JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


Handbooks

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



Archives

Scientists-of-PR jump the shark, assign “climate blame” percentage for each event

Here’s the new desperate meme about to turn your weather report into an advertisement for carbon trading. The people are not scared enough. Say hello to scientismic marketing.  It sure isn’t science.

The generators of Climate Fear start with broken models that we know don’t predict global temperatures, upper tropospheric humidity, Antarctic sea ice, and ocean heat (or much of anything else). They then use these to model the chances of individual storms, or floods — something they were not designed to do. Then they run these mistakes 5 million times with and without the magic CO2 forcing. They might as well stand back, look solemn, and pick a percentage or throw a dart.  The great thing is, only God knows the right answer. The models can’t “miss”.

Was that flood 35% due to man-made emissions? Was that tornado 50% more deadly? (Did it rain on your wedding day? Sue someone!)

Of course, New Scientist swallows the theme whole, tea-leaves and all. No hard questions asked.

A new technique connecting individual weather events with the impact of greenhouse gas emissions could bring climate change into everyday weather reports

“Well, the record-breakingly hot summer is showing no sign of cooling down. No thanks to us: the heatwave was made 35 per cent more likely by human greenhouse gas emissions.”

 The method — all based on the assumptions that models have “skill”:

To explore whether climate change was making such precipitation more likely, Schaller and her team ran a similar experiment to Stott and Allen’s. They used real-world data to simulate the season that had just passed, then stripped the data of the influence of greenhouse gas emissions and ran the simulation again. The scenario was simulated thousands of times in order to calculate the odds of getting a bout of extremely wet weather at that particular time of year.

We all know numbers and percentages make wild baseless guesses look real, so this is a good way to generate authoritative sounding press releases:

They concluded that what was a 1-in-100-year event without global warming had become a 1-in-80-year event. In other words, human emissions made the extreme levels of rainfall experienced in south-east England 25 per cent more likely.

The team’s results were published online on 30 April, just two months after the flooding abated.

If an extreme weather event occurs, researchers can look to see if the models predicted it. If it was predicted in the real-world seasonal forecast but not in the scenario which is stripped of emissions, then it was made more likely by climate change – a likelihood that can be calculated.

The big “news” here is that this new method is so much better because it’s faster. It’s not about accuracy (and never was). The real issue is the speed of propaganda:

… several studies have used similar methods (see “Blame warming?“), but they all have dealt with events long after they have left the public consciousness.

It’s a bummer when issues leave the public consciousness. The poor stupid public can’t remember floods and cyclones for more than a week. What we need is real-time climate-blame, apparently:

In the new set-up, a real-world seasonal forecast driven by data on current sea-surface temperatures will be run alongside a simulated “no global warming” seasonal forecast, in which greenhouse gas emissions have been stripped out.

Then like shooting fish in a barrel, “scientists” can look back-with-hindsight at scores of broken models to see which ones accidentally got that particular extreme event right. Monkeys and models, eh?

If an extreme weather event occurs, researchers can look to see if the models predicted it. If it was predicted in the real-world seasonal forecast but not in the scenario which is stripped of emissions, then it was made more likely by climate change – a likelihood that can be calculated.

It won’t matter to a scientismic marketer whether the “right” model is a different model each time. They won’t be issuing 39 press releases when 39 models get it wrong. They’ll just cherry pick the lucky one and we can all goo-and-ahh at how clever they are.

It is, naturally, about money and power. What UN bureaucrat could turn down the excuse to be the conduit for billions of dollars they never had to earn?

International climate talks could be affected too. At recent United Nations meetings, it has been broadly agreed that money needs to be channelled from rich nations, which are historically responsible for the bulk of emissions, to poorer nations, which tend to suffer most from the impacts of those emissions. One way to do that would be to assign compensation after a nation suffers losses due to climate change. But in order for that to work, there needs to be a way to show that an island hit by a typhoon, say, would probably have been spared if global warming hadn’t been a factor. Weather-attribution studies could provide that information.

The real issue “ultimately” is about the western paying public who simply don’t give climate fearmongers enough respect or money.

Ultimately, though, the key contribution of this work may be to get through to a general public for whom climate change has long been an abstract concept. By showing that what’s going on outside someone’s window is directly linked to climate change, researchers hope it will become obvious that what they are saying isn’t just a load of hot air.

How “abstract” is climate change? Lucky we have science magazines to make storms, floods and rain real for dumb voters who don’t understand these things going on outside the window.

The problem for Catherine Brahic is that the dumb voters do understand, they realize the climate always changes, they realize the modelers have failed, they know ice ages and hotter times have come and gone without any man-made CO2. They remember the prediction that children won’t know what snow is.

Non Scientist, long ago threw away scientific rules of logic and reason and the need for empirical evidence. Shame. It used to be an excellent magazine. Vale Nigel Calder.

I want the word scientist back. This faith in models is no better than rune stones.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.3/10 (105 votes cast)
Scientists-of-PR jump the shark, assign "climate blame" percentage for each event, 9.3 out of 10 based on 105 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/p8dvvq4

134 comments to Scientists-of-PR jump the shark, assign “climate blame” percentage for each event

  • #
    Keith L

    New Scientist slid off the rails about thirty years ago, but don’t worry.
    An excellent magazine called Viz came out around that time and is an ideal replacement.

    170

  • #
    Graeme No.3

    The team’s results were published online on 30 April,

    Why were they 29 days late? Can they blame the delay on climate change?

    130

  • #
    Leo Morgan

    I certainly want to subscribe to a magazine that resembles the New Scientist of Nigel Calder’s editorship.
    You know, one with science rather than politics.
    As for the technique described above, I ran it after my neighbour’s second division win on the Lottery. Apparently Global Warming makes him a thousand times more likely to win the Lottery. Makes you think, eh?

    160

    • #
      James the Elder

      Sooooooo the record cold felt here last winter was what percentage my fault? Had I not fed more CO2 to the system so as not to FREEZE would it have been even colder?

      I think this winter I will install solar to boil water outside to provide more GHG warmth as CO2 certainly is not doing it.

      00

  • #
    Lord Jim

    A new technique connecting individual weather events with the impact of greenhouse gas emissions could bring climate change into everyday weather reports

    Eh? But climate change causes so much more than changes in the weather: http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/globalwarming2.html

    Surely this policy should therefore be extended to news reporting in general…

    e.g.
    -aggressive weeds, climate change 70% responsible*.
    -cougar attacks up 50% as a result of climate change.
    -fir cone bonanza, climate change 33.34% to blame.
    -Civil unrest, climate change suspected culprit.
    -…

    O, hang on … the ABC already does this !!!

    ———————————————————-

    *[Any figures appearing in this work are purely fictitious. Any resemblance to figures, real or modeled, is purely coincidental.]

    130

  • #
    handjive

    Quoting Dr William Connelley:

    “Climate is the statistics of weather. I’m puzzled as to how you could have failed to learn that already.”

    joannenova,
    comment #3.4.1.1.2
    William Connolley
    July 14, 2014 at 10:56 pm
    . . .

    “Those of us who dissent from mainstream thinking about climate change truly are voices in the wilderness, analogous to the Rebel Alliance in the fictional Star Wars’ universe. Scattered, underfunded, thin-on-the-ground – that’s us.”
    Donna Laframboise

    Seems Dr Connelley is a climate rebel now.

    121

    • #
      The Backslider

      Climate is the statistics of weather. I’m puzzled as to how you could have failed to learn that already

      Good to see Connolley admit that climate models are statistics, not science……

      90

    • #
      Keith L

      Sounds like he has fallen for the fallacy that weather is always randomly moving around a fixed mean like an electron around a stationary nucleus.
      When you explain that the central point about which it is fixed also moves they cannot take it on board.
      It seems to me that the most climate related measures form curves which are self similar over almost any time scale.

      50

      • #
        Greg Cavanagh

        Nature is full of fractals. I think it’s no surprise that the temperature record should also look self-similar at various scales.

        20

      • #
        bobl

        Yes, Keith, this seems to be a common problem, assuming one can assign a fixed mean to a chaotic variable. One of the hallmarks of chaotic system is that the integral is no more stationary than the variable itself.

        00

    • #
      Ted O'Brien.

      Confusion ruling here, or attempting to rule.

      Climate is not statistics of any kind. Climate is climate.

      You could say that the record of climate is the statistics of weather.

      This reminds me of the great lie, generated for the purpose of creating and maintaining confusion, that climate and weather are different things. They are exactly the same thing viewed in different time frames.

      To begin to build a climate record, you must first build a year’s worth of weather records.

      101

      • #
        Peter C

        I thought Climate was the average of the weather taken over 30 years.
        An average is a statistic, but it does not tell you a great deal.

        20

        • #
          Rud Istvan

          Not just the average. The variation, the shape of that distribution, the weather envelope. And one must specify where, as weather is local/regional. And one must specify when not because of seasonality but because of quasi-cyclic ocean cycles like ENSO, PDO, AMO. The 30 year definition used by WMO and NOAA is probably too short, missing the impact of multidecadal ocean cycles now being used as pause explanatios.

          60

          • #
            bobl

            Not to mention that 1/2 (max + min) is pointless as a metric, if it was consistently 5 degrees colder at 9AM than it used to be you would completely miss the trend. I reckon average of hourly temp is the absolute minumum you want to go. If say Willis is right about time of tropical cloud emergence then thats pretty much exactly what would happen. It would only show up in the hourlys, min/max may not be affected much, just the rate of morning warming.

            00

            • #
              Bulldust

              Much of statistics is pointless. There’s a big difference between stats that illuminate a system and those that are merely stats. This exercise sounds like Monte Carlo simulation gone wild. All Monte Carlo simulation does is reveal the probability distribution of outcomes based on the input assumptions in your model. If the assumptions are suspect the output is pure fantasy, aka GIGO.

              http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monte_Carlo_method

              00

  • #
    Martin

    I also remember that even the IPPC give a
    ‘There is only medium confidence that the length and frequency of warm spells, including heat waves, has increased since the middle of the 20th’ and
    ‘Confidence is low for a global-scale observed trend in drought or dryness (lack of rainfall) since the middle of the 20th century’
    Given how the their 95% we need to tax the air models have turn out…
    Low and medium confidence don’t hold hold any weight.

    http://judithcurry.com/2014/01/06/ipcc-ar5-weakens-the-case-for-agw/

    70

  • #
    bemused

    This is beginning to sound like our motor vehicle accident reporting. Following every accident, police always state that speed was a contributing factor, with no further explanation as to whether it was the primary, secondary or even tertiary contributor to the accident (which aspect is actually the most important contributor and one worthy of investigation etc?). However, it’s true, if no car ever moves, there will never be a motor vehicle accident. Therefore, the analogous climate reporting and association of contributing factors to weather events cannot be so easily (or willingly?) refuted.

    90

    • #
      bobl

      Have you noticed that the police NEVER EVER say , the shoddy road that is more patch than surface caused the accident, or that the reverse camber on that particular bend caused it. Or that the driver was distracted by the speed trap that caused the accident. The stupid, dangerous crossing created by the roadwork men caused the accident, the road workers markers and guards obscured the vision of the driver. Or the car ended in the river because the councils roads can’t drain 10 mm of rain in an hour in a tropical zone.

      All situations I have personally seen.

      20

  • #
    mmxx

    Is climate change now replacing weather change as the new norm for hour by hour variability in the milieu in which we struggle to exist on this “doomed” planet?

    I’m confused now.

    Is it anthropogenic climate change (or part thereof) I thank for a very pleasant weather afternoon we are experiencing here in SE Queensland today?

    160

    • #

      mmxx – Good point. Now for every mild day in winter we can expect them say that it was 27% warmer than usual due to man-made climate change, right? How about all the frosts we avoid? All days which would otherwise have been frosty can be attributed to your SUV… Can someone calculate what that’s worth?

      Or the death rates — how many people are saved because of cold snaps that weren’t as bad as they might have been?

      241

      • #
        Annie

        I wonder to what one attributes the recent frosty mornings here in North Central Vic? We had some quite sharp ones last week up until Friday. It really must be that global warming/sarc (was that really necessary?).

        40

        • #
          bobl

          Of course not, CO2 (well mostly H2O) stops surface radiation and surface radiation causes frost… Our children wont know what frost is, what a tragedy!

          10

    • #
      Streetcred

      I read on a news headline (Weather Channel) that we’ve had a warm winter here in SEQ … going by my wife’s blanket index, we’ve hit two blankets, means that it has been a cold winter. I noticed, as well, the other day, that suddenly cold night snap mid-week, that the BoM was recording our min.T at ~14C … on the blanket index it must have been at least as low as 10C.

      Well I got some news for the Weather Channel … BS, and my wife (PhD, academic) agrees, peer reviewed and all.

      50

      • #
        bobl

        Only in Brisbane perhaps, here in the Lockyer we’ve had a pretty cold one based on my evil kerosene (fossil fuel) bill. Spring is shaping up a bit warm, glorious one day, perfect the next punctuated by just enough rain to keep the tanks full, and the crops moist – this is as close to perfect as you can get, roll on global warming.

        30

  • #
    The Backslider

    Hot, cold, wet or dry, still, windy or hurricane…..it’s all “climate change” caused by CO2…. didn’t you know??

    90

  • #
    Bill Irvine

    If they are so good at making predictions why are they not all steenking rich?
    Even an edge of 10% will reap dividends for a professional gambler.
    Could it be that bookies do not accept bets on events that have already happened?

    120

  • #
    Max Roerts

    Whenever there is a weather forecast, and they something like “25% chance of rain tomorrow” I always wonder how they actually calculated that, and whether the predictions along these lines have been validated.

    90

    • #
      SG

      That calculation’s actually pretty simple. They take the predicted barometric pressure, wind, temperature, etc, and look back on days with similar readings. The percent chance is the number of days that there has been rain with those conditions.

      Which is, incidentally, why you almost never see 0% or 100%.

      30

  • #
    handjive

    Among all its fiddles, has BOM become lost on what is climate and what is weather?
    Graham Williamson’s inquiry is here:

    From: Malcolm Roberts
    Subject: Fwd: Climate change
    Date: 16 March 2014

    To: “‘Helpdesk Climate’” Helpdesk.Climate@bom.gov.au,

    Hi there,
    Thank you for your response.
    Your report [ http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/annual/aus/ ],

    and your claim that “the purpose of the Annual Climate Statement is to describe the climate of the past year”, make no sense at all.

    How can you have an annual climate statement when you admit, by your definitons below, that such short term weather data is ‘weather’, not ‘climate’?

    Your own definitions contradict your report and create the clear impression that your report has no scientific basis whatsoever.

    Your definitions of ‘Climate and Weather’.
    In brief: the weather of any place refers to the atmospheric variables for a brief period of time.
    Climate, however, represents the atmospheric conditions for a long period of time, and generally refers to the normal or mean course of the weather …”
    http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/glossary/climate.shtml

    Read on: http://www.galileomovement.com.au/docs/gw/GrahamWilliamsonCC.pdf
    . . .
    The BoM better get busy and change their definitions, dare they be called ‘deniers’.

    70

  • #
    Peter Miller

    There is absolutely no way whatsoever that we can quantify man’s influence on today’s weather or climate. To do so, we would need access to a parallel universe and an Earth where man did not exist.

    For anyone to claim he/she can quantify man’s influence on weather/climate is just like using Mannian Maths, a methodology where you can ‘prove’ whatever you want by using your own very unique form of statistical analysis.

    I have noted that ‘climate scientists’ are reluctantly coming around to admitting to the existence of natural climate cycles, but still cannot make the final step of admitting that these could have continued to occur during the last 50 years or so.

    The expression “BS baffles brains” is entirely appropriate here, as GIGO computer models are used to make these totally spurious claims about being able to measure man’s influence on weather and climate.

    If only there was less money sloshing around in the troughs of ‘climate research’, there might be a chance of some real objective research being done which did not always come up with the obligatory conclusion that Thermageddon is imminent. So much money attracts all kinds of opportunists and creates a situation similar to welfare dependency.

    120

    • #
      sophocles

      The oceans have done it for us. In an earlier post Jo pointed to a pivotal paper, Morner’s one about the Kattaegat sea. Beenstock et al figures agree. Teresa Cole’s investigation into acceleration of sea level rise around NZ’s coast over last century, found ”no statistically significant acceleration.”

      Therefore: there is anthropogenic footprint in the slight global warming over the twentieth century and CO2 is not guilty.

      Man’s influence has been duly quantified and found wanting.

      10

      • #
        sophocles

        (@#$@#$% keyboarD! It’s got a M*******t brand printed on it … and it can’t type straitght)

        Correction:

        There is no anthropogenic footprint in the slight global warming over the twentieth century and CO2 is not guilty

        00

  • #

    “Despite all those blue coloured Viagra snag-them-in headlines and those easy brain mush articles of kiddie science for the under twelves, Professor X has become Doctor Droopy. The circulation numbers are all still heading south and the readerships, especially the young, are all heading out into those more interesting Mad Max badlands of the science blogosphere.”

    http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2012/07/20/the-decline-of-popular-science-journals/

    Pointman

    130

  • #
    Ted O'Brien.

    We already have an element like this in our weather forecasting – the forecast “UV Index”. I was surprised just now to see that for our first four days of spring this will be “moderate”. It usually appears to me to be biased on the high to extreme side. The terrorism side.

    And for how many people is this significant? Not many Australians spend their time in the midday sun these days, and those who do don’t need a forecast to take proper measures fot it..

    40

  • #
    ROM

    Vale Nigel Calder.

    Nigel David McKail Ritchie Calder, science writer:
    born London 2 December 1931;
    married 1954 Elisabeth Palmer (two sons, three daughters);
    died Crawley, Sussex 25 June 2014.

    “Calders Updates”
    Where you can get right into the guts of Hentrik Svensmark’s theories on the role of cosmic rays and their interactions with the solar magnetic fields and their role in cloud formation and the consequent global cooling which seems to be a slowly developing trend.

    Nigel Calder was a great supporter of Henrik Svensmark and his theories and has gone into detail in his “Calders Updates” blog on Svensmark’s cosmic ray theory of cloud formation along with the results and outcomes of CERN’s experiments in the CERN cloud chamber built especially to test Svensmark’s theory.

    But Henrik Svensmark also has a further theory that is almost unknown amongst the public science aficionados’ which relates to the the possibility of a nearby Super Novae [ thats not spelt "Nova" by the way :-) ] having a large role in the development of life on this planet which Nigel Calder again posted on his blog and which one can read there also;

    This below on the same subject from the Royal Astronomical Society

    Did exploding stars help life on Earth to thrive?

    New Scientist which Niger Calder was the editor of for many years was probably the most looked for weekly magazine in our household even by my wife who is definitely not technically or science orientated, beginning from the late 1950′s until I stopped subscribing probably around 1990 when it had sunk to the level of “Little green men found on Mars” standards of science.

    What a difference between the stretching of minds to encapsulate new ideas and new concepts when we look at Calder and Svensmark and then compare their attitudes and mentalities to the shallowness, the narrowness and sheer infantility of the minds that Jo refers to above. Small minds that are still desperately grasping at the same tired old straws and still raking over the same tired old ashes of the two decades long still unproven theory of a CO2 created catastrophic warming which all those tiny minds, all those many thousands of them, still cannot find any hard evidence of after 25 years despite their increasingly frantic endeavors to turn any possibility into a blancmange of infantile hypothesizing about the climatic dangers supposedly facing humanity.

    120

  • #
    blackadderthe4th

    ‘ This faith in models is no better than rune stones.’ so nobody would tale a flight in an airplane them? Because they rely on computer models.

    Your non-sequitur logic is always so breathtaking BA. Still don’t have any evidence to back up your faith in climate models then eh? – Jo

    235

    • #
      the Griss

      Oh BA4, you really are such a stupid person. !!:-)

      Its as though your mind never progressed past primary school age.

      132

      • #
        Ron Cook

        I remember a phrase from my pre-teens in the UK which could be applied to ba4:-
        “his mind is filled with a multiplicity of disarranged ideas”

        R-COO- K+

        60

        • #
          the Griss

          “his mind is filled with a multiplicity of disarranged ideas”

          deranged !! :-)

          51

          • #
            ROM

            Or;

            His mind is like concrete.
            All mixed up and set hard

            70

            • #
              Geoff Sherrington

              I was once bawled out before a class of peers by a teacher asserting “Your brain is a putrefying mass used to fertilise the roots of your hair.”
              It was in the 60s, after all. Hairy times.
              Geoff.

              60

          • #
            stan stendera

            Disarranged works just fine. We probably won’t be bother with him much. He’s apparently intoxicated.

            20

    • #
      Sean McHugh

      so nobody would tale a flight in an airplane them? Because they rely on computer models.

      We like to make sure the plane can fly, first. The climate models don’t fly.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gN-ZktmjIfE

      Got any hard ones?

      170

    • #

      Were is the BlackAdder of yesteryear?

      Pointman

      60

      • #

        … or where even …

        P

        50

      • #
        Graeme No.3

        Captain John Blackadder served as a rifleman in 1914 and ended the war as a Captain attached to the North Scottish Garrison Artillery. He fought in the Battle of the Somme and was awarded the Military Cross in 1918 for “conspicuous gallantry”. He survived the war and moved to Sussex where he died June 1968 aged 84.

        Private Baldrick fought at the Battle of Le Cateau but was killed Oct. 20, 1914 at the Battle of Messines.

        I suspect the BA4 making inane remarks is not a direct descendant but “an illegitimate son of a whatnot”.

        60

    • #
      Heywood

      “so nobody would tale a flight in an airplane them? Because they rely on computer models.”

      You are correct BA4 that modern aircraft design relies on computer modelling.

      The difference, of course, between aircraft design and climate models is that we actually observe aircraft doing what the computer models predict.

      The same can’t be said for climate models.

      Imagine if aircraft design models had the same hit rate as the climate models?? Most wouldn’t even leave the ground and those that did would crash very soon after takeoff, much like your credibility did after your first post on this blog.

      240

    • #
      markx

      Ha ha BA4.. Good one …

      Except you are forgetting the output of those models are tested in wind tunnels… And then in flight tests… BEFORE they are used in real life.

      70

    • #
      Radical Rodent

      Quite remarkable. We appear to have found someone who has absolutely no idea about the history and development of flight as a common means of transport in the modern world. Not only that, but also does not appear to have any understanding of quite what models (outside climatastrophy) are used for. Not so much Blackadder, more like Baldrick. So… what is your cunning plan?

      120

    • #
      Streetcred

      LOL, if you were in a simulator you might be right but even then you would still not be going anywhere. To take physical flight in an aircraft implies a mechanical action in a real life aircraft. Maybe I miss your point though … in your world, probably adled with ICE or some other mind altering substance, it would be easy to take flight in a computer model.

      20

    • #
      bobl

      Aircraft models are physically deterministic, not statistical and aircraft designed by models are actually flown for many hours before you or I step onto them. Noone in their right mind relies on models. You will also find there are no assumptions in them, for example no aircraft models assume that thrust will be multiplied by 3 by a magical gas comprising 0.04% of the atmosphere.

      40

    • #
      Andrew

      Actually I prefer flying those planes that have had components tested, assembled into a working plane flown by test pilots and extensively validated in all possible conditions in practice.

      00

  • #
    john karajas

    Oh, but how perfect for the English Literature graduates in the News sections of the Australian Broadcasting Commission to invoke. You see, “credible” (by their reckoning) scientists can now quantify almost precisely the man-made influence on a weather event.

    Orwellian times are upon us.

    100

  • #
    Gary in Erko

    The day was perfect for a picnic. Is it 73.84% or 19.27% due to man-made-emissions? Why should we only notice and find measurements for cataclysmic events? An ordinary non-remarkable day could have been a day with devastating hail & storm, but lucky for us man-made-emissions caused it to be benign. What’s the chance of that?

    90

  • #
    Dagfinn

    The biggest problem as I see it is that there has been no increase in most extreme events. If there had been, there would at least be some plausibility to these calculations. (Plausible does not equal true, but it’s at least closer than what they have now.)

    40

    • #
      Gary in Erko

      There’s been a large increase in almost average events, and the likelihood of that is fairly extreme. Will that do instead?

      00

  • #
    Fox From Melbourne

    If the Climate Scientist’s coming out after the event saying your model predicted that we new it was going to happen. If they have such a model that predicted a storm or something were somebody dies and then they don’t warning people ahead of time they should go to jail for murder. They should be sued for all the damage’s that happened to all those poor people they didn’t warn a head of time. I see this back firing big time on them if they try it.

    81

    • #
      JLC

      Some scientists in Italy were jailed for failing to predict an earthquake. Perhaps “climate scientists” should think about this before getting deeply into the predictions game.

      This jailing seems totally unreasonable to me but it is a legal precendent….

      40

      • #
        Yonniestone

        If they want to officially use this method of prediction for public consumption then yes any failures resulting in public loss can become grounds for legal action.

        Though I guarantee there will be some legal loophole for accountability based on rune tossing percentages that will protect the proponents of such a system.

        Remember we’re dealing with an irrational thought process so be assured there will be an insane exit strategy or explanation that will create a legal cycle equivalent to a killer polar vortex.

        30

      • #
        Peter Miller

        You should never forget the golden rules of ‘climate science’, in this instance:

        Rule No.7: Never make a prediction which could occur before your pension is 100% secure.

        And let us never forget Rule No. 1: Thou shallt not be found out.

        50

    • #
      handjive

      Hear Hear, Fox From Melbourne.
      Accountability please.
      ~ ~ ~
      February 20, 2014

      Bureau of Meteorology prepares to cop flak for failing to forecast Geelong storm

      The Bureau of Meteorology is bracing for criticism for not warning of a “super cell” storm that dumped 49 millimetres of rain in 20 minutes on Geelong late on Wednesday afternoon.
      But senior forecaster Scott Williams said there was little the bureau could have done differently to warn of the “intense” storm, given its radar settings and the storm’s “freakish” nature.
      He described the storm as like a “cold, tropical storm”, dumping three millimetres of rain a minute during the short burst.

      http://www.theage.com.au/environment/weather/bureau-of-meteorology-prepares-to-cop-flak-for-failing-to-forecast-geelong-storm-20140220-332dq.html

      Of course we have the Queensland floods of 2011, where:

      “THE head of the Bureau of Meteorology in the Toowoomba region has admitted the bureau could have called Toowoomba Regional Council to warn it of an impending flash flood before the wall of water tore through the city on January 10.”
      http://www.thechronicle.com.au/news/bureau-could-have-warned-about-flood-toowoomba/828066/

      And lest we forget:

      A SCHOOLBOY who begged rescuers to save his little brother first is among a dozen people drowned.

      Police are continuing to comb cars, trees, creeks and houses for trapped bodies.

      Jordan Rice, 13, was sucked to his death with his 43-year-old mother Donna Rice moments after bystanders waded into raging floodwaters to save them.

      http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-depth/queensland-floods/take-my-brother-first-heroic-final-act-saves-sibling/story-fn7iwx3v-1225986648911

      The BoM predicted drought & fire in 2009:
      Drought and fire here to stay with El Nino’s El Niño return

      http://www.theage.com.au/national/drought-and-fire-here-to-stay-with-el-ninos-return-20090216-899u.html#ixzz1nrZUq1ik

      Accountability Please.

      30

  • #
    Ron hotchkiss

    This is why I haven’t watched the weather channel, or even local weather stations in 15 years. With a few clicks on a key pad, I have all the tools needed to make a reliable forecast, as good or better than my local weather service, who use mat/met mos products that are always too warm and always miss the first and last frost of the season for my area. This makes the growing season appear 3 weeks longer than it really is. Of course, it might also require one to get a little dirt on their shoes, and actually walk outside and observe the weather in person.

    50

  • #

    Next year’s weather forecasts: “80% chance of precipitation 60% caused by climate change with 10% chance of armageddon-wet flooding”. Take-away: your umbrella.

    50

  • #
    Sundance

    What’s next? A world where CO2 fascists issue humans a limited life based on government allocated CO2 emissions credits that we can watch elapse on some surgically inserted CO2 meter?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdadZ_KrZVw#t=65

    70

  • #
    Sean McHugh

    They then use these to model the chances of individual storms, or floods — something they were not designed to do.

    . . . . . . .

    Was that flood 35% due to man-made emissions? Was that tornado 50% more deadly? (Did it rain on your wedding day? Sue someone!)

    Even if the models weren’t as lousy at making predictions, they would still be somewhat redundant. Say, for instance, they predict a 50% greater chance of tornadoes. The increase should be reflected in the data records. One can see if there has been a corresponding ~50% increase in the number of tornadoes. The trouble is, it would also make the AGW models for tornadoes redundant in determining event probability.

    Anyway, is there any such thing as an official global-warming-tornado model? I’m betting not.

    20

  • #
    Bob Fox

    I use a simple heuristic to determine false invocation of the traditional prestige of science. Science does not need to be qualified by a prefixed word.
    Disciplines which use the scientific method are called e.g. physics, chemistry, etc.. Compare and contrast “The Science”, climate science, political science, social science, government scientist.

    New Scientist is red flagged by this rule.

    50

  • #

    In genuine empirical sciences there a recognized issue of “false positives”. That is producing a confirming instance of a hypothesis, when it is not. They set up data quality standards and controls to minimize this problem. Such sciences have progressed by recognizing natural human beliefs and biases in scientific processes, and seeking to confront and eliminate those factors.
    Climatologists try very hard to make every anomalous weather event fit their theory, by using any standard that suits, and eliminating any quality controls. The mark of a “Climate Scientist” is belief in the truth of a particular set of results. Failure to find confirmation therefore means you have not looked hard enough, or the data was wrongly measured.

    80

  • #
    TdeF

    People manage to avoid talking about CO2. We get phrases like “man made emissions”. What emissions?

    The only emission which is ever under discussion is evil Carbon Dioxide. Even water vapour, which is produced in equal quantity in hydrocarbon combustion is a far more significant greenhouse gas, but as it already covers the planet and forms dark clouds and is highly visible and the most significant part of every weather event, it is never mentioned and the suggestion that man produced water changes climate is considered laughable. So having failed to show that CO2 actually changes temperature, where you can easily show that H2O changes everything, we now have to believe that CO2 changes the likelihood of “extreme events”.

    Really? What is the actual mechanism which connects CO2 to “extreme events”? Anyone? If CO2 does not change the temperature as predicted with such certainty, how does it actually change climate? How does it change anything and what exactly does it change? Does CO2 really cause floods, tornadoes, hurricanes, extreme rainfall, drought? You would think so, simply because it is a “man made emission”, even if it is perfectly natural combustion of decayed plant matter returning to CO2 and H20.

    In all this hyperventilation, itself a source of unnecessary CO2, no one has bothered to explain any science connecting an increase in the trace gas CO2 to extreme events. Except that vaguely things happen and every thing must have a cause and a CO2 increase is happening so it must have produced the change. No proof except vague coincidence, maybe. And statistics. So forget the entire science of stoichiometric chemistry and physical chemistry. We now have physical chemistry by probability and association. Now that takes us back five hundred years. Druidic science. Windmills. Henges. High priests. Maybe the BOM and the IPCC can bring back human sacrifice? It works, half the time.

    120

    • #
      Radical Rodent

      These are the type of questions I asked at the beginning of this debacle, when I had seen Al Gore’s film and was convinced it was true. It was the responses to those questions (none of which were actually answered) that converted me to the idea that it was all bunkum.

      Why others cannot see such a glaring truth remains a mystery.

      120

    • #
      The Backslider

      Man’s emissions of water vapor are billions of tons daily…. a squillion more times than CO2

      But then…. totally insignificant compared to nature’s emissions…. (same for CO2)

      30

  • #
    b

    Re New Scientist I used to enjoy Daedalus. Like good science fiction (AC Clarke, Asimov, etc) it was always just possible.

    10

  • #
    Radical Rodent

    Out of interest, has anyone seen the Guardian article on these BOM adjustments? I would post a link, but do not think it worth it, as it is truly dire (especially with Jennifer Marohasy) – should you be interested, you know where to go.

    20

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    So the almost universally misunderstood percent sign is now going to be used against the very people who misunderstand it? I don’t know about anyone else but that scares me.

    It gets worse almost by the day. :-(

    30

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      Where is Superman when you need him? I’d even settle for The Lone Ranger. But they aren’t around these days.

      30

      • #
        Yonniestone

        I’m here…Captain Skidmark!

        Would you settle for that? :)

        20

        • #
          Roy Hogue

          You’re supposed to have anti lock brakes these days. No skid marks. ;-)

          On the other hand, if we could get them to stop with any kind of brakes it would be really good. So maybe we should give it a try. Let’s see, what emblem should be on your chest? Maybe a worn out tire?

          Reminds me of when my son was small and he needed something fixed. I gave myself the secret identity of “Invincible Man” because at least in his eyes I could do anything. Invincible Man to the rescue.

          That’s who we really need, Invincible Man!

          Too bad he’s retired too.

          30

          • #
            Yonniestone

            Every superhero comes out of retirement at least once Roy ;)
            The movie ‘Watchmen’ is a great portrayal of this theme and the best superhero movie of all time IMO, Judge Dredd is always a favorite though.

            Captain Skidmark has a yellow streak on his chest as intense fear is his superpower along with the superhuman adrenaline fuelled strength that self preservation and cowardice can produce, a good ally to have but best to stand clear of any exit doors.

            20

            • #
              Geoff Sherrington

              Yonnie,
              Major Skidmark is what geriatrics are told to avoid in the toilet bowl. Geoff.

              30

            • #
              Roy Hogue

              Yonni,

              Now that I’m to be a grandfather maybe Invincible Man will have the opportunity to come out of retirement once in a while. But I never was in the business of saving the world. That’s too much of a job for me. So I don’t think I’ll try it now. The qualifications are awesomely high, walking on water, flying, X-ray vision and all…well…you get the picture I think.

              Nice daydream of course. ;-)

              00

  • #
    Pat Frank

    They used real-world data to simulate the season that had just passed, then stripped the data of the influence of greenhouse gas emissions and ran the simulation again. The scenario was simulated thousands of times in order to calculate the odds of getting a bout of extremely wet weather at that particular time of year.

    Model error will not have been propagated through any of those simulations, and not one of them will have had physical error bars. The entire enterprise is physically meaningless. While the scientists involved haven’t a clue.

    This is now far science has fallen. These people are no longer cognizant of even the basics.

    90

    • #
      ROM

      They used real-world data to simulate the season that had just passed, then stripped the data of the influence of greenhouse gas emissions and ran the simulation again.

      That took my eye also and then the question;

      How the h**l did they know which and what was the actual green house emissions data that they decided they had to strip from the real world weather data?
      Even after three decades of constant, high powered, very highly funded research along with multitudinous super computers to run the climate models and now five AR reports from that centre of all climate knowledge [ sarc ] the IPCC, there is still no definite or agreed climate sensitivity number, the number of degrees of warming that a doubling of pre-industrial CO2 levels will increase the global temperatures by.

      Without that precise sensitivity figure, which is not available and is still only guesstimated within a wide range these so called researchers are pulling a big con by implying they are so au fait with the climate science they can accurately calculate just what precise data and to what extent they have to delete that data from the full data base without at all bu**ering up the rest of their computations to come to a precise prediction [ post event naturally [ sarc? ] again] as to the contribution of anthropogenic climate change to a particular weather event lasting a couple of days in one tiny section of one small nation a planet sized body.

      The mind boggles at the utter inanity of the whole exercise let alone at the inanities of the [ scientific? ] minds that could possibly conceive of publicising such stupidity as some sort of representative science.

      40

  • #
    Unmentionable

    So they’re determined to turn everyone off watching a weather report now? They must fancy that the general public of bogan-land gives a stuff about it. People vote with their index finger on the remote. You’d think they’d notice by now that force-feeding people endless climate-change BS has become extremely counterproductive to their collective climate freak-out.

    60

  • #
    Greg Cavanagh

    I’ve long been offended by using percentages rates to represent risk on news articles.

    Doing X increases the risk of breast cancer by 20%.
    They have never yet said what the base risk is. Is it 0.5%, or 5%, or 50%?

    Telling us the increase of risk still tells us nothing about the risk.

    30

  • #
    handjive

    01 September 2014

    It’s Spring, It’s Spring.
    The bird is on the wing!

    Or is the wing on the bird?
    ~ ~ ~
    Remember Australia in Spring, October 2013, when there was a bushfire (started by ‘live’ army fire, not Global Warming)?
    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-depth/bushfires/nsw-bushfire-started-by-army-a-side-effect/story-fngw0i02-1226745716518

    Tony Abbott insisted that bushfires aren’t linked to climate change.
    https://theconversation.com/are-the-nsw-bushfires-linked-to-climate-change-19480

    Al Gore enters NSW bushfire climate debate, criticises PM Tony Abbott
    http://www.news.com.au/national/al-gore-enters-nsw-bushfire-climate-debate-criticises-pm-tony-abbott/story-fncynjr2-1226745826229

    Soon, everything was a cause for climate panic:

    Extreme weather in Queensland and Australia is intensifying, but is climate change the culprit?
    http://www.news.com.au/technology/science/extreme-weather-in-queensland-and-australia-is-intensifying-but-is-climate-change-the-culprit/story-fn5fsgyc-1226747006322

    Climate change threatens tourism as ski slopes thaw, seas rise
    http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/06/17/us-climatechange-tourism-idUSKBN0ES28D20140617

    So … to Spring 2014:

    Forecast Updated: 5:20am 01/09/2014
    “Welcome to Sweet September where things start to look up with some snow on the horizon.
    It starts tonight with light showers developing ahead of a cooler that should see light snowfalls developing by the morning in VIC resorts and moving up into NSW.
    We should see around 5-10cm tomorrow and then light scattered snow showers across Wednesday and Thursday.

    The next snow bearing system looks to be arriving on the 11th. Prior to this there may be some showers and strong winds. Winds will remain strong as the cool change arrives on the 11th bringing around 5-10cm of new snow across the 11th-13th.

    Looking long range there is another system that also looks like bringing some more snow around the 16th-17th with possible showers on the lower slopes.”
    http://www.snowatch.com.au/long-range-snow-forecast.php

    BoM Snowy Mountains Forecast
    Forecast issued at 5:17 am EST on Monday 1 September 2014.
    http://www.bom.gov.au/nsw/forecasts/snowy.shtml
    . . .
    Q. So, will we see the usual suspects point to snow as a sign of man made Apocalyptic Global Warming?
    A. Rhetorical question.

    20

  • #
    Yonniestone

    Funny thing when reading the New Scientist link I got a pop up ad for skiing at Mt Buller, according to the warmist doctrine they support snow was supposed to be a thing of the past by now, I wonder what the models prediction percentage wise of this occurringwould be , 56%, 23%?

    FWIW today the forecast for snow in the Victorian Alpine regions is snowfall down to 1200 m, isn’t it the first day of spring? oh well it’s just weather that has nothing to do with a CO2 biased computer model.

    41

  • #

    This man, (Hayden Walker, at this link showing his page of links) is a Long Range Weather Forecaster. He took over from his father Lennox Walker, who took over from Inigo Jones, who continued the work of Clem Wragge. (all as shown at this link)

    Here we have a group of men doing the same work with detailed records going back to the late 1800′s.

    They call that Long Range ….. WEATHER Forecasting.

    It seems what we are subject to these days is Short Range ….. CLIMATE Forecasting.

    I think we’ve got it ar$e about.

    Tony.

    71

    • #

      For the life of me, I can’t figure out these people who have their religious belief in CAGW. As soon as I even mention those people I wrote about in the above comment, they sneer and refer to them as merchants of mumbo jumbo.

      In fact these guys have been using climate modelling for anything up to a hundred years before that term was even invented.

      Tony.

      60

    • #
      James Bradley

      Long Range Weather Forecasters: used empirical data, made direct observations, kept meticulous records, used commonsense and knowledge of natural trends to accurately forecast future weather patterns.

      Climate Scientists: homogenised all historical data, ignored natural patterns, manufactured trends, refused to divulge records, used models that failed to recreate past weather events to predict future weather events.

      11

  • #
    Robber

    Search for global climate definition on Google and up front you get an ad from NASA: Global climate is the average climate over the entire planet. And the reason scientists and folks like you are concerned is that Earth’s global climate is changing. The planet is warming up fast—faster than at any time scientists know about from their studies of Earth’s entire history. That is followed by a spiel about NASA’s Climate Kids – real science (not).

    Wikipedia says: Climate is a measure of the average pattern of variation in temperature, humidity, atmospheric pressure, wind, precipitation, atmospheric particle count and other meteorological variables in a given region over long periods of time. Climate is different from weather, in that weather only describes the short-term conditions of these variables in a given region.

    And then the very (un)scientific US EPA says: Our Earth is warming. Earth’s average temperature has risen by 1.4°F over the past century, and is projected to rise another 2 to 11.5°F over the next hundred years. Small changes in the average temperature of the planet can translate to large and potentially dangerous shifts in climate and weather. The evidence is clear. Rising global temperatures have been accompanied by changes in weather and climate. Many places have seen changes in rainfall, resulting in more floods, droughts, or intense rain, as well as more frequent and severe heat waves. The planet’s oceans and glaciers have also experienced some big changes – oceans are warming and becoming more acidic, ice caps are melting, and sea levels are rising. As these and other changes become more pronounced in the coming decades, they will likely present challenges to our society and our environment.

    10

  • #
    Alice Thermopolis

    Thanks Jo

    Closer to home, we have Professor Andrew Pitman , Director of The ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science at the University of New South Wales. He presented last year’s UWA Joseph Gentilli Memorial Lecture on 22nd August.

    Pitman and his colleagues know that to remain relevant – and to justify climate research dollars spent annually – they have to offer something new. Alarmist rhetoric about “vulnerability to climate change” in half a century no longer does the trick. They have to convince governments – and the public – that more grant money will deliver something useful, such as “much more detailed temporal [daily, hourly] information around extremes”.

    For him, given the basic science is “boring” and “settled at the big picture scale”, the discipline’s “phenomenally interesting challenges” today are bringing global simulations “down to the catchment, regional and paddock scales; where they are needed by people who want to know what they are likely to be exposed to and vulnerable from in the future” (43.40min.)

    Yet any improvement in predicting changes in EWE frequency and intensity would require “improved representation of key processes in climate models” and resolution of other complex issues; with “much work needed to take careful account of uncertainty when delivering forecasts of extremes [EWEs] to users” (Karoly, WGSP, 2012, white paper, I3).

    Nevertheless, ARC is claiming success in its recent EWE research.

    AP: “ARC has now got to the stage of being able to attribute specific extreme events to specific causes. For instance, the heatwave event that hit Australia in January, we can now show that it wasn’t possible without the additional warming associated with global warming [DAGW]” (35.41min).

    People often say you can’t attribute a single event to DAGW. That is a myth. It is not true. It just takes a year or so of bloody hard work to do it. And you cannot do it when the media asks you fifteen minutes after the cyclone has hit whether that cyclone was linked to DAGW. You have got to do the year’s work.” (36.20min.)

    Mentioning the “p” (for prediction) word in this context invariably turns climate alarmists to stone or induces apoplexy, as are questions about whether “big picture [climate] science” really is “settled”.

    With regard to AGW causation of recent Australian EWEs, I later emailed Pitman asking if there was any research documenting successful prediction. Could he expand on his closing comment “We’ve done all that – prediction?”

    Apparently not; he replied only with links to these two research papers: “Anthropogenic contributions to Australia’s record summer temperatures of 2013” and “Local sea surface temperatures add to precipitation in northeast Australia during La Niña”.

    But explaining away a (any/every) EWE a year after the event, – as these papers do – is surely a different exercise from predicting a specific EWE? Nor do vague “probabilistic” statements – such as “EWEs will be more prevalent in the future because of dangerous anthropogenic global warming (DAGW) and climate change (DACC)” – cut it.

    Comparing “simulations with natural forcings” to “simulations with anthropogenic and natural forcings”, surely assumes accurate identification and quantification of both variables is possible – and that climate models accurately describe reality. But is it, and do they? NO and NO.

    For as Stott himself concluded in an earlier paper: “While it is possible for an attribution service to provide quantitative results, it is much harder to provide carefully validated results that include sufficient well-calibrated information that would enable a user to fully understand the capabilities and limitations of the information provided.”

    So “in the interim it will be important to manage expectations”; or, as in this paper, to attempt to manipulate them in a fog of pseudo-probabilistic calculations.

    50

    • #
      Richard C (NZ)

      >”For as Stott himself concluded in an earlier paper”

      Peter Stott from the UK Met Office I assume. See the #45.1 thread below.

      00

  • #
    thingadonta

    Prediction: percentage blame to humans will increase over time, irrespective of any actual data or events. This is the same process as occurs within the IPCC, where certainty of climate alarmism has increased over time despite the fact that the model predictions are getting worse over time.

    This is because bureaucracy, along with all it foibles, takes over:
    e.g.
    1) careerism of those within the bureaucracy, who compete with each other to impress their superiors and who compete to assign higher and higher levels of blame to humans.
    2) Competition of ideas within bureaucracy. Ideas get promoted because they support the hierarchy, as well as those which are the most sensationalist and alarmist. By the time the real facts come out, the idea has already taken root.
    3) Chinese whispers, where mistakes and exaggerations trend in the direction of alarmism.

    This kind of thing happens within ALL bureaucracies (including banks and the GFC, governments, public service etc), it’s just surprising that those within it often don’t see it. They should attend special courses to be aware of the pitfalls of group and bureaucratic thinking.

    40

  • #
    Yonniestone

    Ok OT but hope I get a hall pass down here.
    I received a text from my power provider AGL yesterday informing me that due to the Carbon Tax repeal I’ll be saving 7.2% off Gas and 8.9% off electricity bills, information on their website http://www.agl.com.au/residential/energy-plans/carbon-tax-repeal
    So I called AGL today on an unrelated matter and managed to mention the Carbon Tax repeal, after getting the spiel from the polite AGL person I queried the last link on the webpage ‘What can I do to reduce carbon emissions?’ pointing out that firstly it should read CO2 emissions as Carbon is a chemical element and secondly we should be increasing our emissions due to the recent positive greening effects shown on the earth via satellite images.

    The line went silent and I think I heard a thud type noise then I was asked if I needed any more assistance a quick thank you for calling then gone, not even the offer of a customer service survey. :)

    40

    • #

      So, while Yonnie has taken us a little OT here, let’s look at something with respect to electricity costs.

      This first link is for August 2004, ten years ago, and is to the costs for electricity (which has to be purchased at this wholesale cost of actual generation by the retailers) is from the Australian Regulator, the AEMO.

      This second link is for August 2014, last Month and details the same costs.

      Same Month, no CO2 Tax, one pre and the second post CO2 Tax.

      Now, compare the costs. They are (basically) similar, except for one State, South Australia.

      The only difference is that ten years ago, there were very few Wind Plants.

      Now, they proliferate in three States, but mostly in South Australia.

      Ten years ago, SA had both its aging coal fired power plants in operation, supplying 760MW of power for the State, and while that may not seem much, the total consumption in SA is considerably lower than in those other three major States, so those coal fired plants supplied most of what the State needed. One is now closed down, and the other only operates one unit.

      Power costs in SA in 2004 were stable with very few days where the cost rose higher than $40/MWH. Note especially the difference between the 24 hour cost and the Peak RRP, (7AM until 10PM) and again notice the relative sameness of the cost.

      Now, go to the 2014 costs and note that virtually every day is above $40/MWH. Note the difference between the two costs daily and Peak, and how they vary, sometimes quite wildly. Note how some days are well up beyond $100/WMH, some of them three times higher than in 2004.

      Please don’t try and tell me that renewable power, especially wind power, is cheap. Please don’t try and tell me wind power is as cheap as coal fired power. Please don’t try and tell me that wind power has acted as a downward driver towards cheaper electricity. Please don’t try and tell me that dumping subsidies will be a bad thing. And most of all, please don’t try and tell me that closing coal fired power plants will be of any use whatsoever.

      Tony.

      40

      • #
        Graeme No.3

        The ability of the Greens to shoot themselves in the foot is quite remarkable. They have pushed wind and solar (of all things) in Germany, and have bluffed the government there into aiming to shut down all their nuclear plants, which are being replaced by brown coal stations as “renewables” have made lower emission methods uneconomic. The net result…higher CO2 emissions.

        They’ve made Europe too expensive for a lot of industries which now produce/buy their products from China or India etc. The net result…higher CO2 emissions.

        They convinced the UK Government to subsidise burning wood chips instead of coal. Apart from the CO2 emissions associated with timber milling, drying, chipping and transporting the chips over the Atlantic, it turns out that they emit MORE CO2 per MWh than coal. The net result…higher CO2 emissions.

        They’ve convinced SA’s less than intelligent politicians that wind is cheap and lowers emissions. So now SA has to buy expensive power from Vic. from brown coal fired stations and cover fluctuations with expensive, high emissions OCGT. The net result…higher CO2 emissions (and electricity bills).

        Now they’ve persuaded President Hollande in France to reduce the 76% nuclear share of electricity to 50% and replace the difference using wind. Given the likely Capacity Factor of the turbines that means that roughly 75% of that 25% will be from OCGT or imported from brown coal stations in Germany. The net result will be…higher CO2 emissions.

        And these people claim that they want LOWER CO2 emissions! Would you buy a used climate model from them?

        100

        • #
          Streetcred

          It is a great pity, Graeme #3, that we are unable to train them to shoot themselves in the head … don’t worry about the foot or the mouth as these locations lead to higher and recurrent medical costs.

          10

  • #
    Richard C (NZ)

    Handy. At the New Scientist this interactive map of GISTEMP:

    YOUR WARMING WORLD

    The heat is on for the planet as a whole, but what has been happening where you live? Click on the map to find out, or enter a location in the search box at top right.

    The initial map shows average temperatures over the past 20 years; use the drop-down menu to see maps for earlier periods.

    http://warmingworld.newscientistapps.com/

    Interesting to compare the profiles with ACORN and NZT7 e.g. Amberley, Rutherglen and Bourke are topical, some background:

    ‘Modelling Australian and Global Temperatures: What’s Wrong?’
    Bourke and Amberley as Case Studies

    Jennifer Marohasy, John Abbot, Ken Stewart and Dennis Jensen,

    Also published in The Sydney Papers Online, Issue 26 following a presentation for the Sydney Institute on 25th June 2014

    [Shows GISTEMP Amberley but the series is much shorter for some reason]

    http://jennifermarohasy.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Changing_Temperature_Data.pdf

    Rutherglen

    [From ‘Temperatures’ at Jennifer Marohasy's blog]

    http://jennifermarohasy.com/temperatures/rutherglen/

    For example, the adjusted ACORN mid-1970s Rutherglen anomaly was higher than 2010 but GISTEMP does not exhibit the same near Albury – much cooler.

    The closest I can find from ACORN-SAT is the Murray Darling Basin:

    http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/index.shtml#tabs=Tracker&tracker=timeseries&tQgraph=tmean&tQarea=mdb&tQseason=0112&tQave_yr=

    That doesn’t show the mid-1970s warmer than 2010 either – far from it.

    I’m inclined to think the raw data is rather more reliable for Rutherglen – and let alone “Monkeys and models”.

    10

  • #
    pat

    31 Aug: UK Register: Richard Chirgwin: Today’s weather is brought to you by BigCorp.com
    Australia’s Bureau of Meteorology allowed to sling ads, but not politics
    The most popular site on the dot-gov-au domain, the Bureau of Meteorology, has been okayed to start taking advertising – with some restrictions.
    Australia’s Senate has passed legislation formalising the decision, so long as the bureau doesn’t take political advertisements, nor ads for gambling, alcohol, or – ahem – adult services.
    Last year, the Bureau was okayed to spend money preparing its Website for advertising. That was followed by a trial that commenced in March 2013 to test the strategy.
    (The Register would note that the trial seems to have been awfully quiet: as a regular, nay obsessive, user of the site, this author never noticed ads on the site.)…
    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/08/31/bureau_of_met_okayed_to_take_ads/

    u can read the rest…

    00

  • #
    pat

    scams upon scams…

    1 Sept: ABC: ACCC issues warning over carbon tax refund scam
    A warning has been issued about scammers cold calling people and claiming they are owed a refund of around $7,000 from the repeal of the carbon tax.
    The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission said the callers claim to be from a government department and ask for personal and bank account details.
    The ACCC’s Delia Rickard said a number of complaints have been received about the scam…
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-01/warning-issued-over-carbon-tax-refund-scam/5709274

    10

  • #
    Richard C (NZ)

    Also at the New Scientist:

    ‘Climate change: A guide for the perplexed’

    http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11462-climate-change-a-guide-for-the-perplexed.html

    Is the sun to blame?

    Climate myths: Global warming is down to the Sun, not humans

    16 May 2007 by Fred Pearce

    Direct measurements of solar output since 1978 show a steady rise and fall over the 11-year sunspot cycle, but no upwards or downward trend [hotlink].

    http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11650-climate-myths-global-warming-is-down-to-the-sun-not-humans.html

    The hotlink is to PMOD:

    http://www.pmodwrc.ch/pmod.php?topic=tsi/composite/SolarConstant

    Figure 5. The extended PMOD composite TSI as daily values plotted in different colors for the different originating experiments. The differences between the minima values is also indicated, together with amplitudes of the three cycles. PDF Figure [hotlink]

    ftp://ftp.pmodwrc.ch/pub/data/irradiance/composite/DataPlots/comp_ext_neu_42_64_1406.pdf

    Well, nearly 7 years on from Fred’s proclamation and what do we see? A distinct downward trend now Fred.

    30

    • #
      Richard C (NZ)

      Following on from #45

      Interesting thermodynamic concept from the Met Office reported by Newsweek — a reduced energy input into a system (planetary climate) results in more heat in the system than at higher energy input levels previously:

      ‘Why We’re Definitely Not Headed for Another Ice Age’

      By Howard Swains / August 15, 2014

      “The Met Office estimates that even in the most severe case of solar inactivity, mean global temperatures would only be affected by “a few tenths of a degree”. Estimates of the effects of global warming, on the other hand, put the temperature hike at up to four degrees.”

      http://www.newsweek.com/2014/08/22/why-were-definitely-not-headed-another-ice-age-264633.html

      These climate “scientists” are no more than charlatans and snake oil salesmen,

      20

      • #
        Yonniestone

        Snake oil salesmen at least have something tangible to sell. ;)

        20

      • #
        Richard C (NZ)

        Re #45.1 for those interested.

        UK Met Office guys Gareth Jones and Peter Stott are AR5 Chapter 10: Detection and Attribution authors.

        In Chapter 8: Radiative Forcing, we find the IPCC’s (tiny – the NIPCC has an entire chapter) solar case (from SOD):

        41 8.4.1.3 Attempts to Estimate Future Centennial Trends of TSI
        42
        43 Cosmogenic isotope and sunspot data (Rigozo et al., 2001; Usoskin et al., 2003) reveal that currently the Sun
        44 is in a grand activity maximum that began ~1920. However, SC 23 showed a previously unseen activity
        45 decline
        (McComas et al., 2008; Russell et al., 2010; Smith and Balogh, 2008). Most current estimations
        46 suggest that the forthcoming solar cycles will have lower TSI than the previous ones (Abreu et al., 2008;
        47 Lockwood et al., 2009; Rigozo et al., 2010; Russell et al., 2010; Velasco-Herrera et al., 2012). Recent
        48 estimates of the RF between the modern minimum in 2008 and this 21st century minimum
        indicate a
        49 negative RF of about 0.04–0.07 W m–2 (Jones et al., 2012; Velasco-Herrera et al., 2012). However, much
        50 more evidence is needed and at present we have a very low confidence concerning future solar forcing
        51 estimates.
        52
        53 Nevertheless, if there is such a diminished solar activity, there is a high confidence that the TSI RF variations
        54 will be much smaller than the projected increased forcing due to GHG
        (see Section 12.3.1).

        http://www.stopgreensuicide.com/Ch8_Radiative-forcing_WG1AR5_SOD_Ch08_All_Final.pdf

        Note the “very low confidence” followed by “Nevertheless” and “high confidence”.

        Jones et al., 2012 is:

        ‘What influence will future solar activity changes over the 21st century have on projected global near-surface temperature changes?’

        Gareth S. Jones, Mike Lockwood, and Peter A. Stott (2013)

        http://www.leif.org/EOS/2011JD017013.pdf

        Thus you have the enormous UK Met Office influence on AR5.

        Velasco-Herrera et al., 2012 (then, probably an advance) is now:

        ‘Reconstruction and prediction of the total solar irradiance: From the Medieval Warm Period to the 21st century’

        V M Velasco Herrera, B Mendoza, and G Velasco Herrera (2014)

        Article history:
        Received 2 July 2013
        Received in revised form 4 July 2014
        Accepted 11 July 2014
        Available online 23 July 2014
        Communicated by W. Soon

        http://www.researchgate.net/publication/264671457_Reconstruction_and_prediction_of_the_total_solar_irradiance_From_the_Medieval_Warm_Period

        00

        • #
          Richard C (NZ)

          Re #45.1.2

          For the record. Mike Lockwood, Univ Reading and co-author Jones et al (2012) above, states “I would be happy” with the following sentence:

          “… Mike Lockwood, of Reading University, found 24 occasions in the past 10,000 years when the sun was declining as it is now, but could find none where the decline was as fast. He says a return of the Dalton Minimum (1790-1830) is ‘more likely than not’

          http://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2014/aug/15/fact-check-how-maurice-newman-misrepresents-science-to-claim-future-global-cooling

          Dalton Miniman refers to solar conditions, not to climate. But odd that climate wont follow suit (see #45.1 above).

          Solar parameters for CMIP5/AR5 model runs were held at early 2000s levels despite 21st Century “activity decline” and “lower TSI” above.

          It’s a weird model world we live in.

          10

      • #
        Graeme No.3

        “Interesting thermodynamic concept from the Met Office reported by Newsweek — a reduced energy input into a system (planetary climate) results in more heat in the system than at higher energy input levels previously:”

        Well, that disposes of the question “do they know what they’re talking about?’ It also proves that ‘The Science that is settled’ is only of use to someone handling fertiliser.

        One wonders how they have the gall to call themselves scientists, but didn’t some snake oil sellers call themselves Doctor?

        00

  • #
    el gordo

    Cherry picking is a legitimate occupation, signs of global cooling in Germany.

    ‘As Germany cools, one has to ask how much longer the DWD intends to keep misleading the public with its logo at its website, which depicts an accelerating warming. When asked about the reality-remote logo, the DWD said they would consider the matter when it revamps its website in the future. They didn’t seem too concerned about possibly misleading the public.’

    - See more at: http://notrickszone.com/2014/08/31/europes-wintry-2014-august-sees-one-of-the-chilliest-in-decades-forecasts-of-snow/#sthash.oACDj4mi.dpuf

    20

    • #
      Richard C (NZ)

      Re #46

      >”one has to ask how much longer the DWD intends to keep misleading the public with its logo at its website, which depicts an accelerating warming”

      Yes, acceleration as represented by a quadratic curve. Here’s the DWD banner:

      http://www.dwd.de/bvbw/resources/header/DWD/internet/images/motiv_rechts_en.jpg

      A linear trend line and what looks like a 2nd order polynomial (quadratic) trend curve.

      Given the cooling for Germany:

      http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Temperature-germany-17-years.jpg

      I suspect that the full series would be better represented statistically (i.e. best R^2 value) with a 3rd order polynomial trend curve. Or a moving average.

      Same for all national and global temperature series.

      A couple of decades ago Jim Salinger’s South Pacific papers never used linear trend lines, only moving averages. But AGW made linear trends on time varying temperature data ubiquitous despite the lessor statistical validity.

      I’m sure much of the MMCC angst would never have arisen if climateers (and everyone else including sceptics) had not taken to representing non-linear data with a line as much as they do.

      But the quadratic curve is another thing again because AGW demands acceleration so of course the trend is depicted by a quadratic. See:

      101 uses of a quadratic equation: Part II

      The fit between the ellipse, described by a quadratic equation, and nature seemed quite remarkable at the time. It was as though nature said: “Here is a curve that people know about, let’s make some use of it.” Understanding why this was the right curve had to wait till Galileo and then Newton. The answer is perhaps the single most important reason that quadratic equations matter so much: it is the link between quadratic equations and acceleration. It was Galileo who first spotted this link at the beginning of the 17th century.

      http://plus.maths.org/content/101-uses-quadratic-equation-part-ii

      But anthropogenic acceleration of temperature (AGW) is an assumption i.e. applying a quadratic trend to temperature data on the assumption of AGW being valid is an extrinsic action made by subjective opinion and interpretation.

      Objective signal analysis by extraction of intrinsic trend curves e.g. Empirical Mode Decomposition (EMD), removes any subjectivity. And the long-term (100 – 200 yr) EMD residual trend of say HadSST2/3 (therefore HadCRUT4) is a decelerating curve, contrary to AGW.

      Same with sea level rise (SLR). The satellite data trend is actually a decelerating curve (again, contrary to AGW) but according to the University of Colorado it is a line: http://sealevel.colorado.edu/ but not an acceleration (why not?).

      Hence, “Lies, damned lies, and statistics”

      A phrase describing the persuasive power of numbers, particularly the use of statistics to bolster weak arguments.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lies,_damned_lies,_and_statistics

      10

  • #

    Sorry to be off topic here, but this makes you almost want to vomit.

    Here’s one excerpt from tonight’s weather report on one of the major Brisbane Commercial Stations, and keep in mind that this is for Queensland, for September 2nd.

    Looks like a good day for the beach tomorrow, but beware, the sand will probably be very hot underfoot, as temperatures ….. SOAR into the mid to high ….. TWENTIES.

    What the!

    Give me strength!

    Tony.

    50

  • #
    Peter Crawford

    Now it all makes sense. You know how a butterfly flaps its wings in Rio De Janeiro and ten years later there is a flood in Basingstoke? Well now we have scientific proof. I was on the welsh mountain Cnicht recently and near the top at the slightly tricky bit it started raining heavily. When I came down to the over-priced cafe in Croesor it stopped raining and the sun came out!

    All down to Tony From Oz slamming his car door a bit too vigorously in Queensland that morning.

    And to think I used to disparage the science titans at the UK Met Office as an “abstract concept”. What a fool I was.

    00

    • #

      Peter,

      just wonderin’ here.

      You wouldn’t own a Vauxhall Astra now, would you?

      Nyuk nyuk nyuk!

      Tony.

      00

      • #
        Peter Crawford

        No, Tony, I have a clapped out Vauxhall Vectra and a pristine VW (foh-vay as the germans insist on calling it) Polo which I bought from a gangster in Manchester.

        Funnily enough the gangster from Pendlebury was an ardent warmist who, in between dealing cars and shooting blokes in the knee, was a lover of Gaia and could grow quite tearful about mankinds depredations of the planet.

        We live in a strange world.

        00

  • #

    I’m just wondering how the rain and flooding in south-east England in 1953 managed to occur without the help of “human greenhouse gas emissions”. Mind you, it was the freakish Lynmouth flood, much more localised, of 1952 which still has the record for highest death toll.

    Of course, there’s been worse before that, but ssssh.

    What’s missing from climate science is adults. An adult would look at the claims touted in the New Scientist and just laugh. That’s the real crisis: Peak Adults. We’re running out of them. Too many man-boys, not enough adults.

    20

    • #
      Carbon500

      Robert: Good points, and I’d like to expand on what you’ve said. A book I’m fond of which I often refer to is the late Robin Stirling’s ‘The Weather of Britain’ ISBN 1-900357-06-02. He was a professional meteorologist.
      Chapter 6 is entitled ‘Some Days Bring Deluges’, and I’ll describe a few of the many floods he covers in detail. He describes for example a disastrous flood at Louth, Lincolnshire in 1920, and serious flooding in the city of Norwich in 1912. He mentions a tablet set into a wall which records the high water mark for severe floods of the past. The highest prior to the flood described was in 1614, but the 1912 flood went 15 inches higher. He tells us that ‘much damage was done to roads and bridges throughout the county’.
      He also comments that ‘it must not be thought strange that so many new records were broken in the early years of the 20th century: records cannot be broken until there are records in existence to break’ – something conveniently overlooked by the warming propagandists.
      The documentation of UK floods in the past goes on for several pages – in 1833, 1897, 1917, 1924, 1929, 1930, 1931, 1937 for example and continuing right up to recent times. In 1931 Boston in Lincolnshire had a quarter of a year’s worth of rainfall dumped on the city in two hours. This happened again in 1937. In August 1952, Exmoor suffered a flooding disaster following a wet month. The peat and shales of Exmoor were unable to absorb the vast quantities of water, which surged down the valleys of the East and West Lyn rivers, carrying enormous boulders and washing away houses, hotels , and sweeping 130 cars out to sea. A seven-ton boulder was found in the basement of one hotel.
      Stirling shows a photo of the scene in Milbrook, Guildford in September 1968, commenting that some shops in the High Street were flooded to a depth of almost eight feet, and that 1968 will long be remembered for ‘the floods’.
      Stirling states that caution is needed in assessing changes in the frequency of flooding as indicators of climate change. He mentions that Exmoor’s rainfall varies between 49 and 79 inches in a year. An inch of water is the equivalent of 100 tons per acre, or 4840 square yards. I find it’s easier to think of this as the area bounded by a square of seven buses on each side, a bus being about 30 feet long!
      So, severe floods are nothing new. The Environmental Agency has been blamed for a failure to keep waterways free and dredged in favour of ‘encouraging wildlife’.
      Of course, these days it’s ‘climate change’ and not ‘man-made global warming’. I find it incredible that since the late 1990s global temperatures have varied from the 1951 to 1980 average by only a fraction of a degree (mostly +/- 0.4 degreesC), yet CO2 values have risen by about 10% since the late 1990s.
      Despite this, the nonsense is still told. The Met Office is sitting on the Central England Temperature record (buried within its website), which shows clearly that at no time since 1659 has the temperature here climbed higher than 11 degrees C, and temperatures above 10 degrees aren’t unprecedented.
      I suspect that a lot of reputations are at stake, along with a lot of money. One day people will look back on all this with amazement.

      00

  • #
    Matty

    OT.

    DeSmog UK Launches To Combat Climate Denial in Europe Ahead of Paris Climate Talks

    I guess it must’ve one of those climate refugees, Aus. becoming almost uninhabitable for ardent warmists.

    00

  • #
    Andrew

    What is this “jumped the shark”? Is that like “knit the kangaroo”?

    00

  • #
    Carbon500

    The University of East Anglia and Al Gore (among others of course) have made a major contribution to British exports.
    Everyone on the planet’s talking about the British favourite subject – the weather. As an ice breaker, there’s no equal in the UK. If you meet a total stranger, say something like ‘It’s a bit nippy today, isn’t it?’ and a conversation easily follows.
    However, talk about catastrophic man-made global warming and opposing factions could soon come to blows. It’s better to avoid this one.

    00

  • #
    Don B

    “Stalin often bumped into his old Menshevik acquaintance David Sagirashvili in the corridors of the Smolny Institute. When Sagirashvili accused him of propagating anti-Menshevik lies in his Pravda, “he would grin in a seemingly good-natured way” and explain, in a pre-Orwellian dictum that a “lie always has a stronger effect than the truth. The main thing is to obtain one’s objective.” As Stalin later told Molotov, “Truth is protected by a battalion of lies.”

    http://books.google.com/books?id=kouXUFhmodEC&pg=PA331&lpg=PA331&dq=stalin+the+truth+is+protected+by+a+battalion+of+lies&source=bl&ots=QCPdqmlnQB&sig=NF0zJEvmqH2J1cMjyN9bfoq2Gv8&hl=en&sa=X&ei=B4UEVNTdK5KpyASalYDQCg&ved=0CCEQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=stalin%20the%20truth%20is%20protected%20by%20a%20battalion%20of%20lies&f=false

    There are a battalion of weather events just waiting for climate campaigner lies.

    00

    • #
      Tim

      If science has always been about a hypothesis being open to challenge; why then is the current CAGW hypothesis so very special and different?

      Avoidance of debate-Avoidance of data release/ FOI requests-Use of widespread, ongoing PR releases-Media and population manipulation-Refusal to withdraw disproven claims-Refusal to acknowledge incorrect predictions-Demonising of life-support fossil fuel-Malicious attacks on contrary sceptic opinions-Infiltration of major institutions related to climate-Wealth and awards bestowed on CAGW proponents-Use of data from activist organisations with a lack of rigorous processes-Action through the courts to silence any serious sceptic…

      Lies, and well protected ones.

      00