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

Imaginary hottest “fingerprints” found in extreme weather by failed models

Finally, for only the 87th time, climate modellers have uncovered the definitive proof they’ve been finding in different forms every year since 1988.

ARC extreme unscience – corrected at no cost to the Australian taxpayer. Click for a big printable copy.

They seek, and find, the most excellent propaganda they can pretend is science. Look, this is the specific handprint of non-specific climate-change! Everything bar climate-sameness is proof the climate changes. How inane? The unscientific vagueness gives this poster away as being more about propaganda than about communication of science.

… in a special edition of the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, examining extreme events around the world during 2013, a series of papers home in on the Australian heat waves, and identify a human influence.

Using short, noisy records, with flawed and adjusted data, it is possible to run broken climate models and show “definitively” that current heat-waves and hottest years are due to man-made emissions. And if you believe that, you could be gullible enough to be a Guardian journalist.

That is, climate models that do not include solar factors like magnetic fields, solar winds, cosmic rays, solar spectral changes, or lunar effects are able to rule out all these natural forces, and the others we don’t know about yet. This is the magic of one-sided modeling which  didn’t predict the pause, and was wrong about humidity, rainfall, drought, and clouds too.  They don’t work on regional, local, or continental scales. They didn’t predict polar conditions, and they failed on upper tropospheric patterns (see Storch et al, 2013; Paltridge et al, 2009;  Anagnostopoulos et al, 2010;  Sheffield et al, 2012; Miller et al, 2012;  Koutsoyiannis et al, 2008; Previdi and Polvani, 2014; Christy et al, 2010;  and Fu et al, 2011).

My favorite witchdoctor quote comes from David Karoly, who tosses all pretense of scientific demeanor to the wind:

“We often talk about the fingerprint of human-caused climate change when we look at extreme weather patterns,” said David Karoly, professor of meteorology at the University of Melbourne’s School of Earth Sciences. “This research across four different papers goes well beyond that.

“If we were climate detectives, then Australia’s hottest year on records in 2013 wasn’t just a smudged fingerprint at the scene of the crime, it was a clear and unequivocal handprint showing the impact of human-caused global warming.”

It’s unequivocal! Praise the Lord!

Sorry, wait, … are we talking about man-made emissions of CO2, or “global warming”? Are we being accidentally vague Tim Radford?

… they did find that global warming doubled the chance of severe heat waves in Australia—making extreme summer temperatures five times more likely, increasing the chance of drought conditions sevenfold, and making hot temperatures in spring 30 times more probable.

And they reckoned that the record hot year of 2013 would have been virtually impossible without global warming. At a conservative calculation, the science showed that the heat of 2013 was made 2,000 times more likely by global warming.

Thus does gibberish flow. If global warming was due to natural causes, would it increase heatwaves? Could be…

Since the models are proven failures, when they can’t find extreme weather “without the influence of CO2″ the only conclusion we can draw is that taxpayers are wasting money on poseurs who pretend to be scientists and climate models that omit the real causes. We know it’s not CO2 and we know it’s not the minor changes in solar radiation, so…it’s something else.

This is argument from ignorance (“we don’t understand the climate, but we can’t think of anything else it could be and we don’t want to”):

Climate scientists Dr Sophie Lewis, of the Australian National University, and Professor David Karoly, of the University of Melbourne, ran two groups of computer models for a study into Australia’s scorching 2013.

In one group, they included the extra carbon dioxide in the atmosphere being added at the rates they are now. In another group of models, they left out the human contribution.

They found that on average, the computer models with current levels of carbon dioxide managed to reproduce the temperatures comparable to that scorching year of 2013 every six years.

The Australian Research Council (ARC) funds this and defines this kind of unscientific reasoning as “excellence”. It’s another argument for cutting off all funding to the ARC and setting up a new agency entirely. The best thing we could do for Australian science right now is to stop funding people who produce propaganda instead of science.

Other failures of Climate models

The source of unscientific political activism

REFERENCES

Storch, H.V., Barkhordarian, A., Hasselmann, K., and Zorita, Eduardo., Can Climate Models explain the recent stagnation in Global Warming?, Institute for Coastal Research, 2013, [PDF]

Paltridge, G., Arking, A., and Pook, M., Trends in middle- and upper-level tropospheric humidity from NCEP reanalysis data, Theoretical and Applied Climatology, 2009, 98, 3-4, 351-35, [Abstract].

Anagnostopoulos, G. G., Koutsoyiannis, D., Christofides, A., Efstratiadis, A., and. Mamassis, N., A comparison of local and aggregated climate model outputs with observed data, Hydrological Sciences Journal,  2010, 55, 7, 1094 — 1110, [PDF].

Sheffield, J., Wood, E.F., and Roderick, M.L., Little change in global drought over the past 60 years, Nature Letter, 2012, 491, 435-438, [Nature].

Miller, M, A., Ghate, V, P., and Zahn, R, K., The Radiation Budget of the West African Sahel and its Controls: A Perspective from 2 Observations and Global Climate Models, Journal of Climate, 2012, 25, 5976–5996, [PDF]

Koutsoyiannis, D., Efstratiadis, A., Mamassis, N., and Christofides, A., On the credibility of climate predictions, Journal–des Sciences Hydrologiques, 2008, 53(4), 671–684, [PDF].

Previdi, M., and Polvani, L. M., Climate system response to stratospheric ozone depletion and recovery, Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society,  2014, [Abstract].

Christy J, R., Herman, B., Pielke, Sr, R., Klotzbach, P., McNide, R, T., Hnilo J, J., Spencer R, W., Chase, T., and Douglass, D., What Do Observational Datasets Say about Modeled Tropospheric Temperature Trends since 1979?, Remote Sensing, 2010, 2148-2169, MDPI.

Fu, Q., Manabe, S., and Johanson, C., On the warming in the tropical upper troposphere: Models versus observations, Geophysical Research Letters, 2011, 38, L15704, [PDF].

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.2/10 (90 votes cast)
Imaginary hottest "fingerprints" found in extreme weather by failed models, 9.2 out of 10 based on 90 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/pmgz2hm

109 comments to Imaginary hottest “fingerprints” found in extreme weather by failed models

  • #
    Fat Tony

    I have lived through 60 summers – 2013 was definitely nothing out of the ordinary.

    A few hot weeks in summer – in Australia – how err… normal.
    Winter was, in my neck of the woods, cold. Truly err…normal.

    460

    • #
      Gee Aye

      You are data personified

      220

      • #
        KinkyKeith

        Are you trying to voice the unalterable reality?

        That a person can live for 60 years and be unaffected by changes in the weather ??????

        And worse!

        To find those changes insignificant????

        KK

        170

      • #
        Andrew McRae

        I guess you are saying that anecdotal evidence isn’t really evidence.

        Well, Geepers, would you rather trust that ACORN-SAT gunk that’s been adjusted in indefensible ways? How do you like your spaghetti BoMognese cooked – raw or well-done?

        And that all-important global average is strongly affected by the USA’s climate monitoring network, which has been adjusted upwards exactly proportionally to CO2 increase to manufacture the correlation. Which “recording” do you prefer, the original or the cover version?

        Tough choice isn’t it?

        Comparing hypotheses to experience doesn’t seem quite so bad now, eh?

        210

      • #
        Mark D.

        You are data personified

        Exactly Gee! Better than modeling, it’s empirical. Given the age of 60, that covers two periods of “climate” doesn’t it?

        180

      • #
        James Bradley

        Green thumb from me Gee.

        You are correct 60 years of data synthesised and assessed, logically and reasonably, and then reported personally ans simply.

        I hope 2014 will be another ‘hottest evvva’ record breaker for Global Warming Activists otherwise it will be “err… normal.”

        100

      • #
        Fat Tony

        “You are data personified”……in a sense, Gee Wye, I am.

        I have experienced the reality of 60 summers and my reality observation was that 2013 was not a standout. There have been past summers which were hotter, and past winters that were colder.
        I felt this in a most personal empirical way – whereas, no doubt, you are relying on homogenised, pasteurised and buggerised data to give you your Golden Truth.

        I am an engineer, and I have spent a lifetime designing that on which others’ lives depend. If I had to rely on the aforesaid data that you cherish, I would be “world-infamous”.

        Your so-called “warming” trends are so inaccurate and miniscule as to be totally worthless, as is your churlish opinion.

        140

    • #
      Allen Ford

      I have lived through 60 summers – 2013 was definitely nothing out of the ordinary.

      I’ll see your 60 summers and raise you 82, next Saturday, same observation!

      140

  • #
    Yonniestone

    I noticed that due to using Karoly’s hand for the image they had to place a mini Australia map to cover up the hairs.

    310

    • #
      Winston

      He’s trying to ignore the inconvenience of the paws?

      130

      • #
        Yonniestone

        ‘Warmictusped’ a new species discovered after the post modern science extinction of all other intelligent life forms, easily distinguished by a call not unlike a repetitive chant and a large manic grin known as the Warmacetoictus.

        This species is now recognized as being in plague proportions especially in national learning institutions and inner city cafes, caution is advised when approaching a Warmictusped nest with the intruder not to show any intellect or independent thought, if caught out it’s advised to put your head down and mumble “Abbott, Abbott, Abbott.” or “Climate, Denier, Big Oil.” until clear of the nest.

        A Warmictusped rehabilitation program underway since the last election is aimed at depriving the species of their major food source, Public Funds, with these funds gone we have already seen species transformations from high ranking leeches on society to mere annoying beggars that will eventually be ignored.

        40

  • #
    pat

    footie is about to begin, but here’s another bit of fun:

    5 Oct: Queensland Times: Kat van Wyk: Eeeek! It’s toad season
    So after giving up on the rubbish, I came back inside then jumped online to find the easiest way to “get rid of” Mr Toad…
    One such method was to collect the toad in a plastic garbage bag and then fill the bag with carbon dioxide.
    Now, I’m unsure from where one could actually buy carbon dioxide. I’m certainly not going to waste the carbon dioxide in my fire extinguisher on one little toad . . . and I’m definitely not going to breathe on it to death…
    http://www.qt.com.au/news/eeeek-its-toad-season/2402841/

    RSPCA: What is the most humane way to kill a cane toad?
    3. Prolonged exposure to carbon dioxide. The most commonly used method for killing multiple cane toads at a time has been exposure to carbon dioxide. This entails collecting toads in a plastic garbage bag and then filling the bag with carbon dioxide prior to disposal or burial. However it appears that the concentration and duration of exposure previously used does not actually kill cane toads, it merely anaesthetises them. This is one example of why it is so important to confirm death of a cane toad (or any animal) before disposing of its body. Research indicates that the use of carbon dioxide to kill cane toads is only effective and humane if exposure is maintained for at least 4 hours at 90% or greater concentration. The carbon dioxide must also be pre-warmed and the number of toads in each bag must not exceed 20 (in a 56 litre garbage bag). Death must be confirmed prior to disposal.
    http://kb.rspca.org.au/What-is-the-most-humane-way-to-kill-a-cane-toad_299.html

    91

    • #
      Peter C

      I had an old an somewhat polluting Jaguar (car) until 2 years ago. Sticking the exhaust down a rabbit hole was lethal to most of the rabbits.

      Carbon Monoxide! much better than CO2 for that purpose.

      180

    • #
      Mark F

      I rather like the Land Rover method illustrated in what has become one of my favorite documentaries.

      40

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      Airline ground crews in Southeast Asia, have a pretty good solution to toads and snakes. They give them a blast of liquid oxygen, and then hit them with a hammer. The hammer isn’t essential, but it avoids them being squirted twice.

      10

  • #
    LevelGaze

    Tut tut, Joanne.

    You should never distract your enemy when he is making a mistake.

    90

  • #
    Nathan

    This rant made me think of you all.
    “Leftists are missionaries of unhappiness. Their creed is salvation through anger. Their governing philosophy is to make others miserable in order to teach them how they have overlooked the misery of others. They are forever spreading misery around the world for the sake of the greater good.”

    The Left’s Religion of Unhappiness

    270

  • #
    PeterPetrum

    When I arrived in Australia (from Scotland, God help me!!) in late 1966, I was a technical sales manager for Rentokil. I was given a non-airconditioned (and non de-mistered) Mini van to run around Sydney in, all day every day. I can assure your younger bloggers that I regularly spent day after day in above 100F, sometimes for four days in a row, with the windows open, sticking to the seat, before the “southerly buster” came in. Summers are no worse now than they were then and can anybody who lives in Sydney remember when the last Southerly Buster was? Must be climate change!

    320

  • #
    Dave N

    “If global warming was due to natural causes, would it increase heatwaves?”

    If they said “no”, I’d be curious as to the explanation why; I fully expect that it would defy logic.

    160

  • #
    Neville

    Another silly Gore con bites the dust. Researchers have found that Greenland only lost about a quarter of its ice during the 8c warmer temps of the Eemian IG. Will these f[snip]sters ever give up?

    http://www.thegwpf.com/false-alarm-greenland-ice-simply-melt-8c-warmer-today/

    [] ED

    150

  • #

    The more I think about recent moves at “reconciliation”, the more this looks to me like a bunch of people who have been disgraced by their failure to do science properly, want us who want science to be done properly to compromise “somewhere in the middle”. And where is the middle between doing it right and not talking cobblers and being total idiots, failing to do science and acting like extremist propogandists?

    What they want us to agree to, is that they do science “not quite right”, that they are “a little bit biased”, that they turn only one blind eye to fiddling the results.

    260

    • #
      Winston

      It’s the bargaining stage of the grief cycle.

      180

    • #
      Konrad

      Mike,
      yes, the “soft landing” for the hoax is what so many fellow travellers now desperately want. Sadly some sceptics are foolish enough to think that “Realpolitik” can alter scientific reality. The reality is that there is no middle ground. Either the net effect of our radiative atmosphere is surface warming or it is surface cooling. Black or white, right or wrong. Unfortunately for those playing the Realpolitik game the answer is cooling.

      Doubly unfortunate for the Realpolitik players is that there is one very powerful group that can’t survive a “less warming than we thought” compromise. This is Big Wind. Their subsidy farming game is simply too costly and environmentally destructive to survive without the justification of CAGW. They have millions to spend on propaganda. The anti shale gas propaganda push is failing. Ocean “acidification” will be next up. Big Wind can’t survive without the CO2 demon, so they are going to fight like mad.

      60

  • #
    TdeF

    Such doomsayers step right in it, without an inkling of the real implications of their climate horror stories.

    It has been stated here that Australia provides 25% of world land temperatures. This is credible because Australia is the major land mass in the sub tropical 30% of the planet between the tropic of Capricorn and the Arctic circle. In this area of 30% of the 255million km2, or 76.5million km2 , Australia has 7.7, South Africa 1.2, Chile 0.75, Argentina 2.8, NZ 0.27, so while Australia is only 10% of the surface in this band, it has 66% of the land and the best public records over the largest area.

    So David Karoly has said Australia had record heat last year and this is due to global warming, but he knows global temperatures have not changed in 18 years.
    Conclusion? The world apart from Australia is cooling rapidly. Thanks David.

    290

    • #
      Leigh

      David Karoly would also be well aware temperature records from the mid eighteen hundreds onwards, indicate it was far warmer then than now.
      He would also be well aware that the BOM has “happily” deemed that those warmer records pre 1910 were “unreliable”.
      What I find quite amusing by all these publicly funded “snipsters”.
      Is that their go to organization for rubber stamping their more than often misleading, no false statements the IPPC.
      Has no qualms what so ever in using that “unreliable” temperature record.
      Anybody bother to tell the IPPC they are again using unreliable data or false and misleading data?
      Or is it “Australia’s own” little secret?

      20

  • #
    Braqueish

    What’s especially baffling about this — apart from the good points made above — is that the average max temperature anomalies from weather stations in Australia were considerably higher than today prior to 1910. Surely it’s a flat out lie to say “hottest on record” when, even with the heavily “adjusted” temperature data they use, it’s not true?

    310

    • #
      Just Thinkin'

      It is if you are Flim Flam and Co.

      120

    • #
      The Backslider

      average max temperature anomalies from weather stations in Australia were considerably higher than today prior to 1910

      There is your problem right there. According to the BOM, climate did not begin in Australia until 1910.

      40

  • #
    Peter Miller

    The old argument of: “If we can’t accurately forecast the weather ten days from now, how can we possibly believe those who claim to predict climate 50 years from now,” is as true today, as it ever was.

    Weather and climate forecasts both rely heavily on computer modelling and are often done by the same people. Anyhow, the computer modellers in both cases are government bureaucrats who are never made accountable for their actions.

    Alarmist predictions depend on the use of large positive feedbacks if temperature rises, causing the temperature to rise further. This is where so much of the GIGO in climate models comes in, as we simply do not know how to quantify these feedbacks, especially the subsequent feedbacks caused by the original feedbacks.

    The intriguing thing now is that the net effect of these feedbacks now appears to be mildly negative and not strongly positive, as stated by alarmists. In fact, these feedbacks cannot be strongly positive, or life on Earth simply would not have evolved the way it has. Life would have constantly been knocked back to the single cell stage in response to runaway movements in global temperature, every time a natural event precipitated a change in temperature.

    The Earth has a natural thermostat mechanism, which we simply do not understand. The Earth’s climate system is far too chaotic and complex to ever model accurately.

    Leaving aside the temperature movements caused by natural climate cycles, the only ‘evidence’ you can find today of potentially catastrophic global warming is in dodgy computer models and nowhere else.

    240

  • #
    handjive

    Not a fingerprint, but, amazing …

    Scientists left scratching their heads over the origin of a 1000-year-old skull and matching jawbone washed up on Mona Vale beach in Sydney

    “The jawbone of a toddler aged three to five, found among the kelp on Mona Vale beach three weeks ago, has been matched to a skull that washed ashore exactly six years ago.

    Adding to the mystery: the bones are not Aboriginal.

    Early radio carbon-dating set the skull as coming from between 1200AD and 1400AD but yesterday the forensic pathologists confirmed they had dated it to the year 1001, give or take 30 years.”

    100

  • #
    turnedoutnice

    So Dr Karoly, exactly how many Angels can dance on the head of a pin?

    70

  • #
    TdeF

    When you read of the CO2 hothouse effect, even sceptics agree the basic science is right. Is it? It looks like an unproven hypothesis.

    Yes CO2 will trap infrared, as will water, but the idea that the heat is not transferred again is odd. Hothouses work because the fixed glass structure transmits UV but traps infrared. So the theory is that CO2 acts like a hothouse roof and does not need walls. However this hothouse made from hot mobile gas without a fixed roof, walls and mixing, massive turbulence, winds, storms and 70% over 4km deep water and spanning cold nights and hot tropical days from the polar regions to the equator over huge areas? What sort of hothouse is that? How well proven is this simplistic hothouse model on this scale, from Antarctica to Mt Everest?

    Even so, people insist it is right. The real philosophical science problem is, there is no laboratory the size of our planet except the planet itself, from the arctic to the equator, from winter and summer, night and day, water and land and up to the stratosphere. In fact none of the predictions have proven to be true, but there is still this extraordinary acceptance that the model is right. There is even the idea that a perfectly good model is simply overwhelmed by other forces, as yet unknown. I would have thought the evidence was very clear now after nearly 50 years since CO2 warming was seriously proposed in the 1970s as a solution for the coming ice age, that the model is wrong. Simplistic models of complex systems from extrapolation of smaller laboratory size contained systems can be completely wrong. Sadly, there is no hothouse, nothing to stop the glaciers returning.

    Besides, by the time we wait another 50 years for the results, there will be no more fossil fuels left anyway.

    70

    • #
      turnedoutnice

      Let’s lay a few myths.

      There is absolutely no evidence that GHG-absorbed IR energy thermalises in the gas phase, precluded by basic statistical thermodynamics. If it were to happen, local absorptivity would exceed local emissivity, breaching Kirchhoff’s law of Radiation so incompatible with local thermodynamic Equilibrium.

      Instead the excess energy in the local IR quantum Density of States is emitted at the same time from the local gas volume by already thermally-activated molecules. The thermalisation can only occur at the Planck dissipative harmonic oscillators at or near the surface of condensed matter – aerosols and in Space.

      Moreover, basic radiative physics shows that there is near zero net IR emission from the Earth’s surface in the self-absorbed atmospheric GHG bands.

      Bottom Line – the enhanced GHE does not exist and the 23 W/m^2 in non self-absorbed H2O bands is absorbed over kilometres, so near zero warming.

      81

      • #
        TdeF

        Not sure what all that means, so if you were trying to make things clearer, I doubt it succeeded. Pardon me, but if you were trying to be helpful, it does seem obtuse.

        Planck dissipative harmonic oscillators? Why not say gas molecules which can vibrate? What else is there? What does “thermalises in the gas phase” mean? Surely it is not another word for heating? What other phase?

        Further, CO2 is a tiny trace gas, 0.04% of a mixture. In the CO2 hothouse model, trapped infra red radiation is translated into kinetic energy or vibrational energy of CO2 molecules. However energy would be quickly passed kinetically to the two vastly dominant gases, nitrogen and oxygen. Heat one and you heat them all. CO2 might be a poor radiator but what is to stop them from radiating? As in Kirchoff’s law, as they are relatively poor absorbers of IR so great emitters. The molecule which traps the energy is not the one which rises or radiates it again into space. This is a hothouse which is only 0.04% glass. The analogy of a hot house is full of holes.

        50

        • #
          turnedoutnice

          Thermalisation is the Physics’ Term for the conversion of radiative energy to heat, i.e. kinetic energy of atoms or molecules. GHG-absorbed IR vibrational energy is quantum excluded from heating the local gas volume, so skips out – the whole atmosphere participates until a heterogeneous interface mops up the energy excess above that defined by local temperature and the Law of Equipartition of Energy.

          Planck Dissipative Harmonic Oscillators are the mechanism by which that IR optical energy, the arrival of wavefronts, is converted to quantised vibrational energy at surface ‘cavities’. That vibrational energy can be thermalised in the interior of the condensed matter.

          Radiative Physics 101 shows that as there is near zero net CO2 15 micron surface IR, there is near zero absorption of it in the atmosphere; in other words there can be no Enhanced GHE.

          To summarise; Climate Alchemy has made a load of assumptions which are wrong. Indeed, I can’t find any aspect of Radiative and IR physics it gets right. Will Happer warned of this in 1993 and was ignored. 18 years 1 month no atmospheric heating despite ~20% increase of [CO2] shows there is a real problem!

          61

          • #
            TdeF

            Thanks. I cannot say I remember Radiative Physics 101. Why is vibrational energy quantised? Is radiation the only exit mechanism for such energy? What happened to conduction? Anyway, the most important third sentence is that there is near zero absorption of Infra Red by CO2 in the atmosphere? Do I understand your statement? If so, who needs theory?

            40

            • #
              turnedoutnice

              Planck created the concept of quantised vibrational energy to explain the physical observations. He never explained why quanta exist. My belief is that it is derived from the unique physical aspects of resonant oscillation.

              The Law of Conservation of Energy applied to the interchange of such quantised energy from the mechanical to the electromagnetic domains is qdot = – ∇.Fv where qdot is the monochromatic heat transfer rate, ∇. is the Divergence Operator and Fv is the monochromatic radiative flux density. from this you derive the S-B equation etc..

              Conduction is purely mechanical and also quantised, but the Density of States is in collective oscillations called Phonons. These are directional in solids because of the strong variation of lattice stiffness with direction but for liquids, that condition is relaxed.

              You prove zero net 15 micron IR from the surface in contact with the atmosphere, at equal temperature, by the above equation integrated over the band width; the Poynting Vectors** of individual plane waves from the surface to the atmosphere and vice versa have on average equal amplitude and opposite direction so mutually annihilate.

              **Poynting vectors are from Maxwell’s Equations; in optics they are the energy transfer rate for plane waves, the source of Radiation Pressure = (PV/c). Only if there is a temperature inversion can the atmosphere transfer net EM energy to the surface thereby heating it. This simple analysis explains why the Enhanced GHE is a figment of the imagination of people with poor physics.

              20

              • #
                TdeF

                I have to say, it gets muddier. You did not answer the question.

                Yes, I understand all the terms, even Poynting vectors, but it is all so immersed in an exclusive language that I have to say you have not answered the question. Personally I have never read such obtuse verbage. Was that intentional? Yes, I understand div/grad and cross vectors and quantum mechanics and a lot more but now I have to ask. If your point is so simple, so obvious, why is the explanation so complex? Are you genuinely trying to explain something or to overwhelm? Who cares what phonons are, by definition? Do I need the definition? Does anyone? Science should be simple. The key to explaining science is not to spend the entire time defining your terms. You explain it in their terms.

                One of the standard devices of the Global Warming fraternity is exactly this, to overwhelm, to phrase explanations in such incredible and exclusive verbage that no one can understand the basic premise. This is not helpful. To anyone.

                10

              • #
                turnedoutnice

                I use precise scientific terms because IPCC Climate Science has deliberately set out to misuse scientific terms in order to deceive.

                If you read ScienceofDoom, a well known, supposedly accurate propaganda site, the author confuses the term Emittance with Emissivity, the ratio of Emittance, the Potential Energy Flux from an Emitter to a Radiative Sink at Absolute Zero, to the Planck Irradiance Function, the black body equivalent.

                Climate Alchemists teach students that Emittance is a real Energy Flux. They also claim with absolutely no evidence that Outgoing Longwave Radiation to Space is from a single, -18 deg. C emission zone in the upper atmosphere. This 33 year old part of the scam from Hansen et. al. which should never have passed peer review, implies that OLR is balanced by equivalent IR emission from the upper atmosphere towards the Earth’s surface.

                The result of that ‘error’ is to set up a false energy balance: 238.5 W/m^2 SW heating + 333 W/m^2 ‘back radiation – 238.5 W/m^2 |OLR| = 333 W/m^2. This Perpetual Motion Machine of the 2nd Kind’ is with the fake 33 K GHE claim used to predict higher than reality sea surface temperature and evaporation to purport ‘positive feedback’. In 2010, US Cloud Physicist G L Stephens deduced that the (GISS origin) climate models falsely use in hind-casting near double low level cloud optical depth, about 35% higher albedo than reality, to offset that surface temperature rise to pretend the models can hind-cast.

                So, to counter this clever fraud someone MUST set out the absolute science according to standard physics, thereby to counter nearly 50 years of atmospheric science teaching incorrect physics, probably as a form of political activism by those at the cent of the fraud, starting with known political activist Carl Sagan! No apologies my friend, and no offence intended. The Enhanced GHE is total and complete bunkum intended to deceive all bar the most nerdish of disposition!

                20

      • #
        D o u g   C o t t o n  

        And regarding your comment “someone MUST set out the absolute science according to standard physics” I have done that in my book “Why It’s Not Carbon Dioxide After All.”

        01

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      TdeF:

      I would agree with everything except that we will run out of fossil fuels in 50 years, but since the Lemmings** fight against any method that reduces CO2 emissions I suppose you may be right if their influence lasts.

      ** They call us Deniers, so why shouldn’t I name them after small brained rodents?

      70

    • #
      sillyfilly

      Such ignorance of the properties of greenhouse gases. Science on show for this pack ‘small brained rodents’.

      015

      • #
        The Backslider

        Dear DumbNag. Human emissions of CO2 are around 4% of total CO2 emissions, the rest coming from the biosphere.

        Please take the time to do some math on that figure.

        60

      • #
        Konrad

        Foolish foal,
        you have never demonstrated the slightest comprehension of radiative physics, Raleigh-Bernard circulation or the difference between “near blackbody” and “selective surface”. The fact that you referred to radiative gases as “greenhouse gases” shows just how woeful your lack of scientific literacy is.

        Your trolling of sceptics seems to be driven by some weird sense of superiority. You don’t understand the physics, you were foolish enough to accept “argument from authority”. Just who do you imagine you are superior to?

        All you are achieving here is demonstrating the breathtaking vacuity of the AGW believer. (I suppose some do also enjoy the light entertainment you provide.)

        40

        • #
          ExWarmist

          Konrad says…

          Your trolling of sceptics seems to be driven by some weird sense of superiority.

          What you see as a “weird sense of superiority”…

          More likely sillyfilly is compensating for feelings of inadequacy, in particular a pervasive sense that she has no value, and that only by putting others down can she momentarily feel like she is worth something, which manifests as “being superior”.

          Clearly she is unable to follow the science presented on this site, and deep down she knows that she does not understand, and she does not see herself as capable of understanding, so she falls back on appeals to authority, and put downs, as that is simpler and easier to do the addressing her own lack of self belief and doing the hard yards of acquiring the knowledge base to understand the actual science.

          Frankly – it’s the sort of behaviour you would see in a sniggering, ignorant, pouty, year 8 student who is desperate for social approval, and attempts to gain it by loudly rejecting the non-cool kids that latter go on to become CEO’s of their own software companies, while she ends up as a drone doing mindless clerical work in a meaningless bureaucratic job.

          50

          • #
            ExWarmist

            Then again.

            Given that sillyfillys comments are extremely similar in tone and type – it strikes me that it may actually just be a bot.

            I may be psychoanalysing a computer program.

            40

            • #
              Konrad

              Or maybe it’s Miriam O’Brian. very similar style. There have been enough posts for text analysis…;-)

              40

      • #
        James Bradley

        Silly Filly,

        Enlightenment is often mistaken for ignorance by the ignorant.

        60

      • #
        Michael P

        Sillyfilly. I think some of the lyrics from this song I heard are appropriate here which are “I’m loosing this battle,with every word I say,Wish a did a better job of not giving myself away.”

        30

  • #
    TdeF

    Another conundrum for CO2 warmists.

    We may be among the worlds ‘worst CO2 polluters’ per capita, but there are not many capita. Only 2% of the world’s population live in our lower 30% of the globe, South of the Tropic of Capricorn and only 0.3% of the total world population in Australia. It takes a long time for gases to pass the equator, because of the nature of air circulation, coriolis forces and the effective turnaround barrier at the equator. It takes years for full mixing, so you would expect the CO2 to stay for some time where it was made.

    So how is it that world CO2 made our country alone so hot last year? Whoever is doing this, we need David Karoly to identify them and they will be punished. Or does it all sound a little far fetched? How can scientists be sure that, if true, Australia being slightly warmer than average has any significance at all?
    How can our warming be proof of CO2 driven man made global warming, when it proves the reverse?

    150

    • #
      Neville

      Tdef our OZ co2 sinks absorb at least 10 times the co2 that we emit.
      If you add in our EEZ combining the very cold southern ocean and our Antarctic territory we probably absorb 20 times the co2 we emit every year. Willis Eschenbach wrote about this at WUWT and so did Bob Carter etc in the book “Taxing Air.”

      70

      • #
        Graeme No.3

        I wonder if that could be why the southern hemispheric CO2 concentration is about 6 p.p.m. lower than the other half?

        60

      • #
        TdeF

        My point in another way. CO2 is an emitted gas and geographically regional for some time in our greenhouse, generally higher over warm oceans and industry and lower over cold oceans. It takes years to mix. So how can we have a warmest year in Australia ever caused by rampant world CO2 if we are far from the sources of world CO2?

        David Karoly, might give the science which explains why a steady increase in CO2 over China, Europe and the US, the three biggest CO2 emitters, produces sudden warming only in Australia, on the other side of the equator and surrounded by vast cold oceans which suck up CO2? Maybe if we reduce our CO2 emissions, it will get colder in Iceland? This is fantasy science, not even self consistent argument.

        110

    • #
      James Murphy

      Well, I m curious to see what sort of data we can expect to see from NASAs OCO-2 project. Its primary science objective will no doubt be used by certain unscrupulous and unscientific groups to name and shame countries which are inferred (see the ‘measurement approach’ at the link above) to have more CO2 than others…

      10

      • #
        Konrad

        Well, the Japanese satellite didn’t give the “politically correct” answer so the US had to launch their own.

        The Japanese data showed Africa and China as emission hotspots, and that really wasn’t helping the “Cause”.

        30

  • #
    David S

    Hottest on record needs an asterisk with the disclaimer that says something like on record means from the manipulated BOM database.ie no record at all !

    100

  • #
    Lawrie Ayres

    On record meaning from 1910 and then from a seriously reduced base.I saw Bill Nye tell Marc Marano and the audience that the Medieval Warm Period was confined to Europe and, therefore, had no global effect but now Karoly says that a summer of hot days in Australia is a sign of GLOBAL warming. They can’t both be right.

    Mind you the plethora of alarmist papers linking warming (or lack of warming) to man made whatever shows a certain desperation as the grants will soon start to dry up. If our coalition are serious about saving money, grants to climate magicians should stop now. Give it to the medical researchers instead of the $7 fee although I support a co-contribution.

    130

    • #
      Matty

      A drought of grants ? Lets see them blame that one on Global Warming.

      70

    • #
      blackadderthe4th

      ‘that the Medieval Warm Period was confined to Europe and, therefore, had no global effect’ Yip, that’ll be right!

      AGU ice core data, that debunks a GLOBAL MWP and confirms the ‘Hockey Stick’.

      ‘Helen Mossley-Thompson…the senior scientist at the Byrd Polar Research Centre…got PHD and masters at Ohio State…[the decay of fossil fuel co2 in the atmosphere has a long tail that 33% of emissions today will still be in the atmosphere 100 years from now and 1000 years from now 19% of the emissions will be with us…for 30 years we at Ohio State…have drilled ice cores from all around the world…we have had a presence in the Polar regions, in Greenland, Antarctic…and the highest mountains in Tibet, Andes, Alaska, Russian Arctic and New Guinea. One of the reasons for this is that there is no single best ice core, single best place to drill an ice core, because it depends what question you are asking…because ice cores carries with them a local to regional signature…from these three ice cores in the South American Andes…you see a nice signature of the LIA cool period you see a modest MWP or WMA… in the South American record…but here is the composite from four ice cores from the Tibetan plateau and you see no LIA and no MWP (MWA)…the source for the moisture for the glaciers in the Andes…is the Atlantic, particular in the North Atlantic basin we have a
      stronger signature…the one feature that stands out most strongly is the isotopic enrichment of the 20th century {thus proving AGW and confirming the ‘hockey stick}…that reconstruction’s made of many tree ring, some coral records, some high resolution lake sediments and ice cores...and you will have to conclude…don’t look significantly different from the Northern hemisphere…but both carry the signature of the 20th century warming, in practically the last 50 years! {again re-enforcing AGW and the hockey stick!}]

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yfyrkZezfk

      026

  • #
    Chuck L

    It seems like they pulled out

    “the science showed that the heat of 2013 was made 2,000 times more likely by global warming” and

    “global warming doubled the chance of severe heat waves in Australia—making extreme summer temperatures five times more likely, increasing the chance of drought conditions sevenfold, and making hot temperatures in spring 30 times more probable”

    right out of their [snip]. Post-Modern climate science at its finest!

    70

  • #

    Its not the models that are broken, it’s the idiots that continue to promote the models that are known to be laughably wrong. Even their mates sometimes don’t publish the jokes they draft.

    112

  • #
    Bite Back

    If these climate change worriers want some extreme events to look at, show them the murdering and beheading now going on and let them figure out what that means about the future climate. The fingerprints are all too obvious—blood flowing everywhere.

    Let them model something of real concern to the world.

    60

  • #

    The hand print analogy is a good one.
    Suppose the police accused me of committing a burglary. They found a clear hand print like the one above. The convincing evidence was the similarities of having a left hand with all fingers intact, and that my fingers also had curvy lines on them.

    My defense could be one of the following.

    1. Looking at the detail, the patterns do not match.
    Equivalent in climate science – the missing hot spot and other identifying “fingerprints” of human-caused warming.

    2. It was my house that was burgled, so you would expect my fingerprints all over the place.
    Equivalent in climate science – For the last 200 years or more there has been a recovery from a cool period called the Little Ice Age. Further back there were warm periods 1000, 2000 and 5000 years ago. As BOM climate records only go back 100 years, new heat records do not rule out other suspects.

    3. The police failed to take look at other evidence.
    Equivalent in climate science – The 1909 Bourke temperature record.

    150

  • #
    Svend Ferdinandsen

    It is a bit strange, that global warming only make ekstremes. What about all the good weather, is´n that a result of GW. And you could also ask, what GW?
    The newest invention is that: http://www.thegwpf.com/scientists-to-fast-track-extreme-weather-climate-link-in-sign-of-panic-that-theyre-losing-the-public-to-climate-sceptics/

    70

  • #
    Robert O

    Theoretically, carbon dioxide is, like water vapour, methane and others, a greenhouse gas. However, its influence on climate is pretty minor and since its concentration is now 400 parts per million in the atmosphere there should be some evidence to see that it is changing global temperatures. But alas there is none and temperatures have been static for nearly two decades now. As well, carbon dioxide is a necessary for photosynthesis whereby plants use it to produce carbohydrate for all life, and as well provide oxygen for most respiratory processes. Pretty important stuff for humanity and yet the scientific illiterate, politicians, bankers, economists, journalists, some climate scientists and others, want to tax and demonise it and in the process make ambit claims about the hottest temperatures, large droughts and so on. And yet we know from past records, that have been conveniently forgotten, it was was very pretty hot before in pre-Federation Australia, and the Federation drought was, perhaps, one of longest and most severe.

    It’s a tragedy that the monies expended on global warming could not have been spent on building dams to capture water for the dry years and reduce damage due to flooding. And even having a look at the causes of the El nino phenomenon which has controlled our climate.

    80

    • #
      James Bradley

      Robert O, as I’ve written before,

      The failure of all CO2 based climate models proves CO2 is not a factor.

      90

      • #
        sillyfilly

        Gotta laugh at such ignorance. Got a model that works without an anthropogenic influence. Nope, no, of course not.

        018

        • #
          James Bradley

          Silly Filly,

          No, but got about 3,000 climate models with anthropogenic influence that don’t work.

          Only took Edison 1,000 wrong ways to make a like globe before he found the correct method.

          120

        • #
          James Bradley

          Oh and, Silly Filly,

          The ‘No’ in my previous response to you is because the Global Warming Activist groups have never considered any other cause for Global Warming other than anthropogenic – therefore they have not done any models.

          It’s just so difficult to be a victim of nature.

          No one to subsidise the angst…

          90

        • #
          Konrad

          No Foolish Foal, no model is required to utterly disprove GoreBull Warbling. A simple empirical experiment does the trick -

          http://oi61.tinypic.com/or5rv9.jpg

          That’s it, that’s all you need. Simple isn’t it?

          Two target blocks with equal ability to absorb SW and emit IR. The only difference is the depth of SW absorption. After equal solar exposure a dramatic differential between the two block’s equilibrium temperatures develops. This SW selective surface effect is clearly absent from every single climate model. They all try to invoke downwelling IR from the atmosphere to raise the ocean temps from 255K to 288K. The reality is that our radiative atmosphere is cooling the oceans from 335K to 288K.

          This fist-biting mistake is in the very foundation of the “basic physics” of the “settled science”. The idiot climastrologists provably used standard SB equations on a transparent material. Their shame and yours can never be hidden.

          Enjoy!

          70

        • #
          ExWarmist

          The current climate models would be much more aligned to measured reality if they assumed that water vapour was a -ve feedback on increasing concentrations of atmospheric CO2.

          Such a change would also eliminate the current show stopping conundrum that the models posit a fragile, non-resilient climate system governed by +ve feedbacks that has somehow survived in a form capable of supporting large, complex life forms for at least the last 600 million years.

          And that’s with CO2 levels that have been as high as 7000 ppm over the same time frame.

          Go figure?

          10

    • #
      Truthseeker

      Robert O,

      Anyone who uses the term “greenhouse gas” proves to the world at large that they do not understand anything about the physics involved. Vapours have an impact, but not because of their radiative properties. As much as we agree on the following …

      Pretty important stuff for humanity and yet the scientific illiterate, politicians, bankers, economists, journalists, some climate scientists and others, want to tax and demonise it and in the process make ambit claims about the hottest temperatures, large droughts and so on.

      Even allowing the term greenhouse gas to enter the debate gives the alarmist argument oxygen it is not entitled to.

      70

      • #
        sillyfilly

        A cooling stratosphere is proof positive that silly comments like this are inconsistent with the physical reality.

        012

      • #
        Robert O

        I agree that a greenhouse gas is a misnomer, but that is common parlance. Carbon pollution for carbon dioxide is far worse

        40

    • #
      Konrad

      Robert,
      no, not a “greenhouse gas” it is a “radiative gas” which both absorbs and emits IR radiation. However, given that almost no 15 micron IR is emitted from the surface, CO2 in the atmosphere is doing little more that emitting energy it acquired conductively.

      The atmosphere does absorb and emit IR and you can measure the constantly changing emission with an IR thermometer. Water, both vapour and condensed, is the primary radiative element in the atmosphere. This means there is some radiative GHE (particularly over land), but the real question is whether there is a NET radiative GHE for the planet. The answer to that is no. This is why all the models based on the assumption that there was, failed.

      The assumptions provably wrong were -
      Effective radiating level at ~5km. (too high)
      Constant speed of tropospheric circulation for increased radiative gases. (speed would increase with increased radiative subsidence)
      Surface as a near blackbody ( 255K assumption for surface without atmosphere out by ~90K for the oceans)
      Atmospheric IR slowing the cooling rate of the oceans (LWIR has no effect on materials that evaporatively cool)

      AGW is simply a physical impossibility on Planet Ocean.

      You say it has been a colossal waste of money. I would say criminal. Some of the climastrologists clearly knew they were doing the wrong thing.

      30

  • #
    manalive

    Assuming what you claim to be proving is circular reasoning.

    30

  • #
    Safetyguy66

    Looks a lot like “cherry picking”.

    20

  • #
    pattoh

    All so much more “Climate Stand-up Comedy”. It is getting so tired even the Boom Tish guys wants to cash in their wind & tree farm super.

    20

  • #
    handjive

    Today’s Lesson:

    How to homogenise temperature data

    Temperatures soar for grand final

    Sunday’s spring scorcher has set a record for the hottest grand final day ever.

    The mercury rose to 33.9 degrees at Sydney Olympic Park at 3.30pm, making it the hottest grand final day in rugby league history.
    The previous record of 33.4 degrees was set last year.

    Fairfax Media has compiled the data for the temperature on every grand final day in the past 105 seasons of the NRL.
    “Mother nature is turning up the heat just in time for the highly anticipated grand final,” Weatherzone’s Ben McBurney said.

    Since the first NRL grand final in 1908, the 30-degree mark has been breached only three times on grand final day:
    1987, 2005 and 2013.

    The NRL’s decision to move the grand final to Olympic Park in 1999 has meant temperatures have been on the rise.

    The hotter conditions in the west have been coupled with a date change, from the last weekend in September to the first weekend in October, pushing the grand final further towards summer.

    http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/climate-change-making-hay-fever-worse-report-20141005-10q0ev.html
    . . .
    That’s settled, I guess.

    10

  • #
    Val

    This propaganda release for the media (that’s what it amounts to) reads like “The Angry Summer”, a scholarly piece produced by the illustrious Climate Commission, with about as much scientific merit.

    Beyond the distorted data and the contrived models that they rely upon to make the claims, the producers ignore the obvious. If Australia experienced global warming, did other regions (in fact the earth as a whole) which showed opposite changes at the same time, experience global cooling? Recognizing that contradiction,
    of course, would require an IQ beyond that of the Guardian journalist.

    A sad excuse for “science”. Even sadder is that it was produced at the expense of the public’s resources.
    The ARC belongs with the dodo and the previous government.

    61

  • #
    STJOHNOFGRAFTON

    Sarcasm notwithstanding, no use praising the Lord for this kind of brain use. The Lord gave us a free will to use our fantastic brains how we want. He’s not responsible for for brain usage by pseudoscientists. DAS KLIMATKOMPUTERMODEL IST NICHT FÜR DER GEWERKEN BEI DUMMKOPFEN!

    30

  • #
    PeterS

    The problem with so much scientific research these days is it’s a reflection of the great fraud perpetrated by academia in general. This article explains it well.
    Academia – The Great Fraud?

    20

  • #
    pat

    definitely read it all…

    5 Oct: Scientific American: John Horgan: Naomi “Merchants of Doubt” Oreskes Slams “Corrosive” Climate Change Skepticism
    I recently had an email exchange with Oreskes about her work:
    Horgan: You recently co-wrote a work of science fiction, The Collapse of Western Civilization. Is that an implicit acknowledgement that conventional modes of discourse aren’t sufficient to engage the public when it comes to the potentially disastrous consequences of climate change?
    Oreskes: Yes…
    Horgan: You’re critical of the media for its reporting on the climate change debate, and more particularly for giving ***equal time to skeptics…
    http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/2014/10/05/naomi-merchants-of-doubt-oreskes-slams-corrosive-climate-change-skepticism/

    ***MSM gives equal time to sceptics???

    20

  • #
    sillyfilly

    Of course the Journal of the American Meteorology Society is now added to the do not read banned list of the climate contrarians and their pseudo scientific manifestations. Ignorance personified.

    013

    • #
      Yonniestone

      From a CAGW pseudo scientific viewpoint that would be the modus operandi however a true skeptic would continue to read such publications in case new ideas or information are revealed that neither have comprehended.

      Ignorance personified indeed.

      70

      • #
        sillyfilly

        A true sceptic would be mindful of the absolute scientific ignorance postulated by the majority on this site.

        111

        • #
          Yonniestone

          You’re quite presumptuous aren’t you?, would you believe that I never take anything said as gospel either here or anywhere without checking myself or keeping an open mind?

          It was the ‘argument is closed consensus is in’ attitude from CAGW proponents that made me suspicious of their claims many years ago, that and the fact huge amounts of money and power will turn people into monsters that lets them justify any means to an end.

          I could presume you’re a troll paid by one of many green socialist activist organizations that have a vested interest in keeping the anti CO2 movement in business or you are simply a person with left leaning politics that has an axe to grind due to some latent negative experiences with a capitalist society, the possibilities are endless but it matters not.

          What does matter and will count is the amount of people capable of figuring the information given to them does not equate to the reality of what’s happening the world around them will be greater than the deluded and easily lead, in other words more people like the way their society is and won’t like losing what they have for someone’s ideals, this is the basis for most human conflicts…think about it.

          80

        • #
          James Bradley

          Silly Filly,

          True Global Warming belivers would not wait for tax-payer funds, subsidies and grants before offering to take against imminent catastrophic climate change.

          80

  • #
    Renato Alessio

    I suppose, the interesting thing would be to see exactly how much concurrence there is between four of those finger records, and what the RSS and UAH satellite data for the same periods.
    Regards.

    20

  • #
    The Backslider

    So, now all that heat is no longer in the deep dark oceans where it cannot be measured, but in the top 700 meters!…. run chicken little! run!

    Yet more empirical evidence that climate scientists tell us whatever suits them.

    On another note, poor little damsel fish in Australia are suffering from impaired cognitive function, learning difficulties, slowed visual capacity and altered sense of smell and sound, all due to a supposed increase in CO2 in the oceans.

    40

  • #
    Andrew McRae

    It’s possible both climate skeptics and warmists have been wrong about this issue.
    Although my climate model still has the problems with OLR that it had 3 months ago, it’s interesting for what it hindcasts in the scenario that CO2 had not increased after 1900 AD.
    Comparing the CO2at1900 scenario with the Business-As-Usual scenario yields conclusions that will annoy everybody:
    • We would have had record high temperatures in the 2001-2010 decade due to natural solar forces alone even if CO2 levels had not increased at all in the 20th century.
    • The effect of CO2 has been growing with concentration and will make a large difference in the future even if it hasn’t made much difference so far.

    It’s just one of those cosmic co-incidences that solar activity is forecast to decrease at the same time that CO2 increases, and the CO2 creates more warming than the cooling of the Svensmark effect by 2100 AD.
    Remember that the feebleness of CO2 at creating a radiative imbalance is one explanation for why it would take so long for that small imbalance to add up to a significant temperature difference (+0.7°C over 200 years in this scenario).

    On the other hand, my model’s climate sensitivity parameter could be completely wrong and perhaps an initial non-equilibrium state that takes 100 years to warm to equilibrium might have been the reason it has apparently matched the historic warming trend so well.
    It’s Work In Progress, make of it what you will.

    00

  • #
    Don Gaddes

    The current ‘Five Year Dry Period’ started circa 110 degrees longitude East of Prime (Beijing) in mid February 2013. It has crossed the United States and other countries in related longitudes and reached the Eastern Pacific. it will reach the Australian East Coast in early January 2015. (Thirty degrees of longitude/Solar Month – with the East/West Solar orbit of the Earth’s Magnetic Field.) It will be exacerbated by the onset of a Lunar Metonic Cycle (18.61 years) in 2016.
    This series of Solar Induced ‘Dry’ Cycles will see ‘raised’ temperatures (due to lack of precipitation) and less ice at the poles and elsewhere. This phenomenon has little or nothing to do with AGW or ENSO.
    Note the failure of the monsoon to the West of 110 degrees longitude, and the recent typhoon and rainfall over Japan – where the current Dry Period will not arrive until mid February 2015.
    This series of ‘Dry’ Cycles last occurred from 1997 – 2001. Before that, 1979 – 1983 et al (an 18 year repeat.)
    These ‘Dry’ Cycles were identified and exactly predicted by Alex S. Gaddes in his work ‘Tomorrow’s Weather’ (1990)
    It may be noted by David Evans (and others,) that Alex S. Gaddes used a Sunspot Wave Frequency of 11.028148 Years, as a ‘constant’ in his calculations – and postulated the existence of a Solar Entity responsible, which he dubbed The ‘W’ (or ‘Weather’ Factor.) Note; The accepted Sunspot Frequency value was 11.1 years at the time – and was termed a ‘Cycle.’

    An updated version of this work (including ‘Dry’ Cycle forecasts to 2055,) is available as a free pdf from dongaddes93@gmail.com

    00

  • #
    pat

    sounds like a laugh!

    Sony Pictures Classics Acquires Worldwide Rights to ‘Merchants of Doubt’
    MERCHANTS OF DOUBT is presented by Sony Pictures Classics, in association with Participant Media and Omidyar Network, a film by Kenner, produced by Kenner and Melissa Robledo, executive produced by Jeff Skoll and Diane Weyermann of Participant Media, and Pierre Omidyar of Omidyar Network, and co-produced by Brian Pearle, Taki Oldham, Dylan Nelson and Youtchi von Lintel…
    The film will be slated to be released by the end of the year.
    Inspired by the acclaimed book by Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway, MERCHANTS OF DOUBT takes audiences on a satirically comedic, yet illuminating ride into the heart of conjuring American spin. Filmmaker Robert Kenner lifts the curtain on a secretive group of highly charismatic, silver-tongued pundits-for-hire who present themselves in the media as scientific authorities – yet have the contrary aim of spreading maximum confusion about well-studied public threats ranging from toxic chemicals to pharmaceuticals to climate change.
    Kenner commented, “I was thrilled that Participant Media and The Omidyar Network were ready to back a comedy about science denial and that Sony Pictures Classics will be taking this film out into the world. With MERCHANTS OF DOUBT, I saw a chance to show audiences a world they hadn’t seen before—a chance to lift the curtain and expose how these messages are crafted and sold to the public.”…
    ABOUT PARTICIPANT MEDIA
    Participant is a global entertainment company founded in 2004 by Jeff Skoll to focus on feature film, television, publishing and digital content that inspires social change. Participant’s more than 55 films include Good Night, and Good Luck, Syriana, An Inconvenient Truth, Food, Inc., Waiting for ‘Superman’, The Help, Contagion and Lincoln. Participant, uniquely, launches campaigns that bring together government entities, foundations, schools, and others to raise awareness and drive people to take action on issues from each film or television show…
    http://www.participantmedia.com/2014/08/sony-pictures-classics-acquires-worldwide-rights-merchants-doubt/

    00

  • #
    Radical Rodent

    Good grief! Now I KNOW that the Grauniad has lost the plot! I posted a fairly innocuous comment on their site, to have it “moderated” off as “not abiding by community standards”. Sadly, it was one of the few I made “on the hoof”, so have no verbatim copy, but it was along the lines of: “Odd. This is also the result that would have occurred if the globe had warmed naturally. How very odd.”

    I take it that the new Groan “community standards” are along the lines of: “You WILL NOT express any disagreement with anything we tell you!” Now, where have we heard sentiments like that before?

    20

  • #

    “Everything bar climate-sameness is proof the climate changes.”

    Yep! The climate change hypothesis states that unless both time and temperature are held constant, impacts* tend to occur. (It’s fully scientific.)

    Until very recently, nobody had the slightest suspicion that this might be true.

    *The word “impacts” is used in the scientific sense, meaning “changes; events; stuff.”

    00