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

CO2 is not making storms worse near Japan either

Yet more evidence that there is no relationship between CO2 and cyclones, hurricanes, and typhoons. This paper from 2012 tests the theory that global warming made storms more severe and tried to find any effect on typhoons hitting Japan that could be linked to climate change since 1980.

There has been no increase in “super typhoons”. The typhoon season is not longer, nor is it delayed in starting. There has been no change in intensity. The wind speeds are not increasing. The minimum pressure is pretty much the same.

CO2 appears to influence storms in simulated worlds, but not so much in the real one. There is no sign of more severe storms in Australia, New Zealand or the South Pacific either. Nor is there any pattern in the Global Energy indicies, US Hurricanes, US Tornadoes either.

When will scientists and reporters make sure that their audiences know that?

The authors conclude:

“The results suggest that typhoons have not been influenced by global warming. In conclusion, global warming has not significantly changed the characteristics of typhoons, and there is no close relationship between the two.”

Figure 19. Number of super typhoons that develop

” A super typhoon is defined as a typhoon with a mean maximum wind velocity (for one minute) of 130 knots (67 m/s) or higher”

Figure 14. Numbers of typhoons that hit Japan from October in ten-year periods (total)

 

Figure 7. Average number of typhoons that hit Japan

 

 

Figure 15.  Changes in the minimum  pressure of  typhoons

Curiously, it looks like there may not be as many cyclones with a low minimum pressure below 900 hPa, but the wind speeds didn’t decrease. Perhaps the spread of atmospheric pressures narrowed, though even if this is associated with a warmer climate, that doesn’t mean  CO2 had anything to do with it. And since wind speed is what matters, it’s a mere curiosity.

Figure 16. Number of typhoons with a minimum pressure of 900 hPa or lower

 Changes in the intensity of typhoons that occurred after 1950 were examined based on minimum atmospheric pressures and maximum wind velocities. The results do not support the theory that the intensity of typhoons has become higher due to global warming.

Although there was a decrease in the number of typhoons with a low minimum pressure, the number of typhoons with a high maximum wind velocity did not decrease. In recent years, the intensity of typhoons has become higher even when the atmospheric pressure is not very low; there has been a change in the relation between the minimum atmospheric pressure and maximum wind velocity.

There was also no increase in the average minimum atmospheric pressure.

Abstract

The present paper examines the theory that global warming causes abnormal weather phenomena involving typhoons, focusing on the numbers of typhoons that develop and hit Japan and their intensities. According to records, since 1980, there has been a decrease in the annual number of typhoons that develop during the year, whereas there has been an increase in those that approach and hit Japan. The annual number of typhoons since 1980 is the same as in the period between 1951 and 1960. The numbers of typhoons that approached and hit the country were the highest during the period from 1951 to 1970, and started to decline between 2001 and 2010. When compared to the data on the numbers of typhoons that developed, approached, and hit Japan during the period from 1951 to 1970, there have been no significant changes since 1980. Data on the monthly numbers of typhoons that develop, approach, and hit also suggest that there has been no significant prolongation of the typhoon season or delay in its start. Regarding the intensity of typhoons, there has been no significant change in the mean minimum pressure of typhoons, a decrease in the number of typhoons with a very low minimum pressure, and no significant increase in the number of typhoons with a very large maximum wind velocity.

 

h/t to Steve (again).

REFERENCE

Masakazu Yamashita, Jun Mitsumata, Does Global Warming Affect Typhoon Patterns in Japan? Discussion from the Viewpoints of the Numbers of Typhoons That Develop, Approach, and Hit Japan, and Their Intensities, Resources and Environment, Vol. 3 No. 5, 2013, pp. 115-128. doi: 10.5923/j.re.20130305.02. [abstract]

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.4/10 (72 votes cast)
CO2 is not making storms worse near Japan either, 9.4 out of 10 based on 72 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/km9t89l

128 comments to CO2 is not making storms worse near Japan either

  • #
    Peter C

    CO2 appears to influence storms in simulated worlds, but not so much in the real one. There is no sign of more severe storms in Australia, New Zealand or the South Pacific either. Nor is there any pattern in the Global Energy indicies, US Hurricanes, US Tornadoes either.

    When will scientists and reporters make sure that their audiences know that?

    I don’t know.

    That is what we are here for!

    300

  • #

    Yet more evidence that there is no relationship between CO2 and cyclones, hurricanes, and typhoons.

    I wouldn’t think there would be. But more surprisingly there’s no evidence that CO2 has an effect, any effect at all, on… temperatures.

    See and spread the word about this key 3 minute video that exposes Al Gore’s willful lies about CO2. It can change people from warmists to skeptics, like it did for me: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WK_WyvfcJyg&info=GGWarmingSwindle_CO2Lag

    253

    • #
      David-of-Cooyal in Oz

      Wow, that’s great. I’ve already forwarded the link to my local member, my kids and my grandkids. (I suspect they think I’ve lost my marbles on this topic.) And I’ll look for others.
      Well found, and thanks for posting it.

      Dave Beach
      Cooyal

      60

  • #
    john karajas

    So the world ain’t going to hell in a handbasket? Who woulda thunk?

    Look this is really not fair. What are our good journos going to have to do next to deliver our daily quotients of fear and trepidation?

    202

  • #
    tom0mason

    Wow what a refreshing change!
    From the paper Joanne has linked (it’s a free pdf) comes this bombshell -

    In fact, some of those unusual phenomena may have been caused by global warming. However, it makes no sense to overreact to every abnormal weather phenomenon and promote measures for the prevention of global warming and CO2 reduction activities based on their vague images. Has there actually been an increase in the frequency of abnormal weather phenomena? If there has been an increase, what are the causes? Are they really related to global warming? It is necessary to examine these points.

    IMO that would not have been in there a couple of years ago.
    Is reality finally beginning to catch up with the scientific reporters of climate variations?

    252

  • #
    el gordo

    Increasing human induced CO2 has dampened tornado activity in the US.

    https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/image119.png

    183

  • #
    toorightmate

    Quick, quick, get the homogenizer.

    222

    • #
      Peter Miller

      My guess that someone is going to be fired over this.

      How could all this information be allowed into the public domain without homogenisation?

      The first step will be to make a few, almost imperceptible, moves to reduce the number and severity of the hurricanes in the past.

      The next step will be to accelerate the homogenisation process while simultaneously losing/deleting the original raw data.

      Well, that’s typical climate science as it is usually practiced today.

      As for the article, it was so refreshing to see one where the real world observations are demonstrated to be different from the fantasy world models and not have the comment that the observations must be wrong.

      262

    • #
      Peter Miller

      My guess that someone is going to be fired over this.

      How could all this information be allowed into the public domain without homogenisation?

      The first step will be to make a few, almost imperceptible, moves to reduce the number and severity of the hurricanes in the past.

      The next step will be to accelerate the homogenisation process while simultaneously losing/deleting the original raw data.

      Well, that’s typical climate science as it is usually practiced today.

      As for the article, it was so refreshing to see one where the real world observations are demonstrated to be different from the fantasy world models and not have the comment that the observations must be wrong.

      112

    • #
      RB

      Just let me clean it first. Made some gazpacho.

      91

  • #

    Let me test a thought with you. Maybe there is a connection, but it is the other way around. Where global warming causes a decrease in storm activity. I had read some years ago an article by someone, (and I forget who it was) that suggested this. As air movement and heat flow is driven by temperature difference, and I understand global warming should heat the colder upper atmosphere first, and the poles more than the equator, then the differentials would reduce. Therefore the energy flows would reduce and storm intensity reduce. Just a thought.

    241

    • #
      Peter C

      Have the CAGW crowd got it all backwards! It would not be the first time.

      You are suggesting that a decrease in severe weather events might be evidence for global warming! Well you might not be the first. And I might agree.

      212

      • #

        Yes, a decrease in severe weather events is evidence of global warming. And an increase in severe weather events is also evidence for global warming. Warm winters are evidence for global warming, as are cold winters. Drought, excess rain, or just normal weather (which is odd) is evidence for global warming. Record cold is evidence of record heat. So cut CO2 to the bone! Or else!

        361

      • #
        toorightmate

        This view is logical.
        After all, global warming makes more ice and record snowfalls.
        Global warming knows no bounds.

        110

    • #
    • #
      Manfred

      My simplistic understanding is that with global warming a decline in the temperature gradient between the Poles and the equator is hypothesised with a resulting diminishing of vigorous weather. Doubtless, this remains very far from the political abomination of ‘settled science’, given the nature of a non-linear chaotic system. Nevertheless, a decline in ‘recent’ storminess appears well established in the empirical record.

      That it (increasingly extreme weather) has somehow been twisted into a marker for global warming highlights the inverted perverted thinking of the water melons – typified by the Orwellian axiom, “yes is no.” Water melons rely for their life blood on the dramatic. A mutual feeding frenzy appears to exist between them and their helpless aesthenic, latte swilling victims, the MSMBC. Without the lip smacking suck of the dramatic they wilt, rather like CO2 deprived chlorophyll.

      Significant decline in storminess over southeast Australia since the late 19th century. Alexander LV et al. Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Journal 61:1 March 2011.

      Geostrophic wind speeds (geo-winds) were estimated for southeast Australia by constructing eight station triangles from instrumental records of quality controlled sub-daily mean sea-level pressure from 1885 to 2008. Seasonal 95th and 99th percentiles of the geo-winds were calculated and used to identify periods of enhanced ‘storminess’ over each triangle. While the results were marked by strong multi-decadal variations, they indicated a statistically significant decline in storminess across most regions in southeast Australia since the end of the 19th century, particularly in autumn and winter. The results for winter for most regions were also statistically significantly correlated with year-to-year variations in southeast Australian rainfall although the correlation coefficients were small. Regionally averaged results showed a peak in storminess in the 1920s with least activity in the 1960s in all seasons. Although there has generally been an upturn in storminess in recent decades compared to the immediately preceding decades, it has not been of nearly the same magnitude as in the late 19th and early 20th century. While similar studies have been performed in the northern hemisphere over this length of period, we believe that this is the first time that the method has been applied to Australia. The results indicate that in addition to other climatic processes, the long-term decline in storminess may be contributing to the persistent drought conditions that are being experienced in this densely populated region.

      152

    • #
      tom0mason

      You may have been reminded of a paper that came out at the end of January this year enjoying the title of -

      ‘Constrained work output of the moist atmospheric heat engine in a warming climate

      As The Hockschtick blog says -

      New paper finds global warming reduces intense storms & extreme weather
      A paper published today in Science contradicts the prior belief that global warming, if it resumes, will fuel more intense storms, finding instead that an increase in water vapor and strengthened hydrological cycle will reduce the atmosphere’s ability to perform thermodynamic Work, thus decreasing the formation of intense winds, storms, and hurricanes. The authors demonstrate instead that if warming resumes

      Though as you say I’m sure I’ve heard such things voiced earlier — E|M Smith (ChiefIO) perhaps…

      100

    • #
      Mark Hladik

      My memory is fuzzy on this also. Marcel Leroux may have published something like this.

      40

    • #

      I understood that the “consensus” was still equivocating…

      for example from here http://www.c2es.org/science-impacts/extreme-weather/hurricanes

      It’s unclear whether climate change will increase or decrease the number of hurricanes, but warmer ocean surface temperatures and higher sea levels are expected to intensify their impacts.

      The connection between climate change and hurricane frequency is less straightforward.

      In other words the article Jo is reporting upon is saying nothing new within the climate science community. The MSM on the other hand hates equivocation and also hates changing a narrative once it has begun one.

      Jo’s comment – when will scientists and reporters let the public know… see the above quotes from scientific outreach. and also here

      http://www.bom.gov.au/cyclone/climatology/trends.shtml

      Trends in tropical cyclone activity in the Australian region (south of the equator; 90–160°E) show that the total number of cyclones appears to have decreased to the mid 1980s, and remained nearly stable since. The number of severe tropical cyclones (minimum central pressure less than 970 hPa) shows no clear trend over the past 40 years.

      http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes

      It is premature to conclude that human activities–and particularly greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming–have already had a detectable impact on Atlantic hurricane activity.

      etc etc many times over but there is definitely a disconnect with science output in reviewed publications and from public output from primary sources (ie BOMs, research institutes etc) and the reporting that ends up being seen by most of the disinterested or unsuspecting general public. See this for example http://www.skepticalscience.com/hurricanes-global-warming.htm. What is said here is not incorrect per se and they even say, “So far, all we’ve managed is to document here is what we don’t know for sure yet”, but at the same time can’t help themselves but to include a cherry picked data set as the dominant graphic leaving the impression that we actually do know. These types of sources are from where the msm gets much of its interpretation of scientific data.

      62

  • #
    ROM

    Peter C @ # 1 seems to have picked up the similar points that I was looking at.
    Maybe Jo needs to alter a couple of comments in her headline post.

    It is after all scientists who have done the analysis of the cyclone data and have provided this conclusion.
    In that they are just doing what scientists should be doing, questioning and being sceptical and checking on others claims as well as developing their own line of thinking to add to the store of human knowledge.

    Jo’s comments and we are all at fault here as there are decent scientists who are doing a sterling job against some very vicious ideologically based deeply personal attacks including from what one would assume, would be so called scientists within their own disciplines.

    Few of us in our unthinking way ever actually differentiate between those real scientists as in the example above who researched the real effects of the current climate on cyclone activity compared to the outlandish and totally inept claims of the climate catastrophe advocating scientists to whom Jo refers to who are implicit, even more so than the reporters who use those same advocate scientists as their sources, to spread completely false and misleading information on not only climate matters but increasingly in other fields as well ,
    Fields in science such as the supposed evils of GMO’s, fraking. fossil fuels, health strategies plus many other supposed scientifically researched subjects, nearly all of which like climate catastrophe claims are proving to be based on rigged, unverified and mostly just pure plain very bad research, heavily biased and bigoted by the ideological stance which the scientists / researchers involved if not actually already owned by the greenpeace’s of this world are still very ideologically bigoted towards a deep green colour /deep red and watermelon colour .

    So lets differentiate between those scientists who reported on the non effect of the non global warming on the non increase in cyclone strength and frequency from the rabid, bigoted scientists who are prepared to sell their scientific soul by claiming climate effects which don’t exist, have never existed and cannot be proven to exist in a rigid researched non ideological fashion..

    Those ideologically bigoted scientists along with a host of unthinking, lazy and basically incompetent reporters and editors who are rigid in their ideological stance as to what they publish, have sold their souls almost literally for a mass of ideological porridge which will in the end most likely choke them both publicly and reputationly and destroy much of what might pass for their future science career as Nature just keeps on doing what Nature does regardless of what the advocate scientists and greens who in their pitiful, loud mouthed chest thumping personas are arrogant enough to think we humans can do anything much at all to influence Nature in her endless quest for the Next Big Thing as paleo history so clearly outlines for us..

    As that old saying goes when it comes to forecasting and predicting what Nature will do next and how we humans should make all preparations for those scientifically predicted and therefore unchallengeable outcomes of Natural forces.[ sarc / ]

    The well laid plans of mice and men oft go astray”

    And so has much of the science of today but there are beacons in the scientific wilderness that is science today and the research quoted on the non effects of the so called anthropogenic influences on the global climate on cyclones is one.

    We should also recognise that good science as well as savagely castigating the seriously bad of todays corrupted science and media.

    172

    • #
      PeterPetrum

      The saying is, actually
      “The best-laid schemes o’ mice an’ men
      Gang aft agley,”
      From Robert Burns “Tae a moose”

      172

      • #
        PeterPetrum

        Now why would someone “red thumb” my comment. Unless they thought that I was talking about a large Canadian ruminant rather than a small Scottish rodent! Or maybe someone is just running down the page red-thumbing everything they see without reading it. An indication of IQ level perhaps?

        212

        • #
          Manfred

          PP, it’s that pesky troll-like Brownian digit hard at work, expressing random barrages of brain stem reflex – think ‘The Monkey’s Paw‘.

          102

          • #
            ROM

            PeterPetrum @ # 8.1.1

            “Now why would someone “red thumb” my comment.”

            I/ They have read your comment and don’t like it or what it implies.
            Points for;
            If they did read your comment, not always the case of course, you will have imparted some small item of knowledge which implies that you will have altered their thinking and understanding in some small way despite their red thumbing.

            2/ They don’t like you personally.
            The don’t like what you post generally
            They didn’t bother to read your post
            They can’t read your post
            If they did read your post they don’t understand the gist of what you are posting.
            They have a serious reflex problem with a few fingers and thumbs of the “left” hand on the keyboard when they read anything outside of their very limited understanding.
            They are coloured a deep green on the outside and deep red on the inside.
            You aren’t of the “chosen ones” who are going to see to the “salvation of the planet” and therefore must be “condemned” in every possible way.

            Taking all the above second point characteristics into account, their IQ probably matches their their shoe size so what the hell else could you expect!

            81

          • #
            tom0mason

            Also at http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/12133
            where the free books are…

            00

  • #

    The grand-mummy of Japanese typhoons in modern times would have to be Typhoon Vera of 1959. Australia’s biggie was Mahina in 1899, but the boss of Vera and Mahina, and of all known storms, would have to be Tip, 1979. Tip had it all, except it didn’t aim well. None of this is under covers, but we’re supposed to pretend stuff just happened back then, whereas now it happens because of YOU.

    151

  • #
    Climate Heretic

    WUWT has a similar article “So far, 2015 seems to be a bad year for the ‘severe weather caused by climate change’ meme”.

    With articles and papers like these, then AGW, will suffer a ‘death by a thousand cuts’.

    Regards
    Climate Heretic

    232

    • #
      King Geo

      Spot on comment Climate Heretic.

      “then AGW, will suffer a death by a thousand cuts”.

      This very succinctly sums up the state of play.

      The “Warmists” are completely delusional and the “Theory of AGW” will not suffer a death by a thousand cuts but far worse be remembered in the annuls of history as the most destructive “belief system” created in modern human history, by that I mean since Homo sapiens evolved on planet Earth circa 200,000 years ago, ie near the beginning of the previous Ice Age (Riss Glacial) in the Late Pleistocene.

      142

  • #
    Rollo

    Old news now but in the AR5 report, the IPCC itself downplays claims that climate change results in increasing floods, droughts and hurricanes. In fact there are a few conservative more balanced views on climate extremes within the report, but the fanatics never notice. I wonder what the scientists, who contribute these more measured statements, think when they see how their views are mangled by the IPCC publicists, the MSM and dopey politicians.

    110

  • #
    Tristan

    Seems like you missed a couple papers in your review of the literature, Jo. I know you would be distressed at the idea of conveying anything but the complete picture.

    430

    • #
      Carbon500

      More references to modelled climate here, Tristan – and that’s the point where I lose interest.
      I like real world data, present and historical, and the paper Jo refers to cites actual measurements taken during real hurricanes which go back to the early 1950s – have you in fact downloaded the paper and read it?
      It’s refreshing to read such a paper.
      At last (thankfully) investigators are looking in detail and asking ‘what climate change?’

      303

    • #
      Oksanna

      From Tristan’s first link,

      “Projected …. threat ….”

      Yes, says what Carbon500 spotted, in a nutshell: more modelling fantasies.

      272

    • #
      tom0mason

      Two of Trist’s cited papers are about modeled probabilities, the last one is a statistical analysis of the past records and attempting to make predictions.
      A quick test on what do we know of such papers -

      1. Climate models have proved to be? -
      a. Accurate
      b. Complete GIGO.

      2. Statistical analysis using mixed modeled/observed input to project future scenarios have proved to be? -
      a. Accurate
      b. Complete GIGO.

      Also of note that two of these papers model, and play statistical games with Atlantic models, e.g. where Japan isn’t.

      271

    • #
      Tristan

      Abstract 1: “Here, we relate a homogeneous record of Atlantic tropical cyclone activity based on storm surge statistics from tide gauges to changes in global temperature patterns.” ie They are looking to create a model what actually happened.

      Abstract 2: “We find no anthropogenic signal in annual global tropical cyclone or hurricane frequencies. But a strong signal is found in proportions of both weaker and stronger hurricanes”

      Abstract 3: “Atlantic tropical cyclones are getting stronger on average, with a 30-year trend that has been related to an increase in ocean temperatures over the Atlantic Ocean and elsewhere”

      There are plenty of ‘models show that xyz should happen’ papers. These papers do not fit that category.

      224

      • #
        Tristan

        Anyway, it’s been fun chaps, see you again in a couple months no doubt. x

        324

        • #
          toorightmate

          See y’ later, alligator.

          70

        • #
          Owen Morgan

          I notice how quickly Tristan Troll scarpered, to avoid having to justify his comments in any kind of debate. Comment 12.4 (Tristan): 11:07 pm. Comment 12.4.1 (Tristan: “Anyway, it’s been fun chaps, see you again in a couple months no doubt. x“): 11:08 pm.

          80

          • #
            tom0mason

            Keep a copy of the text or bookmark it ready for his sad return.
            Then we can see his justifications.

            :|

            20

      • #
        Carbon500

        And where does the alleged ‘anthropogenic signal’ come from, exactly?
        No other source but computer modelling!
        And even were there an anthropogenic component, the Japanese study shows that it hasn’t made any difference to hurricanes as described – so where is the danger caused by CO2 shown in this study?

        171

      • #
        Andrew McRae

        An interesting counterpoint there, Tristan, thanks for adding some texture to the thread.

        And for each alarmist interpretation there is a cool headed alternative:

        Upon adding the estimated numbers of missed TCs, the time series of moderate to long-lived Atlantic TCs show substantial multidecadal variability, but neither time series exhibits a significant trend since the late nineteenth century, with a nominal decrease in the adjusted time series.
        [..]
        While it is possible that the recorded increase in short-duration TCs represents a real climate signal, the authors consider that it is more plausible that the increase arises primarily from improvements in the quantity and quality of observations, along with enhanced interpretation techniques.
        [...]
        Since our ability to observe the maximum intensities of TCs has changed substantially over time, we anticipate severe difficulties in constructing reliable century-long records of these phenomena directly.

        Even if cyclones were getting stronger, there’s no evidence that the costs of cyclone damage are increasing. With USA as an example, after adjusting for monetary devaluation, population growth, and wealth, in the top 20 most costly USA hurricanes of the last 100 years, only 9 occurred after 1960, 11 occurred before 1960. That’s just the total-absence-of-trend you’d expect if building standards rose quicker than peak wind speed.

        132

    • #
      James Bradley

      Tristan,

      Discredited.

      92

  • #
    Carbon500

    I recently found an interesting book in a charity shop.
    The title is ‘The Undergrowth of Science’, and the subtitle refers to ‘delusion, self-deception and human frailty.’
    The author’s name is Walter Gratzer, and the publisher Oxford University Press.
    In the foreword, he states that ‘…more remarkable is the way that false theories and imagined phenomena sometimes spread through the scientific community.’
    He goes on to comment that ‘On such occasions scientists in areas of research throw aside, to the amazement of their colleagues, the intellectual constraints that had until then guided their working lives. They become selectively uncritical and intolerant of any unsought evidence. Sometimes such a perversion of the scientific method results from external, especially political, pressures but at other times it is a spontaneous eruption. The communal derangement may last for months or years, but the end is always as sudden, and often unaccountable, as the genesis of the effect. It leaves behind smouldering reputations and red faces, and provokes deep introspection and scratching of heads.’
    It’s a fascinating book, first printed in 2000.
    I think that the author will soon be able to add the man-made catastrophic global warming scare to his list of scientific aberrations.

    242

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    CO2 is not making storms worse near Japan either

    Poor Mr. Gore will be so disappointed at this news. He can’t seem to win.

    And speaking of Al Gore, guess who some Democrat strategist has suggested would be the ideal presidential candidate in 2016. If your guess is Al Gore, give yourself a gold star.

    It really is true that what goes around comes around — again and again and again and… …forever. :-(

    151

    • #
      tom0mason

      Roy Hogue,

      Yes, basically Svante A. Arrhenius initial ideas are wrong. His later modifications were less wrong.

      90

      • #
        tom0mason

        But that doesn’t stop it going round, and round, and rou…,
        .
        So Gore has the Arrhenius effect…
        .
        …or something like that!

        :)

        80

      • #
        David-of-Cooyal in Oz

        Hi Tom,
        Do you have a reference for that? I noticed the recent AAS (Australian Academy of Science) document used Arrhenius as a refence, but don’t know a suitable rebuttal source.
        Thanks,
        Dave Beach
        Cooyal

        00

        • #
          tom0mason

          David-of-Cooyal in Oz

          (Links in highlighted text)
          A facsimile of the original On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground by Svante Arrhenius from Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science Series 5, Volume 41, April 1896, pages 237-276. (4Mb pdf file!)

          One of the most readable sites with heaps of links about Tyndal, Arrhenius, Fourier, etc put together by Timothy Casey B.Sc. (Hons.) Consulting Geologist.

          A quote from one paragraph is -

          2.2 Aethereal Misunderstanding versus Subatomic Heat Transfer

          Arrhenius (1906b, pp. 154 and 225) still clung to the aether hypothesis, which refers to the unspecified material medium of space. Arrhenius’ adherence to this hypothesis remained firm in spite of its sound refutation by Michelson & Morley (1887). This leaves the conceptual underpinning of radiation in Arrhenius’ “Greenhouse Effect” to Tyndall (1864, pp. 264-265; 1867, p. 416), who ascribes communication of molecular vibration into the aether and communication of aethereal vibration to molecular motion. This interaction conceptually separates radiated heat from conducted heat so that radiation remains separate and distinct from conductive heat flow – effectively isolating conductive heat flow from the radiative mode of heat transfer. Thus no consideration is made for internal radiative transfer as a part of conductive transfer, in the context of aethereal wave propagation. However, Arrhenius’ contemporaries, having moved beyond the debunked aether hypothesis, had a much more realistic perspective of the interactions between radiation, heat, and subatomic particles.

          Also there is ‘Svante Arrhenius And The Greenhouse Effect’. This paper is an introduction to the special issue of Ambio (Ambio Vol. 26 No 1, February 1997) commemorating the 100-year anniversary of the publication of Svante Arrhenius’landmark paper on the greenhouse effect. Arrhenius’ most significant achievements.(1.5Mb pdf of mostly cleaned-up history)

          I have quite a few other references but I have failed to keep track of where I got them all.

          10

  • #
    handjive

    How does carbon(sic) cause snow?

    Nasa:
    “The global concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere – the primary driver of recent climate change – has reached 400 parts per million (ppm) for the first time in recorded history, according to data from the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii.”
    (Note no publish date on Nasa site, but I have had it bookmarked for over 2 years now)

    13 March, 2015: Now here’s something you don’t see every day: snow in Hawaii!
    (Phil Plait writes Slate’s Bad Astronomy blog and is an astronomer, public speaker, science evangelizer …)

    > Phil Plait hasn’t heard of a search engine?

    1962, Pacific Supervisory Office, U.S. Weather Bureau, Honolulu:
    All of Hawaii’s three highest mountains- Mauna Kea (13,796′), Mauna Loa (13,680′) and Haleakala (10,025′) – do experience falls of snow from time to time, especially during the cooler half of the year (October to April)
    Our records show the following measured maximum depths and lowest elevations reached for the period 1915-1958, inclusive.

    PHOTOS: Mauna Kea & Mauna Loa Snow, March 15, 2015
    . . .

    Or does carbon(sic) stop warming, or reflecting warmth at pressure? Phil Plait:
    “It’s funny to think of Hawaii as getting cold, but when your island goes from sea level to more than a third of the way out of the atmosphere (as measured by pressure, at least), you get a bit of diversity in the weather.”

    80

    • #
      Carbon500

      Handjive: your piece about Hawaii reminds me of information I dug out some time ago in response to the rubbish about the ice caps melting and disappearing forever.
      It’s worth repeating here for warmists everywhere, and as always this is the real world. It’s from a proper meteorology book, ‘The Atmosphere’ by Lutgens and Tarbuck.
      Two ice sheets currently exist on Earth, Greenland and Antarctica. They have an ice cap climate, with no monthly mean above zero Celsius. The average temperature of all months is below freezing, and the landscape is one of permanent ice and snow. This climate covers about 9% of Earth’s land area. Average annual temperatures are extremely low. For example, the annual mean at Eismitte, Greenland is -29C, at Byrd Station Antarctica -21C, and at Vostok (a Russian Antarctic station) it’s -57C. Vostok experienced the lowest temperature ever recorded (-88.3C) on August 24th, 1960.
      Eismitte is at 10,000 feet(almost 3000 metres)above sea level, and much of Antarctica even higher. Near surface temperatures can be as much as 30C colder than the air just a few hundred metres higher.
      I’m reminded of a comment I saw in National Geographic magazine by a Russian scientist working in these environments.
      He said that manmade global warming was something made up by people who worked in offices, and who really should get out more. I can see his point.

      180

    • #
      Skeptik

      Interesting, snow in Hawaii AND CO2 rising, could snow cause the CO2 to rise thereby raising global temperatures. Must make a computer model to prove it.

      50

  • #
    tom0mason

    Funny that Masakazu Yamashita et al finding cited here seems to tally very much with parts of LENNART BENGTSSON et al paper ‘How may tropical cyclones change in a warmer climate?’ Article first published online: 1 JUN 2007.
    This paper shows an investigation into the modeling of TCs under different climate condition but they say

    While there is no significant change between the 19th and the 20th century, there is a considerable reduction in the number of the TC by some 20% in the 21st century, but no change in the number of the more intense storms. Reduction in the number of storms occurs in all regions.

    So even these climate modelers do not see TC increases either in number or intensity that the misanthropic CAGW crowd would gleefully wish to appear.

    100

  • #
    TdeF

    Off topic. I just received my National Geographic, a fantastic magazine I have loved since childhood.
    The front page, the lead article has been taken over by religious Climate Change nuts. They seriously suggest reeducation for scientists who are sceptics and that students are taught how to believe what they are told. Stalin would love it.

    “The Age of Disbelief

    It’s an old but troubling phenomenon: Many of us reject the evidence that scientists painstakingly compile”

    So anyone who dares disagree with Climate Change (whatever that means) is lumped with
    Creationists
    Anti Vaxers
    Man on the moon sceptics
    Anti GM crops people

    It seems you are not allowed to disagree with the science of Al Gore. He has created a bigger following than L Ron Hubbard.

    Absolutely disgusted and so sad to see this venerable and wonderful magazine spruiking the extremist political views of the communist Greens and the carpetbaggers pulling in $1Bn a day from the scam and plotting the downfall of Western civilization. More windmills. More solar panels. It is part of the push for handing over political power in November in Paris, as are ceaseless attacks on sceptical politicians like Tony Abbott whose latest crime against humanity is trying an onion without even peeling it!

    160

    • #
      Skeptik

      Should send them all to North Koea, I understand the Communist regimes are very good at re-education.

      80

    • #
      ROM

      I am starting to wonder just how much the media and journals such as the National Geographic have actually changed over the last half century or perhaps even longer.
      We held journals and much of the media in high regard during those past decades as they were our ONLY source of information and news about the world outside of our circle of immediate and generally local contacts.

      Since the advent of the Internet and the our almost instantaneous access to the colossal amount of information from virtually every part of the planet and our ability to cross check the veracity of the information and news the media promotes and publishes, everything, including our views and attitude towards the media and journals have shifted and are still evolving.

      That news and information can now be checked from multiple sources in only a couple of minutes by the increasing billions who now have and are getting access to the internet.

      So the media and the Journals that we paid our deep respects to in the now two decades past, are all now to be found seriously wanting when it comes to accuracy and truthfulness and deliberate discrimination in their range of news and information they report on and the information they impart.

      For those who know history when it comes to reporting on global warming, we are seeing a repeat in today’s media of the notorious late 1800′s Yellow Journalism of William Randolph Hearst and Joseph Pulitzer who through their no holds barred news sheet competition had a very considerable role in forcing America into declaring War on the Spain, the now known as Spanish American war of 1898.

      Not much has changed in the media over the last century when it comes to reporting truthfully and with a commitment to accuracy.

      We have our own version of “Yellow Journalism” in our media today and it still stinks to the high heavens of the quite deliberate corruption of the facts and the truth just as it did back in the days of Hearst and Pulitzer

      90

      • #
        Just-A-Guy

        ROM,

        I am starting to wonder just how much the media and journals such as the National Geographic have actually changed over the last half century or perhaps even longer.

        Back in 1979, a new magzine called OMNI came out. In addition to science articles like the ones in Scientific American, it also included short science fiction stories. It had a one page section called Continuum which dealt with the paranormal and other similar subject matter.

        Originally, it was fairly easy to distinguish the contents of this small section from the rest of the magazine which dealt with mainstream science, (although sometimes reporting from a slightly different perspective than other science magazines/journals).

        Around 1984, (coincidence?) OMNI morphed into what I call today a ‘rag’. The serious science began to be replaced by all types of pseudo-scientific topics at which point I stopped buying it. At the same time, the quality of the science fiction dropped considerably and, being a fan of good science fiction since my early teens, that too contributed to my ‘dropping it from my budjet’.

        Now here’s the curious part of the story. At around the same time as OMNI deteriorated in quality, I noticed that the other magazines were on the same road. Thinking about it now, but not aware of it at the time, it seems as though all of these publications were competing to see which one could publish the lamest, most not-scientific articles.

        By around 1988, I’d stopped buying all of them.

        Abe

        10

    • #
      Rollo

      Tdef, I too mourn the loss of once good mags to the green madness. In years past, when browsing at news agencies, I always made a point of separating Scientific American, New Scientist , Popular Science and others from the likes of creationism, astrology, homeopathy or whatever, but not any more. These once good science mags are now where they belong. Silicon Chip is one of the few technical mags resisting greening. I still get a kick out of putting left wing climate related outpourings in the new age section when I’m in a bookshop, however!

      60

    • #
      Robert O

      I think most of the scientific community accept the Watson- Crick model of DNA helices being composed of four amino-bases: thymine,cytosine, guanine and adenine. GM crops only contain some small modification of the gene sequence (CGAT) of a species, so what’s the problem as it still made up of these amino-bases?

      20

      • #

        The answer is simple if you follow the following.

        B.subtilis and B.anthraces only differ by a small number of bases. We can engineer one from the other if we wish (in this case no need as both can be found in the soil).

        For GM crops the issue is whther we are happy about what we expect them to do and are happy to accept the risks of what we do not know they will do.

        00

    • #
      Just-A-Guy

      TdeF,

      pulling in $1Bn a day from the scam and plotting the downfall of Western civilization. More windmills. More solar panels.

      You must really hate windmills! :)

      Abe

      00

  • #
    Andrew

    The BOM has the answer – declare EVERY cyclone to be a super-typhoon, aided by The Chook.

    151

  • #
    Ruairi

    The facts on the typhoons we get,
    Or such, now revealed on the Net,
    Are,that all of these storms,
    Are their average norms,
    And not a new climate-change threat.

    141

  • #
    bemused

    I note that tea cups have remained the same size as well.

    70

  • #
    Greg Goodman

    The authors’ fig 19 showing number of “super-typhoons” looks a lot like the magnitude of solar peaks to me. Of cource it’s a pretty clunky way of showing the data jumped into 10y bar graphs.

    https://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=984
    https://climategrog.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/ssn-exp60mo_hadsst3_annotated.png

    This may tie in with David and Jo’s solar theories.

    Also AMO does seem to show a remarkable similarity to Atlantic hurricane ACE:

    https://climategrog.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/amo_ace-no_detrend-1925adj.png

    60

  • #
    Ross

    I think these climate scientists are getting more lesson in spin. We had this release in NZ yesterday related to the topic of this thread

    https://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/top-stories/26768848/is-extreme-weather-the-new-normal-niwa/

    Note this part of the PR

    “Climate scientists are adopting techniques from medical researchers to establish how the odds of various events, like droughts, are likely to change in the coming decades.”

    We are making progress, but different events have different meteorological drivers, and in some cases we can’t yet say as much as we would like because models can’t yet simulate all the relevant features.”

    “What we can say, however, is that the extreme events we’ve experienced recently are a cause for people to think about how they prepare for a changing climate. Most New Zealanders now have an appreciation of the kind of weather the country could experience increasingly in the years to come. They understand the need to prepare for its impacts now.”

    He talks about climate change in the knowledge that most will connect that with CO2 emissions etc. but then includes the bit about “because models can’t yet simulate all the relevant features.”

    So these guys are game playing.

    80

  • #
    Greg Goodman

    http://article.sapub.org/10.5923.j.re.20130305.02.html

    Hey Jo ! How about adding a link to the full paper at the end of the article, not just the abstract?

    40

  • #
    handjive

    scottishsceptic has a post:

    Likely outcome from Ringberg

    “This week it appears that many top … I was going to say people but will be only academics … are meeting at the Max-Planck institute in Ringberg ostensibly to talk about “climate sensitivity”. But in reality it will be to work out how to respond to the criticisms (indeed fact) that the climate models have failed.

    The reality, is that they haven’t a clue what caused the pause.”

    scottishsceptic has possibles of what & why. And is spot on:

    Bloomberg via smh:
    Arctic melt leading to weakest Gulf Stream in a 1,000 years

    “Climate models should be updated as they underestimate the effects of the temperature swings and ice melt, Pennsylvania State University’s Michael Mann said in the statement.

    Researchers have for years raised concerns that shifts in the Gulf Stream may change the climate in Europe.
    One view is that slower circulation may make Europe colder by depriving northern latitudes of warm waters.”

    Read scottishsceptic for context.

    70

    • #
      OriginalSteve

      How the dickens can someone tell if its the weakest gulfstream for a 1000 years?

      Are they speaking out their hats or do thay have proven techniques for being right with this?

      Ironically, having less solar activity might also cause it to be colder, but they dotn seem to have mentioned that. Maunder minimum anyone?

      60

      • #
        handjive

        It was the polar vortex what made “The Only Place It Was Cold This Winter Was The East Coast Of The United States” (thinkprogress)

        Yet, it was the “weakest gulfstream for a 1000 years” that “may make Europe colder by depriving northern latitudes of warm waters.”

        Clive Best’s blog:
        Mann is quite right that the PDO/AMO may likely be the cause of the hiatus, but by accepting this possibility he unfortunately  drives a coach and horses through the AR5 attribution analysis described in chapter 10.
        This is because the probability analysis used there depends on natural variability being precisely zero since 1951.

        60

  • #

    “Yet more evidence that there is no relationship between CO2 and cyclones, hurricanes, and typhoons.” This important news does not seem to have gotten through to the mass Media and in particular the ABC, National Geographic, Scientific American, the Age, the SMH. etc, etc.

    90

  • #
    Neville

    Here is a factual article from Lomborg in the WSJ in February.

    http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com.au/2015/02/the-alarming-thing-about-climate.html

    And here are the facts about deaths from NATURAL disasters in the earlier 20th century and today. That fall of 97% today is remarkable and so are the other points he makes about so called CAGW.
    Here is lomborg’s quote———————-

    “This is important because if we want to help the poor people who are most threatened by natural disasters, we have to recognize that it is less about cutting carbon emissions than it is about pulling them out of poverty.
    The best way to see this is to look at the world’s deaths from natural disasters over time. In the Oxford University database for death rates from floods, extreme temperatures, droughts and storms, the average in the first part of last century was more than 13 dead every year per 100,000 people. Since then the death rates have dropped 97% to a new low in the 2010s of 0.38 per 100,000 people.
    The dramatic decline is mostly due to economic development that helps nations withstand catastrophes. If you’re rich like Florida, a major hurricane might cause plenty of damage to expensive buildings, but it kills few people and causes a temporary dent in economic output. If a similar hurricane hits a poorer country like the Philippines or Guatemala, it kills many more and can devastate the economy.”

    70

  • #
    Neville

    Dr Goklany’s work backs up Lomborg claims.
    And he states at the end of the article that the huge decline in death rates is because of the extended use of fossil fuels.
    IOW if you want a more prosperous and safer way of life make sure you use more fossil fuels. And he is an IPCC author as well.

    http://www.thegwpf.com/indur-m-goklany-global-death-toll-from-extreme-weather-events-declining/

    60

  • #
    handjive

    Steve Goddard has been banned from twitter for saying:
    “After taking power, progressives changed their motto from ‘always question authority’ to ‘it is illegal to question authority.’

    There is a response to get him re-instated, but maybe there is more.

    I don’t have a twitter account but, will create one and my first & only comment will be the above and dare twitter to ban me.

    Maybe other twitters who disagree with twitter’s actions might consider a #hashtag campaign daring twitter to ban them?

    70

    • #
      Byron

      Steve Goddard ( Tony Heller) is back up on twitter , According to twitter He wasn’t banned for saying :

      After taking power, progressives changed their motto from ‘always question authority’ to ‘it is illegal to question authority

      but for :

      non-violent threats and abusive behavior

      Of course They never actually cite the hypothetical non-violent threats or abusive behaviour just re-open the account and send the person a

      please review the rules , repeat violations will result in permanent account suspension

      I suggest that to the zealots of the Church of Carbon Catastrophe the phrase “look at the data stupid” could constitute both abusive behaviour and a non-violent threat as to a true believer merely questioning Their belief system can cause all sorts of mental anguish , actually looking at data that causes them to question Their own faith must be tantamount to torture .

      60

      • #
        tom0mason

        Byron,

        Later in a cold dark place within the church of CO2, voices were heard –

        “These are the charges that you flouted the rules. That you did “non-violent threats and abusive behavior” and then ignored our missive to “please review the rules , repeat violations will result in permanent account suspension”
        Before we pass the guilty judgement, how do you plead in 128 characters or less?…”
        ,
        “Not fast enough but no matter, you are guilty!”
        “Mr Steve Goddard, aka Tony Heller, or as we know you Mr. Kafka!

        You and your account will be taken from here to a place of …”

        30

  • #
    OriginalSteve

    Jo,

    This is a howler…..enjoy!

    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/mar/19/gates-foundation-has-14bn-in-fossil-fuels-investments-guardian-analysis

    The charity run by Bill and Melinda Gates, who say the threat of climate change is so serious that immediate action is needed, held at least $1.4bn (£1bn) of investments in the world’s biggest fossil fuel companies, according to a Guardian analysis of the charity’s most recent tax filing in 2013.

    The companies include BP, responsible for the Deepwater Horizon disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, Anadarko Petroleum, which was recently forced to pay a $5bn environmental clean-up charge and Brazilian mining company Vale, voted the corporation with most “contempt for the environment and human rights” in the world clocking over 25,000 votes in the Public Eye annual awards.

    The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and Asset Trust is the world’s largest charitable foundation, with an endowment of over $43bn, and has already given out $33bn in grants to health programmes around the world, including one that helped rid India of polio in 2014.

    A Guardian campaign, launched on Monday and already backed by over 95,000 people is asking the Gates to sell their fossil fuel investments. It argues: “Your organisation has made a huge contribution to human progress … yet your investments in fossil fuels are putting this progress at great risk. It is morally and financially misguided to invest in companies dedicated to finding and burning more oil, gas and coal.”

    Existing fossil fuel reserves are several times greater than can be burned if the world’s governments are to fulfil their pledge to keep global warming below the danger limit of 2C, but fossil fuel companies continue to spend billions on exploration. In addition to the climate risk, the Bank of England and others argue that fossil fuel assets may pose a “huge risk” to pension funds and other investors as they could be rendered worthless by action to slash carbon emissions.

    Do as I say, not as I do?

    Ouch…..

    80

  • #
    handjive

    Urialla, Canberra’s “greenest village”, home of the greenest nimbys:

    ABC: ACT solar farm project moved from controversial Uriarra site to Williamsdale

    canberratimes: Uriarra solar farm applicants linked to failed NSW green electricity retailer

    > The best ’till last!

    ABC: Uriarra solar farm west of Canberra will increase bushfire risk: report
    . . .
    Wait …what?

    Isn’t renewable energy supposed to stop future bushfires?

    70

  • #
    pat

    i’ve posted CarbonBrief report on the following on jo’s previous “Power Hour” thread, but here’s more…calling for raising the price of CO2 emissions x 200. as i say on the earlier thread, imagine what that would do to the world’s poor:

    23 March: Nature Climate Change: Stochastic integrated assessment of climate tipping points indicates the need for strict climate policy
    Thomas S. Lontzek, Yongyang Cai, Kenneth L. Judd & Timothy M. Lenton
    ***For a plausibly rapid, high-impact tipping event, today’s optimal carbon tax is increased by >200%. …
    http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2570.html

    23 March: University of Exeter: Policy makers should not discount the damages from future climate tipping points
    Society should set a high carbon tax now to try and prevent climate change reaching a point of no return according to a new study
    The research, carried out by the Universities of Exeter, Zurich, Stanford and Chicago is published in the journal Nature Climate Change and shows that the prospect of an uncertain future tipping point should greatly increase the amount we are willing to pay now to limit climate change…
    Depending on the economic impacts of an abrupt change in climate and how quickly this is felt, the cost of carbon emitted now increases by 50 – 200%. Setting a correspondingly high carbon tax would trigger a reduction in carbon emissions that delays the tipping point…
    http://www.exeter.ac.uk/news/featurednews/title_443001_en.html

    20

    • #
      OriginalSteve

      Well that would trash our economy pretty quickly.

      I’m wondering how long before we see the first pollies and/or heads of energy companies tarred and feathered and run out of town? FWIW ( i.e. standard AFP/ASIO disclaimer ) this is not about advocating violence of any sort, rather what we know when society is taxed out existence, based on history. Poll tax in the UK anyone?

      This dimwits dont seem to register in their tiny little brains that when you make it near impossible for 99% of the population to be able to pay bills and live, you spark physical unrest in the streets. History seems to have taught them nothing…..

      60

  • #
    pat

    MSM believes anything & everything the CAGW “scientists” throw at them, no matter how idiotic:

    23 March: WaPo: Chris Mooney: Global warming is now slowing down the circulation of the oceans — with potentially dire consequences
    According to a new study just out in Nature Climate Change by Stefan Rahmstorf of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and a group of co-authors, we’re now seeing a slowdown of the great ocean circulation that, among other planetary roles, helps to partly drive the Gulf Stream off the U.S. east coast. The consequences could be dire – including significant extra sea level rise for coastal cities like New York and Boston…
    And here’s a wonderful video from NASA that visualizes the thermohaline circulation for the entire globe. Rahmstorf also has a blog post up at RealClimate.org explaining his research…
    So in sum: It appears that we’ve just seen yet another surprise from the climate system — and yet another process, like the melting of Antarctica, that seems to be happening faster than previously expected. And indeed, much like with that melting, the upshot if the trend continues is an especially bad sea level rise for the United States — the country more responsible than any other on Earth for the global warming that we’re currently experiencing.
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/03/23/global-warming-is-now-slowing-down-the-circulation-of-the-oceans-with-potentially-dire-consequences/

    23 March: Deutsche Welle: Fabian SchmidtClimate change emitting more mixed signals
    The expected effects of climate change can be deceptive and paradoxical: Recent studies show that Europe’s coastlines are growing colder, while the northern hemisphere is becoming hotter. And there will be more snow.
    Three different recent studies from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) show how difficult it is to reliably predict the consequences of climate change. Many of the effects appear contradictory and their interdependency is sketchy…
    For example, in recent decades, global warming could have been responsible for a cooling of the sea along Europe’s northern coastline. A team of researchers around Stefan Rahmstorf comes to that conclusion in a study published in “Nature Climate-Change” on March 23…
    The PIK researchers believe that this observation, which seems paradox, derives from a weakening of the Gulf Stream – a warm ocean current from the Caribbean to the coasts of central and northern Europe. It is part of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC)…
    A working group around the mathematician Katja Frieler discovered a double paradox. On 16 March, she published a study in “Nature Climate Change” arguing that there is likely to be more snowfall in Antarctica as a result of global warming.
    The scientist calculated that every degree Centigrade of global warming is likely to trigger about five percent more snowfall in Antarctica. The reason is easy to understand: Due to the higher temperatures, more water will vaporize over the oceans and form clouds…
    http://www.dw.de/climate-change-emitting-more-mixed-signals/a-18334567

    20

  • #
    ROM

    Just to add to the bad news FOR the Catastrophic Global Warming / Climate Change ideologists.

    One of the items indicative of a Catastrophic Global Warming was supposed to be a “slowing” of the immense Atlantic Conveyor Belt ocean current that is a major part of the ocean conveyor belt set of currents that distribute warm and and cold ocean waters around through the planet’s oceans and therefore materially affects the climate of the individual global land masses.

    Well it seems that despite what the Climate Models and the climate modellers have predicted it ain’t slowing according to NASA.

    The modellers are wrong once again, all over again
    And for this stupid, arrogant bigoted alarmism we are paying billions in wealth and are creating so much totally unnecessary fear and suffering.
    And for what?

    _______________________________________
    NASA Study Finds Atlantic ‘Conveyor Belt’ Not Slowing

    [ quoted ]

    With this new technique, Willis was able to calculate changes in the northward-flowing part of the circulation at about 41 degrees latitude, roughly between New York and northern Portugal. Combining satellite and float measurements, he found no change in the strength of the circulation overturning from 2002 to 2009. Looking further back with satellite altimeter data alone before the float data were available, Willis found evidence that the circulation had sped up about 20 percent from 1993 to 2009. This is the longest direct record of variability in the Atlantic overturning to date and the only one at high latitudes.

    The latest climate models predict the overturning circulation will slow down as greenhouse gases warm the planet and melting ice adds freshwater to the ocean. “Warm, freshwater is lighter and sinks less readily than cold, salty water,” Willis explained.

    For now, however, there are no signs of a slowdown in the circulation. “The changes we’re seeing in overturning strength are probably part of a natural cycle,” said Willis. “The slight increase in overturning since 1993 coincides with a decades-long natural pattern of Atlantic heating and cooling.”
    [ more ]

    30

    • #
      tom0mason

      ROM,

      Their major problem is though they know some of the places where the Atlantic Conveyor Belt goes, some of the forces driving it, and how it moves in a very general way, the fine grained view is missing.
      They certainly do not fully understand how the Atlantic Conveyor Belt fits with all the other forces acting on and within the oceans.

      20

  • #

    Is it my display or did the graphs really show fractions of Typhoons? Pressures that minimized at 960 and above?

    20

  • #

    my cat didn’t come home, i think co2 is involved; where is sherlock holmes when you need him?

    60

    • #
      Byron

      i think co2 is involved

      You may be right , I live in rural Tasmania so background CO2 levels would be low and whenever I call My cat six neighbourhood strays turn up with the “You called so there may be food involved” expression on Their faces . We should apply for a grant to see if CO2 levels influence feline population levels

      40

    • #
      Yonniestone

      So CO2 is driving pussy away now?, hmph typical.

      Holmes should sort this out though, everything is elementary for him. :(

      50

    • #
      tom0mason

      “So Watson, our black cat was here in front of the engine cooling system, near these the CO2 cylinders.”
      ¯
      Holmes inspected the cylinders closely, then the cooling structure’s array of parallel vertical slots and pondered for a long while.
      Suddenly he broke his pensive silence -
      ¯
      “I believe we may well have a title for you next story Watson!”
      He remarked, as his ever attentive gaze regarded the cooling slots.
      “Yes, if I’m not mistaken my dear doctor, this affair will be yet another case of CO2′s Missing Black Body Radiator.”

      :|

      60

  • #

    my cat didn’t come home, i think co2 is involved; where is sherlock holmes when you need him?

    40

  • #
    boots

    Is this a right-wing blog? Why are right wingers seemingly the only ones who question the climate change orthodoxy?

    10

    • #

      No boots this is a science-wing blog.

      20

      • #
        boots

        If it’s a science blog, why are there so many posts about politics?

        11

        • #

          Because some people keep using and abusing science to get political ends. Touche…

          21

          • #
            boots

            OK so it’s also a political blog because you’re addressing climate change as a political issue.

            01

            • #

              I’m addressing the way people misuse science, and the way politics gets in the way of scientific process.

              I want both sides of politics to use logic and reason.

              10

              • #
                boots

                I’m addressing the way people misuse science, and the way politics gets in the way of scientific process.

                OK sure. How do you ensure that you don’t make the similar mistakes that you accuse others of making? What do you do to ensure that you don’t misuse science, that you maintain high standards?

                I read an interesting comment published on The Australian yesterday by a fellow called John. He wrote:

                John 1 day ago

                The AGW crusade is the most successful and destructive travesty since witchcraft.

                Its scientific argument is fraudulent, but even if it wasn’t, it would still be a travesty because of its economics.

                Its economic argument is fallacious, but even if it wasn’t, it would still be a travesty because of its politics.

                Its political argument is despotic, but even if it wasn’t, it would still be a travesty because of its morality.

                Its moral argument is inhumane, but even if it wasn’t, it would still be a travesty because of its philosophy.

                At root the philosophy of AGW alarmism is: anti-liberty, anti-progress, and anti-human.

                I know this is a one off comment that is not necessarily representative, but it has received many upvotes. I’m wondering if is this representative of your reasoning as well?

                00

              • #

                OK sure. How do you ensure that you don’t make the similar mistakes that you accuse others of making? What do you do to ensure that you don’t misuse science, that you maintain high standards?

                I use Aristotelian logic and always rely on empirical observations over opinions/polls/simulations.

                I allow open commenting – 280,000 chances so far — for people to correct any mistakes I might make.

                I wouldn’t say exactly what John said. You appear to be keen to put other people’s words in my mouth? I’ve explained my reasoning with care in my posts. If you want to know what I think, read my site.

                20

    • #
      Just-A-Guy

      boots,

      Why are right wingers seemingly the only ones who question the climate change orthodoxy?

      It’s actually the other way around. The Orthodox Church of Climatology infiltrated the left wing because of the ‘fit’ with the ecology and conservation movements. There they found the ‘ground was fertile’ for the Climate Change Movement. ( CO2 is now a pollutant, didn’t you know? /sarc) The right wing had nothing to do with that phenomenon.

      Abe

      10

      • #
        boots

        How do you know this? Why haven’t right wingers successfully infiltrated?

        00

        • #
          Just-A-Guy

          boots,

          Like I said before, it’s the other way around. It’s not that the left-wing or the right-wing have infiltrated climate change, it’s that climate change has infiltrated the left-wing. I’d go even one step further. Climate change and the socialist ideology behind it, have taken over the left-wing.

          The divide between the left and the right was not as extreme back in the 70′s and 80′s when I was growing up. It’s only from the time that the pseudo-science of Climatology and the religious adherence to it’s ideology has taken hold, that the gap has become as wide and contentious as it is today.

          Abe

          00

          • #
            boots

            Very interesting. So what you’re saying is that some socialists created climate science as a deviously clever excuse to enact wholesale societal change and then proceeded to get all the other assorted left-wingers to loudly (and maliciously?) flog this propaganda. If so, they have done remarkably well because I have even heard that the CIA and US military have taken this idea seriously.

            The other thing is, can or has climate change been shown unequivocally to be false?

            ANd you make an interesting point related to my initial observation – climate change seems to have become an issue that defines someone’s political position, so if someone disagrees that climate change is being caused by humans they tend to vote right-wing. Of course when a topic like this becomes so politicized one needs to ask – “is someone opposing the idea of human climate change because its occurrence and implications contradict a personal philosophy of this individual?” and of course a similar question could be formulated, “is this person accepting that humans are causing climate change because its occurrence and implications support a personal philosophy of this individual?” I think this last statement is probably what you are accusing left-wing activists of doing.

            02

            • #

              “what you’re saying is that some socialists created climate science as a deviously clever excuse to enact wholesale societal change”

              That is not what he said at all. Please be careful to quote exactly. It almost looks like you are putting words in people’s mouths…

              Of course when a topic like this becomes so politicized one needs to ask – “is someone opposing the idea of human climate change because its occurrence and implications contradict a personal philosophy of this individual?”

              No. One doesn’t. When a topic becomes politicized that’s when we need to stop wasting time on waffle and speculation about their motivations and get back to the empirical evidence and the science debate.

              Ad homs will not advance science. We will never figure out what drives the climate by studying what drives the hominids that write about it.

              30

            • #
              Just-A-Guy

              boots,

              Boots, and Political Correctness – part 1

              You reply like this:

              Very interesting. So what you’re saying is that some socialists created climate science as a deviously clever excuse to enact wholesale societal change and then proceeded to get all the other assorted left-wingers to loudly (and maliciously?) flog this propaganda.

              Abe

              When all I said was:

              This:
              The Orthodox Church of Climatology infiltrated the left wing because of the ‘fit’ with the ecology and conservation movements. There they found the ‘ground was fertile’ for the Climate Change Movement.

              And this, to clear it up when you misunderstood me:
              Like I said before, it’s the other way around. It’s not that the left-wing or the right-wing have infiltrated climate change, it’s that climate change has infiltrated the left-wing.

              You came here asking political questions. I gave you a political answer and I gave you an out:

              ( CO2 is now a pollutant, didn’t you know? /sarc)

              . . . in order to shift the discussion from politics to science.

              You see, boots, as a rational adult, the first time I heard the claim that CO2 is a pollutant, I stopped dead in my tracks and said, HUH? WTF? At that point the politics became irrelevant and science became my focus. This same thing should have happened to you too, boots.

              Aren’t you aware that you, like everyone else, are a carbon based life form? That’s the C in CO2 as I’m sure you’re aware. And aren’t you aware, that you, like everybody else, breathes oxygen to stay alive? That’s the O2 in CO2 as I’m sure you’re aware.

              So now, point by point.
              1. Plants & plankton require CO2 to survive. Fact.
              2. Plants & plankton are an integral and indispensable link in the carbon chain. Fact.
              3. All animals and sea creatures require either:
              a. other animals or sea creatures or. . .
              b. plants or plankton. . .
              in order to survive. Fact.
              Therefore:
              1. Without CO2, there is no life on this planet. Fact.
              2. The claim that CO2 is a pollutant is both ludicrous and scientifically wrong. Fact.

              Why did you not immediately shift your discussion to the science of CO2 and instead, continued with your politically based line of questioning, boots? Aren’t you shocked that the foundation of all carbon based life on this planet CO2, has now classified the world over, (almost), as a pollutant? Is life a pollutant?

              Abe

              20

            • #
              Just-A-Guy

              boots,

              Boots, and Political Correctness – part 2

              Of course when a topic like this becomes so politicized one needs to ask – “is someone opposing the idea of human climate change because its occurrence and implications contradict a personal philosophy of this individual?” and of course a similar question could be formulated, “is this person accepting that humans are causing climate change because its occurrence and implications support a personal philosophy of this individual?”

              lol :)

              “Have you stopped beating your husband?”

              Both of the questions you presented, as bolded in the quote from your comment, are of the form: Complex Question – A logical fallacy.

              Both questions assume that the phrase, “humans are causing climate change” is true and that “its occurrence” is a given and that therefore there are “implications” to be contended with. Regardles of what a respondent may answer to either of these questions, or, whether the respondent is asked to pick which of the two she agrees with, in all cases, the response will be politically motivated.

              Questions like these will not lead to a discussion about the science, because questions like these present the science as settled.

              So now, point by point:
              1. If you ask a loaded question, you’ll get a pre-determined response. Fact.
              2. The same as point number 1.
              3. See point number 2.

              Now boots, if you’ll just take the time to read the comments to Jo’s blog post, The climate religion is God’s gift. (God spoke to NOAA, right?), you’ll discover, to your surprise, that those of us that frequent this site are quite diverse in their political inclinations. You see, boots, it’s a well known fact that most practicing christians tend to lean right when they exhale their CO2. It’s also a well known fact that most atheists lean left when enjoying the CO2 fed veggies and beef. (forgive the humour, but who says you can’t have fun while your having a rational discussion with other adults, right?)

              These political facts are not absolutes. There are degrees of affiliation(religious), and varying degrees of leaning(political), when it comes to humans in general and those that frequent this blog in particular. What you will find here, and at other skeptic websites as well, are a wide variety of ppl whose primary interest is the rational resolution to a scientific question that has been politicised beyond all proportion.

              Abe

              P.S. You may enjoy reading a rearch paper on the behavioural effects of incomporating the complex question informal logical fallacy into the every-day activities of human beings and the societal consequences thereof. Here’s the link. Enjoy. ;)

              20

            • #
              Just-A-Guy

              boots,

              Boots, and Political Correctness – part 3

              Joanne Nova wrote:

              Ad homs will not advance science. We will never figure out what drives the climate by studying what drives the hominids that write about it.

              Jo recently published an article called, Study shows skeptics know more about climate science than believers. Her article was a review of a study conducted by Yale’s Dan Kahan.

              You made an intrigueing statement:

              ANd you make an interesting point related to my initial observation – climate change seems to have become an issue that defines someone’s political position, so if someone disagrees that climate change is being caused by humans they tend to vote right-wing.

              Your statement reminded me of Dan’s study which is basically a poll based on his, Dan Kahan’s, theory of political ideation. You can find definitive proof that our interest here is primarily focused on the science of climate variability and not focused on the politics of climate change by reading Jo’s deconstruction of Dan’s paper. (Kudos, Jo ;) ) But, of special interest to you, boots, will be my 3-part reply to Dan. That exchange, if you can call it that, begins here.

              I asked Dan to come and discuss with me the logical flaw which undermines his poll, but alas, he never showed. It certainly would have been interesting. You’ll notice too, if you read just past my reply to Dan and review my reply to Mark D. that even beyond the flaws I mention to Dan, there are other flaws in the poll as well.

              At this point, you may be wondering why the quote here by Jo with regard to ad-homs. As you know, an ad-hominem attack is also an informal logical error. I’m convinced that there is no greater insult to a human being than to say that she’s being irrational. The theory of political ideation, espoused by Dan Kahan, is just that. An Insult. An ad-hom aimed at ppl as a whole. To say that all human beings abandon their rational faculties when confronted with a situation that, by it’s very nature, requires the use of rationality, is insulting to all of us, and it diminishes Dan’s credibility and his good standing as an intelectual.

              If you would like to continue having our discussion, please, go over the links I’ve provided in my 3-part reply to you here. The contents of those links are pertinent to our discussion and your reviewing them would do me a service by eliminating the tedious chore of retyping points previously presented.

              Thank you.

              Abe

              20

            • #
              Just-A-Guy

              boots,

              P.S. You false interpretation of my comments threw me offffff . . . a bit. But we’re all used to that around here by now. ;)

              Abe

              20

            • #
              el gordo

              ‘The other thing is, can or has climate change been shown unequivocally to be false?

              Global warming is false and CO2 only stays up in the air for seven years, so there is no need to be afraid of a runaway greenhouse effect.

              http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com.au/2015/03/a-recent-seminar-presentation-by.html

              Murry Salby is terrific.

              30

    • #
      James Bradley

      Boots,

      Is questioning the ‘settled science’ a bad thing?

      20

      • #
        boots

        Why would questioning be bad?

        00

        • #
          Just-A-Guy

          boots,

          It wouldn’t be bad, it’s actually healthy for the scientific process. The problem is that because the ppl on one side of the scientific discussion have decided that ‘the science is settled’ and that ‘we need to move on’ to a political solution, the ppl on the other side of the scientific discussion are effectively shut out of the discussion.

          The almost weekly data coming in from all of the scientific observations of the climate contradicts the modelled projections of the climate. By definition, then, the science is not settled.

          Abe

          10

  • #
    pat

    24 March: WUWT: Michael Mann and Stefan Rahmstorf claim the Gulf Stream is slowing due to Greenland ice melt, except reality says otherwise
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/03/24/michael-mann-and-stefan-rahmstorf-claim-the-gulf-stream-is-slowing-due-to-greenland-ice-melt-except-reality-says-otherwise/

    30

  • #
    pat

    MSM will carry any amount of false claims by the CAGW “scientists” & “prophets”, yet will not cover “carbon fraud”. Tony Hetherington does a good job, but no MSM whatsoever have bothered with this news:

    22 March: ThisIsMoney.UK – (part of Daily Mail UK)
    (SCROLL DOWN TO THE FOLLOWING)
    WE’RE WATCHING YOU!
    A company that lied to investors, claiming they could make profits of up to 82 per cent by investing in carbon credits, has been wound up by the High Court following an investigation by the Government’s Insolvency Service.
    Mr Jones, registrar, condemned the firm as ‘a fraud’. However, those responsible have not been prosecuted and will be allowed to keep the money they made.
    Eco Business Management Limited falsely told investors it had companies lined up to buy carbon credits after they had been held for six months to two years. It also filed false accounts with Companies House, saying that the business was dormant when in fact it was actively cold-calling investors and raking in more than £100,000 from the public.
    The company was part of a network of sales firms centred around Carbon Neutral Investments Limited, which appeared to offer investors a two-way market though none existed.
    I warned two years ago that the CNI network was unauthorised, unregulated and offered no legal protection. Turning credits back into cash was virtually impossible.
    Eco Business Management was set up by Aaron Whiteman in 2011. He told investigators that the company did not trade, had no bank account and kept no records.
    He claimed he ‘handed over’ the company to someone whose name he had forgotten, adding that he did not ‘give a s**t’ what happened after that…
    comment: Mike, Romsey: Eco, green, climate change etc etc JUST A CON stay away its full of tricksters and conmen.
    http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/experts/article-3005630/TONY-HETHERINGTON-Harley-St-firm-traced-Torremolinos-pub.html

    19 March: MoneyObserver: Latest carbon credit scam shut down – but will it make a difference?
    Eco Business Management, a firm Money Observer has previously warned against doing business with, has been ordered to close by the High Court.
    The firm was ordered into liquidation after an investigation found it mis-sold wildly overpriced carbon credits to investors, using high-pressure sales tactics and misleading statements.
    Although investors were falsely told they could receive returns of up to 82 per cent within six months to two years, in some cases their carbon credits were actually being retired (cancelled) without their knowledge…
    Eco Business Management is related to Eco Asia Carbon Consultancy – a firm on the FCA’s scam firm warning list…
    Although the closing down of Eco Business Management is good news in theory, it means relatively little to those whose money has already been whisked away to offshore bank accounts…
    It also likely means very little in terms of personal consequences for any of the individuals involved. Because Companies House requires no proof of identification or address to register a company, there is nothing stopping the individuals behind this scam from going to ground for a time, only to start up a new illegitimate firm and continue separating savers from their cash….
    Companies House told Money Observer previously that it was considering introducing tougher checks, but at time of writing plans have not progressed past that stage.
    In May of last year a High Court ordered the liquidation of 13 companies that together raised more than £19 million selling carbon credits at exaggerated prices. These included firms set up by David White, a broker who also sold carbon credits for Eco.
    http://www.moneyobserver.com/news/19-03-2015/latest-carbon-credit-scam-shut-down-will-it-make-difference

    10

  • #
    pat

    lots more, plus links, at this and a previous Bishop Hill thread, 22 March “Farage mob leader is Guardian writer”:

    24 March: Bishop Hill: Guardian mob attacks: reports were accurate
    The BBC (LINK) has interviewed an eyewitness to the Guardian mob attack on Nigel Farage and has confirmed the accuracy of the original reports…
    comment:
    Radical Rodent: At least the BBC does have a report on it, even if in an obscure part. I have yet to see it reported on the mainstream, though. Odd, that…
    cheshired: A cursory glance and this story is a slightly daft flash mob giving it to a gobby politician. On closer inspection it’s revealed at least 3 are some-time Guardian writers, another is a Guardian-approved photographer and the entire episode has been planned and instigated quite deliberately. It’s not unreasonable to conclude the Guardian thus knew full-well what was planned. Had there been a consequence – say the driver had panicked and drove over the threatening crowd, killing that little kid, then whose responsible?
    Btw, had they pulled this stupid stunt on Cameron his close protection team would’ve had a thing or two to say. The entire episode is completely bonkers, and the Guardian owes Nigel Farage a deeply grovelling apology…
    toad: The MSM may be ignoring this story but predictably Breitbart London have no less than 4 blogs running on it, the latest this morning, by Alex Wickham…
    Alan The Brit: I understand that Farage’s two children ran away in fear. Why is this not being picked up by the usual rentamob child-protection brigade who at every other opportunity in every other walk of life are baying for blood for more laws to be brought in to “protect” children in society? Two children of a prominant politician are scared by a ranting mob & nobody says a dickie-bird! …
    Uncle Badger: What I still don’t understand is the lack of police action. One wrong word on Twitter and the sound of jackboots is in your future….
    http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2015/3/24/guardian-mob-attacks-reports-were-accurate.html

    24 March: Guido Fawkes: UKIP Protesters Organised by Green Lobbyist
    The man who tipped of the loony mob to the location of Nigel Farage and his family on Sunday was Chris Venables, an employee of Medact – a lobbying organisation that has been successful in convincing medical charities to sell off their investments in fossil fuels. Venables’ actions will come as an embarrassment to Medact, who work hard to present themselves as respectable charity made up of doctors and not an activist group made up of hard left green campaigners. Can they afford to keep such a liability on the payroll?
    comment:
    Bill Chapman: You don’t mention that Chris Venables has ben a Green Party candidate…
    Chris Venable Mental Twat: He connivingly removed his employment from MEDACT from his twitter bio when the twitter storm sussed him out. The bloody coward.
    http://order-order.com/2015/03/24/ukip-protesters-organised-by-green-lobbyist/

    40

  • #
    el gordo

    This is also worth a look in.

    ‘The final element of the Abbott government’s Direct Action climate change policy will at best mean major polluters continue business as usual and at worst lead to significant increases in their greenhouse gas emissions according to the Climate Institute thinktank.’

    Lenore Taylor / Guardian

    10

  • #
    @KiryeNet

    Thank you for writing this article about Japan.
    The Japanese main media does not report right information at all.
    About a record of 2014, the Japanese main media does not correct the claim of the hottest year.

    In Japan, there is an honest scientists.
    They led me to the fact.
    Therefore I know that a global warming hypothesis is a lie.
    However, Japanese current administration, JMA and the Japanese main media block the transmission of the fact.

    I frequently read your blog.
    I’m a Japanese.
    However, the main media of Japan do not lead me to the fact.

    I thank you who write a fact.
    Thank you.

    10

    • #

      Kirye,

      Sad to hear that your media is not telling all sides of the story either. Delighted to help in any small way.

      There are some excellent scientists in Japan. I did like the attitude of the researchers on this typhoon study — doing their best to disprove their hypothesis in true Popperian style!

      I had hoped Japanese scientists might be more free to speak than their counterparts in the west.

      Please send stories about how climate change is being discussed in Japan, and in research you think we might be interested in. I had not heard of this typhoon study from 2012 at all until now.

      20