to. It means there has been no significant warming for at least 160 years. In fact I used to complain a lot that given the glass thermometers used early on the error bars for the data should have been wider than reported. Glad that is being corrected.

              About the only thing sceptics have in common is that there is no catastrophe in the offing from CO2 levels in the atmosphere. The reasons they hold that view are varied. Eventually I expect convergence on a hypothesis. But we don’t know enough yet to rule out many of them.

              And then on the green side you have the watermelon problem. And the Malthusian problem – that is some ugly stuff. And other than the sceptics I don’t see warmists objecting to that. Of course it would mean alienating a significant fraction of your cohort.


              Report this

              60

              • #
                Philip Shehan

                MSimon,
                No I do not assume sceptics are a monolith, which is why I refer to “skeptics” who are over-represented here.

                Which error bars are you referring to?

                Justify your claim that there has been no stistically significant warming for 160 years with the calculated error margins.

                LOL Griss again shows his complete failure to understand stistical significance and present a scintilla of evidence as to where Cowtan’s data is wrong, given that Monckton has verified the trend exactly.

                As further evidence of Griss’s failure to understand stistical significance, I refer to this utterly incoherent statement which entirely misses the point of statistical significance at the 2 sigma level:

                Bob, you do realise that if he could get SkS to widen the trend analysis out to 3 or 4 standard deviations about the central point.,

                …he could get nearly 100% probability of having a range wide enough to cover every possible slope from manic warming to devastating cooling.

                And note that Griss, who perpetually criticises my mathematical ability, cannot even understand the arithmetic involved in converting a 2σ value to a 3σ or 4σ value.

                LOL indeed.


                Report this

                013

              • #
                Raven

                […] . . which is why I refer to “skeptics” who are over-represented here.

                Over-represented here, you say?
                What an odd perspective.

                Considering scepticism is one of the cornerstones of science and your antipathy is obvious, perhaps that explains the predicament that results in a need to add quotation marks to an entirely appropriate word.

                Indeed, the total lack of scepticism is where many problems emerge.
                But you have me thinking now. Is it possible to deny scepticism . . .


                Report this

                60

              • #
                Philip Shehan

                Yes, skepticism is indeed one of the cornerstones of modern science.

                The fact that many people here who show no skepticism whatsoever with regard to their beliefs on the subject of climate change appropriate the honorable title of skeptic is why I refer to such people as “skeptics”.

                The accompanying implied falsehood is that if you accept AGW you cannot also be a true skeptic.

                I was a skeptic when I was not convinced that AGW was sufficiently supported by the evidence. I now accept that the evidence does support that conclusion. This does not make me in the least any less of a skeptic.

                Only a “skeptic” would think that there is some kind of inconsistency here.

                I acknowledge the existence of genuine skeptics who remain unconvinced about AGW.

                It is these people who are in the minority here compared to “skeptics”


                Report this

                06

              • #
                the Griss

                OMG,

                It seems PS doesn’t realise that 3 sd’s gives a 99.7% confidence level and 4 sd’s is close to 100% confidence as.

                So sad that he knows so little about even the most basic of mathematics.

                But then, he does have to rely on the SkS trend calculator to do his trends for him…

                Philip, you are Incompetence personified


                Report this

                00

            • #
            • #

              The only one of you who ever posed an alternative calculation of error margins was Vic Gallus.

              He put a good case which I submitted to SKS for comment and it was discussed at length in the thread I provided.

              Lets get this straight. I provided the way to calculate the standard deviations of the slope of a OLS fit of a line to the data and not just results. I provided three different ways.

              What I was given back was absolute stupidity.

              The excuse for using the SS method was similar to saying that inputting a set of numbers in a particular order into your HP calculator would give a different SD. It does not matter and it does not matter if the data a line is fitted to is random noise or not. It does not even matter if its a blatant curve as what is being calculated is not a precise measure of SD but an estimate of the uncertainty to a single significant figure.

              Secondly, I could not read thoroughly the method that was sited as it made me nauseous. From what I could gather through the verbosity was that they took the F-test for standard variations and the F-test for standard deviations and equated them so as to calculate the SD from the SV. Completely nonsensical.

              Thirdly, plot what you’re peddling. It looks stupid.


              Report this

              20

              • #
                Bob_FJ

                Vic,

                It’s interesting that the only response from SKS on the methodology you presented has come from disciple KR, who does not claim to be the author of that unique SKS calculation tool.
                Dr Shehan thanked KR for answering on behalf of Kevin C (= Kevin Cowtan?) and repeated over at SKS that he would appreciate Kevin C’s additional contribution, (paraphrasing).
                I thought that KR retreated from debate here a bit rapidly, and I wonder why Kevin C has not responded to Dr Shehan.


                Report this

                20

              • #

                What I presented is what is used almost by everyone, usually done automatically by programs so this debate was the first time that I have ever plugged the equations into Excel. Strictly speaking, a 95% confidence interval for combinations of the coefficient and constant as a plot is the correct way to present the results so I always used programs that others wrote. We really need our own McKitrick, not me.


                Report this

                10

              • #
                Philip Shehan

                Vic, and there I was ignoring your insults and covering them over because it detracts from your argument which I still think was good.

                It does not matter how many ways you calculate the SD from Ordinary Least Squares. The point is about whether OLS SDs are appropriate for temperature data.

                I too have habitually used OLS in my research because the data I had been examining was not autocorrelated. If OLS is used by ‘almost everyone’, it is because ‘almost everyone’ is examining data that is not autocorrelated (or they are wrong in using OLS.

                And I note that Monckton, Lindzen and Motl are not using OLS in their discussions of statistical significance of temperature data. If they were they could not be making the claims they are.

                The fact is that OLS assumes that the data is independent.

                This not the case for temperature data.

                The temperature following a cold month starts from a lower baseline than a temperature following a hot month. That is why an autocorrelation function is required when assesssing the temperature dependence with time. This is not to be confused with entering data in random order, which is, well, random and not autocorrelated.

                AndBob, KR did not retreat from the debate rather rapidly. He spent more than 3 days posting very detailed and considered posts. I think he was still there answering your points well after Vic departed the discussion.

                He persevered explaining things but gave up when met with misrepresentation and then insult. As I had predicted in a comment that was snipped as the moderator said I could not predict the future (although in that case I was making specific reference to Vic, who also clearly has no patience with being contradicted.) I responded to the moderator explaining just why I thought that prediction, so soon to be fulfilled, was justified. The moderator saw my point and let it stand.

                I did not thank KR for answering for Kevin Cowtan. I am unaware the Kevin Cowtan has authorised anyone to answer for him. I thanked KR for his own very well formulated contributions.

                As for why Kevin Cowtan did not respond, he probably does not go back and check comments on a program posted more than 2 years ago on a weekly or monthly basis. Maybe he does not bother at all, which would be entirely understandable, but I thought it worth giving a shot.


                Report this

                00

              • #
                Bob_FJ

                ED (Moderator),

                I see that Philip Shehan has another long waffle just above complaining of your [snip] on an earlier thread:

                Philip Shehan wrote @ June 28, 2014 at 12:47 pm @ http://joannenova.com.au/2014/06/weekend-unthreaded-39/#comments # 1.7.4.1.1:
                [snip]
                [Philip Shehan, even you cannot predict the future. KR has been here many times before and knows well enough what to expect. I'm very disappointed to read what you typed in this post.] ED

                He was very disappointed with this and complained with at least two long waffles on that thread. He also returned to SkepticalScience and had a whinge there too:

                http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=1343#105080 Comment #59

                Given the great irony of this it might be entertaining for us to actually see his original comment if you can oblige.


                Report this

                10

        • #
          Bob_FJ

          Oh,

          And furthermore pray, why did he (Philip Shehan) call-up the paper of Cowtan and Way 2013/4 (= on-line/published dates) without feeling embarrassed from all the critiques of it?


          Report this

          231

        • #

          Those SD numbers look good to me. According to them there has been no warming.

          Game. Set. Match.


          Report this

          150

          • #
            Philip Shehan

            Which numbers say there has been no warming?


            Report this

            122

            • #
              James Bradley

              I’d say the numbers from the last few days down here on the Southern Tablelands, Phil.

              I’m claiming coldest July evvvaaa. That should be enough for you.


              Report this

              141

            • #
              Philip Shehan

              James, a typically idiotic comment getting typically idiotic thumbs ups when the discussion here is about temperatuie trend analysis, not the weather in some backwoods where claims of the coldest July evvaaa are declared 7 days into the month with no data whatsoever provided.

              But hey that’s about the level of analysis that “skeptics” here appeal to when it backs their religion.

              As with the concept of statistical significance, embraced and abandoned by “skeptics” on a case by case basis depending on whether it supports their arguments, had I said that “No Cowtan and Monckton’s error margins are wrong, the real error margins ar much smaller as per OLS meaning that Motl and Lindzen are wrong and the warming has been statistically significant” and There is not only no statistically significant pause, there is statistically significant warming”, “skeptics” here would have risen as one to defend error margins based on autocorrelation to the death.

              But I have also used these calculations to make points “skeptics” don’t like, so the calculations must be rubbish (in these cases at least).

              I am prepared to be consistent and let the results fall where they may, whether they back the “skpetic” viewpoint or not.

              “Skeptics” have no time for such an attitude.


              Report this

              120

              • #
                James Bradley

                Phil, you did ask an open question.

                Poor form stereotyping after the answer.


                Report this

                101

              • #
                Philip Shehan

                No James the question was not “open”.

                MSimon states:

                Those SD numbers look good to me. According to them there has been no warming.”

                Those error margins are among the ones I give in my comment. Which ones does he mean?

                Your response “I’d say the numbers from the last few days down here on the Southern Tablelands, Phil.” is indeed idiotic.

                There is no stereotyping involved. It is an assessment of the quality of “skeptic” arguments on these matters.


                Report this

                110

            • #
              Philip Shehan

              Note the five (thus far) Morons giving thumbs down for a question.


              Report this

              127

              • #
                Rereke Whakaaro

                Perhaps it was comment on the fact that numbers cannot “say” anything. They can only be interpreted within a context.

                The context of your question was to require the proof of a negative, which is a logical fallacy. Many people here disagree with your constant use of that particular fallacy, and hence the thumbs down.

                You get bonus thumbs down for calling people, who are more logical than you, “morons”. Such insults tend to rebound, if you are not careful.


                Report this

                231

              • #
                James Bradley

                It may also be convenient lineal trends with inexplicable error margins that have multiple interpretations depending upon your own beliefs.

                And skeptics have made many more points that you don’t like.

                Your perseverance is to be admired.

                But not your ignorance.


                Report this

                101

              • #
                tom0mason

                Maybe some on this thread understand -
                “The evidence from computer modelling? The phrase is an oxymoron. A model cannot, by definition, provide evidence: it can provide a prediction to test against real evidence. ”

                I’ll leave it to you to find out who I’m quoting.


                Report this

                80

              • #
                the Griss

                Why would BA, Mattb, SL, the WC, et al. give you red thumbs ?


                Report this

                61

              • #
                James Bradley

                See that Phil,

                The last casualty of war is a sense of humour.

                I’d say the alarmist cause is well and truly lost now.

                I’ll be off tomorrow to cut a bit of wood to keep the fire going.


                Report this

                91

              • #
                Philip Shehan

                Rereke et al, What is the alleged “context” in the simple request for clarification of the context of MSimon’s statement “Those SD numbers look good to me. According to them there has been no warming.”?

                Where is the request for a “proof of the negative” in this question in response requesting clarification of MSimon’s statement?:

                “Which numbers say there has been no warming?”

                James Bradley: What are you on about?

                What convenient lineal trends?

                What inexplicable error margins?

                What “multiple interpretations” of numbers which are the product of a mathematical equation with one either being larger or smaller than the other?

                Yes “skeptics” often make points I don’t like. I actually never bother with thumbs downs and the point I am making here is that the point which got the thumbs downs was not a point at all, but a simple request for clarification. and in itself not contestable. It is a question, not a statement.

                But the Morons can’t understand the very simple distinction, giving robotic unthinking thumbs downs to anything posted by their idealogical enemies, regardless of content. And neither apparently, can you.

                Tomomason: There is no computer modelling involved in this at all. Where does the quote come from?


                Report this

                110

              • #
                Philip Shehan

                James, so having lost the argument you cut and run. Or is that run and cut? Possibly cut and run and cut.

                Just a little joke there to tickle your sense of humour.


                Report this

                110

              • #
                James Bradley

                Phil,

                Rhetoric and semantics.

                The fact is that regardless of your statistics – any warming is not consequential.

                Any efficient and cheap green technology patents would have been bought up by big oil, big coal and big gas.

                So we are either left with innefficient green tech bound to fail or the green tech is such crap (I vote for this option) that big oil, big coal and big gas only have to wait it out.

                Their cost of production is not going up, but becaue of intervention startegies designed to wean the world off efficient and economnical energy the cost is exhorbitant.

                Either way the alarmist cause will leave the world at the mercy of the very demons it pretends to destroy.

                My view is more philosophical than scientific however it is still based on common sense and facts.

                However your effort to make light of your situation is acknowledged and I commend you for an optimistic attempt to maintain your morale.


                Report this

                81

              • #
                Rereke Whakaaro

                Philip,

                When will it dawn on you, that you are attempting to thread bomb a bunch of guys who have done a fair amount of computer modelling, in a wide range of disciplines, some of us probably since before you were born. The first computer I worked on used seven-unit paper tape as input – I am that old.

                We know what models can do, and we know how they work. We also know that they have absolutely no intelligence, none, nada, zip. So as soon as a dweeb like you says, “The models say”, or “The numbers say”, we just sit in front of our screens grinning like the Cheshire Cat, wondering how we can tie you in knots. The models produce exactly what the modellers want them to produce, because that is what they are programmed to do. The models cannot make any decisions that have not been pre-programmed in some way. They have no intelligence.

                If they produce the “wrong” answer, then the programming really needs to be changed, but doing so will negatively impact all of the previous model runs, and possibly invalidate them entirely, so the easiest thing to do is to adjust the input data so that the model produces the desired output. It is then left to the Climate Scientists, to think up a reasonable justification for the data “adjustments”.

                See how it works?


                Report this

                71

              • #
                James Bradley

                Rereke,

                LMAO right now, the first computer program I wrote with a card and a hole punch.


                Report this

                41

              • #
                Rereke Whakaaro

                Another old bugger then.

                It was only the first program that used tape. After that we progressed to using 80 column cards. I told my kids I wanted to be buried face-down, nine-edge first. They don’t appreciate the joke.


                Report this

                20

              • #
                Philip Shehan

                I also used Holerith cards.

                I also have experience with computer modelling where they have guided the understanding of drug-receptor interactions and the developement of new drugs.

                Of course models have no intelligence.

                Model is in fact a very old word which means much the same as theory.

                As in the Bohr model of the atom. Or the plum pudding model of the nucleus. Or the heliocentric model of the solar system.

                And like all theories they can be right or wrong well or not well founded on emprical results and observations.

                Some of these models are actually what are considered to be models in the colloquail sense. Like Watson and Crick’s metal model of DNA. These days they would produce their model in silico.

                Models in the modern context appear to have the understood prefix “computer”.

                Computers allowed the developement of more complicated multi parameter models because of their ability to juggle more and more numbers and equations, and do it quickly.

                The uses and abuses, limitations, explanatory power and guide to further studies and refinement of the models has not changed with this developement.


                Report this

                13

              • #

                Face-down nine-edge first is a lot better than being a hanging chad.

                My first program was done using patch cords on a vacuum tube analog computer. It was a reaction rate calculation. It was followed by years of switch flipping, punched cards, paper tape, tape cassettes, floppy disks, and the wonders of the all purpose KSR33.

                Ah, those were the days. I am glad they are gone but the kids today don’t know what they have missed. How about using machine language and hexadecimal address offset calculations on a computer with less capability than your typical digital watch today? This is rather the modern equivalent of the stories of having to walk to and from school through deep snow drifts up hill both ways. As gramps says, the youngsters don’t know how good they have it.


                Report this

                50

              • #
                Philip Shehan

                Rereke, you almost had me there, resorting to a distraction

                “Philip,

                When will it dawn on you, that you are attempting to thread bomb a bunch of guys who have done a fair amount of computer modelling…”

                in the hope that I and others would not notice that you have avoided answering the questions put to you:

                What is the alleged “context” in the simple request for clarification of the context of MSimon’s statement “Those SD numbers look good to me. According to them there has been no warming.”?

                Where is the request for a “proof of the negative” in this question in response requesting clarification of MSimon’s statement?:

                “Which numbers say there has been no warming?”


                Report this

                06

              • #
                Philip Shehan

                Update: Twenty Morons.


                Report this

                04

              • #
                Heywood

                “Update: Twenty Morons.”

                You do realise that the more you whinge about red thumbs and call people morons the more thumbs you’ll get don’t you?

                I thought you were smarter than that Brian.


                Report this

                20

              • #
                the Griss

                “I thought you were smarter than that Brian”

                He has constantly proven otherwise. !

                Yes, he had some education once.. a long time ago.. but it seems to deserted him.


                Report this

                00

            • #

              Uh. The Standard Deviations. Any number inside that error bar means no change.

              So say the numbers say .8C warming since 1850. With a 2C SD that says no statistically significant warming since 1850. Normally 2 SDs is used for statistical significance but in this case I’m quite content with one.

              An .8C change is definitely in the noise level. i.e. not significant if the error bars are in fact correct.

              So you are calling for drastic action over no significant change? Not very scientific.


              Report this

              91

              • #
                Philip Shehan

                MSimon: I assume your answer is meant to be a clarification of this statement:

                “I’m perfectly OK with the error bars of the data that you subscribe to. It means there has been no significant warming for at least 160 years.”

                with reference to this graph:

                http://oi46.tinypic.com/29faz45.jpg

                Firstly, note that the graph is a plot of temperature vs Log CO2 concentration, so there is nothing on this graph to justify any statement concering significant warming for x years.

                Secondly statistical significance is not calculated by drawing lines through error bars for the data. It is a mathematical calculation of the stndard deviation of the data.

                In the case of this graph the calculation gives a result of 2.035 +/- 0,074 C per doubling of CO2 concentration. (Again time is not mentioned. It is not a sttement of stistical significance with regard to temperature vs time.)


                Report this

                111

              • #
                Rereke Whakaaro

                “MSimon: I assume your answer is meant to be …”

                Excuse me? You assume something, with no reference to anything in M Simon’s comment, and then launch into a total straw man argument.

                What do you hope to prove by that? You seriously run the risk of making yourself look like a total idiot.


                Report this

                30

              • #

                Shouldn’t he be permitted to look like what he is? That way we know who we are dealing with. If he is a goat in wolfs clothing, we thereby know to treat him as a goat (apologies to the goats and wolfs of the world for using you in this twisted metaphor).

                The interesting thing is he can’t help but expose his inner self. Eventually, we all are exposed for who and what we are by our words. It is not possible for it to be otherwise. Our inner being chooses our words, our topic, our approach to the topic, and the emotional energy we put into presenting our words. It is all visible but for our unwillingness to see and understand for fear of understanding who and what we are.

                Both we and he cannot hide. All one can do is choose to comment or not. For some, it might be best not to comment but that is a choice each must make for himself. He has made his choice and we ours. The results are fully visible. I wouldn’t want it any other way.


                Report this

                40

              • #
                Philip Shehan

                Utter bollocks Rereke

                There are two questions where I have asked MSimon for clarification.

                One was about his statement

                “Those SD numbers look good to me. According to them there has been no warming.”

                And in my humorless response to James’ claim that my request for clarifcation was an “open question” justifying his comment about a few days data in the southern table lands, I responded:

                “Those error margins are among the ones I give in my comment. Which ones does he mean?”

                The other was with respect to a graph which features data going back 160 years and error bars.

                I quote this part of his statement:

                “I’m perfectly OK with the error bars of the data that you subscribe to. It means there has been no significant warming for at least 160 years.”

                So much for your ridiculous claim that “You assume something, with no reference to anything in M Simon’s comment..”

                So I address those points made by MSimon.

                My caveat was in the very unlikely event that my assumption is wrong, in retrospect an entirely superfluous caveat, in which case I was expecting him to point out my error.

                This is not a straw man argument.

                And only an idiot would fail to understand that it is addressing exactly the points MSimon made.

                Lionell Griffith shows that he too is an idiot in this respect in his rambling homily based on entirely on your false premise.

                Actually it applies very well to both you and himself.


                Report this

                07

              • #

                Philip,

                I can’t find it on this thread but I did say on another thread that I had misread those SD numbers. I’m old. The brain sometimes plays tricks. I should have double checked. But the tricks just started in the last few months so I’m not yet in the habit of rechecking.

                None the less. There has been zero warming from about 1998 (very late 1997 actually) to present. Over 16 years. Phil Jones was worried because the models didn’t show stretches over 10 years with no warming given the rate of CO2 rise we see.

                That tells us that the CO2 sensitivity used is too high. My favorite sensitivity these days for CO2 is zero. BTW I used to be a luke warmist. My previous thought was .5C per doubling which was arrived at by looking at some actuals, Nir Shaviv, and then figuring that water vapor feedback was .5 as opposed to the 1.5 to 4.5 the models assume.


                Report this

                30

              • #
                Philip Shehan

                Thank you for the reply MSimon. I take it from your lack of correction that my assumption as to your comment on the graph was correct.

                With regard to the no warming since 1997, or 98 is, the first objection (and easiest to demonstrate) is that it is not statistically significant.

                That said I have stated many times that there probably has been a pause, or at least a reduction in the rate of warming.

                But so what? The temperature record is littered with pauses, ups, and downs in the temperature record because temperature is of course a multifactorial result of various forcings.

                Some forcings invariably have a cooling effect (volcanic eruptions), while others have a cyclical cooling/warming effect (the 11 year solar cycle) or quasi cyclical cooling/warming effect (ENSO la nina/el nino).

                Models actually do not attempt to predict the unpredictable (volcanic eruptions) or the quasi predictable (ENSO) into the future although they can assume an averaging out over time. When they have occured, the effects can be hindcast.

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

                My principle objection to the use of 1998 as a start point is that it is a classic case of cherry picking.

                The (non-statistically significant) pause or reduction in warming rate is then compared with the steadily rising CO2 concentration and “skeptics” then say this violates AGW.

                It does not. Because as everyone who knows anything about the basics of climate theory, AGW or not, understands that temperatures are veriable due to the operation of forcings outlined above.

                Specifically in this context, cherry picking an extreme el nino year to start your ‘no warming’ period because it flattens the trend line also totally ignores the fact that el nino events are not related to CO2 concentration.

                The real picture of the relationship between temperature rise and CO2 concentration is shown here:

                http://tinyurl.com/nyjroxe


                Report this

                03

              • #
                Philip Shehan

                I note that thus far, four people don’t like the fact that I have comprehensively demonstrated how wrong Rereke got it.


                Report this

                04

              • #
                Philip Shehan

                PS Msimon. I agree that the early estimates of the sensitivity factor, which is a very difficult number to arrive at due to the compexity of the positive and negative feedbacks involved, were too high.

                I think that it is likely to be at the low end of the 1.5 to 4.5 C range.

                As I have noted before, the calculated relationship between temperature and doubling of CO2 concentration in the graph I supplied above matches that of thew data from 1958 and 1850 at 2 C.

                Again this is only an indication of where the sensitivity factor may be as the temperature data on which the calculation is based includes the effects of forcings other than CO2 concentration.

                But I think that over multidecadal periods most of these tend to average out.


                Report this

                03

              • #

                With regard to the no warming since 1997, or 98 is, the first objection (and easiest to demonstrate) is that it is not statistically significant.

                But CO2 is rising. And Phil Jones at one time thought no rise for ten years in the real world compared to the models was significant. Then he extended it to 15 years (IIRC). It is now at least 16.5 years.

                Now if the warming was actually ocean cycles (which got imputed to CO2) then what you are seeing is an inflection point. And that is significant.

                BTW the “no warming” has made the IPCC adjust the CO2 sensitivity downward over that time. If we get cooling in the next few years the sensitivity will have to be adjusted down further.

                BTW could you demonstrate that 16.5 years of no warming isn’t statistically significant. I’d like to see that. How long would “no warming” have to last to be statistically significant?


                Report this

                20

              • #

                My principle objection to the use of 1998 as a start point is that it is a classic case of cherry picking.

                It is not cherry picking. I extended a horizontal line back from the current temperature and the result was 1997.9 = 2014.5 (or what ever the last point on the graph is).

                Now if I had wanted to cherry pick I would have chosen the 1998 peak. A fair amount of cooling from there.


                Report this

                20

              • #
                the Griss

                Philip only understands what he can do with the SkS calculator.

                Backward trending… ??? doooooh, what’s that ???


                Report this

                10

    • #
      Crakar24

      Yes and your systems are falling down around your ears…..so sad.


      Report this

      71

  • #
    speedy

    Afternoon All.

    Had the week off going to a mate’s wedding. A happy event. Here’s something from the ceremony:

    A Marriage Prayer
    (Dedicated to Fr. Chris.)

    Dear God:

    Bless this new couple, as they start their new life:
    May he be a good husband, she, a good wife;
    Bestow on them joy which will never decrease,
    And fill their home with your love and your peace.

    But if ever they barnie (as some couples do),
    Then give them the courage to work it all through,
    And to remember the love this day they professed;
    For to truly love – is to be truly blest.

    Amen.


    Report this

    151

  • #
    Neville

    The Japanese satellite data shows that Australia is the third largest co2 sequestering country on the planet. And this doesn’t even take into account the much larger sequestration from our EEZ. So when will we get our reparations cheque ?

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/05/the-revenge-of-the-climate-reparations/#more-112572


    Report this

    100

  • #
    Rod Stuart

    Perhaps Dr. Brian Philip Shehan would like to argue with the NOAA.
    Oh, wait. He always has some lame-brain excuse. This time it will be that the NOAA data isn’t ‘global’. It was only ‘global’ when it was warming.


    Report this

    101

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      Government data does tend to do that.

      I think it has something to do with the sanitising chemicals they put in the air conditioning to stop the staff from getting rational cow disease.


      Report this

      100

  • #
    Yonniestone

    For anyone who still wonders about the point of smart meters http://www.news.com.au/finance/money/put-power-up-700-per-cent-to-lower-bills-grattan-institute-expert-says/story-e6frfmci-1226979685558
    Agenda 21 coming to a town near you. :(


    Report this

    50

  • #
    Bulldust

    Seems Four Corners is parading the renewables rent seekers this week:

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-07-07/renewable-energy-investment-killed-by-government-policy/5575262

    My comment (in case it gets ABC modded):

    I thought Four Corners was supposed to be reasonably well researched and balanced … this piece screams the opposite. A few very basic things to note:

    1) Simply reducing massive subsidies to renewables does not imply “hostility” towards the industry. What a silly adjective to use.

    2) Fossil fuels in mining, aka diesel, is not subsidised. That is an error. The excise tax paid by off-road users of diesel (predominantly farmers and miners) is reduced because they do not use the roads the tax is supposed to support (don’t give me the BS about the lack of hypothecation). Paying less excise tax because you don’t use the infrastructure is hardly a subsidy. A subsidy is when the government hands you money (net) as an incentive to do something. A tax is not an incentive. Will the ABC even attempt to provide a balanced view on this?

    3) General comment: An article providing only views of renewables rent seekers with a one-liner at the end from Government is hardly balance, now is it?

    Copied elsewhere because I know the ABC mods…


    Report this

    150

    • #
      Angry

      The “Four Corners” of STUPIDITY….

      SELL THE ABC (Australian BRAINWASHING COMMISSION) ASAP !

      No more funding from Australian taxpayers !!!


      Report this

      70

    • #

      The progressives view is that anything you earn is theirs to spend. Thus if they let you keep some of it, it is a gift. Our value to them is our willingness to allow ourselves to be sacrificed to the “greater good”. They get choose the good we get to sacrifice. If we are unwilling to sacrifice voluntarily, they get to use force against us and call it “social justice”. No matter what, we are to be sacrificed.

      It is nothing but human sacrifice for the sake of human sacrifice and morally equivalent to the human sacrifice of the Aztecs. In fact the Aztecs were more merciful. Their sacrifice was quick, the death came within seconds, and the remains were used as food. Ours is a slow draining of our lives for no good purpose lasting the better part of a century.


      Report this

      20

    • #
      Bulldust

      Comments are closed … got to love the two replies I got which were the intellectual equivalent of “IS NOT!” I guess it is the indictment of the intelligence of the avrerage ABC blogger.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    handjive

    Ever wondered why …

    Fish go extinct every summer?

    “Fish may experience heart failure as ocean temperatures rise due to climate change, according to new research from the University of Auckland.”

    http://www.voxy.co.nz/national/fish-experience-heart-failure-water-temperature-rises/5/195502


    Report this

    50

  • #
    pat

    Bulldust -

    4 corners prog shilling renewables is par for the course, when it comes to the MSM. here’s some conflict of interest stuff, with the same crowd that have caused the fuel poverty being allowed to take the high ground while demanding more CAGW spending:

    4 July: DailyMail: Rachel Rickard Straus: ‘Government’s energy efficiency policies are in free fall’: Insulation and boiler installation plummets 60% in a year, campaigners warn
    25,000 people die of the cold every winter, campaign group warns
    The Energy Bill Revolution urged an overhaul of the government’s strategy to make our housing stock warmer, warning that the UK has one of the highest rates of fuel poverty in Western Europe, with an average of 25,000 people dying of the cold each winter.
    It said that millions of households still need energy efficiency measures installed, at a time when installation rates could fall to their lowest level for more than a decade…
    The alliance of 180 charities, businesses and unions campaigning to end fuel poverty has called for home energy efficiency to be made a UK infrastructure investment priority…
    Ed Matthew, director of the Energy Bill Revolution campaign, said: ‘The Government’s energy efficiency policies are in free fall.
    ‘As a result, fuel poverty is getting worse and people are dying.”
    http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/bills/article-2680515/Governments-energy-efficiency-policies-free-fall-Insulation-boiler-installation-plummets-60-cent-year-campaigners-warn.html

    EnergyBillRevolution: Who’s behind it
    The Energy Bill Revolution is a movement of people committed to ensuring warm homes and lower bills for all.
    We are an alliance of children’s and older people’s charities, health and disability groups, environment groups, consumer groups, trade unions, businesses, politicians and public figures.
    (INCLUDES)
    Greenpeace
    Climate Bonds
    Decarbonize
    Friends of the Earth
    Save the Children
    Low Carbon Communities Network
    Sustainable Energy Associaton
    WWF
    Sandbag ETC ETC
    http://www.energybillrevolution.org/whos-behind-it/


    Report this

    40

    • #
      Angry

      What an FU..ING joke !
      “committed to ensuring warm homes and lower bills for all”
      WTF !

      These communists are committed to ensuring people are unable to afford electricity period !

      Lying scum !


      Report this

      80

  • #
    pat

    more about Energy Bill Revolution:

    .pdf (9 pages) E3G: The Energy Bill Revolution
    Campaign briefing
    Carbon emissions
    The Government has a legal obligation to reduce the UK’s greenhouse gas emissions by at least 80% by 2050 in order to help combat climate change. If the Government fails to meet its targets, we increase our risk of facing the serious environmental, social and economic impacts of climate change…
    The answer is for the Government to use the money it gets from carbon taxes to help make homes super‐energy efficient – with excellent insulation, renewable energy and modern boilers.
    Even though these things save money on energy bills and keep our homes warmer, many people simply can’t afford to pay for them – meaning they stay cold. That’s why the Government must do more to help.
    Carbon tax revenue
    The Government taxes big companies for the damage their carbon emissions cause to people and the environment. There are two main carbon taxes: the European Emissions Trading Scheme and the Carbon Floor Price. The companies eventually pass these taxes on to consumers. Over the next 15 years the Government will raise an average of £4 billion every year in carbon revenue.
    These taxes are used by the Government to help combat climate change and wean the UK off dirty fossil fuels…
    This money could be used to help all households or just to support the most vulnerable. There is, for example, enough carbon tax revenue to provide a grant worth on average £6,500 to every fuel poor home to make them super‐energy efficient, treating more than 600,000 homes every year for the next 15 years..

    ***The Energy Bill Revolution is a public campaign, coordinated by Transform UK (www.transformuk.org), a programme of the sustainable development organisation E3G (www.e3g.org).
    http://www.e3g.org/docs/Energy-Bill-Revolution-Campaign-Briefing.pdf

    About E3G
    Governance and Funding
    E3G is established in the UK as a not-for-profit company limited by guarantee. E3G maintains full independence in all its activities, and is funded by a mix of foundations, government bodies and NGOs.
    E3G is established in Belgium as a not-for-profit association (ASBL) and in Washington as a private company with 501c3 tax exempt status.
    We gratefully acknowledge funding from GREENPEACE, CLIMATE WORKS FOUNDATION, AVAAZ, EUROPEAN COMMISSION, WWF, NRDC, ROCKEFELLER BROTHERS FUND, ETC ETC…
    http://www.e3g.org/about


    Report this

    10

  • #
    pat

    E3G’s buddies, TransformUK, the same people who caused the fuel poverty in the first place and now want more spending on CAGW policies. how conflicted can u get?

    TransformUK
    Transform UK is the home of the Green Investment Bank Campaign.
    Ed Matthew
    Ed is the founder and Director of Transform UK, which is hosted by the
    sustainable development organisation E3G.
    Before that he was at Friends of the Earth where he led the Economics Team
    for four years which specialised in climate economics.
    ***The team successfully campaigned for the introduction of Carbon Budgets within the Climate Change Act and the introduction of Feed in Tariffs and the Renewable Heat Incentive
    in the Energy Act 2008.
    Ed has 14 years experience as an NGO campaigner working on biodiversity and
    climate change issues and has also worked for WWF, The Wilderness Society in
    Australia and the Environmental Investigation Agency…
    Dr Alex Bowen
    Dr Alex Bowen joined the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and
    the Environment at the London School of Economics in Autumn 2008 as a
    Principal Research Fellow…
    He has long been involved in aspects of economic policy, having worked in
    the Bank of England for sixteen years, most recently as Senior Policy
    Adviser, on both monetary and financial stability issues, including
    responsibility for the Bank’s Inflation Report and Financial Stability
    Review. He first became involved in climate change issues when seconded as
    Senior Economist to the team that produced the Stern Review of the Economics
    of Climate Change in 2006…
    John Alker
    John is Director of Policy & Communications at the UK Green Building Council
    and has been there since it was established in 2007.
    He is responsible for government and political communications, media
    relations, campaigning and policy. John has worked as an MP’s researcher and
    speech-writer in the House of Commons and in commercial public affairs for
    Political Intelligence.
    Prior to joining the UK-GBC John led political communications on the EU
    Emissions Trading Scheme and sustainable homes campaign for the
    environmental charity WWF-UK…
    Jonathan Johns
    Jonathan founded Ernst and Young’s UK renewable energy, waste and Cleantech
    practice where he originated its influential global country attractiveness
    indices.
    He has advised on in excess of $3 billion of transactions in three
    continents covering all major low carbon technologies…
    Philip Wolfe
    Philip Wolfe is one of the pioneers of the UK renewable energy industry.
    He recently founded Ownergy Plc, to provide renewable electricity and
    heating systems to businesses and consumers, supported by the government’s
    new Renewable Energy Tariffs. He is also a Director of the Renewable Energy
    Association and the Aldersgate Group…
    Leonie Greene
    Leonie Greene is Head of External Affairs at the Renewable Energy
    Association and Manager of the We Support Solar campaign.
    She co-led the Parliamentary campaign for Tariffs for renewable heat (RHI)
    and local power (FITs) with Ed Matthew of Transform UK and Dave Timms of
    Friends of the Earth. Previously she worked as Political Adviser to
    Greenpeace UK and as a Sustainability Adviser to the Deputy Major of London.
    Her Greenpeace report Decentralising Power; An Energy Revolution for the
    21st Century was cited by David Cameron as particularly influential on
    Conservative energy policy.
    She holds an MSc (Distinction) in Environmental Change and is a qualified
    yoga instructor
    http://www.transformuk.org/en/aboutus/alliance/


    Report this

    20

  • #
    Angry

    Check out these LEFTIST TRAITORS and what they wan to do to Australians…

    http://www.couriermail.com.au/business/put-power-up-700-per-cent-to-lower-bills-grattan-institute-expert-says/story-fnihph6m-1226979685558

    WTF !!

    I DON’T THINK SO !!!!


    Report this

    41

    • #
      aussie pete

      Are we not privatising electricity supply as fast as we can? At the same time the new “private owners” are telling us that we will pay less. No private enterprise will agree to any idea that reduces revenue. Tell ‘em they’re dreamin’.


      Report this

      30

      • #

        Apparently you don’t understand how non-coercive competition and private enterprise actually work.

        Since, unlike government, private enterprise can only offer a product at a price but can’t FORCE anyone to buy the product, it must balance cost to produce, the quality of the product, the price the competition charges for the product, and what the buyer is willing to pay with the business’ need for profit.

        A business will not have a future if there is no profit. If there are no sales of the product there is no profit and no future for the business. If the competition beats you on price, availability, quality, and service there will be no sales. Hence, the business must reduce costs, maintain or improve availability, quality and service, and price according to what the customer will pay. If the business can do that and make a profit, it can stay in business. If not, it soon goes out of business. Needless to say, this is a very challenging balancing act. Most new business fail in the effort. Many long standing business also fail to continue the balancing act. Only if you do the right things, at the right time, in the right way, almost all the time, do you have a chance for survival.

        When the government enters the scene, confiscates the wealth from the citizens, and uses the stolen wealth to subsidize their chosen ones, all bets are off. The customer pays no matter if he wants to or not and no matter if he gets delivery of the product or not. The politicians get their cut without contributing to the effort but for the use of coercive force. Both the market and the chosen winners, chosen at the point of the government gun, ultimately fail, wealth is destroyed, resources are converted into useless scrap, and everyone loses. Oh but the politicians were able to party hearty for a time at taxpayers expense.

        It is not the private business that is the evil one here. It is the government placing its gun on the scales of justice in an attempt to control the outcome of the exercise. That is fundamentally violating everyone’s individual right to life, liberty, and property. THAT is the evil!


        Report this

        40

        • #
          aussie pete

          Lionell,
          Thank you for the mini MBA. Your last two paragraphs are precisely what i was alluding too. Big business and Govts, i.e the big end of town will make arrangements that suit them (not the least being party funding and or political appointments and so on). The supply of utilities and mandated expenses i.e green slips always ends up with the consumer getting it in the neck. The Executives get the big salaries,perks etc, the Pollies get their Party funding (or worse), the shareholders are kept in the loop with just enough dividend while the consumers can go whistle.
          It might surprise you to know that i am a retired senior executive and more than a bit right wing, but in my twighlight years i have to admit that “free-enterprise” ain’t always all that free.


          Report this

          10

  • #
    incoherent rambler

    Sometime ago Tonyfromoz posted a comment with a great description of electricty generation and relative genration costs of nuclear and coal.

    Can anyone help me with a link?


    Report this

    20

  • #

    “I rambler” this link gives some energy costs http://www.oecd-nea.org/pub/egc/docs/exec-summary-ENG.pdf It is a bit biased towards wind because it does not include backup cost for when the wind does not blow or is too strong. Also, does not include the additional cost of network management from extra poles and wires, sub-stations, surge controls and network control. Nuclear power in Asia is already the cheapest and is set to get cheaper when Thorium fueled plants are commissioned in the next few years.


    Report this

    50

  • #
    Bob_FJ

    For all rationalists passing by (AKA morons according to Dr Shehan),

    ONE of the funny things about his “THE Trend Calculator” (which is clearly labelled: SkepticalScience) is that it assumes linear trends when the published data strongly suggests that there is an underlying ~60-year cycle. (e.g. Klyashtorin & Lyubushin 2003)

    Whilst linear trending is a quick and easy method for visualizing probable trends when used with care in modest timespans, it is obviously inapplicable over longer cyclical timespans. The amusing part is that SKS claim that the longer the timespan evaluated by their tool, the smaller the error margins are, (according to the unique authorship of Kevin C = Kevin Cowtan?).

    In reality, the longer the timespan, beyond a modest judgemental point in cyclicality, the greater the error margin should be. This is quickly demonstrated if you access the SKS tool below and do say a plot from 1880 in GISS with the default 12-month smoothing. The observed data falls far outside of the SKS error margins!

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/trend.php

    Notice too that they use monthly data as indicated by crosses, and that the scatter in Y is thus great. In terms of true time-series analysis the proper interval should be annual to smooth-out the seasonal/regional variances and whatnot.

    Finally, curvilinear trending should be used in this situation and the more modern computer intensive LOESS methodology seems to be highly considered.

    http://www.itl.nist.gov/div898/handbook/pmd/section1/pmd144.htm


    Report this

    80

    • #
      the Griss

      Despite having apparently once been educated, PS doesn’t appear to have any understanding of ‘cyclic’ or ‘event’ analysis….

      he only knows ‘linear’.. despite what the data is indicating…….and has a monkey to do it for him.

      Event analysis required an understanding of the underlying systems, which he seems to lack completely.

      And he refuses to even start learning.

      Just keeps repeating and repeating and repeating this irrelevant and meaningless SkS linear trend nonsense.

      Quite bizarre really.


      Report this

      60

    • #
      the Griss

      And just for a bit more of a laugh.

      Now do GISS from 1915-1945

      then do 1965-1995… each a 30 year period

      You will see the latter is actually SHALLOWER than the former……

      DESPITE the latter period having significants raise CO2 levels over the other period.

      THERE IS NO CO2 SIGNAL IN THE GISS TEMPERATURE RECORD>


      Report this

      80

  • #
    pat

    7 July: ABC Four Corners: Power to the People
    As economist and author Jeremy Rifkin puts it, the choice is stark:
    “It’s ridiculous. Australia’s the Saudi Arabia of renewable energy. There’s so much sun, there’s so much wind off the coast, and so it makes absolutely no sense when you have an abundance of renewable energy, [to] rely on a depleting supply of fossil fuels with all of the attendant consequences to society and the planet.”
    http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2014/07/07/4038488.htm

    Wikipedia: Jeremy Rifkin
    Rifkin is the President of the TIR Consulting Group LLC which advises national governments, regions, and municipalities on developing Third Industrial Revolution Master Plans. He is also the founder and chairperson of the Third Industrial Revolution Global CEO Business Round Table, composed of the world’s leading renewable energy companies, construction companies, architectural firms, real estate companies, IT companies, power and utility companies, and transport and logistics companies. Rifkin’s global economic development team is the largest of its kind in the world and is working with cities, regions, and national governments to develop master plans to transition their economies into post-carbon Third Industrial Revolution infrastructures…
    In 1992, Rifkin launched the Beyond Beef Campaign, a coalition of six environmental groups including Green Peace, Rainforest Action Network, and Public Citizen, with the goal of encouraging a 50% reduction in the consumption of beef, arguing that methane emissions from Cattle has a warming effect 23 to 50 times greater than carbon dioxide…
    His 1995 book, The End of Work, is credited by some with helping shape the current global debate on automation, technology displacement, corporate downsizing and the future of jobs***…
    In 2011, Rifkin’s Third Industrial Revolution vision and economic development plan was embraced by the United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO)…
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Rifkin

    ***if we followed Rifkin’s plan, there wouldn’t be any jobs once the lights went out anyway. wonder how much of Rifkin’s connections to CAGW bodies will be disclosed by abc tonite.


    Report this

    30

  • #
    Tim

    Let’s skip the minutiae and get to the heart of the matter.

    The final public speech of Dwight D. Eisenhower as President of the United States in 1961 includes a rarely repeated message in the text…

    “The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present — and is gravely to be regarded.
    Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of scientific-technological elite.”


    Report this

    40

  • #
    pat

    7 July: Ninemsn: Carbon tax likely to be scrapped in days
    There was a false start, a few hurdles and a marathon debate but the government eventually got the carbon tax repeal on the agenda for the first day of the new Senate.
    It means the repeal is likely to pass within days, with debate to continue on Tuesday…
    The government got its way after moving to suspend standing orders twice, eventually winning the crucial support of PUP and Senator Muir…
    The coalition was backed by PUP’s three senators, Senator Muir, Liberal Democrat David Leyonhjelm and Family First’s Bob Day.
    They are the same six senators expected to give the government the six votes it needs to pass the repeal…
    http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/2014/07/07/00/09/govt-told-to-buy-foreign-emissions-permits


    Report this

    10

  • #
    pat

    Yonniestone -

    if u had any influence over Ricky Muir, thanx.


    Report this

    10

  • #

    Ah! There’s nothing like electrical power.

    I’ve been away for 4 lovely days at a family reunion. Mum, (86) and her five children of which I am the eldest, all of us together for only the third time in 44 years, the last time 6 years ago. 4 days away and I just stayed right away from computers, full stop. It was lovely, and I found that I actually didn’t really miss it.

    Hence, nothing here, well, nothing anywhere, and I didn’t miss that either.

    We usually drive down, but the Astra is now getting a little long in the tooth at 13 years, and I know it would have done Okay, but I thought why run with a sense of worry that there may be a problem. My daughter and her husband offered to fly me there, but I can get a concession on the rail, so I sorted that out for myself.
    Once aboard the Tilt Train, a passenger in front of me, a regular traveller by train noticed I was watching one of the many monitors, and asked me the last time I travelled by long distance rail, and that was back in early December of 1968, so things have changed, oh yeah!

    I took the Tilt Train, and the line is electrified from Rockhampton to Brisbane, so this was the Electric Tilt Train.

    They also have the Tilt Train all the way through to Cairns, but that is just a Diesel Tilt Train, no changing at Rocky, just straight to Cairns from Brisbane, different scheduling etc.

    So here I was on the electric Tilt Train, and man, what a trip, in both senses of the word.

    Left on Friday at 8AM, and in Brisbane at 3.50PM, just under 8 hours for the 640KM. (400 Miles) Realistically, I couldn’t do it as fast in the car, right into central Brisbane. From there train to Helensvale on the Gold Coast, one hour, with (luckily) 6 minutes between trains, so 9and a quarter hours to Southport, and I arrived fresh as a daisy.

    Now, what I was watching on the TV monitors on the tilt train was the speed, and man those (electric) trains just fly.

    Just out of Rocky, barely 5KM, and just past ‘The Big Bull’ she let go from the slow cruise of around 50KPH, up to 160KPH (100MPH) is seconds, I kid you not. It doesn’t stay there as it goes up and down, but there were stretches of track where it stayed at 160 for around 10 to 15 minutes, and one stretch on the way back of around 24 minutes, and you watch the clock ticking backwards to the next stop, one kilometre every 23 seconds.

    It’s just so effortless to get from virtually nothing (45 to 60KPH) to 160 in nothing flat towing 6 cars and a full passenger complement of around 75 people per car. The Dynamic braking in slowing is also effortless and it varies in speed so often you barely notice it.

    Comfortable airplane seats, roomy for footroom, and a tea and coffee trolley every three hours of so, with a galley as well, but you can also order lunch which they deliver to your seat. They had entertainment on the TV monitors, placed every three of so metres along the ceiling, showing a couple of TV travel programs either side of a movie, and then back to the map of the trip with next station, time to that, speed, time now, all on the screen.

    They also have a camera mounted on the front of the train which also showed for the first 80K or so on the trip down out of Rocky, and man, that really does give a feeling of flying. You look out the window as the train follows the highway, 100KPH, and the cars look like they’re going backwards. It’s probably the best feeling of speed I’ve ever had. I’ve travelled at 160 in a car in short bursts once or twice, but never sustained periods as long as this.

    Electric motors are just great for something like this.

    The principle is the opposite of generation for electric power, where the magnetic fields are used to induce an Electromotive force (EMF) in a second circuit, hence electric power. Motors use the electricity to induce magnetic fields which repel thus causing motion, and that’s me oversimplifying it for the ease of understanding.

    The Diesel Tilt Train has a top speed of around 100KPH and lumbers up there and back, but stays close to or thereabouts that speed while the electric one smashes it out there.

    It was a great 4 days with my family, with a wonderful experience either side of that.

    Tony.


    Report this

    40

    • #

      you should get yourself to Europe or Japan onto one of the 300km/h plus trains. The on board engineering and (especially) the infrastructure to support the engineering is at another level. A thing to watch out for, and this works especially well with tracks raised and flatland all around (lowland Japan, NW France such as on the chunnel route) where the horizon is a long way away, is how the landscape looks like a bunch of models. Even cars and trucks on motorways doing 100k plus look like they are completely stationer,y while the shudder and noise in the cabin is negligible so the sensation is like floating past tiny toys.


      Report this

      10

      • #
        Rod Stuart

        I can relate to that. Tony’s description I found similar to the Canadian National Turbo train in 1967.
        It cruised along at 160 mph between Toronto and Montreal. From downtown to downtown it was about a half hour faster than flying. With a traction car at each end, and two P&W PT 6 gas turbines in each traction car, acceleration was fast and furious. Because it used conventional freight train tracks, there were too many collisions at level crossing and CN discontinued the service.
        But nothing in comparison to the train from London to Paris. And certainly nothing like the train from Beijing to Shaghai.


        Report this

        00

    • #

      I really only have one response here.

      Queensland railway gauge is only 3 foot 6, so that’s about all they can get for those tracks. Even then it had to be a Tilt Train, so it could tilt into the bends. Odd sensation, but you really don’t notice it all that much.

      NSW rail gauge is Standard 4 foot eight and a half inches, and Victoria 5 foot 3 inches.

      As to the standard railway gauge of four foot eight and a half, I’m sure some, if not most, of you are aware of that old circulating email about that gauge dating back to roman times and the width of the wheels on a roman chariot (same as standard gauge rail) and their relationship with two horses (asses) side by side etc etc, an email long disproved as shown here at this link to Snopes.

      You want fast trains. Then Maglev is the future. Operational now in China (hey, funny about that eh!) they are still (mainly) experimental.

      Here’s (an older) video (shown at this link) of the operation, and why I’ve picked this one is because it offers some sort of technical information as well.

      And yes, it requires horrendous amounts of electricity ….. 24/7/365 electricity and bucket loads of it, and hmm! I wonder where that might come from.

      Tony.


      Report this

      00

      • #

        Maglevs are horribly expensive per mile of track. And to keep the energy costs down they need to be run in an evacuated tube. That raises the cost for the vehicle (pressurized) and track (vacuum tube). And then you need airlocks. And a way to flood a tube section with air if there is an accident.

        Maglevs are not practical on a cost basis. They are showcase projects.

        Where maglevs could pay off is for initial acceleration of rockets. If you have a few miles of land to spare.


        Report this

        00

  • #

    I’m starting here so we can do proper threading:

    Philip Shehan
    July 8, 2014 at 12:09 pm

    PS Msimon. I agree that the early estimates of the sensitivity factor, which is a very difficult number to arrive at due to the compexity of the positive and negative feedbacks involved, were too high.

    I think that it is likely to be at the low end of the 1.5 to 4.5 C range.

    As I have noted before, the calculated relationship between temperature and doubling of CO2 concentration in the graph I supplied above matches that of thew data from 1958 and 1850 at 2 C.

    Again this is only an indication of where the sensitivity factor may be as the temperature data on which the calculation is based includes the effects of forcings other than CO2 concentration.

    But I think that over multidecadal periods most of these tend to average out.

    ==========================================

    According to the way the models are built it is only possible to tease out CO2 sensitivity if all other significant factors are known to sufficient accuracy and accounted for.

    There is one huge and acknowledged problem. The sign for water vapor (let alone the magnitude) is unknown. Now my knowledge may not be up to date but if there is a generally agreed on number for water vapor/clouds I’d like to see it.

    It doesn’t take much cloud cover change to completely swamp the imputed effect of CO2. Or greatly exaggerate the effect of CO2.

    The problem of clouds/water vapor are handled in the models by parameterization. Because simulating clouds from physics is beyond our capability. Are the parameters correct? Even close?

    Many of the other knowns are not well enumerated. And there may very well be unknown unknowns. Which is what David is trying to tease out.

    My current estimate of CO2 sensitivity is zero. I used to think .5C/doubling based on feedback damping the effect. If either of those estimates are correct increased CO2 in the atmosphere is not significant.

    ====================

    And then there is the problem of chaos. That means models are at best statistical estimates and reality could very well diverge. Significantly.

    If we are to predict the future something other than “physical” models are required.


    Report this

    10

  • #

    Philip,

    The IPCC uses 114 models. Some or all of them are wrong.

    Why so many models?

    The number of modes shows just how shaky the enterprise is.


    Report this

    20

  • #